Div:
:B52344
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL^ i
HANDBOOK
THE iCTS OF THE APOSTLES.
BY
HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tn.l).,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
REV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
WITn PREFACE, INDEX, AND SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES TO THE
AMERICAN EDITION BY
REV. WILLIAM ORMISTON, D.D., LL.D.
SECOND EDITION'.
NEW YORK:
FUNK & WAGNALLS, Puhlisiiers,
10 AND 12 Dey Street.
1881.
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883,
By FUNK & WAGNALLS,
In ttie Ofiace of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C.
PllEFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION.
The third edition of this Commentary appeared in the year 1861.
The accessions to the exegetical literature of the Book of Acts since that
date have been on the whole meagre ; and they have been chiefly
directed to the investigation of certain specially important facts which
are recorded in the Book, as regards their miraculous character and
their relation to the Pauline Epistles,' The critical researches as to this
canonical writing arc, doubtless, not yet concluded ; but they are in
such a position that we must regard the attempts — prosecuted with so
much keenness, confidence, and acuteness — to make the Book of Acts
appear an intentional medley of truth and fiction like a historical
romance, as having utterly failed. To this result several able apologetic
works have within the last ten years contributed their part, while the
criticism which finds " purpose" everywhere has been less active, and
has not brought forward arguments more cogent than those already so
often discussed. Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in
which its now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to
the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing essentially
new, and it touches only here and there on the objections urged by his
opponents.
' There has just appeared in tlae first part of the Sind. U7ul Kr'it. for 1870 the
beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag : ''die Visions-
hypothese in ihrer neuesten Beriründimg," which I can only mention here as an
addition to the literature noted at ix. 3-9. [Soon after this preface was written,
there appeared Dr. Overbeck's Commentary, which, while formally professing
to be a new edition of de Wette's work, is in gi-eater part an extravagant appli-
cation to the Book of Acts of a detailed historical criticism which de Wette
himself strongly condemned. It is an important and interesting illustration of
the Tübingen critical method (above referred to) as pushed to its utmost limits ;
but it possesses little independent value from an exegetical point of view.
W. P. D.
iv PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION".
With reference to the method of judging the New Testament writ-
ings, which Dr. Baur started, and in which he has taken the lead, I
cannot but regret that, in controversy with it, we should hear people
speak of " believing" and " critical " theology as of things necessarily
contrasted and mutually exclusive. It would thus seem, as if faith must
of necessity be uncritical, and criticism unbelieving. Luther himself
combined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay, bold-
ness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even on the dpg-
matic side (" ivhat makes for Christ "), — a course, no doubt, which ^ed
him to mistaken judgments regarding some N. T. writings, easily intel-
ligible as it may appear in itself from the personal idiosyncrasy of the
great man, from his position as a Reformer, and from the standpoint of
science in his time. As regards the Acts of the Apostles, however,
which he would have called " a gloss on the Epistles of St. Paul," he
■with his correct and sure tact discerned and hit upon the exact opposite
of what recent criticism has found : " Thou findest here in this book a
beautiful mirror, wherein thou mayest see that this is true : Sola fides
justificat.'" The contrary character of definite " purpose," which has
in our days been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the corre-
sponding lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not hesi-
tated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in my judgment,
an assent on their part to a critical impossibility. For — as hardly a
single unbiassed person would venture to question — the author has not
made use of any of the Pauline Epistles preserved to us ; and therefore
these letters cannot have been accessible to him when he was engaged in
the collection of his materials or in the composition of his work, be-
cause he would certainly have been far from leaving unused historical
sources of such productiveness and of so direct and supreme authen-
ticity, had they stood at his command. How is it to be still supposed,
then, that he could have written his work in an age, in which the Epis-
tles qf the apostle were already everywhere diffused by means of copies
and had become a common possession of the church, — an age, for
which we have the oldest testimony in the panon itself from the un-
known author of the so-called Second Epistle of Peter (iii. 15 f.) ?
It is my most earnest desire that the labour, which I have gladly de-
voted, as in duty bound, to this new edition, may be serviceable to the
correct understanding of the book, and to a right estimate of its histor-
ical contents ; and to these ends may God give it His blessing !
I may add that, to my great regret, I did not receive the latest work
of Wieseler,^ which presents the renewed fruit of profound and inde-
' Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Geschichte,
Gotha, 1869.
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. V
pendent study, till nearly half of my book was already finished and in
type. But it has reference for the most part to the Gospels and their
Chronology, the investigation of which, however, extends in many cases
also into the Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his
tenth Beitrari, with his wonted thoughtfulness and depth of research, in
proof of the agreement of Luke xxiv. 44 ff, and Acts i. 1, have not
availed to shake me in my view that here the Book of Acts follows a
difiEerent tradition from the Gospel.
Dr. Meyer.
Hannovee, October 22, 1869.
PREFATORY NOTE.
The explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this Com-
mentary [see especially the General Preface to Romans, vol. I.] regard-
ing the principles on which the translation has been undertaken, and the
method followed in its execution, are equally applicable to the portion
now issued.
W. P. D.
Glasgow College, May, 1877.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
[For commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole Xew
Testament, see Preface to the Commentary on the Gospel of St. Matthew,
The following list consists mainly of works which deal with the Acts of
the Ajiostles in particular. Several of the works named, especially of the
older, are chiefly doctrinal or homiletic in their character ; while some
more recent books, dealing with the history and chronology of the apos-
tolic age, or with the life of St. Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book
of Acts, have been included because of the epecial bearing of their discus-
sions on its contents. Monographs on chapters or sections are generally
noticed by Meyer in loc. The editions quoted are usually the earliest ; al.
appended denotes that the work has been more or less frequently reprinted ;
t marks the date of the author's death ; c — circa, an approximation to it. J
Alexaxdkb (Joseph Addison), D.D., •}■ 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist, at Prince-
ton : The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols.
8», New York [and Lond.] 1857, al.
Anger (Kudolf), f 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : De temporum in Actis Apos-
tolorum ratione. 8", Lips. 1833.
Aeculaeius (Daniel), f 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commentarius in Acta
Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus. See also Gerhaed
(Johann). 8», Francof. 1607, al.
Baebington (John Shiite, Viscoimt), f 1731 : Miscellanea sacra ; or a new
method of considering so much of the historj' of the Apostles as is
contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725. 2d edition, edited by
Bishop Ban-ington. 3 vols. 8», Lond. 1770.
Baxtmgakten (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Kostock : Die Apostelgeschichte,
oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von Jerusalem bis Eom. 2
Bände. 8", Braunschw. 1852.
[Translated by Kev. A. J. "W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer. 3 vols.
8«, Edin. 1854.]
Bahr (Ferdinand Christian), f 1860, Prof. Theol. at Tübingen : Paulus der
Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken, seine Briefe und seine
Lehre. 8", Stuttg. 1845, al.
[Translated by Eev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8«, Lond. 1875-6
Beda (Venerabilis), f 735, Monk at Jarrow : In Acta Apostolorum expositio
[Opera].
Beelen (Jean-Theodore), K. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Commentarius in
Acta Apostolorum. ... 2 voll. 4», Lovanii, 1850.
via EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
BzNsoN (George), D.D. , f 1763, Minister in London : The History of the first
planting of the Christian religion, taken from the Acts of the Apostles
and their Ejjistles. 2 vols. 4", Lond. 1735.
2d edition, with large additions. 3 vols. 4", Lond. 1756.
BiscoE (Richard), f 1748, Prebendary of St. Paul's : The History of the Acts
of the Holy Apostles, confirmed from other authors. ... 2 vols.
8", Lond. 1742, al.
Blomfield (Charles James), D.D., f 1857, Bishop of London : Twelve Lectures
on the Acts of the Apostles. . . . 8", Lond. 1825.
Bkenz [Beentius] (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : In Acta Apostolica
homiliae centum viginti duae. 2", Francof. 1561, al.
BtJGENHAGEN (Johann), f 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg : Commentarius in
Acta Apostolorum. 8", Vitemb. 1524, al.
BuLLiNGEE (Heinrich), f 1575, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Apostolorum commen-
tarionim libri vi. 2", Tiguri, 1533, al.
Burton (Edward), D.D., f 1836, Prof, of Divinity at Oxford : An attempt to
ascertain the chronology of the Acts of the Apostles and of St. Paul's
Epistles. 8», Oxf. 1830.
Cajetanus [Tommaso da Vio] , t 1534, Cardinal : Actus Apostolorum commen-
tariis illustrati. 2", Venet. 1530, al,
Calixtus (Georg), f 1656, Prof. Theol. at Helmstadt : Expositio literalis in Acta
Apostolorum. 4", Brunsvigae, 1654.
Calvin [Chauvin] (Jean), f 1564, Reformer : Commentarii in Acta Apostolorum.
2», Genev. 1560, al.
[Translated by Christopher Featherstone. 4", Lond. 1585, ol]
Capellus [Cappel] (Louis), f 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur : Historia apostolica
illustrata ex Actis Ajjostolorum et Epistolis inter se collatis, collecta,
accurate digesta, ... 4", Salmur. 1683.
Cassiodoeus (Magnus Aurelius), f 563. See Romans.
Cheysostomus (Joannes), f 407, Archbishop of Constantinople : Homili» Iv.
in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].
CoNYBEAEE (William John), M.A., HowsoN (John Saul), D.D. : Life and Epis-
tles of St. Paul. 4», Lond. 1852, al.
Cook (Frederick Charles), M.A., Canon of Exeter : The Acts of the Apostles ;
with a commentary, and practical and devotional suggestions. . . .
12«, Lond. 1850.
Ceadock (Samuel), B.D., f 1706, Nonconformist minister : The Apostolical
history . . . from Christ's ascension to the destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus ; with a narrative of the times and occasions upon which the
Epistles were written : with an analytical paraphrase of them.
20, Lond. 1672.
Ckell (Johann), f 1633, Socinian Teacher at Racow : Commentarius in mag-
nam partem Actorum Apostolorum [Opera].
Denton (William), M.A., Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cripplegate : A commentary
on the Acts of the Ajiostles. 2 vols. 8", Lond. 1874-6.
Dick (John), D.D., f 1834, Prof. 'J'heol. to United Secession Church, Glas-
gow : Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
8", Glas. 1805-6, «7.
DiEU (Louis de), t 1642, Prof, at Leyden : Animadversiones in Acta Aposto-
lorum, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati, Erasmi et Bezae
versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illustrantur . . .
4", Lugd. Bat. 1634.
DioNYSius Caethusi.inus [Dents de Ryckel], f 1471, Carthusian monk : In
Acta Apostolorum commentaria. 2°, Paris, 1552,
Du Veil. See Veil (Charles Marie de).
Elsley (Heneage), M.A., Vicar of Burneston : Annotations on the Four
Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles ; compiled and abridged for the
use of students. 3 vols. 8", Lond. 1812 al.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. IX
Feeus [Wild] (Johannes), t 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz : Enarrationes
bi-fcves et diluddae in Acta Apostolorum. 2", Culon. 1507.
FiioMOND [Fi;<,)ii)mont] (Libert), t H'-i'-i, I'vot. Hue. Scrip, at Louvain : Actus
Apostolorum brevi et dilucido coiumentario illustrati.
4", Lovanii, 1G54, al.
Gagnee (Jean de), t 1549, Rector of the University of Faris : Clarissinia ot
facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evungelia necnon in Actus Apostolicos
scholia selecta. 2", Paris, irjr)2, cd.
Geehaed (Johium), f 1037, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in Acta Apos-
tolorum. 4", Jenae, KiO'.t, al.
Also : S. Lucae evangelistao Acta Apostolorum, triumviruli conmientiirio
. . . theologorum celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi, Danielis Arcu-
larii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustruta. 4", Hamburgi, 1713.
Gloag (Patou Jauies) D.D., Minister of Galashiels : Critical and exegetical
commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. 8", Edin. 1870.
GoKRAN (Nicholas de), t 1295, Prof at Paris : In Acta Apostoloriiiu . . . Com-
ineutarii. 2", Antverp. 1020.
Geynaeus (Johann Jakob), f 1017, Prof. Theol. at Basle : Commentarius in
Acta Apostolorum. 4", Basil. 1573.
Gualthekus [Walther] (Rudolph), f 1580, Pastor at Zürich : In Acta Aj^osto-
lorum per divum Lucam descrij^ta homiliae clxxxv. 2", Tigmi, 1577.
Hackett (Horatio Balch), D.D., Frof. Bibl. Lit. in Newton Theol. Institution,
U. S. : A commentary on the original text of the Acts of the Apostles.
8", Boston, U.S., 1852, al.
IIeineichs (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf: Acta Apostcjlo-
nim Graece perpetua anotatione illustrata. 2 tomi. [Testamentum
Novum . . . illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. iii. partes 1, 2.]
8", Gotting. 1809, al.
Hemsen (Johann Tychsen). See Romaks.
Hentenu's (Johannes), f 15C0, Prof. Theol. at Loiivain : Enarrationes vetus-
tissimorum theologorum in Acta quidem Apostolorum ct in omnes
Epistolas. 2", Antverp. 1545.
IIiLDEBRAND (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau : Die Geschichte der Aposteln
Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen Abschnitten bear-
beitet. «". Leipiz. 1824.
HoFMEiSTEE (Johann), t 1547, Augustinian Yicar-General in Germany : In duo-
decim priora capita Actonim Apostolicorum commentaria.
2", Colon. 1567.
Humphey ("William Gilson), M.A , Vicar of St. Martin' s-in-tho-Fields, London :
A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the Apostles.
8", Lond. 1847, al.
KisTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), t 1834, R. C, Prof. Theol. at Münster: Ge-
schichte der Aposteln mit Ammerkungen. 8", Münster, 1822.
KuiNOEL [Kuhnöl] (Christian (iottlieb), f 1841, Prof. Theol. at Giessen : Com-
mentarius in libros Novi Testament! historicos. 4 voll.
8», Lips. 1807-18 al.
L.\NGE (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn : Das Apostolische Zeitalter. 2
Biinc^e. 8", Braunschw. 1853.
Lechler (Gottliard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig : Der Apostel (xeschich-
ten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homiletisch von G.
Gerok [Lange's Bibelwerk. V.]. 8", Bielefeld, 1800, al.
[Translated bv Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 18C0. .4;«/ by Charles
F. Schaeffer, D.D. 8", New York. 1807.]
Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rücksicht auf
Unterschied imd Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8», Stuttg. 1851.
Zweite durchaus lyiigearbeitete Auflage. 8", Stnttg. 1857.
Leeuwen (Gerbrand van), f 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Do Handelingon
der
laart,
heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verk-
t. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll. 8", Amst. 1724.
X EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
Lekebusch (Eduard) : Die Composition iind Entstehung der Apostelgeschichte
von neuem untersucht. 8", Gotha, 185i.
Lewin (Thomas), M. A., Barrister : The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. 8», Lond.
1851.— New edition. 2 vols. 40, Lond. 1874.
LiGHTFOOT (John), D.D., f 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge : A com-
mentary upon the Acts of the Apostles ; chronical and critical. . .
From the beginning of the book to the end of the twelfth chapter. . . .
4", Lond. 1645, al.
[Also, Horae Hebraicae et Talmudicae. See Matthew.]
LiMBOKCH (Philipp van), f 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam : Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad Eomanos et ad
Ebraeos. 2», Eoterod. 1711, al.
LiNDHAMMEB (Johaun Ludwig), f 1771, General Superintendent in East Fries-
land : Der . . . Apostelgeschichte ausführliche Erklärung und An-
wendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck ausgelegt und . , . mit
. . . philologischen und critischen Noten erläutert wird.
2«, Halae, 1725, al.
LiVEEMOEE (Abiel Abbot), Minister at Cincinnati : The Acts of the Apostles,
with a commentary. 12", Boston, U.S., 1844.
LoBSTEiN (Johann Michael), f 1794, Prof. Theol. at Strassburg : Vollständiger
Commentar über die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas. Th. I.
80, Strassb. 1792.
LoEiNUS (Jean), f 1634, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum commentaria . . .
2", Lugd. 1605, al.
Malcolm (John), f 1634, Minister at Perth : Commentarius et analysis in
Apostolorum Acta. 4", Mediob. 1615.
Maskew (Thomas Eatsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dorchester : An-
notations on the Acts of the Apostles, original and selected ... 2d
edition ... 12", Camb. 1847.
Menken (Gottfried), f 1831, Pastor at Bremen : Blicke in das Leben des Apos-
tel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach etlichen Kapiteln
der Apostelgeschichte. 8", Bremen, 1828.
Menochio (Giovanni Stefano), f 1655, Jesuit at Eome : Historia sacra de Acti-
bus Ai^ostolorum. 4", Eom. 1634.
Moeits (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), t 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leijizig : Versio
et explicatio Actoriim Apostolicorum. Edidit, animadversiones recen-
tiorum maxime interpretum svasque adjecit G. J. Dindorf. 2 voll.
8", Lips. 1794.
Neandee (Johann August Wilhelm), t 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin : Geschichte
der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche durch die Apostel.
2 Bände. 8", Hamb. 1832, al
[Translated by J. E. Eyland. 8», Lond. 1851.]
Novaeino (Luigi), f 1650, Theatine monk : Actus Apostolorum expansi et notis
monitisque sacris illustrati. 2", Lugd. 1645.
Oecumenius, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca. See Komans.
Oektel (J. O. ), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz : Paulus in der Apostelgeschichte. . . .
8", Halle, a. S., 1868.
Paxev (William), D.D., f 1805, Archdeacon of Carlisle : Horae Paulinae ; or, the
truth of the Scripture history of St. Paul evinced by a comparison of
the Epistles which bear his name with the Acts of the Apostles, and
with one another.
See Tate (James). 8^ Lond. 1790, al.
Pateizi (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Eome : In Actus Apostolorum com-
mentarium. 4", Eom. 1867.
Peaece (Zachary), D.D., f 1774, Bishop of Eochester. See Matthew.
Peakson (John), D.D., f 1686. Bishop of Chester : Lectiones in Acta Aposto-
lorum, 1672 ; Annales Paulini [Oj^era posthuma]. 4'\ Lond. 1688, al.
[Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. E. Crowfoot, B.D.
12", Camb. 1851.]
EXEGETICAL LITEIIATUKE. xi
Petki [Peeters] (Bartbelemi), f 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay : Coiuinentarins
in Actii Aiiostolorum. 4", Duaci, 1(;22.
Ple\ter (Johiiunes), f c. 17f)(), Pastor at Middelburg : De Handel iugeu der
lieyligo Apostelen, bescbreeven door Liikas, ontleedt, verkluardt eu
tot bet ooj^nierk tüegei)a.st. 4", Utrecbt, 1725, <i[.
Peicaeus [Price] (Jobn), LL.D., f 1670, Prof, of Greek at Pisa : Acta Ajjos-
tolorum ex sacra pagiua, Sanctis patribus Graecisque ac Latinis scrip-
toribus iUustrata. 8», Paris, 1047, al.
Pyle (Tbonias), D.D., f 1756, Vicar of Lynn : A paraphrase, with some notes,
on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles of the New Testa-
ment. 8", Lond. 1725, ul.
KiEHM (Jobann Karl) : Dissertatio critico-tbeologica de fontibus Actorum
Apostolorum. 8", Traj. ad llhen. 1821.
KrrscHL (Albrecbt), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Die Entstehung der altkatho-
lischen Kirche. 8", Bonn, 1850 — 2te durchgängig neu aiasgearbeitete
Ausgabe. 8", Bonn, 1857.
EoBiNSON (Hastings), D.D., f 1866, Canon of Rochester : The Acts of the Apos-
tles ; with notes, original and selected, for the use of students.
8", Lond. 1830.
Also, in Latin. B«, Cantab. 1824.
S.4.LMEE0N (Alpbonso), f 1585, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum [Opera, xii.].
S.^NCHEz [Sanctiüs] (Gaspar), f 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac. Scrip, at Alcala : Com-
mentarii in Actiis Apostolorum . . . 4", Lugd. 1616, al.
Schaff (Philip), D.D., Prof, of Church Hist, at New York: Histoiy of the
Apostolic church. 8", New York, 1853. 2 vols. 8", Edin. 1854.
[Previously issued in German at Mercersburg, 1851.]
ScHNECKENBURGER (Matthias), f 1848, Prof. Theol. at Berne : Ueber den Zweck
der Apostelgeschichte. 8", Bern, 1841.
ScHRADER (Karl), Pastor at Horste near Bielefeld : Der Apostel Paulus. 5
Theile. [Theil V. Uebersetzung und Erklärung . . . der Apostelge-
schichte.] 8^ Leipz. 1830-36.
ScHWEGLEE (Albert), t 1857, Prof. Eom. Lit. at Tübingen : Das nachaj^osto-
lisches Zeitalter. 8", Tübiug. 1847.
Selneccer (Nicolaiis), •(- 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Commentarius in Acta
Apostolorum. 8", Jcnae 1567, al.
Stapleton (Thomas), t 1598, Prof. at Louvain : Antidota apostolica contra
nostri temiioris haereses, in Acta Apostolorum. . . 2 voll. 1595.
Stier (Eudolf Ewald), f 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben : Die Reden der
Aposteln. 2 Bände. 8», Leipz. 1829.
[Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8", Edin. 1869.]
Steeso (Casjjar), f 1664, Pastor at the Hague : Commentarius praeticus in
Actorum Apostoliconim . . . capita. 2 voll. 4", Amstel. 1658-9, al.
Sylveiea. (Juan de), f 1687, Carmelite monk : Commentarius in Acta Aposto-
lorum. 2'\ Lugd. 1678.
Täte (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul's : The Horae Paulinae of William
Paley, D.D., carried out and illustrated in a continuous history of
the apostolic labours and writings of St. Paul, on the basis of the
Acts . . . 8'^ Lond. 1840.
Theophtlacttts, c. 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria : Commentarius in
Acta Apostolorum [Opera].
Thteesch (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Die Kirche im
apostolischen Zeitalter. 8», Frankf. 1852. al.
[Translated by Carlyle. 8», Lond. 1852.]
Theiss (Johann Otto), f 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel : Lukas Apostelgeschichte
neu übersetzt, mit Anmerkungen. 8», Gera, 1800.
Trip (Ch. J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland : Paulus nach der
AT)ostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte . . .
8", Leiden, 1866.
Trollope (William) : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles . . .
12'\ Camb. 1847.
xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
Valckenaee (Ludwig Kaspar), t 1785, Prof, in Leyden : Selecta e scliolis L. C.
Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb. Wassenbergh. 2
partes. 8", Ainst. 1815-17.
Veil (Charles Marie de), t c. 1701, E. C. convert, latterly Baptist : Explicatio
literalis Actorum Apostolicorum. 8", Lond. 1684.
[Translated by the author into English, 1685.]
Walch (Johann Ernst Immanuel), t 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Disserta-
tiones in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4", Jenae, 1756-61.
Wassenbekgh (Everaard van). See Valckenaee (Ludwig Kaspar).
Wieseler (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Göttingen : Chronologie des apostolischen
Zeitalters. 8», Götting. 1848.
WoLZOGEN (Johann Ludwig von), f 1661, Socinian : Commentarius in Acta
Apostolorum [Opera],
Zelleb (Eduard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin : Die Apostelgeschichte nach ihrem
Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht. 8", Stuttg. 1854.
[Translated by Kev. Joseph Dare. 8", Lond. 1875.]
ERRATA
On pages 33, 35, and 36, for the letters (d), (e), and (f), indicating the
notes appended to the chapter, read (h), (i), and (j) respectively.
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITIOl^.
The Book of Acts is the indispensable and invaluable link of connec-
tion between the Gospels and the Epistles. It is the proper sequel and
natural result of the one, and forms a fit preface and a suitable setting
for the other. It is difficult to overestimate our indebtedness to this
book, historically, theologically, and ecclesiastically.
As an epitome of the labours of thirty eventful years, it is remarkable
for the fulness and variety of the information it contains ; and is no less
remarkable for the omission of much which it would be of great interest
for us to know. Even in the life of Paul, of whose labors it specially
treats, there are considerable periods of which nothing is recorded, or
the events of -which are dismissed with a sentence. As many volumes
would have been required to give a full narrative in detail, this brief
treatise is written on the principle of selection ; and the selection of
material is alike judicious and fair. The impartiality and truthfulness
of the writer is amply evinced by the honest record which he makes of
the imperfections in the church, and of the differences which arose be-
tvreen some of its acknowledged leaders.
The united testimony of the early church to the authenticity of this
book, and to its authorship — as the work of Luke, the writer of the
third Gospel — is confirmed by internal evidence, deduced from the
identity of style, the continuity of the narrative, the reference of the
writer to a previous treatise addressed to the same individual, and the
correspondence of plan. No less than fifty words, not found elsewhere
in the N. T., are common to both books. Dr. Schaff, in the revised
edition of his History of the Christian Church, vol I., page 739,
writes : " No history of thirty years has ever been written so truthful,
so impartial, so important, so interesting, so healthy in tone and so
hopeful in spirit, so aggressive yet so genial, so cheering and inspiring,
so replete with lessons of wisdom and encouragement for work in
XVI PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITION".
spreading the gospel of truth and peace, and yet withal so simple and
modest, as the Acts of the Apostles, It is the best as well as the first
manual of church history."
Severe critical assaults have been directed against the Book of Acts.
The writer has been accused of systematic perversion of facts, and of
deliberate addition of events and incidents which had no foundation in
truth, in order to serve his special purpose of preparing an irenicum be-
tween the Petrine or Jewish Christians, and the Pauline or Gentile
party, who held more liberal and enlarged views of the gospel. Now
there is no evidence whatever in the book of any such design ; and its
credibility and perfect reliability are clearly demonstrable from the har-
mony between the records it contains and authentic secular history ;
and from the numerous and striking coincidences between the Acts and
the Epistles. The argument constructed by Paley on this subject, in
his Horae Paulinae, is unanswerable.
Dr. Meyer was born in Gotha, January 10th, 1800. He was baptized
on the 12th day of the same month, and was named Henry August
Wilhelm. The family name was formerly written Majer, or Mayer.
As a child, he was constitutionally feeble, but by constant well-regulated
exercise he acquired the power of great physical and mental endurance.
At the gymnasium of Gotha he early laid the foundation of his high
classical culture. He had a decided taste for the classical languages and
literature, and made distinguished proficiency in them. In 1818 he
entered the University of Jena to study theology. Simple and social
were the years of his student life. On leaving the university he became
a tutor in an institution under the care of Pastor Oppcrmann, whose
daughter he married in 1823, with whom he lived in great domestic
enjoyment for forty years. In 1823 he was installed as pastor in
Osthausen, and in 1830 called to the more prominent position of pastor
at Harste, near Güttingen.
In 1829 he issued the first part of the great work of his life, which
was followed in 1832 by another instalment. His original plan of the
work expanded as he proceeded, and he did not live to see it completed.
His views, during forty years of most assiduous study of the Scriptures,
changed considerably ; and such changes were frankly expressed in ouc-
ccssive editions, and in fresh productions on other portions of the
Word. The principle of grammatico-historical interpretation, however,
which he at first adopted was rigidly adhered to throughout his life. It
was his custom carefully to revise, correct, and polish each work before
making it ready for the press.
In 1837 he removed to Hoga, and in 1844 was called to Hannover as
Consistorialrath, Superintendent, and Chief Pastor of the Neustädter St.
PREFACE TO THE AMERICAlf EDITION'. xvii
Johannis Kirche. In 1845 the faculty at Göttingen conferred on him
the degree of Doctor of Theology. In 1846 he suffered from a severe
illness, which so injured his health that he never afterward regained his
former strength. In consecjuence of this liis labours were somewhat
modified and diminished, though still abundant, and he adopted very
strict rules of abstinence and exercise, which he maintained until the
close of his life. lie called water and walking his two great physicians.
He was accustomed to rise early, generally at four o'clock.
In 1864 his wife died, and after that bereavement he lived in the
family of his son, and was very greatly cheered by the gleesorae glad-
ness and constant attendance of his granddaughters, who accompanied
him in his daily walks, in all kinds of weather. In 1865 he retired
from official life and devoted his time to his studies and to the society
of friends. He was a man of peace, and all party-political proceedings
and irritating religious controversies w^ere exceedingly offensive to him.
His views of truth became clearer and more positive with his advancing
years and his maturer studies.
His last illness was brief, nor were his sufferings great. The last
Sunday of his life, June 15th, was spent in his usual way, with great
personal enjoyment to himself and others. About the middle of that
night he was suddenly seized with great pain, from which he obtained
some relief. On the 19th, two days before his decease, he said :
" Willingly would I still remain with you ; but willingly am I also ready
to depart, if God calls me." On the evening of June 21st, 1873, he
quietly fell asleep. His remains were laid in the Neustädter church-
yard, and on the cross at his tomb is engraved this text : Romans
xiv. 8. Dr. Gloag, the able translator of a part of Meyer's Commen-
taries, WTites about six months after his death : "It is hardly to the
credit of our theologians, that the greatest modern exegete should have
recently passed away, with such slight notice, at least iu our English
periodicals, of his literary works and vast erudition."
Among Commentaries on the Acts the work of Meyer occupies a
deservedly pre-eminent place. In extent of erudition and accuracy of
scholarship it stands unsurpassed. No name is entitled to take pre-
cedence of that of Meyer as a critical exegete ; and it would be difficult
to find one that equals him in the happy combination of superior learn-
ing with keen penetration, analytical power, and clear, terse, vigorous
expression. He has admirable exegetical tact and acumen, and presents
his results with candour and perspicuity. So impartial and candid is he,
that he never allows his own peculiar views to colour or distort his inter-
pretations of the language of Scripture. Any Biblical student will find
exquisite delight in tracing his clear and cogent reasonings to the gen-
XVUl PREFACE TO THE AMERICAN EDITIOlf.
erally correct decision readied by his calm judicial mind and deep spir-
itual instinct. He has no sympathy with the school of rationalistic
interpreters, and firmly believes in the supernatural — the divine inter-
position in human affairs. The Bible is to him the Word of God ; and
redemption through the incarnation and death of the Son of God a
glorious reality. The peculiarity of his views concerning the person of
Christ do not seem to affect his full appreciation of the Saviour's work.
Indeed his doctrine is decidedly evangelical, and he readily receives
whatever is revealed, provided he has satisfactory evidence of the
authenticity of the record. His honesty and fearlessness are so great
that he does not even seek to harmonize aj^parent discrepancies ; while
his views of inspiration are such as to permit him to regard some of
them as irreconcilable and contradictory. Some of his statements,
therefore, must be carefully scrutinized and received with caution, but
no theologian, however learned or eminent, can consult his excellent
Commentaries without deriving great profit and grateful satisfaction.
Alford, referring to the Commentaries and critical notes of Meyer, says :
" Though often differing widely from him, I cannot help regarding his
Commentaries on the two Epistles to the Corinthians as the most mas-
terly and complete that I have hitherto seen on any portion of Script-
ure." Dr. Howard Crosby, whose high attainments as a scholar render
him an authority equal to the highest in such matters, characterizes
Meyer's Commentaries as " unsuriyassed,'" and states " his work is a
KT7i\ia. ii ael." He states : " Meyer's faults are his purism, which
presses a classical exactness on Hellenistic Greek, and a low view of
inspiration, which permits him to see irreconcilable difficulties" in the
sacred narratives; but further adds: "In the Epistles Meyer is
specially sound and forcible." Dr. T. W. Chambers, another thor-;
oughly qualified judge, writes : " Meyer has been justly called the
prince of exegetes ; being at once acute and learned." Dr. Gloag
regards him as " the greatest modern exegete" and speaks of his Com-
mentaries as " unrivalled,"
Dr. Dickson, Prof, of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, Editor
of Meyer's Commentaries, as published by T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh,
characterizes the production of Meyer as " an epoch-making work of
exegesis," and adds : " I have thought it right, so far as the English
reader is concerned, to present, according to my promise, the work of
Meyer without addition or subtraction in its latest and presumably best
form as it left his hand." This American edition is an exact reprint of
the Scottish one.
Meyer's Commentary on Acts is intrinsically worthy of republication
at any time, but the immediate occasion of its hasty reproduction at this
PUKFACE TO TIIK AMEIUCA^' EDITIUX. xix
time is to be found in the fact that the attention of SunJay-school.s, ami
of Christian people generally, will he specially directed to the Book of
Acts, during the first six months of the present year, and hotli pastors
and teachers will find in Meyer an invaluahle aid.
The work of the American editor, which, though far too liurricd, h:is
been one of genuine delight, consists : First, in transferring from the
page to foot-notes most of the exceedingly numerous references to
authorities. These notes are indicated by small numerals, on each page.
It is thought that thus the book will be better suited for the general
reader, while the scholarly student can still avail liimself of all the
references he may desire. Second, in appending a number of supple-
mentary notes to each chapter. These notes have been written and select-
ed for the purpose of expanding and confirming, and, in some in-
stances, of modifying and correcting the statements of the author. The
notes have been designedly made more copious in the hope of renderinsr
the work more serviceable to Sunday-school teachers and to the general
reader.
A list of the books used, referred to, or quoted in preparing the sup-
plementary notes is furnished. They are all in the English language,
most of them inexpensive, many of them handy volumes and easily pro-
curable. We would specially commend to BibUcal students the well-
known and excellent work of Prof. Hackett, which Dr. Gloag, in the
preface to his own \vork on the Acts, modestly styles " the best work
on the subject in the English language." The Rev. S. Cox, editor of
the Expositor, London, says of the Commentaries of Hackett and
Gloag, they " are probably the best in our language, each of them
marked by sound scholarship, good common-sense, and a candid and
devout spirit. If a choice must be made, give Gloag the preference."
We most heartily concur in the last sentence, and unhesitatingly say of
Gloag what Gloag himself has said of Hackett, it is the best hook on the
Acts in the English language. The works of Abbott, Alexander,
Plumptre, Jacobus ; and Howson and Spence, edited by Schaff, are suit-
able for popular reading and Sunday-school work.
It is hoped that the Table of Contents, and the Index to the Supple-
mentary Notes, to which reference is made in the text by small capitals
in brackets, will be of service to the reader, and facilitate the study of
the volume. The attentive, earnest perusal of Meyer's work cannot fail
not merely to increase the reader's knowledge of the Scriptures, but
also to awaken fresh inteiest in the thorough study of the Sacred Book.
W. Ohmiston.
New Yoke, January G, 1882.
LIST OF THE BOOKS USED, REFERRED TO, OR QUOTED IN
THE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR.
Abbott, — The Acts of the Apostles. By Kev. Lyman Abbott.
Barnes & Co., N. Y., 1876.
Alexander. — The Acts of the Apostles. By Josej^h Addison Alexander. In
2 vols. Scribner, N. Y., 1857.
Alfokd. — The Greek Testament : A critical and exegetical commentary. By
Henry Alford, B.D. In 3 vols. Kivingtons, London, 1852.
Apockypha. — Apocryphal Gospels, Acts and Revelations. Vol. 10 of the Aute-
Nicene Christian Library. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870.
Aenot. — The Church in the House : A series of lessons on the Acts of the
Apostles. By William Arnot. Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1873.
Baenes. — Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Acts of the Apostles De-
signed for Bible-classes and Sunday-schools. By Albert Barnes.
10th ed. Harper & Brothers?, N. Y., 18-44.
Also, Scenes and Incidents in tie Life of the Apostle Paul. By Albert
Barnes. Hamilton, Adams & Co., London, 18G9.
Bengel. — Gnomon of the New Testament. By John Albert Beugel. Vol. 2d.
Translated by Kev. Andrew Fausset. 4th ed.
T. T. Clark, Edin., 1860.
Bleek. — An Introduction to the New Testament. By Frederick Bkek. Trans-
lated from the German of the 2d edition, by Rev. William Urwirk,
M.A. T. & T. Clark, Edin., l«6y.
Bloomfield.— The Greek New Testament, with English Notes. Critical, Philo-
logical, and Exegetical. By Rev. S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., F.S.A. l.st
Am. ed. from the 2d London. In 2 vols.
Perkins & Marvin, Boston, 1837.
BuTLEK.— St. Paul in Rome : Lectures delivered in the Legation of the United
States of America, in Rome. By Rev. C. M. Butler, D.D.
J. B. Lii^pincott & Co., Phila., 1865.
Calvin. -Commentarv upon the Acts of the Apostles. By John Calvin. Ed-
ited from the original English translation of Christopher Fethers one.
Bv Henr^' Beveridge. Esq. 2 vols. . ^,"\"' .^"■*^-
Campbell -The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek, with i reimunarj
Dissertations, and Notes, Critical and Explanatory. By George ^^i"P-
bell, D.D., F.R.S., Principal of Mareschal College, Aberdeen. Jd ea.
^ Aberdeen, 1814.
CoNTBEAEE.— The Life and Epistles of St. Paul. By Rev. W J. Conybeare,
M.A., and Rev. J. S. Howson, M.A. In 2 vols. 6th ed.
Scribner, N. Y., 1856.
Cook.— The Acts of the Apostles. Introduction. By Canon Cook.
Charles Scnbner's Sons, N. 1.
xxii LIST OF THE BOOKS USED BY THE AMEIUCAl^ EDITOR.
Dexton. — A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols. By William
Denton, M.A. Loud., 1874.
Dick. — Lectures on the Acts of the Ajjostles. By John Dick, D.D. First
American (from the 2d Glasgow) edition. Robert Carter, N. Y., 1844.
DoDDEiDGE.— The Works of the Eev. P. Doddridge, D.D. Vols. VIII. and IX. :
A Paraphrase on the Acts of the Apostles. Leeds, 1805.
Eadie.— Paul the Preacher. By JohnEadie, D.D., LL.D., Prof, of Bib. Lit. to
the United Presbyterian Church (Scotland).
Eobert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1859.
Faekae.— The Life of Christ, in 2 vols., 1874 ; The Life and Work of St. Paial,
in 2 vols., 1879 ; The Early Days of Christianity, in 1 vol., 1882. By
F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.K.S., Canon of Westminster, etc.
E. P. Dutton & Co., N. Y.
FisHEE. — The Beginnings of Christianity. By George P. Fisher, D.D., Prof, of
Eccl. Hist, in Yale College. Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y.
Fitch. — James the Lord's Brother. By Kev. Chauncy W. Fitch, D.D.
Dana, N. Y., 1858.
Gloag. — A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Ajjostles.
By Baton J. Gloag, D.D. T. & T. Clark, Edin., 1870.
GoDET. — A Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. Godet, S.T.P.,
Neuchatel. Translated by E. W. Shalders and M. D. Cusin ; with
Preface and Notes by John Hall, D.D. 2d edition.
L K. Funk & Co., N. Y., 1881.
(Geaduate, a. ) Paul of Tarsus : An Inquiry into the Times and the Gospel of
the Apostle of the Gentiles. By a Graduate.
Eoberts Bros., Boston, 1872.
Hackett. — A Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Ajjostles.
By Horatio B. Hackett, D.D., Prof, of Bib. Lit. in Newton Theol.
Inst. A new edition, revised and greatly enlarged.
Gould tt Lincoln, Boston, 1859.
HowsoN. — The Acts of the Apostles. By J. S. Howson, D.D., and H. M. Spence,
M.A. Edited by Philip Schaif, D.D, LL.D., Prof, of Sac. Lit. in the
Union Theol. Sem., New Y'ork.
Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y., 1882.
Jacobson.— The Holy Bible : With an Explanatory and Critical Commentary,
and a Revision of the Translation. By Bishops and other clergy of the
Anglican Church. Edited by Canon Cook. The Acts. By William
Jacobson, D.D., Bishop of Chester. Charles Scribner's Sons, N. Y.
Jacobus. — Notes, Critical and Explanatory, on the Acts of the Apostles. By
Melancthon W. Jacobus, Prof, of Bib. Lit.
Eobert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1860.
JosEPHUs. — The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston,
A.M. E. Morgan & Co., Cincinnati, 1851.
Knox. — A Year with St. Paul. By Charles E. Knox.
Anson D. F. Eandolph & Co., N. Y.
Lange. — A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures : The Acts of the Apostles, an
Exegetical and Doctrinal Commentary. Bv Gotthard Victor Lechler,
D.D. Translated by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. Edited by Dr. Schaff.
Charles Scribner & Co., N. Y., 1869.
Leathes. — The Witness of St. Paul to Christ ; with an Api^endix on the Credi-
bility of the Acts. By Eev. Stanley Leathes, M.A.
Eivingtons, Lond., 1869.
LuMBY. — The Cambridge Bible for Schools : The Acts of the Ajjostles, chaps,
ii.-xiv., with Introduction and Notes. By J. Eawson Lumbv, D.D.
Cambridge, 1879.
LIST OF TUE BOOKS USED BY THE AMERICAN EDITOR. Xxiii
McClintock. — Cyclopaadia of Bib. Theol. and Eccl. Lit. Prepared by Eev.
John McClintock, D.D., and James Strong, S.T.D.
Harper it Bros., N. Y., 1880.
MacDuff.— The Footsteps of St. rctcr and the Footsteps of St. Paul. By J. 11.
MacDntt", D.D. Robert Carter & Bros., N. Y., 1877, 1856!
Michaelis.— Introduction to the New Testaniont. By John David Micluiclis!
Transited by ilerbert Marsh, D.D., F.ll.A.S., Bishop of^eterboronj^h.
F. C. & J. llivinKton,Lond., 1823.
MoBBisoN.— The Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of I'aul. Arranged in
the form of a continuous history. By Thomas Morrison, M.A.
T. Nelson & Sons, Edin., 1807.
Neander. —General History of the Christian Religion and Church. From the
German of Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated from the 2d and im-
proved edition. By Joseph Torrey. Vol. II. T. &T. Clark, Edin., 1851.
Olshausen. —Biblical Commentary on the New Testament. By Dr. Herman
Oishausen. Translated for Clark s For. and Theol. Lib. 1st Am. ed.
revised after 4th Ger. ed. by A. C. Kendrick, D.D.
Sheldon, Blakeman & Co., N. Y., 1858.
Plumptre. — The Acts of the Apostles. "With Commentary by E. H. Plumi)tre,
D.D. 2d ed. Cassell & Co , N. Y.
Paley. — The Works «of William Paley, D.D., comi^lete in one volume.
J. J. Woodward, Phila.
Eenan.— The Apostles (1866), and St. Paul (1869). By Ernest Eenan. Transla-
ted from the original French. Carlton, N. Y., 1866, 1869.
Schaff. — History of the Christian Church. By Philip Schaff. A new edition
thoroughly revised and enlarged. Vol. I. : Apostolic Christianity.
Charles Scribner's Sons. N. Y.,'l882.
Smith. — A Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by William Smith, LL.D. In
3 vols. Little, Brown & Co., Bo.ston, 1860.
Stier. — Clark's For. Theol. Lib. Fourth series. Vol. 22 : Stier's Words of
the Apostles. T. T. Clark, Edin., 1869.
SuMNEB. — A Practical Exposition of the Acts of the Apo.stles in the Form of
Lectures. By John Bird Sumner, D.D., Bishop of Chester.
L Hatchard & Son, Lond., 1838.
Tatlob.— Peter the Apostle, and Paul the Missionary. By Rev. William M.
Taylor, D D. Harper & Bros., N. Y., 1882.
Thomas. — A Homiletic Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. By David
Thomas, D.D. Richard D. Dickinson, Lond., 1870.
Vaughan. —The Church of the First Days : Lectures on the Acts of the Apos-
tles. By C. J. Vaughan. 2d ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond,, 1866.
Wescott.— The Gospel of the Resurrection. By Brooke Foss Wescott, B.D. 2d
ed. Macmillan & Co., Lond., 1867.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
OHAPTEE.
VEKSE.
PAGE.
TOPICS.
Introd.
I.
1
Authorship and genuineness of the Book.
"
11.
7
Aim and sources of the Book.
"
III.
11
Time and place of composition.
"
IV.
13
Chronological summary of the Acts.
I.
1-3
23
Keference to Luke's Gospel.
"
4-7
27
Last words of Jesus.
"
8-11
29
The ascension.
"
12-14
31
Return to Jerusalem.
"
15 2'2
33
Address of Peter.
"
23-20
35
Election of Matthias.
II.
1, 2
41
Descent of the Holy Spirit.
"
3, 4
45
Gift of tongues.
"
5 13
53
Effects of the miracle.
"
14-36
57
Peter's discourse.
"
37^0
67
Results of the discourse.
< =
41-43
69
The first converts.
"
44-47
71
Community of goods ; gro\yth.
III.
1-11
77
Healing of a lame man.
"
12-26
79
Peter's discourse.
IV.
1-7
91
Arrest of Peter and John.
"
8-12
93
Their defence.
"
13-22
95
Their release.
"
23-31
97
A prayer-meeting.
"
32-37
99
State of the church.
V.
1-11
105
Sin and punishment of Ananias.
"
12-16
109
Miraculous power of the apostles.
"
17-25
111
Their arrest and deliverance.
"
26-33
113
Trial before the Sanhedi-im.
"
34-42
115
Counsel of Gamaliel.
VI.
1-7
125
Appointment of the seven.
"
8-15
129^
Stephen's aiTest and trial. —
VII.
1-53
135.
Stephen's defence.
"
1-16
141
History of the patriarchs.
"
17-46
147
Jews under the law.
"
47-53
155
The temple and the prophets.
"
54-60
157
The martyrdom of Stephen.
VIII.
1-4
165
General persecuition.
"
5-13
167
Philip preaching in Samaria.
"
14-17
169
Simon is baptized.
"
18 24
171
Simon Magus.
"
26-40
173
The Ethiopian eunuch.
IX.
1-9
181
Saul's conversion.
"
10-18
189
Ananias baptizes Saul.
"
19-22
191
Preaching in Damascus.
"
23-25
191
Flight fi-om Damascus.
"
26-31
193
Visit to Jerusalem and Tarsus.
TABLE OF C0:N'TENTS.
CHAPTER,
VEIiSE.
TAGE.
TOPICS.
IX.
32^3
195
Peter cures J^neas and raises Dorcas.
X.
1-8
203
The vision of Cornelius. ■^'
"
9-16
205
The vision of Peter.
"
17-22
207
Messenger from Cornelius.
"
23-33
209
Peter visits Cornelius.
"
34-43
211
Peter's address.
"
44-48
215
Baptism of Cornelius.
XI.
1-18
221
Peter's defence of his conduct.
"
19-26
223
The gospel in Antioch.
"
27-30
225
Antioch sends aid to Jerusalem.
XII.
1, 2
229
Martyrdom of James.
"
3-7
231
Imprisonment of Peter.
"
8-19
233
Peter's wonderful deliverance.
20-23
237
Death of Herod Aginppa.
XIII.
1-3
245
First ordained missionaries.
"
4-12
247
Success in Cyprus.
"
13-15
251
Paphos to Perga.
"
16-41
253
Paul's sermon at Antioch.
"
42-52
265
Labors in and exijulsion from Antioch.
XIV.
1-7
271
Events at Iconium.
"
8-14
273
The ajiostles taken for gods.
"
15-21
275
Paul remonstrates and is stoned.
"
22-28
276
Return to Syrian Antioch.
XV.
1-5
283
Delegates sent to Jerusalem.
• <
6 13
285
Peter's address at the council.
"
14 21
287
Address of James.
"
22.35
295
Decision and letter of council.
"
36-41
299
Separation of Paul and Barnabas.
XVI.
1-5
305
Silas accompanies Paul.
"
6-10
309
Call from Macedonia.
"
11-15
311
Lydia baptized at Philippi.
"
16-18
313
A demoniac woman healed.
"
19-25
315
Imprisonment of Paul and Silas.
"
26 35
317
Conversion of the jailer.
30-40
319
Release from i^rison.
XVII.
1-9
325
Paul at Thessalonica.
"
10-15
327
Paul at Beroea.
"
16-21
329
Paul at Athens.
"
22-34
337
Paul's address on Mar's hiU.
XVIII.
1-7
347
Paul in Corinth.
"
8-11
351
Encouraged by a vision.
"
12-18
353
Aquila and Priscilla.
"
19-23
355
Paul returns to Antioch.
"
24-28
357
Apollos.
XIX.
1-7
365
Disciples of John. /
"
8-12
369
Paul in Ephesus.
"
13-20
371
Sons of Sceva.
"
21-34
375
Tumult raised by Demetrius.
"
35-41
377
Tumult quelled by the town clerk.
XX.
1-3
383
Paul in Greece.
"
4-6
385
Plot against Paul.
"
7-12
387
Services at Troas.
"
13-38
389
Paul at Miletus.
XXI.
1 16
399
Paul's journey to Jerusalem.
"
17-26
405
His address and vow.
•'
27-40
411
Arrest of Paxil.
XXII.
1-21
417
Paul's speech to the mob.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
UHAPTEB.
VEBSE.
rAOE.
TOPICS.
XXII.
22-30
4«1
Plea of Roman citizenship.
XXIII.
1-10
427
Paul before the Jewish council.
"
11-22
431
Cons2)ir;iey against Paul's life.
"
23-30
433
llescned by Lysias and sent to Cesaraoa.
"
31-35
435
Paul introduced to Fi'Iix.
XXIV.
1-9
441
Paiil accused by Tertullus.
"
10-21
443
Paul's defence.
"
22-23
447
His continement.
"
24-27
449
Address before Felix and Drusilla.
XXV.
1-12
455
Paul's trial and aiijjeal.
"
13-22
457
Festus and Agripi^a.
"
23-27
459
Paul and Agrippa.
XXVI.
1-23
463
Paul's defence of the gospel.
"
24-2fi
469
His reply to Festus.
"
27-32
471
Appeal to Agrippa.
xxvn.
1-8
477
Voyage to Italy.
"
9-20
483
A storm at sea.
"
21-26
485
Paul's address on board.
"
27-37
487
Fears and hojies.
•'
38-41
489
Shipwreck.
"
42-44
491
All on board saved.
XXVIII.
1-6
497
Paul at Malta ; murderer and god.
"
8-10
499
He cures diseases.
"
11-15
501
Voyage to Rome.
"
16-22
503
Conference with chief men of the Jews.
"
23-29
505
Second interview with the Jews.
"
30-31
507
Paul's captivity.
INDEX TO TUE NOTES BY TUE AMEPJCAN
EDITOli.
LETTEK.
CHAPTER.
VERSE.
PAGE.
NOTES.
A
Introd.
6
Authorship.
B
"
6
Authenticity.
C
"
11
Design.
D
"
22
Chronology.
£
I.
1
37
Name.
F
"
3
37
Forty days.
G
"
1-i
38
His brethren.
H
"
18
38
Fate of Judas.
I
"
24
39
Thou, Lord.
J
"
26
39
The Lot.
K
n.
4
72
Other tongues.
li
27
74
Hades.
M
III.
20
87
Parousia.
N
IV.
1
100
Sadducees.
O
6
101
Annas the high jiriest.
P
20
101
For we cannot but speak.
Q
"
24
101
Stated prayer.
B
"
32
102
All things common.
S
V.
1
120
Ananias.
T
"
15
121
Peter's shadow.
U
'<
36
121
Theudas.
V
VI.
1
131
A murmuring.
w
"
3
132
Seven men.
X
"
15
132
The face of an angel.
T
VII.
2
160
Stephen's speech.
Z
"
3
161
Historical errors.
Al
"
3
161
Abraham's call.
B>
"
4
162
Death of Terah.
c'
"
6
162
Four hundred years.
D'
"
16
162
Jacob's burial.
E>
"
19
163
Cast out . . . children.
Fl
"
30
163
An angel.
G>
VIII.
1
178
A great perseciition.
h'
"
2
179
Devout men carried Stephen.
I»
"
13
179
Simon believed.
J'
"
14
180
Samaritans.
K'
"
14
180
Mission of Peter and John.
L>
"
17
180
They received the Holy Ghost.
M»
IX.
1
196
Saul.
N>
"
2
196
Damascus.
o>
"
3
196
A light from heaven.
Pl
"
7
197
Stood speechless.
Q*
"
23
197
Many days.
b'
"
32
198
Peter and Paul— Lydda and Joppa.
INDEX TO THE NOTES BY TUE AMERICAN EDITOR.
HAPTER. VEKSE. PAGE.
M-
X-
X.
XI.
Xil.
XIII.
XIV.
XV.
XVI.
XVII.
XVIII.
XIX.
XX.
XXI.
XXII.
XXIII.
1
2
10
35
3
20
1
2
5
23
1
5
33
41
1
5
6
11
23
1
6
13
21
23
34
39
10
12
15
24-
33
1
12
15
17
23
1
15
18
24
25
1
2
13
41
1-3
28
18-38
1
4
9
10
26
1
27
216
217
217
218 .
226
227
238
238
239
240
266
266 ,
267
267
267
276
277
277
278
278
299
300
300
301
3U2
392
393
320
320
321
321
322
340
310
341
342
343
359
360
361
361
362
378
379
379
380
395
396
396
412
413
413
414
414
422
423
436
Conversion of Cornelius.
A deVout man.
Fell into a trance.
Accepted with him.
They of the circumcision contended.
Antioch.
Herod.
He killed James.
Peter in prison.
Death of Herod.
Special documentary source.
Prophets and teachers.
John as an attendant.
Second psalm.
Paul's sermon.
Iconium.
An assault made.
Cities of Lycaonia.
Gods in the likeness of men.
Chosen them elders.
Except ye be circumcised.
AjDOstles and elders.
James answered.
Paul's visits to Jerusalem.
Send greeting.
Verse supposed spurious.
The contention of Paul and Barnabas.
We endeavored to go.
The chief city.
Baptism of Lydia.
The inner prison.
And washed their stripes.
Thessalonica.
Honorable women.
Timothy.
The market-place.
An unknown God.
Corinth.
Gallio.
Having shorn his head.
Apollos.
Baptism of John.
Ephesus.
Whether" there be any Holy Ghost.
Exorcists.
He dismissed the assembly.
After the uproar.
T//f eicKÄTjniai' rov Ki'pinv.
Paial's address at Miletus.
Ehodes and Patara.
Disciples at Tyre.
Philip's four daughters.
Tarried many days.
Paul purifying himself.
Paul's defence.
Art thou a Eoman ?
I did not know that he is the high priest.
INDEX TO TUE NOTES BY THE AMERICAN EDITOI
LETTEK.
tllAI'TKn.
VKUSE.
PAliK.
NOTES.
X^
XXIII.
7
436
Pharisees and Suddiicees.
y3
"
11
437
The Lord stood bj' him.
Z«
"
ir.
438
Paul's sister's son.
A^
XXIV.
2
450
Tertnlhis began to accuse.
B^
"
6
451
According to our l:iw, etc.
C^
"
26
452
Felix trembled.
D^
XXV.
11
460
I appeal to Caesar.
E*
"
26
460
Unto my Lord.
r4
XXVI.
28
473
Almost thou persuadest me.
G^
XXVII.
6
4'Jl
And he i)ut us therein.
H^
8
4'.)2
Fair Havens.
I^
"
12
4i)2
Toward the N. W. and S. W.
T»
"
1-1
4!)3
Euroclydon.
K*
• '
23
493
The angel of God.
1.*
.'
24
494
They cast four anchors out of the stern.
M^
"
31
494
Except these abide, ye cannot be saved.
N-«
XXVIII.
1
507
Melita.
o-i
'<
22
508
This sect spoken against.
T*
"
30
509
Two whole years in his own hired house.
Q'»
"
,
510
Paul's second imprisonment.
E^
"
—
512
Evidential value of the Acts.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. /.-AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK.
jHE fifth historical book of the New Testament, already named
' ;r' L?"f' " '"'^^"^'^ (^«"^" ^^"'•«^•' Clem. Al. Strom, v
1., p 6fl6, ed. Potter, Tertull. .. Mare. v. 2 f., de Jejun. 10, Je
lapt. 10 ; comp, also Iren. adv. hier. iii. 14 1 Jü 15 n f' 1
Its chief contents .,ü^.u, (...) a.«..,;..., announces itseif (i. 1) as'a second
work o the same author who wrote the Gospel dedicated to Theop Ü us
The Acts of the Apostles zs therefore justly considered as a portion of the
histoncal work of Luke, following up that Gospel, and continuing the his-
tory of early Chnstianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of
Paul at Rome ; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient orthodox
church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius U E lii ^
among the m.noloc,,rurnena. There is indeed no definite reference made^^
the Acts by XX^ A^oMlc Fathers, as the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp
Acts X. 41), and Polycarp, ad PUl. 1 (comp. Acts ii. 24), cannot even T;
v^ithcertamty regarded as special reminiscences of it ; and the same re!
mark holds good as to aHusions in .lustin and Tatian. But, since the time
of Irenaeus the Fathers have frequently made literal quotations f m t"
book (see also the Epistle of the churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus v
.), and have expressly designated it as the work of Luke ' (a). With this
fact before us the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see Wolf
Cur. IV. p. 731, Schmidt in Stäudlin's Kirchmhüt. Archiv, L p. 15) mi^rht
appear strange: r.. J, ..,,,,,,„ ,,, ,^,.,,, „, ^^^ ^^^^J^ ^^;^^^^^^
asTo 0^0' ; ?;' f '"''' ''"^''^ ''' elayy^l^ori,., b,t this statement
as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated, unsupported by
ToMy Tr '''^'^^'''''^ -t'-^-t^' that it can only have'referen cl
o some arbitrary assumption of individuals who knew little or nothing of
he book. Were it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been
alleged to be a work of Clement or Barnabas ; but of tins there is not the
slightest trace. That the Book of Acts was in reality much less known
and read than the Gospels, the interest of which was the most general
immediate, and supreme, and than the N. T. Epistles, winch were destined
at once for whole churches, and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evi-
dent from Chrysostom, Horn. I. : no?2ols tovt} to ßtßÄlov oM' ore eve, yv6pc,M6v
Old ^LlTT ^' "^ ""^"k"" "' '"'P"''" *''"' °" '" ^^'^ Canon, as there are several Go>^ls
ton onl "° """7 '" '"' ^"P«'-'"'P- "«^^eding distinctive cU.si<,nation by tl.o Z'll
.on ,only some minusndi name Luke^ since of their authors. Comp, ^ssm Jahrbli
there are not several "Acts of the Apostles" p 57
INTRODUCTIO]Sr.
tauv, ovre avro, ovre 6 ypnfa, aire, .al ovvOei^.^ And thus it is no wonder if
many who knew only of the existence of the Book of Acts, but had neveT
read it (for the very first verse must have pointed them to Lule), guessed
at this or that celebrated teacher, at Clement or Barnabas, as its author.
Photius himself, on the other hand, concurs in the judgment of the church,
for which he assigns the proper grounds : A^röc <5J AovKäZ tn,.phu. Up^rov
utv k^ C,v n,.oocuca^.Tac, ci; Ka. irepa avrü ^pay,.arsla, rdS öeo.orcKai .epuxovaa
La^nS KaraßißAvrac. Aeirepov öe, ^ ov .al rüv aUuv eiayyeMv 6caor.17.erac,
iyrcanP^ r,}5 äva7.r,^e^i ovMS avrüv rö ovvrayfia npoeWe7v enocvoaro. aU ^ovro,^
ravrrj, vn,ar,aaro. Moreover, SO early an ecclesiastical recognition of the
canonicity of this book would be inexplicable, if the teachers of the church
had not from the very first recognized it as a second work of Luke, to
which, as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authonty belonged.
The wei-ht of this ancient recognition by the church is not weakened by
the rejection of the book on the part of certain Uretical i^arüe. ; fortius
affected only its validity as an authoritative standard, and was based en-
tirely on dogmatic, particularly on anti-Pauline, motives. This was the
case with the ^6....Y.. (Epiphan. Uaer. xxx. 16), to whom the y-eption of
the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant; ^-^'"^.^^^ 'f^f^Z' ^^^^^
' R. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic principles were incompatible with the doctrines
of Paul • with the sMarcionites (Tertull. o. Marc. v. 2, de fraescr. 22;, who
could not endure what was taught in «- Acts concerning the c.nnect,^^^^^
of Judaism and Christianity ; and with the Mamchaeans, who took offe ce
a the mission of the Holy Spirit, to which it bears testimony (Augustin.
at tne u • / 007 r^7 o^'\} No 2V— From these circum-
de utilit. credendi, 11. 7, epist. 237 [nl 25ä\, JNo ^j. r
stances-- the less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less
dlgree of veneration for it-is to be explained the ^^^^^'^^^^l
treatment of the text, which is still apparent in ^^^f^^^'^'^'^^jl^
E, and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although Bornemann_(.4. . ^^ ^f^^^
Lt.d,rig. fidcM rec. 1848) saw in cod. D the most original f 01m of the t xt
r agmen ducit codex D baud dubie ex autographo haustus, p. xxviu.),
which was an evident error. f^n^w« from the
That the Acts of the Apostles is the worJc of one author io\\o^^ from the
uniformity in the character of its diction and style (see ^^ff^'^^;J;
160 ff.; Credner, EM. I. p. 182 If.; Zeller, Apostel.esch^ nach Ink u.U^
Shitt.. 1854 p 388 ff. ; and especially Lekebusch, Composit u. Entsteh.
Stuttg. 1854, p. d»- . ^^ 37_7C)- Klostermann, Vindiciae Lncanae,
d. ApostcJgesch. Gotha 18o4, pp. rf/ i-', -^ ' mutual
Gutting. 1860 ; Oertel, Faidus in d. Apostelgesch. 1868), fiom the mutu.
A -th nnrl wished to reconcile it with that of Mat-
, so much the le.. can .t be assumed wüh « J Hegives a legend respecting the death
certainty, fron, the fragment of Pap.a- pre- tl ew He E^ J ^ „^ ^j^.^^hew
served by ApolUnari., on ,he death of Judas /^^^^^f^ f .^,,^,„,,„, of both. See
(of which the different forms «f "^° text 'J^^ ^^e A ^^^^^ ^ ^^^ .^^ ^^^^
may he seen, (1) in Theophyl, on Acts 1 18, th° d...em ^^^^ .^^ ._
and Cramer, Cat. in Act. p. 12 f.; (2) m f '"'; '\^^'o~k in Hilgenf. Zeit.ckr.
cecum. I. P. n, ^rTn1;^/':^:s^n S/p Tff:; airjSt. in the^..«.. .. KrU.
andBoissonade, Anecd. 11. p. 4(4 ; (3) Scho ion i. , i'
in Matthaei on Acts i. 181, that Papias had in 18G8, p. «. n.
view the narrative of the event in the Acts.
Ai-TiiORsnip or TUE book. 3
references of in.liviclual passages (de Wette, Einl § 115, and Zcller p 403
ff.), and also from that unity in the tenor and connection of the essenti-d
leadmg ideas (see Lekebusch, p. 82) ^vhich pervades the whole This
s.mdanty is of such a nature that it is compatible ^vith a more 'or less
independent manipnlation oi different documentary sources, but not with
the hypothesis of an ag>jregaüon. of such documentary sources, which are
strung together with little essential alteration (Schleiermacher's view •
comp, also Schwanbeck, nlcr d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk I p 053'
and earlier, Königsmann, de fontßvs, etc., 1708, in Pott's Si/l/oge lU p'
215 ff.) The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel and
evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary character as to Mh
books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. In the passages xvi. 10-17 xx 5-15 x.xi 1
18, xxvii.^ 1-xxviii. 16, the author expressly by " ^ce " includes himself as
an eye-witness and sharer in the events related. According to Schleier-
macher these portions-belonging to the memoirs, strung together with-
out e aboration, of which the book is composed-proceed from Timothy a
hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Einleit., and earlier in the äL
. Krit. 183G, p. 1025 ff., p. 104G ff.), Ulrich (5..Z. .. I^t^t
IVLxyerhoff (£W.Z. .., d. Petr. Sehr. p. 6 ff.) to the extent of ascribin. tiL
whole book to Timothy ; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections
as well as in general almost all from xv. 1 onwards, to Silas.' But the
reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke is the narrator using
the tee, are wholly unimportant. For, not to mention that it is much more
natural to refer the unnamed I of that narrative in the first person plural
to Luke, who IS not elsewhere named in the book, than to Timothy and
Si as, who are elsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished from the
subject of the ice; and apart also from the entire arbitrariness of the asser-
tion that Luke could not have made his appearance and taken part for the
first time at xvi. 10 ; the circumstance that in the l^pistle to the Philip-
pians no mention of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of
the objectors, is still merely such in semblance. How Ion- had Luke at
that time, been absent from Philippi ! How probable, moreover, that
Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians l,y means of Epaphroditus, left
It to the latter to communicate orally the personal information which
was of interest to them, and tlierefore adds in the Epistle only such sum-
mary salutations as iv. 22 ! And how possible, in fine, that Luke, at the
time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle, was temporarily absent
from Rome, which is strongly supported, and, indeed, is required to be
» Assuming, with extreme arbitrariness, of arhitrarine«« ^ n thnf - s ■
that the re,,acte„r ha. in xvi. 10 ff., misled b^ .0:. .^I; wVss Lid n" 'i rsrsle:
the preceding ßo.ifl,.o. i>^l. (-), copied the ment after e.Aefa^e.ov., and othe !inX
in ver. 9 felt he necessuy of chan^nn? the hoMins Lnke and Silas a. irl.ntical (van
do,ng which, however, he has forgotten to was perhaps only a passi„<^ e vLl^ica
beck, p. 2. f., w ho has many other instances Cropp in Hilgeuf. Zeitachr. 18Ü8, p. 35a ff.
4: IKTRODÜCTIOlSr.
assumed by Phil. ii. 20 f., comp, on Phil. ii. 21. The non-mention of Luke
in the Ejiistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum e si-
lentio (see Lekebusch, p. 395) ; and the greater vividness of delineation,
which is said to prevail where Timothy is present, cannot prove anything
in contradistinction to the vividness of other parts in which he is not con-
cerned. On the other hand, in those portions in which the " we " intro-
duces the eye-witness,' the manipulation of the Greek language, indepen-
dent of written documents, exhibits the greatest similarity to the peculiar
colouring of Luke's diction as it appears in the independent portions of
the Gospel. It is incorrect to suppose that the specification of time ac-
cording to the Jewish festivals, xx. 6, xxvii. 9, suits Timothy better than
Luke, for the designations of the Jewish festivals must have been every-
where familiar in the early Christian church from its connection with
Judaism, and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well
as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both the Timo-
^/iy-hypothesis, already excluded by xx. 4 f., and the Äi/as-hypothesis, un-
tenable throughout, are clogged, only serve more strongly to confirm the
tradition of the church that Liüce, as author of the whole book, is the
person speaking in those sections in which "we " occurs. See Lekebusch,
p. 140 ff. ; Zeller, p. 454 ff. ; Ewald, Oesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 33 ff.,
and Jalirh. IX. p. 50 ff. ; Klostermann, I.e.; Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch.
p. 8 il. In the "tcö" the person primarily narrating must have been the
"/," with which the whole book begins. No other understanding of the
matter could have occurred either to Theophilus or to other readers. The
hypothesis already propounded by Königsmann, on the other hand, that
Luke had allowed the " t^e " derived from the memoir of another to remain
unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of Gfrörer {heil. Sage, II. p. 244
f.), impute to the author something bordering on an unintelligent mechani-
cal process, such as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle
Ages (examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 fE.), but must appear utterly alien
and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of such company as
we have here.
Recent criticism, however, has contended that the Acts could not be
composed at all by a companion of the Apostle Paul (de Wette, Baur,
Schwegler, Zeller, Köstlin, Hilgenfeld, and others). For this purpose they
have alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 25-28, xi.
30, compared with Gal. i. 17-19, ii. 1 ; xvii. IG f., xviii. 5, with 1 Thess.
iii. 1 f.), inadequate accounts (xvi. 6, xviii. 22 f., xxviii. 30 f.), omission
of facts (1 Cor. xv. 32 ; 2 Cor. i. 8, xi. 25 f. ; Rom. xv. 19, xvi. 3 f.), and
the partially unhistorical character of the first portion of the book (accord-
ing to de Wette, particularly ii. 5-11), which is even alleged to be "a con-
tinuous fiction" (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. HI f.)-
They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (xxviii. 7-10), un-Pauline
speeches and actions (xxi. 20 ff., xxiii. 6 flf., chap, xxii., xxvi.), an un-
Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-Christians : approval of the
> Especially chap, xxvii. and xxviii. See erally, Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch. p.
Klostermann, Ylndie. Luc. p. 50 ff. ; and gen- 28 flf.
GENUINENESS. 5
apostolic decree). It is alleged that the formation of legend in the book
(particularly the narrative of Simon and of Pentecost) belongs to a later
period, and that the entire tendency of the writing (see sec. 2) points to a
later stage of ecclesiastical development (see especially Zeller, p. 470 IT.) ;
also that its j^olitically apologetic design leads us to the time of Trajan,
or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119) ; that the yfidi in the narrative of the
travels (held even by Köstlin, Urspr. d. Synopt. Evang. p. 292, to be the
genuine narrative of a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand
by the autlior of the book, who wishes to be recognized thereby as a com-
panion of tlie Apostle (according to Köstlin : for the purpose of strengthen-
ing the credibility and the impression of the apologetic representation) ;
and that the Book of Acts is " the work of a Pauline member of the Ro-
man church, the time of the composition of which may most probably be
placed between the years 110 and 125, or even 130 after Christ " (Zeller,
p. 488). But all these and similar groimds do not prove what they are al-
leged to prove, and do not avail to overthrow the ancient ecclesiastical rec-
ognition. For although the book actually contains various matters, in
which it must receive correction from the Pauline Epistles ; although the
history, even of Paul the apostle, is handled in it imperfectly and, in part,
inadequately ; although in the first portion, here and there, a post-apostolic
formation of legend is unmistakeable ; yet all these elements are compat-
ible with its being the work of a companion of the apostle, who, not
emerging as such earlier than chaj). xvi., only undertook to write the
history some time after the apostle's death, and who, when his personal
knowledge failed, was dependent on tradition developed orally and in
writing, partly legendary, because he had not from the first entertained the
design of writing a history, and had now, in great measure, to content
himself with the matter and the form given to him by the tradition, in
the atmosphere of which he himself lived. Elements really un-Faidine
cannot be shown to exist in it, and the impress of a definite tendency in the
book, which is alleged to betray a later stage of ecclesiastical development,
is simply imputed to it by the critics. The TFe-narrative, with its vivid and
direct impress of personal participation, always remains a strong testimony
in favour of a companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of
which that narrative is a part ; to separate the sul>ject of that narrative
from the author of the whole, is a procedure of sceptical caprice. The
surprisingly abridged and abrupt conclusion of the book, and the silence
concerning the last labours and fate of the Apostle Paul, as well as the
silence concerning the similar fate of Peter, are phenomena which are in-
telligible only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of tlie
apostle being prevented by circumstances from continuing his narrative,
but would be altogether inconceivable in the case of an author not writing
till the second century, and manipulating with a definite tendency the his-
torical materials before him, — inconceivable, because utterly at variance
with his supposed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of
Luke's authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from the t/l^eli in the
narrative of the travels (comp. Col. iv. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11 ; see especially
6 INTKODUCTIOX.
Köstlin, p. 291), is so arbitrary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting
mode in which such traditions arise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiasti-
cal tradition is to be exph^ined, not from the wish to have a Pauline Gos-
pel, but from the actual possession of one, and from a direct certainty as to
its author. — The Book of Acts has very different stages of credibility^ from
the lower grade of the legend partially enwrapping the history up to that
of vivid, direct testimony ; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free
historical criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scep-
ticism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader and G frörer)
it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and his school, after the
more cautious but less consistent precedent set by Schneckenburger {über
d. Zweck d. Äpostelgesch. 1841.) On the whole, the book remains, in con-
nection with the historical references in the apostolic Epistles, the fullest
and surest source of our knowledge of the apostolic times, of which we
always attain most completely a trustworthy view when the Book of Acts
bears part in this testimony, although in many respects the Epistles have
to be brought in, not merely as supplementing, but also in various points
as deciding against particular statements of our book (b).
Notes by American Editor.
(A)
" This work, as well as the Gospel, being anonymous, attempts have been
made to refer the authorship to some other person than St Luke." " We are
inclined to give the weight which it deserves to the ancient opinion, and to axs-
cept the traditional view of the origin of both the Gospel and the Acts, rather
than any of the modern suppositions, which are very difficult to be reconciled
with the statements in the Acts and the Epistles, and which are the mere
offspring of critical imaginations." {Lumhy.)
The evidence that Luke wrote the Acts is threefold : — The explicit testimony
of the early Christian writers — the relation in which the Acts stands to the
Gospel which is ascribed to Luke— and the similarity of style in the two books.
— See Introdiictions to the Acts, by Hackett, and by Abbott.
(B)
In the preface to the Gospel the writer speaks of his perfect understanding
of all the things whereof he was about to write, implying the utmost care on
his jjart accurate^ to ascertain the facts. The same course was doubtless
adopted by him in writing this second treatise. With the opportunities at his
command of personal observation, of intercourse with the parties concerned in
the events recorded, and probably of the aid of written documents, and with
his admitted claims for diligence in use of them, the writer of the Acts merits
the highest confidence granted to the best accredited testimony. Professor
Hackett, in his Introduction to the Acts, says: "We have not only every
reason to regard the history of Luke as authentic, because he wrote it with
such facilities for knowing the truth, but because we find it sustaining its
credit under the severest scnitinj^ to which it is possible that an ancient work
should be subjected." " This history has been confronted with the Epistles
of the N. T. and it has been shoM'n as the resiilt, that the incidental corre-
spondences between them and the Acts are numerous and of the most striking
AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 7
kind." "The speeches in the Acts which purport tn have been dolivcrod by
Peter, Paul, and James liave been compared with the known productions of
these men ; and it is found that they exhiliit an agreement with them, in jioint
of thought and expression, which the supposition of their common origin
would lead us to expect." " We have a decisive test of the trustworthiness of
Luke in the consistency of his statements and allusions with the information
which contemporary writers have given us respecting the age in which he lived
and wrote."
SEC. II.— AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK.
When the aim of the Acts has been defined by saying that Luke wished
to give us a history of missions for the diffusion of Christianity (Eich-
horn), or a Pauline church-liistory (Credner), or, more exactly and cor-
rectly, a history of the extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome
(Mayerhoff, IJaumgarten, Guericke, Lekebusch, Ewald, Oertel), there is,
strictly speaking, a confounding of the contents -with the aim. Certainly,
Luke wished to compose a history of the development of the church from
its foundation until the period when Paul laboured at Rome ; but his work
■was primarily a, i^'ivate treatise., written for Tlieopliilus, and the clearly ex-
pressed aim of the composition of the Gospel (Luke i. 4) must hold good
also for the Acts on account of the connection in which our book, accord-
ing to Acts i. 1, stands with the Gospel. To confirm to Theophilus, in the
way of history, the Christian instruction which he had received, was an
end which might after the composition of the Gospel be yet more fully at-
tained ; for tlie further development of Christianity since the time of the as-
cension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor, and Greece
up to its announcement by Paul himself in Rome, the capital of the world,
might and ought, according to the view of Luke, to serve that purpose.
Hence he wrote this history ; and the selection and limitation of its con-
tents were determined partly by the wants of Theophilus, partly by his
own Pauline individuality, as well as by his sources ; so that, after the pre-
Pauline history in which Peter is the chief jierson, he so takes up Paul and
his work, and almost exclusively places them' in the foreground down to
the end of the book, that the history becomes henceforth biographical, and
therefore even the founding of the church of Rome — which, if Luke had
designed to write generally, and on its own account, a mere history of the
extension of the church from Jerusalem to Rome, he would not, and could
not, have omitted — found no place. The Pauline character and circle of
ideas of the author, and his relation to Theophilus, make it also easy
enough to understand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter,
1 The parallel between the two apostles is to be kept in view ; as such it might, accord-
not made up,hnt historically given. Both iug to its relation to the receiver, meniion
were the represeiittUivcs of apostolic activ- various important matters but lirielly or not
ity, and what the Acts informs iis of them is at all, and descril)e very circunl^tantinlly
like an extended commentary on Gal. ii. 8. others of less importance. The author, like
Comp. Thiersch, A"i;-c/te im apo.itol. Zeitalt. a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled,
p. 130 f. At the same time, the purpose of Comp. C. Berthcau, über Gal. ii. i^Programm),
the work as a private composition isal«"ays Ilamb. 1854.
8 INTKODUCTIOX.
fall gradually into the background in the history, but also how the re-
flection of Pauliuism frequently presents itself in the pre-Pauline half
("hence this book might well be called a gloss on the Epistles of St.
Paul," Luther's Preface). One who was not a discijDle of Paul could not
have written such a history of the apostles. The fact that even in respect
of Paul himself the narrative is so defective and in various points even inap-
propriate, as may be proved from the letters of the apostle, is sufficiently
explained from the limitation and quality of the accounts and sources with
which Luke, at the late period when he wrote, had to content himself and
to make shift, where he was not better informed by his personal knowledge
or by the aj^ostle or other eye-witnesses.
Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent our book as a
composition marked by a set apologetic ' and dogmatic 2nirpose. A justifi-
cation of the Apostle Pnul^ as regards the admission of the Gentiles into the
Christian church, is alleged by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss.
1817, to be its design ; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared
himself. More recently Schneckenburger {I'lb. d. Zweclc d. AposteJgesch.
1841) has revived this view with much acuteness, to the prejudice of the
historical character of the book. By Baur (at first in the Ti'ib. Zeitschr.
1836, 3, then especially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller,
1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 381 flf., and in his Oesch. der drei ersten
Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as regards the book, from the
apologetic to the conciliatory standpoint. He was followed specially by
Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. IL p. 73 if.; Zeller, p. 320 ff.; and Volkmar,
Relig. Jesu, p. 336 ff. ; while B. Bauer {d. Apostelgesch. eine Ausgleichung des
Paidinismus und Judenthums, 1850) pushed this treatment to the point of
self-annihilation. According to Schneckenburger, the design of the Acts
is the justification of the Apostle Paul against all the objections of the
Judaizers ; on which account the apostle is only represented in that side of
liis character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the greatest pos-
sible similarity to Peter (see, in opposition to this, Schwanbeck, Quellen d.
Luh. p. 94 ff.). In this view the historical credibility of the contents is
maintained, so far as Luke has made the selection of them for his particular
purpose (c). This was, indeed, only a partial carrying out of the purpose-
hypothesis ; but Baur, Schwegler, and Zeller have carried it out to its full
consequences,^ and have, without scruple, sacrificed to it the historical
1 Aberle, in the theol. Qxartalschr. 1S33, p. appear as a work of peace CRenss, Gesch. d.
173 ff., has maintained a view of the apolo- N. T. p. 206, ed. 4) and reconciliation, in the
getic design of the boolc peculiar to himself ; composition of which it is conceivable
namely, that it was intended to defend Paul enough of itself, and without imputing to it
against the accusation still pending against conciliatory tendencieR, that Luke, who did
him in Rome. Everything of this nature is not write till long after the death of Paul and
invented without any indication whatever the destrnction of Jerusalem, already looked
in the text, and is contradicted by the pro- backen those conflicts from another calmer
logues of the Gospel and the Acts. and more objective standpoint, when the
2 Certainly we are not carried by the Acts, Pauline ministry piesented itself to him in
as we are by the Pauline Epistles, into the its entirety as the manifestation of the great
fresh, living, fervent conflict of Paulinism principle, 1 Cor. ix. 19 fE.
with Judaism; and so this later work may
AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK. 9
character of tlie contents. Tliey uffirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his
compliance towards Judaism, is entirely dillerent from the apostle as ex-
hibited in his Epistles (Baur) ; that lie is converted into a Judaizing Chris-
tian, as Peter and James are converted into Pauline Christians (Schwegler) ;
and that our book, as a proposal of a Pauline Christian towards peace by
concessions of his party to Judaism, was in this respect intended to inllu-
ence both parties, but especially had in view the Itouian church (Zeller).
The carrying out of this view — according to which the author, witli "set
reflection on the means for attaining his end," would convert the Gentile
apostle into a Petrine Christian, and the Jewish ajiostles into Pauline
Christians — imputes to the Book of Acts an imperceptibly neutralizing
artfulness and dishonesty of character, and a subtlety of distortion in
breaking off the sharp points of history, and even of inventing facts, which
are irreconcilable with the simplicity and ingenuous artlessness of this writ-
ing, and indeed absolutely stand even in moral contradiction with its
Christian feeling and spirit, and with the express assurance in the preface
of the Gospel. And in the conception of the details this hypothesis neces-
sitates a multitude of suppositions and interjiretations, which make the re-
proach of a designed concoction of history and of invention for the sake of
an object, that they are intended to establish, recoil on such a criticism
itself. See the Commentary. The most thorough special refutation may
be seen in Lekebusch, p. 253 ff., and Oertel, Paulus in d. Ajjostelycxch. p.
183 ff. Comp, also Lechler, apost. u. nacJuqjost. Zeitalt. p. 7 ff. ; Ewald,
Jahrh. IX. p. 02 ff. That, moreover, such an inventive reconciler of Paul-
inism and Petrinism, who is, moreover, alleged to have not written till the
second century, should have left unnoticed the meeting of the apostles,
Peter and Paul, at Rome, and their contemporary death, and not have
rather turned tiiem to account for placing the crown on his work so pur-
posely planned ; and that instead of this, after many other incongruities
which he would have committed, he should have closed Paul's intercourse
with the Jews (chap, xxviii. 2.> ff.) with a rejection of them from the apos-
tle's own mouth, — would be just as enigmatical as would be, on the other
hand, the fact, that the late detection of the plan should, in spite of
the touchstone continually present in Paul's Epistles, have remained re-
served for the searching criticism of the present day.
As regards the sources (see Riehm, de font ihus, etc., Traj. ad Rhen. 1821 ;
Schwanbeck, üh. d. Quellen d. Schriften d. Luk. I. 1847 ; Zeller, p. 289 ff.;
Lekebusch, p. 402 ff. ; Ewald, Gesch. d. ajiosf. Zeitalt. p. 40 ff. ed. 3), it is
to be generally assumed from the contents and form of tlie book, and from
the analogy of Luke i. 1 , that Luke, besides the special communications
which he had received from Paul and from intercourse w'ith apostolic men,
besides oral tradition generally, and besides, in part, his own personal
knowledge (the latter from xvi. 10 onwards), also made vse of icritten doc-
uments. But he merely made use of them, and did not simply string them
together (as Schleiermacher held, Einl. in d. JSF. T. p. 360 ff.). For the
use has, at any rate, taken place with such independent manipulation, that
the attempts accurately to point out the several documentary sources em-
10 INTßODUCTION.
ployed, particularly as regards their limits and the elements of them that
have remained unaltered, fail to lead to any sure result. For such an inde-
femlent use he might be sufficiently qualified by those serviceable con-
nections which he maintained, among which is to be noted his intercourse
with Mark (Col. iv. 10, 14), and with Philip and his prophetic daughters
(xxi. 8, 9) ; as, indeed, that independence is confiimed by the essential
similarity in the character of the style (although, in the first part, in ac-
cordance with the matters treated of and with the Aramaic traditions and
documentary sources, it is more Hebraizing), and in the employment of
the Septuagint. Tlie use of a written (probably Hebrew) document con-
cerning Peter (not to be confounded with the Kijpvyfia UsTpov), of another
concerning Stephen, and of a missionary narrative perhaps belonging to
it (chap. xiii. and xiv. ; see Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1043 f.;
comp, also Ewald, p. 41 f. ), is assumed with the greatest probability ; less
probably a sj^scial document concerning Barnabas, to which, according to
Schwanbeck, iv. 30 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25, xiii. 1-14, 28, xv. 2^ be-
longed. In the case also of the larger speeches and letters of the book, so
far as personal knowledge or communications from those concerned failed
him, and when tradition otherwise was insufficient, Luke must have been
dependent on tlie documents indicated above and others ; still, however,
in such a manner that — and hence so much homogeneity of stamp — his own
reproduction withal was more or less active. To seek to prove in detail
the originality of the apostolic speeches from the apostolic letters, is an
enterprise of impossibility or of self-deceiving presupposition ; however
little on the whole and in the main the genuineness of these speeches, ac-
cording to the respective characters and situations, may reasonably be
doubted. As regards the history of the apostolic council in particular,
the Epistle to the Galatians, not so much as even known to Luke, although
it supplements the apostolic narrative, cannot, any more than any of the
other Pauline Epistles, be considered as a source (in opposition to Zeller);
and the apostolic decree, which cannot be a creation of the author, must
be regarded as the reproduction of an original document. In general, it
is to be observed that, as the question concerning the sources of Luke
was formerly ä priori precluded by the supposition of simple reports of
eye-witnesses (already in the Canon Murat.), recently, no less « priori, the
same question has been settled in an extreme negative sense by the as-
sumption that he purposely drew from his own resources ; while Credner,
de Wette. Bleek, Ewald, and others have justly adhered to three sources
of information — written records, oral information and tradition (Luke i.
1 ff.), and the author's personal knowledge ; and Schwanbeck has, with
much acateness, attempted what is unattainable in the way of recognizing
and separating the written documents, with the result of degrading the
book into a spiritless compilation.^ The giving vj) tlie idea of written
> According to Schwanbeck, the redactevr biography of Barnabas ; (4) The memoirs of
of the book has used the four following doc- Silas. Of these writings he ha.'< pieced togeth-
uments : (1) A biography of Peter ; (2) A rhe- er only single portions almoi^t unchanged ;
torital work on the death of Stephen ; (.3) A hence ho appears essentially as a compiler.
TIME AXÜ PLACE OF COMPOSITION. 11
sources — the couclusion which Lekohusch l\as rcachod oy the path of
thorough iiKjuiry — is all the less satisfactory, the later the time of com-
positiou has to be placed and the historical character of the contents withal
to be maintained. See also, concerning the derivation of the Pctrine
speeches from written sources, Weiss in the Krit. BdhUdt z. Dctttuch.
Zeitschr. 1854, No. 10 f., and in reference to their doctrinal tenor and its
liarmony with the Epistle of Peter, Weiss, Fetr. Lehrlcgr. 1855, and hihl.
Theul. 1808, p. 119 ff.' Concerning the relation of the Pauline history
and speeches to the Pauline epistles, see Trip, Paulus in d. Apontelgesch.
1866 ; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. 1808. Comp, also Oort, Inquir. in
orat., quae in Act. ap. Paulo trihuuntur, indolem PauUn. L. B. 18(i2 ; Ilof-
stede deGroot, Vergi'UjJciwj van den Paulas der Briecen wet dien der Ifandel-
ingen, Groning. 18Ü0.
Note by American Editor.
"The Book is a special history of the planting and extension of the church,
both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating
centres, or sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large
part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Eome. " {Alexander.)
" The church of Christ described with respect to its founding, its guidance,
and its extension, in Israel and among the Gentiles, from Jerusalem even to
Home." (Lange.)
The Acts like the Gospel is addressed to one individual for his information
and instruction, but not designed for him alone. Luke wrote his history to
preserve the memorials of the Apostles for Christians of all ages.
SEC. III.— TIME AXD PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
As the Gospel of Luke already presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem
(xxi. 20-25), the Acts of the Apostles must have been written after that
event. Acts viii. 2G cannot be employed to establish the view that the
book was composed during the Jewish war, shortly he/ore the destruction of
the city (Hug, Schneckenburger, Lekebusch ; see on viii. 26). The non-
mention of that event does not serve to prove that it had not yet occurred,
but rather leads to the inference that it had happened a considerable time
ago. A more definite approximation is not possible. As, however, the
Gospel of .John must be considered as the latest of the four, but still be-
longs to the first century, perhaps to the second last decade of that cen-
tury (see Introduction to John, sec. 5), there is sufficient reason to place
the third Gospel within the seventh decade, and the time of the composi-
tion of the Acts cannot be more definitely ascertained. Yet, as there must
have been a suitable interval between it and the Gospel (comp, on i. 3), it
may have reached perhaps the close of the seventh decade, or about the
year 80 ; so that it may be regarded as nearly contemporary with the Gos-
pel of John, and nearly contemporary also with the history of tlie Jewish
' With justice Weiss laj'3 stress on the Acts as being the oldest doctrinal records of
importance of the Petrine speeches in the the apostolic age.
13 IKTRODUCTIO]Sr.
war by Josephus. The vague statement of Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1 (Euseb, v.
8), that Luke wrote his Gosjiel after the death of Peter and Paul, comes
nearest to this definition of the time. On the other hand, the opinion,
which has jirevailed since the days of Jerome, that tlie close of tlie book,
which breaks off before the death of the ajiostle, determines tliis point of
time as the date of composition (so Michaelis, Heinrichs, Riehm, Paulus,
Kuinoel, Schott, Guericke, Ebrard, Lange, and others), while no doubt
most favourable to the interest of its apostolic authority, is wholly unten-
able. That the death of the apostle is not narrated, has hardly its reason
in political considerations (my former conjecture), as such considerations
could not at least stand in the way of a quite simple historical mention of
the well-known fact. But it is to be rejected as an arbitrary supposition,
especially considering the solemn form of the conclusion itself analogous to
the conclusion of the Gospel, that the author was prevented from finishing
the work (Schleiermacher), or that the end has heen lost (Schott). Wholly
unnatural also are the ojiinions, that Luke has, by narrating the diffusion
(more correctly : the Pauline preaching) of the gospel as far as Rome (ac-
cording to Hilgenfeld, with the justification of the Pauline Gentile-church
up to that point), attained his end (see Bengel on xxviii. 31, and especially
Baumgarten ') ; or that the author was led no further by his document (de
Wette) ; or that he has kept silence as to the death of Paul of set jmrjwse
(Zeller), which, in point of fact, would have been stupid. The simplest
and, on account of the compendious and abrupt conclusion, the most natu-
ral hypothesis is rather that, after his second treatise, Luke intended to
write a third (Heinrichs, Credner, Ewald, Bleek). As he concludes his
Gospel with a short — probably even amplified in the textus receptus (see
critical note on Luke xxiv. 51, 53) — indication of the ascension, and then
commences the Acts with a detailed narrative of it ; so he concludes the
Acts with but a short indication of the Roman ministry of Paul and its
duration, but would probably have commenced the third book with a de-
tailed account of the labours and fate of Paul at Rome, and perhaps also
would have furnished a record concerning the other apostles (of whom he
had as yet communicated so little), especially of Peter and his death, as
well as of the further growth of Christianity in other lands. By what
circumstances he was prevented from writing such a continuation of the
history (perhaps by death), cannot be determined.
To determine the place of composition beyond doubt, is impossible.
With the traditional view of the time of composition since the days of
Jerome falls also the certainty of the prevalent opinion that the book was
written in Borne ; which opinion is not established by the reasons assigned
1 So also Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 107 ; (Luke xxiv. 47). See Phil. i. 20. How im-
Otto, geschichU. Verh. d. Pastoral-brief e, p. portant must it therefore have been lor Luke
189. This opinion is unnatural, because it to narrate that issue, if he should not have
was just in the issue of the trial— whether had for the present other reasons for being
that consisted in the execution (Otto) or in silent upon it ! That Luke A:/;«« what became
the liberation of the apostle— that the Paul- of Paul after his two j'ears' residence in
ine work at Rome had its culmination, glori- Rome, is self-evident from the words e/xtit-e
fying Christ and fulfilling the apostolic task £e SuTiav k. t. A., xxviii. 30.
CIIROXOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 13
Oil the i^art of Zellcr, Lekobusch, and Ewald. Still more arbitrary, how-
ever, is its transference to Alexandria (Mill, according to subscriptions in
codd. and vss. of the Gospel), to Antioch, or to Greece (Ililgenfeld) ; and
not less so the referring it to Ilellenie Asia Minor (Köstlin, p. 294).
Eemaek. — The circumstance that there is no trace of the use of the Pauline
Epistles in the Acts, and that on the other hand things occur in it at variance
with the historical notices of these Ejustles, is, on the whole, a weighty argu-
ment against the late composition of the book, as assumed by 13aur, Schwegler,
Zeller, and others, and against its alleged character of a set purpose. How
much matter would the Paulino Epistles have furnished to an author of the
second century in behalf of his ifitentional fabrications of history ! How
much would the Ejdstle to the Romans itself in its dogmatic bearing have
furnished in favour of Judaism ! And so clever a fabricator of history would
have known how to use it, as well as how to avoid deviations from the his-
torical statements of the Pauline Epistles. "What has been adduced from the
book itself as an indication of its composition in the second century (110-130)
is either no such indication, as, for example, the existence of a copious Gospel-
literature (Luke i. 1) ; or is simply imported into it by the reader, such as the
alleged germs of a hierarchical constitution ; see Lekebusch, p. 422 ff.
SEC. IV.— CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ACTS.
Aer. Dion. 31, u.c. 784 (d). The risen Jesus ascends to heaven. Matthias
hecomes an apostle. The outpourinff of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost^ and its
immediate consequences (i. and ii.). — Since, according to the well-founded
assumption that the feast meant at John v. 1 is not a Passover, it must be
considered as certain that the time of the public ministry of J«sus em-
braced no more than three paschal feasts (John ii. 13, vi. 4, xii. flf.), conse-
quently only two years and some months ; ' as it is further certain that our
Lord was not crucified on the 15th, but on the 14th of the month Nisau,
■which fell on a Friday ; * according to tlie researches founded on the
Jewish calendar by Wurm (in Bengel's Arch. II. p. 1 ff., p. 261 ff.) and
Anger {de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione^ Lips. 1833, pp. 80-38), the date laid
down above appears to result as the most probable ("anno 31, siquidem is
intercalaris erat, diem Nisani 14 et 15, anno 33, siquidem vulgaris erat,
diem Nisani 14, anno vero 32 neutrum in Veneris diem incidere potuisse.
Atcjui anno 33, ideo quod ille annum sabbaticum proxime anteccdebat,
Adarus alter adjiciendus erat. Ergo neque annum 32 neque 33 pro ultimo
vitae Christi anno haberi posse apparet," Anger, p. 38). Nevertheless, the
uncertainty of the Jewish calendar would not permit us to attain to any
quite reliable result, if there were no other confirmatory points. But here
» The Fathers, who asgnmed only one year 15th of Nisan as the day of the death of Jesus
for the public ministry of Jesus, considered (so Wieseler, according to whom it happened
His death as occurriDg in tlie yoiir 782, under on Tth April 30) is destitute of historical loun-
the consulship of Eubellius Gcminus and dation, because at variance with the exact
FufiusGeminus, which is not to be reconciled account of John, which must turn the scale
with Luke iii. 1. See Seyffarth, Chronol. a>,'ainst the Synoptical narrative (see ou John
sacra, p. 115 11. sviii. 28).
* Every calculation which is based on the
14: INTRODUCTION.
comes in Luke iii. 1, according to which John appeared in the 15th year
of the reign' of Tiberius, i.e. from 19th August 781 to 19th August 782
(see on Luke, I.e."). And if it must be assumed that Jesus began his
public teaching very soon after the ajjpearance of John, at all events in the
same year, then the first Passover of the ministry of Jesus (John ii. 13)
was that of the year 783 ; the second (John vi. 4), that of the year 783 ;
the third (John xii. ff.), that of the year 784. With this agrees the state-
ment of the Jews on the first public appearance of Jesus in Jerusalem, that
(see on John ii. 20) the temple had been a-building during a period of 46
years. This building, namely, had been commenced in the 18th year of
the reign of Herod the Great {i.e. autumn 734-735). If now, as it was
the interest of the Jews at John ii. 20 to specify as long an interval as
possible, the first year as not complete is not included in the calculation,
there results as the 46th year (reckoned from 735-736), the year from
autumn 781 to autumn 782 ; and consequently as the first Passover, that
of the year 782. The same result comes out, if the first year of the build-
ing be reckoned 734-735, and the full 46 years are counted in, so that
when the words John ii. 20 were spoken, the seven and fortieth year {i.e.
autumn 781-782) was already current.— Aer. Dion. 31-34, u.c. 784-787.
Peter and John, after the healing of the lame man (iii.), are arrested andlrought
hefore the Sanhedrim (iv.) ; death of Ananias and his wife (v. 1-11) ; j!>?'os/>e?'-
iti/ of the youthful church {\. 12-16) ; jjersecution of the cqwstles (v. 17^2).
As Saul's conversion (see the following paragraph) occurred during the
continuance of the Stephanie persecution, so the es^ecution of Stephen is to be
placed in the year 33 or 34 (vi. 8-vii.), and not long before this, the election
of the managers of alms (vi. 1-7) ; and nearly contemporary with that con-
version is the diffusion of Christianitij hij the dispersed (viii. 4), the minis-
try of Philip in Samaria (viii. 5 ff.), and the conversion of the chamherlain
(viii. 26 ff.). "VYhat part of this extraneous activity of the emigrants is to be
placed before, and what after, the conversion of Paul, cannot be deter-
mined. — Aer. Dion. 35, u.c. 788. PauVs conversion (ix. 1-19), 17 years be-
fore the apostolic council (see on Gal. ii. 1). — According to 2 Cor. xi. 32,
Damascus, when Paul escaped thence to betake himself to Jerusalem (ix.
24-26), was under the rule of the Arabian King Aretas. The taking pos-
session of this city by Aretas is not, indeed, recorded by any other author,
but must be assumed as historically attested by that very passage, because
there the ethnarch of Aretas appears in the active capacity of governor of
the city,' and his relation to the TrbliQ Aa^aa/cT/füi' is supposed to be well
1 Not of h\9, joint reign, from which Wiese- moreover, are not sufficiently reliable for an
ler now reckons in Herzog's EncijJcl. XXI. p. exact marking off of the year, to induce us
547. to set aside the year of (he emperor men-
2 In presence of this quite definite state- tioned by Luke, which could only be based
ment of the year of the emperor, the differ- on general notoriety, and the exact speciflca-
ent combinations, which have been made on tion of which regulates and controls the
the basis of the accounts of Josephns con- synchronistic notices in Luke iii. 1 f.
cernlng the war between Antipas and Aretiis 3 Xot merely of a judicial chief of the Ara-
in favour of a later date for the public ap- bian population of Damascus, subordinate to
pearauce of Jesus (34-35; Keim, Oesch. Jesu, the Roman authority (Keim in Schenkel's
I. p. G20 ff.), necessarily give way. These, Bibelkx. I. p. 239.) There is no historical
CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 15
known to the reatlcrs. It is tlicrefore very arbitrary to regard this relation
us a temporary private one, and not as a real dominion (Anger : " forte
fortuna eodem, quo apostolum tempore propter negotia uescio quae Da-
masci versatum esse,'' and that he, either of his own accord or at the recjuest
of the Jews, obtained permission for the latter from the magistrates of
Damascus to watcli the gates). Tlie time, wlien the Arabian king became
master of Damascus, is assigned with much probability, from what Josephus
informs us of the relations of Aretas to the Romans, to the year 37, after
the death of Tiberius in March of that year. Tiberius, namely, had charged
Viteliius, the governor of Syria, to take either dead or alive Aretas, who
had totally defeated the army of Herod Antii)as, his faithless son-in-law
(Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). Viteliius, already on his march against him
(Joseph. I.e. xviii. 5. 3), received in Jerusalem the news of the death of the
emperor, which occurred on the 16th of March 37, put his army into winter
quarters, and journeyed to Kome. Now this was for Aretas, considering
his warlike and irritated attitude toward the Roman power, certainly the
most favourable moment for falling upon the rich city of Damascus — which,
besides, had formerly belonged to his ancestors (Joseph. A/ttt. xiii. 15. 2) —
because the governor and general-in-chicf of Syria was absent, the army
Avas inactive, and new measures were to be expected from Rome. The king,
however, did not remain long in possession of the conquered city. For when,
in the second year of Caligula {i.e. in the year from 16th March 38 to 16th
March 39), the Arabian affairs were regulated (Dio Cass. lix. 9. 13), Damas-
cus cannot have been overlooked. This city was too important for the ob-
jects of the Roman government in the East, to allow us to assume with
probability — what Wieseler, p. 172 ff., and on Gal. p. 599, assumes' — that,
at the regulation of the Arabian affairs, it had only just come by way of
gift into the hands of Aretas, or (with Ewald, p. 339) that according to
agreement it had remained in his possession during his lifetime, so that he
would have to be regarded as a sort of Roman rosml. This, then, limits
the flight of Paul from Damascus to the period of nearly two years from
the summer of 37 to the spring of 39. As, however, it is improbable that
Aretas had entrusted the keeping of the city gates to the Jews in what
remained of the year 37, which was certainly still disturbed by military
movements ; and as his doing so rather presupposes a quiet and sure pos-
session of the city, and an already settled state of matters ; there remains
only the year 38 and the first months of the year 39. And even these first
months of the year 39 are excluded, as, according to Dio Cassius, Lr.,
Caligula apportioned Arabia in the second year of his reign ; accordingly
Aretas can hardly have possessed the conquered city up to the very end of
that year, especially as the importance of the matter for the Oriental inter-
ests of the Romans made an early arrangement of the affair extremely
probable. Every month Caligula became more dissolute and worthless ;
and certainly the securing of the dangerous East would on this account
trace of the relation thus conjecture;!, and » See also his three articles in Ilerzog's
it would hardly have included a juri^^diction Encykl.: AreUts, GalattrbrUf. and ZeiirtcK-
over the Jew Suul. nung, neutest.
16 IXTRODUCTIOIS'.
ratlier be accelerated than delayed. Accordingly, if the year 38 ' be ascer-
tained as that of the flight of Paul, there is fixed for his conversion, be-
tween which and his flight a period of three years intervened (Gal. i. 18),
the year 35. — Aer, Dion. 36, 37, tr.c, 789, 790. Paul laiours as a preacher
of the gospel in Bamasms, ix. 20-23 ; journey to Arabia and return to Da-
mascus (see on ix. 19). — Aer. Dion. 38, u.c. 791. Eis flight from Damascus
a)id first ijourney to Jerusalem (ix. 23-26 fE.), three years after his conversion.
Gal. i. 18. From Jerusalem he makes his escape to Tarsus (ix. 29, 30). —
Aer. Dion. 39-43, u.c. 792-796. The churches throughout Palestine have
peace and prosperity (ix. 31) ; Peter maTces a general journey of visitation (ix.
32), labours at Lydda and Jop^ia (ix. 32-43), converts Cornelius at Caesarea
(x. 1-48), and returns to Jerusalem, where he justifies himself (xi, 1-18).
Cliristianity is preached in PMenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, and in that city
even to the Gentiles, on which account Barnabas is sent thither, who fetches
Paul from Tarsus, and remains withhimfor one year in Antioch (xi. 19-26).
In this year {A.'S) Agahus prredicts a general famine {x\. 27, 28). — Aer. Dion.
44, u.c, 797. After the execution of the elder James, Peter is impriso7ied
without result by Agrippa L, icho dies in August 44 (xii. 1-23). In the fourth
year of the reign of Claudius occurs the famine in Judaea (see on xi. 28),
on account of 'which Paul (according to Acts, but not according to Gal. ii.
1) makes his second journey to Jer^isalem (with Barnabas), whence he 7-etwns
to Antioch (xi. 29, 30, and see on xii. 25). — Aer. Dion. 45-51, u.c. 798-804.
In this period occuis, t\\c first missionary journey of the apostle with Bar-
nabas (xiii. and xiv.), the duration of which is not indicated. Having
returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas remain there xpovov ovk 6?.iyov (xiv.
28). — Aer. Dion. 52, u.c. 805. T?ie third journey of Paul to Jerusalem
(with Barnabas) to the apostolic congress (xv. 1-29), according to Gal. ii. 1,
fourteen years after the first journey. Having returned to Antioch, Paul
and Barnabas sepjarate, and Paul icith Silas commences his second missionary
journey (Acts xv. 30-41).— Aer. Dion. 53, 54, u.c. 806, 807. Continuation
of this missionary journey through Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Qalatia ; crossing
from Troas to Macedonia; journey to Athens and Corinth, where Pual met
with Aquila banished in the year 52 by the edict of Claudius from Rome, and
remained there more (see on xviii. 11) than a year and a half (xvi. 1-xviii.
18). — Aer. Dion. 55, u.c. 808. Fro7n Corinth Paul journeys to Ephesus,
and thence by Caesarea to Jerusalem for the fourth time (xvii. 20-22), from
wliich, without staying, he returns to Antioch (xviii. 22), and thus closes his
second missionary journey. He tarries there xpövov rivü (xviii. 23), and then
commences his third missionary journey through Oalatia and Phrygia (xviii.
23), during which time Apollos is first at Ephesus (xviii. 24 ff.) and then
at Corinth (xix. 1). — Aer. Dion. 56-58, u.c. 809-811. Paul arrives on this
J With this also agrees the number of the assumed for the coinage. The circumstance
year AP of a Damascene coin of King Aretas, that there are extant Damascene coins of
described by Eckhel and Mionnet, namely, in Augustus and Tiberius, and also of Nero, but
so far as that number (101) is to be reckoned none of Caligula and Claudius (see Eckhel, I.
according to the Pompeian era commencing 3, p. 330 f.), is unsatisfactory as evidence of
with 690 u.c.,— and this is at any rate the most a longer continuance of the city under the
probable,— whence the year 38 may be safely power of Aretas, and may be accidental.
CHROISTOLOGICAL SUMMARY. 17
journey at Epiiesus (xix. 1), lohere he lahoursfur not quite three year» (see en
xix. 10). After the tumult of Demetrius (xix. 24-40) he journeys to
Macedonia and Greece, and tarries there three months (xx. 1, 2). — Aer.
Dion. 59, u.c. 812. Having returned in the spring from Greece to
Macedonia (xx. 3), Paul sails after Easter from Philippi to Troas (xx. G), and
from Ahsos hy way of Miletus (xx. 13-38), and Tyre (xxi. 1-G) to Ptolemais
(xxi. 7), thence he journeys hy Caesarea (xxi. 8-14) to Jerusiäem for. the fifth
and last time (xxi. 15-17). Arriving shortly before Pentecost (xx. IG), he is
after some days (xxi. 18-33) arrested and then sent to Felix at Caesarea {xxüi.
23-35). — Aer. Dion. 60, 61, u.c. 813, 814. Paul remains a prisoner in,
Caesarea for two years (from the summer of 59 to tlie summer of Gl) until
the departure of Felix, who leaves him as a prisoner to his successor Festus
(xxiv. 27). Festus, after fruitless discussions (xxv., xxvi.), sends the apostle,
who had appealed to Caesar, to Rome in the autumn (xxvii. 9), on which
journey he winters at Malta (xxviii. 11). — That Felix had retired from
his procuratorship l)efore the year 62, is evident from Joseph. Antt. xx.
8. 9, according to which this retirement occurred while Pallas, the brother
of Felix, was still a favourite of Nero, and while Burrus, the praefecUi^
praetorio, was still living ; but, according to Tac. Ann. xiv. 65, Pallas was
poisoned by Nero in the year 62, and Burrus died in an early month of the
same year (Anger, de temj). rat. p. 101). See also Ewald, p. 52 flE. Further,
that the retirement of Felix took place after the year 60,' is highly probable
from Joseph. Vit. § 8, and from Antt. xx. 8. 11. In the first passage
Josephus informs us that he had journeyed to Rome /uer' emoaTov kuI ektov
kviavTuv of his life, in order to release certain priests whom Felix, during
his (consequently then elapsed) procuratorship («aO' bv xpövov ^Fßi^ t^5
'lov6aiaS eTrerpoKevev), had sent as prisoners thitlier. Now, as Josephus was
born {Vit. § 1) in the first year of Caligula (i.e. in the year from 16th March
37 to 16th March 88), and so the completion of his 26th year fell in the
year from 16th March 63 to IGth March 64, that journey to Rome is to
be placed in the year 63,^ for the sea was closed in the winter months until
the beginning of March (Veget. de re milit. iv. 39.) If, then, Felix had
retired as early as the year 60, Josephus would only have interested himself
for his unfortunate friends three years after the removal of the hated gov-
ernor, — a long postponement of their rescue, which would be quite inex-
1 Not in the year riS, as Lehmann (in the born between 13th September 37 and 16th
Stud und Ki-it. 1858, p. 322 ff.) endeavours to March 38, and therefore the above journey is
establish, but without considering the pas- to be referred not to the year 63, but, as he
sage in Joseph. Vita 3. See, besides, in would not have entered upon it iu the
opposition to Lehmann, Wieseler on Gal. p. autumn, only to the year 64. But this proof
583 f. . is not convincing, as we are at all events
ä Wieseler, p. 98, following Clinton. Anger, entitled to seek the strictly exact statement
and others, has defended the year 64. He of the bii tli of Josephus in the Vita, § 1 (16
appeals especially to a more exact deter- March 37 to Kith March 38), and are not, by
mination of the age of Josephus, which is to the approximate paralKli^m of Antt. xx, 11.
be got from Antt. xx. 11. 3, where Josephus 2, justified in excluding the period from 16th
makes his .56th year coincide with the 13th March to 13th September, 37. Even if Jose-
year of Domitiau (13th September 93 to 13th phus were born in March 37, his ."iC.th year
September 94). Accordingly, Josephus was would still fall in the 13th year of Domitian,
18 INTRODUCTION.
pHcable. But if Felix resigned his government in the year 01/ it was
natural that Josephus should first wait the result of the complaint of the
Jews of Caesarea to the emj^eror against Felix (Joseph. Antt. xx. 8, 10);
and then, when the unexj^ected news of the acquittal of the procurator
came, should, immediately after the opening of the navigation in the year
63, make his journey to Rome, in order to release his friends the priests.
Further, according to Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, about the time of the
entrance of Festus on office {Kara töv Katphv tovtov)^ Po2jj)aea, the mistress
of Nero, was already his wife (yvvjj,) which she became according to Tac.
A)in. xiv. 59, Suet. iVe/-. 35, only in May of the year 62 (see Anger, I.e. pp.
101, 103). Now, if Festus had become already procurator in the year 60,
we must either ascribe to the expression Kara rbv Kaipdv rovrov an undue
indefiniteness, extending even to inaccuracy, or in an equally arbitrary
manner understand ywi/ proIepticaUi/ (Anger, Stölting), or as uxor injusta
(Wieseler), which, precisely in reference to the twofold relation of Poppaea
as the em2;)eror's tnistress and the emjoeror's wife, would appear unwar-
ranted in the case of a historian who was recording the history of his
own time. But if Festus became governor only in the summer of 61, there
remains for töv Kaipdv rovrov a space of not quite one year, which, with the
not sharply definite /cßru «.7.?.., cannot occasion any difliculty. The ob-
jection urged by Anger, ji. 100, and Wieseler, p. 86, on Qal. p. 584 f.,
and in Herzog's EncyM. XXI. p. 557, after Pearson and Schrader, against
the year 61, from Acts xxviii. 16, — namely, that the singular rü crparoireSüpxri
refers to Burrus (who died in the spring of 62) as the sole praefectus
praetorii at the period of the arrival of the apostle at Rome, for before
and after his prefecture there were two prefects,— is untenable, because
the singular in the sense of : the praefectus praetorii concerned (to whom
the prisoners were delivered up), is quite in place. The other reasons
against the year 61, taken from the period of ofiice of Festus and Albinus,
the successors of Felix (Anger, p. 101 £E. ; Wieseler, p. 89 fi.), involve too
much uncertainty to be decisive for the year 60. For although the en-
trance of Albinus upon office is not to be put later than the beginning of
October 62 (see Anger, I.e.), yet the building (completion) of the house of
Agrippa, mentioned by Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 11, ix. 1, as nearly contem-
poraneous with the entrance of Festus on office, and the erection of the
wall by the Jews over against it (to prevent the view of the temple), as
well as the complaint occasioned thereby at Rome, might very easily have
occurred from the summer of 61 to the autumn of 62 ; and against the
brief duration of the high-priesthood of Kabi, scarcely exceeding a month
on this suioposition (Anger, p. 105 f.), the history of that period of rapid
dissolution in the unhappy nation raises no valid objection at all. — Aer.
Dion. 63, 64, u.c. 815-817. Paul arrives in the sprinff of 62 at Pome
(xxviii. 11, 16), where he remains two years (xxviii. 80), that is, until the
spring of 64, in further captivity. Thus far the Acts of the Apostles. —
On the disputed point of a second imprisonment, see on Pom. Introd. p.
15 ff.
1 See also Laurent, neutest. Studien, p. 84 fl.
AUTHORITIES FOR CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 19
Remabk 1.— The great conflagration of Eome under Nero broke out on 19th
July 64 (Tac. Ann. xv. 41), whereupon commenced the persecution of the
Christians (Tac. Ann. xv. 44). At the same time the abandoned Gessius Florus
(64-66), the Nero of the Holy Land, the successor of the wretched Albinus,
made havoc in Judaea.
Eemakk 2. — The Book of Acts embraces the period from a.d. 31 to a.d.
64, in which there reigned as lioman emperors : (1) Ti^eriHs (from I'Jth August
14), until 16th March 37 ; (2) Caligula, until 24th Januaiy 41 ; (3) Claudius,
until 15th October 54 ; (4) Nero (until 9th June G8).
AUTHOEITIES TO WHICH EEFEEENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN THE
FOLLOWING CHEONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Euseb. Chronicon in Mai nova Collect. VIII. p. 374 ff. — Hieron. Chronic, and
de vir. ill. 5. — Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf. — Baronii Annal. ecclesiast. Eom.
1588, and later editions. — Petavius, de doctrina tempor. Par. 1627, in his 0pp.
Amst. 1640.^Cappelli hist, apostolica illustr. Genev. 1634, and later editions.
— Usserii Annal. V. et N. T. Lond. 1650, and later editions. — Fried. Spanheim
(the son of Fried. Spanh.), de convers. Puulinae epocha fixa, in his 0pp. Lugd.
Bat. 1701, HI. p. 311 ff., and his Hist. Eccl. K T. in his 0pp. I. p. 534 £E.—
Pearson, Lection, m priora Act. capita, and Annates Paulin. and in his 0pp.
posthuma, ed. Dodwell, Lond. 1688. — Tillemont, Memoires pour servir a
Vhistoire eccles. Par. 1693, Bruxell. 1694. — Basnage, Aimal. politico-eccles.
Eoterod. 1706, I. p. 403 ff.— J. A. Bengel, ordo tempor. Stuttg. 1741, third edi-
tion, 1770.— Michaelis, Einleit. in d. güttl. tichr. d. N. B. II. § 169.— Vogel, üh.
chronol. Standpunkte in d. LebensgescJi. Pauli, in Gabler's Journ. für attserles.
theol. Lit. 1805, p. 229 S. — Heinrich's Prolegom. p. 45 fP. — The Introductions
of Hug, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt. — Süskind, 7i€uer Versuch über chronol. Stand-
punkte f. d. Ap. Oesch. u. f. d. Lehen Jesu in Bengel's Arch. I. 1, p. 156 if., 2,
-p. 297 fE. Comp, the corrections in Vermischte Aufsätze meist theol. Inhalts,
ed. G. F. Süskind, Stuttg. 1831.— J. E. Chr. Schmidt, Chronol. d. Ap. Gesch.
in Keil's and Tzschirner's Annal. III. p. 128 ff. — Kuinoel, Prolegom. § 7. —
Winer, Bealwörterb. ed. 3, 1848.— De Wette, Einl. § 118.— Schrader, Der Ap.
Paidus, I. Lpz. 1830. — Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, ed. Lücke, Gott. 1830 (agrees
with Hug). — Koehler, üb. d. Abfassungszeit d. epistol. Schriften im, N. T. u. d.
Apokalypse, Lpz. 1830. Comp, the corrections in Animlen der gesammten TJieöl.
Jun. 1832, p. 233 ff. (in Koehler's review of Schott' s Erörterung, etc.).- -Fcil-
moser, Einl. p. 308 ff. — Schott, Isag. § 48. Comp, the corrections in Erörterung
einig, wicht, chronol. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch, d. Ap. Paulus, Jen. 1832. —
Wurm, üb. d. Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paidus in the Tub. Zeitschr. f.
Tlieol. 1833, pp. 1 ff., 261 ff.— Olshausen, bibl. Kommentar. IL— Anger, de tempor.
in Act. ap. ratione, Lpz. 1833. — Wiesel er, Chronologie d. apost. Zeitalt. Gott. 1848,
and Kommentar z. Br. an d. Oal. Gott. 1859, Excurs. p. 553 ff. ; also in Her-
zog's Encykl. XXI. p. 552 ff.— Ewald, Oesch. d, apost. Zeitalt. ed. 3, 1868.— See
also Göschen, Bemerkungen zur Chronol. d. N. T. in the Stud. u. Krii. 1831, p.
701 ff. — Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae emendatione, Eom. 1793. — Ideler,
Handb. d. CVironol. 11. p. 366 ff.
20
INTKODUCTION.
SYNOPSIS OF THE DATES FIXED
A.8cension of Christ, . . 31
Stephen's martyrdom, 33 or 34
Paul's conversion, ... 35
Paul's first journey to Jeru-
salem, 38
Paul's arrival at Autioch, 43^
Death of James 44 ^
The famine, 44
Paul's second journey to ]
Jerusalem,' 441
Paul's first missionary jour- )
ney, 45-51^
Paul's third journey to Je- i
rn*alein, to the apostolic J
Council, 52 I
Paul commences his second \
missionary journey, . .53'^
Expulsion of the Jews from j
Rome ^'^ ]
Paul arrives at Corinth, . 53 -
Paul's fourth journey to Je-
rusalem («^.Caesarea), aud
third missionary journey, 55
Paul's abode at Ephesus, 55-38 ■<
Paul's fifth journey to Jeru-
salem, and imprisonment, 59
Paul's removal from Caes-
area to Rome 61
jPaul's two years' imprison-
I ment at Rome, . . 62-M
32
33
9 I ca r
Ü La
o I . I m
32 '3l'33'33 33 33 33 33 30
a,i^,a,a
Claud
I.
Claud.
II.
Claud.
III.
Claud,
III.
32 .31 37,33
49
Claud
V.
33 39 35
36 42
4042
4141
42 44 44
34 33 37 30
3?
7l31 37?
40 33 ..
42 41 44'44 44
44 |44l45
to 4210 to
47 I 45'46
57
up to
Neri:
IV.
54
under
Nero.
49 ,49 46 53
49 49:46 53
49 49 49 54
50 50
52
Cats.
53
53 52
53
44l44
to I to
47 46
49 51
50 51
40 39
44 42
42'44
41
42 to
44
45 45
to to
47 46
50 47
50,4
about
44
40'54 54?
)l!56, 54?
49
52lto'51 .
52
52 52 51 48
54 53 49
51 56: 56
to to to to, to
55 I54 53 59| 58
56 .55 54 60 1 59
56 56 56^621 60
57 I57j57'63| 61
to to to to to
59 59 59 65 33
54?
54?
54153 50
tolto to
57I55I52
58 56,53
61160 56
to to to
63 62 58
33
36?
33? I 37?
36?
42?
43
31?
35
38
44
44
44
47? 52
53
52? 52
60
62
63
to
65
52?
54?
52
53
54 55
60
I Lehmann (in the Shid. u. Krit. 1858, p. 312 ff.) furnishes from this point onward the follow,
ing dates -.—Second journey to Jerusalem, 44 ; first missionary journt^y, 45 and 46 ; apostolic
council, 47; second missionary journey, 48,— in 49 Paul arrives at Corinth ; fourth journey to
Jerusalem, 51 ; third missionary journey, 52, during which he remains at Ephesus from the
autumn of 52 until 54, and in 55 proceeds to Macedonia and Greece ; fifth journey to Jerusalem,
and imprisonment, 56 ; removal from Caesarea to Rome, 58 ; imprisonment in Rome, 59 to 61.—
These dates chiefly depend on the assumption that Felix had been recalled as early as the year
58.— Laurent, veuted. Stud. p. 94 fE., fixes, with me, on the year 61 as that of the departure of
Felix and the voyage of the apostle. -Gerlach {Statthalter in, Syrien und Judäa, § 14) does not
CHKONOLOGICAL TABLE.
21
BY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGISTS.
a
o
■a
o
u
■6
a
'2.
;3
VI
■3
1
o
a
a
ft
b4
u o
o '3
o
A
S
5
CIU
a
= 4)
-2
ii
n a
32
32
33
37 1
30?
35
30 3S
33
33
31
la
Id.
30 133
37
32
••
or
38
37?
35
36 ..
37
39? 38
37
37
35
or
40
32
41
40
38?
or
39
37 3£
1 37
41
35
38
or
40 38
38
38
38
40
did
40
38
or
43
35
not
43
41
or
42
40 3f
i 40
43
38
41
or
43 41
41
occur.
41
43
43
41
42
44
43
43
or
44
43
41 .
41
or 44
or 45?
43
44 44
44
or
44
or
44
44
44
44
41 .
44
or
44
44 44
44
44
45
01-
44
47?
44
44
.. 4-
I 44
44
or 45
45 to
45
44
or 46?
4-1
46
45
44
44
46
44
44
45
or
45
44
44
41 4-
i 44
45
45
44
to
49
or 45
or 46?
to
44
45 to
46
45 48
45 ff.
40 fE.
to
45? .
to
, .
about
to to
46
46
48
47 51
52
52?
47?
55
52
51
50
or
47
51 5
49
3 or
46
52
61
52
about Vo
50 •"-
51
50
53
53?
51
or
52
47
62 .
52
51
about rc
50 ^~
54?
52
about
4b
about
54
52
52
betw.
53
and
54
49
52 5
3 52
not
before
49
51
or
52
52 5S
about
54
53
48
55?
52
53
52
or
49
52 5
52
3 or
49
53
52
52 53
53
53
56
55
50
Caea.
54
53
or
54
51
54 5
5 Caes.
51
55
54
56
54 55
57
55
50
55
54
to \
5 54
54
56
54
ss
to
to
to
to
or
51 £E.
to
to
and
to
59
58
52
57
55 ff.
7 56
56
57
57
58
60
58
53
59
57
58
or
59
CO
59
58 E
8 59
58
60
58
60
58 59
62
CO
55
Gl
59
60
or
61
61
60 f
1
61
60
62
60
62
60 61
63
61
62
60
61
62
62
61 '(
)1 62
61
63
61
63
61 62
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to t
o to
to
to
to
to
to ito
65
63
64
62
|63
64
1
64
63 6;j 64
1 1 1
63
65
63
65
G4 !C4
(
enter on the chronological question, but fixes on the year 60 or 61.— Holtzraann, Judenth. u.
C'h)-istenth. p. 547 II., agrees in essential points with our dates.— StOlting, B<itr. z. Exegts. d.
Paul. Br. 1869, starting from the assumption that the fourteen years in Gal. ii. 1 arc to be
reckoned from the conversion to the composition of the Epistle, and that so likewise the four-
teen years in 2 Cor. xii. 2 are to be determined, fixes for the conversion of Paul the year 40; for
the first journey to Jerusalem, 43 (for the second, 4.j) ; for the third, 49 ; for the second mis-
sionary journey to Corinth, 50-52 ; for the foi}rth journey to Jerusalem, 52 ; for the arrest, 56;
for the two j-ears' imprisonment, 59 to GJ.
22 IKTRODUCTIOiS".
Note by American Editor.
(D)
Althougli the author contends strongly for the date he assigns for the
ascension, that the feast referred to in John v. 1 was not the Passover, but
the feast of Purim, and hence our Lord's iJublic ministry extended only over
a period of a little more than two years, the exact chronology of the Acts is
still an unsettled question. The great diversity in the chronological table
furnished by him is proof of this. "The exact number of Passovers from
the baptism to the crucifixion of Christ, and the length of our Lord's ministry,
are points on which there is much difference of opinion. For myself I can
see no better view than the old one, that our Lord's ministry lasted three
years." (Byle.)
"What this feast was is, in all probability, a question which, though inter-
esting and important in settling the length of our Lord's ministry, will never
receive a final answer." " The data are clearly insufiicient to decide convin-
cingly how long Christ publicly taught on earth, nor shall we ever be able to
attain any certainty on that deeply interesting question." {Farrar, Ex. VIII.,
Life of Christ. )
Dr. Robinson in his Harmony of the Gospels, and Dr. McDonald, of Prince-
ton, in his Life and Writings of John, both consider the Passover to be re-
ferred to in John v. 1 — as does also Dr. Jacobus in his Notes.
Hackett says : " The chronology of the Acts is attended with uncertainties
which no efforts of critical labor have been able to remove. " And he gives
A.D. 33 as the probable date of the ascension. In this opinion Lewin and
Canon Cooke concur, as does also Dr. P. J. Gloag in the introduction to his
excellent commentaiy. Canon Farrar, in Excursiis X. appended to his Life
and Work of St. Paul, says: "How widely different have been the schemes
adopted by different chronologists, may be seen from the subjoined table,
founded on that given by Meyer. "
" This important book forms the grand connecting link of the Gospels with
the Epistles, being a sort of api^endix to the former, and an introduction to
the latter, and is therefore indispensably necessary to a right understanding of
both.' ' (Bloomßekl. )
' ' Any view which attributes ulterior design to the writer beyond that of faith-
fully recording such facts as seemed important in the history of the Gospel,
is, I am i^ersuaded, mistaken. Many ends are answered by the book in the
course of this narration, but they are the designs of Providence, not the studied
jDuiposes of the writer." {Alford.)
" The purpose of the writer was, evidently, to narrate the work of Christ con-
tinued after his ascension, and wrought through the Holy Spirit, and to fur-
nish his readers with an account of how Christianity, after the death of its
Founder, was preserved, established, and in so short a time communicated to
so many nations. " {Benton.)
The evidential value of the book is very great when considered in relation
to the Gospels, the Epistles of Paul, and the facts of external history ; and its
bearing on the organization, worship, mission work, and future historj' of the
Church is most obvious and important. (See Introductions by Plumptre and by
Howson.)
CBITICAL inOTEä. 23
npdSeii rc^v anoarokaov.
B, Lachm. Tisch, have Trpaieii ütogtö'äuv. So also Born. Later enlarge-
ments of the title in codd. : Aovku evayye?uaTuv wpa^Fii änoaTÜÄLiv, al. al
npa^eii tCjv üyicjv «Tro.Tro/wi'. Peculiar to D ; irpu^iS änoaröluv. X has merely
7r(i«^f<?, but at the close Trpd^eti I'nroaToXwv. — The codex D is particularly rich in
additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended
as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: "Hie liber (the
Book of Acts) in re critica est diflficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo
turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum SjTarum, Bedae et scribae codicis
D omnem modum excedunt." Tisch, justly calls the iJroceeding of Borne-
mann, "monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem" (e).
CHAPTER I.
Vee. 4. ovva?ui;öfi£voi] min. Euseb. Epiph. have cvvavlc^n/ievoi. Eecom-
mended by "Wetst. and Griesb. D has awaTiiaKo/ievoi fier' avruv. Both are
ineptly explanatory alterations. — Ver. 5. The order : iv rrvevfi. ßanr. äyiu, adopted
by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B S<* against ACE min. vss. Or. al. —
Ver. 6. enripÜTuv'] Lachm. Tisch, read ijpüruv, according to A B C* X, the weight
of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails. — Verj 8.
fioL\ Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read tiov, decisively attested by A B C D X Or. —
Instead of Tzän-ri, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read kv ■ndcij. But kv is wanting in A C*
D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding.—
Ver. 10. £ct0//7-< AEVKy'\ A B C S min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have iodiirteai
levKalz. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. is the usual expression.
Comp, on Luke xxiv. 4. — Ver. 13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order
'ludvvrii K. 'lÜKußoS, which is supported by A B C D X min. vss., also Vulg.
and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke vi. 14. — Ver. 14. After npoaivxfi
Elz. has Kni ry öei/aet, which, on decisive testimony, has been omitted by
modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 15. /inOriTüv]
A B C* K min. Copt. Sahid. Acth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have öflf^^wf : recom-
mended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach, and Tisch. ; the Rec. is an
interpretation of ä6e?.<p., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense
of fiaOriT. — Ver. 16. ravTTjv is wanting in A B C* X min. and several vss. and
Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express
passage of Scripture immediately follows. — Ver 17. aw] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read fi- according to decisive testimony ; aw is an interpretation.
— Ver. 19. AKf?.(hiud'] There are different modes of writing this word in the
critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch, read AKe?.(^auux accord-
ing to A B ; Born. 'AKe?.fiaiuax according to D ; X has Axi^<-Oaudx. — Ver. 20.
7iä(ioi\ Lachm. Tisch, and Born, read laßeru according to A B C D K Eus.
Chrys. ; 7.d3oi was introduced from the LXX. — Ver. 24. uf iS;el. « tovt. -tüv 6vo
fpa] Elz. has ek tovt. tüv Svo Iva op e^eA., in opposition to greatly preponderat-
24 CHAP. I., 1-3.
ing testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity. — Ver. 25. tov kT-t/pov}
A B C* D {Ton. tov) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procoj). Aug. read Tuf tüttov.
Adopted bj- Lachm. Tisch. Bom. {töttov töj^). Eightly ; the Bee. is a gloss
according to ver. 17. — äf ^s] Elz. Scholz read s^ ?;?, The former has prepon-
derating testimony. — Ver 26 nvTiöv'] ABC D** X min. vss. have avroli. So
Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the geni-
tive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp. ).
Ver. 1. Tbv fiiv wpuTov Äöyov eixoir/a.] Luke calls his Gospel tlie first history^
inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. npüToi, in the sense of
fipÖTepoi. See on John i. 15. Uyoi, naivative, histo7y, or the like, what is
contained in a book.' As to noieiv used of mental products, comp. Plat.
Phaed. p. 61 B : noieiv /tivOovS, ä/1/l' oi ÄÖyovs. Hence TioyorroioS = ioTopiKÖi."
fiiv, without a subsequent 6e. Luke has broken off the construction.
Instead of continuing after ver. 2 somewhat as follows : "but this 6evTepoi
Tioyos is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension," which
thought he had before his mind in the /lev, ver. 1, — he allows himself
to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the
apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history
itself.3 — -nepl ndvTov] a popular expression of completeness, and therefore
not to be pressed. — div fjp^aro «.t.A.] üv is attracted, equivalent to « ; and,
setting aside the erroneous assertion that rip^aTo notelv is equivalent to
tnoii^ae (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained :
"what Jesus began to do and to teach {and cantinued) vntil the day,'''' etc.,
as if Luke had written : üv äp'^d/uevo'i 'ItjoovS inoirjae k. h^lSa^ev ü^pi k.t.'K.
Comp. xi. 4.'' But Luke has not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to
explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger,
has maintained that yp^aTo denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His as-
cension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as
the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only hegun by Jesus
up to His ascension ; as if Luke had written f/p^aTo -kolüv ts koI öiödaKuv.^
In point of fact, jjp^aro is inserted according to the very frequent custom
of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid and
graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus
here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several
incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as
doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the
Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and
1 So in Xen. Ages. 10. 3, Anah. iii. 1. 1, and Winer, p. 677 (E. T. 775) ; Buttm. p. 320 (E.
frequently. See also Schweigh. Lex. Herod. T. 374) ; Lekebusch, p. 202 f. So also in
II. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. substance Hackett, Commentary on the Orig-
a Pearson, ad Moer. p. 244. inal Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston,
a Comp. Winer, p. 535 (E. T. 720); Buttm. 1858, ed 2
neut. Gr. p. 313 (E. T. 365); Kühner, ad Xen. ^ As Xen. Cyr. viii. 8. 2 : öpfo^ai SiSöo-kwv,
Anah. i. 2. 1; Baeuml. Partik. p. 163 f. I aball begin my teaching, Plat. Theaet. p.
* Plat. Legg. vii. p. 807 D; Xen. Anab. vi. 187 A, Mencx. p. 237 A ; comp. Krüger, § 56.
4.1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also Luke xxiii. 5, 5, A 1,
xxiv. 27, 47 ; Acts i. 32, viii. 35, x. 37. So also
REFERENCE TO TUE GOSPEL. 25
teaching, — a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various
instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis,
moreover, lies on nouLV re koI ihödaKetv, Avhich comprehends the contents of
the Ooxpcl.^ It may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: " The
ßrst nurrative I have composed of all t/tat, bij tphich Jesus exhibited Mis activity
in doing and teaching during His earthly life ^^p to Ilis ascension.'''' ■jrouiv
precedes, comp. Luke xxiv. 19, because it was primarily the epya of'Jesus
that demonstrated His Messiahship, John x. 38 ; Acts x. 38.
Ver. 2. Until the day on which He was taken up, after that He had com-
missioned by tneans of the Holy Spirit the apostles whom He had chosen, belong-
ing to ÜV I'lp^aro K.T.Ä. — axpi r/J Ti/iepas] a usual attraction, but to be ex-
plained as in ver. 23 ; Luke i. 20, xvii. 27 ; Matt. xxiv. 38. — evTEi}.d/LiEvoi\
refers neither merely to the baptismal command, Matt, xxviii., nor merely to
the injunction in ver. 4 ; but is to be left as general : having given them
charges, " ut facere soleut, qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo disce-
duot," Beza. — ^iä nvevß. äyiov] belongs to IvtelX. toU aTroar.: by means of
the Holy Spirit, of which He was possessor (Luke iv. 1, xiv. 18 ; Johniii.
34, XX. 22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so specially
as regards His disciples (ix. 55). Yet it is not to be explained as : by com-
munication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel), since this is not promised till after-
wards ; nor yet as : quae agei'e deberent per Spir. S. (Grot.), which the words
cannot bear. Others - connect 6iu. nvev/j. üy. with ovi k^eTitiaro, quos per Sp.
S. elegerat. But there thus would result a hyperbaton which, without any
certain example in the N. T.,''' would put a strong emphasis and yet without
any warrant in tlie context, on 6i.u tvv. üyiov.* — ois t^e/^.f^.J is added with
design and emphasis ; it is the significant premiss to kvTsdäß. k.t.X. (whom
He had chosen to Himself) ; for the earlier Uloyi} on the part of Jesus was a
necessary preliminary to their receiving the kvToÄr) öiä nv. üy. — ävE'kq<pUri\
Luke ix. 51, xxiv. 51 (Elz.).
Ver. 3. OiS Kul] to ichom also. To the foregoing oiis e^e/le^., namely, there
is attached a corresponding incident, through which the new intercourse,
in which the evreiXaijevoi k.t.7^. took place, is now set forth. — iiträ to
nafieiv avrbv] includes in it the death as the immediate result of the
suffering (iii. 18, xvii. 3, xxvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 12). — (5i' v^ip. TtoaapaK.]
He, showed Himself to them throughout forty days, (f) not continuously, but
from time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well known by the
preceding ev ttoZA. TCKuripioii. — ra irepl rrj? ßaa. r. Qeov] speaking to thoiu
that lohich related to the Messinh^s kingdom, which He would erect. The
Catholics have taken occasion hence to assume that Jesus at this stage
gave instructions concerning the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, and
the like. — As to the variation of the narrative of the forty days from
the narrative given in the Gospel, see on Luke xxiv. 50 f. This diversity
1 Ck)mp. Papiasin Eus. iii. 39. ' Winer, p. .517 (E. T. G9f)) ; Buttm. neitt.
" Syr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Gr. p. 833 (E. T. 388).
Scaliger, Hcumann, Kypke, Michaelis, Ro- « Plat. Apol. p. 19 D, al. ; Di.-^sen, <i<l Dem.
eenmüller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshauscn, de de cor. p. 177 f. ; and see on Rom. svi. :;7.
Wette.
26 CHAP. I., 4-11.
presupposes that a not inconsiderable interval occurred between the
composition of the GosjdcI and that of Acts, during which the tradition
of the forty days was formed or at least acquired, currency. The purposely
chosen onTavd/uevo'^ conspicienditm se jjraebens^ corresponds to the changed
corporeality of the Risen One (comp, the remark subjoined to Luke xxiv.
51), but does not serve in the least degree to remove that discrepancy
(in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 12), as if it presupposed that Jesus, on
occasion of every appearance, quitted "the sphere of invisibility."
Comp, the «j^ö;? in Luke xxiv. 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5 if. ; comp, with John
XX. 17 ; Acts i. 21 f., x. 41 ; Luke xxiv. 42 f.
Ver. 4. To the general description of the forty days' intercourse is
now added by the simple Kai, and, in particular, the description of the
two last interviews, ver. 4 f. and ver. 6. If., after which the ai'£lrj<pBj]
took JDlace, ver. 9. — avpaÄi^ö/i. napjjyy. avTois] tchile He ate with them, He
commanded them. avva?u(6n. is thus correctly understood by the vss.
(Vulg. : co7ivescens), Chrysostom (TpaTTE^Tjs kowuvuv), Theophylact, Oecume-
nius, Jerome, Beda, and others, including Casaubon. — cwalH^eadat. (prop-
erly, to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in
a Greek translator of Ps. cxli. 4, where owaXiaOu (LXX. : avvövdau)
corresponds to the Hebrew DH/'*, also in Clem. Horn. 6, and Maneth. v.
339. As to the thing itself, comp, on x. 41. Usually the word is de-
rived from avfaTil^eiv, to assemble.'' It would then have to be rendered;
lohen He assembled with them.^ But against this it is decisive that the
sense : when He had assembled with them, would be logically necessary, so
that Luke must have written awaXi.rjßsi'^. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis :
cvvaÄiCoßEvot.i, is completely unnecessary, although approved by Valckenaer.
— T^v kirayye'Xiav tov irarpoi] see On Luke xxiv. 49. Jesus means the promise
kqt' i^oxr/v, given by God through the prophets of the O. T. (comp. ii.
16), which, i.e. the realization of which, they were to wait for (TTepijuepeiv
only here in the N. T., but often in the classics) ; it referred to the
cmnplete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was to follow only after
His exaltion. Comp. John vii. 39, xv. 26, xiv. 16. Already during
their earthly intercourse the nvev/ia ay. was communicated by Jesus to
the äisciTp^es partially and p)'>'ovisionally . Luke ix. 55 ; John xx. 21, 22. —
' 7jv TjKovaaTe /zouj The oblique form of speech is changed, as frequently also
in the classics,* with the increase of- animation into the direct form, Luke
v. 41, and elsewhere, particularly with Luke.* Bengel, moreover, aptly
says: " Atque hie parallelismus ad arctissimum nexum pertinet utriusque
libri Lucae," — but not in so far as ^yi' ijnova. fj,ov jmints back to Luke xxiv.
49 as to an earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus
> Comp. Tob. xii. 19 ; 1 Kings viii. 8. had employed the active. This is gram-
2 Herod, v. 15. 102 ; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 48 ; matically incorrect ; it must tlien have been
Lucian, Ltict. 7. uwaMiuiv, or, with logical accuracy (as Luther
3 Not as Luther (when He had assembled felt), o-vj/aAiaas.
them), Grotius ("in unum recolligeus qui •» gtallb. a«? Proteg'. pp 3220,338 B, Kühner,
dispersi fuerunt "), and most interpreters, § 850.
including even Kuinoel and Olshausen (not * See Buttm. neuf. Gr. p. 330 (E. T. 385).
Beza and de Wette), explain it, as if Luke
LAST WORDS OF JESUS. 27
here, shortly before his ascension, gives the same intimation which was also
given by Him on the ascension day (Luke xxiv. 49), directly before the
ascent ; although according to the gospel the day of the resurrection coin-
cides with that of tlic ascension (u, p. Cj. Thtrcforc 7/1' j/Kola. /idv is to be
considered as a reference to a former promise of the Spiiit, not recardeil Inj
Luke. Comp. John xiv. 10 f., xv. 26. — On ükovelv tI nvoi, see Winer, p.
J 87 (E. T. 249).
Ver, 5. Reminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist, Luke iii. IG ; John
i. 33. "For on you the baptism of the Spirit will now soon take place
which John promised instead of his baptism of water." — ßa'rTiaOijntaOe] ti/v
inixvaLV Koi tov ttaovtoii r/yS j^fopny/aS Grj/xaiuti., Theophyl. ; Matt. iii. 11 ;
Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. IG ; Acts xi. IG. Moreover, comp, on John i. 33. —
ov fierä 'nroTiX. ravr. Tjßtp.] is not a transposition for ov ttoIv fierd ravr. ij/xep.,
but : not after many of these, now and, up to the setting in of the future
event, still current, days.^ The position of the negative is to be explained
from the idea of contrast, not after many, but after few.'^
Ver. G. Not qui convenerant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as if what
follows still belonged to the scene introduced in ver. 4 ; but, as is evident
from avva'Ait^., ver. 4, comp, with ver. 12, a neic scene, at which the ascen-
sion occurred (ver. 9). The word of promise spoken by our Lord as they
were eating (vv. 4, 5), occasioned {u-lv ovv) the apostles to come together,
and in common to approach Him with the question, etc. Hence : They,
therefore, after they were come together, asked Him. Where this joint asking
occurred, is evident from ver. 12.' To the //fp corresponds the <5f'in ver. 7.
— ff 7tj ;^;p6i'u K.T.A] The disciples, acquainted with the O. T. promise, that
in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy Spirit would be poured
out (Joel iii. 1, 2 ; Acts ii. IG ff.), saw in ver. 5 an indirect intimation of
the now impending erection of the Messianic kingdom ; comp, also
Schneckenburger, p. 1G9. In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain in-
formation concerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask :
^^ Lord, if Thou at this time rcstorest the (fallen) Tcingdom to the people Israel?''''
The view of Lightfoot, that the words were spoken in indignation'' simply
introduces arbitrarily the point alleged. — e't\ unites the question to the
train of thought of the questioner, and thus imparts to it the indirect
character. See on Matt. xii. 10, and on Luke xiii. 23. — cv rw ;<;/'• ■'■«"''ry]
i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume from ver. 4 f.
— aTTo/caOtcT.] See on Matt. xvii. 11. By their rtj 'lapurj'k they betray
that they have not yet ceased to be entangled in Jewish Messianic
hopes, according to which the Messiah was destined for the people of
> Comp. Winer, p. 152 (E. T. 201). that no discnssions intervened which would
= Sec Kühner, II. 628. On raOra?, inserted have diverted them from this definite inquiry
between ttoAA. and Vj/nep., comp. Xen. Anab. as to the time. Therefore it was probably
iv. 2. 6, V. 7. 20, vli. 3. 30 ; Dem. 90. 11 ; Ale. on the same day. The toutu is thus ex-
1. 14. plained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that
' Concerning the time of the question, this oi iJ-ito. iroAA. tout, »j/x
expression kv rii xpovw tout<i> gives so far in- < -'Itane n'/ncregnnmrestitnes Judaeisillis,
formation that it mnst have occurred very gui te cruci affixiruni ? "
soon after that meal mentioned m ver. 4, so
28 CHAP. I., 4-11.
Israel as such ; comp. Luke xxiv. 21. An artificial explanation, on,
the other hand, is given in Hofmann, ScJiriftbeic. II. 2, p. 647. — The cir-
cumstance that, by the declaration of Jesus, ver. 4 f., their sensuous expec-
tation was excited and drew forth such a rash question, is very easily ex-
plained just after the resurrection, and need occasion no surprise hefoi'e the
reception of the Spirit itself ; therefore we have not, with Baumgarten,
to impute to the disciples the reflection that the communication of the
Spirit would be the necessary internal ground for all the shaping of the
future, according to which idea their question, deviating from the tenor
of the promise, would be precisely a sign of their understanding.
Ver. 7 f . Jesus refuses to answer the question of the disciples ; not indeed
in respect of the matter itself involved, but in respect of the time inquired
after, as not beseeming them (observe the emp'^atic oix ifJ-üv ) ; and on the
contrary ( aA'Au) He turns their thoughts, and guides their interest to their
future official equipment and destination, which alone they were now to
lay to heart. Chrysostom aptly says : öiöaaKÜ'Xov tovto ean ßfj ä ßoHerai 6
fiaOrjTtjS, ü?.2.' ä avfi(pepei /uadslv, öiöuaKeiv. — xpövov'i ?} Kaipovz] times or, in order
to denote the idea still more definitely, seasons, «cipos is not equivalent to
Xpovo'i^ but denotes a definite marTced off portion of time with the idea of fit'
ness.^ On //, which is not equivalent to /en«, comp, here Dem. Ol. 3:
riva ycip xpöfov rj riva Kaipov tov napuvToS ßeÄrlu ^Tireire ;—'tQ£TO ev tj) ISla k^ovaia]
has estaMisJied hy means of His own plenitude of power. On £v, comp. Matt. xxi.
23. — The lohole declaration (ver. 7) is a general proposition, the application of
which to the question put by the disciples is left to them ; therefore only in.re-'
spect of this ajyplication is an ad hanc rem perficiendam to be mentally supplied
with eOfTo. Bengel, however, well observes: "gravis descriptio ?'fse?Ta^i di-
vini ;" and " ergo res ipsa firma est, alias nullum ejus reitempus esset." But
this res ipsa was, in the view of Jesus, which, however, we have no right to put
into the question of the disciples, in opposition to Hofmann,^ the restoration
of the kingdom, not for the natural, but for the spiritual Israel, compre-
hending also the believing Gentiles (Rom. iv. 9), for the 'lapaijl tov Oeov
(Gal. vi. 16) ; see Matt. viii. 11 ; John x. 16, 26, viii. 42 ff. al ;
and already Matt iii. 9 ; — 6vva/uiv (neW too äy. nv. ecp' vpd?,] po«'e?', when
the Holy Spirit has (shall have) come upon yoii.^ — iiüpTvpe<i\ namely, of
my teaching, actions, and life, what ye all have yourselves heard and seen,
V. 21 f., X. 39 ff. ; Luke xxiv. 48 ; John xv. il.—iv ts Ifpowa^. . . . t?/S r?;?]
denotes the sphere of the apostles' work in its commencement and prog-
ress, up to its most general diffusion ; therefore y^S yr/S is not to be
explained of the land, but of the earth ; and, indeed, it is to be observed
that Jesus delineates for the apostles their sphere ideally. Comp. xiii. 47 ;
Isa. viii. 9 ; Rom. x. 18 ; Col. i. 23 ; Mark xvi. 15.
Ver. 9. Kai i/f^f7j?J This nai annexes what occurred after the eTrripd?], He teas
taTcen up on high, not yet immediately into heaven. The cloud, which re-
ceived Him into itself, from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation
' See Thorn. Mag. p. 489 f. ; Tittm. Synon. ^ Schriftbeio. II. 2. p. 647.
N. T. p. 41. ' Winer, p. 119 (E. T. 156).
THE ASCENSION. ' 29
of the presence of God, "who takes to Himself Tlis Son into the glory of
heaven. Comp, on Luke i. 35 ; Matt. xvii. 5. Chrysostom calls this
cloud TO uxvh-"- TO ßa(n?.iKui>. — Concerning the ascension itself, "which "was cer-
tainly bodili/, but the occurrence of "which has clothed itself with Luke in the
traditionary form of an external visible event (according to Dan. vii. 13 ;
comp. ]\Iatt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. G4.' The representation of the scene betrays a
nu/re developed tradition than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Öchnec-
kenburger : sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation ; Baumgarten :
that the exalted Christ "was to appear as the acting subject properhj speaking
in the further course of the Book of Acts). Nothing of this kind is in-
dicated.
Vv, 10, 11. 'Ar£i'«Coi'-e; 7/CTai'] expresses continuance: they icere in fix&l
gazing. To this (not to Tvopevofz. avT.) tli rdv ovpavov belongs.^ Strangely
erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 13 : that to5 is not
temporal, hut as if : "they wished to fix the blue (?) heaven, which one
cannot fix." — iropevo/xtvov avrov] whilst He, enveloped by the cloud, was
departing (into heaven). — «ai l6ov\ as in Luke vii. 13, Acts x. 17 ; not as an
anacoluthon, but: behold also there ! ^ — The men are characterized as in-
habitants of the heavenly world,'' angels, who are therefore clothed in irhife.
See on John xx. 13. — ol ko.} elnov] who (not only stood, but) also said : comp,
ver. 3. — tI kaTTjuaTE K.T.l.] The meaning is : " Remain now no longer sunk
in aimless gazing after Him ; for ye are not for ever separated from this
Jesus,' who will so come even as ye have seen Him go away into heaven."
— oürus] i.e. in the same manner come down from heaven in a cloud as He
was borne up. Comp. Matt. xxiv. 30. — On the emphasis ovrui, bv Tpunov^
comp, xxvii. 35 ; 3 Tim. iii. 8.
Ver. 13. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, which is not
only here, but also in Luke xix, 29, xxi. 37, called tÄaiüv.^ Its locality is
indicated in Luke xxiv. 50, not differently from, but moj'e exactly than in
our passage (in opposition to de Wette and others) ; and accordingly there
is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypothesis that the Sabbath-day's
journey is to be reckoned from Bethphage. " It is not the distance of the
2)lace of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on which it occurred, tliat
is meant. Luke here supposes that more precisely defined locality as already
known ; but if he had had any particular design ^ in naming the Mount of
Olives, he must have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus
would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially as the Moimt
of Olives yvus, already sufficiently known to him from the Gospel, xix. 29,
xxi. 37, without any such latent reference. — caSiSdrov ixov ö66v] having «
1 See remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51. But if tlic tradition had meant tfifse—nnd in
2 Comp. iii. 4. vi. 1.'), vii. 55, xi. C, xiii. 9 ; 3 tliat case it would certainly have named them
Cor. iii. 7, 13. rci oipai-w might also have —Luke would hardly have left them unnamed,
stood, Luke iv. 20, xxii. 50 ; Acts iii. 12, x. Comp, rather Luke xxiv. 4 ; Acts x. 30.
4, xxiii. 1. See generally, "Valck. Sdtol. p. * See on Luke xix. 29.
309 ff. Comp. Polyb. vi. 11. t. * Wieseler, Synop. p. 435.
» See Nägelsbach, s. Bias, p. 164, ed. 3. ' Baumgarten, p. 28 f. : that he wished to
4 According to Ewald, we are to think on lead their thoughts to the future, according
Moses and Elias, as at the transfiguration. to Ezek. xi. 23 ; Zech. xiv. 6.
30 CHAP. I., 12-14.
SabbaWs way. The way is conceived as something which the mountain
has, i.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbourhood of
Jerusalem. Such is — and not with Wetstem and Kuinoel : exeiv pro a-Kixstv
— the correct view also in the analogous loassages in Kypke, II. p. 8. The
more exact determination of o ianv tyyvi 'Itpova. is here given ; hence also
the explanation of Alberti ' and Kypke, that it expresses the extent of the
mountain {Sabbati coiistatis itinere), is contrary to the context, and the use
of Ex^i-^ is to be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esse.^
— A ödöi aaßßdTov, a journey permitted on the Sabbath,^ according to the tra-
ditionary maxims, was of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matt. xxiv.
20. The different statements m Joseph. Antt. xx. 8, 6 (six stadia), and
Bell. Jud. V. 2. 3 (five stadia), are to be considered as different estimates
of the small distance. Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem,^ hence
the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond the ridge of the
mountain on its eastern slope.
Vv. lo, 14. Elajf/.Oov\ not: into their 2)1« ce of meeting, as Beza and others
hold, but, in accordance with what immediately jjrecedes : into the city.
The simple style of a continued narrative. — t6 virspuov'^ "^t^-^-i the room
directly under the fiat roof, used for praying and for meetings.^ It is here
to be conceived as in a jn'ivate house, whose possessor was devoted to the
gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and
Krebs, as an ujiper room in the temple (on account of Luke xxiv. 53 ; see
on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the
temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor iiermitted to
them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same
room as in John xx. 19, 26. — oi r/cav Karafi.] wliere, i.e. in which they were
wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following
Ö TE HerpoS k.t.7.. is a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of
uveßrjaav. According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were
present at the ascension. In the Gospel, xxiv. 33, comp. vv. 36, 44, 50,
the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded ; but according to
Mark xvi. 14, comp. vv. 15, 19, 20, it is likewise only the Eleven. — As to
t\x& list of the apostles, comp, on Matt. x. 2^ ; Mark iii. 17, 18; Luke vi.
14-16. — 6 ^TjTiUTrii] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matt. x. 4. — 'lov6a<i
'Ia«w/3oi;J the relationship is arbitrarily defined as : brother of the (younger)
James. It is : son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luke vi.
15 ; John xiv. 22 ; and Huther on Jude, Introd. g 1. Already the Syriac
gives the correct rendering. — öjio^v^a66v] denotes no mere external being-
together ; but, as Luther correctly renders it : unanimously. " — avv ywai^f^
» Ad Luc. ssiv. 13. * Hieros. Sotah, f . 24. 2. See Lightfoot, p.
2 Herrn. adVig. p. 753. 11. f., and Vitnuga, Synag. p. 145, and con-
3 According to Schneckenburger, in the cerning the uord generally, which is very
Stud. u. Kril. 185a, p. 502, this statement common with classical writers and not a com-
presupposes that the ascension occurred on pound, see Valckenaer, Schal, p. 317 f. ; Lo-
the Sabbath. But the inference is rash, and beck, Elem. I. p. 452 1.
without any historical trace. ° Comp. Dem. Phil. IV. 147 : 6fi.odviJ.aSov e«
* John xi. 16. See also Kobinson, II. p. /aiäs yf w^'?«. So throughout in Acts and
309 f. Rom. XV. 6.
RETUßN TO JERUSALEM. 3l
along with tcomcn ; not : cvm iLrorihus (as Calvin holds) ;^ they are partially
known from the Gospels; Matt. xxvi. 5G, Gl ; Luke viii. 2 f., xxiv. 10;
Mark xv. 40 f. — Kal Mapig.] icai, aluo, singles out, after the mention in gen-
eral terms, au individual belonging to the class asworthy of special remark."
— äöeXipoli] The unbelief 'of the four brothers-german (g) of the Lord was
very probably overcome by His resurrection. Comp, on 1 Cor. xv. 7. Ob-
serve that here, IcufJes the eleven apostles, two other classes are specified as
assembled along with them (cryj' . . . kuI aw), namely (a), ww^e«, including
the mother of Jesus ; and (h) the h-ethren of Jesus. Among the latter,
therefore, none of those eleven can be inchided. This, in ojiposition to
Lange, Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp, on John vii. 3.
Ver. 15. 'Ep TOiS iifiip. rav-.'] between the ascension and feast of Pente-
cost. — ITerpoS] even now asserting his jOTsition of primacy in the apostolic
circle, already apparent in the Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus
Himself. — tüv ä(h?.(p<:)v (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the
Book of Acts and the Epistles, the GJiristians according to their brotherly
fellowship ; hence here (see the following parenthesis) both the apostles
and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense. — övo/zar.] oi persons, who are
numbered.* — There is no contradiction between the number 120 and the
500 brethren in 1 Cor. xv. 6 (in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who suppose
the number to have been invented in accordance with that of the apostles :
,12 X 10), as the appearance of Jesus in 1 Cor. I. c, apart from the fact that
it may have taken place in Galilee, was earlier, when many foreign believers,
pilgrims to the feast, might have been present in Jei-usalem, who had now
left.* — iTTt rd avTo] locally united."
Vv. 16, 17. 'Avf^pfS äÖEA<poi is more honourable and solemn than the
simple familiar (l<h^(l)oi.'' — eöei] It could not but be an especial object
with Peter to lay the foundation for his judgment, by urging that the de-
struction of Judas took place not accidentally, but necessarily accoi-ding to
the counsel of God. — t^v -ypa^^v 7av-riv\ this which stands written — comp, on
viii. 35 — is not, with Wolf and Eckermann, to be referred to Ps. xli. 10 (John
xiii. 18, xviii. 3), because otherwise that passage must have been adduced ;
but to the passages contained in ver. 20, which Peter has already in view,
but which he only introduces — after the remarks which the vivid thoughts
crowding on him as he names Judas suggest — at ver. 20 in connection with
what was said immediately before. — ö-t KaTTip.] on is equivalent to fJs cKelvo,
on (Mark xvi. 14 ; John ii. 18, ix. 17 ; 3 Cor. i. 18, al). If Judas had not
the apostolic office, the ypa^TJ referred to, which predicted the very
1 See also Calovius and others, not uninter- nachapost. Zeilalt. p. 275 f. ; Baumgarten, p.
ested iu opposing celibacy. 29 f.
^ See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11. « Comp. ii. 1, iii. 1 ; Luke xvii. 35 ; Matt.
3 See on Matt. xii. 46, siil. 55; Mark \i. 3; xxii. 34 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5, xi. 20, xiv. 23 ; Hist.
John vii. 5. Snsann. 14; often also in the LXX. and in
* Comp. Ewald, ad Apoo. 3. 4. Tho ex- Greek writers. See Raphel, Polyb., and
pregsion is not good Greek, but formed after Loesner.
the Hebrew, Num. i. 2, 18, 20, iii. 40, 43. ' See ii. 29, 37, vii. 2, al. Comp. Xen. .Ina*.
5 Comp. Wiescler, Ä)/wop«. p. 434, and see i. 6. G : <Iv6p69 <^tAoi. See generally Sturz, i«x.
on 1 Cor. XV. 6 ; also Lechler, apost. u. Xen. I. p. 238.
33 CHAP. I., 15-22.
■Bacating of an apostolic post, would not have been fulfilled iu his fate. This ful-
filment occurred in his case, inasmuch, as he was an apostle. — tuv K'Afip. rrjs öiük.
ravT.] the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the a2JOstolic
office. Comp. Rom. xi. 13. ö K^iypoi is primarily the lot, ver. 26, then that
which is assigned l>y lot, and then generally tohat is assigned, the share ; just
as in Greek writers.' Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an
antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of*Canaan. The gen-
itive is to be ttiken j)artitivehj — share in this ministry — as the idea of apostolic
fellowship, in which each Kl7]povxo'=i has therefore hiä partial possession in the
service, also occurs in the sequel (see vv. 22, 2G). — 7MyxuvEtv here not, as
in Luke i. 9, with the partitive genitive, but, as is usual (2 Pet. i. 1), with
the accusative of the object." The word is the usual term for obtaining hy
lot, as in Luke i. 9 ; it next signifies generally to oMain, and is especially
used of the receiving of public magistracies.^ So here in reference to r.
K/ii/p. T. 6ia\. ravT. • in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical
constitution (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the iisus loquendi of
the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the thought of the
actual use of the lot which afterwards took jilace.
Ver. 18. This person now acquired for himself a field foi' the wages of his
iniquity — a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers :
for tlie 'money lohich Judas had received for his treason, a place, a piece of land,
was pxircliased. Matt, xxvii. 6-8. This rhetorical designation, purposely
chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas, ^ clearly proves that ver. 18
is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to
the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks : ifimov noisl rdv
7i6yov Kal Xavdavövru'i ttjv alrlav TTaiöevTCKTjv oiaav änoKa'ÄvTTTEi. To go further,
and to assume — what also the fragment of Papias in Cramer's Cat. narrates
— that the death of Judas took place in the field itself,^ is not warranted by
any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others,
such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct
literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew,
that Judas himself had actually purchased the field ; although it is im-
probable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason,
and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase
of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of
Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed. — Koi'Kprivfji yevon., etc.] «at is
the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By
■Kpr]V7ji ■yevd/x.'^ k.t.1., the death of Judas is represented as a violent yrtZZ,' and
bursting. The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known,
1 Comp. Acts viii. 21, sxvi. 18 ; Wisd. ii. 9, ^ ETofm. Weissag. 2i. Erf. 11. p. 134 ; Baumg.
v. 5 ; Ecelus. xxv. 19. p. 31 ; Laiigo.
''■ See Bernhardy, p. 176 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. o Which cannot be rendered syspenstis
n. p. 2. (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio).
3 Dem. 1.306. 14 ; Plat. (forg. p. 473 E. ' i-pi)t'^5, headlong : the opposite vtttios,
* Beza aptly remarks that the mode of ex- Horn. 11. xi. 179, xxiv. 11.
pression affirms " nou quid conatus sit Judas,
sed consiliorum ipsius eventum.''''
ADDRESS OF I'ETER 33
but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliiition with Matthew —
that the r()i)e, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and tliat thus
what is here related occurred — is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing.
Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it
pointed to suicide (n). The twofold form of the tradition, and in Papias there
occurs even a third,^ does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhis-
torical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner
of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matt, x.wii. 5. — iAÜKTias] he cracked,
burst in the midst of his body — a rhetorically strong expression of bursting
with a noise.''
Ver. 19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the above
mentioned expositors,' as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the
speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the com-
plete description of the curse of the action of Judas : eye^tTo forms with
iläicjiae and i^exvOrj^ ver. 18, one continuously flowing representation, and
yvuaTöv . . . 'IfpovCT. is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that
of simple narration. But ry irf/a öinAeKTcj avrüv* and roör' iari x^P- '*'/'•
are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and
Peter's own words might be trusted to the reader ; for it is self-evident
(in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not
Greek but Aramaic. — yvwffröv Eyty. J namely, what is stated in ver. 18. —
6aTt] so thnt, in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this
bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known. According to our
passage, the name " field of blood " (»<"?'^ 7pri, comp. Matt, xxvii. 8) was
occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose v?ages of iniquity the
field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody — accordmg to others, on
the field itself (see on ver. 18). The passage in Matthew, I.e., gives
another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means
improbable that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned,
first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destina-
tion of being a ;t"P''"^ fvra^z/v«; •,^ hence Peter might even now quote this
name in accordance with the design of his speech. — ikuy^eKm^ in the N.
T. only in Acts, a mode of sj^eaJcing, may express as well the more general
idea of language, as the narrower one of dialect.'^ In both senses it is often
used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium.''
In all the passages of Acts it is dicdect, and that, excepting at ii. 6, 8,
the Aramaic, although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its
more precise definition by the context.
^ See on Matt, xxvii. 5, and comp. Introd. tion between thcsetwo ideas : "Ilabent omnea
Bee. 1. (lialecli aliqnid inter Be commune; habent
!" Horn. 7/.xiii. GIO; Act. Thorn. 37.— ffexuörj] enim omiies «andern niigiiam matrom, sed
Comp. Ae\.Aiiim.\v.ü2 : TO. <nr\äyxva(iix^°"'- diakctiim eflicit, quod habent singulae pe-
3 AWo Schleierm. Einl. p. 372. culiare sibi." The Greeks al.so employ «/.ufij
* avTUiv : of the dwellers of Jerusaifm (who in both senses (see also Clera. Al. Slrotn. i.
fpoke the Aramic dialect), spoken from the 21, p. 404. Pott).
standiioint of Luke and Theophilus,'- quorum 'Plat. Symp. p. 203 A. Theaet. p. 146 B.
alter Graccescriberot alter legeret," Erasmus. pronuntiatio (Dem. 982. 18), sermo (Arist.
* Ae-chin. i. 09 ; Matt, xxviii. 7. Poet. 22).
* Valckenaer well observes on the di.stinc-
34 CHAP. I., 23-2G.
Ver. 20. Tap] The tragic end of Judas was his withdrawal from the
apostolic office, by which a new choice was now necessary. But both that
withdrawal and this necessity are, as already indicated in ver. 16, to be
demonstrated not as something accidental, but as divinely ordained. — The
first passage is Ps. Ixix. 26, freely quoted from memory, and with an
intentional change of the plural (LXX. avrüv)^ because its historical ful-
filment is represented Kar' i^oxi/f in Judas. The second passage is Ps. cix.
8, verbatim after the LXX. Both passages contain curses against enemies
of the theocracy, as the antitype of whom Judas here appears. — The e7rav?ui
is not that x'-'P'O'^ which had become desolate by the death of Judas (Chry-
sostom, Oecumenius, and others ; also Strauss, Hof mann, de Wette,
Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel tTTioKo-?}, and as the
Xupiov is not to be considered as belonging to Judas (see on ver. 18), the
meaning is : " Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying
in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, Iccome desolate, forsaken by
its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him he gone, u-Jto has his dwelling
therein.^'' — -'i/v L-lgkott.] the oversight,- the superintendence which he had
to exercise, »T^p?, in the sense of the nTi/ipuoii : the ajjostolic office. Comp,
1 Tim. iii. 1 (of the office of a bishop).
Vv. 21, 22. Ovv\ In consequence of these two prophecies, according to
which the office of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is
necessary. — tüv cvve7iQ6vt(jv'\ dependent on £va,yer. 22: one of the men who
have gone along with us," who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys.
Others: who haxe come togetlier v^^ith us, assemUcd v^ith us.' So Vulgate,
Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mark xiv. 53. — iv ttuvtI
Xpövu, tv G>] all the time, when. — e'laijlOe Kal E^z/Aöej^] a current, but not a
Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deut. xxviii. 19 ; Ps. cxxi. 8 ;
1 Sam. xxix. 6 ; 2 Chron. i. 10. Comp. John x. 9 ; Acts ix. 28. — Lip' ijnäz]
a brief expression for eicTjW. tcj)' ?///äs k. £^ti7S. a<p' iißüv.'^ — ap^äfi. . . . 'ludwov
is a parenthesis, and ewS rfji jy^f'pa? is to be attached to elc?iWe , . , 'iTiaovi,
as Luke xxiii. 5. See on Matt. xx. 8. — ft^s r. r/^i. tji h.t.Ti.'] f/i is not put by
attraction for y, — as the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the
Greek writers,^ is without example in the N, T., — but is the genitive of
the definition of time. ° Hence also the expression having the preposition
involved, axni. ?/5 ijiupai, ver. 2, comp. xxiv. 11. — fiäprvpa rj/S avacr. avrov]
i.e. afostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1
Cor, XV,), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as
persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus ; comp,
ji. 32, and see on ver. 8. — tovtuv] is impressively removed to the end,
pointing to those tobe found among the persons present (of those there) ,
• Lucian, D. D. xx. 8, frequently in the ^ See Kühner, ad. Xen. Mem. II. 2. 4.
LXX. and Apocr. e Matthiae, § 377. 2 ; Winer, p. 155 (E. T.
2 ix. 39, X. 23. al. ; Horn. 11. x. 231. 204). So, too, in Lev. xxiii. 15; Bar. 1. 19.
3 Soph. 0. R. 572 ; Polyb. i. 78. 4. Comp. Tob. x. 1 ; Susann. 15 • Hist. Bel and
* See Valckenaer on the passage, and ad Drag. 3.
Eitrip. Phoen. .536 ; Winer, p. 580 (E. T. 780).
Comp, also John i. 51.
ELECÜIOX OF MATTHIAS. 35
and emphatically comprehending them." — Thus Peter indicates, as a
requisite of the new apostle," that he must have associated with the
apostles (üfdi') durinj^thc whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when
John was still baptizing {('nrd rov 3anT. 'Iwavi'.) until the ascension. That in
this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel sui)posc, Peter had in view one
of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that
for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical
testimony (comp. x. 41), and justly so, in conformity with the /Jös/^zre contcnta
of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new di-
vine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimony
(jfii avaar. avTov) Bengcl correctly remarks: "qui illud credidere, totam
fidem suscepere." IIow Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1 Pet. i. 3.
Comp. Acts ii. 32, iii. 15, iv. 33, v. 32, x. 40.
Ver. 23. 'Eorjycrai'] The subject is, as in vv. 24, 2G, all those assembled.
They had recognised in these two the conditions required by v. 21 f. " Ideo
hie demum som incipit, qua res gravis divinae decisioni committitur et im-
mediata apostoli peragitur vocatio," Bengel. For this solemn act they arc
2mt forward. — '\um)(^ ~. Ka?.. Büpan,3üv] Concerning him nothing further is
known. For he is not identical with Joses Barnabas, iv. 36, against which
opinion that very passage itself testifies ; from it have arisen the name 'luativ
in B and Bapvaßav in D (so Borneman'n).'' Barsabas is a, jmtronymic (son of
Saba) ; Justus is a Roman surname ('£3DV), adopted according to the custom
then usual, see Schoettgen. — Nor is anything historically certain as to
Matthias.''
Vv. 24, 25. "Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in the name of all
present. The rpoasviufi. is contemporaneous with iIttov : jrraying they said.
See on Eph. i. 9. — kvple\ (i), nin'. Comp. iv. 29. In opposition to the view
of Bengel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to Jcsns.,
— for which bv cie/Jicj is appealed to, because Christ chooses Ilis own mes-
sengers, — XV. 7 is decisive, where the same Peter says expressly of God :
i^£?i£^aro 6ia rov arufiardi fiov aKoiaai to. iOvTj, etc., and then also calls God
KcpdioyvucTT]'; (comp. -7 '^'pP, Jer. xvii. 10). By the decision of the lot the
call to the apostleship was to take place, and the call is that of God, Gal. i.
15. God is addressed as Knpöioyvüar. because the object was to choose the
intrinsically best qualified among the two, and this was a matter depending
on the divine knowledge of the heart. The word itself is found neitiier in
Greek writers nor in the LXX. — In laßelv rov töttov (see the critical notes)
the ministry is considered as Si]jlace, as a post which the person concerned
> Bissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. * See also Mynster in the Stud. v. Krit.
» And Luke relates this as faithfully and 1829, p. 326 f.
dispassionately as he does what is contained ' Traditional notices in Cave, Antiq. ap. p.
in X. 41. lie would hardly have done so, if he 735 ff. According to Ens. i. 12. 1, he was one
had had the design imputed to him by Baur of ilic Seventy. Concerning the apocryphal
and his school, as such sayings of Peter did Gospel under his name, already mentioned hy
not at all suit the case of Paul. Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apoT. X. T. p. 782 ft.
^ In opposition to Heinrichs and others, Apocryphal Acta Andreae ct ilaithvje may
also IJllmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 182S, p. be seen in Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 133 ff.
877 ff.
36 CHAP. I., 23-26.
is to receive. Comp. Ecclus. xii. 13. — «a« OTroCTroAz/S] designates more definite-
ly the previous öiaKovia';. There is thus here, among the many instances
for the most part erroneously assumed, a real case of an h diä övdiv.^ —
ö0' ^S Tcapeßri\ away from which Judas has 2MSsed over, to go to his own place,
A solemn circumstantirJity of description. Judas is vividly depicted, as he,
forsaking his apostleship {ä(p' ^5), has passed from that position to go to hif
own place. Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 18 : napaiiaivuv airh rf/i tikivrj'i avrov. — nopsvO,
eis r. roTT. r. löiov] denotes the end destined by God for the unworthy Judas
as his ow^n, to which he must come by his -withdravral from the apostolic
ofiice. But the meaning of 6 tottoZ 6 Uto'i (the expresslo7i is purposely chosen
as correlative to tov tutzov t. (hoK. etc.) is not to be decided from the linguis-
tic use of TOTToS, as rönoi may denote any jilace, but entirely from the con-
text. And this requires us to understand by it Gehenna, •which is conceived
as the place to which Judas, according to his individualitj', belongs. As
his treason was so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to
the roToS JJfoS. This explanation is also required for the completeness and
energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed by analogous rabbinical pas-
sages.^ Hence the exj^lanations are to be rejected which refer t6tt. löio? to
the habitation of Judas, ^ or to that x^piov, where he had perished,* or to the
^^ socicias, quam cum sacerdotihis ceterisque Jesu advej^sqriis inicraf'' {liein-
richs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann, Kypke, comp, already
Oecumenius) refer n-opcvOfji-aL . . . ISlov even to the successor of Judas, so that
the roTT. i6io? would be the apostleship destined for him. But such a con-
struction would be involved {nopevO. would require again to be taken as an
object of 7.a3elp), and after 7.ai3elv . . . ÜTToaTol?/'; tautological. The reading
(VtKaLov, instead of Idiov, in A hits the correct meaning. The contrast ap-
pears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul : ele, rov uyiov tuzov hnopevBri, and as to
Peter : ei? tov (xpeiTiöfievov tottov r?ji Jo^?/?.^
Ver. 26. And they, namely, those assembled, rjavefor them {civtoK, see the
critical notes) lots — i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with
one of the two names of those proposed for election — namely into the
vessel in which the lots were collected. Lev. xvi. 8. The expression
eöuKüVis, opposed to the idea of casting lots; comp. Luke xxiii. 34 and
parallels. — l^rrecev 6 Klypoi] the lot, (j) giving the decision by its falling out,
fell by the shaking of the vessel.* — knl MarO.] on MattMas, according to the
figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both.' — This decision hy
the Qeta TVX7] 8 of the lot is an Old Testament practice," suitable for the time before
the effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring aftertcards, and therefore not to
be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage. — GvyKaTt\pji(j>.
> See Fritzsche, ad Maith. p. 856 ; Nägelsb. « jräAAei»', comp. Ilom. 11. iii. 316. 324, vii.
Z. Ilias, p. 361, ed. 3. 181, Od. xi. 206, al.
2 See in Lightfoot, e.g. Baal Tunm, on ' Horn. Od. xiv. 209 ; Ps. ssii. 19, al. Comp.
Num. xxiv. 25 : "Balaam ivit in locnm suum, LXX. Ezek. xxiv. 6 ; John i. 7.
i.e. in Gehennam." s pjat. Legg. vi. 759 C ; comp. Prov. xvi. 33.
» Keuchen, Moldenhauer, Krebs, Bolten. » Num. xxvi. 52 ff. ; Josh. vii. 14; 1 Sam. x.
* Eisner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarteu, and 20 ; 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8 ; Prov. xvi. 33 ;
others. comp, also Lulce i. 9.
* Comp. Polyc. Phil. 9 ; Ignat. Magn. 5.
NOTES. 37
fiETfi T. ivö. ün. ] he icas numbered along with ' tJie eleven apostles, so that, ia
consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to
be the ticclfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: " Non dicuiitur
nianus novo apostolo im^jositae, erat euim prorsus immediate constitutus."
It is otherwise at vi. 6. — The view which doubts the historical character of
the supplementary election at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that
Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation
of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of
Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which
break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the
artless simplicity of its description.
Notes by Ameiucan Editob.
(e) Name. V. 1.
The name of the book is traditional and ancient, but not apostolic or
appropriate. The work is certainly not a record of the acts of the apostles, as
it says little of any of them except Peter and Paul. The word "Acts " seems to
be used in the sense of " Memoirs." Dr. Plumptre would call it Orbjines
EcdesicH. The record is authentic and reliable, but makes no claims to com-
pleteness. It is a history of beginnings only of the work of the church on
earth, but a continuation of the work of Christ in her and for her.
(f) " Forty days." V. 3.
In this passage alone is the jieriod between the resurrection and the
ascension defined. Some assert that there is a discrepancj' between the state-
ment here given and the Gospel ; they say according to the Gospel both
events occurred on the same day. No such discrepancy really exists between
the account which closes the Gospels and opens the Acts. The later account
is more full and minute, and furnishes some incidents connected with the
s\iblime event, and indicates the time when it occurred. Surely no candid
reader of the Gospel nan-atives can for a moment suppose that all which ia
recorded of the life of our Lord on earth after his resurrection transpired in
one day. Moreover, if he ascended on the same day he rose from the sep-
ulchre, it must have been very late at night, which seems at variance with the
entire record. Our author supposes an interval between the two grand events,
but suggests that during that interval, or rather from the time between the
writing of the two treatises by Luke, a period probably of not more than
five years, a tradition " was formed, or at least acquired currency, concern-
ing the forty days and other incidents of the ascension." See his Commentary
on Luke xxiv. 50-5 ; and on Acts i. 3 and 9.
> <niyKaTa\l/ri<{>i^e(Teai in this sense, thns 21 it sifrnifies to condemn tpith. Frequently,
equivalent to (rvix<J/rj<!>iie<T9ai. (xix. 191, is not and quite in the sense of <TiiyKOTo>((T)(f>. here,
elsewhere founri ; D actually has o-vi-fi^rj^no-Br) a-uyKaTapiB^eicrOai is found. X* has only
as the result of a correct explanation. The KaTe\l/ri4>i<T9-q. So also Comtitt. ap. vi. 12. 1.
word is, altogether, very rare ; in Plut. Them.
38 CHAP. I.
But no such supposed " more developed tradition" is required to hai'monize the
record, or to vindicate the veracity of the historian. The later account does
not contradict, but only supplements the earlier.
"Luke alone, in his Gospel and in the Acts, has given us a detailed view
of the scene, which is indicated by Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 7, and assumed throughout
the whole N. T. Interpreters like Meyer think themselves obliged to limit
the ascension of Jesus to a purely spiritual elevation, and to admit no external
visible in which this elevation was manifested."
" The reality of such a fact as that related by Luke in his account of the as-
cension is indubitable, both from the standi^oint of faith in the resurrection,
and from the standpoint of faith in general. The ascension is a postulate of
faith." {Godet.)
The ascension was a necessary consequence of the resurrection ; it was pre-
dicted in the O. T. ; it was prefigured by the translation of Enoch and of
Elijah; it is recorded by two evangelists ; it is presupposed in the Gospel of
John ; it is referred to as a fact and a foundation for doctrine in the Epistles ;
Stephen, Paul, and John saw him in his ascended state ; so that the visible
personal ascension of our Lord from the slope of Olivet into heaven is a doc-
trine most surely believed and rejoiced in.
(g) " His brethren.'" V. 14.
The four brothers-german of our Lord, James, Joses, Simon, and Judas :
these have generally been supposed to be the sons of Mary, the sister
of the mother of Jesus, and therefore only his cousins. For this supposi-
tion we find no authority in Scripture. James, the son of Alpheus, one of
the twelve, is clearly a different person from "James, the Lord's brother."
Three Jameses are mentioned in the Gospels — James, the son of Zebedee,
brother of John, one of the twelve ; — James, the son of Alpheus, brother of
Judas, one of the twelve ; — and James, the son of Joseph, brother of our Lord,
but not one of the twelve. The story of the immaculate conception and per-
petual virginity of Mary has not the slightest foundation in the Bible, and
the common and natural meaning of the terms used in Matt. xiii. 55, 56,
Mark vi. 3, Gal i. 19, and Ps. Ixix. 8, implies that his brothers were the sons
of his mother. That those called his brethren were different persons from
the son of Alpheus and his brothers is manifest, because after the twelve were
chosen and named by Jesus, " his brethren " did not believe in him. In this
pa.ssage they are mentioned as distinct from, and not of the eleven apostles.
An interesting and satisfactoiy discussion of this question may be found
in a small volume, by Eev. Chauncey W. Fitch, D.D.
(H) Fate of Judas. V. 18.
There is a difference but no contradiction in the accounts given by Matthew
and Luke. Matthew does not say what happened to the body of Judas after
he hanged himself ; nor does Luke say what he did to himself ere he fell head-
long and burst asunder in the midst. We have not the link to connect the act of
suicide with what befell his body ; but the two facts are in no sense at va-
riance.
" Matthew traces the traitor's fall through all its human stages of remorse
NOTES. 39
to his own self-inflicted penalty. Luke (Peter) portrays not the act of Judus
in the frenzy of desperation, but the act of God in righteous retribution.' '
" The two accounts are (not as Meyer the result of different traditions, but)
companion i)ictures by inspired artists eciually and perfectly informed.
Whereof, in strict suitability to their several designs, one reveals the human
side of the tragedy, and the other the divine."
" Matthew wrote as a historian for a wide circle of readers, many of whoui
had no previous knowledge of the case ; he therefore states the main fact, and,
according to his custom, passes over the ininute details. Peter orally address-
ing those who knew the facts as fully as himself, and less than six weeks after
their occun-ence, and upon the very spot, assumes the main fact as already
known, and naturally dwells upon those very circumstances which the Evan-
gelist many years later no less wisely and naturally leaves out altogether.
However this may seem to others, there is scarcely an American or English
jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent."
(Akxander.
(I) " Thou, Lord." V. 24.
Whether this prayer was addressed to Christ or to God the Father has
been disputed. We agree with those who consider Christ as here addressed.
The word Kvqio?, when used absolutely in the N. T., generally refers to
Christ; — Jesus is called Kvn/oi in verse 21 ; — all the other ai^ostles were
selected by him, as was afterwards Paul. The first Christians were in the
habit of praying to Christ. Peter on a former occasion in addressing Jesus
said, "Lord, thou knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee."
(J) " Tlielotr V. 2G.
Under the Theocracy the lot was used for various purposes ; for the
division of the land — for decision in certain criminal cases — for the selec-
tion of troops in military enteri^rises — and for the apjjointment to imi:)ortant
offices. The only instance under the new disi^ensation is this case, of Mat-
thias. The Eoman soldiers gambling at the cross for the robe of Jesus is an
illustration of the practice, but no sanction for it. From the sanction of 0. T.
and this example of the apostles many argiie in favor of the admissibility of
the practice. Calvin, in his Com. on this text, says : "Those men Avho think
it to be wickedness to cast lots at all, offend partly through ignorance, and
parth' thej' understand not the force of this word. There is nothing which
men do not corrupt with their boldness and vanities, whereby it has come to
pass that they have brought lots into great abuse and superstition. For that
divination or conjecture which is made by lots is altogether devilish."
Though the custom has been corrupted and depraved, he holds it to be lawful
and Christian. Others have called m question the propriety of this election of
Matthias, and argue with no little plausibility that Matthias was not the di-
vinely appointed successor of Judas, but Paul, who was soon after specially
chosen and commissioned by Christ himself to the apostleship. But Matthias
■was reckoned one of the tM-elve (Acts vi. 2). Inasmuch as we have no instance
of casting lots after the Spirit was given to the church, the practice now, in
our judgment, is more than questionable.
40 CHAP. II., 1-3.
CHAPTEK II.
Vee. 1. u-avTEi üfxodv/xadöv} Lachm. and Tisch, read :t-uvte? 6/jov, after ABC*
X, min. Vulg. Conrectly : the 6uodvfiu66v, so very frequent in the Acts, unin-
tentionally supplanted the öiiov found elsewhere in the N. T. only in John ;
nuvTsi, which is wanting in X*, critically goes along with the reading ofiov. — -
Ver. 2. Kodiffisvoi'i Lachm. Tisch. Born, read KaOe^n/xEvdi, according to C D.
The Recepta (comp, on xx. 9) is more usual in the N. T., and was accordingly
inserted. — Ver. 3. wcrn'] is wanting only in X*. — «aQjcFEi] Born., following
D* N*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did. Cj'r., reads eKdOinav. A correction occa-
sioned by y?.(J(JGat. — Ter. 7. After e^iaravro ok Elz. has TiavTe?, which Lachm.
Scholz, Tisch. Born, have erased, following B D, min. and several vss. and
Fathers. Fi-om ver. 12. — Trpö? ä/Ji'p.ov'} is wanting in A B C X, 26, Cojit. Sahid.
Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident,
easily passed over. Its genuineness is supported by the reading TrpöS äJi/ißov?,
ver. 12, instead of öaaoS TrpöS ä?i.?>,ov, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth. Vulg.
Chrj^s. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this passage. — Ver. 12. ri uv
Oi/.ut TovTO elvai'] Lachm. Born, read rl Gt'/le/. rovro elvat, following A B C D, min.
Chrj*s. : A has QfAsi. after tovto. But after 7JyELV the direct expression was
most familiar to the transcribers (comp. ver. 7). — Ver. 13. ötax'^-Evdl^ov-e<] Elz.
reads jXei'fl'soi^rf ?, against jDreponderating testimony. — Ver. 16. 'Iw^//] Tisch.
and Born, have deleted this word on too weak authority ; it is wanting among
the codd. only in D. — Ver. 17. ivvavioii'^ Elz. reads ivv-via, against decisive
codd. From LXX. Joel iii. 1. — Ver. 22. «iiroi] Elz. reads Koi airol. But Lachm.
and Tisch, have correctly deleted «a/, in accordance with A B C* D E X, min.
and several vss. and Fathers. kuI, both after Kadüi and before avrol, was very
familiar to the transcribers. — Ver. 23. After eköotov Elz. and Scholz read
lu36vTE<;, which is wanting in A B C K*, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An
addition to develope the construction. — Listead of ;^;etpür, Lachm. Tisch. Born,
have x^'f^"?. following A B C D N, min. Syr. \). Aeth. Ath. Cj-r. And justly, as
XEtpüv was evidently inserted for the sake of the following dvoiiuv. — Ver. 24.
OavaTov] D, Syr. Eip. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read adov. So Born.
From w. 27, 31. — Ver. 27. dihvl Lachm. Born, and Tisch, read achjv, which was
already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with A B C D X, min. Clem.
Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Ps. xvi. 10, the reading is also different, A
having dihv and B d()i]v ; the text here is to be decided merely by the prepon-
derance of testimonies, which favours dSijv. — Ver. 30. Before KaBiaai, Elz.
Scholz. Born, read to i:nru cäpKa dvaarijoEiv rbv XpKrrdv, which is wanting in
ABC D** X, min, and most vss. and several Fathers, has in other witnesses
considerable variation, and, as already Mill con-ectly saw, is a marginal gloss
inserted in the text. — Instead of -ov fjpovov, Lachm. Born. Tisch, read tov 6p6vov,
according to A B C D X, min. Eus. This important authority, as well as the
circumstance that k-i with the genitive along with KnOl^ecv is very usual in the
K T. (comp. Luke xxii. 20 ; Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17 ; Matt. xix. 28, xxiii. 2,
DESCENT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 41
XXV. 31), cleciiles for tho accusative. — Ver. 31. KnTe^.eitpPri] A 15 C D E N, niiii.
and several Fathers read iyKnTeÄei(pftri. Kecominended by Griesb., and adopted
by Lacbni. Tisch. Born. From ver. 27. Therefore not only is (2(5;//' (instead
of aJoy) read by Tisch., but also after nnreAcKpäi/ there is read by Elz. ?} ijivxi)
avToi; for the omission of which <he authorities decide. — avre . . . ovre is ac-
cording to important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.,
instead of oi» . . . oMi, as the reading given in the text appears likewise to
have been formed from ver. 27. — Ver. 33. vusis] Elz. Scholz have vvv vf/el?.
But, according to A B C* D X, min. and many vss. and Fathers, Lachm. Born.
Tisch, have erased vvi, which is an addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 37. noir'/anuev]
TToujaufiev is found in A C E J<, min. Fathers. But the deliberative subjunctive
was the more usual. Comp, on iv. IG. — Ver. 38. ti?;?] is, with Lachm. and
Tisch., to be erased, as it is entirely wanting in B min. Vulg, ms. Aug., and
other witnesses read ^^/(tm', which they have partly after /^eravoTJa. (A C N, 15,
al.), partly uvrovi (D). A supplementary addition. — Ver. 40. ()iefiapTvparo]E\z.
Scholz read lUeuafirrpern, against decisive testimony. A fonn modelled after
the following imperfect. — Ver. 41. After ovv, Elz. Scholz read ilofjevu?, which
Lachm. and Tisch, have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating testi-
mony. A strengthening addition. — Ver. 42. kuI before r^ kTiucel is rejected by
decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch. Born.). — Ver. 43. hyivi-o^ Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read tjlvero, according to A B C D X, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr.
This considerable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation resem-
bling what follows ; on the contrarj', iyevero has been inserted as the more
usual form. — Ver. 47. rf/ l-KKATjaia'] ;s wanting in A B C N, Cojit. Sahid. Aeth.
Arm. Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted
for the sake of conformity to ver. 41, because ittI to avru, iii. 1, M'as considered
as still belonging to ii. 47, and therefore iii. 1 began with IleTpoi 6e (so
Lachm.).
Ver. 1.' Whe7i the day of Pentecost became full., i.e., when the day of Pen-
tecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the He-
brew mode,'' conceived as a measure to be filled up ;' so long as the day had
not yet arrived, but still belonged to tlie future, the measure was not yet
filled, but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making
the day full, i\w avunliipuaLi* therewith occurred ; by wliich, without figure,
is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality.
The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at va-
riance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the
time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant.
Hitzig' would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in oppo-
sition to this, Schneckeiib. p. 198 f. — ?/ TTevTrjKocTri'\ is indeed originally to
be referred to the vnepa understood ; but this supplementary noun had en-
tirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent
substantive." nevTr]KoaTri also occurs in Tob. ii. 1, quite apart from its nu-
' Concerning the Pentecostal occnrrence, and mnny similar passages in the N. T. and in
see van Hengel, de gave der tale.n, linkster- the Apocrypha.
Studie, Leid. 1804. ■« Comp. 3 Fsdr. i ."iS : Dan. ix. 2.
» See Gesen. T/ies. s.v. «So. * Os/eni vnd Pfinqai, p. 39 f.
ä Comp, also ix. 23 ; Luke ii. G, xxii. 9, SI, ' Comp. 2 Mace. xii. 32.
42 CHAP. IT., 1.
meral signification, and kv 7?} nevTrinoarij hpry is there : on the Pentecodfeast.^
The feast of Pentecost, Jn ri"i;^312?, Deut. xvi. 9, 10 (üyia tnrä iiSchudöup,
Tob. I.e.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast
of the grain-harvest (Ex. xxiii. 16; Num. xxviii. 26), and subsequently, al-
though we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus," regarded also
as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Ex. xix. 1)
in the third montli.^ It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the
fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 15, IG) ; so that
the second paschal day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of tlie sheaf offer-
ing, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days.* Now, as in that
year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on John xviii.
28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the
14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of
the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost
on the Sunday.^ Therefore the custom — which, besides, cannot be shown
to have existed at the time of Jesus — of the Karaites, who explained riJty
in Lev. xxiii. 15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath
occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost ahcaps on a. Sunday,®
is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig) ; and it
is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated ivith the
Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.^ But still the question arises :
Whether Luhe himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a ßatiirday
or a Sunday ? As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradi-
tion, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening, and be par-
taken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the cru-
cifixion the 15th of Nisan ; so he must necessarily — but just as erroneously
— have conceived of this first TreiTT^^off-?} as a Saturday,'^ unless we should
assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost
than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday
celebration of Pentecost ; which, indeed, does not correspond with his ac-
count of tlie day of Jesus' death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correct-
ness of the Johannine tradition. — yoav TvuvreS ö,uov enl to avro] Concerning
the text, see the critical remarks ; concerning i-rvl to avTo, see on i. 15,
These navrei, all, were not merely the apostles, but aU the folloieers of Jcsxls
then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles.
For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost,
and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (ver. 15), not the apostles alone, but
with them also the other /mOrj-ai — among whom there were, without doubt,
many foreign pilgrims to the feast — were assembled. Moreover, in ver.
14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the 7!-dvre5,
> See Fritzsche in toe. primi/.lva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione,
2 Comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reclioned
680. from the last paschal day ; see Ewald, Jahrb.
3 Banz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. IV. p. 134 f.
741; Bust. Synag. p. 438. ° Ideler, II. p. 613; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349.
•» See Lightfcot and Wetstein in loc. ; Ewald, ' See also Vaihinger in Herzog's Encykl. XI.
Alterth. p. 47(1 f. ; Keil, Archäol. § 83. p, 470 f.
» In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de * Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. -p. 19.
DESCENT OF TUE HOLY SPIRIT, 43
designedly added, by no means corresponds to tlie small number of the
apostles (i. 20), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding men-
tion was made of a much greater assembly (i. 15) ; it is, on the contrary,
designed— because otherwise it would have been superfluous — to indicate
a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be lim-
ited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic
saying of Joel, adduced in ver. 10 ff., that the effusion of the Spirit was
not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so tiiat
^ ÜKavTEi (ver. 1) must be underf.tood of all the followers of Jems — of course,
according to the latitude of the popular manner of expression.
Ver. 3 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an au/UMe
c7)fxeloi> — a sound occurring une-vpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind home
along.^ The wonderful sound is, by the comparison {üaTrep) with a violent
wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but
not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs),
or gust (Ewald), or othfer natural phenomenon.^ — oIkov] is not arbitrarily
and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to
be understood of a, j^ricatc house, and, indeed, most probably of the same
house, which is already known from i. 13, 15 as the meeting-jilace of tlie
disciples of Jesus. Whether ic was the very house in which Jesus partook
of the last supper (Mark xiv. 12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot be
determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older com-
\/ mentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18,
and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it ; the
reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that
we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the
time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, ver. 1 describes the
circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist ; hence a
place in the temple could neither be wished for by them nor granted to
them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from
Luke xxiv. 53, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The sup-
position that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the
great multitude of those that flocked together, ver. G. The private house
may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple ; but not even
this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the
occurrence. (3) It is true that, according to Joseph. Antt. viii. 3. 2, the
principal building of the temple had thirtj' luills built around it, which he
calls o'iKoVi ; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special
knowledge? "But," it is said, (4) "the solemn inauguration of the
church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in, the sanctuary
of the old covenant,'''' Olshausen ; " the new spiritual temple must have . . .
proceeded from the envelope of the old temple," Lange. But this locality
would need first to be proved ! If this inauguration did nut take place iu
' Comp. TTvtÜMa ßiaiov, Arrian. Exp. AI. ii. marks : "Sonus venti vehcmentis, sed absque
6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11. vento ; sic etiam linguae igiieae, scd absque
2 Comp. Neander, p. 14. Liglitfoot aptly re- igne." Comp. Ilom. Od. vi. 20.
44 CHAP. IL, 1-3.
the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally
imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the
old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is
not till ii. 44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative. —
Kaiser' infers from ijaav . . . tm to avro, ver. 1, as well as from oZ/coS,
KnOr/fiEvoi, ov fisOvovGiv^ ver 15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the
first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration uf the Agapae.^ An
interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival
was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering
the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise
which was given to the apostles for so near a realization. — ov rjcav kü e(6jue-
fof] ichere, that is, in tcJiich tliey were sitting. "We have to conceive those
assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (ver. 15) had arrived (for in prayer
they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers.
Ver. 3. After the audible ctjueIov immediately follows the visible. Incor-
rectly Luther : " there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were
of fire." ' The words mean : There appeared to them, i.e. there were seen
by them, tongues becoming distributed, fire-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like
little flames of fire, and were distributed (ii. 45 ; Luke xxii. 17, xxiii. 34)
upon those jDresent ; see the following tKdOiCE k.t.ä. They were thus ap-
pearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn : not really
consisting of fire, but only ügeI nvpoi ; and not confluent into one, but dis-
tributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire,
they bore an analogy to electric -phenomena • their tongue-shape referred as a
cTj/u£:ov to that miraculous TiaÄEiv which ensued immediately after, and the
^;'e-like form to the divine presence (comp. Ex, iii. 2), which was here
operative in a manner so entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to
be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the
Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the
Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those
who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological
definition of the crjuEla, vv. 2, 3, is impossible. Lange,* fancifully supposes
that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from
above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire
were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmo-
sphere (?). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like
tongues into an accidental electric natural occurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and
others) are in vain ; for these flames, which make their appearance, during
an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men,
present far too weak resemblances ; and besides, the room of a house,
where the phenomenon exclusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for
any such natural development. The representation of the text is mon-
strously altered by Heinrichs : Fidgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in
' Commentat. 1820, pp. 3-23; comp. hibl. ^ Therefore the expression is not to be ex-
Tlieol. II. p. 41. plained from Isa. v. 24, for there W^ii. I^Zn is
" Comp. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der a representation of that which consumes.
Christi. Arch. IV. p. 124. « Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19.
GIFT OF TONGUES. 45
inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostoloritm commota mens ; as also by IIe\i-
mann : that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues merely In the
estatic state ; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that " they saw Jiames''''
signifies in rabbinical usus loqucndi : they were transported into ecstatic
excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain
no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Kabbins
to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at tiinai, — of
which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be
recognised in our passage. — kKaOiai re] namely, not an indefinite subject,
aoniethinfj,^ but such a y^.waaa üael nvpöi. If Luke had written taduiaav (see
the critical remarks), the notion that one ylijaaa sat upon each would not
have been definitely expressed.^ Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen,
Kuinoel, incorrectly take -rrvp as the subject, since, in fact, there was no
fire at all, but only something resembling fire ; üael izvpö'i serves only for
comiiarison, and consequently ^rp cannot be the subject of the continued
narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf,
Bengel, Heinrichs et al., consider the Tvev/ia uytov as subject. In that case
it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche, Conject. L p. 13 : KaOiaavroi
t(f eva tKaarov avrü > eTrhjadrirjav ü-avTsi TrvEv/uaroi üyinv, and Matt. xvil. 18
would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the izvev/ia äytov, fn so far as it
sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the fiery
tongues ; but in so far as it ßlled the assembled, as the nveißa itself, differ-
ent from the symbol. — The ri joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads «a/,
following insufficient testimony) connects EKÜOiae k.t.'a. with ucpGnoav k-.7..
into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts :
utpOrjüni' K-.?i., inAijaÜTiaav, k.t.'A., and /'piavro k r.A. , as is marked by the thrice
recurring koL
Ver. 4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the internal
filling of all who were assembled,^ without exception (frA. aTrarreS, comp,
ver. l),with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they,
and, indeed, these same ü-ravrec, (comp. iv. 31) — accordingly not excluding
the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel) — r'/p^avro AaAtiv trrpaii yAuaaaii.
Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit * are related to the present as
the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and anti-
typical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus ; see ver. 33 ;
John xvi. 7, vii. 39. — jip^avTo] brings into prominence the jmtynis imjyetus
of the act as its most remarkable element. — In/.elv k-lpaii yT^uaomi] For the
sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that trcpaii
y?.uac!aii on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing
which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as
rals i]neTfpaii yÄuaaai? (comp. ver. 8 : r^ iota öca?.£K7(^ ?'jßüi). The irtpai
yXüaaai (k) therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as abso-
lutely nothing else than languages, tchich ^cere different from the native
' Ilildebraiicl, comp. Bnttin. neut. Or. \>. iravrn;, koX an-ocrToAwi- hvTuiv tKel, a >1J) Ka'i Ol
118 (E. T. 1.34). oAAoi fifTttrxov. See also van Ilengil, p. .M ff.
2 Comp. Winer, p. 481 (E. T. W8). ■• Luke i. 41, 47; John xx. 22 ; comp, also
5 Chrysostom well remarks : ovk äv tlire Luke ix. 55.
46 CHAP. II., 4.
lancjuage of the spcalcers. They, tlie Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, an-
other Median, etc., consequently languages of another mrt^^ i.e. foreign,
1 Cor. xiv. 21 ; and these indeed — the point wherein precisely appeared
the miraculous operation of the Spirit- -?iö* acquired by study {y7.üccai<;
Kaivaii, Mark xvi. 17). / Accordingly the text itself determines the mean-
ing of yT^CiGoai as languages, not tongues, as van Hengel again assumes on
the basis of ver. 3, where, however, the tongues have only the symloUc
destination of a divine crifieiov^ ; and thereby excludes the various other
explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning Teria
ohsoleta et i^oetica.^ This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of
Herder,* that new modes of interjrreting the ancient prophets were meant ;
(2) against Heinrichs, who* founds on that assumed meaning of y^üaaai
his explanation of eathusiastie speaking in languages which were foreign
indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages
of the speakers ; (3) against Bleek." The latter explains ylüaaai as glosses,
i.e. unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According
to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages,
but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of
common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical
phraseology, yet so that those glosses were borrowed from different
dialects and languages (therefore hepaiZ). Against this explanation of the
ylüaaai, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the tisu»
loquendi is already decisive. For y7.C)CGa in that sense is a grammatico-
teclinieal expression, or at least an exjjression borrowed from grammarians,
which is only as such philologically beyond dispute." But this meaning
is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that
of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a
singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words
universally intelligible ? How could he put this expression even into the
mouths of theParthians, Medes, Elamites, etc. ? For I'/uerepaii yXuaaat?, ver.
11, must be explained in a manner entirely corresponding to this. Further,
there would result for 7;/uTf'paii a wholly absurd meaning, {/fiirepai ylüGaai.,
forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which
are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites,
etc., just as the 'kTTLKal yAüaaai of Theodorus® are provincialisms of Attica,
which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is fur-
ther decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of ylüaaa
1 Luke ix. 29 ; Mark xvi. \Z ; Gal. i. 6. 8 ; Pollux, ii. 4 ; Plut. Pyth. orac. 24 ; and see
, ,, „ 1 J . , 1 i Giesei, Aeol. Dial. y. 4% fl.
'^ van Ilengel understands, according toyer.
3, by «Vepai yA., " tongues of fire, which the
believers in Jesus have obtained through their
communion with the Holy Spirit.'' That is,
"an open-hearted and loud speaking to the .^ ,, „, , „ ., _.„ „„ _ ,„„„
, ., . /. r. J Ol • . •• ., u , ^ " In the -SYmc^. 7<. Ari<. 1829, p.33ff., j830, p.
glorifying of God in Christ, such as had not _ . i- j i r
* Von d. Giihe der Sprachenam ersten chnstl.
Pfinggtf., Riga, 1794.
^ After A. G. Meyer, de charismate riav
yXüicraüiv, etc., Ilannov. 1797.
45flf.
been done before. Previously their tongues - „ ,, , . „, , „ ,
had been without fire. ' ^^^ ''" ^''^ passages m Bleek, p. 33 ff., and
already in A. G. Meyer, I.e. ; Fritzsche, ad
* Galen, exeg. glossar. Eippocr. Prooem. ; Marcp.lAl.
Aristot. Ars jmet. 21. 4 ff., 22. 3 f. : Quinctil. i. f In Athen, siv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf.
GIFT OF TONGUES. 47
transferred also to 1 Cor. xii. 14, no sense is left for the singular term
yTiuaat/ hi?.eiv ; for y?.ü(Taa could not denote genus hwntionis gJottKonitticum,^
hnt ?,\m\)\Y a ningh gloss. As Bleek's explanation falls to the ground, so ,
must every otlier which tnkcs y7.üaaai in any other sense than hiiigunges,
which it must mean according to vv. G, 8, 11. This remark holds par-
ticularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel,
according to wliom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke Avith other
tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the excite-
ment of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each
of tliose who came together heard the language of his own ancestral wor-
ship from the mouth of these Galileans, ver. G.
From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express
contrast in which the list of nations (vv. 9-11) stands with the question
ovK \(^ois ■Kuv-eZ . . . Ta2.i?Mini (ver. 7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke
intended to narrate nothing else than this : tJie po-sons possessed Jry the Spirit
iegan to speah in languages which icere foreign to their nationaliti/ instead of
their mother-tongve, namely, in the languages of other nations,^ the Tcnowledge
and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only noio communi-
cated in and with the -nveviia üyiov.^ The author of Mark xvi. 17 has correctly
understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he
wrote Knivat? instead of hepmi. The exjilanation oi foreign languages has
been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and
expositors ; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent,
to the effect that the inspired received the gift of sjwaHng all the lan-
guages of the earth,* and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim
the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. "Poena linguarum dispersit
homines : donum linguarum disperses in unum populum collegit," Grotius.
Of this the text knows nothing ; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely
undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned
in vv. 0-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in \
the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly vnneccssary, as
the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek," and
partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many
who did not enter \ipon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other
hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle
of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it ; and yet in his case there
is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his
having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek (k).
But how is the occurrence to he judged of historically ? On this the
1 Ae|is YAwo-oTjAKrnKTJ, Bionys. Hal. de Thuc. 277 ff. ; Mihillo, Ohss. üuiol. exeg. de dono
a4. Unguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gefch.
''Comp.,besidoPl Cor. xiv.21,Eccln9./)7-a«/..- d. apost. K p. 201 ff., cd. 2 ; Ch. F.Fritzschc,
oTo-v ix€Tax0ri (the Hebrew) eii iripav yKio<T<Tav Nova opnsc. p. 304 f.
(Leo, Tact. 4. 4!» : yAuieraais 6ia(^öpois AaAeTi) ; < Aiiffuslin. : "coepcrnnt loqui lingiiia 017»-
also Acsch. Sept. 171 : Tro^ivSopinovoi' htj irpoSi)9' nium gentium.''''
eT€po(;)ci>ü) (TTparw. Kot different is Find. Pyth. <> Comp. Schneckciib. neutest. Zeit/jesch. p.
si. 43 : aAAoTpi'ato't 'yAujO'O'at?. 17 ff.
3 Comp. Storr, Opu»c. 11. p. 290 ff., III. p.
4:8 CHAP. II., 4.
following points are to be observed : (1) Since the sudden commuui-
cation of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logi-
cally possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since
in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is per-
ceptible in tlieir letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, xiv.
11) ; since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only
momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter him-
self in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign
languages, — the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the
actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal
assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representa-
tion of the entire future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The
analogy of inagnetism,^ is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those
possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when
the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the
magnetic "rapport" is not conceivable. (3) If the event is alleged to
have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an
idea," and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a per-
manent facility of speaking languages, "in order to represent and to attest,
in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations,
the consecration of their languages in the church, and again the lioliness of
the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural
generally," ^ such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported sub-
jective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and
the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although
it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its
corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange,*
according to whose fanciful notion tlie original language of the inner life Inj
which vien's minds are ■united has here reached its fairest manifestation.
This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the
language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified
by the gospel, and as the leaven of all languages, which effects their re-
generation into the language of tlie Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of
tho fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled
in their mother-tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native
Galileans ; ^ along with which David Schulz " explains k-cpaiZ yluacaii even
of other hinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial
dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very
essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept
away, and there is not even left matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient
J Adcluccd especially by Olshansen, and by < Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff.
Baeiimlein in the T17»<e»jö. /S^<rf. VI. 2, p. 118. ^Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthes«, de cha-
2 Comp. Augustine, serm. 9: Loquebatiir »t.xmadiö. it/?. ,«., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs,
eniin tunc unus homo omnibus Unguis, quia Fritzsche, Schrader, and others.
locutura erat unitas ecclesiae in omnibus ^ d. Geistesgaben d ersten Christen, Breslau,
Unguis. 1836.
3 Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb.
1850, p. 9r.
GIFT OF TOXGUES. 49
occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with
Thiess, resort even to the hypotliesis that the speakers had only used the
Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean." Every resolution of the matter
into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the
words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwar- f
ranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of
the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did i
not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening
believed that they heard their own native languages. See against this
view, Castalio in he, and Beza on x. 4G, This opinion — which Billroth on
1 Cor. strangely outbids by liis fancy of a primeval language which had
been spoken — is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 44, as
allowable by the punctuation of ii. G ; is found thereafter in the Pseudo-
Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the 0pp. Cijpr. p. 00, ed. Brem. (p.
475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others ; and has recently been
advocated especially by Schneckcnburger ; ' legend also presents later
analogous i)henomena — in the life of Francis Xavier and others. (G) The
miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative," i
and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the
state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we
further compare x. 46, 47, the KaOioi kuI i/fieii in that passage shows that the |
7.a7i£lv yliJaanLi, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those
assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event
in Acts ii. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to xix.
0. But we have to take our views of what the ylüaaaLi 7La?.eiv really was,
not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account
of Paul in 1 Cor. xii. 14 : according to which it (see comm. on 1 Cor. xii.
10) was a sjieaking in the form of prayer — which took place in the highest
ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding — and not a
speaking in foreign languages. The occurrence in Acts ii. is therefore to
be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the
glossolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages super-
vened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church,
and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, — a phe-
nomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was
elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages,
and accordingly into an occurrence quite iinique, not indeed as to sub-
stance, but as to mode,^ and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and
well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of
the church.'' How this transformation — the supposition of which is by
» Beitr. p. 84 ; comp. ub. den Zweck d. * The conclusion of Wieseler {Stud. u. lOit.
Apostelgesch. p. 202ff; Svenson also, in the 185!), p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion
Ztitschr. f. Lulh. Tli. v. K. 1859, p. 1 ff., of Paul, must have been well acquainted with
arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing. the glonsolaiia, could not have represented it
* See Ch. F. Fritzsche, ??or(Z opyfc. p. 309 ff.: as a speaking in forcicin lanciiasjes. is incor-
Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Ililgenf. d. Glossotalie, p. rect. Luke, in fact, conceives and describes
87 ff. the Pentecostal miracle not as the glosfolalia,
ä Comp. Ililgenfeld, p. 14<3. which was certainly well known to him, aa it
50 CHAP. IL, 4.
no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief
(in opposition to Rossteuschcr, p. 135) — took place, cannot be ascertained.
But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons
possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most i^rt Galileans (in the elabo-
rated legend ; all of them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and
that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossola-
lia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not
in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and
therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If
this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can ex-
plain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it
has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particular-
ly the languages spoken. That a spnliolical mew of the phenomenon has
occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away
with the diversity of languages which arose. Gen. xi., by way of punish-
ment, according to whicli idea there was to be again in the Messianic
time eli ^Mui livpiov Koi ylc^aaa fda ' is not to be assumed (Schnecken-
burger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the yACiaaa fiia,
is not a N. T. one, and it wouki suit not the miracle of speaking, such as
the matter appears in our narrative, but a miracle of hearing, such as it has
been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of
Christianity ^ cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occur-
rence in the form in which it appears in our passage.
The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia,
but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been
adopted by Bleek ' whose explanation, however, of Itighhj poetical discourse,
combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the erfp. yX. generally
nor with vv. 8 and 11 ; by Baur,^ who, however, explains on this account
ETip. y7i. as new spirit-tongues,^ and regarded this expression as the original
one, but subsequently," amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acced-
ed to the view of Bleek ; by Steudel,' who explains the Pentecostal event
from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encoun-
tered in others, — a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign
unbelievers in our passage ; by Neander, who, however,* idealizes the
speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly ;
was a frequent fjift in the apostolic age, but have been otherwise than familiar with the
as a quite extraordinary occurrence, fuch as nature of that xäp'CM«^! which the apostle
it had been presented to him by tradition ; himself richly possessed.
and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of ' Tent. XII. Pair. p. 618.
the distinc'wn between it and the speaking ^ Comp. Zeller, Hüffenfeld.
with tongues, which he knew by experience. ^ Tn the Sliid. it. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff.
With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog's * In the Tub. Zeitschr. ItSO, 2. p. 101 ff.
Encyk'. XVITI. p. 68!)) sees in our n;irrative a * Which the Spirit has created for Himself
later leejendary formation, but from a time as His orgnn«, different from the usual human
which wa.i no longer familar with the nature tongues. See also in his neutest. Theol. p.
of the glossolalia. This latter statement is not 3S3 f.
to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote « In the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff.
foon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and ' In the T>ih. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 133 ff.,
the source which he here made use of must 1831, 2, p. 128 ff.
have been still older ; and partly because he * 4th edition, p. 28.
was a friend of Paul, and as such could not
GIFT OF TONGUES. 51
by Wieseler/ who makes the ip/J7}veia y7.u>aaCiv be described according to the
impression made upon the assembled Jews, — an idea irreconcilable with
our text (vv. 6-12); by de "Wette, who ascribes the transformation of
the glositolalia in our passage to a reporter, who from want of knowl-
edge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning ; by
Ililgcnfclil, according to wliom the author conceived the gift of languages
as a special yevoi of speaking with tongues ; by van Ilengel, who sees
in the Corinthian glossolulia a degenerating of the original fact in our
passage ; and by Ewald,'* who represents the matter as the first outburst
of the infinite vigour of life and i)leasure in life of the new-born Chris-
tianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously
used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it
were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages,
amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in
the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc., — a view in
which the appeal to the äßßä 6 na-jjp and fiapdv add is much too weak to
do justice to the krepaLi y'AüaaaLi as the proper point of the narrative. On
the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though
only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke
represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times,' a
conception which Hofmann * supports by the significance of Pentecost as
the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its
reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of
the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished
from history,^ has been carried out in the boldest and most decided
manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears
quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives — according to the idea of
the destination of Christianity for all nations — and typical views.' — /taOüJ?,
as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context, in which foreign lan-
guage. — ä-o0(3ej7f(7Ga(] eloqui,'' a purposely chosen word * for loud utterance
in the elevated state of spiritual gifts."
1 In the stud. u. Krit. 183S, p. 713 ff., 1830, the festival of the law, urging the mythi-
p. 117. cal miracle of tongueä on Sinai (comp, aleo
2 Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 133 IT., comp. Sclmeckenburger, p. 202 ff.).
Jahrb. III. p. 2G9 flf. » Comp, also Baur, who finds here Paul's
3 Bacumlein in the ^\'äHemb. Stud. 1834, 2, idea of the KaKtlv rai? yAuJcro-ais tü>v avOpunriuv
p. 40 ff. ; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. «a'c rüiv öyyeAwi', 1 Cor. xiii. 1, converted into
658 ff., 1844, p. 70S ff. ; Zinslcr, de dua-ism. reality. According to Baur, neute.st. Tlteol. p.
ToO y\ XaK. 1847; Engelmann, r. d. Charts- 322, there remains to us as the properniicldts
men, 1850 ; JIaier, d. Giossalie d. ajmst. Zeit- of the matter only the conviction, which be-
ult. 1855 ; Thiersch, Kirche im apont. Zeitalt. came to the disciples and first Christians a
p. 67 ; Rossteuschcr, Baumgarten, Lechlur ; fact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit
comp, also Kahnis, ram heil. Geiste, p. 61 11., by whom .Jesus was qvalified to be the 3(essiah
Bogmat. I. p. 517. Schaff, and others. had also been imparted to them, and was the
* ]yeissaff. u. Erf. II. p. 200 ft. specific principle — determining the Christian
* Weisse, eiYjng'. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identi- consciomness— of their fellowship. This com-
fles the matter even with the appearance of munication of the Spirit did not, in his view,
the risen Christ to more than 50O brethren, re- even occur at a definite point of time,
corded in 1 Cor. xv. 6 !— Gfrörer, Gesch. d. " Lucian, Zeux. 1, Paras. 4, Thit. Mor. p.
Urchr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the 405 E, Diog. L. i. 63.
Pentecostal history in our passage from the ^ Comp. ii. 14, xxvi. 2.5.
Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as » 1 Chron. xxv. 1 ; Ecclus. Prolog, ii.; comp.
52 CHAP. II., 5, 6.
Ver. 5 gives, as introductory to what folloiüs, preliminary information how
it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of
the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired.
Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that ver.
5 refers to the Äa?ielv krep. y/l., and that the sense is: "Neque id secus
quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant
isti coetui homines," etc. The context, in fact, distinguishes the 'lovöaloL
and the TaAilaloi (so designated not as a sect, but according to their
nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation
generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans.* — 7;<Tai>
. . . /caroiKoOvTf J] they were dicelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary
residence^^ but of the domicile ^ which they had taken up in the central
city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as
Israelites (hence evXaße'i?, comp, on Luke ii. 25). Comp. Chrys. : to Ka-oiKelv
evXaßeiai f]V arjuelov ttw? ; öffö roaovTuv yap kQvüv öireS koI ■KarpU'ia'i äöivre'ä
. . . cjKovv EKEt. — Tuv vwd TÖv ot'/cwv. ] SC. IBvüv, of the nations to de yound under
heaven (Bernhardy). — vttö tov ovpav6v is classical, like vtto tov rßiov.* The
whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular
hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deut. ii. 25 ; Col. i. 23.
Ver. 6. Tiyf (i>uv^g ravrT/^] this sound, which, inasmuch as ovrog points back
to a more remote noun, is to le re/erred to the wind-like rushing of ver. 2, to
which also jevo/j.. carries us back. Comp. John iii. 8. Luke represents the
matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meet-
ing to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come
thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a " sympathy of
the susceptible " (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no
mention of either ; in fact, the wondevfxil character of the noise is sufficient.
Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think
that the loud S2)eal:ing of the insjiired is here meant. But in that case we
should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different
languages ; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as
being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in ver. 4 ; therefore
Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist
does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza,
Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take ^ww) in the sense
of <j>r]fiTi. Contrary to the usus loquendi ; even in Gen. xlv. 16 it is other-
wise. — GvvExvOt]] mente confusa est (Vulgate), yvRS 2^c>'ple.ved.^ — E}g sKacrog]
annexes to the more indefinite i^Kovov the exact statement of the subject.'' —
öuiMktu^ is here also not national language, but dialect (see on i. 19), lan-
guage in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in ver. 8, designedly
&ir6<l)9eyßa, Deut. xxxn. 2, also Zech, x. 2; also ♦ Comp. Plat. Ep. p. 326 C, Thn. p. 23 C.
of false prophets, Ezek. xiii. 19 ; Mich. v. 12. s Comp. ix. 22 ; 1 Mace. iv. 27 ; 2 Mace, x,
S&e, generally. Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 417; 30; Herod, viii. 99; Plat. E/). 7, p. 346 D ;
also Valckenaer, p. 344 ; and van Hengel. p. 40. Died. S. iv. 62 ; Lncian. Nigr. 31.
> See also van Hengel, p. 9. o Comp. John xvi. 32; Acts xi. 29 al.; Jacobs,
« Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others. ad Achill. Tat. p. 622 ; Ameia on Horn. Od.
9 Luke xiii. 4 ; Acts. vii. 48, ix. 22, al. ; x. 397 ; Bernhardy, p. 420.
Plat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii. p. 969 C.
EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 53
chosen, because the foreigners avIio arrived spoke not entirely different Ian-
gunyes, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for
example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke
Greek, but in different idioms ; the Parthians, Medes, and Eiamites, Per-
sian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons pos-
sessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed
themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the iripuv yluaaüv. The view
that the Aramaic dialect Avas that in which all the speakers spoke (van
Hengel), appears— from ver, 8 ; from the list of nations, which would be
destitute of significance ; from -KpoGiß.vTot (ver. 10), which would be mean-
ingless ; and from ver. 11,' as well as from the opinions expressed in vv.
12, 13, which would be without a motive— as an exegetical impossibility,
which is also already excluded by el? EKaa-oq in ver. 6. — 7m7mvvtuv amüv]
not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one
dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard
his peculiar dialect si^oken by one or some of the inspired. This remark
applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of
JmTleIv irep. y'KüaaaLq, that each individual must have spoken in the different
languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awlcward (Olshausen),
as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and con-
sequently even the summary ahrüv is quite in order.
Vv. 7, 8. 'Ef('(Trar7o denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first
perplexity, ver. 6 ; edavßa^ov is the continuing iconder resulting from it.
Comp. Mark vi. 51. — Idov] to be enclosed within two commas. — iräv-eq
ovTot K.T.Ä.] pointing out : all the speakers pi'csent. It does not distinguish
two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not sjieak (van
llengel) ; but see ver. 4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition
of t'laiv brings the -n-avTsq ovroi into more emphatic prominence. — TuliTialoc]
They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthiun,
Median, etc. This view, which takes Tal. in the sense of nationality, is
required by vv. 8, 11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named.
It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen,
Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into
prominence the accessory idea of want of culture {uncultivated Galileans) ;
and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Tal.
as a designation of the Christian sect — a designation, evidence of which,
moreover, can only be adduced from a later period." It is erroneous, also,
to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should
have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposi-
tion to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 310. — nal ttüi;] kuI, as a simple
and, annexes the sequence of the sense ; and (as they are all Galileans)
how hapj)ens it that, etc. — »y/ieif aKovofiEv sKaatoQ k.-.X.] we on aur part (m con-
trast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one, etc. That, accordingly,
kyevvijd. is to be understood distributitely, is self-evident from the connec-
» Wliere neither in itself nor according to own (ong^ies.
ver. 8 can TaU rjjiieTepais yKi^acrais mean what * Augusti, Denkwärd. IV. pp. 49, 65.
van Hengel pats into it : as we do vnth our
54 CHAP. II., 9-11.
tion (comp, ralc y/ier. ylunaaic, ver. 11); therefore van Hengel' wrongly
objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to
run : Tvüg ?///. Ök. t. 16. öia?..^ ev y kKaaroQ eyEvvijBj]. — ev rj tyEvvZ/d.] designation
of the mothei'-tongue, with which one is, in the 2^opular way of expressing
the matter, lorn furnished.
Vv. 9-11. HäpdoL . . . 'Apa/3ef is a more exact statement, placed in apposi-
tion, of the subject of kyEvvijdijfiEv. After finishing the list, ver. 11, Luke again
takes up the verb already used in ver. 8, and completes the sentence already
there begun, but in such a way as once more to bring forward the im-
portant point -7/ löia 6ia?JiiT(f), only in a different and more general expres- '
sion, by ralg tj/het. ylüaaaiQ. Instead, therefore, of simply writing lalovvr. '
avT. TO. uEyal. t. Qeov without this resumption in ver. 11, he continues, after
the list of nations, as if he had said in ver. 8 merely aal nüg ij^eIq. — The
list of nations itself, which is arranged not without reference to geography,
yet in a desultory manner east, north, south, west, is certainly genuine (in
opposition to Ziegler, Schulthess. Kuinoel), but is, of course, not to be
considered, at any rate in its present order and completeness, as an origi-
nal constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be psycho-
logically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong astonishment, but ^
as an Tiistorical notice, which was designedly interwoven in the speech and ,
put into the mouth of the people, either already in the source whence Luke
drew, or by Luke himself, in order to give very strong prominence to the <
contrast with the preceding ra/lAaloi. — 'E^-a^lrat, on the Pei'sian Gulf, are
so named in the LXX. (Isa. xxi. 2) ; called by the Greeks 'E?.vun'ioi.' —
'Iov6aiav] There is a historical reason why Jews should be also mentioned in <
this list, which otherwise names none but foreigners. A portion of those
who had received the Spirit spoke JcTvish, so that even the native Jews
heard their provincial dialect. This is not at variance with the hipatc ■
jTiuaaaiQ, because the Jewish dialect differed in pronunciation from the
Galilean, although both belonged to the Aramaic language of the country
at that time ; comp, on Matt. xxvi. 73. Heinrichs thinks that 'lovöainv is
inappropriate (comp, de Wette), and was only included in this specifica-
tion in fluxu orationis ; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the
mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in consideration of his
Roman readers. What a high degree of carelessness would either sugges-'
tion involve ! ^ Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out after Judaea. —
rtjv ' Aaiav'] is here, as it is mentioned along with individual Asiatic districts,
not the whole of Asia Minor, nor yet simply Ionia (Kuinoel), or Lydia
(Schneckenburger), to which there is no evidence that the name Asia was
applied ; lut the whole loestern coast-region of Asia Minor.* — to, fiipri -rig Atßvr/c
' I.e. p. 24 f . : " How comes it that we, noove ^ Tertull. c. Jitd. t, read Armeniam. Con-
excepted, hear them apeak in themother-tongue jectural emendations are : '\&ovixaia.v (Caspar
of our own people f Thus, in his view, we Barth), '\v5iav (Erasmus Schmid), "RiBwiav
are to explain the passage as the words stand (Hemsterhuis and Valclcenaer).
in the text, and thus there is designated only < Caria, Lydia, Mysia, according to Plin.
the one mother-tongue— the Aramaic. U. iV. v. 28 ; see Winer, Bealw., Wieseler, p.
" See Polyb. v. 44. 9, ul. The country is 32 fl.
called 'EAv/iiais, Pol. xxxi. 11. 1 ; Strabo, xvi.
p. 744.
EFFECTS OF THE MIRACLE. 55
rz/f Kara Kvpr/vTrv] the (lisfricts of the Lihya ütnnteä towards Cyrene, i.e. Lilnja
Ci/renaira, or Pentajtolita/ui, Upper Libyu, whose capital was Ci/rcttr, nearly
one-fourtii of the population of which were Jews.' So many of the Cyre-
naean Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of their
own (vi. 9). — Ol i-i6r)ßovvTtq 'Vunnini] the Romans — Jews dwelling in Rome
and tlie Roman countries of the West generally — residing (here in Jerusalem)
as strangers (pilgrims to the feast, or for other reasons).' As tTruhjiiovvreq,
they are not properly included under the category of Ka-oimwvTtQ in the
preparatory ver. 5, but are hy zeugma annexed thereto. — 'lovöcüol re kgI
■KpuaifAvToi is in apposition not merely to ol ivrtö. 'Fu/ialoi (Erasmus, Grotius,
van Hengel, and others), but, as is alone in keeping with the universal aim of
the list of nations, to all those mentioned before in vv. 9, 10. The native Jews
('lovöa'tot) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were their mother-
tongues ; the Gentile Jews (irftocijlvroi) heard their different non-Hebraic
mother-tongues, and that likewise in the different idioms of the several
nationalities. — Kp7/-ff koX 'Apaßeq] arc inaccurately brought in afterwards,
as their proper position ought to have been before 'lov6. re koI irpoaij}.., be-
cause that statement, in the view of the writer, held good of all the nationali-
ties, — r. jjucTtpaiq yluaaaiq] I'jUET. has the emphasis of contrast: not with
their language, but icith ours. Comp. ver. 8. That y'/.üan. comprehends
also the dialectic varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from vv.
6-10. The expression t. yuer. yl. affirms substantially the same tiling as Avas
meant by hepaiq ylüaaaig in ver. 4. — rd fieyaT^ela r. Qeov] the great things of
God which God has done.' It is the glorious things which God has pro-
vided through Christ, as is self-evident in the case of that assembly in that
condition. Not merely the resurrection of Christ (Grotius), but "tota hue
o'tKovn/i'in gratiiie pertinet," Calovius. Comp. x. 46.
Vv. 13, 13. An/TTcJp.] sec on Luke ix. 7. — ri a» (){?.ni -ohro elvat ;] The
optative with «i^. in order to denote the hypothetically conceived possibility :
Wiat might this jwssihly wish to de? i.e. What might— if this speaking
in our native languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have
any meaning— to be thought of as that meaning?" On the distinction
of the sense without äv, see Kühner, ad Xen.Anah. v. 7. 33.'" — krepoi]
another class of judges, consequently none of the impartial, of whom
there was mention in vv. 7-12, but hostile persons (in part, doubtless, of
the hierarchical party) who drew from the well-known freer mode of life of
Jesus and His disciples a judgment similar to Luke vii. 34, and decided
against the disciples, —(5m,^-/fl'd;ü^'rff] mocking ; a stronger expression than
the simple verb.* The scoffers explain the enthusiasm of the speakers,
' See Joseph. Anti. xiv. T. 2. xvi. 6. 1. Soe « Comp. xvii. 18; Henn. ad Viger. p. 729;
Schneckenburjier, neiUest. Zeitgeach. p. 88 tt. Bcnihardy, p. 410 f.
«On e7ri57,M, a-* distin.i;ui>'hed from Karoi- 'Comp, also Maetzncr, of'i Antiph. p. IW.
KoOcT«, comp. xvii. 21. Plat. Prot. p. 343 O : On fleAetv of iniper.^onal thi)ig?', see Wetstein
iivo'! ÜV €niSr,ß^<Tr,. Legg. viii. p. 8, 45 A ; and Stallbaum, ad Pint. Rep. p. 370 B.
Dem. 13.V2. 10 ; Athrn. viii. p. .3(11 F : oi 'V^ß-nv « Dem. 1221. 2« ; Plat. Ax. p. 304 B ; Polyb.
KaTo.KoO.Tc.; «al oi eVcS^MoO^Tc. t^ TrriA«. xvii. 4. 4, xxxix. 2. 13 ; used absolutely alBO,
' Comp. Ps. Ixsi. 19; Erclus. xvii. 8, xviii. Polyb. xsx. 13. 12.
3, xxxiii. 8 ; 3 Mace. vii. 22.
56 CHAP. II., 14-17.
whicTT struck them as eccentric, and the use of foreign languages instead
of the Galilean, as the effect of drunken excitement. Without disturbing
themselves whence this foreign speaking, according to the historical posi-
tion of the matter, this speaking with tongues, had come and become pos-
sible to the Galileans, they are arrested only by the strangeness of the phe-
nomenon as it struck the senses, and, in accordance with their own vulgarity,
impute it to the having taken too much wine. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The
contents of the speaking (van Hengel) would not, ajiart from that form of
■utterance as if drunk with the Spirit, have given ground for so frivolous an
opinion, but would rather have checked it. The judgment of Festus con-
cerning Paul (xxvi. 34) is based on an essentially different situation. —
y/lfiJKOi'f] yTievKog to awöarayiia Tyg craipvTiTjr wplv •Karrjüri, Hesychius.'
Vv. 14, 15. Srafe/f] as in v. 20, xvii. 22, xxvii. 21 ; Luke xix. 8, xviii.
11. The introduction of the address (Jie stood np, etc.) is solemn. — gvv toIq
iv6sKa\ thus Matthias is already included, and justly ; ver. 32, comp, with
i. 22. "We may add that Grotius aptly remarks (although contradicted by
Calovius) : "Hie incipit (Petrus) nominis sui a rupe dicti meritum implere."
— ÖTTf^W.] as in ver. 4 : but not as if now Peter also had begun to speak
(■-tpncc yluaa. (van Hengel). That speaking is past when Peter and the
eleven made their appearance ; and then follows the simple instruction re-
garding it, intelligible to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with empha-
sis. — KaTOLKovvTeQ\ quite as in ver. 5. The nominative with the article, in
order to express the imperative address.* — tov-()\ namely, what I shall now
explain to you. Concerning evuTi^scrOac (from oi'f), auribus jjeirijiere, which
is foreign to the old classical Greek, but in current use in the LXX. and
the Apocrypha.^ In the N. T. only here.'' — uh yap] yüi> justifies the pre-
ceding summons. The oh-oi, these there, does not indicate tliat the apostles
themselves were not among those who spoke in a miraculous manner, as if
the gift of tongues had been a lower kind of inspired speech ; ^ but Peter,
standing up with the eleven, places himself in the position of a third per-
son, pointing to the whole multitude, whom he would defend, as their ad-
vocate ; and as he did so, the reference of this apology to himself also and
his fellow-apostles became self-evident in the application. This also ap-
plies against van Hengel, p. 64 f. — üpa rpirri] about' nine in the morning ;
so early in the day, and at this first of the three hours of prayer (see on iii.
1), contemporaneously with the morning sacrifice in the temple, people are
not drunk ! Observe the sober, self-collected way in which Peter speaks.
Vv. 16, 17. But this (which has just taken place on the part of those
assembled, and has been accounted among you as the effect of drunken-
ness) is the event, which is spoken of by the p)rophet Joel. — Joel iii. 1-5 (LXX.
ii. 28-31) is freely quoted according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking
as the organ of God, describes the arifiela which shall directly precede the
dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion of the ful-
' Job xxsii. 19 ; Ltician. Ep. Sat. 22, Phi- ^ See Sturz, Dial. AL p. 16G.
hps. 39. 65 ; Nie. AL 184. 299. Comp. y\ev- « Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 520.
Koworri';, Leon. Tar. IS ; Apollonid. 10. ^ 1 Cor. xiv. 18, 19 ; so de Wette, at variance
'•' See Bernhardy, p. 07. with ver. 4.
Peter's discourse. 57
ncss of the Holy Spirit, and tlicn frightful catastrophes in heaven and on
earth. This prophecy, Peter says, has now entered upon its accomplisli-
mcnt. — Kal tG7ai\ and it ic HI he the case: quite according to the Hebrew
(and the LXX.) n;ni. Tlic «u' in the prophetic passage connects it with
•wliat precedes, and is incorporated in the citation. — iu raif laxärmc yuipdirl
The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has only nerä rav-a. Peter has in-
serted for it the familiar expression 0'0'n r\'inx (Isa. ii. 2 ; Mic. iv. 1, al.)
by way of more precise delinition, as Kimchi also gives it (see Lightfoot).
This denotes the hist days of the pre- Messianic period — the days immediately
preceding the erection of the Messianic kingdom, which, according to the
N. T. view, could not but take place hj means of the speedily expected Parousia
of Christ ; see 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; Jas. v. 3 ; and as regards the essential sense,
also Heb. i. 1.' — sKxe^X a later form of tlie future." The oxitponrincj fig-
uratively denotes the copious communication. Tit. iii. G ; Acts x. 45. Comp,
i. 5, and see on Rom. v. 5. — ün-ö tw rrvzvuaruc^ uuv\ deviating from the He-
brew 'nn-nx. The partitive expression (Bernhardy, p. 232) denotes that
something of the Spirit of God conceived as a whole — a special partial em-
anation for the bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb.
ii. 4 ; 1 Cor. xii.) — will pass over to every individual (i-t väaav cäpKa^). —
iräcfav aäpKa] every flesh, i.e. omnes homines, but Avith the accessory idea of
•weakness and imperfection, Avliicli the contrast of the highest gift of God,
that is to be imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents.* In Joel
IE'3-73 certainly refers to the people of Israel, conceived, however, as the
people of God, the collective body of whom, not merely, as formerly, individ-
ual prophets, shall receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa. liv. 13 ;
John vi. 45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so
far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of be-
lievers on Christ without distinction of nations ; so also in the Messianic
fulfilment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now begun, what the
prophet has promised to all flesh is not to be understood of the Jewish peo-
ple as such (van Hengel, appealing to ver. 39), but of all the true people
of God, so far as they believe on Christ. The first Messianic effusion of the
Spirit at Pentecost Avas the bcginninfj oi this fidfilment, the completion of
which is in the course of a progressive development that began at that time
with Israel, and as respects its end is yet future, although this end was by
Petei' already expected as nigh. — koL Tipo<pr)Tevaov(siv . . . hvaviacfU/mwrai
describes the effects of the promised effusion of the Spirit. ■jzjwprjTevaovan;
afflatu divino loqnentnr (:Matt. vii. 22), is by Peter specially recognized as a
prediction of that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just com-
menced with the hioatq yli^caaif;. This we may the more Avarruntably af-
firm, since, according to the analogy of xix. G, we must assume that that
1 Comp. WeifP, retrin. Lehrbegr. p. 82 f. tia! effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For
2 Winer, p. 74 (E. T. 91). llio personality of the Spirit, comp, es-pecially
5 The impersonality of the Spirit is not the saying of Peter, v. .3.
thereby assumed (in opposition to Weiss, WW. ^ Comp. Koni. iii. 20; Gal. ii. IG ; 1 Cor. i.
Theol. p. 130), but the distribution of the gifts 20 ; Matt. xsiv. 22 ; Luke iii. 6.
and powers, which are represented as a par-
58 CHAP. II., 18-21.
speaking was not mere gJossoJalia in the strict sense, but, in a jjortion of the
ST^eük.er^ ?, prophecy . Comp, the spiritual speaking in Corintli. — ol viol vjxüv
Kai al OvyaTtpsc i'fjüv] the oncile and female members of the peo2)le of God, i.e.
all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by the inspired mem-
bers of the Christian theocracy, among whom, according to i. 14, there
were at that time also WöTHc«. — öpäceiQ . . . kwrrvioi^] visions in zcahing and
in sleeping, as forms of the cnzoKälvTpiq of God, such as often came to the
prophets. This jirophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion
of the Spirit in its fulness, become common jn-opjcrty. The fulfilment of
this part of the prophecy had, it is true, not yet taken place among the
members of the Christian people of God, but was still before them as a
consequence of the communication of the Spirit which had just occurred ;
Peter, however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (ver. 16), because
their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit,
and was consequently already in idea included in it. — vsaviaKOL . . . Trpec-
ßbrepoi] belong likewise, as the preceding clause (viol . . . dvyarepeg), to
the representation of the collective body as illustrated per fiepia/Liov. The
opaaeiq correspond to the lively feelings of youth ; h'u-via, to the lesser ex-
citability of more advanced age ; yet the two are to be taken, not as mutu-
ally exclusive, but after the manner of parallelism. — The verb, with the
dative of the cognate noun, is here (hv-vioig kwirvinaß., they will dream icith
dreams ; comp. Joel iii. 1) a Hebraism, and does not denote, like the similar
construction in classic Greek, a more precise definition or strengthening of
the notion conveyed by the verb (Lobeck, Paral. p. 524 f).
A^er. 18. A repetition of the chief contents of ver. 17, solemnly confirm-
ing them, and prefixing the persons concerned. -^ — iml ye] and indeed.'^ It
seldom occurs in classical writers without the two particles being separated
by the word brought into jirominence or restricted, in which case, however,
there is also a shade of meaning to be attended to." We must not explain
the Sov'Aoi'c fiov and the öovXng /lov with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance
with the original text, which has no /iov, of servile hominum genus, nor yet
with Tychsen^ of the alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased
from abroad) : both views are at variance with the f^ov, which refers the
relation of service to God as the blaster. It is therefore the male and female
members of the people of God (according to the prophetic fulfilment : of
the Christian people of God) that are meant, inasmuch as they recognise
Jehovah as their Master, and serve Him : m^y male and female worshippers ;
comp, the Hebrew Hin' t^i'. In the twofold fiov Peter agrees with the
translators of the LXX.,* who must have had another reading of the original
before them.
' Luke six. 42 ; Herrn, ad Viger. p. 826. who are at the game time my servants and
* See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319. handmaids', and therefore in spiritual things
s Illustratio vuticinii Joel iii. Gott. 178S. are quite on a level with the free." Similarly
* So much the less ought Hengstenberg, Bengel, and reccntl}' Beelen (Catholic) in his
Christol I. p. 402, to have imported into this Commenfar. in Acta ap. ed. 2, 1864, who ap-
enclitic y.ov what is neither found in it nor rel- peals inappropriately to Gal. iii. 27 f.
evant: "on servants and handmaids of mtn,
Peter's discourse, 59
Vv. 19, 20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring aloiit U^uau, as at
Matt. xxiv. 24) catadrophes in heaven and on earth — the latter are inentioned
at once ia ver. 19, the former in ver. 20 — as immediute heralds of the Messianic
day. Peter includes in his quotation this element of the projjhecy, because
its realization (ver. IG), conditioned by the outpouring of the S])irit which
necessarily preceded it, presented itself likewise essentially as beioiijfin"- to
the allotted portion of the taxarai ynqxit. The dreadful events could not but
now — seeing that the ellusion of the Spirit preceding them had already com-
menced — be conceived as inevitable and very imminent ; and this circum-
stance could not but mightily contribute to the alarming of souls and their
being won to Christ. As to rkpa-a and crjiiEia, see on Matt. xxiv. 24 ; Kom.
XV. 19 — aifM . . . KuTzvov contains the c?//2da i-l rfj^ yf/g, namely, hloodshed
(war, revolt, murder) and conjUi<jration. Similar devastations l)elonged,
according to the later Jewish Christology also, to the dolores Mc.ssiae. See
on Matt. xxiv. C, 7. "Cum videris rcgna se invicem turbantia, tunc ex-
pectes vestigia Messiae." ' The reference to llood-rain, ßerij meteors, and
pillars of smohe arising from the earth " is neither certainly in keeping with
the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the analogy of ]Matt.
xxiv. — är///(5a Ka~vov] vapour of smol-e.^ — Ver. 20. Meaning: the sun will
"become dark, and the moon appear bloody. Comp, on IVIatt. xxiv. 29 ; also
Isa. xiii. 10; Ezck. xxxii. 7. — irplv i/.Oelv\ ere there shall hirce come.* — -ijv
ijlikpav Kvpiov] i.e. according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment of the
words : the day of Christ, namely of His Parousia. Comp, on Rom. x. 13.
But this is not, with Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinocl, following the
Fathers, to be considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem,
which belongs to the or/^ueia of Parousia, to the dolores Messiae. See on
Matt. xxiv. 29. — rijv n^yaJ.Tjv k. i-nKpav?]] the great (uar' i^ox'/v, fraught with
decision, comp. Rev. xvi. 14) and manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest
before all the world as that which it is. Comp, the frequent use of irrK^iävsia
for the Parousia (3 Thess. ii. 8, al.). The Vulgate aptly renders : mani-
festus. Instead of i-n^avfj, the Hebrew has >''^lin, terribilis, which the
LXX., deriving from n5^"i, has incorrectly translated hy i:TTi<pavf/, as also else-
where.'^ But on this account the literal signification of e~i^av. need not be
altered here, where the text follows the LXX.
Ver. 21. And every one who shall have invoked the name of the Lord, — this
Peter wishes to be understood, according to the sense of the prophetic ful-
filment, of the invocation of Christ (relative worship : see on vii. 59 ; Rom.
X. 12 ; Phil. ii. 10 ; 1 Cor. i. 2) ; just as he would have the auO/iaerai
understood, not of any sort of temporal deliverance, but of the saving
deliverance of the Messianic kingdom (iv. 12, xv. 11), which Jesus on His
return will found ; and hence he must now (vv. 22-36) demonstrate Jesus
the crucified and risen and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (ver. 36).
» Beresh. rabb. sec. 41. era! idea. Comp, on snch combinations, Lo-
9 De Wette, comp. Kuinocl. beck. Paral. p. 534.
s i.Tfii<:, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical * See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 7^ f.
writers more usually (itmos is the more gen- ' See Bid and Schleusn. Tlies. s.v.
60 CHAP. II., 22-24.
And how undauntedly, concisely, and convincingly he docs so ! A first
fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit,
Ver. 22. Tovtov^] like tovto, ver. 14, the words which follow.^ — rbv
'Nal^upalov is, in the mouth of the apostle, only the current more precise
designation of the Lord,'' not used in the sense of contempt ^ for the sake of
contrast to what follows, and possibly as a reminiscence of the superscrip-
tion of the cross (Beza and others), of which there is no indication in the
text (such as perhaps : ävöpa c5i'). — ävöpa äno rov Qeov änoöeSEr/ß.] a man on
the part of Ood approved, namely, in his peculiar character, as Messiah. an6
stands neither here nor elsewhere for i-d, but denotes the going forth of
the legitimation from God (divinitus).* — elg v/xäc;] in reference to you., in order
that He might appear to you as such, for you. — 6vväii. k. ripaai k. c/i/ieioig]
a rhetorical accumulation in order to the full exhaustion of the idea,^ as re-
gards the nature of the miracles, their appearance, and their destination.
Comp. ver. 19 ; 2 Thess. ii. 9 ; 2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Heb. ii. 4. — h fiiou vfiüv]
in the midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all.
Ver. 23. lovrov] an emphatic repetition.^ There is to be no parenthesis
before it. This one. . . . delivered up, ye have liy the hand of laidess men '
affixed and made tcay with : x. 39; Luke xxii. 2, xxiii. 32. By the ävö/noi are to be
understood Gentiles (1 Cor. ix. 21 ; Rom. i. 14), and it is here more especially
the Roman soldiers that are meant, by whose hand Christ was affixed, nailed
to the cross, and thereby put to death. On ekSotov, comp. Drac. 26, and
examples from Greek writers in Raphel and Kypke, also Lobeck, Paral. p.
531. It refers to the delivering up of Jesus to the Jews, which took place
on the part of Judas. This was no work of men, no independent success
of the treachery, which would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of
Jesus ! but it happened in virtue of the fixed, therefore unalterable, resolve
ami (in virtue of i\\Q) forehiowledge of God.^ — Trpoyvuaic is \\eve usually
taken as synonymous with ßovlr] ; but against all linguistic usage.' Even
in 1 Pet. i. 2, comp. ver. 20, the meaning j^i'nescientia (Vulgate) is to be
retained. See generally on Rom. viii. 29. God's ßovljj (comp, iv, 28) was,
that Jesus was to be delivered up, and the mode of it was present to Him in
H^s 2'>rescience, which, therefore, is placed «/'to* the ßavlrj. Objectively, no
doubt, the two are not sejiarate in God, but the relation is conceived of
1 See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ad * On ßov\ri, comp, the Homeric Atbs 6" ire-
Atiab. ii. 5. 10. Aeuro ßovKrj, IL i. 5, Od. xi. 297.
2 Comp. iii. 6, iv. 10. » This reason must operate also asainst
3 Comp. vi. 14, xxiv. 5. Lamping's (Pauli de praedestinat. decreta,
* Jo:-eph. Antt. vii. 14. 5 ; Poppo, ad Thuc. 1SÖ8, p. 102 £f.) defence of the common ex-
i. 17. 1 ; Buttm. neut. Or. p. 280 (E. T. 326). planation, in which he specifies, as tiie dis-
s Bornem Schol. in, Luc. p. xxx. tiiiction between ßouArjand Trpdyi'iücrts, merely
" See Schaef. Melet. p. 84 ; Dissen, ad Dem. this : " illud adumbrat Dei vohintatem, hoc
de cor. p. 225. inde profectnm decretum." It is arbitrary,
' 6iä xeipö? (see the critical remarks) is here with Hülsten, z. Ed. d. Paid. u. Pet. p. 146, to
not to be taken, like T'3, for the mere /;«?• (see refer ßov\r) not to the saving will, but merely
Fritzsche, ad Marc, p. 199), but, as it is a to the will as regards destiny. See, in oppo-
manual action that is spoken of, in its con- sition to this, iii. 18, where the suffering of
Crete, literal meaning. It belongs to vivid Christ is the Ui\f\\m&:\t oi divine prophecy ;
rhetorical delineation. Comp. Dorville, ad comp. viii. 32 f., s. 43.
Charit, p. 2T3.
Peter's discourse. Gl
after the analogy of the action of the human mind. — The dative i.s, as in
XV. 1, that in which the iii(hToi> has its ground. "Without the divine /Jmvl/)
K.T.2.. it would not have taken place. — The question, How Peter could say
to those present : Ye have put Him to death, is solved by the remark that
the execution of Christ was a public judicial murder, resolved on by thp
Sanhedrim in the name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by
the Gentiles, and accomplislied under the direction of the Sanliedrim (John
xix. 10) ; comp. iii. 13 f. The view of Olshausen, that tlie death of Christ
was a collective act of the human race, which had contracted a collective
guilt, is quite foreign to the context.
Ver. 24. Tdf Lölvaq] Peter most probably used the common expression
from the O. T. : A)? ''7?n, snares of death, in which the Odvaroc personified
is conceived as a huntsman laying a snare.' Tlie LXX. erroneously trans-
lates this expression as üölveq davdrov, misled by ^50, dohr (Isa. Ixvi. 7), in
the plural 0''??r), used particularly of hlrth-pangs. See the LXX. Ps.
xviii. 5 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 6. But Luke— and this betrays the use of a Hebrew
source directly or indirectly — has followed the LXX., and has th\is changed
the Petrine expression vincula mortis into dolores mortis. The expression of
Luke, who with UYiveq could think of nothing else than the only meaning
which it has in Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. In the
seme of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained : aftet he has loosed
the snares of death, with which death held him captive ; but in the sense of
Luke : after he has loosed the pangs of death. According to Luke,^ the resur-
rection of Jesus is conceived as Inrth from the dead. Death tracailed^ in
lirth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these
pangs ceased, they wei-e loosed; and because God has made Christ alive,
Ood has loosed the pangs of death." To understand the death-pangs of
Christ, from which God freed Him " resuscitando eum ad vitam nullis dolo-
ribus obnoxiam" (Grotius), is incorrect, because the liberation from the
pains of death has already taken place through the death itself, with which
the earthly work of Christ, even of His suffering, was finished (John xix.
30). Quite groundless is the assertion of Olshausen, that in Hellenistic
Greek üölvec has not only the meaning of 2^ains, but also that of hands,
which is not at all to be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. Thes. V. p.
571. —Kadö-L : according to the fact, that; see on Luke i. 7. — oi/c yp öhvaroi']
which is afterwards proved from David. It was thus imjiossible in virtue
of the divine destination attested by David. Other reasons (Calovius : on
account of the unio personalis, etc.) are here inT-icichnA. — Kpa-Ucdai vir'
ahroi'] The dävarog could not but give Him up ; Christ could not be retained
by death in its power, which would have happened, if He, like other dead,
had not become alive again and risen to eternal life (Rom. vi. O).' By His
iPs xviii. 5 f.,cxvi. 3. See Gesen. T/ies. 0. C. 1612, m. 927; Aolian. H. Ä. xii. 5.
J p 440 Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p. 574 A: /ifV"^"'? "S"^'
■ = Comp, on npu.r6roKO, « riv ve«pi^, Col. i. « «al bSv.ac, av.cxeaöau The aorist participle
jg is fynchronous with äcco-rrjo-e.
3 o dd^aro, iSc« >car^X->^ avroy, Chrys. ' On Kpare:<rea. v^6. to be ruled bt/, COmp. 4
* On Aiicra!, see LXX. Job xxxix. 3 ; Soph. Mucc. ii. 9 ; Dem. 1010. 17.
62 CHAP. II., 25-29.
resurrection Christ has done away death as a power (3 Tim. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv.
25 f.)
Ver. 25. Elf av76v\ so that the words, as respects their fulfilment, affly
to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220. — The passage is from Ps. xvi. 8 ff., ex-
actly after the LXX. David, if the Psalm, which yet certainly is later,
belonged to him, or the other suffering theocrat who here speaks, is, in
what he affirms of himself, a prophetic type of the Messiah ; what he says
of the certainty that he should not succumb to the danger of death, which
threatened him, has received its antitypical fulfilment in Christ by His res-
urrection from the dead. This liiatorical Messianic fulfilment of the Psalm
justified the apostle in its Messianic interpr'etation., in which he has on his
side not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle Paul
(xiii. 35 f.). The Tvpoupufiriv K.r.Ti., as the LXX. translates 'il'liy, is, accord-
ing to this ideal Messianic understanding of the Psalm, Christ's joyful
expression of His continued fellowsMp with God on earth, since in fact {oti)
God is by His side protecting and preserving Him ; I foresaio the Lord
})efore my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind's glance,^ I saw
Jehovah always before my face. — in öc^tüv /lov iarh] namely, as protector
and helper, as Trapaarä-r/c.^ Concerning ek 6e^iüv, from the right side out, i.e.
on the right of it, see Winer, p. 344 (E. T. 459). The figurative element of
the expression is borrowed from courts of justice, where the advocates
stood at the right of their clients, Ps. cix. 31. — Iva /ui/ caTieväü] without
figure : that I may remain unmoved in the state of my salvation. On the
figurative use — frequent also in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors^ — of
ca/ievEiv, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2.
Ver. 2ß. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted. The aorists
denote an act of the time described by ■npoupdii-qv k.t.1., the joyful remem-
brance of which is here expressed, —-r) Kapdla ßou, "21: the heart, the centre
of personal life, is also the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of
the will.'' — Instead of ?/ yTiüaaä /xov, the Hebrew has "'l''^^, i.e. my soul,^ in
place of which the LXX. either found a different reading or gave a free
rendering. — en lU Kal rj cap^ ßov /c.r./l.] but moreover also my flesh (body)
shall tabernacle, that is, settle itself by way of encampment, on hope, by
which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that he shall not perish, but
continue in life — while, according to Peter, from the point of view of the
fulfilment that has taken place in Christ, these words «f Xpiaröv (ver. 25)
projDhetically express that the body of Christ will tarry in the grave on hope,
i.e. on the basis of the hope of rising from the dead. Thus what is divinely
destined for Christ — His resurrection — appears in poetic mould as the
object of the hope of His body. — Irt 6e mi} Comj). Luke xiv. 26 ; Acts
xxi. 28 ; Soph. 0. R. 1345. —£7r' klniöi] as in Rom. iv. 18.
Ver. 27. What now the Psalmist further says according to the historical
sense : For thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades (l), i.e. Thou wilt not suffer
» Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 16 ; otherwise, xxi. 29. * Delitzsch, Fsych. p. 248 ff.
2 Xen. Cyr. iii. 3. 21. ^ Ps. vii. 6, xxx. 13, et al.; see Schoettgen,
3 Dorville, ad Char. p. 307. p. 415.
ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. G3
me to die in my present life-peril, and wilt not give Thy Ilohj One, according
to the Ketibh of tliR original : Tlnj holy ones, the plurul of category, comp.
Hupfcld ill he, to see corruption— is by Peter, as spoken nr Xpiarui; taken
in accordance with the proplietical meaning historically fulfilled in Ilim :
T/ton wilt not forxdke my soul in Iladcs, after it shall iiave come thither ;'
but by the resurrection wilt again deliver it,' and wilt not suffer Thy Holy
One, tlie Messiah, to share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the
sense as fulfilled, j^ut refaction (comp. xiii. 34 ff.).' Instead of dia(pOopäv, \
the original has r\nc?, a j>it, which, however, Peter, with the LXX., un-
derstood as ()ta(pf)o[)ä, and accordingly has derived it not from T\^^, but
from j"*niy, 6ta<plkif)cj ; comp. Job. xvii. 14. — On (h'joeir, cornp. x. 40. The
meaning is : Thou wilt not cause, that, etc. Often so also in classical
writers from Homer onward. As to l(kii> in the sense of experiencing,
comp, on Luke ii. 26.
Ver. 28. Thoic hast made Icnoicn to me ways of life ; Tlwu wilt f II me icith
joy in 2>fesence of Thy countenance, meant by the Psalmist of the divine guid-
ance in saving his life, and of the joy which he would thereafter experience
before God, refers, according to its prophetic sense, as fulfilled in Christ,
to Ilis resurrection, by which God practically made known to him ways to
life, and to his state of exaltatio7i in heaven, where he is in the fulness of
blessedness with God. — ^era -ov Trpoau-nv aov] '1"'JD~nXj iu communion with
Thy countenance, seen by me. Comp. Heb. ix. 24.
Vv. 29-31. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm has prophetically
made known the resurrection of Christ.
Ver. 29. Mfra Trappt/alar:] franlly and freely, without reserve ; for the
main object was to show off a passage honouring David, that it had re-
ceived fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel
well remarks : "Est igitur hoc loco T:pa(kpa-Eia, praevia sermonis mitiga-
tio." — David is called 6 Karpiäpx'/c fis the celebrated ancestor of the kingly
family, from which the nation expected their Messiah. — in] that {not for).
Peter wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is alloicahle for
him to say on account of this very notoriety ; therefore with i^6v there is
not to be supplied, as is usually done, la-u, but ioTi {i^^a-L). — kv 7///<V]
David was buried at Jerusalem.'' In 70 fivrjiia avrov, his sepulchre, there is
involved, according to the context, as self-evident: "cum ipso Davidis
corpore corrupto ; moUiter loquitur, ' ' Bengel.
' See Kühner, § 622 ; Bnttm. neut. Gr. p. 287 (see especially Holstcn, z. Ev. d. Paul. u.
(E. T. 333). Petr. p. 128 K.) that the early church conceived
^ This passage is a dictum prolans for the the resurrection of Clirist as a neräßao-is eis
abode of the soul of Christ in Hades, but it irepov <rüi(ua, entirely independent of the dead
contains no dogmatic statement concerning body of our Lord. How much are tlie evan-
the i/exce/ist's ad infernos in the sense of tlie gelical narratives of the appearances of the
church. Comp. Giider, Lehre von d. Ersehet- risen Christ, in which the identity of His body
niinff Chrisli vnter d. Todten, p. 30 ; Weiss, has stress so variously laid on It, at variance
Petrin, Lehr hegr. Y>. 2äSt. with this opinion ! Comp. s. 41.
' After this passage, compared with ver. 31, * Neh. iii. 16 ; Joseph. Antl. viL 15. 3, xiii,
no further discussion is needed to show how 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. S. 5.
unreasonably it has been taken for granted
64 CHAP. IL, 30-36.
Vv. 30-32. Ovv] infers from the previous kcu tu fivfj/ua avrov , . . ravrr^c,
whence it is 2)l(iin that David in the Psahn, Z.c. , as a jorophet and divinely
conscious progenitor of the future Messiah, has spoken of the resurrection of
Christ as the one who should not be left in Hades, and whose body should
not decay. — icnl elöü^] see 2 Sam. vii. 12. — f/c Kapnov r. b(7(pvog avrov] sc.
Tivä. On the frequent sujjplying of the indefinite pronoun, see Kühner, II.
p. 37 f.; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression
KapTTog rfjq oacpvog avTov (Ps. cxxxii. 11) presupposes the idea of the uninter-
rupted ma^e line of descent from David to Christ.' — Kadlaai knl t. tipovov
avTov'] to sit on His throne,"^ namely, as the Messiah, who was to be the theo-
cratic consummator of the kingdom of David (Mark xi. 10 ; Acts xv. 16).
Comp. Luke i. 32. — Tr/joi' Jüv] prophetically looTcing into the future. Comp.
Gal. iii. 8. — on 'ov /ca-e/l.] since He, in fact, was not left, etc. Thus has
history proved that David spoke prophetically of the resurrection of the
Messiah. The subject of KaTelEi^Orj k.t.I. is not David ' — which no hearer,
after ver. 29, could suppose— but 6 Xpia-öc : and what is stated of Him in
the words of the Psalm itself is the triumph of their historical fulfilment,
a triumph which is continued and concluded in ver. 32. — tovtov rbv 'iT/aovv]
has solemn emphasis ; this Jesus, no other than just Him, to whom, as the
Messiah who has historically appeared, David's prophecy refers. — ov]
neuter : ichereof. See Bernhardy, p. 298, — ßäprvpeo] in so far as we. His
twelve apostles, have conversed with the risen Christ Himself. Comp,
i. 22, X. 41.
Ver. 33 Ohv] namely, in consequence of the resurrection, with which the
exaltation is necessarily connected. — rf/ öe^iö. rov Qeov] hytlie right hand, i.e.
by the power of God, v. 31 ; Isa. Ixiii. 12.* The rendering: to the right
hand of God, however much it might be recommended as regards sense by
ver. 34, is to be rejected, seeing that the construction of simple verbs of
motion with the dative of the goal aimed at, instead of with jrpdf or elf,
belongs in classical Greek only to the poets, ^ and occurs, indeed, in late
writers/ but is without any certain example in the X. T., often as there
would have been occasion for it ; for Acts xxi. 16 admits of another expla-
nation, and Rev. ii. 10 is not at all a case in point. In the passage of the
LXX. Judg. xi. 18, deemed certain by Fritzche, r?) >?} Mwa/:i, if the read-
ing is correct, is to be connected, not with i]}Sev, but as appropriating da-
tive with airo civarolüv t'j'Xtov.'' The objection, that hy the right hand of God is
here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. Tliere is something
triunij)hant in the element emphatically prefixed, which is correlative to
avEGTijaev o Qeoq (ver. 32) ; God's work of power was, as the resurrection, so
* Comp. Heb. vii. 5 ; Gen. xxsv. 11 ; 2 Chron. p. 42, the latter seeking to defend the use
vi. 9 ; and see remark after Matt. i. 18. as legitimate.
'^ Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 4. « The dative of interest {e.g. epxoßai crot, T
3 Hofm. Schrifthew. H. 1, p. 115. come for theo) has often been confounded
< Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, with it. Comp. Krüger, § 48. 9. 1. See Winer,
Bengel, also Zeller, p. 502, and others. p. 201 f. (B. T. 208 f.).
fi See the passages from Homer in Nägelsb. ' Concerning KOpta ieVai, Xcn. Anäb. i. 2.
p. 12, cd. 3, and, besides. Erfurdt, ad Antig. 26, fee Bornemann, cd. Lips.
S34 ; Bernhardy, p. 95 ; Fritzsche, Conject. I.
ARGUMENT FROM SCRIPTURE. 65
also the exaltation. Comp. Phil. ii. 9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect trans-
lation of 'rp7,' has been unnecessarily and arbitrarily assumed. — ttjv te
inayy. r. äy. tzv. Aaß. napä r. miTp.] contains that which followed upon the
vTJiuOEic, and hence is not to be explained with Kuinoel and others :
" after He had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the
Father;" but: '■'■after lie had received the promised (i. 4) Iluly Spirit from
IUh Father. See on Luke xxiv. 49. — tov-o is either, with Vulgate,
Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred to the rrvevf^a ayiov, so
that the 6 corresponds to the explanatory id quod ^ or — which, on account
of the Ö annexed to tovto, is more natural and more suitable to the miracu-
lous character — it is, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to be taken as an in-
dependent neuter: lie poured forth, just now, this, what ye, in ellectu, se«
and hear, in the conduct and speech of those assembled. Accordingly,
Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously been remarked {ri/v
TS errayy. . . . irarpog), themselves to infer that what was poured out was
nothing else than just the TTi'ff;//« a}70j^.^ — The idea that the exalted Jesus
in heaven receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is
founded on such instructions of Christ as John xv. 2G, xvi. 7. Comp, on
i. 4.
Vv. 34, 35. Tap] The fundamental fact of the previous statement, namely,
the ry öe^tä Qenv vfuOe'iQ, has still to be jiroved, and Peter proves this also
from a sayinj of David, which has not received its fulfilnaent in David him-
self. — ?.iyei 6e avrog] but he himself says, but it is his own declaration ; and
then follows Ps. ex. 1, where David distinguishes from himself Him who is
to sit at the right hand of God, as His Lord (t<j Kvplu /nov). This King, des-
ignated by 7GJ Kvplu jiov of the Psalm, although it does not proceed from
David (see on Matt. xxii. 43), is, according to the Messianic destination and
fulfilment of this Psalm,* Christ, who is Lord of David and of all the saints
of the O. T. ; and His occupying tlie throne, sit Thou at my right hand, de-
notes the exaltation of Christ to the glory and dominion of the Father, whose
oivOpovoc: He has become ; Heb. i. 8, 13 ; Eph. i. 21 f.
Ver. 36. The Christological aim of the whole discourse, which, as un-
doubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said (ovv), is emphatically at
the close set down for recognition as the summary of the faith now requi-
site. In this case ä(j<pa?.üc (unchangeaUy) is marked with strong emphasis. —
Traf oIko^ 'I(^/'-] witliout the article, because oIk. 'lap. has assumed the nature
of a proper namc.^ The whole people is regarded as the family of their an-
cestor Israel (/X^^' r\*3). — koI Kvpiov avruv k. Xpiaruv] him Lord, ruler gener-
ally, comp. X. 36, as tcell as also Messiah. The former general expression, ac-
cording to which He is 6 uv enl Tvavruv, Rom. ix. 5, and KecpaAfj virep navra,
• BIcek in the Stud. u. Krlt. 1833, p. 1038 ; in tticir ease bo supposed that they had
de Wette ; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 205. already received baptism in the lifetime of
* Kühner, § 802. 2. our Lord, to which concluision vv. 38, 41 point,
s It cannot, however, be said that " the first < Which is not to be identified with its his-
congiegation of disciples receives this gift toricul meaning. See Hupfeld in loc, and
without baptism " (Wei^is, bibl. Thcol. p. 150). Diestel in the Jahrh.f. d. Th. p. 562 f.
Those persons possessed by the Spirit were, ^ romp. LXX. 1 Kings xii. C3 : Ezek, xlv.
in fact, all confessors of Clinst, and it must 6, al. Winer, p. 105 (E. T. 13T).
66 CHAP. II., 37-41.
Eph. i. 32, the latter special, according to which He is the aQTtjp rov Koa/iov,
V. 31, John iv. 42, and KE(j)a/ir/ rfjg eKK?izi(jiag, Eph. i. 23, Col. 1. 18, together
characterize the Messianic possessor of the kingdom, which God has made
Christ to be by His exaltation, seeing that He had in His state of humilia-
tion emptied Himself of the power and glory, and was only reinstated into
them by His exaltation. Previously He teas indeed likewise Lord and Mes-
siah, but in the form of a servant ; and it was after laying aside that form
that He lecame such in complete reality.' It is not to be inferred from such
passages as this and Acts iv. 37, x. 38, xvii. 31 (de Wette), that the Book
of Acts represents the Messianic dignity of Jesus as an acquisition in time ;
against which view even rrnpä rov Trarpog in our passage (ver. 33), compared
with the confession in Matt. xvi. 16, John xvi. 30, is decisive, to say noth-
ing of the Pauline training of Luke himself. Comp, also ver. 34. — ahrov
is not superfluous, but tovtov tov 'l^aovv is a weighty epexegesis, which is
purposely chosen in order to annex the strongly contrasting ov v/nelg ka-av-
puaarc (comp. iii. 13, vii. 52), and thus to impart to the whole address a
deeply impressive conclusion. " Aculeus in line," Bengel.
Ver. 37. But after they heard it, what was said by Peter, they icere pierced
in the heart. — Karnvbaaeiv, in the figurative sense of painful emotion, which
penetrates the heart as if stinging, is not found in Greek writers, who, how-
ever, use vvaoEiv in a similar sense ; but see LXX. Ps. cix. 16 : KaravewypEvov
7?) KapiVig, Gen. xxxiv. 7, where narevvyrjaav is illustrated by the epexegesis :
Kol AvTnjßov ijv avTo'ig a(p66pa.^ The hearers were seized with deep pain in their
conscience on the speech of Peter, partly for the general reason that He
whom they now recognised as the Messiah was murdered by the nation, part-
ly for the more special reason that they themselves had not as yet acknowl-
edged Him, or had been even among His adversaries, and consequently had
not recognised and entered iipon the only way of salvation pointed out by
Peter. — On the figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de oi'at. iii. 34, of Pericles :
" ut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi acuJcos quosdam relinqueret."
— -I nou/aopev] what shall ice doP The inquiry of a need of salvation surren-
dering itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made by the dis^
course of Jesus in Nazareth, Luke iv. 28. — äv6peg äöeTKpoi] an affectionate
and respectful address from broken hearts already gained. Comp, on i. 16.
" ISTon ita dixerunt prius," Bengel.
Ver. 38. What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation!
The pETavoijoare demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral con-
dition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith
(Mark i. 15) ; the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. iii.
19, viii. 22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So
the apostles began to accomplish it, Luke xxiv. 47. — knl rü övSpari 'Itjü.
Xp(ffroii] on the ground of the name, so that the name " Jesus Messiah,'''' as the
contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming bap-
tized rests. Ba--^. is only here used with kni ; but comj). the analogous
' Comp. Weiss, hibl. Theol. p. 134 f. Susann. 11 (of the pain of love). Compare
« Eccliis. xiv. 1, xii. 12, xs. 21, xlvii. 21 ; also Luke ii. 35. ^ Winer, p. 2G3 (E. T. 348).
KESULTS OF TUE ADDRESS. 67
expressions, Luke xxi. 8, xxiv. 47 ; Acts v. 28, 40 ; Matt. xxiv. 5, al.
e'li denotes the object of the baptism, wliich is the remission of the guilt
contracted in tlie state before /xerdvoia. Comp. xxii. IG ; 1 Cor. vi. 11.
Kai Ai/ip.] Kai consecutivum. After reconciliation, sanctilication ; both are
experienced in baptism. — tov dylov Twevfiarog] this is the öupea. itself. Heb.
vi. 4 ; Acts x. 45, xi. 17.
Ver. 39. Proof of the preceding h'/^pEade k.t.I. : for to you Mongs the
promise concerned, yours it is, i.e. you are they in whom the promise of the
communication of the Spirit is to be realized. — rolg elc /naKpav] to those loho
(ire at a lUmtance, that is, to all the members of the Jewish nation, who are
neither dwellers here at Jerusalem, nor are now present as pilgrims to the
feast, both Jews and Hellenists.' But, although Peter might certainly con-
ceive of the conversion of the Gentiles, according tolsa. ii. 3, xlix. 1, al., in
the way of their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the mention
of the Gentiles here — observe the emphatically preceding viüv — would be
quite alien from the destination of the words, which were intended to
prove the ?.?/ip£aOe k.t.I. of ver. 38. The conversion of the Oentiles does not
here belong to the matter in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, under-
stood it of time :" longe post futiwos, but this is excluded by the very concep-
tion of the nearness of tlie Parousia. — As to the exjiression of direction,
tig ßaKf)., comp, on xxii. 5. — ugovq av TrpoGKaÄ. «.r./l.] contains the definition
of TTäat Ting e'lg /uaKpnv : as many as God shall have called, to Himself, namely,
by the preaching of the gospel, by the reception of which they, as mem-
bers of the true theocracy, will enter into Christian felloicship icith God,
and will receive the Spirit.
Ver. 40. Observe the change of the aorist öie/napTvpaTo (see the critical
notes) and imperfect irnptKalu : he adjured them (1 Tim v. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 14,
iv. 1, often also in classical writers), after which followed the continued exhor-
tation, the contents of which was : Becom,e saved from this (the now living)
perverse generatioti aicay, in separating yourselves from them by the fiETÜvoia
and baptism. — aKu7.i6c:'\ croolced, in a moral sense = äJ(/cöc. Comp, on Phil,
ii. 15.
Ver. 41. Mfi" nvv\ namely, in consequence of these representations of the
apostle. We may translate either : they then icho received his word (namely,
crüHriTE «.r.A.),' or, they then, those indicated in ver. 87, (fter they received his
^cord, etc.* The latter is correct, because, .according to the former view of
the meaning, there must have been mention previously of a reception of
the word, to which reference would here be made. As this is not the case,
those present in general are meant, as in ver. 37, and äno^e^äiievoi -bv 7.6yov
avTov (ver 40) stands in a climactic relation to KaTevvyijaav (ver. 37). —
■KpoaeTkOTjaav\ were added (ver. 47, v. 14, xi. 24), namely, to the fellowship of
1 Comp, also Baumgartcn. Others, with ^ o gam. ^-ii. 19, comp, the classical oinc h
Theophylact, Oecumenlus, Erasmus, Onlviii, iJ-aKpäv.
Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, 3 Comp. viii. 4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza,
de Wette, Lange, Ilackctt, also Weiss, Petr. Bengel, Kuinoel, and others).
Lehrbegr. p. 118, and I'M. Theol. p. 149, ex- ■• Comp. i. 6, viii. 25, sv. 3 (so Castalio, de
piain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph. ii. 13. Wette).
68 CHAP. IL, 42-45.
the already existing followers of Jesus, as is self-evident from the context. —
^vxa'i] persons, according to the Hebrew ^P},, Ex. i. 5 ; Acts vii. 14 ; 1 Pet.
iii. 20 ; this use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving it.^
■i>vxv means, in the strict sense, soul (life). — The text does not affirm that
the baptism of the three thousand occurred on the spot and simultaneously ,
but only that it took place during the course of that day (r^ iißipa hueivrf).
Observe further, that their baptism was conditioned only by the fierävoLa
and by faith on Jesus as the Messiah ; and, accordingly, it had their
further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a subsequent, con-
dition (ver. 42).
Ver. 42 now describes what the reception of the three thousand had a3
its consequence ; what they, namely, the three thousand and those who
were already believers before (for the ichole 'body is the subject, as is evident
from the idea of TrpoasTiOr^oai'), as members of the Christian community
under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did.^ The development
of the inner life of the youthful church follows that great external increase.
First of all : tJiey were perseveringly devoted to the instruction (2 Tim. iv, 2 ;
1 Cor. xiv. 6) of the apostles, they were constantly intent on having them-
selves instructed by the apostles. — r?? Kotvuvia] is to be explained of the
mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another.^
The same in substance with the adtliporrjQ, 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9. It is incor-
rect in Wolf, Rosenmüller, and others to refer it to ruf ciTroaröT^uv, and to
understand it of living in intimate association icith the apostles. For «at t?)
Koivuv. is, as well as the other three, an independent element, not to be
blended with the preceding. Therefore the views of others are also incor-
rect, who either* take the following (spurious) nai as explicativum {et coynmu-
nione, videlicet fractio7ie panis et precibus), or suppose a ei/ 6ia (hoiu (Homberg)
after the Vulgate : ct communieatione fractionis ^M/jjs, so that ry hllvuv.
would already refer to the Agapae. Recently, following Mosheim," the
explanation of the communication of charitable gifts to the needy has become
the usual one." But this special sense must have been indicated by a spe-
cial addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by the context, as in
Rom. XV. 26 ; Heb. xiii. 16 ; especially as Koii^uvla does not in itself signify
c/)mmunlcatio, but comniunio ; and it is only from the context that it can
obtain the idea of fellowship manifesting itself by contributions in aid, etc.,
which is not here the case. — rjj K?Ma(i tov apron] in the breaking of their
bread (jov a.). By this is meant the observance of comvion evening-meals (Luke
xxiv. 30), which, after the manner of the last meal of Jesus, they concluded
with the Lord's Supper (Agapae, Jude 12). The Peschito and several
' Eur. Andrem. 612, Med. 247, al. ; see * So Heinrichs, Kiiinoel, Olshausen, Baum-
Kypke, II. p. 19. garten, also Lohe, Aphorism, p. 80 fE., Har-
2 With the spurioiisness of the second Kal nack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 ff., Hac-
(see the critical note), the four particulars are ett, and others. That the moral nature of the
arranged i« pair«. «oivwfia expresses itself also in liberality, is
' Comp, on Phil. 1. 5. See also Weiss, bibl. correct in itself, but is not here particularly
Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. [Wolf. brought forward, any more than other forms
* Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by of its activity. This in opposition to Lechler,
* De 7'6bus Christ, ante Const. M. p. 114. apoat. Zeit. p. 885.
THE FIRST CONVERTS. 69
Fathers, as well as the Catholic Church,' with Suicer, Mede, Wolf, Light-
foot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily explain it exclusively of the
Euc/iarist ; comp, also Harnack, I.e. p. Ill II. SucJi, a celebration is of later
origin ; the separation of the Lord's Sujjper from the joint evening meal
did not take place at all in the apostolic church, 1 Cor. xi. The passages,
XX. 7, 11, xxvii. 35, are decisive against Heinrichs, who, after Kypke, ex-
plains the breaking of bread of beneficence to the poor (Isa. Iviii. 7), so that
it would be synonymous with Koivuvia (but see above). — tuIq TTpoaevxalg]
The plural denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new
Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubtless, Psalms
and wonted Jewish prayers, especially having reference to the Messiah and
His kingdom. — Observe further in general the family character of the
brotherly union of the first Christian church.
Ver. 43. But fear came upon every soul, and many miracles, etc. Luke ia
these words describes : (1) what sort of impression the extraordinary result
of the event of Pentecost made generally upon the minds^ of those who did
not belong to the youthful church ; and (2) the work of the apostles after
the effusion of the Spirit. Therefore rt is the simple copula, and not, as is
often assumed, equivalent to yap. — iyivtro] (see the critical note) is in both
cases the deseriptive imperfect.^ Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke
has iizi with the accusative, or e/ufoßo^ ylverai. — <p6ßog, as in Mark iv. 41,
Luke i. 63, vii. 16, etc., fear, dread, which are wont to seize the mind on a
great and wonderful, entirely unexpected, occurrence. This ^ußo(:, occa.
sioned by the marvellous result which the event of Pentecost together with
the address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin), in pre-
venting the first internal development of the church's life from being
disturbed by premature attacks from without. — 6ia tüv ä-rrocT.] for the
worker, the causa efficiens, was God. Comp. ver. 22, iv. 30, xv. 12.
Vv. 44, 45. But (f5f, continuative) as regards the development of the
church-life, which took place amidst that (pößog without and this miracle-
working of the apostles, all were tnl to avro. This, as in i. 15, ii. 1, is to
be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact,
Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinocl : de animorurn co7isensu, which is foreign to
N. T. usage. They tcere accustomed all to be together. This is not strange,
when we bear in mind tlie very natural consideration that after the feast
many of the three thousand — of whom, doubtless, a considerable number
consisted of pilgrims to the feast — returned to their native countries ; so
that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too
large to assemble in one place. — Kal eI;^ov äiravTa Koivä] they possessed (dl things
in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According
to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives {not ra n-f/iiaTa
• This Chnrdi draws as an inference from 4fi6. Beelen still tliinks that he is able to make
onr passage tlie historical assertion : Siib una good tlie idea of the daily unbloody sacrifice
specie panis commnnicaverunt sanctiin piimi- of the mass bv the appended t. wpocreux- !
tiva eccle.Ha. Confitt. Conf. Avg. p. 543 of my 2 iracrr; i//üx>j. Winer, p. 147 (E. T. 194).
edition of the Lihri Si/mbolici. See, in oppo- 3 Comp., moreover, on the expression, Ilom.
eition to this view, the striking remarks of H. 1. 188 : nijAeiuJn 5' 0x05 yivfTo, xii. W2, at.
Caaaubon in the Exercitait. Anti-Baron, p.
70 CHAP. IL, 45, 46.
. . . elxe, comp. iv. 32), we are to assume not merely in general a distin-
guished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of helj),' or "« prevailing
willingness to j^lace 2}vivate projierty at the disposal of the church ; " ^ but a i-eal
community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which
the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods gen-
erally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Acts ii. 44 f., iv. 32),
and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Acts v. 2), for the relief of
the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for
the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical
character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed : (1) It tooh
place only in Jerusalem. For there is no trace of it in any other church ;
on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by
side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition
to selfishness and nlsove^la. Comp, also Jas. v. 1 ff. ; 1 John iii. 17, And
this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and gen-
eral poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally —
certainly also in the hope of -the Parousia speedily occurring — were soon
consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very
probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired
in Jerusalem from counselling or at all introducing it elsewhere. (2) This
community of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was left to the
free will of the oicners. This is evident from Acts v. 4 and xü. 12. Never-
theless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love,' it was, in 2)oint of
fact, general in the church of Jerusalem, as is proved from this passage and
from the express assurance at iv. 32, 34 f., in connection with which the
conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in iv. 36, is simjily a concrete
instance of the general practice. (4) It was not an institution borroiced from
the Ussenes* (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schnecken-
burger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apos-
tles ; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be
devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed,
the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be con-
ceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5)
On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within,
as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in
the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples, the wants of all being defrayed
from a common jjurse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole
church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command
Luke xii. 33, but in a definite form. That Luke here and in iv. 32, 34
expresses himself too strongly (de Wette), is an arbitrary assertion.
1 Comp, also Huiideshagen in Herzog's En- 3 Bengel on iv. 34 aptly says : " non nisi
cykl. III. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean summo fidei et amoris flori convenit."
Ti TMv <i)iK(av Koivi might be compared with it ■* See Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3 f. The Py-
(Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 4G). thagoreans also had a community of goods.
2 De Wette, comp. Noander, Baumgarten, See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 16S. 72 ; Zeller, p.
Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apo-^t. Zeitali. 504. See, in opposition to the derivation from
I. p. 90, and already Mosheini, Diss, ad hist. Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f.
eccl. per tin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others. hiäto: Theol XI. 2, p. 1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl.
COMMUNITY OF GOODS. 71
Schneckenburger, in the Stud. ii. Krit. 1855, jd. 514 ff., and Ewald have
correctly apprehended the matter as an actual cümmunity of goods.' — rä
KT^/fzara] the Idiidcd pofsnetifiions (belonging to liini).^ virdp^ti^ : 2-'OStie8iiions in
general,^ avrd] it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in the
preceding verb {kniTvpaaKov),* — Kaflon av ti^ xp^^*^^ ^'A''"] j^^^ ^* ^tny 07ie had
need, av with the indicative denotes : " accidisse aliquid non certo quodam
tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret." ^
Ver. 4(5. KaO' ///li/xiv] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241. — On -pocmprtpelv
Ev, to he diU'jcnf in viaiting a idace, comp. Susann. 6. — iv tC) kpil)\ as con-
fessors of the Messiah of their nation, whose speedy appearance in glory
they expected, as well as in accordance with the example of Christ Him-
self, and with the nature of Christianity as the fulfilment of true Judaism,
they could of course have no occasion for voluntarily separating themselves
from the sanctuary of their nation ; on the contrary, they could not but
unanimously (v/wdv/x.) consider themselves bound to it ; comp. Luke xxiv.
58. — KÄüireg äpruv] hreahing bread, referring, as in ver. 42, to the love-feasts.
The article might stand as in ver, 42, but is here not thought of, and there-
fore not put. It would mean : their bread. — Kar' oIkov] Contrast to h rcj
iepu ; hence : at horhe, in meetings in their place of assembly, where they
partook of the meal, perhaps in detachments. Comp. Philem. 2. So
most commentators, including Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, de
Wette. But Erasmus, Salmasius, and others explain it domatim, from
house to house. So also Kuinoel and Hildebrand. Comp. Luke viii. 1 ;
Acts XV. 21 ; Matt. xxiv. 7. But there is nowhere any trace of holding
the love-feasts successively in different houses ; on the contrary, according
to i. 13, it must be assumed that the new community had at the very first
a fixed place of assembly. Luke here jjlaces side by side the puNic relig-
ious conduct of the Christians and their jyrivate association; hence after
h TÜ lepü) the express kqt' oIkov was essentially necessary." — fieTs?.d/j.ßavüv
Tpo^^g] they received their p)ortion of food (comp, xxvii. 33 f.), partook of
their sustenance.'' Ver. 46 is to be paraphrased as follows : In the daily
risiting of the temple, at which they attended with one accord, and amidst
daily observance of the love-feast at home, they ivanted not sustenance, of which
they partoolc in gladness and singleness of heart. — kv äya7JuäaEL^^ this is the
expression of the joy in the Holy Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread,
"fructus fidei et character veritatis." Bengel. And still in the erection of
' Comp. Ritschl, allkatk. Kirche, p. 232. veloped itself at the same time as a separate
* See V. 1 ; Xen. Oec. 20. 23 ; Eustath. ad E. society, and in tliis latter development already
vi. p. 685. put forth the germs of the distinctively Chris-
3 Pulyb. ii. 17. 11 ; Ileb. x. 34, and Blcek tian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, ^waAY. T!i<:ol. I. p.
in loc. 174 fl'., 213 5.). The further evolution and in-
< Comp. Luke xviii. 22; John xii. 5. See dependent vital power of this cilltus could
generally, Winer, p. 138 (E. T. 581 f.). not but gradually bring about the severance
6 Herrn, ad Viger. p. 820. Comp. iv. 35 ; from the old, and accomplish that severance
Mark vi. 50 ; Krüger, ^«a*. i. 5. 2 ; Kühner, in the first instance in Gentile- Christian
ad Mtm. i. 1. 16; and see on 1 Cor. xii. 2. churches.
« Observe how, on the one hand, the youth- ' Plat. Polit. p. 275 C : woiStia? iJ.tTtL\Titj>evai
ful church continued still bound up with the koX rpoi^^s.
national cultus, but, on the other band, de-
72 CHAP. IL, 47.
the kingdom believers are äfiufioi h (iyal7aaaei, Jude 24. This is, then, the
joy of triumjjh. — ä(j>£Ä6T^^] plainness, simplicity, true moral candour.' The
word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but hcpilEia is.^
Ver. 47. Alvovvrsg r. Qe6v\ is not to be restricted to giving thanJcs at meals,
but gives prominence generally to the loTiole religiotis frame of spirit ; "which
expressed itself in the praises of God (comj3. de Wette). This is clearly evi-
dent from the second clause of the sentence, Kal exovrer . . . Ia6v, referring
likewise to their relation in general. That piety praising God, namely, and
this possession of the general favour of the people, formed together the
happy accompanying circumstances, under which they partook of their
bodily sustenance with gladness and simple heart. — Trpbc'd?.. r. ?.nöu] possess-
ing favour, on account of their pious conduct, in their relation to the whole
peopled Comp. Rom. v. 1. — ö Kvpiog] i.e. Christ, as the exalted Ruler of
His church. — roi)f cu^n^hovq] those who icere ieing saved, i.e. those iDho,hj
their very accession to the church, became saved from eternal perdition so as
to partake in the Messianic kingdom. Comp. ver. 40.
Notes by Ameeican Editok.
(k) Other tongues. V. 4.
The obvious and natiiral meaning of the passage is that the disciples
were suddenly endowed with the faculty of speaking foreign languages,
before utterly unknown by them. This special gift was jDromiaed by our
Lord (Mark xvi. 17). The exercise of the gift is mentioned in connection
with the conversion of Cornelius and his company (Acts ii. 15) ; also with the
Ephesian brethren on whom Paul laid his hands (Acts xix. 6). And Paul
speaks of "kinds of tongues" as one of the spiritual gifts, and discusses the
question at length in 1 Cor. xiv. The gift is designated by a variety of names :
Kacva'ii -yluaaaii 'AaXs'iv (Mark xvi. 17) ; kregaii yXüacat'i 'Aaküv (Acts ii. 4) ;
y\üaaaiZ7.a7idv (Acts x. 46) ; yXuaaaii oxyAuoßrj lale'iv. In this passage alone is
the phrase " other tongues " employed. Various explanations have been offered
of this wonderful phenomenon by those who deny the supernatural, or who,
with our author, consider that the sudden communication of a facility of speak-
ing foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and
morally conceivable, or with Alford regard such an endowment as self-contra-
dictory and impossible. It is supposed that the disciples were not all Galile-
ans, but that some of them were foreign Jews, acquainted with other languages,
in which they si^oke— that the i;tterances were incoherent, jubilant exjares-
sions — that nothing more is meant than that some poetical, antiqiiated, provin-
cial and foreign phrases were employed by the speakers ; or that the utter-
ances were ecstatic, spoken in a high state of insiairation, and often destitute
' Dem. 1480. 10 : äi^cA.?;? Kai nappria-ia^ jictrTÖs. able period intervene?, and the popular hu-
* Ael. V. H. iii. 10, al. ; Polyb. vi. 48. 4. mour, particularly in times of fresli extite-
2 To refer this remark, on account of the ment, is so changeable. Schwanbeck also, p.
later per'^ecution, to the idealizinji; tendency 45, denies the correctness of the representa-
and to legendary embellishment (Banr),isa tion, which he reckons among the peculiarities
very rash course, as between this time and of the Petrine portion of the book,
the commencement of persecution a consider-
NOTES. 73
of intelligible meaning —or that thewords uttered had been heard by the disci-
ples before, when mingling at the annual feasts with pilgrims of many nations ;
and now under high excitement these words or phrases were recalled and ut-
tered — or some have supposed that only one language was spoken, but each
hearer understood it as his own. That is, Peter spoke in Aramaic, but one un-
derstood it as Greek, another as Arabic, and another as Persian. Now, not one
of these theories, however ingenious, accounts for the recorded facts, and
some of them contradict them. But when the event is admitted to be dis-
tinctly miraculous, and the jiower a special gift of God, why is it to be consid-
ered either impossible or inconceivable ? We may be wholly incapable of con-
ceiving the modus openindi, yet admit the credibility and certainty of the fact.
Some difficulty arises from considering the speaking with tongues discussed by
Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., as identical in all respects with the event which transpired
on the day of Pentecost. The gifts are analogous and similar, but not identi-
cal. The gift at Pentecost was unique, not only as the first in order, but also
as superior in kind. Both are spiritual gifts, and of supernatural origin, and
characterized by similar terms ; but they differ in this, that at Pentecost dis-
tinct languages were spoken, which were understood at once by the hearers,
while at Corinth a tongue was spoken unintelligible to the hearer, and required
to be interi)reted. At Pentecost tlie sjieaker understood what he said ; while it
is not perfectly clear that the speakers always understood what they uttered.
Dr. Charles Iladye, hoM'ever, regarding the gift spoken of by Paul as identical
with that vouchsafed at Pentecost, thinks that the speaker, even when unintel-
ligible to others, understood himself, at least generally, even when he was
■wholly unable to interpret in his own native tongue. Dr. J. A. Alexander
says : " Other tongues can only mean languages different from their own, and
by necessary imjilication previously unknown." " The attempt to make this
phrase mean a new style, or a new strain, or new forms of expression is not only
\innatural, but inconsistent with the following narrative, where everything im-
plies a real difference of language." Dr. Lechler, in Lange, declares: "The
narrative does not allow a single doubt to remain in an unprejudiced mind,
that we are, here already in verse 4th, to understand a sjDeaking of foreign lan-
guages, which were new to the speakers themselves " And in reference to
1 Cor. xiv., he says : "The parallel jjassages claim respectively, at the outset,
an interpretation of their own, independently of each other, " and adds, "It
appears, then, that certain essential features of both occurrences are the same,
while important differences between the two are discoverable."
Calvin says: "I suppose it doth manifestly api)ear hereby that the Apostles
had the variety and understanding of languages given unto them, that they
might speak unto the Greek in Greek, and unto the Italians in the Italian
tongue, and that they might have true communication and conference with
their hearers."
Dr. Jacobson, Bishop of Chester, says : "Nothing short of the sudden com-
munication of the power of speaking languages, of which there had been pre-
viously no colloquial knowledge, and which were not learned in the ordinary
course, can have been implied by this statement, reiterated as it is in vv. 6, 8,
and 11. None of the suggestions of vehement excitement, for a time affecting
the organs of speech, so as to render it more or less unintelligible, of ecstatic
inarticulate utterances, of the use of archaic words or poetic phraseology, or of
new modes of interpreting ancient prophecies, can be accepted as at all ade-
74 NOTES.
quate to this narrative." For a full discussion of the subject see Schaff' s
" History of the Christian Church," vol. i., pp. 224-245.
(L) Hades. V. 27,
A Greek word which, from its derivation, means that which is not seen,
and is used to designate the invisible state — the infernal regions — the abode
of the dead. In the Septuagint it is used as a translation of the He-
brew word aheol. We have no appropriate word in English to express what is
meant by the word Hades. The word occurs in the N. T. eleven times, and is
rendered by the word hell in every instance except one (1 Cor. xv. 55), where it
is rendered grave. In no instance does it mean hell as that word is now com-
monly understood — the place of punishment for the wicked after judgment —
nor in any case does it necessarily mean grave. When it is said that the soul
of Christ was not left in Hades — unhappily rendered in our version hell — the
real meaning is that his soul was not left in the abode of separate spirits,
whither it went at his death, even as his body did not remain in the grave or
sepulchre where it was laid after his crucifixion. In the passage from the 16th
Psalm here quoted by Peter, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting
the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted of David the
type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principal and ultimate
object." {Campbell.) Doubtless from this passage the article of the Apostles'
Creed is derived, "He descended into hell ;" all that this can mean is that the
soul of Christ at his death was separated from his body, and entered the abode
of separate spirits, called by himself paradise. For interesting and instructive
discussions of this question see Campbell's Dissertation VI., part ii. ; Dr. Cra-
ven {Lange, Eevelation) ; and Gloag.
CRITICAL REMARKS. 75
CHAPTER III.
Ver. 3. After ilerjßoa., TiaQciv is to be defended, -which is wanting in D, min.
Theophyl. Lucif. and some vss., and is wrongly deleted by Heinr. and Bornem.
The authorities which omit it are too weak, especially as the complete super-
fluousness of the word (it is otherwise in ver. 5) rendered its omission very
niitural. — Ver. 6. eyeipai Kai] is wanting in B D X, Sahid. ; deleted by Bornem.
But as Peter himself raises up the lame man, ver. 7, this portion of the sum-
mons would more easily be omitted than added from Luke v. 23, vi. 8 ; comp,
vii. 14. Lachm. and Tisch, have the form iyeioE ; rightlj', see on Matt. ix. 5 ;
Mark ii. 9. — Ver. 7. After v)eipe, ABC X, min., the vss., and some Fathers,
h&ve avTÖv. Adopted by Lachm. A usual addition. — Ver., 11. ay-rov] Elz. has
Tov laOe^'To^ ,\w/oi', against decisive testimony. A chui'ch- lesson begins with
ver. 11. — Ver. 1.3. /cat 'Ictuö/c k. 'la/icjj] Lachm. and Bornem. read Kot. Qebg
'loauK. K. 0foc 'IttKüS, following A C D K, 15, 18, 25, several vss., Chrys., and
Theophyl. From Matt. xxii. 32 (therefore also several of these witnesses have
the article before Qeo^'), and LXX. Ex. iii. 6. — fxiv^ is wanting in Elz., but is
to be defended on the authority of A B C E X, min., vss., and Fathers, and
because no corresponding 6e follows. — Ver. 18. avTov (not airov) is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive evidence, to be placed after Xpiarov,
and not after irooipTj'rüv (Elz. Scholz). — Ver. 20. 7rpo;ce^\;etp((T^fi'oi'] Elz.- npoKsicT]-
pvyuivov, against decisive evidence. A gloss (vv. 18, 21 fE.) more precisely de-
fining the meaning according to the context (comp, also xiii. 23 f.). — Ver. 21.
rüy] Elz.: T^avTuv, against decisive testimony. Introduced to make the state-
ment stronger, in accordance with ver. 24. — an' alC>vo(:'] is wanting in D, 19,
Arm. Cosm. Tert. Ir. ; so Born. It was considered objectionable, because,
strictly sjieaking, no prophets existed Öt' alüvor. The position after üyiuv
(Lachm. Tisch.) is so decidedly attested that it is not to be derived from Luke
i. 70. —Ver. 22. Instead of nev, Elz. has filv yap, against decisive evidence.
yap was written on the margin, because the connection was not understood.
— -n-pdr Tovc Trarfpnf] is wanting in A B C i?, min. Syr. Copt. Vtilg. It is placed
after f(Vei' in D E, vss., and Fathers. So Born. Rightly deleted hy Lachm.
and Tisch. An addition by way of gloss. — Ver. 23. Instead of t^o/.aOp., ABC
D, Lachm. Born. Tisch, read e^uXedp. An etj'mological alteration, which often
occurs also in Codd. of the LXX. Comp, the variations in Heb. xi. 28.— Ver.
24. KaTr)yyei?Mv'] Elz. : npoKaT7jyyei?i,ai>, against decisive evidence. A gloss of
more precise definition. — Ver. 25. ol vloi'] Elz. : vioi. But the article, which
before vloi was easily left out by a transcriber, is supported by preponderant
witnesses, as is also the h wanting before tü> anip/i. in Elz., which was omitted
as superfluous. — Ver. 26. After ar-oii Elz. has 'iTjaovv, against many and im-
portant authorities. A familiar addition, although already read in A B. —
vßüv'] C, min. vss. Ir. have avröjv (so Lachm.) or avvoi: The original vßüi> was
first changed into avrov (in conformity with tKacrov), and then the jilural
would be easily inserted on account of the collective sense. The pronoun is
entirelj' wanting in B.
76 CHAP. III., 1-8.
Ver. 1. After the description of the first peaceful and prosperous life of
the church, Luke now, glancing back to ii. 43, singles out from the multi-
tude of apostolic Ttpara k. a/i/utia that one witli wliicli the ürst persecution was
associated. — e-rrl tu avro] here also in a local reference ;' not merely at the
same time and for the same object, but also in the same icay, i.e. together,
I'^n^, 2 Sam. I.e. Prominence is here given to the united going to the
temple and the united working, directing special attention to the keeping
together of the two chief apostles, — ävkßaivov\ they were in the act of going
^ip. — inl TTjv upav T?]c Trpoaevxvc] f^ri, used of the dcjlnition of time^ in so far
as a thing extends to a space of time.'' Hence : during the hour, not equiv-
alent to -irepl T7]v cjpav.^ Concerning the tliree Jioiu-s of jn-ayer among the
Jews : the third (see on ii. 15), the sixth (noon), and the 7iinth (that of the
evening sacrifice in the temple), see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and Wetstein,
in loc. Comp. x. 3, 9. — The Attic mode of writing kvarTjv is decidedly at-
tested in the Book of Acts.
Ver. 2. XwAof ek koiI. fj.rjTp.'] horn lame. Comp. xiv. 8 ; John ix. 1. And
he was above forty years old, iv. 22. — The imperfect ißaarä^eTo, he was
ieing brought, denotes the action in reference to the simultaneous äveßaivov,
ver. 1 ; and hiüom, its daily repetition. — r?}y leyuß. upaiav} which lears the
'by-name,* '■'■ Beautiful.^'' The proper name was, '■'■ gate of Nicanor.'''' It lay
on the eastern side of the outermost court of the temjile, leading towards
the valley of Kidron, and is described by Josephus, Bell. v. 5. 3, as sur-
passingly splendid : rwf 61 ttvÄüv al fiiv ivvia ^pvaü nal apyvpui KtKa?.vpp.Evat.
TvavTaxodev yaav, öiioiuq re Tvapaardöe^ Koi ra VTripÖupa' fiia öi rj I^uOev tov veü
KopivOlov ;i;a/l/co?} TroAi ry rifxy rac Karapjvpovg Koi TTepixpiicovg vTrepayovaa. Kat
oho uev tnäarov tov ttv/^üvoc; O'vpai^ Tp/aKOVTa 6e Trrjxüv to vipoQ eKacxTT/g, koI to
TTÄaTog riv TTevTeKaiOEna. Others (Wagenseil, Lund, Bengel, Walch) under-
stand it of the gate Susan, which was in the neighbourhood of Solomon's
porch, and at which the market for pigeons and other objects for sacrifice
was held. But this is at variance with the signification of the word üpalog ;
for the name Susan is to be explained from the Persian capital Q'^y^^, town
of lilies), which, according to Middoth, 1 Kal. 3, was depicted on the gate.*
Others (Kuinoel, et. al.) think that the gate Chxdda, i.e. temjyestlva, leading
to the court of the Gentiles, is meant.'' But this derivation of the name (from
"1 /Hj tempus) cannot be historically proved, nor could Luke expect his
reader to discover the singular appellation porta tempestiva in üpalav, seeing
that for this the very natural "porta speciosa " (Vulg.) could not but sug-
gest itself. — Among the Gentiles also beggars sat at the gates of their temples ' —
a usage probably connected with the idea (also found in ancient Israel) of
a special divine care for the j^oor " — tov alTelv] eo fine, ut peter et.
1 See on i. 15 ; comp. LXX. 2 Sam. ii. 13 ; the gate of the temple is only an invention on
Joseph. Antt. xvi. 8. 6. account of the name, and the hitter might be
2 See on Mark xv. 1 ; Nägelsb. on the Iliad, sufficiently explained from tlie lily-shaped
p. 284, ed. 3. decorations of the columns (jty^ty Hti'^D
s Albert!, Obss., Valckenaer, Winer, and 1 Kings v. 19).
many others. * See Lightf. Hor. ad. Joh. p. 946 f.
* See Schaefer, Melet. p. 14. ' Martial, i. 112.
^ Perhaps, however, this picture of Susa on •= Hermann, Privatalterth. § 14. 2.
HEALING OF A LAME MAX. 77
Vv. 3-5. Mt'?.?.ovraf elaumi e'lg t. up.] For it was through this outormost
gate that the temple proper was reached. — i/pü-a 'ü.aniüc. 7.aß.\ he asked
that he might receive an alms. Modes of expression used in such a case, Merere
in me ; In me hencfac tibi, and the like, may be seen in Vajiciri ruUb. f. 20,
3, 4. — On ?.aßdv, which in itself might be dispensed with, see Winer, p.
565 [E. T. 760]. — o-ei'/crßf . . . ß7I-il>uv tlf wü^] They would read from his
look, whether he was spiritually fitted fur the benefit to be received.
" Talis intuitus non caruit peculiari Spiritus motu ; hinc fit, ut tarn secure
de miraculo pronuntiet," Calvin. Comp xiii. 9. — i-tlxsv avTolg] The sup-
plying of Tov vovv serves to make the sense clear. Comp. Luke xiv. 7 ; 1
Tim. iv. 16. He was attentive, intent upon thcm.^
Ver. 6. Al6u),ut] I (jive thee herewith. — iv -cj bvöu. . . . TTEpiTraret] l)y virtue
of the name (now pronounced) of Jesus the Messiah, the Nazarene, arise and
walk. iv denotes that on which the rising and walking were causally
dependent. Mark xvi. 17 ; Luke x. 17 ; Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18. ComiJ. the
utterance of Origen, c. Cels. 1, against the assertion of Celsus, that Chris-
tians xjxpelled demons by the help of evil spirits : mcovrov yap ovvarai rd
övoßa TOV '\7]aov. This name was the focus of the power of faith, through
which the miraculous gift of the apostles ojoerated. Comp, on Matt. vii.
22 ; Luke ix. 49, x. 17 ; Mark xvi. 17. A dico or the like is not (in oppo-
sition to Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) to be supplied with iv t. öv6/i.
K.T.I. Observe, moreover, first, the solemnity of the 'Irjcov XpiaToii tov NaC- ;
and secondly, that Xptcrov, as in ii. 38, cannot yet be a j^rojjer name. Comp.
John xvii. 3, i. 43.
Vv. 7, 8, AvTov T?]c öe^täg] comp. Mark ix. 27, and see Valckcnaer, ad
Theocr. iv. 35. — kcTEpeuüijcav] his feet u-ere strengthened, so that they now
performed their function, for which they had been incapacitated in the
state of lameness, of supporting the body in its movements. — al ßäaeig are
the feet. ^ — Ta acpvpä : i\vi ankle-bones, tali (very frequent in the classics),
after the general expression subjoining the particular. — k^allojiEvog],
springing iip, leaping into the air.^ Not: exsiliens, videlicet e grabbato
(Casaubon), of which last there is no mention. — koI üafjlBs . . . rhv dtov]
This behaviour bears the most natural impress of grateful attachment
(comp. ver. 11), lively joy {TrspiKaT. koI ä?26/ievog, — at the same time as an
involuntary proof of his complete cure for himself and for others), and
religious elevation. The view of Thicss — that the beggar was only a
pretended cripple who was terrified by the threatening address of Peter into
using his feet, and afterwards, for fear of the rage of the people, prudently
attached himself to the apostles — changes the entire narrative, and makes
the apostle himself (vv. 12, 16, iv. 9, 10) the deceiver. Peter had wrought
the cure in the possession of that miraculous power of healing which Jesus
had imparted to His apostles (Luke ix. 1), and the supernatural result can-
not in that case, any more than iu any other miracle, warrant us to deny
> Comp. Schweigh. Lex. TTerod. I. p. 341, 5; Plat. Tim. p. 93 A, and in later Greek
and Lex. Polyb. p. 2:38. writers. [LXX. Isa. Iv. 12.
»As in Wiad. -xiii. 18; Joseph. An«, vii. -). s xen. Cyr. vii. 1. 32; Anab. vii. 3. 33;
78 CHAP. III., 10-15.
its Jiistorical cJiarncfer, as is done by Zeller, who supposes that the general
Xu?iol TispnraTovatv, Luke vii. 22, Matt. XV. 31, has here been illustrated in
an individual instance.
Ver. 10. ''ETvey'ivuaKov ahrbv, ort k.t.X.] A well-known attraction.' — npbg
TTjv eX£7i/iio(j.]for the saJce of alms, — 6 KaOr/fievog] See on John ix. 8. — enl ry
üpaia IT.] ETTL : immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful gate. See on
John iv. 6. — 6ä/xßovg kuI iKorda.] astonishment and surprise at what had
happened to him — an exhaustive designation of the highest degree of
wonder.''
Ver. 11. KparovvToc] But as he held fast Pete?' and John, i.e. in the impulse
of excited gratitude tool hold of them and clung to them, in order not to be
separated from his benefactors. ° There is no sanction of usage for the
meaning commonly given, and still adopted by Olshausen and De Wette :
assedari. For in Col. ii. 19 uparelv occurs in its proper sense, to hold fast ;
the LXX. 2 Sam. iii. 6 is not at all in point, and in Achill. Tat. v. p. 309,
InexEipn fi£ Kparslv is": me retinere conabatur. — As to the porch of Solomon,
see on John x. 23. — EKßafißoi] the ]dural after the collective noun ö ?.a6c.*
Ver. 12. ' ATreKplvaTo] he icgan to spcaJc, as a reply to the astonishment and
concourse of the people, which thereby practically expressed the wish for
an explanation. See on Matt. xi. 25. Observe the honourable address, avöp.
'lap., as in ii. 22, v. 35, xiii. 16, xxi. 28. — rl 6avjiäL,E-e ettI toi'tcj ;]. The
wonder of the people, namely, was unfounded, in so far as they regarded
the healing as an effect of the 6vva/iic rj EvaEß. of the apostles themselves. —
roii-ru] is neuter ; see ver. 10 : at this. As to the r;, an, introducing the
second question, observe that the course of thought without interrogation
is as follows : Your astonishment is groundless, j^rovidcd that you were rea-
sonably entitled to regard us as the workers of this cure. The ?) is accord-
ingly : or else, if you think that you must wonder' why, etc. — ^ijIv emphat-
ically prefixed: ISia is then correlative. — EvaEßEia] "quasi sit praemium
pietatis nostrae a Deo nobis concessum," Heinrichs. In us lies neither the
causa effectiva nor the causa meritoria. — ttettoit^kogi tov ivEpi-. aiToi'] to be
taken together : as if xce had ieen at worJc, in order that he might walk. That
this telic designation of that which was done is given with the genitive of the
infinitive, is certainly to be traced to the frequent use of this form of ex-
pression in the LXX.^ ; but the conception of the aim is not on that ac-
count to be obliterated as the defining element of the expression, especially
as even in classical writers this mode of conception is found, and presents
itself in the expression ttoleIv bntag. ° The holeIv is conceived as striving.
Ver. 13. Connection: Do not regard tliis cure as our w(trk (ver. 12) ; no,
God, the peculiar God of our fathers, glorified (by this cure),' His servant
1 Winer, p. 581 (E. T. 781). * Kühner, ad Xen. Anah. ii. 1. 6. Ast. ad
3 Comp. eaO/xa Kai eäfißo!, Pint, de audit. 8. Plat. Lego. I- P- 63- Nägelsb. on the Eiad,
145, and similar expressions, Lobeck, Paral. ii.278. Comp. Acts v. 16
p. 60 f. ä See Winer, p. 306 (E. T. 410).
3 Comp. John xx. 23; Pev. ii. S5, iii. 11; "See, e.g., Herod, i. 117: Troiei»' .. . .,
Songof Sol. iii. 4 : eKpaTrjcraaiiToi/Kai ovK äi^^Ka ottiüs icTTai rj 'liüvirj e\ev6epr), V. 109, 1. 209.
avTov. Polyb. viii. 30. 8; Eur. Phoen. COO; Comp, n-pätro-eiv ojtws. Krüger on Thuc. 1.56.
Plat. 3Ior. p. 99 D. ' Comp. John ix. 3 f., xi. 4.
PETER'S DISCOURSE. 79
Jesus, whom you delivered up, etc. — Avhat a stinging contrast ! — r. TzoTtpuv
I'jfi.] embraces the three patriarclis. Comp, on Rom. ix. 5. — The venerated
designation : "the God of Abraham," etc. (Ex. iii. 15 f.), heightens the
bhime of the contrast. — iööincc] namely, inasmuch as He granted such a
result by means of His name (ver. G). — -uv iralöa] is not to be explained,
after the Vulgate, with the older interpreters (and still by Heinrichs, Kui-
noel), iisßUiim, since only vlög Qeov is throughout used of Christ in this
sense; but with Piscator, Bcngcl, Nitzsch,' Olshausen, de Wette, Baum-
garten, and others, as scrviim ; and the designation of the Messiah as the
fulfiller of the divine counsel : servant of God, has arisen from Isa. xl.-lxvi.
namely, from the Messianic reference of the niH' l^;? there. Comp. Matt,
xii. 18. So also in ver. 26, iv. 27, 30. Observe that an a2)ostle is never
called -nalg (but only (Sofv'.of) Qeov. Comp, especially iv. 29 f. — bv v/uelg fxev}
This /ifr, which pierces the conscience of the hearers, is not followed by
any corresponding Se. Comp, on i. 1. The connection before the mind of
Luke was : icliom you have indeed delivered up, etc., iut God has ixiised from
the dead. But by Kfuvav-oQ tKEivov ÜTToXveiv he was led away from carrying
out this sentence, and induced to give to it another turn. — TvapeouKaTs]
namely, to Pilate. — ypvr/aaade cwtöv] i.e. ye have denied that He is the Mes-
siah, John xix. 14, lo ; Luke xxiii. 2. Comp, also vii. 35. The object of
the denial was obvious of itself, since Jesus had just been spoken of as
the naig rov Oenv. Observe, moreover, that with i/pvT/c^. avrdv the relative
construction is not carried on, but with rhetorical emphasis the sentence is
continued independent of it : and ye have denied Him." This is in keeping
with the liveliness of the discourse and its antitheses ; but without such a
breaking oflf of the construction avrov would be quite superfluous, as the
regimen remains the same as before. — Kara Tzpoauirov'] toirards the face ; ye
have denied Him even unto the face of Pilate, so audaciously ! Comp. Gal.
ii. 11. There is no Hebraism.^ — Kpivavrog ekeIvov ÖTroAmv] although the latter
had decided to release (him). See John xix. 4 ; Luke xxiii. 16. eke'lvov is
designedly used mstead of avrov, in order to make the contrast felt between
what Pilate judged and what they did.* Chrys. well says : vfielg ekeIvov
6E?J/(TavTog ovk ?jßf2.yaaTE.
Vv. 14, 15. 'T^uEig 6e~\ Contrast to Kpivavrog ek. cnrolveLV, ver. 13. — tov
a-jiov Kal (5/k«/oi] the Kar' £^nx?'/v Holy, consecrated to God, inasmuch as He is
the niri' n^i', and Just, innocent and entirely righteous, see on John xvi.
10. Comp. Isa. liii. 11. To this characteristic description of Jesus avdpa
<j>ovEa, Barabbas,^ forms a purposely chosen contrast : a man ^cho was a mtir-
derer.'^ It is more emphatic, more solemn, than the simple (poi^fa ; but
avBpunov (povia would have been more contemptuous, Bernhardy, p. 48. —
Xapiadijvat vp.lv'] condonari vohis,'' that he should by way of favour ie delivered to
» Sh/d. xt. Krit. 1828, p. 3.31 ff. cor. p. 319 ; and the examples from Plato in
2 Comp. Bernhardy, p. .304 : Kiihuer, § 799. Ast, Lex. I. p. 658.
^ See Jacobs, fff/.4c/»W. Tut.-p.QVZ; Schweig- ^ ggg Luke xxiii. 19; comp, on John .xviii. 40.
hauler, /.«p. Polyb. p. 540. e Comp. Soph. 0. C. 048 : äv&pa. iraTpoKrovov.
* Comp. ver. 14. See Krüger and Kühner, 0. R. 842 : iv5pa<s Ano-räs.
ad Xen. Anab. iv. 3. 20 ; Dissen, ad Dem. de ' Duclier, ad Flor. iii. 5. 10.
80 CHAP. III., 16-19.
you.^ — Tov 6e apxvyov ttjq C"w] forms a double contrast, namely, to äv6pa
(fiovia and to äKEKTeivare. It means : the author'' of life, inasmuch as Christ
by His whole life-work up to His resurrection was destined (vv. 30, 21) to
provide eternal life, all that is included in the Messianic awr^^/am (Heb. ii. 10).
See John iii. 16, xi. 25 ; 2 Tim. i. 10. The inclusion, however, of physical
life (de Wette, Hackett), according to the idea of John i. 4, has no support
in the text, nor would it have been so understood by the hearers, although
even Chrysostom comes ultimately to the idea of the original Living one. —
bv 6 0£Öf . . . o{i ijfiElq /c.r./l.] great in its simplicity. The latter, in which
oi) is neuter, is the burden of the apostolic consciousness. Comp, on li. 32.
Observe, moreover, on vv. 14, 15 : " Graphice sane majestatem illam aposto-
licam expressit, quam illi fuisse in dicendo vel una ejus testatur ejnstola,''''
Erasmus. The Bundle of Peter is written as with runic characters.
Ver. 16. "EttI ry ttIütel tov bv6ß. avrov] on account of faith in His name
(which we acknowledge as that of the Messiah), i.e. because we believe in
His Messiahship. On ewi, of the cause on which the fact rests, 07i the ground
of, see Bernhardy, p. 250 \ as to the genitive of the object with ■klgtk:, see
on Rom. iii. 22. Others — particularly Roseumiiller, Heinrichs, and 01s-
hausen — understand eni of the aim :'^ in order that faith in Jesus may ie
excited in you (and at the same time in the healed man himself, according to
Olshausen). But the very connection of thought is in favour of the first
explanation. For kqI ettI r?? ttIgtei k.t.I. attaches itself closely to the pre-
ceding Ol; I'liiElq ßäprvpec iüßEv ; so that Peter, immediately after mentioning
the testimony, brings forward the extraordinary efRcacy of the faith on
which this apostolic testimony is based. Still more decisive is the paral-
lelism of the second clause of the verse, in which the thought of the first
clause is repeated emphatically, and with yet more precise definition. — to
bvoua avTov] SO far, namely, as the cure was effected ly means of His name
pronounced, ver. 6. Observe the weighty repetition and position at the end.
— 7] TTidTiQ 7] 6i' avTov] thcfaitli wrought (in us) through Him. Through
Christ was the faith, namely, in Him as the Messiah, wrought in Peter and
John, and in the apostles generally, partly by means of His whole manifes-
tation and ministry during His life (Matt. xvi. 16 ; John i. 14), partly by
means of the resurrection and effusion of the Spii it. The viow which takes
TTiOT^c of trust in Oodhxowght about through Christ,^ is not in keeping with
the first half of the verse, which has already specifically determined the
object of TTiaTig. — Tavrrjv] öelktikü^. For the bodily soundness of the man,
who was present (ver. 11), was apparent to their eyes.^ — h-tvavrt ttüvt. v/i.]
corresjjonds to bv deupElTs in the first clause of the verse. The faith, etc.,
gave to him this restoration in the presence cf you all ; so that no other way
of its coming to pass was at all to be thought of.
Vv. 17, 18. Peter now pitches his address in a tone of heart-winning
1 Plut. C. Gracch. 4; Acts xxv. 11, xxvii. * Comp. 1 Pet. i. 21 ; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr.
24 ; Philem. 22. See Loesiicr, Obss. p. 172 f. p. 324 ; bibl. Theol. p. 139, after de Witte.
2 Heb. ii. 10, xil. 2 ; Mic. i. 13 ; 1 Mace. ix. « On öAokAtjp., comp. Plut. Mor. p. 1063 F ;
61 : Plat. Locr. p. 96 C ; Tim. p. 21 E. Plat. Tim. p. 44 C : öAÖKArjpos vyi>)s re Tta.v-
3 Lübeck, ad Phryn. p. 475. tcAws.
REPENTANCE URGED. 81
gentleness, setting forth the putting to death of Jesus (1) as a deed of ig-
norance (ver. 17) and (2) as the necessary fulfilment of the divine counsel
(ver. 18). — Kal vi'v] and now, i.e. et sic, iiaque ; so that vvv is to be under-
stood not witli reference to time, but as : in this state of matters.^ — äöeA<}>oi]
familiar, winning. Chrys. : aiiTüv räf ipvxä^ elOioj^ rij tüv äöt2.<püv npuarjyopla
napeßvd^aaro. Comp, on the other hand, ver. 12 : äi^öpeg 'lapaTjÄlrai. — Kara
äyvotav] unknoicingly (Lev. xxii. 14), since you had not recognised Ilim as
the Messiah ; spoken quite in the spirit of Jesus. See Luke xxiii. 34 ;
comp. xiii. 27. "Hoc ait, ut spe veniae eos excitet," Pricaeus. Comp,
also 1 Pet. i. 14. The opposite : narä -rzfMcaiv, Kara npoaipeccv. — (javep Kal ol
apx- vßC)v] namely, have acted ignorantly. Wolf (following the Peshito)
refers the comparison merely to kTzpä^arn : scio vos ignorantia adductos, ut
faceretis sicut duces vestri. But it would have been unwise if Peter, in order
to gain the people, had not purposed to represent in the same mild light
the act also of the Sanhedrists (äpxovTeq), on whom the people depended.
Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8. — Ver. 18. But that could not hut so happen, etc.
Comp. Luke xxiv. 44 if. — -av-uv tüi> Tzpofp-nruv] comp. Luke xxiv. 27. The
expression is neither to be explained as a hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor from the
typical character of history (Olshausen), but from the point of view of ful-
filment, in so far as the Messianic redemption, to which the divine predic-
tion of all the prophets referred (com. x. 43), has been realized by the suf-
ferings and death of Jesus. Looking back from this standpoint of histor-
ical realization, it is with truth said : God has brought into fulfilment that
which He declared beforehand hj all the' prophets, that His Messiah should
suffer. On t. Xpcarbu alrov, comp. iv. 26 ; Luke ii. 26, ix. 20 ; Rev. xi. 15,
xii. 10. — ov-Lj] so, as it has happened, vers. 14, 15, 17.
Ver. 19. Ovv] infers from ver. 17 f. — /jsTaiw/aarc] see on ii. 38. The
k-tarpsiparc (comp. xxvi. 20), connected with it, expresses the positive con-
sequence of the peravoElv. " Significatur in resipiscente applicatio sui ad
Deum," Bengel. — eJc t" i^nACKpft. k.t.Tl.] contains the aim, namely, the medi-
ate aim: the j^?i«Z aim is contained in ver. 20, which repentance and con-
version ought to have. The idea of the forgiveness of sins is here repre-
sented under the figure of the erasure of a hand-irriting." Baptism is not
here expressly named, as in ii. 38, but was now understood of itself, see-
ing that not long before thousands were baptized ; and the thought of it
has suggested the figurative expression i:^a?.et(pff. : in order that they may
be Hotted out, namely, by the water of baptism. The causa meritoria of the
forgiveness of sins is contained in ver. 18 (iraOelv tov X.).^ The causa appre-.
hendens (faith) is contained in the required repentance and conversion.
Ver. 20. lihe final aimoi the jirecediug exhortation. In order that times of
refreshing may come. Peter conceives that the Kaipol ävarpv^eug and the Parousia
> Since, in fact, only by this sclf-manifesta- loc. See also vii. 34, x. 5, xxii. 16 ; John ii.
tion of the ri?en Christ must the true light 28; 2 John 5.
concerning ITim who was formerly rejected ^ See on Col. ii. 14. Comp. Ps. Ii. 9 ; Isa.
and put to death have dawned upon you; xliii. 2.5; Dom. 791. 12 : e|aA^Ai77Tat to ö<i)A7)/oio.
otherwise you could not have so treated Ilim. ' Comp. Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 258.
Comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 1. 19, and Kühner in
82 CHAP. III., 20, 21.
(küI äiTocTsilri K.T.%.) (m) will set in, as soon as the Jewish nation is converted to
the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah. It required a further revelation
to teach him that the Gentiles also were to be converted — and that directly,
and not by the way of proselytism — to Christ (chap. x.). — hnuq äv, with the
subjunctive,' denotes the purpose that is to be attained in dependence on a
supposition, here, in this event; if ye comply with the summons.^ This äv,
consequently, is not equivalent to täv (Vulg. : tit cum venerint), in which
case an apodosis which would be wanting is arbitrarily supplied in
thought (see Erasmus and, recently, Beelen). Others (Beza, Castalio, Eras-
mus Schmid, Eckermann, et cd.) consider hiruq as a particle of time = ote :
quandocunque venerint. Against this it may be decisively urged, in point
of linguistic usage, that in Greek writers (in Herod, and the poets) the
temporal bnuQ is joined with the indicative or ojitative, but does not occur
at all in the N. T. ; and, in point of fact, the remission of sins takes place
not for the first time at the Parousia, but at once on the acceptance of the
gospel. — mipol övai/^yf.] seasons of refreshing : namely, the Messianic, as is
self-evident and is clear from what follows. It is substantially the same as
IS meant in Luke ii. 25 by napähTi^crig tov 'Icpaiß, — namely, seasons m which,
through the appearance of the Messiah in his kingdom, there shall occur Messed
rest and refreshment for the peoph of God, after the expiration of the troub-
lous seasons of the aiwi' oi)70f.^ The alüvtc ol k-irepxö/^tvoi in chap. ii. 7 are
not different from these future KaipoL This explanation is shown to be
clearly right by the fact that Peter himself immediately adds, as explana-
tory of Kaipol civaipv^. : Kal arroareiXr/ tov npoK.£;^Eip. vß'iv 'lr]a. X., which points
to the Parousia. Others rationalizing have, at variance with the text, ex-
plained the Kaipol ävüTp. either of the time of rest after death,* or of deliver-
ance from the yoke of the ceremonial law,'" or of the putting off of penal
judgment on the Jews, ^ or of the sparing of the Christians amidst the de-
struction of the Jews,' or of the glorious condition of the Christian church
before the end of the world. ^ On ävdipv^ig, comp. LXX. Ex. viii. 15 ; Aq.
Isa. xxviii. 13; Strabo, x. p. 459. — and npoaUTvov rov Kvpiov] The times,
which are to appear, are rhetorically represented as something real, which
is to be found with God in heaven, and comes thence, /row the face of God,
to earth. Thus God is designated as alnog of the times of refreshing (Chry-
sostom). — TOV TvpoKEx- ^ß'i-v 'I- X.] Jesus the Messiah destined for you (for your
nation). On TTpoxeipliioßai (xxii. 14, xxvi. 16), properly, / ta/ce in hand;
then, I undertake, I determine, and with the accusative of the person : I ap^
point one.^ Analogous is 6 tov Oeov kaleKTÖg, Luke xxiii. 35.
Ver. 31. Whom the heaven must receive as the place of abode appointed
> XV. 17 ; Luke ii. 35 ; Rom. iii. 4 ; Matt. ■• Schulz in the Bibl. Hag. "V. p. 119 ff.
vi. 5. » Kraft, Obss. sacr.fasc. IX. p. S71 ff.
» See Härtung, Partikell. II. p. 289 ; Klotz, « Barkey.
ad Devar. p. 685 f. ' Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot.
3 2 Tim. iii. 1 ; Gal. i. 4 ; Acts xiv. 22. " Vitringa.
Analogous is the conception of KaT<i7rau<7is 'Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 7, viii. 9; Polyb. vi.
and o-aßßaria-no; in the Episile to the Ile!)re\v8. 58. 3; Plut. Galb. 8; Diod. Sic. xii. 22;
Comp, äfecriy. 2 1 hess. i. 7, and the descrip- Wetstein and Kypke in toe; Schleusn. Thes.
tion given in Rev. xxi. 4 f. iv p 513.
THE PAROUSIA. 83
for Him by God until the Paroiisia. Taken thus,' nhpavdv is the subject,'
and (5f< does not stand for iJ«, as if Peter wished historically to narrate the
ascension ; but llie present tense phices before the eyes the necessity of the
elevation of Christ into heaven as an absolute relation, which as such is
constantly present until the Parousia (ver. 20, and äxP'^ xpovuv k.t.1., ver,
21). Hence also the infinitive is not of the duration of the action {lUxeoOai),
but of its absolute act {ßt^aaOai). Others find the subject in hv : who tnust
occupy heaven (so Luther and many of the older Lutherans, partly in the
interest of Christ's ubiquity ; also Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshauscn, Lange,
Weiss, et al.) ; " Christus coelura debuit occupare ceu regiam suam," Ca-
lovjus. But against this view the linguistic usage of öex^odai, which never
signifies occupare,^ is decisive.'' — Ou the /liv solitarium Grotius aptly re-
marks, that it has its reference in äxpi xpovov änoKaraaT., "quasi dicat :
ubiillud tempus venerit, ex coeloin terras redibit." — äxpi xpövi-)^ anoKa-aaT.
TrävTDv] nrttil times shall hate come, in which all things will be restored. Before
such times set in, Christ comes not from heaven. Consequently the times
of the u'lcju Ö idA/iuv itself — the naipol ävaipb^eug — cannot be meant ; but only
such times as shall precede the Parousia, and by the emergence of which it
is conditioned, that the Parousia shall ensue. Accordingly the explanation
of the universal renewal of the world unto a glory such as preceded the falP is
excluded, seeing that that restoration of all things (iräfTuv) coincides with the
Parousia, in opposition to de Wette, as well as many older expositors, who
think on the resurrection and the judgment. The correct interpretation
must start from Mai. iv. 6 as the historical seat of the expression, and from
Matt. xvii. 11, where Christ Himself, taking it from Malachi, has made it
His own. Accordingly the äTTonaTäaraaic nÜDrui^ can only be the restoration
of allmoi'al relations to their original normal condition. Christ's reception
in heaven — this is the idea of the apostle — continues until the moral cor-
ruption of the people of God is removed, and the thorough moral renovation,
the ethical restitutio in integrum, of all their relations shall have ensued.
Then only is the exalted Christ sent from heaven to the people, and then
only does there come for the latter the aväipv^ir from the presence of God,
ver. 20. What an incitement neither to neglect nor to defer repentance
and conversion as the means to this ä-^roKnräaTacnc -rräv-uv ! The mode m
which this moral restitution must take place is, according to ver. 22, be-
yond doubt, — namely, by rendering obedience in all points to what the
' Grogory of Nazianzn?, Orat. 2 de ßl., ' We should have to explain it as : who
already has evidently this view : Äei yap aürbi' must accept, the heave?! (comp. Bengel). But
. . . vTi' ovpavov iex^w^h 'lid Oeciimenius what a singularly turgid expression would
calls heaven the äiroÄox'i toO airea-TakfJiivov. that be !
The Vulgate repeats the ambiguity of the * Comp, on the other hand. Plat. TJieaet. p.
original : quern oportet coelum quidem susci- 177 A : reAeuT^o-avTa« avTo\i<; eKelvo^ ßip 6 tü>v
pere ; but yet appears, by stiscipfre, to betray KaKoiv KaOap'o^ tötto? oii Sf^^rai, Soph. Track.
the correct view. Clearly and definitely Ca*- 1075 : «Li-af AiSjj fief ai (xe. Occupare wouldhe
falio gives it with a passive turn: "quern KaTe'xei»'. Comp. Soph. Ant. 605: Karexei^
oportet COelo Cflfpi." 'OAiJfiTrou /iapßapöecrcrav alyXav.
2 Beza, Piscator, Castalio, and oiherg, the ' na^iyy^yfa-i.a. Matt. xix. 28 ; comp. Rom.
Socinians, also Kuinoel, de Wette, Baum- viii. 18ff.; 2 Pet. iii. 13.
garten, Lechler, Hackett.
84 CHAP. III., 22-24.
Messiah has during His eartlily ministry spoken. Observe, moreover, that
TvavTup is not masculine,' but neuter, as in Matt. xvii. 11, Marli ix. 13
(comp. ver. 22, Kara Tvavra^ baa) ; and that aTT-onaTäaTaatq cannot be otherwise
taken than in its constant literal meaning, Q^estoration,^ wherein the state
lost and to be restored is to be conceived as that of the obedience of the
theocracy toward God and His messenger (ver. 22). The state of forgive-
ness of sin (ver. 19) is not identical with this, but previous to it, as unuq
K.T.l. (ver. 20) shows : the sanctification following the reconciliation. — uv
iXälriüEv K.-.2.] The attracted tjf refers to xpöi'uv : of which he has spoken,
etc.^ Others refer it to ttüptuv, and explain : usque ad temj^us, quo omnia
eventurn hahebimt,* quae, etc. ; by which Peter is supposed to mean either
the conquest of Messiah's enemies and the diffusion of the Christian re-
ligion,^ or the destruction of the Jewish state, ^ or the erection of the Mes-
sianic kingdom and the changes preceding it, the diffusion of Christianity,
the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment.' Incorrectly, as aTroKaräa-
raaiQ, in the sense of impletio, elq -^epaq eWeiv,^ and the like, is without
warrant in usage ; and as little does it admit the substitution of the idea
realisation." — ött' alüvoc] since the tcorld hcgan, to be taken relatively. See
on Luke i. 70.
Vv. 22-24. Connection: What has just been said : " By the mouth of
His holy prophets from the beginning," is now set forth more particularly
in two divisions, — namely : (1) Moses, with whom all O. T. prophecy begins
(comp. Rom. x. 19), has announced to the peoj^le the advent of the Mes-
siali, and the necessity of obedience to Him, vv. 22, 23. Thus has he made
a beginning in speaking of the äKOKaTaaracm; TTävTuv, which in fact can only
be brought about by obedience to all which the Messiah has spoken. (2)
But also the collective body of prophets from Samuel onwards, that is, the
prophets in the stricter sense, etc., ver. 24 — Muyc^c] The passage is Deut.
xviii. 15 f., 19,'° which, applying according to its historical sense to the
proi^hetic order generally whicli presents itself to the seer collectively as in
one person, has received its highest fulfilment in Christ as the realized ideal
of all the Old Testament interpreters of God, consequently as the älrjdtvcx.
npo(p7]TT](:.'^^ Comp, vii. 37. — üq kiie] as He has raised up me by His prepara-
> Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 85, and hibl. verbal notion is exceedingly hareh. Hofm.
Theol. p. 145. Sehriftbew. II. 2, p. 648, follows the correct
2 Polyb. iv. 23. 1 ; V. 2. 11 ; xxviii. 10. 7 ; reference of wv to xpö»'"»'-
Dion. Hal. x. 8 ; also Plat. Ax. p. 370. * Rosenmüller, Morus, Stolz, Heinrichs.
3 On AaAeti/ ti, in this sense, comp. Matt. " Grotius, Hammond, Bolten.
xxvi. 13 ; Plat. Ax. p. 306 D ; Soph. Phil. 110. ' Kninoel. « Oeciimenius.
So also Aeyeij' Ti, to tell of something ; see « Grotius, Schneckenburger m the Stud. w.
Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol. p. 23 A ; Phoid. p. Erit. 1855, p. 517, Lechler.
79 B. JO See on this passage and its different ex-
< Baumgarten, p. 83, endeavours to bring planations, and also on its at any rate
out essentially the same meaning, but without Messianic idea, Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p.
any change in the idea of i-rroKardaT., in this 110 flf.; G. Baur, alttest. Weissag. I. p. 353 ff.
way: he supplies the verb ä7roKaTacrTa9rj<T6cr9at " Calvin appropriately says : "Non modo
with bjv (kä\ri(T£v, and assumes the kingdom quia prophetaium omnium est princeps, sed
of Israel (i. 6) to be meant. To imagine tbe quod in ipsum dirigebantur omncs superioves
latter reference, especially after TrdvTMv, is prophetiae, et quod tandem Dens per os ejus
jnst as arbitrary, as the supplying of that absolute loquutus est." Heb. i, 1 f.
PROPHECIES FULFILLED. 85
tion, railing, commission, and effectual communion. Bengel well remarks
regarding the Messianic fulfilment : " Similitudo non officit excellentiae."
— earat 6i] see on ii. 17. — e^oloftp. sk. tov ^aov] In the LXX. it runs after
the original text : iyij tK6tKr/acj if avrov. Peter, in order to express this
threat according to its more special import, and thereby in a manner more
deterrent and more incentive to the obedience required,' substitutes for it
the formula which often occurs in the Pentateuch after Gen. xvii. 14 :
n'Q>)D H'llT^ üt)Jn nriiDJ, which is the appointment of the punlnhment oj
death excluding forgiveness.'' The apostle, according to his insight into
the Messianic reference and significance of the whole passage, understands
by it, exclusion from the Messianic life and ejection to Oehenna, consequently
the punishment of eternal death, which will set in at the judr/rnent.^ — nal . . .
Jf ] i.e. Moses on the one hand, and all the prophets on the other. Thus over
against Moses, the beginner, who was introduced by fiiv, there is placed as
similar in kind the collective lody. See as to koI . . . cJf, on John vi. 51, and
observe that öi is attached to the emphasized idea appended {tzcivtec:).* — All
the prophets from Samuel and those that folloic, as many as have spohen, have
also, etc., — evidently an inaccurate form of expression in which two con-
structions are mixed up, — namely : (1) All the prophets from Samuel onward.,
as many of them as have spjoTien, have also, etc. ; and (2) All the propjhetSy
Samuel and those who follow^ as many of them as have spoken, have also, etc.*
The usual construction since Casaubon, adopted also by Valckenaer and
Kuinoel, is that of the Vulgate : " et omnes prophetae a Samuel, et deinceps
qui locuti sunt," so that it is construed Kal baoi tüv KaOs^fjq tZö7.. ; it yields
a tautology, as those who follow after are already contained in vrä/^-ef ol
■iroocp^Tai arro 2. Van Ilengers ^ expedient, that after tüv küOe^?^^ there is
to be supplied £(jc lua^uou, and after npo^rjrat, äp^äuEvoi, is simply arbitrary
in both cases. — After Moses Samuel opens the series of prophets in the
stricter sense. He is called in the Talmud also (see Wetstein) magister
jirophetarum. For a prophecy from 2 Sam., see Heb. i. 5.'' — k. tüv Kafk^?}^]
*' longa tcmporum successione, uno tarnen consensu," Calvin. — rac yßkpaq
Tuvrac;] i.e. those days, of which Moses has spoken what has just been quoted, name-
ly, "the xftouot ä-oKaracTT. iravr., which necessarily follows from uv iT^a'kijaEv 6
Geoc K.T.Ti., ver. 21. Hence we are not to understand, with Schneckenburger,
Weiss, Hofmann " the time of the present as referred to ; in which view
Hofmann would change the entire connection, so as to make vv. 22-24
serve as a reason for the call to repentance in ver. 19, whereas it is evident
that il)i> £?iä?.rf(Teu k.t.?.., vcr. 21, must be the element determining the fol-
lowing ajipeals to Moses and the prophets.
Ver. 25. Fc" are the sons of the p?vphcts and of the covenant, i.e. ye belong
> Comp. Weifü, bihl. T})foL p. 146. [p. 419. « Comp. Bacuml. Parlik. p. 140.
« SeeGcseii. Thes.W. p.riS ; EwaXA^AlUrfli. <> Winer, p. 588 (E. T. 789).
s On efoAoöpevu>, fuiuHtnn perdo, frequent « Adnolatt. in loca nonnidla N. T. p. 101 flf.
In the LXX., the Apocrypha, and in the Te.H. ' Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. 1. p. 1-13 ff.
XII. Pair., also in Clem. Rom. who has only " Schnftbew. IL 1, p. 140.
the form efoAeSp., only known to later Greek, » Observe the great emphasis of the v/ufis as
see Kypke, II. p. 27; Sturz, Mal. Mac. p. of the i/fir;' (ver. 26). From their position of
166 f. preference they ought, in the consciousness of
86 CHAP. III., 26.
to I>ot7i, inasmuch as what was promised by the prophets and pledged in the
covenant is to be realized for and in you, as the recipients in accordauce
with jjromise and covenant. Comp. ii. 39 ; Rom. ix. 4, xv. 8. On viol TTjg
6iad/'/K7/c, comp, the rabbinical passages in Wetstein. Concerning vl6g, used
to denote closer connection (like |3), see on Matt. viii. 12. Incorrectly
Lightfoot, Wolf, and Kuinoel render: " prophetarum discipuU, Matt. xii.
27 ; so the Greek ■n-alösg ;' because then viol in the same signification does
not suit rf/g ÖLadtjKijQ. Hence, incorrectly, also Michaelis, Morus, Heinrichs :
"e vestra natione iirovenerunt prophetae." — ömäyK?;, covenant. For God
hound Himself hy covenant to bless all generations through the seed ©f Abra-
ham, on the condition, namely, that Abraham obeyed His command (Gen.
xii. 1).'^ So with 6iati}]K7]v also in the classics. — Trpof rovg nar. rj/i.] npög de-
notes the etliical direction. Bernhardy, p. 265. Abraham is conceived as
representative of the forefathers ; hence it is said that God had bound Him-
self toioards the fathers when He spoke to Abraham. — Kal ev rü ontp/tiaTi aou]
Kai, and, quite as in ii. 17. — The quotation (Gen. xxii. 18; comp, xviii.
18, xii. 3) is not exactly according to the LXX. According to tlie Mes-
sianic fulfilment, from which point of view Peter grasps and presents the
prophetic meaning of the passage (see ver. 26), h rü an. aov is not collec-
tive, but : in thy descendant, namely, the Messiah (comp. Gal. iii. 16), the
future blessing of salvation has its causal ground. As to naTpiai, gentes,
here nations, see on Eph. iii. 15.
Ver. 26. Progress of the discourse : "This bestowal— in accordance with
God's covenant-arrangements — of salvation on all nations of the earth
through the Messiah has commenced with you,'''' to you first has God sent,
etc. — TTpüTovl sooner than to all other nations. " Praevium indicium de vo-
catione gentium," Bengel. Rom. i. 16, xi. 11. On this intimation of the
universality of the Messianic salvation Olshausen observes, that the ajiostle,
who at a later period rose with such difficulty to this idea (ch. x.), was
doubtless, in the first moments of his ministry, full of the Spirit, raised
above himself, and in this elevation had glimpses to which he was still, as
regards his general development, a stranger. But this is incorrect : Peter
shared the views of his people, that the non-Jewish nations would be made
partakers in the blessings of the Messiah by acceptance of the Jewish theocracy.
He thus still expected at this time the blessing of the Gentiles through the
Messiah to take place in the way of their passing through Mosaism. " Ca-
put et summa rei in adventu Messiae in eo continetur, quod omnes omnino
populi adorent Jovam illumque colant unanimiter."^ " Gentes non traditae
sunt Israeli in hoc saeculo, at tradentur in diebus Messiae."* See already
Isa. ii. 2 f., Ix. 3 ff. — avaaTr/aar'] causing His servant to ajyj^ear (the aorist
participle synchronous with än-scrT.). This view of ävaoT. is required by
ver. 22. Incorrectly, therefore, Luther, Beza, Heumann, and Barkey :
after He has raised Him from the dead. — evloyovvra vfiäq] blessing you. The
their being the people of God, to feel the ^ On 5te9eTo, comp. Heb. viii. 10, x. 16 ; Gen.
more urgently the duty of accepting the Mes- xv. 18, al. ; 1 Mace. i. 11.
eiah. 3 Mikrae Kodesch, f. 108. 1.
1 Blomf. Gloss. Perss. 408. ■• Berish. rab. f. 28. 2.
NOTES. 87
correlate of hEv?.oy., v. 25. This efficacy of the Sent One procuring salva-
tion through Ilis redeeming work is continuous. — h tüi anoarpecpEiv] in the
turning away, i.e. when ye turn from your iniquities (see on Rom. i. 29),
consequently denoting that by which the ehloyelv must be accompanied on
the part of the recipients (comp. iv. 30) — the moral relation which must
necessarily be tliereby brought about. We may add, tliat here the intran-
sitive menmng oi airoarijicptu',' and not the transitive, which Piscator, Cal-
vin, Hammond, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus, Heinrichs adopt (when He turns
aicay), is required by the summons contained in ver. 19. — The issue to
which vv. 25 and 2ö were meant to induce the hearers — namely, that they
should now believingly apprehend and appropriate the Messianic salvation
announced beforehand to them by God and assured by covenant, and in-
deed actually m the mission of the Messiah offered to them first before all
others — was already expressed sufficiently in ver. 19, and is now again at
the close in ver. 26, and that with a sufficiently successful result (iv. 4) ;
and therefore the hypothesis that the discourse was interrupted while still
unfinished by the arrival of the priests, etc. (iv. 1), is unnecessary.
Notes by American Editoe.
(m) Parousia. V. 20.
V. 20, Rev. Version, "And that he may send the Christ who hath been ap-
pointed for you, even Jesus," TZQOKexetQia/iiuov — the reading prefeifed, signi-
fies taken in hand, determined, appointed. Jesus was their appointed, pre-
destined Messiah.
" Nearly all critics understand this passage as referring to the return of
Christ at the end of the world. The apostle enforces his exhortation to repent,
by an appeal to the final coming of Christ, not because he would represent it
as near in point of time, but because that event was always yiear to the feelings
and consciousnetis of the first believers. It was the great consummation on
which the strongest desires of their souls were fixed, to which their thoughts
and hopes were habitually turned. They lived with reference to this event.
They labored to be prepared for it (2 Pet. iii. 12). The apostles, as well as the
first Christians in general, comprehended the grandeur of that occasion. It
filled their circle of view, stood forth to their contemplations as the point of
culminating interest in their own and the world's history ; threw into com-
parative insignificance the present time, death, all intermediate events, and
made them feel that the manifestation of Christ, with its conseqiiences of inde-
scribable moment to all true believers, was the grand object they were to keep
in view as the end of their toils, the commencement and perfection of their
glorious immortality."
"If modern Christians sj-mpathizcd more fully with the sacred writers
on this subject, it would bring both their conduct and their style of religious
instruction into nearer correspondence with the lives and teaching of the
primitive examples of our faith." {Uackett.)
> So only here in the N. T. ; but see Xen. 5, xvii. 21 ; Bar. ii. 3.3 ; Sauppe, ad Xen. de re
Hist. iii. 4. 13 ; Gen. xviii. 23, al.; Ecclus. viii. e^. 12. 13 ; Krüger, § Iii. 2. 5.
88 NOTES.
"The reference is evidently to an objective and not a subjective ad-
vent. It is a matter of dis^Dute in what manner the apostles regarded
the second coming of Christ. In all probability they were so engrossed
with it that they lost sight of intermediate events ; it was the object
of their earnest desire ; the period was indeed concealed from them,
but they continiially looked forward to it ; they expected it, as that which
might occur at any moment. Afterwards, as revelation disclosed itself, and
the course of Providence was developed, they did not expect it to occur in
their days. Paul especially seems to have regarded it as an event in the re-
mote future, and cautions his converts not to be shaken in mind or to be
troubled, as if the day of Christ was at hand (2 Thess. ii. 2). The precise
period of the advent, we are exjiressly informed by our Lord, formed no part
of divine revelation ; it was designedly left in uncertainty by God." (Gloag.)
CRITICAL EEMAEKS. 89
CHAPTER IV.
Ver. 2. T?)i' tK vEKpuv] D, min. and some vss. and Fathers have tüv veKpüv.
Kecommended by Griesb., adopted by Bornem. An alteration in accordance
with the current äDäaraaig tüv vEKpüv. — Ver. 5. «c] A B D E, min. Chrys. have
iv, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born, adopted. A
correction, as the reference of eif was not obvious, and it was taken for Iv ;
hence also elq 'Icpoi'f. (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely omitted in the
Syr. — Ver. 6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, nal 'Awaq . . . ' k'Xi^av^po^, in
accordance no doubt with A B D fr? ; but erroneously, for the very reason that
this reading was evidently connected with the reading nwr/xOrjaav, ver. 5, still
preserved in D ; Born, has consistently followed the ichole form of the text in
D as to vv. 5, 6 (also the name 'lufdOw; instead of 'ludwrjg). — Ver. 7. iv tu /ucao)
with the article is to be defended after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating
evidence (A B X). — Ver. 8. tov 'lapa?ß] is wanting in A B K, Vulg. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachm. But, as it was quite obvious
of itself , it was more readily passed over than added. — Ver. 11. oIko()6/uuv] so,
correctly, Lachm. and Tisch., according to important authorities. The usual
oiKO(hßovvTuv is from Matt. xxi. 42 ; comp. LXX. Ps. cxviii. 22. — Ver. 12. ovte'\
A B X, min. Did. Theodoret. Bas. have ovSe, which is recommended by Griesb.
and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. And rightly, as in Luke xx. 36, xii. 26.
Born., following D, has merely ov. — Ver. 16. nou'/ao/uev] A E X, min. have
TToir/acjuev. Eecommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the de-
liberative subjunctive ai:)peared more in keeping with the sense. Comp, on ii.
37. —Ver. 17. dnnÄriGÜuFdal D, vain, have ä-eL?.r,a6uE0a. So Born. But the
future was introduced in order that it might correspond to the question
ri TTocfioofiev. The preceding äneL?Sj is wanting in A B D X, min. most vss. and
some Fathers ; deleted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted
by an oversight of the transcriber. — Ver. 18. After impr/yy., Elz. Scholz. Born,
have avTolq. A common, but here weaklj' attested insertion. — Ver. 24. 6 Qi6c'\
is wanting in A B X, Copt. Viilg. Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was
concerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first to the
second ö ! On the other hand, there is no reason why it should have been
inserted. — Ver. 25. 6 6lu. croßar. A. 'Katdor a.ov f/Vwi'] There are very many
variations, ' among which 6 tov Trarpöc fjiiiüv fiia nvevfiaToc uyiov oTo^aTor A. Tvni66c
aov eiTtoJv has the greatest attestation (A B E K, min.), and is adopted by
Lachm., who, however, considers TzveifiaToc as spurious (Praef. p. VII.). An
aggregation of various amplifying glosses ; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p.
55. — Ver. 27. h Tij ■7t62ei ravTii} is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation.
Rejected by Mill and Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. The
' See besides Tisch., especially Born, in loc, who reads after D ; o (D : os) 6ia tsv. äy., 5ia toC
90 CHAP. IV., 1-5.
omission may be explained from the circumstance, that in the passage of the
Psalm no locality is indicated. — Ver. 36. 'Iwcr/yf] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read
'lu(jT](j>, according to A B D E X, min. Chrys. Epiph. and several vss. A mechan-
ical alteration, in conformity with i. 23. — vno] Lachm. and Tisch, read and,
according to A B E X, min. Theophyl. Kightly ; vnö appeared to be neces-
sary.
Vv. 1, 2. 'EneuTTjciav] stood there beside them. The sudden appearance is
implied in the context {lalovv-. 6e ahr., and see ver. 3). See on Luke ii. 9,
XX. 1. — 01 iepslc] The article signifies those priests who were then serving
as a guard at the temple. — 6 aTparr/ybg tov lepov] the leader on duty of the
Levitical temple-guard (of the lepEic), and himself a priest ; different from
the Trpoara-ric tov iepov.^ — As the concourse of people occurred in the temple-
court, it was the business of the temple-guard officially to interfere.
Therefore the opinion of Lightfoot, Erasmus Schmid, and Hammond, tliat
the G-paTTjybq tov kp. is here the commander of the Roman garrison of the
castle of Antonia, is to be rejected. — kqI ol ladöovKaloi] see on Matt. iii. 7
(n). The Sadducees present in the temple-court had heard the speech of
Peter, chap, iii., at least to ver. 15 (see ver. 2), had then most probably
instigated the interference of the guard, and hence appear now taking part
in the arrest of the apostles. — 6ia-ovovp.evoi . . . veKpüv] refers to ol laööouK.
For these denied the resurrection of the dead, Matt. xxii. 23. " Sadducaei
negant dicuntque : deficit nubes atque abit ; sic descendens in sepulcrum
non redit," Tanchiim, f. iii. 1. (haTrovovfi. here and in xvi. 18 may be
explained either according to classical usage : who rcere active in their exer-
tions, exerted their energies, my former interpretation, or according to the
LXX.,^ who were grieved, afflicted, the usual view, following the Vulgate
and Luther. The latter meaning is most natural in the connection, is suffi-
ciently justified in later usage ^ by those passages, and therefore is to be
preferred. Sorrow and j^in come upon them, because Peter and John
taught the people, and in doing so announced, etc. That was offensive to
their principles, and so annoyed them. — kv tu 'I?;croi'] in the person of Jesus,
i.e. in the case of His personal example. For in the resurrection of Jesus
the avdaTciGK: kK veKp. in general— although the latter is not expressly brought
forward by Peter — was already inferentially maintained, since the possi-
bility of it and even an actual instance were therein exhibited (1 Cor. xv.
12). — We may add that, as the apostles made the testifying of the Hiscn
One the foundation of their preaching, the emergence of the Sadducees is
historically so natural and readily conceivable (comp. v. 17), that Baur's
opinion, as to an ä jmoj'i combination having without historical ground
attributed this role to them, can only appear frivolous and uncritical,
» 2 Mace. iii. 4 (pee Grimm in loc.); comp. Troi-cto-eat in this sense, wliether the pain felt
Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 6; Antt. xx. 6. 2. may be bodily or mental. See Krüger on 7%w.
See also on Luke xxii. 4. ii. 51. 4 ; Lobeck. ad Aj. p. 396 ; Duncan,
■■i Ecclus. X. 9 ; Aq Gen. vi. 6 ; 1 Sam. xx. Lex. Horn. ed. Rost, p. 9C9. Accordingly, In
30 (Hesychius, Stan-ovrjotts- Avwrjeais). the above passa<;es StaTroreio-öai is the ati-ength-
^ The classical writers use the simple verb ened novelaBai. in this sense.
ARREST OF PETER AND JOHN". 91
however zealously Zeller has sought to amplify and establish it. See in
opposition to it, Lcchler, Apont. Zeit. p. 32G ff.
Ver. 3. 'E'k: Ti/pTjatv] into custody, i.e. into prison.' — iairipa] as they had
gone to the temple at the ninth hour, and so at tiie beginning of the first
evening (iii. 1), the second evening, which commenced at tlie twelfth hour,
had probably already begun. See on Matt. xiv. 15.
Ver. 4. As a contrast to this treatment of the apostles ((Jt), Luke notices
the great increase of the church, which was effected by the address of the
apostle. The number of believers had before this been above three thou-
sand (ii. 41, 47); by the present increase Ü\<? number of men, the women, there-
fore, being not even included— on account of the already so considerable
multitude of believers, came to he ahottt Jive thousand. The supposition of
Olshausen, " that at first, perhaps, onhj men had joined the church," is ar-
bitrary, and contrary to i, 14. At variance with the text, and in opposition
to V. 14, de Wette makes women to be included.
Ver. 5. 'E}tj'f7o . . . cwax&yvai] But it came to pass that, etc." — avrön']
refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to
the Jews, whose people, priests, etc., were named above, ver. 1, and to
whom those who had become believers belonged.' — rovg äpxovr. k. Trpeaß.
K. ypa/i/j..] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the San-
hedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the
classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp,
on Matt. ii. 4. — f!f 'If/joDcra?.?///] not as if they had their official residence
elsewhere as Zeller suggests, in the interest of proving the narrative un-
historical ; but certainly many were at this most beautiful period of sum-
mer soon after Pentecost, at their country residences. So, correctl}^ Beza,
" arcessitis videlicet qui urbe aberant ut sollennis esset hie conventus," —
but only by way of suggestion, Bengel, Winer, and others. Most of the
older commentators, and Kuinoel, erroneously assume that eJf stands for iv,
in which case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the result.
— Kai] also, in order to mention these specially. — 'Avvav rbv äpxisp-] (o). As
at this time not Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high jmest,
an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Lukeiii. 2, which
may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annus.'' Baumgar-
ten still, p. 88, '^ contents himself with justifying the expression from the age
and influence of Annas — a view which could not occur to any reader, and
least of all to Theophilus, after Luke iii. 2. — Nothing further is known of
John and Alexander, who, in consequence of their connection with Caiaphas
and with the following koI ogoi k.t.Ti., are to be regarded as members of the
hierarchy related to Annas. Conjectures concerning the former, that he is
identical with the Jochanan Ben Zuccai celebrated in the Talmud, may be
> Comp. Thiic. vii. 86. 1 ; Acts v. IS. * See the particulars, as well as the nnsatis-
*Comp. ix 3; Luke iii. 21, xvi. 22. So also factory stiif is wliich have been re?orted to,
in classical writers (lies. Tluog. 639 ; Xen. on Luke iii. 2. Comp. Zillci-, p. 127.
Cyr. vi. 3. 11). Sec Sturz, Xe.i". Xen. I. p. ^ Conip. also LauRe, Apostol. Ze'Ualt. I. p.
587. 96, and II. p. 55.
3 Comp. Winer, p. 138 (E. T. 183).
92 CHAP. IV., 7, 12.
seen in Lightfoot in loc; and concerning tlie latter^ tiiat he was the brother
of Philo, in Mangey,' — £« -/kvovc, apxi-epaT.^ of the hlgh-'priestly family. Be-
sides Caiajjlias, Juhu, and Alexander, all the other relatives of the high
I^riest were brought into the assembly, — a proceeding indicative of the
special importance which was ascribed to the pronouncing judgment on the
dangerous prisoners.
Ver. 7. The apostles were placed in the midst {kv tu fiiau, comp. Matt,
xiv. G ; John viii. 3), so that they might be seen by all ; and, for the pur-
pose of ascertaining the state of matters which had occasioned the popular
tumult of yesterday, the question is first of all submitted to them for their
own explanation : By what hind of 'powcr^'^ which was at your command, or
liy lühat kind of name, which ye have pronounced, have ye done this ? — the cure
which, they were aware, was the occasion of the discussion. Erroneously,
Morus, Rosenmüller, and Olshausen have referred tovto to the puUic teach-
ing. For the judicial examination had to begin at the actual commence-
ment of the whole occurrence ; and so Peter correctly understood this
TOVTO, as vv. 9, 10 prove. — h tto/cj opö/jüti] The Sanhedrim certainly knew
that the apostles had performed the cure ev bvofiaTi 'I. XpiaTov (iii. 6), and
they intended to found on the confession of this point partly the impeach-
ment of heresy and blasphemy — as the Jewish exorcists were accustomed to
use names of an entirely different kind in their formulae, namely, those of
the holy patriarchs, or of the wise Solomon, or of God Himself^ — and
partly the charge of effort at rebellion, which might easily be based on the
acknowledgment of the crucified insurgent as the Messiah. — vßeic] you
people ! with depreciating emphasis at the close.
Vv. 8-10. U?,ii(jßuc 1TVEV/I. dylov] quite specially, namely, for the present
defence. Comp. xiii. 9. "Ut praesens quodque tempus poscit, sic Deus
Organa sua movet," Bengel. See Luke xii. 11 f. — el] in the sense of e-il,*
is here chosen not without rhetorical art. For Peter at once places the
nature of the deed, which was denoted by tovto, in its true light, in which
it certainly did not appear to be a suitable subject of judicial inquiry,
which presupposes a misdeed. If ice {ijßdq has the emphasis of surprise)
are this day examined in respect of a good deed done to an infirm man (as to
the means, namely), whereby he has been delivered. — In ett' evepyEcla is con-
tained an equally delicate and pointed indication of the unrighteousness of
the inquisitorial proceeding. — We are decidedly led to interpret h tIvi as
neuter {whereby, comp. Matt. v. 13), by the question of the Sanhedrim, ver.
7, in which no person is named ; as well as by the answer of Peter : ev tu
bvofiaTi 'I. X. K.T.X., ver. 10, which is to be explained by the lettering the
name of Jesus Christ, but not to be taken as equivalent to ev 'Irjaov XpioTü.
Hence the explanation, jjer quern, cujus ope (Kuinoel, Heinrichs), is to be
rejected ; but the emphatic h tovtij (ver. 10) is nevertheless to be taken,
' Praef. ad Phil. ; and Pearson, Led. p. 51 ; s See Van Dalen, de divinat. Idol. V. T. p.
Krebs, Obss. p. 176; Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 5, 520.
ed. 2. ■• Bornem. ad. Sen. Symp. 4. 3, p. 101 ;
" Observe the qualitative interrogative pro- I?ei!?sig, Conject. in Aristoph. I. p. 113 ; Dis-
nonns. sen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195.
THEIR DEFENCE. 93
with Erasmus, as masculine, so tliat after the twice-repeated bv k.t.?.. there
comes in instead of the öiü/xa 'I. X., us the solemnity of the discourse in-
creases (" verba ut libera, ita plena gravitatis," Grotius), the cuncrcte Person
{on thin one it depends, that, etc.), of whom thereupon with oirof, ver. 11,
further statements are made. — bv ö Qtbq i/yeipev t/c vcKp.] a rhetorical asyn-
deton, strongly bringing out the contrast without fiiv . . . «Jt.'- — ovtoc
TzapEaTTjKEv K.T. 7..] Thus the man himself who had been cured was called into
• the Sanhedrim to be confronted with the apostles, and was present ; in
which case those assembled certainly could not at all reckon beforehand
that the sight of the man, along with the Tvappvaia of the apostles fver. 13),
would subsequently, ver. 14, frustrate their whole design. This quiet
power of the man's immediate presence operated instantaneoudy ; therefore
the question, how they could have summoned the man whose very presence
must have refuted their accusation (Zcller, comp. Baur), contains an «7-^7^-
mentum ex eventu which forms no proper ground for doubting the historical
character of the narrative.
Ver. 11. Or-of] referred to Jesus, tlie more remote snhject, which, hotteter,
wasmosttividly present to the conception of the iqjeaTcer.'' — ö A/^of «.-.?..] arcmi-
niscence of the well-known saying in Ps. cxviii. 23, in immediate, bold
application to the Sanhedrists (i^' vpüv), the builders of the theocracy, that
have rejected Jesus, who yet by His resurrection and glorification has
become the corner-stone, the bearer and upholder of the theocracy, i.e.
that which constitutes its entire nature, subsistence, and working.'
Ver. 12. To the ioregoing Jitjia-ative assurance, that Jesus is the Messiah,
Peter now annexes the solemn declaration that no other is so, and that witfi-
out figure. — And there is not in another the salvation, i.e. küt' k^oxyv the
Messianic deliverance (ii. 21). Comp. v. 31, xv. 11. This mode of taking
7/ ouTTipia is imperatively demanded, both by the absolute position of the
word with the force of the article, and by the connection with the jircced-
ing, wherein Jesus was designated as Messiah, as well as by the completelj'
parallel second member of the verse. Therefore Michaelis, Bolten, and
Hildebrand err in holding that it is to be understood of the cure of a man
so infirm. Nor is the idea of deliverance from diseases generally to be at
all blended with that of the IMessianic salvation (in opposition to Kypke,
Moldenhauer, Heinrichs), as Peter had already, at ver. 11, quite departed
from the theme of the infirm man's cure, and passed over to the assertion
of the Messianic character of Jesus quite generally, without retaining any
special reference to bodily deliverance. — h ä72u ovöevl] no other is the
ground, on which salvation is causally dependent.^ — ynp] annexes a more
precise explanation, which is meant to serve as a ^??'or^ of the preceding.
For also there is no other name under the heaven given among men, in trhicli
we must obtain salvation. — oiJi- jop (see the critical remarks): for also not.
' See Dissen, Exc. II. ad Find. p. 275. * Soph. AJ. 515 : iv o-ol iräcr' eyu>ye auio/j-ai.
- Winer, p. 118 (E. T. 195). Eur. Ale. 279 : ev erol tVnei' koI Crjv «at /iij.
' Moreover, see on Matt. xxi. 42, and comp. Ilerod. via. 118: «V v/j-'^v coiice»' e/iol e'l-ai i
1 Pet. ii. 4 fE. ; also on 1 Cor. iii. 11 ; Eph. o-uTijpiS).
ii. 20.
94: CHAP. IV., 13-22.
The reading ovte yap would not signify namque non,'^ but would indicate
that a further clause corresponding to the re was meant to follow it up,'''
which, however, does not suit here, where the address is brought to a
weighty close. The use generally doubtful, at least with prose writers, of
ovK . . . ov-e instead of uvre . . . ovte,^ is here excluded by yap, which
makes the notion of neither — ?ia?' inapplicable. — e-f/joi'] a name different
from that name. On the other hand previously : tv äÄ?M ovo., in no o?ie but
in Him. Comp, on Gal. i. 7. — tu 6eöo/i. h ävdp.] which is granted by God
— given for good — among men, in human society. The view adopted by
Wolf and Kuinoel, that kv ävdp. stands for the simple dative, is erroneous.'
— äväpi)770LQ\ in this generic reference did not require the article.^ i-jzo t.
o'vpav., which might in itself be dispensed with, has solemn emphasis.
Comp. ii. 5. — hv cjJ as formerly kv allu. The name is to be conceived as
the contents of the believing confession. Fides implicita, in opposition
to the Catholics, cannot here be meant ; iii. 19, 26. — 6el] namely, accord-
ing to God's unalterable destination.
Vv. 13-l.j. QeupovvT€Q'\ " Inest notio contemplandi cum attentione aut
admiratione."" — koI KaTaÄaß6/j.evoi] and ichen they had perceived,'' when they
had become aicare. They perceived this during the address of Peter, which
was destitute of all rabbinical learning and showed to them one ypapjudrwv
aivEtpov.^ ciypä[i[iaToi ^ denotes liere the want of rabbinic culture. 'löiürat is
the same : laymen, who are strangers to theological learning.'" The double
designation is intended to express the idea very fully ; avdpu-oi has in it,
moreover, something disparaging : unlearned men.^'- On icS/o-r/f, which,
according to the contrast implied in the connection, may denote either a
private man, cr a plebeian, or an unlearned person, or a common soldier,
or one inexperienced in gymnastic exercises, one not a poet, not a physi-
cian, and other forms of contrast to a definite professional knowledge, see
Valcken. in loc; Hemsterhuis, ad Lucian. Necyom. p. 484 ; Rulinken, ad
Long. p. 410. Here the element of contrast is contained in ä)päpfia-oL :
hence the general meaning plcbeians^^ is to be rejected. They were /<w/)ot
Tov KÖa/iov, 1 Cor. i. 27. Comp. John vii. 15. — kireylvucKÖv re avTovg, on
K.T.Ä.] and recognised them, namely, that they were, at an earlier period,
with Jesus. Their astonishment sharpened now their recollection ; and
therefore Baur and Zeller have taken objection to this remark without
sufficient psychological reason. kneylvuaK. is incorrectly taken (even by
Kuinoel) as the pluperfect.^^ The two imperfects, i-davp-ai:,. and eneyivuaK.,
are, as relative tenses, here entirely in place. — rbi ds av^pioiv.] emphatically
put first. — avvedalov] they conferred among themselves.'*
' So Hermann, OptL^c. III. p. 158. D ; Polyb. viii. 4. 6 ; Dion. Hal. ii. 66.
- Klotz, ad Decur. p. 716 ; Kühner, ad Sen. ^ Plat. Apol. p. 26 D.
Mem. i. 2. 31 ; Elleiidt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 444 f. » Xen. Mem. iv. 2. 20; Plat. 07-11. p. 109 D.
3 Baeumlein, Parfik: p. 222. lo See Harimaun in the Stud. u. Krit. 1834,
* Winer, p. 204 (E. T. 273). I. p. 11<> 11.
s See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 177 f. ; Kühner, >' Comp. Lys. acc.Nlcom. 28, and Bremi in
ad Xen. Mem. 1. 4. 14 ; .Stallb. ad Flat. Cril. loc. [ten.
p. 51 A ; Prot. p. 355 A. 12 Kuinoel and 01?hausen, comp. Baumgar-
« Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 121. is See Winer, p. 253 (E. T. 337).
7 s.. 34 ; Eph. iii. 18 ; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 " Comp, xvii. 18 ; Plut. Mor. p. 222 C.
THEIR RELEASE. 95
Ver. 16. The positive tlioiiglit of the question is : We shall he ahle to dd
nothing to these men. What follows contains the reason: for that a notahU
miracle, a definite proof of divine co-operation, has hajjpened throxigh them,
u evident to all the inhahitnntH of Jerusalem, and tre are not in a position to
deny it. — To the fikv corresponds alT, ver. 17 ; to the yvuoTÖv is opposed
the mere ih^aaröv.^
Vv. 17, 18. In order, however, that it le not further hrought ont tnnong thd
feople, i.e. spread by communication hither and thither among the people,
even bej'ond Jerusalem. The subject is to (Tr/fitlov, not 6iAnx// ; but the
former is conceived of and dreaded as promoting the latter, t-t TvÄdov,
magis, i.e. here idterius." — Observe that the confession of ver. IG, made iu
the bosom of the council, in confidential deliberation, and without the
presence of a iliird party, is therefore by no means "inconceivable" (in
opposition to Zeller). The discussion in the council itself may have been
brought about in various ways, if not even by secret friends of Jesus in the
Sanhedrim (Neander, Lange), —h-tily (nrtilria.] emphatically threaten.^ — ■
Aa'Xtiv] is quite general, to spealc ; for it corresponds to the two ideas,
(pßtyyKy^ai * and AtWa/vf/j', ver. 18. — eivt rü 6v6/i. tovtu] so that the name
uttered is the basis en which the lalelv rests. Comp, on Luke xxiv. 47.
They do not now name the name contemptuously, but do so only in stating
the decision, ver. 18. — The article before the infinitive brings into stronger
prominence the object.^ Concerning //;/ in such a case, see Baeumlein,
PartiTc. p. 296 f.
Vv. 19-22. 'Y,vu-. T. Ofoi)] coram Deo, God as Judge being conceived as
present : " multa mundus jiro justis habet, quae coram Deo non sunt justa, "
Bengel. We may add, that the maxim here expressed, founded on Matt. xxii.
21, takes for granted two things as certain ; on the one hand, that some-
thing is really commanded by God ; and, on the other hand, that a demand
of the rulers does really cancel the command of God, and is consequently im-
moral^ in which case the rulers actually and wilfully abandon their status as
organs of divine ordination, and even take up a position antagonistic to God.
Only on the assumption of this twofold certainty could that principle lead
Christianity, without the reproacli of revolution, to victory over the world
in opposition to the will of the Jewish and heathen rulers. " For analogous ex-
pressions from the Greek ' and Latin writers and Rabbins, see Wetstein. The
fihT.'Xnv it] is : rather {potius, Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God,
rather to listen to you.® The meaning of aKoveiv is similar to 7^«l9ßpJfZ^■, ver.
' Plat. Pol. V. p. 479 D, vi. p. r)10 A. s Bernhardy, p. 3J6; Winer, p. 303 (E. T.
» See XX. 9, xsiv. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9; Plat. 406).
PAae-rfr. p. 261 B ; Gorg'. p. 403 A; and Stallb. «Comp. Wuttke, Sittcnl. § 310. Observe
tn loc. ; Phaed. p. 93 B ; Xen. de red. A. 3. withal, that it is not Ihe magisterial command
Comp, eiri liäWov. Lobcck, ad Phryn. p 4S. its</f and per fe that is divine, but the com-
' Comp. Luke xxii. 15; Lobeck, Parol, p. niand for its observance is a divine one,
B23 ff. ; Winer, p 434 (E. T. 584). wliich therefore cannot be connected with ini-
* On uri 4>0(yye<Teai, not to become audifjle, morali;y witliout doing away with its very
Erasmus correctly remarks : " Plus est quam idea as divine.
ne loquerenfur ; q. d. ne hiscerent aut vllam ' Plat. Apol. p. 29 D ; Arrian. Ej/ici. i. 20.
vnce?n ederenf..''^ Comp. Castalio. See on *< Inconsistently the A'ulg. lias, at v. 29,
4i6^yyea6ai, Dorvill. ad Chant, p. 409. magis. See Baeuml. Partik. p. 136,
96 CHAP. IV., 23-28.
29. — yap] Ver. 20 specifies the reason, the motive for the summons: uplvaTs in
ver. 19. For to us it is moi-ally, in the consciousness of the divine will, impossi-
hJe not to speah,'^ i.e. (f) we must speak ichat we saw and lieard — namely,
the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-witnesses and ear-
witnesses. - — 7///e2f] we on our part. ■ — ■TrpoaaTreiXT/crä/u.evoi] after they had still
more threatened them, namely, than already in the prohibition of ver. 18, in
which, after ver. 17, the threatening was obviously implied.^ — ßjjöiv
eiipiaKoi'Tsc to Trwf K.r.?..] iecause they found nothing, namely how they were to
punish them. The article before whole sentences to which the attention is
to be specially directed.^ — irür is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be ex-
plained qua sfecie quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did not know how to
invent any l-ind of jninishment, which might be ventured upon without stir-
ring up the people. Therefore ötä rhv 7.a6v, on account of the people, i.e. in
consideration of them, is not to be referred, as usually, to äni'Xvcav avruix,
but to uriÖEv EvpicKov-eq k.t.7.. — ■ hüv yap k.t.I.] So much the greater must the
miracle of healing have appeared to the unprejudiced people, and so much
the more striking and worthy of praise the working of God in it. -kIelovuv
TEaaapciK. Comp. Matt. xxvi. 53.*
Yv. 23, 24. npo? roi'f iö'lovq] to those helonffing to them, i.e. to i\\e\v felloic-
apostles. This explanation (Syr. Beza) is verified partly by ver. 31, where
it is said of all, that they proclaimed the doctrine of God ; partly by ver.
82, where the multitude of believers are contrasted icith these. Hence
neither are we to understand, with Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, the
Christian church in general, nor, with Olshausen, the church in the house
of the apostles, or an assembly as in xii. 12.^ — öuoßv/uaöou ypnv] Thus all
with one accord spoke aloud the following prayer ; and not possibly Peter
alone. The attempts to explain this away (Kuinoel, comp. Bengel : that
the rest accompanied the speaker with a subdued voice ; de Wette : that
they spoke after him mentally ; Olshausen : either that one prayed in the
name of all, or that in these words is presented the collective feeling of all)
are at variance with the clear text." It is therefore to be assumed (comp,
also Hildebrand) that in vv. 24-30 there is already a stated prayer (q) of the
apostolic church at Jerusalem, which under the fresh impression of the last
events of the life of Jesus, and under the mighty influence of the Spirit
received by them, had shaped and moulded itself naturally and as if invol-
untarily, according to the exigency which engrossed their hearts ; and
which at this time, because its contents presented to the pious feeling of
the suppliants a most approjiriate application to what had just happened,
the assembled apostles joined in with united inspiration, and uttered aloud.
With this view the contents of the prayer quite accord, as it expresses the
memories of that time (ver. 25 fi.) and the exigencies (vv. 29, 30) of the
1 Winer, p. 4G4 (E. T. 624). s van Henctel, Oave d. Men. p. 68.
2 Comp. Ecclus. xiii. 3, ed. Compl. ; Dem. « This holds also in opposition to Baumgar-
544. 20; Zosim. i. 70. ten's view, that the whole assembly sang
3 Comp. Kühner, 11. p. 1-38; Mark ix. 23; together the second P?alm, and then Peter
Lulie i. 62 ; Acts xxii. 30. made an application of it to the present cir-
■1 I^lat. Apol. p. 17 D, and Stallb. in loc; cum.-tances in the words here given.
Lobeclv, ad P/iiv/n. p. 410 f .
A PRAYER-MEETING. 97
threatened church in general with energetic precision, but yet takes no
special notice of what had just happened to Peter and John, — The address
continues to the end of ver. 26. Others' supply el after cry, or before ö . . .
t'iTvüv (Bengcl), but less in keeping with the inspired fervour of the prayer.
The designation of Cod by oioTtoTa and ö ■Koujaaq k.t.7.., serves as a back-
ground to tlie triumpliant tliought of the necessary unsuccessfuhiess of hu-
man opposition. Comp. Xeh. ix. ; Rev. xiv. 7, al.
Vv. 25, 26. Ps. ii. 1, 2, exactly according to the LXX. The Psalm it-
self, according to its historical meaning, treats of the king, most probably
of Solomon, mounting the throne ; but This theocratic king is a tyjic of the
ideal oi the Israclitish kingdom, i.e. of the Mcssinlt, present to the prophetic
eye. The Psalm is not by David (see Ewald and Hupfeld) ; but those who
are praying follow the general assumption that the Psalms, of which no
other is mentioned as author, proceed from him. — From the standpoint of
the antitypical fulfilment in Christ they uuderstoood (see ver. 27) the words
of the Psalm thus : IVTieirfore raged, against Jesus, Gentiles, the Romans,
and tribes, of Israel, imagined a vain thing, in which they could not succeed,
namely, the destruction of Jesus ? There arose, against Ilim, the kings of
the earth, and the rulers, the former rei^resented by Herod, and the latter by
Pilate, assembled themselves, namely with the tdvtaiv and laoig (see ver. 27),
against Jehovah, who had sent Jesus, and against His anointed. — <ppväcau\
primarily, to snort ; then, generally, ferocio ; used in ancient Greek only in
the middle.*
Vv. 27, 28. For in truth there assembled, etc. This j6p confirms the con-
tents of the divine utterance quoted from that by which it had been his-
torically fulfilled. — £7r" ä?ir}ßeiag] according to truth^ really. — knl tov ayiov
■Kaiöä aov 'Itjg od ixP^'^-^ against Thy holy servant, etc. Explanation of the
above Kara Toi' Xpiarov avrov. The (ideal) anointing of Jesus, i.e. His conse-
cration on the part of God to be the Messianic king, took place, according
to Luke, at His Jrt^j^is?«,* by means of the Spirit, which came upon Him
while the voice of God declared Him the Messiah. The consecration
of Christ is otherwise conceived of in John {ov 6 raryp yyiaae ; see on
John X. 36). — 'Upü6?/g] Luke xxiii. 11. — avi> cdi'sai k laolq "Icr/).] icith
Gentiles and IsrncVs peoples. The plural laoig does not stand for the
singular, but is put on account of ver. 25, and is to be referred either,
with Calvin and others, to the different nationalities (comix ii. 5) from
which the Jews — in great measure from foreign countries — were assembled
at the Passover against Jesus ; or, with Grotius and others, to the ticelve
tribes, which latter opinion is to be preferred, in accordance with such
passages as Gen. xxviii. 3, xxxv. 5, xlviii. 4. The jmesthood not spe-
cially named is included in the ?.aoic 'Icrp. — ■n-oiyaai] contains the design of
the avviix&rjaav. This design of their coming together was "to kill Jesus ; "
but the matter is viewed according to the decree of God overruling it : " to
do what God has predetermined.'''' — /} x^'p <^o^] symbolizes in the lofty strain
• Vulgate, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, de Wette, ' Bernhardy, p. 248. Comp. x. 34 ; Luke It.
and many. 25; Dem. 538 ; Polyb. i. 84. 6.
» See Wesseling, ad Dioi. iv. 74. ■• Acts x. 38 ; Luke iii. 21, 22.
98 CHAP. IV., 29-35.
of the discourse the disposing power of God.^ A zeugma is contained in
'irpoufuaE, inasmuch as the notion of the verb does not stand in logical re-
lation to the literal meaning of ?/ x^^P (^o^ — with which some such word as
■!r()üi/Toifiaae would have been in accord — but only to the attribute of God
thereby symbolized. — The death of the Lord was not the accidental work of
hostile caprice, but the necessary result of the divine predetermination, to
which divine del, the personally free action of man had to serve as an in-
strument." OvK. avToi laxvaav, ä7J,ä cv el 6 to träv hnirpe^n^ Kal tif nepa^ hyayuv,
6 ehiiijxnvoQ Kal ao06c' cvviß&üv ukv yap kaeivoL üq ix^P^'' • ■ •> i'i<'otovv de ä cv
eßovÄov, Oecumenius. Beza aptly says : noiTjaai refers not to the consilia
et voluntates Herodis, etc., but to the eventus consiliorum."
Vv. 29, 30. Kai ravvf] and now, as concerns the present state of things.
In the N. T. only in the Book of Acts ;* often in classical authors. — i(pi()e *
£vt T. üTrei?.. avT. : direct thine attention to their threatenings, that they pass not
into reality. On kcpopäv in the sense of governing care, see Schaef. App. ad
Dem. V. p. 31. Comp. Isa. xxxvii. 17. avrüv, according to the original
meaning of the prayer (see on ver. 24), refers to the 'IIpw(5;/c . . . 'laparjX.
named in ver. 27, from whom the followers of Jesus, after His ascension,
feared continued persecution. But the apostles then praying, when they
uttered the prayer in reference to what had just occurred, gave to it in
their conception of it a reference to the threatenings uttered against Peter
and John in the Sanhedrim. — -oZc (hvh)ic cov] i.e. us apostles. They are
the servants of God, who execute Ilis will in the publication of the gospel.
But the TToZf Qeov Kar' if o;t;?;i^ is Christ. Comp, on iii. 13.^ — fiera irappria.
7ra(7.] icith all pjossible freedom.'' — iv tu ryv jfipn gov eKTeiv. k.t.1.] i.e. ichilst
Thau (for the confirmation of their free-spoken preaching ; comp, xiv, 3 ;
Mark xvi. 20) causcst Thy power to be active for (eic, of the aim) healing, and
that signs and loonders he done through the name (through its utterance), etc.
— Kal a. K. T. yiveG-Sai] is infinitive of the aim, and so parallel to tif laaiv,
attaching the general to the particular ; not, however, dependent on £ig,
but standing by itself. To supply ki> tu again after Kal (Beza, Bengel)
would unnecessarily disturb the simple concatenation of the discourse, and
therefore also the clause is not to be connected with 66q.
Ver. 31. ' Eo-aAfi')!??? 6 r(5-oc] This is not to be conceived of as an accidental
earthquake, but as an extraordinary shaking of the place directly effected hy
Ood, a cTJUElov^ — analogous to what happened at Pentecost — of the filling
with the KVEVfia, which immediately ensued. This filling once more with
the Spirit (comp. ver. 8) was the actual grunting of the prayer 66^... Myov
aov, ver. 29 ; for the immediate consequence was : kTia'Aow r. 16y. r. Qeov ßerä
■KappTjuiaQ, namely in Jerusalem, before the .Jews, so that the threatenings
1 Comp. ver. 30, vii. 50, siii. 11 ; 1 Pet. v 6 ; « For examples of 16^ in prayers, see Eisner,
Herod, viii. 140. 2; Herm. ad Viger. p. 733. p. 381 ; EUeiidt, Lex. Soph. 1. p. 427.
2 Comp. ii. 23, iii. IS ; Luke xxii. 22, xxiv. 26. ' Sec Theile, ad Jac. p. 7 ; and on Phil. i. 20.
3 Comp. Flacius, Clav. I. p. 818. s Viewed by Zi'ller, no doubt, as an inven-
■• Vcr::^e 38, xvii. 30, xx, 32, xxvii. 22. tion of pious legend, although nothing similar
' Is to be so written with Tisch, and Lachm., occurs in the gospel history, lo afford a coii-
comp. on Phil. ii. 23. necting link for such a legend.
STATE OF THE CHURCH, 99
against Peter and John (vv. 19, 21) thus came to nothing. Luke, how-
ever, has not meant nor designated the free-spoken preaching as a glossola-
lia (van Ilengel).'
Ver. ;}2. Connection : Thus beneficial in its effect was the whole occur-
rence for the apoatlen (ver. 31) ; but (fit) as regards the whole hody of those
tliat had become believers, etc. (ver. 32). As, namely, after the former great
increase of the church (ii. 41), a characteristic description of the Christian
cluirch-life is given (ii. 44 ff.); so here also, after a new great increase
(ver. 4), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the Sanhedrim (vv.
5-31) had taken place, there is added a simihir description, whicli of itself
points back to the earher one (in opposition to Schleiermacher), and in-
dicates the pleasing state of things as unchanged in tlie church now so
much enlarged. — tov de nlij&ovq] of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers.
These are designated as TnarevaavTeq, having become believers, in reference to
ver. 4 ; but in such a way that it is not merely those tcoaaoI, ver. 4, that are
meant, but they and at the same time all others, trho had till noio become
believers. Tliis is required by tu TTTvrjdoq, which denotes the Christian people
generally, as contrasted with the apostles. Comp, vi, 2. The believers'*
heart and soul were one, — au expression betokening the complete harmony of
the inner life as well in the thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is
the heart,' as in the activity of the affections and impulses, in which they
were avf/ipvxot, and 'laoiln'xoi.^ — Kal ov6e eIc] and not even a single one among
so many. Comp, on John i. 3. — ahru] belongs to vizapx.* — As to the com-
munity of goods, see on ii. 44 (r).
Ver. 33. And with this unity of love in the bosom of the church, how
effective was tlie testimony of the apostles, and the divine grace, which was
imparted to all the members of the church ! — r^^f hvaar. t. avp. 'I;/ö-oi)J. This
was continually the foundation of the whole apostolic preaching ; comp. .
on i. 22. They bore their wit7iess to the resurrection of Christ, as a thing to
which they were in duty bound. Hence the compound verb aTreöiöovv,^
Observe, moreover, that here, where from ver. 32 onwards the internal con-
dition of the church \s described, the apostolic preaching wi^m the church
is denoted. — The x"P'C tJn'ä?-v is usually understood (according to ii. 47)
of the favour of the people. Incorrectly, as ovöi yüp hoerji k.t.ä., ver. 34,
would contain no logical assignation of a reason for this. It is the divine
grace, which showed itself in them in a remarkable degree (1 Cor. xv. 10).
So, correctly, Beza, Wetstein, de Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett, — v^ i^rl
■KcwT. avT."\ upon them all: of the direction in which the presence of grace
was active. Comp. Luke ii. 40.
Vv. 34, 35. Tdp\ adduces a special ground of hnoicledge, something from
' As extra Biblicnl analo^jics to the extra- i. 27. See examples in Eisner, p. 317; Kypke,
ordinary iaak. b rorroj, comp. Virg. Afti. iii. II. p. 31.
90 fl. ; Ovid. Met. xv. Cüi. Other examples < Comp. Luke viii. 3; Tob. iv. 8; Plat. Alo.
may be found in Doiichlaeus, Anal. II. p. I. p. 104 A.
71, and from the Rabbins in Schoettgen, p. * Which (see Wytfcnbach. Bibl. crit. III. 2,
421. 5C flf.) «aflaTrep iyxfipiaBii'Ta'; avToi"; Tt Seixvvai
» Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol, p. 250. Kai li? jrepi oc^AijiuaTos Aeyti avTo, Oecumenius,
' Phil. ii. 2, 20. Comp. 1 Chron. xii. 38 ; Phil. Comp. 4 Mace. vi. 32 ; Dem, 234. 5.
100 CHAP. IV.
which the x°P'-'' fi^y^^v was apparent. For tliere was found no one needy
among tliem, because, namely, all possessors, etc. — TTulowrei k.t. /I.] The j^res-
ent particiiJle is put, because the entire description represents the process
as contmuing : being wont to sell, they brought tlie amount of the price of what
was sold, etc. Hence also -ninpaciKOß. is not incorrectly (de Wette) put in-
stead of the aorist participle.' The aorist participle is in its place at ver.
37. — napä TovS noSai], The apostles are, as teachers, represented sitting
(comp. Luke ii. 46) ; the money is brought and respectfully^ placed at their
feet as they sit.^ — KaOön uv k.t.A.] See on ii. 45.
Vv. 36, 37. Ae] autem, introduces, in contradistinction to what has been
summarily stated iii vv. 34, 35, the concrete individual case of an honour-
ably known man, who acted thus with his landed property. The idea in
the ÖE is : All acted thus, and in l^ecjm^g toith it was the conduct of Joses. —
ci5r(5 (see the critical remarks) ] : as at ii. 22. — vlbi 7r«pa/c2?;(T.] HNIiJ 13, son
of prophetic address, i.e. an inspired instigator, exhorter. Barnabas was a
prophet (Acts xiii. 1), and it is probable that (at a later period) he received
this surname on the occasion of some specially energetic and awakening
address which he delivered ; hence Luke did not interpret the name gen-
erally by vlhi T:po6TiTEias, but, because the npo(pT]T€ca had been displayed pre-
cisely in the characteristic form of napÜKTiTjaiS (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 3), by
viö? napanl. At Acts xi. 23 also, irnpdn'kriaii appears as a characteristic of
Barnabas. We may add, that the more precise description of him in this
passage points forward to his labours afterwards to be related. — Aevirrji]
Jer. xxxii. 7 proves that Levites might possess lands in Palestine.^ Hence
the field is not to be considered as beyond the bounds of the land (Bengel).
— vKÜpx. avT. aypov] Genitive absolute. — to xpvm"-] in the singular : the sunt
of money, the money proceeds, the amount received.^
Notes by American Editor.
(N) Hadducees. V. 1.
It is worthy of note that in the Gospels the Pharisees are the great oppo-
nents of Christ, while in the Acts the Sadducees are most violently hostile
to the apostles. This may be explained by the facts, that Christ specially
endangered the influence of the Pharisees by unmasking their formality and
hypocrisy ; and that the apostles, in preaching so strenuously the resurrec-
tion of Jesus, successfully assailed the leading tenet of the Sadducees. The
sect of the Sadducees was not numerous, but it exerted much influence. Jo-
sephus says: "Their opinions were received by few, yet by those of the
greatest dignity." They rejected all tradition — the doctrine of a resurrection
' See, on the contrary. Kühner, II. § 675. 5. administer the funds of the chnrch, which
* Comp. Chrysostom : TroAA») r; rtfijj. Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this passage
5 The delivery of the funds to the apostles has nothing to do.
is not yet mentioned in ii. 4.5, and appears ^ See Ewald, Allerth. p. 406
only to have hecome necessary when the in- ^ Herod, iii. 38; Poll. 9. 87; Wesseling, ad
crease of the church had taken place. With Diod. Sic. v. p. 436.
the alleged right of the clergy personally to
NOTES. 101
and a future state — the reality of direct divine influence, and strongly insisted
on the perfect freedom of the hi;man will. Their name is probably derived
from a certain Zadok, pupil of a distingiiished rabbi, whose followers held
that " there was nothing for them in the world to come."
(o) Annas Ihe high priest. V. 6.
Caiaphas, son-in-law of Annas, at this time held the office of high priest,
a fact which doubtless was known to Luke ; but as Annas had been high
priest, and even now wielded very great influence, the title is given to him.
In the Gospel by hiiko he is named along with Caiaphas, and that first in
order, "Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests" (Luke iii. 1). On this
passage Meyer writes : "But Annas retained withal very weighty influence,
so that not only did he, as did every one who had been aQxiiQsv'^, continue
to be called by the name, but, moreover, he also partially discharged the func-
tions of high priest. Annas, whose son-in-law, and five sons besides, filled
the office, was accustomed to keep his hand on the helm." It is also probable
that Annas was president of the Sanhedrim, an office of equal importance with
that of high priest, who was usually made president. Caiaphas was made high
priest by Valerius Gratus, a.d. 24, and held office for twelve years. He was
entirely under the influence of Annas, his father-in-law.
(p) For we cannot but speak. V. 20.
Peter and John were dauntless in their determination to obey God, even
though interdicted by the highest earthly authority, secular or sacred. Their
conduct was manly, heroic, Christlike. Socrates is reported to have said, on
being condemned for teaching the people their duties to God: " ye Athe-
nians, I will obey God rather than you ; and if you would dismiss me and
spare my life on condition that I should cease to teach my fellow-citizens,
I would rather die a thousand times than accept the proposal." A similar
instance of heroic fidelity to God's law is recorded in 2 Mace. vii. :— A young
man, scourged and threatened with death by Antiochus vinless he deliberately
violated the law of God, said : " I will not obey the king's commandment ; but
I will obey the commandment of the law that was given unto our fathers by
Moses."
(q) a slated prayer. V. 24.
Some suppose that this was a liturgical form already introdiiced into the
infant church, and used on this occasion as peculiarly appropriate. With
this supposition Meyer agrees. But the prayer seems to have been the
natural and sudden outburst of devotion and desire. Nor does the language
used imply that all necessarily spoke aloud. It might be a concert of hearts
rather than of voices, though all, as was customary, may have assented vocally
at the close. Nor have we any intimation elsewhere of any forms of prayer,
or of liturgical service at so early a period in the Christian Church. No evi-
dence is found in the record that even the Lord's Prayer was publicly used
in the assemblies of Christians.
102 CHAP. IV.
(e) All things common. V. 32.
See also notes on ii. 44. — " Common in the use of their property, not nec-
essarily in the possession of it." {Ilacketi.) "It would appear that by the
community of goods is meant, not that the disciples lived in common, and
that all property ceased among them, but that a common fund was instituted.
The disciples were actuated by the spirit of love toward each other, which
impelled them to regard the necessities of their brethren as their own. Not
only did they give largely of their wealth, biit many placed the whole of it
at the disposal of the apostles." "In the first glow of Christian life the
disciples put into actual practice the precept of our Lord " (Luke xii. 33).
{Gloag.) The community of goods was voluntary, local, and temporary, not
obligatory then or now.
We have here a specimen of CJirisiian Socialism. The naitative gives us such
a view of it as throws the secular thing called by that name into contempt, and
reveals the lamentable imperfection connected even with the highest form of
spiritual fellowship now existing on this earth. From it we learn that the so-
cialism which these first Christians enjoyed was attractive, reUgious, and amal-
gamating. They recognized the authority, the creatorship, the revelation, and
the predestination of God ; and in their prayers they invoked his protection,
interposition, and aid. Their union was most hearty and jaractical ; it con-
sisted with a diversity of position and service. It was under the spiritual and
economical supervision of the apostles, and it was produced by the favor of
God, for " great grace was upon them all." In what a sublime contrast
does such a state of things stand to all the socialistic schemes of the world.
Eead the one hundred and thirty-third psalm. (Condensed from Thomas.)
" The ideal perfection of man's condition is just that, in which neither poor nor
rich are to be found, but every individual has his wants supplied. Intima-
tions that such a condition miist one day be realized, are to be found, not only
in the reckless cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most exalted of
our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this idea ; the Essenes
and other small bodies attempted to realize it. But the outward realization of
it requires certain internal conditions ; and just because these conditions were
Avanting, the attempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, how-
ever, were secured by the Kedeemer, who poured pure brotherly love into the
hearts of believers ; but as the Church herself still appears in this world ex-
ternally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be outwardly prac-
tised." {Olshausen.)
CHAPTER V.
Veb. 2. After ywaiKo?, Elz. Scholz have avrov, which Lachm. Tisch. Born,
have rightly deleted, as it is wanting in A B D* N, min., and has evidently-
slipped in from ver. 1. — Ver. 5. After uKovovTa?, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have
deleted the usual reading -aira ; it is wanting in A B D S<*, min. Or. Lucif.
and several vss., and is an addition from ver. 11. — Ver. 9. elre] is very suspi-
cious, as it is wanting in B D {<, min. Vulg. ; in other witnesses it varies in
position, and Or. has cpriaiv. Deleted by Lachm. Born, and Tisch. — Ver. 10.
napa r. tt.] Lachm. and Tisch, read npni t. tt. according to A B D N, Or. ; other
witnesses have e-irl t. tt. ; others, i~d t. tt. ; others, Iuüttiov. Born, also has
Trpoi r. n. But as Luke elsewhere writes Trapa r. tt. (Luke viii. 41, xvii. 16),
and not npni r. r. (Mark v. 22, vii. 25 ; Bev. i. 17), the Eecepta is to be
retained. — Ver. 15. napu rai tt/*..] Lachm. reads «a? eis tu5 ttA. after A B D**
N, min. D* has only Kara ttA. ; and how easily might this become, by an eiTor
of a transcriber, kuI r«? t/1., which was completed partly by the original kutü
and partly by ctS ! Another correction was km ev rali ■n:?.a-€iaii (E). No version
has Knl. Accordingly the simple Kara nXar., following D*, is to be preferred. —
Instead of kaiv<jv, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly ulivopiuv (so A ß D i<) ;
kIlvüv was inserted as the iconted form. — Ver. 16. tls 'Iepovci.'\ eli is wanting in
A B >?, 103, and some vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of eli has
predominant attestation ; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side
of TiJv Txipii ~6'/.£-^)v the locally defining addition 'lipovca?.7j/u, which became the
occasion of omitting the eli 'lepovc. that follows. — Ver. 18. r. x^'P- ai'ijv}
aiiTüu is wanting in A B D t«, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lu-
cif., and omitted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But see iv. 3. — Ver. 23. iaT6rai'\
Elz. has £^(j iar. But £$a has decisive evidence against it, and is a more
precisely defining addition occasioned by the following ecu. — irpö] Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read ett/. according to A B D H, 109 ; tt^ö is an interpretation.
— Ver. 24. ö re iepevS kuI d crpaT. t hpoü. k. o'l upxtEp.'] A B D X, min. Copt.
Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely o re arpar. r. iepov k. ol apxiep.
So Lachm. Einck, and Born. But iepevS being not understood, and being
regarded as unnecessary seeing that ol apxiep. followed, might very easily be
omitted ; whereas there is no reason for its having befen inserted. For the
genuineness of Ispevi also the several other variations testify, which are to be
considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word,
namely, ol lepeli k. bp-p. r. up. k. ol apx- and 6 re äpxiepev'i k. 6 a-p. r. up. k. ol
apx- — Ver. 25. After avroK Elz. has z.eyuv, against decisive evidence. An
addition, in accordance with ver. 22 f. — Ver. 26. Iva uiß Lachm. Born, have
fifi, according to B D E X, min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary
on account of e<po:3. Comp. Gal. iv. 11. — Ver. 28. oü is wanting in A B N*,
Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.,
as the transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently occasioned
by iiTTipürijGev. — Ver. 32. After Icfitv, Elz. Scholz. Tisch, have aiiToi; which
104 CHAP, v., 1-10.
A D* X, min., and several vss. omit. It is to be defended. As jiiipTvpEZ is still
defined by another genitive, avrov became cumbrous, ajDpeared inappropriate,
and was omitted. B has kul ijfidi ev avrü /xaprvpei (without icpei'), etc. But
iu this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the tofief, the half of which
was easily omitted after 7//xeii ; and thereupon avruv was transformed into avru.
The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm. : ko.) ^/jeH
iv avTiI) unprvpsZ iofiev k.t.Tl. — Ver. 33. ißovTiEvovro'] Lachm. reads ißovAovro,
according to ABE, min. An interpretation, or a mechanical interchange,
frequent also in mss. of the classics ; see Born, ad xv. 37. — Yer. 34. ßpaxv ti]
TL, according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch.
Born. — (i-oaT6Aovi'\ A B i^, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have avupu-rrovi. So
Lachm. Tisch. ; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke,
and therefore the designation of the apostles by cvOpunovi api^eared to the
scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in vv. 35, 38. — Ver. 3C. Trpoof/c/l/O?;] Elz.
Griesb. Scholz, read ■HpoaeKoÄl/iBjj, in oj)position to A B C** N, min., which
have 7Tpoacii7u6?j ; and in opposition to C* D* E H, min. Cyr., which have
TT-f)oG£KÄyfJr) (SO Born.). Other witnesses have npoGtriOji, also npoaeKAripuQij.
Differing interpretations of the TrpoaeKlWrj, which does not elsewhere occur
in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm.
Tisch, have adopted. — Ver. 37. iKavov'] to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch.,
as it is wanting in A* B X, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before
Tittov, and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with -koIvv (so Born.). — Ver. 38. In-
stead of idaare, Lachm. has dcpsTe, following A B C X. A gloss. — Ver. 39.
i^vvnade'] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have dwrjaeaOe, according to B C D E X, min.,
and some vss. and Fathers. Mistaking the purj^osely chosen definite expression,
men altered it to agree with the foregoing future. — Instead of avrov?, which
Lachm. Tisch. Born, have, Elz. and Scholz read avrö, against decisive testi-
mony. An alteration to suit to epyov. — Ver. 41. After ovnßnroi Elz. has avTov,
which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of
completeness. Other interpolations are : 'It^ctoö, — tov Xpiarov, — 'Irjaov XpicTov,
— Toi) Kvpiov, — TOV Qeov.
Vv. 1-10. Ananias^ and Snpphira, however, acted quite otherwise. They
attempted in deceitful hyjwcrisy to abuse the community of goods, which,
nevertheless, was simply permissive (ver. 4). For by the sale of the piece
of land and the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the wliole sum
to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock ; but they aimed only
at securing for themselves the semhlance of holy loving zeal hy a jMrtion of
the price, and had selfishly embezzled the remainder for themselves. They
wished to serve two masters, but to appear to serve only one. WiMi justice,
Augustine designates the act as sacrilegium (" quod Deum in pollicitatione
fefellerit '') anäi frans. — The sudden death ofboth is to he regarded as a result
directly effected through tlie will of the apostle., lyy means of the miraculous power
imparted to him ; and not as a natural stroke of paralysis, independent of
' n'Jjn. Ood pities ; Jcr. xxviii. 1 ; Dan. i. the Aramaic ^'yi^U!,formom. Derived from
G ; LXX. Tob. v. 12. If, may, however, be the the Greek c6.T!4>ei.po^, sapphire, it would have
Hebrew iiamL! H'JJ;? (Neh. iii. 23, LXX.), i.e. probably been 2an-(^eipic>).
Ood covers.— The uame SaTri^eipij is apparently
SIN OF ANANIAS AND SAPPHIRA. 105
Peter, thougli taking place by divine arrangement (so Animon, Stolz,
Heinrichs, tuul others). For, apart from the supposition, in this case
necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and wife for such au im-
pression of sudden terror, the whole narrative is opposed to it ; especially
ver. 9, tlie words of which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost
presumption, if he had not the consciousness that his own will was here
active. If we should take ver. 9 to be a mere threat, to which Peter found
himself induced by an inference from the fate of Ananias, this would be
merely an unwarranted alteration of the simple meaning of the words, and
would not diminish the presumptuousness of a threat so expressed. Nearly
allied to this natural explanation is the view mingling the divine and the
natural, and taking half from each, given by Neander, the holy earnestness
of the apostolic words worked so powerfully on the terrified conscience ;
and by Olshausen, the word of Peter pierced like a sword the alarmed
Ananias, and thus his death was the marvel arranged by a higher dispos-
ing power. But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the de-
sign of the whole representation. According to Baur, nothing remains
historical in the whole narrative except that Ananias and his wife had, by
their covetousness, made their names so hated, "that people believed that
they could see only a divine judgment in their death, in whatever way it
occurred ;" all the rest is to be explained from the design of representing
the Ki'Evfia ayiov as the divine princij^le working in the apostles. Comp.
Zeller, who, however, despairs of anymore exact ascertainment of the state
of the case. Baumgarten, as also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main
with Neander ; whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, al-
though recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative is con-
cerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of the two swords of the
Pope. — The severity of the puniahment, with which Porphyry reproached
Peter, Ms justified by the consideration, tliat here was presented the first
open venture of deliberate wickedness, as audacious as it was hypocritical,
against the principle of holiness ruling in the church, and particularly in
the apostles ; and the dignity of that principle, hitherto unoflfended, at
once required its full satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the viola-
tors, by which "awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline,"'* at the
same time, the authority of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly
guaranteed in its inviolabloness (" ut poena duorum hominuni sit doctrina
multorum, " Jerome). — ivoa(pia.'] he piut aside for himself, purloined.^ — «ttö
r. n/z^s] sc. Tl.*
Ver. 3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work of the deril,
who as the liar from the beginning (John viii. 44), and original enemy of the
nvsvfia üyiov and of the Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart of
Ananias (comp, on John xiii. 27 ; Luke xxii. 3), and filled it with his
presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and ability
> Jerome, Epp. 8. p. 395 f.
2 Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 40. « See Fritzsche, Conyecf. p. .% ; Bnttm. mut.
3 Tit. ii. 10 ; 3 Mace. iv. 32 ; Joi^'h. vii. 1 ; Gr. p. 139 (E. T. 159). Comp. Athen, vi. p.
Sen. Cyr. iv. ~. 42 ; Piiid. Nem. vi. 106 ; Valck. 234 A : vo(t4>. ix toC xP'iMaTo?-
106 CHAP, v., 4-6.
(Jas. iv. 7 ; 1 Pet. v. 9), ought not to have permitted this, but should liave
allowed his heart to be filled with the Holy Spirit ; hence the question,
(5mW ETTÄTjpuaev k.t.I. ■ — ijiEvaaaOal ce to nvev/xa to üy.'\ that thou shouldest hy
lying deceive the Holy Spirit : this is the design of iirTiiipuaev. The e.xpla-
nation is incorrect which understands the infinitive tKjiaTLnCiS, and takes it
only of the attempt : unde accidit, ut nveviia uy. decipere tentares (Heinrichs,
Kuinoel). The deceiving of tlie Holy Spirit was, according to the design
of Satan, really to take place ; and although it was not in the issue suc-
cessful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias. — t6 nvsv/na rh
uywp'] Peter and the other apostles, as overseers of the church, were pre-
eminently the bearers and organs of the Holy Spirit (comp. xiii. 2, 4) ;
hence through the deception of the former the latter was deceived. — For
examples of ipevSeaOai, of de facto lying, deception b'y an act, see Kypke,
n. p. 32 f. The word with the accusative of the pey-son'^ occurs only here in
the N. T., often in the classical writers.^ — This instantaneous knowledge
of the deceit is an immediate perception, wrought in the apostle by the
Spirit dwelling in him.
Ver. 4. When it remained, namely, unsold ; (the opposite, TzpaOev), did it
not remain to thee, thy property ? and wlien sold, was it not in thy power f —
That the community of goods was not a legal compulsion, see on ii. 43. —
iv Ty aij i^ovalavrrF/px^] SC. ?/ ti/x?j, which is to be taken out of npaOev. It was
in the disposal of Ananias either to retain the purchase-money entirely to
himself, or to give merely a portion of it to the common use ; but not to do
the latter, as lie did it, under the deceitful semblance as if what he handed
over to the apostles was the whole sum. The sin of liusband and \tife is
cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vii. 2. 4 : KÄEipavTei tu löia. — ri ort]
quid est quod, i.e. cur? Comp, on Mark ii. 17. Wherefore didst thou fix
this deed in thy heart ? i.e. wherefore didst thou resolve on this deed (namely,
on the instigation of the devil, ver. 3) ?' — ova EfevaD di^Opüiroii, ä?J.ä tu Qeü).
The state of things in itself relative : Tiot so much . . . hut rather, is in the
vehemence of the address conceived and set forth absolutely : not to men,
hut to God. "As a lie against our human personality, thy deed comes not
at all into consideration ; but 07ily as a lie against God, the supreme Ruler
of the theocracy, whose organs we are."* The taking it as non tarn, quam^
is therefore a weakening of the words, which is unsuited to the fiery and
decided spirit of the speaker in that moment of deep excitement. The
datives denote the persons, to whom the action refers in hostile contradis-
tinction.* Examples of the absolute tjievchaQai with the dative are not
found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. Josh. xxiv. 27 ; 2 Sam. xxii. 45 ;
Ps. xviii. 44, Ixxviii. 36. By tu Qeü Peter makes the deceiver sensible of
his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy. This rw Qeg) is quite
1 Isa. Ivii. 11 ; Dent, xxxiii. 29 ; Hos. is. 2. T. 621).
- See Blomfi Id, Glo-^s. ad Aesch. P^rs. 478. ^ See also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 781.
3 Comp. xis. 21; the Heb. ^S ^^ DVii? « Bernhardy, p. 99. Valckenaer well remarks :
(Dan. i. 8; Mai ii. 2), and the classical ex- " il/evcracreai rii-a notat mendacio aliquem
pres.«ion öeo-öai iv (J)pecri, and the like. . decipere, i/ieüer. ti.vi. mendacio conlumeliam
* Comp. 1 Thcss. iv. 8 ; Winer, p. 401 f. (E. alicuifacere.
THEIR PUNISHMENT. 107
"warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (ver. 3, to T^vev/m) is a lie against God
(t<^ Oe(^), tchose Spirit was lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the
Spirit and his personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not eidled God,
(s) Vv. 5, 6. 'E^t-i/;t;^t] as in xii. 23 ; elswhere not in the N. T., but in the
LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp. xx. 10. anorpvxeiv occurs in the old
Greek from Homer onward. — e-i Truvras ro-ui dKovovrai] upon all hearei'S,
namely, of this discussion of Peter with Ananias. For ver. G show»
that the whole proceeding took place in the assembled church. The
sense in which it falls to be taken at ver. 11, in conformity with the
context at the close of the narrative, is different. Commonly it is taken
here as in ver. 11, in which case we should have to say, with de Wette,
that the remark was j37v?epiicaZ. But even as such it appears unsuitable
and disturbing. — ol veür^poi] the younger men in the church, who rose up
from their seats (ävacrrövres), are by the article denoted as a definite class
of persons. But seeing that they, unsummoned, perform the business as
one devolving of itself upon them, they must be considered as the regular
servants of the church, who, in virtue of the church-organization as hitherto
developed, were bound to render the manual services reqiiired in the
ecclesiastical commonwealth, as indeed such ministering hands must, both
of themselves and also after the pattern of the synagogue, have been
from the outset necessary.' But Neander, de Wette, Eothc, Lechler, and
others " doubt this, and think that the summons of the vFÜrepot to this
business was simply based on the relation of age, by reason of which they
were accustomed to serve and were at once ready of their oicn accord. But
precisely in the case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more
natural to assume a far more urgent summons to the performance of the
immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious necessity of ser-
vice, than to think of people, like automata, acting spontaneously. —
avveaTEL'Aav avroi^ means nothing else than contraxerunt eum.' We must
conceive the stretched out limbs of him who had fallen down, as drawn
together, pressed together by the young men, in order that the dead body
might be carried out. The usual view : thei/ prepared him for huriaV, by
washing, swathing, etc., confounds cvariXAELv with -rrepLaTi'XlEiv,* and, more-
over, introduces into the narrative a mode of proceeding improbable in the
case of such a death. Others incorrectly render : ihej covered him (de Dieu,
de Wette) ; comp. Cant. : involverunt. For both meanings Eur. Troad.
382 has been appealed to, where, however, ov 6<lfxaproi iv x^polv Trt-lois cv-
vEaTälijGUD means : they were not wrapped up, shrouded, by the hands of
a wife with garments (in wliich they wrapped them) in order to be buried.
As little is cvvEard?.Oat in Lucian. Imag. 7 : to he covered ; but : to he pressed
together, in contrast to the following (hnvEuüxrOai, to flutter in the wind. The
explanation amoverunt ^ is also without precedent of usage.
J See Mosheitn, de reb. Christ, ante Const. ♦ Horn. Od. xxiv. 292: Plat. Wpp. mnj. p.
p. 114. 201 D ; Diod. Sic. xix. 12 ; .Tosrpli. Antl. xix.
1 Sec also Walch, Dixs. p. T9 f. 4. 1 ; Tob. xii. 14 ; Ecclus. xxxviii. 1".
ä Comp. Laud.: coUexervnt (sic) ; Castal. : ^ Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and
conalrinxeimnt ; 1 Cor. vii. 29. others.
108 CHAP, v., 7-16.
Ver. 7. But it came to pass — alwut an interval of three Jiours — and his wifo
came in. The husband liad remained away too long for her. A period of
three hours might easily elapse with the business of the burial, especially
if the place of sepulture was distant from the city (see Lightfoot). After
eyevETo 6e a comma is to be put, and <j5 up. rp. ^idar. is a statement of time
inserted independently of the construction of the sentence.' The common
view : iut there teas aji interval of about three 7iow?*s, and his wife came in, is at
variance with the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute kjEveTo."
As to the Kal after tyevero, see on Luke v. 13. On ÖLÜaTjjiia used of time,
comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1.
Ver. 8. ' kireKpiOrj] comp, on iii. 12. Bengel aptly remarks: '■^respondit
mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat instar sermonis. — tocovtov\
for so much, points to the money still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with
an overlooking of the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel sup-
pose that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on which
Bornemann insists,^ results not as the import of the word, but, as else-
where frequently,^ from the connection.
Vv. 9, 10. Wherefore was it agreed by you (dative with the passive, see
on Matt. V. 21) to try the Spirit of the Lord (God, see vv. 4, 5) ? i.e. to vent-
ure the experiment, whether the nvev/xa äyiov, ruling in us apostles, vsras
infallible.' The neipdliuv challenges by his action the divine experimental
proof. — ol Tj-oJdS] a trait of vivid delineation f the steps of those returning
were just heard at the door '' outside (ver. 10). — irpoi tov dvöpa avTiji] beside
her (just buried) husband.
Ver. 11. 4>o/3o5] quite as in ver. 5, fear and dread at this miraculous,
destroying punitive power of the apostles. — £^' olrjv r. ifc/c/l. koI ettI Tvdvras
K.T.A.] upon the lohole church (in Jerusalem), and (generally) on all (and so
also on those who had not yet come over to the church, ver. 13) to whose
ears this occurrence came.
Vv. 12-16. After this event, which formed an epoch as regards the pres-
ervation of the holiness of the youthful church, there is now once more*
introduced as a resting-point for reflection, a summary representation of the
prosperous develoj)ment of the church, and that in its external relations. — ^e
is the simple y"Ei"«,'^ar£/cdy, carrying on the representation. — By the hands of
the apostles, moreover, occurred signs and wonders among the p)eop)le in great
number. And they were alP icith one accord in Solomon's porch, and there-
1 See on Matt. xv. 32 ; Luke ix. 28 ; Schaefer, the aposues (Kuinoel, Olsliausen, and others)
ad Dem. V. p. 368. is by Baur urged in depreciation of the au-
2 Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 235 ; Bornemann, Seliol. thenticity of the narrative. The apostles are
p. 2. f. assumed by Baur to be presented as a group
3 ScMl. in Lue. p. 168. standing isolated, as superhuman, as it were
4 See Stallb ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608 B ; magical beings, to whom people dare not draw
Lobeck, ad Soph. A,j. 747. nigh ; from which there would result a con-
5 Comp. Mai. iii. 15 ; Matt. iv. 7. ception of the apostles the very opposite of
e Comp, l.uke i. 79 ; Rom. iii. 15, s. 15. that which is found everywhere in the N. T.
' Sec on John v. 2 ; Acts iii. 10. and in the Book of Acts itself ! Even Zeller
8 Comp. ii. 43 f., iv. 32 ff. has, with reason, declared himself opposed to
9 All Christians, comp. ii. 1, in contrast to this interpretation on the part of Baur.
riav 8e Komiiv. The limitation of aira^/rts to
MIRACULOUS POAVER. 109
fore publicly: of the rest, on the other hand, no one ventured to join himself to
them ; hut the people magnified them, the high honour in wliich the people
held the Christians, induced men to keep at a respectful distance from
them : and the more icere believers added to the Lord, great numbers of men and
women ; so that they brought out to the streets, etc. The simple course of the
description is accordingly : (1) The miracle-working of the apostles con-
tinued abundantly, ver. 12 : ^tu . . . no?^?^d. (2) The whole body of
believers was undisturbed in their public meetings, protected by the
respect' of the people (kuI fjoav, ver. 12 . . . ö 7mu<;, ver. 13), and the
church increased in yet greater measure ; so that under the impression of
that respect and of this ever increasing acceptance which Christianity
gained, people brought out to the streets, etc., vv. 14, 15. Ziegler,'*
entirely mistaking the unartificial progress of the narrative, considered
Koi 7]aav . . . yvvaiKüv as a later insertion ; and in this Eichhorn, Heinrichs,
and Kuinoel agree with him ; while Laurent' recognises the genuineness of
the words, but looks on them as a marginal remark of Luke, Beck^
declared even ver. 15 also as spurious. It is unnecessary even to make a
parenthesis of ver. 14 (with Lachmann), as üare in ver. 14 is not necessarily
confined in its correct logical reference to a?.}.' kuey. air. 6 ?.a6s alone, but
may quite as fitly refer to vv. 13 and 14 together.^ — tüv öS loi-üv] are the
same who are designated in the contrast immediately following as ö AaoS,
and therefore those who had not yet gone over to them, the non-Christian popu-
lation. It is strangely perverse to understand by it the neicly converted
(Heinrichs), or the more notable and wealthy Christians like Ananias (Beza,
Morus, Rosenmüller). By the rCiv Xomiv, as it forms the contrast to the
änavTeS, Christians cannot at all be meant, not even as included (Kuinoel,
Baur). — Ko}.2.üa0at avrols] to join themselves to them, i.e. to intrude into their
society, which would have destroyed their harmonious intercourse. ° This
avToii and avTovi in ver. 13 must refer to the uTvavrei, and so to the Chris-
tians in general, but not to the apostles alone, as regards which Luke is
assumed by de "Wette to have become "a little confused." — nü?.7iov 6i\ in
the serfse of all the more, etc.'' The bearing of the people, ver. 13, promoted
this increase. — tgj /cupiw] would admit grammatically of being construed
■with n-fff-cvoiTeS (xvi. 34) ; but xi. 24 points decisively to its being connected
with TTpoGETiOcvTo. Thcy were added to the Lord, namely, as now con-
nected with Ilim, belonging to Christ. — aA^Oj?] ^'pluralis grand is : jam
non initur numerus uti iv. 4," Bengel.' — Kara nlaTdai (see the critical
remarks)] emphatically placed first : so that they (the people) through
streets, along the streets, brought out their sick from the houses, etc.
' " Est enim in sancta disciplina et in * Obss. exerj. crit. V. p. 17.
sincero pietatis ciiltu arcana quaedam ^ Compare Winer, p. 525 (E. T. 706).
o-e^voTT)?, quae malos etiam invitog con- • Comp. ix. 20, x. 28, xvii. 31 ; Luke xv. 15.
stringat," Calvin. It would have been more ' See NSgclsbacli on the Iliud, p. 227. od. 3.
accurate to Pay : ''quae profamim vulgus et ^ Comp, on the coniparaiively rare plurnl
malos etiam,'''' etc. TrAtjör) not again occurring in the N. T., Bremi.
2 In Gabler's Journ.f. fieol. Lit. I. p. 155. ad Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph. p. 361.
» mule,it. Stud. p. 138 f.
110 CHAP, v., 17-20.
— ETTi K7av. K. Kpaßßär.'] denotes generally: small heds'^ and couches. The
distinction made by Bengel and Kuinoel with the reading k'aivüv^ that
the former denotes soft and costly^ and the latter poor and humble, beds,
is quite arbitrary. — '^px^l^- Hfrpov] genitive absolute, and then ?} ckhI :
the shadow cast by him. — «cly] at least '^ is to be explained as an ab-
breviated expression : in order that, should Peter come, he might touch
any one, if emn merely his shadow {t) overshadowed him.'' That cures actually
took place by the shadow of the apostle, Luke does not state ; but only the
opinion of the pcoyle, that the overshadowing would cure their sick. It may
be inferred, however, from ver. 6 that Luke would have it regarded as a
matter of course that the sick were not brought out in vain, but were cured
by the miraculous power of the apostle. As the latter was analogous to
the miraculous power of Jesus, it is certainly conceivable that Peter also
cured without the medium of corporeal contact ; but if this result was in
individual instances ascribed to his shadow, and if men expected from the
shadow of the apostle what his personal miraculous endowment supplied,
he was not to be blamed for this superstition. Zeller certainly cannot
admit as valid the analogy of the miraculous power of Jesus, as he does
not himself recognise the historical character of the corresi^onding evangel-
ical narrative. He relegates the account to the domain of legend, in which
it was conceived that the miraculous power had been, independently of the
consciousness and will of Peter, conveyed by his shadow like an electric
fluid. An absurdity, which in fact only the presupposition of a mere
legend enables us to conceive as possible. — to TrAiyöo?] the multitude (vulgus)
of the neighbouring towns. — olTLve'i\ as well those labouring under natural
disease as those demoniacally afflicted ; comp. Lukeiv. 40 f. — Then follows
ver. 17, the contrast of the persecution, which, however, was victoriously
overcome.
Vv. 17, 18. 'Ai'flffra'?] The high priest stood up ; he raised himself : agraphie
trait serving to illustrate his present interference.* " Non sibi quiescendum
ratus est," Bengel. The äp^iepeij'; is, according to iv. 6, Annas, not Oaia-
phas, although the latter was so really. — aal -küvtsZ ol ovv avrü, ?; ovaa alptaii
T(jv latUovK.] and all his associates,^ which icere the sect of the Sadducees. This
sect had allied itself with Annas, because the preaching of Christ as the
Risen One was a grievous offence to them. See iv. 1, 2. The participle
ri ovaa (not ol ovteZ is put) adjusts itself to the substantive belonging to the
predicate, as is often the case in the classical writers.^ Luke does not
affirm that the high priest himself was a Sadducee, as Olshausen, Ewald,
and others assert. This remark also applies in opposition to Zeller, who
adduces it as an objection to the historical character of the narrator, that
Luke makes Annas a Sadducee. In the Gospels also there is no trace of the
Sadducaeism of Annas. According to Josephus,' he had a sö/i who be-
> KXivapiiov, see the critical remarks, and * Comp. vi. 9, xxiii. 9 ; Luke xv. 18, al.
comp. Epict. iii. 5. 13. * His whole adherents, ver. 21 ; Xen. Anab.
= /cai iiv, see Flerm. ad Tiger, p. 838. iii. 2 11, al. [333 E, 392 D.
3 Comp. Fritzsche, Diss, in 2 Cor. II. p. 120, « See Kühner, § 429 ; Stallb. ad Fiat. Eep.
and see on 2 Cor. xi. 16. ' Antt. xx. 9. 1.
ARKEST AND DELIVERANCE. Ill
longed to that sect. — h rTipr/CFei Srifxna.'] t///)77(t. as in iv. 3. Tho puUic prison
is called in Time. v. 18. G also merely to or/fiuaiov ; and in Xen. Hist. vii. 36.
u'lKia 6rifi6(jta.
Vv. 19, 20. The historical state of the case as to the miraculous mode of
thi;) liberation, — the process of which, perhaps, remained mysterious to the
apostles themselves, — cannot be ascertained. Luke narrates the fact in a
legendary' interpretation of the mystery ;^ but every attempt to refer the
miraculous circumstances to a merely natural process (a stroke of lightning,
or an earthquake, or, as Thiess, Eck, Eichhorn, Eckermann, and Heinrichs
suggest, that a friend, perhaps the jailer himself, or a zealous Clu-istian,
may have opened the prison) utterly offends against the design and the
nature of the text. It remains matter for surprise, that in the proceedings
afterwards (ver. 27 ff.) nothing is brought forward as to this liberation and
its circumstances. This shows the incompleteness of the narrative, but not
the unhistorical character of the fact itself (Baur, Zeller), which, if it were
an intentional invention, would certainly also have been referred to in the
trial. Nor is the apparent uselessness of the deliverance, for the apostles
are again arrested, evidence against its reality, as it had a sufficient ethical
purpose in the very fact of its confirming and increasing the courage in faith
of the apostles themselves. On the other hand, the hypothesis that Christ,
by Ilis angel, had wished to demonstrate to the Sanhedrim their weakness
(Baumgarten), would only have sufficient foundation, provided the sequel
of the narrative purported that the judges had really recognised the inter-
position of heavenly power in the mode of the deliverance. Lange^ refers
the phenomenon to a visionary condition: the apostles were liberated "ia
the condition of genius-life, of second consciousness." This is extravagant
fancy introducing its own ideas. — ayyeloi] not the angel, but an angel.*
— ihu rfii vviiTÖi] per noctem, i.e. during the night ; so that the opening, the
bringing out of the prisoners, and the address of the angel, occurred during
the course of the night, and toward morning-dawn the apostles repaired to
the temple.* The expression is thus more significant than (5al ri/f vvura'^ would
be, and stands in relation withi;7rö tov o/dO/wi', ver. 21. Hence there is no
deviation from Greek usage.' — k^ayay.'] But on the next day the doors
were again found closed (ver. 23), according to which even the keepers had
not become aware of the occurrence. — Yer. 20. (rraOrt'-c?] tnl"e your stand and
speak; in which is implied a summons to boldness. Comp. ii. 14. — rd
(»juara T?ii i^u'/S TavTTiS] the words of this life. What life it was, was self-evi-
dent to the apostles, namely, the life, which was the aim of all their effort
and working. Hence : the words, which lead to the eternal Messianic life,
bring about its attainment. Comp. John vi. 68. See on miir;??, Winer,
p. 223 (E. T. 297 f.) We are not to think here of a hypallage, according
to which rnvrTji refers in sense to r. ßZ/juara.^ ^
' Ewald also di-covere hero a lc<?ondary form ^ Comp. xvi. 9, and pee on Gal. ii. 1.
(perhaps a duplication of the history in ch. « Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 232, ed. 3.
^ Comp. Neandur. p. 726. [xii.). ' Winer, Fritzs^che.
^ A post. Zeitall. II. X).&'i. " Bengel, Kuinoel and many others. Comp.
« Win 'r, p. 118 (E. T. 155). xiii. 26 ; Rom. vii. 24.
112 CHAP, v., 21-30.
Vv. 21-23. 'Ttto t6v opdpov] about the daion of clayr The aKovaavTsZ is
simply a continuation of the narrative : after they heard that, etc., as in ii.
37, xi. 18, and frequently. — izapayevöuevoZ] namely, into the chamber where
the Sanhedrim sat, as is evident from what follows. They resorted thither,
unacquainted with the liberation of the apostles which had occurred in the
past night, and caused the Sanhedrim and the whole eldership to be con-
voked, in order to try the prisoners. — nal iräaav ryv yepovalav^ The importance
which they assigned to the matter (comp, on iv. 6) induced them to sum-
mon not only those elders of the people who were likewise members of the
Sanhedrim, but the whole tody of elders generally, the whole council of
representatives of the people. The well-known term ys^ow/a is fittingly ^
transferred from the college of the Greek ^ero/i^fs^ to that of the Jewish
presbyters. Heinrichs ^ considers rräff. t. yepova as equivalent to ro cwefipiov,
to which it is added as honorificentissima compellatio. Warranted by usage ;°
but after the quite definite and well-known to avvh^piov, the addition would
have no force. — Ver. 23 contains quite the artless exjjression of the official
report.
Vv. 24, 25. "O re IfpeyS] the (above designated) friest, points to the one
expressly named in ver. 21 as ö üp^'^P^'^^- The word in itself has not the
signification /«'(/A prj'esi ; but the context ^ gives to the general expression
this special reference. — ö orparj^yös r. Jcpoö] see on iv. 1. He also, as the
executive functionary of sacred justice, was summoned to the Sanhedrim.
— ol npYtfpaS] are the titular high priests; partly those who at an earlier
date had really held the office, and partly the presidents of the twenty-four
classes of priests. Comp, on Matt. ii. 4. — The order in which Luke names
the persons is quite natural. For first and chiefly the directing lepevi,
the head of the whole assembly, must feel himself concerned in the unex-
pected news ; and then, even more than the äpxtepels, the GrpaTTiyoi, because
he, without doubt, had himself carried into efEect the arrest mentioned at
ver. 18, and held the supervision of the prison. — SnjTröpovv . . . tovto] they
tcere full of perplexity (see on Luke xxiv. 4) concerning them (the apostles), as
to what this might come to — what they had to think as the possible termina-
tion of the occurrence just reported to them. Comp, on ii. 12, also x. 17.
— fcrrüreS K.r./l.] Comp. VV. 20, 21.
Vv. 26-28. Ov ßeru ßias] without application of violence. Comp. xxiv. 7
and the passages from Polybius in Raphel. More frequent in classical
writers is i3'ia, en ßlaS, irpd<; ßiav. — lva /«) liOao^.^ contains the design of
i(j)oßovvTo yap r. ?.a<'tv. They feared the people, in order not to ie stoned. How
easily might the enthusiasm of the multitude for the apostles have resulted
in a tumultuous stoning of the arparrjyo? and his attendants {vmipiT.), if, by
' On 'opQpo-;, see Lobeck, ad Fhryn. 275 f. ; = Dem 489. 19: Polyb xxxviii. 5. 1 ; Herrn,
and uirö, >iped of nearness in time, see Bern- Slaatsalterth. §24. 180.
hardy, p. 267. Often poin Thuc. ; see Kriigfr i Following Yitringa, ArcJiiaynag. p. 356.
on 1. 100. 3. Comp 3 Mace. v. 2 ; Tob. vii. 11. ^1 Mace. xii. 6 ; 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44; Judith
2 Although nowhere else iu the N. T, ; iv. 8, xi. 14, xv. 8 ; Loesner, p. 178.
hence here, perhaps, to be derived from the ' So also in 1 Mace. xv. 1 ; Bar. i. 7 ; Ileb.
sovvce used by Luke. v. 6 ; and see Krebs, p. 178.
TRIAL I5EF011E TUE SANHEDRIM. 113
any compulsory measures, such as putting them in chains, there had been
fearless disregard of the popuhxr feeling ! It is erroneous that after verba
of fearing, merely the simple (uj, /irJ7T(jS k.tX, should stand, and that there-
fore Iva fii) '/.lO. is to be attached to vyayev . . . ßkii, and e</>o/?. k. t. 1. to be
taken parenthetically.' Even among classical writers those verbs are found
connected with ötu? //ä/.^ — Assuming the spuriousness of üv^ ver. 28 (see
the critical remarks), the question proper is only to be found in nal ßovleaOe
K.T.?..^ for which the preceding {-apayye/Ja . . . öiöaxTJi vfiüv) paves the way.
— TTapayy. izcpriyy.^ see iv. 17, 18. — e^rt r. ovofi. r.] as in iv. 17. ~ßov7.EadE']
your efforts go to this ; " verbum invidiosum," Bengel. — mayaydv k.tX\ to
h'ing about upon us, i. e. to cause that the shed Wood of this man ie avenged on
us (by an insurrection of the people). " Pro confesso sumit Christum jure
occisum fuisse," Calvin.' On the (contemptuous) tovto . . . tovtov Bengel
rightly remarks : " fugit appellare Jesum ; Petrus appellat et celebrat, vv.
30, 31." — Observe how the high priest prudently leaves out of account the
mode of their escape. Disobedience towards the sacred tribunal was the ful-
crum.
Ver. 29. Kat oi oToaro/loj] and, , generally, the apostles. For Peter spoke
in the name of all; hence also the singular aivoKpid.* — TiEiOapxElv k.-.A.]
" Ubi enim jussa Domini et servi concurrunt, oportet ilia prius exsequi." ^
The principle is here still more decidedly expressed than in iv. 19, and in
all its generality.
Vv. 30-32 now present, in exact reference to the previous Oeü iiuaIov,
the teaching activity of the apostles as willed by God. — ö GcöS r. -n-ar. ?///.]
Comp. iii. 13. — iiyeipev'] is, with Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Erasmus, and
others, to be referred to the raising from the dead, as the following relative
sentence contains the contrast to it, and the exaltation to glory follows
immediatelj' afterwards, ver. 31. Others, such as Calvin, Bengel, de
Wette, hold that it refers generally to the appearance of Christ, whom God
has made to emerge.^ — öiaxeipil^eoQai] to murder with one^s own hands.'' This
purposely chosen significant word brings the execution of Christ, which
was already in iv. 10 designated as the strict personal act of the instiga-
tors, into prominent view with the greatest possible force as such. So
also in the examples in Kypke, II. p. 34. The following aorist Kpe/ula.
is synchronous with ^texeip. as its modal definition. — f-^ ^vÄov] on
a tree: an expression, well known to the hearers, for the stake.^
on which criminals were suspended. The cross is here designedly so
called, not because the c-avp6s was a lioman instrument of death,' but in
order to strengthen the representation, because tni ^vÄov reminded them of
1 So Winer, p. 471 (E. T. 634>, de Wette. « Maimon. Eilchoth. Melach. iii. 9. Comp.
a With Iva MT : Diod. Sic. ii. p. 329. See on iv. li).
Hartling, PartikeU. II p. 116; Kühner, ad « iii. 22, 90, xiii. 23 ; Lulce i. 69, vii. 16.
Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 2; Krügeron Thuc. vi. 1.3. 1. ' See sxvi. 21 ; Polyb. viii. 23. 8. Comp.
' Comp. Matt, xxiii. 35, xxvii. 2.') ; Acts 6caxeipo0(n»ai, Job xxx. 24.
xviii. 6; Josh, xxiii. 15; Judg. ix. 24; Lev. » ]•;'. Gen. xl. 19 ; Dent, xxi.23: Isa.x. 20;
sxii. 16. comp. Acts x. .39 ; 1 Pot. ii. 24 ; Gal. iii. 13.
* See Buttm. neut. Gr. p. Ill (E. T. 127). » See, on the other hand, ii. 83, iv. 10.
114 CHAP, v., 31-34.
the accursed (see on Gal. iii. 13). — Ver. 31. Him lias Qod exalted hy His
right hand to he the Leader (not as in iii. 15, where a genitive stands along-
side), i.e. the Ruler and Head of the theocracy, a designation of the
kinglj' dignity of Jesus," and a Saviour (the author and bestovver of the Mes-
sianic salvation). On the idea, comp. ii. 36. As to t?) öe^. avroii, see on
ii. 23. — 60VVUL /lETavoLnv K.T.Ä.] contains the design of rovrov . . . ry 6e^iä
nvTov : in order to give repentance to the Israelites and the forgiveness of sins.
With the exaltation of Christ, namely, was to commence His heavenly
work on earth, through which He as Lord and Saviour, by means of the
Holy Spirit, would continually promote the work of redemption to be ap-
propriated by men, would draw them to Him, John xii. 32, 33, in bringing
them by the preaching of the gospel (1 Pet. i. 23) to a change of mind
(comp. xi. 18 ; 2 Tim. ii. 25), and so, through the faith in Him which set
in with the fxeTdvoLa, making them partakers of the forgiveness of sins in
baptism (comp. 1 Pet. iii. 21). The appropriation of the work of salvation
would have been denied to them without the exaltation of Christ, in the
absence of which the Spirit would not have operated (John vii. 39, xvi. 7) ;
but by the exaltation it was given^ to them, and that, indeed, primarily to
the Israelites, wliom Peter still names alone., because it was only at a later
period that he was to rise from this his national standpoint to universalism
(chapter x.). — With the reading avTov uäpr. (see the critical remarks),
fiiipT. governs tiro genitives different in their reference, the one of a person
and the other of a tiling,^ and nvrov could not but accordingly precede ; but
the emphasis lies on the bold r///ei?, to which then to m>evjua k.t.ä. is added
still more defiantly. — tüv ßriudr. tovtuv] of these icords, i.e. of what has just
been uttered. See on Matt. iv. 4. Peter means the raising and exaltation
of Jesus. Of the latter the apostles were witnesses, in so far as they
had already experienced the activity of the exalted Jesus, agreeably to His
own promise (i. 5), through the effusion of the Sjnrit (ii. 33 f.). But Luke,
who has narrated the tradition of the externally visible event of the ascen-
sion as an historical fact, must here have thought of the eye-witness of
the apostles at the ascension. — ko'l to TVEijua ()e to uyiov^ as well we ... as
also the Spirit,* in which case 6e, according to the Attic usage, is placed
after the emphasised idea.^ The Holy Spirit, the greater witness, different
from the human self-consciousness, but ruling and working in believers,
witnesses icith them {avfi/xaprvpEi, Rom. viii. 16). Comp. xv. 28. — rois
■KEiQapx. avTÜ] to those who obey Him. In an entirely arbitrary manner this is
usually restricted by a mentally supplied i/plv merely to the apostles; whereas
all who were obedient to God, in a believing recognition of the Messiah
1 Comp. Thnc. i. 1-32. 2 ; Aesch. Agam. 250 ; compatible with that more free rendering of
and TLfxai äpxnyoi, Eur. Tr 196. hoiivai.
2 Not merely the actual impvUe and occasion ^ See Winer, p. 180 (E. T. 239) ; Dissen, ad
given, ns, after Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and de Find. 01. i. 94 ; Pyth. ii. 56.
Wette, also Wcis=s, Pi-tr. Lehrheqi: p. 307 ^on the other hand, see Härtung, ParieM/.
(comp, his tiM. Theol. p. 138), would have us I. p. 181.
take it. Against this view may be urged the ^ Baeumlein, Partik. p. 169.
appended Kal äi^^mv ö/iopTtwc, which is not
COUNSEL OF GAMALIEL. 115
preached to tliem, comp. ii. 38, xi. 17, and so through the. vnaKo?/ riys
■Triareo)?, Kom. i. T), had received the gifts of the Spirit. They form the
category to wliich tlie apostles belong.
Ver. 33. A(e-p/oiTo] not : they gnatshed iclth the teeth, which would be
iünpiov Tovi öJoiTrt?,' but dmecabantur (Vulgate), comp. vii. 54 : they icere
sawn through, cut through as by a saw,^ — a figurative expression (comp. ii.
37) of deeply penetrating pa/«/'«? indignation,^ It is stronger than the nou-
figurative (harrovEladni, iv. 2, xvi. 18. — eSovTievovro] they consulted, Luke xiv.
31; Acts XV. 37. The actual corning to a resolution was averted by Gamaliel.
Ver. 34. Onmaliel, 7« ''70J, retrlhutio Dei (Num. i. 10, ii. 20), is usually
assumed to be identical with Eabban Gamaliel, jpTH {sencx), celebrated in
the Talmud, the grandson of Ilillel and the son of R. Simeon, — a view
■which cannot be proved, but also cannot be refuted, as there is nothing
against it in a chronological point of view.'' He was the teacher of the
Apostle Paul (A.cts xxii. 3), but is certainly not in our passage to be con-
sidered as the president of the Sanhedrim, as many have assumed, because
in that case Luke would have designated him more characteristically than
by r:5 kv T. Gvvedjiiu ^apia. That he had been in secret a Christian,^ and been
baptized, along with his son and Nicodemus, by Peter and John,^ is a
legend deduced by arbitrary inference from this passage.'' An opposite
but equally arbitrary extreme is the opinion of Pearson {Lectt. p. 49), that
Gamaliel only declared himself in favor of the apostles from an inveterate
partisan opposition to the Sadducees. Still more grossly, Schrader, II. p.
63, makes him a hypocrite, who sought to act merely for his own elevation
and for the kingdom of darkness, and to win the unsuspicious Christians
by his dissimulation. He was not a mere prudent waiter on events
(Thiersch), but a wise, impartial, humane, and religiously scrupulous man,
so strong in character that he could not and would not suppress the warn-
ings and counsels that experience prompted him to oppose to the passion-
ate zeal, backed in great part by Sadducean prejudice, of his colleagues
(ver. 17) ; and therefore to be placed higher than an ordinary jurist and
politician dispassionately contemplating the case (Ewald). Recently it has
been maintained that the emergence of Gamaliel here recorded is an unhis-
torical rolc^ assigned to him ; and the chief ground alleged for this view
• Lucian. Cnlumn. 21. whether he might have regarded them as di-
2 Plat. Conv. p. 193 A; Aristoph. Eq. 768; vine miracles or not. O/-, if Gamaliel gave
1 Clirou. XX. ?>\ See Sulcer, Thes. I. p. 880 ; this counsel, then what is said to have taken
Valckeiiaer, p. 402 f. place could not have occurred as it is related.
3 Albert!, Oloi's. p. 07: jriitpüs exoAe'n-aii'ov'. But this dilemma proves nothing, as there isa
< Lightf. Hor. ad Matlh. p. 33. third alternative possible, namely, thai Ga-
* See already liecogn. Clem. 1.65; Bcda, nialiel was by the miracles which had occurred
Cornelius a L:iplde. favorably inclined towards Christianity, bnt
« Phot. cod. 171, p. 190. notdecidfd ; and therefore, as a prudent and
' See Thilo, ad Cod. apocr. p. 501. conscienti )us man, judged at least a further
8 Baur, see also Zeller. waiting forlightto be necessary. This favor-
" Moreover, Baur puts the alternative: able incliuat'on is evidently to be recognised
Either the previous miracles, etc., actually in the mode in which he expresses his advice;
took place, an'i then Gamaliel could not have sec on vv. 38, 39.
given an advice so problematic iu tenor,
116 CHAP. Y., 35, 36.
is the mention of Theudas, ver. 36 (but see on ver. 86), while there is fur-
ther assumed the set purpose of making Christianity a section of orthodox,
or in other words Pharisaic Judaism, combated by Sadducaeism. As if,
after the exaltation of Christ, His resurrection must not really have stood
in the foreground of the apostles' preaching ! and by that very fact the
position of parties could not hut necessarily be so far changed, that now the
main interests of Sadducaeism were most deeply affected. — voiioÖLÖäoKaAoZ]
a vojiiKoi, one skilled in the law (canonist) as a teacher.' — ßpax^ a short
while.- — On £|(j ■noielv] to fut luitJiout.^ — r. avOpurrovi (see the critical re-
marks) : thus did Gamaliel impartially designate them, and Luke repro-
duces his expression. The order of the words puts the emphasis on e^o> ;
for the discussion was to be one conducted icithin the Sanhedrim. Comp,
iv. 15.
Ver. 35. 'EttI toU ävQpuir. rovrots] in 7rspect of these men * might be joined
to npoaix^'E eavrol? (Lachm.), as Luther, Castalio, Beza, and many others
have done (whence also comes the reading afro tüv k.tX in E) ; yet the cur-
rency of the expression npuaaeiv tl km tlvl ^ is in favour of its being con-
strued with tI fiiATiETE Trpaaasiv. The emphasis also which thus falls on ett^
Toli avOp. is ajjpropriate. — ■KpdaGiiv (not T^oielv) ; agere, what procedure ye
will take. Comp. iii. 17, xix. 36 ; and see on Eom. i. 33. Gamaliel will
have nothing ■Kponerii (xix. 36) done ; therefore they must be on their
guard (wpoatx. iavr.).
Ver. 36. Tup gives the reason * for the warning contained in ver 35. In
proof that they should not jiroceed rashly, Gamaliel reminds them of two
instances from contemporary history (vv. 36, 37) when fanatical deceivers
of the people (without any interference of the Sanhedrim) were overthrown
by their own work. Therefore there should be no interference with the
apostles (ver. 38) ; for their work, if it should be of men, woiild not escape
destruction ; but if it should be of God, it would not be possible to over-
throw it. — T^pb TovTuv rüp >/,uep.'] i.e. not long ago. Ov Myti TialnLu (hjjjijfiaTa
Ka'iToiye ex^'^' ö/l/la veurepa, u fiä'kiGTa TrpöS irlariv yaav (crji'pä, Chrysostom.
Comp. xxi. 38. Yet the expression, which here stands simply in contrast
to ancient incidents (which do not lie v/ithin the experience of the genera-
tion), is not to be pressed ; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time hefore
ths census of Quirinus. — öei^rfäs] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1, in/orms us that
under the procurator Cuspius Fadus'' an insurgent chief Theudas (u) gave
himself out to be a prophet, and obtained many adherents. But Fadus fell
on the insurgents with his cavalry ; they were either slain or taken prisoners,
and Theudas himself was beheaded by the horsemen. This narrative suits
our passage exactly as regards substance, but does not correspond as regards
date. For the Theudas of Josephus lived under Claudius, and Tiberius
» See on Matt. xxii. 35. ' Wolf and Kninoel in to<?., Matthiae, p. 927.
2 Thuc. vi. 12; Polyb. iii. 96. 2; 2 Sam. xix. « Erasmus well paraphrases it : " Ex prae-
36. teritis snmite consilium, quid in futurum
ä Comp. Xen. Ci/r. iv. 1. 3 ; Symm. Ps. oporteat decenierc."
cxlii. 7. ' Not before A.D. 44 ; see Anger, de temp.
* Bemhardy, p. 251. rat. p. 44.
THEUDAS. 117
Alexander succeecled Cuspius Fadus about a.D. 46 ; whereas Gamaliel's
speech occurred about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very
many,' therefore, suppose, that it is not the Theudas of Josephus who is
here meant, but some other insurgent chief or robber-captain acting a re-
ligious part,- who has remained unknown to history, but who emerged in
the turbulent times either of the later years of Herod the Great or soon
after his death. This certainly removes all difficulties, but in what a vio-
lent manner ! especially as the name was by no means so common as to
make the supposition of two men of that name, with the satne enterprise
and the same fate, appear probable, or indeed, in the absence of more pre-
cise historical warrant, otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere histori-
cal mistakes occur in Luke (comp. iv. G ; Luke ii. 1, 2). Besides, it is
antecedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced an admon-
itory example thorouglily atril-ing, from a historical point of view, such as
was that of Judas the Galilean. But the attempts to discover in our
Theudas one mentioned by Josephus under a different name,^ amount only
to assumptions incapable of proof, and are nevertheless under the necessity
of leaving the difference of names unaccounted for. But inasmuch as, if
the Tlieudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the Theudas
mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought on the side of Josephus ;*
as, on the contrary, the exactness of the narrative of Josephus secures at
any rate the decision in its favour for chronological accuracy over against
Luke ; there thus remains nothing but to assume that Luke— or in the first
instance, his source — Jias, in the reproduction of the speech hefore vs, jntt into
the mouth of Gamaliel a proleptic mistake. This might occur the more
easily, as the speech may have been given simply from tradition. And the
tradition which had correctly preserved one event adduced by Gamaliel,
the destruction of Judas the Galilean, was easily amplified by an anachro-
nistic addition of another. If Luke ÄimseZ/ composed the speech in accord-
ance with tradition, the error is in his case the more easily explained, since
he wrote the Acts so long after the insurrection of Theudas, — in fact, after
the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth, — that the chronological
error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he was not a
Jew, and he had been for many years occupied with efforts of quite another
kind than the keeping freshly in mind the chronological position of one
of the many passing enthusiastic attempts at insurrection. It has been es-
' Origen, c. Cels. i. 6, Scaliger, Casanbon, thias in Joseph, Bell. i. 33. 2, AnU. svii. 6;
Beza, Grotuis, Caloviiis. Uanimond, Wolf, Sonntan; in the Ä^i/rf. ;/. 7i>i/. 1837. p. 638 ff.,
Bengel, Heumann, Krebs, Larclner, Moruf, and Ewald, to the insurgent 5imo« lu Joseph.
Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke, Bell. ii. 4. 2,Antt. xvii. 10. 6; Zuschlag in tlie
AiiL^er, Olshauscn. El)rard. monograph Theudas, Anführer eines 750. in
2 So also Gerliich. d. Römischen Statthalt. Pahht. erregten Auf. 'ita,>dei',Cnsse\ 1849. tak-
p. 70, not without a certain irritation towards ingit tobe the Thendion of Joseph, Antt. xvii.
me, whicli I regret, as it contributes nothing 4, who took an active part in the Idumean
to the settlement of the question. rising after the death of ITerod the Great.
3 Wieseler, Sijnops. p. 103 ff., and Baum- * Baronius, Relaud, Michaelis, Jahn, Ar-
garten, also Köhler in Herzog's Eitajkl. XVI. cMol. II. 2, § 137.
p. 40 f., holding it to refer to the scribe Mat-
118 CHAP, v., 37-40.
plained as a proleptic error by Valesius,' Lud. Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius,*
Eichhorn, Credner, de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmaun, Keim,' as also
by Baur and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument against
the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen considers liimself pre-
vented from assenting to the idea of a historical mistake, because Luke
must have committed a double mistake, — for, first, he would have made
Gamaliel name a man who did not live till after him ; and, secondly, he
would have put Judas, who appeared under Augustus, as subsequent to
TJieudas, who lived under Claudius. But the whole mistake amounts to
the simple error, that Luke conceived that Thcudas had 'played his part
already before the census of Quirinius, and accordingly he could not Ittt place
him before Judas.'' — ehai tlvo] giving out himself ^ for one of peculiar im-
portance. ° — ^ irpoüEKAidri'] to whom leaned, i.e. adhered, tooTc his side: ■Kolloii'i
Tj-näTTjasv, Josephus, I.e.'' — iyivovro «s ovoivl ad nihilum redacti sunt.^ They
were, according to Josephus, I.e., broken up {i^iE?.v07]C!av) by the cavalry of
Fadus, and partly killed, partly taken prisoners. — The two relative sen-
tences ^ npoaEKTi. and oJ üvr/piOTj are designed to bring out emphatically the
contrast. Comp. iv. 10.
Ver. 37. 'lou't'a? 6 ra?a^aio?] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1, calls him a Gaula-
nite ; for he was from Gamala in Lower Gaulanitis. But in Antt. xviii. 1.
6, XX. 5. 2, Bell. n. 8. 1, xvii. 8, he mentions liim likewise as TuÄiXaioS.
Apparently the designation "the Galilean" was the inaccurate one used
in ordinary life, from the locality in which the man was at icorlc. Gaulani-
tis lay on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. — He excited an insurrec-
tion against the census which Augustus in the year 7 aer. Dion.^ caused to
be made by Quirinius the governor of Syria (see on Luke ii. 2), represent-
ing it as a work of subjugation, and calling the people to liberty with all
the fanatical boldness kindled by the old theocratic sjiirit.'" — ÜTrmrj^crf . . .
dniau avTov] he withdrew them from the governmen), and made them his
own adherents.^' — ÖTrtj/ltro] a notice yvhich suppleme?its Josephus. Accord-
' Ad. Euseb. H. E. ii. 11. tion of fxera toCtov (ver. 37) by Calvin, Wet-
"^ Spicileg, p. 258. stein, and otiiers, that it denotes not temporis
3 According to Lange. Apost. Zeitalf. J. p. ordinem,\)i\l,gcx\e.n\\\y ,insy per or jiraeterea.
94, tlie difficultj' between Luke and Josephus ^ kavrov, in whicli consists the mrogcmce,
remains "somewhat in suspense." Yet he the self-exaltation ; "character falsae doc-
inclines to the assumption of an earliei' Then- tiinae," BengcL
das, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler. « ,rpo(^i}Tr)s e\iyev elcai, Joseph. Anil. xx. 5.
According to this hypothesis, the Greek name 1. On T19, eximius qmdcim (the opposite
(see Wetstein) 7'/ifKt?as(=i>eo6ä? = i>€o8(opos), ovSeis— "Valckenaer, ad Herod, iii. 140), see
preserved still on coins in Mionnet, must be Wetstein in loc. ; Winer, p. 160 (E. T. 213) ;
regai-ded as the Greek form of the name Dissen, ad Find. Pyth. viii. 9S, p. 299.
rrriD. Bnt why should Gamaliel or Luke 'Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5; also Trpöo-KAto-is,
not have retained the name Matthiaf! ? Or Polyb. vi. 10. 10, v, ."il. 8.
what could induce Josephus to put Matthias * See Schleusner, Thes. PV'. p. 140.
instead of Theudas ? especially as the name « Thirty-seven years after the battle ofAc-
Dnin was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg. tium, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 21.
p. 423), and Josephus himself mentions the " Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1. See Gerlach.d.
later insurgent by no other name. 7?ö»i. Statthalter.' p. 45 f. ; Paret in Herzog'g
■* Entirely mistaken is the— even in a lin- Encykl. Vll. p. 126 f.
guistic point of view erroneous— interpreta- i' Attraction : Hermann, ad Vig. p. 893.
JUDAS OF GAULEE. 119
ing to Joseph. ^1?!^^. xx. 5. 3, two soun of Judas pcrisliod at a later period,
whom Tiberius Alexandei', the governor of Judaea, caused to be crucified.'
Still later a third son was executed.^ — (htaKupiTia07ia(n] they were scattci'ed,
— which does not exclude the continuance of the faction, whose members
were afterwards very active as zealots, and again even in the Jewish war ;'
therefore it is not an incorrect statement (in opposition to de Wette).
Vv. 38-40. Kctj is the simple copula of the train of thought ; rd vvv as in
iv. 29. — f,J (iv6pün<jv'\ of human origin (comp. Matt. xxi. 25), not proceed-
ing from the will and arrangement of God (not £« Qeov). — ?/ (iovl^ avrri ?} rd
tpy. TovTo] " Disjunctio non ad diversas res, sed ad diversa, quibus res
appellatur, vocabula pertinet. '"* This project or (in order to denote the
matter in question still more definitely) this icorh (as already in the act of
bein"' executed). — KaTalvdijneTai] namely, without your interference. This
conception results from the antithesis in the second clause : ov SvvaoOe
KaraT^vcai avTovi. For similar expressions from the Rabbins, see Schoettgen.*
The reference of Ko-aAvEiJ' to perso7is (avrovi, see the critical remarks) who
are ovcrthroicn, ruined, is also current in classical authors.*^ — Notice, further,
the difference in meaning of the two conditional clauses : iilv y and «...
ioTiv,'' according to which the second case put appeared, to Gamaliel as the
more probable. — fir/zore kuI Oeu/idxoi. ivpiOi/re] although grammatically to be
explained by a cue-Tioi', TvpnafXEre LavToli (Luke xxi. 34), or some similar
phrase floating before the mind, is an independent warning : that ye only he
not found even fighters against God.^ Valckenaer and Lachmann (after
Pricaeus and Hammond) construe otherwise, referring uijizore to idaare
avrovi, and treating vn . . . avrov? as a parenthesis. A superfluous inter-
ruption, to which also the manifest reference of Qeofidxoi to the directly
preceding tl 6i in GeoD iarn> k.t.?.. is opposed. — ku'l] is to be explained ellip-
tically : not only with men, hnt also further, in addition.^ — äeo/jäxot].^" —
ETveiaOrjßai'] even if only in tantum ; and yet how greatly to their self-
conviction on account of their recent condemnation of Jesus ! — Je.'pairef ]
The Sanhedrim would at least not expose themselves, as if they had insti-
tuted an examination wholly without result, and therefore they order the
punishment of stripes, usual for very various kinds of crime — here, proved
disobedience — but very ignominious (comp. xvi. 37, xxii.). — Concerning the
counsel of Gamaliel generally, the principle therein expressed, is only right
conditionally, for interference against a spiritual development must, in
respect of its admissibility or necessity, be morally judged of according
to the nature of the cases ; nor is that counsel to be considered as an abso-
> Comp. Bdl. ii. 8. 1. ' Comp. Gal. i. 8, 9 ; and fco Winer, p 2T7 f.
» IMl. ii. 17. 8 f. ; r(7. v. 11. (E. T. 369) ; Stallb. ad Plat, rhanl. p. 93 B.
3 Joseph. Dell. ii. 17. 7. <* See Horn. IL i. 26, ii. 19.5 ; Mait. xxv. 9
* Frit/.sclic, ad Mate. p. 277. (Elz.) ; Rom xi. 21 : Baeumlein, Purlik. p.
* Pirke Abotfi, iv. 11, al. Comp. Herod, ix. 283 ; Niii^elsb. on tlic I/irrd, p. 18, ed. 3.
16: 5, Tt S(l y€V€<T&ai (K ToO ©eoO, äfjL-nxa-vov " See Härtung, Parlikiil. I. p. 134.
Ö770Tpei//ai ävi^pwTTü). Eiir. 7///)^»/. 476. '» Sec Synim. Prov. Ix. 18, xxi.l6; Jobxxvi.
«Xen. Cijr. viii. 5. 24; Plat. Legg. iv. p. ^\ Ilcraclid. .IWe^r. 1; 'Lwc'mxw. Jon. Tr 45. On
714 C ; Liician. Gall. 23. Comp. KaröAvcrt? the thing itself, com]). Ilnm. V. vi. 1'..9 : oi/c
TOÜ Tvpori-ou, Poljb. X. 25. 3, etc. öi- cytü-y« ^f.olcsi.v i-novfia.vloi.ai. ^a\oi.ii.y\v.
120 NOTES.
lute maxim of Gamaliel, but as one -which is liere presented to him
by the critical state of affairs, and is to be explained from his predomi-
nant opinion that a work of Ood may be at stake, as he himself indeed
makes this opinion apparent by eI . . . ioTiv, ver. 39 (see above).
Ver. 41 f. XalpovTEi] comp. Matt. v. 11, 13. — iTi-Jp roD ötö/^aros] placed
first with emphasis : for the name, for its glorification. For the scourging
suffered tended to that effect, because it was inflicted on the apostles ou
account of their steadfast confession of the name. Comp. ix. 16. " Quum
reputarent causam, -präey iUehät gaudiitm,''' Calvin. The absolute t6 6vo/ia
denotes the name iiar' Hoxv'^, — namely, " Jesus Messiah " (iii. 6, iv. 10), the
confession and announcement of which was always the highest and holiest
concern of the apostles. Analogous is the use of the absolute D^ (Lev.
xxiv. 11, 16), in which the Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as
implied of itself. Comp. 3 John 7. — Ka-rj^LÜd. ärLfiaaQ.'] An oxymoron.' —
-äüünv rmepav] every day the ovk kwavovro in preaching took place.'' They did
it day after day without cessation. — kot' oIkov] domi, in the house, a con-
trast to EV TÜ) Ispü). See on ii. 46. — ävenamvTO JiJuct/coj-teS].' — nal EvayjE?i. 'Ii]a.
T. X.] and announcing Jesus as the Messiah, a more specific definition of
(^i^uCKovTei as regards its chief contents.
Notes by Ameeican Editok.
(s) Ananias. V. 1.
His punishment. — The statement of our author, though strong, is near the
truth. Peter was merely the organ of the Holy Spirit, and his address was
the sentence of death. It was not Peter who either pronounced or exe-
cuted the sentence, but God himself. Dr. Davidson observes: " It is evidently
set forth as the miraci;lous instantaneous effect of Peter's words. This, with
the harshness of the divinely inflicted punishment, which is out of character
with the gospel history, prevents the critic from accepting the fact as histori-
cal, at least in the way it is told." Others denounce the punishment as too
severe, and not in accordance with the benign spirit of Christ. Porphyry ac-
cuses Peter of cruelty. To this charge Jerome very justly replies : " The
apostle Peter by no means calls down death upon them, as the foolish Por-
phyry falsely lays to his charge, but by a prophetic spirit announces the judg-
ment of God, that the punishment of two persons might be the instruction of
many." " But whether used directly against Peter, or indirectly against God
himself, the charge of rashness and undue severity may be repelled without
resorting to the ultimate plea of the divine infallibdity and sovereignty, by the
complex nature of the sin committed, as embracing an ambitions and vainglo-
rious desire to obtain the praise of men by false pretences ; a selfish and ava-
ricious wish to do this at as small expense as possible ; a direct falsehood,
whether told by word or deed, as to the completeness of the sum presented ;
but above all, an impious defiance of God the Spirit, as unable to detect the
' Comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. si. 26-30; Gal. 3 See Herrn, ad Tiger, p. Vi \ Bernhardy,
vi. 14, 17, al. ; 1 Pet. ii. 19. p. 477.
" See Winer, p. 162 (E. T. 214).
NOTES. 121
imposti;re or to pi:nish it ; a comiolication and accumulation of gratuitous anil
aggravated crimes, -which certainly mi;st constitute a heinous sin — if not the
unpardonable sin— against the Holy Ghost." (Alexander.) The sin of Ananias
was an aggravated combination of all ini(iuity— vanity and hypocrisy, covetous- •
ness and fraud, impiety, and contempt of God. As analogous instances refer
to the fate of Nadab and Abihu ; Korah and his company ; the man that gath-
ered sticks upon the Sabbath day, and Achan.
(t) Peter's shadow. V. 15.
"The expression is rhetorical; the sick -were anxious that something be-
longing to Peter might touch them, even if it were only his shadow." It is
not said, but it is imiDlied, that cures were thus wrought. Analogous in-
stances are recorded in the evangelical historj' : the infirm woman (Matt. ix.
21, 22) ; cures effected by handkerchiefs from the person of Paul (Acts xix.
12;. See specially Lange, in loc.
(u) Theudas. V. 36.
Josephus gives the history of an impostor named Theudas, who drew a
great multitude of r)eople after him. He was apprehended and beheaded
by order of the Roman ruler. But this event occurred in the reign of
Claudius, about ten years after the speech of Gamaliel had been delivered.
Assuming that this Theudas is the one referred to by Gamaliel, a charge of
anachronism and "historical mistakes " is brought against Luke. Now without
making any comparison between the two historians for accuracy, or insisting
that Luke is as good authority as Josephus, the assumed diflficulty may be re-
moved by supijosing that Gamaliel referred to some one of the many turbi'dent
insTirrectionary chiefs, of whom Josephus speaks as overrunning the land
aboiit the time of the death of Herod the Great. He says: "At this time
there were gi'eat disturbances in the country, and the opportunity that now
offered itself induced a great many to set up for kings." " Judea was at this
time full of robberies ; and as the several companies of the seditious lighted
upon any one to lead them, he was created a king forthwith."
" The name was not an uncommon one, and it can excite no suiprise that
one Theiidas, who was an insurgent, should have appeared in the time of Au-
gustus, and another, fifty y«ars later, in the time of Claudius. Josephus gives
an account of four men named Simon, who followed each other within forty
years, and of three named Judas within ten years, who were all instigators of
rebellion." {Uackett.) Now such an explanation, or others equally probable,
must be proved to be false, before a charge of ignorance or eiTor is brought
against the writer of the Acts. The "charge is in the last degree improbable,
considering how often such apparent inconsistencies are reconciled by the dis-
covery of new but intrinsically unimportant facts ; and also the error, if it
were one, must have been immediately discovered, and would either have been
rectified at once, or made the ground of argumentative objection." [Alexander.)
122 CHAP. VI., 1.
CHAPTER YI.
Vek. 3. 'Ayiov] is wanting in B D K, 137, 180, vss. Clirys. Theophyl. De-
leted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; tlae Syr. expresses Kvplov. A more precisely de-
fining addition (comp. ver. 5), whicli is also found inserted at ver. 10. — Kara-
cri^anfiev'] Elz. lias Kuraan/atj/iev, against decisive evidence. An over-hasty cor-
rection. — Ver. 5, nTirjprj] A C* D E H i<, min. have itXt/pt)';, which, although
adopted by Lachm., is intolerable, and is to be regarded as an old error of
transcription. — Ver. 8. ;j;apiT-o5] Elz. has TcLcTeui, contrary to decisive evidence.
From ver. 5. — Ver. 9. Koi 'kaiai] is deleted by Lach., following A D* Cant.
It was easily overlooked after Kt/lf/ilAS ; whereas it would be difficult to con-
ceive a reason for its being inserted. — Ver. 11. ßläa^irtiia^ D has 'ßAaccprijuiaS.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Born. But ßi/ßara ßy.uoipn/ia was ex-
plained by the weakly- attested ß/Macjirj/dm [blasphemies) as a gloss ; and this,
taken as a genitive, thereupon suppressed the original ß7.äa(pr}na. — Ver. 13.
After ß/ißara, Elz. has ßA(i(T(p7ifia, against a great jjredominance of evidence.
From ver. 11. — After ayiov, Elz. has tovtov, which, it is true, has in its favour
B C, Tol. Sahid. Syr. utr. Chrys. Theophyl. 2, but was added with reference to
ver. 14, as the meeting of the Sanhedrim was conceived as taking place within
the area of the tenijale court.
Vv. 1-7. An explanation paving the way for the history of Stephen,
ver. 8 S. Ver. 7 is not at variance with this view.
Ver. 1. Ae] Over against this new victory of the church without, there
now emerges a division in its own bosom.- — h rali ijuip. rai!-.] namely,
while the apostles continued, after their liberation, to devote themselves
unmolested to their function of preaching (v. 43). Thus this expression
(D'P'3 DHC) finds its definition, although only an approximate one, always
in what precedes. Comp, on Matt. iii. 1. — nl-ndwovruv'] as a neuter verb
(Bernhardy, p. 339 f.) : amidst the increase of the Christian multitude, by
which, consequently, the business of management referred to became
the more extensive and difficult.' — 'EXA??yi(T-^5, elsewhere only preserved
in Phot. Bibl (see Wetstein), according to its derivation, from i?.7iTivlCsiv, to
present oneself in Grecian nationality, and particularly to speaTc the OreeTc
language ;'^ and according to its contrast to 'F^ßpalovi, is to be explained : a
Jew, and so non-Greek, who has Grceh nationality, and farticularly speaks
Greek: ix. 29. Comp. Chrysostom and Oerumenius. As both appella-
tions are here transferred to the members of the Christian church at Jeru-
salem, the 'Eßpaloi are undoubtedly : those Christians of the church of Jerusa-
lem, ^cho, as natives of Palestine, had the Jewish national character, and spoke
I Comp. Aesch. Ag. 869 ; Polyb. iii. 105. 7; Apocr.
Herodian, iii. 8. 14, often in tlie LXX. and - Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380.
A MURMURING. 123
the sacred language as their native tongue ; and the 'ElltjvLCTal are those mem-
bers of this church, who were Oreek-Jews, and therefore j^resented themselves in
Greek national character, and spoke Greek as their native language. Both
parties were Jewish Christians ; and the distinction between tliem turned
on the different relation of their original nationality to Judaism. And as
the two parties (v) embraced the whole of the Jews wlio had become Chris-
tian, it is a purely arbitrary limitation, when Camerarius, Beza, Salmasius,
Pearson, "Wolf, Morus, Ziegler,' would understand exclusively the Jewish
proselytes who had been converted to Christianity. These are included
among the Greek-Jews who had become Christian, but are not alone meant ;
the Jews hy birth who had been drawn from the öiaanopd to Jerusalem are
are also included. The more the intercourse of Greek- Jews with foreign
culture was fitted to lessen and set aside Jewish narrow-mindedne?s, so
much the more easy it is to understand that many should embrace Chris-
tianity." — 7i-/)ö;] denotes, according to the context, the antagonistic direc-
tion, as in Luke v. 30. Comp. Acts ix. 29. — If ry 6ulk. ry Kaihju.] in the
daily service (3 Cor. viii. 4, ix, 1, 13), here : with provisions, in the daily
distribution of food. Ver. 2 requires this explanation. — KnOri/jepivo'; only
here in the N. T. , more frequently in Plutarch, etc., belongs to the later
Greek.' — The neglect of due consideration, TTapadecjpeli',* which tlie widows
of the Hellenists met with, doubtless by the fault not of the apostles, but
of subordinates commissioned by them, is an evidence that the Jewish self-
exaltation of the Palestinian over the Greek-Jews,* so much at variance
with the spirit of Christianity," had extended also to the Christian com-
munity, and now on the increase of the church, no longer restrained by
the fresh unity of the Holy Spirit, came into prominence as the first germ
of the later separation of the Hebrew and Hellenistic elements ; '' as also,
that before the appointment of the subsequently named Seven, the care of
the poor was either exclusively, or at least chiefly, entrusted to the Hebrews.^
The widows are not, as Olshausen and Lekebusch, p. 93, arbitrarily assume,
mentioned by synecdoche for all the poor and needy, but simply because
their neglect was the occasion of the yoyyvafio?. We may add, that this
passage does not presuppose another state of matters than that of the com-
munity of goods formerly mentioned (Schleiermacher and others), but only
a disproportion as regards the application of the means thereby placed at
their disposal. There is nothing in the text to show that the complaint as
to this was unfounded (Calvin).
Ver. 2. To iz7JiQni Tüv finfiTjTüv] the mass of the disciples ; i.e. the Christian
multitude in general, not merely individuals, or a mere committee of the
church. Comp. iv. 33. It is quite as arbitrary to understand, with Light-
> Einleit. in d. Br. a. d. JTebr. p. 221, and LXX. and Apocr., but see Kypke, II. p. 30.
Pfannkuche, in Eichhorn's allg. Bibl. VIII. ' Lightf. Nov. ad Joh. p. 1031.
p. 471. «Gal. iii. 28; Col. ili. 11 ; Rom. x. 12 ; 1
' Comp. Reuss in Ilerzog's Encykl. V. p. Cor. xii. 13.
703 f. ' Comp. Lechler, apo.H. Zeit. p. 333.
s Judith xii. 15 ; Lobeck, ad Pfiryn. p. 55. " Mosh. de reb. Christ, ante Const, pp. 118,
* Not elsc-whcre in the N. T., nor in the 133.
124 CHAP. VI., 3-5.
foot, ouly the 130 persons mentioned in 1. 15, as, with Mosheim and
Kuinoel, to suppose that the church of Jerusalem was divided into seven
classes, which assembled in seven different places, and had each selected from
their midst an almoner. As the place of meeting is not named, it is an
over-hasty conclusion that the whole church could not have assembled all
at once. — ova äpeaTÖv ianv] noil placet.^ The Vulgate, Beza, Calvin, Pisca-
tor, Casaubon, Kuinoel, incorrectly render : ?ion aeqiium est, which the word
never means, not even in the LXX. It pleased not the apostles to leave the
doctrine of God — its proclamation — just because the fulfilment of the proper
duty of their calling pleased them. — KaraKd\^^ A strong expression imder
a vivid sense of the disturbing Glement (to leave in the lurch) .^ — öiaKovEli)
TpajriCaii] to serve talles, i.e. to be the regulators, overseers, and dis{)ensers
in reference to food. The expression, which contains the more precise
definition forr?) ÖLanovia of ver. 1, betrays " indignitatem aliquam" (Bengel).
— The reference which others have partly combined with this, partly as-
sumed alone, of TpaKti^a to the money-changers'' taMe,^ is excluded, in the
absence of any other indication in the text, by the 6iaiwvEiv used statedly
of the ministration of food.* Moreover, the designation of the matter, as
if it were a banking business, would not even be suitable. The apostles
would neither be rpa7r£^o/cd//oj nor rpaTTfCoTOioi.^ They may hitherto in the
management of this business have made use, without fixed plan, of the
assistance of others, by whose fault, perhaps, the murmuring of the
Hellenists was occasioned.
Ver. 3. Accordingly {oiv), as we, the apostles, can no longer undertake
this business of distribution, look ye otit, i.e. direct your attention to test
and select, etc. — inrd] (w) the sacred number. — cocjiiai] quite in the
usual practical sense : tcisdom, which determines the right agency in con-
formity with the recognised divine aim. With a view to this required con-
dition of fulness of the Spirit and of wisdom, the men to be selected from
the midst of the church were to be attested, i.e. were to have the corre-
sponding testimony of the church in their favour. ° — ovi Karaar^jGo^Lev ent r^s
xpe't'di TavTTji] whom we (the apostles) will appoint,^ when they are chosen,
over the business in question.' This officium, ministration,^ is just that, of
which the distributing to the widows was an essential and indeed the chief
part, namely, the care of the poor in the church, not merely as to its Ildlen-
istic portion."* The limitation to the latter would presuppose tlie existence
of a special management of the poor already established for the Hebrew
1 xii. 3 ; John viii. 20 ; Herod, i. 119; Plato, 'The opposite of «arao-rijo-. «Tri rijs xP-
Def. p. 415 A. (comp. 1 Mace. x. 37) is : jaeTao-r^o-acrdat awb
2 On the form, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. t^s ^P-i P"lyb. iv. 87. 9 ; 1 Mace. xi. 63.
713 ff. " On cTTt with the genitive, in the sense of
3 Matt. xxi. 12, Luke six. 23 (" peciinia in official appointment over something, see
nsum paupcrum collocta et iis distiibuenda," Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474 ; Kühner, ad Xen.
Kuinoel). Mem. iii. 3. 2.
•• Wetst. ad Matth. iv. 11. s See Wctstein and Schweighäuser, Lex.
6 Athe7i. IV. p. iro. Pohjb. p. 665.
»Comp. xvi. 2 and on Luke iv. 22 ; Dion. "> Vitringa, de Synag. ii. 2. 5, Mosheim,
Hal. Ant. ii. 26. Heinrichs, Kuinoel.
CUOOSINO THE SEVEN. 125
portion, without any indication of it in the text ; nor is it supported by the
Hellenic names of the persons chosen (ver. 5), as such names at that time
were very common also among the Hebrews. Consequently the hypothesis,
that pure Ildleniists were appointed by the imjjartudity of the Hebrews,' is
entirely arbitrary ; as also is the supposition of Gieseler," that three He-
brews and tiiree Hellenists, and one proselyte, were appointed ; although
the chosen were doubtless ^>a?'<Z// Hebrews and jjar'tli/ Hellenists. — Observe,
moreover, how the I'ight to elect was regarded by the apostles as vested in
the church, and the election itself was performed by the church, but the ap-
j}oi)itme/it and consecration were completed by the apostles; the requisite
qiialijicatioris, moreover, of those to be elected are defined hi/ the apostles."
From this first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appointment to
w'hich could not but regulate analogically the practice of the church, was
gradually developed the diaconate, which subsequently underwent further
elaboration (Phil. i. 1).'' It remains an open question whether the overseers
corresponded to the D"X|J of the synagogue ^ — ry (haKovia rov /mjov] correlate
contrasting with the (haKnvelu TpmrH^aii in ver. 2.*' The apostolic working
was to be separated from the office of overseer ; while, on the other hand, the
latter was by no means to exclude other Christian work in the measure of
existing gifts, as the very example of Stephen (vv. 8-10) shows ; comp,
on viii. 5.
Ver. 5. UnvToq Tov tt7J/Bov(:'\ " pulcher consensus cum obsequio," Bengel.
The aristocracy of the church was a het' ev(h^lac irAyßov^ äptaroKparia.^ —
Trh-tug] is not, with Wetstein, Kuinoel, and others, to be interpreted
honesty, trustworthiness ; for this qualification was obvious of itself, and is
here no peculiar characteristic. But the prominent Christian element in
the nature of Stephen was his being distinguished by fulness of faith
> Rothc, de Wette, Thiersch, Kirche im of the two functions was from the very first
apost. Zeitill. p. 75. the iej;ulative point of view. Tlie prcsbyteiate
- Kiic/ie»gecc/i. I. sec. fl5, note 7. retained the ovei-.-^ight and guidance of tlic
3 Comp. Holtzm. Judenth. u. Christenth.p. diaconate (Phil. i. 1) ; comp, also si. 30 ; hut
613 f. the latter sprang, by rcas^on of the emerging
•• But the assumption that "the institution exigency, from the fo>-77ier, not the convcrt^e.
of the so-called deacons was originally one ^ As Leyrer, in Ilerzog's Encykl. XV. p.
and the same with the presbyterate, and that 313, thinks. The ecclesiastical overseership
only at a later period it ramified into the dis- arose out of the hifcher need and interest of
tinctiou between the preshyterate in the the new present, but the svna^ogal (office
narrower t^ense and the diaconate " (Lange. might serve as a model that offered itself his-
apoit. Ztitall. II. p. 7."), after J. II. Röhmcr; torically. The requirements for the latter
comp, also I.echler, p. 306). is not to be proved office pointed merely to " tt'«/^^'/70^fn ti-ust-
by si. .30. See in loc. Ritschl, altkathol. K. worthy " men.
p. 3.")5 fl'., thinks it very prohable that the « Vitringa ; on the other side Rhenfeld, sec
authority of the Seven was the first shape of Wolf, Citrae.
the office of presbyter afterwards emerging in ' Observe, however, that it is not .=aid : tij
Jerusalem. So also Holtzinann, /.c p. (JlG. iiaKovia rij? Trpoo-euxi)? xal toD A670U, and there-
Similarly Weiss, h'M. Theol. p. 142, according fore it is not to be inferred from our passage,
fo whom the presbyters stepped into the place with Ahrcns (Amt d. Schlüssel, p. 37 f.\ that
of the Seven and took upon ilicm their duties. hy rrj npoaevxij a part of "the oflice of the
But the office of presbyter was still at that keys" is meant. See, in opposition to this,
time vested in the apostle« themselves ; accord- Diisterdieck in the Stud. u. Krit. 18C5, p. 7C2 f.
ingly, the essential and necessary difference " Plat. Menex. p. 238 D.
126 CHAP. Yi., 6-9.
(comp. xi. 24), on which account the church united in selecting him first.
— •l\'/./--or'\ At a later period he taught in Samaria, and baptized the
chamberlain (viii. 5 ff.). Concerning his after life and labours (see, how-
ever, xxi. 8) there are only contradictory legends. — N^koägov] neither tho
founder of the Nicolaitans,' nor the person from whom the Nicolaitans had
borrowed their name in accordance with his alleged immoral principles f
Thiersch wishes historically to combine the two traditions.^ 'NiKulairai, Rev.
ii. G, is an invented Greek name, equivalent to Kparovvrec -i/v <^i6axt/v Ba2.ad/j.
(ver. 14), according to the derivation of DiJ ^s^, J}e7-dklit populum.* Of the
others mentioned nothing further is known. — 7rpocr;-/?i,Droi' 'Avtiox-] From
this it may be inferred, with Ileinsius, Gieseler, de Wette, Ewald, and
others, that onhj Nicolas had been a proselyte, and all the rest were not ;
for otherwise we could not discern why Luke should have added such a
special remark of so characteristic a kind only in the case of Nicolas. But
that there was also a 2Jroselyte among those chosen, is an evidence of the
wisdom of the choice. — 'AvTtoxm] but who dwelt in Jerusalem. — Tlie fact
that Stephen is named at the head of the Seven finds its explanation in his
distinguished qualities and historical significance. Comp. Peter at the
head of the apostles. Chrysostom well remarks on ver. 8 : kqI kv Tolg enra
fjv Ttg irpoKpcToc iccil ra izpure'ia elx^^' *' yo.p Kal ■// xi'P')'''ov'i.a Koivij, aZ/l' u/Mjg ovTog
iweanaaa-o xapiv TrTieiova. Nor is it less historically appropriate that the
only j>voselyte among the Seven is, in keeping with the Jewish character of
the church, named last,
Ver. 6.^ And after they (the apostles) Jiad prayed,, they laid their hands on
them. — Kai is the simple copula, whereupon the subject changes without
carrying out the periodic construction." It is otherwise in i. 24. The idea
that the overseers of the churcJi (comp, on xiii. 3) form the subject, to which
Hoelemann is inclined, has this against it, that at that time,, when the body
of the apostles still stood at the head of the first church, no other presiding
body was certainly as yet instituted. The diaconale was the first organ-
ization, called forth by the exigency that in the first instance arose. — The
imposition of hands,'' as a symbol exhibiting the divine communication of
power and grace, was employed from the time of Moses" as a special theocratic
consecration to office. So also in the apostolic church, without, however, its
already consummating admission to any sharply defined order (comp. 1
Tim. V. 22). The circumstance that the necessary gifts (comp, here vv. 3,
Ö) of the person in question were already known to exist* does not exclude
the s2-)ecial bestowal of official gifts, which was therein contemplated ; see-
ing that elsewhere, even in the case of those who have the Spirit, there
' As, after Iren. Haer. ii. 27, Epiph. Ilaer, ^ See, on the imposition of liands, Bauer in
25, Calvin, Grotius, and Lii^htfoot assumed. the Stud. v. Krit. 1865, p. 3-13 ff.; Hoelemann
2 Corisfitt. ap. vi. 8. 3 ; Clem. Al. Slr07n. ii. in his neue B'lbelstud. 1S(J6, p. 282 fl".. where
p. 177, iii. p. 187. also the earlier literature, p. 283, is noted.
3 See his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 251 f. ; « See Buttm. neiit. Gr. p. 116 (E. T. 1.32).
comp, generally. Lange, (ipost, Zt-Ualt. II. p. ' D'T PD'DD. Vilringa, Aywagr p. 836 ff.
526 ff.,and Herzog in his Encykl. X. p. 3^8 f.), *■ Num. xxvii. 18 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Ewald,
but otherwise historically quite unknown. Altevth. p. 57 f.
•* Sec Ewald and Diiaterdieck, I.e. ' Ritechl, altkath. Kirche, p. 387.
INSTALLING TUE SEVEN. 127
yet ensues a special and liighcr communication. — Observe, moreover, that
here also (comp. viii. 17, -xiii. 3) the imposition of hands occurs after
prayer,' and therefore it was not a mere symbolic accompaniment of prayer'^
without collative import, and perhaps only a '' ritus ordini et decoro con-
gruenn''^ (Calvin). Certainly its ellicacy depended only on God's bestowal,
but it was associated with the act representing this bestowal as the mediurv
of the divine communication.
Ver. 7, attaching the tram of thought by the simple kuI, now describes
how, after the inntalling of the iScven, the cause of the gospel continued to
prosper. " The word of Ood grew " — it increased in diffusion.' How could
the re-established and elevated love and harmony, sustained, in addition
to the apostles, by upright men who were full of the Holy Spirit and of
wisdom (ver. 3), fail to serve as the greatest recommendation of the new
doctrine and church to the inhabitants of the capital, who had always
before their eyes, in the case of their hierarchs, the curse of party spirit
and sectarian hatred? Therefore — and what a signifieant step towards
victory therein took place ! — a great multitude of the j/riests lecame obedient
to the faith, that is, they submitted themselves to the faith in Jesus as the
Messiah, they became believers; comp, as to i-riKiif/ Triartuc, on Rom. i. 5.
The better jjortion of the so numerous (Ezra ii. 3G fT.) priestly class could
not but, in the light of the Christian theocratic fellowship which was
developing itself, recognise and feel all the more vividly the decay of the
old hierarchy. Accordingly, both the weakly attested reading 'Iovi)atuv,
and the conjecture of Casaubon, approved by Beza : Mil -üv itpiuv, sc. TiDtg,
are to be entirely rejected ; nor is even Eisner's view, which Ileinsiua
anticipated, and Wolf and Kuinoel followed, to be adopted, viz. that by
the ö\/lof rwf up., the sacerdotes ex plebc, pleheii sacerdotes, ]*ixn D>' D'JHD,
are meant in contradistinction to the theologically learned priests, D'fDDn
■'To'?n. The te.xt itself is against this view ; for it must at least have run :
TTo/lP.ot Te Icpeic rov ö,y?.')1'. Besides, such a distinction of priests is nowhere
indicated in the N. T., and could not be presumed as known. Compare,
as analogous to the statement of our passage, John .\ii. 42.
Vv. 8, 9. Yet there now came an attack from without, and that agaimst
that first-named distinguished overseer for the poor, iStephen, who became
the irpuro/iäpTviK* The new narrative is therefore not introduced ahi'uptli/
(Schwanbeck). — jn/j/-of is, as in iv. 33, to be understood of the divine
grace, not as Ileinrich.s, according to ii. 47, would have it taken : gratia,
qvam. apud ])ermulto.t inierat. This must have been definiteh* conveyed by
an addition. — -(h'vamuq] power generally, heroism ; not specially : miraculons
poroer, as the following k-nifi repara k.-.I. expresses a special exercise of
the generally characteristic x^O'^ ^^^^ (Mvnuir. — nve^ rr.iv f« ri^q cwnyuy^c
?.e-y. AtßEpr.] some of those who 'belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue.
The number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated by the
' Luke has not expressed himself in pome TTieoL p. 144.
piich way as this: icoi (Tn&evTf<; avroU Ta<; ' xii. 24. xix 20, etc. Comp, the parable of
^e7oi<; Trpoo-rji'fii/To. the mnstard-seed. Matt. xiii. 31, 32.
' This also in opposition to Weiss, bibl. * Const, ap. ii. 49. •..'.
128 CHAP. VI., 10-12.
Rabbins,' at the fanciful number 480 {i.e. 4 X 10 X 12). Clirysostom,
already correctly explains the AißepTlvoi : ot 'Fu/ialuv h-ive'^Evdepoi. They are
to be conceived as Jews ly Mrtli, who, irought hij the Romans, particularly
under Pompey, as prisoners of tear to Rome, were afterward emancipated, and
had returned home. Many also remained in Rome, where they hud settled
on the other side of the Tiber." They and their descendants after them
formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own, which was named after the
class-designation which its originators and possessors brought with them
from their Roman sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (Jibertin-
orum). This, the usual explanation, for which, however, further historical
proof cannot be adduced, is to be adhered to as correct, both on account
of the purely Roman name, and because it involves no historical improba-
bility. Grotius, Vitringa, Wolf, and others understand, as also included
under it, Italians, who as freedmen had become converts to Judaism. But
it is not at all known that such persons, and that in large numbers, were
resident in Jervisalem. The Roman designation stands opposed to the view
of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen, who were in the service
of Palestinian masters. Others,' suppose that they were Jews, natives of
Libertum, a (problematical) city or district in proconsvüar Africa. If there
was a Libertum, ■* the Jews from it, of whom no historical trace exists, were
certainly not so numerous in Jerusalem as to form a separate synagogue of
their own.^ — kol 'K.vp. Koi 'AAef.] Likewise tico synagogal communities.
Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos," were no doubt of opinion that
by £/c TTjq avvayuyijc . . . Kal ' AaiaQ there is meant only one synagogue, whicli
was common to all those who are named. But against this may be urged,
as regards the loords of the passage, the circumstance that r. leyoßtvTjc only
suits Acßeprivuv, and as regards matter of fact, the great number of syn-
agogues in Jerusalem, as well as the circumstance that of the Libertini,
Cyrenaeans, etc., there was certainly far too large a body in Jerusalem to
admit of them all forming only one' synagogue. In Cyrene, the capital of
Upper Libya, the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews,' and in
Alexandria two of the five parts into which the city was divided were
inhabited by Lhem.' Here was also the seat of Jewish-Greek learning, and
it was natural that those removing to Jerusalem should bring with them in
some measure this learning of the world without, and prosecute it there in
their synagogue. Wieseler, p. 63, renders the first Kal and indeed, so that
the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and Asia, would be
designated as a mere jijar^ of the so-called Libertine synagogue. But how
arbitrary, seeing that Kal in the various other instances of its being used
1 Megill. f. 73, 4 ; Keturoth t. 105, 1. Kara Kvp. (Schnlthess, de charism. Sp. St. p.
2 Sueton. Tiber. .36; Tacit. Ann. li. 85; 362 ff.). See VVetstein, who even considers
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. p. 1014 C. Aißepr. as another form {inflexio) of the name
3 See particnlarly Gerdes in the Miscell. Aißvar. The Arm. already lias Libyo7'um.
Groning. I. 3, p. 529 ff. ^ Exam, emendatt. Valck. in jV. T. p. 48.
* Siiidas : AißepTivor övo/aa eOvov^. "< Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 1 ; c. Apian.
6 Conjectures : hißvcxrivüiv, Libyans (Oecn- ii. 4.
menius, Lyra, Beza, ed. 1 and 2, Clericus, " Joseph. Antt. siv. 7. 2, xiv. 10. 1, xix. 5.
Gothofredus, Valckenacr), and AtßOi'u»' tüi- 2 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7.
STEPHEN ARRESTED. 129
throughout the representation always expresses merely the simple and !
The Sijnagoga AJexandrbiorum is also mentioned in the Talmud.' Winer
and Ewald divide the whole into two communities : (1) Kvpf/v. and 'AP.ef.
joined with the Libertines ; and (2) the synagogue formed of the Cilician
and Asiatic Jews. But against this view the above reasons also militate,
especially the rf/g leyofihr/c, which only suits AißepTivuv. The grammatical
objection against our view, that the article tüv is not repeated before
KvpTjv., and before 'AZff., is disposed of by the consideration, that those
belonging to the three synagogues, the Libertine-synagogue, the Cyrenaeans,
and the Alexandrians are conceived together as one hostile category,^ and the
two following synagogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a
unity, and represented by the KaX tö)v prefixed.^ We have thus in our
passage ßre synagogues, to which the nvic belonged, — namely, three of
Roman and African nationality, and two Asiatic. The two categories^ — the
former three together, and the latter two together — are represented as the
two synagogal circles, from which disputants emerged against Stephen.
To the Cilician synagogue Saul doubtless belonged. — Asia is not to be
taken otherwise than in ii. 9. — ov^rjTovvTeg] as disputants^ ix, 29. The
avsTireiv had already begun with the rising up {ävkaTijaav).*
Vv. 10, 11. The aaoia is to be ex])lained, not of the Jewish learning, but
of the Christian wisdom,^ to which the Jewish learning of the opponents
could not make any resistance." The nvevfia was the ttv. ayiov,'' with which
he was filled, vv. 3, 5. — w] Dative of the instrument. It refers, as respects
sense, to hoth preceding nouns, but is grammatically determined according
to the lattei\ ]\Latthiae, page 991. — rare] then, namely, after they had
availed nothing in open disputation against him. "Hie agnosce morem
improborum ; ubi veritate discedunt impares, ad mendacia confugiunt,"
Erasmus. Paraplir. — vireßakov] they instigated, secretly^ instmcted."^ — ükt^kö.
afcev K.T.A.] provisional summary statement of what these men asserted that
they had heard as the essential contents of the utterances of Stephen in
question. For their more precisely formulated literal statement, see.vv.
13, 14.
Vv. 12-14. The assertion of these i-roßhiToi ^ served to direct the public
opinion against Stephen ; but a legal process was requisite for his complete
overthrow, and prudence required the consent of the people. Therefore
they stirred up the people, and the elders of the people and the scribes, etc.
— avvedvTjaav] they drew them into the movement with them, stirred up
them also. Often in Plut., Polyb., etc. — Kal eTT/cTävTsg] as in iv. 1. The
subject is still those hostile Ttvf:^. — awypTv.] they drew along with them, as
in xix. 29. — /uaprrpag i/'Ei'Je/V] Consequently, Stephen had not spoken the
> Megill. f. 73, 4. • Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff., ii. 6 ff.
^ See Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 7 ; Sauppe ' But tiü äyiio is not added ; for "adverearü
and Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19 ; Diesen, scntiebant Spiritum esse in Stephano ; Spiri-
ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f. tum sanctum in eo esse non sciebant," Bengel.
^ Vulg. : " et eornm qui erant.^'' " Comp. Appian. i. 74, vneßKrjdria-av «caTjj-
■• Bemhardy, p. 477 f. ; Winer, p. 320 f. (E. yopoi. The Latin mbornarunt, or, as the
T. 444.) Vnlg. has it, submisey-unt {Siiet. Ker. 28).
6 Luke sxi. 15 ; and sec on Eph. i. 8, 17. » Joseph. Bell. v. 10. 4 ; Pkit. Tib. Gr. 8.
130 CHAP. VI., 13, 14,
scane tcords, which were then adduced by these witnesses, ver. 14, as heard
from him. Now, namely, in presence of the Sanhedrim, it concerned them
to bear witness to tlie blasphemy alleged to have been heard, according to
the real state of the facts, and. in doing so those ävöpeg vnoßlr]TOL dealt as
false witnesses. As formerly ' a saying of Jesus was falsified in order to
make Him appear as a rebel against the theocracy ; so here also some ex-
pression of Stephen now unknown to us, — wherein the latter probably had
pointed, and that in the spirit of Jesus himself, to the reformatory influence
of Christianity leading to the dissolution of the temple-worship and legal
institutions, and the consummation of it by the Parousia, and had indeed,
perhaps, quoted the prophecy of the Lord concerning the destruction of
Jerusalem, — was so perverted, that Stephen now appears as herald of a
revolution to be accomplished by Jesus, directed against the temple and
against the law and the institutions of Moses. ^ Against the view of
Krause,' that an expression of other, more inconsiderate, Christians was im-
puted to Stephen, may be urged not only the utter arbitrariness of such a
supposition, but also the analogy of the procedure against Jesus, which
very naturally presented itself to the enemies of Stephen as a precedent.
Heinrichs, after Heumann and Morus, thinks that the fiaprvpeg were in so
far xpevth-ig, as they had uttered an expression of Stephen tpith an evil design,
in order to destroy him ; so also Sepp. p. 17. But in that case they would
not have been false, but only malicious witnesses ; not a ipevöog^ but a bad
motive would have been predominant. Baur also and Zeller maintain the
essential correctness of the assertion, and consequently the incorrectness of
the narrative, in so far as it speaks of false witnesses. But an antagonism
to the law, such as is ascribed by the latter to Stephen, would lack all
internal basis and presupposition in the case of a believing Israelite full of
wisdom and of the Holy Spirit ; * as regards its true amount, it can only be
conceived as analogous to the subsequent procedure of Paul, which, as" in
xviii. 13, xxi. 21, was misrepresented with similar perversity ; nor does the
defensive address, vii. 44-53, lead further. Nevertheless, Rauch ^ has
maintained that Stephen actually made the assertion adduced by the wit-
nesses, ver. 14, and that these were only false witnesses, in so far as they
had not themselves heard this expression from the mouth of Stephen, which
yet was the purport of their statement. This is at variance with the entire
design and representation, see particularly ver 11. And the utterance
itself, as the witnesses professed to have heard it, would, at any rate,
1 Matt. xxvi. 61 : John ii. 19. Jerusalem, and the Parousia. etc. But Stc-
* Comp. Weis?, ftiW. 7%«o^ p. 148. But that phen (6 tw -nviiiixari iiiav^ Constitl. ap. vili.
Stephen, as Rtni.-s thinks (in Hcrzog's Eacykl. 46. 9) may have expressed himself in a more
XV. p. 73), preaclied sonietliing which the threatening; and incisive manner than otliere,
apostles had not previously taught, is all the and thereby have directed the persecution to
more uncertain an assumption, seeing that himself. In so far he was certainly the fore-
already in the sayings of Jesus Himself suffl- runner of Paul.
cient materials for the purpose were given. ^ Comment, in histor. atque orat. Sleph.,
Comp. e.g. John iv. 21 fl'., the sayings of Gott. 1780.
Jesus concerning the Sabbath, concerning the * Comp. Baumgarten, p. 123.
Levilical purifications, concerning the TrArjpu- ^ In the Stud. u. Kiit. 1857, p. 356.
CIS of the law, concerning the destruction of
STEPHEN ACCUSED. 131
even if used as a veil for a higher meaning, be framed after a manner
so alien to Israelite piety and so unwise, that it could not be attributed at
all to Stephen, full as he was of the Spirit. Oecumenius has correctly
stated the matter : iiretö^ ä?.?iug fiev i/Kovaav, aPi/lwf Je vvv avTol npovx^povv^
t'lKOTUQ Koi rpevdofidpTvpEt; hvaypä<povTai. — Toi) töttov tov dylov] the holy place /car'
e^ox^v 13 the temple.^ — Ver. 14. 6 'Na^up. oirof] is not to be considered as
part of the utterance of Stephen, but as proceeding from the standpoint of
the false witnesses who so designate Jesus contemptuow^hj , and blended by
them with the words of Stephen. And not only is ö 'Nal^up. an expression of
contcmpjt, but also ovtuq" : Jesus, this Xmnrene ! — tov töttov tovtov] The false
witnesses represent the matter, as if Stephen had thus spoken pointing to the
temple.
Ver. 15. All the Sanhedrists ' saw the countenance of Stephen angelically
glorified ; a superhuman, angel-like «W^a became externally visible to them
on it (x). So Luhe has conceived and represented it with simple delinite-
ness ; so the serene calm which astonished even the Sanhedrists, and the
holy joyfulness which was reflected from the heart of the martyr in his
countenance, have been glorified by the symbolism of Christian legend.
But it would be arbitrary, with Kuinoel (comp. Grotius and Heinrichs), to
rationalize the meaning of eltW . . . äyyelov to this effect: " Os animi
tranciuillitatem summam referebat, adeo ut eum intuentibus reverentiam
injiceiet ;" according to which the expression would have to be referred,
with Neander and de Wette, to a poetically symbolical description, which
does not correspond with the otherwise simple style of the narrative. The
phenomenon was certainly " an extraordinary operation of the Spirit of
Jesus ;" * but iheform of it is added by tradition, which betrays the point
of view of the miraculous also by the Travreq. The parallel adduced afresh
by Olshausen (2 Sam. xiv. 17) is utterly unsuitable, because there the com-
parison to an angel relates to idsdom, and not to anything external. Nor
is the analogy of the 66^a in the face of Moses (3 Cor. iii. 7) suitable, on
accoimt of the characteristic Tzpoaun. äyyilov. For Malliinicul analogies, see
Schoettgen and Wetstein.
Notes by American Editob.
(v) A murmuring. V. 1.
The first dissension within the Christian Church arose from a natural
jealousy of two parties, of different language and national manners. Each
party, wedded to its own customs and ways, was naturally prejudiced some-
what against the other ; both truly Christian, yet each imperfect and lacking
in true charity. This trouble was the germ of the future disturbance caused
by the Judaizing Christians during and after the age of the apostles. The
same element of discontent and disunion exists still in countries where
' 3 Mace. ii. 14. ^ ärtvia-avTf^ ei? aiiTÖv : "ufitatnm est in
' vii. 40, xix. 26 ; Lnkc xv. 30 ; Ast, Lex. judiciis oculos in reuni convertere, qurnn
Plat. II. p. 494 ; Dissen, ad Find. Kern. ix. expectatur ejus defensio," Calvin.
29, p. 493. < Baumgarten, p. 1.30.
132 CHAP. VI., NOTES.
different races, nationalities, and languages prevail, as in our own land, where
dwell together natives of almost every country in the world. There is need
for the exercise of enlarged and enlightened charity, for the exhibition of
Christian wisdom and apostolic tact, and for the cultivation of a spirit of mu-
tual forbearance and brother-love.
" There is something very sad in the brief statement contained in the open-
ing verses of this sixth chapter. It tells us that the curtain had fallen on the
first act of the church's history. Hitherto unbroken peace had reigned in the
church, and a mutual love, which manifested itself in the general community
of goods. But now we see the fair life interrupted, and the apostle compelled
by a dissension to make arrangements for governing the community. It is a
humiliating thoiight that the first great movement to organize ecclesiastical
order and discipline was forced upon the apostles by an outburst of human
passions among believers." {Hoicson, Acts.)
(w) Seven men. V. 3.
Luke does not designate these men deacons. Nor does it appear that any
one of {he seven was ever so called. PhiliiD is spoken of as an evangelist, and
both he and Stephen were successful preachers.
' ' Some of the ancient writers regarded them as the first deacons ; others as
entirely distinct from them. The general opinion at present is that this order
arose from the institution of the Seven, but by a gradual extension of the
sphere of duty at first assigned to them." (Hackett.) Various reasons have
been imagined why seven were selected — that this was the sacred number among
the Jews ; that there were seven thousand believers at the time — one for each
thousand ; that there were seven congregations in Jerusalem ; that it referred
to the supposed existence of seven archangels ; that it was a contrast to the
twelve apostles, or a reference to the daj's of the week. But all such supposi-
tions are arbitrary and vain. Lightfoot observes : "Let him that hath confi-
dence enough pretend to assign a sufficient reason." The special exigency of
the time required a particular work, and for this men were selected by the
church and appointed by the apostles. The office of a deacon is scriptural,
and his qualifications and duties are divinelj' specified.
(x) The face of an angel. V. 15.
Our author, speaking of the phenomenon, ascribes it to the "operation of
the Spirit of Jesus, but ih.Q form of it is added by tradition." The narrative
plainly implies that the appearance was sui^ernatural, probably something
similar to the radiance on the face of Moses, upon which the children of
Israel could not look. The comparison with the angel is not intended to
give any definite idea of his actual appearance, as we know nothing of the
aspect of an angel's countenance ; but it is used as a strong figure to suggest
the idea of something superhuman and celestial.
Augustine thus beautifullj' writes of the martyr's transfigured face: "O
lamb, foremost of the flock of Christ, fighting in the midst of wolves, following
after the Lord, but still at a distance from him, and already the angel's friend !
Yes, how clearly was he the angel's friend, who, while in the 'very midst of the
wolves, still seemed like an angel ; for so transfigured was he by the rays of
the Sun of Righteousness, that even to his enemies he seemed a being not of
this world."
CEITICAL IlEMAKKS. 133
CHAPTER Vir.
Vek. 1. apa is wanting in AB C >*, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ. Bed. Deleted by
Lachm. But if not genuine, it would hardly have been added, as it was bo little
necessary for the sense that, on the contrary, the question expressed in a
shorter and more precise form appears to be more suitable to the standjJoiut
and the temper of the high priest. — Vcr. 3. Tr/v yijv] The article is wanting in
Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation. A cojiyist's error. Restored
by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 5. avTü 6ovvat'\ öovvai avrü) is decidedly
attested ; so Lachm. Tisch. Born. — Ver. 7. JouAevauat] Tisch, reads (iov^^eixTov-
aiv, in accordance, no doubt, with A C D, vss. Ir., but it is a mechanical rep-
etition from ver. 6. — Ver. 11. ti/v y^v AiyinrTov'] A B C D* (which has f^* dhji
Tf/i Aly.) X, 81, vss. have T7jv Alyvirrov. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted
by Lachm. But how easily might FHN be passed over after THN ! and then
the change AJjuttON became necessary. — Ver. 12. Instead of aim, airia is to
be received with Lachm. Tisch. Born.' — h AlyvKTu] Lachm. Tisch, read el?
AlyvKTov, following A B C E N, 40. iv Aiy. is an exjjlanatory suisplement to
ovra. — Ver. 14. After avyyei^. Elz. has avrov, in oi^position to witnesses of
some importance (also X), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent addi-
tion. — Ver. 15. i5f'] A C E X, 15, 18, vss. have Kai Karißr;, which Griesb. has
recommended, Einck preferred, and Lachm. and Tisch, have adopted. D, 40,
Syr. p. Cant, have no conjunction at all ; so Born., but fi'om the LXX. Deut.
X. 22 ; Kal kot. is to be preferred as best attested. — Ver. 16. ci] Elz. reads 5,
against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction. — rov Xvxi/^^ Lachm.
reads -ov kv 2., according to A E X** min. Copt. Syr. p. Tol. ß C X min.
Sahid. Arm. have merely ev 2. An alteration, because this Ivxeju. was appre-
hended, like the preceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Gen.
xxxiii. 19 was not recognized. — Ver. 17. üuo/.oyTjaei'] So Tisch. Lachm. But
Elz. and Scholz have w/uoaev, against AB C X, 15, 36, and some vss. A more
precisely defining gloss from the LXX. instead of which D E have ewTjyydÄaro
(so Born.). — Ver. 18. After irepoi Lachm. has £t' Alyv-zTov, according to A B C
X, min. and several vss. An exegetical addition from the LXX. — Ver. 20.
After narpoS Elz. has avrov. See on ver. 14. — Ver. 21. iKTeOevra 6i avrov]
Lachm. Born, read tK-eOeproS 61 avToiJ, according to A B C D X min. A correc-
tion in point of style. — Ver. 22. Tra'aj (To(j)lg.] A C E X, vss. Or. (twice) Bas.
Theodoret have iv ndari aocp. So Tisch. D* has ■Küaav tjjv co(^iav. So Born.
Interpretations of the liecepta, in favour of which is also the reading miaiji
cü(pia? in B, which is a copyist's error. — iv before ipy. (Elz. Scholz) is as de-
cidedly condemned by external testimonies as the avrov after ipyoii, omitted
in Elz., is attested. — Ver. 26 cvv^}.aaev'\ B C D X, min. and some vss. have
avvjj'/.AaoEV or ovvri'/Miaaev. Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recom-
' How often aniov is exchanged in siss. ad Hier. iii. 11 ; Ileind. ad Plat. Phaed. p.
witho-irot and <Tlrov, may be seen in Frotscher, 64 D ; Krüger, ad Xen. Anub. vii. 1. 33.
134 CHAP. VII.
mended the latter, and Lachm. Born. (comp, also Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm.
p. 31) adopted it. Gloss on the margin for the explanation of the original
cvvjjTiaaev . . . e'ti E'ip?}v7]v. On its reception into the text, the EiS elp., separated
from avvTJX. by avrovi, was retained. — Ver. 27. icf V"S] A B C H N, min.
Theophyl. have l<^'' tj^üv. So Tisch, and Lachm. From LXX. Ex. ii. 14. — Ver.
30. Kvpiovl is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tiscü., following A B Ci<, Copt.
Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to ayyeloi generally', and here specially' oc-
casioned by the LXX. Ex. iii. 2. — Instead of ^Aojt irvpoi, Tisch, has Trvpl (p'Aoyo?,
after ACE, min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and
as the witnesses at oiir passage are divided, we cannot come to any decision.
— Ver. 31. tOavfia^e] So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born. But Elz. and Lachm.
have kBavßaaev. Both have considerable attestation. But the suitableness of
the relative imperfect was, as often elsewhere, not duly apprehended. — After
Kvplov Elz. Scholz have Trp-oS airov, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch, have
deleted, following A B J<, min. Copt. Arm. Sj'r. p. An exegetical amj)lification,
instead of which D, after Karav., continues by : 6 Kvp. nnsv avrC) 7Jyuv. — Ver.
32. Lachmann's reading: 6 6fö5 'A3pad/x k. 'laaÜK k. 'IüküS (so also Tisch.), has
indeed considerable attestation, but it is an adaptation to iii. 13. — Ver. 33.
£v (1)] Lachm. Tisch, read £0' w, which is to be preferred on account of pre-
ponderant attestation by A B C D** (D* has ov, so Born.) K; iv w is from the
LXX. — Ver. 34. ä7ro(Tre?iw] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read änoareilu, which is so
decidedly attested by A B C D. Chrys., and by the transcriber's error änoariXu
in E and t<, that it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Ex.
iii. 10. The Recepta is a mi&taken emendation. — Ver. 35. Instead of dne(7TEi?iEv,
uKEOTalKev is to be read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., according to decisive evi-
dence. — Ev x^i-pi-^ Lachm. Tisch. Born., read cvv x^'P't which is so decidedly
attested, and might so easily give place to the current ev x^'P', that it must be
preferred. — Ver. 36. yy] Lachm. reads ry, according to B C, min. Sahid. Cant.
A transcriber's error. The originality of }?} is supported also by the^ AlyÖKTov
(instead of A'lyvTzrL)) adopted by Elz. and Born, after D, which, however, has
preponderating testimony against it. — Ver. 37. After Geo? Elz. has vuüv,
against decisive testimony. Kvpio? and avrov äKuvaeads are also to be rejected
(Lachm. and Tisch, have deleted both), as important authorities are against
them, and as their insertion after the LXX. and iii. 22 is more natural than
their omission. — Ver. 39. rali «-a/xl] Lachm. reads eu rati Knp6., according to
A B C ^<. This is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, ry
mpöia (in H, min. and some vss. Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred by Rinck and
Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine, were it not that almost aU
the uncials and vss support the plural. — Ver. 43. vfiCyv'] is wanting in B D,
min. vss. Or. Ir. Philast. Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the
LXX. — 'P£0ar] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and Tisch, have
'?E(j)dv, according to A C E. But Elz. Scholz have 'Y>£fi(f)äv ; Born. 'PefKpdfj. (D,
Vulg. Ir.) ; B has 'Po/z0ä ; N*, 'Pou6üv ; X**, 'Pntcpdv. — Ver. 44. The usual kv
before rni<;, which Lachm. and Tisch, have deleted (after ABC D** H J<, min.
Chrys. and some vss.)", is an explanatory addition. — Ver. 46. OftJ] B D H X*,
Cant, have oIk(j. Adopted by Lachm. and Born. But in accordance with ver.
48 it appeared contradictory to the idea of Stephen, to designate the temple as
the dwelling of God; and hence the alteration. — Ver. 48. After ;t'f'po7r. Elz.
has vaol?, against A B C D E X, min. and most vss. An exegetical addition.
Comp. xvii. 24. — Ver. 51. t?) Kapf)ia] Lachm. and Born, read KapiUaii. But the
Stephen's defence. 135
plural, which is found partly with and partly without the article in A C D N,
min. and several vss. Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the i^lural of the subject.
B has Kupdiai, which, without being a transcriber's error (in opposition to
Buttm. neidest. Gr. p. 148 [E. T. 170]), may be either singular or plural, and
therefore is of no weight for either reading. — Ver. 52. ye/t-f^frOt] The reading
'yevEaOe in Lachm. Tisch. Born, i.s decidedly attested, and therefore to be
adopted.
Ver. 1. The hii^li priest interrupts the silent gazing of the Sdnhedrists
on Stephen, as lie stood with glorified countenance, and demands of him
an explanation of the charge just brought against him. — Is then this, which
the witnesses have just asserted, no? With il (see on i. G ; Luke xiii. 23)
the question in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring about
it. On the äpa, used with interrogative particles as referring to the cir-
cumstances of the case — here, of the discussion — see Klotz.'
Vv. 2-53. On the speech of Stephen.'' — This speech bears in its contents and
tone the impress of its being originnl. For the long and somewhat prolix
historical narrative, vv. 2-47, in which the rhetorical character remains so
much in the background, and even the apologetic element is discernible
throughout only indirectly, cannot— so peculiar and apparently even ir-
relevant to the situation is much of its contents ' — be merely put into tlu:
mouth of Stephen, but must in its characteristic nature and course have come
from his own mouth. If it were sketched after mere tradition or acquired
information, or fi-om a quite independent ideal point of view, then either
the historical part would be placed in more direct relation to the points of
the charge and brought into rhetorical relief, or the whole plan would
shape itself otherwise in keeping with the question put in ver. 1 ; the
striking power and boldness of speech, which only break forth in the
smallest portion (vv. 48-53), would be more diffused over the whole, and
the historical mistakes — which have nothing surprising in them in the case
of a discourse delivered on the spur of the moment — would hardly occur.
— But how is the authentic reproduction of the discotirse, which must in tlie
main be assumed, to be explained? Certainly not by supposing that the
whole was, either in its main points (Krause, Heinrichs) or even verbally
(Kuinoel), taken down in the place of meeting by some person unknown.*
It is extremely arbitrary to carry back such shorthand- writing to the pub-
lic life of those times. The most direct solution would no doubt be given,
if we could assume notes of the speech made by the speaker himself, and
preserved. But as this is not here to be thought of, in accordance with tlic
whole spirit of the apostolic age and with vi. 12, it only remains as the
• yl(? Z)«i'ar. p. 177 ; Nügelsb. on the /?iaci, ornt., Marb. ISIO. Comp, his Kirche im
p. 11, ed. 3. apost. Zeitall. p. 8") ff. ; Rauch in the Stud. ii.
2 See Krause, Comm. In hist, et oral. Steph., Krit. 1857, p. 852 ff. ; F. Nitzsch in the .«anic,
Gott. 178() ; Baur, de orat. hab. a Steph. con- 18G0, p. 479 ff. ; Senn in the Evany. Zeitschr.
nlio, Tub. 1829, and hi« Paulus, p. 43 fl. ; /. Prot. u. Kirche. 1859, p. 311 ff.
Liiger, nb. Zivf.ck, Inhalt u. Eigen thilmlichk. ^ Comp. Calvin : " Stcphani responsio prima
der Rede dex Steph., Lübeck 1838: Lan£;e in specie absurda et inepta vidcri posset."
the Stud. V. Krit. 183(), p. 725 ff., and apost. * Riehni, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f., con-
Zeitalt. II. p. 8-1 ff'. ; Thiersch, de Stephani jecturcs : by Saul.
136 CHAP. VII., 1.
most natural expedient : to consider the active memory of an ear-witness, or
even several, vividly on the stretch, and quickened even ly the purpose of placing
it on record, as the authentic source ; so that, immediately after the tragical
termination of the judicial procedure, what was heard with the deepest
sympathy and eagerness was noted down from fresh recollection, and after-
wards the record was spread abroad by copies, and was in its substantial
tenor adopted by Luke. The purely historical character of the contents,
and the steady chronological course of the greater part of the speech, re-
move any improbability of its being with sufficient faithfulness taken up
by the memory. As regards fhe person of the reporter, no definite conject-
ures are to be ventured on ; * and only this much is to be assumed as prob-
able, that he was no hostile listener, but a Christl<in, perhaps a secret Chris-
tian in the Sanhedrim itself, — a view favoured by the diffusion, which we
must assume, of the record, and more especially by the circumstance, that
vv. 54-60 forms one whole with the reproduction of the speech interrupted
at ver. 53, and has doubtless proceeded from the same authentic source.
With this view even the historical errors in the speech do not conflict ; with
regard to which, however,— especially as they are based in part on tradi-
tions not found in the O. T., — it must remain undetermined how far they
are attributable to the speaker himself or to the reporter. At all events,
these historical mistakes of the speech form a strong proof in what an un-
altered form, with respect to its historical data, the speech has been pre-
served from the time of its issuing from the hands that first noted it down.
— From this view it is likewise evident in what sense we are to understand
its originnJity, namely, not as throughout a verbal reproduction, but as cor-
rect in substance, and verlKil only so far, as — setting aside the literary share,
not to be more precisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it
into its present shape — it Avas possible and natural for an intentional exer-
tion of the memory to retain not only the style and tone of the discourse
on the whole, but also in many particulars the verbal expression. Defini-
tions of a more precise character cannot psychologically be given. Accord-
ing to Baur and Zeller the speech is a later composition, "at the founda-
tion of which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an indefi-
nite recollection of the general contents of what was said by Stephen, and
perhaps even only of his principles and mode of thought ;" the exact recol-
lection of the speech and its preservation are inconceivable ; the artificial
plan, closely accordant with its theme, betrays a premeditated elaboration ;
the author of the Acts unfolds in it his own view of the relation of the
Jews to Christianity ; the discussion before the Sanhedrim itself is histori-
cally improbable, etc. ; Stephen is " the Jerusalem type of the Apostle of
the Gentiles." ^ Bnmo Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism :
"The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of circumstances in
which it occurs, and the fate Oif Step hen."
Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views concerning the
1 Ol^hausen, «jr., refers to vi. 7 ; Lnger and = See in opposition to Baur, Schnecken-
Bai;msaitcn to ihe inierventiou of Saul. burger iu the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 ff.
Stephen's defence. 137
relation of the conterds to the points of comjilaint contained in vi. 13, 14.
Among the older iuterpreters — the most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza,
and Calvin, have recourse to merely incidental references, ■v\'ith(>ut any
attempt to enter into and grasp the imity of the speech — the opinion of
Grotius is to be noted : that Stej^hen wished indirectly, in a historical
way, to show that the favour of God is not bound to any place, and that
the Jews had no advantage over those who were not Jews, in order thereby
to justify his prediction concerning the destruction of the temple and the
call of the Gentiles.' But the very supposition, that the teaching of the
call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against Stephen, is arbi-
trary ; and the historical proofs adduced would have been very ill-chosen
by him, seeing that in his review of history it is always this very Jewish
people that appears as distinguished by God. The error, so often com-
mitted, of inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly indi-
cated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stejihen give a defence
of his conversion to Christ as the true Messiah expected by the fathers ; as
well as the view of Kuinoel, that Stephen wished to prove that the Mosaic
ceremonial institutions, although they were divine, yet did not make a man
acceptable to God ; that, on the contrary, without a moral conversion of
the people, the destruction of the temple was to be expected. Olshausen
stands in a closer and more direct relation to the matter, when he holds
that Stephen narrates the history (f the 0. T. so much at length, just to show thd
Jeics that he believed in it, and thus to inchice them, through, their love for the
national history, to listen tcith calm attention. The nature of the history itself
fitted it to form a miri'or to his hearers, and particularly to bring home to their
minds the circumstance that tlie Jewish people, in (dl stages of their development
and of the divine revelatioii, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, conse-
quently, it teas not astonishing that they shoidd now show themselves once more
disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself docs not profess to look iipon this
reference of the speech as "with definite purpose aimed at." In a more
exact and thorough manner, Baur, whom Zeller in substance follows, has
laid down as the leading thought : " Great and extraordinary as were the
benefits which God from the beginning imimrted to the 2>eople, equally ungrateful
in return and antagonistic to the divine designs was from the first tJie disposition
of that peo])lc. '''''' In this case, however, as Zeller thinks, there is brought
into chief prominence the reference to the temple in respect to the charges raised,
and that in such a way that the very building of the temple itself was meant
to be presented as a proof of the perversity of the people, — a point of view
which is foreign to Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would
indeed in itself be unholy and impious. = With reason, Luger, who yet goes
too far in the references of details, Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Nitzsch
have adhered to the historiced standpoint given in vi. 13, 14, and kept
strictly in view the apologetic aim of the speech ;* along with which, how-
1 Comp. Schueckenburjicr, p. 184, who con- per mali fuistis," etc.
eiders the speech, as resi)ecrs the chief object = 2 Sam. vii. 13 ; 1 Kings v. 5, vi. 12 ; 1
aimed at, as a preparation for xxviii. 2.5 il. Chron. xviii. 12 ; comp, on vv. 49, 50.
" Comp, already Bengel : " Vos aulem sem- ■• Comp, also do Wette.
138 CHAP. VII., 1.
ever, Thiersch and Baumgartcn not without manifold caprice exaggerate,
in the histories brought forward by Stephen, the typical reference and
allegorical application of them — by which they were to serve as a mirror to
the present — as designed by him,* as is also done in the Erlang. Zeitschr.
1859, p. 311 ff. Rauch is of opinion that the speech is directed against the
merltoriousness of the te^njile-worsJiij) and of the icorhs of the law, inasmuch as
it lays stress, on the contrary, uj^on GolVs free and unmerited grace and elec-
tion ; a similar view was already held by Calvin ; but to this there remains
the decisive counter-argument, that the assumed point, the non-meritorious
nature of grace and election, is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen
or subjected to more special discussion. Moreover, Rauch starts from the
supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in vi. 14 was true," inasmuch
as Stephen had actually said what was adduced at vi. 14. — But if the asser-
tion in vi. 14 is not adduced otherwise than as really false testimony, then
it is also certain that the speaker must have the design of exjjoning the
groundlessness of the charges hrought against Mm, and the true reason for which
he was persecuted. And the latter was to the martyr the chief point, so that
his defence throughout does not keep the apologetic line, but has an offensive
character,' at first indirectly and calmly, and then directly and vehement-
ly ; the proof that the whole blame lay on the side of his judges was to him
the chief point even for his own justification. Accordingly, the proper
theme is to be found in vv. 51, 52, and the contents and course of the
speech may be indicated somewhat as follows : I stand here accused and per-
secuted, not hecatise I am a Masphemer of the laic and of the tenqjle, iut in conse-
quence of that spirit of resistance to Ood and His messerigers, which you,
according to the testimony of histoi'y, have received from your fathers and con-
tinue to exhiVit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault. To carry out this
1 Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, occurring) gecond appearance of Christ, which
even in the very command of God to Abraham would have as its consequence thg restora-
to migrate, ver. 2 11., there is assumed to be tion of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the
involved the application: "To us also, to high priest in the judgment hall, e'c. — Ac-
whom God in Christ has appeared, there has cording to Luger, the speech has the three
been a command to go out from our kindred." main thoughts: (1) That the law is not a
In ver. 7, Stei)hen, it is affirmed, wishes to in- thing rounded off in itself, but something
dicate : So will the race or oppressors, before added to the promise, and bearing even in it-
whom he stood, end liUe Pharaoh and his self a new promise; (2) Tliat tlie temple ia
host, and the liberated church will then cele- not exclusively the holy place, but only stands
brate its new independent worship, la the in the rank of holy places, by which a per-
envy of Joseph's brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it fcciing of the temple is prefigured ; (3) That
is indicated that Christ aleo was from envy from the rejection of Jesus no argument can
delivered up to the Gentile«, and for that God be derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed,
had destined Ilim to be a Saviour and King of the ambassadors of God in all stages of reve-
the Gentiles. The famine (ver. 11) signifies lation had been reviled. These three main
the affliction and spiritual famine of the hos- thoughts are not treated one after the other,
tile Jews, who, however, would at length but one mthiii the other, on the thread of
(ver. 13), after the convi rsion of the Gentiles, sacred history ; hence the form of repetition
acknowlrd^'e Ilim whom they had rejected. very often occurs in the recital (vv. 4, 5, 7, 13,
Moses' birth at the period of the severest op- 14, 18, 26, etc.).
pression, points to the birth of Christ at the - See, against this, on vi. 13.
period of the census. Moses' second appear- s Comp, the appropriate remarks of F.
ance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere Nitzsch.
Stephen's defence. 139
view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all lets liintonj speak, and that with
all the calmness and circumstantiality by which he might still have won
the assembly to rcllection.' He commences with the divine guidance of the
common ancestor, and comes to tlie pf^t/'iairhs ; but even in their case that
refractoriness was apparent through tlie envy toward Joncph, who yet was
destined to be the deliverer of the family. But, at special lengtli, in
accordance with the aim of his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moacs,
in whose history, very specially and reiicatedly, that ungodly resistance
and rejection appeared,'^ although he was the mediator of God for the de-
liverance of His jicople, the type of the Messiah, and the receiver of the
living oracles of the law. Stephen then passes from the tabernacle to the
temple prayed for by David and built by Solomon (ver. 44 fl.). But hardly
has he in this case indicated the mode of regarding it at variance with the
prophet Isaiah, which was fostered by the priests and the hierarchy (vv.
48-50), than (2) there now breaks forth a mod direct ctttacJc, no longer to be
restrained, upon his hostile judges (ver. 51 ff.)? ^^^ that with a bold
reproach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced out from
the previous historical representatioo, and now receives merely its most un-
veiled expression.' This sudden outbreak, as with the zeal of an ancient
prophet, makes the unrighteous judges angry ; whereupon Stephen breaks
off in the mid-current of his speech,'' and is silent, while, gazing stedfastly
heavenwurds to the glory of God, he commits his cause to Tlim whom he
sees standing at the right hand of God.
Very different judgments have been formed concerning the value of the
speech, according as its relation to its apologetic task has been recognised
and appreciated. Even Erasmus {ad, ver. 51) gave it as his opinion, that
there were many things in it " quae non ita multum jjertinere videantur ad
id quod instituit.''' He, in saying so, points to the interruption after ver.
53. Recently Schwanbeck, j). 251, has scornfully condemned it as "a
compendium of Jewish history forced into adaptation to a rhetorical pur-
pose, replete with the most trifling controversies which Jewish scholasti-
cism ever invented." Baur, on the other hand, has with justice acknowl-
edged the aptness, strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse,
as opposed to the hostile accusations, — a praise which, doubtless, is in-
tended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald correctly character-
izes the speech as complete in its kind ; and F. Nitzsch has thoroughly
1 The more fully, and without confining not carried the history farther than to the
himself to what was directly nece.<sary for time of Solomon. Vv. .Ol, 52 Miclude in them-
his aim, Stephen expatiates in liis historical stives the whole tragic summary of the later
representation, the more might he, on account history.
of the national love for the sacred history, * What Stephen would still have said or left
and In accordance with O. T. examples (Ex. unsaid, if he had spoktu furiher, cannot be
XX. 5 flf. ; Deut. xxili.2 ff.), expect the eager ascertained. But the speech is brolen of;
and concentrated interest of his hearers, and with ver. 53 he had just entered on a new
perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing stream of reproaches. And certainly ho would
of their judgment. still liave added a prophetic threatening of
* Ver. 27 f.. ver. 39 ff. pt/nis/imenf, as well as possibly, also, the
3 We may not ask wherefore Stephen has summons to repentance.
140 CHAP. VII., 2-4.
and clearly done justice to its merits. It is peculiarly important as the
only detailed speech which has been preserved from one not an apostle,
and in this respect also it is a " documentum Spiritus pretiosum,"
Bengel (y).
As regards the language in which Stej^hen spoke, even if he were a Hel-
lenist, which must be left undecided, this forms no reason why he should
not, as a Jew, have spoken in Iklrew before the supreme council. Nor
does the jiartial dependence on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the
speech was delivered in Greek ; it is sufficient to set down this phenome-
non to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken in Hebrew,
whether the source from which Luke drew was still Hebrew or already
Greek.
Vv. 3, 3. Brethren and respectively {nai) fathers. The former (kinsmen,
D'nSf?) refers to all 2Jresent ; the latter," to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp,
xxii. 1. — 6 Qeoq rf/g (5ö^'?/f] God, who has the glory. And this rfofa 0^33),
as it stands in significant relation to ücpOrj, must be understood as outward
majesty, the hrightness in which Jehovah, as the only true God, visibly mani-
fests Himself.^ — Uaran, pn, LXX. Xappdi>, with the Greeks ^ and Romans,*
Kd'p'pai and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in northern Mesopotamia.*
The theophany here meant is most distinctly indicated by ver. 3 as that
narrated in Gen. xii. 1. But this occurred when Abraham had already
departed from Ur to Haran (Gen. xi. 31) ; accordingly not : -rrplv fj KaroiKf/aac
avrov ev Xappdv. This discrepancy ^ is not to be set at rest by the usual
assumption that Stephen here follows a tradition probably derived from
Gen. XV. 7,' that Abraham had already had a divine vision at Ur, to which
Stephen refers, while in Gen. xii. there is recorded that which afterwards
happened at Haran. For the verbal quotation, ver. 3, admits of no other
historical reference than to Gen. xii. 1. Stephen has thus, according to
the text, erroneously (z) — speaking off-hand in the hurry of tlie moment,
how easily might he do so ! — transferred the theophany that happened to
Abraham at Haran to an earlier period, that of his abode in Ur, full of the
thought that God even in the earliest times undertook the guidance of the
people afterwards so refractory ! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius,
" Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in doctrina evan-
gelica ; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus, ut hominibus, reliquit
quae sunt hominum "), and not to be evaded by having recourse ^ to an
' Comp, the Latin Patres and the Hebrew ' Ewald explains the many deviations in
3X in respectful address to kings, priests, this speech from the ordinary Pcntatench, by
prophets, and teachers ; Lightfoot, ad Marc. the snpposition that the speaker followed a
p. 654. later text-book, then much used in the Bchoola
2 Comp. ver. 55: Ex. xxiv. 16 ; Ifa. vi. 3 ; of learning, which had contained such peculi-
Ps. xxiv. 7, xxix. 3 ; and on 1 Cor. ii. 8. arities. This is possible, but cannot be other-
3 Ilerodian. iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. wise shown to be the case; nor can it be
xvi. 1, p. 747. shown how the deviations came into the sup-
■* "Miserando funere CVffSsjvs Assyrias Latio posed text-book,
maculavit sanguine Ca^^'Arts," Lncan. i. 104; ^ Comp. Neh. ix. 7 ; Philo, de Abr. II. pp.
comp. Die Cass. xl. 25; Ammian. Marc 11, 16, ed. Mang. ; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1 ; see
xxiii. 3. [Erdk. XI. 291 S, Krause, l.o. p. 11.
* See Mannert, Geog?: V. 2, p. 280 &. ; Ritter, e See Luger after Beza, Calvin, and others.
HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS. 141
anticipation in Gen. xi. 31, according to which the vision contained in xii.
1 is suiiposed to have freceded the departure from Ur (a') ; or, by what
I^rof esses to be a more profound entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary
assumption " that Abraham took an independent sliure in tlie transmigra-
tion of the ciiildrcn of Terah from Ur to Ilaran,'" to which primordial
hidden beginning of the call of Abraham the speaker goes back. — t j' ry
MeffoTOT.] for the land of Ur"- was situated in northern Mesopotamia, which
the Chaldeans inhabited ; but is not to be identified with that Ur, which
Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8, mentions as ca»telluin Persicum, whose situation
must l)e conceived as farther south tlian Ilaran.' — Trplv y] see on Matt, i,
18. — jjv äv COL Jf/fw] qxiamcimque t/hi monstravero. " Non norat Abram,
quae terra foret, " Heb. xi. 8, Bengel.
Ver. 4. Tdrf ] after he had received this command. — ßETo. rb änoOavtlv tov
varkpa avroi^ Abraham was born to his father Terah when he was 70 years
of age ; and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years. Now, as
Abraham was 75 years old when he went from Ilaran,'' it follows that
Tenth, after this de2)arture of his son, lived 60 years (b'). Once more, there-
fore, we encounter a deviation from the biblical narrative, which is found
also in Philo, de migr. Air. -p. 415, and hence probably rests on a tradition,
which arose for the credit of the filial piety of Abraham, who liad not
migrated before his father's death. The circumstance that the death of
Terah is narrated at Gen. xi. 32, proleptically, comp. xii. 4, before tlie
migration, does not alter the state of matters historically, and cannot, with
an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all justify the expedient of Baumgar-
ten, p. 134.^ The various attemi)ts at reconciliation axe to be rejected as
arbitrarily forced : e.g. the proposal, Knatchbull, Cappellus, Bochart,
"Whiston, to insert at Gen. xi. 32, instead of 205, according to the Samaritan
text 145, but even the latter is corrupted, as Gen. xi. 32 was not under-
stood proleptically, and therefore it was thought necessary to correct it ; "
or the ingenious refinement which, after Augustine, particularly Chladenius,"
Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and several older interpreters have defended,
that fiETÜKiasv is to be understood, not of the transferring generally, but of
the giving quiet and abiding possession, to which Abraham only attained
after the death of his father. More recently ^ it has been assumed that
Stephen here follows the tradition " that Abraham left Canaan after the
spiritual death of his father, i.e. after his falling away into idolatry— this,
» Banmgarten, p. 134. brew test could not be admitted, it was better
" D'^ti'^ 11X, Gen. xi. 2S. "ctim Scaligero nodum hnnc solvendnni re-
ä See, after Tucli and Knobel on Genesis, linquere, dum Elms venei-it." According to
Arnold in Ilerzog's Encykl. XVI. p. 73.). Beelen in loc , Abraham need not have been
■• Gen. xi. 26, 3-2, xii. 4 ; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1. the first-hwn of Terah, in spite of Gen. xi.
5 That the narrative of the death of Teiali, 26, 27.
Gen. I.e., would indicate that for the com- ^ l)e conciliaf. Mosis et Steph. circa anno»
mencement of tlie new relation of God to men Ahr., Yiteb. 1710.
Abraham aloite, and not in connection with »< Michaelis, Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Ols-
his father, comes into account. Thus ccr- hausen.
tainly all tallies. » Lightf. in loc; Michael, de chronol. JIos.
« Naively enough, Knatchbull, p. 47. was ^xi*< diluv. Bee. 15.
of opinion that, if this alteration of the He-
142 CHAP. VII., 5-13.
at least, -was intended to protect the patriarch from the suspicion of having
violated his filial duty ! — which opinion Michaelis incorrectly ascribes also
to Philo. According to this view, änodavslv would have to be understood
spiritually, which the context does not in the least degree warrant, and
which no one would hit upon, if it were not considered a necessity that no
deviation from Genesis I.e. should be admitted. — ^et^kloev^ namely, Ood.
Rapid change of the subject ; comp, on vi. 6. — e'tq i/v vfielg vvv KaroLn.] i.e.
into which ye having moved noic dicell in it. A well-known brachylogy by
combining the conception of motion with that of rest.' The e\q ijv calls
to mind the immigration of the nation (which is represented by iVeZf) from
Egypt.
Ver. 5. Klrjpovoßia, "^/ö^, hereditary possession. Heb. xi. 8. — ßf/fia noiU{\ '
On the subject-matter, comp. Heb. xi. 9. — koL ewTjyjElÄaTo] Gen. xiii. 15.
Kat is the copula. He gave not . . . and promised, the former he omitted,
and the latter he did. — Kal tü> a-rrepfi. avTov] Kai is the simple and, not
namely (see Gen. I.e.). The promise primarily concerned Abraham as the
participant father of the race himself. Comp. Luke i. 71. — This verse,
too, stands apparently at variance with Genesis, where, in chap, xxiii., we
are informed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth. But
only apparently. For the remark o'vk eSukev avTu . . . noooq refers only to
the first period of Abraham's residence in Palestine before the institution
of circumcision (ver, 8), while that purchase of a field falls much later. It
was therefore quite superfluous, either ' to emphasize the fact that Abraham
had not in fact acquired that field by divine direction, but had jmrchased
it, or ■• to have recourse to the erroneous assumption, not to be justified
either by John vii. 8 or by Mark xi. 13, that ovk stands for oIttu.
Vv. 6, 7. By the continuative ok there is now brought in the express
declaration of God, which was given on occasion of this promise to Abraham
concerning the future providential guidance destined for his posterity.
But God, at tliat time, spole thus: " that his seed icill dicell as strangers in a
foreign land,"' etc. The h-i does not depend on i7.n7.., nor is it the recitative,
but it is a constituent part of the very saying adduced." This is Gen. xv. 13,
but with the second person {fhy seed) converted into the third, and also
otherwise deviating from the LXX.; in fact, ml 7a-p. not iv tü tottw tovtg)
is entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expansion suggested
by Ex. iii. 12. — kcnai ^rapomnv] H'n; 1J. Comp, on Luke xxiv. 18 ; Eph. ii.
19. — 6nv?i6(Tm)(T:v nv-6] namely, the cL?.76-pm. — Ttrpanoain] Here, as in an
oracle, the duration is given, as also at Gen. I.e., in round numbers ; but in
Ex. xii. 40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage ^ is historically
specified emctly as 430 years (c'). In Gal. iii. 17 (see in he), Paul has
inappropriately referred the chronological statement of Ex. xii. 40 to the
space of time from the promise made to Abraham down to the giving of
' Winer, p. 386 f. (E. T. 516 f.) ; Diesen, ad ^ With Driisins, Schoettgen, Bengel.
Find. 01. xi. 38, p. 132. * With Kiiinoel and Olshausen.
' LXX. Deut. ii. 5 (bj"l~n3). spatium, quod ^ LXX.: vifwo-Kwv yvwaj) on ndpoiKov k.t.K.
Planta pedis calcatur. Comp, on ß^^a in the « ctt; Terpaic. belongs to the whole Io-to«,
sense of vestigium, Horn. H. Merc. 222, -345. . . . KaKiäuovuiv.
HISTORY OF PATRIARCHS. 143
the law. — Ver. 7. As in the LXX. and in the original ITeb. the whole
passage vv. G, 7 is expressed in direct address (70 a~i(jua aov), while Stephen
in ver. 6 has adduced it in the indirect form ; so he now, passing over to the
direct expression, inserts the d-ntv 6 6föf, which is not in the LXX. nor in
the Heb. — ^1«*/, after this 400 years' bondage, the pcojde . . . I shall judge ^
Kpivecv oi judici(d retrj.bution, which, as frequentlj' in tlie N. T., is seen from
the context to be punitive. —h,u] has the weight of the authority of divine
absoluteness. Comp. Rom. xii. 19. — h rü r6-u 70179] namely, tchere I now
speak with thee (in Canaan). There is no reference to Iloi-el,' as we have
here only a freely altered echo of the promise made to Moses, which
suggested itself to Stephen, in order to denote more definitely the promise
made to Abraham. Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bcngel and Baum-
garten, who find an indication of the long distance of time and the
intervening complications. Stephen, however, here makes no erroneous
reference (de Wette), but only a free application, such as easily presented
itself in an extempore speech.
Ver. 8. Atad//K!/v TTepiTou!]^] «' covenant completed hy means of circumcision.^
Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision ; and, on tlie
other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father of many nations.
— £(JwKfi'] inasmuch as God proposed and laid on Abraham the conclusion
of the covenant. — ov-uq\ so, i.e. standing in this new relation to God,' as
the bearer of the divine covenant of circumcision. Iskmael was born
previously. — nal 6 'laaaK 7. 'IaKw,3] namely, kyevvrjct k. Kifutr. r. yu. t. b}6.
Vv. 9-13. Zrp.üjGavrec] here of envious jealousy, as often also in classical
writers. Certainly Stephen in this mention lias already in view the similar
malicious disposition of his judges towards Jesus, so that in the ill-used
Joseph, as afterwards also in the despised Closes, both of whom yet became
deliverers of the people, he sees historical types of Christ. — a-rrioov-o tic
Aiy.] they rjavc him away to Egyjjt.* For analogous examples to ötoJ. tif,
see Eisner, p. P>90. — Tlie following clauses, rising higher and higher with
simple solemnity, are linked on by kciL — xö-pi-^ «• docpiav] It is simplest^ to
explain x'''l"^' of the divine bestowal of grace, and to refer ivavrlnv <i>np.
merely to aooiav : He gave him grace, generally, and in particular, icisdom
before Pharaoh, namely, according to the history Avliich is presumed to be
well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other counsel.
— ^yovß.] "vice regis cuncta regcntem," Gen. xli. 43, Grotius. — k. ok. 7.
niK. avT.\ as high itetcard. — x'^P'^^'^l^"-'"] fodder for their cattle. So through-
out with Greek writers." A scarcity of fodder, to which especially belongs
the want of cereal fodder, is the most urgent difficulty, in a failure of crops,
for the possessors of large herds of cattle. — öv-a cma] that there was corn.
The question, Where ? finds its answer from the context and the familiar
history. The following är Alyv-mv (see critical remarks) belongs to i^n-etj-.,
and is, from its epoch-making significance, emphatically placed first. On
' Ex. iii. 12 : ei- tw öpft tout«. s Comp. Gen. xxxix. 21.
» Gen. xvii. 10. Comp, on Rom. iv. 11. « And comp. LXX. Gen. xxiv. 2.5, 32, xlii.
s Comp, on Eph. v. 33. 27 ; Judg. six. 19 ; Ecclus. xxxiii. 29, xsviii.
* By sale, comp. v. 8 ; Geu. xlv. 4, LXX. 29.
144
CHAP. YIL, 14-lG.
ÖKoveiv, to learn, with the predicative participle, see Winer ; ' frequent also
in Greek writers. — äveyvupiaßr/] he was recognised by his brethren,'^ to be taken
passively, as also Gen. xlv. 1, when the LXX. thus translates J'^.^^nn
TO yevoq rov 'Iwct?}©] the name ' is significantly repeated ; ^ a certain sense of
patriotic jDride is implied in it.
Vv. 14, 15. 'Ey tp. eßöoiiijK. TTi'i'-f] in 75 sortis, persons," he called his father
and, in general, the whole family, i.e. he called them in a personal number
of 75, which was the sum containing them. The expression is a Hebraism
(3), after the LXX. Deut. x. 22. In the number Stephen, however, foUoi's
the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 27, Ex. i. 5,'' where likewise 75 souls are specified,
whereas the original text, which Josephus follows,'' reckons only 70.*" —
ai-cjc K. OL -zar. 7}uö)v\ he and our x^itriarchs, generally. A very common
epanorthosis. See on John ii. 12.
Ver. 16. M£r£Tffl;/CT«)'] namely, av-rbq k. ol Trareprc i'jßüv. Incorrectly
Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the Tvarepeg ; " whereas ahrög /cat oi
rrareijiq r/uüv are named as the persons belonging to the same category, of
whom the being dead is affii'med. Certainly Gen. xlix. 30,'" according to
which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.),
is at variance with the statement jieTeTtd. e'lg Si^tf/U. But Stephen — from
whose memory in the hurry of an extemporary speech this statement
escaped, and not the statement, that Joseph's body was buried at Sychem'' —
transfers the locality of the burial of Joseph not merely to his brethren, of
whose burial-place the O. T. gives no information, but also to Jacob him-
1 p. 325 (E. T. 436).
" Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm, p. 127 A, Lach.
p. 181 C.
' Instead of the simple aCroO, as A E, 40.
Arm. Viilg read.
•» Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 7. 34 ; Kühner,
ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11.
6 ii. 41, xxvii. 37.
8 At Deut. I.e. also Codex A has the reading
75, wliich IS, however, evidently a mere alter-
ation by a later hand in accordance with the
two other passagca. Already Philo (see Loes-
ner, p. 185) mentions tlie two discrepant state-
ments of number (75 according to Gen. I.e.
and Ex. I.e., and 70 according to Deut. I.e.)
and allegorizes upon them.
■• Antt.n. 7. 4, vi. 5. 6.
8 According to the Hebrew, the number 70
is thus made up : all the descendants of Jacob
■who came down with him to Egypt are fixed
at 66, Gen. xlvi. 26, and then, ver. 27, Joseph
and his two sons and Jacob himself (that is,
four persons more) are included. In the
reckoning of the LXX., influenced by a dis-
crepant tradition, there are added to those (16
persons (ver. 26) in ver. 27 (contrary to the
original text), viol &e 'lojcrrjii) oi ^ei'öjoiei'ot avTy
iv yfi AlytiTTTü) \fivxa-i- evvda, SO that 75 persons
are ma'le out. It is thus evidently contrary to
this express mode of reckoning of the LXX.,
when it is commonly assumed (also by Wet-
stein, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Ols-
hausen) that the LXX. had added to the 70
persons of the original text 5 grandchildren
and great-grandchildren of Joseph (who are
named in the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 20). But in
the greatest contradiction to the above notice
of the LXX. stands the view of Seb. Schmid,
with wliom Wolf agrees, that the LXX. had
added to the 66 persons (ver. 26) the wives of
tlie sons of Jacob, and from the sum of 78
thereby made up had again deducted 3 persona,
namely, the wife of Judah who had died in
Canaan, the wife of Joseph and Joseph him-
felf, so that the number 75 is left. Entirely
unhistorical is the hypothesis of Krebs and
Loesner : " Stephanum apud Luc. (et LXX.)
de lis loqni, qui in Acgyptum invrtafi fuerint,
Mosen .de his, qui eo renerinl, quorum non
nisi 70 fucrnnt." Beza conjectured, instead
of TreVre in our passage : Trärre? (!) ; and Mas-
sonius, instead of the numeral signs OE (75),
the numeral signs CH (66). lor yet other
vic'ws, see Wolf.
9 See also Hackett.
10 Comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 7.
Ji Josh. xsiv. 33, comp. Gen. \. 25.
HISTORY OF THE PATRIARCHS. 145
self, ia unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen. xlix. 30 (d').
Perhaps the Ilabbinical tradition, that all the brethren of Joseph were also
buried at Sychem,' was even then current, and thus more easily suggested
to Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain tliat
Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this," which transfers
the binial of all the patriarchs to Hthron, although no special motive can
be pointed out in the matter ; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel,
to assume that lie liad wished thereby to convey the idea that the Samari-
tans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could not, as the possessors
of the graves of the patriarchs, have been rejected by God. — (j uv/jaaro
'A/3/}.] which, formerly, Ahraham lought. But according to Gen. xxxiii. 19,
it was not Abraham, but Jacob, who purchased a piece of land from the
sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand, Abraham pur-
chased from Ephron the field and burial-cave at Hebron (Gen. xxiii.).
Consequently, Stephen has here evidently fallen into a mistake, and asserted
of Abraham what historically applied to Jacob, being led into error by the
fact that something similar was recorded of Abraham. If expositors had
candidly admitted the mistake so easily possible in the hurry of the
moment, they would have been relieved from all strange and forced expe-
dients of an exegetical and critical nature, and would neither have assumed
a purchase not mentioned at all in the O. T., nor,' a combining of two pur-
chases,'' and two burials ; ^ nor,^ against all external and internal critical
evidence, have asserted the obnoxious 'Aßp. to be spurious,' either supplying
'laKuß as the subject to Lvljaaro,^ or taking Lvijaa-o as impersonal ; ^ nor would
'Aßp., with unprecedented arbitrariness, have been explained as used in a
patronymic &ensQ lor Abrahamides, i.e. Jacobus.^" Conjectural emendations
are : 'Ica-u/?," 6 -oh 'A/?paa/z.'^ Other forced attempts at reconciliation may
be seen in Grotius aud Calovius. — tov 'Zvxsß] the father of Sychein." The
relationship is presupposed as toell knoicn. — üv/jaaro] is later Greek."" — rni^c
ap-jvp.] the genitive of price : for a purchase-motieij consisting of silver. The
LXX. (Gen. xxxiii. 19) has ekütov äßvüv,^^ for which Stephen has adopted
a general expression, because the precise one was probably not present to
his recollection.
' Lightf. and Wetst. in loc. which several have only iv 2., but evidently
^ Joseph. Antt. n. 8. 2. an alteration arising from the opinion that
3 Flacius, Bengel, comp. Luger. ^vx^ß was the city. The circumstance that in
* Gen. xxiii., xxxiii. no other pai^sago of tlie N.T. the genitive ot
, * Gen. 1. ; Josh. xxiv. relationship is to be explained by Trar^p, must
• Beza, Bochart, Bauer in Philol. Thuc. be regardea as purely accidental. Entirely
PaiU. p. 1G7, Valckenaer, Kuinoel. similar are the passages where with female
' Comp. Calvin. name fiTJTjjp is to be supplied, as Luke sxiv.
« Beza, Bochart. 10. See generally, Winer, p. 178 f. (E. T.
» " Quod omtum erat," Kninoel. 237). lißlü were to be supplied, this would
'» Glass, Fessel, Surenhusius, Krebs. yield a fresh historical error ; and not that
" Clericus. quite another YiAmoT is meant than at Gen.
" Cappellus. l,c. (in opposition to Beclen).
•' Not the son of Sychem, as the Vulgate, '< Lobeck, od Hmjn. p. 137 f.
Erasmus, Castalio. and others have it. See '^ Probably the name of a coin, see Bochart,
Gen. xxxiii. 19. Lachmann reads toC eV, 2., in /7i?;w. L p. 473 ff. ; Gesenius, Thes. iii. p.
accorii doubtless with important witnesses, of 1241, s.v. TM^'V'p.
146 CHAP. YiL, 17-25.
Vv. 17, 18. Kaßür] is not, as is commonly assumed, with an appeal to
the critically corrupt passage 2 Mace. i. 31, to be taken as a particle of
time cu7n, but ' as quemadmodum. In proportion as the time of the promise,
the time destined for its realization, drew nigh, the people grew, etc. — r}f
ijfj.o7.6Y. li.T.'A.] which God promised {vex. 7). ößoloy., often so used in Greek
writers ; comp. Matt. xiv. 7. — aviarr] ßaoLTievg erepoq^ rijg ßaoi?ielac e'lg äA?,ov
oiKov iierehßvOviag,'^ Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 1. — of ovk ijöei tov 'Iwct//^] who hnew
not Joseph, his history and his services to the country. This might be said
both in Ex. i. 8 and here with truth ; because, in all the transactions of
Pharaoh with Moses and the Israelites, there is nothing which would lead
us to conclude that the king knew Joseph. Erroneously Erasmus and
others, including Krause, hold that olöa and j;T here signify to love; and
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hackett render: who did not regard the
merits of Joseph. In 1 Thess. v. 12, also, it means simply to knoic, to
understand.
Ver. 19. Ka-nan(pi!:,eaOai'] to emjjloy cunning against any one, to legitile, LXX.
Ex. i. 10. Only here in the N. T.' — tov ttoleIv hidera to. ßpe(pri avrüv] a
construction purely indicative of design; comp, on iii. 12. But it cannot
belong to Kamaooia,* but only to ekük. Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 20. He mal-
treated them, in order that they should e^xpoae their children (e'), i.e. to force
upon them the exposure of their children.^ — elq to //?) C'-Jo^.] ne vivi conserva-
rentur, the object of tzoleIv iKdeTa r. ßp. avT.^
Ver. 20. "E:^ w Katpi)] " tristi, opportuno," Beng. — äoTelog tu Ge.,' ]
Luther aptly renders : a fine child for God, — i.e. so beautifully and grace-
fully formed,'' that he was hy God esteemed as äcrreiof.* In substance, there-
fore, the expression amounts to the superlative idea ; but it is not to be
taken as a paraphrase of the superlative, but as conceived in its proper
literal sense." The expressions Oeotiö/'/g and dEouKsAog, compared by many,
are not here revelant, as they do not correspond to the conception of clgteIoq
TÜ QeC}. — Moses' beauty '^^ is also praised in Philo, Vit. 3fos. i. p. 604 A, and
Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 7, where he is called nn'ig fiopcpFj dsiog. According to
Jalkut Ruleni, f. 75. 4, he was beautiful as an angel. — fifjvag Tpdg] Ex. ii.
2. — TOV Trarpdf] Amram, Ex. vi. 20.
Vv. 21, 22. 'EkteO. öe avTov, ävEÜ. avTÖv] Repetition of the pronoun as in
Matt. xxvi. 71 ; Mark ix. 28 ; Matt. viii. 1." — avEtlaTo] tooh him t/p {sustu-
lit, Vulg.). So also often among Greek writers, of exposed children ; see
Wetsteiu. — EavTi) ] in contrast to his own mother. — Eig vUv] Ex. ii. lQ,for
a son, so that he became a son to herself. So also in classical Greek with
> Comp, also Grimm on 2 Mace. i. 31. «Comp. LXX. Ex. i. 17 ; Luke xvii. 33. See
* The previous dynasty was that of the Tlyk- on 2 Cor. viii. 6 ; Rom. i. 20.
SOS ; the new kiiior was Ahmes, who expelled ' Comp. Judith xi. 23.
the Hyksos. See Knobel on Ex. i. 8. « Comp. Winer, p. 232 (E. T. 310).
3 Butsee Kypke. n. p. 37: and from Philo, »See also on 2 Cor. x. 4. Ilesiod, 'Epy.
Loesner. p. 186. Aorist participle, as in i. 24. 825 : ävaino'; ädav6.Toi.ai.v, and Aesch. Agam.
* So Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 846. 352 : 06o:? <ira>t7rAaKr)Tos, are parallels ; as are
* On TToielv eK&era = (K^dfai., comp. ttouIv from the O. T., Gen. X. 9, Jonah lii. 3.
«VfioToi/ = cxSMvai, Herod, lii. 1 ; on eVt^eTos, i» Ex. ii. 2 ; comp. Heb. xi. 2.3. [P- 377.
Eur. Andr. TO. " See on Matt. viii. 1, Fritzsche, ad Marc.
JEWS UNDER THE LAWS. 147
verbs of development,' — Ti-äari an^na AJ}.] Instrumental dative. The notice
itself is not from the O. T., but from tradition, which certainly was, from
the circumstances in which Moses ^ was placed, true. Tlie ^cindom of the
Egyptians extended mainly to natural science, with magic, astronomy,
medicine, and mathematics ; and the possessors of this wisdom were chiefly
the priestly caste, ^ which also represented political wisdom. ■* — öwaroq tv
16y. K. q))'.\ see on Luke xxiv. 19. h ipy. refers not only to his miraculous
activity, but generally to the whole of his abundant labours. With thv. kv
Idyoi^ * Ex. iv. 10 appears at variance ; but Moses in that passage does not
describe himself as a stammerer^ but only as one whose address was unskil-
ful, and whose utterance was clumsy. But even an address not naturally
fluent may, with the accession of a higher endowment,' be converted into
eloquence, and become highly effective tlirough the Divine Spirit, by which
it is sustained, as was afterwards the historically well-known case with the
addresses of Moses.' Thus, even before his public emergence, for to this
time the text refers, a higher power of speech may have formed itself in
him. Hence 6\)v. kv lay. is neither to be referred, with Krause, to the writ-
ings of Moses, nor to be regarded, with Heinrichs, as a once-current gen-
eral eulogium ; nor is it to be said, with de Wette, that admiration for tlie
celebrated lawgiver had caused it to be forgotten that he made use of his
brother Aaron as his spokesman.
Ver. 23. But inhen a ferioä of forty years tecame full to him, — i.e. when he
was precisely Ad years old. This exact specification of age is not found in
the O. T. (Ex. ii. 11), but is traditional.^ — ävißrj kul ti)v Kap6iav avTov] it
arose into his heart, i.e. came into his mind, to visit, to see how it went with
them, etc. The expression" is adopted from the LXX., where it is an imita-
tion of the Hebrew 3^ S>! nS;i.\ Jer. iii. 16, xxxii. 35 ; Isa. Ixv. 17.'»
Neither is ö öialoyianör, for which Luke xxiv. 38 is erroneously appealed to,
nor // ßov/j) to be supplied. — tTr/a/cfi/).] invisere. Matt. xxv. 36, often also in
Greek writers. He had hitherto been aloof from them, in the higher circles of
Egyptian society and culture. • — tov^ ä(5eA^oi'r] " motivum amoris," Bengel.
Comp. ver. 26.
Vv. 24, 25. See Ex, ii. 11, 12. — ai)iKElaOai\ to le unjustly treated. Erro-
neously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies verherari. That was the mal-
treatment, — ^ßvvaro] he exercised retaliation. Only here in the N. T,, often
in classic Greek. Similarly äudßsaOai.'^^ — k. k-oirja. cKdi/c.] and procured
revenge (Judg. xi. 36). He became his Ik^ikoq, mndex. — tQ> KaTawovov/i.] for
Mm who was 071 the point of heing overcome, present participle.'* — Trarafcf]
mode of the ijfivvaro k. iiroiria, k.t,%. Wolf aptly says : " Percussionem vio-
J Bernhardy, p. 218 f. See Lightfoot In loc. Bengel says : " Mosis
2 Philo, ru. Mos. vita tor 40 anni, vv. .30, 36."
3 Isa. xix. 12. 8 Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9.
* Comp. Justin, xxxvi. 2. lo " Potest aliqiiid esse in profnndo animae.
6 Comp. Joseph. Anit. iii 1. 4 : TrATJiJet ö/m- quod postea emergit et in cor . . . ascendit,"
Xeiv TruJai'uJTdTo?. Ben<»el.
• Comp. Lnkc xxi. 15. "'See Poppo, ad Thuo. i. 42; Herrn, ad
"> Comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 12. 2. Soph. Ant. 639. [xi. 6. xiii. 56.
« Beresh. 1. 115. 3 ; Schemoth Rabb. i. 118. 3. " Comp. Polyb. xxix. 11. 11, xl, 7. 3 ; Died.
148 CHAP. VII., 20-37.
lentam caedis causa factam hie innui indubium est.*' Comp. Matt. xxvi.
31, and see ver. 28. — The inaccuracy, that rbv Ah/vTznov has no definite
reference in the words that precede it, but only an indirect indication ' in
aOLKov/ievov, which presupposes a maltreater, is explained from the circum-
stances of the event being so universally known. — Ver. 25. But lie tTiougTit
that Ids brethren would observe that God hy his hand (intervention) was giving them
deliverance. — ölöuülv] the giving is conceived as even now beginning ; the first
step toward effecting the liberation from bondage had already taken place
by the killing of the Egyptian, which was to' be to them the signal of
deliverance.
Vv. 26, 27 f. See Ex. ii. 13 f. — u^ö;;] he shoiced himself to them, — when,
namely, he arrived among them "rursus invisurus suos.'"^ Well does
Bengal find in the expression the reference ultra, ex improviso.^ — airo2f]
refers back to a6el<pov^. It is presumed in this case as well known, that
there were two who strove. — cwijTiacsv avr. elc sip.] he drove them together,
by representations, to (elf, denoting the end aimed at) peace.* The aorist
does not stand de conatu, ^ but the act actually took place on Moses' part ;
the fact that it was resisted on the part of those who strove, alters not the
action. Grotius, moreover, correctly remarks ; "vox quasi vim significans
agcntis instantiam signi^c&t.'''' — 6 6e üölküv t. ttXt/c] hut he who treated his
neighhour, one by nationality his brother, unjustly, was still in the act of
maltreating him. — cnrLca-o] thrust him from him. On KaTsarrjaev, has ap-
pointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem. Ol. p. 171 ; and on (UmcjTr/g, who judges
according to the laics, as distinguished from the more general Kpiri/g, Wyt-
tenbach, Ep. crit. p. 219. — //?) uveIe'iv k.t.?..] thou wilt not surely des2)atch (ii.
23, V. 33) me ? To ihe pei'tness of the question belongs also the gv.
Vv. 29, 30. See Ex. ii. 15-22, iii. 2. — ev rü Aoyu tovtu] on account of this
word, denoting the reason which occasioned his flight. ° — MaSidfi] |'"]P, a
district in Arabia Petraea. Thus Moses had to withdraw from his obsti-
nate people ; but how wonderfully active did the divine guidance show it-
self anew, ver. 30 ! On TvapoiKog, comp. ver. 6. — Kal TvlripuO. krüv TsaaapaK.]
traditionally, but comp, also Ex. vii. 7 : " Moses in i^alatio Pharaonis degit
XL annos, in Mediane XL annos, et ministravit Israeli annos XL." ' — h ry
epfjfiu Tov dp. 2.] in the desert, in which Mount Sinai is situated, 'rp "^^np, Ex.
xix. 1, 2 ; Lev. vii. 28. From the rocky and mountainous base of this
desert Sinai rises to the south (and the highest), and Horeb more to the
north, both as peaks of the same mountain ridge. Hence there is no con-
tradiction when, in Ex. iii., the appearance of the burning bush is trans-
ferred to the neighbourhood of Horeb, as generally in the Pentateuch the
names Sinai and Horeb are interchanged for the locality of the giving of
the law, except in Deut. xxxiii. 2, where only Horeb is mentioned, as also
in Mai. iv. 4 ; whereas in the N. T. and in Josephus only Sinai is named.
The latter name specially denotes the locality of the giving of the law, while
. 1 Winer, p. 587 (E. T. 788). xs. 134.
2 Erasmus. Comp. 1 Kings iii. 16. ^' Grotius, Wolf, Kninoel.
s Comp. ii. 3, vii. 2, ix. 17. al. ; Heb. ix. 28. « Winer, p. 362 (E. T. 484).
* The opposite : epiSt fufeAäcro-at, Horn. II. ' Beresh. Rahb. f. 115. 3.
JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 149
Horeb was also the name of the eotire mountain range.' — h (pTioyl irvpof
ßdrov] in the flame of fire of a tliorii hush. Stephen designates the plienom-
enon quite as it is related in Exodus, I.e., as a flaming hurning bush, in
which an angel of God iras pirxint, in which case every attempt to exjilain
away the miraculous theophanj', a meteor, liglitning, must be avoided.^
Vv. 31-33. See Ex. iii. 3-5. — tu opa/xa] spedaculum. See on Matt. xvii.
9. — KaTavoiiaai] to contemplate, Luke xii. 24, 27 ; Acts xi. 6. — (j)uv7] Kvpiov]
as the angel represents Jehovah Ilimself, so is he identified with Him.
When the angel of the Lord speaks, that is the voice of God, as it is Ilis
representative servant, the angel, who speaks. To understand, with Chry-
sostom, Calovius, and others, t\\c angclus iiicrcatus — i.e. Christ as the Zo} or —
as meant, is consequently unnecessary, and also not in keeping with the anar-
throus ayyeloq, which Hengstenberg ' wrongly denies (f^). Comp. xii. 7,
23. — Ivaov TO vi76(h//iia rüv ttuiL cov.] The hojiness of the presence of God
required, as it was in keeping generally with the religious feeling of the
East,* that he who held intercourse with Jehovah should be barefooted, lest
the sandals charged with dust should pollute (Josh. v. 15) the holy ground
(y7 äyia) ; hence also the priests in the temple waited on their service with
bare feet.*
Ver. 34. 'I6uv d(^oi>] LXX. Ex. iii. 7. Hence here an imitation of the
Hebrew form of expression." Similar emphatic combinations were, how-
ever, not alien to other Greek. ' — Kareßr/v] namely, from heaven, where I
am enthroned.* — äTToaTeiÄcj (see the critical remarks), adhortative subjunc-
tive.'
Vv. 35-37. The recurring tovtov is emphatic : this and none other. '" Also
in the following vv. 36, 37, 38, ovTog . . . ovTog . . . ovTog are always em-
phatically prefixed. — bv i/pv?/aavTo] whom they at that time, ver. 27, denied,
namely, as äpxovTa kuI öiKaaT/'/v. The plural is purposely chosen, because
there is meant the whole category of those tliinking alike with that one (ver.
27). This one is conceived collectively.^^ — äp^. n. /.vTpcj-//v] observe the climax
introduced by ?.vrpuT. in relation to the preceding öimoT. It is introduced
because the obstinacy of the people against Moses is type of the antago-
nism to Christ and His work (ver. 51) ; consequently, Moses in his work of
deliverance is a type of Christ, who has effected the Avrpuaiq of the people
in the highest sense.''' — According to the reading ahv x^'i-pl (see the critical
remarks), the meaning is to be taken as ; standing in association with the
> See the particular? in Knobel on Ex. xix. 2. ' Comp. Matt. xiii. 14; Heb. vi. 14.
2 On <i>Ko^ TTupd?, comp. 2 Thes. i. 8, Lacli- ' See on 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; Lol)eck, Paralip. p.
mann ; Heb. i. 7 ; Rev. i. 14, ii. 18, xix. 12 ; 532. i&itv il&ov is found in Lucian, Dial. Mar.
Isa. xslx. 6, Ivi. 15 ; Find. Pyth. iv. 400. iv. 3.
s Christol. in. 2, p. 70. s j^a. Isvi. 1 ; Matt. v. 34. Comp. Gen. xi.
* Even in the present day the Arabs, as is 7, xviii. 21 ; Ps. cxliv. 5.
•well known, enter their mosques barefooted. » See Elmsl. ad Eur. Bacch. 341, Med. 1242.
The precept of Pythagovas, ämTrd^TjTo? rJüe <cai lo See Bornemann in the Sachs, Stud. 1842,
irpoo-Kuvei, was derived from an Eyijptian ens- p. G6.
torn. Jamhlidi. T17. Py/Ä. 23. The Samari- i' Kühner, «d Xm. ^na5. i. 4. 8. Comp.
tan trode barefoot the holiest place on (io- Roth, .Eire. Aqr. 3.
rizim, Robinson, III. p. 320. [70!) tf. i» Luke i. 64, ii. 38 ; Hob. ix. 12; Tit. ii. 14.
* See Wetstein ; also Carpzov. Appar. p.
150 CHAP. VII., 38-42,
Jiand, i.e. with the protecting and helping foicer, of the angel. Comp, the
classical expression aw Oeotc. This power of the angel was that of God
Himself (ver. 34), in virtue of which he wrought also the miracles, ver. 36.
— As to the gender of ßÜTog, see on Mark xii. 26. — After the wark of Moses
(ver. 36), ver. 37 now brings into prominence his great Messianic pro]jhecy,
which designates himself as a type of the Messiah ;' whereupon in ver. 38
his exalted position as the receiver and giver of the law is described, in order
that this liglit., in which he stands, may be followed up in ver. 39 by the
shadow — the contrast of dlsohedience towards him.
Ver. 38. This is lie %cho . . . had intercourse icith the angel . . . and our
fathers, was the mediator (Gal. iii. 19) between the two.^ — h tFj kKuhiai^
£v ry kpriii(J\ in the assembly of the feojile, held for the promulgation of the
law, in the desert, Ex. xix. This definite reference is warranted by the
context, as it is just the special act of the giving of tlie law that is spoken
of. — löyia i^üvTa\ i.e. utterances which are not dead, and so ineffectual,
but livi7ig, in which, as in the self-revelations of the living God, there is
effective poirer (.John vi. 51), as well with reference to their influence on the
moulding of the moral life according to God's will, as also especially with
reference to the fulfilment of the promises and threatenings thereto an-
nexed.^ Incorrectly Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others hold that
(^v stands for (^uoizoielv. Even according to Paul, the law in itself is holy,
just, good, spiritual, and given for life (Rom. vii. 13, 14) ; that it never-
theless kills, arises from the abuse which the power of sin makes of it, * and
is therefore an accidental relation.
Vv. 39, 40. They turned with their hearts to Egypt, i.e. they directed their
desires again to the mode of life pursued in Egypt, particularly, as is evident
from the context (ver. 40), to the Egyptian idolatry. Ex. xx. 7, 8, 24.
Others, including Cornelius a Lapide, Morus, Rosenmiiller : they wished to
return lach to Egypt. But the ol TrpoiropcvaovTai t}/liüv in ver. 40 would then
have to be taken as : "who shall go before us on out return,'''' — which is
just as much at variance with the historical position at Ex. xxxii. 1 as
with Ex. xxxii. 4, 1 Kings xii. 28, and Neh. ix. 18, where the golden bull
appears as a symbol of the God who has led the Israelites out of Egypt. —
Oeo'vo] the plural, after Ex. xxxii. 1, denotes the category,^ without reference
to the numerical relation. That Aaron made only one idol was the result
of the universally expressed demand ; and in accord with tliis universal
demand is also the expression in Ex. xxxii. 4. — ol nporrop.] borne before
our line of march, as the symbols, to be revered by us, of the present
Jehovah. — 6 yap. M. otrof] yap gives the motive of the demand. Moses,
hitherto our leader, has in fact disappeared, so that we need another guid-
ance representative of God. — oirof] spoken contemptuously.* — The nomi-
native absolute is designedly chosen, in order to concentrate the whole
> Dcut. xviii. 15 (comp, above, iii. 22). xxxii. 47.
2 On yivofiai niTo., versor cum, wliich is no * Eom. vii. 5, 13 ff.; 1 Cor. xt. 53.
Hebraism, comp. ix. 19, xx. 18; Marie xvi. ^ See on Matt. ii. 20.
10 ; Ast, Lex. riat. I. p. 394. « See on vi. 14.
3 Comp. 1 Pet. i. 23 ; Hub. v. 12 ; Deut.
JEWS UNDER THE LAW. 151
attention on the conception.' For this Moses . . . ice Inoio not ichat has
happened to him, since lie returns not from the mount.
Ver. 41. ''E,ixoaxonoiT]aav\ they made a hull, Ex. xxxii. 4 : h-izoirjcev nvra
fi6(Jxov x<^^^^'^"^'- '^^^^ word does not elsewhere occur, excejit in the Fathers,
and raiiy have belonged to the colloquial language. Tlie idol itself was an
imitation of the very ancient and widely-spread buU-worsliip in Egypt,
which had impressed itself in dillerent forms, e.g. in the woiship of Apis
at Memphis, and of Mnevis at Ileliopolis. Hence /uoaxo? is not a c«//, but"'
equivalent to ravfiog, a young bull already full-grown, but not yet put into
the yoke. — Examples of äwi>f«i^ — namely, to the altar, 1 Kings iii. 15 — Ovniat^
may be seen in Eisner, p. 393, and from Philo in Loesner, p. 189. — svtppai-
vovro] they rejoiced in the tcorls of their hands. By the interpretation : " they
held sacrißcidl feasts'''' (Kuinoel), the well-known history (Ex. xxxii. 6),
to which the meaning of the words points, is confounded with that
meaning itself. —tyjjo/f] plural of the category, which presented itself in
the golden calf. On d'ippaiv. iv,^ to denote that on which the joy is causally
based, compare j^ß/pezv kv, Luke x. 20 ; see on Phil. i. 18,
Ver. 43. 'Earpeips (5f 6 Qeog] but God turned, — a figurative representation
of the idea : He became unfavoxirahJe to them.. The active in a neuter sense ;*
nothing is to be supplied. Incorrectly Vitringa, Moius, and others hold that
iarpexpE connected with naplö. denotes, after tlie Hebrew 2Y\^, rursus tradi-
dit. This usage has not passed over to the N. T., and, moreover, it is not
vouched for historically that the Israelites at an earlier period practised
star-worship. Heinrichs connects iarp. with avrovg : " couvertit animos
eorum ab una idololatria ad alinm." But the expression of divine disfavour
is to be retained on account of the correlation with ver. 39. — Kal Traoh^
a'vrovq 7.aTp.\ and gave them up to serve, an explanatory infinitive. The fall,
ing away into star-worship, arpar. r. ovpavov = O'P^n ^^^, in which, from
the worshipper's point of view, the sun, moon, and stars are conceived as
living beings, is appreliended as wrought by an angry God by way of pun-
ishment for that bull-worship, according to the idea of sin being punished
by sin. The assertion, often repeated since the time of Chrysostom and
Theophylact, that only the divine permission or the icithdrawal of grace is
here denoted, is at variance with the positive expression and the true
biblical conception of the divine retribution.^ Self-surrender (Eph. iv.
19) is the correlative moral factor on the part of man. — ptj c(päyia k.t.I.^
Amos v. 25-37, freely after the LXX. Ye have not surely preserded vnto me
sacrifices and offerings, offerings of any kind, for forty years in the wilder-
ness? The question suTp-poses a negative answer; therefore withont an in-
terrogation the meaning is : Te cannot maintain that ye have offered . . . to
me. The apparent contradiction with the accounts of offerings, whlcli were
actually presented to Jehovah in the desert, ° disajipears when the pro-
> Comp, on Matt. vii. 24 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. < 1 Mace. ii. 63; Acts v. 22, xv. 16 ; Kiihmr,
p. 325 (E. T. 379) ; Valck. Schol. p. 429. II. pp. 9, 10.
" Comp. Heb. ix. 12, 13. 19; Ilerod. iii. 23. ' See on Rom. i. 24.
» Ecclus. xiv. 5, xxxix. 31, li. :i9i Xen. Ilitr. * Ex. xxiv. 4 ff.; Num. vii., ;x. 1 II.
i. 16.
152 CHAP. VII., 43, 44.
phetic utterance, understood by Stephen as a reproach,' is considered as a
sternly and sharply significant divine verdict, according to which the ritual
oflteiiugs in the desert, which were rare and only occurred on special occa-
sions (comp, already Lyra), could not he talen at all into considei'ation
against the idolatrovis aberrations which testified the moral worthlessness
of those offerings. Usually ^ ^ol is considered as equivalent to mihi soli.
But this is incorrect on account of the enclitic pronoun and its position, and
on account of the arbitrarily intruded /lovov. Fritzsche ^ puts the note of
interrogation only after TzpoaKWElv avrolg, ver. 43 : " Sacrane et victimas per
XL annos in deserto mihi obtulistis, et in pompa tulistis aedem Molochi,
etc. ? " In this way God's displeasure at the unstedfastness of His people
would be vividly denoted by the contrast. But this expedient is im-
l^ossible on account of the /y?/ presupposing a negation. Moreover, it is as
foreign to the design of Stephen, who wishes to give a probative passage
for the larptvdv ry arpariä tov ovpavov, to concede the worship of Jehovah, as
it is, on the other hand, in the highest degree accordant with that design
to recognise in ver. 43 the negative element of his proof, the denial of
the rendering of offering to Jehovah, and in ver. 43 the positive proof,
the direct reproach of star-worship.
Ver. 43. Kal . . . rrpoaKwelv a'vro'tc] is the answer which God Himself
gives to His qirestion, and in which Kai joins on to the negation imjjlied in
the preceding clause : No, this ye have not done, and instead of it ye have
ta^en up from the earth, in order to carry it in procession from one encamp-
ment to another, the tent, HOD, the portable tent-temple, of Moloch. — tov
llolox] SO according to the LXX. The Hebrew has D?^/^, of your hing, i.e.
your idol. The LXX. puts instead of this the name of the idol, either as
explanatory or more probably as following another reading.^ ö 'M.o'Xdx,
Hebrew ^Sbn {Re.r), called also D3^P and 03^0, was an idol of the
Ammonites, to whom children were offered, and to whom afterwards even
the Israelites ^ sacrificed children. His brazen image was, according to
Rabbinical tradition,^ especially according to Jarchion Jer. vii. 31, hollow,
heated from below, with the head of an ox and outstretched arms, into
which the children were laid, whose cries were stifled by the sacrificing
priests with the beating of drums. The question whether Moloch corre-
sponds to Kronos or Saturn, or is to be regarded as the god of the sun,'' is
1 According to another view, the period of to the notices preserved concerning Ihe Car-
forty years without offerings appears in the thaginiau procedure at such sacritices of
prophet as the "golden age of I^rael," and as cliildreu (see Knobel on Lev. xviii. 21).— The
a proof how little God cares for such offer- extravagant assertion that the worship of
ings. See Ewaid, Pvoph. in loc. Moloch was the orthodox primitive worship
2 As by Morus, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, of the Hebrews (Vatlie, Daumer, Gliillany),
Olsliausen, similarly Kuinoel. was a folly of 1835-43. Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2 ;
^ Ad Marc.\^.G:^i. 1 Kings xi. 7 ; 2 Kings xxiii. 10 ; Jer. vii. 31.
. ..^vL.» TT.-xr OT-- ••■ i-> « Coniü. the description, agreeing in the
•* D370, comp. LXX. 2 Kings xxni. 13. ; ,, • .. t- t.- ,i o;»
"-^.'- ' ' *= mam, of the image ot Kronos in Diod. Sic.
» Whether ihe children were burned alive, xx. 14.
or first put tj death, might seem doubtful ' Theophylact. Spencer, Deyling, and oth-
f'om such passages as Ezek. xx. 26, 31. But ers, including Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshansen,
the burning alive must be assumed according Munter, Creuzer.
THE TABERNACLE OF WITNESS. 153
settled for our passage to this extent, that, as here by JMoloch and Replian
two different divinities from the host of heaven must be meant, and Kcplian
corres])onds to Kronos, the view of Moloeh as god of the sun receives thuixl)y
a confirmation, however closely the mythological idea of Kronos was origi-
nally related to the notion of a solar deity ' and consequently also to that of
Moloch. See, moreover, for Moloch as god of the sun, Müller in Ilerzog's
Encyld.'^ — ml ru aarpov to'v Iko'u v/i. 'Pf^ay] and the star (star-image) of your (al-
leged) god Rephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of your god Rephan. 'Pepäi;
is the Coptic name of Saturn, as Kircher= has proved from the great Egyp-
tian Scala. The ancient Arabs, Phoenicians, and Egyptians gave divine
honours to the planet Saturn ; and in particular the Arabic name of this
star, ij\ «J^, corresponds entirely to the Hebrew form {l""^,^ which the LXX.
translators ^ Iiave expressed by Iiej)hnn, the Coptic name of Saturn known
to them." — We may add, that there is no account in the Pentateuch of the
worship of Moloch and Replian in the desert ; yet the former is forbidden
in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 3 ; Deut. xviii. 10. It is probable, however, that from
this very fact arose a tradition, which the LXX. followed in Amos, I.e. —
roiif -iiTToi'f] apposition to tj/v gki/v. t. Mo?., k. r. äcrp. r. Oeov vu. 'VE<p. It
includes a reference to the tent of Moloch, in so far as the image of the
idol was to be found in it and was carried along with it. For examples in
which tlie context gives to tvttoq the definite sense of idol, see Kypke, II.
p. 38, and from Philo, Loesner, p. 192. — t7i-f/{«m] beyond Babylon. Only
here in the N. T., but often in classic writers. — BaßvÄ.] LXX.: Aa/iaoKov,
so also in Hebrew. An extension in accordance with history, as similar
modifications were indulged in by the Rabbins ; see Lightfoot, p. 75.
Ver. 44. 'II ciojvrj tov /lapr.] not a contrast to ver. 43, for the bringing out
of the cidpahility, "hie ostendit Steph., non posse ascribi culpam Deo,"
Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de Wette, which there is nothing to indicate ;
but after the giving of the law (ver. 38) and after the described back-
sliding and its punishment (vv. 39-43), Stephen now commences the new
section of his historical development, — that of the tabernacle and of the
temple, — as he necessarily required this for the subsequent disclosure of the
' Comp. Prellor, Griech. Mythol. I. p. 42 f. be taken also &?, future, as a threat of pnnish-
2 IX. p. T1Ö f. ment (E. Meier, Ewald) : so shall ye lake vp
3 Lingua Aeg. reslUuta, p. 49, 527. the lent (Ewald : the pole) of your king and,
* See Winer, lieaho II. p. 387, and generally the p'alform of your images, etc. According
Müller ill Ilerzog's Kiirykl. XII. p. T38. to this, the fugitives are conceived as takingon
* III general, tlie LXX. has dealt very freely their backs the furniture of their gods, and
witli this passage. The original text runs carrying them from one place of refnge to
according to the customary rendering: and another. This view correspond.- best with the
ye carrUd the tf-nt of your king and the frame connection in the prophet ; and in the threat
(\V2)of your images, the star of your divinity, is implied at the same time Üis accusation,
which ye made for yourselves. See Hitzig in which Diisterdieck iu the Stud. u. Krit. 1849,
loc. ; Gescnius, Thes. II. p. CC9. The LXX. P- 010, feels the want of, on which account he
took :r3, which is to be derived from p3, as takes it as present (but ye carry, etc.).— The
a proper name (T^'Ja.'), and transposed the speech of Stephen, a.s\\G\ia.yQ it, simply followe
words as if there stood in the Hebrew DD'oSx '^"^ LXX.
DD'ilSx \V2 3313. Moreover, it is to be « See Movers, PA5fti««?', I. p. 289 f., Müller,
observed that the words of the original may ^^-
154 CHAP. VII., 45-51.
guilt of his opponents precisely in respect to this important point of charge.
— The Hebrew "'i^'"^ iT^ii means tent of meeting, of God with his people,
i.e. tent of revelatmi, not tent of the congregatiou,' but is in the LXX..
which the Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by
?j cnjjVTj Tov ßap-uplov, the tent in which God bears witness of Himself, as if
derived from 1i\ a witness. For the description of this tabernacle, see Ex.
xxv.-xxvii. — Kara tov tvwov bv fwp.] see Ex. xxv. 9, 40.°
Ver 45. Which also our fathers icith Joshua — in connection with Joshua,
under whose guidance they stood — after having received it from Moses,
brought in to Canaan, öiaöexeodai, only here in the N. T. , denotes the
taking over from a former possessor.^ — kv ry KaTaax>^c!eL tüv efivcov] «ardcrjeffif,
as in ver. 5, possessio.* But if is not to be explained as put for eic, nor is
KaTä(JX£<^iC ~<^i> ififüv taking possession of the land of the Gentiles, as is
generally held, which is not expressed. Eather : the fathers brought in
the tabernacle of the covenant during the 'possession of the Gentiles^ i.e. while
the Gentiles icere in the state of possession. To this, then, signficantly corre-
sponds what further follows : uv e^uaev 6 Qeog /c.r./l. But of what the Gen-
tiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from elaijyayov — namely, of
the Holy Land, to which the elc in Elaijyay. refers according to the history
well known to the hearers. — (mb Trpoadi-rrov r. tt. f/fx.] atcay from the face of
our fathers, so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their view.^ —
£uf TÜV iiß. A.] is to be separated from the parenthetic clause uv e^uaev . '. .
iijiuv, and to be joined to the preceding : which our fathers h-ought in . . .
until the days of David, so that it remained in Canaan until the time of
David inclusively. Kuinoel attaches it to uv e^ucev k.t.1. ; for until the
time of David the struggle with the inhabitants of Canaan lasted. This is
in opposition to the connection, in which the important point was the dura-
tion of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel, paving the way for the tran-
sition to the real temple, shows ; with David the new epoch of worship
begins to dawn.
Vv. 46, 47. Kat ■t)TriaaTÖ\ and ashed, namely, confiding in the grace of
God, which he experienced, Luke i. 30. The channel of this request, only
indirectly expressed by David, and of the answer of God to it, was Nathan."
What is expressed in Ps. cxxxii. 2 ff. is a later retrospective reference to it.
See Ewald on the Psalm. This probably floated before the mind of Stephen,
hence oKipußa and evpelv. The usual interpretation of ijTr/aaro : optahat,
desiderabat, is incorrect : for the fact, that the LXX. Deut. xiv. 16 ex-
presses bsiy by kTTidu/ielv, has nothing at all to do with the linguistic use of
aiTov/ini. — Evpelv cjKrjvußa rü Qeöj 'la/c.] i.e. to obtain the establishment of a
dwelling-place destined for the peculiar god of Jacob. In the old theo-
cratic designation rü Qsü 'laKuß, instead of the bare avro, lies the holy
> See Ewald, Alterth. p. 1H7. ■» LXX., Apocr., Joseph., Vulgate, Calvin,
" Comp. Heb. viii. 5. and thereon Lünemann Grotiu.s, Kuinoel, and others.
and Delitzsch, p. 337 f. '> Comp. LXX. Ex. xxxiv. 24 ; Deut. xl. 23.
34 Mace. iv. 15; Dem. 1218, 23. 1045, 10; On the aorist form efwtra, from efwiJcri', see
Polyb. ii. 4. 7 ; xxxi. 12. 7 ; Lucian. Dial. M. Winer, p. 8ö (E. T. 111).
xi. 3. ° 2 Sam. vii. 2 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 1.
THE TEMPLE AXD THE PROPHETS. 155
national motive for the request of David ; on GK/'jvcj/xn applied to the temple
at Jerusiilcm, comp. 3 Esdr. i. 50, and to a heatlien temple, Pausan. iii. 17.
6, where it is even the name. Observe how David, in the humility of his
request, designates the temple, which lie has in view, only generally as
(TK/'/vij/^ia, whereas the continuation of the narrative, ver. 47, has the definite
okoi'.— Stephen could not but continue the historical thread of his discourse
precii^ely down to the huilding of Solomon^ s tem^de, because he was accused of
blaspliemy against the temple.
Vv. 48-/50. Nevertheless this it>Ko66u. avTü oIkov (ver. 47) is not to be
misused, as if the presence of the Most High — observe the emphatic pre-
fixing of (Ü vfi(TToc, in which lies a tacit contrast of Him who is enthroned
in the highest heavens to heathen gods — were bound to the temple ! The
temple-worship, as represented by the priests and hierarclis, ran only too
much into such a misuse. ' — ;(£ipo7i-oi//TOK;] neuter : in something which is made
by hands, xyii. 24.'^ — Vv. 49, 50 contain Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, slightly deviating
from the LXX. -r- 6 ovpavoq . . . ivoöüi^ uov] a poetically moulded expression
of the idea : heaven and earth I fill with my all-ruling presence.^ Thus there
cannot be for God any jüace of His rest (roT. -fig KnraTrava.), any abode of
rest to be assigned to Ilim. — olnooofirjaerE] The future used of any possible
future case. Baur"* and Zeller have wrongly found in these verses a disap-
proving judgment as to the building of the temple, the effect of which had
been to render the worship rigid ; holding also what was above said of the
tabernacle — that it was made according to the pattern seen by Moses — as
meant to disparage the temple, the building of wliich is represented as " a
corruption of the worship of God in its own nature free, bound to no fixed
place and to no rigid external rites" (Zeller). Such thoughts are read
between the lines not only quite arbitrarily, but also quite erroneously, as
is evident from ver. 46, according to which the building of Solomon ap-
pears as fulfilment of the prayer of David, who had found favour with Ood.^
The prophetical quotation corresponds entirely to the idea of Solomon
himself, 1 Kings viii. 27. The quotation of the prophetic saying was,
moreover, essenfitdly necessary for Stephen, because in it the Messianic ref-
ormation, which he must have preached, had its divine warrant in reference
to the temple-worship.
Ver. 51. The long-restrained direct offensive now breaks out, as is quite
in keeping with the position of matters brought to this point." This
against Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others, who quite arbitrarily
suppose that after ver. 50 an interruption took place, either by the
shouts of the hearers, or at least by their threatening gestures ; as well
as against Schwanbeck, p. 252, who sees here " an omission of the reporter."
Stephen has in ver. 50 ended his calm and detailed historical narrative.
And now it is time that the accused should become the l)old accuser, and
at length tlirow in the face of his judges the result, the thoughts forming
J Comp. John iv. 20 ff. ti. Krit. 1855, p. 528 ff., concnrretl, ascribing to
» Comp. LXX. Isa. xvi. 12 ; 2 Chron. vi. 18. Stephen a view akin to Esscnism.
s Comp. Matt. v. 34 ; 1 Kini^s viii. 27. ' Comp. 1 Kings viii. 24.
* With whom Schneckeuburger in the Stud. • Comp. Baur, I. p. 58, cd. 2 ; Ewald, p. 213,
15G CHAP. Yii., 52-56.
which were already clearly enougli to be inferred from the previous his-
torical course of the speech. Therefore he breaks off his calm, measured
discourse, and falls upon his judges with deep moral indignation, like a
reproving prophet : Ye stiff-necked I etc. — äTrcpivß. ri) Kap6. k. t. i)aa>\ an up-
braiding of them with their unconverted carnal character, in severe contrast
to the Jewish pride of circumcision. The meaning without figure is : Men
tohose management of their inner life, and whose spiritual jjerception, are
heathenishly rude, without moral refinement, not open for the influence of the
divine Spirit} — huelq] with weighty emphasis. — äei\ alicaijs ; even yet at
this day ! — üq ol -rrarepec: vuüv kuI vficig] sc. an rCi irv. ay. ävmr. ; for the
fathers are thought of in their resistance to God and to the vehicles of His
Spirit, and therefore not the bare kare is to be supplied." — The term hvTL-ni'nTreiv,
not occurring elsewhere in the TS". T., is here chosen as a st/rong designation.^
Bengel well puts it : " in adversum ruitis."
Ver. 52. Proof of the Lr al TtaTipeq v/iüv Kai, also, vße'ig. — aal ä:rt«7.] /cat is
the climactic ere« y they have even killed them.'' The characteristic more
special designation of the prophets : rove TrpoKarayyeiXavTaf: k.t.2.., augments
the guilt. — rov ötKaiov] Kar' k^oxrjv of Jcsus, the highest messenger of God,
the (ideal) Just One.^ Contrast to the relative clause that follows. — vvv]
in the present time, opposed to the times of the fathers ; vf/e'i<: is emphatically
placed over against the latter as a parallel. — TrpocUrai] hetrayers (Luke vi.
16), inasmuch as the Sanhedrists, by false and crafty accusation and con-
demnation, delivered Jesus over to the Roman tribunal and brought Him
to execution.
Ver. 53. Oi-^ff] qnippe qui. Stephen desires, namely, now to give the
character, through which the foregoing oi vvv vueIq irpaöoTat k.t.Ti., as founded
on their actually manifested conduct, receives its explanation. — iläßerE]
ye have received, placed first with emphasis. — är (harayäc ayyeXur] itpon ar-
raijgements icith angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels, the
direct servants of God, which accompanied the promulgation of the law,'
made you perceive the obligation to recognise and observe the received,
law — comp, the contrast, k. ovk ecpvTiä^. — as tl\e ethical aspect of your klaßeTs.
Briefly, therefore : Te received the law with reference to arrangements of
angels, which could not leave you douhtfd that you ought to submit obediently to
the divine institution. — elq denotes, as often in Greek writers and in the N.
T.,' the direction of the mind, in view of.^ — öiarayri is arrangement, regida-
tion, as in Rom. xiii. 2, with Greek writers ÖLara^iQ.^ At variance with
linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin, Piscator, Eisner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause,
' Comp. Lev. xxvi. 41 ; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6
Jer. iv. 4, vi. 10, ix. 25 ; Rom. ii. 25, 29
Barnabas, Ep. 9 ; Philo, de migrat. Abr. I. p
450 ; and from tlie Rabbins, Schoettgeni?; loc
^ Wirh Beza and Borncmann in the Sachs.
= iii. 14, xxii. 14 : 1 Pet. iii. 18; 1 John ii. 1.
^ Angels were the arrangers of the act of
divine majesty, as arrang<'rs of a festival
(Siaräcro-oi'Tes), dinposifores.
7 Winer, p. 371 {E. T. 496).
Stud. 1842, p. 72. 8 Comp, here especially, Matt. xii. 41 ; Rom.
'Comp. Polrb. iii.. 19. 5: ärTeVeo-av rai? iv. 20.
o-n-eipai? KaTaTrXrjKTiKÜ?. Num. xxvii. 14 ; ' Comp, also Ezra iv. 11 ; and see Suicer,
Herodian. vi. 3. 13. Thes. I. p. 886. On the subject-matter, comp.
* Comp, on this reproach, Luke xi. 47. Gal. iii. 19 ; Heb. ii. 2 ; Delitzsch on Heb. p. 49.
MARTYRDOM OF STEPHEN. 157
Heinrichs, Kuinocl, and others, taking (hnray// in the above signification,
render : accepistis legem ah aiKjelis proxiidgatcim, as if fjf stood for kv.
Others — Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckeuaer, and others — explain
ÖLaTayij as agmen dispositum, because (hardaceiv is often, also in the classics,
used of the drawing up of armies,' and (hdra^ic of the divisions of an army,'
and translate ])r(U'/i<!i)fihiis a/ujelonan orduilhus, so that «if is likewise taken
for £u. But against this view, with which, moreover, fif would have to be
taken as renpectu, there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of the
use of 6ia-ayl] in the sense assumed ; and therefore the supposition that
oiaTayrj = öiära^tq in this signification is arbitrary, as well as at variance with
the manifest similarity of the thought with Gal. iii. 19. BengeP renders :
Ye received the law for commands of amjch, i.e. as comvuinds of angels, so
that e'lq is to be understood as in ver. 21.'' But the Israelites did not
receive the law as the commands of angels, but as the commands of Ood,
in which character it was made known to them 6i' äyyeAuv.^ — Moreover,
the mediating action of the angels not admitting of more precise defini-
tion, which is here adverted to, is not contained in Ex. xix., but rests
on tradition, which is imported already by the LXX. into Deut. xxxiii. 2.
Comp, on Gal. iii. 19." It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizmg, when
earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels either Moses and the
prophets'' or the seniores jwjjidi;^ indeed, Chrysostom even discovers here
again the angel in the bush.
Vv. 54-56. Tavra] The reproaches uttered in vv. 51-53. — Sie-p. mir Kapd]
see on v. 33. — ißpvxov -. böövr. ] they gnashed their teeth, from rage and
spite.' — ett' avTÖv'] against him. — ttatjp. Trvevu.] which at this very moment
filled and exalted him with special power, iv. 8. — e\g tov ovpavdv'] like
Jesus, John xvii. 1. The eye of the suppliant looks everyichere toioard,
heaven,^" and what he beheld he saw in the spiri' {jT7.t,p. TvvEvß. äyiov) ; he only
and not the rest present in the room. — rove ovpavohq] up to the highest."
— öö^av QEoii\ niri' T1I33 : the hrightness in which God appears.'^ — earwra]
Why not sitting .?'' He beheld Jesus, as He has raised Himself from God's
throne of light and stands read;/ for the saving reception of the martyr.
Comp, ver. 59. The prophetic basis of this vision in the soul of Stephen
is Dan. vii. 13 f. Chrysostom erroneously holds that it is a testimony of
the resurrection of Christ. Rightly Oecumenius : Iva Sei^ij rijv (iv-i?.T;Tpii' ryv
nq a'vTÖv. Comp. Bengel : " quasi obvium Stephano." De Wette finds no
explanation satisfactory, and prefers to leave it unexplained ; while Borne-
> 2 Mace. xii. 20. Gal. iii. 19.
2 Judith i. 4, viii. 36. ' IK-inrichs, Lijihtfoot.
3 Comi). Ilackett, F. Nitzgch, also Winer 8 s^,renhu!^ius, (caraAA. p. 419.
doubtfull}-, and Biittmai.n. » Comp. Archia-^, Vi : ßpvxuiv Stiktov öSovra,
* Comp. Heb. xi. 8. Hermipp. quoted in Plut. i'mrf. 33 ; Job xvi.
6 Comp. Joseph. Anit. xv. 5. 3: iißCiv rä 9; P.«. xxxv. 16, xxsvii. 12.
KaWicrra tmv Soyixartov Kai rä öo-icÜTara TÖiv ey '" Comp. On John SVÜ. 1.
Tois vdjiois 6t' äyye'Awi'TropaToü ©eoO naiJdvTuii' ; "Comp. Matt. ül. IG. It is otlierwir^e in
and see Krebs in loc. Acts x. 11.
« For Rabbinical passages {Julkut üitheni f. '^ See on ver. 2. Luke ii. 9.
lOr, 3, al.), Fee Schoettsen and Wetstein ad '^ ]\iatt. xxvi. 64 ; Mark xvi. 19, al.
158 CHAP. VII., 57-60.
mann ' is disposed only to find in it the idea of morandi et existendi,^ as
formerly Beza and Knapp, So: var. arg. — elöe] is tobe apprehended as
mental seeing in ecstasy. Only of Stejjhen himself is this seeing related ;
and when he, like an old prophet,^ gives utterance to what he saw, the
rage of his adversaries — who therefore had seen nothing, but recognised in
this declaration mere blasphemy — reaches its highest j^itch, and breaks out
in tumultuary fashion. The views of Michaelis and Eckermann, that
Stephen had only expressed his firm conviction of the glory of Christ and
of his own imjjending admission into heaven ; and the view of Hezel,^ that
he had seen a dazzling cloud as a symbol of the presence of God, — convert
his utterance at this lofty moment into a flourish of rhetoric. According
to Baur, the author's own view of this matter has ohjectlvized itself into a
vision, just as in like manner vi. 15 is deemed unhistorical. — elöe . . .
fieupü] he saw . . . I hehold.^ As to 6 vlbg -. h>6p., the Messianic designa-
tion in accordance with Dan. vii. 13, see on Matt. viii. 20.
Vv. 57, 58. The tumult, now breaking out, is to be conceived as pro-
ceeding from the Sanhedrists, but also extending to all the others who
were present (vi. 12). To the latter pertains especially what is related from
upuTjaav onward. — They stopped their ears., because they wished to hear
nothing more of the blasphemous utterances. — ifu r^f Trdilfw^] see Lev.
xxiv. 14. "Locus lapidationis erat extra urbcm ; omnes enim civitates,
muris cinctae, paritatem habent ad castra Israelis." ^ — i.liQo^okovv\ This
is the fact generally stated. Then follows as a special circumstance, the
activity of the witnesses in it. Observe that, as ah-öv is not expressed with
kTiiOoß.,'' the preceding kir' av-6v is to be extended to it, and therefore to be
mentally supplied." — ol ßäprvpeg] The same who had testified at vi. 13.
A fragment of legality ! for the witnesses against the condemned had,
according to law, to cast the first stones at him.^ — äiredevro rä l/iäria avT(Jv\
ÜG7£ eli'aL iiov(^oi Kai äTrapanoiharoi fif to ?udoßo?.elv, Theophylact. — 2ai/loi']
So distinguished and zealous a disciple of the Pharisees — who, however,
ought neither to have been converted into the " notarial witness," nor even
into the representative of the court conducting the trial (Sepp) — was for
such a service quite as ready (xxii. 20) as he was welcome. But if Saul
had been married or already a young widower (Ewald,) which does not
follow from 1 Cor. vii. 7, 8, Luke, who knew so exactly and had in view
the circumstances of his life, would hardly have called him vsaviag, although
this denotes a degree of age already higher than /ueipäKiov.^" Comp. xx. 9,
xxiii. 17, also v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14. — Kal tÄtdoßoXow) not merely the witnesses,
but generally. The repetition has a tragic effect, which is further strength-
ened by the appended contrast tm/caA. k..t.7l. A want of clearness, occa-
sioned by the use of two documents (Bleek), is not discernible. — The
> In the Sachs. Stud. 1843, p. 73 f. ' Which Borncmann has added, following
2 Lübeck. ad\Aj. 199. D and vss.
3 Comp. John xii. 41. « Comp. LXX. Ex. xxiii. 47.
* Following older commentators, in "Wolf. » Dcut. xvii. 7 ; Sanhedr. \i. 4.
s See Tittmann's Synon. pp. 116, li30. "> Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 213.
• Gloss in Babyl. Sanhedr. f. 42. 2.
Stephen's death. 159
atoning, which as the punishracnt of blasphemy was inflicted on Stephen,
seeing that no formal sentence preceded it, and tliat the execution had to
be confirmed and carried out on the part of the Roman authorities,- is to
be regarded as an illegal act of the tumultuary outbreak. Similarly, the
murder of James the Just, the Lord's brother, took place at a later period.
The less the limits of such an outbreak can be defined, and tlie more the
calm historical course of the speech of Stephen makes it easy to understand
that the Sanhedrists should have heard liim quietly up to, but not beyond,
the point of their being directly attacl<ed (ver. 51 IT), so mucli the less
warrantable is it, with Baur and ZcUer, to esteem nothing further as his-
torical, than that Stephen fell " as victim of a popular tumult suddenly
arising on occasion of his lively public controversial discussions," without
any proceedings in the Sanhedrim, which are assumed to be the w^ork of
the author.
Vv. 59, 60. "B-iKalovi-ievnv^ while he was invoking. Whom ? is evident
from the address which follows. — Ki[)te 'li/aov] both to be taken as vocatives,^
according to the formal expression Kvpwg 'Ir/aov^,* with which the apostolic
church designates Jesus as the exalted Lord, not only of His church, but
of the world, in the government of which He is installed as aivßpovoc of
the Father by His exaltation (Phil. ii. G IT.), until t!ie final completion of
His office.* Stephen invoked Jesun; for he had just beheld Ilim standing
ready to help him. As to the invocation of Chrint generally, relative
worship, conditioned by the relation of the exalted Christ to the Father."
— (^eSai -b TTvevfiä ßov] namely, to thee in Äe«»en until the future resurrection.'
" Fecisti me victorem, recipe me in triumphum," Augustine. — (puvfj ueyäl-ij]
the last expenditure of his strength of love, the fervour of which also dis-
closes itself in the kneeling. — ///) crijaijc^ ahrolq -. ä/iapr. ravr.]fx 7iot this sin
(of my murder) wpan them. This negative expression corresponds quite to
the positive : (Kpuvai ryv d/iapriav, to let the sin go as regards its relation of
guilt, instead of fixing it for punishment.* The notion, " to make availing ''
(de Wette), i.e. to impute, corresponds to the thought, but is not denoted
by the word. Linguistically correct is also the rendering : " weigh not this
sin to them," as to which the comparison of 7piy is not needed.^ In this
view the sense would be : Determine not the weight of the sin (comp.
XXV. 7), consider not how heavy it is. But our explanation is to be pre-
ferred, because it corresponds more completely to the prayer of Jesus,
Luke xxiii. 34, which is evidently the pattern of Stephen in his request,
only saying negatively what that expresses positively. In the case of such
1 Luke xxiv. Ifi; Sanhedr. vii. 4. < Geredorf, Beitr. p. 292 ff.
^ Ewald supposes tliat the Sanhedrim Tni;;ht * 1 Cor. xv. 28 ; comp. x. 36.
have appealed to the permission granted to « See on Rom. x. 12 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; Phil. ii. 10.
them by Pilate in John xviii. 31. But so ' Comp, on Phil. i. 26, remark,
much is not implied in John xviii. 31 ; see in. " Comp. Rom. x. 3 ; Ecchis. xliv. 21, 22 ;
loc. And ver. 57 sufficiently shows how far 1 Mace. xiii. 38, xiv. 28, xv. 4, al.
from " ca^w^/^nc? ^ffl-a/Zy" matters proceeded 'Matt. xxvi. 15; Plat. T'im. p. 63 B, /Vo<.
at the execution. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 9. 1, p. 350 B, Pol. x. p. 602 D ; Xcn. Cyr. viii. 2.
and on Jo!;n xviii. 3',. 21 ; Valcken. Diatr. p. 28S A.
3 Rev. xxii. 20.
160 CHAP. YII. — XOTES.
as Saul what was asked took place." In the similarity of the last words of
Stephen, ver. 59 with Luke xxiii. 34, 40, as also of the words öe^ai ru ttv.
fiov with Luke xxiii. 46, Baur, with whom Zeller agrees, sees an indication
of their unhistorical character ; as if the example of the dying Jesus might
not have sufficiently suggested itself to the first martyr, and proved
sufficient motive for him to die with similar love and self-devotion. —
kKoifiTjOr]] " lugubre verbum et suave," Bengel ; on account of the euphemistic
nature of the word, never used of the dying of Christ. See on 1 Cor.
XV. 18.
Notes by American Editoe.
(y) Stephen's speech. V. 2.
"Opinions are divided concerning this speech of Stephen. Some regard
it as inconclusive, illogical, and full of errors ; others i^raise it as a complete
refiitation of the charges brought against him, and as worthy of the fiilness
of the Spirit with which he was inspired." "It is to be observed that the
speech of Stephen is an unfinished production. He was interrupted before
he came to a conchasion. We are therefore to regard it as in a measure
imperfect." "It bears, in its nature and contents, the impress of axathen-
ticity." (Gloag.)
"The speaker's main object maybe considered as twofold : first, to show
that the charge against him rested on a false view of the ancient dispensation ;
and secondlj', that the Jews, instead of manifesting a true zeal for the temple
and the law, in their opposition to the gosj^el, were again acting out the lanbe-
lieving, rebellious spirit which led their fathers so often to resist the will of
God and reject his favors." " Stei:)hen pursues the order of time in his nar-
rative ; and it is important to mark that feature of the discourse, because it
explains two peculiarities in it ; first, that the ideas which fall logically under
the two heads that have been mentioned are intermixed instead of being jire-
sented separately ; and secondly, that some circumstances are introduced
which we are not to regard as significant, but as serving merely to maintain the
connection of the history." " It may be added that the peculiar character of
the speech impresses upon it a seal of authenticity." (Hackeü.)
Stephen " commenced this defence with great calm and dignity, choosing as
his theme a subject which he knew would command the attention and win the
deep interest of his audience. It was the story of the chosen j^eople, told with
the warm, bright eloquence of one not only himself an ardent patriot, but also
a trained orator and scholar. He dwelt on the famous national heroes, with
rare skill, bringing out particular events in their lives, and showing how, not-
withstanding the fact that they had been sent by God, they had been again
and again rejected by the chosen people." "What a magnificent conception,
in the eyes of a child of Israel, were those instances of the lifework of Joseph
and Moses, both God-sent regenerators of the loved people, both in their turn
too rejected and misunderstood by those with whom their mission lay, but jus-
tified and glorified by the unanimous voice of history, which has surrounded
> Comp. Oecumcnius.
NOTES. 161
the men and their work with a halo of glory, growing only brighter as the cen-
turies have multiplied ! Might it not be the same with that Great One who
had done such mighty works, and spoken such glorious words, but whom they
had rejected and crucified?" (Iloicson, Acts.)
(z) Historical errors. V. 3.
The historical allusions in the speech of Stephen in some respects differ
from O. T. history ; as to the time of Abraham's call, the time of Terah's
death, the length of the sojourn in Egypt, the number of souls in Jacob's
household, the purchase of the sepulchre, and the place of burial of the
patriarchs. These variations or additions, which may either be fairly rec-
onciled, or, at least, are of such a nature that were some fact known of which
we are not informed all might be harmonized, our author unhapjiily char-
acterizes as "erriirs," " historical mistakes," "historical errors," "mistakes,"
etc. In reference to all such apparent discrejDancies two things should be
borne in mind: first, Stephen, though "full of faith and power," was not
an inspired teacher in the strict sense of the word ; so that, provided we have
a true record of his discourse, it may contain an error of statement, or a ques-
tionable date, and yet the accuracy of the sacred historian remain unimpeach-
able ; and second, allowance should be made for the possible errors of copy-:
ists, specially with regard to numbers. Most of such difficulties, however,
have been satisfactorily removed. Surely, in any view of the case, it is rash
to assume that men of average culture and information, not to say such men of
education and intelligence as Stephen and Luke vinquestionably were, would
be ignorant of the facts recorded in the sacred books, which had been their
constant study. Nor need we suppose a speaker or writer likely to make erro-
neous statements, which a reference to the book of Genesis would at once have
corrected, or to Avhich even the audience addressed would at once have
objected.
(a') Abraham's call. V. 3.
"The discrepancy is only aj^parent. It woidd appear from the sacred
narrative that Abraham was twice called : once in Ur of the Chaldees, and
afterwards at Haran. " "To this solution of the difficulty Meyer objects
that the verbal quotation from Gen. xii. 1 proves that Stephen had in view
no other c;dl than that mentioned in this passage. But, on the one hand,
it is not surin-ising either that the call should be repeated to Abraham in
neai'ly the same words, or that Stephen should apply the Avell-known words
found in Gen. xii. 1 to the earlier call. And, on the other hand, the
words are not precisely the same ; for here there is no mention of a departure
from his father's house, as there is when God called Abraham at Haran. When
Abraham removed from Ur of the Chaldees he did not depart from his father's
house, for Terah, his father, accompanied him ; but when he removed from
Haran he left Terah, if he were yet alive, and his brother Nahor '" (Gloag.)
" It is a perversion of the text to suppose Stephen so ignorant of the geogra-
phy here, as to place Canaan on the west of the Euphrates. His meaning evi-
dently is that Abraham's call in that city was not the first which ho received
during his residence in Mesopotamia." {Ilackett.)
162 CHAP. VII, — NOTES.
(b') Death of Terah. V. 4.
"But this apparent disagreement admits of a ready solution, if we suppose
that Abram was not the oldest son, but that Haran, who died before the
first migration of the family, was sixty years older than he, and that Terah,
consequently, was one hundred and thirty years old at the birth of Abraham.
The relation of Abraham to the Hebrew history would account for his being
named first in the genealogy." {llackett.)
" The most probable explanation is that Abraham was the youngest son of
Terah, and was not born until Terah was one hundred and thirty years old."
{Gloag.)
(c') Four hundred years. V. 6.
"The exact number of years, as we elsewhere learn, was four hundred
and thirty. A round sum is here given, without taking into account the
broken number. " "At first sight the words in the 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." {Gloag.) A
solution is "that the four hundred and thirty years in Ex. xii. 40 embraces
the period from Abraham's immigration into Canaan until the departure OT}t
of Egypt, and that the sacred writers call this the period of sojourn or servi-
tude in Egypt, " {Hackett.)
(d') Jacob's burial and Abraham's purchase. V. 16.
"With respect to the conciirrence or accumulation of supisosed inaccu-
racies in this one verse, so far from proving one another, they only aggravate
the improbability of real errors having been committed, in such quick succes-
sion, and then gratuitously left on record, when they might have been so
easily corrected and expunged." (Alexander.)
Many critics, including our author, have given up all attempts at reconcilia-
tion, and simply assume that Stephen, in the excitement of the occasion, has
made a mistake which Luke did not feel at liberty to correct. It is a very easy
way to dispose of the difficulty, to say that Stephen made a mistake ; but it is
not so easy to account for such a man, before such an audience, publicly stat-
ing what must have been known by many of them not to be in harmony with
well-known facts of their history ; and further, that it should have been recorded
by such a historian, and remain without either correction or objection for many
generations. Surely if conjectTiral emendation is ever admissible in an ap-
proved text, it would be justifiable here ; and very slight alterations indeed
would eliminate the difficulty. Calvin says, " It is plain that a mistake has been
made in the name of Abraham." The following reading has been suggested,
which requires only that an ellipsis be supplied: "And were carried into
Sychem, and were laid, some of them, Jacob at least, in the sepulchre that
Abraham bought for a sum of money ; and others of them in that bought from
the sons of Emmor, the father of Sychem." The sketch is drawn with great
brevity, and the facts greatly compressed, doubtless clearly apprehended
by those to whom they were stated, though not easy to disentangle and ar-
NOTES. 1G3
range now. It seems as rash as it is unnecessary, in view of all the circum-
stances, to charge either the orator or the historian with inaccuracy or mis-
statement, in this address.
(e') Cast out . . . children. V. 19.
"Meyer thinks we have here the construction of the infinitive of purpose :
he oppressed them in order to make them so desperate as to destroy their own
children. But such a meaning does not siait the context, and is grammati-
cally unnecessary. In Hellenistic Greek the indication of the purpose is often
changed to that of the result. The reference is to the command of Pharaoh,
given lo the Egj'ptians, that they should cast out all the male infants of the
Israelites into the Nile." (Gloag, also Hackett and Lange.)
"Better — in causln'j their young children to be cast out. The words are rather a
description of what the Egyptian king did in his tyranny, than of what the Is-
raelites were driven to by their despair." (I'lumptre.)
(f') An angel. V. 30.
There is a division of opinion as to whether this was a created angel, or
the angel of Jehovah — the messenger of the covenant — the second person of
the Godhead, even then appearing as the revealer of the Father. Our author,
with others, adojjts the former opinion, while Hackett, Alexander, Abbott,
Barnes, Jacobus, with Alford, adopt the latter view, in support of which
Gloag says : "The Mosaic narrative is in favor of the latter view. The Angel of
the bush who guided the Israelites in the wilderness is in the O. T. frequently
identified with God ; and here he appropriates to himself the titles of the
Supreme Being, for speaking out of the bush he says, ' / am the God of Abraham,
and of Isaac, and of Jacob.' "
164 CEITICAL BEMAEKS.
CHAPTER YIIL ■
Ver. 1. Trdiirff re] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read Travrrf öi, according to B C D E
H, min. Vulg. Copt, al., and several Fathers. A, ruin. Syr. Aeth. have t£ ; N*
has only i^avreq ; X** has Kai n. The 6e has the preponderance of testimony,
and is therefore to be adopted, as also in ver. 6. — Ver. 2. EirotT^aavTo] Lachm.
and Born, read kirolijaav, according to decisive testimony. — Ver. 5. 776^11^]
Lachm. reads ttjv -koalv, after A B K, 31, 40. More precise definition of the
capital. — Ver. 7. ■Ko'k'Küv\ Lachm. reads ■KoXkoi,^ and afterwards i^r/pxovTo,
following A B C E H, min. Vulg. Sahid. Syr. utr. ; t^ypxovro is also in D, which,
however, reads iro/.lolc (by the second hand : äwo vroAAoZf). Accordingly E^jjp-
XovTo, as decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born, and
Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot have written
TTo/l/lo/ (which, on the contrary, was mechanically introduced from the second
clause of the verse), but either ttoXXüv (H) or ttoITioIc (D*). — Ver. 10. ^ ica^.ov-
fiivrfl is wanting in Elz., but is distinctly attested. The omission is explained
from the fact that the word appeared inappropriate, disturbing, and feeble. — -
Ver. 12. Ta Trepi] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ■jrepi, after ABODE X. Cor-
rectly ; evayyeAi!^. is not elsewhere connected with nepL, and this very circum-
stance occasioned the insertion of rä. — Ver. 13. ^vvdueL^ kuI artfiela /lEjdÄa
jivo/isi'a'] Elz. Lachm. Born, read : orj/ieia k. övväßsic /i/iyd/MC yivoßevaq. Both
modes of an-angement have important attestation. But the former is to be
considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the ßeyd'Äa deleted by
Tisch., which is wanting in many and correct codd. (also in K), and is to be
considered as an addition very naturally suggesting itself (comp. vi. 8) for the
sake of strengthening. The later origin of the latter order of the words is
proved by the circumstance that all the witnesses in favour of it have fieydAac,
and therefore it must have arisen after fieydla was already added. — Ver. 16.
ooTTu] A B C D E X, min. Chrys. have ov&inu. Eecommended by Griesb. and
adopted by Kinck, Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Kecepta came into the text,
through the inattention of the transcribers, as the word to which they were
more accustomed. — Ver. 18. On decisive evidence 'i6üv is to be adopted, with
Griesb. and the later editors, instead of deaadju. The latter is a more preci.se
definition. —Ver. 21. evuttiov] A B C D X, min. and several Fathers have
evavriov or evavn, which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch.
Born, have adopted. Correctly ; the familiar word was inserted instead of the
rare one (Liike i. 8). —Ver. 22. Kvpiov] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz.
Scholz have Qeov, against preponderating evidence. A mechanical repetition,
after ver. 21. — Ver. 25. The imperfects vTtECiTpe(f>ov and EvriyyeTiiQwro (Lachm.
Tisch. Bom.) are decisively attested, as is also the omission of r//f before daai?,.
in ver. 27. — Ver. 27. bs before cAt/A. is wanting in Lachm. and Born., follow-
ing A C D* K*, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect expedient to help the con-
1 Instead of which, however, he {P)-affat. p. viii.) conjectures TroAAä.
GEKERAL PERSECÜTIOX. 1G5
struction. — After vcr. 3G, Elz. has (ver. 37) : fin-e 6^ ö <I>iAt-^of ei TTiarEveiq tj
ö/l^f Tiji; KapiVtar, tisaTiv. 'A-oKpiOe^g (Jtl elTve' marevü) töv vlov tov Oeov elvai tov
'Irjaovv Xpiaröv. This is wantiug in decisive witnesses ; and in those Mhich
have the words there are manj' variations of detail. It is defended, indeed, by
Born., but is nothing else than an old (see already Iren. iii. 12 ; Cypr. ad Quir.
iii. 43) addition for the sake of completeness. — Ver. 39. After izvevfia A**,
min. and a few vss. and Fathers have uyiov eneTTeaev em (or elc) tov Evvovxf^v,
aj-ycAof 6i. A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced partly
by ver. 26 and partly by x. 44.
Ver. 1. The observation Sai'Aof . . . arrow ' forms the significant transi-
tion to the further narrative of the jjersecution which is annexed. — /)j'
avvEvöoKüv] lie was jointly assenting, in concert, namely, with the originators
and promoters of the avalpeai^.'^ On ävaipeaig, in the sense of caales, suppli-
cium, comp. Num. xi. 15 ; Judith xv. 4 ; 2 Mace. v. 13 ; Herodian. ii. 6. 1,
iii. 2. 10. Here, also, the continuance and duration are more strongly de-
noted by ijv with the participle than by the mere finite tense. — iv kKt-ivij ry
yuepa] is not, as is usually quite arbitrarily done, to be explained indefi-
nitely illo tempore, but (comp. ii. 41) : on that darj, when Stephen was
stoned, the persecution arose, for the outbreak of which this tumultuary
stoning served as signal (g"). — -ryv kv 'lepoa.'] added, because now the disper-
sion (comp. xi. 19) set in. — ttüvtec:'] a hyperbolical expression of the popular
mode of narration.' At the same time, however, the general expression
ryv EKKAjjaiav does not permit us to limit vrövrff esjiecially to the Ilellenistir,
part of the church.* But if the hyperbolical Travrsg is not to be used
against the historical character of the narrative (Schneckenburger, Zeller),
neither are we to read withal between the lines that the cliiirch had been
formally assembled and broken up, but that to dispersion into the regions
of Judaea and Samaria — which is yet so clearly affirmed of the Tvavreg ! — a
great part of those broken up, including the apostles, had not allowed
themselves to be induced (so Baumgarten). — k. ^aiiapeiac] This country
only is here mentioned as introductory to the history which follows, ver. 5
H. For a wider dispersion, see xi. 19. — ttXt/v tüv ä-noffr.] This is explained,
in opposition to Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger, and others, who con-
sider these statements improbable, by the greater stedfastness of the
apostles, who were resolved as yet, and in the absence of more special
divine intimation, to remain at the centre of the theocracy, which, in their
view at this time, was also the centre of the new theocracy.^ They knew
themselves to be the appointed upholders and TvpuTayuvtaral (Oecumenius)
of the cause of their Lord.
Vv. 2, 3. The connection of vv. 1-3 depends on the double contrast,
> Observe the climax of the three state- ^ Matt. iii. 5 ; Mark iii. 33, al.
merits concerning Saul, vii. 59, viii. 1 and 3 ; * Uaur, I. p. 46, ed. 2 ; comp, de Wette.
also how the second and third are inserted ^ (^iiite inappropriately, pressing that iräv-
anlithetically, and how all three are evidently re«, Zeller, p. 153, in opposition to this in-
intended to prepare the way for the subse- quires: "Wherefore was this necessary, if
quent importance of the man. all ihoir followers were dispersed ?"'
' Comp. Luke xi. 48, and on Rom. i. 3:.
166 CHAP. VIII., 1-9.
that in spite of the outbreak of persecution which took place on that day,
the dead body of the martyr was nevertheless honoured by pious Jews ;
and that, on the other liand, the persecuting zeal of Saul stood in stern op-
position thereto. On that day arose a great persecution, ver. 1. This, hoicever,
prevented not pious men from hurying and lamentiiig Stephen^ ver. 2 ; (h') hut
Saul laid tcaste, in that persecution which arose, the church (of Jerusalem,
ver. 3). The common opinion is accordingly erroneous, that there prevails
here a lack of connection — ver. 2 is a supplementary addition, according to
de Wette — which is either ' to explained by the insertion of extracts from
different sources, or ^betokens that tyevtro öi . . . ÜTToaToTiuv is an inter-
polation, or" at least makes it necessary to hold these words as transposed,
so that they had originally stood after ver. 2.'* — cvyKOfiil^Eiv] to carry together,
then, used of the dead who are carried to the other dead bodies at the
burial-place, and generally: to lury.* According to the Scholiast on
Soph. I.e. and Phavorinus, the expression is derived from gathering the
fruits of harvest. Comp. Job v. 20. — The avSpe^ Evlaßelg are not, in op-
position to Heinrichs and Ewald, Christians, but, as the connection requires,
religious Jews who, in their pious conscientiousness (comp. ii. 5), and with
a secret inclination to Christianity,® had the courage to honour the in-
nocence of him who had been stoned. Christians would probably have
been prevented from doing so, and Luke would have designated them more
distinctly. — Kone-oq : Opf/vog fiEra ipocpov jf^jüi', Ilesychius.'' — iÄviualvETo] he
laid waste, comp. ix. 21 ; Gal. i. 13. The following sentence informs us
how he proceeded in doing so ; therefore a colon is to be placed after t.
fhTvA. — Kara Tovg o'lu. narrop.] entering l>y houses, house by house, Matt. xxiv.
7.'- — ai'ptjv] dragging.^
Vv. 4, 5. AiffAdov^ they went tlirougli, they dispersed themselves through
the countries to which they had fled.'" — Ver, 5. Of the dispersed per-
sons active as missionaries who were before designated generally, one is
now singled out and has his labours described, namely Philip, not the
apostle, as is erroneously assumed byPolycrates in Eusebius," but he who is
named in vi. 5, xxi. 8. That the persecution should have been directed
with special vehemence against the colleagues of Stephen, was very
natural. Observe, however, that in the case of those dispersed, and even
in that of Philip, preaching was not tied to an existing special office. With
their preaching probably there was at once practically given the new
ministry, that of the evangelists, xxi. 8; Eph. iv. 11, as circumstances re-
1 OlBhausen, Bleek. [p. 155. s Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500).
^ Ziegler in Gablei's Journ.f. theol. Lit., I. » See Tittmann, Synßn. N. T. p. 57 f., and
3 Heinrichs, Kulnoel. Wetstein. Comp. xiv. 19, xvii. 3. Arrian.
< According to Schwanbecii, p 325, v. 1 is Epict. i. 29.
to be regarded as an insertion from the biog- '" The oi iJ.ev ovv hiacnrapivre^ is reFnmcd at
raphy of Peter. si. 19,— a circumstance betokening that the
6 Soph. Aj. 104S ; Pint. Svll. 38. frans. long intervening portion has been derived
' Comp. Joseph of Arimathra and Nicode- from ppecial sources here incorporated.
' See Gen. 1. 10 ; 1 Mace. ii. 70 ; Nicarch. ■> iii. 31. 2, v. 24. 1 ; see, on the contrary, w.
30; Plut. Fab. 17; Heyne, Obss. in Tibull. p. 1, 14, and generally, Zeller, p. 154 ff ; Ewald,
71. p. 235 f.
PHILIP IN SAMAKIA. 167
quired, under the guidance of the Spirit. — KareXd.] from Jerusalem. — elg
■k67uv T7jg "Lafiap.^ into a city of Samaria. What city it was (Grotius and
Ewald think of the capital, Olshausen thinks that it was perhaps Sichern) is
to be left entirely undetermined, and was probably unknown to Luke him-
self. Comp. John iv. 5. Kuinoel, after Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius,
and others, takes -//(,' ^u/iap. as the name, not of the country, but of the
capital.' In that case, indeed, the article would not have been necessary
before 7v61iv, as Olshausen thinks.^ n6?ug, too with the genitive of the name
of the city, is a Greek idiom f but ver. 9, where -fjc; Hafiap. is evidently the
name of the country (to eOvog), is decidedly opposed to such a view. See
also on ver. 14. — avrolc] namely, the j^eople in that city.
Vv. 6, 7. Hpoaäxov^ they gave heed thereto^ denotes attentive, favourably
disposed interest, xvi. 14 ; Ilcb. ii. 1 ; 1 Tim. i. 4 ; often in Greek writers.*
The explanation fidem praciebant, Krebs, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others,
confounds the result of the -KpoaexEi-v (ver. 12) with the npoaix^tv itself, — a
confusion which is committed in all the passages adduced to prove it. — iv
TGj ÜKovetv aiiTovg k. /c.r.Z.] in their hearing^ etc., while they heard. — In ver.
7, more than in v. 16, those affected by natural diseases {napaJ.tl. k. ;^;tj^oi),
who were healed (WepaTrevO.), are expressly distinguished from the pos-
sessed,^ whose demons came out {i^fjpxETo) with great crying. — Notice the
article before £xöv~'^v : of many of those who, etc., consequently, not of all.
As regards the construction, nolTiüv is dependent on the to. Tri>Ev/LtaTa madapTa
to be again tacitly supplied after nvEhiiara aKadapra.^
Ver. 9. 'Zißuv} is not identical, in opposition to Heumann, Krebs, Rosen-
müller, Kuinoel, Neandcr, de Wette, Hilgenfield,'' with the Simon of
Cyprus in Joseph.,* whom the Procurator Felix, at a latter period, employed
to estrange Drusilla, the wife of Azizus king of Emesa in Syria, from hef
husband. For (1) Justin,' expressly informs us that Simon was from the
village Gitthon in Samaria, and Justin himself was a Samaritan, so that we
can the less suppose, in his case, a confusion with the name of the Cyprian
town K/r/oz'.'" (2) The identity of name cannot, on account of its great
prevalence, prove anything, smd as little can the assertion that the Samari-
tans would hardly have deified one of their own countrymen, ver. 10.
The latter is even more capable of explanation from the national pride,
than it would be with respect to a Cyprian. — rcpov-rjpxEv'] he was formerly,
even before the appearance of Philip, in the city. The following fiayevuv
K.T.I, then adds how he was occupied there ; comp. Luke xxiii. 13. —
p.ayevuv'] practising magical arts, only here in the N. T." The magical exer-
cises of the wizards, who at that time very frequently wandered about in
' Sebaste, which was also called Samaria, 18. 8, and others.
Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 2. a Antt. xx. 7. 2. Neandcr, p. 107 f., has en-
2 Poppo, ad Thut. i. 10; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. tiroly misunderstood the words of Josephns.
II. p. 137 ; comp. Luke ii. 4, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6. See Zeller, p. 1G4 f.
3 Tluhnlv. Epp. crit. p. 18G. » Apol. I. 26 ; comp. Clem. Ilom. i. 15, ii. 22.
< Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 882. i» Thuc. i. 112. 1.
» Comp. Luke iv. 40 f. " But see Rur. Iph. T. 1337 ; Meleag. 12 ;
• Sec Matthiae, p. 1533 ; Kühner, II. p. 002. CIcarch. in Athen, vi. p. 256 E ; Jacobs, ad
' See also Gieseler's Kirchengesch. I. sec. Anlhol. VI. p. 29.
168 CHAP. VIII., 10-13.
the East, extended cMefly to an ostentatious application of tlieir attain-
ments in physicial knowledge to juggling conjurings of the dead and
demons, to influencing the gods, to sorceries, cures of the sick, sooth-
sayings from the stars, and the like, in which the ideas and formulae of
the Oriental-Greek theosophy were turned to display.* — Tiva . . . fieyav]
We are not, accordingly, to put any more definite claim into the mouth of
Simon ; the text relates only generally his boasting self -exaltation, which
may have expressed itself very differently according to circumstances, but
always amounted to this, that he himself was a certain extraor'dinary person.
Perhaps Simon designedly avoided a more definite self-designation, in
order to leave to the praises of the people all the higher scope in the desig-
nating of that (ver. 10) which he himself wished to pass for. — eavTov]
He thus acted quite differently from Philip, who preached Christ, ver. 5.
Comp. Rev. ii. 20.
Ver. 10. Upoaslxov'] just as in ver. 6. — änh ßiKpov eug /lejd/Mv] A designa-
tion of the whole body, from little and up to great, i.e. young and old."^ —
ovTog ka-Lv r] 6vv. r. Oeov tj küI. fj.ey.'l this is the God-poicer called great. The
Samaritans believed that Simon was the power emanating from God, and
appearing and working among them as a human jjerson, which, as the
highest of the divine powers, was designated by them with a specific
appellation küt' e^ox^v as the fieyd?^?/. Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine
idea of the world-creating manifestation of the hidden God, the Logos,
which Philo also calls fiT^rpÖTroTiig Tvacüv rüv öwäfieuv tov Oeov, had become
at that time current among them, and they saw in Simon this eflHuence of
the Godhead rendered human by incarnation, ^a belief which Simon
certainly had been cunning enough himself to excite and to promote, and
■which makes it more than probable that the magician, to whom the neigh-
bouring Christianity could not be unknown, designed in the part which he
played to present a phenomenon similar to Christ ; comp. Ewald. The
belief of the Samaritans in Simon was thus, as regards its tenor, an ana-
logue of the 6 loyoQ aap^ iyivero, and hence served to prepare for the true
and definite faith in the Messiah, afterwards preached to them by Philip :
the former became the bridge to the latter. Erroneously Philastr. Ilaer.
29, and recently Olshausen, de Wette, and others, put the words ?/ övvafUQ
K.T.I, into the mouth of Simon himself, so that they are held only to be an
echo of what the sorcerer had boastingly said of himself.' This is con-
' See Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz, u. Lett. d. were put into the mouth of Simon (that he was
Christl. K. I. p. 99 f. ; Müller in Herzog's ät'ioräTT) ns Siii'aiu.is «al auroC toO tov Kocrt^ov
Enaykl. VIII. p. 675 £E. KTio-ai/Tos OeoO, Ckm. Horn. ii. 22, 25 ; that ho
2 Comp. Heb. viii. 11 ; Acts xxvi. 22 ; Bar. was the same who had appeared among the
i. 4 ; Judith xiii. 4, 13 ; 1 Mace. v. 45 ; LXX. Jews as the Son, but had come among the
Gen. xix. 11 ; Jer. xlii. 1, al. Samaritans as the Father, and among other
3 According to Jerome on Matth. xxiv., he nations as the Holy Spirit, Iren. i. 23), and
asserted of himself: "Ego Fum sermo Dei, were wonderfully dilated on by opponent's,
ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego om- point back to a relation of incarnation
nipotens, ego omnia Dei." Certainly an in- analogous to the incarnation of the Logos.,
vention of the later Simonians, who trans- uuder which the adherents of Simon conceived
ferred specifically Christian elements of faith him. De Wette incoirectly denies this, re-
to Simon. But this and similar things which ferring the expresi?ion, " the great power of
SIiIO]sr IS BAPTIZED. 109
trary to the text, which expressly distinguishes the opinion of the infatu-
ated people here from the assertion of the magician himself, ver. 9. lie
had characterized himsiaU iiufcßititcli/ ; they judged defiititely and confessed
(Afyorref) the highest that could be said of him ; and, iu doing so, accorded
■with the intention of the sorcerer.
Ver. 13. They believed Philip, who announced the good news of the lingdom
of God and of the name of Jesus Christ. — svayyE7u!:^. only here (see the
critical remarks) with Trfp/.' — The Samaritans called the Messiah whom
they expected nnifTI or 3nnn, the Converter, and considered Ilim as tlie
universal, not merely political, but still more religious and moral, Renewer.
See on John iv. 25.
Ver. 13. 'Err/oreme] also on his part (k. avröc), like the other Samaritans,
he became helieving, namely, likewise rü «t^/'./Tr-tJ evayyeTit^ojitevu k.t.X. (i').
Entirely at variance with the text is the opinion "^ that Simon regarded
Jesus only as a great magician and worker of miracles, and not as the
Messiah, and only to this extent believed on llim. lie was, by the preach-
ing and miracles of Philip, actually moved to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.
Yet this faith of his was only historical and intellectual, without having as
its result a change of the inner life f hence he was soon afterwards capable
of what is related in vv. 18, 19. The real ßE-ävoia is not excited in him,
even at ver. 24. Cyril aptly remarks: kßaTTTLaOr], (i7J: ova t(puriaür/. — e^icraro]
he, who had formerly been himself k^iarüv to eßpog !
Vv. 14-17. Ot h 'Icpoa. cL-oar.] applies, according to ver. 1, to all the
God," to the notion of an angel. This is too Simon, but has cut off the reference to Paul,
weak ; all the ancient accounts concerning Thus the state of the case is exactly reversed.
Simon, as well as concerning his alleged com- The history of Simon Jlagus in our passage
panion Helena, the all-bearing mother of was amplified in the Clementines in an anti-
angels and powers, betoken a Messianic part Pauline interest. The Book of Acts has not
which he played ; to which also the name 6 cutoff the hosiile reference to Paul ; but the
•Eo-Tui?. by which he designated himself accord- Clementines have addtd it, and accordingly
ing to the Clementines, points. This name have dressed out the history with a view to
(hardly correctly explained by Ritschl,rt;a-a<A. comb it Panlinism and Gnosticism, indeed
Kirche, p. •22S f., from ä;'atTT)jo-ci, Dent, xviii. have here and there caricatured Paul himself
15, 18) denotes the imperbihable and unchniige- as Simon. We set to work unhistorically, if
able. See, besides, concerning Simon and his we place the simple narratives of the N. T. on
doctrine according to the Clementines, a parall 1 with later historical excrescences
Uhlhorn, die Homil. ii. Recognit. des Clemtnn and disfigurements, and by means of 1 he latter
Bom p. 281 ff.; Zeller, p. 159 fl'.; and concern- attack the former as likewise fabulous repre-
ing the entire diver.sified development of the tations. Our narrative contains !he historical
old legends concerning him, Miilhr in germ, from which the latir legends concern-
Herzog's Encykl. XIV. p. 39i ff,; concerning ing Simon Magus have luxuriantly developed
his doctrine of the Aeons and Syzygies, themselves ; the Samaritan worship of the sun
Philosoph. Orig. vi. 7 ff. According to Baur and moon has nothing whatever to do with
and Zeller, the magician vever existed at (ill ; the history of Simon.
and the legend concerning him, which arose ' But see Rom. i. 3 ; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 2.
from Christian polemics directed against the ^ Grotius, Clericus, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel.
Samaritan worship of the sun-god, the Oiiental 'ßengelwell remarks: " Agnovit, virtu-
Hercules (BaalMelkart), is nothing else than teni Dei non esse in se, sed in Philippo. . ..
& hostile travestie of the AposHe Paul and his Non tamen pertigit ad fidcm plenatn, justifi-
anlinomian labours. Comp, also Hilgenfeld, cantem. cor puriflcantem, salvantem, t:imctsi
d clement. Recognit. x>. Z\^L\\o\(\imiV[ mX,\\(: ad earn pervenisse speciose videretur, donee
theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 279 fl. The Book of Act3 se aliter prodidit."
has, in their view, admitted this legend about
170 CHAP. VIII., 14-17.
apostles, to the apostolic college, which commissioned two of its most
distinguished members, Gal. ii. 9. — la/ndpem] here also the name of the
country ; see vv. 5, 9. From the success which the missionary labours of
Philip had in that single city^ dates the conversion of the country in general,
and so the fact : ^tÖEKvai i) "Laßäpeta rbv Myov tov Qsov (j^). — The design of
the mission of Peter and John' (k') is certainly, according to the text, in
opposition to Schneckenburger, to be considered as that which they
actually did after their arrival, ver. 15 : to pray for the baptized, in order
that (oTTwc) tJiey might receive the Holy Spirit (l'). Not as if, in general,
the communication of the Spirit had been exclusively bound up with the
prayer and the imposition of the hands (vv. 17, 18) of an actual apostle ;
nor yet as if here under the Spirit we should have to conceive something
peculiar •? but the observation, ver. 16, makes the baptism of the Samaritans
icithout \\\e YeüG\ii\on oi tlie Spirit appear as something f'.c^/'rt07Y7/«(7,ry .• the
epoch-making advance of Christianity beyond the bounds of Judaea into
Samaria was not to be accomplished icithout the intervention of the direct
ministry of the apostles.^ Therefore the Spirit was reserved until this
apostolic intervention occurred. To explain the matter from the designed
omission of prayer for the Holy Spirit on the part of Philip,* or from the
subjectivity of the Samaritans, whose faith had not yet penetrated into the
inner life,* has no justification in the text, the more especially as there is no
mention of any further instruction by the apostles, but only of their prayer,
and imposition of hands," in the effect of which certainly their greater
i^ovaia, as compared with that of Philip as the mere evangelist, was his-
torically made apparent, because tlie nascent church of Samaria was not to
develope its life otherwise than in living connection with the apostles them-
selves." The miraculous element of the apostolic influence is to be recog-
nised as connected with the whole position and function of the apostles,
and not to be referred to a sphere of view belonging to a later age (Zeller,
Iloltzmann). — JtrffKra^] has received.^ — KaraßävTeq'l namely, to Samaria
situated lower. — ohötircj yap fjv^ for as yet not at all, etc. — ^ovov 6i
1 Which Baur (I. p. 47, ed. 2) derive!? from for, became the vehicle oi the communication,
the interest of Judaism to place the new It was certainly of a symbolical nature, yet
churches in a position of dependence on Jeru- not a bare and ineffective symbol, but the
sulem, and to prevent too free a development effective conductor of the gifts prayed for.
of the Hellenistic principle. See, on the Comp, on vi. 6. In xix. 5 also it is applied
other hand, Schneckenburger in the Stvd. u. after baptism, and with the result of the
7v'ri('. 1855, p. 54^ 11., who, however, likewise communication of the Spirit. On the other
gratuitously imports the opinion that the con- hand, at x. 48, it would have come too late,
version of the Samaritans appeared .«!<'?M«02/s If it is not specially mentioned in cases of
and required a ?nore exact examination. ordinary baptism, where the operation of the
2 TO rCiv a-fjixeitov, Chrysostom, comp. Beza, Spirit was not bound up with the apostolic
Calvin. imposition of hands as hire (see 1 Cor i.
3 Comp. Baumgarten, p. 175 ff. 14-17, xii. 13; Tit. lii. 5), it is to be considered
« Hofmann, Schriftbeiv. II. 2, p. 32. as obvious of itself (H»b. vi. 2) .
* Neander, p. 80 f., 104. ' Surely this entirely peculiar state of mat-
« Ver. 15, comp, with vv. 17. 18, shows ters should have withheld the Catholics from
clearly the relation of prayer to the impo-i' ion grounding the iocirXze oi con flrmation on our
of hands. The prayer obtained from God the passage (as even Beelen does).
communication of the Spirit, but the imposi- »See xvii. 7, Winer, p. 246 (E. T. 328);
tion of hands, after the Spirit had been prayed Valcken. p. 437.
SIMON MAGUS. 171
ßeßaTr-TKTfiivoi k.t.?..] but ihcy found tliomselves only in the condition of laj)-
tized ones, not at the same time also furnished witii the Spirit,
Ver. 18. Thecomnuinication of tlie Spirit was visible («Jwc, see the critical
remarks) in the ^a'stur(,'s and gesticuhitions of those wiio had received it,
perhaps also in similar phenomena to those which took place at Pentecost
in Jerusalem. — Did Simon himself receive the Spirit? Certainly not, as this
■would have rendered him incapable of so soon making the offer of money.
He saw the result of the apostolic imposition of hands on others, — there-
upon his impatient desire waits not even for his own experience — the power
of tlie apostolic prayer would have embraced him also and filled him with
the Spirit — and, before it came to his turn to receive the imposition of hands,
he makes his proposal, perhaps even as a condition of allowing the hands
to be laid iipon him. The ojiinion of Kuinoel, that from pride he did not
consider it at all necessary that the hands should be laid on him, is entirely
imaginary. The motive of his proposal was selfishness in the interest of his
magical trade ; very naturally he valued the communication of the Spirit,
to the inward exj^erience of which he was a stranger, only according to
the surprising outward phenomena, and hence saw in the apostles the pos-
sessors of a higher magical power still unknown to himself, the possession
of which he as a sorcerer coveted, "ne quid sibi deesset ad ostentationcm
et quaestum," Erasmus.
Vv. 20, 21. Thi/ money be along with thee rtnto destruction ; i.e. let perdition,
Messianic penal destruction, come ujion thy money and thyself ! The sin-
money, in the lofty strain of the language, is set forth as something per-
sonal, capable of ä-üTista. — dq üq h-ü}..\ a usual attraction: f<dl into de-
struction and be in it.^ — TJ/v (^ufnav Tov Oeov] -jjv e^nvcriav ~avTrjv,'iva k.t.^.,
ver. 19. Observe the antithetically chosen designation. — ivößi(7a(:\ thou
icast minded, namelj'-, in the proposal made. — minq ov6e kItjpoq] synonyms,
of which the second expresses the idea figuratively : part nor lot.^ The
utterance is earnest. — kv rü Äoyu Tovroi] in this icord, i.e. in the i^ovaia to be
the medium of the Spirit, which was in question. Lange gratuitously im-
ports the idea : in this word, which flows from the Jiearts of believers moved
by the Spirit. 7M)og oi the ^'^ ipsa causa, de qua disceptatur," is very cur-
rent also in classical writers.' Others, as Olshausen and Neander after
Grotius, explain loyor of the gospel, all share in whose blessings is cut off
from Simon. But then this reference must have been suggested by the
context, in which, however, there is no mention at all of doctrine. — evBda
straight, i.e. iipright,* for Simon thought to acquire (Kräaßai) an i^ovcria not
destined for him, from immoral motives, and by an unrighteous means.
Herein lies the immoral nature of simony, wliose source is selfishness.*
Vv. 22, 23. 'Atto T^f KOK.] i.e. turning thee away from. Heb. vi. 1.
Comp, on 2 Cor, xi, 3. — el äpa ä(peO/jaeTat] entreat the Lord (God,
> Sec Winer, p. 3S6 f. (E. T. :M t^. Comp. Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 41 f. ed. 3.
ver. 2;3. < Comp. Wisd. ix. 3 : Ecclus. vii. 6.
a Comp. Dent. xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29 : Isa. Ivii. 6. '•> Comp the ethical o-KoAid? (Luke iii. ,5\ ii.
»Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. S.V) ; Brunck, ad 40; Phil. ii. 15. "f'o?- arx bom et raali," Ben-
Soph. Aj. 126S ; Wolf, ad Dem. Lept. p. 277 ; gel ; Delitzch, Psychol, p. 250.
172 CHAP, viir., 18-24.
ver. 21), and try thereby, loTietlier perhaps, as the case may stand, there
will he forgiven, etc. Comp, on Mark xi. 13 ; Rom. i. 10. Peter, on
account of the high degree of the transgression, represents the forgive
uess on repentance still as doubtful.' Kuinoel, after older expositors," thinks
that the doubt concerns the conversion of Simon, which was hardly to be
hoped for. At variance with the text, which to the fulfilment of the
IxeravoTjaov, without which forgiveness was not at all conceivable, annexes
still the problematic el äpa. Concerning the direct expression by the
future, see Winer, p. 282 (E. T. 376). — ?} kiTivoia] the (conscious) p?a?i, the
piroject, is a vox media, which receives its reference in honam,"^ or as here in
malam partem, entirely from the context.'' — BW I perceive thee fallen into
and exfsting in gall of bitterness and in band of iniquity, i.e. for I recognise
thee as a man who has fallen into bitter enmity against the gospel as into
gall, and into iniquity as into binding fetters. Both genitives are to be
taken alike, namely, as genitives of apposition ; hence x'^'^V ^inpia^ is not fel
amarum, as is usually supjDOsed, in which case, besides, TrcKpiac would only
be tame and self-evident. On the contrary, ■niKpia is to be taken in the
ethical sense, a bitter, malignant, and hostile disposition ;° often in the
classical writers," which, figuratively represented, is gall, into which
Simon had fallen. In the corresponding representation, äöiKia is conceived
as a hand which encompassed him. Comp. Isa. Iviii. 6. Others render
chvÖEGiioQ, Jnindle.'' So Alberti, "Wolf, "Wetstein, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and
others, including Ewald. But in this way the genitive would not be taken
uniformly with wiKpiac, and we should expect instead of äöiKiag a plural ex-
pression. Ewald, moreover, concludes from these words that a vehement
contest had previously taken place between Peter and Simon, — a point
which must be left undetermined, as the text indicates nothing of it. — dvai
f/f] stands as in ver. 20.^ Lange,' at variance with the words, gratuitously
imports the notion: "that thou ^cilt prove to be a poison . . . in the
church.''''
Ver. 24. "Yßeir] whose prayer must be more effectual. On ösiß. with Trpog,
comp. Ps. Ixiv. 1. — oTTwc ßT]Ö£v K.T.I.] " poenae metum, non culpae horrorem
fatetur," Bengel. A humiliation has begun in Simon, but it refers to the
apostolic threat of punishment, the realization of which he wishes to avert,
not to the ground of this threat, which lay in his own heart and could only
be removed by a corresponding repentance. Hence, also, his conversion,
which even Calvin conjectures to have taken place,'" does not ensue. It
J Not as if it were thereby made deperdcnt = 2 Mace. xii. 45 ; Ar. Thesm. 766. al.
on the caprice of God (de Wt-tte's objc-rtion), * See the passages in Kypl^e, II. p. 42, and
but because God, in presence of the greatness from Philo in Loesner, p. 198 f.
of the guilt, could only forgive on the corre- ^ Rom. iii. 14 ; E h. iv. 31.
spending sincerity and truth of the repentance " See Valck. ad Eur. Fhoen. 9G3.
arid belieTiiig prayer ; and how doubtful was ' Comp. Herodian. iv. 12. 11.
this with such a mind ! The whole greatness » g^e Buttmann, yieut. Gr. p. 286 (E. T. 333).
of the danger was to be brought to the con- « Comp, also Thiersch, Kirche im apost.
pcinusnes of Simon, and to quicken him to the Zeit. p. 91.
need of repentance and prayer. '° Comp. Ebrard.
2 Comp. Heinrichs and de Wette.
TUE ETIIIOPIAN" EUXUCH. 173
"would, as a brilliant victory of the apostolic word, not have been omitted ;
aud in fact the ecclesiastical traditions concerning the stedfastly continued
conflict of Simon with the Jewish-apostolic gospel, in spite of all the
strange and contradictory fables mixed up with it down to his overthrow
by Peter at Rome, testify against the occurrence of that conversion at all.
Vv. 25, 26. Tbv ?.6y. r. Kvp.] The word which they spoke was not ^AciV
word, but Chrisfs, who caused the gosjiel to be announced by them as His
ministers and interpreters.' But the auctor ])rinclpalis\s God (x. 3G), hence
the gospel is still more frequently called o 7.öyoq rov Qtov, iv. 29, 31, vi. 2,
and freqiicntly. — Trolrnq te Kcjfiag .-'. . ev^yye?..] namely, on their way back
to Jerusalem. — €vayyeÄii;tcf^ai, with the accusative of the person," is rare,
and belongs to the later Greek. ' — äyyOMq 6s kvjhov] is neither to be ration-
alized with Eichhorn to the effect, that what is meant is the sudden and
involuntary rise of an internal impulse not to be set aside ; nor with
Olshausen to the effect, that what is designated is not a being appearing
individually, but a spiritual power, by which a spiritual communication
Avas made to Philip ; the language is, in fact, not figurative, as in John i.
53, but purely historical. On the contrary, Luke narrates an actual angelic
appearance, that sjjoke literally to Philip. This appearance must, in respect
of \is form, be left undefined, as a vision in a dream,* is not indicated in
the text, not even by äväan/Oi, which rather {raise thyself) belongs to the
pictorial representation ; comp, on v. 17. Philip received this angelic
intimation in Samaria, in opposition to Zeller, who makes him to have
returned with the apostles to Jerusalem, while the two apostles were on
their way back to Jerusalem. — Täi:,a, J^J>^ i.e. the strong,^ a strongly forti-
fied Philistine city, situated on the Mediterranean, on the southern border
of Canaan." It was conquered,' and destroyed,^ by Alexander the Great,
— a fate which, after many vicissitudes, befell it afresh under the Jewish
King Alexander Jannaeus, in b.c. 96." Rebuilt as New Gaza farther to the
south by the Proconsul Gabinius, b.c. 58, the city was incorporated with
the province of Syria. Its renewed, though not total destruction by the
Jews occurred not long before the siege of Jerusalem.'* It is now the open
town Ohuzzch. — a'vrr] iarlv iprjunc:] applies to the way, von Raumer, Robin-
son, Winer, Buttmann, Ewald, Baumgarten, Lange, and older commenta-
tors, as Castalio, Beza, Bengel, and others. As several roads led from
Jerusalem to Gaza, and still lead," the angel specifies the road, which he
means, more exactly by the statement : this way is desolate, i.e. it is a desert
way, leading through solitary and little cultivated districts. •** Such a road
still exists ; see Robinson, I.e. The object of this more precise specification
can according to the text only be this, that Philip should take no other road
' Comp. xiii. 48 f., xv. 35 f., six. 10, 20. Arnold in Herzog's EncyU. IV. p. 671 ff.
2 Luko lii. 18; Acts xiv. 21, xvi. 10. ' Pint. Alex. 25 ; Curt. Iv. 6.
3 Sec Loback, ari Phrtjn. p. 207 f . » Strabo, xvi. 2. -30, p. 759.
* Eckermiinn. Heinrich«, Kninoel. » Joseph. AtiH. xiii. 13. 3. Bell. i. 4.2.
' Gen. X. 10 ; Josh. xv. 45; Judg. iii. 3, xvi. '" Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. IS. 1.
1 ; 1 Mace. xi. 10. •' See Kobinson, II. p. 718.
• See Stark. Gaza ii. d. philUtdische Kii.ite, " Comp. 2 Sam. ii. äl. LXX.
Jena 1852 ; Ritter, Erdk. XVI. 1, p. 45 S. ;
174 CHAP. VIII., 27, 28.
than that on which he would not miss, hut would really encounter, the Ethio-
pian. The angel wished to direct him right surely. Other designs are
imported without any ground in the text, as, e.g., that he wished to raise
\\m\ aboi^e all fear of the Jeics,^ or to describe the locality as suitable for
tmdisturhed evangelical o^wrations," and for deeper conversation,^ or even to
indicate that the road must now be spiritually prepared and constructed
(Lange), eprjßog stands witliout the article, because it is conceived alto-
gether qualitatively. If avT>j is to be referred to Gaza,* and the words
likewise to be ascribed to the angel, we should have to take ipijiuog as
destroyed, and to understand these words of the angel as an indication that
he meant not the rebuilt New Gaza, but the old Gaza lying in ruins. But
this would be opposed, not indeed to historical correctness (see Stark), but
yet to the connection, for the event afterwards related happened on the
icay, and this way was to be specified. Others consider the words as a gloss
of Luke.^ But if ahn] is to be referred to the way, is is difficult to see what
Luke means by that remark. If it is to indicate that the way is not, or no
longer, passaUe, this has no perceptible reference to the event which is
related. But if, as Wieseler, p. 401, thinks, it is meant to point to the
fact that the Ethiopian on this solitary way could read without being dis-
turbed, and aloud, no reader could possibly guess this, and at any rate
Luke would not have made the remark till ver. 28. If, on the other hand,
we refer ahrr] in this supposed remark of Luke to the city, we can only
assume, with Hug and Lekebusch, p. 419 f., that Luke has meant its
destruction, wliich took place in the Jewish war." But even thus the notice
would have no definite object in relation to the narrative, wliich is con-
cerned not witli the city, but with the way as the scene of the event. Hug
and Lekebusch indeed suppose that the recent occurrence of the destruction
iniluced Luke to notice it here on the mention of Gaza ; but it is against
this view in its turn, that Luke did not write till a considerable time after
the destruction of Jerusalem.' Behind, Wolf, Krebs, inappropriately
interpret epfj/uoc as iinfortificd, which the context must have suggested.^
and which would yield a very meaningless remark. Wassenberg, Hein-
richs, and Kuinoel take refuge in the hypothesis of an interpolated gloss.
Ver. 27. Kat 'i6ov] And behold {there was) a man. Comp, on Matt. iii. 17.
— EvvovxoQ övväaTrjq] is, seeing that 6vvaG-7jq is a substantive, most simply
taken, not conjointly, a power-icielding eunuch, after the analogy of Herod,
ii. 32 : ävöpüv SumaTeuv nnt6£(;,^ but separately : a eunuch, one wielding
power, so that there is a double apposition.'" The more precise description
what hind of wielder of power he was, follows, chief treasurer, ya[,o(j)vla^.'^^
The express mention of his sexual character is perhaps connected with the
> Chrysostom, Oecumenius. * Joseph. Bell. ii. 18. 1.
2 Biuinisjarten. ' See Introduction, sec. 3.
s Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 227. ^ As in the passages in Sturz, Lex. Xen. XL
< So Starlc, I.e. p. 510 ff., following Erasmus, p. 3->9.
Calvin, Grotius, and others. » Comp. Ecclns. viii. 1.
6 De Wette, Wieseler, and others, following '" See Bornemann in loc.
older interpreters. . " Pint. Mar. p. BZi C ; Athen, vi. p. 261 B.
THE ETHIOPIAN' EUKUCH. 175
universalLvn of Luke, in contrast to Dcut. xxiii. 1. In the East, eunuchs
were taken not only to be overseers of the harem, but also generally to fill
the most important posts of the court and the closet,' hence evvovxoc is
often employed generally of court officials, without regard to corporeal
mutilation.'^ ^lauy therefore, Cornelius a Lapide, de Dieu, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, suppose that the Ethiopian was not emasculated, for he is called
ävr/f) und he was not a complete Gentile, as Eusebius and Nicephorus would
make him, but, according to ver. 30 ff., a Jew, whereas Israelit ish citizen-
ship did not belong to emasculated persons.' But if so, ebvoix'K, with
whicli, moreover, tlie general word ävr/p * is sufficiently compatible, would
be an entirely superfluous term. The very fact, however, that he was an
officer of the first rank in the court of a queen, makes it most ])robable that
he was actually a eunuch; and the objection drawn from Deut. I.e. is
obviated by the very natural supposition that he was a proselyte of the gate,
comp, on Joha xii. 20. That this born Gentile, although a eunuch, had
been actually received into the congregation of Israel (Baumgarten), and
accordingly a proselyte of righteousness, as Calovius and others assumed,
cannot be proved either from Isa. Ivi. 3-6, where there is a promise of the
Messianic y«^w?'e, in the salvation of which even Gentiles and eunuchs were
to share ; nor from the example of Ebedmelech, Jer. xxxviii. 7 ff., con-
sidered by Baumgarten as the tyjie of the chamberlain, of whom it is not
said that he was a complete Jew ; nor can it be inferred from the distant
journey of the man and his quick reception of baptism,^ which is a very
arbitrary inference. Eusebius, ii. 1, also designates him as npüiruc e^ iOvüv,
who had been converted. KavöÜKT] was, like Pharaoh among the Egyptian
kings, the proper name in common of the queens of Ethiopia, which still
in the times of Eusebius was governed by queens. ° Their capital was
Napata.'' — On >äCo, a word received from the Persian, " pecuniam regiam,
quam gazam Persae vocant,"'' into Greek and Latin. ° — kiri, as in vi. 3.
Nepos, Datam. 5: " gazae custos regiae." — Tradition,'" with as much
uncertainty as improbability," calls the Ethiopian Indich and Judich, and
makes him, — what is without historical proof, doubtless, but in itself not
improbable, though so early a 2)er7nane)it establishment of Christianity
in Ethiopia is not historically known, — the first preacher of the gospel
among his countrymen, whose queen the legend with fresh invention
makes to be baptized by him.'^
Vv. 28-31. He read aloud (see ver. 30), and most probably from the LXX.
translation widely diffused in Egypt. Perhaps he had been induced by
what he had heard in Jerusalem of Jesus and of His fate to occupy himself
1 Pignor. deseriis, p. 371 f. ; Winer, Realw. « See SIrabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 820 ; Dio Cass.
6.\. VerachnUtene. liv. 5 ; Plin. iV. .^. vi. 35. 7. [140 ff.
' See de Dieu, inloc. ; Spanlieim, ad Julian. ' See particularly Laurent, neutesl. Slud. p.
Oratt. p. 174. 8 cun. iii. 13. 5.
3 Deut. xxiii. 1 ; Michaelis, Mos. E. II. § 95, » See Serv. ad Virt/il. Am. i. 119, vol. i. p.
IV. § 195 ; Ewald, AlUrtli. p. 218. 30, ed. Lion, and Wetstein in loc.
< He might even have hc&n married. See i" Bzovius, ^;???rt;. «</ ff. l.')24, p. 542.
Gen. xxxix. 1, and Knobel in loc. i" Ludolf, Comm. ad. Hist. Aetli. p. 89 f.
6 Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 109. i» Niceph. ii. 6.
176 CHAP. VIII., 29-40.
on the way with Isaiah iu particular, the Evangelist among the prophets,
and witli this very section concerning the Servant of God. Ver. 34 is not
opposed to this. — dwe 6e t. nveiifia denotes the address of the Holy Spirit
inwardly apprehended. Comp. x. 19. — KollTjdriTi] attach thy self to, separate
not thyself from.^ — apa ye yivucKsiQ ä ivayivuaKsig ]] For instances of a
similar paronomasia,* see Winer, p. 591 [E. T. 794 f.]. Comp. 2 Cor. iii.
2 ; 2 Thess. iii. 11. apa, num (with the strengthening ye), stands here as
ordinarily: " ut aliquid sive verae sive fictae dubitationis admisceat.'' '
Philip doubts whether the Aethiopian was aware of the Messianic reference
of the words which he read. — nüg yap av dwal/uT/v k.t.?i.'\ an evidence of
humility and susceptibility, äv, with the optative, denotes the subjective
possibility conditionally conceived and consequently undecided.^ yap is
to be taken without a no to be supplied before it : Hoio icithal. as the mat-
ter stands. See on Matt, xxvii. 23.
Vv. 32, 33. But the contents of the j)assage of Scripture which he read was
this. TT/g ypacpf/c] is here restricted by i/u aveylvLiaKev to tlie notion of a single
passage, as also, ver. 35, by ravrr/g.^ Luther has given it correctly. But
many others refer yv aveylvuaK. to 77 nspioxv : " locus autem scripturae, quern
legebat, hie erat," Kuinoel, following the Vulgate. But it is not demon-
strable that ■Kepioxv signifies a section ; even in the places cited to show this,"
it is to be taken as here : what is contained in the passage,' and this is then
verbally quoted.^ — ug npößarov k.-.?^.] Isa. liil. 7, 8, with unimportant vari-
ation from the LXX." The subject of the whole oracle is tlie niri' l^J^,
i.e. according to the correct Messianic understanding of the apostolic
church, the Messiah.'''' The prophetical words, as Luke gives them, are as
follows : As a sheep He has been led to the slatighter ; and as a latnl), ichich is
dumb before its shearer, so He opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His
judgment was taken aicay ; i.e. when He had so humbled Himself to the
bloody death, comp. Phil. ii. 8, the judicial fate imposed on Him by God "
was taken from Him, so that now therefore the culmination and crisis of
His. destiny set in, comp. Phil. ii. 9. B^it His offspring who shall describe?
i.e. how indescribably great is the multitude of those belonging to Him, of
•whom He will now be the family Head, comp. Phil. ii. 10 ! for ground of
the origin of this immeasurable progenies, His life is taken away from the
earth, so that He enters upon His heavenly work relieved from the tram-
mels of earth. ^- yeveä does not, any more than in, signify duration of life.'^^
1 Comp. Ruth ii. 8 ; Tob. vi. 17 ; 1 Mace. Uutlier in loc.
vi. 21. " Which, however, deviates considerably,
2 Compare the well-known saying of Julian: and in part erroneously, from the original
av^yviav^ eyi'ioi', Ka.T^yviiiV. Ht-brew.
3 Battmann, ad Charmid. 14. Comp. Herrn. >o Matt. viii. 17; Mark xv. 28; John xii.
ad Viger. p. 823, and onLukexviii. 8 ; Gal. ii. 38 ff., i. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 22 ff. Comp, the -noXt
17 ; Baeuml. Partik. p. 40 f. toO ©eoO, iii. 1.3, 26, iv. 27, 30.
* See Kühner, § 467. [xii. 10. n The designation of His destiny of suffer-
*Comp. i. 16; Luke iv. 21; and on Mark ing as r; «pio-is aüroO presupposes the idea of
« Cic. ad Alt. xiii. 25, and Stob. Ed. phys. its vicarious and propitiatory character.
p. 164 A. 1- Comp. Jolin xii. 32; Rom. v. 10, viii. 29,
' Hesych. Suid. ; iTröÖeo-i?. 34. xiv. 9.
8 Comp, the use of TrepUx^i, 1 Pet. ii. 6, and '^ Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others.
HIS CONVERSIOif AND JJAPTIS.M, 177
Tlie explanation, also, of the inilescribably wicked race of the contempo-
raries of Christ, who proved their depravity by putting Ilim to deatii (uu
alpcTai K.T.X.), is inappropriate. Such is the view I have previously taken,
with de Wette and older commentators. But in this way the jirophecy
would be diverted from the person of the Messiah, and that to something
quite obvious of itself ; whereas, according to the above explanation, the
alperat aKÖ r. y. i) i^urj avr. stands in thoughtful and significant correlation to
fj Kplaiq avrov J/pO/j. In these correlates lies the öiKaiuavv// of the Humbled
one, John xvi. 10. The Fathers have explained yeved in the interest of
orthodoxy, but here irrelevantly, of the eternal generation of the Son.'
Vv. 3-4-38. 'A-oKptOtIg] for Philip had placed himself beside him in the
chariot, yer. 31 ; and this induced the eunuch, desirous of knowledge and
longing for salvation, to make his request, in which, therefore, there was so
far involved a repli/ to the fact of Philip having at his solicitation joined him.
— The question is one of utter unconcealed ignorance, in which, however, it
is intelligently clear to him on what doubtful point he requires instruction.
— avoi^ng k.t.?..] a pictorial trait, in which there is here implied something
solemn in reference to the following weighty announcement.''' — Kara rfjv ö66v\
along the way.^ — rl kuIvec] aoööpa tj'vxfK ~ovto sKuaiofievfig, Chrysostom. —
ßaTTTKjdi/vai] Certainly in the evriy-yeTiiaaro avrü tov 'Iriaovv there was compre-
hended also instruction concerning baptism. — Ver. 38. Observe the simply
emphatic character of the circumstantial description. — fh-f/ewf] to the
charioteer. — Beza erroneously supposes that the water \n which the baptism
took place was tlie river Eleutherus. According to Jerome, de lucls Ilebr.,
it was at the village Bethsoron. Robinson, II. p. 749, believes that he has
discovered it on the road from Beit Jibrin to Gaza For other opinions
and traditions, see Hackett, p. 157 ; Sepp., p. 34.
Vv. 39, 40. Luke relates an involuntary removal^ of Philip effected Jjy the
Spirit of God (avpiov) ^ He now had to apply himself to further work,
after the design of the Spirit (ver. 29) had been attained in the case of the
Ethiopian. .The Spirit snatched him away (comp. John vi. 15), in which
act not only the impulse and the impelling jjoioer, but also the mode, is con-
ceived of as miraculous — as a sudden unseen transportation as far as Ash-
dod, ver. 40. Tlie sudden and quick hurrying away which took place on
the impulse of the Spirit " is the historical element in the case, to which
tradition, and how easily this was suggested by the O. T. conception,'
annexed, in addition to the miraculous operative cause, also the miraculous
mode of the event. But to go even beyond this admission, and to allow
merely the country and person of the converted Ethiopian to pass as his-
torical (Zeller), is wholly without warrant with such an operation of angel
and Spirit as the narrative contains, when viewed in connection with the
> See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 7-14. ^ Comp. 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4 ; 1 Thess. iv. IT ;
'»See on Matt. v. 2; 3 Cor. vi. 11. Comp. Ezek. iii. 14; 1 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 Kings ii.
Acts X. .34. 16 ; also what happened to Ilabakkuk in Bel
' See Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 499). and the Dragon. .33.
■• The cxocllent Bengel strangely remarks : ' Kuinoel, Olshaneen, Comp, also Lange,
that one or other of tho aposije-^ may have anas/. ZcVnlt. II. ]). 113.
gone even to America " pari trajectu." • lu 1 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 Kings ii. 16.
178 CHÄI'. YIII. — NÜTE3.
supersensuous causal domain of N. T. facts iu general. — ettopeveto yap /c.r.2.]
he obtained no further sight of Philip, for he made no halt, nor did he
take another road in order to seek again him who was removed from him,
but lie went on his way with joy, namely, over the salvation obtained in
Christ (comp. xvi. 34). He knew that the object of his meeting with
Philip was accomplished. — «f 'A^utov] He was found removed to Atahdod.^
Transported thither, he again became visible.^ — "ACwrof ^ TilDK^ Josh. xiii.
3, 1 Sam. V. 5, was a Philistine city, the seat of a prince ; after its destruc-
tion by Jonathan rebuilt by Gabinius,* 270 stadia to the north of Gaza, to
the west of Jerusalem, now as a village named Esdud.^ — K«;ffdp«a is the
celebrated Kazcr. lEßaarr^, so called in honour of Augustus, built by Herod
I. on the site of the Castellum Stratonis, — the residency of the IJoman pro-
curators, on the Mediterranean, sixty-eight miles north-west of Jerusalem ;
it became the abode of Philip ; see xxi. 8. He thus journeyed northward
from Ashdod, perhaps through Ekron, Ramah, Joppa, and the plain of
Sharon. There is no reason to regard the notice iug . . . Kmadptiav as
prophetic, and to assume that Philip, at the time of the conversion of
Cornelius, x. 1 If., was not yet in Caesarea," seeing that Cornelius is by
special dloine revelation directed to Peter, and therefore has no occasion to
betake himself to Philip.
Notes bt American Editob.
{g^) A great persecution. V. 1.
On the very day of the murder of Stephen, a fierce persecution began against
the chiirch. Probably the mob may have hastened from the scene of outrage
and violence to the assemblies of the believers, in order to disperse them.
This violent, sudden outbreak against those who, until now, had been not only
tolerated, biat apparently approved, arose doiibtless from the fact that Stephen,
who was a Greek, had not only preached Jesus, but had declared that the city
and temple would be destroyed, and the gospel preached to all nations. The
Pharisees, hitherto neutral, now made common cause with their rivals, the
Sadducees, against the sect. The prudent cautions of Gamaliel were ignored ;
the agents of the civil government interfered not for the protection of
the Christians, and the wild fury of fanatical bigotry, maddened by blood,
rushed upon the defenceless witnesses for the truth, and scattered them. Thiis
by the violence of the enemies of Christ his followers were comiJelled to carry
out his purpose intimated in Acts i. 8. The dispersion must have been very
general, though not absolutely universal, as some, beside the apostles, must
have remained, since Saul immediately afterward began to seize and imprison
both men and women.
1 Winer, pp. 387, 572 (E. T. 516, 769) ; Butt- sius, grammat. Unters, p. 30.
mann, neut. Gr. p. 287 (E. T. 333). < Joi^eph. Antt. xiv. 5. 3.
» Comp. xxi. 13 ; Estli. i. 5 ; Xen. Anab. iii. * Volncy, Travels, IT. p. 251 ; Robinson, IL
4. 13 : £t? Toiirov &e Toi' <TTaefj.'ov Ti<T<Ta4>epvrii p. 629. See Ruetschi in Herzog's Encykl. IL
enerjxxvr], 2 Macc, i. 33. p. 556.
'Herod, il. 157; Diod. xix. 85; in Straho, « Schleiermacher. Lekebusch, Laurent.
xvi. 29, p. 759 ; oxytone, incorrectly ; Bee Lip-
KOTES. 179
(h') Devoid men carried Stephen. V. 2.
How toucliing and affecting is the simple statement of Luke concerning the
burial of Stephen, when contrasted with a subsequent elaborate legend : that
" Gamaliel appeared in a vision to Lucius, a presbyter of the church at Jeru-
salem, and informed him where the bod}' of Stephen lay. The high priest had
designed that the corpse should be devoured by beasts of prey ; but Gamaliel
rescued it, and buried it at his own villa at Caphar Gamala, twenty miles
from Jerusalem. All the apostles attended the funeral, and the mourning
lasted forty days. Gamaliel himself, and Nicodemus, were afterward buried in
the same grave. The relics of Stephen, thus miraculouslj^ discovered, were
brought to Jerusalem, and authenticated by many miracles wrought by them
among the people."
When the first martyr "fell asleep," " Saul was consenting unto his death,"
but we do not find him attending the funeral. He believed that one who was
promulgating doctrines subversive of the true religion had met a severe but
deserved fate. While doubtless pitying the sufferings of the man, he rejoiced
in the doom of the hei-etic, and hastened to bring others to a similar end. Tho
two men met once and parted, one to enter into the joy of his Lord, the other
to lay waste the church of Christ. The late Rev. William Arnot saj-s : "I
have often tried to conceive the scene at the next meeting of these two men,
when Saul also became a martyr and joined the general assembly and church of
the firstborn." "We have not the means of determining whether Stephen or
Saul owed most to the Lord. By looking on the surface of the sea we cannot
tell what place is deepest ; but we know that all places, alike the deepest and
the shallowest, are filled, and all present one level surface to the sky. In like
manner, as far as we can perceive, all the forgiven are alike. It is only He who
bore their sins who can distinguish the aggravations of every case. Certain it
is that the first martyr, and the man who kept the clothes of the executioners
at his death, are now at peace. They are one in Christ."
(i') Simo7i believed. V. 13.
He who had bewildered others by his sorcerj^ which he knew to be unreal,
was bewildered by the reality of the power possessed by Philip, and was
doubtless impressed by the doctrine of the Messiah preached by the evangel-
ist. He made an outward profession of his faith and was baptized. His con-
version was spurious and his profession insincere. His mind was aroused, btit
his conscience was not awakened. He desired the advantages which the gos-
pel proffered, but he did not submit to what it demands. A sense of sin, a
conviction of erroi-, and any attempt at reparation for the wrongs he had done,
are all wanting in his case. There may be subscription to a scriptural creed,
the observance of the external ordinances of Christianity, and even some service
rendered to the church, without genuine repentance or saving faith. A man
may have been baptized, and yet be "in the gall of bitterness and in the bond
of iniquity." The wickedness of this man, who " thought that the gift of God
may be purchased with money," has not only given a name to the ecclesiasti-
cal offence of purchasing preferment or position in the church, which is
branded as Simony, but it is a warning against uniting with the church, or seek-
ing office therein, with a view to worldly advantages of any kind.
IBt CHAP. VIII. — KOTES,
(j') Samaritans. V. 14.
A mixed or, as some suppose, a purely heathen race, introduced by the kings
of Assyria to supply the place of the ten tribes, who had been mainly carried
away, and assimilated to the Jews by the reception of the law of Moses. Min-
gled with them were doubtless many Jews who were left after the captivity,
and others who, as renegades, came to them from Judea. On the return of
the Jews from the exile, they repeatedly sought to unite with them in rebuild-
ing the temple, but were repulsed. They therefore erected a temple for them-
selves on Gerizim, and there set up a rival worship. The Jews and Samaritans
mutually detested each other, and maintained a system of irritating hostility.
Josephus says the Samaritans attacked and robbed the pilgrims on their way
from Galilee to Jerusalem, and that, on one occasion, they desecrated the tem-
ple by scattering dead men's bones in the cloisters. They rigidly observed
the law of Moses, and looked for the promised Messiah. They were there-
fore in some measure prepared for the announcement of his coming, and
hence the success of the gosjiel among them.
{ts}) Mission of Peter and John. V. 14.
These two apostles are frequently associated. They must have been warm
personal friends. The striking contrast in their characters would unite them
the more closely, and fit them to labor together. Peter fervid, zealous, impet-
uous ; John mild, loving, persuasive. This is the last mention of John in the
Acts, except once he is refen-ed to in chap. xii. 2, where James is called the
brother of John. In accordance with the directions of the Master, the early
missionaries generally went out two by two. We read of Peter and John ;
Paul and Barnabas ; Paul and Silas ; and Barnabas and Mark.
The object of their mission at this time was of a general character — to in-
quire into the state of things, supply what was wanting, and extend the right
hand of fellowship to the believers in Samaria.
{jJ) They received the Holy Ghost. V. 17.
Calvin on verse 16 writes : " Surely Luke sjieaketh not in this place of the
common grace of the Spirit, whereby God doth regenerate us, that we may be
his children ; but of those singular gifts, wherewith God would have certain
endued at the beginning of the gospel to beautify Christ's kingdom."
By the Holy Ghost here we do not understand the regenerating and sanctify-
ing agency of the Holy Spirit in the conversion and renewal of the soul ; bxit
the imiaartation of such a presence of the Holy Spirit as is accompanied with
supernatural gifts ; the miraculous influences of the Spirit, which were mani-
fested by speaking with tongues, or other visible tokens. The spiritual condi-
tion of those who "had received the word of God," and " were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus," was this : they had been spiritually quickened by the Spirit
of God, and were saved by Him into whose name they were baptized, but they
had not received any special gifts which were visibly manifested, as the be-
lievers elsewhere had received, and as they also received by the laying on of
the hands of the apostles — whose peculiar i^rerogative it seems to have been to
confer such gifts. The case of Ananias, in his relation to Paul, is altogether
of an exceptional kind.
CRITICAL KEMAEKS. 181
CHAPTER IX.
Yek. 3. ÜTÖ] A B C G N, min. have Ik, which is, no doubt, recommended by
Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch, and Born., but is inserted fromxxii. G
to express the meaning more strongly. — Instead of nepiiiarpaip. Lachm. has
irspiiaTpaijj. A weakly attested error of transcription. — Ver. 5. Kvpioq inzev]
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., after ABC, min. Vulg. In some other
witnesses (including S), only nvpioq is wanting ; and in others, only d-ev.
The Eecepta is a clumsy filling up of the original bare 6 öi. — After 6iüi<£i(, Elz.,
following Erasm., has (instead of a/iAa, ver. G) aK7.jjp6v col TtpoQ Kev-pa Tianri^eiv.
TpffUdV re kol Oapßilw eItte' Kvpie, tc fiE 0(?.eic 'noa'jaat ; koI 6 Kvpio^ Trpoc airuv,
against all Greek codd. Chrj's. Theoph. and several vss.' An old amplification
from xxii. 10, xxvi. 14. — Ver. 8. ovöeva] A* B X, Syr. utr. Ar. Vulg. have ovdiv.
So Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Eecepta has originated mechanically from fol-
lowing ver. 7. —Ver. 10. The order ev dpdfiaTi 6 nvp. (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) has
the decisive preponderance of testimony. — Ver. 12. ev öpüpaTL] is wanting in
A K, lo"- Copt. Aeth. Vulg. B C have it after av6pa (so Born.). Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. An explanatory addition to elöev. — Instead of x^'P^'
Lachm. and Born, have rug x^^P°-i< after B E, vss. ; also A C K,* lo''-, which,
however, do not read rar. From ver. 17, and because e-KiriO. rue X^^P"-C is the
usual expression in the N. T. (in the active ahccnjs so, except this passage). —
Ver. 17. ÜKrjKoa'] Lachm. Born, read f/Kovca, which is decidedly attested by
A B C E S, min. — Ver. 18. After äveß'Atipe re, Elz. has irapaxpij/ia, which is
wanting in decisive witnesses, and, after Erasm. and Bengel, is deleted by
Lachm. Tisch. Bom. A more precisely defining addition. — Ver. 19. After
eyevero öe Elz. has 6 2ai)Aoc, against decisive testimonj'. Beginning of a
church-lesson. — Ver. 20. 'lijaovv] Elz. reads Xpioröv, against A B C E N, min.
vss. Iren. Amid the prevalent interchange of the two names this very pre-
ponderance of authority is decisive. But 'Irjoovv is clearly confirmed by the
following on ovror ianv ö vidi r. Qeov, as also by ver. 22, where ovroi necessarily
presupposes a preceding 'IrjaovS. — Ver. 24. Traperi/pow re} Lachm. Tisch. Born,
read naperripovvro 61 Kai, which is to be preferred according to decisive testi-
mony. — avrov ol ßa6rirai'\ Lachm. Tisch. Born, read oi fiaO-qral avrov, after
A B C F t«, lo'"- * Or. Jer. This reading has in its favour, along with the
preponderance of witnesses, the circumstance that before (ver. 19) and after
(ver. 26) the nadrjTal are mentioned absolutely, and the expression ol /laO. avrov
might appear objectionable. In what follows, on nearly the same evidence,
<hä rnv reixovi KoOi'/Kav avrov is to be read. — Ver. 26. After vrapay. 6e, Elz. has
o lav?.o'^, E, 6 naf?.oC. An addition. — el«] B E G H, min. Gee. Theoiihyl.
have ev, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The
evidence leaves it doubtful ; but considering the frequency of napayiv. with iis
' The words arc found in Viilg. Ar. pol. Thcopliyl. 3, Oec. ITilar. in Vs. ii., but with
Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (with an asterisk) Slav. many variations of detail.
182 CHAP. IX., 1-9.
(xiü. 14, XV. 4 ; Matt. ii. 1 ; Jolin viii. 2), -whereas it does not further occur
with kv in the N. T., iv vrould be more easily changed into Eci than the con-
verse. — tTTEipüTo'] Lachm. and Born, read inelpaCev (after A B C 5<, ruin.), which
was easily introdiiced as the usual form (netpäo/iat only again occurs in the
N. T. in xxvi. 21 ; Heb. iv. 15?). — Ver. 28. h 'Ispova.] Lachm. Tisch. Born.
have rightly adopted tis 'lepovi., which already Griesb. had approved after
A B C E G i<, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl. iv was inserted as more suitable
than f/f, which was not understood. Accordingly, Kai before ■napßrja. is to be
deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C N, min. vss. An insertion
for the sake of connection. — Ver. 29. 'EXPt^vzcrrdf] A has 'EV.rjvai. From xi.
20. — Ver. 31. Lachm. Tisch. Bom. read fi . . . eKK?,7]üla . . . dyev eip. oiko-
öoßovßivT] K. TTopEvoixivri . . . tn'ArjOvviTo, after A B C K, min. and several vss.,
including Vulg. Eightly. The original t/ f^lv ovv EicK^Tjaia, k.t.Tl., in accord-
ance with the apostolic idea of the unitj' of the church, was exi^lained by al fxiv
nvv EKKAi^aiat -k äa a i (so E), which T:äaai was again deleted, and thus the Recepta
arose. — Ver. 33. Instead of KpaSßäru, KpaiSßurov is to be adopted, with Lachm.
Tisch. Born., on preponderating evidence. — Ver. 38. ÖKvJjcai. . . . airüf],
Lachm. and Tisch, read ÖKvrjatjg . . . ijuüv, after A B C* E >5, lo"- Vulg., which
with this prepondei'ance of evidence is the more to be preferred, as internal
grounds determine nothing for the one reading or the other.
(m') Vv. 1, 2. 'Er^] See viii. 3, hence the narrative does not stand isolated
(Sclileiermacher). — iß-izvEuv ÖKEÜ.yg k. (pövovdc r. /jnO.] out of tlireatening and
murder h'eathing hard at the disciples, whereby is set forth the pnssionateness
with which he was eager to terrify the Christians by threats, and to hurry
them to death. In kß-n-viov, observe the compound, to which the elg r. ßaß.
belonging to it corresponds ; so that the word signifies : to ireathe hard at
or upon an object : as often also in classical writers, yet usually with the
dative instead of with ng. The expression is stronger than if it wore said
1ZVEUV aTTEclt/u K.T.7..^ TliG gcnltives ä-zeilf/Q and (p6vov denote whence this
ipirvEEiv issued ; threatening and murder, i.e. sanguinary desire (Rom. i. 29),
was within him what excited and sustained his breathing hard.^ — tl> apxiEpsi]
If the conversion of Paul occurred in the year 35,' then Caiaphas was still
high priest, as he w\is not deposed by Vitellius until the year 36.* Jonathan
the son of Ananus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 3) succeeded him ; and he, after
a year, was succeeded by his brother Theophilus.^ — (n') Aa/iaaKÖc, p??'?% the
old capital of Syria, in which, since the period of the Seleucidae, so many
Jews resided that Nero could cause 10,000 to be executed.^ It was specially
to Damascus that the persecuting Saul turned his steps, partly, doubtless,
because the existence of the hated sect in that city wns well known to him —
the church there may have owed its origin and its enlargement as well to the
journeys of the resident Jews to the feasts, as to visits of the dispersed
from Jerusalem ; partly, perhaps, also, because personal connections promised
» Lobeck, ad AJ. p. 342 ; Boeckh, Expl. » Introduction, see. 4.
Find. p. 341. * An2;cr, de temp. rat. p. 184.
ä Comp. iii-TTviov <;,<a^%, Josh. X. 40 ; ^iivov » Joseph. .-1 «//. xviii. 5. 3.
nviiovTo., Nonn. Dtoiiys. 25 ; Aristop. Eq. p. « Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 2. 25, ii. 20, 2.
437 ; Winer, p. 192 (E. T. 255j.
CONVERSION OF SAUL. 183
for his enterprise there the success "nliich he desired. — vrpof räc cvrayjy.],
from whicli, conscciiicntly, the Christians had not as yet separated them-
selves.' — The ra-oijiiition of the letters of (mthorizatlon ut Damascus was not
to be doubted, as that city was in the year 85 still under Roman dominion ;
and Roman policy was accustomed to grant as much indulgence as possible
to the religious power of the Sanhedrim, even in criminal matters, only the
execution of the punishment of death was reserved to the Roman authority.
— rz/f Ö60V bvrnr] who shouhl he of the way. The way, in the ethical sense, is
here Kar' t^ox'i» the Chi'iatian, i.e. the characteristic direction of life as de-
termined by faith on Jesus Christ (ö(5öc m'i>iuv, xviii. 25), — an expression in
this absolute form peculiar to the Book of Acts," but which certainly was
in use in the apostolic church. Oecumenius indicates the substantial mean-
ing : Tf/v Kara Xfiicruv tl-E iro/urtlav. — dvai, with the genitive in the sense 'of
belonging to.^
Vv. 3-9. The conversion of Smd does not appear, on an accurate considera-
tion of the three narratives,* which agree in the main points, to have had
the way psychologically jjrepaixd for it by scruples of conscience as to 7iis ^Je?'.se-
cuting proceedings. On the contrary, Luke represents it in the history at
our passage, and Paul himself in his speeches,* as in direct and immediate
contrast to his vehement persecuting zeal, amidst which he was all of a
sudden internally arrested l)y the miraculous fact from without." Moreover,
previous scruples and inward struggles are a j/riori, in the case of a char-
acter so pure — at this time only erring — firm, and ardently decided as lie
also afterwards continued to be, extremely improbable : he saw in the
destruction of tiie Christian church only a fulfilment of duty and a merito-
rious service for the glory of Jehovah.' For the transformation of his firm
conviction into the opposite, of his ardent interest against the gospel into
an ardent zeal for it, tliere was needed — with the pure resoluteness of his
■will, which even in his unwearied persecutions was just striving after a
righteousness of his own' — a heavenly power directly seizing on his inmost
conscience ; and this he experienced, in the midst of his zealot enterprise,
on the way to Damascus, when that perverted striving after righteousness
and merit was annihilated. The light which from heaven suddenly shone
around him brighter than the sun" was uo fash of lightning (o^). The
similarity of the expression in all the three narratives militates against this
assumption so frequently made, and occurring still in Schrader ; and Paul
himself certainly knew how to distinguish in his recollection a natural
phenomenon, however alarming, from a OGJf ä-nb rov ovpavov associated with
a heavenly revelation.'" This (pöf was rather the heavenly radiance, with
> Comp. Lcchlcr, apost. Zeit. p. 290. ' xxii. 3 ; comp. Gal. i. 14 ; Phil. lii. 0.
3 xix. 9, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22. " Phil. iii. 6.
ä See Benihanly, p. 1Ü5 ; Wiucr, p. 181 (E. » xxvi. 13.
T. 244). '"This applies in the main, also, a^aiust
* ix., xxii., xxvi. Ewald, p. 275, who assumes a dazzling celcj^tial
* xxii. and xxvi. ; comp, also Gal. i. 14, 15 ; phenomenon of an unexpected and terrihle
Phil. iii. 12. natnre, possibly a tliunder-stonn, or rather a
« Comp. Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. deadly sirocco in the middle of a fiultry day,
1864, p. 251 f. etc.
184 CHAP, IX., 1-9.
■which the exalted Christ appearing in His 66^a is surrounded. In order to
a scripturally true conception of the occurrence, moreover, we may not
think merely in general of an internal vision produced by God ;' nor is it
enough specially to assume a self -manifestation of Christ made merely to the
inner sense of Saul, — although externally accompanied by the miraculous
appearance of light, — according to which by an operation of Christ, icho is
in heaven, He presented Himself to the inner man of Saul, and made Him-
self audible in definite words. ^ On the contrary, according to 1 Cor. xv. 8,^
Christ must really have appeared to him in His glorified locly^ For only
the objective, this also against Ewald, and real corporeal apfearance corre-
sponds to the category of appearances, in which this is placed at 1 Cor. xv.
8, as also to the requirement of apostleship, which is expressed in 1 Cor.
ix." 1 most definitely, and that in view of Peter and the other original
apostles, by tov iiV{)iov i/uüv iupana.^ The Risen One Himself was in the
light which appeared, and converted Saul, and hence Gal. i. 1 : tov kyEipavrog
avTov in vsüßüD, with which also Gal. i. 16" fully agrees ; comp. Phil. iii. 12.
This view is riglitly adopted, after the old interpreters, by Lyttleton,' Hess,
Michaelis, Haselaar,** and by most modern interpreters except the Tübingen
School ; as well as by Olshausen and Neander, both of whom, however,
without any warrant in the texts, assume a psychological jireparation by
the principles of Gamaliel, by the speech of Stephen, and by the sight of
his death. For the correct view comp. Baumgarten ; Diestehuaier ;^ Ocr-
tel,'* who also enlarges on the connection of the doctrine oi the apostle with
his conversion." On the other hand, de Wette does not go beyond an ad-
mission of the enigmatical character of the matter ; Lange'- connects the
objective fact with a visionary perception of it ; and Holsten,'^ after the ex-
ample of Baur, attempts to make good the msion, which he assumes, as a
real one, indeed, but yet as an immanent psychological act of SauV s ow?i mind,
— a view which is refuted by the necessary resemblance of the fact to the
other Christophanies in 1 Cor. xv.'* All the attempts of Baur and his
' Weisp, Schweizer, Schenkel, and others ^* See, in opposition to Holsten, Bcyschlag
2 See my first edition ; comp. Bengel, üb. in the Sticd. u. Krit. 1S64, pp. 197 fE., 231 fl.;
d. Bekehr. Pauli, aus d. Lai. übers, v. Niet- Oertel,/.c. In opposition to Beyi-chhig, again,
hammer. Tub. 1820. see Ilolsfen, zum Evang. des Paulus u. Petr.
3 Comp. IX. 1. p 2 ff.; as also Hilgcnfeld iu his ZeVs hr
* Comp. it. IT, 27. 1861, p. 155 ff., who likewise starts from «
* Comp. Paul in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. 1863, jwiori presuppositions, which do not agree
p. 182 ff. with the exegetical results. These « /irioi'i
' See in Ice. presuppositions, marking the criticism of the
"> On the conversion, etc., translated by Hahn, Baur School, agree generally in the negation
Hannov. 1751. of miracle, as well as in the position that
8 Lugd. But. 1806. Christianity has arisen in the way of an
s Jugendleber, des Sauhts, 1806, p. 37 ff. immanent development of the human mind,—
>" Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 112 ff. whereby the credibility of the Book of Acts
>i See also Hofstede de Groot, Pauli con- is abandoned. With Holsten, Lang, relig.
versio praecipuus iheologiae Paul, fans, Gro- CharaJdere, Paulus, p. 15 ff^ , essentially
ning. 1855, who, however, in setting forth this agrees : as does also, with poetical embcllish-
conncction mixes up too much that is ment, Hirzel in the Zd/.«/imw!<!», 1861.— Haus-
arbitrary. rath, der Apostel Paidus, 1865, p. 33 f.. con-
'2 Aposf. Zeitalt. U. p. 116 f. tents himself with doubts, founded on Gal.
" In nilgenfeld's Zdtschr. 1831, p. 2:3 ff. 15, which leave the measure of the historical
CONVERSION OF SAUL. 185
school to treat the event as a visionary product from the laboratory of
Saul's own thoughts arc exegetical impossibilities, in presence of which
Baur himself at last stood still acknowledging a inijstcry^ It is no argu-
ment against the actual bodily appearance, that the text speaks only of the
light, and not of a human form rendered visible. For, while in general
the glorified body may have been of itself inaccessible to the human eye,
so, in particular, was "it here as enclosed in the heavenly radiance ; and the
texts relate only what was externally seen and apparent also to the others,
— namely, the radiance of ligiit, out of which the Christ surrounded by it
made Himself visible only to Saul, as He also granted only to him to hear
His words, which the rest did not hear.^ Whoever, taking offence at the
diversities of the accounts in particular points as at their miraculous tenor,
sets down what is so reported as unhiatovical, or refers it, with ZuUer, to the
psychological domain of nascent faith, is opposed, as regards tlie nature of
the fact recorded, by the testimony of the apostle himself in 1 Cor. xv. 8,
ix. 1, with a power sustained by his whole working, which is not to be
broken, and which leads ultimately to the desperate shift of su2:)posing in
Paul, at precisely the most decisive and momentous point of his life, a self-
deception as the elTect of the faith existing in him ; in which case the nar-
rative of the Book of Acts is traced to a design of legitimating the apostle-
ship of Paul, which in the sequel is further confirmed by the authority of
Peter. — Hardly deserving now of lustorical notice is the uncritical ration-
alism of the method that preceded the critical school of Baur, by which'
the wiiole occurrence was converted into a fancy-picture, in which the per-
secutor's struggles of conscience furnished the psychological ground and a
sudden thunderstorm the accessories, — a view with which some* associate
the exegetical blunder of identifying the fact with 2 Cor. xii. 1 S..\ while
Brennecke* makes Jesus, who was only apparently dead, appear to Saul to
check his persecuting zeal. These earlier attempts to assign the conversion
of the apostle to the natural sphere are essentially distinguished, in respect
character in sv-tprnxo. 1iio\tzmwan,J>identh. u. In the case of a miraculous event so entirely
CÄ^ts^e/'^/t. p. SJOff., flnda "the— in tlif details unique and extraordinary, such traditional
— contradctory and legendary narrative " of variations in the certainly very often repeated
the Book of Ads confirmed in the main by narrative are so naturally conceivable, tliaf iL
the hints of the apostle himsL'lf in his letters ; would, in fact, be surprising and suspicions
nevertheless, for the explanation of what if we should find in the various narratives no
actually occurred, he does nnt go beyond sug- variation. To Luke himself such variations,
gesting various possibilities, and finds it amidst the unity of essentials, gave so little
advisable "to a'^cribe to the same causes, offence that ho has adopted and included them
from which it becomes impossible absolutely unreconciled from his different sources. Baur
to discover the ori^'in of the belief of the transfers them to the laboratory of literary
resurrection, such a range that they include design, in which case they ari^ urired for the
also the event before Damascus." purpose of resolving the historical fact into
' See his Chnsten'h. d. drei ersten Jahrh. myth. See his Paid'ix, I, p. 71 ff., ed. 2.
p. 45. ed. 2. ' .\fter Vitrins;a, Obs.i. p. 370, and parlicu-
''Seexxii 9. The statement, ix 7 : ölkovoi't«; larlv Eichhorn, Ammen, Boehme, Heinrichs,
(tifi/ T)j? <l>iüvfi<;, is evidently a trait of tradition Kiiinoel, and others,
already disfiguring the history, to which the ■• Emmerlini and Brerschncider.
apostle's own naiTative. as it is preserved at ' After Bahrdt and Venturini.
xsii. 9, must without hesitation be preferred.
186 CHAP. IX., 4-9.
of their basis, from those of the critical school of Baur and Hülsten, by the
circumstance that the latter iiroceed from the postulates of pantheistic, and
the former from those of theistic, rationalism. But both agree in starting
from the negation of a miracle, by which Saul could have come to be among
the prophets, as they consign the resurrection of the Lord Himself from the
dead to the same negative domain. In consequence of this, indeed, they
cannot present the conversion of Paul otherwise than under the notion of
an immanent process of his individual mental life. — äirb r. ovpavov] be-
longs to nsß/i/arp.^
Vv. 4, 5. The light shone around him, and not his companions. Out of
the light the present Christ manifested Himself at this moment to his view :
he has seen the Lord,° who afterwards makes Himself known also by name ;
and the persecutor, from terror at the heavenly vision, falls to the ground,
when he hears the voice speaking in Hebrew :^ Sanl, Saul, etc. — ri /le 6iü-
Kcig ;] Ti Trap' e/uov filya y pinpov i]6iK7]ßi:voQ ravra iroieig ; Chrysostom. Christ
Himself is persecuted in His people. Luke x. 16. "Caput pro membris
clamabat," Augustine. — r/c el, Kupie ;]. On the question whether Saul, dur-
ing his residence in Jerusalem, had personally seen Christ^ or not, comp, on
2 Cor. V. 16, no decision can at all be arrived at from this passage, as the
form in which the Lord presented Himself to the view of Saul belonged to
the heavenly world and was surrounded with the glorious radiance, and
Saul himself, immediately after the momentary view and the overwhelming
impression of the incomparable appearance, fell down and closed his eyes.
— Observe in ver. 5 the emphasis of kyu and cb.
Ver. 6. 'AA/ld] hreahing off.^ — According to chap, xxvi., Jesus forthwith
gives Saul the commission to become the apostle of the Gentiles, which,
according to the two other narratives, here and chap, xxii., is only given
afterwards through the intervention of Ananias. This diversity is sufficient-
ly explained by the fact that Paul in the speech before Agrippa abridges
the narrative, and puts the commission, which was only subsequently con-
veyed to him by the instrumentality of another, at once into the mouth of
Christ Himself, the author of the commission ; by which the thing in itself,
the command issued by Christ to him, is not affected, but merely the ex-
actness of the representation, the summary abbreviation of which on this
point Paul might esteem as sufficient before Agrippa.''
Ver. 7. 'E'la-liKeiaav heol''] According to xxvi. 14, they all fell to the earth
with Saul. This diversity is not, with Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baum-
garten, and others, to be obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that
the companions at the first appearance of the radiance had fallen down, but
then had risen again sooner than Saul ; but it is to be recognised as an un-
' Comp. xxii. 6, xxvi. 13 ; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. * See on Mark x\'i. 7, and Baumlein, Partik.
15 ; <i)ü>s 6K TOÜ ovpavov 7rpo(|>ace';. Oil 7repia<r- p. 15.
rpiiTTeiv, comp. Juveiic. in Stob, cxvii. 9; 4 « In opposition to Zellcr, p. 193.
Mace. iv. 10. ' ei-ed?, dinnb, speechless (hvTti. from ieTTor),i3
2 (1 Cor. Ix. 1, XV. 8), Acts x. 17, 27. to 1)6 written with one v (not eweo^), as is done
3 xxvi. 14. by Laclim. Tisch. Born, after A B C E II J<.
* Sclirader, Olshausen, Ewald, Keim, Bey- See on the word, Valck. ad h. I. ; Bornem, ad
Echlag, and others. Xen. Anab. iv. 5 33 ; Kuhnk. ad Tim. p. 102.
SAUL FASTING IN DAMASCUS. 187
essential non-agreement of the several accounts, Avhercby both the muin
substance of the event itself, and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke
in not arbitrarily harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed
(pi). — (i/vOL'ovTfc MPf T7;f (^uv^c] does not agree with xxii. 9.' The artificial
attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely : that rfjQ ipuvrjq, by which
GrhkVs voice is meant, api)lies to the words of Paul ;" or, that (puv// is here
a noise (thunder), but in xxii. 9 an articulate voice f or, that i/Kovaau in xxii.
9 denotes the undtrstandlng of the voice,'' or the definite giving ear iu
reference to tlie speaker," which is at variance with the fact, that in both
places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing ; lience
the appeal to John xii. 28, 29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison
of Dan. X. 7. — jirjöha 61 ^fwp.] But seeing no one, from whom the voice
might have come ; u^jöiva is used, because the participles contain the sub-
jective cause of their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in
ver. 8 : ohiUv eßXeTve.
Vv. 8, 9. ' Aveuyuevuv Se röv ö^ffa^-] Consequently Saul had lain on the
ground with closed eyes since the appearance of the radiance (ver. 4), —
which, however, as the appearance of Jesus for him is to be assumed as in
and with the radiance, cannot prove that he liad not really and personally
seen the Lord. — ov6ip ejSaetvf] namely, because he vfasblinded by the heaven-
ly light, and not possibly in consequence of the journey through the desert,
see xxii. 11. The connection inevitably requires this explanation by what
immediately follows ; nor is the Becepta ovdtva ißl. (see the critical remarks)
to be explained otherwise than of l)elng blinded,^ in opposition to Haselaar
and others, who refer ohcUva to Jesus. — ß?) ßXe-ui.'] he "was for three days
without being able to see, i.e. blind,'' so that he had not his power of vision.*
Hence here /ur/ from the standpoint of the subject concerned ; but after-
wards ovK and ov6e, because narrating objectively. — v'vk ecpayep rjliU- irriei'] an
absolute negation of eating and drinking," and not "a cibi potusve largloris
usu ubstinebat," Kuinoel. 'By fasting 'S>-a\\\ partly satisfied the compunction
into which he could not but now feel himself brouglit for the earlier wrong
direction of his efforts, and partly prepared himself by fasting and prayer
(ver. 11) for the decisive change of his inward and outward life, for which,
according to ver. 6, he waited a special intimation. See ver. 18.
' See the note on ver. 3 ff. text, and may only be considered as the edi-
3 So, against the context, Clirysostom, Am- fy'mij applicathm of the history, although
moniiis, Occmncniiis, Camcrarius, Ca^talio, Baiir makes the formation of the legend at-
Beza. Vatahlus, Cliuius, Erasmus Schmid, tach itself to this idea. That blinding of Saul
Ileumaim, and oiliers. was a simple consequence of tiie heavenly ra-
3 So erroneou-Iy, in opposition to ver. 4, diance, and served (as also the fasting) to
Hammond. Klsner, Fahricius, nrf Cnd.Apocr. withdraw him for a season wholly from the
N.T., p. 440. Ro^;enmiillor, Moru'», Ileinricha outer world, and to restrict him to his inner
* So, after Grotins and many older inter- life. And the blindness befell Saul alnne :
preters, in Wolf, Kninnel,and Ilaclvctt. 'iva mi koiv'ov xai <us äwo riix^i^ to rro^os
6 Bengel, Uaunigaitcn. vojuto-i^jj, iWa ^eia<; Trpofoia?, Oecumeniiis.
• That the blinding took place as a symbol ' .Totin ix. 89 ; EUcndt, Lex. S'opfi. I. p. 308.
of the previous 67)i;-i/(/«/ blindness of Saul « Comp. Winer, p. 453 (Fi:. T. 610).
(Ualvin, Grotius, dc Weite. Baumgarten, and » John iii. 7; Esth. iv. 10.
Others) is not indicated by anything iu the
188 CHAP. IX., 10-18.
Ver. 10. '0 Kvpcoc] Christ.' — h Spd/iart] in a vision ;^ whether awake or
asleep, the context does not decide, not even by ävaardc, ver. 11. Eich-
horu's view, with which Kuinoel and partially also Heinrichs agree, —
that Saul and Ananias had already been previously friends, and that the
appearance in a dream as naturally resulted in the case of the former from
the longing to speak with Ananias again and to get back sight by virtue
of a healing power which was well known to him, as in the case of Ananias,
who had heard of his friend's fate on the way and of his arrival and
dream, — is a fiction of exegetical romance manufactured without the slight-
est hint irr the text, and indeed in opposition to vv. 11 f., 14. The course
of the conversion, guided by Christ directly revealing Himself, is entirely
in accordance with its commencement (vv. 3-9) : "but we know not the
law according to which communications of a higher spiritual world to men
living in the world of sense take place, so as to be able to determine any-
thing concerning them" (Neauder). Accordiirg to Baur, the two corre-
sponding visions of Ananias and (ver. 12) Saul are literary parallels to the
history of the conversion of Cornelius. And that Ananias was a man of
legal 2^iety (xxii. 12), is alleged by Schneckenburger ' and Baur to be in
keeping with the tendency of Luke, although he does not even mention it
here ; Zeller, p. 196, employs even the frequent occurrence of the name * to
call in question whether Ananias " played a part " in the conversion of the
apostle at all.
Vv. 11, 12. There is a '■'■straight street,'''' according to Wilson, still in
Damascus.* — 'Lav'^ov 'ovöiiari] Saul In/ name, Saul, as he is called.'' — Uhv
yap . . . äpaß?ii:iptj] contains the reason of the intimation given : for, lehold,
he prays, is now therefore in the spiritual frame which is requisite for what
thou art to do to him, a?id—he is prepared for thy very arrival to help him
— Jie has seen in a vision a man, who came in and, etc. — Imposition of hands ''
is here also the medium of communication of divine grace. — ävöpa opofx.
'Avai^inp] This is put, and not the simple ci, to indicate that the person
who appeared to Saul had been previously entirely unknown to him, and
that only on occasion of this vision had he learned his name, Ananias.
Vv. 13-16. Ananias, in ingenuous simplicity of heart, expresses his
scruples as to conferring the benefit in question on a man who, according
to information received from many (ä-ö ttoa?..), had hitherto shown himself
entirely unwortliy of it (ver. 13), and from whom even now only evil to
the cause of Christ was to be dreaded after his contemplated restoration
to sight (ver. 14). Whether Ananias had obtained the knowledge of the
inquisitorial k^ovala which Saul had at Damascus by letters from Jerusalem,*
or from the companions of Saul," or in some other way, remains undeter-
' See vv. 13, 14, 17. loc, and Petermann, Reisen im Orient, I. p.
s X. 3. xvi. 9, al. ; differently vii. 31. 98.
3 p. 168 f. »Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 4. 11: iröAi? . . ,
■♦ Chap. v. and sxiii. 2. xsiv. 1 &d\jjaKo^ orofxart. Tob. vi. 10 ; 4 Mace. v. 3.
5 The house in which Paul is said to have 'Comp, on viii. 15.
dwelt is still pointed out. See also the Atis- * Wolf. Rosenmüller.
land, 18GG, No. 24, p. 564. Comp. Hackelt in " Kuinoel.
ANANIAS BAPTIZES SAUL. 189
mined. — rolg äyioir rrnr] to the mints hchmglng to Tliec^ i.e. to tlie Christians . •
for they, through the atonement approi)ri;itud by means of faith,' liaving
been sejiarated from the KÜa^nc; and dedicated to God, belong to Christ,
who has purchased them by His blood (xx. 28). — iv'lspova. belongs to
KaKo. eiToir/ae. — Ver. 14. As to the eTviKalelat^ai of Christ., see on vii. 59. It
ii t\\ei distinctive characteristic of Christianity.'' — Ver. 15. aKthoQ t/.v'iop/f] a
chosen vessel (instrument). In this vessel Christ will lenr., etc. The geni-
tive of qualitij emphatically stands in place of the adjective.' — tov ßaarnaai
K,T.?i. 1 contains the deliiiition of cr/c. £k1. ßoi kcrlv ovtoc; : to hear my Messianic
name., by the preaching of the same, 'before Oeiitiles, and Kings., and Israel-
ites. Observe how the future work of converting the Gentiles* is presented
as the principal work (kOvüv k. ßaai?..), to which that of converting the Jetcs
is related as a supplemental accessory ;^ hence vlüv 'lap. is added with -f." —
The yap, ver. 16, introduces the reason why He has rightly called him anivog
kK^oyijc K.T.?.. ; for I shall show him hoto much he must suffer for my name, for
its glorification.'' The i-yü placed first has the force of the power of dis-
posal in reference to aKirvog ek?.. fioi egtIv : /am He, who will place it always
before his eyes. On this Bengel rightly remarks: "re ipsa, in toto ejus
cursu," — even to his death. According to de Wette, the reference is to
revelation: the apostle will suffer with prophetic foresight." But such rev-
elations are only known from his later ministry, whereas the experimental
v-6iki^(g commenced immediately, and brought jDractically to the conscious-
ness of the apostle that he was to be that ghivoc iiJ.o-jijg amidst much suf-
fering.
Vv. 17, 18. 'A6i:?.(pt-] here in the pregnant sense of the Cliristian brother-
hood already begun. — The 'I?;ffoi>f . . . iipxov. not to be considered as a
parenthesis, and the koI Trlrjad. nvev/u. dy. make it evident to the reader that
the information and direction of the Lord, ver. 15, was fuller. — k. Tr^-i/ad.
nv. ay. ] which then followed at the baptism, ver. 18. — And immediately
there fell from his eyes — not merely : it was to him as if there fell — as it were
scales.^ A scale-like substance had thus overspread the interior of his eyes,
and this immediately fell away, so that he again saw — evidently a mirac-
ulous and sudden cure, which Eichhorn ought not to have represented as
the disappearance of a passing cataract by natural means, fasting, joy, the
cold hand of an old man ! — kvicxvoev] in the neuter sense : lie hccame strong.^"
Here of corporeal strengthening.
■ Comp, on Rom. i. 7. palvation : 'louSoiu re ir-pcÜTOf Ka\ 'EAAijvi,
» Ver. dl ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; Rom. x. 10 flf. Rom. i. 16. And what Piuil was to attain in
3 Ilerni. ad Mg. p. 890 f. ; Winer, p. 2-32 (E. this way, entirely coirespontls to the expres-
T. 297). Comp, o-xeuos ovoyxTjs, Anthol. xi. sion in our passage.
27. C. « See Heim, ad Eur. Med. 4 f. ; Klotz, ad
* Comp. Gal. i. 16. Devar. p. 743 f. ; Winer, p. 404 (E. T. 542).
5 The apostle's practice of alwaj-s attempt- ' See on v. 41.
ing, first of all, the work of convci sion among ** Com. xx. 23, 25, xxi. 11 .
the Jews is not contrary to this, as his des- ^ Comp. Tob. xi. 13.
tination to the conversion of tlie (Jentilcs is '» Sec Aristot. Eth x. 9 ; 1 Mace. vii. 25 ; ."i
expressly designator without excluding the Mace. ii. 32: 7V,<;^ XII. Patr. p. .'.3.'5 ; and
Jews, and accordingly was to he followed out examples in Kypke, II p. 44, and from the
without abandoning the historical course of LXX. in Schleusner, II. p. 367 f.
190 CHAP. IX., 19-2G.
Vv. 19, 20 f. But he continued some days with the Christians there, and
then he immediately preached Jesus in the synagogues, at Damascus, namely,
that He was the Son of God.^ This is closely connected, and it is only with
extreme violence that Michaelis and Heinrichs have referred ver. 19 to the
time hefore the journey to Arabia,'^ and ver. 30 to the time after that
journey. Pearson placed the Arabian journey before ver. 19, wliich is at
variance with the close historical connection of vv. 18 and 19 ; just as the
connection of vv. 21 and 22 does not permit its being inserted before ver.
22 (Laurent). The evdtuQ in Gal, I.e. is decisive against Kuinoel, Olshausen,
Ebrard, Sepp, p. 44 f., and others, who place this journey and the return
to Damacus after ver. 25. The Arabian excursion, which certainly was but
brief, is historically — for Luke was probably not at all aware of it, and has
at least left it entirely out of account as unimportant for his object, which
has induced Hilgenfeld and Zeller to impute his silence to set purpose —
most fitly referred with Neander to the period of the iluepat Uavai, ver. 23.'
The objection, that Saul would then have gone out of the way of his
opponents and their plot against him would not have taken place,* is
without weight, as this hostile project may be placed after the return from
Arabia.'' It is, however, to be acknowledged^ that the time from the
conversion to the journey to Jerusalem cannot have been known to Luke
as so long an interval as it actually was — three years, Gal. i. 18 —seeing
that for such a period the expression indefinite, no doubt, but yet measured
by days (it is otherwise at ver. viii. 11), fnikpai iKavai, ver. 23,'' is not
sufficient. — tv ralq ovvay.^ ovk ynxvvero, Chrysostom. — ö nopHr/aag] see on
Gal. i. 13. — Kal üöe k.t.?..] and hither, to Damascus, he had come for the
object, that he, etc. How contradictory to his conduct now ! * On the
subjunctive ßja;»;, see Winer.'
Vv. 22, 23. But Saul, in presence of such judgments, tecame strong in
his new work all the more.^'^ — cwt^vve] made perplexed, put out of countenance,
kTrearößtsEv, ovk da ri f/Treii»." The form x^^'^ instead of ;<^eu belongs to late
Greek. ''^ — Gv/nSißd^.] proving.'^^ — e-?.7]povvTo, as in vii. 23. luaral, as in ver. 48,
xviii, 18, xxii. 7, of ii considercibU time,''* especially common with Luke (q').
Vv. 24, 25. YlapsTTipnvvTo öi Kai (see the critical remarks), but they watched
also, etc., contains what formed a special addition to the danger mentioned
1 Ö vib; TOÜ ©eoü occurs only here (xiii. 33 is pnt very soon after the conversion, conse-
a quoiatinn from the O. T.) m the narrative quently at the very commfnct'nient of the
of the Book of Acts. The historical fact is : »j/iiepat iKacai, ver. 23. If this is done, that
Paul announced that Jesus was the Messiah, «üiJews is not opposed to our view given above
see ver. 22. He naturally did not as yit enter (in opposition to Zeller, p. 202).
on the 7mtaph;/sicfil relation of the Sonship of * Comp. Baur.
God ; but this is implied in the conception of ' Comp. ver. 43, xviii. 18. xvii. 7.
LuX-e, when he from lii> fully formed Pauline ^ "Quasi dicerent: Atetiam Saul inter pro-
standpoint uses this designation of the Mes- phetas," 1 Sam. x. 11, Grotiiis.
siah. s p 270 (E. T. 359).
2 Gal. 1. 17. " Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. S27, ed. 3.
' Comp, on Gal. i. 17 and Introduction to " Chrysostom. Comp, on ii. 6.
Eo7nans. sec. 1. 12 Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 720.
* De Wette. '3 Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 10; Schleusner, Thes.8.V.}
6 With this agrees also the einJews, Gal. i. Jamhlich. 00.
IG, which requires the Arabian journey to be " Plat. Iaqq. p. 736 C.
PREACniXG AND FLIGHT. 191
la ver. 23. The subject is the Jews ; they did it — and thereby the apparent
difference with 2 Cor. xi. 33 is removed — on the obtained permission or
order of the Arabian elhnarch.' More artilicial attempts at reconciliation
are (juite unnecessary.- — ul ^laOijral nhruu (sec the critical remarks), opposed
to the 'loui^a'toi, ver. 23. Saul had already gained .sr/iolarii among the Jews of
Damascus ; they rescued him from the plot of their fellow Jew.s, in opposition
to de Wette's opinion, that disciples of the apostle were out of the ques-
tion. — J«d Tov Teixovc] through the tcall : whether an opening found in it, or
tlje window of a building abutting on the city-wall, may have facilitated
the passage. Tlie former is most suited to the mode of expression. — hv
a-vpi6i] see on Matt. xv. 37.^
"Vv. 26, 27. Three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18), Paul went for
the first time back to Jerusalem.^ Thus long, therefore, had his first
labours at Damascus lasted, though interrupted by the Arabian journey.
For the connection admits of no interruption between vv. 25 and 26, the
flight, ver. 2Ö, and the Trapaytvöfi. ai fif 'Itpova., ver 26, stand in close rela-
tion to each other. Driven from Damascus, the apostle very naturally and
wisely directed his steps to the motlier-church in Jerusalem, in order to
enter into connection with the older apostles, particularly with Peter, Gal.
i. 18. — rol^ i.ui6ij7.\ to the Christians. — koI Tzavreg e(poß.] Kid is the simple
and^ which annexes the irnfavourable result of the iTTctp. koaI. rolg fiad. Ob-
serve, moreover, on this statement— (1) that it presupposes the conversion
to have occurred not long ago; (2) that accordingly the r/futpcu iKavai, ver.
23, cannot have been conceived by Luke as a period of three years ; (3) but
that — since according to Gal. i. 18 Paul nevertheless did not appear till
three years after at Jerusalem — the distrust of all, here reported, and the
introduction by Barnabas resting on that distrust as its motive, cannof be
historical, as after three years' working the fact that Paul was actually a
Christian could not but be undoubted in the church at Jerusalem.^ — otl
ka-iv pa6.'\ to be accented with Rinck and Bornemann, ianv. — Bapväßaq^
see on iv. 36. Perhaps he was at an earlier period acquainted with the
apostle. ■ — kTZL7iaß6p..'\ graphically : he grasped him by the hand, and led him ;
ahrdv, however, is governed by ijyaye, for i-iTia/xßävEaOai is always conjoined
with the genitive.* — Tvpbs tovs cnvoar.] an ai)proximate and very indefinite
• Comp. 2 Cor. xi. .^3. ically long disappearance and re-emergence
a Comp. Wiuseler, p. 142. of the apostle (Lange, Apoxt. Ze'ilalt. I. p. 98)
3 On the Impelling «ri^upiSt, attested by C X. i-= quite against the coiite.\t of the Book of
see Loheck. ad Phtyn. p. 113. Acts, in which the Arabian journey has no
* According to Laurent, neutest. Stud p. 70 place. The distrust may in some measure be
fE.. the journey to Jerii.><alem in our passage is explained from u lotig retirement in Arabia
different from the journey in Gal. i. 18. The (comp. Ewald, p. 403), especially if, with Nean-
latter is to be i)l iced before ix. 2(i. But in that der and Ewald, we suppose also a prolonged
case the important journey, ix. 2G, would be inleiriipti 'n of communication between Da-
left entirely unmenHoned in the Epistle to the mascus and Jerusalem occasioned by the war
Galatians (for it is not to be found at Gal i. of Anta«, which, however, does not admit of
22, 23),— which is absolutely irreconcilable being verifit-d.
with the very object of narrating the journeys « So in xvi. 19, xviii. 17. Comp. Luke xiv.
in that'Epistle. 4 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 140 (E. T. 1(J0).
' To exjibin the distrust from the enigraat-
192 CHAP. IX., 27-30.
statement, expressed by the plural of the category ; for, according to Gal.
i. 18, only Peter and James the Lord's brother were present ; but not at
variance with this," especially as Luke betrays no acquaintance with the
special design of the journey ^— a design with which, we may add, the
working related in vv. 28-30, although it can only have lasted for fifteen
days, does not conflict, A purposely designed fiction, with a view to bring
the apostle from the outset into closest union with the Twelve, would
have had to make the very most of la-oprjaat llErpov. — Kal öir/yf/aaro] not
Paul, so Beza and others, as already Abdias' appears to have taken it, but
Barnabas, which the construction requires, and which alone is in keeping
with the business of the latter, to be the patron of Paul. — oti] not o, n. —
h tC bvofi. -. 'Iz/CToF)] the name — the confession and the proclamation of the
name — of Jesus, as the Messiah, was the element, in which the bold S2)eak-
ing {kirapprjaLciGaTo) had free course.*
Vv. 28-30. Mf/ avTüv e'lGTTop. k. EKnop.] See on i. 21. According to the
reading etc 'lepova., and after deletion of the following Kai (see the critical
remarks), clg 'lepova. is to be attached to nappTja. : He found himself in
familiar intercourse with them, ^cMle in Jerusalem he spoke frunhly and freely
in the name of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly ug 'lepova. is to be taken as in
KTjpvaaEiv Eig (Mark i. 39), Myeiv «f (John viii. 26), fiaprvpelv eig (Acts xxiii.
11), and similar expressions, where cJf amounts to the sense of coram.
Comp. Matthiae, § 578, 3 &; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 534. With k'kälei re
K.T.Ti. (which is only to be separated from the preceding by a comma) there
is annexed to the general äg 'lepova. -n-appr/a. a special portion thereof, in
which case, instead of the participle, there is emphatically introduced the
finite tense.* — npbg rovg 'E?.?.tiv.] with (against) the Greek-Jeics, see on vi.
l. — kiTexeipovvavTov hveT^elv] does not exclude the appearance of Christ,
xxii. 17, 18, as Zeller thinks, since it is, on the contrary, the positive ful-
filment of the oh -rrapaoi^ovTai k.t.Ti. negatively announced in chap. xxii. —
e^aTr£aT£i?Mv] they sent him away from them to Tarsus, after they had brought
him down to Caesarea. On account of Gal. i. 27 it is to be assumed that the
apostle journeyed from Caesarea " to Tarsus, not by sea, but by land, along
the Mediterranean coast through Syria ; and not, with Calovius and
Olshausen, that here Caesarea Philippi on the borders of Syria is to be
understood as meant. The reader cannot here, any more than in viii. 40,
find any occasion in the text to understand liaiaäpem otherwise than as the
celebrated capital ; it is more probable, too, that Paul avoided the closer
vicinity of Damascus. — How natural it was to his heart, now that he was
recognised by his older colleagues in Jerusalem but persecuted by the Jews,
to bring the salvation in Christ, first of all, to the knowledge of his beloved
native region ! And doubtless the first churches of Cilicia owed their
origin to his abode at that time in his native country.
1 Pchneckenbnrger, Baur, Zeller, Laurent, kvkX<o nex'P' 'lAAupc/coO, Rom. xv, 19. Comp,
comp. Nennder, p. 165 ; Lekebusch, p. 283. Eph. vi. 20.
2 lo-Top^o-ai Uirpov, Gal. l.c. * Winer p. 533 (E. T. 717).
3 IRnL up. ii. 2. ° See on viii. 40.
* From this is dated the äno 'Icpovo-oATj/n k.
VISITS JERUSALEM AND TARSUS. 193
Ver. 31. Oir] draws an inference from the whole history, vv. 3-30 : in
consequence of the conversion of the former chief enemy and his trans-
formation into the zealous apostle. — The description of the happy state of
the church contains two elements : (1) It had pcace^ rest from persecutions,
and, as its accompaniment, the moral state : hccomimj edified—advancing m
Christian perfection, according to the habitual use of the word in the N. T.
— and loalking in the fear of the Lord,^ i.e. leading a Ood-f earing life, by
which that edification exhibited itself in the moral conduct. (2) It was
enlarged, increased in the number of its members," hy the exhortation ^ of the
Holy Spirit, i.e. by the Holy Spirit through Ilis awakening influence direct-
ing the minds of men to give audience to the preaching of the gospel/
The meaning: comfort, consolation,^ is at variance with the context, al-
though still adopted by Baumgarten. — Observe, moreover, with the
correct reading ?} fihv ovv eKKTirjaia k.t.7,. the aspect of unity, under which
Luke, surveying the ichole domain of Christendom, comprehends the churches
wliich had been already formed, and Avere in course of formation." The
external bond of this unity w\as the apostles ; the internal, the Spirit ;
Christ the One Head ; the forms of the union were not yet more fully
developed than by the gradual institution of presbyters (xi. 30) and
deacons. That the church was also in Galilee, was obvious of itself,
though the name is not included in viii. 1 ; it was, indeed, the cradle of
Christianity.
Vv. 32-35. (r') This journey of visitation and the incidents related of
Peter to the end of chap. x. occur, according to the order of the text, in
the period of Paul's abode in Cilicia after his departure from Jerusalem,
ver. 30. Olshausen,' in an entirely arbitrary manner, transfers them to
the time of the Arabian sojourn, and considers the communication of the
return to Jerusalem, at ix. 2(5 If., as anticipated. — ÖLa näv-uv\ namely, tüv
d-}iuv, as necessarily results from what follows.^ — Av66a, in the O. T. Lod,''
a village resembling a town,'*' not far from the Mediterranean, near Joppa
(ver. 38), at a later period the important city of Diospolis, now the vil-
lage of Ludd.^^ — Alvkaq was, according to his Greek name,'* perhaps a Hel-
lenist ; whether he was a Christian, as Kuinoel thinks, because his conver-
sion is not afterwards related, or not, in favour of which is the anything but
characteristic designation ävOpuTröv riva, remains undetermined. — lürai ge]
actually, at this moment. — 'iT^aovc 6 Xpioroc] Jesus the Messiah. — arpücov
oeavrüi] Erroneously Ileumann, Kuinoel : " Lectum, quem tibi hactenus alii
' Dative of manner, as in xxi. 21 ; Rom. ^ 1 Chron. ix. 12 ; Ezra ii. 33.
siii. 13 ; comp, on 2 Cor. xii. 18. »» Joseph. Antt. xx. 6, i ; Bell. ii. 12. 6, iii.
' As in vi. 1, 7, vii. 1~, xii. 24 ; hence not : 3. 5.
it was fllled with, etc., Vulgate, Baumgarten, n See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 35 fiC.; Rob-
and otliers. inson, HI. 363 ff. ; von Raumer, p. 100 f.
' As in iv. 30, xiii. 15, xv. 31 ; Phil. ii. 1. i- The name Au-ea? (not to be identified
* Comp. xvi. 14. with that of the Trojsu Kiv^ia^) is also found
' Vulgate and others. in Thuc. iv. 119. 1 ; Xen. Arinh. iv. 7. 13, Hell.
* Gal. i. 22. Comp. xvi. 5. vii. 3. 1 ; Find. 01. vi. 149. Yet Mvia<; instead
' Comp, also Wieselcr, p. 146. of Atveia? is found in a fragment of Sophocles
« Comp. Rom. xv. '^8. (342 D) for the sake of the ver>e.
194 CHAP. IX., 31-43.
straverunt, in posterum tute tibi ipse sterne." The imperative aorist
denotes the immediate fulfihnent ;' hence : 7na]ce thy ied, on the spot, /or
thyself; perform immediately, in token of thy cure, the same work which
hitherto others have had to do for thee in token of thine infirmity. — aroüv-
vv/it, used also in classical writers absolutely, without ehväg or the like.^ —
iSaron, 1''"'^^] a very fruitful ;* plain along the Mediterranean at Joppa, ex-
tending to Caesarea.'^ — oItivk; kirtarp. ewl r. Kvp.] The aorist does not stand for
the pluperfect, so that the sense would be : all Christians ;^ but : and there
saw him, after his cure, all the inhabitants of Lydda and Saron, they who
{quipj)e qui), in consequence of this practical proof of the Messiahship of
Jesus, turned to the Lord. The numerous conversions, which occurred in
consequence of the miraculous cure, are in a popular hyperbolical manner
represented by Tvav-tQ ol k.t.?.. as a conversio7i of the pojndation as a whole. —
Since Peter did not first inquire as to the faith of the sick man, he must
have known the man's confidence in the miraculous power communicated
to him as the ambassador and announcer of the Messiah (ver. 34), or have
read it from his looks, as in iii. 4. Chrysostom and Oecumenius adduce
other reasons.
Ver. 36. 'Jdmrr;, ^3,', now Jajfa, an old, strong, and important commer-
cial city on the Mediterranean, directly south of the plain of Sharon, at
this time,after the deposition of Archelaus, belonging to the province of
Syria.' — /jaHrjTpia] whether virgin, widow, or wife, is undetermined.* On
this late Greek word, only here in the N. T., see Wetstein. — Taßtßä,
Aramaic ^'T-?^? which corresponds to the Hebrew '^V (.J^), i-ß- SooKac,^
a gazelle.'" It appears as a female name also in Greek writers ;" and the
bestowal of this name is explained from the gracefulness of the animal,
just as the old Oriental love-songs adorn their descriptions of female loveli-
ness by comparison with gazelles. — kuI k7.er]ß.^ Kai: and in particular.
Comp. ver. 41. That Tabitha was a deaconess f^ is not implied in the text ;
there were probably not yet any such office-bearers at that time.
Vv. 37, 38. Concerning the general ancient custom of washing the dead,
see Dougtaei '^ and Wetstein ; also Hermann." — kv vTvepuu] The article,
which Lachmann and Bornemann have, after ACE, was not necessary,
as it was well known that there was only one upper room (i. 13) in the
house, and thus no mistake could occur. Nor is anything known as to its
1 Elmsl. ad Sop\. Aj. 1180 ; Kühner, II. näaai. al xw»«- of ver. 39 ; all the widows of
p. 80. the church, who lamented their dead com-
2 Horn. Od. xis. 598 ; Pint. Artax. 22. panion.
3 Notto be accented 2ap<iva, with Lachmann, " Xen. Afiab.i. 5. 2; Eur. Bacch. 698 ; Ael.
but %a.piiiva. See Bornemann in loc. Comp. 77. A. xiv. 14.
Lobecli;, Paralip. p. 555. lo Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 924 ff., II. p. 304;
* Jerome, ad Jes. xxxiil. 19. Buxtorf, Lex. Tidm. p. 848.
s See Lightfoot, ad Matlh. p. 38 f.; Arnold i" Luc. Meretr. D. 9, Meleag. 61 f., in Joseph
in Herzog's Encykl. XI. p. 10. Bell. iv. 3. 5, and the Rabbins (Lightfoot, ad.
« KuinoeL Matth. p. 39).
7 See TobJer, Topogr. v. Jenis. II. p. 576 ff. ; '= Thiersch, Sepp.
Ruetschi in Herzog's Encykl. VII. p. 4 f. " Anal. II. p. 77 ff.
f But prob.ibly a uidotv. To this points '* FrivatalU)ih.%99.5.
PETER CURES AENEAS AND RAISES DORCAS. 105
having nHiinlly served as the chamber for the dead ; perhaps the room for
privacy and prayer was chosen in this particuhir instance, because they
from tlie very first tliuiight to obtain the presence and agency of Peter. —
fu/ oKiliaijc K.r.T..} Comp. Num. xxii. 16. "Fides non toUit civilitatem vgx-
borura," Bengel. On the classical okveIv, only here in the N. T., see
Ruhnk.,' .Jacobs.^ Thou maijcst not hesitate to come to us. On ötMh,
comp. Luke ii. 15.
Ver. 39. The widows, the recipients of the äyaßüv ipy. k. £?.£f!junrr., ver.
36, exhibit to Peter the under and upj^er garments, which they wore ^ an
gifts of the deceased, who herself, according to the old custom among
women, had made them, — the eloquent utterance of just and deep sorrow,
and of warm desire that the apostolic power might here become savingly
operative ; but, according to Zeller, a display calculated for effect. —
// AopKac] The proper name expressed in Greei; is, as tlie most attractive for
non-Jewish readers, and perhaps also as being used along with the Hebrew
name in the city itself, here repeated, and is therefore not, with "VVassen-
berg, to be suspected.
Vv. 40-43. The putting out ■* of all present took place in order to pre-
serve the earnestness of the prayer and its result from every disturbing
influence. — rij aufm] the dead hod i/. See on Luke xvii. 37. On äveKadiae,
comp. Luke vii. 15. — The explanation of the fact as an awakening from
ajiparent death ^ is exegetically at decided variance with ver. 37, but is also
to be rejected historically ^ as the revival of the actually dead Tabitha has
its l\istorical precedents in the raisings of the dead by Jesus. ^ Ewald's
view also amounts ultimately to an apparent death (p. 245), placing the
revival at that l)oundary-line, "where there may scarcely be still the last
spark of life in a man." Baur, in accordance with his foregone conclusions,
denies all historical character to the miracles at Lydda and Joppa, holding
that they are narratives of evangelical miracles transferred to Peter ;' and
that the very name Taßtdd is probably derived simply from the raMla kovjii,
Mark v. 40, for JaßiOd properly (?) denotes nothing but maiden. — Kai] and
in particular. — Yer. 42. i-i] direction of the faith, as in xi. 17, xvi. 31,
xxii. 19; liom. iv. 24. — Ver. 43. ßi'paä] although the trade of a to?me?%
on account of its being occupied with dead animals, was esteemed unclean f
Avhich Peter now disregarded. — The word ßvpaeix, in Artemidorus and
others, has also passed into the language of the Talmud ('D"113). The more
classical term is ßvpaoöi-ipr/^.^
' Ad Tim. p. 190. » gee particularly Eck. Versuch d. Wunder-
" Ad Anlhol. III. p. 894. gej<eh. d. N. T. aus naliirl. Urs. z. erklären, p.
' 01)serve the middle eiriSetic»'. (only here in 248 ff.
Wxq'H.'Y:), Ihey exhibited on themselves. There * Hence it is just as unnecessary as it is
lay a certain self-consciousness, yea, a grateful arbitrary to assume, with Lange, apost. Zeitalt.
ostentation, in their being able to show the II. p. 129, that Tabitha had for a considerable
pledges of her beneficence. Sec on the dis- time stood in spiritual rapport with Peter, and
tinction between the active and middle of that this was the vehicle of thereviving agency.
eniSeiKv., Kühner, ad X^n. Jfem. u. 1. 21. " Comp, also Zeller, p. 177 f.
Comp, also Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 772. « Wetstein and Schoettgen.
* Comp. Matt. is. 25 ; Mark v. 40 ; Luke » Plat. Conv. p. 221 E ; Aristoph. Pl<ut. 166.
viii. M.
19G CHAP. IX. — NOTES.
Notes by American Editoe.
(M') Saul. V. 1.
The first section of the ninth chapter furnishes a record of an event in the
early history of the church of Christ, second in interest and importance only to
the wonders of the day of Pentecost— the sudden, miraculous conversion of
Saul of Tarsus. He was a man of rare endowments, varied attainments, great
influence, and indomitable energy ; and he became the mightiest champion,
and most zealous and successful missionary of the faith he had so fiercely un-
dertaken to overthrow. More than any, or than all of the apostles, he has
impressed his spirit and personality on evangelical Christianity ; and thus he
has wielded a more potent influence in the world than any man of his own, or
of any other age, unless, indeed, we except that mighty man of God, the great
emancipator and lawgiver of Israel. Of this marked event we have three dis-
tinct accounts in the Acts^one in the narrative of Luke, two in speeches de-
livered by Paul himself — and numerous allusions in his epistles. These ac-
counts agree in all principal points, and onlj' differ in subordinate details.
The variety furnishes the highest evidence of the credibility of the history.
The sei^arate accounts mutually supplement each other, and give comj^leteness
to the record. Farrar says : " It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of
Paiil's conversion as one of the evidences of Christianity. That the same man
who just before was persecuting Christianity with the most violent hatred
should come, all at once, to believe in him whose followers he had been seek-
ing to destroy, and that in this faith he should become a ' new creature ' —
what is this but a victory which Christianity owed to nothing but the spell of
its own inherent power? Of all who have been converted to the faith of
Christ, there is not one in whose case the Christian principle broke so imme-
diately through everything opposed to it, and asserted so absolutely its tri-
umphant superiority. Henceforth to Paul Christianity was summed up in the
one word, Christ."
(n') Damascus. V. 2,
The name of Damascus occurs as early as the time of Abraham, and is, there-
fore, probably the oldest city in the world. It is situated about one hundred
and forty miles north east of Jerusalem, and was, at the time of Paul's visit,
the capital of »Syria. Many Jews resided there, and it is probable a number of
them were present on the day of Pentecost, so that a chxarch was early planted
in it. The city has had a romantic and diversified history. It ^ilayed an im-
portant part in the Wars of the Crusades, and it is still one of the largest cities
in the East, containing 150,000 inhabitants. Beautiful for situation as it is
important in position, it has been described as "the eye of the East," or as "a
handful of pearls in its goblet of emeralds."
(o') A light from heaven. V. 3.
Our author strongly repudiates and refutes the opinions of those who at-
tempt to account for the occurrence on natural principles — as that Paul was in
greatly perturbed state of mind, in reference to all he had heard about Jesus,
Ä'OTES. 197
and had M-itncssed concerning Stephen ; that, while journeying in this unset-
tled and troubled state, he encountered a violent thunder-storm, and was
blinded by a vivid flash of lightning ; that his excited imagination heard a
voice in the thunder, and saw a celestial form in the lightning. He says the
light was rather the heavenly radiance, with which the exalted Christ, appearing
in his glory, is surrounded. The Eisen One himself was" in the light which ap-
peared and converted Saul. This, doubtless, is the meaning of the narrative.
Paul was free from fanaticism, and under no hallucination, and was little
likely to confound a merely natural jihenomenon with a heavenly revelation.
To him the sight and the sound alike were impressively and permanently
real. " And about that which he saw and heard he never wavered. It was
the secret of his inmost being ; it was the most unalterable conviction of his
soul ; it was the verj' crisis and most intense moment of his life. Others
might hint at exi^lanations or whisper doubt : Saul knew. From that moment
Saul was converted. A change total, utter, final had passed over him. And
the means of this mighty change all lay in this one fact — at that awful moment
he had seen the Lord Jesus Christ." {Farrar.)
(v^) Stood speechless. V. 7.
The first apparent discrepancy here relates to the postxire of Paul's comi^an-
ions. Luke says they stood ; Paul saj-s they all fell to the ground (xxvi. 14).
" This verb often means to stand, not as opposed to other attitudes, but to be
fixed and stationary, as opposed to the idea of motion. In this sense the pas-
sage is entirely consistent with xxvi. 14, where it is said that when they heard
the voice they all fell to the ground. Plainly it was not Luke' s object to saj' that
they stood erect in distinction from kneeling, Ij'ing jirostrate, and the like ;
but that, overpowered by what they saw and heard, they were fixed to the sjDot ;
they were unable for a time to speak or move." (Ilackett.)
The second apioarent discrepancy relates to the voice from heaven. Luke says
Paul's companions heard it ; Paul says (xxii. 9), "They heard not the voice of
him that spake to me." The verb rendered to hear is often used in the sense
of to understand — to hear with the understanding. The meaning is that the
words of our Lord were heard indeed both by Paul and his companions, but
were tmc7e)"i-too(Z only by the former. "aKovu, like the corresponding word in
other languages, means not only to hear, but to hear so as to understand." The
expression used by Luke differs from that employed by Paul — Luke uses ^wf/Jj ;
Paul, (puvT/v. Jacobson and others think that this implies a difference in the
meaning, attributing to the genitive case a partitive sense, and so understand-
ing Luke to say the companions heard something of the voice, but indistinctly.
Hackett and Alford both disapi^rove of this distinction,
(q') Many days. \. 23.
During the time inchided by this phrase, the journey into Arabia, of which
Paul speaks in his epistle to the Galatians, but of which Luke makes no men-
tion, must have been made. There is an indefiniteness about the time, and
where and how it was spent, which leaves room for variovis conjectures. " The
following," says Gloag, "appears to have been the series of events : Paul, im-
mediately after his conversion, spent a few days with the disciples at Damas-
198 CHAP. IX. — NOTES.
cus, preaching Christ in the synagogues of the Jews (verses 19-22). Soon af-
terward, urged hj an internal impulse, he went to Arabia, where he spent
two or three j^ears in retirement, preparing himself for his great mission (Gal.
i. 15-17). Then he returned to Damascus, and spent some time longer there
preaching the gospel (ver. 23). Afterward, in consequence of a plot of the
Jews against his life, he effected his escape and betook himself to Jerusalem
(verses 24, 25). It 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
himself gives the greater prominence. Damascus is only incidentally men-
tioned by him. This also best accounts for the cold reception which he re-
ceived from the disciples in Jerusalem." The fact that Luke makes no men-
tion of the journey to Arabia may be accounted for by this consideration, that
the Acts is not a biography of Paul in his private relations or experiences, but
a record of his public labors for the extension and upbuilding of the church.
" Paul, in Arabia, was not an evangelist, but a student of theology ; not a dis-
penser, but a receiver of revelations. He who formerly at Jerusalem sat at the
feet of Gamaliel, in Arabia sat as a student at the feet of Jesus ; and the Acts
records not his studies but his labors ; it relates public events which are his-
tory, not private events which are biography." {Gloag.)
(e') Peter and Paul — Lydda and Joppa. V. 32.
On the rctiirn of Paul from Damascus to Jerusalem he was introduced to the
brethren there by Barnabas. There first Peter and Paul met and took counsel
together. Kindred in spirit, though differing much in social culture and men-
tal training, the high-born, philosophic pupil of Gamaliel and the humble il-
literate boatman of Galilee formed, even during the brief intercourse of two
weeks, an ardent, life-long friendship. Little did either of them at the time
imagine the grandeur of the work in which they were engaged, or the great
things they both were to do and to suffer for the sake of Him they sought to
serve and honor. Still less did they suppose that their humble names would
be inscribed in the heraldry of deathless fame, while the great men of their
day, princes, philosophers, and priests, would be remembered chiefly because
of their relation to them and their work. Scarcely had the names of Caligula,
and Gamaliel, and Annas been known to-day but for their connection with
these two humble great men and their mission. After a few days of wonderful
and intimate fellowship, and mutual explanations of personal experience, they
part — Paul to go to his native city, and Peter to visit the church in the vicinity
of Jerusalem. Hitherto the attention of the apostles had mainly been given to
the church in the capital ; now the most restless and ardent of their number
goes forth on a tour of pastoral and evangelistic labor. In his journeyings he
came to Lydda, the ancient Liid, situated in the delightful pastoral plain of
Sharon, famous for its beauty, flowers, and fruitfulness. The old loveliness of
the plain remains, but it is now a solitude ; and a soil rich enough to supply
all Palestine with food, under the desolating rule of the Ottoman domination,
is untilled and unproductive. Lydda is the reputed birthplace of St. George,
whose name is associated with the mythical story of the dragon, and who is
the so-called patron saint of England. Peter came to the saints there. It is
worthy of note that there are four names by which the followers of Jesus were
designated before they were called Christians — the name by which they are now
NOTES. 190
universally distinguished : disciples, i. 15 ; believers, ii. 44 ; saints, ix. 13 ;
brethren, ix. 30. Here, and also at Joppa, now Jaffa, a seaport on the Mediter-
ranean, and within six miles of Lj'dda, the apostle wrought two striking mira-
cles, in restoring the confirmed paralj'tic Eneas to perfect strength, and in rais-
ing the deceased Dorcas to life. To the one he said: "Eneas, Jesus Christ
maketh thee whole;" and to Ihe other, after prayer: " Tabitha, arise." At-
tempts have been made to explain away these miracles, but they have totally
failed. The impression made on all who witnessed them was that it was the
mighty power of God, and in consequence "many believed in the Lord." Dr.
W. M. Taylor says : "A wonder, and yet not a wonder. A wonder when we
look at Peter, the human instrument ; biit no wonder at all when we think of
Jesus Christ, the Divine Agent. It is Divine power that works in daily order,
and Divine choice can alter that order in an individual instance. Hence let
but the Deity of Jesus Christ be granted, and the whole matter is explained."
300 CKITICAL REMARKS.
CHAPTER X.
Vee. 1. After rii, Elz. Scholz have f/v, which Lachm. Tisch, and Born, have
deleted. It is wanting in A B C E G X, min., in the vss. and Theophyl. ; it
was inserted (after ix. 36), because the continuous construction of vv. 1-3 was
mistaken. Almost according to the same testimony the usual re, ver. 2, after
TToiuv is condemned as an insertion. — Ver. 3. üaei'] Lachm. and Born, read
üasl nspi, after A B C E X, min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Kightly ; the nepi after
ücteI was passed over as superfluous. — Ver. 5. After 1,lfiuva read, with Lachm.
Tisch. Born., nva, according to A B C, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin)
Vulg. The indefinite nva appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of
the apostles, and was therefore omitted. — After ver. 6, Elz. (following Erasm.)
has ovroi XaXrjaEi aoi, tl ae del Tvoielv, which, according to decisive testimony, is
to be rejected as an interi^olation from ix. 6, x. 32. The addition, which some
other witnesses have instead of it : oS AaAr/cej ßij/iara npoi ae, kv oK cubijaij av
Kol näi 6 oIko? gov, is from xi. 14. — Ver. 7. avru] Elz. has r^ KopvrjTilu, against
decisive testimony. On similar evidence avTox> after o'lKsr. (Elz. Scholz) is
deleted. — Ver. 10. avrüv'] So Lachm. Born. Tisch, instead of the usual ekslvuv,
which has far preponderant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy
the indefiniteness of the avrcjv. — ETTtTretrei'] A B C X, min. Copt. Or. have
kjEvero, which Griesb. approved, and Lachm. Tisch. Born, have adopted, and
that rightly, as it is preponderantly attested, and was easily replaced by the
more definite snineGtv (Clem. : ekecev) as its gloss. — Ver. 11. After Karaßalvov,
Elz. has ett' avTov, which is wanting in A B C** E >5, min. vss. Or. Defended,
indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to xi. 5) ; but the very
notice Kal rßfhv äxpi? tjiov, xi. 5, has here produced the addition En' avrdv as a
more precise definition. — ^EOepEvov Kai] is wanting in A B C** E X, min. Arm.
Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr. Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. Biit see xi. 5.^ — Ver. 12.
Tfji 7?/5] is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious. But
Lachm. and Tisch, have it after tp-rerd, according to A B C E t<, min. vss. and
Fathers. Kightly ; see xi. 6, from which passage also the usual küI rä Bijpia
before Kal rd ipivETii is interpolated, rä before ipiTETä and tteteivA is, with
Lachm. and Tisch., to be deleted. — Ver. 16. eüOüS] So Lachm. and Tisch,
after A B C E K, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Ek. Scholz have ttüIlv, which is
introduced from xi. 10, although defended by Born, (who places it «//er äi'«:;\.)
on account of its appearing superfluous. — Ver. 17. ita\ 'i6ov'\ Lachm. reads \6ov,
after A B K, min. ; but Kni was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing. —
Ver. 19. ÖLEvfivp.ovfihov'] Elz. has ivfivfi. against decisive evidence. Neglect of
the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T. — äv6pE'i'\ Elz-
Lachm. Scholz, add to this rpe;?, which is wanting in D G H min. vss. and
Fathers. An addition, after ver. 7, xi. 11 ; irustead of which B has 6vo (ver. 7),
which Buttmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by
the artificial assumption — not confirmed by the expression in ver. 8— that the
soldier was only taken with him as escort and attendant. — Ver. 20. Instead
CRITICAL llEMAEKS, 201
of on, Elz. has 6i6ri, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 21. After ä^(ipa';, Elz.
has Tovi (iKearaAßsvüvi inro tov Kopvri^iov trpdi avrdv, against A B C D E G t<,
min. and most vss. Chrys. An addition, because ver. 21 commences a church-
lesson. — Ver. 23. ävaard'i'\ is wanting in Elz., but is just as certainly protected
by decisive testimony, and by its being apparently superfluous, as o IlfrpoS,
which in Elz. stands before t^i/Z/Je, is condemned by A B C D 4«, min. and sev-
eral vss. as the subject written on the margin. — Ver. 25. tov eloez/jelv] Elz. has
merely elaeAOelv. But tov is found in A B C E G K, min. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl.
See the exegetical remarks. — Born, reads ver. 25 thus : npoaeyyii^uvToi dh tov
IltTpov cli T?/v Kaiaapeiav, npot^pafiuv tli tüv oovluv öcsadipTjaev napayeyovivai
avTÖv 6 Ö£ KopvTJAuii EKTVT}6ijaai koI avvavTriaai uvTiii Tzeadf TrpoS rovi noi^ai irpoGt-
Kvvnaev avTov, only after D, Syr. jj. (on the margin) ; an apocryphal attempt at
depicting the scene, and how much of a foil to the simple narrative in the
text! — Ver. 30. After fräT-?;)^ Elz. has w/wr, which, according to preponderant
testimony, is to be rejected as a supi^lementary addition. Lachm. has also
deleted vrjarevuv ku'l, after some important codd. (including N) and several vss.
But the omission is explained by there being no mention of fasting in ver. 3.
— Ver. 32. öS napayevü^. ?M?i.naEi cto/] is wanting in Lachm., after A B K, min.
Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But the omission took place in accordance with ver. 6. —
Ver. 33. Instead of vttö, read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born, according to prepon-
derating evidence, Ötto (E irapä). — Instead of Qeov, Lachm. and Tisch, have
Kvpiov, according to predominant attestation ; Qeov is a mechanical repetition
from the preceding, in which the reading evo'itv. aov. (Born.) is, on account of
too weak attestation, to be rejected. — Ver. 36. or] is wanting in A BN**, lo"-
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm. ; but the omission very
naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction. — Ver. 37.
cip^afievov'] A C D E H N, min. have äp^äfievo?, which Lachm. has on the mar-
gin. A D Vulg. Cant. Jr. add ydp, which Lachm. puts in brackets. Born, has
äp^äfiEvoi ydp. But ap^duevov is necessary, according to the sense. — Ver. 39.
After ?;//eZ5, Elz. has iafiev, against decisive testimony. A supjilementary addi-
tion. — Ver. 42. ayros] B C D E G, min. Sjt. utr. Copt. Sahid. have ovroi.
Eecommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lach, and Born. An erroneous cor-
rection. See the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 48. avTovZ'\ avTol<; is neither strong-
ly enough attested (A X), nor in accordance with the sense. — tov Kvpiov) A B
E N, min. vss. Fathers have 'li]aov Xpicrov. So Lachm. An alteration, in or-
der to denote the specific character of the baptism more definitely. Hence
some codd. and vss. have both together. So Born, after D.
(s'). Vv. 1, 2. liaianpEia] Seeonviü.40. — The centurion 'vias, oi the Italian
cohort, which, stationed at Caesarea, consisted of Italians, not of natives of
the country, like many other Roman troops in Syria. Such a Roman aux-
iliary corps was appropriately stationed at the place where the procurator
had liis residence, for the maintenance of tranquillity.' — evaeßfjq k. (j>nßovߣvoq
T. &e6v] pious and fearing Qod (t'). The latter is the more precise definition
of the more general (vaeßl/q. Cornelius was a Gentile, who, discontented
with polytheism, had turned his higher interest towards Judaism, and
^ See ^chwATZ. fie cohorteltalica et Augusta, Beiträge z. Würdig, d. Evangelien, 18C9, p.
Altorf. 1720 ; Wieseler, Chronol. p. 145, and 327 f.
202 CHAP. X., 2-4.
satisfied a deeper pious waut in the earnest private worship of Jehovah
along with all his family. Judaism, as Stoicism and the like in the case of
others, was for him the philosophical-religious school, to which he, although
without being a proselyte, addicted himself in his heart and devotional life.
Hence his beneficence (ver. 2) and his general esteem among the Jews (ver.
22.) Comp, the centurion of Capernaum, Luke vii. Others consider him, with
Mede, Grotius, Fecht, ' Deyling, Hammond, Wolf, Ernesti, Zieglei", Paulus,
Olshausen, Neander, Lechler, and Ritschl, as a2}roseli/te of the gate."^ But
this is at variance with vv. 28, 34, 35, xi. 1, 18, xv. 7, where he is simply
put into the class of the Gentiles, — a circumstance which cannot be referred
merely to the want of circumcision, as the proselytes of the gate also be-
longed to the communion of the theocracy, and had ceased to be non-Jews
like absolute foreigners.' And all the great importance which this event
has in a connected view of the Book of Acts, has as its basis the very cir-
cumstance that Cornelius was a Gentile. Least of all can his proselytism
be proved from the expression <po,3ov/uevoc rbv Qeov itself, as the general literal
meaning of this expression can only be made hy the context* to apply to the
worship of proselytes ; but here we are required by ver. 35 to adhere to
that general literal meaning without this particular reference. It is to be
considered, moreover, that had Cornelius been a proselyte of the gate, it
would have, according to xv. 7, to be assumed that hitherto no such prose-
lyte at all had been converted to Christianity, which, even apart from the
conversion of the Ethiojiian, chap, viii., is— considering the many thousand
converts of which the church already consisted — incredible, particularly as
often very many were admitted simultaneously,* and as certainly the more
unprejudiced proselytes were precisely the most inclined to join the new
tlieocracy. — Accordingly the great step which the new church makes in its
development at chap. x. consists in this, that by divine influence the ßrst
Oentile, who did not yet belong to the Jetcish theocratic state, lecomes a
Christian, and that directly, without having first made the transition in any
way through Mosaism. The extraordinary importance of this epoch-making
event stands in proportion to the accumulated miraculous character of the
proceedings. The view, which by psychological and other assumptions
and combinations assigns to it along with the miraculous character also a
natural instrumentality," leads to deviations from the narrative, and to
violences which are absolutely rejected by the text.' The view which re-
jects the historical reality of the narrative, and refers it to a set purpose in
the author,* seeks its chief confirmation in the difficulties which the direct
admission of the Gentiles had for long still to encounter, in what is narrated
in chap, xv., and in the conduct of Peter at Antioch.'* But, on the other
1 Depietate Cornelii, Rostoch. 1701. * II. 41, iv. 4.
2 Seiden, de jure nat. li. 3 (whom de Wette « Neander, p. 115 f. [and Banmgarten.
follows), has doubted, but without sufficient ' See, on the other hand, Zeller, p. 179 ff.,
reason, the existence of Ij.'tJ'n ''")J, in the ^ Baur, Zeller.
proper sense, after the Captivity. » Gal. ii. 11 fl. Comp, also Schwegler, nach-
3 See Ewald, yl/to'i/i.p. 313 ; Kgi\, Archüol. apostol. Zeitult. I. p. 127 ff. ; Gfrörer, heil.
I. p. 317. Sage, I. p. 415 ; Holtzmann, Judenth. U.
* As xlii. 16, 26. Chriatenth. p. 679 f.
VISION OF CORKELIUS. 203
hand, it is tobe observed, tluit not even miracles are able at once to remove
in the multitude deeply rooted national prejudices, and to dispense with
the gradual progress of psychological development requisite for this end,
comp, the miracles of Jesus Himself, and the miracles performed on him ;
that further, in point of fact the difficulties in the way of the penetration
of Christianity to the Gentiles were exceedingly great ;' and that Peter's
conduct at Antioch, with a character so accessible to the impressions of the
moment, comp, the denial, is psychologically intelligible as a temj)orary
obscuration of his better conviction once received by way of revelation, at
variance with his constant Conducton other occasions,^ and therefore by no
means necessitates the presupposition that the extraordinary divine disclo-
sure and guidance, which our passage narrates, are unhistorical. Indeed,
the reproach whicli Paul makes to Peter at Antioch, presupposes the agree-
ment in principle between them in respect to the question of the Gentiles ;
for Paul designates the conduct of Peter as vTrOKptai^, Gal. ii. 13.
Ver. 3. EiJfv is the verb belonging to ävijp . . . Kopvrß., ver. 1, and
iKüTovr. . . . J^üTaiTof is in apposition to Kopw//l. — The intimation made to
Cornelius is a vision in a waking condition, caused by God during the hour
of prayer, which was sacred to the centurion on account of his high resjiect
for Judaism, i.e. a manifestation of God made so as to be clearly jjercejitible
to the inner sense of the pious man, conveyed by the medium of a clear
{(pavepür) angelic appearance in vision, which Cornelius himself, ver. 30,
describes more precisely in its distinctly seen form, just as it at once on its
occurrence made the corresponding impression upon him ; hence ver. 4 :
IfKpoßoq ycvöfi. and ri ken, Kvpie ; ^ Eichhorn rationalized the narrative to the
effect that Cornelius, full of longing to become acquainted with tlie distin-
guished Peter now so near him, learned the place of his abode from a
citizen of Joppa at Caesarea, and then during prayer felt a peculiar eleva-
tion of mind, by which, as if by an angel, his purpose of making Peter's
acquaintance was confirmed. This is opposed to the whole representation ;
with which also Ewald 's similar view fails to accord, that Cornelius, un-
certain whether or not he should wish a closer acquaintance with Peter,
had, "as if irradiated by a heavenly certainty and directed by an angelic
voice," firmly resolved to invite the apostle at once to visit him. — ioau iiepi
up. kv6.T. (see the critical remarks) : as it were about the ninth hour. Circum-
stantiality of expression.''
Ver. 4, Eif fivr/uoGwov evuTT. r. Qeov] is to be taken together, and denotes
the aim or the destination of avi^ßi^aav :* to he a mark, i.e. a token of re-
membrance, before God, so that they give occasion to God to think on thee.
Comp. ver. 31. The sense of the whole figurative expression is: ''Thy
prayers and thine alms have found consideration with God ; He will fulfil
the former* and reward the later." See ver. 31. — ivtß/jaav is strictly
« See Ewald, p. 250 ff, ; Ritschl, altkath. K. 6 Assuredly from the heart of the devout
« See on Gal. ii. 14. [p. 1.38 ff.
Gentile there had arisen for the most part
s Comp. Luke xxiv. 5 prayers for higher illumination and sanctifica-
* See Bortiemann in loc. tion of the inner life ; probably also, seeing
' Comp. Matt. xxvi. 13. that Christianity had already attracted so
204 CHAP. X., 5-16.
suited only to al Trpoaevxal, which, according to the figurative embodiment
of the idea of granting prayer, ascend from the heart and mouth of man
to God ;' but it is by a zeugma referred also to the alms, which have excited
the attention of God, to requite them by leading the pious man to Christ.
The opinion^ that äw/j. is based on the Jewish notion' that prayers are
carried by the angels to the throne of God, is as arbitrarily imported into
the text as is the view * that tJf [ivrjfiöawov signifies instar sacrißcü,^ because
forsooth, the LXX. express n")3iN by jivri^oawov.^ In all these passages the
sense of a rcvGrnouixl-offering is necessarily determined by the context, which
is not the case here with the simple ävlßi/cjav. — On tlie relation of the good
works of Cornelius to his faith, Gregory the Great '' already correctly re-
marks that he did not arrive at faith by his works, but at the works by his
faith. The faith, however cordial and vivid it was, was in his case up till
now the Old Testament faith in the promised Messiah, but was destined,
amidst this visitation of divine grace, to complete itself into the New Testa-
ment faith in Jesus as the Messiah icho had apjjeared. Thus was his way of
salvation the same as that of the chamberlain, chap. viii. Comp, also
Luther's gloss on ver. 1.
Vv. 5-7. The tanner, on account of his trade, dwelt by the [Mediterra-
nean] sea, and probably ajjart from the city, to which his house belonged.
" Cadavera et sepulcra separant et coriarium quinquaginta cubitos a
civitate.""* — The nvä is added to li/uura (see the critical remarks) from the
standpoint of Cornelius, as to him Peter was one unknown. — ehaeßf^] the
soldier, one of the men of the cohort specially attached and devoted to
Cornelius (jüv npooKafjr. avru)), had the same religious turn of mind as his
master, ver. 2."
Vv. 9, 10. On the following day, for Joppa was thirty miles from
Caesarea, shortly before the arrival of the messengers of Cornelius at Peter's
house, the latter was, by means of a vision effected by divine agency in the
state of ecstasy, prepared for the unhesitating acceptance of the summons
of the Gentile ; while the feeling of hunger, with which Peter passed into
the trance, served the divine revelation as the medium of its special form.
— iirl TO 6üfj.a] for the flat roofs '" were used by the Hebrews for religious
exercises, prayers, and meditations." Incorrectly Jerome, Luther, Pricaeus,
Erasmus, Heinrichs, hold that the vnepi^ov is meant. At variance with N.
T. usage ; even the Homeric rfü«« {hall) was something different ;'- and why
should Lnke not have employed the usual formal word vttcoüov ? ^^ Moreover,
much attention in tliat region, praj'ers for in- « Lev. ii. 2, 9, 16, v. 12, vi. 15 ; Num. v. 26 ;
formation regarding tliis pVienomenon bearing comp. Eccl\is. xxxii. 7, xxsviii. 11, xlv. 16.
80 closely on the religious interests of the ' In Ez. Iloni. 19.
man. Perhaps the thought of becomii;g a " Siirenh. Mlschn. xi. 9. Comp. Artemid. i.
Christian was at that very time the highest 53. See Walch, c?« Si»!Ow<'co»7'«rw, Jen. 1757.
concern of his heart, in which case only the " Ou irpoaKapr., comp. viii. 13 ; Dem. 1386. 6 :
final decision was yet wanting. i^epan-aiva? ras titaLpa tots npoa-KapTepovara^,
' Comp. Gen. xviii. 2 ; Ex. ii. 23 ; Mace. v. 31. Polyb. xsiv. 5. 3.
2 Wolf, Bengel, Eichhorn, and others. '» Comp. Luke v. 19, xii. 3, xvii. 31.
■' Tob. xii. 12, 15 , Rev. viii. 4. " Winer. Jiealw. s.v. Dach.
* Grotius, Heinrichs, and others. '^ See Herm. Frirataltei'th. § 19. 5.
6 Comp, on the idea, Ps. clxi. 2. '^ i. 13, 14, ix. 37, 39, xx. 8.
TISIOX OF PETER. 2ü5
the subsequent appearance is most in keeping with an abode in tJieopen air.
— EKTT]v\ See on iii. 1. TrpocTreivnc, hungry, is not elsewhere preserved ; the
Greeks say ■KeivaAioQ. — i/ftsle yevaaattai^ he had the desire to eat^ — and in this
desire, whilst the people of the house {avruv) were preparing food,
TvapaaKevai.ivTov,'^ the fKaraai^ came vpo7i him (lyivero, see the critical remarks),
by which is denoted the involuntary setting in of this state. '•' The enaTaaig
itself /.■* the waking hitt not spontaneous state, in which a man, transjMrtcd out
of the loicer consciousness (2 Cor. xii. 2, 8) and freed from the limits of sensuous
restriction as well as of discursive thought, ai^prehends withhis higher pneumatic
receptivity divinely pi'esented revelations, whether these reach the inner sense
throtigh visions or otherwise * (u').
Vv. 11-13. Observe the vividly introduced historical present Oropd. —
reaanpaiv apxalg (ktkit.] attached with four ends, namely, to the edges of the
opening which had taken place in heaven. Chap. xi. 5 requires this ex-
planation, not the •»«««? one : '■^ hound together at the four corners." Nor
does the text mention anything of ropes, bound to which it was let down.
The visionary appearance has something marvellous even in the way of its
occurrence. We are to imagine the vessel — whose four corners, moreover,
are without warrant explained by Augustine, Wetstein, Bengel, Lange,
and others as pointing to the four quarters of the world — looking like a
colossal four-cornered linen-cloth {Wovrj), letting itself down, while the
corners attached to heaven support the whole. On apxai, extremitates, see
Jacobs.^ — TTÜvTa TO. reTpaivoöa] The formerly usual interpretation: ^'■four-
footed beasts of all sorts, i.e. of very many kinds,'' ^ is linguistically erroneous.
The phenomenon in its supernatural visionary character exhibits as present
in the oKevac (fv u vTvr/pxe) all fourfooted beasts, reptiles, and birds, all kinds
of them, without exception." In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel,
after Calovius and others, holds that these were only unclean animals. See
on ver. 14. — tov ovpavovl See on Matt, vi. 26. — ämcrrdf] Perhaps Peter lay
during the trance. Yet it may also be the mere call to action: arise.'' —
O'vaov] occids,^ slay, not : sacrifice,^ see ver. 10.
Vv. 14-16. Peter correctly recognises in the summons Ovaov k. (pdye, ver.
13, the allowance of selection at his pleasure among all the animals, by which,
consequently, the eating of the unclean without distinction was permitted
to him. Hence, and not because 07ily unclean animals were seen in the
vessel, his strongly declining ^ir/öa/iüQ, Kl'pie \ This Kvpieis the address to
the — to him unknown- — author of the voice, not to Christ.^" — Concerning
the animals which the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv.
' For examples of the absolute yeva-aa-'^at., able for this, especially as the animals were
Boe K3'pke, II. p. 47. presented as living (d-vcrov). According to
2 See Eisner, 0&s>\ p. 40S; Kypke, I.e. Lange, it is ''perhaps a prophetic omission,
' Comp. V. 5, 11 ; Luke i. 65, iv. 37. wherein there is already floating before Iho
< Comp. Graf in the Stud. u. Kiit. 1859, p. mind the image of fishes as tlie foidn to be
2G5 ff. ; Delitzsch, R-'i/c/iol. p. 285. gatliered." A fanciful notion,
ä Ad Anthol. XI. p. ^Q. ' ix 11, 39, viii. 26, and frequently ; comp.
8 T\\\\tfi.<ihes (those without fins and scales on viii. 26.
were forbidden) are not included in the vision, •■ Vultf.
IS explained from the fact that the o-iceCo! was * As In 1 Mace. i. 47 (Thiersch).
Vikatxdoth. i^esAes- would have been vnsuit- '" Schwegler, Zeller.
206 CHAP. X., 17-25.
1 ff.' ■ — uTL oväeiTOTe i(payov 7räi> koivov ?) äi<aOapT.'\ for never ate I nnytliing com-
mon or unclean, the Talmudic NOD IN SlD3, i.e. for any profane thing I
have always left uneaten. ?} docs not stand for mi," but appends for the
exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression.' koiv6q = ßEßrjlog;
the opposite of äyLog (Ezek. xlii. 20). — koI cjxjv^] and a voice, not ?) (fiuvr/,
because liere other words were heard, came again the second time to him,
TTaTiiv f/c Sev-epov, pleonastically circumstantial.* — a ö Geo? tKaOäpiae, av jiy
Koivov] wliat God has cleansed, mcike not thou common, unclean. The mirac-
ulous api^earance with the divine voice (ver. 13) had done away the Le-
vitical uncleanness of the animals in question ; they were now divinely
cleansed ; and thus Peter ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bid-
ding, to invest them with the character of what is imlioly — to transfer
them into the category of the koivov, Rom. xiv. 14. This were man''s
doing in opposition to GocVs deed. — knl Tpig'\ for thrice, which "ad con-
ßrmationem viiluit'''' (Calvin); eiri denotes the terminus ad quem.^ — The
object aimed at in the whole rision was the symbolical divine announcement that
the hitherto subsisting distinction between clean and unclean men, that
hedge between Jews and Gentiles ! was to cease in Christianity, as being
destined for all men without distinction of nation, vv. 34, 35. But in
what relation does the a 6 Qebi; kKaBapiae stand to the likeicise divine institution
of the Levitical laws aloutfood? This is not answered by reference to "the
effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a restitution
of the whole creation,"^ for this restoration is only promised for the world-
period commencing with the Parousia ;' but rather by pointing out that
the institution of those laws of food was destined only for the duration of
the old theocracy. They were a divine institution for the particular people
of God, with a view to separate them from the nations of the world ; their
abolition could not therefore but be willed by God, when the time was
fully come at which the idea of the theocracy was to be realized through
Christ in the whole of humanity.^ The abolition therefore does not con-
flict with Matt. V. 17, but belongs to t\\efulßlme?it of the law effected by
Christ, by which the distinction of clean and unclean was removed from
the Levitical* domain and raised into the sphere of the moral idea.*
Vv. 17-20. The eKaracrig was now over. But when Peter was very doiibt-
ful in himself tühat the appearance, which he had seen, might mean.^" The
true import could not but be at once suggested to him by the messengers
of Cornelius, who had now come right in front of the house, to follow
whom, moreover, an internal address of the Spirit urged him. — kv eavTu]
i.e. in his reflectmi, contrasted with the previous ecstatic condition. —
' Ewald, Alferth. p. 194 ff. ; Saalschutz, » Benihardy, p. 252. Comp. « rpis, Herod.
Mos. R. p 251 ff. i. 80 ; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 16 ; and Wetetein.
■ Which Lachm. and Tisch, read, after AB ^ Ol^haufen.
X, niin. vss. Clem. Or. ; perhaps co-rectly, see "> iii. 20; Matt. xix. 28 ; Rom. viii. 19 ff.
xi. 8. "Ver. 35; Rom. iii. ; Gal. ill. 28 ; Col. iii.
3 Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 27r ; Bornemann, 11 ; John x. 16. Comp. IMatt. xv. 17, 18.
Schol. in Luc. p. xl. f. " Comp. Rom. ii. .28, 29. See also on Rom.
^ See on Matt. xxvi. 42; comp, on John iv. xv. 14 ; Matt. v. 17.
54. 1" Comp. Luke viii. 9, XV. 26.
MESSENGERS AT JOPPA. 207
t?/7ffd/).] as in V. 24, ii. 12. — icai hhl''] See on i. 10. — trrl rbv TriO.öiva] at the
door. See on Matt. xxvi. 71. — (puvi/aavrFQ'] Kuinoel quite arbitraril}' : ''«<■.
Tiva, evocato qiiopiam, quod Judiici domum iutrare metuebant, ver. 18."
They called below at the door of the house, without calling on or calling
forth any particular person, but in order generally to obtain information
from the iniiabitants of the house, who could not but hear the calling.
That Peter iiad heard the noise of the men and the mention of his name,
that he had observed the men, had recognised that they were not Jews,
and had felt himself impelled by an internal voice to follow them, etc., are
among the many arbitrary additions, "of a supplementary kind," which
Neander has allowed himself to make in the history before us. — ä?J.ä ävaaräc
KaTaß//0(] ä?.2ä with the imperative denotes nothing more than the adversa-
tive at. "Men seek thee : but, do not let yourself be sought for longer and
delay not, but rather arise' and go down." The requisition with ä?ld
breaks off the discourse and renders the summ.ons more urgent.^ — fir/i'iev
<haKpiv6/n.] ill no respect^ water ing \'^ for I, etc. The 7rv£j)/ua designates Himself
as the sender of the messengers, inasmuch as the vision (vv. 3-7) did not
ensue without the operation of the divine Spirit, and the latter was thus
the cause of Cornelius sending the messengers. — kyu] with emphasis.
Chrysostom rightly calls attention to the Kvpiov and the k^ovaia of the Spirit.
Vv. 22-25. MapTvpoi'/u.] as in vi. 3. — f^i;/j;/^aT.]^ The communication on
the part of the angel (vv. 4-7) is understood as a divine answer to the
constant prayer of Cornelius (ver. 2). — Peter and his six (xi. 12) com-
panions had not traversed the thirty miles from Joppa to Caesarea in one
day, and therefore arrived there only^ on the day after their departure. The
messengers of Cornelius, too, had only arrived at Peter's abode on the
second day," and had passed the night with him,'' so that now^, ry innvpLov,^
it was the fourth day since their departure from Caesarea. Cornelius ex-
pected Peter on this day, for which, regarding it as a high family-festival,
he had invited his certainly like-minded relatives and his intimate friends.'
— ÜQ 6e kyivETo Tov üaeldelv tuv IT.] hut ichcii it came to pass that Peter entered.
This construction is to be regarded as a very inaccurate, improper applica-
tion of the current infinitive with tov. No comparison with the Hebrew
Vi'\'yi 'np.. Gen. XV. 12,'" is to be allowed, because "ri'l does not stand abso-
lutely, but has its subject beside it, and because the LXX. has never imi-
tated this and similar expressions" by hjvero tov. The want of correspond-
ing passages, and the impossibility of rationally explaining the expression,
mark it as a completely isolated " error of language, which Luke either
> Aa ver. 13. '" Gosenius, Lehrgebr. p. 787.
2 See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 370; Baeum- " Gesonius, I.e.
Ifin. Partik. p. 17 f. 12 Even at Rev. xii. 7 it is otherwise, aa there,
3 Jak. 1. 6 ; Bernliardy, p. 336. if we do not accede to the conjecture of Düs-
■• See on Rom. iv. 20. terdieck, iyiviro must be again mentally sup-
8 See on Matt. ii. 12. plied with 6 Mi^a^A, hut in the altered mean-
* vv. 8, 9. ing : there came fonvard, th^re appeared
'' "Ver. 23. (comp, on Mark i. 4 ; John i. 6), so that it is
" Ver. 24. [TI. p. 50. to he tran.-lafed : And there came (i.e. there
' Tous ivayx. (J)iAovs, see Wetstcln ; Kypke, set in, there resulted) warinheav n ; Michael
208 CHAP. X., 2G-34.
himself committed or adopted from his original source, — and not ' as a
corruption of the transcribers, seeing that the most important -witnesses
decide infawur of tov, and its omission in the case of others is evidently a
correction.'' — errl t. noSac] at the feet of Peter.' — TrfjocrtKvvTjuE] See on Matt.
ii. 3. He very naturally conjectured, after the vision imparted to him,
that there was something superhuman in the person of Peter, comp, on
Luke v. 8 ; and to this, perhaps, the idea of heroes, to which the centurion
had not yet become a stranger, contributed.
Vv. 26-29. Kayo) avTÖc] also I myself ^ I also for mine own part, not other-
wise than you. See on Rom. vii. 25. — avvo/JiÄ. aiVw] in conversation with
him. The word occurs elsewhere in Tzetz.* — elayWi:'] namely, into the
room. In ver. 25, on the other hand, tov e'laeWdv r. II. was meant of the
entrance by the outer door into the house. — Te Tcnow hoio, how very unallowed
it is, etc. — ade^ucTovY is a later form" for the old classical adefuarov.'' The
prohibition to enter into closer fellowship with men of another tribe,^ or, even
but, to come to them, comp. xi. 3, is not expressly found in the Pentateuch,
but easily resulted of itself from the lofty consciousness of the holy peoj^le
of God contrasted with the unholy heathen," and pervades the later Judaism
with all the force of contempt for the Gentiles.'" The passage Matt, xxiii.
5, and the narrative of the conversion of Izates king of Adiabene in
Josephus," appear to testify against the utterance of Peter in our passage,
and therefore Zeller, p. 187, holds it as unhistorical. But Peter speaks
here from the standpoint of the Judaistic theory and rule, which is not in-
validated by exceptional cases"' and by abuses, as in the making of pros-
elytes." Not even if Cornelius had been a proselyte of the gate'"* could
the historical character of the saying be reasonably doubted ; for the
Rabbinical passages adduced with that view (according to which the
proselyte is to regard himself as a member of the theocracy,'^ ^pply only to
complete converts, proselytes of righteousnesss,"' " quamvis f actus sit
proselytus, attamen nisi observet praecepta legis, habendus adhuc est pro
ethnico, " and are, moreover, outweighed by other expressions of contempt
towards proselytes, as, e.g.,''' " Proselyti sunt sicut scabies Israeli." It is
erroneous to derive the principle which Peter here expresses from Pharisa-
came, and his angels, in order to wage war. ^ Plut., Dion. Hal., etc.. 1. Pet. iv. 3.
Among Greek writers also, as i.s well known, '' Herod, vii. 33 ; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, Cyrop.
the verb to be repeated in thonght is often to i. 6. 6.
be taken in an altered meaning. Comp. e.g. ** The cla.sfical aAAd^uAos is not elsewhere
Plat. Rep. p. 471 C, and Stallb. in loc. Least found in the N. T., but often in the LXX. and
of all will such a supplement occasion diffl- Apocr. The designation is here tenderly fo^'-
culty in a prophetic representation, which is bearing. It is otherwise in ver. 45, xi. 3.
often stiflF, angular, and abrupt iu its delinea- " Ewald, Alterih. p. 310.
tion (as especially in Isaiah). '° See, e.g., Llghtfoot on Matt, xviii. 17.
1 In opposition to Fritzsche, ad Malth. p. " ^^ntt. xx. 2. 4 f.
848, and Rinck, Luciibr. crit. p. 64. '"^ As Josephus I.e.
2 Comp, now also Winer, p. 307 (E. T. 412V '= Matt. I.e.
3 Comp. Luke viii. 41, xvii. 16 ; Mark v. 22 , "' But see on vv. 1. 2.
John xi. 32, al. '^ As Schemoth Rabba 19 f., 118. 3, ad Ex.
* Hist. iii. 3'?7, o-uvd/tiAos in Symm. Job. xix. xii. 3.
19. 1" Comp. Sohar, p. 22. 27.
* 2 Mace. vi. 5. " Babj-L Niddah f. 13. 2.
PETER GOES TO CESAKAEA. 209
ism,' or to limit it to an intentional going in quest of tlhem,'^ or, according
to xi. 3, to the eating,' which must have been made clear from the context.
— avavTcppZ/T.] without contradiction.* — Kal i/xol 6 Oebg eöet^e] Contrast to
v/ielg eKiaraaOe. The element of contrast lies not in the copula, but in the
relation of the two clauses : Ye know . . . and to me God has showed.^
Very often so in John. The ü ÖEof iöei^e took place through the disclosure
by means of the vision, ver. 3 ff., the allegorical meaning of which Peter
understood. — iitjiUva k.t.2..\ namely, in and for itself. — rivi. Myui] xoith what
reason, i.e. wherefore. See examples from classical writers in Kypke.
Comp, on Matt. v. 32. The dative denotes the mediate cause."
Ver. 30. The correct view is that whicli has been the usual one since
Chrysostom, lield by Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, Bengel, Kuinoel, Olshausen :
Four days ago I was fasting until this hour, i.e. until the hour of the day
which it now is, and was praying at the ninth Iwur. änij TerdprT/g i/fiipag is
quarto ahhinc die, on the fourth day from the present, counting backwards,
and the expression is to be explained as in John xi. 18, xxi. 8 ; Rev. xiv.
20.' Comp. Ex. xii. 15, ä~6 rfjq npur/jg y/xtpag : on the first day before.
Cornelius wishes to indicate exactly (1) the day and hour when he had seen
the vision, — namely, on the fourth day before, and at the ninth hour;
and (2) in what condition he was when it occurred, — namely, that he had
been engaged that day in an exercise of fasting, which he had already con-
tinued up to the very hour that day, which it now was ; and in connec-
tion with this exercise of fasting, he had spent the ninth hour of the day —
the prayer-hour — in prayer, and then the vision had surprised him, kuI
Uov K.r.X. Incorrectly, Heinrichs, Neander, de Wette render: For four
days I fasted until this hour, when the vision occurred, namely, the nintli
hour, etc. Against this view it may be decisively urged that in this way
Cornelius would not specify nt all the day on which he had the vision, and
that TavT)]q cannot mean anything else than the 2)resent hour. — kvd-. r. Qiov\
Ver. 8. Rev. xvi. 19. The opposite, Luke xii. 6.
Ver. 33. 'Evutwv tov Kvpiov (see critical remarks), Hiri' 'J?/, in conspectu
Dei. Cornelius knows that it is God, who so wonderfully arranged every-
thing, before whose eyes this assembly in the house stands. He knows
Him to he present as a witness. — anö (see the critical remarks), on the part
of, divinitus.^
Vv. 34, 35. 'AWfaf K.T./l.] as in viii. 35. — With truth, so that this
insight, which I have obtained, is true.^ I perceive that God is not partial,
allowing Himself to be influenced by external relations not belonging to the
moral sphere ; but in every nation he that feareth Him and worketh rightness '"
' Schoettgen. • Comp. Plat. Gorg. p. 512 C : ti.v<. Sucoku
^ Hofmanh, Schrifthew. II. 2, p. 39. Aoyw toO iJ.i)xo.vorroi.ov /caTa0povei9 ;
' Ebrard, Lange, Ewald. ' See Winer, p. 518 f. (E T. 697 f.).
< Poiyb. xxiii. 8. 11, vi. 7. 7, xxviii. 11. 4. 8 gge Winer, p. 34? f. (E. T 4(53).
Comp. ai'avTiAeicTco!, Luclan. C(7/. 6, ConiJtt;. 9. »Comp, on Marie xii. 14, and Fritzsche,
"Sanctum fidei silcntium," Calvin. Qiiaeat. Luc. p 137 flf.
* Comp. BornemaTin, Schol. in Luc. p. 102 ; '<> Acts rightly, comp. Ps. xv. 2; Ileb. xi. 33;
Hartunsr, Partikel/. II. p. 117;Küliner, aä Luke i. 20 ; (he opposite, Malt. vli. 23.
Xen. Mtm. iii. 7. (>.
310 CHAP. X., 36-38.
is acceptable to Him, — namely, to be received into the Christian fellowship
with God. Comp. xv. 14. Peter, with the certainty of a divinely- obtained
conviction, denies in general that, as regards his acceptance, God goes to
work in any way partially ; and, on the other hand, affirms in particular
that in every nation — äv rt ÜKpoßvGTOQ ianv, av te efmepiTo/uoc, Chrysostom —
etc. To take this contrast, ver. 35, as no longer dependent on on, but as
mdependent, ' makes its importance the more strongly apparent. "What is
meant is the ethico-religious preliminary frame requisite for admission
into Christianity, which must be a state of fellowship with God sindlar to
the piety of Cornelius and his household, however different in appearance
and form according to the degree of earlier knowledge and morality in each
case, yet always a being given or a being drawn of God, according to the
Gospel of John, and an attitude of heart and life toward the Christian sal-
vation, which is absolutely independent of difference of nationality. The
general truth of the proposition, as aj^plied even to the undevout and sinners
among Jews and Gentiles, rests on the necessity of /leravoia as a preliminary
condition of admission.^ It is a misuse of this expression when, in spite of
ver. 43, it is often aelduced as a proof of the superfluousness of faith in the
specific doctrines of Christianity ; for Jf/cröf avrü ian in fact denotes (ver.
36 ff.) tlie capability, in relation to God, of becoming a Christian, and not
the capability of being saved without Christ. Bengel rightly says : ' ' non
indiffereutismus religionum, sed indiflerentia nationum hie asseritur. " — Re-
specting npoauTTolr/TTTr/^, not found elsewhere, see on Gal. ii. 6 (v').
Vv. 36-43. After this general declaration regarding the acceptaWoiess for
Christianity, Peter now prepares those present for its actual acceptance, by
shortly explaining the characteristic dignity of Jesus, inasmuch as he (1)
reminds them of His earthly work to His death on the cross, vv. 36-39 ;
(2) then points to His resurrection and to the apostolic commission which
the disciples had received from the Risen One, vv. 40-43 ; and finally, (3)
mentions the prophetic prediction, which indicates Jesus as the universal
Reconciler by means of faith on Him, ver. 43.'
Vv. 36-38. The correct construction is, that we take the three accusa-
tives : Tov ^dyov, ver. 36, to }ev6^. pf/iia, ver. 37, and 'Itjgovv tov ükö Nafap.,
ver 38, as dependent on v/ielg olöare, ver. 37, and treat ovröi; ean irävTuv KvpioQ
as a parenthesis. Peter, namely, in the tov \6yov already has the i/zelf olöare
in view ; but he interrupts himself by the insertion oi-of . . . Kvpioc, and
now resumes the thought begun in ver. 36, in order to carry it out more
amply, and that in such a way that he now puts vfidc olöare first, and then
attaches the continuation in its extended and amplified form hj'l7/aovv rov
änb NaC. by way of apposition. The message, which He (God, ver. 35) sent to
tlie Israelites, ^ when He made Tcnown salvation through Jesus Christ, He is Lord
of all ! — ye hnow the loord, which icent forth through all Judaea, having begun
from Oalilee after the baptism which John preached — Jesus of Nazareth, ye know
hoiD God anointed Him, consecrated Him tobe the Messianic King,^ icith the
' Luther, Castalio, and many others. 55 f .
» II. 38, iii. 19, ai. * Comp. xiii. 26.
' Comp. Seylcr in the Stud. u. Krit. ia32, p. ^ See on iv. 27.
PETEIl's ADDRESS. 311
Iloly Spirit a)nl with power, who went about doing good and healing, etc. This
view is quite in keeping with the hurriedly aggregated and inartistic mode
of expression of Peter, particularly at this urgent moment of extraordinary
and profound emotion.' The most plausible objection to this construction
is that of Bengel ■? '' Noverant auditores historiam, de qua mox, non item
rationes inferiores, de quibus hoc versu." But the contents of the Myor is,
in fact, stated hy tl(j7/v?]v (hä 'I. X. so generally and, without its rationea
inferiores, so purely historically, that in that general shape it could not bo
anything strange to hearers, to whom that was known, which is said in vv.
87 and 38. Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Wolf, Heumann, Beck,'
Heinrichs, Kuinoel make the connection almost as we have given it ; but
they attach vfiel^ olöare to tov ?i6yov, and take to ysvdfiEvov pij/xa as apposition
to TOV Tidyov, — by which, however, ovtoq eütl ttovtuv Kvpioc makes its weight,
in keeping with the connection, far less sensibly felt than according to our
view, under which it by the very fact of its high significance as an element
breaks off the construction. Others refer tui> 7.6yov hv k.t.1. to ichat jjrccedcs,
in which case, however, it cannot be taken either as for öv Tioyov, Beza,
Grotius, comp. Bengel and others, or with Olshausen, after Calvin ana
others, for KaTä tov löyov bv k.t.Ti. ; but would have, with de "Wette,* to be
made dependent on KaTaXa/xß., or to be regarded as an appositional addition,*
and consequently would be epexegetical of oti o'vk ectl . . . öektoc uvtu egti.
In this case EipijvT] would have to be understood of ;)race hetioeen Jeics and
Gentiles. But even apart from this inadmissible explanation of Elprjvrjv (see
below), the 7.6yoq of ver. 36, so far as it proclaims this peace, is something
very different from the doctrine indicated in ver. 35, in which there is ex-
pressed only the universally requisite j^r«^ step towards Christianity. ^More-
over, Peter could not yet at this time say that God had caused that peace to
be proclaimed through Christ — for this he required a further development
starting from his present experience— for which a reference to i. 8 and to
the universalism of Luke's Gospel by no means suffices. Pfeiffer,* likewise
attaching it to what precedes, explains thus : lie is in so far acceptable to
liim, as he has the destination of receiving the message of salvation in Christ ;
so that thus EvayyEli^. would be passive,^ and tov 7.6yov, as also £lp/jv?/v,
would be the object to it. But this is linguistically incorrect, inasmuch as
it would require at least the infinitive instead of EL'ayyE7u^6pEvoq ; and besides,
Evayy£7.i^opai. ri, there is something 2^roclaimed to me, is foreign to the N. T.
usage. Weiss " gives the meaning: " Every one who fears God and does
right, l)ij him tlie gospel may be accepted ; " so that tov 76yov would stand by
attraction for 6 7.6yoc, which is impossible.' According to Ewald, p. 248,
tov 76yov K.-.7.. is intended to be nothing but an explanation to öiKainahvrjv.
A view which is the more harsh, the further r. 7.6yov stands removed from
(StKaioa., the less tov 7.öyov bv k.t.7i. coincides as regards the notion of it with
' Comp, on Eph. ii. 1 ; Winer, p. 525 (E. T. s Biittm. ymtt. Gr. p. 134 (E. T. 153).
706). " In the Stud. n. Krit. 1850, p. 401 fT.
> Comp, de Wette. ' Luke vii. 22 ; Heb. iv. 2, G.
» Obss. ait. exeg. I. p. 13. » Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 151 f.
< Comp. Baumgarten and Lange. » In 1 Pet. ii. 7 it is otherwise.
213 CHAP, s., 39.
Simioa., and the more the expression fpyal^eadat \6yov is foreign to the N. T.
— e'lpTjviiv is explained by many, including Heinrichs, Seyler, de Wette, of
peace hetween Jews and Gentiles (Epli. ii. 17), but very arbitrarily, since no
more precise definition is annexed, although the Jews are just named as the
receivers of the gospel. Nor is there in what follows any mention of that peace.
Hence it is to be generally taken as = ^"^'^^ salvation^ and the -whole Mes-
sianic salvation is meant, which God has made known through Christ to
the children of Israel ; not specially ^>e«ce with Ood,^ which yet is the basis
of salvation.^ — ötä 'I. X. belongs to evayy., not to üptjvrjv f for ehayj. elp. öiä
'I. X. contains the more precise explanation of the top X6y. bv äneoT., con-
sequently must also designate Jesus as the se7it of God, tJirough whom the
/ld}of is brought. — ttuvtuv] not neuter,* but masctiline. Christ is Lord of all,
of Jews and Gentiles, like God Himself,^ ^hosQ avvdpovoq He is/' The aim
of this emphatically added remark is to make the tiniversal destination of
the word primarily sent to the Jews to be felt by the Gentile hearers, who
were not to regard themselves as excluded h^ uv äniaT. toIq vlolc 'lap.'' —
prj/xa] word, not the things, de Wette and older expositors, which it does
not mean even in v. 33 ; Luke ii. 15." It resumes the preceding rbv \6yov.
On yzvop.., comp. Luke iii. 3. Concerning the order of the words, instead
of TO Kad' Ö7.. T. 'lov6. yevofi. p^fia, see Kühner." — In ver. 38 the discourse
now passes from the word, the announcement of which to the Jews was
known to the hearers, to the announcer, of whose Messianic working they
would likewise have knowledge. — üc expca^v avrdv] renders prominent the
special divine Messianic element in the general 'I?;(yovi> rbv hno NaC-, oUare.^"
As to the idea of this xpi-^'^^ see on iv. 27. — of SifjWep] him (avröi'), who,
after receiving this anointing, icent through, Galilee and Judea, ver. 37,
doing good, and in particular AeaZi«^, etc. — In the compound verb Karadwaar.
is implied hostile domination." — ß(f uvrov is not spoken according to a
" lower view," de Wette, against which, see on ii. 36 ; but the metaphys-
ical relation of Christ to the Father is not excluded by this general ex-
pression,''^ although in this circle of hearers it did not yet demand a specific
prominence. Comp. Bengel: " parcius loquitur pro auditorum captu de
majestate Christi."
Vv. 39-41. "Ol' Kai ävel?inv] namely, ol 'lovSaloi. 'Oi' refers to the subject
of e-noLTjaev. There lies at the bottom of the icai, also, the conception of the
other persecutions, etc., to which even the äve'ilov was added. See on the
climactic idea indicated by ml after relatives, Härtung."— öi^e; A. Kpeima.'] as
» Rom. V. 1, Caloviu?, and others. fit, nt addatur mentio ejus ppeciatim, quod
* Comp, on Rom. x. 15. convenit cum re praeseuti." Comp. vi. 3, xi.
' Bengcl and others. 24, xiii. 52 ; also Luke i. .35, xxiv. 20.
♦ Luther and others. ' ii Jas. ii 6; Wisd. ii 10, xv. 14; Eeclus.
5 Rom. iii. 29, x. 12. xlviii. 12; Xen. Symp. ii. 8; Strabo, vi. p.
« Comp. Rom. x. 12, xiv. 9 ; Eph. iv. 5 f. 270 ; Joseph. Aiitt. xii. 3. 3 ; Plut. de Is. et
' Comp. ver. 43. Oftir. 41 : KaraSui'ao-TeOoi' r) KaTaßiaioßevov.
8 Comp on Matt. iv. 4. Comp. KaraSovkovv.
" Ad Xen. Andb. iv. 2. 1 him into the perfect way, and to
teach him those truths which are as light to his soul." (Denton.) Dick says :
" Cornelius believed in the true God, and this faith rendered his religious ser-
vices acceptable." MacDuff, Abbott, and Jacobson concur with Calvin in the
opinion that Cornelius was a true, though unenlightened believer before the
visit of Peter.
There are three centurions mentioned M-ith commendation by the evangel-
ists. Of one our Lord said: "I have not foimd so great faith, no not in.
Israel " (]\Iatt. viii. 10). Another, standing at the cross of Jesus, said : " Truly
this was the Son of God " (Matt, xxvii. 54). And in this chapter Cornelius.
(u') Fell into a trance. V. 10.
" The f^■(T^«o•(? of Peter seems to differ from the eoa/xa oi Cornelius in this,
that whereas Peter was entirely insensible to external things, and saw only
that which passed before his spirit, but which, as in a dream, had no objective
reality, Cornelius in a waking state, and attentive to what was around him,
saw what actually occurred. The linen cloth which came down from heaven
was an internal vision imparted to Peter ; whereas the angel who stood before
Cornelius was an external reality." (Gloag, so also Alford, who, however, inti-
mates that the usage of such a distinction between the two words is not always
strictly observed.) "His senses being abstracted from outward objects and
rapt in a supernatural state, a vision was revealed to his inner soul, engrossing
and absor1)ing all his thought and attention." This was a sudden and over-
powering influence of the Spirit ; a state of unconsciousness as to the impres-
sions made upon the senses, and of entire abstraction from what was going on
218 CHAP. X. — NOTES.
in the world around him, during which time there are present to the soul clear
visions of heavenly realities." The same word is used in the Septuagint con-
cerning the condition of Abraham when the future history of his posterity was
revealed to him ; also in reference to the condition of Paul, xxii. 17. The
trance may be distinguished from a dream in that it is not connected with nat-
ural sleep ; and from a vision, in that the person in a trance is unconscious, and
the objects presented have no real objective existence.
(v^) Accepted with him. V. 35.
In reference to this statement of the apostle Alford observes : "It is very
important that we should hold the right clue to guide us in understanding this
saying. The question which recent events had solved in Peter's mind was
that of the admissibility of men of all nations into the church of Christ. In
this sense only had he received any information as to the acceptableness of men of
all nations before God. He saw that in every nation men who seek after God,
who receive his witness of himself, without which he has left no man, and
humbly follow his will, as far as they know it— these have no extraneous hin-
drances, such as uncircumcision, placed in their way to Christ, but are capable
of being admitted into God s church, though Gentiles, and as Gentiles." " It is
clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to have meant that each heathen's natural
lirjht and moral purity woidd render him acceptable in the sight of God. And it is
equally unreasonable to find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in ipyal^ö[ievoi
diKaiofTvi'T]i', or to suppose that öiKaiocrvvTjv must be taken in its forensic sense,
and therefore that he alludes to the state of men after hecominrj believers."
This note is adopted by Taylor, and heartily approved by him.
Lechler forcibly says on this passage : "It is well known that the introduc-
tory \vords in the discourse of Peter have often been so interpreted as to teach
that all religions are of equal value ; that faith, as contradistinguished from
morality, is not indispensable ; and that, with respect to the salvation of the
soul, all that is specifically Christian is of no importance. But the attempt to
find a palliation of indifference in the subject of religion in this passage be-
trays, as even de Wette judges, very gi-eat exegetical frivolity ; both the words
themselves, and also the whole connection of the discourse, as well as of the
narrative of which they form a part, decidedly pronounce against any such an
interpretation." "If the language in verses 34, 35 meant that a heathen, a
Jew, and a Christian were altogether alike in the eyes of God, and that any one
of them could be as easily saved as another, provided he M'as honorable and
upright in his conduct, then Peter should have simply allowed Cornelius to
remain what he was— a heathen —without leading him to Christ."
CEITICAL KEMAEKS. 219
CHAPTER XI.
Ver. 8. Koivuv] Elz. has ndv koivov, against A B D E K, min. vss. and Fathers.
From X. 14. — Ver. 9. /ioi] is wanting in A B N, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg.
Epiph. Deleted by Luchm. Tisch. It is an addition, in accordance with ver. 7,
— Ver. 10. The order ai'EOTr. -rrdAcv is, according to preponderant evidence, to be
adopted. — Ver. 11. 7//iTji'] Lachm. Born, read J^juev, atter A B D N, 40. Without
attestation, doubtless, from the vss. ; but on account of its apparent irrelevancy,
and on account of ver. 5, to be considered as the original. — Ver. 12. fjjjöii'
öiaKfjtvüfjevuf] is, as already Mill saw, very suspicious (as an interpolation from
X. 20), for it is wholly wanting in D, Syr. p. Cant. ; in A B H, lo'" it is ex-
changed for firj(^u' ()iaK[jiioi'Ta or /i. OLaKfuvavTa (so Lachm.), and in 33, 4G, for ji.
(haKpu'ufiF.voi. Tisch, and Born, have rejected it ; de Wette declares himself for
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 13. (U is to be read instead of rf, with Lachm. and
Born., in accordance with preponderant authority. — After 'Jo h-tt;?!^ Elz. has
äif5pßf, an addition from x. 5, which has against it A B D J<, min. and most
vss. — Ver. 17. 6i] is wanting in A B D N, min. vss. and several Fathers.
Deleted by Lachm. It was omitted as disturbing the construction. — Ver. 18.
iöö^n^ni] The considerably attested it'io^aaav (Lachm.) has arisen from the pre-
ceding aorist. — Instead of üpaye, Lachm. has upa, after A B D X, niin. A neg-
lect of the strengthening ye, which to the transcribers was less familiar with äpa
in the N. T. (Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26, Acts vii. 27). — Ver. 19. 27f0di'cj] Lachm. reads
'ZTt(p('ivov, after A E, min. Theophyl., but this has been evidently introduced
into the text as an emendatory gloss from erroneously take eirl as denoting
time. — Ver. 20. ilöwrfS] Elz. reads eicre^OöiTc?, against decisive testimony. —
'E^?.riai] So A D* N** vss. and Fathers. Already preferred by Grotius and
Witsius, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz. Born. But Elz. Matth.
have 'E/i?i>jviG-rär, which, in particular, Ammon (Je Ikllenlst'is Aniioch. Erl. 1810,
krit. Jonrn. I. 3. p. 213 ff. ; Mugaz. f. christl. Pred. in. 1, p. 222 f.) has defended,
assuming two classes of Antiochene Jews, namely, Hebrew-speaking, who used
the original text of the O. T., and Greek-speaking, who used the LXX. But
see Schulthess, de Charism. Sp. St. p. 73 ff. ; Kinck, Lucuhr. crit. p. 65 f. The
reading "E/.Aj/i'aS is necessary, since the annoiancement of the gos^jel to Hellenists,
particularly at Antioch, could no longer now be anything surprising, and only
'EV.rjvai exhausts the contrast to 'lovöaioLi, ver. 20 (not 'EJpaioiS as in. vi. 1).
'E2.?.T]uic!T. might easily arise from comparison with ix. 29, for which Cod. 40
testifies, when niter iXdhwi' it inserts kqI awe^rjnwr. — Ver. 22. (^leAdelv] is want-
ing in A B X, lo"- Syr. and other v.ss., and is deleted by Lachm. Omitted as
superfluous. — Ver. 25,' 6 Kapvilßm and the twice-repeated avrop are to be
deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A B X, al. ; the former as the subject
• Bornemann has tho p-'culiar expansion of o-vvtvxüi" napcKäKiatv avrhv i\äilv «is 'Ai'tio-
the simple text from D : äieova-a-; ie. OTi SaOAri? x^"»"-
«OTti' ec5 TapiToy, t^fjArJei- ava^-qriov aürbi' «at «us
230 CHAP. XI., 1-18.
written on the margin (seeing that another subject immediately precedes),
and the latter as a very usual (unnecessary) definition of the object. — Ver.
26. avTovi'] read with Lachm. Tisch. Born. avTois, after A B E K^ min. The
accusative with the infinite after kytveTo was most familiar to the transcribers
(ix. 3, 32, 37). — Lachm. and Tisch, have «a« after avr., following ACH,
Cant. Syr. p. Ath. Vig. llightly ; apparently occasioning confusion, it was
omitted. — Ver. 28. fii-yav . . . boTLi] iieydlijv . . . rtS is supported by the
predominant testimony of A B D E S (E has fziyav . . . i'/Tii), min. Fathers;
so that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., as in Luke xv. 14 (see
on that passage), and the masculine is to be considered as an emendation
of ignorant transcribers. — After KauvöIov, Elz. has Kuianpoi, an inserted gloss,
to be rejected in conformity with A B D K, lo''- 40, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm.
Vulg. Cant.
Vv. 1-18. The fellowship into which Peter entered with the Gentiles,
chap. X., offends the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, but their objection is
allayed by the apostle through a simple representation of the facts as a
whole, and is converted into the praise of God. — Kara tijv 'lov6alav\s, not
= h -ij 'Iov6,' but througJiout Judaea.^ — Ver. 2. ötcKptvovro] they strove
agaiust him.* — ol h nepirofi.] the circumcised Christians, as in x. 45, opposed
to the Gentiles {aKpaßvar. exovrag) whose conversion is reported. — oti is most
simply taken as recitative^ neither quare, Vulg.,* nor because, Grotius supply-
ing: hoc querimur. — npog ävöpag /c.r./l.] Thus it was not the baptism of
these men that they called in question, but the fellowship entered into by
Peter with them, especially the fellowship at table.^ This was the stone of
stumbling: for they had not come to Peter to be baptized, as a Gentile
might present himself to become a proselyte ; but Peter had gone in to
them. (w'). Without ground,*' Gfrorer and Zeller employ this passage against
the historical character of the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius. —
änpoß. ex-] An expression of indignation. Eph. ii. 11. — Ver. 4. äp^ä/x.
e^ETiO.] he began and expounded, so that äp^d/j.. is a graphic trait, correspond-
ing to the conception of the importance of the speech in contradistinction
to the complaint ;' comp. ii. 4, — Ver. 6. elg f/v artviaag Kartvoow k. ilduif] on
which I, having fixed my glance, observed (vii. 31) and saw, etc. This d(5op rd
TETpdrzoSa /c.r./l. is the result of the Karevoow. — k. to 6r/pia] and the beasts;
specially to make mention of these from among the quadrupeds. In x. 12
the wild beasts were not specially mentioned ; but there navra stood before
Ta TETpdn. — Ver. 11. 7]jiev\ (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from
the fact, that Peter already thinks of the höeTifol, ver. 12, as included. —
Ver. 12. ovToi] the men of Joppa, who had gone with Peter to Cornelius,
' Kuinoel, de Wette. [ed. 3. tail the vison narrated. This in opposition
2 V. 15, and see Kägclsb. on tlie Iliad, p. 12, to Schleiermaclier, who finds in the double
3 Jude 9 ; Dem. 163. 15 ; Polyb. ii. 22. 11 ; narrative a support for his view concerning
Athen, xii. p. 544 C the composiiion of the booli. — Observe how
< Comp, on Marlt ix. 11. simply Peter makes his experience speak for
5 Comp. Gal. Hi. 12. itself, and then, ver. 16 fif., just as simply,
8 See, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211. calmly, and with persuasive brevity, subjoins
^ The importance of the matter is the rea- the jusliflcation following from this experi-
eon why Luke makes Peter again recite in de- ence.
PETER'S DEFENCE OF HIS CONDUCT. 221
X. 23, had thus accompanied him also to Jerusalem. They were now
I^ruscnt in this important matter as his witnesses. — Ver. 13. tuv ayytAov] the
angel already known from chap, x., — a mode of expression, no doubt, put
into the mouth of Peter by Luke from his own standpoint. — Ver. 14. h o]c]
h/ means of ich ich. — Ver. 15. h öi rCt äpiaadai fxe ?.a?idv] This proves that
Peter, after x. 43, had intended to speak still considerably longer. — Kal E(fi'
ij/jäc and Kal I'lu'iv, ver. 17 — it is otherwise with i/if(f, ver. 16 — are to be taken
as in X. 47. — h apxti] namely, at Pentecost. The period of the apostolic
churcli was then at its heg inning. — Ver. IG. Comp. i. 5. — üf sleyev] A
frequent circumstantiality.' Peter had recollected this saying of Christ,
because he had seen realized in the Gentiles filled with the Spirit what
Jesus, i. 5, had promised to the apostles for their own persons. Herein, as
resj^ects the divine bestowal of the Spirit, he had recognised a placing of
the Gentiles concerned on the same level with the apostles. And from
this baptisma^rt/«if/ii.s he could not but infer it as willed by God, that the
baptisma^M?«i/u's also was not to be refused. — Ver. 17. 'KicTevcaciv] refers
not to avTo'ig, as is assumed by Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the
order of the words, but to yiilv : "as also to us as having become believers,"
etc., that is, as He has given it also to ?<s, heca^ise we had hecome believers, so
that thus the same gift of God indicated as its basis the same faith in them
as in us. — kyu öe rig ijiirjv (^vvaroq k.t.I.] Two interrogative sentences are
here blended into one :^ Wfio teas I on the other hand? was I ahle to hinder
Godi namely, by refusal of baptism ? Concerning Jt-, in the apodosis, follow-
ing after a hypothetical protasis, see Nägelsb. ;' Baeumlein.* — Ver. 18.
yabxaoav] they were silent, Luke xiv. 4, often in classical writers.* The
following EÖö^ai^ov (imperfect) thereupon denotes the continuous praising.
Previously contention against Peter, vv. 2, 3, now silence, followed hy j)raise
of God. — apaye] thus, as results from this event. By t^v /nerdvoiav, however,
is meant the Christian change of disposition; comp. v. 31. — ng l^ur/v] unto
eternal Messianic life ; this is the aim of ri/v fierdvoiav iSuKev.^
Vv. 19, 20. Ol fih uvi> (haaTvapEVTeg] A resumption of viii. 4, in order now
to narrate a still furthsr advance, which Christianity had made in conse-
quence of that dispersion, — namely, to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, for
the most part, indeed, among the Jews, yet also (vor. 20) among the Gen-
tiles, the latter at Antioch.' — äivd -. Olnlj.] on account of, on occasion of, the
tribulation.^ — i-l l7£({,dL-ij] Luther rightly renders: over Stephen, i.e. on ac-
count of ^itcphen.^ Others, Alberti, Wolf, Heumann, Palairet, Kypke, Hein-
richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, render : post Stephanum. Linguistically admis-
■■ Luke xxii. Gl , Thnc. i. 1. 1, and Krüger neliiis (Giepeler in Staeudl. Archiv. IV. 2, p.
inloc. : ai.*o Borneniann, ad Cyrop. i 3, 5. 310, Baiir, Schncckenburger, Wieseler, Lech-
' Winer, p 585 (E. T 7W). ler), but it was affer that event tliat the mis-
' On the I/iad. p. 66, ed. 3. sionary activity of the dispersed advanced eo
* Partik p. 92 f. far. See xv. 7.
* Comp. Loceiia, ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. » Comp. Ilerin. ad Soph. El. 65.
* Com. (TuiOriar], ver. 14. " Comp. Erasmu?, Beza, Bengel, and others,
' The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch including de Wette. See Winer, 307 (E. T.
is not to be placed before the baptism of Cor- 489 f.) ; EUendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 619.
222 CHAP. XL, 19-26.
sible, ' but less simple, as post Ste2}hamcm would have again to be explained as
e medio suMato Stejjhano. — rjcrav As r/wcfs abrüp] does not apply to Iov(^nioig,^
as the 6e, corresponding to the flip, ver. 19, requires for avrüv the ref-
erence to the subject of ver. 19, the öinGnaoeuTeg, and as olrtveg iJ.MvTtq üq
'AvTiöxeiap, ver. 20, so corresponds to the (J/^/^.f^or i(jC . . . ' Avnoxem oi ver.
19, that a diversity of the persons spoken of could not but of necessity
be indicated. The correct interpretatation is: "The dispersed travelled
through the countries,' as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, de-
livering the gospel — top löyov, kut e^oxvv, as in viii. 4. vi. 4, and frequently
— to the Jews only, ver. 19, but some of them, of the dispersed, Cyprians
and Cyrenians by birth, proceeded otherwise ; having come to Antioch,
they preached the word to the Gentiles there."* — roic "E72rjvn(:] is the
national contrast to 'lovoaioiQ, ver. 19, and therefore embraces as well the
Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become incorporated into
Judaism by circumcision. To understand onhj the proselytes ^ would be a
limitation not founded here in the text, as in xiv. 1 (x').
Vv. 21-26. Xelp Kvpiov] See on Luke i. 66 ; Acts iv. 30. Bengel well re-
marks : " potentia spiritualis per evangelium se exserens." — avTup]
these pr'cachers to the Gentiles. — Ver. 22. ng to. wra] Comp, on Luke iv. 21.
— Ö löyog] the word, i.e. the narrative of it ; see on Mark i. 45. — Ver. 23.
xäpiv T. Qtnv] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles. — rp ir^joAta«
Tfjg Kap6. Trpnoßiv. tu Kvpiu] icith the jmrpose of their heart to abide ly the Lord,
i.e. not again to abandon Christ, to whom their hearts had resolved to be-
long, but to be faithful to Him with this resolution." — Ver. 24. h-n i/v . . .
m'öTewc] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had been sent to Antioch,'
but of the immediately preceding kxäpTj . . . kvp'ig). ■ — avy/) ä}afl6g] quite
generally : an excellent man, a man of tcorth, whose noble character, and,
moreover, whose fulness of the Spirit and of faith completely qualified him
to gain and to follow the right point of view, in accordance with the divine
counsel, as to the conversion of the Gentiles here beheld. Most arbitrarily
Heinrichs holds that it denotes gentleness and mildness, which Baum-
garten has also assumed, although such a meaning must have arisen, as
in Matt. xx. 5, from the context,^ into which Baumgarten imports the
idea, that Barnabas had not allowed himself to be stirred to censure by the
strangeness of the new phenomenon. — Ver. 25. s'lq Tapaov] See ix. 30. —
Ver. 26. According to the corrected reading h/h'tro i5e avroig kuI evtavTop
K.T.I, (see the critical remarks), it is to be explained : it happened to them,^
to ie associated even yet {Kai) a lohole year in the church, and to instruct a con-
siderable midtitude of people, and that the disciples tcere called Christians first
at Antioch. 'With xPVl'o-Ttaai the construction passes into the accusative
with the infinitive, because the subject becomes different (tovc uaOrjT.).
But it is logically correct that ;i'p;?/iar(ö-ai k.t.ä. should still be dependent
1 Bernhardy, p. 349. « Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 10.
* Heinrichs, Kuinoel. ' Kuinoel.
s Comp. viii. 4, ix. 38. « Comp, on Rom. v. 7.
* Comp, de Wette and Lekebnsch, p. 105. ' Comp. sx. IG ; Gal. vi. 14.
6 Rinck.
THE GOSPEL IN ANTIOCII. 223
on h/tveTo nvToic^ just because the roportrd appellation, -n-liich was first given
to the diseiples at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and
successful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit, that
here the name of Christians first arose. — On the climactic Kui, etiam, in the
sense of ^jet, or yet further, comp. Härtung.' — atan y^?/ w< ] to be brovght to-
f/ether, i.e. to join themselves for common work. They had been since ix.
2() IT. separated ft oni each other. — y'"''"^^"^"' J '^ ^<^'^"' ^^'^ name.^ — Xiuarun'oi'c;]
Tills niiine decidedly originated not in, but outside of , the church, seeing that
the Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but designate them-
selves by nnHrjzni, nckTiipol, believers, etc. ; and seeing that, in the two other
passages where Xpiartdvo! occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as ex-
tiinsic to the church.' But it certainly did 7iot proceed/ro?« the Jeici, because
XpiarÖQ was known to them as the interpretation of l^'^p, and they would
not therefore have transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates.
Hence the origin of the name must be derived yr6»m ;/(<? Gentiles in Antioch.*
IJy these the name of the Head of the new religious society, " Christ," was
not regarded as an official name, which it already was among the Christians
themselves ever more and more becoming ; and hence they formed accord-
ing to the wonted mode the pnrty-name : Christiani,'-' " auctor nominis ejus
Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pentium Pilatum supplicio
alTectus erat." At Antioch, the seat of the mother-church of Gentile
Christianity, this took place at that time, for this follows from the reading
tyh'. ÖE n'vrinq, because in that year the joint labours of Paul and Barnabas
occasioned so considerable an enlargement of the church, and therewith
naturally its increase in social and public consideration. And it was at
Antioch that this name was born first, earlier than anywhere else," because
here the Christians, in consequence of the predominant Gentile-Christian
clement, asserted themselves for the first time not as a sect of Judaism, but
as an independent community. There is nothing to support the view that
the name was at first a title of ridicule.' The conjecture of Baur, that the
origin of the name was referred to Antioch, because that was the first
Gentile city in which there were Christians," cannot be justified by the
Latin form of the word.^
Vv. 27, 28. Kfz7;//flfn] whether of their own impulse, or as sent by the
church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem '" is not evident. —
7ci>n(^t/rai] inspired, teachers, who delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ec-
static state, yet in exalted language, on the basis of an cnroKäÄvTlit^ received.
Their working was entirely analogous to that of the O. T. prophets. Rev-
elation, incitement, and inspiration on the part of God gave them their
qualification ; the unveiling of what was hidden in respect of the divine
> PartikcU I. p. 13.3 f. beck, ad Phryn. p. 311 f.
» See ou Rom. vii. 3. ' I^c Wette, Baumgnrten, after Wetstein
3 Acts xxvi. 38 ; 1 Pet. iv. 16. and "'''er iiiterputers.
< Ewald, p. 441 f., conjectures that it pro- " Zdler also mistrusts the account before
ceedeti from ttie Roman authorities. "s.
* Tac. Ann. xv. 44. " See Wetstein, ad. Matth. xsii. 17.
' TrpwToi', or, according to B {<, irpi^ruii, Lo- '" Ewnld.
224 CHAP. XL, 27-30.
counsel for the exercise of a pyschological and moral influence on given
circumstances, but always in reference to Christ and His work, was the tenor
of what these interpreters of God spoke. The prediction of what was fu-
ture was, as with the old, so also with the new prophets, no permanent
characteristic feature ; but naturally and necessarily the divinely-illumi-
nated clance ranged very often into the future development of the divine
counsel and kingdom, and saw what was to come. In respect to the de-
gree of the inspired seizure, the npocpT/rai are related to the }?i6aaaig 7MlovvTtq^
in such a way that the intellectual consciousness was not thrown into the
back ground with theformer as with the latter, and so the mental excite-
ment was not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their
speaking stand in need of interpretation.^ — avaoraQ] he came forward in
the church-assembly. — ~A>a/3of] Whether the name' is to be derived from
^jin, a locust,* or from 2^>', to love,^ remains undecided. The same proph-
et as in xxi. 10. — Aä tov iTvevßaToq] This characterizes the announce-
ment {iarjuavt) of the famine as something imparted to the propliet by the
Holy Spirit ; hence Eichhorn' s oiijinion," that the famine was already present
in its beginnings, does great violence to the representation of the text,
which, moreover, by öor/f . . . k;^«i;(5/oii states the /w(;?/mcHi as having oc-
curred afteacards, and consequently makes the event to appear at that time
still as future, which also fik'Alnv ecenHai definitely affirms. — ?ifiüv . . .
olnovuivTjv] that a great famine was appointed by God to set in over the whole
inhabited earth. Thus generally is ryv n'iKoviJ. to be understood in the origi-
nal sense of the prophet, who sees no local limits drawn for the famine beheld
in prophetic vision, and therefore represents it not as a partial, but as an
unrestricted one. Just because the utterance is a prediction, according to
its genuine prophetic character, there is no ground for giving to the general
and usual meaning of ji/v ohovß., — which is, moreover, designedly brought
into relief by b?jjv, — any geographical limitation at all to the land of Judaea
or the Roman empire.'' This very unlimited character of the vision, on the
one hand, warranted the hyperbolical form of the expression, as given by
Agabus, while yet, on the other hand, the famine extending itself far and
wide, but yet limited, which afterwards historically occurred, might be
regarded as the event corresponding to the entirely general prophetic vision,
and be described by Luke as its fulfilment. History pointed out the limits,
within which what was seen and predicted without limitation found its ful-
filment, inasmuch, namely, as this famine, which set in in the fourth year of
the reign of Claudius (a.D. 44), extended only to Judaea and the neigh-
bouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem itself, which was sup-
ported by the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene with corn and figs." The
view which includes as part of the fulfilment a yet later famine,^ which oc-
curred in the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Rome,'" offends against
» See on x. 46. ^ Comp, neinrichs,
2 Comp, on 1 Cor. xii. 10. ' See on Luke ii. 1. [IT. E. ii. 11.
5 Comp. Ezra ii. 46. ^ See Joseph. Antt. sx. 2. 6, xx. 5. 2 ; Eus.
* With Drusius. » Baumgarten.
6 With Grotius, Witsius, Drusius, Wolf. '" Suet. Claud. 18 ; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43.
ANTIOCH SENDS AID TO JERUSALEM. 225
the words (;\(//üi^ . . . ?/-/f) as well as against the connection of the liistory.'
It is altogether inadmissible to bring in liere the different famines, which
successively occurred under Claudius in different parts of the empire,- since,
by the famine here meant, according to vv. 39, 30, Judaea was affected,
and the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbitrary is
the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was jiredicted as a sign and
herald of the Parousia, and that the fulfilment under Claudius was therefore
rnerely a preliminary one, which jwinted to a future and final fulfilment. —
On /.i/tug as feminine (Doric), as in Luke xv. 14, see on Luke iv. 20, and
Bornemann on our passage.
Vv. 29, 30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten assumes, the
Christians of Antioch had alreculy sent their money contributions to Judaea
l)cfore the commencement of the famine^ is incorrect, because it was not through
the entirely general expression of Agabus, but only through the result (barLg
Koi kyivsTo i-rrl lO.aw'i), that they could learn the definite time for sending,
and also be directed to the local destination of their benevolence ; hence
ver. 2!) attaches itself, with strict historical definiteness, to the directly pre-
ceding oartg . . . KTiavöiov.^ The benevolent activity on behalf of Judaea,
which Paul at a later period unweariedly and successfully strove to jiromote,
is to be explained from the dutiful affection toward the mother-land of
Christianity, with its sacred metropolis, to which the Gentile church felt
itself laid under such deep obligations in spirtual matters, Rom. xv. 27. —
The construction of ver. 29 depends on attraction, in such a way, namely,
that -ÜV 6e fjaOt/ruv is attracted by the parenthesis Kadug TjvTvopeirö nc, accord-
ing as every one icas able^ * and accordingly the sentence as resolved is : ol 6e
uati?;rni, KnOijg rfv-opdrö rtr avröv, uptaav. The subsequent iKnarog ai'-üv is a
more precise definition of the subject of oipiaav, appended by way of appo-
sition. Comp. ii. 3. — ire/uipai] SC. rt. — The Christian jsresS^/te/-«, here for
the first time mentioned in the N, T., instituted after the manner of the
synagogue (D'JpT),^ were the appointed overseers and guides of the indi-
vidual churches, in which the pastoral service of teaching, xx. 28, also
devolved on them.® They are throughout the N. T. identical with the
i-naKOTToi, who do not come into prominence as possessors of the cä/*;/' super-
intendence with a sM&ordination of the presbyters till the sub-apostolic
> vv. 29, 30. presbj'ters. But certainly the presbyters
2 Ewald. were, as elsewere (siv.23), so also iu Jerusalem
3 Comp. Wieseler, p. 149. • (xv. 23, xxi. 18), chosen by the church, and
* See Kypke, II. p. 56 ; comp, also 1 Cor. apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch, p.
xvi. 2. 78, who, however, abitrarily conjectures that
* We have no account of the institittion of the coming over of the priests, vi. 7, had given
this office, it probably shaped itself after the occasion to the origin of the office. — We may
analogy of the government of the synagogue, add that the presbyters do not here appear as
soon after the lirst dispersion of the church almoners lin opposition to Lange, apost. Zeit-
(vlii. 1), the apostles themselves having in the alt. II. p. 116), but the moneys arc consigned
first instance presided alone over the church to them as the presidiitf/ authority of the
in Jerusalem ; while, on the other hand, in church. " Omnia cnim rite et ordine admin-
conformity with the pressing necessity which istrari oportuit," Beza. Comp, besides, on
primarily emerged, the office of almoner was vi. 3, the subjoined remark.
there formed, even before there were special * See on Eph. iv. 11; Hutheron 1 Tim. iii. 2.
226 CHAP, XI. — KOTES.
age — in the first instance, and already very distinctly, in the Ignatian
epistles. That identity, although the assumption of it is anathematized
by the Council of Trent, is clear from Acts xx. 17.' Shifts are resorted to
by the Catholics, such as DöUinger.- — The moneys were to be given over
to the jyreshi/ters, in order to be distributed by them among the different
overseers of the poor for due application. — According to Gal. ii. 1, Paul
cannot have come icith them as far as Jerusalem.''^ In the view of Zeller,
that circumstance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a
historical character — which is a very hasty conclusion.
Notes by Ameeican Editob.
(w') They of the circumcision contended with him. V. 3.
Luke employs a designation here which, when he wrote, was full of signifi-
cance ; though it probably originated in the very event he here narrates. The
difference of sentiment manifest now soon came to be a well-defined distinction
between the Jewish and Gentile portions of the church. It is probable
that those who reproached Peter with acting disorderly were only a party in
the church at Jerusalem who regarded the observance of the law of Moses, if
not essential to salvation, yet of the greatest importance ; and specially that
the rite of circumcision should be observed first, before any were admitted to
either social or church fellowship. They did not censure Peter because he had
preached the gospel to them, or caused them to be baptized, but that he had
associated with them. His grave offence was that, contrary to the customs of
his people, and the commands of the rabbins, he had eaten with the uncircum-
cised. It was a maxim of these teachers that a man might buy food of a Gen-
tile, but not receive it as a gift from him, or eat it with him. It was to vindi-
cate himself in this matter that Peter gave explanations to the brethren at
Jerusalem. So clear, conclusive, and satisfactory was his statement of the
whole case that his opponents were silenced, and probably most of them for
the time at least convinced ; and their indignant complaint against the apos-
tle was changed into joyous thanksgiving to God. This dispute may be con-
' Comp. ver. 28 : Tit i. 5, 7; 1 Pet. v. 1 f. ; the Galatians about this journey. For the
Phil. i. 1. See Gabler, de episcopis primae very non-mention of it must have exposed tho
ecoL, Jen. 1805; Munter in the Stud. v. Krit. journey, however otherwise little liable to ob-
1833, p. 769 ff. ; Rothe, Anfänge d. chr. K. I. p. jection, to the suspicions of opponents. This
173 ff., Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 399 fE. ; Jacob- applies also against Hofmann, N. T. I p. 131 ;
son in Herzog's Encykl. II. p. 241 ff. and Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. 72 f.
2 CTrwtot/:/;. M. üf. p. 303,andSepp,p. 353f. The latter, however, nltimately accedes to
» Ewald's hypothesis also-that Paul had, my view. On the other hand, Paul had no
whenpresentin Jerusalem, conducted himself need at all to write of the journey at Acts
as quietly as possible, and had not transacted sviii. 22 to the Galatians (in opposition to
anything important for doctrine with the Wieseler), because, «//«r Ä« had narrated to
apostles, of whom Peter, acccording to sii. 17. them his coming to an understanding with the
had been absent— is insufficient to explain the apostle, there was no object at all in referring
silence in Gal. ii. concerning this journey. in this Epistle to further and later journeys
The whole argument in Gal. ii. is weak, if to Jerusalem. See on Gal. ii. 1.
Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was silent to
NOTES. 227
sidered as the commencement of the Jewish controversy, which so greatly
troubled the early church, und which Paul so triumphantly maintained and
settled.
(x') Antioch. V. 20.
Next to Jerusalem Antioch is the most important in apostolic history. It
was the mother church of the Gentile Christians, as Jerusalem was of the Jew-
ish. Here the first Gentile church was formed, and here first the name Chris-
tian was applied to believers. Hence also Paul started on each of his three
great missionaiy tours. This city, pojiulous and powerful, was ranked next to
Rome and Alexandria in extent and importance in the Roman Empire. After
the establishment of Christianity, it became one of the five patriai-chates —
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem being the other four. The
gospel was first preached to the Gentiles in Antioch, by some who, fleeing from
persecution, had gone thither, with very great success, probably about the
same time or shortly after Peter's visit to Caesarea. The church at Jerusalem,
hearing of this success in all likelihood soon after Peter's account of the re-
ceiving of the Gentiles, sent Barnabas, a man of moral worth and spiritual
power, and who, being a native of Cyprus, and a friend of Paul, would be in
thorough sympathy with the work among the Greeks, to inquire into the state
of things and report. When he saw the great work going on, he felt that aid
was needed ; and recalling his intercourse with Paul, and the fact that he had
been speciallj' called and chosen for this very work, he went to Tarsus, and
brought Paul back with him to Antioch, where for a whole year, in delightful
fellowship and successful work, they labored together— /raf res nobiles. The
future prominence and splendor of Paul's work somewhat casts into the shade
the high character and great services of the good and gifted Son of Consolation,
who should ever be regarded as occupying a place in the first rank of the
founders of our holy faith.
228 CHAP. XII., 1-2.
CHAPTER XII.
Ver. 3. aj] is wanting in Elz. , but rightly adopted, in accordance ■with consider-
able attestation, by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch., because it was easily passed over as
wholly superfluous. — Ver. 5. £«rfV7/5] Lachm. reads EKTevüi, after A? B S<;
comp. D, £v EKTivela. Several vss. also express the adverb, which, however,
easily suggested itself as definition to ytvou. — virep] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read
■Kep'i, which Griesb. has also approved, after A B D X, min. But ■rrepi is the
more usual preposition with npoaevxeoOai (comp, also viii. 15) in the N. T.—
Ver. 8. ftjaat] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have Trep^Cüffat, against
A B D X, min. A more precise explanatory definition. — Ver. 9. aircD] after
ijKOA. is, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., to be deleted, according to decisive
evidence. A supplementary- addition occasioned by /zo«, ver. 8. — Ver. 13. aüroü}
Elz. has Tov Yle-pov, against decisive evidence. — Ver. 20. After tjv öi, Elz. has
6 'Hpü(5??s, against preponderant authority. The subject unnecessarily written
on the margin, which was occasioned by a special section (the death of
Herod) beginning at ver. 20. — Ver. 23. 66^av'[ Elz. Tisch, have rfjv 66^av. The
article is wanting in D E G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec, but is to be re-
stored (comp. Kev. xix. 7), seeing that the expression loithout the article was
most familiar to transcribers ; see Luke xvii. 18 ; John ix. 24 ; Eom. iv. 20 ;
Eev. iv. 9, xi. 13, xiv. 7. — Ver. 25. After cv/xirapaTi. Lachm. and Born, have
deleted ku'l, following A B D* X, min. and some vss. But how readily may
the omission of this nai be explained by its complete superfluousness ! where-
as there is no obvious occasion for its being added.
Vv. 1, 2. Kar' heivov r5e tov Kaipöv] 2>ut at that junctvre,^ points, as in xix.
23," to what is narrated immediately before ; consequently : when Barnabas
and Saul were sent to Jerusalem (xi. 80). From ver. 25 it is evident that
Luke has conceived this statement of time in such a way, that what is re-
lated in vv. 1-24 is contemporaneous with the despatch of Barnabas and
Saul to Judaea and with their stay there, and is accordingly to be placed
between their departure from Antioch and their return from Jerusalem,'
and not so early as in the time of the one year's residence at Antioch, xi,
25.* — 'ilpoörjg] Agiu2)2M I., grandson of Herod the Great, son of Aristobulus
and Berenice, nephew of Herod Antipas, possessed, along with the royal
title,^ the whole of Palestine, as his grandfather had possessed it ; Clau-
dius having added Judaea and Samaria " to his dominion already preserved
and augmented by Caligula.'' A crafty, frivolous, and extravagant prince,
1 Winer, p. 374 (E. T. 500). s Joseph. A7M. ^ym. 6. 10.
2 Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 5 ; 1 Mace. xi. 14. » Joseph. Atitf. xix. 5. 1, xix. 6. 1 ; Bell. ii.
3 Schrader, Bm, Schott. 11. 5.
4 Wie.seler, p. 152 ; Stöltitig, BeUr. z. Exeg. ' Joseph. Antt. xviii. 7. 2 ; Bell. ii. 9. 0. See
d. Paid. Br. p. 184 f. ; comp, also Anger, de Wieseler, p. 129 f. ; Gerhich in the Luther.
tei7ipor. rat. p. 47 f. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 55 fl'.
MAKTYRDOM OF JAMES. 229
who, although better than his grandfather, is praised far beyond his due by
Josephus (y ). — k7rißa7.ev räq ;t£ipaf is not, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and
others, to be interpreted : coepit^ conatus ed = i-extiii'/ot,^ because for this
there is no linguistic precedent at all, even in the LXX. Deut. xii. 7, xv.
10, the real and active application of the hand is meant, and not the
general notion suscipere; but according to the constant usage," and ac-
cording to the context, ■äiiocükro avlXaßElv, ver. 3, it is to be interpreted of
hostile hnjiit'j hands on. Herod laid hands on, he caught at, i.e. he caused to
be forcibly seized, in order to maltreat some of the menü)ers of the church — on
01 (i-o, used to designate membership of a corporation, see Lobeck.^ Else-
where the personal dative * or k-^l rem ^ is joined with eKtßa?2elv rdc zeip«f,
instead of the definition of the object aimed at by the infinitive. — On the
apostolic work and fate of the elder James, who now drank out the cup
of Matt.- XX. 23, nothing certain is otherwise known. Aiwcryphal accounts
may be seen in Abdiae Histor. apost. in Fabric. Cod. Apocr. p. 516 if., and
concerning his death, p. 528 flf. The late tradition of his preaching in
Spain, and of his death in Compostella, is given up even on the part of the
Catholics.'^ — r. äönAtp. 'luäwov] John was still alive when Luke wrote, and
in high respect. — fiaxatixi] probably, as formerly in the case of John the
Baptist, by beheading,'' which even among the Jews was not uncommon and
very ignominous ; see Lightfoot, p. 91 (z'). — The time of the execution was
shortly before Easter week (a.D. 44), which follows from ver. 3 ; and the
place was probably Jerusalem.^ It remains, however, matter of surprise
that Luke relates the martyrdom of an apostle with so few words, and
without any specification of the more immediate occasion or more special
circumstances attending it, ü/r/löf Kai wf ervx^i^ Herod had killed him, says
Chrysostom. A want of more definite information, which he could at all
events have easily obtained, is certainly not to be assumed. Further, we
must not in fanciful arbitrariness import the thought, that by "the en-
tirely mute (?) suffering of death," as well as "in this absolute quietness
and apparent insignificance," in which the first death of an apostle is here
presented, there is indicated "a reserved glory,"" by which, in fact, more-
over, some sort of more precise statement would not be excluded. Nor yet
is the summary brevity of itself warranted as a mere introduction, by which
Luke desired to pass to the following history derived from a special docu-
ment concerning Peter ;'" the event was too important for that. On the
contrary, there must have prevailed some sort of conscious consideration
' Luke i. 1 ; Acts ix. 29. least to the rescue of the bones of the apostle
* iv. 3, V. 18, xxi. 07 ; Matt. xxvi. 50 ; Mark for Compostella !
siv. 46 ; Luke xx. 19, xxi. 12; John vii. .30 ; ' " Cervieem spiculatori porrexit," Abdias,
Gen. xxii. 12 ; comp. Lucian, Tim. 4, also in I.e. p. 531.
Arrian., Polybiiis, etc. s por Agrippa was accustomed to reside in
3 Ad Phnjn. p. 104 ; Schaef. Melet. p. 26 £f. Jerusalem (Joseph. And. xix. 7. 3) ; all the
* Ar. Lys. 440 ; Acts iv. 3 ; Mark xiv. 46 ; more, therefore, he must have been present
Tischendorf, Esth. vi. 2. or have come thither from Caesarea, shortly
ä Gen. xxii. 12 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 12, and always before the feast (ver. 19).
in the N. T., except Acts iv. 3 and Mark xiv. ^ Baumgarten.
46. 10 Bleek.
* See Sepp, p. 75. Who, however, comes at
230 CHAP. XII., 3-11.
involved in the literary plan of Luke, — probably this, that he had it in
vievp to compose a third historical book (see the Introduction), in which
he would give the history of the other apostles besides Peter and Paul,
and therefore, for the present, he mentions the death of James only quite
briefly, and for the sake of its connection with the following history of
Peter. The reason adduced by Lekebusch, p. 219 : that Luke wished to
remain faithful to his plan of giving a history of the development of the
church, does not suffice, for at any rate the first death of an apostle was in
itself, and by its impression on believers and unbelievers, too important an
element in the history of that development not to merit a more detailed
representation in connection with it. — Clem. Al. in Eusei. ii. 9 has a beauti-
ful tradition, how the accuser of James, converted by the testimony and
courage of the ajiostle, was beheaded along with him.
Vv. 3, 4. Herod, himself a Jew, in opposition to Harduin, born in Ju-
daism, although of Gentile leanings, a Roman favourite brought up at
the court of Tiberius, cultivated out of policy Jewish popular favour,
and sought zealously to defend the Jewish religion for this purpose.* —
■n-poaeOero cvÄTiaß.] a Hebraism: he further seked.^ — Tkacapci TerpmVioiqlfour
hands of four — TETpäÖLov, a number of four. Philo, II. p. 533, just as tetp&q
in Aristotle and others — quatuor quaternionibus, i.e. four detachments of
the tcatch, each of lohich consisted of four men, so that one such TSTpäöiov
was in turn on guard for each of the four watches of the night. ^ —
fiETa TO naaxd] not to desecrate the feast, in consideration of Jewish
orthodox observance of the law. For he might have evaded the Jewish
rule, " non judicant die festo,"^ at least for the days following the first
day of the feast, * by treating the matter as peculiarly pressing and
important. Wieseler' has incorrectly assumed the 15th Nisan as the
day appointed for the execution, and the 14th Nisan as the day of the
arrest. Against this it may be decisively urged, that by ßE-ä -b iväaxa
must be meant the entire Paschal feast, not the 14th Nisan, because it
corresponds to the preceding al rjfi'epai tüv äCy//.* — ävayay. avr. tu /law] that
is, to present him to the people on the elevated place where the tribunal
stood (John xix. 13), in order there publicly to pronounce upon him the
sentence of death. '
Vv. 5, 6. But there icas earnest prayer made hy the church to God for him.
On £KTEv//g, peculiar to the later Greek, 1 Pet. iv. 5 ; Luke xxii. 44.^ —
Trpodyetv] to bring publicly forward. See on ver. 4. — tt) vvktI e/cet'v?/] on
that night; when, namely, Herod had already resolved on the bringing
forward, which was to be accomplished on the day immediately follow-
ing. — According to the Roman method of strict military custody, Peter
was bound by chain to his guard.'" This binding, however, not by one
1 Deyling, Olss. II. p. 263 ; Wolf, Cur. « See Bleek, Beitr. p. 139 ff.
2 Joseph. Antt. xix. 7. 3. ' Synops. p. 364 S., Chronol. d. ap. Ztitalt.
3 Comp on Luke xix. 11, xx. 12. p. 215 ff.
* On this Roman regulation, see Veget. R. ^ Comp. Luke xxii. 1.
M. iii. 8; Censorinus, de die nat. 23; Wet- ' See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311.
stein in loc. '» Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7 ; Plin. ep.
* Moed Katon, v. 2. x. 65 ; Senec. ep. 5, al.
IMPRISONMENT OF PETER. 231
chain to one soldier, but by two chains, and so with each hand attached
to a soldier, was an (((/(jrnvation, which may be explained from the fact
that tlie execution was already determined.' Two soldiers of the TerpdiUov
on guard were in. the prison, fastened to Peter asleep (koi/ju/i.), and, indeed,
sleeping profoundly'^ in the peace of the righteous ;=" and two as guards,
(?»i//lo«ec, were stationed outside at some distance from each other, form-
ing the irpöiTTjv cfvlaKtjv Kal (hvrlpai), ver. 10.
Vv. 7-11. The narrative of this deliverance falls to be judged of in the
same way as the similar event recorded in v. 19, 20. From tlie mixture of
what is legendary with pure history, which marks Luke's report of the
occurrence, the purely liistorical state of the miraculous fact in its in-
dividual details cannot be surely ascertained, and, in particular, whether the
angelic appearance, which suddenly took place, ■* is to be referred to the inter-
nal vision of the apostle, — a view to which ver. 9 may give a certain support.*
But as the narrative lies before us, every attempt to constitute it a natural
occurrence must be excluded." This holds good not only of the odd view
of llezel, that a flash of lightning had undone the chains, but also of the
opinion of Eichhorn and Heinrichs, " that the jailer himself, or others with
his knowledge, had effected the deliverance, without Peter himself being
aware of the exact circumstances ; " as also, in fine, of the hypothesis of
Baur, that the king himself had let the apostle free, because he had be-
come convinced in the interval (? ver. 3) how little the execution of James
had met with popular approval. According to Ewald,' Peter was delivered
in such a surprising manner, that his first word after his arrival among his
friends was, that he thought he was rescued by an angel of God ; and our
narrative is an amplified presentation of this thought. — Ver. 7. (püQ]
whether emanating from the angel,* or as a separate phenomenon, cannot
be determined. — oiKtiua] generally denoting single apartments of the
house,' is, in the special sense: pZacö of custody of prisoners, i.e. prison, a
more delicate designation for the Seaßurr/piov, frequent particularly among
Attic writers.'" — And the chains fell from his hands, round which, namely,
they were entwined. — Ver. 9. He was so overpowered by the wonderful
course of his deliverance add confused in his consciousness, that what had
been done by the angel was not apprehended by him as something actual,
' See, generally, Wieseler, pp. 381, 395. sciousness. There is nothing of all this in
' See ver. V. the passage. And Christ i?i an angelic form
* Ps. iii. 6. is without analogy in the N. T. ; is, indocd,
< cTreo-rr;, sce on Luke ii. 9. at variance with the N. T. conception of the
* Lange, apostol. Zeilalt. II. p. 150, supposes 6df a of the glorified Lord.
that the help had befallen the apostle in the * See Storr, Opusc. III. p. 183 ff.
condition of "second consciousness, in an ^ Who (p. 202) regards our narrative as
extraordinary healthy disengagement of the more historical than the similar narratives in
higher life " I0entiiskben~\, and that the angel chaps, v. and xvi.
was a " reflected image of the glorified Christ;" ^ Matt, xxviii. 3.
that the latter Himself, in an angelic form, » Valck. ad Amman, iii. 4; Dorvill. ad
came within the sphere of Peter's vision ; that Charit, p. 587.
Clirist nimselt thus undertook the responsi- i" Dem. 789, 2. 890, 13. 1284, 2 ; Thuc. iv. 47.
bility ; and that the action of the apostle 2, 48. 1 ; Kypke, II. p. 57. Comp. Valck. ad
trangccnded the condition of rcsponsil)!e con- Herod, vii. 119.
233 CHAP. XII., 12-17.
ähfieq, as a real fact, but that he fancied himself to have seen a vision,
comp. xvi. 9. — Ver. 10. rijv cpepovaav elg r?)v nohv] Nothing can be de-
termined from this as to the situation of the prison. Fessel holds that it
was situated in the court of Herod's castle ; Walch and Kuinoel, that
Peter was imprisoned in a tower of the inner wall of the city, and that the
ni'X?} was the door of this tower, if the prison-house was m the city, which
is to be assumed from Kal e^eMövre^ k.t.1., its iron gate still in fact led from
the house s'lq t7)v ndhv. — Examples of avrofiaTog, used not only of persons,
but of things, may be seen in Wetstein in loc, and on Mark iv. 28.' —
pv/uf/v /liav] not several. — Ver. 11. y-evö/uevog h iavTü] ichen he had hecome
(present) in himself, i.e. had come to himself,^ "cum animo ex stupore ob
rem inopinatam iterum collecto satis sibi conscius esset."* — aal -Kaarjq Tijq
■KpoGÖoK. Tov lao'v T. 'loDfJ.] For hc had now ceased to be the person, in whose
execution the people were to see their whole expectation hostile to
Christianity gratified.
Ver. 13. "Zvviöuv} after he had perceived it, namely, what the state of the
case as to his deliverance had been, ver. 11.* It may also mean, after he
had weighed it, Vulg. considerans, namely, either generally the position of the
matter,^ or quid agendum esset.^ The above view is simpler, and in keeping
with xiv. 6. Linguistically inappropriate are the renderings : sibi conscius; ''
and : "after that he had set himself right in some measure as to the place
where he found himself." ® — There is nothing opposed to the common
hypothesis, tliat this John Marh is identical with the second evangelist.
Comp. ver. 35, xiii. 5.
Vv. 13, 14. Tfjv dvpav TOV Tzvlüvoq'] the icicTcet of the gate, x. 17. On
Kpoveiv or KOTTTEiv, used of the knocking of those desiring admission."* —
■KmöiaKri] who, amidst the impending dangers," had to attend to the duties
of a watchful doorkeeper; she was herself a Christian. — v-aKovaaL] For
examples of this expression used of doorkeepers, who, upon the call of
those outside, listen (auscultant) who is there, see Kypke." — ti)v (puvyvrov n.]
the voice of Peter, calling before the door. — otto ttjq Af^päf] prompted hy the
joy, which she now experienced, '^ she did not open the door at once, but
ran immediately into tell the news to those assembled. — aniiyy. kcravai
K.T.I.'] daa-yytHeLv is the more classical term for the awnouncement of a door-
keeper."
Vv. 15, 16. Maivij\ Thou art mad! An expression of extreme surprise
at one who utters what is absurd or otherwise incredible." The hearer also
1 Comp. Horn. E. v. 749 ; Eur. Bacch. 447 : * Beza.
ovTO/xara 6eo-^iä SteAuflr). Apollon. Rhod. iv. * Bengel, comp. Erasmus.
41 : aÜTO/xarot Ovpduiv iinoei^av öxrjci. Ovid. ' Kiünoel.
Met. iii. 699. [Phil. 938. ^ Olshausen ; comp. Chrysostom, Koyuraße-
• Luke XV. 17 ; Xen. Anab. i. 5. 17 ; Soph. vos öirov eanv, also Grotius and others."
3 Kypke, comp. Wetstein and Dorville, ad » See Lobeck, ad Ph?yn. p. 177 f. ; comp.
Charit, p. 81 ; Herm. ad Yig. p. 749. Becker, ChariU. I. p. 130.
4 Comp. xiv. (i; Plut. Them.. 7 : avviSiov rhu '" Comp. John xs. 19.
KivSvvov, Xen. Annb. i. 5. 9; Plat. De?», p. 381 >' II. p. 60, and Valckenaer, p. 489 f.
E, Dem. 17. 7, 1351, 6 ; Polyb. i. 4. 6, iii. G. 9, " Comp. Luke xxiv. 41.
vi. 4. 12; 1 Macc. Iv. 21 : ä Macc. ii. 24, iv. 4, " See Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 74.
v. 17, viii. 8 ; and see Wetstein. " Comp. xxvi. 24 ; Horn. Od. xviii. 40C.
Peter's wonderful deliverance. 233
of something incredible himself excl&ims : fiaivo/nai ! ' — Süaxvpili.] as in Luke
xxii. 59, and often in Greek writers : she maintained firmly and strongly. —
Ö hyyEkoq avrov hTiv] Even according to the Jewish conception," the explana-
tion suggested itself, that Peter's guardian angel had taken the form and
voice of his protege and was before the door. But the idea, originating
after the exile, of individual guardian angels,^ is adopted by Jesus Him-
self,* and is essentially connected with the idea of the Messianic kingdom."
Olshausen rationalizes this conception in an unbiblical manner, to this
effect : " that in it is meant to be expressed the thought, that there lives in
the world of spirit the archetype of every individual to be realized in the
course of his development, and that the higher consciousness which dwells
in man here below stands in living connection with the kindred phenom-
ena of the spirit-world." Cameron, Hammond, and others explain: "a
messenger sent by him from the prison." It is decisive against this in-
terpretation, that those assembled could just as little light on the idea of
the imprisoned Peter's having sent a messenger, as the maid could have
confounded the voice of the messenger with the well-known voice of Peter,
for it must be presumed from öilcxvpH^fTo ovrug e^eiv that she told the more
special reasons for her certainty that Peter was there. — Ver. 16. avoi^avreg]
consequently the persons assembled themselves, who had now come out of
their room.
Ver. 17. Karaaeic/v ry x"P''-\ ^"^ malce a shading motion rcith the hand
generally, and in particular, as here," to indicate that there is a wish to
bring forward something, for which one besjieaks the silence and attention
of those present.'' The infinitive aiyäv, as also often with veveiv and the
like, by which a desire is made known." — The three clauses of the whole
verse describe vividly the haste with which Peter hurried the proceedings,
in order to betake himseJ/ as soon as possible into safe concealment. Baum-
garten invents as a reason : because he saw that the hand between Jerusalem
and the apostles must be dissolved. As if it would have required for that pur-
pose such haste, even in the same night ! His regard to personal safety
does not cast on him the appearance of cowardly anxiety ; but by the
opposite course he would have tempted God. How often did Paul and Jesus
Himself withdraw from their enemies into concealment ! — Kal ■niic, ötJfZ^.]
who were not along with them in the assembly. — ng erepov t6-ov] is wholly
indefinite. Even whether a place in or out of Palestine* is meant, must
remain undetermined. Luke, probably, did not himself know the im-
mediate place of abode, which Peter chose after his departure. To fix
without reason on Caesarea, or, on account of Gal. ii. 11, with Heinrichs,
Kuinoel, and others, on Antioch,^'^ or indeed, after Eusebius, Jerome, and
many Catholics, on Rome,'' is all the more arbitrary, as from the words it
' Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 440. and Wetstcin in loc.
' See Lightfoot ad loc. * Comp. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 10. 2.
» See on Matt, xviii. 10. » Ewald, p. 60".
< Matt, xviii. 10. >° But see on ver. 25.
I» Hei), i. 14. >i Even in the present day the reference to
' Comp. xiii. IG, xix. 33. sxi. 40. Rome is, on the part of the Catholics (see
' See Polyb. i. 78. 3 ; Heliod. s. 7 ; Krebs Gams, d. Jahr, d, Märtyrertodes der Ap. Petr.
334 CHAP. XII., 18-30.
is not even distinctly apparent that the erepog roirng is to be placed outside of
Jeimsalem, although this is probable in itself ; for the common explanation
of e^eMüv^ relicta urbe, is entirely at variance with the context, ver. 16,
which requires the meaning, relicta domo^ into which he was admitted (a'^),
— The James mentioned in this jiassage is not the son of Alphaeus, — a tradi-
tional opinion, which has for its dogmatic presupposition the perpetual
virginity of Mary,' lut the real brother of the Lord,"^ ä(5e/.^öc aar a oäi)Ka tov
XpiGTov.^ It is the same also at xv. 13, xxi. 18. See on 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5 ;
Gal. i. 19. Peter sjjecially names him^ because he was head of the church
in Jerusalem. The fact that Peter does not name the apostles also, suggests
the inference that none of the twelve was present in Jerusalem. The
Clementines and Hegesippus make James the chief bishop of the whole
church.* This amplification of the tradition as to his high position goes,
in opposition to Thiersch, beyond the statements of the N. T.^
Vv. 18, 19. What had become of the (vanished) Peter, ^ whether accord-
ingly, under these circumstances,' the wonderful escape was capable of no
explanation — this inquiry was the object of consternation {räpax'K) among
the soldiers who belonged to the four rerpaöla, ver. 4, because they feared
the vengeance of the king in respect to those who had served on that
night-watch. And Herod actually caused those who had been the (pvAaneg
of the prison at the time of the escape, after previous inquiry,*' to be led to
execution — anax'dfjvai, the formal word for this.' After the completion of
the punishment, he went down from Judaea to his residency, where he
took up his abode. — e'lq -?)v Kaicrdp.] depends, as well as änb r. 'lowL, on
KareMuv. The definition of the place of the öterpißen^'^ was obvious of itself.
11. Paul., Regensb. 1867), very welcome, be- the son of Alphaeus, is rejected by Eusebius
cause a terminus a quo is tliereby thouglit to (against Wieseler on U-al. p. 81 f.), altliougb. it
be gained for the duration, lasting about was afterwards adopted by Jerome. See,
twenty-five years, of the episcopal functions generally, also Ewald, p. 321 ff. Böttger, d.
of Peter at Rome. Gams, indeed, places this Zeug, des Joseph, ion Joh. d. T., etc., 1863.
Roman jouraey of Peter as early as 41, and his Plitt in the Zeitschr.f. Luth. Theol. 1864, I. p.
martyrdom in the year (;5. So also Thiersch, 28 ff. ; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 184 flf.— Accord-
K. im. apost. Zeit. p. 9611., comp. Ewald. ing to Mark vi. 3, James was probably the
» See Hengstenberg on John ii. 13 ;■ Th. eldest of the four brethren of Jesus.
Schott, d. zweite Br. Petr. und d. Br. Judii, ^ Constit ap. viii. 35. The Constit. ap.
p. 193 ff. throughout distinguish very definitely James
■•^ Lange (apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 193 ff., and in of Alphaeus, as one of the twelve, from the
Herzog's Encykl. VI. p. 407 fl:.) has declared brother of the Lord, whom they characterize
himself very decidedly on the opposite side of as ö c'lrto-KOTros. See ii. 55. 2, vi. 12. 1, 5, 6, vi.
the question, and that primarily on the basis 14. 1, viii. 4. 1, viii. 23 f., viii. 10. 2, viii. 35,
of the passages from Hegesippus in Eusebius viii. 46. 7, v. 8, vii. 46. 1.
ii. 23 and iv. 23 ; but erroneously. Credner, * See Ritschl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 415 IT.
Einl. II. p. 574 f., has already strikingly ex- ^ Gal. ii. 13; 1 Cor. sv. 7 ; Acts xv., xxi. 18 ;
hibited the correct explanation of these pas- Epistle of James,
sages, according to which Jesus and James ^ Luke i. 66 ; John xxi. 21.
appear certainly as brothers in the proper '' Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176, comp. Baeumlein,
sense. Comp. Huthcr on James, Introd. p. 5 Partik. p. 34.
ff. ; Bleek, Einl. p. 543 ff. James the Just is ^ äfa/cpiVas, iv. 9 ; Luke xxiii. 14.
identical with this brother of the Lord ; see, » See Wakefield, Silv. crit. II. p. 131 ; Kypke,
especially, Euseb. II. E. ii. 1, where the II. p. 61 ; and from Philo : Loesner, p. 201.
opinion of Clem. A.I., that James the Just was " Vulg. : ibi commoratus est.
EXECUTION OF THE SOLDIERS. 235
Ver. 20.' Ov/wfiaxeiv] signifies to ßght violently, which may be meant
as "well of actual war as of other kinds of enmity.* Now, as an actual
war of Herod against the Roman confederate cities of Tyre and Sidon
is very improbable in itself, and is historically quite unknown ; as,
further, the Tyrians and Sidonians, for the sake of their special advan-
tage {(ha TO Tfn(pea&at . . . ßaci'XiiifjQ), might ask for peace, without a
war having already broken out, — namely, for the p7'eservation of the
peace, a breach of which was to be apprehended from the exasperation
of the king ; the explanation is to be preferred, in opposition to Raphel
and Wolf : he was at vehement enmity with the Tyrians, was vehemently
indignant against them.^ The reason of this -Sv/w/uaxia is unknown, but
it probably had reference to commercial interests. — ö/xod vfiaöSv] here
also, icith one accord, both in one and the same frame of mind and inten-
tion.^ — 7r/)öc avTÖv] not precisely : with him, but he/ore him, turned towards
him.* — Bläarov] according to the original Greek name, perhaps a Oreeic or *
a Roman in the service of Herod, his i-)racfeetii.s cubiculo,'' chamberlain,
chief valet de chambre to the royal i^erson,^ 6 ettI tov Koirüvog tov ßaaiTitug.^
How they gained and disposed him in their favour, tt? /crnvrf f , '" possibly by
bribery, is not mentioned. — 6ia. to Tpe(pEa^ai . . . ßaacÄiK?jg] so. x^po-i-
This refers partly to the important commercial gain which Tyre and
Sidon derived from Palestine, where the people from of old purchased
in large quantities timber, spices, and articles of luxury from the Phoe-
nicians, to whom, in this respect, the harbour of Caesarea, improved by
Herod, was very useful ;" and. partly to the fact, that Phoenicia annually
derived a portion of its grain from Palestine.**
Ver. 21. TaKTij Jf wtpa] ^^ According to Josephus, namely, he was
celebrating just at that time games in honour of Claudius, at which, de-
clared by flatterers to be a god, he became suddenly very ill, etc. — hövcdft.
f(Ti9r;ra ßaai?..] (TTolf/v h'Svaäfievog f,f apyvpiov TzewoLTjfiEvrjv iräcjav, Joseph. I.e.
— The ßi/fui, the platform from Avhich Agrijjpa spoke, would have to be
conceived, in harmony with Josephus, as the throne-like box m the theatre,
which, according to the custom of the Romans, was used for popular
assemblies and public speeches,'* which was destined for the king, if Luke
1 Chrysosfom correctly remarks the internal (Gerlach), as koltmv is nsed in Dio Cass. Ixi. 5.
relation of what follows : tieeous j; SUri KareK- For the meaning chamber, i.e. not treasure
aßev avTöf, ei Kai fi.7) Stä llerpor, äAAä Siä rr^v Chamber, but skepi7i(/-ro&m, ig the vsval one,
avToii iJ.eya\r]yop<.av. Com. Euscb. ü. 10. There andlies at the root of the designations of ser-
is much subjuctivc'ly supplied by Baumgartcn, rice, /coiTuftäpj^rj? (chainbeiiaw) and Koi.T<avirri<;
who considers it as the aim of this section to {valet de chambre'). Comp. Lobeck, I.e. In
exhibit the character of the kingdom of the the LXX. and Apocr. also koit. is cuUculmii.
icorld in this bloody persecution directed SeeSchlcusn. Thes.
against the apostles. " Comp, on iiri, viii. 27, and on koitüv, Wet-
2 See Schweighäuser, Lex. Polyb. p. 303 ; stein and Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 252 f.
Kypke, II. p. 63 f. ; Valcken. p. 493. " See Niigelsb. on lHad, p. 50 f .
3 Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4. " Joseph. Antt. xv. 9. 6.
* See on i. 14. " j Kings v. 9, 11 ; Ezek. xxvii. 17 ; Joseph.
* See on John i. 1. Antt. xiv. 10. 6.
« See the inscription in Wetstein. i' According to Joseph. Antt. xix. 8. 2,comp.
'' Sueton. Domit. IG. xviii. G. 7, ficvrepa 6« tüv Onopiitv rii^ipa.
"Scarcely overseer of the royal ti-eamre '^ Comp. xix. 29.
236 CHAP. XII., 21-25.
— which, however, cannot be ascertained — has apprehended the whole
occurrence as in connection with the festival recorded by Josephus. This
festival itself is not defined more exactly by Josephus than as held vnep r^g
curr/piag of the emperor. Hence different hypotheses concerning it, such
as that of Anger : that it celebrated the return of Claudius from Britain ;
and that of Wieseler : that it was the Quinquennalia, which, however, was
not celebrated until August ; a date which, according to the context, ver. 35,
is too late. — körj^ip/öpei ■npog avTovq\ he made a S2)eech in public assemUy of
tlie peo2)le (ver. 22) to them, namely, to the Tyriana and Sidonians, to whom,
to whose representatives, he thus publicly before the people declared in
a speech directed to them his decision on their request, his sentiments,
etc. Only this simple view of Tvpoq avrovc : to them,^ not : in reference to
tliem, — my first edition, and Baumgarten, — as well as the reference to the
Tyrians and Sidonians, not to tJie peo-[)lc,'^ is suggested by the context,
and is to be retained. That, moreover, the speech was planned to obtain
popularity, is very probable in itself from the character of Herod, as
well as from ver. 22 ; and this may have occasioned the choice of the
word 6r}/x/jyopElv, which often denotes such a rhetorical exhibition.'
Ver. 22. Ev^hg ös ol KohiKtg rag oviik EKiivu izpog h-^ndov a'/Jjig ä7JMdev (puväg
äveßouv, ■debv Trpoauyopsvuvreg^ evpevi/g re chjg, i:~i?J')()vr£g^ fl nal u^Xf" '^'^'^ <^?
dvd-pcjTTOv Efaß/'/T^rj/LiEv, ci2/ä rovvTEVf^iv Kpeirrava as dv7]T7jg (pvaecjg 6/uuhj}üv/u£v !
Joseph. I.e., who, however, represents this shout of flattery, which cer-
tainly proceeded from the mouth, not of Jews, but of Gentiles, as occa-
sioned by the silver garment of the king shining in the morning sun,
and not by a speech on his part. "Vulgus tamen vacuum curis et sine
falsi verique discrimine solitas adulationes edoctum, clamore et vocibus
adstrepebat. "^ 6 (h]uog, the comnwn people, is found in the N. T. only in
the Book of Acts.^
Ver. 23. 'ETaraffi' avrov a}}f/lof KvpiQv\ an angel of tlie Lord smote him.
The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting in as a punishment of God, is in
accordance with O. T. precedents, ° apprehended as the effect of a stroke
invisibly befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar ' does
not accord with this view, in opposition to Baumgarten. Josephus, I.e.,
relates that soon after that display of flattery, the king saw an owl sitting
on a rope above his head, and he regarded this, according to a prophecy
formerly received in Rome from a German, as a herald of death, whereupon
severe abdominal pains immediately followed, under which he expired after
five days, at the age of fifty-four years. That Liilce has not adopted this
fable, — instead of which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden slavering, — is a
consequence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own sphere
and tradition the knara^ev . . . Qeü as an exhibition of the divine Nemesis";
1 Comp. Plat. Leffg. vii. p. 817 C : SrjMW- 350 E.
Trpös naLSä<; Te Kai yvvalKa^ «ai rbi- navra öxAor. * Tacit. HlSt. ii. 90.
= So Gerlach, p. 60, after Ranisch, de Litcae = See xvii. 5, xis. 30, 33. Comp, on xix. 30.
et Josephi in rmrte Her. Agr. consensu. Lips. « Comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 17 ; 3 Kings xix. 35 ;
1745 ; and Fritzsche, Conject. p. 13 f. Jsa. sxsvii. 3G.
3 See Stallb. ad Gorg. p. 482 C, ad Bep. p. ' Dan. iv. 26-.30.
DEATH OF HEROD AGRIPPA. 237
therefore Eusebius ' ought not to have liarmonizcd the accounts, and made
out of the owl an angel of death. Bengel : " Adeo differt historia divina
et humana."''' — ävd' up] as a requital for the fact, that.^ — ohn töune ryv Jofav
rw Of(j] he refnsed God the Jionoitr due to Ilim, inasmuch as he received
that tribute of honour /or himself, instead of declining it and directing the
flatterers to the honour which belongs to Ood, " nulli creaturae communi-
cabilem," Erasmus ;* ovk knerrlrj^e rovroig, the flatterers, 6 ßaGi?.evc, ohöe ryv
Kolaneiav äaeßovaav aneTpk-^iaTo. How entirely difl!erent the conduct of Peter,
X. 2G, and of Paul and Barnabas, xiv. 14 f. ! — yevöjizvoQ oKulrjKÖßp.'] similarly
with Antiochus Epiphanes/ This is not to be regarded as at variance with
Josephus, who speaks generally only of pains in the bowels ; but as a more
precise statement, which is, indeed, referred by Baur to a Christian
legend originating from the fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdom-
inal pains that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm
which torments the condemned !'^ Kühn,' Eisner, Morus, and others, entirely
against the words, have converted the disease of worms destroying the in-
testines * into the disease of lice, (pdeipiaaig, as if <pdeip6ßpuToq^ were used ! —
The word cKulrjKÖßp. is found in Theoph. c. p^- iü- 12. 8 (?), v. 9. 1. —
liktliv^ev] namely, after five days. Joseph. I.e. But did not Luke consider
the yev6/j.. cKuh/n. i^ETpvxsv as having tciken place on the spot ? The whole
brief, terse statement, the reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of
f^'ei/'iffi','* render this highly probable (b").
Ver. 24. A contrast — full of significance in its simplicity — to the tragical
end of tlie persecutor : the divine doctrine grew, in difi^usion, and gained in
iivmher of those professing it. Comp. vi. 7, xix. 20.
Ver. 25. "YTrearpefav] they returned, namely, to Antioch, xi. 27-80, xiii,
1. The statement in ver. 25 takes up again the thread of the narrative,
which had been dropped for a time by the episode, vv. 1-24, and leads
over to the continuation of the historical course of events in chap. xiii.
The taking of {'■Tvearpeipav in the sense of the plujjerfect,^^ rests on the er-
roneous assumption that the collection-journey of this passage coincides with
Gal. ii. The course of events, according to the Book of Acts, is as follows :
— Wliile, Kar' tKtlvov tov Katpov, ver. 1, Barnabas and Saul are sent with the
collection to Judaea, xi. 30, there occurs in Jerusalem the execution of
James and the imprisonment and deliverance of Peter,'- and then,'^ at Caes-
area, the death of llerod.''' But Barnabas and Saul return y)'»?«- Jerusalem
1 a. E. ii. 10. « Mark ix. 44 f. ; comp. Isa. xlvi. 44.
• See. besides, Heinichen, Exc. II. ad Euseb. ' Ad Ael. V. IL iv. 28.
III. p. ."^.JO IT. * Bartholiiuis, dc mo/bis Bib!, c. 23 ; Mead.
3 Sec on Lnke i. 20. dt; morb. lUM. c. 15 ; and sec the analogous
* Isa. xlviii. 11. Comp. Joseph. I.e. case? in Wetstein.
^ 2 Mace. ix. 5, 9. Observe how much our ' Ilesj'ch. Mil. 40.
simple narrative— oecawe eaten ivith tcorms— '" Comp. Acts v. 5, 10.
is distinrjnished from the overlnden and ex- '' "Jam ante Herodis obitum," etc., Hein-
travagantly embellished descript ion in 2 Mace. richs, Kuinoel.
ix. 9 (SCO Grimm in loc). But there is no rea- '' vv. 2-18.
son, with Gerlacli, to exphiin aKoiXriKoßp. fir/ii- " \qy \cf
ratirely (like the German tvurmstichifj) : icorn '■• vv. 20-23.
and shattered by pain.
238 CHAP. XII., NOTES.
to Antioch.' From this it follows that, according to the Acts, they visited
first the other churches of Judaea and came to Jerusalem last ; so that the
episode, vv. 1-23, is to be assigned to that time which Barnabas and Saul
on their journey in Judaea spent with the different churches, hefore they
came to Jerusalem, from which, as from the termination of their journey,
they returned to Antioch. Perhaps what Barnabas had heard on his
journey among the country-churches of Judaea as to the persecutiou of the
Christians by Agrippa, and as to what befell James and Peter, induced him,
in regard to Puul,^ not to resort to the capital, until he had heard of the
departure and perhaps also of the death of the king. — cvfxnapaXaß. /c.r./l.]
from Jerusalem ; see ver. 13.
Notes by American Editob.
(t') Herod. V. 1.
This king was the grandson of Herod the Great. He ruled, in some degree
independently, over a larger domain than that of his grandfather. His rev-
enues, according to Josephus, were very large ~a sum calculated as equal to
two millions of dollars. He was a man of ability and of royal magnificence ; but
crafty, selfish, and extravagant, vainglorious, unprincipled, and licentious. His
reign was short, and was stained by many acts of oppression and cruelty.
His death, the result of a loathsome and torturing disease, was an evident Di-
vine rebuke of his blasphemous impiety. In this matter Josephus concurs
with Luke in the main facts of the case. After his death Judea was again re-
duced to a Eoman province. The three Herods are thus distinguished :
" AscJialonita necat pueros, Antipa Joannem, Agrippa Jacobum, Claudens in Car-
cere Fetrum."
Kenan, speaking of Herod, says : "This vile Oriental, in return for the les-
sons of baseness and perfidy he had given at Rome, obtained for himself Sa-
maria and Judea, and for his brother Herod the kingdom of Chalcis. He left
at Eome the worst memories ; and the cruelties of Caligula were attributed in
part to his counsels." "The orthodox [Jews] had in him a king according to
their own heart."
(z') He killed James. V. 2.
Instigated by the Jews, with whom he sought to be popular, and whose ritual
he zealously observed, Herod harassed the church by maltreating its members ;
and finding this course pleasing to the Jews, whose good-will he was anxious to
secure, he seized James and beheaded him— a mode of death deemed very dis-
graceful by the Jews. The victim of this high-handed violence was James the
elder, designated by our Lord a Son of Thunder. Very little is recorded con-
cerning him in the Acts. He is to be distinguished from James the younger,
son of Alpheus ; and also from James, the Lord's brother. The death of James
verified the prediction that he should drink of his Master's cup. He is the
* Ver. 23. a See on xi. 30.
NOTES. 239
only one of the twelve of whose death there is any account in Scripture, and
probably the tirst of the twelve who died. The record of his " taking off " is
very brief — only two words, äv£l?^ei^ /laxalga. Conjecture as to the cause of such
brevity is vain. There is a tradition which states that his accuser, or the offi-
cer who led him to the judgment-seat, was so influenced by the conduct and
confession of the apostle, that he avowed himself a Christian, and, having
asked and received the kiss of pardon from James, suffered martyrdom with
him. "The accuracy of the sacred writer, " says Paley, "in the expressions
which he uses here is remarkable. There was no portion of time for thirty
years before, or ever afterwards, in which there was a king at Jerusalem, a per-
son exercising that authority in Judea, or to whom that title could be applied,
except the last three years of Herod's life, within which period the transaction
here recorded took place."
(A-) Peter in prison. V. 5.
In the war of extermination which Herod had been instigated to wage
against the Christians he used the policy of first removing the most marked
ringleaders. He had cut off James, the brother of John, Peter's oldest friend,
and one of the three highly favored by the Master, by a sudden and terrible
death, so as to strike terror into the hearts of the discijiles. This first act of the
bloody tragedy had been j)layed with success, and a second is about to open.
There remained now no one, unless Saul of Tarsus, more obnoxious or more
to be feared than the daimtless, intrepid son of Jonas. He therefore is next
seized, and cast into prison, under many guards — a precaution surely unneces-
sary, for his friends had no apparent means bj' which to affect his rescue.
But possibly some of the courtiers might have heard that he had once before,
in some wonderful way, escaped from prison ; and hence this double security.
Not until after the feast of the passover would the punctilious monarch order
his execution. Meantime the afilicted and disconsolate disciples, conscious of
their helplessness, turn to the Lord in earnest and contintied prayer. The
last night before the expected execution has come ; the disciples are gathered
together in prayer ; the apostle, calm in his confidence and fearless in his faith,
quietly sleeps between his guards. Ere the dawn of the morning a dazzling
light fills the cell, and an angel arouses the prisoner, and orders him to put on
his attire, as for a journey. He safely leads him past the first and second
watches through the gate into the open street, and then leaves him. Peter,
with difficulty realizing what had been done in his behalf, went to the house
of Maiy, mother of Mark, and sister of Barnabas, and found the brethren there
still in j^rayer. Wordsworth thus beautifully writes on this passage : "Herod's
soldiers were watching iinder arms at the door of the prison ; Christ's soldiers
were watching with prayer in the house of Marj'. Christ's soldiers are more
powerful with their anns than Herod's soldiers with theirs ; they unlock the
prison doors and bring Peter to the house of Mary." And when the answer to
their prayer had been granted they could scarcely believe that Peter was really
in person, among them. He related to them all the circumstances connected
with his deliverance, and they were filled with joy. Peter prudently, in the
meantime sought safety in concealment.— itf Ire^ov totz6v. Alford says : "I see
in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative." Lcchler (in Lange)
249 CHAP. XII., NOTES.
observes : " The event is indeed most graphically described, and exhibits no
features that can embarrass any one who believes in the interposition of the
living God, in the real world, and who admits the actual existence and the
operation of angels. Hence no sufficient reason is apparent which could induce
those who admit the miraculous character of the historical facts, nevertheless,
to assert that legendary matter has been commingled with the pure historical
elements," as Meyer in the text has done.
" All rationalistic explanations to account for this deliverance of Peter are in
direct opposition to the narrative. According to Hezel, a flash of lightning
shone into the prison, and loosened the chains of Peter. According to Eich-
horn and Heinrichs, the jailor, or others with his knowledge, delivered Peter
without the apostle being conscious to whom he owed his freedom ; and as the
soldiers are a difficulty in the way of this ex^jlanation, they sujipose that a
sleeping draught was administered to them. All this is mere trifling. Others
endeavor to get rid of the miraculous by questioning the correctness of the
narrative. Meyer and de Wette think that the truth is here so mixed up with
the mythical element that it is impossible to affirm what took place. Baur sup-
poses that Herod himself delivered the apostle, as he found, in the interval,
that the people were not gratified by the death of James, but that, on the con-
trary, that i^roceeding had made him unpopular. Neander passes over the
narrative with the remark : ' By Ihe special providence of God Peter was deliv-
ered from prison.' Whenever the miraculous in the narrative is given up, the
only resource is the mythical theory — to call in question the truth of the his-
tory — as all natural explanations are wholly iTnavailing. 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 descrix^tion." (Gloag.)
Kenan even admits in a note to chapter 14th of " The Apostles :" " The ac-
count in the Acts is so lively and just that it is difficult to find any place in it
for any prolonged legendary elaboration,"
(b2) Death of Herod. V. 23.
Josephus informs us that Herod died in the fifty-fourth year of his age, in
the seventh of his reign, having reigned only three years over the whole of
Palestine. " But Herod deprived this Matthias of the high priesthood, and
burnt the other Matthias, who had raised a sedition with his companions,
alive. And that very night there was an eclipse of the moon. But now
Herod's distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this
by God's judgment upon him for his sins, for a fire glowed in him slowly,"
He further speaks of putrefaction, of convulsions, of worms, of fetid breath,
and loathsomeness generally. He says also that it was said by those who un-
derstood such things that God inflicted this punishment on the king for his
great impiety. Just before his death he summoned the principal men of the
entire Jewish nation to come to him. TVTien they came the king was in a wild
rage against them all, the entirely innocent as well as those against whom there
might be ground of accusation. He ordered them all to be shut up in the Hip-
podrome, and left most solemn injunctions with his brother-in-law, Alexis,
that when he died they should all be put to death, so that there might be a
general mourning at his decease. He acted like a madman, and even had a
NOTES. 241
design of committing suicide. A more miserable death scene has never been
portrayed than Josephus gives of the impious, infamous, and atrociously ma-
lignant and crviel Herod. {Josephus Antiq. xvii. 6, 5, and 7, and 8.) The
points of difference between the account given by Luke and the history of Jo-
sephus are few and unimportant, and easily reconciled. There is really no
contradiction in the narratives at all, and therefore it is wholly superfluous on
the part of any commentator to have recourse to mythical explanations ; as it
the worms— mentioned however by Josephus as well as by Luke — had ref-
erence to the gnawing worm of remorse which preys upon the consciously
guilty.
342 CHAP. XIII.
CHAPTEE XIII.
Vee. 1. ijoav (5f] So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But ELz. and Scholz add tlveZ,
against A B D X, min. vss. Vig. A hasty addition, from the supposition that
all the teachers and prophets of the church of Antioch could not be named. —
Ver. 4. ovToi] Lachm. Tisch, read avroi, after A B t<, min. Vulg. Syr. utr. Ambr.
Vig. ; Born, has ol only, after D, Ath. As the reading of C is not clear, the
preponderance of witnesses, which alone can here decide, remains in favour of
the reading of Lachm. — Ver. 6. blrjv'] is wanting in Elz., but is supported by
decisive testimony. How easily would transcribers, to whom the situation of
Paphos was not jireciselj^ known, find a contradiction in o7it]v and a^pt Y\.ä<pov !
— äv(^pa Tivii] So Lachm. Tisch. Born., after AB C D X, min. Chrys. Theophyl.
Lucif. and several vss. After rivd, E, 36, Vulg. Sahid. Slav. Lucif. have äv6pa.
Biit Elz. and Scholz omit ui-6pa, which, however, is decisively attested by those
witnesses, and was easily passed over as quite superfluous. — Ver. 9. The usual
Kcii before areviaaS is deleted, according to decisive evidence, by Lachm. Tisch.
Born. — Ver. 14. r?/? üicridia?] Lachm. and Tisch, readr?/!; Hiaiöiav, after ABC
N . But it lacks any attestation from the vss. and Fathers. Therefore it is
the more to be regarded as an old alteration (it was taken as an adjective like
IliCTirff/coS). — Ver. 15. After el Lachm. Born. Tisch, have r«?, which has pre-
X^onderant attestation, and from its apparent superfluousness, as well as from
its position between two words beginning with E, might very easily be omitted.
— Ver. 17. After tovtov Lachm. reads, with Elz., 'lapaf/X, which also Born, has
defended, following A B C D X, vss. Its being self-evident gave occasion to
its being passed over, as was in other witnesses tovtov, and in others /laow
TOVTOV. — Ver. 18. trpo^oi;!).] So (after Mill, Grabe, and others) Griesb. Matthaei,
Lachm. Scholz, Tisch., following A C* E, min. vss. But Elz. Tisch, and Born,
have £Tpo-Ko<^. {mores eonim sustinuit, Vulg.). An old insertion of the word
which came more readily to hand in writing, and was also regarded as more ap-
propriate. See. the exegetical remarks. — Ver. 19. KaTeKlrjpovo/irjcjEv'] Elz. reads
KaT£K?.T}po6ÖTTiaEv, against decisive witnesses. An interpretation on account of
the active sense. — Ver. 20. küI /xerd . . . e6uke'\ Lachm. reads wj etegl TETpa-
Koaloii KaiTVE vTTjKovTn, Kol fiETii TavTa EÖuKEi', which Griesb. has recommended
and Born, adopted, after A B C N, min. Vulg. An alteration, in order to re-
move somehow the chronological difiiculty. — Ver. 23. y/yaye] Elz. and Born,
read fjyEipE, in opposition to A B E G H K, min. and several vss. and Fathers.
An interpretation in accordance with ver. 22. — Ver. 27. änECTä2.T]'\ Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read e^mrEaTÜh], which is so decidedly attested by A B C D N,
min. Chrys. that the Eecepia can only be regarded as having arisen from neg-
lect of the doiible compound. — Ver. 31. vvv] is wanting in Elz., but is, accord-
ing to important attestation, to be recogized as genuine, and was omitted
because those who are mentioned were already long ago witnesses of Jesus.
Hence others have äxpi vvv (D. Syr. p. Vulg. Cant. ; so Born.) ; and others still,
Kal vi'v (Arm.). — Ver. 32. avTÜv 7/filv'] Sahid. Ar. Ambr. ms. Bed. gr. have only
CBITICAL REMARKS, 243
avTÜv. A B C* D [X, Aeth. Vulg. Hil. Ambr. Bed. have only i/fiüv (so Lachm.
and Born., who, however, conjectures Tjfilv '), for which Tol. read vftCJv. Sheer
alterations from want of acquaintance with such juxtaposition of the genitive
and dative. — Ver. 33. tu npÜTu'] Elz. and Scholz read tu öevripu (after \pa?i/iq)).
But rJ) npuTCf), which (following Erasm. and Mill) Griesb. Lachm. (who places
it after yiypanTai, where A B C t<, lo"- 40 have their tu öevTfpu) Tisch. Born,
have adopted, is, in accordance with D, Or. and several other Fathers, to be
considered as the original, which was supplanted by rcj ihvTip(j according to
the usual numbering of the Psalms. The bare ipaÄ/iü, which Hesych. iiresb.
and some more recent codd. have, without any numeral, is, although defended
by Bengel and others, to be considered as another mode of obviating the
difficulty erroneously assumed. — Ver. 41, o] Elz. reads ü, which, as the LXX,
at Hab. i. 5 has o, would have to be preferred, were not the quite decisive ex-
ternal attestation in favour of o. — The second epyov is wanting in D E G, min,
Chrys. Cosm. Theophyl. Oec. and several vss. ; but it was easily omitted, as it
was regarded as unnecessary and was not found in the LXX. I.e. — Ver. 42-
avTüv'] Els. reads Ik TT/i avvayuyrji tüv 'lov6aiuv. Other variations are avrüv ck t.
ovvay. T, 'lovd. or tüv äTTOGTÖ?.uv £k t. cvvay. r. 'Iüv6. Sheer interpolations, be-
cause ver. 42 begins a church lesson. The simple uvtuv has decisive attesta-
tion. — After napind^ovv "Elz. has tu iOvjj, which, although retained bj' Matthaei,
is spurious, according to just as decisive testimony. It was inserted, because
it was considered that the request contained here must not, according to ver.
45, be ascribed to the Jews, but rather to the Gentiles, according to ver. 48. —
•Ver. 43. After -KpoaTial. A B (?) C D X, vss. Chiys. have avToli (so Lachm. and
Born.). A familiar addition. — ■KpoatiEvetv'] Els. reads i'm/.tEveiv, against decisive
evidence. — Ver. 44. ex^M^^'v'i ^^^- reads ipxofiivu, against A C** E*, min. An
alteration, from want of acquaintance with this use of the word, as in Luke xiii-
33 ; Acts XX. 15, xxi. 26. — Ver. 45. ävTi7.£yovTei «a/] is wanting in A B C G X,
min and several vss. (erased by Lachm.). E has ivavTLovfievoL kuL Both are
hasty emendations of style. — Ver. 50. rdS tvax-] Elz. reads Kai ruS evox-, against
decisive testimony. Kai, if it has not arisen simi^ly from the repetition in
writing of the preceding syllable, is a wrongly inserted connective,
"With chap. xii. commences the second part of the book, -which treats
chietly of the missionary labors and fortunes of Paul. First of all, tlie spe-
cial choice and consecration of Barnabas and Paul as missionaries, which
took place at Antioch, are related, vv. 1-3 ; and then the narrative of tlieir
first missionary journey is annexed, ver. 4-xiv. 28. These two cliapters show,
by the very fact of their independent commencement entirely detached from
the immediatly preceding narrative concerning Barnabas and Saul,^ by the
detailed nature of their contents, and by the conclusion rounding them off,
which covers a considerable interval without further historical data, that they
have been derived from a special docitmentdry source., wliich lias, nevertheless,
been subjected to revision as regards diction by Luke.' Tliis documentary
> Lachmann, Praef. p. ix., conjectured «<<>■ following narrative does not correspond.
rtinSiv: " nostra tempore.'' Comp. Schleicrmacher, EM. p. 353 f.
»Lekebusch. p. 108, explains this abrupt ^ See also Bleek in the Slud. u. Krit. 18S6,
isolation as designed; the account emerges p. Vm.
SoUmnly. But to this the simplicity of the
244 CHAP, XIII., 1-2.
source, however, is not to be determined more precisely, although it may
bj conjectured that it originated in the church of Antioch itself, and that
tlie oral communications mentioned at xiv. 27 as made to that church formed
the foundation of it from xiii. 4 onward. The assumption of a icritten report
made by the two missionaries,' obtains no support from the living apostolic
mode of working, and is, on account of xiv. 37, neither necessary nor war-
ranted. Schwanbeck considers the two chapters as a portion of a biography
of Barnabas, to which also iv. 36 f., ix. 1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25 belonged ;
and Baur^ refers the entire section to the apologetic purpose and literary
freedom of the author (c°).
Ver. 1. This mention and naming of the jirophets and teachers is intended
to indicate how rich Antioch was in prominent resources for the sending
forth messengers of the gospel, which was now to take place. Thus the
mother-church of Gentile Christianity had become the seminary of the mis-
sion to the Gentiles. The order of the persons named is, without doubt,
such as it stood in the original document : hence Barnabas and Saul are
separated; indeed, Barnabas is placed first — the arrangement appears to have
been made according to seniority — and Saul last ; it was only by his mission-
ary labours now commencing that the latter acquired in point of fact his
superiority. — Kara rtjv ovaav sKKTiTjalav^ with the existing church. skeI is not to
be supplied.'' This ovaav is retained from the original document ; in connec-
tion with what has been already narrated, it is superfluous. — Kara, with, ac-
cording to the conception of, here official, direction.'' — npoipfj-aiK. 6i6ä(yiialnL\
as prophets^ and teacheis, who did not speak in the state of apocalyptic in-
spiration, but communicated instruction in a regular and rational unfolding
of doctrine.^ — The five named are not to be regarded only as a part, but
as the whole hody of the prophets and teachers at Antioch, in keeping with
the idea of the selection which the Spirit designed. To what individuals the
predicates "prophet'' or "teacher" respectively belong, is not, indeed, ex-
pressly said ; but if, as is probable in itself and in accordance with iv. 36,
the prophets are mentioned first and then the teachers, the three first named
are to be considered as prophets, and the other two as teachers. This di-
vision is indicated by the position of the particles : (1) re . . . Kai . . . Kai ;
(2) re . . . Kai.'' — That the prophets of the passage before us, particularly
Symeon and Lucius, were included among those mentioned in xi. 27, is im-
probable, inasmuch as Agabus is not here named again. TTiose prophets,
doubtless, soon returned to Jerusalem. — Concerning ^S/mcwi with the Roman
name Niger ^^ and Lucius of Cyrene,^ who is not identical Avith the evan-
gelist Luke, nothing further is known. The same is also the case with
Menahem (DnJD), who had been (TvvTpo<po^ of the tetrarcJi Herod, i.e. of An-
tipas.^'' But whether cvvTpo<pog is, with the Vulgate, Cornelius a Lapide,
» Olsbausen. t Comp. Kühner, ad. Xen. Mem. ii. 3. 19 ;
s I. p. 104 ff. Baeumlein, Partik. p. 219 f.
3 Comp. Rom. xiii. 1. [500). « Sueton. ^wg-. 11, al.
« Bemhardy, p. 240 ; Winer, p. 374 (E. T. » Rom. xvi. 21 ?
6 See on xi. 27. " See Walch, de Menache7no<Tvv^p6if>u> Hero-
• 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11. dis, Jen. 1758.
FIRST OllDAINED MISSIONARIES. 245
Walch, TTcumann, Kiiinoel, Olshauscn, and others, to be understood as
fostcr-hrot/ur, cvuhictaneus,'^ so that Mcnahem's mother was ITerod's nurse ;
or, with Erasmus, Lutlier, Calvin, Grotius, Ilaphel, Wolf, lleinriehs, Baum-
garten, Ewald, and others, hwiight vp icith, contubeftudis, — cannot be deter-
mined, as either may be expressed by the word.^ The latter meaning, how-
ever,' makes the later Christian position of Menahem tJte wore remarhille,
in that he appears to have been brought up at the court of Ilerod the Great.
At all events he was already an old man, and had become a Christian earlier
than Saul, who is placed after him (d^).
Ver. 2. \eiTovpyovvTuv . . . r^ Krip/w] TiEiTovpyelv, the usual word for the
temple-service of the priests,* is here transferred to the church (avruv)
engaged in Christian worship,^ in accordance with the holy character of
the church, which had the ayidrriq, the XP'^'^/^"- ^^ the Spirit,® and indeed was
a ufjäreviia äyiov.'' Hence : zchile they performed holy service to the Lord
Christ, a?!f7, at the same tm\c, fasted. Anymore specific meaning is too
narrow, such as, that it is tobe understood of prayer, Grotius, Heinrichs,
Kuinoel, Olshausen, and many others, on account of ver. 3, but see on
that passage, or oi preaching, Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others in Wolf.
Both without doubt are included, not, however, themass, as Catholics hold ;
but certainly the spiritual Sfw»;.'«/ — eItve to TTVEv/ia to ayiov] the Holy Sjtirit
said,^ namely, by one or some of these ItiTovpyovvTe^, probably by one of the
prophets, who announced to the church the utterance of the Spirit revealed
to him. — 6i/] with the imperative makes the summons more decided and
more urgent.'" — jioi] to me, for my service. — b TcpocKai/.jjfiai avToix] for ichich,
description of the design, I have called them tome," namely, to be my organs,
interpreters, instruments in the propagation of the gospel. The utterance
of the Spirit consequently refers to an internal call of the Spirit already
made to both, and that indeed before the church, "ut hi quoque scirent
vocationem illorum eique subscriberent," Bengel. The preposition is not
repeated before b, = elg b, because it stands already before to epyov, accord-
ing to general Greek usage."
' Comp. Xen. ^pA. ii. .3. resented by its presbyters, — a proceeding
2 See W'etstcin and Kuinoel. which neither agrees with the fellowsliip of
3 Comp. 1 Mace. i. 6 ; 2 Mace. ix. 2D; and the Spirit in the constitution of the ai)Ohtolic
Fee, in general, Jacob?, arf Anthol. XI. p. 38. church, nor corresponds wilh the analogous
^ LXX. Ex. xxviii. 31 ; Kum. iv. 38 ; Ex. concrete cases of the choice of an nposMe,
xl. 48; Judifh iv. 14 ; Heb. x. 11 ; comp, on chap. i. and of the deactms, chap. vi. Comp.
Rom. XV. 27. also xiv. 27, where the missionaries, on their
' The reference of aÜTÜii' not to the collective return, make their report to the chuich.
i(K\-i]cria, but to ihc prophets and teachirs Moreover, it is evident of itself that the proph-
named in ver. 1 (Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, and ets and teachers are included in aviCiv.
many others, including Baumtrarten, Hoele- « 1 John ii. 20.
mann, neue Bibelüud. p. 320 ; Laurent, neiit. ' 1 Pet. ii. ,5.
Stud. p. 14(i), is not to be approved on account * See on Eph. v. 19 ; Col. iii. 16.
of <i(i>opi<TaT6 and on acconiit of ver. 3. The » Comp, on xx. 28.
whole highly important missionary act would, "> Baeumlein, rartik. p. 104 f. Comp, on
according to this view, be performed only in Luke ii. 15.
the circle of five persons, of whom, moreover, ' ' xvi. 10.
two were the missionaries themselves destined '^ See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32; Stallb.
by the Spirit, and the church as such would ad. Phaed. p. 76 D ; Winer, p. 398 (E. T.
have taken no part at all, not being even rep- 524 f.).
24G CHAP. XIII., 3-9.
Ver. 3. The translation must be : Afterioards, after "having fasted and
2)rayed and laid their hands on them, as the consecration communicating the
gift of the Spirit for the new and special holy office,' thei/ sent them away.
For there is here meant a solemnity specially appointed by the church on
occasion of that address of the Spirit, different from the preceding, ver. 2 ;
and not the termination thereof." This is evident from the words of Luke
himself, who describes this act differently, vTjarsva. k. Trpocsv^., from the
l)receding, V.eiTovpy. k. vijar., and by tote separates it as something later ;
and also because vriarevaavrec, in the sense of '■'■ when they had finished fast-
ing,'''' does not even give here any conceivable sense. — (nvelvaav] What the
Spirit had meant by fif epyop, b TcpoaKt-K?.. avrovq, might, when they heard
that address, come directly home to their consciousness, especially as they
might be acquainted in particular with the destination of Saul at ix. 15 ;
or might be explained by the receiver and interpreter of the Spirit's
utterance. — That, moreover, the imjjosition cf hands -was not by the whole
church, but by its representatives the presbyters,^ was obvious of itself to
the reader.
Vv. 4, 5. AliToi (see the critical remarks) : such was the course taken
•with them ; tJiey themselves, therefore, ipsi igitur. — zKneticpd. vt6 tov ttvev/i.]
for " vocatio prorsus divina erat ; tantum manu Dei oblatos amplexa
erat ecclesia, " Calvin. — They turned themselves at first to the quarter
■where they might hope most easily to form connections — it was, in fact,
the first attempt of their new ministry — to Cyprus, the native country of
Barnabas, iv. 36, to which the direct route from Antioch by way of the
neighbouring Seleucia, in Syria, also called Pieria, and situated at the
mouth of the Orontes, led. Having there embarked, they landed at the
city of Salamis, on the eastern coast of the island of Cyprus. — ytvdß. kv]
arrived at. Often so in classical authors since Homer." — "luärv^v] See on
xii. 12. — vTrjiphriv'] as servant, who assisted the official work of the
apostles by performing external services, errands, missions, etc., probably
also acts of baptism.^ "Barnabas et Paulus divinitus nominati, atque his
liberum fuit alios adsciscere," Bengel. — As to their practice of preaching
in the synagogues, see on ver. 14. (e-).
Vv. 6, 1. "Oh/v T7jv vfiaoi'] For Paphos, i.e. New Paphos, the capital and
the residence of the proconsul, sixty stadia to the north of the old city
celebrated for the worship of Venus, lay quite on the opposite western
side of the island." — fxdyov] see on viii. 9. Whether he was precisely a
representative of the cabalistic tendency,' cannot be determined. But
perhaps, from the Arabic name Elymas, which he adopted, he was an
Arabian Jew. jiäyov, although a substantive, is to be connected with avdpa,
' Comp, on vi. 6. the two missionaries to the Gentiles, and con-
2 Kuinoel and many others: "jejunio et secrates them by its officebearers (Rom. xii.
precibtis peractis." 8 ; 1 Tim. v. 17).
3 Not by the prophets and teachers (Otto, 4 gee Nägelsbach on the Iliad, p. 293, ed. 3.
Pastoralbr. p. 61 ; Hoelemann, I.e.) ; for the « x. 48 ; 1 Cor. i. 14.
subject of vv. 2, 3 is the church, and its rep- « See Forbiger, Geogr. I. p. 969 f.
resentatives are the jn^esbyters, xx. 17, S8, xi. ' Baumgarten.
30, x^'. 2-33 ; 1 Tim. iv. 14. The church sends
SUCCESS IX CYPRUS. 347
iii. 14. — BapiTjffovg] i.e. }?^^l '^^,ßUus Jesu (Josuae). The different forms of
tliis name in the Fathers and versions, Barjeu, Barsuma, Barjesuhan, Bapiriaov-
adv, have th'nr origin in the reverence and awe felt for the name of Jesus. —
ävOvnuTif)] Cyprus, which Augustus had restored to the senate, was, it is
true, at tliat time a jn-ojjraetorimi province ;' but all provincial rulers were,
by the command of Augustus, called proconsules.^ — crwerw] although the
contrary might be suspected from his connection with the sorcerer. But
his intelligence is attested partly by the fact that he was not satisfied with
heathenism, and therefore had at that time the Jewish sorcerer with him
in the effort to actpiire more satisfactory views ; and partly by the fact that
he does not feel satisfied even with him, but asks for the publishers of the
new doctrine. In general, sorcerers found at that time welcome recep-
tions with Gentiles otherwise very intelligent.^ — rbv 16y. tov Qeov] Descrip-
tion of the new doctrine from the standpoint of Luke. See, moreover,
on viii. 25.
Yer. 8. ''Elvuai;'] The Arabic name, (»jU&. sapiens, kqt' i^oxiiv. magus*
by which Barjesus chose to be designated, and which he probably adopted
with a view to glorify himself as the channel of Arabian wisdom by the
corresponding Arabic name. — 6 iiäyo^'\ Interpretation oi 'Elifia^, added in
order to call attention to the significance of the name.^ — dmarphpni äiiö] a
well-known pregnant construction, which Valckenaer destroys arbitrarily,
and in such a way as to weaken the sense, by the conjecture ÜTTOGTpciljai :
to pervert and turn aside from the faith. Comp. LXX. Ex. v. 4.
Ver. 9. I,aü?iog 6e, 6 /cat Ilaii/lof] sc. T^e-ydfievog." — As Saul, iM^l^, the longed
for, is here for the first time and always henceforth ^ mentioned under his
Roman name Fdid, but before this, equally without exception, only under
his Hebrew name, we must assume a set historical purjwse in the remark
Ö Koi TIüvJmq introduced at this particular point, according to which the
reader is to be reminded of the relation — otherwise presupposed as well
known — of this name to the historical connection before us. It is there-
fore the most probable opinion, because the most exempt from arbitrariness,
that the name Paul was given to the apostle as a memorial of the conversion of
Sergius Paulus effected by him.^ "A primo ecclesiae spolio, proconsule
Sergio Paulo, victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus
diceretur e Saulo. "* The same view is adopted by Yalla, Bengel, 01s-
hausen, Baumgarten, Ewald ; also by Baur,'° according to whom, however,
legend alone has wished to connect the change of name somehow adopted
' Dio Cass. liv. 4. Paul (the little) a contrast to the name
* Dio Cass. liii. 13. Elymas ; for he had in the power of fuiini/itt/
8 Lucian. Alex. 30, Wetstein in loc. confronted this master of magic, and had in
* Comp. UyAc, de relig. ret. Pers. p. 3h!-2(. a N.T. characfer repeated the victory of
* Comp. Bornemann, Srhol. in. Luc. p. Iviii. David over Goliath. Acainst tl)is play of the
« SchacfiT, ad Bos Ell. p. 213. fancy it is decisive, that Etymus is not termed
' Comp, the name Abraham from Gen. xvii. and declared a master of magic, but simply ö
5 on-.vards. fioyos. [id. 5.
"* Lan<j;e, aposf. Zeitalt. p. 368 (comp. Tier- » Jerome in ep. ad Philem. ; comp, de vir.
zog's Encykl. XI. p. 213\ sees in the name '» I. p. 106, ed. 2.
248 CHAP. XIII., 10-12.
by the apostle — -which contains a parallel with Peter, Matt. xvi. 16 — with
an important act of his apostolic life.' Either the apostle himself now
adopted this name, possibly at the request of the proconsul,'^ or — which at
least excludes entirely the objection often made to this view, that it is at
variance with the modesty of the apostle — the Christians, -perhaps first of
all his companions at tlie time, so named him in honouralle rememhrance of that
memorable conversion effected on his first missionary journey. Kuinoel, indeed,
thinks that the servants of the proconsul may have called, the apostle,
whose name Saul was unfamiliar (?) to them, Paul ; and that he thenceforth
was glad to retain this name as a Roman citizen, and on account of his
intercourse with the Gentiles. But such a purely Gentile origin of the
name is hardly reconcilable with its universal recognition on the part of the
Christian body. Since the time of Calvin, Grotius, and others, the opinion
has become prevalent, that it was only for the sake of intercourse with
those without, as the ambassador of the faith among the Gentiles, that the
apostle bore, according to the custom of the time, the Roman name.^
Certainly it is to be assumed that he for this reason willingly assented to
the new name given to him, and willingly left his old name to be forgotten ;
but the origin of the new name, occurring just here for the first time, is, by
this view, not in the least explained from the connection of the narrative
before us. — Heinrichs oddly desires to explain this connection by suggest-
ing that on this occasion, when Luke had just mentioned Sergius Paulus,
it had occurred to him that Saul also was called Paul. Such an accident is
wholly unnatural, as, when Luke wrote, the name Saul was long out of
use, and that of Paul was universal. The opinion also of Witsius and
Hackspan, following Augustine, is to be rejected : that the apostle in
humility, to indicate his spiritual transformation, assigned to himself the
name, Paulus =^ exigtius ; as is also that of Schrader,* after Drusius and
Lightfoot, that he received at his circumcision the double name.^ — nTieadelQ
TTvsi'fi. äy.] " actu praesente adversus magum acrem, " Bengel.^
Ver. 10. 'FaStovpyiar] knavery, roguery.'' — vie 6iaß6'kov'\ i.e. a man whose
condition of mind proceeds from the influence of the devil, the arch-enemy of
the kingdom of the Messiah.' An indignant contrast to the name Barjesus.
(haßöXov is treated as a 2}ropername, therefore without the article.^ — ndar/c
diKnioavvTjc] of all, that is right, X. 35. — ötnarpeouv räc Ö()ovq Kvp. r. fifemf]
Wilt thou not cease to pervert the straight — leading directly to the goal — ways
of the Lord, to give them a perverted direction? i.e. applying this general
reproach to the present case : Wilt thou, by thy opposition to us, and by
thy endeavour to turn the proconsul from the faith,'" persist in so working
that God's measures," instead of attaining their aim according to the divine
intention, may be frustrated ? The straight way of God aimed here at the
' Comp. Zeller, p. 213. ' Polyb. xii. 10. 5, iv. 29. 4 ; Plut. Cat. m.
2 Ewald. 16. Comp. paSioüpyrjM-a, xviii. 14.
3 Comp, also Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 147. * Comp, on John viii. 44.
■• D. Ap. Fmd. II. p. 14. 9 j pet. v. 8 ; Rev. xx. 2.
5 Comp, also Wieseler, p. 222 f. i» Ver. 8.
« Comp iv. 8, 31, vii. 55, xiii. 52. n Rom. xi. 33 ; Rev. xv. 3.
ELYMAS TUE SORCERER. 249
winning of Scrgins for the salvation in Christ, by means of Barnabas and
Paul ; but Elymas set liimself in opposition to this, and was engaged in
diverting from its mark this straight way which God had entered on, so
tiiat the divinely-desired conversion of Sergius was to remain unrealized.
De "Wette takes it incorrectly : to set fortl» erroneously the Avays in which
men should walk before God. On 6iaaTpi<i)uv, comp, in fact. Prov. x. 10 ;
Isa. lix. 8 ; ISIicah iii. 9 ; and notice that the öiaarpicpetv k.t.7.. icas really
that whicli the sorcerer »trove to do, although without attaining the desired
success. Observe, also, tlie thrice repeated emphatic TzavT6^ . . . Tiäar/c ■ • •
näcrr;g, and that Kvpiov is not to be referred to Christ, but to God, wliom the
son of the devil resists, as is proved from ver. 11.
Ver. 11. Xdp Kvpiov] a designation, borrowed according to constant
usage from tlie O. T.,' of " Ood's hand,''^^ and here, indeed, of the ptinitive
hand of God, Heb. x. 31. — etvI at] sc. tart, is directed against thee. — eay]
The future is not imperative, but decided prediction.^ — ^9 ßy^kmov r. ijliov]
self-evident, but " auget manifestam senteiitiam." * To the blind the sun is
^wf a<pey}ig.^ — axpi iinipov]for a season.^ His blindness was not to he perma-
nent ; the date of its termination is not given, but it must have been in so far
known by Paul, seeing that this penal consequence wowhl cease with the cause.,
namely, with the withstanding.' With the announcement of the divine
punishment is combined, by äxpt Katpov, the hint of future possible forgive-
ness. Chrysostom well remarks : tu a^pt Katpov di ov Kn?M^ovToi: yv to piii^a,
ü'aTC itriarpttpovToq' n yap KO?ui^ovTog f/v, oimrnvTog hv avTov CTVoitjae TVipÄüv.^ —
irapaxpijua ok eKeTreaev k.t.?..] We are as little to inquire what lind of blind-
ness occurred, as to suppose, with Heinrichs, that with the sorcerer there
was already a tendency to blindness, and that this blindness actually now
sot in through fright. The text represents the blindness as a j)unishinent of
God without any other cause, announced by Paul as directly cognizant of
its occurrence. — cix^-hg aal aKÖToq] dimness and darTcness, in the form of a
climax. See on äx'^ir, only here in the N. T., Duncan.^ — The text assigns
no reason tcliij the sorcerer was punished with blindness, as, for instance,
that he might be humbled under the consciousness of his spiritual blind-
ness." We must abstain from any such assertion all the more, that this
punishment did not befall the similar sorcerer Simon, Rom. xi. 34.
Ver. 12. 'Ett« 7f/ (h(^nxi} r. Kvpiov] For he rightly saw, both in that an-
nouncement of punishment by Paul, and in the fate of his sorcerer, some-
thing which had a coimection with the doctrine of the Lord, that is, with
the doctrine which Christ caused to be proclaimed by His apostlcs.^^ Its
announcer had shown such a marvellous familiarity with the counsel of
God, and its opponent had suddenly experienced such a severe punishment,
that he was astonished at the doctrine, with which so evident a divine judg-
' LXX. Juds. ii. 15 ; Job xix. 21 ; 2 Mace. • Comp. Liiko iv. 13.
vi. 26 ; Eccliis. xxxiii. 2. ' Ver. 8. Comp, on ver. 12.
"^ Luke i. (i6. Acts xi. 21. * Comp. Oeciimeniiis.
3 Comp. V. 9. " Lex. Ilnm., cd. Rnet, p. 193.
< Qnincfil. is. 3. 45. '" Comp. BanmKiirten.
s Soph. 0. C. 1Ö4G. ' ' See on viii. 25.
250 ' CHAP. XIII., 13-lG.
ment was connected. Comp, on the connection of the judgment concern-
ing the doctrine with the miracle beheld, Mark i. 27. The kiziaTevcEv
obviously supposes the reception of haptism.'^ — Whether the sorcerer after-
tmrds lecame a believer the text does not, indeed, inform us ; but the pre-
sumption of a future conversion is contained in axfu Katpoli, ver. 11, and
therefore the question is to be answered in the affirmative ; for Paul spoke
that äxpi Kaipov : bpiov tt/ yvufiy öiöol'c, Oecumenius. The Tübingen criticism
has indeed condemned the miraculous element in this story and the story
itself as an invented and exaggerated counterpart of the encounter of Peter
with Simon Magus, chap, viii., — a judgment in which the denial of
miracles in general, and the assumption of dogmatic motives on the part of
the author, are the controlling presuppositions.^
Vv. 13-15. I{iiwing2}ut to the open sea again irom'Pa]jh.os, avaxOlvTeg, as xvi.
11, and frequently, also with Greek writers,' they came in a northerly direc-
tion to Perga, the capital of Pamphylia with its famous temple of Diana, ^
where John Mark parted from them^ and returned to Jerusalem, for what rea-
son is not certain, — apparently from want of courage and boldness, see xv, 38.
But they, without their former companion (avTol), journeyed inland to the
north until they came to Antioch in Pisidia, built by Seleucus Nicanor, and
made by Augustus a Roman colony,* where they visited the synagogue on
the Sabbath, comp. ver. 5. Their apostleship to the Gentiles had not can-
celled their obligation, wherever there were Jews, to turn first to these ;
and to Paul, especially, it could not appear as cancelled in the light of the
divine order : 'londa/u rf Tvpumv kuI "EAA^/ri, Rom. i. 16, clearly known to him,
of his ardent love to his peo2:)le, Rom. ix. 1 if., of his assurance that God
had not cast them off, Rom. xi., as well as of his insight into the blessing
which would arise to the Gentile world even from the rejection of the gospel
by the Jews, Rom xi. 11. ff. Hence, although apostle of the Gentiles, he
never excludes the Jews from his mission,' but expressly includes them,^ and
is wont to begin his labours with them. This we remark against the opinion,
which is maintained especially by Baur and Zeller, that in the Book of Acts
the representation of Paul's missionary procedure is unhistorically modified
in the interest of Judaism.^ — ol nepl tov Ylavlov} denotes the person and
his coxnY)?t.mons,— the company of Paul .'^'^ Now Paul, and no longer Barnabas,
appears as the principal person. The conspicuous agency of the Gentile
apostle at once in the conversion of Sergius, and in the humiliation of the
sorcerer, has decided his superiority. — rf/q liiaiö.} chorographic genitive."
1 Comp. iv. 4, xi. 21, xix. 18. e On its ruins, see Hamilton's Travels in
' See Baur and Zeller ; comp, also Schneck- Asia Minor, I. p. 431, fl.
enburger, p. 53. 7 Comp, on the contrary, e(f>' oarov, Rom.
3 Comp. Luke viii. 22. xi. 13.
* On the ruins, see Fellows' Travels in Asia ^ 1 Cor. ix. 20.
Minor, p. 142 ff. o See, in opposition to it also, Kling in the
6 Ewald, p. 456, conjectures that now Titus Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 302 ff. ; Lekebusch, p.
(Gal. ii. 1) had appeared as an apostolic com- 32S ff.
paniou. Cut how natural it would have been '<> See on John xi. 19, and Valckenaer, p.
for Luke at least here to mention Titus, who 499 f.
is never named by him ! ii Krüger, § 47. 5. 5.
PAPIIOS TO PERGA. 251
Forother designations of this situation of the city, see Bornemann. —t'/cufl/Tni']
on the seats of theKabbins, as Wolf , Wetstcin, Kuinocl, think. Possibly ;
but it is possible, also, that they had already, before the commenoemont of
the Sabbatli, immediately on their arrival, announced themselves as teachers,
and that t/iis occasioned tlie reciuest of the president to the strange Rabbins.
— Toi) vöjiov K. r. npoip.] namely, in the Parasha and JIaphiJtara for that Sab-
bath.* That, as Bengcl thinks and Kuinoel and Baumgarten approve," the
Parasha, Deut. i. — because Paul, in ver. 18. hints atDeut. i. 31 — and the cor.
responding Ilaphthara, Isa. i., were in the order of tlie reading, is uncertain,
even apart from the fact that the modern Parshioth and Ilaplitharoth were
fixed only at a later period.' — ol apxiovvay.] i.e. the college of rulers, con-
sisting of the ä/j^l,7crwä}u} of Aar' i^oxvv (pZ^^2'r\ CX^), and the elders associated
with him. — iv vßlv] in animis vestris. — löyoq izapaKX.] a discourse of exhor-
tation, whose contents are an encouragement to the observance and applica-
tion of the law and the prophets. For : " opus fuit expositoribus, qui corda
eorum afficerent."^ — /ije-f] On Aöyov Ikyeiv, see Lobeck, Fared, p. 504.
Yer. 16. Karac. tij x^^'^I See on xii. 17. — ol <poßoi</u.. r. Gew] is here, as
the distinction from ' I(jpa>/?:i-ni requires, the formal designation of the jiros-
elytes of the gate,w\io, without becoming actual 'lapaijXaat. by circumcision,
were yet woi'shipj)ei-s of Jehovah, and attendersat the synagogues, where they
had their particular seats.^ Against the unfavoiu-able judgment, which the
following sjicech has met wdth from Schneckcnburger, Baur, and Zeller, —
namelj', that it is only rt?) echo of the «jweches of Peter and Stephen, a free pro-
duction of the narrator, — we may urge as a circumstance particularly to be
observed, that tliis speech is directed to those who were still non-helievers, not,
like the Epistles of the apostle, to Christians, and accordingly does not find
in the Epistles any exactly corresponding standard with which to compare
it ; tliat, further, nothing un-Pauline occurs eitlier in its contents or form,
— on the contrary, the Pauline fundamental dogma of justification'' forms
its important concluding main point,' and the Pauline delicacy, prudence,
and wisdom of teaching are displayed in its entire plan and execution ; tliat,
in particular, the historical introduction, although it may not have originated
without some influence from Stephen's speech, and the latter may have, by
the editing, been rendered still more similar, yet presents nothing which
could not have been spoken by Paul, as the speech of Stephen was known
to the apostle and must have made an indelible impression on him ; and
that the use of Ps. xvi.* as a witness for the resurrection of Jesus, was as
natural to Paul as it was to Peter, as, indeed, to Paul also Christ rose Kara
rag ypatpäg.^ The reasons, therefore, adduced against its originality in the
' See on Luke iv. 17. • vv. 38 ff. do not contain a mere " timid
= Comp, also Trip, Paulus, p. 194. allusion " to it, as Zcllcr iliinks, p. 327.
3 Zunz, gotleadienatl. Vortr. d. Jvden. p. G ; ' In opposition to Buur's opinion (T. p. 11",
comp. Hupfeld in the Slud. u. Ki-it. 1S37, p. ed. 2), that the author, after he had long
843 f. enough made the Apostle Paul speak in a
< Gloss in Babyl. Scliabb. f. 30, 2. Comp. Petrine manner, felt that lie must now add
Zunz, p. 332 f. something speciflcally Pauline.'
5 Comp. vv. 43, 59, xvii. 4, 17, xvi. 14, * Comp. Acts ii. 2Ö ff.
sviii. 7. '1 Cjr. xv. 4.
2j2 chap. XIII., 17-30.
main, are not sufficient, although, especially amidst our ignorance of the
document from which the speech thus edited is taken, a more complete as-
sertion of an originality, which is at all events only indirect, cannot be
made good.'
Yv. 17-22. An introduction very wisely prefixed to prepare the minds
of the Jews, giving the historical basis of the subsequent announcement
that the Messiah has appeared, and carried down to David, the royal Mes-
sianic ancestor and type ; the leading thought of which is not the free grace
of God, but gencraWy the divine Messianic guidance of the people before the
final appearance of the Messiah Himself.
Ver. 17. Toil laov tovtov 'lap. (see the critical remarks) refers with tovtov
to the address ävöpsg 'lap-, and with the venerated name 'IcpaifA the theo-
cratic national feeling is appealed to. ^— ef eP>,f #aroJ He chose for Himself,
namely, from the mass of mankind, to be His peculiar property. On rovg
traTip. >/u., the patriarchs, comp. Rom. ix. 5, xi. 1, 16. In them the peo-
ple saw the ch'innels and sureties of the divine grace. — ii/'wOTy] During
the sojourn in Egypt, God exalted the people, making them great in number
and strength, and especially distinguishing and glorifying them in the
period directly before the Exodus by miraculous arrangements of Moses.
The history, which Paul supposes as known, requires this interpretation,
comp, already Chrysostom, who in vijiuaev finds the two points : elg nÄf/0og
kniöoaav and ra Bai'jiara SC avrovg yeyove. Others, among whom are Kuinoel,
Olshausen, and de Wette, arbitrarily limit v^iugev merely to the increase of
number, appealing even to Gen. xlviii. 19, Ecclus. xliv. 21, 1. 22, where,
however, v^o'vv, as always,^ signifies nothing else than to exalt. The special
nature of the exaltation is derived purely from the context. Calvin,
Eisner, and Heinrichs suppose that the deliverance from Egypt is meant.
But the exaltation, according to the text, occurred kv rfi Trapomla £i> yi)
AJj'i'-ru,'' during their sojourn as strangers in Egypt, Beza and Grotius
think that it is the vipuaig of the people by and under Joseph that is
meant. Erroneously, as v^'uaev stands in historical connection with the
following e^r/yayev. — /lera ßpaxiovog vrpT/lov] i.e. without figure: h ry laxvl
avTQv Tfj iieyäTiij.^ Jehovah is conceived as a leader who advances tcith wp-
lifted arm, at the head of His people, for their defence against all their
enemies.*
Vv. 18, 19. 'ßr] might be the as of the protasis, so that Kai, ver. 19,
would then be the also of the apodosis.'' But the common rendering
circiter is simpler and more suitable to the non-periodic style of the entire
context, as well as corresponding to the «? of ver. 20. — On the accentua-
tion of TEaaapaaovTahr], so Lachmann and Tischendorf, see Ellendt.^ —
'ETpn0o(p6p.'\ He hore them as their nourisher, as it were in his arms, i.e. he
nourished and cherished them. There is here a reminiscence of the LXX.
> Comp, the thoughtful judgment of Weiss, » LXX. Bent. iv. 37.
biftl. Theol. p. 920. « Pomp. Ex. vi. 1,6; Bar. ii. 11.
2 Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 22. ' So Buttmann, neut. Or. p. 31- (E. T. p.
3 Comp, particularly Isa. i. 2. 362).
* vii. 6, 29 ; Wisd. xix. 10. e Lex. Soph. I. p. 405 f .
ANTIOCH IN PISIDIA. 253
Dent. i. 31, according to which passage God bore (^?^J) the Israelites iu
the wilderness as a mau (P^^) beareth his sou. The LXX. has rendered this
Kiyj by £Tpo(po(p., whence it is evident, as the image is borrowed from a 7nan,
that it is based on the derivation from ö Tfwcpög and not from // r/wfoo.' In
the few otJier passages where the word is still preserved, women are spoken
of— namely, 3 Mace. vii. 27, and Macar. Uom. 46. 3, where of a mother it
is said : ävaAaij,iäv£L Kai nepiOuTiTTei Koi t p oipocpo f) e i kv no/Ay aTopyfj. But
as in this place and in Deut. i. 31 the motion of a male rpotpög is quite as
definitely presented \^ usuaUy rpoipEUi;^ it follows that the two references, the
male and the female, are linguistically justified iu an equal degree ; there-
fore Hesychius cxj)lains kTpoi^uii>6piia£v, eutirely apart from sex, by fH/iFil'ev.
From nusai)prehension of this, the word irpoKOip. was at an early period —
among the Fathers, Origen already has it— introduced iu Deut. I.e. ; he bore
their manneis,* because tbe comparison of God to a nourishing mother or
nurse, y rpofdg, was regarded as unsuitable,* and following this reading iu
Deut. I.e., trpoTTocp. was also adopted in our passage for the same reason. —
e6i>r} ETTTd] see Deut. vii. 1. He destroyed them, i.e. KadtAÜv.^ — KareKlripov.]
lie distributed to them for an inheritance.'' This compound is foreign to other
Greek writers, but common in the LXX. in an active and neuter signilica-
tion. The later Greeks have Ka-aKlrjpovxelv.
Ver. 20. And afterwards — after this division of the land among the
Israelites — Jle gave them, during about AHO yea7's, judges — Ü^t22'^ ^ theocratic
dictators, national heroes administering law and justice * — tintil Samuel.
The dative etegc TEvpaK. is dative of the time, during which something hap-
pens, comp. viii. 11.' As Paul here makes the judges to follow after the
division of the land, it is evident that he overleaps the time which Joshua
yet lived afte?^ the division of the land, or rather includes it in the pE-a
ravra, which in so summary a statement is the less strange, as Joshua was
actually occupied until his death with the consolidation of thenew arrange-
ment of the land, Josh. xxiv. 1-28. But the 450 years are in contradiction with
1 Kings vi. 1, where the fourth year of Solomon's reign, the year of the build-
ing of the temple, is placed 480 '* years after the Exodus from Egypt, which
leaves only about 300 years for the period of the judges. But, on the other
hand, the chronology of Josephus, who " reckons 592 years from the Exodus
out of Egypt to the building of the temple, agrees with Paul in our passage.'"
If, namely, we reckon : (1) 40 years as the period of sojourn in the desert ;
(2) 25 years as the period of Joshua's rule ;'=* (3) 450 years as the duration
1 So also Cyril, in Otseam, p. Iß2. in Dent. s See Nägelshach in Ucrzog-^ Encykl. XIII.
p 415 r ''. 43, El. 409. p. 98 fF. ; Berthean, Koinmenl.
2 Comp. Plrtt. Pnrit. p 268 A B, Eiir. Here ' Comp. Joseph. Antt. i. 3. 5 : to uSwp iim«-
» See Lobeck. ad Phri/n. p. 816. pais TeaaapiKovra oAois »coT€(<>fpcTo. John ii.
* Cic. wl .'if/, .xiii. 20, Constitutt. ap. vii. 36, 20 ; Rom. xiv. 25 ; Winer, p. 205 (E. T. 274).
Schal. Arist. Jtart. 1432. " LXX. : 440.
s With the Greek? thrlrfafkerland is often " In Ai'ff. viv. 3 1, comp. x. 8. 5.
represented under this image. See Stallb. ad '^ In Antf.x x. 10, c. .1/). ii. 2. he reckons fil2
Plaf. Ren- P 4"0 D. years for ttie same period, thus 20 years more.
• See Thuc. i. 4, and Krüger in loc. which comes still nearer to the etatement of
T LXX. Jud'j. xi. 24 ; 1 Kings ii. 8 ; Isa. xiv. time in our pa.^sage ; sec below.
2, 3 ; 3 Efdr. viii. 35. " Joseph. Antt. v. 1. 29.
254 CHAP. XIII., 21-25.
of the judges, to Sauiuel inclusive, according to our passage ; (4) 40 years
as the reign of Saul ; ' (5) 40 years as *he reign of David, 1 Kings ii. 11 ;
(6) the first four years of Solomon's reign, — there results from the Exodus out
of Egypt to the huildlng of the temple 599 years, with -which there remains a
difference between Paul and Josejihus, which is fully covered by Jif in the
text. Accordingly, it appears as the correct view that Paul here follows the
chronology entirely different from 1 Kings vi. 1, which is also followed iy
Josejjhus.^ This chronology arises from summing up all the numbers men-
tioned in the Book of Judges,^ 410 years, and adding 40 years for Eli ; by
which, however, a total much too high results, as synchronistic statements
are included in the reckoning. All attempts at reconciling our passage
with 1 Kings vi. 1 bear the impress of arbitrariness and violence — namely :
(1) that of Perizonius,* and others, that in 1 Kings vi. 1 the years are not
reckoned, in which the Israelites in the time of the judges were oppressed
by heatlien nations, with which view Wolf agrees ; ^ (2) Cornelius a Lapide,
Calovius, Mill, and others supply yevößeva after Trevri/Kopra, post haec, quae
spatio 450 annorumgesta sunt, so that the terminus a quo is the birth of Isaac,
in wliom God chose the fathers ; from thence to the birth of Jacob are 60
years, from the birth of Jacob to the entrance into Egypt are 130 years,
after which the residence in Egypt lasted 210 years, and then from the
Exodus to the division of Canaan 47 years elapsed, making in all 447 years,
— accordingly, ahout 450 years. With tlie reading of Lachmann, also, we
must count in accordance with this computation. Comp. Beza. (3) Others
have had recourse to critical violence. They supjiose cither ' that in this
passage TpiaKoaiotQ is to be read (r' for t'l), or'' that üg IreaL rerp. k. ttevtIjk. is
an addition of a marginal annotator, who * reckoned thus from the birth of
Isaac ; or, at least,' that 1 Kings vi. 1 is corrupt ; in which case, however,
Kuinoel grants that Paul follows a Jewish chronology of his time. — kug
SR/iow//l] i.e. until the end of the series of judges, which had commenced
with Otimiel and closed with Samuel, after which SauPs reign began.
See ver. 21.
Ver. 21. KaKElOEv] and from theiice. 'ekeI has only here in the N. T., as
also in later Greek, a temporal reference, yet so that tlie time is conceived
as something in space stretching itself out. So, too, in the passages in
Bornemann. '" — ett/ TEaaapaK.] 'Eßaci,2.EvaE Itaov^., '^afiovt/lov (,üvTog, ettj oktu
irpoQ role ^ena' TsXEvrycravToc 6e 6'uo Kal e'lkogl, Joseph. A7ltt. vi. 14. 9, according
to the usual text, in which, however, koI eIkool is spurious." In the O. T.
there is no express definition of the duration of Saul's reign. However,
> See on ver. 21. "> Orig. Aeg. p. 321.
2 That, nevertheless, the reckoning of 480 = Comp, also Keil in the Dorpt. Beitr. II.
years in 1 Kings vi. is not on account of our p. .311.
passase to be wholly rejected ; and how far, ^ Lnther and Beza.
on the contrary, it is to be considered as cor- ' Vitringa and Heinrichs.
rect. may be seen in Bertheau on Judges, In- 8 Heinrichs.
trod. p. xvi. fE. " Voss, Michaelis, Kuinoel. [xiii. 28.
3 iii. 8, 11, 14, 30, iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, ^° Schol. in Luc. p. 90 f., but not in Luke
ix. 22, X. 2, 3, 8, xii. 7, 9, 10, 14, xiii. 1, xv. 20. " See Bertheau on Judges, p. xx.
PAUL'S DISCOURSE. 255
the explanation ' that jr?; reaanpaK., which, in fact, contains the duration of
eJw/cev . . . laov?i, cmbraccTs the time of Samuel atid Saul together, is to be
rejected as contrary to the text ; and instead of it, there is to be assumed
a tradition — although improbable in its contents, yet determined by the
customary number 40 — which Paul followed.
Ver. 22. Meraar. a'vröv] cannot be explained of the deatJi of Saul,' because
there is no en rov (t/v ' or the like added, or at least directly suggested, from
the context. The word is rather to be considered as selected and exactly
corresponding to the known history of Saul, expressing the divine rejection
recorded in 1 Sam. xv. IG ff., and deposition of this king from his office, ac-
cording to the current usus loquendi.* — u Kal el^ve /xapTvpj}aa^]for ichom He
also bearing tcitncss has said, ü is governed by ßaprvp. ; and on eItts ßaprvp.,
comp. i. 24 : -TTpnaev^ä/iEvoc el~ov. — evpov Aaviö k.t.?..] Ps. Ixxxix. 20 is here
quite freely blended with 1 Sam. xiii. 14 in the inexact recollection of the
moment, and formed into one saying of God, as indeed in Ps. Ixxxix. 21
God is the speaker, but not in Sam. xiii. 14. — evpov] God had sought for
the kingdom of His people a so rare man like David. — Kara rfjv aapoiav jiov]
i.e. as mij heart desires him. Tliis and the following bg . . . /^ov is to be
left without any more precise limitation — Eckermann, after the older com-
mentators, supposes that it applies to the government of the people ;
Heinrichs : to the establishment of the theocracy — as the text does not
furnish such a limitation, and navra ra Bel. forbids it. On these last words
Bengel correctly remarks : ^^voluntates, multas, pro negotiorum varietate." *
Vv. 23-25. Paul now proceeds to his main point, the announcement of
the Messiah, the Son of David, as having appeared iu Jesus,'' whom John
already preached before His coming. — tovtoi'] with great emphasis, placed
first and standing apart. — kut' Errayye/ltav] according to promise, an essential
element for the awakening of faith. Comp. ver. 32. — i/yaye -ü 'lapa^X
. . . 'lapa^X] He brought '' to the Israelites Jesus as deliverer, Messiah, John
having j)reviously preached before His coming a baptism of rep)entance, baptism
obliging to change of mind, to all the jjeojjle of Israel. — Trpd TrpoGÜ-ov] ^?^7,
i.e. ante, and that in a temporal sense.* "With ttjc tlaoöov, according to the
context, is meant the official, Messianic, emergence among the people. Tlie
Fathers strangely and erroneously refer it to the incarnation." — of 6e
f.Kh'/pov 6 'loc'ivv. T. ßpöuov] but when John fulfilled, was in the act of fulfilling,'"
the course — without figure: the official work incumbent on him." Paul
considers John's definite pointing to the ipx^uevoq as that irith tchirh the
course of the Baptist ((jiproached its termination ; the öpouog of the forerunner
was actually concluded as regards its idea and purpose, when Jesus Him-
self publicly appeared. — riva fie vnov. elvai-^ is, with Erasmus, Castalio,
' Erasnms, Beza, Calovius, Wolf, Morns, * Comp. Eph. vi. 6 ; Ps. cii. 7 ; 2 Mace. i. 3
Ro^^enmiiller, Heinrichs. ' vv. i'i 24. 2.5.
^ Grotius, dc Wette, also my former inter- ' Zech. iii 8.
pretation. * Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 1111.
3 3 Mace. vi. 12 ; Polyb. xxxii. 21. 3. • See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 1042.
■•See D»n. ii. 21; 1 Mncc. viii. 13; Luke ^° Iinpcrfect ; see Bernlmrdy, p. .373.
xvi. 4 ; also in Greek writers. " Comp. xs. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 7 ; Gal. ii. 2.
256 CHAP. XIII.. 26-33.
Calvin, Beza, and many others, to be taken as a question; not, witli Luther,
Grotius, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Buttmann, as a relative clause: "quern me
esse putatis, non sum," which, indeed, is linguistically justifiable,' but
detracts from the liveliness of the speech.^ — ovk elfj.1 lyu] namely, tTie
Messiah, John i. 20, as self-evidently the expected Person, who was vividly
before the mind of John and of his hearers.^
Ver. 26. In affectionate address {ävdpeQ äöeTKpoi) earnestly appealing to
the theocratic consciousness {vloi yev. 'Aßp.), Paul now brings home the
announcement of this salvation, jirocured through Jesus, ö Aöyoc rf^q cut.
TavT)/c,* to the especial interest of the hearers/ — e^aTreaTd?^//] namely, forth
from God, ver. 23, x. 36, not from Jerusalem (Bengel). But this i'iüv . . .
e^aKEGT. actually took place by the very arrival of Paul and his companions.
Ver. 27. Tap] Chrysostom leads to the correct interpretation : öiöuacv
avTolq k^ovaiav ärcooxi-'yG^vo-i- 'wv tov (povov TeroXjLiTjKOTuv. In accordance with
the contrast : v/nli> and oi KaroiKovvrec iv 'lepovc, the logical sequence is :
" To you was the doctrine of salvation sent ; for in Jerusalem the Saviour
has been rejected ;" therefore the preaching must be brought to those out-
side in the SiaaTropd, such as you are. It does not conflict with this view,
that at all events the preaching would come to them as Jews ;" since the
fundamental idea rather is, that, because Jerusalem has despised Christ,
now in place of the inhabitants of Jerusalem the outside Jews primarily are
destined for the reception of salvation. They are to step into the places of
those as regards this reception of salvation ; and the announcement of salva-
tion, which was sent to them, was witMratcn from those and their rulers,
the members of the Sanhedrim, on account of the rejection of the Saviour.
Thus there is in yap the idea of divine retribution, exercised against the seat
of the theocracy, and resulting in good to those outside at a distance ;'' the
idea of a Nemesis, by which those afar off are preferred to the nearest
children of the kingdom.* Most of the older commentators are silent on
yap here. According to Erasmus, it is admonitory, according to Calvin,
exJiortatoi'y to yet greater compliance ; but in this case the special point
must first be read between the lines. Contrary to the contrast of vixiv and
ol KaroiK. 'lepova., yap, according to de Wette, is designed to introduce the
exposition of the idea of auT?/pia ; according to Baumgarten, to convey the hint
that the informal (?) way, outwardly considered, in which the 7i6yoq had
reached Antioch, had its reason in the fact that the centre of the theocracy
had resisted Jesus. — tovtov ayvor'/aavreg k.t.^.] 7iot having hiown Him, i.e.
Jesus, as the self-evident subject, they have also — Kai, the also of the corre-
sponding Ye\.\i\ox\— fulfilled hy their sentence, by the condemnation of Jesus,
the voie£s of the projyhets, which are read every Sabbath day. This fulfilment
they effected involuntarily in their folly. But the prophecies had to be ful-
» Matt. X. 19, al. ; Winer, p. 159 (E. T. 210) ; •> Comp, on v. 20.
Bnltmann, neut. Or. p. 216 (E. T. 251). » Comp. ii. 29, ili. 25 f.
' Comp. Jas. iii. 15. « Objection of de Wette.
3 Comp. Mark xiii. 6 ; Luke xxi. 8 ; John ^ Comp, toi? eis fi.a.Kpav, ii. 39
siii. 19.— On ver. 25 generally, com. Luke iii. 8 Comp. Matt. xxi. 43.
15 f.
PAUL'S DISCOURSE. 257
filled, Luke xxiv. 35 f.; 1 Cor. xv. 3. — ayvot/cavreg] a mild judgment,
entirely in the spirit of Jesus.' Therefore not too lenient for Paul (Schneck-
enburger). Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel, Hackett, and
others refer äyvor'/a. not only to tovtov, but also to koI rdf ^. r. npo<{>. : " qui
hunc non norant, nee prophetarum oracula . . . intelligebant, eo condem-
nando effecerunt, ut haec eventu comprobarentur. " Unnecessarily barsh,
as Kpivavrec and i:~?.i/p. require dillereut supplements. — rag k. n. adßß. äva-
yivuüK.] a moiinij'iil addition ; what infatuation ! — Kpivavres] judging, name-
ly, Jesus. Following Homberg, others have referred it to the ^wrdf r. -np.:
" and although judging, correctly valuing the voices of the i^rophets, they
nevertheless fulfilled them." Incorrect, because at variance with history,
and because the resolution of the participle by although is not suggested by
the context, but rather {tovtov ayvoyaavTcg) forbidden.
Vv. 28, 29, Kai] a/id, without having found, they desired.'^ — KadelovTeg . . .
IdtiKav fif pvT/fi.] The subject is the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their rulers,
as in the preceding. Joseph and Nicodemus^ were, in fact, both ; therefore
Paul, although those Y;exe favourahly inclined to Jesus, could in this sum-
mary narrative continue with the same subject, because an exact historical
discrimination wms not here of moment, and the taking down from the
cross and the placing in the grave were simply the adjuncts of the cruci-
fixion and i\\(i jyretnisses of the corporeal rcstu'vection, 1 Cor. xv. 4.'
Ver. 30. But God, after such extreme and unrighteous rejection of Jesus
on the part of those men, what a glorious deed has He done ! Thus Paul
paves the way to announce the highest Messianic aiifielov of Jesus,^the res-
urrection from the dead ; and that according to its certainty as matter of
experience, as well as a fulfilment of the prophetic i^iromise.*^
Vv. 31-33. 'Etj iip.ep. TT^e/ovf ] /or several dai/s, as in Luke iv. 25.'' Instead
of the argumentative oq, baye would be still more significant. — rolg avvava-
ßämv /c.T./l.]. Thus Paul according to this narrative, like Luke in the Gospel,
follows i5Äö tradition which knows only Jewish appearances of the Risen
One.^ — oItivec] quippe qui. — kuI ijpc'ig /c.r.?..] we also, on our part, engaged
in the same work of preaching as those eye-witnesses, announce nntc you
the promise made to the fathers, tliat, namely, God has completely fulfilled this,
etc. — oTi TavTTjv K.r.P..] contains the particular part of the knayyeTiia, the
promise of the 3fessiah generally, which is announced. Entirely arbitrarily,
Heumann, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others hold that it should be connected :
eiayye?j^6nf:0a, oti t/jv ~phq Tovq TraTtpag yevop.. ktrayy, o Qebg fKTrfTr?.., and that
rai'TTp' is without significance. This very repetition of TavTtjv has rhetorical
emphasis.' — f:Ki7E~7J]puKE\ stronger than the simple verb, ver. 27.'" — roif
> Luke xsiii. 34. Comp, on iii. 17; Fce also »Comp. is. 20; see Dissen, ad. Bern. d€
1 Cor. ii. 8. cor. p. 2-3.5 ; Bernhardy, p. 283.
2 On oi'ttipeflvi-ai, comp. ii. 23, x. .39. '" Comp, the pap.«ages from Xeroph. in
' John xix. 28 f. [viii. 29 ; Mark xv. 46. Sturz, Herod, v. 3."): t'-i\v v-nöaxiaiv (KirXri-
■< On Kadf\6vT€i äiTo T. f üAou, comp. Josh. piicrai. Plat. Legg. p. 9.58 B : «wATjpuitrn to
' Comp. Rom. i. 4. XP'o^ ivav, Polyb. i. 67. 1 : to? ikniSa^ k. to?
* VV31, 32-37. €nayye\Ca^ eKn\r)povv, 3 MaCC. i. 2, 22. EISC-
' Nägelshach on the Iliad, p. 28», ed. 3. where not in the N. T., but comp. «KTrAijpiüais,
« See on Matt, xxviii. 10. Comp, i i. xsi. 20.
258 CHAP. XIII., 33, 34.
TCKvoig avT. 7]iüv\for thetenefit of their children, descendants, us. The pre-
tixing of r. TEKv. avr. has a peculiar emphasis. — avaar/joac 'Irjaovv] ly this,
that He raised up Jesus, from the dead. This interpretation' is necessarily
required by the connection, which is as follows : (1) The Jews have put to
death .Jesus, though innocent, and buiied Him, vv. 28, 29. (2) But God
has raised Him from the dead, as is certain from His appearance among His
followers and their testimony, vv. .30, 31. (3) Bi/ this resurrection of Jesus,
God has completely fulfilled to us the promise, etc., vv. 32, 33. (4) But
the Raised One will, according to God's asurance, never again die, vv. 34-
38. This, the only explanation accordant with the context, is confirmed
by the purposely chosen iKTTsnli/puKi:, as, indeed, the fulfilment of the
promise begun from the very appearance of Jesus has, although secured
already essentially, as Hofmann interprets the compound verb, only become
comjdete by His resurrection. It has been objected that hn veapuv would
have to be added to ävaarrjoag, as in ver. 34 ; but incorrectly, as the con-
text makes this addition very superfluous, which yet is purposely added
in ver. 34, in order that the contxsiS,t oi firjKtTi fikHovra vTrocrp(<}>eiv I'lg öiacpdopdv
might more strongly appear. The textual necessity of our interpretation
excludes, accordingly, of itself the other explanation,- according to which
ävaarr/aag is rendered like Q"^'!?^ prod ire j nie ns, exhihens, iii. 22, vii. 37. This
rendering would hardly have been adoj^ted and defended, had it not been
thought necessary to understand Ps. ii. 7 of the appearance of Jesus upon
earth. — ug . . . ytypairTai] denotes the ayaffrz/aaf 'I?/(joi)j^ as the event which
took place according to, besides other scriptural passages, the saying in Ps. ii.
7. — TÜ TTpiljTU)] Formerly' — though not universally, yet frequently — the first
Psalm was wont not to be separately numbered, but, as an introduction to
the Psalter and certainly composed for this object, to be written along with
the second Psalm, as it is even now found in mss. As, however, such a
local citation of a passage is found neither in Paul's writings nor elsewhere
in the N. T., it must be assumed that Paul did not himself utter the npcjTu,
and that it was not even added by Luke ; but that he took it over from his
documentary source — into which it had doubtless come, because it was es-
teemed particularly noteworthy that this prophecy should be found written
on the very front of the Psalter (p^). — vlog ßov el ah k.t.1.] in the historical
sense of the Psalm composed by Solomon on his anointing : My son, as
the theocratic king, thou art ; I, no other, have this day hegotten thee, made
thee by thine anointing and installation to be this my son. But, accord-
ing to the Messianic fulfilment of this divine saying, so far as it has been
historically fulfilled — it is otherwise in Heb. i. 5 — especially by the resurrec-
tion of the Messiah : 3fy Son, as the Messiah, thou art ; I am He who has this
day, on the day of the resurrection, legotten Thee, installed Thee into this
divine Sonship by the resurrection, Rom. i. 4, — inasmuch, namely, as the
» Erasmas, Luther. Hammond, Clericus, richs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Hofmann, TTtäss-
Heuraann, Morus, de Wette, Baumgaiten, ag. it. Erf. p. 173, Schri/tbew. I. p. 123 and
Lange, and others. others.
■^ Castalio, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Calovius, ^ Sie Wetstein.
Wolf, Bengel, Michaelis, RosenmüUer, Hein-
DISCOURSE AT ANTIOCH. 259
resurrection was the actual guarantee, excluding all doubt, of that Sonship of
Christ. Thus has God by the resurrection, after Ilis humiliation, allliuugh
He was from eternity God's Son, constituted llim the Son of God, He has
legotten Him. Comp. ii. 30. The expression is not to be illustrated from
■n-purd- mi)^ Ik. t. liKpüv, Col. i. 18 ; ' because for denoting the installation
into the divine Souship the figure hcgotten suits admirably ; but as a new
beginner of life, as Baumgarten explains it. Christ would by the resurrec-
tion not be hegotten, but lorn. Comp, also Rom. viii. 29. The crl/ufpoi;
moreover, which to those interpreters, who explain the ävaarljaiQ generally
of the bringing forward Jesus, must appear without significance and in-
cluded in the quotation only for the sake of completeness, as is, however,
not the case even in Heb. i. 5, forms an essential eleinent of the pro^jhccy in
its relation to the connection.
Ver. 34. But that God raised Ilim from the dead as one tcho is no moi'e to
return to corruption., lie has thus said. The firjKETi iikllovTa . . . diaipdop. is
the main element whereby the speech advances. Comp. Rom. vi. 9. — e'lg
i^iaipßupär] into corruption, is not, with Kuinoel, after Beza and Piscator, to
be explained : in locum corruptionis, i.e. in sepmlcrum, for which there is no
reason at all, as htjueti by no means requires the inference that Christ must
already have been once in the condition of corruption ; for //?;Kfri refers
logically to the general idea of dying present in the mind of Paul, which
he, already thinking on Ps. xvi. 10, expresses by vTroarp. etc JmpW.'^ Bengel
aptly says: " non amplius ibit in mortem, quam alias solet subsequi
(5/«9Ö()/7d." The appeal to the LXX., which renders ^^'^ by i)ia(pOopä, is
equally inadmissible, for the translators actwßZ/t/ so understood ^'^P, and thus
connected with their 6ia<p6opä no other idea than corruptio.^ — 6üou v/ilv r. ba.
A. -. -rrtaTo.] a free quotation of the LXX. Isa. Iv. 3, in which Paul, instead
of 6ia0//aouai vulv (haO//K>/v ntuvinv, gives duau vjn'tv, certainly not designedly,
because the text of the LXX. represents the aj^pearance of tlie Messiah as
something future, as Olshausen thinks ; for the words of the LXX., par-
ticularly the aldiriov, would have been very suitable as probative of our pas-
sage ; nor yet by a mistake of memory, as the passage about tlie eternal
covenant certainly was very accurately known to the apostle ; but l)ecause
he saw the prohative force in ra oaia A. to. iriard, and therefore, in introduc-
ing those words on which his argument hinged, with his freedom otherwise
in quotation he regarded it as sufficient only to prefix to them that verb,
the idea of which is really contained in 6ca-&?'jao//ai v/itv 6ia-dt/K7jv a'luv. J shall
give unto you the holy things of Davifl, the sure; i.e the holy blessings con-
ferred by me on David, the possession of which will be, federally, sure
and certain. By this is meant the whole Messianic salvation as eter-
nally enduring, which, in an ideal sense, for future realization by the Son
of David, the ^Messiah, belonged as a holy property to David, the Messianic
ancestor, and was to come to believers through Christ as a sacred inheri-
tance. The LXX. translates Til ""^9'^ inexactly by ra bam Aavti^ ; but on this
very account the literal meaning heiuficia is not, against Kuinoel and others,
' .\'';iinst Baiinr-arlen. ' Comp. Winer, p. 574 (E. T. 772). ' Comp, on ii. 27.
260 CHAP. XIII., 35-39.
to be assumed for bcjia. It denotes veneranda, ^jze observanda.^ — The historical
meaning of the passage in Isaiah contains a promise of the Messianic times
alluring the exiles to the appropriation of the theocratic salvation ; but in
this very Messianic natm-e of the promise Paul had reason and right to
recognise the condition of its fulfilment in the eternal remaining-alive of
the risen Christ, and accordingly to understand the passage as a prophetic
promise of this eternal remaining-alive ; because through a Messiah liable
to death, and accordingly to corruption, those holy possessions of David,
seeing they are to be ■KLcrä, could not be conferred ; for that purpose His
life and His government, as the fulfiUer of the promises," must be eternal.^
As surely as God, according to this prophetic assurance, must bestow the
baia Aauid to. Tvicra, SO surely Christ, through whom they are bestowed, can-
not again die. Less accurately Hengstenberg, Christel. H. p. 384.
Ver. 35. A(o] therefore, namely, because the Messiah, according to ver.
34, after His resurrection will not again die, but live for ever. — ev hepui]
sc. i>a?.iuö, which is still present to the mind of the speaker from the quo-
tation in ver. 33. — 2ey«] the subject is necessaiily that of elp7/Kev, ver. 34,
and so neither David,^ nor the Scripture,'^ but God, although Ps. xvi. 10
contains David''s words addressed to God. But David is considered as in-
terpreter of God, who has put the prayer into his mouth. * As to the pas-
sage quoted, see on ii. 25-27. Calvin correctly says : "Quod ejus corpus
in sepulcro fuit conditum, nihil propterea juris hubuit in ipsum corruptio,
quum illic integrum non secus atque in lecto jactierit usque ad diem resur-
rectionis."
Vv. 36, 37 give the explanation and demonstration (yap), that in Christ
raised hy God from the dead this language of the Psalm has received its ful-
filment. Comp. ii. 29-31. — 'löia yEVEä'\ Dativus commodi : for his own con-
temporaries. Others understand it as the dative of time : sva aetate,'' or
tempoi'e vitae suae.^ Very tame and suj^erfluous, and the latter contrary to
the usus loquendi. lölä ysveä is added in foresight of the future Messianic
yevea, viii. 33, for which the Son of David serves the counsel of God.
" Davidis partes non extendunt se ultra modulum aetatis vulgaris, " Bengel.
— TT? Toi) Qeov ßov?Jj] may either be connected with knoi/it/O?/'^ or with vivnpETijaaq: '°
after he for his generation had served the counsel of God. The latter meaning
is more in keeping with the theocratic standpoint of David and ver. 22. —
TrpooETidtf TvpoQ -rovQ TTaTtpaq av-ov'\ was added to his fathers, namely, as regards
his soul in Sheol, whither his fathers had preceded him. A well-known
Hebrew expression, Judg. ii. 10 ; Gen. xv. 15, xxv. 8, and Knobel thereon.
Vv. 38-41. From the previously proved resurrection of Jesus, there /o7-
loics (ovv), what is now solemnly announced, yvuarov k.t.X., and does not ap-
pear as a mere " passing hint " " of the Pauline doctrine of justification—
> Comp. Bremi, ad Lys. p. 369, Goth. ' Kuinoel and the older interpreters.
" 2 Cor. i. 10. 8 oishausen.
' Comp. Cahin and Hofmaun, Weissag, u. « Erasmus, Castalio, Calvin, Vatablus, and
Erf. II. p. 173 f. others.
< Bengel, Heinrichs, and others. i» Vulgate, Beza, Luther, Wolf, Bengel,
" Heumann. Kuinoel. Oishausen, Baumgarten, and others.
• Comp, on Matt. xis. 5. " Baur.
FORGIVENESS TUIiOUGU CnillST. 261
that precisely tlirough 7//m, who was thus so uniquely attested by God to
be the promised Messiah, the Messianic forgiveness and justification are
offered, vv. 38, 31) ; and from this again follows (pvu', ver. 40) with equal
naturalness, as the earnest conclusion of the speech, the warning against
despising this benefit. — Observe that Paul does not enter on the point, that
t\\G causa meritoria of forgiveness and justification lay in the death on the cross,
or how it was so ; this belonged to ixfurtlier instruction afterwards ; at this
time, on tiie first intimation wliich he made to those who were still unbe-
lievers, it might have been offensive and prejudicial. But with his wisdom
and prudence, according to the connection in which the resurrection of the
Lord stands with His atoning death, • he has neither prejudiced the truth,
nor, against Schneckenburger and Baur, exhibited an un-Pauline, an alleged
Petrine reference of justification to the resurrection of Jesus.
Vv. 38, 39. Alo, -ovtov\ throu/jh this one, i.e. through Ills being announced to
you. — KoX aizo -Kavruv . . . öiKaiovTai] and that from all things, from which'
ye were unable to be justifcd in the law of Moses, every one who believes in this
One is justified. — ä-b ttüvtuv'] is pregnant : justified and accordingly freed,
in respect of the bond of guilt, from all things.'^ — iv -u vdjiu and the
emphatic ev tovtu represent the ömaLuOiivai as causally grounded, not in the
law, but in Christ. But the proposition that one becomes justified in Christ
by means of faith from all things, i.e. from all sins,^ from which one cannot
obtain justification in the law, is not meant to aflirm that already in the law
there is given a partial attainment of justification and the remainder is at-
tained in Christ,^ which would be un-Pauline and contrary to the whole of the
N. T. On the contrary, Paul, when laying down that proposition, in itself
entirely correct, leaves the circumstance, that man finds in the law justifica-
tion from no kind of sins, still entirely out of account, with great prudence not
adopting at once an antinomistic attitude, but reserving the particulars of
the doctrine of justification in its relation to the law for eventually further
Christian instruction. The proposition is of a general, theoretic nature ; it
is only the major proposition of the doctrine of justification, from all things
from wliich a man is not justified in the law, he is justified in Christ by
faith ; the minor 2)7'opo.<tition, but in the law a man can be justified from
nothing, an^l the conclusion, therefore only in Christ can «?Z justification be ob-
tained, are still kept back and reserved for further development. Therefore
the shift of Neander, I. p. 145, is entirely unnecessary, who " very arbitrarily
assumes that n-avruv is designed to denote only the completeness of the re-
moval of guilt, and that, properly speaking, Paul has had it in view to refer
the relative to the whole idea of (humulh/rai, but by a kind of logical attrac-
tion has referred it to T7di>ro)v. — We may add that the view,' according to
which Kal . . . öiKaio'vrai is taken as an independent proposition, as it is also
by Lachmann, who has erased /ca/, after A C* j<, is also admissible, although
' Rom. iv. 25. * Schwegler, nachapost. Zeitalt. 11. p. 96 f. ;
^ uiv = ä<J>' wv see on ver. 2. admitted also by ZcUer, p. 299.
' Rom. vi. 7; Ecclus. xxvi. 29; Test. XII. • Comp, also Schneckenburger, p. 131, and
patr. p. 540. Lekebusch, p. 3;34.
* Comp, before ö^eo-t? äiJ.apTiü>v. ' Wolf and others, following the Vulgate.
262 CHAP. XIII., 40-47.
less in keeping wiili the flow of the discourse, which connects the negative
element (d^fff^c äfiapr.) and the positive correlative to it {fiiKatovrai) with one
another ; tlierefore kuI is the simple and, not : and indeed. But it is contrary
to the construction to attach kol ütto . . . 6cKaiu6?/vai to the preceding ; so
Luther, also Bornemann, who, however, with D, inserts /lerdvoia after /cat.
Lastly, that neither, with Luther, is ev tovto) to be connected with Tviarevuv,
nor, with Morus, is ev tovtcj Traf ö ntaT. (hKcuovrat to be taken as a proposition,
by itself, is evident from the close reciprocal relation of h tu v6fnp and ei'
ToiiTCf). — On the idea of ötKuiovadat, the essence of which here already, by Traf
6 TTLorevoiv, most definitely emerges as the Fauline justitia ßdei, see on Rom.
i. 17.
Vv. 40, 41. 'Er -oZf ■:rpo(t)TjTaic;'] in volnmine 'pi'oplietarum, Luke xxiv. 44 ;
John vi. 45. — Hab. i. 5 is here quoted, according to theLXX., which, in-
stead of OPJ?, probably read D"1J3, from memory with an unimportant
deviation. In the announcement of the penal judgments to be executed by
means of the Chaldaeans, which are in Hab. I.e. threatened against the
degenerate Jewish nation, the apostle sees a divine threatening, the exe-
cution of which, in the Messianic sense, would ensue at the impending last
judgment by the punishment befalling the unbelieving Israelites. The
divine threatening preserves its power and validity even to the end, and
has then its last and highest fulfilment. This last Messianic judgment of
God — not the ruin of the Jewish war'— is here the ipyov. — mavia(^T]Tt\
vanish, come to nought.^ The coming to nought through terror is meant. —
kpyal^ofiai] T!\iQ present denotes what God was ]\i?,t on the 2)oint of doing.
The kyü annexed, /, whom you despise, has the emphasis of divine
authority. — epyov^ A rhetorically weighty anaphora, and hence without
(5i'.' — EKdiTjyiiraL] tells it quite to the end.*
Vv. 42, 43. After this speech Paul and Barnabas depart, and on their
going out of the synagogue are requested by those present, the subject of
Trape/caA., to Set fortli these doctrines again next Sabbath. But after the
assembly was dismissed {T^vOeiar/c), many even follow them to their lodging,
etc. — l^iovTcov 6e ahrüv] They consequently departed, as is indisputably
evident from ver. 43, before the formal dismissal of the synagogue.
Olshausen, indeed, thinks that the e^iovr. avr. did not histoi'ically precede the
TivdeccTjc Tjjq cvvayuy., but is only anticipated as the chief point of the narrative,
giving rise to the request to appear again. But this is nothing but an
arbitrary device, which would impute to Luke the greatest clumsiness in his
representation. — etc ~o fterafv cräßßarov] on the next folloicing Salhath. Instead
of /teraiv, D has what is correct as a gloss : ff^f. In the N. T. this meaning
is without further example, for Rom. ii. 15 is not a case in point. From the
apostolic Fathers : Barnabas 13 ; Clemens, ad Cor. I. 44. For the few, but
» Wetstein and others. s Comp. Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 341 (E. T.
2 Comp. Philostr. Imag. i. 26 : ovx it än6- 398). Krüger, § lix. 1. 3 f.
AocvTo, iAV ^5 ä!j>a.vi.(TeeUv. Jas. iv. 14. So < Comp. xv. 3 ; Job xii. 3 ; Eccliis. xxxlx.
very often in classical writers. See Toup, 12, xliii. 31, xliv. 8; Joseph. Antt. v. 8. 3;
^m in Suid. I. p. 92. Bell. v. 13. 7.
LABORS IN ANTIOCn. 263
quite ceitiiin examples from the otlior later Greek,' see Krobs." Otliera
— Camenirius, Calvin, Beza, Erasmus Seliinid, KosoiimiiUer, Sepp, and others
— render : " dichits sabhuth<i iutercalcniil/us,'''' by which, following the licccpta
(see the critical remarks), those making the request are regarded as Ociitilcs,
who would have desired a iccck-day. Comp. Luther : " between tiahbuths.' ■ Wo
should then have to explain adßßarov as tceek," that is : on the intervening week,
so that it would require no conjectural emendation/ But the evident con-
nection in which ver. 42 stands with ver. 44 gives the necessarj' and
authentic explanation: rtj ixofiivi^ caßßuTi^. — r. oeßofz. npoaiß.j the (God)
icorxhijipintj jiroselytca. This designation of the proselytes occurs only here ;
elsewhere, merely npoarßvToi,^ or merely aeßöfievoi with ° and without' Qeov.
Yet there is here no pleonasm ; but ceßo/u. is added, because they were
just coming fi'om the woi-nhip, as constant ])artakers in which they were
irorshipjiuKj proselytes. — oLziviq] applies to Paul and Barnabas., who {quijipe
qui) made moving representations {indOov) to those following them to con-
tinue in the grace of God, which by this lirst preaching of the gospel had
been imparted to them, because the apostles by the very following of the
people, and certainly also by their expressions, might be convinced that the
xnfii^ rob Oeoii had found an entrance into their souls. — 7rf>oa?.a?MvvTeg] speak-
ing to them ; xxviii. 20.*
Vv. 44, 45. T(j 6e Exofiivi^ onßß.^ but on the folloicing Sabbath." It is
in itself, moreover, highly probable that the two apostles were not
idle during the week, but continued their labours in private circles. — ■
avvr/xO'/] As it was Sabbath,'" this assembly, at which also the Gentiles
of the city were present, cr;i;e(5üv Tzäaa y iroliq, and see vor. 48, took
place certainly in and near the synagogue, not, as Heinrichs supposes,
"ante diversorium apostolorum." The whole city = iräpvei; ol -o'Alrai ; see
Valckenaer, ad Phocn. 032. — roi-c ö;i/loi'f] which consisted in great part of
Gentiles, whose admission to the preaching of the Messiah now stirred up
the angry zeal {^f/Tior) of Israelitish pride ; observe that here the 'Jovöaloi
alone without the proselytes are named. — ävriTLEyovreg is neither siijierfluous
nor a Hebraism," but joined with Kal ßlacipriß., it specifies emphatically the
mode of hvriltyov, namely, its hostile and spiteful form : they contradicted,
contradicting and at the same time blaspheming the apostle and his doctrine.'*
Vv. 46, 47. 'Ily hvayKalov] namely, according to the counsel of God " and
our apostolic duty. — ovk a^iovq KpivsTe k.-.7~..\ This judgment of their un-
worthiness they, in point of fact, pronounced upon themselves by their
zealous contradicting and blaspheming. — \(hv] "ingens articulus temporis
magna revolutio, " Bengcl. As to the singular, comp, on Matt. x. lö. —
> Plut. Inft. Lac. 42, de discr. amid et advl. • xvi. 14. xviii. 6.
82 ; Joseph, c. Ap. i. 21 ; BtU. v. 4. 2,— but ' xiii. 50, svii. 4, 17. [19; Wisd. xiii. 17.
not /;«//. li. 11. 4. s Lucian, A^t(/r. 7. 11, 18: Thcoplii-, Cliat:
2 Obss p 220; Kypkc, IT. p. 67 f ; Wyttenb. » Comp. xx. 1.5, xxi. 26 ; Luke xiii. S^ ; often
ad. Pint. Mor. p. 177 C. Comp. Olto, rtrf The- also in classical writers.
oph. Ant. 1. 8, p. 26 ff. "" See also ver. 42.
3 Mark xvi. 9; Luke xviii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 2. " Ewald, Lehrb. § 280*. [JndK. iv. 24.
■• (Prolins : craßBaTuiv. ''■' i>ee Lobcck. Panilip. p. 532 f. Comp,
s ii 10, V). :> ; Matt. xiii. 21. " See on ver. 14.
264 CHAP. XIII., 48-53.
ovTu yap hrhalTai «.r.Ä.] a proof that the arpecpdfieda fif ra Idvt] occurred not
arbitrarily, but in the service of the divine counsel. Isa. xlix. 6, according
to the LXX., with slight deviation, referring to the servant of God, is by
Paul and Barnabas, according to the Messianic fulfilment which this divine
word was to receive, recognised and asserted as hruh} for the apostolic
office ; for by means of this office it was to be brought about that the
Messiah (erf) would actually become the light of the Gentiles," for which,
according to this oracle, God has destined Him. — tov elval ce k.t.1.'\ the
final purpose : in order tliat thou mayest be, etc.
Vv. 48, 49. Tov 7i6yov r. Kvpiov] see on viii. 25. — haoi 7)aav rsTay/^evoi elg
((j^yv a'luvtov] as many of them as were ordained to eternal. Messianic, life.
Luke regards, in accordance with the Pauline conception,^ the believing of
those Gentiles as ensuing in conformity to their destination, ordered by
God already, namely, from of old, to partake of eternal life. Not all in
general became believers, but all those who were divinely destined to this
'C,ufj ; and not the rest. Chrysostom correctly remarks : äfupta/Ltepoi rü» ÖecJ.
The rä^ig of God in regard to those who became believers was in accordance
with His npdyvuaic, by means of which He foreknew them as a-edituros ;
but the divine tci^lq was realized by the divine Kli/aig effectual for faith,
Rom. viii. 28-30 — of which Paul, with his preaching, was here the instru-
ment. It was dogmatic arbitrariness which converted our passage into a
proof of the decretum absolutum? For Luke leaves entirely out of account
the relation of " being ordained " to free self-determmation ; the object of
his remark is not to teach a doctrine, but to indicate a historical sequence.
Indeed, the evident relation, in which this notice stands to the apostle's
own v>'ords, eneKh) . . , Cufjc, ver. 46, rather testifies against the conception
of the absolute decree, and for the idea, according to which the destination
of God does not exclude, comp. ii. 41, individual freedom, üg oh kut'
(iväyKTjv, Chrysostom ; although, if the matter is contemplated onlj' from
one of those two sides which it necessarily has, the other point of view,
owing to the imperfection of man's mode of looking at it, cannot receive
proportionately its due, but appears to be logically nullified. See, more
particularly, the remark subjoined to Rom. ix. 33. Accordingly, it is not
tobe explained of the actus paedagogicos,* of the pi-aesent em gratiae opera-
tionem per evangelium,^ of the drawing of the Father, John vi. 44, 37, etc.,
with the Lutheran dogmatic writers ; but the literal meaning is to be ad-
hered to, namely, the divine destination to eternal salvation : eOem avTovg 6
Gfoc c'lg TrepiTvolr/aiv aufir/piag, 1 Thess. v. 9. Morus, Rosenmüller, Kuinoel,
and others, with rationalizing arbitrariness, import the sense: " quibus,
dum fidem doctrinae habebant, certa erat vita beata et aeterna," by which
' Luke ii. 32, etc. [ii. 13, a/. eredifuri." This excludes from the divine
a Rom. ix. ; Bph. i. 4, ö, 11, iii. 11 ; 2 Thess. rofis of salvation those who reject the fai:h
»In which case Beza, tor example, pro- through their own fault. See Beza and Calvin
ceeds with logical self-deception • " Eigo vel in loc, and Canon. Dordrac. p. 205, ed. Au-
non rnnnes eranl vVae aeternae destinati, vel gusti.
omn£S crediderunl.''' Rather it is to be said ■ ■* Calovins.
" Omnes erant vitae aeternae destinati, sed ^ Bengel.
)'
EXPULSION FROM ANTIOCH. 265
the meaning of the word Terayßivoi is entirely expLiined away. Others take
i/aav TETa}fi. in the middle sense, quotquot se ordinaverant ad vltam aeternam,
as Grotius, Krebs, Loesner, and others,' in which case reray/z. is often under-
stood in its military sense {qui ordincs servant):"^ "qui de agmine et chisse
erant speranliuin vel contendentium ad vitam aeternam."^ But it is
against the middle rendering of -eray/x.,* that it is just seized on in order
to evade an unpleasant meaning ; and for the sensiis militaris of reraj/x. no
ground at all is afforded by the context, which, on the contrary, suggests
nothing else than the simple signification '■'■ordained'''' for Ttrayfi., and the
sense of the am for tif i^ijyv alüf. Others join e'lc; ^u?/v aluviov to krriffTevffav,
so that they understand Ti-ay/i. cither in the usual and correct sense
destinati,^ or quotquot tempus constitueranf,^ or congregati,'' in spite of the
simple order of the words and of the expression tcigtevslv slg t^ur/v aluvcov
being without example ; for in 1 Tim. i. IG elg defines the aim. Among
the Rabbins, also, the idea and expression ^'ordinati (Q'JJID) ad vitam
futuri saeculi,'''' as well as the opposite : '■'■ ordinati ad Oehennam,'''' are very
common. See the many passages in "Wetstein. But Wetstein himself
interprets in an entirely erroneous manner : that they were on account of
their faith ordained to eternal life. Tlie faith, foreseen by God, is sidjse-
guent, not previous to the ordination ; by the faith of those concerned their
divine rd^ig becomes manifest and recognised. See Rom. viii. 30, x. 14 ;
Eph. i. 11, 13, al.
Ver. 50. Unpürpwni^ r. ctß. }vv. r. cvax-] they stirred up^ the female pros-
elytes, of genteel ranh.^ Heinrichs interprets aeß. otherwise: " religiosas
zeloque servandorum rituum ethnicorum ferventes. " Against this may be
urged the stated use of csß. in this narrative, vv. 16, 43, as well as the
greater suitableness of the thing itself, that the crafty Jews should choose
as the instruments of their hatred the female proselytes, who were suf-
ficiently zealous for the honour of their adopted religion to bring about,
by influencing their Gentile husbands, the intended expulsion of the apostles.
Vor. 51. ' EK7iva^. r. Koviopr. ] as a sign of the greatest contempt.'" — t -' avrovg]
against them, is to be understood either as denoting the direction of the
movement of the feet in shaking off the dust, or, more significantly, in the
sense of the direction, frame of mind, in which the action took place.
Comp. Luke ix. 5. — 'Ikoviov] belonging at an earlier period to Phrygia,"
but at this time the capital of Lycaonia,''^ and even yet,'^ an important cit3\
« ITofmann's view, Schrtftbew . I. p. 23S, * Comp, on xx. 13.
amounts to the same thing: " who, directed ' So Heinrichs,
unto eternal hf e, were in a disposition of mind « Markland,
correspondins,' to the offer of it." The com- ' Knatchbuil.
pari8on of 1 Cor. xvi. 15 does not suit. Lange, ^ j>'\m\. 01. iii. 38 ; Lncian, Tox. 35.
IL p 173, in a similar manner evades the » See xvii. 12, and on Mark xv. 43.
meaiiin::; of the words: "those who under '" Comp, xviii. 6, und sue on Matt. x. 14.
God's ordination were at that time ripe for " Xen. Anab. i. 2. 19.
faith." Comp, alreadj" Brestchneider, " di«- '-Strabo, xii. p. 508; Cic. ad Div. sv. 4;
;»o«i'i."— that is to say, '' apü facti oratione Plin. X. II. y. 25.
Pauli." '' Konieh or Koniijah, see Ainsworlh"«
2 Sec Maji 0!m. IIL p. 81 ff. Travels in the Track of the Ten Thousand
» Mede in \\\ If. Greeks.
266 CHAP. XIII, — NOTES.
Ammian. Marc. xiv. 2, reckons it to belong to the neighbouring Pisidia,
in opposition to the above witnesses, — an error easily committed. In
Iconium the legend makes Thecla be converted by Paul. — From the
Pisidian Antioch tliey did not move farther forward, but turned south-
eastward, in order (xiv. 26) at a later period to return by ship to the Syrian
Antioch.
Ver. 52. What a simple and significant contrast of the effect produced
by the gospel, in spite of the expulsion of its preachers, in the minds of
those newly converted ! They loere filled with joy^ in tlie consciousness of
their Christian happiness, and with the Holy Spirit ! Uadoq yap oiSacKOAov
nappijalav ovk eyKOTVTEi, alXa irpodv/xoTepov ttoieI tov naBijTijv, as Chrysostom here
says (g°).
Notes by Ameeican Editoe.
(c^) Special documentary source. V. 1.
While there is nothing in the supposition of our author that the 13th and
14th chapters are a separate document, revised by Luke, inconsistent with the
authenticity and authority of the record, yet there does not seem to be any ne-
cessity, from the style or the contents of the chapters, for any such suj^posi-
tion. Gloag in reference to this says : " The narrative is pervaded throughout
with Luke's peculiar style, and is not so unconnected with the preceding his-
tory as is asserted." Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch, and other
distinguished teachers were assembled there, so that, as Meyer happily re-
marks, the mother church of the Gentiles became a seminary of missionaries.
Hitherto Luke has given an account of the progress of the gospel generally.
Henceforth he treats almost exclusively of Saul — now and henceforth called
Paul — his missionary labors and journeys, and the leading events of his life.
The missionary character of the church is now brought prominently into view.
The first two acts of the church at Antioch are characteristic of the gospel,
and exemi^lify the unity of the Christian church. They first sent alms to
the poor Jews in Jerusalem, and next sent the gospel far and wide to the igno.
rant Gentiles. This conduct furnishes a pattern for all churches to-day.
(D^) Prophets and teachers. Vs. 1, 2.
These office-bearers of the early church are frequently referred to in the
Acts and in the Epistles of Pattl. (1 Cor. xii. 28, and Eph. iv. 11.) Tlie proph-
ets were an order of men endowed with the Spirit, and recognized by the church
as next to the apostles in dignity and authority, and superior to the teachers.
They, when inspired by the Spirit, addressed the people in an exalted and im-
passioned state of mind — their conscious intelligence being informed by the
Holy Spirit. They were only occasionally under this influence, and some-
times, as in the present instance, they foretold future events. The teachers
were publicly appointed by the church to the work of instruction, and, under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, using their own judgment, after due medita-
tion, furnished instruction for the edification of others. A prophet might also
be a teacher, as the higher gift usually included the lower ; but the teacher
NOTES. 267
would not assume the function of the prophet. The mention of prophets and
teachers imiilies that the Urst Gentile church was large and flourishing, yomc
of the prophets came from Jerusalem to minister to the Gentiles. "The
prophets in the New Testament stood to the early churches nearly in the same
relation as do our printed Bibles to our modern churches. They spoke by au-
thority and without error, and gave to their audience such details as occur in
the Gospels, and such illustrations and precei^ts as are found in the Epistles.
They were the 'men of their counsel '—present oracles, whose lips keep
knowledge." (Eadie.)
(E^) John as an attendant. V. 5.
The two friends took with them John, surnamed Mark, the nephew of Bar-
nabas, and the author of the second gospel. He is styled in the narrative
"their minister ;" but it is impossible to determine with precision the kind of
service he was expected to render them. Some siippose that he was simply a
personal attendant, as Elisha was upon Elijah, or Gehazi upon Elisha ; others
believe that he was an assistant in their piiblic duties — such as preaching and
the administration of the ordinance of baptism." {Taylor:) "While it may be
readily imagined that Mark, as the younger man, would perform any kind of
service which would contribute to the personal comfort of his relative and his
distinguished companion, doubtless his functions were mainly of a s^jiritual
character. Soon, however, he left such noble companionship, and seriously
offended Paul by abandoning the arduous and periloiis mission. His motives
for doing this were probably various, though cowardice did not necessarily con-
stitute one of them. Having passed through his mother's native isle, he prob-
ably felt a strong desire to visit her — or still more probably, being strongly
attached to Peter, through whose instrumentality he was converted, as Peter
affectionately calls him Marcus my son, and sympathizing more strongly with
his work than that of Paul, he may have returned to join him. Be this as it
may, Barnabas never lost confidence in him, and he was also at last reconciled
to Paul, and was with him when a prisoner in Kome (Col. ir. 10 ; Philemon,
24).
(F^) Second psalm. V. 33.
"The majority of m.ss. are in favor of <hv-Fpij ; but critics have in general
preferred the reading nfxjrif), as being more diificvilt and adverted to by the
Fathers. It is accounted for on the supposition that oxiTfirst psalm was not
numbered, but was composed as an introduction to the psalter ; and that the
second psalm was properly the first. In some Hebrew mss. this order occurs."
{Gloarj.) Some refer the words quoted to the incarnation of Christ, but the
reference clearly is, as our author shows, to his resurrection. Declared, hy his
resurrection, to be the Son of God with power, it was the public inauguration
of his Sonship, a manifestation of his divinity (Kom. i. 4).
(G-) Paid' s sermon. V. 41.
Of this first recorded discourse of Paul ver}' different judgments have been
formed. Some siippose it to be unhistorical — a mere imitation and repetition
of the speech of Peter. Another saj-s it is but the echo of the speeches of
2G8 CHAP. XIII. — NOTES,
Peter and Stephen. The similarity between the discourses is just what might
be exjjected, from the two apostles speaking on the same subject to similar
audiences. Farther, says Gloag, there is nothing un-Pauline either in the form
or the contents of the discourse. Neander says : " It is a specimen of the pe-
culiar wisdom and skill of the great apostle in the management of men's dispo-
sitions, and of his peculiar antithetical mode of developing Christian truth."
The discourse is regularly constructed, and may be divided into four parts —
the historical, the apologetic, the doctrinal, and the practical. In the dis-
course the preacher wins the attention of his audience by giving a sketch of
the history of their forefathers. Then he proves the Messiahship of Jesus from
the testimony of John, from the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and from his
resurrection from the dead. Next he proclaims the forgiveness of sins through
faith in this crucified and risen Messiah, announcing distinctly the doctrine
which he discusses at so great length in his Epistles— justification through
faith in Christ. Justification, as taught by Paul, means deliverance from con-
demnation, the claim of the law for punishment. Dr. Taylor gives in a note
a striking and curious illustration of the use of the word justified in this sense,
taken from Scott's " Waverley,"— when Evan Maccombich, pleading for his
master, says to the judge "that ony six o' the very best o' his clan will be
willing to he justified in his stead." Here the word means hanged ; a criminal
being held to be set right with the law when he had suffered its penalty. The
conclusion of the discourse is an earnest warning against rejecting Christ, lest
something worse than the evils predicted by Habakkuk should come upon
them. Startled and surprised by this solemn conclusion, they besought the
apostles, as they left the synagogue, to come and preach again on the next
Sabbath. Even after they had withdrawn, many followed and had an inter-
view with the apostles.
During the week the excitement was great ; nor were the apostles either
idle or silent. And so next Sabbath almost the whole city came together to
hear the word. But when the Jews saw the multitudes of the Gentiles listen-
ing to the truth and receiving it, they beCame enraged, and contradicted and
insulted the apostles. On the other hand, the Gentiles, hearing that Jesus the
crucified was sei for a light and salvation to them, were glad and glorified God ;
and even though the apostles were driven off by the instigation of the Jews,
the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost.
CRITICAL REMARKS. 269
CHAPTER XIY.
Ver. 2. äneiOovvrei'] A B C X, min. have dneid/'/cravTEi, which Lachm. Tisch.
Born, have adopted ; and rightly, partly on account of the preponderating
authority (D, however, does not here concur, as it has an entirely different
reading), and partly because ü-ciOovvTei most directly presented itself to the
mechanical scribes as a contrast to those who had become believers. If they
bad conformed themselves to ntarevaai, ver. 1, they would have written
äT7iaTT/aai/Te<;. — Ver. 3. Before öiöüvri Elz. has Kai, against decisive evidence.
— Ver. 8. After avrov Elz. has inTdi)xuv, against greatly i^reponderating evidence.
Added from iii. 2 as an unnecessary completion. — TTepiTTETvaT^Kei] So (not
ireptenen. as Elz.) D E G H, min. Chrys. Lachm. and Tisch, have ■KEfHenuTTjaEv,
after ABC«, mln. But the regular preference, which in relative sentences
the Greeks give to the aorist over the pluperfect, here easily supplanted the
latter. — Ver. 9. tikoveI Lachm. Tisch. Born, read i'kovüev, after A D E G H N,
min. Chrys. Theoph. An alteration, as the narrative continues in the aorist,
and the intentional selection of the imperfect here was not understood. — Ver.
10. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz (Born. äir/'/MTo, after D) have ?ßnTo. But Elz. has
^Ä}.eTo, against decisive evidence. The aorist yielded to the imperfect on ac-
count of TTepiEmirei. — Ver. 12. /lev'] is, after A B C* D X, rightly erased by
Lachm. Tisch. Born, as a customary insertion. — Ver. 13. After TroP.fuS Elz. has
avTÜD. A current addition, condemned by the witnesses. — Ver. 14. f^eTr^Jr/aav]
Elz. has elaeirijS., against decisive evidence. The less the reference of e^ — was
understood, the more easily would the better known els be inserted, corre-
sponding to äs TOP ü,Y/ov. — Ver. 17. KaiToiye] Others: «n/je (so D E, Born.).
Others : Kairoi (so ABC* X**^ Lachm.). With this diversity Kairoi, and also yf,
are to be considered as certainly and predominantly attested ; and therefore
KaiToiye, with C*"* G H X*, min. Chrys. Theoph. Occ, is to be retained. Be-
side Kai sometimes the one particle and sometimes the other was omitted, as is
also the case in xvii. 27. — dyadnvpycjv] so to be read, with A B C i<, min. Ath.
Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. But Elz. Scholz,
Born, have äyaOoTroiüv, which, as the more usual word, was inserted. — v/iiv
. . . vfiüv'\ Elz. has 7i/j1v . . . Tjfiüv, against very important witnesses. The
alteration arose, because the sentence had become a commonplace. — After ver.
18, C D E, min. vss. read fiLnTpuSovruv avrCiv k. öii^aßKovTuv. So Born, with 6e
after öin-p., and attaching it to what follows. An interpolation, by way of
smoothing the transition from ver. 18 to its contrast in ver. 19, variously en-
riched by different insertions. — Ver. 19. vnfilaovTei] Lachm. Tisch, and Born,
have vn/iiil^ovTf?, after A B D X. min. The Recepta arose mechanically from the
context. — TeOvdvai] Lachm. Tisch, read -EOvr,Kfvat, after A B C J<, niin. Cor-
rectly, as the contracted form was the more usual. — Ver. 28. After (iit-pi^ov 6i
Elz. has EKci, wljich has been, after A B C D X, min. and several vss., erased or
suspected since the time of Griesb. Insertion for the sake of more precise
definition.
270 CHAP. XIV., 1-11.
(h-) Vv. 1, 2. Kara to cito] at the same time, simul (Vulg.), öfiov, Hesych.'
— 'EÄ?i^vuv] see on xi. 20. Comp, xviii. 4, 6. Yet here those Gentiles only
are meant who were in connection with Judaism as proselytes of the gate, comp,
xiii. 43, and thus had not by circumcision laid aside their Greek nationality.
This limitation is required by the context ; for they are present in the syn-
ao-ogue, and in ver. 2 the Wvt] are distinguished from them, so that they
occupy a middle place between the Uh'rj and the 'loaJa/w. — ovruq'] in such <i
manner, so effectively. — (jctte] refers to the preceding ovruq, as in John iii.
16/-! — aireid^aavTEg (see the critical remarks), having refused obedience, hy
unbelief. — eKÜn.] they made evil-affected, put into a bad frame of mind, i.e.
ad iracundiam concitaverunt (Vulg.), like the German phrase, ^'' sie machten
5cis." This meaning, not in use with Greek writers, nor elsewhere in the N".
T. or in the LXX. (Ps. cvi. 32 ?) and Apocr., occurs in Joseph. Antt. xvi.
1. 2, 7. 8, 8. 6. — Kara rüv äöelip.] refers to iTrr/y. k. ekcik.. conjointly. Both
were hostilely directed against the Christians,
Vv. 3, 4. Ovv represents vv. 3 and 4 as a consequence of vv. 1 and 2.
"In consequence of that approval (ver. 1) and this hostility (ver. 2), they
spent indeed (jiev) a considerable time in free-spoken preaching (ver. 3),
but ((5f) there arose a division among the multitude" (ver. 4). — inl rö
K('p/(j] states on what their bold teaching rested — had its stay and support.^
Hence as regards sense : frcti Domino. Elsewhere in the N. T. with h.
Ki'piog may as well be Jesus* as Ood ;^ the mode of conception of the apostolic
church admits both the former, Mark xvi. 20, and the latter. The latter,
however, is preponderantly supported partly by Acts xx. 32, where rijg
xäptTOQ avTov is to be referred to Ood, and partly by iv. 29, 30, where öiöövtl
arjiiela k.t.a. likewise points to Ood. Comp. Heb. ii. 4. — rcj ßaprvpovvn . . .
a'uTüp] icho gave practically confirmatory testimony^ to the icord of His grace (to
the gospel, xx. 24), in granting that signs and wonders should le done ly their
hands. The second participle öu'iöv-i, added without copula, denotes the
form, in which the paprvpEiv was presented. — iux'^f^v] comp. John vii. 43.
" Scinditnr incertura studia in contraria vulgus.'" Examples in Wetstein.
— Kai] and indeed.
(i'^) Vv. 5-7. 'Oppr;] impetus (Vulg.), but not exactly in the sense of an
assault,^ nor yet a plot.^ The former meaning, according to the context,
expresses too much ; the latter is not sanctioned by linguistic usage, even
in Jas. iii. 4. It denotes a strong pressure, a, pushing and thronging.^" ■ — ■ ahv
TotQ äpxovmv aiiTüv] joins on closely to 'lovi^alur, whose rulers of the syna-
gogue and elders are meant. Comp. Phil. i. 1. On vßpiam, comp. Luke
xviii. 32 ; 1 Thess. ii. 2 ; Lucian, Soloec. 10." — ovviMvtec] Comp, on xii. 12.
1 Comp. 1 Sam. sxxi. 6, and examples in ' Virg. Aen. ii. 39.
Kypkc, II. p. 69 f. ; Schaefer, ad Bos. Ell. p. » Luther, comp. Castalio, Calvin, and others.
210. 9 Kninoel, de Wette, and others.
^ Often so in Greek writers, e.g. Xen. 3fem. i" Comp. Herod, vii. 18: «Trei Sai/uLovir)Tisv''«'e-
i. 2. 1 ; Sturz, Lex. IV. p. C23. rai öp^uij. Plat. Phil. p. 35 D : ^vxv^ ^vßiraaav
3 See Benihardy, p. 2.j0. t^V t6 op/x^v Kai enievixiav. Dem. 309. 4 : ei?
* neinrichs, Olshansen. op/xrjv toC rä hiovra noim-v npoTpe\pai, Xen.
* Groliiis, Morus, Kuinoel. Mem. iv. 4. 2 ; Jas. iii. 4 ; 3 Mace. i. 23, iv. 3.
Comp. X. 43, xiii. 22, XV. 8. " ^toi TrX-qyai's y) ie(7/ixois r) Kai. äX'A<a rpÖTtf,
EVENTS AT ICONIUM. 271
It had become known to them, what was at work against them. — Ararfia
sometimes used as feminine singular, and sometimes as neuter plural, as
in ver. 8, see Grotius, and Afp/iJ//, two cities of Lycaonia (j=), to the north of
Taurus, and lying in a southeastern direction from Iconium. Ptol. v. 4
reckons the former to belong to the neighbouring Isauria ; but Plin. v. 32
confirms the statement of our passage. On their ruins, see Hamilton's
Travels in Asia Minor, II. pp. 301 f., 307 f. ; Ilackett, p. 228.
Vv. 8-10.' 'EköOi/to] lie sat, because he was lame. Perjiaps he begged,
comp. John ix. 8, like the lame man in chap. iii. — Trepi-iTr.] Pluperfect
icitltout augment.^ Observe, moreover, the earnest circumstantiality of the
narrative. — i/Kovt] The imperfect denotes his persevering listening. — 'kSüv]
Paul saw in the whole bearing of the man closely scanned by him, in
his look, gestures, play of features, his confidence of being saved, i.e.
healed. This confidence was excited by listening to the discourse of the
apostle ; by which Paul appeared to him as a holy man of superior powers.
Bengcl aptly says : " dum claudus verbum audit, vim sentit in anima, undo
intus movetur, ut ad corpus concludat." — tov cud^vai] This genitive of the
object depends directly on ■kIgtiv.^ — jieyaTir) ttj (puvi,] thus, with the fiey.
predicatively j9re;?a^(Z only here and in xxvi. 24.'' — biMq] ita ut eredus stes.^
— ijla-o K. TTEpiETTaTti'l Observe the exchange of the aoiist and imperfect:
lie sprang np, made a leap, and walked. Otherwise in iii. 8.
Yer. 11. AvKaoviari] Chrysostom has finely grasped the object of this re-
mark : ovK T/v TuvTo ol'öi—u dfjTiov, ri) yaf) o'iKfia «pwrf/ igOtyyovro ItyovTE^, uTi oi
Orot K.r.l. \ia tovto ovöev avroig eXeyov. The more surprised and astonished
the people were, the more natural was it for them to express themselves in
their native dialect, although Zeller reckons this very improbable and calcu-
lated with a view to make the homage go as far as possible. Nothing defi-
nite can be made out concerning the Lycaoninn language; perhaps a dialect
of the Lycian," which Jablonsky ' considered as derived from the Assyrian ;
Grotius, as identical with the Cappadocian ; and Giihling," as a corrupt
Greek. — öunLuOtv-tq av&pÜTroig] having become similar to men. Theophanies
The distinction there stated of vßpiieiv with In a corresponding manner have the miracles
€19 is groundless. See, on the contrary, e.ff. of Paul generally been placed in parallelism
Dem. 522. ult. 539. 14. with those of Peter, to the prejudice of their
' Although two cures of the same kind of hi-torieal truth. Comp , m ojiposition to this
infirmity and in a similar miraculpus manner view, Trip, Paulus nach d. Ajostelgeech. p.
naturally enough produce two simihir narra- 161 ff.
tives, yet it cannot surprise us that, according ^ gee on Matt. vii. 25. and Valckenaer, p.
to the cri'icism of Sclineckenburger, Bnur, 504 f. Bomemaiin, aaf A'««. Cyr. vi. 2. 9.
and Zeller, the whole of this narrative is as- 3 ggg Buttmann's neut. Or. p. 229 f. (E. T.
eumed to originate from an imitation of the 266).
narrative of the eirlier Pctrine miracle in < See, generally. Kühner, §403. 1. and cspeci-
chap. iii. "But with the miracle is with- ally Schaefer, arf /);onys. C'o/n;). p. 3-59.
drawn also the foundation of the attempted * See on Matt. xii. 13, and Borncraann,
worship of the two apostles : this, therefore, Schol. in Luc. p. 39 f.
cannot he rcirarded as historical, and so much 'Lassen in the Zeit. d. Dcvtxch. morgenL
the less, as it also is exposed to the suspicion G'Sf'lsrh. 1856, p. 329 f.
of having arisen from an exaggerated repeti- ' In Iken's «o». TJies. II. p. 638 ff.
tion of a trait from the history of Peter," ' Z)e /tnj^ua iypoon., Viteb. 1T26.
Zeller, p. 214. Comp. Baur, I. p. 112 ff. ed. 2.
273 CHAP. XIV., 12-16.
in human form ' belonged, at the instance of the myths of antiquity," to
the heathen popular belief, in which such conceptions survived as an echo
of these ancient myths ; ^ although Baur (comp. Zeller) discovers here an
imitation, in vphich the author of the Acts shows himself as "acquainted
with mythology." Comp., moreover, the analogous conception which at-
tached itself to the appearance of Pythagoras, of ApoUonius of Tyana, and
others.* Such a belief was naturally rejected by philosophers;^ but just
as naturally it lingered among the people (k").
Ver. 12. The fact that Barnabas and Paul were declared to be Zexis and
Hermes^ is explained partly and primarily from the well-known provincial
myth, according to which these gods were once hospitably entertained in
the same regions by Philemon and Baucis ; ^ but partly also from Zeus
having a temple in front of the city, ver. 13, and from its being the office
of Hermes, as the eloquent ' interpreter ^ and messenger of the gods," to ac-
company his father when he came down to the earth.'" Paul was called
Hermes, because, in contrast to his companion, it was he who was " leader
of the word " {avrbq fiv 6 rjy k. t. /I.), as Hermes was considered Qeog 6 tüu
Myuv 7/j'f,M(ji'.'' Probably also his more juvenile appearance and greater
activity, compared with the calmer and older Barnabas, contributed to this ;
but certainly not, as Neander conjectures, his insignificant bodily appear-
ance ; for apart from the fact that this rests only on very uncertain tradition —
in the Acta Pauli et Theclae in Tischendorf, Act. apocr. p. 41, he is de-
scribed as ßiKpoQ TÜ ßeyl&ei, i/ii/'iöf ri/v Ke(pa?j'/v äyKv?iOg rniQ Kvr'//imic'- — Hermes
is always represented as a handsome, graceful, very wcU-foi-7ned young man.''
But certainly Barnabas must have had a more imposiug appearance, koL äwo
rfjq oipeuQ, ä^ioTTpew/jc, Chrysostom.
Ver. 13. But the priest, then officiating, of the Zeus, who is before the city,
i.e. of the Zeus {TvoXtevc:), who had his seat in a temple in front of the city.
kpov is not to be supplied, with Kuinoel and others,'* as -ou A^df is the
genitive directly belonging to lepd<g ; but the expression tov övrog Trpo -i/c toA.
is explained from the heathen conception that the god himself is present in
his temple, consequently is (övrog) at the place whore his temple stands :
hence the classical expressions Tvap' An (ad fanum Jovis), Trap' 'llpy.^^ "Wolf
thinks that it is spoken "de Jove, cujus, simulacrum, and so not templum,
ante urbem erectum erat. " But mere statues had no special priests.*^ It
does not, however, follow from this passage, that there was also a temple
of Jupiter in the city (Olshausen). — ravpovQ Kal cTsfifiara] lulls and garlands.
1 Horn. Od. xvii. 485 fl. » Apollod. iii. 10. 2.
"See also Niigolsbach, Homer. Theol. p. i" Hygin. Poet. Astron. 34; OviA. Fast.Y.
158. 495. Comp. Walch, Diss, in Act. III. p. 173 ff.
3 Comp. Themist. vii. p. 90, quoted by Wet- 'i Jamblich, de myster. Aeg. 1.
stein ou ver. 12. 12 Comu. Malalas, Chronogr. x. p. 247 ;
< Valckenaer, p, 506. Nicephor. H. E. iii. 37.
5 Plat. Rep. ii. p. 381 C-E ; Cic. de Hariisi7. " Comp. Müller, ArcMol. § 379, .3S0.
28. i< See Bornhardy, p. 184 f.
8 Ovid Met. viii. 611 ff. '* Jacobs, ad Del. epigr. p. 229.
'' Vocis et se7-7nonis potens, yiacro^). Sat. 1.8. "«See Yalckeuacr, Opusc. IL p. 295, and
" Aoyou 7rpo<|)rJTT)s, Orph. H. 27. 4. Schol. I. p. 509.
APOSTLES TAKEX FOIl GODS. 273
"Taurus tibi, summe Deorum," Ovid. Metam. iv. 755. Beza, Calovius,
Raphe], Erasmus Sclimid, Palairet, Morus, Heinrichs, and others, have quite
erroneously assumed a hendiadys for ruvpovc iarE/uuivov^. This would come
back to the absurd idea: bulls and, indeed, garlands^ I'he destination of
the garlands is, moreover, not to be referred to the deified apostles, in op-
])osition to Grotius and Valckenaer, who, like statues,'' were to have been
adorned ; but to the animals that were to be adorned therewith at the com-
mencement of the sacrifice,^ because the design of the garlands is inclu-
ded in the 7/i9£?.£ i^mv. — i-rrl rovq nvTiuvaq] to the gntes^ doors of the gate,
namely, of the city. This reference is required by the correlation in which
E-l Tovg vvTiüvaq stands to tov ovtoq npo rfiq izoAEuq. The alleged incarnate
gods were in the city, and therefore the sacrifice was to be brought at tlie
gates of the citij. The reference to the doors of the temjüe,* or of the house
where the apostles lodged, is not in keeping with the context.
Vv. 14, 15. ' AnovGavreq] Perhaps an inhabitant already gained by them
for Christ brought intelligence of the design. — dtappr/^. t. luaz. avr.] from
pain and sorroic. See on Matt. xxvi. 65. Not : as doing penance for the
blinded people, as Lange imagines. — k^enrjorjcav] they sprang out from the
gate, to which they had hastened from their lodging, among the multitude.
The simple representation depicts their haste and eagerness. — ri ravra Troulre ;]
see on Luke xvi. 2. — Kat ijßäq /c.r./l.] ei'iSfwf ek Trpooißiuv ävhpEipav to küköv,
Chrysostom. — öuowTraÖeZc] of like nature and constitution.^ — evayyilt^iößEvoi . . .
süvra] contains what is characteristic of the otherwise 6^o<o7rai?eif vu'iv : we
irho hring to you the message of salvation, to turn you from these tain, i.e.
devoid of divine reality, gods, to the living, true Ood. evayyETn^. does not thus
mean cohortantes,^ but retains its proper import ; and the epexegetical in-
finitive t-a-KTTpEoeip states the contents of the joyful news. It may be cleared
up by supplying Selv, but this conception is implied in the relation of the
infinitive to the governing verb.'' — tovtuv tüh ßaraiuv] masculine, not neuter,
referring to the gods, present in the conception of the hearers, such as Zeus
and Hermes, who yet are no real gods, 1 Cor. viii. 4 ff. — öc E-oljjnE] significant
epexcgesis of the aJr-r«, whereby the uaraiÖTK of the polytheistic deification
of the individual powers of nature is made very palpable. Comp, with the
whole discourse the speech to the Athenians ("subhmiora audire
postulantes, " Bengel), chap. xvii.
Vv. 16-18. WJiO in tlie past ages left the Gentiles to themselves, did not
guide them by special revelation, although He withal made Himself knoten,
doing good to them, hy tJiehlessings of nature — an indulgent description" of the
ungodly character of the heathen, with a gently reproving reference to the
revelation of God in nature. 'Opa irüg ?,avdav6vTi,)c rfjv KarT/-}opiav rii)T/oi,
Chrysostom. Grotius aptly remarks: "Egregiam hie habemus formam
> See Fritzpche, ad Matth. p. 85C. Winer, » Comp. Plat. Tim. p. 45 C, Pol. p. 409 B,
p. 585 (E. T. 786). comp. p. 461 D ; Jas. v. 17.
« Comp. ep. .Jerem. 9. * Heinrichs and Kuinoel.
3 See Wetetcin and Dougtaens, Anal. p. 80 ' Sec I.obot k, ad Phryn. p. 753 f. ; Kühner,
ff. ; nermann, gottesd. AlfertJi. § 24. 7. II. § 647. ad Xtn. Anab. v. 7. 34.
< oi ixiy iepol toC veia nv\ü)vei. Pint. Tim. 12. * Comp. xvii. 30.
274 CHAP. XIV., 17-25.
orationis, quam imitari debeant, qui apud populos in idololatria educates
evangeliumpraedicant." ' — raig öäoic] local ^ dative : in their ways.'' What is
meant is the develojjment of the inward and outward life in a way shaped
by themselves, without divine regulation and influence, and also without
the intervention of the divine anger. Comp. Rom. iii. 10 fi., i. 23 i?.,
where the whole moral abomination and curse of this relation is unveiled,
whereas here only alluring gentleness speaks.^ — Kairoiys ova ä/uäpT. k.t.?..]
An indication that they, nevertheless, might and should have known Him. ^
Observe the relation of the three participles, of which the second is logically
subordinate to the first, and the third to the second ; as doer of good, in
that He gives you rain, thereby filling, etc. — ovpav6&ei'] not uselessly added.
"Coelum sedes Dei,"Bengel. Observe also the individualizing Ifiiv {see
critical remarks). — Ev^pocrbvTjg] joy generally. Arbitrarily, Grotius and Wolf
suggest that*^ wine is meant. — räf napSiac vßüv] neither stands for the simple
vfiäg, nor is it to be taken, with Wolf, of the stomach ; ' but the hea7't is
ßlled with food, inasmuch as t\\e sensation of being filled, the pleasant /ee^i?)(7
of satisfaction, is in the heart. Comp. Ps. civ. 15 ; Jas. v. 5. — tov pf/ -dvntv
avTolg] comp. x. 47. The genitive depends on Karenavaav, according to the
construction Karaw. Tiva rtvog, to divert a person from a thing, to hinder him
in it,* and p/} is the usual particle with verbs of preventing and hindering.*
Vv, 19-23. This unmeasured veneration was by hostile Jews who arrived
{eTT^Äßov) from Antioch'" and Iconium," transformed in the fickle multitude'^
into a participation in a tumultuous attempt to kill Paul. Between this
scene very summarily related and the preceding no interval is, according
to the correct text (see critical remarks), to be placed, in opposition to Ewald.
The mobile vidgus, that äara^pTiTÖraTov Tipäypa tüv äTrdvTcjv,'^ is at once carried
away from one extreme to another. — kuI neiaavTeg k.,t.1."[ and after they, the
Jews who had arrived, had persuaded the multitude to be of their party, and
stoned ^"^ Paul, the chief speaker ! they dragged him, etc. — KVKlucävTiov'] not
sepeliendi causa, Bengel, Kuinoel. and others, — a thought quite arbitrarily
supplied ; but in natural painful sympathy the Lystrians who had been
converted to Christ surrounded him who was apparently dead. — avaarag
s'iafßdev elg T. tt.] is certainly conceived as a miraculous result. — Ver 22.
/cat oTi K.-.A.] comp. ver. 27 ; but here so, that from napaKalovvTEg a kindred
1 Comp. Schneckenbursrer, dri««a<Mr;. 77jeo;. Baenmlein, Partik. p. 245 ff. ; and Krüger,
d. Paul, in liis Beltr. p. 97 ff. Dion. II p. 267.
2 See, generally, on the daiivits localis, « Ecclus. xxxi. 33.
Becker, Homer. Blatter. 20S f. "> Thnc. 11. 4v). 2.
3 Comp, on 2 Cor. xii. 18 , Jude 11 ; Judith s jjom. Od. xxiv. 457 ; Plat. Polit. p. 394 E ;
xiii. 16; Ecclus. xxxv. 20. frequently in the LXX.
«The announcement of the goppel forms » Hjirinng, Partikell. II. p. 167 f.; Baeum-
the great epoch in the history of salvation, lein, ;.c. p. 298 ff.
with the emergence of which the times of i» xiii. 14, 50.
men's being left to themselves are fulfilled. " vv. 1, 5, 6.
See xvii. .30 ; Rom. iii. 25 f. Comp also He- 12 " Ventosae plebis snflfragia ! "' Hor. Ep.
bart, natüii. Theol. d. Ap. Pa'il. p. 13. For i. 19. 37.
judgment Jesus has come into the world. '^ Dem. 383, 5.
5 Comp. Rom. i. 20, Kairoiye, as in John iv. i< Conspqnently in the city. It was to be a
2, qnamquam quidem, and yet. See also <i,6vo<; S-qiJ.6\ev<7Tos ei' 7rdA.£i (Soph. Ant. 36).
PAUL STOXED. 275
verb (/If-'/orrff) must be borrowed.' — ihl] namely, ex decreto divino. Comp. ix.
16. — i)uär\ ire Chrintians must, through many afflictions, enter into the
Messianic kingdom, ßaa. t. Oeov, to be established at the Parousia. Comp.
Matt. X. 38 ; Rom. viii. 17 f. ; also the saying of Christ in Barnab. ep. 7 :
01 öfAoi'Tff fie hh'iv k. äipaa'äai fiov ryq ßaai?.Fla^ ö(t)Ei?.ovGi ^?.ißivTeg k. Trai^ovrtf
Anßelv fiE. " Si ad vitam ingredi cupis, afflictioncs quoque tibi necessario
sufferendae sunt."^ That, moreover, the stoning here narrated is the same
as that mentioned in 2 Cor. xi. 25,' is necessarily to be assumed, so long as
we cannot wantonly admit the possibility that the author has here inserted
the incident known to him from 2 Cor. only for the sake of the contrast,
or because he knew not a more suitable place to insert it ; so Zeller. It is,
however, an entirely groundless fancy of Lange, that the apparent death
in vv. 19, 20 is what is»meant by the trance in 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff.
Ver. 23. XtipoToin/aav-Ec] Erasmus, correctly : siiffragiis dclcdos. The
ecclesiastical offices were apxal x^'po'ovrjTai or aiperal.* The analogy of vi.
2-6 requires this strict regard to the purposely chosen word, Avhich, resting
on the old method of choice by lifting up the hands, occurs in the N. T,
only here and in 3 Cor. viii. 19,* and forbids the general rendering const i-
tuehatit,^ or eUgcMnt^'' so that the appointment would have taken place sim-
ply by apostolic plenary power,® although the word in itself might denote
di'jcre generally without that special mode. Paul and Barnabas chose hj vote
presbyters for them, i.e. they conducted their selection by vote in the
churches.'" Entirely arbitrary and erroneous is the Catholic interpretation,"
that it refers to the xf'po'^fo''« ^^ the ordination of presbyters (l''). — /car*
fKKlrjaiav] distributively.'^ Each church obtained ser^rör/ presbyters, xx. 17 ;
Phil. i. 1." — Tvpoaev^. ße-ä vriar.] belongs to Trapf:devTo, not, as Kuinoel sup-
poses, to x^'P"'- See on xiii. 9. The committing" of the Christians of
those j)laces to the Lord, commending them to His protection and guidance,"
which took place at the farewell,'* was done by means of an act of prayer
combined with fasting. The Kiptoc is Christ, as the specific object of faith,
f(f dv KEwtaT., not God (de Wette).
Vv. 25, 26. Urpyyj] see on xiii. 13. — Attalia, now Adalia,^'' v:as a sea-
port of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the Catarrhactes, built by Attali^
Philadelphus, king of Pergamus.'^ — 'Avtcox-] They returned to Syria, to the
' See Kühner. IT. p. 60.5. Biitfmann. neut. K. p. .303, correctly remarks that the choice
Gr. p. 330 (E. T. as.")). Comp. Krebs, p. 225. was only the form of tlie recognition of the
■•I Vo'nkra Rnbba, f 173, 4. charisma and of subjection to it ; not the basis
5 Comp. Clem. Cor. I. V, : Ai9a<rÖei?. of the office, but only the medium, through
* Hermann, Slaatsalterth. § 148. 1. which the divine gift becomes tlie ecclesiasti-
•■> See on that passajce. cal office. Comp, on Eph. iv. 11.
« Vulsate, Hammond, Kninoel, and many. " See Cornelius a Lapide, and Beelcn still,
' De Wette. not Sepp.
• LOhe. " Sec Bornhardy, p. 240.
» Comp. X. 41. Lucian. Philops. 12, al. •' See Rothe, p. 181 ff.
'0 Comp. Calvin in loc. ; Rothe, Anf. d. '< Comp. xx. .32.
Christi. Kirche, p. 150 ; Neander, I. p. 203. " See on itapaneivai, Kypkc, II. p. 70.
Against Schradcr, V. p. .M3. who finds in ihc '« Comp. xx. .32.
appointmentof presbyters a üffTepoi- TrpdTfpoi-; "See Fellows, Travels in Asia Minor, p.
see Lechler, apost. u. nachnpont. Zntatt. 3r)8 f. 133 ff.
On the essence of the matter, Ritscbl, cUlkath. " Strabo, xiv. 4, p. G67.
276 CHAP. XIV., 27, 28.
mother church which had sent them forth. — bOev ijaav irnpaSe^. k.t.X.] from
xchidi they icere commended to the grace of Oodfor (the object) the worTc which
they had accom2dished. bdev denotes the direction outwards, in M^hich the
recommendation of the apostles to the grace of God had taken place at
Antioch.^
Yv. 27. 28. Ivvayay.] expressly for this object. Comp, xv, 30. Calvin
observes well: " quemadmodum solent, qui ex legatione reversi sunt, ra-
tionem actorum reddere." — fier' ahrüv] standing in active connection with
thern."^ As the text requires no deviation from this first and most natural
rendering, both the explanation per ipsos^ and the assumption of a Hebraism
nty;,' with ^V. (Luke i. 72) : quae ipsis Deus fecisset/ are to be rejected. —
Kol otl\ and, in particular, that, etc. — ijvoi^e dvpav irlaTEuq^ a figurative
designation of admission to the faith in Christ. Corresponding is the figu-
rative use of Ovpa in 1 Cor. xvi. 9, 2 Cor. ii. 12, Col. iv. 3, of the fulfiill-
ing of apostolic work ; comp, also elao6oq, 1 Thess. i. 9. — xp^^ov ovk ollyov]
is the object of öiirpißov, as in ver. 3 ; they spent not a little time in intercourse
■with the Christians.
Notes by American Editoe.
(H-) Iconium. V. 1.
This city was situated about sixty miles eastward of Antioch, on the road
between Ei^hesus and Syrian Antioch. In the middle ages it was celebrated as
the capital of the Seljukian Sutans. It is at present a town of considerable
importance ; retains its ancient name Konieh ; contains a population of
30,000 ; and is the capital of the Tiirkish province of Cancarania. It is de-
scribed by travellers as a scene of destruction and decay, with heaps of ruins.
Scarcely anything remains of ancient Iconium save a few inscriptions and
fragments of columns and sculpture built into the walls. How it appeared in
the time of Paul we know not ; but it was large and populous. " The elements
of its population would be as follows : a large number of trifling and frivolous
Greeks, whose principal places of resort would be the theatre and the market-
place ; some remains of a still older population, coming in from the country, or
residing in a separate part of the town ; some few Roman officials, civil or mili-
tary, holding themselves proudly aloof from the inhabitants of a subjugated
province ; and an old settlement of Jews, who exercised their trade during the
week, and met on the Sabbath to read the law in the synagogue." Thither the
two strangers, driven from Antioch by wicked, crafty, and violent opposition
of the Jews, came in accordance with the injunction of the Master, that when
rejected in one house or city, they should go into another.
1 See xiii. 3 f. Oomp. xv. 40. s Beza, Piscator, Heinrichs.
2 Comp. X. 38 ; Matt, ssviii. 20 ; also 1 Cor. •> Calvin, de Dieu, Grotiiis, Kuinoel, and
XV. 10 ; and Mark xvi. 20 ; toO Kvpiov o-wep- many others ; comp, also de Wette.
TroOcTos.
NOTES. 277
• (I-) An assault made. V. 5.
The word dp^?), as explained by Meyer, does not mean just this ; but an im-
petus or strong pressure, impulse or purpose. It implies here a state of mind
of which some intimation was given : " There was a strong feeling among
them " against the apostles— a movement of some kind. The success of the
apostles in Iconium was very great ; a multitude both of Jews and Greeks be-
lieved. They remained there several months. Wo have no account of what
they preached ; but doubtless in the synagogues, and from house to house,
they ])rcached that Jesus was the Christ, and that through him, and him alone,
could be obtained the forgiveness of sins. They also wrought many miracles,
as attestations of their divine commission and of the truth of their doctrine.
Their success, however, aroused the hostility of the Jews, who were ever jeal-
ous of the old faith, and opposed to the admission of the Gentiles to like
privileges with themselves. They looked upon Christianity, not as the out-
growth and perfection of Judaism, biit as its antagonistic rival ; hence their
indignation at its success, and their embittered and continued hostility to its
preachers. We are informed that the Jews sent oi;t their emissaries every-
where to circulate falsehoods concerning the Christians, and to stir up the Gen-
tiles against them. Of the many persecutions mentioned in the Acts, all were
caused by the Jews except two. Tradition says that Paul frequently preached
long and late — that his enemies broi;ght him before the civil authorities,
charging him with disturbing their households by his sorcery, and greatly
troubling the city. It is probable that here, as suggested by Hackett, that
they insinuated that the preachers were dangerous men, and disloyal to the
empire.
In the apocryphal Acts of Tanl and Thecla there is a legend given concerning
Paul's visit to Iconium, the substance of which is this ; that Thecla, who was
esjioused to Thamyris, was deeply affected by the preaching of the ajjostle ;
and when Paul was put in prison, accused of being a magician, .she bribed the
jailer, and was allowed to visit the prisoner, bj' whom she was more fiüly in-
structed in the Christian faith, which she heartilj' adopted. She was con-
demned to die because she refused to many Thamjn-is, but was miraculously
delivered ; joined Paul in his missionary journeys ; finally she made her homo
at Seleucea, where she lived the life of a nun, and died at the age of ninety
years.
The Acts of Paul and Thecla gives a portrait-description of the apostle's per-
son and physiognomy, which is by no means flattering. He is represented as
'' a man small in size, bald-headed, bandy-legged, stout, with eyebrows meet-
ing, rather long-nosed, full of grace— for sometimes he seemed like a man, and
sometimes he had the countenance of an angel." Other accounts add that he
had smaU, piercing gray eyes. His manner was singularly winning. "The
poverty of the casket served to assist the lustre of the jewel it contained ; the
plainness of the setting called attention to the worth of the gem."
(j') Ciiies of Lycaonia. V. 6.
Escaping threatened violence at Iconium, the apostles went into a wilder
and loss civilized region. The name, Lycaonia or Wolfldml, indicates only too
faithfullv the character of the inhabitants. Few, if any, Jews were settled
278 CHAP. XIV.— NOTES.
there, and we read of no synagogue in either of the towns named. The re-
gion is described as wild, rugged, mountainoiis ; an almost Alpine country,
with numerous lakes and rivers, which, with the melting of the spring snows,
become suddenly rapid and dangerous torrents ; the roads were bad, and in-
fested with brigands. Lycaonia is an elevated table-land, a great part of
which is unwatered and sterile, and described as a dreary plain, destitute alike
of trees and fresh water. Ovid, writing of the place, says :
" Where men once dwelt, a marshy lake is seen,
And coots and bitterns haunt the waters green."
Neither Lystra nor Derbe were large cities or places of any great importance ;
hence the apostles embraced the surrounding country and villages in their
field of evangelistic labor. The difficulties and obstacles in the way of the
apostles were very great. Yet with unwearied zeal they evangelized the whole
region. To no part of Paul's life would the account he vividly gives to the
Corinthians of his personal experience more fitly apply than to his labors
here: "In perils," etc. (2 Cor. ii. 26). The sites of both Lystra and Derbe
are uncertain. Lystra, however, has a post-apostolic history— the names of its
bishops appearing in the records of early councils. It was the home of
Timothy, who in all probability was converted under the preaching of Paul at
this time. Here Paul performed a miracle in perfectly restoring, by a word,
a man who had been a cripple from his birth. The people marvelled ; and
believing the power to be divine, they thought that two of their pagan gods
had appeared in the persons of the apostles.
(K-) Gods in the likeness of men. V. 11.
It was a general belief, long after the Homeric age, that gods visited the earth
in the form of men. Such a belief with regard to vlupiter would be natural in
such an inland rural district as Lystra, which seems to have been under his
special protection, as his image or temple stood in front of the city gates.
And as Merc^^ry was the messenger and herald of the gods, especially of Jupi-
ter, it was natural that he should be associated with him. He was also the
god of eloquence ; and as Paul was the chief speaker, they took him for Mer-
cury ; and the more quiet, and perhaps the more aged, venerable, and majes-
tic looking Barnabas, they regarded as Jupiter.
" Jove with Ecrmes came, but in disguise
Of mortal men concealed their deities."
The pagan priests, true to the functions of their office, hasten to bring oxen
and garlands of flowers to crown the victims and wreath the altars, to the tem-
ple at the gates, within which Jupiter was supposed specially to dwell, and
there to offer sacrifices to Paul and Barnabas. The apostles, when they ascer-
tained what the people and priests were about to do, were horror-stricken.
Rending their clothes, they rushed out among the people and expressed their
abhorrence of the proposed service. "We can well imagine with what impas-
sioned earnestness and vehemence Paul uttered the address of which we have
only an outline. He exclaims : *' "We are not gods, but men of like nature and
feelings as yourselves ; that these supposed gods whom ye worship are mere
vanities, and their worship debasing. We have come to declare to you the
NOTES. 279
one living and true God ; that this living God made all things, in heaven above,
and in the earth beneath ; that this God has never left himself without a wit-
ness in the munificent gifts of nature and the benevolent dealings of his gra-
cious providence." This clear and cogent address scarcely' restrained the igno-
rant and superstitious people from their impious act. What a contrast be-
tween the inhabitants of Jerusalem and those of Lystra ! When a miracle
similar to this was performed by Peter, he was not deified but iiiii)risoncd.
The reality of the miracle was admitted, but the ai^ostles were straitly threat-
ened. The minds of the instructed rulers of the Jews were hardened and
blinded by jjrejudice, and they reasoned against the truth ; the ignorant peo-
ple at Lystra did not reason, but came at once to a conclusion, natural in their
circumstances, which, though mistaken, rebukes the vaunted wisdom of the
Jewish Sanhedrim. The peo^jle were disappointed in being hindered in their
idolatrous design, and were all the more ready to listen to the vile insinuations
and cruel instigations of those Jews who had, with evil purpose against the
apostles, come from Antioch and Iconium. "The fickle and faithless Lj'ca-
onians," excited and ignorant, and easily duped, listened to the Jews, and
were induced to stone Taul on the very place where but just now they were
ready to worship him. A similar sudden change, but in a different direction,
subsequently occurred at Malta, among the barbarous people, who first thought
Paul a murderer, and then immediately afterward a god. What had only
been purposed by the people at Iconium was jjerpetrated by the inhabitants of
Lystra. It is observable that we read of no injury done to Barnabas. Paul's
intenser zeal and fiery 
TVNews
OpenLibrary