Skip to main content

Full text of "Critical and exegetical handbook to the Acts of the Apostles ..."

See other formats


















FUNK & WAGNALLS, Puhlisiiers, 

10 AND 12 Dey Street. 


Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1883, 


In ttie Ofiace of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 


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 

' 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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


[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 

Beelen (Jean-Theodore), K. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Commentarius in 
Acta Apostolorum. ... 2 voll. 4», Lovanii, 1850. 


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. 


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 


heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas, uitgebreid en verk- 
t. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll. 8", Amst. 1724. 


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.] 


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) 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. 


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.] 


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. 


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 


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. 


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- 


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 


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 

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. 


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. 
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. 


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. 


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. 









Authorship and genuineness of the Book. 




Aim and sources of the Book. 




Time and place of composition. 




Chronological summary of the Acts. 




Keference to Luke's Gospel. 




Last words of Jesus. 




The ascension. 




Return to Jerusalem. 


15 2'2 


Address of Peter. 




Election of Matthias. 


1, 2 


Descent of the Holy Spirit. 


3, 4 


Gift of tongues. 


5 13 


Effects of the miracle. 




Peter's discourse. 




Results of the discourse. 

< = 



The first converts. 




Community of goods ; gro\yth. 




Healing of a lame man. 




Peter's discourse. 




Arrest of Peter and John. 




Their defence. 




Their release. 




A prayer-meeting. 




State of the church. 




Sin and punishment of Ananias. 




Miraculous power of the apostles. 




Their arrest and deliverance. 




Trial before the Sanhedi-im. 




Counsel of Gamaliel. 




Appointment of the seven. 




Stephen's aiTest and trial. — 




Stephen's defence. 




History of the patriarchs. 




Jews under the law. 




The temple and the prophets. 




The martyrdom of Stephen. 




General persecuition. 




Philip preaching in Samaria. 




Simon is baptized. 


18 24 


Simon Magus. 




The Ethiopian eunuch. 




Saul's conversion. 




Ananias baptizes Saul. 




Preaching in Damascus. 




Flight fi-om Damascus. 




Visit to Jerusalem and Tarsus. 









Peter cures J^neas and raises Dorcas. 




The vision of Cornelius. ■^' 




The vision of Peter. 




Messenger from Cornelius. 




Peter visits Cornelius. 




Peter's address. 




Baptism of Cornelius. 




Peter's defence of his conduct. 




The gospel in Antioch. 




Antioch sends aid to Jerusalem. 


1, 2 


Martyrdom of James. 




Imprisonment of Peter. 




Peter's wonderful deliverance. 



Death of Herod Aginppa. 




First ordained missionaries. 




Success in Cyprus. 




Paphos to Perga. 




Paul's sermon at Antioch. 




Labors in and exijulsion from Antioch. 




Events at Iconium. 




The ajiostles taken for gods. 




Paul remonstrates and is stoned. 




Return to Syrian Antioch. 




Delegates sent to Jerusalem. 

• < 

6 13 


Peter's address at the council. 


14 21 


Address of James. 




Decision and letter of council. 




Separation of Paul and Barnabas. 




Silas accompanies Paul. 




Call from Macedonia. 




Lydia baptized at Philippi. 




A demoniac woman healed. 




Imprisonment of Paul and Silas. 


26 35 


Conversion of the jailer. 



Release from i^rison. 




Paul at Thessalonica. 




Paul at Beroea. 




Paul at Athens. 




Paul's address on Mar's hiU. 




Paul in Corinth. 




Encouraged by a vision. 




Aquila and Priscilla. 




Paul returns to Antioch. 








Disciples of John. / 




Paul in Ephesus. 




Sons of Sceva. 




Tumult raised by Demetrius. 




Tumult quelled by the town clerk. 




Paul in Greece. 




Plot against Paul. 




Services at Troas. 




Paul at Miletus. 


1 16 


Paul's journey to Jerusalem. 




His address and vow. 




Arrest of Paxil. 




Paul's speech to the mob. 









Plea of Roman citizenship. 




Paul before the Jewish council. 




Cons2)ir;iey against Paul's life. 




llescned by Lysias and sent to Cesaraoa. 




Paul introduced to Fi'Iix. 




Paiil accused by Tertullus. 




Paul's defence. 




His continement. 




Address before Felix and Drusilla. 




Paul's trial and aiijjeal. 




Festus and Agripi^a. 




Paul and Agrippa. 




Paul's defence of the gospel. 




His reply to Festus. 




Appeal to Agrippa. 




Voyage to Italy. 




A storm at sea. 




Paul's address on board. 




Fears and hojies. 








All on board saved. 




Paul at Malta ; murderer and god. 




He cures diseases. 




Voyage to Rome. 




Conference with chief men of the Jews. 




Second interview with the Jews. 




Paul's captivity. 

































Forty days. 





His brethren. 





Fate of Judas. 





Thou, Lord. 





The Lot. 





Other tongues. 


















Annas the high jiriest. 




For we cannot but speak. 





Stated prayer. 





All things common. 










Peter's shadow. 










A murmuring. 





Seven men. 





The face of an angel. 





Stephen's speech. 





Historical errors. 





Abraham's call. 





Death of Terah. 





Four hundred years. 





Jacob's burial. 





Cast out . . . children. 





An angel. 





A great perseciition. 





Devout men carried Stephen. 





Simon believed. 










Mission of Peter and John. 





They received the Holy Ghost. 















A light from heaven. 





Stood speechless. 





Many days. 





Peter and Paul— Lydda and Joppa. 








































218 . 








266 , 














































Conversion of Cornelius. 

A deVout man. 

Fell into a trance. 

Accepted with him. 

They of the circumcision contended. 



He killed James. 

Peter in prison. 

Death of Herod. 

Special documentary source. 

Prophets and teachers. 

John as an attendant. 

Second psalm. 

Paul's sermon. 


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. 


Honorable women. 


The market-place. 

An unknown God. 



Having shorn his head. 


Baptism of John. 


Whether" there be any Holy Ghost. 


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. 











Pharisees and Suddiicees. 





The Lord stood bj' him. 





Paul's sister's son. 





Tertnlhis began to accuse. 





According to our l:iw, etc. 





Felix trembled. 





I appeal to Caesar. 





Unto my Lord. 





Almost thou persuadest me. 





And he i)ut us therein. 




Fair Havens. 





Toward the N. W. and S. W. 







• ' 



The angel of God. 





They cast four anchors out of the stern. 





Except these abide, ye cannot be saved. 










This sect spoken against. 





Two whole years in his own hired house. 





Paul's second imprisonment. 





Evidential value of the Acts. 




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<,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 


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. 


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. 


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 


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. 


" 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. 


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 


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." 


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. 


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 


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- 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 ." year 
September 94). Accordingly, Josephus was would still fall in the 13th year of Domitian, 


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. 


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). 


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. 




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 



9 I ca r 

Ü La 

o I . I m 

32 '3l'33'33 33 33 33 33 30 






32 .31 37,33 



33 39 35 

36 42 

42 44 44 

34 33 37 30 


7l31 37? 
40 33 .. 

42 41 44'44 44 

44 |44l45 
to 4210 to 
47 I 45'46 


up to 



49 ,49 46 53 

49 49:46 53 

49 49 49 54 

50 50 



53 52 


to I to 

47 46 

49 51 

50 51 

40 39 

44 42 


42 to 

45 45 
to to 
47 46 

50 47 


40'54 54? 

)l!56, 54? 

52lto'51 . 


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 



54153 50 
tolto to 


58 56,53 

61160 56 
to to to 
63 62 58 



33? I 37? 






47? 52 

52? 52 









54 55 


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 















u o 

o '3 






= 4) 



n a 




37 1 



30 3S 






30 133 







36 .. 


39? 38 












37 3£ 

1 37 





40 38 
















40 3f 

i 40 





43 41 











41 . 


or 44 

or 45? 


44 44 








41 . 



44 44 









.. 4- 

I 44 


or 45 

45 to 



or 46? 










41 4- 

i 44 




or 45 

or 46? 



45 to 

45 48 

45 ff. 

40 fE. 


45? . 


, . 


to to 




47 51 









51 5 

3 or 





about Vo 
50 •"- 







62 . 



about rc 

50 ^~ 













52 5 

3 52 





52 5S 









52 5 

3 or 




52 53 










54 5 

5 Caes. 





54 55 






to \ 

5 54 










51 £E. 









55 ff. 

7 56 













58 E 

8 59 





58 59 









60 f 







60 61 








61 '( 

)1 62 





61 62 








to t 

o to 





to ito 









63 6;j 64 

1 1 1 





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. 


Note by American Editor. 


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 


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). 


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 


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. 

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 


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' 
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). 


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- 

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. 


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.'''' 


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 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. 


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 

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- 

" 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." 

(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. 


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, 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 


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, 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. 


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. 


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^eü^ ?, 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, 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. 


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. 


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). 


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. 


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. 


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. 



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. 


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 

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. 


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'] 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. 


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. 


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. 


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.) 



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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 . 


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. 


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 

(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.) 


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 


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. mendacio conlumeliam 

* Comp. 1 Thcss. iv. 8 ; Winer, p. 401 f. (E. alicuifacere. 


"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 


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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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- 

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 


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. 


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. 


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 ^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. 


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. 


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. 


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 
(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. 


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. 


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 


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 

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." 



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 

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., 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 

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. 


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 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

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'; ä, 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. 


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 

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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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 

(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." 

(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- 


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.' " 



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 
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. 


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. 


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 { 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' «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 


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. 


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 

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. 


"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. 


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. 


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. 


(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. 



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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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 

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]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. 


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. 


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." 



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 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 


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. 18. "= Comp. John xvi. 32. 

'<• On irv. ayiw K. Sufo/iiet, Bengel correctly " Partikelt. I. p. 136. 
remarks: "Spiritus sancti mentio saepe ita 


in ii. 23. — enl ^vT.ov] as in v. 30. — kuI c^ukev k.t.X.] and granted^ that lie 
slwuld become manifest, by visible appearances, i. 3 ; John xxi. 1, not to all 
tJie people, l)iit to witnesses tcho {quippe qui) are chosen before of God, namely, 
to tis, iclio, etc. — To'tq TvpoKcx^'P' i'^" TOÜ Qeov] Peter with correct view 
regards the previous election of the apostles to be witnesses of the resurrec- 
tion of Jesus,' as done h)/ God ;^ they are apostles öiä 6e?.?ifiaTog Oeov,* atpupicuhoi 
{Jf tvayy. Qeov.'' And with the npo in TrpoKex^ip- he points back to the time 
of the previous choice as disciples, by which their election to be the future 
witnesses of the resurrection in reality took place. On irpoxstpoTovuv, only 
here in the N. T, comp. Plat. Lcgg. vi. p. 765 B. — pe-ä to ävaar. avTuv ek 
vcKpüv] is not, with Cameron and Bengel, to be connected with ru<pav^ 
ytveafiai, ver. 40,° so that ov Trairt . . . avrij would have to be arbitrarily 
and violently converted into a parenthesis ; but with oluveg avvecp. k. avven, 
avrü, which even without the passages, i. 4, Luke xxiv. 41, 43, John xxi. 
12, would have nothing against it, as the body of the Risen One was not 
yet a glorified body.' The words clearly exhibit the certainty of the attested 
bodily resurrection, but annexed to ver. 40 they would contain an unim- 
portant self-evident remark. The apparent inconsistency of the passage 
with Luke xxii. 18 is removed by the more exact statement to Matt. xxvi. 
29 ; see on that passage. 

Ver. 42. Tcj ?mü] can only denote the Jeicish people, seeing that the con- 
text speaks of no other (ver. 41), and cannot include the Gentiles also 
(Kuinoel). But the contents of on . . . vsKpuv is so different from Matt, 
xxviii. 29, also Acts i. 8, that there must be here assumed a reference to 
another expression of the Risen One, for He is the subject of ■nap^yj., un- 
known to us. — oTL avTOQ ia-iv . . . veKpüv] that He, no other, is the Judge 
ordained hy God, in His decree, over living, who are alive at the Parousia," 
and dead, who shall then be already dead.' — Incorrectly Olshausen, resting 
on Matt. xxii. 32 ! — understands by ii^üvruv k. veKp. the spiritually living and 
dead. This meaning would require to be suggested by the context, but is 
here quite foreign to it.'* 

Vv. 43, 44. Now follows the divinely attested icay of salvation unto this 
Judge of the living and dead. — irävTsq ol Trpo^.] comp. iii. 24. — lltat every 
one who believes on Hirn receives forgiveness of sins by means of His name, of 
the believing confession of it, by which the objectively completed redemp- 
tion is subjectively appropriated." The general iravra -ov iziar. c'lq ah-., 
which lays down no national distinction, is very emphatically placed at 
the end, Rom. iii. 22. Thus has Peter opened the door for further an- 
nouncing to his hearers the universalism of the salvation in Christ. But 

' Comp. ii. 27. tie suitable for the alleged object of vindicat- 

* i. 3, ii. 22, iii. 32, al. ing Paul as it is in i. 21, 22. 

s John xvii. 6, 9, 11, vi. 37. ' See on Luke xxiv. 51. note : Iguat. ad 

* 1 Cor. i 1; Gal. i. 1, cd. Smyrn. 5 ; Conslitt. Ap. vi. 3u. 5. 

» Rom. i. 1 ; Gal. i 15. M Thess. iv. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52. 

» So also Baur. I. p. 101, cd. 2, who, at the " Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 1 ; 1 Pet. iv. 5. 

eame time, simply passes over, with quite an '" Comp. Rom. xiv. 19, 20 ; Acts xvii. 31. 

arbitrary evasion, the difficulty that the cri- " Rom. iii. 25, x. 10, al. 
terion of apostleship in this passage is as lit- 

314 CHAP. X., 45-48. 

already the living power of his words has become the vehicle of the Holy 
Spirit, who falls upon all the hearers, and by His operations makes the 
continuation of the discourse superfluous and — impossible.' — Here the 
unique example of the outpouring of the Spirit 'before haptism — treated, in- 
deed, by Baur as unhistorical and ascribed to the set purpose influencing 
the author — is of itself intelligible from the frame of mind, now exalted 
after an extraordinary manner to the pitch of full susceptibility, in those 
present. The ajjpropriate degree of receptivitj- was there ; and so, for a 
special divine purpose, the ■nvevfia communicated itself according to the free 
will of God even before baptism." Olshausen thinks that this extraordinary 
circumstance took place/or the sake of Peter ^ in order to make him aware, 
beyond a doubt, in this first decisive instance, that the Gentiles would not 
be excluded from the gift of the Spirit. But Peter had this illumination 
already, ver. 34 f. ; and besides, this object would have been fully attained 
by the outpouring of the Spirit after baptism. We may add that the 
quite extraordinary and, in fact, unique nature of the case stands decidedly 
opposed to the abuse of the passage by the Baptists.^ 

Vv. 45, 46. Oi EK TvepiT. ntcToi] those who icere believers from the circumcision, 
i.e. believers who belonged to the circumcised, the Jewish- Christians.'' — 
0(701 avvf/ld. T. n.] see ver. 23. — knl ra etii'?/] Cornelius and his company 
now represented, in the view of those who were astonished, the Gentiles as 
a class of men generally ; for the article signifies this. Observe also the 
perfect ; the completed fact lay before them. — )dp] reason assigned ah 
effectu. — "kakoiivTuv } /Iwccro/f] ylüoaat^, OX y'Xtoaari AaT^elv is mentioned as 
something well known to the church, without the hkpatq, by the charac- 
teristic addition of which the event recorded in chap, ii, is denoted as 
something singular, and not identical with the mere y'Xuaaaiq TiaTielv, as it 
was there also markedly distinguished by means of the list of peoples. 
Now if, in the bare y7.ÜGaatQ 7m1eIv, this y'A/oaüaig were to be understood in 
the same sense as in chap. ii. according to the representation of the nar- 
rator, then — as Bleek's conception, ''to speak in glosses," is decidedly to 
be rejected^ — no other meaning would result than: "to speak in lan- 
guages," i.e. to speak in foreign languages, different from their mother 
tongue, and therefore quite the same as hcpaiQ yldaaatq TiaT^elv. But against 

' Comp, on xi. 15. doubt at all conld remain concerning the im- 

2 "Liberum gratia liabet ordinem," Bengel. mediate admis-sibility of baptism. Chrysos- 

Not the necessity, but the possibilUy of the torn strikingly calls this event the än-oAovia»' 

bestowal of the Spirit bi.'f>,ire baptism, was ueyäXiqv, which God had arranged beforehand 

implied by the susceptibility which had al- for Peter. That it could not but, at the same 

ready emerged. The design of this extra- time, form for the latter himself the divine 

ordinary effusion of the Spirit is, according confirmation of the revelation already im- 

to ver. 45, to be found in this, that all scruples parted to him, is obvious of itself, 

concerning the reception of the Gentiles were ^ Comp. Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 

to be taken away from the Jewish-Christians 234. 

who were present in addition t") Peter, and ■* Comp, si 3; Rom. iv. 12 ; Gal. ii. 12 , Col. 

thereby from the Christians generally. What iv. 11 ; Tit. i. 10. On ircpiTon») in the concrete 

Peter had just said : Träi-Ta töc n-io-reOofTa eis sense, comp. Rom. üi. 33, iv. 9, 12, sv. 8 ; Gal. 

aÜTÖi'. was at once divinely affirmed and sealed ii. 7 ; Phil. iii. 3. 

by this o-rj/u.eioi' in such a way that now no ^ See on chap. ii. 


this we may decisively urge the very expression iripaig, "with ■whicli agrees 
Katvalg in the apocryphal passnge,' only added in chap, ii., and almost os- 
tentatiously glorified as the chief matter, but Twt inserted at all elsewhere, 
here or at chap. xix. or 1 Cor. xii.-xiv. So much the more decidedly is 
yluacatg here and in xix. G not to be completed by mentally &u])plying 
iripaig — so Baur still, and others, following the traditional interpretation— 
but* to be explained : '■^with toiiffucs,''''' and that in such a way that Lvke 
himself has meant nothing else — not, " in languages " — than the to him well- 
known glosHolalla of the apostolic church, which was here manifested in 
Cornelius and his company, but from which he has conceived and repre- 
sented the feast of Pentecost as something different and entirely extra- 
ordinary, although the latter also is, in its historical substance, to be con- 
sidered as nothing else than the first speaking with tongues.^ Cornelius 
and his friends spoke tcith tongues, i.e. they spoJoe not in the exercise of reflect- 
ive thought,* not in intelligible, clear, and connected speech, but in enrapt- 
ured eticharistic ecstasy, as hij the involuntary exercise of their tongues, which 
were just organs of the Spirits 

Vv. 47, 48. Can any one, then, withhold the icater, in order that these he not 
Vuptized? Tlie water is in this animated language conceived as the element 
offering itself for the baptism. So urgent now appeared the necessity for 
completing on the human side the divine work that had miraculously 
emerged. Bengcl, moreover, well remarks: " Non dicit : jam habent 
Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt." The conjunction of water and Spirit 
could not but obtain its necessary recognition. — tov /uy ßa-r. tout.] genitive 
according to the construction KuTibetv nm rwog, and fiy after verbs of hinder- 
ing, as in XIV. 18. — hntiug nal «y/^Eif] as also we, the recipients of the Spirit 
of Pentecost. This refers to the prominent and peculiar character of the 
enraptured speaking, by which the fact then occurring showed itself as of 
a similar kind to that which happened on Pentecost, xi. 15. But KaOuc; 
hal r]uii(, cannot be held as a proof that by y7,uaaatq ?m2.e'iv is to be under- 
stood a speaking in foreign languages — in opposition to Baumgarten, who 
thinks that he sees in our passage " the connecting link between the miracle 
of Pentecost and the speaking with tongues in the Corinthian church" — 
for it rather shows the essential identity of the Pentecostal event with the 
later speaking with tongues, and points Imck from the mouth of the apostle 
to the historical form of that event, when it had not yet been transformed 
by trarlition into a speaking of languages. — npocrfTn^e] The personal per- 
formance of baptism did not necessarily belong to the destined functions of 
the apostolic office."— ev -ü bvöji. tov Kvp.\ belongs to ßa-ricß., but leaves 
untouched the words with which the baptism was performed. As, namely, 
the name of Jesus Christ is the spiritual basis of the being baptized ' and 

> Mark xvi. 17. ' Spo on chap. ii. 

2 Comp, niso \nn Jlengel. de gave d. talen, * Of he roOs, 1 Cor. xiv. 9. 

pp. 7.5 ff., 84 ff.. who, however, here also (see ' See the more particular exposition at 1 

on chap, ii.) abides by the view, that they Cor. xii. 10. 
ppolvc ''openly and aloud to the glorifying of ' See on 1 Cor. i. 17. 

God in CI, rut y ' Sec ou ii 38, comp. viii. 35 f. 

216 CHAP. X. — KOTES. 

the end to which it refers,* so it is also conceived as the entire holy spThere, 
in which it is accomplished, and out of which it cannot take place. — 
hTTLfielvai] to remain. And lie remained and had fellowship at table with 
them, xi. 3. So much the more surprising is his vwÖKpiccg at Antioch, Gal. 
ii. 11 fE. 

Notes by Ameeican Editok. 
(s') Conversion of Cornelius. V. 1. 

The event recorded in this chapter was an important crisis in the progress of 
Christianity. Hitherto it had won its way among Jews, and through their in- 
strumentality, so that it might be regarded as a peculiar Jewish sect ; but now 
it was to be presented as a religion for the race, Jew and Gentile alike — a wor- 
ship for the world. All restrictions of every kind were now to be removed, 
and the univer.sal adaptation and power of the gospel was to be proclaimed and 
exemplified. "What seems to us simple as a self-evident truth was then a mys- 
tery — that the Gentiles should be "partakers of the promise in Christ by the 
gospel. " 

Paul had already been chosen and was being prepared for the great work of 
making known unto the Gentiles "the unsearchable riches of Christ." And 
now Peter is specially commissioned to open the door for the Gentile world. 
The apostles and many of the Jewish believers doubtless expected that the 
gospel should be preached to the Gentiles. The predictions of the Old Testa- 
ment, the statements of our Lord, and the distinct tenor of their commission 
received from him, to disciple all nations, clearly and unmistakably indicated 
the admission of all peojjles into the kingdom of Christ. It was difficult, 
however, for them to understand how they could enter except by the divinely 
appointed way. The law of Moses was of divine origin. Circumcision was of 
God. The Jews were his j)eculiar people, hence it was natural that they 
should think obedience to the law of Moses a prerequisite to admission into 
the Christian chiuxh. Although some of the preachers of the gospel may have 
already attained more liberal views on the subject of Judaism, yet it required a 
special revelation to overcome the prejudices of many, and to make the path of 
duty clear. This question the visions vouchsafed to Cornelius and Peter finally 
settled. Henceforth all nations were to be held as equal, and all races wel- 
comed to the privileges and provisions of the gospel. No man should be re- 
garded any longer as unclean, or interdicted from Christ and his salvation. 
The whole transaction is narrated with great minuteness of detail. The two 
visions at Caesarea and Jo^jpa were both real and supernatural, and divinely 
adapted to each other — a striking illustration of divine providence in the man- 
agement of human affairs. The design of both was impressively and practi- 
cally to teach the lesson that God is no respecter of persons ; that mere exter- 
nal adventitious circumstances — as parentage, nationality, profession, or 
rank — are neither a passport nor a barrier to the divine favor ; that in Christ 
Jesus there is "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, 
bond, nor free." Neander says: "By a remarkable coincidence of inward 
l-evelation with a chain of outward circumstances, the illumination hitherto 
Wanted was imparted." 

1 six. 5. 

NOTES. 217 

(t') ä devout man. V. 2. 

Cornelius, as is shown by our author, was a Gentile, probably an Italian, 
and in no formal way connected with the Jewish state or faith. Ho had clearly 
abandoned idolatry, and worshipped the one living and true God with reveren- 
tial fear, and jirayed to him constantly. As a centurion he had a good posi- 
tion and much influence ; these he used for good purposes. His piety was not 
less practical than it was sincere. His hand obeyed the dictates of his heart 
in acts of munificent generosity. It is probable that through the ministrations 
of Philip or otherwise he had heard of the claims of Jesus to be the Messiah, 
and learned some of the facts of his wondrous life and death. Longing for 
liglit, he earnestly besought it, and it came. 

His prayers and alms came up " for a memorial before God." The allusion 
is to the ascending incense from the ancient altar, and denotes their accept- 
ance by God. But, Alexander justly says: "Intrinsic merit or efficacy is no 
more ascribed in these words to the good works of Cornelius than to the obla- 
tions from which the figure or comparison is taken." The acceptance implied 
does not denote personal salvation. He had still to hear the words by which 
he should be saved. But his earnest desire for light, and his following it as 
far as he had it, were pleasing to God. " He who does, as far as in him lieth, 
according as natural grace from God enables him to do, as a pagan might do 
from the light of nat\ire — which, let us not forget, is light from God— desiring 
to be directed aright, and seeking this grace from God's hand, and supplicat- 
ing the forgiveness of his sins ; to such an one God will open a way by his an- 
gel, or by sending to him teachers to direct him into the perfect way, and to 
teach him those truths which are as light to his soul." (Denton.) Dick says : 
" Cornelius believed in the true God, and this faith rendered his religious ser- 
vices acceptable." MacDuff, Abbott, and Jacobson concur with Calvin in the 
opinion that Cornelius was a true, though unenlightened believer before the 
visit of Peter. 

There are three centurions mentioned 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." 



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, 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. 


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. 


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. 


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'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 

(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. 


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'. 


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. 


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- 

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. 


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. 


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. 


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) 


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 

342 CHAP. 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 


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. 


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 


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. 


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. 


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 

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 . 


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. 


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. 


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- 


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- 

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. 


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> 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. 


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. 



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