a
Ex Libris
C. K. OGDEN
^^KTx^H^
^ -"*<*> ^ :s~~-
^^K^J^
'//,:,,/, ^y,^"r
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
(TEMPORARY) CHEAP RE-ISSUE OP
STIER'S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS.
To meet a very general desire that this now well-known Work should be
brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy and Laity, Messrs.
CLARK are now issuing, for a limited period, the Eight Volumes, handsomely
bound in Four, at the Subscription Price of
TWO GUINEAS.
As the allowance to the Trade must necessarily be small, orders sent either
direct or through booksellers must in every case be accompanied with a Post
Office Order for the above amount.
' The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and
spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty
it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ.' Guardian.
New and Cheap Edition, in Four Vols. Demy 8vo, Subscription Price 28s.
THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
A Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of
the Gospels. Translated from the German of J. P. LANGE, D.D., Professor
of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Edited, with additional Notes, by
MARCUS DODS, D.D.
'We have arrived at a most favourable conclusion regarding the importance and ability
of this work the former depending upon the present condition of theological criticism,
the latter on the wide range of the work itself ; the singularly dispassionate judgment
of the author, as well as his pious, reverential, and erudite treatment of a subject inex-
pressibly holy. . . . We have great pleasure in recommending this work to our readers.
We are convinced of its value and enormous range.' Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
BENGEL'S GNOMON-CHEAP EDITION.
GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By JOHN ALBERT BENGEL. Now First Translated into English. With
Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Edited by the Rev.
ANDREW E. FAUSSET, M.A. The Original Translation was in Five Large
Volumes, demy 8vo, averaging more than 550 pages each, and the very
great demand for this edition has induced the Publishers to issue the
Five Volumes bound in Three, at the Subscription Price of
TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS.
They trust by this still further to increase its usefulness.
'It is a work which manifests the most intimate and profound knowledge of Scripture,
and which, if we examine it with care, will often be found to condense more matter into
a line than can be extracted from many pages of other writers.' Archdeacon HARE.
'In respect both of its contents and its tone, Bengel's Gnomon stands alone. Even
among laymen there has arisen a healthy and vigorous desire for scriptural knowledge,
and Bengel has done more than any other man to aid such inquirers. There is perhaps
no book every word of which has been so well weighed, or in which a single technical
term contains so often far-reaching and suggestive views. . . . The theoretical and
practical are as intimately connected as light and heat in the sun's ray.' Life of Perthes.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
L A N G E 3 S
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Edited by Dr. PHILIP SCHAPP.
There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per
Volume,
OLD TESTAMENT, Eleven Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume.
EXODUS AND LEVITICUS. One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One
Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume.
CHRONICLES, EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER. One
Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB.
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS,
in One Volume.
EZEKIEL AND DANIEL. One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON MINOR PROPHETS, in One Volume.
The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation.
NEW TESTAMENT (now complete), Ten Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST.
LUKE.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE
ROMANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHLLIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA-
LONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER,
JOHN, and JUDE.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
' Lange's comprehensive and elaborate " Bibelwerk." . . . We hail its publication as a
valuable addition to the stores of our Biblical literature.' Edinburgh Review.
The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's
Works, and Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, or to Purchasers
of Complete Sets of the Commentary (so far as published), will be
FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PER VOLUME.
Dr. LANGE'S Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. SCHAFF'S
Notes) is also published in the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, in Nine Volumes
demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List
of Foreign Theological Library.)
NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.
A /T ESSRS. CLARK have much pleasure in publishing the
* Second Issue of Second Year of Dr. MEYER'S COM-
MENTARY (being the 7th and 8th volumes of the Series), viz :
ACTS, Volume I.
1 CORINTHIANS, Volume I.
These volumes are translated from the latest editions by special
arrangement with the German Publishers.
The extreme care which has been given to the editing of these
volumes will appear, the Publishers trust, in their great accuracy,
and this will be a feature of the whole series. It is evident that
the value of the Commentary very much depends on minute
accuracy.
The Publishers regret the great delay in the publication of
these volumes. It has been, for the reason just mentioned, quite
unavoidable. Messrs. CLARK are sure that in the case of this
work accuracy is of greater importance than speed, at the same
time it is their own interest that there should be as little delay as
possible ; and they hope that the next two volumes, which will be
ACTS, vol. ii., and MATTHEW, vol. i., will be ready by Autumn.
The Subscription is One Guinea for Four Volumes, payable in
advance (245. when not so paid).
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH,
May 1877.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON
THE NEW TESTAMENT.
BY
HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE,
OBERCONSISTOKIALBATH, HANNOVER.
dfrom t^e erman, fottJ) tije Sanction of t^e
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSON, D.D.,
AND
FEEDEEICK CEOMBIE, D.D.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
VOL. I.
EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXVII.
* 'I
FEINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, .... 6CRIBNER, WELFOKD, AND ARMSTRONG.
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
HANDBOOK
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
BY
HEINEICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYEE, Tn.D.,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER.
TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY
EEV. PATON J. GLOAG, D.D.
THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY
WILLIAM P. DICKSOX, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH*
T. & T. CLAEK, 38 GEOEGE STEEET.
MDCCCLXXVII.
Stack
Annex
50.1 061
PEEFACE TO THE FOURTH GEEMAN EDITION,
|HE third edition of this Commentary appeared in the
year 1861. The accessions to the exegetical litera-
ture 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. 1 The critical
researches as to this canonical writing are, doubtless, not yet
concluded; but they are in such a position that we must
regard the attempts prosecuted with so much keenness, con-
fidence, 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 " every-
where has been less active, and has not brought forward
1 There has just appeared in the first part of the Stud, und Kr'it. for 1870 the
beginning of an elaborate rejoinder to Holsten, by Beyschlag : "die Visions-
hypothese in ihrer neuesten Begriindung," 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 greater 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 Tubingen 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.]
5
VI PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION.
arguments more cogent than those already so often discussed.
Even the new edition of the chief work of Baur, in which its
now departed author has devoted his last scientific labours to
the contents of the Acts of the Apostles, furnishes nothing
essentially new, and it touches only here and there on the
objections urged by his opponents.
"With reference to the method of judging the New Testament
writings, 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 com-
bined the majestic heroism of his faith with all freedom, nay,
boldness of criticism, and as to the latter, he laid stress even
on the dogmatic side (" what makes for Christ "), a course, no
doubt, which led him to mistaken judgments regarding some
N. T. writings, easily intelligible as it may appear in itself
from the personal idiosyncrasy of the great man, from his
position as a Eeformer, 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 con-
trary character of definite " purpose," which has in our days
been ascribed to the book, necessarily involves the correspond-
ing lateness of historical date, to which these critics have not
hesitated to transfer it. But this very position requires, in
my judgment, an assent on their part to a critical impossi-
bility. For as hardly a single unbiassed person would ven-
ture to question the author has not made use of any of the
PREFACE TO THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION. Vll
Pauline Epistles preserved to us ; and therefore these letters
cannot have been accessible to hing when he was engaged in
the collection of his materials or in the composition of his
work, because he would certainly have been far from leaving
unused historical sources of such productiveness and of so direct
and supreme authenticity, 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 Epistles of 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 canon itself from the unknown
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 devoted, 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 historical 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, 1 which presents the renewed fruit of
profound and independent 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 investiga-
tion of which, however, extends in many cases also into the
Book of Acts. The arguments adduced by Wieseler in his
tenth Beitrag, 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 different tradition from the Gospel.
DR. MEYER.
HANKOVER, October 22, 1869.
1 Beitrage zur richtigen Wurdigung der Evangelien und der evangel. Ge-
schichte, Gotha, 1869.
PREFATORY NOTE.
THE explanations prefixed to previously issued volumes of this
Commentary [see especially the General Preface to EOMANS,
vol. I.] regarding the principles on which the translation has
been undertaken, and the method followed in its execution,
are equally applicable to the portion now issued.
W. P. D.
GLASGOW COLLEGE, May 1877.
EXEGETICAL LITEKATUKE,
[FOR commentaries and collections of notes embracing the whole
New 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 Apostles 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 apostolic age, or with the life of St.
Paul, or with the genuineness of the Book of Acts, have been included
because of the special bearing of their discussions 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 ;
f marks the date of the author's death ; c = circa, an approximation
to it.]
ALEXANDER (Joseph Addison), D.D., f 1860, Prof. Bibl. and Eccl. Hist,
at Princeton : The Acts of the Apostles explained. 2 vols.
8, New York [and Lond.] 1857, al.
ANGER (Rudolf), f 1866, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig: De temporum in
Actis Apostolorum ratione. 8, Lips. 1833.
ARCULARIUS (Daniel), f 1596, Prof. Theol. at Marburg : Commen-
tarius in Acta Apostolorum, cura Balthazaris Mentzeri editus.
See also GERHARD (Johann). 8, Francof. 1607, al.
BARRINGTON (John Shute, Viscount), f 1734 : Miscellanea sacra ; or
a new method of considering so much of the history of the
Apostles as is contained in Scripture. 2 vols. Lond. 1725.
2d edition, edited by Bishop Barrington. 3 vols.
8, Lond. 1770.
9
BAUM GARTEN (Michael), lately Prof. Theol. at Rostock: Die Apostel-
geschichte, oder der Entwicklungsgang der Kirche von
Jerusalem bis Rom. 2 Bande. 8, Braunschw. 1852.
[Translated by Rev. A. J. W. Morrison and Theod. Meyer.
3 vols. 8, Edin. 1854.]
BAUR (Ferdinand Christian), f I860, Prof. Theol. at Tubingen :
Paulus der Apostel Jesu Christi. Sein Leben und Wirken,
seine Brief e und seine Lehre. 8, Stuttg. 1845, al.
[Translated by Rev. Allan Menzies. 2 vols. 8, Lond. 1875-6.]
BEDA (Venerabilis), f 735, Monk at Jarrow : In Acta Apostolorum
expositio [Opera].
BEELEN (Jean-The"odore), R. C. Prof. Or. Lang, at Louvain : Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum. ... 2 voll.
4, Lovanii, 1850.
BENSON (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 Epistles. 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.
BRENZ [BRENTIUS] (Johann), f 1570, Provost at Stuttgart : In Acta
Apostolica homiliae centum viginti duae. 2, Francof. 1561, al.
BUGENHAGEN (Johann), f 1558, Prof. Theol. at Wittenberg: Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 8, Vitemb. 1524, al.
BULLINGER (Heinrich), f 1575, Pastor at Zurich : In Acta Aposto-
lorum commentariorum 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], ( 1534, Cardinal : Actus Apostolorum
commentariis illustrati. 2, Venet. 1530, al.
CALIXTDS (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, al.~]
CAPELLUS [CAPPEL] (Louis), f 1658, Prof. Theol. at Saumur: Historia
apostolica illustrata ex Actis Apostolorum et Epistolis inter
se collatis, collecta, accurate digesta ... 4, Salmur. 1683.
CASSIODORUS (Magnus Aurelius), f 563. See ROMANS.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XI
CHRYSOSTOMUS (Joannes), f 407, Archbishop of Constantinople:
Homiliae Iv. in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].
CONYBEARE (William John), M.A., HOWSON (John Saul), D.D. : Life
and Epistles of St. Paul. 4, Lend. 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.
CRADOCK (Samuel), B.D., f 1706, Nonconformist minister: The Apos-
tolical 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. 2, Lond. 1672.
CRELL (Johann), f 1633, Socinian Teacher at Eacow : Commentarius
in magnam partem Actorum Apostolorum [Opera].
DENTON (William), M.A., Vicar of S. Bartholomew, Cripplegate : A
commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
8, Lond. 1874-6.
DICK (John), D.D., f 1834, Prof. Theol. to United Secession Church,
Glasgow : Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
8, Glasg. 1805-6, al.
DIEU (Louis de), f 1642, Prof, at Leyden : Animadversiones in Acta
Apostolorum, ubi, collatis Syri, Arabis, Aethiopici, Vulgati,
Erasmi et Bezae versionibus, difficiliora quaeque loca illus-
trantur ... 4, Lugd. Bat. 1634.
DIONYSIUS CARTHUSIANUS [DENYS DE EYCKEL], 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.
FERUS [WILD] (Johannes), f 1554, Cathedral Preacher at Mentz :
Enarrationes breves et dilucidae in Acta Apostolorum.
2, Colon. 1567.
FBOMOND [FROIDMONT] (Libert), f 1633, Prof. Sac. Scrip. atLouvain :
Actus Apostolorum brevi et dilucido commentario illustrati.
4, Lovanii, 1654, al.
GAGNEE (Jean de), f 1549, Rector of the University of Paris:
Clarissima et facillima in quatuor sacra J. C. Evangelia
necnon in Actus Apostolicos scholia selecta.
2, Paris, 1552, al.
xii EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
GERHARD (Johann), f 1637, Prof. Theol. at Jena: Annotationes in
Acta Apostolorum. 4, Jenae, 1669, al.
Also : S. Lucae evangelistae Acta Apostolorum, triumvirali com-
mentario . . . theologorum celeberrimorum Joannis Gerhardi,
Danielis Arcularii et Jo. Canuti Lenaei illustrata.
4, Hamburgi, 1713.
GLOAG (Paton James), D.D., Minister of Galashiels : Critical and
exegetical commentary on the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
8, Edin. 1870.
GORRAN (Nicholas de), f 1295, Profc at Paris : In Acta Apostolorum
. . . Commentarii. 2, Antverp. 1620.
GRTNAEUS (Johann Jakob), f 1617, Prof. Theol. at Basle : Commen-
tarius in Acta Apostolorum. 4, Basil. 1573.
GUALTHERUS [WALTHER] (Rudolph), f 1586, Pastor at Ziirich : In Acta
Apostolorum per divum Lucam descripta homiliae clxxxv.
2, Tiguri, 1577.
HACKETT (Horatio Balch), D.D., Prof. 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.
HEINRICHS (Johann Heinrich), Superintendent at Burgdorf : Acta
Apostolorum Graece perpetua annotatione illustrata. 2 tomi.
[Testamentum Novum . . . illustravit J. P. Koppe. Vol. iii.
partes 1, 2.] 8, Getting. 1809, al.
HEMSEN (Johann Tychsen). See ROMANS.
HENTENIUS (Johannes), f 1566, Prof. Theol. at Louvain : Enarrationes
vetustissimorum theologorum in Acta quidem Apostolorum et
in omnes Epistolas. 2, Antverp. 1545.
HILDEBRAND (Traugott W.), Pastor at Zwickau : Die Geschichte der
Aposteln Jesu exegetisch-hermeneutisch in 2 besonderen
Abschnitten bearbeitet. 8, Leipz. 1824.
HOFMEISTER (Johann), f 1547, Augustinian Vicar - General in
Germany : In duodecim priora capita Actorum Apostolicorum
commentaria. 2, Colon. 1567.
HUMPHRY (William Gilson), M.A., Vicar of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields,
London : A commentary on the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles. 8, Lond. 1847, al.
KISTEMAKER (Johann Hyazinth), f 1834, R. C., Prof. Theol. at
Minister : Geschichte der Aposteln mit Anmerkungen.
8, Munster, 1822.
KUINOEL [KUHNOL] (Christian Gottlieb), f 1841, Prof. Theol. at
Giessen : Commentarius in libros Novi Testamenti historicos.
4 volL 8, Lips. 1807-18, al.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. xiii
LANGE (Johann Peter), Prof. Theol. at Bonn: Das Apostolische
Zeitalter. 2 Bande. 8, Braunschw. 1853.
LECHLER (Gotthard Victor), Superintendent at Leipzig : Der Apostel
Geschichten theologisch bearbeitet von G. V. Lechler, homi-
letisch von G. Gerok [Lange's Bibelwerk. V.].
8, Bielefeld, 1860, al.
[Translated by Rev. P. J. Gloag. 2 vols., Edin. 1866. And
by Charles F. Schaeffer, D.D. 8, New York, 1867.]
Das Apostolische und das nachapostolische Zeitalter mit Rlick-
sicht auf Unterschied und Einheit in Lehre und Leben. 8,
Stuttg. 1851. Zweite durchaus umgearbeitete Auflage.
8, Stuttg. 1857.
LEEUWEN (Gerbrand van), f 1721, Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam: De
Handelingen der heyligen Apostelen, beschreeven door Lucas,
uitgebreid en verklaart. Amst. 1704. Also, in Latin. 2 voll.
8, Amst. 1724.
LEKEBUSCH (Eduard) : Die Composition und Entstehung der Apostel-
geschichte von neuem untersucht. 8, Gotha, 1854.
LEWIN (Thomas), M.A., Barrister : The Life and Epistles of St. Paul.
8, Lond. 1851. New edition. 2 vols. 4, Lond. 1874.
LIGHTFOOT (John), D.D., I 1675, Master of Catherine Hall, Cambridge :
A commentary 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.]
LIMBORCH (Philipp van), f 1712, Arminian Prof. Theol. at Amsterdam :
Commentarius in Acta Apostolorum, et in Epistolas ad
Romanos et ad Ebraeos. 2, Roterod. 1711, al.
LINDHAMMER (Johann Ludwig), f 1771, General Superintendent in
East Friesland : Der . . . Apostelgeschichte ausfiihrliche
Erklarung und Anwendung, darin der Text von Stuck zu Stuck
ausgelegt und . . . mit . . . philologischen und critischen Noten
erlautert wird. 2, Halae, 1725, al.
LIVERMORE (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 : Voll-
standiger Commentar uber die Apostelgeschichte das Lukas.
Th. I. 8, Strassb. 1792.
LORINUS (Jean), j 1634, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum commentaria . . .
2, Lugd. 1605, al.
MALCOLM (John), j- 1 634, Minister at Perth : Commentarius et analysis
in Apostolorum Acta. 4, Mediob. 1615.
XIV EXEGETICAL LITERATUliE.
MASKEW (Thomas Ratsey), Head Master of Grammar School, Dor-
chester : Annotations 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 Apostel Paulus und der ersten Christengemeinden, nach
etlichen Kapiteln der Apostelgeschichte. 8, Bremen, 1828.
MENOCHIO (Giovanni Stefano), f 1655, Jesuit at Rome: Historia sacra
de Actibus Apostolorum. 4, Rom. 1634.
MORUS (Samuel Friedrich Nathanael), f 1792, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig :
Versio et explicatio Actorum Apostolicorum. Edidit, anim-
adversiones recentiorum maxime interpretum svasque adjecit
G. J. Dindorf. 2 volL 8, Lips. 1794.
NEANDER (Johann August Wilhelm), f 1850, Prof. Theol. at Berlin :
Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christlichen Kirche
durch die Apostel. 2 Bande. 8, Hamb. 1832, al.
[Translated by J. E. Ryland. 8; Lond. 1851.]
NOVARINO (Luigi), f 1650, Theatine monk : Actus Apostolorum expansi
et notis monitisque sacris illustrati. 2, Lugd. 1645.
OECUMENIUS, c. 980, Bishop of Trieca. See ROMANS.
OERTEL (J. O.), Pastor at Gr. Storkwitz : Paulus in der Apostel-
geschichte 8, Halle, a. S., 1868.
PALET (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
PATRIZI (Francesco Xavier), Prof. Theol. at Rome : In Actus Apos-
tolorum commentarium. 4, Rom. 1867.
PEARCE (Zachary), D.D., f 1774, Bishop of Rochester. See MATTHEW.
PEARSON (John), D.D., f 1686, Bishop of Chester: Lectiones in Acta
Apostolorum, 1672 ; Annales Paulini [Opera posthuma].
4, Lond. 1688, al.
[Edited in English, with a few notes, by J. R. Crowfoot, B.D.
12, Camb. 1851.]
PETRI [PEETERS] (Barthelemi), f 1630, Prof. Theol. at Douay : Com-
mentarius in Acta Apostolorum. 4, Duaci, 1622.
PLEVIER (Johannes), f c. 1760, Pastor at Middelburg : De Handelin-
gen der heylige Apostelen, beschreeven door Lukas, ontleedt,
verklaardt en tot het oogmerk toegepast.
4, Utrecht, 1725, al.
EXEGETICAL LITERATURE. XV
PRICAEUS [PRICE] (John), LL.D., f 1676, Prof, of Greek at Pisa:
Acta Apostolorum ex sacra pagina, sanctis patribus Grae-
cisque ac Latinis scriptoribus illustrata. 8, Paris, 1647, oil.
PYLE (Thomas), D.D., \ 1756, Vicar of Lynn : A paraphrase, with
some notes, on the Acts of the Apostles, and on all the Epistles
of the New Testament. 8, Lend. 1725, al
EIEHM (Johann Karl) : Dissertatio critico-theologica de fontibus
Actorum Apostolorum. 8, Traj. ad Ehen. 1821.
EITSCHL (Albrecht), Prof. Theol. at Gbttingen : Die Entstehung der
altkatholischer Kirche. 8, Bonn, 1850 2te durchgangig
neu ausgearbeitete Ausgabe. 8, Bonn, 1857.
EOBINSON (Hastings), D.D., f 1866, Canon of Eochester : The Acts of
the Apostles ; with notes, original and selected, for the use
of students. 8, Lond. 1830.
Also, in Latin. 8, Cantab. 1824.
SALMERON(Alphonso),f 1585, Jesuit : In Acta Apostolorum [Opera, xii.].
SANCHEZ [SANCTIUS] (Gaspar), f 1628, Jesuit, Prof. Sac. Scrip, at
Alcala : Commentarii in Actus Apostolorum . . .
4, Lugd. 1616, al
SCHAFF (Philip), D.D., Prof, of Church Hist, at New York : History
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 Erklarung
. . . der Apostelgeschichte.] 8, Leipz. 1830-36.
SCITWEGLER (Albert), f 1857, Prof. Eom. Lit. at Tubingen: Das
nachapostolisches Zeitalter. 8, Tubing. 1847.
SELNECCER (Nicolaus), f 1592, Prof. Theol. at Leipzig : Commentarius
in Acta Apostolorum. 8, Jenae 1567, al.
STAPLETON (Thomas), f 1598, Prof, at Louvain : Antidota apostolica
contra nostri temporis haereses, in Acta Apostolorum. . . .
2 voll. 1595.
STIER (Eudolf Ewald), -j- 1862, Superintendent in Eisleben : Die
Eeden der Aposteln. 2 Bande. 8, Leipz. 1829.
[Translated by G. H. Venables. 2 vols. 8, Edin. 1869.]
STRESO (Caspar), j 1664, Pastor at the Hague: Commentarius prae-
ticus in Actorum Apostolicorum . . . capita. 2 voll.
4, Amstel. 1658-9, al.
XVI EXEGETICAL LITERATURE.
STLVEIRA (Juan de), ( 1687, Carmelite monk : Commentarius in Acta
Apostolorum. 2, Lugd. 1678.
TATE (James), M.A., Canon of St. Paul's: The Horae Paulinae of
William Paley, D.D., carried out and illustrated in a con-
tinuous history of the apostolic labours and writings of St.
Paul, on the basis of the Acts ... 8, Lond. 1840.
THEOPHYLACTUS, c. 1070, Archbishop of Acris in Bulgaria : Commen-
tarius in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].
THIERSCH (Heinrich Wilhelm Josias), Prof. Theoh at Marburg : Die
Kirche im apostolischen Zeitalter. 8, Frankf. 1852, al.
[Translated by Carlyle. 8, Lond. 1852.]
THIESS (Johann Otto), f 1810, Prof. Theol. at Kiel: Lukas Apostel-
geschichte neu iibersetzt, mit Amnerkun gen. 8, Gera, 1800.
TRIP (Ch. J.), Superintendent at Leer in East Friesland : Paulus nach
der Apostelgeschichte. Historischer Werth dieser Berichte . . .
8, Leiden, 1866.
TROLLOPE (William) : A commentary on the Acts of the Apostles . . .
12, Camb. 1847.
VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar), f 1785, Prof, in Leyden : Selecta e
scholis L. C. Valckenarii in libros quosdam N. T., editore Eb.
Wassenbergh. 2 partes. 8, Amst. 1815-17.
VEIL (Charles Marie de), f c. 1701, R. C. convert, latterly Baptist :
Explicatio literalis Actorum Apostolicorum. 8, Lond. 1684.
[Translated by the author into English, 1685.]
WALCH (Johann Ernst Immanuel), f 1778, Prof. Theol. at Jena : Dis-
sertationes in Acta Apostolorum. 3 voll. 4, Jenae, 1756-61.
WASSENBERGH (Everaard van). See VALCKENAER (Ludwig Kaspar).
WIESELER (Karl), Prof. Theol. at Gb'ttingen : Chronologie des apos-
tolischen Zeitalters. 8, Getting. 1848.
WOLZOGEN (Johann Ludwig von), -j- 1661, Socinian : Commentarius
in Acta Apostolorum [Opera].
ZELLER (Eduard), Prof. Philos. at Berlin : Die Apostelgeschichte
nach ihrem Inhalt und Ursprung kritisch untersucht.
8, Stuttg. 1854.
[Translated by Rev. Joseph Dare. 8, Lond. 1875.]
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
INTKODUCTION.
SEC. I. AUTHORSHIP AND GENUINENESS OF THE BOOK.
| HE fifth historical book of the New Testament,
already named in early Christian antiquity (Canon
Murat,, Clem. Al. Strom, v. 12, p. 696, ed. Potter,
Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2 , 'de jejun. 10, de ~bapt. 10 ;
cornp. also Iren. adv. haer. iii. 14. 1, iii. 15. 1) from its chief
contents Trpd^eif (rwv) a7ro(no\a)v, announces itself (i. 1)
as a second work of the same author who wrote the Gospel
dedicated to Theophilus. The Acts of the Apostles is therefore
justly considered as a portion of the historical work of Luke,
following up that Gospel, and continuing the history of early
Christianity from the ascension of Christ to the captivity of Paul
at Eome ; and no other but Luke is named by the ancient ortho-
dox church as author of the book, which is included by Eusebius,
H. E. iii 25, among the Homologoumena. There is indeed no
definite reference made to the Acts by the Apostolic Fathers, as
the passages, Ignat. ad Smyrn. 3 (comp. Acts x. 41), and
Polycarp, ad Phil. 1 (comp. Acts ii. 24), cannot even be with
certainty regarded as special reminiscences of it ; and the same
remark holds good as to allusions in Justin and Tatian. But,
since the time of Irenaeus, the Fathers have frequently made
literal quotations from the book (see also the Epistle of the
churches at Vienne and Lyons in Eus. v. 2), and have ex-
ACTS. A
2 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
pressly designated it as the work of Luke. 1 With this fact
before us, the passage in Photius, Quaest. Amphiloch. 145 (see
Wolf, Cur. IV. p. 731, Schmidt in Staudlin's Kirchenhist.
Archiv, I. p. 1 5), might appear strange : TOV Be a-vyypa^ea
TCOV Trpa^ewv 01 pev KXrffievTa \eyovfft TOV 'Ptu/iT??, d\\ot Be
Bapvd/3av real a\Xot AOVKO.V TOV evayyeXia-Tijv, but this state-
ment as to Clement and Barnabas stands so completely isolated,
unsupported by any other notice of ecclesiastical antiquity,
that it can only have reference to some arbitrary assumption
of individuals who knew little or nothing of the book. Were
it otherwise, the Gospel of Luke must also have been alleged
to be a work of Clement or Barnabas ; but of this 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, which were destined at once for whole churches
and, inferentially, for yet wider circles, is evident from Chry-
sostom, Horn. I. : TroXXofc TOVTI TO {3t,{3\iov ovB' on, evt, 71/00-
pifjLov e&Tiv, ovTe avTo, ovTe 6 rypatyas avTo KCU <rvv0ek? And
thus it is no wonder if many, who knew only of the existence
of the Book of Acts, but had never read it (for the very first
verse must have pointed them to Luke), 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 : AVTOS Be
1 It cannot be a matter of surprise that our old codd. name no author in the
superscription (only some minusculi name Luke), since there are not several
"Acts of the Apostles" in the Canon, as there are several Gospels, needing dis-
tinctive designation by the names of their authors. Comp. Ewald, Jahrb.
IX. p. 57.
2 So much the less can it be assumed with certainty, from the fragment of
Papias, preserved by Apollinaris, on the death of Judas (of which the different
forms of the text may be seen, (l)in Theophyl. on Acts i. 18, and Cramer, Cat. in
Act. p. 12 f. ; (2) in Oecum. I. p. 11, Cramer, Cat. in Matth. p. 231, and Bois-
sonade, Anecd. II. p. 464 ; (3) Scholion in Matthaei on Acts i. 18), that Papias
had in view the narrative of the event in the Acts, and wished to reconcile
it with that of Matthew. He gives a legend respecting the death of Judas,
deviating from that of Matthew and the Acts, and independent of both. See the
dissertations on this point : Zahn in the Stud. u. Krit. 1866, p. 649 ff., and in
opposition to him, Overbeck in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1867, p. 35 ff. ; also Steitz in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1868, p. 87 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 3
Aovieas erriKpivet. Hpwrov (lev ef wv TrpooifMa^erai,, &>9 ical
erepa avr& frpaytJt.areia, ra? Se<T7rortAca9 Trepie^ovcra irpd^ei^
KaTa/3e^Xr}rai. Aevrepov Be, el; &v fcal rwv aXkoov eva<y>ye\icr-
r(ov BiaareXkerat, on /*%/>* T?}9 ava^-frews ovBels avrwv TO
"jrpoe\0elv eTroirffraTO, d\,V ovro? povos ical TVJV
ayjt/3eo9 efyjytfcraTO, ical Trdktv TTJV roov Trpd^ewv
UTTO ravr^ vTrea-rrjaa-ro. 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 recognised it as a second work of Luke, to which,
as well as to the Gospel, apostolic (Pauline) authority belonged.
The weight of this ancient recognition by the church is not
weakened by the rejection of the book on the part of certain
heretical parties ; for this affected only its validity as an
authoritative standard, and was based entirely on dogmatic,
particularly on anti - Pauline, motives. This was the case
with the Ebionites (Epiphan. Haer. xxx. 16), to whom the
reception of the Gentiles into Christianity was repugnant ;
with the Severians (Euseb. H. E. iv. 29), whose ascetic prin-
ciples were incompatible with the doctrines of Paul ; with the
Marcionites (Tertull. c. Marc. v. 2, de praescr. 22), who could
not endure what was taught in the Acts concerning the con-
nection of Judaism and Christianity ; and with the Mani-
chaeans, who took offence at the mission of the Holy Spirit, to
which it bears testimony (Augustin. de utilit. credendi, ii. 7,
epist. 237 [al. 253], No. 2). From these circumstances the
less measure of acquaintance with the book, and the less degree
of veneration for it is to be explained the somewhat arbitrary
treatment of the text, which is still apparent in codd. (par-
ticularly D and E) and versions (Ital. and Syr.), although
Bornemann (Ada apost. ad Codicis Cantdbrig. fidem rec. 1848)
saw in cod. D the most original form of the text (" agmen
ducit codex D haud dubie ex autographo haustus," p. xxviii.),
which was an evident error.
That the Acts of the Apostles is the work of one author,
follows from the uniformity in the character of its diction
and style (see Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 1 6 ff. ; Credner, Einl. I.
p. 132 ff. ; Zeller, Apostelgesch. nach Inh. u, Urspr. Stuttg.
4 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
1854, p. 388 ff.; and especially Lekebusch, Composit. u. Entsteh.
d. Apostelgesch. Gotha 1854, pp. 3779; Klostermann, Vin-
diciae Lucanae, Getting. 1866; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostel-
gesch. 1868), from the mutual references of individual passages
(de Wette, Einl. 1 1 5, and Zeller, p. 40 3 ff.), and also from that
unity in the tenor and connection of the essential leading ideas
(see Lekebusch, p. 82) which .pervades the whole. This simi-
larity is of such a nature that it is compatible with a more or
less independent manipulation of different documentary sources,
but not with the hypothesis of an aggregation of such docu-
mentary sources, which are strung together with little essential
alteration (Schleiermacher's view ; comp. also Schwanbeck, tiler
d. Quellen der Schriften des Luk. I. p. 253, and earlier, Konigs-
mann, de fontibus, etc., 1798, in Pott's Sylloge, III. p. 215 ff.).
The same peculiarities pervade the Acts and the Gospel, and
evince the unity of authorship and the unity of literary charac-
ter as to loth books. See Zeller, p. 414 ff. In the passages xvi.
1017, xx. 515, XXL 1-18, xxvii. 1-xxviii. 16, the author ex-
pressly by " we " includes himself as an eye-witness and sharer
in the events related. According to Schleiermacher, these
portions belonging to the memoirs, strung together without
elaboration, of which the book is composed proceed from
Timothy, a hypothesis supported by Bleek (in his Einleit., and
earlier in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1025 ff., p. 1046 ff.),
Ulrich (Stud. u. Krit. 1837, p. 367 ff., 1840, p. 1003 ff.), and
de Wette, and consistently worked out by Mayerhoff (Einl. in d.
Petr. Schr. p. 6 ff.) to the extent of ascribing the whole look to
Timothy ; whereas Schwanbeck seeks to assign these sections,
as well as in general almost all from xv. 1 onwards, to Silas. 1
But the reasons, brought forward against the view that Luke
1 Assuming, with extreme arbitrariness, that the redacteur has in xvi. 10 ff.,
misled by the preceding poMturav ft,7v (!), copied the first person after the Silas-
document, and only in ver. 19 felt the necessity of changing the npus of Silas
into the names concerned, in doing which, however, he has forgotten to in-
clude the name of Timothy. See Schwanbeck, p. 270 f., who has many other
instances of arbitrariness, e.g. that civSpai yyovf*,. It rois StXp., xv. 22, stood in
the Silas-document after ix\i%xftiin>us, and other similar statements, which refute
themselves. The holding Luke and Silas as identical (van Vloten in Hilgenf.
Zeitschr. 1867, p. 223 ff.) was perhaps only a passing etymological fancy (lucus,
silva). See, in opposition to it, Cropp in Hilgenf. Zeitschr. 1868, p. 353 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 5
is the narrator using the we, are wholly unimportant. For,
not to mention that it is much more natural to refer the un-
named I of that narrative in the first person plural to Luke,
who is not elsewhere named in the book, than to Timothy and
Silas, who are elsewhere mentioned by name and distinguished
from the subject of the we ; and apart also from the entire arbi-
trariness of the assertion that Luke could not have made his
appearance and taken part for the first time at xvi 1 ; the
circumstance that in the Epistle to the Philippians no mention
of Luke occurs, although the most plausible ground of the
objectors, is still merely such in semblance. How long had
Luke, at that time, been absent from Philippi ! How probable,
moreover, that Paul, who sent his letter to the Philippians
by means of Epaphroditus, left it to the latter to communicate
orally the personal information which was of interest to them,
and therefore adds in the Epistle only such summary salu-
tations as iv. 2 2 ! And how possible, in fine, that Luke,
at the time of the composition of the Philippian Epistle,
was temporarily absent from Eome, which is strongly sup-
ported, and, indeed, is required to be assumed by Phil. ii.
20 f., comp. on Phil. ii. 21. The non-mention of Luke in the
Epistles to the Thessalonians is an unserviceable argumentum
e silentio (see Lekebusch, p. 395); and the greater vividness
of delineation, which is said to prevail where Timothy is pre-
sent, cannot prove anything in contradistinction to the vivid-
ness of other parts in which he is not concerned. On the
other hand, in those portions in which the " we " introduces
the eye-witness, 1 the manipulation of the Greek language, inde-
pendent 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 according to the Jewish festivals,
xx. 6, xxvii. 9, suits Timothy better than Luke, for the designa-
tions of the Jewish festivals must have been everywhere familiar
in the early Christian church from its connection with Judaism,
and particularly in the Pauline circles in which Luke, as well
1 Especially chap, xxvii. and xxviii. See Klostermann, Vindic. Luc. p. 50 fl. ;
and generally, Oertel, Paul, in d. Apostelgesch. p. 28 fl.
6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
as Timothy, moved. The insuperable difficulties by which both
the Tmo^Ay-hypothesis, already excluded by xx. 4 f., and the
^ite-hypothesis, untenable throughout, are clogged, only serve
more strongly to confirm the tradition of the church that
Luke, as author of the whole book, is the person speaking in
those sections in which "we" occurs. See Lekebusch, p. 140 ff. ;
ZeUer, p. 454ff.; Ewald, Gesch. d. Apost. Zeitalt. p. 33 ff.,
and Jahrb. IX. p. 5 ff. ; Klostermann, I.e. ; Oertel, Paul, in
d. Aposlelgesch. p. 8 ff. In the " we" 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 hypo-
thesis already propounded by Konigsmann, on the other hand,
that Luke had allowed the " we " derived from the memoir of
another to remain unchanged, as well as the converse fancy of
Gfrbrer (Jieil. Sage, II. p. 244f.), impute to the author some-
thing bordering on an unintelligent mechanical process, such
as is doubtless found in insipid chroniclers of the Middle Ages
(examples in Schwanbeck, p. 188 ff.), but must appear utterly
alien and completely unsuitable for comparison in presence of
such company as we have here.
Eecent 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, Kostlin, Hilgenfeld,
and others). For this purpose they have alleged contradic-
tions with the Pauline Epistles (ix. 19, 23, 25-28, xi. 30,
compared with Gal. i. 17-19, il 1; xvii. 16 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. 251;
Eom. xv. 19, xvi. 3 f.), and the partially unhistorical character
of the first portion of the book (according to de Wette, par-
ticularly ii. 511), which is even alleged to be "a continuous
fiction" (Schwegler, nachapostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, II. p. Ill f.).
They have discovered un-Pauline miracles (xxviii. 7-10), un-
Pauline speeches and actions (xxi. 20 ff., xxiii. 6 ff., chap,
xxii., xxvi.), an un-Pauline attitude (towards Jews and Jewish-
Christians : approval of the apostolic decree). It is alleged
that the formation of legend in the book (particularly the nar-
INTRODUCTION. 7
rative 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 ff.) ; also that its politically apologetic design leads us to
the time of Trajan, or later (Schwegler, II. p. 119) ; that the
77^649 in the narrative of the travels (held even by ELostlin,
Urspr. d. Synopt. Evang. p. 292, to be the genuine narrative of
a friend of the apostle) is designedly allowed to stand by the
author of the book, who wishes to be recognised thereby as a
companion of the Apostle (according to Kostlin : for the pur-
pose of strengthening the credibility and the impression of the
apologetic representation) ; and that the Book of Acts is " the
work of a Pauline member of the Eoman 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 grounds do not
prove what they are alleged to prove, and do not avail to over-
throw the ancient ecclesiastical recognition. 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 compatible with its being the work of a
companion of the apostle, who, not emerging as such earlier
than chap, xvi., only undertook to write the history some time
after the apostle's death, and who, when his personal know-
ledge 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-Pauline 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 eccle-
siastical development, is simply imputed to it by the critics.
The JF<e-narrative, with its vivid and direct impress of personal
participation, always remains a strong testimony in favour of a
8 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
companion of the apostle as author of the whole book, of which
that narrative is a part ; to separate the subject of that narra-
tive 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 intelligible
only on the supposition of a real and candid companion of the
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 manipulat-
ing with a definite tendency the historical materials before
him, inconceivable, because utterly at variance with his sup-
posed designs. The hypothesis, in fine, that the tradition of
Luke's authorship rests solely on an erroneous inference from
the ij/iet9 in the narrative of the travels (comp. Col. iv. 14 ;
2 Tim. iv. 11; see especially Kostlin, p. 291), is so arbi-
trary and so opposed to the usual unreflecting mode in which
such traditions arise, that, on the contrary, the ecclesiastical
tradition is to be explained, not from the wish to have a
Pauline Gospel, 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 testi-
mony ; it is to be subjected in its several parts to free historical
criticism, but to be exempted, at the same time, from the scepti-
cism and injustice which (apart from the attacks of Schrader
. and Gfrorer) it has largely experienced at the hands of Baur and
his school, after the more cautious but less consistent precedent
set by Schneckenburger (fiber d. Zweck d. Apostelgesch. 1841).
On the whole, the book remains, in connection with the his-
torical 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.
INTRODUCTION.
SEC. II. AIM AND SOURCES OF THE BOOK.
When the aim of the Acts has been denned by saying
that Luke wished to give us a history of missions for the
diffusion of Christianity (Eichhorn), or a Pauline church-his-
tory (Credner), or, more exactly and correctly, a history of the
extension of the church from Jerusalem to Borne (Mayerhoff,
Baumgarten, 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 develop-
ment of the church from its foundation until the period when
Paul laboured at Borne ; but his work was primarily a private
treatise, written for Theophihis, and the clearly expressed 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, according to Acts i. 1, stands with the GospeL To con-
firm to Theophilus, in the way of history, the Christian instruc-
tion which he had received, was an end which might after the
composition of the Gospel be yet more fully attained ; for the
further development of Christianity since the time of the
ascension, its victorious progress through Antioch, Asia Minor,
and Greece up to its announcement by Paul himself in Borne,
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 contents 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 person, he so
takes up Paul and his work, and almost exclusively places
them 1 in the foreground down to the end of the book, that the
1 The parallel between the two apostles is not made up, but historically given.
Both were the representatives of apostolic activity, and what the Acts informs us
of them is like an extended commentary on Gal. ii. 8. Comp. Thiersch, Kirche
im apostol. Zeitalt. p. 120 f. At the same time, the purpose of the work as a
private composition is always to be kept in view ; as such it might, according
to its relation to the receiver, mention various important matters but briefly or
not at all, and describe very circumstantially others of less importance. The
author, like a letter-writer, was in this untrammelled. Comp. C. Bertheau,
uber Gal. ii. (Programm), Hamb. 1854.
10 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 Eome, 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 under-
stand how not only the Jewish apostles, and even Peter, fall
gradually into the background in the history, but also how
the reflection of Paulinism 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 disciple 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 inappropriate, 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 know-
ledge or by the apostle or other eye-witnesses.
Nevertheless, the attempt has often been made to represent
our book as a composition marked by a set apologetic 1 and dog-
matic purpose. A justification of the Apostle Paul, as regards
the admission of the Gentiles into the Christian church, is alleged
by Griesbach, Diss. 1798, Paulus, Frisch, Diss. 181*7, to be
its design; against which view Eichhorn decidedly declared
himself. More recently Schneckenburger (ub. d. Zweck d.
Apostelgesch. 1841) has revived this view with much acute-
ness, to the prejudice of the historical character of the book.
By Baur (at first in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1836, 3, then espe-
cially in his Paulus 1845, second edition edited by Zeller,
1866, also in his neutest. Theol. p. 331 ff., and in his Qesch.
1 Aberle, in the theol. Quartalschr. 1853, p. 173 ff., has maintained a view of
the apologetic design of the book peciiliar to himself ; namely, that it was in-
tended to defend Paul against the accusation still pending against him in Rome.
Everything of this nature is invented without any indication whatever in the
text, and is contradicted by the prologues of the Gospel and the Acts.
INTRODUCTION. 1 1
der drei ersten Jahrb. 1860, ed. 2) a transition was made, as
regards the book, from the apologetic to the conciliatory stand-
point. He was followed specially by Schwegler, nachapost.
Zeitalt. II. p. 73 ff. ; Zeller, p. 320 ff. ; and Volkmar, Edig.
Jesu, p. 336 ff. ; while B. Bauer (d. Apostelgesch. eine Aus-
gleichung des Paulinismus 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 his character which was turned towards Judaism, and in the
greatest possible similarity to Peter (see, in opposition to this,
Schwanbeck, Quellcn d. LuJc. 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.
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, 1 and have, without scruple, sacri-
ficed to it the historical character of the contents. They
affirm that the Paul of the Acts, in his compliance towards
Judaism, is entirely different from the apostle as exhibited in
his Epistles (Baur) ; that he is converted into a Judaizing
Christian, 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 influence
both parties, but especially had in view the Eoman church
(Zeller). The carrying out of this view according to which
the author, with " set reflection on the means for attaining his
end," would convert the Gentile apostle into a Petrine Chris-
1 Certainly we are not carried by the Acts, as we are by the Pauline Epistles,
into the fresh, living, fervent conflict of Paulinism with Judaism ; and so this
later work may appear as a work of peace (Reuss, Gescli. d. N. T. p. 206, ed. 4)
and reconciliation, in the composition of which it is conceivable enough of
itself, and without imputing to it conciliatory tendencies, that Luke, who did
not write till long after the death of Paul and the destruction of Jerusalem,
already looked back on those conflicts from another calmer and more objective
standpoint, when the Pauline ministry presented itself to him in its entirety as
the manifestation of the great principle, 1 Cor. ix. 19 S.
12 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
tian, and the Jewish apostles 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 invent-
ing facts, which are irreconcilable with the simplicity and
ingenuous artlessness of this writing, 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 necessitates a multitude of suppositions and inter-
pretations, which make the reproach 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. Apostelgesch. p. 183 ff. Comp. also Lechler, apost. u. tiacha-
post. Zeitalt. p. V ff . ; Ewald, Jahrb. IX. p. 62 ff. That,
moreover, such an inventive reconciler of Paulinism 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 Eome, and their contemporary
death, and not have rather turned them to account for placing
the crown on his work so purposely 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. 25 ff.) with a rejection of them from the
apostle'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 reserved for the searching criticism of
the present day.
As regards the sources (see Riehm, de fontibus, etc., Traj. ad
Ehen. 1821 ; Schwanbeck, tib. d. Quellen d. Schriften d. Luk.
I. 1847; Zeller, p. 289 ff. ; Lekebusch, p. 402 ff. ; Ewald,
Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 40 ff. ed. 3), it is to be generally
assumed from the contents and form of the book, and from the
analogy of Luke i. 1, that Luke, besides the special communica-
tions which he had received from Paul and from intercourse
INTRODUCTION. 13
with apostolic men, besides oral tradition generally, and besides,
in part, his own personal knowledge (the latter from xvi. 10
onwards), also made use of written documents. But he merely
made use of them, and did not simply string them togetlier
(as Schleiermacher held, Einl. in d. N. 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 employed, 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-
pendent use he might be sufficiently qualified by those service-
able connections 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 confirmed by the essential similarity in the
character of the style (although, in the first part, in accordance
with the matters treated of and with the Aramaic traditions
and documentary sources, it is more Hebraizing), and in the
employment of the Septuagint. The use of a written (probably
Hebrew) document concerning Peter (not to be confounded
with the KTjpvypa Herpov), 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 special document concerning
Barnabas, to which, according to Schwanbeck, iv. 36 f., ix.
1-30, xi. 19-30, xii. 25, xiii. 1-14, 28, xv. 2-4 belonged.
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 in-
sufficient, Luke must have been dependent on the docu-
ments 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, according
14 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 narra-
tive, 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 a priori precluded by the
supposition of simple reports of eye-witnesses (already in the
Canon Murat.}, recently, no less a priori, the same question
has been settled in an extreme negative sense by the assump-
tion 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 per-
sonal knowledge ; and Schwanbeck has, with much acuteness,
attempted what is unattainable in the way of recognising and
separating the written documents, with the result of degrading
the book into a spiritless compilation. 1 The giving up the
idea of written sources the conclusion which Lekebusch has
reached by the path of thorough inquiry is all the less satis-
factory, the later the time of composition has to be placed and
the historical character of the contents withal to be main-
tained. See also, concerning the derivation of the Petrine
speeches from written sources, Weiss in the Krit. Beiblatt z.
Deutsch. Zeitsclir. 1854, No. 10 f., and in reference to their
doctrinal tenor and its harmony with the Epistle of Peter,
Weiss, Petr. Lehrlegr. 1855, and bill. TJieol 1868, p. 119 ff. 2
Concerning the relation of the Pauline history and speeches to
the Pauline Epistles, see Trip, Paulus in d. Apostdyesch. 1866;
1 According to Schwanbeck, the redacteur of the book has used the four
following documents : (1) A biography of Peter ; (2) A rhetorical work on the
death of Stephen ; (3) A biography of Barnabas ; (4) The memoirs of Silas. Of
these writings he has pieced together only single portions almost unchanged ;
hence he appears essentially as a compiler.
* With justice Weiss lays stress on the importance of the Petrine speeches in
the Acts as being the oldest doctrinal records of the apostolic age.
INTRODUCTION. 15
Oertel, Paulus in d. ApostelgescJi. 1868. Comp. also Oort,
Inquir. in orat., quae in Act. ap. Paulo tribuuntur, indolem
Paulin. L. B. 1862 ; Hofstede de Groot, Vergelijking van den
Paulus der Brieven met dien der Handelingen, Grb'ning. 1860.
SEC. III. TIME AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION.
As the Gospel of Luke already presupposes the destruction
of Jerusalem (xxi. 20-25), the Acts of the Apostles must have
been written after that event. Acts viii. 2 6 cannot be employed
to establish the view that the book was composed during
the Jewish war, shortly before the destruction of the city (Hug,
Schneckenburger, Lekebusch ; see on viii. 26). The non-men-
tion 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 belongs to the first century,
perhaps to the second last decade of that century (see Intro-
duction to John, sec. 5), there is sufficient reason to place the
third Gospel within the seventh decade, and the time of the
composition of the Acts cannot be more definitely ascer-
tained. 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
Gospel of John, and nearly contemporary also with the history
of the- Jewish war by Josephus. The vague statement of
Irenaeus, Haer. iii. 1 (Euseb. v. 8), that Luke wrote his Gospel
after the death of Peter and Paul, comes nearest to this defini-
tion of the time. On the other hand, the opinion, which has
prevailed since the days of Jerome, that the close of the book,
which breaks off before the death of the apostle, determines this
point of time as the date of composition (so Michaelis, Hein-
richs, Kiehrn, Paulus, Kuinoel, Schott, Guericke, Ebrard, Lange,
and others), while no doubt most favourable to the interest
of its apostolic authority, is wholly untenable. That the
death of the apostle is not narrated, has hardly its reason in
16 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
political considerations (my former conjecture), as such con-
siderations 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 consider-
ing 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 been
lost (Schott). Wholly unnatural also are the opinions, that
Luke has, by narrating the diffusion (more correctly: the
Pauline preaching) of the gospel as far as Eome (according 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 1 ) ; 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 purpose (Zeller), which, in point of
fact, would have heen stupid. The simplest and, on account
of the compendious and abrupt conclusion, the most natural
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 ampli-
fied in the textus receptus (see critical note on Luke xxiv.
51, 52) indication of the ascension, arid 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 detailed 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 com-
municated so little), especially of Peter and his death, as
well as of the further growth of Christianity in other lands.
1 So also Lange, apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 107 ; Otto, geschichtl. Verh. d. Pastoral-
Irie/e, p. 189. This opinion is unnatural, because it was just in the issue of
the trial whether that consisted in the execution (Otto) or in the liberation of
the apostle that the Pauline work at Eome had its culmination, glorifying
Christ and fulfilling the apostolic task (Luke xxiv. 47). See Phil. i. 20. How
important must it therefore have been for Luke to narrate that issue, if he
should not have had for the present other reasons for being silent upon it !
That Luke knew what became of Paul after his two years' residence in Rome, is
self-evident from the words iftnn ct Sr/ X.T.X., xxviii. 30.
INTRODUCTION. 17
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 com-
position since the days of Jerome falls also the certainty of
the prevalent opinion that the book was written in Rome;
which opinion is not established by the reasons assigned on
the part of Zeller, Lekebusch, and Ewald. Still more arbi-
trary, however, is its transference to Alexandria (Mill, accord-
ing to subscriptions in codd. and vss. of the Gospel), to
Antioch, or to Greece (Hilgenfeld) ; and not less so the referring
it to Hellenic Asia Minor (Kostlin, p. 294).
REMARK. 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 Epistles, is, on the whole, a weighty argument against the
late composition of the book, as assumed by Baur, Schwegler,
Zeller, and others, and against its alleged character of a set
purpose. How much matter would the Pauline Epistles have
furnished to an author of the second century in behalf of his
intentional fabrications of history! How much would the
Epistle to the Eomans itself in its dogmatic bearing have fur-
nished 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 historical statements of the
Pauline Epistles. What has been adduced from the book itself
as an indication of its composition in the second century
(110-130) is either no such indication, as, for example, the
existence of a copious Gospel-literature (Luke i. 1) ; or is simply
imported into it by the reader, such as the alleged germs of a
hierarchical constitution ; see Lekebusch, p. 422 ff.
SEC. IV. CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY OF THE ACTS.
AER. DION. 31, u.c. 784. The risen Jesus ascends to heaven.
Matthias becomes an apostle. The outpouring 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
ACTS. B
18 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
that the time of the public ministry of Jesus embraced no more
than three paschal feasts (John ii. 13, vi. 4, xii. ff.), conse-
quently only two years and some months j 1 as it is further cer-
tain that our Lord was not crucified on the 15th, but on the
14th of the month Nisan, which fell on a Friday; 2 according
to the 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. 30-38), 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, diern Nisani 14, anno vero 32 neutrum
in Veneris diem incidere potuisse. Atqui anno 33, ideo quod
ille annum sabbaticum proxime antecedebat, 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 comes in Luke iii. 1,
according to which John appeared in the 15th year of the
reign 3 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 appear-
The Fathers, who assumed only one year for the public ministry of Jesus,
considered His death as occurring in the year 782, under the consulship of
Rubellius Geminus and Eufius Geminus, which is not to be reconciled with
Luke iii. 1. See Seyffarth, Chronol. sacra, p. 115 ff.
2 Every calculation which is based on the 15th of Nisan as the day of the
death of Jesus (so Wieseler, according to whom it happened on 7th April 30) is
destitute of historical foundation, because at variance with the exact account of
John, which must turn the scale against the Synoptical narrative (see on John
xviii. 28).
3 Not of liis joint reign, from which Wieseler now reckons in Herzog's Encyld.
XXI. p. 547.
4 In presence of this quite definite statement of the year of tlie emperor, the
different combinations, which have been made on the basis of the accounts of
Josephus concerning the war between Antipas and Aretas in favour of a later
date for the public appearance of Jesus (34-35 ; Keim, Gcsch. Jesu, I. p. 620 ff.),
necessarily give way. These, moreover, are not sufficiently reliable for an exact
marking off of the year, to induce us to set aside the year of the emperor
mentioned by Luke, which could only be based on general notoriety, and the
exact specification of which regulates and controls the synchronistic notices in
Luke iii. 1 f.
INTRODUCTION. 19
ance 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 782 ; the second (John vi. 4), that of the year 783 ;
the third (John xii. ff.), that of the year 784. With this agrees
the statement 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 inte-
rest 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 building
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.
AEE. DION. 31-34, u.c. 784-787. Peter and John, after the
healing of the lame man (iii), are arrested and brought before
the Sanhedrim (iv.) ; death of Ananias and his wife (v. 1-11) ;
prosperity of the youthful church (v. 1216); persecution of
the apostles (v. 1742). As Saul's conversion (see the
following paragraph) occurred during the continuance of the
Stephanie persecution, so the execution 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 conversion is the diffusion of Chris-
tianity by the dispersed (viii. 4), the ministry of Philip in
Samaria (viii 5 f), and the conversion of the chamberlain
(viii. 26 ff.). What part of this extraneous activity of the
emigrants is to be placed before, and what after, the conversion
of Paul, cannot be determined. AEE. DION. 35, u.c. 788.
Paul's conversion (ix. 119), 17 years before 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 possession of this city by Aretas
20 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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, 1 and his relation to the 77-0X49
Aafiaa-Krjvoov is supposed to be well known to the readers.
It is therefore very arbitrary to regard this relation as a
temporary private one, and not as a real dominion (Anger :
" forte fortuna eodem, quo apostolum tempore propter negotia
nescio quae Damasci versatum esse," and that he, either of
his own accord or at the request of the Jews, obtained per-
mission for the latter from the magistrates of Damascus to
watch the gates). The time, when the Arabian king became
master of Damascus, is assigned with much probability, from
what Josephus informs us of the relations of Aretas to the
Eomans, to the year 3 7, after the death of Tiberius in March
of that year. Tiberius, namely, had charged Vitellius, the
governor of Syria, to take either dead or alive Aretas, who had
totally defeated the army of Herod Antipas, his faithless son-in-
law (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5.1). Vitellius, 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 Eome. Now this was for Aretas, considering his warlike and
irritated attitude toward the Eoman power, certainly the most
favourable moment for falling upon the rich city of Damascus
which, besides, had formerly belonged to his ancestors (Joseph.
Antt. xiii. 15. 2) because the governor and general-in-chief
of Syria was absent, the army was inactive, and new measures
were to be expected from Eome. 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. 12), Damascus cannot have been
overlooked. This city was too important for the objects of the
1 Not merely of a judicial chief of the Arabian population of Damascus, subor-
dinate to the Koman authority (Keim in Schenkel's B'ibelkx. I. p. 239). There
is no historical trace of the relation thus conjectured, and it would hardly have
included a jurisdiction over the Jew Saul.
INTEODUCTION. 21
Eoman government in the East, to allow us to assume with
probability what Wieseler, p. 172 ft'., and on Gal. p. 599,
assumes 1 that, at the regulation of the Arabian aflairs, 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 Eoman vassal. 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 im-
probable that Aretas had entrusted the keeping of the city gates
to the Jews in what remained of the year 3 7, which was cer-
tainly still disturbed by military movements ; and as his doing
so rather presupposes a quiet and sure possession 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 3 9 are excluded, as, according to Dio
Cassius, I.e., 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 interests
of the Eomans 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 rather be accelerated
than delayed. Accordingly, if the year 3 8 2 be ascertained as
that of the flight of Paul, there is fixed for his conversion,
between which and his flight a period of three years inter-
vened (Gal. i. 18), the year 35. AER. DION. 36, 37, u.c. 789,
790. Paul labours as a preacher of the gospel in Damascus, ix.
2 0-2 3 ; journey to Arabia and return to Damascus (see on
1 See also his three articles in Herzog's Encykl. : Aretas, Galaterbrief, and
Zeitrechnung, neutest.
2 With this also agrees the number of the year AP of a Damascene coin of
King Aretas, described by Eckhel and Mionnet, namely, in so far as that num-
ber (101) is to be reckoned according to the Pompeian era commencing with
690 u.c., and this is at any rate the most probable, whence the year 38 maybe
safely assumed for the coinage. The circumstance that there are extant Damas-
cene coins of Augustus and Tiberius, and also of Nero, but none of Caligula and
Claudius (see Eckhel, I. 3, p. 330 f.), is unsatisfactory as evidence of a longer
continuance of the city under the power of Aretas, and may be accidental.
22 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ix. 19). AER. DION. 38, u.c. 791. His flight from Damascus
and first journey to Jerusalem (ix. 2 3-2 6 ff.), three years after
his conversion, Gal. i. 18. From Jerusalem he makes his escape
to Tarsus (ix. 29,3 0). AER. DION. 3 9-43, u.c. 792-79 6. The
churches throughout Palestine have peace and prosperity (ix. 31) ;
Peter makes a general journey of visitation (ix. 32), labours at
Lydda and Joppa (ix. 32-43), converts Cornelius at Caesarea
(x. 1-48), and returns to Jerusalem, where he justifies himself
(xi. 118). Christianity is preached in Phoenicia, 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 with him for one year in Antioch (xi. 1 9-2 6). In
this year (43) Agdbus predicts a general famine (xi. 27, 28).
AER. DlON. 44, u.c. 797. After the execution of tJie elder James,
Peter is imprisoned without result "by Agrippa I., who dies in
August 44 (xii. 123). 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 Jerusalem (with Barnabas),
whence he returns to Antioch (xi. 29, 30, and see on xii. 25).
AER. DION. 45-51, u.c. 798-804. In this period occurs the
first missionary journey of the apostle with Barnabas (xiii.
and xiv.), the duration of which is not indicated. Having
returned to Antioch, Paul and Barnabas remain there ^ovov
OVK o\lrjov (xiv. 28). AER. DION. 52, u.c. 805. The third
journey of Paul to Jerusalem (with Barnabas) to the apostolic
congress (xv. 129), according to Gal. ii. 1, fourteen years
after the first journey. Having returned to Antioch, Paul
and Barnabas separate, and Paul with Silas commences his
second missionary journey (Acts xv. 3041). AER. DION.
53, 54, U.C. 806,807. Continuation of this missionary journey
through Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Galatia ; crossing from Troas
to Macedonia ; journey to Athens and Corinth, where Paul met
with Aguila banished in the year 52 by the edict of Claudius
from Home, and remained there more (see on xviii. 11) than a
year and a half (xvi. 1 xviii. 18). AER. DION. 55, u.c. 808.
From Corinth Paul journeys to Ephesus, and thence by Caesarea
to Jerusalem for the fourth time (xviii. 20-22), from which,
INTEODUCTION. 23
without staying, he returns to Antioch (xviii. 22), and thus
closes his second missionary journey. He tarries there %p6vov
nvd (xviii. 23), and then commences his third missionary
journey through Galatia and Phrygia (xviii. 23), during which
time Apollos is first at Ephesus (xviii. 24 ff.) and then at
Corinth (xix. 1). AEE. DION. 56-58, u.c. 809-811. Paul
arrives on this journey at Ephesus (xix. 1), where he labours for
not quite three years (see on xix. 10). After the tumult of
Demetrius (xix. 2440) 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. 6), and from Assos by way of Miletus (xx. 13-38),
and Tyre (xxi. 1-6) to Ptolemais (xxi. 7), thence he journeys by
Caesarea (xxi. 814) to Jerusalem for the fifth and last time
(xxi. 15-17). Arriving shortly before Pentecost (xx. 16), he
is after some days (xxi. 18-33) arrested and then sent to Felix
at Cazsarea (xxiii. 23-35). AEE. DION. 60, 61, u.c. 813,
814. Paul remains a prisoner in Caesarea for two years (from
the summer of 59 to the summer of 61) 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 Some in the
autumn (xxvii. 9), on which journey he winters at Malta
(xxviii. 11). That Felix had retired from his procurator-
ship before 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 p?aefectus 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 temp. rat. p. 101). See also Ewald, p. 52 ff. Further,
that tie retirement of Felix took place after the year 6 O, 1 is
highly probable from Joseph. Vit. 3, and from Antt. xx.
8. 11. In the first passage Josephus informs us that he had
1 Not in the year 58, as Lehmann (in the Stud, und Krit. 1858, p. 322 fl.)
endeavours to establish, but without considering the passage in Joseph. Vita '6.
See, besiies, in opposition to Lehmann, "VVieseler on Gal. p. 583 f.
24 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
journeyed to Rome per el/coa-rbv KCU GKTOV eviavrov of his
life, in order to release certain priests whom Felix, during his
(consequently then elapsed) procuratorship (icaS 1 ov %p6vov
$7pu| T?}? 'louScu'a? eVerpoTreuez/), had sent as prisoners thither.
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
38), and so the completion of his 26th year fell in the year
from 16th March 63 to 16th March 64, that journey to
Eome is to be placed in the year 63, 1 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 6 0, Josephus would only have interested himself for his
unfortunate friends three years after the removal of the hated
governor, a long postponement of their rescue, which would
be quite inexplicable. But if Felix resigned his government
in the year 6 1, 2 it was natural that Josephus should first
wait the result of the complaint of the Jews of Caesarea to
the emperor against Felix (Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 10) ; and then,
when the unexpected news of the acquittal of the procurator
came, should, immediately after the opening of the navigation
in the year 63, make his journey to Eome, in order to lelease
his friends the priests. Further, according to Joseph. Antt.
xx. 8. 11, about the time of the entrance of Festus on office
(tcara rbv Kaipbv TOVTOV), Poppaea, the mistress of Nero, was
already his wife (yvvrj), which she became according to Tac.
Ann. xiv. 59, Suet. Ner. 35, only in May of the year 62 (see
Anger, I.e. pp. 101, 103). Now, if Festus had become already
1 "Wieseler, p. 98, following Clinton, Anger, and others, has defended the
year 64. He appeals especially to a more exact determination of the age of
Josephus, which is to be got from Antt. xx. 11. 3, where Josephus mikes his
56th year coincide with the 13th year of Domitian (13th September 93 to 13th
September 94). Accordingly, Josephus was born between 13th September 37 and
16th March 38, and therefore the above journey is to be referred not to Ihe year
63, but, as he would not have entered upon it in the autumn, only to the year 64.
But this proof is not convincing, as we are at all events entitled to seek the
strictly exact statement of the birth of Josephus in the Vita, 1 (16tl March
37 to 16th March 38), and are not, by the approximate parallelism of Antt. xx.
11. 2, justified in excluding the period from 16th March to 13th September 37.
Even if Josephus were born in March 37, his 56th year would still fall in the
13th year of Domitian.
3 See also Laurent, neutest. Studien, p. 84 ff.
INTRODUCTION. 25
procurator in the year 60, we must either ascribe to the ex-
pression Kara TOV tcaipbv TOVTOV an undue indefiniteness, ex-
tending even to inaccuracy, or in an equally arbitrary manner
understand 71^77 proleptically (Anger, Stolting), or as uxor
infusta (Wieseler), which, precisely in reference to the twofold
relation of Poppaea as the emperor's mistress and the emperor's
wife, would appear unwarranted 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 TOV icaipbv TOVTOV a space of not quite one year,
which, with the not sharply definite KCITO, K.T.\., cannot occa-
sion any difficulty. The objection urged by Anger, p. 100,
and Wieseler, p. 86, on Gal. p. 584 f., and in Herzog's Encyld.
XXI. p. 557, after Pearson and Schrader, against the year 61,
from Acts xxviii. 16, namely, that the singular T&) o-rparo-
TreSapxp 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 pri-
soners were delivered up), is quite in place. The other reasons
against the year 61, taken from the period of office of Festus
and Albinus, the successors of Felix (Anger, p. 101 ff . ;
Wieseler, p. 89 fi'.), involve too much uncertainty to be
decisive for the year 60. For although the entrance 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 contemporaneous 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 supposition (Anger, p. 105 f.), the
history of that period of rapid dissolution in the unhappy
nation raises no valid objection at all AEK. DION. 63, 64,
u.c. 815-817. Paul arrives in the spring of 62 at Rome
26 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
(xxviii. 11, 16), where he remains two years (xxviii. 30), that is,
until the spring of 6 4, in further captivity. Thus far the Acts
of the Apostles. On the disputed point of a second imprison-
ment, see on Rom. Introd. p. 15 ff.
EEMAEK 1. The great conflagration of Eome under Nero
broke out on 19th July 64 (Tac. Ann. xv. 41), whereupon com-
menced the persecution of the Christians (Tac. Ann. xv. 44).
At the same time the abandoned Gessius Floras (64-66), the
Nero of the Holy Land, the successor of the wretched Albinus,
made havoc in Judaea.
KEMAEK 2. The Book of Acts embraces the period from
A.D. 31 to A.D. 64, in which there reigned as Roman emperors:
(1) Tiberius (from 19th August 14), until 16th March 37;
(2) Caligula, until 24th January 41 ; (3) Claudius, until 15th
October 54; (4) Nero (until 9th June 68).
INTRODUCTION. 27
AUTHORITIES TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE IN
THE FOLLOWING CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE.
Euseb. Chronicon in Mai nova Collect. VIII. p. 374 ff. Hieron. Clironic.
and de vir. ill. 5. Chronicon paschale, ed. Dindorf. Baronii Annal. eccle-
siast. Eom. 1588, and later editions. Petavius, de doctrina tempor. Par. 1627,
in his Opp. Amst. 1640. Cappelli hist, apostolica Ulustr. 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. Paulinae epocha fixa,
in his Opp. Lugd. Bat. 1701, III. p. 311 ff., and his Hist. Eccl. N. T. in his
Opp. I. p. 534ff. Pearson, Lection. inprioraAct. capita, and Annales Paulin.
and in his Opp. posthuma, ed. Dodwell, Lond. 1688. Tillemont, Memoires
pour servir a I'histoire ecclis. Par. 1693, Bruxell. 1694. Basnage, Annal.
politico-eccles. Eoterod. 1706, I. p. 403 ff. J. A. Bengel, ordo tempor. Stuttg.
1741, third edition, 1770. Michaelis, Einleit. in d. go'ttl. Schr. d. N. B. II.
169. Vogel, ub. chronol. Standpunkte in d. Lebensgesch. Pauli, in Gabler's
Journ. fur auserles. theol. Lit. 1805, p. 229 ff. Heinrich's Prolegom. p. 45 ff.
The Introductions of Hug, Eichhorn, and Bertholdt. Siiskind, newer Versuch
uber chronol. Standpunkte f. d. Ap. Gesch. u. f. d. Leben Jesu in Bengel's Arch.
I. 1, p. 156 ff., 2, p. 297 ff. Comp. the corrections in Vermischte Avfsatze
meist theol. Inhalts, ed. C. F. Siiskind, Stuttg. 1831. J. E. Chr. Schmidt,
Chronol. d. Ap. Gesch. in Keil'sand Tzschirner'sudnnaZ. III. p. 128 ff. Kuinoel,
Prokgom. 7. Winer, Sealworterb. ed. 3, 1848. De Wette, Einl. 118.
Schrader, Der Ap. Paulus, I. Lpz. 1830. Hemsen, Der Ap. Paulus, ed. Liicke,
Gott. 1830 (agrees with Hug). Koehler, ub. d. Abfassungszeit d. epistol. Schrif-
ten im N. T. u. d. Apokalypse, Lpz. 1830. Comp. the corrections in Annalen
der gesammten Theol. Jun. 1832, p. 233 ff. (in Koehler's review of Schott's Eror-
terung, etc.). Feilmoser, Einl. p. 308 fl". Schott, Isag. 48. Comp. the correc-
tions in Erorterung einig. wicht. chronol. Punkte in d. Lebensgesch. d. Ap.
Paulus, Jen. 1832. Wurm, ub. d. Zeitbestimmungen im Leben d. Ap. Paulus
in the Tub. Zeitschr.f. Theol. 1833, pp. 1 ff., 261 ff. Olshausen, bibl. Kommen-
tar. II. Anger, de tempor. in Act. ap. ratione, Lpz. 1833. Wieseler, Chrono-
logic d. apost. Zeitalt. Gott. 1848, and Kommentar z. Br. an d. Gal. Gott. 1859,
Excurs. p. 553 ff. ; also in Herzog's Encykl. XXI. p. 552 ff. Ewald, Gesch. d.
apost. Zeitalt. ed. 3, 1868. See also Goschen, Bemerkungen zur Chronol. d.
N. T. in the Stud. u. Krit. 1831, p. 701 ff. Sanclemente, De vulgaris aerae
emendatione, Horn. 1793. Ideler, Handb. d. Chronol. II. p. 366 ff.
28
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
SYNOPSIS OF THE DATES FIXED
Eusebius.
Jerome.
Chronicon
Pascliale.
Baronius.
Petavius.
L. Cappellus. 1
u
p
Spanheim.
=
|
P-i
I Tillemont
tr.
c
to
|
K
Michaelis.
1
Hcinrichs.
Ascension of Christ, . 31 -j
33
32
31
32
31
33
33
33
33
33
33
30
33
31
33
Stephen's martyrdom, 33 or 34 <
a.
Claud.
I.
32
31
37
33
38?
34
33
37
30
36?
Paul's conversion, . . 35 J
33
a.
Claud.
II.
34
33
39
35
40
35
34
37
31
37?
33?
37?
Paul's first journey to Jeru- J
salem, . . . .381
a.
Claud.
III.
37
30
42
3S
43
3S
37
40
33
36?
40
Paul's arrival at Antioch, 43 <
a.
Claud.
III.
41
40
42
43
43?
42
43
40
39
42?
Death of James, . . .44-5
42
41
41
44
44
44
44
42
about
44
43
or
44
The famine, . . .44-5
41
44
42
42
44
44
44
44
44
42
44
44
44
or
46?
Paul's second journey to Jeru-
salem, 1 . . . . 44 ")
46
42
41
44
44
44
44
44
42
41
to
44
44
44
44
Paul's first missionary jour-
a.
Claud.
44
to
42
44
to
45
to
44
to
44
to
45
to
45
to
..
44
to
A*7 9
..
Paul's third journey to Jeru- ?
salem, to the apostolic <
V.
47
49
49
45
40
46
52
53
47
49
46
51
47
50
46
47
47 :
47?
47?
Council, . . . 52 (
Paul commences his second
missionary journey, . 52 1
49
49
40
53
50
51
50
47
Expulsion of the Jews from \
Rome, . . . 52 |
49
49
49
49
54
52
49
to
52
51
54?
52?
52
Paul arrives at Corinth, . 53 <
50
50
49
54
54?
52
52
51
48
54?
52?
52
Paul's fourth journey to Jeru- I
salem (al. Caesarea), and 1
52
52
51
56
54?
54
54
53
49
54?
54
third missionary journey, 55 (
Ce
(
53
52
51
56
56
54
54
53
50
Paul's abode at Ephesus, 55-58 J.
..
to
to to
to
to
to
to
to
to
(
55
54|53
59
58
67
57
55
52
Paul's fifth journey to Jeru- J
salem, and imprisonment, 59 1
53
or
54
50
55
54
60
59
58
58
56
53
60
57?
60
Paul's removal from Caesarea
to Rome, . . 61 1
55
57
under
Nero.
50
50
50
02
60
60
CO
59
55
62
59?
62
Paul's two years' imprison-
ment at Rome, . 62-64 j
?
IT.
57
to
59
57
to
5D
57
to
59
63
to
05
61
to
63
61
to
60
61
to
oy
60
to
62
50
to
58
63
to
65
60
to
62
63
to
65
1 Lehmann (in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 312 ff.) furnishes from this point onward the
following dates : Second journey to Jerusalem, 44 ; first missionary journey, 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, neutest. Stud. p. 94 ff., fixes, with me,
on the year 61 as that of the departure of Felix and the voyage of the apostle. Gerlach
INTRODUCTION.
29
BY DIFFERENT CHRONOLOGISTS.
ti
a
J2
g
3
tJ
=3
_:
+
53
ti
o
8
s-S
d
3
a
c
g
2
to
3
I
i
1
|
'3
_rt
.5
1
O
1
1
|
1
w>
1*
1
|
a
H
02
W
*
ft
W
"
a
o
<
02 s
*
5
31?
32
32
33
30?
..
35
36
33
33
33
31
29
Id.
30
33
37
87
32
..
or
37?
35
36
. .
37
39?
38
38
37
37
35
35
or
40
32
41
40
38?
or
39
37
35
37
41
35
38
or
40
38
38
38
38
40
did
40
38
38
or
43
35
not
43
41
or
42
40
38
40
43
38
41
or
43
41
41
occur.
41
41
43
43
42
44
or
43
41
41
or 44
44
44
44
or 45?
43
43
43
44
44
or
or
44
44
44
41
44
..
or
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
45
44
or
44
47?
44
44
44
44
44
oi45
45
to
45
or 46?
40
44
44
45
44
44
44
46
44
44
45
or
44
41
44
44
45
44
or 45
44
45
to
45
or 46?
40
44
45
to
to
45
48
45 ff.
46 ff.
to
45?
to
about
. .
to
to
46
46
4y
48
47
51
52
52
52?
47?
55
52
51
50
or
47
51
52
49
pr
46
52
51
52
about
50
52
51
50
53
53
53?
51
or
52
47
52
52
51
about
50
52
54?
52
about
48
about
54
52
52
between
52
and
54
49
52
63
52
not
before
49
51
or
52
52
52
53
about
eA
53
48
55?
52
52
52
or
49
52
68
52
or
49
53
52
52
53
M
53
53
55
56
55
50
Caes.
54
53
or
54
51
54
66
54
Caes.
51
55
54
56
54
55
56
to
58
57
to
59
55
to
58
50
to
52
55
to
57
54
or
55 ff.
51 ff.
to
57
55
to
67
54
to
56
54
to
56
56
and
57
54
to
57
54
to
57
to
Os
58
59
60
58
53
59
57
58
or
59
58
58
59
58
60
58
60
58
69
59
60
61
62
60
55
61
59
60
or
61
60 ',60
61
60
62
60
62
60
01
61
62
63
61
62
60
61
62
62
61
61
62
61
63
61
63
61
02
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
64
65
63
64
62
63
64
64
63
68
64
63
65
63
65
64
04
(Statthalter in Syrien und Judaa, 14) does not enter on the chronological question, but
fixes on the year 60 or 61. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 547 ff., agrees in essential
points with our dates. Stolting, Beitr. z. Exeges. d. Paul. Br. 1869, starting from the
assumption that the fourteen years in Gal. ii. 1 are to be reckoned from the conversion to the
composition of the Epistle, and that so likewise the fourteen 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, 45) ; for the third, 49 ; for the second missionary journey to Corinth, 50-52 ;
for the fourth journey to Jerusalem, 52 ; for the arrest, 56 ; for the two years' imprisonment, 59
to 61.
CHAP. I. 31
B, Lachm. Tisch. have vpd%sts dvosroXuv. So also Born. Later
enlargements of the title in codd. : Aovxqi ivayytXusrov Kpd%ti$
al. al Fpdfyis TUV dyiuv d-TroaroXuv. Peculiar to D ;
diroaroXuv. K has merely -ffgdfyis, but at the close apdfyig
v. The codex D is particularly rich in additions,
emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently de-
fended as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks :
" Hie liber (the Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et
irnpeditissimus, quod multa in eo turbata sunt. Sed corrup-
tiones versionum Syrarum, Bedae et scribae codicis D omnem
modum excedunt." Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Borne-
mann, " monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem."
CHAPTER I.
VER. 4. e-jvaXifypsvos] min. Euseb. Epiph. have
Recommended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has
UVTUV. Both are ineptly explanatory alterations. Ver. 5. The
order : sv KVSV/J,. $a.itr. ayiw, adopted by Lachm., is not sufficiently
attested by B K* against ACE min. vss. Or. al. Ver. 6.
tTiipuruv] Lachm. Tisch. read fip&ruv, according to A B C* K, the
weight of which, considering the frequency of both words in
Luke, prevails. Ver. 8. /io/] Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read pov,
decisively attested by A B C D N Or. Instead of -s-deri, Elz.
Griesb. Scholz read sv vdari. But sv is wanting in A C* D min.
Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the pre-
ceding. Ver. 10. taOriTi Xfuxfj'] A B C tf min. Syr. Copt. Arm.
Vulg. Eus. have hdqffHfi Xsvxafc Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch.
The Eec. is the usual expression. Comp. on Luke xxiv. 4.
Ver. 13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order 'ludwqc x.
'idxuj3o$, which is supported by A B C D N min. vss., also Vulg.
and Fathers. The Eec. is according to Luke vi. 14. Ver.
14. After irpostv^ Elz. has xal rp dsriasi, which, on decisive
testimony, has been omitted by modern critics since Griesbach.
A strengthening addition. Ver. 15. pudriruv] A B C* K min.
32 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have ade\<p Z>v : recommended
by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch. ; the fiec.
is an interpretation of adsXp., here occurring for the first time
in Acts, in the sense of /ia^r. Ver. 16. ravrqv is wanting in
A B C* K min. and several vss. and Fathers. Deleted by
Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express passage
of Scripture immediately follows. Ver 1 7. cvv] Griesb. Scholz,
Lachm. Tisch. Born, read !v according to decisive testimony;
ffui/is an interpretation. Ver. 19. ' AxiXda^u] There are different
modes of writing this word in the critical authorities and wit-
nesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read 'AxsXda^a^ according to A B ;
Born. ' Ax&SaifAdx according to D; K has ' A-^'kSa.^d-^. Ver.
20. Xa/3o/] Lachm. Tisch. and Born, read IM&TU according to
A B C D K Eus. Chrys ; Xa/3o/ was introduced from the LXX.
Ver. 24. ov <:,&. ex rour. ruv 8vo sva] El/, has sx rovr. ruv duo
tm ov !eX., in opposition to greatly preponderating testimony.
A transposition for the sake of perspicuity. Ver. 25. rlv xXSj/w]
A B C* D (rot. r6v) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read
rbv rovov. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (roVov r6v). Eightly ;
the Rec. is a gloss according to ver. 17. ap' %g] Elz. Scholz
read ! %$. The former has preponderating testimony. Ver.
26. aurwv] AB CD** K min. vss. have auroTg. So Lachm. and
Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the
genitive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.).
Ver. 1. Tov fiev irpwrov \6<yov eirotrja:'] Luke calls his
Gospel the first history, inasmuch as he is now about to com-
pose a second. Trpwro?, in the sense of Trpore/io?. See on
John i. 15. Xo7o?, narrative, history, or the like, what is con-
tained in a book. So in Xen. Ages. 10. 3, Andb. iii. 1.1, and
frequently. See also Schweigh. Lex. Herod. II. p. 76 ; Creuzer
Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. As to iroielv used of mental products,
comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 6 1 B : Troielv pvOov?, a\V ov \6yovs.
Hence Xo707roto9 = faropucfai Pearson, ad Moer. p. 244. pev,
without a subsequent Be. Luke has broken off the construc-
tion. Instead of continuing after ver. 2 somewhat as follows :
" but this Sevrepos Xo7o? is to contain the further course of
events after the Ascension," which thought he had before his
mind in the fj^ev, 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
CHAP. I. 1. 33
itself. Comp. Winer, p. 535 [E. T. 720]; Buttm. neut. Gr.
p. 313 [E. T. 365] ; Kiihner, ad Zen. Anal. i. 2. 1 ; Baeuml.
Partik. p. 163 f. irepl irdvrwv] a popular expression of
completeness, and therefore not to be pressed. wv ijpgaro
/C.T.X.] wv is attracted, equivalent to a ; and, setting aside the
erroneous assertion that ^p^aro iroielv is equivalent to eirofya-e
(Grotius, Calovius,Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained:
" what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until
the day," etc., as if Luke had written : &v dpZdpevos 'I^crou?
eVowjo-e K. eS&agev a%|04 K.T.\. Comp. xi. 4 ; Plat. Legg. vii
p. 807 D; Xen. Anal. vi. 4. 1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also
Luke xxiii. 5, xxiv. 27, 47; Acts i. 22, viii 35, x. 37. So
also Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 775]; Buttm. p. 320 [E. T. 374];
Lekebusch, p. 202 f. 1 But Luke has not so written, and it
is arbitrary thus to explain his words. Baumgarten, after
Olshausen and Schneckenburger, has maintained that ijp^aro
denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His ascension as
initial and preparatory, so that this second book is con-
ceived as the continuation of that doing and teaching which
was only begun by Jesus up to His ascension ; as if Luke had
written f)p%aro TTOI&V re/ecu SiSda-Kwv (as Xen. Cyr. viii.
8. 2 : apgofjiai StSaoveaw, I shall begin my teaching, Plat.
27ieaet.p. 187 A, Menex. p. 237 A; comp. Kriiger, 56. 5,
A. 1). In point of fact, ijp^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 men-
tally to realize from the Gospel all the scenes in which he has
seen Jesus come forward as acting and teaching, a begin-
ning 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 iroielv re teal SiSda-iceiv, which comprehends
the contents of the Gospel (comp. Papias in Eus. iii. 39). It
1 So also in substance Hackett, Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts
of tJie Apostles, Boston, 1858, ed. 2.
ACTS. C
34 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus : " The first
narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited
His activity in doing and teaching during His earthly life
up to His ascension" iroielv 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 commissioned by means of the Holy Spirit the apostles
whom He had chosen, belonging to &v rjpgaro K.T.\ aj^pi 975
rj/j,epa<;] a usual attraction, but to be explained as in ver. 22 ;
Luke i. 20, xvii. 27; Matt. xxiv. 38. evrei^apevo^] 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 solent, qui ab amicis, vel
etiam ex hoc mundo discedunt," Beza. Sia Trvevp. aytov]
belongs to evreik. rot? aTrocrr. : by means of the Holy Spirit, of
which He was possessor (Luke iv. 1, xiv. 18; John iii. 34,
xx. 22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so
specially as regards His disciples (ix. 5 5). Yet it is not to be
explained as : by communication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel),
since this is not promised till afterwards ; nor yet as : quae agere
deberent per Spir. S. (Grot), which the words cannot bear.
Others (Syr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Scaliger, Heu-
mann, Kypke, Michaelis, Bosenmuller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, de Wette) connect 8ia Trvev/j,. ay. with 01)9 e'feXe-
faro, quos per Sp. S. elcgerat. But there thus would result a
hyperbaton which, without any certain example in the N. T.
(Winer, p. 517 [E. T. 696]; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 333 [E. T.
388]), would put a strong emphasis, and yet without any
warrant in the context, on Sta irv. dyiov (Plat. Apol. p. 1 9 D, al. ;
Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 177 f. ; and see on Bom. xvi. 27).
01)5 ee\ef .] is added with design and emphasis ; it is the
significant premiss to evreiXajj,. K.T.\. (whom He had chosen to
Himself) ; for the earlier eicXoyr) on the part of Jesus was a
necessary preliminary to their receiving the eVroX^ Sea TTV. ay.
a-veX^di)] Luke ix. 51, xxiv. 51 (Elz.).
Ver. 3. Or? Kal ] to whom, also. To the foregoing ov? e'feXe',
namely, there is attached a corresponding incident, through
CHAP. I. 4. 35
which the new intercourse, in which the evreikd^evof; K.T.\.
took place, is now set forth. fj^ra TO TraOeiv av-rov\ includes
in it the death as the immediate result of the suffering (iii. 1 8,
xvii. 3, xxvi. 23; Heb. xiii. 12). Si* ^fiep. reaa-apd/c.'] He
showed Himself to them throughout forty days, not continuously,
but from time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well
known by the preceding ev TTO\\, re/c/jujpfoi^. rcu irepi rf)?
@aa. r. &eov\ speaking to them that which related to the Mes-
siah'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. 5 f. This diversity presupposes that a not inconsider-
able interval occurred between the composition of the Gospel
and that of Acts, during which the tradition of the forty days
was formed or at least acquired currency. The purposely chosen
oTrravo/juevos, conspiciendum se praebens (comp. Tob. xii. 19 ;
1 Kings viii. 8), corresponds to the changed corporeality of the
Eisen 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 invisi-
bility." Comp. the &<j>Qir) in Luke xxiv. 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff. ;
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' inter-
course is now added (by the simple /cat, and), in particular, the
description of the two last interviews, ver. 4 f. and ver. 6 ff., after
which the dveXtftydij took place, ver. 9. avvdXi^o^. vraprfyy.
aurofc] while He ate with them, He commanded them. o-vva\t6/j,.
is thus correctly understood by the vss. (Vulg. : convescens), Chry-
sostom (rpairityis K.QIVWVWV), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome,
Beda, and others, including Casaubon. a-vva\.leo-0at (properly,
to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in
a Greek translator of Ps. cxli. 4, where <rvva\ia6a) (LXX. : <rvv-
Svdcra)) corresponds to the Hebrew &np K ? also in Clem. Horn. 6,
and Maneth. v. 339. As to the thing itself, comp. on x. 41.
Usually the word is derived from owaAiai/, to assemble (Herod.
36 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
v. 15. 102; Xen. Anal. vii. 3. 48; Lucian, Luct. 7). It
would then have to be rendered: when He assembled with
them. 1 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 avva\(.aOei<;. The conjecture of
Hemsterhuis: <rvva\i%o pevois, is completely unnecessary, al-
though approved by Valckenaer. Trjv e7rcvyye\lav TOV
see on Luke xxiv. 49. Jesus means the promise tear
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 (TreptfMevew only here in the N". T., but often in the classics) ;
it referred to the complete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which
was to follow only after His exaltation. Comp. John vii. 39,
xv. 26, xiv. 16. Already during their earthly intercourse the
TTvevfta ay. was communicated by Jesus to the disciples par-
tially and provisionally. Luke ix. 55 ; John xx. 21, 22. fy
rj/covaare fiov] The oblique form of speech is changed, as fre-
quently also in the classics (Stallb. ad Protag. pp. 322 C,
338 B, Klihner, 850), with the increase of animation into
the direct form, Luke v. 41, and elsewhere, particularly with
Luke. See Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 330 [E. T. 385]. Bengel,
moreover, aptly says : " Atque hie parallelismus ad arctis-
simum nexum pertinet utriusque libri Lucae," but not in so
far as rjv rj/cova: (JLOV points lack to Luke xxiv. 49 as to an
earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus
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 coincides with that of
the ascension. Therefore rjv rjicovv. pov is to be considered as
a reference to a former promise of the Spirit, not recorded by
Luke (comp. John xiv. 1 6 f., xv. 2 6). On aKoveiv ri TWOS,
see Winer, p. 187 [E. T. 249].
1 Not as Luther (when He had assembled them), Grotius ("in unum recol-
ligens qui dispersi fuerunt "), and most interpreters, including even Kuinoel and
Olshausen (not Beza and de Wette), explain it, as if Luke had employed the
active. This is grammatically incorrect ; it must then have been <ri/x/ax, or,
with logical accuracy (as Luther felt), a\na.^.'ma.t.
CHAP. I. 5, 6. 37
Ver. 5. Eeminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist,
Luke iii. 16 ; 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." fiaTTTia-dria-eaOe] rrjv eTrl^vaiv Kal
rov 7r\ovrov r^? xopyylas a-rj^aivei., Theophyl. ; Matt. iii. 11;
Mark i. 8 ; Luke iii. 16 ; Acts xi. 16. Moreover, comp. on
John i. 33. ov pera TroXX. ravr. ^e/).] is not a transposi-
tion for ov iro\v fiera ravr. r/pep., but : not after many of these
(now and, up to the setting in of the future event, still current)
days. Comp. Winer, p. 152 [E. T. 201]. The position of
the negative is to be explained from the idea of contrast (not
after many, but after few). See Klihner, II. 628. On ravras,
inserted between TroXX. and rfftep., comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 6,
v. 7. 20, vii. 3. 30; Dem. 90. 11; Ale. 1. 14.
Ver. 6. Not gui convener ant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as
if what follows still belonged to the scene introduced in ver. 4 ;
but, as is evident from crvva\i, ver. 4, comp. with ver. 1 2, a
new scene, at which the ascension occurred (ver. 9). The
word of promise spoken by our Lord as they were eating
(w. 4, 5), occasioned (pev 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. 1 To the piv corresponds the Se in ver. 7. eV TO>
%pov(p /c.T.X.] The disciples, acquainted with the 0. T. pro-
mise, that in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy
Spirit would be poured out (Joel iii. 1, 2 ; Acts ii. 16 ff.), saw
in ver. 5 an indirect intimation of the now impending erection
of the Messianic kingdom ; comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 169.
In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain information con-
cerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask:
" Lord, if Thou at this time restorest the (fallen) kingdom to the
people Israel ? " The view of Lightfoot, that the words were
1 Concerning the time of the question, this expression ! r zf v V Tv*y gives
so far information that it must have occurred very soon after that meal mentioned
in ver. 4, so that no discussions intervened which would have diverted them
from this definite inquiry as to the time. Therefore it was probably on the same
day. The rtvr/a is thus explained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that ov pir*
roXA.. <ra,ur. ilft.
38 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
spoken in indignation (" itane nunc regum restitues Judaeis
illis, gui te cruci affixerunt "), simply introduces arbitrarily the
point alleged. el] 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. eV ra> %p. TOUTW]
i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume
from ver. 4f. aTroKadia-T.] See on Matt. xvii. 11. By
their TO> 'lapafa 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 Israel as such ; comp.
Luke xxiv. 21. An artificial explanation, on the other hand,
is given in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 647. The circum-
stance that, by the declaration of Jesus, ver. 4 f., their sensuous
expectation was excited and drew forth such a rash question,
is very easily explained just after the resurrection, and need
occasion no surprise "before 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. V f. Jesus refuses to answer the question of the dis-
ciples; not indeed in respect of the matter itself involved,
but in respect of the time inquired after, as not beseeming
them (observe the emphatic ov% vftajv) ; and on the contrary
(a\\d) 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 :
SiScHT/cakov TOVTO cert fj,rj a j3ov\erai o paOijTr)?, dXX' a trv/jt,-
<f>epei, paOeiv, StSafffcew. 'xpovov? rj Kaipovs] times or, in
order to denote the idea still more definitely, seasons, icaipos
is not equivalent to %povo<;, but denotes a definite marked off
portion of time with the idea of fitness. See Thorn. Mag.
p. 489 f.; Tittm. Synon. N. T. p. 41. On /, which is not
equivalent to /cat, comp. here Dem. 01. 3 : riva yap ^povov fj
riva tcaipbv rov Trapovro? /3e\riQ> ty]relre; eOero cv ry ISta
%ovcia\ has established by means of His oum plenitude of power.
CHAP. L 9. 39
On eV, comp. Matt. xxi. 23. TJie whole declaration (ver. "7) is a
general proposition, the application of which to the question put
by the disciples is left to them ; therefore only in respect of this
application is an ad hanc rem perficiendam to be mentally
supplied with edero. Bengel, however, well observes : " gravis
descriptio reservati divini ;" and " ergo res ipsa firma est, alias
nullum ejus rei tempus 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, Schrifibew.
II. 2, p. 647), the restoration of the kingdom, not for the
natural, but for the spiritual Israel, comprehending also the
believing Gentiles (Eom. iv. 9), for the 'I<rpar)\ rov Qeov
(GaL vi. 16); see Matt. viii. 11 ; John x. 16, 26, viii 42 ff. al;
and already Matt. iii. 9. Svvafjuv eVe\0. rov 07. irv. e(j>
v/j,as] power, when the Holy Spirit lias (shall have) come upon
you, Winer, p. 119 [E. T. 156]. fidprvpes] 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. 27.
ev re 'lepova-dK. . . . T?}<? 7%] denotes the sphere of the apostles'
work in its commencement and progress, up to its most general
diffusion ; therefore rfjs 7779 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 ; Eom. x. 18 ; Col. i 23 ; Mark xvi. 15.
Ver. 9. Kal ve^eXij] This Kai annexes what occurred after
the eirripOri (He was taken up, on high, not yet immediately
into heaven). The cloud, which received Him (into itself)
from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation of the pre-
sence of God, who takes to Himself His Son into the glory of
heaven. Comp. on Luke i. 35 ; Matt. xvii. 5. Chrysostom
calls this cloud TO o^fia TO (3acrC\.iKov. Concerning the
ascension itself, which was certainly bodily, but the occurrence
of which has clothed itself with Luke in the traditionary form
of an external visible event (according to Dan. vii. 1 3 ; comp.
Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64), see remark subjoined to Luke xxiv. 51.
The representation of the scene betrays a more developed tradi-
tion than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Schnecken-
burger : sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation ;
40 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Baumgarten : that the exalted Christ was to appear as the act-
ing subject properly speaking in the further course of the Book
of Acts). Nothing of this kind is indicated.
Vv. 10, 11. 'Arevi&vres rjcrav] expresses continuance: they
were in fixed gazing. To this (not to Tropevofj,. avr.) et? TOV
ovpavov belongs. Comp. iii 4, vi. 15, vii. 55, xi. 6, xiii 9 ;
2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. ra> ovpavw might also have stood, Luke
iv. 20, xxii. 56; Acts iii. 12, x. 4, xxiii. 1. See generally,
Valck. SchoL p. 309 ff. Comp. Polyb. vi 11. 7. Strangely
erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 12 : that
w? is not temporal, but as if: " they wished to fix the blue (?)
heaven, which one cannot fix." Tropevofievov avrov] whilst He,
enveloped by the cloud, was departing (into heaven). teal
IBov] as in Luke vii. 12, Acts x. 17; not as an anacoluthon,
but : behold also there I See Nagelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3.
The men are characterized as inhabitants of the heavenly
world, angels? who are therefore clothed in white (see on John
xx. 12). o? Ka\ el-Troy] who (not only stood, but) also said:
comp. ver. 3. ri ea-rijKare /c.r.X.] The meaning is : "Eemain
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." o{5r&>9] 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
oyrctx?, ov rpoTTov, comp. xxvii 25 ; 2 Tim. iii. 8.
Ver. 12. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives,
which is not only here, but also in Luke xix. 29, xxi. 37,
called eXat&ij/ (see on Luke xix. 29). Its locality is indicated
in Luke xxiv. 50, not differently from, but more exactly than
in our passage (in opposition to de Wette and others) ; and
accordingly there is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypo-
thesis that the Sabbath-day's journey is to be reckoned from
Bethphage (Wieseler, Synop. p. 435). It is not the distance
of the place of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on
1 According to Ewald, we are to think on Moses and Elias, as at the trans-
figuration. But if the tradition had meant these, and in that case it would
certainly have named them, Luke would hardly have left them unnamed.
Comp. rather Luke xxiv. 4 ; Acts x. 30.
CHAP. I. 13, 14. 41
which it occurred, that 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
(Baumgarten, p. 2 8 f. : that he wished to lead their thoughts to
the future, according to Ezek. xi. 23 ; Zech. xiv. 6), he must
have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus
would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially
as the Mount of Olives was already sufficiently known to him
from the Gospel, xix. 29, xxi. 37, without any such latent
reference. o-a/3/Sarou e'^op 6S6v] having a Sabbath's way.
The way is conceived as something which the mountain has,
i.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbour-
hood of Jerusalem. Such is and not with Wetstein and
Kuinoel: e%e/ pro ajre^eiv the correct view also in the
analogous passages in Kypke, II. p. 8. The more exact deter-
mination of o evTW etyyv? 'lepova: is here given ; hence also
the explanation of Alberti (ad Luc. xxiv. 1 3) and Kypke, that
it expresses the extent of the mountain (Sdbbati constans
itinere), is contrary to the context, and the use of !%e> is to
be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esse
(Herm. ad Vig. p. 753). A 6809 o-a/9/Sarou, a journey per-
mitted on the Sabbath 1 according to the traditionary maxims, was
of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matt. xxiv. 20. The
different statements in 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 (John xi. 16) ; see also Robinson, II. p. 309 f . ;
hence the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond
the ridge of the mountain on its eastern slope.
Vv. 13, 14. Ela-r)\6ov\ not: into their place of meeting, as
Beza and others hold, but, in accordance with what imme-
diately precedes : into the city. The simple style of a continued
narrative. TO virepwov] n*^y., the room directly under the
flat roof, used for praying and for meetings (Hieros. Sotah, f.
24. 2). See Lightfoot, p. 11 f., and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145,
1 According to Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 502, this
statement presupposes that the ascension occurred on the Sabbath. But the
inference is rash, and without any historical trace.
42 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
and concerning the word generally, which is very common with
classical writers and not a compound, see Valckenaer, Schol.
p. 317 f. ; Lobeck, Elem. I. p. 452 f. It is here to be con-
ceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to
the gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond,
Schoettgen, and Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on
account of Luke'xxiv. 53 ; see on that passage), because, con-
sidering the hatred of the hierarchy, the temple could neither
be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to them as
a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the
same room as in John xx. 19, 26. ov rjaav Kara^ where,
i.e. in which they were wont to reside, which was the place of
their common abode. The following o re ITer/jo? K.T.\. is a
supplementary more exact statement of the subject of avi-
J3rj<rav. According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only,
who were present at the ascension. In the Gospel, xxiv. 33,
comp. w. 36, 44, 50, the disciples of Emmaus and others are
not excluded; but according to Mark xvi. 14, comp. w. 15,
19, 20, it is likewise only the Eleven. As to the list of the
apostles, comp. on Matt. x. 2-4 ; Mark iii. 17, 18; Luke vi
1416. o ZfrXwTifc] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matt. x. 4.
'JouSa? 'la/cwjBov] 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, Iiitrod. 1. Already the Syriac gives
the correct rendering. ofioOvjiaSov] denotes no mere ex-
ternal being-together; but, as Luther correctly renders it:
unanimously. Comp. Dem. Phil. IV. 147 : op,o6vfia^ov etc fjuas
<yva>fj,i)s. So throughout in Acts and Eom. xv. 6. a-vv
ryvvcuf;i] along with women; not: cum uxoribus (as Calvin
holds); 1 they are partially known from the Gospels; Matt.
xxvi. 56, 61; Luke viii. 2 f., xxiv. 10; Mark xv. 40 f.
KOI Mapia] Kai, also, singles out, after the mention in general
terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special
remark. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11. aSeX^ot?] The
unbelief (John vii. 5) of the four brothers-german of the Lord
(see on Matt, xii 46, xiii. 55 ; Mark vi. 3) was very probably
1 See also Calovius and others, not uninterested in opposing celibacy.
CHAP. I. 15-17. 43
overcome by His resurrection. Comp. on 1 Cor. xv. 7.
Observe that here, besides the eleven apostles, two other classes
are specified as assembled along with them (a-vv . . . /cat <rvv),
namely (a), women, including the mother of Jesus ; and (&)
the brethren of Jesus. Among the latter, therefore, none of
those eleven can be included. This in opposition to Lange,
Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp. on John vii. 3.
Ver. 15. 'JSy TOL<S r)fj>ep. ravr.'] between the ascension and
feast of Pentecost. ITerpo?] even now asserting his position
of primacy in the apostolic circle, already apparent in the
Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus Himself. r&v
dSe\(j)a)v (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the
Book of Acts and the Epistles, the Christians according to their
brotherly fellowship ; hence here (see the following parenthesis)
both the apostles and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense.
6vo(jidT.~] of persons, who are numbered. Comp. Ewald, ad
Apoc. 3. 4. The expression is not good Greek, but formed
after the Hebrew (Num. i. 2, 18, 20, iii. 40, 43). 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.e., 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 Jerusalem, who had
now left. Comp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 434, and see on 1 Cor.
xv. 6; also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 275 f. ;
Baumgarten, p. 29 f. CTTI TO avro] locally united. Comp.
ii. 1, iii. 1. ; Luke xvii. 35 ; Matt. xxii. 34; 1 Cor. vii. 5, xi.
20, xiv. 23; Hist. Susann. 14; often also in the LXX. and
in Greek writers. See Eaphel, Polyb., and Loesner.
Vv. 16, 17. "AvSpes aSe\<j)ol is more honourable and
solemn than the simple familiar aSeX^ot. See ii. 29, 37, vii.
2, al. Comp. Xen. Andb. i. 6. 6 : az/Spe? $l\oi. See gene-
rally Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 238. eSei] It could not but
be an especial object with Peter to lay the foundation for
his judgment, by urging that the destruction of Judas took
place not accidentally, but necessarily according to the counsel
44 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
of God. rrjv <ypa<j>r)v rainrfv] 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 other-
wise 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.
OTI Karijp.] OTL is equivalent to efc e/ceivo, on (Mark xvi. 14;
John ii. 1 8, ix. 17; 2 Cor. i. 1 8, al.}. If Judas had not
possessed the apostolic office, the ypa^ referred to, which
predicted the very vacating of an apostolic post, would not have
been fulfilled in his fate. This fulfilment occurred in his case,
inasmuch as he was an apostle. rbv K\rjp. rfjs State, raur.]
the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the
apostolic office. Comp. Eom. xi. 13. o /cX^po? is primarily
the lot (ver. 26), then that which is assigned ly lot, and then
generally what is assigned, the share ; just as in Greek writers.
Comp. Acts viii. 21, xxvi. 18; Wisd. ii. 9, v. 5; Ecclus.
xxv. 19. Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an
antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of
Canaan. The genitive is to be taken partitively (share in this
ministry), as the idea of apostolic fellowship, in which each
/c\?7/3oi)%o? has therefore his partial possession in the service,
also occurs in the sequel (see vv. 22, 26). \ay%dveiv 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. See
Bernhardy, p. 176 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 2. The word is
the usual term for obtaining by lot, as in Luke i. 9 ; it next
signifies generally to obtain, and is especially used of the
receiving of public magistracies (Dem. 1306. 14; Plat. Gorg.
p. 473 E). So here in reference to r. K\ijp. T. Bia/c. ravr. ;
in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical constitu-
tion (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the usus loquendi
of the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the
thought of the actual use of the lot which afterwards took place.
Ver. 18. This person now acquired for himself a Jield for the
wages of his iniquity a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly
CHAP. I. 18. 45
known to the hearers : for the money which Judas had received
for his treason, a place, a piece of land, was purchased (Matt.
xxvii. 68). This rhetorical designation, purposely chosen on
account of the covetousness of Judas, 1 clearly proves that ver. 1 8
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: r)6t/cov Troiei TOV \6yov /cal \av-
6av6vT(0<; TTJV aiTiav TraiBevTifcrjv ovaav airoKaXinrrei. 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 (Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 134; Baumg.
p. 31 ; Lange), 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 deviat-
ing from Matthew (that Judas himself had actually purchased
the field) ; although it is improbable in itself that Judas, on
the days immediately following his treason, and under the pres-
sure 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. Kal Trprjvr)?
yevo/j,., etc.] ical is the simple and, annexing to the infamous
deed its bloody reward. By "Trprjvr)? ryevofj,? K.T.\., the death of
Judas is represented as a violent fall (irpriv^, headlong : the
opposite VTTTIOS, Horn. II. xi. 179, xxiv. 11) and bursting.
The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known,
but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliation
with Matthew that the rope, with which Judas hanged him-
self, broke, and that thus what is here related occurred is an
arbitrary attempt at harmonizing. Luke follows another tradi-
tion, of which it is not even certain whether it pointed to
suicide. The twofold form of the tradition (and in Papias there
occurs even a third 3 ) does not render a tragical violent end of
1 Beza aptly remarks that the mode of expression affirms "non quid conatns
sit Judas, sed consiliorum ipsius eventum. "
2 "Which cannot be rendered suspensus (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio).
3 See on Matt, xxvii. 5, and comp. Introd. sec. 1.
46 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Judas unhistorical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but
only makes the manner of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matt.
xxvii. 5. e\a/c?7cre] Tie cracked, burst in the midst of his body,
a rhetorically strong expression of bursting with a noise.
Horn. II xiii. 616; Act. Thorn. 37. e|e^^] Comp. Ael.
Anim. iv. 52 : ra air\6rjyya e^e^eav.
Ver. 19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the
above-mentioned expositors (also Schleierm. Einl. p. 372), as
an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the speech of Peter.
For all that they contain belongs essentially to the complete de-
scription of the curse of the action of Judas: eyei/ero forms with
eXdicrja-e and e^e^vdrj, ver. 18, one continuously flowing repre-
sentation, and yvwarrbv . . . 'lepovcr. is more suitable to rhetorical
language than to that of simple narration. But ry IBia StaXe/crw
ai>T(ov l and TOUT' e'er %&>/3. alp. 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 oppo-
sition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not
Greek but Aramaic. lyvwcrrov eyev.'] namely, what is stated
in ver. 18. wore] so that, 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 " (x^l '$, comp. Matt, xxvii. 8) was occasioned by
the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the field
was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody (according
to others : on the field itself ; see on ver. 1 8). 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
destination x>f being a ^wpiov evraffivat, (Aeschin. i 99 ;
Matt, xxviii. 7) ; hence Peter might even now quote this
name in accordance with the design of his speech. Bid-
\eKTos\ (in the N". T. only in Acts), a mode of speaking, may
express as well the more general idea of language, as the
1 a-lrai : of the dwellers of Jerusalem (who spoke the Aramaic dialect), spoken
from the standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, " quorum alter Graece scriberet
alter legeret," Erasmus.
CHAP. L 20-22. 47
narrower one of dialect} In both senses it is often used by
Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium
(Plat. Symp. p. 2 03 A, Tlieaet. p. 146 B), pronuntiatio (Dem.
982. 18), sermo (Arist. Poet. 22). In all the passages of
Acts it is dialect, 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.
Ver. 20. Pap] The tragic end of Judas was his with-
drawal 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. avT&v), because its
historical fulfilment is represented tear e^o^nv 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 evrauXt? is
not that 'xppiov which had become desolate by the death of
Judas (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others ; also Strauss,
Hofmann, de Wette, Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to
the parallel eTTia-KOTrr), and as the ^caplov is not to be con-
sidered 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, become desolate,
forsaken by its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone,
who has his dwelling therein" rrjv eTTicr/coTr.] the oversight
(Lucian, D. D. xx. 8, frequently in the LXX. and Apocr.),
the superintendence which he had to exercise, n^Q, in the
sense of the TrX^pwo-t? : the apostolic 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
1 Yalckenaer well observes on the distinction between these two ideas :
" Habent omnes dialecti aliquid inter se commune ; habent enim omnes eandem
linrjuam matrem, sed dialectum efficit, qnod habent singulae peculiare sibi."
The Greeks also employ <p&/v!j in both senses (see also Clem. Al. Strom, i. 21,
p. 404, Pott).
48 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
its transference to another is necessary. TU>V a-vve\6owrwv~\
dependent on eva, ver. 22 : one of the men who have gone
along with us (ix. 39, x. 23, al. ; Horn. II. x. 224), who have
taken part in our wanderings and journeys. Others : who
have come together with us, assembled with us (Soph. 0. E. 572 ;
Polyb. i 78. 4). So Vulgate, Beza, de Wette, but never so
in the N. T. See on Mark xiv. 53. ev Travrl 'xpovut, ev &>]
all the time, when. ei<rf)\0e teal e%fj\0ev] a current, but not a
Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deut. xxviii. 1 9 ;
Ps. cxxi 8 ; 1 Sam. xxix. 6 ; 2 Chron. L 10. Comp. John
x. 9 ; Acts ix. 28. e<' 17/^9] a brief expression for urij\0.
e</>' rjpas K. e^r}\0. a<f> rjfjuwv. See Valckenaer on the passage,
and ad Eurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 [E. T. 780].
Comp. also John i 51. apt-dp. . . . *I<aavvov is a parenthesis,
and 09 T?}9 ^/ie/?a9 is to be attached to elcrr]\0e . . . 'Irj<rovs, as
Luke xxiii. 5. See on Matt. xx. 8. 009 T. 17/4. ^9 K.T.\.~\ f/s
is not put by attraction for $, as the attraction of the dative,
very rare even among the Greek writers (see Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. II. 2. 4), is without example in the N. T., but is the
genitive of the definition of time (Matthiae, 377. 2 ; Winer,
p. 155 [E. T. 204]). So, too, in Lev. xxiii. 15 ; Bar. i 19.
Comp. Tob. x. 1 ; Susann. 15 ; Hist. Bel and Drag. 3. Hence
also the expression having the preposition involved, a%pi, 979
i7/Lte/?a9, ver. 2, comp. xxiv. 11. fidprvpa -n}9 avaa-r. avrov]
i.e. apostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrec-
tion 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. ii. 32, and see on
ver. 8). TovTfav] is impressively removed to the end, pointing
to those to be found among the persons present (of those there),
and emphatically comprehending them (Dissen, ad Dem. de
cor. p. 225). Thus Peter indicates, as a requisite of the new
apostle, 1 that he must have associated with the apostles (yfuv}
during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when
1 And Luke relates this as faithfully and dispassionately as he does what is
contained in x. 41. He would hardly have done so, if he had had the design
imputed to him by Baur and his school, as such sayings of Peter did not at all
suit the case of Paul.
CHAP. I. 23-25. 49
John was still baptizing (airo rov ftcnrT. 'Iwdw.) until the
ascension. That in this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel
suppose, 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
positive contents of the faith which was to be preached, and
as the element of the new divine life was to be diffused.
On the special subject-matter of the testimony (T?}? avaar.
avrov) Bengel correctly remarks : " qui illud credidere, totam
fidem suscepere." How 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. "Earrja-av] The subject is, as in w. 24, 26, all
those assembled. They had recognised in these two the
conditions required by v. 21 f. " Ideo hie demum sors incipit,
qua res gravis divinae decision! committitur et immediata
apostoli peragitur vocatio," Bengel. For this solemn act they
are put forward.' 'Io)er^< T. KO\. Baptra/Sdv] Concerning him
nothing further is known. For he is not identical (in opposition
to Heinrichs and others, also Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit.
1828, p. 377 ff.) with Joses Barnabas, iv. 36, against which
opinion that very passage itself testifies ; from it have arisen
the name 'I&a-rjv in B and Bapvd/3av in D (so Bornemann).
See also Mynster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 326 f.
Barsabas is a patronymic (son of Saba) ; Justus is a Roman
surname ('tDDV), adopted according to the custom then usual,
see Schoettgen. Nor is anything historically certain as to
Matthias. Traditional notices in Cave, Antiq. op. p. 735 ff.
According to Eus. i. 12. 1, he was one of the Seventy.
Concerning the apocryphal Gospel under his name, already
mentioned by Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. T. p. 782 ff.
Apocryphal Ada Andreae et Matthiae may be seen in
Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 132 ff.
Vv. 24, 25. Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in
the name of all present. The Trpoo-evgdjj,. is contemporaneous
with eiTTov : praying they said. See on Eph. i 9. tcupie]
mrp. Comp. iv. 29. In opposition to the view of Bengel,
Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to
ACTS. D
50 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Jesus, for which bv efeXeffa) is appealed to, because Christ
chooses His own messengers, xv. 7 is decisive, where the same
Peter says expressly of God : ef eXefaro Sia rod o-ro/xaro? pov
aKova-ai ra edvrj, etc., and then also calls God KapSioyvcoa-Tr)?
(comp. 37 ~\\)h } 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 KapSioyvctKrT. because
the object was to choose the intrinsically best qualified among
the two, and this was a matter depending on the divine know-
ledge of the heart. The word itself is found neither in Greek
writers nor in the LXX. In \a/3eiv rov TOTTOV (see the critical
notes) the ministry is considered as a place, as a post which the
person concerned is to receive. Oomp. Ecclus. xii. 12. /cat
aTTOGTToA,?}?] designates more definitely the previous Siaxovtas.
There is thus here, among the many instances for the most
part erroneously assumed, a real case of an / Sta Svolv. See
Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856 ; Nagelsb. z. Ilias,p. 361, ed. 3.
a<j> 175 jrape^rf] away from which Judas has passed over, to go
to his own place. A solemn circumstantiality of description.
Judas is vividly depicted, as he, forsaking his apostleship (a<$>
^9), has passed from that position to go to his own place.
Comp. Ecclus. xxiii. 1 8 : Trapa/Baivav airo T?}9 K\LV^ avrov.
Tropevd. et<? T. TOTT. T. iSiov] denotes the end destined by God
for the unworthy Judas as his own, to which he must come by
his withdrawal from the apostolic office. But the meaning of
6 T07T09 o t'Si09 (the expression is purposely chosen as correla-
tive to roy TOTTOV T. SULK, etc.) is not to be decided from the
linguistic use of TOTTO?, as ro7T09 may denote any place, but
entirely from the context. And this requires us to understand
by it Gehenna, which is conceived as the place to which Judas,
according to his individuality, belongs. As his treason was
so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to
the TOTro? I'Sio?. This explanation is also required for the
completeness and energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed
by analogous rabbinical passages ; see in Lightfoot, e.g. Baal
Turim, on Num. xxiv. 25:" Balaam ivit in locum suum, i.e. in
Gehennam." Hence the explanations are to be rejected which
refer TOTT. l'Sto9 to the habitation of Judas (Keuchen, Molden-
CHAP. I. 26. 51
hauer, Krebs, Bolten), or to that %a)ptov, where he had perished
(Eisner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarten, and others), or to the
" societas, guam cum, sacerdotibus ceterisque Jesu adversariis
inierat" (Heinrichs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann,
Kypke, comp. already Oecumenius) refer TropevOrjvai . . . iStov
even to the successor of Judas, so that the TOTT. iSto? would be
the apostleship destined for him. But such a construction would
be involved (iropevO. would require again to be taken as an
object of \a/3ety), and after \a/3eiv . . . aTroo-roX^? tautological.
The reading Sitcaiov (instead of iSiov) in A hits the correct
meaning. The contrast appears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul :
e/9 rov aytov TOTTOV eTropevOrj, and as to Peter : et? TOV 6<f>ei\6-
ftevov TOTTOV TV)? Sofys. Comp. Polyc. Phil. 9 ; Ignat. Magn. 5.
Ver. 26. And they (namely, those assembled) gave for them
(avTois, see the critical notes) lots i.e. tablets, which were
respectively inscribed with one of the two names of those pro-
posed for election namely, into the vessel in which the lots
were collected, Lev. xvi. 8. The expression eSatcav is opposed
to the idea of casting lots ; comp. Luke xxiii. 34 and parallels.
eTre&ev 6 /cX^po?] the lot (giving the decision by its falling
out) fell (by the shaking of the vessel, -jraXXeiv ; comp. Horn.
II iii. 316. 324, vii. 181, Od. xi. 206, al.~). eVt Mar0.] on
Matthias, according to the figurative conception of the lot
being shaken over both (Horn. Od. xiv. 209 ; Ps. xxii. 19, al.}.
Comp. LXX. Ezek. xxiv. 6 ; John i. 7. This decision ly the
0eia Tv^t) (Plat. Legg. vi. "759 C; comp. Prov. xvi. 33) of
the lot is an Old Testament practice (Num. xxvi. 52 ff. ; Josh,
vii. 14; 1 Sam. x. 20; 1 Chron. xxiv. 5, xxv. 8 ; Prov. xvi.
33; comp. also Luke i. 9), suitable for the time before the
effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring afterwards, and there-
fore not to be justified in the Christian congregational life by
our passage. crvyKare^fj). pera r. ev8. air.] he was numbered
along with 1 the eleven apostles, so that, in consequence of that
1 ffvyxara-^ntpi^iirffai in this sense, thus equivalent to ffu^n^tffSui (xix. 19),
is not elsewhere found ; D actually has avvi-^nfalSn as the result of a correct ex-
planation. The word is, altogether, very rare ; in Plut. Them. 21 it signifies
to condemn with. Frequently, and quite in the sense of ffvyKurti^nif. here,
<ruyKdTa.fiSfn.uff6a.i is found. K* has only xar^nQifllti. So also Constitt, ap.
vi 12. 1.
52 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to be the
twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark : " Non
dicuntur mamis novo apostolo impositae, erat enim 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 consolida-
tion 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.
CHAP. II. 53
CHAPTER II.
VER. 1. avai/rig 6po6vfta86v] Lachm. and Tisch. read vat/res 6pov, after
A B C* K, min. Vulg. Correctly : the opodvpaMv, so very frequent
in the Acts, unintentionally supplanted the o/*oD found elsewhere
in the N. T. only in John ; vdvrsg (which is wanting in N*) criti-
cally goes along with the reading O/AOU. Ver. 2. xadfotvoi]
Lachm. Tisch. Born, read xadifyptvoi, according to C D. The
Eecepta (comp. on xx. 9) is more usual in the N. T., and was
accordingly inserted. Ver. 3. /'] is wanting only in S*.
sxddiffev] Born., following D* K*, Syr. utr. Arr. Copt. Ath. Did.
Cyr., reads sxadiaav. A correction occasioned by yXwova/.
Ver. 7. After lg/<rravro di Elz. has cram?, which Lachm. Scholz,
Tisch. Born, have erased, following B D, min. and several vss.
and Fathers. From ver. 12. vpbs dxx^xouj] is wanting in
A B C N, 26, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Vulg. Theodoret. Deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. It was, as self-evident, easily passed over.
Its genuineness is supported by the reading Kpb$ aAAjjXcus, ver. 1 2,
instead of aXXoj vpbs aXXov, which is found in 4, 14, al., Aeth.
Vulg. Chrys. Theophyl., and has manifestly arisen from this
passage. Ver. 12. ri &v QsXoi rovro timi\ Lachm. Born, read ri
6'sl.ei rovro sJvat, following A B C D, min. Chrys. : A has dsXa after
roSro. But after Xsyetv the direct expression was most familiar
to the transcribers (comp. ver. 7). Ver. 13. dia^\(vd^Tig] Elz.
reads ^svd^ovrsg, against preponderating testimony. Ver. 16.
'iwjjX] Tisch. and Born, have deleted this word on too weak
authority (it is wanting among the codd. only in D). Ver.
17. IVUTV/O/S] Elz. reads ivvnvia, against decisive codd. From
LXX. Joel iii. 1. Ver. 22. ai//] Elz. reads xul avrof. But
Lachm. and Tisch. have correctly deleted xa/, in accordance with
A B C* D E K, min. and several vss. and Fathers, xai, both
after xadus and before auro/, was very familiar to the transcribers.
Ver. 23. After wdorov Elz. and Scholz read *.a{36vTe$, which is
wanting in A B C K*, min. and several vss. and Fathers. An
addition to develope the construction. Instead of %e/f wv,
Lachm. Tisch. Born, have y^ip 6c, following A B C D N, min. Syr.
p. Aeth. Ath. Cyr. And justly, as %f/pwy was evidently inserted
54 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
for the sake of the following avfauv. Ver. 24. tiavdrou] D, Syr.
Erp. Copt. Vulg. and several Fathers read adou. So Born. From
vv. 27, 31. Ver. 27. $dov] Lachm. Born, and Tisch. read afyv,
which was already recommended by Griesb., in accordance with
A B C D K, min. Clem. Epiph. Theophyl. As in the LXX. Ps.
xvi. 10, the reading is also different, A having adov and B <5?jv;
the text here is to be decided merely by the preponderance of
testimonies, which favours adnv. Ver. 30. Before xuSiaai, Elz.
Scholz, Born, read rb xard ffdpxa dvaffrfastv rbv Xpttfrov, which is
wanting in A B C D** K, min. and most vss. and several
Fathers, has in other witnesses considerable variation, and, as
already Mill correctly saw, is a marginal gloss inserted in the
text. Instead of T-eD 6p6vov, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read rbv dpovov,
according to A B C D K, min. Ens. This important authority,
as well as the circumstance that eni with the genitive along
with xaSifyiv is very usual in the N". T. (comp. Luke xxii. 20;
Acts xii. 21, xxv. 6, 17 ; Matt. xix. 28, xxiii. 2, xxv. 31), decides
for the accusative. Ver. 31. xar&e/p&ri] A B C D E K, min. and
several Fathers read fy%uritei<pdi). Recommended by Griesb.,
and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. From ver. 27. Therefore
not only is &8qv (instead of adov) read by Tisch., but also after
xareXsltpdr) there is read by Elz. ^ -^vx$ ai/rou, for the omission of
which the authorities decide. oun . . . ours is according to
important testimony to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.,
instead of ou . . . ovde, as the reading given in the text appears
likewise to have been formed from ver. 27. Ver. 33. u/teTs]
Elz. Scholz have vw limits. But, according to A B C* D K, min.
and many vss. and Fathers, Lachm. Born. Tisch. have erased
vvv, which is an addition by way of gloss. Ver. 37. woifaoptv]
iroifiaapev is found in A C E K, min. Fathers. But the delibe-
rative subjunctive was the more usual. Comp. on iv. 16.
Ver. 38. s'pj] is, with Lachm. and Tisch., to be erased, as it is
entirely wanting in B min. Vulg. ms. Aug., and other wit-
nesses read pjo/V, which they have partly after ptravorio. (A C K,
15, a/.), partly after aurouj (D). A supplementary addition.
Ver. 40. diiftaprvparo] Elz. Scholz read du/AapTvpero, against deci-
sive testimony. A form modelled after the following imperfect
Ver. 41. After olv, Elz. Scholz read dapevug, which Lachm.
and Tisch. have deleted, in accordance with far preponderating
testimony. A strengthening addition. Ver. 42. xa, before rJj
xXdan is rejected by decisive testimony (erased by Lachm. Tisch.
Born.). Ver. 43. iyevtro] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read eyivtro,
according to A B C D K, min. Vulg. Copt. Syr. utr. This con-
siderable attestation prevents us from assuming a formation
CHAP. II. 1. 55
resembling what follows; on the contrary, lysviro has been inserted
as the more usual form. Ver. 47. r$j ixxXriatcf,'] is wanting in
A B C K, Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm/Vulg. Cyr. Deleted by
Lachm., after Mill and Bengel. It was omitted for the sake of
conformity to ver. 41, because exi rb auro, iii. 1, was considered
as still belonging to ii. 47, and therefore iii. 1 began with Usrpb$
d'e (so Lachm.).
Ver. I. 1 When the day of Pentecost became full, i.e. when the
day of Pentecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day
is, according to the Hebrew mode (see Gesen. Thes. s.v. tfta),
conceived as a measure to be filled up (comp. also ix. 23 ;
Luke ii. 6, xxii. 9, 51, and many similar passages in the
N". T. and in the Apocrypha) ; so long as the day had not
yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was
not yet filled, but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the
fulfilment, the making the day full, the o-i^TrX^poxn? (comp.
3 Esdr. i. 58; Dan. ix. 2) therewith occurred ; by which,
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 variance with
the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the
time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite with-
out warrant, Hitzig (Ostern und Pfingst, p. 39 f.) would place
the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in opposition to
this, Schneckenb. p. 1 9 8 f. f] TrevrtjKoo-r^] is indeed originally
to be referred to the rjpepa understood ; but this supplementary
noun had entirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become
quite an independent substantive (comp. 2 Mace. xii. 32). TTCV-
TTjKoa-rr) also occurs in Tob. ii. 1, quite apart from its numeral
signification, and eV rf] TrevTrjKoa-rfj eoprf) is there : on the Pente-
cost-feast. See Fritzsche in loc. The feast of Pentecost, JH
nijn$, Deut. xvi. 9, 10 (a^La kirra efBSopa&wv, Tob. I.e.), was one
of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast of the grain-
harvest (Ex. xxiii 1 6 ; Num. xxviii. 2 6), and subsequently,
although we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus
(comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 680), regarded also
1 Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, see van Hengel, de gave der talen,
Pinksterstudie, Leid. 1864.
5~6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
as the "celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling
(Ex. xix. 1) in the third month (Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex
Talm. ill. p. 741 ; Buxt. Synag. p. 438). It was restricted to
one day, and celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first day
of the Passover (Lev. xxiii. 1 5, 1 6) ; so that the second paschal
day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offering, is to
be reckoned as the first of these fifty days. See Lightfoot and
Wetstein in loc. ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 476 f . ; Keil, Archdol.
83. Now, as in that year the Passover occurred on the
evening of Friday (see on John xviii. 2 8), 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. 1 Therefore the custom
which, besides, cannot be shown to have existed at the time of
Jesus of the Karaites, who explained mtJ> 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 always
on a Sunday (Ideler, II. p. 613 ; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349), 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 with the Karaites both Passover and Pentecost. 2
But still the question arises : Whether Luke himself conceived
of that first Christian Pentecost as a Saturday or a Sunday ?
As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradi-
tion, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening
and be partaken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes
the Friday of the crucifixion the 15th of Nisan; so he must
necessarily but just as erroneously have conceived of this
first irevrriKoa-rri as a Saturday (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost.
Zeitalt. p. 1 9), 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 cele-
bration of Pentecost ; which, indeed, does not correspond with
1 In opposition to the riew of Hupfeld, de primitiva et vera festorum ap.
Hebr. ratione, Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned from the last
paschal day ; see Ewald, Jahrb. IV.. p. 134 f.
3 See also Vaihinger in Herzog's Encykl. XI. p. 476 f.
CHAP. n. 2. 57
his account of the day of Jesus' death as the 15th Nisan, but
shows the correctness of the Johannine tradition. r\<rav
TrdvTes 6/j,ov Ctrl TO avro] Concerning the text, see the critical
remarks ; concerning eVl TO avro, see on i 15. These
Traz/re?, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of
Jesus 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 paOijTaL 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 irdvres, designedly added, by no means
corresponds to the small number of the apostles (i. 26),
especially as in the narrative immediately preceding mention
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 limited even to the 120
persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic
saying of Joel, adduced in ver. 1 6 ff., that the effusion of the
Spirit was not on the apostles merely, but on all the new
people of God, so that airavre<; (ver. 1) must be understood of
all the followers of Jesus (of course, according to the latitude of
the popular manner of expression).
Ver. 2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as
an audible o-^etov a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven
as of a violent wind 'borne along (comp. Trvevfta {Staiov, Arrian.
Exp. Al. ii 6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11). The wonderful sound
is, by the comparison (ucnrep) 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, Hein-
richs), or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon (comp.
Neander, p. 14). 1 Comp. Horn. Od. vi 20. oltcov] is not
arbitrarily and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room
(Valckenaer), but is to be understood of a private house, and,
1 Lightfoot aptly remarks : "Sonus venti vehementis, sed abs<jue vento ; sic
etiam linguae igneae, sed absque igne."
58 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
indeed, most probably of the same house, which is already
known from i. 13, 15 as the meeting-place of the disciples of
Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus par-
took of the last supper (Mark xiv. 12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures,
cannot be determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as,
after the older commentators, 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
supposition that they were assembled in the temple is not
required by the great multitude of those that flocked together
(ver. 6). The private house may have been in the neighbour-
hood 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 thirty halls built around it, which
he calls ot/cou? ; 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 not take
place in the temple, with the same warrant there might be
seen in this an equally imposing indication of the entire sever-
ance of the new theocracy from the old. Yet Luke has indi-
cated 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 (Commentat. 1820, pp. 323; comp. libl. Theol. II.
p. 41) infers from fyaav . . . e-jrl TO avro, ver. 1, as well as from
04/C09, KaOrjuevoi, ov peOvova-iv, ver. 15, etc., that this Christian
CHAP. II. 3. 59
private assembly, at the first feast of Pentecost, had for its
object the celebration of the Agapae. Comp. Augusti, Derik-
wurdigJceiten aus der christl. Arch. IV. p. 124. An interpreta-
tion 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 r)<rav KaOe^o/jLevoi]
where, that is, in which they were sitting. We have to con-
ceive 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 o-i}fj,eiov immediately follows the
visible. Incorrectly Luther : " there were seen on them the
tongues divided as if they were of fire." 1 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 present (see the following e/eddtcre /c.r.X).
They were thus appearances of tongues, which were luminous,
but did not burn ; not really consisting of fire, but only eocrel
7rvpo9 ; and not confluent into one, but distributing themselves
severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire, they bore
an analogy to electric phenomena ; their tongue-shape referred
as a a"r)fj,ecov to that miraculous \a\eiv which ensued immedi-
ately after, and the fire-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 a-rj^ela, vv. 2, 3,
is impossible. Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19, fancifully
supposes that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the
heavenly powers from above, audible to the opened visionary
1 Therefore the expression is not to be explained from Isa. v. 24, for there
B'N titj6 is a representation of that which consumes.
I
60 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
sense, and that the tongues of fire were a disengaging of the
solar fire-power of the earth and its atmosphere (?). 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 re-
semblances; and besides, the room of a house, where the pheno-
menon exclusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for any
such natural development. The representation of the text is
monstrously altered by Heinrichs : Fulgura cellam vere pervade-
"bant, sed in inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostolorum commota
mens ; as also by Heumann : that they believed that they saw
the fiery tongues merely in the ecstatic state ; and not less so by
Eichhorn, who says that " they saw flames" signifies in rabbinical
usus loquendi: 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 Eabbins to be understood literally in imitation of the
phenomena at Sinai, of which phenomena, we may add, a real
historical analogue is to be recognised in our passage.
eicddtve re] namely, not an indefinite subject, something (Hil-
debrand, comp. Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 118 [E. T. 134]), but
such a 7\o)<ro-a wa-el Trvpos. If Luke had written Kd6i<rav (see
the critical remarks), the notion that one <y\S>(rcra sat upon
each would not have been definitely expressed. Comp. Winer,
p. 481 [E. T. 648]. Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen,
Kuinoel, incorrectly take irvp as the subject, since, in fact,
there was no fire at all, but only something resembling fire ;
too-et Trvpos serves only for comparison, and consequently irvp
cannot be the subject of the continued narrative. Others, as
Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf, Bengel, Hein-
richs et al., consider the irvevpa a<yiov as subject. In that
case it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche (Conject.
I. p. 13): KaOiaavTos <j> eva exaa-TOV avrwv eVX^o-^crai/
aTrayre? Tn/eu/zaro? aylov, and Matt. xvii. 1 8 would be similar.
Very harsh, seeing that the Trvevfia ayiov, in so far as it sat on
the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the
CHAP. II. 4. 61
fiery tongues ; but in so far as it filled the assembled, as the
Tri/eO/ta itself, different from the symbol. The re joining on
to the preceding (Lachm. reads xal, following insufficient testi-
mony) connects cKaOiae K.T.\. with w^drjcav K.T.\. into an
unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts :
ax^dijaav K.T.\., e7r\ij(r6r)a-av K.T.\, and ijpf;avTo tf.r.X, as is
marked by the thrice recurring xat.
Ver. 4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued
the internal filling of all who were assembled, 1 without excep-
tion (eV\. a7rai/T9, comp. ver. 1), with the Holy Spirit, of which
the immediate result was, that they, and, indeed, these same
aTravres (comp. iv. 31) accordingly not excluding the apostles
(in opposition to van Hengel) ffp^avro \a\eiv erepais 7\<a<rcra/.9.
Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit (Luke i. 41, 47 ;
John xx. 22 ; comp. also Luke ix. 55) are related to the pre-
sent as the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent,
complete, and antitypical, such as could only occur after the
glorifying of Jesus (see ver. 33 ; John xvi. 7, vii. 39). rf/afairo]
brings into prominence the primus impetus of the act as its
most remarkable element. \a\eiv erepai<s v\o><r<rai<i] For
the sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is
decisive that erepats 7X0)0-0-019 on the part of the speakers
was, in point of fact, the same thing which the congregated
Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as rat? rmerepais
(comp. ver. 8 : rfj ISla Sta\e/cT> -fjp&v). The erepcu
therefore are, according to the text, to be considered
as absolutely nothing else than languages, which were different
from the native language of the speakers. They, the Galileans,
spoke, one Parthian, another Median, etc., consequently lan-
guages of another sort (Luke ix. 2 9 ; Mark xvi. 1 3 ; Gal. i 6),
i.e. foreign (1 Cor. xiv. 21); and these indeed the point wherein
precisely appeared the miraculous operation of the Spirit
not acquired Tyy study (y\a>a-a-ai,<s Kcuvais, Mark xvi. 17).
Accordingly the text itself determines the meaning of j\(aa-<rai
as languages, not: tongues (as van Hengel again assumes on the
basis of ver. 3, where, however, the tongues have only the
1 Chrysostom well remarks : oil* > irrs -ravrsj, xou aufefro*.uv oWa/v \*ti, il ft*
xtti l xx< fnf't<rx,i. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff.
62 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
symbolic destination of a divine o-^etoy 1 ) ; and thereby excludes
the various other explanations, and in particular those which
start from the meaning verba dbsoleta et poetica (Galen, exeg.
glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22. 3 f . ;
Quinctil. i. 8 ; Pollux, ii. 4 ; Plut. Pyth. orac. 24 ; and see Giese,
Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff.). This remark holds good (1) of the inter-
pretation of Herder (von d. Gdbe der Sprachen am ersten christl.
Pfingstf., Eiga, 1794), that new modes of interpreting the ancient
prophets were meant ; (2) against Heinrichs, who (after A. G.
Meyer, de charismate r&v 7\ax7cr<yp, etc., Hannov. 1797) founds
on that assumed meaning of y\a>cr<rai his explanation of enthu-
siastic speaking in languages which were foreign indeed, different
from the sacred language, but were the native languages of the
speakers ; (3) against Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 33ff.,
1830, p. 45 ff. The latter explains yXaxra-ai as glosses, i.e. un-
usual, 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
these glosses were borrowed from different dialects and lan-
guages (therefore erepcw). Against this explanation of the
7\wcrcrai, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition,
the usus loguendi is already decisive. For 7\wcrcra in that
sense is a grammatico-technical expression, or at least an ex-
pression borrowed from grammarians, which is only as such
philologically beyond dispute (see all the passages in Bleek,
p. 33 ff., and already in A. G. Meyer, I.e. ; Fritzsche, ad Marc.
p. 741). But this meaning is entirely unknown to ordinary
linguistic usage, and particularly to that of the 0. 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 expres-
1 Van Hengel understands, according to ver. 3, by input yx., "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 glori-
fjdng of God in Christ, " such as had not been done before. Previously their
tongues had been without fire.
CHAP. II. 4. 63
sion even into the mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites,
etc. ? For r//j,eTepais y\coaa-ai<j, ver. 11, must be explained in
a manner entirely corresponding to this. Further, there would
result for ^ere/jat? a wholly absurd meaning, rjpeTepai y\co<r-
a-ai, 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 'Arri/cal ry\5)<rcrat,
of Theodoras (in Athen. xiv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf )
are provincialisms of Attica, which were not current among
the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is further decisive against
Bleek that, according to his explanation of y\<oa<ra trans-
ferred also to 1 Cor. xii. 14, no sense is left for the singular
term 7X060-0-77 \a\eiv, for y\wa-aa could not denote genus
locutionis glossematicum (Xe^t? r^Kwaai^iaTLKr], Dionys. Hal. de
Thuc. 24), but simply a single gloss. As Bleek's explanation
falls to the ground, so must every other which takes ry\(r(rai
in any other sense than languages, which it must mean accord-
ing to w. 6, 8, 11. This remark holds particularly (4) against
the understanding of the matter by van Hengel, according to
whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other
tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely,
in the excitement of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in
Aramaic, so that each of those who came together heard the
language of his own ancestral worship from the mouth of these
Galileans, ver. 6.
From what has been already said, and at the same time from
the express contrast in which the list of nations (w. 9-11)
stands with the question OVK ISov irdvre^ . . . PaXtXatoi (ver. 7),
it results beyond all doubt that Luke intended to narrate nothing
else than this : the persons possessed by the Spirit began to speak
in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of
their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations, 1
the knowledge and use o/ which were previously wanting to them,
and were only now communicated in and with the Trvevpu ayiov.
1 Comp., besides 1 Cor. xiv. 21, Ecclus. praef. : ft,ira%0~ (the Hebrew)
tit iripav y^ufffftti (Leo, Tact. 4. 49 : yA<u<r-a;j 'SiaQopoit XaXs/V) ; also Aesch.
Sept. 171 : iroZ.iv ^opivovov ft,* vrpi&uQ' IrtpaQuvy ffrparu. Not different is Find.
Pyth. xi. 43 : a,M.orpieeiin y\u<r<ra,is.
64 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Comp. Storr, Opusc. II. p. 290 ff., III. p. 277 ff. ; MilviUe, Olss.
theol. exeg. de dono linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesch.
d. apost. K. p. 201 ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche, Nova opusc.
p. 304 f. The author of Mark xvi. 17 has correctly under-
stood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our nar-
rative, he wrote icaivais instead of erepats. The explanation
of 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 speaking all the languages of the
earth (Augustin. : " coeperunt loqui linguis omnium gentium"},
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 col-
legit," 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. 9-11, any
others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in the
apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unneces-
sary, as the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew
and Greek (comp. Schneckenb. neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 17 ff.), and
partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly
very many who did not enter upon 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.
But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically ? On
this the following points are to be observed: (1) Since the
sudden communication of a facility of speaking foreign lan-
guages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and
morally conceivable, and since in the case of the apostles not
the slightest indication of it is perceptible in their letters or
otherwise (comp., on the contrary, xiv. 1 1) ; since further, if
it is to be assumed as having been only momentary, the im-
possibility is even increased, and since Peter himself in his
address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign
CHAP. II. 4. 65
languages, the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be pre-
sented 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 representation of the entire
future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The analogy of
magnetism (adduced especially by Olshausen, and by Baeumlein
in the Wurterrib. Stud. VL 2, p. 118) 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 repre-
sentation of an idea, 1 and that, indeed, only at the time and
without leaving behind a permanent facility of speaking
languages (Eossteuscher, Gdbe der Sprachen, Marb. 1850,
p. 97: "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 holiness 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 subjective 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 con-
fusion of tongues as its corresponding historical type. This
remark also applies against Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff.,
according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the
inner life ly which men'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 the Spirit. (4) Neverthe-
less, the state of the 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
1 Comp. Augustine, serm. 9 : Loquebatur enim tune unus homo omnibus lin-
guis, quia locutura erat unitas ecclesiae in omnibus linguis.
ACTS. E
66 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
(Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de charismatib. sp. s., Lips. 1818,
Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Fritzsche, Schrader, and others) ; along
with which David Schulz (d. Geistesgaben d. ersten Christen,
Breslau, 1836) explains erepcus ryXwa-aais even of other kinds
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 occasion for the
astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with Thiess,
resort even to the hypothesis 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 there-
fore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwarranted, 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
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 loc., and Beza on x. 46. This
opinion (which Billroth on 1 Cor. strangely outbids by his
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. 6 ; is found thereafter in the Pseudo-
Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 6 0, ed.
Brem. (p. 475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others ;
and has recently been advocated especially by Schnecken-
burger, Beitr. p. 84 ; comp. fib. den Zweck d. Apostelgesch.
p. 202 ff. : x legend also presents later analogous phenomena
(in the life of Francis Xavier and others). (6) The miraculous
gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative
(see Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 309 ff. ; Zeller, p. 104 ff. ;
Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. 87 ff.), 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 Kadoas Kai rjpels in that passage shows that the
1 Svenson also, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 ff., arrives at
the result of a miracle of hearing.
CHAP. II. 4. 67
\a\etv 7\cwcro-at5, which there occurred at the descent of the
Spirit on those assembled, cannot have been anything essen-
tially different from the event in Acts ii. A corresponding
judgment must in that case be formed as to xix. 6. But we
have to take our views of what the 7\<wa-c-ai9 \a\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 speaking 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 supervened, Olshausen), which
emerged for the, first time in the Christian church, and that
immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost, a
phenomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it
belongs, was elaborated and embellished by legend into a speak-
ing in foreign languages, and accordingly into an occurrence
quite unique, not indeed as to substance, but as to mode (comp.
Hilgenfeld, p. 146), and far surpassing the subsequently
frequent and well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel
in the further history of the church. 1 How this transformation
the supposition of which is by no means to be treated with
suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief (in opposition to
1 The conclusion of Wieseler (Stiid. u. Krit. 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as
a companion of Paul, must have been well acquainted with the glossolalia,
could not have represented it as a speaking in foreign languages, is incorrect.
Luke, in fact, conceives and describes the Pentecostal miracle not as the glos-
solalia, which was certainly well known to him, as it was a frequent gift in the
apostolic age, but as a quite extraordinary occurrence, such as it had been pre-
sented to him by tradition ; and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of the
distinction between it and the speaking with tongues, which he knew by experi-
ence. "With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog's Encykl. XVIII. p. 689) sees
in our narrative a later legendary formation, but from a time which was no longer
familiar with the nature of the glossolalia. This latter statement is not to be
conceded, partly because Luke wrote soon after the destruction of Jerusalem,
and the source which he here made use of must have been still older ; and
partly because he was a friend of Paul, and as such could not have been other-
wise than familiar with the nature of that %<ipi<rfta, which the apostle himself
richly possessed.
G8 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Eossteuscher, p. 125) 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 part
Galileans (in the elaborated legend ; all of them, Galileans),
there were also some foreigners, and that among these very
naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossolalia 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 explain how
the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which
it has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies
more particularly the languages spoken. That a symbolical
view 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 punishment,
according to which idea there was to be again in the Mes-
sianic time e*5 Xao? Kvpiov /cat <y\u>a<ra /ua (Test. XII. Pair.
p. 6 1 8), is not to be assumed (Schneckenburger, Eossteuscher,
de Wette), since this idea as respects the <y\wava pia is not a
N. T. one, and it would 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 (comp. Zeller, Hilgen-
feld) cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the
occurrence 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 in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff., whose explanation, how-
ever, of highly poetical discourse, combined with foreign ex-
pressions, agrees neither with the ere/3. 7^. generally nor with
w. 8 and 11; by Baur in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p.
101 ff., who, however, explains on this account ere/3. 7\. as
new spirit-tongues? and regarded this expression as the original
1 Which the Spirit has created for Himself as His organs, different from the
usual human tongues. See also in his neutest. Theol. p. 323 f.
CHAP. II. 4. 69
one, but subsequently in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff.,
amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acceded to the
view of Bleek; by Steudel in the Tub. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p.
133 ff., 1831, 2, p. 128 ff., who explains the Pentecostal
event from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired
address encountered in others, a view which does not at all
suit the concourse of foreign unbelievers in our passage ; by
Meander, who, however (4th edition, p. 28), idealizes the
speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and
indistinctly ; by Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 18 38, p. 743 ff.,
1860, p. 117, who makes the epfiyveia y\(ocra-o}v be described
according to the impression made upon the assembled Jews,
an idea irreconcilable with our text (w. 6-1 2) ; by de Wette,
who ascribes the transformation of the glossolalia in our passage
to a reporter, who, from want of knowledge, imported into
the traditional facts a symbolical meaning; by Hilgenfeld,
according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages
as a special 70/09 of speaking with tongues ; by van Herigel,
who sees in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the
original fact in our passage ; and by Ewald (Gesch. d. apost.
Zeitalt. p. 123 ff., comp. Jahrb. III. p, 269 ff.), who represents
the matter as the first outburst of the infinite vigour of life and
pleasure in life of the new-born Christianity, 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 lan-
guages were, in the surging of excitement, crowded and con-
glomerated, etc., a view in which the appeal to the a/3/3a o
irarrip and papav aOd is much too weak to do justice to the
erepcu? ^Xtutrcrat? 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 lan-
guages, such as Luke represents it, has been maintained down
to the most recent times (Baeumlein in the Wurtemb. Stud.
1834, 2, p. 40 ff. ; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 658 ff.,
1844, p. 708 ff. ; Zinsler, de charism. rov y\. \a\. 1847 ;
Englmann, v. d. CJiarismen, 1850; Maier, d. Glossalie d. apost.
70 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ZeitalL 1855; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitcdt. p. 6 7 ; Ross-
teuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler ; comp. also Kahnis, wm heil.
Geiste, p. 6 1 ff., Dogmat. I. p. 51 7, Schaff, and others), a con-
ception which Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 206 ff., 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, 1 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. 2 Kada>s, as,
in which manner, i.e. according to the context: in which
foreign language. aTro^deyyea-dai] eloqui (Lucian. Zeux. 1,
Paras. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 405 E, Diog. L. i. 63), a purposely
chosen word (comp. ii. 14, xxvi. 25) for loud utterance in the
elevated state of spiritual gifts (1 Chron. xxv. 1 ; Ecclus.
Prolog, ii. ; comp. aTro^deypa, Deut. xxxii. 2, also Zech. x. 2),
also of false prophets, Ezek. xiii. 19; Mich. v. 12. See,
generally, Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 417 ; also Valckenaer, p. 344 ;
and van Hengel, p. 40.
Ver. 5 gives, as introductory to what follows, 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,
* "Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identifies the matter even with the appear-
ance of the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, recorded in 1 Cor. xv. 6 !
Gfrorer, Gesch. d. Urchr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the Pentecostal
history in our passage from the Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as the
festival of the law, urging the mythical miracle of tongues on Sinai (comp. also
Schneckenburger, p. 202 fi.).
2 Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul's idea of the x/u/V raT; y\aua.n ru
avfyaru* xal ru> iyyfaat, I Cor. xiii. 1, converted into reality. According to
Baur, neutest. Thecl. p. 322, there remains to us as the proper nucleus of the
matter only the conviction, which became to the disciples and first Christians a
fact oj their consciousness, that the same Spirit by whom Jesus was qualified to
be the Messiah had also been imparted to them, and was the specific principle
determining the Christian consciousness oj their fellowship. This communica-
tion of the Spirit did not, in his view, even occur at a definite point of time.
CHAP. II. C. VI
and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that ver. 5
refers to the \a\eiv erep. 7\, 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 'lovBaioi and the TdkCkaloi, (so desig-
nated 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.
See also van Hengel, p. 9. rja-av . . . KaroiKovvre<i\ they were
dwelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary residence
(Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others), but of the domicile (Luke
xiii. 4 ; Acts vii. 48, ix. 22, oil. ; Plat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii.
p. 969 C) which they had taken up in the central city of the
theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as
Israelites (hence evXajSeis, comp. on Luke ii. 25). Comp.
Chrys. : rb KaroiKeiv ev\a/3ela<; fjv crrjfjLeiov' 770)5 ; airb
yap edvwv oz/re? Kal irarpiSas afyivres . . . WKOVV e/cei.
VTTO rbv ovpav."] sc. eOvwv, of the nations to be found under heaven
(Bernhardy). VTTO rbv ovpavov is classical, like VTTO TOV rpuoz>.
Comp. Plat. Up. p. 326 C, Tim. p. 23 C. 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. Trjs (frwvfjs ravrr)^ this sound, which, inasmuch as
euro? points back to a more remote noun, is to le referred to
the wind-like rushing of ver. 2, to which also yevofi. carries us
back. Comp. John iii. 8. Luke represents the matter in
such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of
meeting 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 wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. Others,
as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld,
think that the loud speaking of the inspired 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
72 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 fywvri in the sense of ^^t]. Contrary to
the usus loquendi; even in Gen. xlv. 1 6 it is otherwise. crvve-
Xufly] mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed. Comp.
ix. 22; 1 Mace. iv. 27; 2 Mace. x. 30; Herod, viii. 99;
Plat. Ep. 7, p. 346 D ; Diod. S. iv. 62 ; Lucian. Nigr. 31.
el? e/eao-To?] annexes to the more indefinite tftcovov the exact
statement of the subject. Comp. John xvi. 32 ; Acts xi. 29 al.;
Jacobs, ad AcJiill. Tat. p. 622 ; Ameis on Horn. Od. x. 397 ;
Bernhardy, p. 420. SiaXeVrw] is here also not national
language, but dialect (see on i. 19), language in its provincial
peculiarity. It is, as well as in ver. 8, designedly chosen,
because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different
languages, 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 Elamites, Persian, but also in dif-
ferent provincial forms. Therefore, the persons possessed by
the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, ex-
pressed themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the erepwv
V\o)cr<ra>v. The view that the Aramaic dialect was 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 irpoar)\vroi, (ver. 1 0), which would be meaningless ; and
from ver. II, 1 as well as from the opinions expressed in vv. 12,
13, which would be without a motive as an exegetical impossi-
bility, which is also already excluded by efc eKcta-ros in ver. 6.
\a\ovvrwv avr&v] 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 spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark
applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common
explanation of \a\eiv ere/). 7\&>o-o-at<?, that each individual
must have spoken in the different languages simultaneously.
1 "Where neither in itself nor according to ver. 8 can Ta/"; ripiripauf y>,<r<ra;;
mean what van Hengel puts into it : as we do with our oivn tongues.
CHAP. II. 7, 8. 73
The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), as it ex-
presses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and
consequently even the summary avrwv is quite in order.
Vv. 7, 8. 'Egta-ravTo denotes the astonishment now setting in
after the first perplexity, ver. 6 ; edav/^a^ov is the continuing
wonder resulting from it. Comp. Mark vi. 51. ISov] to be
enclosed within two commas. irdvre^; ovroi /c.r.X.] pointing
out : all the speakers present. It does not distinguish two kinds
of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak
(van Hengel) ; but see ver. 4. The dislocation occasioned by
the interposition of eieiv brings the Travres OVTOI, into more
emphatic prominence. Ta\t\alot] They wondered to hear
men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian, Median, etc.
This view, which takes PaX 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, Eossteuscher, van Hengel,
and older commentators, to bring into prominence the acces-
sory idea of want of culture (uncultivated Galileans') ; and
erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to con-
sider PaX as a designation of the Christian sect a designation,
evidence of which, moreover, can only be adduced from a later
period. Augusti, Derikwurd. IV. pp. 49, 55. 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 opposition to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche,
nova op-use, p. 310. Ka\ TTW?] Kai, as a simple and, annexes
the sequence of the sense ; and (as they are all Galileans) how
happens it that, etc. ^yu-efc a/covofiev e/caoros /c.r.X.] we on our
part (in contrast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one, etc.
That, accordingly, &yowi& is to be understood distributively, is
self-evident from the connection (comp. rats r)p,er. 7\a>cro-ai9,
ver. 11); therefore van Hengel 1 wrongly objects to the view
of different languages, that the words would require to run :
1 I.e. p. 24 f. : "How comes it that we, no one excepted, hear them speak in the
mother-tongue of our own people?" Thus, in his view, we are to explain the
passage as the words stand in the text, and thus there is designated only the one
mother-tongue the Aramaic,
74 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
f)ii. ate. T. IS. SiaX., ev y e/ecwro? eyevvyOi). ev fj
designation of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the
popular way of expressing the matter, lorn furnished.
Vv. 9-11. IlapBot . . . "Apafies is a more exact statement,
placed in apposition, of the subject of e^ewrjOvj^ev. 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 important point ry IBia SiaXe/erp, only in a
different and more general expression, by rat? ^er. 7X600-0-^9.
Instead, therefore, of simply writing XaXoiW. avr. ra fi*ya\. T.
eov without this resumption in ver. 11, he continues, after
the list of nations, as if he had said in ver. 8 merely ical TTW?
7/iei9. 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 original
constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be
psychologically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong
astonishment), but as an historical 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 PaXtXaZot. 'jEXa/urat, on the
Persian Gulf, are so named in the LXX. (Isa. xxi. 2) ; called
by the Greeks 'EXu/iatot. See Polyb. v. 44. 9, al. The
country is called 'JEXtytat?, Pol. xxxi. 11. 1; Strabo, xvi.
p. 744. 'lovSaiav] 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 Jewish, so that even the native Jews heard their
provincial dialect. This is not at variance with the erepais
7X000-0^9, 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 'lovSatav is inappropriate (comp. de
Wette), and was only included in this specification in fluocu
CHAP. II. 9-11. 75
orationis ; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the
mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in considera-
tion of his Roman readers. What a high degree of careless-
ness would either suggestion involve ! Tertull. c. Jud. 7, read
Armeniam. Conjectural emendations are : 'ISovpaiav (Caspar
Earth), 'IvSiav (Erasmus Schmid), Biduviav (Hemsterhuis and
Valckenaer). Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out after
Judaea. rrjv 'Aalav] 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 ; but the
whole western coast-region of Asia Minor (Caria, Lydia, Mysia),
according to Plin. H. N. v. 28 ; see Winer, Realw., Wieseler,
p. 32 ff. TO, fiepr) TT?? Aifivrjs r?}? Kara Kvprfvrjv] the dis-
tricts of the Libya situated towards Gyrene, i.e. Libya Cyrenaica,
or Pentapolitana, Upper Libya, whose capital was Cyrene,
nearly one-fourth of the population of which were Jews ; see
Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. I. 1 So many of the Cyrenaean
Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of
their own (vi. 9). oi eTriSrj/jLovvTes 'Pwpaioi] the Romans
Jews dwelling in Rome and the Eoman countries of the West
generally residing (here in Jerusalem) as strangers (pilgrims
to the feast, or for other reasons). On eTufyfj,., as distinguished
from KaroiKovvres, comp. xvii. 21. Plat. Prot. p. 342C:
ei>09 &v eTTiBrjfjiija-r}. Legg. viii. p. 8, 45 A; Dem. 1352. 19 ;
Athen. viii. p. 361 F: ol 'PcafMfjv KaToucovvres teal ol 7ri$r)-
[AovvTe? -777 TroXei. As eVtS^owTe?, they are not properly in-
cluded under the category of /caroi/covvre? in the preparatory
ver. 5, but are by zeugma annexed thereto. 'lovSatol re Kal
TrpocrfovToi, is in apposition not merely to ol eVtS. 'Pwpaloi
(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
('louSatot) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were
their mother-tongues ; the Gentile Jews (irpoar)\vroC) heard
their different non-Hebraic mother-tongues, and that likewise
in the different idioms of the several nationalities.
1 See Schneckenburger, neutest. Ze.ifyesch. p. 88 ff.
76 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
teal "Apafies] are inaccurately brought in afterwards, as their
proper position ought to have been before 'lovS. re ical rrpoa-rjk.,
because that statement, in the view of the writer, held good
of all the nationalities. r. ^fterepai? 7X0)0-0-019] riper, has the
emphasis of contrast : not with their language, but with ours.
Coinp. ver. 8. That 7X0)0-0-. comprehends also the dialectic
varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from vv. 6-1 0.
The expression r. riper. y\. affirms substantially the same thing
as was meant by erepats 7X0)0-0-0*? in ver. 4. ra pe<ya\eia
r. Qeov\ the great things of God (which God has done ; comp.
Ps. Ixxi. 19 ; Ecclus. xvii. 8, xviii. 3, xxxiii. 8 ; 3 Mace. vii.
22). It is the glorious things which God has provided 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 oiKovo^ia gratiae pertinet," Calovius. Comp.
x. 46.
Vv. 12, 13. J^TTO/J.] see on Luke ix. 7. ri av 6e\oi
rovro elvai;] The optative with av, in order to denote the
hypothetically- conceived possibility : What might this possibly
wish to be ? i.e. What might if this speaking in our native
languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have any
meaning be to be thought of as that meaning ? Comp. xvii.
18; Herm. ad Viger. p. 729 ; Bernhardy, p. 410 f. On the
distinction of the sense without av, see Kiihner, ad Xen. Anal.
v. 7. 33. Comp. also Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 130. On 6e\eiv
of impersonal things, see Wetstein and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep.
p. 370 B. erepoi] another class of judges, consequently
none of the impartial, of whom there was mention in w. 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. Sta^Xeuafoz/Te?] mocking ; a stronger
expression than the simple verb, Dem. 1221. 26 ; Plat. Ax.
p. 364B; Polyb. xvii. 4. 4, xxxix. 2. 13; used absolutely
also, Polyb. xxx. 13. 12. The scoffers explain the enthusiasm
of the speakers, which struck them as eccentric, and the use
of foreign languages instead of the Galilean, as the effect of
drunken excitement. Without disturbing themselves whence
CHAP. II. 14, 15. 77
this foreign speaking (according to the historical position of
the matter : this speaking with tongues) had come and become
possible to the Galileans, they are arrested only by the strange-
ness of the phenomenon 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, apart 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 concerning Paul (xxvi. 24) is based
on an essentially different situation. y\evKov<i] <y\evico<: rb
aTToo-rajfjia Trjs <7Ta<uX?}? irplv iraTr]6r), Hesychius. Job
xxxii. 19; Lucian. Sp. Sat. 22, Philops. 39. 65; Nic. AL
184. 299. Comp. vXevKOTroTt)?, Leon. Tar. 18; Apollonid.
10.
Yv. 14, 15. 2ra0eiV] as in v. 20, xvii. 22,xxvii 21 ; Luke
xix. 8, xviii. 11. The introduction of the address (he stood
up, etc.) is solemn. avv rofc ev&eica] 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 im-
plere." a7re(f>0.~\ as in ver. 4 : but not as if now Peter also
had begun to speak ere/aat? 7X060-0-. (van Hengel). Tliat speak-
ing is past when Peter and the eleven made their appearance ;
and then follows the simple instruction regarding it, intelligible
to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with emphasis. KO,TOI-
Kovvre<i] quite as in ver. 5. The nominative with the article,
in order to express the imperative address. See Bernhardy,
p. 67. TOVTO] namely, what I shall now explain to you.
Concerning evwri^eadai (from ofr?), auribus percipere, which is
foreign to the old classical Greek, but in current use in the
LXX. and the Apocrypha, see Sturz, Dial. AL p. 166. In
the N. T. only here. Comp. Test. XII. Pair. p. 520. ov yap]
yap justifies the preceding summons. The OVTOI, these there,
does not indicate that 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 (1 Cor.
xiv. 18, 19; so de Wette, at variance with ver. 4); but
78 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Peter, standing up with the eleven, places himself in the
position of a third person, pointing to the whole multitude,
whom he would defend, as their advocate ; 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
applies against van Hengel, p. 64f. &pa rpiTrf] 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 drunkenness) is the event, which is spoken of by the
prophet Joel. Joel iii. 15 (LXX. ii. 2831) is freely quoted
according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking as the organ
of God, describes the a-rjfieia which shall directly precede the
dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion
of the fulness of the Holy Spirit, and then frightful cata-
strophes in heaven and on earth. This prophecy, Peter says,
has now entered upon its accomplishment. KOI co-rat] and
it will be the case : quite according to the Hebrew (and the
LXX.) rpni. The ical in the prophetic passage connects it with
what precedes, and is incorporated in the citation. ev rat?
eV^arat? ^epat?] The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has
only fiera ravra. Peter has inserted for it the familiar ex-
pression B^n fl'IDK (Isa. ii. 2 ; Mic. iv. 1, al.} by way of
more precise definition (as Kimchi also gives it ; see Light-
foot). This denotes the last days of the pre-Messianic period
the days immediately preceding the erection of the Mes-
sianic kingdom (which, according to the N. T. view, could not
but take place by 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. Comp. "Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr.
p. 82 f. eV^ew] a later form of the future. Winer, p. 74
[E. T. 91]. The outpouring figuratively denotes the copious
communication. Tit. iii. 6 ; Acts x. 45. Comp. i 5, and
see on Rom. v. 5. aTro rov Tri/ev/iaro? /ttou] deviating from
the Hebrew ^nn-ns. The partitive expression (Bernhardy,
CHAP. II. 16, 17. 79
p. 222) denotes that something of the Spirit of God con-
ceived as a whole a special partial emanation for the
bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb.
ii. 4; 1 Cor. xii.) will pass over to every individual (eVl
Tra&av <rdp/ca 1 }. iraaav <rdpKa] every flesh, i.e. omnes homines,
but with the accessory idea of weakness and imperfection,
which the contrast of the highest gift of God, that is to be
imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents. Comp. Eorn.
iii. 20; Gal. ii. 16; 1 Cor. i. 29 ; Matt. xxiv. 22; Luke
iii. 6. In Joel "^"PS certainly refers to the people of Israel,
conceived, however, as the people of God, the collective body of
whom (not merely, as formerly, individual prophets) shall
receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa. liv. 13 ; John
vi. 45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realiza-
tion, so far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the
collective body of believers 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 pro-
mised to all flesh is not to be understood of the Jewish people
as such (van Hengel, appealing to ver. 3 9), but of all the true
people of God, so far as they believe on Christ. The first
Messianic effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost was the beginning
of this fulfilment, 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
Peter already expected as nigh. KOI Trpofyyreva-ovcnv . . .
evvTTviaaOrj&ovTai, describes the effects of the promised effusion
of the Spirit. TrpofaTeva-ovcrw, afflatu divino loquentur (Matt.
vii. 22), is by Peter specially recognised as a prediction of
that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just com-
menced with the erepais yXcaaa-aif. This we may the more
warrantably affirm, since, according to the analogy of xix. 6, we
must assume that that speaking was not mere glossolalia in the
strict sense, but, in a portion of the speakers' prophecy. Comp.
1 The impersonality of the Spirit is not thereby assumed (in opposition to
Weiss, bill. Theol. p. 136), but the distribution of the gifts and powers, which
are represented as a partial effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For the per-
sonality of the Spirit, comp. especially the saying of Peter, v. 3.
80 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the spiritual speaking in Corinth. ol viol vpwv /ecu at, 6vya-
repes vfj,wv] the male and female members of the people of God,
i.e. all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by
the inspired members of the Christian theocracy, among whom,
according to i. 14, there were at that time also women.
6/>acret<? . . . evvTrviois] visions in waking and in sleeping, as forms
of the cnroicdXvtyLs of God, such as often came to the prophets.
This prophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion
of the Spirit in its fulness, become common property. 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 com-
munication of the Spirit which had just occurred; Peter,
however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (ver. 16), be-
cause their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the
outpouring of the Spirit, and was consequently already in
idea included in it. veavia-Koi . . . TrpecrfivTepot] belong like-
wise, as the preceding clause (viol . . . fli/yarepe?), to the re-
presentation of the collective body as illustrated per ^epi^^ov.
The o/3oo-ei9 correspond to the lively feelings of youth;
evvTTVia, to the lesser excitability of more advanced age; yet
the two are to be taken, not as mutually exclusive, but after
the manner of parallelism. The verb, with the dative of the
cognate noun, is here (evinrviois evvTrviacrd., they will dream
with 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.).
Ver. 18. A repetition of the chief contents of ver. 17,
solemnly confirming them, and prefixing the persons con-
cerned. Kai 76] and indeed, Luke xix. 42 ; Herm. ad Viger.
p. 826. It seldom occurs in classical writers without the two
particles being separated by the word brought into prominence
or restricted, in which case, however, there is also a shade of
meaning to be attended to; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319.
We must not explain the Sov\ovs JJLOV and the Bov\a<; fiov
with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance with the original
text, which has no pov, of servile hominum genus, nor yet with
CHAP. II. 19, 20. 81
Tychsen (Illustratio vaticinii Joel iii. Gott. 1788) of the
alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased from
abroad) : both views are at variance with the pov, which
refers the relation of service to God as the Master. It is there-
fore 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 : my male and female worshippers ;
comp. the Hebrew njn^ "ny. In the twofold /JLOV Peter agrees
with the translators of the LXX., 1 who must have had another
reading of the original before them.
Vv. 19, 20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring
about (Suxrcfr, as at Matt. xxiv. 24) catastrophes in heaven and
on earth (the latter are mentioned at once in ver. 19, the
former in ver. 20) as immediate heralds of the Messianic day.
Peter includes in his quotation this element of the prophecy,
because its realization (ver. 1 6), conditioned by the outpour-
ing of the Spirit which necessarily preceded it, presented itself
likewise essentially as belonging to the allotted portion of the
0"xarai rjpepai. The dreadful events could not but now see-
ing that the effusion of the Spirit preceding them had already
commenced be conceived as inevitable and very imminent;
and this circumstance could not but mightily contribute to
the alarming of souls and their being won to Christ. As to
repara and crrifiela, see on Matt. xxiv. 24; Bom. xv. 19.
alpa . . . Kairvov contains the cn)/u,eia TU r?}9 7%, namely,
Uoodshed (war, revolt, murder) and conflagration. Similar
devastations belonged, according to the later Jewish Chris-
tology also, to the dolor es Messiae. See on Matt. xxiv. 6, 7.
" Cum videris regna se invicem turbantia, tune expectes
vestigia Messiae;" Beresh. raHb. sec. 41. The reference to
Uood-rain, fiery meteors, and pillars of smoke arising from the
earth (de Wette, comp. Kuinoel), is neither certainly in keeping
1 So much the less ought Hengstenberg, CJiristol. I. p. 402, to have imported
into this enclitic fi.au what is neither found in it nor relevant : "on servants and
handmaids of men, who are at the same time my servants and handmaids, and
therefore in spiritual things are quite on a level with the free." Similarly
Bengel, and recently Beelen (Catholic) in his Commentar. in Acta ap. ed. 2,
1864, who appeals inappropriately to Gal. iii. 27 f.
ACTS. F
82 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
with the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the
analogy of Matt. xxiv. ar/MiSa Kairvov\ vapour of smoke
(ar/i/9, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical writers more
usually ar/i09, is the more general idea). Comp. on such
combinations, Lobeck, Paral. p. 534, Ver. 20. Meaning:
the sun will become dark, and the moon appear "bloody. Comp.
on Matt. xxiv. 29 ; also Isa. xiii. 10 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7. irplv
eXdeiv] ere there shall have come. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 728 f.
rrjv fjpepav /cvplov] i.e. according to the sense of the pro-
phetic fulfilment of the words : the day of Christ, namely of
His Parousia. Comp. on Piom. x. 13. But this is not, with
Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinoel, following the Fathers, to be
considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem (which
belongs to the cnj^eia of the Parousia, to the dolorcs Messiae).
See on Matt. xxiv. 29. rrjv jjieyaXrjv K. eirupavrj] the great
(tear e%&xfiv, fraught with decision, comp. Eev. xvi 14) and
manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest before all the world
as that which it is. Comp. the frequent use of liri^dveia for
the Parousia (2 Thess. ii. 8, a.). The Vulgate aptly renders :
manifestus. Instead of eiri^avrj, the Hebrew has Nnisn,
terribilis, which the LXX., deriving from run, has incorrectly
translated by eVt^ai^, as also elsewhere ; see Biel and
Schleusn. Thes. s.v. But on this account the literal significa-
tion of eTTufrav. 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 fulfilment, of the invocation of
Christ (relative worship : see on vii 5 9 ; Eom. x. 1 2 ; Phil,
ii. 1 ; 1 Cor. i 2) ; just as he would have the ertB^o-erat
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 (w. 2236) demonstrate Jesus the crucified and risen
and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (ver. 3 6). And how
undauntedly, concisely, and convincingly he does so ! A first
fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit.
Ver. 22. Toin-ov?] like TOVTO, ver. 14, the words which
CHAP. II. 23. 83
follow. See Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ad Anab. ii. 5.
10. TOV Nafapaiov is, in the mouth of the apostle, only
the current more precise designation of the Lord (comp. iii 6,
iv. 10), not used in the sense of contempt (comp. vi. 14, xxiv.
5) for the sake of contrast to what follows, and possibly as
a reminiscence of the superscription of the cross (Beza and
others), of which there is no indication in the text (such as
perhaps : avSpa Se). avSpa CLTTO TOV eov aTroSeSeiyfiJ] a man
on the, part of God approved, namely, in his peculiar character,
as Messiah. CLTTO stands neither here nor elsewhere for VTTO,
but denotes the going forth of the legitimation from God
(divinitus), Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 5 ; Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 17.
1 ; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 326]. ew fyta?] in refer-
ence to you, in order that He might appear to you as such, for
you. Swap. K. Tepacri K. o-77//,e/ot?] a rhetorical accumulation
in order to the full exhaustion of the idea (Bornem. Schol.
in Luc. p. xxx.), as regards the nature of the miracles, their
appearance, and their destination. Comp. ver. 1 9 ; 2 Thess.
11. 9 : 2 Cor. xii. 1 2 ; Heb. ii. 4. ev pecra fyiwp] in the
midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all.
Ver. 23. TOVTOV] an emphatic repetition. See Schaef.
Meld. p. 84 ; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. There is to be
no parenthesis before it. This one . . . delivered up, ye have by
the hand of lawless men 1 affixed and made way with : x. 3 9 ;
Luke xxii. 2, xxiii. 32. By the avo^ot, 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 e/eSoroz/, comp. Drac. 26, and examples from Greek
writers in Eaphel 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
1 ^la, %upos (see the critical remarks) is here not to be taken, like T>3, for the
mere per (see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 199), but, as it is a manual action that is
spoken of, in its concrete, literal meaning. It belongs to vivid rhetorical de-
lineation. Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 273.
84 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
virtue of the fixed (therefore unalterable) resolve and (in virtue
of the) foreknowledge of God. On /3ov\ij, comp. the Homeric
.Jto9 ' T\iro /3ov\ij, II. i. 5, Od. XL 297. 7rpdyva)(n<; is
here usually taken as synonymous with ftov\r) ; but against
all linguistic usage. 1 Even in 1 Pet. i 2, comp. ver. 20, the
meaning praescientia (Vulgate) is to be retained. See gene-
rally on Eom. viii 29. God's (3ov\r) (comp. iv. 28) was, that
Jesus was to delivered up, and the mode of it was present
to Him in His prescience, which, therefore, is placed after the
^ov\r). Objectively, no doubt, the two are not separate in
God, but the relation is conceived of after the analogy of the
action of the human mind. The dative is, as in xv. 1, that in
which the efcBorov has its ground. Without the divine /3oiX^
K.T.\. 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 the Sanhedrim in the
name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by
the Gentiles, and accomplished under the direction of the
Sanhedrim (John xix. 1 6) ; comp. 'iii. 1 3 f. The view of
Olshausen, that the 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. Ta<? a>8tm<?] Peter most probably used the common
expression from the 0. T. : ni v?n, snares of death, in which
the 6dvaro<; personified is conceived as a huntsman laying a
snare. Ps. xviii. 5 f., cxvi. 3. See Gesen. Thes. I. p. 440.
The LXX. erroneously translates this expression as toSti/e?
Oavdrov, misled by ?5D, dolor (Isa. Ixvi. 7), in the plural BY?!!,
used particularly of birth-pangs. See the LXX. Ps. xviii. 5 ;
2 Sam. xxii. 6. But Luke and this betrays the use of a
1 This reason must operate also against Lamping's (Pauli de praedestinat.
decreta, 1858, p. 102 ff.) defence of the common explanation, in which he
specifies, as the distinction between /3oX and rpeynairis, merely this : "illud
adumbrat Dei voluntatem, hoc inde profectum decretum." It is arbitrary, with
Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Pet. p. 146, to refer fiouxfi not to the saving will, but
merely to the will as regards destiny. See, in opposition to this, iii. 18, where
the suffering of Christ is the fulfilment of divine prophecy ; comp. viii. 32 f.,
x. 43.
CHAP. II. 24. 85
Hebrew source directly or indirectly has followed the LXX.,
and has thus changed the Petrine expression vincula mortis into
dolores mortis. The expression of Luke, who with o>S>e? could
think of nothing else than the only meaning which it has in
Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. In the sense
of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained : after 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 (comp. on TT/XMTOTO/CO? e'/c rwv vetcptov, Col. i.
18), the resurrection of Jesus is conceived as birth from the
dead. Death travailed (6 Odvaro? wSive Kare^wv avrov, Chrys.)
in birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With
this event these pangs ceased, they were loosed ; and because
God has made Christ alive, God has loosed the pangs of
death. On Xucra?, see LXX. Job xxxix. 3 ; Soph. 0. C.
1612, El. 927; Aelian. H. A. xii. 5. Comp. Plat. Pol ix.
p. 574 A: fteyakais coStcri re Kal oSvvats avve^a-Oai. The
aorist participle is synchronous with avear^a-e. To understand
the death-pangs of Christ, from which God freed Him " resus-
citando eum ad vitam nullis doloribus 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 01-
shausen, that in Hellenistic Greek wSt^e? has not only the
meaning of pains, but also that of lands, which is not at all to
be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. Thes. V. p. 571.
/caOoTi : according to the fact, that ; see on Luke i. 7. OVK
rjv Bvvarov] which is afterwards proved from David. It was
thus impossible in virtue of the divine destination attested
by David. Other reasons (Calovius : on account of the unio
personalis, etc.) are here far-fetched. KpaTetaOai, vir avrov]
The Odvaros 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 (Eom. vi. 9). On Kpareta-dai VTTO, to ~be ruled ly, comp.
4 Mace. ii. 9 ; Dem. 1010. 1 7. By His resurrection Christ
has done away death as a power (2 Tim. i. 10 ; 1 Cor. xv. 25 f.).
86 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Ver. 25. Eis avTov] so that the words, as respects their
fulfilment, apply to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220. The
passage is from Ps. xvi 8 ff., exactly 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 resurrection from the dead. This
historical Messianic fulfilment of the Psalm justified the apostle
in its Messianic interpretation, in which he has on his side
not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle
Paul (xiii. 35 f.). The Trpocopwfirjv K.T.\., as the LXX. trans-
lates VT*?'* is, according to this ideal Messianic understanding
of the Psalm, Christ's joyful expression of His continued
fellowship with God on earth, since in fact (ori) God is by His
side protecting and preserving Him ; I foresaw the Lord before
my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind's glance
(Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 16 ; otherwise, xxi. 29), I saw Jehovah
always before my face. e/c Segiwv pov e<rriv] namely, as
protector and helper, as irapaa-rdr^ (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 21).
Concerning eVc Segtaiv, 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
fir) a-a\evdoa] without figure : that I may remain unmoved in
tlu state of my salvation. On the figurative use frequent also
in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors (Dorville, ad Char. p.
307) of a-a\eveiv, comp. 2 Thess. ii. 2.
Ver. 26. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted.
The aorists denote an act of the time described by irpowpw^riv
/c.T.X, the joyful remembrance of which is here expressed.
rj KapSla fj,ov, *2? : the heart, the centre of personal life, is also
the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of the will :
Delitzsch, Psych, p. 248 ff. Instead of rj <y\axr(rd ftov, the
Hebrew has "H^?, i.e. my soul (Ps. vii. 6, xxx. 1 3, et al. ; see
Schoettgen, p. 415), in place of which the LXX. either found
a different reading or gave a free rendering. en Se teal %
CHAP. II. 27. 87
adp% fiov /e.T.X] 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 et? Xpia-rov (ver. 25) prophetically
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. ert
e teat] Comp. Luke xiv. 2 6 ; Acts xxi. 2 8 ; Soph. 0. B.
1345. eV eXTTilSt] as in Eom. iv. 18.
Ver. 2 7. What now the Psalmist further says according to
the historical sense : For Thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades
{i.e. Thou wilt not suffer me to die in my present life-peril),
and wilt not give Thy Holy One (according to the Ketibh of the
original : Thy holy ones, the plural of category, comp. Hupfeld
in loc.~) to see corruption is by Peter, as spoken et? Xpta-rov,
taken in accordance with the prophetical meaning historically
fulfilled in Him : Thou wilt not forsake my soul in Hades (after
it shall have come thither; see Kiihner, 622 ; Buttm. neut.
Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333]), but by the resurrection wilt again
deliver it, 1 and wilt not suffer Thy Holy One (the Messiah) to
share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the sense as
fulfilled, putrefaction (comp. xiii. 34 ff.). 2 Instead of Sia<f)dopdv,
the original has nriE', a pit, which, however, Peter, with the
LXX., understood as Siatydopd, and accordingly has derived it
not from n^, but from nn{? } Stafydetpw ; comp. Job xvii. 14.
On Scdcra?, comp. x. 40. The meaning is : Thou wilt not cause,
1 This passage is a dictum probans for the abode of the soul of Christ in Hades,
but it contains no dogmatic statement concerning the descensus ad inferos in
the sense of the church. Comp. Giider, Lehre von d. Erscheinung Chritsti unter
d. Todten, p. 30 ; Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 233 f.
2 After this passage, compared with ver. 31, no further discussion is needed
to show how \inreasonably it has been taken for granted (see especially Holsten,
z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 128 ff.) that the early church conceived the resurrec-
tion of Christ as a fttra^airii its tnpov ffSifta, entirely independent of the dead
body ot our Lord. How much are the evangelical narratives of the appearances
of the risen Christ, in which the identity of His body has stress so variously
laid on it, at variance with this opinion ! Comp. x. 41.
88 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
that, etc. Often so also in classical writers from Homer onward.
As to IBeiv in the sense of experiencing, comp. on Luke ii. 26.
Ver. 28. Thou hast made known to me ways of life; Thou
wilt Jill me with joy in presence of Thy countenance, meant by
the Psalmist of the divine guidance 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 His resurrection, by which God practically made known to
him ways to life, and to his state of exaltation in heaven, where
he is in the fulness of blessedness with God. //.era rov
"jrpoa-wTTov c-oi/J T.?.?"^, in communion with Thy countenance
(seen by me). Comp. Heb. ix. 24.
Vv. 2931. Proof that David in this passage of his Psalm
has prophetically made known the resurrection of Christ.
Ver. 29. Mera Trappier/a?] frankly and freely, without
reserve ; for the main object was to show off a passage
honouring David, that it had received fulfilment in a higher
and prophetical sense in another. Bengel well remarks : " Est
igitur hoc loco irpoOepaireia, praevia sermonis mitigatio."
David is called 6 Trarpidp^r}^ as the celebrated ancestor of the
kingly family, from which the nation expected their Messiah.
ort] that (not for). Peter wishes to say of David what is
notorious, and what it is allowable for him to say on account
of this very notoriety ; therefore with e'oi> there is not to be
supplied, as is usually done, eora>, but eort (e|eo-rt). eV
rjfuv] David was buried at Jerusalem. Neh. iii. 16 ; Joseph.
Antt. vii. 15. 3, xiii. 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. In TO ftvrjfta
avrov, his sepulchre, there is involved, according to the con-
text, as self-evident : " cum ipso Davidis corpore corrupto ;
molliter loquitur," Bengel.
Vv. 30-32. Ovv\ infers from the previous Kal TO ^vr^ia
avrov . . . Tavrr)?, whence it is plain that David in the Psalm,
I.e., as a prophet 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. teal et'Sw?] see 2 Sam. vii. 12. etc Kapirov r.
eta-Quo? avrov] sc. rtvd. On the frequent supplying of the in-
definite pronoun, see Kiihner, II. p. 37 f . ; Fritzsche, Conject.
CHAP. II. 33. 89
I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression tcapTros T?}?
ocr^yo? avrov (Ps. cxxxii. 11) presupposes the idea of the
uninterrupted male line of descent from David to Christ.
Comp. Heb. vii. 5 ; Gen. xxxv. 1 1 ; 2 Chron. vL 9 ; and see
remark after Matt. i. 18. KaQiaai eVi r. Opovov avrov] to sit
on His throne (Xen. Andb. ii. 1. 4), namely, as the Messiah,
who was to be the theocratic consummator of the kingdom of
David (Mark xi. 10; Acts xv. 16). Comp. Luke i. 32.-
7rpo'i8(av] prophetically looking into the future. Comp. Gal.
iii. 8. OTI ov /eareX] 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 Karekei^dtj K.T.\. is
not David (Hofm. Schriftbew. II. 1, p. 115) which no hearer,
after ver. 29, could suppose but o Xpio-Tos; 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 rov ^Iijaovv] 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: whereof. See Bernhardy, p. 298.
fjidprvpe^] in so far as we, His twelve apostles, have conversed
with the risen Christ Himself. Comp. i. 22, x. 41.
Ver. 33. Ovv] namely, in consequence of the resurrection,
with which the exaltation is necessarily connected. ry Segia
rov eov] by the right hand, i.e. by the power of God, v. 31 ;
Isa. Ixiii. 12. Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Bengel,
also Zeller, p. 502, and others. 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 con-
struction of simple verbs of motion with the dative of the goal
aimed at, instead of with irpos or ei<?, belongs in classical
Greek only to the poets (see the passages from Homer in
Nagelsb. p. 12, ed. 3, and, besides, Erfurdt, ad Antig. 234;
Bernhardy, p. 95 ; Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42, the latter seek-
ing to defend the use as legitimate), and occurs, indeed, in late
writers 1 (see Winer, p. 201 f. [E. T. 268 f.]), but is without
1 The dative of interest (e.g. 1/>x/>ft.&I /, I come for thee) has often been con-
founded with it. Comp. Kriiger, 48. 9. 1.
90 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
any certain example in the N. T., often as there would have
been occasion for it ; for Acts xxi. 1 6 admits of another expla-
nation, and Eev. ii. 16 is not at all a case in point. In the
passage of the LXX. Judg. xi. 18, deemed certain by Fritzsche,
rrj yfj Mcodfi (if the reading is correct) is to be connected, not
with rjKOev, but as appropriating dative with airo avaro\wv
r)\iov. Concerning Kvpw Uvai, Xen.Andb. i. 2. 26, see Borne-
mann, ed. Lips. The objection, that ~by the right hand of God is
here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. There
is something triumphant in the element emphatically prefixed,
which is correlative to avea-Tijaev 6 eo? (ver. 32); God's
work of power was, as the resurrection, so also the exaltation.
Comp. Phil. ii. 9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect translation of
vd> (Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 1038 ; de Wette;
Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 2 5), has been unnecessarily and arbi-
trarily assumed. rrjv re eTrayy. T. ay. irv. Xa/3. Trapa T. Trar/o.]
contains that which followed upon the ty&Qek, 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 He had received the (in the 0. T.) promised (i. 4)
Holy Spirit from His Father. See on Luke xxiv. 49. TOVTO
is either, with Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others,
to be referred to the irvevna ayiov, so that the o corresponds
to the explanatory id quod (Kiihner, 802. 2), or which, on
account of the o annexed to TOVTO, is more natural and more
suitable to the miraculous character it is, with Luther,
Calvin, and others, to be taken as an independent neuter:
He poured forth (just now) this, what ye (in effectu) see and
hear (in the conduct and speech of those assembled). Accord-
ingly, Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously
been remarked (rrfv re eTrayy. . . . Trar/oo?), themselves to infer
that what was poured out was nothing else than just the
aytov. 1 The idea that the exalted Jesus in heaven
1 It cannot, however, be said that " the first congregation of disciples receives
this gift without baptism" (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 150). Those persons possessed
by the Spirit were, in fact, all confessors of Christ, and it must in their case be
supposed that they had already received baptism in the lifetime of our Lord,
to which conclusion vv. 38, 41 point.
CHAP. II. 34-36. 91
receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is
founded on such instructions of Christ as John xv. 26, xvi. 7.
Comp. on i. 4.
Vv. 34, 35. Tap] The fundamental fact of the previous
statement, namely, the 777 Be^ia Geov vtyaOek, has still to be
proved, and Peter proves this also from a saying of David,
which has not received its fulfilment in David itself. \e<yei
Se avrof] lut 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 (re3 Kvpiw /iow). This King, designated by T&> Kvpiw [tov
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, 1 Christ, who is Lord of David and of
all the saints of the 0. T. ; and His occupying the throne (sit
Thou at my right hand) denotes the exaltation of Christ to
the glory and dominion of the Father, whose crvvOpovos He
has become; Heb. i. 8, 13 ; Eph. i. 21 f.
Ver. 36. The Christologieal aim of the whole discourse,
which, as undoubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said
(ovv), is emphatically at the close set down for recognition
as the summary of the faith now requisite. In this case
ttcr<aX<y<? (unchangeably) is marked with strong emphasis.
7ra9 oltcos 'lo-pJ] without the article, because O?K. 'I<rp. has
assumed the nature of a proper name. Comp. LXX. 1 Kings
xii. 23; Ezek. xlv. 6, al. Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 137]. The
whole people is regarded as the family of their ancestor Israel
(PJOb'' 1 rva). Kal Kvpiov avrov K.Xpia-rov] him Lord (ruler gene-
rally, comp. x. 36) as well as also Messiah. The former general
expression, according to which He is o &v eirl irdvrwv, Eom.
ix. 5, and Ke(j>a\r) virep irdvTa, Eph. i. 22, the latter special,
according to which He is the a-eorrjp rov Koapov, v. 31, John
iv. 42, and fce<pa\r) rfj^ KK\t]o-ta<f, Eph. i. 22, Col. i. 18, to-
gether 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 humiliation emptied Himself of
1 Which is not to be identified with its historical meaning. See Hupfeld
in loc., and Diestel in the Jahrb.f. d. Th. p. 562 f.
92 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the power and glory, and was only reinstated into them by His
exaltation. Previously He was indeed likewise Lord and Mes-
siah, but in the form of a servant ; and it was after laying aside
that form that He became such in complete reality. 1 It is not
to be inferred from such passages as this and Acts iv. 27, 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 Trapa rov rrarpos in our passage (ver. 33),
compared with the confession in Matt. xvi. 16, John xvi. 30, is
decisive, to say nothing of the Pauline training of Luke himself.
Comp. also ver. 34. avrov is not superfluous, but rovrov
rov 'Iqaovv is a weighty epexegesis, which is purposely chosen
in order to annex the strongly contrasting ov u/iet9 earavpta-
crare (comp. iii. 13, vii. 52), and thus to impart to the whole
address a deeply impressive conclusion. " Aculeus in fine,"
BengeL
Ver. 37. But after they heard it (what was said by Peter)
they were pierced in the heart. Karavva-a-eiv, in the figurative
sense of painful emotion, which penetrates the heart as if
stinging, is not found in Greek writers (who, however, use
vv<raeiv in a similar sense) ; but see LXX. Ps. cix. 1 6 : Kara-
vevwyfjievov rfj /capSia, Gen. xxxiv. 7, where tcarevvyrjcrav is
illustrated by the epexegesis : /cat \v7rrjpov r)v avrols <r(f)o&pa.
Ecclus. xiv. 1, xii. 12, xx. 21, xlvii. 21 ; Susann. 11 (of the
pain of love). Compare also Luke ii. 35. 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, partly
for the more special reason that they themselves had not as
yet acknowledged Him, or had been even among His adver-
saries, and consequently had not recognised and entered upon
the only way of salvation pointed out by Peter. On the
figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de or at. iii. 34 (of Pericles) :
" ut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculcos quosdam
relinqueret." rl rroiriao^ev] what shall we do ? (Winer, p. 2 6 2
[E. T. 348].) The inquiry of a need of salvation surrendering
itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made
1 Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 134 f.
CHAP. II. 38, 39. 93
by the discourse of Jesus in Nazareth, Luke iv. 28. avSpes
dSe\<poi] an affectionate and respectful address from broken
hearts already gained. Comp. on i. 16. " Non ita dixerunt
prius," Bengel.
Ver. 38. What a definite and complete answer and promise
of salvation ! The ^eravorja-are demands the change of ethical
disposition as the moral condition 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. eVl
T<W ovofAari 'Jjyo-. Xpiarov] on the ground of the name, so that the
name " Jesus Messiah" as the contents of your faith and con-
fession, is that on which the becoming baptized rests. Bcnr-
r/. is only here used with eVt; but comp. the analogous
expressions, Luke xxi. 8, xxiv. 47; Acts v. 28, 40; Matt.
xxiv. 5, al. et? denotes the object of the baptism, which is
the remission of the guilt contracted in the state before
p-erdvoia. Comp. xxii. 16 ; 1 Cor vi. 11. Kal X^.] teat
consecutivum. After reconciliation, sanctification ; both are
experienced in baptism. rov d<ytov irvevparos] this is the
Scoped itself. Heb. vi. 4 ; Acts x. 45, xi. 17.
Ver. 39. Proof of the preceding \iJTfrea-0e tc.r.\. : for to you
belongs 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. rofc efc ^aapdv] to those who are at a distance,
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. Comp. also Baumgarten.
Others, with Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, Pis-
cator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, de Wette, Lange,
Hackett, also Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 148, and libl. Theol.
p. 149, explain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph. ii. 13. But,
although Peter might certainly conceive of the conversion of
the Gentiles, according to Isa. ii. 2, xlix. 1, al., in the way of
their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the men-
tion of the Gentiles here (observe the emphatically preceding
lv) would be quite alien from the destination of the words,
94 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
which were intended to prove the \^eade K.T.\. of ver. 3 8. The
conversion of the Gentiles does not here belong to the matter
in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, understood it of time
(2 Sam. viL 19, comp. the classical OVK e? paicpdv) : longe post
futures, but this is excluded by the very conception of the
nearness of the Parousia. As to the expression of direction,
elf fiatcp., comp. on xxii. 5. ocrou? av TrpoovcaX. .T.X.] con-
tains the definition of Trace*, rot? et'<? fj-aicpdv: as many as God
shall have called to Himself, namely, by the preaching of the
gospel, by the reception of which they, as members of the
true theocracy, will enter into Christian fellowship with God,
and will receive the Spirit.
Ver. 40. Observe the change of the aorist SiepapTvpaTo
(see the critical notes) and imperfect irapeKakei : he adjured
them (1 Tim. v. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii 14, iv. 1, often also in classical
writers), after which followed the continued exhortation, the
contents of which was : Become saved from this (the now living)
perverse generation away, in separating yourselves from them by
the {jLerdvoia and baptism. oveoXtof] crooked, in a moral sense
= a8t/co9. Comp. on Phil. ii. 15.
Ver. 41. M.v ovv] namely, in consequence of these repre-
sentations of the apostle. We may translate either : they
then who received his word (namely, a-toOrrre /c.r.X.), comp.
viii. 4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, and others) ;
or, they then (those indicated in ver. 3 7), after they received his
word, etc., comp. i. 6, viii. 25, xv. 3 (so Castalio, de Wette).
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 aTroSegdpevoi, rbv \o^ov avrov (ver. 40)
stands in a climactic relation to Karevvyrjaav (ver. 37).
Trpoa-eredrjcrav] were added (ver. 47, v. 14, xi. .24), namely, to
the fellowship of the already existing followers of Jesus, as is
self-evident from the context. ^v^aC] persons, according to
the Hebrew tfw, Ex. i. 5; Acts vii. 14; 1 Pet. iii. 20; this
use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving
it (Eur. Androm. 612, Med. 247, al; see Kypke, II. p. 19),
CHAP. II. 42. 95
rj 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 (-rfj y/^epa eKeivy). Observe further,
that their baptism was conditioned only by the perdvota and
by faith on Jesus as the Messiah ; and, accordingly, it had
their further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a
subsequent, condition (ver. 42).
Ver. 42 now describes what the reception of the three
thousand had as its consequence ; what they, namely the three
thousand and those who were already believers before (for the
whole lody is the subject, as is evident from the idea of irpoa--
ereOrja-av), as members of the Christian community under
the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did. 1 The develop-
ment of the inner life of the youthful church follows that
great external increase. First of all : they were perseveringly
devoted to the instruction (2 Tim. iv. 2 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 6) of the
apostles, they were constantly intent on having themselves
instructed by the apostles. ry KOWCOVIO] is to be explained
of the mutual brotherly association which they sought to
maintain with one another. Comp. on Phil. i. 5. See also
Weiss, libl. Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. The same in sub-
stance with the aSe\^>oT^9, 1 Pet. ii. 17, v. 9. It is incorrect
in Wolf, Rosenmiiller, and others to refer it to TWV cnroaTokwv,
and to understand it of living in intimate association with
the apostles. For KOI ry KOIVCW. is, as well as the other three,
an independent element, not to be blended with the preceding.
Therefore the views of others are also incorrect, who either
(Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by Wolf) take the
following (spurious) icai as explicativum (et communione, vide-
licet fractione panis et precibus), or suppose a ev Sta Svolv
(Homberg) after the Vulgate : et communicatione fractionis
panis, so that ry KOIVCOV. would already refer to the Agapae.
Recently, following Mosheim (de rebus Christ, ante Const. M.
p. 114), the explanation of the communication of charitable
gifts to the needy has become the usual one. So Heinrichs,
1 With the spuriousness of the second */ (see the critical note), the four par-
ticulars are arranged in pairs.
96 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Lohe, Aphorism, p.
80 ff., Harnack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 ff., Hackett,
and others. 1 But this special sense must have been indicated
by a special addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by
the context, as in Rom. xv. 26 ; Heb. xiii. 16 ; especially
as xoLvwvia does not in itself signify communicatio, but com-
munio ; 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. rfi AcXacret rov aprov] in the
breaking of their bread (TOV a.). By this is meant the obser-
vance of common 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
Fathers, as well as the Catholic Church, 2 with Suicer, Mede,
Wolf, Lightfoot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily ex-
plain it exclusively of the Eucharist ; comp. also Harnack, I.e.
p. Ill ff. Such a celebration is of later origin ; the separa-
tion of the Lord's Supper 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, explains the breaking of bread of beneficence
to the poor (Isa. Iviii. 7), so that it would be synonymous with
KOLVwvia (but see above). rat? Trpocreir^afc] The plural
denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new
Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubt-
less, 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,
1 That the moral nature of the xaiva/ia expresses itself also in liberality, is cor-
rect in itself, but is not here particularly brought forward, any more than other
forms of its activity. This in opposition to Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 285.
2 This Church draws as an inference from our passage the historical asser-
tion: Subuna specie panis communicaverunt sancti in pr imitiva ecclesia. Confut.
Conf. Aug. p. 543 of my edition of the Libri Symbolici. See, in opposition to this
view, the striking remarks of Casaubon in the Exerdtatt. Anti-Baron, p. 466.
Beelen still thinks that he is able to make good the idea of the daily unbloody
sacrifice of the mass by the appended r. irponvx. \
CHAP. II. 44, 45. 97
etc. Luke in these words describes : (1) what sort of im-
pression the extraordinary result of the event of Pentecost
made generally upon the minds (iraa-ri ^f%#, Winer, p. 147
[E. T. 194]) of those who did not belong to the youthful
church ; and (2) the work of the apostles after the effusion of
the Spirit. Therefore re is the simple copula, and not, as
is often assumed, equivalent to yap. lylvero] (see the critical
note) is in both cases the descriptive imperfect. Comp., more-
over, on the expression, Horn. H. i. 188 : HvfX.eiwvi, 8' %o?
ryevero, xii. 392, al. Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke
has eTu with the accusative, or e/A</>o/3o9 yiveTai. <o/3o<?, 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 </>o/3o?, occasioned by the mar-
vellous result which the event of Pentecost together with the
address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin),
in preventing the first internal development of the church's
life from being disturbed by premature attacks from without.
Sta TWV a.7roo-T.] for the worker, the causa efficiens, was God.
Comp. ver. 22, iv. 30, xv. 12.
Vv. 44, 45. But (Se, continuative) as regards the develop-
ment of the church-life, which took place amidst that <o/3o?
without and this miracle-working of the apostles, all were eVl
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 Kuinoel : de animorum consensu, which is foreign to N. T.
usage. They were accustomed all to le together. This is not
strange, when we bear in mind the very natural considera-
tion 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. ical el^ov airavra KOLVO] they
possessed all things in common, i.e. all things belonged to all,
were a common good. According to the more particular
explanation which Luke himself gives (ical ra KTij/jiara . . .
e, comp. iv. 32), we are to assume not merely in general a
ACTS. G
98 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
distinguished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of
help, 1 or " a prevailing willingness to place private property at
the disposal of the church" (de Wette, comp. Neander, Baum-
garten, Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, and
already Mosheim, Diss. ad hist. eccl. pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel,
and others) ; but a real community of goods in the early church
at Jerusalem, according to which the possessors were wont to
dispose of their lands and their goods generally, 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 com-
munity of goods and its historical character (denied by Baur
and Zeller), it is to be observed : (1) It took 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 7r\eove!;la. Comp.
also Jas. v. 1 ff. ; 1 John iii. 1 7. And this community of
goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and general
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 pre-
vented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from
counselling or at all introducing it elsewhere. (2) This com-
munity of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was
left to the free will of the owners. This is evident from Acts
v. 4 and xii. 12. Nevertheless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of
brotherly love (Bengel on iv. 34 aptly says : " non nisi summo
fidei et amoris flori convenit"), it was, in point 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
simply a concrete instance of the general practice. (4) It was
1 Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog's EncyU. III. p. 26. In this view the
Pythagorean TO, ru> <pi*.av xotvu might be compared with it (Rittersh. ad Por-
phyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46).
CHAP. II. 4*?. 99
not an institution "borrowed from the JEssenes 1 (in opposition to
Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schneckenburger). For it could
not have arisen without the guidance of the apostles ; 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 conceived as a development from within
under the impulse of the Spirit. (5) On the contrary, the rela-
tion 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 purse. 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. Schnecken-
burger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have
correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of
goods. Comp. Eitschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 232. TO, KT^aTa]
the landed possessions (belonging to him). See v. 1 ; Xen. Oec.
20. 23; Eustath. ad II. vi. p. 685. virdp^eis: possessions in
general, Polyb. ii. 17. 11 ; Heb. x. 34, and Bleek in loc.
avra] it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in
the preceding verb (eiriTrpaaicov). Comp. Luke xviii. 22 ;
John xii. 5. See generally, Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 181 f.].
tcadoTi av rt<? xpelav et^e] just as any one had need, av with
the indicative denotes : " accidisse aliquid non certo quodam
tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret." Herm. ad
Viger. p. 820. Comp. iv. 35; Mark vi. 56; Kriiger, Andb.
i. 5. 2 ; Kiihner, ad Mem. i. 1. 16 ; and see on 1 Cor. xii. 2.
Ver. 46. Kaff ^^epav] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241.
On Trpoa-Kaprepeiv ev, to be diligent in visiting a place, comp.
Susann. 6. iv ra> iepa>] as confessors of the Messiah of their
nation, whose speedy appearance in glory they expected, as
1 See Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3 f. The Pythagoreans also had a community
of goods. See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 168. 72 ; Zeller, p. 504. See, in opposi-
tion to the derivation from Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f. histor.
Theol. XL 2, p. 1 ff., Ewald and RitschL
100 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
/
well as in accordance with the example of Christ Himself, 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 (o/Aoflu/*.) con-
sider themselves bound to it ; comp. Luke xxiv. 53. /e\&We9
apTov] breaking 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 therefore not put. It would mean: their
bread. KOTT O\KOV\ Contrast to eV ro> lepm ; hence : at home,
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 com-
munity had at the very first a fixed place of assembly. Luke
here places side by side the public religious conduct of the
Christians and their private association; hence after eV TO>
lepat the express KCIT OIKOV was essentially necessary. 1 pere-
\dfji^avov rpcxf)?)*;] they received their portion of food (comp.
xxvii. 33 f.), partook of their sustenance. Plat. Polit.
p. 275 C: 7raiSeta9 peTetXijfpevai teal rpocprjs. Ver. 46 is to
be paraphrased as follows : In the daily visiting of the temple,
at which they attended with one accord, and amidst daily ob-
servance of the love-feast at home, they wanted not sustenance, of
which they partook in gladness and singleness of heart. ev
arya\\id<rei\ this is the expression of the joy in the Holy
Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread, " fructus fidei et
1 Observe how, on the one hand, the youthful church continued still bound
up with the national cultus, but, on the other hand, developed itself at the same
time as a separate society, and in this latter development already put forth the
germs of the distinctively Christian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, prakt. Theol. I.
p. 174 ff., 213 ff.). The further evolution and independent vital power of this
cultus could not but gradually bring about the severance from the old, and
accomplish that severance in the first instance in Gentile- Christian churches.
CHAP. II. 47. 101
character veritatis," Bengel. And still in the erection of the
kingdom believers are apwpoi ev d<yaX\.id<rei, Jude 24. This
is, then, the joy of triumph. a<f>e\6rr)<i] plainness, simplicity,
true moral candour. Dem. 1489. 10 : a<eX?)9 icai 7rappT)<rla<;
/ieo-To?. The word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but
a<j)e\eia is (Ael. V. H. iii. 10, al ; Polyb. vi. 48. 4).
Ver. 4*7. Alvovvres r. eov\ is not to be restricted to giving
thanks at meals, but gives prominence generally to the whole
religious frame of spirit ; which expressed itself in the praises
of God (comp. de Wette). This is clearly evident from the
second clause of the sentence, ical e^ovre^ . . . \aov, 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. 77/309 o\. T. \aov] possessing favour (on
account of their pious conduct) in their relation to the whole
people. 1 Comp. Eom. v. 1. o Kvpio<i] i.e. Christ, as the
exalted Euler of His church. row a-w^o^evov^"] those who
were leing saved, i.e. those who (by their very accession to the
church) became saved from eternal perdition so as to partake in
the Messianic kingdom. Comp. ver. 40.
1 To refer this remark, on account of the later persecution, to the idealizing
tendency and to legendary embellishment (Baur), is a very rash course, as between
this time and the commencement of persecution a considerable period intervenes,
and the popular humour, particularly in times of fresh excitement, is so change-
able. Schwanbeck also, p. 45, denies the correctness of the representation,
which he reckons among the peculiarities of the Petrine portion of the book.
102 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTER III.
VEK. 3. After IXewoa., \af3s7v is to be defended, which is wanting
in D, min. Theophyl. Lucif. and some vss., and is wrongly
deleted by Heinr. and Born em. The authorities which omit it
are too weak, especially as the complete superfluousness of the
word (it is otherwise in ver. 5) rendered its omission very
natural. Ver. 6. synpai xai~\ is wanting in B D K, Sahid. ;
deleted by Bornem. But as Peter himself raises up the lame
man, ver. 7, this portion of the summons would more easily be
omitted than added from Luke v. 23, vi. 8; comp. vii. 14.
Lachm. and Tisch. have the form synpt ; rightly, see on Matt.
ix. 5 ; Mark ii. 9. Ver. 7. After fysipe, A B C X, min., the vss.,
and some Fathers, have uvrov. Adopted by Lachm. A usual
addition. Ver. 11. aurou] Elz. has rot lutinvs %AoD, against
decisive testimony. A church-lesson begins with ver. 11.
Ver. 13. xal 'iffaax x. 'laxw/3] Lachm. and Bornem. read xa!
265 'iffaax, x. &sb$ 'iaxw/3, following A C D N, 15, 18, 25, several
vss., Chrys., and Theophyl. From Matt. xxii. 32 (therefore
also several of these witnesses have the article before sog),
and LXX. Ex. iii. 6. ft'sv] is wanting in Elz., but is to be de-
fended on the authority of A B G E N, min., vss., and Fathers,
and because no corresponding ds follows. Ver. 1 8. auT-ou (not
aOroG) is, with Lachm. and Tisch., according to decisive evidence,
to be placed after xpiarov, and not after vpotpqruv (Elz. Scholz).
Ver. 20. Trpoxs^eipiff^evov] Elz. : vpoxexripwyftivov, against decisive
evidence. A gloss (vv. 18, 21 ff.) more precisely defining the
meaning according to the context (comp. also xiii. 231).
Ver. 21. TUV\ Elz.: KO.VTUV, against decisive testimony. Introduced
to make the statement stronger, in accordance with ver. 24.
av a'/uvog] is wanting in D, 1 9, Arm. Cosm. Tert. Ir. ; so Born.
It was considered objectionable, because, strictly speaking, no
prophets existed a-r' aiuvog. The position after ayiuv (Lachm.
Tisch.) is so decidedly attested that it is not to be derived from
Luke i. 70. Ver. 22. Instead of n'sv, Elz. has fj.lv yap, against
decisive evidence, yap was written on the margin, because the
connection was not understood. irpos rov$ xaripuc] is wanting
CHAP. III. 1, 2. 103
in A B C N, min. Syr. Copt. Vulg. It is placed after
in D E, vss., and Fathers. So Born. Eightly deleted by
Lachm. and Tisch. An addition byway of gloss. Ver. 23.
Instead of sgoXoOp., A B C D, Lachm. Born. Tisch. read JgoXgfy.
An etymological alteration, which often occurs also in Codd. of
the LXX. Comp. the variations in Heb. xi. 28. Ver. 24.
7.a,r^yyn\av\ Elz. : Tpoxarjjyyg/XaK, against decisive evidence. A
gloss of more precise definition. Ver. 25. o'i u/o/] Elz.: viol.
But the article, which before v/oi was easily left out by a tran-
scriber, is supported by preponderant witnesses, as is also the
IK wanting before r$ ffirip/j,. in Elz., which was omitted as super-
fluous. Ver. 26. After ai/rou Elz. has 'irjaovv, against many and
important authorities. A familiar addition, although already
read in A B. vpuv] C, min. vss. Ir. have aiiruv (so Lachm.)
or avrou. The original vpuv was first changed into aurov (in
conformity with sxaarov), and then the plural would be easily
inserted on account of the collective sense. The pronoun is
entirely wanting in B.
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 multitude of apostolic Tepara K.
a-vj/Aeia that one with which the first persecution was associated.
eVt TO avTo] here also in a local reference (see on i. 15 ;
comp. LXX. 2 Sam. ii. 13; Joseph. Antt. xvi. 8. 6); not
merely at the same time and for the same object, but also in
the same way, i.e. together, V^rr, 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. dve/3aivov~] they were in the act of
going up. eirl TTJV wpav TT}? Trpoa-ev^rjsi] eW, used of the
definition of time, in so far as a thing extends to a space of
time ; see on Mark xv. 1 ; Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 284, ed. 3.
Hence : during the hour, not equivalent to Trepl TTJV wpav
(Alberti, Obss., Valckenaer, Winer, and many others). Con-
cerning the three hours of prayer among the Jews : the third
(see on ii. 15), the sixth (noon), and the ninth (that of the
evening sacrifice in the temple), see Lightfoot, Schoettgen, and
"Wetstein, in loc. Comp. x. 3, 9. The Attic mode of writing
evdrrjv is decidedly attested in the Book of Acts.
Ver. 2. XXo<? e KOI\. p-fjrp.'] born lame. Comp. xiv. 8;
104 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
John ix. 1. And he was above forty years old, iv. 22.
The imperfect efiaa-raQro, he was being brought, denotes the
action in reference to the simultaneous avefiaivov, ver. 1 ;
and eriOovv, its daily repetition. rrjv Xeyop. &paiav\ which
bears the by-name (see Schaefer, Melet. p. 14) "Beautiful."
The proper name was, "gate of Nicanor." It lay on the
eastern side of the outermost court of the temple, leading
towards the valley of Kidron, and is described by Josephus,
Sell. v. 5. 3, as surpassingly splendid : T&V Be irv\wv al fiev
evvea %pv(ra> fcal apjvpw Ke/ca\v/j,fj,evat iravra^oOev r/crav, oyu,0i'a><?
re TrapaGTa&es Kal TO. virepdvpa' fj,ia Be 77 efo>$ez> rod vew
Kopivdlov ^a\Kov TTO\V rf} rifjifj T<*9 KaTapyvpovs Kal irepL^v-
crovs vTreparyovcra. Kal Bvo fiev eKacrrov rov 7ruXe3z/09 Ovpai,
rpuitcovra Be TTTJ^WV TO in|ro? e/cacrr?;?, /cat TO TrXaro? 771; Trevre-
icaiBeica. Others (Wagenseil, Lund, Bengel, Walch) understand
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 wpaios ; for the name Susan
is to be explained from the Persian capital (1^K>, town of lilies),
which, according to Middoth, 1 Kal. 3, was depicted on the
gate. 1 Others (Kuihoel, et al.) think that the gate Chulda, i.e.
tempestiva, leading to the court of the Gentiles, is meant. See
Lightf. Hor. ad Joh. p. 946 f. But this derivation of the
name (from *6n, tempus) cannot be historically proved, nor
could Luke expect his reader to discover the singular appel-
lation porta tempestiva in wpaiav, seeing that for this the
very natural " porta speciosa, " (Vulg.) could not but suggest
itself. Among the Gentiles also beggars sat at the gates of
their temples (Martial, i. 112) a usage probably connected
with the idea (also found in ancient Israel) of a special
divine care for the poor (Hermann, Privatalterth. 14. 2).
TOU alrelv} eo fine, ut peteret.
Vv. 3-5. MeXXoi/ra? elcnevai et? T. te/x] For it was
through this outermost gate that the temple proper was
1 Perhaps, however, this picture ot Susa on the gate of the temple is only an
invention on account of the name, and the latter might be sufficiently explained
from the lily-shaped decorations of the columns (jE^t? n{?yD> 1 Kings v. 19).
CHAP. III. 6-8. 105
reached. r/pa>Ta eXe??/io<7. Xa/3.] he asJced that he might
receive an alms. Modes of expression used in such a case
(Merere in me ; In me benefac tibi, and the like) may be seen
in Vajicra rdbb. f. 20. 3, 4. On \aftdv, which in itself
might be dispensed with, see Winer, p. 565 [E. T. 760].
drevta-as . . . /3\e'ijroz> et? ^a?] They would read from his
look, whether he was spiritually fitted for the benefit to be
received. " Talis intuitus non caruit peculiari Spiritus motu ;
hinc fit, ut tarn secure de miraculo pronuntiet," Calvin. Comp.
xiii. 9. eTret-^ev aurot?] The supplying of rov vovv serves
to make the sense clear. Comp. Luke xiv. 7; 1 Tim. iv. 16.
He was attentive, intent upon them. Comp. Schweigh. Lex.
Herod. I. p. 241, and Lex. Polyb. p. 238.
Ver. 6. Al&a>(j,i] 1 give thee herewith. ei> ro> OI/O/A. . . .
TrepiTrdrei] ~by virtue of the name (now pronounced) of Jesus
the Messiah, the Nazarene, arise and walk. ei> denotes that on
which the rising and walking were causally dependent. Mark
xvi. 17; Luke x. 17; Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18. Comp. the
utterance of Origen, c. Cels. 1, against the assertion of Celsus,
that Christians expelled demons by the help of evil spirits :
rocrovrov <yap Svvarai TO ovofia Tov'lijfrov. This name was
the focus of the power of faith, through which the miraculous
gift of the apostles operated. Comp. on Matt. vii. 2 2 ; Luke
ix. 49, x. 17 ; Mark xvi. 17. A dico or the like is not (in
opposition to Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) to be supplied
with ev T. ovo/ju. K.r.X. Observe, moreover, first, the solemnity of
the 'Irjaov Xpiarov rov Na%. ; and secondly, that Xpia-rov, as
in ii. 38, cannot yet be a proper name. Comp. John xvii. 3,
i. 42.
Vv. 7, 8. Avrov XT/? Sepias'] comp. Mark ix. 27, and see
Valckenaer, ad Theocr. iv. 35. e&TepewOrjffav'] his feet were
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 ySacret? are the
feet, as in Wisd. xiii 18 ; Joseph. Antt. vii. 5. 5 ; Plat. Tim.
p. 92 A, and in later Greek writers. TO. <r$vpd: the ankle-
bones, tali (very frequent in the classics), after the general
expression subjoining the particular. ^a\\o^vo<i\ spring-
106 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ing up, leaping into the air. Xen. Gyr. vii. 1.32; Andb.
vii. 3. 33; LXX. Isa. Iv. 12. Not: exsiliens, videlicet e
grabbato (Casaubon), of which last there is no mention.
Kal elcrfjXQe . . . TOV 0eov] This behaviour bears the most natural
impress of grateful attachment (comp. ver. 1 1), lively joy
(irepiTraT. KOI dXkoaevos, at the same time as an involuntary
proof of his complete cure for himself and for others), and
religious elevation. The view of Thiess 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 (w. 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 cannot in that case, any
more than in any other miracle, warrant us to deny its
historical character, as is done by Zeller, who supposes that
the general p^toXoi -jrepiTraTovatv, Luke vii 22, Matt. xv. 31,
has here been illustrated in an individual instance.
Ver. 10. 'ETreylvwa-Kov avrov, ore /c.r.X] A well-known
attraction. Winer, p. 581 [E. T. 781]. 777309 rr}v eXe^oo-.]
for the sake of alms. o Ka0ijuevo<i\ See on John ix. 8. eVt
rfj G>paia TT.] eVt : immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful
gate. See on John iv. 6. 0du/3ov<i Kal eKo-rda:] astonish-
ment and surprise at what had happened to him an ex-
haustive designation of the highest degree of wonder. Comp.
0av/jba ical dp/So?, Plut. de audit. 8. 145, and similar ex-
pressions, Lobeck, Pared, p. 60 f.
Ver. 11. Kparovvro<i\ But as he held fast Peter and John,
i.e. in the impulse of excited gratitude took hold of them and
clung to them, in order not to be separated from his bene-
factors. Comp. John xx. 23 ; Eev. ii. 25, iii. 11 ; Song of
Sol. iii. 4 : cKpaTtja-a avrbv Kal OVK d(f>f)Ka avrov. Polyb. viii.
20. 8 ; Eur. Phoen. 600 ; Plut. Mor. p. 99 D. There is no
sanction of usage for the meaning commonly given, and still
adopted by Olshausen and De Wette : assectari. For in Col.
ii. 1 9 Kpareiv occurs in its proper sense, to hold fast ; the
CHAP. m. 12, is. 107
LXX. 2 Sam. iii. 6 is not at all in point, and in Achill. Tat.
v. p. 309, eVe^et/jet pe /cpareiv is: me retinere conabatur.
As to the porch of Solomon, see on John x. 23. e/c0afji,(3oi]
the plural after the collective noun 6 Xao?. Kiihner, ad Xen.
Andb. ii. 1. 6. Ast, ad Plat. Legg. I. p. 63. Nagelsb. on
the Iliad, ii. 278. Comp. Acts v. 16.
Ver. 12. ' AireKpivaro] he 'began to speaTc, 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, av&p. 'I<rp., as
in ii. 22, v. 35, xiii. 16, xxi. 28. ri Oavfid^ere eVl rovry ;]
The wonder of the people, namely, was unfounded, in so far as
they regarded the healing as an effect of the Svvapis rj euo-e/3.
of the apostles themselves. rovry] is neuter ; see ver. 1 :
at this. As to the rj, an, introducing the second question,
observe that the course of thought without interrogation is as
follows : Your astonishment is groundless, provided that you
were reasonably entitled to regard us as the workers of this
cure. The rj is accordingly : or else, if you think that you
must wonder why, etc. rj/mlv emphatically prefixed : ISia is
then correlative. evcre/3eia\ " quasi sit praemium pietatis
nostrae a Deo nobis concessum," Heinrichs. In us lies neither
the causa effectiva nor the causa meritoria. TreTroirj/coa-i, TOV
irepiir. avrov} to be taken together : as if we had been at work,
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
expression in the LXX. (see Winer, p. 306 [E. T. 410]) ;
but the conception of the aim is not on that account to
be obliterated as the defining element of the expression,
especially as even in classical writers this mode of con-
ception is found, and presents itself in the expression Trotetv
OTTO?. See, e.g., Herod, i. 117: iroielv . . ., OTTO)? earat rj 'Icovli)
\ev6epr), v. 109, i. 209. Comp. Trpdaaeiv 6Va>9, Kriiger on
Thuc. i. 56. The Troielv is conceived as striving.
Ver. 1 3. Connection : Do not regard this cure as our
work (ver. 12) ; no, God, the peculiar God of our fathers,
glorified (by this cure, comp. John ix. 3 f., xi. 4) His
108 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
servant Jesus, whom you delivered up (what a stinging con-
trast !), etc. r. TTUTepav ^/z.] embraces the three patriarchs.
Comp. on Rom. ix. 5. The venerated designation : " the
God of Abraham," etc. (Ex. iii. 1 5 f.), heightens the blame of
the contrast. eSoaere] namely, inasmuch as He granted
such a result by means of His name (ver. 6). rov TraiSa] is
not to be explained, after the Vulgate, with the older inter-
preters (and still by Heinrichs, Kuinoel), as filium, since only
wo? Oeov is throughout used of Christ in this sense ; but with
Piscator, Bengel, Mtzsch (Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 331 ff.),
Olshausen, de Wette, Baumgarten, and others, as servum ; 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 nirp l^y there. Comp.
Matt, xii 18. So also in ver. 26, iv. 27, 30. Observe that
an apostle is never called irals (but only 8oi)\o<?) 0eov. Comp.
especially iv. 29 f. ov u/iet? fiev] This uev, which pierces
the conscience of the hearers, is not followed by any corre-
sponding Be. Comp. on i. 1. The connection before the
mind of Luke was : whom you have indeed delivered up, etc.,
but God has raised from the dead. But by /cptvavros efceivov
airdKveiv he was led away from carrying out this sentence,
and induced to give to it another turn. -TrapeSa/care] namely,
to Pilate. rjpvrivavQe avrov] i.e. ye have denied that He is
the Messiah, John xix. 14, 15 ; 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 iral<; rov Qeov. Observe,
moreover, that with rjpvija: avrov the relative construction is
not carried on, but with rhetorical emphasis the sentence is
continued independent of it : and ye have denied Him (comp.
Bernhardy, p. 304; Kiihner, 799). This is in keeping
with the liveliness of the discourse and its antitheses ; but
without such a breaking off of the construction avrov would
be quite superfluous, as the regimen remains the same as
before. Kara Trpcawjrov\ towards the face ; ye have denied
Him even unto the face of Pilate (so audaciously!). Comp.
GaL ii. 11. There is no Hebraism. See Jacobs, ad Achill.
Tat. p. 612 ; Schweighauser, Lex. Polyb. p. 540. Kpivavros
CHAP. III. 14, 15. 109
airo\vet,v\ although the latter had decided to release (him).
See John xix. 4 ; Luke xxiii. 16. eiceivov is designedly used
instead of avrov, in order to make the contrast felt between
what Pilate judged and what they did. Comp. ver. 14. See
Kriiger and Kiihner, ad Xen. Andb. iv. 3. 20 ; Dissen, ad
Dem. de cor. p. 319 ; and the examples from Plato in Ast,
Lex. I. p. 658. Chrys. well says: vfjueis eiceivov OeXijaavTos
OVK r)6e\r)aare.
Vv. 14, 15. 'Tfieis Be] Contrast to tcpivavros eic. aTro\veiv,
ver. 13. rbv ayiov Kal BUaiov] the /car' %oyr\v Holy (con-
secrated to God, inasmuch as He is the nirp "ny) and Just
(innocent and entirely righteous, see on John xvi. 1 0). Comp.
Isa. liii. 11. To this characteristic description of Jesus dvBpa
<f>ovea (Barabbas, see Luke xxiii. 19 ; comp. on John xviii. 40)
forms a purposely chosen contrast : a man who was a murderer.
Comp. Soph. 0. C. 948 : dvBpa iraTpoKTovov. 0. E. 842 :
avSpas X?7crTa9. It is more emphatic, more solemn, than the
simple fovea; but avOpwjrov <>ovea would have been more
contemptuous, Bernhardy, p. 48. ^aptaBvjveu vpJiv\ condonari
vdbis (Ducker, ad Flor. iii. 5. 1 0), that he should ~by way of favour
be delivered to you. Plut. C. Gracch. 4 ; Acts xxv. 1 1, xxvii.
24; Philem. 22. See Loesner, Obss. p. 1*72 f. rov Be
apxyyov rrj<j ^co?}?] forms a double contrast, namely, to avBpa
(jjovea and to aTre/creivare. It means : the author (Heb. ii. 10,
xii. 2; Mic. i. 13 ; 1 Mace. ix. 61 ; Plat. Locr. p. 96 C ;
Tim. p. 21 E) of life, inasmuch as Christ by His whole life-
work up to His resurrection was destined (w. 20, 21) to
provide eternal life, all that is included in the Messianic
a-coTrjpfa (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. ov o 0eo? . . . ov ^/itet? /c.r.X.] great in its sim-
plicity. The latter, in which ov is neuter, is the burden of
the apostolic consciousness. Comp. on ii. 32. Observe, more-
over, on vv. 14, 15 : " Graphice sane majestatem illam apo-
stolicam expressit, quam illi fuisse in dicendo vel una ejus
110 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
testatur epistola" Erasmus. The Epistle of Peter is written
as with runic characters.
Ver. 16. 'E-jrl rfj iriarei rov QVQ\JL. 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 eW, of the
cause on which the fact rests, on the ground of, see Bernhardy,
p. 250 ; as to the genitive of the object with iria-ris, see on
Eom. iii 22. Others particularly Rosenmuller, Heinrichs,
and Olshausen understand eVt of the aim (Lobeck, ad Phryn.
p. 475) : in order that faith in Jesus may be 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 KOI eVt rfj Trio-ret K.r.\. attaches
itself closely to the preceding ov ^et? jjudprvpe? ea-fiev, so
that Peter, immediately after mentioning the testimony, brings
forward the extraordinary efficacy 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 ovopa avrov] so far, namely, as the
cure was effected by means of His name pronounced, ver. 6.
Observe the weighty repetition and position at the end. 77
TUOTW 17 &' avrov] the faith 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 manifestation and ministry
during His life (Matt. xvi. 16 ; John i. 14), partly by means
of the resurrection and effusion of the Spirit. The view
which takes TTIOTI? of trust in God brought about through
Christ (comp. 1 Pet. i. 21; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 324;
bibl. Theol. p. 139, after de Wette), is not in keeping with the
first half of the verse, which has already specifically deter-
mined the object of iriaris. ravryv] SeiKriictbs. For the
bodily soundness of the man, who was present (ver. 11), was
apparent to their eyes. On o\oK\T]p., comp. Plut. Mor. p.
1063 F; Plat. Tim. p. 44 C: o\.oK\ijpo<; 74779 re Trai/reXto?.
arrevavn tram. vfi.] corresponds to ov Bewpelre in the first
clause of the verse. The faith, etc., gave to him this restora-
CHAP. III. 17, 18. Ill
tion in tJie presence of 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 gentleness, setting forth the putting to death of
Jesus (1) as a deed of ignorance (ver. 17), and (2) as the
necessary fulfilment of the divine counsel (ver. 1 8). /cal vvv~\
and now, i.e. et sic, Hague ; so that vvv is to be understood not
with reference to time, but as : in this state of matters} Comp.
Xen. Andb. iv. 1. 19, and Kiihner in loc. See also vii. 34,
x. 5, xxii. 16 ; John ii. 28 ; 2 John 5. dSe\(j)ot] familiar,
winning. Chrys. : avrwv ra? TJrv%a<> evdea><f rfi rwv dBe\<f>Q)v
irpoa^opia Trape^vdrjaaro. Comp. on the other hand, ver. 12 :
aySpe? ' I<rparj\lrai. Kara ayvoiav]iinJcnowingly (Lev. xxii. 14),
since you had not recognised Him 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. 1 4. The opposite Kara irpodecnv, Kara irpoaipea'iv.
axTTrep Kal ol ap^. vpwv} namely, have acted ignorantly. "Wolf
(following the Peshito) refers the comparison merely to eVpa-
f are : 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 (ap^oz/re?), on whom the people
depended. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 8. Ver. 18. But that could not
"but so happen, etc. Comp. Luke xxiv. 44 ff. irdvroyv rwv
Trpofrrjrwv] 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 fulfilment, in so far as the Messianic redemption, to which
the divine prediction of all the prophets referred (comp. x. 43),
has been realized by the sufferings and death of Jesus. Look-
ing back from this standpoint of historical realization, it is
with truth said : God has brought into fulfilment that which
He declared beforehand by all the prophets, that His Messiah
should suffer. On r. Xpi&rov avrov, comp. iv. 26 ; Luke
1 Since, in fact, only by this self-manifestation of the risen Christ mnst the
true light concerning Him who was formerly rejected and put to death have
dawned upon you ; otherwise you could not have so treated Him.
112 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ii. 26, ix. 20; Eev. xi. 15, xii. 10. ovrco] so, as it has
happened, vers. 14, 15, 17.
Ver. 1 9. Otv\ infers from ver. 1 7 f. fieravorjaare] see
onii. 38. The eVto-T/je-^rare (comp. xxvi. 20), connected with
it, expresses the positive consequence of the peravoelv. " Signi-
ficatur in resipiscente applicatio sui ad Deum," Bengel. et9 TO
e%a\ei<j>0. /e.T.X] contains the aim (namely, the mediate aim :
the final aim is contained in ver. 20) which repentance and
conversion ought to have. The idea of the forgiveness of sins
is here represented under the figure of the erasure of a hand-
writing. See on Col. ii. 14. Comp. Ps. li. 9 ; Isa. xliii. 25 ;
Dem. 791. 12 : e|aX^A,t7rrat TO 6(j)\r)fj,a. Baptism is not here
expressly named, as in ii. 38, but was now understood of
itself, seeing that not long before thousands were baptized ;
and the thought of it has suggested the figurative expression
el;a\ei(f)d. : 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 (iradelv rbv X.). Comp. Weiss,
Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 258. The causa apprehendens (faith) is
contained in the required repentance and conversion.
Ver. 20. The final aim of the preceding exhortation. In
order that times of refreshing may come. Peter conceives that
the tcaipol ava"*lrvf;ew<; and the Parousia (KOI aTrocrreikr) /e.r.A,.)
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 prose-
lytism to Christ (chap. x.). 6Va>? av, with the subjunctive
(xv. 17; Luke ii. 35; Eom. iii. 4; Matt, vi 5), denotes the
purpose that is to be attained in dependence on a supposition
(here : in this event ; if ye comply with the summons). See
Harking, Partikell. II. p. 289; Klotz, ad Devar. p. 6 8 5 f.
This av, consequently, is not equivalent to edv (Vulg. : ut cum
venerint}, in which case an apodosis which would be wanting
is arbitrarily supplied in thought (see Erasmus and, recently,
Beelen). Others (Beza, Castalio, Erasmus Schmid, Eckermann,
et al.~) consider OTTO)? as a particle of time = ore : guandocunque
venerint. Against this it may be decisively urged, in point
CDAP. III. 20. 113
of linguistic usage, that in Greek writers (in Herod, and the
poets) the temporal OTTW? is joined with the indicative or
optative, 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.
Kaipol avatyv!;.] seasons of refreshing : namely, the Messianic,
as is self-evident and is clear from what follows. It is sub-
stantially the same as is meant in Luke ii. 25 by irapaK\r)o-i<;
rov 'la-parjK, namely, seasons in which, through the appearance
of the Messiah in His kingdom, there shall occur Uessed rest and
refreshment for the people of God, after the expiration of the
troublous seasons of the alwv oSro? (2 Tim. iii. 1 ; Gal. i. 4 ;
Acts xiv. 22). 1 The al&ves ol eTrep^o/jievoi in chap. ii. 7 are
not different from these future Kaipoi. This explanation is
shown to be clearly right by the fact that Peter himself im-
mediately adds, as explanatory of Kaipol avatyvt;. : /cal airoo--
Tei\r) rov Trpofce^eip. vfuv 'Irjo: X., which points to the Parousia.
Others rationalizing have, at variance with the text, ex-
plained the Kaipol dvaty. either of the time of rest after death
(Schulz in the Bill. Hag. V. p. 119 if.), or of deliverance from
the yoke of the ceremonial law (Kraft, Obss. sacr. fasc. IX.
p. 271 ff.), or of the putting off of penal judgment on the
Jews (Barkey), or of the sparing of the Christians amidst the
destruction of the Jews (Grotius, Hammond, Lightfoot), or of
the glorious condition of the Christian church before the end
of the world (Vitringa). On dvdtyvgis, comp. LXX. Ex.
viil 15; Aq. Isa. xxviii. 12; Strabo, x. p. 459. curb irpo-
O-WTTOU ToO Kvpiov] The times, which are to appear, are rhetoric-
ally represented as something real, which is to be found with
God in heaven, and comes thence, from the face of God, to
earth. Thus God is designated as amo? of the times of
refreshing (Chrysostom). rov TrpoKe^. vfuv 'I. X.] Jesus the
Messiah destined for you (for your nation). On Trpo^eipi^ofjuai
(xxii. 14, xxvi. 16), properly, I take in hand; then, / under-
take, I determine, and with the accusative of the person : /
1 Analogous is the conception of xaraaratw; and <ra/3/3a<n<r / tto; in the Epistle to
the Hebrews. Comp. &n<rn, 2 Thess. i. 7, and the description given in Rev.
xxi. 4 f.
ACTS. H
114 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
appoint one. Comp. 2 Mace. iii. 7, viii. 9 ; Polyb. vL 58. 3 ;
Plut. Galb. 8 ; Diod. Sie. xii. 22 ; Wetstein and Kypke in loc. ;
Schleusn. Thes. iv. p. 513. Analogous is o TOU 0eoO e/cXe/cro?,
Luke xxiii. 35.
Ver. 21. Whom the heaven must receive (as the place of
abode appointed for Him by God until the Parousia). Taken
thus, 1 ovpavov is the subject (Beza, Piscator, Castalio, and
others, the Socinians, also Kuinoel, de Wette, Baumgarten,
Lechler, Hackett), and Bel does not stand for eSei, as if Peter
wished historically to narrate the ascension ; but the present
tense places 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. 2 0, and a%pi xpovwv
#.T.X., ver. 21). Hence also the infinitive is not of the dura-
tion of the action (Se^ea-Bai), but of its absolute act (Se^aadai).
Others find the subject in ov: who must occupy heaven (so
Luther and many of the older Lutherans, partly in the interest
of Christ's ubiquity ; also Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Lange,
Weiss, et al.) ; " Christus coelum debuit occupare eeu regiam
suam," Calovius. But against this view the linguistic usage
of Se^ea-dai, which never signifies occupare? is decisive. Comp.
on the other hand, Plat. Theaet. p. 177 A:
avrovs etceivos pev o r<uv KCLKWV KaOapos TOTTO? ov
Soph. Track. 1075: <ui/af A'i&t} Segai /ne. Occupare would be
Kare^eiv. Comp. Soph. Ant. 605 : /eare^et? 'OXv/tTrou f^apfMa-
poeo-a-av atyXav. On the fiev solitarium Grotius aptly re-
marks, that it has its reference in a^pi, %povov aTTOKaraa-r.,
" quasi dicat : ubi illud tempus venerit, ex coelo in terras
redibit." %/>* xpovcov aTTOKaracrr. iravrwv} until times shall
have come, in which all things will le restored. Before such
times set in, Christ comes not from heaven. Consequently
1 Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 2, defil. , already has evidently this view : SE? y*f
aiiri* . . . I* 1 tiipanov lt%6xiai, and Oecumenius calls heaven the ainlo^ri rov
aTtfrtt^pivov. The Vulgate repeats the ambiguity of the original : quern opcrtet
coelum quidem suscipere ; but yet appears, by suscipere, to betray the correct
view. Clearly and definitely Castalio gives it with a passive torn: " queni
oportet coelo capi."
8 We should have to explain it as ^ who .must accept the heaven (comp.
Bengel). But what a singularly turgid expression would that be !
CHAP. III. 21. 115
the times of the al&v o /ze'XXwy itself the Kaipol
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 fall (7ra\.iy<yeve<rui, Matt. xix. 28 ; comp. Rom. viii. 18 ff.;
2 Pet. iii. 13) is excluded, seeing that that restoration of all
things (irdvrwv} 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 ex-
pression, and from Matt. xvii. 11, where Christ Himself,
taking it from Malachi, has made it His own. Accordingly
the d-TroKarda-Taa-K; Trdvrtov can only be the restoration of all
moral relations to their original normal condition. Christ's
reception in heaven this is the idea of the apostle continues
until the moral corruption 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 avatyvfys from the
presence of God, ver. 20. What an incitement neither to
neglect nor to defer repentance and conversion as the means
to this dTTOKarda-Taa-K; Trdvrwv ! The mode in which this moral
restitution must take place is, according to ver. 22, beyond
doubt, namely, by rendering obedience in all points to what
the Messiah has during His earthly ministry spoken. Observe,
moreover, that irdvrwv is not masculine (Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr.
p. 85, and Trial. Theol. p. 145), but neuter, as in Matt. xvii. 11,
Mark ix. 12 (comp. ver. 22, Kara iravra, o<ra) ; and that cnro-
Kard(TTa(n<; cannot be otherwise taken than in its constant
literal meaning, restoration (Polyb. iv. 23. 1 ; v. 2. 11 ; xxviii.
10. 7; Dion. Hal. x. 8; also Plat. Ax. p. 370), wherein the
state lost and to be restored is to be conceived as that of the
obedience of the theocracy towards God and His messenger
(ver. 22). The state of forgiveness of sin (ver. 19) is not
identical with this, but previous to it, as OTTW? K.T.\. (ver. 20)
shows : the sanctification following the reconciliation. wv
116 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
e\a\ri<rev tf.r.X] The attracted &v refers to xpovwv : of which
he has spoken, etc. On \a\elv rt,, in this sense, comp. Matt.
xxvi. 13; Plat. Ax. p. 366 D; Soph. Phil. 110. So also
\e<yeiv Tt, to tell of something ; see Stallbaum, ad Plat. Apol.
p. 23 A; Phaed. p. 79 B. Others refer it to Trdvrwv, and
explain : usque ad tempus, quo omnia eventum habebunt, 1
quae,, etc. ; by which Peter is supposed to mean either the con-
quest of Messiah's enemies and the diffusion of the Christian
religion (Bosenmiiller, Morus, Stolz, Heinrichs), or the destruc-
tion of the Jewish state (Grotius, Hammond, Bolten), or the
erection of the Messianic kingdom and the changes preceding
it, the diffusion of Christianity, the resurrection of the dead,
and the judgment (Kuinoel). Incorrectly, as airoKaraaraa-^, in
the sense ofimpletio, efc Trepas eKOelv (Oecumenius), and the like,
is without warrant in usage ; and as little does it admit the
substitution of the idea realization (Grotius, Schneckenburger
in the Stud. u. Krit. 1 8 5 5, p. 517, Lechler). air atwz/o?] since
the world began, 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. Eom.
x. 19), has announced to the people the advent of the Mes-
siah, and the necessity of obedience to Him, w. 22, 23. Thus
has he made a beginning in speaking of the aTroKaTda-raats
TTavrwv, 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. M&>uo%] The
passage is Deut. xviii. 15 f., 19, 2 which, applying accord-
1 Baumgarten, p. 83, endeavours to bring out essentially the same meaning,
but without any change in the idea of x-roxaTaa-r., in this way : he supplies the
verb avoxuTaeraHnffiffila.! with Sii sAaAi<rv, and assumes the kingdom of Israel
(i. 6) to be meant. To imagine the latter reference, especially after -nii/rav, is
just as arbitrary, as the supplying of that verbal notion is exceedingly harsh.
Hofm. Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 648, follows the correct reference of to xpova*.
2 See on this passage and ita different explanations, and also on its at any
rate Messianic idea, Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 110 ff. ; G. Baur, alttest.
Weissag. I. p. 353 ff.
CHAP. III. 22-24. 117
ing to its historical sense to the prophetic order generally
which presents itself to the seer collectively as in one person,
has received its highest fulfilment in Christ as the real-
ized ideal of all the Old Testament interpreters of God,
consequently as the a\T)8ivo<; TrpotyrjTi)?. 1 Comp. vii. 37. o>9
e'/ze] as He has raised up me by His preparation, calling, commis-
sion, and effectual communion. Bengel well remarks regarding
the Messianic fulfilment : " Similitude non officit excellentiae."
ecrrai Be] see on ii. 17. eo\o#/j. IK. rov \aov] In the
LXX. it runs after the original text : eya> eicBiKij<rci> e 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, 2 substitutes for it
the formula which often occurs in the Pentateuch after Gen.
xvii 14 : n^M? ^nn $S3n nrnM, which is the appointment
of the punishment of death excluding forgiveness ; see Gesen.
Thes. II. p. 718 ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 419. The apostle, accord-
ing to his insight into the Messianic reference and significance
of the whole passage, understands by it exclusion from the
Messianic life and ejection to Gehenna, consequently the punish-
ment of eternal death, which will set in at the judgment.
On %6\o0pva), funditus perdo, frequent in the LXX., the
Apocrypha, and in the Test. XII. Pair., also in Clem. Rom.
(who has only the form efoXefy.), only known to later Greek,
see Kypke, II. p. 2 7 ; Sturz, Dial. Mac. p. 1 6 6 f. Kal . . .
Be] i.e. Moses on the one hand, and all the prophets on the
other. Thus over against Moses, the beginner, who was intro-
duced by fjiev, there is placed as similar in kind the collective
body. See as to Kal . . . Be, on John vi. 51, and observe that
Be is attached to the emphasized idea appended (Trai/re?) ;
comp. Baeuml. Partik. p. 149. All the prophets from Samuel
and those that follow, as many as have spoken, have also, etc.,
evidently an inaccurate form of expression in which two con-
structions are mixed up, namely : (1) All the prophets from
1 Calvin appropriately says : " Non modo quia prophetarum omnium est
princeps, sed quod in ipsuni dirigebantur omnes superiores prophetiae, et quod
tandem Deus per os ejus absolute loquutus est." Heb. i. If.
z Comp. Weiss, bill. Theol. p. 146.
118 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Samuel onward, as many of them as have spoken, have also, etc. ;
and (2) All the prophets, Samuel and those who follow, as many
of them as have spoken, have also, etc. Winer, p. 588 [E. T.
789]. 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 KOI oa-oi rwv KaOegrjs e\d\. ; it yields a tautology, as
those who follow after are already contained in irdvre^ ol
Trpo^ijrat dirb 2. Van Hengel's (Adnotatt. in loca nonnulla
N. T. p. 101 if.) expedient, that after rwv KaOeffi there is to be
supplied eta? 'Icodvvov, and after TrpoffiTai, dp^dpevoi,, 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 prophetarum. For a prophecy
from 2 Sam., see Heb. i. 5. Comp. Hengstenberg, Christol. I.
p. 143 ff. K. TWV readers] " longa temporum successione,
uno tamen consensu," Calvin. r9 ^/iepa? Taura?] i.e. those
days, of which Moses has spoken what has just been quoted, namely,
the xpovot aTTo/caracTT. iravr., which necessarily follows from &v
eXd\i]a-ev 6 @eo? /c.r.X., ver. 21. Hence we are not to under-
stand, with Schneckenburger, Weiss, Hofmann (Schriffbew. II.
1, p. 140), 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 &v \d\r)crev /e.r.X, ver.
21, must be the element determining the following appeals to
Moses and the prophets.
Ver. 25. Ye 1 are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant,
i.e. ye belong to loth, 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 accordance with promise and covenant.
Comp. ii. 39 ; Eom. ix. 4, xv. 8. On viol r?}<? Biadtjid]*;, comp.
the rabbinical passages in Wetstein. Concerning u/09, used to
denote closer connection (like I?), see on Matt. viii. 12. In-
correctly Lightfoot, Wolf, and Kuinoel render : " prophetarum
1 Observe the great emphasis of the v/u~t as of the Ipl* (ver. 26). From their
position of preference they ought, in the consciousness of their being the people
of God, to feel the more urgently the duty of accepting the Messiah.
C11AP. III. 26. 119
discipuli (Matt. xii. 27; so the Greek TratSe? ; Blomf. Gloss.
Perss. 408), because then viol in the same signification does
not suit 7779 SiaBy/cys. Hence, incorrectly, also Michaelis,
Morus, Heinrichs : " e vestra natione provenerunt prophetae."
Siadtf/cr}, covenant. For God bound Himself ~by covenant
to bless all generations through the seed of Abraham, on the
condition, namely, that Abraham obeyed His command (Gen.
xii. 1). On SieQeTo, comp. Heb. viii. 10, x. 16 ; Gen. xv.
18, al. ; 1 Mace. i. 11. So with Siad^K^v also in the classics.
7T/30? TOIM? 7raT. r)p.] TTjOo? denotes the ethical direction.
Bernhardy, p. 265. Abraham is conceived as representative
of the forefathers ; hence it is said that God had bound Him-
self towards the fathers when He spoke to Abraham. KOI lv
Ta> cnrepfjiaTi <rov\ /cat, and, quite as in ii. 1 7. The quotation
(Gen. xxii. 18 ; comp. xviil 18, xii. 3) is not exactly accord-
ing to the LXX. According to the Messianic fulfilment, from
which point of view Peter grasps and presents the prophetic
meaning of the passage (see ver. 26), ev ra> air. aov is not col-
lective, but : in thy descendant, namely, the Messiah (comp. Gal.
iii. 16), the future blessing of salvation has its causal ground.
As to Trarpiai, gentes, here nations, see on Eph. iii. 1 5.
Ver. 26. Progress of the discourse: " This bestowal in ac-
cordance 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. irpwrov} sooner than
to all other nations. " Praevium indicium de vocatione gentium,"
Bengel. Eom. i. 16,xi. 11. On this intimation of the univer-
sality of the Messianic salvation Olshausen observes, that the
apostle, 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 develop-
ment, a stranger. But this is incorrect : Peter shared the views
of his people, that the non-Jewish nations would be made par-
takers 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. " Caput et summa rei in ad-
120 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ventu Messiae in eo continetur, quod omnes omnino populi ado-
rent Jovam illumque colant unanimiter," Mikrae Kodesch, f.
108. 1. "Gentes non traditae sunt Israeli in hoc saeculo, at
tradentur in diebus Messiae," Berish. rob. f. 28. 2. See already
Isa. ii. 2 f., Ix. 3 ff. ai/ao-TT/o-a?] causing His servant to appear
(the aorist participle synchronous with aTrecrr.). This view of
avacrr. is required by ver. 22. Incorrectly, therefore, Luther,
Beza, Heumann, and Barkey : after He has raised Him from, the
dead. ev\oyovvTa v^as] blessing you. The correlate of eVeu-
\<>7., ver. 25. This efficacy of the Sent One procuring salva-
tion through His redeeming work is continuous. ev ra> djro-
<TTpe(j>eiv] in the turning away, i.e. when ye turn from your
iniquities (see on Rom. i. 29), consequently denoting that by
which the evXoyew must be accompanied on the part of the
recipients (comp. iv. 3 0) the moral relation which must
necessarily be thereby brought about. We may add, that here
the intransitive meaning of dirocnpi^Lv^ and not the transitive,
which Piscator, Calvin, Hammond, Wetstein, Bengel, Morus,
Heinrichs adopt (when He turns away), is required by the
summons contained in ver. 19. The issue to which w. 25
and 26 were meant to induce the hearers namely, that they
should now believingly apprehend and appropriate the Mes-
sianic salvation announced beforehand to them by God and
assured by covenant, and indeed actually in 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. 2 6, 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.
1 So only here in the N. T. ; but see Xen. Hist. iii. 4. 12 ; Gen. xviii. 33,
oZ. ; Ecclus. viii. 5, xvii. 21 ; Bar. ii. 33 ; Sauppe, ad Xen. de re eq. 12. 13 ;
Kriiger, Iii. 2. 5.
CHAP. IV. 121
CHAPTEE IV.
VER. 2. rjji/ Iv vsxpuv] D, min. and some vss. and Fathers have
ruv vsxpuv. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Bornem. An
alteration in accordance with the current dvaora<r/s ruv vsxpuv.
Ver. 5. sig] A B D E, min. Chrys. have sv, which Griesb. has
recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born, adopted. A correction,
as the reference of /$ was not obvious, and it was taken for iv ;
hence also iis'iepovg. (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely
omitted in the Syr. Ver. 6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, xaf
"Avva$ . . . 'AXe%avdpog, in accordance no doubt with A B D K ;
but erroneously, for the very reason that this reading was evi-
dently connected with the reading cwri^d^oav, ver. 5, still pre-
served in D ; Born, has consistently followed the whole form of
the text in D as to w. 5, 6 (also the name 'luva.6a$ instead of
'ludvvqe). Ver. 7. iv r$ psay with the article is to be defended
after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A B K).
Ver. 8. rou 'lapafiX] is wanting in A B N, Vulg. Copt.
Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachrn. But, as it
was quite obvious of itself, it was more readily passed over than
added. Ver. 11. o/xodopuv] so, correctly, Lachm. and Tisch.,
according to important authorities. The usual oixodopowruv is
from Matt. xxi. 42 ; comp. LXX. Ps. cxviii. 22. Ver. 12. OUTS]
A B X, min. Did. Theodore t. Bas. have ov&s, 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 ou.
Ver. 16. To/7j<ro/Av] A E X, min. have iroifoutMv. Recommended
by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the deliberative sub-
junctive appeared more in keeping with the sense. Comp. on
ii. 37. Ver. 17. d-s/X9jtfw/4s0a] D, min. have a<irsri<.i)ff6fAs6a,. So
Born. But the future was introduced in order that it might
correspond to the question ri iroiriaopev. The preceding d-ffs/XJj is
wanting in A B I) N, min. most vss. and some Fathers ; de-
leted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted by
an oversight of the transcriber. Ver. 18. After iraptyy., Elz.
Scholz, Born, have avro?s. A common, but here weakly attested
insertion. Ver. 24. 6 0og] is wanting in A B K, Copt. Vulg.
122 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch.
But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was con-
cerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first
to the second 6 ! On the other hand, there is no reason why it
should have been inserted. Ver. 25. 6 bin ffro/tar. A. wai86e COM
There are very many variations, 1 among which 6 roD
q/j,Sjv dia Kvivpctroi; ayiov aroparog A. -ra/5oj aov tiirwv has the
greatest attestation (ABES, min.), and is adopted by Lachm.,
who, however, considers KvevpaToe as spurious (Praef. p. VII.).
An aggregation of various amplifying glosses ; see Fritzsche, cle
conform. Lachm. p. 55. Ver. 27. sv rjj -ro'Xe/ raurri] is wanting
in Elz., but has decisive attestation. Eejected by Mill and
Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. The omis-
sion may be explained from the circumstance, that in the
passage of the Psalm no locality is indicated. Ver. 36. 'luaqs]
Lachm. Tisch. Born, read 'lusty, according to A B D E X, min.
Chrys. Epiph. and several vss. A mechanical alteration, in con-
iormity with i. 23. UTTO] Lachm. and Tisch. read avo, according
to A B E K, min. Theophyl. Bightly; wo appeared to be
necessary.
Vv. 1, 2. 'ETreo-Tr)<rav~] stood there beside them. The sudden
appearance is implied in the context (\a\ovvr. Be avr., and see
ver. 3). See on Luke ii. 9, xx. 1. ol tepet?] The article
signifies those priests who were then serving as a guard at the
temple. o a-Tpanjyo^ rov lepov] the leader on duty of the
Levitical temple-guard (of the iepety, and himself a priest ;
different from the irpoardrri^ rov iepov, 2 Mace. iii. 4 (see
Grimm in loc.) ; comp. Joseph. Sell. Jud. ii. 12. 6; Antt. xx.
6.2. See also on Luke xxii. 4. 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, that the a-rpaTriybs rov
lep. is here the commander of the Roman garrison of the castle
of Antonia, is to be rejected. KOI ol SaSSovfccuoi] see on
Matt. iii. 7. 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
1 See besides Tisch., especially Born, in foe., who reads after D : (D : Ss) %i&
*. y., S/a Ttu frit/A. Kte,\ti<rtn; AayJ'S, fcci^o; trail-
CHAP. IV. 3. 123
the apostles. Sicnrovovfjievot, . . . vetcpwv] refers to ol 2aS-
SOVK. For these denied the resurrection of the dead, Matt.
xxiL 23. " Sadducaei negant dicuntque : deficit nubes atque
abit; sic descendens in sepulcrum non redit," Tanchum,
f. iii. 1. SiaTTovovp. here and in xvi. 18 may be explained
either according to classical usage : who were active in their
exertions, exerted their energies (my former interpretation), or
according to the LXX. Ecclus. x. 9 ; Aq. Gen. vi. 6 ; 1 Sam.
xx. 3 (Hesychius, Sicnrovrjdefc \v7ri)0ei<;) : 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 l by those passages, and there-
fore is to be preferred. Sorrow and pain 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. eV re3 'Irjcrov] in the person of Jesus, i.e.
in the case of His personal example. For in the resurrection
of Jesus the dvdo-Taais e/c ve/cp. in general although the latter
is not expressly brought forward by Peter was already infer-
entially maintained, since the possibility 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 Risen One
the foundation of their preaching, the emergence of the Sad-
ducees is historically so natural and readily conceivable (comp.
v. 17), that Baur's opinion, as to an ft priori combination
having without historical ground attributed this r6h to them,
can only appear frivolous and uncritical, however zealously
Zeller has sought to amplify and establish it. See in opposition
to it, Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 326 ff.
Ver. 3. JSt? Tijprjaiv] into custody, i.e. into prison. Comp.
Thuc. vii. 86. 1 ; Acts v. 18. effirepa] as they had gone to
the temple at the ninth hour, and so at the beginning of the
first evening (iii. 1), the second evening, which commenced at the
twelfth hour, had probably already begun. See on Matt. xiv. 15.
1 The classical writers use the simple verb vrnurieti in this sense, whether the
pain felt may be bodily or mental. See Kriiger on Thuc. ii. 51. 4 ; Lobeck, ad
Aj. p. 396 ; Duncan, Lex. Horn. ed. Rost, p. 969. Accordingly, in the above
passages S/T<iy;<r^a/ is the strengthened vaiCtuSa.! in this sense.
124 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Ver. 4. As a contrast to this treatment of the apostles (8e),
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 thousand (ii. 41, 47) ; by
the present increase the number of men (the women, therefore,
being not even included on account of the already so con-
siderable multitude of believers) came, to be about five thousand.
The supposition of Olshausen, " that at first, perhaps, only men
had joined the church," is arbitrary, 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. 'Eyevero . . . <rvva%0f)vai] But it came to pass that,
etc. Comp. ix. 3 ; Luke iii. 21, xvi. 22. So also in classical
writers (Hes. Theog. 639; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 11). See Sturz,
Lex. Xen. I. p. 587. avrwv] 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. Comp. Winer, p.
138 [E. T. 183]. TOU? apyovr. K. Trpev/S. K. 7/oa/i//,.] the San-
hedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the Sanhedrim
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. ei9 ' lepovaaXrjfA] not as
if they had their official residence elsewhere (as Zeller sug-
gests in the interest of proving the narrative unhistorical) ; but
certainly many were at this most beautiful period of summer
(soon after Pentecost) at their country residences. So, cor-
rectly, 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 ei? stands for ez>, in which
case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the
result. /cal] also (in order to mention these specially).
"Avvav rov ap%iep.'] As at this time not Annas, but his son-
in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest, an erroneous state-
ment must be acknowledged here, as in Luke iii 2, which
may be explained from the continuing great influence of
Annas. See the particulars, as well as the unsatisfactory
CHAP. IV. 7. 125
shifts which have been resorted to, on Luke iii. 2. Comp.
Zeller, p. 127. Baumgarten still, p. 88 (comp. also Lange,
Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 96, and II. p. 55), 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 ical oaoi
K.T.\, are to be regarded as members of the hierarchy related to
Annas. Conjectures concerning the former (that he is identical
with the Jochanan Ben Zaccai celebrated in the Talmud) may
be seen in Lightfoot in loc. ; and concerning tTie latter (that
he was the brother of Philo), in Mangey, Praef. ad Phil.; and
Pearson, Lect. p. 51 ; Krebs, Obss. p. 176 ; Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap.
p. 5, ed. 2. K ffevovs dp^tepar.] of the high-priestly family.
Besides Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, all the other relatives
of the high priest were brought into the assembly, a pro-
ceeding 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 (ev TU>
pe<rq), comp. Matt. xiv. 6 ; John viii. 3), so that they might be
seen by all ; and, for the purpose 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 kind of power 1 (which was at your
command), or by what kind of name (which ye have pro-
nounced), have ye done this (the cure which, they were aware,
was the occasion of the discussion) ? Erroneously, Morus,
Kosenmuller, and Olshausen have referred TOVTO to the public
teaching. For the judicial examination had to begin at the
actual commencement of the whole occurrence ; and so Peter
correctly understood this TOVTO, as w. 9, 10 prove. ev iroiw
ovofjuiTi] The Sanhedrim certainly knew that the apostles had
performed the cure ev ovofiaTi T. Xpio-Tov (iii. 6), and they
intended to found on the confession of this point partly the
impeachment of heresy and blasphemy as the Jewish exorcists
were accustomed to use names of an entirely different kind in
1 Observe the qualitative interrogative pronouns.
126 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
their formulae, namely, those of the holy patriarchs, or of the
wise Solomon, or of God Himself (see Van Dalen, de divinat.
Idol. V. T. p. 520) and partly the charge of effort at rebel-
lion, which might easily be based on the acknowledgment of
the crucified insurgent as the Messiah. vfj,el<i] you, people !
with depreciating emphasis at the close.
Vv. 8-10. HXtjcrOels irvevp,. aylov] quite specially, namely,
for the present defence. Comp. xiii. 9. " Ut praesens quod-
que tempus poscit, sic Deus organa sua movet," Bengel. See
Luke xii. 11 f. el] in the sense of eiret (Bornem. ad Xen.
Symp. 4. 3, p. 101 ; Eeissig, Conject. in Aristoph. I. p. 113 ;
Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195), is here chosen not without
rhetorical art. For Peter at once places the nature of the
deed, which was denoted by rovro, in its true light, in which
it certainly did not appear to be a suitable subject of judicial
inquiry, which presupposes a misdeed. If we (^et? 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 eV evepjecria is contained
an equally delicate and pointed indication of the unrighteous-
ness of the inquisitorial proceeding. We are decidedly led to
interpret ev rivt, 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 : lv ru> ovopart 'I. X. K.T.\.,
ver. 10, which is to be explained ly the uttering the name of
Jesus Christ, but not to be taken as equivalent to ev 'Iqa-ov
Xpia-Tw. Hence the explanation, per quern, cujus ope (Kuinoel,
Heinrichs), is to be rejected ; but the emphatic ev roury
(ver. 10) is nevertheless to be taken, with Erasmus, as
masculine, so that after the twice -repeated ov /c.r.X. there
comes in instead of the ovopa 'I. X., as the solemnity of the
discourse increases ("verba ut libera, ita plena gravitatis,"
Grotius), the concrete Person (on this one it depends, that, etc.),
of whom thereupon with OUTO?, ver. 11, further statements are
made. ov 6 0eo? r/yeipev e/c veicp.] a rhetorical asyndeton,
strongly bringing out the contrast without pev . . . Be. See
Dissen, Exc. II. ad Find. p. 275. ouro? Trapea-rrjicev /c.r.X]
Thus the man himself who had been cured was called into
CHAP. IV. 11, 12. 127
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 Trapprjo-ia of the apostles (ver. 13), would subsequently,
ver. 14, frustrate their whole design. This quiet power of the
man's immediate presence operated instantaneously ; therefore
the question, how they could have summoned the man whose
very presence must have refuted their accusation (Zeller, comp.
Baur), contains an argumentum ex eventu which forms no proper
ground for doubting the historical character of the narrative.
Ver. 11. OUTO?] referred to Jesus, the more remote subject,
which, however, was most vividly present to the conception of the
speaker. Winer, p. 148 [E. T. 195]. o Xi'0o? *.r.X] a
reminiscence of the well-known saying in Ps. cxviii. 22, in
immediate, bold application to the Sanhedrists (vfi V/JMV), 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.
Moreover, see on Matt. xxi. 42, and comp. 1 Pet. ii. 4 ff. ; also
on 1 Cor. iii. 11; Eph. ii. 20.
Ver. 12. To the foregoing figurative assurance, that Jesus
is the Messiah, Peter now annexes the solemn declaration
that no other is so, and that without figure. And there is not
in another the salvation, i.e. icar e^o^v the Messianic deliver-
ance (ii. 21). Comp. v. 31, xv. 11. This mode of taking 77
awr^pia is imperatively demanded, both by the absolute
position of the word with the force of the article, and by the
connection with the preceding, wherein Jesus was designated
as Messiah, as well as by the completely parallel second
member of the verse. Therefore Michaelis, Bolten, and Hilde-
brand err in holding that it is to be understood of the ewe
of a man so infirm. Nor is the idea of deliverance from
diseases generally to be at all blended with that of the
Messianic 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
128 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
generally, without retaining any special reference to bodily
deliverance. eV a\\<p ovSevl] no other is the ground, on which
salvation is causally dependent. Soph. Aj. 515 : ev trot Tracr'
eywye ffto^opai. Eur. Ale. 279 : ev <rol ecr^ev Kal %ijv KOI firf.
Herod, viii. 118 : ev v/uv eoiicev efiol elvcu f) o-corrjpir).
yap] annexes a more precise explanation, which is meant to
serve as a proof of the preceding, for also there is no other
name under the heaven given among men, in which we must
obtain salvation. ovSe yap (see the critical remarks) : for also
not. The reading ovre yap would not signify namque non (so
Hermann, Opusc. III. p. 158), but would indicate that a
further clause corresponding to the re was meant to follow
it up (Klotz, ad Devar. p. 716 ; Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2.
31 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 444 f.), 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
. . . oi/re instead of ovre . . . ovre (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 222),
is here excluded by yap, which makes the notion of neither
nor inapplicable. erepov] a name different from that name.
On the other hand previously : ev aXXw ovS., in no one but in
Him. Comp. on Gal. i. 7. TO SeSop. ev av9p.~\ which is
granted by God -given for good among men, in human society.
The view adopted by Wolf and Kuinoel, that ev av0p. stands
for the simple dative, is erroneous. Winer, p. 204 [E. T. 273].
av0p<a7roi<i] in this generic reference did not require the
article. See Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 177 f.; Kiihner, ad Xen.
Mem. i. 4. 14 ; Stallb. ad Plat. Grit. p. 51 A; Prot. p. 355 A.
VTTO T. ovpav., which might in itself be dispensed with, has
solemn emphasis. Comp. ii. 5. ev o5] as formerly ev aX\w.
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. Set] namely, according
to God's unalterable destination.
Vv. 13-15. Qewpovvres] " Inest notio contemplandi cum
attentione aut admiratione." Tittmann, Synon. N. T. p. 121.
Kal Kara\a/36iJ,evoi] and when they had perceived (x. 34;
Eph. iii. 18; Plat. Phaedr. p. 250 D; Polyb. viii. 4. 6;
Dion. HaL ii. 66), when they had become aware. They per-
CHAP. IV. 16. 129
ceived this during the address of Peter, which was destitute
of all rabbinical learning and showed to them one ypa^dr^v
aireipov (Plat. Apol. p. 26 D). dypd/jL/Aaroi (Xen. Mem. iv. 2.
20; Plat. Grit. p. 109 D) denotes here the want of rabbinic
culture. 'ISi&rai is the same : laymen, who are strangers to
theological learning. See Hartmann in the Stud. u. Krit.
1834, I. p. 119 ff. The double designation is intended to
express the idea very fully ; avOpwTrot has in it, moreover, some-
thing disparaging: unlearned men. Comp. Lys. ace. Nicom.
28, and Bremi in loc. On iSita-ny?, which, according to the
contrast implied in the connection, may denote either a private
man, or a plebeian, or an unlearned person, or a common
soldier, or one inexperienced in gymnastic exercises, one not a
poet, not a physician, and other forms of contrast to a definite
professional knowledge, see Valcken. in loc; Hemsterhuis, ad
Lucian. Necyom. p. 484; Euhnken, ad Long. p. 410. Here
the element of contrast is contained in d<y pd^aroi, : hence
the general meaning plebeians (Kuinoel and Olshausen, comp.
Baumgarten) is to be rejected. They were /uwpot rov KOCT^OV,
1 Cor. i. 27. Comp. John vii. 15. iir&yivGHTKOV re avrovs,
ort /c.T.X.] 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. eTreyivcacr/c. is incorrectly taken (even by Kuinoel)
as the pluperfect. See Winer, p. 253 [E. T. 337]. The two
imperfects, eQavp,a%. and eTreylvwcrrc., are, as relative tenses,
here entirely in place. TOV 8e avOpcoTr.] emphatically put
first. <rvve/3a\ov] they conferred among themselves. Comp.
xvii. 18 ; Plut. Mar. p. 222 C.
Ver. 16. The positive thought of the question is: We shall
le able to do nothing to these men. What follows contains the
reason : for that a notable miracle (a definite proof of divine
co-operation) has happened through them, is evident to all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and we are not in a position to deny
it. To the fiev corresponds a\V, ver. 1 7 ; to the yvcoa-rov
is opposed the mere Bogaa-Tov, Plat. Pol. v. p. 479 D, vi.
p. 510 A.
ACTS. I
130 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Vv. 17, 18. In order, however, that it be not further "brought
out among the people, i.e. spread by communication hither and
thither among the people, even beyond Jerusalem. The
subject is TO cnj^elov, not SiBa^ ; but the former is conceived
of and dreaded as promoting the latter. eVt Tr\eiov, magis,
i.e. here ulterius. See xx. 9, xxiv. 4; 2 Tim. ii. 16, iii. 9 ;
Plat. Phaedr. p. 261 B; Gorg. p. 453 A; and Stallb. in loc.;
Phaed. p. 93 B; Xen. de met. 4. 3. Comp. eVt fjt,a\\ov,
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 48. Observe that the confession of
ver. 16, made in the bosom of the council, in confidential
deliberation, and without the presence of a third 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). dvretX^ ajrei-
A.170-.] emphatically threaten. Comp. Luke xxii. 1 5 ; Lobeck,
Paral p. 523 if.; Winer, p. 434 [E. T. 584]. \a\dv] is
quite general, to speak ; for it corresponds to the two ideas,
(frOeyyeaOai 1 and SiSda'/eeiv, ver. 18. errl ra> ovop. TOUTW] so
that the name uttered is the basis on which the \a\eiv 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 pro-
minence the object; Bernhardy, p. 356; Winer, p. 303
[E. T. 406]. Concerning ^ in such a case, see Baeumlein,
Partik. p. 296 f.
Vv. 19-22. 'EVCOTT. T. Geov] coram Deo, God as Judge being
conceived as present : " multa mundus pro 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 immoral ; in which case the rulers
actually and wilfully abandon their status as organs of divine
1 On pi ^'fyyifftti, not to become audible, Erasmus correctly remarks : "Plus
est quam ne loquerentur; q. d. ne hiscerent aut ullam vocem ederent." Comp.
Castalio. See on Qiiyyirtai, Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 409.
CHAP. IV. 19-22. 131
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 reproach of revolution,
to victory over the world in opposition to the will of the Jewish
and heathen rulers. 1 For analogous expressions from the
Greek (Plat. Apol. p. 29 D; Arrian. Epict. i. 20) and Latin
writers and Kabbins, see Wetstein. The pa\\ov rj is : rather
(potius, Vulgate) than, i.e. instead of listening to God, rather to
listen to you. 2 See Baeuml. Partik. p. 136. The meaning of
afcovetv is similar to Treidap^elv, ver. 29. 7p] Ver. 20
specifies the reason, the motive for the summons : Kptvare
in ver. 19. For to us it is morally (in the consciousness
of the divine will) impossible not to speak (Winer, p. 464
[E. T. 624]), i.e. we must speak what we saw and heard
namely, the deeds and words of Jesus, of which we were eye-
witnesses and ear- witnesses. ^wet?] we on our part.
7r/9ocra7retX??<Ta/iez/oi] after they had still more threatened them,
namely, than already in the prohibition of ver. 18, in which,
after ver. 1 7, the threatening was obviously implied. Comp.
Ecclus. xiii. 3, ed. Compl. ; Dem. 544. 26; Zosim. i. "70.
firjSev evpia-Kovres TO 77009 K.T.\.} because they found nothing,
namely how they were to punish them. The article before whole
sentences to which the attention is to be specially directed.
Comp. Kiihner, II. p. 138 ; Mark ix. 23 ; Luke i. 62 ; Acts
xxii. 30. 7TW9 is not, with Kuinoel and others, to be ex-
plained qua specie, quo praetextu ; the Sanhedrim, in fact, did
not know how to invent any kind of punishment, which might
be ventured upon without stirring up the people. Therefore
&ia rbv \aov, on account of the people, i.e. in consideration of
them, is not to be referred, as usually, to d7re\v<rav aiirov?, but
to pySev evpta-fcovres K.T.\. CT&V jap /c.r.X] So much the
greater must the miracle of healing have appeared to the
unprejudiced people, and so much the more striking and
1 Comp. "Wuttke, Sittenl. 310. Observe withal, that it is not the magisterial
command itself and per se that is divine, but the command for its observance
is a divine one, which therefore cannot be connected with immorality without
doing away with its very idea as divine.
8 Inconsistently the Vulg. has, at v. 29, magis.
132 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
worthy of praise the working of God in it. vrXetovwv re<r-
aapatc. Comp. Matt. xxii. 53 ; Plat. Apol. p. 17 D, and
Stallb. in loc.; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 410 f.
Vv. 23, 24. IT/909 TOU? tSi'ov?] to those belonging to them, i.e.
to their fellow-apostles. This explanation (Syr. Beza) is verified
partly by ver. 31, where it is said of all, that they pro-
claimed the doctrine of God; partly by ver. 32, where the
multitude of believers are contrasted with 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 (van Hengel, Gave d. talen, p. 68). opoOv/jLaBov
rjpav] 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 pre-
sented the collective feeling of all) are at variance with the
clear text. 1 It is therefore to be assumed (comp. also Hilde-
brand) that in vv. 24-30 there is already a stated prayer 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 involuntarily,
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 appropriate 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 ff.) and the exigencies (w. 29,
30) of the threatened church in general with energetic pre-
cision, but yet takes no special notice of what had just
happened to Peter and John. The address continues to the
1 This holds also in opposition to Baumgarten's view, that the whole assembly
sang together the second Psalm, and then Peter made an application of it to the
present circumstances in the words here given.
CHAP. IV. 25-28. 133
end of ver. 26. Others (Vulgate, Beza, Castalio, Calvin, de
Wette, and many) supply el after <ru, or before o . . . eiirwv
(Bengel), but less in keeping with the inspired fervour of the
prayer. The designation of God by Secnrora and o Trot^o-a?
/C.T.X., serves as a background to the triumphant thought of
the necessary unsuccessfulness of human opposition. Comp.
Neh. ix. 6 ; Eev. xiv. 7, al.
Vv. 25, 26. Ps. ii. 1, 2, exactly according to the LXX. The
Psalm itself, according to its historical meaning, treats of the
king, most probably of Solomon, mounting the throne ; but
this theocratic king is a type of the ideal of the Israelitish
kingdom, i.e. of the Messiah, 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
understood (see ver. 2 7) the words of the Psalm thus : Where-
fore raged (against Jesus) Gentiles (the Eomans), and tribes (of
Israel) imagined a vain thing (in which they could not succeed,
namely, the destruction of Jesus) ? There arose (against Him)
the kings of the earth, and the rulers (the former represented by
Herod, and the latter by Pilate) assembled themselves (namely
with the edveaiv and Xaot?, see ver. 27) against Jehovah (who
had sent Jesus) and against His anointed. ^pvda-a-o)'] pri-
marily, to snort; then, generally, ferocio ; used in ancient Greek
only in the middle. See Wesseling, ad Diod. iv. 74.
Vv. 27, 28. For in truth there assembled, etc. This yap
confirms the contents of the divine utterance quoted from
that by which it had been historically fulfilled. eV akyOeias']
according to truth (Bernhardy, p. 248), really. Comp. x. 34 ;
Luke iv. 25 ; Dem. 538; Polyb. i. 84. 6. eVt rov ayiov
TralSd cov 'lyo: ov ep$>r.] against Thy holy servant, etc.
Explanation of the above Kara rov Xptcrrov avrov. The
(ideal) anointing of Jesus, i.e. His consecration on the part of
God to be the Messianic king, took place, according to Luke,
at His baptism (Acts x. 38 ; Luke iii. 21, 22), by means of
the Spirit, which came upon Him, while the voice of God
declared Him the Messiah. The consecration of Christ is
134 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
otherwise conceived of in John (ov o Trarrjp rjyicure ; see on
John x. 36). t Hpca8r)<i] Luke xxiii. 11. <rvv edveat K.
A-aot? *J0y>-] with Gentiles and Israels peoples. The plural
Xaofc 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 (comp. 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 twelve tribes, which latter opinion is to be
preferred, in accordance with such passages as Gen. xxviii. 3,
xxxv. 5, xlviii. 4. The priesthood not specially named is
included in the Xaot? 'Icrp. Trot^crat] contains the design of
the a-vv^drjaav. 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 pre-
determined." rj ^eip c-oi/j symbolizes in the lofty strain of
the discourse the disposing power of God. Comp. ver. 30,
vii. 50, xiii. 11 ; 1 Pet. v. 6 ; Herod, viii. 140. 2 ; Herm.
ad Viger. p. 732. A zeugma is contained in Trpowpia-e, inas-
much as the notion of the verb does not stand in logical relation
to the literal meaning of rj %eip <rov with which some such
word as Trpo^rot/tao-e 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
(comp. ii. 23, iii. 18) the necessary result of the divine pre-
determination (Luke xxii. 22), to which divine Bel (Luke
xxiv. 2 6) the personally free action of man had to serve as an
instrument. OVK avrol ia-^yaav, a\\a <rv el 6 TO irav eVt-
Kal els "Trepas a<yaya>v, o evpfyavo*; /cal <70(o<? g crvvrfkOov
yap eiceivot, to? %6pol . . ., eTroiovv Se a a~v ej3ov\ov, Oecu-
menius. Beza aptly says : -Troifjo-ai refers not to the consilia
et voluntates fferodis, etc., but to the eventus consiliorum.
Comp. Flacius, Clav. I. p. 818.
Vv. 29, 30. Kal ravvv] and now, as concerns the present
state ol things. In the K T. only in the Book of Acts (v. 38,
xvii. 30, xx. 32, xxvii. 22); often in classical authors.
e^tSe (is to be so written with Tisch. and Lachm., comp. on Phil,
ii. 2 3) eirl T. d-TreiX avr. : direct thine attention to their threat-
CHAP. IV. 3L 135
enings, that they pass not into reality. On etyopav in the sense
of governing care, see Schaef. App. ad Dem. V. p. 31. Comp.
Isa. xxxvii. 17. avrwv, according to the original meaning of
the prayer (see on ver. 24), refers to the 'Hptofys . . . 'Icr/ra^X.
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. rot? SovXot? <rov] i.e. us apostles. They
are the servants of God, who execute His will in the publica-
tion of the gospel. But the Trais eov /car' e^o^v is Christ.
Comp. on iii. 13. For examples of 809 in prayers, see Eisner,
p. 381 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 427. pera irappTja: Tratr.~\
with all possible freedom. See Theile, ad Jac. p. 7 ; and on
Phil. i. 20. eV TO> rrjv %e?pa <rov etcreiv. .T.\.] i.e. whilst Thou
(for the confirmation of their free-spoken preaching ; comp.
xiv. 3 ; Mark xvi. 2 0) causest Thy power to be active for (et?,
of the aim) healing, and that signs and wonders be done through
the name (through its utterance), etc. teal a: K. r. yiveadai]
is infinitive of the aim, and so parallel to et? 'laaiv, attaching
the general to the particular ; not, however, dependent on ei?,
but standing by itself. To supply eV TO> again after xaf
(Beza, Bengel) would unnecessarily disturb the simple con-
catenation of the discourse, and therefore also the clause is
not to be connected with So?.
Ver. 31. 'Eaa\evdr) 6 TOTTO?] This is not to be conceived
of as an accidental earthquake, but as an extraordinary shaking
of the place directly effected ly God, a arjfjbeiov l analogous to
what happened at Pentecost of the filling with the irvevpa,
which immediately ensued. This filling once more with the
Spirit (comp. ver. 8) was the actual granting of the prayer So?
. . . \6<yov (Tov, ver. 29 ; for the immediate consequence was :
\d\ovv T. Xo7. r. Qeov fiera Trapp^a-ias, namely in Jerusalem,
before the Jews, so that the threatenings against Peter and
1 Viewed by Zeller, no doubt, as an invention of pious legend, although
nothing similar occurs in the gospel history, to afford a connecting link for such
a legend.
136 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
John (vv. 19, 21) thus came to nothing. Luke, however, has
not meant nor designated the free-spoken preaching as a
glossolalia (van Hengel). As extra - Biblical analogies to
the extraordinary eVa\. o TOTTO?, comp. Virg. Aen. iii. 90 ff. ;
Ovid. Met. xv. 672. Other examples may be found in
Doughtaeus, Anal. II. p. 71, and from the Rabbins in Schoett-
gen, p. 421.
Ver. 32. Connection: Thus beneficial in its effect was the
whole occurrence for the apostles (ver. 31) ; but (Se) as regards
the whole body of those that had become believers, etc. (ver. 32).
As, namely, after the former great increase of the church
(ii. 41), a characteristic description of the Christian church-
life is given (ii. 44 ff.) ; so here also, after a new great increase
(ver. 4), and, moreover, so significant a victory over the San-
hedrim (vv. 5-31) had taken place, there is added a similar
description, which of itself points back to the earlier one (in
opposition to Schleiermacher), and indicates the pleasing state
of things as unchanged in the church now so much enlarged.
TOU 8e Tr\r)6ov<s\ of the multitude, i.e. the mass of believers.
These are designated as iria-Tevaavre^, having become "believers,
in reference to ver. 4; but in such a way that it is not
merely those TroXXot, ver. 4, that are meant, but they and at
the same time all others, who had till now become believers.
This is required by TO TrXfjdos, which denotes the Christian
people generally, as contrasted with the apostles. Comp. vi. 2.
The believers' heart and soul were one, an expression betoken-
ing the complete harmony of the inner life as well in the
thinking, willing, and feeling, whose centre is the heart (comp.
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 250), as in the activity of the affect-
tions and impulses, in which they were crv^v^oi (Phil. ii. 2)
and leo^vxoi (PhiL ii. 20). Comp. 1 Chron. xii. 38 ; Phil,
i. 27. See examples in Eisner, p. 317 ; Kypke, II. p. 31.
teal ovBe 6*9] and not even a single one among so many. Comp.
on John i. 3. avrw] belongs to virap^. Comp. Luke viii. 3 ;
Tob. iv. 8 ; Plat. Ale. I. p. 104 A. As to the community of
goods, see on ii. 44.
Ver. 33. And with this unity of love in the bosom of the
church, how effective was the testimony of the apostles, and
CHAP. IV. 34, 35. 137
the divine grace, which was imparted to all the members of
the church ! TT}? dvaa-r. r. Kvp. T^croO] This was continually
the foundation of the whole apostolic preaching ; comp. on
i. 2 2. They lore their witness to the resurrection of Christ,
as a thing to which they were in duty bound. Hence the
compound verb aTreS&ovv, which (see Wyttenbach, Bill. crit.
III. 2, p. 56 ff.) KaOdjrep eyxeipia-Oevras avrovs TL SeUvv<n teal
&>? Trepl afar) par os \eyet avro, Oecumenius. Comp. 4 Mace,
vi. 32 ; Dem. 234. 5. Observe, moreover, that here, where
from ver. 3 2 onwards the internal condition of the church is
described, the apostolic preaching within the church is denoted.
The %/3t9 lieyahij is usually understood (according to ii. 47)
of the favour of the people. Incorrectly, as ovSe yap evSeijs
K.T.\., 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. r\v errl Trdvr. avr.]
upon them all : of the direction in which the presence of grace
was active. Comp. Luke ii. 40.
Vv. 34, 35. rdp] adduces a special ground of knowledge,
something from which the %a/>t9 p,eyd\r) was apparent. For
there was found no one needy among them, because, namely, all
possessors, etc. TrwXotWe? K.T.\.] The present participle is
put, because the entire description represents the process as
continuing : leing wont to sell, they brought the amount of the
price of what was sold, etc. Hence also m'rrpacrKofi. is not
incorrectly (de Wette) put instead of the aorist participle.
See, on the contrary, Kiihner, II. 675. 5. The aorist
participle is in its place at ver. 37. irapa TOW TroSas] The
apostles are, as teachers, represented sitting (comp. Luke ii.
46) ; the money is brought and respectfully (comp. Chrysos-
tom : TroXX?? 17 T ^A t? ?) placed at their feet as they sit 1 /cadon
dv /c.T.X] See on ii. 45.
1 The delivery of the funds to the apostles is not yet mentioned in ii. 45,
and appears only to have become necessary when the increase of the church
had taken place. With the alleged right of the clergy personally to administer
the funds of the church, which Sepp still finds sanctioned here, this passage has
nothing to do.
138 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Vv. 36, 37. A\ autem, introduces, in contradistinction to
what has been summarily stated in w. 34, 35, the concrete
individual case of an honourably known man, who acted thus
with his landed property. The idea in the 8e is : All acted
thus, and in keeping with it was the conduct of Joses. a-rro
(see the critical remarks)]: as at ii. 22. vibs Trapaic\r)cr.~\
nsi33 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
generally by vto? Tr/jo^^ret'a?, but, because the Trpo^rela had
been displayed precisely in the characteristic form of irapd-
K\7)<ri<; (comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 3), by 1^09 -7rapaK\. At Acts xi. 23
also, jrapaK\rj(7L<f 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.
AeviTijs] Jer. xxxii. 7 proves that Levites might possess
lands in Palestine. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 406. Hence the
field is not to be considered as beyond the bounds of the land
(Bengel). u7rap%. avr. ajpov] Genitive absolute. TO %pf)fAa]
in the singular : the sum of money, the money proceeds, the
amount received. Herod, iii. 38; Poll. 9. 87; Wesseling, ad
Diod. Sic. v. p. 436.
CHAP. V. 139
CHAPTER V.
VER. 2. After ywaixog, 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 axovovrag, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have deleted the usual
reading ravra; it is wanting in A B D K*, min. Or. Lucif. and
several vss., and is an addition from ver. 11. Ver. 9. sTve] is
very suspicious, as it is wanting in B D K, min. Vulg. ; in other
witnesses it varies in position, and Or. has tpqgiv. Deleted by
Lachm. Born, and Tisch. Ver. 10. vapot, r. K.] Lachm. and
Tisch. read xpbg r. ir. according to A B D N, Or. ; other witnesses
have svl T. it. ; others, Ink r. IT. ; others, svu-riov. Born, also has
xpbg r. it. But as Luke elsewhere writes napa, T. IT. (Luke viii. 41,
xvii. 16), and not *?lg r. ir. (Mark v. 22, vii. 25 ; Rev. i. 17), the
Eecepta is to be retained. Ver. 15. vapa rag </rX.] Lachm. reads
xa) s/g rag crX. after A B D** K, min. D* has Only xara wX. ;
and how easily might this become, by an error of a transcriber,
nut rag orX., which was completed partly by the original xara.
and partly by tig ! Another correction was, xai sv raTg irXarsiaig
(E). No version has xai Accordingly the simple xara vXar.,
following D*, is to be preferred. Instead of xXivuv, Lachm.
Tisch. Born, have rightly xXivopiuv (so A B D N); x\ivuv was
inserted as the wonted form. Ver. 1 6. slg ' Itpova.] sig is wanting
in A B N, 103, and some vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the
retention of sig has predominant attestation ; and it was natural
to write in the margin by the side of ruv irspi% iroXeuv the locally
defining addition ' Ispovffahqp, which became the occasion of omit-
ting the fig'lipouff. that follows. Ver. 18. r. ytip. auruv] avruv is
wanting in A B D N, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl.
Lucif., and omitted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. But see iv. 3.
Ver. 23. strurag] Elz. has e%u Iffr. But ? has decisive evidence
against it, and is a more precisely defining addition occasioned
by the following tffu. &?<>] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read !/,
according to A B D N, 109 ; irpo is an interpretation. Ver. 24.
o re Itpsiig xa/ 6 erpar. r. tepov x. 01 ap^isp.] A B D K, min. Copt.
Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely 5 re arpar. r. hpov x.
140 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
So Lachm. Einck, and Born. But hpevs being not
understood, and being regarded as unnecessary seeing that oi
ap^np. followed, might very easily be omitted ; whereas there is
no reason for its having been inserted. For the genuineness
of hpsv$ also the several other variations testify, which are
to be considered as attempts to remove the offence without
exactly erasing the word, namely, oi 'npiT^ x. 6 arp. r. hp. x. oi
dp%. and 5 n ap^ispsiis x. o arp. r. isp. x. oi />% Ver. 25. After
avTo?s Elz. has \tyuv, against decisive evidence. An addi-
tion, in accordance with ver. 22 f. Ver. 26. ha pri\ Lachm.
Born, have w, according to B D E K, min. But the omission
easily appeared as necessary on account of lpo/3. Comp. Gal.
iv. 11. Ver. 28. ou is wanting in A B N*, Copt. Vulg. Cant.
Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Eightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., as the
transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently
occasioned by s^purrisev. Ver. 32. After h^tv, Elz. Scholz,
Tisch. have auroD, which A D* N, min., and several vss. omit.
It is to be defended. As pdprupec is still defined by another
genitive, ai/roD became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate, and
was omitted. B has xai ii/AsTs sv avrti fidpruptg (without !<5/ti/),
etc. But in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of
the efffMv, the half of which was easily omitted after ii/j,s7<; ;
and thereupon aurou was transformed into avrti. The less
is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm. :
xal ri^zfc, sv avrw pdprvpes sgfj^sv x.r.X. Ver. 33. J/SouXsuovro]
Lachm. reads ipovXovro, according to A B E, min. An interpre-
tation, or a mechanical interchange, frequent also in MSS. of the
classics; see Born, ad xv. 37. Ver. 34. I3pa^ ri] n, according
to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.
a-roffro'Xoug] A B K, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have dvdpumug.
So Lachm. Tisch. ; and rightly, as the words belong to the
narrative of Luke, and therefore the designation of the apostles
by avSpu-ffovg appeared to the scribes unworthy. It is otherwise
in vv. 35, 38. Ver. 36. vpoeexMSri] Elz. Griesb. Scholz read
crpotfexoXAjjdjj, in opposition to A B C** N, min., which have
KpoffixMdn ; and in opposition to C* D* E H, min. Cyr., which
have irpotfex^qdi) (so Born.). Other witnesses have irpoatredq, also
irpogfx^pudri. Differing interpretations of the vpoasxXid^, which
does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly
recommended, and Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have adopted. Ver. 37.
ixavov] to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., as it is wanting in
A* B K, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before Xaov,
and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with voMv (so Born.).
Ver. 38. Instead of (dears, Lachm. has ap srt, following A B C K.
CHAP. V. 1-10. 141
A gloss. Ver. 39. &vvaff6i] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have
according to B C D E N, min., and some vss. and Fathers.
Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression, men altered
it to agree with the foregoing future. Instead of avrovg, which
Lachm. Tisch. Born, have, Elz. and Scholz read at/', against
decisive testimony. An alteration to suit rb 'ipyov. Ver. 41.
After ovo/uaro; Elz. has auroD, which is wanting in decisive
witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of completeness.
Other interpolations are: 'ijjffoD, roD Xp/<rroy, 'ljj<roD
rov xvpfou, ro\j Qiov.
Vv. 1-10. Ananias (n^?n, God pities ; Jer. xxviii. 1; Dan.
i. 6 ; LXX. Tob. v. 1 2 *) and Sapphira, however, acted quite
otherwise. They attempted in deceitful hypocrisy to abuse the
community of goods, which, nevertheless, was simply per-
missive (ver. 4). For by the sale of the piece of land and
the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the whole sum
to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock ; but they
aimed only at securing for themselves the semblance of holy
loving zeal by a portion of the price, and had selfishly em-
bezzled the remainder for themselves. They wished to serve
two masters, but to appear to serve only one. With justice,
Augustine designates the act as sacrilegium ("quod Deum in
pollicitatione fefellerit ") and fraus. The sudden death of both
is to be regarded as a result directly effected through the will of
the apostle, ly means of the miraculous power imparted to him ;
and not as a natural stroke, of paralysis, independent of Peter,
though taking place by divine arrangement (so Ammon, Stolz,
Heinrichs, and others). For, apart from the supposition, in
this case necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and
wife for such an impression of sudden terror, the whole
narrative is opposed to it; especially ver. 9, the words of
which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost pre-
sumption, 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
1 It may, however, be the Hebrew name nj (^eh. iii. 23, LXX.), i.e. God
covers. The name Saa-ip^ is apparently the Aramaic STSE*, formosa. Derived
from the Greek ravipiipos, sapphire, it would have probably been ^a^tfafltn.
142 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
fate of Ananias, this would be merely an unwarranted alteration
of the simple meaning of the words, and would not dimmish
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 disposing power).
But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the
design 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 Trvevpa ayiov as the divine principle working in the
apostles. Comp. Zeller, who, however, despairs of any more
exact ascertainment of the state of the case. Baumgarten, as
also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main with ISTeander ;
whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, although
recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative
is concerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of
the two swords of the Pope. The severity of the punishment,
with which Porphyry reproached Peter (Jerome, Epp. 8), is
justified by the consideration, that 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 unoffended, at once required its full
satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the violators, by
which "awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline" (Thiersch,
Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 46), at the same time, the authority
of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly guaranteed in
its inviolableness ("ut poena duorum hominum sit doctrina
multorum," Jerome). evo<r<J>io:'] he put aside for himself, pur-
loined. Tit. ii. 10 ; 2 Mace. iv. 32 ; Josh. vii. 1 ; Xen. Cyr.
iv. 2. 42 ; Find. Nem. vi. 106 ; Valck. p. 395 f. airo r.
CHAP. V. 3, 4. 143
sc. n. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 36 ; Buttm. neut. Gr.
p. 139 [E. T. 159]. Comp. Athen. vi. p. 234 A: vo<r<f>. e/c
roO 'xprffiaros.
Ver. 3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work
of the devil, who, as the liar from the beginning (John viii.
44), and original enemy of the irvevpa aytov and of the
Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart of Ananias
(comp. on John xiii. 2 7 ; Luke xxii. 3), and filled it with his
presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and
ability (Jas. iv. 7 ; 1 Pet. v. 9), ought not to have permitted
this, but should have allowed his heart to be filled with the
Holy Spirit ; hence the question, Start eTrXrjpwcrev K.T.\.
fyevaacrOat ere TO irvev^a TO ay.] that thou shouldest by lying
deceive the Holy Spirit: this is the design of eirkrjpaxrev. The
explanation is incorrect which understands the infinitive eicftaTi-
*a>9, and takes it only of the attempt: unde accidit, ut Trvevfia
ay. decipere tentares (Heinrichs, Kuinoel). The deceiving of
the Holy Spirit was, according to the design of Satan, really
to take place ; and although it was not in the issue success-
ful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias. TO
irvevp,a TO ayiov] 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
-^revSeadat, of de facto lying, deception by an act, see Kypke, II.
p. 32 f. The word with the accusative of the person (Isa. Ivii.
11; Deut. xxxiii. 29; Hos. ix. 2) occurs only here in the
N. T. ; often in the classical writers, see Blomfield, Gloss, ad
Aesch. Pers. 478. 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 :
Trpadev), did it not remain to thee (thy property) ? and when sold,
was it not in thy power ? That the community of goods was
not a legal compulsion, see on ii. 43. eV rfj cry egov<ria
vTrrjpxe] sc. 17 Ttfjiij, which is to be taken out of irpadev. 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
144 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the common use ; but not to do the latter, as he did it, under
the deceitful semblance as if what he handed over to the
apostles was the whole sum. The sin of husband and wife
is cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vii. 2. 4 : Khtyavres
ra iSui. rt, ori\ quid est quod, i.e. cur ? Comp. on Mark
ii. 1 7. 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) ? Comp. xix. 21 ; the Heb.
a? by Dit? (Dan. i. 8 ; Mai. ii. 2), and the classical expression
QkaQai ev <f>pe(ri, and the like. ovtc ei/reycro) avdpwTrois, a\\a
rat @e&>). The state of things in itself relative: not so much . . .
but rather, is in the vehemence of the address conceived and set
forth absolutely: not to men, but to God. "As a lie against our
human personality, thy deed comes not at all into consideration ;
but only as a lie against God, the supreme Euler of the theocracy,
whose organs we are." Comp. 1 Thess. iv. 8; Winer, p. 461 f.
[E. T. 621]. The taking it as non tarn, quam (see also
Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 781) 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 con-
tradistinction. 1 Bernhardy, p. 99. Examples of the absolute
tyevBeffOai, 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 TO> 03 Peter makes the deceiver sensible
of his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy.
This T&> @e&> is quite warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (ver.
3, TO Trvevfia) is a lie against God (TO> @eo>), whose Spirit was
lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the Spirit and His
personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not called God.
Vv. 5, 6. 'EgtyvJ-e] as in xii. 23 ; elsewhere not in the
V - 1 N. T., but in the LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp.
xx. 10. aTTo-^v^eiv occurs in the old Greek from Homer
onward. eVl Traz/ra? row? aKovovras] upon all hearers, namely,
of this discussion of Peter with Ananias. For ver. 6 shows
that the whole proceeding took place in the assembled church.
1 Valckenaer well remarks : " $tvvffal TIVO, notat mendacio aliquemdecipere,
$ivr. nv i mendacio contumeliamalkuifacere.
CHAP. V. 5, 6. 145
The sense in which it falls to be taken at ver. 11, in con-
formity 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 proleptical. But even as such it appears unsuitable and
disturbing. ol vevrepoi] the younger men in the church, who
rose up from their seats (avaa-rdvresi), 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 required
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. See
Mosheim, de reb. Christ, ante Const, p. 114. But Neander,
de Wette, Rothe, Lechler, and others (see also Walch, Diss.
p. 79 f.) doubt this, and think that the summons of the
vewrepoi 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 own accord. But precisely in the
case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more
natural to assume a more urgent summons to the performance
of the immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious
necessity of service, than to think of people, like automata,
acting spontaneously. a-vvea-reikav avrov} means nothing
else than contraxerunt eum. 1 Comp. 1 Cor. vii. 29. 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 : they prepared him for burial (by washing, swath-
ing, etc.), confounds avo-Te\\iv with 7repicrTe\\iv (Horn. Od.
xxiv. 292 ; Plat. Hipp. maj. p. 291 D ; Diod. Sic. xix. 12 ;
Joseph. Antt. xix. 4. 1 ; Tob. xii. 14; Ecclus. xxxviii. 17),
and, moreover, introduces into the narrative a mode of pro-
ceeding improbable in the case of such a death. Others in-
correctly render : they covered him (de Dieu, de Wette) ; comp.
1 Comp. Laud. : colkxerunt (sic) ; Castal. : constrinxerunt.
ACTS. K
146 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Cant. : involverunt. For both meanings Eur. Troad. 382 has
been appealed to, where, however, ov Sdpapros h %epolv
TrcTrXoi? ffvvearak'qaav means : they were not wrapped up,
shrouded, by the hands of a wife with garments (in which they
wrapped them) in order to be buried. As little is arvvea--
Takdai, in Lucian. Imag. 7 : to be covered ; but : to be pressed
together, in contrast to the following Si^i/e/twcr&u (to flutter in
the wind). The explanation amoverunt (Vulgate, Erasmus,
Luther, Beza, and others) is also without precedent of usage.
Ver. 7. But it came to pass about an interval of three
hours and his wife came in. The husband had 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
eyevero Be a comma is to be put, and o>? &p. rp. Sider. is a
statement of time inserted independently of the construction
of the sentence. See on Matt. xv. 32 ; Luke ix. 28 ; Schaefer,
ad Dem. V. p. 368. The common view : but there was an interval
of about three hours, and his wife came in, is at variance with
the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute eyevero
(Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 235 ; Bornemann, Schol. p. 2 f.). As to
the Kai after ejevero, see on Luke v. 12. On Sidorij/ia used
of time, comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1.
Ver. 8. 'ATreKplQi)] comp. on iii. 12. Bengel aptly remarks :
" respondit mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat
instar sermonis." ro<roinov\for so much, points to the money
still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with an overlooking of
the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel suppose
that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on
which Bornemann insists (Schol. in Luc. p. 168), results not
as the import of the word, but, as elsewhere frequently (see
Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608B; Lobeck, ad Soph.Aj.
747), 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 w. 4, 5) 1 i.e. to venture the experiment, whether the
Trvevpa ayiov, ruling in us apostles, was infallible (comp. Mai.
iii. 15 ; Matt. iv. 7). The 7retpd%(ov challenges by his action
CHAP. V. 11-16. 147
the divine experimental proof. ol TroSe?] a trait of vivid de-
lineation (comp. Luke i. 79 ; Eom. iii. 15, x. 15) ; the steps
of those returning were just heard at the door (see on John
v. 2 ; Acts iii. 1 0) outside (ver. 1 0). 777309 rov dvSpa avTfjs]
beside her (just buried) husband.
Ver. 11. $0/309] quite as in ver. 5, fear and dread at this
miraculous, destroying punitive power of the apostles. e<'
0X77? r. CKK\. /cal eVt iravraK /t.T.X.] upon the whole 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 preservation of the holiness of the youthful church,
there is now once more (comp. ii. 43 f., iv. 32 ff.) introduced
as a resting point for reflection,a summary representation of
the prosperous development of the church, and that in its external
relations. 8e is the simple fieraflaTiKov, carrying on the repre-
sentation. By the hands of the apostles, moreover, occurred signs
and wonders among the people in great number. And they were
all (all Christians, comp. ii. 1, in contrast to rwv Be \oiirwv 1 }
with one accord in Solomon's porch (and therefore publicly):
of the rest, on the other hand, no one ventured to join himself to
them; but the people magnified them (the high honour in which
the people held the Christians, induced men to keep at a respect-
ful distance from them) : and the more were 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 de-
scription is accordingly: (1) The miracle-working of the
apostles continued abundantly, ver. 1 2 : Sia . . . TroXXa.
(2) The whole body of believers was undisturbed in their
public meetings, protected by the respect 2 of the people (ical
1 The limitation of aVavrts to the apostles (Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others) is
by Baur urged in depreciation of the authenticity of the narrative. The apostles
are assumed by Baur to be presented as a group standing isolated, as superhuman,
as it were magical beings, to whom people dare not draw nigh ; from which
there would result a conception of the apostles the very opposite of that which is
found everywhere in the N. T. and in the Book of Acts itself ! Even Zeller has,
with reason, declared himself opposed to this interpretation on the part of Baur.
3 " Est eniin in sancta disciplina et in sincere pietatis cultu arcana quaedani
148 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ver. 12 ... o Xao9, 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 (in Gabler's Journ. f. fheol. Lit. I. p. 155), entirely mis-
taking the unartificial progress of the narrative, considered KOI
rjcrav . . . yvvaitcwv as a later insertion ; and in this Eichhorn,
Heinrichs, and Kuinoel agree with him ; while Laurent (mutest.
Stud. p. 1 3 8 f ) recognises the genuineness of the words, but
looks on them as a marginal remark of Luke. Beck (Obss. exeg.
crit. V. p. 1 7) declared even ver. 1 5 also as spurious. It is un-
necessary even to make a parenthesis of ver. 14 (with Lach-
mann),as two-re in ver. 14 is not necessarily confined in its correct
logical reference to dXX' efiey. avr. 6 Xao? alone, but may quite as
fitly refer to w. 13 and 14 together. Compare Winer, p. 525
[E. T. 706]. TWV Be Xore3i>] are the same who are designated
in the contrast immediately following as o Xao9, 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 newly
converted (Heinrichs), or the more notable and wealthy Chris-
tians like Ananias (Beza, Morus, Kosenmuller). By the TWV
\onrS)v, as it forms the contrast to the airavTes, Christians can-
not at all be meant, not even as included (Kuinoel, Baur).
AcoXXacr&u aurofc] to join themselves to them, i.e. to intrude into
their society, which would have destroyed their harmonious
intercourse. Comp. ix. 26, x. 28, xvii. 34; Luke xv. 15.
This ONTO?? and avrovs in ver. 13 must refer to the aTravre<j,
and so to the Christians in general, but not to the apostles
alone, as regards which Luke is assumed by de Wette to have
become " a little confused." /aaXXov Se] in the sense of all
the more, etc. See Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 227, ed. 3.
The bearing of the people, ver. 1 3, promoted this increase.
T&> Kvpiw] would admit grammatically of being construed with
TrtoreiWre? (xvi. 34) ; but xi. 24 points decisively to its being
connected with irpofrerlBevro. They were added to the Lord,
namely, as now connected with Him, belonging to Christ.
ffiuttrtf, quae malos etiam invitos constringat, " Calvin. It would have been
more accurate to say : "quae profanum vidyus et malos etiam," etc.
CHAP. V. 12-16. 149
" pluralis grandis : jam non initur numerus uti iv. 4,"
BengeL 1 Kara TrXareta? (see the critical remarks) ] emphati-
cally placed first : so that they (the people) through streets,
along the streets, brought out their sick from the houses, etc.
eVt K\tv. K. KpafifidT.] denotes generally : small beds (K\I-
vapiwv, see the critical remarks, and comp. Epict. iii. 5.13) and
couches. The distinction made by Bengel and Kuinoel with
the reading K\WWV, that the former denotes soft and costly, and
the latter poor and humble, beds, is quite arbitrary. fpx ^-
Tlerpov] genitive absolute, and then 77 <r/cta : the shadow cast
by him. KCLV\ at least (ical edv, see Herm. ad Viger. p. 838)
is to be explained as an abbreviated expression : in order that,
should Peter come, he might touch any one, if even merely Ms
shadow overshadowed him. Comp. Fritzsche, Diss. in 2 Cor.
II. p. 120, and see on 2 Cor. xi. 16. That cures actually
took place Tyy the shadow of the apostle, Luke does not state ;
but only the opinion of the people, 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 cor-
poreal 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 corresponding evangelical narrative. He relegates the
account to the domain of legend, in which it was conceived
that the miraculous power had been, independently of the con-
sciousness and will of Peter, conveyed by his shadow like an
electric fluid. An absurdity, which in fact only the presupposi-
tion of a mere legend enables us to conceive as possible. TO
7r\f)dos] the multitude (vulgus) of the neighbouring towns.
1 Comp. on the comparatively rare plural **.M, not again occurring in the
N. T., Bremi, ad Aeschin. adv. Ctesiph. p. 361.
150 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
as well those labouring under natural disease as those
demoniacally afflicted ; comp. Luke iv. 40 f. Then follows
ver. 17, the contrast of the persecution, which, however, was
victoriously overcome.
Vv. 17, 18. 'Avaa-rds] The high priest stood up; he raised
himself: a graphic trait serving to illustrate his present inter-
ference. Comp. vi. 9, xxiii. 9; Luke xv. 18, al. " Non sibi
quiescendum ratus est," Bengel. The ap%iepev<; is, according to
iv. 6, Annas, not Caiaphas, although the latter was so really.
Kal "rrdvres ol <rvv avrm, r) ovffa atpeais roov 2aSBovtc.~\ and all his
associates (his whole adherents, ver. 2 1 ; Xen. Anab. iii. 2.11, al.),
which were the, sect of the Sadducees. This sect had allied itself
with Annas, because the preaching of Christ as the Eisen One was
a grievous offence to them. See iv. 1, 2. The participle ^ ova-a
(not ol 6We<? is put) adjusts itself to the substantive belonging to
the predicate, as is often the case in the classical writers. See
Kiihner, 429; Stallb. ad Plat. Eep. p. 333 E, 392 D. 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 Sad-
ducaeism of Annas. According to Josephus, Antt. xx. 9. 1, he
had a son who belonged to that sect. ev Trjp^a-et By poor.] Tijprja:
as in iv. 3. The public prison is called in Thuc. v. 18. 6
also merely TO typoa-iov ; and in Xen. Hist. vii. 3 6, olxia
Vv. 19, 20. The historical state of the case as to the miracu-
lous mode of this liberation, the process of which, perhaps,
remained mysterious to the apostles themselves, cannot be
ascertained. Luke narrates the fact in a legendary 1 interpre-
tation of the mystery (comp. Neander, p. 726); 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 jailor himself, or a zealous Christian,
1 Ewald also discovers here a legendary form (perhaps a duplication of the
history in ch. xii.).
CHAP. V. 19, 20. 151
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 un-
historical 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 His angel, had wished to demonstrate to the
Sanhedrim their weakness (Baumgarten), would only have
sufficient foundation, provided the sequel of the narrative pur-
ported that the judges had really recognised the interposition
of heavenly power in the mode of the deliverance. Lange,
apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 68, refers the phenomenon to a visionary
condition : the apostles were liberated " in the condition of
genius -life, of second consciousness." This is extravagant
fancy introducing its own ideas. 0776X09] not the angel, but
an angel; Winer, p. 118 [E. T. 155]. Bia rrjs VVKTOS] 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. Comp. xvi. 9, and see on
Gal. ii. 1. The expression is thus more significant than Sia
rrjv vvKTa (Nagelsbach on the Iliad, p. 222, ed. 3) would be,
and stands in relation with VTTO rbv opOpov, ver. 21. Hence
there is no deviation from Greek usage (Winer, Fritzsche).
fj-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. Ver. 20. o-radevTesi] take
your stand and speak; in which is implied a summons to
"boldness. Comp. ii. 1 4. ra prf/jara rfjs %coij<; ravr?)?] the
words of this life. What life it was, was self-evident to the
apostles, namely, the life, which was the aim of all their
effort and working. Hence : the words, which lead to the
152 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
eternal Messianic life, bring about its attainment. Comp.
John vi. 68. See on ravrrj^ Winer, p. 223 [E. T. 297 f.].
We are not to think here of a hypallage, according to which
ravTi)? refers in sense to r. pTJ^ara (Bengel, Kuinoel, and
many others). Comp. xiii. 26 ; Eom. vii. 24.
Vv. 21-23. TTTO rbv opOpov] about the dawn of day. On
op0pos, see Lobeck, adPhryn. 275 f. ; and on VTTO, used of near-
ness in time, see Bernhardy, p. 267. Often so in Thuc. ; see
Kriiger on i. 100. 3. Comp. 3 Mace. v. 2 ; Tob. vii. 11. The
aKovcravres is simply a continuation of the narrative : after
they heard that, etc., as in ii. 37, xi. 18, and frequently.
Trapayevo/jievos] 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 convoked, in order to try the prisoners.
/cal jraaav rrjv */epovaiav\ The importance which they
assigned to the matter (comp. on iv. 6) induced them to
summon not only those elders of the people who were like-
wise members of the Sanhedrim, but the whole body of elders
generally, the whole council of representatives of the people.
The well-known term yepovcrla is fittingly 1 transferred from the
college of the Greek gerontes (Dem. 489. 19 ; Polyb. xxxviii.
5. 1 ; Herm. Staatsalterth. 24. 186) to that of the Jewish
presbyters. Heinrichs (following Vitringa, Archisynag. p. 356)
considers iraa: r. yepova: as equivalent to TO avveSptov, to
which it is added as honorificentissima compellatio. Warranted
by usage (1 Mace. xii. 6 ; 2 Mace. i. 10, iv. 44 ; Judith iv. 8,
xi. 14, xv. 8; Loesner, p. 178); but after the quite definite
and well-known TO o-vveSpiov, the addition would have no
force. Ver. 23 contains quite the artless expression of the
official report.
Vv. 24, 25. "O re tepefa] the (above designated) priest,
points to the one expressly named in ver. 21 as o ap%iepev<;.
The word in itself has not the signification high priest ; but the
context (so also in 1 Mace. xv. 1 ; Bar. i. 7 ; Heb. v. 6 ; and
1 Although nowhere else in the N. T. ; hence here, perhaps, to be derived
from the source used by Luke.
CHAP. V. 26-28. 153
see Krebs, p. 178) gives to the general expression this special
reference. o crrparT]jo<? r. tepov] see on iv. 1. He also, as
the executive functionary of sacred justice, was summoned to
the Sanhedrim. 01 apxiepeis] 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
tepew, the head of the whole assembly, must feel himself con-
cerned in the unexpected news ; and then, even more than
the ap^tepet?, the crrparrj'yos, because he, without doubt, had
himself carried into effect the arrest mentioned at ver. 1 8, and
held the supervision of the prison. Bi^Tropovv . . . TOVTO] they
were full of perplexity (see on Luke xxiv. 4) concerning them
(the apostles), as to what this might come to what they had
to think of as the possible termination of the occurrence just
reported to them. Comp. on ii. 12, also x. 17. eorwre?
K.T.X.] Comp. w. 20, 21.
Vv. 26-28. Oi> fiera /3ia9] without application of violence.
Comp. xxiv. 7 and the passages from Polybius in Eaphel.
More frequent in classical writers is ftlq, etc /3/a<?, 7rpo<? ftiav.
'iva fir) \i0aadJ] contains the design of tyoftovvro yap r.
\aov. They feared the people, in order not to be stoned. How
easily might the enthusiasm of the multitude for the apostles
have resulted in a tumultuous stoning of the trTparyyos and
his attendants (vTr^per.), if, by any compulsory measures, such
as putting them in chains, there had been fearless disregard of
the popular feeling ! It is erroneous that after verbs of fear-
ing, merely the simple /;, fi^ircc? K.T.\., should stand, and that
therefore iva ^rj \iO. is to be attached to -fyyayev . . . yStiz?,
and e<j}o(3. y. r. \. to be taken parenthetically (so Winer, p. 471
[E. T. 634], de Wette). Even among classical writers those
verbs are found connected with OTTW? fnj (with iva fjuj : Diod.
Sic. ii. p. 329). See Hartung, PartiMl. II. p. 116 ; Kiihner,
ad Xen. Mem. ii. 9. 2 ; Kriiger on Th.uc. vi. 13. 1. Assuming
the spuriousness of ov, ver. 28 (see the critical remarks), the
question proper is only to be found in KOI /3ou\eo-0e K.T.\., for
which the preceding (TrapayyeXia . . . 180^779 vp&v) paves
154 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the way. Trapcvyy. 7raptjyy.~\ see iv. 17, 18. CTTI r. ovop. T.]
as in iv. 1 7. /3ou\ecr#e] your efforts go to this ; " verbum in-
vidiosum," Bengel. efrayajeiv K.T.\.~\ to bring about upon us,
i.e. to cause that the shed blood of this man be avenged on us (by
an insurrection of the people). " Pro confesso sumit Christum
jure occisum fuisse," Calvin. Comp. Matt, xxiii. 35, xxvii. 25;
Acts xviii. 6; Josh, xxiii. 15; Judg. ix. 24; Lev. xxii. 16.
On the (contemptuous) TOVTW . . . rovrov Bengel rightly re-
marks : " fugit appellare Jesum ; Petrus appellat et celebrat,
w. 30, 31." Observe how the high priest prudently leaves
out of account the mode of their escape. Disobedience towards
the sacred tribunal was the fulcrum.
Ver. 29. Kal ol aTroo-roXot] and (generally) the apostles.
For Peter spoke in the name of all ; hence also the singular
piO., see Buttm. neut. G?\ p. 1 1 1 [E. T. 1 2 7]. TreiQap-
K.T.X.] " Ubi enim jussa Domini et servi concurrunt,
oportet ilia prius exsequi." Maimon. Hilchoth Melach. iii. 9.
Comp. on iv. 1 9. The principle is here still more decidedly
expressed than in iv. 19, and in all its generality.
Vv. 30-32 now presents, in exact reference to the previous
0eo3 fjt,a\\ov, the teaching activity of the apostles as willed
by God. o eo? r. irar. fj/ji,.] Comp. iii. 13. tfyetpev] 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 immediately 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 (iii.
22, 26, xiii. 23; Luke i 69, vii. 16). &axpeo-&u] to
murder with one's own hands. See xxvi. 21 ; Polyb. viii.
23. 8. Comp. Siaxeipova-Ocu, Job xxx. 24. This purposely
chosen significant word brings the execution of Christ, which
was already in iv. 10 designated as the strict personal act of
the instigators, into prominent view with the greatest possible
force as such. So also in the examples in Kypke, II. p. 34.
The following aorist Kpepdar. is synchronous with Bie^eip. as
its modal definition. eVl %ii\ov] on a tree : an expression,
well known to the hearers, for the stake (YV, Gen. xl. 19;
CHAP. V. 30-32. 155
Deut. xxi. 22 ; Isa. x. 26 ; comp. Acts x. 39 ; 1 Pet. ii. 24;
Gal iii. 13) on which criminals were suspended. The cross
is here designedly so called, not because the trravpos was a
Roman instrument of death (see, on the other hand, ii. 36,
iv. 10), but in order to strengthen the representation, because
eVt f vAou reminded them of the accursed (see on Gal. iii. 1 3).
Ver. 31. Him has God exalted by His right hand to be the
Leader (not as in iii. 15, where a genitive stands alongside),
i.e. the Euler and Head of the theocracy (a designation of the
kingly dignity of Jesus, comp. Thuc. i. 132. 2 ; Aesch.
Agam. 250 ; and n^al dp%r)<yoi, Eur. Tr. 196), and a Saviour
(the author and bestower of the Messianic salvation). On
the idea, comp. ii. 36. As to rfj Set;, avrov, see on ii. 23.
Bovvcu fjuerdvoiav /c.r.X.] contains the design of rovrov . . . ry
Seta avrov : 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 appro-
priated 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. 1 8 ; 2 Tim. ii. 2 5), and so,
through the faith in Him which set in with the perdvoia,
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 exalta-
tion 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 l to them, and that, indeed, primarily to the Israelites,
whom Peter still names alone, because it was only at a later
period that he was to rise from this his national standpoint to
universalism (chap. x.). "With the reading avrov pdpr. (see
the critical remarks), fjidpr. governs two genitives different in
1 Not merely the actual impulse and occasion given, as, after Heinrichs,
Kuinoel and de Wette, also Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 307 (comp. his bibl
Theol. p. 138), would have us take it. Against this view may be urged the
appended *< <t<pw aftaprtut, which is not compatible with that more free
rendering of 5o?va<.
156 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
their reference, the one of a person and the other of a thing
(see Winer, p. 180 [E. T. 239]; Dissen, ad Find. 01 i. 94;
Pyth. ii. 56), and avrov could not but accordingly precede;
but the emphasis lies on the bold ^9, to which then TO
TrvevfjLa K.T.\. is added still more defiantly. rwv prj^dr.
TOVTCOV] of these words, 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 Spirit
(ii. 33 f.). But Luke, who has narrated the tradition of the
externally visible event of the ascension as an historical fact,
must here have thought of the eye-witness of the apostles at
the ascension. KOI TO TrvevfjM 8e TO ayiov] as well we ... as
also the Spirit (on the other hand, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p.
181), in which case Be, according to the Attic usage, is placed
after the emphasized idea (Baeumlein, Partik. p. 169). The
Holy Spirit, the greater witness, different from the human
self-consciousness, but ruling and working in believers, wit-
nesses with them (crvpiMapTvpei, Eom. viii. 16). Comp. xv. 28.
TO?? 7rei0ap%. O,VTO>] to those who obey Sim: In an entirely
arbitrary manner this is usually restricted by a mentally
supplied r/fuv merely to the apostles; whereas all who were
obedient to God (in a believing recognition of the Messiah
preached to them, comp. ii. 38, xi. 17, and so through the
irrraKor) T?}? 7ricrrea)9, Eom. i. 5) had received the gifts of the
Spirit. They form the category to which the apostles belong.
Ver. 33. AieTrpiovro] not : they gnashed with the teeth, which
would be SieTrpiov TOV? oSoWa? (Lucian. Column. 24), but
dissecabantur (Vulgate), comp. vii. 54 : they were sawn through,
cut through as by a saw (Plat. Conv. p. 1 9 3 A ; Aristoph.
Eg. 768; 1 Chron. xx. 3; see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 880;
Valckenaer, p. 402 f.), a figurative expression (comp. ii. 37)
of deeply penetrating painful indignation. Alberti, Gloss.
p. 67 : TTucpws exa\eirai,vov. It is stronger than the non-
figurative Sia7Tovel<rdai, iv. 2, xvi. 18. /3ov\evovTO~\ they
consulted, Luke xiv. 31 ; Acts xv. 37. The actual coming to
a resolution was averted by Gamaliel.
CHAP. V. 34. 157
Ver. 34. Gamaliel, f ^3, retributio Dei (Num. i. 10, ii. 20),
is usually assumed to be identical with Eabban Gamaliel,
?!?.?!? (senex), celebrated in the Talmud, the grandson of Hillel
and the son of E. Simeon, a view which cannot be proved,
but also cannot be refuted, as there is nothing against it in
a chronological point of view (Lightf. Hor. ad Matth. p. 33).
He was the teacher of the Apostle Paul (Acts xxii. 3), but is
certainly not in our passage to be considered as the president
of the Sanhedrim, as many have assumed, because in that case
Luke would have designated him more characteristically than by
Ti<? ey T. avv&plqp $apur. That he had been in secret a Christian
(see already Eecogn. Clem. i. 6 5 ; Beda, Cornelius a Lapide),
and been baptized, along with his son and Nicodemus, by Peter
and John (Phot. cod. 171, p. 199), is a legend deduced by
arbitrary inference from this passage. See Thilo, ad Cod.
apocr. p. 501. An opposite but equally arbitrary extreme is
the opinion of Pearson (Lectt. p; 49), that Gamaliel only
declared himself in favour 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 warnings and counsels that experience prompted
him to oppose to the passionate 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 unhistorical role (Baur) assigned
to him (see also Zeller) ; and the chief 1 ground alleged
1 Moreover, Baur puts the alternative : Either the previous miracles, etc.,
actually took place, and then Gamaliel could not have given an advice so
problematic in tenor, whether he might have regarded them as divine miracles
or not. Or, if Gamaliel gave this counsel, then what is said to have taken place
could not have occurred as it is related. But this dilemma proves nothing, as
there is a third alternative possible, namely, that Gamaliel was by the miracles
158 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
for this view is the mention of Theudas, ver. 36 (but see on
ver. 36), while there is further 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 but necessarily be so
far changed, that now the main interests of Sadducaeism were
most deeply affected. vo/toStSaoveaXo?] a vopifcos, one skilled
in the law (canonist) as a teacher. See on Matt. xxiL 35.
$payy\ a short while, Thuc. vi 12 ; Polyb. iii. 96. 2 ; 2 Sam.
xix. 36. On efa> Troteiv] to put without. Comp. Xen. Cyr.
iv. 1. 3 ; Symm. Ps. cxlii. 7. T. avOpcairovs (see the critical
remarks) : thus did Gamaliel impartially designate them, and
Luke reproduces his expression. The order of the words puts
the emphasis on e^to ; for the discussion was to be one coil-
ducted within the Sanhedrim. Comp. iv. 15.
Ver. 35. 'Enl rot? avdporrr. TOVTCW] in respect of these men
(Bernhardy, p. 251) might be joined to Trpocre^ere eavrois
(Lachm.), as Luther, Castalio, Beza, and many others have
done (whence also comes the reading OTTO rwv K.T.\. in E) ;
yet the currency of the expression Trpdcra-eiv TI eVt nvi
(Wolf and Kuinoel in loc., Matthiae, p. 927) is in favour of
its being construed with TI /ieAAere Trpda-a-ew. The emphasis
also which thus falls on eVt rot? avQp. is appropriate.
irpacffGLv (not Trotetv) : agere, what procedure ye will take.
Comp. iii. 17, xix. 36; and see on Eom. i. 32. Gamaliel
will have nothing TrpoTrere? (xix. 36) done ; therefore they
must be on their guard (irpoae^. eairr.).
Ver. 36. Tap] gives the reason 1 for the warning contained
in ver. 35. In proof that they should not proceed rashly,
Gamaliel reminds them of two instances from contemporary
history (w. 36, 37), when fanatical deceivers of the people
which had occurred favourably inclined towards Christianity, but not decided ;
and therefore, as a prudent and conscientious man, judged at least a further
waiting for light to be necessary. This favourable inclination is evidently to be
recognised in the mode in which he expresses his advice ; see on w. 38, 39.
1 Erasmus well paraphrases it : "Ex praeteritis sumite consilium, quid in
futurum oporteat decernere."
CHAP. V. 36. 159
(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, would not escape destruction; but if it should be of
God, it would not be possible to overthrow it. irpo TOVTWV
TWV rjpep-] i.e. not long ago. Ov \eyet ira\ai,a
Kairovye X a)V > ^^ vecorepa, a p^akiara Trpbs Trianv
la^upd, Chrysostom. Comp. xxi. 38. Yet the expression,
which here stands simply in contrast to ancient incidents
(which do not lie within the experience of the generation), is
not to be pressed ; for Gamaliel goes back withal to the time
before the census of Quirinus. @etSa?] Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1,
informs us that under the procurator Cuspius Fadus (not
before A.D. 44 ; see Anger, de temp. rat. p. 44) an insurgent
chief Theudas 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 corre-
spond as regards date. For the Theudas of Josephus lived
under Claudius, and Tiberius Alexander succeeded Cuspius
Fadus about A.D. 46 ; whereas Gamaliel's speech occurred
about ten years earlier, in the reign of Tiberius. Very many
(Origen, c. Gels. i. 6, Scaliger, Casaubon, Beza, Grotius, Calovius,
Hammond, Wolf, Bengel, Heumann, Krebs, Lardner, Morus,
Eosenmiiller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Guericke, Anger, Olshausen,
Ebrard) therefore suppose that it is not the Theudas of
Josephus who is here meant, but some other insurgent chief
or robber-captain acting a religious part, 1 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
violent manner ! especially as the name was by no means so
common as to make the supposition of two men of that name,
with the same enterprise and the same fate, appear probable,
1 So also Gerlach, d. Romischen Statthalt. p. 70, not without a certain irrita-
tion towards me, which I regret, as it contributes nothing to the settlement of
the question.
160 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
or indeed, in the absence of more precise historical -warrant,
otherwise than rash, seeing that elsewhere historical mistakes
occur in Luke (comp. iv. 6 ; Luke ii. 1, 2). Besides, it is ante-
cedently improbable that tradition should not have adduced
an admonitory example thoroughly striking, 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 (Wieseler, Synops. p. 103 ff.,
and Baumgarten, also Kohler in Herzog's Encykl. XVI. p. 40 f.,
holding it to refer to the scribe Matthias in Joseph. Bell. i.
33. 2, Antt. xvii. 6; Sonntag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1837,
p. 638 ff., and Ewald, to the insurgent Simon in Joseph. Bell.
ii. 4. 2, Antt. xvii. 10. 6 ; Zuschlag in the monograph Theu-
das, Anfiihrer eines 750. in Paldst. erregten Aufstandes, Cassel
1849, taking it to be the Theudion of Joseph. Antt. xvii. 4.
who took an active part in the Idumean rising after the death
of Herod the Great), 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
Theudas in our passage is conceived as the same with the
Theudas mentioned by Josephus, the error cannot be sought
on the side of Josephus (Baronius, Eeland, Michaelis, Jahn,
Archdol. II. 2, 127); 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 has, in the reproduction of the
speech "before, us, put 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 Gama-
liel (the destruction of Judas the Galilean), was easily amplified
by an anachronistic addition of another. If Luke himself com-
posed the speech in accordance 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 de-
struction of the Jewish commonwealth, that the chronological
error, easy in itself, may here occasion the less surprise, for he
CHAP. V. SG. 161
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 explained
as a proleptic error by Valesius, ad Euseb. H. E. ii. 11, Lud.
Cappellus, Wetstein, Ottius, Spicileg. p. 258, Eichhorn, Credner,
de Wette, Neander, Bleek, Holtzmann, Keim, 1 as also by Baur
and Zeller, who, however, urge this error as an argument
against the historical truth of the entire speech. Olshausen
considers himself prevented 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 Theudas, who lived under Claudius. But the whole mis-
take amounts to the simple error, that Luke conceived that
Theudas had played his part already 'before the census of Quirinius,
and accordingly he could not lut place him before Judas. 2
elvai TWO] giving out himself (eavrov, in which consists the
arrogance, the self-exaltation ; " character falsae doctrinae,"
Bengel) for one of peculiar importance : Trpo^rjr^ eXeyev elvai,
Joseph. Antt. xx. 5. 1. On rk, eximius quidam (the opposite
ovSei? Valckenaer, ad Herod, iii, 140), see Wetstein in loc. ;
Winer, p. 160 [E. T. 213] ; Dissen, ad Find. Pyth. viii. 95,
p. 299. w 7rpo(refc\l0rj] to whom leaned, i.e. adhered, took his
side : TroXXou? ^Trdrrjaev, Josephus, I.e. Comp. Polyb. iv. 51. 5 ;
also 7rp6<TK\icris, Polyb. vi. 10. 10, v. 51. 8. ey&vovro ei'<?
ov&ev] ad nihilum redacti sunt. See Schleusner, Thes. IV.
x . According to Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 94, the difficulty between Luke and
Josephus remains "somewhat in suspense." Yet he inclines to the assump-
tion of an earlier Theudas, according to the hypothesis of Wieseler. According
to this hypothesis, the Greek name (see Wetstein) Theudas ( = 6i<&a.s = ^<j-
Sapos), preserved still on coins in Mionnet, must be regarded as the Greek form
of the name rVfilD. But why should Gamaliel or Luke not have retained the
name Matthias ? Or what could induce Josephus to put Matthias instead of
Theudas ? especially as the name DVHD was not strange in Hebrew (Schoettg.
p. 423), and Josephus himself mentions the later insurgent by no other name.
3 Entirely mistaken is the even in a linguistic point of view erroneous inter-
pretation of pira, raurar (ver. 37) by Calvin, Wetstein, and others, that it.
denotes not temporia ordinem, but, generally, insuper or praeterea.
ACTS. L
162 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
p. 140. They were, according to Josephus, I.e., broken up
(Sie\vdr)a-av') by the cavalry of Fadus, and partly killed, partly
taken prisoners. The two relative sentences u> Trpoo-e/eX. and
o? avrjpedtj are designed to bring out emphatically the contrast.
Comp. iv. 10.
Ver. 37. 'JoySa? o PaXtXato9] Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1,
calls him a Gaulanite; for he was from Gamala in Lower
Gaulanitis. But in Antt. xviii. 1. 6, xx. 5. 2, Bell. ii. 8. 1,
xvii. 8, he mentions him likewise as PaXtXato?. Apparently
the designation " the Galilean " was the inaccurate one used
in ordinary life, from the locality in which the man was at
work. Gaulanitis lay on the eastern shore of the Sea of
Galilee. He excited an insurrection against the census
which Augustus in the year 7 aer. Dion, (thirty-seven years
after the battle of Actium, Joseph. Antt. xviii. 2. 1) caused
to be made by Quirinius the governor of Syria (see on Luke
ii. 2), representing it as a work of subjugation, and calling the
people to liberty with all the fanatical boldness kindled by
the old theocratic spirit. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 1. 1. See Ger-
lach, d. Rom. Statthalter, p. 45 f . ; Paret in Herzog's Encykl.
VII. p. 126 f. aTrearija-e . . . oTrlao) avrov] he withdrew
them (from the government), and made them his own adherents.
Attraction: Hermann, ad Vig. p. 893. a7ro>XeTo] a notice
which supplements Josephus. According to Joseph. Antt. xx.
5. 2, two sons of Judas perished at a later period, whom
Tiberius Alexander, the governor of Judaea, caused to be
crucified. Comp. Sell. ii. 8. 1. Still later a third son was
executed (Sell. ii. 17. 8 f . ; Vit. v. 11). Siea-Kopiria-drjaav"]
tliey were scattered, which does not exclude the continuance of
the faction, whose members were afterwards very active as
2ealots, and again even in the Jewish war (Joseph. Bell. ii.
17. 7) ; therefore it is not an incorrect statement (in opposi-
tion to de Wette).
Vv. 38-40. Kai] is the- simple copula of the train of
thought; ra vvv as in iv. 29. e dvdpca-jrwv'] of human
origin (comp. Matt. XXL 25), not proceeding from the will
and arrangement of God (not etc Oeov). rj /SouX?) ainrj rj TO
epy. TOUTO] " Disjunctio non ad diversas res, sed ad diversa,
CHAP. V. 38-40. 163
quibus res appellatur, vocabula pertinet." Fritzsche, ad Marc.
p. 277. This project or (in order to denote the matter in
question still more definitely) this work (as already in the act
of being executed). Kara\v6rjcreTai\ namely, without your
interference. This conception results from the antithesis in
the second clause : ov SvvavQe KaraXvo-ai, avrovs. For similar
expressions from the Eabbins (Pirke Aloth, iv. 11, al.}, see
Schoettgen. Comp. Herod, ix. 16 : 6, ri Set yevea-dat e/c rov
@eov, d/j.^avov airorpefyat, avOpwirw, Eur. Hippol. 476.
The reference of tcaraXveiv to persons (avrovs, see the critical
remarks) who are overthrown, ruined, is also current in classical
authors. Xen. Cyr. viii. 5. 24; Plat. Legg. iv. p. 714 C;
Lucian. Gall. 23. Comp. Kardkv<ns rov rvpdvvov, Polyb. x.
25. 3, etc. Notice, further, the difference in meaning of
the two conditional clauses : eav $ and el . . . e&nv (comp.
GaL i. 8, 9 ; and see Winer, p. 277 f. [E. T. 369]; Stallb. ad
Plat. Phaed. p. 93 B), according to which the second case put
appeared to Gamaliel as the more probable. prjirore Kal
Oeopd'xpi, evpeOrjre] although grammatically to be explained
by a aKSTrreov, Trpocre^ere eavrois (Luke xxi. 34), or some
similar phrase floating before the mind, is an independent
warning : that ye only ~be not found even fighters against God.
See Horn. II. i. 26, ii. 195 ; Matt. xxv. 9 (Elz.) ; Eom. xi. 21 ;
Baeumlein, PartiJc. p. 283 ; Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 18, ed. 3.
Valckenaer and Lachmann (after Pricaeus and Hammond) con-
strue otherwise, referring prjirore to edaare avrovs, and treating
ort . . . avrovs as a parenthesis. A superfluous interruption, to
which also the manifest reference of Beo/jid^oi, to the directly
preceding el Se e/c @eoO eariv K.T.\. is opposed. KaC] is to
be explained elliptically : not only with men, but also further,
in addition. See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 134. Oeo^d^oi}
Symm. Prov. ix. 18, xxi. 16 ; Job xxvi. 5 ; Heraclid. Alleg. 1-;
Lucian. Jov. Tr. 45. On the thing itself, comp. Horn. //.
vi. 129: OVK av eywye Oeoicriv lirovpavioifft fjLa%oifj,t)v.
eTreladija-av] even if only in tantum ; and yet how greatly
to their self -conviction on account of their recent con-
demnation of Jesus ! Seipavres] The Sanhedrim would at
least not expose themselves, as if they had instituted an
164 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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. 3 7, 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 absolute maxim of Gamaliel, but as one which is here
presented to him by the critical state of affairs, and is to be
explained from his predominant opinion that a work of God
may be at stake, as he himself indeed makes this opinion
apparent by el . . . eanv, ver. 39 (see above).
Ver. 41 f. Xatpovres] comp. Matt. v. 11, 12. virep rov
oi/o/iaTo?] placed first with emphasis : for the name, for its glori-
fication. For the scourging suffered tended to that effect, because
it was inflicted on the apostles on account of their stedfast
confession of the name. Comp. ix. 16. " Quum reputarent
causam, praevalebat gaudium" Calvin. The absolute TO ovopa
denotes the name tear e^o^v, namely, "Jesus Messiah" (iii. 6,
iv. 1 0), the confession and announcement of which was always
the highest and holiest concern of the apostles. Analogous is
the use of the absolute bw (Lev. xxiv. 11, 16), in which the
Hebrew understood the name of his Jehovah as implied of
itself. Comp. 3 John 7. icarrjfywO. arif^acrd.] An oxy-
moron. Comp. Phil. i. 29; 2 Cor. xi. 26-30; Gal. vi. 14,
17, al. ; 1 Pet. ii. 19. iraaav rjpepav] every day the OVK
eTravovro in preaching took place. See Winer, p. 162 [E. T.
214]. They did it day after day without cessation. tear
OLKOV\ domi, in the house, a contrast to ev TG> iepa>. See on
ii. 46. dveTTavovro SiSda/covres] See Herm. ad Viger. p. 771;
Bernhardy, p. 477. Kal evayye\. 'I^cr. r. X.] and announcing
Jesus as the Messiah, a more specific definition of
as regards its chief contents.
CHAP. VI. 1. 165
CHAPTEE VI.
VER. 3. 'Aylov] is wanting in B D N, 137, 180, vss. Chrys.
Theophyl. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. ; the Syr. expresses
xvptov. A more precisely defining addition (comp. ver. 5), which
is also found inserted at ver. 10. xaraffrriffo/^sv] Elz. has xara-
arriffuftsv, against decisive evidence. An over-hasty correction.
Ver. 5. ifk^r\ A C* D E H X, min. have trhripris, which,
although adopted by Lachm., is intolerable, and is to be regarded
as an old error of transcription. Ver. 8. %u.pirof] Elz. has
tarsus, contrary to decisive evidence. From ver. 5. Ver. 9.
xai 'Aff/aj] is deleted by Lachm., following A D* Cant. It was
easily overlooked after K/X/xlA2 ; whereas it would be difficult
to conceive a reason for its being inserted. Ver. 1 1 . /3xa<r-
pjjAta] D has J3hae<pwias. Eecommended by Griesb. and adopted
by Born. But /5jj/Ara /SXatrp^a was explained by the weakly-
attested /3Xa<rpjj//,/as (blasphemies) as a gloss ; and this, taken as
a genitive, thereupon suppressed the original jSXaffpjj/ua.
Ver. 1 3. After pqpara, Elz. has /SXao-p^a, against a great pre-
dominance of evidence. From ver. 11. After ay/ov, Elz. has
TOVTOU, 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 temple court.
Vv. 1-7. An explanation paving the way for the history of
Stephen, ver. 8 ff. Ver. 7 is not at variance with this view.
Ver. 1. -de] Over against this new victory of the church
without, there now emerges a division in its own bosom.
tV raw i?/u,ep. Taur.] namely, while the apostles continued,
after their liberation, to devote themselves unmolested to their
function of preaching (v. 42). Thus this expression (Q^ii
nnn) finds its definition, although only an approximate one,
always in what precedes. Comp. on Matt. iii. 1. TrA^u-
VOVTCOV] as a neuter verb (Bernhardy, p. 339 f.) : amidst the
increase of the Christian multitude, by which, consequently,
166 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the business of management referred to became the more
extensive and difficult. Comp. Aesch. Ag. 869; Polyb. iii.
105. 7; Herodian, iii. 8. 14, often in the LXX. and Apocr.
' E\\r)vi<rTi]<;, elsewhere only preserved in Phot. Bibl. (see
Wetstein), according to its derivation (from ehXvjvi&iv, to
present oneself in G-recian nationality, and particularly to
speak the Greek language; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 380), and
according to its contrast to 'Efipaiovs, is to be explained : a
Jew (and so non-Greek) who has Greek nationality, and par-
ticularly speaks Greek: ix. 29. Comp. Chrysostom and
Oecumenius. As both appellations are here transferred to the
members of the Christian church at Jerusalem, the 'E/Spaioi,
are undoubtedly : those Christians of the church of Jerusalem,
wJw, as natives of Palestine, had the Jewish national character,
and spoke the sacred language as their native tongue ; and the
' E\\r]via-raL are those members of this church, who were Greek-
Jews, and therefore presented themselves in Greek national charac-
ter, and spoke Greek as their native language. Both parties were
Jewish Christians ; and the distinction between them turned on
the different relation of their original nationality to Judaism.
And as the two parties embraced the whole of the Jews who
had become Christian, it is a purely arbitrary limitation, when
Camerarius, Beza, Salmasius, Pearson, Wolf, Morus, Ziegler,
(Einleit. in d. Br. a. d. Heir. p. 221), and Pfannkuche (in
Eichhorn's allg. Bibl.VIII. p. 471) 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 by birth who had
been drawn from the SiacrTropa to Jerusalem are also included.
The more the intercourse of Greek-Jews with foreign culture
was fitted to lessen and set aside Jewish narrow-mindedness, so
much the more easy is it to understand that many should
embrace Christianity. Comp. Eeuss in Herzog's Encykl. V.
p. 703 f. TT/xfc] denotes, according to the context, the
antagonistic direction, as in Luke v. 30. Comp. Acts ix. 29.
ev rf) SiaK. rp /ca^T//*.] in the daily service (2 Cor. viii. 4,
ix. 1, 13), here: with provisions, in the daily distribution of
food. Ver. 2 requires this explanation. KaBrjpepwo? only
CHAP. VI. 2. 167
here in the N". T., more frequently in Plutarch, etc., belongs to
the later Greek; Judith xii. 15 ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 55.
The neglect of due consideration (irapadeccpelv, not elsewhere in
the N. T., nor in the LXX. and Apocr., but see Kypke, II. p. 36),
which the 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 (Lightf. Hor. ad Joh. p. 1031),
so much at variance with the spirit of Christianity (Gal. iii.
28 ; Col. iii. 11 ; Rom. x. 12 ; 1 Cor. xii. 13), had extended
also to the Christian community, 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 (comp.
Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 333); as also, that before the appoint-
ment of the subsequently named Seven, the care of the poor was
either exclusively, or at least chiefly, entrusted to the Hebrews.
Mosh. de reb. Christ, ante Const, pp. 118, 139. The widows
are not, as Olshausen and Lekebusch, p. 9 3, arbitrarily assume,
mentioned by synecdoche for all the poor and needy, but simply
because their neglect was the occasion of the 7077 vcrpos. We
may add, that this passage does not presuppose another state
of matters than that of the community of goods formerly men-
tioned (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 com-
plaint as to this was unfounded (Calvin).
Ver. 2. To 7r\rjdo<; TWV fjMd^-rwv] the mass of the disciples;
i.e. the Christian multitude in general, not merely individuals,
or a mere committee of the church. Comp. iv. 32. It is
quite as arbitrary to understand, with Lightfoot, only the 120
persons mentioned in i. 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. OVK,
apearrov ICTTIV] non placet, xii. 3 ; John viii. 29 ; Herod, i.
168 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
119; Plato, Def. p. 415 A. The Vulgate, Beza, Calvin,
Piscator, Casaubon, Kuinoel, incorrectly render: non aequum
est, which the word never means, not even in the LXX. It
pleased not the apostles to leave the doctrine of God (its pro-
clamation), just because the fulfilment of the proper duty of
their calling pleased them. /caraXen^.] A strong expression
under a vivid sense of the disturbing element (to leave in the
lurch). On the form, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 713 ff.
Siatcoveiv rpaire^at,<j\ to serve tables, i.e. to be the regulators,
overseers, and dispensers in reference to food. The expression,
which contains the more precise definition for rf) Siaicovla of
ver. 1, betrays " indignitatem aliquam" (Bengel). The refer-
ence which others have partly combined with this, partly
assumed alone, of rpdire^a to the money-changers' table, Matt.
xxi. 12, Luke xix. 23 (" pecunia in usuni pauperum collecta et
iis distribuenda," Kuinoel), is excluded, in the absence of any
other indication in the text, by the Statcovetv used statedly of
the ministration of food (Wetst. ad Matth. iv. 1 1). Moreover,
the designation of the matter, as if it were a banking business,
would not even be suitable. The apostles would neither be
rpaTre^oKo/jLoi nor rpaTre^oTrotoi (Athen. IV. p. 170). 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 (ovv), as we, the apostles, can no longer
undertake this business of distribution, look ye out, i.e. direct
your attention to test and select, etc. eTrra] the sacred
number. <7o0ta?] quite in the usual practical sense : wisdom,
which determines the right agency in conformity with the recog-
nised divine aim. With a view to this required condition 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 corresponding testimony of the church in their favour.
Comp. xvi. 2 and on Luke iv. 22 ; Dion. Hal. Ant. ii. 26.
o&9 KaTacrTijorofjiev eirl T^? %peta<f ravrtj<^] whom we (the apostles)
will appoint 1 (when they are chosen) over the business in
1 The opposite of xecrairrrif. ttfi TV; %p. (comp. 1 Mace. X. 37) is : (t.iTu.ffTr l ea,ff(i
* rns %p., Polyb. iv. 87. 9 ; 1 Mace. xi. 63.
CHAP. VI. 3. 169
question (on cVt -with the genitive, in the sense of official
appointment over something, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 474 ;
Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. iii. 3. 2). This officium, ministration
(see Wetstein and Schweighauser, Lex. Polyb. p. 665), 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 Hellenistic portion (Vitringa, de
Synag. ii. 2. 5, Mosheim, Heinrichs, Kuinoel). The limitation
to the latter would presuppose the existence of a special
management of the poor already established for the Hebrew
portion, without any indication of it in the text ; nor is it sup-
ported 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 Hellenists
were appointed by the impartiality of the Hebrews (Eothe,
de Wette, Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 75), is entirely
arbitrary ; as also is the supposition of Gieseler (Kirchengesch.
I. sec. 25, note 7), that three Hebrews and three Hellenists
(and one proselyte) were appointed ; although the chosen were
doubtless partly Hebrews and partly Hellenists. Observe,
moreover, how the right to elect was regarded by the apostles
as vested in the church, and the election itself was performed
by the church, but the appointment and consecration were
completed by the apostles ; the requisite qualifications, more-
over, of those to be elected are denned by the apostles} From
this first regular overseership of alms, the mode of appoint-
ment to which could not but regulate analogically the practice
of the church, was gradually developed the diaconate, which
subsequently underwent further elaboration (Phil. i. I). 2 It
remains an open question whether the overseers corre-
1 Comp. Holtzm. Judentli. u. Christenth. p. 613 f.
2 But the assumption that "the institution of the so-called deacons was origi-
nally one and the same with the presbyterate, and that only at a later period it
ramified into the distinction between the presbyterate in the narrower sense and
the diaconate" (Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 75, after J. H. Bohmer ; comp. also
Lechler, p. 306), is not to be proved by xi. 30. See in loc. Kitschl, altkathol.
K. p. 355 ft. , thinks it very probable that the authority of the Seven was the
first shape of the office of presbyter afterwards emerging in Jerusalem. So also
Holtzmann, I.e. p. 616. Similarly Weiss, bill. Theol. p. 142, according to
170 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
sponded to the ^23 of the synagogue 1 (Vitringa; on the
other side Khenfeld, see Wolf, Curae). rfj Biaicovla TOV \6yov]
correlate contrasting with the Siafcoveiv rpaire^a^ 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 (w. 8-10)
shows ; comp. on viii. 5.
Ver. 5. IlavTos TOV jr\r)dov<i] " pulcher consensus cum
obsequio," Bengel. The aristocracy of the church was a per
evo'oj'ias 7r\r)6ov<$ apicrTOKpaTia, Plat. Menex. p. 238 D.
Trio-Tews] 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 (comp. xi. 24), on
which account the church united in selecting him first.
$/Xt7T7roy] At a later period he taught in Samaria, and bap-
tized the chamberlain (viii. 5 ff.). Concerning his after life
and labours (see, however, xxi. 8) there are only contradictory
legends. Niic6\aov] neither the founder of the Mcolaitans
(as, after Iren. Haer. ii. 27, Epiph. Haer. 25, Calvin, Grotius,
and Lightfoot assumed), nor the person from whom the
Nicolaitans had borrowed their name in accordance with his
alleged immoral principles (Constitt. ap. vi. 8. 3 ; Clem. Al.
whom the presbyters stepped into the place of the Seven and took upon them their
duties. But the office of presbyter was still at that time vested in the apostles
themselves ; accordingly, the essential and necessary difference of the two functions
was from the very first the regulative point of view. The presbyterate retained
the oversight and guidance of the diaconate (Phil. i. 1) ; comp. also xi. 30 ; but
the latter sprang, by reason of the emerging exigency, from the former, not the
converse.
1 As Leyrer, in Herzog's EncyU. XV. p. 313, thinks. The ecclesiastical over-
seership arose out of the higher need and interest of the new present, but the
synagogal office might serve as a model that offered itself historically. The
requirements for the latter office pointed merely to "well-known trustworthy"
men.
2 Observe, however, that it is not said : r$j S/*v/ rfis -fffeftu^s xa.i rov Xoyov,
and therefore it is not to be inferred from our passage, with Ahrens (Amt d.
Schliissel, p. 37 f.)> that by TJ? vrfmriux^ a P ar * f "the office of the keys" is
meant. See, in opposition to this, Dusterdieek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 762 f.
CHAP. VI. 6. 171
Strom, ii. p. 177, iii P- 187 ; Thiersch wishes historically to
combine the two traditions ; see his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt.
p. 251 f. ; comp. generally, Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 526 if.,
and Herzog in his EncyTd. X. p. 338 f.), but otherwise
historically quite unknown. Nitcohairal, Rev. ii. 6, is an
invented Greek name, equivalent to Kparovvres rrjv StSa^v
BaXadfj, (ver. 14), according to the derivation of DJJ PS, per-
didit populum. See Ewald and Diisterdieck, I.e. Of the
others mentioned nothing further is known. vrpoa-favTov
'AvTio%.] From this it may be inferred, with Heinsius,
Gieseler, de Wette, Ewald, and others, that only 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 proselyte among those chosen, is
an evidence of the wisdom of the choice. 'AvTio%ea~] but
who dwelt in Jerusalem. The fact that Stephen is named
at the head of the Seven finds its explanation in his distin-
guished qualities and historical significance. Comp. Peter at
the head of the apostles. Chrysostom well remarks on ver. 8 :
teal ev rot? ITTTO, TJV Ti? TTpoKptros Kal TO, irpwreia el%ev el yap
teal rj %eipOTovta KOivr], dXV oyti&)9 oyro? eVecrTrauaTO %dpi,v
TrXeiWa. Nor is it less historically appropriate that the only
proselyte among the Seven is, in keeping with the Jewish
character of the church, named last.
Ver. 6. 1 And after they (the apostles) had prayed, they laid
their hands on them. Kal is the simple copula, whereupon
the subject changes without carrying out the periodic construc-
tion (see Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 116 [E. T. 132]). It is otherwise
in i. 24. The idea that the overseers of the church (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 diaconate was the first
organization, called forth by the exigency that in the first instance,
1 See, on the imposition of hands, Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1865, p. 343 ff. ;
Hoelemann in his neue Bibelstud. 1866, p. 282 ft., where also the earlier
literature, p. 283, is noted.
172 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
arose. The imposition of hands (DT 1 WED, Vitringa, Synag.
p. 836 if.), as a symbol exhibiting the divine communication
of power and grace, was employed from the time of Moses
(Num. xxvii. 18 ; Deut. xxxiv. 9 ; Ewald, Alterth. p. 57 f.)
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, 5)
of the person in question were already known to exist (Eitschl,
altkath. Kirche, p. 387) does not exclude the special bestowal
of official gifts, which was therein contemplated ; seeing that
elsewhere, even in the case of those who have the Spirit, there
yet ensues a special and higher communication. Observe,
moreover, that here also (comp. viii. 1 7, xiii. 3) the imposition
of hands occurs after prayer, 1 and therefore it was not a mere
symbolic accompaniment of prayer, 2 without collative import.,
and perhaps only a " ritus ordini et decoro congruens " (Calvin).
Certainly its efficacy depended only on God's bestowal, but it
was associated with the act representing this bestowal as the
medium of the divine communication.
Ver. 7, attaching the train of thought by the simple icai,
now describes how, after the installing of the Seven, the cause of
the gospel continued to prosper. " The, word of God grew " it
increased in diffusion (xii. 24, xix. 20), etc. Comp. the parable
of the mustard -seed, Matt. yiii. 31, 32. 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 in-
habitants of the capital, who had always before their eyes, in
the case of their hierarchs, the curse of party spirit and sec-
tarian hatred ? Therefore and what a significant step towards
victory therein took place ! a great multitude of the priests
became obedient to the faith, that is, they submitted themselves
to the taith in Jesus as the Messiah, they became believers ;
1 Luke has not expressed himself in some such way as this : *<*) i*i(!itris auraTs
rai ^ilfOLt Xfiffnii^atro.
2 This also in opposition to "Weiss, bill. TheoL p. 144.
CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 173
comp. as to vTraKorj Triarrews, on Eom. i. 5. The better portion
of the so numerous (Ezra ii. 36 ff.) 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 'lavSatmr, and the conjecture of Casaubon,
approved by Beza : KOI rwv lepecov, sc. rives, are to be entirely
rejected ; nor is even Eisner's view (which Heinsius antici-
pated, and Wolf and Kuinoel followed) to be adopted, viz.
that by the 0^X05 rwv lep., the sacerdotes ex plebe, plebeii sacer-
dotes, pKn DJ7 D^ro, are meant in contradistinction to the
theologically learned priests, D'oan T^n. The text itself is
against this view ; for it must at least have run : TTO\\OI re
tepeis rov oj(\.ov. 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 xii. 42.
Vv. 8, 9. Yet there now came an attack from without, and
that against that first-named distinguished overseer for the
poor, Stephen, who became the irpwro^dprvp (Const, ap. ii.
49. 2). The new narrative is therefore not introduced
abruptly (Schwanbeck). %dpiro<; is, as in iv. 33, to be
understood of the divine grace, not as Heiurichs, according
to ii. 47, would have it taken : gratia, quam apud permultos
inierat. This must have been definitely conveyed by an
addition. SvvdfAeias] power generally, heroism ; not specially :
miraculous power, as the following eiroiei repara K.T.\. ex-
presses a special exercise of the generally characteristic %a/)t9
and BvvafjMs. rives rwv e/c rrjs (rvvasya>yf)S \ej. Aiftepr.'] some
of those who belonged to the so-called Libertine-synagogue. The
number of synagogues in Jerusalem was great, and is estimated
by the Eabbins (Megill. f. 73, 4; Ketuvoth f. 105, 1) at the
fanciful number 480 (i.e. 4 X 10x12). Chrysostom already
correctly explains the Aifteprivoi : ol 'Pwpaiwv a.7re\evdepoi.
They are to be conceived as Jews by birth, who, brought by the
Romans (particularly under Pompey) as prisoners of war to
Home, were afterwards emancipated, and had returned home.
[Many also remained in Borne, where they had settled on the
174 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
other side of the Tiber ; Sueton. Tiber. 3 6 ; Tacit. Ann. ii. 8 5 ;
Philo, Leg. ad Cai. p. 1014 C.] They and their descendants
after them formed in Jerusalem a synagogue of their own,
which was named after the class-designation which its origi-
nators and possessors brought with them from their Roman
sojourn in exile, the synagogue of the freedmen (libertinorum).
This, the usual explanation, for which, however, further his-
torical 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 improbability. 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 Jerusalem. The Eoman designation stands opposed
to the view of Lightfoot, that they were Palestinian freedmen,
who were in the service of Palestinian masters. Others (see
particularly Gerdes in the Miscell. Groning. I. 3, p. 529 ff.)
suppose that they were Jews, natives of Libertum. a (proble-
matical) city or district in proconsular Africa. If there was a
Libertum (Suidas : Aifieprlvoi,- ovopa Sfaov?), 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. Conjectures : Ai/3vcm'va)v, 1 Libyans (Oecumenius,
Lyra, Beza, ed. 1 and 2, Clericus, Gothofredus, Valckenaer),
and Aiftvvwv TWV Kara Kvp. (Schulthess, de charism. Sp. St.
p. 162 ff.). teal Kvp. ical 'A\e%.'] Likewise two synagogal
communities. Calvin, Beza, Bengel, Heumann, and Klos
(Exam, emendatt. Valck. in N. T. p. 48) were no doubt of
opinion that by IK TT)? avvcvyw'yris . . . /cat 'Aa-ias there is meant
only one synagogue, which was common to all those who are
named. But against this may be urged, as regards the words
of the passage, the circumstance that r. \eyo/j,evr)<; only suits
Aifteprivwv, and as regards matter of fact, the great number of
synagogues 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
1 See "Wetstein, who even considers Aifitpr. as another form (inflexio) of the
name \if>utt. The Arm. already has Libyorum.
CHAP. VI. 8, 9. 175
only one synagogue. In Gyrene, the capital of Upper Libya,
the fourth part of the inhabitants consisted of Jews (Joseph.
Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 1 ; c. Apion. ii. 4) ; and in Alexandria
two of the five parts into which the city was divided were
inhabited by them (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xiv. 10. 1, xix.
5. 2 ; Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 7). 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 icai and indeed,
so that the Cyrenaeans, Alexandrians, and those of Cilicia and
Asia, would be designated as a mere part of the so-called
Libertine synagogue. But how arbitrary, seeing that teat in the
various other instances of its being used throughout the represen-
tation always expresses merely the simple and I The Synagoga
Alexandrinorum is also mentioned in the Talmud (Megill.
f. 73, 4). Winer and Ewald divide the whole into two com-
munities : (1) Kvprjv. and 'A\e%. joined with the Libertines ;
and (2) the synagogue formed of the Ciliciau and Asiatic Jews.
But against this view the above reasons also militate, especially
the T?}? \eyo/j,evr)s, which only suits AijSeprivwv. The gram-
matical objection against our view, that the article rS>v is not
repeated before Kvpyv. (and before 'A\e%.'), 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 (see Krliger, ad Xen.
Andb. ii. 1. 7; Sauppe and Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 19 ;
Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 373 f.) ; and the two following syna-
gogal communities are then likewise conceived as such a unity,
and represented by the xal ruv prefixed (Vulg. : " et eorum qui
erant "). We have thus in our passage five synagogues, to
which the ro/e? belonged, namely, three of Eoman 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. o-u^royz/Te?] as disputants, ix. 29. The
176 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES,
already begun with the rising up (avearticrav}, Bernhardy,
p. 477 f. Winer, p. 320 f. [E. T. 444].
Vv. 10, 11. The <ro(f>ia is to be explained, not of the Jewish
learning, but of the Christian ivisdom (Luke xxi. 1 5 ; and see
on Eph. 18,1 7), to which the Jewish learning of the oppon-
ents could not make any resistance. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 17 ff.,
ii. 6 ff. The Trvevpa was the irv. ayiov* with which he was
filled, w. 3, 5. o>] Dative of the instrument. It refers, as
respects sense, to loth preceding nouns, but is grammatically
determined according to the latter, Matthiae, p. 991. Tore]
then, namely, after they had availed nothing in open disputation
against him. " Hie agnosce morem improborum ; ubi veritate
discedunt impares, ad mendacia confugiunt," Erasmus, Paraphr.
v7T/3a\ov] they instigated, secretly instructed. Comp. Appian.
i. 74, vir$\r)Qir)crav /carrfyopoi. The Latin subornarunt, or, as
the Vulg. has it, submiserunt (Suet. Ner. 28). a/c^/coa/iet/ K.T.\.]
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 w. 13, 14.
Vv. 12-14. The assertion of these viro^qroL (Joseph.
.Bell. v. 10. 4; Plut. Tib. Gr. 8) 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. cnntvctvqirav] they
drew them into the movement with them, stirred up them
also. Often in Plut., Polyb., etc. /cat eTriardvTe?] as in iv. 1.
The subject is still those hostile rives. o-vvijp'n:] they drew
along with them, as in xix. 29. /zaprupa? i/rey&et?] Conse-
quently, Stephen had not spoken the same words, 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 the blasphemy alleged to have been heard
according to the real state of the facts, and in doing so those
avSpes viro^krjToi dealt as false witnesses. As formerly (Matt.
1 But ru ay'ua is not added ; for " adversarii sentiebant Spiritum esse in Ste-
phano ; Spiritum sanctum in eo esse non sciebant," Bengel.
CHAP. VI. 12-14. 177
xxvi. 61) a saying of Jesiis (John ii. 19) was falsified in order
to make Him appear as a rebel against the theocracy ; so here
also some expression 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, per-
haps, quoted the prophecy of the Lord concerning the destruc-
tion 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. 1 Against the view of Krause (Comment, in histor.
atque orat. Steph., Gott. 1780), that an expression of other, more
inconsiderate Christians was imputed 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 natu-
rally presented itself to the enemies of Stephen as a precedent.
Heinrichs (after Heumann and Morus) thinks that the pdpTvpes
were in so far ^evSet?, as they had uttered an expression of
Stephen with 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 i/reOSo?, but a bad
motive would have been predominant. Baur also and Zeller
maintain the essential correctness of the assertion, and conse-
quently 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 (comp. Baumgarten, p. 125) ;
as regards its true amount, it can only be conceived as
1 Comp. "Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 148. But that Stephen, as Reuss thinks (in
Herzog's Encykl. XV. p. 73), preached something which the apostles had not
previously taught, is all the more uncertain an assumption, seeing that already
iu the sayings of Jesus Himself sufficient materials for the purpose were given.
Comp. e.g. John iv. 21 if.,, the sayings of Jesus concerning the Sabbath, con-
cerning the Levitical purifications, concerning the -r^pains of the law, concern-
ing the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Parousia, etc. But Stephen ( T*
vnuftan f, Constitt. ap. viii. 46. 9) may have expressed himself in a more
threatening and incisive manner than others, and thereby have directed the per-
secution to himself. In so far he was certainly the forerunner of Paul.
ACTS. M
178 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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, Eauch in the Stud. u. Krit. 1857, p. 356, has
maintained that Stephen actually made the assertion adduced
"by the witnesses, ver. 14, and that these were only false wit-
nesses, 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, 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 :
eTretS^ aX\o>5 //,ei/ rjicovaav, aAAa>9 Se vvv avrol irpow%<o-
povv, eiKOTGx; Kal 'fyevSopdprvpes dvaypafavrai. rov roirov
rov aylov] the holy place icar effofflv is the temple, 3 Mace,
ii. 14. Ver. 14. o Na&p. OUTO?] 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 con-
temptuously, and blended by them with the words of Stephen.
And not only is o Na&p. an expression of contempt, but also
ovro<f (vii. 40, xix. 2 6 ; Luke xv. 30 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. II. p. 494 ;
Dissen, ad Find. Nem. ix. 29, p. 492): Jesus, this Nazarene !
rov ro-rrov rovrov] The false witnesses represent the matter,
as if Stephen had thus spoken pointing to the temple.
Ver. 15. All the Sanhedrists 1 saw the countenance of Stephen
angelically glorified; a superhuman, angel-like B6%a became
externally visible to them on it. So Luke has conceived and
represented it with simple definiteness ; so the serene calm
which astonished even the Sanhedrists, and the holy joyfulness
which was reflected from the heart of the martyr in his coun-
tenance, 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 elBov . . .
1 ariviffarTts lit alir'ai : " usitatum est in judiciia oculos in reum convertere,
quum expectatur ejus defensio," Calvin.
CHAP. VI. 15. 179
ayye\ov to this effect : " Os animi tranquillitatem summara
referebat, adeo ut eum intuentibus reverentiam injiceret;"
according to which the expression would have to be referred,
with Neander and de Wette, to a poetically symbolical descrip-
tion, which does not correspond with the otherwise simple
style of the narrative. The phenomenon was certainly " an
extraordinary operation of the Spirit of Jesus " (Baumgarten,
p. 130) ; but the form of it is added by tradition, which be-
trays the point of view of the miraculous also by the irdvre^.
The parallel adduced afresh by Olshausen (2 Sam. xiv. 1 7) is
utterly unsuitable, because there the comparison to an angel
relates to wisdom, and not to anything external. Nor is the
analogy of the Sofa in the face of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 7) suit-
able, on account of the characteristic Trpowir. ayye\ov. For
Rabbinical analogies, see Schoettgen and Wetstein.
180 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTER VII.
VER. 1. apot, is wanting in A B C K, min. Vulg. Cant. Germ.
Bed. Deleted by Lachm. But if not genuine, it would hardly
have been added, as it was so 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 standpoint
and the temper of the high priest. Ver. 3. rw yJjv] The article
is wanting in Elz. Scholz, against far preponderant attestation.
A copyist's error. Restored by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Born.
Ver. 5. aurw dowai] dowai aura; is decidedly attested ; so Lachm.
Tisch. Born. Ver. 7. 5ouX?ii<rwff;] Tisch. reads douteusouaiv, in
accordance, no doubt, with A C D, vss. Ir., but it is a mechanical
repetition from ver. 6. Ver. 11. ryv yyv A/yiWou] A B C D*
(which has Ip Sx^g r?i$ A/'y.) K, 81, vss. have nj A/'yurrov. Re-
commended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But how easily
might THN be passed over after THN I and then the change
A/yuTrON became necessary. Ver. 1 2. Instead of ofra, <si-ria
is to be received, with Lachm. Tisch. Born. 1 ev A/yu-srw]
Lachm. Tisch. read sis tuywrw, following A B C E K, 40. sv
A/'y. is an explanatory supplement to ovra. Ver. 14. After
ffvyyev. Elz. has aurov, in opposition to witnesses of some import-
ance (also N), although it is defended by Born. A prevalent
addition. Ver. 15. 8s] A C E K, 15, 18, vss. have xai xa,Sj,
which Griesb. has recommended, Rinck preferred, and Lachm.
and Tisch. have adopted. D, 40, Syr. p. Cant, have no conjunc-
tion at all; so Born., but from the LXX. Deut. x. 22; xai x.ar.
is to be preferred as best attested. Ver. 16. $] Elz. reads o,
against decisive testimony. Mistaking the attraction. rov
Su^g/i] Lachm. reads D sv 2., according to A E N** min. Copt.
Syr. p. Tol. B C N* min. Sahid. Arm. have merely sv 2. An
alteration, because this Sv^s/* was apprehended, like the pre-
ceding, as the name of a town, and the parallel with Gen.
xxxiii. 19 was not reconised. Ver. 17. upoMrietv So Tisch.
1 How often <r/<r/o is exchanged in MSS. with firm and />, may be seen in
Frotscher, ad Hler. iii. 11 ; Heind. ad Plat. Phaed. p. 64 D ; Kriiger, ad Xen.
Anab. vii. 1. 33.
CHAP. VII. 181
Lachm. Bat Elz. and Scholz have wpontv, against A B C K, 15,
36, and some vss. A more precisely defining gloss from the
LXX., instead of which D E have Jcrjjyys/Xaro (so Born.).
Ver. 18. After irspo$ Lachm. has IT' A/'yuTroi/, according to
A B C X, rnin. and several vss. An exegetical addition from
the LXX. Ver. 20. After irarpog Elz. has avrov. See on ver.
14. Ver. 21. exrsQivra ds avrov] Lachm. Born, read sxrtSsvrog bt
avrou, according to A B C D X, min. A correction in point of
style. Ver. 22. T<rjj copty] A C E K, vss. Or. (twice) Bas.
Theodoret have lv irdap 6o<p. So Tisch. D* has waoav rr,v aotpiav.
So Born. Interpretations of the Recepta, in favour of which is
also the reading vac^s tfop/ag in B, which is a copyist's error.
Iv before spy. (Elz. Scholz) is as decidedly condemned by external
testimonies as the avroZ after spyoig, omitted in Elz., is attested.
Ver. 26. awfaaffiv] B C Dx, min. and some vss. have <rwriX\affsv
or ffuvqXXagfftv. Valck. has preferred the former, Griesb. recom-
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 auvqXaaiv . . . sig tipww. On its
reception into the text, the tig ?/>., separated from aw^x. by auroug,
was retained. Ver. 27. Ip' fi^ag] A B C H K, min. Theophyl.
have !p' qpZiv. So Tisch. and Lachm. From LXX. Ex. ii. 14.
Ver. 30. Kvptov] is to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., following
A B C X, Copt. Sahid. Vulg. A current addition to ayysXos
generally, and here specially occasioned by the LXX. Ex. iii. 2.
Instead of 9X07? iwpfa, Tisch. has irvpi pXoyo's, after ACE,
min. Syr. Vulg. The reading similarly varies in the LXX., and
as the witnesses at our passage are divided, we cannot come to
any decision. Ver. 31. sdavpu^s] So Griesb. Scholz, Tisch. Born.
But Elz. and Lachm. have sdav^assv. Both have considerable
attestation. But the suitableness of the relative imperfect was, as
often elsewhere, not duly apprehended. After xvp iov Elz. Scholz
have vpog avrov, which, however, Lachm. and Tisch. have deleted,
following A B N, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. An exegetical ampli-
fication, instead of which D, after xarav., continues by : o xvp.
sTirtv auTifj \tyw. Ver. 32. Lachmann's reading: 6 Otis 'A^pad/^
*.. 'lead* . 'laxujS (so also Tisch.), has indeed considerable
attestation, but it is an adaptation to iii. 13. Ver. 33. ev $]
Lachm. Tisch. read Ip' <5, which is to be preferred on account of
preponderant attestation by A B C D** (D* has o5, so Born.)
X ; h $ is from the LXX. Ver. 34. dvoeriXu] Lachm. Tisch.
Born, read avoarsiXu, which is so decidedly attested by A B C D,
Chrys., and by the transcriber's error acroor/Xw in E and K, that
it cannot be considered as an alteration after the LXX. Ex
182 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
iii. 10. The Recepta is a mistaken emendation. Yer. 35.
Instead of avtaruXev, avserahxtv is to be read, with Lachm.
Tisch. Born., according to decisive evidence. sv %/?/] Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read <sw y^ipi, which is so decidedly attested, and
might so easily give place to the current sv ^upf, that it must be
preferred. Ver. 36. 777] Lachm. reads ry, according to B C,
min. Sahid. Cant. A transcriber's error. The originality of yy
is supported also by the Afyvvrov (instead of A/yu-rr^) adopted
by Elz. and Born, after D, which, however, has preponderating
testimony against it. Ver. 37. After e6s Elz. has upuv, against
decisive testimony, xvpios and aurov axovtettds 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.
raft xapd.] Lachm. reads sv raTg xap8., according to A B C K. This
is evidently an explanatory reading. On the other hand, ry
xapdia (in H, min. and some vss. Chrys. Oec. Theoph.), preferred
by Rinck and Tisch., would unhesitatingly be declared genuine,
were it not that almost all the uncials and vss. support the
plural. Ver. 43. vpuv] is wanting in B D, min. vss. Or. Ir.
Philast. Rightly erased by Lachm. and Tisch. From the LXX.
'Pxpdv] a great variety in the orthography. Lachm. and
Tisch. have 'Pspuv, according to A C E. But Elz. Scholz have
'Pippav ; Born. 'Pippa./* (D, Vulg. Ir.) ; B has 'Poppa ; N*, 'Poptpav ;
X**, 'Paipav. Ver. 44. The usual sv before roTs, which Lachm.
and Tisch. have deleted (after ABC D** H X, min. Chrys. and
some vss.), is an explanatory addition. Ver. 46. 0f>] B D H N*,
Cant, have olxy. 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 ^tifwt. Elz. has vaoT:,
against A B C D E N, min. and most vss. An exegetical addi-
tion. Comp. xvii. 24. Ver. 51. r5j xapMq.] Lachm. and Born,
read xapdiai;. But the plural, which is found partly with and
partly without the article in A C D K, min. and several vss.
Chrys. Jer., was occasioned by the plural of the subject. B
has xapMas, which, without being a transcriber's error (in
opposition to Buttm. mutest Or. p. 148 [E. T. 170]), may be
either singular or plural, and therefore is of no weight for either
reading. Ver. 52. yey'svi)e6i] The reading 'ysvesde in Lachm.
Tisch. Born, is decidedly attested, and therefore to be adopted.
Ver. 1. The high priest interrupts the silent gazing of the
Sanhedrists on Stephen, as he stood with glorified countenance,
CHAP. VII. 2-53. 183
and demands of him an explanation of the charge just brought
against him. Is then this (which the witnesses have just
asserted) so? With d (see on i. 6 ; Luke xiii. 23) the ques-
tion in the mouth of the high priest has something ensnaring
about it. On the apa, used with interrogative particles as refer-
ring to the circumstances of the case (here : of the discussion),
see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 177 ; Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 11, ed. 3.
Vv. 2-53. On the speech of Stephen, see Krause, Comm. in
hist, et orat. Steph., Gott. 1786 ; Baur, de orat. hal. a Steph.
consilio, Tub. 1829, and his Paulus, p. 42 ff. ; Luger, tib. Zweck,
Inhalt u. EigenthumlicJik. der Ee.de, des Steph., Liibeck 1838;
Lange in the Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 725 &., and apost. Zeitalt.
II. p. 84ff. ; Thiersch, de Stephani orat., Marb. 1849. Comp.
his Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 85 ff. ; Rauch in the Stud. u.
Krit. 1857, p. 352 ff. ; F. Mtzsch in the same, 1860, p. 479 ff. ;
Senn in the Evang. Zeitschr. f. Prot. u. Kirche, 1859, p. 311 ff.
This speech bears in its contents and tone the impress of
its being original. For the long and somewhat prolix histo-
rical narrative, w. 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 irrelevant to the situation is much
of its contents 1 be merely put into the 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 from 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 (w. 4853), 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 discourse, which must in the main be
1 Comp. Calvin : "Stephani responsio prima specie absurda et inepta videri
posset."
184 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
assumed, to le 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 (Riehm, de fontib. Act. ap. p. 195 f.,
conjectures : by Saul). It is extremely arbitrary to carry back
such shorthand-writing to the public 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 accord-
ance with the whole spirit of the apostolic age and with vi. 12,
it only remains as the most natural expedient : to consider
the active memory of an ear-witness, or even several, vividly on
the stretch, and quickened even l>y 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 afterwards 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, remove any improbability of its being with sufficient
faithfulness taken up by the memory. As regards the
person of the reporter, no definite conjectures are to be ven-
tured on (Olshausen, e.g., refers to vi. 7 ; Luger and Baum-
garten, to the intervention of Saul) ; and only this much is to
be assumed as probable, that he was no hostile listener, but a
Christian (perhaps a secret Christian 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
traditions not found in the 0. T., it must remain undeter-
mined 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 unaltered form, with
CHAP. VII. 2-53. 185
respect to its historical data, the speech has been preserved
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 originality, namely, not as throughout
a verbal reproduction, but as correct in substance, and verbal only
so far, as setting aside the literary share, not to be more pre-
cisely determined, which Luke himself had in putting it into its
present shape it was possible and natural for an intentional
exertion 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. Definitions of a more precise character
cannot psychologically be given. According to Baur and
Zeller the speech is a later composition, " at the foundation of
which, historically considered, there is hardly more than an
indefinite recollection of the general contents of what was said
by Stephen, and perhaps even only of his principles and mode of
thought;" the exact recollection of the speech and its preser-
vation 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 historically improbable, etc. ; Stephen is " the Jeru-
salem type of the Apostle of the Gentiles." See in opposition
to Baur, Schneckenburger in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 527 ff.
Bruno Bauer has gone to the extreme of frivolous criticism :
" The speech is fabricated, as is the whole framework of cir-
cumstances in which it occurs, and the fate of Stephen."
Interpreters, moreover, are much divided in their views
concerning the relation of the contents to the points of complaint
contained in vi. 13, 14. Among the older interpreters the
most of whom, such as Augustine, Beza, and Calvin, have re-
course to merely incidental references, without any attempt to
enter into and grasp the unity of the speech the opinion of
Grotius is to be noted : that Stephen 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
186 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Gentiles. 1 But the very supposition, that the teaching of the
call of the Gentiles was the one point of accusation against
Stephen, is arbitrary ; 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 committed, of
inserting between the lines the main thoughts as indirectly
indicated, vitiates the opinion of Heinrichs, who makes Stephen
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 of
the 0. T. so much at length, just to show the Jews that he believed
in it, and thus to induce them, through their love for the national
history, to listen with calm attention. The nature of the history
itself fitted it to form a mirror to his hearers, and particularly
to bring home to their minds the circumstance that the Jewish
people, in all stages of their development and of the divine
revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that, consequently,
it was not astonishing that they should now show themselves once
more disobedient. Yet Olshausen himself does not profess to
look upon this reference of the speech as " with definite pur-
pose aimed at." In a more exact and thorough manner, Baur,
whom Zeller in substance follows, has laid down as the lead-
ing thought : " Great and extraordinary as were the benefits
which God from the beginning imparted to the people, equally
^ingrateful in return and antagonistic to the divine designs
was from the first the disposition of that people." Comp.
already Bengel: "Vos autem semper mali fuistis," etc. 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
1 Comp. Schneckenburger, p. 184, who considers the speech, as respects the
chief object aimed at, as a preparation for xxviii. 25 tf.
CHAP. VII. 2-53. 187
temple itself was meant to be presented as a proof of the per-
versity of the people, a point of view which is foreign to
Stephen, and arbitrarily forced on his words, as it would in-
deed in itself be unholy and impious (2 Sam. vii. 1 3 ; 1 Kings
v. 5, vi 12; 1 Chron. xviii. 12); comp. on w. 49, 50.
With reason, Luger (who yet goes too far in the references of
details), Thiersch, Baumgarten, and F. Mtzsch have adhered to
the historical standpoint given in vi. 13, 14, and kept strictly
in view the apologetic aim of the speech (comp. also de Wette);
along with which, however, Thiersch and Baumgarten not with-
out 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, 1 as is also done in the Erlang.
Zeitschr. 1859, p. 311 ff. Eauch is of opinion that the
speech is directed against the meritoriousness of the temple-
ivorship and of the works of the law, inasmuch as it lays stress,
on the contrary, upon God's free and unmerited grace and
1 Thus, for example, according to Thiersch, even in the very command of
God to Abraham to migrate, ver. 2 ff., there is assumed to be involved the
application : " To us also, to whom God in Christ has appeared, there has been
a command to go out from our kindred. " In ver. 7, Stephen, it is affirmed,
wishes to indicate : So will the race of oppressors, before whom he stood, end like
Pharaoh and his host, and the liberated church will then celebrate its new
independent worship. In the envy of Joseph's brethren, etc. (ver. 9 ff.), it is in-
dicated that Christ also was from envy delivered up to the Gentiles, and for that
God had destined Him to be a Saviour and King of the Gentiles. The famine
(ver. 11) signifies the affliction and spiritual famine of the hostile Jews, who,
however, would at length (ver. 13), after the conversion of the Gentiles,
acknowledge Him whom they had rejected. Moses" birth at the period of the
severest oppression, points to the birth of Christ at the period of the census.
Moses' second appearance points to the (in the N. T. not elsewhere occurring)
second appearance of Christ, which would have as its consequence the restoration
of the Jews. Aaron is the type of the high priest in the judgment-hall, etc.
According to Luger, the speech has the three main thoughts : (1) That the law is
not a thing rounded off in itself, but something added to the promise, and bear-
ing even in itself a new promise ; (2) That the temple is not exclusively the holy
place, but only stands in the rank of holy places, by which a perfecting of the
temple is prefigured ; (3) That from the rejection of Jesus no argument can be
derived against him (Stephen), as, indeed, the ambassadors of God in all stages of
revelation had been reviled. These three main thoughts are not treated one after
the other, but one within the other, on the thread of sacred history ; hence the form
of repetition very often occurs in the recital (w. 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 18, 26, etc.).
188 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
election (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 elec-
tion) is not at all expressly brought out by Stephen or sub-
jected to more special discussion. Moreover, Eauch starts
from the supposition that the assertion of the witnesses in
vi. 14 was tribe (see, against this, on vi. 13), inasmuch as
Stephen had actually said what was adduced at vi. 14. But
if the assertion 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 exposing the groundlessness of the
charges brought against him, 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 (comp. the appropriate re-
marks of F. Nitzsch), at first indirectly and calmly, and then
directly and vehemently ; 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 w. 51, 52, and the contents and course of the
speech may be indicated somewhat as follows : / stand here
accused and persecuted, not because I am a blasphemer of the
law and of the temple, but in consequence of that spirit of
resistance to God and His messengers, which YOU, according to
the testimony of history, have received from your fathers and
continue to exhibit. Thus, it is not my fault, but your fault.
To carry out this view more in detail, Stephen (1) first of all
lets history speak, and that with all the calmness and circum-
stantiality by which he might still have won the assembly to
reflection. 1 He commences with the divine guidance of the
common ancestor, and comes to the patriarchs; but even in
their case that refractoriness was apparent through the envy
toward Joseph, who yet was destined to be the deliverer of the
1 The more fully, and without confining himself to what was directly necessary
for his aim, Stephen expatiates in his historical representation, the more might
he, on account of the national love for the sacred history, and in accordance with
0. T. examples (Ex. xx. 5 ff. ; Deut. xxiii. 2 ff.), expect the eager and concen-
trated interest of his hearers, and perhaps even hope for a calming and clearing
of their judgment.
CHAP. VII. 2-53. 189
family. But, at special length, in accordance with the aim of
his defence, he is obliged to dwell upon Moses, in whose his-
tory, very specially and repeatedly, that ungodly resistance
and rejection appeared (ver. 2 7 f., ver. 3 9 ff.), although he was
the mediator of God for the deliverance of His people, 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 ff.).
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 (w. 48-50), than (2) there now
breaks forth a most direct attack, no longer to be restrained,
upon his hostile judges (ver. 51 ff.), and that with a bold re-
proach, the thought of which had already sufficiently glanced
out from the previous historical representation, and now
receives merely its most unveiled expression. 1 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, 2 and is silent, while, gazing sted-
fastly heavenwards to the glory of God, he commits his cause
to Him 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 multumpertinere videantur ad id quod
instituit" He, in saying so, points to the interruption after
ver. 53. Eecently Schwanbeck, p. 251, has scornfully con-
demned it as " a compendium of Jewish history forced into
adaptation to a rhetorical purpose, replete with the most trifling
controversies which Jewish scholasticism ever invented." Baur,
1 We may not ask wherefore Stephen has not carried the history farther than
to the time of Solomon. Vv. 51, 52 include in themselves the whole tragic
summary of the later Mstory.
2 What Stephen would still have said or left unsaid, if he had spoken further,
cannot be ascertained. But the speech is broken off ; with ver. 53 he had just
entered on a new stream of reproaches. And certainly he would still have added
a prophetic threatening of punishment, as well as possibly, also, the summons
to repentance.
190 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
on the other hand, has with justice acknowledged the aptness,
strikingness, and profound pertinence of the discourse, as
opposed to the hostile accusations, a praise which, doubtless,
is intended merely for the alleged later composer. Ewald
correctly characterizes the speech as complete in its kind ; and
F. Nitzsch has thoroughly 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.
As regards the language in which Stephen spoke, even if he
were a Hellenist (which must be left undecided), this forms
no reason why he should not, as a Jew, have spoken in Hebrew
before the supreme council. Nor does the partial dependence
on the LXX. justify us in inferring that the speech was de-
livered in Greek ; it is sufficient to set down this phenomenon
to the account of the Greek translation of what was spoken
in Hebrew, whether the source from which Luke drew was
still Hebrew or already Greek.
Vv. 2, 3. Brethren and respectively (tcai) fathers. The
former (kinsmen, B^K) refers to all present ; the latter (comp.
the Latin Patres and the Hebrew 28 in respectful address to
kings, priests, prophets, and teachers ; Lightfoot, ad Marc. p.
654), to the Sanhedrists exclusively. Comp. xxii. 1. o eo?
T?}? Sof??9] God, who has the glory. And this S6%a ptas), as it
stands in significant relation to a><j>di<), must be understood as
outward majesty, the brightness in which Jehovah, as the
only true God, visibly manifests Himself. Comp. ver. 55;
Ex. xxiv. 1 6 ; Isa. vi. 3 ; Ps. xxiv. 7, xxix. 3 ; and on 1 Cor.
ii. 8. Haran, pn, LXX. Xappdv, with the Greeks (Herodian.
iv. 13. 7; Ptol. v. 18; Strab. xvi. 1, p. 747) and Eomans
(" miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine
Carrhas" Lucan. i. 104; comp. Dio Cass. xl. 25 ; Ammian.
Marc, xxiii. 3) Kdppat, and Carrhae, was a very ancient city in
northern Mesopotamia. See Mannert, Geogr. V. 2, p. 280 ff . ;
Eitter, Erdk. XI. 291 ff. 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: irpiv rj /caroi-
CHAP. VII. 2, 3. 191
avTov ev Xappdv. This discrepancy 1 is not to be set at
rest by the usual assumption that Stephen here follows a
tradition probably derived from Gen. xv. 7, comp. Neh. ix. 7
(Philo, de Abr. II. pp. 11, 16, ed. Mang. ; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1 ;
see Krause, I.e. p. 11), 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 (speaking off-hand in the hurry of the
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 after-
wards so refractory ! This is simply to be admitted (Grotius :
" Spiritus sanctus apostolos et evangelistas confirmavit in
doctrina evangelica ; in ceteris rebus, si Hieronymo credimus,
ut hominibus, reliquit quae sunt hominum"), and not to be
evaded by having recourse (see Luger after Beza, Calvin, and
others) to an anticipation in Gen. xi. 31, according to which
the vision contained in xii. 1 is supposed to have preceded the
departure from Ur ; or, by what professes to be a more pro-
found entering into the meaning, to the arbitrary assumption
" that Abraham took an independent share in the transmigration
of the children of Terah from Ur to Haran" (Baumgarten, p.
134), to which primordial hidden beginning of the call of
Abraham the speaker goes back. ev rfj MCO-OTTOT.] for the
land of Ur (D^t?? "HK, Gen. xi. 28) was situated in northern
Mesopotamia, which the Chaldeans inhabited ; but is not to
be identified with that Ur, which Ammianus Marc. xxv. 8 men-
tions as castellum Persicum, whose situation must be conceived
as farther south than Haran. See, after Tuch and Knobel on
Genesis, Arnold in Herzog's Encyld. XVI. p. 735. irpiv rf]
1 Ewald explains the many deviations in this speech from the ordinary Penta-
teuch, by the supposition that the speaker followed a later text-book, then much
used in the schools of learning, which had contained such peculiarities. This is
possible, but cannot be otherwise shown to be the case ; nor can it be shown how
the deviations came into the supposed text-book.
192 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
see on Matt. i. 18. r\v av crot Setfto] quamcunque tibi mon-
stravero. "Non norat Abram, quae terra foret," Heb. xi. 8,
BengeL
Ver. 4. Tore] after he had received this command. pera
TO aTToOavelv rov irarepa avrov\ Abraham was born to his
father Terah when he was 70 years of age (Gen. xi. 26);
and the whole life of Terah amounted to 205 years (Gen. xi.
32). Now, as Abraham was 75 years old when he went from
Haran (Gen. xii. 4 ; Joseph. Antt. i. 7. 1), it follows that Terah,
after this departure of his son, lived 60 years. Once more,
therefore, 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 had 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
the migration, does not alter the state of matters historically,
and cannot, with an inviolable belief in inspiration, at all
justify the expedient of Baumgarten, p. 134. 1 The various
attempts at reconciliation are 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 understood proleptically, and therefore it was thought neces-
sary to correct it) ; 2 or the ingenious refinement which, after
Augustine, particularly Chladenius (de conciliat. Mosis et Steph.
circa annos Abr., Viteb. 1710), Loescher, Wolf, Bengel, and
several older interpreters have defended, that p,eT(j>Ki,(rev 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 (Michaelis,
1 That the narrative of the death of Terah, Gen. I.e., would indicate that for
the commencement of the new relation of God to men Abraham alone, and
not in connection with his father, comes into account. Thus certainly all
tallies.
3 Naively enough, Knatchbull, p. 47, was of opinion that, if this alteration of
the Hebrew text could not be admitted, it was better " cum Scaligero nodum
hunc solvendum relinquere, dum Elias venerit." According to Beelen in loc.,
Abraham need not have been the first-born of Terah, in spite of Gen. xi. 26, 27.
CHAP. VII. 5. 193
Krause, Kuinoel, Luger, Olshausen) it has been assumed that
Stephen here follows the tradition (Lightf. in loc. ; Michael.
de chronol. Mos. post diluv. sec. 15) that Abraham left Canaan
after the spiritual death of his father, i.e. after his falling away
into idolatry (this, 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, airoOavelv would have to be under-
stood 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. /zT/ac-ei>] namely, God. Rapid
change of the subject; comp. on vi. 6. et? vjv ty^ei? vvv
/caroi/e.] i.e. into which ye having moved now dwell in it. A well-
known brachylogy by combining the conception of motion
with that of rest, Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 516 ] ; Dissen,
ad Find. 01. xi. 38, p. 132. The ei9 fy calls to mind the
immigration of the nation (which is represented by v^et?) from
Egypt.
Ver. 5. .KXT/poi/o/ua, fWB, hereditary possession. Heb. xi. 8.
/3?}/ia TroSo?] LXX. Deut. ii. 5 (^n"*!!), spatium, quodplanta
pedis calcatur. Comp. on /S?}/Lta in the sense of vestigium,
Horn. H. Merc. 222, 345. On the subject-matter, comp.
Heb. xi. 9. KOI e'7rr?77e/XaTo] Gen. xiii. 15. Kal is the
copula. He gave not . . . and promised (the former he omitted,
and the latter he did). /cat TO. a-rrepp. avrov] KCLI is the
simple and, not namely (see Gen. I.e.}. The promise primarily
concerned Abraham as the participant father of the race him-
self. Comp. Luke i. 71. This verse, too, stands apparently
at variance with Genesis, where, in chap, xxiii., we are in-
formed that Abraham purchased a field from the sons of Heth.
But only apparently. For the remark OVK eSat/cev avro> . . .
TroSo? 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 (with Drusius, Schoettgen, Bengel) to
emphasize the fact that Abraham had not in fact acquired that
field by divine direction, but had purchased it, or (with Kuinoel
ACTS. If
194 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
and Olshausen) 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 OVTTW.
Vv. 6, 7. By the continuative Be 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 that time) spoke
thus : " that his seed will dwell as strangers in a foreign land"
etc. The ort does not depend on eXaA,., nor is it the recitative,
but (see the LXX.) it is a constituent part of the very saying
adduced. 1 This is Gen. xv. 13, but with the second person
(thy seed) converted into the third, and also otherwise deviating
from the LXX. ; in fact, ical \arp. fioi ei/ T&> TOTTW TOVTW is
entirely wanting in the LXX. and Hebrew, and is an expan-
sion suggested by Ex. iii. 12. carat Trdpoiicov] HVP "13. Comp.
on Luke xxiv. 18 ; Eph. ii. 19. SovXtoa-ovaiv avro] namely,
the aX\,oTpiot,. rerpaKoa-Lol Here, as in an oracle, the dura-
tion is given, as also at Gen. I.e., in round numbers ; but in
Ex, xii. 40 this period of Egyptian sojourning and bondage
(errj rerpaK. belongs to the whole ecrrat . . . Kafccoaovaiv) is his-
torically specified exactly as 430 years. In Gal. iii. 17 (see in
loc.}, Paul has inappropriately referred the chronological state-
ment of Ex. xii. 40 to the space of time from the promise
made to Abraham down to the giving of the law. Ver. 7.
As in the LXX. and in the original Heb. the whole passage
vv. 6, 7 is expressed in direct address (TO <nrepij,a crou), while
Stephen in ver. 6 has adduced it in the indirect form ; so he
now, passing over to the direct expression, inserts the el-rev o
6eo9, which is not in the LXX. nor in the Heb. And (after
this 400 years' bondage) the people . . . I shall judge ; /cpiveiv
of judicial retribution, which, as frequently in the N. T., is seen
from the context to be punitive. eyco] has the weight of the
authority of divine absoluteness. Comp. Eom. xii. 19. ev
TO) TOTTW TOVTW] namely, where I now speak with thee (in
Canaan). There is no reference to Horeb (Ex. iii. 12 : eV T&>
opet, TOVT<P), as we have here only a freely altered echo of the
promise made to Moses, which suggested itself to Stephen, in
1 LXX. : yivuffxuv yvufy on vapiixav K.r.K.
CHAP. VII. 8-13. 195
order to denote more definitely the promise made to Abraham.
Arbitrary suggestions are made by Bengel and Baumgarten,
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. A(,aQr]K'r]v Treptroyu,^] a covenant completed "by means
of circumcision, Gen. xvii. 10. Comp. on Rom. iv. 11.
Abraham was bound to the introduction of circumcision ; and,
on the other hand, God bound Himself to make him the father
of many nations. eScoicev] inasmuch as God proposed and
laid on Abraham the conclusion of the covenant. ouro)?] so,
i.e. standing in this new relation to God (comp. on Eph. v. 33)
as the bearer of the divine covenant of circumcision. Ishmael
was born previously. Kal 6 'Icraa/e T. 'la/caff] namely, eyev-
vt]cre K. Trepier. r. r]fi. T. oyS.
Vv. 9-13. Zrj\(i)(ravTs] here of envious jealousy, as often
also in classical writers. Certainly Stephen in this men-
tion has 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 Moses (both of whom yet
became deliverers of the people), he sees historical types of
Christ. aTreSovTo et? A'ty.] they gave him away (by sale, comp.
v. 8) to Egypt (comp. Gen. xlv. 4, LXX.). For analogous
examples to aTroS. et9, see Eisner, p. 390. The following
clauses, rising higher and higher with simple solemnity, are
linked on by /cat. x&piv K. cofyiav] It is simplest (comp.
Gen. xxxix. 21) to explain %dpiv of the divine bestowal of
grace, and to refer evavrtov $ap. merely to a-ofyiav : He gave
him grace (generally) and (in particular) wisdom before Pharaoh,
namely, according to the history which is presumed to be
well known, in the interpretation of dreams as well as for other
counsel. 7770^.] " vice regis cuncta regentem," Gen. xli. 43,
Grotius. K. o\. T. OIK. avr.~\ as high steward. ^opTaer/mra]
fodder for their cattle. So throughout with Greek writers,
and comp. LXX. Gen. xxiv. 25, 32, xlii. 27 ; Judg. xix. 19 ;
Ecclus. xxxiii. 29, xxviii. 29. A scarcity of fodder, to which
especially belongs the want of cereal fodder, is the most
196 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
urgent difficulty, in a failure of crops, for the possessors of
large herds of cattle. ov ra <nrld\ that there was corn. The
question, Where ? finds its answer from the context and the
familiar history. The following ei? AIJVTTTOV (see critical
remarks) belongs to e'faTreo-r., and is, from its epoch-making
significance, emphatically placed first. On d/covetv, to learn,
with the predicative participle, see Winer, p. 325 [E. T. 436] ;
frequent also in Greek writers. aveyvwpiaQr)] he was recog-
nised by his brethren (Plat. Pol. p. 258 A, Pharm. p. 127 A,
Lach. p. 181 C), to be taken passively, as also Gen. xlv. 1,
when the LXX. thus translates V^nn. TO 761/05 rov 'Iaxrq<f>]
the name (instead of the simple avrov, as A E, 40, Arm. Vulg.
read) is significantly repeated (Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 7. 34 ;
Kiihner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 7. 11); a certain sense of patriotic
pride is implied in it.
Vv. 14, 15. 'Ev ty. e/38o/i?7/c. TreWe] in 75 souls (persons,
ii. 41, xxvii. 37), 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, follows the LXX. Gen. xlvi. 27,
Ex. i. 5, 1 where likewise 75 souls are specified, whereas the
original text (which Josephus follows, Antt. ii. 7. 4, vi. 5. 6)
reckons only 70. 2 avro? K. ol irar. ypwv] he and our patriarchs
(generally). A very common epanorthosis. See on John
iL 12.
1 At Deut. I.e. also Codex A has the reading 75, which is, however, evidently
a mere alteration by a later hand in accordance with the two other passages.
Already Philo (see Loesner, p. 185) mentions the two discrepant statements of
number (75 according to Gen. I.e. and Ex. I.e., and 70 according to Deut. l.c. )
and allegorizes upon them.
1 According to the Hebrew, the number 70 is thus made up : all the descend-
ants 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 per-
sons more) are included. In the reckoning of the LXX., influenced by a dis-
crepant tradition, there are added to those 66 persons (ver. 26) in ver. 27
(contrary tO the original text), v'io~i Si 'lafrttp i yivofiivot airy i\i yy Alyvvrsp jsv%ai
tt, so that 75 persons are made out. It is thus evidently contrary to this
express mode of reckoning of the LXX., when it is commonly assumed (also by
"Wetstein, Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Olshausen) that the LXX. had
added to the 70 persons of the original text 5 grandchildren and great-grand-
CHAP. VII. 16. 197
Ver. 16. MeTredr)(rav~\ namely, avTos K. ol irarepe<s
Incorrectly Kuinoel and Olshausen refer it only to the
whereas avrbs KOI ol Trarepes r)p>wv are named as the persons be-
longing to the same category, of whom the being dead is affirmed.
Certainly Gen. xlix. 30 (comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. V), accord-
ing to which Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at
Hebron (Gen. xxiii.), is at variance with the statement ^erered.
et? 2v%efjL. 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 (Josh,
xxiv. 33 , comp. Gen. 1. 25) transfers the locality of the burial
of Joseph not merely to his brethren (of whose burial-place
the 0. T. gives no information), but also to Jacob himself,
in unconscious deviation, as respects the latter, from Gen.
xlix. 30. Perhaps the Eabbinical tradition, that all the brethren
of Joseph were also buried at Sychem (Lightf. and Wetst. in loc.)
was even then current, and thus more easily suggested to
Stephen the error with respect to Jacob. It is, however, certain
that Stephen has not followed an account deviating from this
(Joseph. Antt. ii. 8. 2), which transfers the burial of all the
patriarchs to Hebron, although no special motive can be pointed
out in the matter ; and it is entirely arbitrary, with Kuinoel,
to assume that he had wished thereby to convey the idea that
the Samaritans, to whom, in his time, Sychem belonged, could
not, as the possessors of the graves of the patriarchs, have
been rejected by God. w wvrjaaro 'A/3p.] which (formerly)
Abraham bought. But according to Gen. xxxiii. 19, it was
not Abraham, but Jacob, who purchased a piece of land from
children 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 whom Wolf agrees, that the LXX. had added to the 66 persons
(ver. 26) the wives of the sons of Jacob, and from the sum of 78 thereby made
up had again deducted 3 persons, namely, the wife of Judah who had died in
Canaan, the wife of Joseph and Joseph himself, so that the number 75 is left.
Entirely unhistorical is the hypothesis of Krebs and Loesner " Stephanum apud
Luc. (et LXX.) de iis loqui, qui in Aegyptum invitati fuerint, Mosen de his, qui
eo venerint, quorum non nisi 70 fuerunt." Beza conjectured, instead of vivrt in
our passage : ita.vrit (!) ; and Massonius, instead of the numeral signs OE (75), the
numeral signs C3 (66). For yet other views, see Wolf.
1 See also Hackett.
198 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the sons of Hamor, the father of Shechem. On the other hand,
Abraham purchased 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 histori-
cally 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 expedients of an exegetical and critical
nature, and would neither have assumed a purchase not
mentioned at all in the 0. T., nor (Flacius, Bengel, comp.
Luger) a combining of two purchases (Gen. xxiii., xxxiii.) and
two burials (Gen. 1. ; Josh, xxiv.) ; nor (Beza, Bochart, Bauer in
Philol. Thuc. Paul. p. 167, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), against all
external and internal critical evidence, have asserted the
obnoxious 'A/3p. to be spurious (comp. Calvin), either sup-
plying 'Ia/cco/3 as the subject to tai^craro (Beza, Bochart), or
taking wvtfa-aro as impersonal (" quod emtum erat," Kuinoel) ;
nor would '-4/3/x, with unprecedented arbitrariness, have been
explained as used in a patronymic sense for Abrahamides,
i.e. Jacobus (Glass, Fessel, Surenhusius, Krebs). Conjectural
emendations are : ' Ja/cc6/3 (Clericus) ; o rov 'A/3padfj, (Cappel-
lus). Other forced attempts at reconciliation may be seen in
Grotius and Calovius. rov ^u^e/t] the father of Sychem. 1
The relationship is presupposed as well 'known. (avrjcraro] is
later Greek ; Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 1 3 7 f. rt/t?)? apyvp.'] the
genitive of price : for a purchase-money consisting of silver.
The LXX. (Gen. xxxiii. 19) has etcarbv apvwv (probably the
name of a coin, see Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 473 ff. ; Gesenius,
Thes. iii p. 1241, s.v. n^p), for which Stephen has adopted
1 Not the son of Sychem, as the Vulgate, Erasmus, Castalio, and others have
it. See Gen. xxxiii. 19. Lachmann reads rov lv 2., in accord doubtless with
important witnesses, of which several have only ! 2., tut evidently an altera-
tion arising from the opinion that ^ti^ift, was the city. The circumstance
that in no other passage of the N.T. the genitive of relationship is to be explained
by traTyp, must be regarded as purely accidental. Entirely similar are the
passages where with female names pimp is to be supplied, as Luke xxiv. 10. See
generally, Winer, p. 178 f. [E. T. 237]. If filii were to be supplied, this would
yield a fresh historical error ; and not that quite anotlier Hamor is meant than
at Gen. I.e. (in opposition to Beelen).
CHAP. VII. 17-20. 199
a general expression, because the precise one was probably not
present to his recollection.
Vv. 17, 18. Kadax;] 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 cum, but (comp. also
Grimm on 2 Mace. i. 31) as quemadmodum. In proportion,
as the time of the promise (the time destined for its realization)
drew nigh, the people grew, etc. 779 wpoXoy. /c.r.X] which God
promised (ver. 7). 0/^0X07., often so used in Greek writers ;
comp. Matt. xiv. 7. avea-rr) ySao-iXeu? erepc?] 1-779 /8ao-t\eia-
et9 a\\ov OIKOV fiT\ri\vdvtas, 1 Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 1. 09
OVK ySei, rov 'laxr?^] who knew 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
dlSa and yV 1 here signify to love ; and Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, Hackett render: who did not regard the merits
of Joseph. In 1 Thess. v. 1 2, also, it means simply to Jcnow,
to understand.
Ver. 19. Kara(TO(f)iea0ai] to employ cunning against any
one, to leguile, LXX. Ex. i. 10. Only here in the N". T. But
see Kypke, II. p. 37; and from Philo, Loesner, p. 186.
Aorist participle, as in i. 24. rov Trotetv K0era TO, ^pe^yrj
avr&v] a construction purely indicative of design ; comp.
on iii. 12. But it cannot belong to Karaa-ofaa: (so Fritzsche,
ad Matth. p. 846), but only to e'/ca/c. Comp. 1 Kings xvii. 20.
He maltreated them, in order that they should expose their
children, i.e. to force upon them the exposure of their children.
On TToieiv K0era = K0elvai, comp. Troteiv e/cSorov = e/cSiBovai,
Herod, iii 1 ; on e0eT09, Eur. Andr. 70. et? TO pr) 0)07.]
ne mm conservarentur, the object of iroielv ercdera r. /3p. avr.
Comp. LXX. Ex. i. 17; Luke xvii. 33. See on 2 Cor.
viii. 6; Rom. i. 20.
Ver. 20. 'Ev <a Kaipw] "tristi, opportune," Beng. aoreto9
1 The previous dynast}' was that of the HyJcsos; the new king was Ahmes,
who expelled the Hyksos. See Knobel on Ex. i. 8.
200 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
To3 @eo>] Luther aptly renders : a. fine child for God, i.e. so
beautifully and gracefully formed (comp. Judith xi. 23), that
he was ly God esteemed as acrrao?. Compare Winer, p. 232
[E. T. 310]. In substance, therefore, the expression amounts
to the superlative idea ; but it is not to be taken as a para-
phrase of the superlative, but as conceived in its proper literal
sense. See also on 2 Cor. x. 4. Hesiod, *Epy. 825 : di/a/no?
adavdrotaiv, and Aesch. Agam. 352: 0eot9 ava^irKaK^To^, are
parallels; as are from the 0. T., Gen. x. 9, Jonah iii. 3. The
expressions Oeoe&rjs and Oeoeiicekos, compared by many, are
not here relevant, as they do not correspond to the conception
of acrreto? r&> 0e&>. Moses' beauty (Ex. ii. 2 ; comp. Heb.
xi. 23) is also praised in Philo, Vit. Mos. i. p. 604 A, and
Joseph. Antt. ii. 9. 7, where he is called irals poptyy Oelos.
According to Jalkut Eubeni, f. 75. 4, he was beautiful as an
angel. /u.r)ra? rpel<s\ Ex. ii. 2. TOV r rrarpo^\ Amram, Ex.
vi. 20.
Vv. 21, 22. 'Ercre0. Se avrbv, dvel\. avrov] Eepetition of
the pronoun as in Matt. xxvi. 71 ; Mark ix. 28 ; Matt. viii. 1.
See on Matt. viii. 1, Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 377. avet\aro]
took him up (sustulit, Vulg.). So also often among Greek
writers, of exposed children ; see Wetstein. eavrfj] in con-
trast to his own mother. et? vlov\ Ex. ii. 10, for a son, so
that he became a son to herself. So also in classical Greek
with verbs of development. Bernhardy, p. 218 f. iraarj
<ro(f)ia Al<y.] Instrumental dative. The notice itself is not from
the 0. T., but from tradition, which certainly was, from the cir-
cumstances in which Moses (Philo, Vit. Mos.} was placed, true.
The wisdom 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
.(Isa. xix. 12), which also represented political wisdom.
Comp. Justin, xxxvi. 2. Swarbs ev \6j. K. epy.] see on
Luke xxiv. 19. ev epy. refers not only to his miraculous
activity, but generally to the whole of his abundant labours.
With Svv. ev \6yois (comp. Joseph. Antt. iii. 1.4: TrX^fla
6/*i\eiv iri6avti>raro^) Ex. iv. 1 appears at variance ; but
Moses in that passage does not describe himself as a stammerer,
CHAP. VII. 23-25. 201
but only as one whose address was unskilful, and whose
utterance was clumsy. But even an address not naturally
fluent may, with the accession of a higher endowment (comp.
Luke xxi. 1 5), be converted into eloquence, and become highly
effective through the Divine Spirit, by which it is sustained,
as was afterwards the historically well-known case with the
addresses of Moses. Comp. Joseph. Antt. ii. 12. 2. 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 &vv. ev Xoy. is neither to be referred, with
Krause, to the writings of Moses, nor to be regarded, with
Heinrichs, as a once-current general eulogium ; nor is it to be
said, with de Wette, that admiration for the celebrated law-
giver had caused it to be forgotten that he made use of his
brother Aaron as his spokesman.
Ver. 23. But when a period of forty years became full to
him, i.e. when he was precisely 40 years old. This exact
specification of age is not found in the 0. T. (Ex. ii. 1 1), but
is traditional (Beresh. f. 115. 3; Schemoth Rail, f. 118. 3).
See Lightfoot in loc. Bengel says : " Mosis vita ter 40 anni,
w. 30, 36." avefir) eVl rrjv rcapBtav avrov] it arose into Ms
heart, i.e. came into his mind, to visit (to see how it went with
them), etc. The expression (comp. 1 Cor. ii. 9) is adopted
from the LXX., where it is an imitation of the Hebrew rw
-b ?V, Jer. iii. 16, xxxii. 35 ; Isa. Ixv. 17. 1 Neither is o Bia-
\ojia /AC? (for which Luke xxiv. 38 is erroneously appealed
to) nor 17 (3ov\r) to be supplied. eVfcr/cei/r.] 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. TOWS dSeX^ou?] " motivum amoris," Bengel. Cornp.
ver. 26.
Vv. 24, 25. See Ex. ii. 11, 12. aSiieelaQai] to le unjustly
treated. Erroneously Kuinoel holds that it here signifies
verlerari. That was the maltreatment. rj/Avvard] he exer-
cised retaliation. Only here in the N. T., often in classic
Greek. Similarly dpeifieo-Oai, ; see Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 42 ;
1 " Potest aliquid esse in profundo animae, quod postea emergi;, et in cor . .
ascendit," Bengel.
202 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Herm. ad Soph. Ant. 639. K. eVowyo-. e/cSltc.] and procured
revenge (Judg. XL 36). He became his KLKO<J, vindex.
T&> KaTaTTovovfj,.] for him who was on the point of being over-
come (present participle). Comp. Polyb. xxix. 11. 11, xl. 7. 3 ;
Diod. xi. 6, xiii. 56. Trarafa?] mode of the rj^vvaTo K.
67row7<7. K.T.\. Wolf aptly says : " Percussionem violentam
caedis causa factam hie innui indubium est." Comp. Matt.
xxvi. 31, and see ver. 28. The inaccuracy, that rbv AlyvTr-
nov has no definite reference in the words that precede
it, but only an indirect indication (Winer, p. 587 [E. T.
788]) in aSiKovfjievov (which presupposes a maltreater), is ex-
plained from the circumstances of the event being so univer-
sally known. Ver. 25. But Tie thought that his brethren
would observe that God by his hand (intervention) was giving
them deliverance. 8iS&>o-/| the giving is conceived as even
now beginning ; the first step toward effecting the liberation
from bondage had already taken place by the killing of the
Egyptian, which was to be to them the signal of deliverance.
Vv. 26, 27f. See Ex. ii. 13 f. &(f>0vi\ he showed himself
to them, when, namely, he arrived among them " rursus
invisurus suos" (Erasmus). Comp. 1 Kings iii. 16. Well
does Bengel find in the expression the reference vitro, ex
improviso. Comp. ii. 3, vii. 2, ix. 17, al. ; Heb. ix. 28.
aurofc] refers back to aSeA,<ou9. It is presumed in this case
as well known, that there were two who strove. crvvr)\acrv
avr. et9 etp.] he drove them together (by representations) to (et9,
denoting the end aimed at) peace. The opposite: epiSi %vve\do--
crat,, Horn. II. xx. 134. The aorist does not stand de conatu
(Grotius, Wolf, Kuinoel), 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 agentis instantiam sig-
nificat." o Be abticwv r. TrX^o-.] but he who treated his
neighbour (one by nationality his brother) unjustly (was still
in the act of maltreating him). diru>a-aro\ thrust him from
him. On Karea-Trja-ev, has appointed, comp. Bremi, ad Dem.
01. p. 171 ; and on SiKaa-Trjs, who judges according to the
laws, as distinguished from the more general Kptr^, Wytten-
CHAP. VII. 29-33. 203
bach, Ep. crit. p. 219. //^ ave\elv AC.T.X] thou wilt not
surely despatch (ii. 23, v. 33) me? To the pertness of the
question belongs also the o-y.
Vv. 29, 30. See Ex. ii. 15-22, iii. 2. ev r$ Xo7 TOUTW] on
account of this word, denoting the reason which occasioned his
flight. Winer, p. 362 [E. T. 484]. Ma&idp] qc, a district
in Arabia Petraea. Thus Moses had to withdraw from his
obstinate people ; but how wonderfully active did the divine
guidance show itself anew, ver. 30 ! On irdpoucos, comp.
ver. 6. real irXtjpajd. ercov rea-aapaK.] traditionally (but comp.
also Ex. vii. 7) : " Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit XL
annos, in Mediane XL annos, et ministravit Israeli annos
XL." BeresTi. RaHb. f. 115. 3. ev rfj eprj^w rov op. .] in
the desert, in which Mount Sinai is situated, ^p "SHO, 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 contradiction when, in Ex. iii., the
appearance of the burning bush is transferred to the neigh-
bourhood 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
Horeb was also the name of the entire mountain range. See
the particulars in Knobel on Ex. xix. 2. ev (frXoyl Trupo?
/3aroy] in the flame of flre of a thorn bush. Stephen desig-
nates the phenomenon quite as it is related in Exodus, I.e.,
as a flaming burning lush, in which an angel of God was
present, in which case every attempt to explain away the
miraculous theophany (a meteor, lightning) must be avoided.
On 0\off 7TU/305, comp. 2 Thess. i. 8, Lachmann ; Heb. i. 7 ;
Eev. i. 14, ii. 18, xix. 12 ; Isa. xxix. 6, Ivi. 15 ; Pind. Pyth.
iv. 400.
Vv. 3133. See Ex. iii. 3-5. TO opa^a] spectaculum.
See on Matt. xvii. 9. Karavoijaai] to contemplate, Luke xii.
24, 27; Acts xi. 6. fywvri Kvpiov] as the angel represents
204 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Jehovah Himself, so is he identified with Him. "When the
angel of the Lord speaks, that is the voice of God, as it is His
representative servant, the angel, who speaks. To understand,
with Chrysostom, Calovius, and others, the angelus increatus
(i.e. Christ as the Xoyo?) as meant, is consequently unnecessary,
and also not in keeping with the anarthrous ayyekos, which
Hengstenberg, Christol. III. 2, p. 70, wrongly denies. Comp.
xii. 7, 23. \vaov TO inroBrjfia TWV TroS. <rov\ The holiness
of the presence of God required, as it was in keeping generally
with the religious feeling of the East, 1 that he who held
intercourse with Jehovah should be barefooted, lest the sandals
charged with dust should pollute (Josh. v. 15) the holy ground
(777 a<yia) ; hence also the priests in the temple waited on
their service with bare feet. See Wetstein; also Carpzov.
Appar. p. 769 ff.
Ver. 34. 'I&Jw etBov] LXX. Ex. ill 7. Hence here an
imitation of the Hebrew form of expression. Comp. Matt.
xiil 14; Heb. vi. 14. Similar emphatic combinations were,
however, not alien to other Greek See on 1 Cor. ii. 1 ; Lobeck,
Paralip. p. 532. IBcov elSov is found in Lucian, Dial. Mar.
iv. 3. KaTefiijv] namely, from heaven, where I am enthroned,
Isa. Ixvi. 1 ; Matt. v. 34. Comp. Gen. xi 7, xviii. 21 ; Ps.
cxliv. 5. aTTooreiXw (see the critical remarks), adhortative
subjunctive ; see ElmsL ad Eur. Bacch. 341, Med. 1242.
Vv. 35-37. The recurring TOVTOV is emphatic : this and none
other. See Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud. 1842, p. 66. Also
in the following w. 36, 37, 38, OUTO? . . . o5ro9 . . . oyro? are
always emphatically prefixed. ov rjpvijaavTo] whom they (at
that time, ver. 27) denied, namely, as ap^ovra /cat Bitcao-r^v.
The plural is purposely chosen, because there is meant the whole
category of those thinking alike with that one (ver. 27). This
one is conceived collectively (Kuhner, ad Xen. Anal. i. 4. 8).
Comp. Eoth, Exc. Agr. 3. ap%. K. \vrpwrrjv] observe the
climax introduced by \vrpcar. in relation to the preceding
1 Even in the present day the Arabs, as is well known, enter their mosques
barefooted. The precept of Pythagoras, iwrtiwros u* *< *ptrvvii, was derived
from an Egyptian custom. Jamblich. Vit. Pyth. 23. The Samaritan trode
barefoot the holiest place on Gerizim, Robinson, III. p. 320.
CHAP. VII. 88. 205
It is introduced because the obstinacy of the people
against Moses is type of the antagonism to Christ and His
work (ver. 51) ; consequently, Moses in his work of deliver-
ance is a type of Christ, who has effected the Xi/r/oojo-t? of the
people in the highest sense (Luke i. 64, ii. 38 ; Heb. ix. 12 ;
Tit. ii. 14). According to the reading avv %/>/ (see the
critical remarks), the meaning is to be taken as : standing
in association with the hand, i.e. with the protecting and
helping power, of the angel. Cornp. the classical expression avv
Oeols. 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 ^Saro9, see on Mark xiL 26.
After the work of Moses (ver. 36), ver. 37 now brings into
prominence his great Messianic prophecy, which designates
himself as a type of the Messiah, Deut. xviii. 1 5 (comp. above,
iii. 22) ; whereupon in ver. 38 his exalted position as the receiver
and giver of the law is described, in order that this light, in
which he stands, may be followed up in ver. 39 by the
shadow the contrast of disobedience towards him.
Ver. 38. This is he who . . . had intercourse with the angel . . .
and our fathers, was the mediator (Gal. iii. 19) between the
two. On rylvonat fierd, vcrsor cum, which is no Hebraism,
comp. ix. 19, xx. 18 ; Markxvi. 10 ; Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 394.
ev ry eKKXyo-la, eV ry Ipr/pai] in the assembly of the people
(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 the law that is spoken of.
\6yia ZWVTO] i.e. utterances which are not dead, and so ineffec-
tual, but living, in which, as in the self-revelations of the
living God, there is effective power (John vi. 5 1), 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 annexed.
Comp. 1 Pet. i. 23 ; Heb. v. 12 ; Deut. xxxii. 47. Incorrectly
Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others hold that tfjv
stands for faoTroieiv. Even according to Paul, the law in
itself is holy, just, good, spiritual, and given for life (Eom.
vii 12, 14); that it nevertheless kills, arises from the abuse
206 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
which the power of sin makes of it (Eom. vii. 5, 1 3 ff. ;
1 Cor. xv. 56), 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, Rosenmuller) : they wished to return
back to Egypt. But the ol TrpoiropevcrovTai rjfjuwv in ver. 40
would then have to be taken as : " who shall go before us on
our 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. Beovs] the plural, after Ex. xxxii. 1, denotes the
category (see on Matt, ii 2 0), without reference to the numeri-
cal relation. That Aaron made only one idol, was the result
of the universally expressed demand ; and in accord with this
universal demand is also the expression in Ex. xxxii. 4. ol
irpoirop.] borne before our line of march, as the symbols, to
be revered by us, of the present Jehovah. o <yap M. OUTO?]
<ydp gives the motive of the demand. Moses, hitherto our
leader, has in fact disappeared, so that we need another guid-
ance representative of God. OVTO?] spoken contemptuously.
See on vi. 14. The nominative absolute is designedly chosen,
in order to concentrate the whole attention on the conception.
Comp. on Matt. vii. 24 ; Buttm. neat. Gr. p. 325 [E. T. 379] ;
Valck. Schol. p. 429. For this Moses . . . we know not wJiat
has happened to him (since he returns not from the mount).
Ver. 41. 'Efjioa-^oTTOLija-av^ they made a bull, Ex. xxxii. 4 :
eTTOLtjaev avra /iocr^oy ^cavevTov. The word does not elsewhere
occur, except in the Fathers, and may have belonged to the col-
loquial language. The idol itself was an imitation of the very
ancient and widely-spread bull-worship in Egypt, which had
impressed itself in different forms, e.g. in the worship of Apis
at Memphis, and of Mnevis at Heliopolis. Hence /io<r^o9 is
not a calf, but (comp. Heb. ix. 12, 13, 19 ; Herod, iii. 28)
equivalent to ravpos, a young lull already full-grown, but not
yet put into the yoke. Examples of dvdyeiv (namely, to the
CHAP. VII. 42. 207
altar, 1 Kings iii. 15) Ovaiav may be seen in Eisner, p. 393,
and from Philo in Loesner, p. 189. ev^palvovro] they rejoiced
in the works of their hands. By the interpretation : " they held
sacrificial feasts" (Kuinoel), the well-known history (Ex.
xxxii. 6), to which the meaning of the words points, is con-
founded with that meaning itself. 6/070*9] plural of the cate-
gory, which presented itself in the golden calf. On ev^palv.
ev (Ecclus. xiv. 5, xxxix. 31, li. 29 ; Xen. Hier. i. 16), to denote
that on which the joy is causally based, compare 'xalpew ev,
Luke x. 20 ; see on Phil. i. 18.
Ver. 42. "Ea-Tpetye Be 6 609] ~but God turned, a figurative
representation of the idea : He became unfavourable to them.
The active in a neuter sense (1 Mace. ii. 63 ; Acts v. 22,
xv. 16 ; Kiihner, II. pp. 9, 10) ; nothing is to be supplied.
Incorrectly Vitringa, Morus, and others hold that ecrrpe^e
connected with napeS. denotes, after the Hebrew 3!E>, rursus
tradidit. 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
ea-rp. with avrovs : " convertit animos eorum ab una idololatria
ad aliam." But the expression of divine disfavour is to
be retained on account of the correlation with ver. 39. teal
TrapeS. aiiTovs Xar/x] and gave them up to serve (an explanatory
infinitive). The falling away into star -worship (arpar. r.
ovpavov = B?B$n &oy, in which, from the worshipper's point of
view, the sun, moon, and stars are conceived as living beings) is
apprehended as wrought by an angry God by way of punish-
ment 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 withdrawal of grace is here denoted, is at
variance with the positive expression and the true biblical
conception of divine retribution. See on Bom. i. 24. Self-
surrender (Eph. iv. 19) is the correlative moral factor on the
part of man. p/q o-(j>dyia K.T.\.] Amos v. 25-27, freely after
the LXX. Ye have not surely presented unto me sacrifices and
offerings (offerings of any kind) for forty years in the wilder-
ness ? The question supposes a negative answer ; therefore
208 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
without an interrogation the meaning is : Ye cannot maintain
that y& have offered . . . to me. The apparent contradiction
with the accounts of offerings, which were actually presented
to Jehovah in the desert (Ex. xxiv. 4 ff. ; Num. vii., ix. 1 ff.)
disappears, when the prophetic utterance, understood by Stephen
as a reproach, 1 is considered as a sternly and sharply signifi-
cant divine verdict, according to which the ritual offerings in
the desert, which were rare and only occurred on special
occasions (comp. already Lyra), could not be taken at all into con-
sideration against the idolatrous aberrations which testified the
moral worthlessness of those offerings. Usually (as by Morus,
Bosenrmiller, Heinrichs, Olshausen, similarly Kuinoel) pot, 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 pbvov. Fritzsche (ad Marc.
p. 65 f.) puts the note of interrogation only after irpoa-Kwdv
ouToi?, 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 impossible on account of the ^ presup-
posing a negation. Moreover, it is as foreign to the design
of Stephen, who wishes to give a probative passage for the
\arpeveiv rfj o-rparta rov 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. 42 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 . . . irpoa-Kvvelv avTol<i] is the answer which
God Himself gives to His question, and in which icai joins on
to the negation implied in the preceding clause : No, this
ye have not done, and instead of it ye have taken up (from
the earth, in order to carry it in procession from one encamp-
ment to another) the tent ('"U3?, the portable tent-temple) of
1 According to another view, the period of forty years without offerings appears
in the prophet as the "golden age of Israel," and as a proof how little God
cares for such offerings. See Ewald, Proph. in loc.
CHAP. VII. 43. 209
Moloch. TOV MoXo;^] so according to the LXX. The
Hebrew has D3i6 (of your king, 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 (D3?p, comp.
LXX. 2 Kings xxiii 13). 6 Mo\o^ Hebrew $sn (Rex), called
also Ebpp and B3po, was an idol of the Ammonites, to whom
children were offered, and to whom afterwards even the
Israelites 1 sacrificed children (Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2; 1 Kings
xi. 7; 2 Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. vii. 31). His brazen image
was, according to Rabbinical tradition (comp. the description,
agreeing in the main, of the image of Kronos in Diod. Sic.
xx. 14), especially according to Jarchi on 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 corresponds to Kronos or Saturn,
or is to be regarded as the god of the sun (Theophylact, Spencer,
Deyling, and others, including Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen,
Mlinter, Creuzer), is settled for our passage to this extent, that,
as here by Moloch and Eephan two different divinities from
the host of heaven must be meant, and Eephan corresponds
to Kronos, the view of Moloch as god of the sun receives
thereby a confirmation, however closely the mythological idea
of Kronos was originally related to the notion of a solar
deity (comp. Preller, Griech. Mythol. I. p. 42 f.), and conse-
quently also to that of Moloch. See, moreover, for Moloch
as god of the sun, Miiller in Herzog's Encykl. IX. p. 716 f.
fcal TO aorrpov TOV deov vp,. 'Pe<ai>] and the star (star-image)
of your (alleged) god Eephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of
your god Rephan. *Pe<j)dv is the Coptic name of Saturn, as
Kircher (Lingua Aeg. restituta, p. 49, 527) has proved from
the great Egyptian Scala. The ancient Arabs, Phoenicians,
and Egyptians gave divine honours to the planet Saturn ; and
1 Whether the children were burned alive, or first put to death, might seem
doubtful from such passages as Ezek. xx. 26, 31. But the burning alive must
be assumed according to the notices preserved concerning the Carthaginian
procedure at such sacrifices of children (see Knobel on Lev. xviii. 21). The
extravagant assertion that the worship of Moloch was the orthodox primitive
worship of the Hebrews (Vatke, Daumer, Ghillany), was a folly of 1835-42.
ACTS.
210 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
in particular the Arabic name of this star, ^^, corresponds
entirely to the Hebrew form P S 2 (see Winer, JRealw. II. p. 387,
and generally Mliller in Herzog's EncyH. XII. p. 738), which
the LXX. translators l have expressed by Eephan, the Coptic
name of Saturn known to them. See Movers, Phonicier, I. p.
289 f., Miiller, I.e. We may add, that there is no account in
the Pentateuch of the worship of Moloch and Eephan in the
desert ; yet the former is forbidden in Lev. xviii. 21, xx. 2 ;
Deut. xviii. 1 0. It is probable, however, that from this very
fact arose a tradition, which the LXX. followed in Amos, I.e.
T0t>9 ryTTOf?] apposition to rrjv O-KTJV. r. Mo\. K. r. aarp. r.
Qeov vp. 'Pe<f>. 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 the context
gives to TJ/7T05 the definite sense of idol, see Kypke, II. p. 38,
and from Philo, Loesner, p. 192. eVe/cetw] beyond Babylon.
Only here in the N. T., but often in classic writers. Ba/3uX.]
LXX. : Aap.a<TKov (so also the Hebrew). An extension in
accordance with history, as similar modifications were indulged
in by the Eabbins; see Lightfoot, p. 75.
Ver. 44. 'H crKtjvr) rov jj,apr.~] not a contrast to ver. 43, for
the bringing out of the culpability (" hie ostendit Steph., non
posse ascribi culpam Deo," Calvin, comp. Olshausen and de
Wette) which there is nothing to indicate ; but after the
1 In general, the LXX. has dealt very freely with this passage. The original
text runs according to the customary rendering : and ye earned the tent of your
king and the frame (JV3) of your images, the star of your divinity, which
ye made for yourselves. See Hitzig in loc. ; Gesenius, Thes. II. p. 669. The
LXX. took jV3, which is to be derived from po, as a proper name ('Piipav), and
transposed the words as if there stood in the Hebrew D^lpSv D3 1| r6x JV3 3313-
Moreover, it is to be observed that the words of the original may be taken also
as future, as a threat of punishment (E. Meier, Ewald) : so shall ye take up
the tent (Ewald : the pole) oj your king and the platform of your images, etc.
According to this, the fugitives are conceived as taking on their backs the
furniture of their gods, and carrying them from one place of refuge to another.
This view corresponds best with the connection in the prophet ; and in the threat
is implied at the same time the accusation, which Diisterdieck in the Stud. u.
Krit. 1849, p. 910, feels the want of, on which account he takes it as present (but
ye carry, etc.). The speech of Stephen, as we have it, simply follows the LXX.
CHAP. VII. 45. 211
giving of the law (ver. 38) and after the described backsliding
and its punishment (w. 3943), Stephen now commences the
new section of his historical development, that of the taber-
nacle and of the temple, as he necessarily required this for
the subsequent disclosure of the guilt of his opponents pre-
cisely in respect to this important point of charge. The
Hebrew "W ?nk means tent of meeting (of God with His
people), i.e. tent of revelation (not tent of the congregation,
see Ewald, Alterth. p. 167), but is in the LXX., which the
Greek form of this speech follows, incorrectly rendered by
77 <jKT)vr] rov fjiaprvpiov (the tent in which God bears witness of
Himself), as if derived from *W, a witness. For the description
of this tabernacle, see Ex. xxv.-xxvii. Kara rov rvrrov ov
ewp.] see Ex. xxv. 9, 40. Comp. Heb. viii. 5, and thereon.
Llinemann and Delitzsch, p. 337 f.
Ver. 45. Which also our fathers with Joshua, (in connection
with Joshua, under whose guidance they stood), after having
received it (from Moses), brought in (to Canaan). StaSe^ecr#at
(only here in the N. T.) denotes the taking over from a former
possessor, 4 Mace. iv. 15 ; Dem. 1218, 23. 1045, 10 ; Polyb.
ii. 4. 7 ; xxxi. 12. 7 ; Lucian. Dial. M. xi. 3. ev rfj /caraa-
%ea-ei rwv edvwv] Karda^at<i, as in ver. 5, possessio (LXX.,
Apocr., Joseph.). But h is not to be explained as put for
ei? (Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Kuinoel, and others), nor is
Karda"xe<7t,<} rwv IQvwv 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 were in
the state of possession. To this, then, significantly corresponds
what further follows : &v %waev 6 0eo? K.r.X But of what
the Gentiles were at that time possessors, is self-evident from
ela^yajov namely, of the Holy Land, to which the et9 in
ewn/yoy. refers according to the history well known to the
hearers. CLTTO vrpoacaTrov r. TT. 17/4.] away from, the face of our
fathers, so that they withdrew themselves by flight from their
view. Comp. LXX. Ex. xxxiv. 24; Deut. xi. 23. On the
aorist form effcxra, from egwOeiv, see Winer, p. 86 [E. T. Ill],
&>9 TJ> rip. A.] is to be separated from the parenthetic
212 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
clause wv ega&ev . . . yfi&v, and to be joined to the preceding :
which our fathers brought in . . . until the days of David, so that
it remained in Canaan until the time of David (inclusively).
Kuinoel attaches it to &>z> ef o>crez> K.T.\. ; 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 duration of the tabernacle-service, as the sequel,
paving the way for the transition to the real temple, shows ;
with David the new epoch of worship begins to dawn.
Vv. 46, 47. Kai ^r^a-aro] and asked, namely, confiding in
the grace of God, which he experienced (Luke i. 30). The
channel of this request, only indirectly expressed by David
(2 Sam. vii. 2), and of the answer of God to it, was Nathan.
See 2 Sam. vii. 2 ; 1 Chron. xviii. 1. 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 o-KijvajfjLa and evpelv). The usual interpre-
tation of yTija-aTo : optabat, desiderabat, is incorrect ; for the fact,
that the LXX. Deut. xiv. 1 6 expresses ?NB>" by eTnOvpziv, has
nothing at all to do with the linguistic use of alrovpai.
evpeiv a-Kyvcofia rc3 @e&5 'Ia:.] i.e. to obtain the establishment
of a dwelling-place destined for the peculiar god of Jacob.
In the old theocratic designation T&> 0e&> 'Ia/e&>/3 (instead of
the bare O,UT&>) lies the holy national motive for the request of
David ; on crKrpwpa applied to the temple at Jerusalem, comp.
3 Esdr. i. 50, and to a heathen temple, Pausan. iii. 17. 6, where
it is even the name. Observe how David, in the humility of
his request, designates the temple, which he has in view, only
generally as a-Krjvcofia, whereas the continuation of the narrative,
ver. 47, has the definite OLKOV. Stephen could not but continue
the historical thread of his discourse precisely down to the
building of Solomon's temple, because he was accused of blas-
phemy against the temple.
Vv. 48-50. Nevertheless this wKoBop. avrqt oltcov (ver. 47)
is not to be misused, as if the presence of the Most High
(observe the emphatic prefixing of o {nJrtcn-09, 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-
CHAP. VII. 51. 213
worship, as represented by the priests and hierarchs, ran only
too much into such a misuse. Comp. John iv. 2 ff. X et P~
Tro^Tot?] neuter : in something which is made ~by hands, xvii.
24. Comp. LXX. Isa. xvi. 12 ; 2 Chron. vi. 18. Vv. 49,
50 contain Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, slightly deviating from the LXX.
o oupai/o? . . . TToSwz/ pov] a poetically moulded expression of
the idea : heaven and earth I fill with my all -ruling presence.
Comp. Matt. v. 34; 1 Kings viii. 27. Thus there cannot be
for God any place of His rest (TOTT. T?}? KaTa7rava.\ any abode
of rest to be assigned to Him. ot/coSo/x^o-ere] The future
used of any possible future case. Baur 1 and Zeller have
wrongly found in these verses a disapproving 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
which 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 appears as fulfilment of the prayer of David, who had
found favour with God ; comp. 1 Kings viii. 24. The pro-
phetical quotation corresponds entirely to the idea of Solomon
himself, 1 Kings viii. 27. The quotation of the prophetic
saying was, moreover, essentially necessary for Stephen, because
in it the Messianic reformation, 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. 2 This against Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
Olshausen, and others, who quite arbitrarily suppose that after
ver. 5 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
1 With whom Schneckenburger in the Stud.u. Krit. 1855, p. 528 fT., concurred,
ascribing to Stephen a view akin to Essenism.
2 Comp. Baur, I. p. 58, ed. 2 ; Ewald, p. 213.
2 1 4 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 bold accuser, and at length throw
in the face of his judges the result, the thoughts forming
which were already clearly enough to be inferred from the
previous historical 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 ! etc. airepirfj,. rfj KapS. K. r. a>criv\ an upbraiding
of them with their unconverted carnal character, in severe
contrast to the Jewish pride of circumcision. The meaning
without figure is : Men whose management of their inner life,
and whose spiritual perception, are heathenishly rude, without
moral refinement, not open for the influence of the divine Spirit.
Comp. Lev. xxvi. 41 ; Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6 ; Jer. iv. 4, vi. 10,
ix. 25 ; Eom. ii. 25, 29 ; Barnabas, Ep. 9 ; Philo, de migrat.
Abr. I. p. 450 ; and from the Eabbins, Schoettgen in loc.
vfielsi] with weighty emphasis. act] always ; even yet at this
day ! <u$ ol "jrarepes vpwv Kal v/iet?] sc. del T&> TTV. ay. dvTiTT. ;
for the fathers are thought of in their resistance to God and
to the vehicles of His Spirit, and therefore not the bare eore
is to be supplied (with Beza and Bornemann in the Sachs. Stud.
1842, p. 72). The term avriTriirreiv, not occurring else-
where in the N. T., is here chosen as a strong designation.
Comp. Polyb. iii. 19. 5 : avrkireeav ra? <nre(pai<i Kara7r\r]K-
Tt/w9. Num. xxvii. 14; Herodian. vi. 3. 13. Bengel well
puts it : " in adversum ruitis."
Ver. 52. Proof of the 09 ol irarepe^ vpwv Kal (also'} v/iet9.
Kal aTre/cr.] teal is the climactic even ; they have even killed
them. Comp. on this reproach, Luke xi 47. The character-
istic more special designation of the prophets : TOU? irpoKaTay-
/e.r.X, augments the guilt. TOV Bttuuov] /car'
of Jesus, the highest messenger of God, the (ideal)
Just One, iii. 14, xxii. 14; 1 Pet. iii 18; 1 John ii 1.
Contrast to the relative clause that follows. vvv\ in the
present time, opposed to the times of the fathers ; vfjuei? is
emphatically placed over against the latter as a parallel.
7r/jo8oTcu] betrayers (Luke vi. 16), inasmuch as the Sanhedrists,
CHAP. VII. 53. 215
by false and crafty accusation and condemnation, delivered
Jesus over to the Koman tribunal and brought Him to
execution.
Ver. 53. Omves] quippe gui. Stephen desires, namely, now
to give the character, through which the foregoing ov vvv vpels
TrpoBorat /e.T.X., as founded on their actually manifested con-
duct, receives its explanation. eXa/3ere] ye have received, placed
first with emphasis. et9 Biarayas dyyeXwv] upon arrange-
ments of angels, i.e. so that the arrangements made by angels
(the direct servants of God), which accompanied the promulga-
tion of the law, 1 made you perceive the obligation to recognise
and observe the received law (comp. the contrast, K. OVK e(f>v-
Xaf.) as the ethical aspect of your e\a/3ere. Briefly, there-
fore : Ye received the law with reference to arrangements of
angels, which could not leave you doubtful that you ought to sub-
mit obediently to the divine institution. et? denotes, as often
in Greek writers and in the K T. (Winer, p. 371 [E. T.
496]), the direction of the mind, in view of. Comp. here
especially, Matt. xii. 41 ; Eom. iv. 20. BiaTaytf is arrange-
ment, regulation, as in Eom. xiii. 2, with Greek writers Sid-
raft?. Comp. also Ezra iv. 11 ; and see Suicer, Thes. I. p. 886.
On the subject-matter, comp. Gal. iii. 1 9 ; Heb. ii. 2 ; Delitzsch
on Heb. p. 49. At variance with linguistic usage, Beza, Calvin,
Piscator, Eisner, Hammond, Wolf, Krause, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
and others, taking Siarayrj in the above signification, render :
accepistis legem ab angelis promulgatam, as if ei? stood for eV.
Others (Grotius, Calovius, Er. Schmid, Valckenaer, and others)
explain Biarayij as agmen dispositum, because Siardaaeiv is
often (also in the classics) used of the drawing up of armies
(2 Mace, xii 20), and Stdragis of the divisions of an army
(Judith i. 4, viii. 36), and translate praesentibus angelorum
ordinibus, so that et? is likewise taken for eV. But against
this view (with which, moreover, et9 would have to be taken as
respectu) there is the decisive fact, that there is no evidence of
the use of Siarayij in the sense assumed ; and therefore the
supposition that SiaTayij = Staraft? in this signification is
1 Angels were the arrangers of the act of divine majesty, as arrangers of
a festival (S/araa-s-avrsj), dispositores.
216 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
arbitrary, as well as at variance with the manifest similarity
of the thought with GaL iii. 19. Bengel (comp. Hackett,
F. Nitzsch, also Winer doubtfully, and Buttmann) renders:
Ye received the law for commands of angels, ie. as commands
of angels, so that et? is to be understood as in ver. 2 1 ; comp.
Heb. XL 8. But the Israelites did not receive the law as the
commands of angels, but as the commands of God, in which
character it was made known to them Bi ayye\wv. Comp.
Joseph. Antt. xv. 5. 3 : rjjjiwv ra tcaXXiGra TWV Soy/jidTow KOI
ra ocrKorara TUV ev rot? VO/AOIS Si cvyyeXajv irapa rov Qeov
fiaOovTav ; and see Krebs in loc. Moreover, the mediating
action of the angels not admitting of more precise definition,
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. 1 9. For Eabbinical passages
(Jalkut Euleni f. 107, 3, al.~), see Schoettgen and Wetstein,
ad GaL iii 19. It was a mistaken attempt at harmonizing,
when earlier expositors sought to understand by the angels
either Moses and the prophets (Heinrichs, Lightfoot) or the
seniores populi (Surenhusius, KaraXk. p. 419) ; indeed, Chrysos-
tom even discovers here again the angel in the bush.
Vv. 54-56. Tavra] The reproaches uttered in w. 51-53.
Siejrp. Tafc /capS.] see on v. 33. efSpvypv T. oSoi/r.]
they gnashed their teeth (from rage and spite). Comp. Archias,
12 : {3pv%av OIJKTOV oBovra, Hermipp. quoted in Plut. Pericl.
33 ; Job xvi. 9 ; Ps. xxxv. 16, xxxvii. 12. eV CLVTOV] against
him. Tr\rip. TTVCVJJ,.] which at this very moment filled and
exalted him with special power, iv. 8. ei? rbv ovpavov] like
Jesus, John xvii. 1. The eye of the suppliant looks everywhere
toward heaven (comp. on John xvii. 1), and what he beheld he
saw in the spirit (irXrip. Trvev/ju. ayiov) ; he only, and not the
rest present in the room. roiis ovpavovs] up to the highest.
Comp. Matt. iii. 16. It is otherwise in Acts x. 11. Sogav
0eov] nin? Itas : the brightness in which God appears. See
on ver. 2. Luke ii. 9. ecrrcara] Why not sitting? Matt.
xxvi. 64 ; Mark xvi. 19, al. He beheld Jesus, as He has raised
Himself from God's throne of light and stands ready for the
saving reception of the martyr. Comp. ver. 59. The pro-
CHAP. VII. 57, 58. 217
phetic basis of this vision in the soul of Stephen is Dan.
vii. 1 3 f. Chrysostom erroneously holds that it is a testimony
of the resurrection of Christ. Eightly Oecumenius : iva Seify
rrjv avriXTj^riv rrjv et9 avrov. Comp. Bengel : " quasi obviuni
Stephano." De Wette finds no explanation satisfactory, and
prefers to leave it unexplained ; while Bornemann (in the
Sachs. Stud. 1842, p. 73 f.) is disposed only to find in it the
idea of morandi et existendi (Lobeck, ad Aj. 1 9 9), as formerly
Beza and Knapp, Scr. var. arg. eiSe] is to be apprehended
as mental seeing in ecstasy. Only of Stephen himself is this
seeing related ; and when he, like an old prophet (comp. John
xii. 41), gives utterance to what he saw, the rage of his adver-
saries who therefore had seen nothing, but recognised in this
declaration mere blasphemy reaches its highest pitch, and
breaks out in tumultuary fashion. The views of Michaelis and
Eckermann, that Stephen had only expressed his firm convic-
tion of the glory of Christ and of his own impending admis-
sion into heaven; and the view of Hezel (following older
commentators, in Wolf), 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 oljectivized
itself into a vision, just as in like manner vi. 15 is deemed
unhistorical. etSe . . . Oeapw] he saw . . . I behold. See Titt-
mann's Synon. pp. 116, 120. As to o vlbs r. avdp., the
Messianic designation in accordance with Dan. vii. 13, see
on Matt. viii. 20.
Vv. 57, 58. The tumult, now breaking out, is to be con-
ceived as proceeding from the Sanhedrists, but also extending
to all the others who were present (vi. 12). To the latter
pertains especially what is related from wp^aav onward.
TJiey stopped their ears, because they wished to hear nothing
more of the blasphemous utterances. e'f&> 7779 7roXeeo9] see
Lev. xxiv. 14. "Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem ; omnes
enim civitates, rnuris cinctae, paritatem habent ad castra
Israelis." Gloss in Batyl. Sanhedr. f. 42. 2. \i0o/3o\ovv~\
This is the fact generally stated. Then follows as a special cir-
cumstance, the activity of the witnesses in it. Observe that, as
218 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
avrov is not expressed with eXt0o(3., 1 the preceding en-' avrov
is to be extended to it, and therefore to be mentally supplied.
Comp. LXX. Ex. xxiii. 47. ol ndprvpes] 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, Deut. xvii. 7 ; Sarihedr. vi. 4. airiOevro TO,
avrwv] ware elvai Kovfyoi KOI aTrapaTroStcrTOi, et? TO
Theophylact. 2av\ov] 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 veavtas,
although this denotes a degree of age already higher than
fteipdiciov (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 213). Comp. xx. 9, xxiii. 17,
also v. 10 ; Luke vii. 14. /cat e\idoj3o\ovv] not merely the
witnesses, but generally. The repetition has a tragic effect,
which is further strengthened by the appended contrast
eVt/ca\. /e.T.X A want of clearness, occasioned by the use of
two documents (Bleek), is not discernible. The stoning, which
as the punishment of blasphemy (Luke xxiv. 16 ; Sarikedr.
vii. 4) was inflicted on Stephen, seeing that no formal sentence
preceded it, and that the execution had to be confirmed and
carried out on the part of the Eoman authorities 2 (see Joseph.
Antt. xx. 9. 1, and on John xviii. 31), 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 the more the calm historical course of the speech of
Stephen makes it easy to understand that the Sanhedrists
1 Which Bornemann has added, following D and vss.
2 Ewald supposes that the Sanhedrim might have appealed to the permission
granted to them by Pilate in John xviii. 31. But so much is not implied in
John xviii. 31 ; see in loc. And ver. 57 sufficiently shows how far from ' ' calmly
and legally " matters proceeded at the execution.
CHAP. VII. 59, 60. 219
should have heard him quietly up to, but not beyond, the
point of their being directly attacked (ver. 51 ff), so much
the less warrantable is it, with Baur and Zeller, to esteem
nothing further as historical, 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 work of the author.
Vv. 59,60. ^E r rrLKa\ov[jLevov\ while he was invoicing. Whom ?
is evident from the address which follows. /cvpie T^o-ou] both,
to be taken as vocatives (Eev. xxii. 2 0) according to the formal
expression icvpios 'I^o-oO? (Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 292 ff.), 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 avvOpovos of the Father by His
exaltation (Phil. ii. 6 ff.), until the final completion of His
office (1 Cor. xv. 28); comp. x. 36. Stephen invoked Jesus;
for he had just beheld Him standing ready to help him. As to
the invocation of Christ generally (relative worship, conditioned
by the relation of the exalted Christ to the Father), see on
Rom. x. 12 ; 1 Cor. i. 2 ; Phil. ii. 10. Seat TO irvev^d /toy]
namely, to thee in heaven until the future resurrection. Comp.
on Phil. i. 26, remark. "Fecisti me victorem, recipe me
in triumphum," Augustine. <j)covfj pe<yd\rj\ the last expen-
diture of his strength of love, the fervour of which also dis-
closes itself in the kneeling. prj a-Tijcrys avroi? r. dfjiapr.
ravrJ] fix not this sin (of my murder) upon them. This nega-
tive expression corresponds quite to the positive : afyikvai
rrjv dfjbapriav, to let the sin go as regards its relation of
guilt, instead of fixing it for punishment. Comp. Eom. x. 3 ;
Ecclus. xliv. 21, 22; 1 Mace. xiii. 38, xiv. 28, xv. 4, al.
The notion, " to maJce availing " (de Wette), i.e. to impute, cor-
responds 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 w is not needed
(Matt. xxvi. 15 ; Plat. Tim. p. 63 B, Prot. p. 356 B, Pol. x.
p. 602 D ; Xen. Cyr. viii. 2. 21 ; Valcken. Diatr. p. 288 A).
In this view the sense would be : Determine not the weight
of the sin (comp. xxv. 7), consider not how heavy it is. But
220 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
our explanation is to be preferred, 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
as Saul what was asked took place ; comp. Oecumenius. In
the similarity of the last words of Stephen, ver. 59 with
Luke xxiii 34, 40 (as also of the words e|at TO TTV. fiov with
Luke xxiii. 46), Baur, with whom Zeller agrees, sees an indi-
cation 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. eKoi/jLyOrj] " 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.
CHAPTEE VIII.
VEE. 1. -rams rs] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read Tarns &, according
to B C D E H, min. Vulg. Copt, al., and several Fathers. A,
min. Syr. Aeth. have r'z ; K* has only iravng ; K** has xa! T. The
ds has the preponderance of testimony, and is therefore to be
adopted, as also in ver. 6. Ver. 2. eiroiqeavro] Lachm. and Born,
read siroiqffav, according to decisive testimony. Ver. 5. croX/v]
Lachm. reads rqv TO'X/I/, after A B K, 31, 40. More precise defini-
tion of the capital. Ver. 7. -yoXXSv] Lachm. reads fl-oXXo/, 1 and
afterwards ssjp%oi/ro, following A B C E , min. Vulg. Sahid.
Syr. utr. ; S^P^OVTO is also in D, which, however, reads roXXo7fc
(by the second hand : dvb croXXo/s). Accordingly '^P'/OVTO, as
decisively attested, is to be considered genuine (with Born, and
Tisch.), from which it necessarily follows that Luke cannot
have written -roXXo/ (which, on the contrary, was mechanically
introduced from the second clause of the verse), but either ToXXwi/
(H) or -roXXo/s (D*). Ver. 10. 37 xaXovp'evri] 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. r& wsp!] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read irspi, after
A B C D E N. Correctly ; suayysX/^. is not elsewhere connected
with irspi, and this very circumstance occasioned the insertion
of ra. Ver. 13. 8uvd{Jt,sig xai cy/AsTa (Myd'ha yivofAevct] Elz. Lachm.
Born, read : g^sTa x. dwd/m,tig /ijyaXas ytvopsvas. Both modes of
arrangement have important attestation. But the former is to
be considered as original, with the exclusion, however, of the
/ttsyaXa deleted by Tisch., which is wanting in many and cor-
rect codd. (also in N), 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 psyakag, and therefore it must have arisen
after ^syaXa was already added. Ver. 16. o'vvu] A B C D E N,
min. Chrys. have o05Tw. Eecommended by Griesb. and adopted
by Einck, Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Eecepta came into the
1 Instead of which, however, he (Praefat. p. viii.) conjectures sraAAa.
221
222 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
text, through the inattention of the transcribers, as the word to
which they were more accustomed. Ver. 1 8. On decisive
evidence !dwv is to be adopted, with Griesb. and the later editors,
instead of faaffdfj,. The latter is a more precise definition.
Ver. 21. svumov] A B C D N, min. and several Fathers have emvrfov
or tvavri, which last Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch.
Born, have adopted. Correctly ; the familiar word was inserted
instead of the rare one (Luke i. 8). Yer. 22. xvpiou] So Lachm.
Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholzshave Qsov, against preponderating
evidence. A mechanical repetition, after ver. 21. Ver. 25.
The imperfects vvegrpepov and gujj/ygX/^ovro (Lachm. Tisch. Born.)
are decisively attested, as is also the omission of r5jg before /3a<r/x.
in ver. 27. Ver. 27. 05 before lx>jX. is wanting in Lachm. and
Born., following A C* D* N*, Vulg. Sahid. Oec. An incorrect
expedient to help the construction. After ver. 36, Elz. has
(ver. 37) : iTtfi ds 6 <E>/X/TTOS' si msrsvsis e% oX?] r5jj xapdiac, 'ifyeriv.
' A<7TOKpi6s!s ds sTire' KiGTtvca rbv vibv 7ov Qiov tTvat rbv 'iqcouv Xf>/<rroi<.
This is wanting in decisive witnesses ; and in those which have
the words there are many 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 <osD/*a A**, min. and a few vss.
and Fathers have &yiov Insieeatv sir! (or sis) rov evvov^ov, ciyytXos ds.
A pious expansion and falsification of the history, induced
partly by ver. 26 and partly by x. 44.
Ver. 1. The observation ^aOXo? . . . avrov l forms the sig-
nificant transition to the further narrative of the persecution
which is annexed. fy o-vvev$oicwv\ lie was jointly assenting, in
concert, namely, with the originators and promoters of the
avalpea-is ; comp. Luke xi, 48, and on Rom. i. 32. On dvai-
peais, in the sense of caedes, supplicium, 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
denoted by %v with the participle than by the mere finite
tense. ev eKeivp rfj ^pepa] is not, as is usually quite arbi-
trarily done, to be explained indefinitely illo tempore, but
(comp. ii. 41) : on that day, when Stephen was stoned, the
1 Observe the climax of the three statements concerning Said, vii. 59, viii. 1
and 3 ; also how the second and third are inserted antithetically, and how all
three are evidently intended to prepare the way for the subsequent importance
of the man.
CHAP. VIII. 2, 3. 223
persecution arose, for the outbreak of which this tumultuary
stoning served as signal. rrjv ev 'Iepoa:~\ added, because now
the dispersion (comp. xi. 19) set in. Trai/re?] a hyperbolical
expression of the popular mode of narration, Matt. iii. 5 ;
Mark iii. 33, al. At the same time, however, the general
expression Tip eKKkrjcriav does not permit us to limit Trazres
especially to the Hellenistic part of the church (Baur, I.
p. 46, ed. 2 ; comp. de Wette). But if the hyperbolical
Trdvres 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 church 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 Trdvre? !), a great part of those broken up, including the
apostles, had not allowed themselves to be induced (so Baum-
garten). K. ^a^apeia^] This country only is here mentioned
as introductory to the history which follows, ver. 5 ff. For a
wider dispersion, see xi. 19. Tfkrjv TWV aTroor.] This is
explained (in opposition to Schleiermacher, Schneckenburger,
and others, who consider 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. 1 They knew
themselves to be the appointed upholders and irptoTayaviaTal
(Oecumenius) of the cause of their Lord.
Vv. 2, 3. The connection of w. 13 depends on the double
contrast, 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
hand, the persecuting zeal of Saul stood in stern opposition
thereto. On that day arose a great persecution (ver. 1). This,
however, prevented not pious men from burying and lamenting
Stephen (ver. 2) ; lut Saul laid waste, in that persecution which
arose, the church (of Jerusalem, ver. 3). The common opinion
is accordingly erroneous, that there prevails here a lack of
1 Quite inappropriately, pressing that -ranns, Zeller, p. 153, in opposition to this
inquires : " Wherefore was this necessary, if all their followers were dispersed ? "
224 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
connection (ver. 2 is a supplementary addition, according to
de Wette), which is either (Olshausen, Bleek) to be explained
by the insertion of extracts from different sources, or (Ziegler
in Gabler's Journ.f. fheol. Lit., I. p. 155) betokens that eyevero
Be . . . aTroa-ToXoiw is an interpolation, or (Heinrichs, Kuinoel)
at least makes it necessary to hold these words as transposed,
so that they had originally stood after ver. 2. 1 o-^Ko/it^etv]
to carry together, then, used of the dead who are carried to the
other dead bodies at the burial-place, and generally : to bury.
Soph. Aj. 1048 ; Plut. Sull. 38. According to the Scholiast on
Soph. I.e. and Phavorinus, the expression is derived from gather-
ing the fruits of harvest. Comp. Job v. 26. The av&pe? ev\a-
/3et5 are not (in opposition to Heinrichs and Ewald) Christians,
but, as the connection requires, religious Jews who, in their
pious conscientiousness (comp. ii. 5), and with a secret inclina-
tion to Christianity (comp. Joseph of Arimathea and Nico-
demus), had the courage to honour the innocence of him who
had been stoned. Christians would probably have been pre-
vented from doing so, and Luke would have designated them
more distinctly. KOTTCTO^ : Oprjvos f^era tyoffrov ^etpwv,
Hesychius. See Gen. 1. 10; 1 Mace. ii. 70; Nicarch. 30;
Plut. Fab. 17; Heyne, Obss. in Tibull. p. 71. eXv/iatWro]
he laid waste, comp. ix. 2 1 ; GaL i. 1 3. The following sen-
tence informs us how he proceeded in doing so ; therefore a
colon is to be placed after T. IKK\. Kara rov9 oitc. ela-irop]
entering by houses (house by house, Matt. xxiv. 7 ; Winer,
p. 374 [E. T. 500]). crvpcov~] dragging. See Tittmann,
Synon. N. T. p. 57 f., and Wetstein. Comp. xiv. 19, xvii. 3.
Arrian. Epict. i. 29.
Vv. 4, 5. Airi\Qov\ they went through, they dispersed
themselves through the countries to which they had fled. 2
Ver. 5. Of the dispersed persons active as missionaries,
who were before designated generally, one is now singled out
1 According to Schwanbeck, p. 325, ver. 1 is to be regarded as an insertion
from the biography of Peter.
2 The 01 fil evt liaffirxpitris is resumed at xi. 19, a circumstance betokening
that the long intervening portion has been derived from special sources here
incorporated.
CHAP. VIII. 6, 7. 225
and has his labours described, namely Philip, not the apostle,
as is erroneously assumed by Poly crates in Eusebius, iii. 31. 2,
v. 24. 1 (see, on the contrary, vv. 1, 14, and generally,
Zeller, p. 154 ff; Ewald, p. 235 f.), 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 dis-
persed, 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 evan-
gelists, xxi. 8 ; Eph. iv. 11), as circumstances required, under
the guidance of the Spirit. /eareX0.] from. Jerusalem. et?
TroXtv -n}? ^apapJ] into a city of Samaria. What city it was
(Grotius and Ewald think of the capital, Olshausen thinks that
it was perhaps Sichem) is to be left entirely undetermined,
and was probably unknown to Luke himself. Comp. John
iv. 5. Kuinoel, after Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Calovius, and
others, takes rf)s ^a^ap. as the name, not of the country, but
of the capital (Sebaste, which was also called Samaria, Joseph.
Antt. xviii. 6. 2). In that case, indeed, the article would not
have been necessary before iroXw, as Olshausen thinks (Poppo,
ad Thuc. i. 1 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 137; comp. Luke
ii. 4, 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 6). 770X49, too, with the genitive of the
name of the city, is a Greek idiom (Euhnk. Epp. crit. p. 186) ;
but ver. 9, where rf)? ^Safiap. is evidently the name of the
country (TO e'ft/o?), is decidedly opposed to such a view. See
also on ver. 14. avrol<i\ namely, the people in that city.
Vv. 6, 7. Upoad^ov] they gave heed thereto, denotes atten-
tive, favourably disposed interest, xvi. 14; Heb. ii. 1 ; 1 Tim.
i. 4; often in Greek writers, Jacobs, ad Ach. Tat. p. 882.
The explanation /idem praebebant (Krebs, Heinrichs, Kuinoel,
and others) confounds the result of the 7rpocre%eti/ (ver. 12)
with the Trpoa-e^eiv itself, a confusion which is committed in
all the passages adduced to prove it. ev TW cucoveiv avrov? K.
/e.T.X.] in their hearing, etc., while they heard. In ver. 7, more
than in v. 16, those affected by natural diseases (-Tra/jaXeX. K.
X<a\oi), who were healed (eOepairevO.'), are expressly distin-
guished from the possessed (comp. Luke iv. 40 f.), whose
ACTS. p
226 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
demons came out (ef^/a^ero) with great crying. Notice the
article before fyjnrrwv : of many of those who, etc., consequently,
not of all. As regards the construction, TroXXwy is dependent
on the rot, TrvevfjLara axadapra to be again tacitly supplied
after irvev^ara aKaOapra (see Matthiae, p. 1533 ; Kiihner,
II. p. 602).
Ver. 9. 2iiMt>v\ is not identical (in opposition to Heumann,
Krebs, Kosenmuller, Kuinoel, Neander, de Wette, Hilgenfeld,
see also Gieseler's Kirchengesch. I. sec. 18. 8, and others) with
the Simon of Cyprus in Joseph. Antt. xx. 7. 2, 1 whom the
Procurator Felix, at a later period, employed to estrange
Brasilia, the wife of Azizus king of Emesa in Syria, from
her husband. For (1) Justin, Apol. I. 26 (comp. Clem. Horn.
i. 1 5, ii. 2 2), expressly informs us that Simon was from the
village Gitthon in Samaria, and Justin himself was a Sama-
ritan, so that we can the less suppose, in his case, a confusion
with the name of the Cyprian town KITIOV (Tmic. i. 112. 1).
(2) The identity of name cannot, on account of its great pre-
valence, prove anything, and as little can the assertion that
the Samaritans 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. TrpovTrrjp^ev'] he was formerly (even
before the appearance of Philip) in the city. The following
fia^evwv K.T.X. then adds how he was occupied there ; comp. Luke
xxiii 12. fjMjevcov] practising magical arts, only here in the
K T. ; but see Eur. Iph. T. 1337 ; Meleag. 12; Clearch. in
Athen. vi. p. 256 E; Jacobs, ad, Anthol. VI p. 29. The
magical exercises of the wizards, who at that time very fre-
quently wandered about in the East, extended chiefly to an
ostentatious application of their attainments in physical know-
ledge to juggling conjurings of the dead and demons, to in-
fluencing the gods, to sorceries, cures of the sick, soothsayings
from the stars, and the like, in which the ideas and formulae of
the Oriental-Greek theosophy were turned to display. See
Neander, Gesch. d. Pflanz. u. Leit. d. christl. K. I. p. 99 f.;
1 Neander, p. 107 f., lias entirely misunderstood tlie words of Josephus. See
Zeller, p. 164 f.
CHAP. viii. 10. 227
Miiller in Herzog's Encykl. VIII. p. 675 ff. nva . . .
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 extraordinary 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
designating of that (ver. 1 0) which he himself wished to pass
for. eavrov] He thus acted quite differently from Philip,
who preached Christ, ver. 5. Comp. Eev. ii. 20.
Ver. 10. Ilpocrel^ov] just as in ver. 6. OTTO [uicpov eiw?
fjbyd\ov\ A designation of the whole body, from little and up to
great, i.e. young and old. Comp. Heb. viii. 11 ; Acts xxvi 22 ;
Bar. i. 4; Judith xiii. 4, 13; 1 Mace. v. 45; LXX. Gen.
xix. 11 ; Jer. xlii. 1, al. OVTOS ecmv q Suv. r. 6eov rj fca\.
7*67.] this is the God-power called great. The Samaritans be-
lieved that Simon was the power emanating from God, and
appearing and working among them as a human person, which,
as the highest of the divine powers, was designated by them
with a specific appellation /car e'fo^y as the (j,e<yd\r).
Probably the Oriental-Alexandrine idea of the world-creating
manifestation of the hidden God (the Logos, which Philo
also calls ^rpoTrdKi^ iraawv T&V Swdpeav rov eov) had
become at that time current among them, and they saw in
Simon this effluence of the Godhead rendered human by in-
carnation, 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 neighbour-
ing 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 analogue of the o Xo^o? o-apg
eyevero, 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. Haer. 29, and recently Olshausen, de Wette, and
others put the words 77 Swa/ia? K.T.\. into the mouth of Simon
228 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
himself, so that they are held only to be an echo of what the
sorcerer had boastingly said of himself. 1 This is contrary to
the text, which expressly distinguishes the opinion of the
infatuated people here from the assertion of the magician
himself (ver. 9). He had characterized himself indefinitely ;
they judged definitely and confessed (\eyovTe<i) the highest that
1 According to Jerome on Matth. xxiv., he asserted of himself: "Ego sum
sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei."
Certainly an invention of the later Simonians, who transferred specifically
Christian elements of faith to Simon. But this and similar things which were
put into the mouth of Simon (that he Was a.vu<ra.vi\ TI; Suvaytt/j xJ a.lrou rau TOV
xoffftw KTifavns Qiov, Clem. Horn. ii. 22, 25 ; that he was the same who had
appeared among the Jews as the Son, but had come among the Samaritans as the
Father, and among other nations as the Holy Spirit, Iren. i. 23), and were
wonderfully dilated on by opponents, point back to a relation of incarnation
analogous to the incarnation of the Logos, under which the adherents of Simon
conceived him. De Wette incorrectly denies this, referring the expression :
"the great power of God," to the notion of an angel. This is too weak ; all the
ancient accounts concerning Simon, as well as concerning his alleged companion
Helena, the all-bearing mother of angels and powers, betoken a Messianic part
which he played ; to which also the name o 'Errus, by which he designated
himself according to the Clementines, points. This name (hardly correctly
explained by Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 228 f., from avao-rwirs/, Deut. xviii. 15,
18) denotes the imperishable and unchangeable. See, besides, concerning Simon
and his doctrine according to the Clementines, Uhlhorn, die Homil. u. Recognit.
des Clemens Rom. p. 281 ff. ; Zeller, p. 159 ff. ; and concerning the entire
diversified development of the old legends concerning him, Muller in Herzog's
EncyU. XIV. p. 391 ff. ; concerning his doctrine of the Aeons and Syzygies,
Philosoph. Orig. vi. 7 ff. According to Baur and Zeller, the magician never
existed at all; and the legend concerning him, which arose from Christian
polemics directed against the Samaritan worship of the sun-god, the Oriental
Hercules (Baal-Melkart), is nothing else than a hostile travestie of the Apostle
Paul and his antinomian labours. Comp. also Hilgenfeld, d. clement. Recognit.
p. 319 f. ; Volckmar in the theol. Jahrb. 1856, p. 279 ff. The Book of Acts has,
in their view, admitted this legend about Simon, but has cut off the reference to
Paul. Thus the state of the case is exactly reversed. The history of Simon
Magus in our passage was amplified in the Clementines in an anti-Pauline
interest. The Book of Acts has not cut off the hostile reference to Paul ; but the
Clementines have added it, and accordingly have dressed out the history with a
view to combat Paulinism and Gnosticism, indeed have here and there caricatured
Paul himself as Simon. We set to work unhistorically, if we place the simple
narratives of the N. T. on a parallel with later historical excrescences and dis-
figurements, and by means of the latter attack the former as likewise fabulous
representations. Our narrative contains the historical germ, from which the later
legends concerning Simon Magus have luxuriantly developed themselves ; the
Samaritan worship of the sun and moon has nothing whatever to do with the
history of Simon.
CHAP. VIII. 12-17. 229
could be said of him ; and in doing so, accorded with the inten-
tion of the sorcerer.
Ver. 12. They believed Philip, who announced the good news
of the kingdom of God and of the name of Jesus Christ.
evayye\l. only here (see the critical remarks) with irepi, but
see Eom. i. 3 ; Josephus, Antt. xv. 7. 2. The Samaritans
called the Messiah whom they expected 3n$n O r srwn, the
Converter, and considered Him as the universal, not merely
political, but still more religious and moral, Eenewer. See on
John iv. 25.
Ver. 13. 'Eirurreva-e] also on his part (K. auro?), like the
other Samaritans, he became believing, namely, likewise TO>
$tXi7r7r&) evayye\i%ofj,evq> K.T.\. Entirely at variance with the
text is the opinion (Grotius, Clericus, Eosenmiiller, Kuinoel)
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 Him. He was, by the preaching 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 ; x hence he was
soon afterwards capable of what is related in w. 18, 19. The
real fjierdvoia is not excited in him, even at ver. 24. Cyril
aptly remarks : efiaTrriadrj, aXV OVK e<j)G)Ti<r0r). e^tcrTaro]
he, who had formerly been himself C^IOT&V TO Wvos !
Vv. 14-17. Ol ev 'lepoo: aTrocrr.] applies, according to
ver. 1, to all the apostles, to the apostolic college, which com-
missioned two of its most distinguished members (Gal. ii. 9).
Safjidpeia'] 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 : SeSe/erat 17 2a/j,dpeia rbv \6yov rov
@eoD. The design of the mission of Peter and John 2 is
1 Bengel well remarks : " Agnovit, virtutem Dei non esse in se, sed in Philippo.
. . . Non tamen pertigit ad fidem plenam, justificantem, cor purificantem, sal-
vantem, tametsi ad eain pervenisse speciose videretur, donee se aliter prodidit. "
8 Which Baur (I. p. 47, ed. 2) derives from the interest of Judaism to place
the new churches in a position of dependence on Jerusalem, and to prevent too
free a development of the Hellenistic principle. See, on the other hand,
Schneckenburger in the Stud. it. Krit. 1855, p. 542 ff., who, however, likewise
230 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
certainly, according to the text (in opposition to Schnecken-
burger), to be considered as that which they actually did after
their arrival (ver. 15) : to pray for the 'baptized, in order that
(OTTW?) they might receive the Holy Spirit. 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 (TO TWV a-rjfjueuov, Chrysostom, comp. Beza, Calvin) :
but the observation, ver. 16, makes the baptism of the Samari-
tans without the reception of the Spirit appear as something
extraordinary : the epoch-making advance of Christianity
beyond the bounds of Judaea into Samaria was not to be
accomplished without the intervention of the direct ministry of the
apostles. Comp. Baumgarten, p. 175 ff. 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 (Hofmann, Schriftbew.
II. 2, p. 32), or from the subjectivity of the Samaritans, whose
faith had not yet penetrated into the inner life (Neander, p.
80 f., 104), 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 1 ),
in the effect of which certainly their greater e%ov<rta, as
compared with that of Philip as the mere evangelist, was
historically made apparent, because the nascent church of
Samaria was not to develope its life otherwise than in living
gratuitously imports the opinion that the conversion of the Samaritans appeared
suspicions and required a more exact examination.
1 Ver. 15, comp. with w. 17, 18, shows clearly the relation of prayer to the
imposition of hands. The prayer obtained from God the communication of the
Spirit, but the imposition of hands, after the Spirit had been prayed for, became
the vehicle of the communication. It was certainly of a symbolical nature, yet
not a bare and ineffective symbol, but the effective conductor of the gifts prayed
for. Comp. on vi. 6. In xix. 5 also it is applied after baptism, and with the
result of the communication of the Spirit. On the other hand, ' at x. 48, it
would have come too late. If it is not specially mentioned in cases of ordinary
baptism, where the operation of the Spirit was not bound up with the apostolic
imposition of hands as here (see 1 Cor. i. 14-17, xii. 13 ; Tit. iii. 5), it is to be
considered as obvious of itself (Heb. vi. 2).
CHAP. VIII. 18-21. 231
connection with the apostles themselves. 1 The miraculous
element of the apostolic influence is to be recognised as con-
nected 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, Holtzmann). SeSetcrai] lias received : see
xvii. 7; Winer, p. 246 [E. T. 328]; Valcken. p. 437.
KaTapdvres] namely, to Samaria situated lower. ouBeTrto yap
rjv\ for as yet not at all, etc. fiovov &e Peficnrrtarfievoi yc.r.X.]
but they found themselves only in the condition of baptized
ones (not at the same time also furnished with the Spirit).
Ver. 1 8. The communication of the Spirit was visible (iS<ov,
see the critical remarks) in the gestures and gesticulations of
those who 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, thereupon his impatient desire waits not
even for his own experience (the power of the 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 upon him. The opinion 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 experience of which he was a stranger,
only according to the surprising outward phenomena, and
hence saw in the apostles the possessors of a higher magical
power still unknown to himself, the possession of which he
as a sorcerer coveted, " ne quid sibi deesset ad ostentationem
et quaestum," Erasmus.
Vv. 20, 21. Thy money le along ivith thee unto destruction;
i.e. let perdition, Messianic penal destruction, come upon thy
money and thyself ! The sin-money, in the lofty strain of
1 Surely this entirely peculiar state of matters should have withheld the Catholics
from grounding the doctrine of confirmation on our passage (as even Beelen does).
232 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the language, is set forth as something personal, capable of
aTTca\eta. eii) 619 aTrwX.] a usual attraction : fall into destruc-
tion and be in it. See Winer, p. 386 f. [E. T. 516 f.]. Comp.
ver. 23. rrjv Sajpeav rov 0eoO] rrjv e^ovatav ravrtjv, iva
K.T.\., ver. 19. Observe the antithetically chosen designa-
tion. ev6fju<ra<i] thou wast minded, namely, in the proposal
made. /ie/ot? ov8e K\fjpo<i] synonyms, of which the second
expresses the idea figuratively: part nor lot. Comp. Deut.
xii. 12, xiv. 27, 29; Isa. Ivii. 6. The utterance is earnest.
ev TU> \6<yq> TOVTW] in this word, i.e. in the e^oveia to be the
medium of the Spirit, which was in question. Lange gratui-
tously imports the idea : in this word, which flows from the
hearts of 'believers moved by the Spirit. Xo7o? of the " ipsa causa,
de qua disceptatur," is very current also in classical writers,
Ast,Lex. Plat. II p. 256 ; Brunck, ad Soph. Aj. 1268 ; Wolf,
ad Dem. Lept. p. 277; Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 41 f. ed. 3.
Others, as Olshausen and Neander after Grotius, explain ^070?
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. evdeia, straight, i.e. upright (comp. Wisd. ix. 3 ;
Ecclus. vii. 6), for Simon thought to acquire (/crda-Oai) an
egova-la not destined for him, from immoral motives, and by an
unrighteous means. Herein lies the immoral nature of simony,
whose source is selfishness. Comp. the ethical o-oXto? (Luke
iii. 5), ii. 40 ; Phil. ii. 15. "Cor arx boni et mali," Bengel;
Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 250.
Vv. 22, 23. 'Airb rfjs /care."] i.e. turning thee away from,
Heb. vi. 1. Comp. on 2 Cor. xi. 3. el apa afaQqaeTai] entreat
the Lord (God, ver. 21), and try thereby, whether perhaps (as
the case may stand) there will be forgiven, etc. Comp. on Mark
xi. 13; Rom. i. 1 0. Peter, on account of the high degree of
the transgression, represents the forgiveness on repentance still
as doubtful. 1 Kuinoel, after older expositors (comp. Heinrichs
1 Not as if it were thereby made dependent on the caprice of God (de "Wette's
objection), but because God, in presence of the greatness of the guilt, could only
forgive on the corresponding sincerity and truth of the repentance and believing
prayer ; and how doubtful was this with such a mind ! The whole greatness of
CHAP. VIII. 22, 23. 233
and de Wette), 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 (jLeravorja-ov (with-
out which forgiveness was not at all conceivable) annexes still
the problematic el apa. Concerning the direct expression by
the future, see Winer, p. 282 [E. T. 376]. 97 eVtWa] the
(conscious) plan, the project, is a vox media, which receives its
reference in bonam (2 Mace. xii. 45 ; Ar. Thesm. 766, al.},
or as here in malam partem, entirely from the context. See
the passages in Kypke, II. p. 42, and from Philo in Loesner,
p. 198 For I perceive thee (fallen into and) existing 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 %o\^ iriicpias is not fel amarum
(as is usually supposed), in which case, besides, Trttcpias would
only be tame and self-evident. On the contrary, Triicpia is to
be taken in the ethical sense, a bitter, malignant, and hostile
disposition (Eom. iii. 14; Eph. iv. 31 ; often in the classical
writers, see Valck. ad Eur. Phoen. 963), which, figuratively
represented, is gall, into which Simon had fallen. In the cor-
responding representation, a$i/cia is conceived as a band which
encompassed him. Comp. Isa. Iviii. 6. Others render a-vvSea--
/xo?, bundle (comp. Herodian. iv. 12. 11). So Alberti, Wolf,
Wetstein, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and others, including Ewald.
But in this way the genitive would not be taken uniformly
with vriKpLas, and we should expect instead of abiicias a plural
expression. 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. elvat et?] stands as in ver. 20.
See Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 286 [E. T. 333]. Lange, 1 at
variance with the words, gratuitously imports the notion :
" that thou wilt prove to be a poison . . . in the church"
the danger was to be brought to the consciousness of Simon, and to quicken him
to the need of repentance and prayer.
1 Comp. also Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeit. p. 91.
234 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Ver. 24. T^ets] whose prayer must be more effectual. On
Se??0. with 737309, comp. Ps. Ixiv. 1. OTTO)? ftrjStv /c.r.X]
"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 repent-
ance. Hence, also, his conversion (which even Calvin con-
jectures to have taken place ; comp. Ebrard) does not ensue.
It would, as a brilliant victory of the apostolic word, not have
been omitted ; and 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
Eome, testify against the occurrence of that conversion at all.
Vv. 25, 26. Tov \6y. r. Kvp.~\ The word which they spoke
was not their word, but Christ's, who caused the gospel to be
announced by them as His ministers and interpreters. Comp.
xiii. 48 f., xv. 35 f., xix. 10, 20. But the auctor principalis
is God (x. 36), hence the gospel is still more frequently called
o \0705 rov eov (iv. 29, 31, vi. 2, and frequently). iroXXa?
re tf&j/ia? . . . ev?777e\.] namely, on their way back to Jerusalem.
eva<yye\%ecr6ai, with the accusative of the person (Luke
iii. 18 ; Acts xiv. 21,xvi. 10), is rare, and belongs to the later
Greek. See Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 267 f. a<yye\os 8e tcvptov]
is neither to be rationalized 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 com-
munication was made to Philip (the language is, in fact, not
figurative, as in John i. 52, but purely historical). On the
contrary, Luke narrates an actual angelic appearance, that spoke
literally to Philip. This appearance must, in respect of its
form, be left undefined, as a vision in a dream (Eckermann,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel) is not indicated in the text, not even
by avda-Tqdi, which rather (raise thyself) belongs to the pic-
torial representation ; comp. on v. 1 7. Philip received this
CHAP. VIII. 25, 2C. 235
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.
rda, HW, i.e. the strong (Gen. x. 19 ; Josh. xv. 45 ; Judg.
iii. 3, xvi. 1 ; 1 Mace. xi. 16), a strongly fortified Philistine
city, situated on the Mediterranean, on the southern border of
Canaan. See Stark, Gaza u. d. philistaische Kuste, Jena 1852;
Hitter, JM;. XVI. l,p. 45 ff. ; Arnold in Herzog's EncyU. IV.
p. 671 ff. It was conquered (Plut. Alex. 25 ; Curt. iv. 6) and
destroyed (Strabo, xvi. 2. 30, p. 759) by Alexander the Great,
a fate which, after many vicissitudes, befell it afresh under
the Jewish King Alexander Jannaeus, in B.C. 96 (Joseph.
Antt. xiii. 13. 3, Bell. i. 4. 2). 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 (Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 18. 1). It is now
the open town Ghuzzeh. avrvj ea-rlv epypos] applies to the
way (von Raumer, Robinson, Winer, Buttmann, Ewald, Baum-
garten, Lange, and older commentators, as Castalio, Beza,
Bengel, and others). As several roads led from Jerusalem to
Gaza (and still lead, see Robinson, II. p. 748), the angel
specifies the road, which he means, more exactly by the state-
ment : this way is desolate, i.e. it is a desert way, leading
through solitary and little cultivated districts. Comp. 2 Sam.
ii. 24, LXX. 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
than that on which he would not miss, ~but would really encounter ;
the Ethiopian. 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 him above, all fear of the Jews
(Chrysostom, Oecumenius), or to describe the locality as suit-
able for undisturbed evangelical operations (Baumgarten), and
for deeper conversation (Ewald, Jahrb. V. p. 227), or even
to indicate that the road must now be spiritually prepared
and constructed (Lange). C/JTJ/XOS stands without the article,
because it is conceived altogether qualitatively. If aim? is to
236 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
be referred to Gaza (so Stark, I.e. p. 5 1 ff., following Erasmus,
Calvin, Grotius, and others), and the words likewise to be
ascribed to the angel, we should have to take ep^/io? 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 con-
nection, for the event afterwards related happened on the way,
and this way was to be specified. Others consider the words
as a gloss of Luke (de Wette, Wieseler, and others, following
older interpreters). But if avrij is to be referred to the way,
it is difficult to see what Luke means by that remark. If it
is to indicate that the way is not, or no longer, passable, 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 disturbed, 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 avrtj 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, which took place in the Jewish war (Joseph.
Bell. ii. 18. 1). But even thus the notice would have no
definite object in relation to the narrative, which is concerned
not with the city, but with the way as the scene of the
event. Hug and Lekebusch indeed suppose that the recent
occurrence of the destruction induced 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 (see Introduction, sec. 3). Eeland,
Wolf, Krebs, inappropriately interpret ep^/w^ as unfortified,
which the context must have suggested (as in the passages in
Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 359), and which would yield a very
meaningless remark. Wassenberg, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel take
refuge in the hypothesis of an interpolated gloss.
Ver. 27. Kal IBov] And behold (there was) a man. Comp.
on Matt. iii. 17. evvofyos Swacrn??] is, seeing that Svvd<m)S
is a substantive, most simply taken, not conjointly (a power-
CHAP. VIII. 27. 237
wielding eunuch, after the analogy of Herod, ii. 32 : avSpwv
Swaa-reav muSe?, comp. Ecclus. viii. 1), but separately : a
eunuch, one wielding power, so that there is a double apposition
(see Bornemann in loc.'). The more precise description, what
kind of wielder of power he was, follows (chief treasurer,
<yat;o<j)v\a!;, Plut. Mor. p. 823 C; Athen. vi. p. 261 B). The
express mention of his sexual character is perhaps connected
with the universalism of Luke, in contrast to Deut. 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 (Pignor. de servis, p. 371 f. ; Winer, Eealw.
s.v. Verschnittene) ; hence ewoi/^o? is often employed generally
of court officials, without regard to corporeal mutilation. See
de Dieu, in loc. ; Spanheim, ad Julian. Oratt. p. 1 74. Many
therefore (Cornelius a Lapide, de Dieu, Kuinoel, Olshausen)
suppose that the Ethiopian was not emasculated, for he is
called avr)p and he was not a complete Gentile (as Eusebius
and Nicephorus would make him), but, according to ver.
3 ff., a Jew, whereas Israelitish citizenship did not belong to
emasculated persons (Deut. xxiii. 1 ; Michaelis, Mos. E. II.
95, IV. 185 ; Ewald, Altertli. p. 218). But if so, evvovxps,
with which, moreover, the general word dvtfp l 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 probable 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 John 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 future, in the salvation of which
even Gentiles and eunuchs were to share ; nor from the example
of Ebedmelech, Jer. xxxviii. 7 ff. (considered by Baumgarten
as the type of the chamberlain), of whom it is not said that he
was a complete Jew ; nor can it be inferred from the distant
1 He might even have been married. See Gen. xxxix. 1, and Knobel in loc.
238 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
journey of the man and his quick reception of baptism (Lange,
apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 109), which is a very arbitrary inference.
Eusebius, ii 1, also designates him as TT/JWTO? ef; e6vu>v, who
had been converted. KavSaKi) 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. See Strabo, xvii. 1. 54, p. 820 ; Dio Cass. liv. 5 ;
Plin. N. H. vi. 35. 7. Their capital was Napata. See
particularly Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 140 ff. On yd& } a
word received from the Persian (" pecuniam regiam, quam
gazam Persae vocant," Curt. iii. 13. 5) into Greek and Latin,
see Serv. ad Virgil. Aen. i. 119, vol. i. p. 30, ed. Lion, and
Wetstein in loc. eV/, as in vi. 3. Nepos, Datam. 5 : " gazae
custos regiae." Tradition (Bzovius, Annal. ad a. 1524,
p. 542), with as much uncertainty as improbability (Ludolf,
Comm. ad Hist. Aeth. p. 8 9 f.), calls the Ethiopian Indich and
Judich, and makes him, what is without historical proof,
doubtless, but in itself not improbable, though so early a
permanent 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 (Mceph. ii. 6).
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 on the way with
Isaiah in particular, the Evangelist among the prophets, and
with this very section concerning the^Servant of God. Ver.
34 is not opposed to this. elire &e r. Trvevpa denotes the
address of the Holy Spirit inwardly apprehended. Comp.
x. 19. Ko\\ijdrjTt] attach thyself to, separate not thyself from.
Comp. Piuth ii. 8; Tob. vi. 17; 1 Mace, vi 21. apd 76
ryivcaa-fceis a dvayivcoo-Keis ;] For instances of a similar parono-
masia, 1 see Winer, p. 591 [E. T. 794 f.]. Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 2 ;
2 Thess. iii. 11. apa, num (with the strengthening 76), stands
here as ordinarily : " ut aliquid sive verae sive fictae dubita-
tionis admisceat," Buttmann, ad Charmid. 14. Comp. Herm.
1 Compare the well-known saying of Julian : &nyvuv, I'yva/v, *a<r;yvv.
CHAP. VIII. 32, 33. 239
ad Tiger, p. 823, and on Luke xviii. 8 ; Gal. ii. 17 ; BaeumL
PartiJc. p. 40 f. Philip doubts whether the Aethiopian was
aware of the Messianic reference of the words which he read.
7rw9 yap av SwatfA'rjv /t.r.X] an evidence of humility and
susceptibility, av, with the optative, denotes the subjective
possibility conditionally conceived and consequently undecided.
See Kiihner, 467. <ydp is to be taken without a no to be
supplied before it : How withal, as the matter stands. See on
Matt, xxvii. 23.
Vv. 32, 33. But the contents of the passage of Scripture
which he read was this, r?}? 7/?a0%] is here restricted by fy
aveyivd)(TKv to the notion of a single passage, as also, ver. 35,
by ratm)? (comp. i. 16 ; Luke iv. 21 ; and on Mark xii 10).
Luther has given it correctly. But many others refer rfv
aveyivwaK. to 77 Trepio^ : " locus autem scripturae, quern
legebat, hie erat," Kuinoel, following the Vulgate. But it
is not demonstrable that jrepio^ij signifies a section; even in
the places cited to show this, Cic. ad Alt. xiii. 25, and Stob.
Eel. phys. p. 164 A, it is to be taken as here : what is con-
tained in the passage (Hesych. Suid. : vTroQeais], and this is
then verbally quoted. Comp. the use of Trepie^ei, 1 Pet.
ii. 6, and Huther in loc. o><? Trpofiarov /c.r.X.] Isa. liii. 7, 8,
with unimportant variation from the LXX. 1 The subject of
the whole oracle is the ni.T lay, i.e. according to the correct
Messianic understanding of the apostolic church, the Messiah
(Matt. viii. 17 ; Mark xv. 28 ; John xii. 38 ff., i. 29 ; 1 Pet.
ii. 22 ff.). Comp. the TTCU? rov Qeov, iii 13, 26, iv. 27, 30.
The prophetical words, as Luke gives them, are as follow : As
a sheep He has been led to the slaughter ; and as a lamb, which
is dumb before its shearer, so He opens not His mouth. In His
humiliation His judgment was taken away ; i.e. when He had
so humbled Himself to the bloody death (comp. Phil. ii. 8),
the judicial fate imposed on Him by God 2 was taken from
Him, so that now therefore the culmination and crisis of His
1 Which, however, deviates considerably, and in part erroneously, from the
original Hebrew.
2 The designation of His destiny of suffering as n Kflfn aunv presupposes the
idea of its vicarious and propitiatory character.
240 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
destiny set in (comp. PhiL ii 9). But 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 immeasur-
able progenies') His life is taken away from the earth, so that
He enters upon His heavenly work relieved from the trammels
of earth (comp. John xii. 32 ; Bom. v. 10, viii. 29, 34, xiv. 9).
yeved does not, any more than nil, signify duration of life
(Luther, Beza, Calvin, and others). The explanation, also, of the
indescribably wicked race of the contemporaries of Christ, who
proved their depravity by putting Him to death (on atperat,
#.T.X), is inappropriate. Such is the view I have previously
taken, with de Wette and older commentators. But in this
way the prophecy would be diverted from the person of the
Messiah, and that to something quite obvious of itself;
whereas, according to the above explanation, the aiperai airo
r. 7. f) far) avr. stands in thoughtful and significant correlation
to 17 /9icr<? avrov ijpOrj. In these correlates lies the ^ucaioavvt)
of the Humbled one, John xvi. 1 0. The Fathers have explained
yeved in the interest of orthodoxy, but here irrelevantly, of the
eternal generation of the Son. See Suicer, Thes. I. p. 744.
Vv. 3438. 'ATTOKpidelsi] for Philip had placed himself
beside him in the chariot, ver. 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 reply 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. dvotgas K.T.\.] a
pictorial trait, in which there is here implied something
solemn in reference to the following weighty announcement.
See on Matt. v. 2 ; 2 Cor. vi. 11. Comp. Acts x. 34. Kara
rrjv 6S6v~\ along the way ; see Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 499].
rt Ku>\vei] a<j>6Bpa ^v^rj<? TOVTO eKfcaioftevr)?, Chrysostom.
^aTTTiaQr]vai\ Certainly in the evrjryyehlcraTo avru> TOV 'Irjcrovv
there was comprehended also instruction concerning baptism.
Ver. 38. Observe the simply emphatic character of the
circumstantial description. e/ee'Xeuo-e] to the charioteer. Beza
C1IAP. VIIL 89, 40 241
erroneously supposes that the water in which the baptism
took place was the river Eleutherus. According to Jerome,
de locis Hebr., it was at the village Bethsoron. Eobinson,
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 1 of Philip
effected by the Spirit of God (/cvpiov). Comp. 2 Cor. xii 2, 4 ;
1 Thess. iv. 17; Ezek. iii. 14; 1 Kings xviii. 12; 2 Kings ii. 16 ;
also what happened with Habakkuk in Bel and the Dragon, 3 3.
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 power,
but also the mode, is conceived of as miraculous as a sudden
unseen transportation as far as Ashdod, ver. 40. The sudden
and quick hurrying away which took place on the impulse of
the Spirit (Kuinoel, Olshausen, comp. also Lange, apost. Zeitalt.
II. p. 113) is the historical element in the case, to which
tradition (and how easily this was suggested by the 0. T.
conception in 1 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 Kings ii. 16) 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 historical (Zeller), is wholly without
warrant with such an operation of angel and Spirit as the
narrative contains, when viewed in connection with the super-
sensuous causal domain of N". T. facts in general. eVopevero
7<zp K.T.\.~] 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 he 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. et'<? *A%a)Tov\ He was found removed to Ashdod.
Winer, pp. 387, 572 [E. T. 516, 769] ; Buttmann, neut. Ch'.
p. 287 [E. T. 333]. Transported thither, he again became
1 The excellent Bengel strangely remarks : that one or other of the apostles
may have gone even to America "pari trajectu."
ACTS. Q
242 TEE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
visible. Comp. xxi. 1 3 ; Esth. i. 5 ; Xen. Anab. iii 4. 13:
ei9 rovrov Se rov crrad/jiov Ti<T(ra(f>epvr)<s eTretyavr), 2 Mace.
i. 33. Mo>T09 (Herod, ii. 157 ; Diod. xix. 85 ; in Strabo,
xvi. 29, p. 759 ; oxytone 1 ), "nifK, Josh, xiii 3, 1 Sam. v. 5,
was a Philistine city, the seat of a prince ; after its destruction
by Jonathan rebuilt by Gabinius (Joseph. Antt. xiv. 5. 3), 270
stadia to the north of Gaza, to the west of Jerusalem, now as
a village named Esdud (Volney, Travels, II. p. 2 5 1 ; Eobinson,
II. p. 629). See Euetschi in Herzog's Encykl. II. p. 556.
Kaicrdpeia is the celebrated Kaicr. ^eySacrr^ (so called in
honour of Augustus), built by Herod I. on the site of the
Castellum Stratonis, the residency of the Roman procurators,
on the Mediterranean, sixty-eight miles north-west of Jerusalem ;
it became the abode of Philip ; see xxi. 8. He thus jour-
neyed northward from Ashdod, perhaps through Ekron, Eamah,
Joppa, and the plain of Sharon. There is no reason to regard
the notice eta? . . . Kaiadpeiav as prophetic, and to assume
that Philip, at the time of the conversion of Cornelius, x. 1 ff.,
was not yet in Caesarea (Schleiermacher, Lekebusch, Laurent),
seeing that Cornelius is l>y special divine revelation directed to
Peter, and therefore has no occasion to betake himself to
Philip.
1 Incorrectly ; see Lipsius, grammat. Unters. p. 30.
CHAP. IX. 243
CHAPTEE IX.
VER. 3. ffo] A B C G K, rain, have Ix, which is, no doubt, re-
commended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and
Born., but is inserted from xxii. 6 to express the meaning more
strongly. Instead of irtpifarpa-^. Lachm. has wspitarpa-^. A
weakly attested error of transcription. Ver. 5. xvpios tlirtv}
Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., after ABC, min. Vulg. In
some other witnesses (including N), only xvpiog is wanting ; and
in others, only tl-iv. The Recepta is a clumsy filling up of the
original bare 6 ds. After diuxeis, Elz., following Erasm., has
(instead of dXAa, ver. 6) ffxXqpov coi Kpbs xivrpa, haxrifyiv. TptfAuv
rs xal da/AJSuiv tj-trf xvpiz, rl /AI 6s\iis iroiqoai ; xai o xvpiog vrpbg CIVTOV,
against all Greek codd. Chrys. Theoph. and several vss. 1 An
old amplification from xxii. 10, xxvi. 14. Ver. 8. o\jo'zva\
A* B N, Syr. utr. Ar. Vulg. have ovd'tv. So Lachm. Tisch. Born.
The Recepta has originated mechanically from following ver. 7.
Ver. 10. The order sv opdpart 6 xup. (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) has
the decisive preponderance of testimony. Ver. 12. sv opd^ari]
is wanting in A N, lo tL Copt. Aeth. Vulg. B C have it after
avdpa (so Born.). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An explana-
tory addition to sJdsv. Instead of %s/pa, Lachin. and Born, have
ra$ xtTpas, after B E, vss. ; also A C N*, lo* 1 -, which, however, do
not read rd$. From ver. 1 7, and because litmd. vac, -xtTpag is
the usual expression in the N. T. (in the active always so, except
this passage). Ver. 17. rix^jcoa] Lachm. Born, read qxouffa, which
is decidedly attested by A B C E N, min. Ver. 18. After avi-
/SAs-vJ/i TI, Elz. has Kapaxpripa,, which is wanting in decisive
witnesses, and, after Erasm. and Bengel, is deleted by Lachm.
Tisch. Born. A more precisely defining addition. Ver. 19.
After s/svsro de, Elz. has <5 SaSXos, against decisive testimony.
Beginning of a church -lesson. Ver. 20. 'iqffovv] Elz. reads
Xpiarov, against A B C E N, min. vss. Iren. Amid the prevalent
interchange of the two names this very preponderance of
authority is decisive. But 'ITJO-OUC is clearly confirmed by the
1 The words are found in Vulg. Ar. pol. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (with an asterisk)
Slav. Theophyl. 2, Oec. Hilar. in Ps. ii., but with many variations of detail.
244 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
following or/ olros Idriv 6 vibe r. Qiou, as also by ver. 22, where
euros necessarily presupposes a preceding 'lr,ffouf. Ver. 24.
Kaperqpouv TS~] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read vapsrqpoiJvro ds xai, which
is to be preferred according to decisive testimony. aurov o/
(Aadnral] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read oi [ia.6qral avrou, after ABC
F K, lo tL * Or. Jer. This reading has in its favour, along with the
preponderance of witnesses, the circumstance that before (ver.
19) and after (ver. 26) the /ia^ra/are mentioned absolutely, and
the expression oi pad. avrov might appear objectionable. In
what follows, on nearly the same evidence, 3/<i rou re!%ou$ xaSri-
xav avrov is to be read. Ver. 26. After vapay. 8s, Elz. has 6
2aXoc, E, 6 naDXog. An addition. sig] B E G H, min. Oec.
Theophyl. have ev, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by
Lachm. Tisch. Born. The evidence leaves it doubtful ; but con-
sidering the frequency of vapayiv. with sis (xiii. 1 4, xv. 4 ; Matt.
ii. 1 ; John viii. 2), whereas it does not further occur with ev in
the N". T., ev would be more easily changed into eig than the
converse. i-rs/paro] Lachm. and Born, read svsipca^tv (after
A B C K, min.), which was easily introduced as the usual
form (vsipdopai only again occurs in the N. T. in xxvi. 21 ;
Heb. iv. 15 ?). Ver. 28. ev 'lepoua.] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have
rightly adopted sis 'Ispova., which already Griesb. had approved
after A B C E G N, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl. h was inserted
as more suitable than eig, which was not understood. Accord-
ingly, xai before vat fag. is to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch.,
following A B C K, min. vss. An insertion for the sake of con-
nection. Ver. 29. ' EAX?jv/<rra] A has "EXAjiia. From xi. 20.
Ver. 31. Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ?j . . . JjcxX?jo-/a . . . sT^sv sip.
oix.o8o/j,oufj,evr) %.. wopsuo/Asvy . . . e<ir\qd\>vtro, after A B C N, min. and
several vss., including Vulg. Eightly. The original ^ fj.lv ouv
JjcxXjjov'a, x.r.X., in accordance with the apostolic idea of the unity
of the church, was explained by / [ilv ouv ixxXwiai iragai (so E),
which fl-ao'a/ was again deleted, and thus the Recepta arose.
Ver. 33. Instead of xpa/3/3ary, X pa/S/3aroy is to be adopted, with
Lachm. Tisch. Born., on preponderating evidence. Ver. 38.
oxvqffai . . . aurSf] Lachm. and Tisch. read oxvqopg . . . fi/tuv, after
A B C* E K, lo tL Vulg., ' which with this preponderance of
evidence is the more to be preferred, as internal grounds deter-
mine nothing for the one reading or the other.
Vv. 1, 2. "Ert] See viii. 3, hence the narrative does not
stand isolated (Schleiermacher). e^trveayv airei\ri<s K. <j)6vov
et? T. fj,a0.] out of threatening and murder breathing hard at the
disciples, whereby is set forth the passionatcness with which he
CHAP. IX. 1, 2. 245
was eager to terrify the Christians by threats, and to hurry
them to death. In e^Trvewv, observe the compound, to which
the ei<? T. jj.a0. belonging to it corresponds ; so that the word
signifies : to breathe hard at or upon an object ; as often also
in classical writers, yet usually with the dative instead of
with et9. The expression is stronger than if it were said
TTvecw a7Ti\r)v K.T.\. (Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 342 ; Boeckh, Expl.
Find. p. 341). The genitives d7rei\r7<? and <f>6vov denote whence
this epTTveeiv issued; threatening and murder, i.e. sanguinary
desire (Eom. i. 29), was within him what excited and sus-
tained his breathing hard. Comp. epnrviov ^OJT}?, Josh. x. 40 ;
(f>6vov TTveiovra, Nonn. Dionys. 25 ; Aristoph. Eq. p. 437; Winer,
p. 192 [E. T. 255]. T&> dp%iepei] If the conversion of Paul
occurred in the year 35 (Introduction, sec. 4), then Caiaphas
was still high priest, as he was not deposed by Vitellius until
the year 36 (Anger, de temp. rat. p. 184). Jonathan the son
of Ananus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 3) succeeded him ; and he,
after a year, was succeeded by his brother Theophilus (Joseph.
Antt. xviii. 5. 3). AapaaKos, pt^l, 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 (Joseph. Bell. Jud.
i. 2. 25, ii. 20. 2). It was specially to Damascus that the per-
secuting Saul turned his steps, partly, doubtless, because the
existence of the hated sect in that city was well known to him
(the church there may have owed its origin and its enlarge-
ment as well to the journeys of the resident Jews to the feasts,
as to visits of the dispersed from Jerusalem) ; partly, per-
haps, also, because personal connections promised for his enter-
prise there the success which he desired. 77/305 ra? trw-
ajwy,], from which, consequently, the Christians had not as yet
separated themselves. Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 290.
The recognition of the letters of authorization at Damascus was
not to be doubted, as that city was in the year 35 still under
Roman dominion ; and Eoman 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 Eoman authority).
TT}<? 68ov oWa?] who should be of the way. The way, in the
246 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
ethical sense, is here fear efo^v the Christian, i.e. the charac-
teristic direction of life as determined by faith on Jesus Christ
(6809 icvpiov, xviii. 2 5), an expression in this absolute form
peculiar to the Book of Acts (xix. 9, xxii. 4, xxiv. 14, 22),
but which certainly was in use in the apostolic church.
Oecumenius indicates the substantial meaning : rrjv Kara
Xpia-rbv e*7re TrdKneiav. elvai, with the genitive in the
sense of belonging to. See Bernhardy, p. 165; Winer, p. 184
[E. T. 244],
Vv. 3-9. The conversion of Saul does not appear, on an
accurate consideration of the three narratives (ix., xxii., xxvi.)
which agree in the main points, to have had the way psycho-
logically prepared for it by scruples of conscience as to his per-
secuting proceedings. On the contrary, Luke represents it in
the history at our passage, and Paul himself in his speeches
(xxii. and xxvi. ; comp. also Gal. i. 14, 15 ; Phil. iii. 12), as
in direct and immediate contrast to his vehement persecuting
zeal, amidst which he was all of a sudden internally arrested
by the miraculous fact from without. Comp. Beyschlag in
the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 251 f. Moreover, previous scruples
and inward struggles are a priori, in the case of a character so
pure (at this time only erring), firm, and ardently decided as
he also afterwards continued to be, extremely improbable : he
saw in the destruction of the Christian church only a fulfil-
ment of duty and a meritorious service for the glory of
Jehovah (xxii. 3; comp. Gal. i. 14; Phil. iii. 6). For the
transformation of his firm conviction into the opposite, of his
ardent interest against the gospel into an ardent zeal for
it, there was needed with the pure resoluteness of his will,
which even in his unwearied persecutions was just striving after
a righteousness of his own (Phil, iii 6) a heavenly power
directly seizing on his inmost conscience ; and this he experi-
enced, 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 (xxvi. 13), was no flash
of lightning. The similarity of the expression in all the three
narratives militates against this assumption so frequently made
CHAP. IX. 3-9. 247
(and occurring still in Schrader) ; and Paul himself certainly
knew how to distinguish in his recollection a natural pheno-
menon, however alarming, from a <&><? CLTTO rov ovpavov asso-
ciated with a heavenly revelation. 1 This <><? was rather the
heavenly radiance, with which the exalted Christ appearing
in His Soga 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 (Weiss,
Schweizer, Schenkel, and others) ; 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, who is in heaven, He presented Himself to
the inner man of Saul, and made Himself audible in definite
words (see my first edition ; comp. Bengel, ub d. BeJcehr. Pauli,
aus d. Led. ubers. v. Nielhammer, Tub. 1826). On the contrary,
according to 1 Cor. xv. 8 (comp. ix. 1), Christ must really
have appeared to him in His glorified body (comp. ix. 1 7, 2 7).
For only the objective (this also against Ewald) and real cor-
poreal appearance corresponds to the category of appearances,
in which this is placed at 1 Cor. xv. 8, as also to the require-
ment of apostleship, which is expressed in 1 Cor. ix. 1 most
definitely, and that in view of Peter and the other original
apostles, by rbv icvpiov rj^wv ewpaica. Comp. Paul in Hilgen-
feld's Zeitschr. 1863, p. 182 ff. The Eisen One Himself was
in the light which appeared, and converted Saul (and hence
Gal. i. 1 : rov lyeipavro? avrov IK veicpwv), with which also
Gal. i. 16 (seem loc.) fully agrees; comp. Phil. iii. 12. This
view is rightly adopted, after the old interpreters, by Lyttleton
(on the conversion, etc., translated by Hahn, Hannov. 1751),
Hess, Michaelis, Haselaar (Lugd. Bat. 1806), and by most
modern interpreters except the Tubingen School ; as well as
by Olshausen and JSTeander, both of whom, however, without
any warrant in the texts, assume a psychological preparation by
the principles of Gamaliel, by the speech of Stephen, and by the
1 This applies in the main, also, against Ewald, p. 375, who assumes a dazzling
celestial phenomenon of an unexpected and terrible nature, possibly a thunder-
storm, or rather a deadly sirocco in the middle of a sultry day, etc.
248 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
sight of his death. For the correct view comp. Baumgarten ;
Diestelmaier, Jugendleben des Saulus, 1866, p. 37 ff. ; Oertel,
Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 112 ff., who also enlarges on the
connection of the doctrine of the apostle with his conversion. 1
On the other hand, de Wette does not go beyond an admission of
the enigmatical character of the matter ; Lange (Apost. Zeitalt.
II. p. 116 f.) connects the objective fact with a visionary
perception of it ; and Holsten (in Hilgenf eld's Zeitschr. 1 8 6 1, p.
223 ff.), after the example of Baur, attempts to make good the
vision, which he assumes, as a real one, indeed, but yet as an
immanent psychological act of Saul's own mind, a view which
is refuted by the necessary resemblance of the fact to the
other Christophanies in 1 Cor. xv. 2 All the attempts of Baur
and his school to treat the event as a visionary product from
the laboratory of Saul's own thoughts are exegetical impossi-
bilities, in presence of which Baur himself at last stood
still acknowledging a mystery. See his Christenth. d. drei
ersten JahrJi. p. 45, ed. 2. It is no argument against the
actual bodily appearance, that the text speaks only of the
light, and not of a human form rendered visible. For, while
1 See also Hofstedo de Groot, Pauli conversio praedpuus theologiae Paul,
fons, Groning. 1855, who, however, in setting forth this connection mixes up
too much that is arbitrary.
2 See, in opposition to Holsten, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, pp. 197 ff.,
231 ff. ; Oertel, I.e. In opposition to Beyschlag, again, see Holsten, zumEoang.
des Paulus u. Pelr. p. 2 ff. ; as also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 155 ff.,
who likewise starts from d, priori presuppositions, which do not agree with the
exegetical results. These a priori presuppositions, marking the criticism of the
Baur School, agree generally in the negation of miracle, as well as in the posi-
tion that Christianity has arisen in the way of an immanent development of
the human mind, whereby the credibility of the Book of Acts is abandoned.
With Holsten, Lang, relig. CharaTctere, Paulus, p. 15 ff., essentially agrees ; as
does also, with poetical embellishment, Hirzel in the Zeitstimmen, 1864. Hans-
rath, der Apostel Paulus, 1865, p. 23 f., contents himself with doubts, founded
on Gal. i. 15, which leave the measure of the historical character in suspense.
Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 540 ff., finds "the in the details con-
tradictory and legendary narrative" of the Book of Acts confirmed in the main by
the hints of the apostle himself in his letters ; nevertheless, for the explanation
of what actually occurred, he does not go beyond suggesting various possibilities,
and finds it advisable " to ascribe to the same causes, from which it becomes im-
possible absolutely to discover the origin of the belief of the resurrection, such
a range that they include also the event before Damascus. "
CHAT. IX. 3-9. 249
in general the glorified body may have been of itself inacces-
sible 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 light, 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. 1 Whoever,
taking offence at the diversities of the accounts in particular
points as at their miraculous tenor, sets down what is so re-
ported as unhistorical, or refers it, with Zeller, to the psycho-
logical domain of nascent faith, is opposed, as regards the
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 supposing in Paul, at
precisely the most decisive and momentous point of his life,
a self-deception as the effect of the faith existing in him ; in
which case the narrative of the Book of Acts is traced to a
design of legitimating the apostleship of Paul, which in the
sequel is further confirmed by the authority of Peter. Hardly
deserving now of historical notice is the uncritical rationalism
of the method that preceded the critical school of Baur, by
which (after Vitringa, Obss. p. 370, and particularly Eichhorn,
Ammon, Boehme, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) the whole
occurrence was converted into a fancy-picture, in which the
persecutor's struggles of conscience furnished the psychological
ground and a sudden thunderstorm the accessories, a view
with which some (Emmerling and Bretschneider) associate the
1 See xxii. 9. The statement, ix. 7 : axovovm pit r?is yaws, is evidently a
trait of tradition already disfiguring the history, to which the apostle's own
narrative, as it is preserved at xxii. 9, must without hesitation be preferred.
In the case of a miraculous event so entirely unique and extraordinary, such
traditional variations in the certainly very often repeated narrative are so naturally
conceivable, that it would, in fact, be surprising and suspicious if we should
find in the various narratives no variation. To Luke himself such variations,
amidst the unity of essentials, gave so little offence that he has adopted
and included them unreconciled from his different sources. Baur transfers
them to the laboratory of literary design, in which case they are urged for
the purpose of resolving the historical fact into myth. See his Paulus, I. p.
71 ff., ed. 2.
250 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
exegetical blunder of identifying the fact with 2 Cor. xii. 1 ff. ;
while Brennecke (after Bahrdt and Venturini) makes Jesus,
who was only apparently dead, appear to Saul to check his
persecuting zeal. These earlier attempts to assign the con-
version of the apostle to the natural sphere are essentially
distinguished, in respect of their basis, from those of the
critical school of Baur and Holsten, by the circumstance that
the latter proceed 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.
avroT. ovpavov] belongs to irepirja-Tp. Comp. xxii. 6, xxvi. 13 ;
Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 15 : <co? CK TOV ovpavov Trpotyaves. On Trepiaa-
rpaTrreiv, comp. Juvenc. in Stob. cxvii. 9 ; 4 Mace. iv. 10.
Vv. 4, 5. The light shone around him (and not his com-
panions). Out of the light the present Christ manifested
Himself at this moment to his view : he has seen the Lord
(1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8), vv. 17, 27, who afterwards makes Him-
self known also ly name ; and the persecutor, from terror at
the heavenly vision, falls to the ground, when he hears the
voice speaking in Hebrew (xxvi. 1 4) : Saul, Saul, etc. ri pe
Sicbteeis ;] ri "Trap' e^oy fteya rj piKpov rjBiKrjijuevo^ ravra Trotefc ;
Chrysostom. Christ Himself is persecuted in His people.
Luke x. 1 6. " Caput pro membris clamabat," Augustine. T&
et, Kvpie]. On the question whether Saul, during his residence
in Jerusalem, had personally seen Christ (Schrader, Olshausen,
Ewald, Keim, Beyschlag, and others) 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 ejdo and crv.
CHAP. IX. 6, 7. 251
Ver. 6. 'A\\a] breaking off; see on Mark xvi. V, and
Baumlein, Partih p. 15. 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 sufficiently ex-
plained by the fact that Paul in the speech before Agrippa
abridges the narrative, and puts the commission, which was
only subsequently conveyed 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 exact-
ness of the representation, the summary abbreviation of which
on this point Paul might esteem as sufficient before Agrippa
(in opposition to Zeller, p. 193).
Ver. 7. Ela-TrJKeia-av eVeot 1 ] According to xxvi. 14, they
all fell to the earth with Saul. This diversity is not, with
Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, to be
obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that the com-
panions 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 unessential non-agreement of the several
accounts, whereby both the main substance of the event itself,
and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke in not arbitrarily
harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed. CLKOV-
oi;T69 (lev 7% <f)a)vfj<i\ does not agree with xxii. 9. See the
note on ver. 3 ff. The artificial attempts at reconciliation
are worthless, namely : that r^9 (jxovfjs, by which Christ's voice
is meant, applies to the words of Paul (so, against the context,
Chrysostom, Ammonius, Oecumenius, Camerarius, Castalio,
Beza, Vatablus, Clarius, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, and
others) ; or, that wvr) is here a noise (thunder), but in xxii. 9
an articulate voice (so erroneously, in opposition to ver. 4,
Hammond, Eisner, Eabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 442,
Eosenmiiller, Moras, Heinrichs) ; or, that rjicovcrav in xxii. 9
1 Inoi, dumb, speechless (here, from terror), is to be written with one (not
wnis), as is done by Lachm. Tisch. Born, after A B C E H K. See on the word,
Valck. ad h. 1. ; Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 33 ; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 102.
252 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
denotes the understanding of the voice (so, after Grotius and
many older interpreters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett), or the
definite giving ear in reference to the speaker (Bengel, Baum-
garten), which is at variance with the fact, that in both places
there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing; hence
the appeal to John xii. 28, 29 is not suitable, and still less
the comparison of Dan. x. 7. fj,r)8eva Se OecDp.] But seeing
no one, from whom the voice might have come ; /-t^Se'ra is
used, because the participles contain the subjective cause of
their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in
ver. 8 : ovSev e/SXevre.
Yv. 8, 9. ' Avey<y/j,evQ)v 8e rwv o$#aX/i.] 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 had not really and personally seen the
Lord. ov&ev e/3\7re] namely, because he was blinded by the
heavenly 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 Recepta ovSeva eft\. (see the critical remarks) to be
explained otherwise than of being blinded, 1 in opposition to
Haselaar and others, who refer ov&eva to Jesus. fj,rj /3X,e7r&>i/J
he was for three days without being able to see, i.e. blind (John
ix. 39 ; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 308), so that he had not his
power of vision; comp. Winer, p, 453 [E. T. 610]. Hence
here ^77 from the standpoint of the subject concerned ; but
afterwards OVK and ovSe, because narrating objectively. OVK
efyayev ov&e eiriev] an absolute negation of eating and drinking
(John iii. 7 ; Esth. iv. 16), and not " a cibi potusve largioris
1 That the blinding took place as a symbol of the previous spiritual blindness
of Saul (Calvin, Grotius, de "Wette, Baumgarten, and others) is not indicated by
anything in the text, and may only be considered as the edifying application of
the history, although Baur makes the formation of the legend attach itself to
this idea. That blinding of Saul was a simple consequence of the heavenly
radiance, and served (as also the fasting) to withdraw him for a season wholly
from the outer world, and to restrict him to his inner life. And the blind-
ness befell Saul alone : 'ivx ftn xoivot xai us axo rv%ns TO iraQo; loft.iirfy, aXA.a faitts
ffiioiat, Oecumenius.
CHAP. IX. 1012. 253
usu abstinebat," Kuinoel. By fasting Saul partly satisfied the
compunction into which he could not but now feel himself
brought 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.
Ver. 10. 'O fcvpios] Christ. See vv. 13, 14, 17. eV
opdjjiaTi] in a vision (x. 3, xvi. 9, al. ; differently vii. 31);
whether awake or asleep, the context does not decide (not even
by avavrds, ver. 11). Eichhorn'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 slightest hint in
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) : " bat 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
anything concerning them" (Neander). According to Baur,
the two corresponding 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 piety
(xxii. 12), is alleged by Schneckenburger, p. 168 f., 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 (chap. v. and xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1)
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. 1 Comp. Hackett in loc., and Petermann,
1 The house in which Paul is said to have dwelt is still pointed out. See also
the Ausland, 1866, No. 24, p. 564.
254 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Reisen im Orient, I. p. 98. 2av\ov ovo/j,ari] Saul "by name,
Saul, as he is called. Comp. Xen. Andb. i. 4. 11 : TroXt? . . .
@cnjra/eo<? ovofuiri. Tob. vi. 10; 4 Mace. v. 3. ISov yap . . .
avaj3Ktyrf\ contains the reason of the intimation given : for,
behold, he prays, is now therefore in the spiritual frame which
is requisite for what thou art to do to him, and he is pre-
pared for thy very arrival to help him he has seen in a vision
a man, who came in and, etc. Imposition of hands (comp.
on viii. 15) is here also the medium of communication of
divine grace. av&pa ovofju. 'Avaviav\ This is put, and not
the simple ae, 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
(0,770 TToXX.), had hitherto shown himself entirely unworthy
of it (ver. 1 3), and from whom even now only evil to the
cause of Christ was to be dreaded after his contemplated re-
storation to sight (ver. 14). Whether Ananias had obtained
the knowledge of the inquisitorial %ovaia which Saul had at
Damascus by letters from Jerusalem (Wolf, RosenmuUer), or
from the companions of Saul (Kuinoel), or in some other way,
remains undetermined. rot? aryfott aov] to the saints be-
longing to Thee, i.e. to the Christians : for they, through the
atonement appropriated by means of faith (comp. on Eom.
i. 7), having been separated from the /too>io<? and dedicated
to God, belong to Christ, who has purchased them by His
blood (xx. 2 8). ev 'lepova: belongs to /caa eVot^cre.
Ver. 14. As to the eTU/caXetcr&u of Christ, see on vii. 59. It
is the distinctive characteristic of Christianity, ver. 21; 1 Cor.
i. 2 ; Eom. x. 10 ff. Ver. 15. oveei/09 K\,o<yrj<i\ a chosen vessel
(instrument). In this vessel Christ will bear, etc. The geni-
tive of quality emphatically stands in place of the adjective,
Herrn. ad Vig. p. 890 f.; Winer, p. 222 [E. T. 297]. Comp.
oveevo? avdyKr) 1 ?, Anthol. xi. 27. 6. TOV ftaa-Tacrai Ac.r.X]
contains the definition of <TK. e'/cX. poi effriv OUTO?: to bear
CHAP. IX. 17, 18. 255
my (Messianic) name (by the preaching of the same) before
Gentiles, and kings, and Israelites. Observe how the future
work of converting the Gentiles (comp. GaL i. 16) is pre-
sented as the principal work (eQvwv K. ySao-tX), to which that
of converting the Jews is related as a supplemental accessory ; x
hence viG>v lap. is added with re (see Herm. ad Eur. Med. 4 f. ;
Klotz, ad Devar. p. 743 f. ; Winer, p. 404 [E. T. 542].
The yap, ver. 16, introduces the reason why He has rightly
called him cr/ceOo? e/c\oyij<i /c.r.X ; for I shall show him how
much he must suffer for my name (for its glorification, see on
v. 41). The e'yeo placed first has the force of the power of
disposal in reference to tr/cevos e/e\. poi earrlv : I 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 (comp. xx. 23, 25,
xxi. 11). But such revelations are only known from his later
ministry, whereas the experimental vTroSetft? commenced
immediately, and brought practically to the consciousness of
the apostle that he was to be that <ricevos e/cXoy?}? amidst much
suffering.
Vv. 17, 18. 'A$e\(j)e] here in the pregnant sense of the Chris-
tian brotherhood already begun. The 'lycrovs . . . rjpx ov > n t
to be considered as a parenthesis, and the Kal Tr\r)a-6. Trvevp.
dy. make it evident to the reader that the information and
direction of the Lord, ver. 15, was fuller. K. TrXyaO. TTV.
ay.] which then followed at the baptism, ver. 18. And im-
mediately there fell from his eyes (not merely : it was to him as
if there fell) as it were scales (comp. Tob. xi. 13). A scale-like
substance had thus overspread the interior of his eyes, and
this immediately fell away, so that he again saw evidently a
miraculous and sudden cure, which Eichhorn ought not to
have represented as the disappearance of a passing cataract
1 The apostle's practice of always attempting, first of all, the work of conver-
sion among the Jews is not contrary to this, as his destination to the conversion
of the Gentiles is expressly designated without excluding the Jews, and accord-
ingly was to be followed out without abandoning the historical course of salva-
tion : 'levSaia rt vepurat ai "Exxjv/, Rom. i. 16. And what Paul was to attain
in this way, entirely corresponds to the expression in our passage.
256 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
by natural means (fasting, joy, the cold hand of an old
man !). evia-^vaev] in the neuter sense : he became strong.
See Aristot. Etli. x. 9 ; 1 Mace. vii. 25 ; 3 Mace. ii. 32 ;
Test. XII. Pair. p. 533 ; and examples in Kypke, II. p. 44,
and from the LXX. in Schleusner, II. p. 3 6 7 f. Here of cor-
poreal strengthening.
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 lie was the Son of God. 1 This is
closely connected, and it is only with extreme violence that
Michaelis and Heinrichs have referred ver. 19 to the time
before the journey to Arabia (GaL i. 17), and ver. 20 to the
time after that journey. Pearson placed the Arabian journey
before ver. 19, which is at variance with the close his-
torical connection of w. 18 and 19; just as the connection
of vv. 2 1 and 2 2 does not permit its being inserted before
ver. 22 (Laurent). The eu^eco? in Gal. I.e. is decisive against
Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Sepp, p. 44 , and others, who
place this journey and the return to Damascus after ver. 25.
The Arabian excursion, which certainly was but brief, is his-
torically (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 rj^epat, licavai, ver. 23. Comp. on Gal. i. 17
and Introduction to Eomans, sec. 1. 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 (de Wette),
is without weight, as this hostile project may be placed after
the return from Arabia. 2 It is, however, to be acknowledged
1 a vSet t. 6(v occurs only here (xiii. 33 is a quotation from the 0. T.) in
the narrative of the Book of Acts. The historical fact is : Paul announced that
Jesus was the Messiah, see ver. 22. He naturally did not as yet enter on the
metaphysical relation of the Sonship of God ; but this is implied in the concep-
tion of Luke, when he from his fully formed Pauline standpoint uses this desig-
nation of the Messiah.
2 With this agrees also the ilfius, Gal. i. 16, which requires the Arabian
journey to be put very soon after the conversion, consequently at the very com-
mencement of the fifiipai ixaval, ver. 23. If this is done, that ill'ius is not
opposed to our view given above (in opposition to Zeller, p. 202).
CHAP. IX. 22-25. 257
(comp. Baur) 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 viii. 11), r]\ikpai licavai,
ver. 23 (comp. ver. 43, xviii. 18, xxvii. 7), is not sufficient.
lv rat? crvvaj.'] OVK pa^vveTO, Chrysostom. o iropOricras] see
on Gal. i. 13. /cat wSe /c.r.X.] and hither (to Damascus) Tie
had come for the object, that he, etc. How contradictory to his
conduct now ! 1 On the subjunctive 070777, see Winer, p. 270
[E. T. 359].
Vv. 22, 23. But Saul, in presence of such judgments,
became strong in his new work all the more (Nagelsb. on the
Iliad, p. 227, ed. 3). a-vve^vve'] made perplexed, put out of
countenance, e7re<rTo/uez>, OVK eia n etTrelv, Chrysostom. Comp.
on ii. 6. The form ^vvw instead of ^eco belongs to late Greek.
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 726. <7u/4/3t/3a.] proving. Comp.
1 Cor. ii. 16 ; Schleusner, Thes. s.v. ; Jamblich. 60. 77X17-
povvro, as in vii. 23. licavai, as in ver. 43, xviii. 18, xxvii. 7,
of a considerable time (Plat. Legg. p. 736 C), especially com-
mon with Luke.
Vv. 24, 25. II apery povvro Be /cai (see the critical remarks),
but they watched also, etc., contains what formed a special
addition to the danger mentioned in 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 ethnarch. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 33. More
artificial attempts at reconciliation are quite unnecessary.
Comp. "Wieseler, p. 142. ol ftaOyral avrov (see the critical
remarks), opposed to the 'lovSaiot, ver. 23. Saul had already
gained scholars among the Jews of Damascus ; they rescued
him from the plot of their fellow Jews (in opposition to
de Wette's opinion, that disciples of the apostle were out of
the question). Sia rov ra^ou?] through the wall : whether
an opening found in it, or the window of a building abutting
on the city- wall, may have facilitated the passage. The former
is most suited to the mode of expression. eV <nrvpi$i\ see
1 " Quasi dicereiit : At etiam Saul inter prophetas," 1 Sam. x. 11, Grotius.
ACTS. B
258 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
on Matt. xv. 37. On the spelling o-fapiSi, attested by C x,
see Lobeck, ad PJiryn. p. 113.
Vv. 26, 27. Three years after his conversion (GaL i. 18),
Paul went for the first time back to Jerusalem. 1 Thus long,
therefore, had his first labours at Damascus lasted, though
interrupted by the Arabian journey. For the connection
admits of no interruption between w. 25 and 26 (the flight,
ver. 25, and the vrapayevofj,. ere et? 'lepovcr., ver. 26, stand in
close relation to each other). Driven from Damascus, the
apostle very naturally and wisely directed his steps to the
mother-church in Jerusalem, in order to enter into connection
with the older apostles, particularly with Peter (Gal. i. 1 8).
rot? fjLadr}T.~\ to the Christians. /cat TraWe? e</>o/3.] /cat is the
simple and, which annexes the (unfavourable) result of the
eVetp. KO\\. TOW (J>a0. Observe, moreover, on this statement
(1) that it presupposes the conversion to have occurred not long
ago; (2) that accordingly the r^epat i/cavai, 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, cannot 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. 2
OTI early paO.'] to be accented with Rinck and Bornemann,
. Bapvd^a<;] see on iv. 36. Perhaps he was at an
1 According to Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 70 ff. , the journey to Jerusalem in
our passage is different from the journey in Gal. i. 18. The latter is to be
placed before ix. 26. But in that case the important journey, ix. 26, would be
left entirely unmentioned in the Epistle to the Galatians (for it is not to be
found at Gal. i. 22, 23), which is absolutely irreconcilable with the very object
of narrating the journeys in that Epistle.
* To explain the distrust from the enigmatically long disappearance and
re-emergence of the apostle (Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 98) is quite against the
context of the Book of Acts, in which the Arabian journey has no place. The
distrust may in some measure be explained from a long retirement in Arabia
(comp. Ewald, p. 403), especially if, with Neander and Ewald, we suppose also
a prolonged interruption of communication between Damascus and Jerusalem
occasioned by the war of Aretas, which, however, does not admit of being
verified.
CHAP. IX. 28-30. 259
-
earlier period acquainted with the apostle. eVtXa/3o/u,.]
graphically : he grasped him (by the hand), and led him ; avrov,
however, is governed by 777^76, for eTriXafifidveo-Oat is always
conjoined with the genitive. So in xvi. 19, xviii. 17. Comp.
Luke xiv. 4; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 140 [E. T. 160]. 737)09
Tot>9 a7rocrT.] an approximate and very indefinite 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 (Schneckenburger, Baur, Zeller,
Laurent, comp. Neander, p. 165; Lekebusch, p. 283), espe-
cially as Luke betrays no acquaintance with the special
design of the journey (icrropijaai, Ilerpov, Gal. l.c.\ 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 laroprjacu Herpov.
Kal StrjyrjaaTo] not Paul (so Beza and others), as already
Abdias, Hist. ap. ii. 2, 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.
ort] not o, ri. ev ro3 wop. T. 'Xr/a-oi)] the name the confes-
sion and the proclamation of the name of Jesus (as the
Messiah), was the element, in which the bold speaking (eirappr}-
(rida-aTo) had free course. 1 Comp. Eph. vi. 20.
Vv. 28-30. Mer avrwv ela"irop. K. eKTropJ] See on i. 21.
According to the reading et9 'lepova., and after deletion of the
following Kal (see the critical remarks), et's 'lepova: is to be
attached to Trappier. : He found himself in familiar intercourse
with them, while in Jerusalem lie spoke franldy and, freely in
the name of the Lord Jesus. Accordingly 649 'lepova: is to
be taken as in Kypvcra-eiv ei9 (Mark i. 39), \e<yeiv et9 (John
viii. 26), fjiapTvpetv ei9 (Acts xxiii. 11), and similar expressions,
where et9 amounts to the sense of coram. Comp. Matthiae,
578, 3 I; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 534. With e'XaXei re
K.T.\. (which is only to be separated from the preceding
by a comma) there is annexed to the general ets 'lepova:
1 From this is dated the ixa 'iiftufK>.rift *. *v'x fii%fi 'iMvfixtv, Kom. xv. 19.
260 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
irapp^ff. a special portion thereof, in which case, instead of the
participle, there is emphatically introduced the finite tense
(Winer, p. 533 [E. T. 717]). wyw row 'EXX^z/.] with
(against) the Greek -Jews, see on vi 1. eTre^elpovv avrov
avekelv] does not exclude the appearance of Christ, xxii. 17,
18, as Zeller thinks, since it is, on the contrary, the positive
fulfilment of the ov Trapa&egovrai /e.r.X. negatively announced
in chap. xxii. e^aTrevreCkav} 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 (see on viii. 40) 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 Kaio-dpeia 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.
Ver. 31. Ovv\ draws an inference from the whole history,
vv. 3-30 : in consequence of the conversion of the former
chief enemy and his transformation into the zealous apostle.
The description of the happy state of the church con-
tains two elements : (1) It had peace, rest from persecu-
tions, and, as its accompaniment, the moral state : becoming
edified (advancing in Christian perfection, according to the
habitual use of the word in the N. T.), and walking in the
fear of the Lord (dative of manner, as in xxi. 21 ; Bom.
xiii. 13 ; comp. on 2 Cor. xii. 18), i.e. leading a God-fearing
life, by which that edification exhibited itself in the moral
conduct. (2) It was enlarged, increased in the number of its
members (as in vi. 1, 7, vii. 17, xii. 24; hence not: it was
filled with, etc., Vulgate, Baumgarten, and others), "by the exhor-
CHAP. IX. 32-35. 261
tation (as in iv. 36, xiii. 15, xv. 31 ; Phil. ii. 1) of the Holy
Spirit, i.e. by the Holy Spirit through His awakening influence
directing the minds of men to give audience to the preaching of
the gospel (comp. xvi. 14). The meaning: comfort, consolation
(Vulgate and others), is at variance with the context, although
still adopted by Baumgarten. Observe, moreover, with the
correct reading 17 /Ltei/ ovv eK/cXfjcria K.T.\. the aspect of unity,
under which Luke, surveying the whole domain of Christendom,
comprehends the churches which had been already formed
(Gal. i. 22), and were in course of formation (comp. xvi. 5).
The external bond of this unity was 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 (XL 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 Chris-
tianity.
Vv. 32-35. 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 (comp.
also Wieseler, p. 146), in an entirely arbitrary manner, trans-
fers them to the time of the Arabian sojourn, and considers
the communication of the return to Jerusalem, at ix. 26 ff., as
anticipated. Bta -jravrcav] namely, TWV dyiwv, as necessarily
results from what follows. Comp. Eom. xv. 28. AvBSa, in
the O. T. Lod (I Chron. ix. 12 ; Ezra ii 33), a village re-
sembling a town (Joseph. Antt. xx. 6. 2; Bell. ii. 12. 6, iii.
3. 5), not far from the Mediterranean, near Joppa (ver. 38),
at a later period the important city of Diospolis, now the
village of Ludd. See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 35 ff. ; Eobinson,
III. 363 ff.; von Eaumer, p. 190 f. Alvkas was, according
to his Greek name, 1 perhaps a Hellenist ; whether he was a
Christian (as Kuinoel thinks, because his conversion is not
1 The name Ahias (not to be identified with that of the Trojan A'mlas) is also
found in Thuc. iv. 119. 1 ; Xen. Anab. iv. 7. 13, Hell. vii. 3. 1 ; Find. 01.
vi. 149. Yet Am; instead of Ainlai is found in a fragment of Sophocles
(342 D) for the sake of the verse.
202 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
afterwards related) or not (in favour of which is the anything
but characteristic designation avOpwirov TWO), remains undeter-
mined. laral ae\ actually, at this moment. 'I7;cro>9 o
Xpicrros] Jesus the Messiah. arpuaov treavTcS] Erroneously
Heumann, Kuinoel : " Lectum, quern tibi hactenus alii stra-
verunt, in posterum tute tibi ipse sterne." The imperative
aorist denotes the immediate fulfilment (Elmsl. ad Soph. Aj.
1180 ; Kiihner, II. p. 80) ; hence : make thy led (on the spot)
for 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. arprnvvv/u, used also in classical
writers absolutely (without evvds or the like), Horn. Od. xix.
598 ; Plut. Artax. 22. Saron, P'lB' 1 ] a very fruitful (Jerome,
ad Jes. xxxiii. 19) plain along the Mediterranean at Joppa,
extending to Caesarea. See Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 38 f. ;
Arnold in Herzog's EncyM. XI. p. 10. oirtve<s eVear/3. eVt
T. Kvp.~\ The aorist does not stand for the pluperfect, so that
the sense would be : all Christians (Kuinoel) ; but : and there
saw him (after his cure) all the inhabitants of Lydda and
Saron, they who (guippe 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 repre-
sented by iravres oi K.T.\. as a conversion of the population 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. Chrysostorn and Oecumenius adduce other
reasons.
Ver. 36. 'IOTTTT?;, )&, now Jaffa, an old, strong, and impor-
tant commercial 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. See Tobler,
Topogr. v. Jerus. II. p. 576 ff. ; Euetschi in Herzog's Encyld.
VII. p. 4 f. (jLaOtfrpia] whether virgin, widow, or wife, is
1 Not to be accented Sa^a, with Lachmann, but 'S.a.futa.. See Borneinann t
loc. Comp. Lobeck, Paralip. p. 555.
CHAP. IX. 37-39. 263
undetermined. 1 On this late Greek word (only here in the
N. T.), see Wetstein. Ta@i0d, Aramaic K^p, which cor-
responds to the Hebrew ^ (^a), i.e. Sopicds (Xen. Anab.
i. 5. 2; Eur. Bacch. 698; Ael. H. A. xiv. 14), a gazelle
(Bochart, Hieroz. I. p. 924 ff., II. p. 304) ; Buxtorf, Lex.
Talm. p. 848. It appears as a female name also in Greek
writers (Luc. Meretr. D. 9, Meleag. 61 f.), in Joseph. Bell. iv.
3. 5, and the Eabbins (Lightfoot, ad Matth. p. 39) ; 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 loveliness by comparison with gazelles.
KOI e\.er)fj,.~\ icai: and in particular. Comp. ver. 41. That
Tabitha was a deaconess (Thiersch, Sepp), is not implied in the
text ; there were probably not yet any such office-bearers at
that time.
Vv. 3 7, 3 8. Concerning the general ancient custom of wash-
ing the dead, see Dougtaei Anal. II. p. 77 ff., and Wetstein;
also Hermann, Privatalterth. 39. 5. ev vTrepuxci] 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 having usually served
as the chamber for the dead ; perhaps the room for privacy and
prayer was chosen in this particular instance, because they
from the very first thought to obtain the presence and agency
of Peter. fir] oicvrja-rjs /c.r.X] Comp. Num. xxii. 16. " Fides
non tollit cimlitatem verborum," Bengel. On the classical
oKveiv (only here in the N. T.), see Euhnk. ad Tim. p. 190;
Jacobs, ad Anthol. III. p. 894. Thou mayest not hesitate to
come to us. On Sie\0., comp. Luke ii. 1 5.
Ver. 39. The widows, the recipients of the ayadoov epj. tc.
e^erjfjLocr., ver. 36, exhibit to Peter the under and upper gar-
ments, which they wore 2 as gifts of the deceased, who herself,
1 But probably a widow. To this points ira.ff.i ,l xtf" of ver. 39 ; all the
widows of the church, who lamented their dead companion.
8 Observe the middle itr/Ss/xv. (only here in the N. T.), they exhibited on them
selves. There lay a certain self -consciousness, yea, a grateiol ostentation, in their
264 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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. 17 Jo/j/ea?] The proper name expressed in Greek is, as
the more 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 Wassenberg, to be
suspected.
Vv. 40-43. The putting out (comp. Matt. ix. 25 ; Mark
v. 40 ; Luke viii. 54) of all present took place in order to
preserve the earnestness of the prayer and its result from
every disturbing influence. TO a-w/jua] the dead body. See on
Luke xvii. 37. On avetcdOio-e, comp. Luke vii. 15. The
explanation of the fact as an awakening from apparent death (see
particularly Eck, Ver such d. Wundergesch. d. N. T. aus nattirl.
UTS. z. erkldren, p. 248 if.) 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 historical pre-
cedents in the raisings of the dead by Jesus. 1 Ewald's view
also amounts ultimately to an apparent death (p. 245), placing
the revival at that boundary-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 (comp.
also Zeller, p. 177f.); and that the very name Taftidd is
probably derived simply from the ?a\i6a KOVIM, Mark v. 40,
for Ta/3idd properly (?) denotes nothing but maiden. /cat]
and in particular. Ver. 42. eVi] direction of the faith, as in
xi. 17, xvi. 31, xxii. 19; Eom. iv. 24. Ver. 43. /Secret]
although the trade of a tanner, on account of its being
being able to show the pledges of her beneficence. See on the distinction between
the active and middle of 'uriSuxi., Kiihner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 21. Comp. also
Ast, Lex. Plat. I. p. 772.
1 Hence it is just as unnecessary as it is arbitrary to assume, with Lange,
apost. Zzita.lt. II. p. 129, that Tabitha had for a considerable time stood in
spiritual rapport with Peter, and that this was the vehicle of the reviving
agency.
CHAP. IX. 40-43. 265
occupied with dead animals, was esteemed unclean (Wetstein
and Schoettgen) ; which Peter now disregarded. The word
ySupo-eu? (in Artemidorus and others) has also passed into
the language of the Talmud ('DTO). The more classical
term is /3vpcroStyr)<;, Plat. Conv. p. 221 E; Aristoph. Pint.
166.
266 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTER X.
VER. 1. After rig, Elz. Scholz have r,v, which Lachm. Tisch. and
Born, have deleted. It is wanting in A B C E Gr K, min., in
the vss. and Theophyl. ; it was inserted (after ix. 36), because
the continuous construction of vv. 13 was mistaken. Almost
according to the same testimony the usual re, ver. 2, after KOIUV
is condemned as an insertion. Ver. 3. uat'i\ Lachm. and Born.
read uasi -rip/, after A B C E N, min. Dam. Theophyl. 2. Rightly ;
the Ktpi after uati was passed over as superfluous. Ver. 5.
After s/^wva read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., r/va, according to
ABC, min. Copt. Arm. Syr. p. (in the margin) Vulg. The in-
definite r/va appeared not suited to the dignity of the prince of
the apostles, and was therefore omitted. After ver. 6, Elz.
(following Erasm.) has olrog xXjj<re/ <ro/, ri ei dsTnottTv, which, ac-
cording to decisive testimony, is to be rejected as an interpolation
from ix. 6, x. 32. The addition, which some other witnesses
have instead of it : 05 XaX^ffe; pjj,a.ara irpo; as, ev o7$ auQqari G\> xu!
crag 6 oiKog eon, is from xi. 14. Ver. 7. at^p] Elz. has rSj Kopvi}-
Xfy, against decisive testimony. On similar evidence aurcD after
omr. (Elz. Scholz) is deleted. Ver. 10. auruv] So Lachm.
Born. Tisch. instead of the usual sxihuv, which has far prepon-
derant evidence against it, and was intended to remedy the
indefiniteness of the avruv. tireireetv] A B C K, min. Copt. Or.
have ly'evero, 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 fKeveetv (Clem. :
as its gloss. Ver. 11. After xara/Sa/voi/, Elz. has
ov, which is wanting in A B C** E K, min. vss. Or. Defended,
indeed, by Rinck (as having been omitted in conformity to xi. 5) ;
but the very notice xai faBtv ayjis l^w, xi. 5, has here produced
the addition IT' aurov as a more precise definition. fafapevov
xai] is wanting in A B C** E N, min. Arm. Aeth. Vulg. Or. Cyr.
Theodoret. Deleted by Lachm. But see xi. 5. Ver. 12. rfc
yv<i\ is wanting in too few witnesses to be regarded as spurious.
But Lachm. and Tisch. have it after Ip^tra, according to A B
C E N, min. vss. and Fathers. Rightly ; see xi. 6, from which
CHAP. x. 267
passage also the usual xai r dripfa before */ r& Ipirtra is inter-
polated, rd before Ipirtra, and Ksruvu is, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
to be deleted. Ver. 16. sMug] So Lachm. and Tisch. after
A B C E K, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But Elz. Scholz have vd'kiv,
which is introduced from xi. 10, although defended by Born,
(who places it after <mX.) on account of its appearing super-
fluous. Ver. 1 7. xai ido{j] Lachm. reads /5ou, after A B X, min. ;
but xaf was unnecessary, and might appear disturbing. Ver. 19.
fat4vftwpbw\ Elz. has svdvp. against decisive evidence. Neglect
of the double compound, elsewhere not occurring in the N. T.
avdpss] Elz. Lachm. Scholz add to this rpsTg, which is wanting in
D Gr H min. vss. and Fathers. An addition, after ver. 7, xi. 11 ;
instead of which B has 3uo (ver. 7), which Buttmann in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1860, p. 357, unsatisfactorily defends by the arti-
ficial assumption not confirmed by the expression in ver. 8
that the soldier was only taken with him as escort and atten-
dant. Ver. 20. Instead of 6Y/, Elz. has 61671, against decisive
evidence. Ver. 21. After avdpag, Elz. has rovg a^eera^fievous
a<?rb rov KopvqXiou irpbg avrov, against A B C D E G N, min. and
most vss. Chrys. An addition, because ver. 2 1 commences a
church-lesson. Ver. 23. dvaardc] is wanting in Elz., but is
just as certainly protected by decisive testimony, and by its
being apparently superfluous, as 6 Tl'erpog, which in Elz. stands
before eg5jX0s, is condemned by A B C D X, min. and several
vss. as the subject written on the margin. Ver. 25. roD tic^\-
6eTv\ Elz. has merely eiffeMsTv. But D is found in A B C E G tf,
inin. Chrys. Bas. Theophyl. See the exegetical remarks.
Born, reads ver. 25 thus : vpoinyyifyvns os rov Htrpov tig rqv Kai-
Trpodpaftuv tTg ruv SouX&jv disffdtprjffiv 'ffapaytyovsva.i avrov' o 31
Iwrfirfiuc, xal cvvavrqffag avrGJ vrzffuv rtpbg rovg wodctg irpoffs-
avrov, only after D, Syr. p. (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 JI/CCTJJV, Elz.
has upav, which, according to preponderant testimony, is to be
rejected as a supplementary addition. Lachm. has also deleted
vyffTsvav xai, after some important codd. (including K) and several
vss. But the omission is explained by there being no mention
of fasting in ver. 3. Ver. 32. og -Trapaytvo/j,. XaX^ffs/ aoi] is want-
ing in Lachm., after A B N, min. Copt. Aeth. Vulg. But the
omission took place in accordance with ver. 6. Ver. 33. Instead
of wro', read, with Lachm. Tisch. Born, according to prepon-
derating evidence, aero' (E vapd}. Instead of soD, Lachm. and
Tisch. have xup/ou, according to predominant attestation ; Qeov is a
mechanical repetition from the preceding, in which the reading
268 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
. ffou (Born.) is, on account of too weak attestation, to be
rejected. Ver. 36. ov] is wanting in A B N**, lo- Copt. Sahid.
Aeth. Vulg. Ath. Deleted by Lachm. ; but the omission very
naturally suggested itself, in order to simplify the construction.
Ver. 37. ap^dpevov] A C D E H X, min. have dp^dpti/og, which
Lachm. has on the margin. A D Vulg. Cant. Ir. add yap, which
Lachm. puts in brackets. Born, has ap^dpsvos yap. But dp%d-
fttvov is necessary, according to the sense. Ver. 39. After
tips?*;, Elz. has sffftsv, against decisive testimony. A supple-
mentary addition. Ver. 42. avrog] B C D E G, min. Syr. utr.
Copt. Sahid. have ourog. Eecommended by Griesb. and adopted
by Lachm. and Born. An erroneous correction. See the exe-
getical remarks. Ver. 48. avrovi\ alrofg is neither strongly
enough attested (A X), nor in accordance with the sense. rov
xvpiov] A B E K, min. vss. Fathers have 'lycov Xpisrov. So
Lachm. An alteration, in order to denote the specific character
of the baptism more definitely, Hence some codd. and vss.
have both together. So Born, after D.
Vv. 1, 2. Kaiaapela] See on viii. 40. The centurion was
of 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 Eoman auxiliary corps was
appropriately stationed at the place where the procurator had
his residence, for the maintenance of tranquillity. See Schwarz,
de coTwrte Italica et Augusta, Altorf. 1720 ; Wieseler, Chronol.
p. 145, and Beitrdge z. Wurdig. d. Evangelien, 1869, p. 327 f.
evae/3r)<; K. foflovpevos r. eov] pious and fearing God. The
latter is the more precise definition of the more general euae/rfy'?.
Cornelius was a Gentile, who, discontented with polytheism, had
turned his higher interest towards Judaism, and satisfied a
deeper pious want 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 (de pietate
Cornelii, Eostoch. 1701), Deyling, Hammond, Wolf, Ernesti,
Ziegler, Paulus, Olshausen, Neander, Lechler, and Eitschl, as
CHAP. x. i, 2. 269
& proselyte of the gate} But this is at variance with w. 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 belonged to the communion of the theocracy, and had
ceased to be non-Jews like absolute foreigners. See Ewald,
Alterth. p. 313; Keil, ArcMol. I. p. 317. And all the
great importance which this event has in a connected view of
the Book of Acts, has as its basis the very circumstance that
Cornelius was a Gentile. Least of all can his proselytism be
proved from the expression fofiovpevos rbv Qeov itself, as the
general literal meaning of this expression can only be made l>y
ike, context (as xiii. 1 6, 2 6) 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 proselyte at all had been converted to Chris-
tianity, which, even apart from the conversion of the Ethiopian,
chap.viii., is considering the many thousand converts of which
the church already consisted incredible, particularly as often
very many were admitted simultaneously (ii. 41, iv. 4), and
as certainly the more unprejudiced proselytes were precisely
the most inclined to join the new theocracy. Accordingly
the great step which the new church makes in its develop-
ment at chap. x. consists in this, that by divine influence the
first Gentile, who did not yet belong to the Jewish, theocratic
state, becomes 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 (Neander,
p. 115 f.), leads to deviations from the narrative, and to
1 Selden, de jure nat. ii. 3 (whom de Wette follows), has doubted, but without
sufficient reason, the existence of "IJ?$n ^3 in the proper sense, after the
Captivity.
270 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
violences which are absolutely rejected by the text. See, on
the other hand, Zeller, p. 179 ff., and Baumgarten. The
view which rejects the historical reality of the narrative, and
refers it to a set purpose in the author (Baur, Zeller), seeks
its chief confirmation in the difficulties which the direct ad-
mission of the Gentiles had for long still to encounter, in what
is narrated in chap, xv., and in the conduct of Peter at
Antioch, Gal. ii. 11 ff. (comp. also Schwegler, nachapostol.
Zeitalt. I. p. 127 ff.; Gfrorer, heil. Sage, I. p. 415; Holtz-
mann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 679 f.). But, on the other
hand, it is to be observed, that not even miracles are able at
once to remove in the multitude deeply rooted national pre-
judices, and to dispense with the gradual progress of psycho-
logical 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 (see Ewald, p. 250 ff. ; Eitschl, altkath. K. p. 138 ff.) ;
and that Peter's conduct at Antioch, with a character so acces-
sible to the impressions of the moment (comp. the denial), is
psychologically intelligible as a temporary obscuration of his
better conviction once received by way of revelation, at
variance with his constant conduct on other occasions (see on
Gal. ii. 1 4), and therefore by no means necessitates the presup-
position that the extraordinary divine disclosure and guidance,
which our passage narrates, are unhistorical. Indeed, the
reproach which Paul makes to Peter at Antioch, presupposes
the agreement in principle between them in respect to the
question of the Gentiles ; for Paul designates the conduct of
Peter as vTroicpia-is, Gal. ii. 13.
Ver. 3. ElSev is the verb belonging to dvrjp . . . Kopvrj\.,
ver. 1, and e/caroi/r. . . . SiairavTos is in apposition to
Kopvij\. 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 re-
spect for Judaism), i.e. a manifestation of God made so as to be
clearly perceptible to the inner sense of the pious man, con-
veyed by the medium of a clear (^cw/epw?) angelic appearance
CHAP. X. 4. 271
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 : e//.<o/3o9 ^evop,. and rl eari, icvpie. Comp.
Luke xxiv. 5. Eichhorn rationalized the narrative to the
effect that Cornelius, full of longing to become acquainted
with the distinguished 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 elevation 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, uncertain 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 wael Trepl a>p. evdr.
(see the critical remarks) : as it were about the ninth hour.
Circumstantiality of expression. See Bornemann in loc.
Ver. 4. J5i9 fjivrj/jioo-vvov eVcoTT. T. @eoO] is to be taken
together, and denotes the aim or the destination of dvefiycrav
(comp. Matt. xxvi. 13) : to be a mark, i.e. a token of remem-
brance, 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 con-
sideration with God ; He will fulfil the former l and reward
the latter." See ver. 31. aveftya-av is strictly suited only
to at 7rpo<rev%ai, which, according to the figurative embodiment
of the idea of granting prayer, ascend from the heart and
mouth of man to God (comp. Gen. xviii. 2 ; Ex. ii. 23 ;
1 Mace. v. 31); 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 (Wolf,
1 Assuredly from the heart of the devout Gentile there had arisen for the most
part prayers for higher illumination and sanctification of the inner life ; probably
also, seeing that Christianity had already attracted so much attention in that
region, prayers for information regarding this phenomenon bearing so closely
on the religious interests of the man. Perhaps the thought of becoming a
Christian was at that very time the highest concern of his heart, in which case
only the final decision was yet wanting.
272 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Bengel, Eichhorn, and others) that ave{3. is based on the Jewish
notion (Tob. xii. 12, 15 ; Eev. viii. 4) that prayers are carried
by the angels to the throne of God, is as arbitrarily imported
into the text as is the view (Grotius, Heinrichs, and others)
that ei9 pvr)p6<rvvov signifies instar sacriftcii (comp. on the
idea, Ps. cxli. 2), because, forsooth, the LXX. express nnsTN by
fj,vr)fjt,6o-vvov, Lev. ii 2, 9, 16, v. 12, vi. 15 ; Num. v. 26 ;
comp. Ecclus. xxxii 7, xxxviii. 11, xlv. 16. In all these
passages the sense of a memorial-q^m'Tw? is necessarily deter-
mined by the context, which is not the case here with the
simple avej3r)<rav. On the relation of the good works of
Cornelius to his faith, Gregory the Great, in Ez. Horn. 19,
already correctly remarks 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 Testament faith in Jesus as the Messiah who had
appeared. 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
[Mediterranean] sea, and probably apart from the city, to
which his house belonged (" Cadavera et sepulcra separant et
coriarium quinquaginta cubitos a civitate." Surenh. Mischn.
XL 9. Comp. Artemid. 1 53). See Walch, de Simone coriario,
Jen. 1757. The TWO, is added to ^i^wva (see the critical
remarks) from the standpoint of Cornelius, as to him Peter was
one unknown. euo-e/3?}] the soldier, one of the men of the
cohort specially attached and devoted to Cornelius (rwv TT/JOCT-
Kapr. avrw), had the same religious turn of mind as his
master, ver. 2. On TrpocrtcapT., comp. viii. 13 ; Dem. 1386. 6 :
depcnraiva*; ras Neatpa Tore irpoa-Kaprepovcrai. Polyb. xxiv.
5. 3.
Vv. 9, 10. On the following day (for Joppa was thirty
miles from Caesarea), shortly before the arrival of the messen-
gers of Cornelius at Peter's house, the latter was, by means
of a vision effected by divine agency in the state of ecstasy,
CHAP. X. 11-13. 273
prepared for the unhesitating acceptance of the summons of
the Gentile ; while the feeling of hunger, with which Peter
passed into the trance, serv'ed the divine revelation as the
medium of its special form. eVt TO Sw/za] for the flat roofs
(comp. Luke v. 19, xii. 3, xvii. 31) were used by the Hebrews
for religious exercises, prayers, and meditations. Winer, Eealw.
s.v. Dach. Incorrectly Jerome, Luther, Pricaeus, Erasmus,
Heinrichs, hold that the virepwov is meant. At variance with
N. T. usage ; even the Homeric St//,a (kail) was something
different (see Herm. Privatalterth. 19. 5); and why should
Luke not have employed the usual formal word wrepwov (i. 1 3,
14, ix. 37, 39, xx. 8) ? Moreover, the subsequent appear-
ance is most in keeping with an abode in the open air.
CKTTJV] See on iii. 1. Trpoo-Traz/o?, hungry, is not elsewhere pre-
served ; the Greeks say TreiraXeo?. r^eXe ryeucraa-dai] he had
the desire to eat (for examples of the absolute yevaaadai, see
Kypke, II. p. 47) and in this desire, whilst the people of the
house (avrwv) were preparing food (Trapaa-tcevaZovrwv, see
Eisner, Obss. p. 408 ; Kypke, I.e.) the eWrao-t? came upon him
(eyevero, see the critical remarks), by which is denoted the in-
voluntary setting in of this state. Comp. v. 5, 11 ; Luke i. 65,
i v. 3 7. The eW-rao-t? itself is the waking but not spontaneous state,
in which a man, transported out of the lower consciousness (2 Cor.
xii. 2, 3) and freed from the limits of sensuous restriction as well
as of discursive thought, apprehends with his higher pneumatic
receptivity divinely presented revelations, whether these reach the
inner sense through visions or otherwise. Comp. Graf in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1859, p. 265 ff. ; Delitzsch, Psychol p. 285.
Vv. 11-13. Observe the vividly introduced historical present
Oewpel. retra-apa-tv appals SeSe//-.] attached with four ends,
namely, to the edges of the opening which had taken place
in heaven. Chap. xi. 5 requires this explanation, not the
usual one : " bound 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
ACTS. s
274 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
as pointing to the four quarters of the world), looking like a
colossal four-cornered linen-cloth (oQovrj), letting itself down,
while the corners attached to heaven support the whole. On
ap^ai, extremitates, see Jacobs, ad Anthol. XI. p. 50. iravra
ra rerpaTToSa] 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 oveeOo? (eV w vTrrjp^e) all
four-footed beasts, reptiles, and birds (all kinds of them) without
exception. 1 In a strangely arbitrary manner Kuinoel, after
Calovius and others, holds that these were only unclean
animals. See on ver. 1 4. rov ovpavov} See on Matt. vi. 26.
avaa-Ta<;] Perhaps Peter lay during the trance. Yet it
may also be the mere call to action : arise (ix. 11, 39, viii. 26,
and frequently; comp. on viii. 26). Qva-ov] occide (Vulg.),
slay, not: sacrifice, as 1 Mace. i. 47 (Thiersch), see ver. 10.
Vv. 14-16. Peter correctly recognises in the summons
6v(rov K. <f>dye, ver. 1 3, 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 only unclean animals were seen in the vessel,
his strongly declining /z^Sayiwu? Kvpie ! This Kvpte is the
address to the to him unknown author of the voice, not to
Christ (Schwegler, Zeller). Concerning the animals which
the Jews were forbidden to eat, see Lev. xi. ; Deut. xiv. 1 ff. ;
Ewald, Alterth. p. 194 ff.; Saalschiitz, MOB. E. p. 251 ff.
ort ouSeTTore e<payov irav KOIVOV rj aKa9apr.~\ for never ate I
anything common or unclean (the Talmudic XEB IS ^IDB), i.e.
for any profane thing I have always left uneaten, rj does
not stand for /ecu (which Lachm. and Tisch. read, after A B K,
min. vss. Clem. Or. ; perhaps correctly, see xi. 8), but appends
for the exhaustion of the idea another synonymous expression.
Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 277 ; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p.
1 That fishes (those without fins and scales were forbidden) are not included
in the vision, is explained from the fact that the <rxivos was like a cloth. Fishes
would have been unsuitable for this, especially as the animals were presented
as living (Sum). According to Lange, it is "perhaps a prophetic omission,
wherein there is already floating before the mind the image of fishes as the souls
to be gathered." A fanciful notion.
CHAP. X. 14-16. 275
xl. f. KOIVOS = Pej3r)\o<; ; the opposite of ayios (Ezek. xlii. 20).
Kal $a)vr{] and, a voice (not r/ ^xavrj, because here other words
were heard) came again the second time to him (iraktv etc
Sevrepov, pleonastically circumstantial ; see on Matt. xxvi. 42 ;
comp. on John iv. 54). a o eo? e/caQdpicre, crv /AT; /coivov]
what God has cleansed, make not thou common (unclean). The
miraculous appearance with the divine voice (ver. 13) had
done away the Levitical uncleanness of the animals in
question ; they were now divinely cleansed ; and thus Peter
ought not, by his refusal to obey that divine bidding, to invest
them with the character of what is unholy to transfer them
into the category of the KOIVOV (Eom. xiv. 14). This were man's
doing in opposition to God's deed. eVt T/H<?] for thrice, which
" ad conjirmationem valuit " (Calvin) ; iiri denotes the terminus
ad quern. Bernhardy, p. 252. Comp. e's rph, Herod, i. 86 ;
Xen. Anal), vi. 4. 1 6 ; and Wetstein. The object aimed at in
the whole vision 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 eo?
Ka0dpi<re stand to the likewise divine institution of the Levitical
laws about food ? This is not answered by reference to " the
effected and accomplished redemption, which is regarded as a
restitution of the whole creation" (Olshausen), for this re-
storation is only promised for the world-period commencing
with the Parousia (iii. 20 ; Matt. xix. 28 : Eom. viii. 19 ff.);
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 (ver. 35 ; Eom. iii. ; Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. iii. 11 ; John
x. 16). Comp. Matt. xv. 17, 18. The abolition therefore
does not conflict with Matt. v. 17, but belongs to the fulfil-
ment of the law effected by Christ, by which the distinction
'276 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
of clean and unclean was removed from the Levitical domain
and (comp. Eom. ii. 28, 29) raised into the sphere of the
moral idea. See also on Eom. xv. 14 ; Matt. v. 17.
Vv. 1720. The eWrao-19 was now over. But when Peter
was very doubtful in himself what the appearance, which he had
seen, might mean (comp. Luke viii. 9, xv. 26). 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. ei/ eaurw] i.e. in his own reflection, con-
trasted with the previous ecstatic condition. 8477770/3.] as in
v. 24, ii. 12. fcal ISov] See on i. 10. eVt rov 7rv\cova]
at the door. See on Matt. xxvi. 71. favrjo-avTes] Kuinoel
quite arbitrarily : " sc. riva, ewcato quopiam, quod Judaei
domum intrare 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 inhabitants of the house, who could not but hear the
calling. That Peter had 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. d\\a dvacrras Kard^rjdi] d\\d with the im-
perative denotes nothing more than the adversative at. " Men
seek thee : but (do not let yourself be sought for longer and
delay not, but rather) arise (as ver. 13) and go down." The
requisition with d\\d breaks off the discourse and renders
the summons more urgent. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 370 ;
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 17 f. prjSev Sia/cpivofj,.'] in no respect
(Jak. i. 6 ; Bernhardy, p. 336) wavering (see on Eom. iv. 20) ;
for I, etc. The irvev^a designates Himself as the sender of
the messengers, inasmuch as the vision (vv. 37) did not
ensue without the operation of the divine Spirit, and the
latter was thus the cause of Cornelius sending the messengers.
eyca] with emphasis. Chrysostom rightly calls attention
to the icvpiov and the i^ovaia of the Spirit.
CHAP. X. 22-25. 277
Vv. 22-25. MapTvpovfji.'] as in vi. 3. e^p^ar.] See
on Matt. ii. 12. 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)
companions 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 (w. 8, 9),
and had passed the 'night with him (ver. 23), so that now (ry
eiravptov, ver. 24) it was the fourth day since their departure
from Caesarea. Cornelius expected 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 (TOV?
avaytc. <f>l\ovs, see Wetstein ; Kypke, II. p. 50). w? Se
vyevero TOV elae\deiv TOV IT.] lut when it came to pass that Peter
entered. This construction is to be regarded as a very in-
accurate, improper application of the current infinitive with
rov. No comparison with the Hebrew Nto? wji, Gen. xv. 12
(Gesenius, Lehrgebr. p. 787), is to be allowed, because W does
not stand absolutely, but has its subject beside it, and because
the LXX. has never imitated this and similar expressions
(Gesenius, I.e.) by eyevero TOV. The want of corresponding
passages, and the impossibility of rationally explaining the
expression, mark it as a completely isolated 1 error of language,
which Luke either himself committed or adopted from his
original source, and not (in opposition to Fritzsche, ad Matth.
p. 848, and Einck, Luculr. crit. p. 64) as a corruption of the
transcribers, seeing that the most important witnesses decide
in favour of TOV, and its omission in the case of others is evi-
dently a correction. Comp. now also Winer, p. 307 [E. T. 412].
1 Even at Rev. xii. 7 it is otherwise, as there, if we do not accede to the con-
jecture of D lister dieck, lymromust be again mentally supplied with <5 M/^>)X, but
in the altered meaning : there came forward, there appeared (comp. on Mark
i. 4 ; John L 6), so that it is to be translated : And there came (i.e. there set in,
there resulted) war in heaven : Michael came, and his angels, in order to wage
war. Among Greek writers also, as is well known, the verb to be repeated in
thought is often to be taken in an altered meaning. Comp. e.g. Plat. Rep.
p. 471 C, and Stallb. in loc. Least of all will such a supplement occasion diffi-
culty in a prophetic representation, which is often stiff, angular, and abrupt iu
its delineation (as especially in Isaiah).
278 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
eVt r. TroSa?] at the feet of Peter. Comp. Luke viii.
41, xvii. 16; Mark v. 22 ; John xi. 32, al. Trpoa-eKuvqae]
See on Matt. ii. 2. 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. 2629. Kay<a avTos] also I myself, I also for mine own
part, not otherwise than you. See on Rom. vii. 25.
crwo/uX avro)] in conversation ivith him. The word occurs
elsewhere in Tzetz. Hist. iii. 377, <7wo/uXo? in Symm. Job
xix. 19. elarfkOe] namely, into the room. In ver. 25, on
the other hand, rov el<re\.6elv r. II. was meant of the entrance
by the outer door into the house. Ye know how (how very)
unallowed it is, etc. ade/jMTov] (2 Mace. vi. 5) is a later
form (Plut, Dion. Hal., etc., 1 Pet. iv. 3) for the old classical
aOepurrov (Herod, vii. 33 ; Xen. Mem. i. 1. 9, Cyrop. i. 6. 6).
The prohibition to enter into closer fellowship with men of
another tribe, 1 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 people of God
contrasted with the unholy heathen (Ewald, Alterth. p. 310),
and pervades the later Judaism with all the force of contempt
for the Gentiles (see, e.g., Lightfoot on Matt, xviii. 1 7). The
passage Matt, xxiii. 5, and the narrative of the conversion
of Izates king of Adiabene in Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 4 f., 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 invalidated by exceptional cases (as Josephus
l.c.~) and by abuses (as in the making of proselytes, Matt. I.e.).
Not even if Cornelius had been a proselyte of the gate (but
see on w. 1, 2) could the historical character of the saying
be reasonably doubted ; for the Eabbinical passages adduced
with that view (according to which the proselyte is to regard
1 The classical aXXapi/A.^ is not elsewhere found in the N. T., but often in the
LXX. and Apocr. The designation is here tenderly forbearing. It is otherwise
in ver. 45, xi. 3.
CHAP. X. 30. 279
himself as a member of the theocracy, as Schemoth Rdbba
19 f., 118. 3, ad Ex. xii. 3) apply only to complete converts
(proselytes of righteousness, comp. Sohar p. 22. 27 : "quamvis
factus sit proselytus, attamen nisi observet praecepta legis,
habendus adhuc est pro ethnico"), and are, moreover, out-
weighed by other expressions of contempt towards proselytes,
as, e.g., Babyl. Niddah f. 13. 2 : " Proselyti sunt sicut scabies
Israeli." It is erroneous to derive the principle which Peter
here expresses from Pharisaism (Schoettgen), or to limit it to
an intentional going in quest of them (Hofmann, Schriftbew. II.
2, p. 39), or, according to xi. 3, to the eating (Ebrard, Lange,
Ewald), which must have been made clear from the context.
dvavTipprjr.] without contradiction, Polyb. xxiii. 8. 11, vi. 7. 7,
xxviii. 11. 4. Comp. avavriXeKTox;, Lucian. Col. 6, Conviv. 9.
" Sanctum fidei silentium," Calvin. fcal e'//,ot o @eo? e'Set^e]
Contrast to v/iet? fairiffreurOe. 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. Comp. Bornemann, Schol.
in Luc. p. 102; Hartung, Partikell. II. p. 147; Kiihner, ad
Xen. Mem. iii. 7. 6. Very often so in John. The o 0eo?
eSeife took place through the disclosure by means of the
vision, ver. 3 ff., the allegorical meaning of which Peter under-
stood. ftySeva K.T.\.~] namely, in and for itself. rtvt Xcfyw]
with what reason, i.e. wherefore. See examples from classical
writers in Kypke. Comp. on Matt. v. 32. The dative de-
notes the mediate cause. Comp. Plat Gorg. p. 512 C : rlvi
Si/cato) \o<yq) rov ^rj-^avoTroLov Karatypoveis ;
Ver. 3 0. The correct view is that which has been the usual
one since Chrysostom (held 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 hour, airo rerdprr}^ r/fj,epa<; is quarto dbhinc
die, on the fourth day from the present (counting backwards),
and the expression is to be explained as in John xi. 18, xxi. 8 ;
Eev. xiv. 20 (see Winer, p. 518 f. [E. T. 697 f.]. Comp.
Ex. xii. 15, airo T?}9 yrpunrfi fjjjiepas : 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
280 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 continued up to the very
hour of that day, which it now was ; and in connection 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, teal IBov K.T.\. Incorrectly, Heinrichs, Neander,
de Wette render : For four days I fasted until this hour
(when the vision occurred, namely, the ninth hour), etc.
Against this view it may be decisively urged that in this way
Cornelius would not specify at all the day on which he had the
vision, and that ravrr}^ cannot mean anything else than the
present hour. evunr. r. 0eoO] Ver. 3. Rev. xvi. 19. The
opposite, Luke xii. 6.
Ver. 33. 'Evd>7nov rov rcvpiov (see critical remarks), nirp ^27,
in conspectu Dei. Cornelius knows that it is God, who so
wonderfully arranged everything, before whose eyes this
assembly in the house stands. He knows Him to be present
as a witness. CLTTO (see the critical remarks), on the part of,
divinitus. See Winer, p. 347 f. [E. T. 463].
Vv. 34, 35. ^Avoi^a^ K.T.\.] as in viii. 35. With truth (so
that this insight, which I have obtained, is true ; comp. on
Mark xii. 14, and Fritzsche, Quaest. Luc. p. 137 ff.) I perceive
that God is not partial, allowing Himself to be influenced by
external relations not belonging to the moral sphere ; Imt
in every nation he that feareth Him and worJceth Tightness
(acts rightly, comp. Ps. xv. 2 ; Heb. xi. 33 ; Luke i. 20 ; the
opposite, Matt. vii. 23) 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 convic-
tion, denies in general that, as regards this acceptance, God goes
to work in any way partially ; and, on the other hand, affirms
in particular that in every nation (dv re a/cpofiva-Tos eo-nv, av
re e/ATre/jiTo/io?, Chrysostom), etc. To take this contrast, ver. 35,
as no longer dependent on OTI, but as independent (Luther,
Castalio, and many others), makes its importance the more
strongly apparent. What is meant is the ethico-religious
preliminary frame requisite for admission into Christianity,
CHAP. X. 36-38. 281
which must be a state of fellowship with God similar to the
piety of Cornelius and his household, however different in
appearance and form according to the degree of earlier know-
ledge 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 salvation,
which is absolutely independent of difference of nationality.
The general truth of the proposition, as applied even to the
undevout and sinners among Jews and Gentiles, rests on the
necessity of f^erdvoia as a preliminary condition of admission
(ii. 38, iii. 19, al.}. It is a misuse of this expression when,
in spite of ver. 43, it is often adduced as a proof of the super-
fluousness of faith in the specific doctrines of Christianity ;
for Se/ero? avrq) ecm in fact denotes (ver. 36 ff.) the capa-
bility, in relation to God, of becoming a Christian, and not
the capability of being saved without Christ. Bengel rightly
says : " non indifferentismus religionum, sed indifferentia
nationum hie asseritur." Eespecting Trpoo-coTroX^TTT^?, not
found elsewhere, see on GaL ii. 6.
Vv. 3643. After this general declaration regarding the
acceptableness for Christianity, Peter now prepares those pre-
sent for its actual acceptance, by shortly explaining the charac-
teristic 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 Eisen
One (vv. 40-42) ; and finally, (3) mentions the prophetic
prediction, which indicates Jesus as the universal Eeconciler
by means of faith on Him (ver. 43). Comp. Seyler in the
Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 55 f.
Vv. 36-38. The correct construction is, that we take the
three accusatives: rov \6yov, ver. 36, TO yevop. pipa, ver. 37,
and 'Irja-oi/v rw airo Na&p., ver. 38, as dependent on v/Aefr
otSare, ver. 37, and treat oro9 eVrt TrdvTwv itvpios as a
parenthesis. Peter, namely, in the TOV \oyov already has the
vpeif oiSare in view ; but he interrupts himself by the in-
sertion OUTO<? . . . KvpLos, arid now resumes the thought begun
in ver. 36, in order to carry it out more amply, and that in
282 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
such a way that he now puts vpeis oiSare first, and then attaches
the continuation in its extended and amplified form by 'Irjaovv
rov airo Na. by way of apposition. The message, which He
(God, ver. 35) sent to the Israelites (comp. xiii. 26), when He
made known salvation through Jesus Christ (He is Lord of all /)
ye know the, word, which, went forth through all Judaea, having
begun from Galilee after the baptism which John preached
Jesus of Nazareth (ye know), how God anointed Him (con-
secrated Him to be the Messianic King, see on iv. 27) with
the Holy Spirit and 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, parti-
cularly at this urgent moment of extraordinary and profound
emotion. Comp. on Eph. ii. 1 ; Winer, p. 525 [E. T. 706].
The most plausible objection to this construction is that of
Bengel (comp. de Wette) : " Noverant auditores historiam, de
qua mox, non item rationes interiores, de quibus hoc versu."
But the contents of the ^0705 is, in fact, stated by elprjvrjv Sta
'I. X. so generally and, without its rationes interiores, so purely
historically, that in that general shape it could not be anything
strange to hearers, to whom that was known, which is said in
w. 37 and 38. Erasmus, Er. Schmid, Homberg, Wolf, Heu-
mann, Beck (Obss. crit. exeg., I. p. 1 3), Heinrichs, Kuinoel make
the connection almost as we have given it; but they attach
L//,et5 o'iBare to rov \o<yov, and take TO yevo/j,evov prj/j-a as ap-
position to rbv \6jov, by which, however, ovros eari rcavrwv
icvpios makes its weight, in keeping with the connection, far
less sensibly felt than according to our view, tinder which it
by the very fact of its high significance as an element breaks
off the construction. Others refer TOV \6jov ov tc.r.\. to what
precedes, in which case, however, it cannot be taken either as for
ov \6yov (Beza, Grotius ; comp. Bengel and others), or with
Olshausen, after Calvin and others, for Kara rov \6yov ov K.r.\, ;
but would have, with de Wette (comp. Baumgarten and Lange),
to be made dependent on Kara\a^., or to be regarded as an
appositional addition (Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 134 [E. T. 153]), and
consequently would be epexegetical of ori OVK ecrri . . . Se/cro?
avru> e'cru. In this case eiprjvv) would have to be understood
CHAP. X. 36-38. 283
of peace "between Jews and Gentiles. But even apart from this
inadmissible explanation of elprjvrjv (see below), the Xo7o? 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 expressed only the universally requisite first step
towards Christianity. Moreover, 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 in the Stud. u. Krit. 1850, p. 401 ff., likewise
attaching it to what precedes, explains thus : he is in so far
acceptable to him, as he has the destination of receiving the
message of salvation in Christ ; so that thus evayye\i%. would
be passive (Luke vii. 22 ; Heb. iv. 2, 6), and rov \6yov, as
also eiptfvijv, would be the object to it. But this is linguis-
tically incorrect, inasmuch as it would require at least the
infinitive instead of vayye\i%6fj,vo<; ; and besides, vayye\tofj.ai
n, there is something proclaimed to me, is foreign to the N. T.
usage. Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 1 5 1 f., gives the meaning :
" Every one who fears God and does right, by him the gospel
may he accepted ; " so that rov \6<yov would stand by attraction
for o \0705, which is impossible (in 1 Pet. ii. 7 it is other-
wise). According to Ewald, p. 248, rov \6jov K.T.\. is intended
to he nothing but an explanation to Btiuuotrvvijv. A view
which is the more harsh, the further r. \6jov stands removed
from 8t,Kaio<r., the less rov \6yov ov K.T.\. coincides as regards
the notion of it with SiKaioa-., and the more the expression
ep<ydea-0ai \6yov is foreign to the N. T. elprjvrjv is explained
by many (including Heinrichs, Seyler, de Wette) of peace
between Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 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 = DW, salvation, and the whole Messianic
salvation is meant, which God has made known through Christ
to the children of Israel ; not specially peace with God (Rom.
v. 1, Calovius, and others), which yet is the basis of salvation.
284 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Comp. on Eom. x. 15. Bia 'I. X. belongs to eva<yy., not to
elpqvrjv (Bengel and others) ; for evajy. elp. Sia 'I. X. contains
the more precise explanation of the rov \6y. ov arckar., con-
sequently must also designate Jesus as the sent of God, through
whom the ^0705 is brought. navru>v\ not neuter (Luther and
others), but masculine. Christ is Lord of all, of Jews and
Gentiles, like God Himself (Eom. iii. 29, x. 12), whose crvv-
Opovos He is; comp. Eom. x. 12, xiv. 9; Eph. iv. 5 f. The
aim of this emphatically, added remark is to make the universal
destination of the word primarily sent to the Jews to be felt
by the Gentile hearers, who were not to regard themselves as
excluded by ov arre<rr. rot? viois 'Icrp. Comp. ver. 43.
/3%ta] word, not the things (de Wette and older expositors),
which it does not mean even in v. 32 ; Luke ii. 15. Comp.
on Matt. iv. 4. It resumes the preceding rov \6<yov. On
yevofj,., comp. Luke iii. 2. Concerning the order of the words
(instead of TO K.a& 6\. T. 'lovS. yevop. prj/^a), see Klihner, ad
Xen. Anal), iv. 2. 18. 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. <u? e^iaev
avrov] renders prominent the special divine Messianic element
in the general 'Iijaovv rbv arro Na. (ot'Sare 1 ). Comp. Luke
xxiv. 20. As to the idea of this ^pieiv, see on iv. 27. o?
Sirjkdev] him (avrov), who (after receiving this anointing) went
through (Galilee and Judaea, ver. 37) doing good, and in par-
ticular healing, etc. In the compound verb tcaraovvaar. is
implied hostile domination, Jas. ii. 6; Wisd. ii. 10, xv. 14;
Ecclus. xlviii. 12; Xen. Symp. ii. 8; Strabo, vi. p. 270;
Joseph. Antt. xii. 2. 3 ; Plut. de Is. et Osir. 41 : tcaraSwaarevov
rf Kara/3 ia^ofjievov. Comp. Karaoov\ovv. /ier' avrov is not
spoken according to a " lower view " (de Wette), against
which, see on ii. 36; but the metaphysical relation of Christ
to the Father is not excluded by this general expression
(comp. John xvt 32), although in this circle of hearers it
1 On <*i. uyiu x. Si/va^ts/, Bengel correctly remarks : " Spiritiis sancti mentio
saepe ita fit, ut addatur mentio ejus speciatim, quod conveuit cum re praesenti."
Comp. vi. 3, xi. 24, xiii. 52 ; also Luke L 35.
CHAP. X. 39-41. 285
did not yet demand a specific prominence. Comp. Bengel :
" p'arcius loquitur pro auditorum captu de maj estate Christi."
Vv. 39-41. *Ov Kal avetXov] namely, ol 'lovSaloi. "Ov
refers to the subject of eVoi^ow. There lies at the bottom
of the Kal, also, the conception of the other persecutions,
etc., to which even the avet\ov was added. See on the
climactic idea indicated by /cat after relatives, Hartung, Par-
tikell. I. p. 136. avei\. /cpeuda:] as in ii. 23. eVt gv\ov]
as in v. 30. /cat e'&u/cez/ /c.r.X] and granted (comp. ii. 27)
that He should become manifest (by visible appearances, i. 3 ;
John xxi. 1), not to all the people, but to witnesses who (quippe
qui) are chosen before of God, (namely) to us, who, etc. rot?
irpoKe^eip. VTTO rov Qeov] Peter with correct view regards
the previous election of the apostles to be witnesses of the
resurrection of Jesus (i. 3, ii. 22, iii. 32, al.} as done by God
(John xvii. 6, 9, 11, vi. 37) ; they are apostles 8ta tfeXT^taro?
&eov (1 Cor. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 1, .), d(f)a)picrfj,evoi et? f.i>a<yy. Qeov
(Eom. i. 1 ; Gal. i. 15). And with the Trpo in Trpotce^eip. he
points back to the time of the previous choice as disciples, by
which their election to be the future witnesses of the resur-
rection in reality took place. On Trpo^eiporoveiv (only here
in the N". T.), comp. Plat. Legg. vi. p. 765 B. pera TO dvaa-r.
avrov e'/c veicpwv] is not, with Cameron and Bengel, to be con-
nected with e^avrf yeveeOai, ver. 40, 1 so that ov iravrl . . .
avT(j> would have to be arbitrarily and violently converted into
a parenthesis ; but with omz/e? avvefp. K. crvveTr. avrw, which
even without the passages, i. 4, Luke xxiv. 41, 43, John
xxi. 12, would have nothing against it, as the body of the
Eisen One was not yet a glorified body. See on Luke
xxiv. 51, note; Ignat. ad Smyrn. 5; Constitt. Ap. vi. 30. 5.
The words clearly exhibit the certainty of the attested bodily
resurrection, but annexed to ver. 40 they would contain
an unimportant self-evident remark. The apparent incon-
sistency of the passage with Luke xxii. 18 is removed by
1 So also Baur, I. p. 101, ed. 2, who, at the same time, simply passes over,
with quite an arbitrary evasion, the difficulty that the criterion of apostleship in
this passage is as little suitable for the alleged object of vindicating Paul as it
is in i. 21, 22.
286 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
the more exact statement to Matt. xxvi. 29; see on that
passage.
Ver. 42. Ta> Xa&>] can only denote the Jewish people, seeing
that the context speaks of no other (ver. 41), and cannot
include the Gentiles also (Kuinoel). But the contents of on,
. . . veKpwv is so different from Matt, xxviii. 29 (also Acts
i. 8), that there must be here assumed a reference to another
expression of the Eisen One (for He is the subject of Tra^yy.)
unknown to us. OTI auro? GGTIV . . . veicpG)v\ that He (no
other) is the Judge ordained Try God (in His decree) over
living (who are alive at the Parousia, 1 Thess. iv. 1 7 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 51, 52) and dead (who shall then be already dead). Comp.
2 Tim. iv. 1 ; 1 Pet. iv. 5. Incorrectly Olshausen (resting
on Matt. xxii. 32 !) understands by OH>TO>I/ K. veicp. the spiri-
tually living and dead. This meaning would require to be
suggested by the context, but is here quite foreign to it.
Comp. Bom. xiv. 19, 20 ; Acts xvii. 31.
Vv. 43, 44. Now follows the divinely attested way of sal-
vation unto this Judge of the living and dead. Trdvres ol
7rpo</>.] comp. iii. 24. That every one who believes on Him
receives forgiveness of sins by means of His name (of the
believing confession of it, by which the objectively completed
redemption is subjectively appropriated, Eom. iii. 25, x. 10,
a). The general Trdvra rov TTLO-T. et? avr., which lays down
no national distinction, is very emphatically placed at the end,
Eom. iii. 22. Thus has Peter opened the door for further
announcing to his hearers the universalism of the salvation in
Christ. But 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. Comp. on xi. 15. Here the
unique example of the outpouring of the Spirit before baptism
treated, indeed, 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 appropriate degree of receptivity was there ; and so, for
a special divine purpose, the irvev^a communicated itself
CHAP. X. 45, 46. 287
according to the free will of God even "before baptism. 1
Olshausen thinks that this extraordinary circumstance took
place for 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. 2
Vv. 45, 46. Ol etc Trepir. Trio-rot] those who were believers
from the circumcision, i.e. believers who belonged to the cir-
cumcised, the Jewish-Christians. Comp. xi. 2 ; Eom. iv. 12 ;
Gal. ii. 12; Col. iv. 11; Tit. i. 10. On Tre/airo//.?? in the
concrete sense, comp. Eom. iii. 30, iv. 9, 12, xv. 8 ; Gal. ii. 7 ;
Phil. iii. 3. 00-04 a-vvrj\0. r. IT.] see ver. 23. eVt ra
edvri\ 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. 7f>] reason
assigned ab effectu. \a\ovvrwv lyXcoo-o-af?] fyXaio-o-cu? (or
7X060-0-77) \a\elv is mentioned as something well known to the
church, without the erepcus, by the characteristic addition of
which the event recorded in chap. ii. is denoted as something
singular and not identical with the mere rfiMcrcrais XaXetz/, as it
was there also markedly distinguished by means of the list of
1 "Liberum gratia habet ordinem," Bengel. Not the necessity, but the pos-
sibility of the bestowal of the Spirit before baptism, was implied by the suscepti-
bility which had already emerged. The design of this extraordinary effusion of
the Spirit is, according to ver. 45, to be found in this, that all scruples con-
cerning the reception of the Gentiles were to be taken away from the Jewish-
Christians who were present in addition to Peter, and thereby from the Christians
generally. What Peter had just said : -xiira. TV trurnuovra t'n avriv, was at once
divinely affirmed and sealed by this onpiioi in such a way that now no doubt at
all could remain concerning the immediate admissibility of baptism. Chrysos-
tom strikingly calls this event the ToXay/av /xtya^nv, which God had arranged
beforehand for Peter. That it could not but, at the same time, form for the
latter himself the divine confirmation of the revelation already imparted to him,
is obvious of itself.
* Comp. Laufs in the Stud. u. Krit. 1858, p. 234.
288 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
peoples. Now if, in the bare ^\u>a(rai^ \a\etv, this <y\(i)cr(rai<t
were to be understood in the same sense as in chap. ii. accord-
ing to the representation of the narrator, then as Bleek's
conception, " to speak in glosses," is decidedly to be rejected
(see on chap, ii.) no other meaning would result than : " to
speak in languages," i.e. to speak in foreign languages (different
from their mother tongue), and therefore quite the same as
erepat? 7\a>cro-cus \a\elv. But against this we may decisively
urge the very expression erepat? (with which agrees Kawais
in the apocryphal passage, Mark xvi. 17) only added in
chap, ii., and almost ostentatiously glorified as the chief
matter, but 'not inserted at all elsewhere (here or at chap. xix.
or 1 Cor. xii-xiv.). So much the more decidedly is 7\a>cro-ai<?
here and in xix. 6 not to be completed by mentally supplying
erepai? (so Baur still, and others, following the traditional inter-
pretation), but l to be explained : " with tongues" and that in
such a way that Luke himself has meant nothing else (not :
" in languages ") than the to him well-known glossolalia of the
apostolic church, which was here manifested in Cornelius and
his company, but from which he has conceived and represented
the event of Pentecost as something different and entirely
extraordinary, although the latter also is, in its historical sub-
stance, to be considered as nothing else than the first speaking
with tongues (see on chap. ii). Cornelius and his friends
spoke with tongues, i.e. they spoke not in the exercise of reflective
thought (of the z/ou?, 1 Cor. xiv. 9), not in intelligible, clear, and
connected speech, but in enraptured eucharistic ecstasy, as l>y
the involuntary exercise of their tongues, which were just organs
of the Spirit. See the more particular exposition at 1 Cor.
xii. 10.
Vv. 47, 48. Can any one, then, withhold the water, in order
that these be not baptized? The 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
1 Comp. also van Hengel, de gave d. talen, pp. 75 if., 84 ff., who, however,
here also (see on chap, ii.) abides by the view, that they spoke " openly and
aloud to the glorifying of God in Christ."
CHAP. X. 47, 48. 289
emerged. Bengel, moreover, well remarks : " Non dicit : jam
habent Spiritum, ergo aqua carere possunt." The conjunction
of water and Spirit could not but obtain its necessary recogni-
tion. TOV pr) ftaTTT. TOUT.] genitive according to the con-
struction Kco\vetv TWO, Tiz/o?, and ^ after verbs of hindering,
as in xiv. 18. /ca&w? KOI ^ei?] 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 /ea&o? KCU r)/j.ei<? can-
not be held as a proof that by >y\(aa-crais \a\etv is to be
understood 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 back from the
mouth of the apostle to the historical form of that event, when
it had not yet been transformed by tradition into a speaking of
languages. TrpoaeTa^e] The personal performance of baptism
did not necessarily belong to the destined functions of the
apostolic office. See on 1 Cor. i. 17. ev T> ovofju. TOV Kvp.]
belongs to (Baima-Q., 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 (see on
ii. 38, comp. viii. 35 f.) and the end to which it refers (xix. 5),
so it is also conceived as the entire holy sphere, in which it is
accomplished, and out of which it cannot take place. eVt-
/jielvai] to remain. And he remained and had fellowship at
table with them, xi. 3. So much the more surprising is his
at Antioch, Gal. ii 11 ff.
ACTS.
290 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTER XL
VER. 8. xc/vov] Elz. has vav xomv, against A B D E K, min. vss.
and Fathers. From x. 14. Ver. 9. //,<] is wanting in A B K.
min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. "Vulg. Epiph. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch.
It is an addition, in accordance with ver. 7. Ver. 10. The
order avseir. craX/v is, according to preponderant evidence, to be
adopted. Ver. 11. JJA^"] Laehm. Born, read V"> after A B D 8,
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. fiyd'tv diaxpivoptvov] 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 N,
lo tL it is exchanged for /juqdiv 3/ajcp/vovra or /*. diaxpivavra. (so
Lachm.), and in 33, 46, for p. 8ia)cpiv6{jt,ivo$. Tisch. and Born, have
rejected it ; de Wette declares himself for the reading of Lachm.
Ver. 1 3. 5? is to be read instead of , with Lachm. and Born.,
in accordance with preponderant authority. After 'loV-Tjjv, Elz.
has avdpag, an addition from x. 5, which has against it A B D X,
min. and most vss. Ver. 1 7. b'i\ is wanting in A B D X, min.
vss. and several Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. It was omitted
as disturbing the construction. Ver. 18. I5&'aov] The con-
siderably attested edo%aaav (Lachm.) has arisen from the pre-
ceding aorist. Instead of apays, Lachm. has cipa, after A B D N,
min. A neglect of the strengthening ye, which to the tran-
scribers was less familiar with &pa in the N. T. (Matt. vii. 20,
xvii. 26; Acts xvii. 27). Ver. 19. 2pai/w] Lachm. reads
Srspavou, after A E, min. Theophyl., but this has been evidently
introduced into the text as an emendatory gloss from erroneously
taking \<KI as denoting time. Ver. 20. IXtfo'mj] Elz. reads
tias\66vrff, against decisive testimony. "EXA^a?] So A D* K**
vss. and Fathers. Already preferred by Grotius and Witsius,
adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz. Born. But Elz.
Matth. have 'EXXjjwffras, which, in particular, Ammon (de
Hellenistis Antioch. Erl. 1810, krit. Journ. I. 3, p. 213 ff. ;
Magaz. /. christl. Pred. III. 1, p. 222 f.) has defended, assuming
two classes of Antiochene Jews, namely, Hebrew-speaking,
CHAP. XI. 1-18. 291
who used the original text of the 0. T., and Greek-speaking,
who used the LXX. But see Schulthess, de Charism. Sp. St.
p. 73 ff. ; Einck, Lucubr. crit. p. 65 f. The reading "EXXjji/as is
necessary, since the announcement of the gospel to Hellenists,
particularly at Antioch, could no longer now be anything sur-
prising, and only "EAXjjvas exhausts the contrast to 'lovdaioig, ver.
20 (not 'Efipuiots, as in vi. 1). 'EXXjjwffr. might easily arise
from comparison with ix. 29, for which Cod. 40 testifies,
when after IXaXouc it inserts x,ui owetyrow. Ver. 22. BisXdt?v]
is wanting in A B X, lo t! - Syr. and other vss., and is deleted by
Lachm. Omitted as superfluous. Ver. 25. 1 6 BapvdSas and the
twice-repeated uMv are to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch.,
after A B X, al. ; the former as the subject written on the margin
(seeing that another subject immediately precedes), and the
latter as a very usual (unnecessary) definition of the object.
Ver. 26. aurovg] read with Lachm. Tisch. Born. avroTs, after
A B E N, min. The accusative with the infinitive after lyii/sro
was most familiar to the transcribers (ix. 3, 32, 37). Lachm. and
Tisch. have xai after air., following A C K, Cant. Syr. p. Ath. Vig.
Rightly; apparently occasioning confusion, it was omitted.
Ver. 28. psyav . . . Sarif] t^yoCkriv ... ng is supported by the
predominant testimony of A B D E N (E has /tsyav . . . ting),
inin. Fathers, so that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch.
Born., as in Luke xv. 14 (see on that passage), and the mas-
culine is to be considered as an emendation of ignorant tran-
scribers. After KXauS/ou, Elz. has xaiaapog, an inserted gloss, to
be rejected in conformity with A B D X, lo ti - 40, Copt. Aeth.
Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant.
Vv. 118. 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 rrjv 'lovSalav is not = ev rfj
'louS. (Kuinoel, de Wette), but throughout Judaea, v. 15, and
see Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 12, ed. 3. Ver. 2. ^LCKpivovro]
they strove against him. Jude 9; Dem. 163. 15; Polyb. ii.
22. 11; Athen. xii. p. 544 C. 01 etc Tre/jtro/*.] the circum-
cised Christians, as in x. 45, opposed to the Gentiles (dtcpofiva-r.
1 Bornemann has the peculiar expansion of the simple text from D : *';
Jf, OTI SayXof Ifrir ilf Taptrov, l^jXftv ava^nrav auTtt KI u; evvrv^uv vafiKKKifiv
292 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
e^oi/ra?) whose conversion is reported. ort is most simply
taken as recitative, neither quare, Vulg. (comp. on Mark ix. 11),
nor because (Grotius supplying : hoc querimur"). TT^O? avSpas
/c.r.X.] 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 (comp. Gal. ii. 12).
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. Without
ground (see, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211), Gfrorer and Zeller
employ this passage against the historical character of the
whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius. atcpo/3. e^.]
An expression of indignation. Eph. ii. 11. Ver. 4. dp^d/j,.
efert#.] he began and expounded, so that dp^dfj,. is a graphic
trait, corresponding to the conception of the importance of the
speech in contradistinction to the complaint j 1 comp. ii. 4.
Ver. 6. ei? r\v drevta-as tcaTevoow K. etSoy] on which I, having
faced my glance, observed (vii. 31) and saw, etc. This elSov ra
rerpaTToSa K.T.\. is the result of the fcarevoovv. K. ra drjpia]
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 irdvra stood before TCL Terpajr. Ver.
11. r}/j,ev] (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from
the fact, that Peter already thinks of the aSeX^ot, ver. 12, as
included. Ver. 12. ovroi] the men of Joppa, who had gone
with Peter to Cornelius (x. 23), had thus accompanied him also
to Jerusalem. They were now present in this important matter
as his witnesses. Ver. 13. rbv ayyeXov] 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.
1 4. ev ot<?] by means of which. Ver. 1 5. ev Be rc3 ap^aaOai fie
\a\eiv] This proves that Peter, after x. 43, had intended to
speak still considerably longer. KOI e'<' ^/ia? and KOI
1 The importance of the matter is the reason why Luke makes Peter again
recite in detail the vision narrated. This in opposition to Schleiermacher, who
finds in the double narrative a stipport for his view concerning the composition
of the book. Observe how simply Peter makes his experience speak for itself,
and then, ver. 16 &., just as simply, calmly, and with persuasive brevity, sub-
joins the justification following from this experience.
CHAP. XI. 19, 20. 293
ver. 17 (it is otherwise with vpets, ver. 16), are to be taken as
in x. 47. ev apxfi] namely, at Pentecost. The period of
the apostolic church was then at its beginning. Ver. 16.
Comp. i. 5. t9 eXeyei/] A. frequent circumstantiality. Luke
xxii. 61; Thuc. i. 1. 1, and Kriiger in loc. ; also Borne-
rnann, ad Cyrop. i. 2, 5. 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 respects 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 flaminis he could not but infer it as willed by
God, that the baptisma fluminis also was not to be refused.
Ver. 17. Tna-revaatnv] refers not to aurot?, as is assumed by
Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the order of the words,
but to fain : " as also to us as having become believers," etc.,
that is, as He has given it also to us, because we had become
believers, so that thus the same gift of God indicated as its
basis the same faith in them as in us. jcb Be TI? r\^i(]v
Swaro? /c.T.X.] Two interrogative sentences are here blended
into one (Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 784]) : Who was I on the
other hand ? was I able to hinder God, namely, by refusal of
baptism ? Concerning Se, in the apodosis, following after a
hypothetical protasis, see Nagelsb. on the Iliad, p. 66, ed. 3 ;
Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f. Ver. 18. ^o-v^aa-av] they were
silent, Luke xiv. 4, often in classical writers. Comp. Locella,
ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. The following eSoga&v (imperfect)
thereupon denotes the continuous praising. Previously conten-
tion against Peter (vv. 2, 3), now silence, followed by praise
of God. apaye] thus, as results from this event. By rrjv
perdvoiav, however, is meant the Christian change of disposi-
tion; comp. v. 31. et<? tp>r)v\ unto (eternal Messianic) life;
this is the aim of rr]v fjierdvocav eftcoicev. Comp. crcod^a'r),
ver. 14.
Vv. 19,20. Ol pev ovv Siaa-Trapevres] A resumption of viii. 4,
in order now to narrate a still further advance, which Chris-
tianity had made in consequence of that dispersion, namely,
to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, for the most part, indeed,
294 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
among the Jews, yet also (ver. 20) among the Gentiles, the
latter at Antioch. 1 airo r. 6Xfy.] on account of (on occasion of)
the tribulation. Comp. Herm. ad Soph. El. 65. eVi 2 revamp]
Luther rightly renders : over Stephen, i.e. on account of Stephen.
Comp. Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and others, including de
Wette. See Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 489 f.] ; Ellendt, Lex Soph.
I. p. 649. Others (Alberti, Wolf, Heumann, Palairet, Kypke,
Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen) render : post Stephanum. Lin-
guistically admissible (Bernhardy, p. 249), hut less simple, as
post Stephanum would have again to be explained as e medio
sublato Stephana. rjcrav 8e rives eg avrwv] does not apply to
'lovSa/ot? (Heinrichs, Kuinoel), as the Be, corresponding to the
fjLev,ver. 19, requires for avrotv the reference to the subject
of ver. 19 (the Sia<nrapevT<j), and as oXnves IX^arro et?
ver. 20, so corresponds to the Stfj\dov e&>? . . .
of ver. 19, that a diversity of the persons spoken
of could not but of necessity be indicated. The correct inter-
pretation is : " The dispersed travelled through (the countries,
comp. viii. 4, ix. 38) as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and
Antioch, delivering the gospel (rov \6yov, tear ego^v, 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." Comp. de Wette
and Lekebusch, p. 105. TOU? " E\\r]va$] is the national
contrast to 'lavSatots, ver. 19, and therefore embraces as well
the Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become
incorporated into Judaism by circumcision. To understand
only the proselytes (Kinck), would be a limitation not founded
here in the text, as in xiv. 1.
Vv. 21-26. Xelp icvpiov] See on Luke i. 66 ; Acts iv. 30.
Bengel well remarks : " potentia spiritualis per evangelium se
exserens." avr&v] these preachers to the Gentiles. Ver. 22.
et9 ra wra] Comp. on Luke iv. 21. o \6yos] the word, i.e. the
1 The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch is not to be placed before the
baptism of Cornelius (Gieseler in Staeudl. Archiv. IV. 2, p. 310, Baur, Schnecken-
burger, Wieseler, Lechler), but it was after that event that the missionary
activity of the dispersed advanced so far. See xv. 7.
CHAP. XI. 21-26. 295
narrative of it; see on Mark i. 45. Ver. 23. %a/3w T.
Qeov] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles. ry
Trpodeo-et TTJS tcapS. irpocr^ev. T&> Kvpita] with the purpose of their
heart to abide by the Lord, i.e. not again to abandon Christ, to
whom their hearts had resolved to belong, but to be faithful
to Him with this resolution. Comp. 2 Tim. iii. 10. Ver. 24.
OTI rp . . . TT/o-reo)?] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had
been sent to Antioch (Kuinoel), but of the immediately preced-
ing e^aprj . . . Kvpiw. avrjp aya06<i] quite generally : an excel-
lent man, a man of worth, 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 Baumgarten has also assumed,
although such a meaning must have arisen, as in Matt. xx. 5,
from the context (comp. on Eom. v. 7), 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. ei? Tapaov] See ix. 30. Ver. 26. According to
the corrected reading <yevero Se avrols KCU eviavrbv K.T.\. (see
the critical remarks), it is to be explained : it happened to them
(comp. xx. 16 ; GaL vi. 14), to be associated even yet (/cafy a
whole year in the church, and to instruct a considerable multitude
of people, and that the disciples were called Christians first at
Antioch. With ^rj^aricrai, the construction passes into the
accusative with the infinitive, because the subject becomes dif-
ferent (TOV? /u,a#?7T.). But it is logically correct that i xprjfiari<rat
/c.r.X. should still be dependent on eyevero avroif, just because
the reported appellation, which was first given to the disciples
at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and suc-
cessful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit,
that here the name of Christians first arose. On the climactic
Kai, etiam, in the sense of yet, or yet further, comp. Hartung,
Partikell. I. p. 1 3 3 f. ofoaffffrpai] to be brought together, i.e.
to join themselves for common work. They had been since
ix. 26 ff. separated from each other. %pr)fj,aTicrai] to bear the
name ; see on Eom. vii. 3. Xpio-rtavoix;] This name decidedly
296 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
originated not in, but outside of, the church, seeing that the
Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but desig-
nate themselves by paOrjTat, aSeX^ot, believers, etc. ; and seeing
that, in the two other passages where Xpta-riavol occurs, this
appellation distinctly appears as extrinsic to the church, Acts
xxvi. 28 ; 1 Pet. iv. 16. But it certainly did not proceed
from the Jews, because Xptaro? was known to them as the
interpretation of n^D, and they would not therefore have
transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates. Hence
the origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles in
Antioch. 1 By 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 according to the wonted
mode the party-name : Christiani (Tac. Ann. xv. 44 :" auctor
nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem
Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat"). At Antioch, the
seat of the mother-church of Gentile Christianity, this took place
at that time (for this follows from the reading eyev. Se aurot?),
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 considera-
tion. And it was at Antioch that this name was borne first,
earlier than anywhere else (Trpwrov, or, according to B x, TryxwT&j?,
Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 3 1 1 f.), because here the Christians, in
consequence of the predominant Gentile- Christian element,
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
(de Wette, Baumgarten, after Wetstein and older inter-
preters). 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 (Zeller also mistrusts the
account before us), cannot be justified by the Latin form
of the word (see Wetstein, ad Matth. xxii. 1 7).
Vv. 27, 28. KctTi)\dov] whether of their own impulse, or as
sent by the church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem
1 Ewald, p. 441 f., conjectures that it proceeded from the Roman authorities.
CHAP. XI. 27, 28. 297
(Ewald), is not evident. Trpoffirai] inspired teachers, who
delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ecstatic state, yet
in exalted language, on the basis of an aTroKaXvty-is received.
Their working was entirely analogous to that of the 0. T.
prophets. Eevelation, incitement, and inspiration on the part
of God gave them their qualification ; the unveiling of what
was hidden in respect of the divine counsel for the exercise of
a psychological 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 future was, as with the old, so also with the new
prophets, no permanent characteristic feature ; but naturally and
necessarily the divinely-illuminated glance ranged very often
into the future development of the divine counsel and kingdom,
and saw what was to come. In respect to the degree of the
inspired seizure, the Trpotyrjrai are related to the fyXtucrcrai?
XaXowre? (see on x. 46) in such a way that the intellectual
consciousness was not thrown into the background with the
former as with the latter, and so the mental excitement was
not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their
speaking stand in need of interpretation. Comp. on 1 Cor.
xii. 10. dvaa-Tas] he came forward in the church-assembly.
"Aya(3o<;] Whether the name (comp. Ezra ii. 46) is to be
derived from 23n, a locust (with Drusius), or from 23y, to love
(with Grotius, Witsius, Drusius, Wolf), remains undecided.
The same prophet as in xxi. 10. Sta rov irvevf^aTo^]
This characterizes the announcement (ea-rjpave) of the famine
as something imparted to the prophet by the Holy Spirit ;
hence Eichhorn's opinion (comp. Heinrichs), that the famine
was already present in its beginnings, does great violence to
the representation of the text, which, moreover, by oo-rt9 . . .
KkavBtov states the fulfilment as having occurred afterwards,
and consequently makes the event to appear at that time still
as future, which also /j.e\\eiv eaea-Qai, definitely affirms.
\ifjiov . , . olKov/j,evr)v] that a great famine was appointed (by
God) to set in over the whole inhabited earth. Thus generally
is rrjv oifcovp,. to be understood in the original sense of the
prophet, who sees no local limits drawn for the famine beheld in
298 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
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 rrjv
. which is, moreover, designedly brought into relief by
any geographical limitation at all (to the land of Judaea
or the Eoman empire ; see on Luke ii. 1). This very unlimited
character of the vision, on the one hand, warranted the hyper-
bolical 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 fulfilment, inas-
much, 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 neighbouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem
itself, which was supported by the Syrian queen Helena of
Adiabene with corn and figs. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 6, xx.
5.2; Eus. H. E. ii. 1 1. The view which includes as part of the
fulfilment a yet later famine (Baumgarten), which occurred in
the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Eome (Suet. Claud.
18 ; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43), offends against the words (\tfjibv . . .
rf-m) as well as against the connection of the history (w. 29,
30). It is altogether inadmissible to bring in here the dif-
ferent famines, which successively occurred under Claudius in
different parts of the empire (Ewald), since, by the famine
here meant, according to w. 29, 30, Judaea was affected, and
the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbi-
trary is the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was pre-
dicted as a sign and herald of the Parousia, and that the
fulfilment under Claudius was therefore merely a preliminary
one, which pointed to a future and final fulfilment. On \ifj,6<;
as feminine (Doric), as in Luke xv. 14, see on Luke iv. 26,
and Bornemann on our passage.
Vv. 29, 30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten
assumes, the Christians of Antioch had already sent their
CHAP. XL 29, 30. 299
money-contributions to Judaea lefor& the commencement of the
famine, is incorrect, because it was not through the entirely
general expression of Agabus, but only through the result
(oa-ris KCU eyevero eVt KXauS.), that they could learn the defi-
nite time for sending, and also be directed to the local destina-
tion of their benevolence ; hence ver. 2 9 attaches itself, with
strict historical definiteness, to the directly preceding oo-u? . . .
KXavBlov. Comp. Wieseler, p. 149. The benevolent activity
on behalf of Judaea, which Paul at a later period unweariedly
and successfully strove to promote, 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 spiritual matters,
Eom. xv. 27. The construction of ver. 29 depends on attraction,
in such a way, namely, that TWV Be fiad^r^v is attracted by the
parenthesis /ea&a? yvTropeiro TI? (according as every one was able,
see Kypke, II. p. 56 ; comp. also 1 Cor. xvi. 2), and accordingly
the sentence as resolved is : ol Be fiaO^ral, /ca0a><? rjviropetTo rt?
avrwv, wpiaav. The subsequent e/ca<TT09 avrwv is a more
precise definition of the subject of topia-av, appended by way
of apposition. Comp. ii. 3. Tre^ai] sc. TI. The Christian
presbyters, here for the first time mentioned in the N. T.,
instituted after the manner of the synagogue (D^pr), 1 were the
appointed overseers and guides of the individual churches, in
which the pastoral service of teaching, xx. 28, also devolved
on them (see on Eph. iv. 11 ; Huther on 1 Tim. iii. 2).
1 "We have no account of the institution of this olHce. It probably . shaped
itself after the analogy of the government of the synagogue, soon after the first
dispersion of the church (viii. 1), the apostles themselves having in the first
instance presided alone over the church in Jerusalem ; while, on the other hand,
in conformity with the pressing necessity which primarily emerged, the office of
almoner was there formed, even before there were special presbyters. But cer-
tainly the presbyters were, as elsewhere (xiv. 23), so also in Jerusalem (xv. 22,
xxi. 18), chosen by the church, and apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch,
p. 78, who, however, arbitrarily conjectures that the coining over of the priests,
vi. 7, had given occasion to the origin of the office. We may add that the
presbyters do not here appear as almoners (in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeitalt.
II. p. 146), but the moneys are consigned to them as the presiding authority
of the church. ' ' Omnia enim rite et ordine administrari oportuit, " Beza. Comp.
besides, on vi. 3, the subjoined remark.
300 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
They are throughout the N. T. identical with the
who do not come into prominence as possessors of the chief
superintendence with a m&ordination of the presbyters till the
sub-apostolic age in the first instance, and already very dis-
tinctly, in the Ignatian epistles. That identity, although the
assumption of it is anathematized by the Council of Trent,
is clear from Acts xx. 17 (comp. ver. 28 ; Tit. i. 5, 7 ; 1 Pet.
v. If.; Phil. i. 1). See Gabler, de episcopis primae eccl., Jen.
1805 ; Miinter in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 769 ff. ; Rothe,
Anfdnge d. chr. K. I. p. 173 ff. ; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 399 ff. ;
Jacobson in Herzog's Encykl. II. p. 241 ff. Shifts are resorted
to by the Catholics, such as Dollinger, Christenth. u. K. p. 303,
and Sepp, p. 3 5 3 f. The moneys were to be given over to the
presbyters, in order to be distributed by them among the dif-
ferent overseers of the poor for due application. According to
Gal. ii 1, Paul cannot have come with them as far as Jeru-
salem ; x see on Gal. ii. 1. In the view of Zeller, that circum-
stance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a
historical character which is a very hasty conclusion.
1 Ewald's hypothesis also that Paul had, when present in Jerusalem, con-
ducted himself as quietly as possible, and had not transacted anything important
for doctrine with the apostles, of whom Peter, according to xii. 17, had been
absent is insufficient to explain the silence in Gal. ii. concerning this journey.
The whole argument in Gal. ii. is weak, if Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was
silent to the Galatians about this journey. For the very non-mention of it must
have exposed the journey, however otherwise little liable to objection, to the sus-
picions of opponents. This applies also against Hofmann, N. T. I. p. 121 ; and
Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. 72 f. The latter, however, ultimately
accedes to my view. On the other hand, Paul had no need at all to write of the
journey at Acts xviii. 22 to the Galatians (in opposition to Wieseler), because,
after he had narrated to them his coming to an understanding with the apostle,
there was no object at all in referring in this Epistle to further and later journeys
to Jerusalem.
CHAP. XII. 1, 2. SOI
CHAPTER XII.
VEE. 3. /] is wanting in Elz., but rightly adopted, in accord-
ance with considerable attestation, by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch.,
because it was easily passed over as wholly superfluous.
Ver. 5. snrivfc] Lachm. reads ixnvug, after A ? B X ; comp. D, sv
sxnviiq. Several vss. also express the adverb, which, how-
ever, easily suggested itself as definition to ymp. Iv'sp] Lachm.
Tisch. Born, read irspi, which Griesb. has also approved, after
A B D K, min. But Kepi is the more usual preposition with
^poffiu^effdai (comp. also viii. 15) in the N. T. Ver. 8. tyaai]
So Lachm. Tisch. Born. But Elz. Scholz have irspi^ugai, against
A B D S, min. A more precise explanatory definition. Ver. 9.
aurw] after 55xoX. is, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., to be deleted,
according to decisive evidence. A supplementary addition
occasioned by poi, ver. 8. Ver. 13. auroD] Elz. has rou Tlirpou,
against decisive evidence. Ver. 20. After i\v d'e, Elz. has
6 ' Hpudqg, against preponderant authority. The subject unneces-
sarily written on the margin, which was occasioned by a special
section (the death of Herod) beginning at ver. 20. Ver. 23.
d6%av] Elz. Tisch. have rfo d6%av. The article is wanting in
D E G H, min. Chrys. Theophyl. Oec., but is to be restored
(comp. Eev. xix. 7), seeing that the expression without the article
was most familiar to transcribers; see Luke xvii. 1 8 ; John ix. 24 ;
Rom. iv. 20 ; Rev. iv. 9, xi. 13,xiv. 7. Ver. 25. After <f^vapa\.
Lachm. and Born, have deleted xa/, following A B D* N, min.
and some vss. But how readily may the omission of this xai
be explained by its complete superfluousness ! whereas there is
no obvious occasion for its being added.
Vv. 1, 2. Kar efceivov Be rov tcaipov] but at that juncture
(Winer, p. 374 [E. T. 500]), points, as in xix. 23 (comp.
2 Mace. iii. 5 ; 1 Mace. xi. 14), to what is narrated imme-
diately before ; consequently : when Barnabas and Saul were
sent to Jerusalem (xi. 30). From ver. 25 it is evident that
Luke has conceived this statement of time in such a way, that
302 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
what is related in vv. 124 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 (Schrader, Hug,
Schott), and not so early as in the time of the one year's
residence at Antioch, xi. 25. (Wieseler, p. 152; Stb'lting,
Beitr. z. Exeg. d, Paul. Br. p. 184 f. ; comp. also Anger, de
tempor. rat. p. 47 f.) 'Hpco&rjs] Agrippa I., grandson of Herod
the Great, son of Aristobulus and Berenice, nephew of Herod
Antipas, possessed, along with the royal title (Joseph. Antt.
xviii. 6. 10), the whole of Palestine, as his grandfather had
possessed it ; Claudius having added Judaea and Samaria
(Joseph. Antt. xix. 5. 1, xix. 6. 1; Bell. ii. 11. 5) to his
dominion already preserved and augmented by Caligula
(Joseph. Antt. xviii. 7. 2 ; Bell. ii. 9. 6). See Wieseler, p.
129 f.; Gerlach in the Luther. Zeitschr. 1869, p. 55 ff. A
crafty, frivolous, and extravagant prince, who, although better
than his grandfather, is praised far beyond his due by Josephus.
7re/3aXey ra? %*/>? is not, with Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and
others, to be interpreted : coepit, conatus est = eTre^eiprjcre (Luke
i. 1 ; Acts ix. 2 9), 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
(iv. 3, v. 18, xxi. 27; Matt. xxvi. 50; Mark xiv. 46 ; Luke
xx. 19, xxi. 12 ; John vii. 30 ; Gen. xxii. 12 ; comp. Lucian,
Tim. 4, also in Arrian., Polybius, etc.), and according to the
context (Trpoo-eQero <rv\\a{3eiv, ver. 3), it is to be interpreted of
hostile laying hands on. Herod laid hands on, he caught at (i.e.
he caused to be forcibly seized), in order to maltreat some of
the members of the church (on oi airo, used to designate member-
ship of a corporation, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 164; Schaef.
Melet. p. 26 ff.). Elsewhere the personal dative (Ar. Lys. 440 ;
Acts iv. 3 ; Mark xiv. 46 ; Tischendorf, Esth. vi. 2) or eVl
nva (Gen. xxii. 1 2 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 1 2, and always in the
N. T., except Acts iv. 3 and Mark xiv. 46) is joined with
7rt/3aXXea> ra9 %etpa9, instead of the definition of the object
aimed at by the infinitive. On the apostolic work and fate
CHAP. XII. 1, 2. 303
of the elder James, who now drank out the cup of Matt. xx. 2 3,
nothing certain is otherwise known. Apocryphal accounts
may be seen in Abdiae Histor. apost. in Fabric. Cod. Apocr.
p. 516 ff., and concerning his death, p. 528 fT. The late
tradition of his preaching in Spain, and of his death in Com-
postella, is given up even on the part of the Catholics. See
Sepp, p. 75. 1 T. aSe\<. 'ladvvov] John was still alive when
Luke wrote, and in high respect. fjLa%aipa] probably, as
formerly in the case of John the Baptist, by beheading (" Cer-
vicem spiculatori porrexit," Abdias, I.e. p. 531), which even
among the Jews was not uncommon and very ignominious ;
see Lightfoot, p. 91. The time of the execution was shortly
before Easter week (A.D. 44), which follows from ver. 3 ; and
the place was probably Jerusalem. 2 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 (aTrXw? KCU 009 erv^ev 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 arbitrari-
ness import the thought, that by " the entirely mute (?) suffer-
ing 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" (Baum-
garten), by which, in fact, moreover, some sort of more precise
statement would not be excluded. NOT 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 document concerning Peter (Bleek) ; the event was too
important for that. On the contrary, there must have prevailed
some sort of conscious consideration involved in the literary
plan of Luke, probably this, that he had it in view to com-
1 Who, however, comes at least to the rescue of the bones of the apostle for
Compostella !
2 For Agrippa was accustomed to reside in Jerusalem (Joseph. Antt. xix. 7. 3) ;
all the more, therefore, he must have been present, or have come thither from
Caesarea, shortly before the feast (ver. 19).
304 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
pose 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 Euseb. ii. 9 has a beautiful tradition, how
the accuser of James, converted by the testimony and courage
of the apostle, was beheaded along with him.
Vv. 3, 4. Herod, himself a Jew (in opposition to Harduin),
born in Judaism (Deyling, Obss. II. p. 263 ; Wolf, Cur.~),
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. Joseph. Antt. xix. 7. 3. Trpoaefaro o-t/XXa/3.] a
Hebraism: he further seized. Comp. on Luke xix. 11, xx. 12.
reffa-apai rer/jaS/ot?] four bands of four (rerpd^iov, a
number of four, Philo, II. p. 533, just as Terpd? in Aristotle
and others), quatuor quaternionibus, i.e. four detachments of the
watch, each of which consisted of four men, so that one such
Terpd&iov was in turn on guard for each of the four watches
of the night. On this Eoman regulation, see Veget. E. M,
iii. 8 ; Censorinus, de die nat. 2 3 ; Wetstein in loc. //.era TO
Trao-^a] 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" (Moed Katon v. 2), at
least for the days following the first day of the feast (see
Bleek, Beitr. p. 139 ff.), by treating the matter as peculiarly
pressing and important. Wieseler (Synops. p. 364 ff., Chronol.
d. ap. Zeitalt. p. 215 ff.) 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 pera TO Trao-^a must be meant the
CHAP. XII. 5-11. 305
entire Paschal feast (not the 14th Nisan), because it cor-
responds to the preceding at rj^epai r&v aty/j,. (comp. Luke
xxii. 1). avayay. avr. T&> Xa&>] that is, to present him to
the people on the elevated place where the tribunal stood
(John xix. 1 3), in order there publicly to pronounce upon him
the sentence of death.
Vv. 5, 6. But there was earnest prayer made l>y the church to
God for him. On eKrev^, peculiar to the later Greek (1 Pet.
iv. 5; Luke xxii 44), see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311.
-Trpodyeiv] to "bring publicly forward. See on ver. 4. ry
vvKrl Kewr)} on that night ; when, namely, Herod had already
resolved on the bringing forward, which was to be accom-
plished on the day immediately following. According to the
Eoman method of strict military custody, Peter was bound by
chain to his guard. Comp. Joseph. Antt. xviii. 6. 7 ; Plin.
ep. x. 65; Senec. ep. 5, al. This binding, however, not by
one chain to one soldier, but by two chains, and so with each
hand attached to a soldier, was an aggravation, which may be
explained from the fact that the execution was already deter-
mined. See, generally, Wieseler, pp. 381, 395. Two soldiers
of the rerpaBtov on guard were in the prison, fastened to Peter
asleep (Koifjuop.'), and, indeed, sleeping profoundly (see ver. 7)
in the peace of the righteous (Ps. iii. 6) ; and two as guards
(0vXa69) were stationed outside at some distance from each
other, forming the irpatrrjv <f>v\a,Kr)v ical Bevrepav (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 the mixture of what is legendary with pure
history, which marks Luke's report of the occurrence, the
purely historical state of the miraculous fact in its individual
details cannot be surely ascertained, and, in particular, whether
the angelic appearance, which suddenly took place (eVeV-n?, see
on Luke ii. 9), is to be referred to the internal vision of the
apostle, a view to which ver. 9 may give a certain support. 1
1 Lange, apostol. Zdtalt. II. p. 150, supposes that the help had befallen the
apostle in the condition of "second consciousness, in an extraordinary healthy
disengagement of the higher life " \Geniiisleberi], and that the angel was a "re-
flected image of the glorified Christ : " that the latter Himself, in an angelic form,
ACTS. U
306 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
But as the narrative lies before us, every attempt to constitute it
a natural occurrence must be excluded. See Storr, Opusc. III.
p. 183 ff. This holds good not only of the odd view of Hezel,
that a flash of lightning had undone the chains, but also of
the opinion of Eichhorn and Heinrichs, " that the jailor him-
self, 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 him-
self had let the apostle free, because he had become convinced
in the interval (? ver. 3) how little the execution of James had
met with popular approval. According to Ewald, 1 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. </>w9] whether emanat-
ing from the angel (Matt, xxviii. 3), or as a separate pheno-
menon, cannot be determined. ot/c^a] generally denoting
single apartments of the house (Valck. ad Ammon. iii. 4 ;
Dorvill. ad Charit. p. 58 7), is, in the special sense : place of
custody of prisoners, i.e. prison, a more delicate designation for
the Sea-fjuwrripiov, frequent particularly among Attic writers.
Dem. 789, 2. 890, 13. 1284, 2 ; TJiuc. iv. 47. 2, 48. 1 ;
Kypke, II. p. 57. Comp. Valck. ad Herod, vii 119. 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 and confused in his consciousness,
that what had been done by the angel was not apprehended
by him as something actual (a\i]6e^), as a real fact, but
that he fancied himself to have seen a vision (comp. xvi. 9).
Ver. 10. rrjv tyepovcav et? TTJV TroXtz/] 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
came within the sphere of Peter's vision ; that Christ Himself thus undertook the
responsibility ; and that the action of the apostle transcended the condition of
responsible consciousness. There is nothing of all this in the passage. And
Christ in an angelic form is without analogy in the N. T. ; is, indeed, at variance
with the N. T. conception of the J| of the glorified Lord.
1 "Who (p. 202) regards our narrative as more historical than the similar nar-
ratives in chap. v. and xvi
CHAP. XII. 12-14. 307
and Kuinoel, that Peter was imprisoned in a tower of the
inner wall of the city, and that the irvkt] was the door of this
tower). If the prison-house was in the city, which is to be
assumed from KOI e^eX^oz/re? K.T.\., its iron gate still in fact
led from the house et? rrjv froktv. Examples of avrofiaros,
used not only of persons, but of things, may be seen in
"Wetstein in loc., and on Mark iv. 28. Comp. Horn. 77. v.
749 ; Eur. Bacch. 447 : avro^ara Sea-pa 8ie\v0r). Apollon.
Ehod. iv. 41 : avToparoi, dvpecov vjroeigav o^e?. Ovid. Met.
iii. 699. pvfjLifjv ptav] not several. Ver. 11. yevoftevo? ev
eavTq>] when he had become (present) in himself, i.e. had come to
himself (Luke xv. 17 ; Xen. Anab. i. 5. 17 ; Soph. Phil. 938),
" cum animo ex stupore ob rem inopinatam iterum collecto
satis sibi conscius esset." Kypke, comp. Wetstein and Dorville,
ad Charit. p. 81 ; Herm. ad Vig. p. 749. Kai iraa-i]*; TT}?
vrpocrSoK. rod XaoO T. 'lofS.J For he had now ceased to be
the person, in whose execution the people were to see their
whole expectation hostile to Christianity gratified.
Ver. 1 2. SvviSwv) after he had perceived it, namely, what
the state of the case as to his deliverance had been, ver. 11.
Comp. xiv. 6 ; Plut. Them. 7 : a-vviSobv TOV KivSvvov, Xen.
Anab. i. 5. 9 ; Plat. Dem. p. 381 E, Dem. 17. 7. 1351, 6;
Polyb. i. 4. 6, iii. 6. 9, vi. 4. 12 ; 1 Mace. iv. 21 ; 2 Mace.
ii. 24, iv. 4, v. 17, viii. 8 ; and see Wetstein. It may also
mean, after he had weighed it (Vulg. considerans), namely,
either generally the position of the matter (Beza), or quid
agendum esset (Bengel, comp. Erasmus). Comp. Dem. 1122,
16 ; Arist. Ehet. i. 2 ; Lucian. Jup. trag. 42. The above
view is simpler, and in keeping with xiv. 6. Linguistically
inappropriate are the renderings : sibi conscius (Kuinoel) ; and :
"after that he had set himself right in some measure as to
the place where he found himself " (Olshausen ; comp. Chry-
sostom, Xoyto-a/xevo? OTTOV ecmv, also Grotius and others).
There is nothing opposed to the common hypothesis, that
this John Mark is identical with the second evangelist. Comp.
ver. 25, xiii. 5.
Vv. 13, 14. Trjv dvpav rov TruXcoj/o?] the wicket of the gate
(x. 1 7). On Kpoveiv or KOTTTGW, used of the knocking of those
308 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
desiring admission, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 177 f. ; comp.
Becker, Charikl. I. p. 130. TratSi'cr/eT?] who, amidst the im-
pending dangers (comp. John xx. 19), had to attend to the
duties of a watchful doorkeeper ; she was herself a Christian.
inraicoiHTai] For examples of this expression used of door-
keepers, who, upon the call of those outside, listen (auscul-
tant) who is there, see Kypke, II. p. 60, and Valckenaer,
p. 489 f. rrjv <f>cwr]v TOV IT.] the voice of Peter (calling
before the door). CLTTO r^9 p^apa?] prompted by the joy (which
she now experienced; comp. Luke xxiv. 41), she did not open
the door at once, but ran immediately in to tell the news to
those assembled. air^iyy. ea-rdvai, /c.r.X] elaayyeXXeiv is the
more classical term for the announcement of a doorkeeper. See
Sturz, Lex. Xen. II. p. 74.
Vv. 15, 16. Maivrj] Thou art mad! An expression of
extreme surprise at one who utters what is absurd or other-
wise incredible. Comp. xxvi. 24; Horn. Od. xviii. 406.
The hearer also of something incredible himself exclaims : /iat-
voftai, ! Jacobs, ad Anthol. IX. p. 440. Sua-^vp^.] as in
Luke xxii. 59, and often in Greek writers: she maintained
firmly and strongly. o (776X09 avrov ecmi/] Even according
to the Jewish conception (see Lightfoot ad loc.~), the explanation
suggested itself, that Peter's guardian angel had taken the form
and voice of his proUgi and was before the door. But the
idea, originating after the exile, of individual guardian angels
(see on Matt, xviii. 1 0), is adopted by Jesus Himself (Matt,
xviii. 10), and is essentially connected with the idea of the
Messianic kingdom (Heb. i. 14). 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 phenomena 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,
CHAP. XII. 17. 309
as the maid could have confounded the voice of the mes-
senger with the well-known voice of Peter, for it must be pre-
sumed from Suoyypt&To o#Ta>9 e-^eiv that she told the more
special reasons for her certainty that Peter was there. Ver. 16.
dvolgavres] consequently the persons assembled themselves,
who had now come out of their room.
Ver. 17. Karaaeieiv T?} %et/3i] to make a, shaking motion
ivith the hand generally, and in particular, as here (comp. xiii.
16, xix. 33, xxi. 40), to indicate that there is a wish to
bring forward something, for which one bespeaks the silence
and attention of those present. See Polyb. i. 78. 3 ; Heliod.
x. 7 ; Krebs and Wetstein in loc. The infinitive a-tyav, as
also often with veveiv and the like, by which a desire is made
known. Comp. Joseph. Antt. xvii. 10. 2. The three clauses
of the whole verse describe vividly the haste with which Peter
hurried the proceedings, in order to letaJce himself as soon as
possible into safe concealment. Baumgarten invents as a reason :
because he saw that the bond between Jerusalem and the apostles
must le dissolved. As if it would have required for that pur-
pose such haste, even in the same night ! His regard to per-
sonal 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 ! fcal rot9 a8eX<.] who were
not along with them in the assembly. et9 erepov TOTTOV]
is wholly indefinite. Even whether a place in or out of
Palestine (Ewald, p. 607) is meant, must remain undeter-
mined. Luke, probably, did not himself know the immediate
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 (but see on ver. 25),
or indeed, after Eusebius, Jerome, and many Catholics, 1 on Eome
(so also Thiersch, K. im apost. Zeit. p. 96 ff., comp. Ewald),
1 Even in the present day the reference to Rome is, on the part of the Catholics
(see Gams, d. Jahr. d. Marlyrertodes der Ap. Petr. u. Paul., Regensb. 1867),
very welcome, because a terminus a quo is thereby thought to be gained for the
duration, lasting about twenty-five years, of the episcopal functions of Peter at
Rome. Gams, indeed, places this Roman journey of Peter as early as 41, and his
martyrdom in the year 65.
310 THE ACTS OF 1HE APOSTLES.
is all the more arbitrary, as from the words it is not even
distinctly apparent that the ere/ao? TOTTO? is to be placed out-
side of Jerusalem (although this is probable in itself) ; for the
common explanation of eeX0&>z/, relicta urbe, is entirely at
variance with the context (ver. 16), which requires the mean-
ing, relicta domo (into which he was admitted). The James
mentioned in this passage is not the son of Alphaeus, a tradi-
tional opinion, which has for its dogmatic presupposition the
perpetual virginity of Mary (see Hengstenberg on John ii. 1 2 ;
Th. Schott, d. zweite Br. Petr. und d. Br. Judd, p. 1 9 3 fT.), but
the real brother of the Lord} aSeX<o<? Kara trap/co, rov XpiaTov,
Constit. ap. viii. 35. 2 It is the same also at xv. 13, xxi. 18.
See on 1 Cor. ix. 4, 5 ; Gal. i. 19. Peter specially 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. See Eitschl, altkathol. Kirche, p. 415 ff.
This amplification of the tradition as to his high position goes
(in opposition to Thiersch) beyond the statements of the N. T.
(Gal. ii. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 7 ; Acts xv., xxi. 18 ; Epistle of James).
Vv. 18, 19. What had become of the (vanished) Peter (Luke
i. 66 ; John xxi. 21), whether accordingly (under these circum-
1 Laage (apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 193 ff., and in Herzog's Encykl. VI. p. 407 ff.)
has declared himself very decidedly on the opposite side of the question, and
that primarily on the basis of the passages from Hegesippus in Eusebius ii. 23
and iv. 22 ; but erroneously. Credner, Elnl. II. p. 574 f., has already strikingly
exhibited the correct explanation of these passages, according to which Jesus
and James appear certainly as brothers in the proper sense. Comp. Huther on
James, Introd. p. 5 ff. ; Bleek, Einl. p. 543 ff. James the Just is identical with
this brother of the Lord ; see, especially, Euseb. H. E. ii. 1, where the opinion
of Clem. AL, that James the Just was the son of Alphaeus, is rejected by
Eusebius (against Wieseler on Gal. p. 81 f. ), although it was afterwards adopted
by Jerome. See, generally, also Ewald, p. 221 ff. Bb'ttger, d. Zeug. des Joseph.
vonJoh. d. T., etc., 1863. Plitt in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1864, I. p.
28 ff. ; Laurent, neut. Stud. p. 184 ff. According to Mark vi. 3, James was
probably the eldest of the four brethren of Jesus.
9 The Constit. ap. throughout distinguish very definitely James of Alphaeus,
as one of the twelve, from the brother of the Lord, whom they characterize as
l-riffxaife}. See ii. 55. 2, vi. 12. 1, 5, 6, vi. 14. 1, viii. 4. 1, viii. 23 f., viii.
10. 2, viii. 35, viii. 46. 7, v. 8, vii. 46. 1.
CHAP. XII. 20. 311
stances, Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176, comp. Baeumlein, Partik.
p. 34) the wonderful escape was capable of no explanation
this inquiry was the object of consternation (rdpa^o<i) among
the soldiers who belonged to the four TerpaSia, ver. 4, be-
cause 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 c/wXa/ee? of the prison at the
time of the escape, after previous inquiry (avaicptvas, iv. 9 ;
Luke xxiii. 14), to be led to execution (aira^Qrivai, the formal
word for this, see Wakefield, Silv. crit. II. p. 131 ; Kypke, II.
p. 61; and from Philo: Loesner, p. 204). After the com-
pletion of the punishment, he went down from Judaea to his
residency, where he took up his abode. ei? Trjv KaicrdpJ] de-
pends, as well as airo r. 'lovS., on Kare\6u>v. The definition of
the place of the SieTpiftev (Vulg. : ibi commoratus est) was
obvious of itself.
Ver. 20. 1 Qv^o^a^eiv] signifies to fight violently, which may
be meant as well of actual war as of other kinds of enmity.
See Schweighauser, Lex. Polyb. p. 303; Kypke, II. p. 63 f. ;
Valcken. p. 493. Now, as an actual war of Herod against the
Eoman 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 advantage
(Sia TO Tpe<pe<T0ai . . . J3a<ri\iic?j<i), might ask for peace, without
a war having already broken out, namely, for the preservation
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 Eaphel and Wolf) : he was at vehement enmity
with the Tyrians, was vehemently indignant against them
(Polyb. xxvii. 8. 4). The reason of this dv^o^a^ia is unknown,
but it probably had reference to commercial interests.
ofjiodvfjiaSov] here also, with one accord, both in one and the
same frame of mind and intention. See on i. 14.
1 Chrysostom correctly remarks the internal relation of what follows :
ri tnKfi xttTi\a.>ii av-at, li xai ftn aia, \\iTfoi, XXa oiet, <rr,v avrou fj.t
Comp. Euseb. ii. 10. There is much subjectively supplied by Baumgarten, who
considers it as the aim of this section to exhibit the character of the kingdom of
the world in this bloody persecution directed against the apostles.
312 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
avrov\ not precisely : with him, but before him, turned towards
him (see on John i. 1). B\dcrrov\ according to the original
Greek name, perhaps a Greek or (see the inscription in
Wetstein) a Roman in the service of Herod, his praefectus
cubiculo (Sueton. Domit. 16), chamberlain, chief valet de
chambre to the royal person 1 (6 eirl TOV /cotreSvo? rov /3a<uXeo>9,
comp. on eTri, viii. 27, and on KOITO>V, Wetstein and Lobeck,
ad Phryn. p. 252 f.). How they gained and disposed him
in their favour (TretVai/re?, see Nagelsb. on Iliad, p. 50 f.),
possibly by bribery, is not mentioned. Bid TO Tpefaa-dcu . . .
f3acn\iKTi<i\ sc. %&>/>?. 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 Phoenicians, to
whom, in this respect, the harbour of Caesarea, improved by
Herod, was very useful (Joseph. Antt. xv. 9. 6) ; and partly
to the fact, that Phoenicia annually derived a portion of its
grain from Palestine, 1 Kings v. 9, 11; Ezek. xxvii. 17;
Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 6.
Ver. 21. TaKry Be vpepa] According to Joseph. Antt. xix.
8. 2, comp. xviii. 6. 7, Bevrepa Be TWV Oecopiwv ^f^epa. Ac-
cording to Josephus, namely, he was celebrating just at that
time games in honour of Claudius, at which, declared by
flatterers to be a god, he became suddenly very ill, etc.
evBvad/j,. e<rdf)Ta /SacrtX.] a-TO\rjv evBvcrdfievos e' dpyvplov TreTroirj-
fj,evr)v iraa-av, Joseph. I.e. The /:%, the platform from which
Agrippa spoke, would have to be conceived, in harmony with
Josephus, as the throne-like box in the theatre (which, ac-
cording to the custom of the Romans, was used for popular
assemblies and public speeches, comp. xix. 29), which was
destined for the king, if Luke which, however, cannot be
ascertained has apprehended the whole occurrence as in con-
nection with the festival recorded by Josephus. This festival
1 Scarcely overseer of the royal treasure (Gerlach), as xairut is used in Dio
Cass. Ixi. 5. For the meaning chamber, i.e. not treasure chamber, but sleeping
room, is the usual one, and lies at the root of the designations of service, xai-
vuviiipXYis (chamberlain) and xoiTuvi-rns (valet de chambre). Comp. Lobeck, I.e.
In the LXX. and Apocr. also X.OIT. is cubiculum. See Schleusn. Thes.
CHAP. XII. 22, 23. 313
itself is not defined more exactly by Josephus tfian as held
7% o-ojT^pta? 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. 25),
is too late. eStj^yopet Trpo? avrovs] he made a speech in
public assembly of the people (ver. 22) to them, namely, to the
Tyrians 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 TT/JO? avrovs : to them (comp. Plat.
Legg. vii. p. 817 C : SrjfAijy. 777309 TralSds re KOI <yvvalfcas real
rov irdvra o^Xov), not : in reference to them (my first edition,
and Baumgarten), as well as the reference to the Tyrians and
Sidonians, not to the people (so Gerlach, p. 60, after Eanisch,
de Lucae et Josephi in morte Her. Agr. consensu, Lips. 1745 ;
and Fritzsche, Conject. p. 13 f.), 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. 2 2 ; and this
may have occasioned the choice of the word STj^jopelv, which
often denotes such a rhetorical exhibition; see Stallb. ad
Gorg. p. 482 C, ad Rep. p. 350 E.
Ver. 22. Evdv? Se ol /eoXa/ce? ras ouSe efceivw Trpos dyadov
aXXo? a\\o0ev (fxnva? dveftocov, 6ebv Trpoaaryopevovres,
T ew;?, 7TL\eyovT<f, el fcal ^e^pt vvv &>? avdpcoTrov
d\\a rovvrevdev KpeiTTovd ere 0vrjrij<; (frvcrea)? 6fjio\ojovpev I
Joseph. I.e., who, however, represents this shout of flattery
(which certainly proceeded from the mouth, not of Jews, but
of Gentiles) as occasioned 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," Tacit. Hist. ii. 90. o &}/i05, the common people,
is found in the K T. only in the Book of Acts ; see xvii. 5,
xix. 30, 33. Comp. on xix. 30.
Ver. 23. ^Eirdra^v avrbv a<yye\os rcvpiov] an angel of the
314 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
Lord, smote him. The paroxysm of disease suddenly setting
in as a punishment of God, is in accordance with 0. T.
precedents (comp. 2 Sam. xxiv. 17; 2 Kings xix. 3 5 ; Isa.
xxxvii. 36), apprehended as the effect of a stroke (invisibly)
befalling him from an angel. The fate of Nebuchadnezzar
(Dan. iv. 26-30) 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 Eome 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 Luke has not adopted this fable, instead of
which Eichhorn puts merely a sudden shivering, is a conse-
quence of his Christian view, which gives instead from its own
sphere and tradition the eTrdra^ev . . . Qew as an exhibition of
the divine Nemesis; therefore Eusebius (H. E. ii. 10) ought
not to have harmonized the accounts, and made out of the owl
an angel of death. Bengel : " Adeo differt historia divina et
humana." See, besides, Heinichen, Exc. II. ad Euseb. III. p.
3 5 6 ff. av& &v\ as a requital for the fact, that. See on Luke
i. 20. OVK eSwKe rrjv &6%av ro5 @e&>] he refused God the honour
due to Him, inasmuch as he received that tribute of honour for
himself, instead of declining it and directing the flatterers to
the honour which belongs to God (" nulli creaturae communi-
cabilem," Erasmus); Isa. xlviii. 11. Comp. Joseph. I.e. : OVK
7re7f\r]^ TOVTOIS (the flatterers) o /3a<rtXet9, ovSe rrjv tcdXa-
Keiav aa-efiovcrav aTrerpe-^raro. How entirely different the con-
duct of Peter, x. 26, and of Paul and Barnabas, xiv. 14 f. !
yevopevos afcaiX^Ko/Sp.] similarly with Antiochus Epiphanes,
2 Mace. ix. 5, 9. 1 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,
1 Observe how much our simple narrative became eaten with worms is
distinguished from the overladen and extravagantly embellished description in
2 Mace. ix. 9 (see Grimm in foe.). But there is no reason, with Gerlach, to
explain ffKaivxofy. figuratively (like the German wurmstichig) : worn and
shattered by pain.
CHAP. XII. 24, 25. 315
referred by Baur to a Christian legend originating from the
fate of Epiphanes, which has taken the abdominal pains
that befell Herod as if they were already the gnawing worm
which torments the condemned (Mark ix. 44 f. ; comp. Isa.
xlvi. 44) ! Kiihn (ad Ael. V. H. iv. 28), Eisner, Morus, and
others, entirely against the words, have converted the disease
of worms destroying the intestines (Bartholinus, de morbis Bill.
c. 23; Mead, de morb. Bill. c. 15; and see the analogous
cases in Wetstein) into the disease of lice, <f>Qeipia<n<i, as if
(f>deipo{3pa)To<i (Hesych. Mil. 40) were used ! The word
p. is found in Theoph. c. pi. iii. 12. 8 (?), v. 9. 1.
ez/] namely, after five days. Joseph. I.e. But did
not Luke consider the yevofj,. ovea>X77/e. e^e-^rv^ev as having
taken place on the spot ? The whole brief, terse statement, the
reference to a stroke of an angel, and the use of et-tyvgev
(comp. Acts v. 5, 10), render this highly probable.
Ver. 24. A contrast full of significance in its simplicity
to the tragical end of the persecutor : the divine doctrine
grew (in diffusion) and gained in number (of those professing
it). Comp. vi. 7, xix. 20.
Ver. 25. 'TTrea-Tpe-^av] they returned, namely, to Antioch,
xi 2730, 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 con-
tinuation of the historical course of events in chap. xiii. The
taking of vTreaTpetyav in the sense of the pluperfect ("jam
ante Herodis obitum," etc., Heinrichs, Kuinoel), rests on the
erroneous assumption that the collection - journey of this
passage coincides with Gal. ii The course of events, accord-
ing to the Book of Acts, is as follows : While (/car' eicelvov
rov Kcupov, ver. 1) Barnabas and Saul are sent with the col-
lection to Judaea (xi. 30), there occurs in Jerusalem the
execution of James and the imprisonment and deliverance of
Peter (vv. 218), and then (ver. 19), at Caesarea, the death
of Herod (w. 2023). But Barnabas and Saul return from
Jerusalem to Antioch (ver. 25). Erom 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,
316 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
vv. 123, is to be assigned to that time which Barnabas and
Saul on their journey in Judaea spent with the different
churches, before 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 persecution of the
Christians by Agrippa, and as to what befell James and Peter,
induced him (in regard to Paul, see on XL 30) not to resort
to the capital, until he had heard of the departure and
perhaps also of the death of the king. criyA7rapaXa/3. /e.r.X.]
from Jerusalem; see ver. 12.
END OF VOL. I.
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTTf'3 STATIONERY OFFICE.
FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY,
ANNUAL SUBSCEIPTION:
One Guinea (payable in advance) for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo.
N.B. Any two Tears in this Series can be had at Subscription Price. A single Year's
Books (except in the case of the current Year) cannot be supplied separately. Non-
subscribers, price 10s. 6d. each volume, with exceptions marked.
186 4 Lange on the Acts of the Apostles. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vols. I. and II.
186 5 Keil and Delitzsch on the Pentateuch. Vol. III.
Hengstenberg on the Gospel of John. Two Volumes.
Keil and Delitzsch on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Volume.
186 6 ^ e *l an ^ Delitzsch on Samuel. One Volume.
Keil and Delitzsch on Job. Two Volumes.
Martensen's System of Christian Doctrine. One Volume.
1867 Delitzsch on Isaiah, Two Volumes.
Delitzsch on Biblical Psychology. 12s.
Auberlen on Divine Revelation. One Volume.
186 8 Keil' s Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Volumes.
Delitzsch' s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. VoL I.
Earless' System of Christian Ethics. One Volume.
186 9 Hengstenberg on Ezekiel. One Volume.
Stier on the Words of the Apostles. One Volume.
Keil' s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. I.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. I.
187 Keil' s Introduction to the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. II.
Schmid's New Testament Theology. One Volume.
Delitzsch' s Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Vol. II.
"I 8 7 1 Delitzsch' s Commentary on the Psalms. Three Volumes.
Hengstenberg' s History of the Kingdom of God under the Old
Testament. Vol. I.
137 2 Keil' s Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume.
Hengstenberg' s History of the Kingdom of God. Vol. II.
1373 Keil's Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Volume.
Winer's Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. I.
Martensen on Christian Ethics.
137 4 Christlieb's Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol.
Keil's Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol. II.
Delitzsch' s Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. I.
Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. I.
1375 Godet's Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Volumes.
Oehler's Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Vol. II.
Delitzsch's Commentary on Proverbs. Vol. II.
137 6 Keil' s Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Volumes.
Luthardt's Commentary on St. John's GospeL Vol. I.
Godet's Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Vol. I.
MESSRS. CLARK allow a SELECTION of TWENTY VOLUMES (or more of the same
ratio') from the various Series previous to the Volumes issued in 1874 (see next page},
At the Subscription Price of Five Guineas.
They trust that this will still more largely extend the usefulness of the FOREIGS
THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, which has so long been recognised as holding an important
place in modern Theological literature.
2 T, and T. Clark's Publications.
CLAEK'S FOEEIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRAEY Continued.
The following are the works from which a Selection may be made (non-subscription
prices within brackets) :
Dr. Hengstenberg. Commentary on the Psalms. By E. "W. HENGSTENBERG, D.D.
Professor of Theology in Berlin. In Three Vols. 8vo. (33s.)
Dr. Gieseler. Compendium of Ecclesiastical History. By J. C. L. GIESELER,
D.D., Professor of Theology in Gottingen. Five Vols. 8vo. (2, 12s. 6d.)
Dr. Olshausen. Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Adapted especially
for Preachers and Students. By HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D., Professor of
Theology in the University of Erlangen. In Four Vols. 8vo. (2, 2s.) Com-
mentary on the Romans. In One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on St.
Paul's First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Galatians, Ephesians, Colossians,
and Thessalonians. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.) Commentary on St. Paul's
Epistles to the Philippians, to Titus, and the First to Timothy. In con-
tinuation of the Work of Olshausen. By Lie. AUGUST WIESINGER. In
One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Neander. General History of the Christian Religion and Church. By
AUGUSTUS NEANDER, D.D. Translated from the Second and Improved Edition.
Nine Vols. 8vo. (2. lls. 6d.)
This is the only Edition in a Library size.
Prof. H. A. Ch. Havernick. General Introduction to the Old Testament. By
Professor HAVERNICK. One Vol. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Muller. The Christian Doctrine of Sin. By Dr. JULIUS MULLER. Two
Vols. 8vo. (21s.) New Edition.
Dr. Hengstenberg. Christology of the Old Testament, and a Commentary on the
Messianic Predictions. By E. W. HENGSTENBERG, D. D. Four Vols. (2, 2s.)
Dr. M. Baumgarten. The Acts of the Apostles; or the History of the Church
in the Apostolic Age. By M. BAUMGARTEN, Ph.D., and Professor in the
University of Eostock. Three Vols. (1, 7s.)
Dr. Stier. The Words of the Lord Jesus. By RUDOLPH STIER, D.D., Chief
Pastor and Superintendent of Schkeuditz. In Eight Vols. 8vo. (4, 4s.)
Dr. Carl Ullmann. Reformers before the Reformation, principally in Germany
and the Netherlands. Two Vols. 8vo. (1, Is.)
Professor Kurtz. History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dispensation.
By Professor KURTZ of Dorpat. In Three Vols. (1, lls. 6d.)
Dr. Stier. The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on the Epistle of
St. James. By RUDOLPH STIER, D. D. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Tholuck. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. By Professor
THOLUCK of Halle. In One Vol. (9s.)
Professor Tholuck. Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount. By Professor
THOLUCK. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. On the Book of Ecclesiastes. To which are appended: Treatises
on the Song of Solomon ; the Book of Job ; the Prophet Isaiah ; the Sacrifices of Holy
Scripture ; and on the Jews and the Christian Church. In One Vol. 8vo. (9s.)
Dr. Ebrard. Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. By Dr. JOHN H. A.
EBRARD, Professor of Theology. In One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Lange. Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospels of St.
Matthew and Mark. By J. P. LANGE, D.D. Three Vols. (10s. Cd. each.)
Dr. Dorner. History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ.
By Dr. J. A. DORNER, Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin.
Five Vols. (2, 12s. 6d.)
Lange and Dr. J. J. Van Oosterzee. Theological and Homiletical Commentary on
the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.)
Dr. Ebrard. The Gospel History: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in
support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
\Ste also next page.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY Continued.
Lange, Lechler, and Gerok. Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the
Acts of the Apostles. Edited by Dr. LANGE. Two Vols. (21s.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. Biblical Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
Professor Delitzsch. Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Two Vols. (21s. )
Professor Keil. Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. Commentary on the Book of Job. Two Vols. (21s.)
Bishop Martensen. Christian Dogmatics. A Compendium of the Doctrines of
Christianity. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. J. P. Lange. Theological and Homiletical Commentary on the Gospel of St.
John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Delitzsch. Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. ' (21s.)
Dr. Harless. A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Stier. The Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Bleek. Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Schmid.- New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Delitzsch. Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. History of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant.
Two Vols. (21s.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on the Book of Daniel. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Professor Keil. Commentary on Jeremiah. Vol.1. (10s. 6d.)
Winer (Dr. G. B.) Collection of the Confessions of Christendom. One Volume.
(10s. 6d.)
Bishop Martensen. Christian Ethics. One Volume. (10s. 6d.)
And, in connection with the Series
Murphy's Commentary on the Book of Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. (12s.)
Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. Two Volumes. (17s.)
Bitter's (Carl) Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Volumes. (32s.)
Shedd's History of Christian Doctrine. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Macdonald's Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Volumes. (21s.)
Ackerman on the Christian Element in Plato. (7s. 6d.)
Robinson's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 8vo. (9s.)
Gerlach's Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo. (10s. 6d.)
Dr. Hengstenberg. Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s. )
The series, in 131 Volumes (including 1876), price 34, 8s. Od., forms an Apparatus
without which it may be truly said no Theological Library can be complete; and the Pub-
lishers take the liberty of suggesting that no more appropriate gift could be presented to
a Clergyman than the Series, in whole or in part.
** NO DUPLICATES can be included in the Selection oj Twenty Volumes ; and it will save
trouble and coii-espondence if it be distinctly understood that NO LESS number
than Twenty can be supplied, unless at non-subscription price.
Subscribers' Names received by all Retail Booksellers.
LONDON : (For Works at Non-subscription price only) HAMILTON, ADAMS, & Co.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
In Twenty-four Handsome Svo Volumes, Subscription Price ^6, 6s,
&nte='Ntcme (Efjrtsttan
A COLLECTION OP ALL THE WOEKS OF THE FATHERS OF THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL OF NIC2EA.
EDITED BY THE
REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D., AND JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.
MESSRS. CLARK are now happy to announce the completion of this Series.
It has been received with marked approval by all sections of the
Christian Church in this country and in the United States, as supplying what
has long been felt to be a want, and also on account of the impartiality, learn-
ing, and care with which Editors and Translators have executed a very difficult
task.
The Publishers do not bind themselves to continue to supply the Series at the
Subscription price.
The Works are arranged as follow :
FIRST YEAR.
APOSTOLIC FATHERS, comprising
Clement's Epistles to the Corinthians ;
Polycarp to the Ephesians; Martyr-
dom of Polycarp ; Epistle of Barnabas ;
Epistles of Ignatius(longerand shorter,
and also the Syriac version) ; Martyr-
dom of Ignatius ; Epistle to Diognetus ;
Pastor of Hermas; Papias ; Spurious
Epistles of Ignatius. In One Volume.
JUSTIN MARTYR; ATHENAGORAS.
In One Volume.
TATIAN; THEOPHILUS; THE CLE-
mentine Recognitions. In One Volume.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume
First, comprising Exhortation to Hea-
then ; The Instructor; and a portion
of the Miscellanies.
SECOND YEAR.
HIPPOLYTUS, Volume First; Refutation
of all Heresies, and Fragments from
his Commentaries.
IREN-EUS, Volume First.
TERTULLIAN AGAINST MARCION.
CYPRIAN, Volume First; the Epistles,
and some of the Treatises.
THIRD YEAR.
IREN-51US (completion); HIPPOLYTUS
(completion); Fragments of Third
Century. In One Volume.
ORIGEN: De Principiis; Letters; and
portion of Treatise against Celsus.
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA, Volume
Second ; Completion of Miscellanies.
TERTULLIAN, Volume First; To the
Martyrs; Apology; To the Nations,
etc.
FOURTH YEAR.
CYPRIAN, Volume Second (completion) ;
Novatian ; Minucius Felix; Fragments.
METHODIUS; ALEXANDER OF LY-
copolis; Peter of Alexandria; Anato-
lius; Clement on Virginity; and
Fragments.
TERTULLIAN, Volume Second.
APOCRYPHAL GOSPELS, ACTS, AND
Revelations ; comprising all the very
curious Apocryphal Writings of the
first three Centuries.
FIFTH YEAR.
TERTULLIAN, Volume Third (comple-
tion).
CLEMENTINE HOMILIES; APOSTO-
lical Constitutions. In One Volume.
ARNOBIUS.
DIONYSIUS; GREGORY THAUMA-
turgus ; Syrian Fragments. In One
Volume.
SIXTH YEAR.
LACTANTIUS; Two Volumes.
ORIGEN, Volume Second (completion).
12s. to Non-Subscribers.
EARLY LITURGIES AND REMAIN-
ing Fragments. 9s. to Non-Subscri-
bers.
Single Years cannot be had separately, unless to complete sets ; but any Volume
may be had separately, price 10s. 6d., with the exception of ORIGEN, Vol. II., 12s. ;
and the EARLY LITURGIES, 9s.
T. and T. Clarfts Publications.
of St. gfogttstmt
EDITED BY MAKCUS DODS, D.D.
SUBSCRIPTION:
Four Volumes for a Guinea, payable in advance (24s. when not paid
in advance).
FIRST YEAR.
THE < CITY OF GOD.' Two Volumes.
WRITINGS IN CONNECTION WITH
the Donatist Controversy.
Volume.
In One
THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WOEKS OF
St. Augustine. Vol. I.
SECOND YEAR.
'LETTERS.' Vol.1.
TREATISES AGAINST FAUST US
the Hanichsean. One Volume.
THE HARMONY OF THE EVAN-
gelists, and the Sermon on the Mount.
One Volume.
ON THE TRINITY. One Volume.
THIRD YEAR.
COMMENTARY ON JOHN. Two
Volumes.
ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, EN-
CHIRIDION, ON CATECHIZING, and ON
FAITH AND THE CREED. One Volume.
THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF
St. Augustine. Vol. II.
FOURTH YEAR.
' LETTERS.' Vol. II.
'CONFESSIONS.' With Copious Notes
by Rev. J. G. PILKINGTON.
ANTI-PELAGIAN WRITINGS. Vol.
III.
LIFE. By PRINCIPAL RAINY.
[In preparation."]
Messrs. CLARK believe this will prove not the least valuable of their various
Series, and no pains will be spared to make it so. The Editor has secured a
most competent staff of Translators, and every care is being taken to secure not
only accuracy, but elegance.
It is understood that Subscribers are bound to take at least the books of the
first two years. Each volume is sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d.
'For the reproduction of the "City of God" in an admirable English garb we are
greatly indebted to the well-directed enterprise and energy of Messrs. Clark, and to the
accuracy and scholarship of those who have undertaken the laborious task of translation.'
Christian Observer.
' The present translation reads smoothly and pleasantly, and we have every reason to
be satisfied both with the erudition and the fair and sound judgment displayed by the
translators and the editor.' John Bull.
SELECTION FROM
ANTE-NICENE LIBRARY
AND
ST. AUGUSTINE'S WORKS.
THE Ante-Nicene Library being now completed in 24 volumes, and the
St. Augustine Series being also complete (with the exception of the ' LIFE ')
in 16 volumes, Messrs. CLARK will, as in the case of the Foreign Theological
Library, give a Selection of 20 Volumes from both of those series at the Sub-
scription Price of FIVE GUINEAS (or a large number at game proportion).
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
LANG E'S
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS,
Edited by Dr. PHILIP SCHAPP.
There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per
Volume,
OLD TESTAMENT, Eleven Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume.
EXODUS AND LEVITICUS. One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One
Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB.
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS,
* in One Volume.
EZEKIEL AND DANIEL. One Volume. [Shortly.']
CHRONICLES, EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER. One
Volume. {Shortly.']
COMMENTARY ON MINOR PROPHETS, in One Volume.
The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation.
NEW TESTAMENT (now complete), Ten Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST.
LUKE.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE
ROMANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA-
LONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER,
JOHN, and JUDE.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
'Lange's comprehensive and elaborate "Bibelwerk." . . . We hail its publication as a
valuable Addition to the stores of our Biblical literature.' Edinburgh Review.
The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's
Works, and Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, or to Purchasers
of Complete Sets of the Commentary (so far as published), will be
FIFTEEN SHILLINGS PER VOLUME.
Dr. LANGE'S Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. SCHAFF'S
Notes) is also published in the FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY, in Nine Volumes
demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List
of Foreign Theological Library.)
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
MEYER'S
Commentary on the New Testament.
M
ESSRS. CLARK beg to announce that they have in course of
preparation a Translation of the well-known and justly esteemed
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT,
By Dr. H. A. W. MEYER,
OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER,
Of which they have published
1st Year Romans, Two Volumes.
Galatians, One Volume.
St. John's Gospel, Vol. I.
2d Year St. John's Gospel, Vol. II.
Philippians and Colossians, One Volume.
Acts of the Apostles, Two Volumes. [Shortly.]
The Subscription is 21s. for Four Volumes, Demy 8vo, payable in advance.
In order to secure perfect accuracy, the Publishers have placed the whole
work under the editorial care of Rev. Dr. DICKSON, Professor of Divinity in the
University of Glasgow, and Rev. Dr. CROMBIE, Professor of Biblical Criticism,
St. Mary's College, St. Andrews.
Each Volume will be sold separately at (on an average) 10s. 6d. to Non-
Subscribers.
Intending Subscribers will be kind enough to send their orders either
direct to the Publishers at 38 George Street, Edinburgh, or through their
own Booksellers.
' I need hardly add that the last edition of the accurate, perspicuous, and learned com-
mentary of Dr. Meyer has been most carefully consulted throughout ; and I must again,
as in the preface to the Galatians, avow my great obligations to the acumen and scholar-
ship of the learned editor.' BISHOP ELLICOTT in Preface to his ' Commentary on Ephesians.' 1
' Meyer has been long and well known to scholars as one of the very ablest of the
German expositors of the New Testament. We are not sure whether we ought not to
say that he is unrivalled as an interpreter of the grammatical and historical meaning of
the sacred writers. The publishers have now rendered another seasonable and important
service to English students in producing this translation.' Guardian.
' The ablest grammatical exegete of the age.' PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D.
JUST PUBLISHED,
In one large 8vo volume, Eighth English Edition, price 15*.,
A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa-
ment Greek, regarded as the basis of New Testament Exegesis. Translated
from the German [of Dr. G. B. WINER]. With large additions and full
Indices. Second Edition. Edited by Rev. W. F. MOULTON, D.D., one of
the New Testament Translation Revisers.
The additions by the Editor are very large, and will tend to make this great work far
more useful and available for English students than it has hitherto been. The Indices
have been greatly enlarged, but with discrimination, so as to be easily used. Altogether,
the Publishers do not doubt that this will be the Standard Grammar of New Testament
Greek.
T. and T. Clark's Publications.
(TEMPORARY) CHEAP RE-ISSUE OF
STIER'S WORDS OF THE LORD JESUS.
To meet a very general desire that this now well-known Work should be
brought more within the reach of all classes, both Clergy and Laity, Messrs.
CLARK are now issuing, for a limited period, the Eight Volumes, handsomely
bound in Four, at the Subscription price of
TWO GUINEAS.
As the allowance to the Trade must necessarily be small, orders sent either
direct or through booksellers must in every case be accompanied with a Post
Office Order for the above amount.
' The whole work is a treasury of thoughtful exposition. Its measure of practical and
spiritual application, with exegetical criticism, commends it to the use of those whose duty
it is to preach as well as to understand the Gospel of Christ.' Guardian.
New and Cheap Edition, in Four Vols. Demy 8vo, Subscription price 28s.
THE LIFE OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST:
A Complete Critical Examination of the Origin, Contents, and Connection of
the Gospels. Translated from the German of J. P. LANGE, D.D., Professor
of Divinity in the University of Bonn. Edited, with additional Notes, by
MARCUS DODS, D.D.
'We have arrived at a most favourable conclusion regarding the importance and ability
of this work the former depending upon the present condition of theological criticism,
the latter on the wide range of the work itself ; the singularly dispassionate judgment
of the author, as well as his pious, reverential, and erudite treatment of a subject inex-
pressibly holy. . . . We have great pleasure in recommending this work to our readers.
We are convinced of its value and enormous range.' Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
BENGEL'S GNOMON-CHEAP EDITION.
GNOMON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By JOHN ALBERT BENGEL. Now First Translated into English. With
Original Notes, Explanatory and Illustrative. Edited by the Rev.
ANDREW K. FAUSSET, M.A. The Original Translation was in Five Large
Volumes, demy 8vo, averaging more than 550 pages each, and the very
great demand for this edition has induced the Publishers to issue the
Five Volumes bound in Three, at the Subscription price of
TWENTY-FOUR SHILLINGS.
They trust by this still further to increase its usefulness.
'It is a work which manifests the most intimate and profound knowledge of Scripture,
and which, if we examine it with care, will often be found to condense more matter into
a line than can be extracted from many pages of other writers.' Archdeacon HAKE.
'In respect both of its contents and its tone, Bengel's Gnomon stands alone. Even
among laymen there has arisen a healthy and vigorous desire for scriptural knowledge,
and Bengel has done more than any other man to aid such inquirers. There is perhaps
no book every word of which has been so well weighed, or in which a single technical
term contains so often far-reaching and suggestive views. . . . The theoretical and
practical are as intimately connected as light and heat in the sun's ray.' Life ofPerthes.
University of California
SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY
405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388
Return this material to the library
from which it was borrowed.