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 9 ical erepa avr& frpaytJt.areia, ra? Seye\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 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\

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 \6Qir) 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 %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.. %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,- 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 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?} 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- J3rjfj,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 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\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 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' rjpas K. e^r}\0. a 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 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. etei\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, 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\(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 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\ -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, irrs -ravrsj, xou aufefro*.uv oWa/v \*ti, il ft* xtti l xx< fnf'tcras, 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. 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)crv. 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,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 pe0.~\ 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- Kovvreacret3, 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. Ta8tmS>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 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 eix/>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 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 ttcra\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 fceoT^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/Ao/3o9 yiveTai. 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 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\\ide\6rr) fcal apjvpw Ke/ca\v/j,fj,evat iravra^oOev r/crav, oyu,0i'a>$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 paia TT.] eVt : immediately at ; on the spot of the Beautiful gate. See on John iv. 6. 0du/3ovf)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. 'I9, 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)\oovea (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 evdea>Q)v irpoa^opia Trape^vdrjaaro. Comp. on the other hand, ver. 12 : aySpe? ' I0. /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 * 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\.iyuo%] 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 sAaAi9 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 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?} cnrepfjiaTi 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- 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, 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 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\\

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??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)-] 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 v, o evpfyavo*; /cal <70(o rrjv %e?pa 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? 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)] 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/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. 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 egovpe(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] 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 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 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] 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 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 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 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 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 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%, 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., 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 ] 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>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 opet, TOVT] 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 irarepewv 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 ] 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? rpelraro^) 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 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,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. / (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 , 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] and the star (star-image) of your (alleged) god Eephan, i.e. the star made the symbol of your god Rephan. *Pe9 ryTTOf?] apposition to rrjv O-KTJV. r. Mo\. K. r. aarp. r. Qeov vp. 'Pe. 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.a9 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 ! 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? 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. 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 /X/TTOS' si msrsvsis e% oX?] r5jj xapdiac, 'ifyeriv. ' A<7TOKpi6s!s ds sTire' KiGTtvca rbv vibv 7ov Qiov tTvat rbv 'iqcouv Xf>/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,e7nov 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 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 \6v\ 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 arrea 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 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-aiy 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.eiy\(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 \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? . . . 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