ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ On the title, see Prolegomena. 1-3. Introduction.] 1. τὸνμὲνπρ . λ .] The latter member of this sentence, τανῦνδέ , … is wanting , and the author proceeds at once to his narration, binding this second history to the first by recapitulating and enlarging the account given in the conclusion of the Gospel. πάντων ] Whatever latitude may be given to this word, it must at all events exclude the notion that Luke had at this time seen the Gospels of Matt. or Mark, in which many things which Jesus did and taught are contained, which he had not related in his πρῶτοςλόγος . On Theophilus, see notes, Luke 1:3. ὧνἤρξατοἸησ .] I cannot think ἤρξατο here to be merely pleonastic. Its position here shews that it is emphatic, and the parallel cases (see reff.) all point to a distinct and appropriate meaning for the word. That meaning here seems to be, that the Gospel contained the ἀρχάς , the outset, of all the doings and teachings of our Lord, as distinguished from this second treatise, which was to relate their sequel and results. Meyer understands it— which Jesus first of all men did, &c. But this introduces a meaning irrelevant to the context, besides not giving the emphasis to ἤρξατο , but to Ἰησοῦς . The position of emphasis given to the verb shews, that the beginning of the doing and teaching of Jesus must be contrasted with the continuance of the same, now about to be related. 2. ἐντειλ . τ . ἀπ .] See Luke 24:48 ff., and ver. 4 below. διὰπν . ἁγ . may be joined either with ἐντειλάμενος (as in vulg copt Thl); or with ἐξελέξατο . In the former case, our Lord is said to have given His commands to the Apostles through, or in the power of, the Holy Ghost. Similarly He is said, Hebrews 9:14, διὰπνεύματοςαἰωνίουἑαυτὸνπροσενέγκαιἄμωμοντῷθεῷ . In the latter, He is said to have chosen the Apostles by the power of the Holy Ghost. Similarly, in ch. 20:28, Paul tells the Ephesian elders, that the Holy Ghost had made them overseers in the Church of God. The former construction however appears much the best, as expressing not, as might at first seem, a mere common-place, but the propriety of the fact,— that His last commands were given in the power of (see John 20:22) the Holy Ghost. To take διὰπν . ἁγ . with ἀνελήμφθη (see Olsh. i. 629) seems to me inadmissible; as also is Dr. Burton’ s rendering, “ having told His Apostles that His commands would be more fully made known to them by the Holy Ghost.” ἀνελήμφ .] = ἀνεφέρετοεἰςτὸνοὐρ ., Luke 24:51. The use of the verb in this abbreviated form, without the εἰςτ . οὐρ ., testifies to the familiarity of the apostolic church with the Ascension as a formal and recognized event in our Lord’ s course. 3. ἐνπ . τεκμ .] See Luke 24:31, Luke 24:39, Luke 24:43. The ἐν is in its signification of investiture, in which it introduces the element or condition in which, and thus the means by which, an agent operates. ὀπτανόμενος ] οὐγὰρὥσπερπρὸτῆςἀναστάσεωςὡςἀεὶμετ ʼ αὐτῶνἦν , οὕτωκαὶτότε · οὐγὰρεἶπετεσσεράκονταἡμέρας , ἀλλὰδι ʼ ἡμερῶντεσσεράκοντα · ἐφίστατογὰρκαὶἀφίστατοπάλιν , Chrysostom. This is the only place where the interval between the Resurrection and the Ascension is specified. τὰπερ . τ . β . τ . θ .] τά , in the widest sense; not ῥήματα merely:— the matters. The article has been taken to imply (and so in some of my earlier editions), that during this period they received from our Lord the whole substance of the doctrine of ‘ the Kingdom of God.’ But this remark seems to lose its propriety owing to the present participle λέγων . Both the participles, ὀπτανόμενος and λέγων , carry with them a ratiocinative force, in dependence on τεκμηρίοις : “ proofs, consisting in this, that He” &c. And thus the art. τά gives the sentence the meaning, “ and inasmuch as the things which he said were those pertaining to the Kingdom of God;” thus serving only to define λεγόμενα . [What things these were, we are not told. Certainly, not future events in their detail,— as the next portion of the narrative shews us. I should rather believe them to have concerned the future founding and government of the Church: though even here the greatest Apostles were apparently left to the unfolding of the teaching of the Holy Spirit as years went on.] 4-14. The last discourses and ascension of the Lord. Return of the Apostles to Jerusalem; recapitulation of their names. 4. συναλιζ .] not middle, ‘ assembling them,’ as Calv. (congregans eos), Grot., Olsh., and others, which is without example; but passive, = συναλισθείς , , as E. V. Chrys., the Vulg., &c., interpret it ‘ eating and drinking;’ so E. V. marg., Thl., Œ , &c., κοινωνῶνἁλῶν , mistaking the etymology. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis, συναλιζομένοις (which however is found in Didymus), is quite unnecessary. ἀπὸἹερ . μὴχωρ .] See Luke 24:49. ‘ Simul manere jussi sunt, quoniam uno omnes Spiritu donandi erant. Si fuissent dispersi, unites minus cognita fuisset.’ Calvin. περιμ .] to await, i.e. wait till the completion of: the περι implies this. The ancient idea mentioned by Wordsw. that our Lord commanded the Apostles to remain at Jerusalem for twelve years after the Ascension, is sufficiently refuted by His own words here, and by the subsequent history: cf. ch. 8 &c. That, in the main, they confined themselves to circuits in Palestine for some years, appears to be true; but surely would not he in compliance with such a command. τ . ἐπαγγ . τ . πατρός ] See note on Luke 24:49. 5. The Lord cites these words from the mouth of John himself, reff. Matt.;— and thus announces to them that, as John’ s mission was accomplished in baptizing with water, so now the great end of His own mission, the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, was on the point of being accomplished. Calvin remarks, that He speaks of the Pentecostal effusion as being the Baptism with the Holy Ghost, because it was a great representation on the whole Church of the subsequent continued work of regeneration on individuals: ‘ Quasi totius Ecclesiæ communis baptismus.’ I may add, also because it was the beginning of a new period of spiritual influence, totally unlike any which had preceded. See ch. 2:17. ὕδατι and ἐνπν . ἁγ . are slightly distinguished. The insertion of the preposition bef. πν . ἁγ . seems to give a dignity which the mere instrumental dative, ὕδατι , wants. ταύτας serves to bind on the οὐπολλ . ἡμ . to the day then current; as we say, ‘ one of these days.’ See Winer, § 23. 5, who instances ‘ ante hos quinque dies’ in Lat, and quotes πρὸπολλῶντῶνδεἡμερῶν , from Heliod. ii. 22. 97. ‘ Numerus dierum non definitus exercebat fidem discipulorum,’ Bengel. 6. This συνελθόντες does not belong to another assembling, different from the former; but takes up again the συναλιζόμενος of ver. 4. Olsh. has mistaken the sense of the μὲνοὖν , which refers, not to another incident, but to other actors; they, as distinguished from Him who had been speaking. Κύριε , εἰ … ] The stress of this question is in the words, prefixed for emphasis, ἐντῷχρόνῳτούτῳ . That the Kingdom was, in some sense, and at some time, to be restored to Israel, was plain; nor does the Lord deny this implication (see on ver. 8). Their fault was, a too curious enquiry on a point reserved among the arcana of God. Lightfoot’ s idea, that the disciples wondered at the Kingdom being about to be restored to the ungrateful Jews, at this time, now that they had crucified Him, &c., would make our Lord’ s answer irrelevant. See Micah 4:8, LXX. Meyer would refer ἐντῷχρ . τού . to the interval designated by οὐμετὰπολλ . ταύ . ἡμ ., ‘ during this time.’ But this does not seem natural: I should rather understand it, at this present period,— now. The pres. ἀποκαθιστάνεις , is that so often used in speaking with reference to matters of prophecy, importing fixed determination: as in ὁἐρχόμενος (ref. Mt.) and the like. So that we must not render, “ Art thou restoring?” but “ wilt” or “ dost thou restore?” As to the word itself, καθιστάνω is to establish or set up, and ἀπό gives the sense of completeness, or the cognate one of entire restitution. See Wordsw.’ s note. 7. This is a general reproof and assertion, spoken with reference to men, as forbidden to search curiously into a point which Omniscience has reserved— the times and seasons of the future divine dealings. But it is remarkable that not θεός , but ὁπατήρ , is here used; and this cannot fail to remind us of that saying (Mark 13:32), περὶδὲτῆςἡμέραςἐκείνηςἢτῆςὥραςοὐδεὶςοἶδεν , οὐδὲἄγγελοςἐνοὐρανῷ , οὐδὲὁυἱός , εἰμὴὁπατήρ . It may be observed however, that the same assertion is not made here: only the times and seasons said to be in the power of the Almighty Father, Who ordereth all things κατὰτὴνβουλὴντοῦθελήματοςαὐτοῦ . The Knowledge of the Son is not here in question, only that of the disciples. It is an enquiry intimately connected with the interpretation of the two passages, but one beyond our power to resolve, how far, among the things not yet put under His feet, may be this very thing, the knowledge of that day and hour. Bengel attempts to evade the generality of the οὐχὑμῶνἐστιν :— ‘ quæ apostolorum nondum erat nosse, per Apocalypsin postea sunt significata.’ But signified to whom? What individual, or portion of the Church, has ever read plainly these χρόνουςἢκαιρούς in that mysterious book? There is truth in Olsh.’ s remark, that the Apostles were to be less prophets of the future, than witnesses of the past; but we must not so limit the ὑμῶν , nor forget that the γνῶναιχρόνουςἢκαιρ . has very seldom been imparted by prophecy, which generally has formed a testimony to this very fact, that God has them in His foreknowledge, and, while He announces the events, conceals for the most part in obscurity the times. χρ . ἢκαιρ .] not synonymous; as Meyer observes, καιρός is always a definite limited space of time, and involves the idea of transitoriness. See also Tittmann, N. T. Synonymes, pp. 39-45. ἔθ . ἐντῇἰδ . ἐξ .] Some (De Wette, al.) render ‘ hath appointed by His own power;’ I should rather take ἐνἐξ . as in ch. 5:4, in His own power, and understand by ἔθετο kept, ‘ (hath) placed,’ as E. V. But the aor. sense should be preserved: the period referred to being that of the arrangement of the divine counsels of Redemption. 8. ‘ Quod optimum fræ nandæ curiositati remedium erat, Christus eos revocat tam ad Dei promissionem, quam ad mandatum.’ Calvin. ἀλλά , ‘ antitheton inter id quod discipulorum erat, vel non erat; tum inter id quod illo tempore futurum erat, et inter id quod in ulteriora reservatum erat.’ Bengel. δύνα̇μιν , that power, especially, spoken of ch. 4:33, connected with their office of witnessing to the resurrection; but also all other spiritual power. See Luke 24:49. μου , not emphatic, as Wordsw. here and often elsewhere: see note on Matthew 16:18. The emphasis would be extremely out of place here: it was not their subordination to Him, but their office as witnesses, which was the contrast to their ambitious aspirings. μάρτυρες ] This was the peculiar work of the Apostles[: so they say of themselves, ch. 5:32, ἡμεῖςἐσμὲναὐτοῦμάρτυρεςτῶνῥημάτωντούτων ]. See on vv. 21, 22, and Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. i. § iii. 5. ἔντεἹερ … ] By the extension of their testimony, from Jerusalem to Samaria, and then indefinitely over the world, He reproves, by implication, their carnal anticipation of the restoration of the Kingdom to Israel thus understood. The Kingdom was to be one founded on μαρτυρία , and therefore reigning in the convictions of men’ s hearts; and not confined to Judæ a, but coextensive with the world. They understood this command only of Jews scattered through the world, see ch. 11:19. De Wette observes, that these words contain the whole plan of the Acts: λήμψεσθεδύναμινκ .τ .λ ., ch. 2:1— end; ἐνἹερουσαλήμ , ch. 3:1-6:7; then the martyrdom of Stephen dispersed them through Judæ a, 6:8-8:3; they preach in Samaria, 8:4-40; and, from that point, the conversion of the Apostle of the Gentiles, the vision of Peter, the preaching and journeys of Paul. In their former mission, Matthew 10:5, Matthew 10:6, they had been expressly forbidden from preaching either to Samaritans or Gentiles. 9. This appears (see Prolegg. Vol. I. ch. iv. § iv. 2) to be an account of the Ascension given to Luke subsequently to the publication of his Gospel, more particular in detail than that found in it. He has not repeated here details found there; see Luke 24:50-52. On the Ascension in general, see note on Luke, l c. ἐπήρθη ] “ was taken up,— we may understand of the commencing ascent … ὑπέλαβεν by a pregn. constr involves the idea of away as well as up, and hence takes after it ἀπό . This verb describes the close of the scene, as far as it was visible to the spectators.” Hackett. νεφέλη ] There was a manifest propriety in the last withdrawal of the Lord, while ascending, not consisting in a disappearance of His Body, as on former occasions since the Resurrection; for thus might His abiding Humanity have been called in question. As it was, He went up, past the visible boundary of Heaven, the cloud,— in human form, and so we think of and pray to Him. 10. ἀτενίζ . ἦσαν ] they were gazing, stood gazing. εἰςτ . οὐρ . belongs to ἀτενίζ ., not to πορευομ ., see reff. πορευομένου , not πορευθέντος : implying that the cloud remained visible for some time, probably ascending with Him. παρειστήκεισαν , imperf. in sense, as the perf. is present: were standing by them. ἄνδρες ] evidently angels. See Luke 24:4; John 20:12. 11. οἳκαὶεἶπαν ] who (not only appeared but) also said. There is a propriety in the address, ἄνδρ . Γαλιλαῖοι . It served to remind them of their origin, their call to be His disciples, and the duty of obedience to Him resting on them in consequence. ὃντρόπον ] in the same manner as;— to be taken in all cases literally, not as implying mere certainty: see reff. οὕτως , i.e. ἐννεφέλῃ , Luke 21:27 [in the clouds of heaven: and in the same human form]. His corporeal identity is implied in οὗτοςὁἸησοῦς . ἐλεύσεται ] ‘ Non ii, qui ascendentem viderunt, dicuntur venturum visuri. Inter ascensionem et inter adventum gloriosum nullus interponitur eventus eorum utrique par: ideo hi duo conjunguntur. Merito igitur Apostoli ante datam Apocalypsin diem Christi ut valde propinquum proposuerunt. Et congruit majestati Christi, ut toto inter ascensionem et inter adventum tempore sine intermissione expectetur.’ Bengel. 12. In so careful a writer (see Luke 1:3) there must be some reason why this minute specification of distance should be here inserted, when no such appears in the Gospel. And I believe this will be found, by combining the hint dropped by Chrysostom,— δοκεῖδέμοικαὶσαββάτῳγεγονέναιταῦτα ʼ οὐγὰρἂνοὕτωτὸδιάστημαἐδήλωσεν … εἰμὴὡρισμένοντιμῆκοςἐβάδιζονἐντῇἡμέρᾳτοῦσαββάτου ,— with the declaration in the Gospel (24:50) that he led them out as far as to Bethany, This latter was (John 11:18) fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, which is more than twice the Sabbath-day’ s journey (2000 cubits = about six furlongs). Now if the Ascension happened on the Sabbath, it is very possible that offence may have arisen at the statement in the Gospel: and that therefore the Evangelist gives here the more exact notice, that the spot, although forming part of the district of Bethany, was yet on that part of the Mount of Olives which fell within the limits of the Sabbath-day’ s journey. This of course must be a mere conjecture; but it will not be impugned by the fact of the Ascension being kept by the Church in after ages on a Thursday. This formed no hindrance to Chrysostom in making the above supposition: although the festival was certainly observed in his time (see Bingham, Eccl. 20:6. 5. There is no mention of it in the Fathers of the first three centuries). Forty days from the Resurrection is an expression which would suit as well the Saturday of the seventh week as the Thursday. The distance of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem is stated by Josephus at five stadia, Antt. xx. 8. 6,— at six stadia, B. J. v. 2. 3; different points being taken as the limit. The present church of the Ascension rather exceeds the distance of six stadia from the city. The use of ἐλαιών , -ῶνος , here (and in reff.) by Luke only is remarkable, especially as the whole passage is so much in his own distinctive style as to preclude the idea of his having transferred a written document. ἔχον is not for ἀπέχον , but as in τριάκ . κ . ὀκτ . ἔτηἔχων , John 5:5, and in reff.; the space or time mentioned being regarded as an attribute of the subject. 13. εἰσῆλθ .] ‘ into the city;’ see reff. τὸὑπερῷ .] The idea that this was a chamber in the Temple has originated in low literal-harmonistic views, Luke having stated (Luke 24:53) that they were διὰπαντὸςἐντῷἱερῷ . As if such an expression could be literally understood, or taken to mean more than that they were there at all appointed times (see ch. 3:1). It is in the highest degree improbable that the disciples would be found assembled in any public place at this time. The upper chamber was perhaps that in which the last Supper had been taken; probably that in which they had been since then assembled (John 20:19, John 20:26), but certainly one in a private house. Lightf. shews that it was the practice of the Jews to retire into a large chamber under the flat roof for purposes of deliberation or prayer. See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 13, note. Epiphanius, de ponderibus, c. 14 (vol. iii. p. 170), relates that when Hadrian came to Jerusalem, εὗρετὴνπόλινπᾶσανἠδαφισμένηνκαὶτὸἱερὸντοῦθεοῦκαταπεπατημένον , παρεκτὸςὀλίγωνοἰκημάτωνκαὶτῆςτοῦοεοῦἐκκλησίαςμικρᾶςοὔσης , ἔνθαὑποστρέψαντεςοἱμαθηταί , ὅτεὁσωτὴρἀνελήφθηἀπὸτοῦἘλαιῶνος , ἀνέβησανεἰςτὸὑπερῷον . ἐκεῖγὰρᾠκοδόμητο , τουτέστινἐντῷμέρειΣιών · ἥτιςἀπὸτῆςἐρημώσεωςπεριελήφθη , … ἕωςχρόνουΜαξίμουτοῦἐπισκόπουκαὶΚωνσταιτίνουτοῦβασιλέως , ὡςσκηνὴἐνἀμπελῶνι , κατὰτὸγεγραμμένον . And Nicephorus viii. 30 (see Wordsw.) says that the Empress Helena enclosed in her larger church the chamber where took place ἡτοῦἁγίουπνεύματοςκαθοδοςἐντῷὑπερῴῳ . οὗἦσανκατ .] not to be taken as in E. V. ‘ where abode both Peter,’ &c.; which gives the idea that Peter, &c. were already in the chamber, and the rest joined them there:— but, on entering the city, they went up into the upper chamber, where they (usually) sojourned (not ‘ dwelt:’ they did not all dwell in one house; see John 19:27, note), namely, Peter, &c. On the catalogue of the Apostles, see Matthew 10:2, note. 14. σὺνγυναιξίν has been rendered ‘ with their wives,’ to which sense Bp. Middleton inclines, justifying it by σὺνγυναιξὶνκαὶτέκνοις , ch. 21:5. But the omission of the articles there may be accounted for on the same principle as in Matthew 19:29, viz. that which Bp. calls enumeration, ch. 6 § 2. Here I think we must take σὺνγυν . not as meaning ‘ with women,’ as Hackett, but, the art. not being expressed after the preposition σύν , as = σὺνταῖςγυν . (see Middl. ch. 6 § 1), and interpret γυν ., the women, viz. those spoken of by Luke himself, Luke 8:2, Luke 8:3,— where, besides those named, he mentions ἕτεραιπολλαί . Many of these were certainly not wives of the Apostles; and that those women who were ‘ last at the Cross and earliest at the tomb’ should not have been assembled with the company now, is very improbable. καὶΜαρίᾳ ] The καί gives eminence to one among those previously mentioned. So τῶνδεεἵνεκα , καὶγῆςἱμέρῳ , Herod. i. 73. See Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 145. This is the last mention of her in the N. T. The traditions, which describe her as (1) dying at the age of fifty-nine, in the fifth year of Claudius (Niceph. H. E. ii. 21), or (2) accompanying John to Ephesus, and being buried there (see Winer, Realwö rterb. art. Maria), are untrustworthy. Other accounts, with the authorities, may be seen in Butler’ s Lives of the Saints, Aug. 15. The fable of the Assumption has no foundation even in tradition. τοῖςἀδελφ . αὐτ .] This clearly shews, as does John 7:5 compared with 6:69, 70, that none of the brethren of our Lord were of the number of the Twelve. When they were converted, is quite uncertain. See the whole subject discussed in note on Matthew 13:55, and in the Prolegomena to the Epistle of James. In both cases of one being distinguished from a number, cited here by Wordsw. to shew that James the Less may have been one of these brethren, viz. that of Μαρία , as distinguished among the women here, and that of Joseph, ch. 7:9, he does not observe that the general statement precedes the individual distinction, as indeed it naturally must. 15-26. Election of a Twelfth Apostle to fill the room of Judas Iscariot. 15. ἐντ . ἡμ . τ .] ln the days between the Ascension and Pentecost; during which it appears that the number of the assembly had increased, not probably by fresh conversions, but by the gathering round the Apostles of those who had previously been disciples. ἦντε ] The very frequent use of τε is a peculiarity of the Acts, and should have its weight in determining the reading, even where, as here, δέ seems more appropriate. It occurs in the Gospel 5 times: in the Acts, 121. ὀνομάτων ] [that is, of persons: but the term would hardly be used except where the number is small.] See note on Revelation 3:4. ἑκατὸνεἴκοσι ] De Wette asks, ‘ where were the 500 brethren of 1 Corinthians 15:6?’ We surely may answer, ‘ not in Jerusalem.’ See Neander, Pfl. u. Leit., p. 72, note. 16. We may enquire, by what change in mind and power Peter was able, before the descent of the Spirit, thus authoritatively to speak of Scripture and the divine purposes? The answer will be found in the peculiar gift of the Spirit to the Apostles, John 20:21, John 20:23; where see note. The pre-eminency of Peter here is the commencement of the fulfilment of Mat 16:18, Matthew 16:19 (see note there). 17. ὅτι , not ‘ although’ (Kuinoel), but because: it gives the reason of the previous assertion, viz. that Judas held, and had betrayed, that place of high trust of which the prophecy spoke. Thus the ὅτι has reference to the substance of the prophecy, already in Peter’ s mind, and serves to explain ἡἔπαυλιςαὐτοῦ and ἡἐπισκοπὴαὐτοῦ . ἔλαχεντὸνκλῆρον ] not literally, but inasmuch as the lot of every man is regarded as being cast and appointed by God. κλῆρος , first, the lot itself; then, that apportioned by lot; then, any species of apportionment, whether possession, or office, as here. 18. This verse cannot be regarded as inserted by Luke; for, 1. the place of its insertion would be most unnatural for an historical notice; 2. the μὲνοὖν forbids the supposition; 3. the whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and not narrative, e.g. οὗτος , μισθοῦτῆςἀδικίας . The ἐκτήσατοχωρίον does not appear to agree with the account in Matthew 27:6-8; nor, consistently with common honesty, can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do. If we compare the two, that of Matthew is the more particular, and more likely to give rise to this one, as a general inference from the buying of the field, than vice versâ . Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, ‘ initio emtionis facto, occasionem dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’ we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible[, but is certainly not contemplated by St. Matthew’ s account, where the priests settle to buy the field, on deliberation, what they should do with the money]. At all events we hence clearly see that Luke could not have been acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew at this time, or surely (not, he would have repeated St. Matt.’ s account, as Wordsw. unfairly represents me to say, but) this apparent discrepancy would not have been found. The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system. See as a notable example, Wordsw.’ s note, written since the above. I need hardly say to any intelligent and ingenuous reader, that his way of harmonizing,— viz. that as the Jews are said to have crucified our Lord when they were only the occasion of his being crucified, so Judas may be said to have bought the field when he only gave occasion to its being bought by the Chief Priests,— is entirely precluded here by the words ἐκμισθοῦτῆςἀδικίας , ‘ out of the wages of his iniquity,’ which plainly bind on the purchase to Judas as his personal act. καὶπρ . γεν .] The connexion of this with the former clause would seem to point to the death of Judas having taken place in the field which he bought. See also ver. 19. πρηνὴςγενόμενος will hardly bear the meaning assigned to it by those who wish to harmonize the two accounts,— viz. that, having hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of the rope. πρηνής · ἐπὶπρόσωπονπεπτωκώς , Hesych. ὅλονμὲντὸσῶμακεῖσθαιπρηνὲςλέγομεν , ὅτανἡμὲνγαστὴρκάτωθεν , ἄνωθενδὲᾖτὸνῶτον , Galen, cited by Wetstein. πρηνής , εἰςτοὔμπροσθεν , ἐπὶστόματος , Etymol. Nor again is it at all probable that the Apostle would recount what was a mere accident accompanying his death, when that death itself was the accursed one of hanging. What then are we to decide respecting the two accounts? That there should have been a double account actually current of the death of Judas at this early period is in the highest degree improbable, and will only be assumed by those (De Wette, &c.) who take a very low view of the accuracy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then this solution, let us compare the accounts themselves. In this case, that in Mat_27 is general,— ours particular. That depends entirely on the exact sense to be assigned to ἀπήγξατο (ו ַ י ּ ֵ ח ָ נ ַ ק , καὶἀπήγξατο , 2 Samuel 17:23): whereas this distinctly assigns the manner of his death, without stating any cause for the falling on his face. It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder, the account given here does not preclude the catastrophe related having happened, in some way, as a divine judgment, during the suicidal attempt. Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go. An accurate acquaintance with the actual circumstances would account for the discrepancy, but nothing else. Another kind of death is assigned to Judas by Œ cumenius, quoting from Papias: ἱστορεῖΠαπίαςὁτοῦἸωάννουτοῦἀποστ . μαθητὴςλέγων · μέγατῆςἀσεβείαςὑπόδειγμαἐντούτῳτῷκόσμῳπεριεπάτησενἸούδας · πρησθεὶςγὰρἐπὶτὴνσάρκα , ὥστεμὴδύνασθαιδιελθεῖν , ἁμάξηςῥαδίωςδιερχομένης , ὑπὸτῆςἁμάξηςἐπιέσθη , ὥστετὰἔγκατααὐτοῦἐκκενωθῆναι . Theophylact quotes the same on Mat_27, but without the last words, ὑπὸτῆςἁμ . κ .τ .λ ., which De Wette supposes to have been inserted from Œ cumenius having misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradition is in accordance with, and has arisen from an exaggerated amplification of, our text. See the whole passage from Theophylact cited, and a discussion whether it is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ , vol. i. p. 9, and notes. ἐλάκησεν ] cracked asunder: it implies bursting with a noise. It is quite possible that this catastrophe happening in the field, as our narrative implies, may have suggested its employment as a burial-place for strangers, as being defiled. So Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10. 19. It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two vv. 18, 19 are inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to separate it from ver. 18; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peter’ s speech, but freely Græ cized by Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations τῇ [ἰδίᾳ ] διαλ . αὐτ ., and τουτέστινχ . αἵμ ., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural, than to parenthesize these clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more or less done by all who report in a language different from that actually used by the speaker. The words and idioms of another tongue contain allusions and national peculiarities which never could have been in the mind of one speaking in a different language; but the ear tolerates these, or easily separates them, if critically exercised. γνωστὸν … ] See Luke 24:18. ὥστε ] in Matthew 27:8, the name ‘ the field of blood’ is referred to the fact of its having been bought with the price of blood: here, to the fact of Judas having there met with a signal and bloody death. On the whole, I believe the result to which I have above inclined will be found the best to suit the phæ nomena of the two passages,— viz. that, with regard to the purchase of the field, the more circumstantial account in Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Judas, the more circumstantial account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us: and in this, only those will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very weak indeed. Ἀκελδαμάχ ] ח ֲ ק ִ ל ד ּ ְ מ ָ א . The field originally belonged to a potter, and was probably a piece of land which had been exhausted of its clay fit for his purposes, and so was useless. Jerome relates that it was still shewn on the S. side of Mount Sion (ἐνβορείοιςτοῦΣιὼνὄρους , but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neighbourhood there is even now a bed of white clay . 20. γάρ , the connexion being, ‘ all this happened and became known,’ &c., ‘ in accordance with the prophecy,’ &c. Psa_69 is eminently a Messianic psalm,— spoken in the first place of David and his kingdom and its enemies, and so, according to the universal canon of O. T. interpretation, of Him in whom that kingdom found its true fulfilment, and of His enemies. And Judas being the first and most notable of these, the Apostle applies eminently to him the words which in the Psalm are spoken in the plural of all such enemies. The same is true of Psa_109, and there one adversary is even more pointedly marked out. See also Psa_55. ἐπισκοπήν = פ ּ ְ ק ֻ ד ּ ָ ה , office, or charge. The citations are freely from the LXX. 21. οὖν , since all this has happened to Judas, and since it is the divine will that another should take the charge which was his. ἐνπαντὶχρόνῳ ] This definition of the necessary qualification of an apostle exactly agrees with our Lord’ s saying in John 15:27: καὶὑμεῖςδὲμαρτυρεῖτε , ὅτιἀπ ʼ ἀρχῆςμετ ʼ ἐμοῦἐστε . See Prolegg. Vol. l. ch. i. § iii. 5. εἰσῆλθ . κ . ἐξῆλθ . ἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς ] An abridged construction for εἰσῆλθ . ἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶςκ . ἐξῆλθ . ἀφ ʼ ἡμῶν . 22. βαπτ . Ἰωάν .] Not ‘ His being baptized by John’ (as Wolf, Kuin., &c.); but the baptism of John, as a well-known date, including of course the opening event of our Lord’ s ministry, His own baptism. That John continued to baptize for some time after that, can be no possible objection to the assignment of ‘ John’ s baptism’ generally, as the date of the commencement of the apostolic testimony (against De Wette). We may notice, that from this point the testimony of the Evangelists themselves in their Gospels properly begins, Matthew 3:1, Mark 1:1, Luke 3:1, John 1:6. μάρτ . τῆςἀναστ .] This one event was the passage-point between the Lord’ s life of humiliation and His life of glory,— the completion of His work below and beginning of His work above. And to ‘ give witness with power’ of the Resurrection (ch. 4:33), would be to discourse of it as being all this; in order to which, the whole ministry of Jesus must be within the cycle of the Apostle’ s experience. It is remarkable that Peter here lays down experience of matters of fact, not eminence in any subjective grace or quality, as the condition of Apostleship. Still, the testimony was not to be mere ordinary allegation of matters of fact: any who had seen the Lord since His resurrection were equal to this;— but belonged to a distinct office (see John 14:26: also ch. 5:31, note), requiring the especial selection and grace of God. 23. ἔστησαν , viz. the whole company, to whom the words had been spoken; not the eleven Apostles. Ἰωσὴφ .… ] The names Ἰωσήφ and Ἰωσῆς , different forms of the same, are confused in the mss., both here and in ch. 4:36. But Barsabbas (or Barsabas) and Barnabas are not to be confounded: they are different names (Barsabbas = son of Sabba or Saba: on Barnabas, see ch. 4:36, note); and Barnabas is evidently introduced in 4:36 as a person who had not been mentioned before. Of Barsabas, nothing further is known. Euseb., iii. 39, states, on the authority of Papias, that he drank a cup of poison without being hurt. [There is a Judas Barsabbas mentioned in ch. 15:22, whom some take to be his brother.] In all probability both the selected persons (see i. 12) belonged to the number of the Seventy, as it would be natural that the candidates for apostleship should be chosen from among those who had been already distinguished by Christ Himself among the brethren. Justus is a Roman cognomen, assumed according to a custom then prevalent. The name Justus seems to have been common: Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr., on this place, gives two instances of Jews bearing it. Μαθθίαν ] Nothing historical is known of him. Traditionally, according to Nicephorus (H. E. ii. 40, Winer), he suffered martyrdom in Æ thiopia; according to others, in Colchis (Menolog. Græ c. iii. 198, Winer): another account (Perionii Vitæ Apost. p. 178 sqq., Winer) makes him preach in Judæ a and be stoned by the Jews. Alex., Strom. ii. 9 [45], p. 452 P., vii. 13 [82], p. 882 P., mentions the παραδόσεις of Matthias, which perhaps were the same as an apocryphal gospel once current under his name, mentioned by Eus., H. E. iii. 25. See Winer, Realw. 24. It is a question, to Whom this prayer was directed. I think all probability is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter certainly was the spokesman) having addressed his glorified Lord. And with this the language of the prayer agrees. No stress can, it is true, be laid on κύριε : see ch. 4:29, where unquestionably the Father is so addressed: but the ἐξελέξω , compared with οὐκἐγὼὑμᾶςτοὺςδώδεκαἐξελεξάμην , John 6:70, seems to me almost decisive. See also ver. 2; Luke 6:13; John 13:18, John 13:15:16, John 13:19. The instance cited on the other side by Meyer, ἐξελέξατοὁθεὸςδιὰτοῦστόματόςμουἀκοῦσαιτὰἔθνηκ .τ .λ ., is not to the point, as not relating to the matter here in hand; nor are the passages cited by De Wette, 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1, where Paul refers his apostleship to God, since obviously all such appointment must be referred ultimately to God:— but the question for us is,— In these words, did the disciples pray as they would have prayed before the Ascension, or had they Christ in their view? The expression καρδιογνῶστα (used by Peter himself of God, ch. 15:8) forms no objection: see John 21:17, also in the mouth of Peter himself. We are sure, from the προσκυνήσαντεςαὐτόν of Luke 24:52, that even at this time, before the descent of the Spirit, the highest kind of worship was paid to the ascended Redeemer. Still, I do not regard it as by any means certain that they addressed Christ, nor can the passage be alleged as convincing in controversy with the Socinian. ἀνάδειξ . κ .τ .λ .] Not, as in E. V., ‘ shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen,’ but appoint (see reff.) one of these two (him) whom Thou hast chosen. The difference is of some import: they did not pray for a sign merely, to shew whether of the two was chosen, but that the Lord would, by means of their lot, Himself appoint the one of His choice. 25. τόπον is from internal evidence, as well us manuscript authority, the preferable reading. It has been altered to κλῆρον to suit ver. 17. διακονίας , implying the active duties; ἀποστολῆς , the official dignity of the office:— no figure of ἓνδιὰδυοῖν . τὸντόποντὸνἴδιον ] With the reading τόπον before, I think these words may be interpreted two ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our τόπος , our office and ministry, to go to his own τόπος , that part which he had chosen for himself, viz. the office and character of a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding the former word τόπος as being selected to correspond to the more proper and dreadful use of the word here, that Judas deserted his τόπος , his appointed place, here among us, that he might go to his own appointed τόπος elsewhere, viz. among the dead in the place of torment. Of these two interpretations, I very much prefer the second, on all accounts; as being more according to the likely usage of the word, and as more befitting the solemnity of such a prayer. At the same time, no absolute sentence is pronounced on the traitor, but that dark surmise expressed by the euphemism τὸντόποντ . ἴδ ., which none can help feeling with regard to him. To refer the words πορ . εἰςτ . τόπ . τ . ἴδ ., to the successor of Judas (Knatchbull, Hammond, al.), ‘ ut occupet locum ipsi a Deo destinatum,’ (1) is contrary to the form of the sentence, which would require καὶπορευθῆναι ; (2) is inconsistent with the words πορ . κ .τ .λ ., which are unexampled in this sense; (3) would divest a sentence, evidently solemn and pregnant, of all point and meaning, and reduce it to a mere tautology. It appears to have been very early understood as above; for Clement of Rome says of Peter (1Co_5), οὕτωμαρτυρήσαςἐπορεύθηεἰςτὸνὀφειλόμενοντόποντῆςδόξης , an expression evidently borrowed from our text. Lightf., Hor. Hebr. in loc., quotes from the Rabbinical work Baal turim on Numbers 24:25,— ‘ Balaam ivit in locum suum, i.e. in Gehennam.’ 26. ἔδωκ . κλήρουςαὐτοῖς ] They cast lots for them, αὐτοῖς being a dativus commodi. The ordinary reading, whether αὐτῶν is referred to the Apostles or to the candidates, would require τοὺςκλήρους . Αὐτῶν has been an alteration, to avoid the rendering ‘ they gave lots to them.’ These lots were probably tablets, with the names of the persons written on them, and shaken in a vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Proverbs 16:33); he whose lot first leaped out being the person designated. συγκατ .] The lot being regarded as the divine choice, the suffrages of the assembly were unanimously given (not in form, but by cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, and he was ‘ voted in’ among the eleven Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth. That Luke does not absolutely say so, and never afterwards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which to doubt this. Stier seems disposed to question (in his Reden der Apostel, 1:18 ff., which however was a work of his youth) whether this step of electing a twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to the then waiting position of the Church, and whether Paul was not in reality the twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But I do not see that any of his seven queries touch the matter. We have the precedent, of all others most applicable, of the twelve tribes, to shew that the number, though ever nominally kept, was really exceeded. And this incident would not occupy a prominent place in a book where Paul himself has so conspicuous a part, unless it were by himself considered as being what it professed to be, the filling up of the vacant Apostleship. Chap. 2:1-4. The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the disciples. 1. ἐντῷσυνπληροῦσθαι … ] While the day of P. was being fulfilled: ‘ during the progress of that particular day:’ this is necessitated by the pres. tense. In sense, it amounts to ‘ when the day of P. was fully come,’ as E. V.: but not in grammar. Professor Hitzig, in a letter to Ideler, “ Ostern und Pflngsten, u.s.w.,” maintains that the meaning is, ‘ As the day of P. drew on,’ — ‘ was approaching its fulfilment:’ but this view is refuted by Neander, “ Pflanzung u. Leitung, u.s.w.,” p. 10, note. Hitzig supports his view by ver. 5, taking κατοικοῦντες to imply constant residence, not merely sojourning on account of the feast, which latter he says would have been specified if it were so. Neander replies, 1. that ἐντ . συνπλ . τ . ἡ . τ . π . must necessarily mean that the day itself had arrived; compare πλήρωματοῦχρόνου or τῶνκαιρῶν , Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10. In Luke 9:51, it is not said of the day, but of the days of His being received up, including the whole period introductory to that event: and, by the very same interpretation, the day of P. must in this case have arrived, (and was being accomplished, i.e. in process of passing.) And again, if only the approach of that day were indicated, why should the day itself have been mentioned, seeing that it would then be no way concerned in the narrative? On the propriety of the day itself as belonging to the narrative, see below. 2. It is true that in ver. 5, if we had that verse only before us, we should interpret κατοικ . of dwelling, permanently ; but if we compare it with ver. 9, we shall see, that the same persons would thus be κατοικοῦντες in Jerusalem and several other localities,— which necessarily restricts the meaning, in ver. 5, to a temporary sojourn. And, granting that there may have been some residents in Jerusalem among these foreign Jews, the ἐπιδημοῦντεςῬωμαῖοι certainly point to persons who were for some especial reason at Jerusalem at the time, as also the proselytes. And in ver. 14 Peter distinguishes the ἄνδρεςἸουδαῖοι ,— the residents, from οἱκατοικοῦντεςἹερους . ἅπαντες ,— the sojourners. τ . ἡμ . τῆςπ .] The fiftieth day (inclusive) after the sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of the Passover (Leviticus 23:16),— called in Exodus 23:16, ‘ the feast of harvest,’ — in Deuteronomy 16:10, ‘ the feast of weeks;’ — one of the three great feasts, when all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem, Deuteronomy 16:16. No supplying of ἡμέρας , or ἑορτῆς , is required after πεντηκοστῆς : the word had passed into a proper name, see ref. Tobit, where it is in appos. with ἑορτῇ , and ref. 2 Macc. At this time, it was simply regarded as the feast of harvest: among the later Jews, it was considered as the anniversary of the giving of the law from Sinai. This inference was apparently grounded on a comparison of Exo 12:2 and 19:1. Josephus and Philo know nothing of it, and it is at the best very uncertain. Chrysostom’ s reason for the event happening when it did is probably the true one: ἔδειγὰρἑορτῆςοὔσηςπάλινταῦταγενέσθαι · ἵναοἱπαρόντεςτῷσταυρῷτοῦχριστοῦ , οὗτοικαὶταῦταἴδωσιν (in Catena). See a number of other reasons given by Wordsw., more suo. The question, on what day of the week this day of Pentecost was, is beset with the difficulties attending the question of our Lord’ s last passover; see notes on Matthew 26:17, and John 18:28. It appears probable however that it was on the Sabbath,— i.e. if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan. Wieseler (Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters, p. 20) supposes that the Western Church altered the celebration of it to the first day of the week in conformity with her observance of Easter on that day. If we take the second day of the Passover as Sunday, the 17th of Nisan, which some have inferred from John 18:28, the day of Pentecost will fall on the first day of the week. The custom of the Karaites was, to keep Pentecost always on the first day of the week, reckoning not from the day after the great Passover-Sabbath, but from that following the Sabbath in Passover week— understanding ה ַ ש ׁ ּ ַ ב ּ ָ ת in Leviticus 23:15 of the ordinary Sabbath;— but this cannot be brought to bear on our enquiry, as it probably arose later. πάντες ] Not the Apostles only, nor the hundred and twenty mentioned ch. 1:15; but all the believers in Christ, then congregated at the time of the feast in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from ver. 14, when Peter and the eleven stand forward and allude to the rest as οὗτοι : and the latter follows on the former being granted. Both are confirmed by the universality of the promise cited by Peter, vv. 17 ff. See Chrys. below, on ver. 4. ὁμοῦ ] together: the rec. ὁμοθυμαδόν implies more, viz. that their purpose, as well as their locality, was the same. ἐπὶτὸαὐτό ] Where? evidently not in the temple, or any part of it. The improbability of such an assemblage, separate and yet so great, in any of the rooms attached to the temple,— the words ὅλοντὸνοἶκον in ver. 2 (where see note),— the συνῆλθεντὸπλῆθος , ver. 6,— the absence of any mention of the temple,— all these are against such a supposition. Obviously no à priori consideration such as Olshausen alleges (in loc.), that “ thus the solemn inauguration of the Church of Christ becomes more imposing by happening in the holy place of the Old Covenant,” can apply to the enquiry. Nor can the statement that they were διὰπαντὸςἐντῷἱερῷ , Luke 24:53, apply here (see above on ch. 1:13); for even if it be assumed that the hour of prayer was come (which it hardly could have been, seeing that some time must have elapsed between the event and Peter’ s speech), the disciples would not have been assembled separately, but would, as Peter and John, in ch. 3:1, have gone up, mingled with the people. See more below. 2. ἦχ . ὥσπ . φερ . πνοῆςβιαίας ] could not be better rendered than in E. V., a sound at of a rushing mighty wind. The distinction between πνοῆς and πνεύματος , on which De Wette insists, can hardly be expressed in our language. It is possible that Luke may have used πνοῆς to avoid the concurrence of πνεύματοςβιαίου and πνεύματοςἁγίου . It doubtless has its especial propriety;— it is the breathing or blowing which we hear: it was the sound as of a violent blowing, borne onward, which accompanied the descent of the Holy Spirit. To treat this as a natural phæ nomenon,— even supposing that phæ nomenon miraculously produced, as the earthquake at the crucifixion,— is contrary to the text, which does not describe it as ἦχοςφερομένηςπν . βι ., but ἦχοςὥσπερφ . πν . βι . It was the chosen vehicle by which the Holy Spirit was manifested to their sense of hearing, as by the tongues of fire to their sense of seeing. ‘ φέρεσθαι ad violentum quo venti moventur impetum notandum adhiberi solet. Æ l. Hist. An. vii. 24, ἐπειδὰντὸπνεῦμαβίαιονἐκφέρηται : Diog. Laë rt. x. 25. 104, διὰτοῦπνεύματοςπολλοῦφερομένου .’ Kypke. οἶκον ] Certainly Luke would not have used this word of a chamber in the Temple, or of the Temple itself, without further explanation. Our Lord, it is true, calls the Temple ὁοἶκοςὑμῶν , Matthew 23:38,— and Josephus informs us that Solomon’ s Temple was furnished τριάκονταβραχέσινοἴκοις , and again ἐπῳκοδόμηντοδὲτούτοιςἄνωθενἕτεροιοἶκοι : but to suppose either usage here, seems to me very far-fetched and unnatural. 3. ὤφθ . αὐτοῖς ]— not, ‘ there were seen on them,’ as Luther; but, as E. V., there appeared unto them. διαμεριζόμεναι ] not, ‘ distributed,’ as μερισμοῖς in Hebrews 2:4: from the construction, διαμ . must refer to something characteristic, not of the manner of apportionment, but of the appearance itself. ὡσεὶπυρός ] see reff. They were not πυρός , as not possessing the burning power of fire, but only ὡσεὶπυρός , in appearance like that element. ἐκάθισεν ] viz. τὸφαινόμενον : not τὸπνεῦμα , nor ἡγλῶσσα , but the appearance described in the preceding clause. I understand ἐκάθ . as usually interpreted, lighted on their heads. This also was no effect of natural cause, either ordinarily or extraordinarily employed: see on ver. 2. 4. On ἅπαντες , Chrys. says, οὐκἂνεἶπεπάντες , καὶἀποστόλωνὄντωνἐκεῖ , εἰμὴκαὶοἱἄλλοιμετέσχον . ἤρξαντολαλεῖνἑτέραιςγλώσσαις ] There can be no question in any unprejudiced mind, that the fact which this narrative sets before us is, that the disciples began to speak in various languages, viz. the languages of the nations below enumerated, and perhaps others. All attempts to evade this are connected with some forcing of the text, or some far-fetched and indefensible exegesis. This then being laid down, several important questions arise, and we are surrounded by various difficulties. (1) Was this speaking in various languages a gift bestowed on the disciples for their use afterwards, or was it a mere sign, their utterance being only as they were mouth-pieces of the Holy Spirit? The latter seems certainly to have been the case. It appears on our narrative, καθὼςτὸπνεῦμαἐδίδουἀποφθέγγεσθαιαὐτοῖς , as the Spirit gave them utterance. But, it may be objected, in that case they would not themselves understand what they said. I answer, that we infer this very fact from 1Co_14; that the speaking with tongues was often found, where none could interpret what was said. And besides, it would appear from Peter’ s speech, that such, or something approaching to it, was the case in this instance. He makes no allusion to the things said by those who spoke with tongues; the hearers alone speak of their declaring τὰμεγαλεῖατοῦθεοῦ . So that it would seem that here, as on other occasions (1 Corinthians 14:22), tongues were for a sign, not to those that believe, but to those that believe not. If the first supposition be made, that the gift of speaking in various languages was bestowed on the disciples for their after use in preaching the Gospel, we are, I think, running counter to the whole course of Scripture and early patristic evidence on the subject. There is no trace whatever of such a power being possessed or exercised by the Apostles, or by those who followed them. (Compare ch. 14:11, 14; Euseb. iii. 39; iii. 1, p. 174.) The passage cited triumphantly by Wordsw. from Iren. iii. 17, p. 208, to shew that Irenœ us understood the gift to be that of permanent preaching in many languages, entirely fails of its point:— “ Quem et descendisse Lucas ait post ascensum Domini super discipulos in Pentecoste, habentem potestatem omnium gentium ad introitum vitæ (which Wordsw. renders “ in order that all nations might be enabled to enter into life,” suitably to his purpose, but not to the original) et ad assertionem novi Testamenti: unde et omnibus linguis conspirantes hymnum dicebant Deo, Spiritu ad unitatem redigente distantes tribus, et primitias omnium gentium offerente Patri.” Here it will be observed is not a word about future preaching; but simply this event itself is treated of, as a symbolic one, a first fruit of the future Gentile harvest. The other passage, id. v. 6, p. 299, shews nothing but that the gift of tongues was not extinct in Irenæ us’ s time: there is in it not a word of preaching in various languages. I believe, therefore, the event related in our text to have been a sudden and powerful inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which the disciples uttered, not of their own minds, but as mouth-pieces of the Spirit, the praises of God in various languages, hitherto, and possibly at the time itself, unknown to them. (2) How is this ἑτέραιςγλώσσαιςλαλεῖν related to the γλώσσῃλαλεῖν afterwards spoken of by St. Paul? I answer, that they are one and the same thing. γλώσσῃλαλ . is to speak in a language, as above explained; γλώσσαις (ἑτέραις , or καιναῖς , Mark 16:17) λαλ ., to speak in languages, under the same circumstances. See this further proved in notes on 1Co_14. Meantime I may remark, that the two are inseparably connected by the following links,— ch. 10:46, 11:15-19:6,— in which last we have the same juxtaposition of γλώσσαιςλαλεῖν and προφητεύειν , as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14:1-5 ff. (3) Who were those that partook of this gift? I answer, the whole assembly of believers, from Peter’ s application of the prophecy, vv. 16 ff. It was precisely the case supposed in 1 Corinthians 14:23, ἐὰνοὖνσυνέλθῃἡἐκκλησίαὅληἐπὶτὸαὐτὸκαὶπάντεςλαλῶσινγλώσσαις , εἰσέλθωσινδὲἰδιῶταιἢἄπιστοι , οὐκἐροῦσινὅτιμαίνεσθε ; These ἰδιῶται and ἄπιστοι were represented by the ἕτεροι of our ver. 13, who pronounced them to be drunken. (4) I would not conceal the difficulty which our minds find in conceiving a person supernaturally endowed with the power of speaking, ordinarily and consciously, a language which he has never learned. I believe that difficulty to be insuperable. Such an endowment would not only be contrary to the analogy of God’ s dealings, but, as far as I can see into the matter, self-contradictory, and therefore impossible. But there is no such contradiction, and to my mind no such difficulty, in conceiving a man to be moved to utterance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit. And the fact is clearly laid down by Paul, that the gift of speaking in tongues, and that of interpreting, were wholly distinct. So that the above difficulty finds no place here, nor even in the case of a person both speaking and interpreting: see 1 Corinthians 14:13. On the question whether the speaking was necessarily always in a foreign tongue, we have no data to guide us: it would seem that it was; but the conditions would not absolutely exclude rhapsodical and unintelligible utterance. Only there is this objection to it: clearly, languages were spoken on this occasion,— and we have no reason to believe that there were two distinct kinds of the gift. (5) It would be quite beyond the limits of a note to give any adequate history of the exegesis of the passage. A very short summary must suffice. The idea of a gift of speaking in various languages having been conferred for the dissemination of the Gospel, appears not to have originated until the gift of tongues itself had some time disappeared from the Church. Chrysostom adopts it, and the great majority of the Fathers and expositors. Gregory Nyss. , Cyprian, and in modern times Erasmus and Schneckenburger, suppose that the miracle consisted in the multitude hearing in various languages that which the believers spoke in their native tongue: μίανμὲνἐξηχεῖσθαιφωνήν , πολλὰςδὲἀκούεσθαι . This view Greg. mentions, but not as his own, and refutes it (Orat. xli. 15, p. 743), saying, ἐκείνωςμὲνγὰρτῶνἀκουόντωνἂνεἴημᾶλλονἢτῶνλεγόντωντὸθαῦμα . This view, besides, would make a distinction between this instance of the gift and those subsequently related, which we have seen does not exist. The course of the modern German expositors has been, (1) to explain the facts related, by some assumption inconsistent with the text, as e.g. Olshausen, by a magnetic ‘ rapport’ between the speakers and hearers,— whereas the speaking took place first, independently of the hearers;— Eichhorn, Wieseler, and others, by supposing γλώσσῃλαλεῖν to mean speaking with the tongue only, i.e. inarticulately in ejaculations of praise, which will not suit γλώσσαιςλαλ .;— Bleek, by interpreting γλῶσσα = glossema, and supposing that they spoke in unusual, enthusiastic, or poetical phraseology,— which will not suit γλώσσῃλαλ .;— Meyer (and De Wette nearly the same), by supposing that they spoke in an entirely new spiritual language (of which the γλῶσσαι were merely the individual varieties), as was the case during the Irvingite delusion in this country,— contrary to the plain assertion of vv. 6-8, that they spoke, and the hearers heard, in the dialects or tongues of the various peoples specified;— Paulus, Schulthess, Kuinoel, &c. by supposing that the assembly of believers was composed of Jews of various nations, who spoke as moved by the Spirit, but in their own mother tongues,— which is clearly inconsistent with ver. 4 and the other passages, ch. 10 and 19, and 1Co_14, above cited:— (2) to take the whole of this narrative in its literal sense, but cast doubts on its historical accuracy, and on Luke’ s proper understanding of what really did take place. This is more or less done by several of the above mentioned, as a means of escape from the inconsistency of their hypotheses with Luke’ s narrative. But, to set aside, argumenti gratiâ , higher considerations,— is it at all probable that Luke, who must have conversed with many eye and ear-witnesses of this day’ s events, would have been misinformed about them in so vital a point as the very nature of the gift by which the descent of the Spirit was accompanied? There is every mark, as I hope I have shewn abundantly in the prolegomena, of the Acts having been written in the company and with the co-operation of St. Paul: can we suppose that he, who treats so largely of this very gift elsewhere, would have allowed such an inaccuracy to remain uncorrected, if it had existed? On the contrary, I believe this narrative to furnish the key to the right understanding of 1Co_14 and other such passages, as I there hope more fully to prove. καθὼςκ .τ .λ .] according as the Spirit granted to them to speak (bestowed on them utterance). There is no emphasis, as Wordsw., on αὐτοῖς , but rather the contrary: placed thus behind the verb, it becomes insignificant in comparison with the fact announced, and with the subject of the sentence. The word ἀποφθέγγεσθαι has been supposed here to imply that they uttered short ejaculatory sentences of praise: so Chrys., ἀποφθέγματαγὰρἦντὰπαρ ʼ αὐτῶνλεγόμενα : Œ , Bloomf., and Wordsw. But in neither of the two other places in St. Luke (see reff.) will it bear this meaning, nor in any of the six where it occurs in the LXX: though in two of those (Mic. and Zech.) it has the peculiar sense of speaking oracularly. and in Ezekiel 13:19 it represents כ ּ ָ ז ַ ב , mentior. Our word to utter, to speak out, seems exactly to render it. It is never desirable to press a specific sense, where the more general one seems to have become the accepted meaning of a word. And this is especially so here, where, had any peculiar sense been intended, the verb would surely have held a more prominent position. Their utterance was none of their own, but the simple gift and inspiration of the Holy Spirit: see above. 5-13. Effect on the Multitude. 5. De Wette maintains that these κατοικοῦντες cannot have been persons sojourning for the sake of the feast, but residents: but see above on ver. 1. I see no objection, with Meyer, to including both residents and sojourners in the term, which only specifies their then residence. εὐλαβεῖς ] Not in reference to their having come up to the feast, nor to their dwelling from religious motives at Jerusalem (τὸκατοικεῖνεὐλαβείαςἦνσημεῖον , ἀπὸτοσούτωνἐθνῶνπατρίδαςἂφένταςκαὶοἰκίανκαὶσυγγενεῖς , ἐκειοἰκεῖν , Chrys.), but stated as imparting a character and interest to what follows. They were not merely vain and curious listeners, but men of piety and weight. ἀπὸπαντὸςἔθν … ] Not perhaps used so much hyperbolically, as with reference to the significance of the whole event. As they were samples each of their different people, so collectively they represented all the nations of the world, who should hear afterwards in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. 6. Whatever τῆςφωνῆςταύτης may mean, one thing is clear,— that it cannot mean, ‘ this rumour’ (‘ when this was noised abroad,’ E. V.: so also Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grotius, &c.), which would be unexampled (the two passages cited for this sense from the LXX are no examples; Genesis 45:16; Jer_27:(50) 46). We have then to choose between two things to which φωνή might refer:— (1) the ἦχος or ver. 2, to which it seems bound by the past part. γενομένης , which would hardly be used of a speaking which was still going on when the multitude assembled: compare also John 3:8;— and (2) the speaking with tongues of ver. 4. To this reference, besides the objection just stated, there is also another, that the voices of a number of men, especially when diverse as in this case, would not be indicated by φωνή , but by φωναί : compare Luke’ s own usage, even when the voices cried out the same thing, Luke 23:23, οἱδὲἐπέκειντοφωναῖςμεγάλαιςαἰτούμενοιαὐτόνσταυρωθῆναι , καὶκατίσχυοναἱφωναὶαὐτῶν . And when he uses the sing., he explains it, as in ch. 19:34, φωνὴἐγένετομίαἐκπάντων . So that we may safely decide for the former reference. The noise of the rushing mighty wind was heard over all the neighbourhood, probably over all Jerusalem. τὸπλῆθος ] including the scoffers of ver. 13, as well as the pious strangers: but these latter only are here regarded in the συνεχύθη and in the ἤκ . εἷςἕκαστος . On these latter words see above on ver. 4. Each one heard λαλούντωναὐτῶν ,— i.e. either various disciples speaking various tongues, each in some one only: or the same persons speaking now one now another tongue. The former is more probable, although the latter seems to agree with some expressions in 1Co_14, e.g. ver. 18 (in the rec. and perhaps even in the present text). συνεχύθη ] Observe ref. Genesis. 7. They were not, literally, all Galilæ ans; but certainly the greater part were so, and all the Apostles and leading persons, who would probably be the prominent speakers. 8-11. This question is broken, in construction, by the enumeration of vv. 9, 10, and then ver. 11 takes up the construction again from ver. 8. As regards the catalogue itself,— of course it cannot have been thus delivered as part of a speech by any hearer on the occasion, but is inserted into a speech expressing the general sense of what was said, and put, according to the usage of all narrative, into the mouths of all. The words τῇἰδίᾳδιαλ . ἡμ . ἐνᾗἐγεννήθημεν are very decisive as to the nature of the miracle. The hearers could not have thus spoken, had they been spiritually uplifted into the comprehension of some ecstatic language spoken by the disciples. They were not spiritually acted on at all, but spoke the matter of fact: they were surprised at each recognizing, so far from his country, and in the mouths of Galilæ ans, his own native tongue. 9. Πάρθοι ] The catalogue proceeds from the N.E. to the W. and S. See Mede, Book i. Disc. xx., who notices that it follows the order of the three great dispersions of the Jews, the Chaldean, Assyrian, and Egyptian. So also Wordsw. ‘ Habet (Parthia) ab ortu Arios, a meridie Carmaniam et Arianos, ab occasu Protitas Medos, a septentrione Hyrcanos,— undique desertis cincta,’ Plin. vi. 29. See also Strabo, xi. 9, and Winer, Realw. Μῆδοι ] Media, W. of Parthia and Hyrcania, S. of the Caspian sea, E. of Armenia, N. of Persia. Ἐλαμῖται ] in pure Greek Ἐλυμαῖοι , inhabitants of Elam or Elymais, a Semitic people (Genesis 10:22). Elam is mentioned in connexion with Babylon, Genesis 14:1; with Media, Isaiah 21:2; Jer_25:(32 in LXX) 25; with, or as part of, Assyria, Ezekiel 32:24; lsa. 22:6; as a province of Persia, Ezra 4:9; as the province in which Susan was situated, Daniel 8:2 (but then Susiana must be taken in the wide sense, ἘλυμαῖοιπροσεχεῖςἦσανΣουσίοις , Strabo, xi. 13; xvi. 1). According toJosephus, Antt. i. 6. 4, the Elamæ ans were the progenitors of the Persians. We find scattered hordes under this name far to the north, and even on the Orontes near the Caspian (Strabo, xi. 13; xv. 3; xvi. 1). Pliny’ s description, the most applicable to the times of our text, is, ‘ Infra Eulæ um (Susianen ab Elymaide disterminat amnis Eulæ us, paulo supra) Elymais est, in ora juncta Persidi, a flumine Oronti ad Characem ccxl m. pass. Oppida ejus Seleucia et Sosirate, apposita monti Casyro,’ vi. 27. Μεσοποταμίαν ] the well-known district between the Euphrates and Tigris, so called merely as distinguishing its geographical position (Strabo, xvi. 1): it never formed a state. The name does not appear to be older than the Macedonian conquests. The word is used by the LXX, Vulg., and E. V. in Genesis 24:10 to express א ֲ ר ַ ם נ ַ ה ֲ ר ַ י ִ ם , Aram of the two rivers. Similarly the Peschito renders it here, and ch. 7:2. See Winer, Realw. Ἰουδαίαν ] I can see no difficulty in Judæ a being here mentioned. The catalogue does not proceed by languages, but by territorial division; and Judæ a lies immediately S. of its path from Mesopotamia to Cappadocia. It is not Ἰουδαῖοι by birth and domicile, but οἱκατοικοῦντεςτὴνἸουδαίαν who are spoken of: the ἄνδρεςεὐλαβεῖς settled in Judæ a. And even if born Jews were meant, doubtless they also would find a place among those who heard in their mother-tongue the wonderful works of God. Καππαδοκίαν ] At this time (since u.c. 770) a Roman province (see Tacit. Ann. ii. 42), embracing Cappadocia proper and Armenia minor. Πόντον ] The former kingdom of Mithridates, lying along the S. coast of the Euxine (whence its name) from the river Halys to Colchis and Armenia, and separated by mountains from Cappadocia on the S. It was at this time divided into petty principalities under Roman protection, but subsequently (Suet. Nero 18) became a province under Nero. τὴνἈσίαν ] i.e. here Asia propria, or rather the W. division of it, as described by Pliny, v. 27, as bounded on the E. by Phrygia and Lycaonia, on the W. by the Æ gean, on the S. by the Egyptian sea, on the N. by Paphlagonia. Winer, Realw., cites from Solinus, 43: ‘ Sequitur Asia, sed non eam Asiam loquor quæ in tertio orbis divortio terminos omnes habet, … verum eam quæ a Telmesso Lyciæ incipit. Eam igitur Asiam ab Oriente Lycia includit et Phrygia, ab occid. Æ gæ a littora, a meridie mare Æ gyptium, Paphlagonia a septentrione. Ephesus in ea urbs clarissima est.’ See ch. 16:6, where the same appears to be intended. 10. Φρυγίαν ] ἡμεγάληφρυγία of Strabo, xii. 8: Jos. Antt. xvi. 2. 2. It was at this time part of the Roman province of Asia. Παμφυλίαν ] A small district, extending along the coast from Olbia (Strabo, xiv. 4), or Phaselis (Plin. v. 27), to Ptolemais (Strabo, l. c). It was a separate tributary district (χωρὶςὅπλωνφορολογεῖται , Jos. B. J. ii. 16. 4): we find it classed with Galatia and ruled by the same person, Tac. Hist. ii. 9. Αἴγυπτον ] Having enumerated the principal districts of Asia Minor, the catalogue passes (see above on the arrangement, ver. 9) to Egypt, a well-known habitation of Jews. Two-fifths of the population of Alexandria consisted of them, see Philo, in Flacc. 8, vol. ii. p. 525, and they had an Ethnarch of their own, Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; xix. 5. 2. τὰμ . τ . Λιβύηςτ . κ . Κυρήνην ] By this expression is probably meant Pentapolis, where Josephus (Antt. xiv. 7. 2), quoting from Strabo, testifies to the existence of very many Jews,— amounting in Cyrene to a fourth part of the whole population. The Cyrenian Jews were so numerous in Jerusalem, that they had a special synagogue (see ch. 6:9). Several were Christian converts: see ch. 11:20; 13:1. οἱἐπιδημοῦντεςῬωμαῖοι ] ‘ The Roman Jews dwelling (or then being) in Jerusalem,’ see ref. The comma after Ῥωμαῖοι is better retained (against Wordsw.). Ἰουδ . τ . κ . προσήλ .] This refers more naturally to the whole of the past catalogue, than merely to the Roman Jews. The τεκαί shews that it does not take up a new designation, but expresses the classes or divisions of those which have gone before. See a similar construction in John 2:15, where τάτεπρόβατακ . τοὺςβόας is epexegetic of πάντας preceding. 11. Κρῆτεςκ . Ἄραβες ] These words would seem as if they should precede the last. μεγαλεῖα ] ג ּ ְ ד ֹ ל ו ֹ ת , ref. Ps., see also ref. Luke. 13. ἕτεροι ] Probably native Jews, who did not understand the foreign languages. Meyer supposes,— persons previously hostile to Jesus and his disciples, and thus judging as in Luke 7:34 they judged of Himself. γλεύκους ] י ַ י ִ ן , see ref. Job. Sweet wine, not necessarily new wine (nor is the “ spiritual sense of the passage” any reason why a meaning should be given to the word which it need not bear. That sense in fact remains without the meaning in question): perhaps made of a remarkably sweet small grape, which is understood by the Jewish expositors to be meant by ש ׂ ר ֵ ק or ש ׂ ר ֵ ק ָ ה , Genesis 49:11; Isaiah 5:2; Jeremiah 2:21,— and still found in Syria and Arabia (Winer, Realw.). Suidas interprets it, τὸἀποστάλαγματῆςσταφυλῆςπρὶνπατηθῇ . 14-36. The speech or Peter. “ Luke gives us here the first sample of the preaching of the Gospel by the Apostles, with which the foundation of Christian preaching, as well as of the Church itself, appears to be closely connected. We discover already, in this first sermon, all the peculiarities of apostolic preaching. It contains no reflections nor deductions concerning the doctrine of Christ,— no proposition of new and unknown doctrines, but simply and entirely consists of the proclamation of historical facts. The Apostles appear here as the witnesses of that which they had seen: the Resurrection of Jesus forming the central point of their testimony. It is true, that in the after-development of the Church it was impossible to confine preaching to this historical announcement only: it gradually became invested with the additional office of building up believers in knowledge. But nevertheless, the simple testimony to the great works of God, as Peter here delivers it, should never be wanting in preaching to those whose hearts are not yet penetrated by the Word of Truth.” Olshausen, in loc. The discourse divides itself into two parts: 1. (vv. 14-21) ‘ This which you hear is not the effect of drunkenness, but is the promised outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh,’ — 2. (vv. 22-36) ‘ which Spirit has been shed forth by Jesus, whom you crucified, but whom God hath exalted to be Lord and Christ.’ 14. σὺντοῖςἕνδεκα ] Peter and the eleven come forward from the great body of believers. And he distinguishes (by the οὗτοι in ver. 15) not himself from the eleven, but himself and the eleven from the rest. De Wette concludes from this, that the Apostles had not themselves spoken with tongues, as being an inferior gift (1 Corinthians 14:18 ff.); perhaps too rashly, for this view hardly accords with ἅπαντες , which is the subject of the whole of ver. 4. ἄνδρεςἸουδ .] the Jews, properly so called: native dwellers in Jerus. οἱκατ . Ἱερ . ἅπ ., the sojourners (ver. 5) from other parts. ἐνωτίσασθε is a word unknown to good Greek, and belonging apparently to the Alexandrine dialect. Stier quotes ‘ inaurire’ from Lactantius (R. der Ap. p. 32, not.). 15. οὗτοι , see above. ὥρατρίτη ] the first hour of prayer: before which no pious Jew might eat or drink: “ Non licet homini gustare quidquam, antequam oraverit orationem suam.” Berachoth. f. 28. 2; Lightf., Wetst. But perhaps we need not look further than the ordinary intent of such a defence— the improbability of intoxication at that hour of the morning. See Ecclesiastes 10:16; Isaiah 5:11; 1 Thessalonians 5:7. 16. This prophecy is from the LXX, with very slight variations. Where the copies differ, it agrees with the Alexandrine. The variations, &c., are noticed below. τοῦτόἐστιν , ‘ this is,’ i.e. ‘ this is the fact, at which those words pointed.’ See a somewhat similar expression, Luke 24:44. 17. ἐνταῖςἐσχ . ἡμ . is an exposition of the μετὰταῦτα of the LXX and Hebrew, referring it to the days of the Messiah, as Isaiah 2:2; Micah 4:1, al. See also 2 Timothy 3:1; Hebrews 1:1. λέγειὁθεός does not occur in the verse of Joel, but at the beginning of the whole passage, ver. 12, and is supplied by Peter here. ἐκχεῶ ] LXX-3b: καὶἐκχ ., Bא 1. It is a later form of the future; see Winer, edn. 6, § 15. ἀπὸτοῦπν .] In the Heb. simply “ My Spirit,” — א ֶ ת ־ ר ו ּ ח ִ י . The two clauses, κ . οἱνεαν . and κ . οἱπρεσβ ., are transposed in the LXX. 18. καίγε ] LXX-Aא 3a-b: καί , א 1. Aft. δούλας om μου Bא 1. The Hebrew does not express it either time, but has, as in E. V., ‘ the servants and handmaids.’ καὶπροφητεύσουσιν is not in LXX nor Heb. 19. καὶδώσωτέραταἐνοὐρανῷ Ed-vat.: txt ABא . ἄνω , σημεῖα , and κάτω are not in LXX nor Heb. αἷμακ . πῦρ .… ] Not, ‘ bloodshed and wasting by fire,’ as commonly interpreted:— not devastations, but prodigies, are foretold:— bloody and fiery appearances:— pillars of smoke, Heb. 20. See Matthew 24:29. ἡμ . κυρ .] Not the first coming of Christ,— which interpretation would run counter to the whole tenor of the Apostle’ s application of the prophecy:— but clearly, His second coming; regarded in prophetic language as following close upon the outpouring of the Spirit, because it is the next great event in the divine arrangements. The Apostles probably expected this coming very soon (see note on Romans 13:11); but this did not at all affect the accuracy of their expressions respecting it. Their days witnessed the Pentecostal effusion, which was the beginning of the signs of the end: then follows the period, known to the Father only, of waiting— the Church for her Lord,— the Lord Himself till all things shall have been put under His feet,— and then the signs shall be renewed, and the day of the Lord shall come. Meantime, and in the midst of these signs, the covenant of the spiritual dispensation is, ver. 21— ‘ Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.’ The gates of God’ s mercy are thrown open in Christ to all people:— no barrier is placed,— no union with any external association or succession required: the promise is to individuals, as individuals: πᾶςὃςἐάν : which individual universality, though here by the nature of the circumstances spoken within the limits of the outward Israel, is afterwards as expressly asserted of Jew and Gentile, Romans 1:17, where see note. 22. ἄνδρ . Ἰσρ . binds all the hearers in one term, and that one reminds them of their covenant relation with God: compare πᾶςοἶκοςἸσραήλ , ver. 36. τὸνΝαζωραῖον ] Not emphatically used by way of contrast to what follows, as Beza, Wetst., &c.; but only as the ordinary appellation of Jesus by the Jews, see John 18:5, John 18:7; ch. 22:8; 26:9. ἀπό , not for ὑπό , here or any where else (see Winer, edn. 6, § 47, b): but signifying the source whence, not merely the agency by which, the deed has place. See reff., and especially James 1:13. ἀποδεδειγμένον ] ‘ demonstratum,’ more than ‘ approved’ (E. V.):— shewn to be that which He claimed to be. ἀποδεδ . must be taken with ἀπὸτ . θεοῦ : not, as some have divided the words, ἄνδρ . ἀπὸτ . θεοῦ , ἀποδ . κ .τ .λ .: Galatians 1:1 is no justification of this, for there ἀπό refers to ἀπόστολος ,— and certainly Peter would never have barely thus named our Lord ‘ a man from God.’ The whole connexion of the passage would besides be broken by this rendering: that connexion being, that the Man Jesus of Nazareth was by God demonstrated, by God wrought in among you, by God’ s counsel delivered to death, by God raised up (which raising up is argued on till ver. 32, then taken up again), by God (ver. 36), finally, made Lord and Christ. This was the process of argument then with the Jews,— proceeding on the identity of a man whom they had seen and known,— and then mounting up from His works and His death and His resurrection, to His glorification,— all the purpose and doing of God. But if His divine origin, or even His divine mission, be stated at the outset, we break this climacterical sequence, and lose the power of the argument. The ἀποδεδειγμένονἀπὸθεοῦ of Dr. Bloomfield is of course worse still. οἷςἐποίησενδι ʼ αὐτ . ὁθ .]not, as De Wette, a low view of the miracles wrought by Jesus, nor inconsistent with John 2:11; but in strict accordance with the progress of our Lord through humiliation to glory, and with His own words in that very Gospel (5:19), which is devoted to the great subject, the manifestation, by the Father, of the glory of the Son. This side of the subject is here especially dwelt on in argument with these Jews, to exhibit (see above) the whole course of Jesus of Nazareth, as the ordinance and doing of the God of Israel. 23. βουλή and πρόγνωσις are not the same: the former designates the counsel of God— His Eternal Plan, by which He has arranged all things; the latter, the omniscience, by which every part of this plan is foreseen and unforgotten by Him. ἔκδοτον ] by whom, is not said, but was supplied by the hearers. τῇὡρισμ . &c. are not to be joined to ἔκδοτον as agents— the dative is that of accordance and appointment, not of agency:— see Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 6, b, and ch. 15:1; 2 Peter 1:21. δ . χειρὸςἀνόμων ] viz. of the Roman soldiers, see reff. προσπήξαντες ] The harshness and unworthiness of the deed are strongly set forth by a word expressing the mechanical act merely, having nailed up, as in contrast with the former clause, from Ἰησοῦν to ὑμῶν . Peter lays the charge on the multitude, because they abetted their rulers,— see ch. 3:17, where this is fully expressed: not for the far-fetched reason given by Olshausen, that ‘ all mankind were in fact guilty of the death of Jesus:’ in which case, as Meyer well observes (and the note in Olsh.’ s last edn. ii. p. 666, does not answer this), Peter must have said ‘ we,’ not ‘ you.’ 24. There is some difficulty in explaining the expression ὠδῖνας in the connexion in which it is here found. The difficulty lies, not in the connexion of λύειν with ὠδῖνας , which is amply justified, see reff., but in the interpretation of ὠδῖνας here. For ὠδῖναςθαν . must mean the pains of death, i.e. the pains which precede and end in death; a meaning here inapplicable. (The explanation of Chrys., Theophyl., Œ c., ὁθάνατοςὤδινεκατέχωναὐτόν , κ . τὰδεινὰἔπασχε , will not be generally maintained at the present day. Stier does maintain it, Reden der Apostel, vol. i. p. 43 ff., but to me not convincingly: and, characteristically, Wordsw. also.) The fact may be, that Peter used the Hebrew word ח ֶ ב ְ ל ֵ י , ref. Psa. ‘ nets, or bands,’ i.e. the nets in which death held the Lord captive; and that, in rendering the words into Greek, the LXX rendering of the word in that place and Psalms 114:3, viz. ὠδῖνες , has been adopted. (But see Prolegg. to Vol. I. ch. ii. § ii. pp. 28, 29.) It has been attempted in vain by Olshausen and others to shew that ὠδῖνες sometimes in Hellenistic Greek signifies bands. No one instance cited by Schleusner (Lex. V. T.) of that meaning is to the point. See Simonis Lex., ח ב ל . οὐκἦνδυν . depends for its proof on the γάρ which follows. 25. εἰςαὐτόν , not ‘ of Him,’ but in allusion to Him. The 16th Psalm was not by the Rabbis applied to the Messiah: but Peter here proves to them that, if it is to be true in its highest and proper meaning of any one, it must be of Him. We are met at every turn by the shallow objections of the Rationalists, who seem incapable of comprehending the principle on which the sayings of David respecting himself are referred to Christ. To say, with De Wette, that Peter’ s proof lies not in any historical but only in an ideal meaning of the Psalm, is entirely beside the subject. To interpret the sayings of David (or indeed those of any one else) ‘ historically,’ i.e. solely as referring to the occasion which gave rise to them, and having no wider reference, would be to establish a canon of interpretation wholly counter to the common sense of mankind. Every one, placed in any given position, when speaking of himself as in that position, speaks what will refer to others similarly situated, and most pointedly to any one who shall in any especial and pre-eminent way stand in that position. Applying even this common rule to David’ s sayings, the applicability of them to Christ will be legitimized:— but how much more, when we take into account the whole circumstances of David’ s theocratic position, as the prophetic representative and type of Christ! Whether the Messiah was present or not to the mind of the Psalmist, is of very little import: in some cases He plainly was: in others, as here, David’ s words, spoken of himself and his circumstances, could only be in their highest and literal sense true of the great Son of David who was to come. David often spoke concerning himself; but the Spirit who spoke in David, εἰςτὸνχριστόν . The citation is verbatim from the LXX (except in the order of μουἡκαρ .: see var. readd.): the Vatican, Sinaitic, and Alexandrine copies agree throughout, except in ᾅδην Bא (τοναδ . א 1) and ᾅδου (A), and εὐφροσύνης and -νην (A), between which our mss. also vary. ἵναμὴσαλευθῶ ] Heb. ‘ I shall not be moved.’ 26. ἡγλῶσσάμου ] Heb. כ ּ ְ ב ו ֹ ד ִ י , ‘ my glory:’ so in Psalms 108:1, where our prayer-book version renders “ I will give praise with the best member that I have.” Cf. also Psalms 57:8. 27. διαφθοράν ] Heb. ש ׁ ַ ח ַ ת , ‘ corruption,’ from ש ׁ ָ ח ַ ת , corrupit,— or ‘ the pit,’ from ש ׁ ו ּ ח ַ , subsidere. De Wette maintains the last to be the only right rendering: but the Lexicons give both, as above, and Meyer and Stier defend the other. 28. ἐγνώρισαςκ .τ .λ .: Heb. ‘ Thou wilt make known.’ πληρώσειςκ .τ .λ .: Heb. ‘ Fulness of joys (is) with thy presence.’ These two last clauses refer to the Resurrection and the Ascension respectively. 29. ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί ] q. d., ‘ I am your brother, an Israelite, and therefore would not speak with disrespect of David.’ He prepares the way for the apologetic sentence which follows. ἐξόν ] supply, not ἔστω , but ἐστίν , I may, &c. The title ‘ Patriarch’ is only here applied to David, as the progenitor of the kingly race:— Abraham and the sons of Jacob are so called in the N. T. reff. In the LXX, the word is used of chief men, and heads of families, with the exception of 2 Chronicles 23:20, where it represents “ captains of hundreds.” ὅτι ] not, because; but that,— contains the subject of εἰπεῖν , and is that for which the apology is made. We learn from 1 Kings 2:10, and Nehemiah 3:16, that David was buried at Jerusalem, in the city of David, i.e. the stronghold of Zion, 2 Samuel 5:7. Josephus, Antt. vii. 15. 3, gives an account of the high priest Hyrcanus, when besieged by Antiochus Eusebes,— and afterwards King Herod, opening the tomb and taking treasure from it. See also xiii. 8. 4; xvi. 7. 1; B. J. i. 2. 5. Dio Cassius (lxix. 14) mentions, among the prodigies which preceded Hadrian’ s war, that the tomb of Solomon (the same with that of David, see Jos. Antt. xvi. 7. 1) fell down. Jerome mentions (Epist. xlvi. (xvii.) ad Marcellam, vol. i. p. 209) that the tomb of David was visited in his time (the end of the fourth century). 30. προφήτης , in the stricter sense, a foreteller of future events by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. εἰδώς ] See 2 Samuel 7:12. The words are not cited from the LXX, but rendered from the Hebrew. On the principle of interpretation of this prophecy, see above on ver. 25. 31. The word προϊδών distinctly asserts the prophetic consciousness of David in the composition of this Psalm. But of what sort that prophetic consciousness was, may be gathered from this same Apostle, 1 Peter 1:10-12: that it was not a distinct knowledge of the events which they foretold, but only a conscious reference in their minds to the great promises of the covenant, in the expression of which they were guided by the Holy Spirit of prophecy to say things pregnant with meaning not patent to themselves but to us. 32. From ver. 25 has been employed in substantiating the Resurrection as the act of God announced by prophecy in old time: now the historical fact of its accomplishment is affirmed, and the vouchers for it produced. οὗ ] either masc., see ch. 1:8; 13:31,— or neut. The former seems most probable as including the latter. ‘ We are His witnesses,’ would imply, ‘ We testify to this His work,’ which work implied the Resurrection. πάντες , first and most properly the Twelve: but, secondarily, the whole body of believers, all of whom, at this time, had probably seen the Lord since His Resurrection; see 1 Corinthians 15:6. 33. Peter now comes to the Ascension— the exaltation of Jesus to be, in the fullest sense, Lord and Christ. τῇδεξιᾷ ] by the right hand, not ‘ to the right hand.’ The great end of this speech is to shew forth (see above) the God of Israel as the doer of all these things. However well the sense ‘ to’ might seem to agree with the ἐκδεξιῶν of ver. 34, we must not set aside a very suitable sense, nor violate syntax (for the construction is entirely unexampled in Hellenistic as well as prose classical Greek) in order to suit an apparent adaptation. The reference is carried on by the word δεξιά , though it be not in exactly the same position in the two cases. And the ἀνέβηεἰςτοὺςοὐρ . of ver. 34 prepares the way for the ἐκδεξιῶν following without any harshness. On the poetic dative after verbs of approach, see Musgr., Phœ nissæ , 310 (303, Matth.), and Hermann, Antig. 234. See also ch. 5:31, and Winer (who defends the construction), edn. 6, § 31. 5. Wordsw. denies that the δεξιὰθεοῦ is ever specified in the N. T. as the instrument by which He works. But he has omitted to state that this and the similarly ambiguous place, ch. 5:31, are the only real instances of the expression being used, all the rest being local, ἐκδεξιῶν or ἐνδεξιᾷ : so that his dictum goes for nothing. And in the LXX the use of God’ s right hand as the instrument is very frequent: cf. Exodus 15:6, Exodus 15:12; Ps. 17:36; Psalms 59:5 (where the dat. is used as here), and about 20 other places; Isaiah 48:13; Isaiah 63:12, &c. After this, the objection, when applied to a speech so full of O. T. spirit and diction as this, would, even if valid as regards the N. T., be irrelevant. ἐπαγγελίαν ] Christ is said to have received from the Father the promise above cited from Joel, which is spoken of His days. This, and not of course the declarations made by Himself to the same effect, is here referred to, though doubtless those were in Peter’ s mind. The very word, ἐξέχεεν , refers to ἐκχεῶ above, ver. 17. τοῦτο , ‘ this influence,’ this merely; leaving to his hearers the inference, that this, which they saw and heard, must be none other than the effusion of the Spirit. βλέπετε need not imply, as Dr. Burton thinks, that “ there was some visible appearance, which the people saw as well as the apostles:” — very much of the effect of the descent of the Spirit would be visible,— the enthusiasm and gestures of the speakers, for instance; not, however, the tongues of flame,— for then none could have spoken as in ver. 13. 34. This exaltation of Christ is also proved from prophecy— and from the same passage with which Jesus Himself had silenced His enemies. See notes, Matthew 22:41 ff. δέ is not ‘ for,’ which would destroy the whole force of the sentence: the Apostle says, For David himself is not ascended into the heavens,— as he would be if the former prophecy applied to him: but he himself says, removing all doubt on the subject, &c. The rendering δέ , for, makes it appear as if the ἀνέβηεἰςτ . οὐρ . were a mistaken inference from Psalms 110:1, whereas that passage is adduced to preclude its being made from the other. 36. The conclusion from all that has been said. πᾶςοἶκοςἸσρ . = πᾶςὁοἶκ . Ἰσρ ., οἶκος being a familiar noun used anarthrously: see Ephesians 2:21, note, and Winer, edn. 6, § 19, who however does not give οἶκος in his list: the whole house of Israel— for all hitherto said has gone upon proofs and sayings belonging to Israel, and to all Israel. ὁθεὸςἐποίησεν , as before, is the ground-tone of the discourse. κύριον , from ver. 34. χριστόν , in the full and glorious sense in which that term was prophetically known. The same is expressed ch. 5:31 by ἀρχηγὸνκ . σωτῆραὕψωσεν . The final clause sets in the strongest and plainest light the fact to which the discourse testifies— ending with ὃνὑμεῖςἐσταυρώσατε ,— the remembrance most likely to carry compunction to their hearts. ‘ In clausula orationis iterum illis exprobrat quod Eum crucifixerint, ut majori conscientiæ dolore tacti ad remedium aspirent.’ Calvin in loc. ‘ Aculeus in fine.’ Bengel. 37-41. Effect of the discourse. 37. κατενύγ .] κατανύσσω is exactly ‘ compungo.’ The compunction arose from the thought that they had rejected and crucified Him who was now so powerful, and under whose feet they, as enemies, would be crushed. ‘ Concionis fructum Lucas refert, ut sciamus non modo in linguarum varietate exsertam fuisse Spiritus Sancti virtutem, sed in eorum etiam cordibus qui audiebant.’ Calvin. ποιήσωμεν , the deliberative subjunctive,— cf. Winer, edn. 6, § 41, a. 4, b.— What most we do? 38. μετανοήσατε , not, as in Matthew 3:2; Matthew 4:17, μετανοεῖτε . The aorist denotes speed, a definite, sudden act: the present, a habit, more gradual, as that first moral and legal change would necessarily be. The word imports change of mind; here, change from thinking Jesus an impostor, and scorning Him as one crucified, to being baptized in His name, and looking to Him for remission of sins, and the gift of the Spirit. The miserable absurdity of rendering μεταν ., or ‘ pœ nitentiam agite,’ by ‘ do penance,’ or understanding it as referring to a course of external rites, is well exposed by this passage— in which the internal change of heart and purpose is insisted on, to be testified by admission into the number of Christ’ s followers. See Calvin’ s note. βαπτισθήτω ] Here, on the day of Pentecost, we have the first mention and administration of Christian baptism. Before, there had been the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, by John, Luke 3:3; but now we have the important addition ἐπὶτῷὀνόμ . Ἰησοῦχριστοῦ ,— on the Name— i.e. on the confession of that which the Name implies, and into the benefits and blessings which the Name implies. The Apostles and first believers were not thus baptized, because, ch. 1:5, they had received the baptism by the Holy Ghost, the thing signified, which superseded that by water, the outward and visible sign. The result of the baptism to which he here exhorts them, preceded by repentance and accompanied by faith in the forgiveness of sins in Christ, would be, the receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39. τοῖςτέκνοιςὑμ ., viz. as included in the prophecy cited ver. 17, your little ones: not, as in ch. 13:32, ‘ your descendants,’ which would be understood by any Jew to be necessarily implied. [Thus we have a providential recognition of Infant Baptism at the very founding of the Christian Church.] πᾶσιντοῖςεἰςμακράν , the Gentiles; see Ephesians 2:13. There is no difficulty whatever in this interpretation. The Apostles always expected the conversion of the Gentiles, as did every pious Jew who believed in the Scriptures. It was their conversion as Gentiles, which was yet to be revealed to Peter. It is surprising to see such Commentators as Dr. Burton and Meyer finding a difficulty where all is so plain. The very expression, ὅσουςἂνπροσκαλέσηταιὁθεὸςἡμ ., shews in what sense Peter understood τοῖςεἰςμακρ .; not all, but as many as the Lord our God προσκαλ ., shall summon to approach to Him,— bring near,— which, in his present understanding of the words, must import— by becoming one of the chosen people, and conforming to their legal observances. 40. The words cited appear to be the concluding and inclusive summary of Peter’ s many exhortations, not only their general sense: just as if ver. 36 had been given as the representative of his whole speech above. σώθητε is improperly rendered in E. V. ‘ save yourselves:’ it is not (see Stier, R. A. i. 62) σώζετεἑαυτούς , as in Luke 23:35, Luke 23:37, Luke 23:39: be saved, Lasset euch retten, is the true sense. σκολιᾶς — see reff. Peter alludes to ref. Deut. 41. This first baptism of regeneration is important on many accounts in the history of the Christian Church. It presents us with two remarkable features: (1) It was conferred, on the profession of repentance, and faith in Jesus as the Christ. There was no instruction in doctrine as yet. The infancy of the Church in this respect corresponded to the infancy of the individual mind; the simplicity of faith came first,— the ripeness of knowledge followed. Neander well observes (Leit. u. Pflanz. p. 34) that among such a multitude, admitted by a confession which allowed of so wide an interpretation, were probably many persons who brought into the church the seeds of that Judaizing form of Christianity which afterwards proved so hostile to the true faith; while others, more deeply touched by the Holy Spirit, followed humbly the unfolding of that teaching by which He perfected the apostolic age in the doctrine of Christ. (2) Almost without doubt, this first baptism must have been administered, as that of the first Gentile converts was (see ch. 10:47, and note), by effusion or sprinkling, not by immersion. The immersion of 3000 persons, in a city so sparingly furnished with water as Jerusalem, is equally inconceivable with a procession beyond the walls to the Kedron, or to Siloam, for that purpose. 42-47. Description of the life and habits of the first believers. This description anticipates; embracing a period extending beyond the next chapter. This is plain from ver. 43: for the miracle related in the next chapter was evidently the first which attracted any public attention: vv. 44, 45, again, are taken up anew at the end of chap. 4, where we have a very similar description, evidently applying to the same period. 42. τῇδιδαχῇτῶνἀποστ ., compare Matthew 28:20. τῇκοινωνίᾳ ] community: the living together as one family, and having things in common. It is no objection to this meaning, that the fact is repeated below, in ver. 45: for so is the κλάσιςτοῦἄρτου in ver. 46, and the προσκ . ταῖςπροσευχ . The Vulg. interpretation of τῇκοινωνίᾳτῇκλάσειτ . ἄρτ . by ‘ communicatione fractionis panis,’ per Hendiadyn, is curious enough. If suggested by 1 Corinthians 10:16, it should have been ‘ communicatione et fractione panis.’ The adoption of the right reading renders this interpretation untenable. The supplying τῶνἀποστ . after κοινωνίᾳ , as in E. V., is better than the last, but still I conceive bears no meaning defensible in construction. Very different is the κοινωνίατ . ἁγ . πνεύματος of 2 Corinthians 13:13, because there the Holy Ghost is imparted, is that of which all partake, are κοινωνοί : whereas the κοιν . τῶνἀποστ . must signify fellowship with the Apostles, or fellowship with that Society of which the Apostles were the chief; neither of which meanings I conceive κοιν . will bear. The special sense in which κοινωνία occurs, Romans 15:26, could not be here meant, or the word would have been qualified in some way, τῇκοιν . εἰςτοὺςπτωχούς , or the like. τῇκλάσειτ . ἄρτου ] This has been very variously explained. Chrysostom (in Act. Homil. vii. p. 57) says, τὸνἄρτονμοιδοκεῖλέγων , καὶτὴννηστείανἐνταῦθασημαίνειν , καὶτὸνσκληρὸνβίον · τροφῆςγάρ , οὐτρυφῆςμετελάμβανον . And similarly Œ cumenius, and of the moderns Bengel: ‘ fractione panis, id est, victu frugali, communi inter ipsos.’ But on ver. 46 he recognizes a covert allusion to the Eucharist. The interpretation of ἡκλ . τ . ἄρτ . [here] as the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper has been, both in ancient and modern times, the prevalent one. Chrysostom himself, in his 27th Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at all events τῇκοινωνίᾳ and it together, of the Holy Communion. And the Romanist interpreters have gone so far as to ground an argument on the passage for the administration in one kind only. But,— referring for a fuller discussion of the whole matter to the notes on 1 Corinthians 10:11,— barely to render ἡκλάσιςτοῦἄρτου the breaking of bread in the Eucharist, as now understood, would be to violate historical truth. The Holy Communion was at first, and for some time, till abuses put an end to the practice, inseparably connected with the ἀγάπαι , or love-feasts, of the Christians, and unknown as a separate ordinance. To these ἀγάπαι , accompanied as they were at this time by the celebration of the Lord’ s Supper, the κλάσιςτοῦἄρτου refers,— from the custom of the master of the feast breaking bread in asking a blessing; see ch. 27:35, where the Eucharist is out of the question. No stress must be laid, for any doctrinal purpose, upon the article before ἄρτου : the construction here requires it, and below, ver. 46, where not required by the construction, it is omitted. I need hardly add that the sense inferred by Kypke and Heinrichs from Isaiah 58:7, διάθρυπτεπεινῶντιτὸνἄρτονσου ,— that of giving bread to the poor, is in the highest degree improbable here, and inconsistent with the Christian use of ἡκλάσιςτοῦἄρτου elsewhere. ταῖςπροσευχ .] The appointed times of prayer: see ver. 46. But it need not altogether exclude prayer among themselves as well, provided we do not assume any set times or forms of Christian worship, which certainly did not exist as yet. See notes on Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10. 43. πάσῃψυχῇ , designating generally the multitude,— those who were not joined to the infant church. This is evident by the πάντεςδὲοἱπιστεύοντες when the church is again the subject, ver. 44. φόβος , dread, reverential astonishment, at the effect produced by the outpouring of the Spirit. On the [anticipatory character or the] latter part of the verse see general remarks at the beginning of this section. 44. If it surprise us that so large a number should be continually assembled together (for such is certainly the sense, not ‘ fraterno amore conjunctos,’ as Calvin)— we must remember that a large portion of the three thousand were persons who had come up to Jerusalem for the feast, and would by this time have returned to their homes. εἶχονἅπαντακοινά ] they had all things (in) common, i.e. no individual property, but one common stock: see ch. 4:32. That this was literally the case with the infant church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted in these passages to admit of a doubt. Some have supposed the expressions to indicate merely a partial community of goods: ‘ non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bonorum, quæ sine magno incommodo carere poterant,’ Wetstein; contrary to the express assertion of ch. 4:32. In order, however, rightly to understand this community, we may remark: (1) It is only found in the Church at Jerusalem. No trace of its existence is discoverable any where else: on the contrary, St. Paul speaks [constantly] of the rich and the poor, see 1 Timothy 6:17; 1 Corinthians 16:2 [Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 8:13-15; 2 Corinthians 9:6, 2 Corinthians 9:7]: also St. James 2:1-5; 4:13. And from the practice having at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may [partly] perhaps explain the great and constant poverty of that church, Romans 15:25, Romans 15:26; Rom_1 Cor. 16:1-3: 2 Corinthians 8:9: also ch. 11:30; 24:17. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/alfordgnt/ Chap. 3:1-10] Healing of a lame man by Peter at the gate of the Temple. 1. ἀνέβαινον , were going up. τὴνἐνάτην ] See ch. 10:3, 30. τὴνὥραντῆςπρ . generic;— τὴνἐν ., specific. There were three hours of prayer; those of the morning and evening sacrifice, i.e. the third and ninth hours, and noon. See Lightfoot and Wetst. in loc. 2. ἐβαστ ., was being carried. They took him at the hours of prayer, and carried him back between times. τὴνθύραν … τ . λ . ὡραίαν ] The arrangement of the gates of the Temple is, from the notices which we now possess, very uncertain. Three entrances have been fixed on for the θύραὡραία : (1) The gate mentioned Jos. B. J. v. 5. 3: τῶνδὲπυλῶναἱμὲνἐννέαχρυσῷκαὶἀργύρῳκεκαλυμμέναιπανταχόθενἦσαν , ὁμοίωςτεπαραστάδεςκαὶτὰὑπέρθυρα . μίαδὲἡἔξωθεντοῦνεὼΚορινθίουχαλκοῦ , πολὺτῇτιμῇτὰςκαταργύρουςκαὶτὰςπεριχρύσουςὑπεράγουσα . This gate was also called Nicanor’ s gate (see the Rabbinical citations in Wetstein),— and lay on the eastern side of the Temple, towards the valley of Kedron. Jos. mentions it again, as ἡἀνατολικὴπύλητοῦἐνδοτέρου , χαλκῆοὖσα , and gives a remarkable account of its size and weight: adding, that when, before the siege, it was discovered supernaturally opened in the night, τοῦτοτοῖςἰδιώταιςκάλλιστονἐδόκειτέρας · ἀνοῖξαιγὰρτὸνθεὸναὐτοῖςτὴντῶνἀγαθῶνπύλην . But some find a difficulty in this. The lame man, they say, would not be likely to have been admitted so far into the Temple (but see Wetst. as above, where it appears that lepers used to stand at Nicanor’ s gate): and besides, he would have taken up his station naturally at an outer gate, where he might ask alms of all who entered. These conditions suit better (2) the gate Susan; as does also the circumstance mentioned ver. 11, that the people ran together to Solomon’ s porch; for this gate was on the east side of the court of the Gentiles, and close to Solomon’ s porch. Only the name ὡραία cannot be derived from the town Susan (from which the gate was named, having a picture of the town over it), that word signifying ‘ a lily;’ the town being named, it is true, διὰτὴνὡραιότητατοῦτόπου ( xii. 1, p. 573): but the derivation being too far-fetched to be at all probable. Another suitable circumstance was, that by this gate the market was held for sheep and cattle and other offerings, and therefore a greater crowd would be attracted. (3) Others again (Lightf. favours this) attempt to derive ὡραία from ח ֶ ל ֶ ד , ‘ tempus,’ and refer the epithet to two gates opening towards the city on the western side. But it is very unlikely that Luke should have used ὡρ . in so unusual a meaning:— not to say (see Lightf. Descr. Templi) that the meaning of ח ו ּ ל ְ ד ָ ה itself is very doubtful. So that the matter must remain in uncertainty. 3. ἠρώτα … λαβεῖν ,— so Soph. Aj. 836, αἰτήσομαιδέσ ʼ οὐμακρὸνγέραςλαβεῖν , and Aristoph. Plut. 240, αἰτῶνλαβεῖντιμικρὸνἀργυρίδιον . ἐλεημ , as in ref. Matt. The Jewish forms of asking alms are given in Vajicra Rabb. f. 20. 3.4 (cited by Meyer),— ‘ Merere in me:’ ‘ In me benefac tibi,’ and the like. 4. βλέψονεἰςἡμᾶς ] Calvin’ s note is important: ‘ Non ita loquitur Petrus quin de consilio Dei certus sit: et certe his verbis singulare aliquod et insolitum beneficium sperare jubet. Quæ ri tamen potest, an facultatem habuerint edendi miracula quoties liberet. Respondeo, sic ministros fuisse divinæ virtutis, ut nihil suo arbitrio vel proprio motu tentarint, sed Dominus per ipsos egerit quum ita expedire noverat. Hinc factum est ut unum sanarint, non autem promiscue omnes. Ergo, quemadmodum in aliis rebus ducem et directorem habebant Dei Spiritum, ita etiam in hac parte. Ideo priusquam claudum surgere jubeat Petrus, conjecit in eum et defixit oculos. Talis intuitus non carebat peculiari Spiritus motu. Hinc fit ut tam secure de miraculo pronuntiet. Porro, excitare hoc verbo claudum voluit ad recipiendam Dei gratiam: ille tamen nihil quam eleemosynam exspectat.’ 5. ἐπεῖχεν ] not τοὺςὀφθαλμούς (as Bos and Kuinoel), which is implied:— but (see reff.) τὸννοῦν , fixed his attention on them. 6. ‘ Non dubium est, quin etiam iis qui non erant de communitate fidelium, datæ fuerint eleemosynæ : sed Petrus tum vel nil habebat secum, in via ad templum, vel non tantum dare poterat quantum ad sublevandum pauperem opus esset. Vide abstinentiam Apostoli in tanta administratione, cf. ii. 45, coll. iv. 35.’ Bengel. But perhaps it is more simple to conclude that Peter spoke here of his own station and means in life— ‘ I am no rich man, nor have I silver or gold to give thee.’ ἐντῷὀνόμ .] There is no ellipsis (as Heinr. and Kuinoel) of λέγωσοι , which weakens the force of the sentence: the name of Jesus is that in which, by the power of which, the “ rise up and walk” is to be accomplished. 7. πιάσας … ἤγειρεν ] οὕτωκαὶὁχριστὸςἐποίησε · πολλάκιςλόγῳἐθεράπευσε , πολλάκιςἔργῳ , πολλάκιςκαὶτὴνχεῖραπροήγαγεν , ὅπουἦσανἀσθενέστεροικατὰτὴνπίστιν · ἵναμὴδόξῃἀπὸταυτομάτουγενέσθαι . Chrys. in Act. Hom. viii. p. 63. See Mark 9:27. βάσεις are the soles of the feet,— σφυρά , the ankles. Luke, the physician, had made himself acquainted with the peculiar kind of weakness, and described it accordingly. 8. ἐξαλλ . describes his first joyous liberation from his weakness: as soon as he felt himself strengthened, he leapt up, for joy. No suppositions need be made, such as πειράζωνἴσωςἑαυτόν (Chrys.): or that it was from ignorance how to walk (Bloomf.). His joy is quite sufficient to explain the gesture, and it is better to leave the narrative in its simplicity. If καί before αἰνῶν is omitted (see digest), the present participle has its ratiocinative force, alleging the cause of the walking and leaping: and would best be rendered in English, in his praising of God. 11-26. The discourse of Peter thereupon. 11. κρατοῦντος ] holding, physically: not spoken of mental adhesion, but of actual holding by the hand or arm, that he might not be separated from them in the crowd, but might testify to all, who his benefactors were. στοᾷτῇκ . Σολομ .] See John 10:23, note. 12. ἀπεκρίνατο ] viz. to their expressions of astonishment implied in ἔκθαμβοι . See Matthew 11:25. ἀπεκρίνατο never signifies ‘ made an address,’ as Bloomf.; but always ‘ answered:’ cf. ch. 5:8, note. This second discourse of Peter may be thus divided: This is no work of ours, but of God, for the glorifying of Jesus, vv. 12, 13:— whom ye denied and killed, but God hath raised up, vv. 13-15:— through whose name this man is made whole, ver. 16:— ye did it in ignorance, but God thereby fulfilled His counsel, vv. 17, 18. Exhortation to repent, that ye may be forgiven, and saved by this Jesus Christ at His coming, vv. 19-21: whose times have been the subject of prophecy from the first, ver. 21. Citations to prove this, vv. 22-24: its immediate application to the hearers, as Jews, vv. 25, 26. There the discourse seems to be broken off, as ch. 4:1 relates. ἐπὶτούτῳ ] not, at this (event): but at this man, compare αὐτόν below, which would not be used at the first mention of one then present. Their error was not the wonder itself,— though even that would shew ignorance and weakness of faith, for it was truly no wonderful thing that had happened, viewed by a believer in Jesus,— but their wondering at the Apostles, as if they had done it by their own power. ‘ Ergo,’ says Calvin, ‘ hoc est perperam obstupescere, quum in hominibus mentes nostræ subsistunt.’ δυνάμει , power,— such as magical craft, or any other supposed means of working miracles: εὐσεβείᾳ meritorious efficacy with God, so as to have obtained this from Him on our own account. The distinction is important:— ‘ holiness,’ of the E. V., is not expressive of εὐσεβ ., which bears in it the idea of operative, cultive piety, rather than of inherent character. 13. ὁθ . Ἀβρ . κ .τ .λ .] ‘ Appellatio frequens in Actis, præ cæ teris libris N. T., et illi periodo temporum conveniens.’ Bengel. ὅραπῶςαὐτὸνεἰσωθεῖσυνεχῶςεἰςτοὺςπρογόνους · ἵναμὴδόξῃκαινόντιεἰσάγεινδόγμα · καὶἐκεῖ (ch. 2) τοῦπατριάρχουΔαβὶδἐμνημόνευσε , καὶἐνταῦθατῶνπερὶτοῦἈβραὰμ … (Chrys.). ἐδόξασεν ] not, as E. V., ‘ hath glorified,’ implying, by thus honouring His Name: it is the historic aor., glorified, viz. by His exaltation through death— see John 12:23; John 17:10. παῖδα ] not ‘ Son,’ but Servant: servant, however, in that distinct and Messianic sense which the same expression bears in Isa. 40-66 in the LXX. υἱός is the word always used to desiguate Jesus as the Son of God. The above meaning is adopted by all the best modern Commentators, Pisc., Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, De W., Stier, some of whom refer to a paper of Nitzsch’ s in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1828, Heft 2, p. 331 ff. Olsh. says, ‘ After N.’ s remarks on the subject, no one hereafter can suppose this expression equivalent to υἱὸςτ . θ .’ “ In the next age,” says Wordsw., “ the term παῖςθεοῦ was applied to Christ as a Son. See Polycarp, § 14, p. 1040 (Migne); and S. Hippolyt. Philosoph. x. 33 (in Migne’ s Origen, tom. vi. p. 540), and contra Noë tum, § 5, 7, 11, pp. 809 ff. (Migne), and the note of Fabricius, ii. p. 10.” κατὰπρόσωπονΠ . as E. V., ‘ in the presence of P.,’ or better perhaps, to the face of Pilate. The expression is no Hebraism. Polybius often uses it. κατὰπρόσωπονλεγομένωντῶνλόγων , 25:5. 2: κ . πρ . ἀπαντᾷντοῖςπολεμίοις , 17:3. 3, &c. See Schweigh., Lexicon Polybianum. κρίναντοςἐκ . ἀπολ ., see Luke 23:20; John 19:4, John 19:12. 14. ἅγιονκ . δίκαιον ] not only in the higher and divine sense present to Peter’ s mind, but also by Pilate’ s own verdict, and the testimony of the Jews’ consciences. The sentence is full of antitheses; ἅγιονκ . δίκ . contrasts with the moral impurity of ἄνδραφονέα ,— ἀρχηγ . τ . ζωῆς with the destruction of life implied in φονέα ,— while ἀπεκτείνατε again stands in remarkable opposition to ἀρχ . τ . ζ . This last title given to our Lord implies (as Vulg.) ‘ Auctorem vitæ :’ see reff.; so ἀρχηγὸνκ . καθηγεμόνατῆςὅληςἐπιβολῆςἌρατον , Polyb. ii. 40. 2: ὅπερ (scil. want of occupation in mercenary soldiers) σχεδόν , ὡςεἰπεῖν , ἀρχηγὸνκ . μόνοναἴτιονγίνεταιστάσεως , i. 66. 10 al. It is possible, that the words ἀρχ . τ . ζ . may contain an allusion to the great miracle which was the immediate cause of the enmity of their rulers to Jesus. But of course Peter had a higher view in the title than merely this. 16. ἐπὶτ . πίστει … — The E. V. is right; through, or better, on account of faith in His name. The meaning, for the sake of (i.e. of awakening, in you, and in the lame man himself) faith in his name (Rosenm., Heinrichs, Olsh., Stier), though grammatically justified, seems against the connexion with the μάρτυρέςἐσμεν just before. It is evident to my mind that the πίστιςτοῦὀν . αὐτ . is the faith of these μάρτυρες . His name (the efficient cause), by means of, or on account of (our) faith in His name (the medium operandi), &c. ἐστερ . and ἔδωκ . again are historic aorists,— confirmed and gave; better than ‘ hath confirmed’ and ‘ hath given.’ κ . ἡπίστιςἡδι ʼ αὐτοῦ — and that faith which is wrought by Him— not ‘ faith in Him;’ which is an inadmissible rendering. Peter’ s own words (ref. 1 Pet.) are remarkably parallel with, and the best interpreters of, this expression: ὑμᾶςτοὺςδι ʼ αὐτοῦπιστοὺςεἰςθεόν , τὸνἐγείραντααὐτὸνἐκνεκρῶνκαὶδόξαναὐτῷδόντα , ὥστετὴνπίστινὑμῶνκαὶἐλπίδαεἶναιεἰςθεόν . Some of the Commentators are anxious to bring in the faith of the lame man himself in this verse. Certainly it is according to analogy to suppose that he had such faith, from and after the words of Peter:— but, as certainly, there is no allusion to it in this verse, and the thread of Peter’ s discourse would be broken by any such. It is the firm belief in His name on the part of us His witnesses, of which he is here speaking, as the medium whereby His name had in this case worked. 17. νῦν introducing a new consideration: see 2 Thessalonians 2:6. Here it softens the severer charge of ver. 14: sometimes it intensifies, as ch. 22:16; 1 John 2:28: especially with ἰδού , ch. 13:11; 20:22. No meaning such as ‘ now that the real Messiahship of Him whom ye have slain is come to light’ (Meyer) is admissible. ἀδελφοί , still softening his tone, and reminding them of their oneness of blood and covenant with the speaker. κατὰἄγνοιαν ] There need be no difficulty in the application of the ἄγνοια to even the rulers of the Jews. It admits of all degrees— from the unlearned, who were implicitly led by others, and hated Him because others did,— up to the most learned of the scribes, who knew and rightly interpreted the Messianic prophecies, but from moral blindness, or perverted expectations, did not recognize them in our Lord. Even Caiaphas himself, of whom apparently this could least be said, may be brought under it in some measure: even he could hardly have delivered over Jesus to Pilate with the full consciousness that He was the Messiah, and that he himself was accomplishing prophecy by so doing. Some degree of ἄγνοια there must have been in them all. The interpretation (Wolf) ‘ ye did, as your rulers (did),’ is of course inadmissible, being contrary to the usage of the words: πράσσεινὥσπερκαί can never mean to imitate, but ἐπράξατε must refer to a definite act (understood), and ὥσπερκαί must take up another subject of ἐπράξατε . 18. πάντων , see Luke 24:27 and note. There is no hyperbole (Kuinoel) nor adaptation (Meyer) to Jewish exegetical views. ‘ Omnes prophetæ in universum non prophetarunt nisi de diebus Messiæ ’ (Sanhedr. 99. 1), was not merely a Jewish view, but the real truth. The prophets are here regarded as one body, actuated by one Spirit; and the sum of God’ s purpose, shewn by their testimony, is, that His Christ should suffer. Notice the inf. aor. παθεῖν , as in ch. 1:3, of a definite single act. 19. οὖν , quæ cum ita sint. εἰςτὸἐξαλ .] The faith implied in ἐπιστρέψατε has for its aim, is necessarily (by God’ s covenant, see John 3:15, John 3:18) accompanied by, the wiping out of sin. ὅπωςἂνἔλθ . κ .τ .λ .] This passage has been variously rendered and explained. To deal first with the rendering:— ὅπωςἄν cannot mean ‘ when,’ as in E. V.— ὅπως never occurs in that sense in the N. T., nor indeed with an indic. at all;— and if it did, the addition of ἄν , and the use of a subjunctive, would preclude it here. It can have but one sense,— in order that. This being so, what are καιροὶἀναψύξεως From the omission of the article, some have insisted (e.g. Stier, R. d. Apost. i. 89) on rendering it ‘ times, seasons, of ἀναψ .’ But this cannot be maintained. καιρός and καιροί are occasionally anarthrous when they manifestly must have the article in English. Cf. especially Luke 21:24, καιροὶἐθνῶν , where none would think of rendering, ‘ seasons of (the) Gentiles.’ See for καιρός Matthew 8:29; Mark 11:13; 1 Peter 1:5. And, since philologically we have to choose between ‘ seasons’ and ‘ the seasons,’ ἔλθωσιν must I think determine in favour of the latter. For by that word we must understand a definite arrival, one and the same for all, not a mere occurrence, as the other sense of καιροί would render necessary. This is also implied by the aorist, used, in a conditional sentence, of a single fact, whereas a recurrence or enduring of a state is expressed by the present. In order that the times of ἀνάψυξις may come. What is ἀνάψ .? Clearly, from the above rendering, some refreshment, future, and which their conversion was to bring about. But hardly, from what has been said, refreshment in their own hearts, arising from their conversion: besides the above objections, the following words, ἀπὸπροσώπουτοῦκυρίου , are not likely to have been used in that case. No other meaning, it seems to me, will suit the words, but that of the times of refreshment, the great season of joy and rest, which it was understood the coming of the Messiah in His glory was to bring with it. That this should be connected by the Apostle with the conversion of the Jewish people, was not only according to the plain inference from prophecy, but doubtless was one of those things concerning the kingdom of God which he had been taught by his risen Master. The same connexion holds even now. If it be objected to this, that thus we have the conversion of the Jews regarded as bringing about the great times of refreshment, and those times consequently as delayed by their non-conversion (‘ neque enim est Mutate vos in melius, ut Deus mittat Christum: non esse potest: hoc non pendet a nostra μετανοίᾳ .’ Morus in Stier R. A. i. 91), I answer, that, however true this may be in fact, the other is fully borne out by the manner of speaking in Scripture: the same objection might lie against the efficacy of prayer. See Genesis 19:22; Genesis 32:26; Mark 6:5; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 2 Peter 3:12. ἀπὸπροσώπ . τ . κυρ .] From the presence of God (the Father), who has reserved these καιροί in His own power. When they arrive, it is by His decree, which goes forth from His presence. Cf. ἐξῆλθενδόγμαπαρὰΚαίς . Αὐγ ., Luke 2:1. 20. ἀποστείλῃ (see above), literally,— not figuratively, by the Spirit:— even if the word send be no where else applied to the second coming of the Lord, there is no reason why it should not be here: the whole ground and standing-point of these two orations of Peter are peculiar, and the very mention of the ‘ times of refreshment’ proceeding forth from the presence of the Father would naturally lead to the position here assigned to the Son, as one sent by the Father. See below, on ver. 26. Besides which, the aor. will not allow of the figurative interpretation, confining, as it does, the ‘ sending’ to one definite event. προκεχειρισμένον ] before appointed, as apparently in the first ref.: or perhaps προ - merely gives the idea of forth, before the rest, as in the two others, and perhaps even in the first also. ὑμῖν , to you,— as your Messiah. According to the right reading, χριστ . Ἰησοῦν , χριστόν may be connected with τὸνπροκεχ . ὑμ ., Him who was predestined your Messiah, namely, Jesus. 21. ὃνδεῖοὐρ . μ . δέξασθαι ] These words admit of a double rendering: (1) ‘ Whom the heaven must receive.’ (2) ‘ Who must possess (capessere) the heaven.’ Of these the former is in my view decidedly preferable, both as best suiting the sense, and as being the natural rendering, whereas the other is forced. Only two or three instances of δέχομαι used in this sense are produced, and in these it gets the meaning by signifying ‘ to take to one’ s self,’ as property or inheritance: which would surely never be said of οὐρανόν , thus barely expressed. Besides, the emphatic position of οὐρανόν , with μέν attached to it, is almost decisive against this rendering. I apprehend that this particle in a sentence of the present form is always found appended to the subject, never to the object; and that, if οὐρ . had been the object, the form of the sentence would necessarily have been ὃνμὲνδεῖκ .τ .λ . The reason given by Bengel for rejecting the right rendering, ‘ Cœ lo capi, i.e. cohiberi, concludi, violenta est interpretatio, quasi cœ lum Christo majus sit; et inimica celsitudini Christi super omnes cœ los,’ is best answered by himself ‘ Non tamen nullo sensu dici potuit, cœ lum suscipit Christum: admittit scil. ut thronus Regem legitimum;’ only I would rather understand it locally, and recognize a parallel expression with that in ch. i., also local, νεφέληὑπέλαβεναὐτόν . And so far from seeing in it any derogation from the Majesty of Christ, it seems to me admirably to set it forth: it behoves the heaven (which is his, obeying his will) to receive Him till the time appointed. The omission of the article cannot be adduced either way here: for οὐρανός ‘ the heaven,’ is frequently anarthrous, as ἥλιος and other similar nouns: see (besides very numerous instances of οὐρ . after a preposition, which are hardly to the point) 2 Peter 3:12, and τὰνπρὸςἕσπερονκέλευθονοὐρανοῦ , Eur. Orest. 1003. Ζεύςἐστιναἰθήρ , Ζεὺςδὲγῆ , Ζεὺςδ ʼ οὐρανός , Æ sch. Frag. i. 96. The tragedians never prefix the article to οὐρανός , γῆ , αἰθήρ , or ἥλιος , except when qualified by an adjective, as ὦτὸναἰπὺνοὐρ . διφρηλατῶν , Soph. Aj. 832, and even then very seldom. Middleton has but very slightly noticed this, ch. iii. 1, § 5, note. ἄχρι ] Not during, as the advocates of the present spiritual sense of the passage wish to render it, but until; see below. χρόνωνἀποκαταστ . πάντωνκ .τ .λ .] The key both to the construction and meaning here, is our Lord’ s saying, Matthew 17:11, Ἡλίαςμὲνἔρχεταικαὶἀποκαταστήσειπάντα . From this we see that ἀποκατ . πάντων stands alone, as the ἀποκατ . of all things: and that ὧν does not belong to πάντων . Next, what is ἀποκατάστασις We must be guided by the Usage of the kindred verb ἀποκαθίστημι . Certainly, to restore is its usual import, and most strikingly so, accompanied however with the notion of a glorious and complete restoration, in ch. 1:6. To render our word fulfilment, and apply it to πάντωνὧνἐλάλ . κ .τ .λ ., is against all precedent. And, in the sense of restoration, I cannot see how it can be applied to the work of the Spirit, as proceeding, during this the interim-state, in the hearts of men. This would be contrary to all Scripture analogy. I understand it then of the glorious restoration of all things, the παλιγγενεσία [Matthew 19:28], which as Peter here says, is the theme of all the prophets from the beginning. No objection can be raised to this from the meaning of χρόνοι : see ch. 7:17, and Peter’ s own language, 1 Peter 1:20, ἐπ ʼ ἐσχάτουτῶνχρόνων . If the distinction be true between χρόνοι and καιροί , as denoting a longer and a shorter period respectively, which I much doubt,— it does not affect this passage: for, either way, the χρόνοιἀποκατ . will imply the time or period of the ἀποκατ ., not the moment only when it begins or is completed, as καιρόςἀποκατ . might. De Wette is hardly right in saying that the unexpressed δέ to answer to μέν is contained in the sense of ἀποκατάστασις : it is rather contained in the previous clause, καὶἀποστείλη , κ .τ .λ . In order to fill up the ellipsis, this clause would have to be repeated after προφητῶν — τότεδὲαὐτὸνἀποστελεῖ . ὧν , i.e. οὕς , agreeing with χρόνους , or perhaps περὶὧν , i.e. χρόνων . It does not refer to πάντων ,— see above. On the testimony of the prophets, see ver. 18, note. 22. This citation is a free but faithful paraphrase of the text in Deut. See LXX. That the words, as spoken by Moses, seem to point to the whole line of prophets sent by God, is not any objection to their being applied to Christ, but rather necessitates, and entirely harmonizes with, that application. See the parable Matthew 21:33-41. And none of the whole prophetic body entirely answered to the ὡςἐμέ , but Christ. The Jews therefore rightly understood it (though not always consistent in this, compare John 1:21 with 6:14) of the Messiah. 23. ἐξολεθρ .] LXX ἐγὼἐκδικήσωἐξαὐτοῦ . This word, only known to later Greek, is often found in the LXX. See besides reff., Genesis 17:14; Deuteronomy 9:3; Ps. 17:40; 72:27. In most places where it occurs, the readings vary between -ολοθρ - and -ολεθρ -; see var. readd. 24. See ver. 18, note. The construction of the Vulg., defended by Casaubon and adopted by Valcknaer and Kuinoel, τῶνκαθεξῆςὅσοιἐλάλ ., ‘ et omnes prophetæ a Samuel, et deinceps qui locuti sunt,’ is not so good as the ordinary one in E. V. Cf. ἀρξάμενοςἀπὸΜωυσέωςκαὶἀπὸπάντωντῶνπροφ ., Luke 24:27. Still less admissible is the rendering given in Dr. Burton’ s note, as perhaps the literal one, ‘ And to the same effect spoke) all the prophets from S. downwards, as many as spoke and predicted these days.’ To what effect? And would not the sentence thus amount to little more than saying, ‘ As many prophets as predicted these days, predicted these days?’ Peter’ s aim is to shew the unanimity of all the prophets in speaking of these times. Samuel is named, more as being the first great prophet after Moses, than as bearing any part in this testimony. The prophetic period of which David was the chief prophet, began in Samuel (Stier). τὰςἡμ . ταύτ .] These days, now present, not the times of restoration, as De Wette and others understand: which would require ἐκείνας . ‘ These days’ are, in fact, connected with the times of restoration, as belonging to the same dispensation and leading on to them; and thus the Apostle identifies the then time with this preparation for (ὅπωςἂνἔλθ .) and expectation of those glories: but to make τὰςἡμ . ταύτ . identical with the καιροὶἀναψ . and the χρόν . ἀποκατ ., is to make him contradict himself. 25. He applies this to them, as being inheritors of the promises. They were descendants, according to the flesh, and fellow-partakers, according to the spirit. For a full comment on this promise made to Abraham, see Galatians 3:16. This is cited freely from the LXX, which for οἱπατριαί has τὰἔθνη . 26. πρῶτον , first; implying the offer to the Gentiles (but as yet, in Peter’ s mind, only by embracing Judaism) afterwards: see ch. 13:46; Romans 1:16. It is strange how Olshausen can suppose that the Spirit in Peter overleapt the bounds of his subsequent prejudice with regard to the admission of the Gentiles:— he never had any such prejudice, but only against their admission uncircumcised, and as Gentiles. It is still stranger how a scholar like Dr. Burton can propose the ungrammatical and unmeaning rendering, “ πρῶτον is perhaps used with reference to Christ’ s first coming, as opposed to his second.” This would require τὸπρῶτον ,— and would certainly imply in the mind of the speaker an absolute exclusion of all but Jews till the second coming. ἀναστήσας , not ‘ from the dead:’ but as in ver. 22. παῖδα , His Servant: see note, ver. 13. ἀπέστειλεν , indefinite, of the sending in the flesh; sent, not ‘ hath sent;’ it does not apply to the present time, but to God’ s procedure in raising up His Servant Jesus, and His mission and ministry: and is distinct from the ἀποστείλῃ of ver. 20. This is also shewn by the pres. part. εὐλογοῦντα , ingeniously, but not quite accurately rendered in E. V. ‘ to bless you.’ He came blessing you (his coming was an act of blessing— it consisted in the εὐλογεῖν : an anarthrous present participle in such a connexion carries necessarily a slightly ratiocinative sense), in (as the conditional element of the blessing) turning every one from your iniquities: thus conferring on you the best of blessings. εὐλογ ., in allusion to ἐνευλογ ., ver. 25. ἐντῷ in this sense, see Luke 8:5. The application to the present time is made by inference:— ‘ as that was His object then, so now:’ — but (see below) the discourse is unfinished. The intransitive sense of ἀποστρέφειν ,— ‘ which blessing is to be gained by (in) every one of you turning from your iniquities,’ — given in the Vulg., ‘ ut convertat se unusquisque,’ and maintained by Theophyl., Œ , Beza, Kuinoel, Meyer, &c., on the strength of ver. 19, is inadmissible,— as ἀποστρέφω is not found thus used in the N. T., and we have the precedent of ref. Luke and Romans 11:26 for the transitive sense. The argument from ver. 19 tells just as well for it: ‘ Repent and be converted, … for this was the object of Jesus being raised up, to confer on you this very blessing, the turning away each of you from your iniquities.’ This discourse does not come to a final conclusion as in ch. 2:36, because it was interrupted by the apprehension of the Apostles. Chap. 4:1-4. Apprehension and imprisonment of the two Apostles. 1. ἐπέστ ., see reff. οἱἱερεῖς , the officiating priests, as soon as they were released from their duties. The στρατηγὸςτ . ἱεροῦ was the captain of the Levitical guard of the temple, mentioned by Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, δραμόντεςδὲοἱτοῦἱεροῦφύλακεςἤγγειλαντῷστρατηγῷ . We hear in Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, of ὁστρατηγὸςἌνανος : and in B. J. ii. 12. 6, he is said to be son of the high priest Ananias. In 2 Macc. 3:4, we hear of the προστάτηςτοῦἱεροῦ , who appears to have been the same officer. See Winer, Realw., art. Temple, end. Σαδδουκ .] See note on Matthew 3:7. Perhaps they on this occasion had moved the guard and the priests to notice the matter: for διαπον . seems only to refer to them. Cf. also ch. 5:17. 2. ἐντ . Ἰησ ,— not, as E. V., ‘ through Jesus,’ but in the person (or example) of Jesus, alleging Him as an example of that which the Sadducees denied: preaching by implication, inasmuch as one resurrection would imply that of all, the resurrection of the dead. The ἐν in reff. carries this somewhat further, but the usage is philologically the same. ‘ The resurrection through Jesus’ does not appear on the present occasion to have formed part of their preaching. 3. ἑσπέρα , perhaps, from their adjourning the case till the next day, the second evening, beginning with the twelfth hour: see Matthew 14:15, and note. 4. ἐγενήθη — This form is unknown in good Greek: but common in Hellenistic,— see Colossians 4:11; 1 Thessalonians 2:14; Winer, § 15. It appears to have been originally a Doric form: and is commonly, though this cannot always be pressed (1 Thessalonians 1:5, 1 Thessalonians 1:6; 1 Thessalonians 2:5, and notes there), used where a passive sense is admissible, and an agent understood: cf. e.g. Matthew 6:10; Matthew 8:13; Matthew 21:42. Here the agent would be God: see ch. 2:47. τῶνἀνδρῶν ] It does not appear whether we are to take this strictly as masculine, or more loosely as if it were ἀνθρώπων : Meyer thinks the former: Olshausen, that as yet only men attached themselves to the church (but see ch. 1:14): De Wette objects to the stricter view, that Luke does not so reckon, ch. 2:41 (see however Luke 9:14, and cf. Mt.): but leaves it undecided. The laxer use of ἀνδρῶν occurs Luke 11:31, and James 1:20. In ch. 5:14, men and women both are mentioned as being added to the Lord. Wordsw. sees in the 5000 ἄνδρες a fulfilment of the prophecy contained in the miracle of feeding the 5000. But how will the circumstances tally, seeing that these were but new converts, babes in grace, not yet fed to the full as were those others? And again, it is not quite certain whether this number was that of new converts on this occasion, or of the whole Church: but most probably the latter. 5-12. The Apostles examined before the Sanhedrim. Peter’ s speech. 5. αὐτῶν , of the Jews; a construction frequently used where there can be little chance of mistaking to whom or what the pronoun refers, see John 8:44, note; Romans 2:26; Winer, edn. 6, § 22. 3. 3 b. In this place, however, it has been mistaken: for Meyer refers αὐτῶν to the believers just mentioned, inasmuch as they were Jews: absurdly enough. ἄρχ . κ . πρεσβ . κ . γρ .] The Sanhedrim: see Matthew 2:4; Matthew 26:59; ch. 5:21. ἐνἹερουσαλήμ ] Why is this specified? The difficulty of accounting for it has led in some mss. to ἐν being altered to εἰς , so as to imply that certain of them who dwelt out of town (Lightf. &c.) were summoned to Jerusalem, I believe it merely implies that the meeting was not held in the temple, but in the city. 6. On Annas and Caiaphas, both called high priests, Luke 3:2,— see note there. Of John and Alexander nothing is known. Lightfoot supposes John to be identical with the Jochanan ben Zacchai of the Talmud, who however (De W.) was not of the high-priestly, but only of the priestly race:— and Pearson, Wolf, Krebs, and Mangey suppose Alexander to have been the brother of Philo Judæ us, mentioned by Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 1. But this is very improbable; for he was Alabarch of the Jews at Alexandria, Jos. ibid. 7. ἐνποίᾳδυνάμει — not = ἐνπ . ἐξουσίᾳ , ‘ in what authority,’ — but in what (manner of) power; of what kind was the enabling cause, the element in which, as its condition, the deed was wrought?— ἐνποίῳὀνόματι — not ‘ in what name,’ — i.e. ‘ by whose authority,’ but by (‘ in,’ see above) what (manner of) name, spoken: see ch. 3:6, 16; Jos. Antt. viii. 2. 5. τοῦτο , not the teaching (Olshaus., &c.),— nor both the miracle and the teaching (Heinr.), but the miracle: and that only. 8. πλησθ . πν . ἁγ ., i.e. specially, for the occasion. 9. εἰ , if, with an implication of the fact being so: see ch. 11:17. ἐντίνι , not ‘ by (in) whom,’ — this is not yet brought forward: but wherein, in what, as the conditional element. No person had been mentioned in the question, ver. 7,— nor does Peter afterwards say ἐνἸησοῦχρ ., but ἐντῷὀνόμ . Ἰ . χρ . On the other hand, ἐντούτῳ , ver. 10, may very well be masculine, as referring to Ἰησοῦςχρ . Himself, included in the previous words τῷὀν . Ἰ . χρ .:— it may also be neuter, ‘ in this Name:’ but the masc. is preferable, on account of οὗτος following so soon in ver. 11. 10. ὃν … ὅν : the copula is omitted to make the contrast more striking. παρέστηκεν , stands, as in E. V. He was there present. 11. See Matthew 21:42, note. 12. In Jos. Antt. iii. 1. 5, Moses, praying to God for Israel, says, ἐναὐτῷγὰρεἶναιτὴνσωτηρίαναὐτοῦ , καὶοὐκἐνἄλλῳ . σωτηρία is used here in the higher sense of salvation, not with reference to the healing of the lame man. See reff. The article implies, ‘ the salvation for which we all look;’ our salvation: ἐστὶνἡσωτ . is paraphrased in the next clause by δεῖσωθῆναιἡμᾶς . οὔτεγὰρ … ] lit. for neither is there another name under heaven (which is) given (by God) among men (not ‘ to men,’ Vulg., Beza, Kuinoel), whereby we must be saved: i.e., as E. V. Dr. Burton’ s rendering, ‘ For neither is the name which is given among men, whereby we are to be saved, any other than this,’ is ungrammatical. 13-18. Consultation and sentence of the Sanhedrim. 13. καταλαβάμενοι , having had previous knowledge; not as E. V., which would be the partic. pres.; see the past, ch. 25:25. ἰδιῶται ,— the word of contrast to those professionally acquainted with any matter: here therefore, laics, men of no knowledge on such a subject as this. ἐπεγίνωσ · κον ,— they recognized them; παραγενήσεταιὥστεμοιοἰκείαγενέσθαι ; Ἐπιγνοίηςἂναὐτήν , ὠΣώκρατες , ἔφη , οἰκείανγενομένην ;) their astonishment setting them to think, and reminding them that they had seen these men with Jesus:— not for a pluperfect, here or any where else: nor is ἦσαν ;— that they (once) were with Jesus. 14. This, according to De W., is the only place in Luke where τε couples two sentences. He therefore objects to the reading; and also as destroying the contrast; but clearly the former is no sound critical reason, nor is it correct: see ch. 1:15 al. fr.:— and I cannot see that any contrast is intended: the two circumstances which the Sanhedrim found it difficult to gainsay were, the boldness of these illiterate men, conferred by their companionship with Jesus, and the presence of the healed man standing with them. 17. διανεμηθῇ ] be scattered or spread: lit., be distributed: so Plato, Minos, 317 D, τίςἐπιστήμωνδιανεῖμαιἐπὶγῇτὰσπέρματα ; and afterwards, τίςδὲτὴντροφὴνἐπὶτὰτῶνἀνθρώπωνσώματαδιανεῖμαιἄριστος ; [ἀπειλῇ ] ἀπειλ .] for idiom, see reff. The construction of ἀπειλέω with an infin., stated by Dr. Bloomf. to be ‘ so rare that even the best lexx. scarcely adduce an example.’ is its ordinary construction: see Palm and Rost sub voce, and cf. II. α ʹ . 161; ν ʹ . 143; ο ʹ . 179, al. freq.: Od. λ ʹ . 313; Xen. Mem. iii. 5. 4; Hell. v. 4. 7; Eur. Med. 287. The use of the middle in the active sense is confined to later Greek. 18. ἐπί , so as to make that Name the subject (basis) of their discoursing. 19-22. The Apostles’ answer and dismissal. 21. προσαπειλ ., having threatened them in addition;— with threats superadded to the inhibition of ver. 18. μηδέν , no means: not μηδὲναἴτιον , see John 14:30. The difficulty with the Sanhedrim was, to find any means of punishing them which should not stir up the people; διὰτὸνλαόν belongs to this clause, not to ἀπέλυσαναὐτ . 22. πλ . τεσσ . for πλ . ἢτεσσ ., as sometimes in classical Greek; so οὐκἔλασσονπέντεκαὶεἴκοσι , Thucyd. vi. 95. See Winer, edn. 6, § 37, 5. The constr. ἐφ ʼ ὃνγεγόνει (see as in reff.) is accounted for by the sense involved in it being the access, so to speak, of the event to the person mentioned. In the note on Revelation 4:2, I have noticed that καθῆσθαιἐπί is commonly used when the fact is announced for the first time, with an accus.: but afterwards when the same fact is again referred to, with a gen. or dat. τὸσημ . τῆςἰάσ .— the genitive of apposition; so τὸνἀῤῥαβῶνατοῦπνεύματος , 2 Corinthians 5:5: σημεῖονπεριτομῆς , Romans 4:11, &c. The circumstance of his being more than forty years old both gave notoriety to his person as having long resorted there, and made the miracle more notable, his malady being more confirmed. 23-31. Prayer of the church thereupon. 23. τοὺςἰδίους , the other Apostles, and possibly some others assembled with them. There is nothing in ver. 31 to mark that only the Apostles were present on this occasion. 24] ὁμοθ . ᾖρανφων . not, as Meyer supposes, literally all speaking together in a known formula of prayer, but led by some one, and all assenting; not τὰςφωνάς , but φωνήν : see note on ch. 2:6. σὺ [ὁθεὸς ] ὁποι .: Thou art God (or, if ὁθεός be omitted, He) who hast made:— not Thou O God who hast made:— in this latter case, the first sentence would go on to the end of ver. 26, and there abruptly end, without any prayer being expressed: whereas now it is an acknowledgment that it was the same God, who was now doing these things, that bad beforetime prophesied them of Christ. 25. The text of this verse (see var. readd.) is in a very confused state. I have kept to that of the oldest mss., adopted also by Lachmann. Though harsh in construction, their words are not senseless, as De Wette styles them,— στόματοςΔαυεὶδ … being in apposition with πνεύματοςἁγίου . The rec. has been an emendation and simplification of the text, which bears, in this its original form, the solemn and stately character, in the accumulation of parallel clauses, of the rest of the prayer; cf. ver. 27. ἵνατίκ .τ .λ .] cited verbatim from the LXX. The Messianic import of this Psalm has been acknowledged even by those who usually deny all such reference, e.g. De Wette. Meyer endeavours to refer it to some circumstances then present, but is not bold enough to enter into any vindication of his view. φρυάσσω is only found in the middle in good Greek (see Kypke, Observ. ii. p. 30 f. Meyer). φρύαγμάἐστιτὸἀλόγιστονκίνημα , Athanas. in Catena. 27. The γάρ implies an acknowledgment of the truth of God in the fulfilment of the prophecy: Thou art the God who hast, &c., for these events have happened accordingly. ἐντῇπόλειταύτῃ . which has been excluded from the text on account of its apparent redundance, answers to ἐπὶΣιὼνὄροςτὸἅγιοναὐτοῦ , Psalms 2:6. See also Matthew 23:37; Luke 13:33. The parts of this verse correspond accurately to those of the prophecy just quoted. παῖδα , servant, as be fore, ch. 3:26. Jesus, the Servant of Jehovah, is the antitype and completion of David, and of all other servants of the Lord: what is said of them only partially and hyperbolically, is said literally and entirely of Him. 28. There is an ellipsis in the thought between ποιῆσαι and ὅσα : ποιῆσαι , ὅσα … As De Wette well remarks, συνήχθησανποιῆσαι ) is used subjectively, ‘ they were collected, to do,’ and then the speaker changes his ground to an objective one in ὅσα — (as they believed— but really) as many things as Thy hand, &c. ποιῆσαι must not be rendered, with Kuinoel, ‘ ita ut facerent.’ It does not express the result, but the intention, of their assembling. Still worse is it to take ποιῆσαι with ἔχρισας , ‘ Whom Thou hast anointed, … to do,’ &c., as some have proposed: the parenthesis, as well as the whole train of thought, forbidding it. ἡχείρσ . κ . ἡβουλή ] not a ἓνδιὰδυοῖν (Kuinoel): χείρ indicates the Power, βουλή the Wisdom of God. The Wisdom decreed, the Hand performed: but the same word προώρισεν is used of both by what grammarians call zeugma— as in γάλαὑμᾶςἐπότισα ‚ οὐβρῶυα , 1 Corinthians 3:2. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 2, e. 30. ἐντῷ , see ref. ch. 3. and note there: In Thy stretching forth (while Thou stretchest forth) Thine hand for (εἰς , of the purpose) healing, and that signs and wonders may come to pass by means of the Name of Thy Holy Servant Jesus. 31. As the first outpouring of the Spirit, so this special one in answer to prayer, was testified by an outward and visible sign: but not by the same sign,— for that first baptism by the Holy Ghost, the great fulfilment of the promise, was not to be repeated. The rationalist Commentators have done good service by pointing out parallel cases, in profane writers, of supposed tokens of the divine presence. Virg. Æ n. iii. 89. Ovid, Met. xv. 672. Schö ttgen, Hor. Hebr. in loc., produces similar notices from the Rabbinical writings. It was on every ground probable that the token of the especial presence of God would be some phæ nomenon which would be recognized by those present as such. Besides which, the idea was not derived from profane sources, but from the Scriptures: see Psalms 29:8; Isaiah 2:19, Isaiah 2:21; Isaiah 13:13; Ezekiel 38:19 (especially); Joe 3:16; Haggai 2:6, Haggai 2:7. ἐπλήσθησαν , with a fresh and renewed outpouring. τοῦἁγ . πν . is personal: they were all filled with the Holy Spirit: the meaning being the same with πν . ἁγ ., the influence of the Holy Spirit,— but the form of expression varied. See ch. 1:8; 2:33, 38; 9:31; 10:45. 32-37. The state of the church at this time. This passage forms the conclusion of this division of the history and the transition to ch. 5. 32. τῶνπιστευσάντων ] Much the same meaning as τῶνπιστευόντων , but with reference to their having become converts, and specially to those mentioned in ver. 4,— though the description is general. ‘ Ubi regnum habet fides, animos ita conciliat ut omnes idem velint et nolint. Hinc enim discordiæ , quod non regimur eodem Christi Spiritu.’ Calvin. On the community of goods, see note at ch. 2:45. We have the view there taken strikingly confirmed here by the expressions used. No one called (reckoned) any thing of his goods (which were still τὰὑπάρχοντααὐτῷ , not alienated) (to be) his own. (ἔλεγεν , dicebat: hoc ipso præ supponitur proprietatem possessionis non plane fuisse deletam. Bengel.) 33. The Apostles were the specially appointed witnesses of the Resurrection, ch. 1:22: and this their testimony they gave with power, i.e. with a special gift of the Holy Spirit to enforce and illustrate, to persuade and dispute on, those facts of which their own experience (see ver. 20) informed them. That the Spirit did not inspire them with unbroken uniformity in matters of fact, our present Gospels, the remnants to us of this very testimony, sufficiently witness. Nor was this necessary: each man reported what he had heard and seen;— and it was in the manner of delivering this report that the great power of the Spirit was shewn. See, on the whole subject, Prolegg. Vol. I. i. § iii. 5 ff. χάρις , better grace, i.e. from God, than favour, i.e. from the people, which would hardly be so absolutely designated. 34. γάρ gives a proof of God’ s grace working in them, in that they imparted their goods to the poor: see especially 2 Corinthians 8:7. πιπρασκομένων , the things which were being sold:— the process of selling, as regarded the whole church, yet going on, though completed in individual cases; in the places cited by Wetst. from Demosth. and Appian the pres. retains its proper force, as here. In Appian, B. Civ. v. p. 1088, the expression is, τιμὰςτῶνἔτιπιπρασκομένων . 35. παρὰτοὺςπόδας ,— not a Hebraism for the whole person— but literal. So Cicero pro Flacco, c. 28, ‘ Ante pedes Præ toris in foro expensum estauri pondo centum.’ (Rosenm.) Wetstein gives several other examples. The Apostles, like the Præ tor, probably sat upon a raised seat, on the step of which, at their feet, the money was laid, in token of reverence. 36. Barnabas, ב ּ ַ ר נ ְ ב ו ּ א ָ ה , is υἱὸςπροφητείας — and the interpretation has been generally made good by taking παράκλησις as included in προφητεία , and as in the sense of exhortation: see ch. 11:23. Λευεΐτης ] The Levites might possess land at all times within the precincts of the Levitical cities: such was the case, e.g., in Jeremiah 32:7. At the division of the kingdoms, the priests and Levites all resorted to Rehoboam in Judah (and Benjamin), 2 Chronicles 11:13; from that time probably, but certainly after the captivity, when the Mosaic division of the land was no longer accurately observed, the possession of land by Levites seems to have been allowed. The whole subject is involved in some uncertainty: cf. Leviticus 25:32 ff.; Numbers 35:1-8; Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 18:8, al. Κύπριος ] For the state of Cyprus at this time, see notes on ch. 11:19; 13:4-7. 37. χρῆμα ] Very unusual in this sense. See Herod. 3:38, ἐπὶπόσῳἂνχρήματιβουλοίατοτοὺςπατέραςἀποθνήσκονταςἀποσιτέεσθαι , and other examples in Wetstein. Chap. 5:1-11. The history of Ananias and Sapphira. This incident, though naturally connected with the end of the last chapter, forms an important independent narrative. 1. Ἀνανίας , ע ֲ נ ַ נ ְ י ָ ה , Nehemiah 3:23, or ח ֲ נ ַ נ ְ י ָ ה , Daniel 1:6, in LXX: also 1 Chronicles 3:21, al.= The cloud of God, or The mercy of God. Σαπφείρῃ , perhaps from the Greek σάπφειρος , sapphire, or from the Syriac ש פ י ר א , beautiful (Grot.). The crime of these two is well described by Meyer: ‘ By the sale of their field, and the bringing in of the money they in fact professed to give the whole price as a gift of brotherly love to the common stock: but their aim was to get for themselves the credit of holy love and zeal by one portion of the price, whereas they had selfishly kept back the other portion for themselves. They wished to serve two masters, but to appear to serve only One.’ 3. The διὰτί implies the power of resistance to Satan— Why hast thou allowed Satan to fill, &c.? 4. While it remained, did it not remain thine own? i.e. was it not in thine absolute power? and when sold, was it not (i.e. the price of it) in thine own power, to do with it what seemed good to thee? τίὅτι , i.e. τίἐστινὅτι : see reff. ἔθουἐντ . καρδ ., = ש ׂ ו ּ ם ע ַ ל ־ ל ֵ ב , Daniel 1:8; Malachi 2:2. Satan suggested the lie, which Ananias ought to have repelled: instead of that, he put it in his heart,— placed it there where the springs of action are, and it passed out into an act. οὐκἐψ . ἀνθ ., ἀλλὰτ . θ .] This οὐκ , ἀλλά , is not always an absolute and exclusive negation and assertion, see Mark 9:37; John 12:44. But here it seems to be so, and to imply, ‘ Thine attempt to deceive was not to deceive us, men; but to deceive the Holy Ghost,— God, abiding in His church, and in us its appointed superintendents.’ This verse is of weighty doctrinal import, as proving the Deity of the Holy Spirit; unless it be held, that the Holy Spirit whom (ver. 3) Ananias attempted to deceive, and God to whom he lied, are different. ‘ Hæ c est sententia: Ananias mentitus est Deo et ejus Spiritui, non hominibus et Petro. Aude si potes, Sociniane, ita dicere: mentitus est non Spiritui Sancto et Petro, sed Deo.’ Bengel. 5. The deaths of Ananias and Sapphira were beyond question supernaturally inflicted by Peter, speaking in the power of the Holy Spirit. This is the only honest interpretation of the incident. Many, however, and among them even Neander, attempt to account for them on natural grounds,— from their horror at detection, and at the solemn words of Peter. But, in addition to all other objections against this (see on ἐξοίσουσιν , ver. 9),— it would make man and wife of the same temperament, which would be very unlikely. We surely need not require any justification for this judicial sentence of the Apostle, filling as he did at this time the highest place in the church, and acting under the immediate prompting of the Holy Spirit. If such, however, be sought, we may remember that this was the first attempt made by Satan to obtain, by hypocrisy, a footing among Christ’ s flock: and that however, for wise reasons, this may since then have been permitted, it was absolutely necessary in the infancy of the church, that such attempt should be at once, and with severity, defeated. Bengel remarks: ‘ Quod gravitati pœ næ in corpore accessit, in anima potuit decedere.’ κ . ἐγέν . φόβ . κ .τ .λ .] The ἀκούοντες can hardly be (Meyer) those present, who (De W.) not only heard, but saw: the remark is proleptical, and = that in ver. 11. 6. Were οἱνεώτεροι a class in the congregation accustomed to perform such services,— or merely the younger men, from whom they would naturally be expected? Meyer and Olshausen (also Mosh. and Kuin.) maintain the former; Neander and De W. the latter. We can hardly assume, as yet, any such official distinctions in the congregation as would mark off οἱνεώτεροι from οἱπρεσβύτεροι , which latter are first officially mentioned ch. 11:30. Besides which, we have no such ecclesiastical class as οἱνεώτεροι . And the use of οἱνεανίσκοι in ver. 10, as applying to these same persons, seems to decide that they were merely the younger members of the church, acting perhaps in accordance with Jewish custom,— perhaps also on some hint given by Peter. συνέστειλαν ] So περιστέλλω , Ezekiel 29:5; Tobit 12:13; Sir. 38:16, wrapped the body up,— probably in their own mantles, taken off in preparing to curry him out. The context will not permit any more careful enfolding of the body to be understood. The speedy burial of the dead, practised among the later Jews, was unknown in earlier times, see Gen_23. It was grounded on Numbers 19:11 ff. The practice was to bury before sunset of the same day. The immediate burial in this case adds to the probability that the young men obeyed an intimation from the Apostle. 7. The construction is, ἐγένετοδέ ‚ … καί , It happened, that: and ὡςὡ . τ . διάστ . is parenthetical, not the nom. to ἑγένετο . See a precisely similar construction, Luke 9:28: and Winer, edn. 6, § 62. 2. 8. ἀπεκρ ., perhaps to her salutation: or, it may be, to her manner, challenging a reply. The word must at any rate be taken as implying some previous communication, to which an answer was to be given. τοσούτ ., naming the sum: or perhaps pointing to the money lying at his feet. The sense tantilli (Born.) is implied of course, but not expressed by τοσούτου . No stress on ἀπέδοσθε as referring to the smallness of price: it is the ordinary word for selling, see reff. 9. To try the omniscience of the Spirit then visibly dwelling in the Apostles and the church, was, in the highest sense, to tempt the Spirit of God. It was a saying in their hearts ‘ There is no Holy Spirit:’ and certainly approached very closely to a sin against the Holy Ghost. Peter characterizes the sin more solemnly this second time, because by the wife’ s answer it was now proved to be no individual lie of a bad and covetous man, but a preconcerted scheme to deceive God. οἱπόδες ] Not that Peter heard (Olsh.) the tread of the young men outside (they were probably barefooted), but it is an expression common in the poetical or lively description of the Hebrews, and indeed of all nations (see Isaiah 52:7; Nahum 1:15; Romans 10:15; Eurip. Hippol. 656; Soph. Œ d. Col. 890, al. freq.), making the member whereby the person acts, the actor. I take the words to mean, that the time was just at hand for their return: see James 5:9. The space of three hours was not too long: they would have to carry the corpse to the burying-ground, at a considerable distance from the city (Lightf.), and when there, to dig a grave, and bury it. ἐξοίσουσιν ] This word, spoken before her death, decisively proves that death to have been not a result merely of her detection, but a judicial infliction. 10. εἰσελθόντες , when they came in: not implying that they immediately entered, but leaving room for some interval of time: see above. 12-16. Progress of the Faith; miraculous power and dignity of the Apostles. 12. δέ is merely transitional, and does not imply any contrast to the φόβος just mentioned, q. d. ‘ notwithstanding this fear, the Apostles went on working, &c.’ See ch. 2:43. ἅπαντες , the Apostles only, not all the Christians. It does not follow, from πάντες referring to all the believers in ch. 2:1 (see note there), that ἅπαντες necessarily refers to the same here also. The Apostles are the subject of the paragraph: and it is to set forth their unanimity and dignity that the description is given. They are represented as distinct from all others, believers and unbelievers : and the Jewish people itself magnified them. The further connexion see on ver. 14. στ . Σολ .] See ch. 3:11; John 10:23, note. 13. τῶνλοιπῶν , all else, whether believers or not: none dared to join himself to (see reff.), as being one of, or equal to, them: but (so far was this from being the case that) the very people (multitude) magnified them. 14. And (not parenthetical, but continuing the description of the dignity of the Apostles) the result of this was that believers were the more added to the Lord (not πιστ . τῷκυρίῳ , but προσετ . τῷκυρ ., as decided by ch. 11:24), multitudes of men and women. 15. ὥστε now takes up afresh the main subject of vv. 12 and 13, the glorification of the apostolic office, insomuch, that.… It is connected not only with ἐμεγάλυνεναὐτ . ὁλ ., but also with ver. 12. κατὰτὰςπλ .] down the streets, i.e. in the line of the streets,— see Winer, edn. 6, § 49, d. κλιν . κ . κραβ .] Kuinoel’ s distinction, that the latter is a poor and humble bed, the former a couch of richer character, appears to be unfounded. (So also Bengel.) Πέτρου ] As the greatest, in pre-eminence and spiritual energizing, of the Apostles. Now especially was fulfilled to him the promise of Mat 16:18 (see note there):— and even the shadow of the Rock (Isaiah 32:2, Heb., and E.V., spoken primarily of His divine Master) was sought for. We need find no stumbling-block in the fact of Peter’ s shadow having been believed to be the medium (or, as is surely implied, having been the medium) of working miracles. Cannot the ‘ Creator Spirit’ work with any instruments, or with none, as pleases Him? And what is a hand or a voice, more than a shadow, except that the analogy of the ordinary instrument is a greater help to faith in the recipient? Where faith, as apparently here, did not need this help, the less likely medium was adopted. See, on the whole, ch. 19:12, and note: and remark that only in the case of our Lord and His two great Apostles in the N. T.,— and of Elisha in the O. T., have we instances of this healing virtue in the mere contact with or accessories of the person. But what a fertile harvest of superstition and imposture has been made to spring out of these scanty examples! 16. Keep, in both verbs, συνήρχετο and ἐθεραπεύοντο , the imperfect sense; ‘ the multitude, &c., was coming together, bearing, &c.,— for all such (quippe qui) were being healed:’ viz. when the next incident, ἀναστὰςδὲκ .τ .λ ., happened [which forms a contrast to this waxing prosperity of the Church]. 17-42. Imprisonment, miraculous liberation, examination before the Sanhedrim, and scourging of the Apostles. 17. ἀναστάς is not redundant, but implies being excited by the popularity of the Apostles, and on that account commencing a course of action hostile to them: see reff. (‘ Non sibi quiescendum ratus est.’ Beng. διηγέρθηκινηθεὶςἐπὶτοῖςγενομένοις , Chrys.) To suppose that the H. P. ‘ rose up’ after a council held (Meyer) is far-fetched, and against the ἐπλήσθησανζήλου , which points to the kindling zeal of men first stirred up to action. ὁἀρχ .] Annas,— ch. 4:6, and note on Luke 3:2. οἱσὺναὐτῷ ] those who were with him (see ch. 4:13; 19:38; 22:9). Not the members of the Sanhedrim: but the friends and kindred (ch. 4:6) of the H. P.: see ver. 21: Kuinoel’ s ‘ qui a partibus ejus stabaut’ is too definite (De W.): it was so, but this meaning is not in the words. ἡοὖσα ] attr., but implying more than οἱὄντεςἐξαἱρέσεωςτ . Σ .:— the movement extended through the whole sect. On αἵρ . τ . Σ ., see Matthew 3:7, note. The passage of Josephus, Antiq. xx. 9. 1, is worth transcribing: πέμπειδὲΚαῖσαρ (Nero) Ἀλβῖνονεἰς . τὴνἸονδαίανἔπαρχον , Φήστουτὴντελευτὴνπυθόμενος . ὁδὲβασιλεὺςἀφείλετομὲντὸνἸώσηποντὴνἀρχιερωσύνην , τῷδὲἈνάνουπαιδί , καὶαυτῷἈνάνῳλεγομένῳ , τὴνδιαδοχὴντῆςἀρχῆςἔδωκε . τοῦτονδέφασιτὸνπρεσβύτατονἌνανονεὐτυχέστατονγενέσθαι · πέντεγὰρἔσχεπαῖδας , καὶτούτουςπάνταςσυνέβηἀρχιερατεῦσαιτῷθεῷ , αὐτὸςκαὶπρότεροντῆςτιμῆςἐπὶπλεῖστονἀπολαύσας , ὅπεροὐδενὶσυνέβητῶνπαρ ʼ ἡμῖνἀρχιερέων . ὁδὲνεώτεροςἌνανος … θρασὺςἦντὸντρόπον , καὶτολμητὴςδιαφερόντως · αἵρεσινδὲμετῄειτῶνΣαδδουκαίων , οἵπερεἰσὶπερὶτὰςκρίσειςὠμοὶπαρὰπάνταςτοὺςἸουδαίους , καθὼςἤδηδεδηλώκαμεν . This shews that the family of Annas, if not he himself, were connected with the sect of the Sadducees. They (see ch. 4:1, note) were the chief enemies of the Apostles, for teaching the resurrection. 18. τηρ .] see ch. 4:3. 20. τῆςζωῆςταύτης , an unusual expression, seems to refer to the peculiar nature of the enmity shewn towards them by the Saddueees, for preaching the ἀνάστασιςζωῆς — ‘ of this life, which they call in question.’ Or perhaps τ . ζ . τ . may import the religion of Jesus having its issue in life. A similar expression, ὁλόγοςτῆςσωτηρίαςταύτης , occurs ch. 13:26. See also Romans 7:24. But beware of assuming in either of these passages the use of the figure called by the grammarians hypallage, so that τὰῥ . τῆςζ . ταύτης = τὰῥήματαταῦτατῆςζωῆς : for thus the sense is enervated, and the peculiar reference in each case lost. The indiscriminate application of these supposed figures of speech has been, and continues to be, one of the worst foes of sound exegesis. The deliverance, here granted to all the Apostles, was again vouchsafed to Peter in ch. 12, and is there related more in detail. It is there a minute touch of truth, that he should mistake for a dream (ver. 9) what he saw: having lain so long in prison, and his mind naturally dwelling on this his former miraculous liberation. 21. ὑπὸτὄρθρ ., at daybreak: see reff. παραγενόμενος ] to the ordinary session chamber in the Temple, on the south side of it (Winer, Realw.): and therefore, if the Apostles were teaching in Solomon’ s porch (ver. 12), not in their immediate vicinity. Perhaps the παραγενόμενος … συνεκάλεσαν … , implying that the summons was not issued till after the arrival of the H. P. and his friends, may point to a meeting of the Sanhedrim hurriedly and insufficiently called, for the purpose of ‘ packing’ it against the Apostles. If so, they did not succeed, see ver. 40: perhaps on account of the arrival of some who had been listeners to the Apostles’ preaching. πᾶσαντ . γερουσίαν ] Probably the πρεσβύτεροι , including perhaps some who were not members of the Sanhedrim; the well-known foes of Jesus and his doctrine. The expression π . τ . γερους . τῶνυἱ . Ἰσραήλ , common in the LXX, is perhaps translated from the form of words in which they were summoned. γερουσία , being the ordinary word for the πρεσβύτεροι , would be the Hellenistic formal expression. 23. ἐνπάς . ἀσφ .] Not, as Vulg., ‘ cum omni diligentia’ (so Luth.), nor as E. V. ‘ with all safety’ (?); but in all security— ‘ in a state of perfect safety.’ 24. If the ἱερεύς of the rec. be genuine, it must designate the High Priest; not that the word itself can bear the meaning (compare 1 Macc. 15:1 and 2), but that the context points out the priest thus designated to be the H. P. (Meyer.) On ὁστρατ . τ . ἱερ ., see note, ch. 4:1. He appears to have been summoned to meet the Sanhedrim, perhaps as the offence had taken place within his jurisdiction. But he was probably one of the ἀρχιερεῖς (see Winer, Realw., Tempel, end). These latter were the titular High Priests, partly those who had served the office, partly the presidents of the twenty-four courses, partly the kindred of the H. P. (see Matthew 2:4.) αὐτῶν ] ‘ The Apostles,’ the αὐτούς of ver. 22: not ‘ these words,’ as would appear at first sight. τίἂνγέν . τοὺτο ] To what this would come; ‘ whereunto this would grow,’ E. V.:— not ‘ quomodo factum sit,’ as Kuin.,— nor ‘ quid hoc esset rei’ (τίὂνεἴη , as ch. 10:17), as Grot. and others. 26. [ἵνα ] μὴλιθ . depends upon οὐμετὰβίας , not upon ἐφοβ . If, however, ἵνα be omitted, then this latter is the case. 28. δέονἐρωτῆσαιπρῶτον , πῶςἐξήλθετε ; ὡςοὐδενὸςγενομένου , ἐρωτῶσιλέγοντες · κ .τ .λ . Chrys. The same shyness of open allusion to the names or facts connected with Jesus and the spread of his doctrine may be traced in the ὀνόματιτούτῳ , and the ἀνθρώπουτούτου , and is a strong mark of truth and circumstantiality. ‘ Fugit appellare Jesum: Petrus appellat et celebrat, vv. 30, 31.’ Bengel. ἐπαγ . ἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς ] not meaning, that divine vengeance would come on them for the murder of Jesus: but with a stress on ἡμᾶς — that the people would be incited to take vengeance on them, the Sanhedrim, for that murder. The preceding clause (πεπληρ . κ .τ .λ .) shews this to be their thought. Compare the pointed address of Peter to the Sanhedrim, ch. 4:8-12, and the distinction between them and the people in 4:21. This being so, the resemblance between this expression and the imprecation of the people in Matthew 27:25 must not be too closely pressed, though the coincidence is too striking to escape notice. 29. Peter, by word of mouth; the Apostles, as a body, by assent, implied in his own utterance and their silence. There is no ellipse of ἄλλοι before ἀπόστ . This defence of Peter divides itself into the propositions of an ordinary syllogism— (1) The statement of the general truth that we must obey God rather than men: (2) The reduction of the present circumstances under that general truth, as being the work of the God of their Fathers— shewn in his having raised and glorified Jesus, for a definite purpose, to give, &c. (3) The identification of themselves with the course of action marked out by the πειθαρχεῖνδεῖ … in that they were bearing witness to God’ s work, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit given them as men obedient to God. The whole is a perfect model of concise and ready eloquence, and of unanswerable logical coherence; and a notable fulfilment of the promise, δοθήσεταιὑμῖνἐνἐκείνῃτῇὥρᾳτίλαλήσητε (Matthew 10:19). πειθαρχεῖν ] much stronger than ἀκούειν , ch. 4:19,— as their conduct, in persisting after prohibition, had been more marked and determined. That was a mere ‘ listening to’ the proposition then made to them: this, a course of deliberate action, chosen and entered on. θεῷ — opposed to τῆςδιδ . ὑμῶν of the H. P.; and to ἀνθρώπουτούτου . In the background, there would be the command of the angel, ver. 20: but it is not alleged: the great duty of preaching the Gospel of Christ is kept on its highest grounds. 30. τῶνπατ . ἡμ .] thus binding on Christ and his work, to the covenant whereof all present were partakers. ἤγειρεν ] both from the emphatic position of the verb, and from the context, it must refer to the resurrection, not merely, as in Matthew 11:11, Luke 1:69, Judges 3:9, to raising up in the ordinary sense. ὑμεῖς , answering to the ἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς of the H. P. ἐπὶξύλου ] compare reff. and the similar contrast in ch. 3:14, 15. The manner of death is described thus barely and ignominiously, to waken compunction in the hearers, to whom the expression was well known as entailing curse and disgrace on the victim. 31, 32. ἀρχηγ . κ . σωτ ., not, ‘ to be a Prince and a Saviour:’ but the words are the predicate of τοῦτον — as a P. and a S. ἀρχηγόν , as ch. 3:15, which see. κ . σωτ . not = τῆςσωτηρίας . Jesus was to be King and Captain of Israel, and also their Saviour. The two offices, though inseparably connected in fact, had each its separate meaning in Peter’ s speech: a Prince, to whom you owe obedience— a Saviour, by whom you must be saved from your sins. τῇδεξιᾷ , by (not to) His right hand, as in ch. 2:33, where see note. The great aim here, as there, is to set forth God as the Doer of all this. δοῦναι , in his Kingly prerogative; μετ . κ . ἄφ . ἁμ ., to lead to salvation (εἰςσωτηρίαν , as 2 Corinthians 7:10: εἰςζωήν , as ch. 11:18) by him as a Saviour. Somewhat similarly Bengel: ‘ μετ ., qua Jesus accipitur ut Princeps: ἄφες . qua accipitur ut Salvator.’ The key to this part of the speech is Luke 24:47-49, where we have, in our Lord’ s command to them, the same conjunction of μετ . κ . ἄφες . ἁμ .— and immediately follows, as here, ὑμεῖςμάρτυρεςτούτων , appointing them to that office which they were now discharging,— and, corresponding to τὸπνεῦματὸἅγ . of our text, ἰδοὺἐγὼἐξαποστέλλωτὴνἐπαγγελίαντοῦπατρόςμουἐφ ʼ ὑμᾶς . By conjoining the Holy Ghost, as a witness, with themselves,— they claim and assert the promise of Joh 15:26, John 15:27: see also the apostolic letter of ch. 15:28. When we remember, how much of the apostolic testimony was given in writing, as well as by word of mouth, this declaration of Peter becomes an important datum for judging of the nature of that testimony also. See a very similar conjunction, 1 John 5:9. They were God’ s witnesses, in the things which they had seen and heard as men: the Holy Ghost in them was God’ s Witness, in purifying and enlarging by His inspiration that their testimony to facts, and in unfolding, from (and as inseparable from) these witnessed facts,— the things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard. And in the Scripture these same testimonies are conjoined; that of the Apostles, holy men under the guidance and reminding of the Holy Spirit, faithfully and honestly reporting those things which fall under human observation: and that of God the Spirit Himself, testifying, through them, those loftier things which no human experience can assure, nor human imagination compass. ῥημάτων ] histories, things expressed in words: see note on Luke 1:4. τοῖςπειθ .] Not ἡμῖν , which might make an unreal distinction between the Apostles and the then believers, and an implied exclusion of the hearers from this gift,— but generally, to all the πειθαρχοῦσιναὐτῷ , by this word recalling the opening of the speech and binding all together. So that the sense of the whole is, ‘ We are acting in obedience to God, and for the everlasting good of our common Israel: and otherwise we cannot do.’ And a solemn invitation is implied. ‘ Be ye obedient likewise.’ It is remarkable that a similar word, ὑπήκουοντῇπίστει , is used of the multitude of converted priests, ch. 6:7. 33. διεπρίοντο ] sc. ταῖςκαρδίαις as ch. 7:54. From its conjunction there with ἔβρυχοντ . ὀδόντας , it does not appear to have any connexion with the phrase πρίειν or διαπρίειντ . ὀδ . with which and Wetst. identify it. They were cut asunder (in heart). So Persius, iii. 8, ‘ turgescit vitrea bilis: Findor, ut Arcadiæ pecuaria rudere credas.’ And Plautus, Bacch. ii. 3. 17, ‘ Cor meum et cerebrum, Nicobule, finditur, Istius hominis ubi fit quaque mentio.’ And Euseb. H. E. v. 1 (in Suicer, sub voce, where he cites other authorities also), ἐχαλέπαινονκ . διεπρίοντοκαθ ʼ ἡμῶν . ἐβουλεύοντο ] they were purposing, ‘ taking counsel with the intent,’ see reff. 34. Γαμαλιήλ = ג ּ ַ מ ְ ל ִ י א ֵ ל , (see Numbers 1:10; Numbers 2:20,) is generally, and not without probability, assumed to be identical with the celebrated Rabban Gamaliel, ה ַ ז ּ ָ ק ֵ ן (the old man), one of the seven, to whom, among their Rabbis, the Jews give this title Rabban (= ῥαββουνί , John 20:16), a wise and enlightened Pharisee, the son of Rabban Symeon (traditionally the Symeon of Luk 2:25) and grandson of the famous Hillel. His name often appears in the Mischna, as an utterer of sayings quoted as authorities. He died eighteen years before the destruction of the city. (See Lightf. Centuria Chorogr. Matth. præ missa, ch. 15) He was the preceptor of St. Paul (ch. 22:3). Ecclesiastical tradition makes him become a Christian and be baptized by Peter and John ( cod. 171, vol. iii. p. 118 b. Winer, Realw.), and in the Clementine Recognn. (i. 65, p. 1242), he is stated to have been at this time a Christian, but secretly. The Jewish accounts do not agree, which make him die a Pharisee, with much more probability. Nor is the least trace of a Christian leaning to be found in his speech: see below [on ver. 39]. And considering that he was a Pharisee, opposing the prevalent faction of Sadducæ ism in a matter where the Resurrection was called in question,— and a wise and enlightened man opposing furious and unreasoning zealots,— considering also, that when the anti-pharisaical element of Christianity was brought out in the acts and sayings of Stephen, his pupil Saul was found the foremost persecutor,— we should, I think, be slow to suspect him of any favouring of the Apostles as followers of Jesus. (See particulars respecting Gamaliel collected in Conybeare and Howson’ s St. Paul, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 69, f.) He does not here appear as the president of the Sanhedrim, but only as a member. ἔξωποιῆσαι ] see reff. to put out— ‘ cause to withdraw.’ They are recalled in ver. 40. 35. The words ἐπὶτ . ἀνθρ . τούτ . may be joined either with προσέχ . ἑαυτ ., or with τίμέλ . πράσς . The latter would give the more usual construction: and the transposition of words is not unexampled in the Acts, see ch. 1:2; 19:4. 36. A great chronological difficulty arises here. Josephus relates, Antt. xx. 5.1, ΦάδουδὲτῆςἸουδαίαςἐπιτροπεύοντοςγόηςτιςἀνὴρΘευδᾶςὀνόματιπείθειτὸνπλεῖστονὄχλονἀναλαβόντατὰςκτήσεις · ἕπεσθαιπρὸςτὸνἸορδάνηνποταμὸναὐτῷ · προφήτηςγὰρἔλεγενεἶναι , καὶπροστάγματιτὸνποταμὸνσχίσας , δίοδονἔφηπαρέξειναὐτοῖςῥᾳδίαν . καὶταῦταλέγωνπολλοὺςἠπάτησεν . οὐμὴνεἴασεναὐτοὺςτῆςἀφροσύνηςὄνασθαιΦάδος , ἀλλ ʼ ἐξέπεμψενἴληνἱππέωνἐπ ʼ αὐτούς , ἥτιςἀπροσδόκητοςἐπιπεσοῦσαπολλοὺςμὲνἀνεῖλε , πολλοὺςδὲζῶνταςἔλαβεν · αὐτόντετὸνΘευδᾶνζωγρήσαντεςἀποτέμνουσιτὴνκεφαλήν , καὶκομίζουσινεἰςἹεροσόλυμα . But this was in the reign of Claudius, not before the year a.d. 44; and consequently at least twelve years after this speech of Gamaliel’ s. On this difficulty I will remark, that we are plainly in no position (setting all other considerations aside) to charge St. Luke with having put into the mouth of Gamaliel words which he could not have uttered. For Josephus himself, speaking of a time which would accord very well with that referred to by Gamaliel, viz. the time when Archelaus went to Rome to be confirmed in the kingdom, says, ἐντούτῳδὲκαὶἕτεραμυρίαθορύβωνἐχόμενατὴνἸουδαίανκατελάμβανε , πολλῶνπολλαχόσεκατ ʼ οἰκείωνἐλπίδαςκερδῶνκαὶἸουδαίωνἔχθραςἐπὶτὸπολεμεῖνὡρμημένων . And among these there may well have been an impostor of this name. But all attempts to identify Theudas with any other leader of outbreaks mentioned by Josephus have failed to convince any one except their propounders: e.g. that cited in Biscoe from Usher, Ann., p. 797, who supposes him the same as Judas the robber, son of Ezechias, Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 5,— of Sonntag, who tries to identify him with Simon, mentioned Jos. Antt. xvii. 10. 6; B. J. ii. 4. 2,— and of Wieseler, who would have us believe him the same with Matthias ὁΜαργαλώθου , Antt. xvii. 6. 2, 4. The assumption of Josephus having misplaced his Theudas is perhaps improbable; but by no means impossible, in a historian teeming with inaccuracies. (See this abundantly demonstrated in an article on ‘ the Bible and Josephus,’ in the Journal of Sacred Literature for Oct. 1850.) All we can say is, that such impostors were too frequent, for any one to be able to say that there was not one of this name (a name by no means uncommon, see Cicero ad divers. vi. 10, and Grot. h. 1.) at the time specified. It is exceedingly improbable, considering the time and circumstances of the writing of the Acts, and the evident supervision of them by St. Paul, the pupil of Gamaliel, that a gross historical mistake should have been here put into his mouth. The λέγωνεἶναι of our text is curiously related to the ἔλεγενεἶναι of Josephus. ὡςτετρακοσίων hardly agrees with the τὸνπλεῖστονὄχλον of Josephus above, and confirms the idea that different events are pointed at in the two accounts. But the Jewish historian speaks very widely about such matters: see note on ch. 21:38. 37. The decided μετὰτοῦτον fixes beyond doubt the place here assigned to Theudas. This Judas, and the occasion of his revolt, are related by Josephus, Antt. xviii. 1. 1, Κυρήνιοςδὲ … ἐπὶΣυρίαςπαρῆν , ὑπὸΚαίσαροςδικαιοδότηςτοῦἔθνουςἀπεσταλμένος , κ . τιμητὴςτῶνοὐσιῶνγενησόμενος … παρῆνδὲκαὶΚυρ . εἰςτὴνἸουδαίωνπροσθήκηντῆςΣυρίαςγενομένηνἀποτιμησόμενόςτεαὐτῶντὰςοὐσίας , κ . ἀποδωσόμενοςτὰἈρχελάουχρήματα . Οἱδέ , καίπερτὸκατ ʼ ἀρχὰςἐνδεινῷφέροντεςτὴνἐπὶταῖςἀπογραφαῖςἀκρόασιν , ὑποκατέβησαντοῦεἰςπλέονἐναντιοῦσθαι … ἸούδαςδὲΓαυλανίτηςἀνὴρἐκπόλεωςὄνομαΓάμαλα … ἠπείγετοἐπὶἀποστάσει . And, in returning to the mention of him as the founder of the fourth sect among the Jews (xviii:1. 6), he calls him ὁΓαλιλαῖοςἸούδας . From the above citation it is plain that this ἀπογραφή was that so called κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , under Quirinus: see Luke 2:2 and note. His revolt took a theocratic character, his followers maintaining μόνονἡγεμόνακαὶδεσπότηντὸνθεόν (Jos. as above). ἀπώλετο ] Not related by Josephus. διεσκορπίσθησαν ] Strictly accurate— for they still existed, and at last became active and notorious again, under Menahem, son of Judas τοῦκαλουμένουΓαλιλαίου , ὃςἦνσοφιστὴςδεινότατος , καὶἐπὶΚυρηνίουποτὲἸουδαίουςὀνειδίσας . (B. Jud. ii. 17. 7; see also Antt. xx. 5. 2.) 38. ἐὰνᾖ , εἰ … ἐστίν : implying by the first, perhaps, the manifold devices of human imposture and wickedness, any of which it might be, (q. d. ὅτιἂνᾖἐξἀνθρώπ .,) and all of which would equally come to nought,— and, on the other hand, the solemnity and fixedness of the divine purpose, by the indicative, which are also intimated, in our text, by the pres. οὐδύνασθε . Or perhaps the indicative is used in the second place, because that is the case assumed, and on which the advice is founded [at all events the distinction ought to be preserved, which is not done in E. V.]. ἡβουλή ] The whole plan— the scheme, of which this ἔργον , the fact under your present cognizance, forms a part. 39. The somewhat difficult connexion of μήποτεκ . θ . εὑρ . may be explained,— not by parenthesizing ὅτι … αὐτούς , but by understanding ‘ and ye will be obliged to give up your attempt’ (which thought is contained in οὐδύνας . κατ . αὐτ .), lest ye be, &c. καί ] Opponents not only to them, but also to God:— ‘ even,’ in E. V., does not give the sense. As regards Gamaliel’ s advice, we may remark that it was founded on a view of the issues of events, agreeing with the fatalism of the Pharisees: that it betokens no leaning towards Christianity, nor indeed very much even of worldly wisdom;— but serves to shew how low the supreme council of the Jews had sunk both in their theology and their political sagacity, if such a fallacious laissez-aller view of matters was the counsel of the wisest among them. It seems certainly, on a closer view, as if they accepted, from fear of the people (see ver. 26), this opportunity of compromising the matter, which Gamaliel had designedly afforded them. 40. δείραντες ] See Deuteronomy 25:2,— for disobedience to their command. 41. τοῦὀν .] Not ‘ this Name’ (as Beng. and Kuin. [nor, ‘ his Name’ (as E. V.)]), but the Name, κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , viz. of Christ. So the Heb. ש ׁ ֵ ם is used Leviticus 24:11, Leviticus 24:16: see reff. and compare τῆςὁδοῦ , ch. 9:2, and Euseb. H. E. v. 18, κέκριται (sc. Alexander) … οὐδιὰτὸὄνομα , ἀλλὰδι ʼ ἃςἐτόλμησελῃστείας . 42. πᾶσανἡμ .] every day, not ‘ all day long,’ which would be πᾶς . τὴνἡμ . On κατ ʼ οἶκον see note on ref. τὸνχρις . Ἰησ .] According to the true reading even more pointedly than in the rec., τὸνχριστ . is the predicate, and Ἰης . the subject: preaching (that) Jesus (is) the Christ. Chap. 6:1-7. Election of seven persons to superintend the distribution of alms. 1. δέ , in contrast to the former entire unity of the church: introducing that great and important chapter in her history of Judaizing divisions, which from this time onward disquieted her. ἐντ . ἡμ . τ .] See ch. 1:15:— but not necessarily as there, ‘ within a very few days:’ the expression is quite indefinite. Some time must have elapsed since ch. 4:32. Ἑλληνιστῶν — Ἑβραίους ] The Hellenists were the Grecian Jews: not only those who were themselves proselytes, nor only those who came of families once proselytized,— but all who, on account of origin or habitation, spoke Greek as their ordinary language, and used ordinarily the LXX version. The Hebrews were the pure Jews, not necessarily resident in Palestine (e.g. Paul, who was ἙβραῖοςἐξἙβραίων , Philippians 3:5. See also 2 Corinthians 11:22),— nor necessarily of unmixed Jewish descent, else the ἐξἙβρ . would hardly have been an additional distinction,— but rather distinguished by language, as speaking the Syro-Chaldaic and using the Hebrew Scriptures. παρεθεωροῦντο ] The use of this appropriate word shews, I think, that Olsh.’ s supposition, that χῆραι implies all their poor, is not correct. Those poor who could attend for themselves and represent their case were served: but the widows, who required more searching out at their own houses, were overlooked. And this because the Apostles, who certainly before this had the charge of the duty of distribution, being already too much occupied in the ministry of the Word to attend personally to it, had entrusted it apparently to some deputies among the Hebrews, who had committed this oversight. For the low estimation in which the Hellenistic Jews were held by the Hebrews, see Biscoe, History of the Acts, pp. 60, 61. ἐντῇδιακ . τ . καθ .] Some have argued from this that there must have been ‘ deacons’ before: and that those now elected (see below on their names) were only for the service of the Hellenistic Jews. But I should rather believe, with De Wette and Rö the, that the Apostles had as yet, by themselves or by non-official deputies, performed the duty. The διακονία was the daily distribution of food: see on ver. 2. 2. τὸπλῆθοςτ . μ .,— ‘ the whole number of disciples in Jerusalem:’ summoning a general meeting of the church. How many they were in number at the time, is not said. Clearly the 120 names of ch. 1:15, cannot (Lightf.) be meant. οὐκἀρεστόνἐστιν ] ‘ non placet:’ it is not our pleasure: not ‘ non æ quum est,’ as Beza, Calv., Kuin., and others (and E. V.), defending this rendering by ἀρεστόν being used in the LXX for the Heb. ט ו ֹ ב : but even there it never signifies good or right absolutely, but is used subjectively, with ב ּ ְ ע ֵ י נ ָ י ִ ך ְ , ‘ in thine eyes:’ see Genesis 16:6, ὡςἄνσοιἀρεστὸνᾖ : also Deuteronomy 12:28, τὸἀρεστὸν … ἐναντίονκυρίουτ . θεοῦσου . καταλείψαντας ] For to this it would come, if the Apostles were to enquire into, and do justice in, every case of asserted neglect. διακονεῖντραπέζαις ] It is a question whether this expression import the service of distributing money (see reff. and Luke 19:23 al.)— or that of apportioning the daily public meals. The latter seems to me most probable, both on account of the καθημερινή above, and of the usage of διακονεῖν (see reff.). That both kinds of tables may be meant, is possible: but hardly probable. 3. ἐπισκ . οὖν ] The similarity to ref. Gen. seems to shew that the look ye out of the E. V. is the right rendering. μαρτυρουμένους ] For this use of the pass. not found in the Gospp., compare besides reff., Jos. Antt. iii. 2. 5, τὸνστρατηγὸνἸησοῦνἐνεγκωμίαζε , μαρτυρούμενονἐφ ʼ οἶςἔπραξενὑπὸπαντὸςτοῦστρατοῦ — and Antonin. vii. 62, συνεχῶςἐφιστάναι , τίνεςεἰσὶνοὗτοι , ὑφ ʼ ὧνμαρτυρεῖσθαιθέλεις . ἑπτά ] Some have supposed a reference to the number of nations of which the Hellenistic Jews would perhaps be composed: some, to 7000, to which number the believers would by this time amount (Bengel): some, to the mystic number seven, so common in Jewish writings (Meyer, De Wette):— but the best remark is Lightfoot’ s:— ‘ quare septem eligendi, dicat cui est audacia.’ Some present consideration of convenience probably regulated the number. ἐπὶτ . χρείαςτ .] ‘ super hoc opus,’ Vulg.:— ‘ ad hunc usum, Grot.:— ‘ over this requirement (desideratum),’ Meyer:— but the occurrence of the very same expression 1 Macc. 10:37, ἐκτούτωνκατασταθήσεταιἐπὶχρειῶντῆςβασιλείαςτῶνοὐσῶνεἰςπἰστιν , seems to make the sense business (as E. V.), duty, more probable. The duty (see above) was, not that of ministering to the Hellenistic Jews only, but that of superintending the whole distribution. 4. τ . διακονίᾳτ . λόγου , in opposition to the διακονίατραπεζῶν . ‘ Hæ partes sunt nobilissimæ , quas nemo episcopus alteri, quasi ipse majoribus rebus intentus, delegare potest.’ Bengel. ‘ Hinc apparet non frustra precandi studium commendari verbi ministris.’ Calvin. 5. πίστεως ,— not in the lower sense (Kuin.) of ‘ truthfulness,’ — but in the higher of faith, the root of all Christian virtues: see ch. 11:24 (De W.). Of these seven, Stephen and Philip (ch. 8:5, 26, 40; 21:8) only are elsewhere mentioned. On the idea of Nicolas having founded the heretical sect of the Nicolaitanes, Revelation 2:6, Revelation 2:15 (Lightf. and Grot. from adv. Hæ r. i. 26, p. 105, and Hæ r. 25, p. 76), see note ad loc. From his being called προσήλυτονἈντιοχέα , some have argued (Heins.) that he only was a proselyte, and none of the rest: some (Salmasius), that all were proselytes,— but the rest, of Jerusalem. But neither inference seems justified: rather I should say that the addition simply imports that he became better known than the rest, from the very circumstance perhaps of Antioch having been afterwards so important a spot in the Christian history (ch. 11:19, note). These names are all Greek: but we cannot thence infer that the seven were all Hellenists: the Apostles Philip and Andrew bore Greek names, but were certainly not Hellenists. There does appear however, in the case of these two Apostles, to have been a connexion with Greeks of some sort, see John 12:20-22. Possibly, though Ἑβραῖοι , they may not have been ἑξἙβραίων (see above on ver. 1), but sprung from inter-marriage with Hellenists. And so these seven may have been partly Ἑβραῖοι , though their names seem to indicate, and their office would appear to require, that they were connected with Hellenists, and not likely to overlook or disparage them. The title of ‘ deacons’ is no where applied to these seven in Scripture, nor does the word occur in the Acts at all. In 1 Timothy 3:8 ff. there is no absolute identification of the duties of deacons with those allotted to the seven, but at the same time nothing to imply that they were different. And ἀνέγκλητοι , ib. ver. 10, at all events is parallel with our μαρτυρουμένους , ver. 3. The universal consent of all Christian writers in regarding this as the institution of the office of deacons should not be overlooked: but at the same time we must be careful not to imagine that we have here the institution of the ecclesiastical order so named. The distinctness of the two is stated by Chrysostom, Hom. xiv. p. 115, ὁποῖονδὲἆραἀξίωμαεἶχονοὗτοι , καὶποίανἐδέξαντοχειροτονίαν , ἀναγκαῖονμαθεῖν . ἆρατὴντῶνδιακόνων ; καὶμὴντοῦτοἐνταῖςἐκκλησίαιςοὐκἔστιν · ἀλλὰτῶνπρεσβυτέρωνἐστὶνἡοἰκονομία . ὅθενοὔτεδιακόνων , οὔτεπρεσβυτέρωνοἶμαιτὸὄνομαεἶναιδῆλονκαὶφανερόν . ἀλλὰτέωςεἰςτοῦτοἐχειροτονήθησαν . So also Œ cumenius in loc.: τοὺςἐκλεγένταςεἰςδιακόνουςἐχειροτόνησαν , οὐκατὰτὸννῦνἐνταῖςἐκκλησίαιςβαθμόν , ἀλλὰτοῦδιανέμεινμετὰἀκριβείαςκαὶὀρφανοῖςκαὶχήραιςτὰπρὸςδιατροφήν . See Suicer sub voce. But that the subsequent office of deacon was founded upon this appointment is very probable. The only one of these seven who appears in the subsequent history (ch. 21:8), is called Φίλιπποςὁεὐαγγελιστής , probably from the success granted him as recorded in ch. 8:12. In these early days titles sprung out of realities, and were not yet mere hierarchical classifications. 6. ἐπέθηκαν , viz. the Apostles. Their office of giving themselves to prayer is here specially exercised. The laying on of hands, the earliest mention of which is connected with blessing only (Genesis 48:14), was prescribed to Moses as the form of conferring office on Joshua, Numbers 27:18, and from that time was used on such occasions by the Jews. From its adoption by the Apostles, it has ever been the practice of the Christian church in ordaining, or setting apart her ministers. It was also used by the Apostles on those who, having been baptized, were to be fully endowed with the gifts of the Holy Spirit: see ch. 8:17; 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2. 7. καί (not ‘ therefore,’ as Kuin.), and, i.e., on this measure being completed; as would be the case, seeing that these seven were not only servants of tables, but men full of the Holy Ghost and of wisdom:— and we soon hear of the part which Stephen bore in the work. πολὺςὄχλ . τ . ἱερέων ] The number of priests who returned from Babylon, Ezra 2:36-39, was 4289: and the number would probably have much increased since then. No evasion of the historian’ s assertion is to be attempted. Casaubon, approved by Beza and Valcknaer, would read, πολύςτεὄχλος , καὶτῶνἱερέωνὑπ .; and Heinsius, Wolf, Kuinoel, and Eisner attempt a distinction between ὄχλοςτῶνἱερ ., ‘ sacerdotes ex plebe,’ and the ‘ sacerdotes docti.’ But, besides that the words will not bear this meaning, the distinction is one wholly unknown in the N. T. At this time was probably the culminating point of popularity of the church at Jerusalem. As yet, all seemed going on prosperously for the conversion of Israel. The multitude honoured the Apostles: the advice of Gamaliel had moderated the opposition of the Sanhedrim: the priests were gradually being won over. But God’ s designs were far different. At this period another great element in the testimony of the church is brought out, in the person of Stephen,— its protest against Pharisaism. This arrays against it that powerful and zealous sect, and henceforward it finds neither favour nor tolerance with either of the parties among the Jews, but increasing and bitter enmity from them both. 8— Ch. 7:60. The accusation, defence, and martyrdom of Stephen. 8. This is the first instance of any, not an Apostle, working signs and wonders. The power was perhaps conferred by the laying on of the Apostles’ hands; though, that having been for a special purpose merely, and the working miracles being a fulfilment of the promise, Mark 16:17, Mark 16:18, to all believers, I should rather refer the power to the eminence of Stephen’ s faith. χάριτος , divine grace : the effects of which, the miracles, were called χαρίσματα . 9. Λιβερτίνων is rightly explained by Chrysostom: οἱῬωμαίωνἀπελεύθεροι . Philo, Legat. ad Caium, § 23, vol. ii. p. 568, speaks of τὴνπέραντοῦΤιβέρεωςποταμοῦμεγάληντῆςῬώμηςἀποτομὴν … κατεχομένηνκαοἰκουμένηνπρὸςἸουδαίων , and adds, Ῥωμαῖοιδὲἦσανοἱπλείουςἀπελευθερωθέντες · αἰχμάλωτοιγὰρἀχθέντεςεἰςἸταλίαν , ὑπὸτῶνκτησαμένωνἠλευθερώθησαν , οὐδὲντῶνπατρίωνπαραχαράξαιβιασθέντες (p. 1014, Potter). Tacitus, Ann. ii. 85 (a.d. 19), relates, ‘ Actum et de sacris Æ gyptiis Judaicisque pellendis: factumque Patrum consultum, ut quatuor millia libertini generis, ea superstitione infecta, queis idonea æ tas, in insulam Sardiniam veherentur … cæ teri cederent Italia, nisi certam ante diem profanos ritus exuissent.’ In this Josephus agrees, Antt. xviii. 3. 5, relating a story as one of its causes, in which Ida, a freedwoman, was the agent of the mischief. Here then we have abundant reason for numbers of these Jews ‘ libertini generis’ having come to Jerusalem, being among the cœ teri who were ordered to quit Italy: and what place so likely a refuge for Jews as Jerusalem? Those who find a difficulty in this interpretation suppose them to have been inhabitants of Libertum, a town in Africa propria, or proconsularis, from which we find an episcopus Libertinensis sitting in the synod of Carthage in 411 (so Suidas, Λιβερτῖνοι , ὄνομαἔθνους ,— Schleusn., al.); or conjecture Λιβυστίνων to have been the true reading (so the Arm. version, Libyorum, Œ cum., Lyra, Beza, Le Clerc, al.),— or even ΛιβύωντῶνκατὰΚυρήνην (Schulthess);— or suppose them (Lightf.) to have been freedmen from Jewish servitude,— or Italian freedmen, who had become proselytes. (The Arabic version given in the Paris polyglott curiously renders it Corinthiorum.) But none of these suppositions will bear examination, and the best interpretation is the usual one— that they were the descendants of Jewish freedmen at Rome, who had been expelled by Tiberius. There is no difficulty in their having had a synagogue of their own: for there were 460 or 480 synagogues at Jerusalem (Vitringa, Synag. p. 256. Lightf., Meyer). Κυρηναίων ] See ch. 2:10, note. Ἀλεξανδρέων ] Two of the five regions of Alexandria were inhabited by Jews (see Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, 10. 1; xix. 5. 2 al.). It was also the seat of the learning and philosophy of the Grecian Jews, which was now at its height. This metropolis of the Hellenists would certainly have a synagogue in Jerusalem. I understand three distinct synagogues to be meant, notwithstanding the somewhat equivocal construction,— and λεγομένης only to apply to the unusual term Λιβερτίνων . τῶνἀπὸΚ .] It seems doubtful whether this genitive also depends on συναγωγῆς . At first sight it would seem not, from the repetition of τῶν , answering to the τῶν before. But then we must remember, that as Κυρηναίων and Ἀλεξανδρέων both belong to towns, and towns well known as the residences of Jews, a change of designation would be necessary when the Jews of whole provinces came to be mentioned, and the synagogue would not be called that of the Κίλικες or Ἀσιανοί (ch. 20:4), but that of οἱἀπὸΚ . κ . Ἀ .:— and, this being the case, the article could not but be repeated, without any reference to the τῶν before. Cilicia was at this time a Roman province, the capital being the free city of Tarsus, see note on ch. 9:11. Asia,— not exactly as in ch. 2:9, where it is distinguished from Phrygia,— here and usually in the Acts implies Asia proconsularis, a large and important Roman province, including Mysia, Lydia, Caria, and Phrygia— known also as Asia cis Taurum. 11. Neander well remarks (Pfl. u. Leit., p. 81 ff.) that this false charge, coupled with the character of Stephen’ s apologetic speech, shews the real character of his arguments with his opponents:— that he seems to have been the first who plainly set forth the transitory nature of the law and temple, as compared with the permanence of the latter and better covenant, thus being in a remarkable manner the forerunner of St. Paul. 12. τὸνλαόν , first,— that by means of the popular feeling they might act upon the πρεσβ . κ . γρ ., the members of the Sanhedrim. ἐπιστάντες ] The same persons,— acting now by the authority of the Sanhedrim; Saul, among οἱἀπὸΚιλικίας , being, as is afterwards (ch. 7:58) implied, among the foremost,— came upon him (see reff.), and seized him. 13. ψευδεῖς ] The falsehood of their witness consisted, as in the similar case of our Lord, in taking Stephen’ s words out of their context, and misrepresenting what perhaps, totidem verbis, he had actually said. τοῦτόπ . τ . ἁγ .] The temple, see reff. 14. We may either take the words thus, ὅτιἸησοῦςὁΝαζωραῖος , οὗτοςκατ ., “ that Jesus of N., he it is who shall destroy’ … (see ch. 7:35; 1 Corinthians 6:4), or ὅτιἸησοῦς , ὁΝαζωραῖοςοὗτος , κατ ., ‘ that Jesus, this Nazarene, shall destroy … ,’ — or, which seems by far the best, take the whole together, that this Jesus of N. shall destroy, as in E. V. Compare ὁΠαῦλοςοὗτος , ch. 19:26. 15. It is a question with regard to this verse, Does it relate any supernatural appearance, glorifying the face of Stephen,— or merely describe the calm and holy aspect with which he stood before the council? The majority of Commentators suppose the latter: and certainly the foregoing description of Stephen would lead us to infer, that there was something remarkably striking in his appearance and demeanour, which overawed his adversaries. But both from the plain language of our text, well understood among the Jews to signify supernatural brightness (see examples in Wetstein), and from the fact that in Luke’ s own narrative we have supernatural brightness associated with angelic appearances more than once (see Luke 2:9; ch. 12:7), I should be inclined to think that the face of the martyr was lighted up with a divine radiance. That the effect on those present was not such as to prevent the examination proceeding, is no argument against this view: in the very mildness of the question of the H. P. which follows, I see the trace of some unusual incident exercising an influence over him. Chrysostom (who does not, however, seem to adopt the above interpretation, his τοῦτοκαὶἡδόξαΜωυσέω being apparently only rhetorical) explains well the effect on the council: ἐπίχαρινδὲαὐτὸνδοκεῖμοιποιῆσαιτὸνθεόν , τάχαἐπεὶἔμελλετινὰἐρεῖν , καὶἵναεὐθέωςτῇπροσόψεικαταπλήξῃαὐτούς . ἔστιγάρ , ἔστικαὶπρόσωπαχάριτοςγέμονταπνευματικῆςἐπέραστατοῖςποθοῦσινεἶναι , καὶαἰδέσιματοῖςμισοῦσικαὶφοβερά . ἢκαὶὡςαἰτίαντοῦτοεἶπεν , δι ʼ ἥνἠνέσχοντοτῆςδημηγορίαςαὐτοῦ . τίδαὶὁἀρχιερεύς ; … ὁρᾷςπῶςμετὰἐπιεικείαςἡἐρώτησιςκαὶοὐδὲντέωςφορτικὸνἔχουσα ; In Act. Homil. xv. p. 120. Chap. 7:1. On the H. P.’ s question, see Chrys. just quoted. It is parallel with Matthew 26:62, but singularly distinguished from that question by its mildness: see above. 2-53:] Stephen’ s defence. In order to understand this wonderful and somewhat difficult speech, it will be well to bear in mind, (1) that the general character of it is apologetic, referring to the charge made against him: but (2) that in this apology, forgetting himself in the vast subject which he is vindicating, he every where mixes in the polemic and didactic element. A general synopsis of it may be thus given: (1) He shews (apologetically) that, so far from dishonouring Moses or God, he believes and holds in mind God’ s dealings with Abraham and Moses, and grounds upon them his preaching; that, so far from dishonouring the temple, he bears in mind its history and the sayings of the prophets respecting it; and he is proceeding,— when (interrupted by their murmurs or inattention? but see note, ver. 51) he bursts forth into a holy vehemence of invective against their rejection of God, which provokes his tumultuary expulsion from the council, and execution. (2) But simultaneously and parallel with this apologetic procedure, he also proceeds didactically, shewing them that a future Prophet was pointed out by Moses as the final Lawgiver of God’ s people,— that the Most High had revealed His spiritual and heavenly nature by the prophets, and did not dwell in temples made with hands. And (3) even more remarkably still does the polemic element run through the speech. “ It is not I, but you, who from the first times till now have rejected and spoken against God.” And this element, just appearing ver. 9, and again more plainly vv. 25-28, and again more pointedly still in ver. 35, becomes dominant in vv. 39-44, and finally prevails, to the exclusion of the apologetic and didactic, in vv. 51-53. That other connected purposes have been discovered in the speech, as e.g. that so ably followed out by Chrys. Hom. xv.-xvii. (similarly Grot. and Calv.), of shewing that the covenant and promises were before the law, and sacrifice and the law before the temple,— is to be attributed to the wonderful depth of words uttered like these under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit, presenting to us, from whichever side they are viewed, new and inimitable hues of heavenly wisdom. Many of these will be brought out as we advance. The question, from what probable source Luke derived his report of this speech, so peculiar in its character and citations as to bear, even to the most prejudiced, decisive evidence of authenticity, can be only conjecturally answered: but in this case the conjecture can hardly be wrong. I have discussed the point in the Prolegg. to this vol. ch. i. § ii. 12 (a). Another question has been, in what language the speech was delivered. (1) It is a hardly disputable inference from ch. 6:9, that Stephen was a Hellenist: (2) his citations and quasicitations for the most part agree with the LXX version. Hence it seems most probable that he spoke in Greek, which was almost universally understood in Jerusalem. If he spoke in Hebrew, (Syro-Chaldaic), then either those passages where the LXX varies from the Hebrew text (see below) must owe their insertion in that shape to some Greek narrator or to Luke himself,— or Stephen must have, in speaking, translated them, thus varying, into Hebrew: either supposition being in the highest degree improbable. 2. ἄνδρ . ἀδ . κ . πατ .] So Paul, ch. 22:1, before a mixed assembly of Jews. The ἄνδρ . ἀδ . would embrace all: the πατ . would be a title of respect to the members of the Sanhedrim, in this case, but hardly in ch. 22:1. ὁθεὸςτ . δόξης ] Not = θεὸςἔνδοξος , but the God of (i.e. who possesses and manifests Himself by) Glory, viz. the Shechinah, see Exodus 24:16, Exodus 24:17, and ver. 55. The words τῷπατρὶἡμῶν decide nothing as to Stephen’ s genuine Hebrew extraction. Any Jew would thus speak. ὤφθη … πρὶνἢκατ . αὐτ . ἐνΧαῤ .] This was the Jewish tradition, though not asserted in Genesis. Thus Philo (de Abrah. § 15 end, vol. ii. p. 12), having paraphrased the divine command, says, διὰτοῦτοτὴνπρώτηνἀποικίανἀπὸτῆςΧαλδαίωνγῆςεἰςτὴνΧαῤῥαίωνλέγεταιποιεῖσθαι . But he accurately distinguishes between the λόγιον which he obeyed in leaving Chaldæ a, and the θεὸςὤφθη afterwards, adding a reason after his manner, why God could not be seen nor apprehended by him while he was yet χαλδαΐζων and an astrologer. The fact of his having left Ur by some divine intimation is plainly stated in Genesis 15:7, and referred to in Nehemiah 9:7. It was surely both natural and allowable to express this first command in the well-known words of the second. But we can hardly suppose that Stephen adopted the pluperfect rendering of ו ַ י ּ ֹ א מ ֶ ר in Genesis 12:1, as the LXX has εἶπεν . (Josephus, ordinarily cited as relating the same tradition, throws, as he often does, the whole history into confusion, saying, it is true, Antt. i. 7. 1, καταλείπειτ . Χαλδαίαν … τοῦθεοῦκελεύσαντοςεἰςτὴνΧαναναίανμετελθεῖν , but omitting entirely the sojourn in Haran, and connecting the migration with an outbreak of the Chaldæ ans against him for teaching the worship of the true God.) Χαῤῥάν ] So the LXX for ח ָ ר ָ ן , Genesis 11:31, &c.; 4 Kings 19:12; Ezekiel 27:23,— ΚάῤῥαιτῆςΜεσοποταμίας , Herodian iv. 13 (Ptol. v. 18. 12. Strabo, xvi. p. 747),— ‘ Carras cæ de Crassi nobiles,’ Plin. v. 24,— ‘ Miserando funere Crassus Assyrias Latio maculavit sanguine Carras,’ Lucan i. 104. It lay on an ancient road, in a large plain surrounded by mountains; it was still a great city in the days of the Arabian caliphs. See Winer, Realw. 4. μετὰτὸἀποθανεῖντὸνπατ . αὐτ .] In Genesis 11:26, we read that Terah lived 70 years and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; in 11:32, that Terah lived 205 years, and died in Haran; and in 12:4, that Abram was 75 years old when he left Haran. Since then cir. 70 + 75 = cir. 145, Terah must have lived cir. 60 years in Haran after Abram’ s departure. It seems evident, that the Jewish chronology, which Stephen follows, was at fault here, owing to the circumstance of Terah’ s death being mentioned Genesis 11:32, before the command of Abram to leave Haran;— it not having been observed that the mention is anticipatory. And this is confirmed by Philo having fallen into the same mistake, de Migr. Abrah. § 32, vol. i. p. 464, πρότερονμὲνἐκτῆςΧαλδαϊκῆςἀναστὰςγῆςἈβραὰμᾤκησενεἰςΧαῤῥάν · τελευτήσαντοςδὲαὐτοῦτοῦπατρὸςἐκεῖθεκαὶἐκταύτηςμετανίσταται . It is observable that the Samaritan Pentateuch in Genesis 11:32, for 205, reads 145, which has most probably been an alteration to remove the apparent inconsistency. The subterfuge of understanding the spiritual death of Terah, who is, as a further hypothesis, supposed to have relapsed into idolatry at Haran, appears to have originated with the Rabbis (see Kuinoel ad loc. and Lightf. Hor. Heb.) on discovering that their tradition was at variance with the sacred chronology. They have not been without followers in modern Christendom. It is truly lamentable to see the great Bengel, warped by the unworthy effort of squaring at all hazards, the letter of God’ s word in such matters, write thus: ‘ Abram, dum Thara vixit in Haran, domum quodammodo paternam habuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patre, plane in terra Canaan domum unice habere cœ pit.’ (This alteration of relation in the land being expressed by μετῴκισεναὐτὸνεἰς !) The way in which the difficulty has been met by Wordsworth and others, viz. that we have no right to assume that Abram was born when Terah was 70, but may regard him as the youngest son, would leave us in this equally unsatisfactory position:— Terah, in the course of nature, begets his son Abram at 130 (205-75): yet this very son Abram regards it as incredible that he himself should beget a son at 99 (Genesis 17:1, Genesis 17:17); and on the fact of the birth of Isaac being out of the course of nature, most important Scriptural arguments and consequences are founded, cf. Romans 4:17-21, Hebrews 11:11, Hebrews 11:12. We may fairly leave these Commentators with their new difficulty: only remarking for our instruction, how sure those are to plunge into hopeless confusion, who, from motives however good, once begin to handle the word of God deceitfully. μετ . αὐτ . εἰς ] In these words Stephen clearly recognizes the second command, to migrate from Haran to Canaan: and as clearly therefore made no mistake in ver. 2, but applied the expressed words of the second command to the first injunction, the λόγιον of Philo. 5. οὐκἔδωκεν ] There is no occasion here to wrest our text in order to produce accordance with the history. The field which Abraham bought for the burial of his dead surely did not come under the description of κληρονομία , nor give him any standing as a possessor in the land. To avoid this seeming inconsistency, Schö ttgen and Bengel lay a stress on ἔδωκεν , ‘ agrum illum … non ex donatione divina accepit Abraham, sed emit, ipsa emtione peregrinum eum esse docente’ (Bengel). Kuinoel and Olshausen take οὐκ for οὔπω . καί before ἐπηγγ . is not ‘ yet’ (Beza), nor is ἐπηγγ . to be construed pluperfect (id.); and he promised is the simple rendering of the words, and the right one. The following καί is by Kuin. rendered ‘ nimirum:’ but again it is only the simple copula, ו ּ ל ְ ז ַ ר ְ ע ֲ ך ָ . 6, 7. A free citation from the LXX, with the words καὶλατρ . μοιἐντ . τόπ . τούτῳ adapted and added from Exodus 3:12. The shifts of some Commentators to avoid this plain fact are not worth recounting: but again, the student who would not handle the word of God deceitfully should be here and every where on his guard against them. The round number, 400 years, given here and Gen. l.c, is further specified Exodus 12:40 as 430. (See Galatians 3:17, and note.) 7. ὁθεὸςεἶπεν is inserted by Stephen in passing from the narrative form into the direct . 8. On the institution of circumcision, it is called a διαθήκη , Genesis 17:10, and the immediate promise of that covenant was δώσωσοικ . τῷσπέρματίσουμετάσετὴνγῆνἣνπαροικεῖς , πᾶσαντὴνγῆνΧαναὰνεἰςκατάσχεσιναἰώνιον · καὶἔσομαιαὐτοῖςεἰςθεόν , id. ver. 8. οὕτως , thus, ‘ in this new covenant state;’ — or, ‘ in fulfilment of the promise of seed implied in the above words.’ In this word οὕτως lies hid the germ of the subsequent teaching of the Holy Spirit by St. Paul, Gal_3. 9. Here we have the first hint of the rebellious spirit in Israel, which the progress of the history brings out. 10. Observe (Mey.) the simple coupling of the clauses by καί , as characteristic or this speech. χάρινκ . σοφ .] No Hendiadys: favour, so that he was acceptable to Pharaoh (see reff.): and wisdom, so that Ph. consulted him and followed his suggestion, especially in the important case recorded Genesis 41:38. κατέστησεν ] viz. Pharaoh: a change of subject: see reff. Gen. 14. ἐνψυχαῖςἑβδομηκονταπέντε ] In the Hebrew text, Genesis 46:27; Exodus 1:5; Deuteronomy 10:22, seventy souls are reckoned, viz. sixty-six born of Jacob, Jacob himself, Joseph, and his two sons born in Egypt. So also Josephus, Antt. ii. 7. 4; vi. 5, 6. But the LXX, whom Stephen follows, insert in Genesis 46:20 an account of the children and grandchildren of Manasseh and Ephraim, five in number: and in ver. 27 read υἱοὶδὲἸωσὴφοἱγενόμενοιαὐτῷἐνγῇΑἰγ ., ψυχαὶἐννέα . πᾶσαιψυχαὶοἴκουἸακὼβαἱεἰσελθοῦσαιμετὰἸακὼβ (om μετὰἸακώβ , and ψυχαί below, A, but obviously without any effect on the general statement) εἰςΑἴγυπτον , ψυχαὶἑβδομηκονταπέντε :— reckoning, as it appears, curiously enough, among the sons of Joseph, Joseph himself, and his wife Asenath; for these are required to make up the nine, according to their ver. 20. And similarly in Exodus 1:5, and in Deuteronomy 10:22 A. (Wordsw., who is careful to note that A omits μετὰἸακώβ in Genesis 46:27, omits the fact that it reads πέντε here, by stating “ seventy” as the LXX testimony.) With regard to the various attempts to solve the difficulty (66 + 12 wives, minus (Joseph and his wife, and Judah’ s wife who died in Canaan) = 75, Seb. Schmid and Wolf:— that Stephen spoke of those who were invited,— Moses of those who went, Krebs and Loesner:— that πάντες should be read for πέντε , Beza:— &c.), see above on vv. 6, 7. The remarks of Jerome are curious:— he is arguing, on Gen. l. c., that the number really was seventy,— and adds, ‘ Quod si e contrario nobis id opponitur, quomodo in Actibus Apostolorum in concione Stephani dicatur ad populum, septuaginta quinque animas ingressas esse Æ gyptum, facilis excusatio est. Non enim debuit sanctus Lucas, qui ipsius (istius?) historiæ scriptor est, in gentes Actuum Apostolorum volumen emittens, contrarium aliquid scribere adversus eam scripturam, quæ jam fuerut gentibus divulgata.’ Philo, de Migr. Abr. § 36, vol. i. pp. 467 f., mentions both numbers (reading 75 in Gen. and 70 in Deut., see above), and gives allegorical reasons for both: and really Wordsworth’ s solution, that Stephen includes those born of Jacob’ s line in Egypt to shew that they “ were equally children of the promise with those born in Canaan,” is hardly better. When we come to understand μετεκαλέσατο … πᾶσαντὴνσυγγένειανἐνψυχαῖςἑβδομηκονταπέντε , as represented by including, for a purpose, those already in Egypt, it seems to me that a stigma is cast on St. Stephen far more serious than that of mere numeral inaccuracy. 16. μετετέθησαν , viz. αὐτὸςκαὶοἱπατέρεςἡμῶν , not the latter only,— as Kuin., Olsh., and Wordsw., to evade part of the difficulty of the verse. The facts, as related in the O. T., were these: Jacob, dying in Egypt, was (Genesis 50:13) taken into the land of Canaan, and buried in the cave of Machpelah, before Mamre (on the rest of the verse see below): Joseph, dying also in Egypt, was taken in a coffin (Genesis 50:26) at the Exodus (Exodus 13:19), and finally buried (Joshua 24:32) at Shechem. Of the burial of the other patriarchs the sacred text says nothing, but rather by the specification in Exodus 13:19, leaves it to be inferred that they were buried in Egypt. Josephus, Antt. ii. 8. 2, relates that they were taken and buried in Hebron, and adds, B. J. iv. 9. 7, ὧνκαὶτὰμνημεῖαμέχριτοῦνῦνἐντῇδετῇπολίχνῃ (Hebron) δείκνυται , πάνυκαλῆςμαρμάρουκαὶφιλοτίμωςεἰργασμένα :— the Rabbinical traditions mentioned by Wetst. and Lightf. report them to have been buried in Sychem: and Jerome (Ep. ad Eustochium: Epitaph. Paulæ , 108 (27) 13, vol. i., p. 703) relating the pilgrimages of Paula to the sacred places, says: “ transivit Sichem, … atque inde divertens vidit duodecim Patriarcharum sepulchra.” These traditions probably Stephen followed; and, in haste or inadvertence, classed Jacob with the rest. ᾧὠνήσατοἈβραάμ ] The burying-place which Abraham bought was not at Sychem, but (Genesis 23:3-20) at Hebron, and was bought of Ephron the Hittite. It was Jacob who (Genesis 33:19) bought a field where he had pitched his tent, near Sychem, of the children of Hamor, Shechem’ s father: and no mention is made of its being for a burying-place. The two incidents are certainly here confused: and no ingenuity of the Commentators has ever devised an escape from the inference. The mention of a few such attempts may suffice.— (1) The omission of Ἀβραάμ (Beza, Valck., Kuin., Schö tt., al.) against all manuscript evidence (not excepting E, the reading of which, variously stated by Meyer and Tischendorf, has been ascertained by inspection),— and against the construction also; for after μετετέθησαν , Ἰακώβ could hardly be the subject to ὠνήσατο :— (2) rendering, against all grammar, while omitting Ἀβραάμ , ὠνήσατο ‘ emptum erat’ (Kuin.):— (3) construing Ἀβραάμ , Abrahamides, i.e. Jacob (Surenhus. al.):— (4) that of Wordsworth, made up of— omitting Jacob from the grammatical construction (see above);— proving, from Jerome and (without any allusion to the passage of Josephus above cited!), that the other patriarchs were buried at Shechem:— a priori reasons why Stephen should have chosen to bring forward Shechem and not Hebron; reasons (see Wordsw.’ s note) not very creditable, if they existed: &c. &c. The fact of the mistake occurring where it does, will be far more instructive to the Christian student than the most ingenious solution of the difficulty could be, if it teaches him fearlessly and honestly to recognize the phæ nomena presented by the text of Scripture, instead of wresting them to suit a preconceived theory. I entirely agree with Wordsworth, that “ there is nothing in these difficulties which invalidates the claims of St. Stephen to Inspiration,” any more than those expressions in Scripture “ invalidate its inspiration,” which imply that the sun revolves round the earth. But as Wordsw. lives in days when men are no longer burnt for asserting that the earth moves, he surely might abstain from railing in such unmeasured terms (see his Acts, p. 35, Col_1) at those who in contending for common fairness and honesty find it necessary to carry somewhat further the same canon of reasonable interpretation. Humble searchers after divine truth will not be terrified by being charged with “ assumption and conceit,” or being told that their exegesis can produce no result but “ degeneracy, degradation, disbelief, and demoralization.” But they will deeply feel it to be their duty, to caution the student against all crooked and disingenuous ways of handling the word of God. “ Non tali auxilio, nec defensoribus istis.” 17. καθώς , not ‘ when’ (as E. V., Beza, Kuin.), but as, ‘ in proportion as.’ See ref. 19. τοῦποιεῖν ] so that they exposed, see ref. Meyer maintains that the inf. of the purpose is not to be departed from,— ‘ in order that they might expose:’ but I do not see that this meaning would express the fact. The purpose is afterwards expressed, εἰςτὸκ .τ .λ . 20. ἀστ . τῷθεῷ ] add to reff. (Meyer), Hesiod, Op. 825, ἀναίτιοςἀθανάτοισιν ,— and Æ sch. Agam. 352, θεοῖςἀναμπλάκητος . The expression here seems borrowed from tradition: Josephus calls the infant Moses παιδαμορφῇθεῖον . Philo de vita Mos. § 3, vol. ii. p. 83, says, γεννηθεὶςοὖνὁπαῖςεὐθὺςὄψινἐνέφῃνενἀστειοτέρανἢκατ ʼ ἰδιώτην . 22. That Moses was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, is not found in the O. T., but derived from tradition, and following as a matter of course from his adopted station as the son of Pharaoh’ s daughter. This wisdom of the Egyptians, celebrated by so many ancient writers (see Wetst. ad loc), consisted mainly in natural philosophy, medicine, and mathematics, and its teachers were the priests. Philo de vita Mos. § 5, p. 84, enters into minute detail: ἀριθμοὺςμὲνοὖνκ . γεωμετρίαν , κ . τήντεῥυθμικὴνκ . ἁρμονικὴνκ . μετρικὴνθεωρίαν , κ . μουσικὴντὴνσύμπασαν , διάτεχρήσεωςὀργάνων , κ . λόγωντῶνἐνταῖςτέχναις , κ . διεξόδοιςτοπικωτέραις , Αἰγυπτίωνοἱλόγιοιπαρέδοσαν . κ . προσέτιτὴνδιὰσυμβόλωνφιλοσοφίαν , ἣνἐντοῖςλεγομένοιςἱεροῖςγράμμασινἐπιδείκνυνται , κ . διὰτῆςτῶνζώωνἀποδοχῆς , ἃκαὶθεῶντιμαῖςγεραίρουσι . τὴνδὲἄλληνἐγκύκλιονπαιδείανἝλληνεςἐδίδασκον · οἱδ ʼ ἐκτῶνπλησιοχώρων , τάτεἈσσυρίωνγράμματα , κ . τὴντῶνοὐρανίωνΧαλδαϊκὴνἐπιστήμην . δυνατὸςἐνλόγοις ] So Josephus calls Moses πλήθεσινὁμιλεῖνπιθανώτατος , but late in his course, during the journey through the wilderness;— when the divine Spirit, as the book of Deuteronomy abundantly testifies, had turned his ‘ slowness of speech’ into the most fervid eloquence. That he was so thus early, during his Egyptian course, was probably reported by tradition, but hardly seems to agree with Exodus 4:10-16. 23. τεσσερακονταετὴςχρ .] μέγαςγενόμενος , Exodus 2:11, LXX. The exact age was traditional, see Lightf. ἀνέβη ] No nominative (as διαλογισμός , Kuin.) must be supplied: it is impersonal; see reff. 24. τὸνΑἰγύπτιον , from the history being so universally known, that the agent in the ἀδικία would be readily supplied: see Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1, d. 25. The present, δίδωσιν , sets forth the work of liberation as already begun by the act just related, see reff. Here we have again the resistance to the Holy Spirit hinted: see ver. 51, and note on ver. 2. 26. αὐτοῖς , to them, two of them, taken as representing his brethren the children of Israel. συνήλασεν , not imperf., ‘ he endeavoured to unite:’ the aorist will not bear this sense: nor is it needed:— the act, on Moses’ part, was complete;— not ‘ he would have set them at one’ (E. V.), but, he set them at one. If the explanatory reading συνήλλασσεν be taken, we then have the imperfect force— “ he was reconciling,” or “ attempted to reconcile,” them. ἄνδρεςἀδελφοί should be taken together, as in Genesis 13:8, ἄνθρωποιἀδελφοίἐσμενἡμεῖς . See also ch. 2:14 (De W.). 27. The further progress of resistance to the Spirit on the part of Israel. 29. Μαδιάμ ] So LXX, Exodus 2:15, for מ ִ ד ְ י ָ ן . Winer supposes this Madian to have been a nomad detachment of the more settled Midianites,— which at that time was encamped in the neighbourhood of Sinai and Horeb. For Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, is not found there, in Exodus 18:1 ff., but comes to visit Moses from a distance. See also Numbers 10:29 ff. υἱοὺςδύο ] Exodus 2:22; Exodus 4:20; Exodus 18:3. 30. ἐτ . τεσς .] This follows from the tradition of ver. 23, combined with Exodus 7:7, ‘ Moses in palatio Pharaonis degit XL annos, in Midiane XL annos, et ministravit Israel XL annos.’ Bereshith Rabba, f. 115. 3. (Mey.) Σινᾶ ] Horeb, Exodus 3:1. But both were points of the same mountain range, and the names were convertibly used. In Exod., Levit., and Numb., the law is said to have been given from Sinai; in Deut. from Horeb. ‘ The desert of Mount Sina’ is the desert in which Mt. S. is situated. So ‘ the Peak of Derbyshire,’ originally no doubt some single hill, has come to mean the whole district in which that hill is situated. ἄγγελος ] Here, as continually in the O. T., the angel bears the authority and presence of God Himself: which angel, since God giveth not his glory to another, must have been the great Angel of the covenant, the מ ַ ל ְ א ַ ך ְ פ ּ ָ נ ָ י ו of Isaiah 63:9, ‘ the Angel of His Presence,’ — the Son of God. See below on εἰςδιαταγὰςἀγγέλων , ver. 53. Stier remarks, that this second appearance of God, to Moses (see ver. 2), introduces the legal dispensation, as the first, to Abraham, the patriarchal. The readings of the LXX, as well as of our text, vary between πυρὶφλογός (B) and φλογὶπυρός (A). The Heb. is ב ּ ְ ל ב ּ ַ ת ־ א ַ ש ׁ . The construction is, in the fiery flame (or, the flaming fire) of a bush. 32. The order of Exo 3:6, is here somewhat varied. The command to put off the shoe was given on the approach of Moses, and before these words were spoken. οὐκἐτόλμ . καταν . = εὐλαβεῖτοκατεμβλέψαι , LXX. 33. See Joshua 5:15. Putting off the sandals was a mark of reverence. The priests performed all their ministrations barefooted. The Arabs to this day continue the practice: they always enter their mosques barefooted. Among the Pythagoreans it was a maxim, ἀνυπόδητοςθῦεκ . προσκύνει , Iamblich. vita Pythag 105 (Mey.). So Juvenal, Sat. vi. 158, ‘ Observant ubi festa mero pede sabbata reges.’ On the sanctity of the place, Chrys. remarks,— οὐδαμοῦναός , κ . ὁτόποςἅγιοςτῇἐπιφανείᾳκ . ἐνεργείᾳτοῦχριστοῦ . 34. ἰδὼνεἶδον , LXX. Emphatic, to express the ר ָ א ֹ ה ר ָ א ִ י ת ִ י of the Heb., as often elsewhere. The instances commonly cited from the classics, of the phrase φεύγωνἐκφεύγειν , Herod. v. 95; Aristoph. Acharn. 177; Nub. 168; Eur. Phœ n. 1231, &c., do not apply: for, as Porson observes, ‘ in his locis simplici verbo conatus, composito effectus indicatur.’ ἀποστείλω ] aorist subjunctive, as LXX, Exodus 3:10. See Winer, edn. 6, § 41. a. 4. a. 35. The second τοῦτον is repeated emphatically. So οὗτος again, vv. 36, 37, 38 [to impress on them God’ s choice of one whom they rejected]. ἠρνήσαντο , ver. 27. The rejecter of Moses there is regarded as the representative of the nation: see note on αὐτοῖς , ver. 26. In this express mention of the rejection of Moses by the Jews and his election and mission by God, the parallel of Jesus Christ is no doubt in Stephen’ s mind, and the inference intended to be drawn, that it does not follow that God rejects those whom THEY . The difficulty of ἀπέσταλκεν has caused it to be altered into the historic tense, ἀπέστειλεν . But the perf. sets forth not only the fact of God’ s sending Moses then, but the endurance of his mission till now— him hath God sent: with a closer reference than before, to Him whom God had now exalted as the true ἄρχοντακ . λυτρωτήν . See ch. 5:31. 37. See ch. 3:22, notes. Our text has probably been altered to agree verbally with the former citation. 38. γίνομαιμετά is not a Hebraism, as Kuin.: see reff. That Moses conversed with both the Angel of the covenant and our fathers, implies that he was the mediator between them, as indeed ὃςἐδέξατ . λόγ . ζ . more plainly declares. ἐκκλησίᾳ probably, the assembly held (Exo_19) for the promulgation of the law at Mt. Sinai, not ‘ the Church’ generally: but the article does not determine this: it would be expressed, whichever meaning we take. Wordsw. observes on the meaning which the words ἡἐκκλησίαἐντῇἐρήμῳ carry for the student of Christian prophecy, Revelation 12:1-6. λόγιαζῶντα ] living, see reff., not = ζωοποιοῦντα (Grot., Kuin.), ‘ life-giving:’ still less to be understood ‘ given vivá voce’ (Pisc. Alberti). So Soph. Tyr. 482, τὰμεσόμφαλαγᾶςἀπονοσφίζων | μαντεῖα · τὰδ ʼ αἰεὶ | ζῶνταπεριποτᾶται . 39. Another instance, brought home again by the words οἱπατέρεςἡμῶν , of rejection of God’ s appointed messenger and servant. ἐστράφησαν ] they turned back in their heart to Egypt: not, ‘ they wished to return to Egypt,’ of which in Exo_32 there is no trace (but later, in Numbers 14:4), and which would hardly suit προπορεύσονται ; but ‘ they apostatized in heart to the Egyptian idolatries.’ The very title by which Aaron proclaims his idol, is, ‘ These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,’ Exodus 32:4. See also Nehemiah 9:18. 40. προπορ .] As God had done in the pillar of the cloud and fire. The plural is not (as Kuin.) put for θεόν , but is used categorically: not perhaps without implying also, that the only two religions were, the worship of Jehovah, and that of idols, a multitude. The plural is used by Aaron, see above. In the οὗτος may be implied, as Meyer suggests, ‘ who was the strong opponent of idolatry.’ 41. ἐμοσχοποίησαν ] apparently in imitation of Apis, a bull worshipped at Memphis as the living symbol of Osiris. Herod. iii. 28. Diod. Sic. i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 805 . The ox was a common symbolic form of idols in the East; it was one of the cherubic forms, Ezekiel 1:10; and the most recent discoveries at Nineveh have brought to light colossal bulls. Sir Gardiner Wilkinson (second series, ii. 97, Winer) thinks the golden calves of Israel to have been imitations of Mnevis, a bull kept at Heliopolis (Diod. Sic. i. 21. Strabo, xvii. 803) as a living symbol of the sun. Jeroboam afterwards set up golden calves at Bethel and Dan, and with the same proclamation: see 1 Kings 12:28. 42. ἔστρεψεν ] neuter, changed,— turned, as ἀναστρέψω , ch. 15:16. No word, as ἑαυτόν , or τὴνγνώμην , or τὸπρόσωποναὐτοῦ , need be supplied: nor must ἔστρ . κ . παρ . be rendered ‘ again delivered them’ (Vitring., De Dieu, al.), a Hebraism which has no place in the N. T. (Mey.): nor must we understand αὐτούς (as C in var. readd.),— God turned them; for, though philologically there is no objection to this, the sense requires that ἔστρεψεν should form an introduction to παρέδωκεν — God, who had hitherto watched over them for good, now provoked by their rebellion, turned, and delivered them up to their own ways. παρέδωκεν — not ‘ suffered them to fall into:’ all these explainings away of the strong expressions of Scripture belong to the rationalistic school of interpreters : it was a judicial delivering up, not a mere letting alone, see reff. τῇστρ . τ . οὐρ .] This fact is not mentioned in the Pentateuch, but may refer to the worship of Baal. In aftertimes we have frequent traces of star-worship: see 2 Kings 17:16; 2 Kings 21:3, 2 Kings 21:5; 2 Kings 23:4, 2 Kings 23:5; Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5. See also Deuteronomy 4:19; Deuteronomy 17:3; Job 31:26. βίβλ . τ . προφ .] The book of the prophets, regarded as a whole. The citation (ref.) is from the LXX. μὴσφάγ . κ . θ .] A question usually preceding a negative answer, see Matthew 7:9; Romans 11:1; 1 Corinthians 9:8 al.: but not always: see Matthew 12:23 (26:22); John 4:29; John 8:22. Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 3, b. There is no stress on μοί as Rosenm., Heinr., Olsh., Kuin., Stier: the position of μοί in the sentence will not allow of this). I should take the question here according to the usual construction, and understand it as a reproach, implying that God does not receive as offered to Him, sacrifices in which He has been made to share with idols:— it is not true that ye offered to Me (but no stress on Me) sacrifices, &c.; ‘ I regard it as never having happened.’ 43. The answer, by God Himself: Yea, ἀνελάβετε , ye [took up, i.e.] carried about with you, (not My tabernacle as your sole or chief holy place, but) the tabernacle (ס ִ כ ּ ו ּ ת , the portable tent for the image: Diod. Sic. xx. 65, mentions the ἱερὰσκηνή ] in the Carthaginian camp) of M., &c. Stephen was not the sole dishonourer, if a dishonourer, of the holy place— their fathers had done it before. Μολόχ ] So the LXX: the Heb. has מ ַ ל ְ כ ּ ְ כ ֶ ם , ‘ of your king;’ — the LXX probably followed another reading (מ ל כ ם is actually found in 577 Kennicot and 4401 De Rossi), or perhaps explained the expression by the cognate name of this god. Moloch (Winer, Realw.) was the Phœ nician Saturn: his image was of brass with the head of an ox, and outstretched arms of a man, hollow; and human sacrifices (of children) were offered, by laying them in these arms and heating the image by a fire kindled within. The rigid prohibitions of the worship of Moloch (Leviticus 18:21; Leviticus 20:2-5) were openly transgressed by Ahaz, 2 Kings 16:3; by Manasseh, ib. 21:6; see also 23:10; Jeremiah 7:31; Jeremiah 32:35. In the kingdom of Israel this abomination had been long practised, see 2 Kings 17:17; Ezekiel 23:37. We find traces of it at Carthage (Diod. Sic. xx. 14), among the Phœ nicians (Q. Curt. iv. 3. 23. Euseb. laud. xiii. 4. Porpbyr. de Abstin. ii. 56),— among the Cretans and Rhodians (Porphyr. ibid.), and the Assyrian colonists at Sepharvaim, 2 Kings 17:31. τὸἄστροντοῦθ . Ῥεφάν ] Heb. כ ּ ִ י ּ ו ּ ן , Chiú n; but what the meaning of either this or Ῥαιφάν (LXX) is, we have nothing but conjecture to inform us. The principal opinions have been (1) that of Kircher, who maintains Ῥεφάν to be a Coptic word, signifying the planet Saturn, and answering to the Arabic ‘ Kewan:’ (2) that of Hengstenberg, Authentie des Pentat. 110 ff., who entirely repudiates Kircher’ s interpretation, and supposes Ῥηφάν to have arisen from a misreading of ר י ו ן for כ י ו ן . But Winer (Realw.) prefers the former opinion, and supports it by the authority of eminent modern Coptic and Arabic scholars. De Wette and Hengstenberg believe כ ּ ִ י ּ ו ּ ן to be an appellative noun, and would render it, Gestell, the carriage or frame, on which the star or image was carried: ‘ imaginem idolorum vestrorum,’ Vulg. Amos. l. c. Wordsw. after alex. in Catena, supposes ῥεφάν to signify σκότισμα , or blindness, and suggests that the name may have been one given by the Jews in contempt, like Beelzebub, to the god of the Ekronites. See Smith, Bibl. Dict., art. Remphan. Βαβυλῶνος ] Δαμασκοῦ , LXX and Heb. The fulfilment of the prophecy would make it very natural to substitute that name which had become inseparably associated with the captivity. 44. ἡσκ . τ . μαρτ .] In opposition to the σκ . just mentioned: but also in pursuance of one of the great aims of the speech, to shew that holiness is not confined to locality or building. This part of his subject Stephen now enters on more particularly. The words ἡσκ . τ . μαρτ . are the LXX rendering of א ֹ ה ֶ ל מ ו ֹ ע ֵ ד (Numbers 16:18, Numbers 16:19 al.) ‘ the tabernacle of the assembly’ (or ‘ congregation,’ E. V.). They apparently derived the latter word from ע ו ּ ד , ‘ testatus est,’ instead of י ָ ע ַ ד , ‘ constituit.’ τύπον ] (ref.): another contrast, cf. τύπουςοὓςἐποιήσατε , ver. 43. 45. εἰσήγ .] absolute: introduced, viz. εἰςτὴνγῆν :— not connected with ἐντῇκατασχ .,— see below. διαδεξ .] Having inherited it, i.e. succeeded to its custody and privileges. The sense of ‘ successores,’ ‘ qui majores exceperunt,’ is ungrammatical; as also is that of ‘ postea,’ ‘ deinceps.’ ἐντῇκατασχέσει ] at their taking possession. The Vulg. rendering, ‘ in possessionem gentium,’ is philologically inadmissible; ‘ in terram a gentibus occupatam’ (Calvin, De Dieu, Grot., Kuin.) is still worse. The passage of the LXX, Numbers 32:5, δοθήτωἡγῆαὕτητοῖςοἰκέταιςσουἐνκατασχέσει , brought forward to justify these renderings, is directly against them. The word is one of those examples of verbal nouns in -σις where the meaning hovers uncertainly between the act of doing and the thing done. Such is often the case with καύχησις in St. Paul. Cf. for a very near approach to the concrete meaning of this word, Numbers 27:4, Numbers 27:7. But, abstract or concrete, it always, as might be expected from the very composition of the word, is used of that final and settled possession which Israel took of the land, not of that transitory possession from which the gentes were driven out. So that Wordsw.’ s rendering, “ the portion, or possession of the Gentiles,” is out of the question. The martyr combines rapidly a considerable period, during which this κατάσχεσις and this expulsion was taking place (for it was not complete till the time of David) in order to arrive at the next great event of his history, the substitution of the temple of Solomon for the tabernacle. 46. ᾐτήσατο ] asked permission, see 2 Samuel 7:2 ff., in which this request is made through Nathan the prophet, and at first conceded by Nathan, though afterwards, on a revelation made from God, denied:— not ‘ wished’ (Grot., Kuin.: ‘ desired,’ E. V.). The vow (a species of prayer) here referred to, is defined by the words εὑρεῖνσκήνωμα , to be that mentioned Ps. 131:1-5 (LXX). 48. But, though Solomon built Him an house, we are not to suppose, for all that, that He is confined to earthly spots. καθὼςὁπρ . λ .] We have in substance the same declaration by Solomon himself at the dedication of his temple, 1 Kings 8:27; see also the beautiful prayer of David, 1 Chronicles 29:10-19. The citation is freely from the LXX. The student will not fail to be interested in observing the apparent reference to this declaration in Stephen’ s apology, by St. Paul, ch. 17:24. 51. I do not think there is any occasion to suppose an interruption from the audience to have occasioned this outbreak of holy indignation. At each separate recital (vv. 9, 25, 35, 39 ff.) he has dwelt, with continually increasing fervour, on the rebellions against and rejections of God by His people. He has now brought down the history to the establishment of the temple worship. From Solomon’ s time to his own, he saw but a succession of apostasies, idolatries, rejection of God’ s prophets:— a dark and loathsome catalogue, terminated by the betrayal and murder of the Just One Himself. It is not at all beyond probability, to believe that the zeal of his fervent spirit was by the view of this, the filling up of the measure of their iniquities, kindled into a flame of inspired invective. I find that this is also Neander’ s view, in opposition to the generality of Commentators (P. u. L., p.92), as also that of Prof. Hackett, in his commentary on the Acts: and I cannot but think it far the most probable. ἐνταῦθαλοιπὸνκαταφορικῶςτῷλόγῳκέχρηται . πολλὴἦνπαῤῥησίαμέλλοντοςαὐτοῦἀποθνήσκειν · καὶγὰρκαὶτοῦτοοἶμαιαὐτὸνεἰδέναι , Chrysost. σκληρ . κ . ἀπερ .] Words and figures familiar to the prophets in speaking of the rebellious Israel: see, besides reff., Deuteronomy 9:6, Deuteronomy 9:13; Nehemiah 9:16:— Deuteronomy 10:16; Deuteronomy 30:6 Heb. See also Romans 2:29. ὠσίν ] I should hardly think of any allusion to Psa_40 (39) 6,— because the LXX have rendered ‘ mine ears hast thou opened’ by σῶμακατηρτίσωμοι . τῷπν . τ . ἁγ . ἀντ .] Apparently a reference to Isaiah 63:10. The instances as yet had been confined to οἱπατ . ὑμ .: now he has arrived at their own times. The two are taken up again in the next verse. 52. τίνατ . προφ .] See Matthew 23:31 ff.: 2 Chronicles 36:16: where the same general expressions are used of their persecuting the prophets. Such sayings are not to be pressed to the letter, but represent the uniform attitude of disobedience and hostility which they assumed to the messengers of God. See also the parable, Matthew 21:35. τοὺςπροκ .] The office of all the prophets, see ch. 3:18. The assertion is repeated, to connect them, by this title, with Him, whom they announced. τοῦδικαίου ] Schö ttg. vol. ii. p. 18, has shewn from the Rabbinical writings that this name was used by the Jews to designate the Messiah. See reff. and note on James 5:6. προδόται ] By Judas’ s treachery, of which the Sanhedrists had been the accomplices; Matthew 26:14-16:— φονεῖς , by the hands of the Romans; ch. 2:23, note. ἐγένεσθε is preferable not only on account of its manuscript authority, but as being the historical tense, like the rest. It was probably altered to the perfect, as suiting the time then present, better than the aorist. 53. The use of οἵτινες , instead of οἱ , so very frequent in the Acts and Epistles, occurs when the clause introduced by it contains a further explanation of the position or classification of the person or persons alluded to, and not when the relative serves for simple identification. See Romans 1:25, Romans 1:32. εἰςδιαταγὰςἀγγέλων ] Many explanations have been given. Chrys. διαταχθέντανόμονλέγει , τὸνἐγχειρισθέντααὐτῷδι ʼ ἄγγελοντὸνὀφθέντααὐτῷἐντῷβάτῳ : and Œ νόμονλαβόνταςδιατάξειςἔχοντα , αἵτινεςἰσάγγελονἐποίουνπολιτείανἔχειντοὺςτελοῦνταςαὐτόν . Heinsius and Lightfoot understand by ἀγγέλ . the prophets: Grot., Calov., and Krebs, ‘ præ sentibus angelorum ordinibus,’ taking διαταγάς = διατάξεις in the sense of divisions of an army (Judith 8:36), in which it never occurs,— not to say that εἰς will not bear this: Beza, Calv., Pisc., Elsn., Hamm., Kuin., &c., ‘ ab angelis promulgatum,’ which εἰς will not bear : Winer, Gr., edn. 6, § 32. 4, b, ‘ as commands of angels’ (but see below), which, however, was not the fact :— the Syriac version, ‘ per mandatum angelorum:’ — Vulg. and Calv., ‘ in dispositione (or -onibus) angelorum:’ Schö ttg., ‘ per ministerium angelorum.’ These three last are precluded by the foregoing remarks. The key to the right rendering seems to be the similar expression in ref. Gal., ὁνόμοςδιαταγεὶςδι ʼ ἀγγέλων . The law was given by God, but announced by angels. The people received God’ s law then, εἰςδιαταγὰςἀγγέλων , at the injunction (a sense of διατ . amply justified, see Palm and Rost’ s lex. διάταξις , and Polyb. iv. 19. 10; 87. 5: and preferred by Winer in his last edn., ut supra) of angels. So Matthew 12:41, μετενόησανεἰςτὸκήρυγμαἸῶνα , ‘ they repented at the preaching of Jonas.’ The only other legitimate rendering, ‘ as the injunctions of angels,’ comes under the objections made to Winer’ s former view, above. 54-60. Effect of the speech: stoning of Stephen. 54. διεπρ ., see note on ref. 55. Certainly, in so far as the vision of Stephen was supernatural, it was not necessary that the material heavens should have been visible to him; but from the words ἀτενίσαςεἰςτὸνοὐρανόν it would seem that they were. We are not told where the Sanhedrim were assembled. It does not seem as if they were convened in the ordinary session room: it may have been in one of the courts of the temple, which would give room for more than the members of the Sanhedrim to be present, as seems to have been the case. ἑστῶτα ] A reason why the glorified Saviour was seen standing, and not sitting, has been pleasingly given by Chrysostom (in Cramer’ s Catena): τίοὖνἑστῶτακαὶοὐχὶκαθήμενον ; ἵναδείξῃτὴνἀντίληψιντὴνεἰςτὸνμάρτυρα · καὶγὰρπερὶτοῦπατρὸςλέγεται “ ἀνάσταὁθεός .” Similarly Gregory the Great, Hom. ii. 29, vol. i. p. 1572, ‘ Stephanus stantem vidit, quem adjutorem habuit.’ So also Arator, i. 611 ff. p. 124, ed. Migne, ‘ pro martyre surgit, Quem tunc stare videt; confessio nostra sedentem Cum soleat celebrare magis.’ (See also the collect for St. Stephen’ s day.) But not perhaps correctly: for ‘ help’ does not seem here to be the applicable idea, but the confirmation of his faith by the ecstatic vision of the Saviour’ s glory at God’ s right hand. I should be rather disposed to think that there was reference in the vision to that in Zechariah 3:1, where Zech. sees Ἰησοῦντὸνἱερέατὸνμέγαν , ἑστῶταπρὸπροσώπουἀγγέλουκυρίου . Stephen, under accusation of blaspheming the earthly temple, is granted a sight of the heavenly temple; being cited before the Sadducee High Priest who believed neither angel nor spirit, he is vouchsafed a vision of the heavenly High Priest, standing and ministering at the throne amidst the angels and just men made perfect. 56. This is the only time that our Lord is by human lips called the Son of Man after His ascension (Revelation 1:13; Revelation 14:14, are not instances). And why here? I believe, for this reason. Stephen, full of the Holy Ghost, speaking now not of himself at all (ver. 55), but entirely by the utterance of the Spirit, repeats the very words, Matthew 26:64, in which Jesus Himself, before this council, had foretold His glorification;— and assures them that that exaltation of the Son of Man, which they should hereafter witness to their dismay, was already begun and actual. 58. ἔξωτ . πόλ .] See Leviticus 24:14. ‘ Locus lapidationis erat extra urbem: omnes enim civitates muris cinctæ paritatem habent ad castra Israelis.’ Babyl. Sanhedr. ad loc. (Meyer.) Cf. also Hebrews 13:12, Hebrews 13:13. ἐλιθοβόλουν ] they stoned him: an anticipation of the fact, the details of which follow: not, ‘ they prepared to stone him:’ non ‘ jam in itinere ad supplicii locum petulanter eum lapidibus lacessebant’ (Heinr.): nor need we conjecture ἐλιθολόγουν with Markland. Stoning was the punishment of blaspheming, Leviticus 24:16. The question whether this was a legal proceeding on sentence, or a tumultuary one, is not easy to answer. It would appear from John 18:31, that the Jews had not legally the power of putting any man to death (see note there). Certainly, from the narrative before us, and from the fact of a bloody persecution having taken place soon after it, it seems that the Jews did, by connivance of, or in the absence of the Procurator, administer summary punishments of this kind. But here no sentence is recorded: and perhaps the very violence and zelotic character of the execution might constitute it, not an encroachment on the power of the Procurator, as it would have been if strictly in form of law, but a mere outbreak, and as such it might be allowed to pass unnoticed. That they observed the forms of their own law, in the place and manner of the stoning, is no objection to this view. οἱμάρτυρες ] See ref. [where it is enacted that the hands of the witnesses were to be first on the criminal to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people]. They disencumbered themselves of their loose outer garments, ὥστεεἶναικοῦφοικαὶἀπαραπόδιστοιεἰςτὸλιθοβολεῖν . Theophyl. ἀπέθεντο ] to keep them. Such notices are deeply interesting, when we recollect by whom they were in all probability carefully inserted. See ch. 22:19, 20, and note on ch. 26:10:— from which it appears that Saul can certainly not have been less than thirty at this time. He was a member of the Sanhedrim, and soon after was despatched on an important mission with their authority. 59. The attempt to escape from this direct prayer to the Saviour by making Ἰησοῦ the genitive, and supposing it addressed to the Father,— in the face of the ever-recurring words κύριοςἸησοῦς (see Revelation 22:20 especially), and the utter absence of any instance or analogy to justify it,— is only characteristic of the school to which it belongs. Yet in this case it has been favoured even by Bentley and Valcknaer, who supposed θεόν to have been omitted in the text, being absorbed by the preceding -ον . But if any such accus. had been used, it would certainly have been τὸνθεόν . δέξαιτὸπν . μ .] The same prayer in substance had been made by our Lord on the cross (ref. Luke) to His Father. To Him was now committed the key of David. Similarly, the young man Saul, in after years: πέπεισμαιὅτιδυνατόςἐστιντὴνπαραθήκηνμουφυλάξαιεἰςἐκείνηντὴνἡμέραν , 2 Timothy 1:12. 60. The more accurate philological Commentators, De Wette and Meyer, deny that στήσῃς here can, as ordinarily explained, refer to weighing (reff. Matt.; Jer_39 (32) 10), since not the sin, but the punishment, would be the thing weighed out,— and it would be harsh to take the one for the other, in a sentence of this kind. Meyer would understand ἱστάναι as opposed to ἀφιέναι , τὴνἁμαρτίαν , ‘ Fix not this sin upon them:’ but De Wette, as seems to me more probably, renders it Reckon not this sin to them (‘ lay not this sin to their charge,’ E. V.), supporting this by Romans 10:3. This again was somewhat similar (though not exactly, see note there) to our Lord’ s prayer, Luke 23:34. ἐκοιμήθη ] Not a Christian expression only: Wetstein, on Matthew 27:52, cites Jewish examples: and we have in the Anthology, iii. 1. 10, τῇδεΣάωνὁΔίωνοςἈκάνθιοςἱερὸνὕπνον | κοιμᾶται · θνήσκεινμὴλέγετοὺςἀγαθούς . But it became the usual Christian term for death. Its use here, when the circumstances, and the actors in them, are remembered, is singularly touching, from the contrast. Chap. 8:1-3. Persecution of the church by Saul, consequent on the death of Stephen. 1. συνευδ .] See reff.: and compare his own confession, ch. 26:9-11. From this time, the narrative takes up Saul, and, at first with considerable interruptions (ch. 8, 10, 11, 12.), but after ch. 13:1 entirely, follows his history. ἐνἐκ . τῇἡμ . can hardly mean, as some (Dr. Burton, De Wette, Meyer, Stier) would render it, on that very day, viz. when Stephen was stoned. For what follows, πάντεςδὲδιεσπάρησαν … cannot have happened on the same day, but would take some little time: and it is hardly allowable to render ἐγένετο ‘ broke out.’ We have ἐνἐκ . τῇἡμέρᾳ used indefinitely, Luke 6:23; John 14:20; John 16:23, John 16:26. In Luke 17:31 it has direct reference to a ἡμέρα just mentioned. πάντες ] Not perhaps literally,— or some of them soon returned: see ch. 9:26-30. It may describe the general dispersion, without meaning that every individual fled. Σαμαρείας ] Connected with ver. 4: this word is not without importance, as introducing the next step in the dissemination of the Gospel, according to our Lord’ s command in ch. 1:8. πλὴντῶνἀποστόλων ] Perhaps, from their exalted position of veneration by the people, the persecution did not extend to them: perhaps they remained, as possessed of superior firmness and devotion. But this latter reason is hardly applicable, after the command of our Lord, ‘ When they persecute you in one city, flee to another.’ Matthew 10:23. Stier (Reden d. Apostel, i. 253) refers their remaining to an intimation of the Spirit, to stay and strengthen those who were left (ἑτέρουςγενέσθαιθράσουςαἴτιοι , Chrys.). Mr. Humphry (Comm. on Acts) cites an ancient tradition, mentioned by Alex., Strom. vi. 5 [43], end, p. 762 P, from the Præ dicatio Petri (and by Euseb. H. E. v. 18), that the Apostles were ordered by our Lord to remain at Jerusalem twelve years: φησὶνὁΠέτροςεἰρηκέναιτὸνκύριοντοῖςἀποστόλοιςἘὰνμὲνοὖντιςθελήσῃτοῦἸσραὴλμετσνοῆσαιδιὰτοῦὀνόματόςμουπιστεύεινἐπὶτὸνθεόν , ἀφεθήσονταιαὐτῷαἱἁμαρτίαι · μετὰδώδεκαἔτηἐξέλθετεεἰςτὸνκόσμον , μήτιςεἴπῃΟὐκἀκηκόαμεν . But this could not be the case, as we have Peter and John going down, to Samaria, ver. 14. 2. ἄνδρ . εὐλαβεῖς ] Whether Jews or Christians is not certain. Ananias is so called, ch. 22:12 (not in rec), and he was a Christian. At all events, there is no contrast implied in the δέ (as Mey.), ‘ Yet, notwithstanding the persecution and dispersion, pious men were found who, &c.:’ the δέ is merely the transitional particle,— and, so far from its being any unusual thing to bury an executed person, it was commanded among the Jews. Olshausen thinks that, if they had been Christians, the term ἀδελφοί would have been used: but this does not seem by any means certain: we can hardly reason so minutely from the diction of one section in the narrative to that of another, especially in the case of a section so distinct and peculiar as this one. (Besides, ἀδελφοί in this sense does not occur till ch. 9:30: see reff. there.) Probably they were pious Jews, not yet converts, but hearers and admirers of Stephen. 3. ἐλυμαίνετο ] Properly used of wild beasts, or of hostile armies, devastating and ravaging. (See examples in Kuin.) κατὰτοὺςοἴκους , entering (the houses) from house to house,— a pregnant construction. σύρων ] So Philo, in Flacc. 9, vol. ii. p. 526, συρόμενοικ . πατούμενοιδιὰτῆςπόλεωςἁπάσηςἐξαναλώθησαν . παρεδίδου ] viz. to the gaolers— so παραδιδοὺςεἰςφυλακάς , ch. 22:4. 4-13. Preaching of the Gospel in Samaria by Philip. 4. μὲνοὖν resumes the subject dropped at the end of ver. 1, and determines this verse to be the opening of a new section, not the close of the former. διῆλθ .] See reff. εὐαγγ . τ . λόγ .] Here first we become acquainted with the missionary language so frequent in the rest of the book: and we have τὸνλόγον , an expression very familiar among Christians when the book was written, for [the fuller one which must have prevailed at first] τ . λ . τοῦθεοῦ . 5. Φίλιππος ] The deacon; not, as apparently implied in the citation from Polycrates in H. E. iii. 31, v. 24, one of the twelve: this is precluded by vv. 1 and 14. And it is probable, that the persecution should have been directed especially against the colleagues of Stephen. Philip is mentioned again as ὁεὐαγγελιστής ,— probably from his having been the first recorded who εὐηγγελίσατοτὸνλόγον ,— in ch. 21:8,— as married and having four daughters, virgins, who prophesied. πόλιντ . Σαμ .] Verbatim as John 4:5, in which case it is specified as being Sychar (Sichem). As the words stand here (πόλιν = τὴνπόλιν , after εἰς , compare also 2 Peter 2:6), seeing that Σαμάρεια (vv. 9, 14; ch. 9:31; 15:3) signifies the district, I should be inclined to believe that Sychem is here also intended. It was a place of rising importance, and in after-times eclipsed the fame of its neighbour Samaria, which latter had been, on its presentation by Augustus to Herod the Great, re-fortified and called Sebaste, Jos. Antt. xv. 7. 3, and 8. 5. It still, however, bore the name of Samaria, Jos. xx. 6. 2,— where, from the context, the district can hardly be intended. αὐτοῖς ] The inhabitants, implied in πόλις . 6. προσεῖχον … ] If this place was Sychem, the narrative in Joh_4 will fully account for the readiness with which these people received the κήρυγματοῦχριστοῦ — ‘ the proclamation of the Christ.’ 7. According to the reading in the text, which is too strongly upheld by manuscript authority to be rejected for the easier ordinary one, πολλαί is a ‘ nominativus pendens’ (compare ch. 7:40; Revelation 3:12. Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 1), For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they crying out with a loud voice, came out: ἐξήρχοντο being plur., as often when the neuter plural betokens living agents; see Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3, a. β . πολλοί has probably been altered to πολλῶν , to agree with τῶνἐχόντων , on the difficulty being perceived. 9. Σίμων ] Neander, in the course of some excellent remarks on this whole history (see further on ver. 14), identifies, and I believe with reason, this Simon with one mentioned as living from ten to twenty years after this by Josephus, Antt. xx. 7. 2, καθ ʼ ὃνκαιρὸντῆςἸουδαίαςἐπετρόπευσεΦῆλιξ , θεασάμενοςταύτην (Drusilla) … λαμβάνειτῆςγυναικὸςἐπιθυμίαν , καὶΣίμωναὀνόματι , τῶνἑαυτῷφίλων , Ἰουδαῖον , κύπριονδὲγένος , μάγονεἶναισκηπτόμενον , τέμπωνπρὸςαὐτὴνἔπειθετὸνἄνδρακαταλιποῦσαναὐτῷγήμασθαι . The only difficulty seems to be, that Simon is stated by Justin Martyr, himself a Samaritan, to have been Σαμαρέα , ἀπὸκώμηςλεγομένηςΓίττων . But it has struck me that either Justin, or perhaps more probably Josephus, may have confounded Ghittim with Chittim, i.e. Citium in Cyprus. This conjecture I also find mentioned in the Dict. of Biography and Mythology, sub voce. The account in Josephus is quite in character with what we here read of Simon: not inconsistent (Meyer) with ver. 24, which appears to have been uttered under terror occasioned by the solemn denunciation of Peter. Justin goes on to relate that he was worshipped as a God at Rome in the time of Claudius Cæ sar, on account of his magical powers, and had a statue on the island in the Tiber, inscribed ‘ Simoni Deo Sancto.’ Singularly enough, in the year 1574, a stone was found in the Tiber (or standing on the island in the year 1662, according to the Dict. of Biogr. and Myth.), with the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO SACRVM, i.e. to the God Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules, which makes it probable that Justin may have been misled. The history of Simon is full of legend and fable. The chief sources of it are the Recognitiones and Clementina of the pseudo-Clemens. He is there said to have studied at Alexandria, and to have been, with the heresiarch Dositheus, a disciple of John the Baptist. Of Dositheus he became first the disciple, and then the successor. Origen (in Matt. Comm. § 33, vol. iii. p. 851) makes Dositheus also a Samaritan: so also contra Cels. i. 57, vol. i. p. 372, and Hom. xxv. in Luc. vol. iii. p. 962. His own especial followers (Simoniani) had dwindled so much in the time of Origen, that he says νυνὶδὲτοὺςπάνταςἐντῇοἰκουμένῃοὐκἔστιΣιμωνιανοὺςεὑρεῖντὸνἀριθμὸνοἶμαιτριάκοντα . καὶτάχαπλείοναςεἶποντῶνὄντων , contra Cels. ubi supra; see also ib. vi. 11, p. 638, and περὶἀρχῶν , iv. 17, p. 176. In the Becognitiones and the Clementina are long reports of subsequent controversies between Simon Magus and Peter, of which the scene is laid at Cæ sarea. According to Arnobius (adv. Gentes, ii. 12, p. 828 ed. Migne), the Constt. Apostol. (ii. 14, p. 620; vi. 9, p. 932 ed. Migne), and Cyril of Jerusalem, he met with his death at Rome, having, during an encounter with Peter, raised himself into the air by the aid of evil spirits, and being precipitated thence at the prayer of Peter and Paul. [I saw in the church of S. Francesca Romana in the forum, a stone with two dents in it and this inscription, “ On this stone rested the knees of S. Peter when the dæ mons carried Simon Magus through the air.” ] The fathers generally regard him as the founder of Gnosticism: this may be in some sense true: but, from the very little authentic information we possess, it is impossible to ascertain how far he was identified with their tenets. Origen (contra Cels. v. 62, p. 625) distinctly denies that his followers were Christians in any sense: λανθάνειτὸνΚέλσον , ὅτιοὐδαμῶςτὸνἸησοῦνὁμολογοῦσινυἱὸνθεοῦΣιμωνιανοί , ἀλλὰδύναμινθεοῦλέγουσιτὸνΣίμωνα . μαγεύων ] Not to be joined with προϋπῆρχεν (as in E. V. and Kuin.), which belongs to ἐνπόλει : exercising magic arts, such as then were very common in the East and found wide acceptance; impostors taking advantage of the very general expectation of a Deliverer at this time, to set themselves up by means of such trickeries as ‘ some great ones.’ We have other examples in Elymas (ch. 13): Apollonius of Tyana; and somewhat later, Alexander of Abonoteichos: see these latter in Dict. of Biogr. and Myth. τινὰμέγαν ] Probably not in such definite terms as his followers later are represented as putting into his mouth: ‘ Ego sum sermo Dei … ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei.’ Jerome on Matthew 24:5, vol. vii. p. 193. 10. ἡδύν . τ . θ . ἡκαλουμένημεγάλη ] Neander (l. c.) and Meyer think that they must have referred to the λόγος , the creating and governing manifestation of God so much spoken of in the Alexandrine philosophy (see extracts from Philo in note on John 1:1. The term, but by no means with the same idea, was adopted by the Spirit, speaking by John, as belonging to the Son of God: see the same note, end), and must have regarded Simon as an incarnation of the λόγος (the μητρόπολιςπασῶντῶνδυνάμεωντοῦθεοῦ , Philo), so that their erroneous belief would form some preparation for the great truth of an incarnate Messiah, preached by Philip. But to this De W. well replies, that we can hardly suppose the Alexandrine philosophy to have been so familiar to the mass of the people, and refers the expression to their popular belief of a great angel (Chron. Sam. 10), who might, as the angels were called by the Samaritans the powers of God (for which he refers to Reland, de Samar. § 7. Gesen. Theol. Samar. p. 21 ff.), be designated as ἡδύν . τ . θ . ἡκαλουμένημεγάλη . καλουμένη rests on such strong manuscript authority, and is so unlikely to have been inserted (the idea of a scholium to indicate the force of the art. (Bloomf.) is quite out of the question, no such scholium being here needed), that both on external and internal grounds it must form part of the text. The lit. rendering will be, This man is the power of God which is called great: the sense, ‘ This man is that power of God (see above) which we know as the great one.’ λεγομένη , found in a few later mss., is an explanation of καλ . by a more usual word. 11. ἐξεστακέναι can hardly be as E. V., transitive, “ he had bewitched them:” there appears to be no example of the perfect being thus used. 13. ‘ Simon saw his followers dropping off, and was himself astounded at the miracles wrought by Philip: he therefore thought it best himself also to acknowledge this superior power. He attached himself to Philip, and was baptized like the rest: but we are not, as the sequel shews, to understand that the preaching of the Gospel had made any impression on his heart, but that he accounted for what he saw in his own fashion. He was convinced, from the works which Philip did, that he was in league with some powerful spirit: he viewed baptism as the initiation into communion with that spirit, and expected that he should be able to make use of the higher power thus gained for his own purposes, and unite this new magical power to his own. All were baptized who professed belief in Jesus as the Messiah: there was therefore no reason for rejecting Simon, considering besides, that from the nature of the case he would for the time have given up his magical practices.’ Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 102. ‘ Hoc Simonis exemplo clare patet, non conferri omnibus indifferenter in Baptismo gratiam, quæ illic figuratur. Papistarum dogma est, Nisi quis ponat obicem peccati mortalis, omnes cum signis recipere veritatem et effectum. Ita magicam vim tribuunt Sacramentis, quasi absque fide prosint. Nos autem sciamus offerri nobis a Domino per Sacramenta quicquid sonant annexæ promissiones, et non frustra nec inaniter offerri, modo fide ad Christum directi ab ipso petamus quicquid Sacramenta promittunt. Quamvis autem nihil illi tunc profuerit Baptismi receptio, si tamen conversio postea secuta est, ut nonnulli conjiciunt, non extincta fuit nec abolita utilitas. Sæ pe enim fit, ut post longum tempus demum operetur Spiritus Dei, quo efficaciam suam Sacramenta proferre incipiant.’ Calvin in loc. 14-24. Mission of Peter and John to Samaria. A question arises on this procedure of the Apostles:— whether it was as a matter of course, that the newly baptized should, by the laying on of hands subsequently, receive the Holy Ghost,— or whether there was in the case of these Samaritans any thing peculiar, which caused the Apostles to go down to them and perform this act. (1) The only analogous case is ch. 19:5, 6: in using which we must observe that there it is distinctly asserted that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit followed the laying on of Paul’ s hands; and that by the expression ἰδών in ver. 18, which must be taken literally, the same is implied here. And on this point the remarks of Calvin are too important to be omitted: ‘ Hic occurrit quæ stio. Dicit enim tantum fuisse baptizatos in nomine Christi, atque ideo nondum fuisse Spiritus participes. Atqui vel inanem et omni virtute et gratia carere Baptismum oportet, aut a Spiritu sancto habere quicquid efficaciæ habet. In Baptismo abluimur a peccatis: atqui lavacrum nostrum Spiritus sancti opus esse docet Paulus (Titus 3:5). Aqua Baptismi sanguinis Christi symbolum est: atqui Petrus Spiritum esse præ dicat, a quo irrigamur Christi sanguine (1 Peter 1:2). In Baptismo crucifigitur vetus noster homo, ut suscitemur in vitæ novitatem (Romans 6:6): unde autem hoc totum, nisi ex sanctificatione Spiritus? Denique Baptismo nihil reliquum fiet, si a Spiritu separetur. Ergo Samaritanos, qui vere Christum in Baptismo induerant, Spiritu quoque vestitos fuisse negandum non est (Galatians 3:27). Et sane Lucas hic non de communi Spiritus gratia loquitur, qua nos sibi Deus in filios regenerat, sed de singularibus illis donis, quibus Dominus initio Evangelii quosdam esse præ ditos voluit ad ornandum Christi regnum.’ And a little after: … ‘ Papistæ , dum ficticiam suam confirmationem extollere volunt, in hanc sacrilegam vocem prorumpere non dubitant, semichristianos esse, quibus manus nondum fuerunt impositæ . (See this asserted by Wordsworth, in loc. p. 40, Col_2, bottom.) Hoc jam tolerabile non est, quod quum symbolum hoc temporale esset, ipsi perpetuam legem finxerunt in Ecclesia.… Atqui fateri coguntur ipsi quoque, Ecclesiam nonnisi ad tempus donis istis fuisse ornatam. Unde sequitur, impositionem manuum, qua usi sunt Apostoli, finem habuisse, quum effectus cessavit’ (in loc.). And yet after this, Wordsw. refers to “ Calvin here,” “ in whose opinion,” says R. Nelson, “ this passage in the Acts shews that Confirmation was instituted by the Apostles.” This example may serve to suggest extreme caution in trusting to Wordsw.’ s reports of the opinions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. The English church, in retaining the rite of confirmation, has not grounded it on any institution by the Apostles, but merely declared the laying on of hands on the candidates, to certify them (by this sign) of God’ s favour and goodness towards them, to be, ‘ after the example of the holy Apostles.’ Nor is there any trace in the office, of the conferring of the Holy Ghost by confirmation;— but a distinct recognition of the former reception of the Holy Spirit (at Baptism), and a prayer for the increase of His influence, proportioned to the maturer life now opening on the newly confirmed. (2) If then we have here no institution of a perpetual ordinance, something peculiar to the case before us must have prompted this journey. And here again we have a question: Was that moving cause in the Samaritans, or in Philip? I believe the true answer to the question will be found by combining both. Our Lord’ s command (ch. 1:8) had removed all doubt as to Samaria being a legitimate field for preaching, and Samaritan converts being admissible. (So also with regard to Gentile converts,— see ch. 10, notes: but, as the church at this time believed, they must be circumcised, which the Samaritans already were,— and keep the law, which after their manner the Samaritans did.) The sudden appearance, however, of a body of baptized believers in Samaria, by the agency of one who was not one of the Apostles,— while it would excite in them every feeling of thankfulness and joy, would require their presence and power, as Apostles, to perform their especial part as the divinely appointed Founders of the Church. Add to this, that the Samaritans appear to have been credulous, and easily moved to attach themselves to individuals, whether it were Simon, or Philip; which might make the Apostles desirous to be present in person, and examine, and strengthen their faith. Another reason may have been not without its influence: the Jewish church at Jerusalem would naturally for the most part be alienated in mind from this new body of believers. The hatred between Jews and Samaritans was excessive and unrelenting. It would therefore be in the highest degree important that it should be shewn to the church at Jerusalem, that these Samaritans, by the agency of the same Apostles, were partakers of the same visibly testified gifts of the one Spirit. The use of this argument, which was afterwards applied by Peter in the case of the Gentiles, unexpected even by himself, ch. 11:17,— was probably no small part of the purpose of this journey to Samaria. 14. Πέτ . κ . Ἰωάν .] Perhaps two, in accordance with the δύοδύο of their first missionary journey (Mark 6:7): so Paul and Barnabas afterwards (ch. 13:2): and the same principle seems to have been adhered to even when these last separated: Paul chose Silas, Barnabas took Mark. Peter,— because to him belonged, in this early part of the Gospel, in a remarkable manner, the first establishing of the church; it was the fulfilment of the promise ἐπὶταύτῃτῇπέτρᾳοἰκοδομήσωμουτὴνἐκκλησίαν . It was he who had (in common with all the Apostles, it is true, but in this early period more especially committed to him) τὰςκλεῖδαςτῆςβασιλείαςτῶνοὐρανῶν ,— who opened the door to the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, now (as a formal and ratifying act) to the Samaritans, and in ch. 10 to the Gentiles. So far, is plain truth of Scripture history. The monstrous fiction begins, when to Peter is attributed a fixed diocese and successors, and to those successors a delegated power more like that ascribed to Simon Magus than that promised to Peter. This is the last time that John appears in the Acts. He is only once more mentioned in the N. T. (except in the Revelation), viz. as having been present in Jerusalem at Paul’ s visit, Galatians 2:9. 15. προσηύξ .] So laying on of hands is preceded by prayer, ch. 6:6; 13:3. 18. ἰδών ] Its effects were therefore visible (see above), and consequently the effect of the laying on of the Apostles’ hands was not the inward but the outward miraculous gifts of the Spirit. προσήν . αὐτ . χρήματα ] De W. excellently remarks, ‘ He regarded the capability of imparting the Holy Spirit,— rightly, as something conferred, as a derived power (see ref. Matt.), but wrongly, as one to be obtained by an external method, without an inward disposition: and, since in external commerce every thing may be had for gold, he wanted to buy it. This is the essence of the sin of Simony, which is intimately connected with unbelief in the power and signification of the Spirit, and with materialism.’ Clearly, from the narrative, Simon himself did not receive the Spirit by the laying on of hands. His nefarious attempt to treat with the Apostles was before he himself had been presented to them for this purpose. 20. The solemn denunciation of Peter, like the declaration of Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:13, has reference to the perishableness of all worldly good, and of those with it, whose chief end is the use of it (see Colossians 2:22), ‘ Thy gold and thou are equally on the way to corruption:’ thy gold, as its nature is: thou with it, as having no higher life than thy natural corrupt one: as being bound in the σύνδεσμοςτῆςἀδικίας . The expression of Peter, 1 Peter 1:7, χρυσίουτοῦἀπολλυμένου , is remarkably parallel with this (see too 1 Peter 1:18). ἐνόμισας ] aor. thou thoughtest: not ‘ thou hast thought,’ as E. V. The historic force of the tense is to be kept here: the Apostle uses it as looking forward to the day of ἀπώλεια , ‘ Let thy lot be ἀπ ., and that because thou thoughtest,’ &c. κτᾶσθ .] to acquire, not pass. as E. V., ungrammatically. 21. μερὶς … κλῆρος ] synonymous: the first lit., the second fig. (see ref.), but not without reference perhaps to the κληρονομία of the kingdom of God, the κλ . ἄφθαρτος , 1 Peter 1:4. τῷλόγ . τούτ .] The matter now spoken of,— ‘ to which I now allude.’ εὐθεῖα ] Hardly, ‘ right before God,’ E. V., but thy heart is not right,— sincere, single-meaning,— in God’ s presence, ‘ as God sees it:’ i.e., ‘ seen as it really is, by God, is not in earnest in its seeking after the gospel, but seeks it with unworthy ends in view.’ 22. εἰἄρα , if perhaps (not ‘ ut sane,’ which it will not bear: see on its meaning, “ if, which none can say,” Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440): and the uncertainty refers, not to the doubt whether Simon would repent or not : but as to whether or not his sin may not have come under the awful category of those unpardonable ones specified by our Lord, Matthew 12:31, to which words the form ἀφεθήσεται seems to have a tacit reference. Peter does not pronounce his sin to have been such, but throws in this doubt, to increase the motive to repent, and the earnestness of his repentance. This verse is important, taken in connexion with John 20:23, as shewing how completely the Apostles themselves referred the forgiveness of sins to, and left it in, the sovereign power of God, and not to their own delegated power of absolution. 23. γάρ gives the reasons, not why it would be difficult for forgiveness to take place, but why he had such extreme need of repentance and prayer, as being tied and bound by the chain of sin. ὄνταεἰς ] a pregnant construction— having fallen into and abiding in: not to be taken (as Kuin., &c.) as ‘ amounting to,’ — ‘ totus quantus es, nil nisi venenum amarum es et colligatio iniquitatis,’ which is very harsh, and improbable: nor (as Stier) is it prophetic, as to what would be the consequence, if he did not repent: ‘ I see that thou wilt come to,’ &c. Least of all must it be said, here or any where else, that εἰς is put for ἐν . I cannot too often remind my younger readers, that it is a fundamental maxim of all sound scholarship, that no word is ever put for another. χολ . πικρ .] see reff. ‘ the gall which is the very seat and essence of bitterness’ — a very gall of bitterness. The poison of serpents was considered to be seated in their gall: so χολὴἀσπίδοςἐνγαστρὶαὐτοῦ , Job 20:14. See Plin. H. N. xi. 37. 24. Simon speaks here much as Pharaoh, Exod. (8:28; 9:28) 10:17,— who yet hardened his heart afterwards (Stier). It is observable also that he wishes merely for the averting of the punishment. The words ὅπωςμηδὲνἐπέλθῃἐπ ʼ ἐμὲὧνεἰρήκατε seem remarkably to set forth the mere terror of the carnal man, without any idea of the ἐμέ becoming another man in thoughts and aims. 25-40. Conversion of the Æ thiopian eunuch by Philip’ s teaching. 25. μὲνοὖν indicates (see note on ver. 4) that the paragraph should begin here, not at ver. 26 as commonly. κώμαςτ . Σαμ .] It is interesting to recall Luke 9:52, where on their entering into a κώμηνΣαμ , the same John wishes to call down fire from heaven, καὶἀναλῶσαιαὐτούς . On constr. (εὐαγγ . w. accus.), see reff. The gradual sowing of the seed further and further from Jerusalem is advancing: not only is this eunuch to carry it to a far distant land, but Philip is sent to a desert road, away from town or village, to seek him. The imperfects (altered in the rec., see var. readd., into aorists) are significant. They were on their way back to Jerusalem, and were evangelizing the Samaritan villages, when the angel spake (aor.) to Philip. 26. An angel, visibly appearing: not in a dream,— which is not, as some suppose, implied by ἀνάστηθι , see reff. The ministration of angels introduces and brings about several occurrences in the beginning of the church, see ch. 5:19; 10:3; 12:7 (27:23). The appearance seems to have taken place in Samaria, after the departure of Peter and John; see above, on the imperfects. He would reach the place appointed by a shorter way than through Jerusalem: he would probably follow the high road (of the itineraries, see map in Conybeare and Howson’ s St. Paul) as far as Gophna, and thence strike across the country south-westward, to join, at some point to which he would be guided, the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. Γάζαν ] The southernmost city of Canaan (Genesis 10:19), in the portion of Judah (Joshua 15:47), but soon taken from that tribe by the Philistines, and always spoken of as a Philistian city (1 Samuel 6:17; 2 Kings 18:8; Amos 1:6-8; Zephaniah 2:4; Zechariah 9:5). In Jeremiah 47:1, we have ‘ before Pharaoh (Necho?) smote Gaza,’ — implying that at one time it was under Egypt. Alexander the Great took it after a siege of five months (Q. Curt. iv. 6, 7. Arrian, Alex. ii. 26), but did not destroy it (as Strabo relates in error, xvi. 759, see below in this note), for we find it a strong place in the subsequent Syrian wars, see 1 Macc (9:52) 11:61, f.; 13:43 (14:7; 15:28; 16:1); Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 5; 13. 3 al. It was destroyed by the Jewish king Alexander Jannæ us (96 a.c.), Jos. Antt. xiii. 13. 3, after a siege of a year, but rebuilt again by the Roman general Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3),— afterwards given by Augustus to Herod (xv. 7. 3), and finally after his death attached to the province of Syria (xvii. 11. 4). Mela, in the time of Claudius, calls it ‘ ingens urbs et munita admodum,’ with which agree Eusebius and Jerome. At present it is a large town by the same name, with from 15,000 to 16,000 inhabitants (Robinson, ii. 640). The above chronological notices shew that it cannot have been ἔρημος at this time: see below. αὕτηἐστὶνἔρημος ] The words, I believe, of the angel, not of Luke. There appear to have been two (if not more) ways from Jerusalem to Gaza. The Antonine itinerary passes from Jerus. to Eleutheropolis— Askalon— Gaza. The Peutinger Table, Jerus.— Ceperaria— Eleutheropolis— Askalon— Gaza. But Robinson (ii. 748. Winer, Realw.) found an ancient road leading direct from Jerusalem to Gaza, through the Wadi Musurr, and over the Beit Jiibrin, which certainly at present is ἔρημος , without towns or villages. Thus the words will refer to the way: and denote the way of which I speak to thee is desert . Besides the above objection to applying ἔρημος to Gaza, there could be no possible reason for adding such a specification here, seeing that Gaza had nothing to do with the object of the journey, and the road would be designated the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, whether the latter city was inhabited, or in ruins. Those who apply ἔρημος to Gaza, have various ways of reconciling the apparent discrepancy with history: most of them follow ’ s explanation, that the ancient city was ἔρημος , and that the Gaza of this day was another town nearer the sea. But how this helps the matter I cannot perceive, unless we are to suppose that the deserted Gaza and the inhabited Gaza were so far apart that it was necessary to specify which was meant, because there would be from Jerusalem two different roads,— of which no trace is found, nor could it well be. Some again suppose (Hug, al.) that the Acts were written after the second Gaza was destroyed (Jos. B. J. ii.18.1), just before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Luke inserts this notice: but to what purpose? and why no more such notices? In the passage of Strabo, commonly cited to support the application of ἔρημος to Gaza, ἔνδοξόςποτεγενομένη , κατεσπασμένηδ ʼ ὑπὸἈλεξάνδρου (the Great, according to Strabo, which it was not) καὶμένουσαἔρημος , the last three words are wanting in some edd. and are supposed to have been a gloss from the Acts. Others suppose ἔρημος to signify ‘ unfortified,’ which standing alone it cannot. Besides, this notice would be wholly irrelevant;— and would probably not have been true,— see Mela above. The objection of Meyer to the interpretation given above, that if ἔρημ . referred to ἡὁδός , the article would be expressed, is not valid: the emphasis is on αὕτη ; ‘ that way, of which I speak, is desert:’ not, ‘ is the desert one:’ no reference is made to the other. 27. εὐνοῦχος ] The very general use of eunuchs in the East for filling offices of confidence, and the fact that this man was minister to a female sovereign, makes it probable that he was literally an eunuch. If not so, the word would hardly have been expressed. No difficulty arises from Deuteronomy 23:1, for no inference can be drawn from the history further than that he may have been a proselyte of the gate, in whose case the prohibition would not apply. Nay, the whole occurrence seems to have had one design, connected with this fact. The walls of partition were one after another being thrown down: the Samaritans were already in full possession of the Gospel: it was next to be shewn that none of those physical incapacities which excluded from the congregation of the Lord under the old covenant, formed any bar to Christian baptism and the inheritance among believers; and thus the way gradually paved for the great and as yet incomprehensible truth of Gal 3:28. Κανδάκης ] As Pharaoh among the Egyptians was the customary name of kings, so Candă ce of the Queens among the Æ thiopians in upper Egypt (ΑἰθίοπεςὑπὲρΑἰγύπτουοἰκοῦντες , Dio Cass. liv. 5),— in the island of Meroe, Plin. vi. 29, where he says, ‘ Ipsum oppidum Meroen ab introitu insulæ abesse lxx m. pass.… Regnare fœ minam Candacen, quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit.… Cæ terum cum potirentur rerum Æ thiopes, insula ea magnæ claritatis fuit.’ γάζης ] A Persian term. Q. Curt. iii. 13. 5, ‘ pecuniam regiam, quam gazam Persæ vocant.’ See Virg. Æ n. i.119. ὃςἐληλύθει … ] This did not only Jews and proselytes, but also those pious Gentiles who adhered to Judaism,— the proselytes of the gate, see John 12:20. Euseb. ii. 1, prope fin., speaking of this eunuch says, ὃνπρῶτονἐξἐθνῶνπρὸςτοῦΦιλίππουδι ʼ ἐπιφανείαςτὰτοῦθείουλόγουὄργιαμετασχόντα , τῶντεἀνὰτὴνοἰκουμένηνπιστῶνἀπαρχὴνγενόμενονκ .τ .λ ., taking for granted that he was a Gentile. There were (see below, ch. 11:21) cases of Gentile conversion before that of Cornelius; and the stress of the narrative in ch. 10 consists in the miscellaneous admission of all the Gentile company of Cornelius, and their official reception into the church by that Apostle to whom was especially given the power. We may remark, that if even the plain revelation by which the reception of Cornelius and his company was commanded failed finally to convince Peter, so that long after this he vacillated (Galatians 2:11, Galatians 2:12), it is no argument for the eunuch not being a Gentile, that his conversion and baptism did not remove the prejudices of the Jewish Christians. 28. ἀνεγίνωσκεν ] aloud, see ver. 30. Schö ttg. quotes from the Rabbis: ‘ Qui in itinere constitutus est, neque comitem lmbet, is student in Lege.’ He probably read in the LXX, the use of which was almost universal in Egypt. The word περιοχή below (see on ver. 32) is not decisive (Olsh.) against this (as if there were περιοχαί only in the Hebrew, not in the LXX), as it would naturally be used as well of one as the other by those cognizant of the term. Besides, must there not have been περιοχαί in the copies of the LXX read in the synagogues? 29. This is the first mention of that inner prompting of the Spirit referred to again, probably ch. 13:2, but certainly ch. 10:19; 16:6, 7. Chrysostom understands the words of the appearance of an angel, but the text hardly allows it. κολλ .] no stress— attach thyself to. 30. ἆράγε = Yea, but … ; q. d. It is well, thou art well employed: but … ? On the force of ἆρα , used “ ubi responsio expectatur negans id de quo erat interrogatum,” see Hermann on Viger, p. 821. The γε strengthens the ἆρα , implying the passing over of all other considerations, and selecting this as the most important: see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 376 f. It assumes, modestly, that he did not understand what he was reading. γινώσκ . ἃἀναγ .] So 2 Corinthians 3:2. So too Cato (Wetst.), ‘ Legere et non intelligere nec legere est.’ “ Valck. compares the celebrated paronomasia of Julian the Apostate, ἀνέγνων , ἔγνων , κατέγνων , and the courageous reply of the Christian Bishop to him ἀνέγνως , ἀλλ ʼ οὐκἔγνως · εἰγὰρἔγνως , οὐκἂνκατέγνως .” Wordsw. 31. γάρ gives the reason of the negative which is understood. The answer expresses at once humility and docility. 32. Perhaps it is best to render, The contents of the (passage of) Scripture which he was reading were as follows: see περιέχει , 1 Peter 2:6. Cicero indeed appears to use περιοχή in the sense of a ‘ paragraph,’ or ‘ chapter;’ ad Attic. iii. 25, ‘ At ego ne Tironi quidem dictavi, qui totas περιοχάς persequi solet, sed Spintharo syllabatim.’ The citation is from the LXX-A, with only the variation of αὐτοῦ inserted after ταπεινώσει . 33. ἐντῇταπεινώσειαὐτοῦἡκρίσιςαὐτ . ἤρθη ] Heb. ‘ He was taken away by distress and judgment’ [so in the margin of E. V.]: i.e. as Lowth, ‘ by an oppressive judgment.’ γενεὰναὐτοῦ ] i.e., the age in which He shall live— ‘ the wickedness of his contemporaries.’ The fathers, and Bede (and so Wordsworth), explain ‘ His generation’ of His eternal Sonship and His miraculous Incarnation. But the Heb. does not seem to bear this out. See the meaning discussed at length, and another interpretation defended in Stier, Jesaias, &c., pp. 466-470. Cf. also Gesenius’ Thesaurus under ד ּ ו ֹ ר . 34. ἀποκριθείς ] to the passage of Scripture, considered as the question proposed: not, to the question in ver. 30. We can hardly suppose any immediate reference in ἑτέρουτινός to Christ. 36. τὶὕδωρ ] In the scholia to Jerome’ s Epitaph of Paula (not in Jerome himself) on the words, ‘ A Bethsur venit,’ we have, ‘ hæ c æ tate Hieronymi vocabatur Bethsura: vicus est in tribu Juda, obvius vigesimo lapide euntibus ab Hierosolyma Chebron. Juxta hunc fons est ad radices montis ebulliens, qui ab eadem in qua gignitur humo sorbetur. In hoc fonte putant eunuchum Candacis Reginæ baptizatum fuisse.’ Jerome’ s own words (Ep. 108 (27) ad Eustochium, 11, p. 700) are: ‘ cœ pit per viam veterem pergere quæ ducit Gazam … et tacita secum volvere, quomodo Eunuchus Æ thiops, gentium populos præ figurans, mutaverit pellem suam, et dum vetus relegit instrumentum fontem reperit Evangelii. Atque inde ad dexteram transit. A Bethsur venit Escol’ … where no reference is made to the tradition, save what may be inferred from the mention of Bethsur. Eusebius also states it to be twenty miles south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron: and so it is set down in the Jerus. Itin. and the Peutinger Tab. (Howson’ s map.) Pocock found there a fountain built over, and a village called Betur on the left. Fabri describes the fountain as the head of a considerable brook, and found near it the ruins of a Christian church. There is no improbability in the tradition except that, even supposing a way going across from Hebron straight to Gaza to be called ἔρημος , this would not be on that portion of it, but on the high road (Winer, Realw.). τίκωλ . μ . βαπ .] There is no reason for supposing Philip to have preached to him the necessity of baptism: his own acquaintance with Jewish practices, and perhaps his knowledge of the progress of the new faith in Jerusalem, would account for the proposition. [37. The authorities against this verse are too strong to permit its insertion. It appears to have been one of those remarkable additions to the text of the Acts, common in D (which is here deficient) and its cognates: few of which, however, have found their way into the received text. This was made very early, as Irenæ us has it. The manuscripts which contain it vary exceedingly: another strong mark of spuriousness in a disputed passage. See var. readd. Wordsw. retains it, citing Bornemann as doing the same; but it is Bornemann’ s principle that all these insertions of D and its cognates formed part of the original text: so that his authority goes for nothing. Wordsw. also states that it is found in the codex amiatinus of the vulgate, which it is not, except as a correction a secunda manu.] 38. ἐκέλ .] viz. the eunuch. 39. πν . κυρ . ἥρπ . τ . Φ .] The reading, ‘ the Spirit fell on the Eunuch, and an angel of the Lord caught away Philip,’ is curious, and has probably arisen from a desire to conform the results of the eunuch’ s baptism to the usual method of the divine procedure, and the snatching away of Philip to his commission, ver. 26. But the Spirit did not fall on the Samaritans after baptism by Philip. The text clearly relates a supernatural disappearance of Philip: compare μήποτεᾖρεναὐτὸνπνεῦμακυρίου , 4 Kings 2:16; no interpretation (as Eichhorn, Kuin., Olsh., Meyer) of his being suddenly hurried away by the prompting of the Spirit, will satisfy the analogy of the above-cited passage, and of (see below) a parallel one in Luke’ s own Gospel. The ἁρπάζειν of ref. John, which Meyer cites to justify his view, tells in my mind the other way; the fear was lest the multitude should come and carry Him off to make Him a King: and in the reff. I have therefore marked the two as bearing the same meaning. οὐκεἶδεναὐτὸνοὐκέτι ] Not ‘ never saw him from that day,’ though (see below) that meaning may be indirectly included:— but as Luke 24:31, αὐτὸςἄφαντοςἐγένετοἀπ ʼ αὐτῶν , and as in the strictly parallel words of 4 Kings 2:12, οὐκεἶδεναὐτὸνἔτι ,— after the going up of Elijah. These last words in my view decide the question, that the departure of Philip was miraculous. γάρ ] refers to what follows (Φ . δὲεὑρ .). Philip was found at Azotus: if the eunuch had gone that way, he might have met with him again: but he did not, for he went from the fountain on his own way, which did not lead through Azotus. 40. εὑρ . εἰςἌζ .] A constr. præ gnans,— was borne to, and found at. The word εὑρέθη again appears to refer to 4 Kings 2:17. Azotus or Ashdod (Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 5:5 al.) was one of the five principal cities of the Philistines, never, though nominally in Judah, thoroughly subjugated by the Jews:— it was taken by Tartan the Assyrian general (Isaiah 20:1),— again by Psammetichus, Herod. ii. 157; Jeremiah 25:20,— again by Judas Maccabæ us (1 Macc. 5:68) and Jonathan (ib. 10:84), and by the latter destroyed;— rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiv. 5. 3. B. J. i. 7. 7), and belonged to the kingdom of Herod, who left it in his will to his sister Salome (Antt. xvii. 8. 1; 11. 5). At present, it is a small village, retaining the name Esdud, but no remains. (Robinson, ii. 629; iii. 1, 232. Winer, Realw.) τὰςπόλειςπάσας ] viz. Ekron, Jamnia, Joppa, Apollonia, on the direct road: or, if he deviated somewhat for the purpose, Lydda also (which seems implied ch. 9:32). καισάρειαν ] See note, ch. 10:1. Chap. 9:1-30. Conversion of Saul. 1. The narrative is taken up from ch. 8:3, but probably with some interval, sufficient perhaps to cover the events of ch. 8. ἐμπνέων ] Meyer charges the ordinary interpretation, ‘ breathing,’ i.e. as in E. V., ‘ breathing out,’ with an arbitrary neglect of the composition of the word. He would render it ‘ inhaling,’ with the partitive genitives signifying the element. But the sense would thus be flat; and there seems to be no need for pressing the sense of the compound verb. We should perhaps hardly render it breathing out,— but breathing; his ‘ spiritus,’ inhaled or exhaled, being ἀπειλὴκ . φόνος . So ἔθ ʼ αἱματόεντοςἀναπνείωνὀρυμαγδοῦ , Q. Calaber, xiv. 72, and πνέωνθυμοῦ , Aristæ n. I. ep. 5 (Kuin.). ἐμπνέων , προσελθών ] As σοὶπιστεύσας , μεταναστάς , Œ d. Col. 172, where Hermann remarks, ‘ Si recte observavi, ea est hujus constructionis ratio, ut præ cedat illud participium, quod, separatim enunciata sententia, indicativus esse verbi debet: ut hoc loco sensus sit, ὅτισοὶἐπίστευσα , μεταναστάς .’ τῷἀρχιερεῖ ] See table in Prolegg, to Acts;— it would be Theophilus,— brother and successor to Jonathan, who succeeded Caiaphas, Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 3. 2. ἐπιστολάς ] of authorization; written by the high priest (in this case, but not always, president of the Sanhedrim) in the name of πᾶντὸπρεσβυτέριον , ch. 22:5. εἰςΔαμασκόν ] Damascus is probably the oldest existing city in the world. We read of it in Abraham’ s time (Genesis 14:15; Genesis 15:2): then no more till David subdued it (2 Samuel 8:6): it became independent again under Solomon (1 Kings 11:24 ff.), and from that time was the residence of the kings of Syria (1 Kings 15:18; 1 Kings 20:1 ff.), who were long at war with Israel and Judah, and at last were permitted to prevail considerably over Israel (2 Kings 10:32; Amos 1:3, Amos 1:4) and to exact tribute from Judah (2 Kings 12:17, 2 Kings 12:18, see also 2 Kings 13:3, 2 Kings 13:22, 2 Kings 13:25). Damascus was recovered to Israel by Jeroboam II. (cir. 825 a.c. 2 Kings 14:28). Not long after we find Rezin, king of Syria, in league with Pekah, king of Israel, against Ahaz (2 Kings 15:37). Ahaz invited to his assistance Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, who took Damascus and slew Rezin, and led the people captive (2 Kings 16:5-9; Isaiah 8:4). From this time we find it subject to Assyria (Isaiah 9:11; Isaiah 10:9; Isaiah 17:1), then to Babylon (2 Kings 24:2; Jeremiah 35:11),— Persia (Arrian. Alex. ii. 11, Δαρεῖοςτῶνχρημ . τὰπολλὰ … πεπόμφειεἰςΔαμασκόν , Strabo, xvi. 756; Q. Curt. iii. 12. 27),— the Syrian Seleucidæ (1 Macc. 11:62; 12:32),— and from the time of Pompey (64 a.c.), to the Romans, and attached to the province of Syria (Jos. Antt. xiv. 4. 5; 9. 5). Many Jews were settled there, and the majority of the wives of the citizens were proselytes, Jos. B. J. ii. 20. 2. On its subjection to Aretas, see below, ver. 24, note. It was later the residence of the Ommiad Caliphs, and the metropolis of the Mahommedan world. (Conybeare and Howson, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 106.) At present it is a large city, with (Burckhardt) 250,000 inhabitants, nearly 70,000 of whom are Christians. It is situated most beautifully, in a large and well-watered plain, on the river Chrysorrhoas (Barrada), which divides into many streams (see 2 Kings 5:12), and fertilizes the plain ,— bounded on all sides by the desert. See Winer, Realw., from which the above is mainly taken: Vitringa in Jesaiam, p. 650 ff. (Notitia Damasci et Regni Damasceni), and a vivid description in C. and H., pp. 104-108. πρὸςτ . συν .] i.e. to the presidents of the synagogues, who would acknowledge the orders of the Sanhedrim, and could, under the authority of the Ethnarch, carry them out. τῆςὁδοῦ ] Not ‘ this way,’ E. V., which rendering should be kept for the places where the pronoun is expressed, as ch. 22:4,— but the way, viz. of ‘ salvation,’ ch. 16:17, or ‘ of the Lord,’ ch. 18:25. (The genitive, as τῆςγνώμηςεἶναι , see 1 Corinthians 1:12.) The expression ‘ the way’ had evidently become a well-known one among Christians (see reff.); and it only was necessary to prefix the pronoun when strangers were addressed. The special journey to Damascus presupposes the existence of Christians there, and in some numbers. This would be accounted for by the return of many who may have been converted at the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, and perhaps also by some of the fugitives from the persecution having settled there. This latter is rendered probable by Ananias’ s ἤκουσαἀπὸπολλῶνπερὶτοῦἀνδρὸςτούτου , ver. 13. 3. The journey from Jerusalem was probably made on the Roman road, i.e. that of the Itineraries, by Neapolis (Sichem) and Scythopolis, crossing the Jordan S. of the lake Tiberias,— Gadara, and so to Damascus. Or he might have joined,— either the Petra road, by Jericho and Heshbon, and so by Botsrah to D.,— or the Egyptian caravan-track, which passes to the north of the lake of Tiberias, and near Cæ sarea Philippi. In either case the journey would occupy from five to six days, the distance being 130 to 150 miles. περιήστρ . κ .τ .λ .] It was (ch. 22:6) περὶμεσημβρίαν ,— and from ch. 26:13, the light was ὑπὲρτὴνλαμπρότητατοῦἡλίου . These details at once cut away all ground from the absurd rationalistic attempt to explain away the appearance as having been lightning. Unquestionably, the inference is, that it was a bright noon, and the full splendour of the oriental sun was shining. His companions saw the light, and were also cast to the ground, ch. 26:13, 14; 22:9, see below on ver. 7. 4. λεγουσαναὐτ .] τῇἙβραΐδιδιαλέκτῳ , ch. 26:14. And it is a remarkable undesigned coincidence, that the form Σαούλ should have been preserved in this account, and rendered in Greek in the translation of Paul’ s speech in ch. 22. In ch. 26, where he was speaking in Griek before Festus, he inserts the words τῇἙβρ . διαλ ., to account for the use of the form Σαούλ : or perhaps he spoke the solemn words, ineffaceable from his memory, as they were uttered, in Hebrew, for King Agrippa. (See note on Σαούλ , ver. 17.) τίμεδιώκεις ;] A remarkable illustration of Mat 25:45. The με is not emphatic (agst Wordsw.); but the very lack of emphasis, assuming the awful fact, gives more solemnity to the question. 5. ὁδέ ] That Saul saw, as well as heard, Him who spoke with him, is certain from Ananias’ s speech, ver. 17, and ch. 22:14,— that of Barnabas, ver. 27,— from ch. 26:16 , and from the references by Paul himself to his having seen the Lord, 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8. These last I unhesitatingly refer to this occasion, and not to any subsequent one, when he saw the Lord ἐνἐκστάσει , ch. 22:17. Such appearances could hardly form the subject of autoptic testimony which should rank with that of the other apostles: this, on the contrary, was no ἔκστασις , but the real bodily appearance of the risen Jesus: so that it might be adduced as the ground of testimony to His Resurrection. On the words excluded from our text, as having been interpolated from ch. 26:14, and 22:10, see note at 26:14. It is natural that the account of the historian should be less precise than that of the person concerned, relating his own history. In ch. 26:15-18, very much more is related to have been said by the Lord: but perhaps he there, as he omits the subsequent particulars, includes the revelations made to him during the three days, and in the message of Ananias. 7. In ch. 22:9, οἱδὲσὺνἐμοὶὄντεςτὸμὲνφῶςἐθεάσαντο [κ . ἔμφοβοιἐγένοντο ], τὴνδὲφωνὴνοὐκἤκουσαντοῦλαλοῦντόςμοι . Two accounts seemingly (and certainly, in the letter) discrepant; but exceedingly instructive when their spirit is compared,— the fact being this: that the companions of Saul saw and were struck to the ground by the light, but saw οὐδένα , no person:— that they stood (or ‘ were fixed:’ but I should acknowledge the discrepancy here, and recognize the more accurate detail of ch. 26:14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hearing τῆςφωνῆς , the sound of the voice, but not τὴνφωνὴντοῦλαλοῦντόςμοι , the words spoken and their meaning. Compare John 12:29, note. (Only no stress must be laid on the difference between the gen. and acc. government of φωνή , nor indeed on the mere verbal difference of the two expressions;— but their spirit considered, in the possible reference which they might have to one and the same fact.) Two classes of readers only will stumble at this difference of the forms of narration; those who from enmity to the faith are striving to create or magnify discrepancies,— and those who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspiration, are effectually doing the work of the former. The devout and intelligent student of Scripture will see in such examples a convincing proof of the simple truth of the narrative,— the absence of all endeavour to pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise them into conformity,— the bonâ fide work of holy truthful men, bearing each his testimony to things seen and heard under the guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but of that Spirit of whom it is said, οὗτὸπνεῦμακυρίου , ἐλευθερία . I should not too hastily determine that this account has not come from Saul himself, on account of the above differences: they are no more than might arise in narrations at different times by the same person. εἱστήκεισαν ] It will be well to warn younger readers against an error often found in English Commentators (e.g. Dr. Burton here),— that ἕστηκα is past, and εἱστήκειν pluperfect in signification,— ἕστηκα , ‘ I have been standing,’ and εἱστήκεισαν , ‘ had been standing.’ This error arises from forgetting the peculiar character of the verb ἵστημι with regard to transitive and intransitive meanings. ἕστηκα is strictly present,— εἱστήκειν imperfect: as much so as sto and stabam. See Matthiæ , § 206. And this accuracy is important here: they had not ‘ been standing,’ but had fallen. See ch. 26:14, πάντωντεκαταπεσόντωνἡμῶνεἰςτὴνγῆν . Wordsw.’ s explanation, that εἱστήκεισαν refers to the standing still of the cavalcade, not to the standing of Saul’ s companions, is untenable: for 1) the ἐνεοί , which qualifies the εἱστήκεισαν , forbids it: and 2) his justifying instances are all aorists, Luke 7:14; Luke 8:44; ch. 8:38, not perfect, which surely will not bear this sense of mere arrestation in a course. 8. On his eyes being opened (it would seem that he had closed them on the first disappearance of the vision), he saw no one. He explains it, ch. 22:11, ὡςδὲοὐκἐνέβλεπονἀπὸτῆςδόξηςτοῦφωτὸςἐκείνου . He had seen, what those with him had not seen, the glorious Person of the Lord Jesus. See below on ver. 18. 9. Obs. μὴβλέπων , his personal subjective state: οὐκἔφ ., the historical fact. οὐκἔφ . οὐδὲἔπ .] There is no occasion to soften these words: the effect produced on him by the οὐράνιοςὀπτασία (ch. 26:19), aided by his own deeply penitent and remorseful state of mind, rendered him indifferent to all sustenance whatever. 10. Paul adds, ch. 22:12, with particularity, as defending himself before the Jews, that Ananias was ἀνὴρεὐλαβὴςκατὰτὸννόμονμαρτυρούμενοςὑπὸπάντωντῶνκατοικούντωνἸουδαίων : saying nothing of the command received by him, nor that he was a disciple. In ch. 26, speaking before the Roman governor, he does not mention him. Mr. Howson (edn. 2, vol. i. p. 114) remarks on the close analogy between the divine procedure by visions here, and in ch. 10. Here, Ananias is prepared for his work, and Saul for the reception of him as a messenger, each by a vision: and similarly Peter and Cornelius in ch. 10. I may add, that in ch. 8, where the preparation of heart was already found in the eunuch, Philip only was supernaturally prepared for the interview. 11. “ We are allowed to bear in mind that the thoroughfares of Eastern cities do not change, and to believe that the ‘ straight street,’ which still extends through Damascus in long perspective from the eastern gate, is the street where Ananias spoke to Saul.” (C. and H., p. 115.) οἰκίᾳἸούδα ] The houses of Ananias and Judas are still shewn to travellers. Doubtless they (or at least the former) would long be remembered and pointed out by Christians; but, in the long degradation of Christianity in the East, most such identities must have been lost; and imposture is so easy, that it is hardly possible to cherish the thought that the spots now pointed out can be the true ones. And so of all cases, where we have not unalterable or unaltered data to go on. Still, true as this is, we have sometimes proofs and illustrations unexpectedly appearing, as research goes on, which identify as authentic, sites long pointed out by tradition. So that our way seems to be, to seek for all such elucidations, and meantime to suspend our judgment: but never to lose sight of, nor to treat contemptuously a priori, a local belief. Ταρσέα ] The first place where he is so specified. Tarsus was the capital of the province of Cilicia, a large and populous city (τῆςΚιλ . πόλινμεγάληνκ . εὐδαίμονα , Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23) in a fruitful plain on the river Cydnus, which flowed through the midst of it (‘ Cydnos, Tarsum liberam urbem procul a mari secans.’ Plin. v. 27. Strabo, xiv. 673. Q. Curt. iii. 5. 1), with a swift stream of remarkably cold water. Strabo speaks most highly of its eminence in schools of philosophy: τοσαύτητοῖςἐνθάδεἀνθρώποιςσπουδὴπρόςτεφιλοσοφίανκαὶτὴνἄλληνἐγκύκλιονἅπασανπαιδείανγέγονεν , ὥσθ ʼ ὑπερβέβληνταικαὶἈθήναςκαὶἈλεξάνδρειανκαὶεἴτιναἄλλοντόπονδυνατὸνεἰπεῖν , ἐνᾧσχολαὶκαὶδιατριβαὶτῶνφιλοσόφωνκαὶτῶνλόγωνγεγόνασι . διαφέρειδὲτοσοῦτον , ὅτιἐνταῦθαμὲνοἱφιλομαθοῦντεςἐπιχώριοιπάντεςεἰσί , xiv. 674. He enumerates many learned men who had sprung from it. It was (see Plin. above) an “ urbs libera,” i.e. one which, though under Rome, lived under its own laws and chose its own magistrates. This ‘ libertas’ was granted to it by Antony (Appian. Civ. v. 7): and much later we find it a Roman colony. As a free city, it had neither the ‘ jus coloniarum,’ nor the ‘ jus civitatis:’ see ch. 21:39, also 22:28, and note. It is now a town with about 20,000 inhabitants, and is described as being a den of poverty, filth, and ruins. There are many remains of the old town (Winer, Realw.). 12. προσεύχεται ] This word would set before Ananias more powerfully than any other, the state of Saul. ἄνδραἈν . ὀν .] A man, whose name in the same vision he knew to be Ananias. The sight of the man and the knowledge of his name were both granted him in his vision. 13. τοῖςἁγίοιςσου ] This is the first time that this afterwards well-known appellation occurs as applied to the believers in Christ. 14. It could hardly fail to have been notified to the Christians at Damascus by their brethren at Jerusalem, that Saul was on his way to persecute them. 15. σκ . ἐκλογῆς ] A genit. of quality: as we say, ‘ the man of his choice.’ See Winer, edn. 6, § 34. 3, b. Paul often uses this word σκεῦος in a similar meaning, see reff., especially Rom_9, &c., where it is in illustrating God’ s sovereign power in election. βαστάσαι , perhaps in reference to the metaphor in σκεῦος . ἐθνῶν ] This would hardly be understood at the time: it was afterwards on a remarkable occasion repeated to Paul by the Lord in a vision (see ch. 22:21), and was regarded by him as the specific command which gave the direction to his ministry, see Galatians 2:7, Galatians 2:8. βασιλ .] Agrippa, and probably Nero. 16. ὑποδείξω ] The fulfilment of this is testified by Paul himself, ch. 20:23, 25: see also 21:11. 17. Σαούλ ] The Hebrew form of Saul’ s name is only found here, and in the report of our Lord’ s previous address to him. κ . πλησθῇςπν . ἁγ .] I can hardly think, with De W. and Meyer, that these words imply that the Lord had said to Ananias more than is above related: I would rather view them as a natural inference from what was said in ver. 15. In ch. 22:14, where the command to Ananias is omitted, his speech contains much of the reason given in the command here. It is remarkable again how Paul, speaking there to an infuriated Jewish mob, gives the words spoken just that form which would best gain him a favourable hearing with them— e.g. ὁθεὸςτῶνπατέρωνἡμῶν ,— ἰδεῖντὸνδίκαιον ,— πάνταςἀνθρώπους , avoiding as yet the hateful word ἔθνη . He there too gives ἀναστὰςβάπτισαικαὶἀπόλουσαιτὰςἁμαρτίαςσου , ἐπικαλεσάμενοςτὸὄνομααὐτοῦ as part of the exhortation of Ananias. 18. ὡσεὶλεπίδες ] The recovery of sight is plainly related as miraculous, the consequence of the divinely appointed laying on of the hands of Ananias. And this scaly substance which fell from his eyes was thrown off in the process of the instantaneous healing. ἐβαπτίσθη ] It has been well remarked (Olsh.) that great honour was here placed upon the sacrament of baptism, inasmuch as not even Saul, who had seen the Lord in special revelation and was an elect vessel, was permitted to dispense with this, the Lord’ s appointed way of admission into His Church. 19. ἐνίσχ .] intrans. see reff. ἡμ . τινάς ] A few days; of quiet, and becoming acquainted with those as brethren, whom he came to persecute as infidels: but not to learn from them the gospel (οὐδὲγὰρἐγὼπαρὰἀνθρώπουπαρέλαβοναὐτό , οὔτεἐδιδάχθην , Galatians 1:12), nor was the time longer than to admit of εὐθέως being used, ver. 20,— and indeed the same εὐθέως of the whole space (including his preaching in our vv. 20, 21) preceding the journey to Arabia, in Galatians 1:16. Pearson places that journey before our ἐγένετοδέ ,— which however is manifestly against the sense of the text:— Michaelis and Heinrichs, between vv. 19 and 20,— to which there is the same objection: Kuinoel and Olsh., after ver. 25,— which the εὐθέως of Galatians 1:16 will not allow: Neander and Meyer, in the ἡμέραιἱκαναί of ver. 23, which time however in our text is certainly allotted to the progress of his preaching in Damascus, and the increase of the hostility of the Jews in consequence. See below. 20. Ἰησοῦν ] The alteration to χριστόν has probably, as Meyer suggests, been made from doctrinal considerations, to fix on ὁυἱὸςτοῦθεοῦ the theological sense,— that Christ is the Son of God— instead of that which it now bears,— that Jesus is the Son of God, i.e. that Jesus of Nazareth as a matter of fact, is the Son of God, i.e. the Messiah expected under that appellation. Be this as it may, the following τὸὄνοματοῦτο (ver. 21) is decisive for the reading Ἰησοῦν , and οὗτόςἐστινὁχριστός ver. 22 still more so. 21. πορθήσας ] ‘ Militari verbo usus est,’ Erasm. So Æ sch. Choeph. 680, οΐ ʼ γώ , κατ ʼ ἄκραςἐνθάδ ʼ ὡςπορθούμεθα . See also Sept. c. Theb. 176 (194 Dind.). ἐληλύθει ] had come here, implying the abandonment of the purpose. 22. I regard the μᾶλλονἐνεδυναμοῦτο , as the only words beneath which can lie concealed the journey to Arabia. Paul mentions this journey (Galatians 1:17) with no obscure hint that to it was to be assigned the reception by him, in full measure, of the Gospel which he preached. And such a reception would certainly give rise to the great accession of power here recorded. I am the more disposed to allot that journey this place, from the following considerations. The omission of any mention of it here can arise only from one of two causes: (1) whether Paul himself were the source of the narrative, or some other narrator,— the intentional passing over of it, as belonging more to his personal history (which it was his express purpose to relate in Gal_1) than to that of his ministry: (2) on the supposition of Paul not having been the source of the narrative,— the narrator having not been aware of it. In either case, this expression seems to me one very likely to have been used:— (1) if the omission was intentional,— to record a remarkable accession of power to Saul’ s ministry, without particularizing whence or how it came: (2) if it was unintentional,— as a simple record of that which was observed in him, but of which the source was to the narrator unknown. συνέχυννεν ] Chrysostom strikingly says, ἅτενομομαθὴςὢνἐπεστόμιζεναὐτοὺςκαὶοὐκεἴαφθέγγεσθαι · ἐνόμισανἀπηλλάχθαιτῆςἐντοῖςτοιούτοιςδιαλέξεωςἀπαλλαγέντεςΣτεφάνου , καὶΣτεφάνουσφοδρότερονεὗρονἕτερον . (Cramer’ s Catena.) 23. ἡμέραιἱκαναί ] In Damascus, see above on ver. 19. The whole time, from his conversion to his journey to Jerusalem, was three years, Galatians 1:18. ἀνελεῖναὐτ .] ἐπὶτὸνἰσχυρὸνσυλλογισμὸνἔρχονταιπάλινοἱἸουδαῖοι . ουκετιγὰρσυκοφάνταςκ . κατηγόρουςκ . ψευδομάρτυραςἐπιζητοῦσιν , Chrys. Hom. xx. 24. In 2 Corinthians 11:32, Paul writes, ἐνΔαμασκῷὁἐθνάρχηςἈρέτατοῦβασιλέωςἐφρούρειτὴνπόλινΔαμασκηνῶν , πιάσαιμε [θέλων ]. A somewhat difficult chronological question arises respecting the subordination of Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to the province of Syria: and we have coins of Damascus of both these emperors, and again of Nero and his successors. But we have none of Caligula and Claudius; and the following circumstances seem to point to a change in the rulership of Damascus at the death of Tiberius. There had been for some time war between Aretas, king of Arabia Nabatæ a (whose capital was Petra), and Herod Antipas, on account of the divorce by Herod of Aretas’ daughter at the instance of Herodias, and on account of some disputes about their frontiers. A battle was fought, and Herod’ s army entirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). On this Antipas, who was a favourite with Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vitellius, the governor of Syria, was commissioned to march against Aretas, and take him, dead or alive. While on his march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death of Tiberius (March 16, a.d. 37), and πόλεμονἐκφέρεινοὐκέθ ʼ ὁμοίωςδυνάμενοςδιὰτὸεἰςΓάϊονμεταπεπτωκέναιτὰπράγματα (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his march, and sent his army into their winter quarters, himself returning to Antioch: Antt. ibid. This μεταπεπτωκέναιτὰπρ . brought about a great change in the situation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas was soon (a.d. 39) banished to Lyons, and his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe (Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in habits of intimacy with the new emperor (xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that Aretas, who had been grossly injured by Antipas, should, by this change of affairs, be received into favour; and the more so, as there was an old grudge between Vitellius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt. xviii. 4. 5), ἔκρυπτενὀργήν , μέχριδὴκαὶμετῆλθε , Γαΐουτὴνἀρχὴνπαρειληφότος . Now in the year 38 Caligula made several changes in the East, granting Ituræ a to Soæ mus, Lesser Armenia and parts of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys to Rhæ metalces,— and to Polemon, the son of Polemon, his father’ s governments. These facts, coupled with that of no Damascene coins of Caligula and Claudius existing (which might be fortuitous, but acquires force when thus combined), make it probable that about this time Damascus, which belonged to the predecessors of Aretas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to Aretas by Caligula. This would at once solve the difficulty. The other suppositions,— that the Ethnarch (see on 2 Corinthians 11:32) was only visiting the city (as if he could then have guarded the city to prevent Paul’ s escape),— or that Aretas had seized Damascus on Vitellius giving up the expedition against him (as if a Roman governor or a province would, while waiting for orders from a new emperor, quietly allow one of its chief cities to taken from him), are in the highest degree improbable. The above is taken in substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, pp. 167-175. His argument from a coin βασιλέωςἈρέταφιλέλληνος does not seem conclusive, as it leaves the latter title altogether unaccounted for. It probably (C. and H. i. pp. 101 and 132) belongs to a former Aretas. 25. The reading in the text, λαβ . οἱμαθηταὶαὐτοῦ , is ambiguous, Chrys. (see in var. readd.), al. take it as if Saul had disciples of his own who did this. The only escape from this inference is by supposing an unusual government of a gen. by λαβόντες , such as we sometimes find in Homer, e.g. ἀγκὰςλαβέτηνἀλλήλων , Il. ψ . 711; Ὀδυσῆοςλάβεγούνων , Od. χ . 310: see also Il. γ . 369, θ . 371; Od. ε . 428, τ . 480. So we have κρατήσαςτῆςχειρὸςαὐτῆς , Luke 8:54. But whether this is justified in a case where the whole person is concerned, as here, may be a question. If it is, it must be because not the taking and bringing him to the spot, but the act of laying hold of him to put him into the basket, is intended. διὰτ . τείχους ] Further particularized by the addition of διὰθυρίδος , 2 Corinthians 11:33. Such windows in the walls of cities are common in the East: see Joshua 2:15, 1 Samuel 19:12: and an engraving of part of the present wall of Damascus in C. and H. i. p. 124. σπυρίδι ] σαργάνη , 2 Corinthians 11:33. See note there, and on Matthew 15:37. 26. παραγ .] Immediately: the purpose of this journey was to become acquainted with Peter, Galatians 1:18: a resolution probably taken during the conspiracy of the Jews against him at Damascus, and in furtherance of his announced mission to the Gentiles: that, by conference with the Apostles, his sphere of work might be agreed on. And this purpose his escape enabled him to effect. καί ] Not but: the δέ follows. 27. It is very probable that Barnabas and Saul may have been personally known to each other in youth. ‘ Cyprus is only a few hours’ sail from Cilicia. The schools of Tarsus may naturally have attracted one who, though a Levite, was a Hellenist: and there the friendship may have begun, which lasted through many vicissitudes, till it was rudely interrupted in the dispute at Antioch (ch. 15:39).’ (C. and H., edn. 2, i. p. 127.) τοὺςἀποστ .] Only Peter, and James the Lord’ s brother, Galatians 1:18, Galatians 1:19. Probably there were no other Apostles there at the time: if there were, it is hardly conceivable that Saul should not have seen them. On his second visit, he saw John also (Galatians 2:9). Perhaps he never saw in the flesh any other of the Apostles after his conversion. διηγήσατο ] viz. Barnabas, not Saul. 29. Ἑλληνιστάς ] See ch. 6:1 and note. This he did, partly, we may infer, to avoid the extreme and violent opposition which he would immediately encounter from the Jews themselves,— but partly also, it may well be believed, because he himself in the synagogues of the Hellenists had opposed Stephen formerly. 30. ἐπιγνόντεςδὲ … ] There was also another reason. He was praying in the temple, and saw the Lord in a vision, who commanded him to depart, for they would not receive his testimony:— and sent him from thence to the Gentiles: see ch. 22:17-21 and notes. His stay in Jerusalem at this visit was fifteen days, Galatians 1:18. εἰςΚαισάρειαν ] From the whole cast of the sentence, the κατήγαγον and ἐξαπέστειλαν , we should infer this to be Cæ sarea Stratonis [see on ch. 10:1], even if this were not determined by the word Καισάρεια used absolutely, which always applies to this city, and not to Cæ sarea Philippi (which De Dieu, Olsh., and others believe to be meant [see Matthew 16:13 and note]). From Galatians 1:21, it would appear that Saul about this time traversed Syria (on his way to Tarsus?). If so, he probably went by sea to Selencia, and thence to Antioch. The ἐξαπέστειλαν looks more like a ‘ sending off’ by sea, than a mere ‘ sending forward’ by land. εἰςΤαρσόν ] towards, ‘ for,’ Tarsus. He was not idle there, but certainly preached the Gospel, and in all probability was the founder of the churches alluded to ch. 15:23 and 41. 31. Flourishing state of the church in Palestine at this time. Commencement of new section: compare μὲνοὖν , and note, ch. 11:19. The reading ἐκκλησία can hardly (as Meyer) be an alteration to suit the idea of the unity of the church,— as in that case we should have similar alterations in ch. 15:41; 16:5, where no variations are found in the chief mss. More probably, it has been altered here to conform it to those places. This description probably embraces most of the time since the conversion of Saul. De Wette observes, that the attention of the Jews was, during much of this time, distracted from the Christians, by the attempt of Caligula to set up his image in the temple at Jerusalem, Jos. Antt. xviii. 8. 2-9. οἰκοδομουμένη ] See Matthew 16:18. It probably refers to both external and internal strength and accession of grace. Paul commonly uses it of spiritual building up: see reff. πορ . τῷφόβ .] walking in the fear: for construction see reff.:— not ‘ following after the fear’ (Winer, edn. 2, § 31. 1; not in edn. 6, see § 31. 9),— nor ‘ walking according to the fear’ as their rule (Meyer),— nor ‘ advancing in the fear’ (Beza, Wolf). κ . τ . παρακλ . τ . ἁγ . πν . ἐπληθ .] And was multiplied (reff.) by the exhortation of (i.e. inspired by) the Holy Spirit. This is the only rendering which suits the usage of the words. Those of the Vulg. ‘ consolatione replebantur,’ — of Kuin., ‘ adjumento abundabant,’ are unexampled, see reff. Neither must τῇπαρακλ . be coupled with τῷφόβῳ , as in E. V., and by Beza and Rosenmü ller, which would leave οἰκοδομ . standing by itself, and render the sentence totally unlike Luke’ s usual manner of writing. 32-35. Healing of Æ neas at Lydda by Peter. This and the following miracle form the introduction to the very important portion of Peter’ s history which follows in ch. 10,— by bringing him and his work before us again. 32. διερχόμ . δ . π .] These words are aptly introduced by the notice in ver. 31, which shews that Peter’ s journey was not an escape from persecution, but undertaken at a time of peace, and for the purpose of visiting the churches. πάντων may be neuter, ‘ all parts:’ but it is probably masc. and ἁγίων understood. Wieseler (p. 145, note) doubts whether we can say διέρχεσθαιδιὰπάντωντ . ἁγίων ,— but see reff. The καί makes the masc. more likely, as it presupposes some ἅγιοι in the mind of the writer before. As I have implied on ver. 31, this journey of Peter’ s is not necessarily consecutive on the events of vv. 1-30. But an alternative presents itself here; either it took place before the arrival of Saul in Jerusalem, or after his departure: for Peter was there during his visit (Galatians 1:18). It seems most likely that it was before his arrival. For (1) it is Luke’ s manner in this first part of the Acts, where he is carrying on several histories together, to follow the one in hand as far as some resting-point, and then go back and take up another: see ch. 8:2 thus taken up from ἀναιρέσειαὐτοῦ , ver. 1: ver. 4 going back to the διασπαρέντες :— ch. 9:1 taken up from 8:3:-11:19, from 8:4 again:— and (2) the journey of Peter to visit the churches which were now resting after the persecution would hardly be delayed so long as three whole years. So that it is most natural to place this section, viz. ch. 9:32-11:18 (for all this is continuous), before the visit of Saul to Jerusalem, and during his stay at Damascus or in Arabia. See further on 11:19. Λύδδα ] Lod, Nehemiah 7:37. A large village near Joppa (ver. 38), on the Mediterranean , just one day’ s journey from Jerusalem (Lightf., Cent. Chor. Matth. præ m. cxvi.). It afterwards became the important town of Diospolis. 33. Αἰνέαν ] Whether a believer or not, does not appear; from Peter’ s visit being to the saints, it would seem that he was: but perhaps the indefinite ἄνθρωπόντινα may imply the contrary, as also Peter’ s words, announcing a free and unexpected gift from One whom he knew not. 34. στρῶς . σεαυτ .] Not ‘ for the future:’ but ‘ immediately,’ as a proof of his soundness. 35. πάντες .… οἵτινες ] Not ‘ all, who had turned to the Lord,’ as Kuin.: this would make the mention of the fact unmeaning,— and surely more would see him than the believers merely. The similar use of οἵτινες in the ref. shews its meaning to be commensurate with the preceding πάντες , and to gather them into a class, of which that which follows is predicated. All that dwelt in L. and S. saw him;— which also (i.e. and they) turned to the Lord. A general conversion of the inhabitants to the faith followed. τὸνΣάρωνα ] Perhaps not a village, but (and the art. makes this probable) the celebrated plain of that name, extending along the coast from Cæ sarea to Joppa, see Isaiah 33:9; Isaiah 35:2; Isaiah 65:10; Son 2:1; 1 Chronicles 27:29; and Jerome on Isa_33 and 65, vol. iv., pp. 436, 780. Mariti (Travels, p. 350) mentions a village Saren between Lydda and Arsuf (see Joshua 12:18, marg. E. V.): but more recent travellers do not notice it. See Winer, Realw., where other places of the same name are mentioned. 36-43. Raising of Tabitha from the dead. 36. ἐνἸόππῃ ] Joppa was a very ancient Philistian city, on the frontier of Dan, but not belonging to that tribe, Joshua 19:46; on the coast (ch. 10:6), with a celebrated but not very secure harbour (Jos. B. J. iii. 9. 3: see 2 Chronicles 2:16; Ezra 3:7; Jonah 1:3; Jon_1 Macc. 14:5; 2 Macc. 12:3),— situated in a plain (1 Macc. 10:75-77) near Lydda (ver. 38), at the end of the mountain road connecting Jerusalem with the sea. The Maccabean generals, Jonathan and Simon, took it from the Syrians and fortified it (1 Macc. 10:74-76; 14:5, 34. Jos. Antt. xiii. 9. 2). Pompey joined it to the province of Syria (Antt. xiv. 4. 4), but Cæ sar restored it to Hyrcanus (xiv. 10. 6), and it afterwards formed part of the kingdom ot Herod (xv. 7. 3) and of Archelaus (xvii. 11. 4), after whose deposition it reverted to the province of Syria, to which it belonged at the time of our narrative. It was destroyed by C. Cestius (Jos. B. J. ii. 18.10); but rebuilt, and became a nest of Jewish pirates (Strabo, xvi. 759), in consequence of which Vespasian levelled it with the ground, and built a fort there (B. J. iii. 9. 3, 4), which soon became the nucleus of a new town. It is now called Jaffa (Ἰάφα , Anna Comnena, Alex. ii. p. 328), and has about 7000 inhabitants, half of whom are Christians. (Winer, Realw.) Ταβιθά ] ט ְ ב ִ י ת ָ א , in Aramaic, answering to צ ְ ב ִ י Heb., δορκάς (Æ l. Hist. An. xiv. 14), a gazelle. It appears also in the Rabbinical books as a female name (Lightf.): the gazelle being in the East a favourite type of beauty. See Son 2:9, Son 2:17; Son 4:5; Son 7:3. Lightf. remarks, that she was probably a Hellenist, and thus was known by both names. 37. ἐνὑπερῴῳ ] No art., as in the expressions εἰςοἶκον , ‘ on deck,’ &c., which usually occur after prepositions, cf. Middl. ch. vi. § 1. See 1 Kings 17:19. 39. πᾶσαιαἱχ .] The widows of the place, for whom she made these garments. ἐποίει ] ‘ was making,’ i.e. used to make (i.e. weave): not ‘ had made.’ 40. ἐκβαλών ] After the example of his divine Master, see ref. Mark. 43. βυρσεῖ ] From the extracts in Wetstein and Schö ttgen, it appears that the Jews regarded the occupation of a tanner as a half-unclean one. In this case it would shew, as De W. observes, that the stricter Jewish practices were already disregarded by the Apostle. It also would shew, in how little honour he and his office were held by the Jews at Cæ sarea. Chap. 10:1-48. Conversion (by special divine prearrangement) and baptism of the Gentile Cornelius and his party. We may remark, that the conversion of the Gentiles was no new idea to Jews or Christians, but that it had been universally regarded as to take place by their reception into Judaism. Of late, however, since the Ascension, we see the truth that the Gospel was to be a Gospel of the uncircumcision, beginning to be recognized by some. Stephen, carrying out the principles of his own apology, could hardly have failed to recognize it: and the Cyprian and Cyrenæ an missionaries of ch. 11:20 preached the word πρὸςτοὺςἝλληνας , certainly before the conversion of Cornelius. This state of things might have given rise to a permanent schism in the infant church. The Hellenists, and perhaps Saul, with his definite mission to the Gentiles, might have formed one party, and the Hebrews, with Peter at their head, the other. But, as Neander admirably observes (Pfl. u. Leit. p. 111), ‘ The pernicious influence with which, from the first, the self-seeking and one-sided prejudices of human nature threatened the divine work, was counteracted by the superior influence of the Holy Spirit, which did not allow the differences of men to reach such a point of antagonism, but enabled them to retain unity in variety. We recognize the preventing wisdom of God,— which, while giving scope to the free agency of man, knows how to interpose His immediate revelation just at the moment when it is requisite for the success of the divine work,— by noticing, that when the Apostles needed this wider development of their Christian knowledge for the exercise of their vocation, and when the lack of it would have been exceedingly detrimental,— at that very moment, by a remarkable coincidence of inward revelation with a chain of outward circumstances, the illumination hitherto wanting was imparted to them.’ 1. Καισαρείᾳ ] As this town bears an important part in early Christian history, it will be well to give here a full account of it. Cæ sarea (Palestinæ , ΚαισάρειατῆςΠαλαιστίνης , called παράλιος , Jos. B. J. iii. 9. 1; vii. 2. 2; Antt. xiii. 11. 2, or ἡἐπὶθαλάττῃ K., Jos. B. J. vii. 1. 3; 2. 1, or Stratonis (see below),— distinguished from Cæ sarea. Philippi, see note Matthew 16:13) is between Joppa and Dora, 68 Rom. miles from Jerusalem according to the Jerus. Itinerary, 75 according to Josephus (i.e. 600 stadia, Antt. xiii. 11. 2. B. J. i. 3. 5),— 36. miles (Abulfeda) from Ptolemais (a day’ s journey, ch. 21:8),— 30 from Joppa (Edrisi);— one of the largest towns in Palestine (Jos. B. J. iii. 9. 1), with an excellent haven (Jos. Antt. xvii. 5. 1, Σεβαστὸςλιμήν ,— ὅνκατασκευάσαςἩρώδηςπολλῶνχρημάτωνἐπὶτιμῇτῇΚαίσαροςκαλεῖΣεβαστόν . It was, even before the destruction of Jerusalem, the seat of the Roman Procurators (see ch. 23:23 ff.; 24:27; 25:1), and called by Tacitus (Hist. ii. 79) ‘ Judæ æ caput.’ It was chiefly inhabited by Gentiles (Jos. B. J. iii. 9. 1; ii. 14.4), but there were also many thousand Jewish inhabitants (Jos. B. J. ii. 18. 1; Antt. xx. 8.7; Life, 11). It was built by Herod the Great ( xiv. 8; p. 29, Bipont. Beforetime there was only a fort there, called Στράτωνοςπύργος , Jos. Antt. xv. 9. 6 al.; Strabo, xvi. 758; Plin. v.14)— fortified, provided with a haven (see ch. 9:30; 18:22; Joseph. above), and in honour of Cæ sar Augustus named Cæ sarea (at length ΚαισάρειαΣεβαστή , Jos. Antt. xvi. 5. 1). Vespasian made it a Roman colony (Plin. v. 13). Abulfeda (Syr. p. 80) speaks of it as in ruins in his time (a.d. 1300). At present there are a few ruins only, and some fishers’ huts. (From Winer, Realw.) ἑκατοντάρχης ] The subordinate officer commanding the sixth part of a cohort = half a maniple. See Dict. of Gr. and Roman Antt. σπ . τ . καλ . Ἰταλ .] A cohort (σπ .) levied in Italy, not in Syria. Mr. Humphry quotes from Gruter, Inscr. i. p. 434, ‘ Cohors militum Italicorum voluntaria, quæ est in Syria.’ Biscoe (Hist. of the Acts, pp. 217-221) maintains that this was an independent cohort, not one attached to a legion. The legio Italica (Tacit. Hist. i. 59, 64; ii. 100; iii. 22) was not raised till Nero’ s time. 2. εὐς . κ . φοβ . τ . θ .] i.e. he had abandoned polytheism, and was a worshipper of the true God: whether a proselyte of the gate, or not, seems uncertain. That he may have been such, there is nothing in the narrative to preclude: nor does Meyer’ s objection apply, that it is not probable that, among the many thousand converts, no Greek proselyte had yet been admitted by baptism into the church. Many such cases may have occurred, and some no doubt had: but the object of this providential interference seems to have been, to give solemn sanction to such reception, by the agency of him who was both the chief of the Apostles, and the strong upholder of pure Judaism. It is hardly possible that μαρτυρούμενοςὑπὸὅλουτοῦἔθνουςτῶνἸουδαίων (ver. 22) should have been said of a Gentile not in any way conformed to the Jewish faith and worship. The great point (ch. 11:3) which made the present event so important, was, that Cornelius was ἀνὴρἀκροβυστίανἔχων . Doubtless also among his company (ver. 24) there must have been many who were not proselytes. τῷλαῷ ] The Jewish inhabitants, see ch. 26:17, 23; 28:17; John 11:50; John 18:14 al. δεόμενοςτ . θεοῦδιὰπ .] From Cornelius’ s own narrative, ver. 31, as well as from the analogy of God’ s dealings, we are certainly justified in inferring, with Neander, that the subject of his prayers was that he might be guided into truth, and if so, hardly without reference to that faith which was now spreading so widely over Judæ a. This is not matter of conjecture, but is implied by Peter’ s οἴδατετὸγενόμ . δῆμακαθ ʼ ὅληςτῆςἸουδαίας . Further than this, we cannot infer with certainty; but, if the particular difficulty present in his mind be sought, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that it was connected with the apparent necessity of embracing Judaism and circumcision in order to become a believer on Christ. 3. ἐνὁράμ . φανερῶς ] not in a trance, as ver. 10, and ch. 22:17,— but with his bodily eyes: thus asserting the objective truth of the appearance. ὡσεὶπερὶὥρ . ἐν .] It here appears that C. observed the Jewish hours of prayer. 4. εἰςμνημ .] Not instar sacrificii (Psalms 141:2) as Grot.: but, as E. V., for a memorial, ‘ so as to be a memorial.’ There has been found a difficulty by some in the fact that Cornelius’ s works were received as well pleasing to God, before he had justifying faith in Christ. But it is surely easy to answer, with Calvin and Augustine, ‘ non potuisse orare Cornelium, nisi fidelis esset.’ His faith was all that he could then attain to, and brought forth its fruits abundantly in his life: one of which fruits, and the best of them, was, the earnest seeking by prayer for a better and more perfect faith. 7. ἀπῆλθεν ] So in Luke 1:38:— another token of the objective reality of the vision: εἰσελθόντα (ver. 3) and ἀπῆλθ . denoting the real acts of the angel, not the mere deemings of Cornelius. λαλῶν must be regarded as the imperfect participle, as in John 9:8. 9. By δῶμα , Jerome, Luther, Erasm., al., understand an upper chamber. But why not then ὑπερῷον , a word which Luke so frequently uses? It was the flat roof, much frequented in the East for purposes of exercise (2 Samuel 11:2; Daniel 4:29, marg.),— of sleeping in summer (1 Samuel 9:26, by inference, and as expressed in LXX),— of conversation (ib. ver. 25),— of mourning (Isaiah 15:8; Jeremiah 48:38),— of erecting booths at the feast of tabernacles (Nehemiah 8:16),— of other religious celebrations (2 Kings 23:12; Jeremiah 19:13; Zephaniah 1:5),— of publicity (2 Samuel 16:22; Matthew 10:27; Luke 12:3. Jos. B. J. ii. 21. 5),— of observation (Judges 16:27; Isaiah 22:1),— and for any process requiring fresh air and sun (Joshua 2:6). (Winer, Realw., art. Dach.) ἕκτην ] The second hour of prayer: also of the mid-day meal. The distance was thirty Roman miles, part of which they performed on the preceding evening, perhaps to Apollonia,— and the rest that morning. 10. γεύς .] see reff. ἐκείνων is more likely to have been a correction of αὐτῶν as applying better to the people of the house, than the converse. ἔκστασις ] The distinction of this appearance from the ὅραμα above (though the usage is not always strictly observed) is, that in this case that which was seen was a revelation shewn to the eye of the beholder when rapt into a supernatural state, having, as is the case in a dream, no objective reality: whereas, in the other case, the thing seen actually happened, and was beheld by the person as an ordinary spectator, in the possession of his natural senses. 11. τέσς . ἀρχ .] not, ‘ by the four corners,’ which would certainly require the article, as in reff.,— but by four rope-ends. This meaning of ἀρχή justified by Diod. Sic. i. p. 104, who, speaking of harpooning the hippopotamus, says, εἶθ ʼ ἑνὶτῶνἐμπαγέντωνἐνάπτοντεςἀρχὰςστυπίναςἀφίασιμέχριςἂνπαραλυθῇ . The ends of the ropes were attached to the sheet, and, in the vision, they only were seen. At all events, as Neander observes (Pfl. u. L. p. 126, note), these four ἀρχαί (whether ends of ropes attached to the corners, or those corners themselves) are not without meaning, directed as they are to the four parts of heaven, and intimating that men from the North, South, East, and West, now were accounted clean before God, and were called to a share in his kingdom: see Luke 13:29. The symbolism is, as usual, fancifully exaggerated by Wordsw. in his note. The four ἀρχαί are the four gospels, because the word ἀρχή occurs somewhere near the beginning of each, &c., &c. Who can wonder, after this, at the distrust of all Scripture symbolism by intelligent, but unspiritual minds? I have retained the words δεδ . καί doubtfully, because it seems difficult to account for their insertion, but they may have been omitted to assimilate our text to ch. 11:5. 12. πάντατὰτετ .] literally: not ‘ many of each kind,’ nor ‘ some of all kinds,’ in which case the art., the sense of which is carried on from τὰτετρ . to the subsequent words (see ch. 11:6), would be omitted:— in the vision it seemed to Peter to be an assemblage of all creation. τετρ ., ἑρπ ., πετ .] In ch. 11:6, from which our text has been corrected, Peter follows the more strictly Jewish division: see there. 14. Peter rightly understands the command as giving him free choice of all the creatures shewn to him. We cannot infer hence that the sheet contained unclean animals only. It was a mixture of clean and unclean,— the aggregate, therefore, being unclean. κύριε ] So Cornelius to the angel, ver. 4. It is here addressed to the unknown heavenly speaker. On the clean and unclean beasts, &c., see Lev_11. 15. These weighty words have more than one application. They reveal what was needed for the occasion, in a figure: God letting down from heaven clean and unclean alike, Jew and Gentile,— represented that He had made of one blood all nations to dwell on the face of all the earth: God having purified these, signified that the distinction was now abolished which was ‘ added because of transgressions’ (Galatians 3:19),— and all regarded in his eyes as pure for the sake of His dear Son. But the literal truth of the representation was also implied;— that the same distinctions between the animals intended for use as food were now done away, and free range allowed to men, as their lawful wants and desires invite them, over the whole creation of God: that creation itself having been purified and rendered clean for use by the satisfaction of Christ. The same truth which is asserted by the heavenly voice in Peter’ s vision, is declared Ephesians 1:10; Colossians 1:20; 1 Timothy 4:4, 1 Timothy 4:5. Only we must be careful not to confound this restitution with the ἀποκατάστασιςπάντων of ch. 3:21; see notes there. 16. ἐπὶτρίς ] denoting the certainty of the thing revealed: see Genesis 41:32. 17. Valcknaer and Stier understand ἐνἑαυτῷ , as ch. 12:11, where γενόμενος is expressed (see D in var. readd. here),— ‘ when he came to himself,’ but without γενόμενος this is very harsh, and it surely is better not to force from its obvious meaning so natural a conjunction of words as ἐνἑαυτῷδιηπόρει . 18. φωνήσαντες having called out (some one), they were enquiring. The present, ξενίζεται is a common mixed construction between the direct and the indirect interrogation. 19. See ch. 8:29, note. 20. ἀλλά ] ‘ make no question as to who or what they are,— but:’ — so also ch. 9:6. ἐγώ ] The Holy Spirit, shed down upon the Church to lead it into all the truth, had in His divine arrangements brought about, by the angel sent to Cornelius, their coming. 23. ἐξένισεν ] This was his first consorting with men uncircumcised and eating with them (ch. 11:3): though perhaps this latter is not necessarily implied. τινεςτῶνἀδ .] Six, ch. 11:12: in expectation of some weighty event to which hereafter their testimony might be required, as indeed it was, ib. 24. ἀναγκαίους ] his intimate friends. So Jos. Antt. xi. 6. 4, φίλοςἀναγκαιότατοςτῷβασιλεῖ and Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 14, φίλουςπρὸςτοῖςἀναγκαίοιςκαλουμένοιςἄλλουςκτῶνταιβοηθούς . These, like himself, must have been fearers of the true God, or at all events must have been influenced by his vision to wait for the teaching of Peter. 25. τοῦεἰσελθ .] This, the most difficult and best supported reading, is a harshness of construction hardly explicable (see Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 4) on any principles. It probably arose from taking the so frequent τοῦ with the infin. almost as one word, and equivalent to the infin. itself. τοὺςπόδας ] viz. those of Peter. Kuinoel’ s rendering ‘ in genua provolutus’ is clearly inadmissible. προσεκύν .] “ Adoravit; non addidit Lucas, ‘ eum.’ Euphmia.” (Bengel.) May not the same reason have occasioned the omission of αὐτοῦ after πόδας the one αὐτ . would almost require the other. It was natural for Cornelius to think that one so pointed out by an angel must be deserving of the highest respect; and this respect he shewed in a way which proves him not to have altogether lost the heathen training of his childhood. He must have witnessed the rise of the custom of paying divine honours first to those who were clothed with the delegated power of the senate , and then κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν to him in whom the imperial majesty centered. 26. καὶἐγὼαὐτ . ἄνθρ . εἰμι ] This was the lesson which Peter’ s vision had taught him, and he now begins to practise it:— the common honour and equality of all mankind in God’ s sight. Those who claim to have succeeded Peter, have not imitated this part of his conduct. See Revelation 19:10; Revelation 22:8, in both which cases it is ἔμπροσθ . τῶνποδῶντοῦἀγγ ., supporting the above rendering of ἐπὶτ . πόδας . (See the gloss in D, ver. 25, digest.) 27. The second εἰσῆλθεν [see ver. 25] betokens the completion of his entering in; or (as De W. and Meyer) the former, his entering the house,— this latter, the chamber. 28. ὑμεῖς , you, of all men, (best) know: being those immediately concerned in the obstruction to intercourse which the rule occasioned. ὡςἀθέμιτον … ] that it is unlawful, … or ‘ how unlawful it is:’ better the former, because in the order of the words, ἀθέμιτον has the stress on it: the other rendering would more naturally represent ὡςἔστινἀθέμιτον . In both the reff. the ambiguity is the same. There is some difficulty about this unlawfulness of consorting with those ἀλλόφυλοι who, like Cornelius, worshipped the true God. It rests upon no legal prohibition, and seems, at first sight, hardly consistent with the zeal to gain proselytes predicated of the Pharisees, Matthew 23:15,— with Jos. Antt. xx. 2. 3 (Ἰουδαῖόςτιςἔμπορος , Ἀνανίαςὄνομα , πρὸςτὰςγυναῖκαςεἰσιὼντοῦβασιλέως (Monobazus, of Adiabene) ἐδίδασκεναὐτὰςτὸνθεὸνεὐσεβεῖν ), and with the Rabbinical comment Schemoth Rabba on Exodus 12:4, “ Hoc idem est quod scriptum dicit Jes. Lev_3. Et non dicet filius advenæ qui adhæ sit Domino, dicendo: separando separavit me Dominus a populo suo.” But whatever exceptions there may have been, it was unquestionably the general practice of the Jews to separate themselves in common life from uncircumcised persons. We have Juvenal testifying to this at Rome, Sat. xiv. 103, ‘ non monstrare vias, eadem nisi sacra colenti: Quæ situm ad fontem solos deducere verpos.’ And Tacitus, Hist. v. 5, ‘ adversus omnes alios hostile odium, separati epulis, discreti cubilibus,’ &c.… κἀμοί ], not, ‘ but God hath shewed me,’ as E. V.: καί can never have this meaning, and in all cases where it is so rendered we may trace the significance of the simple copula if we examine. Here, for instance:— the two parties concerned are ὑμεῖς , κἀγώ . ‘ Ye, though ye see me here, know, how strong the prejudice is which would have kept me away: and I, though entertaining fully this prejudice myself, yet have been taught &c.’ 29. τίνιλόγῳ ] on what account: the dative of the cause: see reff.: and cf. Hes. Theog. 626: γαίηςφραδμοσύνῃσινἀνήγαγεν ,— Winer, edn. 6, § 31. 6. c, and Bernhardy, Syntax, ch. iii. 14. 30. ἀπὸτετ . ἡμ .] The rendering of Meyer and others, ‘ From the fourth day (reckoned back) down to this hour have I been fasting,’ is ungrammatical; for (1) this would require τῆσδετῆςὥρας , and (2) ἤμην cannot possibly reach to the present time, but is the historical past: I was fasting. This being so, ἀπὸτετάρτηςἡμέρας must indicate the time denoted by ἤμην — ‘ quarto abhinc die’ — four days ago; see reff. (2), which fully justify this rendering. De Wette’ s and Neander’ s rendering, ‘ For four (whole) days was I (i.e. had I been) fasting up to this hour (i.e. the hour in which he saw the vision),’ does not satisfy ταύτηςτῆςὥρας , which must in that case be ἐκείνης , if indeed such an expression could be at all used of ‘ the time when the following incident took place.’ The only legitimate meaning of ταύτ . τ . ὥρ . I take to be this hour of the day: and this meaning is further established by the omission of ὥραν after ἐνάτην . The hour alluded to is probably the sixth, the hour of the mid-day meal, which was the only one partaken by the Jews on their solemn days. (Lightf.) λαμπρᾷ ] bright. In Luke (ref.) the brightness was in the colour: here, probably, in some supernatural splendour. The garment might have been white (as in ch. 1:10), or not,— but at all events, it was radiant with brightness. 31. The two are separated here, which were placed together in ver. 4, and each has its proper verb: εἰσηκ … ἡπροσευχὴκ . αἱἐλ … ἐμνήσθ . 33. The reading ἐνώπ . σου , for ἐνώπ . τοῦθεοῦ , is remarkable, and had it more manuscript authority, would seem as if it might have been genuine. It was much more likely to have been altered into τ . θεοῦ (as making the expression more solemn), than the converse: and the sense, ‘ We are all here present before thee,’ follows better on the two preceding verses. τὰπροστ .] Not doubting that God, who had directed him to Peter, had also directed Peter what to speak to him. 34. ἀνοίξαςτὸστ .] Used (see reff.) on occasions of more than ordinary solemnity. ἐπ ʼ ἀληθείαςκατ .] ‘ For the first time I now clearly, in its fulness and at a living fact, apprehend (grasp by experience the truth of) what I read in the Scripture (Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7; Job 34:19).’ 35. ἀλλά gives the explanation,— what it is that Peter now fully apprehends: but as opposed to προσωπολήμπτης in its now apparent sense. ἐνπαντὶἔθνεικ .τ .λ .] It is very important that we should hold the right clue to guide us in understanding this saying. The question which recent events had solved in Peter’ s mind, was that of the admissibility of men of all nations into the church of Christ. In this tense only, had he received any information as to the acceptableness of men of all nations before God. He saw, that in every nation, men who seek after God, who receive His witness of Himself without which He has left no man, and humbly follow His will as far as they know it,— these have no extraneous hindrance, such as uncircumcision, placed in their way to Christ, but are capable of being admitted into God’ s church though Gentiles, and as Gentiles. That only such are spoken of, is agreeable to the nature of the case; for men who do not fear God, and work unrighteousness, are out of the question, not being likely to seek such admission. It is clearly unreasonable to suppose Peter to have meant, that each heathen’ s natural light and moral purity would render him acceptable in the sight of God:— for, if so, why should he have proceeded to preach Christ to Cornelius, or indeed any more at all? And it is equally unreasonable to find any verbal or doctrinal difficulty in ἐργ . δικαιοσύνην , or to suppose that δικ . must be taken in its forensic sense, and therefore that he alludes to the state of men after becoming believers. He speaks popularly, and certainly not without reference to the character he had heard of Cornelius, which consisted of these very two parts, that he feared God, and abounded in good works. The deeper truth, that the preparation of the heart itself in such men comes from God’ s preventing grace, is not in question here, nor touched upon. 36. τὸνλόγον ] The construction is very difficult. Several ways have been proposed of connecting and rendering this accusative. (1) Erasm., Wolf, Heinrichs, Kuin., &c., τὸνλόγον with οἴδατε , and understand τὸγεν . ῥῆμ . κ .τ .λ . as in apposition with it. “ The word which, &c., ye know, viz. the γεν . ῥ .” But this immediate connexion of λόγ . and οἴδ . is hardly consistent with the interruption of the sense by οὗτος … κύριος . (2) Meyer, and Winer, edn. 6, § 62. 3 end, adopt virtually the same construction, but understand ὑμ . οἴδ . to be a taking up of the sense which was broken by (in this case) the two parentheses εὐαγγ … χριστοῦ , and οὗτος … κύριος . This also is the rendering of E. V. But it does not sufficiently account for the two clauses parenthesized. Besides, it is an objection to both these, that the hearers did not know the λόγος — ‘ noverant auditores historiam de qua mox, non item rationes interiores, de quibus hoc versu.’ Bengel. (3) Rosenm. and others understand κατά , ‘ secundum eam doctrinam quam Deus tradi jussit Israelitis,’ or (4) take it as an accusativus pendens, ‘ ad sermonem filiis Israel missum quod attinet’ .… But an accusative is never found thus standing alone, unless there be an anacoluthon, which (3) precludes, and which would, if assumed in (4), give us a construction of unexampled harshness. (5) Grot. and Beza take τὸνλόγονὅν , for ὃνλόγον ‘ quem nuncium,’ justifying it by Matthew 21:42, and so nearly (6) Kypke, ‘ verbum quod misit … illud in omnes habet potestatem,’ a rendering altogether out of all N. T. analogy, as is also (7) that of Heinsius, who understands λόγος as personal, ‘ Verbum quod misit Deus, omnium est Dominus,’ a usage confined in the N. T. to the writings of St. John, and, even if admissible, most harsh and improbable here. (8) I agree in the main with De Wette, who joins τὸνλόγον with καταλαμβάνομαι ,— and regards ver. 36 as exegetic of ὅτι … δεκτὸςαὐτῷἐστι . Of a truth I perceive, &c.… (and recognize this as) the word which God sent to the children of Israel, preaching peace (see reff.) through Jesus Christ: (then, for the first time, ἐπ ʼ ἀληθείαςκαταλαμβανόμενος this also, on the mention of Jesus Christ, he adds οὗτόςἐστινπάντωνκύριος ,) He is Lord of all men; with a strong emphasis on πάντων . I the more incline to this, the simplest and most forcible rendering, from observing that so far from ὑμεῖςοἴδατε being (Meyer’ s objection) a harsh beginning to a new sentence, it is the very form in which Peter began his address to them ver. 28, ὑμεῖςἐπίστασθε , &c.: and, as there it answers to κἀμοί , so here also (ver. 39) to καὶἡμεῖς . διὰἸης . χρ . belongs to εὐαγγελ ., not to εἰρήνην . 37. τὸῥῆμα ] the matter: not the thing, here or any where else: but the thing said, the ‘ materies’ of the proclamation, in this case perhaps best ‘ the history.’ γενόμενον ] Not ‘ which took place,’ but, which was spoken, ‘ published,’ as E. V. See reff. This meaning, which ῥῆμα itself renders necessary, is further supported by καθ ʼ ὅληςτ . Ἰουδ ., which can only be properly said, and is used by Luke (only, see reff.) of a publication, or spreading of a rumour, not of the happening of an event or series of events relating to one person. ἀρξ . ἀπ . τ . Γαλ .] It was from Galilee first that the fame of Jesus went abroad, as Luke himself relates, Luke 4:14, Luke 4:37 (44 v. r.); 7:17; 9:6 (23:5). Galilee also was the nearest to Cæ sarea, and may have been for this reason expressly mentioned. ἀρξάμενος is an unexpected transference of the case and gender into that of the prime agent, a construction common enough in the Apocalypse (4:1 reff.), but surprising in St. Luke. μετὰτὸβάπτ .] So also Peter dates the ministry of our Lord in ch. 1:22. (See note there.) 38. Ἰησοῦντ . ἀπὸΝαζ .] The personal subject of the γενόμενονῥῆμα , q. d. ‘ Ye know the subject which was preached … viz. Jesus of Nazareth.’ ὡςἔχρ . αὐτ .] how that God anointed him … , not as Kuin. and Kypke, ‘ how that God anointed Jesus of N.,’ taking αὐτόν as redundant by a Hebraism. See a construction very similar in Luke 24:19, Luke 24:20. The fact of the anointing with the Holy Spirit, in His baptism by John, was the historical opening of the ministry of Jesus: this anointing however was not His first unction with the Spirit, but only symbolic of that which He had in His incarnation: so Cyril in Johan. lib. xi. vol. vii. p. 993, οὐδήπουπάλινἐκεῖνόφαμενὅτιτότεγέγονενἅγιοςὁκατὰσάρκαχριστός , ὅτετὸπνεῦματεθέαταικαταβαῖνονὁβαπτιστής · ἅγιοςγὰρἦνκαὶἐνἐμβρύῳκαὶμήτρᾳ … ἀλλὰδέδοταιμὲνεἰςσημεῖοντῷβαπτιστῇτὸθέαμα :— which unction abode upon Him, John 1:32, John 1:33, and is alleged here as the continuing anointing which was upon Him from God. Stier well remarks, how entirely all personal address to the hearers and all doctrinal announcements are thrown into the background in this speech, and the Person and Work and Office of Christ put forward as the sole subject of apostolic preaching. καταδυναστ .] Subdued, so that he is their δυνάστς ,— and this power used for their oppression. Here, it alludes to physical oppression by disease (see Luke 13:16) and possession: in 2 Timothy 2:26, a very similar description is given of those who are spiritually bound by the devil. ὁθεὸςἦνμετ ʼ αὐτ .] So Nicodemus had spoken, John 3:2; and probably Peter here used the words as well known and indicative of the presence of divine power and co-operation (see Judges 6:16): beginning as he does with the outer and lower circle of the things regarding Christ, as they would be matter of observation and inference to his hearers, and gradually ascending to those higher truths regarding His Person and Office, which were matter of apostolic testimony and demonstration from Scripture,— His resurrection (ver. 40), His being appointed Judge of living and dead (ver. 42), and the predestined Author of salvation to all who believe on Him (ver. 43). 39. καὶἡμεῖς ] Answering to ὑμεῖςοἴδατε , ver. 37. ‘ You know the history as matter of universal rumour: and we are witnesses of the facts.’ By this ἡμεῖς Peter at once takes away the ground from the exaggerated reverence for himself individually, shewn by Cornelius, ver. 25 (Stier): and puts himself and the rest of the Apostles in the strictly subordinate place of witnesses for Another. ὃνκαὶἀνεῖλ .] Whom also they killed. καί is not ‘ yet,’ as Kuinoel, but merely introduces, in this case passing over it without emphasis, a new fact in this history. He even omits all mention of the actors in the murder, speaking as he did to Gentiles: a striking contrast to ch. 2:23; 3:14; 4:10; 5:30,— when he was working conviction in the minds of those actors themselves. κρεμ . ἐπὶξ .] So also ch. 5:30, where see note. 41. Bengel would understand συνεφ . κ . συνεπ . of previous intercourse during His ministry, and parenthesize οὐπαντὶ … αὐτῷ ,— finding a difficulty in their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection. But this would make the significant οἵτινες .… αὐτῷ very flat and unmeaning, especially after ver. 39: whereas the fact of their having eaten and drunk with Him after His Resurrection gives most important testimony to the reality and identity of His risen Body. And there is no real difficulty in it: Luke 24:41, Luke 24:43 and John 21:12 give us instances; and, even if συνεπίομεν is to be pressed, it is no contradiction to Luke 22:18, which only refers to one particular kind of drinking. προκεχ . ὑπ . τ . θεοῦ ] Had not Peter in his mind the Lord’ s own solemn words,— οὓςδέδωκάςμοιἐκτοῦκόσμου , John 17:6? 42. τῷλαῷ ] Here as elsewhere (ver. 2; John 11:50 al. fr.), the Jewish people: that was all which, in the apostolic mind, up to this time, the command had absolutely enjoined. The further unfolding of the Gospel had all been brought about over and above this first injunction. Ch. 1:8 is no obstacle to this interpretation; for although literally fulfilled by the leadings of Providence, as related in this book, they did not so understand it when spoken. κριτ . ζ . κ . νεκρ .] So also Paul, ch. 17:31, preaching to Gentiles, brings forward the appointment of a Judge over all men as the central point of his teaching. This expression gives at once a universality to the office and mission of Christ, which prepares the way for the great truth declared in the next verse. It is impossible that the living and dead here can mean (as the Augsburg Catechism, and Olshausen) the righteous and sinners:— a canon of interpretation which should constantly be borne in mind is, that a figurative sense of words is never admissible, except when required by the context. Thus, in the passage of Joh 5:25 (where see notes), the sense of νεκροί is determined to be figurative by the addition of καὶνῦνἐστιν after ὥρα , no such addition occurring in ver. 28, where the literally dead, οἱἐντοῖςμνημείοις , are mentioned. 43. πάντεςοἱπροφ .] All the prophets, generically: not that every one positively asserted this, but that the whole bulk of prophetic testimony announced it. To press such expressions to literal exactness is mere trifling. See ch. 3:21, 24. ἄφ . ἁμ . λαβ . κ .τ .λ .] The legal sacrifices, as well as the declarations of the prophets, all pointed to the remission of sins by faith in Him. And the universality of this proclamation, πάντατὸνπιστ ., is set forth by the prophets in many places, and was recognized even by the Jews themselves, in their expositions of Scripture, though not in their practice. 44. Peter had spoken up to this point: and was probably proceeding (cf. ἐντῷἄρξασθαίμελαλεῖν , ch. 11:15) to include his present hearers and all nations in the number to whom this blessing was laid open,— or perhaps beyond this point his own mind may as yet have been not sufficiently enlightened to set forth the full liberty of the Gospel of Christ,— when the fire of the Lord fell, approving the sacrifice of the Gentiles (see Romans 15:16): conferring on them the substance before the symbol,— the baptism with the Holy Ghost before the baptism with water: and teaching us, that as the Holy Spirit dispensed once and for all with the necessity of circumcision in the flesh, so can He also, when it pleases him, with the necessity of water baptism: and warning the Christian church not to put baptism itself in the place which circumcision once held. See further in note on Peter’ s important words, ch. 11:16. The outpouring of the Spirit on the Gentiles was strictly analogous to that in the day of Pentecost; Peter himself describes it by adding (ch. 11:15), ὥσπερκαὶἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶςἐνἀρχῇ . Whether there was any visible appearance in this case, cannot be determined: perhaps from ver. 46 it would appear not. 45. We do not read that Peter himself was astonished. He had been specially prepared by the vision: they had not. The λαλεῖνγλώσσαις here is identified with the λ . ἑτέραιςγλ . of ch. 2:4, by the assertion of ch. 11:15, just cited;— and this again with the ἐλάλουνγλώσσαις of ch. 19:6:— so that the gift was one and the same throughout. On the whole subject, see note, ch. 2:4. 47. One great end of the unexpected effusion of the Holy Spirit was entirely to preclude the question which otherwise could not but have arisen, ‘ Must not these men be circumcised before baptism?’ τὸὕδωρ … τὸπνεῦμα ] The two great parts of full and complete baptism: the latter infinitely greater than, but not superseding the necessity of, the former. The article should here certainly be expressed: Can any forbid the water to these who have received the spirit? The expression κωλῦσαι , used with τὸὕδ ., is interesting, as shewing that the practice was to bring the water to the candidates, not the candidates to the water. This, which would be implied by the word under any circumstances, is rendered certain, when we remember that they were assembled in the house. 48. προσέταξεν ] As the Lord Himself when on earth did not baptize (John 4:2), so did not ordinarily the Apostles (see 1 Corinthians 1:13-17, and note). Perhaps the same reason may have operated in both cases,— lest those baptized by our Lord, or by the chief Apostles, should arrogate to themselves pre-eminence on that account. Also, which is implied in 1 Corinthians 1:17, as compared with Acts 6:2, the ministry of the Word was esteemed by them their higher and paramount duty and office, whereas the subordinate ministration of the ordinances was committed to those who διηκόνουντραπέζαις . ἐντῷὀν .] = ἐπὶτῷὀν ., ch. 2:38, where see note. Wahl compares ἀποκτείνεινἐντῇπροφάσειταύτῃ , Lysias, p. 452. Chap. 11:1-18. Peter justifies before the church in Jerusalem, his having consorted with men uncircumcised. 1. κατὰτ . Ἰουδ .] in Judæ a, or perhaps more strictly, throughout Judæ a. (See reff.) ὅτικ . τ . ἔθν .] They seem to have heard the fact, without any circumstantial detail (but see on τὸνἄγγελον below, ver. 13); and, from the charge in ver. 3,— from some reporter who gave the objectionable part of it, as is not uncommon in such cases, all prominence. 2. οἱἐκπεριτομῆς must have come into use later as designating the circumcised generally: in this case all those spoken of would belong to the circumcision. Luke uses it in the sense of the time when he wrote the account. 4. ‘ Having begun, set forth to them:’ i.e. began and set forth: not for ἤρξατοἐκτιθέναι . as Kuinoel. 5. ἦλθ . ἄχριἐμοῦ is a fresh detail. 12. οὗτοι ] They had accompanied him to Jerusalem, and were there to substantiate the facts, as far as they had witnessed them. 13. τὸνἄγγελον ] The art. almost looks as if the history of Cornelius’ s vision were known to the hearers. The difference between the vision of Cornelius and that of Peter is here again strikingly marked: while the latter is merely ‘ praying in the city of Joppa,’ no place nor circumstance being named, the former sees the angel ‘ standing in his house.’ Notice also that Peter never names Cornelius in his speech— because he, his character and person, was absorbed in the category to which he belonged,— that of men uncircumcised. 14. ἐνοῖςσωθ . κ .τ .λ .] This is implied in the angel’ s speech: especially if the prayer of Cornelius had been for such a boon, of which there can be little doubt. 15. ἐνδὲτῷἄρξασθαι … ] See note on ch. 10:44, as also for the rest of the verse. 16. ch. 1:5. This prophecy of the Lord was spoken to his assembled followers, and promised to them that baptism which was the completion and aim of the inferior baptism by water administered to them by John. Now, God had Himself, by pouring out on the Gentiles the Holy Spirit, included them in the number of these ὑμεῖς , and pronounced them to be members of the church of believers in Christ, and partakers of the Holy Ghost, the end of baptism. This (in all its blessed consequences, = the gift of μετάνοια , εἰςζωήν , see on ver. 18) was (ver. 17) the ἴσηδωρεά bestowed on them: and, this having been bestowed,— to refuse the symbolic and subordinate ordinance,— or to regard them any longer as strangers from the covenant of promise, would have been, so far as in him lay, κωλῦσαιτὸνθεόν . 17. πιστεύσασιν belongs to both αὐτοῖς and ἡμῖν ; setting forth the strict analogy between the cases, and the community of the faith to both. [δέ (omitted in some mss., the transcribers perhaps not being aware of the construction) brings out the contrast after εἰοὖν , as frequently after ἐπεί , e.g. Od. ξ . 178, τὸνἐπεὶθρέψανθεοί , ἔρνεϊἶσον … τοῦδέτιςἀθανάτωνβλάψεφρέναςἔνδονἐΐσας : Herod. iii. 68, εἰμὴαὐτὴΣμέρδιν .… γινώσκεις , σὺδὲπαρὰἈτόσσηςπύθου . See more examples in Hartung, Partikellehre, i. p. 184. τίςἤμηνδυν .] A junction of two questions: (1) Who was I that I should.… , as ref. Exod.,— and (2) Was I able to.… We have a similar instance in τίςτίἄρῃ , Mark 15:24. See Winer, edn. 6, § 66. 5. 3. 18. [ἄραγε is more than ἄρα . γε has the effect of insulating the sentence, q.d. whatever may be the consequences, or however mysterious the proceeding to us, this at least is plain, that God &c. Compare Matthew 7:20, ‘ therefore, whatever they profess, from their fruits,’ &c.: and the other reff.: and see Hartung’ s chap. on γε in his Partikellehre, vol. i. p. 344, ff.] εἰςζωήν ] to be taken with τὴνμετάνοιανἔδωκεν , not with τὴνμετάνοιαν alone, which would be more probably τὴνεἰςζωήν , hath given unto the G. also repentance,— that they may attain unto life. The involved position of the words in the present text is quite in St. Luke’ s manner. 19-30. The gospel preached also in Antioch to Gentiles. Barnabas, being thereupon sent by the Apostles from Jerusalem, fetches Saul from Tarsus to Antioch. They continue there a year, and, on occasion of a famine, carry up alms to the brethren at Jerusalem. Our present section takes up the narrative at ch. 8:2, 4. In vv. 19-21 it traverses rapidly the time occupied by ch. 9:1-30, and that (undefined) of Saul’ s stay at Tarsus, and brings it down to the famine under Claudius. 19. μὲνοὖν ] A resumption of what had been dropt before, see ch. 8:4, continued from ver. 2: not however without reference to some narrative about to follow which is brought out by a δέ , answering to the μέν ,— see ch. 8:5, also ch. 9:31, 32; 28:5, 6,— and implying, whether by way of distinction or exception, a contrast to that μέν . ἐπὶΣτ .] on account of Stephen; see reff. Wolf, Kuin., Olsh., &c. render it ‘ after St.:’ the Vulg. sub Stephano, reading ἐπὶΣτεφάνου . διῆλθον ] so ch. 8:4, 40; 9:32. Φοινίκης ] properly, the strip of coast, about 120 miles long, extending from the river Eleutherus (near Aradus), to a little south of Tyre, and belonging at this time to the province of Syria: see ch. 15:3; 21:2. Its principal cities were Tripolis, Byblos, Sidon, Tyre, and Berytos. It is a fertile territory, beginning with the uplands at the foot of Lebanon, and sloping to the sea, and held a distinguished position for commerce from the very earliest times. See Winer, Realw. Κύπρου ] Cyprus was intimately connected by commerce with Phœ nice, and contained many Jews (οὐμόνοναἱἤπειροιμεσταὶτῶνἸουδαϊκῶνἀποικιῶνεἰσιν , ἀλλὰκαὶνήσωναἱδοκιμώταται , Εὔβοια , Κύπρος , Κρήτη . Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 36, vol. ii. p. 587. See also Jos. Antt. xiii. 10. 4). See on its state at this time, note on ch. 13:7. Ἀντιοχείας ] A city in the history of Christianity only second in importance to Jerusalem. It was situated on the river Orontes, in a large, fruitful, and well-watered plain, 120 stadia from the sea and its port Seleucia. It was founded by Seleucus Nicator, who called it after his father Antiochus. It soon became a great and populous city (Ἀντ . ἡμεγάλη , Philostr. Apoll. i. 16), and was the residence of the Seleucid kings of Syria (1 Macc. 3:37; 7:2; 11:13, 44; 2 Macc. 5:21), and (as an ‘ urbs libera,’ Pliny, v. 18) of the Roman proconsuls of Syria. Josephus (B. J. iii. 2. 4) calls it μεγέθουςτεἑνεκακαὶτῆςἄλληςεὐδαιμονίαςτρίτονἀδηρίτωςἐπὶτῆνὑπὸῬωμαίοιςοἰκουμένηςἔχουσατόπον . Seleucus the founder had settled there many Jews , who had their own Ethnarch. The intimate connexion of Antioch with the history of the church will be seen as we proceed. A reference to the principal passages will here be enough: see vv. 22, 26, 27; ch. 13:1; 15:23, 35 ff.; 18:22. It became afterwards one of the five great centres of the Christian church, with Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople. Of its present state (Antakia, a town not one-third of its ancient size) a view is given in C. and H., where also, edn. 2, vol. i. pp. 149 ff., is a minute and interesting description of the city and its history, ancient and modern. See also Mr. Lewin’ s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. i. p. 108 ff. (Principally from Winer, Realw.) 20. ἐξαὐτῶν ] not, of these, last mentioned Jews: but, of the διασπαρέντες . This both the sense and the form of the sentence require. Κυρηναῖοι ] of whom Lucius mentioned ch. 13:1, as being in the church at Antioch, must have been one. Symeon called Niger, also mentioned there, may have been a Cyrenean proselyte. Ἕλληνας ] The retaining and advocacy of the reading Ἑλληνιστάς has mainly arisen from a mistaken view that the baptism of Cornelius must necessarily have preceded the conversion of all other Gentiles. But that reading gives, in this place, no assignable sense whatever: for (1) the Hellenists were long ago a recognized part of the Christian church,— (2) among these διασπαρέντες themselves in all probability there were many Hellenists,— and (3) the term Ἰουδαῖοι includes the Hellenists,— the distinctive appellation of pure Jews being not Ἰουδαῖοι , but Ἑβραῖοι , ch. 6:1. Nothing to my mind can be plainer, from what follows respecting Barnabas, than that these Ἕλληνες were Gentiles, uncircumcised; and that their conversion took place before any tidings had reached Jerusalem of the divine sanction given in the case of Cornelius. See below: and Excursus ii. at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. 21. ἦνχεὶρκυρ . μ . α .] By visible manifestations not to be doubted, the Lord shewed it to be His pleasure that they should go on with such preaching; αὐτῶν being, the preachers to the Gentiles, whose work the narrative now follows. 22. ἠκ . εἰςτὰὦτα , a Hebraism, see reff. Βαρνάβαν ] himself a Cyprian, ch. 4:36. His mission does not seem exactly to have been correspondent to that of Peter and John to Samaria (nor can he in any distinctive sense, be said to have been an Apostle, as they were: see ch. 14:4, and note): but more probably, from what follows, the intention was to ascertain the fact, and to deter these persons from the admission of the uncircumcised into the church: or, at all events, to use his discretion in a matter on which they were as yet doubtful. The choice of such a man, one by birth with the agents, and of a liberal spirit, shews sufficiently that they wished to deal, not harshly, but gently and cautiously,— whatever their reason was. 23, 24. It is on these verses principally that I depend as determining the character of the whole narrative. It certainly is implied in them that the effect produced on Barnabas was something different from what might have been expected: that to sympathize with the work was not the intent of his mission, but a result brought about in the heart of a good man, full of the Holy Ghost and of faith, by witnessing the effects of Divine grace (τ . χάρ . τὴντοῦθεοῦ , not merely, ‘ the grace of God,’ but the grace which (evidently) was that of God [which he recognized as that of God]: the expression is deliberately used). And this is further confirmed to my mind by finding that he immediately went and sought Saul. He had been Saul’ s friend at Jerusalem: he had doubtless heard of the commission which had been given to him to preach to the Gentiles: but the church was waiting the will of God, to know how this was to be accomplished. Here was an evident door open for the ministry of Saul, and, in consequence, as soon as Barnabas perceives it, he goes to fetch him to begin his work in Antioch. And it was here, more properly, and not in Cæ sarea, that the real commencement of the Gentile church took place,— although simultaneously, for the convincing of the Jewish believers at Jerusalem, and of Peter, and for the more solemn and authorized standing of the Gentile church, the important events at Cæ sarea and Joppa were brought about. Wordsw.’ s argument, that, as even Ἕλληνας may include Jews, we need not suppose this to have been a preaching to Gentiles, is best answered by the context, in which the μηδενὶεἰμὴμόνονἸουδαίοις is clearly contrasted with ἦσανδὲ .… καὶπρὸςτοὺςἝλληνας , which contrast cannot be maintained without excluding Jews from this latter term. 23. παρεκάλει ] in accordance with his name, which (ch. 4:36) was interpreted υἱὸςπαρακλήσεως . 25. This therefore took place after ch. 9:30: how long after, we have no hint in the narrative, and the question will be determined by various persons according to the requirements of their chronological system. Wieseler and Schrader make it not more than from half a year to a year: Dr. Burton, who places the conversion of Saul in a.d. 31,— nine years. Speaking à priori, it seems very improbable that any considerable portion of time should have been spent by him before the great work of his ministry began. Even supposing him during this retirement to have preached in Syria and Cilicia,— judging by the analogy of his subsequent journeys, a few months at the most would have sufficed for this. For my own view, see Prolegg. to Acts, § vi. 26. The unusual word πρώτως seems to imply priority not only in time, but also in usage: at Antioch first and principally. So we have in Aristot. Eth. Nic. viii. 5, πρώτωςκαὶκυρίως . Χριστιανούς ] This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the N. T. , only (see reff.) as spoken by, or coming from, those without the church. And of those, it cannot have arisen with the Jews, who would never have given a name derived from the Messiah to a hated and despised sect. By the Jews they were called Ναζωραῖοι , ch. 24:5, and Galilæ ans: and Julian, who wished to deprive them of a name in which they gloried (see below), and to favour the Jews, ordered that they should not be called Christiani; but Galilæ i, Greg. Orat. iv. (in Jul. i.) 86, vol. i. p. 114. That it has a Latin form is no decided proof of a Latin origin: Latin forms had become naturalized among the Greeks, and in this case there would be no Greek adjective so ready to hand as the Latin possessive, sanctioned as it was by such forms as Pompeiani, Cæ sariani, Herodiani . The name soon became matter of glorying among its bearers: ref. 1 Pet., H. E. v. 1, in the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, τοῦἡγεμόνος .… μόνοντοῦτοπυθομένουεἰκαὶαὐτὸςεἴηΧριστιανός , τοῦδὲ (Epagathus) λαμπροτάτῃφωνῇὁμολογήσαντος , … and again, πρὸςπάντατὰἐπηρωτημέναἀπεκρίνατο (Sanctus) τῇῬωμαικῇφωνῇ , Χριστιανόςεἰμι . And in the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. on Acts, p. 84),— εὐχαριστοῦμένσοι , ὅτιτὸὄνοματοῦχριστοῦσουἐπικέκληταιἐφ ʼ ἡμᾶς , καὶσοὶπροσῳκειώμεθα . Before this, while the believers had been included among Jews, no distinctive name for them was needed: but now that a body of men, compounded of Jews and Gentiles, arose, distinct in belief and habits from both, some new appellation was required. It may be observed, that the inhabitants of Antioch were famous for their propensity to jeer and call names; see instances in C. and H. i. p. 148, note 2. See several interesting particulars respecting the name collected in Wordsw.’ s note: who however maintains that it was given by the Church herself. 27. ἐντ . τ . ἡμ .] It was during this year, ver. 26. προφῆται ] Inspired teachers in the early Christian church, referred to in the Acts, and in the Epistles of Paul (see reff. and ch. 19:6; 21:9; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 13:2, 1 Corinthians 13:8; 1 Corinthians 14:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:20). They might be of either sex (ch. 21:9). The foretelling of future events was not the usual form which their inspiration took, but that of an exalted and superhuman teaching, ranked by St. Paul above ‘ speaking with tongues,’ in being the utterance of their own conscious intelligence informed by the Holy Spirit. This inspiration was however, occasionally, as here, and ch. 21:10, made the vehicle of prophecy, properly so called. 28. Ἄγαβος ] The same who prophesied Paul’ s imprisonment in Jerusalem, ch. 21:10, ff. From the form of his announcement there, we may infer the manner in which he ἐσήμανενδιὰτοῦπνεύματος here. It was τάδελὲγειτὸπν . τὸἅγιον . The fem. usage of λιμός prevailed among the Dorians (cf. Aristoph. Acharn. 708) and later Greeks: see Meyer, edn. 2, and Lobeck on Phryn. p. 188. We find it sometimes also in Ionic poets, e.g. in Hom. Hymn to Demeter, 311, λιμοῦὑπ ʼ ἀργαλέης : see other examples in Palm and Rost, sub voce. ὅληντ . οἰκουμένην ] not, ‘ all Judæ a,’ though in fact it was so: the expression is a hyperbolical one in ordinary use, and not to be pressed as strictly implying that to which its literal meaning would extend. That it occurs in a prophecy (Meyer) is no objection to this: the scope and not the wording of the prophecy is given. But see below. ἐπὶΚλαυδίου ] In the fourth year of Claudius, a.d. 44, there was a famine in Judæ a and the neighbouring countries (Jos. Antt. xx. 2. 5). And three others are mentioned during his reign: one in Greece (Eus. Chron. i. 79), and two in Rome (Dio Cassius, lx. 11. Tacitus, Ann. xii. 43), so that scarcity ἐπὶΚλαυδίου did extend through the greater part of the ‘ orbis terrarum,’ if it be thought necessary to press the words of the prophecy. The queen Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates helped the Jews with subsidies on the occasion , both of corn and money. I do not believe that the words ἐπὶΚλ . imply that the events just related were not also in the reign of Claudius: but they are inserted to particularize the famine as being that well-known one, and only imply that the author was not writing under Claudius. 29. There is no need to suppose that the prophecy of Agabus preceded by any long time the outbreak of the famine: nor would it be any derogation from its prophetic character to suppose it even coincident with its first beginnings; it was the greatness and extent of the famine which was particularly revealed, and which determined the Christians of Antioch to send the relief. Baumgarten (vol. ii. p. 5), in tracing the gradual transition of the apostolic narrative from Jewish to Gentile Christianity, calls this contribution, sent from Antioch to Jerusalem, the first stretching out of the hand by the Gentile world across the ancient gulf which separated it from Israel. τῶνδὲμαθ . κ .τ .λ . is a mixture of two constructions, οἱδὲμαθηταὶκαθὼςεὐπορεῖτότιςαὐτῶν . The church at Jerusalem was poor, probably in connexion with the community of goods, which would soon have this effect; see ch. 2:44, note. 30. πρεσβυτέρους ] These were the overseers or presidents of the congregation,— an office borrowed from the synagogues, and established by the Apostles in the churches generally, see ch. 14:23. They are in the N. T. identical with ἐπίσκοποι , see ch. 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5, Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1, 1 Peter 5:2. So Theodoret on Philippians 1:1, ἐπισκόπουςτοὺςπρεσβυτέρουςκαλεῖ · ἀμφότεραγὰρεἶχονκατ ʼ ἐκεῖνοντὸνκαιρὸντὰὀνόματα . The title ἐπίσκοπος , as applied to one person superior to the πρεσβύτεροι , and answering to our ‘ bishop,’ appears to have been unknown in the apostolic times. Respecting the chronology of this journey to Jerusalem, see note on ch. 12:25, and the table in the Prolegomena. Chap. 12:1-25. Persecution of the church at Jerusalem by Herod Agrippa. Martyrdom of James the brother of John. Imprisonment and miraculous deliverance of Peter. Death of Herod at Cæ sarea. Return of Barnabas and Saul from Jerusalem to Antioch. 1. κατ ʼ ἐκ . τ . καιρ .] Before the arrival of Barnabas and Saul in Jerusalem. The famine in Judæ a broke out under Cuspius Fadus, and continued under Tiberius Alexander, procurators of Judæ a. Now Cuspius Fadus was sent to Judæ a by Claudius on the death of Agrippa (i.e. after Aug. 6, a.d. 44). The visit of Barnabas and Saul must have taken place about the time of, or shortly after, Agrippa’ s death. Ἡρώδηςὁβασιλεύς ] Herod Agrippa I., grandson of Herod the Great,— son of Aristobulus and Berenice (Jos. Antt. xvii. 1.2; B. J. i. 28.1). Having gone to Rome, to accuse Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas), and fallen under the displeasure of Tiberius for paying open court to Caius Cæ sar (Caligula), he was imprisoned and cruelly treated; but, on the accession of Caligula, released, and at once presented with the tetrarchy of Philip (Trachonitis),— who had lately died,— and the title of king. On this, Antipas, by persuasion of his wife Herodias, went to Rome, to try to obtain the royal title also, but was followed by his enemy Agrippa, who managed to get Antipas banished to Spain, and to obtain his tetrarchy (Galilee and Peræ a) for himself. (Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2.) Finally, Claudius, in return for services rendered to him by Agrippa, at the time of Caligula’ s death, presented him with Samaria and Judæ a (about 41 a.d., Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 1), so that he now ruled (Jos. ibid.) all the kingdom of Herod the Great. His character, as given by Josephus, Antt. xix. 7. 3, is important as illustrating the present chapter: ἐπεφύκειδὲὁβασιλεὺςοὗτοςεὐεργετικὸςεἶναιἐνδωρεαῖς , καὶμεγαλοφρονῆσαιἔθνηφιλότιμος , καὶπολλοῖςἀθρόωςδαπανήμασινἀνιστὰςαὑτὸνεἰςἐπιφάνειαν , ἡδόμενοςτῷχαρίζεσθαι , καὶτῷβιοῦνἐνεὐφημίᾳχαίρων … (see ver. 3) … πραῢςδὲὁτρόποςἈγρίππᾳ , καὶπρὸςπάνταςτὸεὐεργετικὸνὅμοιον . ἡδεῖαγοῦναὐτῷδίαιτακαὶσυνεχὴςἐντοῖςἹεροσολύμοιςἦν , καὶτὰπάτριακαθαρῶςἐτήρει . διὰπάσηςγοῦναὑτὸνἦγενἁγνείας , οὐδὲἡμέρατὶςπαρώδευεναὐτῷτῆςνομίμηςχηρεύουσαθυσίας . This character will abundantly account for his persecuting the Christians, who were so odious to the Jews, and for his vain-glorious acceptance of the impious homage of the people, ver. 23. ἐπέβ . τ . χεῖρ .] A pregnant construction. In full, it would be ἐπέβ . τὰςχ . ἐπίτιναςτῶνἀπὸτ . ἐκκ ., τοῦκακῶσαιαὐτούς . Some expositors (Heinr., Kuin.), not seeing this, have endeavoured to give to ἐπέβ . τ . χ . the unexampled meaning, not justified by Deuteronomy 12:7, Deuteronomy 15:10, of ‘ took in hand,’ ‘ attempted.’ The E. V. ‘ stretched forth his hands’ is equally inadmissible. It should be, H. the K. laid his hands on certain of the church, to vex them. τῶνἀπό ] See reff., and compare ch. 6:9. 2. Ἰάκωβον ] Of him we know nothing besides what is related in the Gospels. He was the son of Zebedee, called (Matthew 4:21) together with John his brother: was one of the favoured Three admitted to the death-chamber of Jairus’ s daughter (Mark 5:37), to the mount of transfiguration (Matthew 17:1), and to the agony in the garden (Matthew 26:37). He, together with John his brother , wished to call down fire on the inhospitable Samaritans (Luke 9:54),— and prayed that his brother and himself might sit, one on the right hand and the other on the left, in the Lord’ s kingdom (Matthew 20:20-24). It was then that He foretold to them their drinking of the cup of suffering and being baptized with the baptism which He was baptized with: a prophecy which James was the first to fulfil. This is the only Apostle of whose death we have any certain record. With regard to all the rest, tradition varies, more or less, as to the place, or the manner, or the time of their deaths. Eusebius, H. E. ii. 9, relates, from the Hypotyposes of Clemens, who had received it ἐκπαραδόσεωςτῶνπρὸαὐτοῦ , that the accuser of James, struck by his confession, became a Christian, and was led away with him to martyrdom, συναπήχθησανοὖνἄμφω , φησί , καὶκατὰτὴνὁδὸνἠξίωσενἀφεθῆναιαὐτῷὑπὸτοῦἸακώβου . ὁδὲὀλίγονσκεψάμενος , εἰρήνησοι , εἶπε , καὶκατεφίλησεναὐτόν . καὶοὕτωςἀμφότεροιὁμοῦἐκαρατομήθησαν . μαχαίρῃ ] Probably according to the Roman method of beheading, which became common among the later Jews. It was a punishment accounted extremely disgraceful by the Jews: see Lightf. in loc. 3. See the character of Agrippa above. προς . συλλ .] A Hebraism: see reff. αἱἡμ . τ . ἀζ .] Wieseler (Chronol. der Apost. Zeit. pp. 215-220) regards the whole of the following narrative as having happened on one and the same day and night, viz. that of the 14th of Nisan (April 1), a.d. 44. He takes τὸπάσχα in the strict meaning, ‘ the passover,’ i.e. the eating of the passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and thinks that Herod was intending to bring Peter forth on the next morning. He finds support for this in the four quaternions of soldiers, the guard for one night (see below), and maintains that the expression τὸπάσ̇χα cannot apply to the whole festal period, which would have been τὴνἑορτήν , or ταύταςτὰςἡμέρας . But Bleek (Beiträ ge zur Ev.-kritik, p. 144) calls this view most arbitrary and even unnatural; and I own, with all respect for Wieseler’ s general acumen, I am disposed to agree with this criticism. The whole cast of the narrative,— the ἦσαναἱἡμέραι , not ἦνἡἡμέρατῶνἀζ ., Luke’ s own expression in his Gospel, 22:7,— the intimation of enduring custody in the παραδοὺς … φυλάσσειναὐτ .,— the delay implied in the βουλόμενος ,— in the imperfects ἐτηρεῖτο ,— ἦνγινομένη ,— the specification of τῇνυκτὶἐκείνῃ as presupposing (notwithstanding what wieseler says to the contrary) more nights preceding,— all this would be unaccountable in the precise historical diction of Luke, unless he had intended to convey an impression that some days elapsed. But still more decisive is his own definition of πάσχα , Luke 22:1, ἡἑορτὴτῶνἀζύμων , ἡλεγομένηπάσχα . So that μετὰτὸπάσχα may well = μετὰτὴνἑορτὴντῶνἀζύμων . The argument from the four quaternions of soldiers proves nothing: the same sixteen (see below) may have had him in permanent charge, that number being appointed as adequate to the duties required. 4. τέσσαρσιντετραδίοις ] In military arrangements, Herod seems to have retained the Roman habits, according to which the night was divided into four watches, and each committed to four soldiers (διδόασιφυλάκειαδύο · τὸδὲφυλάκειόνἐστινἐκτεσσάρωνἀνδρῶν , Polyb. vi. 33.7), to two of whom the prisoner was chained, the other two keeping watch before the doors of the prison, forming the first and second guards of ver. 10. It is plain that this number being mentioned is no sign that the custody was only for one night. μετὰτὸπάσχα ] (see above) after the days of the feast, i.e. after the 21st of Nisan. Herod, who (ver. 1, note) observed rigorously the Jewish customs, would not execute a prisoner during the feast: ‘ Non judicant die festo’ (Moed Katon v. 2, Meyer). ἀναγ . αὐτ . τῷλαῷ ] See ref.: to bring him out and sentence him in sight of the people. 5. On the duration implied by this verse, see above. 6. ἐκείνῃ ] emphatic: that very night, viz. which preceded the day of trial. The practice of attaching a prisoner to one keeper or more by a chain is alluded to by several ancient authors: e.g. Seneca, de Tranquill. 10, ‘ Eadem custodia universos circumdedit, alligatique sunt etiam qui alligaverunt, nisi tu forte leviorem in sinistra catenam putas:’ and Epist. 5: ‘ Quemadmodum eadem catena et militem et custodiam copulat.’ In the account of the imprisonment of Herod Agrippa himself by Tiberius, Jos. Antt. xviii. 6. 7, we read of the συνδεδεμένοςαὐτῷστρατιώτης . And we have an edict of Constantius, commanding, for binding prisoners, ‘ prolixiores catenas, si criminis qualitas etiam catenarum acerbitatem postulaverit, ut et cruciatio desit, et permaneat sub fida custodia.’ (Wieseler, p. 414.) See note on ch. 24:23; see also ch. 28:16, 20. ἐτήρουντὴνφυλ .] not, kept the watch (Raphel, Wolf, al.),— but guarded the prison. 7. οἰκήματι , the chamber. It is in St. Luke’ s manner to relate simultaneously the angelic appearance and the shining of a light around: cf. Luke 2:9; Luke 24:4; ch. 10:30. The light accompanied, or perhaps, as suggested here in syr-marg, shone from, the angel. 9. ἐξελθών , viz. from the οἴκημα . 10. The first and second watch or guard cannot mean the two soldiers to whom he was chained, on account of ἐξελθών above: but are probably the other two, one at the door of the chamber, the other at the outer door of the building. Then ‘ the iron gate leading into the city’ was that outside the prison buildings, forming the exit from the premises. The situation of the prison is uncertain, but seems to have been in the city. The additional clause in D (see var. readd.) is remarkable, and can hardly be other than genuine. 11. ἐνἑαυτῷγ ., as E. V. coming to himself: having recovered his self-consciousness. He was before in the half consciousness of one who is dreaming and knows that it is a dream: except that in his case the dream was the truth, and his supposition the unreality. 12. συνιδών ] Not, considerans (as Vulg., Beza, Grot.): nor, ‘ being aware of the place of meeting,’ with reference to what follows (Meyer), against which the aorist is decisive, importing some single act and not a state: but, as reff., referring to what went before (οἶδαἀληθῶςκ .τ .λ .), having become aware of it. Ἰωάννου ] It is uncertain whether this John Mark was the same as the Evangelist Mark: but they have been generally believed to be the same. For a full account of him, see Prolegomena to Mark (Vol. I. § i.). His mother Mary was not sister, but aunt of Barnabas: see Colossians 4:10, note. 15. ἄγγελόςἐστ . αὐτοῦ ] No other rendering but his angel will suit the sense: and with a few exceptions (Camero, Basnage, Hammond, and one or two more) all Commentators, ancient and modern, have recognized this meaning. Our Lord plainly asserts the doctrine of guardian angels in ref. Matt. (see note there): and from this we further learn in what sense His words were understood by the early church. From His words taken with the context we infer that each one has his guardian angel: from this passage we find not only that such was believed to be the case, but that it was supposed that such angel occasionally appeared in the semblance (seeing that he spoke with the voice) of the person himself. We do not, it is true, know who the speakers were: nor is the peculiar form in which they viewed the doctrine binding upon us: it may have been erroneous, and savouring of superstition. But of the doctrine itself this may not be said, as the Lord Himself has asserted it. See Wordsw.’ s interesting note here. For what purpose they supposed this angel to have come, does not appear in the narrative. 17. κατασείσας ] see reff. His motive was haste: he tells briefly the particulars of his deliverance, and, while it was yet night, hastily departs. Ἰακώβῳ ] James, the brother of the Lord, whom we find presiding over the church at Jerusalem, ch. 15:13; 21:18; Galatians 2:12. See Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9. He appears also to be mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:7. I believe him to have been one of those ἀδελφοὶτοῦκυρίου mentioned Matthew 13:55; John 7:5; ch. 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5, of whom I have in the note on the first of these passages maintained, that they were His real maternal brethren, sons of Joseph and Mary:— to have been an Apostle, as Paul and Barnabas, but not of the number of the twelve (see note on ch. 14:4):— and to have been therefore of course distinct from James the son of Alphæ us, enumerated among the twelve. The reasons for this belief I reserve for the Prolegomena to the Epistle of James. εἰςἕτεροντόπον ] I see in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative. Under the circumstances, the place of Peter’ s retreat would very naturally at the time be kept secret. It probably was unknown to the person from whom the narrative came, or designedly left indefinite. And so it has remained, the narrative not following Peter’ s history any longer. We find him again at Jerusalem in ch. 15. Whether he left it or not on this occasion is uncertain. It is not asserted in ἐξελθών ,— which only implies that be left the house. 18. γενομένηςἡμέρας ] Wieseler argues from this, and I think rightly, that the deliverance of Peter must have taken place in the last watch of the night (3-6 a.m. in April), for otherwise his escape would have been perceived before the break of day, viz. at the next change of the watch. τί … ἐγένετο ] So Theocr. Id. xiv. 51, ἁδίσταΓοργοῖ ‚ τίγενοίμεθα ; 19. κατ … εἰςΚαις .] These words are to be taken together, and ἐκεῖ or ἐνΚ . to be supplied with διέτριβεν . Kuin. takes εἰςΚ . as = ἐνΚ . with διέτρ ., and κατελθών alone, which is not so natural on account of the position of the words. 20. θυμομαχῶν ] It is impossible that Herod should have been at war with the Tyrians and Sidonians, belonging as they did to a Roman province, and he himself being in high favour at Rome:— nor is this implied in our text. The quarrel, however it originated, appears to have been carried out on Herod’ s part by some commercial regulation opposed to their interest, dependent as they were on supplies from his territory, ἦνθυμ . is therefore best rendered as in E. V., was highly displeased. ὁμ . παρῆς . viz. by a deputation. Blastus is a Roman name (Wetst. from an inscription), and, from Herod’ s frequent visits to Rome, it is likely that he would have Romans as his confidential servants, Blastus was his cubicularius, or præ fectus cubiculo (Suet. Deu_16): see ch. 8:27. εἰρήνην ] not (see above) peace, in its strict sense, but reconciliation. διὰτὸτρέφεσθαι ] We learn from 1 Kings 5:11 that Solomon made presents of wheat and oil to Hiram in return for the cedar and fir-trees for the Lord’ s house: and from Ezekiel 27:17, that Judah and Israel exported wheat, honey, oil, and balm (or resin) to Tyre. In Ezra 3:7 also, we find Zerubbabel giving meat, drink, and oil to them of Sidon and Tyre, to bring cedar-trees to Joppa. Mr. Humphry quotes from , ‘ Tyrii necessariam habebant vicini regis amicitiam, eo quod eorum regio valde angusta et Galilæ æ Damascique pressa finibus esset,’ An additional reason for their request at this particular time may have been, the prevalence of famine. 21. The account in Josephus is remarkably illustrative of the sacred text: τρίτονδὲἔτοςαὐτῷβασιλεύοντιτῆςὅληςἸουδαίαςπεπλήρωτο , καὶπαρῆνεἰςπόλινΚαισάρειαν … συνετέλειδὲἐνταῦθαθεωρίαςεἰςτὴνΚαίσαροςτιμήν , ὑπὲρτῆςἐκείνουσωτηρίαςἑορτήντιναταύτηνἐπιστάμενος (probably the ‘ quinquennalia,’ B. J. i. 21. 8. Wieseler, p. 133). καὶπαρ ʼ αὐτὴνἤθροιστοτῶνκατὰτὴνἐπαρχίανἐντέλεικαὶπροβεβηκότωνεἰςἀξίανπλῆθος . δευτέρᾳδὲτῶνθεωριῶνἡμέρᾳστολὴνἐνδυσάμενοςἐξἀργύρουπεποιημένηνπᾶσαν , ὡςθαυμάσιονὑφὴνεἶναι , παρῆλθενεἰςτὸθέατρονἀρχομένηςἡμέρας . ἔνθαταῖςπρώταιςτῶνἡλιακῶνἀκτίνωνἐπιβολαῖςὁἄργυροςκαταυγασθεὶςθαυμασίωςἀπέστιλβε , μαρμαίρωντιφοβερὸνκαὶτοῖςεἰςαὐτὸνἀτενίζουσιφρικῶδες . εὐθὺςδὲοἱκόλακεςτὰςοὐδὲἐκείνῳπρὸςἀγαθοῦἄλλοςἄλλοθενφωνὰςἀνεβόωνθεὸνπροσαγορεύοντες , Εὐμενήςτεεἴης , ἐπιλέγοντες , εἰκαὶμέχρινῦνὡςἄνθρωπονἐφοβήθημεν , ἀλλὰτοὐντεῦθενκρείττονάσεθνητῆςφύσεωςὁμολογοῦμεν . οὐκἐπέπληξετούτοιςὁβασιλεὺςοὐδὲτὴνκολακείανἀσεβοῦσανἀπετρίψατο . ἀνακύψαςδ ʼ οὖνμετ ʼ ὀλίγοντὸνβουβῶνατῆςἑαυτοῦκεφαλῆςὑπερκαθεζόμενονεἶδενἐπὶσχοινίουτινός · ἄγγελονδὲτοῦτονεὐθὺςἐνόησενκακῶνεἶναι , … καὶδιακάρδιονἔσχενὀδύνην . (This owl, Eusebius, H. E. ii. 10, professing to quote Josephus, makes into an angel. Having prefaced his quotation, αὐτοῖςγράμμασινὧδὲπωςτὸθαῦμαδιηγεῖται , he cites thus: … ἀνακύψαςδὲμετ ʼ ὀλίγον , τῆςἑαυτοῦκεφαλῆςὑπερκαθεζόμενονεἶδενἄγγελον . τοῦτονεὐθὺςἐνόησεκακῶνεἷναιαἴτιονκ .τ .λ . On the impossibility of acquitting the ecclesiastical historian of the charge of wilful fraud, see Heinichen’ s second Excursus in his edition of Eusebius. It may be a caution to us as to how much we may believe of his quotations of authors which do not remain to us.) ἀθρόονδὲαὐτῷτῆςκοιλίαςπροσέφυσενἄλγημαμετὰσφοδρότητοςἀρξάμενον . ἀναθεωρῶνοὖνπρὸςτοὺςφίλουςὉθεὸςὑμῖνἐγώ , φησίν , ἤδνκαταστρέφεινἐπιτάττομαιτὸνβίον , παραχρῆματῆςεἱμαρμένηςτὰςἄρτιμουκατεψευσμέναςφωνὰςἐλεγχούσης · καὶὁκληθεὶςἀθάνατοςὑφ ʼ ὑμῶνἤδηθανὼνἀπάγομαι … συνεχῶςδὲἐφ ʼ ἡμέραςπέντετῷτῆςγαστρὸςἀλγήματιδιεργασθεὶςτὸνβίονκατέστρεψεν . Antt. xix. 8. 2. The circumstance related in our text, of the answer to the Sidonian embassy, of which Josephus seems not to have been aware, having been one object of Herod on the occasion, shews an accuracy of detail which well accords with the view of the material of this part of the Acts having been collected at Cæ sarea, where the event happened (see Prolegg. to Acts, § ii. 11). 23. The fact may be correctly related by Josephus (see above): but our narrative alleges the cause of what happened to have been the displeasure of God, and the stroke to have been inflicted by His angel. Compare 2 Kings 19:35; 1 Chronicles 21:15, 1 Chronicles 21:16. But no appearance of an angel is implied: nor was I aware that such had ever been inferred; but I see in Valesius’ s note on Euseb. ii. 10, “ Quasi vero non utrumque fieri potuerit, ut et bubo supra caput Agrippæ , et ex alia parte angelus eidem appareret.” σκωληκόβρωτος ] Another additional particular: and one to be expected from a physician. In several cases of deaths by divine judgment we have accounts of this loathsome termination of the disease. So Herodotus, iv. 205, ἡΦερετίμη … ζῶσαεὐλέωνἐξέζεσε : which he alleges as an instance that excessive indulgence of revenge, such as Pheretima had shewn against the Barcæ ans, is looked on with anger by the gods. See too the very similar account of the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, 2 Macc. 9:5-9. So also Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 5, describing the disease of which Herod the Great died, mentions σῆψιςσκώληκαςἐμποιοῦσα . So also Euseb. (viii. 16) of the death of Galerius. So also Tertullian, ad Scapulam, c. 3, vol. i. p. 702, Migne, “ Claudius Lucius Herminianus in Cappadocia, cum indigne ferens uxorem suam ad hanc sectam transiisse, solusque in Præ torio suo vastatus peste vivus vermibus ebullisset, Nemo sciat, aiebat, ne gaudeant Christiani. Postea cognito errore suo, quod tormentis quosdam a proposito suo excidere fecisset, pæ ne Christianus decessit.” 24. Similarly, ch. 5:12 ff.; 6:7; 9:31, a general statement of the progress and prosperity of the church of God forms the transition from one portion of the history to another. 25. The journey (ch. 11:30) took place after the death, or about the time of the death, of Herod; see on ver. 1. The purpose of the mission would be very soon accomplished: Saul would naturally not remain longer in Jerusalem than was unavoidable, and would court no publicity: and hence there seems an additional reason for placing the visit after Herod’ s death: for, of all the persons whose execution would be pleasing to the Jews, Saul would hold the foremost place. Our verse is probably inserted as a note of passage from the last recorded fact of Barnabas and Saul (ch. 11:30), to their being found at Antioch (13:1). Ἰωάνν .] See above on ver. 12. Chap. 13:1-14:28. First missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas. Henceforward the history follows Saul (or Paul, as he is now (ver. 9) and from this time denominated), his ministry, and the events of his life, to the exclusion (with the sole exception of the council in ch. 15) of all the other Apostles. 13:1. The τινες of the rec. has been interpolated, to make it appear that the persons mentioned were not the only prophets and teachers at Antioch. The enumeration is probably inserted on account of the solemnity of the incident about to be related, that it might be known who they were, to whom the Holy Spirit entrusted so weighty a commission. That those enumerated were all then present, is implied by the τε … καί : see ch. 1:13. προφῆται ] See on ch. 11:27. διδάσκ .] Those who had the χάρισμαδιδασκαλίας , see 1 Corinthians 12:28; Ephesians 4:11. They were probably less immediately the organs of the Holy Spirit than the προφῆται , but under His continual guidance in the gradual and progressive work of teaching the Word (see Neander, Pfl. u. L. p. 58). Συμεὼνὁκαλ . Νίγερ ] Nothing is known of him. From his appellation of Niger, he may have been an African proselyte. Λούκιος ] A Lucius, probably the same person, is mentioned Romans 16:21 as a συγγενής of Paul. There is no reason to suppose him the same with Λουκᾶς (Lucanus),— but the contrary; for why should Paul in this case use two different names? See Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11; Philemon 1:24 Wetstein, believing them to be the same, quotes Herodotus, iii. 131, πρῶτοιμὲνΚροτωνιῆταιἰητροὶἐλέγοντοἀνὰτὴνἙλλάδαεἶναι , δεύτεροιδὲΚυρηναῖοι , which certainly is curious enough. Μαναήν ] The same name with Menahem (Μαναήμ or -ην LXX) the king of Israel, 2 Kings 15:14. A certain Essene, of this name, foretold to Herod the Great, when a boy going to school, that he should be king of the Jews (Jos. Antt. xv. 10. 5). And in consequence, when he came to the throne, he honoured Manaen, and πάνταςἀπ ʼ ἐκείνουτοὺςἘσσηνοὺςτιμῶνδιετέλει . It is then not improbable that this Manaen may have been a son of that one: but see below. The Herod here meant was Antipas, who with his brother Archelaus (both sons of Herod the Great by Malthace a Samaritan woman, see Matthew 14:1, note) παράτινιἰδιώτῃτροφὰςεἶχονἐπὶῬώμης , Antt. xvii. 1. 3. Both were at this time exiles, Antipas at Lyons, Archelaus at Vienne. σύντροφος ] Probably ‘ collactaneus’ (Vulg.), foster-brother; not, ‘ brought up with,’ for, if he had been brought up with Antipas, he would also have been with Archelaus: see above. In this case, his mother may have called her infant by the name of the person who had brought the Essenes into favour with Herod, and no relationship with that person need have existed. Σαῦλος ] mentioned last, perhaps because the prophets are placed first, and he was not one, but a teacher: or it may be, that he himself furnished the account. This circumstance, which has been objected to by some as invalidating the accuracy of the account, is in fact an interesting confirmation of it, as being eminently characteristic of him who spoke as in 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 12:6; Ephesians 3:8. See Baumgarten’ s striking remarks on this, vol. ii. p. 7 ff. From the arrangement of the copulæ , it would seem as if Barnabas, Symeon, and Lucius were prophets,— Manaen and Saul, teachers. 2. λειτουργούντων ] The general word for the priestly service among the Jews, to which now had succeeded that of προφῆται and διδάσκαλοι in the Christian church: ministering is therefore the only word adequate to render it, as E.V. after the Vulg. ‘ ministrantibus Domino:’ — more closely to define it is not only impracticable, but is narrowing an expression purposely left general. Chrys. explains it by κηρυττόντων ,— alii aliter: and the Romanist expositors understand the sacrifice of the mass to be meant; but in early times the word had no such reference (see reff., and Suicer sub voce). εἶπεντὸπν . τὸἅγ .] viz. by one of the prophets present, probably Symeon or Lucius: see above. The announcement being to the church, and several persons being mentioned, we can hardly, with Meyer, suppose it to have been an inner command merely to some one person, as in the case of Philip, ch. 8:29. δή gives precision and force to the command, implying that it was for a special purpose, and to be obeyed at the time: see reff. τὸἔργον ] Certainly, by ver. 4, we may infer that there had been, or was simultaneously with this command, a divine intimation made to Barnabas and Saul of the nature and direction of this work. In general, it had already been pointed out in the case of Saul, ch. 9:15; 22:21; 26:17. It consisted in preaching to the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, Ephesians 3:8. In virtue of the foundation of the Gentile churches being entrusted to them, Saul and Barnabas become after this Apostles, not vice versa; nor is there the least ground for the inference that this was a formal extension of the apostolic office, the pledge of its continuance through the episcopacy to the end of time. The apostolic office terminated with the apostolic times, and by its very nature, admitted not of continuance: the episcopal office, in its ordinary sense, sprung up after the apostolic times (see the remarkable testimonies cited by Gieseler, I. i. p. 115 f. note, from Jerome on Titus 1:5, vol. vii. p. 694 f., and Epist. lxxxii. ad Hieron. 33, vol. ii. p. 290): and the two are entirely distinct. The confusion of the two belongs to that unsafe and slippery ground in church matters, the only logical refuge from which is in the traditional system of Rome. See the curious and characteristic note in Wordsw., in which he attempts to prove the identity of the two offices: and compare with it the words of Jerome, on Titus 1:5, p. 695 f., “ Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicæ veritate presbyteris esse majores, et in commune debere ecclesiam regere.” 3. νηστ . κ . προσευξ .] not, ‘ jejunio et precibus (viz. of ver. 2) peractis,’ Kuin.: this was a new fasting and special prayer for Barnabas and Saul. Fasting and prayer have ever been connected with the solemn times of ordination by the Christian church; but the ‘ jejunia quatuor temporum,’ or ‘ ember days at the four seasons,’ for the special purpose of ordinations, were probably not introduced till the fourth or even fifth century. See Bingham, iv. 6. 6. ἐπιθ . τ . χ . αὐτ .] See on ch. 6:6. 4. ἐκπεμφ .] Under the guidance of the Spirit, who directed their course. Σελεύκειαν ] A very strong fortified city (supposed impregnable, Strabo, xvi. p. 751), fifteen miles from Antioch,— on the Orontes, and five miles from its month. It was founded and fortified by Seleucus Nicator (Strabo, xvi. 749), who was buried there (Appian, Syr. 63). It was called seleucia ad mare,— and Pieria, or ἡἐνΠιερίᾳ , from Mount Pierius, on which it was built, to distinguish it from other Syrian towns of the same name. This mountain is called Coryphæ us, Polyb. v. 59, where is a minute description of the town and its site. Among other particulars he mentions, πρόσβασινδὲμίανἔχεικατὰτὴνἀπὸθαλάττηςπλευρὰνκλιμακωτὴνκαὶχειροποίητον , ἐγκλίμασικαὶσκαλώμασιπυκνοῖςκαὶσυνεχέσιδιειλημένην . This excavated way is to this day conspicuous amongst the ruins of the city. It was under the Seleucid kings the capital of a district Selencis,— and, since Pompey’ s time, a free city, Strabo, xvi. 751. Plin. v. 21 (Winer, Realw.; and Mr. Lewin, Life of St. Paul, from an art, by Col. Chesney in the Geogr. Society’ s Transactions.) εἰςΚύπρον ] The lofty outline of Cyprus is visible from the mouth of the Orontes (C. and H., edn. 2, i. p. 164). see below, ver. 7. It was the native country of Barnabas,— and, as John Mark was his kinsman, they were likely to find more acceptance there than in other parts. 5. Salamis was the nearest port to Seleucia on the eastern side of the island. It had a good harbour (λιμέναἔχουσακλαυστὸνχειμερινόν , Scylax, Peripl. p. 41). It was the residence of a king anciently (Herod. iv. 162), and always one of the chief cities of the island. There were very many Jews there, as appears by there being more than one synagogue. Their numbers may have been increased by the farming of the copper-mines by Augustus to Herod. On the insurrection of the Jews in the reign of Trajan, Salamis was nearly destroyed, and they were expelled from the island. Its demolition was completed by an earthquake in the reign of Constantine, who (or his immediate successors) rebuilt it and gave it the name of Constantia. The ruins of this latter place are visible near the modern Famagosta, the Venetian capital of the island (Winer, Realw., and C. and H. pp. 171, f.). ὑπηρέτην ] Probably for the administration of baptism: see also 1 Corinthians 1:14-17. 6. Paphos is on the western shore, with the length of the island between it and Salamis. It is Nea Paphos which is meant, about eight miles north of the Paphos more celebrated in classic poets for the temple and worship of Venus. It was destroyed by an earthquake in Augustus’ s reign, but rebuilt by him, Dio Cass. liv. 23. It is now called Baffa, and contains some important ruins. (Winer, Realw.) τινὰμάγον , κ .τ .λ .] On the prevalence of such persons at this time, see ch. 8:9, note. The Roman aristocracy were peculiarly under the influence of astrologers and magicians, some of whom were Jews. We read of such in connexion with Marius, Pompey, Crassus, Cæ sar,— and later with Tiberius: and the complaints of Horace and Juvenal shew how completely, and for how long a time, Rome was inundated with Oriental impostors of every description. See Hor. Sat. i. 2.1; Juv. Sat. iii. 13-16; vi. 542-546; x. 93, and C. and H. pp. 177 ff. Βαριησοῦς ] He had given himself the Arabic title of Elymas, ‘ the wise man’ , interpreted ὁμάγος in our text. 7. τῷἀνθυπάτῳ ] The Greek term for the Latin ‘ proconsul,’ the title of the governor of those provinces which were (semblably) left by the emperors to the government of the senate and people. The proconsul was appointed by lot, as in the times of the republic; carried with him the lictors and fasces as a consul: but had no military power, and held office only for a year (Dio Cass. liii. 13). This last restriction was soon relaxed under the emperors, and they were retained five or even more years. The imperial provinces, on the other hand, were governed by a military officer, a Propræ tor or Legatus of the Emperor who was girded with the sword, and not revocable unless by the pleasure of the Emperor. The minor districts of the imperial provinces were governed by Procurators . (C. and H. pp. 173 ff.: Dio Cassius, liii. 13, 15: Merivale, Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, ch. 32) The title ἡγεμών , used in the N. T. of the procurator of Judæ a, of the legatus of Syria, and of the emperor himself, is a general term for any governor. But we never find the more definite title of ἀνθύπατος assigned in the N. T. to a legatus. Cyprus, as Dio Cassius informs us, liii. 12, was originally an imperial province, and consequently was governed by a propræ tor or legatus : but immediately after he relates that Augustus ὕστεροντὴνΚύπρονκ . τὴνΓαλατίαντὴνπερὶΝάρβωνατῷδήμῳἀπέδωκεν , αὐτὸςδὲτὴνΔαλματίανἀντέλαβε . And in liv. 4, repeating the same, he adds, καὶοὕτωςἀνθύπατοικαὶἐςἐκεῖνατὰἔθνηπέμπεσθαιἤρξαντο . The title of Proconsul is found on Cyprian coins, both in Greek and Latin. (See C. and H. p. 187, who give an inscription (Boeckh, No. 2632) of the reign of Claudius, a.d. 52, mentioning the ἀνθύπατοι , a former and a present one, Julius Cordus and L. Annius Bassus.) Nothing more is known of this Sergius Paulus. Another person of the same name is mentioned by Galen, more than a century after this, as a great proficient in philosophy. He was of consular rank, and is probably the Sergius Paulus who was consul with L. Venuleius Apronianus, a.d. 168, in the reign of M. Aurelius. Another S. P. was one of the consules suffecti in a.d. 94: but this could hardly have been the same. 8. Ἐλύμας ] See above on ver. 6. διαστρέψαι … ἀπό ] A pregnant construction, as ἀπέστησενὀπίσω , ch. 5:37. 9. ὁκαὶΠαῦλος ] This notice marks the transition from the former part of his history, where he is uniformly called Saul, to the latter and larger portion, where he is without exception known as Paul. I do not regard it as indicative of any change of name at the time of this incident, or from that time: the evidence which I deduce from it is of a different kind, and not without interest to enquirers into the character and authorship of our history. Hitherto, our Evangelist has been describing events, the truth of which he had ascertained by research and from the narratives of others. But henceforward there is reason to think that the joint memoirs of himself and the great Apostle furnish the material of the book. In those memoirs the Apostle is universally known by the name Paul, which superseded the other. If this was the first incident at which Luke was present, or the first memoir derived from Paul himself, or, which is plain, however doubtful may be the other alternatives, the commencement of that part of the history which is to narrate the teaching and travels of the Apostle Paul,— it would be natural that a note should be made, identifying the two names as belonging to the same person. The καί must not be understood as having any reference to Sergius Paulus, ‘ who also (as well as Sergius) was called Paul.’ Galen (see above) uses the same expression in speaking of his Sergius Paulus: Σέργιόςτε , ὁκαὶΠαῦλος .… , and then, a few lines down, calls him ὁΠαῦλος . It signifies that Paulus was a second name borne by Saul, in conformity with a Jewish practice as old as the captivity (or even as Joseph, see Genesis 41:45), of adopting a Gentile name. Mr. Howson traces it through the Persian period (see Daniel 1:7; Esther 2:7), the Greek (1 Macc. 12:16; 16:11; 2 Macc. 4:29), and the Roman (ver. 1; ch. 1:23; 18:8, &c.), and the middle ages, down to modern times. Jerome has conjectured that the name was adopted by Saul in memory of this event: ‘ Diligenter attende, quod hic primum Pauli nomen inceperit. Ut enim Scipio, subjecta Africa, Africani sibi nomen assumpsit, et Metellus, Creta insula subjugata, insigne Cretici suæ familiæ reportavit;— et imperatores nunc usque Romani ex subjectis gentibus Adiabenici, Parthici, Sarmatici nuncupantur: ita et Saulus ad præ dicationem gentium missus, a primo ecclesiæ spolio Proconsule Sergio Paulo victoriæ suæ tropæ a retulit, erexitque vexillum ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo.’ (In Ep. ad Philemon 1:1, vol. vii. pp. 746 f.) It is strange that any one could be found capable of so utterly mistaking the character of St. Paul, or of producing so unfortunate an analogy to justify the mistake. (I may observe that Wordsw.’ s apology, that Jerome does not say that the Apostle gave himself this name on this account, is distinctly precluded by Jerome’ s language, “ erexitque vexillum ut Paulus diceretur e Saulo.” This Wordsw., translating the final words “ and instead of Saul was called Paul,” has missed seeing. Notice too Augustine’ s “ amavit,” below.) It is yet stranger that Augustine should, in his Confessions (viii. 4, vol. i. p. 753), adopt the same view: ‘ Ipse minimus Apostolorum tuorum … ex priore Saulo Paulus vocari amavit, ob tam magnæ insigne victoriæ .’ (Elsewhere Augustine gives another, but not much better reason: ‘ Paulus Apostolus, cum Saulus prius vocaretur, non ob aliud, quantum mihi videtur, hoc nomen elegit, nisi ut se ostenderet parvum, tanquam minimum Apostolorum.’ De Spir. et Lit. c. 7, vol. x. p. 207.) So also Olshausen. A more probable way of accounting for the additional name is pointed out by observing that such names were often alliterative of or allusive to the original Jewish name:— as Grotius in his note: ‘ Saulus qui et Paulus: id est, qui, ex quo cum Romanis conversari cœ pit, hoc nomine, a suo non abludente, cœ pit a Romanis appellari. Sic qui Jesus Judæ is, Græ cis Jason (or Justus, Colossians 4:11): Hillel, Pollio: Onias, Menelaus (Jos. Antt. xii. 5. 1): Jakim (= Eliakim), Alcimus. Apud Romanos, Silas, Silvanus, ut notavit Hieronymus: Pasides, Pansa, ut Suetonius in Crassitio: Diocles, Diocletianus: Biglinitza, soror Justiniani, Romane Vigilantia.’ ἀτενίσαςεἰςαὐτόν ] It seems probable that Paul never entirely recovered his sight as before, after the δόξατοῦφωτὸςἐκείνου . We have several apparent allusions to weakness in his sight, or to something which rendered his bodily presence contemptible. In ch. 23:1, the same expression, ἀτενίσαςτῷσυνεδρίῳ , occurs, and may have some bearing (see note there) on his not recognizing the high priest. See also Galatians 4:13, Galatians 4:15; Galatians 6:11, and 2 Corinthians 12:7, 2 Corinthians 12:9, and notes. The traditional notices of his personal appearance (see C. and H. p. 181, note) represent him as having contracted and overhanging eyebrows. Whatever the word may imply, it appears like the graphic description of an eye witness, who was not Paul himself. So also περιάγωνἐζήτειχειραγωγούς , below. 10. υἱὲδιαβ .] Meyer supposes an indignant allusion to the name Bar-jesus. This is possible, though hardly probable (see below). διαβ ., which usually has the article, is elsewhere found without it only in (1 Peter 5:8) Revelation 12:9, 22. See Moulton’ s Winer, p. 155, note 1. πάς . δικ ., of all that is right. διαστρ . κ .τ .λ .] The οὐπαύσῃ evidently makes this apply, not to Elymas’ s conduct on this occasion merely, but to his whole life of imposture and perversion of others. The especial sin was, that of laying hold of the nascent enquiry after God in the minds of men, and wresting it to a wrong direction. κυρίου , here and ver. 11, is Jehovah. If, as some suppose, the reading of the name Bar-jesus is Bar-jehu, the repetition may be allusive: as in the other case might the ἐχθρὲπάς . δικαιοσύνης to the name Jesus. But Meyer supposes the various readings in the forms of the name (Barsuma, Barjesuban) to have arisen from a desire to reverence the Name Jesus. τυφλὸςμὴβλέπων ] so μνήσθητιμὴἐπιλάθῃ , Deuteronomy 9:7. 11. ἄχρικαιροῦ ] The punishment was only temporary, being accompanied with a gracious purpose to the man himself, to awaken repentance in him. The sense given to ἄχρικ . by Tittmann and Meyer here and at ref. Luke, of ἕωςτέλους , is one of which it seems to me incapable. ἀχλὺςκ . σκότος ] In the same precise and gradual manner is the healing of the lame man, ch. 3:8, described: ἔστη (first), κ . περιεπάτει . So here, first a dimness came on him,— then total darkness. And we may conceive this to have been evinced by his gestures and manner under the infliction. 12. ἐπὶτῇδιδ . τ . κυρ .] Hesitating as he had been before between the teaching of the sorcerer and that of the Apostle, he is amazed at the divine power accompanying the latter, and gives himself up to it. It is not said that he was baptized: but the supposition is not thereby excluded: see ver. 48; ch. 17:12, 34; 18:8, first part. 13. οἱπερὶΠ .] Is there not a trace of the narrator being among them, in this expression? Henceforward Paul is the principal person, and Barnabas is thrown into the background. Πέργηντ . Παμφ .] Perga lies on the Cestrus, which flows into the bay of Attaleia. It is sixty stadia from the mouth (εἶθ ʼ ὁΚέστροςποταμός , ὃνἀναπλεύσαντισταδίουςἑξήκονταΠέργηπόλις , Strabo, xiv. p. 667), “ between and upon the sides of two hills, with an extensive valley in front, watered by the river Cestrus, and backed by the mountains of the Taurus.” (C. and H. vol. i. p. 195, from Sir C. Fellows’ s Asia Minor.) The remains are almost entirely Greek, with few traces of later inhabitants (p. 194 and note). The inhabitants of Pamphylia were nearly allied in character to those of Cilicia (οἱΠάμφυλοι , πολὺτοῦΚιλικίουφίλουμετέχοντες , Srabo, xii. § 7): and it may have been Paul’ s design, having already preached in his own province, to extend the Gospel of Christ to this neighbouring people. John probably took the opportunity of some ship sailing from Perga. His reason for returning does not appear, but may be presumed from ch. 15:38 to have been, unsteadiness of character, and unwillingness to face the dangers abounding in this rough district (see below). He afterwards, having been the subject of dissension between Paul and Barnabas, ch. 15:37-40, accompanied the latter again to Cyprus; and we find him at a much later period spoken of by Paul, together with Aristarchus and Jesus called Justus, as having been a comfort to him (Colossians 4:10, Colossians 4:11): and again in 2 Timothy 4:11, as profitable to him for the ministry. 14. διελθόντες ] It is not improbable that during this journey Paul may have encountered some of the ‘ perils by robbers’ of which he speaks, 2 Corinthians 11:26. The tribes inhabiting the mountains which separate the table-land of Asia Minor from the coast, were notorious for their lawless and marauding habits. Strabo says of Isauria, λῃστῶνἅπασαικατοικίαι (xii. 6), and of the Pisidians, καθάπεροἱΚίλικες , λῃστρικῶςἤσκηνται , xii. 7. He gives a similar character of the Pamphylians. ἈντιόχειαἡΠισιδία or πρὸςΠισιδίᾳ , Strabo, xii. 8, was founded originally (Strabo, ib.) by the Magnetes on the Meander, and subsequently by Seleucus Nicator, and became, under Augustus, a Roman colony (ἔχουσαἐποικίανῬωμαίων , Strabo, ib.:— ‘ Pisidarum colonia Cæ sarea, eadem Antiocheia.’ Plin. v. 24. ‘ In Pisidia juris Italici est colonia Antiochensium,’ Paulus, Digest. i. 15). Its position is described by Strabo as being on a hill, and was unknown or wrongly placed till Mr. Arundell found its ruins at a place now called Yalobatch, answering to Strabo’ s description: where since an inscription has been found with the letters Antiocheae Caesare (C. and H. pp. 205, 207 note). 15. The divisions of the law and prophets at present in use among the Jews were probably not yet arranged. Before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Law only was read in the synagogues: but, this having been forbidden by him, the Prophets were substituted:— and, when the Maccabees restored the reading of the Law, that of the prophets continued as well. ἀπέστειλαν ] Then they were not sitting in the πρωτοκαθεδρίαι , Matthew 23:6, but somewhere among the congregation. The message was probably sent to them as having previously to this taught in the city, and thus being known to have come for that purpose. See, as illustrating our narrative, Luke 4:17 ff. and notes. 16. κατασείσαςτ . χειρί ] As was his practice; see ch. 21:40. See also ἐκτείναςτὴνχεῖρα , ch. 26:1. On the character, &c. of Paul’ s speeches reported in the Acts, see Prolegg. § i. 13; ii. 17. The contents of this speech (vv. 16-41) may be thus arranged: I. Recapitulation of God’ s ancient deliverances of His people and mercies towards them, ending with His crowning mercy, the sending of the Deliverer and promised Son of David (vv. 16-25). II. The history of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and of God’ s fulfilment of His promise by raising Him from the dead (vv. 26-37). III. The personal application of this to all present,— the announcement to them of justification by faith in Jesus, and solemn warning against the rejection of Him (vv. 38-41). It is in the last degree unsafe to argue, as Wordsworth has done, that, because Strabo asserts the language of the Pisidians to have been neither Greek nor Lydian, St. Paul must have spoken to them by virtue of his miraculous gift of tongues. To the question put by Wordsw., “ In what language did St. Paul preach in Pisidia?” we may reply, seeing that he preached in the synagogue after the reading of the law and prophets, “ In the same language as that in which the law and prophets had just been read.” οἱφοβ . τ . θ .] The (uncircumcised) proselytes of the gate; not excluding even such pious Gentiles, not proselytes in any sense, who might be present. The speech, from the beginning and throughout, is universal in its application, embracing Jews and Gentiles. 17. τοῦλαοῦτούτου ] ‘ Hoc dicit Pisidis, Judæ os digito monstrans’ (Grot.). Or rather, perhaps by the τούτου indicating, without gesture, the people in whose synagogue they were assembled. τ . πατ . ἡμῶν ] It is evident that the doctrine so much insisted on afterwards by Paul, that all believers in Christ were the true children of Abraham, was fully matured already: by the τοῦλαοῦτούτου he alludes to the time when God was the God of the Jews only: by this ἡμῶν he unites all present in the now extended inheritance of the promises made to the fathers. ὕψωσεν ] Evidently an allusion to Isaiah 1:2, where the word is also used in the sense of ‘ bringing up,’ nourishing to manhood. This was done by increasing them in Egypt so that they became a great nation: see ref. Gen. There is no reference to any exaltation of the people during their stay in Egypt: whether by their deliverance (Calv., Heinr., Elsner), or by the miracles of Moses (Meyer), or by Joseph’ s preferment to honour (Beza, Grot.). 18. ἐτροφοφόρησεν ] That this is the right reading, is rendered highly probable by manuscript authority here and still more in the LXX of ref. Deut., and, I conceive, decided by the Heb. of that passage, and by the expansion of the same image in Numbers 11:12. The compound verb bearing his son) implies carrying and caring for, as a nurse: see ref. Macc. 19. ἑπτά ] See Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; Joshua 24:11. The unusual transitive sense of κατεκληρονόμησεν , justified by reff. LXX, has not been understood by the copyists, and has led to the rec. reading. From the occurrence of manifest references, in these opening verses of the speech, to Deu_1 and Isa_1, combined with the fact that these two chapters form the present lessons in the synagogues on one and the same sabbath, Bengel and Stier conclude that they had been then read. It may have been so: but see on ver. 15. 20. Treating the reading of (see var. readd.) as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of our verse, and taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them, than that the time of the judges lasted 450 years. The dative ἔτεσιν (see ch. 8:11) implies the duration of the period between ταῦτα (the division of the land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive. And we have exactly the same chronological arrangement in Josephus; who reckons (Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’ s temple,— arranging the period thus: (1) forty years in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years under Joshua (στρατηγὸςδὲμετὰτὴνΜωυσέωςτελευτὴνπέντεκ . εἴκοσι , Antt. v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty years under Saul, see on ver. 21: (5) forty years under David, 1 Kings 2:11: (6) four years of Solomon’ s own reign. This gives 592-149 = 443 years (about, ὡς , 450) for the Judges, including Samuel. That this chronology differs widely from 1 Kings 6:1, is most evident,— where we read that Solomon began his temple in the four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four hundred and fortieth) year after the Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the two are arbitrary and forced. I subjoin the principal. (1) Perizonius and others assume that the years during which the Israelites were subject to foreign tyrants in the time of the Judges are not reckoned in 1 Kings 6:1, and attempt, by adding them, to make out the period— in direct contradiction to the account there, which is, not that the Judges lasted a certain number of years, but that Solomon began to build his temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &c. supply γενόμενα after πεντήκοντα , and construe, these things ‘ which happened in the space of 450 years,’ viz. from the birth of Isaac to the division of the land. But why the birth of Isaac? The words too will not bear this construction. (3) Olshausen conceives the 450 years may include all from the Exodus, as far as the building of the temple. But to this the objection which he himself mentions is fatal, viz. that μετὰταῦτα and ἐκεῖθεν must beyond dispute give the termini a quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others suppose various corruptions, here or at 1 Kings 6:1, and by arbitrary conjecture emend so as to produce accordance. It seems then that Paul followed a chronology current among the Jews, and agreeing with the book of Judges itself (the spaces of time in which, added together = exactly 450), and that adopted by Josephus, but not with that of our present Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6:1. The objection to this view, that Josephus is not consistent with himself (Olsh.),— but in Antt. xx. 10. 1, contra Apion. ii. 2 gives another chronology, has arisen from not observing that in the latter places, where he states 612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus to Solomon’ s temple, he reckons in the twenty years occupied in building the temple and the king’ s house, 1 Kings 6:38; 1 Kings 7:1. His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1, ἀφ ʼ ἧςἡμέραςοἱπατέρεςἡμῶνἐξέλιπονΑἴγυπτονΜωυσέωςἄγοντος , μέχριτῆςτοῦναοῦκατασκευῆς , ὃνΣολομῶνὁβασιλεὺςἐνἹεροσολύμοιςἀνήγειρεν , ἔτηδυοκαίδεκαπρὸςτοῖςἑξακοσίοις . To reckon in the thirteen years during which he was building his own house may be an inaccuracy, but there is no inconsistency. Wordsworth, contrary to his usual practice, takes refuge in the amended text of ABC, and then characterizes in the severest language those who have had the moral courage to abide by the more difficult reading, charging them with “ arbitrary caprice,” “ gratifying a sceptical appetite,” &c. I cite this as an example of that elastic criticism, which by any means within reach, and at any price, smooths away every difficulty from the sacred text. Σαμουήλ ] mentioned as the terminus of the period of the Judges, also as having been so nearly concerned in the setting up over them of Saul and David. 21. Σαοὺλ … ἄνδραἐκφ . Β .] It may be not altogether irrelevant to notice that a Saul, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, was speaking; and to trace in this minute specification something characteristic and natural. ἔτητεσσεράκοντα ] So also Josephus: ἐβασίλευσεΣαοὺλΣαμουήλουζῶντοςἔτηὀκτὼπρὸςτοῖςδέκα · τελευτήσαντοςδὲδύοκαὶεἴκοσι , Antt. vi. 14. 9. In the O. T. the length of Saul’ s reign is not specified; 1 Samuel 7:2 gives no reason, as Bengel thinks, why Saul’ s reign should have been less than twenty years, as the twenty years there mentioned do not extend to the bringing up of the ark by David, but only to the circumstances mentioned in the following verses. Biscoe has well shewn (p. 399), that as Saul was a young man when anointed king, and Ishbosheth his youngest son (1 Chronicles 8:33) was forty years old at his death (2 Samuel 2:10), his reign cannot have been much short of that period. It is clearly against the construction to suppose Samuel’ s time as well as Saul’ s included in the forty years, following as they do upon the ἔδωκεν . Yet this has been done by the majority of Commentators. 22. μεταστήσας ] having deposed him (reff.): in this case, by his death, for David was not made king till then. Or perhaps μεταστ . may refer to the sentence pronounced against Saul, 1 Samuel 13:14, or 15:23, 28, and ἤγειρεν to the whole process of the exaltation of David to be king. But I prefer the former. ᾧκ . εἶπενμ .] The two passages, Psa_89: (88 LXX) 20, and 1 Samuel 13:14, are interwoven together: both were spoken of David, and both by prophetic inspiration. They are cited from memory, neither τὸντοῦἸεσσαί nor ὅς … μου being found in them. These latter words are spoken of Cyrus, see reff. That such citations are left in their present shape in our text, forms a strong presumption that we have the speeches of Paul verbatim as delivered by him, and no subsequent general statement of what he said, in which case the citations would have been corrected by the sacred text. 23. κατ ʼ ἐπαγγ . ἤγαγεν ] viz. the promise in ref. Zech. (LXX), where the very word ἄγω is used; not however excluding the many other promises to the same effect. The reading σωτηρίαν has probably arisen from the contracted way of writing Ἰησοῦν , thus: σωτηραῑν ; and then from ver. 26 σωτηρίαν was adopted. 24. εἰσόδου ] referring to ἤγαγεν above— his coming forward publicly. 25. As John was fulfilling his course (the expression is peculiar to Paul, see reff.) he said (not once but habitually). τίἐμὲὑπ . εἶν .] Not, ‘ I am not that which ye suppose me to be,’ as Vulg. (reading τίνα ,— quem me arbitramini esse, non sum ego); Luth., Grot., Kuin.,— making τί relative, which it will not bear (see note on 1 Corinthians 15:2); but What suppose ye me to be? I am not He. See Luke 3:15 ff. 26. [The same two classes (see on ver. 16), Jews and God-fearing gentiles, are here again addressed.] τ . σωτηρίαςταύτης ] viz. the salvation implied in Jesus being a σωτήρ — salvation by Him. 27. The position of ἡμῖν at the commencement of its clause in the last verse shews the emphasis to be on it, and now the reason is given— for the Jews in Jerusalem have rejected it. See ch. 22:18-21. τὰςφωνάς is not governed by ἀγνοήσαντες , which makes the sentence an unusually harsh one in construction, requiring αὐτόν to be supplied after κριν ., and αὐτάς after ἐπλήρωσαν . The καί , as often, merely introduces, without the emphasis implied by our ‘ even,’ a new element into the sentence. It is perhaps hardly possible to find in our language or the Latin any one word which may give exactly this slight shade of meaning, and no more: paraphrased, the sense might be (but imperfectly and clumsily) thus represented: in their ignorance of Him (not only rejected His salvation, but) by judging Him, fulfilled the voices of the prophets, &c. 28. Not, ‘ though,’ but rather because they found no cause: when they found no cause of death in him, they besought, &c.: see Luke 23:22, Luke 23:23. 29. The two verbs ἐτέλεσαν and ἔθηκαν have still the same subject, viz. of οἱκατοικοῦντεςκ .τ .λ . De Wette rightly remarks, that Paul, in this compendious narrative, makes no distinction between friend and foe in what was done to our Lord, but regards both as fulfilling God’ s purpose regarding him. I may add, that there is also a contrast between what men did to Him, and ὁδὲθεὸςἤγειρεναὐτόν . Joseph and Nicodemus, be it observed, were both ἄρχοντες . Paul touches but lightly on the cross of Christ, and hastens on to the great point, the Resurrection, as the fulfilment of prophecy and seal of the Messiahship of Jesus. 31. The νῦν gives peculiar force to the sentence. Who are at this moment witnesses,— living witnesses; q. d. ‘ I am not telling you a matter of the past merely, but one made present to the people of the Jews by living and autoptic testimony.’ 32. ἡμεῖςὑμᾶς ] He and Barnabas were not of the number of the συναναβάντες , ver. 31, nor was their mission to the Jewish people. ‘ They are at this moment witnessing to the people, we, preaching to you.’ Stier observes (Red. d. Apost. p. 367) how entirely Paul sinks himself, his history and commission from Christ, in the great object of his preaching. ἀναστήσας ] The meaning having raised Him from the dead is absolutely required by the context: both because the word is repeated with ἐκνεκρῶν (ver. 34), and because the Apostle’ s emphasis throughout the passage is on the Resurrection (ver. 30) as the final fulfilment of God’ s promises regarding Jesus. This is maintained by Luther, Hammond, Le Clerc, Meyer, &c.: the other meaning, ‘ having raised up,’ as in ch. 7:37, προφήτηνὑμῖνἀναστήσειὁκύριος ,— by Calvin, Beza, Calov., Wolf, Michaelis, Rosenm., Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olsh., and by Mr. Humphry. Meyer well remarks, that this meaning would hardly in our passage have been thought of or defended, had it not been that the subjoined citation from Psa_2 has been thought necessarily to apply to our Lord’ s mission upon earth. 33. The reading ἐντῷπρώτεῳψαλμῷ is explained thus: “ hic psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim primus fuit, quod is qui præ cedit, tanquam proœ mium, numeratus non esset.” Rosenm. Arg. Psa_2 St. Paul refers the prophecy in its full completion to the Resurrection of our Lord: similarly in Romans 1:4, ὁρισθέντοςυἱοῦθεοῦἐνδυνάμει … ἑξἀναστάσεωςνεκρῶν . 34. μηκέτιμέλλ .] Compare Romans 6:9, χριστὸςἐγερθεὶςἐκνεκρῶνοὐκέτιἀποθνήσκει · θἁνατοςαὐτοῦοὐκέτικυριεύει . It is interesting to trace the same shades of thought in the speeches and epistles of Paul; and abundant opportunity of doing so will occur as we proceed. But here the ὑποστρ . εἰςδιαφθ . does not merely imply death, so that Jesus should have once undergone it, and no more hereafter, as the E. V. seems to imply: but we must supply ‘ to die, and in consequence to’ before the words, understanding them as the result of death, if it had dominion over him: thus the clause answers even more remarkably to Romans 6:9. τὰὅσια is the LXX rendering of ח ַ ס ְ ד ֵ י , ref. Isa., which in 2 Chronicles 6:42, they have translated τὰἐλέη . The word ‘ holy’ should have been preserved in the E. V., as answering to τὸνὅσιόνσου below; the mercies of David, holy and sure: or my holy promises which I made sore unto David. 35. διότικαί ] wherefore also,— correspondent to which purpose, of His Christ not seeing corruption. ἑτέρῳ ] viz. ψαλμῷ , referring to ver. 33. λέγει ] viz. ὁθεός , not David: the subject is continued from vv. 32 and 34, and fixed by εἴρηκεν and δώσω just preceding. δώσεις and ὅσιον accurately correspond to δώσω and ὅσια before. See on ch. 2:27. 36. The psalm, though spoken by David, cannot have its fulfilment in David. ἰδίᾳγενεᾷ ] The dative commodi, not ‘ sua generatione,’ which is flat in the extreme. David ministered only to the generation in which he lived: but διὰτούτου , remission of sins is preached ὑμῖν , and to all who believe on Him. τῇτοῦθ . βουλῇ is best taken with ὑπηρετήσας , not with ἐκοιμήθη :— as E. V., after he had served his own generation by the will (i.e. according to the appointment) of God. His whole course was marked out and fixed by God— he fulfilled it, and fell asleep. I prefer this, because joining τῇτοῦθ . β . with ἐκοιμήθη seems to diminish the importance of that verb in the sentence. (See, on the whole, 2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10.) προσετ . κ .τ .λ .] An expression arising from the practice of burying families together: see reff. and passim in O. T. 38. Paul speaks here of justification only in its lowest sense, as negative, and synonymous with remission of sins; he does not unfold here that higher sense of δικαιόω , the accounting righteous, which those who have from God are δίκαιοιἐκπίστεως . It is the first office of the Spirit by which he spoke, ἐλέγχεινπερὶἁμαρτίας , before He ἐλέγχειπερὶδικαιοσύνης : therefore he dwells on the ἄφεσιςἁμαρτιῶν , merely just giving a glimpse of the great doctrine of justification, of which he had such wonderful things to write and to say. 39. [And] from all things, from which ye could not in (under) the law of Moses be justified, in Him (as ἐνχριστῷ , ἐνκυρίῳ passim) every believer is (habitual pres.) justified. ἀπὸπάντωνὧν , from all things (sins), from which.… but not implying that in the law of Moses there might be justification from some sins;— under the law there is no justification (ἐννόμῳοὐδεὶςδικαιοῦταιπαρὰτῷθεῷ , Galatians 3:11):— but = Christ shall do for you all that the law could not do: leaving it for inference, or for further teaching, that this was absolutely all: that the law could do nothing. The same thought is expanded Romans 8:3, Romans 8:4, τὸγὰρἀδύνατοντοῦνόμου , ἐνᾧἠσθένειδιὰτῆςσαρκός , ὁθεὸςκ .τ .λ .… ἵνατὸδικαίωματ . νόμουπληρωθῇἐνἡμῖν . This interpretation will be the more clearly established, when we remember that δικαιοῦνἀπὸἁμαρτίας was not in any sense, and could not be, the office of the law, by which came the knowledge of sin. The expression δικαιοῦνἀπὸ is only once used again by Paul (ref.), and that where he is arguing against the continuing in sin. ὁπιστεύων is not to be joined with ἐντούτῳ , which (see above) is contrasted with ἐννόμῳΜ . It is quite in Paul’ s manner to use πᾶςὁπιστεύων thus absolutely: see Romans 1:16; Romans 3:22; Romans 10:4 (Galatians 3:22). Still less, with Luther, can we take as far as δικαιωθῆναι with ver. 38, and make ἐντούτῳ .… δικαιοῦται a separate sentence. 40. The object of preaching the Gospel to the Jews first was for a testimony to them: its reception was almost uniformly unfavourable: and against such anticipated rejection he now warns them. τοῖςπροφ .] The book of the prophets: see ch. 3:18, note. 41. καταφρονηταί ] So the LXX for ב ּ ַ ג ּ ו ֹ י ִ ם , ‘ among the heathen,’ for which they seem to have read ב ּ ו ֹ ג ְ ד ִ י ם . So the Arabic, ‘ videte arrogantes:’ and the Syriac, ‘ videte transgressores.’ (Kuinoel.) The prophecy was spoken of the judgment to be inflicted by means of the Chaldæ ans: but neither this nor any other prophecy is confined in its application to the occasion of which it was once spoken, but gathers up under it all analogous procedures of God’ s providence: such repeated fulfilments increasing in weight, and approaching nearer and nearer to that last and great fulfilment of all the promises of grace and all the threats of wrath, by which every prophetic word shall be exhausted. 42. The insertions in the rec. have been made (see var. readd.) partly perhaps to remove the ambiguity in αὐτῶν , and to supply a subject to παρεκάλουν . But they confuse the sense. ἐξιόντωναὐτ ., As they (the congregation) were going out, they (the same) besought. On the N.T. construction, παρεκάλουνλαληθῆναι , i.e. the passive inf. after verbs of commanding, exhorting, &c., see Buttmann, Grammatik des N. T.-lichen Sprachgebrauchs, § 141. 5, p. 236. He traces it to the influence of the Latin jubere and the like. See, among his many examples, Mark 5:43; Mark 6:27; ch. 5:21; 22:24; 25:21. τὸμεταξὺσάβ . appears, by the usage of Luke, to mean the next sabbath-day, not ‘ the following week.’ This last rendering would hardly suit εἰς , which fixes a definite occasion,— nor ver. 44, which gives the result. The ref. to Josephus abundantly justifies this use of μεταξύ . 43. λυθ . δὲτ . ς .] After the breaking up of the synagogue. οἵτινες ] Paul and Barnabas; and αὐτοῖς , to the Jews and proselytes: not vice versâ , as Calvin inclines to believe: see a similar expression ch. 11:23. There too, we have ἡχάριςτοῦθεοῦ similarly used of the work of the Gospel begun in the hearts of the converts. See also reff. 44. Whether ἐρχ . or ἐχ . be read, the sense will be on the following sabbath-day: not, as Heinrichs, ‘ on the following week-day.’ συνήχθη ] ‘ In the synagogue;’ it was the sight of the Gentile crowds in their house of prayer which stirred up the jealousy of the Jews. 45. ἀντιλ . καί ] These words (see var. readd.) form a graphic repetition, passing from the particular thing which they did, viz. contradict the words spoken by Paul, to the spirit in which they did it, viz. a contradictious and blaspheming one. It is no Hebraism. 46. πρῶτον ] See ch. 3:26; Romans 1:16. 47. Agreeing with LXX-Aא , B reading δέδωκα for τέθεικα . They refer the σε not to themselves as teachers (as Meyer seems to think), but to Christ. 48. τεταγμένοι ] The meaning of this word must be determined by the context. The Jews had judged themselves unworthy of eternal life: the Gentiles, as many as were disposed to eternal life, believed. By whom so disposed, is not here declared: nor need the word be in this place further particularized. We know, that it is God who worketh in us the will to believe, and that the preparation of the heart is of Him: but to find in this text pre-ordination to life asserted, is to force both the word and the context to a meaning which they do not contain. The key to the word here is the comparison of ref. 1 Cor. εἰςδιακονίαντοῖςἁγίοιςἔταξανἑαυτούς , with ref. Rom. αἱοὖσαιὑπὸτοῦθεοῦτεταγμέναιεἰσίν : in both of which places the agents are expressed, whereas here the word is absolute. See also ch. 20:13. The principal interpretations are: (1) Calvin, &c., who find here predestination in the strongest sense: ‘ orainatio ista nonnisi ad æ ternum Dei consilium potest referri’ … ‘ ridiculum autem cavillum est referre hoc ad credentium affectum, quasi Evangelium receperint qui animis rite dispositi erant.’ So the Vulgate, ‘ præ ordinati:’ and Aug. ‘ destinati: (2) ‘ Qui juxta ordinem a Deo institutum dispositi erant’ (Franz, Calov.: but not Bengel (as De W.), who explains it as I have done above): (3) ‘ Quibus, dum fidem doctrinæ habebant, certa erat vita beata’ (Morus, Kuinoel): (4) ‘ Qui ad vitam æ ternam se ordinarant’ (Grot., Limborch, Wolf, al.): (5) ‘ Quotquot erant dispositi, applicati, i.e. apti facti oratione Pauli ad vitam æ t. adipiscendam’ (Bretschneider): (6) taking τετ . militari sensu, ‘ Qui de agmine et classe erant sperantium vel contendentium ad v. æ .’ (Mede, and similarly Schö ttg.) There are several other renderings, but so forced as to be mere caricatures of exegesis: see Meyer. It may be worth while to protest against all attempts to join ἐπίστευσαν with εἰςζωὴναἰώνιον , which usage will not bear. Wordsworth well observes that it would be interesting to enquire what influence such renderings as this of præ ordinati in the Vulgate version had on the minds of men like St. Augustine and his followers in the Western Church in treating the great questions of free will, election, reprobation, and final perseverance: and on some writers in the reformed churches who, though rejecting the authority of that version, were yet swayed by it away from the sense of the original here and in ch. 2:47. The tendency of the Eastern Fathers, who read the original Greek, was, he remarks, in a different direction from that of the Western School. 50. τὰςσεβ . γυν .] Women had a strong religious influence both for and against Christianity: see for the former ch. 16:14; 17:4; Philippians 4:3; 1 Corinthians 7:16: for the latter, compare Josephus’ s statement (B. J. ii. 20.2), that the majority of the wives of the Damascenes were proselytes, with ch. 9:22-25. Strabo (vii. 3: C. and H. i. p. 219) says, ἅπαντεςτῆςδεισιδαιμονίαςἀρχηγοὺςοἴονταιτὰςγυναῖκαςαὗταιδὲκαὶτοὺςἄνδραςπροκαλοῦνταιπρὸςτὰςἐπὶπλέονθεραπείαςτῶνθεῶνκαὶἑορτὰςκαὶποτνιασμούς . These were proselytes of the gate, or at least inclined to Judaism. ἐξέβαλον ] Though the πρῶτοιτῆςπόλεως , at the instigation, probably, of their wives, were concerned, this seems to have been no legal expulsion: for we find them revisiting Antioch on their return, ch. 14:21;— but only a compulsory retirement for peace, and their own safety’ s sake. 51. As commanded by our Lord, Matthew 10:14, where see note. Ἰκόνιον ] A populous city, east of Antioch in Pisidia, lying in a fertile plain at the foot of, and almost surrounded by, Mount Taurus. It is reckoned by Xenophon (Anab. i. 2. 19) as belonging to Phrygia,— by Strabo (xii. 568) and Cicero (ad Famil. xv. 4) to Lycaonia, of which it was practically the capital,— by Ammianus Marcellinus (xiv. 2) to Pisidia. At this time, it was the capital of a distinct territory, ruled by a tetrarch (Plin. N. H. v. 27), and probably on that account is not reckoned to any of the above-mentioned districts. It became famous in the middle ages as the capital of the Seljukian Sultans, and had a great part in the growth of the Ottoman empire. It is now Koní n, a town of 30,000 inhabitants. (Winer, Realw.; C. and H. i. pp. 220, f.) 52. See, for similar “ joyful perorations,” as Wordsworth well designates them, Luke 24:52; ch. 5:41; 12:24. Chap. 14:1. κατὰτὸαὐτό , together (reff.): ὁμοῦ , : not, ‘ in the same manner,’ as Wolf and others. οὕτωςὥστε , as in E. V.; not ἐγένετο .… ὥστε … , as Vater. Ἑλλήνων ] Probably here these are the σεβόμενοιτὸνθεόν [see ch. 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7 and ch. 10:2 reff.], those of the uncircumcised who were more or less attached to the Jewish religion. 2. The past part. indicates who believed not, viz. when Paul preached. ἐκάκωσαν , ‘ male affecerunt,’ — κακούργωςδιέθηκαν , Chrys. So Jos. Antt. xvi. 1. 2, κακοῦν ,.… καὶτῆςεὐνοίαςἧςεἶχενεἰςτοὺςπαῖδαςἀφαιρεῖν . Ver. 3 gives the sequel of ver. 1,— ver. 4, of ver. 2. The μὲνοὖν , as usual (see ch. 11:19), takes up the narrative which had been interrupted. 3. παῤῥ . ἐπὶτ . κυρ .] A pregnant construction:— ‘ speaking with boldness, which boldness was grounded on confidence in the Lord.’ τῷκυρίῳ is God: see ch. 4:29, 30, and ch. 20:32, τῷθεῷκ . τῷλόγῳτῆςχάριτοςαὐτοῦ . διδόντι , without καί , defines μαρτυροῦντι : viz. by giving, &c. 4. So Virg. Æ n. ii. 39, ‘ Scinditur incertum studia in contraria vulgus.’ Such a split into two factions was a common occurrence, on far less important occasions, in these cities of Oriental Greeks. (C. and H. i. p. 223.) τοῖςἀποστόλοις ] This is the first place where Paul and Barnabas are so called. St. Paul constantly vindicates the title in his Epistles: cf. Romans 1:1; 1 Corinthians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:9; 2 Corinthians 1:1; Galatians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; 1 Timothy 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1; Titus 1:1. It seems to have been borne in this higher sense also by James the Lord’ s brother: see Galatians 1:19, and note, and the prolegg. to the Epistle of James: and by Barnabas, here and in 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 9:6: see also Galatians 2:9. So that there were, widening the word beyond the Twelve, fifteen Apostles, usually so called. The word was also used in a still wider sense: see Romans 16:7; 2 Corinthians 8:23; 1 Thessalonians 2:6: in which latter place Silvanus and Timotheus seem to be included in it. 5. ὁρμή is not a rush (‘ impetus,’ Vulg.: ‘ assault,’ E. V.), but as Hesych. βουλή , ἐπιθυμία ,— as is manifest from συνιδόντες , rightly rendered in E. V. they were ware of it; which it would be strange if they were not, if an assault had been made on them. 6. Λύστραν ] τὰΛ . also, ver. 8. This, as well as Derbe (of both which very little further is known), was probably a small town at the foot of the singular mountain-mass known as the Kara-dagh, or black mountain, Lystra being S., and Derbe S.E. from Iconium. The sites are very uncertain. There are the ruins of about forty Christian churches on the north side of the Kara-dagh, at a place called by the Turks Bin-bir-Kilisseh (the 1001 churches), which the most recent travellers believe may be Lystra (C. and H. i. pp. 225 ff.). In one of these places (probably at Lystra, see note, ch. 16:1) Paul found and took up Timothy on his second journey; and from τέκνον , 1 Corinthians 4:17, compared with πατήρ , as defined ib. ver. 15, we are justified in concluding that he had been converted by the Apostle; and, if so, during this visit. There appear to have been few Jews in the district: we hear of no synagogue. Λυκαονίας ] Strabo describes Lycaonia (xii. 6) as a hilly plain among the mountain-spurs of Taurus, very ill watered, cold and bare, but exceedingly adapted for sheep-pasture and the growth of wool. 8. ἐκάθητο ] Not ‘ dwelt,’ as Kuin., but sat, probably in the forum or some place of resort. περιεπάτησεν is the historic past: who never walked. The pluperfect seeming more apt, it has been altered in the later mss. accordingly. Meyer supposes the alteration to have been the other way, from “ the constant preference which the Greeks gave in narration to the aorist over the plusq. perf.:” but qu.? 9. The imperfect ἤκουεν is important. He was listening to Paul’ s preaching, and, while listening, his countenance, read by the Apostle’ s gift of spiritual discernment, gave token of faith to be healed ἀτεν . αὐτ .] See note on ch. 13:9. 10. μεγ . τῇφ .] Raising his voice above the tone in which he was before speaking. The article is important. 11. Λυκαονιστί ] The nature of this dialect is uncertain: its existence is further mentioned by Steph. Byzant., cf. τῇτῶνΛυκαόνωνφωνῇ , in note on ver. 20. The notice is inserted to shew that the Apostles had no knowledge of the inference drawn by the crowd, till they saw the bulls being brought to their doors, ver. 13. So Chrysostom: οὐκἦντοῦτοοὐδέπωδῆλοντῇγὰροἰκείᾳφωνῇἐφθέγγοντο , λέγοντεςκ .τ .λ . διὰτοῦτοοὐδὲναὐτοῖςἔλεγον · ἐπειδὴδὲεἶδοντὰστέμματα , τότεἐξελθόντεςκ .τ .λ . Hom. xxx., p. 235 f. See, on the real nature of the gift of tongues, and the bearing of notices of this kind on its consideration, the note on ch. 2:4. These ἐπιφάνειαι of the gods are frequent subjects of heathen poetry and mythology. Hom. Od. ρ . 484, says, καίτεθεοὶξείνοισινἐοικότεςἀλλοδαποῖσιΠαντοῖοιτελέθοντεςἐπιστρωφῶσιπόληας . It was in the neighbouring country of Phrygia that Jupiter and Mercury were said to have wandered, and to have been entertained by Baucis and Philemon: ‘ Jupiter huc, specie mortali, cumque parente Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis.’ (Ov. Met. viii. 626, f.) Dio Chrysostom (Orat. xxxiii. p. 408) says, φασὶτοὺςοἰκιστὰςἥρωαςἢθεοὺςπολλάκιςἐπιστρέφεσθαιτὰςαὑτῶνπόλεις . (From Mr. Humphry’ s note.) 12. This distinction is (besides the reason given) in accordance with what Paul himself cites (as the saying of his adversaries, it is true, but not therefore without some physical foundation), ἡπαρουσίατοῦσώματοςἀσθενής . So Chrysostom, ἐμοὶδοκεῖκαὶἀπὸτῆςὄψεωςἀξιοπρεπὴςεἶναιὁΒαρνάβας , Hom. xxx., p. 237. ἡγούμενοςτοῦλόγου ] So Iamblichus, of Hermes, in reff.: ‘ vocis et sermonis potens,’ Macrob. Saturn, i. 8: λόγουπροφήτης , Orph. H. xxvii. 4: λαλίστατοςκ . λογιώτατοςθεῶνἁπάντων , Lucian, Gallus, 2. 13. πρὸτ . π . (see retf.); i.e. of Ζεὺςπρόπυλος : no ellipsis of ἱεροῦ or any thing else. ταύρουςκ . στέμματα ] Not for ταύρουςἐστεμμένους : the garlands may have been to hang on the doors of the house where the Apostles were: or for manifold purposes connected with the sacrifice. ‘ Ipsæ denique fores, ipsæ hostiæ , ipsiæ aræ , ipsi ministri et sacerdotes eorum coronantur.’ Wetst. τοὺςπυλῶνας are not the gates of the city, but the doors of the outer court of the house: see ch. 12:13. 14. οἱἀπόστολοι ] See note on ver. 4. The Apostles were within: on being told, they ἐξεπήδησαν — rushad forth, into the crowd. 15. ματαίων ] viz. θεῶν [contrasted with θεὸνζῶντα ]: the words of ref. 1 Thess. ἐπεστρέψατεπρὸςτὸνθεὸνἀπὸτῶνεἰδώλων , are remarkably like these. θεὸνζῶντα , without the articles, is characteristic of Paul: see Romans 9:26; 2 Corinthians 3:3; 2 Corinthians 6:16; 1 Thessalonians 1:9; 1 Timothy 3:15; 1 Timothy 4:10 al. It also occurs Hebrews 3:12; Hebrews 9:14; Hebrews 10:31; Hebrews 12:22; Revelation 7:2. 16. Compare Romans 3:25, Romans 3:26, and ch. 17:30. 17. Compare Romans 1:19, Romans 1:20. The words οὐρανόθενὑετοὺςδιδούς had a remarkable applicability in a country where we have seen from Strabo (on ver. 6) that there was great scarcity of water. He relates that in one city of Lycaonia, where water was reached by digging the wells very deep, it was sold for money. The idea of Mr. Humphry, that the conclusion of this speech is a citation from some lyric poet, seems improbable on other accounts, and is rendered more so by the above-noticed propriety. 19. πείσαντεςτοὺςὄχλ .] ἄπιστοιγὰρΛυκάονες , ὡςκαὶἈριστοτέληςμαρτυρεῖ . Schol. on Homer, Il. δ . 88, 92. They stoned him, not in the Jewish method, but tumultuously and in the streets, dragging him out of the city afterwards. He refers to this stoning, 2 Corinthians 11:25, ἅπαξἐλιθάσθην . 20. κυκλ ., not to bury him, but, as would naturally be the case, in mournful anxiety and regret. ἀναστάς ] The prima facie, and I think the right impression is, that this recovery was supernatural. It is not indeed so strongly implied, as to leave no doubt: especially as a blow from a stone would be likely to stun and occasion the appearance of death. Δέρβην ] See above, on ver. 6. Strabo, xii. 6, says of it, τῆςδ ʼ ἸσαυρικῆςἐστινἐνπλευραῖςἡΔέρβη , μάλιστατῇΚαππαδοκίᾳἐπιπεφυκός , τὸτοῦἈντιπάτρουτυραννεῖοντοῦΔερβήτου … ἐφ ʼ ἡμῶνδὲκαὶτὰἼσαυρακ . τὴνΔέρβηνἈμύνταςεἶχεν , ἐπιθέμενοςτῷΔερβήτῃ , κ . ἀνελὼναὐτόν . And Stephanus Byzantinus, ΔέρβηφρούριονἸσαυρίαςκαὶλιμήν (for this, evidently an error, the French translators of Strabo propose to read λίμνη . There is a large lake, now called Ak Gö l, near the presumed site of Derbe, see C. and H. i. 239).… τινὲςδὲΔέλβειαν , ὅἐστιτῇτῶνΛυκαόνωνφωνῇἄρκευθος . (Wetst.) From this variety of the name, Δέλβεια , Mr. Hamilton thought the modern Divlé might be Derbe. Mr. Lewin (i. 167) objects, that there is no lake near Divlé : but this objection only affects the conjectural emendation mentioned above. From Derbe not being enumerated, 2 Timothy 3:11, with Antioch, Iconium, and Lystra, as the scene of any of Paul’ s sufferings, we may perhaps infer that none befell him there. They may have fled to Derbe, as being in a different jurisdiction from Lystra; the latter being comprised in the Roman province of Galatia, whereas Derbe seems to have belonged at this time to Antiochus, king of Commagene. See Lewin, i. p. 168; Strabo, xiv. 5; Dio, lix. 8; lx. 8; Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 1. 21. ὑπέστρ .] They were not far from the famous pass, called the ‘ Cilician gates,’ which leads direct into that province: but, notwithstanding all that had befallen him, Paul prefers returning by the churches which he had founded, to a short and easy journey to the coast by his own home. 22. ἡμᾶς ] Is not this a token of the presence of the narrator again? My own conjecture would be, that he remained in Antioch during the journey to Iconium, &c., and back. The events between those two limits are much more summarily related than those before or after. In an art. in the Journal of classical and sacred philology, Camb., March, 1856, where the justice of the above conjecture is called in question, the writer says, ‘ here δεῖἡμᾶςεἰσελθ . &c. is the language of the preachers themselves, as the word ὅτι shews:’ and proceeds to remark justly on the transition from the oblique to the direct narrative, as especially characteristic of St. Luke’ s style, and corroborative of the unity of authorship between different parts of the Acts, and between the Acts and the Gospel. But if so, should we not rather look for ὑμᾶς than ἡμᾶς The writer, I am glad to see, joins with me in rejecting the ‘ common’ explanation (see Prolegg. § i. 13) that ἡμᾶς is used by the writer ‘ as a Christian, and of all Christians:’ to what then would he have it referred? I would rather, regarding the ὅτι as marking a transition to the direct narrative, take ἡμᾶς as an insensible translation into the first person on the part of the narrator, speaking of an exhortation which he heard and felt. 23. χειροτ .] ‘ cum suffragiis creassent,’ Erasm.: not necessarily as the meaning of the word conventionally,— which had passed to any kind of appointment, see ch. 10:41: but by the analogy of ch. 6:2-6. See ref. 2 Cor. The word will not bear Jerome’ s and Chrys.’ s sense of ‘ laying on of hands,’ adopted by Roman Catholic expositors. Nor is there any reason here for departing from the usual meaning of electing by show of hands. The Apostles may have admitted by ordination those presbyters whom the churches elected. προσευξ . μ . νηστ . belongs to παρέθ ., not to χειροτον . 25. Ἀττάλειαν ] A maritime town at the mouth of the river Catarrhactes, in Pamphylia, not far from the border of Lycia, built by Attalus Philadelphus, king of Pergamus, in a convenient position to command the trade of Syria or Egypt. It is still an important place, called Satalia. (Winer, Realw. C. and H. i. p. 242.) To reach it they had to cross the plain from Perga. 26. ὅθεν , as being the centre whence their apostolic commission had spread. 27. μετ ʼ αὐτῶν , with (i.e. in dealing with) them, see reff.: not to them, as usually: nor per ipsos, as Beza, &c. θύρανπίστ .] The same metaphor is used in the reff. by Paul, and shews, perhaps, his hand in the narrative. On χρόν . οὐκὀλίγ ., see chronol. table in Prolegg. Chap. 15:1-35. Differences respecting the necessity of circumcision for the Gentile converts. Council of the Apostles and elders at Jerusalem. 1. τινες ] Called in Galatians 2:4, παρείσακτοιψευδάδελφοι , οἵτινεςπαρεισῆλθονκατασκοπῆσαιτὴνἐλευθερίανἡμῶνἣνἔχομενἐνχριστῷἸησοῦ . See the addition in var. readd. probably from ver. 5. Doubtless it represents the fact. In spite of the special revelations which had accompanied the reception of the first Gentiles into the church, the strong Judaizing party adhered to their old prejudices respecting the necessity of conformity to the law of Moses. With this party Paul was in conflict all his life; and even long after, we find it raising its head again in the sects of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes. Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 185, note) notices the account in Josephus (Antt. xx. 2.4), where Izates, king of Adiabene, is converted to Judaism by a certain Ananias, who, for fear of a commotion among his people, allows him to remain uncircumcised— when a certain Eleazar, πάνυπερὶτὰπάτριαδοκῶνἀκριβὴςεἶναι , prevails on him to perform the rite, for that without it he could not be a Jew. On the idea that Cerinthus and Ebion were the τινές here spoken of, see the patristic reff. in Wordsw.’ s note. 2. Compare Galatians 2:5. ἔταξανἀναβ .] I assume here what seems to me to be almost beyond the possibility of question (see note to chronological table in Prolegg., where I have given the reasons), that this journey was the same as that mentioned Galatians 2:1-10. In that case, Paul there (ver. 2) says that he went up κατὰἀποκάλυψιν . In this expression I cannot see it necessarily implied that the revelation was made to himself, but that there was some intimation of the Holy Ghost, similar perhaps to that in ch. 13:2, in accordance with which the church at Antioch sent him and Barnabas;— there being προφῆται there, by whom the Spirit spoke His will. τιναςἄλλους ] Titus was one, Galatians 2:1, Galatians 2:3, and that, in all probability, in order to give an example of a Gentile convert of the uncircumcision endowed with gifts of the Holy Spirit, Titus is not mentioned in the Acts: but only in 2 Cor., Gal., 2 Tim., and the epistle addressed to him. 3. προπεμφ .] This seems to have been something of an official escorting of them on the way, and perhaps parting from them with solemn commendation to God: not, as Morus and Heinrichs, ‘ rebus ad iter suscipiendum instructis,’ which would hardly be thus specified, being a matter of course. At all events, it shews that the mind of the church was with them, not with the Judaizers. This was also the case in Phœ nicia and Samaria, as is shewn by πᾶσιν below. 4. On their arrival at Jerusalem, there seems to have taken place an official reception of them and their message, in public. There they related— as a most important datum for the determination of the question— God’ s dealings with them (see on ch. 14:27), and recounted the places where churches of believing Gentiles had been founded. This having taken place, a protest was entered on the part of the Pharisee believers,— in no way doubting the truth of these conversions, nor in any way disparaging the ministry of Paul and Barnabas,— that it was necessary to circumcise αὐτούς , those of whom they had spoken, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. It may be objected, that this view would not be consistent with Paul’ s statement, Galatians 2:2, ἀνεθέμηναὐτοῖςτὸεὐαγγέλιονὃκηρύσσωἐντοῖςἔθνεσιν , κατ ʼ ἰδίανδὲτοῖςδοκοῦσιν , μήπωςεἰςκενὸντρεχωἢἔδραμον . But I cannot see any inconsistency, if the words used in both cases be accurately weighed. To the ἐκκλησία , ἀπόστολοι , and πρεσβύτεροι Paul and Barnabas gave a simple recital of how God had dealt with them among the Gentiles: but Paul did not lay before the whole assembly the Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles, viz. the indifference of the Mosaic law to their salvation (Galatians 1:7-9), for fear of its being hastily disparaged or repudiated, and so his work being hindered (μήπωςκ .τ .λ .). But, in private interviews with the chief Apostles, James, Peter, and John (Galatians 2:9), he did unfold the whole freeness of this Gospel, and so effectually, as to prepare the way for their full and public accordance with him at the council. 6. The Apostles and elders only are mentioned as having assembled: in which case πᾶντὸπλῆθος (ver. 12) must mean τῶνπρεσβυτέρων , and the decision of ver. 22 must have been arrived at in a larger assembly. But most probably the deliberation of the Apostles and elders implied the presence of the brethren also, who are intended by πᾶντὸπλ .,— and there was but one assembly. The objection, that no one place could have held them, is nugatory: the official presence of all is assumed continually in such cases, where the assembly is open to all. λόγου ] matter (in this case) of dispute: see reff. 7. A promiscuous debate, not perhaps without some angry feeling, ensued on their first coming together,— and among the multitude, as is implied in ver. 12,— man disputing with man. Πέτρος ] Partly on account of the universal deference paid to him, but principally because of his peculiar fitness to open the apostolic decisions on the subject, from having been made the instrument of the first public and approved reception of the Gentiles. ὑμεῖςἐπίστ .] In Peter’ s speeches in ch. 10, this phrase occurs at the beginning of a sentence, ver. 28, and ὑμεῖςοἴδατε , ver. 37: and we have traces of the same way of expressing the personal pronoun in his speeches, ch. 2:15; 3:14, 25. Such notices are important, as shewing that these reports are not only according to the sense of what was said, but the words spoken, verbatim. ἀφ ʼ ἡμ . ἀρχ .] In regard to the whole time of the Gospel up to that day (about 20 years), the date of the conversion of Cornelius, at least fifteen years before this (cf. Galatians 2:1, and notes to chron. table in Prolegg.), would very properly be so specified. The length of time elapsed is placed by Peter in the strongest light, to shew that the question had in fact been settled by divine interference long since. Notice (in reff.) the idioms, &c., peculiar to Peter:— ἐξελέξ . with inf.,— διὰτ . στόμ .,— καρδιογν . (most probably);— or characteristic of him, πειράζ . τ . θεόν ,— ὼςκαὶἡμῖν (ch. 10:47: so ὥσπερκαί , ch. 3:17; 11:15),— ἀρχαίων now, compared with ἐνἀρχῇ ch. 11:15. Compare also with πειράζτ . θεόν ,— κωλῦσαιτ . θεόν , ch. 11:17. ἐνὑμῖν ] among you. If ἡμῖν be read, then ‘ among us (Apostles):’ see var. read. There is no ellipsis of ‘ me’ after ἐξελ .: the E. V. expresses the construction rightly. 8, 9. The allusion is throughout to spiritual circumcision, as the purification of the heart. God, who saw deeper than the mere fleshly distinction between Jew and Gentile, who knows that the hearts of all are unclean, and that the same all-sufficient sacrifice can cleanse them all, if applied by faith (compare the remarkable parallel, 1 Peter 1:18-22 incl.), put no difference between us and them, but has been pleased to render them spiritually clean. τῇπίστει , not simply ‘ by faith:’ but by their faith, or by the faith in Christ. 10. πειρ . (as κωλῦσαι , ch. 11:17), tempt, by putting obstacles in the way of His evidently determined course. ἐπιθεῖναι , infin., marking the intended result of πειράζετε : cf. βῆδὲθέειν , βῆδ ʼ ἰέναι , μάστιξενδ ʼ ἐλάαν , &c. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 365. ζυγόν ] See ref. Gal. Peter could not be so much referring to the mere outward observance of ceremonies, which he himself and the Jewish converts thought it expedient to retain,— but to the imposition of the law, as a condition of salvation, on the consciences of the disciples. So Neander (Pfl. u. L. p. 214). This being so, οὔτε … βαστάσαι will refer, not to the burdensomeness of ceremonies, but to the far more grievous burden of legal death, of which Paul cries out so bitterly in Romans 7:24,— and says, Galatians 5:3, μαρτύρομαι … παντὶἀνθρώπῳπεριτεμνομένῳ , ὅτιὀφειλέτηςἐστὶνὅλοντὸννόμονποιῆσαι . 11. Seeing that we all in common believe that the grace of Christ is the sufficient, and only cause of our salvation, it can neither be reasonable nor according to God’ s will, to fetter that grace with superfluous and vexatious conditions. See nearly the same argument retorted on Peter himself, Galatians 2:14 ff. κἀκεῖνοι are the Gentile Christians, not our fathers;— their ground of trust is the same as ours: ours, no more than theirs. 12. The multitude (see above) then,— and not before, on account of their mutual disputes,— being tranquillized by Peter’ s speech, quietly received from Paul and Barnabas an account of the seals of signs and wonders by which God had stamped the approval of their ministry among the Gentiles. The miracles at Paphos and Lystra would be among the principal of these. 13. αὐτούς , viz. Paul and Barnabas. Both had spoken: doubtless wonders, unrecorded, had been wrought by the hand of Barnabas, which he had recounted. Ἰάκωβος ] See note, ch. 12:17, and the prolegg. to the epistle of James. I assume here, that this is James the Just, the brother of the Lord, the author of the Epistle: and though an απόστολος (Galatians 1:19: see also note on ch. 14:4), not one of the twelve. If we may presume to judge from the character of his Epistle, to say nothing of the particulars which tradition has handed down concerning him, his decision would come with remarkable weight on this occasion. For he is, among all the sacred writers of the N. T., the representative of the strictest adherence to and loftiest appreciation of the pure standard of legal morality. All that the law was, from its intrinsic holiness, justice, and goodness (Romans 7:12), capable of being to Christians, he would be sure to attribute to it. And therefore when his judgment, as well as that of Peter, is given in favour of the freedom of the Gentiles, the disputers, even of the Pharisaic party, are silenced. There does not seem to be in the following speech any decision ex cathedra, either in the ἀκούσατέμου , or in the ἐγὼκρίνω (ver. 19): the decision lay in the weightiness, partly no doubt of the person speaking, but principally of the matter spoken by him. 14. Συμεών ] James characteristically uses this Jewish form of the name: so also Peter himself, 2 Peter 1:1. The name occurs Genesis 29:33, LXX; Luke 2:25; Luke 3:30; ch 13:1; Revelation 7:7: the name Simon, elsewhere used in the N. T. for Peter, is found in 1 Chronicles 4:20 (Heb. Σεμών , LXX-ed.-vat., but Σεμιών (Mai), Σεμειών , A). τῷὀν .] for His name: dat. commodi [for the service, or the making known, of His name]. On ἐπεσκ . λαβ ., see reff.: the infin., as ἐπιθεῖναι , ver. 10, note. λαόν , answering to the λαός , so well known as His by covenant before. 15. τούτῳ ] Neuter, to this: not, ‘ to Him,’ in which case we should expect not οἱλόγοιτῶνπρ ., but οἱπροφῆται (Meyer). 16-18. The citation from Amos is made freely from the LXX: differing widely in the latter part from our present Hebrew text, which see in loc. E. V. In all probability the LXX had another reading before them, substituting perhaps י ִ ד ְ ר ִ ש ׁ ו ּ א ֹ ת י for י ִ י ר ְ ש ׁ ו ּ א ֶ ת ־ and א ָ ד ָ ם for א ֱ ד ו ֹ ם . The existing Hebrew mss. contain several minor variations, for which see Kennicott and De Rossi in loc. Of this we may at least be sure, that James, even if (as I believe) he spoke in Greek, and quoted as here given, would not himself (nor would the Pharisees present have allowed it) have quoted any rendering, especially where the stress of his argument lay in it, at variance with the original Hebrew. The prophecy regards that glorious restitution of the kingdom to (the Son of) David, which should be begun by the incarnation of the Lord, and perfected by His reign over all nations. During the process of this restitution those nations, as the effect of the rebuilding, should seek the Lord,— to whomsoever the gospel should be preached. There is here neither assertion nor negation of the national restoration of the Jews. Be this as it may (and I firmly believe in the literal accomplishment of all the prophecies respecting them as a nation), it is obvious, on any deep view of prophetic interpretation, that the glorious things which shall have a fulfilment in the literal Israel, must have their complete and more worthy fulfilment in the spiritual theocracy, of which the Son of David is the Head. 17. ἐφ ʼ οὓςἐπικέκλ .] Notice the same expression in the Epistle of James (ref.). 18. The variation of reading here is remarkable. The text which I have given is in all probability the original, and the words inserted in the rec. have been intended as a help out of their difficulty. Not only are they wanting in several ancient mss., but they bear the sure mark of spuriousness,— manifold variations in the mss. where they do occur. The sense, and account of the text seem to be this: the Apostle paraphrases the ὁποιῶνταῦτα of the LXX, adding γνωστὰἀπ ʼ αἰῶνος , and intending to express ‘ saith the Lord, who from the beginning revealed these things,’ viz. by the prophet (of old, see reff.) just cited. The addition in the rec. has been made to fill up the apparently elliptical γνωστὰἀπ ʼ αἰῶνος , which not being found in the passage of Amos, was regarded as a sentence by itself. These last words, κύρ . ὁποι . ταῦ . γν . ἀπ ʼ αἰ ., may perhaps be an allusion to the mystery of the admission of the Gentiles into the, church, which was now being revealed practically, and had been from of old announced by the prophets: cf. Romans 16:25, Romans 16:26; Ephesians 3:5, Ephesians 3:6, &c. 19. ἐπιστρέφουσιν , not as E. V. ‘ are turned.’ but are turning:— the converts daily gathered into the church. In παρενοχλ . there is no meaning of ‘ præ ter, … insuper, molestiam creare:’ but simply ‘ molestiam creare:’ see reff. 20. ἐπιστεῖλαι , to send an ἐπιστολή : then τοῦἀπ ., of the purpose of such epistle,— to the end that they may abstain, &c. ἀλισγ . belongs to εἰδώλων only. Meyer understands it to refer to the four genitives, the pollutions of (1) idols, (2) fornication, (3) things strangled, (4) blood. This he rests on the non-repetition of ἀπό before τῆςπορν . But in this case the members do not correspond. The Gentile converts needed no command to abstain from the pollution of idolatry: and the use of the Alexandrine verb ἀλισγεῖν in reff. shews it to apply most naturally to pollution by eating. The ἀλ . τ . εἰδ . are the things polluted by being offered to idols, about which there was much doubt and contention in the early church:— see Exodus 34:15, and 1Co_8 and 10:19. τῆςπορνείας ] It may seem strange that a positive sin should be made the subject of these enactments which mostly regard things in themselves indifferent, but rendered otherwise by expediency and charity to others. In consequence we have the following attempts to evade the simple rendering of the word: (1) Beza, Selden, Schleusner, explain it of spiritual fornication in eating things offered to idols: (2) Morus and Heinrichs, of the committal of actual fornication at the rites in idol temples: (3) Salmasius, of the sin of the whore-master: (4) Calovius, of concubinage: (5) Lightfoot, of marriage within the forbidden degrees: (6) Teller, of marriage with heathens: (7) Bentley would read χοιρείας , ‘ swine’ s flesh:’ (8) πορκείας has also been conjectured (probably not by Bentley, as stated in Meyer, De W., and this work, edn. 1):— see other renderings in Meyer and De Wette. But the solution will best be found in the fact, that πορνεία was universally in the Gentile world regarded on the same footing with the other things mentioned, as an ἀδιάφορον , and is classed here as Gentiles would be accustomed to hear of it, among those things which they allowed themselves, but which the Jews regarded as forbidden. The moral abomination of the practice is not here in question, but is abundantly set forth by our Lord and his Apostles in other places. πνικτοῦ ] as containing the blood,— see Leviticus 17:13, Leviticus 17:14. αἵματος ] blood, in any shape: see Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:13, Leviticus 17:14; Deuteronomy 12:23, 24. , Tertull., and others interpret the word of homicide, which is refuted by the context. 21. Living as the Gentile converts would be in the presence of Jewish Christians, who heard these Mosaic prohibitions read, as they had been from generations past, in their synagogues, it would be well for them to avoid all such conduct and habits as would give unnecessary offence. Other meanings have been proposed: as ‘ that it was superfluous to command these things to the Jews, for they would hear them in the synagogues’ (so an ancient Schol., Lyra, and Neander),— whereas no question whatever was raised about Jewish converts:— ‘ neque est metuendum, ut Moses propterea antiquetur,’ Erasmus, al.: ‘ Pudori vobis foret et ignominiæ , si vos, homines Christiani … hac in re inferiores a Judæ is deprehenderemini, quod vos communione cum epulis sacrificialibus polytheismo favere videremini, quum illi Judæ i … monotheismo adhæ reant tenacissime, eumque quavis septimana sibi inculcatum audiant,’ Heinrichs. ‘ Nam quod ad Mosen attinet, non possunt, qui ex Judæ sis sunt, queri, eum sperni ab alienigenis nostri gregis, quando in nostris (?) non minus quam in Judaicis conventibus Moses, ita ut ab antiquo factum est, legitur, et quidem sabbatis,’ Grot., Hammond. On the reading of the law, &c., in the synagogues, see ch. 13:15, note. 22. ἐκλεξαμένους must not (with Kuin., al.) be taken for ἐκλεχθέντας ; the 1 aor. middle can never have a passive signification: see Lobeck’ s note on Phrynichus, p. 319: where he gives a collection of seeming instances of such usage and explains them. Such irregularities of case in words in apposition as we have here will not surprise any one versed in Hellenistic Greek. See e.g. Luke 1:73, Luke 1:74: ch. 25:27; Hebrews 2:10; also ch. 22:17, ἐγένετοδέμοιὑποστρέψαντι … κ . προσευχομένουμου .… γενέσθαιμεἐνἐκστάσει .… and ref. (h). Βαρσαββᾶν ] Of this Judas nothing further is known than that (ver. 32) he was a ‘ prophet’ (see ch. 13:1). Wolf and Grotius hold him to have been the brother of Joseph Barsabas, ch. 1:23. Σίλαν ] otherwise Silvanus : the former name [is found] in the Acts, the latter in the Epistles of Paul. He also was a ‘ prophet’ (ver. 32). He accompanied Paul on his second missionary journey through Asia Minor and Macedonia (ver. 40— ch. 17:10),— remained behind in Berœ a (17:14), and joined Paul again in Corinth (18:5; 1 Thessalonians 1:1; 2 Thessalonians 1:1), where he preached with Paul and Timotheus (2 Corinthians 1:19). The Silvanus (1 Peter 5:12), by whom the first Epistle of Peter was carried to the churches of Asia Minor, seems to be the same person. Tradition however distinguishes Silas from Silvanus, making the former bishop of Corinth, the latter of Thessalonica. On the hypothesis which identifies Silas with Luke and makes him the author of the Acts, see Prolegg. to Acts, § i. 11. β , γ . I may repeat here, that in my mind the description of Silas here as one of the ἡγούμενοιἐντοῖςἀδελφοῖς , of itself, especially when contrasted with the preface to Luke’ s gospel, would suffice to refute the notion. It has been also supposed (by Burmann) that Silas [third] is the same name with Tertius, who wrote the Epistle to the Romans, Romans 16:22: but without reason: see Winer, Realw., “ Tertius,” and Michaelis, Introd. vol. iv. p. 89, Marsh’ s transl. 23. The omission of καὶοὶ before ἀδελφοί , found (see var. read.) in all the first mss., can (as Neander observes against De Wette) hardly have been occasioned by hierarchical considerations, seeing that it occurs as early as Irenæ us, and that it would be equally against the strong hierarchical view to call the presbyters πρεσβ . ἀδελφοί , writing, as they were, to the ἀδελφοῖς . It seems very much more probable to me that the words καὶοἱ were inserted to bring the decree into exact harmony with the beginning of ver. 22. In this, the first official mention of πρεσβυτεροι , it is very natural that the import of the term should be thus given by attaching ἀδελφοί to it. See, on the whole, Bp. Wordsw.’ s note. Κιλικίαν ] This mention of churches in Cilicia, coupled with the fact of Paul’ s stay at Tarsus (ch. 9:30-11:25: see also Galatians 1:21), makes it probable that Paul preached the gospel there, and to Gentiles, in accordance with the vision which he had in the temple (ch. 22:21). χαίρειν ] Not a rendering by Luke of the Hebrew ש ל ו ם , as Grotius; for the Epistle was certainly written in Greek, as intended for Gentiles. The only other place where this Greek form of salutation occurs in an apostolic document (we have it in the letter of the chief captain Lysias, ch. 23:26) is in James 1:1, which Bleek has remarked as a coincidence serving to shew his hand in the drawing up of this Epistle. 24. Neander remarks (Pfl. u. L. p. 223, note) that έξἡμῶνἐξ . is a presumption in favour of the reading καὶοἱἀδελφοί above: for that these men could hardly have gone out from among the Apostles and elders. But such a supposition is not necessary: ἡμῶν implies the church, the ἀδελφοί of whom they were the πρεσβύτεροι , whether καὶοἱ be inserted or not. ἀνασκ .] See ref. Thucyd., where it will be seen that it implies turning up the foundations:— for Brasidas cleared the ground and consecrated it. Cf. Passow, sub voc. The words λέγοντεςπεριτέμνεσθαικ . τηρεῖντὸννόμον , inserted in rec. after ὑμῶν , are manifestly, in my view, an interpolation, from the desire to specify in what particulars these persons had sought to unsettle the souls of the Gentile brethren. The defence of the clause set up by Meyer and De Wette,— that if interpolated it must be from ver. 5, not from ver. 1, and that this is improbable,— is best answered by observing that in E, one of the principal authorities for the insertion, the δεῖ after περιτέμνεσθαι betrays in very fact that the interpolation was from ver. 5, as also, but in a less degree, does the λέγοντες . The reasons given by Meyer and De W. why the words should have been omitted,— the similarity of ending in ὑ -ΜΩΝ and νό -ΜΟΝ ,— or to square it with ver. 1, seem to me nugatory. The former is very improbable,— and the latter would have required the preservation of λέγ . περιτέμνεσθαι . The variations also in the clause are strong presumptions against it. The persons to whom the epistle was addressed would very well know what it was that had disturbed their minds, and the omission of formal mention of it would be natural, to avoid prominent cause of offence to the Jewish converts by an apparent depreciation of circumcision and the observance of the law. 25. γεν . ὁμοθυμ . may mean either ‘ assembled with one accord,’ as (perhaps) ch. 1:14; or ‘ having agreed with one consent’ as Meyer. I prefer the former meaning. So we have adverbs as predicates after verbs substantive, e.g., εἶναιδιαφερόντως , Plato Legg. x. p. 892 c, κατύπερθεγίνεσθαι , Herod., &c See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 337. Βαρν . κ . Παύλ .] Paul has generally been mentioned first since ch. 13:43. (The exception, ch. 14:14, appears to arise from the people calling Barnabas Jupiter, and thus giving him the precedence in ver. 12, after which the next mention of them follows the same order.) But here, as at ver. 12, we have naturally the old order of precedence in the Jerusalem congregation preserved. 26. παραδ . τ . ψ .] See reff. The sacrifice of their lives was made by them: they were martyrs in will, though their lives had not as yet been laid down in point of fact. This is mentioned to shew that Paul and Barnabas could have no other motive than that of serving the Lord Jesus Christ, and to awaken trust in the minds of the churches. But, although this was so, the Apostles and Elders did not think proper to send only Paul and Barnabas, who were already so deeply committed by their acts to the same side of the question as the letter which they bore,— but as direct authorities from themselves, Judas and Silas also, who might by word confirm the contents of the Epistle. On the present part. (ἀπαγγ .) see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 1. One account of it is, that during the mission implied in ἀπεστάλκαμεν they would be ἀπαγγέλλοντες . But a far more probable one, that the pres. part. here, as so often, designates merely, carrying rather a logical than a chronological force: “ as announcers of.” 27. τὰαὐτά , as above, the contents of the Epistle (and any explanation required): not, as Neander, ‘ the same things as P. and B. have preached:’ διὰλόγου , by word of mouth, as opposed to ‘ by letter,’ decides against this interpretation. 28. τῷἁγ . πν . καὶἡμ .] Not = τῷἁγ . πν . ἐνἡμ . (as Olsh.),— but as, in ch. 5:32, the Holy Spirit, given to the Apostles and testifying by His divine power, is coupled with their own human testimony,— so here the decision of the Holy Spirit, given them as leaders of the Church, is laid down as the primary and decisive determination on the matter,— and their own formal ecclesiastical decision follows, as giving utterance and scope to His will and command. The other interpretation weakens this accuracy of expression, and destroys the propriety of the sentence. Neander, in his last edn. of the Pfl. u. L. (p. 224, note), has given up the rendering of his former ones, ἔδοξενγὰρκαὶἡμῖν ,’ It seemed good (by the Holy Ghost) to us also,’ i.e. as well as to Paul and Barnabas. It was plausible, but quite untenable. Such ambiguity, in such a document, would surely be out of the question. The judgment as to what things were ἐπάναγκες is implied in ἔδοξεν , &c. ἐπιτίθ . had been used by Peter, ver. 10. 29. On the construction of ἀπέχεσθαι with ἀπό in ver. 20, and with a simple gen. here, Tittm., de Syn. N. T. p. 225, says well that the difference arises ‘ non quoad rem ipsam, sed modo cogitandi, ita ut in priori formula sejunctionis cogitatio ad rem, in posteriori vero ad nos ipsos referatur.’ His following remarks are worth reading. ἐξὧν , from which things; not, as Meyer, ‘ according to which precepts;’ see John 17:15. εὖπράξ .] Not, ‘ ye shall prosper:’ but as καλῶςἐποίησας , ch. 10:33; 3 John 1:6,— ye shall do well. See the curious additions in var. readd. ἔῤῥωσθε ] The customary ‘ valete’ of the conclusion of epistles. 31. παρακλήσει ] It does not appear, because παρεκάλεσαν follows in the sense of ‘ exhorted,’ that this word need mean ‘ exhortation.’ There was (De W.) very little exhortation in the letter: and it is much more natural to render it consolation here: it was the matter of their joy, which surely could not be said of the orders to abstain given in the letter. It has been observed by Mr. Pusey that syr. renders παρεκάλεσαν 5:32, by comforted. 32. προφ . ὄντ . gives the reason for their superadding to the appointed business of their mission the work of exhorting and edifying. On προφ ., see ch. 11:27; 13:1; Ephesians 2:20, and notes. 33. ποι . χρ ., having continued some time: see reff. [34. On every account it is probable that the words forming this verse in rec. (see var. readd.) are an interpolation. For, (1) manuscript evidence against them is weighty, especially as D, in the case of insertions in the Acts, is of very low authority. (2) The αὐτοῦ is αὐτούς in C and D, and αὐτοῖς and αὐτόθι in some cursives; and D and the Vulg. add μόνοςδὲἸούδ . ἐπορεύθη ; the former shewing the copying of an indistinct marginal gloss which was not understood, and the latter betraying the secret of the whole, viz. that the notice was interpolated to account for Silas being found again at Antioch in ver. 40. (3) Internally considered, the insertion is very improbable: coming after ἀπελύθησαν unexplained (which from its voice and tense implies that the dismissal actually took place and they departed) and followed by Παῦλοςδέ after ἔδοξεδὲτῷΣίλᾳ . On Silas’ s subsequent presence at Antioch, see note, ver. 40. We learn from Galatians 2:10, that a condition was attached to the cordiality with which the Gentile mission of Paul and Barnabas was recognized by the chief Apostles: that they should remember the poor, i.e. the poor at Jerusalem:— that the wants of the mother church should not be forgotten by those converts, whose Judaical bond to her was thus cast loose. This was an object which Paul was ever most anxious to subserve. See Gal. l. c. and note.] 35. διδάσκοντες , to those who had received it,— εὐαγγελιζόμενοι , to those who had not. 36— Ch. 18:22. Paul’ s second missionary journey (unaccompanied by Barnabas, on account of a difference between them) through Asia Minor to Macedonia and Greece, and thence by sea, touching at Ephesus, to Jerusalem and back to Antioch. 36. μετὰδέτιναςἡμ .] How long, we are not informed: but perhaps (?) during this time took place that visit of Peter to Antioch mentioned Galatians 2:11 ff. when he sacrificed his Christian consistency and better persuasions to please some Judaizers, and even Barnabas was led away with the dissimulation. On this occasion Paul boldly rebuked him. See, on the whole occurrence, notes to Gal. l. c. δή , see above, ch. 13:2. ἐναἷς , because πᾶσανπόλιν involves a plurality: so Xen. Mem. i. 2. 62, ἐάντιςφανερὸςγένηται … τούτοιςθάνατόςἐστινἡζημία : cf. Herm. ad Viger. p. 40. 38. ἠξίον ] Not as Vulg. ‘ rogabat:’ but ‘ æ quum censebat,’ as Beza. It gives Paul’ s refusal in the strongest manner. The position of the accusatives also forcibly expresses his decided rejection of one who had not dared to face the dangers of the untried country before. But Paul thought proper (as to) one who had fallen off from them from Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work, not to take with them that man. We may well believe that Paul’ s own mouth gave originally the character to the sentence. τὸνἀποστ .] See ch. 13:13. It hence is evident that his departure was not by the authority of the Apostles (as Benson). 39. ὁΠαῦλοςἐζήτειτὸδίκαιον , ὁΒαρνάβαςτὸφιλάνθρωπον , Chrysostom: who also remarks on their separate journeys,— ἐμοὶδοκεῖκαὶκατὰσύνεσινγεγενῆσθαιτὸνχωρισμόν , καὶπρὸςἀλλήλουςεἰπεῖνὅτιἐπειδὴἐγὼοὐβούλομαι , σὺδὲβούλει , ἵναμὴμαχώμεθα , διανειμώμεθατοὺςτόπους . ὥστεπάνυεἴκοντεςἀλλήλοιςτοῦτοἐποίουν . Hom. xxxiv., p. 262. Yet it seems as if there were a considerable difference in the character of their setting out. Barnabas appears to have gone with his cousin [see Colossians 4:10, note] without any special sympathy or approval; whereas Paul was commended to the grace of God by the assembled church. We find Mark afterwards received into favour by Paul, see Colossians 4:10; 2 Timothy 4:11; and in the former of those places it would seem as if he was dependent for his reception on Paul’ s special commendation. 40. Σίλαν ] He may perhaps have come down again to Antioch (see ver. 33) in Peter’ s company. We find (see above on ver. 22) a Silvanus in 1 Peter 5:12, the bearer of that epistle to the congregations of Asia Minor. 41. Συρίανκ . Κιλικ .] See note, ver. 23. Here we finally lose sight of Barnabas in the sacred record. Chap. 16:1. We have Derbe first, as lying nearest to the pass from Cilicia into Lycaonia and Cappadocia. Paul probably travelled by the ordinary road through the ‘ Cilician gates,’ a rent or fissure in the mountain-chain of Taurus, extending from north to south through a distance of eighty miles. See various interesting particulars in C. and H. i. p. 301 ff. and notes. ἐκεῖ ] At Lystra: which, and not Derbe, was in all probability the birth-place of Timotheus: see on ch. 20:4. This view is confirmed by ver. 2. He had probably been converted by Paul during his former visit, as he calls him his son in the Lord, 1 Corinthians 4:17; 1 Timothy 1:2; 2 Timothy 1:2; perhaps at Antioch in Pisidia, see 2 Timothy 3:10, 2 Timothy 3:11. His mother was Eunice, his grandmother Lois,— both women of well-known piety, 2 Timothy 1:5. Whether his father was a proselyte of the gate or not, is uncertain: he certainly was uncircumcised. He would be, besides his personal aptness for the work, singularly fitted to be the coadjutor to Paul, by his mixed extraction forming a link between Jews and Greeks. 2. Some of these testimonies were probably intimations of the Spirit respecting his fitness for the work; for Paul speaks, 1 Timothy 1:18, of τὰςπροαγούσαςἐπὶσὲπροφητείας (see ch. 13:1, 3). He was set apart for the work by the laying on of the hands of Paul and of the presbytery, 1 Timothy 4:14; 2 Timothy 1:6, after he had made a good confession before many witnesses, 1 Timothy 6:12. 3. λαβὼνπεριέτ .] As E. V. took and circumcised him. Every Israelite might perform the rite; see Winer, Realw., art. ‘ Beschneidung.’ διὰτ . Ἰουδ .] That he might not at once, wherever he preached, throw a stumbling-block before the Jews, by having with him one by birth a Jew, but uncircumcised. There was here no concession in doctrine at all, and no reference whatever to the duty of Timotheus himself in the matter. In the case of Titus, a Greek, he dealt otherwise, no such reason existing: Galatians 2:3. 4. τὰςπόλ .] Iconium, and perhaps Antioch in Pisidia. He might at Iconium see the elders of the church of Antioch, as he did afterwards those of Ephesus at Miletus. If he went to Antioch, he might regain his route into Phrygia and Galatia by crossing the hills east of that city. 5. This general notice, with μὲνοὖν , like those at ch. 9:31, 12:24, marks the opening of a new section. 6-9. This very cursory notice of a journey in which we have reason to think so much happened,— the founding of the Galatian and Phrygian churches ; the sickness of the Apostle alluded to Galatians 4:13; the working of miracles and imparting of the Spirit mentioned Galatians 3:5; the warmth and kindness of feeling shewn to Paul in his weakness, Galatians 4:13-15,— seems to shew that the narrator was not with him during this part of the route; an inference which is remarkably confirmed by the sudden resumption of circumstantial detail with the use of the first person, at ver. 10. 6. Φρυγίαν ] There were two tracts of country called by this name: ‘ Phrygiam utramque (alteram ad Hellespontum, majorem alteram vocant).… Eumeni restituerunt.’ Livy, xxxviii. 39. It is with ‘ Phrygia Major’ that we are here concerned, which was the great central space of Asia Minor, yet retaining the name of its earliest inhabitants, and on account of its being politically subdivided among the contiguous provinces, impossible to define accurately (see C. and H. i. p. 280, note 1). The Apostle’ s route must remain very uncertain. It is probable that he may have followed the great road (according to his usual practice and the natural course of a missionary journey) from Iconium to Philomelium and perhaps as far as Synnada, and thence struck off to the N.E. towards Pessinus in Galatia. That he visited Colossæ , in the extreme S.W. of Phrygia, on this journey, as supposed by some, and maintained with some ingenuity by Mr. Lewin (Life and Epistles of St. Paul i. 191 ff.), is very improbable (see Wieseler, Chron. d. Apostgsch. pp. 28 ff.). Γαλατικὴνχ .] The midland district, known as Galatia, or Gallo-græ cia, was inhabited by the descendants of those Gauls who invaded Greece and Asia in the third century b.c., and after various incursions and wars, settled and became mixed with the Greeks in the centre of Asia Minor. They were known as a brave and freedom-loving people, fond of war, and either on their own or others’ account, almost always in arms, and generally as cavalry. Jerome (in the introduction to book ii. of his comm. on Galatians, vol. vii. p. 429) says that their speech was like that of the Germans in the neighbourhood of Treves: and perhaps Λυκαονιστί , ch. 14:11, spoken of the neighbouring district, may refer to this peculiardialect. But Greek was extensively spoken. They were conquered by the consul Cn. Manlius Vulso, 189 b.c. (Livy xxxviii. 12, see 1 Macc. 8:2), but retained their own governors, called as before tetrarchs, and afterwards kings (for one of whom, Deiotarus, a proté gé of Pompey’ s, Cicero pleaded before Cæ sar); their last king, Amyntas, passed over from Antony to Augustus in the battle of Actium. Galatia, after his murder, a.d. 26, became a Roman province. The principal cities were Ancyra,— which was made the metropolis of the province by Augustus,— Tavium, and Pessinus: in all, or some of which, the Apostle certainly preached. He was detained here on account of sickness (δι ʼ ἀσθένειαντῆςσαρκός , Galatians 4:13). See further in Prolegg. to Gal. § ii. κωλυθέντες ] By some special intimation, like that in ch. 13:2. Ἀσίᾳ ] This name, applied at first to the district near the river Cayster in Lydia (Ἀσίῳἐνλειμῶνι , Καϋστρίουἀμφὶῥέεθρα , Hom. Il. β . 461), came to have a meaning more and more widely extended, till at last it embraced, as at present, the whole vast continent, forming one of the quarters of the globe. But we never find this meaning in Scripture. The Asia of the Acts is not even our Asia Minor,— which name is not used till Orosius (i. 2, p. 16) in the fourth century a.d.,— but only a portion of the western coast of that great peninsula. (A full account of the history of the territory and its changes of extent will be found in C. and H., i. pp. 275 ff., and in Wieseler, pp. 32-35. I confine myself to its import in the Acts.) This, which was the Roman province of Asia,— Asia Propria, Plin. v. 28,— as spoken of in the Acts, includes only Mysia, Lydia, and Caria,— excluding Phrygia (ch. 2:9 and here: 1 Peter 1:1 it must be included) as in Pliny l. c.,— Galatia, Bithynia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, Lycia. See ch. 19:26, &c. 7. Βιθυνίαν ] At this time a Roman province (senatorial: Hadrian, whose favourite province it was, took it from the senate). When they were come to (i.e. to the borders of) Mysia, they attempted to go into B. The expression πν . Ἰησοῦ is remarkable, as occurring in all the great mss., and from its peculiarity bearing almost unquestionable trace of genuineness,— the idea being quite untenable that the word Ἰησοῦ has been inserted here, and no where else, on doctrinal grounds. If the report of this journey came from an unusual source, an unusual expression would be accountable. 8. παρελθόντες must from the context mean ‘ having passed by,’ i.e. as regarded their work of preaching (cf. ch. 20:16),— and not ‘ having passed by’ as avoiding it; for they could not get to the coast without entering Mysia. I adhere to this interpretation, notwithstanding what has been said against it by Dr. Bloomfield (Gr. Test. edn. 9). For this sense of παρέρχομαι , which is not figurative at all, but involved in the literal, cf. Hom. Il. θ . 239: Aristoph. Vesp. 636, 7: Plato, Phæ dr. p. 278 fin. Τρωάδα ] Troas (Alexandria Troas, in honour of Alex. the Great: now Eski Stamboul) was a colony juris Italici (see on ver. 12), and a free city, and was not reckoned as belonging to either of the provinces Asia or Bithynia. Whether it was for this reason that Paul and his companions visited it, is uncertain. He may have had the design of crossing to Europe, if permitted, which the subsequent vision confirmed. See ch. 20:5; 2 Corinthians 2:12; 2 Timothy 4:13. 9. The vision seems to have appeared in the same way as that sent to Peter in ch. 10. It was an unreal apparition, designed to convey a practical meaning. The context precludes our understanding it as a dream. Μακεδών ] known probably by the affecting words spoken by him. There would hardly be any peculiarity of dress by which a Macedonian could be recognized. 10. ἐζητήσαμεν ] by immediate enquiry for a ship. This word is remarkable as the introduction of the first person in the narrative: which however is dropped at ver. 40, on Paul’ s leaving Philippi, and resumed again, ch. 20:5, on occasion of sailing from Philippi. Thence it continues (in all places where we have reason to expect it: see below) to the end of the book. On the question, what is implied by this, we may remark, (1) That while we safely conclude from it that the writer was in company with Paul when he thus speaks, we cannot with like safety infer that he was not, where the third person is used. This latter must be determined by other features of the history. For it is conceivable that a narrative, even where it concerns all present, might be, in its earlier parts, written as of others in the third person, but might, when more intimacy had been established, or even by preference only, be at any point changed to the first. And again, the episodes where the chief person alone, or with his principal companion or companions, is concerned, would be many, in which the narrator would use the third person, not because he was not present, but because he was not concerned. This has not been enough attended to. If it be thought fanciful, I may refer to an undoubted instance in the episode, ch. 21:17, γενομένωνἡμῶνεἰςἸερ ., to ch. 27:1, ὡςδὲἐκρίθητ . ἀποπλεῖνἡμᾶς , … ; during the whole of which time the writer was with or in the neighbourhood of Paul, and drops the we, merely because he is speaking of Paul alone. (2) One objection raised by De Wette to the common view, that Luke accompanied Paul from this time (except as above), is, that several times Paul’ s companions are mentioned, but Luke is never among them. On examining however one of the passages where this is done, we find that after the enumeration of Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, Gaius, Timotheus, Tychicus, and Trophimus, we are told, οὗτοιπροελθόντεςἔμενονἡμᾶςἐνΤρωάδι : so that the writer evidently regards himself as being closely associated with Paul, and does not think it requisite to enumerate himself among the companions of the Apostle. This may serve as a key to his practice on other occasions. On the whole, and after careful consideration of the subject, I see no reason to doubt the common view, that Luke here joined the Apostle (whether, as Wieseler suggests, as a physician, on account of his broken health, must of course be matter of conjecture, but is not improbable), and from this time (except from ch. 17:1-20:5) accompanies him to the end of the history. See the question of the authorship of the Acts further discussed in the Prolegg. § i. 12-14. 11. They had a fair wind on this occasion: in ch. 20:6, the voyage in the opposite direction took five days. This is also implied by εὐθυδρομήσαμεν : see ref., where it has the same sense, viz., ran before the wind. The coincidence of their going to Samothrace also shews it: determining the wind to have been from the S. or S.S.E. It is only a strong southerly breeze which will overcome the current southwards which runs from the Dardanelles by Tenedos (C. and H. i. p. 336): and this, combined with the short passage, is another mark of the veracity of our narrative. They seem to have anchored N. of the lofty island of Samothrace, under its lee. εἱςΝεάπολιν ] In an E. by N. direction, past the island of Thasos. It was not properly in Macedonia, but in Thrace, and twelve (ten, C. and H. i. 339, from the Jerusalem Itinerary) Roman miles from Philippi, which was the frontier town of Macedonia strictly speaking: see below. It was by Vespasian, together with the whole of Thrace, attached to the province of Macedonia (Winer, Realw.). Some Roman ruins and inscriptions serve to point out the Turkish village of Cavallo as its site. 12. Φιλίππους ] Philippi was built as a military position on the site of the village Krenides , by Philip the Great of Macedon. The plain between the Gangites, on which the town is situate, and the Strymon, was the field of the celebrated battle of Antony and Octavius against Brutus and Cassius (cf. Dio Cassius, xlvii. 41. ff.: Appian, ubi supra): see more below. There is now an insignificant place on its site retaining the name Filiba (or Philippigi?). Winer, Realw. πρώτητῆςμερίδοςτῆςΜακεδονίαςπόλις ] The first Macedonian city of the district. It was the first Macedonian city to which Paul and his companions came in that district,— Neapolis properly belonging to Thrace. And this epithet of πρώτη would belong to it not only as regarded the journey of Paul and Silas, but as Wieseler remarks (Chron. d. Apgsch. p. 37, note) as lying furthest eastward, for which reason also the district was called Macedonia prima, though furthest from Rome. The other explanations are, (1) ‘ chief city,’ as E. V. But this it was not: Thessalonica being the chief city of the whole province, and Amphipolis of the division (if it then subsisted) of Macedonia prima:— (2) πρώτη is taken as a title of honour (Hug, Kuin., De Wette), as we find in the coins of Pergamus and Smyrna (but not in the case of any city out of Asia Minor): (3) πόλιςκολων . are united (Grot.),— ‘ the first city which was a colony.’ But there could be no reason for stating this: whereas there would be every reason to particularize the fact that they tarried and preached in the very first city to which they came, in the territory to which they were sent. μερίδος would seem to import that the division into Macedonia prima, secunda, &c., made long before this by Æ milius Paulus (Livy, xlv. 29), still subsisted; this however is not necessary: μερίς might be merely a geographical subdivision. Wordsworth finds his solution of the difficulty in “ the Hellenistic sense of the word μερίς , viz. a frontier or strip of border land, that by which it (?) is divided from some other adjacent territory: see Ezekiel 45:7.” But this supposed sense may be questioned. Certainly in the place cited μερίς has no such meaning. It there represents ח ֵ ל ֶ ק , which is merely a part or portion. κολωνία ] Philippi was made a colonia by Augustus, as a memorial of his victory over Brutus and Cassius, and as a frontier garrison against Thrace. Its full name on the coins of the city was Colonia Augusta Julia Philippensis. A Roman colony was in fact a portion of Rome itself transplanted to the provinces . The colonists consisted of veteran soldiers and freedmen, who went forth, and determined and marked out their situation, with all religious and military ceremonies. The inhabitants of the coloniæ were Roman citizé ns, and were still enrolled in one or other of the tribes, and possessed the privilege of voting at Rome. In them the Roman law was strictly observed, and the Latin language was used on their coins and inscriptions. They were governed by their own senate and magistrates (Duumviri, as the consuls at Rome: see on στρατηγοί below, ver. 20), and not by the governor of the province. The land on which they stood was tributary, as being provincial, unless liberated from tribute by the special favour of the jus Italicum, or Quiritarian ownership of the soil. This Philippi possessed, in common with many other coloniæ and favoured provincial towns. The population of such places came in process of time to be of a mixed character: but only the descendants of the original colonists by Roman wives, or women of a people possessing the civitas, were Roman citizens. Hence new supplies of colonists were often necessary. See article ‘ Colonia’ in Smith’ s Dict. of Antt., and C. and H. i. pp. 341, f. ἐνταύτῃτῇπόλει ] In this city,— as distinguished from the suburban place of prayer to which they afterwards, on the Sabbath, ἐξῆλθονἔξωτῆςπύλης . Perhaps ταύτῃ may have been changed to αὐτῇ , to make the contrast stronger. ἐναὐτῇτῇπόλει , as distinguished from ἔξωτῆςπύλης , would be too strong an expression for the calm simplicity of St. Luke’ s narrative style. 13. ποταμόν ] a (or, the) river; viz. the small stream Gangites, or Gangas: Leake, p. 217, cited by C. and H. i. 341; not, as Meyer and De Wette, the Strymon, the nearest point of which was many miles distant. The name Krenides, formerly borne by the city, was derived from the fountains of this stream. From many sources we learn, that it was the practice of the Jews to hold their assemblies for prayer near water, whether of the sea, or of rivers: probably on account of the frequent washings customary among them. Thus a decree of the Halicarnasseans in Joseph. Antt. xiv. 10. 23, allows the Jews τὰςπροσευχὰςποιεῖσθαιπρὸςτῇθαλάσσῃκατὰτὸπάτριονἔθος . Thus Juvenal, speaking of the ‘ madida Capena’ at Rome, adds, ‘ Nunc sacri fontis nemus, et delubra locantur Judæ is,’ iii. 13. And Tertullian, de Jejuniis, ch. 16, vol. ii. p. 976, ‘ Judaicum certe jejunium ubique celebratur, quum omissis templis per omne litus quocumque in aperto aliquando jam precem ad cœ lum mittunt.’ And ad Nationes, i. 13, vol. i. p. 579, he speaks of the ‘ orationes litorales’ of the Jews. See also Philo in Flacc. § 14, vol. ii. p. 535. οὗἐνομ . προς . εἶναι ] Where a meeting for prayer was accustomed to be: i.e. ‘ where prayer was wont to be made,’ as E. V. That this is the meaning here, is plain from the use of ἐνομίζετοεἶναι , which could certainly not be said if the προσευχή were in this case a building dedicated to prayer. Were there no such qualification, we should understand the word of a προσευκτήριον or synagogue, as frequently used: τινὰςδὲοἴκουςἑαυτοῖςκατασκευάσαντεςἢτόπουςπλατεῖςφόρωνδίκην , προσευχὰςταύταςἐκάλουν · καὶἦσανμὲντὸπαλαιὸνπροσευχῶντόποιἔντετοῖςἸουδαίοιςἔξωπόλεως , καὶἐντοῖςΣαμαρείταις . Epiphanius, Hæ r. 80, § 1, p. 1067: and again, soon after, ἀλλὰκαὶπροσευχῆςτόποςἐνΣικίμοις , ἐντῇνυνὶκαλουμένῃΝεαπόλει , ἔξωτῆςπόλεως , ἐντῇπεδιάδι , ὡςἀπὸσημείωνδύο , θεατροειδής , οὕτωςἐνἀέρικ . αἰθρίῳτόπῳἐστὶκατασκευασθείς , ὑπὸτῶνΣαμαρειτῶνπάντατὰτῶνἸουδαίωνμιμουμένων . Josephus, Vita p. 54, says, συνάγονταιπάντεςεἰςτὴνπροσευχήν , μέγιστονοἴκημαπολὺνὄχλονἐπιδέξασθαιδυνάμενον . The προσευχή here was probably one of the open places spoken of in the above extracts from The close of the verse also agrees best with an open place of resort. There seem to have been few, if any, Jews in Philippi: this assembly consisting merely of women attached to the Jewish faith. We hear of no opposition arising from Jews. There appears (ch. 17:1) to have been no synagogue. 14. πορφυρόπωλις ] The guild of dyers at Thyatira have left inscriptions, still existing, shewing the accuracy of our narrative. The celebrity of the purple dyeing of the neighbourhood is as old as Homer: ὡςδ ʼ ὅτετίςτ ʼ ἐλέφανταγυνὴφοίνικιμιήνῃΜῃονὶςἠὲΚάειρα , παρήϊονἔμμεναιἵππων , Il. δ . 141. So also Claudian, de Raptu Proserp. i. 270: ‘ non sic decus ardet eburnum Lydia Sidonio quod fœ mina tinxerit ostro’ (Lewin, i. 242). Thyatira was a city of the province of Asia. Thus, although forbidden to preach the word in Asia, their first convert at Philippi is an Asiatic. Lydia is a proper name, not ‘ ita dicta a solo natali,’ as Grot.: though its origin may have been that. It was a common female name. See Hor. Od. i. 8; iii. 9. σεβ . τ . θ .] A proselyte; see reff. N. T. ἤκουεν , was listening,— when διήνοιξεν , the act of God, took place. διήνοιξεν ] ‘ cor clausum per se: sed Dei est id aperire.’ Bengel. τ . λαλουμένοις ] It appears rather to have been a conversation than a set discourse: the things which Paul was saying. 15. ἐβαπτ ., κ . ὁοἶκοςαὐτ .] It may be (as Meyer maintains) that no inference for infant-baptism is hence deducible. The practice, however, does not rest on inference, but on the continuity and identity of the covenant of grace to Jew and Christian, the sign only of admission being altered. The Apostles, as Jews, would have proposed to administer baptism to the children, and Jewish or proselyte converts would, as matter of course, have acceded to the proposal; and that the practice thus by universal consent, tacitly (because at first unquestioned) pervaded the universal church, can hardly with any reason be doubted. See note on 1 Corinthians 7:14. εἰκεκρίκατε ] If ye have judged me; modestly alluding to the decision respecting her faithfulness implied by their baptizing her, and assuming that such a judgment had been passed. Similarly εἰἡμεῖςἀνακρινόμεθα , ch. 4:9. 16. This happened on other occasions; not on the same day, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel fancy. In that case (besides other objections), if they had gone back from the house of Lydia to the place of prayer, the word would certainly have been ἐξελθόντων , and not πορευομένων . In ver. 15 is implied their taking up their abode with Lydia:— in this verse that they habitually resorted to this place of prayer to teach, and that what follows happened on such occasions. It may be remarked that the E. V. of πορευομένωνεἰςπροσευχήν , ‘ as we went to prayer,’ has given rise to a curious abuse of the expression ‘ going to prayer,’ in the sense of ‘ beginning to pray,’ among the lower classes in England. ἔχουσανπνεῦμαπύθωνα ] On the whole subject of dæ moniacal possession, see note on Matthew 8:32. This was a case in which the presence of the spirit was a patent fact, recognized by the heathen possessors and consulters of this female slave, and by them turned to account; and recognized also by the Christian teachers, as an instance of one of those works of the devil which their Lord came, and commissioned them, to destroy. All attempt to explain away such a narrative as this by the subterfuges of rationalism (as e.g. in Meyer, and even Lewin, i. 243, and apparently Hackett, p. 222), is more than ever futile. The fact of the spirit leaving the girl, and the masters finding the hope of their gains gone, is fatal: and we may see, notwithstanding all his attempts to account for it psychologically, that Meyer feels it to be so. πύθωνα ] Plut. de Defectu Oracul. p. 414, says ὥσπερτοὺςἐγγαστριμύθουςΕὐρυκλέας (from a prophet, Eurycles), πάλαι , νυνὶΠύθωναςπροσαγορευομένους . It is difficult to decide internally between the probabilities of πύθωνα and πύθωνος : I have retained the ancient reading, both from its external authority, and because I find so many Commentators explaining πύθων to be a name of Apollo, or the serpent Python, that the alteration into the gen. may thus be easily accounted for. Bp. Wordsworth has an interesting note on the probable reason for this new term appearing in the narrative, now that St. Paul is brought directly into contact with Greek and Roman divination. 17. ἔκραζεν , used to cry out: several occasions are referred to. The recognition of Paul and his company here by the spirit is strictly analogous to that of our Lord by the dæ mons, Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:34: and the same account to be given of both: viz. that the evil spirit knew and confessed the power of God and His Christ, whether in His own Person or that of His servants. 18. διαπονηθείς ] Not mere annoyance is expressed by this word, but rather holy indignation and sorrow at what he saw and heard; the Christian soldier was goaded to the attack, but the mere satisfaction of anger was not the object, any more than the result, of the stroke. It is doubtful here, in mere grammar, whether the dat. τῷπνεύματι is to be constructed with ἐπιστρέψας or with εἶπεν . But considering 1) that the spirit could hardly be the object of a bodily movement on the part of the Apostle, except as represented by the possessed damsel, and 2) that ἐπιστρέφω is never elsewhere found with a dative, but always with a preposition, εἰς or πρός or ἐπί , it is much the best to take τῷπνεύματι with εἶπεν , and believe it to be thrown forward before its verb for the sake of emphasis. 19. Her masters (a partnership of persons, not plur. for sing. They may have been the hæ redes of some one to whom she had belonged) perceived that the hope of their gain had gone out (with the dœ mon). ἐπιλ .… εἵλκ . gives the idea of force having been used. So we have ‘ obtorto collo ad præ torem trahor,’ Plaut. Pœ n. iii. 5. 45. Paul and Silas only are apprehended as having been the principal persons in the company. When De Wette says that, if Luke here were the narrator, he must say something of Timotheus, as he mentions him ch. 17:14, 18:5,— and yet holds (on ver. 10) that Timotheus himself is the narrator, he forgets that the same reasoning will apply to him also, if it applies at all, which I much doubt. When two persons of a company are described as being apprehended, we do not need an express assertion to assure us that the rest were not. ἐπὶτ . ἄρχοντας said generally: they dragged them to the forum to the authorities,— afterwards specified as στρατηγοί . 20. στρατηγοῖς ] The Duumviri of the colony, of whom at Capua Cicero says, ‘ cum in cæ teris coloniis Duumviri appellentur, hi se Præ tores appellari volebant.’ De Leg. Agr. c. 34. ‘ Messinenses,’ says Wetstein, ‘ etiam nunc (cir. 1750) Præ torem sive Præ fectum urbis Stradigo appellant.’ The name, as a rendering of Præ tor, had come from the Greek title of similar magistrates: so Aristotle, Politic. vii. 3, ἐνταῖςμικραῖςπόλεσιμίαπερὶπάντων · καλοῦσιδὲστρατηγοὺςκαὶπολεμάρχους . Ἰουδ . ὑπάρχοντες .… Ῥωμ . οὖσιν ] The distinction between ὑπάρχων and ὤν seems to be, that the former is used of something which the speaker or narrator wishes to put forward into notice, either as unknown to his reader or hearer, or in some way to be marked by him for praise or blame: whereas the latter refers to facts known and recognized, and taken for granted by both. Thus, we may notice that, when the fact of Paul and Silas being Romans is announced to the jailor, it is not ἀνθ . Ῥωμαίουςὄντας , but ὑπάρχοντας ; whereas here, both parties, the speakers and the addressed, being indisputably Romans, we have Ῥωμαίοιςοὖσιν . The account of this may be, that ὑπάρχω is predicated of something of which the speaker informs the hearer, some prior knowledge which he possessed and now imparts,— εἰμί being predicated of the bare matter of fact. See ch. 17:27, 29; 21:20 (for both); 22:3; Galatians 2:14 al., for ὑπάρχων : and for ὤν , John 3:4; John 4:9 bis; Romans 5:10 al. ‘ Versute composita fait hæ c criminatio ad gravandos Christi servos: nam ab una parte obtendunt Romanum nomen, quo nihil erat magis favorabile; rursum ex nomine Judaico, quod tunc infame erat (especially if the decree of Claudius, expelling them from Rome, ch. 18:2, had at this time been enacted) conflant illis invidiam: nam, quantum ad religionem, plus habebant Romani affinitatis cum aliis quibuslibet, quam cum gente Judaica.’ Calvin. 21. ἔθη … ] “ Dio Cassius tells us that Mæ cenas gave the following advice to Augustus:— τὸμὲνθεῖονπάντηπάντωςαὐτόςτεσέβουκατὰτὰπάτρια , καὶτοὺςἄλλουςτιμᾷνἀνάγκαζε · τοὺςδὲξενίζοντάςτιπερὶαὐτὸκαὶμίσεικαὶκόλαζε · and the reason is alleged, viz. that such innovations lead to secret associations, conspiracies, and cabals, ἅπερἥκισταμοναρχίᾳσυμφέρει .” (C. and H. i. p. 356.) So Julius Paulus, Sentent. v. 21. 2, cited by Wetst., ‘ Qui novas et usu vel ratione incognitas religiones inducunt, ex quibus animi hominum moveantur, honestiores deportantur, humiliores capite premuntur.’ 22. The multitude probably cried out tumultuously, as on other occasions (see Luke 23:18; ch. 19:28, 34; 21:30; 22:22, 23),— and the duumviri, without giving them a trial (ἀκατακρίτους , ver. 37), rent off their clothes, scil. by the lictors (τοῖςῥαβδούχοιςἐκέλευσαντὴνἐσθῆτάτεπερικαταῤῥῆξαικαὶταῖςῥάβδοιςτὸσῶμαξαίνειν , . Hal. ix. 39). The form was, ‘ Summove, lictor, despolia, verbera,’ Seneca (C. and H. i. 357). See also Livy, ii. 8; Valer. ii. 28, in Wetst. Erasmus fancied that the duumviri rent their own clothes from indignation: but, to say nothing of the improbability of such a proceeding on the part of a Roman magistrate, a man could not very well περιῤῥῆξαι his own garments 24. τὸξύλον ] Also called κᾶλον , ποδοκάκη , and ποδοστράβη , and in Latin, nervus: so ‘ noctu nervo vinctus custodibitur,’ Plaut. Cap. iii. 5. 71. Eusebius (v. 1, vol. ii. p. 16, ed. Heinichen) mentions, speaking of the martyrs in Gaul, τὰςἐντῷξύλῳδιατάσειςτῶνποδῶνἐπὶπέμπτονδιατεινομένωντρύπημα . 25. προσευχ . ὕμν .] Not as E. V., ‘ prayed and sang praises,’ — but, praying, sang praises, or in their prayers, were singing praises. The distinction of modern times between prayer and praise, arising from our attention being directed to the shape rather than to the essence of devotion, was unknown in these days: see Colossians 4:2. ‘ Nihil crus sentit in nervo, quum animus in cœ lo est.’ Tertullian ad Martyres, c. 2, vol. i. p. 623. The imperfects shew that they were singing, and the prisoners (in the outer prison) listening, when the earthquake happened. 26. πάντωντὰδεσμὰἀνέθη ] i.e. of all the prisoners in the prison: see below (ver. 28), ἅπαντεςγάρἐσμενἐνθάδε . Doubtless there were gracious purposes in this for those prisoners, who before were listening to the praises of Paul and Silas; and the very form of the narrative, mentioning this listening, shews subsequent communication between some one of these and the narrator. Their chains were loosed, not by the earthquake, but by miraculous interference over and above it. It is some satisfaction to find, that neither Meyer, De Wette, nor Kuinoel have attempted to rationalize this wonderful example of the triumph of prayer. See some excellent remarks on Baur’ s attempt to do so, in Neander, Pfl. u. L. p. 302, note 3. 27. ἤμελ . ἑαυτ . ἀναιρ .] The law de Custodia Reorum (Wetst.) says, ‘ Ad commentariensem receptarum personarum custodia observatioque pertineat, nec putet, hominem abjectum atque vilem objiciendum esse judici, si reus modo aliquo fuerit elapsus. Nam ipsum volumus hujusmodi pœ næ consumi, cui obnoxius docebitur fuisse, qui fugerit.’ Dean Howson notices, by the examples of Cassius, Brutus, Titinius, and many of the proscribed, after the battle,— that Philippi is famous in the annals of suicide (p. 361). 29. φῶτα ] Not as E.V., ‘ a light,’ but lights, neut. plur. 30. προαγ . αὐτ . ἔξω ] Into the outer prison: not perhaps yet outside the prison, which (from ἀναγαγών , ver. 34, when he takes them to his own house) seems to have been underground, or at all events on a lower level in the same building. In this same space they seem to have been joined by the jailor’ s family,— to have converted and baptized them, and to have been taken (to the well?) and washed from their stripes; and afterwards to have been led up (by stairs? see ref.) to his house, and hospitably entertained. The circumstantiality of the account shews that some eye-witness related it. His question, connected with the ὁδὸνσωτηρίας of the dæ moniac in ver. 17, makes it necessary to infer, as De Wette well observes, that he had previously become acquainted with the subject of their preaching. He wanted no means of escape from any danger but that which was spiritual: the earthquake was past, and his prisoners were all safe. Bengel admirably remarks: ‘ Non audierat hymnos Pauli, nam dormierat, sed tamen vel antea vel postea senserat, quis esset Paulus.’ 31. ἐπὶτ . κύριον ] Not without allusion to the κύριοι , by which name he had just addressed them. So Bengel: ‘ non agnoscunt se dominos.’ Considering who the person was that asked the question,— a heathen in the depths of ignorance and sin,— and how indisputably therefore the answer embraces all sinners whatever,— there perhaps does not stand on record in the whole book a more important answer than this of Paul:— or, I may add, one more strikingly characteristic of the Apostle himself and his teaching. We may remark also, in the face of all attempts to establish a development of St. Paul’ s doctrine according to mere external circumstances,— that this reply was given before any one of his extant epistles was written. καὶὁοἶκόςσου does not mean that his faith would save his household,— but that the same way was open to them as to him: ‘ Believe, and thou shalt be saved: and the same of thy household.’ 33. ἔλουσενἀπό ] A pregnant construction: ‘ washed them, so that they were purified from the blood occasioned by their stripes:’ see reff. This is much more natural than to take ἀπό (as in ἀπὸτῆςχαρᾶς (ch. 12:14) and the like) as signifying ‘ on account of’ (see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 225). 34. ἀναγ ., see reff. and note on ver. 30. πεπιστευκώς ] Winer renders ‘ as one who has placed his trust in God:’ but, as De W. observes, πεπιστευκώς must give the ground of his rejoicing (see 1 Corinthians 14:18 (rec.), εὐχαριστῶ … λαλῶν , ‘ I give thanks … that I speak’ ). Thus the meaning will be, rejoiced that he with all his house had been led to believe (and thus as a necessary consequence to believe in) God. The expression πεπιστ . τῷθεῷ could only be used of a converted heathen, not of a Jew: in ch. 18:8, of a Jew, we have ἐπίστευσεντῷκυρίῳ . 35. What had influenced the magistrates is not recorded. We can hardly suppose that the earthquake alone (as suggested by the addition in D: see digest) would have done so, as they would not have connected it with their prisoners; they may have heard what had taken place: but that, again, is hardly probable. I should rather set it down to calmer thought, repudiating the tumultuary proceeding of the evening before. ῥαβδούχους ] The lictors,— ‘ bearers of the rods,’ bacilli; which, and not fasces, were carried before the colonial duumviri: see Cicero, de Leg. Agr. ubi supra, on ver. 20. 36. Paul and Silas had returned to the prison: whither the jailor goes, accompanied by the lictors (ὁδὲΠ . ἔφηπρ . αὐτούς , ver. 37), to announce the order. 37. δημοσίᾳ and λάθρα are opposed: the injury had been public: the reparation, not to Paul and Silas merely, but to the Gospel of which they were the heralds, must be public also. ἀνθρ . Ῥωμ . ὑπάρχ .] By the Lex Valeria, passed a.u.c. 254, and the Lex Porcia, a.u.c. 506, Roman citizens were exempted from stripes and torture: by the former, till an appeal to the people was decided,— by the latter, absolutely. The following passages of Cicero illustrate our text: ‘ Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civium Romanorum corpore amovit.’ Pro Rabirio, c. 3. ‘ Cæ debatur virgis in medio foro Messanæ civis Romanus, judices: cum interea nullus gemitus, nulla vox alia istius miseri, inter dolorem crepitumque virgarum audiebatur, nisi hæ c: Civis Romanus sum.’ In Verrem, lib. v. 62, 63. ‘ Facinus est vinciri civem Romanum; scelus verberari; prope parricidium, necari.’ Ibid. 66. Many others are given by Kuinoel, Biscoe, &c. On the question, how Paul came to be born a Roman citizen, see note on ch. 22:28: and on ὑπάρχ ., note, ver. 20. Another irregularity had been committed by the duumviri, in scourging them uncondemned: ‘ causa cognita multi possunt absolvi: incognita quidem condemnari nemo potest.’ Cic. in Verr. i. 9. ‘ Inauditi et indefensi tanquam innocenter perierant.’ Tac. Hist. ii. 10. ἑκβάλλ .] are they thrusting us out? It does not follow, because ἐκβάλλω has no such sense in ch. 9:40, &c., that therefore it has not here. The circumstances must determine; which here seem to require this sense: the ἐκβάλλεινλάθρα having a tinge of degradation in it, as if said of casting out that of which one is ashamed. οὐγάρ ] An elliptical answer to a question or position, the negative of which is self-evident: see Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. p. 48: Kü hner, Gramm. § 741. 6: Hermann on Viger, p. 462. When it occurs with ἀλλά , it is best written without a stop between: cf. Aristoph. Ran. 58: μὴσκῶπτέμ ʼ , ὦ ʼ δέλφ ʼ · οὐγὰρἀλλ ʼ ἔχωκακῶς :— ib. 193: μὰτὸνΔί ʼ οὐγὰρἀλλ ʼ ἔτυχονὀφθαλμιῶν , and 499, φέρεδὴταχέωςαὔτ ʼ · οὐγὰρἀλλὰπειστέον . Mr. Humphry remarks, ‘ St. Paul submitted to be scourged by his own countrymen (five times, 2 Corinthians 11:24): for, though he might have pleaded his privilege as a Roman, to the Jews he “ became as a Jew,” observing their ceremonies, and submitting to their law.’ 38. ἐφοβ .] For the account which they might have to give at Rome, as in Verres’ case, or even for their popularity with the very mob of Roman citizens who had demanded the punishment. 39. παρεκάλεσαν ] Not ‘ comforted:’ but, as E. V., besought them: viz. not to make their treatment matter of legal complaint. In the request to depart from the city, the præ tors seem to shew fear of a change in the temper of the mob. See the curious addition in the var. readd. 40. They do not depart hastily, or as though forced, but wait to reassure the brethren. πρός has probably been altered to εἰς , on account of the verb, not because Λυδίαν was mistaken (Meyer) for the country of that name. παρεκ .] exhorted, is better than ‘ comforted,’ E. V. The one in this case would imply the other. Chap. 17:1. Here (or rather perhaps at ἐξῆλθον , in the preceding verse) we have the first person again dropped,— implying apparently that the narrator did not accompany Paul and Silas. I should be inclined to think that Timotheus went with them from Philippi,— not, as is usually supposed, joined them at Berœ a: see below on ver. 10. διοδεύσαντες ] The ὁδός , on which they travelled from Philippi to Thessalonica, was the Via Egnatia, the Macedoman continuation of the Via Appia, and so named from Egnatia (‘ Gnatia lymphis iratis exstructa,’ Hor. Sat. i. 5), in the neighbourhood of which the latter meets the Adriatic. It extended from Dyrrha chium in Epirus to the Hebrus in Thrace, a distance of 500 miles. The stages here mentioned are thus particularized in the itineraries: Philippi to Amphipolis, 33 miles: Amphipolis to Apollonia, 30 miles: Apollonia to Thessalonica, 37 miles. See more particulars in C. and H., i. pp. 368 ff. Ἀμφίπολιν ] Anciently called ἐννέαὁδοί , Thucyd. i. 100. Herod. vii. 114, lying in a most important position, at the end of the lake Cercinitis, formed by the Strymon, commanding the only easy pass from the coast of the Strymonic gulf into Macedonia. (‘ Amphipoleos, quæ objecta claudit omnes ab oriente sole in Macedoniam aditus,’ Liv. xlv. 30.) In consequence of this, the Athenians colonized the place, calling it Amphipolis, ἐπ ʼ ἀμφότεραπεριῤῥέοντοςτοῦΣτρυμόνος , Thuc. iv. 102. It was the spot where Brasidas was killed, and for previously failing to succour which Thucydides was exiled: see Thucyd. iv. and v., and Grote’ s Hist. of Greece, vol. vi. p. 625 ff., where there is a plan of Amphipolis. After this it was a point of contention between the Athenians and Philip, and subsequently became the capital of Macedonia Prima,— see Livy, xlv. 30, where Paulus Æ milius proclaims, at Amphipolis, the freedom and territorial arrangements of Macedonia. It is now called Emboli. Ἀπολλωνίαν ] Its situation is unknown, but was evidently (see the distances above given) inland, not quite half-way from Amphipolis to Thessalonica, where the road crosses from the Strymonic to the Thermaic gulf. Leake saw some ruins at about the right spot, but did not visit them: and Cousiné ry mentions seeing, on an opposite hill, the village of Polina. Pliny mentions it (N. H. iv. 10), ‘ regio Mygdoniæ subjacens, in qua recedentes a mare Apollonia, Arethusa.’ It must not be confounded with a better known Apollonia near Dyrrhachium, on the western coast, also on the Via Egnatia. See C. and H. i. pp. 376 f. θεσσαλονίκην ] At this time the capital of the province Macedonia, and the residence of the proconsul (Macedonia had been an imperial, but was now a senatorial province). Its former names were Emathia, Halia, and Therma: it received its name of Thessalonica from Cassander, on his rebuilding and embellishing it, in honour of his wife Thessalonica, sister of Alexander the Great. So Strabo, lib. vii. excerpt. 10: who, ib. excerpt. 3, calls it Θεσσαλονικεία . It was made a free city after the battle of Philippi: and every thing in this narrative is consistent with the privileges and state of an urbs libera. We read of its δῆμος ver. 5, and its πολιτάρχαι ver. 6: not, as at the Roman colony of Philippi, of ῥαβδοῦχοι (lictors), and στρατηγοί (duumviri), ch. 16:20, 35. It has ever been an important and populous city, and still continues such (pop. 70,000), being the second city in European Turkey, under the slightly corrupted name of Saloniki. For a notice of the church there, see Prolegg. to first Ep. to the Thessalonians, § ii. [ἡ ] συναγ .] The article is in all probability genuine: implying that there was no other synagogue for the towns lately traversed: and shewing the same minute acquaintance with the peculiarities of this district as our narrative has shewn since the arrival at Neapolis. 2. κατὰτ . εἰωθ .] See marg. reff. in E. V Paul was most probably suffering still from his ‘ shameful treatment’ at Philippi, 1 Thessalonians 2:2 διελέγ . argued, see reff. ἀπὸτ . γραφ . is best taken with διελέγ ., not with διανοίγων : see reff. 3. ὅτιοὗτος .… ] See examples of the change of construction, ch. 1:4; 23:22; Luke 5:14. The rendering is nearly as E. V., literally, that this is the Christ, namely, Jesus, whom I preach unto you. So Meyer. The ὁχριστός takes up τὸνχριστόν above, and attaches to ὁἸησοῦς the office concerning which this necessity of suffering, &c., was predicated. Even the particularity of this παθεῖνκ . ἀναστῆναι is reproduced in 1 Thessalonians 4:14. 4. προσεκληρώθ .] were added (as if by lot, that being determined by God, who gave them the Holy Spirit of adoption: ὃςκαὶἐνεργεῖταιἐνὑμῖντοῖςπιστεύουσιν , 1 Thessalonians 2:13) to the great family of which Paul and Silas were members. The sense is passive, not middle. The word is not uncommon in Philo. σεβ . Ἑλλ .] See reff. The aptitude of women for the reception of the Gospel several times appears in this book,— see above, ch. 16:13 ff., and below, vv. 12, 34. 5. προσλαβ .] Having taken to them, as their accomplices, to assist them in the ὀχλοποιῆσαι which follows. ἀγοραίων ] Such men as Aristophanes calls πονηρὸςκἀξἀγορᾶς ,— Demosthenes, περίτριμμαἀγορᾶς ,— Xenophon, τὸνἀγοραῖονὄχλον ,— Plutarch, ἀγοραίουςκαὶδυναμένουςὄχλονσυναγαγεῖν : see many other instances in Wetstein, who mentions the modern ‘ canaille’ . Cicero calls them ‘ subrostrani:’ Plautus,‘ subbasilicani.’ These may be alluded to in οἱἴδιοισυμφυλέται , 1 Thessalonians 2:14. (See note on ἀγοραῖοι , ch. 19:38.) ἐπιστ ., having fallen upon,— beset. Ἰάσονος ] With whom (ver. 7) Paul and Silas lodged. He appears, perhaps (?), again with Paul at Corinth, Romans 16:21, but did not accompany him into Asia, ch. 20:4. 6. πολιτάρχας ] The following inscription, found on an arch at Thessalonica, is given from Boeckh, No. 1967, in C. and H. i. 395: πολειταρχουντωνΣωσιπατρουτουΚλεοπατραςκαιΛουκιουΠοντιουΣεκουνδουΠουβλιουΦλαουιουΣαβεινουΔημητριουτουΦαυστουΔημητριουτουΝικοπολεωςΖωιλουτουΠαρμενιωνοςτουκαιΜενισκουΓαιουΑγιλληιουΠοτειτου .… Here we have this very title applied to the Thessalonian magistrates, shewing the exact accuracy of our narrative; and, curiously enough, we have three of the names which occur here, or in the Epistles, as companions of Paul: viz. Sosipater (of Berœ a, ch. 20:4: see Romans 16:21, and note); Secundus (of Thessalonica, ch. 20:4); and Gaius (the Macedonian, note, ch. 19:29). τὴνοἰκ . ἀναστ .] The words presuppose some rumour of Christianity and its spread having before reached the inhabitants of Thessalonica. 7. οὗτοιπάντες ] All these people, i.e. Christians, wherever found. A wider acquaintance is shewn, or at least assumed, with the belief of Christians, than extended merely to Jason and his friends. ἀπέναντι … πράσς .] Not ‘ do this in the face of the decrees,’ which would require τοῦτο with πράσς ., but as E. V. The δόγματα in this case would be the Julian ‘ leges majestatis.’ βασιλέακ .τ .λ .] This false charge seems to have been founded on Paul’ s preaching much at Thessalonica concerning the triumphant παρουσία of Christ. This appears again and again in his two Epistles: see 1 Thessalonians 1:10; 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 1 Thessalonians 3:13; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:2; 2 Thessalonians 1:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12: and particularly 2 Thessalonians 2:5, where he refers to his having often told them of these things, viz. the course, and destruction of Antichrist, by whom these Jews might perhaps misrepresent Paul as designating Cæ sar. 9. λαβόντεςτὸἱκανόν ] ‘ Satisdatione accepta;’ either by sureties, or by a sum of money, or both. They bound over Jason and the rest (τιναςἀδελφούς , ver. 6) to take care that no more trouble was given by these men: in accordance with which security they sent them away; and by night, to avoid the notice of the ὄχλος . 10. It does not follow, because Timotheus is not mentioned here, that therefore he did not accompany, or at all events follow, Paul and Silas to Berœ a. He has never been mentioned since he joined Paul’ s company at Lystra. The very intermitted and occasional notices of Paul’ s companions in this journey should be a caution against rash hypotheses. The general character of the narrative seems to be, that where Paul, or Paul and Silas, are alone or principally concerned, all mention of the rest is suspended, and sometimes so completely as to make it appear as if they were absent: then, at some turn of events they appear again, having in some cases been really present all the time. I believe Timotheus to have been with them at Thessalonica the first time, because it does not seem probable that Paul would have sent to them one to confirm and exhort them concerning their faith (1 Thessalonians 3:2) who had not known them before, especially as he then had Silas with him. And this is confirmed by both the Epistles to the Thessalonians, which are from Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus. From these Epistles we learn that, during his residence among them, Paul worked with his own hands (1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8) to maintain himself: and from Philippians 4:15, Philippians 4:16, that the Philippians sent supplies more than once towards his maintenance. Both these facts, especially the last, seeing that the distance from Philippi was 100 Roman miles, make it very improbable that his stay was so short as from three to four weeks: nor is this implied in the text: much time may have elapsed while the πλῆθοςπολύ of ver. 4 were joining Paul and Silas. See further in Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. III. § ii. 2 ff. Βέροιαν ] According to the Antonine Itinerary 61, according to the Peutinger Table 57 Roman miles (S.W.) from Thessalonica. Berœ a was not far from Pella, in Macedonia Tertia, Liv. xlv. 30, at the foot of Mt. Bermius. It was afterwards called Irenopolis, and now Kara Feria, or Verria, and is a city of the second rank in European Turkey, containing from 15,000 to 20,000 souls. (Winer, Realw. C. and H. i. 399 f.) Wetstein quotes a remarkable illustration from Cicero in Pisonem, c. 26:— ‘ Thessalonicam omnibus inscientibus noctuque venisti, qui cum concentum plorantium et tempestatem querelarum ferre non posses, in oppidum devium Berœ am profugisti.’ 11. εὐγενέστεροι ] Theophyl. and Œ explain it by ἐπιεικέστεροι , but this is rather its result, than its meaning:— more noble is our best word for it;— of nobler disposition;— stirred up, not to envy, but to enquiry. ταῦτα ] viz. the doctrine of ver. 3, which Paul and Silas preached here also. 12. The designation conveyed in Ἑλληνίδων is to be supplied before ἀνδρῶν also. So εἰςπᾶσανπόλινκ . τόπον , Luke 10:1. See Winer, edn. 6, § 59. 5. 13. οἱἀπὸτ . θ ., as E. V., of Thessalonica. No inference that they came from Thess. can be drawn from this expression: but it is asserted below. See Hebrews 13:24. ἦλθονκἀκεῖσαλ .] Not, as E. V., ‘ they came thither also, and stirred up.… ,’ which destroys the force of the sentence: but they came, and stirred up there also.… : no journey having been related of them before, but a precisely similar act of exciting the people. From the distance, some time must have elapsed before this could take place: and that some time did elapse, we may gather from 1 Thessalonians 2:18, where Paul relates that he made several attempts to revisit the Thessalonians (which could be only during his stay at Berœ a, as he left the neighbourhood altogether when he left that town), but was hindered. 14. ὡςἐπὶτ . θ .] The various readings seem to have arisen from not understanding ὡς ,— which cannot, here or any where else, be redundant (as De Dieu, Raphel, Wolf, Heinrichs, &c.): nor can it well here signify that his going, ‘ as if to the sea,’ was only a feint, to deceive his enemies (as Beza, Piscator, Grot., Olsh., Neander, &c.): for, as there is no mention of any land journey, or places passed through on his way to Athens, there can be little doubt that he did really go by sea. But ὡςἐπὶτ . θ . I believe simply to indicate the direction in which the Berœ an brethren sent him forth [implying probably that all that was known at Berœ a of his intended route was, that it was in the direction of the sea]. ὡς is used thus before participles and prepositions, without any assignable reference to its (more usual) subjective reference in such a connexion. Thus Hermann on Soph. Philoct. 58, says ‘ cogitationem significat particula ὡς . Sed multo usu factum est, ut aliquandoetiam ibi usurparetur, ubi non opus esset respici id, quod quis in mente haberet.’ We have the same expression in Pausan. ii. 25, καταβάντωνδὲ (the walls of Tyrius) ὡςἐπὶθάλασσαν , ἐνταῦθαοἱθάλαμοιτῶνΠροίτουθυγατέρωνεἰσίν ,— and Diod. Sic. xiv. 49, κελεύσαςκατὰτάχοςλάθραπλεῖνὡςἐπὶΣυρακοσίους ,— and Polyb. passim in Wetst.,— e.g. καθήκουσανὡςἐπὶθάλασσαν , v. 59,— and with the same signification. Where he embarked for Athens, is not said: probably (C. and H. i. 403) at Dium, near the base of Mt. Olympus, to which two roads from Berœ a are marked in the ancient tables. 15. καθιστ .] So Odyss. v. 274, τούςμ ʼ ἐκέλευσαΠύλονδεκαταστῆσαικαὶἐφέσσαι ,— and Arrian, Ind. xxvii. 1, καταστήσειναὐτοὺςμέχριΚαρμανίας . Who these were is not said. The course of Timotheus appears to have been, as far as we can follow it from the slight notices given, as follows:— when Paul departed from Berœ a, not having been able to revisit Thessalonica as he wished (1 Thessalonians 2:18), he sent Timotheus (from Berœ a, not from Athens) to exhort and confirm the Thessalonians, and determined to be left at Athens alone (1 Thessalonians 3:1), Silas meanwhile remaining to carry on the work at Berœ a. Paul, on his arrival at Athens, sends (by his conductors, who returned) this message to both, to come to him as soon as possible. They did so, and found him (ch. 18:5) at Corinth. See Prolegg. to 1 Thess., Vol. III. Ἀθηνῶν ] See a long and interesting description of the then state of Athens, its buildings, &c., in C. and H. chap. 10 vol. i. pp. 407 ff.; and Lewin, i. pp. 268 ff. It was a free city. Strabo (ix. 1) gives an epitome of its fortunes from the Roman conquest nearly to this time: Ῥωμαῖοιδ ʼ οὖνπαραλαβόντεςαὐτοὺςδημοκρατουμένουςἐφύλαξαντὴναὐτονομίαναὐτοῖςκ . τὴνἐλευθερίαν . ἐπιπεσὼνδ ʼ ὁΜιθριδατικὸςπόλεμοςτυράννουςαὐτοῖςκατέστησενοὓςὁβασιλεὺςἐβούλετο , τὸνδ ʼ ἰσχύσανταμάλιστατὸνἈριστίωνακ . ταύτηνβιασάμενοντὴνπόλιν . ἐκπολιορκίαςἑλὼνΣύλλαςὁτῶνῬωμαίωνἠγεμὼνἐκόλασε · τῇπόλειδὲσυγγνώμηνἔνειμε , καὶμέχρινῦνἐνἐλευθερίᾳτεἐστὶκ . τιμῇπαρὰτοῖςῬωμαίοις . See also Tacit. Ann. ii. 53. 16. κατείδωλον ] This ἅπαξλεγόμενον is formed after the analogy of κατάμπελος , κάθυδρος , &c. See reff. The multitude of statues and temples to the gods in Athens is celebrated with honour by classic writers of other nations, and with pride by their own. A long list of passages is given in Wetstein. The strongest perhaps is from Xen. de Repub. , who calls Athens ὅληβωμός , ὅληθῦμαθεοῖςκαὶἀνάθημα . 17. The οὖν (as De W. remarks against Meyer and Schneckenburger) does not necessarily give the consequence of what has been stated in ver. 16, but only continues the narration. See above on ch. 11:19. ἐντῇἀγορᾷ ] Strabo (x. 1) speaking of the Eretrians in Eubœ a says that some suppose them to have been named ἀπὸτῆςἈθήνῃσινἘρετρίας , ἣνῦνἐστινἀγορά (as distinguished from the Ceramicus, which was the old forum). It was the space before the στοὰποικίλη , where the Stoics held their διαλέξεις . 18. Ἐπικουρείων ] The Epicurean philosophy was antagonistic to the gospel, as holding the atomic theory in opposition to the creation of matter,— the disconnexion of the Divinity from the world and its affairs, in opposition to the idea of a ruling Providence,— and the indissoluble union, and annihilation together, of soul and body, as opposed to the hope of eternal life, and indeed to all spiritual religion whatever. The Epicureans were the materialists of the ancient world. The common idea attached to Epicureanism must be discarded in our estimate of the persons mentioned in our text. The summum bonum of the real Epicureans, far from being a degraded and sensual pleasure, was ἀταοαξία of mind, based upon φρόνησις ,— perhaps the best estimate of the highest good formed in the heathen world;— and their ethics were exceedingly strict. But the abuse to which such a doctrine was evidently liable, gave rise to a pseudo-Epicureanism, which has generally passed current for the real, and which amply illustrated the truth, that ‘ corruptio optimi est pessima.’ For their chimerical ἀταραξία , Paul offered them τὴνεἰρήνηντὴνὑπερέχουσανπάντανοῦν , Philippians 4:7. Στοϊκῶν ] So named from the στοὰποικίλη (see above), founded by of Cittium in the fourth century b.c., but perhaps more properly by Cleanthes and Chrysippus in the third century b.c. Their philosophy, while it approached the truth in holding one supreme Governor of all, compromised it, in allowing of any and all ways of conceiving and worshipping Him (see below, vv. 24, 25),— and contravened it, in its pantheistic belief that all souls were emanations of Him. In spirit it was directly opposed to the gospel,— holding the independence of man on any being but himself, together with the subjection of God and man alike to the stern laws of an inevitable fate. On the existence of the soul after death their ideas were various: some holding that all souls endure to the conflagration of all things,— others confining this to the souls of good men,— and others believing all souls to be reabsorbed into the Divinity. By these tenets they would obviously be placed in antagonism to the doctrines of a Saviour of the world and the resurrection,— and to placing the summum bonum of man in abundance of that grace which ἐνἀσθενείᾳτελεῖται , 2 Corinthians 12:9. τινεςἔλεγον .… οἱδέ ] These are not to be taken as belonging the one to the Epicureans, the other to the Stoics,— but rather as describing two classes, common perhaps to both schools,— the one of which despised him and his sayings, and the other were disposed to take a more serious view of the matter, and charge him with bringing in new deities. σπερμολόγος ] σπερμολόγοςεἶδοςἐστὶνὀρνέουλωβωμένουτὰσπέρματα · ἐξοὗοἱἈθηναῖοισπερμολόγουςἐκάλουντοὺςπερὶἐμπόριακαὶἀγορὰςδιατρίβοντας , διὰτὸἀναλέγεσθαιτὰἐκτῶνφορτίωνἀποῤῥέοντα , καὶδιαζῇνἐκτούτων . ad Odyss. ε . 490, where Damm observes, σπερμολογεῖν , ‘ verbum recentiorum; dicitur ἐπὶτῶνἀλαζονευομένωνἀμεθόδωςἐπὶμαθήμασινἐιςτινῶνπαρακουσμάτων , si quis quid arripuit forte ex disciplinis, eoque se imperite jactat:’ babbler is the very best English word: as both signifying one who talks fluently to no purpose, and hinting also that his talk is not his own. ξένωνδαιμ .] ἀδικεῖΣωκράτης .… καινὰδαιμόνιαεἰσφέρων , was one of the charges on which Athens put to death her wisest son. δαιμόνια is not plural for singular, as Kuin.: nor merely, though this is somewhat more probable, marks the category, as Meyer: nor can it refer (Chrys., Theophyl., Œ cum., Hammond, Heinrichs) to Jesus and the ἀνάστασις , mistaken for a goddess (a sufficient answer to which strange idea is, that ἡἀνάστασις is merely a statement in the mouths of others, of the doctrine taught by Paul, which he would hardly ever, if ever, specify by this word,— compare vv. 31 and 32): but alludes (as De Wette) to the true God, the God of the Jews, and Jesus Christ His Son: the Creator of the world (ver. 24), and the Man whom He hath appointed to judge it, ver. 31. καταγγελεύς ] Compare ver. 23, end; which is an express answer to this charge. 19. ἐπιλαβ .] No violence is implied: see reff. ἐπὶτὸνἌρειονπάγον ] There is no allusion here to the court of Areiopagus, nor should the words have been so rendered in E. V.— especially as the same Ἀρείουπάγου below (ver. 22) is translated ‘ Mars’ Hill.’ We have in the narrative no trace of any judicial proceeding, but every thing to contradict such a supposition. Paul merely makes his speech, and, having satisfied the curiosity of the multitude who came together on Mars’ Hill, departs unhindered:— they brought him up to the hill of Mars. Wordsworth believes he finds a trace of a judicial proceeding in ἌνδρεςἈθηναῖοι , denoting rather a public apology than a private discussion: and in the conversion of Dionysius the Areopagite. But what words other than those would St. Paul have been likely to use in making a speech to a concourse of Athenians? for no one supposes it to have been a private discussion. And why should not Dionysius have been present? As a convert of note, he would naturally have his title attached. The following note is borrowed from Mr. Humphry’ s Commentary:— ‘ It might be expected that on the hill of Mars the mind of the stranger would be impressed with the magnificence of the religion which he sought to overthrow. The temple of the Eumenides was immediately below him: opposite, at the distance of 200 yards, was the Acropolis, which, being entirely occupied with statues and temples, was, to use the phrase of an ancient writer (Aristides), ἀντ ʼ ἀναθήματος , as one great offering to the gods. The Persians encamped on the Areiopagus when they besieged the Acropolis (Herod. viii. 52): from the same place the Apostle makes his first public attack on Paganism, of which the Acropolis was the stronghold. Xerxes in his fanaticism burnt the temples of Greece (Æ schyl. Pers.: Cic. de Leg. ii. 10). Christianity advanced more meekly and surely: and though the immediate effect of the Apostle’ s sermon was not great, the Parthenon in time became a Christian church (Leake, Athens, p. 277). Athens ceased to be a κατείδωλοςπόλις ,— and the repugnance of the Greeks to images became so great, as to be a principal cause of the schism between the churches of the east and west in the eighth century.’ The hill of Mars was so called according to Paus. i. 28. 5, ὅτιπρῶτοςἌρηςἐνταῦθαἐκρίθη . It was on the west of the Acropolis. The Areiopagus, the highest criminal court of Athens, held its sittings there. To give any account of it is beside the purpose, there being no allusion to it in the text. Full particulars may be found sub voce in Smith’ s Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Antt. δυνάμ . γνῶν .] A courteous method of address (not ironical, as Kuin. and Stier). 21. A remark of the narrator (as I believe, Paul himself, see Prolegg. to Acts, § ii. 14) as a comment on the καινή and ξενίζοντα of the verse before. εὐκαιρῶ , vaco, Gloss. Vet. It is not a classic Attic word: εὐκαιρεῖνοὐδεὶςεἴρηκετῶνπαλαιῶν , Ἕλληνεςδέ , Mœ ris. “ σχολὴνἄγω ,” καὶ “ εὖσχολῆςἔχω ,” οὐ “ σχολάζω · ” τὸδὲ “ εὐκαιρεῖν ” πάντηἀδόκιμον , Thom. Mag. On this character of the Athenians, compare that given of them, Thucyd. iii. 38, μετὰκαινότητοςμὲνλόγουἀπατᾶσθαιἄριστοι , where the scholiast evidently has our text in his mind; ταῦταπρὸςτοὺςἈθηναίουςαἰνίττεται , οὐδέντιμελετῶνταςπλὴνλέγειντικαὶἀκούεινκαινόν :— Demosth. (Philippic. i. p. 43), ἢβούλεσθε , εἰπέμοι , περϊιόντεςαὑτῶνπυθέσθαικατὰτὴνἀγορὰνΛέγεταίτικαινόν ; γένοιτογὰρἄντικαινότερονἢΜακεδὼνἀνὴρκ .τ .λ . (so also in Philipp. Epist. pp. 156, 157.) The comparative, καινότερον , is used as here by Theophr. in giving the character of a loquacious person: οἷοςἐρωτῆσαιἜχειςπερὶτοῦδεεἰπεῖνκαινόν ; καὶἐπιβαλὼνἐρωτᾷνΜὴλέγεταίτικαινότερον ; It implies, as we should say, the very last news. 22. The Commentators vie with each other in admiration of this truly wonderful speech of the great Apostle. Chrysostom: τοῦτόἐστιτὸεἰρημένοντῷἀποστόλῳ , ἐγενόμηντοῖςἀνόμοιςὡςἄνομος , ἵνακερδήσωἀνόμους · Ἀθηναίοιςγὰρδημηγορῶν , οὐκἀπὸπροφητῶνοὐδὲἀπὸτοῦνόμουδιελέχθη , ἀλλ ʼ ἁπὸβωμοῦτὴνπαραίνεσινἐποιήσατο · ἀπὸτῶνοἰκείωναὐτοὺςἐχειρώσατοδογμάτων · διὸοὐκεἶπεν “ ἄνομος ,” ἀλλ ʼ “ ὡςἄνομος .” ‘ The oration of Paul before this assembly is a living proof of his apostolic wisdom and eloquence: we see here how he, according to his own words, could become a Gentile to the Gentiles, to win the Gentiles to the Gospel,’ Neander, Pfl. u. L., p. 317. And Stier very properly remarks (Reden der Apostel, ii. 131), ‘ It was given to the Apostle in this hour, what he should speak; this is plainly to be seen in the following discourse, which we might weary ourselves with praising and admiring in various ways; but far better than all so-called praise from our poor tongues is the humble recognition, that the Holy Ghost, the spirit of Jesus, has here spoken by the Apostle, and therefore it is that we have in his discourse a masterpiece of apostolic wisdom.’ The same Commentator gives the substance of the speech thus: ‘ He who is (by your own involuntary confession) unknown to you Athenians (religious though you are),— and yet (again, by your own confession) able to be known,— the all-sufficing Creator of the world, Preserver of all creatures, and Governor of mankind,— now commandeth all men (by me His minister) to repent, that they may know Him, and to believe in the Man whom He hath raised from the dead, that they may stand in the judgment, which He hath committed to Him.’ ἄνδρεςἈθ .] The regular and dignified appellation familiar to them as used by all their orators,— of whose works Paul could hardly be altogether ignorant. κατὰπ ., in every point of view: see reff. δεισιδαιμονεστέρους ] carrying your religious reverence very far: an instance of which follows, in that they, not content with worshipping named and known gods, worshipped even an unknown one. Blame is neither expressed, nor even implied: but their exceeding veneration for religion laid hold of as a fact, on which Paul, with exquisite skill, engrafts his proof that he is introducing no new gods, but enlightening them with regard to an object of worship on which they were confessedly in the dark. So Chrysost.: δεις ., τουτέστινεὐλαβεστέρους .… ὥσπερἐγκωμιάζειναὐτοὺςδοκεῖ , οὐδὲνβαρὺλέγων . To understand this word as E. V. ‘ too superstitious’ (‘ superstitiosiores,’ Vulg., so Luther, Calov., Wolf), is to miss the fine and delicate tact of the speech, by which he at once parries the charge against him, and in doing so introduces the great Truth which he came to preach. The word itself has both senses: δεισιδαίμων , ὁεὐσεβής , :— ἐντῷτοιούτῳ (in battle) γὰρδὴοἱδεισιδαίμονεςἧττοντοὺςἀνθρώπουςφοβοῦνται , Xen. Cyrop. iii. 3. 58: and on the other hand, Theophrast. Char. 16, explains δεισιδαιμονία by δειλίαπρὸςτὸδαιμόνιον : and Pollux, εὐσεβής , θεῶνἐπιμελής , ὁδὲὑπερτιμῶν , δεισιδαίμωνκαὶδεισίθεος . The character thus given of the Athenians is confirmed by Greek writers: thus, Pausan. i. 24. 3, Ἀθηναίοιςπερισσότερόντιἢτοῖςἄλλοιςἐςτὰθεῖάἐστισπονδῆς . See other instances in Wetstein. Josephus, c. Apion. ii. 11, calls them εὐσεβεστάτουςτῶνἙλλήνων . 23. ἀναθ ., looking over, ‘ reconnoitring.’ σεβάσμ .] not, as E. V., ‘ devotions:’ but objects of religious worship, temples, altars, statues, &c.: see reff. καί ] over and above the many altars to your own and foreign deities. πολλὰγὰρτῶνξενικῶνἱερῶνπαρεδέξαντο , … καὶδὴκαὶτὰΘρᾲκιακαὶτὰΦρύγια , Strabo, x. p. 472. ἀγνώστῳθεῷ ] To an (not, the) unknown God. That this was the veritable inscription on the altars , the words ᾧἐπεγέγραπτο , on which had been inscribed, are decisive. Meyer well remarks, that the historical fact would be abundantly established from this passage, being Paul’ s testimony of what he himself had seen,— and spoken to the Athenian people. But we have our narrative confirmed by the following: Paus. i. 1. 4, ἐνταῦθαικαὶβωμοὶθεῶντεὀνομαζομένωνἀγνώστων , καὶἡρώωνκαὶπαίδωντῶνΘήσεωςκαὶΦαλήρου :— Philostratus, Vita Apollon. vi. 3, σωφρονέστεροντὸπερὶπάντωνθεῶνεὖλέγειν , καὶταῦταἈθήνῃσιν , οὗκαὶἀγνώστωνδαιμόνωνβωμοὶἵδρυνται . On which Winer well says, that it by no means follows that each altar had the inscription in the plural, θεοῖςἀγνώστοις , but more naturally that the plural has been used to suit βωμοί , and that the inscription on each was as here. The commonly cited passage of (Pseudo-) Lucian, Philopatr. 9, and 29, νὴτὸνἄγνωστονἐνἈθήναις , is no testimony, the dialogue being spurious, and the reference to our text evident. The origin of such altars has been variously explained: Diog. Laert. (vita Epimenid.) says, that Epimenides, on occasion of a plague, advised the Athenians to let go white and black sheep from the Areiopagus, and on the spots where they lay down to erect altars τῷπροσήκοντιθεῷ : ὅθεν , he adds, ἔτικαὶνῦνἐστινεὑρεῖνκατὰτοὺςδήμουςτῶνἈθηναίωνβωμοὺςἀνωνύμους . Eichhorn conjectures that they may have been ancient altars erected before the use of writing, and thus inscribed in after-times. But I should rather suppose that the above anecdote furnishes the key to the practice: that on the occurrence of any remarkable calamity or deliverance not assignable to the conventionally-received agency of any of the recognized deities, an unknown God was reverenced as their author. That the God of the Jews was meant (as supposed by Calov., Wolf, al.) is very improbable. ‘ Quod ignotis Diis altare erexerant, signum erat nihil ipsos tenere certi: habebant quidem ingentem Deorum turbam … sed dum illis permiscent ignotos Deos, hoc ipso fatentur nihil de vera Divinitate se habere compertum … Inde apparet inquietudo, quod se nondum defunctos fatentur, ubi popularibus Diis litarunt,’ &c. Calvin. ὃ … τοῦτο ] The ὅν and τοῦτον of the rec. have probably been alterations from reverential motives. The neuters give surely the deeper, and the more appropriate sense. For Paul does not identify the true God with the dedication of, or worship at, the altar mentioned: but speaks of the Divinity of whom they, by this inscription, confessed themselves ignorant. (It may however be a warning of the uncertainty of à priori internal evidence for readings, that De Wette and Meyer suppose the masculines to have been altered to produce this very sense, and to avoid the inference that Paul identified the unknown God with the Creator.) But even a more serious objection lies against the masculines. The sentiment would thus be in direct contradiction to the assertion of Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 10:20, ἃθύουσιν , δαιμονίοιςκαὶοὐθεῷθύουσιν . Compare also our Lord’ s words, John 4:22, ὑμεῖςπροσκυνεῖτεὃοὐκοἴδατε . In εὐσεβεῖτε , we have another confirmation of the sense above insisted on for δεισιδαιμονεστέρους . He wishes to commend their reverential spirit, while he shews its misdirection. An important lesson for all who have controversies with Paganism and Romanism. καταγγ .] (See above, καταγγελεύς ver. 18.) I am declaring,— making manifest, to you. ὑμεῖςμεπροελάβετε , φησίν · ἔφθασεὑμῶνἡθεραπείατὸἐμὸνκήρυγμα . Chrys. 24. ‘ No wonder, that the devil, in order to diffuse idolatry, has blotted out among all heathen nations the recognition of Creation. The true doctrine of Creation is the proper refutation of all idolatry.’ Roos. Einl. in die bibl. Geschicht., cited by Stier, Red. der Apost. ii. 140, who remarks, ‘ Only on the firm foundation of the Old Testament doctrine of Creation can we rightly build the New Testament doctrine of redemption: and only he, who scripturally believes and apprehends by faith the earliest words of Revelation, concerning a Creator of all things, can also apprehend, know, and scripturally worship, the man, in whom God’ s word, down to its latest canonical Revelation, gathers together all things.’ οὐκἐνχειρ .] A remarkable reminiscence of the dying speech of Stephen: see ch. 7:48. Mr. Humphry notices the similarity, but difference in its conclusion, of the argument attributed to Xerxes in Cicero, Leg. ii. 10: ‘ Xerxes inflammasse templa Græ ciæ dicitur, quod parietibus includerent deos, quibus omnia deberent esse patentia et libera, quorumque hic mundus omnis templum esset et domus.’ Where Paul stood, he might see the celebrated colossal statue of Athena Polias, known by the Athenians as ἡΘεά , standing and keeping guard with spear and shield in the enclosure of the Acropolis. 25. θεραπεύεται , is (really and truly) served. So θεὸςοὐμυκτηρίζεται , Galatians 6:7. προσδ .] ἐνδεῖσθαιμένἐστιτὸπαντελῶςμὴἔχειν · προσδεῖσθαιδὲτὸἔχεινμὲνμέρος , ἔτιδὲδεῖσθαιπρὸςτὸτέλειον . Ulpian (in Wetst.). As the assertion of Creation contradicted the Epicurean error, so this laid hold of that portion of truth, which, however disguised, that school had apprehended: ‘ Omnis enim per se divû m natura necesse est | Immortali æ vo summa cum pace fruatur. |.… | Ipsa suis pollens opibus, nihil indiga nostri,’ Lucret. i. 57. There is a verse in 2 Macc. 14:35, remarkable, as compared with the thoughts and words of Paul here: σύ , κύριε , τῶνὅλωνἀπροσδεὴςὑπάρχων , εὐδοκήσαςναὸντῆςσῆςκατασκηνώσεωςἐνἡμῖνγενέσθαι . τινός ] neuter, as referring to the temples and statues offered by the Athenians. ζωὴνκ . πνοήν ] He is the Preserver, as well as the Creator, of all; and all things come to us from Him. Compare, on τὰπάντα , David’ s words, 1 Chronicles 29:14, σὰτὰπάντα , καὶἐκτῶνσῶνδεδώκαμένσοι . 26. ἐξἑνὸς [αἵμ .] was said, be it remembered, to a people who gave themselves out for αὐτόχθονες : but we must not imagine that to refute this was the object of the words: they aim far higher than this, and controvert the whole genius of polytheism, which attributed to the various nations differing mythical origins, and separate guardian gods. It is remarkable, that though of all people the Jews were the most distinguished in their covenant state from other nations of the earth, yet to them only was given the revelation of the true history of mankind, as all created of one blood: a doctrine kept as it were in store for the gospel to proclaim. Not, ‘ hath made of one blood,’ &c., as E. V., but caused every nation of men (sprung) of one [blood] to dwell, &c. See Matthew 5:32; Mark 7:37. παντὸςπροσώπου ] The omission of the art. may be accounted for by the words following ἐπί (see Middleton, vi. 1): or, perhaps, by the parallelism of πᾶνἔθνος , παντὸςπροσώπου : or perhaps, as πὰςοἶκοςἸσραήλ , ch. 2:36, because πρόσωποντῆςγῆς is regarded as one appellative. See note on πᾶσαοἰκοδομή , Ephesians 2:21. καιρ .… ὁροθ .] He who was before (ver. 24) the Creator, then (ver. 25) the Preserver, is now the Governor of all men: prescribing to each nation its space to dwell in, and its time of endurance. προστετ ., not προτ ., appointed, ‘ ordered by Him.’ 27. ζητεῖν does not depend on ἐποίησεν , but gives the intent of the above-mentioned providential arrangement: that they might seek God. τὸνκύριον (as rec. and two uncial mss. have) has probably been a careless mistake of a transcriber: τὶτὸθεῖόμἐστιν , which appears to have been the reading of , is one of its own strange glosses. εἰἄρα ] if by any chance, denoting a contingency apparently not very likely to happen, see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440. ψηλαφήσειαν ] Originally an Æ olic form, but frequent in Attic Greek, for ψηλαφήσαιεν , sec Luke 6:11. On the word itself, compare Aristoph. (Pax, 691): προτοῦμὲνοὖν | ἐψηλαφῶμενἐνσκότῳτὰπράγματα , | νυνὶδ ʼ ἅπανταπρὸςλύχνονβουλεύσομεν . These lines, as Mr. Humphry observes, ‘ seem at once to illustrate the figurative use of the verb, and to express the condition of man prior and subsequent to revelation.’ καίγε .… ] ‘ Not that He is distant from us, but that we are ignorant of Him.’ See Romans 10:6, Romans 10:8; Jeremiah 23:23, Jeremiah 23:24. καίγε , ‘ et quidem:’ see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 398 f. 28. There is no justification for the pantheist in this. It is properly said only of the race of men, as being His offspring, bound to Him: proceeding from, and upheld by, and therefore living, moving, and being in Him:— but even in a wider sense His Being, though a separate objective Personality, involves and contains that of His creatures. See Ephesians 1:10, where the same is said of Christ. ἐναὐτῷ must not be taken for ‘ by Him;’ the subsequent citation would in that case be irrelevant. ζῶμ . κιν . ἐσμ .] ‘ A climax: out of God we should have no Life, nor even movement (which some things without life have, plants, water, &c.), nay, not any existence at all (we should not have been).’ Meyer. Storr’ s explanation of ζῶμεν by ‘ vivimus beate ac hilare,’ and Kuinoel and Olshausen’ s of ἐσμέν by ‘ real being,’ i.e. ‘ the spiritual life,’ are evidently beside the purpose; the intent being to shew the absolute dependence for every thing of man on God,— and thence the absurdity of supposing the Godhead like to the works of his (man’ s) hands. τοῦγὰρκ . γ . ἐσμ .] Aratus, in the opening lines of the Phæ nomena.… πάντηδὲΔιὸςκεχρήμεθαπάντες · τοῦγὰρκαὶγένοςἐσμέν . Kleanthes also, Hymn. in Jov. 5, has ἐκσοῦγὰργένοςἐσμέν . Aratus was a native of Tarsus, about 270 b.c., and wrote astronomical poems, of which two, the φαινόμενα and διοσημεία , remain. Kleanthes was born at Assos, in Troas, about 300 b.c. The Apostle, by the plural, seems to have both poets in his mind. The τοῦ refers to Zeus in both cases, the admission being taken as a portion of truth regarding the Supreme God, which even heathen poets confessed. The καί has no connexion here, but is (see above) part of the verse in Aratus. 30. ὑπεριδών ] In this word lie treasures of mercy for those who lived in the times of ignorance. God overlooked them [the rendering of the E. V. bears the same meaning, but is to our ears in these days objectionable]: i.e. corrected not this ignorance itself as a sin, but the abuses even of this, by which the heathen sunk into deeper degradation. The same argument is treated more at length in Romans 1:2. The πᾶσι of the rec. and ἵναπάντες of D1 have both been corrections occasioned by the apparent difficulty of τοῖςἀνθρώποιςπάντας . The genuine reading gives the emphatic πάνταςπανταχοῦ , following on the foregoing assertion of vv. 25, 26, its proper place. 31. καθότι ] See var. read. and reff.:— used by Luke and him only: ‘ seeing that,’ inasmuch as. ἐνδικαιος .] δικαιος . is the character of the judgment,— the element, of which it shall consist. ἐνἀνδρί ] Not, ‘ in (by) a man,’ but by (i.e. in the person of) the man: the art. is omitted after the preposition: see Midd. vi. 1. The ἐν is not instrumental, properly speaking, here or any where else. Its judicial use is only a particular case of its usage of investiture or elementary condition: in the judge the judgment consists, is constituted; he is its vehicle and expression. See ref. 1 Cor. and note for examples of this use. πίστ . κ .τ .λ . ‘ Quia res erat vix credibilis, argumentum adfert eximium.’ Grotius. 32. ἀνάστ . νεκρ .] Perhaps here, ‘ when they heard of a resurrection of dead men,’ viz. of that of Christ, νεκρῶν being generic. But the same words are used in ref. 1 Cor. πῶςλέγουσινἐνὑμῖντινεςὅτιἀνάστασιςνεκρῶνοὐκἔστιν ; so that I would rather take them here to mean that they inferred the general possibility of the resurrection of the dead, as a tenet of Paul’ s, from the one case which he mentioned. οἱ .… οἱδέ ] We must not allot these two parties as some have done, the former to the Epicureans, the latter to the Stoics: the description is general. The words ἀκουσόμεθα .… need not be taken as ironical. The hearing not having taken place is no proof that it was not intended at the time: and the distinction between these and the mockers seems to imply that they were in earnest. 33. οὕτως ] ‘ In this state of the popular mind:’ (with an expectation of being heard again?) [The “ so” of the E. V. does not give this forcibly enough, but looks like a mere particle of transition.] 34. ΔιονύσιοςὁἈρ .] Nothing more is known of him. Euseb. H. E. iii. 4; iv. 23, relates that he was bishop of Athens, and Niceph. iii. 11, that he died a martyr. The writings which go by his name are undoubtedly spurious. γυνή ] Not, as Chrys., de Sacerd. iv. 7, vol. i. p. 412, seems to infer from the form of the expression,— ἠκολούθησεναὐτῷμετὰτῆςγυναικός , the wife of Dionysius: this would have been ἡγυνὴαὐτοῦ . Chap. 18:1. Corinth was at this time a colony (see note, ch. 16:12), the capital of the Roman province of Achaia, and the residence of the proconsul. For further particulars, see Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § ii. 2. Ἰουδαῖον ] It appears that Aquila and Priscilla were not Christians at this time: it is the similarity of employment only which draws them to Paul, and their conversion is left to be inferred as taking place in consequence: see ver. 26. Ποντικὸντ . γ .] It is remarkable, that Pontius Aquila is a name found in the Pontian gens at Rome more than once in the days of the Republic (see Cicero, ad Fam. x. 33; Suet., Jul. Cæ s 78; Smith’ s Dict. of Biogr., art. Aquila, Pontius); whence some have supposed that this may have been a freedman of a Pontius Aquila, and that Ποντ . τῷγένει may have been an inference from his name. But besides that Luke’ s acquaintance with the real origin of Aquila could hardly but have been accurate,— Aquila, the translator of the O. T. into Greek, was also a native of Pontus. From the notices of Aquila and Priscilla in the Epistles, they appear to have travelled, fixing their abode by turns in different principal cities, for the sake of their business. In ver. 19, we have them left at Ephesus (see also ver. 26); in 1 Corinthians 16:19, still there; in Romans 16:3 ff., again at Rome; in 2 Timothy 4:19, again at Ephesus. διὰτὸδιατεταχέναι … ] Suet. Claud. 25, says, ‘ Judæ os impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes Roma expulit:’ but as he gives this without any fixed note of time,— as the words ‘ impulsore Chresto’ may be taken in three ways (as indicative either (1) of an actual leader of that name, or (2) of some tumult connected with the expectations of a Messiah, or (3) of some dispute about Christianity),— Neander well observes, that after all which has been said on it, no secure historical inference respecting the date of the event, or its connexion with any Christian church at Rome, can be drawn. It was as a Jew that Aquila was driven from Rome: and there is not a word of Christians here. If one could identify this expulsion of the Jews with that of the ‘ mathematici’ in Tacitus (Ann. xii. 52), which took place Fausto Sulla, Othone Coss. (a.d. 52), we might be on surer ground,— but this is very uncertain, and even improbable. The two could hardly have been united. The circumstance related by Dio Cassius, lx. 6, which seems to contradict Suetonius and our text,— τοὺςἸουδαίουςπλεονάσανταςαὖθις , ὥστεχαλεπῶςἂνἄνευταραχῆςὑπὸτοῦὄχλουσφῶντῆςπόλεωςεἰρχθῆναι , οὐκἐξήλασεμέν , τῷδὲπατρίῳνόμῳβίῳχρωμένουςἐκέλευσεμὴσυναθροίζεσθαι ,— probably describes a step taken by Claudius previously to this expulsion, which not improbably occasioned the tumults which made the expulsion necessary. The edict soon became invalid, or the prohibition was taken off: we find Aquila at Rome, Romans 16:3, and many Jews resident there, ch. 28:17 ff. 3. ἠργάζετο ] “ The Jewish Rabbis having no state pay, it was their practice to teach their children a trade. ‘ What is commanded of a father towards his son?’ asks a Talmudic writer. ‘ To circumcise him, to teach him the law, to teach him a trade.’ Rabbi Judah saith, ‘ He that teacheth not his son a trade, doth the same as if he taught him to be a thief:’ and Rabban Gamaliel saith, ‘ He that hath a trade in his hand, to what is he like? He is like a vineyard that is fenced.’  ” C. and H. i. p. 58. The places where Paul refers to his supporting himself by his own manual labour are,— ch. 20:34 (Ephesus):— 1 Corinthians 9:12 ff.; 2 Corinthians 7:2 (Corinth):— 1 Thessalonians 2:9; 2 Thessalonians 3:8 (Thessalonica). In 2 Corinthians 11:9, we learn that supplies were also brought to him at Corinth from Macedonia, i.e. Philippi, see Philippians 4:15. σκηνοποιοί ] The general opinion now is, that Paul was a maker of tents from the ‘ cilicium,’ or hair-cloth of Cilician goats. Thus Kuinoel, citing from Hug and Eichhorn, says of the former, “ Ad hanc sententiam comprobandam monuit, Ciliciam, Pauli patriam, refertam fuisse hircis et capris villosis, eorumque villis Cilices usos esse ad conficiendum pannum, Cilicium inde dictum. Suidas: Κίλικοςτράγος · ὁδασύςτοιοῦτοιγὰρἐνΚιλικίᾳγίνονταιτράγοι , ὅθενκαὶτὰἐκτῶντριχῶνσυντιθέμεναΚιλίκιακαλοῦνται . Hoc panno usos esse milites, nautas, Nomadas, ad tentoria conficienda, v. Vegetius, de Re Mil. 4:6. Plin. N. H. vi. 28, ‘ Nomades, infestatoresque Chaldæ orum scenitæ … et ipsi vagi, sed a tabernaculis cognominati, quæ ciliciis metantur, ubi libuit.’ Solin. 33, ‘ Scenitæ caussam nominis inde ducunt, quod tentoriis succedunt, nec alias domos habent, ipsa autem tentoria cilicina sunt; ita nuncupantur velamenta caprarum pilis texta.’  ” If it be objected, that Paul would hardly find the raw material for this work in cities far from Cilicia, it may be answered, that this would not be required in the fabrication of tents from the haircloth, which doubtless itself would be an article of commerce in the markets of Greece. Chrysost. calls Paul sometimes σκηνοῤῥάφος , sometimes σκυτοτόμος , a leather-cutter, imagining that the tents were made of leather; ἐπὶσκηνοῤῥαφείουἑστὼςδέρματαἔῤῥαπτε (in Catena). 5. See ch. 17:15; 1 Thessalonians 3:6. συνείχετοτῷλόγῳ ] ‘ When Silas and Timotheus arrived [see ch. 17:15 note] from Macedonia, they found Paul anxiously occupied in discoursing to the Jews.’ This I believe to be the meaning: that they found him in a state of more than ordinary anxiety,— more than usually absorbed in the work of testifying to the Jews (see reff.):— a crisis in the work being imminent, which resulted in their rejection of the word of life. (On the whole character of his early preaching at Corinth, see notes, 1 Corinthians 2:1-5.) Thus only, the δέ in ver. 5 and that in ver. 6 will both be satisfied: he discoursed in the synagogue, &c.… but when Silas and Timotheus arrived, he was earnestly occupied in discoursing, &c. But, as they opposed themselves and blasphemed, &c. Wordsworth adopts the view that after the arrival of Silas and Timotheus with supplies from Macedonia, Paul gave up his tent-making and gave himself up to preaching. But surely this is ungrammatical. The aor. and imperf. require the rendering ‘ when they arrived, they found him συνεχόμενον .’ 6. αἷμα as in ch. 20:26. The image and nearly the words, are from Ezekiel 33:4. De Wette should have known better than to call a citation from the LXX an ‘ unpaulinischer Sprachgebrauch.’ ἀπὸτοῦνῦν ] Not absolutely, only at Corinth: for ver. 19 we find him arguing with the Jews again in the synagogue at Ephesus. I have adopted the punctuation of Lachmann, erasing the colon after ἐγώ : I shall henceforth with a pure conscience go to the Gentiles. 7. In order to shew that he henceforth separated himself from the Jews, he, on leaving the synagogue, went no longer to the house of the Jew Aquila (who appears afterwards to have been converted), but to the house of a Gentile proselyte of the gate, close to the synagogue: q. d. ‘ in the sight of all the congregation in the synagogue:’ for this seems to be the object in mentioning the circumstance. 8. On this, a schism took place among the Jews. The ruler of the synagogue attached himself to Paul, and was, together with Gaius, baptized by the Apostle himself (1 Corinthians 1:14): and with him many of the Corinthians (Jews and Gentiles, it being the house of a proselyte), probably Aquila and Priscilla also, believed and were baptized. 9. λάλ . κ . μὴσιωπ .] So, for solemnity’ s sake, we have an affirmation and negation combined, John 1:3. See also Isaiah 58:1. 10. ἐπιθ . σοι ] See ref. and examples of this usage in Wetst.:— shall set on thee, as E. V. λαόςἐστίμοιπολύς ] See John 10:16. As our Lord forewarned Paul in Jerusalem that they would not receive his testimony concerning Him, so here He encourages him, by a promise of much success in Corinth. The word λαός , the express title beforetime of the Jews, is still used now, notwithstanding their secession. 11. The year and a half may extend either to his departure, or to the incident in vv. 12 ff. Meyer would confine it to the latter, taking ἐκάθισεν in the sense of ‘ remained in quiet:’ but (see reff.) it will hardly bear such emphasis: and seeing that the incident in vv. 12 ff. was a notable fulfilment of the promise,— for though they set on him, they could not hurt him,— I should be disposed to take the other view, and regard ver. 12 to ἱκανάς , ver. 18, to have happened during this time. 12. Γαλλίωνος ] His original name was Marcus Annæ us Novatus: but, having been adopted into the family of the rhetorician Lucius Junius Gallio, he took the name of Junius Annæ us Gallio. He was brother of Lucius Annæ us Seneca, the philosopher, whose character of him is in exact accordance with that which we may infer from this narrative: ‘ Nemo mortalium mihi tam dulcis est, quam hic omnibus:’ ‘ Gallionem fratrem meum, quem nemo non parum amat, etiam qui amare plus non potest.’ He is called ‘ dulcis Gallio’ by Statius, Silv. ii. 7. 32. He appears to have given up the province of Achaia from ill health: ‘ Illud mihi in ore erat domini mei Gallionis qui cum in Achaia febrem habere cœ pisset, protinus navem ascendit, clamitans non corporis esse sed loci morbum.’ Senec. Ep. 104. He was spared after the execution of his brother (Tacit. Ann. xv. 73): but Dio Cassius, lxii. 25, adds, οἱἀδελφοὶὕστερονἐπαπώλοντο , and Euseb. Chron. ad ann. 818 (a.d. 66), says that he put an end to himself after his brother’ s death. ἀνθυπάτου ] See note on ch. 13:7. Achaia was originally a senatorial province (Dio Cass. liii. 12), but was temporarily made an imperial one by Tiberius. Tacit. Ann. i. 76, ‘ Achaiam ac Macedoniam, onera deprecantes, levari in præ sens proconsulari imperio, tradique Cæ sari placuit.’ Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25) ‘ Provincias Achaiam et Macedoniam quas Tiberius ad curam suam transtulerat, senatui reddidit.’ τ . Ἀχαΐας ] The Roman province of Achaia contained Hellas and the Peloponnesus, and, with Macedonia, embraced all their Grecian dominions. It was so called, according to Pausanias (vii. 16. 7), because the Romans ἐχειρώσαντοἝλληναςδι ʼ ἈχαιῶντότετοῦἙλληνικοῦπροεστηκότων (the Achaian league). “ The βῆμα is mentioned three times in the course of this narrative (see vv. 16, 17). It was of two kinds: (1) fixed in some public and open place: (2) moveable, and taken by the Roman magistrates to be placed wherever they might sit in a judicial character. Probably here and in the case of Pilate (John 19:13), the former kind of seat is intended. See Smith’ s Dict. of Antiquities, under ‘ Sella.’ See also some remarks on the tribunal— ‘ the indispensable symbol of the Roman judgment-seat,’ in the Edinburgh Review for Jan. 1847, p. 151.” C. and H. vol. i. 494. 13. παρὰτ . νόμον ] Against the Mosaic law:— the exercise of which, as a ‘ religio licita,’ was allowed to the Jews. 14. Though manuscript authority is so strong against the οὖν , I have retained it, as also has Tischdf. (Exo_7 [not Exo_8]). Its omission may be easily accounted for, from the copyists finding it unnecessary and seemingly out of place: but on no supposition can its insertion be rendered probable. It stands very appropriately here, referring to the complaint of the Jews, either as uttered by them, or perhaps recapitulated by Gallio:— ‘ Ye have charged this man with lawless conduct. If now this had really been so.… ’ κατὰλόγον ] See reff. We have the opposite παρὰλόγον in 2 Macc. 4:36. ἂνἠνεσχ . ὑμ .] I should have borne with (patiently heard) you. 15. ζητήματα has apparently been alterè d to ζήτημα to suit the sense, there being but one question before Gallio. But the plural expresses contempt: If it is questions, &c.: as we should say, ‘ a parcel of questions.’ See ch. 23:29. ὀνομάτων ] e.g. Paul asserted Jesus to be the Christ, which the Jews denied. This to a Roman would be a question of names. τ . καθ ʼ ὑμᾶς , with emphasis: see reff. So Lysias (ch. 23:29) declined to decide Paul’ s case; and Festus (ch. 25:20), though he did not altogether put the enquiry by, wished to judge it at Jerusalem, where he might have the counsel of those learned in the Jewish law. 17. πάντες ] Apparently, all the mob, i.e. the Gentile population present. Sosthenes, as the ruler of the synagogue (ἀρχ . = either the ruler, or one of the rulers; perhaps he had succeeded Crispus), had been the chief of the complainant Jews, and therefore, on their cause being rejected, and themselves ignominiously dismissed, was roughly treated by the mob. From this, certainly the right explanation, has arisen the gloss οἱἝλληνες . The other gloss, οἱἸουδαῖοι , has sprung from the notion that this Sosthenes was the same person with the Sosthenes of 1 Corinthians 1:1, a Christian and a companion of Paul. But, not to insist on the improbability of the party driven from the tribunal having beaten one of their antagonists in front of the tribunal,— why did they not beat Paul himself? There is no ground for supposing the two persons to be the same, Sosthenes being no uncommon name. If they were, this man must have been converted afterwards; but he is not among those who accompanied Paul into Asia, either in ver. 18, or ch. 20:4. The carelessness of Gallio about the matter clearly seems to be a further instance of his contempt for the Jews, and indisposition to favour them or their persecution of Paul. Had this been otherwise meant, certainly καί would not have been the copula. ‘ So little did the information against Paul prosper, that the informers themselves were beaten without interference of the judge.’ Meyer. 18. It has been considered doubtful whether the words κειρ . τ . κεφ . κ .τ .λ . apply to Paul, the subject of the sentence, or to Aquila, the last subject. The former is held by Chrys., Theoph., , , , , Calv., Beza, Calov., Wolf, Olsh., Neand., De Wette, Baumgarten, Hackett, Wordsworth (whose note may be profitably consulted), al.:— the latter by (Vulg.), Grot., Alberti, Kuinoel, Meyer, al., and more recently Dean Howson, vol. i. p. 498. But I quite agree with Neander (Pfl. u. Leit. p. 348, note), that if we consider the matter carefully, there can be no doubt that they can only apply to Paul. For, although this vow differed from that of the Nazarite, who shaved his hair at the end of his votive period, in the temple at Jerusalem, and burnt it with his peace-offering (Numbers 6:1-21), Josephus gives us a description of a somewhat similar one, B. J. ii. 15. 1, τοὺςγὰρἢνόσῳκαταπονουμένουςἤτισινἄλλαιςἀνάγκαις , ἔθοςεὔχεσθαιπρὸτριάκονταἡμερῶνἧςἀποδώσεινμέλλοιενθυσίας , οἴνουτεἀφέξεσθαικαὶξυρήσασθαιτὰςκόμας ,— where it appears from ξυρήσασθαι ), that the hair was shaved thirty days before the sacrifice. At all events, no sacrifice could be offered any where but at Jerusalem: and every such vow would conclude with a sacrifice. Now we find, on comparing the subsequent course of Aquila with that of Paul,— that the former did not go up to Jerusalem, but remained at Ephesus (ver. 26): but that Paul hastened by Ephesus, and did go up to Jerusalem: see ver. 22. Again, it would be quite irrelevant to the purpose of Luke, to relate such a fact of one of Paul’ s companions. That he should do so apologetically, to shew that the Apostle still countenanced conformity with the law, is a view which I cannot find justified by any features of this book: and it surely would be a very far-fetched apology, and one likely to escape the notice of many readers, seeing that Aquila would not appear as being under Paul’ s influence, and even his conversion to the Gospel has not been related, but is left to be implied from ver. 26. Again, Meyer’ s ground for referring κειράμ . to Aquila,— that his name is here placed after that of his wife,— is untenable, seeing that, for some reason, probably the superior character or office in the church, of Priscilla, the same arrangement is found (in the best mss. at ver. 26, and) at Romans 16:3; 2 Timothy 4:19. Lastly, the very form of the sentence is against a change of subject at κειράμενος . There are, from ver. 18 to 23 incl.,— a section forming a distinct narration, and complete in itself,— no less than nine aorist participles, eight of which indisputably apply to Paul as the subject of the section: leaving it hardly open to question that κειράμενος also must be referred to him. There need be no enquiry what danger can have prompted such a vow on his part, when we recollect the catalogue given by him in 2Co_11. Besides, he had, since his last visit to Jerusalem, been νόσῳκαταπονούμενος (see Jos. above, note on ch. 16:6, and Prolegg. to Gal. § ii. 3): it is true, a considerable time ago, but this need not prevent our supposing that the vow may have been then made, to be paid on his next visit to Jerusalem. That he had not sooner paid it, is accounted for by his having been since that time under continual pressure of preaching and founding churches, and having finally been detained by special command at Corinth. That he was now so anxious to pay it (ver. 21), consists well with the supposition of its having been long delayed. ἐνΚεγχρεαῖς ] Κεγχρεαὶκώμηκ . λιμὴνἀπέχωντῆςπόλεωςὅσονἑβδομήκονταστάδια . τούτῳμὲνχρῶνταιπρὸςτοὺςἐκτῆςἈσίας , πρὸςδὲτοὺςἐκτῆςἸταλίαςτῷΛεχαίῳ . Strabo, viii. 380. There was soon after a Christian church there: see Romans 16:1. 19. Ἔφεσον ] Ephesus was the ancient capital of Ionia (Ptol. v. 2. 8), and at this time, of the Roman proconsular province of Asia,— on the Caÿ ster, near the coast, between Symrna and Miletus. It was famed for its commerce, but even more for its magnificent temple of Artemis (see ch. 19:24, 27, and notes). See a full account of its situation and history, secular and Christian, in the Prolegg. to Eph. § ii. 2-6; and an interesting description, with plan, in Mr. Lewin’ s Life and Epistles of St. Paul, i. 344 ff. αὐτοῦ ] Perhaps this may be said proleptically, referring to his journey to Palestine (De Wette): but on account of the δέ which follows, I should rather understand it to mean that the Jewish synagogue was outside the town, and that Priscilla and Aquila were left in the town. διελέχθη , aor., referring to one, and a transient occasion: διελέγετο , imperf., ver. 4, of his long stay, and continual discourses in the Corinthian synagogue. 21. The omission of the words here inserted in rec., δεῖμεπάντωςτὴνἑορτὴντὴνἐρχομένηνποιῆσαιεἰςἹεροσόλυμα , seems necessitated on the principle of being guided in doubtful cases by the testimony of our most ancient mss. The text thus produced is the shortest and simplest, and the facts, of other glosses having been attempted on this verse, and of ms. 36 inserting the words without altering the construction to suit them, and omitting the καί before ἀνήχθη , and the δέ before ἀνακάμψω , tend perhaps to throw discredit on the insertion. The gloss, if such it be, has probably been owing to an endeavour to conform the circumstances to those related in ch. 20:16. If they stand, and for those who read them, it may still be interesting to enquire at what feast they may be supposed to point. (1) Not at the Passover: for the ordinary duration of the ‘ mare clausum’ was (Livy xxxvii. 9) till the vernal equinox. According to Vegetius de Re Milit. iv. 39, ‘ ex die iii. Id. Novembr. usque in diem vi. Id. Martii, maria claudebantur.’ And we are not at liberty to assume an exceptional case, such as sometimes occurred (Philo, Leg. ad Caium, § 29, vol. ii. p. 573; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43; Plin. ii. 47). Hence, if the voyage from Corinth at all approached the length of that from Philippi to Jerusalem in ch. 20, 21, he would have set sail at a time when it would have been hardly possible. (2) Not at the feast of Tabernacles. For if it were, he must have sailed from Corinth in August or September. Now, as he stayed there something more than a year and a half, his sea-voyage from Berœ a to Athens would in this case have been made in the depth of winter; which (especially as a choice of land or water was open to him) is impossible. (3) It remains, then, that the feast should have been Pentecost; at which Paul also visited Jerusalem, ch. 20:16. (The above is the argument of Wieseler, Chron. d. Apostelgesch. pp. 48-50, who however allows too long for the voyage from Corinth, forgetting that from the seven weeks’ voyage of ch. 20, 21 are to be taken seven days at Troas (20:6), seven at Tyre (21:4), one at Ptolemais (21:7), ἡμέραιπλείους at Cæ sarea (21:10),— in all certainly not less than three weeks.) The Apostle’ s promise of return was fulfilled ch. 19:1 ff. 22. ἀναβάς ] To Jerusalem: for (1) it would be out of the question to suppose that Paul made the long detour by Cæ sarea only to go up into the town from the beach, as supposed by most of those who omit δεῖ … Ἱερος . in ver. 21, and salute the disciples,— and (2) the expression κατέβηεἰςἈντ ., which suits a journey from Jerusalem (ch. 11:27), would not apply to one from Cæ sarea. ἀσπ . τ . ἐκκλ .] The payment of his vow is not mentioned, partly because it is understood from the mere mention of the vow itself, ver. 18,— partly, perhaps, because it was privately done, and with no view to attract notice as in ch. 21. 23. Paul’ s visit to the churches in Galatia and Phrygia. Either (1) Galatia is here a general term including Lycaonia, and Paul went by Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, &c. as before in ch. 16, or (2) he did not visit Lycaonia this time, but went through Cappadocia: to which also the words διελθόντατὰἀνωτερικὰμέρη (ch. 19:1) seem to point, ἡἄνωἈσία being the country east of the Halys. We find Christian churches in Cappadocia, 1 Peter 1:1. On this journey, as connected with the state of the Galatian churches, see Prolegg. to Gal. § iii. 1. καθεξῆς implies taking the churches in order; regularly visiting them, each as they lay in his route. One work accomplished by him in this journey was the ordaining (but apparently not collecting) a contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem: see 1 Corinthians 16:1. Timotheus and Erastus probably accompanied him, see ch. 19:22; 2 Corinthians 1:1; and Gaius and Aristarchus, ch. 19:29; and perhaps Titus, 2 Corinthians 12:18 al. (and Sosthenes? (1 Corinthians 1:1), but see on ver. 17.) 24-28. Apollos at Ephesus, and in Achaia. Ἀπολλώς ] abbreviated from Ἀπολλώνιος [as Lucas from Lucanus, &c.]: see var. read. Ἀλεξανδρεύς ] Alexandria was the great seat of the Hellenistic [or later Greek] language, learning, and philosophy (see ch. 6:9). A large number of Jews had been planted there by its founder, Alexander the Great. The celebrated LXX version of the O. T. was made there under the Ptolemies. There took place that remarkable fusion of Greek, Oriental, and Judaic elements of thought and belief, which was destined to enter so widely, for good and for evil, into the minds and writings of Christians. We see in the providential calling of Apollos to the ministry, an instance of adaptation of the workman to the work. A masterly exposition of the Scriptures by a learned Hellenist of Alexandria formed the most appropriate watering (1 Corinthians 3:6) for those who had been planted by the pupil of Gamaliel. λόγιος ] either (1) learned, as Philo, Vita Mos. i. 5, vol. ii. p. 84, Αἰγυπτίωνοἱλόγιοι , and Jos. B. J. vi. 5. 3, who distinguishes, in the interpretation of the omens preceding the siege, οἱἰδιῶται from οἱλόγιοι ,— or (2) eloquent: so Jos. Antt. xvii. 6. 2 calls Judas and Matthias, Ἰουδαίωνλογιώτατοι and πατρίωνἐξηγηταὶνόμων . The etymologists make the former the ancient,— the latter a subsequent meaning. So Thom. Mag.: λογίουςτοὺςπολυΐστοραςοἱἀρχαῖοιἈττικίζοντες , ὡςκαὶἩρόδοτος · λογίουςδὲτοὺςδιαλεκτικοὺςοἱὕστερον . The latter meaning is most appropriate here, both because the peculiar kind of learning implied by λόγιος [acquaintance with stories and legends] would not be likely to be predicated of Apollos,— and because the subsequent words, δυνατὸςἐντ . γραφαῖς , sufficiently indicate his learning, and in what it lay. See on λόγιος as applied to Papias by Eusebius, prolegg. to Matt. § ii. 1 note. 25. Apollos had received (from his youth?) the true doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, as pointed out by John the Baptist: doubtless from some disciple of John: but more than this he knew not. The doctrines of the Cross,— the Resurrection,— the outpouring of the Spirit,— these were unknown to him: but more particularly (from the words ἐπιστ . μόνοντὸβάπτ . Ἰωάν .) the latter, as connected with Christian baptism: see further on ch. 19:2, 3. The mistake of supposing that he did not know Jesus to be the Messiah, has arisen from the description of his subsequent work at Corinth, ver. 28, but by no means follows from it: this he did before, but not so completely. The same mistake has led to the alteration of Ἰησοῦ into the κυρίου of the rec., it having been well imagined that he could not teach ἀκριβῶςτὰπ . τοῦἸησοῦ if he did not know him to be the Messiah: whereas by these words is imported that he knew and taught accurately the facts respecting Jesus, but of the consequences of that which he taught, of all which may be summed up in the doctrine of Christian baptism, he had no idea. ἐπιστ . μόνον ] Meyer well remarks, that it is not meant that he was absolutely ignorant of the fact of there being such a thing as Christian baptism, but ignorant of its being any thing different from that of John: he knew, or recognized in baptism only that which the baptism of John was: a sign of repentance. 26. ἀκριβέστερον ] The former accuracy was only in facts: this is the still more expanded accuracy of doctrine. That was merely τὰπερὶτοῦἸησοῦ , as He lived and ministered on earth: this included also the promise of the Spirit, and its performance. 27. προτρεψάμενοι ] probably Priscilla and Aquila principally. It may have been from their account of the Corinthian church, that he was desirous to go to Achaia. After προτρεψ . not Apollos, but the disciples (at Corinth) must be understood as an object. Otherwise αὐτόν would have been expressed. So the remarkable reading of D. συνεβ .] contulit, Vulg. contributed, to their help. διὰτῆςχάριτος ] Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, and others join these words with συνεβάλετο , and understand them ‘ by the Grace of God which was in him.’ But this, from their position, is very unnatural; and hardly less so from the διὰ , whereas such a sense would rather require τῇχάριτι . In the only other two places where the expression occurs (reff.), it refers (1) to the electing grace of God, ref. Gal., (2) to the grace assisting believers to His service, ref. Heb. So that I adopt the more natural rendering of the E. V., those who had believed through grace. “ The γάρ should be noticed. His coming was a valuable assistance to the Christians against the Jews, in the controversies which had doubtless been going on since Paul’ s departure.” C. and H., edn. 2, ii. p. 10. 28. διακατηλέγχετο , argued down, as we say,— ‘ proved it in their teeth:’ and then the διὰ gives the sense of continuity,— that this was not done once or twice, but continuously. Chap. 19:1-41. Arrival, residence, and acts of Paul at Ephesus. 1. τὰἀνωτερικὰμέρη ] By this name were known the eastern parts of Asia Minor, beyond the river Halys, or in comparison with Ephesus, in the direction of that river. So Herodotus, speaking as a Halicarnassian, calls even the neighbourhood of Sardis τὰἄνωτῆςἈσίας , i. 177; including in the term, however, many of the inland districts, Assyria, Babylonia, &c. So that the reading ἀνατολικά , which is found in three cursives and Theophyl-sif., is a good gloss. τιναςμαθητάς ] These seem to have been in the same situation as Apollos, see on ch. 18:25. They cannot have been mere disciples of John, on account of πιστεύσαντες , which can bear no meaning but that of believing on the Lord Jesus: but they had received only John’ s baptism, and had had no proof of the descent of the Holy Spirit, nor knowledge of His gifts. 2. ἐλάβ . πιστεύς .] The aorist should be faithfully rendered: not as E. V. ‘ Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?’ but Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye became (not, when ye had become: cf. προσευξάμενοιεἶπαν , ch. 1:24, and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6. b, also note on ver. 29) believers? i.e. ‘ on your becoming believers, had ye the gifts of the Spirit conferred on you?’ — as in ch. 8:16, 17. This is both grammatically necessary , and absolutely demanded by the sense; the enquiry being, not as to any reception of the Holy Ghost during the period since their baptism, but as to one simultaneous with their first reception into the church: and their not having then received Him is accounted for by the deficiency of their baptism. ἀλλ ʼ οὐδέ ] On the contrary, not even … ἠκούσαμεν ] Here again, not, ‘ we have not heard,’ which would involve an absurdity: ‘ nam neque Mosen neque Johannem Baptistam sequi potuissent, quin de Spiritu Sancto ipso audissent’ (Bengel);— but we did not hear, at the time of our conversion:— Our reception into the faith was unaccompanied by any preaching of the office or the gifts of the Spirit,— our baptism was not followed by any imparting of His gifts: we did not so much as hear Him mentioned. ἐστιν cannot, from its position, be emphatic, nor does it mean “ were to be had” (Wordsw.), as John 7:39. The stress of the sentence is on ἠκούσαμεν : so for from receiving the Holy Ghost, they did not even hear of His existence. Tiros only will find an objection to this rendering in ἐστίν : the present is commonly used after the aorist of declarative verbs or verbs of sense, in the clause which contains the matter declared, seen, or heard: the action being transferred pro tempore to the time spoken of. See reff. 3. Paul’ s question establishes the above rendering, to what then (οὖν , if ye did not so much as hear of the Holy Ghost at your first believing) were ye baptized? If the question and answer in ver. 2 regarded, as in E. V., the whole interval since their conversion, this enquiry would have been more naturally expressed in the perfect. See Galatians 3:27, where there is the same necessity of preserving the historical sense of the aorists. εἰςτί ] unto (with a view to, as introductory to) what profession? They answer, unto (that indicated by) the baptism of John, viz.: repentance, and the believing on Jesus, then to come, but now (see ch. 18:25, note) the object of our faith. 4. εἰςτ . ἐρχ … ἵναπ .] This peculiar inversion of words, see reff., seems to mark the hand of Paul. ἵνα does not give (as Meyer) the mere purpose of his baptism , but combines, as in similar uses of προσεύχομαιἵνα and the like, the purport and purpose together: ‘ He commanded them that they should (purport)— and he spoke to them, that they might (purpose).’ See this discussed in note on 1 Corinthians 14:13. 5. Two singular perversions of this verse have occurred: (1) the Anabaptists use it to authorize the repetition of Christian baptism, whereas it is not Christian baptism which was repeated, seeing that John’ s baptism was not such, but only the baptism which they now for the first time received; and (2) Beza, Calixtus, Calov., Suicer, Glass., Buddeus, Wolf, and al., wishing to wrest this weapon out of the hands of the Anabaptists, oddly enough suppose this verse to belong still to Paul’ s discourse, and to mean, ‘ and the people when they heard him (John), were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.’ This obviously is contrary to fact, historically: and would leave our present narrative in a singular state: for Paul, having treated their baptism as insufficient, would thus proceed on it to impose his hands, as if it were sufficient. εἰςτὸὄν . τ . κυρ . Ἰησοῦ ] Two questions arise here: (1) Was it the ordinary practice to rebaptize those who had been baptized either by John or by the disciples (John 4:1 f.) before baptism became, by the effusion of the Holy Spirit, λουτρὸνπαλιγγενεσίας This we cannot definitely answer. That it was sometimes done, this incident shews: but in all probability, in the cases of the majority of the original disciples, the greater baptism by the Holy Ghost and fire on the day of Pentecost superseded the outward form or sign. The Apostles themselves received only this baptism (besides probably that of John): and most likely the same was the case with the original believers. But of the three thousand who were added on the day of Pentecost, very many must have been already baptized by John; and all were rebaptized without enquiry. (2) What conclusion can we deduce from this verse respecting the use or otherwise of baptism in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, in the apostolic period? The only answer must be, that at that early time we have no indication of set formulæ in the administration of either sacrament. Such formulæ arose of necessity, when precision in formal statement of doctrine became an absolute necessity in the church: and the materials for them were found ready in the word of God, who has graciously provided for all necessities of His church in all time. But, in matter of fact, such a baptism as this was a baptism into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. As Jews, these men were already servants of the living God— and by putting on the Son, they received in a new and more gracious sense the Father also. And in the sequel of their baptism, the imposition of hands, they sensibly became recipients of God the Holy Ghost. Where such manifestations were present, the form of words might be wanting; but with us, who have them not, it is necessary and imperative. Dean Howson regards (i. 517; ii. 13) St. Paul’ s question in our ver. 3 as indicative that the name of the Holy Ghost was used in the baptismal formula. But the inference seems to me insecure. 6. See ch. 8:17; 10:46, and note on ch. 2:4: and on ἐπροφ ., ch. 11:27, note. 7. οἱπάντ ., in all: so Herod. vii. 4, βασιλεύσαντατὰπάνταἔτεαἕξτεκ . τριήκοντα : Thuc. v. 120, πεσόντωνδὲτῶνπάντωνπολλῶν . See Kü hner, § 489 e. 9. Probably the school of Tyrannus was a private synagogue (called Beth Midrasch by the Jews), where he might assemble the believing Jews quietly, and also invite the attendance of Gentiles to hear the word. But it is also possible that, as commonly supposed, Tyrannus may have been a Gentile sophist. The name occurs as a proper name, 2 Macc. 4:40 Ed-vat. ,— and with τινος (see var. readd.). 10. ἔτηδύο ] We cannot derive any certain estimate of the length of Paul’ s stay in Ephesus from these words,— even if we add the three months of ver. 8,— for vv. 21, 22 admit of an interval after the expiration of the two years and three months. And his own expression, ch. 20:31, τριετίαν , implies that it was longer than from this chapter would at first sight appear. He probably (compare his announced intention, 1 Corinthians 16:8, with his expectation of meeting Titus at Troas, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13, which shews that he was not far off the time previously arranged) left Ephesus about or soon after the third Pentecost after that which he kept in Jerusalem. See Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § vi. πάνταςτ . κατ .] Hyperbolical:— all had the opportunity, and probably some of every considerable town availed themselves of it. To this long teaching of Paul the seven churches of Asia owe their establishment. 11. οὐτὰςτυχ .] See reff. miracles of no ordinary kind. In what they differed from the usual displays of power by the Apostles, is presently related: viz. that even garments taken from him were endued with miraculous power. 12. The rec. reading, ἐπιφέρεσθαι , may have been occasioned by the ἐπί preceding: the other, again, by the ἀπό following: in such uncertainty the reading of the ancient mss. must prevail. σουδ .] handkerchiefs: see ref. Luke, and notes there. σιμικ .] not napkins, but semicinctia, aprons, such as servants and artisans use. ἀμφότεραλινοειδῆεἰσι , Schol. Diseases, and possession by evil spirits, are here plainly distinguished from each other. The rationalists, and semi-rationalists, are much troubled to reconcile the fact related, that such handkerchiefs and aprons were instrumental in working the cures, with what they are pleased to call a popular notion founded in superstition and error. But in this and similar narratives (see ch. 5:15, note) Christian faith finds no difficulty whatever. All miraculous working is an exertion of the direct power of the All-powerful; a suspension by Him of His ordinary laws: and whether He will use any instrument in doing this, or what instrument, must depend altogether on His own purpose in the miracle— the effect to be produced on the recipients, beholders, or hearers. Without His special selection and enabling, all instruments were vain; with these, all are capable. In the present case, as before in ch. 5:15, it was His purpose to exalt His Apostle as the Herald of His gospel, and to lay in Ephesus the strong foundation of His church. And He therefore endues him with this extraordinary power. (Wordsw. sees an especial fitness in this having occurred at Ephesus (see on ver. 19), and refers to God having shewed in Egypt that His power was greater than that of Satan working by magicians: and it may well have been so.) But to argue by analogy from such a case,— to suppose that because our Lord was able, and Peter, and Paul, and in O. T. times Elisha, were enabled, to exert this peculiar power, therefore the same will be possessed by the body or relics of every real or supposed saint, is the height of folly and fanaticism. The true analogy tends directly the other way. In no cases but these do we find the power, even in the apostolic days: and the general cessation of all extraordinary gifts of the Spirit would lead us to the inference that à fortiori these, which were even then the rarest , have ceased also. 13. See note on Matthew 12:27, respecting the Jewish exorcists. These men, seeing the success of Paul’ s agency in casting out devils, adopt the Name of Jesus in their own exorcisms. 14. ἀρχιερέως ] The word must be used in a wide sense. He may have been chief of the priests resident at Ephesus: or perhaps chief of one of the twenty-four courses. τινες does not belong to ἑπτά , see ch. 23:23, but stands alone, recalling the τινες of the preceding verse. Without the οἱ it would be, ‘ certain men, &c. were attempting this,’ ἦσαν and ποιοῦντες being taken together. With it, They were (it was) certain men, seven sons, &c. who attempted this. 15. The narrative, from describing the nature of the attempt, passes to a single case in which it was tried, and in which (see below) two only of the brothers were apparently concerned. No difference between γινώσκω and ἐπίσταμαι must be pressed:— the two verbs are apparently used as separating Jesus and Paul, so that they do not stand together in the same category:— as in E. V., Jesus I know, and Paul I know: the One being God in heaven, the other man on earth. 16. ἀμφοτέρων ] The weight of manuscript evidence for this reading is even surpassed by its internal probability. There would be every reason, as seven have been before mentioned, for altering it into αὐτῶν : but no imaginable one for substituting it for αὐτῶν . Two only, it would seem, were thus employed on this particular occasion: and Luke has retained the word as it stood in the record furnished to him. Whether any similar occurrence happened to the rest, we are not informed: this one is selected as most notorious. γυμνούς ] With their clothes torn off them. 18. The natural effect of such an occurrence was to induce a horror of magical arts, &c., which some were still continuing to countenance or practise secretly, together with a profession of Christianity. Such persons now came forward and confessed their error. The πράξεις of this verse denotes the association with such practices: the next verse treats of the magicians themselves. 19. περίεργα ] ‘ male sedula’ (‘ curiosa,’ Hor. Epod. xviii. 25). τὶςτῶνπεριέργων in Aristæ net. Ep. ii. 18, is ‘ a magician’ (Kuin.). τὰςβίβλους ] Magical formulæ , or receipt-books, or written amulets. These last were celebrated by the name of Ἐφέσιαγράμματα . So ad Hom. Od. τ . p. 694 (Kuin.): Ἐφέσιαγράμματα — ἐπῳδαὶγάρτινεςφασὶνἐκεῖναιἦσαν , ἃςκαὶΚροῖσοςἐπὶτῆςπυρᾶςεἰπὼνὠφελήθη · καὶἐνὈλυμπίᾳδὲφασί , ΜιλησίουκαὶἘφεσίουπαλαιόντωντὸνΜιλήσιονμὴδύνασθαιπαλαίεινδιὰτὸτὸνἕτερονπερὶτῷἀστραγάλῳἔχειντὰἘφέσιαγράμματα · ὧνγνωσθέντωνκαὶλυθέντωναὐτῷ , τριακοντάκιςτὸἑξῆςπεσεῖντὸνἘφέσιον . See more illustrations in Wetst. They were copies of the mystic words engraved on the image of the Ephesian Artemis. Eustath. in C. and H. ii. 16. ἀργ . μυρ . πέν .] 50,000 drachmæ , i.e. denarii: for the drachma of the Augustan and following ages was not the real Attic drachma, but the Roman denarius— about 8½ d. of our money: which makes the entire value about £ 1770. That drachmæ and not shekels (Grot., Hamm.) are meant, is plain: for Luke is writing of a Grecian town, and to a Greek. 20. κατὰκράτος ] “ Eo modo dicitur urbs αἱρεῖσθαικατὰκράτος , quæ vi expugnatur, apud Plut. Apophth. p. 176. Hinc lucem mutuatur locus, Acts 19:20, ubi dicitur verbum Domini κατὰκράτοςἰσχύειν , per vim invalescere, quasi oppugnans et vi expugnans corda hominum.” Hermann on Viger, p. 632. So κατὰμικρόν , κατ ʼ ὀλίγον , καθ ʼ ὑπερβολήν , κατὰκόσμον . See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 241, f. 21. ταῦτα ] The occurrences of vv. 19, 20. ἐντῷπν .] An expression mostly used by Paul, see ref. δεῖ ] As he was sent to the Gentiles, he saw that the great metropolis of the Gentile world was the legitimate centre of his apostolic working. Or perhaps he speaks under some divine intimation that ultimately he should be brought to Rome. If so, his words were literally fulfilled. He did see Rome after he had been at Jerusalem this next time: but after considerable delay, and as a prisoner. Cf. the same design expressed by him, Romans 1:15; Romans 15:23-28; and Paley’ s remarks in the Horæ Paulinæ . 22. He intended himself to follow after Pentecost, 1 Corinthians 16:8. This mission of Timothy is alluded to 1 Corinthians 4:17 (see ib. 1:1); 16:10. The object of it was to bring these churches in Macedonia and Achaia into remembrance of the ways and teaching of Paul. It occurred shortly before the writing of 1 Cor. He was (1 Corinthians 16:11) soon to return:— but considerable uncertainty hangs over this journey. We find him again with Paul in Macedonia, 2 Corinthians 1:1: but apparently he had not reached Corinth. See 1Co_16 l.c.; and 2 Corinthians 12:18, where he would probably have been mentioned, had he done so. On the difficult question respecting a journey of Paul himself to Corinth during this period, see notes, 2 Corinthians 12:14; 2 Corinthians 13:1,— and Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. Ἔραστον ] This Erastus can hardly be identical with the Erastus of Rom 16:23, who must have been resident at Corinth: see there: and therefore hardly either with the Erastus of 2 Timothy 4:20; see note there. εἰςτ . Ἀσίαν ] i.e. in Ephesus: Asia is named by way of contrast with Macedonia, just before mentioned. This is evident by the following event taking place at Ephesus. 24. ναοὺςἀργ .] These were small models of the celebrated temple of the Ephesian Artemis, with her statue, which it was the custom to carry on journeys, and place in houses, as a charm. Chrys. καὶπῶςἔνιναοὺςἀργυροῦςγενέσθαι ; ἴσωςὡςκιβώριαμικρά . Ammian. Marcellin. xxii. 13: ‘ Asclepiades philosophus … deæ cœ lestis argenteum breve figmentum quocunque ibat secum solitus efferre.… ’ Diod. Sic. i. 15: ναοὺςχουσοῦςδύο . Dio Cass. xxxix. 20: νεὼςἭραςβραχὺςἐπὶτραπέζηςτινὸςπρὸςἀνατολῶνἱδρυμένος . We may find an exact parallel in the usages of that corrupt form of Christianity, which, whatever it may pretend to teach, in practice honours similarly the “ great goddess” of its imagination. 25. τὰτοιαῦτα ] All sorts of memorials or amulets connected with the worship of Artemis. Dean Howson (ii. p. 98) suggests that possibly Alexander the coppersmith may have been one of these craftsmen: see 2 Timothy 4:14. 26. The people believed that the images themselves were gods: τὰχαλκᾶκαὶτὰγραπτὰκαὶλίθιναμὴμαθόντες , μηδὲἐθισθέντεςἀγάλματακαὶτιμὰςθεῶν , ἀλλὰθεοὺςκαλεῖν . Plutarch de p. 379, c (Wetst.): see ch. 17:29. And so it is invariably, wherever images are employed professedly as media of worship. The genitives Ἐφ . and Ἀς . are governed by ὄχλον 27. ἡμῖν is best taken as the dativus incommodi, not for ἡμῶν , nor with τὸμέρος , but with κινδυνεύει . μέρος , as we say, department. ἀλλὰκαί ] but that eventually even the temple itself of the great goddess Artemis will be counted for nothing. μεγάλη was the usual epithet of the Ephesian Artemis: Xen. Ephes. i. p. 15: ὀμνύωτετὴνπάτριονἡμῖνθεόν , τὴνμεγάληνἘφεσίωνἌρτεμιν . There is an inscription in Boeckh, 2963 c, containing the words τηςμεγαληςθεαςαρτεμιδοςπροπολεως . The same inscription also mentions γραμματεύς and ἀνθυπατος . C. and H. ii. 98. The temple of Artemis at Ephesus, having been burnt to the ground by Herostratus on the night of the birth of Alexander the Great (b.c. 355), was restored with increased magnificence, and accounted one of the wonders of the ancient world. Its dimensions were 425 X 220 feet, and it was surrounded by 127 columns, 60 feet high. It was standing in all its grandeur at this time. See C. and H. ch. 16 vol. ii. pp. 84 ff. τῆςμεγαλειότητος is the more difficult and probably original reading: and that she should be deposed from her greatness, whom &c. 29. εἰςτὸθέατρον ] The resort of the populace on occasions of excitement, as Wetst. shews by many instances. So Tacit Hist. ii. 80, ‘ Tum Antiochensium theatrum ingressus, ubi illis consultare mos est.’ ‘ Of the site of the theatre, the scene of the tumult raised by Demetrius, there can be no doubt, its ruins being a wreck of immense grandeur. I think it must have been larger than the one at Miletus; and that exceeds any I have elsewhere seen.… Its form alone can now be spoken of, for every seat is removed, and the proscenium is a heap of ruins.’ Fellows, Asia Minor, p. 274. ‘ The theatre of Ephesus is said to be the largest known of any that have remained to us from antiquity.’ C. and H. ii. p. 83, note 3. συναρπ .] It is not implied that they seized Gaius and Aristarchus before they rushed into the theatre: compare προσευξάμενοιεἶπαν , ch. 1:24, also ch. 18:27, and Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6. b. Γάϊον ] A different person from the Gaius of ch. 20:4, who was of Derbe, and from the Gaius of Rom 16:23, and 1 Corinthians 1:14, who was evidently a Corinthian. Aristarchus is mentioned ch. 20:4; 27:2; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24. He was a native of Thessalonica. 31. Ἀσιαρχῶν ] The Asiarchæ were officers elected by the cities of the province of Asia to preside over their games and religious festivals. Of these it would be natural that the one who for the time presided would bear the title of ὁἈσιάρχος : cf. H. E. iv. 15: but no more is known of such presidency. Wetst. quotes several inscriptions and coins in which the name occurs, and cites many analogous names of like officers elsewhere: Ciliciarcha, Syriarcha, Phœ niciarcha, Helladarcha, &c. The Asiarch Philip at Smyrna is mentioned by Eusebius (H. E. iv. 15) as presiding in the amphitheatre at the martyrdom of Polycarp. These Ephesian games in honour of Artemis took place in May, which whole month (another singular coincidence with the practices of idolatrous Christendom) was sacred to, and named Artemisian after, the goddess. In Boeckh, Inscr. 2954, we have the decree ὅλοντὸνμῆνατὸνἐπώνυμοντοῦθείουὀνόματοςεἶναιἱερὸνκαὶἀνακεῖσθαιτῇθεῷ , ἄγεσθαιδὲἐπ ʼ αὐταῖςτὰςἑορτὰςκαὶτὴντῶνἈρτεμισίωνπανήγυριν . C. and H. ii. 95. δοῦναι ] Kypke remarks: ‘ latet in phrasi, quod periculum Paulo in theatro immineat.’ E. V. adventure himself; an excellent translation. 33. ἐκτ . ὄχλ . some of the multitude. προεβ . urged forward, through the crowd; the Jews pushing him on from behind, ‘ propellentibus.’ It is uncertain whether this Alexander is mentioned elsewhere (but see on 2 Timothy 4:14). He appears to have been a Christian convert from Judaism, whom the Jews were willing to expose as a victim to the fury of the mob: or perhaps one of themselves, put forward to clear them of blame on the occasion. 34. ἐπιγνόντες ] The nom. is an anacoluthon, as in ch. 24:5 al. See Winer, edn. 6, § 63, i. 1. They would hear nothing from a Jew, as being an enemy of image-worship. 35. καταστ .] When he had quieted, lulled, the crowd. ὁγραμματεύς ] the town-clerk is the nearest English office corresponding to it. He was the keeper of the archives and public reader of decrees, &c., in the assemblies. Thucyd. vii. 10, τὴνἐπιστολὴνἐπέδοσαν · ὁδὲγραμματεὺςτῆςπόλεωςπαρελθὼνἀνέγνωτοῖςἈθηναίοις . ‘ Among the Ephesian inscriptions in Boeckh, we find the following: Μ . Ι . Αυρ . ΔιονυσιοντονιεροκηρυκακαιβασιαρχονεκτωνιδιωνΤ . Φλ . Μουνατιοςφιλοσεβαστοςογραμματευςκαὶασιαρχησας . No. 2990.’ C. and H. ii. 96. γάρ gives a reason for the καταστείλας . See Herm. on Viger, p. 829. νεωκόρον ] Probably a virger or adorner of the temple: here used as implying that Ephesus had the charge and keeping of the temple. The title is found (Wetst.) on inscriptions as belonging to Ephesus: ηφιλοσεβαστοςΕφεσιωνβουληκαιονεωκοροςδημοςκαθιερωσανεπιανθυπατουΠεδουκαιουΠρεισκεινουψηφισαμενουΤιβ . Κλ . Ιταλικουτουγραμματεωςτουδημου (Boeckh, No. 2966); and seems to have been specially granted by the emperors to particular cities: thus we have ὅσαἐπετύχομενπαρὰτοῦκυρίουΚαίσαροςἈδριανοῦδἰἈντωνίουπολέμωνοςδεύτερονδόγμασυγκλήτου , καθ ʼ ὃδὶςνεωκόροιγεγόναμεν : and on coins of Hadrian, Ἐφεσίωνδὶςνεωκόρων , &c.: and similarly of Elagabalus, Νικομηδέωντρὶςνεωκόρων : of , ΜαγνήτωννεωκόρωνἈρτέμιδος . See also C. and H. ii. p. 89, where will be found an engraving of a coin exhibiting both the words νεωκόρος and ἀνθύπατος (ver. 38). τ . διοπετοῦς ] To give peculiar sanctity to various images, it was given out that they had fallen from heaven; so Euripides of the statue of Artemis at Tauris, ἔνθ ʼ Ἄρτεμιςσὴσύγγονοςβωμοὺςἔχει , | λαβεῖντ ʼ ἄγαλμαθεᾶςὃφασὶνἐνθάδε | εἰςτούσδεναοὺςοὐρανοῦπεσεῖνἄπο . Iph. Taur. 86, and 977, he calls it διοπετὲςἄγαλμα , οὐρανοῦπέσημα . So also Pausan. Att. 26, τὸδὲἁγιώτατον … ἐστὶνἈθηνᾶςἄγαλμαἐντῇνῦνἀκροπόλει … φήμηδ ʼ ἐςαὐτὸἔχει , πεσεῖνἐκτοῦοὐρανοῦ . The image is described by Pliny, xvi. 72: ‘ de ipso simulacro Deæ ambigitur. Cæ teri ex ebeno esse tradunt: Mucianus ter consul ex his qui, proxime viso eo, scripsere, vitigineum, et nunquam mutatum, septies restituto templo.’ 37. From this verse it appears that Paul had proceeded at Ephesus with the same caution as at Athens, and had not held up to contempt the worship of Artemis, any further than unavoidably the truths which he preached would render it contemptible. This is also manifest from his having friends among the Asiarchs, ver. 31. Chrysostom, however, treats this assertion of the town-clerk merely as a device to appease the people: τοῦτοψεῦδος · ταῦταμὲνπρὸςτὸνδῆμον . γάρ refers to the προπετές with which he had charged them: ‘ and this caution is not unneeded,— for &c.’ see Meyer; and Herm. as above, on ver. 35. 38. ἀγόραιοι ] court-days (the grammarians distinguish ἀγοραῖος , ‘ circumforaneus,’ an idler in the market, and ἀγόραιος , as in our text: so Suidas: but Ammonius vice versâ : and the distinction is now believed to be mere pedantry): and ἄγονται implies that they were then actually going on. They were the periodical assizes of the district, held by the proconsul and his assessors (see below). The Latin phrase for ἀγοραίουςἄγειν was conventus agere, or peragere, or convocare; cf. B. G. i. 54; v. 1; viii. 46. Hence the district itself was called conventus. See Smith’ s Dict. of Antiquities, art. Conventus. Pliny, H. N. v. 29 fin., mentions Ephesus as one of these assize towns. ἀνθύπατοι ] there are (such things as) proconsuls: the fit officers before whom to bring these causes: a categoric plural. So the Commentators generally. But may not the ‘ consiliarii’ of the proconsul who were his assessors at the ‘ conventus,’ held in the provinces, have themselves popularly borne the name? We find in Jos. B. J. ii. 16. 1, that Cestius, the ἡγεμών of Syria, on receiving an application respecting Florus’ s conduct at Jerusalem, μετὰἡγεμόνωνἐβουλεύετο ,— which ἡγεμόνες were his assessors, or consiliarii. (See on ch. 25:12, and Smith’ s Dict. of Antt., ut supra.) ἐγκαλ . ἀλλ .] let them (the plaintiffs and defendants) plead against one another. 39. ‘ Legitimus cœ tus est, qui a magistrate civitatis convocatur et regitur.’ Grot. The art. points out the regularly recurring assembly, of which they all knew. 40. γάρ assumes that this assembly was an unlawful one. μηδενὸςκ .τ .λ .] There being no ground why (i.e. in consequence of which) we shall be able to give an account, i.e. ‘ no ground whereon to build the possibility of our giving an account.’ The reading περὶοὗοὐ (see digest) seems to involve the sentence in almost inextricable confusion. To read περὶτῆςσυστ . τ . and take it in apposit. with περὶοὗ , ‘ hujus rei, videlicet conventus hujus’ (Bornemann), is very harsh. Chap. 20:1-21:16. Journey of Paul to Macedonia and Greece, and thence to Jerusalem. 1. παρακαλέσας has probably been omitted on account of the two participles coming together: or perhaps on account of the same word occurring again in ver. 2. 2. Notices of this journey may be found 2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Corinthians 7:5, 2 Corinthians 7:6. He delayed on the way some time at Troas, waiting for Titus,— broke off his preaching there, though prosperous, in distress of mind at his non-arrival, 2 Corinthians 2:12, 2 Corinthians 2:13,— and sailed for Macedonia, where Titus met him, 2 Corinthians 7:6. That Epistle was written during it, from Macedonia . He seems to have gone to the confines at least of Illyria, Romans 15:19. αὐτούς ] The Macedonian brethren: so ch. 16:10 al., see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 22.3. Ἑλλάδα ] Achaia, see ch. 19:21. 3. ποιήσας ] This stay was made at Corinth, most probably: see 1 Corinthians 16:6, 1 Corinthians 16:7: and was during the winter, see below on ver. 5. During it the Epistle to the Romans was written: see Prolegg. to Rom. § iv. μέλλοντιἀνάγεσθαι ] This purpose, of going from Corinth to Palestine by sea, is implied ch. 19:21, and 1 Corinthians 16:3-7. τοῦὑποστρ .] The genit. is not (as Meyer) governed directly by γνώμης , which would be more naturally followed by εἰςτὸὑπ .: but denotes the purpose, as in reff. 4. ἄρχιτ . Ἀσίας ] It is not hereby implied that they went no further than to Asia: Trophimus (ch. 21:29) and Aristarchus (ch. 27:2), and probably others, as the bearers of the alms from Macedonia and Corinth (1 Corinthians 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:4), accompanied him to Jerusalem. ΣώπατροςΠύῤῥουΒεροιαῖος ] This mention of his father is perhaps made to distinguish him (?) from Sosipater, who was with Paul at Corinth (Romans 16:21). The name Πύῤῥου has been erased as that of an unknown person, and because the mention of the father is unusual in the N. T.:— no possible reason can be given for its insertion by copyists. Ἀρίσταρχος ] See ch. 19:29; 27:2; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24. Secundus is altogether unknown. The Gaius here is not the Gaius of ch. 19:29, who was a Macedonian. The epithet Δερβαῖος is inserted for distinction’ s sake. Timotheus was from Lystra, which probably gives occasion to his being mentioned here in close company with Gaius of Derbe. All attempts to join Δερβαῖος with Τιμόθεος in the construction are futile. Timotheus was not of Derbe, see ch. 16:1, 2: and the name Caius (Γάϊος , Gr.) was far too common to create any difficulty in there being two, or three (see note, ch. 19:29) companions of Paul so called. With conjectural emendations of the text (Δερβ . δὲΤιμοθ ., Kuin., Valck.) we have no concern. ἈσιανοὶΤ . κ . Τ .] Tycbicus is mentioned Ephesians 6:21, as sent (to Ephesus from Rome) with that Epistle. He bore also that to the Colossians, Colossians 4:7, at the same time. See also 2 Timothy 4:12; Titus 3:12. Trophimus, an Ephesian, was in Jerusalem with Paul, ch. 21:29: and had been, shortly before 2 Tim. was written, left sick at Miletus. (See Prolegg. to 2 Tim. § i. 5.) 5. οὗτοι ] The persons mentioned in ver. 4: not only Tychicus and Trophimns. The mention of Timotheus in this list, distinguished from ἡμᾶς , has created an insuperable difficulty to those who suppose Timotheus himself to be the narrator of what follows: which certainly cannot be got over (as De Wette) by supposing that Timotheus might have inserted himself in the list, and then tacitly excepted himself by the ἡμᾶς afterwards. The truth is apparent here, as well as before, ch. 16:10 (where see note), that the anonymous narrator was in very intimate connexion with Paul; and on this occasion we find him remaining with him when the rest went forward. προελθ . κ .τ .λ .] For what reason, is not said: but we may well conceive, that if they bore the contributions of the churches, a better opportunity, or safer ship, may have determined Paul to send them on, he himself having work to do at Philippi: or perhaps, again, as Meyer suggests, Paul may have remained behind to keep the days of unleavened bread. But then why should not they have remained too? The same motive may not have operated with them; but in that case no reason can be given why they should have been sent on, except as above. It is not impossible that both may have been combined:— before the end of the days of unleavened bread, a favourable opportunity occurs of sailing to Troas, of which they, with their charge, avail themselves: Paul and Luke waiting till the end of the feast, and taking the risk of a less desirable conveyance. That the feast had something to do with it, the mention of μετὰτ . ἡ . τ . ἀζ . seems to imply: such notices being not inserted ordinarily by Luke for the sake of dates. The assumption made by some (see, e.g. Mr. Lewin, p. 587), that the rest of the company sailed at once for Troas from Corinth, while Paul and Luke went by land to Philippi, is inconsistent with συνείπετο , ver. 4. From the notice here, we learn that Paul’ s stay in Europe on this occasion was about three-quarters of a year: viz. from shortly after Pentecost, when he left Ephesus (see on ch. 19:10), to the next Easter. 6. ἄχρ . ἡμ . πέντε ] in five days, see reff. The wind must have been adverse: for the voyage from Troas to Philippi (Neapolis) in ch. 16:11, seems to have been made in two days. It appears that they arrived on a Monday. Compare notes, 2 Corinthians 2:12, ff. 7. ἐντῇμιᾷτ . σαββ .] We have here an intimation of the continuance of the practice, which seems to have begun immediately after the Resurrection (see John 20:26), of assembling on the first day of the week for religious purposes. (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 67, p. 83, says, τῇτοῦἡλίουλεγομένῃἡμέρᾳπάντωνκατὰπόλειςἢἀγροὺςμενόντωνἐπὶτὸαὐτὸσυνέλευσιςγίνεται .) Perhaps the greatest proof of all, that this day was thus observed, may be found in the early (see 1 Corinthians 16:2) and at length general prevalence, in the Gentile world, of the Jewish seven-day period as a division of time,— which was entirely foreign to Gentile habits. It can only have been introduced as following on the practice of especial honour paid to this day. But we find in the Christian Scriptures no trace of any sabbatical observance of this or any day: nay, in Romans 14:5 (where see note), Paul shews the untenableness of any such view under the Christian dispensation. The idea of the transference of the Jewish sabbath from the seventh day to the first was an invention of later times. κλάσαιἄρτον ] See note on ch. 2:42. The breaking of bread in the Holy Communion was at this time inseparable from the ἀγάπαι . It took place apparently in the evening (after the day’ s work was ended), and at the end of the assembly, after the preaching of the word (ver. 11). αὐτοῖς , in the third person, the discourse being addressed to the disciples at Troas: but the first person is used before and after, because all were assembled, and partook of the breaking of bread together. Not observing this, the copyists have altered ἡμῶν above into τῶνμαθητῶν , and ἦμεν , into ἦσαν to suit αὐτοῖς . 8. λαμπάδ . ἱκ .] This may be noticed, as Meyer observes, to shew that the fall of the young man could be well observed: or, perhaps, because many lights are apt to increase drowsiness at such times. Calvin and Bengel suppose,— in order that all suspicion might be removed from the assembly (‘ ut omnis abesset suspicio scandali,’ Beng.); Kuin. and partly Meyer,— that the lights were used for solemnity’ s sake,— for that both Jews and Gentiles celebrated their festal days by abundance of lights. But surely the adoption of either Jewish or Gentile practices of this kind in the Christian assemblies was very improbable. 9. Who Eutychus was, is quite uncertain. The occurrence of the name as belonging to slaves and freedmen (Rosenm. and Heinrichs, from inscriptions), determines nothing. ἐπὶτῆςθυρίδος ] On the window-seat. The windows in the East were (and are) without glass, and with or without shutters. καταφερόμενοςὕπν .] Wetstein gives many instances of the use of καταφέρομαι , either absolute, or with εἰςὕπνον , signifying ‘ to be oppressed with, borne down towards, sleep’ . Thus Aristotle, de somn. et iii. p. 466. b. 31, ed. Bekk.: τὰὑπνωτικὰ … πάντα … καρηβαρίαν … ποιεῖ … καὶκαταφερόμενοικαὶνυστάζοντεςτοῦτοδοκοῦσινπάσχειν , καὶἀδυνατοῦσιναἴρειντὴνκεφαλὴνκαὶτὰβλέφαρα : and Diod. Sic. iii. 57, κατενεχθεῖσανεἰςὕπνονἰδεῖνὄψιν . I believe the word is used here and below in the same sense, not, as usually interpreted, here of the effect of sleep, and below of the fall caused by the sleep. It implies that relaxation of the system, and collapse of the muscular power, which is more or less indicated by our expressions ‘ falling asleep,’ ‘ dropping asleep.’ This effect is being produced when the first participle is used, which is therefore imperfect,— but as Paul was going on long discoursing, took complete possession of him, and, having been overpowered,— entirely relaxed in consequence of the sleep, he fell. In the ἤρθηνεκρός here, there is a direct assertion, which can hardly be evaded by explaining it, ‘ was taken up for dead,’ as De Wette, Olsh.;— or by saying that it expresses the judgment of those who took him up, as Meyer. It seems to me, that the supposition of a mere suspended animation is as absurd here as in the miracle of Jairus’ s daughter, Luke 8:41-56. Let us take the narrative as it stands. The youth falls, and is taken up dead: so much is plainly asserted. (First, let it be remembered that Luke, a physician, was present, who could have at once pronounced on the fact.) Paul, not a physician, but as Apostle,— gifted, not with medical discernment, but with miraculous power, goes down to him, falls on him and embraces him,— a strange proceeding for one bent on discovering suspended animation, but not so for one who bore in mind the action of Elijah (1 Kings 17:21) and Elisha (2 Kings 4:34), each time over a dead body,— and having done this, not before, bids them not to be troubled, for his life was in him. I would ask any unbiassed reader, taking these details into consideration, which of the two is the natural interpretation,— and whether there can be any reasonable doubt that the intent of Luke is to relate a miracle of raising the dead, and that he mentions the falling on and embracing him as the outward significant means taken by the Apostle to that end? 11. The intended breaking of bread had been put off by the accident. τὸνἄρτ ., as ch. 2:42. Were it not for that usage, the article here might import, ‘ the bread which it was intended to break,’ alluding to ἄρτ . above. γευσάμενος ] having made a meal, see reff. The agape was a veritable meal. Not ‘ having tasted it,’ viz. the bread which he had broken;— though that is implied, usage decides for the other meaning. οὕτως ] ‘ After so doing:’ see reff. 12. As in the raising of Jairus’ s daughter, our Lord commanded that something should be given her to eat, that nature might be recruited, so doubtless here rest and treatment were necessary, in order that the restored life might be confirmed, and the shock recovered. The time indicated by αὐγή must have been before or about 5 a.m.: which would allow about four hours since the miracle. We have here a minute but interesting touch of truth in the narrative. Paul, we learn afterwards, ver. 13, intended to go afoot. And accordingly here we have it simply related that he started away from Troas before his companions, not remaining for the reintroduction of the now recovered Eutychus in ver. 12. 13. Ἄσσον ] A sea-port (also called Apollonia, Plin. v. 32) in Mysia or Troas, opposite to Lesbos, twenty-four Roman miles (Peutinger Table) from Troas, built on a high cliff above the sea, with a descent so precipitous as to have prompted a pun of Stratonicus, the musician (see viii., p. 352), on a line of Homer, Il. ζ . 143, Ἄσσονἴθ ʼ , ὥςκενθᾶσσονὀλέθρουπείραθ ʼ ἵκηαι . Strab. xiii. 1, p. 126, Tauchn. Paul’ s reason is not given for wishing to be alone: probably he had some apostolic visit to make. 14. Μιτυλήνην ] The capital of Lesbos, on the E. coast of the island, famed (Hor. Od. i. 7. 1: Epist. i. 11.17) for its beautiful situation. It had two harbours: the northern, into which their ship would sail, was μέγαςκ . βαθύς , χώματισκεπαζόμενος , Strabo, xiii. 2, p. 137. 15. παρεβάλ ] we put in: so Charon, in the Frogs, to his boatman, ὠόπ , παραβαλοῦ , 180; and 271, παραβαλοῦτῷκωπίῳ : see many examples in Wetst. Then they made a short run in the evening to Trogylium, a cape and town on the Ionian coast, only forty stadia distant, where they spent the night. He had passed in front of the bay of Ephesus, and was now but a short distance from it. Μίλητον ] The ancient capital of Ionia (Herod, i. 142). See 2 Timothy 4:20, and note. 16. κεκρίκει ] We see here that the ship was at Paul’ s disposal, and probably hired at Philippi, or rather at Neapolis, for the voyage to Patara (ch. 21:1), where he and his company embark in a merchant vessel, going to Tyre. The separation of Paul and Luke from the rest at the beginning of the voyage may have been in some way connected with the hiring or out-fit of this vessel. The expression κεκρίκει (or ἔκρινε , which will amount to the same thing, only it must not be taken ‘ for the pluperfect,’ here or any where else) is too subjectively strong to allow of our supposing that the Apostle merely followed the previously determined course of a ship in which he took a passage. παραπλ . τ . Ἔφ .] He may have been afraid of detention there, owing to the machinations of those who had caused the uproar in ch. 19 F. M., in his notes, gives another reason: “ He seems to have feared that, had he run up the long gulf to Ephesus, he might he detained in it by the westerly winds, which blow long, especially in the spring.” But these would affect him nearly as much at Miletus. 17. The distance from Miletus to Ephesus is about thirty miles. He probably, therefore, stayed three or four days altogether at Miletus. τοὺςπρεσβ .] called, ver. 28, ἐπισκόπους . This circumstance began very early to contradict the growing views of the apostolic institution and necessity of prelatical episcopacy. Thus Irenæ us, iii. 14. 2, p. 201: ‘ In Mileto convocatis episcopis et presbyteris, qui erant ab Epheso et a reliquis proximis civitatibus.’ Here we see (1) the two, bishops and presbyters, distinguished, as if both were sent for, in order that the titles might not seem to belong to the same persons,— and (2) other neighbouring churches also brought in, in order that there might not seem to be ἐπίσκοποι in one church only. That neither of these was the case, is clearly shewn by the plain words of this verse: he sent to Ephesus, and summoned the elders of the church (see below on διῆλθον , ver. 25). So early did interested and disingenuous interpretations begin to cloud the light which Scripture might have thrown on ecclesiastical questions. The E. V. has hardly dealt fairly in this case with the sacred text, in rendering ἐπισκόπους , ver. 28, ‘ overseers;’ whereas it ought there as in all other places to have been bishops, that the fact of elders and bishops having been originally and apostolically synonymous might be apparent to the ordinary English reader, which now it is not. 18. The evidence furnished by this speech as to the literal report in the Acts of the words spoken by Paul, is most important. It is a treasure-house of words, idioms, and sentiments, peculiarly belonging to the Apostle himself. Many of these appear in the reff., but many more lie beneath the surface, and can only be discovered by a continuous and verbal study of his Epistles. I shall point out such instances of parallelism as I have observed, in the notes. The contents of the speech may be thus given: He reminds the elders of his conduct among them (vv. 18-21): announces to them his final separation from them (vv. 22-25): and commends earnestly to them the flock committed to their charge, for which he himself had by word and work disinterestedly laboured (vv. 26-35). ἀπὸπρ . ἡμ .] These words hold a middle place, partly with ἐπίστασθε , partly with ἐγενόμην . The knowledge on their part was coextensive with his whole stay among them: so that we may take the words with ἐπίστασθε , at the same time carrying on their sense to what follows. μεθ ʼ ὑμ . ἐγεν .] So 1 Thessalonians 1:5, οἴδατεοἷοιἐγενήθημενἐνὑμῖν ,— 2:10, ὑμ . μάρτυρες … ὡςὁσίως … ὑμῖντοῖςπιστεύουσινἐγενήθημεν . See 1 Corinthians 9:20, 1 Corinthians 9:22. 19. δουλεύωντῷκυρ ] With the sole exception of the assertion of our Lord, ‘ Ye cannot serve God and mammon,’ reff. Matt., Luke, the verb δουλεύω for ‘ serving God’ is used by Paul only, and by him seven times, viz. besides reff., Romans 12:11; Romans 14:18; Romans 16:18; [Philippians 2:22(?)] Colossians 3:24; 1 Thessalonians 1:9. μετ . π . ταπ .] Also a Pauline expression, 2 Corinthians 8:7; 2 Corinthians 12:12. πειρασμῶν ] See especially Galatians 4:14. 20. ὑπεστειλάμην ] So again ver. 27. The sense in Galatians 2:12 is similar, though not exactly identical— ‘ reserved himself,’ withdrew himself from any open declaration of sentiments. In Hebrews 10:38 it is different. τῶνσυμφερ .] See reff. 21. εἰςθ … εἰςτ . κύρἸ .] This use of εἰς is mostly Pauline: and in ch. 24:24 it seems to be taken from his own expression. 22. δεδεμένοςτῷπνεύματι ] bound in my spirit. This interpretation is most probable, both from the construction, and from the usage of the expression τὸπνεῦμα repeatedly by and of Paul in the sense of his own spirit. See ch. reff., where the principal instances are given. The dative, as here, is found Romans 12:11, τῷπν . ζέοντες ,— 1 Corinthians 5:3, παρὼντῷπνεύμ . (1 Corinthians 14:15, 1 Corinthians 14:16?),— 2 Corinthians 2:13, οὐκἔσχηκαἄνεσιντῷπν . μου , and al., see also ch. 19:21. How he was bound in the spirit is manifest, by comparing other passages, where the Holy Spirit of God is related to have shaped his apostolic course. He was bound, by the Spirit of God leading captive, constraining, his own spirit. As he went up to Jerusalem δεδεμένοςτῷπνεύματι , so he left Judæ a again δεδεμένοςτῇσαρκί ,— a prisoner according to the flesh. He had no detailed knowledge of futurity— nothing but what the Holy Spirit, in general forewarning, repeated at every point of his journey (κατὰπόλιν ; see ch. 21:4, 11, for two such instances), announced, viz., imprisonment and tribulations. That here no inner voice of the Spirit is meant, is evident from the words κατὰπόλιν . (Two of the three other places where this phrase occurs are from the mouth or pen of Paul.) 23. τὸπν . διαμαρτύρ .] Compare Romans 8:16, τὸπνεῦμασυμμαρτυρεῖτῷπν . ἡμῶν 24. The reading in the text, amidst all the varieties, seems to be that out of which the others have all arisen, and whose difficulties they more or less explain. The first clause is a combination of two constructions, οὐδενὸςλόγουποιοῦμαιτὴνψυχὴνἐμαυτοῦ , and οὐποιοῦμαι (ἡγοῦμαι , Philippians 3:7, Philippians 3:8) τὴνψυχὴντιμίανἐμαυτῷ . The best rendering in English would be, I hold my life of no account, nor precious to me. Then again the confused construction of the former clause shews itself in the ὡς of the latter, which is not ‘ so that,’ but ‘ as,’ q. d. before, ‘ so precious.’ ‘ I do not value my life, in comparison with the finishing my course.’ Render then the whole verse: But I hold my life of no account, nor is it so precious to me, as the finishing of my course. τελειῶσαι ] See the same image, with the same word, remarkably expanded, Philippians 3:12-14. There in ver. 12 he has used τετελείωμαι ,— and,— as is constantly the case when we are in the habit of connecting certain words together,— the δρόμος immediately occurs to him, which he works into a sublime comparison in ver. 14. δρόμον ] A similitude peculiar to Paul: occurring, remarkably enough, in his speech at ch. 13:25. He uses it without the word δρ ., at 1 Corinthians 9:24-27, and Philippians 3:14 καὶτ . δ .] and (i.e. even) the ministry, &c. καί in this sense gives that which, in matter of fact, runs parallel with the metaphorical expression just used,— stands beside it as its antitype. ἔλαβον ] Compare Romans 1:5, δι ʼ οὗἐλάβομενχάρινκ . ἀποστολήν . 25. It has been argued from ἐνοἷςδιῆλθον , that the elders of other churches besides that of Ephesus must have been present. But it might just as well have been argued, that every one to whom Paul had there preached must have been present, on account of the word πάντες . If he could regard the elders as the representatives of the various churches, of which there can be no doubt, why may not he similarly have regarded the Ephesian elders as representatives of the churches of proconsular Asia, and have addressed all in addressing them? Or may not these words have even a wider application, viz., to all who had been the subjects of his former personal ministry, in Asia and Europe, now addressed through the Ephesian elders? See the question, whether Paul ever did see the Asiatic churches again, discussed in the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 18 ff. I may remark here, that the word οἶδα , in the mouth of Paul, does not necessarily imply that he spoke from divine and unerring knowledge, but expresses his own conviction of the certainty of what he is saying: see ch. 26:27, which is much to our point, as expressing his firm persuasion that king Agrippa was a believer in the prophets: but certainly no infallible knowledge of his heart:— Romans 15:29, where also a firm persuasion is expressed:— Philippians 1:19, Philippians 1:20, where οἶδα , ver. 19, is explained to rest on ἀποκαραδοκίακαὶἐλπίς in ver. 20. So that he may here ground his expectation of never seeing them again, on the plan of making a journey into the west after seeing Rome, which he mentions Romans 15:24, Romans 15:28, and from which, with bonds and imprisonment and other dangers awaiting him, he might well expect never to return. So that what he here says need not fetter our judgment on the above question. 26. The use of μαρτύρομαι is peculiar to Paul, see reff. 28. προσέχ . ἑαυτοῖς ] If we might venture to trace the hand of Luke in the speech, it would be perhaps in this phrase: which occurs only as in reff. τ . ποιμνίῳ ] This similitude does not elsewhere occur in Paul’ s writings. We find it (reff.) where we should naturally expect it, used by him to whom it was said, ‘ Feed my sheep.’ But it is common in the O. T. and sanctioned by the example of our Lord Himself. τὸπν . τ . ἅγ .] See ch. 13:2 ἔθετο ] So Paul, reff. 1 Cor. ἐπισκόπους ] See on ver. 17, and Theodoret on Philippians 1:1, ἐπισκόπουςτοὺςπρεσβυτέρουςκαλεῖ · ἀμφότεραγὰρεἶχονκατ ʼ ἐκεῖνοντὸνκαιρὸντὰὀνόματα (Olsh.). The question between θεοῦ and κυρίου rests principally on internal evidence— which of the two is likely to have been the original reading. The manuscript authority, now that it is certain that has θεοῦ a prima manu, as also , is weighty on both sides. The early patristic authority for the expression αἷμαθεοῦ is considerable. Ignat. Eph_1, p. 644, has ἀναζωπυρήσαντεςἐναἵματιθεοῦ . Tertull. ad Uxor. ii. 3, vol. i., p. 1293, “ pretio empti, et quali pretio? sanguine Dei.” Alex., ‘ Quis dives salvus,’ c. 34, vol. ii., p. 344, has δυνάμειθεοῦπατρός , κ . αἵματιθεοῦπαιδός , κ . δρόσῳπνεύματοςἁγίου . On the other hand Athanasius (contra Apol. ii. 14, vol. ii., p. 758) says, οὐδαμοῦδὲαἶμαθεοῦδίχασαρκὸςπαραδεδώκασιναἱγραφαί , ἢθεὸνδίχασαρκὸςπαθόνταἢἀναστάντα . In attempting to decide between the two readings, the following alternatives and considerations may be put: (I.) if κυρίου was the original, it is very possible (1) that some busy scribe may have written at the side, as so often occurs, θεοῦ . This having been once done, the interests of orthodoxy would perpetuate the gloss, and by degrees it would be adopted into the text and supersede the original word, or become combined with it, as is actually the case in and a vast body of mss. Or, continuing supposition I., it may have been (2) that the expression ἐκκλησίαντοῦκυρίου , not found any where else, may have been corrected into the very usual one, ἐκκλ . θεοῦ , which occurs eleven times in the Epistles of Paul. Or (3), which I consider exceedingly improbable (see below), the alteration may have been made solely in the interest of orthodoxy. Such are possible, and the two former not improbable, contingencies. On the other hand (II.) if θεοῦ was the original, but one reason can be given why it should have been altered to κυρίου , and that one was sure to have operated. It would stand as a bulwark against Arianism, an assertion which no skill could evade, which must therefore be modified. If θεοῦ stood in the text originally, it was sure to be altered to κυοίου . The converse was not sure, nor indeed likely, from similar reasons, the passage offering no stumbling-block to orthodoxy. (III.) Pauline usage must be allowed its fair weight in the enquiry. It must be remembered that we are in the midst of a speech, which is (as observed in the Prolegg. to Acts, § ii. 17 a) a complete storehouse of Pauline words and expressions. Is it per se probable, that he should use an expression which no where else occurs in his writings, nor indeed in those of his contemporaries? Is it more probable, that the early scribes should have altered an unusual expression for an usual one, or that a writer so constant to his own phrases should here have remained so? Besides,— in most of the places where Paul uses ἐκκλησίατοῦθεοῦ , it is in a manner precisely similar to this,— as the consummation of a climax, or in a position of peculiar solemnity, cf. 1 Corinthians 10:32; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Galatians 1:13; 1 Timothy 3:5, 1 Timothy 3:15: and, cæ teris paribus, I submit that the present passage loses by the substitution of κυρίου the peculiar emphasis which its structure and context seem to require in the genitive, introduced as it is by προσέχετε … ποιμαίνειν , and followed by the intensifying clause ἣνπεριεποιήσατοδιὰτοῦαἵματοςτοῦἰδίου . (IV.) On the whole then, weighing the evidence on both sides,— seeing that it is more likely that the alteration should have been to κυρίου than to θεοῦ ,— more likely that the speaker should have used θεοῦ than κυρίου , and more consonant to the evidently emphatic position of the word, I have decided for the rec. reading, which in Edd. 1, 2 I had rejected. And this decision is confirmed by observing the habits of the great mss. respecting the sacred names. It appears that B has no bias for θεός where the others have κύριος : we find it thus reading in Luke 2:38 ; ch. 16:10 ; 17:27 ; 21:20 ; Colossians 3:16 ; while on the other hand it has κ̅υ̅ι̅υ̅ in Romans 15:32, where the others have θ̅υ̅ or χ̅υ̅ι̅υ̅ ; χ̅υ̅ in Ephesians 5:21, where rec. has θ̅υ̅ ; κ̅υ̅ in ch. 8:22, with ACDEא , where rec. and the mss. have θ̅υ̅ : similarly in ch. 10:33, and 15:40: in Romans 10:17 χ̅υ̅ , with CD1א 1, for θ̅υ̅ : 14: 4, κ̅ς̅ with AC1א , for θ̅ς̅ . This evidence seems to remove further off the chance of deliberate alteration here to θεοῦ , and leaves the above considerations their full weight. (V.) Of course any reading which combines the two, κυρίου and θεοῦ , is by the very first principles of textual criticism inadmissible. (VI.) The principal names on either side are— for the rec. θεοῦ , Mill, Wolf, Bengel, Matthä i, Scholz: for κυρίου , Grotius, Le Clerc, Wetst., Griesb., Kuin., De Wette, Meyer, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. περιεπ .] Luke and Paul (in pastoral Epp. only), see reff. 29. ἄφιξις is here used in an unusual sense. An instance is found, Jos. Antt. iv. 8. 47, where Moses says, ἐπεὶπρὸςτοὺςἡμετέρουςἄπειμιπρογόνους , καὶθεὸςτήνδεμοιτὴνἡμέραντῆςπρὸςἐκείνουςἀφίξεωςὥρισε … which is somewhat analogous, but more easily explained. That in Herod. ix. 77 (init.) also seems analogous. In Demosth. de Pace, p. 58 (fin.), we have τὴντότεἄφιξινεἰςτοὺςπολεμίουςἐποιήσατο , which is most like the usage here. Perhaps, absolutely put, it must signify ‘ my death;’ see the above passage of Josephus. λύκοιβαρεῖς ] not persecutors, but false teachers, from the words εἰσελ . εἰςὑμᾶς , by which it appears that they were to come in among the flock, i.e. to be baptized Christians. In fact ver. 30 is explanatory of the metaphoric meaning of ver. 29. φείδομαι is only used by Paul, except 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:5. 30. ὑμῶναὐτ . does not necessarily signify the presbyters: he speaks to them as being the whole flock. 31. μνημ . ὅτι is only (retf.) used by Paul. νύκτακ . ἡμέραν ] This expression is remarkable: we have it (see reff.) in Mark, but Luke always uses the genitive, except in the speeches of Paul: and so Paul himself, except as in reff. νουθετῶν (reff.) is used only by Paul. On the three years spoken of in this verse, see note, ch. 19:10. We may just remark here (1) that this passage being precise and definite, must be the master key to those others (as in ch. 19) which give wide and indefinite notes of time: and (2) that it seems at first sight to preclude the idea of a journey (as some think) to Crete and Corinth having taken place during this period. But this apparent inference may require modifying by other circumstances: cf. Prolegg. to 1 Cor. § v. 4. 32. τ . λόγ . τῆςχάρ . αὐτ .] I should be inclined to attribute the occurrence of this expression in ch. 14:3, to the narrative having come from Paul himself, or from one imbued with his words and habits of thought. See ver. 24. τῷδυν .] Clearly spoken of God, not of the word of His grace, which cannot be said δοῦναικληρον ., however it might οἰκοδομῆσαι . The expression κληρον . ἐντ . ἡγ . πᾶς . is strikingly similar to τῆςκληρονομίαςαὐτοῦἐντοῖςἁγίοις , Ephesians 1:18, addressed to this same church. See also ch. 26:18. 33. See 1 Samuel 12:3; and for similar avowals by Paul himself, 1 Corinthians 9:11, 1 Corinthians 9:12; 2 Corinthians 11:8, 2 Corinthians 11:9; 2 Corinthians 12:13. 34. See 1 Corinthians 4:12, which he wrote when at Ephesus. χρεία with a gen. of the person in want, is an expression of Paul only; see among reff. ὑπηρετεῖν is used only twice more; once by Paul, ch. 13:36, once of Paul, ch. 24:23. The construction is varied in this sentence. ταῖςχρ . μου , καὶ (not τῶνὄντων , but) τοῖςοὖσινμετ ʼ ἐμοῦ . This is not without meaning— his friends were among his χρεῖαι — he supplied by his labour, not his and their wants, but his wants and them. αἱχ . αὗται ] also [strikingly] in Paul’ s manner: compare τῶνδεσμῶντούτων , ch. 26:29,— and ch. 28:20. 35. πάντα ] In all things: so Paul (only), see reff. κοπιῶντας ] A word used by Paul fourteen times, by Luke once only (Luke 5:5 (12:27 v. r.)). τῶνἀσθενούντων ] Not here the weak in faith (Romans 14:1. 1 Corinthians 8:9), as Calvin, Beza, Grot., Bengel, Neander, Meyer, Tholuck,— which the context both before and after will not allow:— but the poor (τοὺςπένηταςἀσθενοῦντας , Aristoph. 636. ὅτεγὰρἀσθενέστεροςὁπλούσιόςτετὴνδίκηνἴσηνἔχει , Eurip. ap. Stob. cxv. (Wetst.)), as Chrys., Theoph., Heinrichs, Kuin., Olsh., De Wette. Μακ . ἐστινκ .τ .λ .] This saying of our Lord is one of very few not recorded in the Gospels, which have come down to us. Many such must have been current in the apostolic times, and are possibly preserved, unknown to us, in such epistles as those of James, Peter, and John. Bengel remarks, ‘ alia mundi sententia est:’ and cites from an old poet in Athenæ us, viii. 5, ἀνόητοςὁδιδούς , εὐτυχὴςδ ʼ ὁλαμβάνων But we have some sayings the other way: not to quote authors who wrote after this date, and might have imbibed some of the spirit of Christianity, we find in Aristotle, Eth. Nicom. iv. 1, μᾶλλόνἐστιντοῦἐλευθερίουτὸδιδόναιοἷςδεὶἢλαμβάνεινὅθενδεῖ , καὶμὴλαμβάνεινὅθενοὐδεῖ . τῆςἀρετῆςγὰρμᾶλλοντὸεὖποιεῖνἢτὸεὖπάσχειν . 21:1. The E. V., ‘ After we had gotten from them,’ does not come up to the original: δείκνυσιτὴνβίαντῷεἰπεῖνἀποσπασθένταςἀπ ʼ αὐτὦν , Chrys. εὐθυδρομ .] See ref., having run before the wind. Cos, opposite Cnidus and Halicarnassus, celebrated for its wines (εὔκαρποςπᾶσα , οἴνῳδὲκαὶἀρίστη , καθάπερΧίοςκ . Λέσβος , Strab. xiv. 2), rich stuffs (‘ nec Coæ referunt jam tibi purpuræ ,’ Hor. iv. 13. 13), and ointments (γίνεταιδὲμύρακάλλιστακατὰτόπους .… ἀμαράκινονδὲΚῶονκαὶμήλινον , xv. p. 688). The chief town was of the same name (Hom. Il. β . 677), and had a famous temple of Æ sculapius (Strabo, ibid.). It was the birth-place of Hippocrates. The modern name, Stanchio, is a corruption of ἐςτὰνΚῶ [as Stamboul for Constantinople is of ἐςτὰνπόλιν ]. See Winer, Realw. Rhodes was at this time free, cf. Strabo, xiv. 2; Tac. Ann. xii. 58: ‘ Redditur Rbodiis libertas, adempta sæ pe aut firmata, prout bellis externis meruerant, aut domi seditione deliquerant.’ See also Suet. Claud. 25, ‘ Rhodiis (libertatem) ob pœ itentiam veterum delictorum reddidit.’ It was reduced to a Roman province under Vespasian, Suet. Vesp. 8. The situation of its chief town is praised by Strabo, 1. c. The celebrated Colossus was at this time broken and lying in ruins, ib. Patara, in Lycia (‘ caput gentis,’ Liv. xxxvii. 15), a large maritime town, a short distance E. of the mouth of the Xanthus. It had a temple and oracle of Apollo, Herod, i. 182. ‘ Delius et Patareus Apollo,’ Hor. iii. 4. There are considerable ruins remaining, Fellows, Asia Minor, p. 219 ff. Lycia, p. 115 ff. Winer, Realw. Here they leave their ship hired at Troas, or perhaps at Neapolis (see note on 20:16), and avail themselves of a merchant ship bound for Tyre. 3. ἀναφανέντες ] for the construction, see reff. and Winer, edn. 6, § 39. 1: having been shewn Cyprus, literally. Wetst. cites from Theophanes, p. 392, περιεφέροντοἐντῷπελάγει , ἀναφανέντωνδὲαὐτῶντὴνγῆν , εἶδοναὐτοὺςοἱστρατηγοί . ‘ The graphic language of an eyewitness, and of one familiar with the phraseology of seamen, who, in their own language, appear to raise the land in approaching it.’ Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. But would not this remark rather apply to the active participle? Compare ‘ aerias Phæ acum abscondimus arces,’ Æ n. iii. 291. εὐώνυμον ] sc. αὐτήν , i.e. to the E. This would be the straight course from Patara to Tyre. ἐπλ . εἰςΣ .,— we held our course, steered, for Syria. κατήλθ .] we came down to, the result of having borne down upon. Τύρον ] This city, so well known for its commercial importance and pride, and so often mentioned in the O. T. prophets, was now a free town of the province of Syria. ἐκεῖσε ] If this is an adv. of motion as generally, the reference may be to the carrying and depositing the cargo in the town (De Wette), or to the thitherward direction of the voyage (Meyer): but in the only other place where ἐκεῖσε occurs (ref. [see also ref. Job]) it simply = ἐκεῖ , so that perhaps no motion is included. ἀποφορτ .] The pres. part. indicates the intention, as διαπερῶν before. 4. δέ ] Implying, ‘ the crew indeed were busied with unlading the ship: but we, having sought out (by enquiry) the disciples.’ … ‘ Finding disciples’ (E.V.) is quite wrong. It is not improbable that Paul may have preached at Tyre before, when he visited Syria and Cilicia (Galatians 1:21) after his conversion,— and again when he confirmed the churches (ch. 15:41): τοὺςμαθ . seems to imply this. ἡμ . ἑπτ .] The time taken in unlading:— they apparently proceeded in the same ship, see ver. 6. The notice here is very important, that these Tyrian disciples said to Paul by the Spirit, that he should not go to Jerusalem,— and yet he went thither, and, as he himself declares, δεδεμένοςτῷπνεύματι , bound in spirit by the leading of God. We thus have an instance of that which Paul asserts 1 Corinthians 14:32, that the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets, i.e., that the revelation made by the Holy Spirit to each man’ s spirit was under the influence of that man’ s will and temperament, moulded by and taking the form of his own capacities and resolves. So here: these Tyrian prophets knew by the Spirit, which testified this in every city (ch. 20:23), that bonds and imprisonment awaited Paul. This appears to have been announced by them, shaped and intensified by their own intense love and anxiety for him who was probably their father in the faith (see [τοὺςμαθ . above, and] ver. 5). But he paid no regard to the prohibition, being himself under a leading of the same Spirit too plain for him to mistake it. see below, vv. 10 ff. 5. ἐξαρτίσαι ] This is ordinarily a naval word, signifying to fit out or refit a ship (with or without πλοῖον , Passow). But this can hardly be the meaning here. Meyer would render ‘ when we had spent these days in refitting,’ so that τ . ἡμ . would be the accusative of duration,— ‘ when we had refitted during the days.’ But not to mention that τὰςἡμ ., without ταύτας , would be harsh in such a connexion,— is not the aorist ἐξαρτίσαι fatal to the rendering? Would it not in this case be present, if implying the continued action during the days,— perfect, if implying that that action was over (in which latter case ἡμ . would be dative)? The aorist, as almost invariably in dependent clauses, must refer to some one act occurring at one time. So that if the meaning given by Theoph., Œ πληρῶσαι be found no where else, it is almost necessary so to understand the word here. And it is doing no violence to its import: the same verb which indicates the completion of a ship’ s readiness for a voyage, might well be applied to the completion of a period of time. Our own word ‘ fulfil’ has undergone a similar change of meaning since its first composition: and πληρῶσαι is used both of manning a ship and of fulfilling a period of time. ἐξελθ .] from the house where they were lodged. ἕωςἔξωτ . π .] “ We passed through the city to the western shore of the ancient island, now the peninsula, hoping to find there a fitting spot for the tent, in the open space between the houses and the sea.” Robinson, iii. 392. ἐπὶτὸναἰγιαλόν ] “ Yet had we looked a few rods further, we should have found a very tolerable spot by a threshing-floor, where we might have pitched close upon the bank, and enjoyed, in all its luxury, the cool sea-breeze, and the dashing of the surge upon the rocky shore.” id. ibid. 7. τὸνπλοῦνδιανύς .] Having ended our voyage, viz. the whole voyage, from Neapolis to Syria. The E.V., ‘ when we had finished our course from Tyre,’ is allowable, but this would more probably have been τὸνἀπὸΤύρου . ‘ With their landing at Ptolemais their voyage ended: the rest of the journey was made by land.’ (De Wette.) ἀπὸΤύρου will thus be taken with κατηντήσαμεν . Πτολεμαΐδα ] Anciently Accho (Ἀκχώ , LXX, Judges 1:31,— in Gr. and Rom. writers Ἄκη , Ace), called Ptolemais from (probably) Ptolemy Lathurus (Jos. Antt. xiii. 12. 2 ff., see 1 Macc. 10:56 ff.; 11:22, 24; 12:45, 48; 2 Macc. 13:24). It was a large town with a harbour (Jos. Antt. xviii. 6. 3). It was never (Judges 1:31) fully possessed by the Jews, but belonged to the Phœ nicians, who in after times were mixed with Greeks. But after the captivity a colony of Jews is found there (Jos. B. J. ii. 18. 5). The emperor Claudius gave it the ‘ civitas,’ whence it is called by Pliny, v. 17; xxxvi. 65, ‘ Colonia Claudii Cæ saris.’ It is now called St. Jean d’ Acre, and is the best harbour on the Syrian coast, though small. It lies at the end of the great road from Damascus to the sea. Population now about 10,000. The distance from Ptolemais to Cæ sarea is forty-four miles. For Cæ sarea, see on ch. 10:1. 8. Φιλ . τ . εὐαγγ .] It is possible that he may have had this appellation from his having been the first to travel about preaching the gospel: see ch. 8:5 ff. The office of Evangelist, see reff., seems to have answered very much to our missionary: Theodoret, on Ephesians 4:11, says, ἐκεῖνοιπεριΐόντεςἐκήρυττον : and Euseb. H. E. iii. 37, ἔργονἐπετέλουνεὐαγγελιστῶν , τοῖςἔτιπάμπανἀνηκόοιςτοῦτῆςπίστεωςλόγουκηρύττειντὸνχριστὸνφιλοτιμούμενοι , καὶτὴντῶνθείωνεὐαγγελίωνπαραδιδόναιγραφήν . The latter could hardly have been part of their employment so early as this; nor had εὐαγγέλιον in these times the peculiar meaning of a narrative of the life of Christ, but rather embraced the whole good tidings of salvation by Him, as preached to the Jews and Heathens. See Neander, Pfl. u. L., pp. 258, 264. Euseb., iii. 31, apparently mistakes this Philip for the Apostle: as did also (see Valesius’ s note, Euseb. l. c.) Clement of Alexandria and Papias. ὄντοςἐκτ . ἑπτά ] See ch. 6:5, and note. Meyer and Winer (edn. 6, § 20. l. c.) well remark (see De Wette also), that the participle without the article implies that the reason why they abode with him was that he was one of the seven: ‘ ut qui esset,’ &c. and in English being (one) of the seven. The fact of Philip being settled at Cæ sarea, and known as ὁεὐαγγελιστής , seems decisive against regarding the occurrence of ch. 6:3 ff. as the establishment of any permanent order in the church. 9. This notice is inserted apparently without any immediate reference to the history, but to bring so remarkable a circumstance to the knowledge of the readers. The four daughters had the gift of προφητεία : see on ch. 11:27. Eusebius (see, however, his mistake above) gives from Polycrates traditional accounts of them,— that two were buried at Hierapolis, and one at Ephesus. From that passage, and one cited from Clement of Alex. (δύοθυγατέρεςαὐτοῦγεγηρακυῖαιπαρθένοι , Polycr., Euseb. iii. 31.… Φίλιπποςτὰςθυγατέραςἀνδράσινἐξέδωκε , , iii. 30), it would appear that two were afterwards married, according to tradition. To find an argument for the so-called ‘ honour of virginity’ in this verse, only shews to what resources those will stoop who have failed to apprehend the whole spirit and rule of the gospel in the matter. They are met however on their own ground by an argument built on another misapprehension (that of Philip being a deacon in the ecclesiastical sense): ὥστεοὖνκαὶτῷκοινωνήσαντιγάμωνδιακονεῖνἔξεστι . 10. This Agabus in all probability is identical with the Agabus of ch. 11:28. That there is no reference to that former mention of him, might be occasioned by different sources of information having furnished the two narratives. 11. Similar symbolical actions accompanying prophecy are found 1 Kings 22:11; Isaiah 20:2; Jeremiah 13:1 ff.; Ezekiel 4:1 fr., 9 ff.; 5:1, &c. De Wette remarks that τάδελέγειτὸπνεῦματὸἅγιον is the N. T. prophetic formula, instead of τάδελέγειὁκύριος of the O. T. 12. τοῦμή ] A similar gen. after exhortation, is found ch. 15:20. 13. The τότε , which has been changed in the rec. for the ordinary copula, gives solemnity to the answer about to be related: q. d. It was then that Paul said. συνθρύπτοντες ] The present part. does not imply the endeavour merely, here or any where else, but as Meyer quotes from Schaefer, Eurip. Phœ n. 79, ‘ Vere incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu.’ γάρ ] Either, ‘ your proceeding is in vain, for … ’ — or ‘ cease to do so, for.… ’ εἰςἹερ ] on my arrival at: the motion to, which was the subject in question, is combined with that which might result on it: see reff. and ch. 2:39. 14. τ . κ . τὸθέλ . γιν .] One of the passages from which we may not unfairly infer, that the Lord’ s prayer was used by the Christians of the apostolic age. See note on 2 Timothy 4:18. 15. ἐπισκευασάμενοι ] The remarkable variety of reading in this word shews that much difficulty has been found in it. The rec. ἀποσκευασάμενοι (which may perhaps have arisen from the mixture of ἀποταξάμενοι (D) with ἐπισκευασάμενοι ), would mean, not, ‘ having deposited our (useless) baggage,’ — but, ‘ having discharged our baggage,’ ‘ unpacked the matters necessary for our journey to Jerusalem, from our coffers.’ But ἐπισκ . is the better supported reading, and suits the passage better: having packed up, made ourselves ready for the journey. ‘ Carriages’ in the E. V. is used, as at Judges 18:21 (where it answers to τὸβάρος , LXX-B), for baggage, things carried. 16. Two renderings are given to the latter clause of this verse: (1) making Μνάσωνι , &c. depend on ἄγοντες , and agreeing by attr. with ᾧ , as E. V., ‘ and brought with them one Mnason, … with whom we should lodge’ (so Beza, Calvin, Wolf, Schö tt., &c.): and (2) resolving the attraction into ἄγοντεςπαρὰΜνάσωνα , παρ ʼ ᾧξ . ‘ bringing us to Mnason,’ &c. (So Grot., Valcknaer, Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, al.) Both are legitimate: and it is difficult to choose between them. The probability of Mnason being a resident at Jerusalem, and of the Cæ sarean brethren going to introduce the company to him, seems to favour the latter: as also does the fact that Luke much more frequently uses ἄγω with a person followed by a preposition than absolutely. Of Mnason nothing further is known. ἀρχαίῳ probably implies that he had been a disciple ἐξἀρχῆς , and had accompanied our Lord during His ministry. See ch. 11:15, where the term ἐξἀρχῆς is applied to the time of the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit. 17-23:35. Paul at Jerusalem: made prisoner, and sent to Cæ sarea. 17. οἱἀδελφοί ] The Christians generally: not the Apostles and elders, as Kuin., who imagines from vv. 20, 21, that ‘ cœ tus non favebat Paulo.’ But (1) this is by no means implied: and (2) James and the elders are not mentioned till ver. 18. 18. Ἰάκωβον ] James, ‘ the brother of the Lord:’ the president of the church at Jerusalem: see ch. 12:17; 15:13, Galatians 2:12, and notes,— and Prolegg. to the Epistle of James, vol. iv. pt. 1, § i. 24-37. 19. On the particular kind of attraction (reff.), in a gen. plur. after a partitive adjective, see Winer, edn. 6, § 24. 2. b. 20. While they praised God for, and fully recognized, the work wrought by him among the Gentiles, they found it requisite to advise him respecting the suspicion under which he laboured among the believing Jews. They,— led, naturally perhaps, but incorrectly (see 1 Corinthians 7:18), by some passages of Paul’ s life (and of his already written Epistles?), in which he had depreciated legal observances in comparison with faith in Christ, and spoken strongly against their adoption by Gentile converts,— apprehended that he advised on the part of the Hellenistic believers, an entire apostasy from Moses and the ordinances of the law. θεωρεῖς ] This can hardly be a reference (as Olsh.) to the elders present, as representatives of the μυριάδες of believing Jews; for only those of Jerusalem were there:— but refers to Paul’ s own experience, and knowledge of the vast numbers of the Jews who believed at Jerusalem, and elsewhere in Judæ a. πόσαιμυριάδες is perhaps not to be strictly taken: see reff. Baur suspects, on account of this expression, that the words τῶνπεπιστ . are spurious; but quite without reason. Eusebius quotes from Hegesippus (H. E. ii. 23), πολλῶνκαὶτῶνἀρχόντωνπιστευόντωνἦνθόρυβοςτῶνἸουδαίωνκαὶγραμματέωνκαὶΦαρισαίωνλεγόντωνὅτικινδυνεύειπᾶςὁλαὸςἸησοῦντὸνχριστὸνπροσδοκᾷν . On the other hand, Origen (tom. i. in Joann. § 2, vol. iv. p. 3) says, that probably the whole number of believing Jews at no time had amounted to 144,000. On εἰσὶν … ὑπάρχουσι , see note, ch. 16:20, 21. 21. κατηχήθησαν ] they were sedulously informed (at some time in the mind of the speaker. The sense of the aor. must be preserved. Below, ver. 24, it is the perfect): viz., by the anti-Pauline judaizers. τοῖςἔθεσιν ] The dat. of the rule, or form, after which: see reff. 22. πάντωςδ . συνελθ . πλ .] Not, as E. V., Calv., Grot., Calov., ‘ the multitude must needs come together,’ i.e. there must be a meeting of the whole church (τὸπλῆθος , ch. 2:6): but a multitude (of these Judaizers) will certainly come together: ‘ they will meet and discuss your proceeding in a hostile manner.’ 23. εὐχήν ] A vow of Nazarites. This vow must not be confounded, historically or analogically, with that of ch. 18:18: see note there, and Numbers 6:2-21. 24. παραλαβών ] having taken to thyself, as comrades. ἁγν . σὺναὐτ .] become a Nazarite with them. The same expression occurs in the LXX, Numbers 6:3, in describing the Nazarite’ s duties. δαπάν . ἐπ ʼ αὐτ .] “ More apud Judæ os receptum erat, et pro insigni pietatis officio habebatur, ut in pauperum Nasiræ orum gratiam ditiores sumptus erogarent ad sacrificia (see Numbers 6:14 ff.) quæ dum illi tonderentur, offerre necesse erat.” Kypke. Jos. Antt. xix. 6.1, relating Agrippa’ s thank-offerings at Jerusalem, says, διὸκαὶΝαζιραίωνξυρᾶσθαιδιέταξεμάλασυχνούς . On the shaving the head, see Numbers 6:18. De Wette remarks: ‘ James and the elders made this proposal, assuming that Paul could comply with it salvâ conscientiâ ,— perhaps also as a proof, to assure themselves and others of his sentiments: and Paul accepted it salvâ conscientiâ . But this he could only have done on one condition, that he was sure by it not to contribute in these four Nazarites to the error of justification by the works of the law. He might keep, and encourage the keeping of the law,— but not with the purpose of thereby deserving the approbation of God.’ 25. See ch. 15:28, 29. 26. Paul himself entered into the vow with them (σὺναὐτοῖςἁγν .), and the time settled (perhaps the least that could be assigned: the Mischna requires thirty days) for the completion of the vow, i.e. the offering and shaving of their heads, was seven days. No definite time is prescribed in Num_6, but there seven days is the time of purification in case of uncleanness during the period of the vow. διαγγέλλων ] making known to the ministers of the temple. τὴνἐκπλήρωσιν ] the fulfilment, i.e. that he and the men had come to fulfil: announcing their intention of fulfilling. ἕωςοὗπροσηνέχθη .] ‘ donec offerretur,’ Vulg. The aor. indic. is unusual in an indirect construction, where the aor. subj. is almost always found (ch. 23:12, 21; 25:21). But we have Plato, Gorg. p. 506, ἡδέως … ἂν … διελεγόμην , ἕωςαὐτῷτὴντοῦἈμφίονοςἀπέδωκαῥῆσιν ,— and Cratyl. 396, οὐκἂνἐπαυόμηνδιεξιὼν … ἕωςἀπεπειράθηντῆςσοφίαςταυτησὶτίποιήσει . (De W.) ἡπροσφορά ] See Numbers 6:13-17. 27. αἱἑπτ . ἡμ .] Of the votive period: not since Paul’ s arrival in Jerusalem. Five days of the seven had passed: see on ch. 24:11. Cf. on the whole, Bp. Wordsworth’ s note. ἀπὸτ . Ἀς .] From Ephesus and the neighbourhood, where Paul had so long taught. ‘ Paulus, dum fidelibus placandis intentus est (viz. the believing Jews), in hostium furorem incurrit (viz. of the unbelieving Asiatic Jews).’ Calv., in Meyer, who adds, ‘ In how many ways had those who were at Jerusalem this Pentecost, already persecuted Paul in Asia?’ Notice the similarity of the charge against him to that against Stephen, ch. 6:13. 28. Ελληνας ] The generic plural: only one is intended, see next verse. They meant, into the inner court, which was forbidden to Gentiles. 29. Τρόφ .] See ch. 20:4, note. We here learn that he was an Ephesian. 30. The Levites shut the doors to prevent profanation by a riot, and possibly bloodshed, in the temple: hardly, as Bengel, ‘ ne templi tutela uteretur Paulus:’ — the right of asylum was only (Exodus 21:13, Exodus 21:14) for murder unawares (Meyer). But by ver. 14 there, and by Joab’ s fleeing to the altar, 1 Kings 2:28 ff., we see that it was resorted to on other occasions. 31. ζητούντωνκ .τ .λ .] By beating him: see ver. 32. ἀνέβη ] went (was carried) up; up, either because of his high station, as commanding officer, or because he was locally stationed in the tower Antonia, overlooking (from the N.W.) the temple, where the riot was. τῷχιλιάρχῳτ . σπ .] Claudius Lysias (ch. 23:26), the tribune of the cohort (whose proper complement was 1000 men). 33. ἁλύς . δυσί ] See ch. 12:6. He would thus be in the custody of two soldiers. τίς [ἂν ] εἴη , who he might be (subjective possibility): and τίἐστινπεπ ., what he had done (assuming that he must have done something). 34. παρεμβ .] The camp or barracks attached to the tower Antonia;— or perhaps ‘ into the tower’ itself: but the other is the more usual meaning of παρεμβ . “ For a full history and description of the fortress of Antonia, see Robinson, i. pp. 431, 435; Williams, Holy City, i. 99; ii. 403-411; Howson, ii. 311.” Wordsworth. 35. ἀναβαθμ .] The steps leading up into the tower. The description of the tower or fort Antonia in Jos. B. J. v. 5. 8, sets the scene vividly before us:— πυργοειδὴςδὲοὖσατὸπᾶνσχῆμα , κατὰγωνίαντέσσαρσινἑτέροιςδιείληπτοπύργοις · ὧνοἱμὲνἄλλοιπεντήκοντατὸὕψος , ὁδὲἐπὶτῇμεσημβρινῇκαὶκατ ʼ ἀνατολὴνγωνίᾳκείμενοςἑβδομήκονταπηχῶνἦν , ὡςκαθορᾷνὅλονἀπ ʼ αὐτοῦτὸἱερόν . καθὰδὲσυνῆπτοταῖςτοῦἱεροῦστοαῖς , εἰςἀμφοτέραςεἶχεκαταβάσεις · δι ʼ ὧνκατιόντεςοἱφρουροί , καθῆστογὰρἀεὶἐπ ʼ αὐτῆςτάγμαῬωμαίων , καὶδιϊστάμενοιπερὶτὰςστοὰςμετὰτῶνὅπλων , ἐνταῖςἑορταῖςτὸνδῆμον , ὡςμήτινεωτερισθείη , παρεφύλαττον · φρούριονγὰρἐπέκειτοτῇπόλειμὲντὸἱερόν , τῷἱερῷδὲἡἈντωνία . 37. Ἑλληνιστὶγιγ .] as ‘ Græ ce nescire,’ Cic. pro Flacc. 4,— τοὺςΣυριστὶἐπισταμένους , Xen. Cyr. vii. 5. 31: and reff. There is no ellipsis of λαλεῖν . 38. οὐκἄρασὺεἶ ] Thou art not then, as I believed.… The E. V., after the Vulg., ‘ art not thou’ … would require ἆρ ʼ οὐ or οὔκουν , Winer, edn. 6, § 57. 3. See also Luke 17:17; John 18:37. Αἰγύπτιος ] The inference of the tribune was not, as in Bengel, ‘ Græ ce loquitur: ergo est Æ gyptius;’ but the very contrary to this. His being able to speak Greek is a proof to Lysias that he is not that Egyptian. This Egyptian is mentioned by Josephus, Antt. xx. 8. 6, ἀφικνεῖταιδέτιςἐξΑἰγύπτουκατὰτοῦτοντὸνκαιρὸνεἰςτὰἹεροσόλυμα , προφήτηςεἶναιλέγων , καὶσυμβουλεύωντῷδημοτικῷπλήθεισὺναὐτῷπρὸςὄροςτὸπροσαγορευόμενονἘλαιῶνἔρχεσθαι , ὃκαὶτῆςπόλεωςἄντικρυςκείμενονἀπέχειστάδιαπέντε · θέλεινγάρ , ἔφασκεν , αὐτοῖςἐκεῖθενἐπιδεῖξαι , ὡςκελεύσαντοςαὐτοῦπίπτοιτὰτῶνἹεροσολύμωντείχη , δι ʼ ὧντὴνεἴσοδοναὐτοῖςπαρέξεινἐπηγγέλλετο . Φῆλιξδὲὡςἐπύθετοταῦτα , κελεύειτοὺςστρατιώταςἀναλαβεῖντὰὅπλα , καὶ … προσβάλλειτοῖςπερὶτὸνΑἰγύπτιον · καὶτετρακοσίουςμὲναὐτῶνἀνεῖλε , διακοσίουςδὲζῶνταςἔλαβεν . ὁδὲΑἰγύπτιοςαὐτὸςδιαδράσαςἐκτῆςμάχηςἀφανὴςἐγένετο . But in B. J. ii. 13. 5, he says of the same person, περὶτρισμυρίουςἀθροίζειτῶνἠπατημένων , περιαγαγὼνδὲαὐτοὺςἐκτῆςἐρημίαςεἰςτὸἘλαιῶνκαλ . ὄρ . κ .τ .λ … ὥστεσυμβολῆςγενομένης … διαφθαρῆναικ . ζωγρηθῆναιπλείστουςτῶνσὺναὐτῷ . It is obvious that the numerical accounts in Jos. are inconsistent with our text, and with one another. This latter being the case, we may well leave them out of the question. At different times of his rebellion, his number of followers would be variously estimated; and the tribune would naturally take it as he himself or his informant had known it, at some one period. That this is so, we may see by noticing that our narrative speaks of his leading out,— whereas Josephus’ s numbers are those whom he brought back from the wilderness against Jerusalem, by which time his band would have augmented considerably. τοὺςτετρ .] the four thousand,— the matter being one of notoriety. σικαρίων ] From sica, a dagger; they are described by Jos. B. J. ii. 13. 3, ἕτερονεἶδοςλῃστῶνἐνἹεροσολύμοιςὑπεφύετο , οἱκαλούμενοισικάριοι , μεθ ʼ ἡμέρανκαὶἐνμέσῃτῇπόλειφονεύοντεςἀνθρώπους · μάλισταδὲἐνταῖςἑορταῖςμισγόμενοιτῷπλήθει , καὶταῖςἐσθήσεσινὑποκρύπτοντεςμικρὰξιφίδια , τούτοιςἔνυττοντοὺςδιαφόρους … πρῶτοςμὲνοὖνὑπ ʼ αὐτῶνἸωνάθηςὁἀρχιερεὺςἀποσφάζεται · μετὰδὲαὐτὸνκαθ ʼ ἡμέρανἀνῃροῦντοπολλοί … The art. is generic. 39. μέν ] Our indeed,— implying ‘ not the Egyptian, but,’ — exactly renders it: I indeed am: so Aristoph. Plut. 355, μὰΔί ʼ ἐγὼμὲνοὔ . See Hartung, Partikellehre, ii. 413. οὐκἀσήμουπόλ .] See note, ch. 9:11. The expression is an elegant one, and very common. Wetst. gives many examples, and among them one from Eurip. Ion 8, ἐστὶνγὰροὐκἄσημοςἙλλήνωνπόλις . There was distinction in his being a πολίτης of an urbs libera. “ Many of the coins of Tarsus bear the epigraphs μητρόπολις and αὐτόνομος .” Wordsw. from Akermann, p. 56. 40. τῇἙβρ . διαλ .] The Syro-Chaldaic, the mother-tongue of the Jews in Judæ a at this time: his motive is implied (ch. 22:2) to be, that they might be the more disposed to listen to him. Chap. 22:1. This speech of Paul repeats the narrative of his conversion to Christianity, but this time most skilfully arranged and adapted (within legitimate limits) to avoid offence and conciliate his hearers. Proofs of this will appear as we go on. See an enquiry into its diction and rendering into Greek, in the Prolegg. § ii. 17 β . 3. De Wette and others would place the comma after ταύτῃ , so to make the two clauses, beginning with γέγ . and ἀνατ ., exactly correspond. But (not to insist, with Meyer, on the reason that a new circumstance is introduced with each participle) it is surely better, as the rule of the sentence seems to be to place the participles before the words which qualify them, to take ἐντῇπόλειταύτῃπαρὰτ . π . Γ ., all as the qualification of ἀνατεθραμμένος , and punctuate, as commonly done, after Γαμαλιήλ . On Gamaliel, see note, ch. 5:34. The expression παρὰτ . πόδ . (see ch. 4:35, note) indicates that the rabbi sat on an elevated seat and the scholars on the ground or on benches, literally at his feet. κατὰἀκρ .] (The art. omitted aft. a prep.) According to the strict acceptation of the law of my fathers; = κατὰτὴνἀκριβεστάτηναἵρεσιντῆςἡμετέραςθρησκείας , ch. 26:5;— i.e. as a Pharisee. So Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 18, Φαρισαῖοι … οἱδοκοῦντεςμετὰἀκριβείαςἐξηγεῖσθαιτὰνόμιμα . Some of the older Commentators make τοῦπατρῴουνόμου governed by πεπαιδ ., and take κατὰἀκρίβ . adverbially: which would give a very vapid sense, the accuracy and carefulness of his education having been already implied in παρὰτ . π . Γαμαλιήλ . καθὼς … ] Not meaning ‘ in the same way as ye are all this day’ (but now in another way): but as ye all are this day: ‘ I had the same zealous character (not excluding his still retaining it) which you all shew to-day.’ A conciliatory comparison. 5. ὁἀρχ .] ‘ The High Priest of that day, who is still living:’ i.e. Theophilus, see on ch. 9:1. Similarly, the whole Sanhedrim = ‘ those who were then members, and now survive.’ παρ ʼ ὧνκαί ] from whom, moreover. πρὸςτοὺςἀδελφ .] to the Jewish (their) brethren (see ch. 28:21). Bornemann’ s rendering, ‘ against the (Christian) brethren,’ is altogether inadmissible. If ever Paul spoke to the Jews as a Jew, it was on this occasion. καὶτοὺςἐκ .] even those who were there. ἐκεῖσε ] if resolved, would be εἰςΔαμασκόν ,— a similar construction to εἰςοἶκόνἐστιν , Mark 2:1, ‘ those who had settled at Damascus and were then there.’ 6. On Paul’ s conversion and the comparison of the accounts in chapp. 9, 12, and 26, see notes on ch. 9 I have there treated of the discrepancies, real or apparent. 11. See notes, ch. 9:8, 18. 12. That Ananias was a Christian, is not here mentioned,— and ἀνὴρ … Ἰουδαίων is added: both, as addressed to a Jewish audience. Before the Roman governor in ch. 26, he does not mention him at all, but compresses the whole substance of the command given to Ananias into the words spoken by the Lord to himself. A heathen moralist could teach,— ‘ Quid de quoque viro, et cui dicas, sæ pe videto’ (Hor. Ephesians 1:18, 68): and a Christian Apostle was not unmindful of the necessary caution. Such features in his speeches are highly instructive and valuable to those who would gather from Scripture itself its own real character: and be, not slaves to its letter, but disciples of its spirit. 13. ἀνέβλ . εἰςαὐτόν ] De W. remarks, that the two meanings of ἀναβλέπω here unite in the word: I looked, with recovered sight, upon him. 14-16 is not related, but included, in ch. 9:15-19. 14. ὁθ . τ . πατ . ἡμ .] So Peter, ch. 3:13; 5:30. In ch. 9:17, ὁκύριος is the word: this title is given for the Jews. τὸνδίκαιον ] So Stephen, ch. 7:52. How forcibly must the whole scene have recalled him, whom presently (ver. 20) he mentions by name. 16. ἀπόλουσαι … ] This was the Jewish as well as the Christian doctrine of baptism. See ref. 1 Cor. and note. αὐτοῦ ] of Jesus, τοῦδικαίου . Paul carefully avoids mentioning to the Jews this Name, except where it is unavoidable, in ver. 8: so αὐτόν again, ver. 18. 17. viz. as related ch. 9:26-30, where nothing of this vision, or its having been the cause of his leaving Jerusalem, is hinted. 18. περὶἐμοῦ is to be taken with μαρτυρίαν , not with the verb, as Meyer and Winer maintain. Their objection, that then it must be τὴνμαρτ . τὴνπερὶἐμοῦ is answered by remarking, (1) that Paul does not always observe accuracy in this usage of the article: e.g. Ephesians 6:5, ὑπακούετετοῖςκυρίοιςκατὰσάρκα , for τ . κυρ . τοῖςκατασάρκα , or τοῖςκατὰσάρκακυρίοις , which he has written in the , Colossians 3:22,-1 Thessalonians 4:16, οἱνεκροὶἐνχριστῷἀναστήσονταιπρῶτον . See also Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:14, and notes:— and (2) that there may have been a reason for the irregularity here, inasmuch as, if either the article had been expressed after μαρτ ., or τὴνπ . ἐμ . μαρτ . had been used, σου would have appeared to be governed by παραδέξονται — ‘ they will not receive from thee thy testimony concerning me,’ — which is not precisely the meaning intended to be conveyed. (See Mr. Green’ s Gram. of N. T. p. 163.) 19. The probable account of this answer is, that Paul thought his former great zeal against Christ, contrasted with his present zeal for Him, would make a deep impression on the Jews in Jerusalem: or, perhaps, he wishes by his earnest preaching of Jesus as the Christ among them, to undo the mischief of which he before was the agent, and therefore alleges his former zeal and his consenting to Stephen’ s death as reasons why he should remain in Jerusalem. αὐτοί can only refer to the same persons as the subjects of παραδέξονται above: not (as Heinrichs) to the foreign Jews;— “ Idcirco iter apostolicum extra urbem detrectat, quod undique odio petitum se iri præ videt, Hierosolymis autem in apostolorum collegio delitescere se posse opinatur:” — a motive totally unworthy of Paul, and an interpretation which happily the sentence will not bear. 20. μάρτυρόςσου ] “ E. V. ‘ thy martyr,’ following Beza: Vulg., and Erasm, testis tui. The Apostle may have here used the (Hebrew, ע ֵ ד , as Wordsworth) word in its strict primary sense; for a view of Christ in His glory was vouchsafed to Stephen, and it was by bearing witness of that manifestation that he hastened his death (ch. 7:55 ff.). The present meaning of the word martyr did, however, become attached to it at a very early period, and is apparently of apostolic authority: e.g. Revelation 17:6, and 1Co_5, p. 217 (cited in note on ch. 1:25).… The transition from the first to the secondary sense may be easily accounted for. Many who had only seen with the eye of faith, suffered persecution and death as a proof of their sincerity. For such constancy the Greek had no adequate term. It was necessary for the Christians to provide one. None was more appropriate than μάρτυρ , seeing what had been the fate of those whom Christ had appointed to be His witnesses (ch. 1:8). They almost all suffered: hence to witness became a synonym for to suffer; while the suffering was in itself a kind of testimony.” (Mr. Humphry.) Bp. Wordsworth well designates this introduction of the name of Stephen “ A noble endeavour to make public reparation for a public sin, by public confession in the same place where the sin was committed.” καὶαὐτός ] I myself also. 21. The object of Paul in relating this vision appears to have been to shew that his own inclination and prayer had been, that he might preach the Gospel to his own people: but that it was by the imperative command of the Lord Himself that he went to the Gentiles. 22. τούτουτ . λόγου ] viz. the announcement that he was to be sent to the Gentiles. ‘ Populi terrarum non vivunt,’ was the maxim of the children of Abraham. Chetubb. fol. iii. 2 (Meyer). καθῆκεν ] ‘ decuerat:’ implying, he ought to have been put to death long ago (when we endeavoured to do it, but he escaped). 23. ῥιπτούντων ] Not ‘ flinging off their garments,’ as preparing to stone him, or even as representing the action of such preparation: the former would be futile, as he was in the custody of the tribune,— the latter absurd, and not borne out by any known habit of the Jews: but shaking, jactitantes, their garments, as shaking off the dust, abominating such an expression and him who uttered it. The casting dust into the air was part of the same gesture. Chrys. explains it, ῥιπτάζοντες , ἐκτινάσσοντες . 24. The tribune, not understanding the language in which Paul spoke, wished to extract from him by the scourge the reason which so exasperated the Jews against him. In this he was acting illegally: ‘ Non esse a tormentis incipiendum, Div. Augustus constituit.’ Digest. Leg. 48, tit. 18, c. 1 (De W.). ἐπεφών .] they were thus crying out against him. 25. And while they were binding him down with the thongs. Dr. Bloomfield quotes from Dio Cassius, xi. 49, Ἀντίγονονἐμαστίγωσεσταυρῷπροδήσαντες , and explains rightly, I think, the προ in both verbs to allude to the position of the prisoner, which was, bent forward, and tied with a sort of gear made of leather to an inclined post. De W. and others render τοῖςἱμᾶσιν , ‘ for the scourge’ (dat. commodi); but why should μάστιξιν be varied? and can it be shewn (as Dr. B. asks) that the word in the plural will bear this meaning? ἑκατόνταρχον ] The ‘ centurio supplicio præ positus’ of Tacitus and Seneca,— standing by to superintend the punishment. εἰἄνθ . κ .τ .λ .] See ch. 16:37, note. 28. Dio Cassius, lx. 17, mentions that, in the reign of Claudius, Messalina used to sell the freedom of the city, and at very various prices at different times: ἡπολιτείαμεγάλωντὸπρῶτονχρημάτωνπραθεῖσα , ἔπειθ ʼ οὕτωςὑπὸτῆςεὐχερείαςἐπευωνήθη , ὥστεκαὶλογοποιηθῆναιὅτικἂνὑάλινάτιςσκεύησυντετριμμέναδῷτινί , πολίτηςἔσται . ἐγὼδὲκαὶγεγ .] But I (besides having the privilege like thee of being a Roman citizen) was also born one. How was Paul a Roman citizen by birth? Certainly not because he was of Tarsus: for (1) that city had no such privilege, but was only an ‘ urbs libera, not a Colonia nor a Municipium: and (2) if this had been so, the mention of his being a man of Tarsus (ch. 21:39) would have of itself prevented his being scourged. It remains, therefore, that his father or some ancestor must have obtained the civitas, either as a reward for service (‘ urbes, merita erga P. R. allegantes, … civitate donavit,’ Suet. 47) or by purchase. It has been suggested that the father of Saul may have been sold into slavery at Rome, when Cassius laid a heavy fine on the city [of Tarsus] for having espoused the cause of Octavius and Antony, Appian, B. C. iv. 64, and very many of the Tarsians were sold to pay it. He may have acquired his freedom and the citizenship afterwards. See Mr. Lewin, i. p. 4. But this is mere conjecture. 29. καὶ … δέ ] moreover, ‘ more than that.’ ἐφοβ .] There is no inconsistency (as De W.) in the tribune’ s being afraid because he had bound him, and then letting him remain thus bound. Meyer rightly explains it, that the tribune, having committed this error, is afraid of the possible consequences of it (‘ facinus est vinciri civem R., scelus verberari,’ Cic. Verr. v. 66), and shews this by taking the first opportunity of either undoing it, or justifying his further detention, by loosing him, and bringing him before the Sanhedrim. His fear was on account of his first false step; but it was now too late to reverse it: and the same reason which leads him to continue it now, operates afterwards (ὁδέσμιοςΠ ., ch. 23:18) when the hearing was delayed. That ἦνδεδεκώς cannot, as Bloomfield and Wordsworth suppose, refer only to the binding before scourging, its immediate juxtaposition with ἔλυσεν in the next verse sufficiently shews. Besides, the mere circumstance of a preparation for scourging having been begun in ignorance, and left off as soon as the knowledge was received, would rather have relieved, than occasioned, the fear of the tribune. A more cogent reason still is, that ἦνδεδεκώς can properly only apply to an action still continuing when the fear was felt: that he had put him into custody. ‘ The centurion believed Paul’ s word, because a false claim of this nature, being easily exposed, and punishable with death (Suet. Claud. 25), was almost an unprecedented thing.’ Hackett. 30. τὸτί ] The art. is epexegetical: see reff. It seems remarkable that the tribune in command should have had the power to summon the Sanhedrim: and I have not seen this remarked on by any Commentator. Some of the ancient correctors of the text, however, seem to have detected the difficulty, and to have altered συνελθεῖν into the vapid ἐλθεῖν in consequence. καταγ .] From Antonia to the council-room. According to tradition (see Biscoe, p. 147, notes), the Sanhedrim ceased to hold their sessions in the temple about twenty-six years before this period. Had they done so now, Lysias and his soldiers could not have been present, as no heathen was permitted to pass the sacred limits. Their present council-room was in the upper city, near the foot of the bridge leading across the ravine from the western cloister of the temple. Lewin, p. 672. 23:1. ἀτενίσας seems to describe that peculiar look, connected probably with infirmity of sight, with which Paul has already been described as regarding those before him: and may perhaps account for his not knowing that the person who spoke to him was the high priest, ver. 5. See ch. 13:9, note. The purport of Paul’ s assertion seems to be this: being charged with neglecting, and teaching others to neglect the law of Moses, he at once endeavours to disarm those who thus accused him, by asserting that up to that day he had lived a true and loyal Jew,— obeying, according to his conscience, the law of that divine πολιτεία of which he was a covenant member. Thus πεπολίτευμαιτῷθεῷ will have its full and proper meaning: and the words are no vain-glorious ones, but an important assertion of his innocence. 2. Ἀνανίας ] He was at this time the actual high priest (ver. 4). He was the son of Nebedæ us (Jos. Antt. xx. 5. 2),— succeeded Joseph son of Camydus, Antt. xx. 1. 3; 5. 2,— and preceded Ismael, son of Phabi (Antt. xx. 8. 8, 11). He was nominated to the office by Herod, king of Chalcis, in a.d. 48 (Antt. xx. 5. 2); and sent to Rome by Quadratus, the prefect of Syria, to give an account to the emperor Claudius (Antt. xx. 6. 2): he appears, however, not to have lost his office, but to have resumed it on his return. This has been regarded as not certain,— and the uncertainty has produced much confusion in the Pauline chronology. But as Wieseler has shewn (Chronol. d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 76, note), there can be no reasonable doubt that it was so, especially as Ananias came off victorious in the cause for which he went to Rome, viz. a quarrel with the Jewish procurator Cumanus,— who went with him, and was condemned to banishment (Antt. xx. 6. 3). He was deposed from his office not long before the departure of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 8), but still had great power, which he used violently and lawlessly (ib. 9. 2): he was assassinated by the sicarii [see ch. 21:38, note] at last (B. J. ii. 17, 9). 3. It is perfectly allowable (even if the fervid rebuke of Paul be considered exempt from blame) to contrast with his conduct and reply that of Him Who, when similarly smitten, answered with perfect and superhuman meekness, John 18:22, John 18:23. Our blessed Saviour is to us, in all His words and acts, the perfect pattern for all under all circumstances: by aiming at whatever He did in each case, we shall do best: but even the greatest of his Apostles are so far our patterns only, as they followed Him, which certainly in this case Paul did not. That Paul thus answered, might go far to excuse a like fervent reply in a Christian or a minister of the gospel,— but must never be used to justify it: it may serve for an apology, but never for an example. τύπτεινσεμέλλεικ .τ .λ .] Some have seen a prophetic import in these words;— see above on the death of Ananias. But I would rather take them as an expression founded on a conviction that God’ s just retribution would come on unjust and brutal acts. τοῖχεκεκον .] Lightfoot’ s interpretation, “ quod (Ananias) colorem tantum gestaret pontificatus, cum res ipsa evanuerit,” is founded on the hypothesis (for it is none other) that the high priesthood was vacant at this time, and Ananias had thrust himself into it. The meaning is as in ref. Matt.; and in all probability Paul referred in thought to our Lord’ s saying. κάθῃκρίνωνμε ] This must not be taken as favouring the common interpretation of ver. 5 (see below): for the whole Sanhedrim were the judges, and sitting to judge him according to the law. 4. Hence we see that not only by the Jews, but by the tribune, who was present, Ananias was regarded as the veritable high priest. 5. (1) The ordinary interpretation of these words since Lightfoot, adopted by Michaelis, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, is, that Ananias had usurped the office during a vacancy, and therefore was not recognized by Paul. They regard his being sent to Rome as a virtual setting aside from being high priest, and suppose that Jonathan, who was murdered by order of Felix (Antt. xx. 8. 5), was appointed high priest in his absence. But there is no ground whatever for believing that his office was vacated. He won the cause for which he went to Rome, and returned to Jerusalem: it was only when a high priest was detained as hostage in Rome, that we read of another being appointed in his room (Antt. xx. 8. 11): and which is fatal to the hypothesis, Jonathan himself was sent to Rome with Ananias . Jonathan was called by the title merely as having been previously high priest. He succeeded Caiaphas, Antt. xviii. 4. 3: and he was not high priest again afterwards, having expressly declined to resume the office, Antt. xix. 6. 4. Nor can any other Jonathan have been elevated to it,— for Josephus gives, in every case, the elevation of a new high priest, and his whole number of twenty-eight from Herod the Great to the destruction of Jerusalem (Antt. xx. 10.5.) agrees with the notices thus given. (See Wieseler, Chron. Synops. Deu_4 Evv. p. 187, note: and Biscoe, pp. 48 ff.) So that this interpretation is untenable. (2) Chrys. and most of the ancient Commentators supposed that Paul, having been long absent, was really unacquainted with the person of the high priest. But this can hardly have been: and even if it were, the position and official seat would have pointed out to one, who had been himself a member of the Sanhedrim, the president of the council. (3) Calvin, Camerar., al., take the words ironically: ‘ I could not be supposed to know that one who conducted himself so cruelly and illegally, could be the high priest.’ This surely needs no refutation, as being altogether out of place and character. (4) Bengel, Wetst., Kuinoel, Olsh., Neander, al., understand the words as an acknowledgment of rash and insubordinate language, and render οὐκᾔδειν , ‘ I did not give it a thought,’ ‘ I forgot:’ and so Wordsworth. But as Meyer remarks, ‘ reputare’ is never the meaning of εἰδέναι ; and were any pregnant or unusual sense intended, the context (as at 1 Thessalonians 5:12) would suggest it. (5) On the whole then, I believe that the only rendering open to us, consistently with the simple meaning of the words, and the facts of history is, I did not know that it (or he) was the high priest: and that it is probable that the solution of his ignorance lies in the fact of his imperfect sight— he heard the insolent order given, but knew not from whom it proceeded. I own that I am not entirely satisfied with this, as being founded perhaps on too slight premises: but as far as I can see there is no positive objection to it, which there is to every other. The objection stated by Wordsworth, “ If St. Paul could not discern that Ananias was high priest, how could he see that he sat there as his judge?” would of course be easily answered by supposing that Paul who had himself been a member of the Sanhedrim may have known Ananias by his voice: or indeed may not (as above) have known him at all personally. It is hardly worth while to notice the rendering given by some, ‘ I knew not that there was a high priest.’ Had any such meaning been intended, it would have been further specified by the construction. Besides which, it renders Paul’ s apology irrelevant, by eliminating from it the person who is necessarily its subject. γέγραπταιγάρ ] Implying in this, ‘ and the law is the rule of my life.’ Even in this we see the consummate skill of Paul. 6. Surely no defence of Paul for adopting this course is required, but all admiration is due to his skill and presence of mind. Nor need we hesitate to regard such skill as the fulfilment of the promise, that in such an hour, the Spirit of wisdom should suggest words to the accused, which the accuser should not be able to gainsay. All prospect of a fair trial was hopeless: he well knew from past and present experience, that personal odium would bias his judges, and violence prevail over justice: he therefore (Neand.) uses, in the cause of Truth, the maxim so often perverted to the cause of falsehood, ‘ divide et impera.’ In one tenet above all others, did the religion of Jesus Christ and the belief of the Pharisees coincide that of the resurrection of the dead. That they looked for this resurrection by right of being the seed of Abraham, and denied it to all others,— whereas he looked for it through Jesus whom they hated, in whom all should be made alive who had died in Adam,— this was nothing to the present point: the belief was common— in the truest sense it was the hope of Israel— in the truest sense does Paul use and bring it forward to confound the adversaries of Christ. At the same time (De W.) by this strong assertion of his Pharisaic standing and extraction, he was further still vindicating himself from the charge against him. So also ch. 26:7. υἱ . Φαρισαίων ] A son of Pharisees, i.e. A Pharisee of Pharisees,’ — ‘ by descent from father, grandfather, and upwards, a pure Pharisee.’ This meaning not having been apprehended, the -ων was altered into -ου . ἐλπ . κ . ἀναστ .] the hope and the resurrection of the dead. The art. is omitted after the prep., see Midd. ch. vi. § 1. 8. See note, Matthew 3:7, for both Pharisees and Sadducees: and for an account of the doctrine of the latter, Jos. Antt. xviii. 1. 4; B. J. ii. 8. 14. In the latter place he says, ψυχῆςτὴνδιαμονήν , καὶτὰςκαθ ʼ ᾅδουτιμωρίαςκαὶτιμὰςἀναιροῦσι . The former μήτε has been altered to μηδέ to suit τὰἀμφότερα , because with ἀναστ . μήτεἄγγ . μήτεπν . three things are mentioned (and thus we have hæ c omnia as a var.): whereas, if μηδέ is read, the two last are coupled, and form only one. But τὰἀμφ . is used of both things, the one being the resurrection, the other the doctrine of spiritual existences: the two specified classes of the latter being combined generically.— τὰἀμφ ., them both,— both of them,— the two. 9. The sentence is an aposiopesis, not requiring any filling up: answering to our Engl. But what if a spirit (genus) or an angel (species) have spoken to him? Perhaps in this they referred to the history of his conversion as told to the people, ch. 22. On the recent criticism which sees in all this a purpose in the writer to compare Paul with Peter, see Prolegg. to Acts, § iii. 4. 10. The fact of all our best mss. reading φοβηθείς here, and not the unusual word εὐλαβηθείς , must carry it into the text. It is one of those cases where, notwithstanding our strong suspicion that the later mss. contain the true reading, we are bound to follow our existing authorities: no sufficient subjective reason being assigned for the correction either way. διασπασθῇ ] to be taken literally, not as merely = ‘ should be killed.’ The Pharisees would strive to lay hold of him to rescue him: the Sadducees, to destroy him, or at all events to secure him. Between them both, there was danger of his being pulled asunder by them. 11. By these few words, the Lord assured him (1) of a safe issue from his present troubles; (2) of an accomplishment of his intention of visiting Rome; (3) of the certainty that however he might be sent thither, he should preach the gospel, and bear testimony there. So that they upheld and comforted him (1) in the uncertainty of his life from the Jews: (2) in the uncertainty of his liberation from prison at Cæ sarea: (3) in the uncertainty of his surviving the storm in the Mediterranean: (4) in the uncertainty of his fate on arriving at Rome. So may one crumb of divine grace and help be multiplied to feed five thousand wants and anxieties. εἰς , see reff. and ch. 2:39,— pregnant. 12. οἱἸουδ . as opposed to Paul, the subject of the former verse. The copyists thought it unlikely that all the Jews were engaged in it, and so altered it to τινεςτῶνἸουδ ., and then transposed it for euphony. Wetstein and Lightf. adduce instances of similar conspiracies,— not to eat or drink till some object be gained. See 1 Samuel 14:24 ff.; and Jos. Antt. xv. 8. 3, 4. 14. It is understood from the narrative that it was to the Sadducees, among the chief priests and elders, that the murderers went. That the high priest belonged to this sect, cannot be inferred with any accuracy. 15. σὺντῷσυνεδρ . belongs to ὑμεῖς , or perhaps better to ἐμφανίσατε — do you give official intimation (intimation conveyed by the whole Sanhedrim). ὅπως expresses the purpose of ἐμφαν .,— τοῦἀν . αὑτ ., that of ἕτοιμοίἐσμ . (Meyer). διαγιν . ἀκρ .] not as E. V. ‘ enquire something more perfectly:’ — but (see reff.) to determine with greater accuracy, or perhaps, neglecting the comparative sense, to determine accurately. 16. It is quite uncertain whether Paul’ s sister’ s son lived in Jerusalem, or had accompanied him thither. The ἡμᾶς of ch. 20:5, will include more than merely Luke. But from this knowledge of the plot, which presupposes other acquaintances than he would have been likely to make if he had come with Paul, I should suppose him to have been domiciled at Jerusalem, possibly under instruction, as was formerly Paul himself, and thus likely, in the schools, to have heard the scheme spoken of. 21. ἐπαγγελίαν ] not, ‘ an order’ (as Rosenm., al.), nor ‘ a message’ (as Grot., Beza, Wolf, al.): but the [not a, as E. V.] promise (to that effect): as constantly in N. T. 22. ὅτι … με , a variation of person, as in reff. 23. δύοτινάς ] some two: see reff., and Winer, edn. 6, § 25. 2. b. στρατιώτας , the ordinary heavy-armed legionary soldiers: distinguished below from the ἱππεῖς and δεξιολάβοι . δεξιολάβους ] This word has never been satisfactorily explained. Suidas, Phavorinus, Beza, Kuin., al, explain it παραφύλακες :— Meursius, in his Glossarium Græ cobarbarum,— a kind of military lictors, παρὰτὸλαβεῖντὴντοῦδεσμίουδεξιάν ;— the Vulgate, lancearios (spearmen, E. V.):— Meyer, a sort of light-armed troops, rorarii or velites,— either jaculatores or funditores. He quotes a passage from Constantine Porphyrogenitus where they are distinguished from bowmen and peltastæ ,— and derives the name from grasping the weapon with the right hand, which the peltastæ and bowmen could not be said to do. The reading of Α , δεξιοβόλους (jaculantes dextrâ Syr.), is apparently a correction. 24. διασώσωσιν ] escort safe the whole way. Φήλικα ] Felix was a freedman of the Emperor Claudius: Suidas and Zonaras gave him the præ nomen of Claudius, but Tacit. (Ann. xii. 54) calls him Antonius Felix, perhaps from Antonia, the mother of Claudius, as he was brother of Pallas, who was a freedman of Antonia (Tacit. ib. and Jos. Antt. xx. 7. 1). He was made sole procurator of Judæ a after the deposition of Cumanus (having before been three years joint procurator with him, Tacit. ib.) principally by the influence of the high priest Jonathan (Antt. xx. 8. 5), whom he afterwards procured to be murdered (ibid.). Of his character Tacitus says, ‘ Antonius Felix per omnem sæ vitiam et libidinem jus regium servili ingenio exercuit,’ Hist. v. 9. His procuratorship was one series of disturbances, false messiahs, sicarii and robbers, and civil contests, see Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 5, 6, and 7. He was eventually (a.d. 60) recalled, and accused by the Cæ sarean Jews, but acquitted at the instance of his brother Pallas (Antt. xx. 8. 10). On his wife Drusilla, see note, ch. 24:24. 25. [περι ]έχ ., τύπ ., see reff. 26. κρατίστῳ ] See ref. Luke. This letter seems to be given (translated from the Latin) as written, not merely according to its general import (see the false statement in ver. 27): from what source, is impossible to say, but it may be imagined that the contents transpired through some officers at Jerusalem or at Cæ sarea friendly to Paul. Such letters were called elogia: so Modestin. Dig. lib. 49, tit. 16, leg. 3 (Facciolati): ‘ Desertorem auditum ad suum ducem cum elogio præ ses mittet,’ ‘ with an abstract of the articles brought against him.’ 27. σὺντῷστρ .] with the troop; see above ver. 10, and note, ch. 21:32. ἐξειλ . μαθὼνὅτιῬ . ἐστιν ] This was an attempt to conceal the fault that he had committed, see ch. 22:29. For this assertion cannot refer to the second rescue, see next verse. 30. Two constructions are combined here: (1) μηνυθείσηςἐπιβουλῆςτῆςἐσομένης , and (2) μηνυθέντος , ἐπιβουλὴνἔσεσθαι . 31. Antipatris, forty-two Roman miles from Jerusalem, and twenty-six from Cæ sarea, was built by Herod the Great, and called in honour of his father. It was before called Kapharsaba (Jos. Antt. xiii. 15. 1; xvi. 5. 2). In Jerome’ s time (Epitaph. Paulæ , 8, vol. i. p. 696) it was a ‘ semirutum oppidum’ (Winer, Realw.). They might have well made so much way during the night and the next day,— for the text will admit of that interpretation,— τῇἐπαύρ . being not necessarily the morrow after they left Jerusalem, but after they arrived at Antipatris. 32. τοὺςἱππεῖς ] As they had now the lesser half of their journey before them, and that furthest removed from Jerusalem. The δεξιολάβοι appear to have gone back with tbe soldiers. 35. διακούς .] ‘ The expression is in conformity with the Roman law; the rule was, “ Qui cum elogio mittuntur, ex integro audiendi sunt.”  ’ Hackett. ἐντῷπραιτ . τ . Ἡρ .] The procurator resided in the former palace of Herod the Great. Here Paul was ‘ militi traditus’ (Digest. cited by De W.), not in a prison, but in the buildings attached to the palace. Chap. 24:1-26:32. Paul’ s imprisonment at Cæ sarea. 1. μετὰπέντεἡμ .] After five days— or on the fifth day— from Paul’ s departure for Cæ sarea. This would be the natural terminus a quo from which to date the proceedings of the High Priest, &c., who were left in Jerusalem. That it is so, appears from ver. 11. See note there. πρεσβ . τινῶν ] The more ancient mss. reading this, all we can say is that we have not sufficient authority to retain the reading of the rec. τῶνπρεσβυτέρων , though it appears more likely to be original, and to have given offence as seeming to import that the whole Sanhedrim went down. This is one of the cases where, in the present state of our evidence, we are obliged to adopt readings which are not according to subjective canons of criticism. ῥήτορος ] An orator forensis or causidicus, persons who abounded in Rome and the provinces; sometimes called συνήγοροι , or δικολόγοι . Kuin. says: ‘ Multi adolescentes Romani qui se foro dederant, cum magistratibus in provincias se conferebant, ut caussis provincialium agendis se exercerent, et majoribus in urbe actionibus præ pararent.’ So Cæ lius (see Cic. pro Cæ lio, c. 30), in Africa. Τερτύλλου ] A diminutive from Tertius, as Lucullus from Lucius,— Catullus from Catius. The name occurs Plin. Ephesians 5:15; and Tertulla, Suet. 69 (Wetst.). ἐνεφάνισαν ] (not, ‘ appeared,’ ἑαυτούς , sub.;— see reff.) laid information; and, as it seems, not by writing, but by word of mouth, since they appeared in person, and Paul was called to confront them. 2. ‘ Inter præ cepta rhetorica est, judicem laudando sibi benevolum reddere.’ (Grot.) Certainly Tertullus fulfils and overacts the precept, for his exordium is full of the basest flattery. Contrast with πολλῆςεἰρ . τυγχ ., Tac. Ann. xii. 54: ‘ Interim Felix intempestivis remediis delicta accendebat, æ mulo ad deterrima Ventid. Cumano, cui pars provinciæ habebatur: ita divisis, ut huic Galilæ orum natio, Felici Samaritæ parerent, discordes olim, et tum, contemptu regentium, minus coercitis odiis. Igitur raptare inter se, immittere latronum globos, componere insidias, et aliquando prœ liis congredi, spoliaque et præ das ad Procuratores referre;’ — Hist. v. 9, quoted above, on ch. 23:24;— and Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 9, οἱπρωτεύοντεςτῶςτὴνΚαισάρειανκατοικούντωνἸουδαίωνεἰςτὴνῬώμηνἀναβαίνουσι , Φήλικοςκατηγοροῦντες · καὶπάντωςἂνἐδεδώκειτιμωρίαντῶνεἰςἸουδαίουςἀδικημάτων , εἰμὴπολλὰαὐτὸνὁΝέρωντῷἀδελφῷΠάλλαντιπαρακαλέσαντισυνεχώρησε .… There was just enough foundation for the flattery, to make the falsehood of its general application to Felix more glaring. He had put down some rebels (see ch. 21:38, note) and assassins (Antt. xx. 8. 4), ‘ ipse tamen his omnibus erat nocentior’ (Wetst.). It has been remarked (by Dean Milman, Bampton Lectures, p. 185) that the character of this address is peculiarly Latin (but qu. ?); and it bas been inferred from a passage in Valerius Maximus (cited at length in C. and H., vol. i. p. 3), that all pleadings, even in Greek provinces, were conducted before Roman magistrates in Latin. But Mr. Lewin has well observed (ii. 684), “ under the emperors trials were permitted in Greek, even in Rome itself, as well in the senate as in the forum (Dio Cassius, Lev_15, says of Tiberius, πολλὰςμὲνδίκαςἐντῇδιαλέκτῳταύτῃ (viz. Greek) καὶἐκεῖ (in the Senate) λεγομέναςἀκούων , πολλὰςδὲκαὶαὐτὸςἐπερωτῶν ); and it is unlikely that greater strictness should have been observed in a distant province. The name Tertullus proves little, as the Greeks, and even the Jews, very commonly adopted Roman names.” On this latter point, see note, ch. 13:9. διόρθωμα is ‘ an amelioration or reform:’ κατόρθωμα , ‘ res præ clare facta,’ generally, whether military or civil (‘ quæ nos aut recta aut recte facta dicamus, si placet, illi autem appellant κατορθώματα .’ Cic. de Fin. iii. 7). Phrynichus remarks, p. 250, ἁμαρτάνουσινοἱῥήτορεςοὐκεἰδότεςὅτιτὸκατορθῶσαι , δόκιμον . τὸδ ʼ ἀπὸτούτουὄνομαἀδόκιμον , τὸκατόρθωμα ,— where see Lobeck’ s note. I have, as always where reason to the contrary is not very clear, followed the authority of the most ancient mss. προνοίας ] ‘ providentiæ .’ ‘ Hoc vocabulum sæ pe diis tribuerunt’ (Beng.). ‘ Providentia Cæ saris’ is a common phrase on the coins of the emperors (Mr. Humphry). 3. πάντηκ . πανταχοῦ ] belongs to ἀποδεχ ., not to γινομένων , in which case they would naturally precede the participle,— We receive, &c., not only here in thy presence, but also at all times and in all places. A refinement of flattery. 4. ἐπὶπλεῖον ] viz. than the matter demands: too long. ἐγκόπτ .] See reff. συντόμως ] As Meyer observes, we need not supply λεξόντων , but take συντ . as the measure of the time implied in ἀκοῦσαι . 5. λοιμόν ] See reff. and Demosth. p. 794. 5, οὗτοςοὖναὐτὸνἐξαιτήσεταιὁφαρμακός , ὁλοιμὸς … The construction here is an anacoluthon, there being nothing to follow up the part. εὑρόντες . The part. cannot be taken for the finite verb. See Winer, edn. 6, § 45. 6. b. ἡοἰκουμένη ] would here mean the Roman ‘ orbis terrarum.’ Ναζωρ .] This is the only place in the N. T. where the Christians are so called. The Jews could not call them by any name answering to Christians, as the hope of a Messiah was professed by themselves. [6. Considerable difficulty rests on the omission of the words καὶκατά to πρὸςσέ . Their absence from the principal mss., their many variations in those which contain them, are strongly against their genuineness; as also is the consideration that no probable reason for their omission can be suggested. On the other hand, as De Wette observes, it is hardly imaginable that so little should have been assigned to the speaker as would be if these words were omitted. Besides this, the historic aorist ἐκρατήσαμεν seems to require some sequel, some reason, after this seizure, why he was there present and freed from Jewish durance. The phæ nomena are common enough in the Acts, of unaccountable insertions, and almost always in D (here deficient). See a list of such in Prolegg. to Acts, § v. 3. But in this place it is the omission which is unaccountable, for no similarity of ending, no doctrinal consideration can have led to it. The two reasons cited from Matthæ i by Bloomfield, ed. 9,-1) “ that the critics believed the Jews hardly likely to have accused Lysias himself,” — 2) “ because the words παρ ʼ οὗ , at ver. 8, must be referred to Paul: though by its (sic) position, it seems to refer to Lysias,” are futile and childish enough (on the latter of them, see below); and I only refer to them, to shew by what sort of considerations English readers are still supposed to be influenced. I still retain the words, in dark brackets, being as much at a loss as ever to decide respecting them, and being moved principally by the aorist ἐκρατήσαμεν , inexplicable without any sequel. It may of course be said that this very circumstance may have given rise to their insertion. But of the two it seems to me less likely that Tertullus should have ended with ἐκρατήσαμεν , than that an abridgment of his speech should have been attempted. It may be a question how far we can detect traces of deliberate abridgment, in our early mss., of the text of the Acts.] 8. παρ ʼ οὗ , if the disputed words be inserted, refers naturally enough to Lysias; but if they be omitted, to Paul, which would be very unlikely,— that the judge should be referred to the prisoner (for examination by torture (Grot. and al.) on one who had already claimed his rights as a Roman citizen can hardly be intended) for the particulars laid to his charge. Certainly it might, on the other hand, be said that Tertullus would hardly refer the governor to Lysias, whose interference he had just characterized in such terms of blame; but (which is a strong argument for the genuineness of the doubtful words) remarkably enough, we find Felix, ver. 22, putting off the trial till the arrival of Lysias. 9. συνεπέθ .] joined in setting upon him, bore out Tertullus in his charges. 10. ἐκπολλῶνἐτῶν ] Felix was now in the seventh year of his procuratorship, which began in the twelfth year of Claudius, a.d. 52. The contrast between Tertullus’ s and Paul’ s ‘ captatio benevolentiæ ’ is remarkable. The former I have characterized above. But the Apostle, using no flattery, yet alleges the one point which could really win attention to him from Felix, viz. his confidence arising from speaking before one well skilled by experience in the manners and customs of the Jews. 11. ἡμέραιδώδεκα ] The point of this seems to be, that Felix having been so long time a judge among the Jews, must be well able to search into and adjudicate on an offence whose whole course was comprised within so short a period. The twelve days may be thus made out: 1. his arrival in Jerusalem, ch. 21:15-17; 2. his interview with James, ib. 18 ff.; 3. his taking on him the vow, ib. 26; 3-7. the time of the vow, interrupted by— 7. his apprehension, ch. 21:27; 8. his appearance before the Sanhedrim, ch. 22:30 ff.; 9. his departure from Jerusalem (at night); and so to the 13th, the day now current, which was the 5th inclusive from his leaving Jerusalem. This, which is also De Wette and Meyer’ s arrangement, is far more natural than that of Kuin., Olsh., Heinr., &c., who suppose that the days which he had already spent at Cæ sarea are not to be counted, because his raising disturbances while in custody was out of the question. The view advocated by Wieseler (Chron. der Apost.-gesch. pp. 103 ff.), that Paul was apprehended on the very day of his appearance with the men in the temple, I cannot but regard, notwithstanding his arguments in its favour, as inconsistent with the text of ch. 21:26, 27; as also his idea that the Apostle did not take the vow on himself: the expression σὺναὐτοῖςἁγνισθείς clearly negativing the latter supposition; and τῶνἡμερῶντοῦἁγνισμοῦ , ver. 26, being manifestly, unless to one warped by a hypothesis, identical with αἱἑπτὰἡμέραι of ver. 27. See note there. I mention this here, because these suppositions materially affect his arrangement of the twelve days, which he gives thus: 2nd, from Cæ sarea to Jerusalem; 3rd, interview with James; 4th, (Pentecost) visit to the temple with the Nazarites, and apprehension; 5th, before the Sanhedrim; 6th, departure from Jerusalem; 7th, arrival in Cæ sarea; then, five days from that (but see note on ver. 1), Ananias, &c., leave Jerusalem (but how does this appear from ver. 1? κατέβη must surely denote their arrival at Cæ sarea, where the narrator, or, at all events, the locus of the history is); 13th, arrival of Ananias, &c., at Cæ sarea, and hearing (improbable) of Paul. So that the above hypotheses are not the only reasons for rejecting Wieseler’ s arrangement. 12. κατὰτὴνπόλ .] throughout the city, ‘ any where in the city;’ as we say, ‘ up and down the streets.’ 14. The δέ here has its peculiar force, of taking off the attention from what has immediately preceded, and raising a new point as more worthy of notice. But , ‘ hinc illæ lacrymæ .’ αἵρεσιν , in allusion to αἱρέσεως used by Tertullus, ver. 5. The word is capable of an indifferent or of a had sense. Tertullus had used it in the latter. Paul explains what it really was. οὕτως = κατὰταύτην . Notice in the words πατρώῳθεῷ the skill of Paul. The term was one well known to the Greeks and Romans, and which would carry with it its own justification. “ Invisum quippe erat gentibus, nominatim etiam Romanis, si quis se peregrinis aut diis aut deorum cultibus addiceret; præ terea Judæ is per multa imperatorum et magistratuum decreta et senatus consulta sancita erat potestas, Deum patrium colendi, patriis ritibus et sacris utendi. Jos. Antt. xiv. 17; xvi. 4” (Kuinoel). In his address to the Jews (ch. 22:14) the similar expression ὁθ . τῶνπατέρωνἡμῶν , brings out more clearly those πατέρες , in whom Felix had no interest further than the identification of Paul’ s religion with that of his ancestors required. κατὰτ . ν .] See on κατ . τ . πόλιν , above. Then (if the words in brackets be omitted: and it is not easy to imagine that St. Luke wrote them) the dat. is used of the personal agents, the prophets. He avoids saying ‘ by Moses,’ because the mention of the law would carry more weight. 15. αὐτοὶοὗτοι ] It would appear from this, that the High Priest and the deputation were not of the Sadducees. But perhaps this inference is too hasty; Paul might regard them as representing the whole Jewish people, and speak generally, as he does of the same hope ch. 26:7, where he assigns it to τὸδωδεκάφυλονἡμῶν . νεκρῶν , inserted here in some mss. to fill up the meaning, is not likely to have been spoken by the Apostle. The juxtaposition of those words, which excited mockery even when the Gospel was being directly preached, would hardly have been hazarded in this defence, where every expression is so carefully weighed. 16. ἐντούτῳ ] Accordingly, i.e. ‘ having and cherishing this hope;’ see reff. καί ] also, ‘ as well as they.’ 17. δέ refers back to the former δέ , ver. 14. ‘ But the matter of which they complain is this, that after an absence of many years,’ &c. See 1 Corinthians 16:3, 1 Corinthians 16:4; 2 Corinthians 8:92 Co 8:92 Co 8:9. notes, ch. 20:4. 18. De W. observes, that ἡγνισμ . can only refer to προσφ ., not to ἐλεημ .: thus αἷς may have been altered to οἷς , to give a general neuter sense, amidst which occupations: and the sense will be among or engaged in which offerings: it being in the temple. But this seems far-fetched and unlikely, and Meyer’ s supposition, that οἷς has been altered to αἷς to suit προσφοράς , certainly has an air of probability. The use of a verb referring to two substantives, to only one of which it is applicable, is too common to require illustration. But, as so often in this book, we must follow the best mss., our only fixed evidence, as against any questionable subjective considerations. The construction is irregular. A subject to εὗρον has to be supplied by a reference to some nominative case implied in οὐμετὰὄχ . οὐδ . μ . θορ ., thus: amidst which they found me purified in the temple, none who detected me in the act of raising a tumult … but certain Asiatic Jews.… This would leave it to be inferred that no legal officers had apprehended him, but certain private individuals, illegally; who besides had not come forward to substantiate any charge against him. Bornemann would supply οὐχοὗτοιμέν before τινεςδέ ; but the objection to this is, that the negative οὐμετὰὄχ … stands already as the proper opponent clause to τινεςδέ , and we should thus have two negative clauses together. On this sense of δέ , see Viger, ed. Hermann, p. 16, note 24; and Hermann’ s note, p. 702. 19. The latter remarks, “ intelligitur in hac formula, quam malum, stultum est, vel simile quid.” 19. ἔχοιεν , not ἔχουσιν , implying the subjective possibility merely, and disclaiming all knowledge of what the charge might be. The sentence is an anacoluthon: δεῖ is absolutely asserted in the present: then ἔχοιεν in the opt. follows, as if the hypothetical ἔδει had been used: and hence the correction to ἔδει . (So I wrote in former editions, and so I still believe: but the text must follow the evidence of the great mss. [1870.) On the opt. after the hypothetical indicative, see Bern-hardy, Syntax, p. 386 ff. This also is a skilful argument on the part of the Apostle:— it being the custom of the Romans not to judge a prisoner without the accusers face to face, he deposes that his real accusers were the Asiatic Jews who first raised the cry against him in the temple,— not the Sanhedrim, who merely received him at the hands of others,— and that these were not present. 20. Or let these persons themselves say, what fault they found in me while I stood before the Sanhedrim, other than in the matter of this one saying … τί serves for τίἄλλο . So in English: What fault but this: i.e. ‘ What other fault but this.’ 21. ἐφ ʼ ὑμ ., before you: less usual than ὑφ ʼ ὑμ ., which is probably a correction. 22. ἀνεβάλετοαὐτ .] ‘ ampliavit eos:’ viz. both parties. ἀκρ . εἰδὼςτὰπ . τ . ὁδ .] These words will bear only one philologically correct interpretation, having more accurate knowledge about the way: not, ‘ till he should obtain more accurate knowledge’ (ungrammatical): nor, ‘ since he had now obtained’ . But this, the only right rendering, is variously understood. Chrys. says: ἐπίτηδεςὑπερέθετο (he adjourned the case purposely), οὐδεόμενοςμαθεῖν , ἀλλὰδιακρούσασθαιβουλόμενοςτοὺςἸουδαίους . ἀφεῖναιοὐκἤθελεδι ʼ ἐκείνους . Luther and Wolf: “ distulit, … non quod sectæ ignarus esset, aut pleniorem sibi notitiam ejus comparare vellet, sed quia, cum satis illam jam cognitam haberet, Judæ os amplius sibi molestos esse nolebat.” But these interpretations, as De W. observes, overlook the circumstance, that such a reason for adjournment would be as unfavourable to Paul, as to the Jews. Meyer explains it, that he adjourned the case, ‘ because,’ &c. But this (De W.) would imply that he was favourably disposed to Paul. The simplest explanation is that given by De W.: He put them off to another time, not as requiring any more information about ‘ the way,’ for that matter he knew before,— but waiting for the arrival of Lysias. Whether Lysias was expected, or summoned, or ever came to be heard, is very doubtful. The real motive of the ‘ ampliatio’ appears in ver. 26. The comparative implies, “ more accurate than to need additional information.” διαγν . τὰκαθ ʼ ὑμ .] I will adjudge your matters. So in reff. also. 23. διαταξάμενος is in apposition with εἴπας , and both belong to ἀνεβάλετο . ἄνεσιν ] De W. and Meyer explain this of ‘ custodia libera,’ φυλακὴἄδεσμος (Arrian, Exp. ii. 15). But this can hardly be. Lipsius (Excurs. II. on Tacit. Ann. iii. 22; vi. 3, cited by Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost.-g. p. 380) says, ‘ Præ ter custodiam militarem alia duplex, apud magistratus, et apud vades. Apud magistratus, quum reus Consuli, Præ tori, Æ dili, interdum et Senatori, etiam non e magistratu, committebatur: quod nonnisi in reis illustrioribus usurpatum, eaque custodia libera dicta: vid. Tacit. Ann. vi. 3; Sall. Cat. xlvii.; Liv. vi. 36; Cic. Brut. xcvi.; Dio lviii. 3. Custodia apud vades, quum eorum periculo fidejussoribus reus tradebatur: vid. Tacit. Ann. v. 8; Suet. Vitell. 2.’ Now, Wieseler argues, as Paul was not bailed,— and was not ‘ e reis illustrioribus,’ and besides was delivered to a centurion to keep, his cannot have been ‘ custodia libera,’ but ‘ militaris:’ relaxed however as much as was consistent with safe custody. He cites Josephus, who says (Antt. xviii. 6. 10) of the custody of Agrippa, φυλακὴμὲνγὰρκαὶτήρησιςἦν , μετὰμέντοιἀνέσεωςτῆνεἰςτὴνδίαιταν . Remission, or relaxation, would be a better rendering than ‘ liberty.’ 24. παραγεν .] Into the hall or chamber where Paul was to speak. Δρουσίλλῃ ] She was daughter of Herod Agrippa I. (see ch. 12) and of Cypros,— and sister of Agrippa II. She was betrothed at six years old (Jos. Antt. xix. 9. 1) to Epiphanes, son of Antiochus, king of Commagene; but (Antt. xx. 7. 1) he declining the marriage, not wishing to be circumcised and become a Jew, she was married to the more obsequious Azizus, king of Emesa. Not long after, Felix, being enamoured of her beauty, persuaded her, by means of a certain Simon, a Cyprian magician (see note on ch. 8:9), to leave her husband and live with him (Antt. xx. 7. 2). She bore him a son, Agrippa: and both mother and son perished in an eruption of Vesuvius, in the reign of Titus (ibid.). The Drusilla mentioned by Tacitus (Hist. v. 9), a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, must have been another wife of Felix, who was thrice married, and each time to persons of royal birth; ‘ trium reginarum maritus,’ Suet. Claud. 28. 25. It is remarkable that Tacitus uses of Felix (Ann. xii. 54) the expression ‘ cuncta malefacta sibi impune ratus.’ The fear of Felix appears to have operated merely in his sending away Paul: no impression for good was made on him. 26. ‘ Lex Julia de repetundis præ cipit, ne quis ob hominem in vincula publica conjiciendum, vinciendum, vincirive jubendum, exve vinculis dimittendum; neve quis ob hominem condemnandum absolvendumve … aliquid acceperit.’ Digest. xl. 11. 3. Cited by Mr. Humphry, who observes: Albinus, who succeeded Festus, so much encouraged this kind of bribery, that no malefactors remained in prison, except those who did not offer money for their liberation (Jos. B. J. ii. 14. 1). St. Paul did not resort to this mode of shortening his tedious and unjust imprisonment, and Tertullian (‘ de Fuga in Persecutione,’ 12, p. 116) quotes his conduct in this respect against those who were disposed to purchase escape from persecution: a practice which prevailed and became a great evil in the time of Cyprian. See his Epistles, iii. and lxviii., denouncing the Libellatici. 27. διετίας ] viz. of Paul’ s imprisonment. Πόρκιονφῆστον ] Festus appears to have succeeded Felix in the summer or autumn of the year 60 a.d.: but the question is one of much chronological difficulty. It is fully discussed in Wieseler, Chron. d. Apost.-g. pp. 91-99. He found the province (Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 10) wasted and harassed by bands of robbers and sicarii, and the people the prey of false prophets. He died, after being procurator a very short time,— from one to two years. Josephus (B. J. ii. 14. 1) contrasts him, as a putter down of robbers, favourably with his successor Albinus. On the deposition, &c., of Felix, see note, ch. 23:24. χάριτακαταθέσθαι ] See reff. ‘ Est locutio bene Græ ca, Demostheni quoque usitata et Xenophonti: quales locutiones non paucas habet Lucas, ubi non alios inducit loqueutes, sed ipse loquitur, et quidem de rebus ad religionem non pertinentibus.’ Grot. The reading χάριτα , brought into the text by the evidence of the best mss., has apparently been a correction to suit the context, only one such act being spoken of. The plural would describe the wish of Felix to confer obligations on the Jews, who were sending to complain of him at Rome,— and so win their favour. δεδεμένον ] There was no change in the method of custody, see note on ver. 23. He left him in the ‘ custodia militaris’ in which he was. 25:1. The term ἐπαρχία is properly used of a province, whether imperial or senatorial (see note on ch. 13:7),— but is here loosely applied to Judæ a, which was only a procuratorship, attached to the province of Syria. So also Josephus calls Festus ἔπαρχος , Antt. xx. 8. 11; as also Albinus, ib. 9. 1. 2. οἱἀρχ .] It has been imagined, that ὁἀρχ . of the rec. has been a correction to suit the former part of the narrative. But it may be that οἱἀρχιερεῖς has been substituted for it, to suit the assertion of Festus, ver. 15. So Meyer and De Wette. The High Priest now was Ishmael the son of Phabi, Jos. Antt. xx. 8. 11 [see chronological table in Prolegg.]. πρῶτοι is more general than πρεσβύτεροι , though most of the first men must have been members of the Sanhedrim. Festus, relating this application, ver. 15, calls them πρεσβύτεροι . 3. χάριν = καταδίκην , ver. 15. ποιοῦντες , not for ποιήσοντες : they were making, contriving, the ambush already. The country was at this time, as may be seen abundantly in Jos. Antt. xx., full of sicarii; who were hired by the various parties to take off their adversaries. 5. οἱδυνατοί ] not, as in E. V., those among you that are able (to go down?): but, the powerful among you: those who from their position and influence are best calculated to represent the public interests. See Meyer and Wordsworth. 6. The number of days is variously read: which has probably arisen from the later mss., which have η for the ὀκτώ of the more ancient ones: thus η has been omitted on account of the η following. It is possible, as Meyer also observes, that a perverted notion of the necessity of an absolute precision in details in the inspired text, may have occasioned the erasure of one of the numbers. 7. περιέστησαν ] Without the αὐτόν , as in rec., this might mean round the βῆμα , or round Festus: and perhaps the insertion has been made to clear this up. καταφέροντες , bringing against him: see var. readd. and ref. 8. These were the three principal charges to which the πολ . κ . βαρ . αἰτ . of the Jews referred (Meyer). 9. κριθῆναι , the aor., refers to the one act, of deciding finally concerning these charges. This not having been seen, the later mss. have substituted κρίνεσθαι , which is more ‘ going to law,’ ‘ being involved in a trial.’ The question is asked of Paul as a Roman citizen, having a right to be tried by Roman law: and more is contained in it, than at first meets the eye. It seems to propose only a change of place; but doubtless in the ἐκεῖκριθῆναι was contained by implication a sentence pronounced by the Sanhedrim. ἐπ ʼ ἐμοῦ may mean no more than ἐπὶσοῦ , ch. 26:2, viz., that the procurator would be present and sanction the trial: so Grot., “ visne a synedrio judicari me præ sente?” Otherwise, a journey to Jerusalem would be superfluous. Festus may very probably have anticipated the rejection of this proposal by Paul, and have wished to make it appear that the obstacle in the way of Paul being tried by the Sanhedrim arose not from him, but from the prisoner himself. 10. Paul’ s refusal has a positive and a negative ground— 1. ‘ Cœ sar’ s tribunal is my proper place of judgment: 2. To the Jews I have done no harm, and they have therefore no claim to judge me’ (De W.). ἐπ . τ . β . Καίς .] Meyer quotes from Ulpian, “ Quæ acta gestaque sunt a procuratore Cæ saris sic ab eo comprobantur, atque si a Cæ sare ipso gesta sint.” In οὗμεδεῖκρίνεσθαι , Wordsworth has again fallen into the mistake of supposing με (and again in ver. 11) to be emphatic (see note, Matthew 16:18), which it cannot possibly be under any circumstances. The form of the sentence which would express the sense built by him on this error, would be, οὗδεῖἐμὲκριθῆναι , or οὗἐμὲδεῖκριθῆναι . But the sense, when thus given, surely is wholly alien from the person speaking and from the situation: as is also the understanding δεῖ as alluding to divine intimation made to him. The δεῖ is simply of his right as a Roman citizen: the με simply enclitic, and of no rhetorical force at all. κάλλιον ] Not ‘ for the superlative,’ here or any where else:— the comparative is elliptical, requiring ‘ than … ’ to be supplied by the hearer: so also in reff. Here, the ellipsis would be readily supplied from Festus’ s own speech, which appeared to assume that there was some ground of trial before the Sanhedrim. κάλλιον will therefore mean, better than thou choosest to confess. We have an ellipsis of the same kind in our phrase ‘ to know better.’ Or it may be in this case as in 2 Timothy 1:18, ‘ better, than that I need say more on it:’ but I prefer the other interpretation. 11. Both readings, εἰμὲνγάρ , and εἰμὲνοὖν , will suit the sense. In the former case, it is, ‘ For if I am an offender, … :’ in the latter, If, now, I am an offender … ,— taking up the supposition generally, after having denied the particular case of his having offended the Jews. Meyer and De Wette are at issue about the internal probability of these readings: I am disposed to agree with Meyer that a difficulty was felt in the οὖν and it was corrected into γάρ . This εἰ assumes the conviction after proof; as the following εἰ does the acquittal. οὐ . μεδύν .] Said of legal possibility: ‘ non fas est aliquem.… ’ The dilemma here put by Paul is, “ If I am guilty, it is not by them, but by Cœ sar, that I must be (and am willing to be) tried, sentenced, and punished. If I am innocent, and Cœ sar acquits me, then clearly none will be empowered to give me up to them: therefore, at all events, guilty or innocent, I am not to be made their victim.” Καίς . ἐπικαλ .] I call upon, i.e. appeal to (provoco ad) Cæ sar. This power having existed in very early times (e.g. the case of Horatius, Livy i. 26), was ensured to Roman citizens by the Lex Valeria (see Livy ii. 8, u.c. 245), suspended by the Decemviri, but solemnly re-established after their deposition (Liv. iii. 55, u.c. 305), when it was decreed that it should be unlawful to make any magistrate from whom there did not lie an appeal. When the emperors absorbed the power of the populus and the tribunitial veto in themselves, the ‘ provocatio ad populum’ and ‘ appellatio ad tribunos’ were both made to the princeps. See Smith’ s Dict. of Antt. art. Appellatio. In Pliny’ s celebrated Epistle respecting the Bithynian Christians (x. 97), we read, “ Fuerunt alii similis amentiæ : quos, quia cives Romani erant, adnotavi in urbem remittendos.” 12. συμβουλίου ] The ‘ conventus,’ or σύνοδος of citizens in the provinces, assembled to try causes on the ἀγοραῖοι , see ch. 19:38. A certain number of these were chosen as judices, for the particular causes, by the proconsul, and these were called his ‘ consiliarii’ (Suet. Tib. 33), or ‘ assessores’ (πάρεδροι , Suet. Galba 19). So in Jos. (B. J. ii. 16. 1), Cestius, on receiving an application from Jerusalem respecting the conduct of Florus, μετὰἡγεμόνωνἐβουλεύετο , i.e. with his assessors, or συμβούλιον . He consulted them to decide whether the appeal was to be conceded, or if conceded, to be at once acted on. The sense is stronger and better without a question at ἐπικέκλησαι . Thus were the two— the design of Paul (ch. 19:21), and the promise of our Lord to him (ch. 23:11)— brought to their fulfilment, by a combination of providential circumstances. We can hardly say, with De W. and Meyer, that these must have influenced Paul in making his appeal; that step is naturally accounted for, and was rendered necessary by the difficulties which now beset him; but we may be sure that the prospect at length, after his long and tedious imprisonment, of seeing Rome, must at this time have cheered him, and caused him to hear the ἐπὶΚαίσαραπορεύσῃ of Festus with no small emotion. 13. Herod Agrippa II., son of the Herod of ch. 12 (see note on ver. 1 there), was at Rome, and seventeen only, when his father died (Jos. Antt. xix. 9. 1). Claudius (ib. 9. 2) was about to send him to succeed to the kingdom, but was dissuaded by his freedmen and favourites, and sent Cuspius Fadus as procurator instead. Soon after, Claudius gave him the principality of Chalcis, which had been held by his uncle Herod (Antt. xx. 5. 2),— the presidency of the temple at Jerusalem and its treasures (Antt. xx. 1. 3),— and the appointment of the High Priest. Some years after the same emperor added to his jurisdiction the former tetrarchy of Philip, and Batanæ a, Trachonitis, and Abilene (Antt. xx. 7. 1), with the title of King (B. J. ii. 12. 8). Nero afterwards annexed Tiberias, Tarichea, Julias, and fourteen neighbouring villages to his kingdom (Antt. xx. 8. 4). He built a large palace at Jerusalem (ib. 8. 11); but offended the Jews by constructing it so as to overlook the temple (ib.), and by his capricious changes in the high priesthood,— and was not much esteemed by them (B. J. ii. 17. 1). When the last war broke out, he attached himself throughout to the Romans. He died in the third year of Trajan, and fifty-first of his reign, aged about seventy (Winer, Realw.). Βερνίκη ] The Macedonian form for Φερενίκη . She was the eldest daughter of Herod Agrippa I., and first married to her uncle Herod, prince of Chalcis (Antt. xix. 5. 1). After his death she lived with Agrippa her brother, but not without suspicion (φήμηςἐπισχυούσης , ὅτιτῷἀδελφῷσυνῄει , Antt. xx. 7. 3; see also Juv. Sat. vi. 156 ff.); in consequence of which (οὕτωςγάρἐλέγξεινᾤετοψευδεῖςτὰςδιαβολάς , Antt. ib.) she married Polemo, king of Cilicia. The marriage was, however, soon dissolved (ib.), and she returned to her brother. She was afterwards the mistress of Vespasian (Tac. Hist. ii. 81), and of Titus (Suet. 7; Winer, Realw.). ἀσπασάμενοι ] on his accession to the procuratorship, to gain his favour. 14. ἀνέθετο ] laid before, so reff. He did this, not only because Agrippa was a Jew, but because he was (see above) governor of the temple. 15. It seems more probable that the unusual word καταδίκη should have been changed to δίκην , especially as κατά precedes, than the converse. Luke never uses δίκη , except as personified, ch. 28:4; and in the only two places besides where it occurs in the N. T. (2 Thessalonians 1:9; Jude 1:7), it has the sense of condemnation or punishment; and in neither place is there any various reading. 16. χαρίζεσθαι ] The words inserted in the rec., εἰςἀπώλειαν , are a correct supplement of the sense; to give up, i.e. to his enemies, and for destruction. De W. remarks, that the construction of πρίν with an opt. without ἄν , is only found here in the N. T. . Hermann, on Viger, p. 442, restricts the opt. with πρὶνἤ to cases where ‘ res narratur ut cogitatio alicujus:’ so Paus., μὴπρότερονφάναιζητοῦντιμηνύσεινπρὶνἢοἱκαὶἐνἈκροκορίνθῳγένοιτοὕδωρ . On the practice of the Romans, here nobly and truly alleged, see citations in Grot. and Wetst. in loc. τόπον ] This use of τόπος as the Lat. ‘ locus,’ is not found in good Greek. 18. περὶοὗσταθ .] See ver. 7: E. V., ‘ against whom,’ supposing περὶοὗ to refer to έφερον , is wrong. The word πονηράν or πονηρών , added in the best mss. at the end of this verse, looks very like a gloss to explain ὧν or αἰτίαν , and this suspicion is strengthened by the variations in its form and place. ‘ Hinc iterum conjicere licet, imo aperte cognoscere, adeo futiles fuisse calumnias ut in judicii rationem venire non debuerint, perinde ac si quis convicium temere jactet.’ Calv. 19. δεισιδαιμ . is used by Festus in a middle sense, certainly not as = ‘ superstition,’ E. V., speaking as he was to Agrippa, a Jew. 20. See the real reason why he proposed this, ver. 9. This he now conceals, and alleges his modesty in referring such matters to the judgment of the Jews themselves. This would be pleasing to his guest Agrippa. ἀπορ . εἰς ] so σὺδ ʼ εἰςτὰμητρὸςμὴφοβοῦνυμφεύματα , Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 980; and ἀμφινοῶἐςτέρας , Antig. 372. ἔλεγον ] There is a mixed construction between ‘ I said, wilt thou?’ as in ver. 9, and ‘ I asked him whether he would.… ’ 21. τηρηθῆναι is not for εἰςτὸτηρ . (as Grot. and De W.), but follows directly on ἐπικαλεσαμένου . The construction is again a mixed one between ‘ appealing so as to be kept,’ and ‘ demanding to be kept.’ σεβαστοῦ ] This title, = Augustus, was first conferred by the senate on Octavianus (αὐτὸςγενόμενοςἀρχὴσεβασμοῦκαὶτοῖςἔπειτα , Philo de Legat. ad Caium, 21, vol. ii. p. 566), and borne by all succeeding emperors. Dio Cassius (liii. 16) says: Αὔγουστος , ὡςκαὶπλεῖόντιἢκατὰἀνθρώπουςὤν , ἐπεκλήθη . πάνταγὰρτὰἐντιμότατακαὶτὰἱερώτατααὔγουσταπροσαγορεύεται . ἐξοὗπερκαὶσεβαστὸναὐτὸνκαὶἑλληνίζοντέςπως , ὥσπερτινὰσεπτόν , ἀπὸτοῦσεβάζεσθαι , προσεῖπον . On ἀναπέμψω , Bornemann cites Lucian, Tox. § 17: ὁδὲβασιλεῖτῷμεγάλῳἀναπέμπειαὐτόν . 22. ἐβουλόμην does not (as Calv.) imply any former wish of Agrippa to hear Paul. It is, as Meyer explains it, a modest way of expressing a wish, formed in this case while the procurator was speaking, but spoken of by Agrippa as if now past by, and therefore not pressed. We say somewhat similarly, ‘ I was wishing.’ See ref. Rom. and note there. Cf. Aristoph. Av. 1027: ἐκκλησιάσαιδ ʼ οὖνἐδεόμηνοἴκοιμένων : and see other examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 373 ff. Agrippa, as a Jew, is anxious to hear Paul’ s defence, as a matter of national interest. The procurator’ s ready consent is explained, ver. 26. 23. φαντασία is of frequent use in this sense in Polybius and later Greek writers. Herodotus uses the verb φαντάζεσθαι for ‘ superbire,’ vii. 201: ὁρᾷςὡςτὰὑπερέχονταζῶακεραυνοῖὁθεός , οὐδ ʼ ἑᾷφαντάζεσθαι . See Wetst., who finely remarks on the words, ‘ In eadem urbe, in qua pater ipsorum a vermibus corrosus ob superbiam perierat.’ ἀκροατήριον ] after the Latin ‘ auditorium:’ perhaps no fixed hall of audience, but the chamber or saloon set apart for this occasion. χιλιάρχοις ] Jos. (B. J. iii. 4. 2), speaking of Titus’ s army, says, προσεγένοντοδὲκαὶἀπὸΚαισαρείαςπέντε . These, then, were the tribunes of the cohorts stationed at Cæ sarea. Stier remarks (Red. der Apostel, ii. 397), “ Yet more and more complete must the giving of the testimony in these parts be, before the witness departs for Rome. In Jerusalem, the long-suffering of the Lord towards the rejectors of the Gospel was now exhausted. In Antioch, the residence of the Præ ses of Syria, the new mother church of Jewish and Gentile Christians was flourishing; here, in Cæ sarea, the residence of the procurator, the testimony which had begun in the house of Cornelius the centurion, had now risen upward, till it comes before this brilliant assembly of all the local authorities, in the presence of the last king of the Jews.” 24. ἅπαντὸπλ .] At Jerusalem (ver. 1) literally, by the popular voice (probably) of some tumultuous outcry:— here, by their deputation. 25. αὐτοῦδὲτούτου ] he himself moreover. These reasons did really coexist as influencing his determination. Mr. Lewin cites, on ver. 12, Dig. xlix. 1. 16: ‘ Constitutiones quæ de recipiendis, necnon, appellationibus loquuntur, ut nihil novi fiat, locum non habent in eorum persona quos damnatos statim puniri publici interest, ut sunt insignes latrones, vel seditionum concitatores, vel duces factionum.’ 26. ἀσφαλές ] fixed, definite. The whole matter had been hitherto obscured by the exaggerations and fictions of the Jews. τῷκυρίῳ ] viz. Nero. Augustus and Tiberius refused this title; Caligula and (apparently) all following bore it. “ Thus Tertullian, Apol. xxxiv. vol. i. p. 450: ‘ Augustus imperii formator ne dominum quidem dici se volebat;’ and Suet. 53: ‘ Dominum se appellari ne a liberis quidem aut nepotibus vel serio vel joco passus est;’ ami Tib. 27: ‘ Dominus appellatus a quodam denuntiavit ne se amplius contumeliæ causa nominaret.’ Caligula accepted the title, according to Victor, ap. Eckhel, viii. 364. Herod Agrippa had applied it to Claudius (Philo ap. Spanheim. Numism. ii. 482); but it was not a recognized title of any emperor before Domitian. Suet. Deu_13: ‘ Martial,— Edictum Domini Deique nostri.’  ” Mr. Humphry. γράψω has apparently been altered to γράψαι to suit the τίγράψαι above. Olsh. remarks, that now first was our Lord’ s prophecy Matthew 10:18, Mark 13:9 fulfilled. But Meyer answers well, that we do not know enough of the history of the other Apostles to be able to say this with any certainty. James the greater, and Peter, had in all probability stood before Agrippa I. See ch. 12:2, 3. 26:1. The stretching out of the hand by a speaker was not, as Hammond supposes, the same as the κατασείειντῇχειρί of ch. 12:17; 13:16. The latter was to ensure silence; but this, a formal attitude usual with orators. Apuleius, Met. ii. p. 54 (Meyer), describes it very precisely: ‘ Porrigit dextram et ad instar oratorum conformat articulum, duobusque infimis conclusis digitis ceteros eminentes porrigit.’ The hand was chained— τούτωντ . δεσμ ., ver. 29. 2. There is no force in Meyer’ s observation, that by the omission of the art. before Ἰουδαίων , Paul wishes to express that the charges were made by some, not by all of the Jews. That omission is the one so often overlooked by the German critics (e.g. Stier also here), after a preposition. See Middl. ch. vi. § 1, and compare κατὰἸουδαίους in the next verse, of which the above cannot be said. μέλλων contains the ground of ἥγημαι , in that I am to defend myself. 3. γν . ὄντασε ] For the construction see reff.; and cf. Viger (ed. Hermann), p. 337, where many examples are given— e.g. Herod. vi. 109: ἐνσοὶνῦνἔστινἢκαταδουλῶσαιἈθήνας , ἢἐλευθέραςποιήσανταμνημόσυνονλιπέσθαικ .τ .λ . 4. The μὲνοὖν takes up ἀπολογεῖσθαι : q. d. ‘ well, then, to begin my apology.’ 5. ἀκριβεστάτην ] See ch. 22:3: κατὰἀκρίβειαντοῦπατρῴουνόμου . Jos. (B. J. i. 5. 2) calls the Pharisees σύνταγμάτιἸουδαίωνδοκοῦνεὐσεβέστερονεἶναιτῶνἄλλων , καὶτοὺςνόμουςἀκριβέστερονἀφηγεῖσθαι . The use of the term finds another example in Ephesians 5:15, βλέπετεπῶςἀκριβῶςπεριπατεῖτε , which command it illustrates. θρησκεία ] ἡλατρεία · ὅθενκαὶἑτερόθρησκος , ἑτερόδοξος . Suidas. We have an instance here of αἵρεσις used in an indifferent sense. 6. The rec. text has apparently been corrected after ch. 13:32; for there we have πρός , and no ἡμῶν . The εἰς has its propriety here, combining the ideas of address towards, and of ethical relation to, its object: so ἐςδ ʼ ὑμᾶςἐρῶμῦθον , Æ sch. Pers. 159: ψόγοςἐςἝλληναςμέγας , Eur. Bacch. 778 (735): δημοκρατίαςκατίσταεἰςτὰςπόλιας , Herod. vi. 43. See Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 217, where many more examples are given. The promise spoken of is not that of the resurrection merely, but that of a Messiah and His kingdom, involving (ver. 8) the resurrection. This is evident from the way in which he brings in the mention of Jesus of Nazareth, and connects His exaltation (ver. 18) with the universal preaching of repentance and remission of sins. But he hints merely at this hope, and does not explain it fully; for Agrippa knew well what was intended, and the mention of any king but Cæ sar would have misled and prejudiced the Roman procurator. There is great skill in binding on his former Pharisaic life of orthodoxy (in externals), to his now real and living defence of the hope of Israel. But though he thus far identifies them, he makes no concealment of the difference between them, ver. 9 ff. 7. τὸδωδεκάφυλ .] The Jews in Judæ a and those of the dispersion also. See James 1:1. There was a difference between Paul and the Jews, which lies beneath the surface of this verse, but is yet not brought out: he had already arrived at the accomplishment of this hope, to which they, with all their sacrifices and zeal, were as yet only earnestly tending, having it yet in the future only . It was concerning this hope (in what sense appears not yet) that he was accused by the Jews. The adverb ἐκτενῶς and subst. ἐκτένεια are disapproved by the philologists, as belonging to later Greek. See Lobeck on Phrynichus, p. 311. We have the adj., Æ sch. Suppl. 990: ἐκτενὴςφίλος . 8. Having impressed on his hearers the injustice of this charge from the Jews, with reference to his holding that hope which they themselves held, he now leaves much to be filled up, not giving a confession of his own faith, but proceeding as if it were well understood. ‘ You assume rightly, that I mean by this hope, in my own case, my believing it accomplished in the crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth.’ Then, this being acknowledged, he goes on to shew how his own view became so changed with regard to Jesus; drawing, by the μὲνοὖν (ver. 9), a contrast in some respects between himself, who was supernaturally brought to the faith, and them, who yet could not refuse to believe that God could and might raise the dead. All this he mainly addresses to Agrippa (ver. 26), as being the best acquainted with the circumstances, and, from his position, best qualified to judge of them. It may be, as Stier suggests, that if not open, yet practical Sadduceism had tainted the Herodian family. Paul knew, at all events, how generally the highly cultivated, and those in power and wealth, despised and thought ἄπιστον the doctrine of the resurrection. εἰ … ἐγείρει ] not, as commonly rendered, ‘ that God should raise the dead’ (E. V.): but the question is far stronger than this, if the conjunction be taken in its literal meaning: why is it judged by you a thing past belief, if God raises the dead? i.e. ‘ if God, in His exercise of power, sees fit to raise the dead (the word implying that such a fact has veritably taken place), is it for you to refuse to believe it?’ Compare the declaration of our Lord, Luke 16:31: οὐδ ʼ ἐάντιςἐκνεκρῶνἀναστῇπεισθήσονται . We have many instances of this use of εἰ :— Xen. Mem. i. 1. 13, ἐθαύμαζεδὲεἰμὴφανερὸναὐτοῖςἐστίν : ib. 18, ὅσαδὲπάντεςᾔδεσαν , θαυμαστὸνεἰμὴτούτωνἐνεθυμήθησαν : ib. i. 2. 13, ἐγὼδ ʼ εἰμέντικακὸνἐκείνῳτὴνπόλινἐποιησάτηνοὐκἀπολογήσομαι : on which examples Hermann remarks, ad Viger. p. 504, “ in his locis omnibus rem non dubiam et incertam indicat εἰ , sed plane certam et perspicuam.” 9. Henceforward he passes to his own history,— how he once refused, like them, to believe in Jesus: and shews them both the process of his conversion, and the ministry with which he was entrusted to others. μὲνοὖν , well then, resuming the character described vv. 4, 5. 10, 11. This is the διωγμὸςμέγας of ch. 8:1. We are surprised here by the unexpected word ἁγίων , which it might have been thought he would have rather in this presence avoided. But, as Stier remarks, it belongs to the more confident tone of this speech, which he delivers, not as a prisoner defending himself, but as one being heard before those who were his audience, not his Judges. κατήνεγκαψῆφον can hardly be taken figuratively, as many Commentators, trying to escape from the inference that the νεανίας Saul was a member of the Sanhedrim; but must be understood as testifying to this very fact, however strange it may seem. He can hardly have been less than thirty when sent on his errand of persecution to Damascus. The genitive is supposed by Elsner and Kypke to be dependent on κατήνεγκα ; but this is harsh, and it is better to take (as most Commentators, and Meyer, and De W.) it as absolute, and κατήνεγκα as local, ‘ detuli sententiam:’ when their deaths were being compassed, I gave in my vote (scil, against them, as in ref.). On the fact, cf. συνευδοκῶντῇἀναιρέσειαὐτοῦ , ch. 8:1. 11. τιμωρῶν ] viz. by scourging; compare Matthew 10:17. ἠνάγκαζον does not imply that any did blaspheme : the imperf. only relates the attempt. The persecuting the Christians even to foreign cities, forms the transition to the narrative following. 12. ἐνοἷς ] In which things (being engaged). 13. See notes on ch. 9:3-8, where I have treated of the discrepancies, real or only apparent, between the three accounts of Saul’ s conversion. See also ch. 22:6-10. 14. τῇἙβρ . διαλ .] These words are expressed here only. In ch. 9 (see note) we have the fact remarkably preserved by the Hebrew form Σαούλ ; in ch. 22 he was speaking in Hebrew (Syro-Chald.), and the notice was not required. (Beware again of the supposed emphatic με of Wordsworth.) σκληρ . σοιπρ . κ . λ .] This is found here only; in ch. 9 the words are spurious, having been inserted from this place. The metaphor is derived from oxen at plough or drawing a burden, who, on being pricked with the goad, kick against it, and so cause it to pierce deeper. (See Schol. on Pind. I. c. below.) It is a Greek, and not (apparently) a Hebrew proverb; but this is no reason why it should not be used in Hebrew, just as it is in Latin. Instances of its use are Pind. Pyth. ii. 173: χρὴδὲπρὸςθεὸνοὐκἐρίζειν … φέρεινδ ʼ ἐλαφρῶςἐπαυχένιονλαβόνταζυγὸνἀρήγει . ποτὶκέντρονδέτοιλακτιζέμεντελέθειὀλισθηρὸςοἶμος . Æ schyl. Agam. 1633: πρὸςκέντραμὴλάκτιζε , μὴπήσαςμογῇς . Eurip. Bacch. 791: θυμούμενοςπρὸςκέντραλακτίζοιμι , θνητὸςὢνθεῷ . See also Æ sch. Prom. 323, and other examples in Wetst.; Plautus (Truc. iv. 2. 59); and Terence, Phorm. i. 2. 27: ‘ Nam quæ inscitia est advorsum stimulum calces?’ 15-18. There can be no question that Paul here condenses into one, various sayings of our Lord to him at different times, in visions, see ch. 22:18-21; and by Ananias, ch. 9:15; see also ch. 22:15, 16. Nor can this, on the strictest view, be considered any deviation from truth. It is what all must more or less do who are abridging a narrative, or giving the general sense of things said at various times. There were reasons for its being minute and particular in the details of his conversion; that once related, the commission which he thereupon received is not followed into its details, but summed up as committed to him by the Lord himself. It would be not only irreverent, but false, to imagine that he put his own thoughts into the mouth of our Lord; but I do not see, with Stier, the necessity of maintaining that all these words were actually spoken to him at some time by the Lord. The message delivered by Ananias certainly furnished some of them; and the unmistakeable utterings of God’ s Spirit (τὸπνεῦμαἸησοῦ , ch. 16:7) which supernaturally led him, may have furnished more, all within the limits of truth. 16. εἰςτοῦτο refers to what follows, προχειρ . &c.,— γάρ gives the reason for ἀνάστηθι , &c. (Meyer.) προχειρ .] See reff. μάρτυραὧντεεἶδες ] Stier remarks, that Paul was the witness of the glory of Christ: whereas Peter, the first of the former twelve, describes himself (1 Peter 5:1) as ‘ a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.’ So true it was that this ἔκτρωμα among the Apostles, became, by divine grace, more than they all (1 Corinthians 15:8-10). The expression ὑπηρέτηνὧνεἶδες may be compared with ὑπηρέταιτοῦλόγου , which Luke calls the αὐτόπται , Luke 1:2. ὧντεὀφθήσομαίσοι ] (1) ὀφθ . must be passive, not (as Bornemann, Winer (not in edn. 6, § 39. 3, remark 1), Wahl, al.) causative ,— but as E. V., I will appear unto thee. (2) the gen. is exactly paralleled (Meyer) by Soph. Œ d. Tyr. 788, ὧνμὲνἱκόμην = τούτωνδι ʼ ἃἱκόμην . So here ὧν = τούτωνδι ʼ ἃὀφθ ., the things in (or on account of) which I will appear to thee. That such visions did take place, we know, from ch. 18:9; 22:18; 23:11; 2 Corinthians 12:1; Galatians 1:12. 17. ἐξαιρούμενόςσε ] delivering thee from, as E. V.: not, as Kuin., al., and Conyb., ‘ choosing thee out of:’ see reff. τοῦλαοῦ ] as elsewhere, the Jewish people. ‘ Hic armatur contra omnes metus qui eum manebant, et simul præ paratur ad crucis tolerantiam.’ Calvin. εἰςοὕς ] to both, the people, and the Gentiles; not the Gentiles only. 18. τοῦἐπιστ .] not, as Beza, and E. V., ‘ to turn them:’ but, that they may turn; see ἐπιστρέφειν , ver. 20. The general reference of οὕς becomes tacitly modified (not expressly, speaking as he was to the Jew Agrippa) by the expression σκότος and ἐξουσίατοῦσατανᾶ , both, in the common language of the Jews, applicable only to the Gentiles. But in reality, and in Paul’ s mind, they had their sense as applied to Jews,— who were in spiritual darkness and under Satan’ s power, however little they thought it. See Colossians 1:13. τοῦλαβ .] A third step: first the opening of the eyes— next, the turning to God— next, the receiving remission of sins and a place among the sanctified, see ch. 20:32. This last reference determines πίστειτῇεἰςἐμέ to belong not to ἡγιασμένοις but to λαβεῖν . Thus the great object of Paul’ s preaching was to awaken and shew the necessity and efficacy of πίστιςἡεἰςἐμέ . And fully, long ere this, had he recognized and acted on this his great mission. The epistles to the Galatians and Romans are two noble monuments of the Apostle of Faith. 19. ἀπειθής ] See Isaiah 50:5 in LXX. 20. τοῖςἐνΔαμπρ .] See ch. 9:20. εἰς belongs to ἀπήγγελ . (De W.), not to τοῖς (ἐνΔαμ .) as Meyer; see Luke 8:34; and on this sense of εἰς , note on ver. 6 above. 22. The οὖν refers to the whole course of deliverances which he had had from God, not merely to the last. It serves to close the narrative, by shewing how it was that he was there that day,— after such repeated persecutions, crowned by this last attempt to destroy him. μαρτυρόμενος ] The mere love of paradox and difficulty, as it seems to me, has led De Wette and Meyer to prefer the ordinary reading -ρούμενος , although very weakly supported by MSS., and yielding hardly any appropriate sense. μαρτυρούμενος must be passive, and signify (see reff. below) ‘ testified to,’ ‘ borne witness of:’ the datives μικρῷ and μεγάλῳ must be the agents, ‘ by small and great’ , and λέγων must be predicative, ‘ as saying:’ i.e., ‘ that I say.’ But this would be contrary to the fact: Paul was not thus borne witness of by all, but on the contrary accused of being a despiser of the law by a great majority of his own countrymen. There can, I think, be no question either critically or exegetically of the correctness of the other reading μαρτυρόμενος , bearing witness, as directly appropriate to the office to which Paul was appointed,— that of a witness (ver. 16); and then μικρῷτεκαὶμεγάλῳ , to small and great, so flat and meaningless on the other interpretation, admirably suits the occasion,— standing as he was before an assembly of the greatest of the land. 23. εἰ ] not for ὅτι — but just as in ver. 8,— if— if at least: meaning, that the things following were patent facts to those who knew the prophets. See Hebrews 7:15, where εἰ has the same sense. παθητός ] not, as Beza, ‘ Christum fuisse passurum’ : but as Vulg., ‘ si passibilis Christus.’ Paul does not refer to the prophetic announcement, or the historical reality, of the fact of Christ’ s suffering, but to the idea of the Messiah as passible and suffering being in accordance with the testimony of the prophets. That the fact of His having suffered on the cross was in the Apostle’ s mind, can hardly be doubted: but that the words do not assert it, is evident from the change of construction in the next clause, where the fact of the bringing life and immortality to light by the resurrection is spoken of,— εἰπαθητὸςὁχρ .,— εἰ … μέλλεικαταγγέλλειν . In Justin Martyr, Trypho c. 89, p. 187, the following words are put into the month of Trypho the Jew: παθητὸντὸνχριστόν , ὅτιαἱγραφαίκηρύσσουσι , φανερόνἐστι . See also the same, Trypho c. 36, p. 133, and c. 76, p. 173. πρῶτοςἐξἀναστάσεως = πρῶτοςἀναστάς , or πρωτότοκοςἐκτῶννεκρῶν , Colossians 1:18, but implying that this light, to be preached to the Jews and Gentiles, must arise from the resurrection of the dead, and that Christ, the first ἐξἀναστάσεως , was to announce it. See Isaiah 42:6; Isaiah 49:6; Isaiah 60:1, Isaiah 60:2, Isaiah 60:3; Luke 2:32; ch. 13:47. 24. The words ταῦταἀπολογουμένον must refer, on account of the present part., to the Iast words spoken by Paul: but it is not necessary to suppose that these only produced the effect described on Festus. Mr. Humphry remarks, “ Festus was probably not so well acquainted as his predecessor (ch. 24:10) with the character of the nation over which he had recently been called to preside. Hence he avails himself of Agrippa’ s assistance (25:26). Hence also he is unable to comprehend the earnestness of St. Paul, so unlike the indifference with which religious and moral subjects were regarded by the upper classes at Rome. His self-love suggests to him, that one who presents such a contrast to his own apathy, must be mad: the convenient hypothesis that much learning had produced this result, may have occurred to him on hearing Paul quote prophecies in proof of his assertions.” μαίνῃ ] Thou art mad, not merely, ‘ thou ravest,’ nor ‘ thou art an enthusiast:’ nor are the words spoken in jest (Olsh.),— but in earnest (θυμοῦἦνκ . ὀργῆςἡφωνή , Chrys.). Festus finds himself by this speech of Paul yet more bewildered than before (De W.). τὰπολλὰγράμμ .] Meyer understands Festus to allude to the many rolls which Paul had with him in his imprisonment (we might compare τὰβιβλία , μάλιστατὰςμεμβράνας of 2 Timothy 4:13) and studied (so also Heinrichs and Kuinoel),— but the ordinary interpretation, thy much learning, seems more natural, and so De W. εἰςμ . περιτρέπει ] Is turning thy brain. 25. ἀλήθεια may be spoken warmly and enthusiastically, but cannot be predicated of a madman’ s words: σωφροσύνη ) is directly opposed to μανία . So Xen. Mem. i. 16, recounting the subjects of Socrates’ discourses, τίδίκαιον , τίἄδικον · τίσωφροσύνη , τίμανία · τίἀνδρία , τίδειλία . The expression ἀληθείας &c. ῥήματα , though of course in sense = ῥήματαἀληθῆ , &c., yet has a distinctive force of its own, and is never to be confounded with, or supposed to be put by a Hebraism for the other. Such forms occur in classic as well as Hellenistic writers, and indeed in all languages: the idea expressed by them being, the derivation of the quality predicated, from its source:— so here, words (not merely true and sober, but) of truth and soberness,— springing from, and indicative of, subjective truth and soberness. 26. Agrippa is doubly his witness, (1) as cognizant of the facts respecting Jesus, (2) as believing the prophets. This latter he does not only assert, but appeals to the faith of the king as a Jew for its establishment. ἐνγωνίᾳ … τοῦτο ] This, the act done to Jesus by the Jews, and its sequel, was not done in an obscure corner of Judæ a, but in the metropolis, at a time of more than common publicity. 28. ἐνὀλίγῳ ] These words of Agrippa have been very variously explained. (1) The rendering ‘ propemodum,’ ‘ parum abest, quin,’ (‘ almost,’ E. V.,) adopted by Chrys., Beza, Grot., Valla, Luther, Piscator, Calov., &c. is inadmissible, for want of any example of ἐνὀλίγῳ having this meaning, which would require ὀλίγου (ὀλίγουμ ʼ ἀπωλέσας , Aristoph. Vesp. 829, and al.), or ὀλίγουδεῖ , or παρ ʼ ὀλίγον . (2) Calvin, Kuinoel, Schö ttg., Olsh., Neander, take it for ἐνὀλίγῳχρόνῳ , which certainly is allowable, but does not correspond to μεγάλῳ below, nor, as I believe, does it come up to the general sense of the expression. (3) The phrase ἐνὀλίγῳ occurs in Greek writers with various nouns understood according to the nature of the case,— and sometimes it will bear any of several supplements with equal propriety. Thus in Demosth. p. 33. 18, ῥάδιονεἰςταὐτὸπάνθ ʼ ὅσαβούλεταίτιςἀθροίσανταἐνὀλίγῳ , where Schaefer in his Index Græ citatis says, scil. χρόνῳ , aut χώρῳ , aut λόγῳ , aut πόνῳ . So also here we may understand λόγῳ or πόνῳ (or χρόνῳ)— or still better as it seems to me, leave the ellipsis unsupplied (see Ephesians 3:3). We have a word in English which exactly expresses it,— one which has fallen into disuse, but has no equivalent; lightly: i.e. with little pains, few words, small hesitation. Then next as to the reading, I have followed the most ancient MSS., in editing ποιῆσαι and not γενέσθαι . This being so, we have to choose between πείθεις of and πείθῃ of . It is almost impossible to give any assignable meaning to the former; and I suspect it has come in by a confusion of the two readings. Whereas πείθῃ seems to take up the πείθομαι of ver. 26. The received reading has probably found its way in from first imagining that πειθ - had to do with Paul’ s persuading Agrippa, and then the ποιῆσαι having no sense, became conformed to the γενέσθαι in the Apostle’ s speech below. And now, as to the sense of Agrippa’ s saying. In determining this, enough attention has not been paid to two points: (1) the present tense, πείθῃ , thou art persuading thyself, art imagining; and (2) the use, in the mouth of a Jew, and that Jew a king, of the Gentile and offensive appellation χριστιανός . To my mind, the first of these considerations decides that Agrippa is characterizing no effect on himself, but what Paul was fancying in his mind, reckoning the πείθομαι which he had expressed above: the second, that he speaks of something not that he is likely to become, but that contrasts strangely with his present worldly position and intentions. I would therefore render the words thus: Lightly (with small trouble) art thou persuading thyself that thou canst make me a Christian: and understand them, in connexion with Paul’ s having attempted to make Agrippa a witness on his side,— ‘ l am not so easily to be made a Christian of, as thou supposest.’ Most of the ancient Commentators take the words as implying some effect on Agrippa’ s mind, and as spoken in earnest: but this I think is hardly possible, philologically or exegetically. I may add that the emphatic position of both ἐνὀλίγῳ and χριστιανόν , before their respective verbs, strongly confirms the view taken above. I must again caution the reader against the mistake committed by Wordsworth, in supposing the enclitic με to be emphatic, which it cannot be, ἐμέ being required in such a case. Indeed, a more insignificant position than it here holds, next to the most emphatic word of the sentence, cannot be conceived. 29. I could wish to God, that whether with ease or with difficulty (on my part), not only thou, but all who hear me today, might become such as I am, except only these bonds. He understands ἐνὀλίγῳ just as Agrippa had used it, easily, ‘ with little trouble,’ ‘ with slight exertion:’ and contrasts with it ἐνμεγάλῳ , with difficulty, ‘ with great trouble,’ ‘ with much labour.’ Those interpreters who understand χρόνῳ above, render this ‘ seu tempore exiguo opus fuerit, seu multo’ (Schö tt.); those who take ἐνὀλ . for ‘ almost,’ ‘ non propemodum tantum, sed plane’ (Grot.): ‘ not only almost, but altogether,’ E. V. In εὔχεσθαιθεῷ the dative implies the direction of the wish or request to God: so Æ sch. Agam. 852, θεοῖσιπρῶταδεξιώσομαι : Il. γ . 318, θεοῖσιδὲχεῖραςἀνέσχον , and freq. See examples in Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 86. δεσμῶν ] He shews the chain, which being in ‘ custodia militaris,’ he bore on his arm, to connect him with the soldier who had charge of him. [This exception may be regarded as a proof of the perfect courtesy of the great Apostle.] 31. πράσσει ] generally, of his life and habits. No definite act was alleged against him: and his apologetic speech was in fact a sample of the acts of which he was accused. 32. Agrippa in these words delivers his judgment as a Jew: ‘ For aught I see, as regards our belief and practices, he might have been set at liberty.’ But now he could not: ‘ nam appellatione potestas judicis, a quo appellatum est, cessare incipit ad absolvendum non minus quam ad condemnandum. Crimina euim iutegra servanda sunt cognitioni snperioris.’ Grot. Chap. 27:1-28:31. Paul’ s voyage to Rome and sojourn there. I cannot but express the benefit I have derived in my commentary on this section, from Mr. Smith’ s now well-known treatise on the voyage and shipwreck of St. Paul: as also from various letters which he has from time to time put into my hands, tending further to elucidate the subject. The substance of these will be found embodied in an excursus following the chronological table in the prolegomena. 1. τοῦ (see reff.) contains the purpose of ἐκρίθη . The matter of the decision implied in ἐκρίθη is expressed in this form as if governed by the substantive κρίσις , as in ch. 20:3, ἐγένετογνώμηςτοῦὑποστρέφειν . Meyer remarks that the expressions κελεύεινἵνα , εἰπεῖνἵνα , θέλεινἵνα , &c. are analogous. ἡμᾶς ] Here we have again the first person, the narrator having, in all probability, remained in Palestine, and in the neighbourhood of Paul, during the interval since ch. 21:18. παρεδίδουν ] Who? perhaps the assessors with whom Festus took counsel on the appeal, ch. 25:12: but more likely the plural is used indefinitely, the subject being ‘ they,’ = ‘ on’ (Fr.), or ‘ man’ (Germ.). ἑτέρουςδ .] This expression, says Meyer, is purposely chosen, to intimate, that they were prisoners of another sort (not also Christians under arrest). But De W. shews this to be a mistake, by ἕτεραιπολλαί , Luke 8:3, = ἄλλαιπολλαί , Mark 15:41, in both places meaning ‘ many others of the same sort.’ Here also they are of the same class, as far as δεσμῶται is concerned: further, nothing is implied in the narrative, one way or the other. σπείρηςσεβαστῆς ] There is some difficulty in determining what this cohort was. We must not fall into the mistake of several of the Commentators, that of confounding this σπ . σεβαστή with an ἵληἱππέωνκαλουμένηΣεβαστηνῶν , mentioned by Josephus, B. J. ii. 12. 5, and Antt. xx. 6. 1, this latter implying ‘ natives of Samaria’ ,— whereas our word is the same adjective as that name itself, and cannot by any analogy have reference to it. More than one of the legions at different times bore the honorary title ‘ Augusta.’ Wetst. quotes from Claudian de Bell. ‘ Dictaque ab Augusto legio:’ from inscriptions in Mauritania, Legio III. Aug., II. Aug., VIII. Aug.: from Ptolemy, ii. 3, λεγεὼνδευτέρασεβαστή (in Britain); iv. 3, λεγεὼνγ . σεβαστή ; but of a ‘ cohors Augusta,’ or ‘ Augustana,’ we never hear. De Wette and Meyer suggest (but we have no historical proof of the supposition) that it was one among the five cohorts stationed at Cæ sarea (see note, ch. 25:23) thus distinguished as the body-guard of the emperor (?), and therefore chosen for any services immediately concerning him, as in this case. Meyer thinks it may be the same (but then would the appellations be different?) with the σπεῖραἸταλική of ch. 10:1. It is remarkable that almost all the Commentators have assumed, without any reason, that this σπ . σεβαστή must have been stationed at Cæ sarea, whereas it may well have been a cohort, or body of men so called, at Rome. Wieseler is the only one that I have seen who has not fallen into this error. He controverts the other interpretations (Chron. d. Apost.-g. note, p. 391), and infers that Julius belonged to the Augustani, mentioned Tacitus xiv. 15, and Suet. Nero, 20 and 25 (see also Dio Cass. lxi. 20: ἦνμὲνγάρτικαὶἴδιοναὐτῷσύστημαἐςπεντακισχιλίουςστρατιώταςπαρεσκευασμένον · Αὐγούστειοίτεὠνομάζοντο · καὶἐξῆρχοντῶνἐπαίνων , and lxiii. 8), who appear to have been identical with the evocati (veterans specially summoned to service by the emperors), and to have formed Nero’ s body-guard on his journey to Greece. The first levying of this band by Augustus, Dio relates, xlv. 12. To this Julius seems to have belonged,— to have been sent on some service into Asia, and now to have been returning to Rome. We read of a Julius Priscus, Prefect of the Præ torian guards under Vitellius, who killed himself ‘ pudore magis quam necessitate,’ after the military murder by Mucianus of Calpurnius Galerianus. This was ten years after the date of our narrative; but the identity of the two must be only conjectural. 2. Ἀδραμυττηνῷ ] Adramyttium (Ἀδραμύττιον , -ειον , or Ἀτραμύττιον , and in Plin. v. 32, Adramytteos) was a seaport with a harbour in Mysia, an Athenian colony. It is now a village called Eudramit. Grotius, Drusius, and others erroneously suppose Adrumetum to be meant, on the north coast of Africa (Winer, Realw.). πλεῖν [εἰς ] τοὺς .… ] The bracketed εἰς is in all probability an insertion to help off the harshness of the construction. But the accusative is indicative of the direction. We have ἦλθεΠολυνείκηςχθόνα , Eur. Phœ niss. 110. See Winer, edn. 6, § 32. 1, on the accus. after neuter verbs, and Bernhardy, Syntax, pp. 114 ff., and other instances in Wetstein. Ἀριστάρχ .] See ch. 19:29; 20:4; Colossians 4:10; Philemon 1:24. In Colossians 4:10, Paul calls him his συναιχμάλωτος , but perhaps only figuratively: the same term is applied to Epaphras, Philemon 1:23, where follows Ἀρίσταρχος , Δημᾶς , Λουκᾶς , οἱσύνεργοίμου . 3. Σιδῶνα ] This celebrated city is generally joined in the N. T. with Tyre, from which it was distant 200 stadia (Strabo, xvi. 756 ff.), and of which it was probably the mother city. It was within the lot of the tribe of Asher (Joshua 19:28), but never conquered by the Israelites (Judges 1:31; Judges 3:3). From the earliest times the Sidonians were renowned for their manufactures of glass (‘ Sidon artifex vitri,’ Plin. v. 19), linen (πέπλοιπαμποίκιλοιἔργαγυναικῶνΣιδονίων , Il. ζ . 290), silversmith’ s work (Il. ψ . 743, and Od. ο . 115, &c.), and for the hewing of timber (1 Kings 5:6; Ezra 3:7). In ancient times, Sidon seems to have been under Tyre, and to have furnished her with mariners (see Ezekiel 27:8). It went over to Shalmaneser, king of Assyria (Jos. Antt. ix. 14. 2); but seems under him, and afterwards under the Chaldæ ans and Persians, to have had tributary kings of its own (Jeremiah 25:22; Jeremiah 27:3; Herod. viii. 67). The Sidonians furnished the best ships in Xerxes’ navy, Herod. vii. 96, 99. Under Artaxerxes Oehus Sidon freed itself, but was by him, after a severe siege, taken and destroyed (Diod. Sic. xvi. 43 ff.). It was rebuilt, and soon after went over to Alexander, keeping its own vassal kings. After his death it was alternately under Syrian and Egyptian rule, till it fell under the Romans. The present Saida is west of ancient Sidon, and is a port of some commerce, but insecure, from the sanding up of the harbour (Winer, Realw. See also Robinson, vol. iii. pp. 415 ff., who gives an account of the history of Sidon during the middle ages). πορευθέντι ] This dat. looks very like a grammatical correction: the πορευθέντα of the rec. would be an instance of an acc. with inf. after a dat. preceding, as ch. 26:20; 22:17. The φίλοι here mentioned were probably Christian brethren (see ch. 11:19, where the Gospel is said to have been preached in Phœ nicia; and ch. 21:3, where we find brethren at Tyre); but it is usual in that case for ἀδελφοί or μαθηταί to be specified: cf. ch. 21:4, 7. The ἐπιμελείαςτυχεῖν was perhaps to obtain from them that outfit for the voyage which, on account of the official precision of his custody at Cæ sarea, he could not there be provided with. 4. ὑπεπλεύσαμεν ] sailed under, i.e. ‘ in the lee of,’ Cyprus. “ Ubi navis vento contrario cogitur a recto cursu decedere, ita ut tunc insula sit interposita inter ventum et navem, dicitur ferri infra insulam.” Wetst., who also says, “ Si ventus favisset, alto se commisissent, et Cyprum ad dexteram partem reliquissent, ut Acts 21:3, nunc autem coguntur legere littus Ciliciæ , inter Cyprum et Asiam.” With this explanation Mr. Smith agrees; and there can hardly be a doubt that it is the right one. The κατὰτὴνἈσίαντόποι of ver. 2 being to the west of Pamphylia (which was not in Asia, ch. 2:10), the direct course thither would have been S. of Cyprus; but having the wind contrary, i.e. from the W. or N.W. (“ the very wind which might have been expected in this part of the Mediterranean at this season (summer). Admiral de Saumarez writes, Aug. 19, 1798, ‘ We have just gained sight of Cyprus, so invariably do the westerly winds prevail at this season.’  ” Smith, p. 27), they kept under shelter of Cyprus, i.e. between Cyprus and Cilicia; and so διαπλεύσαντες , having sailed the whole length of the sea off Cilicia and Pamphylia, they came to Myra. See the account of the reverse voyage, ch. 21:3, where, the wind being nearly in the same quarter , the direct course was taken, and they left Cyprus at a distance (for so ἀναφ . seems to imply) on their left, in going to Tyre. On the διαπλεύσαντες , &c., it may be well to quote (from Smith) the testimony of M. de Pagé s, a French navigator, who, on his voyage from Syria to Marseilles, informs us that after making Cyprus, “ the winds from the west, and consequently contrary, which prevail in these places during the summer, forced us to run to the north. We made for the coast of Caramania (Cilicia), in order to meet the northerly winds, which we found accordingly.” 5. Μύῤῥα ] εἶταΜύραἐνεἴκοσισταδίοιςὑπὲρτῆςθαλάττηςἐπὶμετεώρουλόφου , Strabo xiv. 3,— ΛέντλοςἐπιπεμφθεὶςἈνδριάκῃΜυρέωνἐπινείῳ , τήντεἅλυσινἔῤῥηξετοῦλιμένος , καὶεἰςΜύραἀνῄει . The neighbourhood is full of magnificent ruins; see Sir C. Fellows’ s Lycia, ch. 9. The name still remains. The various readings merely shew that the copyists were unacquainted with the place. 6. The Alexandrian ship may have been laden with corn for Rome; but this cannot be inferred from ver. 38, for the ship had been lightened before, ver. 18. On her size, see below, ver. 37. Most probably this ship had been prevented taking the direct course to Italy, which was by the south of Crete, by the prevailing westerly winds. Under such circumstances, says Mr. Smith (p. 32), “ ships, particularly those of the ancients, unprovided with a compass, and ill calculated to work to windward, would naturally stand to the N. till they made the land of Asia Minor, which is peculiarly favourable for such a mode of navigation, because the coast is bold and safe, and the elevation of the mountains makes it visible at a great distance; it abounds in harbours, while the sinuosities of its shores and the westerly current would enable them, if the wind was at all off the land, to work to windward, at least as far as Cnidus, where these advantages ceased. Myra lies due N. from Alexandria, and its bay is well calculated to shelter a wind-bound ship. The Alexandrian ship was not, therefore, out of her course at Myra, even if she had no call to touch there for the purposes of commerce.” πλέον , the present, should be rendered on her voyage. 7. βραδυπλ .] It is evident that the ship was encountering an adverse wind. The distance from Myra to Cnidus is only 130 geogr. miles, which, with a fair wind, would not take more than one day. Mr. Smith shews that the wind was N.W., or within a few points of it. “ We learn from the sailing directions for the Mediterranean, that, throughout the whole of that sea, but mostly in the eastern half, including the Adriatic and Archipelago, N.W. winds prevail in the summer months; … the summer Etesiæ come from the N.W. (p. 197); which agrees with Aristotle’ s account of these winds,— οἱἐτησίαιλεγόμενοιμέξινἔχοντεςτῶντεἀπὸτῆςἄρκτουφερομένωνκ . ζεφύρου , de Mundo, ch. 4. According to Pliny (ii. 47), they begin in August, and blow for forty days.” μόλις ] with difficulty: not as E. V., ‘ scarce,’ which being also an adv. of time, gives the erroneous idea to the English reader that the ship had scarcely reached Cnidus when the wind became unfavourable. γεν . κατά ] having come over against, as E. V. Κνίδον ] Cnidus is a peninsula at the entrance of the Æ gean Sea, between the islands of Cos and Rhodes, having a lofty promontory and two harbours, Strabo, xiv. 2. “ With N.W. winds the ship could work up from Myra to Cnidus; because, until she reached that point, she had the advantage of a weather shore, under the lee of which she would have smooth water, and, as formerly mentioned, a westerly current; but it would be slowly and with difficulty. At Cnidus that advantage ceased.” Smith, p. 37. γὴπροσεῶντ .] The common idea has been that the prep. in composition implies that the wind would not suffer them to put in at Cnidus. But this would hardly be reconcileable with the fact; for when off Cnidus they would be in shelter under the high land, and there would be no difficulty in putting in. I should be rather inclined to regard this clause as explaining the μόλις above, and the πρός in composition as implying contribution, or direction: ‘ with difficulty, the wind not permitting us by favouring our course.’ ὑπεπλ . [see above on ver. 4] τ . Κρ . κ . Σαλμώνην ] “ Unless she had put into that harbour (Cnidus), and waited for a fair wind, her only course was to run under the lee of Crete, in the direction of Salmone, which is the eastern extremity of that island.” Salmone (Capo Salomon) is described by Strabo (x. 4) as ὀξὺἀκρωτήριοντὸΣαμώνιον , ἐπὶτὴνΑἴγυπτοννεῦον , καὶτὰςῬοδίωννήσους . Pliny (iv. 12) calls it Sammonium. 8. μόλιςπαρ .] “ After passing this point (Salmone), the difficulty they experienced in navigating to the westward along the coasts of Asia, would recur; but as the south side of Crete is also a weather shore with N.W. winds, they would be able to work up as far as Cape Matala. Here the land trends suddenly to the N., and the advantages of a weather shore cease, and their only resource was to make for a harbour. Now Fair Havens is the harbour nearest to Cape Matala, the farthest point to which an ancient ship could have attained with N.W.-ly winds” . Smith, ib. παραλεγ . does not, as Servius on Æ n. iii. 127 supposes, imply that the ship was towed , but, as Meyer explains it, that, the places on the coast being touched (or perhaps, rather, appearing) one after another, are, as it were, gathered up by the navigators. Mr. Smith (p. 42) exposes the mistake of Eustathius (adopted by Valpy, from Dr. Falconer), by which the ship taking the S. coast of Crete is attempted to be explained: viz. δυσλίμενοςἡΚρήτηπρὸςτὴνβόῤῥαν : whereas there are, in fact, excellent harbours on the N. side of Crete,— Souda and Spina Longa. ΚαλοὺςΛιμένας ] The situation of this anchorage was ascertained by Pococke, from the fact of the name still remaining. “ In searching after Lebena farther to the west, I found out a place which I thought to be of greater consequence, because mentioned in Holy Scripture, and also honoured by the presence of St. Paul, that is, ‘ the Fair Havens, near unto the city of Lasea;’ for there is another small bay about two leagues to the E. of Matala, which is now called by the Greeks good or fair havens :” (Calolimounias of Mr. Brown’ s letter: see excursus as above.) Travels in the East, ii. p. 250: cited by Mr. Smith, who adds: “ The most conclusive evidence that this is the Fair Havens of Scripture, is, that its position is precisely that where a ship circumstanced as St. Paul’ s was, must have put in. I have already shewn that the wind must have been about N.W.;— but with such a wind she could not pass Cape Matala: we must therefore look near, but to the E. of this promontory, for an anchorage well calculated to shelter a vessel in N.W. winds, but not from all winds, otherwise it would not have been, in the opinion of seamen (ver. 12), an unsafe winter harbour. Now here we have a harbour which not only fulfils every one of the conditions, but still retains the name given to it by St. Luke.” Smith, p. 45. He also gives an engraving of the place from a sketch by Signr. Schranz, the artist who accompanied Mr. Pashley in his travels. There is no ground for identifying this anchorage with καλὴἀκτή mentioned as a city in Crete by Steph. Byzant. For this is clearly not the name of a city, by the subjoined notice, ᾧἐγγὺςἦνπόλιςΛασέα . Nor is there any reason to suppose, with Meyer, that the name καλοὶλιμ . was euphemistically given,— because the harbour was not one to winter in: this (see above) it may not have been, and yet may have been an excellent refuge at particular times, as now, from prevailing westerly winds. Λασέα ] This place was, until recently, altogether unknown; and from the variety of readings, the very name was uncertain. Pliny (iv. 12) mentions Lasos among the cities of Crete, but does not indicate its situation. It is singular, and tends to support the identity of Lasos with our Lasea, that as here Alassa, so there Alos, is a various reading. The reading Thalassa appears to have been an error of a transcriber from -αλασσα forming so considerable a part of a word of such common occurrence. There is a Lisia named in Crete in the Peutinger Table, which may be the same. On the very interesting discovery of Lasea by the Rev. G. Brown in the beginning of the year 1856, see the excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. The ruins are on the beach, about two hours eastward of Fair Havens. 9. ἱκανοῦχρ .] Not ‘ since the beginning of our voyage,’ as Meyer:— the time was spent at the anchorage. τοῦπλοός ] Not ‘ sailing,’ but the voyage, viz. to Rome,— which henceforth was given up as hopeless for this autumn and winter. That this is the meaning of ὁπλοῦς , see ch. 21:7. And by observing this, we avoid a difficulty which has been supposed to attend the words. Sailing was not unsafe so early as this (see below); but to undertake so long a voyage, was. τὴννηστείαν ] The fast, κατ ʼ ἐξοχήν , is the solemn fast of the day of expiation, the 10th of Tisri, the seventh month of the Jewish ecclesiastical year, and the first of the civil year. See Leviticus 16:29 ff.; Leviticus 23:26 ff. This would be about the time of the autumnal equinox. The sailing season did not close so early: ‘ Ex die igitur tertio iduum Novembris, usque in diem sextum iduum Martiarum, maria clauduntur.’ Vegetius (Smith, p. 45, note) de Re Milit. iv. 39. 10. From the use of θεωρῶ here, and from the saying itself, it seems clear to me that Paul was not uttering at present any prophetic intimation, but simply his own sound judgment on the difficult question at issue. It is otherwise at vv. 22-24. As Smith remarks, “ The event justified St. Paul’ s advice. At the same time it may be observed, that a bay, open to nearly one half the compass, could not have been a good winter harbour.” (p. 47.) μετὰὕβρεως is interpreted by Meyer as subjective— ‘ accompanied with presumption on our part:’ but not to mention that this would be a very unusual sense, ver. 21, κερδῆσαιτὴνὕβρινταύτ . κ . τ . ζημίαν , is decisive (De W.) against it. ὅτι … μέλλειν ] A mixing of two constructions, see Winer, edn. 6, § 44. 8, remark 2. This is most flagrant in later writers, as Pausanias and Arrian,— see Bernhardy, Syntax, p. 369; but is also found earlier, e.g. Plato, Charm., p. 165: οὐκἂναἰσχυνθείηνὅτιμὴοὐχὶὀρθῶςφάναιεἰρηκέναι . Isæ us, περὶτοῦφιλοκτ . κληρ . p. 57: ἐπειδὴδὲπροσδιαμεμαρτύρηκενὡςυἱὸνεἶναιγνήσιονΕὐκτήμονοςτοῦτον … See other references in Winer, 1. c. 11. τ . ναυκλήρῳ ] the owner of the ship. Wetst. cites from Plutarch, ναύταςμὲνἐκλέγεταικυβερνήτης , καὶκυβερνήτηνναύκληρος . So : ναύκληρος , ὁδεσπότηςτ . πλοίου ,— and Xen. Œ con. viii. 12: φορτίων , ὅσαναυκλήροιςκέρδουςἕνεκαἄγεται . (Kuin.) 12. See above on ver. 8. The anchorage was sheltered from the N. W., but not from nearly half the compass. Grotius and Heinsius’ s rendering of πρὸςπαραχειμ ., ‘ ad vitandam tempestatem,’ is contrary to usage, besides being singularly inconsistent with the fact in more ways than one. For this purpose the anchorage was εὔθετος , and in it they had (see next verse) actually ridden out the storm, before they left it. ἐκεῖθεν ] The κἀκεῖθεν of the rec. would be thence also, as from their former stopping-places. Φοίνικα ] Ptolemy (iii. 17) calls the haven Φοινικοῦς , and the city (lying some way inland) Φοῖνιξ . Strabo (x. 4) says, τὸδὲἔνθενἰσθμόςἐστινὡςἑκατὸνσταδίων , ἔχωνκατοικίανπρὸςμὲντῇβορείῳθαλάττῃἈμφιμάλλαν , πρὸςδὲτῇνοτίῳΦοινικὴτῶνΛαμπέων . This description, and the other data belonging to Phœ nice, Smith (p. 48) has shewn to fit the modern Lutro, which, though not known now as an anchorage, probably from the silting up of the harbour, is so marked in the French admiralty chart of 1738, and “ if then able to shelter the smallest craft, must have been capable of receiving the largest ships seventeen centuries before.” See an inscription making it highly probable that Alexandrian ships did winter at Lutro, in the excursus at the end of Prolegg. to Acts. βλέποντακατὰλίβακ . κατὰχῶρον ] looking (literally) down the S.W. and N.W. winds; i.e. in the direction of these winds, viz. N.E. and S.E. For λίψ and χῶρος are not quarters of the compass, but winds; and κατά , used with a wind, denotes the direction of its blowing,— down the wind. This interpretation, which I was long ago persuaded was the right one, I find now confirmed by the opinion of Mr. Smith, who cites Herod, iv. 110, ἐφέροντοκατὰκῦμακαὶἄνεμον , and Arrian, Periplus Euxini, p. 3, ἄφνωνεφελὴἐπαναστᾶσαἐξεῤῥάγηκατ ʼ εὖρον . So also κατὰῥόον , Herod, ii. 96. And in Jos. Antt. xv. 9. 6, the coasts near Cæ sarea are said to be δύσορμαδιὰτὰςκατὰλίβαπροσβολάς . See also Thucyd. vi. 104. In the reff., the substantive is not one of motion like λίψ , χῶρος , or ῥόος , but of fixed location, as μεσημβρία , σκόπος . The direction then is towards the spot indicated, just as in the present case it is in that of the motion indicated. The harbour of Lutro satisfies these conditions; and is even more decisively pointed out as being the spot by a notice in the Synecdemus of Hierocles, ΦοινίκηἤτοιἈράδενα · νῆσοςΚλαῦδος . Now Mr. Pashley found a village called Aradhena a short distance above Lutro, and another close by called Anopolis, of which Steph. Byz. says, ἈράδηνπόλιςΚρήτηι · ἡδὲἈνωπόλιςλέγεται , διὰτὸεἶναιἄνω . From these data it is almost demonstrated that the port of Phœ nice is the present port of Lutro. Ptolemy’ s longitude for port Phœ nice also agrees. See Smith, pp. 51 ff. Mr. Smith has kindly sent me the following extract from a letter containing additional confirmation of the view: ‘ Loutro is an excellent harbour; you open it unexpectedly, the rocks stand apart and the town appears within. During the Greek war, when cruising with Lord Cochrane, … chased a pirate schooner, as they thought, right upon the rocks; suddenly he disappeared, and when rounding in after him,— like a change of scenery, the little basin, its shipping, and the town of Loutro, revealed themselves.’ See Prof. Hackett’ s note, impugning the above view and interpretation; which however does not alter my opinion. Dean Howson gives his solution thus: “ The difficulty is to be explained simply by remembering that sailors speak of every thing from their own point of view, and that the harbour (see chart in C. and H. ii. 397) does look— from the water towards the land which encloses it— in the direction of S.W. and N.W.” But I cannot believe, till experience can be shewn to confirm the idea, that even sailors could speak of a harbour as ‘ looking’ in the direction in which they would look when entering it. 13. ὑποπνεύσαντος ] as E. V., softly blowing, compare ὑπομειδιάω . The S. wind was favourable for them in sailing from Fair Havens to Phœ nice. δόξ . τ . προθ . κεκρατ .] imagining that they had (as good as) accomplished their purpose; i.e. that it would now be a very easy matter to reach Phœ nice. ἄραντες “ may be translated either ‘ weighed,’ or ‘ set sail;’ for ancient authors supply sometimes τὰςἀγκύρας , and sometimes τὰἱστία .… Julius Pollux, however, like St. Luke, supplies neither, which is certainly the most nautical way of expressing it: he says, αἴροντεςἀπὸτῆςγῆς , lib. i. 103.” Smith, p. 55. ἆσσονπαρ .] They crept close along the land till they passed Cape Matala. “ A ship which could not lie nearer to the wind than seven points, would just weather that point which bears W. by S. from the entrance of Fair Havens. We see therefore the propriety of the expression ἆσσονπαρ ., ‘ they sailed close by Crete,’ which the author uses to describe the first part of their passage.” Smith, p. 56. The Vulg. has: ‘ quum sustulissent de Asson,’ connecting ἄραντες with Ἄσσον , and understanding the latter as the name of a Cretan town. There is an Asus mentioned by Pliny (iv. 12), but it is ‘ in Mediterraneo,’ not on the coast,— and the construction would be inadmissible. Erasmus, Luther, &c., have taken Ἄσσον as the accusative of direction, ‘ when they had weighed for Assus.’ But besides the local objection, this construction also would be most harsh, as ἄραντες does not indicate the progress of their voyage, but only the setting out. Heinsius took ἄραντες = ἀναφανέντες , ch. 21:3,— ‘ postquam Asos attollere se visa est’ (Meyer). But there can be little doubt that all of these are mistakes, and that ἆσσον is the adverb. 14. ἔβαλενκατ ʼ αὐτῆς ] These difficult words have been taken in three ways: (1) (The common interpretation) referring αὐτῆς to τὴνΚρήτην just mentioned. Thus they might mean, ‘ drove (us) against Crete,’ or ‘ struck (blew) against Crete,’ i.e. in the direction of Crete. Now of these, is contrary to the expressed fact:— they were not driven against Crete. And is as inconsistent with the implied fact. Had the wind blown in the direction of Crete at all, they, who gave themselves up to it, and were driven before it (ἐπιδόντεςἐφερόμεθα , ver. 15), must have been stranded on the Cretan coast, which they were not. (2) referring αὐτῆς to the ship, understood. This is adopted by Dr. Bloomfield and Mr. Smith. (The latter, I find by a letter received since this note was written, now understands it as I have explained it below.) But not to mention the harshness occasioned by having to supply a subject for αὐτῆς which has never yet been mentioned,— a decisive objection against this rendering is, that the ship throughout the narrative is τὸπλοῖον , not ἡναῦς , in every place except ver. 41,— and τὸπλ . occurs in the very next clause, which, had this been meant of the ship, would certainly have been expressed συναρπασθείσηςδέ , or συναρπασθείσηςδὲαὐτῆς . (3) referring αὐτῆς to προθέσεως . In that case ἔβαλενκατ ʼ αὐτῆς must either = κατέβαλενἡμᾶςἀπ ʼ αὐτῆς , as Plato, Euthyph. 15 e, ἀπ ʼ ἐλπίδοςμεκαταβαλὼνμεγάληςἀπέρχει , which is harsh, and hardly allowable; or be understood, taking the neuter sense of βάλλω (ποταμὸςεἰςἅλαβάλλων , Il. λ . 722), as meaning ‘ blew against it,’ so as to thwart their design. And so Luther: ‘ erhob sich wider ihr Bornehmen.’ But this mixture of literal and figurative is also harsh, and hardly allowable. (4) A method has occurred to me of rendering the words, which seems to remove all harshness, whether of reference in αὐτῆς , or of construction. There can be no question that the obvious reference of αὐτῆς is to Crete. What then is ἔβαλενκατ ʼ αὐτῆςἔβαλεν applied to wind may be understood as above, neuter, or reflective, ‘ blew,’ ‘ rushed.’ Assuming this, and that there is no object to be supplied between ἔβαλεν and the preposition, κατ ʼ αὐτῆς may surely be rendered, as in βῆδὲκατ ʼ Οὐλύμποιοκαρήνων ,— κατ ʼ Ἰδαίωνὀρέων ,— κατὰπέτρης , &c., viz. down (from) Crete, ‘ down the high lands forming the coast.’ It is a common expression in lake and coasting navigation, that ‘ a gust came down the valleys.’ And this would be exactly the direction of the wind in question. When they had doubled, or perhaps were now doubling, Cape Matala, the wind suddenly changed, and the typhoon came down upon them from the high lands;— at first, as long as they were sheltered, only by fits down the gullies, but as soon as they were in the open bay past the cape, with its full violence. This, the hurricane rushing down the high lands when first observed, and afterwards συναρπάζωντὸπλοῖον , seems to me exactly to describe their changed circumstances in passing the cape. A confirmation of this interpretation may be found by Luke himself using κατέβη to express the descending of a squall from the hills on the lake of Gennesareth, Luke 8:23, where Matt. and Mark have only ἐγένετο and γίνεται . Mr. Smith also suggests κατὰτοῦκρημνοῦ , Luke 8:33, as confirmatory. The above is also Dean Howson’ s view. See, in the excursus appended to the Prolegg. to Acts, the confirmation of this view in what actually happened to the Rev. G. Brown’ s party. τυφωνικός ] “ The sudden change from a south wind to a violent northerly wind, is a common occurrence in these seas. The term ‘ typhonic’ indicates that it was accompanied by some of the phæ nomena which might be expected in such a case, viz. the agitation and whirling motion of the clouds caused by the meeting of the opposite currents of air when the change took place, and probably also of the sea, raising it in columns of spray. Pliny (ii. 48), speaking of ‘ repentini flatus,’ says, ‘ vorticem faciunt qui Typhon vocatur:’ Aul. Gell. xix. 1, ‘ Turbines etiam crebriores … et figuræ quæ dam nubium tremendæ quas τυφῶνας vocabant.’  ” Smith, p. 60. εὐρακύλων ] I have adopted the reading of , according to my principle of going, in all cases where there is no overpowering objection, by our most ancient mss. It may be that εὐρακύλων had become in common parlance corrupted into εὐροκλύδων , an anomalous word, having no assignable derivation, but perhaps arising from the Greek sailors having changed the Latin termination into one having significance for themselves. Mr. Smith, in his appendix, ‘ On the Wind Euroclydon,’ has satisfactorily answered the objections of Bryant to the compound εὐρακύλων ,— by shewing that εὖρος properly, was not the S.E., but the E. wind; and that compounds of Greek and Latin in the names of winds are not unknown, e.g. Euro-Auster. The direction of the wind is established by Mr. S., from what follows, to have been about half a point N. of E.N.E.; and the subsequent narrative shews that the wind continued to blow from this point till they reached Malta. 15. συναρπ .] being hurried away, ‘ borne along,’ by it: see reff. ἀντοφθαλμεῖν ] It is hardly likely that this term, which is used so naturally and constantly of men facing an enemy (Polyb. i. 17. 3, and eight times more), and also metaphorically of resisting temptation (μὴδύνασθαιτοῖςχρήμασινἀντοφθαλμεῖν , Polyb. xxviii. 17. 18), should have been originally a naval term, derived from the practice of painting eyes on either side of the beaks of ships. More probably the expression was transferred to a ship from its usage in common life. ἐπιδόντες ] So Plutarch de Fortun. Rom. cited in note on ver. 26. Either ‘ the ship,’ or ‘ ourselves,’ may be supplied: or better perhaps, neither, but the word taken generally— giving up. ἐφερόμεθα ] passive: we were driven along. 16. ὑποδραμόντες ] running under the lee of. “ St. Luke exhibits here as on every other occasion, the most perfect command of nautical terms, and gives the utmost precision to his language by selecting the most appropriate: they ran before the wind to leeward of Clauda, hence it is ὑποδραμόντες : they sailed with a side wind to leeward of Cyprus and Crete: hence it is ὑπεπλεύσαμεν ” (Smith, p. 61, note). Κλαῦδα ] Here again, there can be little doubt that the name of the island was Καῦδα , or Γαῦδα , as we have in some mss., or, as in Pliny and Mela, Gaudos: but Ptol. (iii. 7) has Κλαῦδος , and the corruption was very obvious. The island is the modern Gozzo. ἰσχύσαμ . μόλ . κ .τ .λ .] “ Upon reaching Clauda, they availed themselves of the smooth water under its lee, to prepare the ship to resist the fury of the storm. Their first care was to secure the boat by hoisting it on board. This had not been done at first, because the weather was moderate, and the distance they had to go, short. Under such circumstances, it is not usual to hoist boats on board, but it had now become necessary. In running down upon Clauda, it could not be done, on account of the ship’ s way through the water. To enable them to do it, the ship must have been rounded to, with her head to the wind, and her sails, if she had any set at the time, trimmed, so that she had no head-way, or progressive movement. In this position she would drift, broadside to leeward. I conclude they passed round the east end of the island: not only because it was nearest, but because ‘ an extensive reef with numerous rocks extends from Gozzo to the N. W., which renders the passage between the two isles very dangerous’ (Sailing Directions, p. 207). In this case the ship would be brought to on the starboard tack, i.e. with the right side to windward.” … “ St. Luke tells us they had much difficulty in securing the boat. He does not say why: but independently of the gale which was raging at the time, the boat had been towed between twenty and thirty miles after the gale had sprung up, and could scarcely fail to be filled with water.” Smith, pp. 64, 65. 17. ἄραντες , having taken on board. βοηθείαις ] measures to strengthen the ship, strained and weakened by labouring in the gale. Pliny (ii. 48) calls the typhoon ‘ præ cipua navigantium pestis, non antennas modo, verum ipsa navigia contorta frangens.’ Grot., Heinsius, &c., are clearly wrong in interpreting βοηθεί ., ‘ the help of the passengers.’ ὑποζωννύντεςτ . πλ .] undergirding, or frapping the ship. “ To frap a ship (ceintrer un vaisseau) is to pass four or five turns of a large cable-laid rope round the hull or frame of a ship, to support her in a great storm, or otherwise, when it is apprehended that she is not strong enough to resist the violent efforts of the sea: this expedient, however, is rarely put in practice.” Falconer’ s Marine Dict.:— Smith, p. 60, who brings several instances of the practice, in our own times. See additional ones in C. and H. ii. 404, f. Horace seems to allude to it, Od. i. 14. 3, ‘ ac sine funibus Vix durare carinæ Possint imperiosius Æ quor.’ See reff. τὴνσύρτιν ] The Syrtis, on the African coast; there were two, the greater and the lesser (αἱφοβεραὶκαὶτοῖςἀκούουσιΣύρτεις , Jos. B. J. ii. 16. 4), of which the former was the nearer to them. ἐκπέσωσιν ] See reff. and add φερόμενοιτῷπνεύματι … ἐξέπιπτονπρὸςτὰςπέτρας , Herodot. viii. 13. χαλ . τ . σκεῦος ] “ It is not easy to imagine a more erroneous translation than that of our authorized version: ‘ Fearing lest they should fall into the quicksands, they strake sail, and so were driven.’ It is in fact equivalent to saying that, fearing a certain danger, they deprived themselves of the only possible means of avoiding it.” Smith, p. 67. He goes on to explain, that if they had struck sail, they must have been driven directly towards the Syrtis. They therefore set what sail the violence of the gale would permit them to carry, turning the ship’ s head off shore, she having already been brought to on the starboard tack (right side to the wind). The adoption of this course would enable them to run before the gale, and yet keep wide of the African coast, which we know they did. But what is χαλ . τὸσκεῦος It is interpreted by Meyer, De W., and most Commentators, of striking sail (as E.V.): but this (see above) could not be: “ In a storm with a contrary wind or on a lee-shore, a ship is obliged to lie-to under a very low sail: some sail is absolutely necessary to keep the ship steady, otherwise she would pitch about like a cork, and roll so deep as to strain and work herself to pieces.” Encycl. Brit. art. ‘ Seamanship:’ Smith, p. 72, who interprets the words, lowering the gear, i.e. sending down upon deck the gear connected with the fair-weather sails, such as the suppara, or top-sails. A modern ship sends down top-gallant masts and yards, a cutter strikes her topmast, when preparing for a gale. In this case it was perhaps the heavy yard which the ancient ships carried, with the sail attached to it, and the heavy ropes, which would by their top-weight produce uneasiness of motion as well as resistance to the wind. See a letter addressed to Mr. Smith by Capt. Spratt, R.N., quoted in C. and H. ii. p. 405, note 5. οὕτως ] i.e. “ not only with the ship undergirded, and made snug, but with storm-sails set, and on the starboard tack, which was the only course by which she could avoid falling into the Syrtis.” Smith, ib. 18. ἐκβολ . ἐποι .] “ The technical terms for taking cargo out of a ship, given by Julius Pollux, are ἐκθέσθαι , ἀποφορτίσασθαι , κουφίσαιτὴνναῦν , ἐπελάφρυναι , ἐκβολὴνποιήσασθαιτῶνφορτίων . So that both here, and afterwards in ver. 38 , St. Luke uses appropriate technical phrases.” Smith, ib. Of what the freight consisted, we have no intimation. Perhaps not of wheat, on account of the separate statement of ver. 38. See ref. 19. τ . σκευὴντ . πλ . ἔῤῥ .] ἡσκευή is the furniture of the ship— beds, moveables of all kinds, cooking utensils, and the spare rigging. αὐτόχειρες is used with ἔῤῥιψαν as shewing the urgency of the danger— when the seamen would with their own hands, cast away what otherwise was needful to the ship and themselves. This not being seen, αὐτόχ . has been supposed to imply the first person, and ἐῤῥίψαμεν . has crept in: see var. readd. 20. The sun and stars were the only guides of the ancients when out of sight of land. The expression, all hope was taken away, seems, as Mr. Smith has noticed, to betoken that a greater evil than the mere force of the storm (which perhaps had some little abated:— χ . οὐκὀλίγου seems to imply that it still indeed raged, but not as before) was afflicting them, viz., the leaky state of the ship, which increased upon them, as is shewn by their successive lightenings of her. 21. ἀσιτίας ] “ What caused the abstinence? A ship with nearly 300 people on board, on a voyage of some length, must have had more than a fortnight’ s provisions (and see ver. 38): and it is not enough to say with Kuinoel, ‘ Continui labores et metus a periculis effecerant ut de cibo capiendo non cogitarent.’ ‘ Much abstinence’ is one of the most frequent concomitants of heavy gales. The impossibility of cooking, or the destruction of provisions from leakage, are the principal causes which produce it.” Smith, p. 75: who quotes instances. But doubtless anxiety and mental distress had a considerable share in it. τότε brings vividly before us the consequence of the ἀσιτία — when they were in that condition, languid and exhausted with fasting and fears. κερδῆσαι ] ‘ lucrifecisse,’ to have gained, not = to have incurred,— but to have turned to your own account, i.e. ‘ to have spared or avoided.’ So Jos. in ref. Aristotle, Magn. Mor. ii. 8, ᾧκατὰλόγονζημίανἦνλαβεῖν , τὸντοιοῦτονκερδάνανταεὐτυχῆφάμεν . Plin. vii. 40, ‘ quam quidem injuriam lucrifecit ille.’ Cicero, Verr. 1:12, ‘ lucretur indicia veteris infamiæ ’ (‘ may have them wiped out,’ and so make gain of them by getting rid of them). ὕβριν ] See on ver. 10. “ The ὕβριν was to their persons, the ζημίαν to their property.” C. and H. ii. 410, note 4. 22. The neglect of precision in ἀποβολὴψυχῆςοὐδεμία … πλὴντοῦπλοίου is common enough. So Revelation 21:27, οὐμὴεἰσέλθῃ … πᾶνκοινὸνκ . ποιῶνβδέλυγμα … εἰμὴοἱγεγραμμένοιἐντῷβ . τ . ζωῆς . See Winer, edn. 6, § 67. 1. e. 23. Paul characterizes himself as dedicated to and the servant of God, to give solemnity to and bespeak credit for his announcement. At such a time, the servants of God are highly esteemed. 24. κεχάρισται ] “ Etiam centurio, subserviens providentiæ divinæ , Paulo condonavit captivos, ver. 43 … Non erat tam periculoso alioqui tempore periculum, ne videretur Paulus, quæ necessario dicebat, gloriose dicere.” Bengel. μετὰσοῦ ] “ Paulus, in conspectu Dei, princeps navis, et consiliis gubernator.” Ib. 26. δεῖ ] Spoken prophetically, as also ver. 31: not perhaps from actual revelation imparted in the vision, but by a power imparted to Paul himself of penetrating the future at this crisis, and announcing the Divine counsel. Mr. Humphry compares and contrasts the speech of Cæ sar to the pilot under similar circumstances: τόλμακ . δέδιθιμηθέν , ἀλλὰἐπιδίδουτῇτύχῃτὰἱστίακαὶδέχουτὸπνεῦμα , τῷπνέοντιπιστεύων , ὅτιΚαίσαραφέρειςκαὶτὴνΚαίσαροςτύχην , Plut. de Fortun. Rom. p. 518. 27. διαφερ .] driven about, or up and down, as E. V., not ‘ drifting through,’ as Dr. Bloomf., though this may have been the fact; see examples below. Plutarch speaking of the tumult during which Galba was murdered, τοῦφορείουκαθάπερἐνκλύδωνιδεῦροκἀκεῖδιαφερομένου (probably from Tacitus, ‘ Agebatur huc illuc Galba, vario turbœ fluctuantis impulsu,’ Hist. i. 40); Philo, de Migr. Abr. p. 464, ἐπαμφοτερισταὶπρὸςἐκάτεροντοῖχον , ὥσπερσκάφοςὑπ ʼ ἐναντίωνπνευμάτωνδιαφερόμενου , ἀποκλίνοντες . The reckoning of days counts from their leaving Fair Havens: see vv. 18, 19. ἐντῷἈδρίᾳ ] Adria, in the wider sense, embraces net only the Venetian Gulf, but the sea to the south of Greece:— so Ptolemy (iii. 16), ἡδὲΠελοπόννησοςὁρίζεται … ἀπὸδυσμῶνκαὶμεσημβρίαςτῷἈδριατικῷπελάγει . So also (iii. 4) ἡδὲΣικελίαὁρίζεται … ἀπὸδὲἀνατολῶνὑπὸτοῦἈδρίουπελάγους . In fact, he bounds Italy on the S., Sicily on the E., Greece on the S. and W., and Crete on the W. by this sea, which notices sufficiently indicate its dimensions. So also Pausanias (v. 25), speaking of the straits of Messina, says that the sea there is θαλἀσσηςχειμεριωτάτηπάσης . οἵτεγὰρἄνεμοιταράσσουσιναὐτὴνἀμφοτέρωθεντὸκῦμαἐπάγοντες , ἐκτοῦἈδρίου , καὶἐξἑτέρουπελάγουςὃκαλεῖταιΤυρσηνόν . ὑπενόουν ] What gave rise to this suspicion? Probably the sound (or even the apparent sight) of breakers. “ If we assume that St. Paul’ s Bay, in Malta, is the actual scene of the shipwreck, we can have no difficulty in explaining what these indications must have been. No ship can enter it from the east without passing within a quarter of a mile of the point of Koura: but before reaching it, the land is too low and too far from the track of a ship driven from the eastward, to be seen in a dark night. When she does come within this distance, it is impossible to avoid observing the breakers: for with north-easterly gales, the sea breaks upon it with such violence, that Capt. Smyth, in his view of the headland, has made the breakers its distinctive character.” Smith, p. 79. I recommend the reader to study the reasonings and calculations by which Mr. Smith (pp. 79-86) has established, I think satisfactorily, that this χώραν could be no other than the point of Koura, east of St. Paul’ s Bay, in Malta. προσάγειν ] was approaching them. The opposite is ἀναχωρεῖν , ‘ recedere.’ ‘ Lucas optice loquitur, nautarum more.’ Kuin. 28. βολίσαντες ] βολίζειν , ἤγουνβάθοςθαλάσσηςμετρεῖνμολυβδίνῃκαθέτῳ , ἢτοιούτῳτινί . on Il. ε . p. 427 (Wetst.). ὀργυιάς ] ὀργυιὰσημαίνειτὴνἔκτασιντῶνχειρῶνσὺντῷπλάτειτοῦστήθους (Etymol. Magn.) = therefore very nearly one fathom. Every particular here corresponds with the actual state of things. At twenty-five fathoms depth (as given in evidence at the court-martial on the officers of the Lively, wrecked on this point in 1810), the curl of the sea was seen on the rocks in the night, but no land. The twenty fathoms would occur somewhat past this: the fifteen fathoms, in a direction W. by N. from the former, after a time sufficient to prepare for the unusual measure of anchoring by the stern. And just so are the soundings (see Capt. Smyth’ s chart, Smith, p. 88), and the shore is here full of τραχεῖςτόποι , mural precipices, upon which the sea must have been breaking with great violence. 29. ἐκπρύμνης ] The usual way of anchoring in ancient, as well as in modern navigation, was by the bow: ‘ anchora de prora jacitur.’ But under certain circumstances, they anchored by the stern; and Mr. Smith has shewn from the figure of a ship which he has copied from the “ Antichità de Ercolano,” that their ships had hawse-holes aft, to fit them for anchoring by the stern. “ That a vessel can anchor by the stern is sufficiently proved (if proof were needed) by the history of some of our own naval engagements. So it was at the battle of the Nile. And when ships are about to attack batteries, it is customary for them to go into action prepared to anchor in this way. This was the case at Algiers. There is still greater interest in quoting the instance of the battle of Copenhagen, not only from the accounts we have of the precision with which each ship let go her anchors astern as she arrived nearly opposite her appointed station, but because it is said that Nelson stated after the battle that he had that morning been reading Act_27.” C. and H. ii. p. 414. The passage from Cæ sar, Bell. Civ. i. 25, ‘ has quaternis ancoris ex quatuor angulis distinebat, ne fluctibus moverentur,’ is not to the purpose, for it was in that case a platform composed of two vessels, and anchored by the four corners. “ The anchorage in St. Paul’ s Bay is thus described in the Sailing Directions: ‘ The harbour of St. Paul is open to E. and N.E. winds. It is, notwithstanding, safe for small ships; the ground, generally, being very good: and while the cables hold, there is no danger, as the anchors will never start.’  ” Smith, p. 92. εὔχοντο ] Uncertain, whether their ship might not go down at her anchors: and, even supposing her to ride out the night safely, uncertain whether the coast to leeward might not be iron-bound, affording no beach where they might land in safety. Hence also the ungenerous but natural attempt of the seamen to save their lives by taking to the boat. See Smith, p. 97. 30. “ We hear of anchors being laid out from both ends of a ship , Appian, Bell. Civ. p. 723.” ib. ἐκτείνειν ] because in this case they would carry out the anchors to the extent of the cable which was loosened. 31. ἐὰνμὴκ .τ .λ .] “ Mirum est quod reliquos vectores salvos posse fieri negat, nisi retentis nautis: quasi vero Dei promissionem exinanire penes ipsos fuerit. Respondeo, Paulum hic de potentia Dei præ cise non disputare, ut eam a voluntate et mediis sejungat: et certe non ideo fidelibus virtutem suam Deus commendat, ut contemptis mediis torpori et socordiæ indulgeant, vel temere se projiciant, ubi certa est cavendi ratio.… Neque tamen propterea sequitur, mediis vel adminiculis alligatam esse Dei manum, sed quum Deus hunc vel ilium agendi modum ordinat, hominum sensus continet, ne præ scriptas sibi metas transiliant.” Calvin. 33. This precaution on the part of Paul was another means taken of providing for their safety. All would, on the approaching day, have their strength fully taxed: which therefore needed recruiting by food. ἄχρι … οὗ … until it began to be day: i.e. in the interval between the last-mentioned occurrence and daybreak, Paul employed the time, &c. προσδοκῶντες ] waiting the cessation of the storm. The following expressions, ἄσιτ . διατ ., μηθ . προσλ ., are spoken hyperbolically, and cannot mean literally that they had abstained entirely from food during the whole fortnight. πρός with a gen. is only found here in N. T.: compare ref., and ἐλπίσαςπρὸςἑωυτοῦτὸνχρησμὸνεἶναι , Herodot. i. 75. 35. “ Paul neither celebrates an ἀγάπη (Olsh.), nor acts as the father of a family (Meyer), but simply as a pious Jew, who asks a blessing before he eats.” De Wette. 36. When we reflect who were included in these πάντες ,— the soldiers and their centurion, the sailors, and passengers of various nations and dispositions, it shews remarkably the influence acquired by Paul over all who sailed with him. 37. Explanatory of πάντες : q. d., ‘ and this was no small number; for we were,’ &c. 38. ἐκούφ . τ . πλοῖον ] See above on ver. 18. This wheat was either the remainder of the cargo, part of which had been disposed of in ver. 18— or was the store for their sustenance, the cargo having consisted of some other merchandise. And this latter is much the more likely, for two reasons: (1) that σῖτος is mentioned here and not in ver. 18, which it would have been in all probability, had the material cast out there been the same as here; and (2) that the fact is related immediately after we are assured that they were satisfied with food: from whence we may infer almost with certainty that ὁσῖτος is the ship’ s provision, of part of which they had been partaking. It is a sufficient answer to Mr. Smith’ s objection to this (“ to suppose that they had remaining such a quantity as would lighten the ship is quite inconsistent with the previous abstinence,” p. 99), that the ship was provisioned for the voyage to Italy for 276 persons, and that for the last fourteen days hardly any food had been touched. This would leave surely enough to be of consequence in a ship ready to sink from hour to hour. 39. It may be and has been suggested, that some of the Alexandrian seamen must have known Malta;— but we may answer with Mr. Smith that “ St. Paul’ s Bay is remote from the great harbour, and possesses no marked features by which it might be recognized.” p. 100. κόλπον … ἔχοντ . αἰγιαλόν ] a creek having a sandy beach. Some Commentators suppose that it should be αἰγιαλὸνἔχοντακόλπον , since every creek must have a beach: but what is meant is, a creek with a smooth, sandy beach, as distinguished from a rocky inlet. ἐξῶσαι ] Not, ‘ to thrust in,’ as E. V., but to strand, ‘ to run a-ground:’ so Thucyd., ref., and more in Wetst. 40. (1) They cut away all four anchors (the περι may allude to the cutting round each cable in order to sever it, or to the going round and cutting all four), and left them in the sea . This they did to save time, and not to encumber the waterlogged ship with their additional weight. (2) They let loose the ropes which tied up the rudders. “ Ancient ships were steered by two large paddles, one on each quarter. When anchored by the stern in a gale, it would be necessary to lift them out of the water, and secure them by lashings or rudder bands, and to loose these bands when the ship was again got under way.” Smith, p. 101. (3) They raised (ἐπαίρειν , ‘ to raise up,’ contrary to κατέχειν , ‘ to haul down,’ a sail) their ἀρτέμων to the wind. It would be impossible in the limits of a note to give any abstract of the long and careful reasoning by which Mr. Smith has made it appear that the ‘ artemon’ was the foresail of the ancient ships. I will only notice from him, that the rendering ‘ mainsail’ in our E. V. was probably a mistaken translation from Bayfius or De Baif, the earliest of the modern writers ‘ de re navali,’ and perhaps the only one extant when the translation was made: he says, “ est autem artemon velum majus navis, ut in Actis Apost. xxvii … etenim etiam nunc nomen Veneti vulgo retinent et artemon vocant.” These words, ‘ velum majus,’ they rendered by mainsail; whereas the largest sail of the Venetian ships at the time was the foresail. The French ‘ artimon,’ even now in use, means the sail at the stern (mizen). But this is no clue to the ancient meaning, any more than is our word mizen to the meaning of the French misaine, which is the foresail. The usual technical name of the foresail was δόλων , that of the mizen, ἐπίδρομος . See on the whole question, Smith’ s Dissertation on the Ships of the Ancients, appended to his Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul. Mr. Pusey informs me that Syr. translates ἀρτέμωνα by ‘ armnon parvum’ (armnon being its word for σκεῦος , ver. 17), and syr. in a note says that ἀρτέμων is “ a small armnon at the ship’ s head.” τῇπνεούσῃ ] scil. αὔρᾳ . Dat. commodi;— for the wind (to fill);— or (according to Meyer and De Wette) of direction,— to the wind, (4) They made for the beach. The expression, κατέχεινεἰς … for “ to steer to land,” is not uncommon in the classics: cf. examples in Wetst. It seems to get this meaning by a pregnant construction, “ to keep the ship (or, to keep one’ s course in the ship) in hand (and direct it) towards.… ” 41. τόπονδιθάλασσον ] At the west end of St. Paul’ s Bay is an island, Selmoon or Salmonetta, which they could not have known to be such from their place of an chorage. This island is separated from the mainland by a channel of about 100 yards wide, communicating with the outer sea. Just within this island, in all probability, was the place where the ship struck, in a place where two seas met. ἐπέκειλαν ] ἐπικέλλειν is used by Homer (ref.) in the sense of ‘ adpellere navem.’ Its commoner use is intransitive: see Hom. ib. ver. 138, and Apollon. Rhod. ii. 352, 382; iii. 575. In Od. ε . 114, it is said of the ship itself, ἠπείρῳἐπέκελσε . The ἐποκέλλειν of the rec. is used several times by Thucydides, and has the same twofold usage: cf. Thucyd. iii. 12; iv. 28; viii. 102: they ran the ship a-ground. “ The circumstance which follows, would, but for the peculiar nature of the bottom of St. Paul’ s Bay, be difficult to account for. The rocks of Malta disintegrate into very minute particles of sand and clay, which when acted on by the currents, or by surface agitation, form a deposit of tenacious clay: but in still water, where these causes do not act, mud is found; but it is only in the creeks where there are no currents, and at such a depth as to be undisturbed by the waves, that mud occurs.… A ship therefore, impelled by the force of the gale into a creek with a bottom such as that laid down in the chart, would strike a bottom of mud, graduating into tenacious clay, into which the fore part would fix itself and be held fast, while the stern was exposed to the force of the waves.” Smith, p. 103. 42. ἵνα gives not only the purpose, but the substance of the βουλή . Their counsel was,— to kill, &c.: this it was, and to this it tended. διαφύγοι has probably been a correction to suit ἐγένετο . But the subjunctive after the past is merely a mixture of construction of the historic past with the historic present, and is used where the scene is intended to be vividly set before the reader. 43. ἀποῤῥίψαντας is reflective, sc. ἑαυτούς . 44. τοὺςλοιπούς ] scil. ἐπὶτῆνγῆνἐξιέναι . τινωντῶνἀπὸτ . π .] probably, as E. V., broken pieces of the ship:— some of the parts of the ship: the σανίδες being whole planks, perhaps of the decks. διασωθ . ἐπί ] may be = διας . κ . ἀφικέσθαιἐπί ,— a constructio præ gnans, but this need not be, as διασωθῆναι is to get safe through, and ἐπί is simply the direction in which the act is carried out. 28:1. Μελίτη ] The whole course of the narrative has gone to shew that this can be no other than Malta. The idea that it is not Malta, but Meleda, an island off the Illyrian coast in the Gulf of Venice, seems to be first found in Constantine Porphyrogenitus, de Adminiculis Imperii, p. 36— νῆσοςμεγάλητὰΜέλεταἦτοιτὸΜαλοζεᾶται , ἣνἐνταῖςπράξεσιτ . ἀποστ . ὁἅγιοςΛουκᾶςμέμνηται , Μελίτηνταύτηνπροσαγορεύων . It has been adopted by our own countrymen, Bryant and Dr. Falconer, and abroad by Giorgi, Rhoer, and more recently Paulus. It rests principally on three mistakes:— 1. the meaning of the name Adria (see above on ch. 27:27),— 2. the fancy that there are no poisonous serpents in Malta (ver. 3),— 3. the notion that the Maltese would not have been called βάρβαροι . The idea itself, when compared with the facts, is preposterous enough. Its supporters are obliged to place Fair Havens on the north side of Crete,— and to suppose the wind to have been the hot Sirocco (compare ver. 2). Further notices of this question, and of the state of Malta at the time, will be found in the notes on the following verses. Observe, their previous state of ignorance of the island is expressed by the imperf. ἐπεγίνωσκον ;— the act of recognition by the aor. ἐπέγνωμεν [ch. 27:30]. 2. βάρβαροι ] A term implying very much what our word natives does, when speaking of any little-known or new place. They were not Greek colonists, therefore they were barbarians (Romans 1:14). If it be necessary strictly to vindicate the term, the two following citations will do so: ἔστιδὲἡνῆσοςαὕτη (Malta) Φοινίκωνἄποικος , Diod. Sic. v. 12.— ἐνδὲΣικελὶᾳἔθνηβάρβαρατάδεἐστίν , Ἐδυνοί , Σικανοί , Σικελοί , Φοίνικες , Τρῶες , Scylax, Periplus, p.4. προσελάβ .] received us, not to their fire (Meyer), but as in reff. ὑετόν ] ‘ Post ingentes ventos solent imbres sequi.’ Grot. τὸνἐφεστ .] not, ‘ which came on suddenly’ (Meyer), but which was on us:— another instance of overlooking the present sense of ἕστηκα . ψῦχος ] This is decisive against the Sirocco, which is a hot and sultry wind even so late as the month of November, and moreover (Smith, p. 109) seldom lasts more than three days. 3. συστρέψαντος ] “ vincti officium fuciebat submisse, aliis quoque inserviens.” Bengel. φρυγάνων ] From the circumstance of the concealed viper, these were probably heaps of neglected wood gathered in the forest. ἐπιθέντοςκ .τ .λ .] The difficulty here is, that there are now no venomous serpents in Malta. But as Mr. Smith observes, “ no person who has studied the changes which the operations of man have produced on the animals of any country, will be surprised that a particular species of reptiles should have disappeared from Malta. My friend, the Rev. Mr. Landsborough, in his interesting excursions in Arran, has repeatedly noticed the gradual disappearance of the viper from the island since it has become more frequented. Perhaps there is no where a surface of equal extent in so artificial a state as that of Malta is at the present day,— and no where has the aboriginal forest been more completely cleared. We need not therefore be surprised that, with the disappearance of the woods, the noxious reptiles which infested them should also have disappeared.” pp. 111, 112. The reading ἐκτ . θέρμ . has been an explanation of ἀπό , which here signifies from locally, not ‘ on account of.’ To suppose the converse (“ the ἀπό was adopted by those who thought the sense was ‘ on account of the fire,’  ” Dr. Bloomf.),— is simply absurd; for 1) no man ever could suppose the sense of ἐκ in such a connexion to be this: and 2) even if any one did, he would not have substituted another ambiguous preposition, ἀπό . Paul had placed the faggot on the fire, and was settling or arranging it in its place, when the viper glided out of the heat and fixed on his hand. διεξελθ . gives the more precise sense, and is a less usual word than ἐξελθ . The serpent glided out through the sticks. καθῆψεν ] attached itself: a usage unexampled in earlier Greek. The narrative leaves no doubt that the bite did veritably take place. 4. The natives, who were sure to know, here positively declared it to have been a venomous serpent. I make these remarks to guard against the disingenuous shifts of rationalists and semi-rationalists, who will have us believe either that the viper did not bite, or that if it did, it was not venomous. πάντωςφον . ἐστ .] ‘ vincula videbant,’ Beng. The idea of his being a murderer is not to be accounted for (as Elsner, Wolf, Kuin.) by the member which was bitten (for this would fit any crime which the hand could commit),— nor by supposing (Heinsius) the bite of a serpent to have been the Maltese punishment for murder; it is accounted for by the obviousness of the crime as belonging to the most notorious delinquents, and the aptness of the assumed punishment,— death for death. ἡδίκη ] Justice, or Nemesis. What the Phœ nician islanders called her, does not appear; but the idea is common to all religions. 5. “ Luke does not so much as hint, that any divine intervention took place.” De Wette. True enough: but why? Because Luke believed that the very dullest of his readers would understand it without any such hint. According to these rationalists, a fortunate concurrence of accidents must have happened to the Apostles, totally unprecedented in history or probability. Besides, did not the natives themselves in this case testify to the fact? None were so well qualified to judge of the virulence of the serpent,— none so capable of knowing that the hanging on Paul’ s hand implied the communication of the venom:— yet they change him from a murderer into a god, on seeing what took place. Need we further evidence, that the divine power which they mistakenly attributed to Paul himself, was really exerted on his behalf, by Him who had said ὄφειςἀροῦσιν See below on ver. 8. The fact that St. Luke understood what the natives said, is adduced by Wordsworth as another proof (see his and my note on ch. 14:11) that the Apostles and Evangelists commonly understood unknown tongues. But such an inference here has absolutely nothing to rest on. Are we to suppose that these βάρβαροι had no means of intercourse with Greek sailors? 6. Both these, the inflammation of the body, and the falling down dead suddenly, are recorded as results of the bite of the African serpents. Mr. Humphry quotes from Lucan, ix. 790, ‘ Nasidium Marsi cultorem torridus agri Percussit Prester : illi rubor igneus ora Succendit, tenditque cutem, pereunte figura:’ and, of the bite of the asp, ix. 815: ‘ At tibi, Leve miser, fixus præ cordia pressit Niliaca serpente cruor: nulloque dolore Testatus morsus, subita caligine mortem Accipis, et somno Stygias descendis ad umbras.’ προσδοκώντων ] not, as E. V., ‘ when they had looked,’ — but when they were long looking. μεταβαλ .] There is no need to supply τ . γνώμην , though it is sometimes expressed:— so οἱπλεῖστοιτῶνἀνθρώπωνκ . μεταβάλλονταιπρὸςτὰπαρόντα , κ . ταῖςτύχαιςεἴκουσι , Lysias, pro Nicia fratre (Wetst.): μεταβάλλεσθαιδοκεῖκαὶοὐδὲνἔχεινπιστὸνἡπόλις , Demosth. pro Megalop. (id.),— in neither of which places can τ . γνώμην well be understood. θεόν ] “ Comparabant vel Herculi qui in ulnis adhuc jacens angues superavit: vel Æ sculapio, qui cum serpente pingitur.” Wetst. and so also Grot. But so much as this can hardly be inferred: nor are we sure of the theogony of these Phœ nician barbarians. 7. πρῶτοςΜελιταίων was probably an official title: the more so, as Publius can hardly have borne the appellation from his estates, during his father’ s lifetime. Two inscriptions have been found in Malta, at Citta Vecchia, which seem to establish this view: a Greek one, containing the words ακκιοςκυρ . προυδινςιππευςρωμπρωτοςμελιταιωνκαιπατρωναρξαςκαιαμφιπολευςασθεω .… , and a Latin one, with the same title, ‘ Mel. primus.’ If so (and his Roman name further confirms it), Publius was legatus of the Præ tor of Sicily, to whose province Malta belonged; see Cic. in Ver. ii. 4. 18. ἡμᾶς ] Hardly perhaps more than Paul and his companions, and, it may be, Julius. At ver. 10, a special reason had occurred for his honouring Paul and his company: at present, his hospitality must have been prompted by the courtesy of Julius, who could hardly fail himself to be included in it. The three days were probably till they could find a suitable lodging. 8. πυρετοῖς ] Hippocrates also uses the plural. It probably indicates the recurrence of fever fits. δυσεντερίῳ ] δυσεντερία , Ἀττικῶς · -ριον , Ἕλληνες . Mœ ris;— dysentery. Dr. Falconer makes this an argument against ‘ Melita Africana’ being meant. “ Such a place, dry and rocky, and remarkably healthy, was not likely to produce a disease which is almost peculiar to moist situations.” But Mr. Smith answers, that the changed circumstances of the island might produce this change also: and besides, that he is informed by a physician of Valetta, that the disease is by no means uncommon in Malta. ἐπιθεὶςτ . χεῖραςαὐτῷ ] It is remarkable, that so soon after the ‘ taking up of serpents,’ we should read of Paul having ‘ laid his hands on the sick and they recovered.’ See the two in close connexion, Mark 16:18. 10. τιμαῖς ] The ordinary interpretation of this as rewards, gifts, may be right, but is not necessary. In all the passages quoted to support it, ref. Sir., Cicero, ad Diversos, xvi. 9 , the expression τιμή is general, and the context renders an inference probable as to what sort of τιμή is meant. See especially 1 Timothy 5:3, 1 Timothy 5:17 and notes. Here there is no such unavoidable indication, whereas the other meaning is rendered probable by the form of the sentence, which opposes to these τιμαί , bestowed on them during their whole stay, τὰπρὸςτ . χρείας , with which they were loaded at their departure. Render it therefore honoured us with many honours . τὴνχρείαν has perhaps been an alteration after St. Paul’ s ἅπαξκ . δὶςεἰςτὴνχρείανμοιἐπέμψατε , Philippians 4:16. 11. They probably set sail (see on ch. 27:9) not earlier than the sixth of the ides of March (i.e. Mar_10). παρασήμῳΔιοσκούροις ] with the sign (of) the Dioscuri, as ὀνόματιΠοπλίῳ , ver. 7; not, ‘ with the Dioscuri as a sign.’ So in the inscription found by the Rev. G. Brown at Lutro (Phœ nice) in Crete, given at length in the excursus at the end of the prolegg. to Acts, we have “ gubernator navis parasemo Isopharia.” The ancient ships carried at their prow a painted or carved representation of the sign which furnished their name, and at the stern a similar one of their tutelar deity. Sometimes these were one and the same, as appears to have been the case with this ship. Cyril, in Cat., says, ἔθοςἀείπωςἐνταῖςἈλεξανδρέωνμάλισταναῦσιπρόςγετῇπρώρῃδεξιάτεκαὶεἰςεὐώνυμαγραφὰςεἶναιτοιαύτας . See Virg. Æ u. x. 209; Ovid, Trist. i. 9. 1; Pers. Sat. vi. 30. Castor and Pollux, sons of Jupiter and Leda, were considered the tutelar deities of sailors. See Hor. Od. i. 3. 2; 12.28. 12. Syracuse is about eighty miles, a day’ s sail, from Malta. 13. περιελθόντες apparently denotes the roundabout course of a vessel tacking with an adverse wind. That the wind was not favourable, follows from ἐπιγενομένου below. Mr. Lewin’ s account is, “ as the wind was westerly, and they were under shelter of the high mountainous range of Etna on their left, they were obliged to stand out to sea in order to fill their sails, and so came to Rhegium by a circuitous sweep.” And he cites a case of a passage from Syracuse to Rhegium, in which a similar circuit was taken for a similar reason, p. 736. The day at Rhegium, as perhaps the three at Syracuse before, was spent probably in waiting for the wind. ἐπιγ . νότ .] the South wind having sprung up,— succeeded the one which blew before. δευτεραῖοι ] viz. after leaving Rhegium: a distance of about 180 nautical miles. Ποτιόλους ] Puteoli (anciently Dicæ archia, Strab. v. 4, now Puzzuoli) was the most sheltered part of the bay of Naples. It was the principal port of Southern Italy, and, in particular, formed the great emporium for the Alexandrian wheat ships. Strabo, xvii. 1. Seneca (Ep. 77) gives a graphic account (cited by Smith, p. 117) of the arrival of the Alexandrine fleet at Puteoli: “ Subito nobis hodie Alexandrinæ naves apparuerunt, quæ præ mitti solent et nuntiare secuturæ classis adventum; tabellarias vocant. Gratus illarum adspectus Campaniæ est. Omnis in pilis Puteolorum turba constitit, et ex ipso genere velorum, Alexandrinas quamvis in magna turba navium intelligit, solis enim licet supparum (the topsail) intendere quod in alto omnes habent naves. Nulla enim res æ quo adjuvat cursum, quam summa pars veli; illinc maxime navis urgetur. Itaque quoties ventus increbuit majorque est quam expedit, antenna submittitur, minus habet virium flatus ex humili: cum intrare capreas et promontorium ex quo ‘ Alta procellos speculatur vertice Pallas,’ cæ teræ velo jubentur esse contentæ , supparum Alexandrinarum insigne est.” 14. These Christians were perhaps Alexandrines, as the commerce was so considerable between the two places. ουτως ] after this stay with them: implying that the request was complied with. 15. The brethren at Rome had heard probably by special message sent by some of their fellow-voyagers. See a detailed account of the stages of the journey not here mentioned, in C. and H. ii., pp. 438 ff. τὰπερὶἡμῶν ] the news concerning us, i.e. that we were coming. ἈππίουΦόρουκ . Τ . Ταβερνῶν ] Luke writes as one of the travellers to Rome, who would come on Appii Forum (forty-three miles from Rome) first. It was on the Via Appia (“ Censura clara eo anno (u.c. 442) Appii Claudii, et C. Plautii fuit: memoriæ tamen felicioris ad posteros nomen Appii, quod viam munivit et aquam in urbem duxit, eaque unus perfecit.” Liv. 9:29), which leaving Rome by the Porta Capena, passed through the Pontine marshes, as far as Capua. Being not far from the coast (Strabo, v. 233), it was the resort of sailors (‘ Forum Appî differtum nautis, cauponibus atque malignis.’ Hor. Sat. i. 5. 3. It has been suggested to me, that these may have been sailors belonging to the canal boats, as Appii Forum is too far inland to have been resorted to by sailors from the coast), and an unpleasant halting-place for travellers, having, besides, ‘ aqua deterrima’ (ib. ver. 7). The ‘ Tres Tabernæ ’ was a ‘ taberna deversoria,’ or way-side inn, ten miles nearer Rome. Cicero mentions both in the letters to Atticus, ii. 10, ‘ Ab Appii Foro hora quarta: dederam aliam paullo ante Tribus Tabernis.’ The brethren were in two parties: some had come the longer, others the shorter distance, to meet the Apostle. We have in Antt. xvii.12.1, an account of the pretended Alexander, on his way to Rome, landing at Dicæ archia (Puteoli, see above), and it is added, προσελθόντοςεἰςτὴνῬώμηνλόγουτοῦπερὶαὐτοῦ , πᾶντὸτῇδεἸουδαίωνπλῆθοςὑπαντιάζοντεςἐξῇεσαν . Suet. relates, on Caligula’ s return from Germany, “ populi R. sexum, æ tatem, ordinem omnem usque ad vicesimum lapidem effudisse se.” Cal. c. 4. And Tacit. Ann. iii. 5, speaking of the honours paid by Augustus to the body of Drusus, says, “ ipsum quippe asperrimo hiemis Ticinum usque progressum, neque abscedentem a corpore simul urbem intravisse.” θάρσος ] Both encouragement as to his own arrival, as a prisoner, in the vast metropolis,— in seeing such affection, to which he was of all men most sensible; and encouragement as to his great work so long contemplated, and now about to commence in Rome,— in seeing so promising a beginning for him to build on. 16. [The omission of the words ὁἑκατ … to στρατοπεδάρχῳ [though too strongly attested to allow us to retain them in the text] may have been originally caused by the transcriber’ s eye passing from -αρχος to -αρχω , as in Syr. : this done, the emendation of the text so as to construe by ejecting ὁἑκατόνταρχος was obvious. It does not follow, from the singular being used, that there was but one præ fectus præ torio at this time, and that one Burrus;— though it may have been so. The prefect mentioned might be one of the two who preceded Burrus, or one of the two who followed him— so that no chronological datum is here contained (against Wieseler, who builds upon it: Chron. der Apostg. p. 86). He attempts to meet the above argument by accounting it improbable that the prisoners would be consigned to either of the prefects; this may have been so,— but they certainly would be delivered to one, not to both; and the fact might well be thus related. Luke is not so precise in Roman civil and military matters, as that he necessarily should in this case have written ἑνὶτῶνστρατοπεδάρχων . The ‘ præ fectus præ torio’ was the person officially put in charge with the prisoners sent from the provinces: so Plin. Epp. x. 65, “ Vinctus mitti ad præ fectos præ torii mei debet.” The præ torian camp was outside the Porta Viminalis, where it had been fixed and fortified by Sejanus: see Tacit. Ann. iv. 2. [It was incorporated in Aurelian’ s walls, and now forms a square projection from their line.]] ἐπετράπητῷΠ .] This permission probably resulted from the letters of Festus, expressing that no crime was laid to the charge of Paul; perhaps also partly from the favour of Julius, and his report of the character and bearing of Paul on the journey. στρατιώτῃ ] a Præ torian, to whom he was chained; see below, ver. 20; and note on ch. 24:23. 17. The banishment of Jews from Rome (ch. 18:2) had either tacitly or openly been abrogated some time before this. Priscilla and Aquila had returned when the Epistle to the Romans was written, Romans 16:3. Paul was naturally anxious to set himself right with the Jews at Rome— to explain the cause of his being sent there, in case no message had been received by them concerning him from Judæ a,— and to do away if possible with the unfavourable prejudice which such letters, if received, would have created respecting his character. The fact of his sending for them, and their coming to him, seems to shew (as in the gloss on ver. 16: see digest) that he was not imprisoned in the Præ torian camp, but was already in a private lodging. 18. ἐβούλ . ἀπολῦσαι ] This may have been at ch. 25:8. The possibility of such a release is asserted by Agrippa, ch. 26:32. 19. ‘ My appeal was a defensive and necessary step— not an offensive one, to complain of my nation.’ The inf. aor. of the rec. would point to some one definite charge: κατηγορεῖν means ‘ to play the accuser against my nation in any thing:’ indicating the habit. 20. παρεκάλεσα is here in its primary meaning, I have called you to me. διὰταύτ . τ . αἰτ ., for the reason just stated: because I have no hostile feeling to my nation. Then ἕνεκενγὰρ … adds another motive; for not only so, but I may well wish to see and speak with you, being a prisoner for the hope of Israel (see ch. 26:6, and notes). 21. It may seem strange that they had received no tidings concerning him. But, as Meyer well remarks, (1) before his appeal, the Jews in Judæ a had no definite reason to communicate with the Jews in Rome respecting him, having no expectation that Paul, then a prisoner in Judæ a, and the object of their conspiracies there, would ever go to Rome, or come into connexion with their brethren there. And (2) since his appeal, it would have been hardly possible for them to have sent messengers who should have arrived before him. For his voyage followed soon after his appeal (ch. 25:13; 27:1), and was so late in the year, that for the former reason it is as unlikely that any deputation from them should have left before him, as for the latter, after him. Had any left within a few days, the same storm would have in all probability detained them over the winter, and they could not certainly have made a much quicker voyage than Paul’ s ship to Puteoli. Still, as casual, non-official tidings might have reached them, Paul shewed this anxiety. It appears, however, that none had come. Olshausen’ s view, that the banishment of the Jews from Rome under Claudius had interrupted the relations between the Roman and Judæ an Jews, is hardly probable: see on ver. 17. 22. The δέ and μέν are inverted: “ μέν si dicitur non sequente δέ , aut intelligi potest δέ , aut omittitur illa pars orationis in qua sequi debebat δέ , quæ aliquando præ cedit.” Herm. ad Viger., p. 839. It precedes, because it connects with the foregoing. ἀξ . παρὰσοῦ , we beg of thee: see reff. τῆςαἱρ . ταύτ .] To which they perhaps inferred that Paul belonged, from ver. 20: or they might have heard thus much generally respecting him by rumour, though they had received no special message. Their short notice of Christianity is perhaps the result of caution, seeing as they did the favour shewn by the authorities towards Paul (see Hackett, p. 392): or perhaps of dissimulation. Many Commentators have noticed the omission of all mention of the Christian Church at Rome, and of Paul’ s connexion with or work among them. And some recently in Germany (e.g. Bauer) have called in question the credibility of the Acts on this account. But without any reason: for the work of the Apostle among churches already founded is not the subject of our history, and is seldom related by Luke, without a special reason. Of the three years at Ephesus (ch. 20:31),— the year and a half (ch. 18:11), and three months (ch. 20:3) at Corinth, we know from the narrative nothing that took place among the Christians themselves. Besides, one great object of this history is to shew forth Paul as working out the Lord’ s implied command (ch. 1:8), to preach the Gospel ‘ to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile,’ and, having every where done this, it is but natural that he should open his commission in Rome by assembling and speaking to the Jews. 23. τ . ξενίαν ] Probably the μίσθωμα of ver. 30: hardly, as Olsh., the house of Aquila. πείθων ] persuading: not ‘ teaching,’ as Kuin., nor ‘ trying to persuade.’ Meyer well remarks,— Paul, on his part, subjectively, performed that indicated by πείθειν ; that this did not produce its objective effect in all his hearers, does not alter the meaning of the word. 25. εἰπόντος ] they departed, but not before Paul had said one saying. It is very remarkable, that the same prophetic quotation with which our Lord opened his teaching by parables [Matthew 13:14, Matthew 13:15], should form the solemn close of the historic Scriptures. 26. the πορεύθ . κ . εἰπόν is referred to himself, in his application of the prophecy. These words are not cited by our Lord (Matthew 13:14). 28. τοῦτο was probably omitted as superfluous, and perhaps to suit Luke 3:6. It adds greatly to the force: this, the message of God’ s salvation, q. d. ‘ there is no other for those who reject this.’ αὐτοὶκαὶἀκ .] They will also (besides having it sent to them) hear it. “ Quod expertus erat Paulus in multis Asiæ et Europæ urbibus, ut apud gentes sermonis felicior esset seges, idem et nunc futurum prospiciebat.” Grot. [29. This verse has not the usual characteristic of spurious passages,— the variety of readings in those manuscripts which contain it. It may perhaps, after all, have been omitted as appearing superfluous after ver. 25. 30, 31. It is evident that Paul was not released from custody, but continued with the soldier who kept him,— (1) from the expressions here; he received all who came in to him, but we do not hear of his preaching in the synagogue or elsewhere: he preached and taught with all boldness and unhindered, both being mentioned as remarkable circumstances, and implying that there were reasons why this could hardly have been expected: and (2) from his constantly speaking of himself in the Epistles written during this period, as a prisoner, see Ephesians 6:19, Ephesians 6:20; Colossians 4:3, Colossians 4:4; Philemon 1:9; Philipp. passim. On the whole question regarding the chronology of his imprisonment,— and the reason of this abrupt ending of the history, see Prolegg. to Acts, § iv. 4-7:— and on its probable termination and the close of St. Paul’ s life, see the Prolegg. to the Pastoral Epistles, § ii. 7 ff.