The Acts of the Apostles Explained

by Joseph Addison Alexander

NEW YORK

CHARLES SCRIBNER 377 BROADWAY

1857

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 14

CHAPTER 15

CHAPTER 16

CHAPTER 17

CHAPTER 18

CHAPTER 19

CHAPTER 20

CHAPTER 21

CHAPTER 22

CHAPTER 23

CHAPTER 24

CHAPETR 25

CHAPTER 26

PREFACE

THE materials of this book were collected in a course of academical instruction, and prepared for publication, in the first instance, with a view to the peculiar wants of ministers and students. But after the first chapter was in type, the writer was induced to recommence the work upon a new plan, in the hope of making it more generally useful, by the reduction of its size, and the omission of all matter supposed to be interesting only to professional or educated readers. This will account for the prominence given to the English version, the exclusion (for the most part) of the Greek text, and the absence of any detailed reference to other writers. It will be found, however, that the constant subject of the exposition is the inspired original, and that one of its main objects is to perfect the translation, so as to place the English reader as nearly as possible on the same footing with the student of the Greek text. In attempting to effect the change of form already mentioned, it has sometimes been difficult to obliterate all trace of the original design; but this, it is hoped, will be considered rather a literary blemish than a practical inconvenience. The numerous citations have been carefully selected, for the benefit of those who wish to master the analogy and usage of the Scriptures; and the frequent reference from one part of the commentary to another is intended to fit it for occasional consultation as well as for continuous perusal. It may not be superfluous to add, that the purpose of the work, as indicated by the title, is simple explanation of the sense and illustration of the history, leaving all further uses, and among the rest all practical improvement, to those who may avail themselves of its assistance, and especially to such as may employ it in historical as well as exegetical instruction.

PRINCETON, June 1, 1857.

INTRODUCTION

THE Biblical History consists of two great parts, contained in the Old and New Testaments respectively. The New Testament portion naturally falls into two divisions; the Gospel History, or Life of Christ, from his birth to his ascension; and the Apostolical History, from his ascension to the close of the canon. The Apostolical History may again be subdivided into two parts; a connected narrative, extending from our Lord's ascension to the second year of Paul's captivity at Rome; and a body of detached and incidental statements, scattered through the other books of the New Testament.

The materials of this last class may be used to illustrate and complete the other, but are not to be confounded or incorporated with it. This is forbidden, first, by the uncertain chronological relations of these insulated data to the formal history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles. For example, the account of Paul's visits to Jerusalem and Corinth, as given in the Acts and in his own Epistles, although no doubt perfectly consistent, cannot be reduced to one harmonic view, except by probable approximation, quite sufficient for all necessary uses, whether exegetical or apologetical, but not for a precise specification of the corresponding points in the collateral or parallel authorities. The same thing is still more emphatically true as to the dates of Paul's Epistles, some of which are still disputed, and the rest, though commonly agreed upon, are still not so absolutely certain as to justify their being made a part of the authoritative narrative, and put upon a level with the facts there positively stated.

Another objection to the actual insertion of these supplementary details into the history is the violence done to its integrity and unity, as being not a mere collection of materials but a regular historical composition, the plan and character of which depend as much on the omission or exclusion as upon the introduction, both of general topics and minute particulars. The choice between these rests exclusively with the historian, and any foreign interference, though it may enrich the composition as a storehouse of materials, must impair its oneness, as an intellectual creation, and the realization of a definite idea. The omissions in any of the sacred histories are not inadvertent or fortuitous, much less the fruit of ignorance or want of skill, to be supplied by subsequent interpolation, but belong to the original design and must be left untouched, excepting in the way of illustration and interpretation. This is the use which it is here proposed to make of the detached and incidental facts found elsewhere, in explaining the Acts of the Apostles, as a complete and independent history, constructed on a definite, consistent plan, designed to make a definite impression and to answer a specific purpose.

This description can be fully verified by nothing less than a detailed examination of the book itself; but a compendious statement of the grounds on which it rests will be given in its proper place below, as a part of this general introduction. In the mean time its truth may be assumed and used to prove that the book is not a mere farrago of heterogeneous fragments, or a collection of independent documents, or a series of anecdotes or desultory recollections, but the continuous and systematic product of a single mind. The conclusion thus drawn from the unity of purpose traceable throughout the book is confirmed by its marked uniformity of style and manner. While the Greek of this book is comparatively classical and pure, it has peculiarities of language, not the less real because slight and unimportant in themselves, distinguishing its style from every other except that of the third Gospel, which, besides a general resemblance not to be mistaken, coincides with it in some of its most striking singularities of thought and diction. This remarkable coincidence creates of course a strong presumption that the two books which exhibit it are works of the same author. This presumption is still further strengthened by the fact, that the two together make up an unbroken history, the one beginning where the other ends, to wit, at the Ascension. It is further strengthened by the later book's purporting on its face to be the sequel or continuation of another, the contents of which, as there described (Acts 1:1), exactly correspond to those of the third gospel. It is still further strengthened by the circumstance that both books are inscribed to the same man (Theophilus), and seem to have been primarily meant for his instruction. All these considerations go to confirm, and are themselves confirmed by, the unanimous tradition of the ancient church, that the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are works of the same author.

In attempting to determine who the author was, we find that this, like all the other histories of Scripture, is anonymous. Even the titles of the Pentateuch and Gospels, though correct, are traditional, and form no part of the text itself. This usage is the more remarkable because the contrary is uniformly true as to the prophecies, in all of which the writer's name is given, not excepting the Apocalypse, in which John names himself repeatedly, although he never does so in his Gospel, nor in either of his three Epistles.

When we look into the Acts for some internal indication of its origin, we find in certain parts (ch. 16, 20, 21, 27, 28) the first person plural (we and us), implying that the writer was an eye-witness of the circumstances there recorded, which in all such cases are detailed with an unusual precision and minuteness as to times and places, showing that the form of speech in question is not merely accidental or unmeaning, but expressive of a personal and lively recollection on the part of the historian.

Some have attempted to account for this phenomenon by supposing that these portions of the narrative were taken from the notes or journals of those actually present, and incorporated without change into the history. But this is to get rid of a supposed improbability by means of one still greater, since the supposition of two writers is less obvious and natural than that of one. For if we may assume without proof that the historian derived this part of his materials from one who witnessed the events, much more may we assume that the historian witnessed them himself. It may be said, indeed, that if this were the case, the same form of expression would have been employed throughout. To this it may be answered, in the first place, that the writer, although constantly present, might refer to himself only when directly acting or concerned in the events related; and in the next place, that he may not have been always personally present, which, as we shall see, is probably the true solution.

Another objection to the supposition of incorporated documents from other sources is, that a writer who was capable of planning and composing such a history as this, would be incapable of thus inserting extracts from the manuscripts of others in their crude state, without either intimating that they were so or assimilating them in form to his own context.

The only remaining supposition is, that the writer of the history was at least occasionally one of Paul's travelling companions. Now of these we know that some of the most eminent, particularly Silas and Timothy, were present upon some of the occasions here recorded, and we therefore naturally think of them, or one of them, as probably the writer. But to this there are objections both internal and external. The use of the first person begins at Troas and ceases at Philippi (16:10, 18); but Silas and Timothy had joined Paul long before (15:40; 16:3), and were with him in Thessalonica and Berea (17:1, 14), and afterwards rejoined him in Corinth (18:5.) Yet in all these movements, there is no indication of the writer's presence by the use of the first person. And when this peculiar form of speech does re-appear, it is so employed as to distinguish Timothy at least from the historian, by expressly saying, "these (among whom he is by name included) going before, waited for us at Troas" (20:4, 5.) Another objection, both to Timothy and Silas, as the author of the history, is that so eminent a name would have been perpetuated by tradition, which is only too apt to connect such names with famous writings and achievements, as for instance to make all the persons mentioned in the Acts and Apostolical Epistles bishops of the places where they seem to have resided. In the present case it would be wholly unaccountable, that such names as those of Timothy and Silas should be dropped or exchanged for one otherwise unknown.

This is the name of Luke, whom an ancient and uniform tradition recognizes as the author, both of the third Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. The only supposition that accounts for the origin of this tradition is the simple supposition of its truth. It may therefore be added to the internal evidence already stated, as a ground for the conclusion that the writer of both books was Luke, who is three times named in Paul's epistles, once as a companion (2 Tim. 4:11), once as a fellow-labourer (Philem. 24), and once as a beloved physician (Col. 4:11.) This is absolutely all the information with respect to Luke afforded directly by the books of the New Testament, though other facts have been deduced from these by inference and combination. The name, in its original form (Lucas), is most probably contracted from Lucanus, Lucius, or Lucilius, this termination (as) being commonly used in such abbreviations, as in Demas from Demetrius, Silas from Silvanus, Antipas from Antipater, &c. On the ground that such contracted names were often borne by freedmen or emancipated slaves, and that Greek slaves were in that age the physicians of their Roman masters, Grotius builds the fanciful hypothesis that Luke was a freedman of the Lucian or Lucilian family. A less extravagant but still precarious conjecture would identify him with the Lucius of Acts 13:1 and Rom. 16:21. Connected with the former name, perhaps, is the old tradition of his being born or resident at Antioch, and there first introduced to Paul's acquaintance. From the way in which he is supposed to be distinguished from the "circumcision" (in Col. 4:11), some infer that he was certainly a Gentile, which is also thought to be confirmed by his apparent reference to Gentile rather than to Jewish readers. The notion that he was a painter is comparatively recent and perhaps occasioned by a misconstruction of some reference to his graphic or descriptive mode of writing history. Some have imagined that Paul calls him a physician in a metaphorical or spiritual sense, as Christ called his first disciples "fishers of men." But even this description presupposes that they had been literally fishermen, and no good reason can be given for the special application of this name to Luke's spiritual ministry, unless it was descriptive of his secular profession. It is probable, however, from Philem. 24, that he exercised the cure of souls as well as bodies. The traces of his medical profession, found by many in his writings, although faint and doubtful, will be noticed as they present themselves in the progress of the exposition.

This remarkable dearth of information as to Luke, beyond his name, profession, and the general fact that he was one of Paul's most intimate associates, and perhaps for many years his medical attendant, gives the more importance to the uniform tradition of the early church, not only that he wrote these books, but that he wrote them under Paul's direction and control, thereby imparting to them, in addition to the common seal of inspiration, the specific stamp of apostolical authority. Another tradition represents the second Gospel as sustaining a similar relation to Mark as its immediate author, and to Peter as its apostolical endorser, and the source from which some of its most interesting statements were directly drawn. These traditions, though intrinsically not improbable, may possibly have sprung from the supposed necessity of giving to the second and third gospels, though not written by apostles, an equality of rank and honour with the first and fourth, which were so written.

However this may be, the canonical authority of Acts has never been disputed in the church at large, the book having always formed a part of the New Testament Canon, as far back as its history can now be traced. It was rejected by some ancient heretics for obvious reasons, as opposed to their peculiar notions; by the Manichees, because it represents the Holy Spirit (and not Manes) as the promised Comforter; by the Encratites, because it showed their meritorious abstinences to be inconsistent with the doctrine and the practice of the early church; by the Ebionites, because it proved the ceremonial law to be a temporary institution; by the Marcionites, because it recognized it, while it lasted, as divine and sacred. On the other hand, the book is found in all the ancient catalogues of orthodox or catholic authority, and quoted (or referred to) by the earliest Christian writers, from Clement of Rome in the first century to Irenæus at the close of the second, in whose extant works a modern writer has discovered more than thirty citations from the Acts of the Apostles. That the book was not received from the beginning as canonical, has been inferred by some from an expression of Chrysostom, that many in his day were not aware of its existence. But this, if genuine, which has been doubted, is a mere rhetorical hyperbole, intended to rebuke in strong terms the neglect of this important part of Scripture. The same thing might be said now, in the same sense, as to other books, the canonicity of which has never been disputed.

It is no doubt true, that certain parts of the New Testament, in ancient as in modern times, were more read and therefore better known than others. It must be remembered that the books of the New Testament were separately written, and originally circulated one by one, but gradually gathered into groups or classes, and eventually into one complete collection. One of the earliest divisions of the canon, which we know to have prevailed before the time of Origen, was into two unequal parts called GOSPEL and APOSTLE; the first containing the four Gospels by themselves, not as superior to the rest in inspiration or authority, but only in dignity of subject, as exhibiting the Life of Christ, and also as the chronological basis of the whole, corresponding to the Books of Moses in the Hebrew Canon. The other division, being not only larger but more miscellaneous, was familiarly subdivided into several, one containing Paul's Epistles, another the Apocalypse, another the Acts of the Apostles, and another the Catholic Epistles, the two last, however, being often joined together, that is, written in one volume.

That these conventional divisions of the Canon were not transcribed with equal frequency, we learn from a comparison of extant manuscripts. Of those collated by the modern critics (excluding Lectionaries, or selected lessons used in ancient worship) it may be stated in round numbers, that the Gospels are found in above five hundred, the Epistles of Paul in about three hundred, the Catholic Epistles and the Acts in above two hundred, and the Book of Revelation in about one hundred. Of the two hundred manuscripts (or more) containing Acts, eight or nine are of the Uncial or most ancient class, written in capital letters, for the most part without accents, breathings, stops, or even spaces between the words, the common use of all which is a sign of later date. Among these are the four oldest copies of the Greek Testament known to be extant, and distinguished in the latest critical editions by the four first letters of the alphabet. A. The Codex Alexandrinus, in the British Museum. B. The Codex Vaticanus, in the Papal Library at Rome. C. The Codex Ephraemi, in the Imperial Library at Paris. D. The Codex Bezæ, in the University Library at Cambridge. The precise date of these manuscripts is still disputed, but is now commonly agreed to range from the fourth to the sixth centuries inclusive. From this it follows that, although the extant copies of the Acts are far less numerous than those of the Gospels or of Paul's Epistles, they include the very manuscripts whose aid is most important in determining the true text even of those other books.

Besides the preservation of the Greek text in these copies, the book has also been preserved in several ancient versions, the most important of which are the Syriac Peshito, made in the third if not the second century, and the Latin Vulgate, made by Jerome, on the basis of an old Italic version, near the close of the fourth century. Other early versions, from the third to the ninth century, are the Egyptian in two dialects, the Ethiopic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, and Slavonic. Occasional reference will be made, in the following exposition, to some modern versions, more especially to Luther's, and the six old English versions, those of Wiclif (1380), Tyndale (1534), Cranmer (1539), the Geneva Bible (1557), the Rhemish Version (1582), and King James's Bible (1611), the last of which is still in common use. Two of these, Wiclif's and the Rhemish, are translations of the Vulgate; Cranmer's is little more than a reprint of Tyndale's, with a few unimportant variations; the same is true, but in a less degree, of the Geneva Bible; while the common version, though to some extent influenced by all the others, is founded mainly upon Tyndale's, with occasional changes for the worse and for the better, but a frequent adherence to him even when in error.

Besides mere versions or translations, this book has been a favourite subject of interpretation, more or less minute and thorough, from the earliest to the present times. In addition to the interest belonging to it as part and parcel of the sacred history, it possesses great importance in connection with the most exciting questions of Ecclesiology, as furnishing the sole authentic record of the primitive church-government and organization. Hence it has been interpreted in every variety of form, from the most elaborate and learned to the most popular and practical, as well in general expositions of the Bible, or of the New Testament, as in special works on this book in particular. Besides formal commentaries on the text, this part of Scripture has received much illustration from a class of writers who have sought rather to present the substance of the history in popular and interesting forms. Among the latest and best specimens of this kind may be named the Apostolical History of Baumgarten, and the life and Letters of St. Paul by Conybeare and Howson, and as a masterly elucidation of a single passage, the Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul by Smith of Jordanhill. The plan and limits of the following exposition forbid particular citation of the many works consulted in preparing it.

The oldest known division of the Greek text, by Euthalius, who lived in the sixth century, was into forty chapters. The present division into twenty-eight was made by Cardinal Hugo, in the thirteenth century, to facilitate the use of his Concordance to the Latin Vulgate, and was not adopted in the copies of the Greek text till the fifteenth century. The division into verses first appears in the margin of Stephens' edition (1551), and is said to have been made by him during a journey between Paris and Lyons. The actual separation of the verses, by printing them in paragraphs, appears for the first time in Beza's edition (1565), and although discontinued in the latest publications of the Greek text, still prevails in most editions of the English Bible and of other modern versions. The history of these divisions should be clearly understood, not only to prevent their being thought original, or even ancient, but also to deprive them of an undue influence upon the exposition of the text itself. The distinction of the chapters in this book is often injudicious and unskilful, and at best, these conventional divisions are mere matters of mechanical convenience, like the paragraphs and pages of a modern book.

But while we make use of these mechanical contrivances for ease of reference and consultation, they must not be suffered to usurp the place of a more rational division growing out of the relations of the history itself, as a methodical and systematical whole, designed to answer a specific purpose. The ideas of most readers as to this point are derived from the familiar title, ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. But this title is regarded by the critics as traditional, and forming no part of the text, but added by a later hand. It is, however, very ancient, being found in all the oldest copies, though with some variety of form. That the book appeared at first without a title, or that its title has been lost and another substituted for it, seem to be equally improbable hypotheses, unless it be assumed that it was first sent, as a sort of historical epistle, to Theophilus, and afterwards provided with a name when brought into more general circulation.

Even this title does not mean, however, nor is the book in fact, a history of the twelve apostles, most of whom are barely named in the first chapter. It is not the biography of Peter and Paul, as Apostles by way of eminence; for each of them is prominent in one part only, and the whole life of neither is recorded in detail. It is not a general history of the Apostolical period, as distinguished from the ministry of Christ himself; for many interesting facts belonging to that subject are omitted, some of which have been preserved in the Epistles. BUT THE BOOK BEFORE US IS A SPECIAL HISTORY OF THE PLANTING AND EXTENSION OF THE CHURCH, BOTH AMONG JEWS AND GENTILES, BY THE GRADUAL ESTABLISHMENT OF RADIATING CENTRES OR SOURCES OF INFLUENCE AT CERTAIN SALIENT POINTS THROUGHOUT A LARGE PART OF THE EMPIRE, BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM AND ENDING AT ROME. That this is really the theme and purpose of the history, any reader may satisfy himself by running through it with this general idea in his mind, observing how the prominent points answer to it, and that as soon as this idea is exhausted the book closes, in a way that would be otherwise abrupt and harsh. The same thing may be ascertained in more detail by using this description as a principle or method of division, without any forced or artificial process, simply letting the history divide and subdivide itself in reference to its subject and design, as these have been already stated. Such an analysis, though presupposing a detailed examination of the book, may be presented here as a preliminary basis of the exposition.

The whole book naturally falls into two great parts, each of which may be grouped around a central figure. The subject of the first part is the planting and extension of the Church among the Jews by the ministry of Peter. The subject of the second is the planting and extension of the Church among the Gentiles by the ministry of Paul. It is not as individuals, nor merely as Apostles, that these two men occupy so large a space and a position so conspicuous, but as the chosen leaders in these two distinct but harmonious movements. We have therefore no details of their biography except so far as these are needed to illustrate this important period of church-history. It may also be observed that neither is presented, even in his own sphere, to the absolute exclusion of the other; but the spheres themselves are so connected as to show that both belong to one great system. Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision, introduces the first Gentile to the Christian Church. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, preaches always "to the Jew first" when he has the opportunity, not only in the opening of his ministry at Damascus and Jerusalem, but down to its very close at Rome. With this important qualification, the first part of the history (ch. 1–12) may be described as that of Peter and the Church among the Jews, and the last (ch. 13–28) as that of Paul and the Church among the Gentiles.

Looking now at the first of these divisions (1–12), in which Peter is the central figure, and the Church among the Jews his field of labour, we can almost see it subdivide itself into two successive processes or series of events, distinctly and successively exhibited. The first is the formation and maturing of a mother-church and model-church within the precincts of the holy city, nurtured and trained by apostolic care to be not only the beginning or the germ, but for a time, and in a certain sense, the representative of all the other churches in the world, or rather of the one undivided body, to which all other churches are related, not as separable portions, but as living members. This original and normal church is here presented in its unimpaired, undivided state, from its inception to its temporary dissolution and the wide dispersion of its members and materials on the death of Stephen (1–7). This affords a natural transition to the second process here recorded (8–12), that of sudden, simultaneous radiation from the central point in various directions, spreading the light, which had been hitherto confined, to other regions, and accomplishing the purpose revealed centuries before, that the law should go forth from Zion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:4).

Let us now for a moment fix our eye upon the former of these subdivisions (1–7), and allow it, as it were, to fall apart, without mechanical contrivance or coercion, into topics or historical phenomena, precisely as they lie upon the surface, or succeed one another in the progress of the narrative. The whole book opens with two preliminary incidents, by which the way is prepared for the organization of the church and the commencement of its history. The first is the Ascension of our Lord, connecting this whole narrative with that of which it is the sequel (Luke 24:51), and at the same time opening the way for the effusion of the Spirit, which was not to be expected till the Son had returned to the bosom of the Father (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7.) The other is the choice of an Apostle to supply the place of Judas, that the theocratical or patriarchal form of the new organization might be perfect when the Spirit came to give it life (ch. 1).

These preliminary incidents are followed by the great events of Pentecost, the birth-day of the Christian Church, the outpouring of the Spirit, and the gift of tongues, Peter's sermon and the baptism of three thousand, with a picture of the social and the spiritual state of the newly organized community (ch. 2).

Then follows a succession of vicissitudes, by which the infant church was purified and hardened, an alternate series of disturbances and trials from without and from within, which at the time of their occurrence may have seemed fortuitous, but which can now be seen to form a chain of disciplinary providences, all preparatory and conducive to intended changes (ch. 3–7).

First, a miracle of healing gives occasion to another public exhibition of the Gospel, and this to an attack upon the Church by the authorities, resulting in a triumph of the truth, increased zeal and boldness in its propagation, and more rapid growth of the new body both in numerical and spiritual strength (ch. 3–4).

But to warn the Church of other dangers from a very different quarter, which had hitherto perhaps been unsuspected, God permits her purity and peace to be disturbed by a commotion from within, the first appearance of hypocrisy and secular ambition in the infant body, but immediately disarmed of its pernicious influence on others by a signal indication of divine displeasure, which not only punished the original offenders, but deterred all like them from presumptuous imitation. By another alternation, too exact to be fortuitous, the next disturbance is again ab extra, a concerted movement of the High Priest with the Sadducean party, to suppress the preaching of the resurrection, and by that means of the new religion; a proceeding only saved from being murderous by Pharisaic policy or wisdom, and resulting, as before, in the triumphant propagation of the new faith, in defiance of the Jewish rulers (ch. 5).

The next vicissitude presents a second movement from within, but wholly different from the first, and owing not to false profession or corrupt ambition, but to jealousy of races and administrative discontents, allayed by the erection of a new church-office, and the consequent appearance of a new and interesting character, whose preaching, miracles, and controversial triumphs over Jewish bigotry and prejudice, result in his arrest and accusation at the bar of the great national consistory, before which he concisely recapitulates the history of Israel as the chosen people, shows the temporary nature of their cherished institutions, and unmasks their national apostasy and treason, with a clearness and a pungency which rouses them to madness, and precipitates the terrible but glorious translation of the first Christian martyr (ch. 6–7).

The death of Stephen is the signal for a general persecution, which at first appears to threaten the complete extinction of the Church, but in fact only changes its condition from a local and confined to an expansive and aggressive one. This great disaster, like a terrible explosion, served to scatter the materials and seeds of fire into distant regions, where they kindled many shining lights and opened many sources of congenial heat, to warm and illuminate the nations. This radiating process is the subject of the second subdivision which, beginning where the other closes, with the martyrdom of Stephen, in a series of contemporaneous views exhibits the extension of the Church in various directions, still returning at the close of each description to the point of original departure, thus disclosing at the same time the relation of the incidents themselves and the peculiar structure of this portion of the history, as not consecutive but parallel (ch. 8–12).

From the centre of the movement and the highest point of observation in Jerusalem, we first see Philip on his mission to Samaria, followed by two Apostles, introducing to the Church the excommunicated heretics of that despised and hated region; then proceeding with a new commission to the south, receiving the first-fruits of Ethiopia, and acting as a pioneer until he reaches Cesarea, where the history leaves him for the present (ch. 8).

Looking back to the scene of Stephen's martyrdom, we see the young man at whose feet the actors in the tragedy deposited their garments, setting out as a fanatical persecutor to Damascus, but arriving there an humble convert, then appearing as a champion of the faith which he had once sought to destroy, forced to flee for his life, but repeating the same process at Jerusalem, and finally returning to his native land and city, not now as a destroyer, but a founder and a builder of the church there (ch. 9).

Returning once more to the starting point, the history exhibits Peter on an Apostolic visitation of the churches, working miracles at Lydda and at Joppa, disabused by vision of his Jewish prepossessions in relation to the Gentiles, and then called to Cesarea, where he openly receives into the church a Roman officer and his dependants, as the pledge and foretaste of a glorious harvest to be reaped by other hands, but as yet requiring to be justified before it can be sanctioned by the brethren in Judea (ch. 9–11).

Looking forth for the last time from Jerusalem, we see a nameless company of Cyprians and Cyrenians preaching Christ, not only to the Jews, but to the Gentiles of the Syrian metropolis; their efforts seconded by Barnabas from Jerusalem and Saul from Tarsus; the new name of Christian first applied at Antioch, destined now to be a secondary centre to the Gentile world, and yet maintaining its own filial relation to her mother at Jerusalem, by sending help for the approaching famine by the hands of her two most honoured ministers (ch. 11).

The institution of this radiating centre for the heathen world concludes the first division of the history, the transition to the second being furnished by a narrative, connected equally with both, of what befel the mother Church while Barnabas and Saul were on their mission of mercy in Judea; the Herodian persecution at Jerusalem, the death of James the Elder, the imprisonment of Peter, his miraculous deliverance and departure from Jerusalem, the dreadful end of the persecuting Herod, the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch, in order to be ready for the opening of the second act of this grand drama, in which both for a time and one of them throughout, had to act so conspicuous a part (ch. 12).

In the second great division of the book (ch. 13–28) Paul is the central figure, and the Gentile church his field of operations. It divides itself without constraint into two parts, corresponding to two different conditions under which the great Apostle laboured, which may be distinguished as his Active and Passive Ministry, or less equivocally as his Apostleship at large and his Apostleship in bonds, the turning point or bounding line being fixed by his arrest at Jerusalem and subsequent captivity.

The former of these subdivisions, Paul's active ministry, or his Apostleship at large (ch. 13–21), may be resolved into Missions, and the Missions classed as Foreign and Domestic; not of course in the familiar sense of this distinction, but employing the second of these terms as a convenient designation of his official journeys to Jerusalem; the other, as usual, denoting visits to the heathen with a view to their instruction and conversion. The two sorts of missions thus distinguished are not entirely separate in the history, but intermingled, no doubt in the order of their actual occurrence (ch. 13–21).

We have first the solemn separation, by express divine authority, of Barnabas and Saul to this important work; their setting out from Antioch, and sailing from Seleucia to Cyprus; their preaching in the synagogue at Salamis, and journey through the isle to Paphos; the hostility and punishment of Elymas the sorcerer and false prophet, and the conversion of the Roman Proconsul. At this juncture Saul assumes a new position, as Apostle of the Gentiles, takes the place of Barnabas as leader of the mission, and is thenceforth known exclusively as Paul. From the native land of Barnabas, they now proceed to that of Paul, where Mark, their minister, forsakes them. From Pamphylia they pass into Pisidia, at the capital of which province Paul delivers his first apostolical discourse on record, and announces to the unbelieving Jews his mission and commission to the Gentiles. Being driven to Iconium, he there renews the same experience. At Lystra, by a miracle of healing, he excites the heathen population to do sacrifice, but by a sudden change of feeling, owing to the machinations of the Jews who had pursued him, he is stoned and left for dead, but soon proceeds to Derbe, where his mission terminates. Returning as he came, he organizes churches in the cities previously visited, and coming back to Antioch, the point from which he had set out, he reports his proceedings to the church there and resumes his former labours (ch. 13–14).

This mission to the Gentiles in their own lands, naturally raises the question whether they must first be Jews before they can be Christians. The affirmative, maintained by certain teachers from Judea, gives occasion to a warm dispute at Antioch, in consequence of which Paul and Barnabas are sent up to consult the mother Church in its representative character, maintained by the continued presence and co-operation of Apostles. The decision of this body in favour of Paul's conduct, at the instance of Peter and James, is reduced to writing and sent back to Antioch, where Paul and Barnabas now again resume their labours. While they are thus employed, Paul proposes to revisit the field of their first mission, to which Barnabas consents, but on condition that John Mark shall again attend them. Paul's refusal, with the sharp dispute arising from it, leads to their temporary separation, which is overruled, however, as a means of multiplying labourers; for while Barnabas and Mark proceed to Cyprus, Paul revisits Asia Minor, having filled their places with two new associates, Silas, a leading member of the mother church, and Timothy, a convert of his own in Lycaonia (ch. 15).

This second mission seems to have been undertaken without any express intimation of the divine purpose; for we find them vainly trying to effect an entrance into several provinces of Asia Minor, and from some peremptorily excluded by the Holy Spirit. This mysterious failure and repulse are not explained until they come to Troas, near the site of ancient Troy, and opposite to Greece, whence the hosts of Agamemnon came against it. From this memorable battle-field a very different war is to be carried into Europe, which is now for the first time to receive the Gospel. At this interesting juncture, Paul is warned in vision to go over into Macedonia, where so many of his triumphs were to be achieved, and where he proceeds, in the face of the most violent resistance, both from Jews and Greeks, to lay the foundations of those Macedonian churches, now immortalized by intimate and indestructible association with his three canonical epistles to the Philippians and Thessalonians (ch. 16).

Having fixed these central points of influence in Northern Greece, and one perhaps less lasting at Berea, he proceeds to Athens, the most famous seat of ethnic art and science. Here he shows his versatility of talent and his apostolical wisdom by his formal and colloquial discourses in the synagogue, the market, and the areopagus, adapting his instructions, with extraordinary skill, to the capacities and wants of those whom he addressed. Although apparently without effect on the philosophers who heard him, his appeals at Athens were responded to by some, including one at least of high rank, and he left behind him even there the germ or the basis of a Christian church. At Corinth, the chief city of Achaia, he stays longer and accomplishes more visible results by founding that important Church to which he afterwards addressed two of his longest and most interesting letters (ch. 17).

Having thus, as it were, taken possession of the most important points in Greece, he turns to Ephesus, the influential capital of Asia Proper, as another fortress to be won and occupied for Christ. At present he attempts only to reconnoitre the defences of the enemy while on his way back to the east, reserving his attack upon them as the work of his third mission. This design he is enabled to accomplish, in a residence of three years, during which, by teaching and by miracle, he not only gained the respect and esteem of the most enlightened classes, but drew off many thousands from the worship of Diana and the practice of the occult arts. "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed" (ch. 18–19).

This triumph over heathenism, in one of its impregnable strongholds, seemed to leave but one great post unoccupied, the citadel of Rome itself, to which accordingly, while still at Ephesus, he turned his thoughts, saying, "I must also see Rome." But here a most extraordinary part of the divine plan or purpose is disclosed. Instead of sailing from Ephesus to some Italian port, as he no doubt might have done with ease, he first revisits Greece, and then, accompanied by seven representatives of Gentile Christianity, as well as by his beloved physician, who seems now to have rejoined him, he deliberately sets his face, not to the west but to the east, performs a miracle of healing or resuscitation at the place where he had seen his Macedonian vision, puts an end to his third mission by a solemn and affecting valedictory address to the Ephesian elders, and then journeys towards Jerusalem, though warned at every step, and sometimes by inspired men, of the danger there awaiting him (ch. 20–21).

This persistency in rushing upon certain peril, in the face of such dissuasives, is entirely unaccountable except upon the supposition of an express divine command, requiring it for some mysterious and momentous purpose. And accordingly, on putting all the facts together, it becomes quite certain that instead of journeying at once to Rome, and there establishing the last great centre of his operations, he was secretly directed to revisit Palestine, and there make a last appeal to his own countrymen, by whom it was foreseen that he would be rejected and delivered to the Gentiles, thus prefiguring or symbolizing, in his own experience, the transfer of the Gospel from the one race to the other, and arriving at his final destination, not as he once expected, in the use of his own freewill and discretion, but as a prisoner, accused by his own people, and removed by his own appeal to the tribunal of the emperor. We have here then the transition from his active to his passive ministry, or rather from his free and unconfined apostleship to that which he so long exercised in bonds (ch. 21–28).

As Paul is still the central figure of the history, this last division may be readily resolved into Apologies, defences of himself and of the Gospel, upon various occasions providentially afforded, and to various auditories both of Jews and Gentiles, who are brought into a remarkable and interesting juxtaposition both with him and with each other, as accusers, persecutors, judges, and protectors. His first Apologies are to the Jews, but in the presence of the Romans; one to the people from the castle-stairs adjacent to the temple, and the other at the bar of the great national council. His third and fourth defences are addressed to Roman Governors, but in the presence of a Jewish delegation from Jerusalem, the former before Felix and the latter before Festus, both as it would seem in the Prætorium at Cesarea. His fifth Apology was to Agrippa, representing both the Jewish and the Roman power, and contained a fuller statement of his true relation to the old religion, and his claim to be regarded as a genuine and faithful Jew (ch. 22–26).

His extraordinary mission being thus accomplished, he again turns his eyes to Rome, as the distant but conspicuous goal of his career, which he at length attains, but as a prisoner, and after having suffered shipwreck by the way, a sort of symbol representing the vicissitudes through which the Church was to attain her ultimate and universal triumphs. Having made one more appeal to unbelieving Israel, as represented by the Jews at Rome, and having finally abandoned them to their judicial blindness, he turns wholly to the Gentiles, and establishes the last great radiating centre from which light was to be shed upon the world, until the light itself was turned to darkness (ch. 27–28).

Whether the view, which has been now presented, of the history considered in its internal structure and its mutual relations, is a true and natural or false and artificial one, can only be determined by a patient process of detailed interpretation.

CHAPTER 1

THIS chapter contains the preliminaries of the Apostolical Church History, which does not properly begin until the day of Pentecost. The time included in the chapter is a period of nearly fifty days, divided into two unequal intervals. The two main incidents recorded are our Lord's Ascension and the designation of a new Apostle. The book itself purports to be the sequel of Luke's Gospel (1), and begins where that ends, at our Lord's Ascension (2); but first tells how the interval of forty days was spent (3), and more particularly, what passed at the final meeting between Christ and his Apostles (4–8). Then follows an account of the ascension itself (9), and the heavenly assurance of Christ's second coming (10, 11), the return of the eleven to Jerusalem (12), with a list of their names (13), and some account of their associates and employments (14). During the interval between Ascension Day and Pentecost, Peter addresses an assembly of disciples (15), representing the apostasy and death of Judas as events predicted in the ancient scriptures (16–20), alleging the necessity of filling the vacated place, and stating the necessary qualifications (21, 22). Of the two thus eligible (23), after prayer for the divine decision (24, 25), one is chosen by lot to be the twelfth Apostle (26).

1. This verse describes the whole book as the sequel or continuation of another, by the same writer, and containing the history of our Saviour's personal ministry on earth. Former treatise might be more exactly rendered first book or discourse. Herodotus applies the same Greek word (λόγον) to the divisions of his history. It is not so much a former treatise, or distinct work, that is here referred to, as a first instalment of the same that is continued in the book before us. Have I made, or, more definitely, did make, made, at a particular time, well known to the person here immediately addressed. As to this person, we have no historical or certain information, although various conjectures are proposed respecting-him. The name, according to its Greek etymology, denotes a Friend of God, and has by some been taken as an epithet, equivalent to "Christian Reader" in a modern preface. But besides being in itself improbable, this notion is refuted by the reference to his previous acquaintance with the history, in Luke 1:4, as well as by the honorary title there applied to him. As that title is repeatedly applied in this book (23:26; 24:3; 26:25) to the Roman governors or procurators of Judea, some have hastily concluded, that the person here addressed was one of high official rank. This, though possible, is not susceptible of proof from such imperfect data; and the same thing may be said of the attempt to prove that he was resident in Italy, because the writer seems to presuppose a knowledge of that country, while, in writing of others, he often gives minute geographical details. The tradition that he was a high priest mentioned by Josephus, rests upon a mere coincidence of names, and is intrinsically most improbable. The most that can, with any plausibility, be gathered from the book itself, is that Theophilus may have been a Christian resident at Rome, at whose request the book was originally written. The whole question is of less importance, as the inscription of the history to this man has probably affected its contents and form as little as a modern dedication. Of all, i. e. about, concerning all, thus pointing out the subject of the former treatise, or earlier division of the history. All, in the original, is plural, and means all things. It is not a hyperbole or exaggeration, but a relative expression, meaning all that was included in the writer's plan or necessary to his purpose. Began is not a pleonastic or superfluous expression, but emphatic, and suggestive of two important facts. The first is, that what our Saviour did, he did for the first time; no one ever did it before him. The second is, that what he thus began in person upon earth was afterwards continued by his Apostles, under the influence and guidance of his Spirit. Both seems to make a marked distinction between doing and teaching; but the one may be understood as comprehending all official acts not included in the other. Thus explained, the verb to do refers especially, but not exclusively, to our Saviour's miracles. The first book, or former treatise, thus described, is no doubt the Gospel according to Luke, which is addressed to the same person, written in the same style, and exactly corresponds to this description.

2. As the first verse represents this book to be the sequel or continuation of another, so the second draws the line between them, or defines the point at which the one closes and the other opens. This point of contact and transition is afforded by our Lord's ascension, which is really recorded in both narratives. (See Luke 24:50, 51.) Until the day, the very day, a form of speech implying a precise chronological specification. In which, on which or during which, the preposition not being expressed in the original, which simply means the day which, or still more exactly, what day, a construction not uncommon in old English, and still used in poetry. Taken up, and taken back, i. e. to heaven, both which ideas are suggested by the Greek verb (ἀνελήφθη), which moreover has peculiar force from its position at the end of the sentence, until the day in which, after etc., he was taken up. The second clause describes what Christ had done before he was taken up. The six words, after that he had given commandments, correspond to one in Greek (ἐντειλάμενος), a past participle, the exact sense of which is, having charged or commanded. This may refer, either to the whole period of forty days mentioned in the next verse, or to the last interview between our Lord and his Apostles, on the very day of his ascension. The latter is more probable, because, in the original, the verse before us closes with the words taken up, and the next verse seems to go back to the previous interval of forty days. The reference may then be specially, though not perhaps exclusively, to the great apostolical commission recorded by Matthew (28:18–20) and Mark (16:15, 16), as well as to the specific charge recorded in Luke 24:49, and in v. 4 below. The apostles are here mentioned as a well defined and well known body of men, whose vocation and mission had already been recorded by this writer (Luke 6:12–16), though their names are afterwards repeated for a special reason. (See below, on v. 13.) Had chosen, more exactly, did choose, chose out for himself, which is the full force of the Greek verb (ἐξελέξατο). Through the Holy Ghost: these words, in the original, stand between the verbs commanded and chose, and are by some connected with the latter, whom he chose through the Holy Spirit. But although there is, in either case, a transposition foreign from our idiom, the usual construction is more natural and yields a better sense, as the interesting question here is, not how he had chosen them at first, but how he charged them and instructed them at last. The words, thus construed, may denote either the spiritual influence under which our Saviour's mediatorial acts were all performed, or the influence by which his last instructions were accompanied, and by which the apostles were enabled to obey them. Here again, the second explanation is more obvious, and better suited to the context, which would lead us to expect, not a mention of the spiritual gifts which cur Saviour had received, but of those which he bestowed on this occasion.

3. Before proceeding to describe our Lord's ascension, Luke reverts to the long interval between that event and his resurrection, showing how it had been spent, and what important purposes it answered. The first of these was, that the minds of the apostles were convinced of his identity, and of his having actually risen from the dead. To whom refers, of course, to the apostles, who had just been mentioned, and who not only witnessed his ascension, but saw and conversed with him for many days before it. Also is not unmeaning or superfluous, but marks the recurrence to a time preceding that referred to in the second verse. As if he had said: although this was his last meeting with them after his resurrection, it was not the first; for besides this final charge immediately before ascending, he also showed himself, etc. This last verb (παρέστησεν) strictly means presented, placed before or near one (23:33), and is elsewhere used in reference to resurrection or resuscitation (9:41); but besides this physical and strict sense, it sometimes means to place before the mind or prove (24:13). Both these ideas may be here suggested, that of sensible exhibition as the means, and that of rational conviction as the end. Showed himself is therefore a felicitous translation, as the same double sense belongs to the usage of the English verb, show being often equivalent to prove. Alive, literally living, after his passion, literally after suffering, or after he had suffered, i. e. suffered death. This absolute use of the verb to suffer in the sense of dying, is a common idiom in the Greek of the New Testament. (See Luke 22:15; Acts 3:18; 17:3; Heb. 9:26; 13:12; 1 Peter 2:21; 3:18; 4:1.) What he showed in this case was that he was living after being dead, not only vivus but redivivus. (See Rev. 1:18. and compare Rom. 11:15.) The proofs of this were not only many but infallible, conclusive or convincing. This epithet is not expressed in Greek, but is really included in the meaning of the noun (τεκμηρίοις), which is used by Plato and Aristotle to denote the strongest proof of which a subject is susceptible. The particle before it properly means in, i. e. in the use of such proofs, and is therefore an emphatic equivalent to by, which only denotes instrumental agency or means to an end. Being seen of them, or more exactly, appearing to them, i. e. from time to time, not constantly seen by them, as before his passion. This distinction is suggested not only by the participle here used (ὀπτανόμενος), but also (according to Chrysostom) by the preposition (διά) before forty days, which is not expressed in the English version, but which means through, during, in the course of, any given time. According to this view, every appearance of our Saviour, in the interval between his resurrection and ascension, was an apparition, not in the sense of an optical illusion or a superstitious fancy, but in that of a miraculous or preternatural manifestation of his person on particular occasions, as a proof of his identity and resurrection. Forty days, the length of the interval just mentioned, and known to us only from this passage, which enables us moreover to determine the interval between the Ascension and the day of Pentecost. (See below, on 2:1.) The other use to which our Saviour put the longer of these intervals was that of conversation and instruction. Speaking, not merely talking, but authoritatively teaching and declaring. Of is not in the original, and is superfluous in the translation. He not only spoke of or about the things, etc., but he uttered or declared the things themselves. Pertaining to, concerning, is expressed in the original, and indicates the subject of our Lord's authoritative declarations. This was the kingdom of God, denoting in its widest sense the Church under all its forms and dispensations, and including therefore the Theocracy or Jewish Church, but here referring more especially, no doubt, to the Messiah's kingdom, or the new form under which the Church, or chosen people, was about to be re-organized. It is worthy of remark, that the last days of our Lord on earth were still employed in words and acts relating to the great end of his mission, and in strict accordance with his words and acts in early childhood. Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? (Luke 2:49.) In this he furnishes a model and example to his people, not only in their last days, but throughout their lives.

4. This is the command, or one of the commands, referred to in v. 2, as given on the day of the ascension, at the last meeting between Christ and his disciples. Assembled together, or more simply, met, having (or being) met with them, not accidentally or unexpectedly, but most probably by previous appointment. The translation, lodging with them, rests upon a different reading (συναυλιζόμενος), that of eating with them, on an ancient but erroneous explanation of the common text (συναλιζόμενος), perhaps suggested by the analogy of Luke 24:43; John 21:13; Acts 10:41. The active construction, having assembled (or assembling) them, gives a good sense, but is less agreeable to Greek usage. Commanded is a different verb from that in v. 2, and denotes a peremptory order, such as a military word of command. That they should not depart, literally, not to be parted or divided, either by physical or moral force. This is the meaning of the Greek verb (χωρίζεσθαι) for the most part in the classics, and always in the Scriptures. See 18:1, 2, where it seems to imply self-constraint or effort, and compare Rom. 8:35; Heb. 7:26; 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 15; Philem. 15. There is no need of diluting it in this case, so as to mean mere departure. The expression seems to have been chosen for the very purpose of conveying the idea, that they must not allow themselves to be either drawn or driven from Jerusalem, until the time prescribed had fully come. The original order of the words is, from Jerusalem not to be parted. Wiclif's version of the next clause is, abide the behest of the Father. The promise of the Father was the promise given by him, not merely in the prophecies of the Old Testament (such as Joel 3:1; Zech. 2:10), all which were summed up in that of John the Baptist, mentioned in the next verse; but through our Lord himself, as he expressly adds. (See Luke 24:49; John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7, 13, and compare Matt. 10:20; John 20:22.) The promise is here put, by a natural metonymy, for its fulfilment. Heard of me is ambiguous in English; but the context here determines it to mean heard from me. This abrupt transition from the indirect to the direct form of expression, by the substitution of the first for the third person, is not uncommon in the best Greek writers, and a favourite idiom of the historians, both Greek and Latin. For scriptural examples of the same thing, see Gen. 26:27; Deut. 21:3; Ps. 2:3, 6; 91:14; Luke 5:14; Acts 17:3; 23:22. Most modern versions preclude all ambiguity by the insertion of the words said he.

5. This verse assigns the reason for the command in v. 4, namely, because it was necessary to the execution of the divine purpose, as revealed by John the Baptist, when he taught that the rite which he administered was only a precursor, pledge, and type of that extraordinary influence, for which they are commanded here to wait, as for something that must necessarily precede the renovation of the Church and the commencement of their own official functions. (See Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts 11:16.) But had not the Spirit been already given? Yes, to individual believers, and indeed to the apostles in a body (John 20:22); but not in such a mode or measure as was necessary, both for themselves and for the church at large. Truly, or indeed, is the inadequate equivalent in English of a particle (μέν), which, with its correlative (δέ) in the next clause, gives the verse an antithetical or balanced form extremely common in Greek prose. This relation of the clauses may be otherwise, but still imperfectly, expressed in English. 'As John baptized with water, so ye shall be baptized etc.' 'Though John baptized with water, yet ye must be baptized' etc. The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. Thus the standing symbol of official gifts and graces is the rite of unction or anointing, as described or referred to, in the Law (Lev. 8:12), the Psalms (133:2), the Prophets (Isai. 61:1), and the Gospel (Luke 4:18). The official inspiration of Moses was extended to the seventy elders by being put upon them (Numb. 11:17, 25, 26, 29), and the highest spiritual gifts are promised in that exquisite expression, "until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high." (Isai. 32:15.) This effusion is the very thing for which they are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application, particularly as they must have known it to be used in Hellenistic Greek to signify a mode of washing where immersion was excluded, such as that of tables or couches, and the customary pouring of water on the hands before eating, as still practised in the East. (See Mark 7:4, 8; Luke 11:38.) With their fixed Old Testament associations, when assured that they were soon to be baptized with the Holy Ghost, they would naturally think, not of something into which they were to go down, but of something to be poured upon them from on high. The indefinite expression, holy spirit, might without absurdity be taken as a parallel to water in the first clause, each then denoting a baptismal element or fluid. But the personal sense of Holy Spirit is so frequent and predominant in Scripture, that the presumption must be always in its favour; and that presumption is confirmed in this case by the very absence of the article in Greek, which may be understood as implying that the phrase had come to be regarded as a personal or proper name. With, literally in, the Holy Spirit, which may either be a synonymous expression, or expressive of more intimate relation, and perhaps of the essential difference between a mere material element and one not only living but divine. Not many days hence, literally, not after these many days. All the old English versions, from Wiclif's to the Rhemish, have either after or within these few days.

6. The construction of the first clause is ambiguous, as it may also be translated, they then (or so then they) who had come together asked etc. This makes it doubtful whether vs. 4 and 6 refer to different meetings or the same. In favour of the former supposition is the circumstance that otherwise the mention of their having come together is superfluous, unless we understand it of their gathering around him, to propose the question; and this is hardly consistent with the usage of the Greek verb (συνελθόντες). On the other hand, the natural impression made by the whole context is that of one continued conversation. The question happily is one of little exegetical importance. Asked of him. Here, as in v. 3, of seems superfluous, at least in modern English. The Greek verb is a compound one, perhaps denoting to interrogate or question, with formality and earnestness. Wilt thou restore, or more correctly, art thou restoring, or about to restore? The precise form of the original is foreign from our idiom, though not unusual in Greek. Lord, if thou art restoring, i. e. (tell us) if thou art restoring, etc. The verb itself is applied both to physical and moral changes, as for instance to the healing of a withered limb (Matt. 12:13), the miraculous recovery of sight (Mark 8:25), and the revival of the old Theocracy, to be effected by Elijah at his second coming (Matt. 17:11; Mark 9:12). The essential idea is that of return to a previous state, which had been lost or interrupted. The question shows, neither an absolute misapprehension of the nature of Christ's kingdom, nor a perfectly just view of it, but such a mixture of truth and error as might have been expected from their previous history and actual condition. That the kingdom of Israel was to be restored, they were justified in thinking by such prophecies as Isai. 1:26; 9:7; Jer. 23:6; 33:15, 17; Dan. 7:13, 14; Hos. 3:4, 5; Amos 9:11; Zech. 9:9. They were only mistaken, if at all, in expecting it to be restored in its primeval form. Some have understood them as protesting against its restoration to the people who had so lately put our Lord to death. His reply shows, however, that the gist of the inquiry was not Israel, but at this time.

7. This is our Lord's answer to their curious inquiry as to the time fixed for the erection of his kingdom. The first word answers to the continuative particle in Greek (δέ), which may be rendered either and or but. It is not for you, literally, it is not yours, i. e. your province or your privilege, your duty, or your share in the great work now going forward. Times and seasons are not synonymes, but generic and specific terms, the one denoting intervals and periods, the other points and junctures, like era and epoch in modern English. By supplying the article, our version puts a limitation on the words, which may be true, but is not found in the original. It was not the times or seasons of this one case merely, but times or seasons generally, that they were forbidden to pry into. Father may here be put for God, as opposed to creatures, without regard to the distinction of persons; or for the Father, as distinguished from the Son. (See Mark 13:32 and compare Matt. 20:23.) Perhaps our Lord here speaks of the Father's knowledge rather than his own, in order to divert the minds of his disciples from the subject. Put in his own power seems to mean that they were not so of necessity, but made so by an arbitrary act of will. This is not only an incongruous idea in itself, but would have been otherwise expressed in Greek. The verb (ἔθετο) has no doubt the same meaning as in 19:21, viz. determined or resolved, and the next phrase (ἐν ἐξουσίᾳ) the same as in Matt. 21:23, 27. The whole clause will then mean, which the Father hath fixed (or settled) in (the exercise of) his own power (or authority, both physical capacity and moral right). This is a general reproof of all excessive curiosity in reference to such times or seasons as have neither been explicitly revealed, nor rendered ascertainable by ordinary means. (See Deut. 29:29.)

8. This verse contrasts what they were not to know with what they might know, as a sort of consolation or compensation for the repulse which they had just experienced. They were not to have the knowledge which they sought, but something better for themselves and others. The knowledge which they needed was rather knowledge of the past than of the future. The prophetic gift is not excluded, but implicitly denied to be the primary function of the Apostolic office, which was testimony, not prediction. He cures their morbid curiosity (says Calvin) by recalling them to present duty. If they really expected to be kings, at once and in the worldly sense, these words must surely have sufficed to disabuse them. Power may here be either a cause or an effect: the power of the Holy Ghost exerted on them, or the power wrought in them by the Holy Ghost. In favour of the latter is the parallel expression in Luke 24:49, "until ye be endued with power from on high," which could not have been said of a divine perfection. The power then is their extraordinary preparation for their work, including the gifts of tongues, of teaching, and of miracles. The margin of our Bible gives a different construction of this first clause, ye shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you. There are two grammatical objections to this syntax; the absence of the article before the noun (power), and the position of the participle (coming). The modern philological interpreters prefer the absolute construction of the genitives, the Holy Spirit coming, i. e. by his coming, at his coming, when he comes, or as the text of our translation has it, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you. The same verb is applied elsewhere to the divine agency in the miraculous conception of our Saviour (Luke 1:35). Instead of witnesses unto or for me (μοι), some of the oldest manuscripts have my witnesses (μου), without material effect upon the sense. They were to be witnesses of all that they had seen and heard from the beginning of their intercourse with Christ (John 15:27; Luke 24:18), his doctrines, miracles, life, death, resurrection, and ascension. (See below, v. 22. ch. 2:32; 10:39, 41; 22:15; 26:16.) The Greek word for witness (μάρτυς) is not here used in its later sense of martyr (see below, on 22:20), as the grand function of the apostolic office was no more martyrdom than it was prediction. The gradation in the last clause corresponds to the great periods of the history recorded in the book before us. Both in Jerusalem and all Judea, not merely in the capital, as might perhaps have been expected, but throughout the country. All Judea may mean all the rest of that province besides the capital (as in Isai. 1:1; 2:1; 3:1), or Judea in the wide sense, as denoting the whole country. This last is not forbidden by the mention of Samaria, the inhabitants of which were not considered Jews (John 4:9), and which is here introduced as a sort of neutral ground or frontier between Jews and Gentiles. This wider sense is also favoured by the circumstance that Galilee is not named, although some have thought it to be mentioned in the last words, which must then be rendered, the uttermost (part) of the land. But this limitation of the sense is forbidden by the obvious climax, or progressive enlargement of their field of labour to its utmost limits, as well as by the clear analogy of other places, where any but the strongest sense is inadmissible. (See below, on 13:47, and compare Isai. 49:6.) Uttermost (part), or extreme (point), of the earth. This and other kindred phrases are employed in the Old Testament, to signify all nations, not excepting the remotest. (See Ps. 2:8; 19:4; 67:7; 72:8; Isai. 48:20; Zech. 9:10.) Unto does not fully represent the Greek preposition (ἕως), which can only be expressed in English by such strengthened forms as out to, even to, as far as, all suggesting the idea of great distance. Chrysostom hints at the remarkable contrast between this charge and their original commission (Matt. 10:5). "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into (any) town of the Samaritans enter ye not." (Compare Matt. 15:24.) The time of this restriction had expired, and the last great apostolical commission is entirely catholic and ecumenical.

9. The preliminaries of our Lord's ascension having been described, the historian now records the Ascension itself. When he had spoken, literally, having spoken. The past participle (εἰπών) implies that his discourse was finished, not interrupted by his disappearance. While they beheld, literally, they beholding. It was not behind their backs, or while they were looking in a different direction, but in full view, and as an actual object of their vision, that our Lord ascended. Taken up would be a perfectly correct translation, if it did not seem to make the verb (ἐπήρθη) coincide exactly with the one in v. 2 (ἀνελήφθη), as descriptive of the whole transaction, beginning on earth and ending in heaven; whereas it signifies the first stage or incipient act of the Ascension, that of rising, or rather being raised, above the surface of the ground. The nearest equivalent in English would be, he was lifted. By a cloud some understand a dark or thunder cloud, like that at Sinai (Exod. 19:16); others a luminous or bright cloud, such as that which overhung the transfiguration (Matt. 17:5.) The intervention of a cloud may have been designed to answer two important purposes; first, that of making our Lord's transit from earth to heaven more distinctly visible; and then that of recalling to the minds of the spectators the awful but familiar symbol of Jehovah's presence under the Old Testament (Exod. 16:10; 19:16; 24:15, 18; 33:9, 10; 40:34–38.) Received is a very inadequate translation of the Greek verb (ὑπέλαβεν), which primarily means to raise a thing by getting under it, and then to catch up or raise suddenly, as a wind or storm does. This sense, which is common in the classics, is entirely appropriate here, and marks the second step or stage of the Ascension. A cloud caught him up (and away) out of their sight, or, more exactly, from their (very) eyes. Here again we are reminded, that they were actually looking on and saw the whole proceeding, till the object passed the natural and necessary boundary of vision. This distinguishes the case from every other like it; not only from the fabled apotheosis of Hercules amidst the smoke of his own funeral-pile, and that of Romulus during an eclipse, with the addition, in both cases, of a preternatural and fearful storm; but also from the fiery translation of Elijah (2 Kings 2:11), the difference between which and our Lord's ascension has been thought to prefigure that between the spirit of the old and new economy, or of the Law and Gospel. (Compare Luke 9:52–56.) It is characteristic of the sacred history, that Luke's whole narrative of this astonishing occurrence, in the book before us, is confined to this one verse, the context having reference to what occurred before and afterwards. And yet it is not a mere reiteration of his previous account, which is also comprised in a single sentence. (See Luke 24:51, and compare Mark 16:19.) From Luke's mention of the eleven and them that were with them (Luke 24:33), and the unbroken narrative that follows there, it has been inferred that there were many witnesses of the Ascension; but the narrative before us makes the natural impression, that this grand sight was confined to the Apostles.

10. They looked stedfastly, or rather, they were gazing. The Greek verb strictly denotes tension or straining of the eyes. The word translated while corresponds to our as, and like it may express either time or resemblance. If the latter meaning is assumed here, the sense of the whole clause will be that they were like (men) gazing, or were as (if) gazing, into heaven. But the temporal meaning (when or while) is preferred by almost all interpreters. Toward heaven might be more correctly rendered into heaven. They gazed not only at but into heaven, as if to penetrate its secrets and discern their now invisible Redeemer. As he went up, literally, he advancing or proceeding, the direction of his course being not expressed but suggested by the context. All this is intended to evince more clearly, that our Saviour did not vanish or miraculously disappear (compare Luke 24:31), but simply passed beyond the boundary of vision. Behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected or surprising. While they were gazing into heaven, two men stood, or rather had stood (or taken their stand) beside them. White apparel, or white garments, as in such connections elsewhere, seems to signify not colour merely, but a preternatural effulgence. (See Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:3; Luke 9:29.) This has led to the conclusion that the men here mentioned, though in human form, were angels, like the strangers who appeared at the resurrection, and to whom both designations are applied by different evangelists. (Compare Matt. 28:2; John 20:12, with Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4.) Some have thought it not unlikely, that the same two angels reappeared on this occasion; but a still more striking supposition, which I owe to the suggestion of a friend, is that these two men were Moses and Elijah, who had been present at the transfiguration, and there talked with Jesus of his exodus about to be accomplished at Jerusalem (Luke 9:31.) There is something sublime in the idea, that the great prophetic Legislator and Reformer, who had come from heaven to be present at the momentary anticipation of the Mediator's glory, now appeared again as witnesses of his departure to take final and perpetual possession of it. This hypothesis may help us to account for the abruptness and conciseness of the narrative, as if the writer, for the moment, thought of the Transfiguration and Ascension as immediately successive, losing sight of all that intervened, and therefore introducing the same persons without naming them again. It also gives unspeakable authority and interest to the promise in the next verse, as proceeding from two most illustrious prophets of the old economy. After all, however, this idea, fruitful as it is, must be regarded as a mere conjecture.

11. Here, as in v. 2 above, the also is by no means superfluous, but adds to the simple meaning of the verb, that they did not merely take their stand by the disciples, which was sufficient of itself to awe them, but also audibly addressed them. Men of Galilee, or Galilean Men, or still more closely, Men, Galileans, that is, Men (who are also) Galileans. This designation, which was afterwards derisively applied to Christians, can of course have no such meaning here, but is rather a respectful recognition of those present, as the countrymen and tried friends of the person who had just ascended. The same idea is suggested by the use of the word translated men (ἄνδρες), which, in ancient usage, approaches to the modern sense of gentlemen, in this and other like combinations. (See below, v. 16; 2:14, 22; 17:22, etc.) Why stand ye, or, adhering closely to the form of the original, why have ye stood (or been standing, so long) looking into heaven? The word gazing, which is here used by four of the old English versions, would have been more appropriate in v. 10, where they all have looked. The question of the two men seems to involve an indirect reproof of their forgetfulness or unbelief of what their Lord himself had told them. This was betrayed by their excessive and continued wonder at his disappearance, as if they had expected him to stay on earth for ever, though the promise of the Paraclete, which he had just renewed to them, was formally suspended on his own departure, and return to the bosom of the Father (John 16:7.) Their astonishment, moreover, seems to show that they despaired of ever seeing Christ himself again; whereas he had repeatedly declared that he would come again (John 14:3), and in the very way that he had now departed, i. e. in a cloud (Luke 21:27), or as it is variously expressed by the Evangelists, in clouds, on the clouds, or with the clouds of heaven. (See Mark 13:26; 14:62; Matt. 24:30; 26:64, in several of which places, the English versions have gratuitously changed the preposition.) The question of the two men was intended therefore to recall them to themselves, and to remind them that, instead of stupidly and idly gazing after one who was no longer visible, they should rather show their love to him by instantly obeying his farewell commands, and trusting his repeated promise to return, which they accordingly repeat, as if to show their own implicit confidence in its fulfilment. In like manner, literally, what manner, an expression similar to what day in v. 2 above. The Greek phrase (ὅν τρόπον) never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner. (Compare Matt. 23:37; Luke 13:34; Acts 7:28; 2 Tim. 3:8.) Have seen, or more exactly, saw, the form of the original implying that the sight was over when these words were uttered. The verb itself is not the ordinary verb to see, but one implying some unusual or striking spectacle, the root of our word theatre and all its cognate forms. We read nothing more of the two men, who may have disappeared as suddenly as Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration (Mark 9:8.) It would seem, at least, perhaps from the conciseness of the narrative, that the Eleven thought no more of them, but in their eagerness to do as they were bidden, turned their backs on those by whom the admonition was conveyed to them, without inquiring whence they came, or what was now become of them. (See below, on 8:39.)

12. This verse and the two following furnish the transition from the first to the second principal event recorded in the chapter. We have here the return of the Eleven from the place of the Ascension to the Holy City. Unto, or more exactly, into Jerusalem, denoting not mere approach or arrival, but actual entrance, as appears from the verse following. In the next clause the original construction is peculiar—from a mounts the (one) called Olivet—as if he had said, 'they returned from a mountain where all this occurred, and which, it may be added, was called Olivet.' This name is borrowed from the Vulgate (Oliveti) and is found in all the English versions, except that of Geneva, which has Olive Hill. The Latin word is used by Cicero, and means an olive-yard or orchard. The Greek word occurs only here in the New Testament, but often in the Septuagint version, with a similar form meaning, vineyard. The name is given here, and sometimes by Josephus, to the high ridge on the east side of Jerusalem, beyond the Kedron, elsewhere called the Mount of Olives (Zech. 14:4; Matt. 21:1; Mark 11:1; Luke 19:29; John 8:1.) The English Bible also uses the form Olivet in 2 Sam. 15:30, where the Hebrew, Greek and Latin have the Mount of Olives. It still bears the tree from which it takes its name, but not in such abundance as of old. The old tradition, mentioned by Eusebius in the early part of the fourth century, that Christ ascended from the summit of the mountain, seems to contradict the statement in Luke 24:50, 51, that he led them out as far as Bethany, which was on the eastern side of Olivet, and fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem (John 11:18); whereas the distance of the mount itself is here described as little more than half as great. The sabbath-day's journey, or as it might be more exactly rendered sabbath's way or walk, was not a long one, as the use of the word journey has led many English readers to imagine, but a space of two thousand cubits, between seven and eight furlongs, the extent to which the Jews were allowed, by the tradition of the elders, to leave home upon the sabbath. The measure is supposed to have been borrowed from the space between the people and the ark, when they passed over Jordan (Josh. 3:4.) The distance seems to be here stated only for the purpose of conveying the idea, that the Mount of Olives was not far from the city. This idea is, besides, expressed in Greek by a word omitted in the common version, namely, near (ἐγγύς). The literal translation of the clause is, which is near Jerusalem, having a sabbath's walk (between them.) The word having (ἔχον) is also omitted in the English version, by a double inadvertence, with which our translators are not often chargeable. Some take the Greek word in the sense of distant, which belongs however only to the compound form (ἀπέχον). There is no allusion to the customary sabbath promenade of the inhabitants, but only to a measure of distance, with which all Jewish readers were familiar.

13. The entrance mentioned in the first clause may be either that into the city or that into the house. An upper room, not any room above the ground-floor, which would be otherwise expressed in Greek; much less a garret or inferior apartment; but a comparatively spacious room reserved, both in Greek and Jewish houses, for the use of guests or for unusual occasions. (See below, on 9:39; 20:8.) The original expression has the article (the upper room), which may mean the only one belonging to the house; but as no house is specified, it seems rather to refer to something previously mentioned or already known. This is altogether natural if we suppose them to have still frequented the same upper room, in which they had partaken of the Passover, and which had been designated by the Lord in a remarkable manner (Matt. 26:18; Mark 14:15; Luke 22:12.) This is much more probable than that they had procured another place for their assemblies, either in a private house or in the precincts of the temple. Even supposing that they could have been accommodated in one of the chambers or small houses which surrounded the courts of the temple, they could have had no reason for preferring it to one already consecrated by the presence and the farewell words of their ascended Master. It is probable, indeed, that strangers, who continued in Jerusalem from Passover to Pentecost, commonly retained the same rooms during the whole interval. Besides, an apartment belonging to the temple would hardly have been simply called an upper room. The statement in Luke's Gospel (24:53) that after their return from the Ascension, "they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God," means nothing more than our familiar phrase, that any one is always at church. To the argument derived from the propriety or fitness of the first Christian meetings being held within the precincts of the Jewish sanctuary, it has been replied, that there was nothing more distinctive of the new dispensation than its freedom from the local and ritual restrictions of the old. Though neither of these reasons can be deemed conclusive, they may serve at least to neutralize each other. Where abode, or literally, were abiding, a form of expression which implies continued, but not necessarily a constant residence. The Greek verb is promiscuously used to signify both permanent and temporary occupation. The requisitions of the text and context are quite satisfied by the assumption, that they daily assembled in the upper room, or at the most spent a large part of their time there, in the acts and services described below. We have then a catalogue of the Apostles, introduced, as some suppose, because they were now re-assembled and re-organized after their dispersion (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50.) But besides that they had several times met since that defection (Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:36; John 20:19, 26; 21:14), a distinct enumeration of their names would have been natural, not to say necessary, as an introduction to the apostolical history. This is the fourth list contained in the New Testament (compare Matt. 10:2–4; Mark 3:16–19; Luke 6:14–16), and in some points different from all the rest. Although no two of these catalogues agree precisely in the order of the names, they may all be divided into three quaternions, which are never interchanged, and the leading names of which are the same in all. Thus the first is always Peter, the fifth Philip, the ninth James the son of Alpheus, and the twelfth Judas Iscariot. Another difference is that Matthew and Luke's Gospel give the names in pairs, or two and two, while Mark enumerates them singly, and the list before us follows both these methods, one after the other. A third distinction is that this list adds no titles or descriptions to the leading names, but only to those near the end. Both Peter, like a similar expression in v. 8, means not only Peter but the others also. This, with his uniform position at the head of the list, marks distinctly his priority, not as a superior in rank and office, but as a representative and spokesman of the rest, like the foreman of a jury or the chairman of a large committee. This priority, which often incidentally appears throughout the Gospel History (e.g. Matt. 15:15; 16:16; 17:24; 18:21; 19:27; Mark 10:28; 11:21; Luke 8:45; 12:41; 18:28; 22:32, 33; John 6:68; 13:24), so far from amounting to a primacy or permanent superiority, was less an advantage to himself than a convenience to his brethren, and indeed occasioned some of his most serious errors and severest trials. (See Matt. 16:16, 22; 26:33, 51, 58; Mark 8:32; 14:29, 47, 54, 66; Luke 22:34, 50, 55; John 13:8, 36, 37; 18:10, 11, 16.) It is now a very general belief, that the affecting scene in John 21:15–17, was Peter's restoration to the apostleship, from which he had fallen for a time by the denial of his master; the three questions and injunctions there recorded corresponding to his three acts of apostasy. Be this as it may, we find him here resuming the position which he occupied before and is to occupy throughout a large part of the present history. The other names are all familiar from the Gospels. James and John, the sons of Zebedee, and Sons of Thunder, early called to be disciples and apostles (Matt. 4:21; 10:2; Mark 1:19, 29; 3:17; Luke 5:10; 6:14), and with Peter frequently distinguished from the rest as confidential servants and companions of our Saviour (Matt. 17:1; Mark 5:37; 9:2; 13:3; Luke 8:51), while John was admitted to a still more intimate and tender friendship (John 13:23; 19:26; 21:7, 20.) Traits of their character appear in Mark 10:35–41; Luke 9:52–56. Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, and placed next to him by Mark, but here postponed to the two sons of Zebedee. On one or two occasions in the Gospel history, we find him incidentally referred to, as attending on the Master and conversing with him (Matt. 4:18; 10:2; Mark 1:16, 29; 3:18; 13:3; Luke 6:14; John 1:40, 44; 6:8; 12:22.) The same thing may be said of Philip, his townsman and associate (Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:14; John 1:44–49; 6:5–7; 12:21, 22; 14:8, 9.) It is worthy of remark, that these two apostles are known only by Greek names, though, according to the custom of the age, they may have had Hebrew ones besides. Thomas, elsewhere surnamed Didymus (the Twin, a Greek translation of his Aramaic name). He also appears now and then in close attendance on his master and peculiarly devoted to him, although chiefly remembered for refusing to believe that Christ was risen from the dead, until assured of it by ocular inspection (John 11:16; 14:5; 20:24–29; 21:2.) Bartholomew is commonly supposed to be the same with the Nathanael of John's Gospel, chiefly because it seems improbable that one so highly honoured by the Saviour, and so intimately known to the Apostles, should be excluded from their number, while a person otherwise unknown was admitted to it. (See John 1:46–50; 21:2.) Matthew the Publican, also called Levi and the Son of Alpheus, whose vocation and first intercourse with Christ are recorded by himself and others. (See Matt. 9:9; 10:3; Mark 2:14; 3:18; Luke 5:27–29; 6:15.) James of Alpheus, i. e. as is commonly supposed, his son, while, on the other hand, Judas of James is no less generally understood to mean his brother, although some assume the same ellipsis in both places, and make Jude the son of a James otherwise unknown. By comparing the evangelists, it seems that Jude, or Judas not Iscariot, was also called Lebbeus and Thaddeus. (See Matt. 10:3; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:16; John 14:22.) Between James and Judas appears the name of Simon, surnamed here Zelotes, in reference either to his ardent temper, or to his previous connection with the party of the Zealots, whose fanatical zeal ultimately caused the downfall of the Jewish state, and of whose organized existence there are traces even in the book before us. Zelotes seems to be the Greek translation, as Cananites is the Greek form, of an Aramaic name denoting Zealot. The Greek word for Canaanite is altogether different. The meaning Canaïte (inhabitant of Cana) rests upon another reading. (See Matt. 10:4; Mark 3:18; Luke 6:15.)

14. To the names of the Apostles is now added an account of their employments during the interval between Ascension Day and Pentecost. These, whose names have just been enumerated. All, without exception, none of the eleven being absent at this interesting juncture. Continued, literally, were continuing (or persevering), a construction similar to that in the preceding verse, were dwelling (or abiding). The Greek verb here used strictly denotes personal attendance, sticking close to any thing or person, particularly that of a superior, and is then transferred to perseverance in duty, such as that of public worship, and particularly prayer. With one accord, or one mind, as the Greek word properly denotes, implying unanimity of sentiment and concert or agreement, as well as mere coincidence of time and place. Prayer and supplication. The last word is omitted in the Vulgate, and in several of the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions. It is not a mere tautology, however, as the word translated prayer originally signifies the votive or promissory part of worship, that which man presents to God; while the one translated supplication properly means want, then desire, and then the expression of it, whether addressed to God or man. The two (if both be genuine) are here joined to express the whole idea of devotional address to God. With the women, or, as Calvin and some others understand it, with their wives. But this, according to Greek usage, would require the insertion of two words, to wit, the article and pronoun (with the wives of them), neither of which is found in the original. The strict translation is, with women, i. e. with women as well as men; these services were limited to neither sex. There is no express reference to those particular women who accompanied our Lord from Galilee, witnessed his crucifixion, watched his burial, and rejoiced in his resurrection (Luke 8:2, 3; 23:55; 24:1; Matt. 27:55, 56; Mark 15:47; 16:1; John 19:25.) Some of these were no doubt present; but the fact is explicitly asserted only of his mother. This is her last appearance in the history, a striking comment on the false position which the church of Rome assigns to her, and from which, if it were well founded, she might be expected to fill much the largest space in all that follows. According to one old tradition, she died early in Jerusalem; according to another, she accompanied John to Ephesus and lived to an advanced age. With his brethren, or his brothers, probably the same who accompanied his mother upon several remarkable occasions in the Gospel History (John 2:12; Matt. 12:46–50; Mark 3:31–35; Luke 8:19–21), and would therefore seem to have been members of her household. Beyond this, who his brethren were, has been a subject of dispute for ages. The bearing of this question on the personal identity and apostolical authority of James, the so-called bishop of Jerusalem, will claim attention in its proper place. (See below, on 12:17; 15:13; 21:18.) In the case before us, it is of little exegetical importance, whether we suppose his brethren to have been the sons of Joseph and Mary, or her nephews, or the nephews of her husband, or his children by a former marriage; all which opinions have been plausibly defended. The only fact certainly revealed here is, that among those who united in the prayers of the Apostles at this interesting juncture, were the nearest relatives of Christ himself.

15. Here begins the second topic or occurrence recorded in this chapter, the election of a new Apostle. We have first the proposition made by Peter (15–22), and in this verse a specification of the time and place. In those days, an indefinite expression elsewhere used with great latitude, but here restricted by the context to the ten days, which constitute the difference between the forty mentioned in the third verse and the fifty denoted by the name of Pentecost. (See below, on 2:1.) We have no means of determining at what part of this interval the occurrence here recorded took place. It seems most natural however to suppose that it happened near the end of the ten days, and perhaps on the very eve of Pentecost. Peter, as might have been expected, takes the lead on this occasion, in the exercise of that representative priority, with which he had so long been invested, and to which he had been recently restored. Stood up, or arose, implying more publicity and form than belongs to a mere conversation. In the midst of the disciples, i. e. among them, or surrounded by them, without any reference to exact position. After writing the word said, but before recording the words uttered, the historian guards against the error of supposing that this speech was made to a small or select audience. The number of names together were might have been more exactly rendered, there was a crowd of names together. The first Greek noun (ὄχλος) does not mean mere number; nor a very great absolute number, which a hundred and twenty is not; but a promiscuous assemblage, as distinguished from a corporate or official body, such as that of the Apostles. (See below, on 19:26, 33, 35.) Names is not synonymous with persons, either here or elsewhere (Rev. 3:4; 11:13), but implies registration, and that again supposes some degree and kind of organization. The distinction here suggested is not that between males and females, only the former being registered in ancient times; nor that between distinguished names and unknown persons; but the word is meant to qualify the one before it, by suggesting that although the meeting was promiscuous rather than official, it was not a nameless rabble, but a gathering of persons known by name, and therefore one by one, to be disciples. Whether these were all Galileans, or all Presbyters, or Presbyters and Bishops, or representatives of congregations, there is nothing in the text or context to determine. It is highly improbable, however, although frequently asserted, that this meeting comprehended the whole body of believers, even in Jerusalem. (See John 2:23; 3:26; 7:31; 11:45, 48.)

16. Peter begins by showing that the apostasy and death of Judas had been long before predicted, and could not therefore fail to happen. Men (and) brethren is a combination similar to that in v. 11, although very differently rendered. While men has the same respectful import as in that case, the use of the word brethren recognizes them as fellow Christians. The singular form scripture does not necessarily denote a single passage (as in Luke 4:21), but here includes the two quotations in v. 20 below. Must needs have been, or it was necessary (ἔδει) that it should be fulfilled, as it has been, in the death of Judas. (Compare the present of the same verb in v. 21 below.) The prediction here referred to is not only spoken of as scripture, i. e. written by divine authority, but expressly ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as its ultimate author, and to David only as the vehicle or channel of communication. We have thus the testimony, both of Peter and of Luke, to the inspiration and Davidic origin of the psalms in question. Spake before, not merely spake of old or formerly, but foretold or predicted long before the event, an act necessarily implying inspiration and prophetic foresight. Concerning Judas cannot be grammatically construed with fulfilled, so as to mean that although spoken of another it was verified in him. This is forbidden by the collocation of the words and by the preposition (περί), which can only indicate the theme or subject of the prophecy itself. Which was guide, or more exactly, who became a guide, implying defection and apostasy; he had been a friend and an apostle, but he afterwards became a guide to those who seized him. In both these clauses, the original construction has a participial form, the (one) becoming guide to the (men) seizing him. The reference is of course to the arrest of Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane (John 18:2, 3). One of the oldest commentators (Chrysostom) directs attention to this mild and almost negative description of the crime of Judas, and ascribes it, not improbably, to Peter's painful recollection of his own denial of his master, which had only been prevented by that master's intercession (Luke 22:32) from being equally complete and fatal. This is certainly more natural and candid than the charge, which some have brought against Peter, of uncharitable harshness, in referring to Iscariot at all, when his own analogous but temporary fall was still so recent.

17. This verse assigns a reason why the prophecy and its fulfilment concerned them especially, to wit, because Judas had been one of them, not only in appearance or in name, but by actual and personal participation. Numbered with us implies, not only registration or enrolment, like the use of the word names in v. 15, but also a definite and well-known number, namely, that of twelve, which was by no means arbitrary or unmeaning, as we shall see below. As if he had said, 'he helped with us to make up that significant and sacred number, which has now been broken and must be restored.' Or the word may be referred, in a less emphatic sense, to the whole body of believers, and the mention of his apostolic office be restricted to the last clause. Part of this ministry might seem in English to denote a portion as distinguished from the whole. But both the verb and noun (obtained part) have reference in Greek (ἔλαχε τὸν κλῆρον) to the ancient practice of distributing by lot, though secondarily applied to any allotment, or appointment not dependent on the will of the recipient, whether the bestowing power be divine or human. The clause might be more exactly rendered, shared the allotment of this ministry. The ministry in question is of course the apostleship, to which the same word is applied by Paul (Rom. 11:13.) Both the Greek and the English word strictly denote service, although commonly suggestive of official power. It is a fine remark of Æschines, that office, when conferred by an election, is not a lordship (ἀρχή) but a service (διακονία).

18. Having mentioned the treachery of Judas, and his long connection with the college of Apostles, Peter reminds his hearers of his frightful end; not as something new to them, or something which they had forgotten, for the facts were too recent and notorious to be so presented; but to impress upon their minds the actual and terrible fulfilment of the divine threatening. There is no need, therefore, of regarding this verse as a parenthetical remark of the historian, which indeed is forbidden by the form of the original, where now is not a single but a double particle (μὲν οὖν), employed to mark the interruptions and resumptions of a continuous discourse, like so then in the pauses and transitions of a narrative. Such an expression would be wholly out of place in the beginning of an insulated note or comment, interrupting the thread of the discourse. This may be regarded as contemptuous, a meaning which it sometimes has in Classical as well as Hellenistic Greek. Peter is here speaking, not as a historian but as an orator, to those already well acquainted with the facts, and therefore in no danger of misapprehension. He contrasts the loss and gain of the betrayer; he had lost his office and his soul, and he had gained—a field, a piece of ground, which only served to perpetuate his infamy! The disproportion here suggested is still greater than the one involved in our Saviour's awful question, What is a man profited if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Purchased is not so good a version of the Greek verb as acquired or gained. There is therefore really no disagreement between Peter's oratorical and Matthew's plain historical account of the same matter, according to which it was the priests who bought the Potter's Field with the betrayer's wages after he was dead (Matt. 27:7.) Nor is it even necessary to apply the legal maxim, qui facit per alium facit per se, or to cite the universal practice of describing one as building, planting, saving, or destroying, when he only uses means or instruments. In all such cases there is a conscious purpose, and at least a mediate or indirect co-operation, on the part of the prime agent, which is here entirely wanting. A fields, or literally, a place, but like the latter word, applied familiarly to landed property, estates, or residences. With the reward, or rather, out of, from, the wages of iniquity, not merely as the means of acquisition, but the source, the fountain, of his infamous celebrity. Iniquity, injustice, with particular allusion to our Saviour's lawless condemnation, but including also the more positive idea of corrupttion and malignity, as causes and occasions of the treachery of Judas. Falling headlong, literally, becoming prone or prostrate, an expression often used by Homer in connection with verbs of falling, which completely justifies the common version from the charge of introducing an idea not contained in the original. Burst asunder: the original verb primarily signifies a bursting noise, but secondarily, the rupture which occasions it. In the midst, not of us, or of a circle of spectators, as the common version might suggest to English readers, but as Wiclif has it, in the middle, i. e. of his body. Gushed out, or rather, as the form is passive, they were spilt, poured out, or shed forth. This shocking description of the death of Judas may be reconciled with Matthew's simple statement that he hanged himself (Matt. 27:5), by merely supposing what is constantly occurring in such cases, that the rope or branch from which he was suspended broke, and he was violently thrown upon the ground, with the effect above described. As no one can deny that the two statements are compatible, the only difficulty is that the two Apostles should record entirely different parts of the transaction. The solution is afforded by the difference of the circumstances under which the two accounts were given, and which has been already mentioned. Matthew wrote as a historian, for a wide circle of readers, many of whom had no previous knowledge of the case; he therefore states the main fact, and according to his usual custom passes over the minute details. Peter, orally addressing those who knew the facts as fully as himself, and less than six weeks after their occurrence, and upon the very spot, assumes the main fact as already known, and naturally dwells upon those very circumstances which the Evangelist, many years later, no less wisely and naturally leaves out altogether. However this may seem to others, there is scarcely an American or English jury that would scruple to receive these two accounts as perfectly consistent, if the witnesses were credible, and any cause could be assigned for their relating two distinct parts of the same transaction.

19. We here learn from Peter himself, that what he is relating is no news or fresh discovery to his hearers, but a fact notorious to all Jerusalem, and already perpetuated by a descriptive and commemorative name. It was known, or rather it became known or notorious, i. e. from the very time of the occurrence, and of course had so continued till the time of Peter's speaking. Insomuch as is an awkward and obscure expression, found in none of the older English versions, most of which have insomuch that, while the oldest of all (Wiclif's) gives the simple and exact translation, so that. The common version must not be confounded with the similar phrase inasmuch as, which is equivalent in meaning to because. In their proper tongue, i. e. their own language or peculiar dialect, an Aramaic modification or corruption of the Hebrew, spoken by the Jews from the time of their captivity in Babylon, and often called by modern writers Syro-Chaldaic, which is apt however to suggest the false idea of a compound language formed by the mixture of two others, rather than that of a correlative or parallel derivative from a common source. As Peter seems to speak of the language as a foreign one, some understand by it the dialect of Judea or Jerusalem, as distinct from that of Galilee. But although there was certainly a perceptible difference (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70), it was probably not greater than that which now distinguishes the English from the Scotch and Irish, and would scarcely have been made so prominent by Peter, even if his hearers were all Galileans like himself, which is by no means certain. Some have inferred, therefore, that these cannot be the words of Peter, and that this verse, at least, if not the one before it, must be a parenthetical addition by the hand of the historian. But the utmost that can be inferred is that the clause immediately before us was so added, which may be admitted without any derogation from the credit of the narrative or the authenticity of the discourse. If a French orator should allude to the original meaning of the word tuileries in speaking of the famous palace, an English reporter of his speech could scarcely fail to add, "which in French means a brick-kiln," without dreaming that the reader would suppose these words to have been uttered, or that their insertion would impair the credibility of the report. Aceldama is easily reducible to two words (חקל דמא), of frequent occurrence in the ancient Aramaic versions, and equivalent in meaning to Luke's Greek translation, Field of Blood. This name would readily suggest two ideas, that of our Lord's judicial murder, to which he was betrayed by Judas, and the subsequent suicide of Judas himself. (See Matt. 27:8.)

20. In the preceding verses (17–19) the Apostle seemed to have lost sight of his main purpose, as propounded in v. 16; but he now returns to it, in such a way that the apparent interruption fortifies his argument. Having stated in general, that the apostasy of Judas was the subject and fulfilment of a prophecy, and having dwelt upon the fearful circumstances of his death, he now shows what particular predictions had been terribly verified in these events. The logical connection is with v. 16. The scripture concerning Judas must be fulfilled—and there is such a scripture—for it is written, etc. But the intervening verses, though in form a digression, have prepared the mind for the citation, and so make it more impressive than it could have been, if immediately subjoined to the general proposition in v. 16. As if he had said, 'these are awful realities, still fresh in every memory, and yet they were predicted many centuries ago, for it is written, etc.' The original expression is still stronger, for it has been written (γέγρατται). The Book of Psalms is here distinctly recognized, as a collection well known to his hearers, and acknowledged by them as a part of the divine revelation comprehended in the Hebrew Canon. The indefinite term scripture, used in v. 16, is here defined, not only by the mention of the book, but by the actual quotation of two passages, the first from Ps. 69:25, the other from Ps. 109:8. They are not combined through inadvertence or mistake, as some have foolishly alleged, but from a clear and profound view of their mutual connection, as belonging to the same class, and admitting of the same interpretation. This is not to be regarded as a mere accommodation of the language to a subject altogether different from that at first intended, which is inconsistent, not with inspiration only, but with common sense, especially as these alleged predictions are here made the ground and warrant of an important public measure. Those, however, who reject the notion of accommodation, are by no means agreed as to the principle, on which the cited passages may be applied to Christ and Judas. Some regard the whole of both psalms as exclusively and strictly Messianic, and explain the confession in Ps. 69:5, as relating to imputed sin. Others suppose one part to relate to the Messiah and his enemies, while the remainder in both cases has respect to David or some other ancient sufferer. A third hypothesis applies the whole to David and his adversaries in a lower sense, but in a higher sense to Christ and Judas. To avoid the inconveniences attending all these exegetical hypotheses, some modern writers make the subject of these Psalms, and others like them, a generic or ideal person, representing a whole class, to wit, that of the righteous under persecution, and apply them to Christ, not exclusively but eminently, as the highest and most perfect representative of that class, although some strokes of the description are true only of inferior examples. The quotations, as recorded, are taken from the Septuagint version, with a few slight variations. Habitation, in Hebrew, an enclosure or encampment; in Greek, a shelter for the night, with special reference to shepherds and their flocks, and thence transferred to farm or country houses, but here used in the generic sense of home or dwelling. Bishopric, though in itself correct, because a mere corruption of the Greek word, suggests foreign ideas by its modern usage and associations. The marginal translation in our Bible (charge or office) is not only free from this objection, but much nearer to the meaning of the Greek and Hebrew words, which both denote official visitation and inspection.

21, 22. This is the practical conclusion of the argument, the proposition with which Peter closes his address. The first word indicates the logical connection. Wherefore, or therefore, i. e. since the apostolical office is ordained of God, and this first breach in it was foreseen and predicted by the Holy Spirit centuries ago, it must be the divine will and purpose, that its integrity should be preserved. In the English version of this sentence, there is an unusual departure from the original order of the words, a change not only needless, as in multitudes of other cases, but in this case really injurious to the force and clearness of the passage. Thus the word must, in the middle of v. 22, stands in Greek at the beginning of the whole sentence, which is its natural and proper place, as it contains the sum of the conclusion drawn from all that goes before. It is necessary therefore (δεῖ οὖν) that the place of Judas should be filled, as afterwards expressed. The necessity alleged was proved, but not created, by the prophecy, which was a mere announcement of God's will and purpose. Peter then proceeds to state the necessary qualifications, or to define the class from which the new Apostle must be taken. The grand qualification was familiar intercourse with Christ and his immediate followers throughout his public ministry, and a consequent capacity to bear witness of his words and actions. Men (ἀνδρῶν), not in the vague sense of persons or human beings, but in the distinctive sense of males, or men not women. Which have companied with us, or more literally, those going (or who went) with us. As the Greek verb really answers both to come and go in English, it might here be rendered coming and going, i. e. moving about, or in various directions. The essential meaning, although not the form of the original, is well expressed by companied with us. The idea evidently is, that the candidate must not only have believed Christ's doctrines and submitted to his teaching, as a disciple in the widest sense, but formed a part of that more permanent body, which appears to have attended him from place to place, throughout the whole course of his public ministry. This last idea is expressed in a peculiar idiomatic form, all the time that (or more exactly, in which, during which) the Lord Jesus went in and out among us. To go (or come) in and out is a Hebrew phrase, denoting constant and habitual movement, sometimes applied to the whole course of life (Deut. 28:6, 19; John 10:19), sometimes restricted to official action (1 Sam. 18:13, 16; Acts 9:28.) Among us does not fully reproduce the sense of the original expression, which, according to the usage of the Greek words, rather means upon us, i. e. over us, above us, as our head and leader. This important idea of superiority is merged, by the English version and most others, in the minor one of mere association or companionship. But how was this period to be computed or defined? By fixing its extremities, as Peter does in v. 22. The construction of beginning is ambiguous in English; but in Greek, its very form shows that it must be construed with the Lord Jesus, and denotes the beginning of his active ministry. The starting point was the baptism of John. This does not mean the baptism of our Lord himself by John, which would be otherwise expressed, and which throws the terminus a quo too far back, as the public ministry of Christ did not begin as soon as he had been baptized; nor would it have been possible to find men who had constantly attended him from that time to the day of the election; so that this construction would make the prescribed condition an impossible and therefore an absurd one. The baptism of John no doubt means his entire ministry, so called from the peculiar rite by which it was distinguished, just as the circumcision means the Jewish church or party, and the cross is often put for the Gospel or the Christian religion. The precise point indicated is not the beginning but the close of John's preparatory ministry, with which the beginning of our Lord's is explicitly connected by the statement in the Gospels, that "after John was put into prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God." (Mark 1:14, compare Matt. 4:12, 17.) Unto that same day is a strong but not inaccurate translation, as the Greek preposition (ἕως) is the same used in a local sense above (v. 8), and here means quite to, or until the very day in question. Taken up from us suggests two ideas, that of their own loss, and that of their own presence as eyewitnesses. Ordained, like bishopric (in v. 20), has acquired a fixed ecclesiastical meaning, wholly foreign from the Greek word here used, which means simply to become, or more emphatically, to be made. A witness of his resurrection, the great key-stone of the Christian system, presupposing his life and death as necessary antecedents, and implying his ascension and exaltation as necessary consequents. Hence the extraordinary prominence given to this fact in the first preaching of the gospel (2:32; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:33; 17:18, 31; 25:19; 26:23), and in the doctrinal parts of the New Testament. (See particularly 1 Cor. 15:12–20.) With us, not by himself, or independently of those already constituted witnesses, but as a member of that organized and indivisible body, to which this great trust had been jointly committed. The end, as well as the beginning, of this long and pregnant period, differs very much in the translation and original. As the first word in Greek is (δεῖ) must, or it is necessary, so the closing words are one of these. Although our idiom would hardly have admitted of this collocation, yet it ought to be observed that by connecting this phrase with the word men in the first clause of verse 21, the English version unintentionally suggests an idea, which, although it may be true, is not expressed in the original, to wit, that the choice was to be made from among those actually present; whereas these, in its original position, does not mean these now before you, but these whom (or such as) I have now described.

23. This verse records the execution of the plan proposed by Peter. The act described has been referred by some to the eleven, and by others to the whole assembly of an hundred and twenty. In the absence of any thing to solve this doubt, and in accordance both with Greek and Hebrew usage, the verb may be indefinitely construed, as equivalent in meaning to a passive, they were set up or appointed. The process itself seems identical with that called in modern parlance nomination as distinguished from election, i. e. the propounding of a limited number, cut of which the choice is to be made. But a difficulty here arises, as to the authority, by which this preliminary step was taken. If the apostles or disciples were competent to choose two, why not to choose one? If, on the other hand, the ultimate decision was necessarily referred to God himself, what right had this assembly to restrict his choice to two whom they had previously fixed upon? The only escape from this dilemma is afforded by a supposition, in itself entirely natural, that these two were the only persons present or within reach, who possessed the necessary qualification. It is by no means probable that many could be found, who had companied with the disciples during the whole period of Christ's ministry, and who were therefore competent to act as his official witnesses. Some have imagined, it is true, that the whole body of believers present upon this occasion were thus qualified; but this is a gratuitous assumption, and intrinsically most improbable. The explanation just proposed may seem to be at variance with the fact that these two persons were appointed; but this is equally at variance with the subsequent divine decision. To appoint two new apostles and then ask God to choose one of them, would certainly have been both foolish and irreverent. The truth is that the Greek verb (ἔστησαν) simply means they placed (or set up) these two men as duly qualified, and then left the decision to their Lord and Master. The part performed by the apostles or disciples in this grave transaction was entirely ministerial, and consisted in ascertaining who were eligible, on the principles laid down by Peter, and then placing the men thus selected in the presence of the multitude, or rather before God, as objects of his sovereign choice. Joseph called Barsabas, a name very similar to two others which occur below, Joses surnamed Barnabas (4:36), and Judas surnamed Barsabas (15:22.) Some have regarded the three forms as accidental variations of the same name; but the difference, though slight, is sanctioned by the highest manuscript authority, as well as by the fact that in the later cases there is no allusion to the earlier, nor any intimation that the persons were identical. The name Barsabas is of doubtful etymology, but is commonly explained to mean a son of swearing (or an oath). His third name is a Latin one, and may have been imposed by Romans, as a testimony to his character. It was not uncommon with the Jews of that age to have Gentile names as well as Jewish ones. (See below, on 12:12; 13:6, 8, 9.) From the triple name of this man, and his being named first, it has been inferred that he was the choice of the apostles, and that Matthias was put forward only pro forma or in obedience to express command. If so, their expectations were defeated, and from this imaginary disappointment Calvin draws the lesson, that the favourites of men are not necessarily the favourites of God; a wholesome doctrine, but one resting on a firmer basis. One of the names must of necessity stand first, and all of Joseph's are recited for the same reason, no doubt, that he bore them, namely, to distinguish him from other Josephs.

24. The presentation of the candidates is now followed by an appeal to the divine decision. Prayed and said, or more exactly, praying said; the acts were not successive but coincident. (See below, on 16:25.) It has been disputed whether this prayer was especially addressed to Christ. In favour of that supposition is the uniform usage of the word Lord in the New Testament, together with the obvious propriety of leaving the selection of a new apostle to him by whom the twelve had been originally chosen. (See above, on v. 2.) The ascription of omniscience to the Saviour is in perfect keeping with such passages as John 2:24, 25; 21:17; Rev. 2:23, and entirely consistent with the application of the same term to God in ch. 15:8 below. Which knowest the hearts is a necessary but enfeebling paraphrase of one Greek word (καρδιογνῶστα) meaning heart-knower, and resembling in form Homer's favourite epithet of Zeus or Jupiter, cloud-gatherer or cloud-compeller (νεφεληγερέτα), but how much more sublime and worthy of a spiritual being! Whether is here used in its old English sense, as a pronoun, equivalent to which or which one. The word translated show has a peculiar propriety, because used in Attic Greek to signify the public announcement of the result of an election. It is altogether different from the verb so rendered in v. 3 above. Hast chosen, already, for thyself, which accessory ideas are suggested by the tense and voice of the original verb (ἐξελέξω.)

25. Even in the act of asking the divine decision, they distinctly state for what end they desire it, or for what specific purpose one of these two men was to be chosen. That he may take part might have been more simply and exactly rendered to take part, i. e. to take his share, or lot, or his allotted share. The Greek noun is the same as in v. 17 above; but some old manuscripts have place (τόπον). Ministry and apostleship is not a mere hendiadys meaning apostolical ministry, but a generic and specific term combined, the one denoting service in general, the other a particular office. (See above, on v. 17.) By transgression fell is a paraphrase rather than a version, and introduces a new figure, that of falling, which is not in the original. A close translation would be, from which Judas transgressed or apostatized. That he might go, like that he might take part above, is a needless departure from the infinitive construction, which is equally correct and more concise, to go to his own place. Various efforts have been made to escape from the obvious but fearful sense of these words. Some refer them, not to Judas, but to the new apostle, who was chosen to go into his own place, a most superfluous addition, and still more so if we understand by own place that which Judas had left vacant. Who is ever chosen to supply his own place, or to fill the own place of his predecessor? Both these constructions are objectionable also on account of the harsh syntax which they both assume, and the unusual sense put upon the Greek verb (πορευθῆναι), which does not mean simply to go, but to go away, depart, or journey. (See above, on v. 10, where it is applied to Christ's ascension.) Another explanation grants the reference to Judas, but by his own place understands his house, his field, his new associates, or the scene of his self-murder. All these are ingenious but unnatural expedients to avoid the plain sense of the words, as substantially synonymous with what is elsewhere called the place of torment (Luke 16:28.) The same sense is put by the rabbinical interpreters on Num. 24:25, Balaam rose up and went and returned to his (own) place; and similar expressions are applied by Plato to a future state of retribution. The essential idea may be that of fitness and condignity, including, in the case before us, by a sort of fearful irony, a contrast or antithesis between the place, of which Judas had proved so unworthy, and the place for which he had exchanged it, and which suited him exactly.

26. We have here the conclusion of the whole matter by the final designation of a new apostle. It has been disputed whether it was only the eleven, or the whole assembly, that gave forth their lots. The very question assumes, either that this was an election, in the ordinary sense of the expression, and that lots means votes or ballots, which is utterly at variance with the usage of the word and with the circumstances of the case; or that their lots means the lots of the apostles or assembled brethren; whereas it means the lots of the two candidates, i. e. the lots which were to choose between them, and were probably inscribed with their respective names. Especially must this be the sense if we adopt the reading of the oldest manuscripts and latest editors, which changes their lots into lots for them. This makes it wholly unimportant who performed the mere external act of drawing, shaking, or the like, which seems to be intended by the phrase they gave lots, an expression also used in the Old Testament, though sometimes confounded in our version with the more familiar formula, to cast lots. The precise mode in which the lots were used can only be conjectured, or inferred from analogous cases in the classics, as for instance in the third book of the Iliad, where the lots were cast into a helmet, after prayer for the divine direction, and the one that first came out when shaken was decisive of the question. The same thing is here expressed by the figurative phrase, the lot fell upon Matthias, perhaps with some allusion to the maxim of the wise man, that "the lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord." (Prov. 16:33.) The validity of this whole proceeding has been questioned, upon several grounds; because there is no express command recorded; because Peter was habitually rash and forward; because the Holy Ghost was not yet given to qualify them for such functions; because we read nothing more of Matthias in the history; and lastly, because Paul is thus excluded from the number of the twelve apostles. To these specious arguments it may be answered, that a command is often left to be inferred from the recorded execution, and vice versa; that this, although proposed by Peter, was no more his act than that of the whole body; that the choice was really the act of neither, but of God himself; that the history is equally silent as to most of the apostles; and that Paul might with more probability be reckoned the successor of James the Son of Zebedee than of Judas Iscariot; or rather that he was not one of the twelve at all, but an additional apostle for the Gentiles, as the twelve were the apostles of the circumcision. Add to all this, that they who had been called the eleven since the death of Judas, are afterwards called the twelve, and that while Saul was still an enemy of Christ; and consider the extreme improbability that so much space would have been given, in so brief a history and at such a juncture, to an unauthorized proceeding of this nature, not omitting even the accompanying prayer, and yet without the slightest intimation of its being uncommanded, and consequently null and void. But apart from these considerations, the whole question, if there is one, seems to be determined by the last words of the narrative itself, which admit of but one natural interpretation, namely, that Matthias was now reckoned, by divine right, as the twelfth apostle. (Compare Matt. 28:16; Mark 16:14; Luke 24:9, 33, with Acts 2:14; 6:2.)

CHAPTER 2

HERE begins the Apostolical Church History, to which the events recorded in the preceding chapter were preliminary. The two topics first presented are the events of Pentecost (1–41) and the condition of the infant Church (42–47.) Under the first head are described the gift of tongues (1–4), with its effect upon the foreign Jews who witnessed it (5–12), the frivolous or malignant charge of drunkenness (13), and Peter's Pentecostal sermon (14–36), in which he first repudiates the odious charge (14), and then declares what they beheld to be the very effusion of the Spirit promised by the Prophet Joel (15–18), as a part and token of a great revolutionary change (19, 20), which would be ruinous to all who did not trust in the appointed Saviour (21), whom he shows to be no other than the man whom they had crucified but God had raised (22–24), as David had predicted in the sixteenth psalm (25–28), in terms which could not be applied to David himself (29), but must refer to the Messiah (30, 31), and had been fulfilled in Jesus (32), who was really the author of the present miracle (33), being now exalted, according to another prophecy of David (34, 35), which was also inapplicable to himself, and had only been fulfilled in Jesus, whom he therefore concludes to be the true Messiah (36.) Then follows the effect of this discourse upon the hearers (37), and Peter's further exhortations and instructions in reply to their inquiries (38–40), with the consequent addition of three thousand converts to the church by baptism in that single day (41.) The remainder of the chapter is occupied with a description of their social state and mode of life, from that day onward (43–46), and of their steady growth in popularity and numbers (47.)

1. The writer here begins his account of the reorganization of the church by an exact specification of the time when it occurred. The day selected for this great event was one of the three yearly festivals prescribed in the Mosaic Law. It is one of the most interesting features of that system, that these annual observances were not mere arbitrary institutions, but connected, in the minds of those observing them, with three distinct sets of associations, the first derived from nature, the second from experience, the third from the promises of God and the expectations of his people. Thus the Passover, the first in time and dignity, was associated, in the revolution of the seasons, with the early harvest; in the national recollections of Israel, with the exodus from Egypt; and in his hopes, with the advent and sacrifice of the Messiah. The Feast of Tabernacles, or of Trumpets, had a like threefold association, with the vintage or ingathering of fruits, with the journey through the wilderness, and with the rest that remaineth for the people of God. These two great feasts were placed at the beginning and the end of the half-year, to which the annual solemnities of the ceremonial system were confined. Between them was a third, but nearer to the Passover, from which it took its name, both in Hebrew and in Greek. It was celebrated at the end of seven weeks (or a week of weeks) from the second day of the Passover, or Feast of Unleavened Bread, i. e. the sixteenth day of the month Nisan (Lev. 23:15, 16.) Hence it was called the Feast of Weeks (Ex. 34:22; Deut. 16:10.) From the Greek-speaking Jews of later times, it received the equivalent name of Pentecost or Fiftieth, i. e. the feast of the fiftieth day after the sixteenth of Nisan. The Greek adjective thus used became a substantive, and is so employed in the verse before us, where it is not to be construed with festival or day understood, but taken as the proper name of the festival or day itself. It might have been expected from analogy that this anniversary, like the other two, would have its threefold associations, natural, historical, and typical or prophetical. It is remarkable, however, that only one of these can be distinctly traced in the Law itself. This is the first, as we know that Pentecost occurred at the completion of the harvest or cereal ingathering, and was therefore sometimes called the feast of harvest (Ex. 23:16), and the day of the first fruits (Num. 28:26), because its distinctive rite was the oblation of two loaves, as a sample and acknowledgment of the harvest (Lev. 23:17.) But with what historical event was it associated, past or future? That it had no such association, like the Passover and Feast of Trumpets, is antecedently improbable; but none such is recorded. Jewish tradition has filled the chasm, as we learn from the Talmud and Maimonides, by affirming that the Pentecost, or fiftieth day after the sixteenth of Nisan, was the very day on which the law was given from Mount Sinai. This ingenious combination, if it be not rather a collateral tradition, is entirely consistent with the facts and dates of the Mosaic record, and may therefore be allowed to supply the omission, though we cannot account for the omission itself. If this be granted, as to the historical significance of Pentecost, its typical significance will be found in the passage now before us, that is to say, in the selection of this day for the reorganization of the church, which may be said to have been organized at first, or at least to have received its ceremonial form, on the same day many centuries before. It is no trivial result and recommendation of this view, that it completes what seems (but only seems) to be imperfect in the ceremonial calendar, by clothing this third feast with the same threefold associations, which the Law expressly, or by necessary implication, has attached to the other two. Why this day was chosen is perhaps sufficiently explained by the coincidence or correspondence between these two great acts of organic legislation. As additional reasons it may be observed that the selection of one of the great yearly feasts, secured, not only a great concourse of the native Jews, but a full representation of the foreign Jews or Hellenists; and that the death and resurrection of our Saviour having been associated with the Passover, it was natural and convenient that the next great movement in the erection of his kingdom should be likewise associated with the next great annual observance of the Jewish church and the Mosaic Law. According to Chrysostom, another reason was, that the same persons might be witnesses of both events. That some importance and significance belong to the selection of the time, appears to be implied in the expression of the verse before us, when the day of Pentecost was fully come, or retaining the peculiar form of the original, in the fulfilling (of) Pentecost, i. e. when the appointed and therefore necessary interval had quite elapsed. The corresponding festival in Christian calendars is Whitsunday, which, although so called for a different reason, is the fiftieth day after Easter. In Luke 9:51, the same Greek phrase is applied to the mere approach, and not the actual arrival, of a certain time; but there the time itself is more indefinite, being not the day, but the days, of his assumption. The plural form is also employed here, but inaccurately, by the Vulgate. On what day of the week this Pentecost occurred has been a subject of dispute for ages, but is happily a question of no moment. All is a strong, but not a definite expression, i. e. not one that determines what precise number, or what specific class of persons, were assembled upon this occasion. It must therefore be interpreted by the foregoing narrative, in which we read of two assemblages, the first of eleven (1:4), and the second of a hundred and twenty persons (1:15.) The proximity of this last, and the strength of the expression all, seem to forbid its restriction to the twelve, but not its extension to a greater number than a hundred and twenty. Indeed, as there is reason to believe that this last was a fortuitous assemblage, representing a much larger body of believers (see above, on 1:15), it seems most probable that all here designates that body, and affirms its presence, not in all its individual members, nor in just the same who were convened before, but in such numbers that the crowd (ὄχλος 1:15) was a full and fair representation of the aggregate body. The two phrases previously used to signify coincidence of place and purpose, are here combined, in order to express more fully the kindred but distinct ideas of local convention or assemblage, and of concert and intelligence as to its purpose. They were not merely together, or in one place, as they might have been without design, but they were there with one accord and by previous agreement.

2. The effusion of the Spirit was preceded and accompanied by sensible signs addressed to the ears and eyes of those assembled. The first impression was that of an extraordinary noise, preparing them for the still more extraordinary sight that was to follow. This sound came suddenly, and could not therefore be referred to any natural external cause. It came from heaven, which may refer both to the sensible impression of a sound descending from above, and to its real supernatural origin, as caused by God himself. The natural sound which it resembled most was that of a strong wind; but it was something more, as appears from the comparative expression as, which would be otherwise superfluous. The word translated rushing is a passive participle, meaning borne or carried, and is properly descriptive of involuntary motion caused by a superior power, an idea not suggested by the active participles rushing, driving, or the like, which seem to make the wind itself the operative agent. The other epithet in Greek means more than mighty, being expressive not only of a quality but of an effect, violent, destructive. The noun itself which these words qualify is not the ordinary term for wind, but a stronger one answering to blast or gust. The whole phrase therefore is descriptive of a powerful tempestuous commotion of the air by some extraordinary cause. (Vulg. advenientis spiritus vehementis.) Such a phenomenon was specially appropriate in this case, on account of the generally recognized analogy between breath or wind and spiritual influences, which may be traced in various languages, for instance in our own. The point of resemblance seems to be an invisible cause producing visible effects. It filled all the house, i. e. the sound, not the wind, which is only mentioned in the way of comparison. The house where they were sitting was no doubt the same in which they were accustomed to assemble (see above, on 1:13.) The form of expression is far more natural in reference to a private dwelling or a hired lodging, than to the temple or any of its appurtenances. The supposed difficulty as to its capacity assumes that a private house could not be a large one, and is further removed by the obvious assumption that, although the commotion began in the house, the crowd may have assembled in the open air.

3. The audible sign was followed by one addressed to the sense of sight. Appeared unto them, or, as some explain the Greek words, were seen upon them, i. e. by others; but the common version is more agreeable both to the context and to usage. (See Matt. 17:3; Mark 9:4; Luke 1:11; 22:43; 24:34; Acts 7:2, 26, 30, 35; 9:17; 16:9; 26:16.) The form of the original is passive and means strictly, were seen by them. Cloven should rather be distributed, so that one appeared on each. (Vulg. linguae dispertitae.) The common version, which implies that each tongue was divided into two or more, as represented in most paintings of the scene before us, is at variance with the usage of the Greek verb (διαμεριζόμεναι), which sometimes denotes moral separation or estrangement (Luke 11:17, 18; 12:52, 53), but never physical division. Its usual sense of distribution or allotment may be seen by a comparison of Matt. 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 22:17; 23:34, and v. 45 below. Tongues may be regarded as a metaphorical description of the natural appearance of all fire, as in Isai. 5:24, from which comes the classical figure of a lambent flame; but here there is moreover an evident allusion to a special miraculous resemblance, prefiguring the extraordinary gift that was to follow. Like as of fire, or more exactly, as if of fire, i. e. the appearance of these tongues was the same as if they had been really composed of fire, but without forbidding the conclusion that they were so. This comparative expression, like the one in the preceding verse, leaves room for doubt as to the presence of material fire or of a real wind. A similar dubiety exists in Luke's account of the bloody sweat (Luke 22:44), and of the visible descent of the Holy Ghost upon our Saviour at his baptism (Luke 3:22.) The very frequency, however, of this form of speech in Luke's writings makes it proper not to press it, as a proof that the appearance was unreal. It sat upon each of them. The singular number has been variously explained, as referring to Spirit in the next verse, or to fire in this, or to the whole appearance (τὸ φαινόμενον) viewed as one, or to the distribution previously mentioned, which implied that one of the tongues sat on each. As this last is the preferable construction, it affords an additional objection to the version cloven tongues, which leaves the singular verb (it sat) without satisfactory solution. Each of them, i. e. of those assembled upon this occasion. There is nothing to restrict or qualify the wide expression used in v. 1, or to limit what is here said to the twelve apostles. The whole assembly was collectively a representation of the body of believers, now about to be reorganized upon a Christian basis, and perpetuated as the Christian Church. This representative character accounts for the want of precise specifications as to the names and number of those present, and precludes the necessity of trying to supply the omission either by reasoning or conjecture.

4. The sensible signs of an extraordinary spiritual influence are followed by the influence itself, and this again by a sensible effect, affording external proof of its reality. The repeated use of the word all shows that this effect was not confined to the Apostles. No one could have been disposed to doubt that the extraordinary gift extended to all the Apostles, if vouchsafed to any; but the very feeling which leads us to doubt its further extension, shows the necessity of saying they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, if such were really the case. This expression is a favourite one with Luke (4:8, 31; 6:3, 5; 7:55; 9:17; 11:24; 13:9, 52; Luke 1:15, 41, 67; 4:1), and denotes a fresh illapse and extraordinary influence of the divine agent, not excluding previous communications, but always implying the reception of supernatural gifts or powers. (Compare Luke 24:49; Acts 1:8.) Here the precise nature of the gift is particularly stated; they began to speak with other tongues. Began is no more pleonastic here than in the first sentence of the book, but conveys, as it does there, the twofold idea, that what is here recorded happened for the first time, and that it was afterwards repeated or continued. Other tongues can only mean languages different from their own, and by necessary implication, previously unknown. (Vulg. linguis variis.) In our Saviour's promise of this gift before his Ascension (Mark 16:17), he uses the equivalent expression, new tongues, i. e. new to them. The attempt to make these phrases mean a new style or a new strain, or new forms of expression, is not only unnatural but inconsistent with the following narrative, where every thing implies a real difference of language. Some have imagined that the miracle was wrought upon the ears of the hearers, each of whom supposed what he heard to be uttered in his mother tongue. But this is a gratuitous and forced assumption, and at variance with the fact that the use of other tongues appears to have preceded the arrival of the foreign witnesses, whose hearing is supposed to have been thus affected. The design of this gift was not merely to facilitate the preaching of the gospel. It is nowhere historically mentioned as contributing to that result. Its necessity for that end was in a great measure superseded, at least within the Roman Empire, by the general use of the Greek language. That it was not a permanent and universal knowledge of all the tongues spoken in the countries visited by the Apostles, is inferred by some from 14:11, where the use of the vernacular language seems to be mentioned, as an explanation of the tardiness with which Paul and Barnabas rejected the idolatrous honours of the heathen Lycaonians. While the gift of tongues may, in particular emergencies, have answered this important purpose, it had other uses, even regarded as a transient or momentary inspiration. It served, like any other miracle, but with a special propriety and force, to prove the reality of an extraordinary spiritual influence, which might otherwise have been denied or doubted. And it served, as a symbol, to prefigure the vocation of the Gentiles, whose excision from the church or chosen people had been typified of old by a corresponding prodigy, the miraculous confusion of tongues at Babel. As the moral unity of mankind had been then lost, it was now to be restored, by the preaching of the Gospel to all nations. To this historical connection between diversities of language and the spiritual condition of the world, there seems to be allusion in the frequent use of the word tongues in prophecy to designate nations. (See Isaiah 66:18; Dan. 3:4, 7; Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11; 11:9; 13:7; 14:6; 17:15.) While the practical design of this gift, as an aid in preaching, would confine it to one sex and a small class of believers, its demonstrative and symbolical design made it equally appropriate to others. Its original exercise was not in mere talk, the generic Greek term (λαλεῖν) being qualified by one (ἀποφθέγγεσθαι) which primarily means to speak out, clearly or aloud, and secondarily, to utter something weighty or authoritative, in which sense it is the root of our word apophthegm. (Compare v. 14; 4:18; 26:25.) Even this utterance, however, was not left to their own choice or discretion, but directed by the same divine influence which enabled them to speak at all. They spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance, literally, to utter (Vulg. dabat eloqui), i. e. gave the capacity and right to do so. Cranmer and the Geneva Bible mark the identity of the divine agent by rendering, the same Spirit.

5. Publicity was necessary to the effect of this great miracle, both as a symbol and a proof of special divine agency; and witnesses accordingly had been provided. The word translated dwelling does not of itself denote either permanent or temporary residence, but rather the act of settling or beginning to reside, as in Matt. 2:23; 4:13; 12:45; Luke 11:26; Acts 7:2, 4, whether the subsequent abode be temporary, as in Heb. 11:9, or permanent, as in Acts 9:32; 17:26, and often in the book of Revelation, where it is a favourite expression for the general idea of inhabitation. There is nothing therefore to confine the word here to Jews who had come to end their lives in Jerusalem, as they have done in all ages, or to such as had come merely to attend the feast. The special reference, if any, would be naturally to the latter. All that is expressly said, however, is that there were then present at Jerusalem, either as visitors or constant residents, representatives of every nation under heaven. This is a natural hyperbole belonging, not to artificial rhetoric, but to the dialect of common life. It loses something of its strength when compared with the statements of Philo and Josephus, that there were Jews then settled in every country upon earth. There is also an allusion to the language of Gen. 11:4, confirming the assumed relation of the gift of tongues to the confusion there recorded. These representatives of all nations were themselves, as might have been expected, Jews, and of the serious or devout class, such as were believers in the prophecies and looking for the consolation of Israel. (Compare Luke 2:25, 38.) The Greek epithet (εὐλαβεῖς) originally signifies cautious, timid, but in Hellenistic usage is applied to the fear of God. The Geneva Bible has expressly, Jews that feared God; Wiclif, after the Vulgate, religious men. Some have supposed it, like the similar phrase, fearing God, to be descriptive of proselytes from heathenism (10:2, 22; 13:16, 26); but its application to Simeon, if not to Ananias (22:12), shows it to be properly expressive of a certain type or Jewish piety. (See below, on 8:2.) Its introduction here is not unmeaning, as it shows that the effusion of the Holy Ghost was attested by the most competent and trustworthy witnesses, Jews of the most serious and perhaps most bigoted character, who at the same time represented every nation under heaven. It is an admissible, though not a necessary supposition, that this concourse at Jerusalem had some connection with the general expectation of a great deliverer, which prevailed at this time, not in Israel only (Luke 2:25, 26, 38; 3:15; 19:11; John 1:20, 21), but among the Gentiles, as attested by Suetonius and Tacitus.

6. The first clause is more literally rendered in the margin of the English Bible, when this voice was made. The exact form of the original is, this voice having happened, or come into existence, i. e. become audible. The common version seems to take voice in the sense of rumour or report; but there is no such usage either in classical or hellenistic Greek. Some identify it with the noise of v. 2, and voice is certainly applied elsewhere to inarticulate sounds, as that of the wind (John 3:8), of a trumpet (Matt. 24:31), of thunder (Rev. 6:1), wings and chariots (Rev. 9:9), waters (Rev. 14:2), etc. But as it properly denotes the human voice, it seems best here to understand it of the voice of the disciples speaking in other tongues. The singular number (voice for voices) is collective, and as natural in this case as in 4:24, and in the phrases, voice of many angels, voice of harpers and musicians (Rev. 5:11; 18:22.) The voice of the disciples would at first attract the notice of those near at hand, and then, by an influence of which we have continual examples, gather a still larger audience. The multitude is neither the multitude accustomed to assemble at the temple, from which some have drawn an inference as to the scene of these events; nor the multitude ready to assemble upon such occasions, or what we call 'the mob'; but the large body of foreign Jews described in the preceding verse, and providentially provided as witnesses of this great miracle. Having said that there were such men in the city, the historian now says that the whole mass of them (τὸ πλῆθος) came together, when these strange sounds became audible. He then describes the effect produced upon them by this singular phenomenon. Confounded means originally poured together, and describes the mixture of liquids, but is secondarily applied to any confused mixture, as of people in a tumult (19:32; 21:31), or of thoughts in the mind, as in 9:22 and here. The Greek verb is peculiar to this book of the New Testament. The margin of our Bible has troubled in mind; the older English versions read astonied, astonied in thought, or astonied in mind. The cause of their confusion or perplexity is expressly stated. The form of the last clause in the original is, because they heard, each one in his own dialect, them speaking. Dialect, a kindred form to dialogue, originally means discourse or conversation; then mode of speech, style, or diction; then diversity of language, whether national or provincial. Own is emphatic; not merely in a language which he understood, but in his own particular, peculiar tongue. What could this possibly mean, if the other tongues were merely higher strains or singularities of diction? Some have strangely understood this clause to mean, that each of those who came together heard all the disciples speaking in his own tongue; and on this interpretation rests the notion that the miracle was not wrought on the tongues of the disciples, but the ears of those who heard them. This is certainly not the sense suggested by the words to an unbiassed reader. They evidently mean no more than that each of the witnesses heard his own language spoken, whether by one or more. Another objection to this view of the passage, as already stated, is, that the fact of their speaking in other tongues is distinctly mentioned, as something previous to, and therefore independent of, the concourse and confusion here recorded.

7. Amazed and marvelled are not descriptive of something subsequent to the confusion mentioned in v. 6, but either mere specifications of the term there used, or expressive of the inward state by which the outward confusion was produced. The verbs themselves are not synonymous in Greek, but generic and specific forms of the same idea. The first (ἐξίσταντο) means properly to be out of one's normal condition, and when applied to the intellect, to be beside one's self, with any strong emotion. It is the root of our word ecstasy, applied in English usage to extreme degrees of joy, whereas the Greek noun is appropriated, in the same way, to extreme degrees of wonder. As if he had said, they were beside themselves with wonder. This specific application of the term is then directly given by the second verb, they marvelled. Their wonder was expressed in mutual ejaculations; not that each of them uttered these precise words, but that this was the sum and substance of what they said to one another. (See below, on 4:16, 24.) Their surprise is furthermore denoted by the particle behold. (See above, on 1:10.) The particular description of the twelve as Galileans has been variously explained. Some take it as synonymous with Christians, which is both irrelevant and contrary to usage; irrelevant, because it mattered not of what religion the men were, to whom this power was imparted; it was no more wonderful in Christians than it would have been in Jews or Gentiles: contrary to usage, because Galilean had not yet become the designation of a sect or a religion. (See above, on 1:11.) Others suppose the speakers to have reference to the ignorance and barbarism of the Galileans, and the consequent contempt with which they were regarded, even by the other Jews. (See John 1:46; 7:52.) Their very dialect seems to have been different from that of the Jews properly so called (Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70); but this was a difference too slight to have attracted the attention of foreigners, and one which could not have increased their wonder at the gift of tongues. So far as education and learning were concerned, the Galileans were no doubt inferior to the other Jews, and this might seem to make the wonder greater, that they should now be heard speaking in tongues which they had never learned. But on the other hand, the Galileans were especially accustomed to free intercourse with foreigners; partly because their country was a thoroughfare between Judea and the countries to the north and east; partly because Galilee itself had a mixed population, especially that part of it called (it may be for that very reason) Galilee of the Gentiles (Isai. 9:1; Matt. 4:15.) In this point of view, it would be rather less than more strange that they should speak foreign tongues. The true solution seems to be, that Galileans here means Jews or inhabitants of Palestine, the local designation being substituted for the general one, simply because it happened to apply; just as Frenchmen might express their surprise at the correctness with which French was spoken by a Scotchman or an Irishman, although his native tongue be neither Scotch nor Irish, but English. The strangers might have said, Are not these which speak all Jews or natives of Palestine? But as they saw them to be chiefly from one district, they naturally use the local or provincial name. Some have inferred from this expression, that all the followers of Christ were Galileans; others, that only the Apostles are referred to. But the language is sufficiently explained by the large proportion of disciples from that province, and by the prominence of the Apostles. It should also be observed, that the words are not affirmative but interrogative, and uttered not by those who knew the fact, but by a crowd of strangers, judging merely from appearances, and speaking from the impulse of the moment.

8. The logical connection is more clearly indicated in the Geneva version, how then? i. e. if they are all Galileans, how is it that they speak our languages? The question is only an additional expression of surprise, an indirect assertion that the fact is unaccountable. The construction seems to be disturbed by the insertion of every man or each one; but without it, they might seem to have spoken all one language, and the writer seems resolved that the reader shall remember the diversity of dialect among these strangers. In order likewise to preclude all doubt as to the other tongues of v. 4, he not only here repeats the strong expression own tongue from v. 6, but adds the still stronger one, in which we were born, equivalent in meaning to the common phrase, our mother tongue or native language. This strange accumulation of terms necessarily denoting literal diversity of language, is not only unaccountable but perfectly unmeaning, if (as some allege) the wonder consisted merely in the use of unusual expressions or a style of extraordinary elevation. How could either of these modes of speech be called by any hearer his own dialect in which he was born? If the terms used in this narrative do not express diversity of language, in the obvious and proper sense, it is impossible for that idea to be clothed in words at all. Some complete the construction of the sentence by supplying (as the object of the verb we hear) them speaking; but the true completion of the syntax is contained in v. 11 below, where the same verb (ἀκούομεν) is repeated and the sentence closed, after the long parenthesis in vs. 9, 10.

9. The sentence is continued from the foregoing verse. The long list of names which follows is a specification of the pronoun we in v. 8. 'We who are Parthians, etc.' As we have here recorded, not the very words of any individual speaker, but the sum and substance of what all said, we may suppose each man to have mentioned his own country, or one man to have mentioned several, without detracting in the least from the fidelity and fulness of the record. The names are neither chosen nor arranged at random, but follow each other in a certain geographical order, beginning at the north-east, and then proceeding to the west and south. The first three denote races adjacent to the Caspian Sea, and all belonging to the ancient Persian empire. During the interval between the Old and the New Testament, that empire had been partially resuscitated by the Parthians, who became a formidable hinderance to the progress of the Roman arms in Asia. From these north-eastern tracts he passes to Mesopotamia, so called from its position between the two great rivers, Tigris and Euphrates. There is here an apparently unnecessary change in the construction of the sentence. Instead of proceeding simply to enumerate the races or inhabitants of countries, he enumerates the countries themselves, prefixing the participle dwelling or inhabiting, until the end of the next verse, when the original construction is resumed. The only reason that can be suggested, even by conjecture, for this change of form, is that there was probably no gentile noun in use derived from Mesopotamia (and answering to Mesopotamians), and that having been obliged to use a circumlocution with respect to that name, Luke continued it through this verse and the next. From Mesopotamia he passes over to the peninsula of Asia Minor, and as Judea lay between, he introduces it, although not properly belonging to a catalogue of foreign countries represented at Jerusalem. It is then equivalent to saying, 'We, as well as those inhabiting Judea.' Some account for its insertion from the fact already mentioned, that the dialect of Galilee was different from that of Judea proper, and that Jews (in the local sense) might therefore join in the expression of surprise at hearing a Galilean speaking their own language. But this was nothing new to them, unless we arbitrarily assume that their provincialisms were miraculously rectified. Another explanation is that Luke, writing probably at Rome, surveys the countries rather from that point of view than from Jerusalem. At all events, there can be no ground for a change of text, by omitting Judea altogether, or by changing it to Syria, Armenia, Bithynia, Lydia, India, or Idumea, all of which have been suggested. Of Asia Minor five provinces are named, viz. Pontus on the north coast, Pamphylia on the south coast, Cappadocia and Phrygia in the interior, and on the west coast Asia, in its oldest and most restricted sense. Modern geography applies this name to one of the great primary divisions of the eastern hemisphere or old world, and, with the qualifying adjunct Minor, to the peninsula between the Black Sea and the Archipelago. But neither of these is its original and proper application, which was restricted to the provinces along the western coast of that peninsula. According to Pliny, it included Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, and nearly or exactly coincided with the Æolis and Ionia of still older geographers. Whatever doubt there may be as to its precise extent, there can be none as to its relative position, on the shore of the Egean Sea and opposite to Greece. In this ancient and restricted sense, Asia is used throughout the Acts of the Apostles, the alleged exceptions being more than doubtful. (See below, on 19:26, 27; 21:27; 24:18; 27:2.) In later times it was extended to the whole peninsula, and finally attained its present latitude of meaning, as a correlative of Europe, Africa, and America.

10. From the central and southern provinces of Asia Minor, he crosses the Mediterranean to Africa, in which he singles out two well-known and adjacent countries on the northern coast. Libya, lying west of Egypt, was divided by the old geographers into three parts, one of which was called Libya Pentapolis or Pentapolitana, from its five noted cities. One of these was Cyrene, a Greek colony and seaport, from which the whole region was sometimes called Libya Cyreniaca. (See below, on 6:9; 11:20; 13:1.) The periphrastic description, Libya about (or towards) Cyrene, is very similar in form to those which Dio Cassius and Josephus apply to the same country. From Libya Luke proceeds to Italy, as here representing the whole west. At this point the series of accusatives governed by the participle in v. 8 is concluded, and the original construction reappears. The irregularity of form is greater in English than in Greek, because the translators have gratuitously changed the participle (inhabiting) into a noun and preposition (dwellers in), which last they have omitted before some names and inserted before others, whereas the form of the original has no such inequality. Strangers of Rome does not mean, as some have imagined, strangers at Rome, which would be wholly out of place, as well as contrary to usage, but strangers from Rome, Roman strangers, at Jerusalem. Here again the Greek word is a participle and means sojourning, temporarily residing. The distinctive meaning of the Greek verb may be traced in its derivative epidemic, applied in medicine to the temporary prevalence of diseases, as distinguished from those which are endemic or at home, i. e. permanently established in particular localities. By Jews we are here to understand those born such, natural descendants of Abraham and Israel, as opposed to converts from the heathen, called προσήλυτοι, advenae, or new comers. Wiclif uses the word comelings to translate ἐπιδημοῦντες, though in etymology it seems to coincide exactly with προσήλυτοι. The latter is rendered by Tyndale converts, and paraphrased in the Geneva Bible, those that were converted to the Jewish religion. The combination of the two words here includes all sorts of Jews there represented. The position of the words is somewhat strange and has been variously explained. Some suppose that they were meant to apply only to the Romans; but for this no reason can be given. Others regard them as qualifying the whole catalogue; but this is not completed till the next verse. On the whole, perhaps, the best solution is, that the qualifying phrase, though really applicable to the whole, is introduced just here because it here occurred to the writer. As if he had said, 'Sojourners of Rome, including, as in all the other cases I have named, both native Jews and Gentile converts.'

11. The names here added do not violate the order previously followed, but complete the circle, as it were, by passing from the extreme west (Italy) to the extreme south (Arabia), between which two extremes the important island Crete (now Candia) lies in a direct line. This conclusion of the catalogue is followed by that of the whole sentence begun in v. 8, the connection being made clear by the repetition of the leading verb (we hear), of which the proper names preceding constitute the complex subject. Our tongues corresponds to own tongue (Gr. own dialect) in v. 8. Wonderful works is a correct paraphrase, but not an exact version, of the Greek word (μεγαλεῖα), which corresponds more nearly to magnificent, as an expression of the highest admiration. (Vulg. magnalia.) As the noun is not expressed, and as Xenophon repeatedly applies the adjective to words or sayings, it might here be understood as meaning that they heard the disciples speaking the wonderful words of God, i. e. words relating to him and inspired by him. But the reference to works or acts is favoured by the use of the Greek word, in the Septuagint version of Ps. 71:19, to translate a Hebrew one (גְּדֹלוֹת), derived from a corresponding root and constantly applied in the Old Testament to the divine attributes and acts. (See Job 5:9; 9:10; 37:5.) Still more decisive is the analogy of Luke 1:49, the only other instance of its use in the New Testament, where it is joined directly with the verb to do. There is nothing in the text or context to determine what specific acts are here referred to; but it may be safely affirmed that the effusion of the Spirit upon this occasion was at least included. Some who deny the gift of tongues, in the sense of a plurality of languages, make this the emphatic word of the whole sentence, and suppose the wonder to consist in the greatness of the matter, and not in the mode of the expression. It was the glorious works of God, as uttered by the disciples under a special divine influence, that filled these Jews with wonder. But even granting this to be an adequate occasion of the feeling here expressed, how could it have been clothed in words by saying that each of the spectators heard them speak his language, his own dialect, his mother tongue? If these phrases, and the other tongues of v. 4, may be made to mean an elevated spiritual strain or style, the fruit of strong excitement, or even of a real inspiration, but without effect upon the dialect, then all interpretation is uncertain, and the most important end of language nullified.

12. This may be taken either as an emphatic repetition of what had been already said, or as a direct continuation of the narrative. In the latter case, the meaning is, that their mutual interrogations led to no satisfactory result, for they were still astonished and perplexed. In addition to the verb explained above (on v. 7) and here repeated, Luke employs another very strong expression to describe the extent of their confusion. From a Greek noun meaning passage (πόρος) comes the adjective impassable (ἄπορος), or when applied to persons, having no passage, outlet, or way of escape. From this again is formed the verb (ἀπορέω) to be shut up or at a loss, and its emphatic compound (διαπορέω) to be utterly or wholly at a loss, which is the word here used. This continued uncertainty betrayed itself in further questionings, of which an example is here given in a very idiomatic form. What meaneth this is no doubt the correct sense, but the form of the original is, what will (or would) this be? Examples of the same mode of expression have been quoted from Herodotus, Anacreon, and other classics. The nearest approach to the original in any English version is by Wiclif, what wole (will) this thing be? Weaker and less exact is the Geneva version, what may this thing be? From this extended and minute description, it is clear that the historian considered it important for his purpose, that the reader should be strongly impressed with the helpless confusion and extreme astonishment of these beholders.

13. Thus far the language and the conduct of the witnesses have been described as altogether serious and earnest. Now another and a very different tone is audible. The apparent inconsistency between the all of v. 12 and the others of v. 13 may be solved in two ways. One is by supposing that we here have an example of a form of speech common to all languages, but particularly frequent in the Greek and Hebrew, and consisting in the use of an absolute expression to be qualified immediately by one which follows. Resolved into our idiom, the sense would be, 'all were astonished and perplexed excepting some who mocked and said,' etc. But this solution, although perfectly admissible in case of exegetical necessity, is not imperatively needed here, as there is yet another, still more satisfactory. This consists in limiting the application of the word all in v. 12 to the foreign Jews and proselytes just mentioned, and applying the others of v. 13 to the natives of Judea or Jerusalem. The reason of this difference will appear below. Mocking, or making a jest of the whole matter. Some of the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions have a stronger form than that in the received text (διαχλευάζοντες), which, without altering the sense, makes the expression more emphatic and intensive. Full, literally filled, saturated, sated, the idea of excess. being necessarily suggested by the Greek word. New wine might be more exactly rendered sweet wine, as the Greek word properly denotes sweetness, and although sometimes applied in classic Greek to the fresh grape-juice before fermentation, is also used of those fermented wines, in which the sweetness was retained by a peculiar process, and some of which were unusually strong. The very phrase, drunk with sweet wine, is employed by Athenæus. The same Greek word is used in the Septuagint version of Job 32:19, to represent the common Hebrew term for wine, in a connection where the reference to fermentation is not only certain but essential to the meaning. But apart from these authorities, the reference to new wine, in the sense of unfermented must or grape-juice, would be here a gross absurdity. The very nature of the case, as well as Peter's answer, shows the charge to have been not merely that of drinking but of being drunk. Some have used this as an argument against the actual diversity of languages, which could not (it is said) have been ascribed to drunkenness. But even supposing the charge to have been serious, what could more naturally have suggested it, than the very mixture of strange languages, which to the great mass of these native Jews must have been an unintelligible jargon? It is indeed a strong though incidental proof of authenticity, that this great miracle is represented as affecting these two classes in so different a manner, yet so perfectly in keeping with their situation. A fictitious writer might very naturally have described them as affected all alike, forgetting that while every additional diversity of dialect would furnish a fresh proof of divine agency to some among the foreign witnesses, the same cause would render the whole scene still more confused and apparently absurd to the resident or native Jews. This necessary difference between the cases would suffice to account for the levity with which the latter class regarded the whole matter, without referring it to any radical diversity of character, which cannot be historically shown to have existed. Language which conveys no meaning almost invariably excites a ludicrous emotion in the hearer. Another observation to be made upon this charge of drunkenness is, that it affords a further refutation of the notion entertained by Cyprian and Erasmus, that the miracle was wrought upon the ears of the spectators, so that each thought he heard his vernacular language. For in that case, these Jerusalemites would have understood what they heard, and could have had no pretext for the charge of drunkenness, unless it had reference merely to the excitement and enthusiasm of the speakers. It was this frivolous aspersion, rather than the serious inquiries of the devout Jews, that gave occasion to the great apostolical discourse which follows.

14. The Apostles repudiate the charge of drunkenness and explain the true nature of the whole occurrence. Peter, as usual, is the spokesman, acting no doubt by divine suggestion, and with the tacit acquiescence of his brethren. (See above, on 1:15, and below, on 5:3, 29.) With the eleven, himself being the twelfth. (See above, on 1:26.) The meaning is not that they came together when they heard of the aspersion cast upon them, but that they repelled it on the spot, and as soon as it was uttered. Standing up is, in several of the older English versions, rendered stepped forth, or came forward. But the proper sense is that of standing up or rising, as a preliminary to the act of public speaking. The particular mention of this gesture is a favourite idiom of Luke's. (See below, 5:20; 11:13; 17:22; 25:18; 27:21, and compare Luke 18:11, 40.) With the eleven naturally, though not necessarily, implies, that the eleven stood up with him. It may indeed mean only that they kept together as one body; but in either case, the idea of unity and concert is essential. They not only were, but were seen to be, governed by one purpose, acting under one commission. It was important that Peter should be recognized as not speaking in his own name, but as representing the whole body, which was itself the representative of Christ, in the organization and administration of his church or kingdom. That what follows was a speech or sermon, not a private and informal talk to a few chance hearers, is implied, not only in the act of rising, but in that of lifting up his voice, or speaking so as to be heard by a great number. There is no need of diluting the full import of the phrase, so as to mean merely, he began to speak. Said is a very feeble version of the Greek verb, which is the same with that employed at the end of v. 4, and there explained to signify the solemn and authoritative utterance of something weighty and important in itself. Men of Judea is a similar expression to Men of Galilee in 1:11, and strictly means Men Jews or Jewish Men. It has here a local rather than a religious sense, and is correctly rendered in the common version. It is nearly equivalent to native Jews or Hebrews. That the foreign Jews, however, were included in the object of address, is intimated by the wider phrase, and all inhabiting Jerusalem, which does not mean the foreign Jews expressly or distinctively, but comprehends them with the natives under one generic formula. That the Greek verb does not of itself mean either permanent or temporary residence, see above, on v. 5. Be this known unto you is equivalent, in modern phrase, to saying, I have something to communicate or make known, with an implication that it is not without interest and importance to the hearers. The formula is found in this book only. (See below, 4:10; 13:38; 28:28.) The remaining introductory phrase, hearken to my words, bespeaks attention to what follows, with a slight suggestion that it may prove to be something not only unexpected but unwelcome. Analogous, in this point, are the words which Shakspeare puts into the mouth of Brutus, when about to justify the death of Cesar. "Hear me for my cause, and be silent that you may hear." The word translated hearken (Vulg. auribus percipite) is a later Greek verb, unknown to the classics, and apparently formed in imitation of a Hebrew verb common in the Psalms, and usually rendered in our Bible, give ear. Both verbs are derived from the noun ear, which is probably the case likewise with the English hear. This introduction, though unstudied and entirely natural, is not without rhetorical merit and effect. The discourse itself, which follows, has peculiar interest, not only as the first in time, the earliest specimen of apostolical preaching, but also as a public exposition of the principles on which the church was to be organized, propounded at the organization itself. Though often repeated, and by some distinguished writers, it is far from being true, that this discourse consists simply and entirely of historical facts. How can this be a correct description of a passage, in which no less than three prophecies of the Old Testament are expounded and applied, with a formal refutation of a different exposition? The truth is that the mere historical facts, so far from making up the whole, are rather assumed or incidentally referred to, while the body of the discourse is argumentative and exegetical. In this, it resembles the first preaching generally, and is a model for our own, which ought not to be the telling of a story merely, but the logical and practical interpretation of the word of God. Another false view of this great discourse is that which makes it wholly desultory and even incoherent. Though informal, it is perfectly consecutive and even symmetrical in structure. It first repudiates the charge of drunkenness (14); then shows what had occurred to be the fulfilment of a signal prophecy (15–21); and then demonstrates the Messiahship of Jesus (22–36.) The details, as well as the transitions, of this scheme, and its coherent unity, will be pointed out as we proceed.

15. This is the negative part of the defence, or the denial of the false solution, which had been suggested, of the gift of tongues. Brief as it is, it includes three distinguishable points. The first is the categorical denial, or direct repudiation of the odious charge. These men are not drunken, i. e. drunk, the form now used to denote actual intoxication, while drunken is commonly applied to the character or habit. The next point is an indirect suggestion that the charge was groundless and gratuitous, a mere assumption without proof or reason. This is the full force of the phrase, as ye suppose, or rather, assume, take for granted. For the primary meaning of the Greek verb, as applied to bodily motion, see above, on 1:9. Its metaphorical or secondary sense of taking up an opinion, or assuming a fact, especially without proof, is of frequent occurrence in Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plato. The third point is an argument or proof that they could not be drunk, drawn from the time of day. The ancient Hebrews reckoned the day from evening to evening (Gen. 1:5; Lev. 23:32), and are thought to have divided the day and night, i. e. the varying periods of light and darkness, each into three watches. (See Judges 7:19; Ex. 14:24; 1 Sam. 11:11; Lam. 2:19.) The later Jews adopted the Roman division of the night into four watches (Matt. 14:25; Luke 12:38; Mark 6:48; 13:35), and of the day into twelve hours (John 11:9), reckoning from sunrise or, as an average, from six o'clock. The third hour, according to this computation, would fall between what we call eight and nine. At or about this time of day the effusion of the Holy Ghost took place, and from this circumstance Peter seems to argue that what they had now witnessed could not be the effect of intoxication. But wherein does the proof lie, or the argument consist? Who was to determine when intoxication could begin, or to forbid its being reckoned as the cause of its apparent effects? Some suppose an allusion to religious usage. The third hour, in the sense explained above, was the first of the three stated hours of daily prayer, observed by the Jews, without express divine command, but probably in imitation of David and Daniel (Ps. 55:17; Dan. 6:10, 13.) The other two hours of prayer are also mentioned in this book. (See below, 3:1; 10:9.) From this fact, and the alleged Jewish practice of abstaining from all food and drink until this hour, some explain the clause as meaning that the charge of drunkenness was inconsistent with their character and habits as devout Jews. But the charge itself virtually called in question their pretensions to this character, and could not therefore be disproved by claiming it. A much more obvious and simple explanation is that which supposes the third hour to be mentioned, not as an hour of prayer, but simply as an early hour of the day, at which intoxication would imply the most intemperate and reckless habits. A striking parallel is furnished by a passage in one of Cicero's Philippics, where he characterizes the license practised at Antony's villa by saying that they revelled there from nine o'clock. (Ab hora tertia bibebatur, ludebatur, vomebatur.) But still it may be asked, if such things were done, why might they not be done in this case; and how could a mere reference to the early hour be an answer to the implied charge of early revels? The answer to this question seems to be, that although such intemperance was possible, it was credible only in the case of habitual and reckless drunkards (1 Th. 5:7), and the imputation of this character to Peter and his brethren carried its refutation with it. The clause may then be paraphrased as follows. 'As to the charge of drunkenness, it refutes itself; for unless you mean to class us with the lowest revellers and debauchees, which all who see us see to be absurd, it is inconceivable that all of us should be already drunk at this early hour of the day.' If to any the Apostle's reasoning, in answer to this charge, should still seem inconclusive, let it be observed that he does not undertake a formal refutation of so frivolous an accusation, which may not have been seriously intended even by its authors, but merely makes use of it in a single sentence, as an introduction or transition to the true solution of this wonderful phenomenon, contained in the next sentence. This view of the connection may be rendered clear by paraphrase as follows. 'Passing by the charge of drunkenness, as too absurd to be repelled except by simply reminding you how early in the morning it still is, I now proceed to tell you the true meaning of the strange things which you have just seen and heard.' Here again the transition is so natural and easy, yet so logical and suited to the speaker's purpose, that it does not more effectually clear him from the charge of rhetorical artifice or tricks of speech, than it does from the more common one of artlessness, not only in this good sense, but in that of rudeness and unskilfulness, a helpless incapacity to use language as the vehicle of thought with clearness and coherence. Let those who are continually thus describing the inspired writers learn to look at home.

16. The negative defence is followed by the positive; the false explanation by the true. The sum of it is: this is not intoxication, it is inspiration, and the fulfilment of a signal prophecy. In all such cases, it is necessary, first, to identify the passage; then, to ascertain the form of the quotation; and finally, to fix the sense in which it is applied. The first question is determined here, partly by the mention of the Prophet's name, omitted in some copies, manuscript and printed, but without sufficient reason; and more completely by the actual existence of the passage quoted in the text of the Old Testament. The Greek preposition (διά), more distinctly than the English (by), denotes the instrumental cause or agent, and might be correctly rendered through. 'Spoken by God through (or by means of) the Prophet Joel.' The whole form of expression implies, that Peter's hearers were familiar with the name of Joel, not only as a writer, but an inspired writer, or Old Testament Prophet. The personal history of Joel is unknown and unimportant with respect to the interpretation of this passage. The precise date of his writings is disputed, but the best authorities refer them to the reign of Uzziah, at least eight centuries before the date of these events. The passage quoted is the first five verses of the third chapter in the Hebrew text, corresponding to the last five verses of the second chapter in the Septuagint and English versions. The words are quoted from the former, but with several variations. Some suppose this passage to have formed a part of the temple-service on the day of Pentecost, and allege that it is still so used by the Caraites or anti-talmudical Jews. But this usage, even if sufficiently attested, may be of later date.

17. It shall be, happen, or come to pass, is the common mode of introducing a particular prediction in the Old Testament. The time of the event is indefinitely stated in the Hebrew, afterwards, here rendered somewhat more specific by the paraphrase, in the last days, i. e. in the days of the Messiah, or in the last days of the old dispensation, the very days of which we are now reading. Saith God is neither in the Hebrew text nor in the Septuagint version, but supplied by the Apostle, to remind his hearers who is speaking, not only as a means of making the words quoted more impressive and authoritative, but of making them intelligible, by supplying the subject of the sentence, which is here detached from its connection. For the use of pouring, as a figure for abundant gifts and influences, see above, on 1:5, and compare Prov. 1:23; Isai. 44:3; Zech. 12:10. Instead of the original expression, pour out my Spirit, the Septuagint, followed by Peter, has the partitive form, of my Spirit, intended to suggest as some have thought, that the gift was not exhausted, that the residue of the Spirit was with God (Mal. 2:15), and would still be bestowed upon the church. All flesh is an idiomatic Hebrew phrase, sometimes denoting the whole animal creation (Gen. 6:17), but more usually all mankind (Gen. 6:12.) To prophesy has here its usual sense, to speak by inspiration, or under a special divine influence. The idea of prediction or foretelling is not the primary etymological sense, nor even the prevailing one in usage. The collective or aggregate expression, all flesh, is defined and strengthened by the specific mention of both sexes, various conditions, and all ages. Sons and daughters is explained by some as a comprehensive description of the whole race, but there seems to be no reason for departing from its strict sense as denoting the two sexes, male and female offspring. Thus understood, the phrase would seem to confirm the previous conclusion, that the gift of tongues had been imparted to the whole assembly, including men and women. The objection that the gift could not be exercised by women, who are commanded to keep silence in the church (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12), applies only to the permanent use of this miraculous endowment in the service of the church, and not to its primary exhibition as a sign or as a symbol. (See above, on v. 4.) The next two clauses of the prophecy are inverted without any visible design, unless it be, as some have thought, to render prominent the case of the apostles, who were, for the most part, in the prime of life. If any distinction was intended to be made between the parallel expressions, dreams and visions, the latter may denote day-dreams, waking visions, and the former visions seen in sleep, or dreams properly so called. As we do not read of any such effects at Pentecost, the terms of the prediction must have been understood by the apostles as figures or types of extraordinary spiritual influence, and not as the precise forms in which the promise was to be fulfilled. The prominence given to miraculous endowments is to be explained by their peculiar fitness to evince the reality and designate the subject of the spiritual operation, and not by their intrinsic superiority to what are called the ordinary influences of the Spirit, and which are really included in the promise of the Prophet as here quoted.

18. This is a repetition of the promise in the verse preceding, with a simple substitution of male and female servants for sons and daughters. As the antecedent probabilities are adverse to a sheer tautology, without qualification or addition, we must look upon this verse as designed to add diversity of rank to that of age and sex. The word translated and at the beginning of the sentence, is not the simple copulative (καί), as in the Septuagint, but a strengthened form (καί γε), implying an emphatic addition to what was said before, q. d. nay more, not only sons and daughters but servants and handmaidens. Not only shall the weaker sex, but the humblest of both sexes, be admitted to participate in this great honour. The Greek words corresponding to servants and handmaidens are masculine and feminine forms of the word which properly denotes a slave. The repetition of the partitive form (of my Spirit) shows that it was not accidental or unmeaning in the verse preceding. The last clause, they shall prophesy, is added by the Apostle to remove all ambiguity and doubt as to the effusion of the Spirit promised. As if he had said: 'the Spirit which I thus pour out will be one of prophetic inspiration.' This precise specification, in a case where general and comprehensive terms might seem appropriate, arises from the fact that this was the precise form in which the promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. The gift of tongues was not a mere philological contrivance for the use of public speakers, but a real inspiration, extending to the matter as well as the expression, so that those who shared in it were heard, not only speaking foreign tongues, but in those tongues declaring the wonderful or glorious works of God. (See above, on v. 11.)

19. To the promise Peter adds the threatening which attends it in the prophecy, not merely for the purpose of rounding the period or completing the quotation, but as a solemn warning to his hearers that, as the promise had begun to be fulfilled, the execution of the threatening might be no less confidently looked for. Or perhaps the true view of the matter is, that this is not a threatening in the strict sense, as distinguished from a promise, but a prophecy of great revolutionary changes, clothed in familiar figures drawn from the prophetic dialect of scripture. (Compare Isai. 13:10; 34:4, etc.) The revolution thus foreshadowed was that through which Israel was to pass at the change of dispensations, and of which the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was a certain premonition. Wonders and signs are absolute and relative expressions for the same thing, viz. miracles. The first word, both in Greek and English, represents them as they are in themselves, portents or prodigies (Vulg. prodigia). The other indicates their use or purpose, as signs or proofs of something else, the divine existence, will, or presence, the divine legation of the prophets and apostles, or the truth of their official teachings. The word translated show properly means give, and is so rendered by Wiclif and the Rhemish version.

20. These are prophetic figures for great and sudden revolutionary changes. (Compare Isai. 13:10; 34:4, etc.) Before that day, the change shall be as great as the dissolution or extinction of the heavenly bodies would be in the frame of nature. Notable, remarkable, extraordinary, corresponds to a Greek word (ἐπιφανῆ) meaning manifest, conspicuous, illustrious, and that to a Hebrew one (ניֹרָא) meaning feared or fearful. The day of the Lord is not only the day appointed and foretold by him, but his own day, in a more emphatic sense, a day appropriated to himself, to the execution of his purpose and the vindication of his honour. (See Isai. 2:12.) The day meant is that great day of judicial visitation, which may be said to have begun with the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and is to end in what we call the Day of Judgment. The portentous sights described by Josephus and Tacitus as seen both by Jews and Romans during the last siege of Jerusalem, may be regarded as among the outward signs foretold, but not as the main subject of the prophecy, which is symbolical.

21. The Apostle closes his quotation with the Prophet's cheering assurance of salvation to every one who looks to and confides in the true Saviour. It shall come to pass, literally, it shall be, as given in all the older English versions except Cranmer's and King James's. (See above, on v. 17.) Invocation is here mentioned as an act of worship. Even if the call meant be only a call for help, it implies omniscience and almighty power in the object of address. (See below, on 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16.) The forensic usage of the same Greek verb to denote an appeal (as in 25:11, 12, 21, 25; 26:32; 28:19) implies a recognition of judicial sovereignty. Lord corresponds, in the Septuagint version, to the Hebrew Jehovah, the incommunicable name of God, considered as the God of Israel. The constant application of the Greek equivalent (Κύριος) in the New Testament to Jesus Christ, is a strong proof of his divinity. For such an application of the prophecy this verse prepares the way, and at the same time for another great division of the apostolical discourse.

22. It is universally agreed that Peter here introduces a new topic, or in other words, that this is the beginning of a new division of his speech, namely that in which he asserts and proves the Messiahship of Jesus. It seems to be commonly assumed, however, that the transition is abrupt and arbitrary as if he had merely taken advantage of the charge against him and his brethren, to bring forward an entirely different subject. This view of the passage, however it may favour the idea, that a rational coherence is not to be looked for in the sacred writers, may be easily refuted by a simple statement of the true connection. Having met the charge of drunkenness, first briefly and negatively, by a flat denial and the suggestion of a single reason why it could not possibly be true (v. 15); then fully and affirmatively by representing what was thus ascribed to wine as the work of the Spirit promised ages before by an inspired prophet (16–18), he quotes from the same context a warning and a promise well adapted to excite the fears and hopes of those who heard him, and to turn their thoughts upon the practical question of their own salvation (19–21.) Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. But what Lord? Not the absolute Elohim, or the half-revealed Jehovah, of the old economy, as they might naturally have supposed. What Lord was meant then? Why the very man whom they had crucified, and whom, in the remainder of this sermon, he proves to be the true Messiah. This analysis is certainly as simple and natural as any other, while it gives a perfect continuity and unity to the discourse. According to it, the leading thoughts of the Apostle are as follows. This is not drunkenness but inspiration—it was predicted centuries ago—on the fulfilment of that promise is suspended your personal salvation—and the promised Saviour is the man whom you have crucified. No wonder that in introducing such a doctrine, the apostle takes a new start, and conciliates afresh the indulgence of his hearers. Men of Israel is not a merely local or genealogical description, but a formal recognition of their national and ecclesiastical character as representatives of the chosen people. As if he had said: 'Thus far I have addressed you as natives of Judea and professors of the true religion; but I now appeal to you still more emphatically, as belonging so the Israel of God, and in that capacity entreat you still to hear me.' Hear these words is one of those expressions which are almost universally slurred over in the reading, as mere expletives, unmeaning forms of speech, affording a transition from one topic to another, or intended to impart a sort of finish and completeness to the composition. But in multitudes of cases, these neglected formulas are pregnant and emphatic clauses, upon which depends the force, if not the meaning, of the context. In the case before us, the Apostle again intimates (as in the opening of the whole discourse, v. 14) that he expected contradiction and impatience upon their part. 'Who then is the true and only Saviour, by invoking whom you may escape destruction? In answering this question, I am under the necessity of shocking your most cherished prepossessions and convictions; but nevertheless hear me, inasmuch as this is a matter, not of idle speculation, but of life and death, a question of salvation and perdition.' Having thus prepared them for the introduction of an unexpected or at least unwelcome topic, he delays no longer, but with fine rhetorical effect, if not design, immediately names Jesus, as the theme of what he further has to say. Jesus of Nazareth (or from Nazareth) is the literal translation of a phrase used by the same apostle on a subsequent occasion. (See below, on 10:38.) But here, and in every other case where it occurs in this book (3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 26:9), the original expression, though equivalent in sense, is somewhat different in form, and might be more exactly rendered, Jesus the Nazarene. The avoidance of this form by our translators is without apparent reason, and, though unimportant in itself, has the unfortunate effect of hiding or obscuring from the merely English reader the direct and intimate connection of this title with a difficult but interesting statement of Matthew (2:23), which seems most probably to mean, that all or many of the prophecies of Christ's humiliation were summed up, as to substance, in his reputed birth and real residence at an obscure town of a despised province, and as to form or expression, in his being habitually called The Nazarene. Some suppose that there can here be no allusion to its reproachful or contemptuous import, because used by an apostle. But even when employed by Christ himself (as in 22:8), the allusion to this usage is not only evident but prominent. 'I am that Nazarene, whose very home is a reproach to him, and whom thou Paul hast often cursed and scoffed at, by that hated name.' Thus too it is used by the Apostles, who appear to have delighted in recalling this opprobrious description and applying it to their master's highest exaltation, so that he reigns and triumphs by the very name which was expected to consign him to eternal infamy. In the case before us, it is not to be lost sight of, that the great Apostle, in propounding the unwelcome theme of his remaining argument, propounds it under this offensive form, not merely Jesus, but Jesus of Nazareth, the Nazarene. As if he had said: 'I may well entreat you still to hear me while I name the true and only Saviour; for the one whom I intend to name, is he whose name is already a proverb of reproach among you, and whom perhaps you have this very day reviled and derided as the Nazarene.' Having named him, as a person whom they well knew, he describes him as one, with whose pretensions and credentials they were all familiar. He speaks of him, not as an adventurer, or one whose character was yet to be established, but as one already proved (to be) from God. This is most probably the true sense of the phrase ambiguously rendered in our Bible, approved of God. The word approved, like the approbatum of the Vulgate, from which it seems to have been copied, was once used as a synonyme of proved. Webster quotes two instances from one line of Milton. "Wouldst thou approve thy constancy? Approve first thy obedience." But this sense is now obsolete, and the only idea which the word conveys here to a modern reader, is a false one, namely, that of moral approbation or approval. The idea meant to be conveyed is that of proof or attestation. This is not essentially affected by the different grammatical constructions which have been proposed. 'A man from God, attested (or accredited) by miracles, etc.' 'A man accredited from (i. e. by) God through miracles, etc.' 'A man accredited (or proved to be) from God by miracles, etc.' The words from God do not refer to the divinity of Christ, which would be otherwise expressed, and would here be out of place, at the beginning of a series of expressions all relating to our Lord's humiliation. From God expresses his divine legation, the commission or authority under which he acted as the teacher of mankind and the founder of a new religion. This commission was attested by his miracles, to which, besides the two terms used in v. 19 (wonders and signs), the Apostle here applies one meaning powers, forces, i. e. exhibitions or exertions of a power above that of man. The translation miracles, although it designates the proper objects, fails to distinguish the three terms applied to them, expressive of their source, their use, and their intrinsic quality, as powers, signs, and wonders. These miracles are then ascribed to God as the efficient cause, and to Christ as the instrumental agent, which God did by him. For the true sense of the preposition (διά), see above, on v. 16. This representation is entirely consistent with the proper deity of Christ, since he is really included under both descriptions, his human instrumentality being subject to his own divine agency, as well as to the Father's. It is also in keeping with that true subordination of the Son to the Father, which the Scriptures teach, and which the Church has always held fast, even when tempted to abjure it by the hope of leaving heresy without excuse. It is rendered necessary, in the case before us, by the speaker's purpose to exhibit our Lord in "the form of a servant" and a messenger from God. Observe the confidence with which Peter here appeals to the knowledge and the memory of his hearers. The attestations or credentials of Christ's ministry and mission had not been presented at a distance, or in a corner, but in the midst of you (ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν), sent or addressed directly to you (εἰς ὑμᾶς), as the parties to be convinced and satisfied. This last idea is less clearly expressed in the common version, among you. It is again suggested in the last words of the verse, where the appeal is a direct one to themselves, as ye yourselves do know (or also know.)

23. Him, i. e. the person thus described; a method of resumption not unusual after so long an interruption of the syntax. Delivered, not bestowed, as some explain the Greek word (ἔκδοτον), but in violation of its usage, which requires the meaning given up, surrendered. Some refer this to the treachery of Judas, but most readers and interpreters suppose it to express the divine act of giving Christ up to the mercy of his enemies, or, in other words, permitting him to suffer. The word translated counsel properly means will, as appears both from etymology and usage. Determinate is not determined, in the moral sense of resolute, intrepid, but determined, in the physical or proper sense of bounded, defined, settled, as opposed to what is vague, contingent, or indefinite. The dative may be either one of cause, by the will, or of rule and measure, according to the will, most probably the latter. The same relation of Christ's death to the divine decree is formally asserted in the prayer of the Apostles (4:28), and less distinctly by our Lord himself (Luke 22:22), in both which cases the expressions, although not identical, are very similar to those here used. Ye have taken might be more exactly rendered ye took, or rather ye received, as the correlative of given up, and not as denoting the original or independent act of taking. God gave him and they took him. What God permitted they performed. By wicked hands might seem to mean no more than with wicked hands, i. e. your own, which adds no new idea to the general one of murder expressed in the next clause. But as the word translated wicked (ἀνόμων), and which properly means lawless, is applied by Paul (1 Cor. 9:21), in its primary etymological sense, to the heathen as without law or a written revelation of the divine will, some have understood the phrase to mean either lawless (i. e. Gentile) hands, or hands of lawless ones (i. e. Gentiles.) It seems no sufficient reason for preferring this construction, that the language is otherwise too harsh for the Apostle's purpose of conciliation, if not inconsistent with his own con cession in 3:17 below. The main design of his discourse was to convince them of their own guilt, and nothing tending to promote that end can be inconsistent with it. But a stronger reason for referring these expressions to the Gentiles is afforded by the fact that the oldest manuscripts and latest editors read hand (χειρός) for hands (χειρῶν), thus requiring the construction, by the hand of lawless men, and suggesting the idea of some secondary agency, through which the malice of the Jews was gratified. Now such an agency was that of Pilate and the Roman soldiers, the use of which was certainly a fearful aggravation of the crime of Israel, because they not only rejected and murdered their Messiah, but gave him up to the power of the Gentiles. (See below, on 4:27.) The word translated crucified means properly transfixed, and is applied in the classics to impalement and to the fastening of human heads on poles or stakes. It may here be understood in the specific sense of nailing to the cross, and is perhaps contemptuously used, to aggravate the suicidal folly of the Jews, who, instead of welcoming their long expected Prince, took him and nailed him to a tree. We have here a curious instance of the variations even in the authorized editions of the Latin Vulgate. Those published in the last years of the sixteenth century translate this word affligentes, while those of later date expunge the interpolated letter and read affigentes. The original construction is, having nailed (or crucified) ye slew. This last verb (ἀνείλετε, ἀνείλατε) is a favourite with Luke, occurring twenty times in his two books, and only twice in the rest of the New Testament. It does not mean directly to kill, but to despatch, to make away with, English phrases which are constantly applied to murder, though they do not necessarily express it. It is clear from this verse that the guilt of those who murdered Christ was neither caused nor nullified by God's determinate counsel and foreknowledge. Even Chrysostom refers to the analogy of Joseph's case (comparing Gen. 45:8 with 50:20), as showing how consistent, both in scripture and experience, are the doctrine of God's sovereignty and that of human freedom and responsibility.

24. With their treatment of the Saviour he contrasts that of God himself. When God gave him up, they took him; but when they crucified him, God raised him. This is a favourite antithesis with Peter, and repeatedly recurs in his discourses. (See below, on 3:14, 15; 4:10; 5:30, 31; 10:39, 40.) The Greek verb (ἀνίστημι), in its active tenses, always means to raise up; from what or to what is determined by the context. It is applied to raising from the dead by Homer in the last book of the Iliad (551). Loosing pains is an unusual combination, perhaps arising from the use of the second word (ὠδῖνας) in the Septuagint, to represent a Hebrew one, which has the double sense of cord and sorrow. (Compare Isai. 13:8. with Ps. 18:5.) Thus the two Greek nouns may have become associated, and their corresponding verbs convertible. The very combination here used appears also in the Septuagint version of Ps. 39:2. It is the less unnatural because the verb to loose has a figurative sense (relax) no less appropriate to pains than its proper sense (untie) to cords. The Greek noun strictly means the pains of parturition, which are often used as figures of intense but temporary suffering. (See Isai. 26:17; John 16:21, etc.) Impossible, both physically, as a condition inconsistent with his deity, and morally, because the divine plan and purpose made his resurrection necessary. The verb (κρατεῖσθαι) which in classical Greek denotes conquest or superiority, in the New Testament always means to hold or to be holden fast, either in a literal or figurative sense, but never perhaps without some trace of its original and proper import, as for instance in the case before us, where the sense is that he could not be permanently held fast by death as a captive or a conquered enemy.

25. The alleged impossibility is now confirmed by the testimony of David, which is also cited as a further proof of our Lord's messiahship. Besides the evidence afforded by his miracles (22) and resurrection (24), he was the only subject in which a certain signal prophecy had been or could be verified (25–32.) For the sake of the connection the Apostle quotes the entire passage (Ps. 16:8–11,) but the proof of his position is contained in the last part of it. This may account for some apparent incoherence of the clauses beginning with the word for. The first of these, however, has respect to the assertion at the end of the preceding verse. It could not be, for he had said it should not be. The passage is quoted in the Septuagint version, almost without variation. The sixteenth Psalm, here ascribed to David, is so described also in the title of the Psalm itself, nor is there any internal evidence of later date. Concerning him, literally, to or towards him, i. e. in reference or relation to him. The Greek phrase (εἰς αὐτόν) has the same sense in Luke 19:9; Eph. 5:32. Foresaw, in English, has respect to time, and means saw beforehand; but the verb here has respect to place and means saw before me, which idea is also expressed by the next phrase (ἐνώπιόν μου.) This repetition is not found in the Hebrew, where the verb means to set or place. The general sense, in either case, is that of constant recognition or remembrance. At the right hand is not only a post of honour, but a position of defence or protection. (See Ps. 73:23; 121:5.) That I should not be moved is a slight modification of the simple future used in the original. The Greek verb (σαλευθῶ) is applied both to bodily and mental agitation (17:13; 2 Thess. 2:2.)

26. Therefore, on account of this assurance of divine protection. My tongue corresponds to my glory in Hebrew, and may be regarded as a very ancient exposition of that phrase preserved in the Septuagint version, and according to which the tongue (i. e. the faculty of speech) is regarded as the glory of the human frame, or as the instrument of the divine praise. Moreover also introduces an emphatic addition, as in v. 18. Not only this, but more, my very flesh, etc. Flesh seems here to mean the body as distinguished from the soul. The verb translated rest originally means to pitch a tent, encamp, and then to sojourn for a time; that mode of life being constantly opposed to permanent abode in houses. Hope is hardly an adequate equivalent to the Hebrew word (בֶּטַח), which in this connection denotes confident security. The consecution of the tenses, did rejoice, was glad, shall rest, is closely copied from the Hebrew.

27. Because, or that, introducing the ground or subject of the confidence expressed in the preceding verse. In hell, literally, to or into, corresponding to a Hebrew phrase, which means not merely to leave in but to abandon or give up to. The Geneva Bible has in grave. Hell, in its old and wide sense of the unseen world (hades), the world of spirits, the state of the soul separated from the body, without any reference to happiness or misery. The essential meaning is, thou wilt not leave my soul and body separate. Suffer, literally, give, grant, permit, a use of the verb also found in Xenophon and Homer. (See below, on 10:40.) Holy One answers to a Hebrew word which properly denotes an object of the divine favour, but suggests the idea of a corresponding character. In both senses, it is peculiarly appropriate to Christ. See corruption, or experience dissolution. Compare the phrase see death, Luke 2:26. There are two Hebrew nouns of the same form (שַׁחַת) but of different derivation, one denoting the grave and the other putrefaction. The first would here be false, if not unmeaning.

28. The gist of the quotation was contained in the preceding verse. The conclusion of the psalm is added to express the same idea still more strongly by contrast. There is but one verb in the Hebrew of this verse, and that a future, thou shalt make me know. Instead of the second verb, the Hebrew has an abstract noun, satiety or fulness, which may either be governed by the verb at the beginning, or construed with the verb is, as in the English version (of Ps. 16:11.) With thy countenance is a literal translation of a phrase which means, however, in thy presence. The last clause of the psalm is omitted, as unnecessary to the speaker's purpose. It is also to be borne in mind, that as all devout Jews were familiar with the passage, and could easily supply what was omitted, it mattered less to what length the quotation was extended.

29. The respectful and conciliatory compellation, men and brethren (see above, on 1:16), does not indicate a change of subject here, the connection with what goes before being as close and intimate as possible. But this form of address implies again that he had need of their indulgence, or had something to say which might offend their prejudices. The same thing is suggested by what follows, let me speak, or retaining the form of the original, (it is or let it be) permitted (lawful or allowable) to say to you with boldness (παῤῥησίας) or freedom of speech, implying that what he said might be considered too free, or not entirely consistent with becoming reverence for the patriarch or founder of the royal family. The same title is applied in the New Testament to Abraham (Heb. 7:4) and to the sons of Jacob as the fathers of the twelve tribes (Acts 7:8.) The Rhemish version of the next clause is much better, that he died and was buried. There is then no tautology in adding that his sepulchre, memorial or monument, is with us, or among us, i. e. in the city and not merely in the suburbs, or more generally, in the country, near us, and in our possession. It could be still identified in the reign of Adrian, if not in the days of Jerome, but has since been lost sight of. But wherein lay the boldness or presumption of asserting this familiar and notorious fact? How could any one deny, that David had died and been buried, or be shocked by hearing it affirmed? This question is connected with the drift and structure of the whole passage. It was not the fact of David's death and burial, at which Peter expected them to stumble, but at the conclusion which he meant them to draw from it, and which is not expressed. That conclusion was, that this remarkable prediction, which they were no doubt accustomed to apply to David, could not apply to him at all, but must have reference to another. This was a doctrine sufficiently at variance with their prepossessions to account for Peter's so respectfully asking leave to state it. But what is the reasoning by which he reaches this conclusion? It is this, that as the prophecy declares that the speaker's soul should not continue separate from his body, nor his body itself experience dissolution, it could not apply to David, for he did die and was buried, and had long since mouldered in the grave, still designated by a well-known monument among them. Precisely the same argument, but more concisely stated, is employed by Paul in his first apostolical discourse on record. (See below, on 13:35–37.) This express and argumentative denial, that the words can be applied to David, excludes not only the typical but also the generic method of interpretation, which was adopted in 1:20 above. At all events, the words cannot be understood of both in one and the same sense, consistently with Peter's declaration; and the only sense in which they are true of David, that of future resurrection, was wholly irrelevant to Peter's proof, that Jesus was the Messiah of the prophecies. In order to preserve what seems to be the obvious allusion of the Psalmist to his own case, some eminent interpreters suppose the words to be appropriate to David only as he was in Christ, represented by him and a member of his body. But how could it be said, even on this hypothesis, that David's soul and body were not permanently severed, and that his body did not see corruption? Whereas this, as Peter afterwards affirms, was literally true of Jesus and of him alone.

30. Since David, then, was not and could not be himself the subject of this prophecy, who was? A person altogether different and posterior by many ages. This of itself was not incredible to those who knew that David was a Prophet, in the strict as well as in the wider sense, i. e. endowed by inspiration with a knowledge of the future. This general description is then followed by a reference to a specific promise, that contained in 2 Sam. 7:12–16, and repeated in Ps. 89:3, 4; 132:11, forming the basis of all the Messianic Psalms, and frequently referred to in the other prophecies. Its lowest sense is that of mere unbroken succession; but this is evidently not the whole, from the extraordinary gratitude ex pressed by David, and from his singular language in 2 Sam. 7:19 (compared with 1 Chr. 17:17), where it seems to be implied, if not expressed, that this was not a personal, nor even a national assurance, but a universal one concerning the whole race. The same thing is clear from the fact that this promise constitutes a link, which would otherwise be wanting, in the chain of Messianic Prophecies, by applying specifically to the house of David, what had been successively applied to those of Seth, Shem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah. Several of the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions omit the words, according to the flesh would raise up Christ, so that the clause reads, knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his loins (one) should sit upon his throne. Besides the external evidence in favour of this reading, it relieves the text from an enfeebling and embarrassing anticipation of what follows in the next verse. There the Apostle finally identifies the person of whom David wrote. Here he is only showing, in the general and in the way of introduction, that David might, without absurdity, be understood as speaking of a person different from himself and long posterior, because he was a prophet, and because he had received a most explicit promise, sanctioned by the oath of God, that he should have perpetual succession on the throne, a promise which had been already broken, if restricted to his natural descendants.

31. Having shown that David could not mean himself, and that he might mean one who was to live long after him, the Apostle positively and authoritatively tells them whom he did mean. He referred not to his own still future resurrection—the only sense in which he could have said this of himself—but to another resurrection, future when he wrote, but now already past, and therefore furnishing at once the explanation and fulfilment of the prophecy. This was the resurrection of Christ, not as a personal but as an official title, the Messiah, the Anointed One, the Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel, of whom the ancient prophets, priests, and kings were merely representatives, filling his place until he came, and for whose coming the whole race had been impatiently looking for a course of ages. Not content with saying simply that he spoke of the Messiah's resurrection, Peter shuts out all evasion and mistake by repeating the ipsissima verba of the prophecy in question and applying them to Christ, of whom alone it was predicted, and of whom alone it is historically true, that his soul was not left disembodied after death, and that his body, though it died, was not corrupted.

32. But one more step was wanting to complete this process of triumphant argument, and that step is here taken. It was not enough to show, as Peter had done, that the prophecy could not relate to David, or that it might relate to one long after him, or even that it did relate to the Messiah, unless he could identify the individual. The importance of distinguishing between our Lord's personal name and his official title is peculiarly apparent here, where the neglect of it converts into a mere tautology the last link of a concatenated argument. What he said in the preceding verse was, that David spake of the Messiah's resurrection. What he here says is, that this Messiah was no other than the Jesus whom they crucified. Why so? Because in him, and him alone, the prophecy has been fulfilled. The Messiah was to rise from the dead—Jesus of Nazareth has risen from the dead—therefore the two must be identical. But where is the proof that Jesus rose? The evidence is twofold, human and divine. God bore witness in the very act of raising him. This Jesus hath God raised up. We bear witness of the same thing, not only the Apostles, whose primary function was to testify of this event, (1:8, 22), but multitudes of others who had seen him since his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6.)

33. Having thus identified the subject of the sixteenth psalm, first negatively with a person different from the writer, then positively with the Messiah, and then personally with the Nazarene whom they had crucified, he now describes the present state and employments of the glorious though despised Redeemer. His humiliation being past, and its design accomplished, he is now exalted, lifted up, or raised on high, both in a local sense, i. e. in heaven, and in the sense of freedom from all suffering and superiority to all created powers, whether friendly or adverse. Compare the same Apostle's language in 1 Pet. 3:22, and that of Paul in Eph. 1:20–22. The right hand is a scriptural figure for active power. In a local sense, it is the post of honour. Either of these ideas would be here appropriate, exalted by God's right hand, as the instrument, or to his right hand, as the place of exaltation. In favour of the former is the Greek usage of the dative case (δεξίᾳ) which rarely denotes place, but often means or instrument. In favour of the other is the use of right hand in the passage quoted in the next verse. After all that has been said against the assumption of a double sense, as contrary to nature and the very use of words, there are multitudes of phrases in all languages which, though intended to convey one idea directly, not only may but must suggest another. Thus the hearers of Peter, upon this occasion, could not, without a process of reflection, separate the two familiar senses of God's right hand from each other. The only question is, which is the primary and which the secondary meaning; and this question is of little exegetical importance here, because both are so agreeable to fact and to the context. It was by as well as to God's right hand that our Lord had been exalted, i. e. by the exertion of divine power, and to the enjoyment of divine honours. Besides this general participation in the honours of the Godhead, Peter mentions a specific gift bestowed by the Father on the Son as Mediator, and by him upon his Church. The promise may be put for the thing promised, as in 1:4, but with this distinction, that the genitive in that case indicates the giver, but in this the gift itself. Or promise may be taken in its proper sense, and the performance sought in the ensuing clause. In favour of the first construction, though apparently less simple, is the fact that the Son, and not the Father, is the agent in the last clause. Having received of the Father the Holy Spirit previously promised, he has shed forth, i. e. poured out, a figure implying both abundance and descent from above, this (Spirit), or more probably, this (gift), as Cranmer renders it, this (influence), which ye now see and hear. The Rhemish version marks the reference to the Spirit by the singular combination, this whom, copied from the Vulgate (hunc quem.) Some refer the two verbs to the acts and gestures of the disciples and to the gift of tongues respectively. But why should the sight of the fiery tongues be excluded, which in all probability was not confined to the disciples? On the whole, however, such exact distinctions are superfluous, the two senses or perceptions being mentioned simply to include all that they had witnessed. Instead of now, some manuscripts and editors read both, without a change of sense. By thus ascribing the phenomenon, which had occasioned his discourse, to Jesus, Peter completes the picture of his master's exaltation, and at the same time, comes back to the point from which he started, by a natural yet masterly transition, showing any thing but want of skill or helpless incoherence.

34, 35. Having shown the resurrection of Christ to be the subject of an ancient prophecy, he now proves the same thing of his exaltation. The argument is rendered still more parallel and uniform by drawing the proof from the same part of the Old Testament. The passage cited is the first verse of Psalm 110, which, like Psalm 16 above, is declared to be inapplicable to David. The same thing had been previously affirmed by Christ himself (Matt. 22:41–46), but on a different ground, to wit, that David calls him Lord or Sovereign. Here the ground is the same as in the previous exposition of Ps. 16, to wit, that the prophecy never was fulfilled in David. It could only be fulfilled in one who had ascended into heaven and sat down on the right hand of God. But no one pretended or imagined that David had so done; whereas Christ did thus ascend and reign, as the Apostle had affirmed in the preceding verse. Here then were two signal Messianic Prophecies, universally recognized as such and universally ascribed to David, neither of which could be applied to David as its subject, both of which must have respect to the Messiah, and both of which had been fulfilled in Jesus! The apparent play upon words in the phrase, The Lord said to my Lord, is found only in the Greek and other versions. The original expression is, Jehovah said to my Lord. The strong expression in the last clause of v. 35 for total subjugation may be borrowed from an actual usage of ancient warfare. (See Josh. 10:24.) The exact form of the original is copied in the Rhemish version, the footstool of thy feet.

36. This is the conclusion which the speaker draws from his whole argument, or rather which he leaves the house of Israel to draw for themselves. (See above, on v. 29.) The prefatory formula is not to be neglected, any more than in v. 22 above. It refers the decision of the question to the Jewish Church itself but, by the use of the phrase, let it know, suggests that all dispute is at an end, that nothing now remains but to accept the only possible conclusion. This is indicated also by the qualifying adverb, assuredly, or most certainly (Wiclif), or for a surety (Tyndale). According to strict rule and usage, the phrase translated all the house means rather every house (or family) of Israel. But as there is great license with respect to the insertion of the article, which constitutes the difference of meaning here, the common version is substantially correct. The Greek word (ἀσφαλῶς) corresponds in etymology, and partly in its usage, to infallibly, i. e. without the fear or possibility of error. The common version follows Tyndale and Cranmer in a transposition of the last clause, which is not only needless, but injurious to the emphasis and beauty of the sentence. The Greek collocation, as retained by Wiclif, the Geneva Bible, and the Rhemish version, closes the sentence with the words, this Jesus whom ye crucified, which has been quaintly but expressively described as the sting in the end of the discourse. Besides the loss of this peculiar beauty, the inversion has occasioned the omission of a pronoun in the clause immediately preceding. The literal translation is, God made him Lord and Christ, or still more closely, both Lord and Christ him hath God made—this Jesus whom ye crucified. The him is commonly assumed to be superfluous (as in the Greek of Matt. 8:1, 5.) But this is an hypothesis, seldom adopted now by the best writers, and only admissible in case of urgent exegetical necessity. Others go to the opposite extreme by making it mean Lord himself in allusion to the double Lord of v. 34 and Ps. 110:1. 'The Lord who said to David's Lord, Sit thou, etc. has made Jesus himself to be that Lord.' But this construction seems too artificial. A much more simple one, and intermediate between the omission and exaggeration of the pronoun, supposes the sense to be grammatically complete without the words this Jesus, etc., and these words to be superadded as an emphatic supplement or afterthought. God hath made him (to be) both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom ye crucified. Here, as in v. 27 and elsewhere, it is important to take Christ in its official pregnant sense, as distinguished from a mere name or personal designation. In the latter sense, it would have been absurd to say that God had made Jesus to be Christ, i. e. to be himself; but it is highly significant, and expressive of a most important fact, to say that God made Jesus to be the Christ or the Messiah. The verb made in this clause may be understood in two ways; as expressing the divine decree or constitution, which attached the office of Messiah (as explained above on v. 31) to the person of Jesus the Nazarene; or as a declaratory act, that of setting forth, exhibiting our Lord in this high character. While the latter is undoubtedly implied, as an actual effect of the Saviour's exaltation, the former seems to be the thing immediately expressed, both by the verb made, which is never a mere synonyme of showed, declared, and by the whole connection, which requires that Peter should conclude by affirming, not only the divine attestation of our Lord's Messiahship, but also its divine authority and constitution. If this be the correct construction, Lord cannot mean a divine person, in allusion to the first Lord (or Jehovah) of v. 34, for the Father did not make the Son to be God, but must mean a mediatorial sovereign. This Christ was made to be, as well as the Messiah, and because he was Messiah, the two characters or offices being indivisible. The second person, whom ye crucified, especially in Greek, where the pronoun (ὑμεῖς) is peculiarly emphatic, carries home the fearful charge of having disowned and murdered the Messiah to his hearers, both as individuals, so far as they had taken part in that great crime, and as the representatives of Israel, the ancient church, or chosen people. If those critics who consider it their duty to exalt the inspiration of the sacred writers, by denying them all intellectual and literary merit, can improve upon the logic or the rhetoric of this great apostolical discourse, or even on the force and beauty of this peroration, let them do it or forever after hold their peace.

37. The personal bearing of the whole discourse, but more particularly of its close, was not without effect upon the hearers. This effect is described by a strong but intelligible figure. They were pricked, pierced, perforated, not in body, but in heart, i. e. mind or soul, as distinguished from the body. The specific reference to the conscience is not suggested by this word, but by the context. Nor is that reference an exclusive one, the effect described extending to the whole mind, in the way of rational conviction no less than in that of compunction, a word of Latin origin, analogous in figurative import to the one which Luke here uses. Peter's argument, unanswerable on their own avowed and cherished principles, must have convinced them that the man whom they had crucified was the Messiah, and that if so they had been guilty, not only of judicial murder, but of blasphemy and treason to their rightful sovereign. Their desperate perplexity was well expressed by the question, what shall we do? i. e. what ought we to do, as a matter of duty, and what must we do, as a means of safety? Their putting this question to the other (or remaining) apostles, does not imply that these had also spoken, but only that Peter was considered as the spokesman of them all, and that they concurred in what he said, as well as that the twelve were still together and collectively accessible. It may also show the eagerness with which the awakened hearers crowded round these witnesses of the Messiah, repeating and reciprocating Peter's compellation, Men and brethren, as if conscious of some new and intimate relation, over and above that of mere Judaism, civil or religious.

38. Although the question was addressed to all the Apostles, Peter again answered for the rest, in the language both of exhortation and of promise. Two distinct acts are required, one inward and one outward. The first verb, according to its etymology and classical usage, denotes afterthought, reflection, and then, by a natural association, change of mind, including both the judgment and the feelings. In the Greek of the New Testament, it is applied to change of mind in reference to moral good and evil, and more especially to one's own character and conduct. Regret or sorrow is only one of its ingredients. Evangelical repentance, in its widest sense, is an entire revolution of the principles and practice, of the heart and life. Nothing less than this, or what directly led to it, could be required of these Jewish bigots who had murdered Christ. The Geneva version, amend your lives, is too restricted and one-sided; that of Wiclif and the Rhemish, do ye penance, now conveys a false idea, but was originally only a close copy of the Vulgate (pœnitentiam agite), which was no doubt intended to convey precisely the same sense with the original. (See below, on 3:19.) The change of mind required was to be attested by an outward act: repent and be baptized. Even granting that this Greek verb originally meant to immerse, i. e. to dip or plunge—a fact which is still earnestly disputed—it does not follow that this is essential to its meaning as a peculiar Christian term. On the contrary, analogy would lead us to suppose that, like other Greek terms thus adopted, it had undergone some modification of its etymological and primary import. As presbyter no longer suggests personal age, nor deacon menial service, nor supper a nocturnal meal, as necessary parts of their secondary Christian meaning, why should this one word be an exception to the general rule, and signify a mere mode of action as no less essential than the act itself? Even if it could be shown that immersion was the universal ancient practice, both of Jews and Christians, it would prove no more than the universal practice of reclining at meals and mixing wine with water. Least of all can it be shown that Peter, in requiring this vast crowd to be baptized upon the spot, intended to insist on their complete submersion under water as the essence of the rite prescribed. Besides the arbitrary character of such a supposition in itself, it is forbidden by the obvious analogy between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which, as we have already seen (on 1:5), from the time of Moses to the time of Christ, had always been conceived of, not as an immersion, but as an affusion or effusion, an abundant pouring from above. With such associations, when the multitude were told to be baptized, they would of course think, not of the depth of the water, or their own position with respect to it, but of the water itself and of its application, as a well known token of repentance on the one hand, and of regeneration on the other. The first of these associations had already been established in most Jewish minds, if not by the baptism of proselytes, the antiquity of which is still disputed, yet by that of John the Baptist, which is expressly called the baptism of repentance. (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4.) The other association, that of baptism with regeneration, was of older date, having its origin in natural relations, and confirmed by the significant ablutions of the ceremonial law, which were designed to keep this very doctrine in connection with the doctrine of atonement, as displayed in the sacrificial ritual, before the minds of all devout believers in the law of Moses. In the name of Jesus Christ is not the formula by which they were to be baptized, and therefore different from the one prescribed by Christ himself (Matt. 28:19), but a description of the rite as Christian, and not merely Jewish, much less heathen, baptism, or an unmeaning form, connected with no religious creed whatever. (See below, on 8:16; 19:5.) In the name of Christ, i. e. by his authority, acknowledging his claims, subscribing to his doctrines, engaging in his service, and relying on his merits. The beneficial end to which all this led was the remission of sins. The first Greek noun (ἅφεσιν), derived from a verb (ἀφίημι) which means to let go, is applied by Plutarch to divorce, by Demosthenes to legal discharge from the obligation of a bond, by Plato to the emancipation of a slave, and to exemption from punishment, which last is its constant use in the New Testament. The whole phrase, to (or towards) remission of sins, describes this as the end to which the question of the multitude had reference, and which therefore must be contemplated also in the answer. To this implied promise of forgiveness, Peter adds an express one, that they should receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. It has been disputed whether this denotes participation in the miraculous endowments just imparted to the twelve, or only those internal influences which we are accustomed to call spiritual in a special sense, and which the scriptures represent as absolutely indispensable to all regeneration and salvation. But as these were only different operations of one and the same Spirit (1 Cor. 12:4–12), the assurance may be understood both as a promise of his ordinary sanctifying agency, to be experienced by all believers now and for ever, and also as a promise of extraordinary, temporary gifts, to answer a specific end, on this occasion.

39. This verse contains an explanation of the promise just promiscuously made to the whole multitude. Spiritual influence, the great gift of Christ to his church, was not confined to his immediate followers or their first converts, but intended to embrace all classes and all generations of those whom God should call, i. e. choose, designate, and actually bring into communion with his Son through faith. The promise was addressed to themselves and to their children, as in the covenants of the Old Testament, an expression favouring the supposition that their children were to be baptized with them, but not necessarily requiring it, as some, though less naturally, understand these words of later generations. But Peter is here dealing with the contemporary race, as represented by his hearers, and would therefore seem to mean by their children those already in existence, and especially those present upon this occasion. All afar off is likewise a disputed phrase. Some would refer this also to succeeding generations; but this is forbidden by the usage of the Greek word (μακράν), which relates to space, not time. Others apply it to the Jews dispersed in distant countries; but all Jews were so accustomed to equality of privileges in their own religion, that such an assurance would have been superfluous. Besides the greater part of those whom he addressed belonged to this class, and could not therefore be distinguished from the you (ὑμῖν) of the first clause. A third opinion is, that all afar off denotes Gentile converts. It has been objected that Peter himself was not initiated into this great doctrine till long after. (See below, on 10:28, 34.) Some have endeavoured to evade this objection, by admitting that Peter did not fully understand his own words. But both the objection and the answer rest upon a misconception, as to Peter's views at different periods of his history. He never could have thought that the Gentiles were excluded from the church or from salvation. There was no such exclusion, even under the restrictive institutions of the old economy. All the Gentiles in the world might have shared the privileges of the Jews, by complying with the prescribed conditions. Peter's error consisted in believing that these conditions still existed under the gospel, or in other words, that Gentiles must become Jews before they could be Christians. Of this error he was not yet disabused; but there was nothing in it to prevent his applying the expressions here recorded to the Gentiles. The only condition which he recognizes is the call of God, without regard to difference of rank or nation. In the first clause of this verse, the older English versions supply was made after promise.

40. We have here an interesting intimation both as to the quantity and quality of Peter's apostolical instructions on the day of Pentecost. As to the first, we learn that all his words are not recorded, but that with many other (literally more) words he did testify, etc. (Vulg. aliis verbis plurimis.) This admits of several suppositions, as to what is given in this chapter. It may be regarded as a summary or abstract of all that the Apostle said, or as a full report of one discourse, besides which others were delivered, but have not been left on record. The first is the more natural hypothesis, because it is not easy to conceive of what material the others were composed, or why they were considered requisite, as every thing essential seems to be included in the one here given, and the terms of the narrative are satisfied by simply supposing, that the ideas here recorded were expressed at greater length, and with such repetitions and amplifications as were suited to render them universally intelligible. As to the quality or character of Peter's preaching, it is indicated by two verbs, testify and exhort. The first expresses the complex idea of testimony, argument, and solemn affirmation, and is therefore frequently applied in this book to the preaching of the Gospel. (See below, 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21, 23, 24; 23:11; 28:23.) The other verb is also one of comprehensive import, including the ideas of summoning, commanding, and persuading. As the first describes the theoretical or doctrinal part of the apostolical preaching, so this may be regarded as expressive of its practical and hortatory element. They testified to what men should believe, and exhorted them to what they ought to do. As a sample or a summary of these exhortations, we are told that Peter said, Save yourselves, etc. The Greek verb (σωθῆτε) is a passive form, and although there are some instances, in which this aorist seems to have the meaning of the middle voice, there can be no reason for departing from the strict sense, when it suits the context better, as in this case. Such a departure is the more gratuitous, because the reflexive meaning (save thyself) is elsewhere expressed by an entirely different form of the same verb (σῶσον σεαυτόν). (See Matt. 27:40; Mark 15:30; Luke 23:37.) The sense of the form here used is, be saved, i. e. consent that God shall save you, from (the character and destiny of) this untoward generation. The English word untoward is defined by its opposite, toward, and its cognate adjective, towardly, the first of which is used by Shakspeare, and the last by Bacon, in the sense of docile, manageable, tractable. The negative form, therefore, means perverse, intractable, and is no inaccurate translation of the Greek word here used, which means crooked, both in a physical and moral sense. (See Luke 3:5; Phil. 2:15; 1 Pet. 2:18.) Its application here is founded on the description of Israel by Moses in Deut. 32:5, where the Septuagint version has this very phrase. The crooked generation is the mass of unbelieving Jews, not considered as a race or nation, which is not the usage of the Greek word (γενεᾶς), but as a contemporary generation, out of which the penitent are urged to extricate themselves by consenting to be saved.

41. The Apostle's exhortation meets with a prompt and general response. There is the same ambiguity of construction in the first clause as in 1:6. The common version, they that gladly received his word, seems to draw a distinction between two classes, those who did, and those who did not, gladly receive the Apostle's word. It seems more natural, however, to understand this clause as relating to the whole body of those mentioned in v. 37, as asking what they should do. They then gladly received his word, etc. The idea of cheerfulness and joy is twice expressed, being really included in the verb, according to Greek usage, and then separately indicated by an adverb. To the supposition that these converts were baptized by immersion, it may be objected, besides the greatness of the number and the shortness of the time, that Jerusalem has always been remarkably destitute of water, the fountain of Siloam being its only constant source. That the three thousand went out in procession to this fountain, or that many were baptized in swimming-baths or cisterns belonging to public establishments or to private dwellings, or that these difficulties were miraculously overruled for the occasion, are conceivable hypotheses; but whether they are probable or preferable to the simple supposition that the water, like the Holy Ghost in spiritual baptism, and the blood in ceremonial purifications, was poured or sprinkled—every reader must determine for himself. The same day evidently qualifies baptized as well as added, because it was by baptism that the additions were effected. Added unto them seems to mean to those mentioned in the first clause, but these were themselves the persons added. It is better, therefore, with the Geneva Bible, to supply unto the church from v. 47, i. e. to the previously existing body of believers, amounting, as some think, to a hundred and twenty, but probably a much larger number. (See above, on 1:14; 2:1.) About, literally as, as if, implies that the following number is a round one. (See above, on 1:15.) The use of the word souls for persons in enumeration is an idiom, not only of the Hebrew (Gen. 46:27) and the Hellenistic Greek (v. 43; 3:23; 7:14; 27:37), but of many other languages.

42. The history of Pentecost may be said to close with the preceding verse, what follows being an account of the condition of the infant church, from that day onward. Continued stedfastly, or as the Rhemish version more exactly renders it, were persevering. For the exact sense of the Greek verb, see above, on 1:14. Here, as in many other cases, doctrine does not mean the truth taught, but the act or mode of teaching. (See Matt. 7:28, 29; 22:33; Mark 1:22, 27; 4:2; 11:18; Luke 4:32; 1 Tim. 4:13.) What is here affirmed is not their adherence to a certain system of belief but their personal attendance on the actual instructions of the twelve. Thus instruction followed, if it did not precede, baptism; or rather it both followed and preceded, for these converts were not heathen, but religiously trained Jews, and Peter had instructed them, before they were baptized, in many words, besides those here recorded. (See above, on v. 40.) But even if they had been received without instruction, that would be no warrant for a similar proceeding now, when there are no apostles and extraordinary gifts have ceased. The teaching here meant, however, is not merely that of catechumens, to prepare them for admission to the church, but that which is essential to the Christian life, and for the sake of which the convert is admitted to the church, as to the school of Christ. The word translated fellowship is very comprehensive in its import and various in its applications, corresponding, more or less exactly, to our words community, communion, and communication. Its rarest sense, at least in the New Testament, is the vague one of society or social intercourse. It might be applied, with strict propriety of language, to the community of goods described in the ensuing verses; to mutual participation of the same food, whether social or sacramental; and to the interchange of charities by alms or any other species of beneficence. All these are so appropriate and essential to the Christian character, that it is desirable to comprehend as much of them as possible in this description. We may therefore understand the historian as saying that the infant church was constantly engaged in mutual communion, both by joint repasts and sacramental feasts and charitable distribution. This last is, in actual usage, the prevailing application of the word in the New Testament. (See Rom. 15:26; 2 Cor. 8:4, 9:13; Heb. 13:16.) But the fact is that the three senses run into each other, as the three practices were really inseparable in the primitive or infant church. Its whole organization and condition was as yet that of a family, so that all their acts performed in common partook more or less of a religious character. It was at their social meals that their charities were dispensed; it was at these same meals that the eucharist was administered; so that all these elements must be combined to make up the full sense of apostolical communion (κοινωνία.) According to the common version, this word, as well as doctrine, is dependent on apostles; 'they adhered to their teaching and continued in communion with them.' But in Greek, communion is a separate and independent item in the catalogue. They continued, first, in the apostles' doctrine; then, in communion, not with them alone, but with the body of believers. The general idea of communion is then rendered more specific by the mention of the breaking of bread. As this was the beginning, or the initiatory act, of an ancient Jewish meal, it may be put for the repast itself, or for the eucharist that followed, or for both, as being then inseparable. The devotional character of all these services is shown by the addition, and in prayers. Such was the social state, and such were the employments, of the church, as reorganized at Pentecost and in Jerusalem. The whole might be summed up as consisting in apostolical teaching, mutual communion, common prayer.

43. While their internal state was such as has been just described, their outward state was one of safety under the divine protection. This safety was secured by a prevailing sentiment of awe (φόβος), not alarm or dread of injury, inspired originally, no doubt, by the great events of Pentecost, but afterwards maintained by miracles, here as in vs. 19, 22, described as signs and wonders, wrought by the Apostles. This connection of the clauses may be made clear by supplying between them, 'and in order to maintain this fear.' Came in the first clause, and were done in the second, are translations of the same Greek verb (ἐγίνετο), which strictly means became, came to pass, or happened.

44. Such was the unity of feeling and affection in the infant church that, notwithstanding their numerical increase, they seemed to constitute a single household, with identity of interest, and even of possession. All that believed, those believing, the believers. This is one of the names given in the history to those who followed Christ and were professors of the new religion. The phrase is elliptical for those who believed in Jesus as the true Messiah. Were together does not mean that they assembled or resided in one place, for their numbers rendered this impossible; nor that they now began to meet in stated but distinct assemblies, an idea which the words do not express. The sense of unity in heart and purpose, which the word has elsewhere (see above, on 1:15; 2:1, and compare the Septuagint version of Ps. 133:1), is perfectly appropriate here, and better suited to the context, both before and after, than that of outward local convocation. As one specification of this general description, it is added, they had all things common, i. e. no one regarded his possessions as belonging absolutely to himself, but as a trust for the benefit of others also.

45. The proof of this disinterested spirit was afforded by the fact that, when there was occasion, they actually sold such of their possessions as were necessary for the comfort and relief of others. Parted, divided, distributed, allotted. The words necessarily denote nothing more than what is often exemplified at present, except so far as this ancient liberality was modified by the more intimate relation which existed among Christians then, as members of one family or household. There is nothing said of a compulsory renunciation of all individual property, either as a divine institution or a voluntary self-denial. Such a renunciation is indeed at variance with facts recorded in the later history. (See below, on 5:4.) Of those who understand it to be here meant, some regard it as a normal and commanded state, which ceased on the departure of the church from its primitive simplicity, and will return when that returns. Others make it a divine but temporary constitution, suited to the infant stage of Christianity, but not required, nor even possible, in its maturity. A third view is, that it was a mistaken though well meant attempt to continue in the church at large the mode of life adopted by our Lord and his Apostles. Whether the fact assumed in all these hypotheses is really recorded, either here or in the parallel passage at the end of the fourth chapter, is a question which will there present itself again. (See below, on 4:32, 34.) The distinction sometimes made between the words translated possessions and goods, as denoting what is now called real and personal property, has no more foundation in Greek usage than the one made by Wiclif, who, instead of goods, has cattle. The second Greek word corresponds to our word substance, as applied to wealth. (Vulg. possessiones et substantias.) So far is κτήματα from meaning real or immovable estate, that in Homer it almost always denotes jewels or other hoarded treasure, and the Attic writers sometimes put it in antithesis to land (ἄγρος), sometimes to money (χρήματα). The two words are substantially equivalents, here put together to express more fully the one idea of property or wealth. Here, as often elsewhere in the English Bible, the words man and men, though not distinguished by italics, are supplied by the translators, who appear to have considered them essential to the meaning, although modern usage would allow the man to be replaced by one, and the men to be omitted altogether: and parted them to all, as every one had need. This insertion of the word man, as a sort of pronoun, is a favourite idiom of the old English versions. That it had a pronominal force, analogous to that of the same word in German, may be inferred from 1 Cor. 1:11, where it is applied to God.

46. The writer here returns to his description of their daily habits and religious spirit, which he interrupted at the close of v. 42, to mention the effect produced on others (43), and the means of their subsistence (44, 45.) Their religious life is here presented under its two aspects, public and private. For the sense of continuing with one accord, see above, on 1:14. This daily attendance at the temple is referred by some to meetings of their own within the sacred enclosure. This opinion seems to be confined to those who understand the house where they were sitting, in v. 2 above, to be a chamber of the temple. By others, what is here said is referred to the daily temple service, or at least to public prayer, in the appointed place, and at the stated hours. If this be the correct interpretation of the passage, we have here the first intimation of the singular fact, that although the ceremonial law, of which the temple was a part, had been abrogated by the advent and sacrifice of Christ, the apostles considered themselves bound, or at least authorized, to treat it with respect, so long as it was suffered to continue in existence. Some have explained this as an act of mere political obedience; but its combination, here and elsewhere, with their spiritual worship and their whole religious life, without a trace of any such distinction between secular and sacred as the one alleged, appears to show that their attendance at the temple was as really a part of their religion as their meeting elsewhere. The probable design of this paradoxcial arrangement was to shield the new religion from the charge of being hostile to the old, or essentially distinct from it, and to show the identity of the church under both dispensations, by allowing one, as it were, to overlap the other, or the two to coexist for a time, instead of establishing the Christian church on ground left absolutely vacant by the total destruction of the ancient system. A precisely similar relation had subsisted for a time between the ministry of John the Baptist and the public ministry of Christ himself, and may be said indeed to have prefigured the one mentioned in the case before us. The evils, which might easily have sprung from this arrangement, if continued longer, were prevented by the speedy and entire destruction, not only of the temple and the ceremonial system, but of the civil organization, with which the Jewish church had for ages been identified. One incidental evil, which did really arise from this peculiar providential constitution, was the state of uncertainty and strife, in which the Jewish Christians long continued, with respect to the observance of the law, and the way in which the Gentiles should be brought into the church, until all reasonable doubt was ended by the great ecclesiastical and national catastrophe. Of these unhappy errors and disputes we shall have instances enough in the ensuing history. (See below, on 10:1; 15:1; 18:18; 21:20, 21.) From house to house is Cranmer's version; Tyndale has in every house; the Vulgate, circa domos. Compare in every city (κατὰ πόλιν) Tit. 1:5. But the best authorities are now in favour of explaining it to mean in the house or at home, as distinguished from the foregoing phrase, in the temple. This philological decision is confirmed by the repeated use of the same Greek words in Paul's epistles, to describe a church, or stated meeting of believers, in a private dwelling. (See Rom. 16:5; 1 Cor. 16:19; Col. 4:15; Philem. 2.) The whole clause then describes the two great parts of their religious life, public and private, or as Jews and Christians. Breaking bread at home, or in private houses, as we have already seen (in v. 42), exclusively denotes neither social repasts nor sacramental services, but both, in that most intimate conjunction, which was one of the characteristic features of the infant church, but which can no more be revived by us, than the innocent simplicity of childhood, or the habits of a father's house, can be continued in mature age and in distant homes. That the reference to the eucharist is at least not exclusive, may be seen from the ensuing phrase they took their meat, or more exactly, they partook of nourishment. The remainder of the verse describes the temper or the spirit, in which all those acts and duties were performed, viz. with gladness, or rather exultation, the Hellenistic word here used being one of great strength, and with singleness (Tyndale), or simpleness (Wiclif), or simplicity (Rheims), which seems to be the corresponding negative expression, by which every feeling is excluded, that could mar this picture of exquisite but childlike happiness. The quality described is not mere sincerity, or freedom from hypocrisy, but singleness of purpose, aim, and motive, as opposed not only to deceit, but to complexity of mind and character. This, too, in its perfection, or its highest measures, appertains peculiarly to the early stages both of individual and social progress. It is therefore eminently well-placed in this portrait of the primitive or infant church.

47. The first words, praising God, close the description of their spiritual state and mode of life. He winds up all by saying that they praised God. This evidently means something more than that praise formed a part of their worship. The phrase is obviously intended to describe their whole life as a life of praise to God. It is not so much an additional particular in the description as a pregnant summary of the whole. As if he had said, 'In a word, they only lived to praise God and glorify their master.' The effect produced by all this upon others had before been represented as religious awe, maintained by a succession of miraculous performances. But this might have seemed to imply that the popular feeling towards the new society was one of distance, if not of aversion. It is therefore added here, that they had favour with the people, not with one class merely, but with all the people, as a whole, and as a body. There is obvious allusion to the constant use of this expression (τὸν λαόν) to denote the people by way of eminence, the chosen people, the people of God. The Jews collectively, no doubt with individual exceptions, favoured them. This state of public feeling is remarkable, and seems to be recorded, on account of the unhappy and inexplicable change which afterwards took place. But as yet, they enjoyed popular as well as divine favour. This last was manifest in their increase, not merely by great sudden movements, such as that of Pentecost, but also by constant though insensible accretion, thus exemplifying, in the experience of the infant church, both the great methods of advancement by which she has since been growing, culture and revival. This daily increase is described as a divine work and the work of Christ himself. The sudden change from God to Lord, in this short verse, can only be explained by supposing that the writer intended to describe the Great Head of the church as personally adding to its numbers. This is the first historical use of the word church (ἐκκλησία) in application to the body of believers after its reorganization. In the gospel of Matthew it is twice applied to the same body by our Lord himself (Matt. 16:18; 18:17), but in the way of anticipation. The Greek word, which expresses the idea of evoking, calling out, also suggests that of convoking, calling together, and is therefore most appropriate to the Christian church, as a select organic body, called out by divine choice from the mass of men, and called together by divine authority as a spiritual corporation. The Greek word was familiar to the Jews, not only as applied to the political assemblies of the Grecian states, in which sense it occurs below, 19:39, but also as applied in their own Septuagint version to the host or congregation of Israel. Having thus been used for centuries to designate the ancient Jewish Church, it was peculiarly appropriate as an expression for the Church of Christ. To this body, now possessing an organic constitution, the Lord added daily such as should be saved. This awkward periphrasis, borrowed from the Vulgate (qui salvi fierent), has occasioned no small stir among the Calvinists and their opponents in the Church of England, who have warmly disputed whether it should be translated, those who had been saved, or those who were in the act of being saved, or those who were in the way of salvation; whereas Luke simply says the saved, as an additional description of the same class whom he calls believers in v. 44. It might as well be queried whether that expression denotes those who had believed, or would believe, or were believing. Men are said to be saved in reference not only to the final consummation but to the inception of the saving work. Of every penitent believing sinner, we may say, with equal truth, that he will certainly be saved, and that he has been saved already. There is therefore no occasion for doctrinal dispute afforded by the simple statement, that the Lord daily added saved (or saved ones) to the church, which is the order, as well as the true sense, of the original. The Vulgate adds to this verse an apparently unmeaning phrase (in id ipsum,) which is retained by Wiclif (in the same thing.)

CHAPTER 3

THUS far the infant church had enjoyed the favour both of God and man. But this state of things was not designed to last. Opposition, and even persecution, were essential to the execution of the divine purpose, not only as a means of moral discipline, but also as a means of outward growth. The new religion was not to be a national or local one, but catholic and ecumenical. In order to attain its end, it must be spread; and in order to be spread, it must be scattered; and in order to be scattered, it must undergo strong pressure, from within and from without. The history now presents to us the series of providential causes by which these effects were brought about. The subject of the next two chapters is the first attack upon the church, occasioned by a signal miracle and apostolical discourse. Chapter 3 relates to the occasion, Chapter 4 to the attack itself. At a certain time and place, distinctly specified (1), Peter and John perform a miracle of heading (2–8), which attracts attention and occasions a great concourse (9–11), of which Peter takes advantage to disclaim the honour of the miracle (12), and give it all to Christ, whose treatment at their hands he sets forth with several aggravating circumstances (13–15), and contrasts with the evidence of his divinity afforded by this miracle which they had witnessed (16.) Then, with a sudden and affecting change of tone, he represents their great crime as the fruit of ignorance (17), and as the execution of a divine purpose (18), not to extenuate their guilt but to encourage their repentance (19), which he also urges by the promise of Christ's coming (20, 21) as the Prophet of his people foretold by Moses (22, 23), Samuel and the other prophets (24), in whose predictions, as well as in the patriarchal promises (25), and in Christ himself as their fulfilment, the children of Israel had a primary interest and right, but only on condition of personal repentance and conversion (26.)

1. Out of the multitude of miracles performed by the apostles after Pentecost (2:43), Luke singles one, not merely on account of its intrinsic magnitude and great publicity, but chiefly on account of its connection with the progress of events and the condition of the infant church, as having furnished the occasion of a new apostolical discourse, and of the first hostile movement from without. This first verse specifies the place, the time, and the performers of the miracle. There is something striking in the mutual relations of Peter and John, as they may be traced in the history. After their joint mission to prepare for the last passover (Luke 22:8), they seem to have been inseparable, notwithstanding the marked difference in their character and conduct. Peter alone denied his master; John alone continued with him to the last. (See John 18:15; 19:26.) Of Peter's fall John would seem to have been the only apostolical witness. Yet we find them still together at the sepulchre, and in Galilee after the resurrection (John 20:2; 21:7.) It is an observation of Chrysostom, that Peter's question (John 21:21), Lord, what shall this man do? was prompted rather by affection than by curiosity. Here again we find them still together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό), an expression implying not mere coincidence of place but unity of purpose. (See above, on 1:15; 2:1, 44.) Went up is the appropriate expression for the physical and moral elevation of the temple. At the hour (ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν) might perhaps be more exactly rendered towards (i. e. just before) the hour. All the English versions, prior to king James's, have the strange expression, the ninth hour of prayer, which may however mean no more than the paraphrase given in our Bible. The ninth hour of the day, corresponding to our three o'clock in the afternoon, was the third stated hour of prayer, according to the Jewish custom, being probably the hour of the evening sacrifice. (See above, on 2:15.) Here, as in 2:46 above, there is nothing in the text or context to determine for what purpose the Apostles visited the temple, or rather nothing to determine whether, in addition to their private devotions, they took part in the ceremonial service. For the reasons in favour of supposing that they did, see above, on 2:46.

2. To show the certainty, as well as greatness, of the cure effected, the case is here described as one of long standing and of general notoriety. It was not a case of lameness by disease or accident, but one of congenital infirmity. It was also one with which the people were familiar, from its daily exhibition in one of the most public situations of the city. The practice of placing objects of charity at the entrances of temples, both on account of the great concourse and the supposed tendency of devotional feelings to promote those of a charitable kind, was common among Jews and Gentiles, and is still kept up in some parts of the Christian world. No antiquarian research has yet succeeded in determining which gate of the temple or its area is here meant, or in accounting for the name here given to it. As the Greek adjective (ὡραίαν) was not commonly employed to express the general idea or beauty, but rather that of youthful bloom and freshness, which seems wholly inappropriate to such an object, it has been explained as the corruption of some oriental name, no longer ascertainable. But the wider Hellenistic usage of the word is clear from its being applied to feet (Rom. 10:15) and whited sepulchres (Matt. 23:27.) The more common opinion is, that the gate meant is the great eastern gate of the temple-enclosure, corresponding to the entrance of the temple itself and described by Josephus as superior in size and decoration to all the others, being wholly covered with Corinthian brass. The material fact here implied, if not expressed, is that this was the most frequented entrance to the temple, and was therefore chosen by the cripple or his friends, as his place of habitual solicitation. Here, as in many other instances, the Rhemish version (Specious) violates our idiom, by closely copying the mere form of the Vulgate (Speciosa), even where it makes no sense in English. Wiclif, although equally a copyist of the Vulgate, had shown far more taste, as well as knowledge of the language, by his simple Saxon version (Fair). The word translated alms, like charity in English, denotes a feeling or a principle, but is secondarily applied to its outward manifestation or effect. The two verbs laid and carried, although similar in form, must be carefully distinguished, as relating to distinct times. They (i. e. others, or his friends) laid (him) daily at the gate of the temple, and had probably been doing so for many years. But he was carried, or in modern phrase, was being carried, to the customary place, on this occasion, just as Peter and John were going in.

3. About to go is expressed in Greek by a participle and infinitive, the first of which (μέλλοντας) has no equivalent in English, the verb denoting merely the idea of friturity, to be about to do the act expressed by the dependent verb. The Vulgate version (incipientes), copied by Wiclif (beginning to enter), goes as much too far in one direction as intending or designing in the other. Tyndale and Cranmer have the singular and now obsolete ellipsis, would into the temple. There is another verb in the last clause not expressed in the English version. Asked, in the original, is asked to receive, a pleonasm even in Greek, but one of which there are examples, after verbs of asking, both in Classical and Hellenistic writers. (See below, on 7:46.) An alms has been regarded by certain hypercritics as a solecism or a blunder. The final letter is not here the sign of the plural number, but one of the consonants of the Greek word (ἐλεημοσύνη) of which the English is a mere corruption, like palsy of paralysis. (See above, on v. 2.)

4. Fastening his eyes is the same verb with looked stedfastly in 1:10 above. Here too it might be rendered gazing into him. This act, though formally affirmed of Peter only, the Greek participle (ἀτενίσας) being singular in form, is ascribed to both Apostles by the words, with John, which indeed may be said of both the verbs, between which this parenthetic phrase is placed. It was Peter that looked and Peter that spoke, but he performed both acts with John, i. e. John looked and spoke at the same time, or Peter looked and spoke for both. The latter is more probable, at least in reference to the act of speaking. The intent look may have been designed in part to ascertain the man's condition and to verify his story; but also, no doubt, to arrest his own attention and prepare him for what followed, which was likewise the design of the command, look on (or at) us.

5. The literal meaning of the first clause is, he fixed (or kept fixed) on them. We may supply either mind (as in Luke 14:7; 1 Tim. 4:16) or eyes, more probably the latter, as the verse describes his obedience to the previous command of the Apostles, look on us. The original order of the last clause is, expecting something from them to receive. This graphic yet natural account of the successive steps, by which the cripple was restored, imparts to the whole narrative a life-like character of authenticity, which can neither be mistaken nor assumed.

6. Then, in the original, is nothing but the usual continuative particle (δέ) translated and at the beginning of v. 5. Silver and gold are put for money, the kind of alms which the lame man had asked (3), and was expecting to receive (5.) Have I none, literally, is not (or exists not) to me. It might be supposed that we have here a literal Greek version of what Peter said in Aramaic, as this is the usual periphrasis for the verb to have, which is unknown to the Semitic family of languages. But this supposition seems to be forbidden by the occurrence of that verb in the next clause. Such as I have might have been more briefly and exactly rendered, what I have. This may refer specifically to the gift of healing which he was about to impart, or more generally to the power of working miracles with which he was entrusted. But as this power does not appear to have been constant or unlimited, the first construction seems entitled to the preference. Give I thee, or retaining still more closely the original arrangement, what I have, this to thee I give. The demonstrative pronoun (τοῦτο) is omitted in our version, but adds something to the force of the expression. These authoritative words might seem to arrogate an independent power to the speaker, but for what directly follows. The apostolical miracles were all performed in the name of Christ, according to his own command and promise (Mark 16:17, 18; John 14:12.) This fact is expressly mentioned in some cases (see below, on 9:34; 16:18), and sufficiently implied in others (see below, on 9:40; 14:9; 10; 28:8.) Our Lord's own miracles were not wrought even in the name of God, but by his own authority, and yet in intimate conjunction with the Father (John 11:41, 42.) In the name here means by the authority of Jesus, 'as his representative and in his behalf I command thee.' The form of expression in 2:38 is somewhat different. The preposition there used (ἐπί) suggests the additional idea of dependence or reliance. Jesus Christ of Nazareth, in Greek, the Nazarene, with an allusion to the contemptuous usage of the name. (See above, on 2:22.) The combination thus arising is remarkable, and represents our Lord as being at once the Saviour of his people from their sins (Matt. 1:21), the Messiah of the prophecies (Acts 2:31), and yet an object of contemptuous neglect (Matt. 2:23.) The command, arise and walk, is rendered still more laconic and abrupt by the omission of the first verb in some ancient manuscripts and late editions. In the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarene, walk!

7. In this, as in many of our Saviour's miracles, the healing word was attended by an outward act or gesture, serving to connect the miraculous effect with the person by whom it was produced. (See Matt. 8:15; 9:25; 14:31; 20:34; Luke 7:14.) Immediately, on the spot, or on the matter, as the Greek word (παραχρῆμα) might be etymologically rendered. The common word for feet is not here used, but one which properly means steps, and is then transferred from the effect to the cause. Both senses of the word are found in Sophocles. The two words ancle bones are used to represent one (σφυρά) simply meaning ancles. Received strength, literally, were strengthened or made firm. The particularity of this description is among the traces, found by some in Luke's writings, of his medical profession.

8. His leaping up or out (ἐξαλλόμενος) is understood by some as a spontaneous sign of joy, which is undoubtedly the meaning of the uncompounded verb (ἁλλόμενος) in the other clause. But this very fact seems to show, that the compound form rather denotes the act of leaping up from his recumbent posture, or the incipient attempt to walk. We have then a regular gradation in the cure; his limbs were strengthened; he sprang up; he walked, or in Wiclif's antique English, wandered. The mention of the fact, that he entered with them into the temple, reminds the reader that all this occurred between the arrival of the two apostles at the gate of the temple and their passage through it. The acts described in the last clause were, at the same time, proofs of his real restoration, and expressions of his gratitude and joy. Walking, or as the Greek word properly denotes, walking about, walking freely, without help or hinderance, as a man would naturally do, who had been thus restored, as if to satisfy himself that the change was real, and to try the extent of his recovered powers. That the man who had been healed was not without religions feeling, is evinced by the additional words, praising God.

9. The repetition in this verse is not a mere tautology, but doubly emphatic, as implying, on the one hand, that the miracle was public and notorious, and on the other that it gathered a great multitude, to whom Peter presently addressed himself. Here, too, as in 2:47, all the people does not mean a promiscuous rabble accidentally assembled, but the chosen people, the Jewish church or nation, represented by the worshippers then gathered at the temple. As if he had said, 'this miracle was not done in a corner, but in the holy place and in the presence of the people, who distinctly saw, walking about the sacred courts, and loudly praising God for his recovery, the very man whom they had seen for many years lying daily at the entrance of that very enclosure, a cripple and a beggar.'

10. The material point here is the unquestioned identity of him who had experienced the cure. Had the miracle been wrought upon a stranger, its moral effect upon others would have been far less than it was, when the people universally recognized him as the crippled beggar, whom they were accustomed to see lying helpless in a certain spot, and that one of the most public and frequented in the city. Luke says, not only that it was the same man, but that they knew or recognized him (ἐπεγίνωσκον) as the same. The other clause describes the natural effect of this unhesitating recognition. The sight of this man walking, in the free use of his limbs, and loudly thanking God for his recovery, excited feelings of the highest wonder, not unmixed with awe, at this indication of God's special presence and activity among them. The word rendered amazement is the noun corresponding to the verb employed in 2:7 above, and there explained. The word translated wonder is confined, in the New Testament, to Luke's writings (Luke 4:36; 5:9), though the verbal root is also used by Mark (1:27; 10:24, 32.) Though not so stated in the lexicons, it seems, at least in Hellenistic Greek, to have combined the primary idea of wonder or astonishment with that of fear or awe, especially in such a case as this, and others just referred to, where the wonder was excited by a special indication of the divine presence. The strongest English version is the Rhemish, exceedingly astonied and aghast. What had happened or occurred to him, the change which he had suddenly experienced, and which could not be referred to any natural or ordinary cause.

11. The six words, the lame man which was healed, correspond to three in Greek (τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ), which might be more concisely rendered, the healed cripple. Instead of these words, some of the critical editions have the simple pronoun (αὐτοῦ) he. The original construction is, he (or the healed cripple) holding Peter and John. The idea that he was afraid of a relapse is much less natural than that he clung to them with thankfulness and admiration as the human instruments of his deliverance and restoration. In strict agreement with the language of v. 4, John is here not only said by the historian, but acknowledged by the man himself, to have joined in the performance of the miracle; whether by word or deed, or simply by his silent presence and concurrence, must be matter of conjecture. It is a natural, though not a necessary supposition, that this holding fast was subsequent in time to the acts mentioned in the foregoing verses. After proving the reality of his recovery by walking and leaping, and his gratitude to God by vocal praise, he may have run back to his two benefactors and embraced them in the manner here described. This fact may be mentioned to account for the great concourse which immediately ensued, and which perhaps would have been less, if the lively gestures of the restored cripplo had not partially diverted the attention of the people from himself to the Apostles. It was to them, i. e. to Peter and John, that all the people, in the same emphatic sense as in v. 9 above, ran together in or to (ἐπί) the porch, the (one) called Solomon's, a form of expression which implies that there were others, but that this was the most noted and frequented. The word translated porch (στοά) means a piazza or a colonnade, such as were attached to the Greek temples, and employed as places of instruction by the Greek philosophers to one of whose sects or schools (the Stoics) this very word has given name. Several such porticoes or colonnades surrounded the courts of Herod's temple at Jerusalem, and one of them is described by Josephus as "the work of Solomon." This would account for the name and the pre-eminence of this particular piazza, as implied here and in John 10:23, where we learn that Christ himself was accustomed to frequent it. It also enables us to fix in general its relative position, which, according to Josephus, was upon the eastern side, or, as some understand him, at the eastern end of the south side of the area of the temple. It is an old opinion that the wing or pinnacle (πτερύγιον) mentioned in the history of our Lord's temptation (Matt. 4:5; Luke 4:9), was some elevated point of this same structure. Greatly wondering is, in Greek, a single word, and that an adjective (ἔκθαμβοι), emphatic or intensive in its form, and corresponding in its etymology and meaning to the verb and noun explained above, on the preceding verse. Placed at the close of the whole sentence, it describes the crowd as still amazed or awestruck, and implies that the effect, at first produced by the miracle itself, so far from being weakened or effaced, was at its height, when Peter entered on the following discourse.

12. With the wisdom, by which the Apostles after Pentecost were characterized, Peter, who now re-appears alone as their spokesman, when he saw what is recorded in the foregoing verse, to wit, the concourse of the people and their even more than natural amazement, instantly embraced the opportunity again to preach Christ to a portion of the multitude by whom he was betrayed and murdered. Answered is explained by some as a pleonastic synonyme of said, or began to speak; by others as relating to their thoughts or looks. But although there are examples of the latter usage elsewhere, there is no need of resorting to it here, where the strict sense is so perfectly admissible; the verbal expression of their wonder, although not recorded, being almost necessarily implied. 'When Peter saw the concourse of the people and their wonder, as expressed by looks and words, he answered.' His reply was addressed to the people, not as a mere mob, but as men of Israel, assembled at the sanctuary and representing the whole Jewish nation. Why marvel ye at this (man), or at this (thing) which has happened to him, either of which constructions is admissible. The question does not mean, that there was nothing wonderful in what had happened, but that their surprise was either excessive in degree, or of the wrong kind, i. e. disposed to rest in the mere instruments, without looking beyond them to the efficient cause, which last idea is expressed in the remainder of the verse. Look earnestly is still the same verb as in 1:10. Instead of power and godliness, some versions have two synonymes, strength and power. But extraordinary piety (εὐσεβεία) was commonly associated with the idea of peculiar divine favour, both being expressed in Hebrew by the same word (see above, on 2:27); and this idea was near akin to that of superhuman power. As though we had made, literally, as having made (i. e. caused or enabled) this man to walk.

13. The miracle which so amazed them was not wrought by magic, or by any unknown power, but by that of Jehovah, their own God, and the God of their Fathers. To express this idea more emphatically, he employs the customary formula, in which the three first patriarchs are separately named. (See Ex. 3:6, 15; Matt. 22:32.) He thus reminds them that the new religion was essentially identical with the old, and that God had himself done honour to the man whom they had crucified; the same contrast as in 2:24 above, and v. 15 below. Glorified, by this extraordinary miracle, performed in Christ's name, and by his authority. The word translated son is not the one commonly so rendered (υἱός), but another (παῖς) used both for son and servant (Matt. 8:6, 8, 13; 14:2; Luke 12:45, etc.) In this dubious or double sense, it is applied to David and to Israel collectively (Luke 1:54, 69), as sustaining both a servile and a filial relation to Jehovah, and as representatives of the Messiah, to whom the title therefore belongs by way of eminence. (Compare Matt. 12:18, and see below, on v. 26; 4:25, 27, 30.) Delivered up, abandoned, to his enemies or executioners. The idea of treacherous betrayal, though not necessarily included in the meaning of the verb, may be suggested by it, as in its application to Judas Iscariot (Matt. 10:4; 26:16, 21, 46; 27:3. etc.) The essential idea is that of putting into the power of another, whether by treachery or force (Matt. 5:25; 10:17, 19, 21; 18:34; 24:9, 10, etc.) The gross injustice of this treatment to an innocent man was, in their case, aggravated by peculiar circumstances, which the Apostle now proceeds to specify. The first was that it involved a formal rejection of their own Messiah. Ye denied him to be what he was, and what he claimed to be, the Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel. This was in fact disowning and renouncing all for the sake of which the Jews existed as a nation. The second aggravating circumstance suggested is, that this rejection, ruinous and wicked as it was in itself, was rendered still more heinous by its having been committed in the presence of a heathen ruler, representing the great dominant power of the Gentile world. Ye denied him in the presence of Pilate. (See John 19:15.) But even this was not all. They rejected their Messiah, not only before Pilate, but against his will and better judgment. This idea might seem to be expressed by the words translated in the presence, which may also be rendered to the face; but Greek usage is in favour of the former sense. The aggravation now in question is expressed in the last clause, when he was determined to let him go, or as Tyndale has it, judged him to be loosed. The original construction is, he (or himself) determining, etc. It is a slight coincidence, but not unworthy of remark, that the Greek verb here used (ἀπολύειν) is the very one which Luke elsewhere puts into the mouth of Pilate himself (Luke 23:16.)

14. There is a double antithesis here, tending to aggravate their guilt still further. They had not only demanded the condemnation of the innocent, but also the acquittal of the guilty. But more than this: they had rejected the Messiah and preferred a murderer! (See Matt. 27:21; John 18:40.) Holy and Just are epithets expressive not only of his innocence before the law (Matt. 27:19, 24), but in a higher sense, of his peculiar character and mission as the Holy One of God (Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35), whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world (John 10:36.) The Just or (Righteous) One is a common description of our Lord in the New Testament. See below, on 7:52; 22:14, and compare 1 John 2:1. Murderer, in Greek, a man, a murderer, the last noun having all the force of an adjective, a murderous man, i. e. one guilty of murder. Compare the phrase, men, brethren, in 1:15 above. Granted, not as an act of justice, but of favour. (See below, on 25:11, 16; 27:24, and compare Philem. 22.)

15. Nay, they had preferred a murderer, not only to an innocent or just man, not only to their own Messiah, but to the prince of life himself. The word translated prince (ἀρχηγός) is so translated also in 5:31 below, but in Heb. 2:10, it is rendered captain, and in Heb. 12:2, author. This example may suffice to show the want of perfect uniformity even in the best translations, and the inexpediency of urging the mere language of such versions, without reference to the original. The figure used is no more regal here, or martial in Heb. 2:10, than in Heb. 12:2, where there seems to be no trace of either. Most interpreters prefer the Vulgate version here (auctorem), as better suiting the antithesis between the giver of life and its destroyer. (See John 1:4; 5:25; 10:28.) This climax of antitheses and aggravations is rhetorically striking and effective. Having brought it to its height in the first clause of this verse, Peter reverts to the old contrast between Christ's treatment by divine and human hands. (See above, on 2:23, 24.) They killed him and God raised him. Instead of the ambiguous term (ἀνέστησεν) used in 2:32, we have here the unequivocal though figurative phrase, awakened (ἤγειρεν) from (among) the dead, but with the same addition as in that case, of which (or of whom) we are witnesses.

16. This verse assigns a cause for the effect which they had witnessed. The effect was that the infirm man had been made strong, and restored to perfect soundness. The Greek word (ὁλοκληρία) originally means an undivided or entire inheritance, but by the later writers is applied to bodily integrity and soundness. The causes to which this effect is ascribed are the name of Christ and faith, each of which is mentioned twice, with a singular complication of the two together. In the first clause it is expressly said that the name of the Lord of Life had strengthened the infirm man. If the following words are exegetical of these, the meaning is, his name, that is, faith in his name. But as the order of the clauses is inverted, and the preposition (ἐπί) cannot mean that is, the second clause (in English) must be understood as pointing out the means by which, or the reason for which, the name of Christ had wrought this wonder. His name, by means (or on account) of faith in that name, had restored this man to perfect soundness. This studied repetition of the word name shows that it cannot be a mere periphrasis for himself. (See above, on 1:15.) It must either mean the invocation of his name, the fact that the miracle was wrought avowedly by his authority and delegated power; or the actual exertion of that power, as the name of God in the Old Testament so often means the manifestation of his attributes, especially in outward act. The first explanation is more simple and agrees better with what follows, through faith in his name, i. e. through faith in him whose name had been invoked, or in whose name, and by whose representative, the miracle had been performed. (See below, on 19:17; 26:9.) The preposition here translated through is not the one commonly so rendered (διά), but another (ἐπί) which, in such connections, properly means on or for. Some here explain it, for faith, i. e. for the purpose of producing faith; but this is unexampled in the Greek of the New Testament; whereas the preposition often signifies by means of or because of (e.g. Matt. 4:4; 19:9; Mark 3:5; Acts 4:9, 21; 26:6.) On the whole, the meaning seems to be, that the perfect restoration of the cripple was the work of him in whose name and by whose authority the miracle was wrought, and that the condition upon which he acted, was that of faith in himself as thus invoked. But this faith is furthermore and otherwise described as the faith which is by (or through) him. The only natural interpretation of these words is that which makes them represent Christ as the author or procuring cause, as well as the end or object, of the faith in question. (Compare Heb. 12:2.) But by whom was this faith exercised, or whose faith was it that had wrought such wonders? The most obvious answer to this question would be, faith on the part of the man healed. Nor is there any thing to contradict or peremptorily exclude this answer. Some of the Fathers, followed by some modern writers, have alleged that in their early miracles, both Christ and his Apostles dispensed with faith in the recipient as a previous condition of relief, although they afterwards required it. But this is a mere conjecture founded on the silence of the narrative in certain cases. We have every reason to believe that their practice was consistent if not uniform, nor can any reason be imagined why they should require faith afterwards and not at first. Interpreters, however, have been commonly disposed to understand by faith, in this place, that of the Apostles themselves, which we know to have been necessary, from the words of Christ on a remarkable occasion (Matt. 17:20.) Three circumstances are insisted on, in this verse, as enhancing the proof of Divine agency, to wit, the notoriousness of the man's previous condition (whom ye see and know), the completeness of his restoration (this perfect soundness), and its publicity (in the presence of you all.)

17. And now is a common formula, denoting a transition to some other topic, or the application of what has been already said. (See below, on 10:5; 13:11; 20:22; 22:16; 26:6.) It may here be regarded as equivalent to saying, 'and now, since you are guilty of this, what hope remains?' The appellation brethren indicates his fellow-feeling and desire for their welfare. (See above, on 1:16; 2:29, 37.) Of the verse itself two very different views may be taken. The more obvious and common one regards it as a merciful concession on the part of the Apostle, an extenuation of his hearers' guilt. This is not only a natural explanation of the language, but one recommended by the striking analogy of Christ's prayer for his murderers (Luke 23:34), and Paul's declaration with respect to himself (1 Tim. 1:13. Compare 1 Cor. 2:8, and see below, on 13:27.) To meet the objection, that whatever palliation might exist in the case of the multitude, there could be none in the case of their rulers, it has been proposed to construe the words thus, that through ignorance ye did as your rulers did, thus making a most marked distinction between these two classes. But this construction, though ingenious, is forbidden by the phrase as also (ὥσπερ καί), which indicates comparison, not contrast. If then the verse contains a concession or extenuation, it must comprehend the rulers no less than the people. Some deny, however, that there is any such extenuation, and suppose the ignorance here mentioned to be merely that of God's design in suffering all these things to happen. 'I know that you acted in ignorance of God's design, and so did your rulers; but this only aggravates your guilt without retarding the complete execution of his plan; he has effected his own purpose, and now calls you to repentance.' This view of the passage avoids the difficulties of the other, and agrees well with the next verse, which undoubtedly describes what had taken place as the fulfilment of prophecy. The principal objections are the restricted sense of ignorance, which it assumes, and the parallel passages before referred to. Wot is the old English verb to know, of which wist and to wit are other forms, unwitting and unwittingly derivatives. Through ignorance, or more literally, according to (or in proportion to) your ignorance. Rulers is Cranmer's version; Wiclif has princes, Tyndale heads, the Geneva Bible governors.

18. The death of Christ, although a crime on your part, was the execution of a divine purpose, as predicted by the ancient prophets. Before had showed is more exactly rendered in the Rhemish version, by a single word, as in Greek, foreshowed. The Greek verb, however, does not mean to show, but to announce beforehand. By the mouth, a common phrase for instrumental agency, when exercised in words, as by the hand is, where the reference is to act. (See above, on 1:16; 2:23.) All his prophets, i. e. the whole series of Old Testament Prophets, viewed as one organic body or official corporation. Whether each particular book contains such a prediction, is a question of no more importance than the question whether one is found in every chapter or on every page. The ancient prophets constitute one great representative body (see below, on v. 22), whose utterances are not to be viewed as merely those of individuals. The obvious meaning is that the point, to which the whole drift of prophetic revelation tended, was the death of Christ. For the New Testament usage of the verb to suffer, see above, on 1:3. So fulfilled, in the original, fulfilled so, or as Tyndale has it, thuswise, i. e. in the great events which you have lately witnessed.

19. The first verb is here exactly rendered by the Vulgate (poenitemini), and somewhat less so by its English copyists (be repentant, be penitent), and yet the Greek word (μετανοήσατε) is identical with that in 2:38. The exhortation to repent is here accompanied by one to be converted, or literally to turn, the Greek verb being of the active form. It may either be taken as the same thing with repentance; or as the outward change of life corresponding to the inner change of mind; or as a generic term, denoting the entire moral revolution, of which repentance is a necessary part. (See above, on 2:38.) Instead of remission, we have here the stronger figure of abstersion or obliteration. The Greek verb is applied by Xenophon to the erasure of a name from a catalogue or roll. It may here denote the cancelling of charges against any one, and thus amounts to the same thing with the remission of 2:38. The metaphor of blotting out occurs several times elsewhere (e.g. Ps. 51:9; 109:14; Isai. 43:25; Jer. 18:23; Col. 2:14.) The word translated times is the same that is so rendered in 1:7. It may here denote, still more specifically, set times or appointed times. The Greek word for refreshing admits of a twofold derivation (from ψυχή and ψύχω), according to which it properly denotes either cooling and relief from heat, or the recovery of breath after exhaustion. In either case, the essential meaning is the same, although the first is the idea naturally suggested by the English word refreshing. What is here meant is relief from toil or suffering, not without an implication of more positive enjoyment. What times are thus described depends upon a previous question as to the connection of the clauses and the grammatical construction of the sentence. When corresponds to a compound particle in Greek (ὅπως ἄν), which always elsewhere (Matt. 6:5; Luke 2:35; Acts 15:17; Rom. 3:4), like the uncompounded form (ὅπως), when followed by the same mood (Matt. 2:8, 23; 5:45; 6:4, 16, 18; 8:17), denotes the final cause or the effect (so that, in order that.) This gives a perfectly good sense, so far as this verse is concerned, to wit that their repentance would be followed by relief from the sense of guilt and God's displeasure. But this reference to personal experience may seem to be excluded by the promise of Christ's coming in the next verse, which can hardly be applied to any thing internal. In order to harmonize the two expressions, our translators make the particle a particle of time, showing when their sins were to be blotted out. But this, besides its violation of a uniform and constant usage, has the grave inconvenience of postponing their repentance, or at least their absolution, to some future time, if not to what we are accustomed to call Christ's second advent. How could the Apostle urge them to repentance by a promise that their sins should be cancelled as soon as the times of refreshing were come? Even if the interval were very short, this limitation of the offer of forgiveness is entirely at variance with the whole analogy of faith and scripture. This translation, therefore, which has been copied from the Vulgate into all the English versions, must be set aside upon a double ground; because it violates the usage of the language to obtain a sense which in itself is not a good one. If the stress of exegetical necessity were such as to justify a forced interpretation of the particle (ὅπως ἄν), it would be better to take it in the sense of now that, and refer it to the present or the past, and not the future. 'Repent and be converted to the blotting out of your sins, now that times of refreshing (i. e. the long expected times of the Messiah) are come from the presence of the Lord, and (now that) he has sent, etc.' This would render the whole passage clear and coherent, if it could be philologically justified. But as our task is to interpret what is written, in accordance with the general laws and usages of language, we are bound to reject every explanation which supposes ὅπως ἄν to be a particle of time, until some clear example of that sense can be discovered. Coming back, then, to the only sense justified by usage, we must understand the times of refreshing (or relief) to be in some way suspended upon their repentance as a previous condition. From the presence of the Lord (i. e. of God in Christ) denotes the source of the refreshing to be heavenly and divine, and the authority, on which the promise rests, to be absolute and sovereign. The divine face or presence, in such cases, may suggest the idea of his court or royal residence, from which his messengers go forth to execute his orders. (Compare Matt. 18:10; Luke 1:19; 16:22; Heb. 1:14.) Looking simply at this verse, the times of refreshing, as observed already, might denote nothing more than the relief from pain, and other pleasurable feelings, which accompany repentance and conversion. Whether any other meaning is required by the context, is a question which can be solved only by determining the sense of the next verses.

20. The objections to this version have been already stated, as well as to the version, now that he has sent, etc., which last would otherwise afford the best sense. The only grammatical construction, as we have already seen, is so that (or in order that) he may send Jesus Christ, here presented as a motive or a reason for repenting now. But to what sending do the words refer? Not to our Lord's first advent or appearance as a Saviour, which had already taken place, but either to his visible return hereafter, or to his presence in the hearts of individuals. The last agrees best with the context, as a motive to immediate personal repentance, but the first with all analogy and usage, as the Father is not elsewhere said to send the Son, as he is said to send the Spirit, into the hearts of men, as a matter of inward and invisible experience, but into the world, as a literal external fact of history. (Compare Gal. 4:4 and 4:6. See also Luke 4:43; John 1:10, 16, 17; 3:34; 5:36; 6:14; 8:42; 9:39; 10:36; 11:27, 42; 12:46; 16:28; 17:3, 8, 18, 21, 23, 25; 18:37; 20:21; 1 John 4:9; 10, 14; 1 Tim. 1:15; Heb. 10:5.) Whatever be the sense of the particular expressions, it is clear from the whole drift of the discourse, that Peter here connects the times of refreshing and the mission of the Saviour, as identical, or at the least coincident events, with the repentance and conversion which he urges on his Jewish hearers. This being held fast, as undoubtedly involved in every possible, that is to say, grammatical construction of his language, some latitude of judgment, if not license of conjecture, may be tolerated as to the question wherein the connection of these things consists. In this sense, and to this extent, the passage may be paraphrased as follows. 'I exhort you to repentance and conversion, and I hold up, as inducements to these necessary acts, the delightful feeling of refreshment and relief, which has been rendered possible by God's gift of his Son to be a Saviour, and of his actual appearance for that purpose, in accordance with a previous divine appointment' or divine announcement, according as the common text (προκεκηρυγμένον, preached or proclaimed before), or that of the old manuscripts and latest editors (προκεχειρισμένον, appointed or ordained before) may be preferred.

21. That the times in question were still distant, is implied in the account here given of Christ's local habitation during the interval. The before heaven, although not so distinguished in the English Bible, is supplied by the translators, not only without reason, but almost in violation of our idiom, which prefixes the article only to the plural number of this noun (the heavens.) Its insertion here would scarcely deserve notice, if it did not, by its very singularity, occasion a false emphasis, of which the original knows nothing. The construction of this first clause is ambiguous, as heaven may be either the subject or the object of the verb receive. The latter is preferred by Luther, Tyndale and Cranmer, who must receive heaven, i. e. take possession of it, occupy it, hold it. But the Greek verb (δέξασθαι) does not mean actively to take or seize, but passively or simply to receive or accept what is given by another. This sense though not irreconcilable with Luther's explanation, agrees much better with the one now commonly adopted. 'In the mean time, i. e. until God shall send Christ and the times of refreshing from his presence, he is committed to the heavens as a sacred trust to be delivered up hereafter.' The present tense (δεῖ) denotes an actual necessity already in existence, and arising from God's settled and avowed plan of procedure. (See above, on 1:16, 21.) By heaven we are here to understand that place, or portion of the universe, where God manifests his presence to glorified saints and holy angels. Beyond this relative description, we have no account, and can have no conception, of its locality. To true believers the most interesting attribute of heaven is the one here specified, to wit, that the incarnate Son of God resides there. He then adds a third description of the times, to which he had directed their attention. Besides being times of refreshing (19), and of the Saviour's mission (20), they are also to be times of restitution. The Greek word is the noun corresponding to the verb explained above, on 1:6. The indefinite expression is defined by the specification of the things to be restored, namely, all things which God hath spoken, etc. This has led some to take restitution in the sense of fulfilment or accomplishment, as being more appropriate to prophecy. But this, besides being destitute of all authority from usage, does not even suit the context; for the things to be restored or reinstated are not the predictions but the things predicted. As to the phrases, by the mouth and all the prophets, see above, on v. 18. They are here called holy, not so much in reference to personal as to official character. As Aaron, in his character of High Priest, was the saint or holy one of God (Ps. 106:16), notwithstanding his infirmities and errors, so the Prophets are collectively described as holy, not as having all been eminently pious, but as having all been consecrated, set apart, devoted, to a special service, in discharge of which, and not as individuals, they uttered the predictions here referred to. Or rather, to retain the Apostle's strong and favourite expression, it was by their mouth that God spoke. Since the world began is not a version but a paraphrase. Of old or from eternity would be more faithful to the form of the original (ἀπʼ αἰῶνος), which is found only in Luke's writings (see below, on 15:18, and compare Luke 1:70), as the correlative phrase (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) is a favourite idiom of John's (see John 4:14; 6:51, 58, and passim.) But the first is too weak, and the last too strong, in this connection. The Greek noun means duration, and especially indefinite duration, sometimes rendered more specific by the context in particular cases, which require the sense of age, lifetime, dynasty, or other great but variable periods (Matt. 12:32; 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; Mark 10:30; Luke 16:8; 18:30; 20:34, 35.) Sometimes, on the other hand, the absence of all limitation, if not something still more positive, imparts to it the full sense of eternity (Mark 3:29; Rev. 1:6, 18, and passim.) In this case it may either be indefinitely taken as equivalent in meaning to our legal phrase, from time immemorial, or as a relative expression having more specific reference to the αἰών or cycle of the old economy, already virtually at an end and now fast verging to a visible conclusion. All the holy prophets from (the beginning of the prophetic) period or dispensation, which is tantamount to saying, ever since there were prophets in existence. This is clearly the opposite extreme to the final restitution mentioned just before, which does not therefore mean the restoration of all moral agents to a state of perfect holiness and happiness, but simply the completion or the winding up of that stupendous plan which God is carrying into execution, with a view to his own glory and the salvation of his elect people. This consummation may be called a restitution, in allusion to a circle which returns into itself, or more probably because it really involves the healing of all curable disorder and the restoration to communion with the Deity of all that he has chosen to be so restored. Till this great cycle has achieved its revolution, and this great remedial process has accomplished its design, the glorified body of the risen and ascended Christ not only may but must, as an appointed means of that accomplishment, be resident in heaven, and not on earth.

22. The for connects this with the 20th verse, and verifies the statement there made, that Jesus Christ had been foreordained of God. The intervening verse is a digression or parenthesis relating to his present and future abode. This is the fourth prophecy expounded in this book by Peter; so far was he from dealing in mere narrative or exhortation. (See above, on 1:20; 2:16, 25, 34.) It is also his third exegetical argument in proof of the Messiahship of Jesus. The passage quoted is still found in Deut. 18:15, 19. The omission of the words to the fathers in the oldest manuscripts is therefore of no moment. The quotation is made, with scarcely any variation, from the Septuagint version. The substitution of the plural (you) for the singular (thee) not only leaves the sense unaltered, but is fully justified by a similar change in the original. The truth is that the singular form there has reference to Israel, as a collective or ideal person. The objection to the application here made of this prophecy, derived from the original connection, may be obviated by extending it to the whole series or succession of prophets, representing Christ and terminating in him. The correctness of the Messianic application, here and in 7:37 below, is confirmed by the historical fact, that this prophecy was never understood to be fulfilled in any intervening prophet, and that when John the Baptist came, he was asked, not only whether he was Christ, i. e. the Messiah, or Elijah his forerunner, but also whether he was "the prophet," or, as the English versions render it, that prophet," the august but nameless subject of this very promise. (See John 1:21, 25.) The resemblance between Christ and Moses, as prophets, mediators, legislators, founders of new dispensations etc. is obvious enough. The superiority of Christ is argumentatively urged in the epistle to the Hebrews (3:3–6.) It may be doubted, however, whether like me, in the prophecy, was not designed to qualify the words immediately preceding, 'one of yourselves, belonging to your own race and lineage, as I do.' (Truly (μέν), as in 1:5.)

23. This is merely the conclusion of the passage, the essential part of which was quoted in the verse preceding. (See above, on 2:25.) At the same time, it served to remind the hearers, that this question of Messiahship was no vain speculation, but a practical question of the utmost moment to themselves. (See above, on 2:19–21.) That prophet is, in this case, the exact translation of the Greek words (τοῦ προφήτου ἐκείνου.) The phrase with which the quoted passage closes, I will require it of him, is a pregnant one, and means far more than strikes the eye at once. To express this latent meaning, the Septuagint version, I will take vengeance, is by no means too strong. In the verse before us, the Apostle brings it out still more emphatically, by employing the customary legal formula for the highest theocratical punishment, that of excision from the church or chosen people. (See Ex. 12:15, 19; Lev. 7:20–27.)

24. It was not Moses only that predicted the times of the Messiah, but the whole series of the Hebrew prophets. This idea is expressed in a peculiar but intelligible manner, all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after. Placing Moses by himself as the Prophet by way of eminence, he sums up all the rest as Samuel and his successors. Samuel is mentioned (here and in Ps. 99:6) as the next great prophet after Moses, the first who remarkably resembled him in personal character and official position, and whose delegated work was to bring back the theocracy, as near as might be, to the ground where Moses left it, and from which it had declined during the agitated period of the judges and the interruption of prophetic inspiration (1 Sam. 3:1.) The words and (from) those that follow after seem to express no more than had been expressed already in the words all the prophets from (or after) Samuel; but this redundancy rather makes the meaning clearer than obscures it.

25. But why should he refer to prophecies so ancient? What had the contemporary race to do with the old prophets and the Abrahamic covenant? The answer to this question, which might readily arise in any mind not thoroughly imbued with the true theocratical spirit, was exceedingly important, to define the scope of the Old Testament economy, as temporary in its own duration, but tending to ulterior and general results. The Apostle teaches them that they (and those who should come after them) were included in the scope of the old prophecies and the stipulations of the patriarchal covenant. This is expressed, in a peculiar oriental form, by calling them the sons of the prophets. This cannot mean literal descendants, which could be true of only some among them, and is wholly inapplicable to the next phrase, (sons or children) of the covenant. The only sense that will apply to both is that of a hereditary interest and intimate relation to the promises and prophecies. (Compare Matt. 8:12; Heb. 6:17; Gal. 3:29.) The form of expression may have been suggested by the mention of Samuel, and the historical association between his name and the prophets over whom he presided (1 Sam. 10:5, 10), and who seem to have been afterwards called sons of the prophets (1 Kings 20:35; 2 Kings 2:3; 4:1; 5:22; 6:1; 9:1), an expression commonly supposed to denote pupils (whence the common though not scriptural phrase, "schools of the prophets,") but admitting also of a very different interpretation, namely, that of adherents to the prophets of Jehovah under the schismatical kingdom of the ten tribes. With the same essential meaning, that of intimate relation and hereditary interest, the Jews whom Peter was addressing might be justly called sons of the prophets and of the Abrahamic covenant. This wide scope of the promise he establishes by citing the assurance three times made to Abraham (Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18), and repeated successively to Isaac and Jacob (Gen. 26:4; 28:14), that in their seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed. The substitution of kindreds or families for tribes or nations, has of course no effect upon the sense. As to the seeming inconsistency of these views with Peter's scruples at a later period, see above, on 2:39, and below, on 10:34, 35.

26. As the large views opened in the foregoing verse might seem to reach beyond the case of those to whom he now addressed himself, the Apostle here returns to his immediate subject, by adding to the certain truth, that the promise was to all the nations of the earth, the no less certain truth, that it was first to Israel. The expression is the same that Paul employs in teaching the same doctrine, to the Jew first and also to the Greek (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10.) Raised up is an ambiguous Greek verb (ἀναστήσας), which sometimes means to bring into existence, sometimes to raise from the dead. (For examples of both senses in the same context, see above, on 2:30–32.) If the former meaning be adopted here, the next clause (sent him, etc.) must relate to our Lord's first advent; if the latter, to his coming by his Spirit after his ascension. It is not impossible that here, as in multitudes of other cases, both ideas were meant to be suggested, but with different degrees of prominence. (See above, on 2:33.) The meaning of the verse will then be, that what God had promised to the fathers he had performed to the children by the advent, death, and resurrection of his Son in the form of a servant, whose original appearance was for their salvation, and although rejected and despised by many, was renewed in what they had so lately witnessed, the offer of forgiveness being still made on the same conditions to all who would consent to turn away from their iniquities. The Vulgate and some other versions make the verb (ἀποστρέφειν) reflexive or intransitive, in every one's turning or converting himself. But the common version, which makes every one the object, not the subject of the verb, is simpler and in keeping with the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures as to God's efficiency in man's conversion. (For a like ambiguity of syntax, see above, on v. 21, and for the pregnant sense of παῖδα, on v. 13.) This last clause is intended to preclude the favourite and fatal Jewish error, that the patriarchal promises and covenants would be fulfilled to Abraham's descendants, irrespective of their personal repentance and conversion. If saved at all, it must be from their sins, not in them. God had sent his Son to bless them, not by conniving at their guilt or leaving it unpunished, but by turning every one away from his iniquities. To bless you, literally, blessing you, in the very act of executing this commission. A comparison of this discourse with that recorded in the second chapter will disclose that mixture of variety and sameness, which is the surest test of authenticity. Had both discourses been identical in sentiment and structure, or had both been utterly unlike, the case would have been equally suspicious. But when both agree and differ, just as any speaker may agree and differ with himself on different occasions; when we find the same unstudied but effective rhetoric and logic, the same mode of interpreting the prophecies, the same mode of appealing to the conscience, yet without a trace of studied repetition, and with marked peculiarities of thought and style, distinguishing the two discourses from each other, not as incompatible or uncongenial, but as harmonious products of the same mind acting under varied circumstances and excitements; the hypothesis of forgery or fraudulent imitation becomes vastly more incredible than that of genuineness, oneness, and identity of authorship. And this again creates a general presumption in behalf of Luke's habitual fidelity as a reporter.

CHAPTER 4

AS the foregoing chapter describes the occasion of the first assault upon the church from without, so this describes the assault itself (1–22) with its effects (23–37.) The discourse of Peter, occasioned by the healing of the lame man, rouses the jealous indignation of the Jewish rulers, and especially the party-spirit of the Sadducees (1, 2), in consequence of which the two Apostles are imprisoned (3), but a multitude again embrace the new religion (4.) Being questioned by the Sanhedrim (5–7), Peter ascribes the miracle to Christ (8–10), the Messiah whom they had rejected, but whom God had exalted (11) and revealed as the true and only Saviour (12.) Astonished at their boldness (13), and embarrassed by the presence of the man who had been healed (14), the rulers, in a private conference (15), confess the fact of the miracle (16), but determine to arrest its effects (17), by forbidding them to preach Christ (18.) Peter and John, leaving the rulers to judge for themselves, announce their own determination to obey God rather than man (19, 20.) The rulers threaten but dare not punish them, on account of the publicity and popularity of what happened (21, 22.) Reporting all this to their brethren (23), Peter and John unite with them in prayer to God, as the Creator (24), and as the author of an ancient prophecy (25), in which the rulers of the earth are represented as arrayed against the Lord and his Anointed (26), and which they acknowledge to have been fulfilled by the enemies of Christ (27), who thus unintentionally executed the divine plan (28.) The petition of the prayer is, that God would embolden them (29) and glorify their Master, by continued tokens of his favour and his presence (30); which petition was granted, both by sensible signs and spiritual influences (31.) After this triumphant issue of the first trial through which the infant church was called to pass, the historian describes her as still perfectly united and inspired with love (32), sustained by apostolical testimony and divine grace (33), sharing each others' secular advantages (34), under the guidance and control of the Apostles (35.) This general description is exemplified by two particular cases, one of which illustrates the reality and power of the ruling principle (36, 37); the other, of an opposite description, is recorded in the following chapter.

1. It was not to be expected that the freedom of speech exercised by Peter, in addressing the multitude assembled at the temple, would be suffered to continue undisturbed by the authorities. Came upon them (ἐπέστησαν), implying sudden movement or appearance, is a favourite verb of Luke's, occurring only thrice in any other part of the New Testament. (See below, 6:12; 10:17; 11:11; 12:7; 17:5; 22:13, 20; 23:11, 27; 28:2, and compare Luke 2:9, 38; 4:39; 10:40; 20:1; 21:34; 24:4.) The priests, i. e. those then on duty in the temple, who were bound ex officio to prevent all disturbance in the sacred precincts. This was especially incumbent on a certain body of Levites, whose commander is called in the Apocrypha the prefect (προστάτης) of the temple. A similar office may be traced in the Old Testament. (See Jer. 20:1; 1 Chron. 9:11; 2 Chron. 31:13.) The term used here (στρατηγός) is a military one, from which some have inferred, that the person meant was a Roman officer, the commander of the garrison stationed in the castle of Antonia, at the northwest corner of the temple-area. (See below, on 21:31.) But in the latter chapters of the book, this officer is repeatedly designated by another title (χιλίαρχος), which is also applied by John (18:12) to the leader of the Roman detachment that arrested Jesus. Nor is it probable that the religious scruples of the Jews, which were always respected by their conquerors, would have suffered a heathen soldier to act as the guardian of their temple. The application of the title general or captain (στρατηγός) to officers not strictly military is justified, not only by the authority of Josephus, who uses it to designate the levitical officer described above, but also by classical usage. Having been extended from the generals, properly so called, to the ministers of war in Athens, it was afterwards applied to other public functionaries, and is used by Polybius to describe the Roman Consuls. As there may have been several such officers, who served at the temple in turn, there is no need of putting a different sense on the plural form in Luke 22:4, 52. Some have attempted to distinguish the several motives of the parties joining in this opposition, by supposing that the officer of the watch objected merely to the breach of order in the sacred place, the priests to the assumption of the teachers' office by unauthorized persons (Matt. 21:23), and the Sadducees to the doctrine taught by the Apostles, as described more particularly in the next verse. The Sadducees were not merely a religious sect, but a political party. They differed from the Pharisees, not only as to certain doctrines and the obligation of the oral law, but also in their national and patriotic feelings, and their greater disposition to assimilate themselves to the surrounding nations. The very name Pharisee most probably means Separatist, not in the modern sense, nor in allusion to their personal strictness and austerity, but rather as defining the position which they occupied in reference to other nations, by insisting upon every thing peculiar and distinctive, and affecting even to exaggerate the difference between the Gentiles and themselves. This, which was at first, i e. after the return from exile, and even later, under the first Maccabees or Hasmonean princes, the true national and theocratical spirit, by degrees became corrupt, by losing sight of the great end for which the old economy existed, and worshipping the Law, with its traditional additions, as a system to be valued for its own sake, and designed to be perpetual. The opposition to this great national party arose chiefly from the Sadducees, a name of doubtful origin, but commonly traced, either to the name of a founder (Zadok), or to a Hebrew word denoting righteous (צַדִּיק). At first, they seem to have objected merely to the narrow nationality of their opponents, and to have aimed at smoothing down, as far as possible, the points of difference between Jews and Gentiles, combining the Mosaic faith with the Greek philosophy and civilization, and renouncing whatever, in their own manners and religion, appeared most offensive or absurd to cultivated Gentiles. But this dangerous process of assimilation could not be carried far without rejecting matters more essential; as we find that the Sadducees did, not only with respect to the oral law or Pharisaical tradition, but also with respect to several important doctrines, and, as some think, to the greater part of the Old Testament; but this point is disputed. The Sadducees here mentioned may have been private individuals, but were more probably in public office, as we know from other parts of this same history, that the power was divided between these two great parties. (See below, on 5:17; 23:6.)

2. This verse assigns the motive for the attack mentioned in the one preceding. It has been disputed whether two distinct subjects of complaint are here assigned, or only one; and also whether the whole verse relates to all the parties named before, or the first clause to the Priests and the last clause to the Sadducees. According to the latter view, the Priests were offended that the Apostles should presume to teach at all, the Sadducees only that they taught a certain doctrine. The principal objection to this view of the passage is, that it assumes an artificial structure of the sentence, and distinguishes too narrowly between the Priests and Sadducees as independent agents, whereas they may have been to some extent identical. (See below, on 5:17.) Being grieved, or, as Tyndale has it, taking it grievously, though not an incorrect, is an inadequate version of the Greek word (διαπονούμενοι), which has the same sense here as in the classics, namely, hard-worked, exhausted by labour, and then, by a natural transition, wearied, out of patience, from the long continuance or frequent repetition of the cause, whatever it might be. In this case, they were tired of hearing the Apostles, and resolved that they should teach no longer. (See below, on 16:18, and compare the Septuagint version of Gen. 6:6; Ecc. 10:9.) The people, i. e. the chosen people, the people of God, as in 2:47; 3:9, 11, 12; 23; 4:1. What offended them was not the simple act of popular instruction, but the assumption of a right to be masters of Israel (John 3:10) or the Jewish Church. Preached is too specific, from its familiar associations, to convey the exact sense of the Greek verb (καταγγέλλειν), which means simply to announce or proclaim. Through Jesus seems to mean that they proclaimed a general resurrection, to be effected or obtained through him. But this, though true and sufficiently taught elsewhere (e.g. 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Thess. 4:14), is not the meaning of the words here used, but rather that they taught the doctrine of a resurrection, as proved and exemplified in that of Christ. So Paul says (1 Cor. 4:6), "that ye might learn in us," i. e. by our example. The double article in Greek, before and after resurrection, has a force entirely lost in the translation, as implying that the noun is ambiguous, and that its sense must be determined by what follows. Like its verbal root (explained above, on 2:24), it may be applied to any rise, or any act of raising; as it is by Plato to the act of rising up before one as a token of respect; by Sophocles to rising out of sleep; by Demosthenes to the rebuilding of a wall. It is true that in the Greek of the New Testament, it always means the resurrection from the dead; but it is not surprising that Luke, who wrote for Gentile readers, should preclude mistake by this express specification, both here and in Luke 20:35, where the use of the article is precisely similar. As if he had said: 'they taught the doctrine of a rising, not from sleep, or from a low condition, or the like, but from the dead.' This last is not an abstract term, as it seems to have come to be in English, and as Tyndale formally translates it (death), but strictly means, from (among) the dead, from their society, or from a share in their condition. The very fact which they proclaimed, to wit, that Christ had risen from the dead, was fatal to one favourite dogma of the Sadducees (Matt. 22:23; Mark 12:18; Luke 20:27; Acts 23:8.) This accounts, not only for their wrath on this occasion, but for the general and otherwise inexplicable fact that, while the Pharisees are most conspicuous and active in the Gospels, as the opponents of our Lord himself, the Sadducees became so in the history before us, as the enemies and persecutors of his servants. They had little fault to find with the new doctrine, so long as it denounced the pharisaical traditions and corruptions, but as soon as the hated doctrine of the resurrection had been practically verified by that of Christ, they lost all patience with the men who preached it, and became, for a time at least, the most malignant of their persecutors. (See below, on 5:17; 23:6.) Less obvious and certain, although not entirely destitute of truth, is the distinction, made by some, between the Sadducees as more disposed to quarrel with Christ's doctrine, and the Pharisees with his morality, especially his treatment of themselves and their pretensions.

3. Their first step was to arrest and imprison the two Apostles, not as a punishment, but for safe-keeping, which would not be an erroneous translation of the Greek phrase (εἰς τήρησιν), although most interpreters prefer the local sense of prison, on account of the parallel expression in 5:18, where this sense is supposed to be required by the addition of the epithet common or public. The English version there has prison, but here hold (Wiclif, ward), which corresponds almost exactly to the strict sense of the Greek word. Unto the next day, or the morrow. The original expression is an adverb (αὔριον, to-morrow) used to qualify the word day understood. Eventide is a fine old English word, now obsolete in prose, equivalent to evening-time. This last clause may imply that it was either unlawful or unusual, or more probably than either, inconvenient to assemble the Sanhedrim at night, or on so short a notice. As they entered the temple at the ninth hour (v. 1), i. e. about three in the afternoon (see above, on 3:1), and as Peter's discourse was probably much longer than the report of it here given (see above, on 2:40), it must have been near evening, in the strict sense of the term, as denoting dusk or twilight. There is no need, therefore, of resorting to its wider usage, as denoting the whole afternoon, or to the Hebrew reckoning of a double evening (הָעַרְבַּיִם) between noon and night. See Ex. 12:6; 16:12; 29:39, 41; 30:8; Lev. 23:5; Num. 9:3; 28:4, in all which places the phrase translated in the evening or at even, literally means, between the (two) evenings.

4. The preachers were arrested, but as Paul expresses it, (2 Tim. 2:9), the word of God was not bound. In order to bring out this antithesis more clearly, the translators have employed the strong adversative howbeit, i. e. notwithstanding or in spite of all this, to express the continuative particle (δέ), which is not always even rendered but. (See above, on 1:7.) The word is a phrase several times used in this book for the Gospel, the doctrine of Christ, the new religion. (See below, 6:4; 8:4; 11:19; 14:25; 16:6; 17:11.) Still more frequent are the phrases word of God or of the Lord, of which this is an abbreviation, (See below, v. 31; 6:2, 7; 8:14, 25; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44; 46, 48, 49; 15:35; 36, 16; 17:13; 18:11; 19:10, 20.) Other forms, occasionally used in the same sense are word of salvation (13:26), word of grace (14:3; 20:32), word of the Gospel (15:7.) This sense is perfectly appropriate here, but less specific, and perhaps less natural, than that of speech, discourse, which also occurs elsewhere. (See below, 6:5; 14:12; 20:7.) The effect here spoken of is not ascribed to the hearing of the Gospel elsewhere or before, but to the hearing of it as it had been now proclaimed by Peter. (See above, on 2:41.) Believed, i. e. received it as true, and trusted in the Saviour whom it offered. This is one of the standing scriptural expressions for the saving change described in modern religious phraseology as getting religion, becoming pious, becoming a Christian, or obtaining a hope, with respect to all which harmless but needless innovations on the primitive church dialect, it may well be said, "the old is better" (Luke 5:39.) Two questions have been raised, as to the number stated in the last clause of the verse. The first is, whether it includes the three thousand of 2:41, or is to be added to that number, making a total of about eight thousand. The former is more probable, for two reasons; first, because the sentence otherwise contains an enfeebling tautology, which ought not to be assumed without necessity. The first clause is then unmeaning and superfluous—'many believed, five thousand believed'—whereas, upon the other supposition, the two clauses are alike essential to the meaning—'many were added upon this occasion, so that the whole amounted to five thousand.' Another reason for preferring this construction is derived from the Greek verb (ἐγενήθη), which does not mean simply that the number was, but that it became (or came to be) five thousand, a distinction often overlooked in the immediate English versions. (See above, on 1:16, 19.) Those founded on the Vulgate, such as Wiclif's and the Rhemish, here as elsewhere, copy it almost too closely (foctus est, was made.) There is less force in the argument, which some have urged, that Solomon's porch (3:11) could not probably contain more than five thousand persons. It is equally improbable that it could contain so many, and still more so, that the crowd was compressed into the porch itself, instead of filling the vast court into which it opened. (See above, on 2:2.) Another gratuitous assumption in this argument is, that all the previous converts were still present in Jerusalem and at the temple, whereas many of the foreign Jews had probably gone home; unless we add a third assumption, namely, that what is here recorded took place immediately after Pentecost, if not in the evening of the day itself. But this, besides being perfectly gratuitous, and therefore just as easily denied as affirmed, is hardly consistent with the general description above given (2:42–47) of the condition of the church, not merely on the day of its erection, but from that day onward, during a time long enough at least for the display of benevolent affections there described, as well as to justify the use of the expression that "the Lord added daily to the church" (2:47.) A more legitimate though not conclusive argument, additional to those drawn from the language of the verse is, that if five thousand were converted by this one discourse, its effect far transcends that of the one at Pentecost, which nevertheless seems to be recorded as a signal and unique result, intended to do special honour to the organization of the Christian Church. The second question in relation to this number is, whether it includes both sexes, or is limited to males. In favour of the latter supposition is the uniform Greek usage, in which the generic and specific terms for men (ἄνθρωποι and ἄνδρες) are seldom interchanged. The absolute force of this consideration is impaired by the occurrence of exceptions, some of which are very doubtful, in the Greek of the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 14:35; Luke 11:31, 32; Rom. 4:8; James 1:12, 20, 23), as well as in the classics (e.g. in the favourite Homeric phrase, ἀνδρῶν τε θεῶν τε, and the no less favourite Platonic one, πᾶς ἀνήρ, in the sense of every one or every body.) This usage, although rare, is sufficient to destroy the necessity of holding fast the strict sense here, if exegetically inconvenient. Of those who so explain it, some understand it as implying what is expressed in Matt. 14:21, "five thousand men besides women and children" (compare 15:38), which would raise the aggregate much higher. Others, with far less probability, assume that the first converts may have been literally all men in the strict sense, especially if Solomon's porch, as some allege, was not accessible to female worshippers, who were restricted to the Court of the Women, as they are at this day to the latticed galleries of the synagogues. The ambiguous term souls in 2:41, and the explicit ones, both men and women in 5:14, have been used as arguments on both sides of the question; some alleging that the very mention of both sexes in the latter case shows clearly that the verse before us has respect to only one, while others no less plausibly contend, that the laconic and ambiguous expression here must be explained by the unequivocal language of the parallel passage. The whole question is more curious than important, as we know that there were multitudes of female converts not long after (5:14); and even on the lowest computation of the numbers in the case before us, the increase of the Church was wonderfully great and rapid. The insertion of this parenthetical statement, in a narrative of suffering and persecution, suggests in a most striking and exhilarating manner God's sovereign independence, even of his chosen and most highly honoured instruments.

5. The sentence is completed in the next verse. The first phrase (it came to pass), as common in history as the future (it shall come to pass) in prophecy (see above, on 2:17), here indicates the resumption of the main subject, after the brief digression in v. 4. On the morrow, a similar expression to the one in 3:1, might be rendered towards the morning or the next day, implying that the Sanhedrim sat very early, but is usually understood as referring merely to the day and not the hour. Their rulers may, without the least absurdity, refer to the apostles or disciples, who were still subjects of the Jewish government; but most interpreters assume a prolepsis or anticipation of something mentioned afterwards. But as the Jews are not particularly named there, it is better to assume a free construction with a reference to the people generally, or their representatives mentioned in the first verse. A similar use of the same pronoun. (αὐτῶν) without an expressed antecedent, occurs in Matt. 4:23. In the use of the third person (their rulers) some find an indication, that Luke wrote, in the first instance, not for Jews but Gentiles. Rulers is best explained as a generic term, including the two clauses mentioned afterwards, elders and scribes. These are two of the orders represented in the national council, which is said to have been composed of seventy-one persons in imitation, if not in actual continuation, of the seventy elders who assisted Moses (Num. 11:16.) From Synedrion, the Greek word meaning Session or Consistory, and frequently applied to this later council (v. 15; 5:21, 27, 34, 41; 5:12, 15; 22:30; 23:1, 6, 15, 20, 23, 28; 24:20), comes the Hebrew or Aramaic form Sanhedrim, by which it is now usually designated. The High Priest was the President of this assembly. (See below, on 7:1; 23:2.) By elders some have understood the rulers of the synagogues (Mark 5:22; Luke 8:41, 49; 13:14. See below, on 13:15; 18:8, 17.) But this was only a later designation, or perhaps a real modification, of an older institution, that of the theocratical eldership, composed of the hereditary chiefs of tribes and heads of families, the natural as well as legal representatives and rulers of the people under the patriarchal system, which seems to have survived all changes in the Hebrew state from its foundation to its downfall, and may still be traced in other nations, being nothing more than an extension of domestic government, and therefore scarcely more destructible or mutable than the family relation upon which it rests. The elders, who composed a part of this great council, sat there as the proper representatives of Israel, considered as the church or chosen people. The Scribes of the New Testament are sometimes said to have been clerks or secretaries to the magistrates, appointed to assist them in the administration of the laws. But this was a Roman custom, rendered necessary by the military profession of most provincial governors; whereas among the Jews no such necessity existed. The more common explanation is that they were copyists or transcribers of the law. To this it has been objected, that the copies of the law in circulation were scarcely numerous enough to occupy so large a body of Scribes as seems to have existed in our Saviour's time (Luke 5:17.) It is also objected that this theory leaves unexplained the authority evidently exercised by these men (Matt. 23:2), which was far too great to be wielded by mere copyists, even of the Scriptures. It is said, in reply, that they were also expounders of the law; but this (it is alleged) has no necessary connection with the business of transcription. The truth lies, not between the two contending parties, but on both sides. The Scribes were copyists, but they were more. They were official guardians or conservators of the sacred text, in which work they succeeded Ezra, the first Scribe, in this sense, upon record. (See Ezra 7:6, 10, 11, 12, 21; Neh. 8:4, 9, 13; 12:26.) As he was commissioned to complete the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, so the later Scribes were to preserve it unimpaired from generation to generation. This could only be secured by the most scrupulous transcription, and accordingly the care which has been exercised in this way by the Jewish Scribes is utterly unparalleled. Even what seems to be their superstitious and absurd excess is only the exaggeration and abuse of a most wise precaution. The severe rules by which new Hebrew manuscripts are still judged, and even the most beautiful condemned if blemished by a few mistakes, are relics of an immemorial custom, and bear witness to the care with which the Hebrew text has been preserved for ages. Thus a transcriber of the law, or he who officially had charge of its transcription, was something very different from an ordinary copyist. His work was not mechanical but critical, analogous to that which now engrosses some of the most learned men of modern times. The qualities required for this work were at the same time qualifications for the work of exposition. Thus the Scribes were naturally the interpreters, as well as the conservators of Scripture, and are therefore frequently called lawyers (νομικοί), not in the modern sense of advocates or aids in litigation, but in that of jurists, men officially employed about the law, and sometimes doctors (i. e. teachers) of the law, (νομοδιδάσκαλοι), both which expressions, chiefly used by Luke, would seem to be convertible with Scribes. (Compare Matt. 5:20; Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30 with Luke 5:17; 7:30; 14:3, and see below, on 5:34.) Now as the Jewish state was a theocracy, in which law and religion were identified, these lawyers and doctors of the law were at the same time theologians and religious teachers. That this important office or profession should be represented in the Sanhedrim, is far less surprising than that English prelates should be members of the House of Lords. Such being the office of the Scribes, even on the supposition that its primary function was the preservation and perpetuation of the sacred text, there can be no need of discarding the common derivation of the name, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, from the verb to write, in order to derive it from a noun denoting scripture (סֵפֶר, γράμματα), and so to make it mean directly scripturist or biblist, an idea necessarily suggested by the nature of the office, as we have already seen, but not necessarily included in the meaning of the name. These two classes, the elders or hereditary representatives, and the scribes or spiritual guides of Israel, are here put for the Sanhedrim, of which they formed a necessary part. The omission of the priests, as a class, in this description, may be explained from their having been already mentioned as prime movers in this whole transaction (v. 1), whose presence therefore would be taken for granted as a matter of course; or from the fact that many of the Scribes were priests, as the same essential functions were discharged, in ancient times, by the sacerdotal tribe of Levi (Deut. 33:10; 2 Chron. 17:8, 9), and Ezra himself was both a Priest and Scribe (Ezra 7:11, 12.)

6. Having described the Sanhedrim in general terms, by naming two of its constituent orders, Luke mentions separately several of its most distinguished members present upon this occasion, beginning with the High Priest, as the President. But a difficulty here arises from the fact, that Caiaphas, who is known, from Josephus as well as from the Gospels (Matt. 26:3, 5; John 11:49; 18:13, 24), to have been the actual high priest at this time, is named in the second place without a title, while his predecessor Annas is named first, and expressly called High Priest. The confusion, which undoubtedly exists in relation to this matter, is not the fault of the historian but of the times, and corresponds exactly to the actual condition of the Jewish priesthood under the Roman domination. While the office was continued and regarded in its true light, as the representative of the theocracy, its authority and sanctity were greatly lessened in the eyes of all devout Jews, by the arbitrary interference of the Romans with its constitution and succession. According to the law, there could be only one High Priest, and he the hereditary representative of Aaron (Ex. 9:33.) The office therefore was for life, and the incumbent immovable by any but divine authority. To this part of the system, with an inconsistency not easily accounted for, the Romans seem to have paid no respect whatever, but to have deposed and appointed the High Priest at pleasure, only limiting their choice, so far as now appears, to the sacerdotal race and lineage. Some idea of the length to which they pushed this license may be gathered from the fact recorded by Josephus, that no less than five sons of the Annas here named were High Priests successively, besides himself and his son-in-law Caiaphas. In consequence of this usurped authority and flagrant violation of the Law, there were sometimes several men living who had been High Priests, a thing unheard of and impossible in better times. The effect of this was twofold; first, to weaken and confuse the feeling of allegiance to these titular heads of the theocracy; and secondly, to introduce great latitude and looseness in the use of the official title. Those who still held fast to their integrity as Jews, could not acknowledge more than one High Priest, or recognize the claims of any man whose predecessor was still living. Thus he whom a Roman or Herodian called High Priest, might have no such character in the estimation of a Zealot or a Pharisee. This state of things may throw some light upon the passage now before us. Annas, who was probably a man of energy and talent, had been High Priest, and although displaced by secular authority, was still the only High Priest in the eyes of any strict or conscientious Jew. Even if his first appointment was irregular, he probably had no predecessor living, and being of the sacerdotal race, was the nearest representative of Aaron. But the title and the actual authority were now in the possession of his son-in-law Caiaphas, or, as Josephus calls him, Joseph. By some, the one would be regarded as the true High Priest, by some the other, by a third class neither. As the older and most probably the abler man, as well as the earliest incumbent, and perhaps the legitimate successor of Aaron, Annas would necessarily retain a large, if not the largest share of influence, through all the changes that succeeded his removal, especially as several of his successors were his own sons, and the one who held his place at this time was his son-in-law. Under such circumstances, nothing but prejudiced or morbid skepticism can discover inconsistency or error, either in the language of this passage, or in Luke's mention of these two men in his gospel (3:2) as being both High Priests at once, which, in the sense above explained, was literally true. John and Alexander, from the position here assigned them, were no doubt well known members of the priestly race. Some have attempted to identify them with historical persons of that age; the first with Johanan Ben Zaccai, mentioned in the Jewish traditions as an eminent contemporary priest; the other with a brother of the famous Jewish writer Philo, who was Alabarch or chief of the Jews at Alexandria. But no conclusion can be drawn from the names, which were both extremely common; the Hebrew name Johanan, on account of its meaning (Jehovah favours); the Greek name Alexander on account of the kind treatment of the Jews by the Macedonian conqueror, in consequence of which his name is said to have been given to all the males, at least of the sacerdotal race, who were born during the year, or on the anniversary, of his visit to Jerusalem. There can be no doubt, however, that the persons here meant were well known to Luke and to many of his early readers. The next clause has been variously explained, as denoting the chiefs of the twenty-four courses, into which the family of Aaron was divided; or the lineal descendants of his eldest son; or the various persons who had filled the office of High Priest. If another conjecture is worth stating, it may be that the words are intended to describe the family of Annas, so remarkable as having furnished half a dozen High Priests without lineal succession, and therefore worthy to be called that archisacerdotal (or high-priestly) race. This distinction, it is true, was acquired chiefly after these events, but might be generally known when Luke recorded them. At Jerusalem, according to the latest critical editions, in (ἐν) Jerusalem. The common text has to or into (εἰς) Jerusalem, which some explain as a mere interchange of prepositions, but which rather implies, that all the members of the Sanhedrim were not residing, or at least not actually present, in Jerusalem. (See a similar expression in 1:12 above.)

7. After the constitution of the court we have the formal arraignment of the prisoners. In the midst is by some understood to mean in the exact centre of the circle, or the semicircle, in which the members of the Sanhedrim are represented by tradition as habitually sitting. But it much more probably has the same sense as in 1:15 above, where no such formal arrangement can be thought of. The essential meaning, although in a loose form, is conveyed by Tyndale's version, set the others before them. Then follows the judicial interrogation, no doubt conducted by the High Priest, as in 5:27, and 7:1, below. The question is similar to that put to Christ himself (Matt. 21:23), but with a difference entitled to attention. Instead of asking, as in that case, by what authority (ἐξουσίᾳ), i. e. moral or legal right, they ask by what power (δυνάμει), i. e. physical capacity or force, and by what name (ὀνόματι) they had done this. The preposition before all these words is in, i. e. in the use or exercise of what power etc. (See above, on 1:3.) Name seems here to have the same sense as in 3:6, 16, although some suppose a reference to the magical use of the divine and other names by the exorcists and enchanters of that day. (See below, on 19:13, and compare Matt. 12:27.) The question then implies a suspicion of some occult and forbidden means in the performance of the miracle; for to that the pronoun this must be referred immediately, if not exclusively. To refer it, as some do, to the speech of Peter, or as others, to the speech and miracle together, is less natural. The question then is, 'in the use of what mysterious power, and as whose representatives, or by the invocation of whose name, have you effected this extraordinary cure?'

8. Peter again speaks for himself and John. This is his fourth speech recorded in the book before us. (See above, 1:15; 2:14; 3:12.) What was before said, as to sameness and variety, might be here repeated. (See above, on 3:12.) Filled with the Holy Ghost, not only by a previous or constant inspiration, but by an immediate and peculiar impulse, having special reference to this occasion. (See above, on 2:4, and compare the promise, Mark 13:11.) Under this influence, he not only addresses the assembly with respect, but recognizes its members in their official character and dignity. Rulers of the people and elders of Israel may be taken as equivalent descriptions of the whole body, since the rulers of the chosen people, under the patriarchal system (see above, on v. 5), were not elective but hereditary magistrates. Or the two titles may be so distinguished, that the last shall be descriptive of these natural representatives, and the first of persons holding office, independently of this hereditary rank, or in addition to it.

9. The sentence is completed in the next verse. This exordium, like those of Peter's previous discourses (see above, on 2:15; 3:12), although perfectly unstudied, and suggested by the circumstances under which he spoke, is, even rhetorically, striking and effective. The one before us is distinguished from the others by a tone of irony resembling and perhaps directly copied from our Lord's memorable saying to the Jews (John 10:32), "Many good works have I showed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?" If (εἰ) does not always imply doubt, but is sometimes equivalent to since, or, as the Geneva Bible here translates it, forasmuch as. (See below, on 11:17, and compare John 7:4.) In this case, however, it is better to retain the proper sense, not only on the general principle of always giving it the preference, but because it strengthens the expression, by representing what was done as something strange and scarcely credible, as though he had said, 'if it can be true that you arraign us for this act of kindness.' The Greek verb (ἀνακρινόμεθα) is confined, in the New Testament, to Luke and Paul, who use it frequently, and almost always in the sense of judicial investigation, literal or figurative. (See below, on 12:19; 17:11; 24:8; 28:18, and compare Luke 23:14; 1 Cor. 2:14, 15, 4:3, 4; 9:3; 14:24.) As it implies accusation and authority, examined is too weak here, unless understood to mean called in question, called to account, required to explain and justify one's conduct. The cognate noun (ἀνάκρισις) is used in like manner. (See below, on 25:26.) This day, to-day, adds point and force to the hypothetical expression if, etc. 'Have we lived to see the day when men are called in question for their good deeds?' The effect is further heightened by the Greek noun (εὐεργεσία), which, both in etymology and usage, has the general sense of good conduct or behaviour, and the specific one of active kindness or beneficence. The English versions are weakened by the needless introduction of the definite article, "the good deed done to the impotent man," instead of "a good deed done to an impotent man," which is the form of the original. Another less gratuitous departure from that form is the insertion of the participle done, to represent a simple genitive construction (εὐεργεσία ἀνθρώπου), which could not have been retained in our idiom, but might have been more closely copied by simply substituting to for of. A third addition in the version, of which the English reader has no intimation, is that of the word means, which may be justified by the analogy of Matt. 5:13, where the same phrase (ἐν τίνι), although not so translated, must be so understood. But the context here rather favours the translation in whom, i. e. in whose name, as in vs. 7 and 10. (For a similar construction of the preposition in a similar connection, compare Luke 11:19.) Impotent, or more exactly, weak, infirm. Is made whole, literally, has been saved, which, in its widest sense, means saved from all evil, natural and moral (see below, on v. 12), but is sometimes used specifically to denote deliverance from bodily sufferings considered as effects of sin. (See Matt. 9:21, 22; 27:42; Mark 5:23; 6:56; 10:52; Luke 8:36, 50; 17:19; 18:42; John 11:12.) In many of these places our translators use the verb to heal or make whole; whereas Wiclif even here translates made safe.

10. The exordium or preamble, which may almost be described as sarcastic or ironical in tone, is followed by a formal and most solemn answer to the question of the Sanhedrim, addressed not merely to themselves, but through them to the people of Israel, the chosen people, whom they represented. This implies that the fact declared was one of national concern, and less directly that the crime of crucifying Christ was that of Israel as a nation. The formula, be it known, occurs repeatedly in this book. (See above, on 2:14, 36, and below, on 13:38; 28:28.) The Greek adjective (γνωστόν) is one of Luke's favourite expressions, being used only thrice in other parts of the New Testament. It we (ἡμεῖς) in v. 9 is emphatic, as it is in v. 20, there may be the same antithesis in this case as in that. 'If we must listen to your questions and reproofs in relation to this good deed, you must listen in your turn to us. Be it known, etc.' By the name, literally, in the name, as in the question of the Sanhedrim. (See above, on v. 7.) The accumulation of descriptive terms in this verse is remarkable. Jesus (the Saviour), Christ (the Messiah), the Nazarene (as such an object of contempt, but a subject of prophecy), the Crucified (by the hands of men), the Risen (or raised by the power of God.) The same contrast between Christ's treatment at the hands of God and man, is here presented as in both the previous discourses. (See above, on 2:23, 24; 3:14, 15.) The design, in all three cases, is to bring this great personal and public crime home to the consciences of those who heard him. The even, supplied in the beginning of the last clause, is intended to identify the subject of the sentence, still more clearly than it is in Greek by the repetition of the particle. By him, literally, in this, which may be referred directly to the person of the Saviour, or still more naturally to his name, which makes the parallelism of the clauses more exact. In what name?.… in the name of Jesus … in this (name) etc. So much is comprehended in the name, as here used (see above, on 3:16), that nothing is lost, but something gained, by this construction. Here, though not expressed in the original, is no gratuitous addition, being really included in the verb (παρέστηκεν), which means to stand by or near. (See above, on 1:10.) The same idea is expressed by the addition of the words before you, in your sight, in which he appeals to their own senses as eye-witnesses. From this we learn that the man who had been healed was also present, either of his own accord as a spectator, or cited by the council as a witness, or as a prisoner with the two apostles. Whole, not only as opposed to mutilation or the loss of limbs, but in the sense of sound or healthy. If the question of the Sanhedrim (v. 7) contains, as some suppose, a tacit reference to the law in Deut. 18:19–22, where so much is said of speaking in the name of God, as opposed to that of other gods, it is remarkable that Peter, in reply, speaks only in the name of Jesus, which was either a direct violation of that law, or an indirect assertion of the deity of Christ. It is highly probable indeed that the continual reiteration of this phrase by the Apostles has some reference to its emphatic repetition in the passage of the law just cited. An old Greek manuscript, supposed to have been used by the Venerable Bede, and now deposited at Oxford, adds, and in no other.

11. There being no formal reference to scripture here, as there is in several previous cases, some have supposed the words here quoted to be merely a proverbial expression of the fact that what men slight and overlook is often afterwards exalted. But although the saying may have been proverbial likewise, yet since Christ himself had quoted the same words as "written" (Luke 20:17), and as something which his hearers must have "read in the scriptures" (Matt. 21:42), and since they are still extant in the Book of Psalms (118:22), there can be no doubt that this is a sixth (if not a seventh) prophecy, expounded and applied by Peter since the opening of this history. (See above, on 1:16, 20; 2:16, 25, 34; 3:22.) The form is substantially that of the Septuagint version, but with the substitution of the stronger term (ἐξουθενηθείς), nullified, made nothing of, treated as nothing, for the more exact but weaker one (ἀπεδοκίμασαν) rejected or repudiated. Tyndale adapts it to the figure of a building by translating cast aside. The idea no doubt is that of a stone thrown aside as worthless or unfit by the builders of a house, but afterwards selected as the head (not the top-stone, but the chief foundation) of the corner, where the strength of the structure is supposed to reside in the juncture of the walls. Its appropriateness to Christ has never been denied, but only its original reference to him as its immediate subject. Besides those who find here another case of mere accommodation (see above, on 1:20), some who grant the correctness of the application, grant it only in a typical or secondary sense, while others make the whole psalm a direct and exclusive prophecy of Christ. Intermediate between these two, but nearer to the first, is the hypothesis, that this psalm was first sung at the laying of the corner-stone of Zerubbabel's temple, as described in the third chapter of Ezra; that the immediate reference is to that structure, which however was itself a type, not only of the church or chosen people, in whom God resided, but of Christ, in whom he was to dwell in a far higher and yet stricter sense, and by whose advent the material temple would be superseded. This symbolical relation of the ancient sanctuary to the person of our Lord is not an exegetical expedient for the explanation of this passage, but the only hypothesis by which that feature of the ceremonial law can be accounted for, or Christ's own language on the subject vindicated from the charge of fanciful caprice. It was because the tabernacle and temple were designed to teach the doctrine of divine indwelling, by giving God a home among his people, similar to theirs, until he should take up his permanent abode in human nature by the incarnation of his Son; it was only for this reason, and on these conditions, that the Son himself, without a mere play upon words, or an evasion utterly unworthy of him, could say, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," when in fact he only "spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:19–21.) Since then the temple was intended to prefigure Christ, there can be nothing fanciful or forced in applying what was said, in the first instance, of that temple to "the temple of his body" or his theanthropic person. That such an application was not altogether novel, we may learn from the hosannas of the multitude in honour of our Saviour's Messianic entrance to the Holy City (Matt. 21:8, 9; Mark 11:8–10; Luke 19:36–38); the expressions there used being taken from this very Psalm (118:26), which must therefore have been commonly regarded as in some sense a Messianic prophecy. The very word Hosanna is the Save now (or I pray) of Ps. 118:25, almost as nearly as the Hebrew words could be expressed by the Greek alphabet. There is peculiar beauty in the application made by Peter, since it raises the image of Messiah's kingdom, as a palace or a temple still unfinished, and the very men whom he addresses as the regularly constituted builders (you builders, more exactly, you the builders) who, with fatal blindness, had rejected the chief corner-stone of the whole structure, and were now confounded because God, in spite of them, had set it in its proper place. It would be hard to frame a figurative exhibition of these great events, more striking in itself or more appropriate to those whom the Apostle was addressing, than the one furnished ready to his hand in the Old Testament, and already used for the same purpose by his Lord and Master. The same application is implied in Paul's description of the church, or the body of believers, as "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone" (Eph. 2:20.) A kindred prophecy, referring more exclusively to the Messiah, is that in Isai. 28:16, twice explicitly applied to Christ by Paul (Rom. 9:33; 10:11), and once by Peter in his first epistle (2:6.) In reference to both these passages it might be said, as Peter here says with respect to one of them, "this is the stone," i. e. 'this man, whom you crucified but God raised from the dead, is the very stone, of which you have so often read or heard in your own scriptures, as a stone rejected by the builders, but replaced by God himself at the foundation of his spiritual temple, i. e. of his church or kingdom.'

12. The Apostle, here as elsewhere, brings his reasonings and expositions to a practical conclusion. (See above, on 2:38–40; 3:26.) He gives them solemnly to understand, that the mistake which they, as builders of the temple, had committed, was not merely theoretical or exegetical, but practical and, if persevered in, fatal, to themselves and others. He reminds them that the character ascribed to the Messiah was not merely one of dignity and honour to himself, but of vital interest to others also. The system, of which he was the corner-stone, was a system of salvation, and the only one which God had sanctioned or revealed. Name is here used in allusion to its frequent repetition in the foregoing context, and of course with the same latitude of meaning. No other person, no other authority, no other invocation, etc. may be all included. Under heaven, i. e. in the world, or on the earth. (See above, on 2:5.) Given, i. e. by authority, bestowed by God, from whom all saving methods must of course proceed. Among men is not simply to men, as the objects of the favour, but among them, with a reference to its diffusion. 'No other method of salvation has been made known and diffused among mankind by God's authority.' Whereby, or more exactly, wherein, in which, not only by it as the means, but in the possession, use, and application of it. (See above, on v. 7.) Must be saved, not only may, as a matter of option or of right, but must, as a matter of necessity, if saved at all. This text is often weakened in quotation by the change of must to may or can. Because the verb saved is applied in the original of v. 9 to corporeal healing, some insist upon the same interpretation here, as if Peter meant to say that there was no other name, the invocation of which could effect a miraculous cure. But apart from the unworthiness and incongruity of this interpretation in itself considered, and the absence of all usage or analogy to recommend it, an argument against it may be drawn from the obvious parallelism or correspondence of the verb to be saved and the noun salvation, which is never, in the Greek of the New Testament, applied to the healing of disease, whereas it is the standing, not to say, the technical expression for the whole remedial work, which the Messiah was expected to accomplish, and of which his personal name (Jesus) was significant (Matt. 1:21), the great salvation (Heb. 2:3), which was to go forth from the Jews (John 4:22), and which the Apostles preached to Jews and Gentiles (13:26, 47), the greatest gift of God to man, and so described both here and elsewhere (Isai. 9:6; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 1:22; 2 Tim. 1:9.) This salvation, although something infinitely more than bodily relief or healing, comprehends it, as the whole includes the smallest of its parts, and as the least effect must cease with the cessation of its cause. Even on earth, especially when Christ was personally present, the restoration of health was often but the outward and accompanying sign of spiritual healing, or at least the type and pledge to others of a blessing not immediately experienced. And in the case of all who shall be ultimately saved, the lower sense of this expression will be certainly included in the higher, not by an arbitrary constitution, but by a natural and rational necessity. "The inhabitant shall not say, I am sick, (because) the people that dwell therein shall be forgiven their iniquity." (Isaiah 33:24. See also Rev. 21:3, 4.)

13. Now is not an adverb of time, but a continuative particle (δέ), which might as well be rendered and or but. (See above, on v. 4.) It is remarkable that, although the effect of this discourse is here distinctly stated, as in the case of Peter's Pentecostal sermon (2:37), the effect itself was altogether different. We read here of no compunction or alarm, no inquiry what they must do, and therefore no additional instructions as to that point. The only impression here described is that of wonder and perplexity. Looking at these two cases by themselves, we might be led to the conclusion, that the Gospel prevailed only in the humbler classes, and that the rulers were beyond its reach. Such a distinction seems in fact to have been made by the leading enemies of Christ themselves. "Have any of the rulers (ἀρχόντων) or of the Pharisees believed on him? As for this rabble (ὄχλος), who know not the law, they are accursed" (John 7:48, 49.) But this proud boast, if not false when originally uttered, was afterwards falsified by the event. It would even seem that this relation of the rulers and the rabble was reversed; for we read in the same Gospel (12:37, 42), that "although he had done so many miracles before them, they (the ὄχλος of v. 34) believed not in him … nevertheless even of the rulers (καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων) many believed on him, but because of the Pharisees did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue." Of this class some, we know, did afterwards confess him, such as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea (John 19:38, 39), and the same was probably the case with others. Whether these were present on the occasion now before us, we have no means of determining. It is most probable that thay were not, since no dissent or opposition is recorded, as in John 7:50, 51; but even if they were, being already converts, they had no cause for compunction, and the rest remained insensible, not because they were Pharisees or rulers, but because they were abandoned to themselves, by that mysterious but not unjust discrimination, which may still be traced in the dissimilar effects produced by the same truth, from the lips of the same preachers, upon different companies or individuals. The verb translated saw, though not the same with that in 1:11, has much of the same force, denoting not mere sight but contemplation, the act of viewing as a spectacle or show. The idea is, not simply that they saw the boldness of the two Apostles, but that they surveyed it for some time before they could account for it. One of the latest writers on this passage understands it as ascribing their wonder to the boldness of these men who had so lately left their master and been scattered (Matt. 26:56; Mark 14:50.) But this puts too confined a sense upon the word (παῤῥησίαν) translated boldness, which signifies not merely, nor according to its derivation mainly, bravery or courage, but freedom and readiness of speech, as opposed to hesitation and reserve, no less than to timidity or cowardice. See above, on 2:29, and below, on vs. 29, 31; 28:31. With respect to the joint mention of the two Apostles, as concurring in the words and deeds recorded, see above, on 3:4, 11. There is, however, a distinction in the Greek, which is entirely lost upon the English reader. Not only is the name of John postponed to that of Peter, but also to the noun which governs it. The nearest English imitation would be, seeing Peter's boldness and John's. Perceived, or more exactly, apprehending, the latin etymology of which corresponds to that of the expression here used (καταλαβόμενοι), i. e. forming a conception of something not known or correctly understood before. Some understand it to mean having learned (or ascertained) by information from others; but it rather signifies perceiving, apprehending, from their own observation of the prisoners' appearance, language, and deportment. Unlearned, or, adhering more closely to the form of the original (ἀγράμματοι), illiterate, unlettered. It does not necessarily imply gross ignorance, or inability to read, since the Greek root (γράμματα) means something more than letters in the lower sense of alphabetical characters, namely, letters in the higher sense of learning, literature, education. Among the Jews it had particular reference to scriptural or sacred learning, as the only kind much cultivated by them, so that the adjective here used is virtually the negative or opposite of the noun (γραμματεύς) translated scribe (see above, on v. 5), and means without scholastic or rabbinical training. Ignorant seems simply an equivalent expression, but the Greek word (ἰδιῶται) has a different derivation and a marked significancy of its own. Its primary sense is that of private persons, as opposed to kings by Homer, to rulers by Herodotus, to military officers by Xenophon, and to the state or body politic by Thucydides. A secondary sense is that of one without official or professional knowledge, in which sense Thucydides opposes it to the physician, and Plato to the poet and musician. This approaches very nearly to the wider use of our word layman, which is perfectly consistent with its derivation (from λαός, people), its specific opposition to the clergy (κλῆρος, see above, on 1:17) being merely conventional and matter of usage. Accordingly the oldest English versions, made directly from the Greek, translate the phrase, unlearned men and lay people (Tyndale), unlearned and lay men (Cranmer.) The same is probably the sense of Wiclif's version, unlettered and lewd men, the bad moral sense of lewd belonging to a later usage. By a further change the Greek word (ἰδιώτης) came to have the general sense of ignorant, uneducated. If this wide meaning be preferred here, the two epithets are nearly synonymous, as in the Geneva version, unlearned men and without knowledge. (Compare 2 Cor. 11:6, where ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγω is translated rude in speech, the very phrase which Shakspeare puts into the mouth of his Othello, "Rude am I in speech, etc.") From the sense of ignorant arises, by a natural association, that of imbecile or foolish, which belongs however only to the modern derivative form (idiot or ideot), and not at all to the original Greek usage; so that Matthew Henry undesignedly misleads the English reader when he says, "they were idiots (so the word signifies); they looked upon them with as much contempt as if they had been mere naturals, and expected no more from them, which made them wonder to see what freedom they took." This is a gross exaggeration of the feeling here imputed to the rulers, and one founded solely on the version; for "so the word signifies" only in the modern tongues. Even the milder and better authenticated sense of ignorant is not entitled to the preference in this case, on account of the tautology which it produces, and because, according to a recognized hermeneutical principle, the presumption is always in favour of the primary or strict sense, in the absence of specific reasons for departing from it. The best sense, therefore, of the whole descriptive phrase is that of uneducated men and private individuals or laymen, with an implication of obscurity and want of experience as public speakers. (The Rhemish version has unlettered men and of the vulgar sort.) Marvelled, wondered, were astonished and unable to account for what they saw. (See above, on 2:7, where the same verb is used, both in Greek and English.) Took knowledge of is an unusual expression, here employed to represent a Greek verb (ἐπεγίνωσκον), which, though sometimes only an intensive, meaning to know fully (Luke 1:4; 1 Cor. 14:37; 2 Pet. 2:21), or to receive information (Luke 7:37; 23:7), is also used in the New Testament (e. g. Matt. 14:35; 17:12; Mark 6:33, 54; Luke 24:16, 31), as well as by the best Greek writers, in the specific sense of recognizing, knowing again, a thing or person known before. (See above, on 3:10.) The choice lies here between this sense and that of learning, ascertaining, from others; but as no such source of information is referred to in the text or context, the former meaning seems entitled to the preference, 'They recognized them as men whom they had seen with Jesus.' There is no improbability in this, since rulers are particularly mentioned in some cases as attending on our Lord's instructions. (See Matt. 21:23; Luke 18:18; John 12:42.) It is not, however, necessary to restrict the recognition here described to recollection of their persons. It is equally natural, and may be more so, to explain it of an inference drawn from the matter or the manner of their preaching, as sufficient to show that they had kept the company of Jesus. The pluperfect form, they had been, is substantially correct, though not an exact copy of the Greek, which strictly means, they were, i. e. they were (once) with Jesus as companions, or were (still) with Jesus as disciples or adherents; most probably the former, the idea of discipleship or partisan attachment being rather implied than expressed, both here and in Mark 14:6. There still remains a question of some moment with respect to the connection of the clauses. Some understand this last clause as a part of what they wondered at, or as their reason for considering them ignorant unlearned men. 'They marvelled at their readiness of speech, recognizing them as former associates of Jesus, and therefore of course ignorant and common men.' But this construction is at variance with the natural consecution of the sentence, which first describes the Sanhedrim as struck with the Apostles' freedom of speech, then as noting or observing their illiterate and low condition, and finally as recognizing or recalling their connection with Jesus. The only natural interpretation of this last particular is that which understands it, not as a reason for their wonder but a remedy, the means by which they finally accounted for what seemed to them at first so unaccountable. While the form and manner of the men's discourse betrayed their want of education, and especially of rabbinical training, its substance and its spirit seemed to indicate a higher source, and this could be found only in their intercourse with Jesus, whose extraordinary wisdom and authority in teaching could not be disputed, even by his enemies. (See Matt. 7:29; 22:16; Mark 1:22; 12:14, 32; John 7:15, 46.) The peculiar copulative (τε), which some would render, they both marvelled and took knowledge (see above, on 1:1, 13), is compatible with both constructions, and cannot therefore help us to decide between them.

14. This verse describes the embarrassing position of the Sanhedrim, produced not merely by the eloquence or reasoning of the Apostles, but by the miracle, which served as a divine attestation to the truth of their pretensions and their doctrines. This they would gladly have denied or called in question; but how could they, with the man himself before their eyes, perhaps brought thither by themselves as a prisoner or a witness? (See above, on v. 10.) The man which was healed, in Greek, the healed (man.) The word standing seems to be emphatic. It was not his simply being with them, in their company, that silenced these grave rulers, but his standing there, erect like other men, a sight which every moment must recall to mind the miracle just wrought. A beautiful parallel has been cited from the Gospel History (Mark 5:15), where the same stress may be laid upon the act of sitting, i. e. sitting in an orderly and decent manner, or sitting at all, instead of roving and raving, as a proof that the maniac had been suddenly restored to reason. Could say nothing against (it) is a free translation, in which the last word, although not so distinguished in the English Bible, is supplied, in order to complete the construction, but without a grammatical antecedent. The literal version is, they had nothing to reply, or still more closely, to say back, in the way of contradiction or denial. That the verb to have ever means to be able, is a common but precarious assertion, insufficiently supported by such passages as Matt. 18:25, where the strict sense is properly retained in our translation, and Mark 14:8, where the exact sense is, what she had she did, meaning no doubt what she had at her command or in her power; but this ellipsis does not change the meaning of the verb itself. The other verb is common in the classics, although rare in the New Testament. The only other instance of its use is in a promise of our Lord, which may be said to have received its first fulfilment in the case before us. "Settle it therefore in your hearts (i. e. when delivered into synagogues and prisons, and brought before kings and rulers for his name's sake) not to meditate before what ye shall say in your defence (ἀπολογηθῆναι); for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay (ἀντειπεῖν) or withstand." (Luke 21:14, 15.)

15. Unwilling to commit themselves by rash concessions in the presence of the prisoners, they first confer among themselves, respecting what they are to say and do. But, and, or so then. (See above, on v. 13.) When they had commanded is a periphrastic version of the participle, having commanded. To go aside, or more exactly, to withdraw or go away (ἀπελθεῖν). The exclusion of the prisoners was not an act of violence, or even of contempt, but like that of ambassadors from the Greek assemblies after they had spoken, a custom often mentioned by Thucydides, and not without its counterparts in modern usage, as for instance in the practice of courts martial and the trial of impeachments. Conferred or as the Greek word threw (or laid) together, i. e. compared opinions on a given subject. Among themselves, literally, to each other.

16. We have here, not the very words of any individual, but the sum and substance of what all said. (See above, on 2:7.) The question has been idly raised, how Luke became acquainted with these secret consultations. To the obvious answer, that he wrote by inspiration, it has been objected, not without some truth, that inspiration was intended to supply the deficiencies of knowledge otherwise obtained, but not gratuitously to replace it. What was known, however, from other sources, if incorporated in a revelation by divine command, has all the authority of an original divine suggestion. There is no need therefore of attempting to discriminate between these elements of revelation. If Luke had human sources of intelligence, he doubtless drew upon them, by divine permission or command; but if he had not, this is so far from impairing the credit of his narrative, that on the contrary, it adds to it, by making the divine authentication of his statements more exclusive and direct. To the unbeliever in his inspiration, it may be a question of some interest and moment, whether he was personally present upon this occasion, or received his information, viva voce or in writing, from converted priests or rulers who were members of the Council. But to those whose judgments are convinced and satisfied by overwhelming evidence, that this whole history is more than a mere human composition, these inquiries must be matters of comparative indifference, because neither needing nor admitting of a certain answer. The form of the question in the first clause is precisely similar to that in 2:37, that is according to the common text, for several of the oldest manuscripts, instead of shall we do (ποιήσομεν,) read may or can we do (ποιήσωμεν), both here and in 2:37 above. Indeed, not in fact, in truth, or really (see below, on v. 27), but simply the continuative particle (μέν), usually answering to but (δέ), and really without an equivalent in, our idiom. (See above, on 1:3, where it is translated truly.) Notable is not a happy version, either here or in 2:20, where it answers to a Greek word altogether different in form and meaning. The expression here used (and explained above, on v. 10) strictly means well known, familiar, and implies unquestionable certainty; a miracle known to have been wrought, and therefore undeniable. The other adjective means nearly the same thing, namely, manifest or evident, but instead of being applied to the miracle itself, is applied to the fact of its occurrence, as something visible and clear to all Jerusalem. The word here put for miracle is that which strictly means a sign or proof of something else. (See above, 2:19, 22.) This is therefore a concession, not only of the fact, but of its logical consequences and results. This nice distinction is observed in the Rhemish version (a notorious sign.) Them that dwell in literally, those inhabiting. (See above, on 2:5.) Can is not a mere auxiliary, but an independent verb, we are not able. It is again supplied, as in v. 14, but its antecedent is in this case obvious, to wit, sign (or miracle) immediately preceding.

17. This verse records the poor expedient, to which they were reduced in their perplexity. The words are still those of the Sanhedrim in private consultation. The word translated but is not the copulative particle (δέ) so rendered in v. 15, but the proper adversative (ἀλλά), corresponding to the previous concession. 'Though the miracle is perfectly notorious, and it were folly to deny it, yet let us do what we can to hinder its effect.' Spread no further, (literally, more, or to a greater degree) is commonly explained, as in the Vulgate (ne divulgetur), of the miracle, 'that it may be no further known or heard of.' To this, though perhaps the obvious construction, there are grave objections. In the first place, what could they have gained by the suppression, in the country or the provinces, of what was already known to "all inhabiting Jerusalem?" If it be true that Paris is France, how much more true was it that Jerusalem was Jewry, as being not merely its political centre, but the seat of the theocracy, the chosen and exclusive sphere of the ceremonial law, in which alone its most important rites could be performed, and from which, as the heart of the whole system, vital influences not only did but were intended to go forth to the extremities. If the fact in question was notorious in Jerusalem, to foreign no less than to native residents, it mattered little whether it spread further in Judea and Samaria and Galilee or not. But even if it had been never so desirable to check the spread of this report, how could it be accomplished? And especially, how could it be accomplished by the means here proposed, i. e. by threats and prohibitions, not to state this fact, but to speak in this name, i. e. to preach Christ? The entire irrelevance and insufficiency of this expedient to prevent all further knowledge of the miracle, evinces that the end which they proposed to gain was something else; and as the end may be determined by the means, it seems to follow that, unless they were bereft of reason, their forbidding them to speak in Christ's name was intended, not to stop the news of what had lately happened, but to stop the progress of the new religion. The grammatical objection to this explanation, that the nearest antecedent is not doctrine but miracle, is very feeble, as the tacit change of subject in successive sentences is one of the most natural and common licenses in any language, and particularly frequent in the Scriptures. An example is afforded by this very context, vs. 10, 11, where a rigid application of the rule contended for would make the corner-stone to be not Christ but the recovered cripple! The force of this objection may be further weakened by observing that the miracle is called a sign, i. e. a proof or attestation of the truth of the new doctrine. There is therefore scarcely even a grammatical irregularity in making the new doctrine itself the subject of the verse before us. As a positive argument in favour of this view, it may be stated that the primitive form (νέμω) of the Greek verb (διανεμηθῇ) rendered spread, was familiarly applied to the eating of a cancer or malignant sore, and that Paul uses the derivative noun (νομήν) as a figure for doctrinal and moral corruption (2 Tim. 2:17.) What could be more natural than such a figure, as applied to the new doctrine by its virulent opposers? This explanation agrees well too with the phrase among the people, or more accurately, into the people; 'lest it eat into the body of the church or chosen people, as a gangrenous ulcer.' Straitly threaten, literally, threaten with a threatening, which is often represented as a peculiar Hebrew idiom, although examples may be found in every language. Some of the oldest manuscripts and latest editors omit the noun; but Luke employs a similar combination elsewhere (Luke 22:15.) The double negative in Greek (no more to speak to no man) does not cancel the negation as in Latin, but enforces it. Threaten them that they speak (or more exactly, to speak) is a pregnant phrase meaning to forbid with threats, as the means employed to make the prohibition effectual. In this name is not the phrase so rendered in v. 10, and in 3:6 above, and meaning by the authority, or as the representative, but that employed in 2:38 above, and strictly meaning either for or on the name, i. e. for its sake, or in reliance on it. Some suppose the omission of the name itself to be either superstitious or contemptuous; but see the next verse.

18. We have here the execution of the plan proposed in the preceding verse. It is remarkable how frequently the participial construction is resolved by our translators into finite tenses, as if foreign from our idiom, although to modern ears there is nothing offensive in the literal translation, having called them they commanded. (The second them is omitted by the latest critics, as not found in the oldest manuscripts and versions.) Commanded, peremptorily required or ordered. (See above, on 1:4, where the same verb is employed, and below, on 5:34.) At all, in the translation, seems to qualify the first verb only, but in Greek it stands before both negatives, and therefore qualifies both verbs. The Greek phrase (τὸ καθόλου) properly means wholly, altogether (corresponding to the Latin omnino), but in negative constructions must be rendered not at all, by no means, or, with the older English versions, on no manner (Wiclif), in no wise (Tyndale). The distinction made by some between speak and teach as denoting private talk and public speech respectively, is not consistent with the usage of the first Greek verb (φθέγγεσθαι), which, although not so strong as its compound (ἀποφθέγγεσθαι) used above in 2:4, 14, still denotes the act of speaking out or speaking loud, and is therefore more appropriate to public than to private talk. The true distinction is that, while both verbs here refer to public speaking, the first relates more to the sound or utterance, the second to the matter uttered or the subject of discourse. The common version therefore, with a slight transposition, is correct, not at all to speak or teach. In the name is precisely the same phrase as in the verse preceding. The addition of the name itself refutes the notion that it was suppressed through fear or in contempt, unless we arbitrarily suppose it to be added here by the historian, or assume a difference between what they proposed to say and what they did say.

19. The same remarkable conjunction of the two Apostles, which has run through the entire previous narrative, here occurs again, perhaps because the words recorded are a summary of what both said at greater length, although this is by no means a necessary supposition. (See above, on 3:1, 4, 11; 4:1, 13.) Answered is never wholly pleonastic (see above, on 3:12), and has here its full force, as the words that follow are a direct reply to the command recorded in the verse preceding. The same remark applies to if (εἰ) or whether. (See above, on v. 9.) As right (Wiclif, rightful) by itself might have been understood to mean only lawful, in a lower sense, i. e. allowed by human laws, they add before (or in the sight of) God, i. e. in his estimation, or according to his judgment, which is the meaning of the Greek phrase elsewhere. (See below, on 8:21, and compare Luke 1:6; Rom. 3:20.) Hear or hearken never of itself means to obey, but that idea is often necessarily implied, as in 3:22, 23 above, Luke 10:16; 16:31; John 5:24; 8:47, and in the dialect of common life, where men are said to hear or not to hear advice or instruction, by a natural figure, without any reference to Hebrew usage. The word, however, suggests more than obedience, namely, attention and intelligence, as necessary antecedents. More is by some translated rather, on the ground that more implies mere difference of degree, whereas the question was not which should be obeyed the most, but which should be obeyed at all. The parallel cited in support of this correction (Luke 18:14) is not entirely in point; for there, from the nature of the case, the denial of the Pharisees' justification must be absolute; whereas the Apostles cannot mean to say that men are not bound to obey human magistrates at all, but merely put the question, whether they are bound to give those magistrates the preference, when their authority conflicts with God's. Another difference, of no small moment, is that in the Gospel, the word (μᾶλλον) here translated more does not occur at all, but merely the conjunction (ἤ) than, or according to the oldest text, its strengthened form (ἢ γάρ), leaving the term of comparison itself to be supplied from the connection. There is no objection, therefore, to the version more, even considered as expressing a mere difference of degree, although it may, agreeably to English usage, have precisely the same sense that is proposed to be expressed by rather. The concluding words, judge ye, admit of two interpretations somewhat different, in emphasis and force, if not in their essential import. One meaning, and perhaps the one most commonly attached to them, is, 'you may judge for us; we are willing, in a case so clear, to abide by your decision.' The other, and to my mind the most striking and impressive, is, 'you may judge for yourselves, and take the consequences of your own decision; but as for us, we cannot but speak, etc.' (See below, upon the next verse.) The noble principle implied, if not expressed, in these words, was not wholly unknown, even to the more enlightened heathen. Parallels, more or less exact, have been cited from Herodotus and Livy; but by far the nearest and most striking is one found in Plato's Defence of Socrates, where the philosopher is made to say, "You, oh Athenians, I embrace and love, but I will obey God (μᾶλλον) more (or rather) than you."

20. This verse must be read in the closest connection with the one before it, on account of the antithesis between the first and second person, indicated by the pronoun we, which in Greek is not necessary, as it is in English, to distinguish the person of the verb, and therefore when inserted is most commonly emphatic. (See above, on v. 10.) This affords another argument in favour of the explanation just proposed of the words judge ye. 'You may judge for yourselves; we have already judged for ourselves.' The meaning then is, not that the Apostles ask the council to judge for them, what they ought to do, but quite the contrary. In v. 19, they express their indifference to the judgment of the rulers; in v. 20, their own settled resolution. The true connection may be made clear by a paraphrase. 'Whether God would approve our listening to your commands in preference to his, you may determine for yourselves; but whatever your determination may be, our course is clear, WE cannot but, etc.' This last is an idiomatic English version of a Greek phrase strictly meaning, we are not able not to speak. The first verb is the same as in the last clause of v. 16. Cannot but is not yet obsolete in English, but is often erroneously replaced by the correlative expression, can but, which is altogether different in meaning. In the present case, we can but speak would mean 'we can only speak, we can do no more than speak,' whereas we cannot but speak means 'we must speak, we cannot avoid speaking.' An additional argument in favour of the view which has been taken of v. 19, may be drawn from the remarkable analogy of Josh. 24:15, where the very same antithesis occurs, but unambiguously stated. "Choose you this day whom ye will serve … but I, and my house, we will serve the Lord." (See below, on 6:4.) The things, though wanting in the Greek, is not distinguished by italics in the English Bible, no doubt because it was considered as essential to the translation of the plural pronoun (ἅ) which or what. The things meant are of course the works and words of Jesus, of which they were the witnesses, appointed by himself (see above, on 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15), a trust which would have been betrayed if they had ceased, as required by the council, "to speak or teach in the name of Jesus." The verbs are aorists and properly refer to time already past, what (things) we saw and heard, while Jesus was on earth, and we were his companions. There is some loss of emphasis, though not of clearness, in the English version, from the necessary change of collocation in accordance with our idiom. The original order of the sentence is, not able are we, what (things) we saw and heard, not to speak.

21. The construction in the first clause is similar to that at the beginning of 1:6; 2:41, except that one continuative particle (δέ) is substituted for another (μὲν οὖν). There is here, however, no such ambiguity as in those cases, since the subject of the sentence must be the magistrates, to whom the answer in the two foregoing verses was addressed. Here again the participial construction is avoided in the English version, although perfectly agreeable to modern usage and retained in the next clause. A more exact translation would be, they then (or they however) having further threatened them. Further, or more, or in addition, is expressed in Greek, not by an adverb, but by a compound verb, in which the particle prefixed (πρός, to) joins to the meaning of the verb itself the idea of addition or repetition. The power thus to modify the radical idea of a word, without the addition of another, is one of the chief excellencies of the Greek language, and enhances the difficulty of exact translation into English, which possesses the same power in a far inferior degree. Examples of the same thing may be found in Luke 10:35, where the words thou spendest more correspond to a single word in Greek, compounded with the same preposition; and in Luke 19:16, where the verb translated gained is of the same form and means gained besides or in addition to the capital. Further threatened, i. e. in addition to the threats proposed in v. 17, and no doubt actually joined to the commands in v. 18, though not particularly mentioned. Let them go, released them, or discharged them, no doubt by a formal and judicial act, whereas the English version rather suggests the idea of informally allowing their escape. (See above, on 3:13, where the same Greek verb is used in reference to Christ and Pilate.) The use of the verb finding is like that in Luke 5:19, implying, in both cases, previous search and effort. Some would supply fault or charge from Luke 23:14, but that introduces an idea not necessarily suggested here, where not finding rather signifies discovering no means or way of doing what they wished. Another singular Greek idiom, entirely foreign from our own, and therefore not apparent in the version, is the use of the article to qualify a whole clause or member of a sentence, where to us it seems entirely superfluous, and indeed would, without explanation, convey no idea to an English reader. Thus in the verse before us, the exact form of the middle clause is, not finding the how-they-might-punish-them, the last five words (corresponding to three Greek ones) being treated as a noun, with which the article agrees, and which the participle governs. The nearest approach, of which our idiom admits, is by the use of a demonstrative, not finding this (namely) how they might punish them. This peculiar form of speech is particularly frequent in Luke's writings (see below, on 22:30, and compare the Greek of Luke 1:62; 9:46; 22:4, 23, 37), but is also used by Mark (9:23) and Paul (Rom. 8:26; 13:9.) The reserve here mentioned did not spring from any equity or moderation in the rulers, but was practised on account (or because) of the people. These words, from their position, both in Greek and English, might appear to qualify the verb immediately preceding; but as this construction would destroy the sense (how they might punish them because of the people), it is another illustration of the fact that there are exceptions to all rules, and that a most important function of sound exegesis is to ascertain them, without unduly multiplying or reducing the amount of such grammatical irregularities, if such they may be called. (See above, on v. 5.) The common sense of every reader leads him here to overleap the nearest antecedents, and connect this qualifying clause with one of the remoter verbs, 'they let them go (not finding, etc.) on account of the people'—or, 'not finding (how, etc.) on account of the people.' The fact in either case remains the same, that they were hindered from punishing the two Apostles, by the state of public feeling, which must therefore have been clear and unambiguous. How did they know it? Because all were glorifying God for what had happened. The use of the imperfect, not regarded in the English versions, adds to the essential meaning the accessory notion of continued action. They not only did so when they saw the miracle, but now, upon the next day, they were still employed in the same manner, while the Sanhedrim was sitting, and most probably within hearing of the praises of the multitude. The word translated glorified is sometimes used in that sense by the best Greek writers, but most commonly in that of thinking or opining, being of opinion. Both these senses, although seemingly remote, may be reduced to the same radical idea (δόξα, an opinion), in its two distinct phases, that of the opinion entertained by a person upon any subject, and that of the opinion entertained of him by others, more especially when this is highly favourable, and thus the same word which denotes opinion may be used to denote fame or glory. Tyndale has lauded, Cranmer praised, and Wiclif clarified, a curious example of the gradual restriction to material processes of words which once expressed intellectual and spiritual acts; unless the supposition be preferred, that the Reformer simply copied too closely the mere letter of his Vulgate (clarificabant), thus committing the same error which he shunned in 3:2, while the other English copyist of Jerome (the Rhemish version), which was there betrayed into the solecism of a specious gate, has here the same form with King James's Bible, glorified. (For the meaning of the preposition for (ἐπί), see above, on 3:16; 4:17.) That which was done, or more exactly, for the (thing) happened, come to pass, or, as the Rhemish version has it, chanced. This refers of course to the miracle of healing, which had given occasion to the whole proceeding. We learn from this verse, that the opposition of the rulers to the infant church had not yet extended to the body of the people. (See below, on 5:13.)

22. The length of time during which he had been crippled is not mentioned to enhance the miracle itself, as if a case of shorter standing might have been more easily restored, but to show the notoriety, both of his previous condition and of the sudden change which had been wrought, precluding all possibility of error or deception, and accounting for the popular effect described in the preceding verse. 'All were still glorifying God for such a signal and unquestionable miracle, in which there could be no suspicion of illusion or collusion, as the subject of the cure had been born a cripple and was now more than forty years of age.' Above forty years old, literally, of more (than) forty years. On whom is the version of a Greek phrase implying motion and rest over and upon an object (see above, on 1:21), and suggesting therefore the idea of an influence or power from above, and at the same time of a permanent effect. This miracle of healing, Vulg. signum istud sanitatis. Tyndale's inexact translation of the last verb (shewed) is retained in our Bible. The Greek verb is one that has repeatedly occurred before (e. g. in vs. 4, 5, 11, 16, 21) and means had happened, come to pass, or been performed. Wiclif still adheres closely to the letter of the Vulgate, the man in whom that sign of health was made. The peculiar form of the original is, on whom had come (or come to pass) the sign—this (sign) of healing.

23. And in this verse, now in v. 13, but in v. 15, and so in v. 21, are all translations of the same Greek particle (δέ); nor is there any reason for the variation but the taste of the translator. In the next phrase (being let go) the participial construction is retained in our version, although Tyndale has the usual periphrasis, as soon as they were let go. (For the meaning of the Greek verb, see above, on v. 5.) Went, or came, the Greek verb being used for both in different connections. (See above, on 1:21.) There is nothing answering to company in Greek, nor is it necessary, either to complete the sense, or to accommodate the English idiom, as may be seen from John 1:11; 13:1, in which two places the translation has his own three times, without supplying any thing, while in Acts 24:23, it is translated his acquaintance. The meaning here is their own people, friends, or as the oldest English versions have it, fellows. The Vulgate (suos) is much nearer to the Greek than its Rhemish copy (theirs.) The neuter (τὰ ἴδια) is used to signify one's home. (See below, on 21:6, and compare John 16:32; 19:27.) Both forms are combined in that remarkable sentence, "he came unto his own (τὰ ἴδια) and his own (οἱ ἴδιοι) received him not" (John 1:11.) As the language is designedly indefinite, it is wholly arbitrary to restrict it by conjecture. All that we can gather from the context is, that a particular assembly must be meant, and not a general visitation of the dispersed Christians. Reported (i. e. carried back) is an excellent translation of the Greek verb (ἀπήγγειλαν), which, though it may originally mean no more than to announce, is scarcely ever used in the New Testament, without some implication, more or less distinct, of previous intercourse between the parties. (See below, on 5:22; 22:26, and compare Matt. 2:8; 8:33; 11:4; 28:8, 10; Luke 7:22; 14:21, and many other places, where this special sense is not admitted by the lexicons, though no less natural than in the others.) Instead of elders and scribes, put for the whole Sanhedrim in v. 5, we have here chief priests and elders. As the first of these titles (ἀρχιερεῖς), though always rendered in the English version chief priests, is the plural of the one translated high priest in v. 6, and elsewhere (see below, 5:17, 21, 24, 27; 7:1; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2, 4, 5; 24:1; 25:2), it becomes a question who are meant by high priests in the plural number. The principal opinions are, that it denotes the near relations of the High Priest (see above, on v. 6); or the heads of the twenty-four courses into which the priesthood was divided by David (1 Chron. 24:1–19; Luke 1:5); or the natural elders and hereditary chiefs of the house of Aaron; or priests appointed over certain parts of the temple service; or finally several of these combined. As all these explanations are conjectural, and none of them entirely accounts for the extension to these priests of a title properly belonging to the one High Priest; it may be worthy of consideration, whether this usage, at least in the book before us, may not have arisen from the strange confusion in the high priesthood which has been described above (on v. 6); so that chief priests really means high priests, i. e. all such as had been high priests de facto under the Roman domination, however small their number may have been at this time, since the two who are expressly mentioned (Annas and Caiaphas, see above, on v. 6) are sufficient to explain and justify the plural form. The question is of less importance here, because the phrase high priests is evidently joined with scribes, to designate the Sanhedrim, by naming two of its component classes, whether few or many. What the two Apostles now reported to their brethren was not so much the violence which they had suffered as the words of their oppressors. The Greek word (ὅσα) rendered all that is applied in the classics both to magnitude (how great) and to number (how many); but according to the lexicons, the latter sense predominates in the Greek of the New Testament. Our version uses great and somewhat arbitrary license in translating it which (John 21:25), what (Mark 6:30), whatsoever (Luke 4:23), all that (Acts 14:27), all things that (15:4), how many things (2 Tim. 1:18), how great things (Mark 5:19, 20), what great things (Mark 3:8.) If it ever has the more emphatic meaning, a specific reason must be given for diluting it, and no such reason can be given here. The best sense seems to be how great things, as expressed by Wiclif, and referring to the threatenings of v. 17. (See below, on v. 29.)

24. The effect of their threatenings, as reported by the two Apostles, was to call forth so remarkable a prayer from the assembled brethren, that it has been left on record, in its substance, if not at full length. (For the meaning of the phrase with one accord, see above, on 1:14; 2:1, 46.) Lifted up their voice, or prayed aloud, not merely in their hearts, but with their lips and tongues. But how could all do this at once, and in the same words? This question has been variously answered. Some suppose a special inspiration, prompting the same thoughts and words in all who were assembled. There is nothing incredible in this to those who admit the possibility of inspiration. But the case supposed is certainly so rare, that we are not bound to assume it, if the words admit of any other explanation, without violence either to the text or context. Some accordingly suppose that this was a liturgical form, already introduced into the infant Church, and used on this occasion as peculiarly appropriate to the existing juncture or emergency. It is worthy of remark that this very singular opinion has found more favour, at least recently, with German than with Anglican interpreters. To the obvious objection, that the prayer is here recorded as a sudden outburst of devout emotion and desire, provoked by what the worshippers had just been told, it is replied, that there is nothing in the prayer exclusively relating to its proximate occasion, or forbidding its repeated use in other like emergencies. Another objection, not so easily disposed of, is that this hypothesis assumes the existence of a certain practice in the infant Church, not only without definite authority from Scripture, but in opposition to its whole drift and tenor. For whatever use ingenious theorists may make of insulated terms or passages, a thousand unsophisticated readers might peruse the whole New Testament, without once thinking of a form of prayer, any more than of a rosary or a crucifix. Besides, if Christian forms of prayer had been already introduced—and no one will contend that this was borrowed from the Jews—how does it happen that we have but this one specimen preserved to us? Whereas its preservation becomes altogether natural when we regard it, not as the recital of a form, however earnest and devout, but as the fruit of sudden and spontaneous impulse, growing out of the history, and therefore forming just as much a part of it as Peter's Pentecostal sermon, or his answer to the arrogant injunction of the Sanhedrim, recorded in this chapter. The only other argument that need be urged against this paradoxical interpretation, is that according to the warmest friends and most accredited historians of Liturgies in our day, they were not forms concocted and prescribed at once, but gradual collections and notations of such prayers as had first been orally repeated until they became the natural expression of religious feeling to the multitudes who used them, and were finally reduced to writing, not as something new but something old, not as a cause but an effect of devotion in the Church, developed and matured by the experience of generations, or perhaps of ages. If this be the true genesis of liturgies, on which some of their highest claims to admiration are now founded, there is something ludicrous in the idea of a peculiar Christian liturgy so early introduced and established at Jerusalem, that the disciples, upon this unexpected and remarkable occasion, could express their strongest feelings and desires in a form already known to all of them. At all events, it may be safely said, that neither the hypothesis of a special revelation, nor that of a familiar written form, is so self-evidently true as to preclude all possibility or need of a more natural interpretation. Two still remain to be considered, one of which appears to have commanded the assent of most interpreters in all times and churches. This is the simple supposition, that they are all said to have lifted up their voices with one accord, because they all united in the prayer of one, just as we now speak of a whole congregation praying, when a single voice is audible, whether the prayers be written or unwritten. This expression becomes still more natural if we assume that the whole company gave audible assent to the expressions of their spokesman, which we know to have been the ancient practice, both of the Jewish and the Christian Church. (See Deut. 27:15–26; 1 Chron. 16:36; Ps. 106:48; 1 Cor. 14:16.) The remaining explanation is, that all did actually pray aloud, and each one for himself, and that Luke here gives, not the exact words of any one among them, but the substance of the spirit of the prayers of all, clothed in expressions of his own, or rather in words taught by the Holy Ghost (λόγοις διδακτοῖς πνεύματος, 1 Cor. 2:13). The advantage of this explanation is, that it enables us to take the words, they lifted up their voice with one accord, in their most natural and proper sense. The advantage of the other is, that it enables us to look upon the words here recorded as those actually uttered. Both are in strict accordance with the usage of this book, as the eleven are said to have prayed (1:24) when every thing in the connection would lead us to regard the words as those of Peter; and in another case, where this is also the most probable assumption, both his words and actions are ascribed equally to John (compare vs. 18 and 13 of this chapter, and see above, on 3:4, 11.) On the other hand, there are repeated instances, in the foregoing context, where the words ascribed to a plurality of persons seem to be a summary or abstract of what all said in another form and at greater length (compare v. 16 of this chapter, and see above, on 2:7–12.) Each of these two hypotheses will probably commend itself to some minds as entitled to the preference, while most unbiassed readers will agree that both are more entitled to belief, than either of the two first mentioned, as requiring less to be assumed, and offering less violence to usage and analogy, but at the same time meeting all the requisitions of the narrative. The form of the prayer itself is worthy of particular attention. The petition occupies the smallest part (vs. 29, 30), being added, as a sort of supplement or afterthought, to the invocation of the Most High as Creator of the Universe (v. 24), and to an exposition of the second Psalm as a prophecy or Christ (vs. 2–28), the large space occupied by which makes it still more improbable, that this was a prescribed form of devotion in the infant Church. The address to God in this verse has a peculiarity of form not visible in the translation. The word here rendered Lord is not the common one (Κύριε, 1:6, 24), but the Greek term for a master as distinguished from his slaves, and is repeatedly so used in the New Testament (1 Tim. 6:1, 2; Tit. 2:9; 1 Pet. 2:18.) In its wider application by the classical writers, it denotes any one possessed of absolute authority or power; hence our English despot, with its odious associations. In a good sense, Euripides and Xenophon apply it to the gods; and this religious use has been retained in several passages of the New Testament, where the full force of the original expression is not felt in the translation (e. g. Luke 2:29; Jude 4; Rev. 6:10.) Paul and Peter both apply the term to Christ (2 Tim. 2:21; 2 Pet. 2:1.) In the case before us, it has reference to God's creative power, and his sovereign authority over his creatures thence arising, as appears from the remainder of the verse. The word God is omitted in the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions. The word art is supplied in our translation, although not distinguished by italics. Most interpreters omit it and regard this verse, not as a complete proposition, but as a description of the being here addressed. Oh Lord, who didst make (or according to the common text, the God who made) heaven and earth and sea, with their contents, here put for the whole frame of nature or material universe. Here again the Greek verb has a participial form, and strictly means the (one) making or having made. The article should either have been inserted or omitted before all the nouns. The inequality, in this respect, belongs entirely to the version; in the Greek the words all have the article, though our idiom does not require it. This address to God as the Creator, and by necessary consequence the providential ruler of the world, prepares the way for another description in the next verse.

25. This is the eighth prophecy expounded in this book (see above, on v. 11), a sufficient commentary on the notion that it is a desultory series of anecdotes or reminiscences. Servant is the word translated son in 3:13 above. As there explained, it really expresses both relations, but with different degrees of emphasis. When applied to Christ, the prominent idea is that of son; when applied to David, that of servant. (See below, on v. 5.) The Vulgate here has pueri, but its English copyists have not ventured to write boy. Wiclif indeed has a different reading, also found in some Greek manuscripts, our father David. The quotation is from the second Psalm (vs. 1, 2), which is explicitly declared to be the inspired work of David and a prophecy of Christ. The first of these descriptions is confirmed by the relation of the psalm to those which follow, and which are all acknowledged to be David's, as well as by the internal structure of the psalm itself. The imagery of the scene presented is evidently borrowed from the warlike and eventful times of David. He cannot, however, be himself the subject of the composition, on account of the universal dominion there ascribed to the king, and the general revolt of subject nations, the solemn declaration of his filial relation to Jehovah, and the absence of any thing answering to the whole description in the history of David, or of any other earthly sovereign. These considerations exclude David, even as the primary or inferior subject of the psalm, a complex and unnatural assumption here, which can only embarrass the interpretation. Even those writers, who give to other prophetic psalms a more generic meaning (see above, on 2:25), are disposed to regard this as an exclusive Messianic prophecy. As such it was explained by the oldest Jewish interpreters, and as such it is repeatedly applied in the New Testament; the seventh verse by Paul (13:33; Heb. 1:5); the ninth by John (Rev. 2:26, 27; 12:5; 19:15.) Who hast said, literally, the (one) saying (or having said), corresponding to the similar construction in v. 24, and giving an additional description of the being here addressed, as the God of revelation no less than of nature, as the God who made the world and who inspired the prophets. This passage was correctly used by Irenæus and Theophylact, against those Gnostics who denied that the Supreme God was the author of the Scriptures or the maker of the universe. The Septuagint version, which is closely adhered to, is peculiarly expressive in the verse before us. The Greek word here translated rage originally signifies the neighing and snorting of a spirited horse, but is figuratively used for any noisy or obtrusive indication of self-confidence. The other verb properly denotes solicitous and anxious forethought (Mark 13:11; 1 Tim. 4:15.) The most expressive, although not the most exact, of the English versions here is Wiclif's, heathen men gnashed with teeth together. Two of the most familiar names applied by the Jews of that time to the great deliverer whom they expected, are derived from this psalm, namely, Christ (or Messiah) and Son of God. (See John 1:49; Matt. 26:63; Mark 14:61.)

26. The quotation from the second psalm is still continued. Stood up, or as Wiclif more exactly renders it, stood nigh. The Greek verb, which occurs above in v. 10, like the Hebrew one to which it corresponds, does not of itself denote hostility, but simply the act of appearing in one's presence, or approaching him, for any purpose. The idea of enmity and opposition is suggested by the context, and particularly by the preposition twice used in the last clause. Gathered together, implying coincidence of time, place, and purpose. (See above, on 1:15; 2:1, 44; 3:1.) The Hebrew verb originally means to sit together, but with special reference to taking counsel. The Lord and his Christ, is, in the Hebrew, Jehovah and his Messiah. Christ (Χριστός), from the verb (χρίω) to anoint, is used in the classics only as an adjective, and only of the substance so applied. Its higher sense and personal application are peculiar to the Hellenistic Greek. The Septuagint constantly employs it to translate (מָשִׁיחַ) the Hebrew for Anointed. Messiah and Christ are therefore Hebrew and Greek equivalents, and are so explained in the New Testament itself (John 1:42; 4:25.)

27. This verse justifies the application of the prophecy to Jesus, by showing the agreement of the circumstances. For is therefore to be taken in its strict sense as a logical connective. 'This is really a prophecy of him, for, etc.' Of a truth, not merely doubtless, as the Geneva Bible has it, but in fact, literally, really, as opposed to a mere verbal correspondence or a fanciful accommodation. The Greek phrase is used four times besides by Luke and twice by Mark. It is once translated truly (Luke 20:21), once in truth (Mark 12:32), and once the truth (Mark 12:14), but in all the other cases of a truth (10:34; Luke 4:25; 22:59.) In this part of the sentence, several of the oldest manuscripts and versions, followed in quotation by some early Fathers, introduce the words, in this city (or, according to the Codex Alexandrinus, in this thy city), which is accordingly adopted as the true text by the latest editors. It is supposed to correspond to the words, upon my holy hill of Zion, in the second psalm. Against is not the same preposition that is twice used in the foregoing verse, but that employed in v. 22 and 1:21, denoting motion over and upon an object. Its true equivalent is on, as in our phrase to make an attack or assault on one. Holy, as here applied to Christ, denotes not only character but office, not only his exemption from all moral taint, but his peculiar consecration to the work which his Father gave him to do (John 10:36; 17:4, 18, 19. See above, on 3:14, 21.) Child is the word translated son in 3:13, and servant in v. 25 above, where its twofold usage is explained. Hast anointed, didst anoint, i. e. when he was sent into the world. This denotes not merely consecration in general, but special preparation for his work by the influences of the Holy Spirit, of which unction is a symbol in the Old Testament. (See above, on 1:2, 5; 2:30, 31, 36, 38; 3:6, 18, 20; 4:10, and compare Isai. 61:1; Luke 18:21.) There is also an allusion to the use of the word Christ in the preceding verse. As if he had said, 'whom thou didst consecrate by unction to the office of a Prophet, Priest, and King, and who is therefore the Anointed One foretold in this and other ancient scriptures.' Both Herod and Pontius Pilate, not only one or separately, but both together by a remarkable conjunction, making the fulfilment still more striking. With the Gentiles, or with nations, as the article is not expressed in Greek, although the sense of Gentiles is required by the obvious antithesis with peoples. This plural, which has never obtained currency in English, although used by Lowth and other writers of authority, is not so necessary here as in a multitude of other cases, where the idea of plurality is an essential one, and yet unsuspected by the English reader. So impossible did such a plural seem to our translators, that at least in one case, they avoid it by a circumlocution, which is not only awkward but conveys a wrong idea. (See Gen. 25:23, where the words two manner of people are a mere periphrasis for two peoples, the Hebrew phrase being similar in form to that preceding it, two nations.) The plural form is not so necessary here, because it seems to have been chosen merely as a parallel to nations, while it really agrees in sense with the usual expression people, as applied to Israel (see above, on 2:47; 3:9, 11, 12, 23; 4:1, 2, 8, 10, 17, 21); whereas in v. 25, it denotes the Gentiles, or perhaps all nations, comprehending both. Another explanation of the plural form here is, that it denotes the tribes of Israel, which composed the nation, and are sometimes used to designate it, even when there is no reference to any separate or local action of the tribes as such. (Compare Ps. 105:37; 122:4; Isai. 49:6; 63:17, and see below, on 26:7.) The main idea here is, that the prophecy had been fulfilled in its widest sense, for the nations had combined against the Christ, both Jews and Gentiles. Some suppose Herod to be mentioned as belonging to the latter, on account of his Idumean lineage and irreligious character. It seems more natural, however, to regard him as the representative of Israel, at least in this affair, as Pilate represents the Roman Empire or the Gentiles. The idea is at least as old as Chrysostom, that in the Greek verb (συνήχθησαν), which was also used in v. 26, and literally means they were brought together, there is an allusion to the ominous reconciliation of these two men, at the time, if not by means, of their concurrence in the unjust condemnation of our Saviour (Luke 23:12.) The Herod meant is Herod Antipas, a younger son of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:1; Luke 1:5), who became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea on his father's death, and is often mentioned in the Gospels, especially in the history of John the Baptist, whom he put to death. (See Matt. 14:1–12; Mark 6:14–29; Luke 3:1–19; 9:7–9; 13:31; 23:7–15.) His elder brother Archelaus having been removed from the ethnarchy of Judea (Matt. 2:22), it was annexed to the great Roman province of Syria, the governors of which ruled it for some years by their deputies (procuratores.) Of these procurators Pontius Pilatus was the sixth, on whose recall it was attached to the kingdom of Herod Agrippa (see below, on 12:1), and after his death fell again into the hands of procurators, among whom were the Felix and the Festus of this history. (See below, on 23:24; 24:27.) It is somewhat curious that the first word in the Greek of this long verse (συνήχθησαν) stands last in the translation. For a similar but more important change of collocation, see above, on 1:21, 22. The Greek order is, "they were gathered of a truth (in this city) against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed—(namely) Herod, etc." Wiclif's antique version of the last clause is, Eroude and Pounce Pilat with heathen men, etc. He elsewhere calls the procurator Pilate of Pounce.

28. Here, as in 2:23 above, the guilt of those who put our Lord to death is brought into the closest juxtaposition with the divine purpose, which it was the means of carrying into execution; another proof of the compatibility, assumed rather than affirmed in scripture, between God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. For is not the logical connective (γάρ) used at the beginning of v. 27, but a pleonastic sign of the infinitive, still sometimes heard in English as a colloquial or provincial idiom, and retained in French (pour faire) as a correct and elegant expression. So much less do some distinctions between good and bad grammar depend upon any law of mind or language, than on accidental usage and association. The Greek verb (ποιῆσαι) is dependent, not on anointed, which, although preferred by some, is an impossible construction, on account of the intervening words, but upon assembled or brought together, which, although still more remote in the original, is separated from the verb to do only by its own nominatives and qualifying phrases. (For the true sense of the words translated counsel and determined, see above, on 2:23. For that of hand in such connections, see above, on 2:33, and below, on 11:21, and compare Luke 1:71, 74.)

29. The first phrase in Greek (καὶ τὰ νῦν) is an instance of as singular an idiom as that in v. 21 above, and like it consisting in a use of the neuter article, which cannot be retained or reproduced in English. Mechanically copied it would be, and the (things) now, which may be an elliptical expression meaning, 'and now (as to) the things which have been mentioned.' The addition of the article distinguishes this phrase from that in 3:17, where now is rather logical (these things being so) than temporal in meaning (at this time.) Precisely the same words that are here used occur also in 20:32; 27:22, below, and without the and in 17:30, in all which cases they contrast past time with the present or the future. So here, the disciples, after speaking of what had been said and done, in a kind of historical preamble, now present their petition or prayer in the strict sense of the term. It is worthy of note, that though they pray for personal protection, it is only as a means to the discharge of their official functions, and is really postponed to their petition for the moral gift of boldness and fidelity. Behold, or look upon (ἕπιδε or ἔφιδε), in the only other place where it occurs (Luke 1:25), implies a favourable look or visitation, which idea may, however, be suggested by the context. Or if it be inherent in the verb itself, it may be here referred, not to the threats or their authors, but to those against whom they were uttered. 'Look with favour on (the objects of) their threatenings.' It is much more natural, however, and affords a more emphatic sense, to give the verb its strict and simple meaning, and to understand the clause as signifying 'keep thine eye upon their threatenings,' that they may not be accomplished. The threatenings are those of vs. 17 and 21 above. Grant is in Greek the ordinary verb to give. Thy servants, literally slaves, the Greek word (δούλοις) being the correlative of lord or master (δέσποτα) in v. 24. The two together are descriptive of absolute authority on one hand and of absolute subjection on the other, but without implying either tyranny or slavish fear, for these are not essential but accessory ideas, superadded to the strict sense by the habitual abuse of power and submission to it. The word slave, therefore, can no more be used in actual translation here than despot in v. 24, or idiot in v. 13, though the reason is not perfectly the same in all three cases. It is indispensable, however, to the emphasis or full force of the passage, that we understand both lord and servants in the very strongest sense that can be called a good one, i. e. free from every implication of either oppression or of degradation. The infinitive construction in the last clause (with all boldness to speak thy word) is again exchanged for a subjunctive one (that with all boldness they may speak thy word), not without some loss, both of conciseness and of force, from the suggestion of contingency or mere possibility, rather than of certain and direct results. (For the true sense of boldness or freedom of speech, see above, on v. 13, and 2:29.) The meaning of all boldness may be either absolute, entire, perfect, the highest possible degree of boldness; or it may be relative, every kind and all degrees of boldness that can be required for the performance of our ministerial work. This work is itself described as the speaking of God's word, i. e. acting as an organ of communication between God and man, or more precisely, preaching Christ, and thereby making known the new religion. (See above, on v. 4.)

30. This verse defines the way in which they desire their petition to be granted. The boldness of the servants was to be secured by displaying the power of their master. To the figure of a hand, employed above in v. 28, is now added that of stretching it out, or exerting the power which the hand denotes. The nearest approach in English to the form of the original is, in stretching (or according to the common text, in thy stretching) out thy hand (Rhemish, in that thou stretch forth; Tyndale, so that thou stretch forth.) Their demand is not now for miracles of vengeance or destruction, such as fire from heaven (Luke 9:54), but for miracles of mercy. To heal, literally, for healing. (Compare sign or miracle of healing in v. 22, and for the sense of signs and wonders, see above, on 2:19, 22, 43.) The verb of the second clause (γίνεσθαι) depends on the verb give in v. 29. 'Grant miracles to take place, or to be performed.' The first clause merely qualifies or amplifies the previous petition, 'give us boldness by performing miracles of healing.' The addition of the words signs and wonders may appear to indicate some other kinds of miracles than those of healing; but as the clauses are co-ordinate and not successive, this is really another way of saying the same thing, or rather an express specification of the figurative terms preceding. 'stretch out thy hand for healing, i. e. enable us to work miracles of that kind.' By the name is not the phrase so rendered in v. 10, nor that translated in the name in v. 18, but still a third (διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος), strictly meaning through, by means of, his name (see above, on vs. 16, 25), and therefore really including both the others. Holy child Jesus has precisely the same meaning as in v. 27 above.

31. This verse contains the answer to the prayer immediately preceding, first in a momentary sensible manifestation of God's presence, then in the permanent moral effect which they had asked, secured by a new or greater spiritual influence. When they had prayed is in Greek a participial and absolute construction, they having prayed. The common version, though it does not reproduce this form, is more correct than Tyndale's, as soon as they had prayed, there being nothing to determine the precise length of the interval between the prayer and the response; and although they were probably immediately successive, it is not so said, and we have no right to insert it. The place where they were assembled (or brought together, the same verb as in vs. 26; 27), though as usual not further specified, was probably the house where they were sitting on the day of Pentecost (see above, on 2:2), of which scene this was a partial repetition, on a smaller scale and in a narrower circle, but with precisely the same spiritual and an analogous sensible effect. As there the sound of wind filled the house, so here the place itself was shaken. The sign here given of God's presence was familiar to the saints of the Old Testament (Ex. 19:18; Ps. 68:8), and it is not perhaps surprising that the same belief prevailed among the heathen, whether from tradition or a natural association. The example usually cited is a well known passage in the third book of the Æneid, which certainly does bear a remarkable resemblance to the words before us. The permanent effect, prefigured by this sign, and produced by the spiritual influence that followed, was that according to their own petition, they did speak the word of God with boldness, sustained internally by new illapses of the spirit, and externally by new miraculous performances, attesting the divine presence and protection (see above, on 2:43.) This triumphant issue of the first persecution, which the Church sustained, prepares the way for another description of its social state, or it may be more correct to say, for the resumption of the previous description (2:42–47), which was dropped or interrupted, to relate this first attack, and now that this is seen to have had no injurious effect upon the Church, is resumed and continued in the remainder of the chapter.

32. A characteristic feature of this history of the infant church is the repeated alternation of particular narratives and general descriptions, suggestive and illustrative of one another. The detailed account of what occurred upon a single day, the day of Pentecost, is followed by a picture of the condition of the church for an undefined period ensuing. (See above, on 2:42; 4:4.) This again is interrupted by the account of a particular occurrence, filling the whole of the third chapter and a large part of the fourth, but near the close of the latter, passing again into the form of a more general description, not relating to a single day or point of time, but to a period of some length, although not defined, being no doubt the whole time, whether long or short, during which the Church continued undivided and restricted to Jerusalem; a period the history of which is contained in the first seven chapters of the book before us. Due attention to this structure of the narrative would have saved the world many crude suggestions, as to the total want of plan and method in the Acts of the Apostles. We have here the second alternation of the kind just mentioned, the remainder of this chapter corresponding to the last six verses of the second. It is, in fact, the same description, interrupted and resumed, with some repetitions and some new additions. The earlier passage (2:42–47) is not to be considered as relating to an earlier period and the later (4:32–37) to a later; but both are synchronous or co-extensive as to time, including the whole history of the primitive or infant church, as it existed at Jerusalem. While the sameness of the two accounts is quite sufficient to sustain this view of their relation to each other, they are far from being mere reiterative duplicates, the passage now before us adding several new points, both of fact and of expression. The original form of the first clause is still more beautiful and striking. Of the multitude (or mass) of those believing (or believers) was the heart and the soul one. (For the meaning of τοῦ πλήθους, see above, on 2:6; for that of τῶν πιστευσάντων, on 4:4.) Strongly analogous to this is the Greek proverb (δύο φίλοι ψυχὴ μία) "two friends, one soul," and the definition of friendship ascribed to Aristotle by Diogenes Laertius (μία ψυχὴ δύο σώμασιν ἐνοικοῦσα), "one soul residing in two bodies." There could scarcely be a stronger expression of the unity prevailing in the infant church, and not confined to sentiment or language merely, but extending to the interchange of social advantages and legal rights. Neither said any of them is still stronger in the Greek, not one said, or still more exactly, was saying, used to say, the form of the verb denoting not a single but habitual action. Ought of the (things) which he possessed, or, any of the (things) belonging, (literally existing) to him. (See the same verb in 2:30; 3:2, 6.) The infinitive construction is, as usual, avoided in our version; the exact translation is, to be his own (ἴδιον, as in 1:7; 19:25; 2:6, 8; 3:12; 4:23), or as the Romans called it, his peculium, from which comes our adjective peculiar, properly descriptive of exclusive rights or property. But if all were required, or expected as a thing of course, to throw what they possessed into a common fund, what was there meritorious or remarkable in no man's calling what he had his own, i. e. no man's saying what every body would have known to be untrue? It is vain to urge that this is unfairly pressing the expression said; for if it means no more than that the case was so in fact, there is an end of argument from words or phrases. If it be said, that it relates to language, but to language used before the surrender of the property, and indicating the spirit by which it was prompted, there is still something strange in the expression, 'no one said that his possessions were his own,' when he was under the necessity (legal or moral) of abjuring them. This argument may seem to apply only to compulsory abandonment of property, and not to voluntary self-impoverishment or assimilation to the general condition. But if this voluntary act was universal and without exception, it is still, to say the least, a strange expression, that of all who thus renounced their property, not one said it was his own, either before or after he renounced it. It is not contended that the language is unmeaning, or even unintelligible, but only that it is unnatural, and not what might have been expected, in describing a complete and universal abjuration of all individual property by these believers. 'Not one spoke of any of the things belonging to him as his own.' How much simpler to have said, 'no one retained them, or continued to make use of them.' But on the other hand, how apt and how expressive is this language on the supposition that, while every man who had possessions still retained them, he was so inspired, not with mere philanthropy or pity, but with a sense of Christian oneness, that he did not speak of his possessions as his own, but as belonging to the church at large. It may be laid down as a law of sound interpretation, that where one view of a passage makes its terms unmeaning, and another gives them a peculiar emphasis and point, then, other things being equal, i. e. both being grammatical and philologically unexceptionable, the last is necessarily entitled to the preference. The conclusion thus reached helps us to another in relation to the last clause, which is repeated from 2:44, with the unimportant change (not regarded in our version) of a Greek idiom (they had all things common) into a Hebrew one (all things were common to them.) (See above, on 3:6.) If these expressions may, without violence, be used to describe either an absolute community of goods arising from the personal renunciation of all property, or a virtual community of goods arising from the practice of the most disinterested and self-sacrificing Christian love; and if the terms immediately preceding are, as we have seen, far more appropriate and significant upon the latter supposition; then we need resort to none of the hypotheses already stated (see above, on 2:44), to account for a literal or absolute community of goods, which really had no existence. Both these conclusions have been drawn from these two passages exclusively, without regard to the corroborative evidence supposed to be contained in other places, yet to be considered. (See below, on vs. 34–37, and on 5:4; 12:12.)

33. Such was the social and spiritual state of the church, both before and after the first onset from without, which seems to have had no effect upon it, but for good. In the mean time the Apostles did not suffer any thing to divert their minds from their great official function, that of testifying to Christ's resurrection, which, for reasons before given, may be understood as comprehending the whole work of preaching Christ and making known the new religion. (See above, on 1:22; 2:32; 3:15; 4:2.) This they did with great power, not merely force of argument or eloquence, but in the exercise of that extraordinary spiritual power, with which they were invested for this very purpose, and by which they were enabled, both to testify of Christ, and to confirm their testimony by the evidence of signs or miracles. (See above, on 2:43.) All this may be considered as included in the great power here ascribed to the Apostles. The verb translated gave often means to give back, pay or repay (e.g. Matt. 21:41; 22:21; Mark 12:17; Luke 20:25; Rom. 13:7, in which places it is translated render); and this, though given in some lexicons as a secondary sense to that of giving out or away, appears to be the primary and proper one in Attic and Homeric usage. Here, however, the idea seems to be that of giving forth or uttering, with or without an implication of freeness and completeness. As our version sometimes introduces the article without necessity (see above, on 1:7, 14; 4:9), so here (as in 1:13, and elsewhere) it omits it. There is force, if no additional idea, in the definite expression, the testimony of the resurrection, i. e. not a mere spontaneous attestation which they volunteered upon their own authority, but that formal and official testimony, which they had been chosen and commissioned to present. The English word witness, which was once equivocal, is now used chiefly of the person testifying, the sense of testimony being confined, perhaps exclusively, to one phrase, that of bearing witness. The Lord Jesus, as in 1:21, the only other case where we have met with it in this book, is a pregnant combination of the Saviour's personal designation with that descriptive title, which exhibits him not only as the mediatorial sovereign (see above, on 2:36), but as the Jehovah of the old economy and Hebrew scriptures. (See above, on 2:21.) To the great power of the first clause corresponds the great grace of the second. This word, which means favour in the general, though commonly applied to that of God, and therefore properly translated grace, is also used to denote human favour or good-will, as in the only place where we have previously met with it, to wit, in the parallel description to the one before us. (See above, on 2:47.) This might seem decisive here in favour of that sense, or rather application, of the word; but it is better still to comprehend them both, as perfectly compatible and perfectly appropriate. The old cry against a double sense, besides its emptiness in general, may here be met by an appeal to Luke's expressions elsewhere, "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour (χάριτι) with God and man" (Luke 2:52.) If the same word may be thus used expressly to denote both kinds of grace or favour, why may it not be used elliptically, i. e. by itself, to suggest the same ideas? Had Luke, in that place, left the word to explain itself, it might have been as plausibly asserted as in this place, that it could not be intended to denote the favour both of God and man; and yet we now know from his own authority that this assertion would have been a false one. Upon them is the right translation, not in them Wiclif) or with them (Tyndale), but upon them, as descending from above, in reference to the grace of God, which may be regarded as the primary though not the only meaning. For reasons, which have been already given (see above, on 2:1), all does not mean all the Apostles, which would be a most superfluous specification, but all the believers, whom they represented, who are the subject of the verse preceding, and to whom the writer now returns in the verse following. It is not unworthy of remark, that the retention of the Greek collocation in the English version of this sentence, to a greater extent than usual, not only makes the copy more exact and faithful, but by a slight inversion common in our older writers, improves its beauty to the eye and ear.

34. The sentence is completed in the next verse. There is certainly some harshness and irregularity in this abrupt return to the community of goods, which seemed to have been finally disposed of, in the verse preceding. But the fault is that of the translation, which omits the very word indicative of the connection. Neither was there should have been for neither was there, or still better, for there was not, as the particle (οὔδε) can here have no effect but that of simply negativing the idea of the verb that follows. The omitted for (γάρ) shows that this is the reason or the explanation of something that precedes, not necessarily the nearest antecedent (see above, on v, 21), although that must always be entitled to the preference, where other things are equal. The only choice in this case lies between v. 32 and v. 33. If the former be preferred, the latter must be read as a parenthesis. 'They had all things common (and with great power the Apostles, etc.) for there was no one, etc.' To this construction there are two objections. In the first place, it leaves wholly unexplained the introduction of the facts recorded in v. 33, which is then not only parenthetical in form, but foreign from the context and an awkward interruption of the sentence. In the next place, the logical connection between vs. 32 and 34 is only apparent and not real; for how could it be said that they had all things common because (or for) there was no one destitute among them, unless we arbitrarily give for the sense of so that, and confound cause and effect by a preposterous inversion. It is vain to say that this and other particles are often used with great latitude; for besides the gross exaggeration of the general fact alleged, it cannot justify the preference of the lax use to the strict one, when the latter may be held fast, and a better sense obtained, by a different construction. Such a construction is the other above mentioned, which supposes for to introduce the reason of the statement immediately preceding: 'great grace was upon them, for (or because) there was no one destitute among them.' Besides the two advantages of giving for its proper sense and getting rid of the parenthesis, the sense evolved by this construction is a good one. They enjoyed both divine and human favour, the one as the cause, and the other as the consequence, of their extraordinary freedom from distress. The favour of God was evinced by there being no distress among them, and the same thing gave them popularity and credit, as a people freed from poverty and all its evils through the favour of their God, not by enriching them, but by disposing every one among them to regard what he possessed as the property of others also, and to deal with it accordingly. The verb translated was is not the common verb to be, but one originally meaning to begin, and then to come into existence, but most frequently employed without any perceptible allusion to this origin, as in 2:30; 3:2; 3:6, above. If any such allusion should be here assumed, the meaning might be, that no one after this became poor, which, however, is at variance with the known facts of the history. (See below, on 11:29; 24:17, and compare Rom. 15:26.) Any that lacked, literally any poor or destitute (person.) The Greek adjective which occurs only here in the New Testament, properly means wanting or deficient in any thing, but is absolutely used to signify without the means of subsistence or the necessaries of life, by Xenophon and in the Septuagint version of Deut. 15:4, 7. The condition here described is not one of affluence or wealth, but one of freedom from distress and want. The second for is unambiguous, and evidently indicates the ground or cause of this surprising absence both of poverty and riches. (Compare Prov. 30:8.) It was because those who had lands or houses sold them and distributed to those who had not. Lands, literally, places, grounds, the same noun that is translated field in 1:18, above. As many as (ὅσοι) is the masculine form of the word translated all that in v. 23. It does not necessarily mean all, as that word is occasionally added to strengthen it (see above, 3:22, 24, and below, 5:36, 37); but neither is the idea of totality excluded, as appears from its use in 2:39; 4:6, 23. In this respect, it approaches very nearly to our English such as, which may be applied to all or less than all, according to the context. Even the absolute term all (πάντες) must be restricted in the parallel passage (2:44, 45), or we are brought to the conclusion, that all who believed sold their goods and distributed to all. But if all had property to sell, the sale itself was nugatory and superfluous, unless the object had been simply to put all upon a level by a common sustentation fund; and this idea is excluded by the words, as each had need, implying something more than inequality, to wit, the existence in some cases of actual necessity. In the case, however, more immediately before us, no restriction is required, as the adjective has reference not to all believers (as in 2:44), but to all proprietors of lands or houses. Thus the parallel passages explain each other. Perhaps the best translation here would be, for as many owners of lands or houses as there were, or as existed in the infant church. We thus retain, not only the original arrangement, which is always an advantage, unless purchased at the cost of something more important, but a certain shade of difference between the two verbs of existence, not unlike that between our expressions were and there were. Sold them and brought is another departure from the Greek participial construction, selling brought. The word translated price commonly means honour (e.g. John 4:44; Rom. 2:7; 1 Pet. 1:7, and throughout the writings of John, Paul, and Peter), but in this book always cost or value (see below, on 5:2, 3; 7:16; 19:19) with the single exception of 28:10, which is disputed. Both senses are reducible to one radical idea, that of worth; whether that of persons, as acknowledged by respectful words and actions, doing honour to the object; or that of things, as estimated and expressed in price or value. The latter sense is here determined by the qualifying genitive, of the (things) sold, another participial construction and another resolution of it in our version, of the things that, were sold.

35. The sentence is continued from the verse preceding. It was the owners or proprietors there mentioned who performed this act. Laid them down is in Greek simply placed (or put) them. At the feet (i. e. by or near the feet) is as close an approximation to the Greek as our idiom permits. The Vulgate version (ante pedes), copied of course by Wiclif and the Rhemish (before the feet), is not a mere capricious variation, but a classical expression of the same idea. Thus Cicero (for Flaccus) speaks of a certain weight or sum of gold as having been paid "before the feet of the prætor in the forum" (ante pedes prœtoris in foro expensum.) That feet are here put for the person, the Apostles' feet for the Apostles themselves, is a sample of the same kind of interpretation which makes names mean persons likewise, and affirms began and answered to be always pleonastic. (See above, on 1:1, 15; 2:4; 3:12.) The examples cited in the present case prove nothing, namely, 5:9 and Rom. 10:15, in both which cases the feet are mentioned, not for the whole body, but as organs or instruments of locomotion. Some have inferred from 7:58, that the idea meant to be conveyed is that of a deposit for safe-keeping; but there is surely an important difference between laying clothes at a man's feet and laying money there. That it is not a mere figure, but expresses what was actually done, may be inferred from the repetition of the words in the next verse and in 5:2 below. In the absence of explicit information and analogy or usage, we may lawfully resort to natural association, for the probable design of this proceeding. Viewed in this light, it would seem to imply, first, the presence and the presidence of the Apostles in the meetings of believers; next, their great superiority in rank and authority to all the others, even though invested with high office; then, the fact that these pecuniary gifts had a religious character, or were regarded as oblations, votive offerings; and last, not least, that this whole work of relieving the necessitous, although sustained by private contribution, was considered not a personal affair, but a public or ecclesiastical proceeding, and was therefore metaphorically placed at the Apostles' feet, i. e. implicitly subjected to the apostolical control and management, just as the proceeds of the sales were literally placed there, not for convenience or safe-keeping merely, for the hand would then have served a better purpose, but as a sort of emblematical acknowledgment of what has now been stated as the natural import of the act itself. The last and most important of these implications, namely, that the distribution of the sums contributed was regulated, not by the contributors but the Apostles, may be gathered, partly, from the order of this sentence, in which the statement of the fact in question is immediately followed by the act of distribution; and partly from the narrative contained in the sixth chapter, where the whole proceeding presupposes such authority in the Apostles. (See below, on 6:1.) The rule or principle of distribution is the same precisely as in 2:45. The only difference of form is in the use of the words all and each or every one. The word man, which to some may seem exclusive, as it is in 1:21 and elsewhere (see above, on v. 4), corresponds to nothing in the Greek, but is the pleonastic noun or pronoun, so profusely used by our translators. (See above, on 2:45.) Another seeming difference, but confined to the translation, is the change of as (2:45) into according as. The latter is the more exact translation of the Greek phrase, which is identical in both the places. Both in its simple and augmented form (καθότι and καθότι ἄν), it is peculiar to Luke's writings. (Compare Luke 1:7; 19:9, and according to the latest critics, 17:31 below, where the common text has διότι.) Etymologically, as compounded of a preposition and a pronoun, it means after or according to what, while the addition of the particle (ἄν) imparts to it a doubtful or contingent character, like ever in the English word wherever, i. e. 'be it where it may.' So here, the rule of distribution is the need of the recipient, be it what it may, implying both contingency and inequality in different cases.

36. The sentence is completed in the following verse. We have here exemplified again that feature in the structure of this history, described above (on v. 32) as a frequent alternation of particular narrative and general description. Having fully described the spirit of self-sacrifice and mutual benevolence pervading the whole body of believers at this period, Luke illustrates this description by the statement of two cases, one of a favourable and the other of an opposite description. The first, being simply intended to illustrate, by an eminent example, what had just been said of the whole church, is briefly stated in a single sentence (vs. 36, 37.) The other, being introduced, not merely for the sake of the antithesis or contrast, but as introductory to further changes, is described more fully, but thrown, in the conventional division of the text, into another chapter (5:1–11.) The first or favourable case is that of Joses or, according to the reading of the oldest manuscripts and versions, Joseph, of which some regard the first form as a familiar Jewish variation. He is further distinguished, not by an ordinary surname, but by one derived from the Apostles (according to the latest critics, ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποστόλων), which seems clearly to imply that the name given had respect to some official gill or quality. The Hebrew or Aramaic etymology of Barnabas has never yet been satisfactorily ascertained. The form most commonly assumed (בַּר־נָבוּאָה) denotes a son of prophecy or inspiration; and as one important function of the New Testament Prophets (or inspired teachers) was persuasive exhortation, as a means of enforcing doctrinal instruction (see above, on 2:40), it is not improbable that in the author's Greek translation of the name, the last word (παρακλήσεως) has its primary sense of exhortation (or persuasion, 13:15; 15:31; Rom. 12:8; 1 Cor. 14:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; 1 Tim. 4:13; Heb. 12:5; 13:22), rather than its secondary sense of consolation (9:31; Luke 2:25; Rom. 15:5; 2 Cor. 1:3, 6, 7; 7:4, 7, 13; Phil. 2:1; 2 Thess. 2:16; Philem. 7; Heb. 6:18.) It will then describe him as a zealous and successful preacher or exhorter, which agrees well with his character and conduct as described in 11:23, 24. The natural import of the words is, that he had already been thus surnamed when he made his gift; but all that they necessarily imply is that he was so distinguished before this history was written. (See above, on v. 4.) He is still further described as a Levite, or as paraphrased by Wiclif, of the lineage of Levi. As some Levites formed a part of the Diaspora, or general dispersion of the Jews among the nations, after the Babylonish conquest, and even after the return from exile, Barnabas is furthermore distinguished as a Cyprian by birth or by descent (γένει), which is better paraphrased in Tyndale's version (a Cyprian born) than in King James's (of the country of Cyprus.) That this is the same Barnabas, who acts so conspicuous a part in the sequel of this history (see below, on 9:27, and compare 1 Cor. 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Col. 4:10), has probably never been disputed. As to his connection with Cyprus, see below, on 13:4; 15:39. As to the identity of Barnabas and Barsabas, see above, on 1:23, and below, on 15:22.

37. The sentence is continued and completed from v. 36. It represents a single individual as doing what was said in v. 34 to have been done by all proprietors of lands and houses. Having land, literally, a field being (or belonging) to him. The word translated land is different from that in v. 34 and 1:18, and is the common Greek term for a field. Some have thought this statement inconsistent with the law (Num. 18:20–24; Josh. 18:7), excluding the Levites from a share in the land of Canaan. To this it has been variously answered, that he may have abandoned it for that very reason; that the law did not extend to Cyprus, where the land may have been situated; that it did not extend to individuals, but only to the tribe as such, which is inferred from Jer. 32:9. It may be added that the tribe itself was excluded only from a continuous and compact portion of the promised land, but not from holding cities and their suburbs and adjacent pastures for their flocks and herds. (See Numb. 35:1–5; Josh. 21:1–42.) For prices (v. 34) we here have money, (χρῆμα), elsewhere written in the plural number (Matt. 10:23, 24; Luke 18:24; Acts 8:18, 20; 24:26), although the same use of the singular is found in Herodotus and other classics. The word for selling is also different from that before used, though substantially synonymous. If the distinction made by lexicographers be just, to wit, that the verb employed in v. 34 originally signified traffic beyond seas, it might seem more appropriate to this case, especially on the supposition that the land sold lay in Cyprus. But why was this case singled out and placed on record, while so many others were passed by in silence? Some have answered, as the first case of the kind that happened; others, as the case of one so highly honoured and so eminently useful. As if he had said, 'among the many who thus showed their benevolence and zeal, was one, with whose name you have long been familiar, or are yet to meet repeatedly in this same history.' Now both these explanations—and there seems to be no other worthy of attention—presuppose that there was something remarkable in what is here ascribed to Barnabas. But if all were required to abandon their possessions, or if all did in point of fact abandon them, wherein lay the distinction of this single case, or what mattered it who did first what all did as a matter of course afterwards? To say that this case set the fashion or example, is not only a gratuitous assertion, but supplies by mere conjecture what would no doubt have been clearly and emphatically stated, as the most important part of the transaction. The only satisfactory solution is the one already given (see above, on v. 34), to wit, that these were voluntary acts of genuine benevolence, among which that of Barnabas, though not more meritorious than others, was more interesting to Luke's readers, for one of the two reasons which have been suggested, either as the first in time, or far more probably, because of his subsequent celebrity. This then may be reckoned as a further proof, that the community of goods, described above, was not a social regulation or an article of primitive church polity, but the natural and necessary acting out of the principle of oneness, or identity of interest among the members of Christ's body, arising from their joint relation to himself; a principle expressly taught in scripture and received by all believers, and though far less operative than it should be, no less capable, when nurtured and developed, of producing such fruit now, than in the first church at Jerusalem, where every thing external helped to foster and mature it.

CHAPTER 5

THIS conventional division of the text contains the first recorded case of hypocritical profession in the infant church (1–4), with the severe but necessary means used to prevent its repetition (5–11), and the consequent increase of true conversions, and of popular respect and faith in the miraculous gifts of the Apostles, leading to innumerable cures (12–16), but also to a new attack upon the church (17–32), which seemed about to end in the death of the Apostles, when prevented by the interposition and advice of a distinguished Pharisee (33–39), in consequence of which they were subjected to a minor though disgraceful punishment, but joyfully continued to assert, both in public and in private, the Messiahship of Jesus (40–42.)

1. To the eminent example of self-sacrificing charity, exhibited by Barnabas (4:36, 37), the history now adds, by way of contrast, one of a very different description, yet springing from the same peculiar state of things, and showing the abuses to which it might afford occasion, by converting into a mere form or fashion, what was at first, and continued still to be in most, the spontaneous impulse of a genuine affection. Such perversions are continually taking place wherever there are zealous and extensive efforts to do good in any way. The real charity and zeal of some are copied outwardly by others, not always with deliberate hypocrisy, but often from a superficial short-lived sympathy. From this, as well as other evils since prevailing, the primitive church, even under the control of the Apostles, was not wholly free; and her experience is here left on record "for our learning" (Rom. 15:4), and "for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor. 10:11.) The excessive regard paid to the division of the chapters, although often infelicitous and injudicious, hides from many readers the most intimate connection between this narrative and the conclusion of the fourth chapter; an effect not wholly counteracted by the melancholy but (as Matthew Henry calls it) which stands at the beginning of this verse, and which, in Greek, is nothing more than the continuative particle (δέ) so constantly employed throughout this history. The antithesis is indicated not so much by this as by the whole connection when continuously read. A certain man is an idiomatic English phrase, often applied to cases where there is no certainty at all, and simply meaning somebody or some man (Lat. quidam.) Here, where the noun man is expressed, the indefinite pronoun (τίς) merely intimates, that he was otherwise or previously unknown to the reader. Named, literally, by name. Ananias is the Greek form corresponding, in the Septuagint version, both to Hananiah (Dan. 1:6) and Ananiah (Neh. 3:23), which are more unlike in Hebrew than in English letters. Both were auspicious names, one denoting the favour, and the other the protection, of Jehovah (see above, on 4:6) which accounts for the repeated occurrence of the Greek form, even in this history, as the name of different persons. (See below, on 9:10; 23:2.) The other name, which is variously written in the manuscripts (Sappheira, Sapphira, Saphphira, Saphphura), is commonly identified with the Hebrew and Greek words for a sapphire (Ex. 24:10; Rev. 21:19), but by some with an Aramaic adjective denoting fair or beautiful (Dan. 4:9, 18; in the English Bible, 4:12, 21). In either case, the names (as Bengel hints) were too good for their owners. With here implies what is expressed in the next verse, not mere joint action, but preconcert and conspiracy. It really means, therefore, in the closest and most intimate conjunction with her. Possession, although afterwards defined (see v. 3), is correctly rendered here as an indefinite expression, the plural of which occurs above (2:45.) The specification is needlessly anticipated here by the Vulgate (agrum) and its Rhemish copyist (a piece of land.) The verb in this clause, and the act which it expresses, are the same as in the case of Barnabas, and other "owners of lands or houses," mentioned at the close of the last chapter (4:34, 37.)

2. The sentence is continued from the first verse. Kept back, literally, set apart, appropriated, but with special reference, in classical usage, to embezzlement or peculation. The old Greek lexicographers (Hesychius and Suidas) define it by a compound verb (ἰδιοποιέω) meaning to make one's own, not in a good sense, but in that of stealing (κλέπτω) or embezzling. The only other instance of its use in the New Testament, besides the next verse, is in Titus 2:10, where it is translated purloining, and relates to the dishonest practices of slaves or servants. The whole phrase might be here expressed in English, he abstracted from the price, without supplying part, which is implied but not expressed in the original. (Wiclif defrauded of Whitby, defalked from) The word for price is the same that was explained above, on 4:34. His wife, or less respectfully, the woman, as the pronoun is suppressed. (See above, on 1:14.) Being privy, literally, being conscious or aware, or, as the Greek verb primarily signifies, knowing (the same thing) with him. (See below, on 12:12; 14:6, and compare 1 Cor. 4:4, where the sense of consciousness, or conscience, is determined by the pronoun, by or to myself.) In the rest of the verse, the terms used in 4:34, 35, are studiously repeated, as if to show how perfectly the cases were alike in mere external form and circumstances. To the eye of uninspired man, Ananias did precisely what was done by Barnabas and many others. The essential difference between the cases is expressed by the addition of the words, a certain part, another instance of the English idiom which occurs at the beginning of v. 1. The Greek phrase (μέρος τι) might be more exactly rendered, some part, suggesting, although not directly expressing, the idea of a small part, which is also implied in the whole context, as the reservation of the larger share seems to assign a more adequate motive for reserving any. This explanation of the phrase gives a peculiar aggravation to the sin of Ananias and Sapphira, and to that extent assists us in explaining the severity with which they were punished.

3. Peter again acts as the representative and spokesman of the twelve, whose presence, however, is implied in the plural form (apostles) at the end of the preceding verse. (But, as in v. 1.) Satan is a Hebrew word, meaning an adversary or opponent, whether in war (1 Kings 5:4) or litigation (Ps. 109:6), often applied to human enemies, but in one place to an angel (Num. 22:22), and with the article (2 Sam. 24:1), or as a proper name without it (1 Chron. 21:1), to the Evil Spirit, or the Prince of fallen angels, as the adversary and accuser of mankind (Job. 1:7; 2:2; Zech. 3:1, 2. Compare Rev. 12:9, 10.) In this sense and application, it is nearly equivalent to the Greek Διάβολος (Rev. 12:9; 20:2) and Latin Diabolus, meaning slanderer, informer, false accuser, to which the English Devil may be easily traced back, through the intermediate forms of the French (Diable) and Italian (Diavolo). As the same being is the tempter of our race from the beginning (2 Cor. 11:3), the name Satan sometimes has that special meaning (Matt. 4:10; 16:23; Mark 8:33), and is so used here. But while the sin of Ananias is referred to this Satanic influence, the question (why?) represents it as a voluntary act, thus as it were making both agents jointly responsible. Filled thy heart is not so strong an expression as the one applied to Judas (John 13:27), although the influence described may be the same. This influence is never represented as coercive, but as persuasive and resistible (James 4:7.) To fill the heart, however, must mean something more than to suggest or to encourage. Taking heart in the generic sense of mind or soul (see above, on 2:37), the idea seems to be that of occupying or engrossing the whole man with some particular desire or purpose. To lie, or as the Greek verb with the accusative is used by the purest Attic writers, to deceive, which is the marginal translation in our Bible. The verb is the same as in the next verse, but the syntax different. The verb itself does not mean to belie, as some would here explain it (i. e. to belie the Holy Spirit, either in himself by false profession, or in the Apostles by questioning their inspiration), but to cheat by lying. Some refer the act to Ananias, some to Satan, a difference of little exegetical importance, on account of their inseparable union in responsibility and guilt. There is no need of giving to the verb a merely tentative meaning (sought or attempted to deceive), as it does not here express the actual result, but the desire or purpose, with which Satan filled the heart of Ananias. The intimate grammatical connection of the two verbs shows that one is a specification of the other, or that the way in which he sought to deceive the Holy Ghost, was by keeping back, etc. This last verb (explained above, on v. 2), with the same preposition (ἀπό), occurs in the Septuagint version of Josh. 7:1, in reference to the sin of Achan, between which and that of Ananias some of the older writers have discovered even too great a resemblance. The generic term possession (in v. 1) is now defined or specified as land, literally, place (see above, on 1:18; 4:34.) Tyndale uses here the old word lyvelod, which seems to be identical with livelihood, i. e. subsistence, or the source from which it is derived, namely, property or income.

4. Whiles is an antiquated form of while or whilst. There is nothing corresponding to it here in Greek. The literal translation of the clause is, remaining did it not remain to thee? (Wiclif, whether it unsold was not thine?) So in the next clause, being sold (or having been sold) was it not? etc. This shows conclusively, that no compulsory abandonment of property, or absolute community of goods, existed in the primitive church. (See above, on 2:44, 45; 4:32.) The sentence, it is true, is interrogative, not affirmative (see above, on 2:7); but the form of interrogation (with οὐχί) is one used when an affirmative answer is expected. (See Matt. 20:13; Luke 12:6; John 11:9; Rom. 3:29.) Was (ὑπῆρχεν), existed or subsisted (see above, on 4:34, 37), has here very nearly the force of continued or remained, as in the first clause. Power, not physical but moral, authority, discretion. (See above, on 1:7; 3:12; 4:7.) The sin of Ananias was therefore perfectly spontaneous and gratuitous, without coercion or constraint ab extra. He was not required to sell his land, or having sold it, to devote the proceeds to a public use. His freedom from all antecedent obligation so to do, is the very soul of this expostulation, robbed of which it becomes utterly unmeaning. If Peter knew that Ananias had no choice, but was compelled to give up all that he possessed when he became a Christian, these upbraiding questions would have been a cruel mockery. Why is not the same Greek form as in the verse preceding. There the words mean strictly, for (or on account of) what? (διὰ τί;) here (and in Luke 2:49), the expression is elliptical and seems to mean, how (is it) that, as Tyndale here translates it, or what (is the reason) that? (τί ὅτι) or the full form may be that in John 14:22 (τί γέγονεν ὅτι;) what has happened that? Conceived, literally put or placed. A similar Hebrew phrase is used to denote purpose (Dan. 1:8) or serious consideration (Mal. 2:2.) See below, on 19:21, and compare Luke 1:66. This thing, or retaining the original and full force of the Greek word (πρᾶγμα from πράσσω, to do), this deed or action. Lied is here construed, not with the accusative, as in v. 3, and in the classical Greek usage, but with the dative. Some regard this as a mere dialectic variation, belonging to the Hellenistic Greek, but identical in sense with the accusative construction. It seems hard, however, to account for both forms being used in two successive sentences, unless there is some difference of meaning. If there is such a difference, it is probably that between deceiving, as the end, and lying, as the means of its accomplishment. (See above, on v. 4.) Not unto men, so much as unto God, as some explain it; or not unto men at all, since all regard to them is swallowed up in that due to God (compare Ps. 51:4); or not unto (us as) men, but as the vehicles and organs of the Holy Ghost. (See Matt. 10:20; Acts 13:2; 15:28.) The reference is then not merely to the presence and inhabitation of the Holy Ghost in all believers (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19), but to his special and authoritative acting through the Apostles; so that disobedience to their rightful apostolical authority is represented as resistance to the Holy Ghost. (See 7:51 below, and compare 1 Thess. 4:8.) The use of the terms God and Holy Ghost, in these two verses, as convertible expressions, has always and most justly been regarded as a strong proof both of the personality and the divinity of the Spirit. In allusion to this doctrine, and to one of its heretical opponents in the early church, the Venerable Bede says, the Scripture here condemns the heresy of Macedonius before Macedonius was born. The sin of Ananias is so clearly and precisely said to have been that of lying to and trying to deceive the Holy Ghost, that it is strange men should ever have disputed whether it was sacrilege or avarice, ambition or vainglory. All these were undoubtedly included; but the grand specific charge against him, twice alleged by Peter, is that of lying to the Holy Ghost. The interpretation of the passage has been hindered and embarrassed, from the earliest times, by the neglect of this obvious and simple fact, and the attempt to make the guilt of Ananias and Sapphira lie in their violation of a vow, by which they had consecrated all their property to God, so that in withholding what they did, they were not only guilty of the crime of sacrilege, but (as one of the Fathers here observes) of self-robbery or stealing their own money! Such refinements are often handed down from age to age, in the tradition of the pulpit, or by one interpreter transcribing others, till the true sense, obvious and simple though it be, is supposed to be condemned by the judgment of the church, or lost sight of and forgotten. However complicated the offence of Ananias may have been, the head and front of his offending, as declared by the Apostle, was his lying to the Holy Ghost.

5. Gave up the ghost is not, as the English reader might suppose, a Greek or Hebrew idiom, introduced into our language by too servile a translation, but an idiom of our own, retained in all the English versions subsequent to that of Tyndale. Wiclif's simple but expressive words are, fell down and was dead. The Greek verb (ἐξέψυξε) means breathed out, i. e. his life or soul, as the ellipsis is supplied by Euripides and Virgil. Our word expire (from the Latin exspiro) originally means the same. The phrase employed in the translation is one of the very few, in which the word ghost still retains its strict sense as a synonyme of spirit. The other forms in which it lingers are Holy Ghost and ghostly, as applied to spiritual guides or teachers. With these exceptions, English usage now restricts the word to the supposed return of disembodied spirits. As to the immediate cause of the death of Ananias there are various opinions. The earlier neologists of Germany, belonging to the so-called natural (or naturalistic) school of exegesis, in their eagerness to get rid of one miracle, almost assumed another, by ascribing the sudden death to fright or apoplexy, not perceiving that its occurring when it did, and in the case of man and wife, is enough to render even such a death miraculous. One writer of the same class, but more bold and reckless, alleges or insinuates that Peter actually killed him with a concealed weapon, and that Luke relates merely what was seen by the spectators. Apart from these monstrosities of exposition, there is a question, even among those who are agreed in considering the death of Ananias as a signal act of the divine justice, namely, whether this act was performed through Peter, or without his knowledge and co-operation. It is commonly assumed, as a matter of course, that Ananias was destroyed by a judicial word or act of the Apostle, as the representative of God or Christ. But there is no such intimation in the narrative itself, the terms of which are perfectly consistent with the supposition or conclusion, that the sudden death of Ananias was as much a matter of surprise to Peter as to others, and that his first knowledge of the divine will upon this occasion was derived from the appalling sight of the dissembler lying lifeless at his feet. We have no right to affirm this as unquestionably true; but we have still less right to affirm the contrary, and thus give colour to the charge of cruelty and rash vindictiveness against the great Apostle. False as such charges are, on any exegetical hypothesis, it is not wise to give them even an occasion or a pretext, by gratuitously representing as his own act, what the language of the narrative allows us to regard as the immediate act of God. If the writer had intended to exhibit the Apostle as a minister of wrath or vengeance, would he not have left on record some judicial sentence, some express premonition of the stroke that was to follow, such as Paul uttered in the case of Elymas the sorcerer (see below, on 13:11), or at least such a warning and exhortation as Peter himself addressed to Simon Magus (see below, on 8:20–23?) But whether used directly against Peter, or indirectly against God himself, the charge of rashness and undue severity may be repelled, without resorting to the ultimate unanswerable plea of the divine infallibility and sovereignty, by the complex aggravations of the sin committed, as embracing an ambitious and vainglorious desire to obtain the praise of men by false pretences; a selfish and avaricious wish to do this at as small expense as possible; a direct falsehood, whether told by word or deed, as to the completeness of the sum presented; but above all, an impious defiance of God the Spirit, as unable to detect the imposture or to punish it; a complication and accumulation of gratuitous and aggravated crimes, which certainly must constitute a heinous sin—if not the one unpardonable sin—against the Holy Ghost (Matt. 12:31, 32; Mark 3:29.) That Ananias had a view to his support from the common fund, while secretly retaining something of his own, presupposes a more literal and strict community of goods than we have found recorded. If the property sold by Ananias was so valuable that he could hope to gain a name by giving it away, and yet reserve a portion for himself, the hope of sharing in a common sustentation-fund could hardly have been much of a temptation. As additional reasons for inflicting so severe a stroke, it has been said, that an example of severity was specially required in the beginning of the Christian dispensation, analogous to those of Nadab and Abihu under Moses (Lev. 10:1–3) and to that of Achan under Joshua (7:1–26.) That the punishment, though just in itself, was specially intended to deter men from repeating the offence, is rendered probable by its actual effect, as here recorded. Great fear (both terror and religious awe) came (i. e. came to pass or happened) upon all them that heard (literally, those hearing) these (things.) The last word (ταῦτα) is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest editors, without effect upon the meaning. The only question is, whether the clause describes the impression made by the death of Ananias upon those who witnessed it, or on a wider circle who were reached by the report of it. The objection to the latter, which is certainly the natural import of the words—since the persons present would be rather spoken of as seeing than as hearing what had happened—is that such a statement seems misplaced between the death of Ananias and that of his wife, which happened so soon afterwards. But this may be explained in either of two ways. The first is by supposing a prolepsis or anticipation, which is altogether natural in such a case, the writer going on to tell what impression this fearful stroke eventually made, and then returning to complete his narrative of what occurred at once. 'This sudden death of Ananias caused a universal dread in all who heard it, and so did that of his companion in wickedness, which I shall now relate.' The other method of solution is to understand the language of this verse, without prolepsis, as describing the immediate effect produced by the news of Ananias's death, which, as in all like cases, would be spread with great rapidity, especially if the event took place in an assembly of disciples, as to which point, see below, on v. 7.

6. Some understand by the young (or more exactly, younger) men, a class of officers or servants in the primitive church, chiefly on two grounds; first, that the correlative terra elders (πρεστβύτεροι) is so used, and sometimes contrasted with (νεώτεροι) the one which here occurs (1 Tim. 5:1; 1 Pet. 5:5; Tit. 2:6): and secondly, that the word here has the article and therefore must denote a well-defined and well-known class. As to the first of these reasons, it would serve as well to prove that because the English elder is a title of office, there must be a corresponding class of officers called youngers. It may also be observed that the alleged opposition between the two Greek words occurs chiefly where presbyter or elder has its natural or personal, and not its technical official sense. As to the other reason, it is difficult to see in what respect an order of church-servants would be any more entitled to a definite description than the younger men of the community, or rather of the company present upon this occasion, who might naturally be expected, with or without an order or a sign from the Apostles, to perform the unpleasant duty here assigned to them. The main fact is, however, that the word in question never occurs again as an official title. Wound him up, wrapped him in his own clothes, or shrouded him in grave-clothes. The last is not so probable, considering the haste with which the burial was performed. Carried out might seem to refer merely to the house, but the analogy of Luke 7:12; John 11:31, and the well-known usage of the Jews, seem decisive in favour of referring it to the city. From the ancient sepulchres still extant in the Holy Land, it would seem that the usual mode of burial was in lateral excavations, either in the hill-sides or in artificial vaults and natural caverns.

7. It is not an improbable conjecture, that Ananias and Sapphira are described as coming into the Apostles' presence at two successive hours of prayer, the interval between which was three hours. (See above, on 2:15; 3:1.) This would imply that the incidents recorded here took place in a meeting for worship. But see what is said above (on 2:42, 46) as to the mode of life among the primitive Christians. The first clause admits of two grammatical constructions. The simplest is the one adopted in our version, which makes space (or interval) the subject of the verb at the beginning. 'There was (or there elapsed) an interval of about three hours, and (then) his wife, etc.' The other, which is harsher, but preferred by the highest philological authorities, gives to the first verb (ἐγένετο) its frequent sense of happened, came to pass, and construes the following words absolutely, as in Matt. 15:32. 'And it came to pass—a space of about three hours (later)—that (literally, and) his wife, etc.' This use of and, in the last clause of a sentence, especially after a specification of time, is a common Hebrew idiom, and as such often used in the Greek of the New Testament. (See for example Luke 9:28, where the structure of the sentence is the same as here.) What was done, or rather, what had happened, i. e. to her husband. How she had remained so long in ignorance of what must have been generally known, is not revealed, and it is idle to conjecture. Such exceptions are not only possible, but familiar matters of experience.

8. Answered, not merely said (see above, on 3:12), but replied, as some think, to her salutation, or, as others, to her looks or to her thoughts. Tell me is in Wiclif's version, Woman, say to me. The word translated sold here and in 7:9 below, is the middle voice of the verb rendered gave in 4:33 above. It has been disputed whether so much represents a specific sum which Peter named, or the money lying at his feet at which he pointed, or whether it here means so little, which, however, is at variance with usage. Yea, yes, the usual Greek particle of affirmation.

9. Then is not an adverb of time, but the conjunction (δέ), translated and at the beginning of the three preceding verses. How is it that, the very phrase translated why in v. 4. These Variations in the version, though intrinsically unimportant, are occasionally noticed, lest the English reader should suppose a difference of meaning, where there is not even one of form, in the original. Ye have agreed together, literally, it was concerted by you (or between you.) It is plain that this preconcert or conspiracy was viewed by the Apostle as a serious aggravation of the sin committed; not only because each was bound to hinder or dissuade instead of helping and encouraging the other; but because this previous agreement showed the sin to be deliberate and presumptuous, and cut off all excuse or palliation that might otherwise have been derived from haste, ignorance, or inconsideration. The sin itself is here described as that of tempting God, i. e. trying his patience, or putting to the test, and thereby impiously questioning, not merely his omniscience, but his veracity and power to punish. The term is repeatedly applied to God (Deut. 6:16; Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12; Heb. 3:8, 9), and once to Christ (1 Cor. 10:9), but here to the Spirit of the Lord, i. e. of God, or according to the prevalent New Testament usage, of Christ himself. See above, on 1:24; 2:21, and compare the Spirit of his Son, Gal. 4:6. See also John 14:26; 15:26, where the Spirit is said to be sent, not only in the Son's name by the Father, but from the Father by the Son himself. The same relation of the divine persons is expressed in 2:33 above. Ananias and Sapphira had conspired to tempt the omniscient Spirit, by agreeing to practise a deception on the men, in whom he manifestly dwelt in an extraordinary manner, and through whom he now spoke and acted, as the ruler and the guardian of his infant church. The connivance, or rather the complicity of Sapphira in her husband's sin—for she is evidently treated, both by Peter and by Luke, not as a mere accessory, but as a co-ordinate and independent party to the whole transaction—was so clear to her own conscience, and to others from her prompt and categorical reply to the judicial question put to her by Peter, that he thinks no further trial necessary, but contents himself with simply announcing her participation in the punishment, as well as in the sin, of her husband. Some have argued from the sentence here pronounced by Peter on Sapphira, that he must have acted likewise as a judge in the case of Ananias. (See above, on v. 4.) The conclusion might be valid if the premises were true, i. e. if what is here recorded were a formal and authoritative sentence, instead of being, as it is, a mere prediction. Even the word shall, used by our translators, conveys too strong a sense to modern readers. There is nothing to show that the Greek verb means more than that they will (or are about to) do for her what they have just done for her husband. Carry out, i. e. for burial, from the house, and probably from the city also, as in v. 6. This was known to Peter, not by mere conjecture, nor by reasoning from analogy, but no doubt by express revelation, which is perfectly consistent with the view already taken of his agency in executing the divine will upon Ananias. Although it may have pleased God, in the first instance, to effect his purpose without any previous intimation to his servant, in order to disburden him of all responsibility for so severe and sudden an infliction; yet as soon as the divine will had been made known by the death of Ananias, it seems altogether natural that Peter should resume his ordinary functions as a Prophet and Apostle. Behold (or lo), as usual, announces something unexpected and surprising (see above, on 1:10; 2:7), as this declaration must have been to her whom he addressed, and who had just come in, "not knowing what had happened" (v. 7.) The idea that feet may be put for the whole person (see above, on 4:35–37), seems to be favoured here by the construction of that word as the subject of the verb in the last clause, 'behold their feet are at the door, and shall carry thee out,' which could be said only of the hands, if particular members, in the strict sense, were intended. But the true construction is, and they (not the feet, but their owners, who had buried Ananias) shall carry thee out. At the door has by some been regarded as a figure for at hand, within reach, and the whole clause as meaning, that death and burial were as near to her as they had been to her husband. But this sense may be obtained, and in a much more striking form, without departing from the literal interpretation of the clause as meaning, that the young men who had buried Ananias were returned, and either waiting at the door or in the act of entering. If the former, there is no need of assuming a long interval between their going and returning; if the latter, it is easily explained by the necessity of burying the dead without the city. Some preparation also for the burial may have been required, although not as much as usual, and not including (as some interpreters suggest) the digging of a grave, which is a transfer of our own associations to a very different mode of burial. (See above, on v. 4.) According to the literal interpretation of this clause, Peter's knowledge of the fact, that they were at the door, may have been derived from a divine suggestion, or from hearing their approach, or from both, as in the case of Abijah, who was warned of a visit from the wife of Jeroboam, and yet "heard the sound of her feet as she came in at the door" (1 Kings 14:5, 6.) Them which have buried is in Greek those burying (or having buried.)

10. Peter's prophetical announcement to Sapphira is instantaneously fulfilled. Then, see above, on v. 4. Straightway, the same word that is rendered immediately in 3:7, and there explained. At his feet, in evident allusion to the fact mentioned in v. 2 (compare 4:27.) As the money had been laid at the Apostles' feet, so now the deceivers fell down dead upon the same spot; for the same thing, although not distinctly mentioned, was no doubt true of Ananias also. Yielded up the ghost may seem to be a stronger expression than the one in v. 5; but in Greek they are identical. So too is the carrying forth of this verse with the carried out of that. The young men, namely, those who had removed Ananias (v. 6.) The argument derived from the analogy of the comparative forms (πρεσβύτεροι), elder, and νεώτεροι, younger) in favour of regarding both as technical official titles (see above, on v. 6), is considerably weakened by the younger being here called simply young or youths (νεανίσκοι). On the other hand, supposing these expressions to be used in their popular and simple sense, there is not only nothing strange in the promiscuous use of the comparative and positive degree, but an obvious significancy in the former where it stands (see v. 6), as suggestive of the reason for their undertaking this unpleasant duty, namely, that it would have been unbecoming to devolve it on their elders. In any civilized society or company, the younger men would feel themselves in honour bound to act in such emergencies, without official right or obligation, not merely on account of their supposed strength and activity, but also from a natural and reasonable disposition to relieve or spare, not only women and children, but the older men. Where the line between the ages should be drawn, is a question theoretically difficult enough, but one which would not give the slightest trouble in a practical emergency. Came in and found her dead, though not decisive, seems to favour the opinion that the foregoing verse relates to their actual return from the place of burial. The Codex Beza and the Syriac version here repeat the word which means to shroud or wrap up in v. 6 above. Though no part of the text, it may be supplied or understood, like the expression at his feet in the preceding clause. By her husband, literally, to (i. e. close to) her husband, implying proximity and juxtaposition. The Greek word (πρός), with the accusative, strictly denotes motion to or towards an object, and may here be used because the verb includes the idea of removal. The same preposition is substituted here, in what is now regarded as the true text, for another (παρά) meaning by or at, in the phrase at his feet, repeated from v. 2 above. The same idea (by or at) is expressed by still a third preposition (ἐπί) in v. 9, as well as in 3:10, 11 above. The speedy burial of this unhappy pair has been often cavilled at, and variously justified. The naked reference to divine authority, without a positive command on record, is a virtual concession that the act admits of no excuse on ordinary principles, and also fails to guard against untimely imitation. The alleged practice of the Jews, from the time of the Captivity, to bury on the day of death, is historically doubtful, and by no means an example for the Christian world. The physical necessity, arising from the climate, is also doubtful, or at least exaggerated and at variance with scriptural examples. The true explanation seems to be, that the usual reason for delaying burial did not exist in this case. That reason is the propriety of ascertaining that the death has taken place before the body is interred. But here there was neither doubt as to the fact nor interment in the proper sense. The bodies were most probably deposited uncoffined in the horizontal niches of an open sepulchre above ground (see above, on v. 4.) But it matters little whether this were so or not, as the Apostles, who presided at this awful scene, must certainly have known that Ananias and Sapphira were completely dead.

11. The effect of these judgments was an universal sense of awe and dread. The first and last words of the verse agree exactly with the second clause of v. 5; the change of all that to as many as existing only in the English version. This coincidence of form seems to favour, though it cannot of itself establish, the opinion that v. 5 is a prolepsis or anticipation of the statement here made in its proper place. The only difference between the two is that the general expression, all those hearing these things, is preceded, in the verse before us, by the more specific phrase, the whole church. This is the second instance of the use of this word in the book before us, or the first, according to some ancient manuscripts and recent critics, who omit the word (ἐκκλησία) in 2:47. It may here mean either the assembly in whose presence these events took place, or the whole body of believers. But at this stage of the re-organization, there is reason to believe that the two ideas were coincident, that is to say, that those who met, especially for worship, were in fact the whole body or its standing representatives. Whether Tyndale and Cranmer, in translating the word congregation, meant to put the more restricted sense upon it, may be doubted, as this English word had once a wider usage. Thus Knox calls the Church of Christ his "Congregation," and the same name was long borne by the whole body of the Reformed in Scotland. Besides the general objection to the punishment of Ananias and his wife as cruel, it has been accused of undue relative severity compared with that of Elymas the Sorcerer (see below, on 13:11), and with the supposed impunity of Simon Magus (see below, on 8:24.) In explanation of this seeming disproportion, it has been suggested, that such rigour was particularly needed at the very outset (see above, on v. 5); and that Ananias and Sapphira had most probably experienced the extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit, and having "fallen away," could no more be "renewed to repentance" (Heb. 6:4–6), having really committed the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:31, 32; 1 John 5:16.) The same considerations have been used to justify the sudden death of these two persons without previous notice, and without opportunity or space for repentance (Heb. 12:17.) It is worthy of remark that such apologies are called for, only where the Scriptures are concerned, and that no man thinks it needful thus to "vindicate the ways of God to man," in reference to the multitudes of cases, in which unconverted sinners are continually swept into eternity without immediate warning and without repentance.

12. As the impression made by the events of Pentecost was strengthened and maintained by a succession of miraculous performances (2:43); so now, the effect of the tremendous judgment upon Ananias and Sapphira was continued or increased in the same manner. The terms used in the two places are almost identical. As to the additional expression, by the hands, implying instrumental agency, see above, on 2:23; 3:18, and below, on 7:25. As to the other phrase here added, in (or among) the people, see above, on 2:47; 3:9, 11, 12; 4:1, 2, 21. The last clause has reference to neither of the nearest antecedents, the Apostles or the people, but to the whole body of disciples. (See above, on 2:1, 4; 4:31.) This clause has been understood to mean, that as the number of disciples had become too great to be accommodated elsewhere, their religious services were now held in the spacious portico, where Peter had addressed the people in relation to the healing of the lame man. But whatever acts of worship or instruction may have been performed there, it is more natural to understand the words here used in a wider sense, as meaning that Solomon's Porch, at all times, doubtless, one of the most public places in Jerusalem (see above, on 3:11), now became the favourite resort and promenade of the disciples, as it may have been of Christ himself (see John 10:23), which would give it, in their eyes, a kind of consecration, similar to that of "the upper room," where they had last eaten with him (1:13) and "the house where they were sitting" on the day of Pentecost (2:2.) The clause does not refer to a particular assemblage on a certain day, but to their habit of convening there by common consent (ἦσαν ὁμοθυμαδόν), though not perhaps by any formal rule or resolution. Here again, the record of particular occurrences is gradually merged in a description of what took place during a longer and less definite interval of time. (See above, on 2:42; 3:1; 4:32, 36.)

13. The relation of the rest to all in the preceding verse is like that of others to the same word in 2:12, 13. Here it only shows, however, that the all of v. 12 is a relative expression, meaning all the disciples, and not all the people. The word translated join themselves originally means to be glued or stuck fast; then, as a neuter verb, to cleave or adhere to any thing or person. It is almost confined, in the New Testament, to Luke and Paul, being once used by Matthew (19:5) and once in a doubtful text of the Apocalypse (18:5.) Its strength of meaning is evinced, not only by its primary usage, as above described, and as exemplified in Luke 10:11, but by its application to the most intimate of all personal relations, that of marriage (Matt. 19:5, compare 1 Cor. 6:16), and by the words to which it is opposed (as in Rom. 12:9.) Even where it seems to have a weaker sense, the stronger is admissible, and therefore, upon general principles, entitled to the preference. (See below, on 8:29; 9:26; 10:28; 17:34, and compare Luke 15:15; 1 Cor. 6:17.) We are bound, therefore, to explain it here, not merely of association or familiar intercourse, but of conjunction and adhesion, either in the literal and local sense of personal contact, or in the metaphorical and moral sense of joint profession and organic union. This usage of the word suffices to exclude some of the many explanations of the first clause of the verse before us; such as Lightfoot's notion, that the twelve Apostles were henceforth regarded with more deference by the hundred and eight presbyters (12+108=120, see above, on 1:15); and that of other writers, that the same thing is affirmed as to the body of disciples. That these, or any part of these, should not have dared to come in contact or associate with the twelve, is altogether inconsistent with the general impression made by this whole narrative, or rather by the whole New Testament, in reference to the social relations of the infant church. (See above, on 2:42–47; 4:32, 33.) The same objection does not lie against the old and prevalent opinion, that the rest here means the unconverted multitude, who were deterred by what had taken place from either joining or assailing the disciples. But this last sense (assailing) is entirely foreign from the usage of the Greek verb, and the other (joining) makes the clause directly contradictory to what is stated in the next verse, namely, that great multitudes did join them, both of men and women. Two evasions of this argument have been attempted; one by making this verse and the next successive as to time—'the rest were at first afraid to join them, but the people still admired them, and by degrees the number of believers multiplied, etc.'—a construction which supposes the decisive terms, "at first" and "by degrees" or "afterwards," to be omitted, which can never be assumed except in case of exegetical necessity, that is, when it enables us to clear up what is otherwise hopelessly obscure; and this is not the present case, as we shall see. The other evasion is by making a distinction between joining (13) and believing (14), so as to restrict the latter to the faith of miracles, or faith in the power of the Apostles to perform them; a distinction wholly arbitrary in itself, and directly contradicted by the fact that these believers were added to the Lord (14). As another sample of the singular diversity of judgment in relation to this clause, it may be added, that some eminent interpreters suppose the rest to be contrasted, not with all (12), but with the people (13), and therefore to denote the rest of the wealthy and superior class, who were deterred by the fate of Ananias and Sapphira, as well as by the proofs of superhuman power afforded by the miracles of the Apostles, from uniting themselves with them, as they would otherwise have done. This is commonly rejected as a forced interpretation, and is justly liable to such a censure, on account of the antithesis which it assumes, and on which it appears to rest. But this antithesis is not essential and may easily be modified in such a way as to entitle this interpretation to the preference over every other, except one which will be afterwards presented. The modification consists in making the rest refer, not to the people in the next clause, but to Ananias and Sapphira in the foregoing context. The rest will then mean others of the same class, or rather the same character, i. e. ambitious, worldly, and dishonest people, who might otherwise have joined the church as hypocritical professors, under some momentary impulse, or with some corrupt design, sufficient to outweigh the fear of persecution, which indeed at this time must have been extremely slight, but who were now deterred, by a regard to their own safety, from incurring even the remote risk of a fate like that of Ananias and Sapphira. This agrees well with the foregoing context, in which Luke has been describing the effect produced by that catastrophe and afterwards maintained by other miracles, to all which it is certainly a natural conclusion or appendix, that the salutary fear thus engendered was the means by which it pleased God to preserve the church, in this its infant state, from the intrusion of impure and hypocritical professors. The only objection to this view of the passage is its not accounting for the local specification which immediately precedes, and seems to separate the cause and the effect from one another in a very unusual and puzzling manner. 'The fear produced by this event was heightened by the miracles which followed—and the disciples now habitually occupied the porch of Solomon—and no more hypocrites, like Ananias and Sapphira, dared to join them.' This is certainly no natural association of ideas, although not absolutely fatal to the exposition which involves it, if no other can be found that is not open to the same objection, and at least as satisfactory in other points. The question then is, whether the first clause of v. 13 can be so explained, that the last clause of v. 12 shall not be an abrupt interpolation or parenthesis, but a natural and necessary member of the sentence. This can only be effected by supposing that the writer, in the first clause of v. 13, instead of reverting, as the other exegetical hypothesis assumes, to the moral effects, which he had been describing, when he paused to speak of the locality in question, is still speaking of that same locality, as now by common consent given up to the disciples, and generally recognized as their appropriated place of meeting. The whole connection, thus explained, may be paraphrased as follows. 'The death of Ananias and Sapphira filled the public mind with awe, and this was afterwards maintained by a continued series of miracles, in consequence of which the disciples were allowed to constitute a body by themselves, without molestation or intrusion from without; and as they had now gradually formed the habit of assembling daily in the porch of Solomon, no others ventured to mix with them there, but the people were contented to look on as mere spectators from the courts adjoining, and continually magnified (i. e. admired and praised) them, as a company among whom God was present in a new and most extraordinary manner.' Besides the difference between these two interpretations, with respect to the connection of v. 13 with v. 12, they also differ as to the precise sense of the verb to join themselves; the one referring it to union with the church by profession, the other to mere external contact or joint occupation of the same place. But as both these meanings are legitimate deductions from the etymology and usage of the Greek verb, as explained above, the choice between the two constructions cannot rest upon this difference, but must be decided by a view of the whole context. And as the one last stated is the simplest and, without departing from the natural import of the words, gives clearness and coherence to an otherwise perplexed and interrupted context, it appears, upon the whole, to be the true interpretation.

14. Believers is in Greek a participle and means believing (men or persons.) Some connect it with the Lord (believing in or on him), which is a possible construction; but the one given in the version is not only simpler and more obvious, but also recommended by its unambiguous occurrence elsewhere. (See below, on 11:24.) On the other supposition, added means added to the church as in the common text of 2:47. The ellipsis is the same as in 2:41. Added to the Lord, i. e. to Christ, as the Head of the Church, which is his body, and of which all converts become members. Some of the oldest writers on the passage have observed, that Luke no longer gives specific numbers, an omission which enhances the idea of increase. As to the mention of both sexes, see above, on 4:4. The distinct mention of female converts, for the first time, may have been occasioned by the melancholy end of Sapphira, as if the writer had intended to suggest, that the place left vacant, not only by the husband but the wife, was speedily supplied by many true believers of the same sex. It is plainly implied that these accessions took place, not at once, but during an indefinite period. (See above, on v. 12.) The statement here made has already been referred to, as a proof that the first clause of the preceding verse cannot mean that the people were deterred by fear from joining the disciples, as professors of the new religion. On the other hand, it is entirely reconcileable with either of the two interpretations of that clause, which were left to the decision of the reader. According to the one first stated, the idea is, that although no more Ananiases or Sapphiras joined the church, it was replenished with a multitude of true converts; according to the other, that although the unconverted mass remained aloof as admiring spectators, many were continually passing from their ranks to those of the believers, and the numbers thus subtracted from the adverse party were of course added to the host, the household, and the body of the Lord. There is a subtle difference, in English usage, between more and the more. 'Believers were more added' would mean simply more than ever, or continually more and more. 'Believers were the more added' means that the addition was greater on account of something previously mentioned, and which might have seemed to threaten diminution. In the other places where the Greek phrase (μἆλλον δέ) is used, it is translated but rather (1 Cor. 14:1, 5; Eph. 4:28; 5:11), or rather (Gal. 4:9), and might have been so rendered here, 'but believers (instead of being lost or lessened) were rather added to the Lord, etc.' In this case, however, there is not, as in the others, any reference to what immediately precedes, namely, the people magnified them, but either to the first clause of v. 13, or to some remoter antecedent, as for instance to the death of Ananias and Sapphira, which, instead of diminishing the number of conversions, caused them to abound the more. The simplest syntax is to make this clause a part of the preceding verse. 'None dared to join them, but the people magnified them and believers were more and more added to the Lord.'

15. The original construction of the first clause, so as to bring out the sick, etc. connects it still more closely with what goes before than in the common version, where they brought might seem to be indefinite, and to mean nothing more than that the sick were brought forth (see above, on 1:23); whereas the literal translation above given identifies the subject of the verb with persons previously mentioned. But with whom? Or on what preceding verb is the infinitive dependent? Few questions of construction in the whole book have been more disputed. The older writers, with surprising unanimity, pass over the immediate context, to discover a remoter antecedent, throwing what is thus passed over into a parenthesis. But as to the extent of this parenthesis, they disagree among themselves. Some begin it in the middle of v. 12, and read, by the hands of the Apostles many signs and wonders were performed among the people … so that they brought etc. This is the arrangement of the text in the Geneva Bible, copied by King James's version. Others, regarding such a long parenthesis as neither natural nor needful, place the beginning at the end of v. 13, and read, the people magnified them … so that they brought out the sick, etc. The current of opinion among modern critics and philologists is adverse to the assumption of parentheses at all, especially in plain historical prose, without some urgent exegetical necessity. Such a necessity, indeed, is here assumed by those who plead for the constructions above given, and who seem to be agreed, however much they differ otherwise, that the last words of v. 14 and the first words of v. 15 cannot possibly belong together. It is hard, however, to perceive the ground of this grammatical assumption. What better reason, than the multitude of converts, could be given for the multitude of cures performed? Without insisting that believers in v. 14 simply means believers in the wonder-working gifts of the Apostles—which indeed, as we have seen above (on v. 13), is inconsistent with the fact that they were added to the Lord—and without insisting that the passive faith of miracles was always accompanied by saving faith; we know that the converse of this proposition must be true, or in other words, that saving faith included that of miracles, or trust in the miraculous endowments of Christ's servants; so that the multiplication of believers would be naturally followed by more numerous applications for miraculous relief. There is nothing therefore to forbid the obvious construction of the clauses as immediately successive, without any parenthesis at all, and believers were more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women, so as to bring (or so that they brought) forth the sick, etc. The sense obtained by this construction is indeed much better than the one afforded by assuming a parenthesis; for the apostolical miracles were rather the effect than the cause of this great concourse, and the people's magnifying them (13) is not so good a reason for that concourse as the increase or faith and the multiplication of true converts. This view of the passage has moreover the advantage of confirming what we know in other ways, that the miracles of Christ and his Apostles were not always the prime motive of the multitudes who followed them, but often secondary to the craving for instruction and salvation. (Compare Luke 5:1.) Into hardly expresses the full force of the Greek particle (κατά) which sometimes means along (8:26; 25:3; 26:13) or through (8:1; 11:1; 15:23; 24:12.) The sick were laid along the streets, throughout their whole length, to await the approach of the Apostles. Streets, literally, broad (ways), in the singular denoting the main street of a town or city (Rev. 11:8; 21:21; 22:2; Judg. 19:15, 20. LXX), and in the plural its thoroughfares or wide streets, as contrasted with its narrow streets or lanes (Luke 14:21), and especially considered as public places of resort (Matt. 6:5; 12:19; Luke 10:10; 13:26.) And laid, literally, and to put or place, the infinitive construction being still continued. The word translated into properly means down to, i. e. from the houses, or along, implying that they lay there and awaited the approach of the Apostles, which agrees exactly with the intimation in the other clause, and dependent upon so as (or so that) in the beginning of the sentence. Beds and couches, so that even the most helpless and bedridden were included in this dispensation of healing power. In the oldest manuscripts, the first word is diminutive in form (κλιναρίων), as well as in the Vulgate (lectulis), denoting small beds that were easily carried. Beds may either have its proper sense or that of bedsteads, which, though no longer used in the East, were well known to the ancients. The oldest and the latest writers are agreed in supposing, that the two words here used were intended to describe the couches of the rich and poor, a distinction countenanced, if not required, by a phrase of Cicero's (non modo lectos verum etiam grabbatos), from which some have inferred that the second noun (κραββάτων, κραβάτων, or κραβάττων) is of Latin origin, whereas the modern Greek philologists describe it as a Macedonian word, used only by the latest writers. (Tyndale's translation here is, beds and pallets.) The original construction in the last clause is, that, Peter coming, the shadow might, etc. At the least (Tyndale, at the least way) is in Greek a compound or contracted particle (κἄν for καὶ ἐάν), meaning originally and if, and repeatedly so used (Mark 16:18; Luke 13:9; James 5:15), but sometimes more emphatically, even if (Matt. 21:21; 26:35; John 8:14; 10:38; 11:25), or if even (Heb. 12:20), and then absolutely or elliptically, if but or if only (2 Cor. 11:16), which is the meaning here and in a passage of the gospels, where precisely the same thing is said, in reference to the fringe or border of our Saviour's garment (Mark 6:56.) The crowd was so great and so incessant, that many could do nothing more than place themselves, or their afflicted friends, under the shadow of the Apostles, and especially of Peter, as the most conspicuous and active, as he came by or along (ἐρχομένου.) But this was in itself as powerless, and by divine appointment as effectual, as any word or deed, by which the miracle was commonly connected with the person of the thaumaturge or wonderworker. (See above, on 3:1.) Far from being superstitious, it was rather a strong proof of the people's faith, analogous to that which Christ commended in the woman with the issue of blood (Matt. 9:22), but especially in the centurion (Matt. 8:10), who believed that Christ could heal his servant without personal contact or even being present. In order that these miracles of healing might extend to all who sought them, and yet be visibly connected with the persons who performed them, it pleased God that their shadow should, in this case, answer the same purpose with the words and gestures used on other occasions. This seems much more natural than the supposition, that the writer pauses here to mention a pitiable superstition which had no effect whatever, or was mercifully made effectual in spite of its absurdity and sinfulness. As to the Popish argument in favor of the primacy of Peter, from the virtue here ascribed to his very shadow, this is an error in the opposite extreme, but one refuted by the great Apostle's representative position, and by the similar statement elsewhere with respect to Paul. (See below, on 19:12.) Some of them, i. e. some one of them, the first pronoun (τινί) being singular in Greek. This qualifying phrase has reference rather to the hopes of the recipients than to the actual effect, as appears from the last clause of the next verse. The Codex Beza and another uncial manuscript make an addition to this verse in somewhat different forms, one of which is copied by the Vulgate and its followers (et liberarentur ab infirmitatibus suis.)

16. The concourse and the miracles, described in the preceding verse, though locally restricted to Jerusalem, were not confined to its inhabitants. The idea of confluence or concourse is more clearly expressed in the original, which means, there came together. Also represents a double particle in Greek (δὲ καί), which, although strictly meaning nothing more than and (or but) also, has in usage an emphatic sense, equivalent to 'nay more' or 'besides all this.' (Compare καί γε, 2:18 above, and the remark there.) A multitude, or more exactly, the multitude, a much stronger expression, meaning the whole mass of the people (see above, on 2:6), which was no doubt literally true, though not without individual exceptions. The impression made by this as well as by the Gospel History, is that these great movements comprehended the whole body of the population, which was thus made thoroughly acquainted with the claims of Jesus and the doctrine of his servants. Another variation from the form of the original consists in the insertion of the small word out, which materially modifies the meaning. 'A multitude out of the surrounding cities' is a very different thing from 'the multitude (or mass) of the surrounding cities.' The former might have come and left the vast majority at home; but no such sense can be attached to the exact translation. Round about is in Greek a single word (πέριξ), a rare and strengthened form of a common preposition (περί), here used as an adverbial adjective (τῶν πέριξ πόλεων), and therefore well expressed in English by surrounding. The noun which it qualifies would here be more exactly rendered by the generic term towns, in its proper English sense, as including villages and cities. It is no doubt put for the whole country; partly because the population lived almost entirely in towns great or small; partly because these towns represented the more rural districts, which were civilly dependent on them. The omission of the preposition (εἰς) before Jerusalem, in some old manuscripts and late editions, can have no effect upon the sense, which must still be that of motion towards the holy city. The crowd are not described as merely bringing (ἄγοντες) but as bearing, carrying (φέροντες) the sick, literally, strengthless, weak, infirm, but applied, like the last English word, not only to debility, but to bodily disease. The word folks (or people) is not in the original, which might have been exactly rendered, the infirm (or sick.) Besides this general description of the objects upon which these healing miracles were wrought, the writer mentions a specific malady, because of its extraordinary prevalence at that time, its peculiarly distressing character, its strange complication of moral and physical disorder, and above all, its mysterious connection with the unseen world and with another race of spirits. These are called unclean or impure in a moral sense, essentially equivalent to wicked, but suggesting more directly the idea of corruption, as existing in themselves and practised upon others. These are the angels or ministering spirits of the Devil, who fell with him, or have since been added to him, as believers are added to the Lord (v. 14), and are co-operating with him as the tempters and accusers of mankind. (See above, on v. 3, and compare Matt. 25:41.) To these fallen and seducing spirits our race has ever been accessible and more or less subjected; but when Christ was upon earth, they were permitted to assume a more perceptible, if not a more complete ascendency, extending to the body and the mind, and thus presenting the worst forms of insanity and bodily disease combined. That these demoniacal possessions are not mere poetical descriptions of disease or madness, but the real acts of spiritual agents, is apparent from the personality ascribed to them, as well as from their being so explicitly distinguished from all other maladies, as in the case before us; while the fact that they did really produce disease abundantly accounts for their being sometimes so described and constantly connected with corporeal illness. The extraordinary prevalence of these disorders in the time of Christ, while we scarcely hear of them in any other period of history, may be partly owing to the fact, that what is always going on in secret was then brought to light by his authoritative interposition; and partly to the fect, that the stupendous strife between the "seed of the woman" and the "seed of the serpent" (Gen. 3:15), which gives complexion to all human history, then reached its crisis, and these demoniacal possessions were at once the work of Satan, as a means of doing evil, and of God, as a means of doing good, by glorifying him whom he had sanctified and sent into the world. (See John 10:36; 17:1, 5.) Every expulsion of a demon by our Lord himself, or in his name by his Apostles, was a triumph over his great enemy, not only in the unseen world but upon earth, in the sight of men as well as angels (Luke 10:17, 18; John 12:31; 16:11.) This immediate relation of these strange phenomena to Christ's person and official work, accounts for their absence both before and since, as well as for the impotent resistance of the evil ones themselves, and their extorted testimony to the character and rank of their destroyer. (See Matt. 8:29–32; Mark 5:7; 9:26; Luke 4:33–35, 41; 8:28, 29.) It explains likewise the distinct mention of this class of miracles, both here and elsewhere (e. g. Matt. 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; Mark 1:34, 6:13; 16:17, 18; Luke 8:2, 36), as being in themselves the most surprising of all cures, and at the same time the most palpable of all attestations to the Messiahship and Deity of Jesus. Vexed (Wiclif travailed), literally, thronged or crowded, the original expression being a derivative of ὄχλος (see above, on 1:15), as our words perturbed, disturbed, etc., are of the synonymous word turba. As the Greek word, though employed by later writers in the vague sense of annoying or harassing, has in earlier usage, such as that of Herodotus and Æschylus, the specific sense suggested by its etymology, namely, that of harassing with crowds or mobbing, there is no absurdity in supposing, both here and in the other place where it occurs (Luke 6:18), an allusion to the grand peculiarity and fearful aggravation of such sufferings, namely, the co-existence of two spiritual agents in connection with a single body, one the tyrant, one the slave; a state of things which could not better be expressed in one word than by saying they were crowded, thronged, by evil spirits. (See Mark 5:9; Luke 8:30; 11:26.) But terrible as this condition was, we know that it was not incurable, and that although the Apostles had once failed, through want of faith, to work a dispossession (Matt. 17:14–21; Mark 9:18, 19; Luke 9:40, 41), yet now, though the Master was no longer with them, when demoniacs were brought to them in crowds from the surrounding country, they were all healed, or retaining the emphatic collocation of the Greek text, they were healed all. The less exact but expressive version, every one, is that of Tyndale.

17. Here begins another alternation or transition from more general description to particular narration. (See above, on 2:42; 4:32, 36; 5:12.) If then were an adverb, meaning at that time, (as in 1:12; 4:8), it might indicate a mere chronological connection between what is here related and what immediately precedes, as if he had said, 'about the same time other things occurred entirely distinct from these.' But as it is the usual continuative particle (δέ), by which the members of the previous narrative are linked together, it denotes a much more intimate relation, and suggests that this new attack upon the church was not only preceded but occasioned by the state of things described in vs. 12–16. It was not only when (or after) the believers were so greatly multiplied, and the people so impressed by the miracles of the Apostles, but for that very reason, that this new assault was made, which may be regarded as the second hostile movement from without, the first being that recorded in 4:1–22, as the affair of Ananias and Sapphira was the earliest disturbance from within. (See below, on 6:1.) In this, as in the former case (4:1), the hostile parties are the Priesthood and the Sadducees; but here the movement has a still more national or public character, because the High Priest is particularly mentioned. As we have no clew whatever to the length of the interval between these several occurrences, the safest as well as the most natural presumption, is that Annas is the person here intended. (See above, on 4:6.) Rose up, literally, rising or having risen. This is a neuter or intransitive form of the verb explained above, on 2:24, 32; 3:22, 26. It is a favourite of Luke's, and not unfrequent in the other books of the New Testament. In some cases, it has obviously the literal or local sense of rising from one's seat or bed (e. g. Matt. 9:9; Mark 1:35; Luke 4:16, 29, 39; John 5:8.) In a scarcely figurative sense, it is applied to resurrection from the dead (Matt. 17:9; Mark 6:14; Luke 9:8; John 20:9.) In other cases, it seems to have the vague sense of rousing or addressing one's self to action, without reference to actual corporeal movement (e. g. Mark 7:24; 10:1, 50; Luke 1:39; 4:29, etc.) As in many of these instances, however, the strict sense is admissible, or at least an allusion to it, that sense is of course entitled to the preference, without some reason for departing from it. (See above, on 4:9.) This is peculiarly the case here, as the same word occurs twice in the Gospels (Matt. 26:62; Mark 14:60) in relation to public acts of the High Priest. Upon this ground, some understand it here as meaning, that the High Priest rose up from his seat in the Sanhedrim, or in some private consultation with his allies mentioned in the other clause. But this explanation overlooks a material difference between this case and the two last cited, namely, that in them the High Priest had been represented as presiding in the Council, whereas here there is nothing of the kind referred to in the previous context, but the act of rising up is introduced abruptly. Another explanation gives the verb the emphatic sense of rising up in opposition or against (Beza, insurgens,) which may seem to be sustained by the analogy of Mark 3:26; but there the object is expressed, and the idea of hostility conveyed, not by the verb but by a preposition. Most interpreters have therefore acquiesced in the third meaning above given, namely, that of addressing one's self to action; which is certainly far better than the favourite notion of a certain school, that it is pleonastic, or in other words, means nothing at all. The additional idea which it here suggests is that of previous inaction. Since the first abortive effort to arrest the progress of the new religion (4:18, 21, 31), the authorities would seem to have been passive or indifferent, but now aroused themselves again to action. All they that were with him, or more exactly, all those with him, is supposed by some to mean the other priests, or the other members of the Sanhedrim; but no such vague and loose description of official persons occurs elsewhere. Still more unlikely is the sense of relatives or private friends, which some support by a reference to 4:6, 13. The only satisfactory interpretation is that which makes the clause mean, those (now acting) with him, in his opposition to the church, implying that it was not his own personal or party friends. This precludes the inference, which some have drawn from these expressions, that the High Priest was himself a Sadducee. We know from Josephus, that a son of Ananus (or Annas), bearing the same name, attached himself to that sect; but all our information on the subject tends to the conclusion, that both Annas himself and Caiaphas were Pharisees. (See below, on 23:6.) What is here described is, therefore, not a party-organization, but a coalition of distinct and hostile parties for a special purpose, not unlike that of Herod and Pilate against Christ. (See above, on 4:27, and compare Luke 23:12.) Which is the sect, in Greek, the sect being, or the existing sect. The participle does not agree (as it appears to do in English) with the nouns preceding, but with that which follows (ἡ οὖσα αἴρεσις). This is explained by some as a case of the grammatical figure called attraction, and equivalent in meaning to (ὂντες ἡ αἵρεσις) being the sect, i. e. 'they who acted with the High Priest, upon this occasion, were the sect of the Sadducees.' But this, though true and necessarily implied, can hardly be the meaning of the words here used. The participle (being) seems intended, from its feminine and singular form, not to identify the allies of the High Priest with the Sadducees, but rather to describe the Sadducees themselves, as an existing, long established, well-known body. (See below, on 13:1, where the same unusual expression is employed in reference to the church at Antioch.) The authors of the movement then are here described as the High Priest and those acting with him, the existing (i. e. previously existing, or perhaps still existing) party of the Sadducees. Sect, although now fixed by prescription, is not perfectly appropriate to these great Jewish parties. The Greek word (αἴρεσις) originally means the act of taking, then a choice, a preference, especially of certain views or principles, philosophical, religious, or political. Its nearest equivalents, as thus applied, are school and party, without any necessary implication of erroneous doctrine or improper practice. Thus the word is used in Greek to designate the Stoical system of philosophy; and Cicero, referring to a certain person's philosophical preferences, says, in ea haeresi est. Later ecclesiastical usage appropriated it to doctrinal departures from the orthodox or catholic faith, which is the only meaning of its English derivative (heresy.) But in the New Testament, the Greek word still retains its older application to the party holding an opinion, rather than to the opinion itself. Even in 1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20; Tit. 3:10; 2 Pet. 2:1, the immediate reference is rather to schismatical divisions than to doctrinal corruptions, although these are necessarily implied. In other parts of the book before us, it is applied to Pharisaism (15:5; 26:5,) and, in an unfavourable sense, to Christianity itself (24:5, 14; 28:22.) In all these cases, the word heresy is as inappropriate as idiot in 4:13, or despot in 4:24, though the three English words are not even corruptions of the Greek ones (like alms, palsy, bishop), but direct derivatives, formed by a simple change of termination. So far is mere coincidence of origin or form from proving words to be synonymous. There is not the same objection to the word sect, used by our translators here and elsewhere (15:5; 26:5,) and now established as a stereotyped technical expression in relation to the Pharisees and Sadducees. The word, however, should be carefully explained and clearly understood, as not implying what its general usage now includes, to wit, distinct organization and a separate worship, but merely a diversity, in certain points of theory and practice, between persons holding the same creed and joining in the same devotions. If a word were now to be selected for the first time, it is plain that this idea would be better expressed by the term school, when doctrinal diversities are specially in question, and the term party, when the reference is rather to practical matters of authority or discipline. Such were the relations of the Pharisees and Sadducees who, far from being independent sects or churches, in the modern sense, were two opposing factions in the same great church and body politic, continually striving, with alternate or variable success, for the predominance, and at this time probably sharing the great offices between them. As to their distinctive views and practice, and the motives of the Sadducees in persecuting the Apostles, see above, on 4:1. They are here said to have been filled with jealousy or party-spirit. Indignation is a sense, of which there seems to be no clear example, either in classical or hellenistic usage. According to its etymology and primary usage, the Greek word (ζῆλος) denotes any warm affection or enthusiastic impulse, either in favour of or opposition to a given object, thus coinciding almost perfectly with its derivative in English (zeal.) But besides this wider sense, it has the more specific one of jealousy, which some high authorities pronounce a Hebraism, but which occurs, though rarely, in the purest Attic writers, and is really a slight modification of a meaning common in the best Greek usage, that of eager rivalry or emulation, whether good or bad, and therefore opposed by Plato to envy (φθόνος), while Hesiod confounds them. In the case before us, the word necessarily suggests the ideas of zeal, party spirit, and malignant jealousy or envy, all of which are perfectly appropriate.

18. The first step of this movement is the same as in the former case, to wit, arrest and imprisonment, not as a punishment, but with a view to their arraignment and trial. (See above, on 4:3.) The subject of the sentence is the same as in v. 17, the High Priest and the Sadducees who acted with him. Laid their hands is, in several of the oldest manuscripts, laid hands (or laid the hands) without the pronoun. This abbreviated form is very common (see Matt. 26:50; Luke 20:19; John 7:30, 44; Acts 12:1; 21:27.) There is but one certain instance of the other (Luke 21:12; in Mark 14:46, the text is doubtful.) This is not a mere figure for arrest, but a literal description of the act by which it is effected. There is no ground whatever, in the text or context, for the supposition that Apostles here means Peter and John, of which restricted use there is no example elsewhere, unless it be in 14:4, 14, where Apostles, as we shall there see, has itself a different meaning. In every other case, throughout this history, the Apostles means the twelve as a collective body. (See below, on v. 29.) Prison is the word translated hold in 4:3, but in a different case, and preceded by a different preposition. The noun, according to Greek usage, is an abstract, meaning custody or keeping, and is so used in a moral sense by Paul (1 Cor. 7:19.) The only classical example of the local meaning (prisons) is said to be a dubious expression of Thucydides. That sense is thought to be required here by the adjective, which might however be applied to the confinement as well as to the prison. The adjective itself is apt to be misapprehended by the English reader, from the equivocal language of the version. Common prison naturally calls up the idea of promiscuous association between prisoners of various rank and character; and this has actually been insisted on by some interpreters, as an intentional insult to the twelve, or at least a serious aggravation of their sufferings. But the English word most probably, and the Greek word most certainly, means nothing more than public, belonging to the people (δῆμος) or the whole community, and not to any individual. Though common in the classics, it is found only in this book of the New Testament, and excepting in the case before us, only as an adverb (δημοσίᾳ), which is once translated openly (16:37), and twice publicly (18:28; 20:20), but might have been still more exactly rendered by the corresponding English phrase, in public.

19. From this imprisonment they were delivered, not as before, through the fears or policy of their oppressors (4:21), but by a divine interposition. (But, and, or then. See above, on v. 17.) The angel of the Lord is an expression used in the Old Testament to designate the Angel of Jehovah's presence, whom the church has commonly identified with the second person of the trinity. According to Greek usage, the words here employed denote an angel of the Lord, which may however be an imitation of the Hebrew idiom, in which a noun governing another does not take the article, however definite its sense may be. In this very title, for example, the word angel is without the article (מַלְאַךְ יְהֹוָה). But as the phrase itself, in this emphatic sense, belongs to the Old Testament exclusively, and as we have no reason to ascribe this deliverance to a personal appearance of the Son of God, the more indefinite or Greek construction of the words (an angel) seems entitled to the preference. The absence of the article before Lord rests upon a different usage, namely, that of its omission before proper names, to which class this word (Κύριος), as the Greek representative of the Hebrew Jehovah, may be properly considered as belonging. The deliverance took place by night (διά, through or in the course of, as in 1:3), probably in order to increase the terror and surprise which it occasioned. It was effected, not by a miraculous suspension of the laws of nature, but by simply opening the doors of the prison, no doubt so insensibly as not to be perceived by those who guarded it, although there may have been a supernatural effect produced upon their senses, as in other cases. (See Matt. 28:4; Luke 24:16; John 20:14.) The pretence that this is a poetical or oriental figure for the release of the Apostles by the jailor, or the guards, or any other human intervention, has been long since exploded as a sheer absurdity, or unmasked as an indirect denial of the truth of what is here recorded. By a strange revolution of opinion, many of the same class of unbelievers, who could once resort to such means of evasion, rather than abandon their old Sadducean error (see below, on 23:8), now profess to be in actual and confidential intercourse with spirits in the other world. Brought them forth, literally, bringing (or having brought) them forth. This participial construction is extended, by some manuscripts and editors, to the preceding verb (opening for opened.) That this miraculous deliverance was not intended merely for their own relief, but for a higher end, appears from the instructions of the angel, given in the next verse.

20. Go is not a mere expletive or pleonasm, as it often is in English, but has here its full sense, go away, depart hence, linger here no longer. (See above, on 1:10, 11, 25.) As they had been released, not merely to enjoy freedom, but to exercise their ministry, the angel here exhorts them to renew it. Stand and speak, literally, standing (or having taken your stand) speak. (For the use of the verb stand in such connections, see above, on 2:14.) In the temple (ἱερῷ) i. e. in the sacred enclosure, as distinguished from the edifice itself, which is denoted by another word (ναός, Matt. 23:36.) They were to preach there the whole Gospel, all the words of this life. Most interpreters regard this as an instance of the figure called hypallage, equivalent in sense to all these words of life, i. e. living or life-giving doctrines. (Compare John 6:68; Acts 7:38; John 12:50; 17:3.) Other examples of the same construction are supposed to be found in 13:26 below, and in Rom. 7:24. But some deny the hypallage in any of these cases, or at least retain the obvious construction here, explaining all the words of this life to mean all the doctrines or instructions, which are necessary to make known to Israel this new form of their own religion, as a rule of life here, and a means of everlasting life hereafter. (For a like use of the word way, see below, on 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24; 14:22, and compare the fuller forms, 13:10; 16:17; 18:25, 26; 2 Pet. 2:2, 15, 21.) Their angelic commission (see above, on 1:11) was not merely to talk but to preach, not privately but publicly, not in the streets but in the temple, not to the rulers but the people, not a part of the truth necessary to salvation, but all the words of this life. (See below, on 20:27.)

21. When they heard that, literally, hearing or having heard; that is supplied by the translators. The temple, i. e. the sacred enclosure, as in the preceding verse. Early in the morning, just about (or just before) daybreak. The Greek noun sometimes means the dawn, sometimes the morning-twilight. The preposition under, both in Greek and Latin, is applied to time, when the idea to be expressed is that of indefinite nearness. Taught, i. e. preached, taught publicly, as the angel had directed them. But (δέ,) and, or then. The High Priest and those with him is exactly the phrase used above in v. 17, with the omission of the word all. Here again it means those acting with him upon this occasion, i. e. the Sadducees, as there expressed. It is rather implied that they were not, than that they were, his usual confederates or associates. Came, literally, being (or becoming) near, at hand, or present. The Greek word is seldom used in the New Testament, except by Luke, with whom it is a favourite expression. (See below, on vs. 22, 25, where it occurs again.) It is nearly equivalent, in this case, to our phrase, being on the ground, implying rather than expressing previous arrival. There is no need therefore of inquiring to what spot, or what apartment of the temple, they now came. That they were not in the same part of the vast enclosure with the Apostles, who were probably as usual in Solomon's porch (v. 12), is clear from what follows, but creates no difficulty, as the courts of Herod's temple were both large and many. Senate, or eldership, the Greek word bearing the same relation to (γέρων) an old man, that senate does to the corresponding word in Latin (senex.) Neither primitive nor derivative occurs more than once in the New Testament. (See John 3:4.) The latter is applied in the classics to the highest council of the Doric States, particularly Sparta. In the Septuagint version, it is used, as a collective, to translate the plural elders, when considered as the representatives and rulers of the whole people (as in Ex. 3:16, 18; Deut. 27:1), or of any particular locality (as in Deut. 19:12; 21:2.) In the Apocrypha it signifies the Sanhedrim, and is so used also by Josephus. Luke elsewhere uses the synonymous term presbytery, from presbyter or elder. (See below, on 22:5, and compare Luke 22:66.) The Vulgate and the older English versions, have a plural form (seniores, eldermen, ancients, elders.) The only question here is whether it is merely a synonymous expression with the one before it (τὸ συνέδριον); or denotes the elders, as a part of the Sanhedrim; or a body of elders not included in it. Some infer from the use of the word all, that instead of a mere representation of the elders, as in ordinary cases, the High Priest and his associates, upon this occasion, summoned the whole eldership, so far as it was within reach. A striking analogy would then be furnished by the Great Consistory of the Reformed Dutch Churches. One thing is certain, that the body now assembled was a regularly constituted Sanhedrim, identical in law with that before which Peter and John had been arraigned (v. 6, 7), and as such, ordered the Apostles to be brought before it, The word translated prison is not that used above in v. 18, but a derivative of the verb (δέω) to bind, from which comes (δεσμός) a band or bond, from this (δεσμώτης) a bondman or prisoner, and from this (δεσμωτήριον) a place of bondage. To have them brought, or more exactly, for them to be brought. The unusual length of this verse, though admitting readily of subdivision, is probably a mere inadvertence of the learned printer, to whom we are indebted for this whole arrangement. See the Introduction, p. xii.)

22. But, as in v. 21. Came is the same verb as in that verse. Officers, civil not military. The Greek word originally means a rower, then any sailor, then any labourer, then any servant or dependent, in which sense it is applied to the attendant in a synagogue (Luke 4:20), and still more frequently to officers of justice, the ministerial agents of a court or magistrate. The later Greek historians use it to describe the Roman lictors. It here denotes the officers attending on the Sanhedrim to execute its orders, precisely as in Matt. 26:58; Mark 14:54, 65; John 7:32, 45, 46; 18:3, 12; 18, 22; 19:6. The older English versions here have ministers. Prison is still a third Greek word for that idea, entirely different in form from both the others, but resembling that in v. 18, as being properly an abstract (guard or watching), and almost exclusively so used in the classics. Returned and told, returning (or having returned) told, reported, brought back word, as in 4:23 above.

23. Prison, as in v. 21. Truly (μέν), as in 1:5, here answering to but (δέ) in the other clause. Shut, i. e. shut fast or fastened, the Greek expression being stronger than our closed, as appears from John 20:19, 26, where the mere closing or shutting of the doors would have been no protection. With all safety, in complete security or certainty. All, as in 4:29. (Cranmer, with all diligence). Tyndale, as sure as was possible.) Without (ἔξω) is omitted in the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions. It was probably inserted as a counterpart to within (ἔσω). When we had opened, literally, having opened. No man, no one, nobody. (See above, on 2:45.) They were, therefore, the only prisoners, unless prison here means ward or cell, or unless the others were set free at the same time. (See below, on 16:26.)

24. The now of this verse is the but of that before it. When, literally, as, the comparative particle being used, both in Greek and English, as a particle of time. (See above, on 1:10.) The High Priest is in Greek simply the Priest, and even that is omitted in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions, but probably on account of the unusual expression. The Priest, i. e. by way of eminence, the High Priest. Or the title may be used generically, without reference to minor distinctions, as in Ps. 110:4; Heb. 7:17. Of the former usage there are some examples elsewhere. Thus in one of the Apocryphal books (1 Macc. 15:1), Antiochus is said to have written to Simon, "the Priest and Ethnarch of the Jews;" whereas the letter itself, which immediately follows, is addressed to "the Grand or High Priest (ἱερεῖ μεγάλῳ)." The same use of the simple term occurs in Josephus. As to the captain of the temple, see above, on 4:1. (Vulg. magistratus templi.) He is mentioned again here, because as the conservator and guardian of the sacred place, he shared in the solicitude of the national rulers. As to the chief priests, see above, on 4:23. Cranmer inverts the usual distinction and reads Chief Priest and high priests. Tyndale has Chief Priest of all. Doubted is not strong enough to represent the Greek verb, which means that they were utterly perplexed and at a loss. (See above, on 2:12,) Of them, concerning or about them, is by some referred to things, but by most to persons, namely, the Apostles. They were wholly at a loss, and knew not what to think of them, or expect from them. Whereunto this would grow, literally, what this would become. It is different therefore from a phrase resembling it in form τί ἂν εἴη), what it might be, what it was, which is elsewhere used in connection with the same verb. (See above, on 2:12, and below, on 10:17.) The question here was not what it was that they beheld, but what it would be, if they failed to use preventive measures. This seems to be the meaning of the Vulgate version (de illis quidnam fieret), which is better imitated by the Rhemish (what would befall) than by Wiclif (what was done). Even some modern writers understand the words to mean, how it had happened, which is wholly ungrammatical.

25. Then is the word translated now in the preceding verse. Came, coming, or having come, the same verb as in vs. 21, 22. One, some one, somebody. (See above, on 1.) Told, reported, brought back word, implying perhaps that he had been sent, or gone of his own accord, to bring intelligence. The verb told, and the noun prison, are the same as in v. 22. Behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected and surprising. (See above, on 1:10; 2:7; 5:9.) Are standing and teaching is a better version than the older one of Tyndale, stand and teach. The original order is, are in the temple, standing and teaching, i. e. not in conversation merely, but in public discourse. (See above, on v. 20.) The people, in the usual emphatic sense, almost equivalent to the church. (See above, on 4:1.)

26. Then (not δέ but τότε) is the adverb of time, properly so rendered, and serving not merely to continue the narrative (like then in the preceding verse), but to mark the succession of events. It was after the report recorded in v. 25, and in consequence of it, that this step was taken. Went, literally, going away, as in 4:15 above. The captain, i. e. of the temple, as the Geneva Bible adds, while Tyndale reads, the ruler of the temple with the ministers. The persons here described as acting are the commander of the Levitical guard (see above, on 4:1), and the executive or ministerial servants of the Sanhedrim (see above, on v. 22.) Without violence, literally, not with violence (or by force), which implies that the Apostles offered no resistance. Lest they should have been stoned is Tyndale's awkward version, retained in King James's Bible. The exact translation is, in order that they might not be stoned. (Ἵνα, omitted in some ancient manuscripts, is retained as genuine by the latest critics.) The clause therefore cannot be dependent on the verb feared, which would require a different conjunction; although this construction is required by the parenthesis in most editions of the English Bible. The true parenthesis, if any be assumed, includes only the words, for they feared the people, and the true construction is, not with violence, lest they should be stoned. The stoning, so often mentioned in the New Testament, is not mere pelting, as an act of popular violence, but an ancient theocratical expression of abhorrence for some act of blasphemy or treason to Jehovah. This form of capital punishment, for such it was, had been preferred to others in the law, because it made the death of the offender, not the act of a hated executioner, but that of all the people who were present, and especially of those who had acted as informers and witnesses. From this arose the peculiar Jewish custom of taking up stones to stone one, as a sort of testimony against him. (See below, on 7:58, 59; 14:19, and compare John 8:5; 10:31–33; 11:8; 2 Cor. 11:25.) To stone, as a transitive verb, is Hellenistic; in the classics, it means to throw stones, and is followed by a preposition. Such was the popular regard for the Apostles, that the men sent to arrest them were afraid, not merely of bodily injury, but of being denounced and disowned by the people, as untrue to the theocracy and law of Moses.

27. And, but (22), now (24), then (25). When they had brought, having brought. Set, set up, presented, as in 1:23. Before (literally, in) the council, i. e. in the place of their assembly (see above, on 4:15), or still more naturally, in the midst (see above, on 4:7), or in the presence, of the Sanhedrim itself. The High Priest presides in the assembly and conducts the judicial examination, as he afterwards did in the case of Stephen and of Paul. (See above, on 4:5, and below, on 7:1; 23:2, 3.) This authority was not derived from the Sanhedrim, but inherent in the office of High Priest, in whom was concentrated and summed up the representation, not only of the family of Aaron and the tribe of Levi, but of Israel as a whole, and through it of all God's elect, or the invisible church, of which the chosen people was the type and representative; while on the other hand, he prefigured the Messiah. This official representation, both of the Body and the Head, made the High Priest at all times, but particularly when the royal and prophetical offices were in abeyance, the visible head of the theocracy, entitled, not by popular choice but by divine right, to preside in its most dignified assemblies.

28. The reference is to the injunction upon Peter and John, recorded in 4:18. The critical editions now omit the negative (οὐ), as does the Vulgate, so as to read, we straitly commanded you, etc. In favour of the common text is the expression asked (or questioned) them, in v. 27. Straitly, literally, with commandment, an expression similar to straitly threaten (threaten with a threatening) in 4:17. The intensive force of the added noun may be variously expressed in English; strictly, expressly, absolutely, peremptorily, etc. Here, too, the suppression of Christ's name is commonly regarded as contemptuous; but see above, on 4:18. It may be added that, according to Jewish notions and traditions, the suppression of a name is rather reverential than contemptuous, as appears from the immemorial refusal to pronounce the name Jehovah, and the singular interpretation of Lev. 24:15, 16, upon which it rests. And behold, contrary to what we had expected, and to our surprise. (See above, on v. 25.) Filled Jerusalem is not a Hebraism but a natural hyperbole, common to all languages. It appears in a much stronger form in 2 Kings 21:16, where we read that "Manasseh shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to another." Doctrine, i. e. teaching ('you have taught this new religion in all parts of Jerusalem') not belief ('you have converted all Jerusalem to your religion') a concession which would hardly have been made by the High Priest. (See above, on 2:42.) Intend, literally, wish, but often with an implication of design and plan, as well as mere desire. (See below, on v. 33; 12:4; 15:37; 18:27; 19:30; 28:18, and compare Matt. 1:19; 2 Cor. 1:15, 17.) To bring blood upon the head is a peculiar Hebrew idion, meaning to make one answer for the death or murder of another. (See below, on 18:6, and compare Ezek. 33:4; Matt. 23:5; 27:25.) One of the Fathers here remarks that the High Priest had forgotten the fearful imprecation, by which he and his followers had assumed the very responsibility, which he charges the Apostles with desiring to fasten on them. The reference here, however, is not so much to the divine vengeance as to that of the people, whom the rulers had misled and urged on to this dreadful crime, but whose feelings had already undergone a violent reaction, which might well seem threatening to their faithless guides. (As to this man, see above, on this name.

29. The original form of the first clause is peculiar, one verb agreeing with Peter in the singular, and the other with Apostles in the plural. This seems to mean that Peter alone spoke, but that all the Apostles spoke through him. (Then, as in v 25, not as in v. 26.) We ought should rather be we must, expressing not mere obligation but necessity. (See above, on 1:16; 22; 4:12.) The same principle is here avowed as in 4:19, 20, but in a more positive and pointed form. Instead of the verb hear or hearken there used, we have here, not the ordinary verb to obey, but a compound form of it, denoting submission to government or constituted authority (ἀρχή). It is the word translated to obey magistrates in Tit. 3:1. Besides the essential idea of obedience, it here suggests, that God is superior to man, not only in power, but in rightful authority. The translation rather, contended for by some in 4:18, is here adopted by the translators themselves.

30. Here again we have the favourite antithesis or contrast between Christ's treatment at the hands of God and man, which may be described as the key-note of this, as of the three previous discourses of Peter. (See above, on 2:23, 24, 26; 3:13, 15; 4:10.) The God of our fathers, our own national and covenant God. The our identifies the speaker and the hearers, as belonging to the same race and believing the same scriptures. Raised up, literally, aroused, awakened, i. e. from the sleep of death. (See above, on 3:15; 4:10.) Slew is none of the verbs commonly employed in that sense, but one strictly meaning to handle, manage, and applied by the later classics, like our despatch, both to the transaction of business and the destruction of life. (See below, on 26:21, the only other place where it occurs in the New Testament.) Hanged on a tree, i. e. crucified. (See below, on 10:39, and compare Gal 3:13; 1 Pet. 2:24.) The word translated tree has no such usage in the classical Greek writers of an early date, but corresponds to wood in English. In the Hellenistic dialect it corresponds to the Hebrew word (עַץ) denoting both. The contrary change has taken place in our word tree, which once had a wider meaning than it now has, as appears from such compounds as axle-tree, saddle-tree, gallows-tree. This ambiguity of the Greek and Hebrew words has some importance in connection with the fulfilment of prophecy. Crucifixion was a punishment unknown to the law of Moses or the practice of the Jews till introduced by foreign conquerors. The hanging mentioned in the law (Deut. 21:22) is the posthumous exposure of the body after being otherwise put to death. And yet the curse pronounced on such is so framed as to be strictly applicable to the case of crucifixion, the terms hanging on a tree being appropriate to both, but only on condition that the word tree be considered as equivalent to wood. The ancient hanging was most probably on trees, in the literal sense of the expression; the later crucifixion was on wooden crosses framed expressly for the purpose.

31. Him, literally, this (one), i. e. the very one whom you thus crucified. Exalted, or as Tyndale has it, lift up. With his right hand, by the exertion of his power, and to his right hand, i. e. to a share in that power and in the dignity connected with it. (See above, on 2:23.) To be, or as a Prince and Saviour already, which last is preferred by some interpreters. (The Rhemish version is, this Prince and Saviour hath God exalted.) Prince, captain, author; (see above, on 3:15.) For to give (see above, on 4:28.) To give repentance is not merely to give time for it (as Philo says, δίδωσι χρόνον εἰς μετανοίαν), or place for it (as Qumtilian says, detis locum pœnitentiœ, compare Heb. 12:17), but to give the grace of repentance, i. e. power and disposition to repent. The old sense of penance may be seen in Wiclif's version of this clause (that penance were given). Forgiveness is the word translated remission in 2:38, and there explained. The express mention of Israel, as the object of this favour, is not intended to restrict it to the Jews; but either to intimate the priority of the offer made to them (see above, on 3:26); or to embrace the spiritual Israel, the entire church of God's elect (see Rom. 9:6); or more probably than either, to assure the contemporary Jews, who had been implicated in the murder of their own Messiah, that even this most aggravated sin was not beyond the reach of the divine forgiveness, if repented of; to bestow both which gifts, i. e. repentance as the means, and forgiveness as the end, was the very purpose for which Christ had been exalted as a Prince and Saviour

32. Some of the oldest manuscripts omit his before witnesses, without material effect upon the sense. Things, literally, words or sayings. It may be doubted whether the Greek word ever has the vague sense of things, without some reference to their being spoken, promised, or commanded. See below, on 10:37, and compare Luke 1:37; 2:19, 51. In the last two places, our version renders the same word things and sayings, although the connection is precisely similar. Some suppose an allusion here to the words of this life in v. 20, where the same Greek word is used. They again assert their apostolical commission as witnesses for Christ (see above, on 1:8, 22; 2:32, 40; 3:15), but with a remarkable addition, claiming to be joint-witnesses with the Holy Spirit, whom the Lord had promised (John 15:26) in that very character. (See below, on 15:28, and compare Heb. 10:15.) The testimony of the Spirit, here referred to, is not that spoken of in Rom. 8:16, as involved in the experience of all believers, but an outward testimony corroborating that of the Apostles. This could only be afforded by the miraculous endowments of the first disciples, who are here described as those obeying God, with manifest allusion to the principle avowed in v. 29, the Greek verb being the one there used and explained, as denoting obedience to the rightful authority and government of God.

33. The effect of this discourse was very different from that upon the day of Pentecost, although the terms used to describe it are somewhat similar. When they heard that, or more literally, they hearing. Cut to the heart, literally, sawn through. As the Greek verb is sometimes used with teeth, to signify the act of sawing, grinding, or gnashing them, some suppose that to be its meaning here. But besides the absence of the noun which indicates this meaning elsewhere, it is forbidden by the analogy of 7:54, where the same verb is used, with the addition of the noun hearts, to denote that the effect was an internal mental one. The same noun is added in 2:37, but to a milder verb (pricked or pierced). The effect here described is probably a mixture of conscious guilt with revengeful wrath, as expressed in the Geneva Bible, they brast (burst) for anger. (Vulg. dissecabantur. Wiclif were tormented. Tynd. they clave asunder. Rhem. it cut them to the heart.) This feeling led to a new step in the march of persecution. Instead of idle threats and prohibitions (see above, on 4:17, 18), they now conceived the thought of capital punishment and bloody persecution. Took counsel, deliberated, or consulted, denotes mutual conference and comparison of views, as in 4:15. But the verb here used more probably means, formed the plan or purpose, nearly equivalent to intended. (See below, on 15:37, where determined is too strong, as consulted is too weak in John. 12:10) Tyndale's sought means is not a version but a paraphrase. Several of the oldest manuscripts and versions read (ἐβούλοντο) they wished, which, as explained above (on v. 28), amounts to nearly the same thing; but the common text (ἐβουλεύοντο) is retained by the latest critics. Slay is not the verb translated slew in v. 30, but the one used in 2:23, and there explained.

34. These sanguinary measures are prevented by the interposition of a new and interesting character. Then stood there up is Tyndale's version; a more literal translation would be, and arising. One (τις), some (one), a certain (man or person.) See above, on v. 1. In the council, and by necessary implication, a member of the body. In what capacity he sat there, is afterwards explained. A Pharisee, and therefore not one of the party which was acting in conjunction with the High Priest, and in opposition to the new religion. (See above, on v. 17.) Gamaliel, an old and honourable name in the tribe of Manasseh (Num. 1:10; 2:20.) There is no reason for disputing the identity of this man with the Gamaliel of the Talmud, a grandson of the famous Hillel, and a son of Simon (supposed by some to be the Simeon of Luke 2:25), himself so eminent for wisdom, and especially for moderation, that his death is represented in the Jewish books, as the departure of true Pharisaism from Israel. Nor is there any ground for doubt, that this was the Gamaliel at whose feet Saul of Tarsus sat. (See below, on 22:3.) A doctor (i. e. teacher) of the law, in Greek one compound word (νομοδιδάσκαλος), used only by Luke and Paul (Luke 5:17; 1 Tim. 1:7), and either convertible with scribe and lawyer, or a specific designation of those scribes and lawyers, who were recognized as public and authoritative teachers. (See above, on 4:5.) It was in this capacity or character, no doubt, that Gamaliel acted as a member of the Sanhedrim. Had in reputation (Tyndale, had in authority) is a paraphrase of one Greek word (τίμιος from τιμή, honour, see above, on 4:34), meaning honoured, highly valued, precious, dear (Wiclif, worshipful.) To all the people, as distinguished from the rulers or the higher classes. He might therefore be regarded as the leader of the opposition to the dominant party, which was now that of the Sadducees, or under Sadducean influence. Commanded is not the word so rendered in 1:4; 4:18, but the one used in 4:15, in a precisely similar connection. This seems to favour the distinction made by some, but not recognized by others, between the first of these verbs (παραγγέλλω), as denoting an absolute or peremptory order, and the other (κελεύω), as denoting rather an authoritative exhortation, and applied by Herodotus and Homer even to the petitions or requests of an inferior. In this connection, it approaches very nearly to the modern usage of proposed or moved, but with an implication of authority, official or personal, on the part of him who made the proposition. At all events, it furnishes no ground for the inference, which some have drawn, that Gamaliel was presiding in the Sanhedrim, a dignity belonging ex officio to the High Priest. (See above, on v. 27, and with respect to the exclusion of the prisoners, on 4:15.) Some of the latest critics, following the Vulgate and several ancient manuscripts, instead of the apostles, read the men. To put forth is the English equivalent of an idiomatic Greek phrase (ἔξω ποιῆσαι) meaning literally to make out or outside. Tyndale and Cranmer have aside, as King James's version also has in 4:15. Another idiomatic phrase follows (βραχύ τι), originally meaning something short, and then some little, whether applied to quantity (as in John 6:7), or to distance (as in Acts 27:28), or to time (as in Luke 22:58), which last is here preferred by most interpreters, and may have been intended by our own translators, although they have retained Tyndale's ambiguous phrase, a little space, which rather seems to have a local meaning.

35. Them is without a grammatical antecedent, as the same pronoun is in 4:5 above. The application of a rigid rule would represent Gamaliel as addressing the Apostles. (See above, on 4:17.) To supply this omission, one old version and one old Greek manuscript read, said to the rulers and the counsellors. Gamaliel's speech is interesting in itself and on account of the effect which it produced, but also as a specimen of Jewish oratory, wholly distinct from that of the Apostles, and exhibiting just that degree of sameness and variety which might have been expected from the circumstances of the case. (See above, on 3:26.) After a prefatory warning (35), he refers to two historical examples (36, 37), and then lays down and applies to the case before them an important principle of action (38, 39.) Men of Israel (as in 2:22; 3:12) reminds them that they are acting in a national or theocratical capacity, and may be likened to the warning given to our church-courts, when about to exercise judicial functions. Take heed is in Greek an elliptical expression, meaning hold to or apply (the mind), i. e. advert, attend. With the dative, it means to pay attention or regard (as in 8:6; 10:11; 16:14); with a preposition (ἀπό), to beware of, to avoid (as in Matt. 6:1; Luke 20:46); with a reflexive pronoun (ἑαυτοῖς), to take heed to one's self, to be on one's guard (as in 20:28; Luke 12:1; 17:3; 21:34.) This is the meaning here, where the Sanhedrim are warned, not only of error, but of danger to themselves. The remainder of the verse admits of two constructions. One connects the words as touching these men (Tyndale's antiquated phrase for as to or concerning them) with the verb to do. 'Be careful (or consider well) what you are about to do to these men.' This, though natural enough in English, is in Greek made less so by the collocation of the sentence, in which the words, ye are about to do, come after these men, not before it. This inconvenience is avoided by the other syntax, which connects concerning these men with the words preceding. 'Take heed to yourselves, as touching these men, what ye are about to do.' Intend is not the verb so rendered in v. 28, but that employed in 3:3, and there explained as signifying mere futurity, to be about to do the act denoted by the verb that follows.

36. In support of his advice, he adduces two historical examples, both familiar to his hearers, and perhaps still fresh in their recollection. Before these days is an indefinite expression, not so strong as that in 15:17, and intended merely to suggest, that the case before them was by no means new. Arose, or stood up, does not mean rebelled, or made an insurrection (insurrexit), which is neither the classical nor scriptural usage of the Greek verb (see above, on v. 17), but appeared, came forward. (See below, on 7:18, and compare Heb. 7:15.) Boasting, literally, saying. Somebody, i. e. some great one, as it is more fully expressed in reference to Simon Magus. (See below, on 8:9, and compare the well known phrase of Juvenal, si vis esse aliquis.) Joined themselves, a compound form of the verb used above in v. 13, and there explained. The latest editors adopt another reading (προσεκλίθη), which originally means leaned towards or inclined to, but in its secondary usage, coincides very nearly with the common text (προσεκολλήθη), both denoting adherence or adhesion. Slain, despatched, made away with, as in v. 33, and in 2:23 above. All as many as, see above, on 4:34. Obeyed is properly a passive, meaning were persuaded, and is never used to signify compulsory obedience. It is therefore peculiarly expressive of the voluntary deference paid to party leaders and religious teachers. Scattered, or rather, dissolved, disorganized. Were brought to nought, or came to nothing (see above, on 4:11), in obvious allusion and antithesis to his thinking himself somebody or something. Josephus also gives the history of an impostor (γόης), by the name of Theudas, who drew a great part of the people after him, and promised to divide the Jordan, but was seized and beheaded by order of the Roman Procurator of Judea. But this was in the reign of Caligula or Claudius. The supposed anachronism has been variously solved, by dating the events here recorded several years later than the usual chronology; by charging the error on Josephus; by identifying Theudas with some one of the many such insurgents, whom Josephus mentions under other names; or lastly by supposing two of the same name, one recorded by Josephus and the other by Luke. This last, which has been the common explanation since the time of Origen, is favoured by the fact, that the Theudas of Josephus was beheaded, and could not therefore have been cited by Gamaliel, as a proof that such pretenders should be left to themselves, without official interference. Such a coincidence of names, though not to be assumed without necessity, is common enough in history and real life to be admissible where such necessity exists, especially in this case, where the name in question is said to have been common, even among Greeks and Romans. This explanation would be still more satisfactory if it could be shown, as some assume, that Theudas was the name of a father and a son, who successively excited insurrections. The essential point to be observed, however, is that there is no ground for charging Luke with ignorance or error. Such a charge is in the last degree improbable, considering how often such apparent inconsistencies are reconciled by the discovery of new but intrinsically unimportant facts; and also that the error, if it were one, must have been immediately discovered, and would either have been rectified at once, or made the ground of argumentative objection.

37. This man is also mentioned by Josephus, once as a Gaulonite, but in several places as a Galilean, one name perhaps denoting his place of residence, the other that of his nativity. In the days of the taxing, or as Tyndale has it, in the time when tribute began, which seems to mean, at the beginning of the Roman domination. But this is a mere paraphrase, and most interpreters apply the words to a particular measure of the Roman government in Palestine, of such a nature as to furnish a convenient date or epoch. The word translated taxing primarily means transcription, then inscription or enrollment, both of things and persons, being applied by Plato to the registration of property, by Polybius to that of men liable to military duty, by Josephus to a census, both of citizens and their estates. In Luke 2:2, it denotes such a census or assessment, taken with a view to taxation, under Cyrenius (the Greek form of Quirinus), Proconsul of Syria. This same Cyrenius is said by Josephus to have vanquished and destroyed the Galilean rebel Judas; a coincidence of much more weight in favour of the narrative before us, than any difference or doubt, as to minute chronology or other circumstances, ought to have against it. Tried by the rigid rule, which many would apply in this case, the most accredited historians, ancient and modern, might be constantly convicted of mistake or falsehood. It was against this census, or the taxation which it had in view, that Judas roused the people to resistance, as inconsistent with their national and theocratical immunities. Josephus mentions the destruction of his sons, but not his own, which is explicitly asserted here. That writer also represents him as the founder of a sect or party, which survived him. This is not inconsistent with the statement that his followers were dispersed, as the Greek verb here used properly denotes the scattering of individuals by sudden violence; whereas the verb of the preceding verse expresses rather the entire dissolution of an organized body, as for instance the disbanding of an army, to which Xenophon applies it. Drew away, incited to apostasy, a word derived from the Greek verb here used, as well as in the Septuagint version of Deut. 7:4; 13:10, where it denotes the act of turning others from the worship of Jehovah. For a very different use of the same verb as an intransitive, see the next verse.

38. He here applies the principle, deducible from the cases which he had just cited, to the case in hand. And now marks the transition from the past to the present or the future in the speaker's mind. (See above, on 4:29.) I say unto you is not an unmeaning or superfluous expression, but an indication of the speaker's earnestness, and of the importance he attached to what he was about to say. (See above, on 2:22, 29.) Refrain, literally, stand off, stand aloof, a neuter or intransitive form of the verb used in the preceding verse. (For other examples of the same sense, see below, on 12:10; 15:38; 19:9; 22:29.) Let them alone, or more exactly, suffer them, permit them, i. e. to go on, to do as they are doing. The suppression of the second verb is not uncommon in the best Greek writers. The second clause assigns the ground or reason of the exhortation in the first. Counsel and work are related to each other as plan and execution; what they wish or purpose, and what they have actually done or are now doing. The principle here laid down is a general but not an universal one. Gamaliel could not mean to say that every human scheme must fail, which is notoriously false. His words may be qualified or limited in two ways. Of men (literally out of, i. e. arising or originating from men) may be understood to mean without regard to God or in defiance of him. But a still more natural and satisfactory solution is afforded by referring the entire proposition to such cases as the one in hand, i. e. attempts to introduce a new religion, or at least new modes of faith and practice. Of these it may be truly and emphatically said that if they are of men, i. e. of human origin, they must eventually come to nought. The Greek verb thus translated is a kindred form to one in v. 36, not that rendered brought to nought, but scattered. The essential meaning in both compounds is solution, dissolution, that kind of destruction which consists in or arises from internal separation or disintegration, such as the ruin of the temple, in which not one stone was to be left upon another, and to which this verb is applied by the evangelists. (See Matt. 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 21:6; and compare Matt. 21:21, 27, 40; Mark 14:58; 15:29; 2 Cor. 5:1; Gal. 2:18.) The expression is peculiarly appropriate to that internal dissolution which, even in the absence of all outward force, awaits every system of religious faith which has a merely human origin.

39. This is the alternative hypothesis, which he suggests, as no less possible than that propounded in the former verse. Of God corresponds exactly to of men in v. 38, and therefore means, proceeding from him, as its origin or source. Cannot, or according to the text adopted by the latest critics, will not be able, the future form suggesting still more strongly than the present, the idea of remote contingency. The parallelism of the verses, and of Gamaliel's suppositions, is partially hidden from the English reader, by a needless variation in the rendering of the same Greek verb, the overthrow of this verse being the same with the come to nought of that before it. Another various reading in the text is them for it, which seems sufficiently attested, but has no material effect upon the meaning, as it merely substitutes the men themselves for their work or counsel. Between the clauses some supply, as a connecting thought, 'and ye ought not to attempt it, lest etc.' Ye be found, i. e. prove unexpectedly to be so, as the same form of the same verb means in Matt. 1:18. To fight against God gives the sense, but not the form or the peculiar force of the original, in which these four words are replaced by one, and that one not a verb, but an expressive compound adjective (God-fighting, or, taken absolutely as a noun, God-fighters.) It is unknown to the classics, but is used by one of the old Greek translators to represent a Hebrew word for giants, which he probably confounded with the Titans of the Greek mythology. A verb compounded of the same elements (θεομαχέω) is found in Euripides, and in the received text of 23:9 below. Very extreme views have been taken of this speech and of its author's character and motives. The old opinion, found with various embellishments in several early writers, that Gamaliel was a Christian, of the same class with Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, is inconsistent with the high position which he has maintained in the tradition of the Jews (see above, on v. 34), if not with Paul's allusion to him as his own instructor in the strictest form of Pharisaical religion (see below, on 22:3.) That the speech itself is an authoritative statement of the true principle to be adopted and applied in all such cases, is as groundless an opinion as its opposite, to wit, that there is no truth at all in the doctrine here propounded, but only a sophistical apology for temporizing unbelief. The common sense of readers in all ages has avoided both extremes by regarding the speech as an argument ad hominem, designed to show, and actually showing, that his hearers, on their own principles, were bound to take the course here recommended, as a matter both of duty and of safety. If they, as conscientious Jews, believed the new religion to be altogether human in its origin, and utterly without divine authority, and yet could neither question nor explain away the miracles by which it was attested, they were bound to do precisely what Gamaliel here advises, i. e. nothing at all. The position of the rulers who continued to reject Christ had become extremely difficult and dangerous. Unwilling to acknowledge him as the Messiah, yet unable to refute his claims, or to deny the evidence by which they were attested, their only safety was to sit still and observe the progress of events. A resort to violence was full of peril to themselves, and yet on this the council seemed resolved. There could not, therefore, have been wiser counsel, under the circumstances of the case, than that here given by Gamaliel, whether prompted by habitual aversion to all rash and hazardous expedients; or by jealous opposition to the Sadducees, from whom the proposition came; or by a secret misgiving that the new religion might be true.

40. To him they agreed might seem to mean that they were previously of the same opinion, and therefore assented to it as it was pronounced by him. But the original expression means, they were persuaded or convinced, and implies a change of mind effected by Gamaliel's speech. This was the more remarkable because he seems to have been one of the minority. (See above, on vs. 34, 36.) When they had called, etc., literally, having called the apostles, having beaten, they commanded them. This cruel inconsistency shows the perplexity to which they reduced. The scourging could not be intended as a means of inquisition or discovery (see below, on 22:24), for there was nothing to discover; but only as a punishment, too light if they were guilty, too severe if they were innocent. This kind of punishment was common among the Jews, from the time of Moses (Deut. 25:1–3) to the time of Paul (2 Cor. 11:24), who seems to distinguish between different forms or methods of infliction. The word here used, which properly means flaying, denotes the severest kind of scourging. This punishment was also thought peculiarly disgraceful (τιμωρία αἰσχίστη, as Josephus calls it.) Their subjection to the scourge had been explicitly predicted by their Master (Matt. 10:17), and was a necessary part of their conformity to his example (Matt. 27:26; Luke 23:6.) Ordered not to speak, as in 4:18, where the terms here used have been already explained. This repetition of a measure, which before had proved entirely ineffectual, illustrates the degraded position of the rulers, while the scourging shows their impotent malignity.

41. So then (μὲν οὖν, 1:6, 18; 2:41) they departed (ἐπορεύοντο, 1:10; 11:25; 5:20) rejoicing from the presence, etc. One of the Fathers notes it, as a characteristic of the first disciples, that they are so often represented as rejoicing under circumstances naturally suited to awaken opposite emotions (see below, on 13:52, and compare Luke 24:52.) Counted worthy to suffer shame, a beautiful antithesis (the honour to be dishonoured, the grace to be disgraced) far more pointed and expressive than the famous words of Seneca, sometimes quoted as a parallel. (Digni visi sumus Deo in quibus experiretur quantum humana natura pati posset.) For his name, not merely for being called by his name, but for the sake of all that it implies, his doctrine, his messiahship, his service, his divinity. The oldest manuscripts, and all the ancient versions, omit his (αὐτοῦ), not only without loss, but with advantage to the sense, or at least to the force and beauty of the passage. The name is then used absolutely, like the word (see above, on 4:4), and the way (see below, on 9:2), for the name above every name that is named, at which every knee must bow. (Phil. 2:9, 10; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 1:4.)

42. Besides the immediate and more personal effect of this maltreatment on the feelings of the sufferers, as described in the preceding verse, the historian records its permanent effect on their official conduct, namely, that they did precisely what they were commanded not to do. To make this prominent, the terms of the prohibition are repeated. (See above, on 4:18; 5:40.) Every day, both in the temple and at home, in private houses, not in every house, which would be an inappropriate and gratuitous hyperbole. (See above, on 2:46.) Ceased not, as might have been expected, and as they had been explicitly commanded. Teaching and preaching are specifications of the speaking forbidden in v. 40. They may either correspond to the private and public ministrations previously mentioned, or be descriptive of all their ministrations, whether public or private, as instructive and yet cheering, communicating truth and at the same time joyful tidings or good news, which is the full sense of the verb here rendered preach, whereas the other verbs so rendered elsewhere simply mean to publish or proclaim. (See above, on 3:24, and below, on 8:5.) The one here used sometimes governs, as an active verb, the persons preached to (see below, on 8:25, 40), a construction also used with its derivative in modern English (to evangelize a country or the world), but not when the accusative denotes the subject of the preaching, as in 8:4, 12, 35, and in the case before us, where the Rhemish version violates our idiom by its slavish imitation of the Vulgate (to evangelize Jesus Christ). The last words of the verse are to be understood as in 2:38; 3:6, 20; 4:10, not as personal names but as official titles, meaning Saviour and Messiah; or, as in 2:36, where Jesus is the subject and Christ the predicate—'teaching as a doctrine, and proclaiming as good news, that Jesus is the Christ,' i. e. the anointed and predicted Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel.

CHAPTER 6

TO prepare the way for the extension of the Church, a difference is permitted to arise within it (1), in consequence of which the twelve assemble the disciples (2), and propose a cure for the existing evil (3, 4), which is accordingly applied by the appointment of seven men to dispense the charities of the church (5, 6.) A great addition, from the most important class of Jews, ensues upon this measure (7.) One of the seven is involved in a controversy with certain foreign Jews (8–10), who by false charges rouse the populace, and arraign him before the Sanhedrim as a blasphemer and a traitor to the Mosaic institutions (11–14.) All this, with the account of his extraordinary aspect at the bar (15), is introductory to his masterly defence, recorded in the following chapter.

1. Those days is an indefinite expression, sometimes relating to an interval of a few days (as in 1:15), sometimes to one of many years (as in Matt. 3:1), but always implying some connection between what precedes and follows. It may here be understood to mean, 'while they were thus engaged in preaching Christ' (see 5:42.) The disciples multiplying is the literal translation. Disciples, not in the restricted sense of apostles (Luke 6:13), but in the wider sense of learners, pupils in the school of Christ, a favourite expression for believers, converts to the new religion (see below, on 9:26.) Arose, literally, happened, came to pass, or into existence; implying that the dissatisfaction was a new thing and subsequent to the increase just mentioned. Murmuring or whispering, any suppressed pressed talking, sometimes indicative of fear (John 7:12, 13), but commonly, as here, of discontent (Phil. 2:14; 1 Pet. 4:9.) Grecians (Hellenists), not Greeks (Hellenes), but Jews using the Greek language in their worship, and therefore applied to the whole class of foreign or Greek-speaking Jews, as distinguished from the Hebrews, or natives of Palestine and others, who used the Hebrew scriptures, and spoke the Aramaic dialect before described (on 1:19.) Between these races there was no doubt constant jealousy or emulation, although no real difference of faith or practice; and this party-spirit many seem to have carried with them into the Christian Church on their conversion. Widows are often specified in Scripture, as particular objects of compassion, both divine and human, and therefore may be said to represent the whole class of helpless sufferers. (See Ex. 22:22; Deut. 10:18; 1 Tim. 5:3; 4:5.) But here no doubt, the complaint was a specific one respecting widows in the proper sense. Neglected, literally overlooked, not necessarily implying ill-will or contempt, but merely such neglect as might arise from their being less known than the natives. The jealousy of the races may have prompted the complaint, without affording the occasion for it. Ministration, dispensation, distribution, probably of food, to which the Greek word properly relates, and which agrees best with its being daily. The charities of the infant church were connected originally with its social meetings and repasts (see above, on 2:42, and compare Neh. 8:10), although no doubt afterwards extended, as occasion served, to domiciliary and pecuniary aid. This verse confirms the previous conclusion, that there was no absolute community of goods, or common sustentation-fund, from which all might draw alike.

2. Then, so, but, or and, as in v. 1. The twelve, now complete by the election of Matthias (1:26), and acting as an organized and organizing body, evidently authorized to mature the constitution of the church, by providing for emergencies as they arose. The one before us being of a popular or social nature, they refer it to the aggregate body of believers, but themselves prescribe the mode of action; thus applying and exemplifying two great principles of apostolical church polity, the participation of the people in the government of the body, and its subordination to divinely constituted officers. Calling or having called, i. e. summoned or convened them in the presence of the twelve. The multitude, not merely a great number, but the whole mass or aggregate body of believers, as distinguished from its subdivisions and from the Apostles. Disciples has precisely the same meaning as in v. 1. Not reason, literally, not pleasing, acceptable, agreeable, i. e. to God or to Christ, and to us as his vicegerents. The idea of right or proper, although not expressed, is necessarily implied. That we should leave … and serve, literally, for us leaving, … to serve. The word of God, i. e. the duty of dispensing and proclaiming it, the propagation of the new religion (see above, on 4:4.) Serve tables, i. e. wait upon, attend them. The Greek verb is the one corresponding to the noun (ministration) in v. 1. Its being here combined with tables shows that the latter is not to be taken in the sense of money-tables, counters, banks (which it has in Matt. 21:12; Luke 19:23), but in that of dining-tables, boards at which men eat (as in 16:34; Mark 7:28; Luke 16:21.) There is no reference to what we call communion-tables, except so far as sacramental and charitable distributions were connected in the practice of the infant church.

3. Wherefore, because the two employments are thus incompatible, and one of them has much the stronger claim on us. Brethren, not brethren in the ministry but in the faith (see above, on 1:16.) Look out, literally, look at, visit, or inspect, for the purpose of discovering the necessary qualifications. Among you, literally, out of, from among you, of yourselves, belonging to your body (see above, on 3:22.) Men, not in the vague sense of persons, but in the specific sense of males, not women (see above, on 4:4.) Seven has been variously explained, as a number arbitrarily selected, or for some reason of convenience, now unknown; or because seven nations are supposed to have been represented; or because the church was now divided into seven congregations; or, most probably of all, because of its sacred associations, which may all perhaps be traced back to the institution of the Sabbath, by the consecration of one day in seven to God's special service. (See Gen. 2:3; 7:2, 3; 8:10, 12; 41:2; Lev. 23:15; 25:8; Num. 23:1; Josh. 6:4; Job 5:19; Prov. 9:1; Mic. 5:5; Zech. 3:9; 4:2.) This is sufficient to account for its selection, where any other number might have served as well, but not to prove it necessary, as it was considered afterwards, and formally declared by one of the early councils. Rome, at one time, we are told, had forty presbyters and only seven deacons. Of honest report, literally, testified, attested, i. e. certified by others to be what they ought to be (see below, on 10:22; 16:2; 22:12.) Full of the Holy Ghost, both of his ordinary sanctifying influences, and of his extraordinary preternatural endowments. Wisdom, not merely practical skill or professional experience, but heavenly prudence, teaching how to act in all emergencies. We may appoint (or according to another reading, will appoint), place, constitute, establish. (See below, on 7:10, 27, 35; 17:15.) Business, literally, need, necessity (2:45; 4:35; 20:34; 28:10), or necessary business, implying a present and particular emergency.

4. But we, emphatically (see above, on 4:20), we on our part, as distinguished from the persons thus selected. Prayer, not personal devotion merely, but the business of conducting public worship, as the ministry (or dispensation) of the word (see above, on v. 2), evidently means the work of preaching or public and official teaching. Will give ourselves continually corresponds to one Greek verb, the same that occurs above, in 1:14; 2:42, 46, and there explained, meaning to adhere to or attend upon a person or a duty. We have here the apostolical decision as to the relative importance of alms-giving and instruction, as functions of the ministry. Whether the Apostles had previously discharged both and now relinquished one, or whether they should here be understood as declining to assume a burden which they had not borne before, there is nothing in the text or context to determine. The first idea is perhaps the one conveyed by the language of the passage to most readers.

5. Saying, word, discourse, or speech. The idea of plan or proposition is implied but not expressed. Pleased, literally, pleased before, or in the sight of, an imitation of the common Hebrew idiom, to be good or right in the eyes of any one (see Gen. 41:37; 45:16; 1 Sam. 29:6; 2 Sam. 17:4; 1 Chr. 13:4; 2 Chr. 30:4; Esth. 1:21.) The whole multitude, apparently without exception or dissent, which seems to show the absence of malignant jealousy and party-spirit. Chose, or as the Greek verb properly denotes, chose out for themselves. (See above, on 1:24, where the same form is applied to the divine choice.) Faith here takes the place of wisdom in v. 3, not because the words are synonymous or the things identical, but because the wisdom there meant is a fruit of faith, and therefore something more than secular prudence or skill in business. This description is not applied expressly to all the seven; for then it would have had the plural form and the last place in the sentence. But its limitation to Stephen does not imply, that the others were destitute of these gifts, which had been required in all (v. 3); nor even that they were inferior, for why should such inequality exist in men appointed at the same time to the same work? The true explanation is, that this whole narrative is simply introductory to Stephen's martyrdom, and he is therefore singled out and rendered prominent among the seven, not only in this general description, but in vs. 8–10. Hence it appears, moreover, that we have not here a formal history of the institution of an office in the church, but at most an incidental notice of it, as the occasion of a subsequent discussion, persecution, and diffusion of the gospel. (See below, on 8:1, 4.) As all the names are Greek names, it is not improbable that these men were selected from among the Hellenists, to silence their complaints; either by a generous concession of the Hebrews, who agreed that this whole business should be managed by their foreign brethren; or by adding seven Grecians to the Hebrew almoners before existing, whose official action had been called in question. The inference from the Greek names is not conclusive, as many Jews had double names in that age (see above, on 1:23; 4:36); but this does not account for the concurrence of so many Greek names, without Hebrew equivalents, and in connection with a strife between the races. Nicolas the proselyte of Antioch, literally, the Antiochean proselyte, or convert from Heathenism to Judaism, and now to Christianity. Some have inferred from this description, that the other six were Jews by birth, although not Hebrews, in the sense explained above (on v. 1); others, that they were likewise proselytes, but of Jerusalem not Antioch. A third hypothesis, that three were Hebrews, three Greeks, and one proselyte, is purely conjectural and inadmissible, because no heathen converts had as yet been directly introduced into the church (see above, on 2:39, and below, on 10:34, 35.) The old opinion, that this Nicolas was the founder of the Nicolaitans, condemned in Rev. 2:6, 15, seems to be a mere conjecture from the similarity of names, and in the absence of all proof, does gross injustice to one of the men chosen by the Church, approved by the Apostles, and described, at least by necessary implication, as full of wisdom and the Holy Ghost. Philip, not the Apostle (see above, on 1:13), who was one of those to be relieved by this appointment, but another person of the same name, who becomes conspicuous in the sequel of the history. (See below, on 8:5, 40; 21:8.) Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, and Parmenas, are names recorded only here.

6. Set, placed, caused to stand, the verb translated appointed in 1:23. In both cases it denotes the presentation of the persons found to possess the prescribed qualifications. Election, in the proper sense, is not suggested by this word, but explicitly recorded in the context (v. 5.) The subject of this verb is the collective term, the multitude, but not of the verbs in the last clause; for if the people performed all the acts, the presentation was superfluous. When they had prayed, literally, having prayed, or praying, as the two acts were most probably performed at once. That of praying was a solemn recognition of their own dependence on a higher power. The imposition of hands is a natural symbol of transfer or communication, whether of guilt, as in the sacrificial ritual (Lev. 2:2; 8:13), or of blessing (Gen. 48:14; Matt. 19:13.) In the New Testament, we find it accompanying certain signal gifts, as that of bodily healing (Matt. 9:18; Mark 6:5; 7:32; 8:23; 16:18; Luke 4:40; 13:13), that of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:17; 19:6), and in one case both together (Acts 9:17.) In the case before us, it denotes, not only delegation of authority, but also the collation of the special gifts required for its exercise. This might seem to render doubtful the propriety of using it in modern ordinations, where no extraordinary gifts are thus imparted; but even when performed by the Apostles, it was only as a sign, without intrinsic efficacy of its own. In the case before us, it has even been disputed whether the act was that of ordination to a permanent office in the church, or only that of designation to a temporary service, like that of Barnabas and Saul in 13:3 below. But although the title deacon is not used in this passage, nor indeed in this whole book, yet the judgment of the church has in all ages recognised this as the institution of that office, the continuance of which in other places and in later times is inferred from 1 Tim. 3:8, 12; Phil. 1:1; Rom. 16:1. What were the functions of the office thus created, has also been a subject of dispute; some inferring from the circumstances of its institution, that its only work was that of charitable distribution, or at most of secular economy; while others argue from the fact that Stephen preached, and Philip both preached and baptized, that the seven deacons were already ministers when called to this work, or that the diaconate itself was only an inferior degree or order in the Christian ministry. To this it may be answered that the ministerial acts of Philip were performed, not as a deacon, but by virtue of another office, that of an evangelist (see below, on 21:8); and that Stephen, if he really performed such acts at all, may have performed them in the same capacity. (See below, on 8:5; 11:30.)

7. The word of God is here an elliptical expression for its effect upon the minds of men, in the way of conviction and conversion, and its increase is the growth or enlargement of the church. It seems to be implied, though not explicitly affirmed, that this effect was promoted by the measure just before described, the ordination of the seven almoners or deacons. It may have operated thus in two ways; first, by allaying the incipient divisions in the church itself and thus removing one chief obstacle to its advancement; then, by bringing into public view and into contact with the foreign Jews especially, such men of their own kindred as the seven must have been. Besides the general description of increase here given, a particular accession is recorded, from the most important class of the community, the Priests. Some have thought this incredible, on two grounds; first, on account of their peculiar zeal and obstinacy as opponents of the Gospel; and secondly, because we find them subsequently active as its enemies and persecutors. But no degree or kind of opposition to the truth is inaccessible to saving grace; and if there were above four thousand priests at the return from the captivity, their number must have been so great now that a crowd might be converted, and yet leave enough to carry on the persecution. There is no need therefore of changing Priests to Jews, which makes the phrase almost unmeaning, or of adopting forced constructions, e. g. 'a multitude believed (and among them some) of the priests'—or 'a rabble of priests' (i. e. the lowest members of the priesthood.) Were obedient to (literally, obeyed) the faith, i. e. submitted to the Gospel, as a system of belief and practice. (Compare Paul's similar expression for obedience to the faith, Rom. 1:5.) This was not the first time that great numbers of the most intelligent and influential Jews embraced the doctrine of the Saviour. (See above, on 4:13.) It was no doubt one of the means used to prepare for the diffusion of the Gospel not long after. (See below, on 8:1.)

8. That the growth of the church mentioned in v. 7 was occasioned or promoted by the appointment of the Seven, is confirmed by Luke's returning here to Stephen and continuing his history. Full of faith (or according to the latest critics, grace) and power is a third variation of the same essential formula. (See above, on vs. 3, 5.) By power we are here to understand preternatural, extraordinary power, as appears from the remainder of the verse. Wonders and miracles, or prodigies and signs, are two of the descriptive epithets applied to miracles before. (See above, on 2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12.) This is the first instance of miraculous performances by any one not an Apostle (see below, on 8:6, 7), and may serve to illustrate the remarkable position occupied by Stephen, who was evidently more than a deacon in the strict and ordinary sense. Among the people, literally, in the people, not as mere spectators, but as subjects and recipients. The imperfect tense (ἐποίει) refers, not to a point of time, but to a longer though indefinite period.

9. Then arose certain, or more exactly, and some arose, i. e. appeared, came forward, and addressed themselves to action. (See above, on 1:15; 5:17, 34, 36, 37.) Some of those of the synagogue. This Greek word originally means collection, and is properly applied to things, but in the Hellenistic dialect to persons also, like our English meeting. It is frequently applied in the Septuagint version to the whole congregation of Israel, as an aggregate and corporate body. During the Babylonish captivity, it seems to have been transferred to the divisions of this body, in their separation and dispersion, and more especially to their assemblies for religious worship. After the second great dispersion of the Jews, occasioned by the Roman conquest and destruction of Jerusalem, the synagogues assumed the form of organized societies, with a peculiar constitution and discipline, from which that of the Christian Church is commonly supposed to have been copied. It is doubtful, however, whether synagogues, in this later sense, existed in the time of Christ and the Apostles, when the word, though sometimes, like the English church, school, court, etc. transferred to the place of meeting, properly denoted the meeting itself, not as an organic body, but as an assembly of the people for a special purpose. In Jerusalem, where multitudes of foreigners were gathered, to attend the feasts or as permanent settlers, it was natural that those of the same race and language should convene together, both for worship and for social intercourse; and this accounts for the extraordinary number of synagogues, alleged by the Jewish tradition to have existed in Jerusalem before its downfall (480), an incredible number if we understand by synagogues distinct organizations of a public and a formal nature, but possible enough if nothing more be meant than gatherings of the people, in larger or smaller circles, for religious purposes. Of such synagogues we have clear traces in the verse before us; but how many are here mentioned, is a subject of dispute. The ambiguous construction of the sentence allows us to suppose either one or five such bodies to be here referred to—i. e. the synagogue of the Libertines, Cyrenians, Alexandrians, etc.—or, the synagogue of the Libertines, and that of the Cyrenians, and that of the Alexandrians, etc. Between these extremes lie the possible hypotheses of three synagogues (1. of the Libertines, 2. of the Cyrenians and Alexandrians, 3. of the Cilicians and Asians)—or two (1. of the Libertines, Cyrenians, and Alexandrians; 2. of the Cilicians and Asians.) Still a different construction, and perhaps the simplest, is to connect synagogue only with the first name, and to understand the rest of individuals belonging to the nations mentioned. 'Some of the (members) of the synagogue called (that) of the Libertines, and (some) Cyrenians and Alexandrians, and (some) of those from Cilicia and Asia. However the question of construction may be settled, the essential fact affirmed is still the same, to wit, that the opponents of the Gospel here described were chiefly or entirely foreign Jews, and from the two great regions of North Africa and Asia Minor. (As to Asia and Cyrene, see above, on 2:9, 10.) Alexandrians, inhabitants of Alexandria, the great commercial city of Egypt, founded by Alexander the Great, and under his successors settled by a multitude of Jewish colonists, so that it became the chief seat of Hellenistic learning. Cilicia was the south-eastern province of what we call Asia Minor, and the native country of St. Paul, who was born at Tarsus, its chief city. (See below, on 9:11, 30; 11:25; 21:39; 22:3.) Libertines is understood by some to be a national or geographical name like the rest, either put by an error of the copyist for Libyans (see above, on 2:10), or denoting the people of Libertum, a city of Proconsular Africa, But as all the ancient manuscripts agree with the received text, and as Libertum, if it then existed, was too obscure to be largely represented in Jerusalem, the great body of interpreters identity the word with the latin libertini, meaning freedmen or the sons of emancipated slaves, and suppose it to denote here Roman proselytes of that class, whom Tacitus describes as numerous in Rome itself, or the sons of Jews carried captive into Italy by Pompey and afterwards set free. Either of these is much more probable than the opinion, that these Libertines were slaves set free by Jewish masters and residing at Jerusalem, where they formed a separate synagogue or congregation, either from necessity or choice. The moral sense of libertine, as meaning a licentious liver, is entirely modern. (Compare the corresponding difference of idiot and despot, in ancient and modern usage, as explained above, on 4:13, 24.) Disputing, or, as the Greek word signifies according to its etymology and classical usage, seeking (or inquiring) together, but in the New Testament always with an implication of dissension and debate. Arose disputing may imply that the discussion, which at first was private, became generally known and public. With Stephen, not perhaps exclusively, but only as the first and best known of the seven; or his name may be particularly mentioned for the reason before given (on v. 5), that this whole account is introductory to that of Stephen's martyrdom and its effect on the condition of the church. It is no improbable conjecture, that his ministry among the Christian Hellenists may have brought him into contact and collision with their unbelieving relatives and friends. The subject of this controversy may be gathered from the following account of his arraignment and defence.

10. Another fulfilment of the promise in Luke 21:15 (see above, on 4:14), and another variation of the formula employed above in vs. 3, 5, 8. The analogy of v. 3 here precludes the vague and somewhat modern sense of spirit, i. e. energy or vigour, as well as the more genuine but lower one of intellect or sense, and requires that of Holy Spirit, if not as a person, as an influence. The relative (by which) agrees in form with spirit only, but in sense with wisdom likewise, although our idiom would use different prepositions to denote the two relations. He spoke with wisdom, for he spoke by inspiration.

11. Then, in the proper sense, at that time, or after what had just been mentioned. They, the Libertines and Hellenistic Jews, whom Stephen had vanquished in debate. Suborned, i. e. procured indirectly or unfairly, but specially applied in English law to the procuring of false testimony. The Greek verb means both to substitute (e. g. a supposititious child), and to suggest or prompt, which is also appropriate to false swearing. Which said, literally, saying. The Greek idiom, which prefixes that (ὅτι) to the words quoted or repeated, cannot be retained in English. Speak, literally, speaking, talking. Blasphemous, in Demosthenes and later classics, means abusive or calumnious (as in 2 Pet. 2:11; 2 Tim. 3:2), but in the Greek of the New Testament, is specially applied to railing words when spoken of divine things or of God himself. (See 1 Tim. 1:13, and compare the cognate noun and verb, blaspheme and blasphemy, which are of frequent use in the New Testament.) Against, literally, to or towards, a particle which indicates the subject of discourse, the idea of hostility being suggested by the context. (See above, on 2:25.) The second against is supplied in the translation. Moses and God is not an irreverent or preposterous inversion, but a pregnant combination, which may be thus resolved and amplified, 'against Moses, our great legislator, and by necessary consequence, against the God, whose representative he was, and from whom all his legislative power was derived.' Compare the words, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us," in 15:28 below.

12. Stirred up, literally, moved together, agitated at the same time, in reference either to what goes before or follows. If the former, the verb must be construed with the remoter subject, those who procured the witnesses, and who are then described as adding popular agitation to subornation of perjury, as a means of destroying Stephen. If the latter, the subject of the verb may be the witnesses themselves, and the commotion mentioned the effect of their misrepresentations. Both (τε) the people, as an aggregate body, and the elders and the scribes, as its representatives and rulers. (See above, on 4:5.) Came upon him, unexpectedly or suddenly (see above, on 4:1), probably while engaged in teaching or discussion. Caught him, seized and carried him along with them, as the Greek verb properly denotes, being applied in the classics to an eagle and a storm. To the council, literally, into it, i. e. into the place where it assembled (see above, on 5:27), or into the midst of the assembly itself.

13. And also (τε) set up, as in v. 6, and in 1:23. False witnesses, not in the sense of mere inventors, fabricators, or gross liars, but in that of unfair and perverse reporters, who, even in repeating what he really had said, distorted it and caused it to produce a false impression. (Compare Matt. 26:59–62; Mark 14:55–60.) Which said, literally, saying, as in v. 11. This man is perhaps contemptuous; but see above, on 4:17, 18. Ceaseth not, an evident exaggeration, intended to aggravate the charge which follows. To speak, literally, speaking. Blasphemous is omitted by the latest critics, as an interpolation from v. 11, not found in the oldest manuscripts. The sense is then to utter words, an emphatic equivalent to speak. Instead of Moses and God (v. 11), the objects of the blasphemy are here described as this (or according to the latest critics, the) holy place, i. e. the city of Jerusalem, or more precisely, the temple, and the law, i. e. the theocratical and ceremonial system, of which it was the visible heart and centre. (See above, on 4:11; 5:27.)

14. This is not a merely formal variation of v. 13, but a more precise specification of the general charge recorded there. 'He is guilty of that charge, for we have heard him saying thus and thus.' If this was contemptuous in the preceding verse, it is doubly so here, being joined with the derisive title, Jesus the Nazarene. (See above, on 2:22; 3:6; 4:10.) Destroy, the same verb that is used above in 5:38, 39, and there explained. This place, the temple and the city, as in v. 13, considered as the centre of the whole Mosaic system, the congeries of customs (ἔθη), rites, or rather institutions, which Moses delivered, revealed, communicated, by divine authority, to be handed down from one generation to another; which last idea would also be suggested by the Greek verb, as the root of the noun meaning tradition. (Compare Mark 7:13, where both occur; and for a very different sense of the verb, see above, on 3:13.) This charge was no doubt true so far as it related to the doctrine, that the new religion, or rather the new form of the church, was to supersede the old. Its falsity consisted in the representation of the two as hostile or antagonistic systems, and of the change as one to be effected by coercion or brute force.

15. All that sat, literally, all the (persons) sitting. In the council itself, as members of the body, or in the council-chamber, as spectators; it is doubtful, however, whether any such were present. Looking stedfastly on him is in Greek still stronger, gazing into him, as if to read his very soul, an emphatic expression for the most intense and eager curiosity, the same phrase that is used above in 1:10; 3:4, and below, in 7:55; 13:9.) This clause stands first in the original (and gazing at him, all those sitting in the council saw, etc.) As it had been, literally, as if, as though, without a verb expressed. In the history of David, he is four times compared by others to an angel (or the angel) of God, but always in reference to intellectual or moral qualities, his goodness (1 Sam. 29:9) or his wisdom (2 Sam. 14:17, 20; 19:27.) An analogous comparison to that before us, but still stronger, is the one addressed by Jacob to Esau (Gen. 33:10), "I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of God, and thou wast pleased with me." This is clearly a hyperbolical description of a friendly or benignant countenance, and many understand the words before us as a similar description of the calmness and serenity expressed in Stephen's looks. It seems more natural, however, to explain them of a preternatural glow and brightness, like the shining of the face of Moses when he came down from Mount Sinai (Ex. 34:29.) In either case, the comparison with an angel is not intended to convey a definite idea of the actual appearance—as we know neither how an angel looks nor whether all angels look alike—but merely to suggest the thought of something superhuman and celestial.

CHAPTER 7

THIS chapter contains Stephen's defence before the council (1–53) and his execution (53–60). His defence is drawn entirely from the Old Testament history, and is designed to show, that all God's dealings with the chosen people pointed to those very changes which Stephen was accused of having threatened. This he proves by showing, that the outward organization and condition of the church had undergone repeated change, under Abraham (2–8), Joseph (9–16), Moses (17–44), David (45–46); that the actual state of things had no existence before Solomon (47); that even this was intended from the beginning to be temporary (48–50); and lastly, that the Israelites of every age had been unfaithful to their trust (9, 25, 27, 35, 39–43, 51–53.) The remainder of the chapter describes the effect of this discourse upon the council (54), Stephen's heavenly vision (55, 56), and his death by stoning (57–60).

1. The High Priest, as president of the council and chief magistrate of the nation, interrogates the prisoner, as when our Saviour was crucified (Matt. 26:62; Mark 14:60; John 18:19.) The verse is connected in the closest manner with the one before it by the continuative particle (δέ) here rendered then. Are these things so? literally, whether these (things) so have (themselves)? This idiomatic phrase, equivalent to are, occurs again below (17:11; 24:9.) These things, namely, those alleged by his accusers (6:11, 13).

2. To the phrase, Men (and) Brethren, used by Peter (1:26; 2:29), Stephen adds Fathers, either to distinguish his judges from the mere spectators, or as a twofold description of the former, first as his countrymen or fellow Jews, then as his superiors, the Senators or Conscript Fathers of his nation (see above, on 5:21.) The same form of address is elsewhere used by Paul (22:1), perhaps not without allusion to the speech before us, of which other recollections have been traced in the Apostle's writings. The exhortation to hear, found in both these places, and also in the introduction to Paul's speech at Antioch in Pisidia (13:16), seems to imply that something might be said which would offend their prejudices, and that patience would therefore be required on their part. (See above, on 2:14, 29.) After thus bespeaking their attention, he appeals at once to history, not for the information of his hearers, whose Jewish education and familiarity with Scripture he assumes, but simply for the purpose of his argument. As his first object was to show the outward changes, through which the church or chosen people had already passed, he begins with the event from which it derived its separate existence, the calling of Abraham. The God of glory, not merely the glorious God, or the God worthy to be glorified (Ps. 29:1; Rev. 4:11), but more specifically, that God who sensibly revealed himself of old, which is a standing sense of glory (כָּבוֹר, δόξα) in the Old Testament (e. g. Ex. 24:16; Isai. 6:3; Ps. 24:7–10), here employed by Stephen in allusion to the charge of blaspheming Moses and Jehovah (6:11.) For the same reason he calls Abraham our father, thus professing his adherence to the national traditions and associations with respect to their great founder. Appeared, was seen (see above, on 2:3), may denote any special and direct divine communication, but is properly expressive of such as were conveyed by vision, or addressed to the sense of sight. When he was, literally, being. Mesopotamia, a term of physical rather than political geography, denoting the region between the Tigris and Euphrates. (See above, on 2:9.) Like other ancient names of this kind, it is used with considerable latitude. Thus Ammianus Marcellinus mentions Ur (of the Chaldees or Chaldea) as a town of Mesopotamia, and Josephus makes it include Babylonia itself. So, too, the poet Lucan calls Charran (Haran) Assyrias Carras, the scene of the famous defeat of Crassus. This confusion of terms arose, no doubt, at least in part, from the want of definite boundaries. There is therefore no mistake here, either in geography or history, as some have alleged, because in Gen. 12:1, Abram is said to have been called after his removal to Haran. But even admitting the pluperfect form of the English version there (the Lord had said) to be inexact, it is highly probable (and seems to be at least implied in Gen. 15:7; Neh. 9:7), that he had been called before, and thus induced to leave his native country. That such repetitions of the divine communications were not foreign to the patriarch's experience, we may learn from Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18. That the first call is not explicitly recorded in its proper place, is not surprising in so brief a history. Upon this obvious and natural interpretation of the narrative in Genesis, rests the Jewish tradition, preserved both by Philo and Josephus, that Abram was twice called, once in Ur and once in Haran. Dwelt, or more exactly settled, took up his abode (see above, on 2:5.)

3. These words are from the Septuagint version of Gen. 12:1, the form in which Stephen seems to have adduced them, as he was probably a Hellenist or Greek Jew (see above, on 6:5), and that language was no doubt familiar to his judges. The only variations from the Septuagint are, that he omits the phrase, and from thy father's house, as being really included in the more generic one, and from thy kindred; and also that the article before land is omitted in the common text, but not in the oldest manuscripts. Come, in the original, is properly an adverb (δεῦρο), meaning here or hither! sometimes coupled with a verb of motion (as in Matt. 19:21; Mark 10:21; Luke 18:22), sometimes elliptically used without it or in place of it (as here and in John 11:43; Rev. 17:1; 21:9.) The land which I shall show thee is too definite; the true sense is, whatever land (ἣν ἄν) I show thee (or may show thee), implying uncertainty, and therefore strong faith, upon Abram's part. A beautiful comment is afforded by the last clause of the parallel passage in Heb. 11:8, "he went out not knowing whither he went."

4. Then, in the proper sense, as a particle of time, meaning afterwards or next. Came he out, literally, having come out. (Dwelt, as in v. 1.) When his father was dead, or more exactly, after his father died. This seems to contradict the chronological statements of the Old Testament, that Terah was 70 years when he begat Abram (Gen. 11:26); that Abram was 75 when he left Haran (Gen. 12:4); and that Terah lived to be 205 (Gen. 11:32), i. e. 60 years after the migration of Abram into Canaan. The difficulty has been variously solved; by reading (in Gen. 11:32) 145 for 205, which seems to be a mere conjectural emendation of the Samaritan Pentateuch; or by understanding Stephen's words of Terah's spiritual death, according to an old tradition found in Philo, and probably founded upon Josh. 24:2 (compare Judith, 5:6, 7), that Terah in his old age apostatized to idolatry, so that Abram was justified in leaving him, although he lived long after and died in Haran (Gen. 11:32); or far more probably than either, that the age given in Gen. 11:26, is that of Terah when he begat his eldest son, as in the preceding genealogies, and that Abram was not the eldest son, but put first on account of his great eminence, as Napoleon might be named first in a list of the Bonapartes, though not the eldest. This would enable us to fix the birth of Abram at such a distance from that of his elder brother or brothers, as would bring his seventy-fifth year after the natural death of his father. Either of these possible solutions is more probable than the supposition of so gross an error on the part of Stephen. Wherein, literally, whereinto, into which, the verb implying previous removal, not of themselves but of their fathers. (See the same construction in the Greek of 12:19; Matt. 2:23; Mark 1:39.) Ye is emphatic (see above on 4:20), as opposed, not only to their fathers, but to Stephen himself as a Hellenist or foreign Jew.

5. So far was the present complex and imposing system from existing in the time of Abram, that he had not even foot-hold in the land as a possessor. None, or more exactly, not. Inheritance, property which he could transmit to his heirs. In it, this land, just mentioned in v. 4. No not is a single word in Greek, meaning simply not or nor. So much as to set his foot on, literally, a foot-step, or a stepping-place for his foot. The same phrase is used in the Septuagint version of Deut. 2:5. (Compare Gen. 8:9.) It is here put for the smallest space or quantity, without regard to any definite measure. (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, the breadth of a foot.) But how does this consist with Abraham's purchase of a hereditary burial place (Gen. 23:20; 50:13)? We may understand the words to mean that he had not yet given him, or still more exactly, did not give him, i. e. in the first years of his residence, the smallest portion of the land of Canaan. This is all that was necessary for Stephen's purpose, which was simply to show what changes had already taken place in the condition of the chosen people since the calling of Abraham. His later acquisition might be reckoned as one of these changes, and would therefore rather strengthen than impair his argument. Yet, literally, and, which is here equivalent, however, to and (yet). He gave him none of it at first, and but little of it afterwards, but promised him the whole for his descendants. Promised, insured, or assured, which is the full force of the original. That he would give, literally, to give. For a possession, a Greek word specially appropriated in the Septuagint version, to the occupation of the promised land. (See Gen. 17:8; Num. 32:5, and compare v. 45 below.) When as yet he had no child, literally, (there) not being to him a child, is added to enhance the faith of Abram, who believed a promise made expressly to his offspring, when as yet he had none.

6. Having given the substance of the promise, he now gives its form, or rather one of the forms in which it is recorded. The citation is made from the Septuagint version of Gen. 15:13, 14, with a few unimportant variations, chiefly in the order of the words. On this wise, an old English phrase, synonymous with in this way or manner. The original is one word, meaning so or thus. Seed, offspring or posterity. Should sojourn, literally, shall be sojourning, or a sojourner, a temporary resident, as in v. 29 below (compare the verb in Luke 24:18.) The future belongs to the direct form of quotation, in which the very words used are repeated, but the third person (his seed) to the indirect form, which only gives the substance. A strange land, not unknown, but foreign; not their own, belonging to others. They, i. e. the land, often put for its inhabitants. That they should bring them into bondage (wiclif, make them subject to servage), literally, and they shall enslave it, (i. e. the seed of Abram, which is a collective.) Entreat them evil, or in modern English, treat them ill. Here again the original is one word, corresponding to abuse or maltreat. (See below, on v. 19; 12:1; 18:10. In 14:2, it has an intellectual or moral sense.) Four hundred is a round number for four hundred and thirty, and is so used likewise by Josephus. In Ex. 12:40, 41, it is expressly said that the sojourn of Israel in Egypt lasted 430 years, and that they came out on the very day when the 430 years were completed. But Paul speaks of the law (Gal. 3:17) as having been given 430 years after the promise to Abraham. This might be understood to mean at least so long, because the longer the interval the stronger the Apostle's argument. But as this does not account for his using that specific number, and as the genealogical tables seem to indicate a shorter period, a better solution is to understand the 430 years of Ex. 12:40 to include the previous residence in Canaan, as well as that in Egypt. The difference between these two sojourns being merely circumstantial, and the main idea being that of an expatriated, homeless state, it was more important to tell how long they were in such a state, than how much of this period was spent in Egypt. This is a possible, though not a very obvious, construction of the terms used in Exodus, which may be understood as meaning, that the whole period of exclusion from the actual possession of the promised land, including both their residence in Egypt and their previous nomadic life in Canaan, was 430 years, and that this period expired on the day of the exodus from Egypt. This solution is at least a very old one, being found not only in Josephus, but in the Samaritan text and the Septuagint version, both which add, "and in the land of Canaan," while the former, and a very ancient copy of the latter, insert after Israel, "and their fathers." These are not to be regarded as independent witnesses, nor as exhibiting the true text, which has no doubt been preserved in the Masora, or critical tradition of the Jews. But the emendation shows how early the difficulty was perceived, and this means used for its solution.

7. The quotation from Genesis is here concluded. To whom, literally, to whomsoever (ᾧ ἐάν), because it had not been expressly named. As if he had said, 'and that nation, whatever it may be, &c.' See above, on v. 3, where a similar expression (ἣν ἄν) is employed. Shall be in bondage, or shall serve as slaves, is the translation of a single Greek word, differing only in a single letter from the one just used in the transitive or active sense of enslaving or bringing into bondage. Will I judge, deal justly with, do justice to, and as a necessary consequence, implied but not expressed, condemn and punish. Said God is supplied, as in Peter's quotation from the Prophet Joel (see above, on 2:17), to remind the hearers that these words were still those of a divine speaker and must therefore be fulfilled, and at the same time to relieve the syntax, which was somewhat embarrassed by the mixture (before mentioned) of direct and indirect quotation. After that, literally, after these (things). They refers to the remoter antecedent, the collective phrase, his seed (in v. 6). Come forth, or out of Egypt. And shall serve (or worship) me in this place is implicitly contained in Gen. 15:16 (they shall return hither), though the form of expression is borrowed from a promise made to Moses, when about to carry into execution the one made to Abram. See Ex. 3:12, ye shall serve God upon this mountain, i. e. Horeb (v. 1), for which Stephen substitutes in this place, an expression which may be applied to a whole country, as when Xenophon says, "this place was called Armenia."

8. Another outward change was the subjection of the chosen people to the distinctive rite of circumcision. Abram was called and justified while yet uncircumcised (compare Rom. 4:10–12); but circumcision afterwards was peremptorily required. He gave him, i. e. God gave to Abram. Gave, not merely as a favor or a privilege, but as a duty to be done, a law to be obeyed. Covenant, originally, disposition or arrangement, commonly applied in the classics to a testamentary disposition of one's property, a last will, but in Scripture, with the probable exception of Heb. 9:16, 17, to a mutual arrangement or agreement, binding on both parties. A covenant of circumcision may be either circumcision itself, as a covenanted, stipulated rite, or a covenant of which circumcision was the sign and seal. (See Gen. 17:10, 11, where both these ideas seem to be expressed, and compare Gen. 9:12.) So, i. e. in this new condition or relation, under this new covenant, not as an ordinary progenitor, but as one sustaining a peculiar federal relation, both to God and to posterity. This is much better than to make it a connective or continuative particle, equivalent to so then in colloquial narration, which is otherwise expressed in Greek. (See above, on 1:6, 18; 2:41; 5:41.) The emphatic word is not begat but circumcised, as if he had said, 'all the other patriarchs were born under this covenant of circumcision.' This idea is obscured in our translation by repeating the first verb alone, instead of repeating both (begat and circumcised), or neither, leaving the reader to supply them from the first clause, as in the Rhemish version (Isaac Jacob, and Jacob the twelve patriarchs). The mere genealogy or lineal succession was entirely irrelevant to Stephen's purpose, as well as perfectly familiar to his hearers. The main idea of the verse is, that the patriarchs who followed Abraham were all born under a covenant or dispensation, which had no existence when he was himself called to be the Friend of God (Isai. 41:8; James 2:23) and the Father of the Faithful (Rom. 4:11, 16.) The recital of these simple and familiar facts is perfectly unmeaning, unless intended to establish Stephen's proposition, that the outward condition of the chosen people had already undergone repeated changes, quite as great as those which he was charged with blasphemy for having threatened. Patriarchs, founders of distinct families or races. See above, on 2:29, and compare the use of the primitive noun elsewhere (Luke 2:4) to denote the lineage of David.

9. The next important change in the condition of the chosen race was the migration into Egypt, providentially secured by the sale of Joseph as a slave there. Stephen dwells on the particulars of this change more than was absolutely necessary for his argument; partly, because of their extraordinary character, evincing the whole series of events to be the execution of a divine plan; but also for the purpose of suggesting an analogy between Joseph's treatment by his brethren and that of Christ by their descendants. Here then begins another thread of the discourse, running parallel to that which we have thus far traced, and adding to the proof that the existing state of things was not immutable, a proof derived from the same source that Israel had always been unfaithful to his trust and his advantages. This course of defection and rebellion is here tacitly traced back to the treacherous and cruel conduct of the sons of Jacob toward their innocent and helpless brother. The motive assigned is not indignation (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva), nor mere emulation (Rheims), but jealousy and envy. (See the use of the kindred noun in 5:17 above.) The original expression is a single word, envying or having envied. Sold, see above on 5:8, where the same verb is employed, as well as in the Septuagint version of the history of Joseph (Gen. 37:27.) Sold into Egypt is a pregnant construction, which implies (without expressing) motion or removal. The very same construction, both of verb and noun, occurs in the Septuagint version of the passage just referred to (Gen. 37:36.) But, literally, and, but with a really adversative effect, producing an antithesis like that in 2:23, 24; 3:14, 15; 4:10; 5:30, between divine and human treatment of the same person, thus confirming the existence of a typical relation, or a recognised analogy, between the sufferings of Christ and Joseph. The suggestion of this parallel, however slight, was really equivalent to saying, 'As you have now dealt with the Saviour of the world, your fathers dealt with the deliverer of their nation, showing even then the same unthankful and rebellious disposition which we see in you.' God was with him, in a providential sense, as his protector and preserver, which is the lower of the two ideas conveyed by the prophetic name Immanuel or God with us (Isai. 7:4; Matt. 1:23). What was true, in this lower sense, of Joseph, was true, and in the highest sense, of Christ.

10. This is a mere amplification of the last clause of the ninth verse, showing in what respect or what sense God was with him. Delivered, extricated, plucked out (Matt. 5:29; 18:9.) See below, on v. 34; 12:11; 23:27; 26:17. Afflictions, literally, pressures, straits, distresses. See below, on v. 11; 11:19; 14:22; 20:23. Favour and wisdom, i. e. gave him favour by giving him extraordinary wisdom, both as an interpreter of dreams and as a statesman. This wisdom was exhibited before (over against, opposite, in presence of) Pharaoh. The subject of the last verb may be either God or Pharaoh; but the former gives a more striking sense by making Joseph's exaltation altogether a divine act. Made him governor (Wiclif, ordained him sovereign). The verb means properly to set down in a place (see below, on 17:15), then to set up, constitute, appoint (see above, on 6:3, and below, on vs. 27, 35.) Governor, literally, leader, or still more exactly, leading (man), chief magistrate, prime minister (see below on 14:12; 15:22, and compare Matt. 2:6, and the antithesis in Luke 22:26.) This last idea is also expressed by his being placed over the royal household. (See below, on 8:27; 12:25.)

11. He now relates the other part of the strange providential scheme, by which Joseph was made the means of bringing his whole family to Egypt. Now, and, or but, the usual continuative (δέ). A dearth, a famine, a destitution or deficiency of food. Came over, or upon, implying not mere prevalence but judicial infliction by a higher power. The form of expression is closely copied from the original history (Gen. 41:54; 42:5), with which most of Stephen's hearers were as well acquainted as himself. Our fathers, here and in the next verse, has been thought to express a kind of sympathetic feeling for the sufferings of the patriarchs; but it is rather an assertion of the speaker's kindred or relation to his hearers, as descended from a common ancestry. (See above, on 3:13.) Found no (literally not, or did not find) sustenance, provisions, victuals. The Greek word is plural and applied in the classics only to the food of cattle (fodder), which sense it also has in the Septuagint version (Gen. 24:25, 32.)

12. But is the word translated now in v. 11. Jacob hearing (of) corn being in Egypt is nearer the form of the original. Corn, in the generic sense of grain or bread-stuffs, which is its proper English usage. The particular reference is no doubt to wheat, for which Egypt was famous in the ancient world, and with which it afterwards supplied Rome itself. (See below, on 27:6, 38; 28:11.) Sent out, sent off or away, the compound Greek verb being very emphatic and conveying, at least sometimes, the idea of an authoritative peremptory sending, almost equivalent to driving out or off (e. g. in Luke 1:53; 20:10, 11.) But in other cases it denotes a simple mission, or at most a distant one. (See below, on 7:30; 11:22; 12:11; 17:14; 22:21.) Our fathers, see above, on v. 11. First, i. e, a first time, implying that they went more than once, and that nothing extraordinary happened till their second visit.

13. At the second (time), or in the second (visit) of the patriarchs to Egypt. Was made known occurs twice in this one verse, a repetition only found in the translation, the original expressions being altogether different. The first is a single word, the passive of a Greek verb used by Plato in the sense of knowing again, recognizing. (For another verb expressing that idea, see above, on 3:10; 4:13.) He was recognized by (or again made known to) his brethren. Although used in the Septuagint version (Gen. 45:1) to translate a reflexive verb (he made himself known), it is not itself reflexive, but a simple passive. The other phrase translated was made known denotes strictly became manifest, i. e. was discovered or disclosed. Joseph's kindred, not his kinsmen, but his descent, extraction, race, or family, considered as an abstract not a concrete term, like that used in the next verse. (See above, on 4:36.)

14. Then sent Joseph, Gr. and Joseph sending. To him is not expressed in Greek, but may be considered as included in the verb, which means sent for, while the middle voice has the usual reflexive meaning. (See below, on 10:32; 20:17; 24:25.) His kindred, or according to the oldest manuscripts, the kindred, the family, in the concrete sense, as denoting persons. (For the corresponding abstract term, see above, on v. 13.) Threescore and fifteen souls, i. e. seventy-five persons. (See above, on 2:41, 43; 3:23). Omitted in our version is the preposition in, which stands before these words in Greek, both here and in the Septuagint version of Deut. 10:22. Some suppose it to be put for a Hebrew prefix, corresponding both to in and with. Examples of the latter sense are found in Hellenistic Greek, not only that of the Apocrypha (1 Macc. 1:17; 7:28), but that of the New Testament (Luke 14:31). But although Jacob might have been sent for with seventy-five others, how could this be said of the whole family? Another explanation gives to in the same sense as in our phrase consisting in, i. e. composed of seventy-five persons. But besides this grammatical question, there is one of more importance in relation to this clause. The number here given (75) is also found in the Septuagint version of Gen. 46:27; Ex. 1:5, and in some very ancient copies of Deut. 10:22, whereas the Hebrew text, in all these places, has the round number (70). This difference has been variously explained, by supposing that though only seventy went down with Jacob, Joseph invited (called for) seventy-five, the supernumerary persons being three wives of Jacob and two sons of Judah, whom Joseph did not know to be dead; or that in addition to the 66 mentioned in Gen. 46:26, Stephen reckoned the twelve wives of Jacob's sons, omitting Judah's, who was dead, and Joseph's, who was in Egypt, as well as Joseph himself, for the same reason; or lastly, that in Gen. 46:20, the Septuagint adds the sons of Ephraim and Manasseh, from the genealogy in 1 Chron. 7:14–21, while the Hebrew text omits them, because not born until afterwards. In one of these three ways, the variation of the Septuagint from the Hebrew may be readily accounted for. Stephen's adhering to the former may be then explained, by supposing, either that he quoted the most current and familiar version without alteration, in a matter of so little moment in itself or in relation to his own immediate purpose; or that he spoke in the language of the country, and that the quotation was recorded in its present form by Luke. But this last would only shift the charge of error, not remove it; and that Stephen spoke most probably in Greek, see above, on v. 3 But either of these suppositions is more reasonable than that Stephen was himself mistaken, or that the Hebrew text is wrong, and that he meant to correct it.

15. The sentence is completed in the next verse. Stephen now comes to the critical change in the condition of the chosen people, for which vs. 9–14 were a preparation. So is not the same Greek word as in v. 8 above, but merely the continuative particle (δέ), so constantly occurring and so variously rendered, and (v. 6), now (v. 11), but (v. 12), then (v. 14.) Died, literally, ended (sc. his life.) This elliptical use of the verb, which is the only one found in the New Testament, is sanctioned by the usage of the best Greek writers, from Herodotus to Xenophon. He and our fathers connects the verb died, which is singular in form, with Jacob's sons as well as with himself. A similar construction occurs in John 2:12, and in the common text of Matt. 12:3. The whole clause is equivalent to saying, 'Jacob went down into Egypt, and so did our fathers,' i. e. his sons, the patriarchs, or founders of the twelve tribes of Israel. (See above, on v. 8.) Went down sometimes denotes literal descent from a higher to a lower level, or at least from the interior to the sea-coast (as in 8:26; 16:8, below). In other cases, it is doubtful whether the expression is thus used, or with reference to the moral as well as local elevation of Jerusalem (see below, on 24:1; 22; 25:6; 7.) In the case before us, there may be allusion, either to the physical difference between Palestine and Egypt, as a hilly and a level land respectively; or to the moral difference between the Holy Land and any heathen country; or to both these points of dissimilitude together.

16. Carried over, transferred, or removed; a compound form of the verb following, laid, put, or placed. Sychem, a Septuagint form of the Hebrew Shechem (Gen. 33:18, 19; 34:21). A later Aramaic form is Sychar (John 4:5.) The Romans called the town Flavia Neapolis, of which the present name, Nablus or Nabulus, is an Arabic corruption. In the time of Christ, it was already a chief city of the Samaritans, and has so continued ever since. Sepulchre, memorial, monument (see above, on 2:29). A sum of money, literally, a price of silver (see above, on 4:34.) Emor or Emmor, the Greek form of the Hebrew Hamor (Gen. 33:19; 34:2.) The Vulgate and its followers supply son instead of father, but the latter agrees better with the narrative in Genesis (33:19; 34:2, 4, 6, 8, 13, 18, 20, 24, 26.) As Jacob was buried in the cave of Machpelah at Hebron (Gen. 49:30; 50:13), the first verb in this verse must refer to his sons, whose place of burial is not designated in the Old Testament. ('Jacob went down into Egypt and died there, and so did our fathers, and were removed to Shechem.') It is highly probable, however, that their bodies were transported, like their father's, into Canaan, except Joseph's, which would naturally be retained, as that of an Egyptian ruler, in the land of his adoption till the exodus. Another reasonable supposition is, that they were all removed together, but that Joseph's bones alone are mentioned (Ex. 13:19; Josh. 24:32), on account of the recorded oath (Gen. 50:25.) It is far less improbable that these facts were omitted in the history, than that the remains of the eleven patriarchs were left to moulder in the land of bondage. This conclusion is confirmed by the tradition, both of the Jews and early Christians, that all the sons of Jacob were buried at Shechem. Which Abraham bought of the sons of Emor. But according to Gen. 33:19, this purchase was made by Jacob; whereas Abraham had bought a place of burial near Hebron, from Ephron and the Hittites (Gen. 23:3–20.) This apparent contradiction has been variously explained, by reading Jacob for Abraham; or by omitting Abraham, and construing the verb with Jacob in v. 15, or with an indefinite subject (one bought it = it was bought), both which emendations of the text are destitute of manuscript authority; or by supposing a concise and therefore an obscure allusion to both purchases—'which Abraham (and Jacob) bought of the sons of (Heth and) Emmor'—; or by admitting a confusion of the two transactions in the mind of Stephen, who was not an inspired historian. But as he was under an extraordinary influence, and endowed with extraordinary spiritual gifts, including that of wisdom (see above, on 6:3, 5, 8, 10); and as Luke has preserved his words without correction, which, although it might evince his candor and veracity, is hardly consistent with his task as a historian; this last hypothesis (that Stephen erred), even if admissible in case of exegetical necessity, is far less natural and probable than either of the others. With respect to the concurrence or accumulation of supposed inaccuracies in this one verse (as to Jacob's burial, that of the Patriarchs, and Abraham's purchase), so far from proving one another, they only aggravate the improbability of real errors having been committed in such quick succession, and then gratuitously left on record, when they might have been so easily corrected or expunged. This circumstance, when duly weighed, makes the assumption, even of unusual constructions or of textual corruptions, however improbable on general grounds, comparatively easy. In all such cases, it is necessary to consider the difficulties which attend the supposition of mistake or contradiction, as well as that of truth and consistency, especially as skeptical critics and their Christian followers are accustomed to look only at one side of the question. In this case, for example, it is easy to cut the knot by assuming a mistake on Stephen's part, but not so easy to account for its being made by such a man, addressing such an audience, and then perpetuated in such a history, without correction or exposure, for a course of ages.

17. The sentence is completed in the next verse. We have here a transition from the times of Joseph to those of Moses, as the next stage in the progress of the chosen people. (But = so in v. 15.) When, lit. as, the Greek word being elsewhere always expressive of resemblance (see above, 2:4, 22) not of time, as its primitive or uncompounded form sometimes is (see above, on 1:10; 5:24.) Here it probably means in proportion (or according) as, and intimates, not only absolute increase, but a progression in its rate or ratio, which agrees well with the obvious implication in the history (Ex. 1:7; 12:20), that the growth of Israel in Egypt was preternatural, if not miraculous. The time of the promise is the time that had itself been promised; or the promise may be put for its fulfilment. (See above, on 2:33.) 'Sworn (ὤμοσεν), or according to the latest critics, promised, agreed (ὡμολόγησεν). There is no oath mentioned in the passage more immediately referred to (Gen. 15:13); but there is in the parallel promise (Gen. 22:16). According to Maimonides, every divine assurance, such as that in Gen. 15:13, is equivalent to an oath; and such a sanction is undoubtedly implied in every covenant or stipulation between God and man. The people, not yet organized as a nation, but preparing, by this very increase, to become one, grew and multiplied, or more exactly, was multiplied, the active and passive being probably combined, as an exhaustive or complete expression of the whole idea. Or perhaps the one may be intended to express spontaneous, natural increase, and the other that which was extraordinary, or produced by the immediate act of God. Here, and throughout this whole discourse, the speaker is not giving a historical lesson, but reminding his hearers of the most familiar facts, for a specific purpose. (See above, on v. 2.) Having shown the divine independence of all outward forms, by reciting the extraordinary changes which occurred in the experience of the Patriarchs, he proceeds to show the same thing, by exhibiting the still more startling contrast between Patriarchal freedom and Egyptian bondage on the one hand, and the Mosaic dispensation on the other. With a view to this, he mentions the condition of the people while in bondage, and the providential means by which the next change was prepared for and eventually brought about.

18. The sentence is completed from the foregoing verse. Until is not to be interpreted exclusively, i. e. as meaning that the growth then ceased, but inclusively, i. e. as meaning merely that it had not ceased before. 'This process of increase was still in operation, when a new king arose, etc.' This verb does not imply rebellious usurpation (see above, on 5:17, 36, 37; 6:9), nor even accession to the throne, which is suggested by the word king and the context, but appearance in the world or on the field of history. Another King, not only numerically different, but, as the Greek word sometimes means, diverse in kind or quality. (See above, on 2:4, and compare 1 Cor. 14:21; Mark 16:12; Rom. 7:23; Gal. 1:6; James 2:25; Heb. 7:11, 15; Jude 7.) This may refer, either to his ignorance of Joseph, or to his being of another house or dynasty, as stated by Josephus. Various attempts have been made, both by ancient and modern writers, to identify this "new king" (Ex. 1:8), but without success. Who knew not Joseph is by some supposed to mean, who did not love him or regard him, or remember his great public services, as reasons for kind treatment to his brethren and descendants. But no clear example can be cited of the Greek or Hebrew verb in this sense (the most plausible, 1 Thess. 5:12, admitting of a strict interpretation), and the proper one is perfectly appropriate, to wit, that the new king was partially or wholly ignorant of Joseph and his public measures, either from lapse of time or intervening revolutions. The idea of indifference or enmity, at all events, is not expressed by this phrase (knew not), but suggested by the context.

19. The same, or this, i. e. this king who knew not Joseph. The pronoun refers to the remoter antecedent, as in 4:11. Dealt subtilly, outwitting, circumventing, by the use of indirect and crafty means to break the strength of Israel, both by excessive labor and by promoting the exposure of their children. The Greek verb is borrowed from the Septuagint version of Ex. 1:10. Our kindred, family, or race, as in 4:6 above, and 13:26 below, where the same word is translated stock, as it is in the Rhemish version here (circumventing our stock; Wiclif, beguiled our kin.) Evil entreated, or in modern English, ill treated, maltreated, persecuted. (See above, on v. 6.) Our fathers, as in vs. 12, 15; compare v. 2. So that they cast out makes the infanticide the mere result of this atrocious persecution, while the Greek seems to make it the design of Pharaoh. Cast out (or expose), literally, made exposed, as we say, made known and the like (see Matt. 12:16; John 7:23.) To the end, in order that, implying purpose, either that of Pharaoh in oppressing them, or that of the oppressed, in their despair desiring to exempt their children from the sufferings which they felt themselves. Might not live, literally, be preserved alive (as in Luke 17:33; compare Mark 8:35), a common Hellenistic meaning of the verb, which in the Classics denotes procreation. (See the Septuagint version of Gen. 6:19; Ex. 1:17.)

20. As the word translated time does not denote a period but a juncture (see above, on 1:7, and compare 3:20), it might be better to translate the phrase here, at which time, i. e. when the crafty and cruel persecution of the Israelites by the Egyptians was at its height. It was at this crisis in the history of the chosen people, that their great deliverer came into the world. Exceeding fair, or as it is translated in the margin of the English Bible, fair to God, which is variously explained to mean like God (divinely fair), a common expression in the classics; or through God (made so by him); or before God (in God's sight or estimation); or simply very fair, as an idiomatic periphrasis of the superlative, of which other examples are supposed to occur in 1 Cor. 3:6; 2 Cor. 1:12; 10:4; Col. 2:19. The Greek adjective means civic as opposed to rustic; then urbane or polished; then agreeable or pleasant; and then beautiful, or rather (according to Aristotle) pretty, as applied to familiar and diminutive objects. In Heb. 11:23, the same word is rendered proper, in the old English sense of fair or handsome. Some suppose this beauty of the child to have been supernatural, as an indication of what was in reserve for him, and the reason of his being concealed three months. Josephus describes him as "divine in form," and the Roman historian Justin also speaks of his extraordinary beauty. The house of his father, i. e. Amram (Ex. 6:20.)

21. When he was cast out (or exposed), in Greek, him being exposed, or according to several of the oldest manuscripts, he being exposed. One old version adds, by his people, another, by his mother, a third, along (or in) the river, which is also found in several Greek manuscripts, and is retained in Wiclif's English (put out in the flood.) Pharaoh's daughter is named by several of the ancient writers, but so discordantly as to evince that the names are fictitious or conjectural. Took him up, not out of the water, which would have been otherwise expressed in Greek, but rescued, saved him, as opposed to his exposure, the two Greek verbs being those employed in the classics to express the same two acts. Nourished up, nursed, brought up, the active form of the same verb that occurs in the preceding verse. For her own son, as (or to be) a son for herself. This last idea is also expressed by the middle voice of the Greek verb. (See above, on 1:2, 24.)

22. The consequence of this adoption was an education such as Moses could not have received otherwise. Learned seems here to be not an adjective but a participle, in the old sense of taught, instructed, which is the meaning of the Greek verb. The wisdom of Egypt was proverbial in the ancient world, being rivalled, in the general estimation, only by that of the East, the region of the Tigris and Euphrates, which was regarded as the cradle of the human race, and the fountain-head even of Egyptian knowledge. In this oriental wisdom Daniel was instructed (Dan. 1:4), and both are joined in describing that of Solomon, which "excelled the wisdom of all the children of the East country and all the wisdom of Egypt" (1 Kings 5:10; in the English Bible, 4:30.) Philo pretends to enumerate the branches of knowledge, in which Moses was instructed, including astrology and magic, but commits a gross anachronism when he adds that the rest of the encyclopedia (or circle of the sciences) he learned from Grecian teachers; whereas even Pythagoras and Plato are represented in the Greek tradition as disciples of Egyptian sages. The last clause describes the effect of this instruction upon Moses. Mighty in words and deeds (or as the oldest manuscripts and versions have it, his deeds), is supposed by some to be at variance with his own description of himself as "slow of speech" (Ex. 4:10); to remove which contradiction, words has been taken in the sense of writings, doctrines, laws, predictions, and deeds (or works) in that of miracles or military feats, such as Josephus ascribes to Moses when he makes him the conqueror of Ethiopia. Another solution is to give the whole phrase a proverbial sense, as meaning strong in every way, in theory and practice, in judgment and in action, as Thucydides describes Themistocles, "most able both to say and do." The necessity of all these explanations is removed by the simple observation that the passage in Exodus relates to readiness or fluency, but this to energy and force of speech.

23. This is Tyndale's version; Wiclif gives the first clause more exactly (when the time of forty years was filled to him.) This chronological specification is nowhere else contained in Scripture, but agrees well with the old Talmudical tradition, that Moses was forty years in the Egyptian court, forty years in the land of Midian, and forty years with Israel in the desert. (See below, on v. 30, and compare Ex. 7:7; Deut. 34:7.) Another tradition, of inferior authority, assigns him twenty years of age at this time. Forty years, Gr. a time of forty years, or still more literally, a forty-year time. When he was, etc., Gr. as (this time) was fulfilling, or in modern phrase, was being fulfilled, i. e. was drawing to a close. The divine delay in fashioning his instruments has often been contrasted with the haste and impatience of corresponding human processes. Came, literally, came up, rose, ascended, a favourite expression in the Septuagint version (e. g. Isai. 65:17; Jer. 3:16, 32:35.) The subject of the verb is not a noun understood (such as plan or thought, compare Luke 24:38), but the verb to visit, which in the New Testament has a very pregnant meaning, as it almost invariably (the only exception being that in 6:3,) means to visit for the purpose of assisting or relieving, whether the action be ascribed to God (Luke 1:68, 78; 7:16; Acts 15:14; Heb. 2:6) or man (Matt. 25:36, 43; James 1:27.) The unfavourable sense of visiting to punish is confined to the Old Testament (e. g. Ps. 89:33; Jer. 14:10.) The most appropriate sense in this place is the primary one of looking after, which implies that Moses now conceived the purpose, not of simply going to see his brethren, but of attending to their interests, becoming their protector; and that not merely as a scheme or notion of his own, but no doubt as a divine communication or suggestion, which "came up into his mind (or heart)."

24. One of them, literally, some (one), or a certain (man), as the same pronoun is translated in 3:2; 5:1 above. That it was one of the Israelites themselves, is assumed as perfectly well known to Stephen's hearers, and also that the wrong-doer was an Egyptian. This confirms what was said above (on vs. 2:17), that he is not communicating information, but reasoning from familiar facts. Suffer wrong, literally, wronged or injured. That the injury consisted in blows or other bodily violence, is probable, but not affirmed. Defended, literally, warded off, averted from one's self; but the use of the middle voice, in the sense of defending others, is found, though rarely, in the purest Attic writers. By inserting him, the English version seems, at first sight, to distinguish between him that suffered wrong and him that was oppressed; whereas the Greek construction is, defended and avenged the oppressed (one). Avenged, however, is too strong a word, at least in modern English, to express the Greek phrase, which means properly did justice to (maintained the right of) the oppressed. Compare Luke 18:7, 8, where avenge is equivalent to vindicate or right, as a judicial act. The strong sense of the same word in Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30, is determined by the context, both in the original and the quotation. Oppressed, literally, worn out, broken down by hard work (see a kindred form in 4:2 above, and 16:18 below), which may here refer, not merely to the struggle which Moses witnessed, but to previous maltreatment and oppressive bondage. And smote, not as an additional, distinct act, but smiting, as a simultaneous act, or rather as the mode in which the act of defence and vindication was performed. The Greek verb means properly to knock or beat; then to wound, and when emphatically used (like the corresponding Hebrew word) to wound mortally, to kill, which is expressly recorded by Moses himself (Ex. 2:12.) It is an old and not improbable opinion, that the Egyptian was one of Pharaoh's overseers or taskmasters, by whom the Israelites were driven to their work (Ex. 5:6; 10:14), and that the wrong or injury here meant was an aggravated case of their habitual severity.

25 By inserting for and the auxiliaries would and would have, the translation seems to limit what is here said to the single act of slaying the Egyptian, either as one justified by his official mission, or as a sign and symbol of the mission itself. But supposed or thought (Wiclif, guessed), being in the imperfect tense, denotes continued or habitual belief; he was thinking, or used to think, before he did this, that his brethren (or according to the latest critics, the brethren) understood (did actually know) that God, by his hand (i. e. the instrumental agency of Moses) not would deliver, but does deliver, i. e. is about, or has begun to do so, the speaker throwing himself into the time of which he speaks, and using such expressions as Moses himself might have employed. Deliver them, Gr. gives to them deliverance (or salvation.) Some suppose their not understanding this to be here represented as a fault or sin, since they had seen so many proofs of an extraordinary providence, and special divine purpose, in the life of Moses. Others suppose the fault to be upon the side of Moses, who, although divinely called to this great work, had prematurely entered on it, before the people had been made acquainted with his high vocation. A third opinion is that there was fault on both sides, rash zeal and revengeful anger on the part of Moses, unbelief and stupidity on that of Israel, to punish which their liberation was deferred for forty years, and Moses sent for the same term into such complete inaction and obscurity, that when God called him to the actual discharge of his important functions, he refused to undertake it (Ex. 3:11, 13; 4:1; 10:13.) The allusion to the failure of the ancient Israel to recognize their temporal deliverer, no doubt involves one to the still more fatal error of their children in mistaking and disowning the Messiah. As if he had said, 'Your rejection of Christ proves nothing with respect to the truth of his pretensions; since your fathers for a time rejected Moses.' This parallel is afterwards suggested still more clearly (see below, on v. 35.)

26. This is the proof of what had just been affirmed, to wit, that the people did not recognize him as the great deliverer whom they expected. Next day, literally, coming or coming on, ensuing, following (Wiclif, the day suing.) It is joined in like manner with night once below (23:11), and several times used without a noun, but agreeing with day understood (16:11; 20:15; 21:18.) The Hebrew text has second day (Ex. 2:13), in reference to his first appearance as recorded in v. 25. (See above, on v. 13.) Showed himself to them, literally, was seen by them, the same form of expression as in 2:3. The context shows that this was something more than a fortuitous appearance or encounter. It was rather a deliberate and formal presentation of himself in a public or official character. The common version therefore (showed himself unto them) is correct considered as a paraphrase. As they strove, literally, to them striving (quarreling or fighting) The Greek verb is elsewhere used in the New Testament to signify a war of words, disputing, wrangling (John 6:52; 2 Tim. 2:24; James 4:2.) But as the Septuagint frequently applies it to a bodily struggle or contention (e. g. Ex. 21:22; 2 Sam. 14:6), it is better so to understand it here. To them may refer to the "two men of the Hebrews," mentioned in Ex. 2:13, and here assumed to be both well known and remembered by the hearers (see above, on v. 24); or it may be regularly construed with the nearest antecedent, brethren, and the combatants supposed to represent the whole mass, because suffered so to act without constraint and hinderance, or because they were in fact congenial spirits and fair samples of the general body. Here, as in v. 25, the would have of all the immediate English versions weakens the sense, which is, he drove them together into peace, i. e. he authoritatively required them to be at peace, by virtue of his office, either entered on before the time, or disowned by the people. (See above, on v. 25.) Set them at one again, i. e. reconciled or brought together. Atonement, in old English, denotes reconciliation (Rom. 5:11.) Neither effort nor persuasion is expressed by the verb, but an act of authority. By a singular coincidence, the same verb is repeatedly employed by Homer (but without the addition of the words to peace) in the opposite sense of setting against each other or causing to fight. Sirs, literally, men, gentlemen (see above, on 2:14); but some connect it with the next word, so as to mean men-brethren, i. e. men who are brothers, kinsmen, countrymen, and of the same religion. This was a reason both for not fighting and for not provoking others, as suggested in the following question. Why (the same word as in 4:25 above) do ye wrong (or treat unjustly) one another? The passive participle of the same verb occurs in the first clause of v. 24.

27. The first words imply that one of the two was simply acting in self-defence like the Hebrew of v. 24 (compare Ex. 2:11.) The original construction is, the (one) wronging the neighbour. This last word, which in Greek is properly an adverb meaning near, and with the article, the (one) near (or next), has here its Scriptural or Hebrew sense of fellow-man, but probably with some allusion to the more intimate relation of these combatants, expressed in the preceding verse by brethren. Thrust him away, or pushed him back, both in the literal and proper sense of a corporeal movement, and in the figurative one, which it suggests or symbolizes, of rejecting with disdain, a meaning found not only in the Septuagint version (e. g. Jer. 6:19; Hos. 9:17), and in the best Greek writers (such as Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plato), but also in the Greek of the New Testament (Rom. 11:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:19), and in this very book (see below, on 13:46.) In the last clause this expressive action is translated into words. The question is equivalent to a strong negation, or at least to a demand for his authority, like that addressed to Christ (Matt. 21:23) and his apostles (see above, on 4:7) by the rulers of Israel. The jealous feeling thus expressed is the same that was entertained towards Lot in Sodom (Gen. 19:9), and seems to be referred to by our Lord in declining all judicial interference with men's property or secular affairs (Luke 12:14.) Made, constituted, placed, appointed, as in v. 10 and in 6:3. Over us, precisely the same phrase that occurs in 1:23 above; but the latest critics change the case, though without a change of meaning. Ruler and judge may be generic and specific terms denoting the same thing, as in 4:5, or distinctive terms for what would now be called judicial and executive authority. (Wiclif, who ordained thee prince and doomsman on us?) This taunting question shows that Moses was regarded, not as a mere intruder or officious friend, but as asserting some official right to interfere between them. And as this agrees exactly with the previous narrative, especially with vs. 23, 24, as we have just explained them, the reproaches cast by some interpreters upon the angry Hebrew, for putting so uncharitable a construction on an act of simple kindness, are entirely undeserved.

28. So far from acknowledging this act of homicide as proving his official right to interfere, he taunts him with it as an act of lawless violence, and insinuates a charge that he was seeking to repeat it. The peculiar form of the interrogation (μή), and the emphatic introduction of the pronoun (σύ), make the original much stronger than the version, and almost equivalent to saying, 'Surely thou dost not mean to kill me, etc.' The verb repeated in this clause is the one translated took up in v. 21 above, but here used, as in 2:23; 5:33, 36, in the sense of despatching, making away with, or destroying. As, literally, what manner, the idiomatic phrase employed in 1:11, and always denoting, not mere general resemblance, but specific similarity of form or circumstances; so that there is probably a covert and ironical allusion, not only to the fact that he had killed an Egyptian, but to the circumstances not here mentioned, though recorded in the Pentateuch by Moses himself (Ex. 2:12), that he did it secretly and hid the body. As if he had said, 'Perhaps you mean to murder me and hide my body in the sand, as you did yesterday to the Egyptian.'

29. Then, and, or but, as in the two preceding verses. The sense of then (immediately or forthwith) is sufficiently expressed by the following phrase, at (literally in) this saying, i. e. in the very act or time of hearing it. When it is said (Matt. 12:41. Luke 11:32), that the Ninevites repented at the preaching of Jonah, the idea may be likewise that of instantaneous or simultaneous action; but the form of expression differs more in the original than in the version. Was a stranger, literally, became a sojourner, implying change as well as actual condition, and suggesting what he left and lost, as well as what he found. The Greek noun, in the classics, means one who dwells or settles by another, but in Hellenistic usage is applied specifically to domesticated aliens (e. g. Gen. 15:13; Ex. 2:22), and in this place is synonymous with Moses's description of himself as "a stranger in a strange land." The land (of) Madian, being without the article, might seem to mean a land (called) Madian, but for the like expression in v. 36 (land of Egypt), where no such explanation is admissible. Madian is a sort of intermediate form or compromise between the Hebrew Midian and the Greek Madiam, the name of one of Abraham's sons by Keturah (Gen. 25:2), also applied to his descendants, a nomadic tribe who roved about the desert between Moab, Sinai, and the Red Sea, and are therefore found in different and distant places. (Compare Ex. 3:1; 18:5; Num. 31:2; Judg. 6:1.) The last clause means that though he still felt himself a stranger, he was so far settled and domesticated among these people, as to be a husband and a father. (Compare Ex. 2:21, 22; 4:20; 18:1–6.)

30. This translation of the first clause is found in all the English versions except Wiclif's, who retains the true sense of the verb (filled), though not the original construction, which is that of the genitive absolute, forty years having been fulfilled (or completed.) See above, on v. 23, and 2:1. This marks the close of another period of forty years in the history of Moses. The wilderness of Mount Sinai is the desert tract, through which extends the mountainous range of Horeb. This is the distinction made by the highest modern geographical authorities, although tradition recognizes Horeb and Sinai as northern and southern peaks of the same mountain. This tradition seems to have arisen from the fact that Moses, in his farewell discourse, no longer designates the scene of his divine legation by its proper name of Sinai, as he does in the earlier books, but applies to it the general name of Horeb. (Compare Ex. 19:11; 18:20; 23; 24:16; 34:4; 29:32; Lev. 7:38; 25:1; 26:46; 27:34, with Deut. 1:6; 4:10, 15; 15:2; 18:16; 29:1.) Appeared to him, literally, was seen by him, as in v. 26 and 2:3. An angel or (according to the Hebrew idiom, the angel) of the Lord, see above, on 5:19. This is explained by certain modern interpreters to mean some natural object, such as a bush struck by lightning and instantly extinguished; by some Christian writers, an extraordinary sensible impression of God's presence; by others a created angel; but by most interpreters in every age, the second person of the Godhead, even then appearing as the revealer of the Father (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22.) A flame of fire is in several of the oldest manuscripts, as in the Septuagint version of Ex. 3:2, a fire of flame, i. e. according to a well-known Hebrew idiom, a flaming fire. In a bush, literally, of a bush, which gives the whole phrase an exceedingly peculiar form, although the sense is clear.

31. The original construction is, and Moses seeing.… and he approaching. Wondered at, admired. Sight, either in the simple sense, as denoting an object of vision, or in the stronger one of a supernatural spectacle, as in 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9, 10; 18:9, from which it will be seen that this is one of Luke's favourite expressions, being found elsewhere only in Matt. 17:9. To behold, or rather to observe, i. e. more closely than he could while at a distance. (See below, on 11:6; 27:39, and compare Matt. 7:3; Luke 6:41; 12:24; Heb. 3:1; James 1:23, 24.) Came, literally, became, or came into existence, became audible, precisely as in 2:5 above.

32. Some of the oldest manuscripts and versions omit the name of God before Isaac and Jacob. The form is then the same as in 3:13 above. In either case it is a solemn claim to be the God who covenanted with the Patriarchs, and according to our Saviour's own interpretation (Matt. 21:32), was still their God as living spirits, one day to be reunited with their bodies. This was probably the first divine communication to Moses since his flight from Egypt. (See above, on v. 25.) Trembled, literally, becoming tremulous, a natural sign of fear. (See below on 16:29, and compare Heb. 12:21.) Behold, look, observe, as in v. 31.

33. Then said, and said, so said, as in vs. 29, 32. The Lord to him, Gr. to him the Lord. Put off, lit. loose, untie (as in Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16.) Thy shoes, lit. thy sole (or sandal), any thing bound under the foot. The singular form is applied, as a collective, to both shoes, like the French chaussure, meaning shoes and stockings, or whatever is worn upon the feet. From thy feet, or rather, of thy feet, belonging to them, or now on them. The place etc. Syr. 'the land (or ground) on which thou standest is holy.' The holiness was moveable and temporary (except as a matter of memory), arising from the momentary presence of Jehovah. The expression of reverence or awe by uncovering the feet is very ancient, being enjoined by Pythagoras ("Unshod sacrifice and worship"), who had probably learned it in Egypt. (See also Josh. 5:9.) The ground of it is not clear, as it can scarcely have been transferred, as some imagine, to God's presence from the floors of palaces or private houses, even supposing that the custom there existed. As the same thing is expressed among ourselves by uncovering the head, it may be a mere accidental habit or association. The most probable solution perhaps is, that it symbolized the putting away of all impurity, to which the feet are peculiarly exposed in walking (compare John 13:10), more particularly in the East, where the Mahometans still leave their slippers at the entrance of their mosques. From Juvenal's alluding to this custom in connection with the Sabbath, it would seem to have been known to him only as a Jewish practice. Though not explicitly enjoined, it is implied in the silence of the law as to any covering of the feet, amidst such particular directions as to head-dress and other parts of the sacerdotal costume. Chrysostom points out Stephen's tacit argument against the perpetuity and absolute necessity of the temple, from the holiness ascribed to any place where God chose to reveal himself.

34. The literal translation of the first words is, Seeing I have seen, a form of expression much more frequent in Hebrew than in Greek, though found in both, the very same verb being so used by Lucian (ἰδὼν εἶδον) and Arrian (ἰδὼν οἶδα.) It may either be intensive ('I have indeed seen'), or may suggest the additional idea of distinctness, frequency, duration, or the like. (See above, on 4:17, where the form is similar, but not the same.) Affliction, or more exactly, oppression, maltreatment, the noun corresponding to the verb used in v. 6, 19 above, and in 12:1; 18:10 below. My people, belonging to me, although not yet formally organized as such, nor fully conscious of our mutual relation. Which is in Egypt, lit. the (one) in Egypt, as distinguished from all others. Groaning (or sighing) under their oppressions, whether addressed to God as a complaint, or uttered merely as a natural expression of distress. Am come down, or more exactly, came down, from heaven which is God's throne (Isai. 66:1; Matt. 5:34) i. e. became visible on earth. God is often represented as coming down to see for himself before he punishes. (See Gen. 11:5; 18:21, and compare Ps. 144:5.) To deliver, see above, on v. 10, and below, on 12:11; 23:27; 26:17, in all which cases the same verb is used. And now, since this is so, as in 3:17 above, and 10:5; 13:11; 20:22, 25; 22:16 below. Come, or retaining the original adverbial form, here! hither! (See above, on v. 3.) I will send, or according to the oldest copies extant, let me send, the same form being used in the Septuagint version of Ex. 3:10. The explanation of the aorist subjunctive as a future, although sanctioned by Greek usage, is unnecessary here, where a proposition is at least as natural as a peremptory order.

35. The repetition of the pronoun this is highly emphatic, both here and in the beginning of the next three verses; but it does not mean this great man, which is as arbitrary as to make it constantly expressive of contempt. (See above, on 6:14.) Refused, denied to be what he was, i. e. a messenger from God (see above, on v. 27.) The refusal of the one man was virtually that of all; for all were of the same mind, and this was a fortuitous disclosure of the general feeling. The same (or this), i. e. the very same whom they rejected forty years before, (if not by word or deed, in thought and will,) and no one else. The question is repeated from v. 27, with the omission of over us, and even this is found in some old manuscripts. Did God send, or according to the latest critics, has sent. To be (or as) a ruler, see above, on 5:31. Three of the oldest manuscripts read, both a ruler and deliverer, i. e. not only a ruler, which they had denied him to be, but a deliverer, which was vastly more. Deliverer, literally, redeemer, from a verb which means to buy back from captivity by payment of a ransom. The noun occurs only here; but the cognate forms, redeem, redemption, ransom, are repeatedly applied to Christ. (See Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 1:68; 2:38; 24:21; Heb. 9:12; 1 Pet. 1:8.) As there is evident allusion to the parallel between Christ and Moses, and as the deliverance from Egypt was a type of that from sin, there is no need of diluting the expression so as to mean mere deliverance, without reference to ransom or redemption in the proper sense. Even in reference to this temporal salvation, if it could not be said of Moses, it could be said of God, whose messenger and instrument he was, that he had bought his people out of bondage, by a natural and not uncommon figure, (See Isai. 45:13, 14.) By the hands, lit. in the hand, which may mean under the protection and control of the uncreated Angel who accompanied the chosen people. (See Ex. 14:19; 32:34; Isai. 63:9.) But the five oldest manuscripts read with the hand (Vulg. cum manu), which may mean, 'clothed with the power of the Angel,' but more probably describes him as the organ of communication between God and Moses. (See the Septuagint version of Num. 15:23, 2 Chron. 29:25.) The Angel who appeared might also be grammatically rendered, the Angel of him (i. e. of the God) who appeared to him in the bush. But this construction is less obvious and altogether needless, as we read expressly, both in Ex. 3:2, and in v. 30 above, that it was an Angel that appeared to him. Both readings, in and with (the hand), may have arisen from too close an imitation of the corresponding Hebrew phrase (בְּיַד), in which the preposition corresponds to several distinct particles in Greek; or it may be a pleonastic form for the dative of cause, manner, and instrument. (See above, on 1:3, 5; 4:7, 9, 10, 12.) Either is more probable than the supposition, that the in (ἐν) is merely the last two letters of the preceding verb, repeated by mistake. The meaning of the whole verse seems to be, that God had rebuked the incredulous and disobedient Israelites in Egypt, by sending the same man, whom they had taunted with aspiring to judicial authority, to exercise far higher functions, namely, those of a national liberator and protector.

36. This verse describes the third great period of forty years in the life of Moses. (See above, on vs. 23, 30.) He brought them out is not sufficiently emphatic, a defect which some versions, ancient and modern, have attempted to supply (Pesh. this is he who brought them out. Wicl. this Moses. Tynd. and the same). The full force of the clause is, this (same man) did bring them out. He not only received the commission, but he executed it. He was the actual leader of the Exodus, the great migration to which Israel owed its national existence. His divine legation was attested, not only by success, but by miracle. After that he had implies that all the signs and wonders were previous to the exode, which is inconsistent with the remainder of the verse. The aorist participle strictly means having wrought, but sometimes denotes a simultaneous action (Vulg. faciens. Tynd. shewing; see above, on v. 14, and on 1:24.) It may even mean by working miracles, as in 10:39, whom they slew (by) hanging, not slew and hanged, as in the English version, which would imply that he was dead before his crucifixion. For wonders and signs, the Peshito has signs and wonders and mighty deeds. For land of Egypt, several of the oldest manuscripts have the land Egypt, others simply Egypt. In the Red Sea is by some translated on or at the Red Sea; but the in refers to the miraculous change wrought upon the sea itself, to the passage of the Israelites through it, and to Pharaoh's destruction in it. The Red Sea, in the earlier Greek writers, is what we call the Indian Ocean, with its two great arms, the Persian and Arabian Gulfs, to the last of which the name is given in the Septuagint version. It was called Red, as some of the ancients thought, from the colour of the water; but even Quintus Curtius speaks of this as an ignorant mistake, and derives the Greek name from that of an old king (Erythra.) The moderns trace it to the colour of the sea-weed which abounds in it, and from which it was called in Hebrew (and in the Peshito here) Yam Suph (Mare Algosum) the Sea of Seaweed. The name Red Sea is still applied to the same narrow gulf between Arabia and Africa, about 1400 miles in length, through the northern extremity of which the Israelites passed (Ex. 14:21, 22.) Local tradition still identifies the spot as the Bahr-al-Kolsum or Sea of Destruction, in allusion to the fate of Pharaoh's host (Ex. 14:28.) The ancient Christian historian Orosius says that the traces of the chariot-wheels were visible in his time! All the miracles here mentioned are included in the forty years; the actual error in the wilderness, though often so described in round numbers (Num. 14:33; Josh. 5:6; Neh. 9:21; Am. 2:10), lasted only thirty-eight years (Deut. 2:14.)

37. This is the Moses presupposes their acquaintance with the history and prophecy, which last had been quoted and applied by Peter (see above, on 3:22), and to this there may here be an allusion. As if he had said, 'this is the author of that prophecy so lately quoted and interpreted before you.' Moses was not only a type of the Messiah, but the author of one of the most striking testimonies to him. The Lord is omitted in the oldest manuscripts and versions (except the Peshito), and may have been inserted from the parallel passage (3:22), for the purpose of assimilation. This may also be the case with your, which is omitted in several of the oldest manuscripts, while two read our. Like unto me, lit. as me, i. e. according to some, as (he raised up) me. Some copies of the Vulgate connect it with what follows (tanquam me audietis. Wicl. as me ye shall hear him.) Most refer the like me to his dignity and rank (see Num. 12:8; Deut. 34:10); but it may relate to from your brethren, one of yourselves, as I am (see above, on 3:22.) Some suppose it to describe Christ as the end of the law (Rom. 10:4.) Him shall ye hear is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and fathers, and is regarded by some modern writers as another effort at assimilation on the part of the transcribers. The inference that Jesus was this prophet (John 1:21, 25; 6:14), Stephen leaves the Sanhedrim to draw for themselves (see above, on 2:36), with its necessary consequence that they, not he, dishonoured Moses, by refusing to acknowledge and obey the Prophet whom he had so solemnly predicted.

38. There is here a contrast or antithesis (like that in 2:23, 24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30) between the treatment of the same person at the hands of God and man. The Moses whom they so contemptuously slighted, was the chosen organ of communication between Israel and Jehovah, throughout the error in the wilderness. According to the best interpreters, in the church in the wilderness is a parenthetical specification of the time and place, and the main proposition is that Moses was with the Angel (then another parenthesis) and with our fathers, i. e. the mediator or interpreter between them. The idea of intimate and confidential intercourse with either party is rather implied than expressed. (See above, on 4:13, and below, on 20:18, and compare Mark 16:10.) Church (Tynd. congregation, Rh. assembly) is by some understood to mean the actual assemblage at the giving of the law, because the next clause refers to a specific time and place; but it does so only to identify the Angel, without necessarily restricting what precedes to that particular juncture. 'The Moses who communicated with the Old Testament church throughout the error in the wilderness, was the same who acted as the organ of the divine Angel at the giving of the law.' The last clause may then have reference either to the legislation or to the subsequent divine communications. Oracles, divine responses or authoritative declarations. The Greek word (λόγια) has been variously explained as a diminutive of (λόγος) word, meaning a brief, condensed, and pregnant utterance; or as the neuter of an adjective (λόγιος) meaning rational, profound, wise, and as a substantive, a wise saying. Herodotus and Thucydides apply it to the responses of the oracles (compare Rom. 3:2; Heb. 5:12; 1 Pet. 4:11.) Lively, i. e. living or alive; not because uttered viva voce, which is both unworthy and at variance with usage; but either as the words of the living God, or as being in themselves efficacious and especially life-giving. (Compare John 6:51; Heb. 10:20; 1 Pet. 1:23.) Even the law is such in its own nature (Rom. 7:12.) The Vulgate and the oldest English versions have the words (Tynd. word) of life. Lively oracles is the Geneva version. Moses is here represented, not as the author, but as the recipient, of these authoritative revelations.

39. The to at the beginning is a violation of the English idiom, copied from Tyndale by the other old translators, and arising from the needless substitution of obey for the original expression, be (or become) obedient, which is retained only in the Rhemish Bible. Would not is more than an auxiliary and means were not willing, did not choose. The repetition of the verb thrust away (from v. 27) suggests the idea that they still repeated or continued the same act which was at first performed by their representative on that occasion. As he refused the Prophet's mediation in the quarrel with his neighbour, so the people refused his mediation between them and God. Turned back again into Egypt does not refer to the attempt of the children of Israel literally to retrace their steps (see Num. 14:4, and compare Ex. 16:3; 17:3), for this is inconsistent with Ex. 32:1, 4; Neh. 9:18, where they ask for the God who brought them out of Egypt, not for one who should conduct them back again. The reference is rather to their Egyptian spirit and propensities, their lingering attachment to the idolatries of their native country. (See Ezek. 20:5–8, 24.) In their hearts, i. e. their thoughts and their desires, as distinguished from their outward movements.

40. This verse explains the statement in the one before it, that they turned back in (or with) their hearts to Egypt. How? By saying unto Aaron, &c. Gods might be taken as too close a translation of the plural Elohim, if the latter were not construed with a plural verb in the passage quoted (Ex. 32:1, compare Gen. 20:13; 35:7.) It is variously explained as a categorical plural, denoting the whole class, though immediately referring to a single object; or by supposing that the people asked for a plurality of idols, but that Aaron made them only one. To go before us, literally, who shall go before us, as Jehovah had gone before them in the pillar of cloud (Ex. 13:21), and as images were carried by the heathen in their marches. The meaning is not, who shall guide us back to Egypt? see above, on v. 39. The second clause assigns the ground of their request, to wit, the absence of Moses, not merely as a strenuous opponent of idolatry, but as the representative of Jehovah, whose place they proposed to fill by a visible representation of the divine being. This is commonly regarded as contemptuous; but in Hebrew and the Septuagint it is this man, and the Hebrew noun is one of a respectful import. Besides, how else could this (man) be expressed, if no contempt at all were intended? This consideration, with the opposite sense put by some upon the same pronoun in v. 35. above, shows how precarious such assumptions are, although sustained by the authority of eminent interpreters. This Moses has no verb agreeing with it, but is placed at the beginning of the sentence as a nominative absolute, which some regard as a mere negligence of style, but others as intended to enhance the sarcasm, or at least the emphasis. Other examples of the same construction may be seen in Matt. 12:36; John 15:2; 7:38; Acts 20:3; Gal. 1:20. Wot not, know not. Wiclif has a still more antiquated form (we witten not.) What is become of him, literally, what has happened to him.

41. The first verb in Greek occurs only here, and is supposed to have been coined by Stephen, or, if he did not speak in Greek, by Luke. The nearest equivalent in English would be calf-made. Offered, literally, led up, i. e. to or upon the altar, or caused to ascend, which is the meaning of a Hebrew verb, from which comes the noun translated burnt-offering, but strictly meaning what ascends, i. e. upon the altar as a victim, or from the altar in the form of vapour. The Greek phrase here used occurs also in Herodotus, and in the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 3:15. The idol (Wiclif, mawmet). i. e. the golden calf designed no doubt, like the calves of Jeroboam (1 Kings, 12:28), to represent Jehovah (Ex. 32:4), but under a forbidden form, borrowed from the Egyptian worship of Osiris, one of their ancient kings, the reputed inventor of the plough, and tutelary god of agricultural labour, worshipped under the form of a bull, representing the productive power of nature, called Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis. Analogous appearances are furnished by the colossal bulls lately found at Nineveh, and by the ox as a cherubic symbol (Ezek. 1:10.) Rejoiced, made merry (Ex. 32:6), not as a mere fortuitous accompaniment, but as an essential part of the idolatrous service (see 1 Cor. 10:7.) Rejoiced in, not merely on account of, or in reference to, but in the possession of, and in the closest union with, the works of their own hands, not the idol alone, called works for emphasis; or as the product of united labour; but the idol with all that appertained to it, the altar, implements of sacrifice, &c. Bengel observes that God alone has a right to rejoice in the work of his own hands; that man may rejoice in the works of God, but as soon as he begins to rejoice in his own works, he becomes an idolater.

42. Then, and, but, or so. Turned and gave is by some understood to mean gave again. But this, though a Hebrew idiom, is not a Hellenistic one, the first verb in all supposed examples which have been adduced, expressing a distinct and independent act. Another construction supplies them; he turned them from one form of idolatry to another. A third supplies his mind, his manner, or his hand. It is now commonly agreed, however, that the verb has here a reflexive meaning, as in English, and is equivalent to saying, turned himself, or turned away in anger, as Isaiah says (64:10), "he was turned to be their enemy." A cognate verb is used below (15:16), in the favourable sense of turning back or being reconciled. Gave them up, not merely suffered them, but condemned or punished by suffering them, as in Rom. 1:24, 26, 28. The host of Heaven sometimes means the angels (as in 1 Kings 22:19; Ps. 103:21; 148:2; Luke 2:13), but more frequently the heavenly bodies (as in Deut. 4:19; 2 Kings 17:16; Isai. 34:4. (Wiclif, the knighthood of heaven; Tyndale, the stars of the sky; Cranmer and Geneva, the host of the sky.) Because they chose to worship the true God under a forbidden form, he gave them up to Sabaism, so called from the Hebrew word for host. The book of the Prophets, i. e. either the twelve minor prophets, which were reckoned in the Jewish canon as a single volume; or in a wider sense, the whole body of the prophets, as the second great division of the Hebrew Scriptures. The quotation is from Amos 5:25–27, in the words of the Septuagint version. The interrogation (with μή) anticipates a negative answer ('you did not—did you?') and is therefore equivalent to a strong negation. This has been variously understood as meaning, that they literally offered no sacrifices in the desert, which is inconsistent with the plain terms of the history; or that their offerings were only occasional and few; or that the offerers themselves were few; or that they did not offer from right motives and in a right spirit; or that they sacrificed to devils, not to God (Lev. 17:7; Deut. 32:17.) As if he had said, 'Was it to me (or to your idols) that ye offered in the wilderness?' Slain beasts (or victims, Rhem. Vers, hosts) and sacrifices, i. e. offerings of all sorts, animal and vegetable, as the Hebrew words express, although the Septuagint version fails to make the distinction.

43. Yea, literally, and, as if he had said, 'and (while ye thus withheld from me the service which was due) ye took up &c.' Took up, i. e. as some explain it, carried in procession; but unless we refer the whole verse to the idolatry of later times, it cannot be supposed that Moses would have tolerated such unblushing heathenism in the camp of Israel, any more than he connived at the unlawful worship of Jehovah under the form of a golden calf. (See above, on v. 41.) Others, with more probability, assume a reference to the secret carrying about and worshipping of small shrines, similar to those of the Ephesian Artemis or Diana. (See below, on 19:24.) Tabernacle, literally, tent, may then denote the shrine itself as Diodorus Siculus, the Greek historian, mentions the "sacred tent" carried in the van of the Carthaginian army. At the same time, there is evident allusion to the tent or tabernacle of Jehovah; as if he had said, 'instead of carrying my tabernacle (or at the same time that you carried it), you took up that of Moloch.' The Hebrew name is Molech, an ancient form of the noun melech (king), sometimes written as a proper name, Milcom (1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 16:3; 23:13), which bears a strong resemblance to the word here used by Amos, and denoting properly your king. But as this idea is suggested or expressed by all the forms, there is no need of supposing that the Greek translator confounded any one of them with any other. Moloch was the national god of the Ammonites (1 Kings 11:7), worshipped, according to the Rabbins, under the form of a brazen image with outstretched arms, into which, when heated, children were thrown as offerings and burnt alive. This horrid superstition was long practised in the valley of Hinnom on the south side of Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:19); and that it was not unknown in the time of Moses, is clear from its express and repeated prohibition in the law (Lev. 18:21; 20:2; Deut. 12:31; 18:10.) The reference of your king to Moloch, therefore, is in perfect keeping with historical analogy. In the next clause there is a transposition of the Hebrew words, which does not necessarily affect the sense. Remphan is not in the original, unless it be identified with Chiun (כִּיּוּן), which some interpreters explain as an appellative, denoting framework, stand, or pedestal, but which may also be so pointed as to read Kevan, and this, according to some eminent interpreters, might easily be changed, by successive transcription, into Revan, Refan (or Rephan), Remphan, as it is variously written in the manuscripts both of Acts and Amos. Another mode of reconciling the Greek and Hebrew forms, instead of assuming a corruption in the text, identifies the two as Semitic and Egyptian names of Saturn, both as a planet and a deity, which some go further and Identify with Moloch, thus accounting for the human victims offered up to both, and for the mention of a star in the passage now before us, as well as of the heavenly host in the preceding verse. By Coptic scholars, Remphan is variously explained to mean "light-giver," "dweller in heaven," and "king of heaven," on which ground some suppose it to denote the sun. Figures, forms, or types, which ye made, Heb. and Sept. for yourselves, to which Luke or Stephen adds by way of explanation, to adore (or worship.) And (therefore, as expressed in the Geneva Bible), I will remove you (as the same version has it), i. e. make you migrate (as in v. 4 above). All the other English versions have translate you. Beyond (Wiclif into) Babylon substituted for beyond Damascus (Am. 5:27, Heb. and Gr.), which is not an error or an inadvertence, but designed to bring the prophecy, without any real change of meaning, into contact and agreement with the historical associations of the people in relation to the Babylonish exile.

44. The tabernacle of Moloch naturally suggests, by way of contrast, the tabernacle of witness or testimony. This is the phrase constantly employed in the Septuagint to translate a Hebrew one meaning the tabernacle of congregation, or rather of appointment, not the tent belonging to the congregation or host of Israel, nor the tent in which they were accustomed to assemble, but the tent where God appointed to meet with them, or the place of meeting between God and Israel, or Moses or their representative. (See Ex. 25:22; Num. 17:19, in the English Bible, 17:4.) The Greek translators seem to have confounded this phrase with another, sometimes applied to the tabernacle, as a witness of the covenant between Jehovah and his people, or as containing the tables of the law, which were a divine testimony against sin. (See Num. 9:15, 18:2, 17:22, 23, in the English Bible, 17:7, 8.) The use of both names in the law makes the substitution in the case before us wholly unimportant. Our fathers had, literally, was to our fathers, which is the reading of the oldest manuscripts and latest critics. The common text is, was in (i. e. among) our fathers. Appointed, arranged, ordered, see below, on 18:2; 20:13; 23:31; 24:23. Speaking, more exactly, the (one) speaking, or as it is translated in the margin of our Bible, he who spake. The command referred to is the one recorded in Ex. 25:9, 40; 26:30. (Compare Heb. 8:5.) While the preceding verse establishes one part of Stephen's argument, that founded on the national unworthiness, this verse establishes the other, that derived from the comparatively recent origin and frequent changes of the sanctuary. Not only the temple, but the tabernacle which preceded it, had no existence till the exodus from Egypt, the divine command to make it being still on record in the books of Moses. Fashion, type, or model, the same word that is rendered figure in v. 43.

45. The tabernacle thus planned and constructed lasted only till the time of David. Which, from its form in Greek, can have no antecedent except tabernacle in v. 44. Also, i. e. not only its origin, but its later history, is perfectly well known. Our fathers again identifies the speaker with the hearers, as belonging to the same race (see above, on vs. 2:12, 15.) That came after, literally, succeeding (one another), or still more probably, receiving (from each other), and transmitting by succession, which approaches very nearly to the idea of inheriting. Brought in, i. e. into the promised land, or land of Canaan, which there was the less need of expressly naming, because Stephen was within its borders when he spoke. It is as if he had said, brought in here (or hither). Jesus, the Septuagint form of Joshua, occurs also in Heb. 4:8, and in both cases creates some confusion in the minds of English readers. With Jesus, i. e. when they followed Joshua, or marched along with him, to conquer Canaan. Brought in.… into, an inelegant if not ungrammatical construction, seems to mean that the fathers brought the tabernacle into possession of the Gentiles, which must either signify that they were in possession of the tabernacle, or it of them; but the former is untrue and the latter unmeaning. Still more incorrect and arbitrary is the explanation of possession as equivalent to land possessed, or territory, since the Greek word means the act of seizure or of taking possession. The true construction of the clause is, which our fathers (i. e. the younger race who came in under Joshua) inheriting, receiving by succession (from the older race, who came out of Egypt, and by whom it was constructed), brought in (to the land of promise, when they came themselves) with Joshua, in (or at) the conquest (forcible possession, capture) of the nations (who had previously occupied it.) This use of possession to mean dispossession, or the act of dispossessing, corresponds exactly to that of the Hebrew verb (חורִישׁ) in speaking of this very matter. (See Ex. 34:24; Num. 32:21; Deut. 4:38.) Drave out, literally, pushed (or thrust) out, is a very strong expression, near akin to those in vs. 27, 39 above. Before the face, literally, from the face (or presence), implying flight and total disappearance. In the famous inscription, which Procopius professes to have seen in Africa, recording the arrival and settlement of fugitives from Canaan there, a similar expression is employed ("who fled from the face of the robber, Joshua the son of Nun.") Until the days of David, if connected with the words immediately preceding, describes the expulsion of the Canaanites as gradual, and not completed till the reign of David. But this, although historically true, would not have been expressed by the aorist (ἔξωσεν), which denotes an act performed once for all. Nor is it relevant to Stephen's purpose to relate how the Canaanites were driven out, but rather to describe the condition of the sanctuary during that long interval. From Joshua to David, God abode among his people in a moveable tent, which was often shifted from place to place, and handed down from one generation to another.

46, 47. A new era in the history of the sanctuary opens with "the days of David," which had just been mentioned (v. 45.) The repetition of the verb to find can hardly be unmeaning or for tuitous. He did find favour before God (i. e. in his presence or his estimation, as in 4:19; 6:5 above), as to many other matters, or in general; but this did not satisfy him, he desired to find something more, to wit, a dwelling for Jehovah. Desired (Cranmer, would fain have found), or more exactly, asked (as a favour) for himself (the idea suggested by the middle voice, as in 3:14 above), asked permission, begged leave, which agrees exactly with the governing desire and cherished purpose of his life, so beautifully expressed in the 132d Psalm. To find, which occurs there also, and cannot therefore be a mere allusion to the same verb in the first clause, may refer to the discovery of the place where the temple was to be erected, which was made known to David by a special revelation (1 Chr. 21:22, 26; 22:1). The use of the word tabernacle, in all the English versions, makes a false antithesis between it and house in v. 47; as if David had only sought to pitch a tent, and Solomon had actually built a house; whereas the first word (not the same that had been used in v. 44, but a derivative or cognate form) means any shelter, being applied in classical usage to the cover of a wagon or a bed &c., and here denotes precisely the same thing with house. There is really a tacit contrast between David and Solomon, in favour of the former, which is apt to be neglected, but without which Stephen's words cannot be fully understood. Solomon, notwithstanding his wisdom and the splendour of his reign, holds a very inferior place to David in the Scriptures, being scarcely mentioned after the close of his own history, and only as a sort of executor to his father. This being well known to the priests and scribes whom Stephen was addressing, he employs it to enforce his argument, but tacitly and indirectly, lest he should appear to speak indecorously of so great and wise a king as Solomon. What is thus suggested or implied may be brought out more distinctly by a paraphrase. 'So far is a permanent and solid temple from being essential to acceptable worship, that even David, the favourite of Jehovah, the man after God's own heart, whose darling wish it was to find a shelter and a home for his divine protector, was not suffered to erect the house which he had planned, and for which he had collected the materials, but it was Solomon who built it!' (Wiclif, Solomon builded the house to him.) God of Jacob (in allusion to Ps. 132:2, 5), i. e. the national and covenanted God of Israel, as the chosen people.

48. The sentence is continued in the following verse, to which the last clause of this verse refers, and not to the preceding words, which are a summary or paraphrase of Solomon's own language at the dedication of the temple. "Will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" (1 Kings 8:27; 2 Chron. 6:1; 2:18.) These words, considering by whom and in what circumstances they were uttered, cannot involve an absolute condemnation of material temples, but only of their abuse. Under the ceremonial law, the doctrine of God's presence with his people was symbolized by giving him a home among them, and resembling theirs, a tent while they were wandering, a solid house when they were permanently settled. But this was a temporary institution, and any attempt to prolong it, after the time set for its abrogation, was contrary, not only to the gospel, but to the spirit of the law itself. No stronger proof of this could be adduced than the testimony of Solomon, the very builder of the temple which they now almost worshipped as immutable; for the temples built by Solomon, Zerubbabel, and Herod, were regarded as historically and morally identical. That Solomon is not named, or his words exactly quoted, will appear less strange if this verse and the one before it are thrown together as a single sentence, which will also remove the inequality in the division of the text. As if he had said, 'Solomon indeed did build the temple; but you know who said, when it was dedicated, that the Most High dwelleth not &c.' Howbeit, copied by our version from three older ones (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva), is in Greek the usual adversative (ἀλλά), properly answering to but in English, whereas but (δέ) in v. 47 might as well have been translated and or then. The Most High varies strangely in the old English versions; Wiclif has the High God; Tyndale and Cranmer, he that is highest of all; Geneva, the Most Highest; Rheims, the Highest, which is nearest to the form of the original. Temples is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, having probably crept into the text, by assimilation, from 17:24 below. The Rhemish version supplies houses, Wiclif things; the Vulgate nothing (manufactis.)

49. This is the saying of the Prophet cited at the close of the preceding verse. The unskilful division of the text throws the whole into confusion. The true division would have been as follows. '47. And Solomon built him a house, but (Solomon well knew and publicly declared that) the Most High dwelleth not in hand-made (temples). 48. As (likewise) saith the Prophet, Heaven is my throne, etc.' The quotation is made from the Septuagint, with few and unimportant variations. The Prophet quoted is Isaiah (66:1, 2), and the passage that in which he winds up all his prophecies with an express prediction of the change of dispensations, of the time when Jehovah would no longer dwell in temples (v. 1) but in human hearts (v. 2); when the ritual, although divinely instituted, would be no less hateful than idolatry itself (v. 3), and they who still cling to it would be fearfully but righteously requited (v. 4.) This remarkable prophecy is doubly appropriate to Stephen's purpose; first, as a declaration of the general truth before affirmed by Solomon, and therefore showing that the same doctrine was maintained by the prophets between him and Christ; and then, as a pointed and direct prediction of the very changes that were taking place when Stephen spoke. A little amplified and paraphrased, the meaning of the sentence is as follows. 'The arbitrary unessential nature of all temples was affirmed by Solomon in dedicating his; a doctrine afterwards repeated by Isaiah in the very act of pointing out the temporary nature of the ceremonial law, denouncing the divine wrath upon those who should still cling to it, when abrogated by the same authority that first enacted it, and formally predicting the precise change, which I am charged with having blasphemously threatened!' Throne, in all the older English versions, is seat, which is the primary usage of the Greek word, with particular reference in Homer to a high seat with a footstool; in Herodotus (with royal) to a chair of state; and in Xenophon (without it) to a throne in the restricted sense, which is the one belonging to the word in the New Testament. Will ye build is the true sense of the Hebrew word, and therefore more correct than the common version of Isaiah. Place of my rest, i. e. my permanent abode after wandering so long without one, a frequent description of the temple as contrasted with the tabernacle which preceded it. (See 2 Sam. 7:6; 2 Chron. 6:41; Ps. 132:8, 14.)

50. The division of the verses here was probably made in imitation of the Hebrew, where this sentence is the first clause of the second verse, but forming only a small part of it, and as the rest is not here quoted, it would have been better to put all Isaiah's words with Stephen's prefatory formula together, instead of dividing them among three verses, thus obscuring the connection, and attaching the form of quotation (as the Prophet says), not to the language of Isaiah, but to that of Solomon or Stephen himself. We have here the most considerable variation from the form of the original, as well as of the Greek version, an interrogation (hath not, etc.?) being substituted for an affirmation (all these hath my hand made), but without a change of meaning, since the question admits only of an affirmative answer. The passage in Isaiah presents a striking climax. First, the temples made by men are contrasted with the great material temple of the universe; then this is itself disparaged by Jehovah as his own handiwork, and still more in comparison with a nobler temple of a spiritual nature, the renewed and contrite heart. (Compare Isai. 57:15; Ps. 34:18; 138:6; 2 Cor. 6:16.) A bare citation would of course suggest the whole connection to the minds of Stephen's judges.

51. One of Stephen's lines of argument was now completed. He had shown, by a simple but masterly historical deduction, the temporary nature of the ceremonial law, and of the temple as a part of it, concluding by a reference to Solomon himself, and to Isaiah, who had foretold the same changes now foretold by Stephen. What link could have been added to this chain of proof? Had he pursued the history and multiplied quotations, as he might have done from Jeremiah (7:4) and other later prophets, he would only have consumed time and patience without adding to the strength of an argument already finished and wound up by citing the great builder of the temple and the great evangelical prophet, as authorities to prove that the temple itself was designed to answer a temporary purpose, and that no sin or folly could be greater than that of trying to make it answer any other. All that was left then was to take up and complete his other line of argument, designed to show, by means of the same history which he had been expounding, that the Jews had always been unfaithful to their trust, and that the abrogation of the present system was not only necessary to the execution of God's purpose as revealed from the beginning, but a righteous retribution of the sins of those by whom the system was administered. Having prepared the way for this conclusion by referring to the sins of Joseph's brethren, and of the Israelites in Egypt and the wilderness, he now suggests the conclusion itself, not by a formal inference, but by a terrible invective, summing up all that he had said on this point in a brief description of the men whom he addressed, and of the nation which they represented. There is no need, therefore, of supposing any interruption in the thread of his discourse, much less a passionate excitement caused by an appearance of hostility or inattention in his hearers. Such an assumption is not only quite gratuitous, but does dishonour to the memory of Stephen, by ascribing to a sudden fit of anger what was really suggested by the Holy Ghost, besides the folly of supposing that a grave historian, and above all an inspired one, would leave on record an unfinished speech, which never reached the point (as some imagine) where it might have done some good to those who heard it. This whole idea of a sudden interruption and a violent apostrophe is founded on the notion, that this long discourse of Stephen is a rambling talk which never comes to any point, and therefore must have been unfinished; or at most a desultory incoherent compend of the national history, which could not be complete unless brought down to date; whereas the speech is a historical argument, in which the facts are rather presupposed than formally related; and as soon as it has reached the conclusion aimed at, it is instantly arrested. Thus understood, the meaning of the verse before us is that, as the ancient Israel had always, as a nation, been rebellious and unfaithful, so the present generation had exactly the same character, and therefore might expect the evils threatened to their fathers. To them the Prophets had applied the same reproachful epithets which Stephen here applies to his accusers and his judges, Stiff-necked, rebellious, like a stubborn ox, refusing to receive the yoke, is never said of individuals as such, but only of a race or a contemporary generation. (See Ex. 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:19; Deut. 9:6, 13.) In one place (Deut. 10:16) Moses has connected it, as Stephen does in this place, with the figure of a heart uncircumcised. (See also Lev. 26:41; Deut. 30:6; Jer. 9:26; Ezek. 44:7.) That of an ear uncircumcised is also used by Jeremiah (6:10.) These expressions denote far more than impurity or insensibility, however great. Whatever circumcision may have symbolized, or naturally represented, of a moral nature, it was chiefly regarded by the Jews as a distinctive sign of their relation to Jehovah as his people, and entire segregation from all other races. The thought most readily suggested by the epithet uncircumcised, so common in the Hebrew Scriptures (e. g. Gen. 34:14; Ex. 12:48; Judg. 14:3; 15:18; 1 Sam. 14:6; 17:26, 36; 31:4; 2 Sam. 1:20; 1 Chr. 10:4; Isai. 52:1; Jer. 9:25; Ezek. 28:10; 31:18), is not that of personal uncleanness, whether physical or moral; but that of national and ecclesiastical exclusion from the favour of Jehovah and the privileges of his people. Its nearest equivalent, as here applied, is heathenish, the most insulting name that could be given to a Jew in any age or any country, as implying not merely social degradation and inferiority, but treason to Jehovah and unfaithfulness to Moses, by a violation of the most solemn and important trust that God had ever confided to a people. The compound terms, uncircumcised in heart and ears, mean therefore those who hear and think and feel like gentiles, like the heathen; and their sudden application to the Sanhedrim, instead of necessarily implying a departure from the theme of his discourse, is rather a tremendous summing of it up in the conclusion, that these proud representatives and rulers of the chosen people were in fact mere heathen. Some conception of the force of this concluding blow may be obtained by supposing one impeached among ourselves to describe the senate at whose bar he stands as slaves and negroes. Even this, however, is without the sting belonging to the charge, not only of political and social infamy, but of religious apostasy and reprobation. Far from being an ungovernable burst of passion, this was the other great conclusion at which Stephen had been aiming from the first, and which was now established by irrefragable proofs, not only with respect to the contemporary race, but also to preceding generations, whose accumulated guilt might justly be rewarded with the loss and abrogation of those very institutions which had been the object of their trust and worship. (See Matt. 23:32, 35, 36; Luke 11:50, and compare 2:40.) Resist, lit. fall against, implying active as well as passive opposition to the Holy Ghost, as the divine author of all revelation, whether history or prophecy, doctrine or precept, law or gospel. Ye do always is addressed to the whole race of Israel, past and present, as a collective or ideal person, as explained in the remainder of the sentence, which is greatly weakened in translation by supplying did and do, instead of construing all the nominatives with one verb. 'As your fathers so yourselves are ever resisting the Holy Ghost.' (Wicl. as your fathers, so ye. Rhem. as your fathers, so ye also.)

52. It now becomes still more clear, that Stephen's speech is not unfinished, from the way in which he comes back to his starting-point, and makes a most effective application of the facts recited to his own case. The first clause is a specification of the sweeping charge, that both they and their fathers had constantly withstood the Holy Ghost, as he spoke to them, not only in the law, but in the Prophets, who were really his messengers and spokesmen. The form is not affirmative but interrogative, and does not necessarily exclude a qualified or palliative answer. It is not therefore strictly hyperbolical; but even if it had been a direct assertion, that they had rejected and maltreated every prophet who had ever come to them, so natural a figure could be quarreled with by none but captious cavillers or hypercritical grammarians. (See above, on 3:24, and compare Matt. 23:34–36; Luke 13:33.) There may seem to be a reference to two distinct classes in the two first clauses of this verse; but the second only gives a more particular description of the prophets who had just been spoken of, by mentioning their great official function, that of foretelling (shewed before is Tyndale's version) the Messiah, who is here, as in 3:14 above, emphatically called the Just (One), that is, innocent before the law of what he had been charged with, and intrinsically righteous (Wicl. the rightful man. Tynd. that just.) The original construction is, did not your fathers persecute and kill those foretelling, etc. Ye have been, or more exactly, have become, by virtue of your late proceedings. Betrayers, (Wicl. traitors) is a term applied elsewhere (Luke 6:16) to Judas Iscariot. Betrayers and murderers express two of the blackest crimes which one man can commit against another, both which are here charged home by Stephen on his judges, and through them upon the people whom they represented. Now and ye stand in emphatic opposition to the ancient times and former generations, which had just been mentioned. This antithesis, however, only serves to aggravate the guilt of those immediately addressed, in comparison even with the guilt of their progenitors; for these had only persecuted prophets, whereas those had both betrayed and murdered the Messiah, to predict whose advent the old prophets had been sent from God. Of this great personal and public crime he thus reminds them, with a view not only to their own conviction but to his defence, as showing that the mere fact of his prosecution no more proved him guilty of the crimes alleged, than the bloody persecution of the Prophets, and of Christ himself, could have a similar effect in their case.

53. The obvious meaning of the verse is that the Jews, as a nation, had betrayed the highest trust, and proved themselves unworthy of the greatest honour ever granted to a people. They, the recipients and depositaries of an exclusive revelation, had themselves endeavoured to defeat the very end for which it was vouchsafed to them. Beyond this, accusation or invective could not well be carried. In point both of rhetoric and logic, Stephen could not have concluded more effectively. There is no ground, therefore, for the favourite idea of interpreters and editors, that his voice was here drowned by the cries of his infuriated hearers, and that not only the discourse but the sentence is unfinished, as indicated even to the eye, in some editions of the Greek text, by the mode of printing. Who ought rather to be ye who, as the form of the Greek relative is one employed, not merely to continue or connect the sentence, but to introduce a further description of its subject. As if he had said, 'and this has been done, not by Gentiles, but by you, the very people who received the law,' etc. Only the emphasis, and not the meaning, of the passage is dependent on the doubtful and disputed words translated by the disposition of angels. Whatever may be their specific meaning, they are evidently meant to aggravate the charge here brought against the Jewish nation, by exalting and ennobling that peculiar system, under which they lived, in which they trusted, and of which they boasted, but against which they were nevertheless guilty of the worst conceivable offence, to wit, that they refused to keep (i. e. observe, obey) it. Another undisputed fact is, that the aggravating circumstance suggested is the agency of angels in the giving of the law; the only question is, in what that agency consisted. The Greek noun (διαταγάς) rendered disposition (after the Rhemish Bible, whereas Wiclif Tyndale, and Geneva have ordinance, and Cranmer ministration) occurs only once in the Septuagint version (Ezra 4:11) and nowhere in the classics; but its general meaning is determined by its obvious deduction from the verb employed in v. 44 above, and by the usage of a kindred noun (διάταξις) to signify arrangement, disposition, applied by Herodotus to the drawing up of troops, and by Polybius to a will or testamentary order. In accordance with this usage, some would give it here a military sense, among troops of angels, in allusion to their presence on Mount Sinai, which, though not recorded in the history, appears to be implied in Deut. 33:2, 3 (where the word angels is actually inserted by the Septuagint version), and still more clearly in Ps. 68:17; Gal. 3:19; Heb. 2:2. The sense obtained by this construction is a good one in itself, and sufficiently sustained by the analogy of Scripture. The only objection, but perhaps a fatal one, is the meaning which it puts upon the preposition (εἰς) contrary to all Greek usage. The same objection lies, at least in some degree, against the common explanation, by (or through) the ministration of angels, which agrees well with Paul's language in the places above cited; but in both those places the preposition (διά) properly means by or through. The only meanings of the one here used that can be justified by usage are at, upon, in reference to time (as in Matt. 12:41), and as, for (as in v. 21 above.) Assuming the latter, an old Greek interpreter explains the clause to mean, that they received the law as (or for) angelic institutions, i. e. such as, if observed, would have made them like or equal to the angels (Luke 20:36.) Assuming the other, we obtain the much more natural and obvious idea of a law received at the orders (or command) of angels, not as its authors or as legislators, which is sometimes made an argument against this explanation, but as messengers or heralds, through whom the divine communications passed, as a military word of command does from rank to rank, or from officer to officer, until it reaches the whole corps or army. The silence of the history, as to any such proceeding at Mount Sinai, only raises a presumption, which can easily be set aside by countervailing evidence, and such would seem to be afforded by the passages already cited, and especially by Paul's repeated declaration, that it was through angels that God's word was spoken (Heb. 2:2), and his law enacted or ordained (Gal. 3:19), the very verb from which the noun before us is immediately derived. This explanation is moreover recommended by its really including the one first proposed (among troops of angels), but with an additional suggestion that they were not mere spectators, and without a violation of Greek idiom or usage. In comparison with this, no attention need be given to the many other senses which have been proposed; by Chrysostom, for instance, who refers it to the angel in the burning bush, and by Lightfoot, who takes angels in its primary sense (messengers) and then applies it to the prophets, as inspired expounders of the law. It was this angelic agency or ministration in the giving of the law that Stephen here employs to aggravate the guilt of those who had not kept it. At the same time, this allusion to a preternatural and superhuman incident in sacred history, as well as to a spectacle or scene of unexampled grandeur, and connected with the great transaction from which Israel derived his national existence and pre-eminence, imparts to the conclusion of this speech, which some regard as broken and unfinished, a rhetorical sublimity, which, added to its logical and moral force, entitles it to take rank with the noblest specimens of ancient eloquence.

54. When they heard is more exactly rendered in the Rhemish version, and hearing. These (things), i. e. the things uttered in vs. 51–53, if these are an abrupt apostrophe, and an expression of excited feeling, unconnected with what goes before (see above, on v. 51.) But according to the view which we have just been taking of the passage, there is nothing to prevent our understanding these things of the whole discourse, consisting, as it does, of a concatenated argument, whose logical conclusion is at the same time a powerful invective. The drift of Stephen's speech towards this conclusion must have been long suspected, if not clearly seen, by so attentive and intelligent an audience; but when it was actually reached and formally propounded, and in terms so terribly insulting, it is not to be considered strange, that even priests and scribes expressed their brutal spite by noises borrowed from the brutes themselves. The word translated gnashed originally means any audible but inarticulate outburst of pain or rage, such as groaning, roaring, bellowing, etc. Its specific meaning is determined here by the addition of the word teeth, even without which Homer uses it, according to some eminent philologists, in this sense, although others understand it of the cry uttered by the wounded warrior in the agony of death. On him, or over him, not merely at him, which they might do at a distance, whereas this implies a rushing movement towards him, which is afterwards expressed (in v. 57.) Wiclif has grenneden (grinned?) with teeth on him. The preceding clause is variously rendered in the older versions (Wicl. were diversely tormented. Tynd. their hearts clave asunder. Gen. their hearts burst for anger. Rhem. were cut in their hearts.) The Greek verb is the same with that in 5:33, and there explained as literally meaning they were sawn through, here defined or specified by the addition, (in) their hearts. It evidently means more than rage or self-exasperation, as explained both by ancient and by modern lexicographers. The strength of the expression, and the obvious analogy of 2:37 (they were pricked, or pierced, in their hearts), seem to indicate a more complex and violent emotion, which may be supposed to have consisted in the simultaneous combination of a strong conviction, both of mind and conscience, with unbending pride, vindictive spite, and furious anger, which together were no doubt sufficient to saw through their very hearts.

55. Being, not the ordinary verb of existence, but one employed repeatedly above (2:30; 3:2, 6; 4:34, 37; 5:4), and originally meaning to begin, or to begin to be, but used as early as Herodotus and Æschylus in the general sense of being or existing (see above, on 4:34.) If any accessory idea is suggested here, it is rather that of being still, or continuing to be (see above, on 5:4.) The fact here mentioned is intended to explain the vision which follows as a special revelation. Looked up stedfastly, or more exactly, gazing into heaven (see above, on 1:10; 3:4, 12; 6:15.) Into heaven does not necessarily imply that he could see the sky from where he stood, but merely that he looked up towards it; all the rest was preternatural, ecstatic vision. As such, the process was, of course, inscrutable and indescribable. In what sense, or in what way, Stephen saw this glorious sight, whether by a miraculous extension of his bodily vision, or by mere removal of all intervening obstacles, or by the presentation of a visionary object, or by a miraculous impression on his mind, there is no need of inquiring, as the actual effect must still have been the same, and must have seemed so even to himself. It is enough to know that this effect was supernatural and wrought upon him by the Holy Ghost, and also that it was confined to Stephen, as appears from the conduct of his judges, recorded in the next verse. The glory of God, i. e. a sensible manifestation of his presence. (See above, on v. 2.) On the right hand of God, as the post of honour and coequal power. (See above, on 2:33, 34; 5:31.) Standing, not sitting, as he is usually represented (Matt. 26:64; Mark 16:19; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2.) Some regard this as an unimportant difference, not meant to be significant, as Paul and Peter elsewhere simply say that he "is at the right hand of God," without defining his position (Rom. 8:34; 1 Pet. 3:22.) But most interpreters, especially since Gregory the Great, explain the standing posture as implying, that he had risen from his throne to meet or to assist his servant. The local phrase, though uniformly rendered, for the most part, in the English Bible, is considerably varied in the Greek, right being sometimes in the singular (ἐν δεξιᾷ), and then agreeing with hand understood, and sometimes in the plural, either dative (as in Mark 16:5), or genitive, (as in Matt. 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:33, and here), in which cases it agrees, not with hands, but with parts, sides, or places. The particle prefixed is sometimes in, but here and often elsewhere from, an idiomatic equivalent to at or on in English. Wicl. on the right half of the virtue of God.

56. Behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected and surprising. (See above, on 1:10; 2:7; 5:9, 25, 38.) I see, or rather, I survey, contemplate, implying something grand and solemn in the object. (See above, on 3:16; 4:13, and compare 1:11.) The heavens opened, not merely open, as Tyndale and his followers have it, but just opened, i. e. to the view of Stephen. Some cite as a parallel a line from Virgil (video medium discedere cœlum) describing a flash of lightning; but no such idea is suggested by the Greek words here, any more than in the account of our Lord's baptism (Matt. 3:16; Mark 1:10; Luke 3:21.) The Son of Man, which here replaces Jesus in the foregoing verse, is nowhere else in Scripture applied to Christ, except by himself. Stephen's use of the phrase here is not sufficiently explained by the fact, that Jesus appeared in his human form and as the representative of mankind, unless we furthermore suppose a reference to his Messianic claims and honours. 'I see the heavens opened to my view, and him who used to call himself the Son of Man on earth, now standing as the Son of Man in the highest place of honour and authority.'

57. Then they cried, literally, and crying. (Tynd. then they gave a shout.) One or two manuscripts have crying in the genitive singular, (he) crying, or (Stephen) crying; but Greek usage would require the noun or pronoun to be expressed. Cried out with a loud (literally, a great) voice, some understand to mean, that they called upon him to be silent; but it seems rather to denote a confused clamour, some crying one thing, some another, as expressly stated on a different occasion. (See below, on 19:32.) Stopped, literally, held fast by pressing, as the same verb means in other applications. (Compare Luke 8:45; 22:63.) This act, which is a natural expression of unwillingness to hear, appears to have been practised both by Jews and Gentiles, as a special gesture of abhorrence, on the utterance of blasphemy or impious language. The tumultuous excitement here described may seem incredible in a grave national assembly, and especially in one of a religious character. But it is perfectly in keeping with the treatment of Paul, and of our Lord himself, before the same tribunal. (See below, on 23:2, and compare John 18:22.) It also agrees well with what we know, from other sources, of the growing fanaticism of the Zealots, which precipitated, if it did not cause, the final downfall of Jerusalem, and with it the destruction of the Hebrew state, and of the Jewish Church, in its legitimate and ancient form. (See above, on 1:13.) Ran upon him is in Greek still stronger, the verb originally meaning to rouse, urge, drive, and then as an intransitive, to rush, which last is the most exact equivalent in this place. With one accord, not merely at the same time, but with one spontaneous impulse, as if the movement had been previously agreed upon. The original expression is a single word, which has occurred repeatedly before in this book. (See above, on 1:14; 2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12.)

58. The blasphemer in the wilderness was stoned without the camp (Lev. 24:14), and the same form was observed in the case of Naboth (1 Kings 21:13.) In the case of an idolater, the law explicitly requires, that "the hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people" (Deut. 17:7.) This law was designed, no doubt, to regulate the zeal of informers and accusers, by requiring them to act so conspicuous a part in the execution of the sentence founded on their testimony. In order to perform this duty with convenience, as the stones first cast are said to have been very large, they were obliged to free themselves from the encumbrance of their long and flowing upper garments, which is the precise sense of the word here rendered clothes. Laid down, or as the Rhemish version more exactly renders it, laid off, the other idea being implied but not expressed, at (near or by) the feet, the same phrase that occurs above, in 4:35, 37; 5:2, 10. From the analogy of those passages, it might seem to denote here, not a mere deposit for safe-keeping, which would hardly have been mentioned, but the recognition of some official authority or dignity in the person mentioned. (See below, on 26:10.) But perhaps the true view of the matter is, that a circumstance, which in itself was wholly unimportant, is introduced into the narrative because of its connection with the first appearance of a person so illustrious, and so conspicuous in the sequel of this very history. Young man, youth, is used both in Greek and Hebrew, with great latitude, and therefore furnishes no certain measure of his age at this time. His description of himself to Philemon (v. 9) as Paul the aged even on the largest computation of the interval consistent with known facts, would seem necessarily to show that at the time of Stephen's death, he had long passed the period of adolescence. It is by no means certain, therefore, that he was still sitting "at the feet of Gamaliel," (another instance of the phrase implying superiority of rank and office,) which some regard as highly improbable, because the conduct here described was so much at variance with Gamaliel's own advice (see above, on 5:38, 39.) But disciples are not always as forbearing as their teachers; and in this fanatical excitement, even Gamaliel himself may have yielded to the torrent of ungovernable zeal. Saul, the same name with that of the ancient king, who was also of the tribe of Benjamin (see below, on 13:21, and compare Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), from which some have inferred that the Apostle was his descendant. The name is sometimes written in its original Hebrew form (as in 9:4, 17; 22:7, 13; 26:14), but usually with a Greek termination (as in 8:1; 9:1; 11:25; 13:1, and here.)

59. The repetition of the statement, that they stoned Stephen has been variously understood, as distinguishing the formal execution from rude pelting by the way; or the general stoning by the people from the preliminary stoning by the witnesses; or as mere resumption and continuation of the narrative, after the parenthetical statement with respect to the witnesses and Saul. A more important question is, whether this was a judicial execution or an act of tumultuary violence. In favour of the former supposition are the facts, that Stephen was arraigned before a regular assembly of the Sanhedrim (6:12, 15); that he and the witnesses had been judicially examined (6:11, 13; 7:1); and that the law of Moses was punctiliously complied with in the act of stoning (v. 58.) It is objected, that we read nothing of a formal sentence; but the same omission is observed in cases where we know that all the legal forms were meant to be complied with, as in that of Naboth (1 Kings 21:13.) A much stronger argument is that derived from John 18:31, where the Jews themselves say, "it is not lawful for us to put any one to death." This is commonly understood to mean, that the Romans had deprived them of the power of life and death; and we find in the Talmud a tradition, that the Sanhedrim did lose this power about forty years before the destruction of the temple. But if this were so, how shall we account for Paul's repeatedly speaking of himself as having aided in persecuting the disciples unto death? (See below, on 22:4; 26:10.) Although this, and similar expressions in Josephus, may be explained upon the supposition, that the Jews could pass a sentence of death (Matt. 26:66; Mark 14:64), but could not execute it, some have preferred the explanation of John 18:31, proposed by Cyril and Augustin, who suppose the incapacity alleged there to be merely ceremonial and temporary, arising from the sacredness of the season; so that being equally unwilling to defer their vengeance and to desecrate their feast, they asked Pilate to do for them what they did not feel at liberty to do for themselves. But even if the common explanation of that passage be adopted, it is not impossible that the persecution unto death, of which Saul speaks, was permitted or connived at by the Roman governor, and therefore not a violation of the rule which John records. As to the passionate and furious deportment of the judges, it has been explained already (on v. 58) as the effect of violent excitement acting on the growing fanaticism of the Zealots, and analogous to outbursts of vindictive feeling, which have sometimes accompanied the execution of not only regular but righteous sentences in modern times. There is neither necessity nor warrant, therefore, for assuming a distinction in the narrative between the judges and the populace, referring what was formal and judicial to the one class, and what was lawless and tumultuous to the other. From all that we know of these Jewish rulers, they were capable of any thing that could be perpetrated by the people, whose worst excesses upon previous occasions had been instigated by themselves. (See Matt. 27:20; Mark 15:11; Luke 23:23.) Upon God is introduced by the Geneva version and King James's, no doubt with a good design, but with a very bad effect, that of separating Stephen's invocation from its object, and obscuring, if not utterly concealing, a strong proof of the divinity of Christ. Calling, not merely naming or addressing, but invoking, calling to one's aid, which is the meaning of the middle voice of this verb in the best Greek writers. The object of the invocation is apparent from the invocation itself which immediately follows. Calling upon God and saying Lord Jesus may have been intended by the translators to identify these objects in the strongest manner; but besides the impropriety of such interpolations, even for such a purpose, the actual impression is most probably the contrary, to wit, that there are two distinct acts here recorded, that of calling upon God, and that of saying Lord Jesus, whereas these acts are spoken of as one and the same, in the Greek and in several of the older versions. (Vulg. invocantem et dicentem. Tyndale and Cranmer, calling on and saying.) The religious invocation of our Lord was not only practised by the first disciples, but gave rise to one of their most common appellations. In this very book, they are repeatedly described as those who "call upon this name" (9:14, 21), which can only mean the name of Christ, because the general invocation of the name of God was no distinction, being common both to Jews and Christians, and in a wide sense, to the heathen also. This usage makes it highly probable, that even the less definite expression, calling on the name of the Lord (2:21; 22:16; Rom. 10:12, 13), was designed to have the same specific meaning. In the face of all this, it is folly to deny that invocation implies worship, and worse than folly to pretend that Jesus, in the last clause of the verse before us, is a genitive (Lord of Jesus!) Besides the grammatical objection, that this construction would require the article in Greek, it is condemned by the analogy of Rev. 22:20, where no one can deny that the very same phrase means Lord Jesus, and involves a recognition of him in the twofold character of a Sovereign and a Saviour. The petition is not that he would take away his life or suffer him to die, as in the case of Elijah (1 Kings 19:4) and of Jonah (4:3), but that he would receive or accept his soul when separated from his body. This prayer of Stephen is not only a direct imitation of our Lord's upon the cross (Luke 23:46), but a further proof that he addressed him as a divine person, since he here asks of the Son precisely what the Son there asks of the Father.

60. He kneeled down, literally, placing the knees, i. e. upon the ground (as in 9:40; 20:36; 21:5; Luke 22:41.) Paul, in similar cases, speaks of bending the knee, as a preliminary act to that here mentioned. (See Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10.) In the case before us, this movement may have been, not merely an expression of religious feeling, but a symptom of exhausted strength (Rhem. falling on his knees), as in Luke 23:34. Some with less probability suppose him to have kneeled up, or risen from a prostrate to a kneeling posture. This last prayer of the martyr is also copied from our Lord's upon the cross (Luke 23:34.) Lay not to their charge, a correct paraphrase though not an exact version of the Greek, which strictly means do not set (or place), i. e. to their account, or, as some explain it, do not fix (or establish) this against them. Another sense is that suggested by the usage of this verb in Homer (and in Matt. 26:15) to denote the act of weighing money, which was the most ancient mode of paying it. Do not weigh their sin, or reckon it, in dealing out to them what they deserve. The essential meaning of the prayer is still the same on all these suppositions. He fell asleep may simply mean he died, a figure common in the dialect of Homer, and perhaps in every other; but it more probably implies that the martyr died a peaceful death, notwithstanding the fury of his murderers and the violent means by which he lost his life. The same exquisite figure reappears in Paul's description of departed Christians as those who are fallen asleep in Christ (1 Cor. 15:18), and those who sleep in Jesus (1 Thess. 4:14.)

CHAPTER 8

FROM the history of the undivided Mother Church, we now pass to that of its extension in successive or contemporary radiations, occasioned by what seemed to be a great disaster, but resulting in the wide and rapid spread of the new doctrine, and in the formation of affiliated churches, at various central points of influence throughout the empire. The conventional division of the text has thrown into the chapter now before us the commencement of this process, beginning with its proximate occasion, in the persecution following the death of Stephen (1–3), and the consequent dispersion of believers (4), among whom the historian selects, as an eminent example, Philip and his mission to Samaria (5–8), with its remarkable success, both real and apparent (9–13), followed by an apostolical commission from Jerusalem (14–17), and the public conviction of a spurious convert (18–24). Before or after the return of the Apostles to the Holy City (25), Philip receives a new commission (26) to become the instructor and baptizer of an Ethiopian ruler (27–39), after which he preaches in a number of important towns, including Cesarea, where the history now leaves him (40), and where he reappears long after (21:8.)

1. We have here one of the most striking instances of carelessness, or want of judgment, in the division of the chapters and verses. Not only is this first verse of unusual and needless length (see above, on 5:21), but it is made so by annexing to it what would have sufficed to form another (and they were all scattered, etc.), and by prefixing to it what should have been the conclusion of the foregoing verse and chapter (and Saul was consenting to his death) Was consenting is the true sense of the participial construction, which denotes not a momentary act (Tynd. consented), but continued or habitual action. (See above, on 1:10; 13:14.) Consenting, i. e. agreeing, acting in concert, with the murderers (Luke 11:48; Rom. 1:32; 1 Cor. 7:12, 13), not merely approving or assenting to the murder. Death is too negative a version of the Greek word, which is the noun corresponding to the verb translated slay in 5:33, 36, and kill in 7:28, and here used in the active sense of killing, murder. (For Paul's account of his own share in this transaction, see below, on 22:20, and compare 26:10.) At that time, lit. in that day, which is sometimes used indefinitely by the Prophets (e. g. Isai. 2:11; Jer. 39:17; Ez. 29:21; Hos. 2:18), but in the New Testament always seems to mean that very day, whether spoken of the past (Matt. 13:1; 22:23; Mark 4:35; John 5:9; Acts 2:41), or of the future (Matt. 7:22; Mark 2:20; 4:35; Luke 17:31; John 14:20; 16:23, 26); the more indefinite idea being expressed by the plural form, in those days (Matt. 3:1; 24:19; Mark 11:9; 8:1; 13:17, 24; Luke 2:1; 4:2; 9:36; 21:23; Acts 2:18.) It was therefore on the very day of Stephen's death and burial, and as an immediate consequence, that this persecution began. There was, or more exactly, there arose, began to be, or happened. (See above, on 7:52.) For church, Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Geneva Bible have, as usual, congregation. (See above, on 5:11.) Which was at Jerusalem, lit. the (one) in Jerusalem. The disciples, although now so numerous (see above, on 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1, 7), are spoken of as still constituting one body. They were all scattered, more exactly, all were scattered, as they is not expressed in Greek, and has no grammatical antecedent except church. All has been variously understood, as a natural hyperbole for most or many; as denoting all the preachers (see v. 4); or as strictly meaning all, with the exception mentioned in the last clause, many of whom, however, afterwards returned, so that the church did not become extinct, or require to be organized afresh, the presence of the twelve being indeed sufficient to preserve its existence and identity. Throughout is here, the best equivalent for the Greek preposition, which means, in different connections, down, along, among, etc. (See above, on 2:10; 5:15.) Galilee is again omitted (as in 1:8), perhaps because Judea and Samaria was a customary designation of the whole country (but see below, on 9:31); or because something not recorded really prevented the dispersed from visiting that province, so highly honoured by the long-continued residence of Christ himself, and possibly for that very reason less in need of visitation now. Except (Wicl. out-taken) the Apostles seems to be at variance with our Lord's express command to them, "When they persecute you in this city, flee into another" (Matt. 10:23.) This has been variously explained by supposing, that the twelve, from the awe with which they were regarded, or for some other reason now unknown, escaped the persecution; or, which is the simplest and most obvious solution, that the general rule, laid down in Matthew, was suspended or qualified by special revelation. Apart from the command in question, it is easy to imagine reasons why they should remain at the centre of operations, as the constituted organizers and administrators of the system which had just been set in motion, and as such imparting to the one church of Jerusalem a representative and normal character, in consequence of which its acts were binding on the whole body, when extended even into other countries. (See below, on 15:2, 6, 22, 23; 16:4.) According to an old tradition, which Eusebius has copied from an earlier writer, the Apostles were required to stay twelve years in Jerusalem; but this has no foundation in the history itself, nor any intrinsic probability to recommend it. The general dispersion here described may be regarded as the first fulfilment of the double or repeated promise, that the law should go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem (Micah 4:2; Isai. 2:3.)

2. After stating the general effect of Stephen's death, to wit, the persecution and dispersion, the historian, before following the exiles, as he does in this and several ensuing chapters, pauses to tell us what became of Stephen's body, and what Saul was doing in the mean time. Such interruptions and resumptions are so natural and common in all history, that it is hard to understand the objections made in this case, and the various propositions to amend, transpose, or strike out, as the only means by which the text can be made intelligible or coherent. There is no need even of assuming a double contrast or antithesis, between the persecution and the burial, and then between the devout men and Saul. The whole objection rests upon the prevalent but shallow notion, that the slightest deviation from the order of time, in the narration of events, if it does not vitiate the truth, at least impairs the form of history, whereas such deviations are continually practised by the best historians, as well as in the dialect of common life. There is indeed a certain beauty in these momentary pauses and returns to something previously mentioned, for the purpose of completing it before proceeding further, that is far more pleasing to a cultivated taste than inflexible adherence to a mathematically straight line, without looking to the right hand or the left. That the sequence of ideas in the narrative before us is entirely natural and easy, may be made clear by a paraphrase. 'The martyrdom of Stephen, in which Saul so heartily concurred, produced a general persecution and dispersion of believers from Jerusalem, none being left there for a time but the Apostles; and yet this did not deprive the martyr's body of religious burial, for devout men bore him to his grave and mourned for him, while Saul was actually ravaging the church and searching every house for Christians.' Devout men, a phrase used above (2:5) in application to the foreign Jews who witnessed the effusion of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. As in that case it denotes the serious and sincere, as distinguished from the frivolous and hypocritical, so here it seems to mean the just and conscientious, as distinguished from the bigoted and the fanatical. The objection to the explanation of these words as describing disciples of Christ, is not that they would not have been permitted to perform the act here mentioned, for they might have braved the prohibition, and thereby provoked the persecution; but it is that the epithet here used is nowhere else applied to Christians. (See above, on 2:5, and below, on 22:12.) Carried, literally, gathered, brought together, as applied to fruits by Xenophon, and in the Septuagint version of Job 5:26, where it is also metaphorically used of burial, as it is by Sophocles, while Plutarch and Thucydides apply it to the literal collection of dead bodies on a field of battle to be burnt. The common version is derived from the Geneva Bible ("certain men fearing God carried Stephen among them to be buried,") whereas Tyndale and Cranmer render the verb dressed, perhaps confounding it with that used in 5:6, and the Rhemish version has the singular periphrasis, took order for Stephen's funeral. The simplest, and perhaps the best, of all the English versions is the oldest (Wicl. good men buried Stephen.) Lamentation, literally, beating, in allusion to the ancient practice of beating the breast, as a sign of mourning. (Analogous, both in etymology and usage, is the Latin planctus from plango.) Over, not merely in the figurative sense of about, concerning, but in the literal and local sense, implying that they mourned while standing (or hanging) over the dead body. Some have made it an objection to the reference of this clause to devout Jews, that they could not be expected to express such sorrow as is here described. But why not, if they were his countrymen, his relatives, his private friends? Such ties are not necessarily destroyed by religious differences, however great; and this is a much more satisfactory solution than the one derived from the alleged custom of the moderate and pious Jews to bury those whom they regarded as unjustly put to death. This, if sufficiently attested, would explain the act of burial, but not the great lamentation over Stephen, unless that be ascribed to other mourners, i. e. the disciples, which, although a possible construction, is by no means obvious or natural. The case may seem analogous to that in 6:6, where the subjects of the two successive verbs are different; but in that case, the subject of the last clause is expressly mentioned in the first. "Whom they (the people) set before the Apostles, and they (the Apostles) laid their hands upon them." But in the case before us the only subject named is the devout men of the first clause. It is better, therefore, on the whole, to understand this great lamentation, not as a public or sectarian, but as a personal or private mourning, perhaps made more intense by what they looked upon as Stephen's apostasy from God and Moses (6:11.)

3. The connection between this and the preceding verse would be correctly indicated by translating (δέ), instead of as for, while, or in the mean time. The idea is, that all these things were going on at once, or nearly at the same time, devout men bearing Stephen to his burial, disciples flying from Jerusalem, and Saul still driving them before him. Made havoc (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva), literally, wasted (Rhemish version), i. e. laid waste, ravaged, as a beast of prey does; then transferred to human tyranny and persecution. (Compare the similar expressions used in 9:21 below, and in Gal. 1:13.) Into every house (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva), or from house to house (Rheims), should rather be translated into houses, as distinguished from more public places. (See above, on 2:46.) Haling (in the first edition of King James's Bible written hailing) is an old English form of hauling, i. e. violently pulling, dragging. As the Greek verb is repeatedly applied by Luke (17:6; 12:58) to the bringing up of accused persons before magistrates, it may mean nothing more in this case; but the strict and strong sense is entitled to the preference, not only as such, but because proceedings of this kind must always be attended with some force or violence. Saul's agency in these imprisonments is more than once referred to by himself. (See below, on 22:4, 5; 26:10.) This form of persecution was expressly predicted by our Lord (Luke 21:12.)

4. Therefore (Cranmer and Geneva) should be so then, as a resumptive and continuative particle, the same that is used above, in 1:6; 2:41; 5:41, and there explained. The writer, having paused to tell us what became of Stephen and of Saul, now resumes his narrative of the dispersion, not by repeating what he said in v. 1, but by advancing a step further. As he there said that all (except the twelve) were scattered, he now says that all who were thus scattered preached the word. Some would infer from this, that none but preachers were expelled; but it is far more natural to understand the verse as referring, not to preaching in the technical or formal sense, but to that joyful and spontaneous diffusion of the truth, which is permitted and required of all believers, whether lay or clerical, ordained or unordained. Went every where (Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva), literally, went through (Rheims, passed through, Wiclif, passed forth), i. e. through the country, or its towns; but when absolutely used, it is nearly equivalent to went about. (See below, on v. 40, and 10:38.) The word, a common abbreviation for the word of God, the Gospel, or the new religion. (See above, on 4:4.) Preaching proclaiming it, as good news or glad tidings. (See above, on 5:42.) Here again the Rhemish version violates our idiom by the barbarous translation, evangelizing the word. We have here a signal illustration of the providential law, according to which what appears to be an irretrievable calamity, is not only overruled, but designed from the beginning, to promote the very cause which it seems to threaten with disaster and defeat.

5. The general statement, that the dispersed disciples carried with them the glad tidings of salvation, through whatever region they might pass, is now exemplified by one specific instance out of many, chosen either as the first in time, or as relating to a race who occupied a sort of intermediate position between Jews and Gentiles. (See above, on 1:8.) The connection would have been better indicated by a simple copulative (and) than by an adverb of time (then). Philip, not the Apostle (see above, on 1:13)—for he would then be an exception to the previous exception in the last clause of v. 1, but one of the Seven (6:8), who may have been peculiarly exposed to persecution, as the colleagues of Stephen, or because their office brought them into frequent contact and collision with the unbelieving Jews. (See above, on 6:9.) He is no doubt the same person described in 21:8, as an Evangelist, perhaps from the circumstances here related. His being expressly so described relieves all difficulty as to a Deacon's preaching, without requiring us to grant that it belonged, as a necessary function, to that office. His being called a Preacher, or Evangelist, so late in the history, is no objection, as that description must be retrospective, and as Philip, if ever entitled to be thus called, must have been so when he preached Christ to the Samaritans. The city of Samaria can in English only mean the city (called) Samaria, the royal residence of the kings of Israel for two hundred years, from the time of Omri, by whom it was founded (1 Kings 16:24; 2 Kings 17:5, 6) on the summit of an insulated hill in the central plain or table-land of Palestine, a site described by travellers as unsurpassed in the whole country for combined richness, strength, and beauty. Nothing could seem more natural than that some of the dispersed disciples should visit the Samaritans, to whom their Master had himself done so much honour at an early period of his ministry (John 4:40), and that in so doing they should make the ancient capital the centre of their operations. Yet to this obvious and in English only meaning of the passage there are several objections, some of which have little force, but others are less easily disposed of. One objection is, that the old city was no longer in existence; but we learn from Josephus, that although destroyed by Hyrcanus, it had been rebuilt by Gabinius, and beautified by Herod the Great. It is alleged, however, that this new or renovated city was not called Samaria, but Sebaste, the Greek equivalent of Augusta, in honour of Augustus Cæsar. This is true, but it is also true that old names seldom die in popular and local usage; and that this was not the case with the name Samaria, we know from its occasional occurrence in the writings of Josephus. But even granting that the place was in existence, and might still be called Samaria, its designation here by that name is less probable, because in every other passage where the name occurs, it means the province, not the city. (See Luke 17:11; John 4:4; 5:7; Acts 1:8, 9, 16, 15:3.) It might still by possibility have that sense in this context; but in v. 9, the wide one is required by the use of the word nation (ἔθνος), which could not, in accordance with Greek usage, be applied to the population of a single city; and in v. 14, although the same doubt may exist as in the case before us, the wide sense is at least as natural as the restricted one. Strong as these reasons are against limiting the name to the city of Samaria, they are made still stronger by the genitive construction, which, though perfectly familiar to all English readers, occurs but rarely, if at all, in classic Greek, and only once besides in the New Testament (2 Pet. 2:6), and even there admits of another explanation, as referring not to Sodom and Gomorrah alone, but to the towns dependent on them. If, in spite of all these arguments from usage, this should still seem to be the only natural import of the city of Samaria, it may finally be urged, that the original expression is indefinite, i. e. without the article, and strictly means a city of Samaria. The similar expression, city of David (Luke 2:4), is not perfectly analogous, as we might call Bethlehem David's city, but could hardly call Samaria Samaria's city. The conclusion from all these considerations seems to be, that the historian here speaks, not of the city called Samaria, but of some other place belonging to that province; the distinction being just the same with that between "the city of New York," which is applicable only to one place, and "a city of New York," which is appropriate to many. To the question what town of Samaria is meant, if not the ancient capital, no certain answer can be given. It may still be the capital, though not expressly so described, just as "a city of New York" may vaguely designate "the city of New York," as well as any other. Or it may be some place unknown to history, and wholly unimportant in itself, perhaps the first town of Samaria to which Philip came, where he instantly preached Christ without delay, and where the general reception of the gospel might be justly represented (in v. 14 below) as the act of Samaria, i. e. of the race or nation, represented by these early converts or first fruits of apostolic labour. Or, avoiding both extremes, the place meant may be Sychar, the ancient Shechem, a city famous in primeval history, more lately honoured by a two days' residence of Christ himself, and ever since, until the present day, the chief seat and centre of the Samaritan race and religion. (See above, on 7:16.) That no good ground can be assigned for the suppression of the name is true, but as a purely negative objection or argument a silentio, can hardly neutralize the cumulative reasons for interpreting Samaria in a wide sense, and a city in a vague one. But whatever may be the particular place meant, the essential fact is still the same, that it belonged to the Samaritans, a mixed or, as some suppose, a purely heathen race, introduced by the Assyrians to supply the place of the ten tribes (2 Kings 17:24), and afterwards partially assimilated to the Jews (ib. 25–41), by the reception of the law of Moses, and the professed worship of Jehovah on Mount Gerizim, involving a rejection of the sanctuary at Jerusalem, from the rebuilding of which, after the Babylonish exile, they were excluded by the restored Jews (Ezra 4:1–3.) At the time of the Advent, they were expecting the Messiah, but only, it should seem, in his prophetic character (John 4:25), for which reason, and because of their entire segregation from the Jews (John 4:9), our Saviour did not scruple to avow his Messiahship among them (John 4:26, 29, 42), and to gather the first fruits of an extra-Judaic church (John 4:39), with the cheering promise of a more abundant harvest, to be reaped by his Apostles (John 4:35–38.) Of this promise we have here the first fulfilment, and at the same time the incipient transition of the gospel from the Jews to the Gentiles, between whom the Samaritans might be regarded as a link, or as a frontier. (See above, on 1:8.) To them Philip now preached Christ or the Messiah, i. e. proclaimed that he was come, and that Jesus of Nazareth was he. As all this had been taught by Christ himself at Sychar, that may be regarded as an argument, though far from a conclusive one, against supposing that place to be here particularly meant; since Philip is not said to have taught doctrines altogether new, and since just such a repetition or renewal of his work had been predicted by our Lord himself (John 4:35–38.) Unto them, i. e. to the inhabitants, the grammatical antecedent being latent in the name or description of the place, as it is in Galilee, Matt. 4:23, and church in v. 1 above.

6. The previous preparation of the ground, by the visit of our Saviour, may have contributed to the success of Philip's ministry. The people, literally, the crowds or multitudes, a word implying not mere numbers, many as opposed to few, but promiscuousness, masses as opposed to classes. (See above, on 1:15; 6:7.) Gave heed, lit. applied (the mind), i. e. attended, paid attention to his teaching. (See above, on 5:35.) It may imply belief here, as it seems to do in vs. 10:11, and in 16:14. The (things) spoken by Philip, as described in the last clause of v. 5, i. e. the Messiahship of Jesus and the doctrine of salvation through him. The common version, perhaps in order to remove an ambiguity, transposes unanimously, or with one accord, from its original position, which is after the things spoken by Philip, both in Greek and in the old English versions. The Rhemish even joins it to the last clause, by its punctuation of the sentence (with one accord hearing and seeing.) For the meaning of the word itself, see above, on 1:14; 2:1; 2:46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57. Hearing and seeing may either mean hearing (of the miracles) and seeing them, i. e. seeing some and hearing of others; or, hearing (them) and seeing the miracles, i. e. hearing the things spoken by Philip, and seeing the miracles which he performed. Miracles, literally, signs; see above, on 2:19, 22, 43; 4:16; 22:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36.) Hearing and seeing, literally, in the (act, or at the time of) hearing and seeing, not in (consequence of) hearing and seeing, i. e. because they heard and saw, which, though implied, is not expressed. (See above, on 7:29.) As in our Saviour's day, so now in that of the Apostles and Evangelists, the masses were attracted and impressed, not merely by the miracles performed, but also by the truth proclaimed. (See above, on 5:15, and compare Luke 5:1.) The two inducements mutually fortified each other. The miracles of Christ and his Apostles were designed, not merely to relieve distress and prove their own divine legation, but to open men's hearts to instruction, and to serve as signs and pledges of a spiritual healing, with which bodily relief was often really connected. (See above, on 4:12.) The possession of the same extraordinary powers by Philip and by Stephen (6:5, 8) shows that the description there was only formally restricted to the latter.

7. Lest the incidental reference to Philip's miracles (in v. 6) should be overlooked or misconceived, the fact is now explicitly asserted, and with some minuteness of detail. As if he had said, 'I speak of miracles, for out of many of those having unclean spirits, etc.' As to the prominence given here and elsewhere to this class of miracles, see above, on 5:16. The frequent mention of the demons as crying when they came out (Mark 1:26; 3:11; 9:26; Luke 4:41) may arise from the fact, that the cry was evidently not uttered by the patient, in the free use of his vocal organs, and therefore proved the reality of the possession. The construction of this verse is ambiguous, as unclean spirits may be either the object of the verb had, or the subject of the verb came out. In the former case, the literal translation is, (from) many of those having unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice (these) went out; in the other, (from) many of those having (them), evil spirits, crying with a loud voice, went out. The essential meaning is of course unaffected by this question of construction. The Vulgate and its followers read, 'many of those having unclean spirits, crying with a loud voice, went out,' which apparently absurd construction is found in the text of the three oldest manuscripts, and, if received as genuine, may be explained as an irregular expression of the same idea, the demoniac being substituted for the demon, either intentionally, on account of their intimate union, or by a natural and unimportant negligence of style. To this worst class of maladies are added two of the most common and severe, but not preternatural affections. Taken with palsies, literally, paralyzed, both English words being derived from the Greek one here used, which is almost confined to Luke (the only other instance being Heb. 12:12), while the corresponding adjective (paralytic, never used in any of the English versions, but invariably expressed by a circumlocution) is found only in the other evangelists. (Compare the Greek of Matt. 4:24, 8:6; 9:2, 6; Mark 2:3, 4, 5, 9, 10, with that of Luke 5:18, 24; 9:33.)

8. The happy effect of Philip's mission upon these Samaritans is beautifully set forth in this one short sentence, which is not, however, fully reproduced in English. There was (ἐγένετο), there came to be, began to be, arose, or happened, implying a great change and new occasion of rejoicing. (See above, on v. 1, and on 7:29.) There seems to be allusion to the proverbial joy of harvest (Isai. 9:3; 16:9), as predicted by our Saviour, in relation to this very people (John 4:35, 36.) That city is compatible with any supposition as to the particular place meant, but seems more natural if spoken of a town not named before, than if applied to the famous city of Samaria. For the wide sense of the word translated city, see above, on 5:6 (p. 211.) The joy here mentioned is to be restricted, neither to the natural enjoyment of recovered health, in one's own person and in that of others, nor to the intellectual pleasure of acquiring knowledge and discovering truth, nor to the spiritual happiness arising from conversion and assurance of forgiveness, but must be understood as comprehending all these elements, and therefore justly called a great joy.

9. The field presented in this city, although highly promising, was not unoccupied when Philip entered it. A certain man, by name Simon (the precise form of expression used above in 5:1), was there before him (προϋπῆρχεν), using sorcery, or practising the profession of a Magus. This word, of Persian origin, but found in the Old Testament (Jer. 39:3), as well as in the Classics, is said to have been originally the name of a Median tribe, but was afterwards employed, like Chaldee or Chaldean (Dan. 2:2; 4:7), as a generic designation of the priests, philosophers, and men of science, in the Persian empire. Such, no doubt, were the Wise Men (Magi) supernaturally guided from the East to Bethlehem, to do homage to the new-born King of the Jews (Matt. 2:1.) The connection which existed between ancient Oriental science and the occult arts, as for instance between astronomy and astrology, occasioned a lower application of the name to sorcerers and wizards, a secondary usage which may still be traced in our words magic and magician. Such pretenders to extraordinary power and knowledge appear to have been very numerous in the Apostolic Age, their influence arising, no doubt, in great measure, from their real science, as compared with the great mass of their credulous contemporaries. It is in this sense, and not in that of mere juggling, that Simon seems to be described here as (μαγεύων) practising magic, acting as a Magus, in this city of Samaria, not at a former time, as might seem to be the meaning of the English version, but immediately before Philip's appearance. Simon was before (him) in the city, using sorcery, etc. His success appears to have been very great, though not precisely such as might be gathered from the version, and bewitched the people, which implies the real exercise of some extraordinary physical power, whereas the Greek word only means amazing them, as in 2:7, 12 above, and 9:21 below, or at the most maddening, depriving them of reason, by excessive admiration and excitement, the idea conveyed by the Italian phrase, far furore. The subjects of this violent commotion were the people (or more exactly, the nation) of Samaria, not the mere population of one city, but the race inhabiting the whole province of that name, and who have been described already. (See above, on v. 4.) This may perhaps imply that he was an itinerant magician, like the "vagabond exorcists" of Ephesus (see below, on 19:13), and like the other sorcerers of that day, as described by Josephus and the classical historians. We may then suppose him to have reached the city here in question upon one of his professional visits, just before Philip's arrival, although previously known to the inhabitants, as mentioned in the next verse. Giving out (an old English phrase for declaring or professing) himself to be some great (one), or rather some great (being), not merely a distinguished man, but something superhuman. The expression is the same as in 5:36 above, with the addition of the epithet great.

10. They is superfluous, as in v. 1. Gave heed, as in v. 6, expressing only fixed attention, but implying faith or confidence in either case. All, as in v. 1, means the mass or body of the people, without reference to individual exceptions. From the least to the greatest (so in all the English versions) might be more exactly rendered, from small to great, a Hebrew idiom, or a natural expression, for all ranks and ages, which occurs again in Heb. 8:11 (compare Jon. 3:5.) This man (Tynd. this fellow) is the power of God, not only clothed with delegated power by God, but himself a divine person, or at least an emanation from the Godhead, in accordance with the favourite theosophy of that day, afterwards embodied in the Gnostic systems. Several of the oldest manuscripts and versions read, the (power) called great, which may either mean so called but not so really, or so called in some well known theory or doctrine, as in Simon's own description of himself. What he claimed to be precisely, we have no means of determining. According to different early writers, he professed to be the Logos, the Messiah, the Samaritan Archangel, and the Power of God personified, which last is a mere gloss upon the words before us. Jerome represents him as saying, "I am the Word of God, I am the Paraclete, I am the Almighty, I am all (or the whole) of God (omnia Dei.") But this is probably a figment of later Christian origin.

11. This is not a mere repetition of the statement in v. 10, but assigns a reason for the fact there stated. The English reader would hardly suspect that had regard in this verse is identical with gave heed in the one before it. Some of the older versions go still further in these heedless variations. Tyndale, for example, renders the same Greek word gave heed (v. 6), regarded (v. 10), and set much by (v. 11), in all which changes he is closely followed both by Cranmer and the Geneva Bible. The reason that they paid him such attention is here said to be, that he had long bewitched, as in v. 9, i. e. astonished and confounded them by sorceries (μαγείαις) or magical illusions, perhaps the fruit of his superior scientific knowledge, but which these Samaritans could neither call in question nor account for, and were therefore, so to speak, obliged to submit to his pretensions, as incapable of refutation. There is no allusion to any physical effect, but only to this moral influence, exerted by his arts, whatever they may have been. (Wiclif, who had deceived in v. 9, here has madded.) All this, we here learn, was no new thing, but had continued time enough, a phrase used in Greek, as it might be in familiar English, for a long time, but without affording any, definite measure of duration. (See below, on 9:23, 43; 14:3; 18:18; 27:7, 9, and above, on 5:37, where the same term is applied to quantity or number.)

12. This verse describes the striking change effected among Simon's dupes by Philip's preaching. The question whether they believed has reference to these alone, or to the people generally, is of no importance, as the context shows that these two classes were identical. It is plain, at all events, that what is here described was a general conversion of the people. One subject of the preaching which produced it is described as the things concerning the kingdom of God, the same expression that was used in 1:3, with respect to our Saviour's conversations with the twelve before his ascension. The oldest manuscripts omit the (things), and read, concerning the kingdom of God, without material effect upon the sense, which is still, that Philip told them all about it, not the mere fact of its existence, but its history, doctrines, duties, hopes, yet all as good news (εὐαγγελιζομένῳ.) The other subject of his preaching was the name of Jesus Christ, i. e. all denoted by these names, one of which means the Saviour of his people (Matt. 1:21) and the other their Messiah, or Anointed Prophet, Priest, and King. Into this name, i. e. into union with Christ, and subjection to him, in all these characters, the Samaritan believers were introduced by the initiatory rite of baptism, which, unlike that of Judaism, was administered alike to both men and women. The same minute exactness is observable in what is said above (v. 3), with respect to the extent and ruthlessness of Saul's persecution, in which neither sex was spared.

13. Then, not afterwards, but at the same time. And (δέ) Simon also himself believed, as well as his adherents, who had just been mentioned. Not only the followers, but the leader, believed. With what kind of faith, is an old subject of dispute, and various answers have been given to the question, chiefly in the form of technical distinctions, e. g. with a historical, speculative, temporary faith, etc. These designations may be all correct; but they throw little light upon the history, the most obvious sense of which is, that the sorcerer believed to all appearance as the rest did; he professed belief, became a convert in the view of others, and in the customary way, by submitting to the rite of baptism. If Philip was deceived, this only shows that he was not omniscient, or even competent to read the heart. If he was not deceived, his sufferance of Simon's false profession is analogous to that of Judas by our Lord himself (John 6:64, 70, 71.) Simon's own motive has been variously explained and understood. Most probably he went at first with the multitude to hide the shame of his desertion and defeat. With this may have been combined a wish to know the secret of Philip's miraculous performances, and perhaps to add this higher magic to his own, so as to do really what he had before done only in appearance or pretence. For this purpose, having been baptized, and thus admitted to free intercourse with Philip, he not only continued with him, as the English versions somewhat feebly render it, but was cleaving (or adhering) to him, the intrinsic strength of the expression being heightened by the participial construction, which suggests the idea of continuance or perseverance in addition to that of sticking close to Philip. (Compare the use of the same verb in 2:46; 6:4, and of the same construction in 1:14; 2:42.) Beholding, as a curious spectator (see above, on 3:16; 4:13; 7:56.) Miracles, literally, powers, i. e. exhibitions and exertions of divine or superhuman power. See above, on 2:22, where the same word is joined with signs and wonders, to exhaust the idea of miraculous performances. The copies vary with respect to the order and grammatical form of these words, but without effect upon the sense, except that several of the oldest manuscripts and versions add the epithet great. Which were done is a single work in Greek, a participle, strictly meaning happened, come to pass. Wondered, which expresses the effect on Simon, is the last word in the original sentence, and might have been consistently translated, was bewitched, being simply the passive of the verb so rendered in vs. 9:11. The absurdity of this translation here ought surely to have hindered its adoption there. The true sense in both cases is that of extreme wonder or amazement, which the Rhemish Bible labours to express here by translating, was astonied with admiration.

14. Now represents the same Greek word (δέ), and indicates the same connection, with the and, but, and then, of the three preceding verses. When the Apostles heard, Gr. the Apostles having heard (or hearing.) Which were at Jerusalem, Gr. those in Jerusalem, might seem to mean that some were absent, and thus to contradict the last clause of v. 1, or to imply an intervening change; but it really describes them as all there, and for that very reason calls them the Apostles in Jerusalem. Samaria, not the city, whose reception of the Gospel would have been a small thing in comparison with its reception by the "nation of Samaria," as it is expressed above in v. 9. In the one case, this great change is affirmed of the capital exclusively; while in the other case, that city, or some other, represents the whole, as being the first fruits of its conversion, and at the same time an important step towards the general and unrestricted preaching of the gospel. (See above, on v. 5.) It is not surprising, therefore, that the college of Apostles, when they heard (Tynd. heard say) that Samaria had received the word of God, should send a deputation to the place where the good work had begun, wherever it might be; not, as has been variously imagined, because Philip was only a Deacon, for he was more, as we have seen above (on v. 5); or because they were jealous or suspicious of him; or because they doubted the sincerity or depth of the Samaritan conversions; or to show that the Apostles, though this work began without them, still retained their old position; but because they were the constituted organizers of the church, and as such not only authorized but bound to enter every open door, whoever might have opened it. As in the original mission of the twelve (Mark 6:7), and of the seventy (Luke 10:1), two were sent together, and the two commissioned upon this occasion were the same whom we have seen before so constantly in company. (See above, on ch. 3:1.) Unto them, i. e. to the Samaritans, the plural subject latent in the singular collective name Samaria, as in v. 5 above. The word of God, the new revelation or religion. (See above, on v. 4.) Received, not only in the passive sense of hearing, but in the active sense of believing and obeying. They not only had the opportunity of being saved through Christ, but they embraced it. The position here assigned to Peter, however honourable and important, is by no means that of a superior, much less of a primate.

15. Coming (or having come) down, see above, on 3:1; 7:15. The form of expression here employed, or rather the fact here recorded, shows that this gift was not bestowed, even mediately, by the Apostles, but by God directly, in answer to their prayers, and sometimes without even that degree of intervention. (See below, on 10:44.) This by no means favours the opinion, that the Apostolical commission was sent down, simply because Philip, as a Deacon or Evangelist, could not impart the Holy Ghost. He certainly could pray for it, nor is there any intimation that his prayers would have been less effectual than those of the Apostles. The natural impression on the reader is, that John and Peter came down with a general commission to inspect and regulate, and afterwards report, and in the mean time to instruct the people; and that while engaged in executing this commission, they prayed, etc.

16. As yet, literally, not yet, the Greek idiom admitting of a double negative for emphasis. Only implies that the two things were expected or accustomed to go together. (See below, on 9:17, 18; 10:47; 19:5, 6.) But in this case, the baptism of water had not been followed by the spiritual baptism of which it was the sign, or rather by the visible witness of the Spirit which commonly attended it. (See above, on 5:32.) Into the name, i. e. into union with him, and subjection to him, as their Sovereign and their Saviour. (See above, on v. 12.) Several of the older English versions, and a few Greek manuscripts, have Christ Jesus, others Jesus Christ, while the Codex Beza combines two of these readings, Lord Jesus Christ. Fallen is omitted in the Peshito, and exchanged for come in the Vulgate and the older English versions. This variation must be euphemistical or accidental, as it is not found in the Greek manuscripts. Fallen denotes the sudden illapse of a superior power or influence. (See below, on 10:44; 11:15.) The expression may be borrowed from Ezekiel 11:5, "the Spirit of the Lord fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak." It is elsewhere in this book applied to other sudden seizures, both miraculous and natural, as wonder (10:10), fear, (19:17), blindness (13:11.) It is evident from this verse, that the fact which it records was regarded as a strange one. Were baptized is not the full sense of the Greek phrase (βεβαπτισμένοι ὑπῆρχον), which suggests, if it does not express, the idea, that they still remained baptized and nothing more. (See above, on 5:4.)

17. The obvious connection between this verse and the fifteenth (v. 16 being clearly parenthetical) shows that the touch of the Apostles' hands merely symbolized a spiritual gift which had been granted in answer to their prayers. (See above, on 6:6.) The reception of the Holy Ghost here meant is doubtless that of his extraordinary influences, either in the way of inspiration, or in that of miraculous endowments, or of both combined, as in the case of the Apostles. That the gifts conferred were not merely moral or internal, but such as could be verified and brought to the test of observation, is clear from the effect which they produced on Simon, as recorded in the next verse. Received, in the imperfect tense, might seem to denote a repetition of the process here described, but that the other verb is in the aorist form, and therefore must relate to a specific time. The imperfect (were receiving) may possibly have reference to what follows, and denote that this solemnity was still proceeding, when the incident recorded in the following verse took place. The impression naturally made by these three verses is, that the baptism of these converts not being followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost, as on the day of Pentecost (11:17), and probably on subsequent occasions, although not recorded (4:4; 5:14; 6:7), the Apostles, who had come down to direct the whole proceeding, made it the subject of specific intercession, and by imposition of their hands, evinced that their prayers were answered.

18. The sentence is completed in the next verse. When Simon saw, Gr. Simon beholding (θεασάμενος, see above, on 1:11), or according to the latest critics, seeing (ἰδών.) Through, denoting instrumental agency (see above, on 1:16; 2:16; 22:23, 28, 3:18, 21; 4:16, 25, 30; 5:12; 7:25.) The epithet Holy is omitted by some manuscripts and editors. Was given, literally, is given, the present form bringing up the scene before us, as one actually passing. Money, literally monies, a plural common in old English, and still retained in certain forms of business. The Greek word is the plural of the one used in 4:37 above, and there explained. Offered. literally, brought to, as in Matt. 22:19; Mark 10:13; Luke 18:15, often used to signify religious gifts, oblations (as in 7:42 above), but here in the intermediate sense of an offer made to men.

19. The sentence is continued from v. 18, and completed. To me also, not to me as well as others, but to me as well as yourselves. He asked not merely what he saw them give, but the power of bestowing it. Power, i. e. moral power, right, authority, not physical capacity or strength. (See above, on 1:7; 5:4.) Holy Spirit, being without the article, may mean a holy spirit, and imply the want of any definite conception as to a personal agent. What precise meaning he attached to the phrase, we have no means of determining. He may have used it merely as he heard it used by others, without knowing what it meant at all. Up to this point, the language used implies that both the apostles were distinctly recognized as acting jointly, and as equal in authority. They prayed (v. 15), their hands (v. 17), offered them (v. 18), give ye (v. 19.)

20. Peter now assumes his usual position as the spokesman. (See above, on 1:15; 2:14, 38; 3:6; 4:8; 5:3; 9:29.) Various attempts have been made to explain away the seeming imprecation in this verse. Some understand the words to mean, 'let thy money remain with thee for thy ruin' (compare Dan. 5:17), which is neither perfectly grammatical nor any relief of the supposed difficulty. Others explain it as a mere prediction of the necessary consequence or tendency of that which he was doing. But the true solution seems to be, that Peter spoke by direct divine authority, and also that the wish is to be qualified by the exhortation in v. 22. As if he had said, 'Perish, if you will not repent.' The first money is not the word so rendered in the other clause and in v. 18 above, but the one employed in 7:16, and strictly meaning silver, a usage perfectly coincident with that of the French argent. Perish with thee, literally, with thee be for ruin (or unto perdition.) Hast thought, or more exactly, didst think, i. e. just now, when he made his proposition. The gift of God, elsewhere called the gift of the Holy Ghost (see above, on 2:38, and below, on 10:45.) The very terms imply gratuity, the Greek noun being used in the accusative (δωρεάν) as an adverb corresponding to the Latin gratis. (See Matt. 10:8; John 15:25; Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 11:7; Gal. 2:21; 2 Thess. 3:8; Rev. 21:6; 22:17.) The sin and folly of the sorcerer's offer lay not merely in the thought of bribing God, but in that of purchasing what, from its very nature, could be only a free gift. With money, literally, through, by means of, as in v. 18. Money, literally, monies, as in the same verse. (The Syriac version here has worldly wealth, or riches of the world.) May be purchased is a single word in Greek, and the last one in the sentence. It is infinitive in form (κτᾶσθαι), but ambiguous in meaning, as it may be either active or passive. The latter sense, though common only in the later writers, is found in the Attic Greek of Thucydides and Euripides. The active meaning seems to be forbidden here by the construction, 'thou hast thought to obtain,' which, though correct enough in English, is not so good Greek as the passive sense, 'hast thought the gift of God to be obtained.' It is only by a figure of speech that simony, a term derived from this man's name, has been applied to the sale and purchase of ecclesiastical office, which, however heinous it may be, is something very different from offering to buy and sell the Holy Ghost.

21. Not content with repelling his base offer, the Apostle now reveals to him his spiritual state, no doubt by special revelation and immediate divine authority. Thou hast neither, literally, there is not to thee. Part and lot are substantially equivalent, the first denoting any share or portion (see below, on 16:12), the second one determined or assigned by lot (see above, on 1:17, 25.) In this matter, literally, in this word, and so translated by the Vulgate and its English copyists. The immediate English versions, older than King James's, all have business. Modern philologists, however, question whether this sense of the Greek words (λόγος and ῥῆμα), which the old interpreters supposed to be derived from a peculiar usage of the Hebrew (דָּבָר), ever occurs in the New Testament at all. (See above, on 5:32.) In Luke 4:36, the common version is correct, namely, word, meaning word of command, and in Luke 2:15, "this thing which is come to pass" means really "this word (or divine declaration) which has been fulfilled." So too in 15:6, below, "this matter" properly denotes this question, or this point of doctrine. Accordingly, some understand it here as meaning, this (new) doctrine (or religion), a sense at least as old as the Peshito (in this faith), and much more natural than that adopted by some modern writers, in this speech (or speaking), with allusion to the gift of tongues, as one of those which Simon wished to buy the power of bestowing, but which is not mentioned in the text or context. Right, literally, straight, an epithet applied both to physical and moral qualities. (See below, on 9:11, and 13:10.) Before God, i. e. in his estimation (see above, on 4:19; 7:46), with a tacit reference, as some suppose, to Philip's error; but see above, on 4:13.

22. The exhortation to repent shows that the case was not entirely desperate, while at the same time it qualifies the terrible denunciation in v. 20. Therefore, because otherwise you can have no part in this salvation. Of this, literally, from (away from) this, implying not mere sorrow but conversion. Wickedness, literally, badness, the most general expression of that idea in the language, once applied even to mere physical evil (Matt. 6:34), sometimes used in the specific sense of malice or malignity (e.g. Tit. 3:3), but here most probably in that of moral evil, sin, depravity. This may either mean this specific act of sin, which he had just committed, or this depravity of thine, which thou hast just revealed to us. Pray God, or retaining the original construction, ask, beseech of God. (The oldest reading seems to be, the Lord.) If perhaps is exactly the expression used in Mark 11:13, and in both places construed with the future, if perhaps the thought of thy heart shall (or will) be forgiven, or remitted, the verb corresponding to the noun employed in 2:38, and there explained (see also 5:31.) If perhaps (Wiclif, if paradventure) is a much more correct translation than Tyndale's (that the thought, &c.,) copied as usual by Cranmer, and also in the Geneva Bible, but with a qualifying phrase (if it be possible.) Some suppose the doubt implied in these words to be only a doubt of his repentance, to which others object that it would not then be placed between his prayer and his forgiveness, and refer it rather to his having possibly committed the unpardonable sin. The thought of thy heart, not merely thy opinion but thy purpose, the fruit not only of a darkened mind but of corrupt affection. It includes his false belief as to the gift of God, and his presumptuous effort to obtain it for himself in a way at once unlawful and impossible. The specific idea of an evil thought or purpose is suggested by the context.

23. As Simon had already been baptized (v. 13), the exhortation to repent might have seemed to have respect to this particular transgression, as a single act of disobedience. But the words of the Apostle show that the whole work of repentance and conversion was yet to be performed. The original order of the sentence is for in the gall of bitterness and bond of iniquity I see thee being. Gall of bitterness, like gall and wormwood (Deut. 29:17), seems to mean an intense bitter, and this to be put for poison (see Job 20:14), from some natural association, or perhaps from an opinion, which we find in Pliny, that the venom of serpents resides in their gall. The idea of moral corruption is conveyed by a kindred figure, root of bitterness (Heb. 12:15.) Bond of iniquity, is by some translated bundle of unrighteousness, and instead of being in (ὄντα εἰς), being for (as in 7:21, 53), i. e. being a mere bundle of unrighteousness, as Shakspeare says, "the lunatic, the lover, and the poet, are of imagination all compact," i. e. entirely and exclusively made up of it. The older and more usual interpretation gives the first noun the sense of bond or bondage, and the preposition (εἰς), its usual and proper sense of into, as if he had said, 'thou art (fallen into and remainest) in the bondage of unrighteousness.' Both figures, then, and especially the last, suggest the idea of a permanent and long continued state, and cannot therefore be applied to a relapse or fall from grace after his baptism. There is, however, still a third interpretation, of more recent date than either of the others, which applies these difficult expressions, not exclusively to Simon's own condition at the time when they were uttered, but to his future influence on others. 'I see thee (by the light of my prophetic inspiration) being or becoming (ὄντα εἰς, compare the Hebrew הָיהָ לְ) gall of bitterness (i. e. a source of misery, or a deadly poison) and a bond (bond of union, see Eph. 4:3; Col. 2:19; 3:14) of iniquity (a centre of corrupting influence to others.)' Whether this be regarded as a natural or even an admissible construction of the words or not, it is certainly entitled to the praise of ingenuity, and also of a singular agreement with the subsequent career and influence of Simon, as preserved in the traditions of the church. In any case, he is described by the Apostle, either expressly or by implication, as an extremely wicked man, who could be saved from condign ruin only by repentance and conversion or return to God.

24. Then, as in vs. 5, 13, 17. Answered, literally, answering Ye is emphatic. 'Pray yourselves; do you pray for me.' The things which ye have spoken seems to be a euphemistical periphrasis for the perdition threatened in v. 20. The plural form may represent the fulness or variety of evils which he understood to be included in that pregnant term. For come upon me, Tyndale and his followers gratuitously use the word fall, which they seemed to avoid in its proper place. (See above, on v. 16.) This request may have been prompted by mere dread of punishment, or it may be regarded as a proof of his compliance with the exhortation to repent. What became of Simon, we are not informed, as the narrative ends abruptly here. Tradition represents him as having persevered in his iniquity, and classes him among the heresiarchs of the apostolic age. Some regard him as the founder of the Simonians of the second century, who held a mixture of Jewish and Samaritan opinions, with certain oriental theosophic notions; while others deny all connection, even in the names. From ten to twenty years after these events, we meet with a Simon in Josephus, who describes him as a sorcerer from Cyprus, employed by Felix to seduce the affections of the Jewess Drusilla. (See below, on 24:24.) The identity of name, and similarity of character, would leave no doubt that this was Simon Magus, but for a statement of Justin Martyr, that the latter was by birth a Samaritan. This is entitled to the more weight as Simon was himself a native of that country, and as he designates the town of Gitton or Gitta as the birth-place of Simon, which by some has been identified with Citium in Cyprus. Justin goes on to say, however, that he afterwards removed to Rome, where he was worshipped as a god, and had a column dedicated to him. By a curious coincidence, a fragment has been excavated there in modern times, inscribed to an Etruscan deity (Semoni Sanco), which some suppose to be a part of Justin's column, and as he was mistaken upon this point, they infer that his statement is entitled to no weight whatever. The decision of this question seems to be at once unimportant and impossible. The only certain trace of Simon in history is the use of the word simony, which has been already mentioned. (See above, on v. 19.)

25. The preaching of the gospel among the Samaritans was not confined to the city where it had begun, but extended to many of the smaller towns, through which the Apostles passed on their return. For villages, Tyndale has cities, Geneva towns, Wiclif countries. They, i. e. Peter and John. When they had, literally, having testified. Here again the apostolical preaching is described as testimony (see above, on 2:40.) Preached is repeated only in the English. The first of the two Greek verbs literally means talking, speaking, as in 3:24; 4:1, 17, 20, 29; 4:31; 5:20, 40; 6:10. The other verb, translated preached the gospel, is the one employed above, in vs. 4:12, and denoting the communication of glad tidings; but instead of governing the subject of the preaching, as it does there and in 5:42, it is construed here with the places where they preached (evangelizing the villages) a construction which has been retained in modern English. (See below, on 14:15, 21; 16:10.) Returned, is one of Luke's favourite Greek expressions (see above, on 1:12.) Both this and the last verb have the form of the imperfect tense in several of the oldest manuscripts, which may imply a similar connection with the following verse to that between vs. 17 and 18. The sense will then be, that while Peter and John were thus employed, Philip received his new commission.

26. An angel of the Lord (see above, on 5:19) cannot without absurdity be resolved into a suggestion of Philip's own mind. Although it is not said that an angel appeared (see below, on 12:23), a personal agency, exterior to himself is even more explicitly referred to here, than in v. 29 below. The command appears to have been given in Samaria. If it were said to have been given in a dream, arise might be understood to mean, arise from sleep or out of bed. (Compare Matt. 2:13, 14; 20:21, where the verb, however, strictly means to awake.) In the absence of any such intimation, it seems rather to mean, address yourself to action (see above, on 1:15; 5:17; 6:9.) Go, go away, journey, travel (see above, on 1:10; 11:25; 5:20, 41.) Toward, see below, on 27:12, and compare Phil. 3:14. The south, literally, mid-day, i. e. the place of the sun at noon. (Precisely similar, in etymology and usage, is the German Mittag.) He is not required to go to Jerusalem, but to get upon the road leading thence to Gaza. Going down, see above, on v. 5. Gaza is one of the oldest places mentioned in the Bible. It first occurs in Gen. 1:19, as a frontier town of the Canaanites; in later history, as the southernmost of the five cities of the Philistines, to whom it really belonged, even after it was formally assigned to Judah (Josh. 15:47; Judg. 1:18.) It was the scene of one of Samson's most remarkable exploits (Judges 16:3.) It was besieged by Alexander the Great, and destroyed by Alexander Jannæus, rebuilt by the Roman General Gabinius, and given by Augustus to Herod, after whose death it was attached to the province of Syria. Which is desert, literally, this is desert, forming an independent clause or sentence, but connected in the closest manner with what goes before. The demonstrative pronoun may refer grammatically either to the city or the road. According to some ancient writers, there was a new Gaza, distinct from the ruins of the old, destroyed by Alexander, and the words in question were intended to direct Philip to the latter, as if he had said, 'that is, the desert one.' But besides the want of satisfactory evidence in favour of the fact alleged, why should the places be distinguished here, unless they were so far apart, that different roads led to them from Jerusalem, in which case their identity would be destroyed. One ingenious modern writer understands the words as a remark of the historian, in reference to the town itself having been again destroyed during the Jewish war; but this would make the date of composition later than we have any other reason for believing it. For these or other reasons, most interpreters suppose the clause to be descriptive of the road, as Arrian speaks of a road desert for want of water, The words may then have been intended to guide Philip to the least frequented of the roads which appear to have existed between these two places, or added by the writer (as in John 6:10), to bring the scene more vividly before the reader. But according to Greek usage, the article is indispensable in distinguishing between two objects. Of those who refer it to the road, some suppose it to be indicated as a proper place for meditation, others as a sort of type or symbol of spiritual desolation, like the desert in Isai. 40:3; Matt. 3:3. But perhaps the simplest and most natural interpretation of the words is that which understands them as implying, that there was something strange in the command, and in the incident which followed its execution. As if Luke had said, 'an angel sent him to the road between Jerusalem and Gaza, which might well have seemed a singular direction, since it is a desert road, in which he was not likely to encounter travellers, much less to meet with such an adventure as did there befall him.' Any of these exegetical hypotheses is far more probable than that of a gloss or spurious addition to the text, the origin of which would be as unaccountable as it is destitute of all external evidence, the words in question being found apparently in all Greek manuscripts without exception.

27. The sentence is completed in the next verse. We have here disclosed the purpose of the strange command recorded in v. 26. According to a very common scriptural usage, Philip's obedience is stated in the terms of the command itself, he arose and went. Behold, as usual, denotes something unexpected (see above, on 1:10; 2:7; 5:9; 25, 28; 7:56), and is peculiarly appropriate here, because the mission was itself a strange one. As if it had been said, 'he obeyed the angelic order, unaccountable as it appeared, and though the road, to which he was directed, was a desert one, he soon saw whom he had been sent to meet.' A man of Ethiopia, more exactly an Ethiopian man, or still more closely, a man, an Ethiopian. (See above, on 1:11, 16; 2:5, 14, 22, 29, 37; 3:12, 14; 5:35; 7:2.) Ethiopia is the Greek name corresponding to the Cush of the Old Testament, but less extensive, being restricted to the country watered by the Nile, south of Egypt, corresponding to the Nubia of modern geography, with the adjacent parts of Abyssinia. Eunuch originally means a chamberlain, and is so translated here by Tyndale and Cranmer. Its secondary meaning is derived from the oriental practice of employing emasculated men as guardians of the harem. The wider meaning of the term, which is found in the Septuagint version of Gen. 37:36, 39, seems to be required in the case before us by the prohibitory law of Deut. 23:1 (2.) His office then would be the same with that held by Blastus in the court or family of Herod Agrippa (see below, on 12:20.) In early times, offices of state were not so carefully distinguished as at present from those of the royal household. Of great authority, literally, a dynast or potentate, a term applied to princes (Luke 1:52) and to God himself (1 Tim. 6:15), but here denoting one in power, and especially in office, under a sovereign, as the word is also used by Xenophon and Plutarch. The plural is applied in the Septuagint version to the "house of Pharaoh" (Gen. 50:4.) Candace, a common or hereditary title of the queens who for many years succeeded one another in the island of Meroe, belonging to the ancient Ethiopia, as we learn from Strabo, Dio Cassius, and Pliny. Had the charge of all her treasure, literally, was over it, a phrase corresponding to the Hebrew title, over the house or palace (Isai. 22:15), and to the kindred Greek phrase, over the bed-chamber (see below, on 12:20.) Both offices may have been united in this person, if eunuch has the wider sense above suggested. By a curious coincidence, the chamberlain of London, and some other cities, is the treasurer. Treasure is here used to translate a word said to be of Persian origin, and specially applied to royal treasure. (Thus Quintus Curtius says, Pecuniam regiam gazam Persae vocant; and Cornelius Nepos describes the office here in question by the title, grazae regiae custos.) And had come, more exactly, who had come. To worship is, in Greek, not an infinitive but a future participle, which occurs again in 24:11 below (compare John 12:20.) It is evident from this that he was either a Hellenist or foreign Jew by birth, or a proselyte from heathenism to the Jews' religion.

28. The sentence is completed from the verse preceding. Returning, a favourite Greek verb of Luke's (see above, on v. 25, and on 1:12.) Was returning represents exactly the form of the original, which is the same as in v. 13 above. As he was no doubt returning to his own country by the way of Egypt, his first stage or journey was from Jerusalem to Gaza. In (literally, on) his chariot implies, in this connection, an equipage suited to his rank, including, no doubt, one or more attendants (see below, on v. 38.) Read, in the imperfect tense, was reading, i. e. at the time when Philip first caught sight of him. That this was in compliance with a Jewish maxim, extant in the Talmud, is not half so probable as that he was induced to search the Scriptures by what he had seen and heard while at Jerusalem. Was reading, probably aloud, which some regard as the precise sense of the Greek verb, and which is certainly its meaning in such places as 13:27; 15:21 below (compare 2 Cor. 3:15; 1 Thess. 5:27.) That the Ethiopian was attended, as the great men of that day often were, both on journeys and at home, by an anagnost or reader, is a perfectly gratuitous assumption, without any thing to countenance it in the text or context. Esaias, the Greek form of Isaiah, or rather of the Hebrew (יְשַׁעְיָהוּ), from which both forms depart so much, that it would have been better to use one exclusively in the translation of both Testaments. (See above, on 7:45.) The prophet, not necessarily by way of eminence, but the well-known prophet of that name, implying the existence of his writings, and their general reception as a part of the Old Testament canon. Some interpreters assume that he was reading the original, and then infer from this assumption, that he was a Hebrew (see above, on 6:1); but it is far more probable that he was reading it in Greek, as the Septuagint version had its origin in Egypt, through which country he had passed and was about to pass again, and was in common use among the Jews there, even in their synagogue service.

29. It is evident that Philip was to be gradually apprised of what he had to do on this remarkable occasion. An angel sends him to a desert road; he there sees a chariot; which he is now required to join. The Spirit of this verse, and the angel of v. 26, although coincident, are not identical, the Spirit being the divine authority or power, of which the angel was the instrument or agent. (See above, on 5:19; 7:30, 35, 38, 53.) Go near, literally, go to, the idea being not that of mere approach, but of actual arrival and immediate contact. (See below, on 9:1.) Join thyself is not a mere tautology, but expresses something more, to wit, the act of sticking to the chariot, not losing sight of it or leaving it, until the divine purpose was accomplished. (For the usage of the Greek verb, simple and compound, see above, on 5:13, and below, on 9:26; 10:28; 17:34.)

30. In obedience to this order, the authority of which he seems not to have questioned for a moment, whatever may have been the mode of the divine communication, Philip takes the first step towards its execution, by hastening to place himself within the stranger's reach, and listening to him as he read aloud. Ran thither is the Geneva version; Tyndale and Cranmer render more exactly, ran to (him.) Heard him read (Wicl. more literally, reading) the Prophet Isaiah, and a passage so peculiarly important and obscure, that it prompted the abrupt inquiry, with which he accosted the traveller. The form of the original interrogation (ἆρά γε) seems to anticipate a negative answer; as if he had said, 'you surely do not know what you are reading,' perhaps with some allusion to the rapidity or seeming nonchalance, with which the Ethiopian pronounced the passage. The verb translated read is a compound form of that translated know, so that their combination (γινώσκεις ἂ ἀναγινώσκεις) gives a point to the original, which cannot be retained in any version. It is worthy of remark, as one of the resemblances in language between Luke and that Apostle, under whose influence an uniform tradition represents him as having composed both his books, that Paul has the very same lusus verborum in 2 Cor. 3:2, (γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινωσκομένη) known and read of all men. It is not necessary to suppose, that Philip listened for some time before accosting him, but that just as he came up to him, he heard enough of what he read to know that it was in a certain passage of Isaiah.

31. The Eunuch's question may contain a gentle intimation that he thought the tone of the inquiry unbecoming or unreasonable. As if he had said, 'How can you expect a stranger without aid to comprehend what puzzles your most learned doctors?' Some man, some one, somebody; see above, on 2:45; 4:35. Guide me, a figure for instruction, used by Christ himself (see Matt. 15:14; Luke 6:39; John 16:13, and compare Matt. 23:16, 24; Rom. 2:19.) The specific reference in all these cases is to the guidance of the blind. How can I? has a peculiar form in the original (πῶς ἂν δυναίμην), which, according to the nice distinctions of the Greek idiom, expresses in a high degree the speaker's doubt, if not as to the absolute intrinsic possibility, at least as to the actual and present practicability of the thing in question. 'What reason have you to suppose me capable of understanding it without assistance?' Besides the modest self-depreciation of this answer, it implies a suspicion, if no more, that the stranger who thus suddenly accosted him was just such a guide and helper as he needed. This feeling he expressed still more clearly by inviting Philip to ascend the chariot. Desired, literally, called for, invited (as in 28:20), or entreated (as in 16:39.) This, which would have been an act of hospitable kindness, in any case whatever, to a solitary traveller on foot in that secluded road (v. 26), derives a higher character and meaning from the few words which had previously passed between them, and becomes expressive, not of mere compassion or a wish for company, but also for instruction in the word of God.

32, 33. The particular context or passage (περιοχή) of the Scripture, which the Ethiopian was reading when Philip interrupted him, is still extant in Isaiah 53:7, 8. It is quoted by Luke, as it was no doubt read, in the Septuagint version, with a few unimportant verbal variations from the common text, such as the present participle for the aorist, the insertion of his before generation, etc. The second sentence quoted is among the most disputed and obscure in the Old Testament; but all that is necessary to the understanding of the narrative is what all interpreters admit, that like the verse before it, it describes the sufferings of an innocent and unresisting victim. Nothing here depends on the precise sense of the words, because they are quoted, not as the part which particularly exercised the Eunuch's mind, but as that which he happened to be reading aloud when Philip joined him; and also because, as afterwards appears, the question that perplexed him was not in reference to the sense of these words, but in reference to their subject, or the person of whom they were written. The solution of this question would not be promoted in the least by the most complete enumeration of the senses, which have been put upon the words themselves by different interpreters; because, on any exegetical hypothesis whatever, it might still be asked, to whom they were intended to apply. (Some account of the different interpretations may be found in the writer's notes upon the passage of Isaiah.)

34. This is a further answer to the question, with which Philip had begun the conversation (see above, on v. 30.) The answer is indeed itself a question, but this mode of reply is very frequent in the dialect of Scripture and of common life. At all events, there can be no sufficient ground for the jejune interpretation of answered as pleonastic, or in other words, as meaning nothing. The whole tendency of thorough and consistent exposition is to reduce the number of factitious and imaginary pleonasms. The Eunuch's question is an interesting one, as exhibiting, not only his own state of mind, but that of the contemporary Jews, the status quœstionis of the controversy then existing, as to the subject of this signal prophecy. Without attempting to determine whether all the views proposed by later writers, and recorded in the works upon Isaiah, had been broached so early, it is clear that one of the most plausible was known, or had at least occurred to this inquirer, although far more probably suggested by his intercourse with Jewish doctors, and perhaps with Christians, at Jerusalem. This was the doctrine, here proposed as an alternative, that Isaiah was speaking of himself, not as a private individual but as a prophet, or a representative of all the prophets as a class. This doctrine which, in one form or another, has found many advocates in later times, is here suggested, either as the only other known to the speaker, or as the only one entitled to be brought into comparison with the old and still prevailing application of the words to the Messiah, which probably would never have been called in question, if it had not become necessary as a means of combating the claims of Jesus. Perhaps this ingenious evasion had been recently invented or discovered, and the Ethiopian had heard the passage thus expounded at Jerusalem, but could not fully acquiesce in this interpretation. It was probably in this state of uncertainty respecting it, that he was reading it again when Philip first accosted him, and frankly owned his incapacity to solve the doubt, without assistance from some other quarter. He little dreamed, as we may well suppose, that such assistance was at hand, expressly furnished by an Angel (v. 26) and the Holy Spirit (v. 29.) There are no doubt many other cases, in which such help has been afforded no less opportunely, though without the same extraordinary circumstances.

35. That the subject which engrossed the Eunuch's mind was not the exact sense of the verses quoted from Isaiah, is furthermore apparent from the fact that Philip, instead of dwelling upon that one passage, merely used it as the starting-point or text of a discourse on the Messiahship of Jesus. The idea of a regular discourse, as distinguished from a simple conversation, is suggested by the otherwise unmeaning statement, that he opened his mouth, i. e. began to speak with continuity and some formality of method. The wide scope of his argument is shown by his simply beginning from this scripture, i. e. the one which had been the occasion of his speaking at all. The subject and spirit of his sermon are denoted by the phrase inadequately rendered, preached unto him Jesus. The defect lies in failing to convey the full force of the verb, which, from its very form and derivation, must suggest to every reader of the Greek, the joyous and exhilarating nature of the truths taught, as good news or glad tidings of salvation, an idea not by any means inseparable from the simple act of preaching, either in its first sense of proclaiming, or in its secondary sense of exhortation and religious teaching. (See above, on v. 25.) This idea, so distinctly legible in the original, has been retained by some translations, e.g. in the Rhemish, with its usual violation of the English idiom (evangelized unto him Jesus), and by Luther (preached to him the evangel of Jesus.) There is also a meaning in the name itself, of which we are continually tempted to lose sight, by the inveterate habit of regarding it as a mere personal designation, no more distinctive or significant than those in common use among ourselves; whereas Jesus, as we have often had occasion to observe, was designed from the beginning to be, not a mere convenience like a label or a number, but a pregnant description of him to whom it was applied, before his birth, by an angel, as the Saviour of his people from their sins. (See above, on vs. 12, 16.) That he was such a Saviour, and the very one predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures, was the doctrine now propounded and established in Philip's exegetical and argumentative discourse to his companion.

36. The effect of Philip's discourse is indirectly but expressively suggested by a little incident, recorded without comment and with perfect simplicity. The road, as we have seen above (v. 26), was desert, running probably along or through a dry and barren tract. Of this we are reminded by the statement, not that they went their way, which would be saying little, but that they were travelling, along the (same) road, when their attention was awakened by their coming, not to a certain water, which might seem to mean a well known lake or stream, of which the region seems to have been wholly destitute, but, as the Greek words properly denote, to some water, the indefinite expression, like that in 5:2, suggesting naturally the idea of a small degree or quantity. The sudden and perhaps unexpected sight of this slight interruption to the dryness of the road, at once suggested to the Eunuch's mind the thought of baptism, and without deliberation or delay, he seems to have proposed it. See, lo, behold, (here is) water, where it might least have been expected. (See above, on v. 27.) The consecution of the clauses seems to show that he considered nothing but the want of water as a reason for delaying the profession of his faith. There could not be a stronger or more beautiful expression of the strength of his convictions or of Philip's argument by which it was effected. The readiness with which the Ethiopian made this proposition has been supposed by some to imply a previous familiarity with proselyte baptism as a Jewish practice. But besides the historical uncertainty which overhangs this custom, and the high authorities by which it is denied, it seems scarcely natural that one who had already been baptized at his reception into Judaism, should expect, as a matter of course, to be baptized again, when convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus; unless indeed he knew that this rite was an essential one, prescribed by Christ, himself; and if he did know this, there can be no need of resorting to the dubious assumption of a Jewish baptism, to explain what is as well or rather better understood without it. The most obvious and natural solution is, that Philip's argumentative discourse included and perhaps wound up with an explicit statement of the way in which new converts must profess their faith and be received into the church, and that the Eunuch, as the strongest possible expression of assent, proposed to do what he had just been told he must do, and for which the outward means were providentially presented, at the very moment when they could be used.

37. This verse is excluded from the text by the latest critics, because wanting in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions, while in many copies which contain it, there is a diversity of form, both in the words themselves and in their order, which is commonly considered a suspicious circumstance. The interpolation is accounted for, as an attempt to guard against the practice of precipitate admission to the church, in favour of which this verse might with some plausibility have been alleged. But on the other hand, it may be argued that the verse, though genuine, was afterwards omitted, as unfriendly to the practice of delaying baptism, which had become common, if not prevalent, before the end of the third century. It is moreover found in many manuscripts, including some of the most ancient, and is quoted as a part of this context, not only by Cyprian but by Irenæus. It is therefore one of those cases, in which the external testimony may be looked upon as very nearly balanced, and in which it is the safest course to let the scale of the received text and traditional belief preponderate. At the same time, let it be observed that even if the verse should be expunged, there would be nothing taken from the text that is not easily supplied from other places, and indeed implied in what immediately precedes and follows; not only in the act of baptism, but in the proposal of the Eunuch, as explained above, and really involving just such a profession of his faith in Jesus, as Philip, in the verse before us, more explicitly requires.

38. The expression in the first clause shows that he was not driving it himself, but, as might have been expected from his rank, was accompanied by one or more domestics. That they went down into the water, can prove nothing as to its extent or depth. Without insisting, as some writers have done, that the Greek phrase (εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ) may mean nothing more than to the water's edge, its stronger sense is fully satisfied, if we suppose that they stood in it, which in any language would be naturally expressed by saying, they went into it. That the phrase does not necessarily imply submersion, is moreover clear from the consideration, that such an inference would prove too much for those who draw it, namely, that the baptizer must himself be totally immersed. For not only is there no distinction made, but it is twice said expressly, in two different forms, as if to preclude all doubt and ambiguity, that both (ἀμφότεροι) went down into the water, both (ὅ τε) Philip and the Eunuch. If the verb and preposition necessarily imply immersion, they imply it equally in either case. If they do not necessarily imply it in the one, there can be no such necessary implication in the other. This is not used as an argument to prove that there was no immersion here, but simply to prevent an unfair use of the expression, as conclusively proving that there was. The same negative effect may be promoted by a simple illustration from analogy. Suppose them to have stopped for a similar yet altogether different purpose, one requiring no complete immersion, such as that of washing the face or hands. How could this have been more conveniently accomplished, especially by orientals, travelling either barefoot or in sandals, than by simply standing in the water; and how could it be otherwise expressed by the historian, without gratuitous minuteness or circumlocution, than by saying just what Luke says here, that they stopped the chariot and "both went down into the water." All that is contended for is this, that terms which might be naturally used in cases where there is no immersion at all, cannot possibly be made to prove, in any one case, that there was immersion. To the very different question, in what character, or by what right, Philip administered the ordinance, the narrative itself affords no certain answer. All that it is necessary to insist upon, according to the principle just stated, is that it cannot be shown to have been done by Philip as a deacon, and as a necessary function of that office. This negative position may be fully justified by the existence of alternative hypotheses, either of which, to say the least, is as probable as that just mentioned. The fact that Philip is described below (21:8), not only as "one of the Seven" (named in 6:5), but first and most distinctively as "the Evangelist," if not enough to prove that he baptized in this capacity, is certainly sufficient to rebut the proof that he baptized as a Deacon. The lapse of time between the case before us and the place where he is called an Evangelist, creates no difficulty, since, as we have seen above (on v. 5), his previous labours in Samaria were precisely such as we should look for in this class of ministers, whether the title be explained to mean a Missionary, or a Preacher clothed with temporary and extraordinary powers. (See below, on 21:8.) These two questions have been here discussed at some length, for the purpose of exemplifying an important principle, to wit, that while we have no right to draw positive conclusions, in defence of our own usages and doctrines, from passages admitting of a different interpretation, we are equally bound to resist all similar abuses, and to see, so far as in us lies, that others do not handle the word of God deceitfully (2 Cor. 4:2.)

39. The first words of this verse correspond to those used in the one before it, and must be explained accordingly. If immersion is described in one case, so is emersion in the other, but with equal reference, as before, to both the persons. If, on the other hand, they went down into the water, only so far as to stand in it, then their coming up out of the water means no more than that they ceased to stand there, whether the up and down have reference to the bank or to the chariot. The Spirit of the Lord cannot possibly mean less than a special divine influence exerted upon Philip's movements; nor is there any good ground for denying that it means a divine person. (See above, on 1:5, and compare v. 29.) Caught away is often applied elsewhere to corporeal seizure (John 6:15; 10:12; Acts 23:10; 1 Th. 4:17; Rev. 12:5), though sometimes with a figurative application (Matt. 11:12; 13:19; John 10:28, 29; Jude 23), and in one case with unquestionable reference to a supernatural or spiritual rapture, "whether in the body or out of the body," he who experienced it could not tell (2 Cor. 12:2, 4.) But it is never applied elsewhere to mere mental impulse, and has therefore been most commonly here understood of a miraculous removal of Philip from the place where he had just baptized the Eunuch, and of course from the sight of the Eunuch himself. Some deny, however, that the words necessarily denote more than the hurrying of Philip away by a divine communication, without any miraculous disappearance or passage through the air. That the Eunuch saw him no more, is Tyndale's inexact construction, implying that the reason of his seeing him no more was his having been miraculously snatched away; whereas the meaning of the Greek is, and the Eunuch saw him no more, for another reason, stated in the next clause. And he went, another inexact translation from the same source, the correct one being, for he went. The reason, therefore, given in the text for Philip's being seen no more by the Eunuch, is not the Spirit's catching him away, but the Eunuch's going on his way rejoicing. The sequence thus suggested by the Greek words or a close translation is, that the Spirit hurried Philip from the spot, and the Eunuch saw him no more, neither searching nor waiting for him, but proceeding on his own way homeward, too much absorbed in the joy of his conversion to think even of the instrument by whom it was effected. For a similar effect of an analogous cause, though not the same precisely, see above, on 1:11, 12. In the case before us, the miraculous vanishing of Philip, if affirmed, must not be made to rest on an inexact translation.

40. No stress is to be laid upon the but, which is the usual continuative particle (δέ), and might as well have been translated and, as it is in vs. 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 39. Was found seems certainly to favour the conclusion that the separation between Philip and the Eunuch was produced in some extraordinary way. Those who deny this understand it to mean merely that he was there, or was present there, for which the usual equivalent in Hebrew is the passive of the verb to find. This analogy, however, is entirely insufficient to explain the use of an expression so significant in this connection. And even if we take it in the stronger sense of being next seen in Azotus, this at once suggests that he had reached that place in some extraordinary manner. There is therefore a presumption, although not conclusive evidence, in favour of this ancient and most prevalent interpretation. Azotus is the Greek or Latin form of Ashdod, one of the five capitals of the Philistines (Josh. 13:3, 1 Sam. 5:1, 4, 6), belonging nominally to the tribe of Judah (Josh. 15:47.) It is still in existence as an unimportant village, under the slightly altered name of Esdud. Here Philip seems to have resumed his missionary labours, either because, as some suppose, he was transported thither through the air, or because the country between Ashdod and the place where he had left the Eunuch was a wilderness, affording no opportunity of preaching. Passing through, or coming through, is rendered in the older English versions (Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva), and he walked throughout the country, i. e. the country between Azotus and Cesarea. This last is not the Cesarea mentioned in the Gospels (Matt. 16:12; Mark 8:27), but an ancient seaport on the Mediterranean, formerly called Straton's Tower, rebuilt and beautified by Herod the Great, and named by him in honour of Augustus. Josephus calls it one of the great towns of Palestine, chiefly inhabited by Greeks. It was here the Roman governors resided after Judea had been taken from the Herods and annexed to Syria. (See below, on 9:30.) To this important city Philip's course was now directed, at the end of a missionary tour, the length of which we have no means of determining. We only know that passing through (the intervening country) he preached in all the cities, or retaining the original expression, he evangelized them all, by publishing the good news of salvation. That Cesarea now became his permanent abode, or at least the centre of his operations, although not expressly stated, is extremely probable, because in the only other place where he is again mentioned, he is not only still at Cesarea, but surrounded by a family of adult children. (See below, on 21:8, 9.)

CHAPTER 9

THIS division of the text contains two narratives, both relating to the spread of the church after the martyrdom of Stephen, but entirely distinct from one another, and rather parallel than successive. The first (1–30) records the conversion of Saul, his early ministry, and subsequent return to his own country; the second (31–43) a visitation of the churches in Judea by Peter, during which he performed two signal miracles at Lydda and Joppa. These accounts, though thrown into a single chapter, are not to be read as one continued narrative, but rather as the record of two independent radiations from a common centre; the historian, at the close of the first, reverting to the point from which he had set out, to wit, the death of Stephen, the ensuing persecution, and the consequent dispersion of the church from Jerusalem in various directions. While the two parts of this chapter must be thus distinguished, the second (31–43) is connected, in the closest manner, with the narrative contained in Chapter 10, and in the first eighteen verses of Chapter 11, the subject of which narrative is the conversion of Cornelius, or rather the reception of the first Gentile convert into the church, without first passing through the vestibule of Judaism. To this important portion of the apostolical history, the latter part of the chapter now before us is directly introductory. A due regard to this relation of the chapters will not only show how injudicious the division often is, but aid the reader in obtaining a clear view of the historian's design and method, which may otherwise seem dark and doubtful.

1. Yet or still connects what follows with the statement in 8:1, to which point the narrative goes back, so that what intervenes may possibly have happened at the same time with the events about to be recorded. As if he had said, 'While Philip was thus occupied, Paul was still persecuting the disciples.' (See above, on 8:4, and below, on v. 31.) Breathing out, or more exactly, breathing in, inhaling, i. e. as some explain it, living in an atmosphere of rage and murder; or, according to others, simply breathing, as the verb often means in classic Greek, the idea of expiration being then implied, though not expressed, with an allusion to the panting or snorting of wild beasts, or to flowers breathing odour. The Peshito renders the word full, and some critics suppose a corresponding Greek word, not unlike in form, to be the correct reading (ἔμπλεως for ἐμπνέων.) But no such change is either authorized or needed, as the common text conveys a strong and suitable, though somewhat indefinite idea, namely, that of passionate excitement outwardly exhibited in word and deed, i. e. by threatening, (not threatenings, as in all the English versions) and murder, either actual or meditated and intended. The disciples of the Lord, those who acknowledged the authority of Christ as their Master, in the twofold sense of an instructor and a sovereign. Went, literally, going, of his own accord, a strong proof of his sincerity and zeal. To the High Priest, the acknowledged head and representative of the theocracy, particularly since the abolition or suspension of the prophetical and regal offices in Israel. Who was High Priest at this time, can only be conjectured, as the time itself is far from being certain, the opinions of interpreters ranging through a period of ten years (from A.D. 31 to 41.) This uncertainty, however, has no more effect upon the clearness of the history than the similar question with respect to the nativity of Christ. Caiaphas, under whom our Lord was put to death, appears to have remained in office till the Passover of the year 37, when he was removed by Vitellius, the Proconsul of Syria, to whose province Judea was attached, and his place filled, first by Jonathan, and after a few weeks by Theophilus (see above, on 1:1) who held it till he was displaced by Agrippa, A.D. 41. Both these were sons, as Caiaphas was son-in-law, of Ananus or Annas. One of them is probably the High Priest to whom Paul went on this occasion, as recorded here and afterwards acknowledged by himself, with an appeal to the High Priest and Elders, as witnesses of what he said. (See below, on 22:5.)

2. The sentence is completed from the first verse. Desired, literally, asked, but in the middle voice, meaning asked for himself, or as a favour, showing his forwardness and zeal in persecution. (See above, on 3:14; 7:46.) Of him, literally, from him, not in his private but official capacity. Letters, like the Latin literae, may mean a single letter; but this construction is unnecessary, as synagogues is in the plural. With respect to these bodies, see above, on 6:9. Those in foreign parts had probably more of a distinct organization. The power of the High Priest over these societies was merely moral and ecclesiastical, but not on that account less real, as we may learn from that of the Pope in many Christian countries. Damascus is perhaps the oldest city in the world, being mentioned in the history of Abraham (Gen. 14:15; 15:2.) It was afterwards the capital of a kingdom, which appears to have been raised up as a rival and a scourge to that of the ten tribes, with which it was destroyed by the Assyrians. (1 Kings 11:23–25; 2 Kings 16:9.) The city, however, still retained its importance, and is flourishing to this day. It is finely situated in a fertile plain, between the mountain-chains of Libanus and Anti-Libanus, at a point where several of the great caravan routes come together. The Jewish population of the place was very large, Josephus saying that ten thousand Jews were massacred there at one time under Nero. The gospel may have been carried thither after the day of Pentecost or the death of Stephen. If he found any seems to imply a doubt, but according to Greek usage may mean, whomsoever he there found. Of this way, literally, of the way, i. e. the new way of life and way of salvation. (See above, on 5:41.) The original expression is, of this way being, which last word is omitted in the English versions or connected with what follows, whether they were men or women. But the Greek construction is, of this way being, both men and women. (See above, on 8:3, 12.) Bound, either literally tied, chained, or metaphorically, under arrest, in custody. In the absence of any reason to the contrary, the first is entitled to the preference. This commission seems to imply the connivance of the Roman government, so that the same conspiracy of Jews and Gentiles, which put Christ to death, (4:27) pursued his followers even into foreign parts.

3. As he journeyed, literally, in the journeying, in the very act of going forward. He came near, literally, it happened (came to pass) that he drew near, or approached. The omission of the first verb is confined to the authorized version; the older ones have chanced, fortuned, or befell. Shined, or more exactly, flashed around him, the Greek verb being properly applied to lightning. It is not, however, a mere flash of lightning that is here described, but a continued light from heaven, illuminating the place for some time. A light, or more simply and emphatically, light, without the article. From heaven not only indicates the apparent or visible direction, but implies the supernatural or celestial source of the illumination. (See above, on 2:2.)

4. The impression on the sense of sight is followed by one upon the sense of hearing. Fell, literally, falling or having fallen. Saul is here written in the proper Hebrew form, which agrees exactly with the statement elsewhere, that the voice addressed him in the Hebrew tongue (see above, on 7:58, and below, on 26:14.) The repetition of the name adds solemnity and earnestness. (Compare Luke 10:41; 13:25; 22:31.)

5. Lord, not Sir, which would, in this connection, be incongruous. He seems to have some suspicion of the truth, or at least to be aware that he is in communication with some superhuman being. The Lord, i. e. the person whom he had thus addressed, and who was really the Lord Jesus Christ. I am Jesus (that Jesus) whom thou persecutest, or art persecuting. He thus identifies himself with his people, not as an aggregate body merely, but as individuals, according to the principle which he had formerly laid down, when teaching his disciples how they might indulge their feelings of attachment to him, even in his absence. "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." (Matt. 25:40) The situation here described may be compared to that of Balaam, when the Angel of the Lord said, "I have come out to withstand thee, because thy way is perverse before me." (Numb. 22:32.) There is also a resemblance to the incident recorded in John 18:4–6, where our Saviour says to those who came forth to arrest him, "Whom seek ye? They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. As soon as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward and fell to the ground." Common to both scenes, although not in the same order, is the sudden and violent prostration, and the solemn recognition of the Saviour's person. It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, is found in no Greek manuscript at this place, but in several old versions, and is now commonly agreed to be an interpolation from 26:14 below. It owes its origin, no doubt, to the practice of the ancient copyists, in making parallel passages complete each other. Nothing of course is lost by its exclusion from the verse before us, into which it seems to have been first introduced by Erasmus. The clause itself is a proverbial one, of frequent occurrence in the Greek and Latin classics, being found in Pindar, Æschylus, Euripides, Plautus, and Terence. Hard, not difficult but painful, dangerous; not hard to do, but hard to bear. Pricks, i. e. sharp points, specially applied to the stings of insects, and to the goads or pointed staves employed in driving. The idea meant to be conveyed is not merely that of vain resistance to the irresistible, but that of a resistance which incurs new injury or suffering. 'Cease thy vain resistance to my will and power, which can only render thee worse and thy condition more deplorable.' The sentence has no bearing on the doctrine of irresistible grace. It was not grace which Saul had been resisting, but authority and evidence. The first effect of grace was to subdue him.

6. In all Greek manuscripts this verse begins with the word arise, and is a direct continuation of the previous address. The case is different, however, from that of the supposed interpolation in v. 5. There, the insertion of the words can be accounted for, by assimilation to another passage. Here, the inserted words are such as occur nowhere else, which makes it harder to account for their insertion, unless they existed in the oldest copies, now no longer extant. Their genuineness is also favoured by their appropriateness or congruity, and the absence of any thing to cause suspicion of a later forgery. The effect produced on Saul himself (trembling and astonished) is just what might have been expected, and the question put into his mouth (Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?) has been a formula of pious resignation and devotion for a course of ages. On the Other hand, the absence of the words in all Greek copies, and their various forms in versions and quotations, have led some of the most cautious critics to regard them as a paraphrastic gloss.

7. Those journeying with him, his fellow-travellers, perhaps a caravan which he had joined, but possibly soldiers or officers of justice, who attended him to aid in the execution of his commission. Stood, i. e. stood still, stopped, as opposed to going forward, not to sitting down or lying prostrate. (See below, on 26:14.) If we give the verb its strict pluperfect sense (see above, on 1:10), the idea is that they had stopped or stood still when they saw the light, although they afterwards fell prostrate. Speechless, a word used in the classics to denote those deaf and dumb. (See the Septuagint version of Isaiah 56:10, and compare that of Prov. 17:28.) No man, no one, nobody; see above, on 4:35.

8. The first indication of a moral change is that afforded by Saul's childlike obedience to the voice of his new master. Arose, or more exactly, was aroused or raised, implying passive rather than active obedience, and perhaps that he was in a kind of trance or waking-dream, but not that the incidents recorded were imaginary; for they were witnessed by others as well as by himself. When his eyes were opened does not mean merely, after he had opened them, but even when his eyes were open. Saw no one, does not mean merely, as in v. 7, that the speaker was invisible, but that Saul could see no one whatever, being blind. Led him by the hand is one compound verb in Greek, which might be rendered hand-led (compare calf-made in 7:41), and is used by Anacreon and other classics, with particular reference to blindness. They led may either be indefinitely construed as equivalent to the passive form in 22:11, or referred to the men of the preceding verse, who are expressly represented as the agents, in the parallel account just cited. Into Damascus may imply proximity; but see the same phrase in v. 2 above. Local tradition still identifies the scene of this transaction at a bridge not far from the city. The contrast between Saul's designed and actual entrance into Damascus, though susceptible of very high rhetorical embellishment, is left by the historian, with characteristic moderation and simplicity, to the imagination of the reader.

9. The physical effect of this event was to be neither permanent nor momentary. He was not merely dazzled for an instant, nor was he blinded for the rest of life; but he was three days without sight (literally, not seeing.) Ate not neither drank, expresses total abstinence; nor is there any reason for extenuating the expression. According to the Jewish mode of computation, the three days may either have been three whole days, or one whole day and portions of two others. The fast or abstinence itself has been variously understood, as a natural expression of Saul's penitence and grief; or as a medicinal appliance for the restoration of his sight; or as the spontaneous effect of his abstraction from his ordinary thoughts and occupations, and his absorption in the care of his salvation. (See below, on 27:21, 33.) Three days some suppose to have been chosen, in allusion to the history of Jonah, or to our Saviour's burial. (See Jon. 1:17; Matt. 12:39, 40.)

10. As a new character is here introduced, the first words might be translated now there was. A disciple, i. e. of Christ, a believer, a converted Jew, as we know from ch. 22:12. A certain disciple, see above, on 5:1. In Damascus, where he may have taken refuge from the persecution at Jerusalem (8:1), as it is not probable that all who fled remained within the limits of the Holy Land. It is equally possible, however, that he may have been a native of Damascus, or a Jew residing there, but present in the Holy City on the day of Pentecost; or afterwards converted by the agency of some one who had witnessed the effusion of the Holy spirit, or been driven into exile on the death of Stephen. He is not here mentioned as the sole disciple in Damascus; and we know from v. 14 below, that there were others. Named (literally, by name) Ananias, precisely as in 5:1. (See also, 23:2; 24:1.) The Lord, i. e. the Lord Jesus, as in v. 5. In a vision, either in the wide sense of a revelation, a divine communication, or in the strict sense of a divine or preternatural appearance. (See below, v. 12, and compare 7:31; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9; 16:9, 10; 18:9.) Said in a vision does not necessarily imply that there was only a verbal revelation, but rather that the words were uttered by a visible speaker. Behold me (Wicl. lo, I) is a close translation of the usual response in Hebrew to a call by name, equivalent to saying see me, but usually rendered in the English Bible, Behold I am here (as in Gen. 22:1, 27), but sometimes simply, here am I (as in Gen. 22:11), although the idea thus omitted is the one really expressed, that of presence being only implied. When addressed to a superior, this formula suggests the accessory idea of readiness for service, or of promptness to obey.

11. The particle at the beginning is the same as in v. 10, and might here be rendered so or then. There is no need of assuming a grammatical ellipsis of the verb said. It is rather an abbreviated formula like the names prefixed to the parts in a dramatic dialogue. Arising go is not an unmeaning pleonasm, but either a command to address himself to action (see above, on 8:26, 27), or still more probably, a literal command to stand up or arise, i. e. from sleep or out of bed, if the vision was a dream, as in many other cases. Arising go, go away, depart, implying not mere motion, but entire change of place. (See above, on 1:10, 11, 25; 5:20, 41; 8:26, 27, 36, 39; 9:3.) Street, a Greek word corresponding to the Latin vicus, and denoting properly a lane or alley, as opposed to a wide street or broad way. (See above, on 5:15.) This is the only street named in the New Testament, and by a curious coincidence, if nothing more, Damascus still exhibits what is rare in oriental towns, a long straight street, running through its whole length from east to west, and probably marking the direction of the one to which Ananias was commissioned. Inquire, literally, seek, as in all the older English versions. The house is more definite than the original, which strictly means a house of Judas, i. e. a house belonging to one Judas, who seems to be referred to as a person quite unknown to Ananias, although some consider it more probable that Judas was a Christian or converted Jew. It is no less probable, however, that he was an old friend or acquaintance, or his house one of public entertainment, or that Saul had made arrangements to reside with him before his actual arrival. Judas, Jude, or Judah, being a national name, was still more common than Ananias, there being four of that name mentioned in this book, besides several others in the Gospels. (See 1:13; 5:37; 15:32, and compare Matt. 1:2, 3; Luke 3:26, 30; Mark 6:3; John 6:71; 14:22.) One called Saul of Tarsus, literally, Saul by name, a Tarsean, i. e. a Tarsean named Saul. Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, the southeastern province of Asia Minor, described by Xenophon as a great and flourishing city, and by Strabo as a seat of science equal or superior to Alexandria and Athens. Even allowing this to be extravagant, the truth which it exaggerates must be sufficient to evince that Paul's advantages or opportunities of early education were among the best afforded by the Roman Empire or Augustan Age, and to explain the frequent indications, in his writings and discourses, of familiarity with classical literature. Behold, or lo, as usual, introduces something strange and unexpected. He prayeth (or is praying) is not given as a proof that he would now be found at home; but either means that he was asking for the very thing about to be bestowed; or is descriptive of conversion, as in modern phrase a convert is often represented as a praying man. After his three days' struggle he begins to pray, which shows that he is ripe for restoration to his eyesight, and admission to the church by Christian baptism.

12. Some make this the beginning of a new sentence, containing a remark of the historian, that while Ananias was receiving this command, Saul saw it executed in a vision. But the only natural interpretation is the obvious and common one, which makes this a direct continuation of the reason given in the end of the preceding verse, why he should go in search of Saul; for lo he prayeth, and hath seen in vision a man named (literally, by name) Ananias. The whole vision being supernatural, the name could be as readily suggested as the rest. How often, in our ordinary dreams, do we seem to be aware, not only of a person's looks, but of his name and character. This expression seems to decide the question, whether Saul and Ananias were before acquainted; for if that had been the case, the natural expression would be, and hath seen thee, not a man named Ananias, which can only mean, without a forced construction, that he saw a man whom he had never seen before, but whom he knew at once to be named Ananias. The coincidence of two distinct communications, at or near the same time, and for the same purpose, but to different persons, while it served to prepare them for a subsequent meeting, tended also to preclude the supposition of an accident or mere imagination, which, though possible in one case, could not well occur in two, without a supernatural occasion and direction. Another instance of the same thing is afforded by the visions of Peter and Cornelius in the following chapter.

13. It is a curious thought of Chrysostom, that this commission was intrusted to one otherwise unknown, that there might be no pretext for asserting Paul's apostleship to be dependent upon human teaching. This obscurity of Ananias makes it more surprising that, instead of catching at the offered honour, he declined it, or at least suggested difficulties which might serve as an excuse for doing so. It is worthy of remark how often this kind of resistance, on the part of God's most honoured instruments, occurs in Scripture. The most striking instances are those of Moses (Ex. 3:11, 13; 4:1, 10, 13) and Jeremiah (1:6.) The motive of refusal, in the case before us, has been variously understood to be the fear of personal injury from Saul, which is absurd, since he had just been described to him as blind and praying; or indignation and a wounded sense of justice, that this cruel persecutor should be made the object of divine compassion, and himself the channel of communication (compare Jon. 4:1–11); or, more probably than either, incredulity, a real incapacity to credit what he heard, or to believe that such a change was possible. Thus understood, the spirit of his answer is not, as an old Greek commentator paraphrases it—'See to whom thou art betraying me; I fear lest he take me to Jerusalem; why dost thou put me in the lion's mouth?'—but rather, 'Can it be that this arch-bigot and fanatic is approachable by me on such an errand?' As in other cases of the same kind, the resistance shows a childlike candor and simplicity, as well as confidential intercourse between the servant and the master. By many, literally, from many, i. e. many years, as some explain it, which, according to Greek usage, means, for many years (or for a long time) past. But the obvious construction supplies men or persons, as the sources of his information. This implies an interval of some length since the beginning of the persecution, and a considerable emigration of the exiles to Damascus, unless we suppose Ananias to have heard the news from others, or in other places. Of (about, concerning) this man is perhaps contemptuous. (See above, on 4:10; 6:14; 7:40.) How much evil, literally, how many (or how great) evils. See above, on 2:39; 3:22, 24; 4:6, 23, 28, 34; 5:36, 37.) He hath done, or adhering to the strict sense of the aorist, he did, i. e. before he came here. Saints, or holy ones, is here used for the first time to describe disciples or believers. It is still disputed which of the two leading senses of the Greek word, and the corresponding Hebrew one, is the original, and which the secondary meaning, intrinsically pure and free from taint, or separated, set apart to sacred uses. But in both these senses it may be applied to Christians; as a consecrated or peculiar people, and as such required to be personally holy, or as actually sanctified, at least in part. Thus Christ himself is called "the Holy One of God" (Mark 1:24), "whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world" (John 10:36.) Thus too his followers are called "the sanctified" (20:32) and "saints," not only here and in vs. 32, 41 below, but in the formal titles or original inscriptions of several apostolical epistles (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph 1:1; Phil. 1:1; Col. 1:1.) The derisive use of the word "saints" by irreligious men, as an ironical description of believers, rests on the false idea that it involves a claim to perfect holiness; whereas, even giving it the strongest sense, as an expression of intrinsic quality, it is descriptive, not of what God's people claim to be already, but of what they ought to be, and hope to be hereafter.

14. And (even) here, in Syria, in Damascus, in this foreign city. This seems to be expressive of surprise at Saul's far-reaching zeal, which could not be content to spend itself at home. (See below, on 26:11.) The Greek adverb (ὥδε) in classical usage has the sense of so or thus, but the local sense of here is common in the later writers, and found by some philologists even in Herodotus and Homer. Authority, delegated right and power; see above, on 8:19. Chief priests, see above, on 4:23; 5:24. To bind, arrest, imprison; see above, on v. 2. All that call on thy name, not those who are called (or call themselves) by thy name, which would be otherwise expressed, as in ch. 15:17 below; but those who invoke thee, call upon thee for help and protection, and recognize thee as an object of worship. This is the true sense of the phrase in Greek as well as Hebrew, and may be distinctly traced in the usage of both Testaments. (See above, on 2:21; 7:59, and compare the Septuagint version of Gen. 13:4; Deut. 32:3; Ps. 98:6; Joel 3:5.) In answer to the question, how Ananias knew the fact here stated, some suppose that he had learned it from the Christians of Jerusalem, to whom the plans of so fanatical an enemy could scarcely be unknown. Others object that there was not sufficient time or frequency of intercourse between Damascus and Jerusalem, to render such communication possible; but this is mere conjecture. It is no less probable, however, and perhaps the simplest supposition, that the object of Saul's journey was divulged by his companions, especially if they were associated with him in his work of persecution, but unable or unwilling to pursue it after the defection of their leader.

15. His objection is entirely disregarded, and the command emphatically repeated. Go thy way (in modern English, go away) is another form of the same verb that is used above in v. 11. 'Go where I have sent thee, without doubt or apprehension; for this man, hitherto known only as a persecutor of my people, is a chosen instrument or vessel, by whom and in whom my name and doctrine are to be conveyed and upheld, in the presence of nations and their kings, as well as of the chosen people.' Chosen vessel, literally, vessel of choice (compare Rom. 9:21–23; 2 Cor. 4:7; 2 Tim. 2:20, 21.) This idiom, although more common in Hebrew, is also found in classic Greek. The original noun (σκεῦος) corresponds both to instrument and vessel, or rather to utensil, or implement, including both. Unto me, not only chosen by me, but prepared for me and devoted to me. To bear, carry, the same verb that is used above in 3:2, and below in 15:10; 21:35, in all which cases it means not only to convey, but to support or hold up, both which ideas are appropriate in this figurative application. Saul was chosen and commissioned, not only to diffuse but to maintain the gospel. The idea of exalting, glorifying, here assumed by some, is not expressed by the Greek verb, but may be considered as implied in this connection. Before nations, or according to the latest critics, before both (τε) nations and kings, indefinitely spoken of as two great ranks or classes, before whom Saul was to act the dangerous but honourable part assigned him, as the "Apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom. 11:13), by way of eminence, but not exclusively, a qualification here suggested by the last words of the verse, and (also before) the children of Israel, considered as the ancient church or chosen people. As to the fulfilment of this promise, see below on vs. 20–22; 13:46; 25:23; 26:32; 27:24; 28:17. Rom. 11:13; 15:16; Gal. 2:8, 2 Tim. 4:16, 17.

16. The for has reference to something intermediate, implied but not expressed. Some suppose it to be 'fear not,' or 'fear nothing further at his hands;' but see above, on v. 13. The connecting thought may be, 'nor is he to be merely active in my service, but passive also.' The persecuting days of Saul were over, and the tables were now turned. He who had hitherto made others suffer for the truth, was now to suffer for it in his turn. There is an exquisite mixture of severity and tenderness in this disclosure; of severity in sentencing this "chosen vessel" to endure as well as labour; of tenderness in intimating that this purpose, though explicitly declared to Ananias, was to be more gradually made known to the sufferer himself. I will show him is in Greek a most expressive phrase, meaning, I will partly show him, or begin to show him, I am giving him a glimpse of what he is to suffer. The pronoun has more emphasis in the original, and may perhaps mean, I and not thou, i. e. do thy part, as it has been assigned to thee, and I will do mine, by disclosing to him what he is to suffer. How great (Genev. how many) things seems to be an allusion to how great (or how many) evils in v. 13, although the antithesis is obscured in English by the needless variation of the version. The sense may then be, 'Think no more how much suffering he has caused, for I am now about to show him how much he is to suffer in his turn.' For my name, for the sake of that religion and that master, whom he lately persecuted, even unto death (see above, on v. 2, and below, on 22:4.) All this was to be shown to Saul, not merely in a providential way or by experience, but by prophetic intimations, such as those recorded in 20:23 and 21:11. (See also 1 Cor. 15:30–32; 2 Cor. 1:8–10; 4:8–12; 6:5; 11:23–28; 12:10.)

17. Being satisfied by the divine assurance that the persecutor of the new religion had himself embraced it, Ananias now accepts and executes his singular commission. Went his way, i. e. went away, the strict translation of the Greek verb, which is not the same as that in v. 16. Another compound form of the same simple verb is that translated entered. Then went away Ananias and went in. The house, i. e. the house of Judas, spoken of in v. 11, and therefore definitely mentioned here, as something already known to the reader. This implies that he had previously sought for it, as commanded in v. 11. Imposing upon him the hands, as the Apostles did in Samaria, but with a solemn declaration of the authority by which he did it. Brother Saul, in Greek (and Wiclif's version) Saul (my) brother, by which address he recognizes him, not only as a fellow man, but as a fellow Jew, and, at least prospectively, a fellow Christian. The Lord hath sent me; this was his commission. The Lord, as in vs. 10, 11, 13, 15. It is here explained by Ananias himself, as meaning the Lord Jesus, that very Jesus who had appeared to (or been seen by) him (see above, on 2:3; 7:2, 26, 30, 35.) As thou camest, literally, which thou camest, i. e. to Damascus. (See above, on v. 3.) Appeared, i. e. as some explain it, revealed himself, declared his will, communicated with thee; while others regard it as a proof, that Saul saw the person of Christ, as well as heard his voice (v. 4). It is said indeed that he saw no one; but this might mean that Christ had vanished; or rather, that after Saul arose, he could see no one, having lost his sight. That Paul did literally see Christ after his ascension, he affirms himself in one of his epistles (1 Cor. 15:8), where the context relates, not merely to divine communications, but to actual appearances of the Lord's body. And if Paul saw him only once, it was most probably at this time; so that the strict interpretation of the words of Ananias (the one seen by thee) is, on the whole, entitled to the preference. The design of his commission is described as twofold, outward and inward, bodily and spiritual. The physical effect was to be the restoration of sight. The Greek verb primarily means to look up (as in 22:13 below, and in Matt. 14:19; Mark 6:41; 7:34; 8:24; 16:4; Luke 9:16), but is used by Xenophon in the sense of opening the eyes again, and by Herodotus and Plato in that of recovering the sight, which is its common usage in the Gospels, even in speaking of one born blind (John 9:11; 15:18.) The other effect was, that he might be filled with the Holy Ghost, a stronger expression than receive the Holy Ghost (John 20:22; Acts 8:15, 17, 19; compare 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:3, 5, 7, 15.) It is therefore the more worthy of remark, that the instrumental agency employed was the imposition of the hands of one whom we do not even know to have been a deacon or evangelist like Philip, much less an apostle. This makes it still less probable that Peter and John were sent down to Samaria simply because Philip could not give the Holy Spirit (see above, on 8:15–17.) That gift was so peculiarly divine, that the external medium was comparatively unimportant.

18. The declaration of the purpose for which Ananias came is followed by the record of its instantaneous accomplishment, which, with the express divine command, shuts out the idea of a natural cure. As it had been (literally as if, see above, on 2:3; 6:15) is understood by some to mean, that Saul's sensations were like those which would have been produced by the falling of scales from his eyes; but as it is expressly said that something fell, the only question is whether it was scales or something like scales; and this is a point of no importance. The Greek word is applied, not only to the scales of fish but to egg-shells, and the rind or husk of plants, and even to metallic flakes or laminæ. Received sight, saw again, or looked up, as in v. 17. Forthwith, on the spot, the same word that is used above, in 3:7; 5:10. Only the bodily effect is explicitly recorded; but the other is implied, so that few readers probably observe the omission. As Saul had no doubt been looking forward to the restoration of his sight, as a final attestation of the truth or reality of what he had experienced, and consequently of the divine favour towards him and divine will respecting him, it put an end to his suspense, and rising (from his previous prostration and inaction) he was baptized, a sign both of his initiation into the Christian church, and of that spiritual renovation, without which mere external membership must be for ever worse than unavailing.

19. As Saul's preternatural condition was now ended, he was once more dependent upon natural and ordinary means for his subsistence. To mark this transition, we are told expressly that he broke his fast, and taking (or having taken) food, was strengthened, or retaining the active form of the original, became (or grew) strong. Then (or and, so, but) Saul was (or literally, Saul became, implying change of character, as well as of relations) with the disciples, i. e. avowedly a member of their body. He did not simply continue with them, but became something to them that he had not been before. This implies, not only that there were disciples there besides Ananias (see above, on vs. 2, 14), but also the existence of an organized body, of which Paul now publicly avowed himself a member, and became, as stated in the next verse, a zealous and successful minister. Certain days, in modern English some days, an indefinite expression, suggestive of a smaller rather than a greater number. Some, however, understand it as including the three years preceding his return to Jerusalem after his conversion (Gal. 1:18), while others introduce them between vs. 19, 20, or under the many days of v. 23, or after v. 24. This variation shows that the narrative itself does not contain sufficient data for the solution of the question, which may for that very reason be regarded as more curious than important.

20. Straightway (or immediately, as the same word is translated in v. 18), i. e. without ceremonious delay or human instruction, but as soon as he had been baptized and relieved of his bodily infirmity. This verse relates not to the end but the beginning of the "certain days." In the synagogues, implying a plurality, as in v. 2; but see above, on 6:9. This fact and the license given, even to strangers, to address the people (see below, on 13:15), made the synagogues important means of access, not to the Jews alone, but to the more devout and serious Gentiles, who were often present at the Jewish worship, and appear to have regarded it with great curiosity, and often with an interest still deeper. Preached, in its primary sense, proclaimed or heralded, an idea not conveyed exactly by the first word, on account of its official and professional associations. The imperfect tense in Greek implies repeated or continued acts. He did not merely preach once, but was wont, accustomed, used to preach. Christ (the Messiah) was the subject of his preaching, and the doctrine which he taught was, that the promised Prophet, Priest, and King of Israel, foretold in the Old Testament, was to be a divine person. The reading adopted by the latest critics (Jesus for Christ) only makes the doctrine more specific by applying it, not merely to the office, but to the person, of the true Messiah. The Son of God, i. e. a partaker of his nature, a divine being. Some give the phrase a lower sense, as merely meaning the Messiah; but this confounds it with the Son of Man (see above, on 7:56), and the subject of the sentence with its predicate.

21. And amazed (2:7, 12; 8:13) were all those hearing, the natural effect of a change so sudden and complete. And said, as Chrysostom observes, not to Saul himself whom they were afraid or ashamed to question, but to themselves or one another. The interrogation (is not this) implies a wonder rising almost to incredulity, as if they had said, 'No, this surely cannot be the same.' Destroyed, literally, wasted, desolated, like an enemy in war, a different word from that in 8:3, but the same with that twice used by Paul himself, in speaking of this very subject. (See Gal. 1:13, 23, where the English version needlessly employs two different verbs in translating the same Greek one.) Those invoking this name, i. e. in their prayers or worship, which had now become a distinctive mark, and therefore an expressive designation, of all believers or disciples. (See above, on 2:21; 7:59; 9:14.) And hither, to Damascus; see above, on v. 14. Came, or according to the common text, had come, i. e. before this amazing change, implying that he had abandoned his design. For that intent, literally, for this, i. e. for this same purpose; an aggravating circumstance before alluded to, that Saul, not satisfied with persecuting the church at home, had volunteered to persecute it in Damascus. (See above, on v. 2, and below, on 26:11.) Bound, as in vs. 2:14.) To the chief priests, i. e. to their bar or judgment-seat, before the Sanhedrim, of which they were the leading members. (See above, on 4:23; 5:24; 9:14.)

22. The more, in English, means that this effect was promoted by the very wonder just described; but the original expression simply means still more, or more and more, i. e. the more he preached the greater was his power and success. Increased in strength, literally, was strengthened, or made powerful, a fevourite verb of Paul's. (See Rom. 4:20; Eph. 6:10; Phil. 4:13; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 2:1; Heb. 11:34, and compare the uncompounded form in Col. 1:11.) He increased not only in the strength of his convictions, but in the force of his defence and in the power of his persuasion. By some this clause is strangely understood as an allusion to Saul's sojourn in Arabia, as a time of intellectual and spiritual discipline, designed to strengthen him for after service. This would never have occurred to any reader, but for the supposed necessity of finder some allusion to that sojourn in this context, and the difficulty of determining at what point it shall be inserted (see above, on v. 19.) But without admitting ignorance on Luke's part, as to so important an event in the Apostle's life, the two accounts are perfectly consistent; and although the one before us would suggest to no mind the idea of his absence from Damascus, it contains nothing in the least at variance with that idea when suggested otherwise. All that is here expressed, however, relates directly to the time when he resided there, and makes a strong impression, not only of his diligence and courage in his new vocation, but of his success. It was not merely wonder that his public appearance in behalf of Christ excited. All were amazed (v. 21), and the Jews were confounded, a verb properly expressive of mixture by pouring together, but metaphorically applied to mental confusion, mingling and bewildering the thoughts, so as to prevent all clear perception and conclusive reasoning. Proving, literally, putting together or combining, i. e. various proofs and arguments, or prophecies with their fulfilment. The Greek verb is confined to Luke and Paul, who employ it in several different shades of meaning (see below, 16:10; 19:33; 1 Cor. 2:16), besides the primary and strict one (Eph. 4:16; Col. 2:2, 19.) Very Christ, in Greek simply the Christ.

23. As days enough were filled, or being filled, an indefinite expression, which appears to be deliberately chosen, as best adapted to convey the knowledge which was meant to be imparted, and which no speculation or conjecture can make more determinate. (See above, on 7:23, 30, and compare 2:1, and Luke 9:51.) Took counsel, or consulted, deliberated, plotted together. The idea of concert and collusion is expressed by the compound form; the simple verb occurs above, in 5:33, followed by the one here rendered kill, and there slay. (See, also, 2:23; 5:36; 7:28.)

24. But, as in vs. 21, 22, or and, as in v. 23. Laying await, in some editions laying wait, in modern English lying in wait. The simple meaning of the Greek, however, is conspiracy or plot. (Compare the kindred verb in v. 23.) Known of Saul, i. e. known by him, or made known to him (see below, on 23:16), either by report or by divine communication. They watched, or more exactly, they were watching, i. e. when the incident recorded in the next verse happened. As if he had said, 'while they were actually watching the gates of the city, to seize him as he went out, he escaped in another way.' Day and night, not necessarily for many days and nights, perhaps for only one. It may mean simply that they watched the gates a whole day and night to seize him. We learn from the Apostle's own account in one of his epistles (2 Cor. 11:32), that it was "the governor (or ethnarch) under (literally, of) King Aretas (that) kept (guarded or garrisoned) the city (of the Damascenes, a phrase omitted in King James's Bible, though expressed in all the older English versions) wishing to seize me." The only contemporary Aretas known to history is a king of Arabia Petræa, resident at Petra, whose daughter had been repudiated by Herod Antipas, for the sake of his niece and sister-in-law, Herodias (Matt. 14:3; Mark 6:17; Luke 3:19.) This led to a war, in which Herod was defeated and his army destroyed. Vitellius, then governor of Syria, was ordered by Tiberius to help him; but while on his way to Petra, he received news of the emperor's death, and retired into winter quarters. It may have been during this inaction of the Roman forces, that Aretas gained possession of Damascus. This is at least more probable than that his deputy or viceroy simply happened to be there at the time; or that this ethnarch was a Jewish magistrate, appointed or confirmed by the Arabian king; or, most improbable of all, that Areta in Corinthians is the name of the ethnarch himself, 'Areta the ethnarch of the king,' i. e. of the Roman Emperor. The two accounts are perfectly consistent, and together teach us, that the agency of this Arabian chieftain in forbidding Saul's escape was instigated, if not purchased, by the Jews of Damascus.

25. Then, as in vs. 13:19. The disciples, or followers of Christ, who seem to be again referred to, both as numerous and as acting in concert or association. Some of them were no doubt Saul's own converts. Took him, taking him, or having taken him, by night relating equally to both words, a construction not so obvious in English. Taking may be a pleonastic expression, common in all languages, or may imply that some constraint was used by the disciples. By the wall, i. e. through the wall of the city, the strict sense of the Greek expressions (διὰ τοῦ τείχους), which are also used by Paul himself (2 Cor. 11:32), with the additional circumstance, that he was let down through a window, i. e. through the window of a house upon the city wall. (See Josh. 2:15, where the Septuagint version has the same Greek word for window.) The words translated basket in the parallel accounts are different, though no doubt interchangeable. By a curious coincidence, a similar diversity exists in the history of our Saviour's miraculously feeding the four and five thousand; the word for basket being different in all these cases. (See Matt. 16:9, 10, and compare the parallel passages.)

26 Being come, or having arrived, the same verb that is used in 5:21, and there explained. Assayed, tried, endeavoured, implying that he failed in his attempt. To join himself, the same verb as in 5:13. To the disciples, as a body, as a church, not merely to their families or persons. All feared him, not believing that he is a disciple, thinking it impossible that he, who had so lately persecuted Christ in his disciples, should now be himself a convert. See above, on v. 13, and for the present tense (he is) on 7:35. All may either mean all the individuals to whom he applied, or express the unanimous action of the church as such. This implies that Paul had not been constantly in public view since his conversion, and favours the opinion, that the greater part of the three years since that event had been passed in Arabia, and even there perhaps in retirement rather than in public labour.

27. From this embarrassing and mortifying situation Saul is freed by Barnabas, with whom the history has previously made us acquainted, as one of the earliest and most signal instances of liberality in the infant church. (See above, on 4:36, 37.) The same Cyprian Levite, whose conduct was before contrasted with the selfish ambition and hypocrisy of Ananias, is here seen acting a no less noble part in behalf of this suspected, not to say rejected convert. Though not affirmed, it seems to be implied, that they had no previous acquaintance with each other. Took him, either literally by the hand (as in 23:10; Mark 8:23; Heb. 8:9), or metaphorically, under his protection (as in Heb. 2:16), or more probably than either, in is company, along with him, as when one friend takes another, to present or introduce him to a third, which is exactly the idea here. To the Apostles, not to the disciples, or promiscuous body of believers, by whom he had already been repelled, but to the twelve, who had both the official right and the spiritual gift to determine his true character, and who, it should seem, had not yet been consulted, although some suppose them to have joined or acquiesced in Saul's rejection, until satisfied by Barnabas that he was a true convert. Declared (related, or detailed historically) to them, (not merely that but) how (i. e. in what manner, under what circumstances, including those of time and place) in the road (by the way, on his journey to Damascus), he saw the Lord (i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ, as in v. 17 above), and that (not how, as in the other case, but simply that) he talked to him (i. e. the Lord to Saul.) This was enough to settle the whole question. He to whom the ascended and exalted Saviour had appeared and spoken was fit company for any man. But more than this; the man thus signally distinguished by receiving the Lord's personal instructions, had proved faithful to his trust by manfully obeying them. In Damascus, in the very city whither he was going with authority to seize all believers, whether men or women (see above, on v. 2.) Preached boldly, or spoke freely, the verb corresponding to the noun used above in 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31, and there explained. In the name of Jesus, as his disciple, by his authority, and in assertion of his claims as the Messiah. (See above, on vs. 14, 15, 16, 21.) The two reasons for receiving Saul, suggested by this narrative of Barnabas, were, first, his miraculous conversion, and secondly, his ministerial fidelity; the one attested by the visible form and audible voice of his ascended Lord; the other by his public, plain, and fearless proclamation of that Lord, as his own Sovereign and Redeemer.

28. In consequence of this interposition, Saul was recognized by the Apostles, and in deference to their authority no doubt by the disciples also, as a convert and a minister, in which capacity he was (or continued) with them, not merely as a guest or a companion, but associated with them and taking part in their official labours. Coming in and going out, literally, going in and going out, a phrase synonymous though not identical with that employed in 1:21 (came in and came out) and there explained. In Jerusalem seems to be added, to remove all ambiguity and prevent the reader's taking this as a continuation of what Barnabas related of Saul's labours at Damascus, whereas it is Luke's record of his labours at Jerusalem.

29. Spake boldly (literally, speaking freely) is identical in Greek with the preached boldly of v. 27, and describes Saul as doing at Jerusalem precisely what he had done at Damascus. The construction of the words here is ambiguous, some manuscripts and printed copies joining them immediately with what precedes—'going in and going out at Jerusalem, and preaching boldly in the name of Jesus.' Others make them the beginning of another verse—'and preaching boldly in the name of Jesus, he both talked and disputed with the Grecians.' Both (τέ), not only discoursed in a didactic way, but reasoned and disputed. Against, literally, to or at, not in their absence or behind their backs, but in their presence, to their face. The Grecians, Hellenists, or foreign Jews (see above, on 6:1, and below, on 11:20), of whom Saul was himself one; the same class, and possibly some of the same persons, with whom Stephen had contended (6:9), and by whom he was destroyed. A similar effect was now produced upon them by the arguments of Saul. They went about, an old English phrase meaning sought, attempted, which is also used in the authorized version of John 7:10; Rom. 10:3, to express a verb which means to seek; whereas the one employed here means to take in hand or undertake, and is confined in the New Testament to Luke. (See below, on 19:13, and compare Luke 1:1.) To slay him, the same verb that is translated kill him, in v. 23.

30. But the brethren knowing (or discovering it), brought him down, &c. Which and when are both supplied by the translators. The brethren, followers of Christ, believers in the new religion, called the disciples in v. 25. It is worthy of remark how promptly and unitedly the brethren or disciples acted in both cases, not as individuals, but as a body, no doubt accustomed thus to act in concert. Brought him down, the usual expression in describing motion from the inland to the seacoast, or in any direction from the Holy City. (See above, on 7:15; 8:15, 26.) Cesarea here is not, as some suppose, Cesarea Philippi, near the sources of the Jordan, but the seaport of that name, where Philip was left at the close of the last chapter. (See above, on 8:40.) Sent him forth or off, or still more exactly, sent him out away, a favourite expression of our author (see above, on 7:12, and below, on 11:22; 12:11; 13:26; 17:14; 22:21, and compare Luke 1:53; 2:10, 11), the only other writer who employs it being Paul (Gal 4:4, 6.) It implies great distance, and is here applied no doubt to a voyage by sea. Tarsus, his native place, to which the history thus brings him back and for the present leaves him. (See above, on v. 11, and below, on 11:25.)

31. This is marked in some editions of the English Bible, and explained by some interpreters, as the conclusion of the narrative of Paul's conversion, and as meaning that in consequence of that event, the churches of Palestine enjoyed repose from persecution, and an opportunity as well of outward as of inward growth. But Paul was not the only persecutor; nor could his conversion, especially if it were the only case, immediately give peace to all the churches, or save himself from being persecuted afterwards. (See Gal. 5:11; Rom. 15:31.) Besides, his mission as a persecutor seems to have been limited to foreign cities (see above, on v. 2, and below, on 26:11), and its termination could not therefore have afforded peace to all the churches of the Holy Land. This erroneous view of the connection has arisen partly from the use of the word rest, implying previous suffering or disturbance, to translate a word which is always rendered peace, except in this book (see above, on 7:26, and below, on 24:2); and partly from the use of the word then, to represent a phrase which properly means so then, and marks the resumption of a narrative before interrupted. (See above, on 8:4, 25.) The point to which the writer here reverts is no doubt the dispersion consequent upon the death of Stephen. The verse is then introductory to a new subject, Peter's visitation of the churches after the first force of the persecution had been spent. Notwithstanding all that they suffered, the churches of Palestine were now highly prosperous. It is not necessarily implied that persecution had entirely ceased, nor need we assume a reference to the profanation of the temple by Caligula, as a reason for its ceasing. All that is here recorded is the growth and prosperity of the Jewish-Christian churches. What really implies that they were not now persecuted, is that Peter could be absent from Jerusalem. (See above, on 8:1.) Edified, i. e. built up, a favourite figure in the New Testament, not for mere numerical increase and outward organization, but for internal growth and spiritual progress (1 Cor. 8:1, 10, 10:23, 14:4, 17; 1 Thess. 5:11.) Walking, not merely in the sense of living, habitually acting, but in that of advancing, making progress. The fear of the Lord, the spirit and practice of the true religion, with special reference to fear in the restricted sense. Consolation, exhortation, or instruction (see above, on 4:36.) The Rhemish version (replenished with the consolation of the Holy Ghost), though not incompatible with classical usage, is at variance with that of the Hellenistic Greek, according to which the verb here used means only to multiply, in the active or passive sense. The construction is ambiguous, as we may either read, by the consolation of the Holy Ghost were multiplied, or, as in the common version, walking in the fear of the Lord and the consolation of the Holy Ghost, were multiplied. The essential meaning is the same in either case.

32. During this auspicious period of prosperity and growth in the infant churches of the Holy Land, an incident occurred, or came to pass, which was closely connected with subsequent events of great importance. This was a general visitation of the churches by the Apostle Peter, in the course of which, passing through all, i. e. through all parts of the country; or through all its cities; or through all the places where the church had been established; or, as some supply the ellipsis, through (i. e. among) all the saints, believers, or disciples in the Holy Land. (Compare the similar expressions used by Paul in 20:25, and Rom. 15:28.) In the course of this official journey, he came down (see above, on 8:15, 26), not only to a multitude of other places not here named, but also to the saints (see above, on v. 13) inhabiting Lydda. This was the Lod of the Old Testament, built or rebuilt after the return from Babylon (1 Chron. 8:12; Ezr. 2:33; Neh. 7:37; 11:35), and afterwards known by the Greek name of Diospolis. Here Richard Cœur-de-Lion built a church to St. George, the ruins of which are said to be still visible.

33. Found, or met with, unexpectedly, as seems to be suggested by the use of this expression. The Greek form of the name (Eneas) has led some to the conclusion, that the sufferer, who had kept his bed (literally, lying down upon a bed or couch) since or for (literally, from, see above, on v. 13) eight years, was a Gentile; while others, with more reason although not conclusively, infer from the previous mention of the saints, that he was certainly a Christian. And was sick of the palsy, literally, who was paralyzed or paralytic. (See above, on 8:7, and compare Luke 5:18, 24.)

34. Calling him by name, in order to secure his attention and identify the object of address, the Apostle solemnly assures him that he is already healed, and that the power by which the miracle was wrought is that of Jesus Christ. He does not even name himself as the instrumental cause, or invoke the name of Christ (as in 3:6), but expressly represents him as the efficient and immediate agent. Maketh thee whole, or more emphatically and yet more exactly, Jesus Christ is healing thee, now, at this moment, even while I speak. This form of expression shows, in the clearest manner, the Apostle's full persuasion of the truth of what he says, which is also suggested by the following command. Arise, stand up, an act which a moment sooner would have been impossible, and the failure to perform which now would have covered Peter with confusion, and exposed him to contempt, if not to punishment, as an impostor. Make thy bed, literally, spread for thyself, which some have strangely understood of spreading a table or providing food; but which refers to the spreading of his couch, or the arrangement of the bed-clothes, both which, in the East, are comparatively simple operations. The command does not refer to future practice—'henceforth make thy own bed, and no longer be dependent on the help of others'—but to an immediate act, affording proof of his entire restoration, by performing, on the spot and in a moment, what for eight years he had not been able even to attempt. If he had not done it, how pitiable would have been the attitude of the Apostle! How complete the refutation of his claims to represent a divine person, by whose power the cure had been effected! But he was not to be thus disgraced. The success of the experiment was instantaneous, as appears from the concise but most expressive statement, that the paralytic instantly arose, and no doubt made his bed, as he was ordered.

35. There was nothing secret, either in the previous condition of this man, or in the change which he experienced. In both states he was a familiar object. All saw him, not once for all, or at the moment of the cure, but often, or from time to time. This statement comprehends, not merely the inhabitants of Lydda, where Eneas lived, and where the miracle was wrought, but those of the whole tract or region, here described by its ancient name of Saron (Sharon) meaning originally any plain, but specially applied to that along the Mediterranean coast between Cesarea and Joppa, once so famous for its fertility that it is sometimes joined with Lebanon and Carmel, as a proverbial type or emblem of luxuriant vegetation. (See Isai. 33:9; 35:2; 65:10, and compare 1 Chr. 27:29.) And turned (literally, were turned) to the Lord, is not the statement of an additional event, unconnected with the miracle except by chronological succession. Nor does it qualify the all of the preceding clause, and mean that all who had already been converted saw him after he was healed; for the verb is not in the pluperfect tense, and the sight of the restored paralytic could not well have been confined to the disciples; an objection only partially removed by saying that, although they could not be the only witnesses, they might be the only ones appealed to by a Christian writer. Besides, the terms here used are descriptive of new converts, which is the uniform and constant sense of turning to God, or to the Lord (Jesus Christ), the first form being chiefly used of Gentile and the last of Jewish converts. (Compare 15:19, 20, 21, with 11:21; 1 Cor. 15:3, 16.) The true sense, therefore, is that the healing of Eneas was the occasion of a general conversion to the new religion in that part of the country. 'They saw the miracle and turned to God.' This is, no doubt, a reason for this one case being singled out from many of the same kind and particularly stated, not because it was intrinsically more important, but because it was connected with this progress of the truth, and with other great events about to be recorded.

36. The healing of Eneas was connected with another miracle, which led to similar results in that part of Judea, and immediately prepared the way for Peter's memorable visit to Cesarea, described in the next chapter. Now, not a particle of time but of narration; see above, on v. 10. Joppa, the Greek form of the Hebrew Japho (Josh. 19:46; 2 Chr. 2:16; Ezr. 3:7; Jon. 1:3) and the Arabic Jaffa, in all which names the initial letter is a vowel or a semivowel nearly equivalent to our y at the beginning of a word, although pronounced in English as a doable consonant. The place so called is a seaport on the Mediterranean coast of Palestine, described by Pliny as extremely ancient, and in Scripture as the point where materials were landed for the building both of the first and second temple (2 Chr. 2:16; Ezr. 3:7.) The harbour was a bad one, but the best upon the coast, until Herod the Great made an artificial port at Cesarea. (See above, on v. 30 and 8:40.) Hence Joppa was conspicuous in history for ages, as well as for the changes which it underwent, having been repeatedly demolished and rebuilt. Since the first Crusade, it has been the landing place for Christian pilgrims, and visited by almost every traveller in the East. It was sacked by Napoleon in 1797, and witnessed the famous massacre of prisoners. The Hebrew name means beautiful, and probably alludes to its appearance at a distance. It occurs in the New Testament only in this narrative. (See below, vs. 38, 42, 43; 10:5, 8, 23, 32; 11:5, 13.) Here Peter was commissioned to perform a miracle still greater than the one at Lydda. The subject of it is described as a female convert or disciple. According to the custom of the age and country (see above, on 1:13, 23; 4:36), she had two names, one Greek (Dorcas) and the other Aramaic (Tabitha), both denoting a gazelle or antelope. The double name may possibly imply a mixed population, which is quite as probable in Joppa as in Cesarea, where we know from Josephus that it did exist. (See above, on 8:40.) Full of (or abounding in) good works, an expression sometimes signifying virtuous or pious acts in general, and sometimes acts of charity and kindness in particular. (See above, on 4:9, and compare Rom. 2:7; 13:3; 2 Cor. 9:8; 1 Tim. 5:10; 3:17.) The latter meaning is required here by the specific statement following. Alms-deeds, or alms, as the same word is translated in 3:2, 3 above. Did, in the imperfect tense, used to do, habitually practised.

37. In the life of this exemplary person a remarkable event occurred, or came to pass, in those days, i. e. during Peter's residence at Lydda. Having sickened (or been sick) she died. When they had washed, literally, having washed. The form of the Greek word is masculine and plural, and describes the agents in the most general way without regard to sex. The masculine is thus generically used, not only in Hebrew, but in the best Greek writers, a striking instance being found in Xenophon. In an upper room, see above, on 1:13. The Greek phrase may possibly here mean, up stairs, or in the upper story. (Compare Matt. 2:1.)

38. Lydda being near to Joppa, to wit, ten or twelve miles, on the highway to Jerusalem. The disciples (of Christ), still acting as a body (see above, on v. 30.) Had heard, literally, having heard, as the report of the first miracle had spread throughout the plain of Sharon (see above, on v. 35.) There, literally, in it, i. e. Lydda. Desiring, exhorting, or entreating (see above, on 2:40; 8:31.) Would not delay, literally, not to delay, hesitate, or put off coming, applied in classic Greek especially to hesitation caused by fear or sloth. Instead of the infinitive to delay, the oldest manuscripts, followed by the Vulgate, have the second person, do not delay. To come, literally, to come (or pass) through, i. e. through the intervening space (see above, on v. 32, and on 8:4, 40.) To them, as far as them (see above, on 1:8.)

39. Then, as in vs. 19:25. Arose, put himself in motion, or addressed himself to action. (See above, on 5:17, 34; 8:26; 9:11.) Went with them, whether simply to console the mourners, or with the expectation of restoring her to life, the narrative does not inform us. There is no such objection to the supposition of a previous divine communication, as there was in relation to the death of Ananias. (See above, on 5:5.) When he was come they brought him, literally, whom being came they brought (or led) up into the upper chamber, mentioned in v. 37, where the body was laid out. All the widows may mean those of Joppa, as a class, having charge of the sick, like the deaconesses of the apostolical churches (compare 1 Tim. 5:9, 16); or the widows for whom Dorcas had provided by her charities (see above, on 6:1, and compare 1 Tim. 5:16; James 1:27.) In the latter case, the garments shown were those which they then wore; in the former, those which she had left for distribution. Coats and garments, or according to the strict sense of the Greek words, under and upper garments (see above, on 7:58), the tunic and robe or gown, which still constitute the oriental costume of both sexes. Which, literally, as many as, but not necessarily denoting all (see above, on vs. 13, 16, and 4:34.) Made, in the imperfect tense, which may either mean she used to make them, or was actually making them, when seized with her last illness. While she was with them, literally, with them being (i. e. when she still lived.)

40. In imitation of his Master at the house of Jairus (Matt. 9:25; Luke 8:51), where Peter was one of the three suffered to attend him, the Apostle now excludes all the rest from the chamber of death, and kneeling down (placing the knees, as in 7:60), invokes the divine interposition, thus again, but in another form, acknowledging his own part in the whole transaction to be merely instrumental. (See above, on 3:6, 16; 4:10.) Then, instead of saying, as he did to Eneas (v. 34), "Jesus Christ is healing thee," he turns to the corpse and addresses it directly, in an authoritative tone, commanding the dead woman, by her Aramaic name, and no doubt in the Aramaic language of the country (see above, on 1:19), to arise from the place where she was lying. Turning, in the primary corporeal sense, as distinguished from the metaphorical or moral, which occurs above in v. 35. Presumptuous or mad as this command might well have seemed, it is immediately obeyed, by a succession of acts showing the return of life. When she opened her eyes, which had been so long closed in death, they rested upon Peter, whom she no doubt saw to be a stranger and alone in the apartment. Roused by this unexpected sight, she finally sat up, thereby evincing the completeness of the miracle, and her own entire resuscitation. Nothing could be more natural and simple, or at the same time more graphic, than this narrative.

41. Having described the acts of the resuscitated woman, Luke describes those of Peter after her revival. Gave her his hand and lifted her up, not because she was too weak to rise without help or to stand alone, for the recovery, in all such cases, was complete and instantaneous; but rather in the way of welcome or congratulation. Gave his hand, implying that she took it, and was not therefore altogether passive. He then calls in the witnesses whom he had before excluded (v. 40), the saints (believers or disciples) in general, and the widows, previously mentioned (v. 39) as chief mourners, in particular. To these he now presents her living, the same expression that is used in 1:3, and there explained. The whole account suggests the idea of deliberation and composure, as opposed to that of hurry and excitement on the part of Peter, or of possible delusion on the part of the spectators.

42. As in the other case at Lydda (v. 35), the historian now records the effect of this great miracle, first stating its publicity and notoriety. It became known (see above, on 1:19, and below, on 19:17) throughout (see above, on v. 31, and below, on 10:37) all Joppa. This circumstance is introduced, not merely for its own sake, or to show the certainty of the event, but also for the purpose of suggesting an important providential end which it promoted. Many believed in the Lord, or rather on him, the Greek preposition suggesting the idea of reliance or dependence, as in 1:17 above, and 15:31; 22:19 below. (Compare Rom. 4:24.) It also denotes motion towards an object, and thus suggests the idea of conversion, as involved in that of faith, or inseparable from it. The Lord, i. e. the Lord Jesus Christ, as the wider sense of God would here be too indefinite. (See above, on v. 35.)

43. Having shown how Peter came to be in Joppa at all, the narrative now explains how he happened to be still there, when the incidents recorded in the tenth chapter came to pass. Though suddenly brought thither in a great emergency, he had determined or consented, for some reason which is not explained, to stay there. It came to pass (or happened) may imply, that this was not his expectation or original intention; that he did not mean to stay there, yet it so happened or turned out. Many days, literally, days enough, as in v. 23; 5:37; 8:11. A strong impression of exactness and personal knowledge of the facts related, is made by the writer's introduction of an otherwise unimportant circumstance, to wit, the very house where Peter lodged at Joppa. With, in Greek a preposition which, when construed with the dative or accusative, denotes juxtaposition, by or alongside of (see above, on 4:35, 37; 5:2, 10; 7:58, and compare Luke 9:47.) In its more figurative use, it is applied especially to eating with a person (Luke 11:37; 19:17), or to lodging with him (see below, on 10:6; 18:3, 20; 21:7, 8; 16, and compare John 1:40; 4:4.) The Apostle's host on this occasion was a namesake of his own, but distinguished by his occupation as a currier or tanner, which was regarded by the Jews as an unclean one, from which some have needlessly inferred, that Peter was already free from Jewish prejudice; while others argue, still more gratuitously, that he and his office were held in little honour by the people of Joppa.

CHAPTER 10

THIS chapter is entirely occupied with one great subject, the first reception of converted Gentiles to the Church, without passing through the intermediate state of Judaism. To this narrative, 9:31–43 is an introduction, and 11:1–18 an appendix. The narrative itself describes the providential means, by which the representatives of the Gentile world on one hand, and the chosen instrument of their reception on the other, were prepared for their respective parts in this transaction. These means consisted of two visions or divine communications, one to Cornelius, assuring him that God had purposes of mercy towards him, and directing him to seek an interview with Peter (1–8); the other to Peter himself, informing him that the old partition between Jews and Gentiles was now broken down, and directing him to meet the advances of Cornelius (9–20.) In obedience to this order, he accompanies the messengers to Cesarea (21–24), and, after correcting the centurion's error as to his own person (25–26), avows the change which he had recently experienced (27–29), receives a formal statement of the message to Cornelius (30–33), and preaches Christ, as the Judge and Saviour both of Jews and Gentiles (34–43.) While he is speaking, the new converts are baptized, with the Holy Ghost, and then with water (34–47), after which Peter still continues with them, no doubt to instruct them in the doctrines and duties of their new religion (48.)

1. The beginning of this narrative is less abrupt in Greek, where the usual continuative particle (δέ) connects it closely with what goes before. Those who regard it as the commencement of an entirely new subject, overlook the bearing of the miracles recorded at the close of the ninth chapter on the history that follows. It was while Peter was still resident at Joppa, and therefore easily accessible from Cesarea, that the incidents recorded in this chapter happened. Cornelius, a familiar but honourable name in Latin, being that of a distinguished Roman family. A centurion was strictly the commander of a hundred men; but the title was applied, with some degree of latitude, to those who led the subdivisions of a legion. The band here probably means such a subdivision. The Italian, probably so called because composed of Romans, although stationed in the East, as the European officers and soldiers in India are distinguished from the native troops or sepoys. The Italian legion, spoken of by Tacitus, was subsequently organized by Nero, and would not have been designated by the term here used (σπεῖρα.) The same phrase is employed by Arrian, and an old inscription mentions "the cohort of Italian volunteers which is in Syria." The main facts here are the country, the profession, the rank, and the residence of the man who was to represent Gentile Christianity, in its first encounter, so to speak, with the Jewish type or aspect of the same religion.

2. His character and previous religious history. Devout, pious, reverent, not merely in the heathen sense, but as the fruit of divine grace. Feared God, i. e. the one true God, as opposed to the many gods of heathenism. With all his house, or household; not alone, or merely in his own person, but as the teacher and example of those dependent on him. Which gave much alms, or rather, practising many charities, not merely to the poor in general, but to the people, i. e. the chosen people, the children of Israel, among whom he lived and from whom he had learned the true religion. Praying to God, or asking of God, i. e. looking to Jehovah, or the God of Israel, and not to idols, for the supply of his necessities in general, and for spiritual guidance in particular. This is not the description of a proselyte, in any technical or formal sense, but of a Gentile whom divine grace had prepared for the immediate reception of the Gospel, without passing through the intermediate state of Judaism, although long familiar with it, and indebted to it for such knowledge of the word of God as he possessed.

3. The means used to bring this representative of the Gentile world into contact with the new religion. Saw is construed directly with a man in v. 1. by the latest critics, who omit the verb in that verse, and make one long sentence of the three. 'A certain man in Cesarea, named Cornelius, a centurion &c.… devout and fearing God &c.… saw.' In a vision, not a dream, which would be otherwise expressed (as in Matt. 2:13; 19:22), but a supernatural communication, addressed not merely to the mind, but to the senses. (See above, on 7:31; 9:10, 12.) Evidently, clearly, certainly, not doubtfully or dimly. About (literally, as if, i. e. as if it were) the ninth hour (after sunrise, see above, on 2:15), not far from three o'clock in the afternoon. The object thus and then seen was an angel of God, a messenger sent by him from the other world, belonging to a race of superhuman spirits, but no doubt clothed in human form. The popular idea of winged angels is derived from the cherubim (Ex. 25:20) and seraphim (Isai. 6:2), but is never suggested by any of the narratives of angelic visits to this world and its inhabitants. Coming in to him, into his house and presence, like an ordinary visitor, and addressing him familiarly by name.

4. Gazing (intently looking) at him, and becoming fearful, not afraid of personal injury, but awe-struck at the presence of a superhuman being, which must have been betrayed by something in the stranger's aspect. What is (it)? i. e. what is the occasion of your coming? Prayers and alms, the two kinds of religious service previously mentioned, as the proofs of the centurion's devout regard to the divine will and the true religion. Come up, ascended, in allusion to the vapour of the ancient offerings. For a memorial, to remind God, as it were, of the offerer's existence and necessities; another allusion to the ceremonial law, in which this name is given to apart of the burnt-offering. (See Lev. 2:2; Num. 5:21.) Before God, not merely in his judgment or his estimation, as in 8:21, but in his presence, in the place where he manifests his glory. Intrinsic merit or efficacy is no more ascribed in these words to the good works of Cornelius than to the oblations from which the figure or comparison is taken. It was not as a reward of what Cornelius had thus done, that the Lord now favoured and distinguished him; but this distinguishing favour was itself the cause of those devotional and charitable habits, which had been recognized in heaven as being what they were, not meritorious claims to the divine blessing, but experimental proofs that it had been bestowed.

5. As this vision was not intended merely to astonish or to please Cornelius, but to prepare for his reception into the Church, the angelic assurance of the divine favour is immediately succeeded by directions as to his own duty. And now, since God has purposes of mercy towards thee, send to (or into) Joppa, where Peter had been left at the close of the last chapter (9:43.) Men, and by implication, chosen men, or men fit for such a service (see below, on v. 7.) Call for, literally, send for, a compound form of the preceding verb. One before Simon is supplied by the translators. Both names are given to identify the person.

6. Minute directions how he should find Peter. Lodgeth with, or is entertained by; for it may have been a case of Christian hospitality. A tanner, see above, on 9:43. To whom there is a house by the sea, perhaps on account of his occupation, and perhaps at a distance from the town, as the Mishna requires in the case of such employments.

7. As soon as the vision is concluded, he takes the necessary measures to obey the order which he had received, employing for this purpose three of his own household, two domestics, or, as the word originally means, two members of his family, and a military servant, who was his constant personal attendant, as, in some modern armies, officers are waited on by soldiers. This man is described as like his master or commander in religious character, and therefore peculiarly well fitted for the service now assigned to him. Although not affirmed, it seems to be implied, that the other two messengers were like-minded; so that we have here the interesting case of a whole Gentile household, brought by intercourse with Jews, and by the grace of God, to the very threshold of the true religion.

8. Such being their character, he does not send them blindfold, but states the whole case to them. Declared, expounded, or detailed, the verb from which exegesis is derived, but specially applied in Greek to historical narration. (See below, on 15:12, 14; 21:19, and compare Luke 24:35.) All these things, including the vision, the divine command, and the expected revelation.

9. While the centurion's messengers are on their way, the other part of this providential scheme is set in motion, by the vision of Peter, answering to that of Cornelius. On the morrow, or the next day, after they set out. They journeying, or moving onwards, and approaching (or being near) to the city (or town of Joppa.) The house, or, as some editions read, the house-top, the flat roof, to which the word (δῶμα) is applied in later Greek, while its English derivative (dome) denotes a peculiar kind of roof, and that not a flat one. To pray, a frequent use of the oriental roof, on account of its elevation and retirement. The sixth hour after sunrise, one of the three stated hours of prayer. (See above, on 2:15.)

10. Peter is prepared, in mind and body, for the extraordinary revelation which awaits him. Would have eaten, literally, wished to taste (food), an expression used in classic Greek, even of a full meal. While they made ready, literally, they preparing. They, i. e. his friends, the people of the house, a form of expression familiar to the dialect of common life. Preparing, either his noon-day meal, or in anticipation of it, and at his request. He fell into a trance, in Greek, there fell on him an ecstasy, a preternatural, abnormal state of mind, preparing him for the reception of the vision. (Compare the corresponding verb in 2:7; 8:9; 11:13.) Fell on him, by a sudden influence or illapse from above, produced by a superior power. (See below, on v. 44.)

11. The vision itself corresponds to his bodily condition. While his thoughts are running upon food, it is exhibited in great abundance and variety, but in an extraordinary manner, showing that something was intended, very different from the satisfaction of the appetite, or even the relief of an unusual hunger. And saw, or rather, and beholds, surveys, implying something strange and striking in the object of vision. (See above, on 3:16; 4:13; 8:13; 9:7.) Heaven opened, as in 7:56, except that the number here is singular, not plural. Sheet, sail, or cloth, the Greek word denoting the material rather than the shape. Knit, literally, tied, bound, fastened. Corners, literally, beginnings, but in Greek used also to denote extremities or ends. It may here mean the ends of chains or cords by which the sheet seemed to be fastened to something above, or the ends of the sheet itself, which must then be conceived as gathered up and tied, so as to be capable of holding its contents.

12. The contents were as surprising as the vessel, comprehending all kinds of animals—beasts, birds, and creeping things—including therefore both the two great classes, which the Law of Moses and the Jewish practice recognized, the Clean and Unclean. (See Lev. 11 and Deut. 14) This is the grand idea meant to be conveyed, and it was therefore as indifferent to Peter as it ought to be to us, into how many classes a zoologist would have divided them, or what might be the strictly scientific application of the terms, quadrupeds of the earth, beasts, reptiles, and birds of heaven, or of the air. (See Gen. 1:20.) The distinctive names might have been more numerous or less so, more precise or less so, without varying the essential fact, that the vessel seen by Peter in his trance or vision, contained all manner (i. e. all kinds) of animals, both clean and unclean. Wild beasts is a correct translation of a single Greek word, which is usually so applied.

13. Still more surprising than what Peter saw was what he heard. A voice came, literally, became, i. e. became audible, to him, not merely heard by him, but addressed to him. The voice may have proceeded from the open vessel, but more probably from the open heaven (v. 11.) Rise (literally, rising) may imply that he was on his knees, or lying down, or sitting. It may also be, however, a command to rouse himself from a previous condition of inaction or repose. (See above, on 9:6; 11:18.) Kill is in Greek a verb denoting sacrificial slaying, or the act of killing with a reference to some religious purpose. The use of this significant expression, which is not to be diluted or explained away without necessity, shows that the following command (and eat) refers not merely to the satisfaction of the appetite, but to those ceremonial restrictions, under which the law of Moses placed the Jews, both in their worship and in their daily use of necessary food. As if the voice had said, 'From among these animals select thy offering or thy food, without regard to the distinction between clean and unclean.'

14. Peter responds to this command as any conscientious Jew or Jewish Christian would have done, by representing it as inconsistent with the whole previous tenor of his life. Not so, not at all, by no means. The emphasis and positiveness of this refusal is in curious contrast with the title of respect which follows, and which can scarcely be translated Sir in this connection, but must imply that he regarded the voice as that of a superhuman if not a divine speaker. (See above, on 9:5, 6.) Even such authority was not immediately sufficient to break the force of prejudice and habit. The thought to be supplied between the clauses is, 'I cannot do it now, because I never did before.' I have never eaten (more exactly, never did eat) any thing (literally, all or every) i. e. all that came to hand, without discrimination. The reference is not to any personal peculiarity, but to that restrictive law of food, which constituted one of the most striking points of difference between Jew and Gentile, and one of the most operative means of separation, as it does to this day. Common, not appropriated, set apart, or consecrated, which some regard as the original or primary sense of holy. (See above, on 9:13.) Others make the essential idea to be that of purity, the opposite of which is also here expressed (unclean.) Taken together, therefore, they exhaust the idea of unholy or profane, which was present to the mind of the Apostle. The general fact which he affirms is that he had always lived as a strict Jew, and therefore separate from other people. The particular sign of this seclusion here referred to—the distinction of food—served, at the same time, as a type or emblem of a moral difference, the Gentiles being to the Jews, in this respect, what unclean animals were to the clean.

15. The voice, or more exactly, a voice, implying that the speaker still remained invisible. Again, a second (time), an emphatic reduplication, which seems intended to make the parts in this dramatic dialogue as distinct as possible. The same effect is promoted by the suppression of the verb (said); see above, on 9:11. The literal translation of the last clauso is, What (things) God hath purified do thou not render common, or treat as such, a phrase representing one Greek verb (κοίνου), which has no equivalent in English, unless we coin for the occasion some such form as communify. The two verbs in this clause correspond to the two adjectives in Peter's answer. Call not common is a version justified by the analogy of certain causatives in Hebrew, which are used in a declarative sense, and in a ceremonial application. (E. g. to purify, i. e. to pronounce pure; to pollute, i. e. to pronounce polluted, Lev. 13:3, 6, 8, 11.) But the proper causative sense of making common or unclean is not only appropriate, but much more pointed. 'What God has hallowed do not thou attempt to unhallow.' This reply of the unseen speaker to Peter's true but proud profession of Levitical fidelity and strictness must have been surprising and at first confounding. Instead of recognizing his pretensions to the praise of ceremonial perfection, the person, whose authority he had just acknowledged by addressing him as Lord, denies the truth and value of the distinction altogether. It is not a mere precaution against error in the application of the ceremonial principle, but an abrogation of the principle itself. Peter is not simply put upon his guard against the error of regarding as unclean, according to the Jewish standard, what was really, according to that standard, clean. He is warned against the far worse error of continuing to recognize that standard as itself obligatory, after it had ceased to be so. Hitherto there had been a distinction between clean and unclean, both in meats and persons. Henceforth there could be none; for what had been unclean for ages by divine authority was now pronounced clean by the same; and what had thus been constituted clean could not be rendered common by the exercise of any human power or authority.

16. This, i. e. the whole scene, including sights and sounds, the vision and the dialogue. Was done, happened, came to pass; the same verb that is used with voice in v. 13. Thrice is in Greek a peculiar idiomatic phrase (ἐπὶ τρίς), the nearest approach to which in English is, for three times, or on three occasions. An analogous though different expression is, to the number of three. Received up, or taken back, or both, which seems to be the meaning of the same verb in the first sentence of the book. (See above, on 1:1.) This repetition of the revelation, no doubt in precisely the same form, may have been intended partly to impress it on the memory, but chiefly to preclude the suspicion of its being a mere dream or fancy. Again, or according to the oldest manuscripts and latest editors, immediately, the former having probably been introduced, by assimilation, from 11:10. (See above, on 9:5.)

17. Now is the particle translated but in v. 14, and not translated at all in vs. 16:19. While, literally, as; see above, on 1:10; 5:24; 7:23; 8:36; 9:23; 10:7. Doubted, was perplexed, or at a loss, the same verb that is used above, 2:12, and there explained. (See also, on 5:24.) Should mean, or more exactly, what it was, or might be. (See above, on 5:24, where a similar though not the same expression is employed.) Behold, literally, and behold, a form of expression foreign from our idiom, but common in Hebrew and in Hellenistic Greek. (See above, on 1:10; 8:27 Which were sent, literally, those sent, or the (men) sent. From Cornelius, not merely by him, but away from him, implying that he remained at home. Had made inquiry, literally, having asked or inquired. (See above, on 1:6; 5:27, where another compound of the same verb is employed.) Perhaps the full force of the one here used is, having ascertained or found out by inquiry. Before the gate, or at the porch or vestibule, the front side of an oriental house, through which is the entrance to the open court within. (See below, on 12:14; 14:13.)

18. And called, literally, calling or having called, i. e. as some explain it, having called some one out to them; but the absolute sense of calling, i. e. raising the voice, shouting, as a substitute for knocking, ringing, and the like, gives an equally good meaning and is equally agreeable to usage, while it makes the syntax simpler, by assuming no grammatical ellipsis of the object. Asked, in the imperfect tense, were asking, at that very moment. The Greek verb is not the same with that in the preceding verse, but one employed above in 4:7, and below in v. 29; 21:33; 23:19, 20; 23:34. The form of the interrogation is the same as in 1:6, and gives the very words of the inquirers, (tell us) if Simon, the (one) surnamed Peter, lodges (or is lodged) here. (See above, on v. 6.)

19. Peter pondering (revolving, or turning it over in his mind, which last is the etymological import of the Greek verb) about (concerning, as to) the vision (the extraordinary sight which he had just seen), the Spirit (i. e. the Divine or Holy Spirit, see above, on 8:29) said to him, Behold (or lo, implying something unexpected and surprising, see above, on 1:10; 2:7; 5:9, 25, 28; 7:56; 8:27, 36; 9:10, 11), three men are seeking (asking or inquiring for) thee. This coincidence of time, between Peter's anxious meditations and the inquiries of the men from Cesarea, brings the two parts of the providential scheme into conjunction and co-operation.

20. But arise (not therefore, which is never so expressed in Greek), i. e. while they are seeking thee, do thou, on thy part, stand up (from thy sitting or recumbent posture; or arouse thyself, address thyself to action, see above, on v. 13), and go down (of which get thee down is an old English equivalent), and depart (set off or journey, see above, on 9:3, 11, 15, 31) with them, doubting nothing, i. e. as to nothing, asking neither who nor what they are. The Greek verb, in its active form, means first to separate or sever; then to distinguish or discriminate; and then to determine or decide. (See below, on 15:9, and compare 1 Cor. 4:7; Matt. 16:3; 1 Cor. 11:29, 31; 14:29.) The middle means to differ, either with others, i. e. to dispute, or with one's self, i. e. to hesitate and waver. (See below, on 11:2, and compare Jude 9 with Matt. 21:21; Mark 11:23; Rom. 4:20; 14:23; James 1:6; 2:4.) Either the second or the last of these is here appropriate—'not at all hesitating so to do'—or, 'not distinguishing without a difference, making no gratuitous, invidious distinction between Jew and Gentile.' The latter seems entitled to the preference, as involving an allusion to the heavenly lesson he had just received. For I have sent them, not immediately, but through the Angel (v. 5) and Cornelius (v. 8.)

21. Then (and, but, or so) Peter descending (going down stairs from the flat roof where he saw the vision) to the men. (still standing in the porch or at the front door), said. Behold, (i. e. see me, here I am, as in 9:10), I am lie whom ye seek (or after whom ye are inquiring, compare John 18:4–8.) What (is) the cause (reason or occasion) wherefore (i. e. for or on account of which) ye are come, (or more exactly, ye are present, ye are here.) Peter, as Chrysostom observes, shows that he had no thought of concealing himself from them, by first making himself known and then inquiring why they sought him. It is characteristic of the man and the apostle that he affects no knowledge which he did not possess, and notwithstanding the two divine communications which had just been made to him, acknowledges his ignorance of what had not been thus revealed. The words, sent from Cornelius, are wanting in the oldest manuscripts and versions, and supposed by modern critics to have been inserted from a lectionary or collection of lessons to be used in public worship, into which they had been introduced to make the narrative intelligible and complete.

22. The centurion should be a centurion, as in Greek, referring to a person not yet known to Peter, but intended to be made known by this very description. The definite form is the less appropriate, as there were many Roman officers of this rank in the Holy Land. (See below, on 21:32; 22:25; 23:17, 23; 24:23; 27:1, and compare Matt. 8:5; 27:54; Mark 15:44.) For devout or pious in v. 2, we have here the more generic term, just or righteous (see above, on 3:14; 4:19; 7:52.) Fearing God, literally, the God, i. e. the true God, or the God of Israel (see above, on v. 2.) Of good report among, or more exactly, testified (attested, certified, to be such as they had just described him, not only by his countrymen and fellow Gentiles, but) by all the nation (or the whole nation) of the Jews, a natural hyperbole denoting all the Jews of Cesarea, or more indefinitely, Jews in general, as distinguished from the Gentiles. Warned from God, the same verb that is used in Matt. 2:12, 22; Heb. 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, and originally meaning to transact business, more particularly money-matters; then, to negociate or confer on state affairs; and then, to give an answer after such negociation, in which last sense it is used by Demosthenes and Xenophon. By a still further elevation and restriction of the meaning, it is applied to the responses of the oracles, and in the Scriptures to divine communications, more especially those made to individuals. The sense of warning is required by the context in Matthew and Hebrews; but in this place it may either have the general sense of a divine communication or instruction, or the more specific one of a divine response, i. e. to the prayers of Cornelius for divine direction. (See above, on v. 2, and for a very different use of the same verb, below, on 10:26.) From God is supplied by the translators as really included in the meaning of the verb. By a holy (i. e. an unfallen) angel, as distinguished from "the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:41; 2 Cor. 11:14; 12:7; Rev. 12:7.) To send for thee, not to come in person, which may be stated as a reason for the absence of Cornelius. And to hear words of thee (i. e. from thee, spoken by thee), an addition to the narrative in v. 6, the last clause in the common text of that verse being omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, as an unauthorized assimilation to 9:6. (See above, on 9:5.)

23. Then, or rather therefore, i. e. because they came on such an errand. Called them (more exactly, calling, or having called them) in, which does not necessarily imply that they were still without and he within the house; for it may mean inviting them (in which sense Aristophanes employs the same verb), not to cross the threshold merely, but to take up their abode there for the night. Lodged them, or rather, entertained them, including all the rites of hospitality, which may be also meant in vs. 6 and 18. On the morrow, or the next day after their arrival, as the same phrase in the ninth verse means the day after they left Cesarea. Went away, literally, went out, i. e. from the house and from the city. Certain brethren, literally, some of the brethren, i. e. disciples or converted Jews (see below, on v. 45), whose names and number are not given here, although the latter is recorded in 11:12 below. From Joppa, not merely belonging to it, although that idea is of course suggested, but coming from it upon this occasion. We are not told whether Peter took them with him by divine command; or as a wise precaution, the utility of which appears from the next chapter (see below, on 11:12); or merely as companions and friends, their use as witnesses then forming no part of his own plan, though it did of God's. Wiclif adds expressly, that they be (i. e. might be) witnesses to Peter. But their errand may have been still more important. (See below, on v. 46.)

24. The morrow, the next day after leaving Joppa, which was thirty miles from Cesarea. Cornelius was waiting for them, perhaps implying that they were longer on the way than he expected. It may mean, however, nothing more than his anxiety to meet with Peter. Having called together, not merely to do honour to his visitor, but for their own instruction, his kinsmen, from which some infer that Cesarea was his native place, or at least that he had formed intimate connections in the country. Near friends, in the older English versions special friends, and in Greek necessary friends, which may either denote natural relations, not dependent on the will of the parties, or the closest intimacy, making their society essential to his comfort or his happiness. The main fact is the same in either case, to wit, that the centurion had gathered his most intimate acquaintances and friends, to share in the divine communication, which he expected to receive through Peter. As this would hardly have been done without some preparation or predisposition upon their part, it would seem to imply a previous work of grace among these Gentiles, leading them to Christ, even before they came in contact with his gospel or his ministers.

25. And as it came to pass that Peter entered, i. e. just as Peter entered, Cornelius, meeting him (and) falling at the feet (of Peter), worshipped. Having been directed by an Angel to send for the Apostle, with a promise of divine communications from him, it is not surprising that Cornelius should have supposed him to be more than a mere man, or even a divine person. His feelings were perhaps the same as if he had been honoured with a visit from our Lord himself while yet on earth. How could he be expected, without previous instruction, to distinguish so exactly between the Apostle and his Master, as both appeared in human form, and both exerted superhuman power? This seems more natural and satisfactory than to suppose that this Roman soldier simply meant to do obeisance in the oriental manner, which was not in common use among the Jews themselves, much less among the Romans.

26. Took him up, literally, raised him, i. e. from his prostrate attitude. Some have understood Peter's words as meaning, 'I am a man, as you are, although of another nation, and I claim no right to such profound veneration, even from a Gentile.' But how can we imagine that Cornelius, who had long been well acquainted with the Jews, at least in Cesarea, could be so overwhelmed by the appearance of another Jew from Joppa? The obvious meaning of the answer is, 'I am a mere man like yourself and therefore not an object of religious worship.' (Compare the similar expressions in Rev. 22:9.) It has been well observed that Christ himself never disclaimed his title to such honours, although often offered. (See Matt. 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17; John 9:38.)

27. Conversing with him, not in the restricted modern sense of talking, but in the Latin and old English one of keeping company, associating, holding intercourse, which is the only classical usage of the Greek verb in its simple form, and in the single instance of the compound which is cited in the lexicons. The sense of talking is moreover less appropriate, as it implies that something passed in conversation between Peter and Cornelius which is not recorded. This, though not impossible, would mar the beauty and completeness of the narrative, which seem at least in part dependent on the fact that we have here, upon divine authority, just what was said and done by all the parties to this great transaction. The ensuing dialogue would lose much of its interest, if preceded by another, of which we know nothing. Both the context, therefore, and Greek usage are in favour of interpreting the clause to mean, that Peter entered with Cornelius, showing by his whole demeanour, not excluding what he said, that he felt no scruple in associating with him upon equal terms. The last clause discloses the additional circumstance, that the friends of Cornelius, mentioned in v. 24, were numerous. It may also be implied, that Peter was surprised to find so many gathered to receive him.

28. He appeals to their own experimental knowledge of the hindrances to social intercourse between the Jews and Gentiles any where, but more particularly in Judea. Ye know, or more emphatically, know well, know for certain, or are well aware, which is the usage of this Greek verb in the classics, although less distinctly marked in the New Testament, where it frequently occurs, especially in this book. (See below, on 15:7; 18:25; 19:15, 25; 20:18; 22:19; 24:10; 26:3, 26.) How that it is an unlawful thing is an awkward version of a very simple phrase, how unlawful it is, or still more simply, that it is unlawful. The Greek adjective is used but twice in the New Testament and in both instances by Peter (1 Pet. 4:3.) According to its etymology and classical usage, it denotes what is contrary to ancient custom or prescription (θέμις), rather than to positive enactment (νόμος); and this agrees exactly with the case before us, where the prohibition does not rest upon the letter of the law, but either on its spirit, as interpreted in later times, or on some traditional addition to it. A man, a Jew, i. e. a Jewish man, a man who is a Jew, (See above, on 8:27.) The use of both terms is not pleonastic, but equivalent to saying 'for any man, that is (or at least) for any Jew.' To keep company. literally, to stick fast, to adhere, a figure for the most familiar, intimate association. (See above, on 5:13; 8:29, and below, on 17:34.) Or (even) to approach, to come to (i. e. into the society of) any alien, foreigner, here put, perhaps through courtesy, for a Gentile, an alien both in race and religion. (Compare the Septuagint version of Isai. 2:6; 61:5.) Although the terms immediately preceding this are properly expressive of association or companionship in general, the whole connection gives them a specific application to domestic intercourse, and more especially to that of the table, or participation in the same food. This has always been avoided by the Jews, even to the present time, as necessarily endangering the violation of their dietetic laws, at least when they are the recipients and not the givers of the entertainment. This practice, growing out of the provisions of the law respecting clean and unclean meats, was so connected with the common intercourse and courtesies of life, that Peter's hearers upon this occasion must have been all familiar with it, and could therefore understand his meaning, even when conveyed in general expressions. This removes the objection that the Jews had never practised such entire seclusion from the Gentiles as the strict interpretation of the words would naturally indicate. Some conjecture not improbably that these words were immediately occasioned by the sight of the provision which Cornelius had made for the refreshment of his visitors. But, literally, and (not δέ but καί), 'Ye know that, and I know this, for God, etc.' Shewed me, not merely told or taught me, but caused me to see it, in the strictest sense, i. e. revealed it by a vision. That I should not call, a needless deviation from the form of the original, which is, no man common or unclean to call, except that man in Greek emphatically ends the sentence. As if he had said, 'no one so to call, who is a man, a human being, a partaker of our common nature.'

29. For which (reason), i. e. because he had received this revelation in correction of his error, I came (hither, or to you, is implied, but not expressed in the original) without gainsaying (contradiction or refusal.) This last idea is expressed in Greek by one word, a compounded adverb, similar in form and usage to our undeniably, but having here the active sense of undenyingly. The statement of this reason for his prompt compliance shows that the true meaning of his vision had not been withheld from Peter till he came to Cesarea, but was probably imparted to him, in relief of his solicitous perplexity, just when he heard the voice of the three messengers inquiring for him. (See above, on vs. 17, 18.) The communication of the Spirit then made, as to the arrival and the errand of the men from Cesarea, was most probably accompanied by a disclosure, perhaps less explicit, but not less convincing, of the truth intended to be taught by the symbolical spectacle, which he had just seen, and upon which he was still musing. As soon as I was sent for, though substantially correct, is stronger than the Greek, which is a simple passive participle, meaning having been (or being) sent for. I ask then, or therefore, not the particle used in the first clause, but that employed above in v. 23. Having given the recent revelation as a reason for his coming without hesitation or delay, he now gives this promptness as a reason for demanding further information, or rather a formal and authoritative statement of what he must have heard already from the messengers. For what word (λόγῳ), not thing or matter (see above, on 8:21), but cause or reason (see below, on 18:14, and compare Matt. 5:32.) This use of the Greek word is not a Hebraism, being found in Herodotus, Xenophon, and Plato. Ye sent for me, the active form of the same verb, of which we have the passive participle in the first clause. (See above, on vs. 5, 22, and below, on 11:13; 24:24, 26; 25:3.)

30. Cornelius now repeats the narrative contained in vs. 3–6, with a few unimportant variations. Four days ago, literally, from the fourth day, which has been variously understood, as meaning that Cornelius had been fasting four days when he saw the vision; or that he had been fasting four days when these words were spoken; or that he had been fasting from the morning till the ninth hour of the fourth day previous. No one of these ideas is explicitly conveyed by the expression, which is certainly anomalous; but that adopted by the English version is in itself more natural than either of the others. The essential meaning, upon any of these suppositions, is the same, to wit, that the centurion's prayers were accompanied by fasting, which not only proved the earnestness of his devotion, but rendered him less liable to be deceived by false appearances or mere imaginations. It might also serve to show his conformity to Jewish usages, not only in respect to fasting, but to stated hours of prayer. (See above, on 2:15; 3:1; 5:7; 10:9.) This was important only as a proof of the sincerity with which he had abandoned heathenism and begun to seek the one true God. In my (own) house, in retirement, at home, as distinguished from all public places of resort, and showing that the prayers and fasting mentioned were of the private and unostentatious kind described and recommended by our Saviour (Matt. 6:5, 6, 16, 17.) The centurion's account of the angelic visitation is entirely consistent with the one in v. 3, although somewhat different in form. What Luke calls an angel, Cornelius calls a man, because in human form, whether merely apparent, or belonging to a real body, worn for the occasion and then laid aside, perhaps dissolved. An additional circumstance here mentioned is the bright, effulgent dress, probably the same with the white raiment of the two men upon Olivet (see above, on 1:10.) This may be regarded in both cases as an emanation or reflection of the divine glory (see above, on 7:2), with which these messengers from heaven were invested, as a proof of their legation and a source of awe to the beholders.

Vv. 31, 32. Omitting the preliminary statement in v. 3, he gives the substance of the Angel's words as there recorded, with some freedom as to mere form and expression. While the simple phrase, have been remembered, takes the place of the more figurative one there employed, the prayers and alms are here divided and construed each with a distinct verb. The singular form (prayer) may have immediate reference to his prayer on that particular occasion, which was no doubt for divine illumination and a clearer knowledge of the true religion. It may also, however, be referred, as a collective, to the whole series of his previous petitions, and as therefore equivalent to the plural (prayers) in v. 4. In the sight of God is perfectly identical in Greek with before God in the fourth verse. Then or therefore answers to the and now of the fifth verse, and expresses still more strongly the connection between God's purposes of mercy towards Cornelius and the revelations to be made by Peter. Send is here used absolutely without men, which is sufficiently implied. Call hither, call away, or call back, are the usual senses of the Greek verb, a different one from that in v. 5, which properly means send for. In the house of Simon, literally, in a house (to wit, that) of Simon, takes the place of the less definite expression with one (or a certain) Simon, in the sixth verse. When he cometh, literally, being come, arrived, or being near you, with you (see above, on 5:21.) Will speak (or talk) to thee, not in general merely, but with special reference to the questions which then occupied his mind, as to the worship of the true God and the method of salvation.

33. Immediately, or as the Greek word etymologically signifies, from that same (moment.) (See below, on 11:11; 21:32; 23:30, and compare Mark 6:25; Phil. 2:23.) Then, or therefore, as in v. 32, i. e. because of this divine command and promise. And thou, or thou too (σύ τε) hast been prompt as well as I. (See above, on 1:1, 8, 13; 5:14; 8:38; 9:15.) Hast well done, didst well, i. e. right, or as in duty bound, but with an implied acknowledgment of kindness also, giving to these words a pleasing tone of courtesy and friendliness, as well as of solemnity and reverence. Now then (or therefore), i. e. after all that we have both experienced, and in these strange and solemn circumstances. We all (or all of us) are present before God, i. e. under his omniscient eye and providential guidance, and with our thoughts and expectations fixed upon him, to hear all the (things), without exception or invidious distinction, ordered (or commanded) thee by God. It is remarkable how clearly and explicitly Cornelius, twice in this short sentence, distinguishes the man whom he at first had worshipped (v. 25), and to whom he still looked up as an inspired instructor, from the divine authority by which he was commissioned. It was not before Peter (although several of the oldest manuscripts have thee instead of God) that they considered themselves now assembled, but before his Master; it was not Peter's own views and opinions that they waited and desired to hear, but his inspired instructions and communications, whatever they might prove to be, even all the things enjoined upon him, or entrusted to him, as a messenger from God. His claim to be such does not seem to have been questioned by Cornelius for a moment, because amply attested by the angelic message to himself. Both these divine communications carried with them their own evidence, excluding all doubt as to their infallible authority, on the part of those to whom they were addressed.

34. Opening his mouth suggests the idea of a regular discourse, as distinguished from a simple conversation. (See above, on 8:35.) Of a truth, really, certainly, qualifies the proposition, rather than the preface or preamble, to which it is immediately attached. (See above, on 4:27.) I perceive, or rather, seize, grasp, apprehend, comprehend, something unknown or imperfectly understood before. (See above, on 4:13, and below, on 25:25.) Respecter of persons, is a single word in Greek, which, with the cognate forms, respect of persons, and to respect persons, is of Hebrew origin, and relates to judicial partiality, or the preference of one party to another, upon other grounds than those of right and justice. The same thing is repeatedly denied of God in Scripture (Deut. 10:17; 2 Sam. 14:14; 2 Chron. 19:7; 1 Pet. 1:17), and prohibited to man (Lev. 19:15; Deut. 1:17; 16:19; James 2:1; 9.) What is here denied is not a sovereign and discriminating choice, but one founded on mere national distinctions. 'I now at length understand that although God bestows his favours as he will, he does not mean to limit them hereafter, as of old, to any one race or people.'

35. This verse has sometimes been abused, to prove that the Knowledge of the Gospel is not necessary to the salvation of the heathen; whereas it merely teaches that this knowledge is attainable by them, as well as others. The essential meaning is that whatever is acceptable to God in one race is acceptable in any other. Feareth God and worketh righteousness are not meritorious conditions or prerequisites to the experience of divine grace, but its fruits and evidences. Ho who possesses and exhibits these may know that God accepts him, whatever his descent or country. Peter is not expounding the divine mode of dealing with the heathen, but confessing and renouncing his own error in regarding the precedence of his own race as perpetual. As if he had said, 'Now I see that we have no right to require more than God himself; if he is satisfied with piety and good works in a Gentile, we are bound to be contented with the same.'

36. The construction of the first clause is exceedingly obscure and has been variously explained. The word is an accusative in Greek and may be governed either by a preposition understood, (as to) the word which God sent; or by the preceding verb, I (now) perceive (or apprehend) the word which God sent or by the following verb, the word which God sent to the children of Israel ye know. The first, if not the most grammatically regular, is much the simplest; but the general sense remains the same, on any of these suppositions, and may thus be paraphrased. 'As to the word or doctrine of salvation (13:26), which God has sent in the first instance to his ancient people, its joyful news of peace and reconciliation cannot be designed for them alone, since Jesus Christ, through whom it is proclaimed, is Lord of all men, not of the Jews only.' (Compare Rom. 3:29; 10:12.)

37. 'Ye know yourselves the word of which I speak, the one that has become (known) throughout all Judea.' Word (ῥῆμα) may be simply synonymous with word (λόγον) in v. 36, or may be meant to vary the expression, so as to render it intelligible to the Gentile hearers. As if he had said, 'by word I mean the new religion of which you must have heard as something talked of or reported throughout all Judea.' To the commencement of this process he assigns two limits, temporal and local. It began in Galilee (see Luke 23:49), and followed the ministry of John, here called the baptism which he preached (see above, on 1:22.) Both these facts are spoken of, as well known to the hearers, who indeed could hardly fail to know them, living as they did at the seat of Roman power in Judea.

38. (Ye know) Jesus the (man) from Nazareth, how God anointed him. Even in addressing Gentiles, he employs peculiar Jewish forms of speech, but such as must have been familiar to them, from their intercourse with Jews, and from attendance at the synagogues. In describing the great subject of the Gospel, Peter uses the popular description of our Lord, derisive in its origin, but now become a title of honour. (See above, on 2:22.) Anointed him, endowed him with extraordinary spiritual gifts for the performance of his mediatorial functions, and thus consecrated him to his great offices as the Messiah. With the Holy Ghost and power, i. e. with the power of the Holy Ghost, or with power as a necessary consequence of this endowment. (See above, on 1:8, and compare the combinations in 6:3; 11:24; 13:52; John 4:23; 6:63; 1 Pet. 4:14.) The extraordinary powers which our Lord possessed, are here referred to as notorious to all residing in the country, whether Jews or Gentiles. Another fact, assumed as equally familiar, is the use which he made of these divine endowments. He did not use them for his own advantage, or in vengeance on his enemies. He went about, literally, went through (life), or through (the country), or among (the people), doing good, not merely doing right, but doing favours, showing mercy. One particular form of his beneficence is specified, as that most universally appreciated, and most likely to be heard of at a distance. Healing all those oppressed, overmastered, tyrannically treated, by the Devil. This name, which occurs but twice in Acts (see below, on 13:10), originally means a slanderer or false accuser, and is specially applied to Satan, as the great adversary of our race. (See above, on 5:3, and below, on 6:13.) The reference here may be specially, but not exclusively, to demoniacal possession, since disease in general is elsewhere ascribed to Satanic influence (see Luke 13:16.) For God was with him, both in a providential sense, appropriate to any prophet or apostle, and in a personal essential sense, appropriate to Christ alone. The same double sense belongs to the Hebrew name Immanuel or God with us (Isai. 7:14; Matt. 1:24.) This ambiguous expression was peculiarly adapted to the audience whom Peter was addressing, none of whom would have denied that God was with Jesus in the lower sense, and all of whom were to be taught that God was with him in the higher.

39. To Cornelius and his fellows these things were known only by report; but Peter and the body of Apostles which he represented were eye-witnesses, ordained by Christ himself to publish and attest them. All things which he did, i. e. in public or officially (see above, on 1:1.) These are divided locally into two classes, what he did in Jerusalem, and what he did in the rest of Judea, which may here denote either the province or the whole country. (See above, on 1:8.) The last clause should have been connected, in the division of the verses, with the next, as both together present the favourite contrast between Christ's treatment at the hands of God and man. (See above, on 2:23, 24; 3:15; 4:10; 5:30.)

40. The first clause belongs to the antithesis already mentioned, and might therefore have been added to the foregoing verse, while the last clause is connected in the closest manner with what follows; so that this verse might have been dispensed with, in the conventional division of the text. Him, literally, this (one), or (this man.) Raised up, literally, awakened (i. e. from the sleep of death, see above, on 7:60), or aroused (from its inaction), which are the senses of this Greek verb in the classics. (See above, on 3:15; 4:10; 5:30.) Shewed him openly is not a version but a paraphrase. The strict translation is, and gave him (i. e. caused or suffered him) to be (or to become) visible (apparent, manifest.) This last word occurs only here and in Rom. 10:20. The obvious meaning of the clause is, that our Saviour was not merely said to have arisen from the dead, but was distinctly seen alive by others.

41. The Apostle here anticipates and answers an objection, which has often since been made to the New Testament account of Christ's resurrection, namely, that he did not publicly appear when risen, but was said to have been seen only by the narrow circle of his friends and followers. This was sufficient to establish the fact, which most men must believe, after all, upon the testimony of a few. It was also well adapted to exercise the faith of true believers who were not eye-witnesses, and more in keeping with the dignity and glory of the risen Saviour, which would now have been degraded by the same promiscuous and unreserved association with men, that was necessary to his previous ministry. The very fact that no such public recognition of his person is recorded, though at first it might have seemed to detract from the evidence of his resurrection, now serves to enhance it, by showing how free the witnesses of this event were from a disposition to exaggerate, or make their case stronger than it was in fact. Not to all the people, i, e. to the Jews, as the word usually means in this book (see above, on 2:47; 3:9; 4:2; 5:20; 6:12; 7:17; 10:2.) The office of attesting this event had been entrusted to a select few, who neither could be deceived nor had a motive for deceiving others; who were not self-constituted or selected after the event, but previously chosen by divine authority; whose knowledge of the fact was not obtained by hearsay, or at second hand, or founded on a few short distant glimpses, but derived from intimate although not constant intercourse with Christ in private after his resurrection. Chosen before, a compound verb in Greek, used in the same sense by Demosthenes and Plato. The primitive or simple verb means to vote by stretching out or lifting up the hand, and then more generally to elect. This verb and the one employed in 1:17, are combined by Plato to express the two modes of appointment to office, by vote and by lot. Before, i. e. before the resurrection, the event to be attested. (Even) to us, his immediate followers, in whose name I now address you. Ate and drank, i. e. partook of the same meals, or, as we should say, sat at the same table. The words are not to be severally understood but jointly, as denoting the most intimate companionship, and therefore the most perfect opportunity of knowing or discovering the truth. There is no difficulty, therefore, arising from the fact that his drinking with them is not separately mentioned (Luke 24:30, 43; John 21:13), much less any reason for connecting the last words (after his rising from the dead) with the preceding verse, and reading all that intervenes as a parenthesis. We who ate and drank with him is not a natural description of his followers and friends in general; whereas their eating and drinking with him after his resurrection made them competent witnesses to that event.

42. Commanded us, or peremptorily required us (see above, on 1:4; 4:18; 5:28, 40), not leaving it to our discretion, but making it a part of our official duty. To preach, i. e. proclaim, publicly announce, as heralds did. See above, on 8:5; 9:20, and compare the cognate noun as used by Paul and Peter (1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11; 2 Pet. 2:5.) To testify, a Greek verb technically used in Attic law to signify rebutting proof or testimony, but in the New Testament a mere emphatic or intensive form of the common verb meaning to bear witness. (See above, on 2:40; 8:25.) It may here suggest the accessory ideas of incessant, thorough, and explicit testimony, or to use the ancient English formula, the act of speaking the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. What is chiefly remarkable in this verse is that Peter, in addressing these Gentiles, renders prominent our Lord's judicial character and office, just as Paul did long after in addressing those at Athens (see below, on 17:31.) This coincidence would seem to show that to this class of inquirers that particular aspect of Christ's dignity and power was peculiarly important. He is the one designated, marked out or defined (see above, on 2:23.) (To be or as) the judge of quick (i. e. living) and dead, not in the spiritual sense of saints and sinners, but in the literal one of all generations, past, present and to come. (Compare Rom. 14:9; 2 Tim. 4:1; 1 Pet. 4:5.)

43. As the Gentile hearers, although previously ignorant of Christianity, had probably some knowledge of the Jewish scriptures, Peter closes by a general appeal to these as likewise testifying of Christ, not merely as a judge but as a saviour. To him, to this same man whom the Jews had slain by hanging on a tree (v. 39), all the prophets testify, i. e. the whole drift of the prophetic scriptures is in this direction. (See above, on 3:24.) The cavilling objection that this is not literally true of every prophet in the Hebrew canon, is scarcely more unreasonable than the effort to refute it by the citation of particular predictions. Instead of fortifying the Apostle's declaration, this enfeebles it, by quoting but a small part of what be referred to, which was not a few detached expressions in the Prophets technically so called, but the whole tenor of the whole Old Testament, as a prospective or prophetic revelation. By a beautiful and striking change, the view of Jesus as a judge, which had been just before presented, is exchanged, at the very close of the discourse, for that of a redeemer. What the whole body of prophetic scripture teaches, is not merely that he has been designated as the final judge of quick and dead, which could only excite terror and despair, but also that remission of sins (see above, on 2:38; 5:31) may be obtained through his name, not merely by professing it, but by means of all that it denotes (see above, on 2:38; 3:16; 4:12. 5:28, 40; 8:12; 9:27), by every one believing in him, i. e. trusting and relying on him.

44. Peter still speaking, before he had finished what he meant to say, and therefore unexpectedly to him, and of course without his agency or intervention. These words might be referred to the whole discourse (vs. 34–43), but are more naturally understood of what immediately precedes (v. 43.) He was still uttering the last words recorded in the context. Fell upon, descended from above, implying suddenness and superhuman origin. The Holy Ghost may here denote the influence exerted, the effect produced by the operation of the divine agent; but as the personal meaning is the usual and proper one, it seems best to retain it, and to understand the words as a strong figure for immediate action on a lower or inferior object. (See above, on 1:5; 8:16, and compare the use of the same figure in v. 10 above.) All those hearing may be strictly understood, as including a fresh spiritual influence, even upon those who had before received the Spirit, not excepting Peter himself (as in 2:4; 4:8, 31; 6:5; 7:55); or as a relative expression, like that in vs. 39, 43 (see above, on 1:1), meaning all whom it concerned, not all who actually heard, but all whom Peter was addressing, i. e. Cornelius and his company. The word may either be synonymous with these words in the first clause (though the nouns are different in Greek), or signify the whole speech, as distinguished from its last words, there referred to. This sudden illapse of the Holy Spirit, without previous baptism or imposition of hands (as in 8:17 above, and 9:5, 6. below), was probably intended to confirm the impression made by Peter's vision (see above, on v. 28), and to justify him in administering baptism without previous circumcision. (See below, on v. 47.)

45. Were amazed, the same verb that is used above in 8:9, 11, 13, and there explained. The faithful, in the strict sense, i. e. full of faith, believers, converts. The English word is still sometimes so used when believers are collectively referred to; but its usual sense is full of faith, i. e. fidelity (which is the meaning of the word in the phrases "good" or "bad faith," "keeping faith," etc.) This is also the predominant New Testament usage (see 1 Tim. 1:12; Col. 4:9; 1 Pet. 5:12; 1 John 1:9); but there are also clear examples of the other (see below, on 16:1, and compare John 20:27; Gal. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:15; Tit. 1:6.) These believers are here more particularly described as being of (i. e. belonging to, or derived from) the circumcision (i. e. the religion, of which it was the badge or the distinctive rite; compare the use of baptism in 1:22 above.) The whole phrase therefore means converted Jews, as all the followers of Christ had hitherto been. As many as came with Peter, from Joppa to Cesarea upon this occasion (see above, on v. 23.) In addition to the reasons there suggested for his bringing them, may now be added, as perhaps the chief, that they were meant to serve as chosen representatives of Jewish Christianity, and as such to bring it into contact with the Gentile form of that religion, represented by Cornelius and his company. The junction between these two branches of the church was not consummated, either objectively or subjectively, i. e. in point of fact or in the judgment of these Jews, until they witnessed the astonishing event recorded here. Also, as well as on themselves, or on the Jews. The Gentiles, literally, the nations, i. e. all besides the Jews. This vast body was adequately represented by the small number present, because the principle established, even in a single case, extended equally to every other. Between these two representative bodies stood the great Apostle, who, though specially devoted to "the circumcision" (Gal. 2:7, 8), was commissioned, for important reasons, to admit the first Gentile converts to the church directly, without passing through the vestibule or outer court of Judaism. Then, in the strict sense, after witnessing this great event, Peter answered, to the praises of the Gentile converts, or to the wondering exclamations of the Jewish brethren, or to the voice of God, so audible in what had just occurred. Any of these suppositions is more natural than that of an unmeaning pleonasm. (See above, on 3:12; 5:8.)

46. There was no room for doubt as to the fact that the Spirit had been given, as there might have been in the case of mere internal, spiritual changes. These were likewise wrought, as in every case of genuine conversion; but besides these, there were other gifts imparted, which were cognizable by the senses, and thus served as incontrovertible proofs of what had taken place. (See above, on 8:17, 18.) The one here mentioned is the gift of tongues, the same with that described in 2:4, notwithstanding the omission of the epithet there used (other), which, so far from implying a difference between the cases, is a mere abbreviation, tacitly referring to the more complete description previously given. Here again it seems still more evident than in the other case, that the gift of tongues was not intended merely as a practical convenience, but as a miraculous token of God's presence, and a type of the reconciliation between Jew and Gentile, whose alienation had for ages been secured and symbolized by difference of language. They did not merely hear them say they had received the Holy Spirit; they heard them (actually) speaking with tongues (i. e. in foreign languages), not unintelligibly or at random, but like the disciples on the day of Pentecost, in praise of God (see above, on 2:11.) What is there called speaking the wonderful (or mighty) works of God, is here more concisely expressed, magnifying God, i. e. setting forth his greatness. Hence this occasion has been not unjustly styled the Gentile Pentecost.*

47. The form of interrogation here used (with μήτι) is equivalent to a strong negation. 'Surely no one will now venture to forbid, etc.' (Compare Matt. 7:16; Mark 4:21; Luke 6:37; John 4:49.) The same verb which, applied to persons, means forbid, when applied to things, is better rendered by withhold, as in Luke 6:29, where to take is supplied by the translators. Water, or more exactly, the water (answering to the Spirit) i. e. the baptismal water, or the water necessary for the purpose. Although nothing can be proved from this expression, it is certainly more natural in reference to the bringing in of water, than to the act of going to it. Which have received being such as have received, the same form of the relative with that in 7:53; 9:35, and there explained. The reason here assigned is, that they who had received the baptism of the Spirit must certainly be fit for that of water. Why should the sign be withheld from those who were possessed of the thing signified? If God was willing to accept them as converted Gentiles, why should man insist upon their coming forward as converted Jews? As well (even as, or just as) we, i. e. you and I, addressing those who came with him from Joppa; or we the disciples of Christ in general, i. e. such as had received the Holy Ghost. This is an argument ad hominem, equivalent to asking, What higher evidence have you and I, that God has chosen us and given us his Holy Spirit, than the evidence afforded by this company of Gentiles?

48. The sign might have seemed to be superfluous after the gift of the thing signified; but baptism is a sealing and initiatory no less than a typical ordinance, and is rendered necessary, not by utilitarian reasons, but by express divine command. It can scarcely be a mere fortuitous coincidence, that Peter, Paul, and Christ himself, should all have left this rite to be administered by others. "Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples" (John 4:2.) "I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus, etc." (1 Cor. 1:14.) "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (ib. v. 17.) As none of these expressions can be intended to detract from the value and importance of the rite in question, they can only be explained as warning us against the error of exalting this part of the Christian system to a disproportionate importance, which may be just as superstitious as the eucharistical corruptions of popery, or the hierarchical excesses of prelacy. One idolatrous extravagance cannot be corrected by another. The true corrective is to keep all parts of the revealed system, both of faith and practice, in their proper place. In the name of the Lord, i. e. of the Lord Jesus Christ, as several of the oldest manuscripts expressly add. This, though it may be no part of the true text, is undoubtedly the true sense, as a baptism simply in the name of God would be without either meaning or analogy. The idea meant to be conveyed is that of Christian baptism, as distinguished from all others or from none, and not the formula employed in the administration, which was no doubt that prescribed by Christ himself. (Compare Matt. 28:19, and see above, on 2:38.) In his name, by his authority, professing faith in him, vowing obedience to him, and entering into union with him. Then, when they had been baptized accordingly, they prayed (literally asked) him to tarry (or, as the compound Greek verb strictly means, to stay on, or stay over, remain longer than he had intended) certain (literally, some, or as the older English versions render it, a few) days. This request, expressive of their hospitable feelings and desire of instruction, was no doubt complied with.

CHAPTER 11

HERE again the connection of the history is obscured by the division of the chapters, that before us comprehending two entirely distinct subjects, under the form of a continued narrative. The first part is the sequel of the story of Cornelius (1–18); the second an account of the introduction of the Gospel into Antioch, after the dispersion on the death of Stephen (19–30.) The former of these narratives contains Peter's statement and defence of his own conduct in receiving Gentile converts to the Church, without circumcision or other conformity to the ceremonial law. Besides a brief account of the objection made to his proceedings at Jerusalem (1–3), we have what seems to be a full report of his defence, consisting of a plain historical recital of the facts, for the most part in the same form as before, but with some variations and additions (4–15), winding up with an appeal to the authority of Christ and God, as having definitively settled the whole question (16–17), in which conclusion all the brethren, including those who had at first objected, seem to have cordially acquiesced (18.) The remainder of the chapter is filled with an account of a fourth great radiation from Jerusalem, collateral to those described in the three foregoing chapters, and terminating in the capital of Syria, which was to become, in due subordination to Jerusalem, the metropolis or mother-church of Gentile Christianity. The principal particulars included in this narrative are the first extension of the church to Antioch and its success there (19–21); the mission of Barnabas, with a commission from the mother-church (22–24); his reunion with Saul, and their joint labours for a year at Antioch (25–26); the origin of the Christian name (26); the prophecy of Agabus (27–28); and the mission of Barnabas and Saul to Judea (29–30), during which the events described in the next chapter took place at Jerusalem, and from which, at the close of that chapter, they return to Antioch (12:25.)

1. Then (δέ) heard the Apostles and the brethren (to wit) those being in Judea. It was not to be expected that these singular occurrences at Cesarea could long remain unknown to the churches in Judea, which were all composed of Jewish converts, many of them zealous for the law. (See below, on 21:20.) Heard, received intelligence, either by common fame or by official information. The Apostles, who were therefore still residing, either in the Holy City, or with some of the affiliated churches in Judea, and perhaps engaged in visiting them in rotation, after the example of Peter (see above, on 9:31.) The brethren, i. e. the disciples or believers as in 1:15, and often elsewhere; or, in a more restricted sense, the officers and teachers of the churches here referred to. Neither these nor the Apostles are said to have formed or expressed any judgment in relation to the course pursued by Peter, until, his return recorded in the next verse. The Gentiles, or the nations, represented by Cornelius and his household, whose reception settled the whole question (see above, on 10:45.) The word of God, the gospel, the new religion, as a revelation or divine communication. Received, i. e. obtained it, or were favoured with it; and more actively, accepted it, acknowledged it as true, and assented to its terms of pardon and salvation. Their own reception to the church, though not expressed, is necessarily implied.

2. Went up, i. e. from Cesarea; see above, on 9:30. Contended, literally, differed with him; see above, on 10:20, There is no allusion here to a judicial charge, but only to colloquial or private disputation. With him is literally to him, at him, implying that their objections were addressed directly to him, having been apparently reserved till his arrival. They of the circumcision means essentially the same thing as in 10:45, namely, Jewish converts or converted Jews, but with the accessory notion, here suggested by the context, of a circumcision-party, or of such as not only had been circumcised, but looked on circumcision as a duty not to be dispensed with.

3. The substance of their charges is now given, as in many other cases, in the form of a direct address to Peter. Not that these very words were uttered upon any one occasion; but what they said on various occasions might be thus summed up. The charge expressly made is that of going into the society of the uncircumcised and eating with them. This, as we know from Peter's own lips, was considered by the Jews unlawful. It may seem surprising that this lower and more trivial offence against the Jewish usage should be specified, when Peter had been guilty of one far more heinous in the estimation of these Jewish Christians, namely, that of baptizing those who never had been circumcised. The argument suggested is a fortiori. If mere association with the Gentiles was unlawful, how much more their admission to the ordinance of baptism. Or the words of this verse may be looked upon as the beginning of their accusation, the first charge in their indictment. As if they had said, You have acted unworthily of your profession and your obligations as an Israelite; for, in the first place, you went into the company of Gentiles, and by eating with them either broke, or ran the risk of breaking, one of our most sacred precepts.

4. Peter's defence against this accusation consisted in a bare historical recital of the facts, with a concluding question, showing how they bore upon the point at issue. His narrative, though brief, was a complete one. He began at the beginning, and expounded or set forth the facts in order, i. e. in the order of their actual occurrence. The Greek word here used (καθεξῆς) is peculiar to Luke, who applies it to time, succession, motion, and arrangement. (See above, on 3:24, and below, on 18:23, and compare Luke 1:3; 8:13.) Nothing can less resemble a forensic or judicial vindication than this simple statement, although recorded with the same sort of technical formality, that leads to similar repetitions in the records of our courts and legislative bodies. (See above, on 10:30.) The variations in this form of the narrative from those preceding, although unessential, are not unworthy of attention, as indicative of conscious accuracy in the writer, with a certain freedom from restraint, as to the mere form of expression or minute details.

5–10. The minute particulars of time and place are here omitted with the circumstance of hunger predisposing him to such a vision. The words ecstasy (or trance) and sight (or vision) are repeated here. Bound (or fastened) is omitted. Instead of simply let down on the earth, we have the more specific form, it came as far as me, or reached to me. From this we learn that it was not a distant but a near view that he had of the descending vessel, into which, we are here told, he gazed intently and inspected the contents, and saw that they consisted of the various kinds of animals, described precisely as they were in 10:12. In his answer to the voice which summoned him to slay and eat, there is a slight variation as to form, not substance. I never did eat is exchanged for never came into my mouth. For received up, we have here the more expressive phrase, was drawn up.

11, 12. Behold, as usual, denotes surprise at something unexpected. Stood at or over, near or by, this idea being suggested both by the compound verb and by the separate preposition. Nothing doubting or hesitating, differing with myself, or perhaps distinguishing without a difference, by needless scruples. (See above, on v. 2, and on 10:20.) Six brethren—these, here present. Thus we learn the number of the men who went with him to Cesarea, and the fact that they accompanied him also to Jerusalem, perhaps as witnesses on this occasion. And we came into the house of the man. This definite expression, as Cornelius is not previously mentioned in this context, either shows that we have only an abridged summary of Peter's speech and not his very words, or else must be referred to the prevailing rumours, in which the centurion was no doubt a conspicuous figure. As if he had said: we came into the house of the man, of whom you have all heard so much. Or the allusion may be to the charge in v. 3, and the collective or indefinite expression there used. And we came into the house of the man, with whom (and his associates) you now accuse me of having eaten and kept company.

13, 14. Here again, the definite expression (the angel) is not to be neglected, or gratuitously treated as indefinite, but considered as implying previous acquaintance with the story, on the part of those who were now hearing it. This shows that Peter was repeating these details, not simply, or at all, for information, but for argument. The same thing, indicated in the same way, has already been observed in Stephen's speech before the council, where the leading incidents of Jewish history are recapitulated, not as something new to such an audience, but as familiar premises from which he was about to draw an unexpected conclusion. See above, on ch. 7. In his house, or in his own house, not abroad, or in a strange place, where he might have been more easily deceived, but at home, in private, and with every safeguard and assurance against error or illusion. The word men is omitted in some critical editions, as a probable amendment of the text by assimilation to 10:5. Standing, or still more exactly, stationed, as the participle here used has a passive form, although equivalent in usage to an active one. Send away, a stronger expression than the one employed in ch. 10:5, and etymologically unconnected with the one that follows. By which, literally, in which, i. e. in the hearing, or rather in the doing of which. The words which Peter was to speak were not merely doctrinal or theoretical, but practical, preceptive, and imperative. They were to tell him what to do, and in the doing of it he was to be saved, in the highest and most comprehensive sense, that of deliverance from all the evils of his previous condition. And all thy house or household, who had been before described as sharers in his fear of God (see above, on ch. 10:2), and no doubt in his prayers and alms and longing for salvation. To them; as well as to himself, it pleased God that the words of Peter should be savingly effectual.

15. It is remarkable that Peter here gives no account whatever of his own discourse at Cesarea, because it was not one of the facts on which he chose to rest his vindication. It was not what he said, but what God did, that furnished his apology. In consequence of this characteristic reticency, the account before us, taken by itself, would naturally leave the impression, that the illapse of the Spirit took place before Peter had said any thing. And yet the narrative is perfectly consistent with the one in the preceding chapter. Began should neither be explained away as a pleonasm or unmeaning superfluity, nor interpreted too strictly, as implying that he had just begun, or scarcely begun, but understood more freely as denoting after he began, without determining how long. The nearest approach that can be made in English to the form of the original is, in my beginning, i. e. as, when, or after I began. There is a double preposition in the next clause, as in v. 11, the verb itself meaning to fall on. The figure of falling, as in 10:10, denotes an influence or impulse from above, i e. from a superior power. It is also worthy of remark that in this baptism of the Spirit, the act described is that of pouring, not of plunging or immersing. The Holy Spirit is expressed in the original very emphatically and precisely, the Spirit, the Holy (one.) The words as also (ὥσπερ καί) mean as really, and as evidently, as on us, i. e. on the Apostles and first converts on the day of Pentecost. This is here called the beginning of the Christian dispensation or the Christian Church, which dates from the effusion of the Holy Ghost at that time, corresponding to the organization of the Mosaic church by the Theophany and giving of the Law at Sinai, which Pentecost, according to a highly probable tradition of the Jews, was partly instituted to commemorate. (See above, on 2:1.) The Greek phrase (ἐν ἀρχῇ) is the same with that at the beginning of John's Gospel, and of the Septuagint version of Genesis. In itself it is indefinite or relative, and simply means at first. The terminus a quo must be determined by the context. The beginning here meant can be only that of the entire series of events, connected with the re-organization of the Church

16. The reference is probably to Christ's last interview with the Apostles (see above, on 1:5, and compare Luke 22:61.) John indeed (μέν), a concession; it is true, the type has come, but not the antitype. These are constantly spoken of, as exactly corresponding. The associations in the minds of men with one of these would govern their associations with the other. If they were accustomed to think of the baptismal Spirit as poured out or down, they would naturally look for such effusion or affusion in the case of the baptismal water. With the Holy Ghost, not in holy spirit. (See above, on 1:5.)

17. This is the argumentative part of the discourse, or the conclusion to which all the foregoing statements had been tending. The sum of all is, it was God himself who had determined the question. The illative particle (οὖν) at the beginning has respect to the preceding narrative. 'Since then it is evident from what I have related, that the question was determined by divine authority, and wholly independently of me, nay, in total opposition to my previous opinions and desires, I leave it to yourselves whether I could have done otherwise, and whether I am justly liable to censure.' The like gift, literally, the equal gift, i. e. the same. Who believed, literally, having believed. This may agree either with them or us, or both. To them as to us, both having believed alike. The position of the pronoun in the last clause gives it a peculiar emphasis. I—who was (I) (that I should be) able to forbid God? (Compare Ex. 3:11.) To forbid or hinder God from doing as he pleased, which would be impious if possible, becomes absurd from its impossibility. The argument amounts to a reductio ad absurdum

18. The effect of Peter's argument appears to have been instantaneous and complete. They who heard it acquiesced, not merely held their peace, or ceased to speak upon the subject, but were satisfied, relinquished the position they had taken, and assented to the doctrine and the practice which they had so strongly censured. It might denote mere cessation from dispute, without conviction or a change of mind, as in Luke 23:56, where the stronger sense is inadmissible, and where, as here, the silence was produced by an unanswerable question. But that idea is precluded here by the additional statement, that they glorified God and said, So then (it is true after all, unlikely as it seemed beforehand, that) even to the Gentiles (or to the Gentiles also), God has given repentance unto life (or that repentance which is necessary to salvation.) To the Gentiles also, i. e. as well as to the Jews, and as directly, without any intermediate or preparatory process, in the one case more than in the other. These expressions, all implying joy at the event, determine the quiescence of the Jewish Christians after Peter's speech to have been acquiescence in his theory and practice, with respect to Gentile converts.

19. Now, or so then; see above, on 9:31. The point to which the author goes back, both in this and in the other cases, is the death of Stephen, the ensuing persecution, and the consequent dispersion. As this disaster had been overruled for the extension of the Gospel to Samaria and other quarters, so it was made to have the same effect in this case. Upon the persecution, literally, from the affliction (or distress), not merely after it in point of time, or from it in the sense of springing from it, but with a distinct allusion to their fleeing and escaping from it. About Stephen has been variously understood to mean over his body, after his death, during his time. (Vulg. sub Stephano; but the translator probably read στεφανοῦ, which is found in some Greek MSS.) and on account of him or for his sake, which last is the most natural. Travelled, literally, passed through (the intervening country.) As far as indicates the limit of their mission, but without excluding intermediate places. Phenice is the Greek name, and Phenicia the Latin, of the narrow tract of sea-coast north of Palestine, including Tyre and Sidon, and famous in the ancient world for its extensive maritime commerce. Cyprus is the ancient and modern name of the large and fertile island off the coast of Palestine and Asia Minor, noted of old for the wealth and luxury of its inhabitants. Antioch, the capital of Syria, built by Seleucus Nicator on the south side of the Orontes, fifteen miles from its mouth, and named in honour of his father Antiochus. If what is here recorded took place after the conversion of Cornelius, which is very doubtful, that event was probably unknown to these first missionaries to Phenicia, Syria, and Cyprus.

20. There are two important questions in relation to this verse, one critical or textual, the other more grammatical and exegetical. The first is, whether the true text is Greeks (ἕλληνας) or Grecians (ἑλληνιστάς), Gentiles or foreign (Greek-speaking) Jews. (See above, on 6:1; 9:29.) The manuscript evidence, though dubious and meagre, is in favour of the latter reading, which is that of the textus receptus. But the other has been commonly adopted, in the ancient versions and by modern critics, chiefly on internal evidence, namely, the supposed improbability, that Luke would have recorded, as something new or strange, the fact that these dispersed believers preached the Gospel to the Hellenists as well as to the Hebrews, when it had been preached to both from the beginning (see above, on 2:5; 6:1; 9:29); whereas their preaching to the heathen Greeks was really a new thing, especially if previous to the conversion of Cornelius, or at least without the knowledge of that great event. This reading (ἕλληνας) is moreover found in two of the most ancient copies (A.D.), and is supposed to be required by the antithesis between indeed (μέν) in v. 19, and but (δέ) in v. 20. This last, however, is an argument of no weight, as the particle in v. 19 is not the simple one, so commonly opposed to δέ, but the compound one (μὲν οὖν), answering to so then, and employed in the resumptions of a narrative. (See above, on 8:4; 9:31.) To the manuscript authorities it may be answered, that the reading in one of them (D) is not original, but introduced by a later (though still ancient) hand; and that the other (A) has the same reading in 9:29, where it is universally allowed to be erroneous. The remaining argument in favour of this reading rests on the assumption, that the writer must be stating something new or strange. But why may he not be simply understood as saying, that when the refugees arrived at Antioch, such of their number as were Hellenists or foreign Jews preached to the Jews of their own class whom they found there, as the Hebrew or native exiles had done on the way to their own countrymen? The sense obtained by this interpretation is so good in itself, and so consistent with the context, that there seems to be no need of any emendation. The other reading is preferred, however, by the great majority of critics and interpreters, who understand this as another instance of the Gospel being preached among the Gentiles, entirely independent of the one recorded in the preceding chapter. Of those who thus explain the last clause of the verse before us, some understand the first clause as relating to the Jews mentioned at the close of v. 19. The sense will then be that, although the exiles from Jerusalem, referred to in the first clause of v. 19, preached exclusively to Jews, their Jewish converts were more liberal or fearless, and extended their instructions to the Gentiles also. A more natural and usual construction refers some of them to the exiles themselves, and understands them to have either changed their method of proceeding when they got to Antioch, or to have differed from the first among themselves, some preaching only to the Jews, and others to the Gentiles likewise. All these questions are precluded by retaining the received text (ἑλληνιστάς), and supposing the essential fact recorded here to be that the first missionaries from Jerusalem in this direction preached exclusively to Jews, the Hebrews to the native and the Hellenists to the foreign class. The only serious objection to this view of the passage, over and above those which have been already set aside, is that it then contains no explicit mention of the first extension of the Gospel to the Greeks of Antioch, which is however necessarily implied in the existence of the church there, and its subsequent relation to the whole field of Gentile Christianity.

21. The hand of the Lord, i. e. the manifest exertion of his power. The expression is an oriental and especially a Hebrew one. Precisely the same words occur in reference to John the Baptist (Luke 1:66.) Very similar terms are applied to human influence in the Septuagint version of 1 Kings 17:22 (compare 2 Kings 14:19.) The cognate figure of the Lord's arm is employed by Isaiah (53:1) and quoted by John (12:38.) The power here meant is a spiritual power acting through the truth as propounded in the Gospel and tending to conviction and conversion, but not exclusive of miraculous attestations, which are primarily meant by the same figure in 4:30. It is a curious illustration of the way in which the text was often unintentionally falsified, that three Greek mss. add to this clause the words "to heal them," evidently borrowed, by an error of judgment, or perhaps unconsciously, from Luke 5:17. With them of course means with these preachers to the Gentiles, who are the subject both of the preceding and ensuing context. The manifestation of the divine power was a formal approbation of their having preached directly to the Gentiles, and a warrant for continuing to do so. The Lord, to whom the converts turned, was God as manifested in his Son. One ms. has turned to the Lord Jesus. Much is here coupled with a noun of multitude, where our idiom requires great. (Compare Mark 5:24; John 6:2; Acts 14:1; 17:4; Matt. 9:37.) The conversion of Cornelius, whether first in time or not, was meant to be the type of all accessions from the Gentile world; but it was not necessary to this end that it should be superior, or even equal, to the case before us, in the multitude of converts.

22. These proceedings at Antioch, like those at Cesarea, could not long remain unknown to the mother-church in Jerusalem, which, partly from its seniority, partly from its local situation, and partly from its connection with the Apostles, still continued to be the centre of influence to the Christian world. Tidings, literally, the word, not the gospel as in v. 1, but the report or news. Of these things, or rather, concerning them, i. e. the Gentile converts and their teachers. Came unto (literally, was heard into) the ears, a Hebrew idiom. The (one) in Jerusalem is added to explain and specify the absolute expression, the church, which, though not inapplicable in an emphatic sense, as we have seen, might not be universally intelligible. The representation of the body of believers in Jerusalem as one church is the more remarkable in this case, because it not only individualizes but personifies that body, speaking of its ears, etc. Into the ears does not imply a secret communication, as in Matt. 10:27 (compare Luke 9:44), where that idea is suggested by the context, and especially by the antithesis. Their hearing of them is supposed by some to exclude the idea of their hearing from them; but the two are scarcely incompatible. The plural verb (they sent) refers to the collective term (church) preceding. The Apostles are not expressly mentioned, as in ch. 8:14, which some regard as an important difference between the cases. But the church at Jerusalem included the Apostles who were there, as we shall see below (on 15:2.) Another supposed difference is, that the person sent was not in this case an apostle. The high-church Anglican divines maintain that he was; but Archbishop Sumner merely says he was "considered as an apostle," and Alford admits that he was not one "in any distinctive sense." Barnabas may have been selected as a Hellenist or Greek Jew, and even as a Cyprian, as some of the first preachers of the gospel at Antioch were from that country. He may also have been chosen as a "son of exhortation" (see above, on 4:36), and as such well qualified to do precisely what he did on his arrival, as recorded in the next Verse. There was also reference no doubt to the moral and spiritual qualities there mentioned. He was not commissioned merely to Antioch, but to pass through (the intervening country) as far as (or until he came to) Antioch, plainly implying that he was to preach the gospel by the way as well as after his arrival. (See above, on 8:4, 25, 40; 9:32.)

23. Having arrived (or got there), not merely finished his journey from Jerusalem, but executed his commission by the way. Seeing the grace of God, i. e. the manifest effects of an immediate divine influence in the conversion of the Gentiles. The idea of benevolence or favour is essential to the definition of divine grace, but is not the prominent idea here. Some late interpreters regard it as implied in Luke's expressions, that the effect upon the mind of Barnabas was unexpected both by him and those who sent him; that he went rather for the purpose of correcting and controlling than approving and rejoicing in the work already going on in Antioch, but found the evidence too strong to be resisted, and with true Christian candor heartily rejoiced in what he saw; and instead of recommending any other method of procedure, simply exhorted all (who had believed or been converted) with purpose of heart, including the ideas of sincerity and constancy or perseverance, to cleave or adhere, to stand by or continue with, the Lord, in whom they had believed, without the slightest reference to the ceremonial law, as a necessary preparation for the gospel.

24. The connection between this verse and the context has been variously understood. Some suppose it merely to assign a reason for the choice of Barnabas as a commissioner to Antioch. But this requires the preceding verse to be explained as a parenthesis, and makes the causal particle (because) dependent on a verb in v. 22; both which constructions are unnatural. Another explanation makes the particle dependent on the verb (exhorted) in v. 23, and supposes this verse to assign the reason for the diligence of Barnabas in preaching. Intermediate between these, and more satisfactory than either, is the supposition that this verse is to be construed more directly with the verb was glad (or rejoiced), and assigns a reason for what might have appeared strange without it, namely, that Barnabas, instead of finding fault or doubting the reality of what he saw, rejoiced or was rejoiced, the form of the original verb being passive. This would seem to confirm the supposition that the actual effect was somewhat different from what had been expected, and required explanation. He acknowledged what he saw to be the work of God, and as such a subject of rejoicing, because he was a good man. There are two ways of explaining this description. One gives to good its widest sense as the opposite of bad, and as a general expression for moral excellence. The other makes it more specific and expressive of a distinct quality—not religious zeal as some imagine—but benevolence and gentleness of disposition, the negation of that envious malignity, or even that censorious asperity, which would have led him to suspect or question what he saw without sufficient reason. As these two senses are entirely consistent, one being really included in the other, it is not at all improbable that both were meant to be suggested, one as the primary, the other as the secondary sense of the expression. The connection of the clauses may be either that Barnabas was not only of a good natural disposition, but also under special divine influence; or that the very goodness here ascribed to him was not a natural endowment, but a fruit of the spirit and effect of faith. Full of the Holy Spirit does not always denote inspiration, but may signify the sanctifying influence exerted upon all believers. The last clause seems descriptive of the effects produced by the preaching of Barnabas himself, in continuation of that previous work which caused his joy. As to the form of expression, see above, on 2:41, 47; 5:14.

25. If Barnabas took this step on his own motion and responsibility, his motives may be readily conjectured. It is easy to conceive that as soon as he was satisfied that God had called him to this field of labour, he would think of Saul of Tarsus as a suitable assistant. He could not have forgotten his miraculous conversion and his introduction to the Apostles by Barnabas himself (9:27), the zeal with which he had opposed the Hellenists or Greek Jews (9:29) at Jerusalem, and the proofs which he had given of superior wisdom and of dialectic skill in the defence of the new doctrine. He may also have known something of Saul's designation as Apostle to the Gentiles in a vision at Jerusalem (see below, on 22:21.) All these are probable suggestions, on the supposition that Saul's call to Antioch was a simple call from Barnabas himself. But there are reasons for believing that it came to him from higher authority, even in the church, than that of his intended fellow-labourer. It is highly improbable that Barnabas, not claiming apostolical authority, and acting himself under a commission from Jerusalem, would undertake, upon his own responsibility, to share this delegated power with another. It is also worthy of remark, that when the mother-church, upon a similar occasion, sent a commission to Samaria (ch. 8:14), it was not only one of apostolical rank, but composed of two persons, in accordance with our Saviour's constant practice (Matt. 21:1; Mark 6:7; 11:1; 14:13; Luke 10:1; 19:29.) This makes it singular, to say the least, that in the case before us, Barnabas was sent alone. Both these apparent difficulties are removed by the assumption, that Saul was really included in the apostolical commission, but not mentioned in the narrative, because he was absent from Jerusalem, and therefore was not actually sent with Barnabas, who was authorized however to associate Saul with him, as soon as he had satisfied himself that what was going on at Antioch was a genuine work of grace. This supposition also supersedes the necessity of assuming a written correspondence between Barnabas and his superiors or constituents, before he went in search of Saul; though it does not materially impair the force of Calvin's observation, that the character of Barnabas is set in an amiable light by the alacrity with which he called in the assistance of a person, whom he must have known to be his own superior, as well in fact as in the divine purpose. One of the latest writers cites, as a parallel from modern history, the conduct of Farel with respect to Calvin himself. How long Saul had been in Tarsus since he left Jerusalem (9:30), can only be conjectured, as the ablest writers differ widely in their estimate, ranging from nine years to one, or even to six months. How Saul had spent this interval, is equally uncertain. Some suppose that he had been studying Greek literature and philosophy, in the cultivation of which Strabo represents Tarsus as surpassing even Alexandria and Athens (see above, on 9:11); or meditating on the state of the Gentiles and the greatness of the work which lay before him; or enduring some part of that painful discipline described by himself to the Corinthians (2 Cor. 11:23–27.) The only conjecture which has any historical foundation is, that during this interval those churches of Cilicia were planted, which are afterwards referred to, as already in existence (15:23, 41), and to which the Apostle's declaration (Rom. 15:20) may have been intended to apply. This supposition, while it fills a chasm in the history without forced or gratuitous assumptions, is moreover recommended by its perfect agreement with the energetic character and active habits of the great Apostle. The verb translated seek, in the only other place where it occurs (Luke 2:44), denotes a diligent and anxious search, and may here suggest that Barnabas was doubtful where he should find Saul, and went to look him up, a phrase etymologically corresponding to the compound Greek verb. The idea that he had concealed himself, like Saul in the Old Testament, is quite gratuitous. The only natural assumption is, that he was not in Tarsus, and that Barnabas was under the necessity of seeking him. The same idea is suggested by the next phrase, having found him, which would seem to be unmeaning or superfluous, if he found him without search; and perhaps by the statement that he brought (or led) him into Antioch, in a sort of friendly triumph or compulsion. As to Paul's motive in complying, the necessity of ascertaining it is superseded by the double authority to which he yielded, that of God himself and of the mother-church. And yet it still remains true, as observed by Chrysostom, that in going to Antioch, he went to a wider field of labour, and with higher hopes of usefulness.

26. It came to pass, as here used, is nearly equivalent, in modern English, to the phrase, 'it was (or is) a fact.' The Greek verb governs all the others in the sentence, so that the connection of the clauses is much closer than in English. As if he had said, several things happened now at Antioch, such as the ministry of Barnabas and Saul, and the application of a new name to the disciples. The first thing that is thus said to have come to pass or taken place, is that Barnabas and Saul, for a whole year, were brought together in the church. As the same Greek verb is used in the Septuagint version to translate a Hebrew one denoting hospitable entertainment, or the act of taking strangers in or home, some give it that sense here, as well as in Matt. 25:35, 38, 43. 'They were entertained a whole year by the church.' But there is nothing in the context to suggest that meaning, as there is in all the other cases. Others understand it to denote the act of meeting or encountering the enemies of the new religion. (See Matt. 22:34; 27:37, and compare Rev. 16:14, 16; 20:8.) But in all the other instances of this use, the enemies are expressly mentioned. The best sense therefore, though expressed in an unusual manner, is that they met (or assembled) in (and with) the church, for worship and instruction. (See Matt. 13:2, and compare Matt. 22:10.) The effect was that they taught much people, or more exactly, a sufficient crowd, implying that their hearers were not only numerous, but of various classes and descriptions. (See above, on 1:15; 5:37.) Taught does not of itself imply conviction or conversion, although these ensued in many cases, but the communication of a knowledge of the true religion, as a necessary means to that result. The other thing that came to pass was the use of the name Christian. The connection of the clauses, which is very faintly indicated in our version, is expressed too strongly in some others, e. g. whence (Luther) so that (Vulgate) they were named Christians. The labours of the missionaries and the rise of this new name are not here spoken of as wholly unconnected, nor as sustaining a causal relation, but as coincident in time and place. It was during this year of missionary labour that the name was first applied. The disciples, i. e. as some understand it, they who were previously called disciples; but the new name did not necessarily supersede the old one. Were called is not a passive verb in Greek, but the active form of the one used above in 10:22, and there explained. It does not here mean to be named by God or by themselves; for then the name would have occurred more frequently; whereas it is used only twice besides, and both times as a term employed by enemies or strangers. (See below, on 26:28, and compare 1 Pet. 4:16.) It means here (as in Rom. 7:3), that they were so called by others; not by the Jews, for they would thereby have conceded the Messiahship of Jesus; nor by Greeks, for they would probably have used another termination (as in 1:11; 10:1); but by Romans, as the form is Latin, like Herodians (Matt. 22:16; Mark 3:6; 12:13), and many others found in the contemporary classics (such as Pompeiani, Mariani, Vitelliani.) The name may possibly have been derisive in its origin, like others which have afterwards been gloried in as titles of nobility (e. g. Huguenots, Puritans, Pietists, Methodists.) All that it properly denotes, however, is that they were followers of Christ, whether those who first applied the name knew that it denoted the Messiah of the Jews, or regarded it merely as the personal name of a ringleader. Thus Suetonius says that Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of their frequent insurrections, prompted by one Chrestus (assidue tumultuantes Chresto impulsore.) This may be a mere mistake for Christo, or the real name of some well-known Jew at Rome. The form Chrestus would be more familiar to the Greeks, and more significant than Christus; and we find that Justin Martyr, and some other early writers, actually use that form and play upon its meaning (good) as descriptive both of Christ and Christianity. The fact recorded in this clause is one of the three grounds, on which Chrysostom claimed for Antioch the rank of a metropolis or mother-church. (For the others, see below, on 15:2.)

27. In these days may be either an indefinite expression (see above, on 1:15; 6:1), denoting merely a time subsequent to that of the events just mentioned; or a specific one, denoting the whole year spent by Barnabas and Saul in Antioch (v. 26,) which last is the opinion of the ablest modern writer on the chronology of Acts. Came, or more exactly, came down, the usual expression for departure from Jerusalem. (See above, on 8:5, 15, 26; 9:32.) The particular Greek verb here used is one of Luke's peculiar terms, being used by him fifteen times, and only once besides in the New Testament (James 3:15.) Prophets, inspired teachers or expounders of the divine will. The prediction of futurity was only one of the prophetic functions, but the one exercised on this occasion. That the Prophets spoken of in the New Testament were the Seventy Disciples (Luke 10:1), or the Presbyters of the Apostolical Church, is not only a gratuitous assumption, but at variance with the temporary office of the Seventy, who are mentioned only in a single passage, and with the language of v. 30 below. The visit of these prophets has been variously explained, as a second mission, similar to that recorded in vs. 19–21; or as a reinforcement of inspired teachers, to relieve and aid those who were there already; or as a proof of constant intercourse between the two mother-churches; or as a special mission sent to warn the church at Antioch of the coming famine, and secure its contributions to the poor saints at Jerusalem (Rom. 15:26.)

28. Stood up, or arose, implying that he spoke in public, and with some formality. (See above, on 1:15; 5:34.) One of them, or from (among) them, as they sat in the assembly. Named Agabus, literally, Agabus by name (see above, on 5:1, 34; 8:9; 9:10, 11, 12, 33, 36; 10:1.) Agabus seems to be a Hebrew name, with a Greek or Latin termination, perhaps the same with that in Ezra 2:45, 46; Neh. 7:48. This man is mentioned only here and in 21:10 below, where he reappears as a prophet in the strict sense. Signified, a verb repeatedly employed by John in reference to disclosures of the future, and for the most part with an implication of obscurity or mystery. (See John 12:33; 18:32; 21:19; Rev. 1:1.) By the Spirit, i. e. by the aid or at the instance of the Holy Spirit. It is more usual to represent the Holy Ghost as speaking by the Prophet, i. e. through him, by his instrumental agency. (See above, on 1:16.) Should be, was to be, or was about to be, the same verb that is used above in 3:3; 5:35, and there explained. Great dearth, a great hunger, famine, scarcity of food. (See above, on 7:11) Throughout all the world, literally, on (or over) the whole inhabited (earth.) This phrase, though strictly universal in its import, is often used in a restricted sense. The Greeks, in their peculiar pride of race, applied it to their own country; the Romans, in like manner, to the empire. A similar restriction of the term by Jews to Palestine would be perfectly analogous, though it may not be demonstrable in usage. If this sense were admissible, the prophecy of Agabus might be said to have been fulfilled in the fourth, fifth, and sixth years of Claudius, during which many died of famine at Jerusalem, as related by Josephus, Eusebius, and Orosius. There had been a previous scarcity at Rome itself, in the first and second years of this reign, to relieve which Claudius opened roads and a new harbour, and caused a medal with a corn-measure to be struck in memory of the event, as stated by Suetonius. In the ninth year of the same reign, Eusebius records a great famine which prevailed in Greece. In the eleventh, Rome was visited again by scarcity, in consequence of which the emperor was pelted by the people, as we learn from Tacitus and Suetonius. All these were local famines; but as they succeeded one another so rapidly, they may be considered as together constituting one continuous progressive famine, and correctly represented as a great dearth which came upon the whole empire (or the whole known world) under (or in the time of) Claudius. Cesar is omitted in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions, and rejected by the latest editors as spurious.

29. The effect of this prediction shows the intimate relation which existed between the affiliated churches and Jerusalem the mother of them all (Gal. 4:26.) The original construction is, and of the disciples as any one was prospered, they determined each of them, etc. The disciples are of course the Christians of Antioch. As, in proportion as; see above, on 7:17. Was prospered or successful, an expression not suggestive of great wealth, but rather of sufficiency or competency to relieve the wants of others. The same idea is expressed by Plato almost in the same words (καθʼ ὅσον εὐπορεῖ τις). The same rule or measure is prescribed by Paul in 1 Cor. 16:2. Determine means originally to divide or bound; then to define bounds; then to define any thing; and lastly to determine or decide. It is used in the New Testament only by Luke and Paul, and elsewhere construed with a noun in the accusative (see below, on 17:26, 31, and compare Heb. 4:7), or as a passive participle (see above, on 2:23; 10:42, and compare Rom. 1:4.) This is the only case in which it governs another verb in the infinitive. Each or every with a plural verb is no unusual construction. (See above, on 2:6, and compare Matt. 18:35; John 16:32.) Relief, or more exactly, for service (or administration), i. e. charitable distribution, a frequent sense of the Greek noun (2 Cor. 8:4; 9:1, 12) and its corresponding verb (Heb. 6:10.) If the famine was to be a general one, how could the church at Antioch relieve that at Jerusalem? Their undertaking so to do implies either a great difference of wealth, or an earlier visitation in Judea, or an entire exemption of the Syrian capital, or all these circumstances in conjunction. The churches of Judea seem to have been always poor, because, as some suppose, originally gathered from the humbler classes (but see above, on 6:7, and compare Matt. 27:57); or because, as others think, impoverished by the community of goods (but see above, on 2:44, 45, 4:32.) In this case the necessity is represented as arising from a special and a temporary cause. The motive of the church at Antioch, however, was not mere natural benevolence, or even Christian charity, but a sense of filial obligation to the mother church, analogous to that which led the Jews of the Diaspora, although beyond the reach of all coercion, to contribute largely to the treasury of the temple. (See Mark 12:41, 43; Luke 21:1; John 8:20, and compare Rom. 15:25–27; 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 8:1–15, 9:1–15.)

30. The purpose thus formed was promptly carried into execution. The affection of these Christians towards the mother church was shown not merely in their words but in their deeds. Which refers to the determination mentioned in v. 29. Did is in direct antithesis to determined. Also is emphatic, not only said but also did. The subject of the verb is latent in the plural noun disciples. There is nothing to restrict it, though the act was probably performed by the church officers, (the elders) sending to the elders. These are by some understood to mean the elders of the Jews, or their hereditary chiefs and representatives under the Patriarchal system, who are so often mentioned in the Gospels as well as the Old Testament, and in the book before us (see above, on 4:5, 8, 23; 6:12, and below, on 23:14; 24:1; 25:15.) This supposes the donation from the church at Antioch to have been intended not for the Christians of Judea in particular, but for any who might need it; and the same wide scope is assumed to have existed in Paul's later collections. (See below, on 24:17.) Another explanation is that these were Christians, but still elders of the Jews by hereditary right. It is commonly agreed, however, that the reference is to office-bearers in the Church; some say the Apostles, because Peter and John describe themselves as Presbyters or Elders (1 Pet. 5:1; 2 John 1; 3 John 1); others, the Bishops of Judea, who were to distribute the donation in their dioceses; others, the Seventy Disciples, whom they identify with the first Christian Presbyters, inferring their perpetual or permanent commission from the words of Christ in Luke 10:19. This would certainly account for the extraordinary fact that, while the institution of the Apostleship and the Diaconate is given in the history, the Presbyterate or Eldership, considered as an office in the Christian Church, is here mentioned for the first time, and that only in an incidental manner. But this omission admits of a still more satisfactory solution, because not requiring any dubious assumption as to the commission of the Seventy Disciples. This solution is, that the office of Presbyter or Elder was the only permanent, essential office of the Jewish Church, and as such was retained under the new organization, without any formal institution, and therefore without any distinct mention in the history, such as we find afterwards in reference to the organization of the Gentile churches, where the office had no previous existence, and must therefore be created by the act of ordination (see below, on 14:23.) This is a much more probable account of the institution of the Christian Eldership than that which derives it from the constitution of the Jewish Synagogue, which was itself probably of later date, and, as a separate organization, without divine authority. (See above, on 6:9.) By the hands, literally, the hand, a common figure, more especially in Hebrew, for mediation, intervention, instrumental agency. (Compare the similar expression in Gal. 3:19.) They did not merely avail themselves of the return of Barnabas and Saul at the expiration of their year of labour (see above, on v. 26), but appointed them expressly to this service, as we learn from 12:25 below. The appointment shows the light in which these two men were regarded by the church of Antioch, and also the importance which they attached to the commission itself. It is worthy of remark that the highest qualifications were required in those who were entrusted with the charities of the church in apostolic times. As to the precedence here and afterwards assigned to Barnabas, see below, on 13:1, 9.

CHAPTER 12

DURING the visit of Barnabas and Saul to the churches of Judea, a new persecution of the Christians at Jerusalem was begun by Herod Agrippa, the first of the name. The history of this persecution is recorded in the chapter now before us (1–19), with a supplementary account of Herod's death (20–24), and the return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch (25.) The particulars belonging to the first head are the commencement of the persecution (1), the death of James (2), the arrest of Peter (3), his imprisonment (4), and the intercession of the church for him (5), his miraculous release (6–11), his appearance at the house of Mary (12–16), and departure from Jerusalem (17), the search for him and execution of the guards (18–19.) Under the second, we have Herod's last visit to Cesarea (19), his negotiation with the Tyrians and Sidonians (20), his public address to them (21), the blasphemous applause bestowed upon it (22), and his death by a judicial stroke (23); after which, or in the mean time, the church prospered (24), and the deputies from Antioch returned to those who sent them (25.)

1. This chapter is connected with the one before it in the closest manner, not only by the usual continuative particle, now (and or but), but by the phrase, about (or at) that time, which, although in itself indefinite, is here determined by the context to mean at the time of the official visit to Judea mentioned at the close of the last chapter. (See above, on 11:30.) It is nowhere said that Barnabas and Saul were in Jerusalem at all, and as their errand was "to the brethren dwelling in Judea" (11:29), some suppose them to have been deterred from visiting the Holy City by the very persecution here described; while others, with as much or as little probability, assume that they were witnesses of what is here recorded, and were even present at the meeting mentioned in v. 12 below. Herod the king, not the one so called in Matt. 2:1, 3, nor the one so called in Mark 6:14, but the nephew of the latter and the grandson of the former, and descended through his mother from the Maccabees or Hasmonean kings of Judah. He was brought up at Rome with the royal princes, Caligula and Claudius, by whom, on their accession to the throne, he was gradually repossessed of the dominions of his grandfather, Herod the Great. He bore the name of the famous Agrippa, which Luke applies, however, only to his son (see below, on 25:13), while he calls the father simply by his family name, Herod. Notwithstanding his heathen education, he professed to be a zealous Jew, perhaps less from conviction than from policy (see below, on v. 3.) Josephus, the historian, describes him as a mild and liberal but ambitious prince, which, with due allowance for the flattery involved in the description, is by no means irreconcileable with what is here recorded. Stretched forth his hands, or more exactly, laid his hands on, an expression often used by Luke, and always in the sense of seizure or arrest. (See above, on 4:3; 5:18, and below, on 21:27, and compare Luke 20:19; 21:12.) The marginal translation in the English Bible (began) is still less exact. To vex, an English word now chiefly used of petty annoyances, but in the translation of the Bible having a much stronger sense. (See for example Num. 20:15; Judges 16:16; 2 Chr. 15:6; Job 19:2; Ps. 2:5; Isai. 63:10; Matt. 15:22.) The Greek verb here used strictly means to make bad, and is once applied to moral influence (see below, on 14:2), but commonly to persecution or oppression (see above, on 7:6, 19, and below, on 18:10, and compare 1 Pet. 3:13.) Certain of the church, or more exactly, some of those from (i. e. belonging to) the church. (See above, on 10:23, and compare 10:45; 11:2.) It is worthy of remark, that the Christians of Judea, or at least those of Jerusalem, are still described as constituting one church. (See above, on 2:47; 5:11; 8:1, 3; 11:22.)

2. Killed, despatched, or made away with (see above, on 2:23; 5:33; 7:28; 9:23, 29; 10:39.) James, the son of Zebedee, one of our Saviour's earliest followers and most confidential friends (see above, on 1:13), never mentioned in the Gospels but with John, as whose brother he is here described, because of John's celebrity in later times. With the sword, most probably by decapitation. This martyrdom may be regarded as the fulfilment of Christ's words in Matt. 20:22. John's sufferings were less acute but more protracted. It is remarkable that, so far as we know, one of these inseparable brothers was the first, and one the last, that died of the Apostles. This verse may be either a specification of the one before it (some of the church, among whom was James the brother of John), or an additional fact, forming a kind of climax (not only some obscure members of the church, but one of the most eminent Apostles.)

3. Because he saw, literally, seeing or having seen. Pleased, literally, is pleasing or acceptable. The present tense calls up the scene as actually passing. (See above, on 7:25; 9:26.) The Jews, not merely the rulers, but the people, whose feelings towards the church had undergone a great change since the time referred to in 2:47; 5:13, during which interval indeed the previous persecution had occurred. (See above, on 8:1.) The motive here assigned was not necessarily the primary or only one. It rather seems to be implied that, having killed James for another purpose, he perceived that he had thereby pleased the Jews. This he may have done while gratifying some ambitious or malignant passion of his own. Proceeded further, literally, added, a Hebrew idiom, which Luke uses elsewhere. (Compare Luke 19:11 and 20:11.) To take, take up, seize, arrest. (See above, on 1:16.) Whatever may have been the motive for destroying James, Peter was probably selected as the most conspicuous and best known of our Lord's disciples. It can scarcely be regarded as fortuitous, that Herod should have laid his hands on two of Christ's three most intimate and confidential friends and followers. The specification of the time when this arrest took place is a strong though incidental proof of authenticity. Then, not the adverb of time, but the continuative particle, translated and in v. 2, and now in v. 1. The days of unleavened bread (Luther and Tyndale, sweet bread; Wiclif, therf loaves; Rhemish version, azymes), i. e. the festival week following the Passover, during which the use of leaven was forbidden in the Law. (See Ex. 12:18, 27; Deut. 16:3, 8, and compare Matt. 26:17; Mark 14:1, 12; Luke 22:1, 7.) This festival began on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, corresponding partly to our March and April. (See below, on 20:6.)

4. Whom having also seized (or apprehended.) The Greek verb is a Doric form of one which means to press or squeeze, but in the Hellenistic usage, to lay hold of, to hold fast. It is applied by John to the taking of beasts and fishes (John 21:3, 10; Rev. 19:20), but still more frequently to forcible arrest or seizure (John 7:30, 32; 44, 8:20; 10:39; 11:57.) Put into prison, or confinement; see above, on 5:19, 22, 25; 8:3.) And delivered, literally, delivering, committing, or entrusting, which is not a mere specification of the preceding phrase ('whom he put into prison by delivering' etc.), but an additional distinct act, showing the unusual precautions taken to secure a captive so important ('whom he not only put into prison, but delivered' &c.) Four quaternions is not a mere periphrasis for sixteen, as the Peshito renders it, but a technical expression borrowed from the Roman discipline or art of war, by which the night was divided into four watches (see above, on 2:15), and each of these entrusted to four soldiers, who succeeded or relieved each other every three hours. These details are found, not only in the Jewish writer Philo, but in ancient military works, such as those of Polybius in Greek and Vegetius in Latin. In the case before us, four armed men appear to have been constantly employed, two in the cell and two before the door, to watch one unarmed and defenceless prisoner. To keep, i. e. to watch or guard, a stronger sense than that attached to the word keep in modern English. Intending, literally, wishing or desiring, but with the accessory notion of a plan or purpose. (See above, on 5:28, 33, and for the usage of the cognate noun, on 2:23, 4:28; 5:38.) After Easter, an absurd confusion of the Christian with the Jewish festival, transcribed into King James's version from the older ones of Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, while Wiclif and the Rhemish Version go to the opposite extreme of retaining the original without translation (after pask or pasche.) There is no imaginable reason why it should not be translated here, as in every other place where it occurs, by its exact equivalent, the Passover. (See Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:1; Luke 2:41; John 2:13; 1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:28, and more than twenty other instances, to which the one before us is the sole exception.) The word properly denotes the sacrifice and supper on the fourteenth day of Nisan, but is here used, as in several of the places just referred to, for the whole festival, described in the preceding verse as the days of unleavened bread. To bring him forth, literally, up, as we speak of bringing a man up before a court or magistrate. (Compare Luke 22:66.) The Greek verb frequently occurs in Acts, but almost always as a nautical or sea-phrase (see below, on 13:13, and compare 7:41; 9:39; 16:34.) To the people, not as judges, but as spectators, in some great assembly, either for amusement, or to witness Peter's execution. (Compare the case of Samson, Judg. 16:25.) Herod's motive for postponing this exposure of his prisoner may have been some scruple of his own, or a regard to the religious feelings of the people whom he wished to please, or quite as probably because he knew that during the paschal week their minds would be engrossed with its ceremonies and festivities, and therefore less fit to appreciate the treat which he proposed to give them.

5. Therefore, or rather so then, the same compound particle (μὲν οὖν) which we have had repeatedly before in this book, to denote the pauses and resumptions of the narrative, (See above, on 1:6; 2:41; 5:41; 8:4, 25; 9:31; 11:19.) Kept, in the same strong sense explained above (on v. 4), though the verb is not the same, but one employed by Matthew (27:36, 54; 28:4) in the same sense, whereas in John it always means either to preserve or to observe. (See John 2:10; 8:51, and passim.) This is not a mere reiteration of a fact already stated, as the imperfect form of the Greek verb is equivalent to the modern phrase, was being kept, i. e. when something else took place, recorded in the next clause. There too, the literal translation is, was being made, the clauses forming an antithesis. While he was watched, they were praying. Without ceasing is a paraphrase of one Greek word, and that an adjective qualifying prayer, and originally meaning tight or strained, but in its figurative usage corresponding to intense, i. e. when applied to prayer, "instant and earnest," as it is well explained in the margin of the English Bible. Of (i. e. by) the church, still regarded as one body, however numerous its members or its subdivisions. (See above, on v. 1, and below, on v. 12.) To God, not to man, not to Herod, whom they might have hoped to influence in some way. For him, concerning him, in his behalf; not merely for his liberation, but for a happy issue to this trial, both to him and to the cause for which he suffered. (See below, on vs. 15, 16.)

6. Would have brought, or more exactly, was about to bring. Herod's plan was on the very eve of its accomplishment. To bring forth (or forward) is the true sense of the verb here used, a kindred form to that in v. 4, and in this book always applied to prisoners. (See below, on 16:30; 25:26.) The same night, or (in) that (very) night, the one preceding the day fixed for Peter's public appearance. His sleeping probably, but not necessarily, implies composure and serenity. Bound with two chains, to the arms of the two soldiers, a method of confinement spoken of by other ancient writers, especially by Seneca (eadem catena et custodiam et militem copulat) and Josephus, who describes this very Herod or Agrippa as having been so secured by order of Tiberius. And the keepers, or the keepers also (τε), i. e. the two remaining men of the quaternion (see above, on v. 4.) Keepers, in the strong sense of guards or watchers. Before the door, either the main entrance to the prison (see below, on v. 10), or the door of the particular ward, cell, or dungeon, in which Peter lay. Kept, in the imperfect tense, were keeping, guarding, watching. The correspondence of the verb and noun is lost in the translation, unless we read, the gaolers kept the gaol.

7. Behold, as usual, prepares the mind for something unexpected; see above, on 11:11. The angel (or an angel) of the Lord; see above, on 5:19. Came upon him, or stood over him; see above, on 4:1; 6:12; 10:17; 11:11, (Wicl. stood nigh. Tynd. was there present. Rhem. stood in presence.) A light, or simply light without the article; see above, on 9:3. This light may have proceeded from the Angel, as a super-natural and heavenly effulgence; or it may have been a separate illumination, intended to facilitate the prisoner's escape. In the prison, literally, in the house or dwelling, a term used in Attic Greek, by a peculiar superstition, instead of the unlucky word which distinctly denotes prison. This singular usage is affirmed by Plutarch, and exemplified by Thucydides and Demosthenes. And smote (literally, smiting) Peter's side, or pleura, a term still used in anatomy. As the Greek verb elsewhere means to strike with violence, so as even to wound or kill (see Matt. 26:31, 51; Luke 22:49, 50), we have neither right nor reason to give it, in this one place, the diluted sense of striking gently. Raised him up, or rather roused him, the idea being not merely that of lifting (as in 3:7) but of awakening from sleep, in which sense the verb is metaphorically used of resurrection or resuscitation. (See above, on 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40.) Arise (or stand up) quickly (or in haste.) His chains, literally, the chains, as the pronoun in Greek is not repeated. Fell off from (or, as the original expression strictly means, fell out of) his hands, as if he had been holding and not merely wearing them.

8. Gird thyself, or, according to the text adopted by the latest critics, gird (thy clothes) around (thee). Bind on (literally, bind under) thy sandals, which covered the sole of the foot only. (For the use of the corresponding noun, see above, on 7:33.) And he did so marks a stage or pause in the proceeding. And he says to him, a second time, again, cast about or throw around (thee) thy (upper or outer) garment (see above, on 7:58.) And (now that thou art fully prepared) follow me. This command to dress himself completely and deliberately, may have been intended both to show him the reality of what he witnessed and to assure him of immediate liberation. This is perfectly consistent with the call to arise quickly. Hesitation in arising would have argued unbelieving doubts; undue haste in departure unbelieving fears. Both were sufficiently precluded by the summons to stand up at once, and by the subsequent instructions to resume every article of dress which he had laid aside, before he left the prison.

9. And going (or coming) out, he (Peter) followed (or was following) him (the Angel), and (as he did so) knew not (was not certain) that it is (as if present to the writer or the reader, see above, on 7:25) true (i. e. real, not imaginary), the (thing) done by (or happened, come to pass, by means of) the Angel. But (although uncertain as to this point) he (rather) thought he saw (or seemed to see) a vision (a miraculous sight or ideal spectacle), such as he had lately seen in Joppa (10:11, 12.) That Peter should have been inclined to this conclusion, after what he had so recently experienced, was certainly most natural.

10. And having past (or come through) a first and second ward, or subdivision of the prison, which is much more natural than to understand it of a first and second guard or watch. The iron gate is spoken of as something well known, or perhaps as something usual in prisons. Leading into the city from the interior of the prison, but not necessarily from without the walls. There is nothing, therefore, to be learnt here as to the position of the prison, with respect to which there have been various conjectures. Of his (in modern English, its) own accord opened (was opened) to them (i. e. for them, or before them) to afford them passage. Coming out, at the iron door, and therefore from the whole enclosure of the prison. Passed on, came forward or proceeded. Through is supplied by the translators. Street, the same Greek word that is used above in 9:11, and there explained. One street, i. e. probably the length of one. The reference may be either to a particular street, or to a customary measure like our square, block, etc. Forthwith, as soon as they had gone this distance. Departed is in Greek the converse of the verb employed in v. 7, a relation which can only be expressed in English by some such combination as "appeared" and "disappeared."

11. Coming to himself is not the same phrase that is so translated in Luke 15:17, but one that properly means, being (or beginning to be) in himself, i. e. in his natural or normal state, as opposed to the perplexity and doubt described in v. 9. Of a surety, truly, really, or certainly, the adverb corresponding to the adjective in v. 9. Sent, or more emphatically, sent out, sent away, implying distance (see above, on 7:12; 9:30; 11:22.) Delivered is a cognate form in Greek to that translated killed in v. 2; an analogous antithesis to that already noticed (on v. 10.) While one apostle was put to death, the other was put at liberty. The hand, power or possession. Expectation, that which they expected, namely his exposure and most probably his execution. (See above, on v. 4.) All the expectation, the worst that he had reason to anticipate with dread, and they with pleasure. The people of the Jews, the Jewish people, not merely individuals, but the whole community, which seems to have acted with great unanimity, as well in showing favour as in manifesting hatred. (See above, on 2:47; 4:21; 5:20; 6:12.)

12. When he had considered the thing answers to one word in Greek which means considering (i. e. where he was, or where he would be likely to find Christian friends assembled); or being aware (of his position, and the place where he was standing); or being conscious (in a state of consciousness, as opposed to an ecstatic one.) This last is nearly synonymous with being in (or coming to) himself in the preceding verse. For the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 5:2, and below, on 14:6, and compare 1 Cor. 4:4. Came to, or upon, perhaps implying that he did so unexpectedly. Mary (or Miriam) being one of the most common Jewish names, the person here meant is distinguished by the mention of her son, who was no doubt therefore well known. John being also an extremely common name, the son is distinguished in like manner by a Latin surname (Marcus), which, according to the custom of the age, was added to his Hebrew one. (See above, on 1:23; 9:36, and below, on 13:1, 9.) This John Mark is no doubt the same who is mentioned in v. 25, and reappears in 13:13; 15:37–39. He is also supposed to be the same whom Peter calls his son (1 Pet. 5:13), i. e. his spiritual son or convert; whom Paul names in three of his epistles as his fellow-labourer (see Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24); and to whom an old and uniform tradition ascribes the composition of the second gospel. The house of Mary, i. e. the house where she was living; but whether as a lodger or an owner we are not told, and are therefore not at liberty to use this as a proof that individual property was not abolished by the community of goods described in 2:44; 4:32, although this negative proposition is highly probable for other reasons. Many were gathered praying, perhaps according to custom, but more probably in reference to this emergency. (See above, on v. 5.)

13. And Peter knocking, or, according to the latest critics, he knocking. The door of the gate, or rather of the porch, the front or street-door. Several of the older English versions have, the entry-door. (See above, on 10:17.) A damsel, maid, or girl, perhaps a member of the family, but most probably a servant, as the Greek word is clearly so used elsewhere (see below, on 16:16, and compare Luke 12:45; Gal. 4:22), and as female servants seem to have performed this office, even in great houses (see Matt. 26:69; Mark 14:66, 69; Luke 22:56; John 18:17.) Came, literally, came to (it, or to the door) from within. To listen, or as the margin of the English Bible less exactly renders it, to ask who was there. The expression here might seem to have respect to some particular emergency or danger, were it not used in the classics to denote the ordinary act of attending or answering the door. Two of the verbs here used (knock and come to) are combined by Lucian, and two (knock and listen) by Xenophon. A similar Latin phrase is used by Plautus (fores auscultator.) Named (literally, by name) Rhoda, or rather Rhode, as the name is Greek, not Latin, and the latter form is given even in the Vulgate. The name denotes a rose-bush, not a rose, as sometimes stated, which in Greek is a related but distinct form (rhodon.) Similar names, derived from plants or flowers, are Tamar (palm), Hadassah (myrtle), and Susanna (lily.) For others borrowed from the animal kingdom, see above, on 9:36. The preservation of this beautiful but unimportant name in the history before us is a slight but striking proof of authenticity.

14. And recognizing Peter's voice, which may imply that he was in the habit of resorting to the house, if not (as Matthew Henry says) that she had often heard him preach and pray. This incident resembles that in Matt. 26:73; Mark 14:70, excepting that in that case it was not his voice, but his provincial dialect, that made him known. (For the meaning of the Greek verb here used, see above, on 3:10; 4:13; 9:30.) For gladness, or from joy, a lifelike incident, analogous to those in Gen. 45:26; Luke 24:41. Told how, or reported that (compare the use of the same verb in 4:23; 5:22, 25; 11:13 above, and in v. 17 below.) The gate, twice mentioned in this verse, is properly the porch or front part of the building, as before explained (on v. 13 and 10:17.)

15. They, i. e. the people of the house, as in 10:10, or rather those who happened to be there assembled (see above, on vs. 5, 12.) Thou art mad, thou ravest, corresponds to one Greek word, which is applied, in precisely the same sense, to Christ himself, by the unbelieving Jews (John 10:20.) It is here a strong expression of their incredulity. Constantly (or confidently, steadfastly) affirmed, is also a single word in Greek, often used, in the same sense, by Plato and the Attic orators. That it was even so, literally, so (or thus) to have, i. e. to have itself to be, the same Greek idiom that occurs above in 7:1. Then, the same word that is translated and, but, in the two preceding clauses. His angel, i. e., as some understand it, his messenger, a messenger from Peter. This is the original meaning of the Greek word, and occurs in a few places (Matt. 11:10; Luke 7:24; 9:52; James 2:5.) But this idea would have been expressed more naturally by the phrase, a messenger from him, or one sent by him. Besides, a message from Peter, guarded as he was, would have been scarcely less surprising than his personal appearance. Most interpreters, therefore, are agreed that angel has here its usual and higher sense, in which it has repeatedly occurred before. (See above, on vs. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and on 5:19; 6:15; 7:30, 35, 38, 53; 8:26; 10:3, 7, 22; 11:13.) Some understand by his angel a preternatural apparition, supposed in the superstitions of some countries to announce the death of the person represented. It is a very ancient notion, that this text confirms the doctrine elsewhere taught, that every person has his guardian angel. But no such thing is really suggested, either here or in Gen. 48:16; Ps. 34:7; Eccl. 5:6; Matt. 18:10; Heb. 1:14. The doctrine of angelic guardianship is clearly taught in Scripture, but not that of a particular angel guarding every individual. Even if this were the meaning of the words before us, it would only show that the primitive Christians were not wholly free from superstition. But the words necessarily denote no more than the mission of an angel, which was not more incredible in this case than in that recorded just before in this same chapter. (See above, on vs. 7–10.)

16. Continued is in Greek an emphatic compound, and might be translated, still continued or continued on. Having opened they saw him, may refer, as before, to the people of the house, or still more probably, to the assembled Christians, who would naturally come out in a body, on receiving the glad news of his arrival. Were astonished, the same verb employed above in 2:7, 12; 8:9, 11, 13; 9:21; 10:45. Their wonder has been sometimes represented as a proof of weak faith, since they could not believe the very thing for which they had been praying. But their prayers may not have been exclusively for Peter's liberation (see above, on vs. 5, 12); or they may, to use a natural and common phrase, have thought the tidings too good to be true. (Compare the case of Ananias, in 9:13, 14.)

17. Beckoning, literally, shaking down (or downwards), a verb found only in this book of the New Testament, and always of the hand, as a preliminary gesture used by public speakers to secure attention. (See below, on 13:16; 19:33; 21:40.) To hold their peace, or to be silent, is in Greek a single word. The clause may have reference, either to the ordinary noise of conversation, or more probably to the unusual expression of their joy at Peter's liberation. Declared, or as the Greek verb primarily signifies, led the way through the matter, or went through it in the form of a circumstantial narrative. For another instance of the same verb and the same construction with how (see above, on 9:27.) The Lord, i. e. God, or more specifically the Lord Jesus Christ (see above, on 1:24; 2:36; 9:27, 35, 42; 10:36, 48; 11:21, 23, 24), by the agency or intervention of his angel. And he said, or, and said, which would make the following clause a command of the angel to Peter, (Report to James and to the brethren these things), which he was now executing. But no such command is mentioned in the previous context, and to most interpreters and readers it has always seemed more natural to understand the words as those addressed by Peter himself to the Christians gathered at the house of Mary. As James the son of Zebedee had been already put to death (see above, on v. 2), and the only other person of that name who has been previously mentioned in this history is James the son of Alpheus (see above, on 1:13), the reference must be to him, unless some reason to the contrary should be suggested by the subsequent history (see below, on 15:13.) He may be particularly named here as the only other Apostle then in Jerusalem, or as the one to whom the care of the church there had been specially entrusted, or on whom it was now to be devolved by Peter. And he departed might, on the hypothesis already mentioned, be supposed to refer to the disappearance of the angel (see above, on v. 10.) But the literal translation (going out) is less appropriate to that event, and the words have been almost universally applied to Peter's own departure from the house of Mary, or the city of Jerusalem, went, or more emphatically, went away, departed, journeyed (see above, on 1:10, 11, 25; 5:20, 41; 8:26, 27, 36, 37; 9:3, 11, 15, 31; 10:20.) The use of this word seems to show that the clause has reference, not to his concealment in some other quarter of the Holy City, but to his departure from it. This agrees well with the fact, that he appears no more there as a resident apostle, but only as a member of the Apostolical Council, which he may have come expressly to attend. (See below, on 15:7.) To what other place he now removed there is nothing in the text or context to determine. Several names have been suggested by conjecture, such as Cesarea (see the next verse), Antioch (see Gal. 2:11), and Rome, in order to sustain the tradition that Peter was for many years the bishop of the church there, a tradition inconsistent with the absolute silence of Paul respecting him, in writing to and from Rome.

18. And (it) being (or becoming) day. Small is in Greek the singular number of the word for few (see below, on 19:23), and a kindred form by Mark (13:8) to the same object, and by John (5:4) to a physical commotion of the waters. It here expresses the confusion and excitement naturally caused by the escape of an important prisoner, especially among those to whose keeping he had been committed. (See above, on 5:22–25.) As no discovery was made till daybreak, when the guard would be relieved, Peter was probably delivered during the last or morning-watch. (See above, on v. 4, and on 1:15.) Among (or in) the soldiers, of the four quaternions, to whom the king delivered Peter for safe keeping. (See above, on v. 4.) The thought to be supplied between the clauses is 'to know,' 'to discover,' or the like. What was become of Peter, literally, what then Peter had become. This has been strictly understood by some, as implying that the soldiers suspected or believed him to have been transformed by magic into some other form, and thus to have escaped. This idea might have been sincerely entertained by heathen soldiers, such as Herod's guards no doubt were; or it might have been invented as a cloak for what appeared to be their own neglect of duty. But the Greek words probably mean no more than our version has expressed, a kind of indirect inquiry, what had befallen or become of Peter. The form of the original, though foreign from our idiom, agrees almost exactly with the French mode of expressing the same thing (ce que Pierre serait devenu.)

19. Having sought for him, and not finding him, having examined the guards, he commanded, etc. Examined, judicially, a verb used only by Luke and Paul (see above, on 4:9.) That they should be put to death, literally, to be led away, sometimes without reference to judicial process (see below, on 23:17; 24:7, and compare Luke 13:15; Matt 7:13); sometimes meaning to the bar, or the presence of a magistrate (as in Matt. 26:57; 27:2; Mark 14:53; 15:16; John 18:3); sometimes to prison or a place of safety (see below, on 23:10, and compare Mark 14:44); sometimes to execution (as in Matt, 27:31; Luke 23:26; John 19:16.) This last is a favourite euphemism in the classics (see above, on v. 7), as when Pliny writes to Trajan, of the Christians who refused at his tribunal to deny Christ, "those persisting I ordered to be led away" (perseverantes duci jussi.) This is not to be regarded as an act of extraordinary cruelty in Herod, but as a simple application of the Roman military law, with which he was familiar. It is not necessarily implied that the miraculous deliverance of Peter was known either to the king or to the guards; but as the latter could give no account of his escape, there seemed to be no doubt that they must either have connived at it, or slept upon their post, a capital offence in Roman soldiers. (See below, on 16:27, and compare Matt. 28:14.) The last clause is referred by some to Peter; but this construction, although not impossible, has never seemed so natural to most interpreters and readers, as that which understands the words of Herod. From Judea, i. e. from the inland or interior, to Cesarea, which was on the sea-coast, and also near the northern limit of the province. (See above, on 8:40; 9:30; 10:1.) As this had been the residence of the Roman procurators, so it now was of Agrippa (see below, on 23:35.) Abode, not necessarily for the first time, but spent the time there before his death. The same Greek verb is elsewhere rendered tarried (see below, on 25:6, and compare John 3:22), continued (see below, on 15:35, and compare John 11:54), and in one case simply had been (see below, on 25:14), but most frequently as here (see below, on 14:3, 28; 16:12; 20:6.) Josephus tells us that Agrippa went to Cesarea for the purpose of celebrating games in honour of the emperor, which, though not here mentioned, is entirely consistent with the narrative before us.

20. Highly displeased, literally, warring in mind, i. e. as the margin of our Bible renders it, bearing a hostile mind, but not, as it is there added, intending war; for this the Romans would not have permitted between two of their dependents. The same objection lies, with still more force, against the explanation, furiously fighting, although justified by classical usage. Them of Tyre and Sidon, literally, the Tyrians and Sidonians, the people of the two great cities of Phenicia (see above, on 11:19), from whose foreign trade the country derived all its wealth, being itself a narrow strip of sea-coast, without any rich interior, and dependent even for the most indispensable supplies upon its neighbours, and especially on Palestine, a mutual relation which appears to have existed from the time of Solomon, and is expressly mentioned by Ezekiel in his vivid picture of the trade of Tyre. (See 1 Kings 5:11; Ezra 3:7; Ezek. 27:17.) On this account it was their wisest policy to live on good terms with Agrippa, who was now the sovereign of all Palestine, and may have been disposed to look upon Tyre and Sidon as commercial rivals of the new port which his grandfather had created at Straton's Tower, now called Cesarea. (See above, on 8:40; 10:1.) This temper he could easily indulge by checking the communication, and especially the export of provisions, to Phenicia. With one accord, unanimously, by agreement, which may possibly imply that they had been at variance among themselves, but now united in a measure equally important to both cities, and indeed to the whole country. Came (or more exactly were present) to him, i. e. came into his presence, sought an audience. This they did not directly, but through Blastus, the king's chamberlain, or as it is more literally rendered in the margin, that was over the king's bed-chamber. In ancient courts, as well as in some modern ones, domestic officers controlled the sovereign, and if not his ministers of state, were really his confidential counsellors. (See above, on 8:27.) Having made him their friend, literally, having persuaded him, perhaps by bribes, but no less probably by arguments, showing that the interests of Herod coincided with their own. (See above, on 5:40, and compare Matt. 28:14; Gal. 1:10.) Desired peace, or rather asked it for themselves, which is the full force of the middle voice, as here used. (See above, on 3:14; 7:46; 9:2.) Peace, not merely as opposed to war, but to alienation, rivalry, or conflicting interests. Because their country, literally, for (or on account of) their country being nourished, i. e. supplied with food, no doubt in exchange for the proceeds of their foreign trade. The king's country, literally, the royal, agreeing with country (or territory) understood, or repeated from the clause immediately preceding. They probably embraced the opportunity, afforded by Agrippa's public or official visit to a seaport, to negociate this reconciliation.

21. A set day, i. e. one fixed or appointed for the purpose. We learn from Josephus, that it was the second day of Herod's games, or public shows, in honour of his friend and patron, Claudius, perhaps with reference to his safe return from Britain, which about this time he had reduced to its allegiance as a Roman province. Herod seems to have reserved his answer to the Tyrians and Sidonians for this public occasion, from vanity and fondness for display, which were his characteristic foibles. Arrayed in, or rather, having put on, which is the true force of the middle voice, as in Luke 12:22. (Compare the active, Luke 15:22, and the figurative use, Luke 24:49.) Royal apparel, or a royal dress, the Greek word denoting not a single garment, but the whole costume. (See above, on 1:10; 10:30.) Josephus describes it more particularly as a dress of silver, that is, richly adorned with silver lace and embroidery, or actually made of silver tissue. This circumstance is also characteristic of Agrippa's vanity. Sat, literally, and having sat (down), or assumed his seat. Throne is elsewhere rendered judgment-seat (see below, on 18:12; 16:17; 25:6; 10:17, and compare Matt. 27:19; John 19:13; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:10.) The Greek word originally means a step or footstep, of which we have one instance in the book before us (see above, on 7:5); then a step or platform, any place ascended to by steps, such as the rostrum or tribunal of a magistrate, the upper seats of theatres, etc. This last agrees well with the statement of Josephus, that the meeting here described was in the theatre at Cesarea, and with the general Greek practice as described by Valerius Maximus (Legati in theatrum, ut est consuetudo Graeciae, introducti.) Made an oration, or harangued the people, as the Greek word properly denotes. To them, i. e. to the Phenician envoys, who were no doubt formally addressed, although the speech was really intended for the people. If this were not the case, the statement in v. 20 would be quite irrelevant and superfluous.

22. The people, not the word so rendered in vs. 4:11 above, and often elsewhere, and most commonly denoting the chosen people or the Jewish church, but one of rarer use in the New Testament and only in the book before us, but employed in Attic Greek to signify the people in their corporate capacity, the sovereign people of the Greek republics, more especially when actually gathered for despatch of business. (See below, on 17:5; 19:30, 33.) So here, it denotes not the populace or mob, but the assembled people, called together by authority, and in the presence of their civil ruler. Gave a shout, literally, cried or called to (him), i. e. responded to, applauded what he said, by their shouts and acclamations. (See below, on 22:24, and compare Luke 23:21.) The remaining nine words of the version correspond to five in Greek, and might have been expressed by five in English, God's voice and not man's, which is moreover the original collocation of the sentence. It is not a proposition, but an exclamation, an expression of pretended admiration, perhaps begun by the Phenician envoys, in acknowledgment of Herod's favourable answer to their prayer (v. 20) No Jew could join in such a cry without being guilty of blasphemy; but probably the meeting was entirely composed of Gentiles, being held in a Roman amphitheatre, to celebrate a heathen festival. Josephus states the words of the people in a more diffuse and feeble form: "Be propitious! If until now we reverenced thee as a man, yet henceforth we acknowledge thee superior to mortal nature." He also represents the acclamation as called forth by the reflection of the rising sun from Herod's silver robe; but this is far less natural and likely than the statement in the text, which may however serve to complete that of Josephus.

23. Immediately, or on the spot, the same word that is so translated in 3:7, but in 5:10 straightway, and in 9:18 forthwith. The angel (or an angel) of the Lord, is not a figure for disease as sent by him, nor does it here denote a visible appearance, but an instantaneous physical effect produced by the instrumental agency of a personal messenger from heaven, sent forth for the purpose. (Compare Ex. 12:21; 2 Kings 19:35; 2 Sam. 24:16; 2 Chr. 32:21; John 1:51, 5:4.) Josephus says that Herod saw an owl perched upon a cord above his head, which he remembered to have seen before when imprisoned by Tiberius, and to have been assured by some one, that although it was immediately a favourable omen, yet if it ever reappeared, he might expect to die within five days; and accordingly he represents him to have lingered five days in agonizing inward pains. This is not inconsistent with Luke's narrative, which only says that he was smitten, not that he expired, immediately or on the spot. Gave not God the glory, or more exactly, glory to God. (Compare Luke 17:18; John 9:24; Rom. 4:20; Rev. 4:11, 14:7; 16:9, in all which cases the article is wanting, while in Rev. 19:7 it is expressed.) The meaning is not that he failed to thank God for his eloquence, of which he probably had none, but that he allowed divine honours to be rendered to himself, or as Josephus phrases it, "did not rebuke them, and repel the impious adulation." He was eaten of worms, literally, being (or becoming) worm-eaten, an epithet applied by Theophrastus to decayed wood, but according to its etymology referring to the worm which feeds upon dead bodies. (Compare Mark 9:44, 46, 48.) A similar death is said to have befallen Antiochus Epiphanes, Herod the Great, and other ancient persecutors of God's people. That Josephus speaks only of intense pains in the bowels, while Luke says he was devoured by worms, may arise from the natural desire of the former to spare the memory of Herod and the feelings of his children, or from Luke's professional exactness as a physician, or from both combined. That Luke, on the other hand, says nothing of the owl, shows his freedom from all fabulous admixtures and embellishments, even such as a Josephus thought it worth while to record. Gave up the ghost, or more exactly, expired, i. e. breathed out (his life or soul.) See above, on 5:5, 10. This event took place, according to Josephus, in the fifty-fourth year of Agrippa's age, and the fourth of his reign, during the last three years of which he ruled the whole of Palestine. The date assigned to Herod's death by the chronologers is the first of August, A.D. 44.

24. But, i. e. notwithstanding Herod's persecution; or and, i. e. after it had died with him. The Greek word is the usual continuative particle (δέ) and not necessarily more emphatic here than in the beginning of the next verse, where it is translated and. Perhaps the connection which it indicates is this, that in the mean time, while these changes, whether prosperous or adverse, were occurring, the true religion was advancing. The word of God, i. e. the Gospel or the Christian revelation, here put by a natural metonymy for the cause or enterprise of which it was the basis, or rather for the body of believers who embraced it, and of which it might be literally said, that it increased (or grew) both in extent and power, and was multiplied, i. e. received continual accessions to the number of its members. (Compare the similar expressions in 6:7 above, and 19:20 below.)

25. Barnabas and Saul, who were previously mentioned last in 13:30, as having been deputed by the church at Antioch, to bear its contributions to the brethren dwelling in Judea, in anticipation of the coming famine. The connection between that verse and the one before us makes it highly probable, if not entirely certain, that the intervening narrative records events which took place during this official visit to Judea. Whether they were in the Holy City during Herod's persecution, is disputed, some inferring that they were, because they are here said to have returned from Jerusalem; while others explain this as meaning, that although Barnabas and Saul had been during these occurrences in other places of Judea, they returned from Jerusalem, i. e. they came there before going home, or made that their last point of departure, There is nothing in the text or context to decide this question, which is happily of little moment. Having fulfilled the ministry (or service,) or more precisely, the administration, charitable distribution or communication, which had been committed to their trust. (See above, on 11:27, 30.) Barnabas and Saul is still the order of the names, and so continues, until the public recognition or appearance of the latter in the character of an Apostle. (See below, on 13:1, 9.) And took with them (literally, taking with them also) John the (one) likewise called (or surnamed) Mark, who had been previously mentioned, with his mother Mary in v. 12 above, and reappears in 13:5, 13, as the companion of these men on their first foreign mission, thus imparting to the narrative a character of oneness and coherence, very far removed from that of accidental fragments, independent documents, or desultory anecdotes. With this return of Barnabas and Saul to Antioch may be said to close the one great division of the book, containing the history of the planting of the church among the Jews, its first extension to the Gentiles, and the institution of a secondary source or centre, from which light was to be diffused throughout the empire, as recorded in the following chapters.

CHAPTER 13

THE first great movement, from Jerusalem to Antioch, having been recorded in the previous twelve chapters, the historian now enters on the second, beginning at Antioch and ending at Rome, in which the field of operations is the Gentile world, and the principal agent the Apostle Paul (13–28.) The first and largest portion of this narrative is occupied with the Apostle's active ministry, or his official labours while at liberty (13–21.) The historical account of these commences with his first foreign mission, that to Cyprus and certain parts of Asia Minor (13; 14.) The division of the text now immediately before us contains the first part of this mission, from its inception in the church at Antioch to the arrival of the missionaries at Iconium (13.)

We are first told how Barnabas and Saul were designated to the missionary work (1–3). They then sail from Syria to Cyprus (4.) They visit Salamis and Paphos in that island (5, 6.) A sorcerer resists them and is struck with blindness (6–11.) The Roman Proconsul is converted (12.) Saul, henceforth called Paul, as Apostle of the Gentiles, conducts the mission into Asia Minor, landing at Perga in Pamphylia, where their attendant, John Mark, leaves them (13.) They proceed to Antioch in Pisidia, and attend the synagogue (14, 15.) Paul preaches his first sermon upon record (16–41.) It produces a powerful effect upon the people (42–44.) The unbelieving Jews make violent opposition (45.) Paul avows his mission to the Gentiles (46, 47.) Many Gentiles are converted (48, 49.) The Jews excite a persecution (50.) Paul departs to Iconium, leaving the new converts in a happy state (51, 52.)

1. At Antioch in the being (or existing) church. The participle (being) is emphatic, and has been variously explained, as meaning the real or true church, in opposition to the false Judaic one; or the church as it then was, in its actual condition, still requiring inspired teachers, until uninspired ones could be provided; or the church now really existing, and so well established that it could spare labourers to go abroad. All these interpretations supply something not expressed or necessarily suggested by the text or context. The only natural construction is the one adopted in our version, which supposes being to denote nothing more than the existence of a church there, or the fact that Antioch had not only heard the Gospel and invented the name Christian (see above, on 11:26), but was now the seat of a regularly organized church, with a full and efficient corps of ministers. 'There were at Antioch in the church which now existed there.' The powers of this church were exercised, according to the apostolical principle and practice, through divinely constituted officers, here described as Prophets and Teachers (see above, on 2:18), i.e. either inspired teachers, as a single class, or inspired and uninspired teachers, as distinct classes. Or, still more probably than either, the two words are generic and specific terms, applied to the same persons, one denoting their divine authority, the other the precise way in which it was exercised. Other distinctions which have been assumed, such as that between itinerant and settled ministers, or occasional and stated preachers, or exhorters and instructors, are possible enough, but not susceptible of proof. As may seem to imply that there were others not here mentioned; but the Greek word (τε) simply means both, i.e. not only Barnabas, but those who follow. (See the very same form in 1:13 above.) Barnabas is probably named first, as the oldest man and oldest minister, or as the one who had been sent down from Jerusalem (see above, on 11:22), or perhaps as being really the pastor or presiding elder of the church at Antioch. Simeon (or Simon), a very common Hebrew name (see above, on 1:13; 8:9; 9:43; 10:6), here distinguished by the Roman surname Niger (Black), which has led some to identify the person here meant with Simon the Cyrenian, who bore our Saviour's cross (Matt. 27:32; Mark 15:21; Luke 23:26.) Lucius is expressly described as a Cyrenian, and may be the same whom Paul salutes (Rom. 16:21) among his kinsmen, either in the wide or narrow sense. (See above, on 10:24.) That this was Luke himself, is an ancient but improbable conjecture. Manaen is a Hellenistic form of the Hebrew Menahem (2 Kings 15:14.) Which had been brought up with Herod is more concisely and exactly rendered in the margin, Herod's foster-brother. The tetrarch, i.e. Herod Antipas, the one so often mentioned in the Life of Christ. Josephus and the Talmud speak of a Menahem, an Essene, who predicted the elevation and long reign of Herod the Great, and was therefore an object of his special favour. It is very possible that this man's son was nursed or educated with the king's sons, and afterwards converted to the Christian faith. (For another follower of Christ connected with the court of Herod, see Luke 8:3.) As the same Greek particle (τε) is repeated with this name, although here translated simply and, some suppose a distinction to be thereby made between the first three as prophets and the last two as mere teachers. But who can suppose Saul to have been less a prophet than Barnabas? (Compare 1 Cor. 14:1–5.) The place assigned to Saul in this list has been variously explained; but the most satisfactory solution is, that his apostolical commission had not yet been made known, and that until its disclosure, he was to remain undistinguished from his fellow-labourers, or even to take the lowest place among them, as on this occasion. (See below, on vs. 9, 13.) The word certain (τινες) in the first clause is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics.

2. They ministering, the Greek word from which liturgy is derived, but which is never elsewhere used in the New Testament with any special or exclusive reference to prayer. According to its derivation, it means any public service or official function. The cognate verb and noun are applied to the ministry of angels (Heb. 1:7, 14), to Christian charity and kindness (Rom. 15:27; 2 Cor. 9:12; Phil. 2:30), to magistrates as ministers of God (Rom. 13:6), to the Christian ministry and missions (Rom. 15:16), to public worship, and especially the Jewish ritual (Luke 1:23; Heb. 10:11.) Later ecclesiastical usage restricted it to the Sacraments, and Chrysostom explains it here to mean preaching. But its true sense is the general one expressed in the translation, ministering, engaged in the discharge of their official functions, with particular reference to public worship, and with the special addition, in this case, of fasting, not as a stated periodical observance, which is rather discountenanced than recommended in the New Testament, but as a special aid to prayer, no doubt for the spread of Christianity, and perhaps for guidance as to their own duty at this interesting crisis. The Holy Ghost said, while they were thus engaged, perhaps to all at once by audible communication, or by special revelation to some one among them. Separate, a verb used elsewhere in a bad sense, (see Matt. 13:49; 25:32; Luke 6:22), but here (as in Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:15) meaning, set apart, designate, implying separation from the rest, and from the ordinary work in which they had been all engaged, to another special and extraordinary business. Called them, i.e. Barnabas and Saul, but not the rest of you. This work was not to supersede or take the place of the stated ministry, but to be superadded to it. The very form of the command shows that this was no reception of Barnabas and Saul by the others to their own body, but a solemn and extraordinary separation from it.

3. This verse records the execution of the previous command. Then having fasted and prayed may be a mere continuation of the fast already mentioned, or a subsequent observance of the same kind, implying a continued need of this auxiliary to their prayers for the divine blessing on this new and most important measure. Laid hands on them, as a sign of transfer from the ordinary service of the church to an extraordinary mission. (See above, on 6:6; 8:17; 9:12.) Sent them away, dismissed, discharged them, let them go (see above, on 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40), again implying separation from their own body, as prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch. The nature and design of this proceeding have been variously understood, in accordance with various conclusions or hypotheses as to church-organization. It could not be an ordination to the ministry; for the very two now set apart were already eminent and successful ministers, far more illustrious in the church than those who are supposed to have ordained them. It could not be a consecration (so called) to the diocesan episcopate; for, even admitting its existence, why should all these prelates be attached to one church (v. 1)? Or if not prelates, how could they bestow a higher office than they held themselves? Least of all could it be (as some allege) an elevation of these two men to the Apostleship, to fill the places of the two Jameses; for how could ordinary ministers, or even bishops, create Apostles? Or how could such an act be reconciled with Paul's asseveration (Gal. 1:1) that his Apostleship was not from men, nor even through men? Or with the fact that Barnabas is nowhere subsequently called an Apostle, except on one occasion in conjunction with Paul, and even then in a dubious sense? (See below, on 14:4, 14.) The only remaining supposition is, that this was a designation, not to a new rank or office, but to a new work, namely, that of foreign missions, or rather to this single mission, which they are subsequently said to have "fulfilled." (See below, on 14:26.) It is not necessarily implied that this was the first intimation made to Barnabas and Saul of their vocation to the work of missions. The divine communication mentioned in 22:21, below, may have been previously made; and they may have come to Antioch for the very purpose of obtaining a dismission from the church there; and it may have been in reference to this request, that the Prophets and Teachers were engaged in special prayer and fasting for divine direction.

4. As it had just been said that they were dismissed or let go by the church, their divine legation is again asserted, to prevent mistake. Being sent forth by the Holy Ghost, not merely by their associates at Antioch. Departed, literally, came down, which might seem to mean down the Orontes, on which Antioch is situated; but it more probably means, from the interior to the seacoast. (See above, on 12:19.) Seleucia, a Syrian port, near the mouth of the Orontes, west of Antioch, built by Seleucus Nicator, and called by his own name, as Antioch was by that of his father. (See below, on v. 14.) Sailed, or more emphatically, sailed away, i.e. from Syria, where they had so long been labouring. Cyprus, a large island off the coast of Palestine, renowned in the remotest times for wealth, fertility and luxury. It was now a Roman province, ruled by a Proconsul. (See below, on v. 7.) This island may have been selected as their first field of missionary labour, not merely on account of its proximity to Syria, but because it was the native land of Barnabas (see above, on 4:36), and perhaps of John Mark also (see the next verse, and compare Col. 4:10.) It could hardly be fortuitous that this first mission was directed to the native countries of the missionaries, and to Cyprus first, as Barnabas still took the lead.

5. Being in Salamis, or having got there. This was an ancient city in the south-eastern corner of the island, afterwards called Constantia, and now Famagusta. Preached (announced, declared) the word of God (the new or Christian revelation.) Synagogues, assemblies, meetings, whether large or small. It is not probable that Salamis contained more than one such building, nor certain that it had even one; but the Greek word, as we have already seen (on 6:9), admitted of a wider application than the one assigned to it in later usage. The first preachers of the Gospel, being Jews by birth and education, obtained access, through the synagogues, not only to their countrymen, but also to the serious and devoutly disposed Gentiles, who were in the habit of attending Jewish worship. (See above, on 9:20; 10:1.) To (or for) their minister, attendant, servant. (For the origin and usage of the Greek word, see above, on 5:22.) As the same word is elsewhere used by Luke to designate an officer or servant of the synagogue in Nazareth (see Luke 4:20), it might seem here to have specific reference to what immediately precedes. 'They preached in the synagogues of Salamis, and in so doing were assisted or attended on by John.' It is generally understood, however, in a wider sense, to wit, that he attended them upon this journey; but in what capacity, has been disputed. Some make him a mere personal attendant, like the young men who accompanied the ancient prophets; others an ordained minister of lower rank, to aid in preaching and administering baptism; others still, avoiding these extremes, regard him as a personal attendant, but preparing for more sacred duties. (See below, on 16:1–3.)

6. Having gone through the whole island, is the reading of the five oldest manuscripts, i.e. through its whole length, from east to west. Though not expressly mentioned, it is highly probable that in this, as in other previous cases of the same kind, they preached in smaller towns upon the road. (See above, on 8:25, 40; 9:32.) Unto, even to, as far as, the particle again suggesting that they had traversed the whole island. Paphos, a city on the western coast of Cyprus, famous for the worship of Venus in a temple near it, whence she is called Paphian by Homer and Horace. It was now the seat of Roman government, i.e. the residence of the Proconsul. Found, met with, learned that he was there before them. (For the passive of the Greek verb, see above, on 8:40, and compare v. 9 of the same chapter.) Several of the oldest manuscripts and latest editors read, a certain man, a sorcerer. For the true meaning of this last word (magus or magician), see above, on 8:9. A false prophet (and) a Jew, or a Jewish false prophet, as the last word in Greek may be either an adjective or a substantive. This man was, therefore, not a heathen sorcerer, like Simon Magus, but a Jewish renegade, or still more probably, a professed Jew, but falsely claiming inspiration. There were probably many such among the Goetes or impostors who abounded in the Apostolic age, not as mere jugglers, but as teachers of a higher kind of science, in which trade Jews would have a great advantage from their real superiority in religious knowledge. Whose name (Gr. to whom the name) was Bar-jesus, an Aramaic form, meaning the Son of Joshua. See above, on 7:45, and compare the kindred forms, Barabbas (Matt. 27:16), Bartholomew (see above, on 1:13), Barjonas (Matt. 16:17), Barnabas (vs. 1, 2), Barsabas (1:23), Bartimeus (Mark 10:46.)

7. Was with, not merely at some one time, such as that of their arrival, but habitually, in his service or his company. We know, from contemporary writers, that such associations were not uncommon at the courts or residences of distinguished public men, arising no doubt, at least partially, from the prevailing discontent of the most serious heathen with their own religion, and perhaps, in some degree, from their prevailing expectation of a great deliverer from among the Jews, which would account still further for the presence of Bar-Jesus in the case before us. (See above, on 2:5, vol. 1, p. 47.) Deputy of the country is in Greek a single word, used by the later writers, such as Polybius and Plutarch, to represent the Latin Proconsul. We have here a striking instance of a supposed error becoming a conclusive proof of accuracy even in minute points. The Roman provinces were divided by Augustus into two great classes, senatorial and imperial, the former governed by Proconsuls, and the latter by Proprætors or Consular Legates. Now as Cyprus was originally an Imperial province, the use of the word Proconsul, or its Greek equivalent, was once regarded as an error, though of no importance; but it was afterwards discovered, by a more minute examination of original authorities, that before the date of these events, the island had been transferred from the one class to the other, and was now actually under a Proconsul, a fact confirmed by the existence of a Cyprian coin, belonging to the same reign, on which Proclus, the successor of Sergius Paulus, bears the very title given to the latter in the verse before us. Prudent, though always used to represent this Greek word in the English version (see Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21; 1 Cor. 1:19), is not so expressive of its meaning as intelligent or sensible. Perhaps, however, it was not here used to denote capacity or knowledge so much as disposition or habit of mind, and might therefore be still better rendered thoughtful or reflecting, with particular allusion to religious subjects. This state of mind, so far from being inconsistent with his patronage of Elymas, explains it, by suggesting that he had precisely that kind of uneasiness or curiosity, which one acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures would be best prepared, however partially, to satisfy. Who, literally, this, the latter, i.e. Sergius Paulus, the name last mentioned. Called for, literally, calling to, i.e. to himself, or to his presence, summoning, requiring to attend. (See above, on 5:40; 6:2, and compare the application of the same verb to the call of God, in 2:39.) Desired, in Greek an emphatic or intensive compound, much stronger than the simple verb employed in the next verse, and meaning sought for, inquired after, but here construed with another verb (to hear.) It is clear from the tense and collocation of this verb, that it was not meant to express (although it certainly implies) his previous state of mind, but rather that occasioned by the news of their arrival, or their actual appearance in obedience to his summons. (Whereupon) he sought (or earnestly requested) to hear the word of God, i.e. the gospel, claiming to be a new revelation or divine communication. (See above, on v. 5, and on 4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24.)

8. Then withstood them Elymas, the same Greek verb with that in 6:10, where it is translated resist. The kind of opposition, which the word most readily suggests in this connection, is open argument or disputation; but it does not necessarily exclude more indirect and private methods, which would be facilitated by his previous relations to the governor. Elymas is commonly explained as the Greek form of an Arabic word meaning wise or learned, the plural of which (Ulema) is applied to the collective body of Mahometan doctors in the Turkish empire. While the verbal root in Arabic means to know, the corresponding root in Hebrew means to hide, both which ideas (occult science) are included in the term by which Luke here explains it (Magus.) The last clause gives the motive of this opposition. Seeking, the uncompounded form of the verb used in the preceding verse; not only wishing but attempting, using active means to gain his end. To turn away, a very strong Greek word, used in the classics to denote the act of twisting or distorting, but commonly employed in the New Testament to signify moral perversion or perverseness. (See below, on 20:30, and compare Matt. 17:17; Luke 9:41; 23:2; Phil. 2:15.) It here means to divert attention or withdraw the mind, but with an implication of violence or great exertion. The same verb is applied, in the Septuagint version of Ex. 5:4, to the diversion of the Hebrews from their work by the visits and discourses of Moses and Aaron. The Deputy, or rather the Proconsul, as in v. 7. From the faith may either mean from the Christian faith, the new religion, which these strangers preached; or from the act of faith, i.e. believing the new doctrine thus made known to him.

9. There is here a sudden change in Saul's relative position, not only with respect to Barnabas, but also to the whole conduct of the mission, and the whole course of the history. From holding an inferior place, as indicated even by the order of the names (see above, on vs. 1, 2, and compare 11:30; 12:25), he now comes forward in this singular emergency, addresses Elymas in tones of high authority, and acts as the organ of the divine justice, in predicting or inflicting a retributive calamity. This change in his position is accompanied, as in the case of Abraham, Jacob and Peter (Gen. 17:5; 32:28; John 1:42), by a change of name. Then (δέ) Saul, the (one) also (called) Paul. It is not improbable that Saul, according to the custom of the Jews in that age (see above, on v. 1, and on 1:23; 9:36; 12:12), had already borne the Roman name of Paulus; and Luke might seem to introduce it here merely because of the coincidence with the name of the Proconsul. But this does not account for its invariable use, from this point onwards, to the absolute exclusion of the Hebrew name by which he had been always before called. (See above, 7:58; 8:1, 3; 9:1, 4, 8, 11, 17, 19, 22, 24, 26; 11:25, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7.) Jerome's idea, that he now assumed the name, in commemoration of the victory achieved by the conversion of the Roman governor, exaggerates the value and importance of that incident, and assumes an adulation of great men entirely at variance with apostolic principles and practice, as well as a violation of the early Christian usage, according to which, teachers gave their names to their disciples, and not vice versa. Augustin, on the contrary, supposes that the name is an expression of humility (originally meaning little.) But such humility is too much like that of the Pope, who calls himself a servant of servants; and the Latin name would not so readily suggest this idea as that of a noble Roman family who bore it. Besides, why should it be assumed just here, either in point of fact or in the narrative? The only supposition which is free from all these difficulties, and affords a satisfactory solution of the facts in question, is, that this was the time fixed by divine authority for Paul's manifestation as Apostle of the Gentiles, and that this manifestation was made more conspicuous by its coincidence with his triumph over a representative of unbelieving and apostate Judaism, and the conversion of an official representative of Rome, whose name was identical with his own apostolical title. The critical juncture was still further marked by Paul's first miracle or sign of his apostleship (see 2 Cor. 12:12), preceded by a few words, but conceived and uttered in the highest tone of apostolical authority. Filled with the Holy Ghost, not for the first time (see above, on 9:17), but renewedly and specially inspired to utter this denunciation, which is therefore not the natural expression of any merely human sentiment or feeling, but an authoritative declaration of God's purposes and judgments. Set his eyes on him, a phrase very variously rendered in our Bible, but the strict sense of which is gazing (or intently looking) into him (see above, on 1:10; 3:4, 12; 6:15; 7:55; 10:4; 11:6.) This was no doubt intended to arrest the attention of the sorcerer as well as the spectators, and to awe them under an impression of God's presence and authority. With the following address of Paul to Elymas, compare that of Peter to the Magus of Samaria. (See above, on 8:20–23.)

10. Full, not merely tinged or tainted with these qualities, but full of them, composed of them. (See above, on 8:23.) Subtlety, so translated also in Matt. 26:4, but twice deceit (Mark 7:22; Rom. 1:29), once craft (Mark 14:1), and often guile (e.g. John 1:47; 2 Cor. 12:16; 1 Pet. 2:22; Rev. 14:5.) The Greek word primarily means a bait for fish; then any deception; then a desire or disposition to deceive. Mischief, unscrupulousness, recklessness, facility in doing evil, which is the original and etymological import of the word. It occurs only here in the New Testament, but a kindred form (translated lewdness) in 18:14, below. All, before these nouns, denotes both quality and quantity, variety and high degree. (See above, on 4:29; 5:23; 12:11.) Child (literally, Son) of the devil, i.e. like him, a partaker of his nature, belonging to his party, "the seed of the serpent." (See above, on 5:16, and compare Gen. 3:15; John 8:44.) The devil (i.e. slanderer, false accuser) is always so translated, except in 2 Tim. 3:3; Titus 2:3. (See above, on 10:38.) Enemy of all righteousness, i.e. of all that is right and good. The pronoun (thou) twice supplied by the translators rather weakens the expression than enforces it. Wilt thou not cease? may be also read affirmatively, thou wilt not cease. But the interrogative form has more force, as conveying a severe expostulation, like the famous exordium of Cicero's first oration against Catiline (Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra?) To pervert, literally, perverting, the participle of the verb translated turn away in v. 8. The essential meaning is the same in either case, but the construction different, the object of the action being there a person, here a thing. The truth, from which Barjesus sought to turn the governor away, is here described as turned away itself, i.e. distorted or perverted, by misrepresentation or misapplication. The ways of the Lord, i.e. here, most probably, his methods of salvation or his purposes of mercy. Right, in the physical sense, straight, as applied in mathematics (a right line or a right angle.) The term here has reference to the figure of a path, the ways of the Lord which, although straight in themselves, Elymas was trying to make crooked. (Compare Isai. 5:20.) The essential idea is not the specific one of doctrinal error or of practical misconduct, but the general one of interference with God's purposes, and the impious attempt to hinder their accomplishment. As he tried to turn away Sergius Paulus from the faith, so he tried to turn away the grace of God from Sergius Paulus.

11. And now is a phrase often used to mark the close of a preamble and to introduce the main proposition (see above, on 3:17; 7:34; 10:5); but here it seems to have its strict sense as a particle of time, 'and now (at length) your hour is come, your career is at an end, your course is finally arrested.' Behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected. (See above, on 1:10; 12:7.) The hand of the Lord, i.e. his power, especially in active exercise, whether in mercy or in judgment. (See above, on 4:28, 30; 11:21; 12:11, and compare Ex. 9:3; 1 Sam. 5:11; Ezr. 7:9; Neh. 2:8; Job 19:21.) At the same time, it suggests that this was no fortuitous or human stroke, 'the hand of the Lord and not of man.' (Is or shall be) upon thee; as the verb is not expressed, it may be either descriptive of the present or prophetic of the future. If the first, it is equivalent to saying, 'already (or even now) upon thee.' Blind and not seeing may be an idiomatic combination of the positive and negative expression of the same idea. (Compare Luke 1:20, where a similar form is used in reference to speech and dumbness.) Or not seeing (even) the sun may be a strong expression for total blindness. For a season, literally, to (or till) a time, i.e. a set time, which is the proper meaning of the Greek word, as explained above (on 1:7; 3:19; 7:20; 12:1.) This may mean, as long as it shall please God, and does not therefore necessarily imply that Elymas should be restored to sight. That is certainly, however, the most natural construction, and the one which has been commonly adopted. Chrysostom says that this was not a word of punishment but of conversion; and the Venerable Bede, that Paul knew by experience how the darkness of the eyes might be followed by illumination of the mind. There is certainly a singular resemblance between this first recorded miracle of Paul and the miraculous accompaniments of his own conversion. (See above, on 9:8, 9.) Some have inferred from Gal. 4:15, and other passages, that Paul's own sight was never perfectly restored. The same phrase (till a time or for a season) is used by Luke in reference to the intermission of our Lord's temptation (Luke 4:13.) Immediately, or on the spot, the same word that is used above in 3:7; 5:10; 9:18; 12:23, and there explained. Fell on him, the same verb with that used in 8:16; 10:10, 44; 11:15, in reference to spiritual influences. Common to both cases is the idea of suddenness and also of descent from above, or the agency of a superior power. Mist, a poetical Greek word, applied by Homer to the failure of the sight at death or in a swoon. Darkness may be either the more usual prosaic word expressive of the same thing, or denote the effect as distinguished from the cause, or mark a gradation in the blindness, first a mist, then total darkness, the reverse of that in one of our Lord's miracles. (See Mark 8:24.) As the word translated mist is also used by Galen, the Greek medical writer, some regard it as a trace of Luke's profession. Went about, literally, leading about or around (as in 1 Cor. 9:5), a verb often used in the intransitive sense first given, perhaps by an ellipsis of the reflexive pronoun (leading himself about.) See Matt 4:23; 9:35; 23:15; Mark 6:6, and compare the like use of the simple verb in Matt. 26:46; Mark 1:38; 14:42; John 11:7, 15, 16; 14:31. Went about seeking just reverses the original construction, which is going about sought. The last seven words in English correspond to one in Greek, meaning hand-guides or hand-leaders. (See the active and passive participles of the corresponding verb in 9:8 above, and 22:11, below.) The scene so vividly described in this clause has been realized, or rendered visible, in one of Raphael's cartoons.

12. Then, in its strict sense, as a particle of time, equivalent to saying, when (or after) this had happened. The deputy, used by our translators here and in vs. 7, 8 above, though more specific, is less accurate than Tyndale's ruler, as the Greek word (ἀνθύπατος) does not mean a deputy in general, but the deputy of a supreme magistrate (ὕπατος), i.e. of a Roman Consul, to whom the uncompounded form is constantly applied by the later Greek historians. The Vulgate and its copyists in English (Wiclif and the Rhemish Version) give the corresponding Latin form (Proconsul.) When he saw (literally, having seen or seeing) what was done, or more exactly, the (thing) done, come to pass, or happened, i.e. the sudden blindness of Barjesus, in immediate execution of Paul's sentence or prediction. Believed can only mean that he believed in Christ, or in the truth of the religion thus attested. Astonished, literally, struck or smitten, not with wonder merely, but with admiration, as appears from Mark 11:18, where mere amazement would be insufficient to account for the effect described. The same verb is often used (see Matt. 13:54; Mark 6:2; 7:37; Luke 2:48), and sometimes with the very same construction (Matt. 7:28; 22:33; Mark 1:22; 11:18; Luke 4:32), to express the effect produced upon the people by our Saviour's miracles and teachings. In all those cases, as in that before us, doctrine does not mean the truth taught, but the mode of teaching. The doctrine of the Lord, i.e. Paul's doctrine with respect to Christ, is a grammatical construction, but at variance with the first clause and its obvious relation to the last, as well as with the numerous analogies first cited from the Gospels. What struck the mind of the Proconsul and commanded his belief was the Lord's (mode of) teaching (his own religion), both by word and miracle. Here, as in the case of Simon Magus (see above, on 8:24), we are not told what became either of Elymas or Sergius Paulus. The tradition which describes the latter as accompanying Paul to Spain, and afterwards as Bishop of Narbonne in France, is probably entitled to no credence.

13. Now, and, or but. Paul and his company (in the older English versions, Paul and they that were with him) is in Greek, those about Paul. This peculiar idiom is common in the classics, sometimes literally meaning the attendants or companions (as in Mark 4:10), sometimes only the persons named (as in John 11:19), sometimes both together, as in this place. The expression seems to have been chosen here, to render prominent the change in Paul's position, and to show that he was now the leader. (See above, on v. 9.) This change may possibly have been deferred till they were leaving Cyprus and about to enter Asia Minor; whereas Barnabas had been allowed to take the lead as long as they were in his native country. (See above, on v. 4, and compare 4:36.) Loosed is so translated in two other places (16:11; 27:21), but elsewhere launched (21:1; 27:2, 4), launched forth (Luke 8:22), sailed (20:3, 13), set forth (21:2), departed (27:12; 28:10, 11.) The Greek verb, thus variously rendered, strictly means to lead (or to be led) up (as in 9:39; 12:4 above), but as a nautical expression to go out to sea, being so used by Herodotus and Homer. Its form is here that of a passive participle but may be translated, having sailed or put to sea. They enter Asia Minor, not through Cilicia, which was Paul's native province, where he had already laboured (see above, on 9:30; 11:25), but through Pamphylia, the adjacent province on the west. Perga, its capital, a few miles from the coast, was famous for the worship of Diana, as Paphos was for that of Venus (see above, on v. 6, and below, on 19:24.)* Its ruins are supposed to be still visible. John, who was mentioned in v. 5 above, as their attendant. That John Mark is the person meant, appears from a comparison of 12:25 above with 15:37 below. Departing denotes not mere local separation, but secession or desertion, being elsewhere used in an unfavourable sense (see Matt. 7:23, and compare Luke 9:39.) A term still stronger is employed in 15:39 below. John's motive for abandoning the mission has been variously conjectured to be weariness, home-sickness, feeble health, important business at Jerusalem, &c. &c. That it was not understood from the beginning that he should take leave of them at this point, appears, not only from the terms here used and just explained, but still more clearly from Paul's censure of his conduct as a species of apostasy (see below, on 15:39.) The most satisfactory solution seems to be, that he was discontented with the unexpected transfer of precedence and authority from Barnabas his kinsman (see Col. 4:10) to one who had hitherto occupied a lower place. This feeling, though a wrong one, will not seem unnatural, when we consider, that Barnabas was not only older as a Christian and a minister (see above, on 4:36), but had been the means of introducing Paul to active labour, both in Jerusalem (9:27) and Antioch (11:26.) That he did not share in Mark's resentment, may be ascribed to his superior piety and wisdom, or to a less ardent temper, which required time for its excitement. (See below, on 15:37.)

14. They is expressed in Greek and therefore emphatic, meaning Paul and Barnabas, as the remaining members of the mission after Mark's desertion. Departed, literally, passing through, or having passed through, i.e., through the country between Perga and Antioch. (See above, on 8:40; 9:32; 11:19, 22.) Some of the older English versions have the strange translation, wandered through the countries, as if the words were intended to describe an itinerant ministry, and not a direct passage from one point to another. They seem to have visited Pamphylia at this time, only as the key or entrance to Pisidia, the next province on the north, reserving missionary labour in the former until their return. (See below, on 14:25.) Antioch is referred by different ancient writers to the adjacent provinces of Phrygia, Pamphylia, and Pisidia, a variation owing either to actual change in the political arrangements of the country, or more probably to vagueness and uncertainty in the boundaries themselves. The ruins of this Antioch have been discovered in our own day. The frequent occurrence of this name in ancient history arises from its application by the Greek King of Syria, Seleucus Nicator, to a number of towns founded or restored by himself, in honor of his father, Antiochus the Great. The synagogue, meeting, or assembly, of the Jews for worship, whether in a private house or public building. (See above, on v. 5, and on 6:9.) The sabbath-day, literally, day of the sabbath, the Aramaic form of the Hebrew name (שבתא) resembling a Greek plural, and being often so declined, and construed by all the evangelists excepting John, who always treats it as a singular. Sat down, i.e., as some suppose, in a place usually occupied by public teachers; but see the next verse.

15. The reading of the Law (i.e. the books of Moses) seems to have formed a part of public worship, from the earliest times to which its history can be traced. That of the Prophets is said, in a tradition of the later Jews, to have been introduced as an evasion of an edict of Antiochus Epiphanes prohibiting the reading of the law, and afterwards continued as a permanent usage. The rulers of the synagogue (in Greek one compound word) were probably the elders of the Jews in Antioch, i.e. the heads of families, or other hereditary chiefs and representatives, as such conducting or controlling public worship. It is not impossible, however, that in foreign countries, the synagogue had more of a distinct organization than in Palestine itself. (See above, on 6:9; 9:2, 20.) But most of the minute details now found in Jewish books are probably posterior in date to the destruction of Jerusalem and the dissolution of the Jewish nation with its hereditary eldership, a change which would naturally lead to the separate organization of the synagogue or Jewish church. Sent to them, not said to them, implying that they were not in the chief seats of the synagogue (Matt. 23:6), but had probably sat down near the entrance. They were no doubt recognized as strangers, and perhaps as teachers, by some circumstance of dress or aspect. The message was probably conveyed by the "minister" or servant of the synagogue. (See above, on v. 5, and compare Luke 4:20.) Men and brethren, the same courteous and kindly form of speech which we have already had occasion to explain. (See above, on 1:16; 2:29, 37; 7:2.) It implies a recognition of the strangers by the rulers of the synagogue, as fellow Jews, the Christian schism being probably as yet unknown to them. If ye have, literally, if there is in you, i.e. in your minds or your possession, (any) word of exhortation, i.e. any exhortation to be spoken or delivered. (See above, on 4:36; 9:31,) Say on is in Greek simply say or speak.

16. As Barnabas derived his very name from his experience and gifts as an exhorter (see above, on 4:36), it is the more remarkable that Paul should now appear as the chief speaker, not only in this one case but before and afterwards. (See above, on v. 9, and below, on 14:12.) The uniformity of this proceeding, and the seeming acquiescence of Barnabas himself, confirm the previous conclusion, that Paul's commission as Apostle of the Gentiles (Rom. 11:13), although given long before (see above, on 9:15, and below, on 22:21; 26:17, 18), was now first publicly made known and acted on. Arising, standing up, see above, on 2:15; 5:34; 11:28. Beckoning, see above, on 12:17. Men of Israel, i.e. Jews by birth, descendants of Jacob, hereditary members of the chosen people. (See above, on 2:22; 3:12; 5:35.) Ye that fear (literally, those fearing) God, a phrase applicable in itself to all devout men, but specially applied in the New Testament to Gentiles, whether Proselytes, i.e. professed converts to the Jewish faith (see above, on 2:10; 6:5), or merely well disposed to it and more or less influenced by it (see above, on 10:2; 22:30.) Of this class many seem to have been found, wherever there was access to the Jewish worship, and from this class the Apostles gathered some of their earliest and most important converts. Give audience, literally, hear, implying, as in all like cases, that they might hear something to which they were not accustomed, or for which they were not prepared. (See above, on 2:14, 22, 29.) The discourse which follows has peculiar interest and value, as the first of Paul's on record, and most probably the first that he delivered after the avowal of his Apostolical commission. When compared with those of Peter and his own epistles, the degree of difference and sameness is precisely such as might have been expected from the circumstances under which they were composed or uttered. (See above, on 3:26. vol. 1, p. 122.)

17. Beginning with a brief sketch of the early history of Israel, as the ancient church or chosen people, from their first vocation to the reign of David (17–22), the Apostle suddenly exhibits Jesus, as the heir of that king and the promised Saviour (23), citing John the Baptist as his witness and forerunner (24–25); then makes the offer of salvation through Christ to both classes of his hearers (26), describing his rejection by the Jews at Jerusalem (27), his death, burial, and resurrection (28–31); all which he represents as the fulfilment of God's promise to the fathers (32), and of specific prophecies, three of which he quotes, interprets, and applies to Christ (33–37); winding up with another earnest offer of salvation (38–39), and a solemn warning against unbelief (40–41.) The mixture of law and gospel, threatening and promise, doctrine and exhortation, in this sermon, are highly characteristic of its author, and yet too peculiar, both in form and substance, to have been compiled, as some allege, from his epistles. In the verse before us, he describes the vocation of the Hebrews, and their organization as the chosen people. This people (of Israel is omitted by the latest critics) seems addressed rather to the Gentiles than the Jews. Chose, or more emphatically, chose out for himself, or for his own use and service. (See above, on 1:2, 24; 6:5.) Our fathers, thus acknowledging his own hereditary kindred to them. (See above, on 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:2, 11, 12, 15, 19, 38, 39, 44, 45.) This first clause may relate to the original vocation of the Patriarchs, and the second to the national organization, for which the people were prepared in Egypt; or the whole may be referred to the Egyptian period, the choice mentioned in the first clause being then the choice of Israel, not as a family, but as a nation. The last of these constructions is the one most readily suggested by the words, although the first gives more completeness to Paul's retrospect, by including the Patriarchal period. (See above, on 7:2–16.) The people, thus chosen and separated from all others. Exalted, literally, heightened, made high, applied elsewhere to the raising of the brazen serpent and to Christ's elevation on the cross (John 3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 34); to his ascension and exalted state in heaven (see above, on 2:33; 5:31); in a moral sense, to self-exaltation or elation (Matt. 23:12; Luke 14:11; 18:14); and in an outward sense, to extraordinary privileges and prosperity (Matt. 11:23; Luke 10:15; 2 Cor. 11:7; Jas. 4:10; 1 Pet. 5:6.) This last appears to be the meaning here, in reference either to the honour put upon the chosen people, even under persecution, or to their miraculous increase and national development. When they dwelt as strangers, literally, in the sojourn. (For a cognate form, applied to the same subject, see above, on 7:6, 29.) A high arm, an idiomatic expression for the manifest exertion of extraordinary power, corresponding to the stretched out arm of the Old Testament, and like it specially applied to the exertion of Jehovah's power in the exodus from Egypt. (Compare Ex. 6:6; Deut. 5:15; Jer. 32:21; Ps. 136:12.)

18. Next to the Exodus he puts the Error, or forty years' wandering in the wilderness. About, literally, as, see above, on 1:15; 2:41; 4:4; 5:7; 36. This expression is the more appropriate, because the actual error lasted only thirty-eight years. (See above, on 7:42.) Suffered their manners, i.e. bore with them, endured them. Another reading, differing in a single letter, and preferred by most modern critics, yields the meaning, bore them as a nurse does, i.e. nursed or nourished. The same figure is applied by Moses to this period in the history of Israel (see Num. 11:12; Deut. 1:31, in which last place the Septuagint version exhibits the same textual variation) and by Paul to his own treatment of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. 2:7.)

19. Next to the Error comes the Conquest of Canaan. When he had (literally, having) destroyed. (For a very different meaning of the same verb, see below, on v. 29.) Seven nations, i.e. tribes of the Canaanites, to wit, those enumerated in Deut. 7:1; Josh. 3:10; Neh. 9:8. Gave by lot, or, according to the oldest manuscripts and latest editors, gave as an inheritance, or caused them to inherit. Neither of the two Greek verbs occurs elsewhere in the New Testament, but both are used in the Septuagint, and sometimes to translate the same Hebrew word (e.g. Num. 33:54; Josh. 14:1, compared with Deut. 21:16; Josh. 19:51.) It is a curious inference of Bengel, that because three rare words used in these two verses occur also in the Septuagint version of the first chapters of Deuteronomy and Isaiah, these are the portions of the law and Prophets read, in the synagogue of Antioch for that day, as he says they still are in the Jewish service.

20. After that, literally, after these (things), i.e. the conquest and settlement of Canaan. About, literally, as; see above, on v. 18. By adding together all the periods mentioned in the book of Judges, i.e. the periods of foreign domination and the intervals of rest under the Judges, we obtain almost the very number here affirmed. This agreement between Paul and the inspired record of the time to which he here refers cannot be shaken by the seeming discrepancy in 1 Kings 6:1, the solution of which belongs to the interpretation of that book. Gave them Judges, who were therefore not self-constituted rulers, but divinely commissioned. Until Samuel the Prophet, the next one of eminence after Moses (see above, on 3:24.) He was also the last in the series of Judges, under whom the regal form of government was introduced.

21. Afterward, literally, thence, from there, a local particle applied, in this one case, to time, as we say in English, thenceforth, henceforth. The expression may involve an allusion to the regular succession of the history which Paul was tracing, like a line or path presented to the eye. They asked (for themselves), to gratify their own desires, and not to answer any higher end. (For the exact force of the verbal form here used, see above, on 3:14; 7:46; 9:2.) God gave, in displeasure and in judgment, but so that Saul was nevertheless a legitimate though not a theocratical sovereign. Cis should have been written Kis, the nearest approach that could be made in Greek letters to the Hebrew Kish. The coincidence, in name and tribe, between this king and the Apostle speaking, is undoubtedly remarkable. (Compare 1 Sam. 9:1; 16:21; with Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5.) One of the early Fathers (Tertullian) makes one Saul a type of the other, and even explains Gen. 49:27 as a prophecy of Paul's persecutions and conversion. By the space of is needlessly supplied by Tyndale, and transcribed by his successors. Wiclif has simply by, which seems to be equivalent to for in modern English, when prefixed to chronological specifications. The most simple and exact translation is the Rhemish (forty years.) This is understood by some as the age of Saul at his accession, but by most as the length of his reign. We have no account of its duration in Scripture; but Josephus states with great precision, perhaps relying upon public records or tradition not preserved in Scripture, that Saul reigned eighteen years in Samuel's lifetime, and twenty-two years after his decease.

22. Having removed (or deposed) him, i.e. from his kingly office, as recorded in 1 Sam. 15:11, 23, 35; 16:1. Some suppose it to refer to his death, as a removal out of life; but this would be otherwise expressed, and the Greek verb here used is repeatedly applied to removal from office, both in the Septuagint (2 Kings 17:23; Dan. 2:21) and the New Testament (Luke 16:4.) Raised up then relates, not merely to David's coronation (2 Sam. 2:4), but to his original designation and anointing (1 Sam. 16:1, 13.) To be their king, literally, as (or for) a king. To whom also, i.e. besides making him a king, he testified expressly of his character. Gave testimony and said, in Greek, said testifying. The words that follow are not found in the Old Testament, precisely as they stand here, but are made up of two passages, "The Lord hath sought him a man after his own heart" (1 Sam. 13:14), and "I have found David my servant" (Ps. 89:20.) They are not combined through inadvertence or a lapse of memory, as some pretend, but as real expressions of what God did say, through Samuel and otherwise, on different occasions, or as the spirit and the meaning of his whole mode of dealing with this favoured servant, like the prophetic summary in Matt. 2:23 (see above, on 2:22.) The same explanation will apply to the last clause, which describes him not as personally free from fault or even crime, but as merely blameless in his character and conduct as a theocratic sovereign. Fulfil all my will, or more exactly, do all my wills, i.e. all the things that I shall will or order.

23. The particular promise here referred to must be that recorded in 2 Sam. 7:12, and frequently repeated elsewhere. Raised, or according to the text now commonly adopted, brought. (This expression occurs in the Septuagint version of Zech. 2:9, as the other does in that of 3:9, 15.) Unto Israel, as the chosen people, to whom the offer must be first made. A Saviour (even) Jesus, such being the import of the Hebrew name. (See Matt. 1:21.)

24. John having heralded (proclaimed) beforehand, the same Greek verb that appears in the common text of 3:20. Before, literally, before the face, an expression commonly applied to persons (Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:76; 7:27), but here used in imitation of the corresponding Hebrew phrase (לפני.) His coming, not his birth or incarnation, which was before John's public appearance, but his entrance on his office, in which sense the Greek word is used by Isocrates. Etymologically it is the correlative or converse of exodus, which is twice applied to death in the New Testament, being rendered in both instances decease (Luke 9:31; 2 Pet. 1:15), as it is departure, when the reference is to the exodus from Egypt (Heb. 11:22.) Baptism of repentance, of which repentance was not only the condition but the meaning or thing signified. (See above, on 2:38, and below, on 19:4, and compare Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3.) To all the people of Israel, not necessarily to every individual, but to the body of the nation as such. (See above, on 5:31.)

25. Fulfilled, or was fulfilling, i.e. as some explain it, was engaged in executing his commission (see above, on 12:25, below, on 14:26), without reference to any particular period of his ministry; while others understand it as referring to its close, while he was finishing his course (see above, on 2:1; 7:23, 30; 9:23, and below, on 24:27.) Course, in its proper sense of race or running, a figure borrowed from the ancient games and used in the New Testament by Paul alone, who twice applies it to his own official life or ministry. (See below, on 20:24, and compare 2 Tim. 4:7.) The qualities which it suggests are those of energy and swiftness. He said, in the imperfect tense, not once for all, or on a single occasion, but habitually, he was wont to say. The next clause is construed in the Vulgate and by Luther without interrogation, and in this sense, I am not he whom ye suppose me to be. But this is now admitted to be ungrammatical, although it gives the true sense of the language. Whom do ye suppose (or suspect) me to be? (The Messiah, but) I am not. (See the same form of negation in Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19.) The historical fact here referred to is recorded in John 1:19–28. See John 1:20, 27; Luke 3:15. With the remainder of the verse compare Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16. Shoes of his feet is pleonastic in English, but not in Greek, where the first noun strictly denotes underbinding, and the feet are mentioned to determine or define it. (See above, on 7:33, and compare John 1:27.) To unloose, untie, or take off, the lowest kind of menial service, used by John to signify the vast disparity between himself and Christ.

26. This was not a matter of local or temporary interest, but an offer of salvation to the very persons whom he now addressed, both Jews and Gentiles. The former he describes as his brethren (see above, on 1:16; 2:29), sons (or children) of the stock (race or lineage) of Abraham; the latter as those fearing God (i.e. the true God), although not belonging to the chosen people (see above, on v. 16.) The form of the original is, those among you fearing God. To you, i.e. as some understand it, you as distinguished from the Jews of Palestine, referred to in the next verse. But as we know that these were not excluded from forgiveness and salvation, the meaning rather seems to be, that the rejection of the Gospel by the people at Jerusalem ought not to occasion its rejection elsewhere. The word of this salvation is a similar expression to the words of this life in 5:20. There is no need of resolving it into this word of salvation, i.e. this saving word or doctrine. It simply means the word (or tidings) of this (method of) salvation (through Christ.) Is sent, literally, was sent, i.e. was intended to be sent from the beginning, although necessarily presented to the Jew first (Rom. 2:9, 10.) This agrees better with the form of expression, as well as with the known facts of the case, than the explanation, has been sent, i.e. now, since the Jews at home have rejected it. This would rather have deterred the Jews of Antioch from hearing than incited them to do so.

27. The conduct of the Jews at home, far from discrediting the claims of Jesus, had confirmed them, by contributing to verify the prophecies respecting him. Not the rabble merely, but their rulers, their chief men and most enlightened spiritual guides, had failed to recognize him as the Messiah foretold in the Scriptures, which were weekly read in their assemblies; but in the act of judging him as an impostor, they fulfilled those very Scriptures, which predicted his rejection. Voices, i.e. audible predictions, in allusion to the circumstance just mentioned, of their being read aloud every sabbath. Judging, i.e. acting as judges, sitting in judgment; the idea of condemning is suggested by the context. (See above, on 7:7.) The construction of the sentence is ambiguous, as the verb not knowing (or ignoring) seems to govern an accusative both before and after it. Some avoid this syntax by construing voices with fulfilled directly (and the voices of the prophets, every sabbath read, judging they fulfilled.) But the construction adopted in our version is more natural, and yields a stronger sense, by expressly stating that the Jews mistook the meaning of their Scriptures, as well as the person of their Messiah Nor yet is simply and in the original.

28. So completely blinded were they to their own Messiah, and so bent on his destruction, that being unable to convict him of any capital offence, they asked it as a favour to themselves, and that too of a heathen governor, that he might be put to death. Cause of death, or ground of capital punishment. (see above, on 9:15, and below, on 26:25; 28:18.) Finding (or having found), implying search and effort, on the part of accusers, witnesses, and judges. Desired, requested for themselves; see above, on v. 21, and compare 3:14; 7:46; 9:2; 12:20. Slain, despatched, made away with; see above, on 12:2. Here again, though is simply and in the original. With the whole verse compare Matt. 27:24; Lu. 23:22; John 18:31.

29, 30. The very acts which seemed to put an end to Christ and his pretensions, were fulfilments of prophecy, and preparations for his reappearance. In venting their own spite, they (unwittingly) accomplished all the (things) written (in the prophecies) concerning him. They might have thought their work complete when, taking (him) down from the wood (or tree, i.e. the cross, see above, on 5:30; 10:39), they placed him in a tomb (or monument, a word akin to that used in 2:29, and there explained.) But God raised (or roused) him from (among) the dead. So that even his burial was only a preliminary to his resurrection. The ascription of his death and burial to the same agents has been variously explained. Some suppose that, as Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were themselves rulers of the Jews, as well as those by whom Christ was condemned, that whole class is here described as performing both acts. Others suppose the reference to be not to the immediate agents, either in the crucifixion or the burial, but to the prime movers in this whole judicial murder, of which the burial was the natural conclusion. A third opinion is, that even this part of the process, by itself considered, although at first accomplished by the hands of friends, was transferred, as it were, to those of enemies, by the sealing and guarding of the sepulchre (Matt. 27:66.) Paul here presents the contrast of which Peter is so fond, between the acts of men and the acts of God, in reference to Jesus. (See above, on 10:39, 40.) This resemblance is no argument against the authenticity of the discourse, but rather for it, since this was no peculiarity of Peter's, but a view which every Christian must have taken, and which every preacher to the Jews was bound to set before his hearers.

31. The resurrection of Christ was not assumed or asserted without evidence. He not only rose, but he was seen after he had risen; not for a moment, but for many days; not by strangers, but by those who knew him well, and had accompanied him on his last journey from the chief scene of his labours to the Holy City. Nor had these witnesses all passed away; they were still bearing testimony to the great event. This last point is particularly prominent in the text of the oldest manuscripts and latest editors (who NOW are) witnesses. Lastly, this testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour was not private or informal, but public and official, addressed directly to the chosen people.

32. The same testimony which was thus addressed by the companions of the risen Saviour to the body of the Jewish church in Palestine, was now borne by Paul and Barnabas, to Jews and Gentiles, in the synagogue at Antioch; not as a mere historical fact, but as joyful intelligence, good news; yet not as something altogether strange and unconnected with their previous religious faith and hope, but as the fulfilment of a promise made to former generations of God's people, the natural progenitors of the Jews then present, and the spiritual fathers of believing Gentiles. We and you, at the beginning of the sentence, stand together in Greek, which gives great force and point to the antithesis; 'What they are telling the people yonder, we tell you.' Declare glad tidings is in Greek one word, often translated preach in this book (see above, on 5:42; 8:4, 12, 35, 40; 10:36; 11:20), sometimes more fully, preach the gospel (see above, on 8:25, and below, on 14:7, 21; 16:10), but nowhere so exactly rendered as in this place (and in Luke 1:19; 2:10; 8:1.) The promise meant is that of the Messiah's Advent, which pervades the Hebrew Scriptures.

33. This oft-repeated, long-continued promise to the fathers God has now performed to us, their natural and spiritual children, by raising up or bringing forward, in our day and to our view, the long expected Saviour of his people, and as such called Jesus; and this he does not only in fulfilment of the promises in general, but of that one in particular, which is contained in the second Psalm, where God is represented as proclaiming the organic law or constitution of Messiah's kingdom, and uttering as its fundamental principle, the intimate relation of Messiah to himself, not merely mutual affection, but community of nature. The idea is derived from the great Messianic promise made to David (2 Sam. 7:14), "I will be his father, and he shall be my son." The expression in the Psalm, I have begotten thee, means, I am he who has begotten thee, i.e. I am thy father. To-day refers to the date of the decree itself, (Jehovah said, To-day, &c.); but this, as a divine act, was eternal, and so must be the sonship it affirms. Raising up is here applied by some, not to Christ's incarnation, but his resurrection, on the ground that it is certainly so used in the next verse. But this rather proves the contrary; for there the meaning is defined or specified by adding, from the dead, which cannot retroact upon its absolute use here, especially when it has been repeatedly employed before, in this same book, to signify the act of giving him existence as a man. (See above, on 2:30; 3:22, 26; 7:37.) In the only other place where it seems to be used absolutely of the resurrection (see above, on 2:32), it is really determined by the previous reference to death and dissolution. (For a fuller view of the passage quoted, in its original connection, see the writer's exposition of Ps. 2:7.) Instead of second psalm, the latest editors read first psalm, but on very doubtful manuscript authority. Even admitting it to be the true text, it is not a lapse of memory, but a relic of the old opinion that the first Psalm is a preface to the whole collection.

34. But this was not the only sense in which Christ had been raised up, or the only scripture which his raising up had verified. As his incarnation was the advent of that Son of God predicted in the second Psalm, so his resurrection from the dead was the redemption of the promise, I will give you the sure mercies of David. That this is a quotation, is clear from the formula which introduces it, he said on this wise, or, he thus hath spoken. The passage quoted is Isai. 55:3, but with some variation, both from the Hebrew and the Septuagint version. Thus the promise, I will make with you an everlasting covenant, Paul contracts into the brief phrase, I will give you, which is only a conciser and less definite expression of the same idea. On the other hand, he follows the Greek version in translating (חסדי) favours, mercies, by a word (ὅσια) which properly means sacred, holy (things), particularly such as have respect to God, and not to human usages or institutions (δίκαια.) Besides this passage, and 2:27 above, the word occurs in reference to God (Rev. 15:4), to Christ (Heb. 7:26), and to men (1 Tim. 2:8; Tit. 1:8), in all which places it is rendered holy. In the verse before us, and the Septuagint version of Isai. 55:3, it appears to have the sense of solemn, sacred, or inviolable, as applied to the divine engagements. 'I will give you (or fulfil to you) the sacred promises once made to David.' This explanation is given in the margin of the English Bible, while the text retains the original expression (mercies.) Sure, i.e. sure to be accomplished, literally, faithful, credible, or worthy of belief and trust. The reference is to 2 Sam. 7:8–16 (compare 1 Chr. 17:11–14; Ps. 89:3, 2.) As the burden of this promise was perpetual succession on the throne of David, it was fulfilled in Christ (compare Isai. 9:6, 7; Luke 1:32, 33), but only on the supposition, that his resurrection was not a mere temporary restoration, but the pledge of an endless immortality. Hence the Apostle speaks of this prophetic promise as fulfilled in the momentous fact, that God raised him from the dead, no more to return to corruption, i.e. into the condition, of which dissolution is a natural and in every other case a necessary incident. This perpetuity of Christ's restored life, as a necessary element in the doctrine of his resurrection, is insisted on by the Apostle elsewhere. (See Rom. 6:9, and compare Rev. 1:18.) The English version inserts one word (now) and omits another (μέλλοντα), which can be translated only by the use of an enfeebling paraphrase, no more about (or being about) to return. (See above, on 3:3; 5:35; 11:28; 12:6; and for the origin and usage of the word corruption, on 2:27, 31.) In the foregoing exposition of this verse, the original order of the clauses is inverted, for the sake of the logical connection. The actual connection of both verses is as follows. 'That God raised up Jesus (i.e. brought him into being as a man), is a verification of that passage in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee: that he raised him from the dead, no more to be subjected to the power of corruption, is a verification of that promise in Isaiah, I will give you the sure mercies of (or things inviolably pledged to) David.'

35. The necessity and certainty of Christ's perpetual exemption from corruption, i.e. from dissolution of the body, was not a matter of mere inference or implication, but a subject of explicit prophecy and promise. To evince this, Paul adduces the same passage which Peter had expounded and applied in his Pentecostal sermon (see above, on 2:25–31.) He also argues with respect to it precisely in the same way, namely, by denying that the words quoted (Ps. 16:10) could apply to David, and affirming that they did apply to Christ. Here again the sameness of the two discourses has been made, a ground of argument against their independent authenticity; as if each of the Apostles must use different methods of proving the Messiahship of Jesus; or as if the one here used belonged exclusively to Peter. We may even suppose that Paul heard Peter's exposition of this passage, or heard of it afterwards, without detracting from his independent apostolical authority (see above, on v. 3.) That one discourse is not compiled or copied from the other, is sufficiently apparent from the difference of form, Paul quoting only one verse, and that only in part, of the four which Peter had made use of, and connecting that one with a passage of Isaiah, not alluded to by Peter, while he passes by the latter's kindred argument derived from Ps. 110. (See above, on 2:34, 35.) All this goes to show the independence of the two Apostles and their two discourses, but at the same time their exact agreement in the exposition of a Messianic prophecy. The logical connection of Paul's arguments is indicated in the text itself. Wherefore, for which reason, i.e. because the sure mercies of David comprehended the Messiah's perpetual exemption from mortality when once arisen from the dead. In another (psalm), or less specifically, in another (place or part of scripture.) For the meaning of the last clause, see above, on 2:27.

36, 37. The perfect independence of the two Apostles, even in expounding the same passage and employing the same argument, is furthermore apparent from the curious fact, that while the end they aim at is identical, namely, to show that David's words were inapplicable to himself, and the proof coincident, to wit, that he did die and see corruption, this last phrase is the only one common to both speakers, their other expressions being wholly different. While Peter (see above, on 2:29) begs leave to remind his hearers that the Patriarch, or founder of their royal family, was dead and buried, and his sepulchre among them at the time of speaking, Paul, with exact agreement as to substance but a beautiful variety of form, describes him as an eminent servant both of God and man while he lived, but as sleeping with his fathers for a course of ages, and subjected long since to that process of corruption, from which this prophecy (Ps. 16:10) declared its subject to be free. He could not therefore be that subject; whereas Jesus, being raised up from the dead by God himself, before the process of corruption had begun, did really enjoy that very exemption which is here foretold. The consequence is plain, that he must be the Messiah. (See above, on 2:32.) The marginal translation, having (in) his own age (or generation) served the will of God, is not so natural in its construction of the dative (γενεᾷ) as denoting time, and in giving the verb (served) an impersonal or abstract object (will); nor does it yield so rich a sense, as it obliterates the fine idea of his serving man as well as God. His own generation, or contemporary race, is here emphatic and exclusive, as distinguished from all later times and generations. (See above, on 2:40.) Served or ministered, by doing good, officially and privately. (Compare Paul's description of his own voluntary service, 1 Cor. 9:19.) By (i.e. according to, or in obedience to) the will of God (see above, on 2:23; 4:28; 5:38.) Fell on sleep, an unusual expression even in old English, but entirely synonymous with the common phrase, fell asleep (or still more simply and exactly, slept), which here means died, perhaps with an implication of serenity and peace, as in the case of Stephen. (See above, on 7:60, where the same Greek word is rendered fell asleep.) Laid (literally, added, as in 2:41, 47; 5:14; 11:24; 12:3; Gal. 3:19) unto his fathers, i.e. with them, but implying close proximity and union (as in John 1:1, 2.) This is usually understood of burial in the same grave or family vault; but in the earliest instances of the expression, it seems to be distinguished both from death and burial, and has therefore been supposed to imply the separate existence of disembodied spirits. (See Gen. 25:8; 35:20; 2 Kings 22:20, and compare Matt. 22:32.) Even here, it may have reference to the soul, and the words following to the body, thus corresponding more exactly to the language of Ps. 16:10, as fully quoted and applied to Christ by Peter. (See above, on 2:27.) He whom God raised (again), i.e. Jesus, as stated in v. 34. Raised, however, is not the verb there used, but that employed in v. 30, and in 3:15; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40, in the same sense; while in vs. 22, 23 above, it has the general sense of calling into being; so that this double usage really belongs to both verbs, one of which originally means to stand or cause to stand, the other (the one here used) to arouse or awaken out of sleep. Saw no corruption, literally, did not see (perceive, experience) corruption (i.e. dissolution of the body.) We have thus the authority of two Apostles, and those the two most eminent, for denying that David is the subject of his own prophecy in Ps. 16:10.

38. It was not mere historical, nor even doctrinal or exegetical instruction that the Apostle here intended to communicate, but practical and experimental knowledge of the utmost moment, as relating to the only method of salvation. Having shown therefore that the Jesus, whom the people of Jerusalem had crucified, must be the Christ predicted both by David and Isaiah, he now brings the matter home to the bosoms of his hearers, by announcing that this Jesus is not only the Messiah, but the vehicle or medium through whom alone forgiveness is now offered to the guilty. Be it known is the same solemn formula, employed by Peter in the beginning of his Pentecostal sermon (2:14), and again when he ascribed the healing of the lame man to the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth (4:10.) It implies that the truth declared was one of which the hearers had been ignorant, but which it was important they should know. Therefore, as the logical no less than the practical conclusion of the whole preceding argument. Men and brethren, the respectful and affectionate address, with which he had already introduced the offer of salvation (see above, on v. 26), and with which he now impressively repeats it. Through this (one), this same Jesus, whom our brethren in Judea crucified, but whom I have just proved to be the promised Christ. Remission of sins, see above, on 2:38; 5:31; 10:43. There is something impressive in the very order of the words in this clause—that through this (man) unto you remission of sins is preached—i.e. declared, announced, proclaimed. See above, on v. 5, and compare 4:2. The idea of an offer or an invitation is implied, as when a government proclaims peace or pardon.

39. The gift thus offered was not only pardon, or deliverance from punishment, but justification, or deliverance from guilt, reaching to all the sins of all believers, and effecting what the law, in which they trusted, had completely failed to bring about, through their fault, not its own. By him and by the law are correlative expressions, strictly meaning in him and in the law, i.e. in union with, and in reliance on, him and the law, as grounds of hope and means of justification. By some this verse is understood as drawing a distinction between sins which could and sins which could not be atoned for by the law of Moses, and asserting the necessity of justification only in relation to the latter. Others suppose the contrast to be that between mere ceremonial offences, for which ceremonial expiation was sufficient, and sins or offences against God, for which legal observances could make no satisfaction, though they might prefigure it. But most interpreters and readers take the words in an exclusive sense, 'from all which sins ye were not able to be justified in the law of Moses.' The English version has departed here materially from the form of the original, by substituting the plural, all that believe, for the singular, every one believing, and by changing the whole order of the sentence, not without some diminution of its force and beauty. The original arrangement is as follows: and from all (the things from) which ye were not able to be justified in the law of Moses, in this man every one believing is justified." This collocation is entitled to the preference, not only as that chosen by the writer, but because it puts the two antagonistic phrases, in the law of Moses and in this man, side by side, and ends the sentence with the sum of the whole matter, every one believing is justified. The antithesis just mentioned shows that in this man depends upon the verb is justified, and not, as some suppose, upon believing. It is needless to show how much more this part of Paul's discourse resembles his epistles than any part of Peter's. (Compare Rom. 1:16; 3:22; 4:25; 5:10, 11; 6:7; 8:3; 10:4; Gal. 3:11, 22.) From after justified implies deliverance from guilt and righteous condemnation.

40. The offer of salvation is accompanied, as usual in Scripture, by a warning against the danger of rejecting it, here clothed in a peculiar form, derived from the Old Testament, and threatening the despisers of this offered mercy with as sudden and terrific judgments as Jehovah brought of old upon his faithless people, by allowing fierce and cruel foreign nations to invade and conquer them. Take heed, literally, see, look, i.e. see to it, or look out, be upon your guard; an expression nowhere else employed in this book, but of frequent occurrence in the writings of the Apostle who is here speaking. (See 1 Cor. 3:10; 8:9; 10:12; Gal. 5:15; Eph. 5:15; Phil. 3:2; Col. 2:8; 4:17; Heb. 3:12; 12:25.) The coincidence is here so slight and yet so striking, that a later writer could not have invented it, or would not have left it to be brought to light by microscopic criticism, ages after it was written. Therefore, since the true Messiah has appeared and been rejected at Jerusalem, and you are now in danger of committing the same sin. Come upon you, suddenly, and from above, or as a divine judgment. (See above, on 8:24, and compare Luke 11:22; 21:26, 35.) As it sometimes has a good sense (see above, on 1:8, and compare Luke 1:35), the unfavourable sense here is determined by the context. Spoken of, or rather spoken, not merely mentioned or referred to, but recorded as directly uttered by Jehovah. In the prophets, the division of the Hebrew Canon so called. (See above, on v. 15; 7:42, and compare John 6:45.)

41. These words are from the Septuagint version of Habakkuk 1:5, which varies considerably from the Hebrew. Behold ye despisers is, in the original, behold (or see) among the nations. Wonder and perish (or be wasted, consumed) is there, wonder (and) wonder (or as the English version of Habakkuk has it, wonder marvellously.) The remainder of the verse agrees almost exactly with the Hebrew, the chief difference of form consisting in the substitution of the impersonal construction (if one tell you) for the passive (when it is told.) The necessity of trying to account for these departures from the Hebrew text is precluded by the obvious consideration, that this passage is not quoted, expounded, and declared to be fulfilled, like those from David and Isaiah in vs. 33–37 above, but merely made the vehicle of a warning similar to that contained in the original prediction. As if he had said, 'Be upon your guard lest, by rejecting the salvation which I have now offered in the name of your Messiah, you should call down judgments on yourselves as fearful and incredible as those predicted by Habakkuk, and inflicted by the hands of the Chaldeans, on our unbelieving fathers.' The Septuagint version is retained without correction, because no interpretation or application of the passage is intended, but a simple use of its expressions to convey the Apostle's own ideas to the minds of his hearers in a striking manner. This is the less surprising or improbable, because that part of the quotation which he had especially in view, is that which agrees best with the original. For although the word despisers, in the first clause, may seem specially appropriate to the Jews who rejected Christ, Paul seems to have intended to dwell chiefly on the greatness of the threatened judgment or prediction, as incredible in either case. This quotation, therefore, does not of itself prove that Paul spoke in Greek, though this is highly probable for other reasons; but it does prove that he thought himself at liberty to use the words of the Old Testament in application to new cases, and even in a version not entirely accurate. But let it be observed, that in neither of these things is he an example to us, because in both he acted under the control of inspiration and by virtue of his apostolical authority, without which we are utterly incompetent to say what new application may be made of words prophetically uttered, or how far an imperfect version may be used with safety. Let it also be observed that no such use is made by the Apostle Paul of Scripture, where his doctrine or his argument depends upon it, as in a previous portion of this very chapter. (See above, on vs. 33–37.)

42. The text of the first clause varies very much in the editions. According to the latest critics, the words Jews, Synagogue, and Gentiles, have all been interpolated by the copyists, either to supply some supposed deficiency, or to make the verse intelligible, as the abrupt beginning of an ancient pericope or lesson, to be read in public worship. The reading now adopted, on the authority of the five oldest manuscripts and two oldest versions, is, and they having gone out, they besought, &c. The subjects of the verbs are not expressed, which makes the clause obscure; and to remove this ambiguity was probably the motive of the textual changes in the later copies. The first verb most probably refers to the preachers, and the second to their hearers, whether Jews or Gentiles. These words, this doctrine, or this new religion. (See above, on 5:20, 32; 10:22, 44; 11:14.) Might be preached, literally, to be spoken. The next sabbath, or, as the margin of the English Bible has it, in the week between, or in the sabbath between. The last appears to be unmeaning, as no points can be assigned, between which this sabbath is described as intermediate; whereas the week between would naturally mean the week between the sabbath when these things happened and the next. That the Greek word sometimes has the sense of week, is plain from Mark 16:9; Luke 18:12; but this usage is so rare, that it is not to be preferred without necessity. Between is certainly the strict sense, and in classic Greek the common one, of the particle (μεταξύ), and it always has that meaning elsewhere in the New Testament (see above, on 12:6, and below, on 15:9, and compare John 4:31, where the sense is, in the time between, or in the meanwhile.) But the later writers, such as Plutarch and Josephus, give it the sense of next or afterward; and this is preferred here by almost all interpreters. It seems, then, that they were invited to repeat their instructions, no doubt in the synagogue, to which both Jews and Gentiles were accustomed to resort. (See above, on v. 5.)

43. The congregation is in Greek the synagogue, a clear instance of its primary or strict sense. (See above, on vs. 5, 14, and on 6:9; 9:2, 20.) Being broken up, dissolved, or dismissed. Religious proselytes, (Tyndale, virtuous converts,) i.e. serious and devout Gentiles, who had become Jews, either wholly or in part. (See above, on 2:10; 6:5.) As Paul and Barnabas were said in the preceding verse to have gone out of the synagogue, this mention of the meeting's being broken up occasions some confusion. One solution of the difficulty is that they withdrew when they had spoken, but before the service was concluded; another, that it was the Jews who went out, and the Gentiles who requested them to preach again; a third, that these two verses relate to two successive sabbaths, and that between them something is to be supplied, e.g. they did so, or they did repeat their teachings the next sabbath, and then, when the assembly was dissolved on that day, some of the hearers followed Paul and Barnabas. In the last clause of this verse, as in the first of that before it, the subjects of the verbs are not expressed, so that it may either mean, that these Jews and proselytes persuaded Paul and Barnabas to persevere in the good work which they had begun, or that Paul and Barnabas persuaded them to persevere in their inquiries after saving truth, here called the grace of the Lord, i.e. the new revelation of the divine favour made in and by the Lord Jesus Christ. Although Calvin thought the first of these constructions probable, the second has been almost universially regarded as the true one. Besides other reasons in its favour, it agrees better with the verb persuaded, which is so often used to denote the effect produced by public teaching and official exhortation. (See below, on 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28; 28:23.)

44. The next Sabbath (day is not expressed here, any more than in v. 42), i.e. the second or the third, according to the meaning put upon the two preceding verses. If they relate to the same sabbath, this is a second; if to two sabbaths, this is a third. Next, in the received text, is literally coming, i.e. following, ensuing; but several of the oldest manuscripts have a word which differs only in a single letter (see above, on v. 18), but which means holding fast to, adjacent, next, as applied both to place (as in Mark 1:38) and to time (see below, on 20:15; 21:26, and compare Luke 13:33.) Almost is a slight but significant proof how little the historian is given or inclined to exaggeration. The whole city, all the city, i.e. all the people, Came together, or, adhering to the passive form of the original, was gathered (or assembled), the same verb that is applied to the assembly of the Sanhedrim and of the disciples (see above, on 4:6, 26, 27, 31; 11:26.) To hear the word of God, the Gospel, the new revelation. It is worthy of remark that nothing is here said of miracles, so that the desire of instruction and salvation would appear to be the only cause of this great concourse, which resembles that occasioned by our Lord's appearance as a public teacher. (See Mark 2:2; Luke 8:19.) The place of meeting was no doubt the synagogue, or customary place for the assembling of the Jews. The crowd itself was probably increased by the instructions and appeals of Paul and Barnabas, during the interval between these sabbaths.

45. However patiently the Jews of Antioch might have borne with the new doctrine preached by Paul and Barnabas, so long as it was limited to their own body, the extraordinary popular effort which it produced would naturally rouse their jealousy or party spirit. Seeing the multitudes (or crowds), not merely the great numbers but the various characters and classes (see above, on 1:15), which assembled, no doubt at the place of worship, where the strangers were expected to appear again. Envy, or rather emulation, jealousy, and partyspirit. Both zeal and indignation were of course included, but neither of these terms expresses the full force of the original (see above, on 5:17.) Among the feelings thus excited was no doubt the fear of forfeiting that influence upon the Gentiles which the Jews appear to have derived from their possession of the true religion, even when they were the objects of oppression or contempt, and which they actually exercised on this occasion (see below, on v. 50.) This moral power of the true religion in overcoming even the most serious social disadvantages, is among the clearest evidences of its being what it claims to be. Spake against and contradicting are in Greek but two forms of the same verb which includes the meaning of both English ones, to wit, the idea of denial and that of vituperation or abuse. Blaspheming Paul and Barnabas, i.e. reviling them as heretics and false teachers; or blaspheming Christ himself, as an impostor and a false Messiah. (For the twofold usage of this verb and its cognate forms, see above, on 6:11, 13.) The second participle (contradicting) is not found in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions; but the very critics who have commonly most deference for such authority, regard this as an unauthorized omission, intended to remove what was considered an inelegant repetition. It really adds strength to the expression, whether taken as an idiomatic combination of two cognate forms for emphasis (see above, on 4:17; 5:28), or as a natural resumption and reiteration for the same effect, resulting in a kind of climax; contradicting and (not only contradicting but) blaspheming. Here again Paul appears as the chief speaker, or perhaps the only one, and therefore as the object against whom this opposition was directed. (See above, on v. 9, and below, on 14:12.)

46. This opposition, far from intimidating the Apostles, only served to hasten an explicit declaration of their purpose and commission, with respect to Jews and Gentiles. Then (δέ), and, but, or so. Waxed bold, or more exactly, speaking freely, talking plainly, the idea of boldness being rather implied than expressed. (See above, on 9:27, 29, and compare 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31.) What might have been disclosed a more gradual and gentle manner, was, in consequence of this malignant opposition, in plainly and abruptly stated. As this declaration is ascribed expressly both to Paul and Barnabas, some argue that the previous speaking must have been by both alike; while others from the same fact draw the opposite conclusion, that where only one is mentioned, as in the preceding verse, the other is thereby excluded. Here again, the emphasis, though not the meaning, of the sentence is affected by a change of the original arrangement, which, however, may have been necessary to accommodate our idiom. To you, the Jews, who had been just described as contradicting and blaspheming. Necessary, i.e. to the execution of the divine plan and purpose, with respect to the first proclamation of the Gospel. (See above, on 1:16, 21.) Put it from you, thrust it away, scornfully reject it; a kindred form to that employed by Stephen in relating the rejection of Moses by his countrymen in Egypt. (See above, on 7:27, 39.) Judge yourselves unworthy, literally, not worthy judge yourselves. The thought suggested, although not immediately expressed, is that they condemned themselves as thus unworthy (see above, on v. 27), not in word, nor even in thought, but by their conduct. They proved themselves unworthy of salvation by refusing to accept of it, when freely offered through their own Messiah. To the striking but unusual expression here employed a fine parallel is found in Cicero, who says that Catiline had judged himself worthy of confinement or imprisonment: Qui se ipsum dignum custodia judicaverit. The interjection, lo, behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected and surprising. (See above, on vs. 11, 25.) As if he had said, however strange it may appear to you, however unprepared you may be to receive it. We turn (or are turning at this moment) to the Gentiles (or the nations), not considered as far distant (see above, on 2:39), but as represented here, in this assembly (see above, on 11:1, 18.) This cannot mean that Paul was now commissioned for the first time as the Apostle of the Gentiles (see above, on vs. 3, 9, and compare 9:15; 22:21; 26:17, 18); nor can it mean that he was hence forth to abandon all attempts at the conversion of the Jews (see below, on 18:5; 19:8, and compare Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 10.) The primary idea is the obvious one, that they were thus to turn from Jews to Gentiles where they were, i.e. in Antioch of Pisidia, but with an implication that the same course was to be repeated, whenever and wherever the occasion should present itself. And this agrees exactly with Paul's later practice, as for instance in Corinth (18:6), Ephesus (19:9), and Rome (28:28.)

47. This was not a voluntary self-imposed commission, but a necessary part of their divine vocation. The Lord, according to New Testament usage, might be understood to mean the Lord Jesus Christ (see above, on 1:24.) But as the words which follow are addressed to the Messiah, the Lord may be regarded as the usual translation of Jehovah. The passage quoted is Isai. 49:6 (compare 42:6), where the Messiah is described as a source of light, not merely to the Jews, but to the nations, not merely in the Holy Land, but to the ends of the earth. The same description had already been applied to Christ by Simeon (Luke 2:31, 32.) Commanded us is not an arbitrary transfer or accommodation of the passage, but a faithful reproduction of its original and proper import, as relating both to the Head and the Body, the Messiah and the Church in their joint capacity, as heralds of salvation to the world. (See Isaiah Translated and Explained, vol. II. p. 216.)

48. Hearing this announcement, that the apostolical ministry was now to be directed to themselves, the Gentiles, literally, nations (as in v. 46) rejoiced, that they were no longer to be shut out from the privileges hitherto monopolized by Jews and proselytes, and glorified, or praised and honoured, the word of the Lord, the doctrine of Christ, the new revelation which had now been preached to them, not merely as a theme of speculation, nor even as a system of divine truth, but also as a method of salvation, so that they believed, not merely in the truth of what they heard, but in the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Saviour. As many as were ordained, ordered or appointed, to eternal life, a favourite expression of John and Paul to signify salvation. It occurs in this book only here, but is several times employed by Luke in his Gospel (10:25; 18:18, 30.) The violent attempts which have been made to eliminate the doctrine of election or predestination from this verse, by rendering the last verb disposed, arrayed, &c., or by violent constructions, such as that adopted by Socinus (as many as believed were ordained to everlasting life!) can never change the simple fact, that wherever this verb occurs elsewhere, it invariably expresses the exertion of power or authority, divine or human, and being in the passive voice, cannot denote mere disposition, much less self-determination, any more than the form used in 2:40 above, which some have cited as a parallel example.

49, 50. The purpose which had been announced in v. 46, was carried into execution. The word of the Lord, the doctrine of Christ, the new religion, was published (literally carried, i.e. circulated or diffused) throughout all the region, meaning that part of Asia Minor, without reference to any political division into provinces. Stirred up, excited, instigated, no doubt by misrepresentation, as well as by appealing to the prepossessions of these female proselytes in favour of their new religion, and against all further change. The number of female converts from Heathenism to Judaism in that age, we know from Josephus to have been very great. Devout, literally, worshiping, a term commonly applied to Gentiles who acknowledged the true God, and were more or less under Jewish influence, whether open professors of that faith or not. (See above, on v. 43, and below, on 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7.) Neither devout nor honourable is here descriptive of personal character, so much as of social relations and position. The word translated honourable means originally handsome, comely (as in 1 Cor. 12:24); then respectable in point of rank and station (as in Mark 15:43.) The chief (or first) men (see below, on 25:2; 28:7, 17) may have been the husbands, or other near connections, of these honourable women. Raised, aroused, or awakened, a compound form of the verb used above in vs. 22, 23, 30, 37. Persecution, see above, on 8:1. Expelled, literally, cast out, but not always used to express violent exclusion (see above, on 9:40), although sometimes so used (see above, on 7:58), and most probably in this case. Coasts, in the old English sense of borders, bounds, or frontiers, often put for the whole country thus defined or bounded. The word is used repeatedly by Mark and Matthew, but in no other part of the New Testament, with the exception of the verse before us.

51. The act described in the first clause was symbolical, expressive of unwillingness to have the least communication or connection with the place or country, even by suffering its flying dust (κονιορτόν) to settle or remain upon the person. It is said to have been practised by the ancient Jews whenever they re-entered Palestine from other countries. Paul and Barnabas performed this ceremony in obedience to our Lord's express command. (See Matt. 10:14; Mark 6:11; Luke 9:5; 10:11.) A similar act of the same signification was the shaking of the raiment. (See below, on 18:6.) Against them, either in the local sense of towards, on, at them, or in the figurative sense of testifying against them; probably the latter, as it is expressed in Luke 9:5. Iconium, an important town of Asia Minor, referred by Xenophon to Phrygia, by Strabo to Lycaonia, by Ammian to Pisidia, while Pliny seems to represent it as the seat of a distinct provincial government. It is still a place of some importance under the corrupted name of Conien or Koniyeh.

52. We have here another instance of a fact already noticed, that the primitive disciples are repeatedly described as rejoicing in the very circumstances which might seem peculiarly adapted to produce an opposite effect. (See above, on 5:41, and compare Luke 24:52.) That the cause of this effect was supernatural, we learn from the concluding words. Although not the grammatical construction, it is really the import of this verse, that they were filled with what Paul elsewhere calls "joy in the Holy Ghost" (Rom. 14:17), "all joy and peace in believing" (Rom. 15:13.) The disciples who were thus affected were no doubt the converted Jews and Gentiles, whom the missionaries left behind at Antioch in Pisidia, and against whom the persecution was perhaps continued for a time. (See below, on 14:22.) The prosperous condition of the early churches, even in the midst of outward trials, is a characteristic feature of this history. (See above, on 4:32–35; 9:31; 12:24.)

CHAPTER 14

THIS division of the text records the ministry of Paul and Barnabas at Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe; their return through these places to Pisidia and Pamphylia; their voyage from Attalia to Antioch; their report to the church and resumption of their work there. They preach at Iconium with great success (1.) But here again the unbelieving Jews oppose them (2.) They remain there long, however, and are greatly blessed (3.) The city is divided into two parties (4.) At length all their enemies combine against them (5.) They flee to Lycaonia and there introduce the Gospel (6.) At Lystra Paul performs a signal miracle (8–10.) The heathen population offer to worship him and Barnabas (11–13.) They indignantly refuse it (14.) They avow the object of their mission (15.) They contrast the idols of the heathen with the true God (16, 17.) With difficulty they prevent their own deification (18.) Even here they are pursued by their old enemies (19.) Paul narrowly escapes destruction (20.) They preach at Derbe without opposition, and return as they had come, organizing churches by the way (21–24.) They preach now for the first time at Perga (25.) They sail from Attalia to Antioch in Syria (26.) They make a report of their mission to the church there (27.) After this they resume their old position and employment (28.)

1. It came to pass, i.e. (something) happened (or took place, while they were) in Iconium (see above, on 13:52.) Together, not as usual, or according to custom, but at the same (time), either with one another (as in 3:1), or with the congregation or the multitude. The synagogue was still the medium of access, not only to the Jews, but to the serious Gentiles. (See above, on 13, 14, 15.) So spake is commonly explained to mean, in so remarkable a manner, with such force, warmth, unction, or assistance of the Spirit. The original order of the words is, spake so that, which some explain as making the effect described dependent simply on their speaking, not on any thing peculiar in their mode of speaking upon this occasion. But as this would have been sufficiently expressed by one of the Greek particles here used (ὥστε), the other (οὕτως) must have a distinctive sense (in such a manner), and the common explanation is the true one. (See above, on 1:11; 3:18; 7:1, 6, 8; 8:32; 12:8, 15; 13:47.) The original order of the last clause is, believed, both of the Jews and Greeks, a great multitude. Believed, i.e. in Christ, or were converted to the new religion. Greeks, not foreign Jews, but Gentiles. (See above, on 6:1; 9:29; 11:20.) Some deny that heathen Greeks would frequent the synagogue; but such a practice is not only natural and probable, but actually mentioned in the classics, which bear witness to the interest felt in Judaism and the practice of attending on its worship, even in Rome. It is said, indeed, that these were proselytes; but how could they become such, if entirely unacquainted with the Jewish worship?

2. Unbelieving, and also disobedient, both which ideas are suggested by the Greek verb (compare 1 Pet. 2:7; 3:20; Rom. 10:21, and the Septuagint version of Isai. 65:2.) Belief in the Gospel was not a matter of indifference or option, but of duty and obedience to divine authority, a favourite idea both with Paul and Peter. (See above, on 6:7, and compare Rom. 1:5; 15:18; 16:19, 26; 2 Cor. 7:15; 10:5, 6; 1 Pet. 1:2, 14, 22.) Excited and embittered, literally, made bad, i.e. disaffected, hostile, or malignant. (see above on 7:6, 19; 12:1.) The Gentiles, literally, the nations, (see above, on 4:27; 9:15; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:42, 46, 47, 48.) The brethren, the new converts, whether Jews or Gentiles, sometimes called disciples (see above, on 13:52.) What is here recorded shows, not only the determined ill-will of the unbelieving Jews, but also their extraordinary influence upon the Gentiles. (See above, on 13:50.)

3. Long time, literally, sufficient time, or time enough. (See above, on 5:37; 8:11; 9:23, 43; 11:24, 26; 12:12, and compare Luke 8:32 with Matt. 8:30.) The precise time is purposely left undetermined, but, as the very form of expression may suggest, it should suffice us to know that it was long enough to carry out the divine purpose. Therefore, or rather, so then, a resumptive or continuative particle, connecting this verse more directly with the first than with the second, which may be regarded as a sort of parenthesis or interruption, the author's main design being rather to record the success of the Gospel than the opposition to it, which is therefore only mentioned by the bye. But although the opposition of the Jews and Gentiles is not given as the reason of their stay (long time therefore), it is plain that it had no effect in hindering it. Abode, literally, wore out, wore away, but commonly applied to time, even when not expressly mentioned. (See above, on 12:19.) Boldly, or freely (Geneva Bible, frankly), as opposed not merely to timidity or cowardice, but to all reserve, obscurity, or partiality. (See above, on 2:29; 4:13, 29, 31; 9:27, 28; 13:46.) In the Lord, or rather on him, i.e. in reliance on him, and by his authority, both which ideas are suggested by the next clause. (See above, on 2:38; 3:16; 4:18; 9:42; 11:17.) The Lord, i.e. God, as manifested in the Lord Jesus Christ. (see above, on 13:49.) The Lord, the (one) testifying, bearing witness, to the word of his grace, his gracious word, or the doctrine of his grace, the proclamation of his mercy in the Gospel. Signs and wonders, i.e. miracles, as proofs of the divine approbation, and as prodigies or wonders. (See above, on 2:19, 22, 43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36.) Giving, granting or permitting, miracles to be performed by their hands, through their agency as simple instruments, in order to attest their divine legation. (see above, on 2:4, 27; 4:29; 13:35.)

4. Divided (rent, split, the Greek verb from which schism is derived) was the multitude, the mass or body of the people (see above, on v. 1. and compare 2:6; 4:32; 5:16; 6:2, 5.) Part held with, literally, some were with, i.e. on the side of, joined with, in the schism or separation now in question (see above, on 4:13; 5:17, 21.) The Jews, i.e. the unbelieving Jews, so called in v. 2. The Apostles, i.e. the body of Apostles, represented by the missionaries; or more probably, the (two) Apostles, i.e. Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, and Barnabas, either as holding the same office and equal in authority, or simply so called as Paul's colleague and companion, which explains the fact that he is never so called separately or in the singular number, nor indeed at all, except in this one passage, though he is so often mentioned. Some find an analogy in the case of Silas (see below, on 16:37, 38.) But a still more natural and satisfactory solution is, that Paul and Barnabas are both here called Apostles, not in the technical distinctive sense, but in the primary and wider one of missionaries, ministers sent forth upon a special service. (Compare John 13:16; Rom. 16:7; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25.)

5. When, literally, as, suggesting both the time and cause of the departure mentioned in the next verse. (See above, on 1:10; 5:24; 7:23; 8:36; 9:23; 10:7, 17, 25; 11:25, 29.) An assault, properly a rush, a violent onward movement, but sometimes applied to an internal impulse, resolution, plan, or purpose (compare James 3:4), which some prefer here, as agreeing better with the first words of the sixth verse. Their rulers may refer to the Jews alone, as the nearest antecedent, or to both Jews and Gentiles, which seems more natural. By the rulers of the Jews we are probably to understand, not elective or self-constituted officers, but their natural, hereditary chiefs and representatives, the heads of families or elders, according to the patriarchal system, which the Jews carried with them in their wide dispersion, as an organization reconcileable with any social or political condition, because really a mere extension of the family relation. (See above, on 4:5; 5:21; 6:12; 11:30.) To insult, outrage, treat with insolence, wantonly abuse. The idea of physical violence is not necessarily included in the meaning of this word, but suggested by what follows. The Greek verb is once rendered by reproach in English (Luke 11:45), but always elsewhere by entreat (i.e. treat) or use despitefully (Matt. 22:26; Luke 18:32; 1 Th. 2:2, and here), while the cognate noun is represented by reproach in one place (2 Cor. 12:10), and by hurt and harm in another, within the compass of a dozen verses (see below, on 27:10, 21.) The essential idea is not so much that of spite or malignity as that of insolence and outrage. To stone them, either as an act of brutal rage and violence, or as a sort of judicial testimony against the impiety of Paul and Barnabas. (See above, on 5:26; 7:58, 59.) If the latter, it must have been confined to the Jews; or rather, they alone can be supposed to have attached this symbolical meaning to the act, while the Gentiles regarded it, and perhaps took part in it, merely as a public ignominious insult.

6, 7. Being aware (of it), literally, knowing with (one's self, i.e. being conscious), or kowing with (others, i.e. being privy, cognizant, or in the secret.) See above, on 5:2; 12:12. Some infer from this expression, that the movement mentioned in v. 5 must have been a secret plot, and not an open assault; but even the latter might have been discovered or perceived in its inception or first movements. Observe the exact agreement here between Luke's speaking of a plan or plot to stone them, which was not carried into execution, and Paul's saying (2 Cor. 11:25), "Once was I stoned," i.e. at Lystra (see below, on v. 19.)* Fled, not in terror, or in undue care for their own safety, but in the exercise of that discretion, which sometimes prompted them to stand and sometimes to retreat before danger. (see above, on 4:13, 20; 5:29, 42; 8:1; 9:20, 25, 29, 30; 12:17; 13:51.) The original order of the next clause is, to the cities of Lycaonia, Lystra and Derbe. The definite expression (the cities) does not necessarily exclude Iconium, which Strabo and Pliny reckon also to that province, but may be equivalent to the (other) cities. This construction is not necessary, however, as the limits of these provinces were always vague and often shifting. (see above, on 13:51.) The sense may therefore be, the (principal or well known) cities of (the neighboring province) Lycaonia. Thus Xenophon calls Iconium, "the last town of Phrygia." Lycaonia was an inland tract of Asia Minor, lying between Phrygia, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Cilicia. Lystra was in the southern part of it, thirty miles south of Iconium. Ptolemy includes it in Isauria, which was probably not a political division, but a district on the frontier of several provinces, infested by a race of robbers called Isauri. The site of Lystra is supposed to have been recently discovered. Derbe was east of Lystra and south-east of Iconium, mentioned by Cicero as the residence of his friend Antipater. Some travellers suppose both the site and name to be preserved in the modern Diule. The region that lieth round about (one word in Greek) i.e. about Lystra and Derbe, not about Lycaonia, but within it. Preached, or more exactly, were preaching, i.e. for a time not specified, but necessarily implying more than a mere transient visit. Preaching, evangelizing, telling the good news of Christ and his salvation. (See above, on 5:42; 8:4, 12, 25, 35, 40; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32.)

8. Having given, in the two preceding verses, a summary description of their missionary work in the region of Lystra and Derbe, the historian now gives a more particular account of what occurred at Lystra, including a miracle (8–10), an apotheosis (11–13), an apostolical discourse (14–18), and a persecution (19–20.) They may have performed many miracles in Lystra, as they did during their long stay in Iconium (v. 3), and this one may have been recorded merely on account of the events to which it led. Or it may have been the only one performed, because Paul and Barnabas were soon after driven from the place (vs. 19, 20.) The strong resemblance between these occurrences and those recorded in the third and fourth chapters, where a miracle is likewise the occasion both of a discourse and a persecution, so far from tending to discredit either narrative, serves rather to confirm both as authentic, on the principle that like causes produce like effects, so that these two narratives, instead of being copied one from the other, are only specimens of what was frequently experienced in that age, on a larger or a smaller scale. That one of these remarkable examples is recorded in each great division of the history, is no proof of a disposition to assimilate the life of Paul to that of Peter, but a natural result of the plan on which the whole book is constructed, and agreeably to which one Apostle is especially conspicuous in one part, and the other in the other. The resemblance in the miracles themselves can be a difficulty only on the supposition that they were fortuitous and under no particular divine direction. A certain man, as in 3:2; 5:1, 34; 6:9; 8:9; 9:10, 33, 36; 10:1, 23; 11:20; 12:1, 13; 1:6, in all which cases, by a sort of antiphrasis, certain seems really to mean uncertain, the Greek word being merely an indefinite pronoun, corresponding both to some and any. Impotent, literally, unable (to make use of them.) Sat, not dwelt, as some dilute the meaning, by a false comparison of Matt. 4:16, where sat is also the true version. (Compare Gen. 23:10) where the meaning is not that Ephron dwelt among the children of Heth, which there was no need of affirming, as he was their chief, but that Ephron was then sitting in the midst of them or surrounded by them.) Sat, which in Mark 5:15 was a proof of cure, in this case only proved the need of it. He sat because he could not stand or walk. Being is not found in the oldest manuscripts, and is rejected by the latest critics, as an unauthorized assimilation to the narrative in 3:2. Cripple is a more exact translation than the lame man of that passage. Both men had been so from their birth, and of this one it is added negatively, he had never walked. Congenital infirmities of this kind being commonly regarded as incurable, the man's condition seemed to be a hopeless one.

9, 10. This (man) heard, or according to the common text, was hearing, listening, when the cure was wrought; but the oldest manuscripts and latest editors have the aorist instead of the imperfect. Paul speaking, i.e. publicly, not merely talking but preaching. Gazing at him, as in 3:4; 13:9 (compare 1:10; 3:12; 6:15; 7:55; 10:4; 11:6.) This act, when connected with miraculous performances, was probably intended, first, to fix attention on the person, then to arrest his own, also to ascertain his actual condition, and lastly by divine assistance to discern his spirit or read his heart, as Paul did in the case before us. Faith to be healed (literally, to be saved) is variously understood to mean what theologians call saving faith, and which was often, if not commonly, connected with miraculous healing, as a previous condition or a subsequent effect (see above, on 3:16); or confident assurance that he could or would be healed of (saved from) his disease (see above, on 4:9); or, intermediate between these two extremes, such a confiding state of mind as made him a fit object of compassion, and in a good sense qualified him to be saved both from bodily and spiritual maladies. With a great (or loud) voice, like our Saviour in the case of Lazarus (see John 11:43.) There was no need of Peter's doing likewise, as the cripple whom he healed was lying at the gate through which he was about to pass (3:2, 3); whereas the one whom Paul healed may have been at a considerable distance, in the midst of the assembly which he was addressing. In some of the old manuscripts, and one modern critical edition, Paul begins by saying, I say unto thee in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, which is commonly rejected by the critics as an evident assimilation to the words of Peter in 3:6. But the words, though not recorded here, may have been uttered in both cases, or if not pronounced by Paul, were certainly implied in his avowed relation to the Saviour, and perhaps anticipated in his previous discourse, which may have included or wound up with an account of Christ's own miracles of healing (compare that of Peter to Cornelius and his company, 10:38), and by this "hearing" (Rom. 10:17) may have come the cripple's "faith to be healed" (v. 9.) Arise, stand up, upon thy feet, which he had never used (v. 8), erect, straight, upright, a word occurring elsewhere only in Heb. 12:13, where it is translated straight. This implies that he was previously bent or otherwise deformed (compare Luke 13:16.) He leaped and walked, the same gradation or succession as in 3:8, but more concisely stated. The leaping here most probably denotes the first exertion of his newly acquired power in an effort to obey the Apostle's mandate. Leaping for joy is not distinctly mentioned here as in the other narrative (3:9.)

11. The crowds, i.e. the assembled masses who had witnessed the miracle, perhaps called crowds, not merely in reference to their numbers, but to their promiscuous composition (see above, on 1:15; 6:7; 8:6; 11:24, 26; 13:45.) Seeing what Paul did, to wit, that he had healed the cripple. Raised their voices, shouted, cried aloud, with one voice (see above, on 2:6, and compare 4:24; 7:57; 8:7; 13:27.) In Lycaonian, Lycaonically (lat. Lycaonice), an adverb similar in form to those translated, in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (John 19:20.) This was the vernacular language of the country, supposed by some to be a dialect of Greek, by others a Semitic tongue, but evidently meant to be distinguished from the Greek which the Apostles spoke, and which was no doubt understood by the people, as the English is in Wales, Ireland, and the Highlands of Scotland, even where the native language of the people is Welsh, Erse, or Gaelic. This sudden falling back upon their mother-tongue, when strongly excited, is exquisitely true to nature and experience. But why is it recorded? Most interpreters (since Chrysostom) agree that it is mentioned to account for the delay of the Apostles in refusing divine honours, which they seem not to have done until they saw the priest approaching with the victims and the garlands (v. 13), so that the acclamations of the people were either not heard, although apparently uttered on the spot as soon as they had seen the miracle, or not understood, because uttered in an unknown tongue. From this fact various conclusions have been drawn, e.g. that the gift of tongues was not constant but occasional or temporary; that it was not universal but restricted in the case of individual apostles; and therefore that it was not a mere practical convenience in the preaching of the Gospel, but a token of God's presence and a symbol of the calling of the Gentiles. (See above, on 2:4; 10:46.) Likened (assimilated, made like) to men (or having been so) for the nonce, on this particular occasion, Have (or are) come down to us, descended from above, from heaven or Olympus, where the gods resided. This language agrees perfectly, not only with the general belief in such epiphanies or theophanies, divine appearances in human form, as found in Homer and the later classics, but also with the local superstitions and traditions of the very country where the words were spoken, Lycaonia, so called from Lycaon, whose fatal entertainment of Jupiter is one of Ovid's fables in the first book of his Metamorphoses, while in the eighth he tells the fabulous but interesting story of the visit paid to Philemon and Baucis, in the adjacent province of Phrygia, by Jupiter and Mercury, the very gods named in the next verse.

12. Jupiter, the Roman name of the divinity whom the Greeks called Zeus, and in the early ages Dis, the accusative of which word (Dia) is the one here used. Mercurius (more usually written with an English termination, Mercury, like Timotheus and Timothy, 2 Cor. 1:1, 19), the Roman name corresponding to the Greek Hermes, the interpreter or spokesman of the gods, and represented in the popular mythology, as commonly attending Zeus or Jupiter in his visits to the earth (see above, on v. 11.) This accounts for the application of the name to Paul, as being the chief speaker, literally, the (one) leading in the word (or in discourse), not merely (if at all) the one that said most, but the one that spoke for both, or acted as the spokesman of the party. (see above, on 1:13, 15.) Having thus named Paul for a specific reason, they inferred of course that Barnabas was Jupiter, for which no reason is assigned at all. Not content with this simple, unembellished explanation of the text, interpreters have chosen to imagine other reasons, some of which may possibly be true, but none of which are either expressed or necessarily implied. Such are the usual hypotheses, that Barnabas was older and of more majestic presence, Paul younger and more active; while others have gone further and described him as diminutive in stature and contemptible in aspect, on the ground of certain dubious expressions in his own epistles (2 Cor. 10:1, 10.) But even granting this to be the true interpretation of his language, how would such a picture correspond to the ideal forms of Mercury, with which they were familiar, and some of which are still preserved, as an athletic, graceful, active youth? This discrepancy is enough to prove, either that Paul was not such a looking person as these writers represent him, or, which is probably at all events a true and safe conclusion, that the people of Lystra, in calling him Mercurius, had no regard at all to his appearance, but exclusively to what is here expressly stated, that he was the leading speaker in behalf of both. To this absurd depreciation of Paul's person or physique, the opposite extreme is that of making them describe him as Mercurius, because of his extraordinary eloquence, an art or gift of which that god was the reputed patron. This hypothesis, though in itself far better founded than the other, is excluded, in the case before us, partly by the fact that Barnabas himself received his name from the Apostles on account of his excelling in this very gift (see above, on 4:36; 11:23); but chiefly by the silence of the narrative, which does not say that Paul was eloquent, or more eloquent than Barnabas, who cannot be supposed to have been speechless (see below, on v. 15), but simply that he was the leading speaker, took the lead in speaking, really because he was superior in rank as an Apostle, but as they very naturally thought, because he held the same position of interpreter, ambassador, or spokesman, which the Mercury or Hermes of their own mythology sustained to Zeus or Jupiter.

13. The excited heathen followed up their words with corresponding acts. Having recognized two gods as present, they consistently proceed to offer sacrifice. The priest does not specifically mean the chief priest (see above, on 5:24), as some contend because there must have been a number. Even granting this, which is by no means certain, it may mean the priest who happened to be present, or the one then officiating at the temple. Which was before the city might seem to describe the priest as standing or residing there; but there is no such ambiguity in the original, the priest of the Jupiter (to wit) the (Jupiter) being (or that was) before the city. This may be figuratively understood as meaning its protector or champion, which is really implied; but the words should rather have their literal or local sense, as describing the position of the image, or more probably the temple, of the tutelary god, which is often mentioned in the classics as without the city (extra urbem.) The very phrase here used is applied by Æschylus to Pallas as the Queen before the city (ἄνασσα πρὸ πόλεως), and the tutelary Jupiter derived one of his titles from it (Zeus Propylus, or Jupiter before the gates.) Bulls or bullocks were regarded, both by Jews and Gentiles, as the most costly victims, and as such were offered to the chief or father of the gods, a fact abundantly attested by Homer, Virgil, and Ovid, who moreover says that cows were offered to Minerva and calves to Mercury; but another poet (Persius) expressly speaks of bulls as also sacrificed to Mercury. The offering in this case therefore may have been designed for both; or that to Jupiter may be considered as superseding or including any other. Bulls and crowns is by some explained as an example of the figure called hendiadys, equivalent, in ordinary language, to the phrase, crowned bulls; but the occurrence of this forced construction in a famous line of Virgil, though relating also to a sacrificial service (that of pouring libations from cups and gold, i.e. golden cups) cannot warrant its assumption in the plain prose of a narrative like that before us. Crowns or garlands, wreaths of flowers, were profusely and continually used in ancient sacrifice, and are so still, at least in India. It has been disputed whether those here mentioned were designed to decorate the victims or the god; but the authorities appealed to upon both sides of the question have most clearly shown that they were used, not only for both purposes, but also to adorn the priests, the altars, and the temples, and indeed whatever else, connected with the sacrifice, admitted of such decoration. Here again the ancient heathen ceremonial agrees with that still practised by the idolatrous Hindoos. Bulls and crowns to the gates having brought, i e. as some suppose to the entrance of the temple; but why there, when the supposed gods themselves were elsewhere? Others understand the door of the house where Paul and Barnabas were lodging; but this requires another supposition, namely, that they had returned home in the mean time. A third hypothesis, more probable than either, is that the gates (literally, vestibules, porticoes, or porches, see above, on 10:17; 12:13) were those of the city itself, near which there was probably an image or a temple of the tutelary deity, and to which Paul and Barnabas were now conducted, either from within or from without, according as the scene of the miraculous performance which occasioned this idolatrous proceeding lay in the suburbs or the city proper. With the crowds (which comes next in the Greek), i.e. accompanied or followed by them, when he brought the victims and the garlands. There is no need of connecting these words with the following verbs, as in the English version, and in some editions of the Greek text. Would have done sacrifice, in modern English, means that he would have done so but for what is afterwards recorded as preventing him. But would have, even in this version, is not an auxiliary tense but a distinct and independent verb, meaning that he wished (intended, or was just about) to sacrifice. It is not said to whom; but this is sufficiently apparent from the context.

14. Hearing (or having heard) stands first in the original, and either means that they were told by others, possibly by Christian friends, what was passing; or that they now heard and understood the words of the idolaters themselves, as they proceeded to effect their purpose, either because they had come nearer, or were speaking more loudly and distinctly, or because some or all of them were speaking Greek instead of Lycaonian (see above, on v. 11.) The Apostles Barnabas and Paul, as in v. 4, where they were intended, although not expressly named, as here. It is a fine stroke in this simple but most graphic narrative, that Barnabas is here for once restored to his old place, because he occupied it in the scene described, as being the Jupiter, for whom the sacrifice was chiefly or exclusively intended. Rending (tearing open or apart) their (upper or outer) garments (see above, on 7:57; 9:39; 12:8), a customary oriental method of expressing grief, and also indignation and abhorrence of impiety or blasphemy committed in one's presence. (Compare the conduct of the High Priest when our Lord avowed himself the Son of God, Matt. 26:65; Mark 14:63.) In this case it was no doubt a spontaneous or involuntary burst of feeling, prompted by the sudden and astonishing discovery just made by the Apostles, and not intended as a demonstration to the multitude, although these were probably no less familiar with this ancient exhibition of strong feeling. But Paul and Barnabas were not contented with this typical expression of repugnance. They ran in, literally, leaped (or sprang) in, or according to the text now commonly preferred, leaped (or sprang) out, i.e. from the house, or from the city-gate, or more indefinitely, from the place where they were standing. Into the crowd, not merely ran about among the people, but plunged into the heart of the excited mass, now bent upon their own deification. This movement of the two was not a silent one. Calling shouting, crying out, may denote the inarticulate but noisy sounds, by which they tried to interrupt the service and divert the attention of the people, before uttering the words that follow. Or the two participles, although strangely placed in different verses, may be construed together, as qualifying one another, calling and saying, that is saying with a loud voice, shouting or vociferating, what is given in the following verses. There are few passages, in history or poetry, at once so simple and so vivid as this narrative, of which no higher proof can be demanded than its being chosen by the greatest of modern painters, as the subject of one of his most masterly, though not most finished, works. (See above, on 13:11.)

15. Sirs, literally, men, nearly equivalent to our gentlemen (see above on 1:11, 16.) The question in the first clause implies censure or expostulation, for which the other clause assigns the reason. We are men, a different word from that at the beginning of the verse, and meaning mere men, mortals, human beings. Of like passions corresponds to one Greek adjective (the root of our familiar word homœopathic) meaning similarly constituted or affected. Passions, in the English versions, has not its moral sense of violent affections or desires, but its physical sense of suffering (as applied to the death of Christ in 1:3) or liability to suffering. The whole phrase means, therefore, subject to the same infirmities, partakers of the same mortal nature, with yourselves, and consequently not entitled to divine honours. Preach unto you, bringing you glad tidings of deliverance from your present superstitious bondage, by calling you to turn from the worship of these very gods with which you have confounded us. Vanities, or rather vain (things), not only useless but unreal, without personal existence, in which tense Paul says that "an idol is nothing in the world" (1 Cor. 8:4, compare 10:19.) Similar epithets are applied to false gods in the Old Testament (e.g. Jer. 2:5; Zech. 11:17, compare 1 Kings 16:2.) The living God, i.e. really existing, as distinguished from these lifeless or imaginary deities; and also life-giving, or the source of all existence. (See Matt. 16:16; 26:63; John 6:69; 2 Cor. 3:3; 6:16; 1 Th. 1:9; 1 Tim. 3:15; 4:10; 6:17; Heb. 3:12; 9:14; 10:31; 12:22; Rev. 7:2.) This naturally leads to the description of him as Creator of the Universe, the principal parts of which are here enumerated, not in scientific but in popular form, with the contents of each.

16. Of this supreme God they were ignorant, because he had not fully revealed himself to them. Past, departed, gone by. Times, literally, generations, or contemporary races (see above, on 2:40; 13:36.) Suffered, permitted, or allowed; not approved, much less required, but did not hinder or prevent. The word used in the version is the nearest equivalent that could be chosen. All nations, i.e. all but one, to whom he granted an exclusive revelation. It is therefore equivalent to all the Gentiles (see above, on vs. 2:5, and on 4:27; 7:45; 9:15; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:42, 46–48.) To walk, advance, move onward, implying not merely active but progressive motion. (See above, on 1:10, 25; 9:31.) Ways, paths, a common figure for the course of life. (See above, on 2:28; 9:2, Their own ways, as opposed to God's, which sometimes means the ways in which he walks himself (as in 13:10 above), and sometimes those which he prescribes to man, as here.

17. And yet, notwithstanding this rejection of the Gentiles, by withholding from them an explicit and a written revelation, they were still without excuse. (Compare Paul's statement of the same truth in Rom. 1:18–21.) Not unattested (or untestified), as really existing and as infinite in power and goodness. Doing good, bestowing benefits or favours (compare the similar but not identical expression in 10:38 above.) Us and our hearts are in the oldest manuscripts and latest texts, you and your hearts. The original order is, from heaven to you rains giving. Rains may be understood as a generic plural, simply equivalent to rain; or as referring to the stated periodical rains of certain climates, especially the early and the latter rains of Scripture (James 5:7); or more naturally still, as signifying mere abundance, frequency or constancy. It is said to have been usual with the heathen to ascribe rain not to the gods, but to God, the Supreme Being. It has also been observed that rain was peculiarly appropriate here, as the phenomenon or element which keeps up the connection between heaven, earth, and sea, the great divisions of the universe enumerated in the context (see above, on v. 15.) It is chiefly spoken of, however, as a source of good to man, by its fertilizing and productive power. Fruitful, fruit-bearing, or productive. Filling, sufficing, satisfying, abundantly supplying, not only what is necessary to subsistence, but the means of bodily enjoyment. Food, nourishment, support of life. Joy pleasure, happiness, as something more than mere existence. Hearts, not stomachs, as some writers would explain the word from the analogy of heartburn and other like expressions; but minds or souls, as the only real seat of all enjoyment, even when afforded by the body. It is a strong though incidental proof of authenticity, that when the Apostles address heathen hearers, unacquainted even with the Hebrew Scriptures, they begin with the great truths of natural theology, and not by appealing to the prophecies or proving the Messiahship of Jesus, as they did in their addresses to the Jews (see above, on 2:16–36; 3:22–26; 4:11–12; 13:17–41, and below, on 17:22–31.) As these words are ascribed both to Barnabas and Paul (v. 14), they may be regarded as the sum and substance of what both said, more at large and perhaps in a variety of forms.

18. With these sayings, literally, these (things) saying. Scarce, scarcely, i.e. almost not at all; but the original expression, from its very etymology, answers more exactly to our hardly, i.e. with difficulty, and by painful effort. It implies however that they did succeed. Restrained, or more exactly, quieted, arrested, caused to cease. (The Greek word occurs elsewhere only in Heb. 4:4, 8, 10.) The people, crowds, or masses, as in vs. 11, 13, 14. That they had not done sacrifice, a singular and awkward use of the pluperfect to translate an infinitive present, not to sacrifice. This, with the negation implied in the preceding verb, amounts to a double or emphatic negative, a point in which the Greek idiom differs most remarkably, not only from the English but the Latin. (See above, on 8:16.) We express the same idea without a negative by saying, 'they restrained them from sacrificing.' It may however be resolved into our idiom thus, 'restrained them so as not to sacrifice.' (See above, on 10:47.) To them, i.e. to Paul and Barnabas, as representatives or incarnations of Mercurius and Jupiter (v. 12.)

19. By a violent reaction, persecution follows the apotheosis, but a persecution prompted from without and by inveterate enemies. Came thither, literally, came upon (them), i.e. suddenly assailed them (see above, on 8:24; 13:40.) Antioch and Iconium, from both which places Paul and Barnabas had been expelled by the same influence. (See above, on v. 5, and on 13:50.) Having persuaded the crowds (or masses) and stoned Paul may possibly mean, having persuaded them to stone Paul, but more probably, having persuaded them to let the Jews themselves stone him. ('Having gained the consent of the people and then stoned him.') This agrees better with the form of expression, as well as with the fact that stoning was a Jewish punishment (see above, on v. 5.) The persuasion was effected no doubt by the same acts of misrepresentation and appeal to evil passions, as at Antioch and Iconium (see above, on v. 2, and on 13:45.) Drew, violently pulled, or dragged (see above, on 8:3, and below, on 17:6.) This was not for burial, but for exposure, and to free the city from the impurity incurred by the presence of a corpse so odious, according to the notions both of Jews and Gentiles. Stephen was first brought out and then stoned (see above, on 7:58), a minute but not unimportant difference, so far from involving inconsistency between the two accounts, that it illustrates the exactness of the writer in distinguishing between Jerusalem and Lystra, the Holy City of the Jews, in which it was unlawful to put any one to death, and a provincial city of the Gentiles; where no such scruple could be entertained by either class. Supposing, thinking, being of opinion. That he had been dead, another antique use of the pluperfect (see above, on v. 18), meaning simply that he was dead, or adhering still more closely to the form of the original, supposing him to be dead. This expression does not necessarily imply that he was not so really; but that is certainly the natural and obvious suggestion (see below, on 21:29), as the word suppose is otherwise superfluous, the fact asserted being then simply that he was dead, whether they supposed him to be so or not. (But see below, upon the next verse.)

20. There is nothing corresponding to howbeit but the usual continuative particle (δέ), so often rendered and, but, now, or then. The disciples, converts, Christians, called the brethren in v. 2, but disciples also in 13:52. Stood round about him, literally, having encircled (or surrounded) him, some think to bury him; others, to lament (over) him; others, to see whether he was still alive; others, to conceal that fact from his oppressors. Rising (or standing up) he came into the city, out of which he had been dragged (v. 19.) Some maintain that Paul was only stunned or in a swoon, from which he naturally soon recovered. Others, on the contrary, regard it as a case of real death and miraculous resuscitation. Intermediate between these two extremes is the opinion, that he was not actually dead (see above, on v. 19), but that the miracle consisted in the preservation of his life and his immediate restoration to his usual activity and vigour after being stoned by an infuriated mob, or by still more vindictive and malignant enemies. The restoration was so perfect that he went out (or departed) to Derbe (see above on v. 6) on the morrow (or the next day) after these events occurred. An ingenious living writer thinks it probable, that this deliquium or swoon at Lystra was the trance or ecstasy described by Paul in one of his epistles (2 Cor. 12:1–4), whether in the body or out of the body he did not know. With Barnabas, who seems to have escaped the persecution, which would naturally fall with most severity on Paul as the "chief speaker" (v. 12), not only in behalf of Christianity, but in opposition both to Heathenism and anti-Christian Judaism, not in Lystra only but in Antioch and Iconium. The first of these three places seems to have differed from the others as a seat of unmixed heathenism, without a Synagogue or Jewish settlers, which accounts for their excessive superstition and credulity, and is itself explained by their secluded residence beyond Mount Taurus, in the heart of Asia Minor.

21. Having both evangelized that city and discipled many. They not only preached the Gospel, but received converts, which implies a church-organization. (See Matt. 28:19, and compare Matt. 13:52; 27:57.) Both (τε), not both Paul and Barnabas, but both evangelized and discipled, a distinction obliterated in the English version (preached and taught.) Their ministry at Derbe was none the less successful on account of its affording so little historical material, according to the adage that the best times to live in are the worst to write about. They here encountered probably neither heathen flattery nor Jewish persecution; and although they may have performed miracles, these probably produced no ulterior effects and are therefore not recorded. Instead of returning to Syria by the nearest way, i.e. through Cilicia, Paul's native country, they retraced their steps from Derbe, and revisited Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch in Pisidia, in an order opposite to that of their first journey, and for reasons given in the next verse.

22. Confirming (strengthening, establishing) the souls (or minds) of the disciples (Christian converts in those places), by additional instruction in the doctrines of their new faith, and by exhortation to perform its duties. Exhorting (and entreating) them to continue in (adhere to or abide by) the (Christian) faith (which they had recently embraced.) Before the last clause some supply saying, or assuring them, because what follows is not exhortation but instruction. Two instances, however, of the very same construction (to exhort that) have been cited from Polybius and Xenophon. What follows is the statement of a general or universal fact common to the experience of all believers, and presented as a reason why they should not be deterred from holding fast their profession by distress or opposition. Much tribulation, literally, many tribulations, which expresses not mere quantity or number but variety. Tribulations, literally, pressures, straits, through which the Christian is described as struggling. (see above, on 7:10, 11; 11:19, and compare Matt. 7:14; 2 Cor. 2:4.) It is necessary (δεῖ) for us to go in, a necessity resulting from the will of God, and from the nature of the evils which attend our fallen state. The kingdom of God, the new economy or dispensation of his grace, sometimes viewed in its inception (see above, on 1:3, 6), and sometimes in its consummation, as a state of future blessedness, which seems to be the meaning here. Compare Paul's favourite idea of inheriting this kingdom, 1 Cor. 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5, also found in James 2:5.

23. Besides these exhortations and instructions, they gave their converts a distinct organization as societies or churches. The meaning of the word ordained has been the subject of protracted and vehement dispute between Presbyterian and Episcopal interpreters. The latter grant that the original etymological import of the Greek word is to vote by stretching out the hand, but they contend that usage had so modified its meaning as to generate the secondary sense of choosing or appointing, without any reference to votes or popular election; and this they insist upon as the unquestionable use of the word here, where the act is predicated, not of the people but of Paul and Barnabas, who cannot be supposed to have voted for these elders with the outstretched hand. Some go further and adopt the patristical usage of the word to denote imposition of hands, as the ordaining act; but this is commonly agreed to be an ecclesiastical usage of the word long posterior in date to the times of the Apostles. The opposite extreme is that of making the word here denote, directly and exclusively, the act of suffrage or election by the people. To meet the objection, which has been already stated, that the act described is not that of the people, but of Paul and Barnabas, some modify this explanation of the term, so as to make it mean that Paul and Barnabas appointed or ordained the elders chosen by the people. The philological objection to this modification, that the same verb cannot denote both these processes at once, can only be removed by taking one step further and thus reaching the true mean between the opposite extremes. This middle ground is, that the verb itself, expressing as it clearly does the act of Paul and Barnabas, can only mean that they appointed or ordained these elders, without determining the mode of election or the form of ordination; but that the use of this particular expression, which originally signified the vote of an assembly, does suffice to justify us in supposing that the method of selection was the same as that recorded (not in 1:26, where the election was by lot and by direct divine authority, but) in 6:5, 6, where it is explicitly recorded that the people chose the seven and the twelve ordained them. Another question, as to this verse, is the question whether Elders means diocesan bishops, presbyters (i.e. teaching elders), ruling elders, deacons, or church-officers in general, including perhaps all these special officers, except the first, which was of later date. In favour of this comprehensive meaning is the fact that Deacons are not mentioned, and the corresponding usage of the word in the organization of the old theocracy or Jewish church, from which the term was silently transferred to that of Christ, and not from the human and most probably much later institution of the synagogue, considered as a separate society. (See above, on 6:9; 9:2, 20; 13:5, 15, 43.) As the Jewish elders were the heads of families, and other men of like position in society, these Christian elders were most probably selected from the same class. In every church, or rather, as a distributive phrase, church by church (see above, on 2:46, 47; 3:2; 5:42; 8:3; 13:27), which does not necessarily imply that there were several ordained in each, though this is the most natural construction of the language, and the one most agreeable to Jewish usage, as well as to the fact of a plurality of bishops, no less than of deacons, in the church at Philippi (Phil. 1:1.) Prayed with fasting, literally, fastings, fasts, the plural form referring to successive ordinations in the several churches. The practice of combining these attendant services with ordination has extensively prevailed throughout the church in later times. This organization of the churches may have been deferred till the return of the apostles, to allow time for some progress in the Christian life and some development of character before the choice of elders; or it may have been a matter of necessity arising from the persecution and expulsion of the Apostles out of all these places. On their journey back, the persecution may have ceased (but see above, on v. 22); or they may have escaped it by not preaching as before in public, but conversing only with the Christian converts. Commended, deposited, entrusted for safe keeping, as a precious charge. (See below, on 20:32, and compare Luke 12:48; 23:46; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 4:19.) To the Lord (Jesus Christ) in whom they had believed (as their Redeemer) and thereby become members of his church, before they were thus organized externally. The pluperfect form, inappropriately used in the translation of vs. 18:20, is here peculiarly expressive, as denoting that their faith or their conversion did not now begin, but dated back from the first visit of Paul and Barnabas to these three cities.

24, 25. Having come (or gone) through Pisidia, on their way to Antioch its capital (see above, on v. 21 and on 13:14), and also after leaving it, so that they passed through the whole length of the province. When they had preached, literally, having spoken, for the first time in Perga, where they merely landed on their first arrival (see above, on 13:13), and where they now seem to have met with no opposition or mal-treatment. Attalia, a city of Pamphylia, at the mouth of the river Catarrhactes, built by Attalus Philadelphus, king of Pergamua, and still a seaport of considerable size and commerce, under a slightly altered name.

26. Sailed, or more exactly, sailed away, implying distance. Antioch, in Syria, see above, on 11:19–27; 13:1. From the same port to the same port sailed a fleet of French Crusaders, in the year 1147, after passing through a part of the same region which had twice been traversed more than a thousand years before by Paul and Barnabas, on a very different errand and with very different success. Recommended is not, as it might seem from the version, a compounded form of the synonymous verb used in v. 23, but a similar derivative of the verb to give, meaning here delivered, given up, in a good sense, although often employed elsewhere in a bad one (see above, on 3:13; 7:42; 8:3; 12:4.) Whence, i.e. from Antioch, they had thus been committed or entrusted to the grace of God, i.e. to the divine care and protection, not in general merely, but with special reference to the work of missions in their native countries (see above, on 13:4; 13), which (work) they (now) fulfilled, completed, brought to a conclusion, by returning to the point from which they had set out. The last words of this verse show that the work to which they had been solemnly separated by the church at Antioch, and in obedience to an express direction of the Holy Ghost, was not an office in the church or an order in the ministry, nor even the whole missionary work, but this one mission, which they (now) fulfilled. (See above, on 13:2, 3.)

27. Being there (or having got there, see above, on 5:21, 22, 25; 9:26, 39; 10:32, 33; 11:23; 13:14) and having assembled (or convened) the church (still spoken of as one) by which they had been "separated to the work," and from which they had been "sent forth by the Holy Ghost" (13:41), they rehearsed (reported, brought back word) how many (or how great) things (see above, on 2:39; 3:24; 4:34; 13:48.) God did (or had done) with them, in conjunction with them, as his instruments, his agents, his co-workers. The objection, that this interpretation shares the honour between God and man, applies with equal force to Paul's express declaration (1 Cor. 3:9), "We are labourers together with God," and to others like it (e.g. Mark 16:20; 2 Cor. 6:1.) The same double use of the preposition with prevails in English, as when one is said to travel with a sword, and to fight with a sword, the first with denotes merely that the sword is in his company, the second that he uses it. There is no need, therefore, of resorting to the Hebrew use of the corresponding particle, after words denoting treatment, just as we speak of dealing with one (well or ill); especially as this would seem to limit their report to what God had done for them, instead of making it include what he had done through them for the Gentiles. (See below, on 15:4, 12.) The beautiful figure in the last clause is a favourite with Paul (1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col. 4:3), but here employed in a peculiar sense or rather application, to denote the opportunity afforded to the Gentiles of believing upon Christ and being saved, whereas elsewhere it denotes the opportunity afforded to himself of preaching that salvation. (See 1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Col 4:3, and compare Rev. 3:8.) Gentiles, literally, nations, see above, on vs. 2, 5, 16. This report was not made to the local church of Antioch, as such, but as a sort of missionary board or council for the Gentiles (see below, upon the next verse.).

28. There is ommitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics. Abode long time, literally, spent (the same verb as in v. 3, and in 12, 19) time not a little (literally few, see above, on 12:18), with the disciples, converts, brethren, Christians (see above, on 11:26), still considered as learners, and as such requiring teachers, which suggests a reason for their long stay above and beyond that of repose or relaxation; not however as mere visitors or temporary labourers, but as having now resumed their place among the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch (13:1), not as a single, much less as an independent congregation, but as the Jerusalem or radiating centre of the Gentile world, from which they were in due time to go forth again, not only to the old Jerusalem (15:2), but also to the heathen (15:36, 40.)

CHAPTER 15

THIS chapter contains an account of the controversy with respect to the observance of the ceremonial law, as a condition of reception to the Christian church (1–35); and also the beginning of Paul's second foreign mission (36–41.) The church at Antioch is disturbed by Judaizing teachers (1.) Paul and Barnabas oppose them, and are sent to consult the Apostles and Elders at Jerusalem (2.) They report the conversion of the Gentiles, on their way and after their arrival (3, 4.) The converted Pharisees insist upon the circumcision of the Gentiles (5.) The Apostles and Elders are assembled (6.) Peter shows that the question has already been decided by divine authority (7–11.) Paul and Barnabas confirm this by a statement of their own experience (12.) James shows from prophecy that it had always been a part of the divine plan, (13–18.) He proposes a conciliatory and temporary compromise (19–21.) It is adopted and deputies to Antioch are chosen (22.) The decision of the council is reduced to writing (23–29.) It is received at Antioch with great joy (30, 31.) The deputies continue there for some time and are then dismissed (32, 33.) (Silas,) Paul and Barnabas continue preaching there (34–35.) Paul proposes to revisit the churches planted in their former mission (36.) He and Barnabas differ as to John Mark, and separate in consequence (37–39.) Paul goes with Silas through Syria and Cilicia (40, 41.)

1. As the division of the chapters is conventional and arbitrary, this verse is to be read in the closest connection with the one before it. And (while Paul and Barnabas were thus employed at Antioch) certain men (some persons, see above, on 14:8). The suppression of the names may be contemptuous, or at least intended to suggest that they were personally men of no note or authority, although they may have been lawfully commissioned teachers (see below, on v. 24.) Coming down (see above, on 11:27) from Judea may mean from Jerusalem (see above, on 11:1), or from Palestine, as opposed to Syria, from the mother-country and the mother-church, between which and the church at Antioch the communication seems to have been frequent. Taught, in the imperfect tense, implies something more than a mere transient visit or occasional address, and also makes it probable, as nothing is suggested to the contrary, that these men had a regular commission or authority as public teachers. The brethren, the disciples, the converted Gentiles. The last clause gives their own words, not on any one occasion, but the sum of what they used to say upon the subject. (see above, on 14:17.) Except, in Greek, if not, unless. Circumcision is here put for the whole law, as the cross is sometimes put for the whole Gospel (1 Cor. 1:18; Gal. 6:12, 14; Phil. 3:18), and the baptism of John for his whole ministry (see above, on 1:22.) After the manner is too weak a version of the Greek, which means (according to) the institute (or institution) of Moses, including the idea both of law and custom (see above, on 6:14.) The clause does not mean that being circumcised would save them, or that faith in Christ was not required, but that it would not avail them without circumcision or observance of the law. This was afterwards the doctrine of the Jewish-Christian sect called Ebionites, whose origin indeed may be traced back to the very controversy here recorded.

2. There being (or arising) therefore, i.e. in consequence of this erroneous teaching. No small, precisely the same phrase that is translated long in 14:28. Dissension, a Greek word which in Greek means standing (as in Heb. 9:8), then the act of standing up or rising in rebellion, insurrection (Matt. 15:7, from the Latin verb insurgo, to rise up against), once translated uproar (19:40), thrice sedition (24:5; Luke 23:19, 25), here denoting violent contention and commotion. This does not necessarily imply that they succeeded in forming a party, or gained any followers, but only that the preaching of this doctrine produced great excitement, as it naturally would among the Gentiles, who had been received into the church without conforming to the ceremonial law. Disputation, literally, seeking, search, investigation, but always applied in the New Testament to that of a polemic kind, whether the form be compounded (as in v. 7, 28, 29, and in the common text of this verse) or uncompounded (as in John, 3:25; 1 Tim. 1:4; 6:4; 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit. 3:9, and here, according to the latest critics.) Paul and Barnabas had, literally, being (or arising) to Paul and Barnabas, not merely as distinguished "prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch" (13:1), but as the first two missionaries to the Gentiles, who had organized their converts into Christian churches (14:23), without any reference whatever to the principle which these men laid down as essential to salvation, and who therefore, being specially attacked, were under the necessity of specially opposing this false doctrine, in their own defence as well as for the truth's sake. With them, literally, to, at, or against them (see above, on 11:2), i.e. the Judaizing teachers, who appear as the only champions of their cause at Antioch. They determined, ordered, or appointed (see above, on 13:48, and below, on 22:10; 28:23), must be construed with neither of the nearest antecedents, but indefinitely (so as to mean, it was ordered), or referred to the church-officers or members, although not expressly mentioned. Should go up, literally, (appointed Paul and Barnabas) to go up (see above, on 11:2, and below, on 18:22; 21:4, 12, 15; 24:11; 25:1, 9.) Certain other (or in modern phrase, some others) of them (out of them, or from among them), i.e. other ministers or members of the church at Antioch, one of whom is commonly supposed to have been Titus (see below, on v. 4.) The Apostles, who were probably always returning to Jerusalem, as Paul and Barnabas to Antioch, from their missions and official journeys, so that some were always present in the Holy City, thus preserving to the mother-church its representative and normal character, and giving it authority to act for the whole body. Elders, presbyters, or local officers of that church. (See above, on 11:30; 14:23.) Question, or dispute, a kindred form to that translated disputation, the Greek words differing only in the final syllable, one denoting the act, the other the subject, of contention.

3. And, or more exactly, so then (see above, on 1:6, 18; 2:41; 5:41; 8:4, 25; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4; 14:3.) They being brought on their way, or more exactly, forwarded, sent forward, i.e. publicly escorted to a certain distance and then formally dismissed or taken leave of. This ancient mark of kindness and respect was often practised by the early Christians. (See below, on 20:38; 21:5, and compare Rom. 15:24; 1 Cor. 16:6, 11; 2 Cor. 1:16; Tit. 3:13; 3 John 6.) It was not an act of private friendship merely, but performed by the church as a collective body, represented either by its elders, or by delegates appointed for the purpose, or more probably than either, by as many of its members as could be assembled. This method of dismissing them or parting from them, was a kind of additional commission, over and above the written one, with which they were of course provided. Passed (went or came) through Phenice, i.e. Phenicia (see above, on 11:19; 12:20) and Samaria, not the city but the province (see above, on 8:5, 9, 14.) Galilee, which lay between these provinces, is here omitted (as it is above, in 1:8); perhaps because it was not customary to distinguish it in such enumerations (but see above, on 9:31); or perhaps because they went by sea from Tyre to Ptolemais or Cesarea, as in Paul's last visit to Jerusalem (see below, on 21:2–8); or because they did not publish the conversion of the Gentiles there, the Galilean Christians being Jewish converts, which was not so in Phenicia, nor (strictly speaking) even in Samaria (see above, on 1:8; 8:1, 14, and compare John 4:9.) Declaring, not in general terms merely, but relating fully, giving a particular account (compare the use of the same emphatic compound in 13:41 above.) Conversion, turning, i.e. in this case, from the worship of idols, as well as from the service of Satan, to the true God (see above, on 14:15, and below, on 26:18.) Caused, literally, made, created, or occasioned. All the brethren, or disciples, i.e. Christian converts, in Phenicia and Samaria, who would naturally feel peculiar interest in the tidings thus announced to them, which no doubt reminded the Samaritan disciples of their own conversion and the joy which followed it. (See above, on 8:8, and compare John 4:39–42.)

4. Being come (or having arrived.) They were received, or more emphatically, welcomed, received gladly, as the same verb is translated in Luke 8:40. Of (i.e. by) the church, the body of believers, not as individuals merely, but as a collective body (see above, on v. 3.) The Apostles, still residing there, at least as their headquarters (see above, on v. 2); or as some with less probability suppose, assembled to attend this meeting; while others gather from Gal. 2:9, that the Apostles here meant are the three there named. It is commonly agreed now that the visit to Jerusalem referred to in that chapter of Galatians is the one recorded in the narrative before us, although some identify it with the one in 11:30; 12:25, some with that in 18:22, and some with an additional journey not recorded in the history. It is objected to the first hypothesis that Paul speaks of having gone up "by revelation" (Gal. 2:2), i.e. by express divine command, whereas Luke represents him as a delegate from Antioch. But the two things are perfectly compatible, as appears from a comparison of 13:3, 4, where Barnabas and Saul are expressly said, in two successive verses, to have been sent both by the Church and by the Holy Ghost. In the present case, we may suppose the "revelation" to have been made, as in that case, to the "Prophets and Teachers in the Church at Antioch" (13:1), directing them to act as they are said to have done in v. 2 above; or secretly to Paul himself, directing him to undertake the task imposed upon him by his brethren. It is on the supposition of the identity of these two journeys, that one of the "some others" who went up with Paul and Barnabas (v, 2) is commonly supposed to have been Titus (see Gal. 2:1), who is nowhere named in Acts, if we except a spurious or doubtful reading in a single passage. (See below, on 18:7.) The date of these transactions has been variously fixed from A. D. 47 to 52, but the best modern writers are in favour of the year 50, or at the latest the beginning of the next year. The elders may be here described as giving Paul and Barnabas a separate welcome or reception, as well as the Apostles; or both may be mentioned as the organs through which they were welcomed by the church. It would not be ungrammatical indeed, though not perhaps so natural, to construe the clause thus, 'they were welcomed by the church, both the apostles and the elders,' i.e. both these classes acting as the organs or channels of communication, between the church at Jerusalem and the deputies from Antioch. Declared, reported, brought back word, a different verb from that in v. 3, and expressing more distinctly the idea of official statement, as distinguished from popular narration. All things, literally, how great (or how many) things; see above, on 3:24; 4:34; 13:48. With them, see above, on 14:27.

5. This is not a part of their report, relating the same fact that is recorded in v. 1 above, which would require "saying" or "said they" to be prefixed (as in the Geneva Bible), but Luke's own statement of what happened at Jerusalem, after Paul and Barnabas had made their report. The only argument in favour of the first construction mentioned is that otherwise the reason of their coming is not given at all. The answer to this is, not that they probably did state it, though it is not here recorded, which supposes the main theme of their discourse to be omitted, but that it was really involved in their report of "what God had done with them" (v. 4), which of course included the immediate reception of the Gentiles without circumcision. This would at once raise the same question that had been discussed at Antioch, with or without a formal narrative of that discussion. Rose up, in Greek a double compound, meaning that they rose up out of something, probably their place in the assembly, or rose up from among the persons who composed it. This would not be a natural expression in the mouth of Paul or Barnabas, but is perfectly appropriate in Luke's own narrative, where the fact of a meeting is implied, if not expressed, in the preceding context. Some of those from (i.e. belonging to, or who had come out from) the sect (school or party), of the Pharisees (see above, on 5:17, 34.) The form of expression implies that there were other converts from that sect, besides those who acted upon this occasion, and also accounts for the rise of such a doctrine, which might naturally spring from Pharisaic habits and associations, even in the case of such as had believed, i.e. in Jesus as the true Messiah. It is necessary, in the present tense (see above, on 1:16, 21) to circumcise them, i.e. the Gentile converts, showing that their reception without circumcision had formed part of the preceding statement. The last clause is explanatory of the one before it; to circumcise them was in fact to require them to observe the whole law, of which circumcision was the distinctive badge and sacramental seal.

6. Came together is in Greek a passive form meaning were collected or assembled. (Then were convened the Apostles, &c.) That the Apostles did not undertake to settle the dispute alone, is a strong proof that the permanent organization of the church had already taken place, and that the system was in active operation. The elders, not the diocesan bishops of Judea, for as yet there were none; nor the pastors of Judea, or of a still wider region, for of this we have no intimation in the text or context; but the local rulers of the mother-church, acting in conjunction with the Apostles as representatives of the church at large. (For to, see above, on 5:31.) Consider of, literally, see about, an expression common to both idioms. This matter, literally, this word, which may either mean this doctrine, as to the necessity of circumcision, or this statement, this report, of Paul and Barnabas. That it cannot simply mean this thing, without regard to word or speech at all, see above, on 5:24; 8:21; 10:29.

7. And much discussion (see above, on v. 2) having taken place, Peter standing up (or rising, see above, on 1:15) said to them (i.e. to the Apostles and the Elders, mentioned in the verse preceding), Men (and) brethren (see above, on 1:16.) Ye know is very strong in the original, Ye (yourselves) are (well) aware (see above, on 10:28.) A good while ago, literally, from old (or ancient) days, a strong but indefinite and relative expression, the precise extent of which must be determined by the context, and which here evidently means at the beginning of this work among the Gentiles, referring no doubt to his own vision at Joppa and his subsequent reception of Cornelius and his household into the Christian Church, without requiring circumcision or subjection to the law of Moses. Among us, literally, in us, which some regard as a Hebraism for chose us, the verb choose being followed in Hebrew by a preposition often rendered in. But although this idiom is sometimes copied in the Septuagint version, there is no other instance of it in the Greek of the New Testament, and the common version is no doubt correct. Among us, or according to some manuscripts, among you, i.e. the Apostles, whom, in either case, he may be considered as addressing. Made choice, or more exactly, chose out, selected for himself or for his own use (see above, on 1, 2, 24; 6:5; 13:17.) The verb may either govern me understood, or be understood to mean chose this (to wit, that) by my mouth, i.e. through my preaching and oral instruction. The Gentiles, literally, the nations, see above, on 10:45; 11:1, 18. Should hear, in the original, chose the Gentiles to hear. The word of the Gospel, i.e. its utterance or proclamation, as a joyful message to mankind. And believe, in Jesus, admitting him to be the true Messiah, and trusting in him as the only Saviour. The fact which Peter here refers to, as familiar to his hearers, is not the general fact that Gentiles had already been converted and received into the church, but that it was through his agency, though known as the Apostle of the circumcision.

8, 9. The heart-knowing God, or God the heart-knower, the same expression that is used above, in 1:24. Bare witness, testified, to them, the Gentiles thus received into the Church. Peter's argument is here the same as in 10:47; 11:17, to wit, that all doubt was precluded by the act of God himself who had decided the whole question by dealing with those Gentiles precisely as he did with the converted Jews, bestowing the same spiritual influence on both, and with the same moral effect. Put (or made) no difference, did not distinguish or discriminate, between us (as Jews) and them (as Gentiles.) By faith, not merely by the truth objectively considered, but by the belief of it, including personal acceptance of the Saviour, without which even the truth can have no sanctifying influence (see John 17:17). Both these, i.e. sanctification and the faith from which it springs, are the fruits of that Spirit who was given equally to Jews and Gentiles.

10. And now seems to be used both as a temporal and logical phrase. 'Such was the divine decision in the former case, and now, in the case before us, why &c.' (See above, on 3, 17; 7:34; 10:5; 13:11.) Tempt ye God, i.e. put him to the proof, try his patience and forbearance, by requiring further evidence of what he has already made so plain. (See above, on 5, 9, and compare Ex. 17:2; Deut. 6:16; Isai. 7:12; Mal. 3:15; Matt. 4:7; Luke 4:12; 1 Cor. 10:9.) When God had so explicitly declared that faith, with its effects, entitled men to be received into the church, it would be tempting him to look for other evidence or prescribe other terms of admission. Especially would this be so if the conditions thus insisted on were not only gratuitous but intrinsically onerous, and proved so by the experience of those who now wished to impose them, and of their predecessors. The intolerable yoke of which he speaks is not merely the complex requisitions of the ceremonial law; for these they and their fathers could and did bear, and were only too prone to increase the burden in the hope of being thereby saved. The yoke meant is the whole law, as distinguished from the Gospel, and of which the ceremonial system was a mere form or expression; the covenant of works as distinguished from the covenant of grace in the economy of man's salvation; the hope of deliverance by merit or obedience, as distinguished from deliverance by grace or favour. This had always been a yoke or burden, even to believers, who were now delivered from it by the change of dispensations, being taught to come at once to Christ without obstruction or delay, a privilege of which these Christian Pharisees were anxious to deprive the Gentiles.

11. But, on the contrary, so far from hoping to be saved ourselves by that which we are asked to impose upon the Gentile converts. Through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. the divine mercy exercised through him alone, and here contrasted with the heavy yoke of legal, ceremonial bondage. We (the converted Jews) believe (i.e. confidently expect) to be saved. Even as, literally, after (or according to) what manner (see above, on 1:11; 7:28, where the same noun and pronoun are used, but without the preposition.) This phrase denotes exact resemblance, even in minute particulars. They is explained by some to mean the gentile converts, by others the fathers, both which classes are referred to in the verse preceding. Both constructions are grammatical, and each affords a good sense in itself and in relation to the context. According to the first, the meaning is, we ought to lay no unnecessary yoke upon them, for our own hope of salvation is the same with theirs. According to the other, it is, we ought not to lay upon the Gentiles the same yoke which our fathers found so useless, since they as well as we were obliged after all to be saved by grace. On the whole, the former explanation is more natural, and now commonly preferred. The reference of we and they to Peter and Paul or to Peter and James, Paul and Barnabas, respectively, is a forced construction needing no refutation.

12. Then, and, or but. All the multitude, the whole mass, of those present, implying a much larger number than the Apostles and the Elders (v. 6), unless these were very numerous. (See below, on vs. 22, 23.) Kept silence is a single word in Greek, to which there is no exact equivalent in English. There was no continuation or renewal of the previous dispute, but silent attention to the statement made by Barnabas and Paul in confirmation of Peter's argument. Gave audience, literally, heard or listened. As Paul was not one of the twelve, but the Apostle of the Gentiles, his name stands naturally after that of Barnabas, by whom he was originally introduced and recommended to the brethren at Jerusalem. (See above, on 9:27.) Declaring, see above, on 10:8, and below, on 21:19. Miracles (or rather signs) and wonders (see above, on 2:43; 4:30; 5:12; 6:8; 7:36; 8:13; 14:28) is not a figure for extraordinary moral changes, such as conviction and conversion, which might be described as "miracles of grace;" but literal miracles, attesting their divine legation and the authority by which they received Gentile converts and organized Gentile churches.

13. Held their peace, were silent, ceased; the same verb that is used in the preceding verse. Answered, not merely spoke (see above, on 3:12; 5:8; 10:46), but responded to what Peter. Paul and Barnabas had just said; or replied to the question which had brought them together. James is supposed by many to be "James the brother of the Lord" (Gal. 1:19), not one of the twelve, but an unbeliever (John 7:5), till convinced by Christ's appearing to him after his resurrection (1 Cor. 15:7), surnamed the Just, and put to death by the Jews soon after the close of the New Testament history. There is however a strong presumption that the person holding so distinguished a position in the church at Jerusalem, while the Apostles still survived, was himself one of their number; and as James the son of Alpheus was probably a cousin of our Saviour (see above, on 1:13), he might be called his brother (Gal 1:19) in strict accordance with biblical and oriental usage. (See Gen. 14:16; 29:12, 15; Rom. 1:13; 9:3; 1 Cor. 1:1.) It is very possible that James resided in Jerusalem more constantly than any other of the twelve, and had special charge of the church there, not however as an ordinary pastor, much less as a diocesan bishop, but as a resident Apostle. (See above, on 12:17, and below, on 21:18.) Hearken unto me, or simply hear me, i.e. me too, or me also; hear what I, as well as they who have already spoken, have to say upon the subject. This request is very far from favouring the notion that James spoke with superior authority, or even as the president of the assembly.

14, 15. Simeon, the Septuagint form of the Hebrew name, found also in 13:1 above, and in Luke 2:25, 34; 3:30; Rev. 7:7, and used by Peter himself in one of his epistles (2 Peter 1:1.) The more usual form (Simon) is rather Greek than Hebrew; but both occur in Jewish books. Some have strangely supposed that James has reference here to the words of Simeon in Luke 2:30–32. At the first, or simply first, i.e. before Paul and Barnabas had preached to the Gentiles, thus deciding the whole question in advance (see above, on vs. 7–9.) Visited, or viewed, surveyed, with a view to choosing (see above, on 6:3; 7:23.) Gentiles, nations (see above, on vs. 3, 7, 12. A people, chosen people, church (see above, on 13:17; 24:21.) For his name, i.e. to be called his people, or perhaps, to be founded on his name, or in reliance on it (see above, on 2:38; 4:17, 18; 5:28, 40.) For his honour or glory is not expressed though necessarily implied. The whole verse refers to the important fact, alleged by Peter, that this direct reception of the Gentiles was no new thing introduced by Paul and Barnabas, but practised long before by Peter, with express divine approval. The fact thus historically proved James now shows to have been no afterthought or departure from the purpose previously revealed, but a part of the divine plan from the beginning, as attested by the Prophets, the inspired writers of the Old Testament, and more particularly those who were commissioned to predict the advent of Messiah (see above, on 3:21, 24; 7:52; 10:43; 13:27.)

16. These are not given as the words of more than one prophet, but as a specimen or single instance of the way in which the prophets, as a class, contemplate the vocation of the Gentiles. The quotation is made from the Septuagint version, even where it varies most from the original; not because the latter would not answer the Apostle's purpose, but because he no doubt spoke in Greek, and therefore used the current version, without regard to its inaccuracies, as they did not interfere with the design of his quotation. The original passage is Amos 9:11, 12. After these things, although not a literal translation of the Hebrew, conveys the same essential meaning, that of mere posteriority or subsequence. I will return is neither in the Hebrew nor the Septuagint, but supplied by the Apostle, in perfect keeping with the sense of both, as an introductory suggestion that the prophecy is one of restoration and returning favour. Some, with less probability, regard it as a Hebrew idiom for again (I will again rebuild), which would be singularly out of place in a translation when it is not found in the original. (As to the idiom in question, see above, on 7:42.) Build again, or rebuild, answering to one Greek word. Tabernacle, tent, not put for house or dwelling in general, but for the meanest and least durable of human habitations, contrasted with a royal palace, to denote the low condition to which David's family must be reduced before the prophecy could be fulfilled. The same change is elsewhere represented by a shoot springing from the root or stump of a prostrate tree (Isai. 11:1.) The image here presented is not merely that of a tent, but of a fallen tent. Ruins, breaches, fragments, or remains. Set it up (or rather upright) is again a single word in Greek and might be rendered, re-erect.

17. The original is, that they may inherit (or possess) the remnant of Edom and all the nations. Edom is particularly named as a hereditary enemy of Israel, who had been subdued by David, but revolted under his successors. That it is merely used to represent the Gentiles, appears from the generic terms that follow. That the conquest here foretold is a spiritual one, is clear from the last clause, upon whom my name is called, which is often applied to Israel, as Jehovah's consecrated or peculiar people. (See Deut. 28:9, 10; Isai. 63:19; Jer. 7:10, 11; 14:9, and compare Deut. 12:5; Jer. 15:16; 33:2.) The essential meaning of the passage, therefore, is that the restoration of the kingdom of David was to be connected with the spiritual conquest of the Gentiles; and as such a subjugation is not merely passive, but involves the act of seeking after God, it is expressed sufficiently though not exactly in the Septuagint version here adopted. All these things is merely an amplification of the original expression (this.) All, however, is omitted in the oldest manuscripts and versions.

18. According to the received text, here translated, this verse expresses still more strongly and directly than v. 15, the important fact that the reception of the Gentiles into the church was no afterthought or innovation, but a part of the divine plan from the beginning. But as the greater part of this verse is very variously given in the manuscripts, and wholly wanting in several of the oldest, the modern critics have expunged it, leaving only the words, known from the beginning, which must then be read as the concluding words of the preceding sentence, saith the Lord, the (one) doing these things (which are or have been) known from the beginning. This is then a supplementary or exegetical clause added by the Apostle to the passage quoted, and perhaps on that account converted by transcribers into an independent proposition. Beginning of the world is a single word in Greek, the same that is used in 3:25, and there explained as an indefinite or relative expression, sometimes denoting absolute eternity, sometimes endless existence, sometimes a particular period, age, or dispensation. Hence some would make it here equivalent to Peter's phrase (from ancient days) in v. 7 above, i.e. from the first promulgation of the Gospel to the Gentiles. But there seems to be no sufficient reason, even if the shorter reading is adopted, for diluting or extenuating this expression, as its strongest sense is equally appropriate and far more striking. Thus saith the Lord who doeth these things, known (to himself as part of his own plan or purpose) from eternity. Or the verb and adjective may be connected, as in 7:19, making these things known from the beginning of the world, or of the old dispensation, or of the prophetic ministry (see above, on 3:21, and compare Luke 1:70.)

19. Wherefore, because this mode of dealing with the Gentiles has been fully sanctioned by divine authority, and long ago predicted by the prophets. My sentence is, literally, I judge (as in the Rhemish version; Wiclif has, I deem), a common formula, by which the members of the Greek assemblies introduced the expression of their individual opinion, as appears from its repeated occurrence in Thucydides, with which may be compared the corresponding Latin phrase (sic censeo) of frequent use in Cicero's orations. That James here settles the whole question by a decision ex cathedra, is as groundless an opinion as that Peter had already done so by his dictum. There is no trace in the narrative of any such superiority on either side. The whole proceeding is analogous to that which continually takes place in our own church-courts, when the roll is called to give the members present an opportunity of stating their judgment upon some important question. Even in Tyndale's version, copied by King James's Bible, sentence no doubt means opinion (sententia) not a final decision. That we trouble not, literally, not to trouble, or more emphatically, not to trouble in addition, i.e. besides (or over and above) the indispensable conditions of salvation, by imposing a gratuitous and supererogatory burden of mere ritual observance. (The same emphatic compound is used in the Septuagint version of Job 16:3; Micah 6:3.) Those from the Gentiles (literally, nations) turning unto God, i.e. from false gods to the true God (see above, on 14:15.)

20. But to charge them, in writing or by letters, as the verb (from which epistle comes) specifically means in later Greek. To abstain, or as the middle voice emphatically means, withhold themselves, implying self-control and some restriction of their Christian liberty. Pollutions is in Greek an abstract form, found nowhere else either in classical or hellenistic usage, and derived from a verb found only in the Septuagint version of Dan. 1:8; Mal. 1:7, 12, and in a single text of the Apocrypha. Some construe it with all the nouns that follow, pollutions of idols, and of fornication, &c. But this makes the first particular denote idolatry in general, from which it can hardly be supposed that Gentile converts needed any special exhortation to abstain, inasmuch as it was from this that they had just turned to God. It is therefore commonly agreed that by pollutions of idols the Apostle means participation in something that had been connected with idolatrous worship, especially the flesh remaining after sacrifice, on which the heathen used to feast, and the residue of which was often sold in the market. Now since the eating of such food, as Paul expressly teaches (1 Cor. 10:19–33), was not sinful in itself and yet to be avoided out of tenderness to those who thought it so, the abstinence here recommended must be understood in the same manner; not as an essential Christian duty, but as a concession to the consciences of others, i.e. of the Jewish converts, who still regarded such food as unlawful and abominable in the sight of God. It would seem to follow that the next particular must be explained in the same way, as relating not to an intrinsic evil (malum per se), but merely to what seemed to be so in the eyes of Jewish converts. This has led to various explanations of the Greek word, as a metaphorical description of idolatry itself as spiritual whoredom; or as meaning the licentiousness inseparably joined with certain forms of heathen worship; or concubinage, as substituted by them for marriage or connected with it; or marriage itself within the degrees forbidden by the law of Moses; besides many other still less obvious interpretations. But to all these it has been objected that the word occurs, not only in the speech of the Apostle James, but in the written formula to which it gave occasion (see below, on v. 29), and which was to be generally circulated in the Gentile churches (see below, on 16:4.) The term must therefore be explained as they would naturally understand it, even without oral explanation, i.e. in the proper sense of fornication. This is indeed intrinsically evil, but it was not so regarded by the heathen, and the Gentile converts were in danger of at least appearing to retain this false view, and thereby offending the more scrupulous believers of the circumcision. James proposes, therefore, to enjoin upon them the most careful abstinence from every semblance of this sin, as well as from the more indifferent and in itself innoxious practice of eating flesh which had been sacrificed to idols. This combination of an essential with a ceremonial sin has led to much dispute respecting the two last particulars, or rather to the one which is expressed in two forms. Strangled i.e. killed without shedding the blood; so that this clause denotes flesh with the blood still in it, as the next does blood itself either separate from the meat, or in a generic sense, including both. That blood here means bloodshed, i.e. homicide, is a notion which appears to be confined to one or two of the Fathers (such as Cyril and Cyprian); as the application of the ancient prohibitions to the use of flesh from the living animal appears to be peculiar to the Jewish Rabbins. The use of blood for food had been forbidden, not only in the law of Moses, but in the covenant with Noah, as being the vehicle or seat of life, which some regard as a physiological fact attested by divine authority, while others understand it as an arbitrary designation of the blood as the appointed representative of life for sacrificial purposes, without affirming or denying their physical relation in the animal economy. Connected with the first of these hypotheses is the belief, that the use of blood is here forbidden on the same ground with the practice of licentiousness, to wit, that both are necessary and intrinsic evils. In accordance with this view, the prohibition is enforced as a perpetual one by some of the ancient Fathers and Councils, and in the practice of the Greek Church to the present day. The Western Churches, both reformed and unreformed, adhere, with individual exceptions, to the doctrine of Augustin, that the prohibition was prudential and temporary, founded on no natural necessity or principle, the Old Testament restriction having ceased with the sacrificial services to which it had relation, and the one before us being merely an expedient for maintaining peace between converted Jews and Gentiles, during the anomalous and doubtful interval between the organization of the Christian Church and the outward as well as inward abrogation of the Jewish one. (See above, on 2:46.) This is now commonly regarded as the import and design of all these prohibitions, which as being purely negative could not be regarded even as a temporary "yoke" imposed upon the Gentiles.

21. The sense of this verse by itself seems clear, but its connection with what goes before has been very variously understood. Some suppose it to assign a reason why it was not necessary to enjoin such abstinence upon the Jewish converts, namely, because they had the law of Moses to enforce it. But such a statement is entirely superfluous, as the point at issue had no reference at all to the converted Jews, except as being those for whose sake these restrictions were to be imposed upon the Gentiles. Another explanation is, that it contains a reason why the Jewish Christians need not fear that Moses would grow obsolete in consequence of this indulgence to the Gentiles, being still read every sabbath in the Christian synagogues or congregations. A third regards it as a reason why the Gentile Christians should not allow themselves, by any heathen usages, to fall behind their Jewish brethren, who were constantly preserved from such corruptions by the reading of the law in public worship. It cannot be denied that there is some obscurity in the connection, from the obvious suppression of an intermediate or connecting thought, which may be variously supplied; but on the whole, the simplest supposition seems to be, that the Apostle here assigns a reason why the Gentile converts ought to spare the feelings of their Jewish brethren, in this respect and for a time, to wit; that the continued reading of the Law, in services accessible to both, afforded some excuse for the remaining prepossessions of the one class, and at the same time left without excuse the disregard or violation of them by the other. As if he had said, 'these Gentile Christians know, by continually hearing the law read, to what the Jews have been accustomed, and have no right therefore to abuse their own exemption from its ceremonial precepts, by wounding the consciences of those who reckon some of these to be still binding.' From ancient generations is a much stronger expression than from ancient days in v. 7, and can hardly denote any thing, in this connection, but the immemorial use of the Hebrew scriptures in the Jewish worship; which again seems to determine that by synagogue, though in itself denoting any meeting or assembly (see above, on 6:9; 13:43), we are here to understand, as usual, the meetings of the Jews for public worship, not the separate assemblies of the Christians (compare James 2:2), in which it could be scarcely said that Moses was proclaimed or preached, implying his continued recognition as a legislator and supremo authority. The reference to the synagogues at all is sufficiently explained by the fact so often mentioned or referred to, that they were frequented both by Gentiles and by Christians, who had therefore every opportunity of knowing what the Jews had been accustomed to believe and practise. So too the word sabbath does not mean the Lord's Day, or the first day of the week, which is not so called in the New Testament, nor by the oldest Christian writers, but the seventh day or Jewish sabbath, which is known to have been long observed by Christians in addition to the Lord's Day, a practice not entirely unconnected with the one just mentioned of attending at the Synagogue or Jewish worship, which was open constantly, if not exclusively, upon the last day of the week.

22. It pleased, or seemed good, and according to Greek usage still more strongly, was decided, or determined. Hence the derivative noun dogma, meaning that which is determined or decreed by competent authority (see below, on 16:4; 17:7.) This word, and not that judge used in v. 19, denotes the final decision of the question. James no more determined it than the mover of a judgment or a resolution in any deliberative or judicial body. The Apostles and Elders, not as independent bodies, nor as one body separate from the church itself, but acting in harmonious conjunction with the whole church, as there represented, not by human delegation but by divine appointment. Having chosen men out of (or from among) themselves, i.e. members of the mother-church and probably belonging to the number of its elders. To Antioch, as the secondary centre of the Gentile church (see above, on 14:28.) With Paul and Barnabas, thereby confirming their authority and at the same time saving them from the suspicion of a partial or interested statement. Chief (literally leading) men among the brethren (Christians or believers in Jerusalem.) The restricted application of the term to ministers or elders may be true in point of fact, but is without foundation in the text or context. Barsabas was also the surname of the person mentioned in 1:23, hence supposed by some to be his brother, and by some himself. Silas, the contracted form of Silvanus, (compare Lucas from Lucanus, Demas from Demetrius, Antipas from Antipater, &c.) the latter being always used in the epistles (1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Th. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Pet. 5:12) and the former in the book before us (see below, on vs. 27, 32, 34, 40; 16:19, 25, 29; 17:4, 10, 14, 15; 18:5.)

23. Writing by the hand of them (or by their hand) does not mean employing them to write the letter, but sending it, when written, through their agency to Antioch (see above, on 2:23; 5:12; 7:25, 35; 11:30; 14:3.) Writing is there a compendious expression for sending a written message or a letter, as when we speak of one man's writing to another. After this manner, in Greek simply, these (things.) Some manuscripts omit and the in the superscription of the letter, so as to make it read, the Apostles and Elders, brethren (i.e. being brethren, or your brethren); but this is commonly regarded as an emendation of the text, perhaps intended to remove the appearance of co-operation on the part of the whole body of believers. To the brethren (fellow Christians, believers, or disciples) those from (out of, from among) the Gentiles, those at Antioch, and (in or throughout) Syria and Cilicia. Hence it appears that there were Gentile converts, and perhaps Christian churches, throughout both these regions, probably gathered by Paul on his return home after his conversion (see above, on 9:30.) Send greeting, literally, to rejoice, i.e. tell them to rejoice, wish them joy, salute them. This was the usual salutatory formula in Greek epistles, and as such is used by Claudius Lysias in his letter to Felix (see below, on 23:26.) The only other instance of its use in the New Testament is in the title or inscription of the Epistle of James, which has been regarded as an incidental proof that he wrote both epistles. That he wrote the one before us is highly probable, apart from this consideration, as it really embodies his proposal, which had been adopted by the whole assembly.

24. Forasmuch as, whereas, since, referring to what follows, as because most generally does to something said before. Here, as in Luke 1:1, it introduces a preamble or preliminary reason for their writing. Certain, i.e. some, indefinitely. From us going out, is usually taken in the literal or local sense, as meaning simply that they went from Judea or Jerusalem to Antioch (see above, on v. 1); or more emphatically, that they were members of the church there. A still stronger sense might be put upon the words, to wit, that they were clothed with a regular commission as religious teachers. But the strongest sense of all, and one directly opposite to this, is that suggested by the use of the same phrase elsewhere (see 1 John 2:19) to signify desertion or apostasy. But the other seems more natural in this connection, and agrees better with the negative expression in the last clause. Troubled, disturbed, destroyed your peace, by insinuating doubts of your safety and acceptance in the sight of God. With words, i.e. discourses, speeches, or perhaps with forms or modes of expression, which were new to them. Subverting, turning upside down, confounding, may be taken as a stronger synonyme of troubling, or in the more emphatic sense of ruining, destroying, by teaching a false method of salvation. The original meaning of the Greek verb is to pack up, then to carry off, used in a military sense by Xenophon to signify the spoliation of an enemy. Saying ye must (or telling you to) be circumcised and keep (observe, obey) the law, not the moral law, which is perpetually binding as a rule of duty, but the ceremonial system, or the whole law as a means of justification and salvation. (See above, on v. 10.) Such, in the last clause, is supplied by the translators, introducing a restriction which, although it may be true, is not expressed. The meaning may be a much wider one, 'we gave them no commission or authority to teach at all.'

25, 26. It seemed good is the same verb that is rendered pleased in v. 22. Being assembled with one accord, or rather, having become of one mind (or unanimous), implying previous disagreement, not among the Apostles (see above, on vs. 14, 15), but among the brethren, and perhaps among the elders (see above, on 9:26, 27.) Their being assembled is implied but not expressed either by the verb (which simply means being or becoming) or the adverb, which cannot mean together in the local sense, but by its very etymology denotes unity of mind or coincidence of judgment and of feeling. (See above, on 1:14; 2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20.) To send chosen men, or more exactly, having chosen men to send (them.) Chosen out, selected for ourselves, as in v. 7 (see above, on 1:2, 24; 6:5; 13:17), and therefore independently of Paul and Barnabas, who might have been accused of selecting the messengers themselves. Our beloved, not an empty compliment or ceremonious form of speech, but an important attestation of the light in which these two men were regarded by the Apostles and the brethren at Jerusalem, with whom their Judaizing adversaries may have represented them as being utterly at variance. But besides this general expression of regard and confidence, the letter indirectly sanctions their missionary labours by describing them as having hazarded (literally given up, exposed, or risked) their lives, not merely as a proof of courage, or without a moral and religious motive, but expressly and specifically, for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. for all denoted by his names, in his service, in his cause, for his honour, as the Sovereign and the Saviour, the anointed Priest and Prophet of his people. (See above, on vs. 14, 17.) To have hazarded their lives in this cause was indeed an honour, which the church here recognizes as belonging to her two first foreign missionaries.

27. Sent is not the same verb that is used in v. 25, but the one from which Apostle is derived, and a favourite of Luke's, though convertible and often interchanged with the other. (Compare 10:5, 8, 21, 33; 11:29, 30.) Who shall also tell you, or retaining more exactly the peculiar form of the original, also themselves telling, or reporting, carrying back word, in answer to the message sent from Antioch (v. 2.) The present participle represents the future scene at Antioch as actually passing (see above, on 7:25), as the perfect tense at the beginning of the sentence represents the sending as already past. Also, and the same (things), are referred by some to Paul and Barnabas, by others to the letter, both which ideas are compatible and probably included. Judas and Silas were not only to confirm what Paul and Barnabas had said and done, but also to state orally, and no doubt with the necessary explanations, what was briefly recorded in the letter. By mouth, literally by word, through speech, or as the Latius phrased it ore tenus, viva voce.

28. The preceding reference to the oral statements of the deputies accounts for the brief summary here given of the resolution which had been adopted. It seemed good, as in vs. 22, 25, denotes not mere opinion but authoritative judgment. To the Holy Ghost and us, as his accredited organs of communication. (See above, on 6:11, and compare Ex. 14:31; Judg. 7:18, 20; 1 Sam. 12:18.) Some refer the first words to a miraculous ratification of their judgment; others to the witness of the Spirit in the case of Cornelius (10:44–46), and no doubt in others like it; but the natural and obvious construction is, that the Apostles, and those joining with them in this act, claim for their own decision a divine authority, as having been suggested or inspired by the Holy Ghost. Nothing can therefore be inferred from this phrase, with respect to the authority of Councils and their canons, except so far as they are known to be under the same guidance and control. To lay (put, place, or impose) upon you no greater burden (literally, more weight) than (save or except) these necessary (things), or retaining the original adverbial construction, these (things) necessarily (enjoined, exacted.) The necessity alleged is not, as some suppose, perpetual or absolute, but on the contrary, as indicated by the whole connection, and by all the circumstances of the case, provisional and temporary, so that the expression might be fairly paraphrased or amplified by saying, 'except these things, necessarily required by present exigencies, although in themselves, and at a future day, of no importance.' This must of course be qualified in reference to fornication, if that word be taken in its proper sense, in which case the necessity was temporary only with respect to the immediate reasons for peculiar circumspection in relation to that class of sins, to wit, the morbid and excessive jealousy of Jewish converts, as to Gentile liberty or license in such matters.

29. That ye abstain, literally, to abstain (see above, on v. 20.) Meats offered to idols corresponds to one Greek compound meaning idol-sacrifices, or as an adjective, sacrificed to idols. Meats is supplied by the translators, and no doubt correctly, both in the specific modern sense of flesh, and in the wider ancient sense of food, which was probably intended, but which really includes the other. This unambiguous expression must determine the more obscure one in v. 20 (pollutions of idols.) The only other difference between the verses is, that here the prohibitions which relate to food are put together, and that of fornication at the end, an improvement in the order which agrees exactly with the natural relation of an oral proposition as originally uttered, to the same idea afterwards reduced to writing; thus affording an unstudied but most interesting proof of authenticity and genuineness in the record. From which is by one distinguished writer understood to mean, from which statements, or according to which rules, keeping yourselves, i.e. acting circumspectly, ye shall do well. He objects to the usual and obvious construction (keeping yourselves from which, i.e. from these prohibited indulgences) as contrary to usage; but at least one clear example of the same verb (in its uncompounded form) followed by the same preposition in the same sense has been found in the New Testament.* Ye shall (or will) do well, in accordance with Greek usage, suggests three distinct ideas, all compatible and all appropriate in this connection. The first is, 'you will do right,' do your duty, act acceptably to God. The next is, 'you will do good,' do a favour to your brethren, by your tender care of their weak consciences. The third is, 'you will do well' for yourselves, promote your own best interest, or prosper. This last idea is repeated in the form of a concluding valediction. Fare ye well, literally, be ye strong (or healthy), corresponding to the Latin word (valete) used in the same way at the conclusion of a letter, a common expression in the classics, but confined in the New Testament to this place and the one before referred to. (See above, on v. 23, and below, on 23:30.)

30, 31. So when, or rather so then, the resumptive or continuative phrase, of which Luke makes such frequent use. (See above, on v. 3, and compare 1:6, 18; 2:41; 5:41; 8:4, 25; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4.) They having been dismissed, allowed to go, or sent away (see above, on 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40; 13:3.) Gathered together answers to one compound Greek word meaning collected, assembled, or convened. The multitude, the whole mass or body of believers (see above, on 6:12, and compare 2:6; 4:32; 5:16; 6:2, 5; 14:28), called the church in 14:27. The decision of the council being one in which all Christians were concerned, as well as one in which the whole mass of believers at Jerusalem had taken part, this public and promiscuous announcement was not only admissible but indispensable. Delivered and read belong to different subjects, the former to the messengers of the church in Jerusalem, the latter to the members of the church in Antioch. The meaning therefore is not, that they delivered the epistle by reading it, but that they delivered the epistle to the church (i.e. to the church-officers) who read it. Which when they had read, literally, and having read (it). The plural participle refers to the multitude as a collective, or to the church-officers who represented it; more probably the former, as it must have been the whole church that rejoiced, and not the elders merely. Reading has no doubt here its primary and proper sense of reading aloud. (See above, on v. 21, and compare 8:28, 30, 32; 13:27.) For the consolation, or as some prefer to render it, the exhortation. Both senses may be justified by usage (see above, on 4:36; 9:31; 13:15); but the stronger sense of consolation seems to agree better with the effect described, as it was not the requisitions of the apostolical epistle that excited joy at Antioch, but the comforting assurance that their faith was not vain or their souls in jeopardy.

32. Prophets, inspired teachers (see above, on 11:27; 13:1.) Also, as well as leading men and delegates. Themselves, as well as Paul and Barnabas. With many words, literally, through (or by means of) much speech (word or discourse; see above, on v. 27.) Exhorted, the verb corresponding to the noun in v. 31, and including the ideas of exhortation and consolation (see above, on 11:23.) The brethren, the disciples or believers, there called Christians (see above, on 11:26.) Confirmed, strengthened, or established in the faith, by further instruction and animating exhortation. (See above, on 13:43; 14:22.)

33. After they had tarried there a space, literally, having made time, i.e. passed or spent some time there. This use of the verb is rare, but found at least once in Demosthenes. Let go, dismissed, discharged, the same verb that occurs above in v. 30. In peace, or more exactly, with peace, i.e. with the usual benediction or good wishes, the most ancient form of which is probably the invocation of peace or prosperity upon the person thus saluted. (Compare the Latin Pax vobiscum with the Arabic Salaam alaikum, still the customary oriental salutation.) The brethren of the church at Antioch, as in v. 32. To the apostles, or as several of the oldest manuscripts and latest critics read, to those who sent them.

34. Notwithstanding is in Greek the usual continuative particle (δέ) rendered and in the preceding verse. It pleased, or seemed best, as in vs. 22, 25, 28. Abide there still, stay on, remain over, as in 10:48. This verse seems inconsistent with the one before it, where Silas and Judas are both said to have been sent back to Jerusalem. This seeming inconsistency may account for the omission of the whole verse in several of the oldest copies; but the latest critics rather suppose it to have been inserted in the others, to explain how Silas could be there to take the place of Barnabas, as Paul's companion in his second mission. (See below, on v. 40.) The communication seems, however, to have been so frequent (see above, on 11:26, 30; 12:25; 15:2), that there is no improbability in supposing, either that Paul sent for Silas before setting out upon his second mission, or that Silas had returned to Antioch in the mean time.

35. Continued, literally, wore or spent (time), see above, on 12:19; 14:3, 28. Teaching and preaching, either distinct official acts, the one more public than the other, or a twofold description of their ministry, both public and private, as didactic or instructive and yet cheering or encouraging. Evangelizing the word of the Lord, proclaiming it as good news or glad tidings (see above, on 5:42; 8:4, 12, 35; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7, 21.) With many others also (Gr. also many others), so that Antioch appears to have abounded more and more in "prophets and teachers" (see above, on 13:1), probably because it had become a centre both of radiation and attraction, from which preachers were now sent forth in various directions, and to which there was a concourse of inquiring Gentiles, from the surrounding provinces, if not from distant countries. (See above, on 14:28.)

36. Some days after, literally, after some days, an indefinite expression, which however seems more naturally to suggest a short time than a long one (see above, on 8:36.) Let us go again and visit, literally, returning let us visit (or look after; see above, on 6:3; 7:23.) Between the participle and the verb in Greek there is a particle (δή), which might be rendered now, as it is a contraction of (ἢδη) already, but commonly employed to emphasize the word to which it is attached. (See above, on 13:2, and compare Luke 2:15; 1 Cor. 6:20.) This proposition shows the same concern in Paul for the churches founded by himself that is displayed in his epistles and indeed occasioned them. In every city is in Greek still more expressive, as the preposition (κατά) corresponds not only to our in, but also to our through, throughout, along, and is also used distributively (see above, on vs. 21, 23; 2:10, 46; 5:15, 42; 8:1, 3, 36; 9:31, 42; 10:37; 11:1; 13:1, 27; 14:23.) Where, literally, in which, a plural form referring to the collective, every city. We have preached, or more exactly, we preached, i.e. upon our former mission. Preached, announced, proclaimed, declared, the same verb that is used in 4:2; 13:5, 38; The word of the Lord, the doctrine of Christ, i.e. the Gospel. How they do, literally, how they have (themselves), i.e. how (or in what state) they are (see above, on 7:1; 12:15.) The words supplied in the translation (and see) give the sense, but not the syntax, as this last clause (how they do) must be grammatically construed with the verb let us visit, which includes, both in Greek and English, the idea of seeing, inquiring, or examining.

37, 38. Determined is too strong a version, even of the common text, which simply means that he intended, purposed, or that such was his design and plan; and still more of the reading given by the modern critics, he desired or wished. Some light is thrown upon this wish or purpose by Col. 4:10, where we learn that Mark and Barnabas were cousins, either in the strict sense or the wide one common to both idioms. Tyndale's version (sister's son), retained in our Bible, is entirely too specific. The Rhemish (cousin-german) is better, and Wiclif's (cousin) better still. Thought not good to take him, or retaining the original construction, thought good not to take him. Thought good is a single word in Greek which strictly means thought worthy (as in Luke 7:7; 2 Th. 1:11; 1 Tim. 5:17; Heb. 3:3; 10:29), but when absolutely used, thought right or proper. It sometimes means in classic Greek to ask, demand, but only as a matter of right, in which sense it is so translated by the Vulgate here (rogabat) and in 28:22 below (rogamus), where it is copied by the English version (we desire.) If this sense be adopted in the case before us, the idea is, that Paul demanded or insisted, upon principle, or as a right, that John should not go with them. This differs only by suggesting the idea of oral expression, from the common version, thought not good or right. But it seems best to adhere to the common usage of the verb in the New Testament, and understand it as at least implying, that he did not think Mark fit or worthy to be taken with them. The ground of his objection is distinctly stated by referring to a fact recorded in its proper place (see above, on 13:13.) The work, i.e. the missionary work in which they were engaged. Here, as in several other cases, the point of the sentence is impaired by a needless change of collocation. In the original the sentence closes, not to take along with (them) this (man), i.e. such a person, one who had thus acted. Paul's objection to so doing gathers strength if we suppose, as was before suggested (in the comment upon 13:13), that Mark was guilty of resisting or refusing to acknowledge Paul's apostolical authority. There was thus a motive upon each side for the difference here recorded, the one being private or personal, the other public and official.

39, 40. And should be therefore, i.e. because they were divided in opinion upon this point. This English clause is not a version but a paraphrase of the original, which may be strictly rendered, there was therefore (or arose, began to be) a paroxysm, i.e. an excitement, elsewhere used in the good sense of incitement, provocation, to good works (Heb. 10:24.) The idea of anger is suggested by the context, and confirmed by the usage of the verbal root (see below, on 17:18, and compare 1 Cor. 13:5.) It is not to be magnified, however, into any thing beyond a sudden and a temporary irritation (sharpening, as the Greek words primarily signify,) sufficient to account for the effect here mentioned, and, we may add, to carry out the divine purpose of multiplying labourers and even missions by a painful but momentary alienation between Paul and Barnabas. Departed asunder is in Greek a passive verb properly denoting violent division or forcible separation. (See above, on 1:4, where an uncompounded form of the same verb is used.) It might here be rendered, they were parted, severed, sundered. And so, or rather both (τε), or on the one hand, placing this clause in antithesis to that which follows. Took Mark, taking Mark along, as he at first proposed and Paul refused to do. Sailed out (or away) to Cyprus, his own country, and perhaps that of his kinsman also. (See above, on 4:30; 13:4.) Chose Silas is a feeble although not an incorrect translation of a very expressive Greek verb, which denotes the act of choosing for himself in addition to (or in the place of) some one else, thus conveying the whole process of exchange and substitution by a single word. Departed, literally, went forth (compare 13:4 above), it is not said how soon after the dispute, and therefore, if v. 34 be excluded from the text, it is not at all improbable that Silas was summoned from Jerusalem, no doubt with the consent of the church there as well as at Antioch, expressly to supply the place of Barnabas. Being recommended, literally, given up (as in 14:20 above), which may include the idea of release from service there, as well as that of consignment to divine protection. By the brethren, as in v. 32 above. The inference usually drawn from the omission of any similar expression as to Barnabas and Mark, to wit, that their mission was without authority, divine or human, seems a little forced, since Luke is writing the history of Paul as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and had mentioned the dispute with Barnabas at all, only to account for the subsequent appearance of Silas as his substitute. It is equally admissible, and much more pleasant, to suppose that the "paroxysm," although directly caused by human frailty, was a providential means of sending out four men instead of two, on the same errand but in different directions, so as at the same time to avoid collision and enlarge the field of missionary labour. This hypothesis is favoured by the fact that it supposes the leader of each mission to have gone again to his own country (see above, on 13:4, 13), and the two to have revisited, apart but simultaneously, the whole field of their first joint mission; whereas if Barnabas went forth without authority, Paul's proposal of a second visitation (see above, on v. 36) was not realized at all in relation to the island where he may be said to have achieved his first conquest, and indeed to have been first acknowledged as Apostle of the Gentiles (see above, on 13:9.) This view of the matter also supersedes the disagreeable necessity of inquiring whether Paul was chargeable with undue rigour or Barnabas with nepotism, or both, or neither, all which alternatives have been maintained. The simplest and most satisfactory conclusion is, that the "paroxysm" here recorded was permitted to take place for the important reasons which have been suggested, and had no ulterior effects whatever on the mutual relations of the three men, whom we find in several of Paul's epistles reunited in the closest bonds of Christian friendship. (See 2 Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24.) The same state of feeling is implied in Gal. 2:13, where Paul seems to express surprise that "even Barnabas," his old friend and associate, shared in that unhappy inconsistency of Peter, which by some is referred to the "certain days" of v. 36, though some put it later, and others think it could not possibly have happened after the decision of the council at Jerusalem.

41. He went through, i.e. Paul, as leader of the mission and Apostle of the Gentiles, Silas holding a subordinate position, because although a prophet (see above, on v. 32) not of Apostolic rank, and moreover just enlisted in the foreign service. Syria and Cilicia, the regions of which Antioch and Tarsus were the capitals, and to the Gentile converts of which the epistle from Jerusalem was formally addressed (see above, on v. 23.) This was the natural and necessary course to be pursued by one who went by land from Antioch into Asia Minor. The Gospel had most probably been first preached in Cilicia, and perhaps in the adjacent parts of Syria, by Paul himself, a few years after his conversion (see above, on v. 23, and on 9:30); but churches may not have been organized till now, when the great Judaic controversy had been settled, and this organization may be here included under the term confirming, establishing, or at least connected with it, as it seems to be in 14:22, 23.

CHAPTER 16

CONTINUING his second foreign mission, Paul revisits Derbe and Lystra, where he enlists Timothy in the service, after circumcising him (1–3.) They deliver the decrees of the council at Jerusalem in the towns through which they pass, and find the churches in a prosperous condition (4–5.) After visiting Phrygia and Galatia, and being excluded from other parts of Asia Minor, they arrive at Troas (6–8.) There a vision calls them into Macedonia (9–10.) Leaving Asia, they begin their European labours at Philippi, and a church is gathered in the house of Lydia (11–15.) A miracle performed by Paul occasions his arrest and imprisonment with Silas (16–24.) They prevent a suicide and baptize a household (25–34.) They assert their right as Roman citizens, and are honourably discharged and suffered to proceed upon their journey (35–40.)

1. Then is the usual continuative particle, connecting this verse in the closest manner with what goes before, the division of the chapters being here mechanical. Came down, or down upon, a favourite verb of Luke's (see below, on 18:19, 24.) The additional idea of return or coming back, which the word sometimes has in later Greek, would be appropriate here, but does not seem to belong to the New Testament dialect. Derbe and Lystra are named together as in 14:6, but in the reverse order, as they were now approached from the opposite direction. Paul and Silas had probably come through the famous Cilician Gates, a pass in the Taurus range, leading from north to south, and eighty miles in length. Behold (or lo) usually introduces something unexpected, and may here imply that Timothy was not at home, though in a place where he was well known, as appears from the next verse. This may seem to favour the opinion that he was a native of Derbe (see below, on 20:4), or of Antioch in Pisidia (see 2 Tim. 3:11); but nothing can be certainly deduced from any of these texts as to that point. There no doubt refers to Lystra, as the nearest antecedent, and as named again in the next verse; or to Derbe and Lystra together, as being not far apart, or for some other reason spoken of as one place. Disciple, Christian, probably one of Paul's converts on his former visit (14:7), and hence called his son or child (1 Cor. 4:17; 1 Tim. 1:2, 18; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2:1.) Named (literally, by name) Timotheus, sometimes written in our Bible with an English termination, Timothy. Certain before woman is omitted in the oldest manuscripts. Son of a believing Jewish woman, i.e. a Christian or converted Jewess. From 2 Tim. 1:5, we learn that his mother's name was Eunice, and his grandmother's Lois, both eminent for faith, by whom he had been early made acquainted with the scriptures (2 Tim. 3:14, 15.) This exclusive mention of his female relatives agrees exactly with the fact here stated that his father was a Greek, and as "believing" is not added, no doubt a heathen; as well as with the fact that he had not been circumcised. Intermarriage with the heathen was forbidden by the law (see Deut. 7:4; Ezra 10:2, 44; Neh. 13:23); but some suppose a distinction between strange wives and strange husbands, founded on the cases of Esther and Drusilla (see below, on 24:24.)

2. Well reported of, literally, testified, attested, testified to be (what is not expressed, but suggested by the context.) He had probably been labouring in these cities since Paul's former visit, either in a private way, or by express divine appointment (1 Tim. 1:18), and ordination by the presbytery or elders of these churches (see above, on 14:23, and compare 1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6.) All this however may have happened after what is here recorded. Iconium, see above, on 14:21. Besides this testimony from the church itself, Paul instructs Timothy himself to require that of those without (1 Tim. 3:7.)

3. Him (literally, this one) Paul would have (literally, wished, desired) with him to go forth (or out), i.e. upon this foreign mission, in the place of Mark, or as some say, of Titus, which supposes Paul's visit to Crete (Tit. 1:1) to have been made just before; but this is mere conjecture on a point not here revealed or ascertainable. And took (literally, taking) seems to imply decision and authority, and also that he performed the rite himself, as it was not a sacerdotal act, but rather belonged to the father or his representative. It was not done as a necessary act, on Paul's part or on Timothy's, but because of the Jews that were (literally, the ones being) in those quarters (literally, places), i.e. Derbe, Lystra, and perhaps Iconium. For they all knew his father, that he was a Greek (or Gentile), and therefore concluded that the son had not been circumcised. As one reason for selecting Timothy was no doubt his connection with both races, fitting him to be an instrument of good to both, Paul acted on the principle avowed in 1 Cor. 9:22, and availed himself of the liberty enjoyed, as to ceremonial usages, during the interval between the advent and the downfall of Jerusalem. (See above, on 2:46, and below, on 21:23.) As this concession, though intended to conciliate the Jews, could scarcely have been misunderstood either by them or the Christian converts, it involves no sacrifice of principle, as the very same act would have done in the case of Titus, who seems to have had no connection with the Jews at all, and whose subjection to the rite would therefore have acknowledged the necessity of the legal ceremonies to salvation. (See above, on 15:1, and compare Gal. 2:3–5.) Was a Greek may mean was (still) a Greek, the original expression being not the mere verb of existence, but one sometimes denoting change of state and sometimes its continuance. (See above, on 2:30; 3:2, 6; 4:34, 37; 5:4; 7:55; 8:16; 10:12; 14:8.)

4. Went (journeyed, travelled) through the cities, where Paul had preached before, Derbe and Lystra, Iconium and Antioch. Decrees, literally, dogmas, see above, on 15:22, 25, 28. Ordained, decreed, decided. The apostles and elders of the church at Jerusalem, representing the whole body. (See above, on 15:2.) These decrees, though temporary or provisional, were highly important to the present peace and unity of the church, and therefore perfectly consistent with the doctrine taught by Paul in his epistles (Rom. 14:2, 17; 1 Cor. 8:8; 10:25; Tit. 1:5.)

5. So then, in consequence of this visitation (see above, on 15:36, and compare, 14:22), not merely by means of the decrees, the Greek connective (μὲν οὖν) commonly referring to a remoter antecedent. Established, settled, or confirmed, as opposed to doubt and vacillation. (Compare Eph. 4:14.) The faith, not merely the doctrine of Christ, but their belief of it, and trust in him. Increased, abounded, were abundant. Daily, literally, by day, that is, day by day, the same expression that is used above in 2:46, 47; 3:2.

6. And having gone through Phrygia, a district of dubious or variable extent, in the interior of Asia Minor, divided at one time into two, and at another into three parts. It included not only Colosse, Hierapolis, and Laodicea, but according to the classical writers, Antioch in Pisidia. The Galatian region, elsewhere called Galatia, another inland district of the same peninsula, occupied by Gauls and Celts in the third century before Christ, and still retaining the language of those settlers six centuries later. The mixed population were called Gallogrecians. To the churches of this province, probably founded by himself, Paul addressed one of his epistles. The phrase Galatian region may include more than Galatia proper. Forbidden, hindered, or prevented, either by express command or by insurmountable hinderances, most probably the former, as it is referred specifically to the Spirit. The omission of details in this account of Paul's visit to Galatia might lead to the conclusion that it was marked by no occurrences of interest; and yet to this date may be probably referred various facts mentioned in the epistle, showing a strong mutual attachment, and implying intimate acquaintance. The details are probably omitted here because no radiating centre was established, and the churches may have been in rural districts rather than in large towns, none of which are mentioned, either in Acts or in Galations.

7, 8. Having come down to Mysia, the north-west province of Asia Minor. Assayed, endeavored, tried. As the Greek word is usually applied to moral trial or temptation, it may possibly imply that there was something presumptuous in this attempt. (See above, on 15:10.) Bithynia, a province on the northern coast of Asia Minor, to the east of Mysia. Here again they were forbidden by the Spirit of Jesus, a phrase occurring only here, but probably denoting the mission of the Spirit by the Son (see above, on 2:33.) These prohibitions were no doubt intended gradually to disclose to them their mission or vocation to introduce the Gospel into Europe. Passing by may mean passing through without stopping, or at least without preaching, as they must have traversed Mysia to reach Troas, a seaport near the site of ancient Troy (see below, on 20:5, 6, and compare 2 Cor. 2:12; 2 Tim. 4:13.) Here they were opposite to Greece and near it, so as to be ready to enter on their new field of missionary labour when commanded.

9. The divine will is now more fully made known by a vision or preternatural appearance (see above, on 7:31; 9:10, 12; 10:3, 17, 19; 11:5; 12:9.) In (through, during, in the course of) the night, perhaps the night of their arrival. Appeared to Paul, or was seen by him, as in 2:3; 7:2, 26, 30, 35; 9:17; 13:31. It is not said in a dream, which expression occurs only in the case of Joseph (Matt. 2:13, 19, 22) and of Pilate's wife (Matt. 27:19.) Some believe the supposition of a dream to be excluded here, as the lowest form or stage of divine communication, never used with the Apostles. There was a certain man, a Macedonian, standing and beseeching; but the latest editors omit there was a certain, and read simply, a Macedonian man standing and beseeching, or exhorting, as the same word often means (see above, on 2:40; 11:23; 15:32), but the stronger sense is also fully justified by usage (see above, on 8:31; 9:38; 13:42; 15:32.) The essential idea, of which these are only modifications, is that of calling on (or to) a person, whether in the way of exhortation or entreaty. Come over, literally, passing through or crossing over, which some explain as implying difficulties or obstructions to be broken through, but which rather implies nearness and at the same time separation, both which ideas are appropriate to Paul's position at the moment, on the confines of Europe and Asia. There is no need of inquiring whether he was known to be a Macedonian by his dress, voice, or words; as the whole communication being preternatural might immediately suggest this fact without any reasoning at all. (See above, on 9:12.) Help us, to be saved, or to obtain salvation, Us, the Macedonians, Greeks, or Europeans, as well as thy own countrymen of Asia Minor. Macedonia is thus specified, because it was the part of Europe nearest to the scene of this vision, and the part where his European work was to begin.

10. After he had seen, literally, as (or when) he saw (see above, on 1:10.) Immediately, without any mention of his rising from sleep, as in the case of Joseph (Matt. 2:14, 21.) Endeavoured, literally, sought, i.e. means or a conveyance. To go, or more exactly, to go out (or forth), implying a departure from their previous field of labour, and a migration into foreign parts. Assuredly gathering is in Greek one word, which we have already met with in the sense of proving (see above, on 9:25), but which here seems to retain more of its primary or strict sense, that of combining, putting things together, in the way of argument, and as the ground of a conclusion. (Compare the similar expression in 4:15 above, and Luke 2:19.) In the present case, they may have reasoned by comparing this vision with the previous obstructions to their work in Asia (vs. 6, 7.) Called us, literally, called to us, or called us to (himself), as in 5:40; 6:2; 13:7, but also used to signify a choice or designation of individuals, either to salvation (see above, on 2:39), or to special service (see above, on 13:2.) To preach the gospel to them, literally, to evangelize them, as in 8:25, 40; 13:32. Here, for the first time, the writer uses the first person (we sought), implying his own presence and participation in the facts recorded. Some explain this by supposing it to have been transferred from the narrative or journal of one who accompanied Paul from Troas to Philippi, where this form of expression is discontinued, but resumed again in 20:5. To this ingenious combination it may be objected that so abrupt an introduction of another's language, without any intimation or change of form, is far less probable than an abrupt change in the author's own mode of expression, even if he had been present from the first. Still more natural is the supposition that the writer of the book joined Paul at Troas, perhaps as his physician (see Col. 4:10), which agrees well with the supposition, that the infirmities of which Paul speaks in his epistles (see Gal. 4:13, 14, and compare 2 Cor. 12:7) arose from bodily disease, though some refer them to the cares and doubts occasioned by the interruption of his labours (see above, on vs. 6, 7), and others deny any direct reference to this part of his history. That Timothy is not the person here appearing for the first time, see below, on 20:5. Had it been either Timothy or Silas, it would be wholly unaccountable that this form of expression should begin just here and not before, and also that the ancient and uniform tradition of the church, attested by such names as those of Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, and Tertullian, should have dropped so eminent a name and substituted that of Luke, as the author both of this book and of the third gospel. That the use of the first person ceases at Philippi (see below, on v. 17), and is resumed there on a subsequent voyage (see below, on 20:6), is a plausible reason for supposing that Luke remained there during that whole interval, or even that it was his place of residence. It is very possible, however, that he may have been in constant attendance upon Paul, but only wrote in the first person when he took part himself in that which he relates as a historian. Compare the similar interval between 21:17 and 27:1, during which we have no means of determining whether Luke was in Paul's company or separated from him. That he does not name himself, or explain now he happened to be present, is ascribed by some to modesty, by others to the fact that Theophilus, for whom he wrote in the first instance (see above, on 1:1), was already acquainted with these circumstances. The suppression was altogether natural if Luke attended Paul as his physician, and not as an assistant in the missionary work, for which, however, then as now, his profession offered great advantages.

11. Therefore, in several of the oldest manuscripts, is simply and or but. Loosing, sailing, putting out to sea, the same term that is used in 13:13, and there explained. According to some classical authorities, it originally means to loose the ropes. Came with a straight course, or more briefly and exactly, ran straight, i.e. sailed before the wind, without tacking, another nautical expression, implying that the wind was fair. This must have been from the south, to overcome the current which sets constantly in that direction from the Dardanelles. Samothrace, an island midway between Troas and Neapolis, called Thracian Samos to distinguish it from Samos on the coast of Lydia (see below, on 20:15), and still known by the slightly altered name of Samotraki or Samandriki. It is the highest land in the northern Archipelago except Mount Athos, and was anciently renowned for the worship of Cybele and the mysteries of the Cabiri, forming a sort of link between Greek and Oriental heathenism. This historical association, with its local position between Europe and Asia, connects it, in an interesting manner, with Paul's transit from one to the other, though he seems not even to have landed there. The next (literally, coming, coming on, ensuing), an abbreviation of the phrase employed in 7:26 above, and there explained. (See below, on 20:15; 21:18; 23:11.) Neapolis, a maritime city, properly belonging to Thrace, but afterwards annexed by Vespasian to the Roman province of Macedonia. Its site, though doubtful, is supposed to be still marked by remains of Roman pavements, aqueducts and cisterns, at the Turkish village of Kavalla (or Cavallo.)

12. The direct continuation of the sentence seems to show that they merely landed at Neapolis, without unnecessary stay, perhaps because there were no Jews there, but more probably because Paul was impatient to arrive at towns of primary importance, in which radiating centres of Christian influence might be established. Such a place was Philippi, anciently called Datos and Crenides (from its many springs), but afterwards named in honour of Philip of Macedon, by whom it was rebuilt and fortified. In the year 42 before the Christian era, it was the scene of the great battle, which decided the fate of the Roman republic, and in which Brutus and Cassius were defeated by Octavian and Anthony. In commemoration of this victory, and also as a safeguard of the empire, Augustus afterwards established there a colony, i.e. a military settlement chiefly composed of soldiers who had been partisans of Anthony. These Roman colonies were organized precisely on the model of the great metropolis, as to government, laws, language, and external forms, so that each exhibited a Rome in miniature. To some were granted in addition the jus italicum, or the same exemption from all taxes on the land, which Julius Cæsar had extended to the whole of the Italian peninsula. Troas and Antioch in Pisidia were also colonies; but the fact is particularly mentioned here, because connected with occurrences which took place at Philippi. (See below, on vs. 37, 38.) Luke describes Philippi, not only by the Latin term colonia (as distinguished from the Greek ἀποικία, which coincides more nearly with our modern use of colony, as meaning any foreign settlement or emigration), but also as the first (or rather, a first) city of that part (literally, the part) of Macedonia. This description has been variously explained, some understanding first of rank or dignity, and others of local situation, i.e. the first to which Paul came, Neapolis being then regarded either as a Thracian (not a Macedonian) city, or as the landing-place or harbour of Philippi, to which it is nearer than Seleucia to Antioch (see above, on 13:4) or Ostia to Rome, and not much further than Cenchrea from Corinth (see below, on 18:18), or even than the Piraeus from Athens.* The present tense (which is not which was) is urged in favour of the other explanation of first, as meaning first in rank or importance. It cannot, however, mean the capital of Macedonia, which was Thessalonica, and the word part or portion cannot naturally signify a province or division of the Roman Empire. It is true that the old kingdom of Philip and Alexander, when subdued by Paulus Æmilius, was divided into four provinces or districts; but the capitals of these have been preserved by Livy, and that of the most easterly was not Philippi but Amphipolis. (See below, on 17:1.) Some connect first with colony, 'the first colony in that part of Macedonia,' either in point of time, or dignity, or local situation, i.e. the first colony to which they came. But this construction is forbidden by the collocation of the sentence, although not by the conjunction and, which is supplied in the translation. All these interpretations introduce the article before first, though found in no Greek manuscript, the only reading extant being simply (πρώτη πόλις) a first city, i.e. a city of the highest rank, as we might say a first-class (or a first-rate) city, not in reference to political arrangements, but to population, wealth, &c. The same epithet (first) is applied, on coins still extant, to Pergamus and Smyrna, as well as to Ephesus, which was the political capital of Asia Proper. (See below, on 18:19; 19:1.) The fact that there are no such coins belonging to Philippi, or to any city out of Asia Minor, only renders improbable the technical and formal, not the popular descriptive use of the expression in the case before us. We were in that (literally, this) city, abiding (literally, spending; see above, on 12:19; 14:3, 28; 15:35) certain (i.e. some) days, an indefinite expression, but most readily suggesting the idea of a short time. (See above, on 9:19; 10:48; 15:36, and compare 8:36.)

13. On the sabbath, literally, the day of the sabbaths, the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word resembling a Greek plural, and being often so inflected, even when a single day is meant. (See above, on 13:14.) Out of the city, or according to the oldest manuscripts, out of the gate. The Syriae version combines both readings (out of the gate of the city.) By a river side, literally, along a river, i.e. the small stream flowing near Philippi into the Strymon, which is several miles distant. Where prayer was wont to be made, i.e. by the Jews of Philippi, whose worship may have been excluded from the city by the strict laws or the prejudices of a Roman colony; or they may have been too few to have a synagogue, in which case it was usual to have a place of prayer, with or without a building, often without the walls, and where it could be so arranged, near water, probably on account of the ablutions which accompanied the Jewish worship. Thus Tertullian speaks in one place of the Jews as praying on every shore (per omne litus), and in another of their sea-shore prayers (orationes litorales.) From this usage the Hellenistic word for prayer (προσευχή) acquired a local sense, being sometimes synonymous with synagogue, and sometimes used to distinguish the minor places of worship which have just been mentioned. The Latin form (proseucha) is thus used by Juvenal. The Greek word is most commonly explained so here, where there was wont to be a prayer-place (or house of prayer). But the very same phrase is employed by Philo in explaining what a proseucha was (viz. a place where prayer was wont to be made), which seems to determine the sense here, or rather to confirm the invariable usage of the word in the New Testament, where it occurs nearly forty times, and always in the sense of prayer. The verb occurs fifteen times, and always elsewhere in the sense of thinking or supposing. (See above, on 7:25; 8:20; 14:19.) Adhering to this constant usage of both words in the New Testament, the simplest version is, where prayer was supposed to be, i.e. where the missionaries were informed that the Jews were accustomed to assemble, or still more probably, where they saw a company of women gathered, and themselves supposed that they were met for prayer. That this explanation is an ancient one, appears from the various reading found in several of the oldest manuscripts, they supposed prayer to be. But although this is the most natural interpretation, and the one most in accordance with New Testament usage, the modern interpreters are almost unanimous in preferring the secondary sense of the noun (a place of prayer) and the primary or classical usage of the verb (was wont or was accustomed.) The mention of women only has been variously explained, by supposing that the men were inattentive, or came later; or that there were no male Jews at Philippi; or that the men and women prayed apart, as they are separated in the synagogue. But here again, the simplest supposition, and the one most readily suggested by the text itself, is that Paul and his associates, seeing a company of women there upon the sabbath, supposed them to be met for prayer, although they may have been mistaken, which agrees well with the usage of the verb in this book (see above, on 7:25; 8:20; 14:19, in all which cases it suggests the idea of a false impression or erroneous judgment.) On any supposition, it is worthy of remark with what fidelity Paul carried out his plan of addressing the Jews first, and through them gaining access to the Gentiles. (See above, on 13:5, 14, 46; 14:1.)

14. Lydia, or a Lydian, as the name originally means, and as some explain it here, because Thyatira was situated on the confines of Lydia and Mysia in Asia Minor; but named a Lydian, or a Lydian by name, would be a very unusual expression, and we know that Lydia was in common use among the Greeks and Romans as a proper name. It may indeed have been a surname, given to her as a Lydian by the strangers among whom she dwelt. Thyatira, between Pergamus and Sardis, was famous in the ancient world for its purple dye, and old inscriptions have been found there which originated with the Dyers (Bapheis) as a craft or a society. The purple colour, so extravagantly valued by the ancients, included many shades or tints, from rose-red to sea-green or blue. Lydia's occupation may have been the sale of the dye itself, procured from a shell-fish (purpura murex), but more probably was that of cloth or clothes dyed with it, an art expressly mentioned in the classics as practised by the Lydian women. She seems to have been temporarily residing at Philippi for this purpose, as Luke would scarcely have named Thyatira, merely as her birth-place, if it was not still her home. Worshipping God, i.e. the true God, a phrase constantly applied to Gentiles who had obtained some knowledge of the Scriptures by attendance on the Jewish worship (see above, on 13:43, 50, and compare 10:2, 7), whether proselytes, i.e. professed converts to Judaism, or not. The technical distinction between different kinds of proselytes is probably of later date. (See above, on 2:10; 6:5; 13:43.) Opened her heart (i.e. disposed the understanding and affections) to attend (apply the mind, but often in the classics with the accessory notion of believing, giving credence) to the (things) spoken of Paul (not concerning or about him, as the phrase would mean in modern English, but by him), or the things which Paul spake.

15. When she was baptized, not necessarily at this first meeting, but rather, as this phrase would seem to intimate, after an interval. In the former case, the natural expression would have been, she was baptized, whereas the idea now suggested is, that the Lord opened her heart at once, and then when she was afterwards baptized, &c. Her household, lit. house, supposed by some to mean her family, by others her assistants in her business. Both being mere conjectures, and entirely compatible with one another, there is nothing in the text to decide the controverted question, whether children were baptized on this occasion. Both parties reason in a circle from foregone conclusions; one contending that as infants are incapable of faith, there either were none, or they were excluded from the ordinance; the other, that as households include children, we have no right to except them from the general statement. The real strength of the latter argument lies not in any one case, but in the repeated mention of whole houses as baptized. (See above, on 10:2, 48; 11:14, and below, on v. 33.) The whole dispute, however, rests on grounds entirely independent of these cases, and every reader will interpret these according to his views of those. He who believes in the perpetuity of the patriarchal covenant, with a change in the accompanying seal, will need no proof that children were baptized with their parents upon such occasions; whereas, he whose very definition of the ordinance excludes children, will of course deny their actual reception of it in all given cases. She besought, entreated, or invited (see above, on 8:31; 9:38; 13:42); us is supplied by the translators. If ye have judged is commonly explained to mean, since ye have done so, i.e. by baptizing me (see above, on 4:9.) Faithful to the Lord (Jesus Christ), or rather a believer in him (see above, on v. 1, and on 10:45.) Entering into my house, stay (or lodge) there, i.e. during their visit to Philippi. Abide, at least in modern English, is too strong, as it suggests the idea of permanent residence. Constrained, or forced, i.e. by urgent importunity, as in Luke 24:29, and often in the classics. Us, i.e. Paul's whole company, including the historian.

16. It happened, at a time still later, as the words seem naturally to suggest, though some have strangely understood them to mean, on the same day, after baptizing Lydia and her household, but before they had gone into the proseucha. Still more improbable is it that he here goes back to relate what had happened on their way to the river-side. The natural impression made by the whole context is, that Paul and his company took up their residence at the house of Lydia, as requested by her, and there formed a church or congregation of disciples, and that on their way to worship upon some occasion not particularly specified, it came to pass, &c. As we went, literally, we going, a Greek verb not denoting simple entrance, but a walk or journey of some length (see above, on v. 7, and on 1:10, 11, 25; 8:26, 36, 39; 9:3; 10:20; 12:17.) A certain damsel, girl, young woman, commonly applied to servants (see above, on 12:13), and perhaps denoting here a slave. Possessed with, literally, having, or possessing. A spirit of divination, or as the margin reads, of Python. In the Greek mythology this was the name of a serpent which guarded an oracle on mount Parnassus and was slain by Apollo, thence called Pythius, as being himself the god of divination. That she was not, as some suppose, a mere ventriloquist or sheer impostor, nor a mere somnambulist or lunatic, but a demoniac (see above, on 5:16), is clear from Paul's address to her (see below, on v. 18.) Brought, literally, yielded or afforded. Masters, joint-owners or employers, such partnerships in valuable slaves being not unusual in ancient times. Soothsaying, divining, telling fortunes, by the aid of the spirit which possessed her.

17. The same, literally, this (woman), i.e. the one just described. Followed, literally, following down, dogging or pursuing. Paul and us, i.e. Silas, Timothy, and Luke, who therefore uses the first person. Cried, not once but often, as suggested by the form of the Greek verb and expressly stated in the next verse. Shew, literally, tell, declare, announce, proclaim. (See above, on 4:2; 13:5, 38; 15:36.) These expressions she had probably heard used by Paul and Silas in their preaching and now repeated, either without knowing what they meant, or in a sort of scornful irony, or as an involuntary testimony to the truth, like that borne to the Sonship and Messiahship of Jesus by the demons whom he dispossessed. (See Mark 1:8; 5:7; Luke 4:34; 8:28.) There is no need, therefore, of supposing any particular motive on the woman's part, such as a desire to conciliate the strangers, or to increase her masters' profits, or her own fame as a prophetess. Some have even imagined that she was impelled by a desire of salvation, and that this was gratified. But see below, upon the next verse.

18. Many days, literally, for many days, the omission of the preposition being allowed both by Greek and English usage. (see above, on 1:3.) Grieved, or more exactly, wearied, worn out, out of patience, from the frequent repetition of the same annoyance (see above, on 4:9.) The common version, borrowed from the Vulgate (dolens), seems to favour the idea, entertained by some, that Paul was not offended at her constant cries, but only grieved (Rhemish version, sorry) that she was under demoniacal possession, and therefore, instead of reproving her, expelled the demon. But this is equally intelligible on the supposition that, although he was displeased or vexed with her repeated outcries, he considered her responsibility as merged in that of the demon who controlled her actions, and whose testimony, even to the truth, especially when thus obtruded, Paul rejected, as more likely to impede than to advance his work, and no doubt with intentional conformity to Christ's example (Mark 1:34.) Turning, i.e. towards the woman, who was following them through the street as usual. To the spirit, present in her and acting through her, a sufficient proof that, in the view of the Apostle, it was not a case of mere disease, somnambulism, or derangement, but of actual possession by a personal spirit (see above, on 5:16.) Command, or order peremptorily, as an officer his soldiers (but see above, on 1:4.) In the name of Jesus Christ, by his authority, and as his representative. Come out of her, withdraw the preternatural control now exercised, and cease to influence her as at present. The same hour, or as the same phrase is rendered elsewhere (Luke 2:38), that instant. The word translated hour is more comprehensive than its English derivative, meaning properly a season (of the year) in classical usage, and in that of the New Testament sometimes a whole day (as in Matt. 14:15; Mark 6:35), sometimes any short time (as in John 5:35; 2 Cor. 7:8), sometimes any definite or set time, whether long or short (as in John 4:21; Matt. 24:42), but most frequently a definite division of the day, corresponding to our use of hour, though varying in length according to the season. All that is here intended is, that the miraculous effect, as usual, was instantaneous. (See above, on 3:7; 5:10; 9:18, 34; 13:11.)

19. Her masters, owners, or employers (see above, on v. 16.) Seeing, by her silence, or the change in her demeanour at the moment; or perceiving afterwards, that her extraordinary gift was lost. Gains, in the plural, is derived from Tyndale and Cranmer, whereas the other old English versions give it more exactly in the singular. The hope of their gain, or their hope of gain, not only their actual immediate profit, but their prospect of it for the future, upon which they may have been depending for subsistence. Was gone, literally, gone out, with obvious allusion to the use of the same word in the preceding verse. The spirit went out, and their hope of gain went out with it. Caught, literally, catching, seizing, or arresting, as in 18:17; 21:30, 33, though the Greek verb does not always imply violence (see above, on 9:27, and below, on 17:19; 23:19.) Paul and Silas are not put for the whole company, but specifically mentioned as the only two arrested, Timothy and Luke having probably attracted no attention, from their silence or their obvious subordination to the others. Drew is not so strong a word as that employed in 8:3; 14:19, being sometimes applied to the drawing of a sword (John 18:10), or of a net (John 21:6, 11), or of men by moral, spiritual influence (John 6:44; 12:32.) The market-place, agora, or forum, the chief place of concourse in an ancient city (compare Matt. 11:16; 20:3; 23:7; Mark 6:56; 7:4), sometimes in the centre, sometimes just within the gate, where business was transacted, both commercial and judicial. Rulers, a generic term, denoting those who take the lead, especially in government, and rendered more specific in the next verse. (see above, on 3:17; 4:5, 8, 26; 7:27, 35; 13:27; 14:5.)

20. Brought (literally, bringing), i.e. formally presenting or arraigning, as distinguished from the violent, tumultuous drawing, which had just been mentioned. (For a very different use of the same verb as a nautical term, see below, on 27:27.) Magistrates, literally, generals, or leaders of an army, but transferred in military governments or those of a military origin, to civil rulers of a certain rank. By the Greek historians of Rome, it is used as an equivalent to Prœtores, a title which (as Cicero informs us) was affected by colonial and provincial rulers. Philippi, as a Roman colony (see above, on v. 12), was no doubt organized in imitation of the great metropolis, with its Duumviri or miniature Consuls, who are probably the persons here intended, not as a distinct class from the rulers of v. 19, but as a more exact specification of that vague description. They drew them to the forum, as the place where the magistrates or rulers usually sat, and actually brought them up before the Duumviri or Prætors whom they found there. The real ground of the original disturbance is entirely suppressed, and one of a more public nature substituted; just as Christ himself was condemned by the Sanhedrim as a blasphemer, and then accused by them to Pilate as a traitor and a rebel. (See Luke 22:66–71; 23:1; John 18:19; 19:12.) Exceedingly trouble is in Greek an emphatic compound, strictly meaning to out-trouble, or to trouble out, i.e. to drive out of the regular and normal state by stirring up disturbance. "Being Jews to begin with," as an English writer somewhat quaintly phrases it; but this agrees better with the English than the Greek collocation of the sentence, in which the phrase (being Jews) comes after the chief accusation. It is, however, no doubt introduced as an additional or aggravating circumstance, intended to excite the national antipathy of the Roman colonists. As if he had said, 'who, by the bye, are Jews, and therefore less excusable for this intrusion.'

21. This is not a new charge, but a mere specification of the one in the preceding verse, explaining how these Jews disturbed the city, namely, by attempting to introduce a new religion. Teach is precisely the same word that is translated show in v. 17, though really meaning in both cases to announce, declare, but not without an implication of requirement and authority, like that suggested by the word proclaim, from its habitual association with the acts of governments or rulers. Customs, or rather institutions, whether established by law or usage. See above, on 6:14; 15:1, where the term is applied, both in the singular and plural, to the Law of Moses. This is also the sense here, as the Philippian colonists had probably no notion of the difference between Jews and Christians. Are not lawful gives the sense but not the form of the original, in which the construction is impersonal, it is not lawful, or still more strictly, possible, but in a moral, not a physical sense, i.e. admissible, right, proper. The same form occurs above in 8:37, and the participle in 2:29. To receive, admit, or adopt in theory. To observe (literally, do) in practice. (For a similar combination of work and counsel, see above, on 5:38.) Being Romans, an obvious antithesis to being Jews in the preceding verse, and intended as a double aggravation of the charge, that Jews should dare to force their own religion upon Romans. The appeal is rather to the pride of race or national connection than to the Roman laws, which allowed the exercise of different religions, but forbade conversions and innovations without public sanction and authority. Mæcenas is said to have advised Augustus to abide by the hereditary worship, and make others do the same, prohibiting all novelties, as tending necessarily to insubordination and confusion. It was this worldly policy, rather than any bigoted hostility, with which Christianity at first had to struggle in the Roman Empire.

22. The appeal to the prejudices of the Roman population was successful. The multitude, crowd, mob, or rabble, as distinguished from the magistrates or rulers, before whom Paul and Silas were arraigned. Rose up together, not with one another merely, by a general and simultaneous movement, but with the accusers, in conjunction or in concert with them. The charges, prompted by the selfish wishes or resentments of the owners of the slave, were now effectually seconded by the excited passions of the populace. The first clause of this verse explains the second. It is plain that the rulers were unable or unwilling to resist the multitude, and therefore, it would seem, without even the form of a judicial process, hastened to inflict a painful and disgraceful punishment upon the strangers. Rent off their clothes, literally, tore around (or from around) them the clothes, not their own, as some imagine, which would be wholly out of character in Romans, but those of Paul and Silas. Clothes, not their outer garments merely, as the Greek word means when used distinctively (see above, on 7:58; 9:39; 12:8; 14:14), but their garments generally, as it was the custom to inflict this punishment upon the naked back and shoulders. To beat them with rods, as the original word, from its very etymology, specifically signifies. (The nearest equivalent in English is to cane them.) This is one of the three cases, to which Paul refers in 2 Cor. 11:25; the other two are not on record. He also alludes to this disgraceful punishment in 1 Thess. 2:2. As the magistrates commanded them to be beaten by others, some suppose them to have also torn off their clothes by proxy; but as this is not expressed, they may have performed that act themselves, in order to convince the mob of their zeal in executing its commands, and possibly by this unlawful violence to save the prisoners from something worse.

23. Having laid, imposed, inflicted, by the hands of their officers or others, whom they are said to have commanded in v. 22. Many stripes, strokes or blows, there being no such merciful restriction in the Roman practice, as in that of the Jews (2 Cor. 11:24), or rather in the law of Moses (Deut. 25:3.) Cast (or threw) them does not necessarily imply literal violence, but may simply mean committed them to prison. (See below, on 22:4; 26:10.) But considering the violent, tumultuary character of the whole proceeding, and the way in which the magistrates were evidently urged on by the people, the word may be strictly understood as denoting, not only the imprisonment of Paul and Silas, but the harshness with which it was effected, by the agents of the magistrates, if not by their own hands. This last, though not a necessary supposition, agrees well, not only with the view already taken of their motives, but with the words of the remaining clause, which seem more naturally to suggest the idea of personal or oral charge than that of a mere message or a written order. The scene thus presented is a vivid one, but not without its parallels in real life; the magistrates, unable to resist the mob, apparently complying with its wishes, but really providing for the safety of the victims, first by an unjust punishment, and then by false imprisonment, officiously demanding of the jailer more than usual fidelity and strictness in the execution of his trust; for these words cannot mean mere ordinary diligence or care, as appears from the whole connection, and especially from what is added in the following verse. Safely, surely, or infallibly. (See above, on 2:36, and compare Mark 14:44.)

24. The jailer (literally, prison-guard or keeper) is not here represented as exceeding his commission, and cruelly aggravating the condition of his prisoners, as some suppose, by wanton and gratuitous severities, but simply as obeying the command of his superiors, which is therefore here repeated, or again referred to, as a sort of explanation or apology for his proceedings. Having received such a charge (or peremptory order), what was there left but to obey it? Or the sense may be otherwise expressed in this way: it was not from any cruelty or malice upon his part, but because he had received such a special order that he did what follows. The slight but obvious suggestion of this extenuating circumstance may possibly be owing to the fact that when the history was written this Philippian jailer was an eminent disciple. (See below, on vs. 33, 40.) Thrust is precisely the same verb that is translated cast in the preceding verse, and admits of the same wide or strict interpretation. The inner prison is by some understood to mean a subterranean dungeon; but the phrase necessarily expresses nothing more than greater distance from the entrance, and as a consequence of this, more security, not only from the chances of escape, but also from the fury of the mob. Made their feet fast, literally, safe, secure, in the stocks, literally, into (i.e. by putting them into) the wood, log, or block, an instrument employed in ancient times, not only for safe-keeping, but for punishment, the limbs being stretched as well as fastened. This implement of torture (called in Latin nervus) was sometimes more and sometimes less complex in structure, which accounts for the various descriptions given by the ancient writers.

25. At, about, or towards. (See above, on 12:1, and below, on 19:23; 27:27.) Praying, hymned (or sang to) God, seems to express, not two distinct acts, as in the English version, but the single act of lyrical worship, or praying (i.e. worshipping or calling upon God) by singing or chanting, perhaps one or more of the many passages in the Book of Psalms peculiarly adapted and intended for the use of prisoners and others under persecution. Or the reference may be to similar expressions of religious feeling, spontaneously suggested by their circumstances, or by a special divine influence, but not to metrical, much less to rhymed hymns, and to artificial melodies, with which we now associate the term, but which are usages of later date. This psalmody of Paul and Silas showed their confidence in God and their superiority to human spite and violence. The difference in this respect between their case and that of Peter, as described in 12:6, shows that the one account has not, as some pretend, been copied from the other, but that each is independently authentic and original. That two such imprisonments and two such liberations should have taken place, is less improbable and strange, than that God should have thus interposed in one case only. Heard them should rather be were listening to them, the imperfect tense suggesting the idea of continued action. That Luke may have received an account of what took place in the prison from one of these ear-witnesses, is not impossible, though quite unnecessary to account for his minute description.

26. There was (began to be, took place, or happened) a great earthquake, strictly a commotion, shaking, once translated tempest (Matt. 8:24), but always elsewhere used in the specific sense of earthquake. Immediately, at once, simultaneously, and not successively, as when they were opened by the hands of men. All the doors, not only the external entrance, but the intermediate ones conducting to the "inner prison." (See above, on v. 24.) Every one's, in Greek a plural form, of all. Bands, i.e. fetters, chains, or other means used to confine the limbs. Loosed, relaxed, let go, also used as a nautical term (see below, on 27:40), and in a metaphorical or moral sense (Eph. 6:9; Heb. 13:3.) Some understand it here as denoting mere relaxation or diminished pressure; but the context seems to indicate the stronger sense of total liberation from constraint (but see below, upon the next verse.)

27. Becoming sleepless or awake (ἔξυπνος.) Seeing, either from the place where he was lying, or more probably, on rising and passing through the several wards or subdivisions of the prison, which he found all open, or more exactly opened, i.e. just opened, implying that they had been shut and locked as usual. (See above, on 7:56.) Having drawn a sword, perhaps one that happened to be near him, but more probably the one which he habitually wore, it may be even in his sleep, or which he seized as soon as he awoke. There can be little doubt that the keeper of this prison in a military colony of Rome (see above, on v. 1) was himself a Roman soldier, or at least subjected to the Roman discipline. His very title (see above, on v. 23) seems indicative of military service. Would have killed, or more exactly, was (just) about to kill, or on the point of despatching (making away with) himself. (For the usage of the two verbs, see above, on 3:3; 5:35; 11:28; 12:6; 13:34, and on 2:23; 5:33, 36; 7:28; 9:23, 24; 29; 10:39; 12:2; 13:28.) Self-destruction was considered by the Romans as not only lawful, but a duty or a virtue under certain circumstances. Cato's suicide was celebrated as a heroic act, and by a singular historical coincidence, this very city of Philippi, or its neighbourhood, had been signalized, within a hundred years, not only by the great defeat of Brutus and Cassius (see above, on v. 1), but by the suicide of both, and by a sort of wholesale self-destruction on the part of their adherents who had been proscribed by Octavian and Anthony. There is something rather providential than fortuitous in this rescue of a virtual self-murderer on a spot which had been consecrated, as it were, to suicide by such examples. Supposing the prisoners to have escaped, and considering himself liable, according to the rigorous requirements of the Roman law or discipline, to suffer in their stead. This penalty, including the disgrace of having forfeited his trust, and literally slept upon his post, which could not have been justified to his superiors, or even to himself, by any allegation of a miracle, seemed worse, at least to the excited feelings of this heathen jailer, than any thing to be expected in a future state; a delusion which might seem incredible, but for the daily proofs of its existence in our own times, and amidst the clearest light of Christianity.

28. Cried, called, or as the verb itself originally means, raised his voice, which is then separately expressed, with a loud (literally, a great) voice. (See above, on 7:57, 60; 8:7; 14:10.) Harm, literally evil, which may perhaps suggest the ideas both of bodily violence and moral wrong. As if he had said, 'Neither hurt thy body nor sin against thy soul.' We are all here, i.e. all the prisoners, not only Paul and Silas, but those who were confined before them, and who were described in v. 25 as listening to the prayers and praises of the two new comers. This seems to imply, that if not in the same apartment, i.e. the inner prison (see above, on v. 23), they were near at hand, and that Paul could therefore see them to be still there when he spoke; although he may, with equal probability, be understood as making this assertion on direct divine authority. The fact itself, that all the prisoners remained, without embracing the occasion of escape, is supposed by some to prove that their chains were only loosened, not entirely removed (see above, on v. 27), while others more correctly refer it to a special divine influence, or to the natural effect of certain physical phenomena, such as storms, eclipses, earthquakes and the like, in generating a religious awe, even where there is nothing properly miraculous. If prisoners, even in such cases, might forego the opportunity of liberation, how much more credible is such forbearance or neglect in this case, where the circumstances were so evidently preternatural, and where the supposition of a special divine influence upon their minds, although not requisite, is so admissible.

29. Having asked for (or demanded) is the active form of the verb used in 3:2, 14; 7:46; 9:2; 12:20; 13:21, 28. A light, literally, lights, which may either be a generic plural simply equivalent in meaning to the singular, or really denote a plurality of lamps or torches, brought by different attendants and from different apartments of the prison. Sprang in is by some understood to mean that he leaped down into the subterranean dungeon, with which they identify the "inner prison" of v. 23. But it probably denotes nothing more than his abrupt and hurried entrance into the ward or cell where Paul and Silas were confined. Came trembling introduces an idea not expressed in the original, which strictly means, becoming tremulous, i.e. beginning to tremble, as a natural external sign of fear. The very same phrase is translated elsewhere by the one word trembled, and almost the same by quake. (See above, on 7:32, and compare Heb. 12:21.) Fell down before, in Greek a very strong expression, meaning fell to or against, conveying the idea of a passive or powerless rather than an active and deliberate prostration. It is usually rendered as it is here (see Luke 8:28, 47; Mark, 3:11; 5:33), but once fell at (Mark 7:25), once fell down at (Luke 3:8), and once, in reference to a tempest, beat upon (Matt. 7:25, the only place where it is not applied to persons.) It here expresses, in the strongest and most vivid form, the terror and despair of the awakened jailer, and the awe with which he looked upon the two men whom he had so recently committed to the closest and most rigorous confinement.

30. Brought out, literally, leading forth (or forward), not from the house into the street or open air, but from the "inner" to the "outer prison," which was no doubt a more spacious, light, and airy place. This was, therefore, of itself an act of deference, if not of kindness, which prepares the way for what subsequently passed between them. Sirs is not the word so rendered in 7:26; 14:15, and in many other places Men, which is its proper meaning (see above, on 1:11, 16; 2:14, 22, 29, 37; 3:12; 5:35; 7:2; 13:15, 26; 15:7, 13), but the word translated Masters in vs. 16, 19, and used in Greek, as that word is in English, to express respect and courtesy, especially to strangers. What must I do, or retaining the original impersonal construction, what is it necessary for me to do, a stronger and more definite expression, though substantially equivalent to that used in 2:37 (what shall we do?) and there explained. It is rendered still more pointed and explicit by the additional words, that I may be saved? This does not mean delivered from the wrath of his superiors, which he had not incurred, as the prisoners were all safe, and from which Paul and Silas could not be expected to protect him, or even to advise him how to save himself. Nor does it mean delivered from the anger of the gods, by whom these strangers seemed to be protected, and who might therefore be expected to avenge their wrongs. If this had been his meaning, it would have been otherwise expressed, and not in terms appropriated in this history and throughout the New Testament to the expression of a wholly different idea. Nor would the Apostles have replied to such a question as they did, unless we adopt the forced hypothesis, that he inquired in one sense and they answered in another. The only natural and satisfactory interpretation is the obvious and common one, that saved is here used in its highest and most comprehensive sense, that of deliverance from sin and ruin, guilt and punishment, the wrath of God and everlasting exclusion from his presence. The assertion that a heathen could not seek salvation in this sense, is an absurdity, refuted by the case of every Gentile convert; and that this person in particular had heard of the new doctrine, and had even heard it preached by Paul and Silas, is decidedly more probable than that he had not.

31–33. This answer, though entirely different in form from that of Peter to the same inquiry on the day of Pentecost (see above, on 2:38), is perfectly harmonious in substance, saving faith and evangelical repentance being inseparable in experience, and mutually implying one another. Baptism, although not included in Paul's answer, as it is in Peter's, was actually administered in either case. Thou and thy house (or household, see above, on v. 15), does not mean that they were to be saved by his faith, but by faith in the same Saviour. Before receiving them as converts or disciples, Paul and Silas now instructed them more fully in the doctrine of Christ, or the word of the Lord (see above, on 8:25; 13:48, 49; 15:35, 36.) Spake (or talked) may here denote a more colloquial instruction than in other cases (see above, on vs. 6, 13, 14, and on 4:1, 17, 31; 5:20, 40; 6:10; 8:25; 9:29; 10:44; 11:19, 20; 13:42, 46; 14:1, 9, 25); but the difference, if real, is suggested by the context. All those, or all the (persons) being in his house or dwelling, which may include his family and all dependent on him. Taking them, the same word that is used above in 15:39, where it evidently means taking away as well as taking along or with one. As Barnabas there leaves the company of Paul and takes Mark with him, so here the jailer takes Paul and Silas from the society of their fellow-prisoners into that of his own household. The same hour, literally, in that (very) hour, late and unseasonable as it was (see above, on v. 18.) Washed their stripes, literally, from the stripes, i.e. from the blood or wounds occasioned by them. The Greek verb (λούω) usually means to bathe or wash the body, as another (νίπτω) does to wash the face, hands, or feet (see Matt. 6:17; Mark 7:3; John 13:5); but the former does not necessarily imply a greater quantity of water, or require the supposition of a cistern or a swimming bath. Even granting Chrysostom's suggestion, therefore, that the washing was reciprocal, he cleansing them and they baptizing him, perhaps in the same water, nothing follows as to his immersion, since both ablutions may have been performed at the mouth of a deep well, or even with a bowl of water brought in for the purpose. Here again, the narrative proves nothing by itself, but will always be interpreted according to the previous conclusions of the reader. He who regards immersion as the essence of the rite, will of course assume the one wherever the other is mentioned; he who does not will find it hard to believe that the jailer of Philippi and his household were immersed at midnight (straightway, on the spot, or at the moment, see above, on v. 26; 3:7; 5:10; 9:18; 12:5, 13:11), either inside or outside of the prison. The same thing may be said, mutandis mutatis, of the phrase all his. He who considers infants as excluded from this ordinance by its very nature, will of course exclude them from the all here mentioned; he who regards them as entitled to it by the stipulations of a divine covenant will just as naturally give the word its widest application. What is most important is to settle this disputed question upon other grounds and higher principles, and then explain these historical details accordingly.

34. Leading (or having led) them up into his house, which was probably above the prison, or perhaps the upper part of the same building. He set meat before them is in Greek he set a table, placed a table near (or by them), a natural expression in all languages for giving food, and more especially for furnishing a regular repast or meal. There is no need, therefore, of supposing an allusion to the moveable tables of the East, or of the Greeks and Romans in the age of the apostles. That this was a communion or a love-feast, although not a necessary supposition, agrees well with the customary combination, in the early church, of social intercourse and sacramental services. (See above, on 2:42, 46.) Rejoiced, exulted, a peculiar Hellenistic verb, not found in classic Greek (see above, on 2:26.) With all his house, in Greek an adverb, used to signify what men do with their whole families or households, not excepting children, whom none perhaps would here exclude, as they are capable of joy, if not of baptism. But their comprehension in the phrase here used requires still stronger proof that they are not so comprehended in the equally wide terms of vs. 31 and 32 above. That there were no children, may be easily assumed in one case, but is highly improbable in many. Believing (or more exactly, having believed or trusted) in God, i.e. in his mercy for salvation. This may denote mere sequence or succession, that after his conversion he was joyful, but more probably assigns the cause or reason of his joy, to wit, that he had now believed. (See above, on 2:41, 46; 8:8; 13:52; 15:3.)

35, 36. Day having come, begun, or dawned. The magistrates. commanders, duumviri, or prætors (see above, on vs. 20, 22.) Serjeants, literally, rod-bearers, the ministerial officers of the colonial rulers, corresponding to the lictors of the Roman consuls. (Wiclif translates it by the homely English catchpoles.) Those men is hardly a contemptuous expression, being the only one that could well have been used, if the magistrates, as seems most likely, did not know their names. Let go, release, dismiss, the proper term for a judicial discharge (see above, on 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40), or any formal and official dismission (see above, on 13:3; 15:30, 33.) Whether this proceeding was intended by the rulers from the first, or occasioned by a change of mind on better information, or extorted by the earthquake and their superstitious fears, can only be determined by conjecture. Told, announced, reported, as in 4:23; 5:22, 25; 11:13; 12:14, 17; 15:27. He would naturally look upon this order as a happy deliverance for his prisoners as well as for himself, and expected them no doubt to accept it thankfully, as an unexpected condescension on the part of his superiors. Now therefore, so then, or accordingly, since such an opportunity of quietly withdrawing is afforded you. Depart, literally, going out, not only from the jail but from the city. Go, go away, depart, or journey. In peace may mean the same as with peace in 15:33, that is, with the blessing or good wishes of those left behind. But in this connection, it suggests the somewhat different though not incompatible idea of withdrawing quietly, without disturbance.

37. Unto them, the messengers, who therefore seem to have been present when the jailer told their errand, unless we suppose that Paul's answer was communicated through him, which appears less probable. They have beaten, literally, having flayed or skinned us, a strong expression often used in the New Testament for the severest kind of scourging. (See above, on 5:40, and below, on 22:19.) This is the first aggravating circumstance of which Paul here complains. Openly, publicly, before the people (see above, on 5:18, and below, on 18:28; 20:20.) This, as adding to the ignominy of their treatment, was a second aggravation. Uncondemned is a third, which does not mean that they were tried and found not guilty, but that they were not tried at all and could not therefore be condemned, a statement very similar to one of Cicero's, in charging Verres with a like violation of the rights of others. Being Romans (literally, Roman men) is the fourth and highest aggravation which he mentions of their false imprisonment, itself a gross injustice, if committed against any one, without authority of law, but fearfully enhanced in Roman eyes by its commission against Roman citizens. This does not mean natives or inhabitants of Rome, nor even of Italy, for Paul was neither. Nor does it mean merely subjects of the empire, for this was no distinction. But it means the honorary civitas or citizenship, granted as a special favour or reward to certain individuals or families, entitling them to many of the same immunities and positive advantages enjoyed by native Romans, and among the rest to absolute exemption from imprisonment and corporal punishment, except as the result of a judicial process. This sanctity of the person had become a part of their religion, and any violation of it was esteemed a sacrilege. The almost fanatical extreme to which this feeling had been carried is exemplified in Cicero's orations against Verres, one of whose offences was a violation of this privilege, which the orator describes as being known and reverenced not only throughout the empire but among barbarians, so that the simple words, "l am a Roman citizen," had hitherto sufficed as a protection anywhere. All this illustrates the effect produced by Paul's disclosure of his civic rights, as described in the next verse. But why was this disclosure not made sooner, so as to prevent both scourging and imprisonment? Some say, because he was not questioned and had no opportunity of putting in his claim; but we find him, on a subsequent occasion, urging it without challenge or interrogation (see below, on 22:25.) Another explanation is that he was not heard in the tumult, or knew that he would not be heard and therefore remained silent. But it was in such critical emergencies that Cicero describes the three talismanic words (Romanus civis sum) as instantly disarming the most lawless violence; and these words, or their Greek equivalents, might certainly have reached some ears amidst the riot at Philippi. The only remaining supposition seems to be, that Paul intentionally suffered his own rights and person to be outraged, in order to secure a greater good than mere exemption from disgrace and suffering, not only by admonishing the magistrates to shun a repetition of their error, but by so departing from Philippi as to leave the infant church there under the protection of the laws and in possession of the popular respect. As to the origin of Paul's civic rights, we only know that he possessed them by hereditary right (see below, on 22:29), not as a citizen of Tarsus, for although that city was a free one, i.e. allowed to govern itself, as a reward for public services, this did not protect Paul from the punishment of scourging on a subsequent occasion (compare 21:39 with 22:24), till he had besides declared himself a Roman by hereditary right (22:29), i.e. most probably in recompense of services rendered by his father, or some other ancestor, to one or more of the contending parties in the civil wars. The same thing may have been true in the case of Silas, who had a Roman name (Silvanus) as well as Paul; but some suppose that he is here included in the general description, just as Barnabas and Paul are called Apostles (see above, on 14:4, 14.) And now, after all this public injury and insult. Do they thrust us (literally, cast us) out, the converse of the term used in vs. 23, 24, and like it necessarily suggesting the idea of some force or violence, to wit, that of freeing them or sending them away against their will, at least in point of time and manner. The clause may also be affirmatively rendered, they are thrusting us out (or driving us away); but the interrogative construction has a stronger tone of indignation and expostulation. It also agrees better with the next clause, in which Paul seems to answer his own question. Nay verily, if closely rendered, would be no, for, an elliptical expression wholly foreign from our idiom, but which may thus be amplified, no (they shall not do so), for (we will not submit to it), but let them come, &c. The original construction of the last clause is, coming let them fetch us out, or lead us forth, another compound form of the verb used above in v. 30. Two things have always been admired in this verse; Paul's condensed and pointed statement of the case, in which it has been said that every word is full of meaning; and the moral courage, calm decision, and sound judgment, which he showed in the assertion of his legal rights, precisely when it was most likely to be useful to himself and others. This is enough to show how far he was from putting a fanatical or rigorous interpretation on our Saviour's principle of non-resistance (Matt. 5:39; Luke 6:29), which, like many other precepts in the same discourse, teaches what we should be willing to endure in an extreme case, but without abolishing our right and duty to determine when that case occurs. Thus Paul obeyed it, both in letter and in spirit, by submitting to maltreatment and by afterwards resenting it, as either of these courses seemed most likely to do good to men and honour to God.

38, 39. Told, the same verb that is elsewhere rendered rehearsed (14:27), and declared (15:4), but in all these cases has the more specific sense, reported, carried back, implying previous departure or communication. Feared, or adhering to the passive form of the original, were frightened, or afraid, which is itself a passive participle, although now used only as an adjective. When they heard, having heard, or hearing. That they were, literally, that they are, the present tense, in this as in many other cases, calling up the scene before the reader's mind as actually passing. (See above, on 7:25.) Came and (literally, coming) besought, invited, or exhorted (see above, on vs. 9, 15); but the strongest sense is here the most appropriate. What they besought them to do is stated in the last clause. And brought (literally, bringing, or having brought) them out, i.e. out of the prison or the jailer's house, which were probably the same (see above, on v. 37.) Desired, literally, asked, inquired, but in Hellenistic Greek also meaning to ask a favour, or inquire whether one will do it, which agrees exactly with the usage of the corresponding word in English. (See above, on 3:3; 10:48.) Depart out is in Greek simply go out, as in v. 36 above. This was not intended as an insult, but as a precautionary measure to ensure their safety and the public peace.

40. Even in complying with this natural request, Paul and Silas seem to have avoided all appearance of timidity or haste, for which indeed they had a double motive; first, to make such an impression of their own respectability and innocence, as might serve to neutralize their previous maltreatment, and prevent its repetition in the case of the disciples whom they left behind; and secondly, to part from these disciples in a suitable and edifying manner. This they did by deliberately going from the prison to the house of Lydia, where the church had been originally formed, and where it was accustomed to assemble (see above, on v. 16.) And having seen the brethren, no doubt gathered for the purpose, they exhorted them, the more specific sense of consolation being really included, and departed, went out, from Philippi. Such was the first organization of a Christian church in Europe, of which we have any authentic record, that of Rome resting merely on a vague tradition, though its date may certainly have been much earlier, as well as that of many others, founded by the foreign converts on the day of Pentecost, who afterwards returned to their respective homes. It is remarkable, however, that of such organizations there is no memorial in Scripture, while the narrative before us leaves the natural impression, that the one which it records, if not really the first in time, was designed to hold the first place in the memory of men, as the earliest fruits of Apostolical labour in the territory settled by the sons of Japhet. Another claim to this preeminence is founded on the singular affection which the great Apostle cherished towards this people, and which still appears as fresh as ever in his short epistle to the church of the Philippians, between which and the narrative before us there are many cross lights of reciprocal elucidation. A peculiar mark of his attachment was his breaking or suspending his own rule of self-support among the Gentiles, by accepting contributions from this church when he refused them from all others. (See Phil. 4:10–16; 2 Cor. 11:7–12.) As the subjects of the verbs in this verse, and the whole preceding context, must be Paul and Silas, they alone are here expressly said to have departed. This does not forbid the supposition that both Timothy and Luke went with them, and in 17:14, we find the former with them at Berea; but the use of the first person, which is commonly regarded as the token of Luke's presence, does not reappear until the close of Paul's next European mission (see above, on v. 10, and below, on 20:5.) This, although not conclusive evidence, creates a strong presumption that Paul left him at Philippi, either to attend to his own business, or more probably to nurse and train the infant church, which may have owed to him, as a chosen instrument in God's hand, that early advancement in the spiritual life which Paul so thankfully acknowledges long after. (See Phil. 1:3–5.)

CHAPTER 17

THE account is still continued of Paul's apostolical and missionary labours in the two great provinces of Greece, Macedonia and Achaia. He passes through Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica (1.) He preaches there with great success (2–4.) The Jews raise a persecution (5–9.) The same things happen at Berea (10–13.) Paul, leaving Silas and Timothy behind, removes to Athens (14–15.) He preaches in the synagogue and in the market (16–18.) He is brought to the Areopagus and requested to gratify the curiosity of the Athenians (19–21.) Taking occasion from an altar to an unknown God, he teaches them that the Creator cannot be confined to temples or in need of human care (22–25.) He is himself the source of all existence, and the common father of all nations, whose history is ordered by his providence, with a view to his own glory (26–27.) As the father of the human race, he is dishonoured by the use of images to represent him (28–29.) This practice he has hitherto endured, but now forbids and will inexorably judge, through Christ whom he has raised from the dead (30–31.) At this point his audience refuse to hear him further, and he leaves them, but not without having gained some converts, two of whom are named (32–34.)

1. The history of the Macedonian mission is continued without interruption. Having made their way (or journeyed) through Amphipolis and Apollonia, it would seem without stopping, probably because there were no Jews, or at least no synagogues, in those two cities. Amphipolis, an Athenian colony, famous in the history of Greece, almost surrounded by the river Strymon, a circumstance indicated by its name. It was above thirty miles west of Philippi; Apollonia as many miles still further west; Thessalonica about as far, still in the same direction. When Paulus Æmilius, the Roman conqueror of Macedonia, divided it into four provinces or districts, Amphipolis was the chief town of the first, and Thessalonica of the second. When all Greece was afterwards divided into two great provinces, Macedonia and Achaia, Thessalonica was the capital of the former. It was anciently called Thermae, but Cassander, who rebuilt and fortified it, named it in honour of his wife, the sister of Alexander the Great, who had herself been so named by her father Philip in commemoration of a great Thessalian victory. The fine situation of the town at the head of the Thermaic gulf, and on the great Egnatian road from Italy to Asia, gave it early importance, both commercial and political, which it has ever since retained; being still one of the most flourishing cities of the Turkish Empire, under the abbreviated name of Salonica or Saloniki. A synagogue, or more exactly, the synagogue, i.e. the well-known or famous synagogue; or still more probably, the only one to which they had yet come in Macedonia. The Jews appear to have been always numerous in this place, and at present constitute a large proportion of the population.

2. According to the custom (or what was customary) to Paul, he went in, &c. A similar practice of our Saviour is expressed in the same manner, Luke 4:16. Paul was so far from having ceased his efforts to convert the Jews, that he still began with these wherever he went. (See above, on 13:46.) This also afforded him the best means of access to serious and inquiring Gentiles. Upon (or for) three sabbaths, which implies a stay there of at least two weeks, but without forbidding the supposition of a much longer one, which some prefer, as more in keeping with the statements and allusions in the two epistles to the Thessalonians, presupposing a longer residence and a more intimate acquaintance with the people. Some, however, think a residence of two or three weeks quite sufficient to account for all that is there said; while others arbitrarily refer it to a later visit. Reasoned, or discoursed argumentatively, either in the way of dialogue, which is the primary meaning of the Greek verb (see above, on 1:19; 2:6, 8), or in that of formal and continuous discourse. Out of (or from) the Scriptures, as the source and starting-point of all his teachings. Some connect this with what follows, out of the Scriptures opening, &c. But although the division of the verses is without authority, it seems here to assume the true construction.

3. Opening, in Greek an emphatic compounding, opening out or through, i.e. completely opening or explaining. The same word is elsewhere applied by Luke to the Scriptures themselves as the subject of instruction (Luke 24:32), and also to the minds of those instructed (Luke 24:45.) Alleging, or propounding, setting forth, as in Matt. 13:24, 31. (For other senses of the same verb, see above, on 14:23; 16:34.) The distinction here is variously supposed to be that between particular and general instruction, or between synthetical and analytical ratiocination, but is more probably between elucidation or solution of difficulties, and the authoritative proposition of things to be believed. It was necessary, made so by the divine purpose as revealed in the Old Testament. For the Christ (the Messiah there predicted) to suffer (and especially to die, see above, on 1:3) as a sacrifice for sin, a doctrine which the Jews had very commonly lost sight of. And to rise from the dead, as the appointed test of his divine legation, and a necessary proof that his great work was accomplished. And that this (suffering and rising Messiah foretold by the prophets) is (no other than) the Jesus Christ whom I announce to you. The usual construction (this Jesus is the Christ) is not so natural or easy; and the sense which it affords, though good, is less complete and less appropriate in this connection. We learn from this verse, that the two great doctrines preached by Paul at Thessalonica were those of a suffering Messiah and of his identity with Jesus of Nazareth.

4. The immediate success of his preaching appears to have been great. Some of them, i.e. of the Jews and Proselytes at Thessalonica. Believed, literally, were persuaded (or convinced) of the truth of Christianity. This inward conviction was followed by a corresponding outward profession or admission to the church. Consorted with (or more exactly, were allotted to) Paul and Silas, by divine grace, as their portion, or the fruit of their ministry. The effect thus produced upon the Jews extended also to the Proselytes, as the writer adds distinctly in the last clause. And (τε, as well as) of the worshipping Greeks, i.e. Gentiles (so called because Greek was now the general language) who worshipped in the synagogue, or worshipped the true God, whether professed converts to the Jewish faith or not. (See above, on 13:43, 50; 16:14.) A great (literally, much) multitude, an indefinite but strong expression, showing in a general but striking way the extent of the effect produced by the first preaching of the Gospel in the capital of Macedonia. And (τε, also, or as well as) of the first women, i.e. first in rank and social position. (See below, on v. 12, and above, on 13:50.) The reference is still, as it would seem, to the Jewesses and female Proselytes, through whom, however, the Apostle, no doubt, obtained access to the Gentile population, out of which the church at Thessalonica seems to have been chiefly gathered. (See 1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14; 4:5.) We have here indeed recorded only the beginning and the end of Paul's Thessalonian ministry. In his two epistles to the church there, we have a more particular account both of the method and the spirit of that ministry, as well as of Paul's self-denying labours to support himself and his companions. (See above, on 16:40, and below, on 20:34, and compare 1 Thess. 1:5; 2:1–11; 2 Thess. 3:7–10.)

5. Unbelieving (and disobedient), see above, on 14:2. Moved with envy, as in 7:9, answers to a single word in Greek, and that an active participle, envying or being jealous, i.e. of the influence exerted by the strangers. (See above, on 5:17; 13:45.) Taking to (themselves), into their company and councils. Certain fellows, literally, some men. Lewd, or more generally, wicked, or as the word is sometimes used in such connections by the classical writers, mean, low, referring directly to their social standing, but by necessary implication to their moral character. This is perhaps the sense expressed by our version, of the baser sort, or this may correspond to another word in the original strictly meaning of the market, or belonging to the forum, but familiarly applied to idlers who frequented public places, without employment or respectability. Almost the same terms are combined by Aristophanes to describe a person of the same class in his own times. Gathered a company, or rather, made a mob (or riot.) Set all the city on an uproar, literally, disturbed the city. Assaulted, literally, standing over, coming suddenly upon, the actual attack being certainly implied, if not expressed. (See above, on 4:1; 6:12; 12:7.) Jason, the Greek name borne by a Jewish resident, perhaps corresponding to the Hebrew Joshua (or Jesus, see above, on 7:45.) It is here implied, and afterwards affirmed, that Paul was lodged or entertained by this man, possibly because he was of the same trade and could give him work, as Aquila did in Corinth. (See below, on 18:3.) To the people, not the mob, but into the assembly, or the people in their corporate capacity, Thessalonica being a free city, like Tarsus, and not a Roman colony like Philippi. (See above, on 12:22; 16:1, 37.)

6. Not finding them, i.e. Paul and his companions, as in the preceding verse. Drew, violently dragged, the same verb that is used above in 8:3; 14:19. Certain brethren, some disciples or believers, converts to Christianity since Paul's arrival. Rulers of the city, in Greek one compound word, Politarchs, the proper designation of the elective magistrates of this free city, as distinguished from the Prætors or Duumviri (στράτηγοι) of a Roman colony. (See above, on 16:20.) Luke's unstudied but exact precision in the use of these official titles has been justly urged as a strong incidental proof of authenticity. A further confirmation of his accuracy is afforded by an ancient arch still standing at Thessalonica, inscribed with the names of seven Politarchs, three of which, by a curious coincidence, are also the names of three Macedonians elsewhere mentioned as Paul's travelling companions, viz. Sopater, Gaius, and Secundus. (See below, on 20:4.) Crying, shouting, or bellowing, a word suggestive of unusual excitement and confusion. The world, the inhabited (earth), the Roman empire. (See above, on 11:28.) Turned upside down, elsewhere translated made an uproar, and troubled. (See below, on 21:38, and compare Gal. 5:12.) It is a verb belonging to the later Greek, and strictly meaning to produce a state of insurrection or rebellion, and therefore very nearly corresponding to revolutionize in modern English. The idea meant to be conveyed is evidently that of social disturbance and disorganization; but the figure of turning upside down is not in the original. (See below, on v. 30, where a similar but more objectionable liberty is taken by the common version.) These also here are present, implying that they had been often heard of elsewhere, which indeed is altogether natural, considering how long the Gospel had been preached, and the political tendencies with which it had been charged from the beginning. (See below, upon the next verse, and the passages there cited.) The Geneva version of this clause is, "these are they which have subverted the state of the world, and here they are!"

7. Received under (his roof or his protection.) Compare the use of the same verb in Luke 10:38; 19:6; James 2:25, in all which cases it is rendered by the simple verb received, although really expessing shelter and hospitable entertainment. These all, not merely Jason and his guests, but the whole sect or party which they represent. Do, act, practise, as distinguished from a single momentary action. The decrees of Cesar, the laws or edicts (or in a wider sense, the sovereignty and government) of the Roman Emperors, who bore as an official title the name of their great predecessor, Julius Cesar. It properly denoted one branch of the noble Julian race or family, but was adopted by Augustus and his successors, even after the race had ceased to reign, until Hadrian assigned it to the secondary emperor or heir-apparent, reserving that of Augustus for the actual sovereign. The particular violation of the imperial rights here charged was the proclamation of a rival sovereign. The word king (rex) was abjured by the Romans after the expulsion of the Tarquins, so that when monarchical institutions were restored with greater pomp and power than ever, the name assumed was really a military one (imperator, commander), although now considered higher than king itself. Had Luke been writing in Latin, the use of the word king would have been contrary to usage, and at least a pretext for some skeptical misgiving; but the Greek writers constantly applied the corresponding Greek word even to the Roman Emperors. The charge itself may be regarded either as a Jewish calumny, like that alleged against our Lord himself (Matt. 27:11, 12; Mark 15:2, 3; Luke 23:2; John 18:33–37; 19:12), or as a misconception of Paul's Messianic doctrine, which appears to have been misapprehended even by the Thessalonian Christians. (See 1 Thess. 5:1; 2 Thess. 2:1.) One, supplied by the translators, makes the expression too contemptuous, implying that the name was never before heard there, which, however possible or even probable, is not suggested by the form of the original. (Wiclif's construction of the last clause is, that Jesus is another king.)

8, 9. Troubled, disturbed in mind, as in 15:24 above, a different verb from that in v. 6, which relates rather to external tumult and confusion. The people, populace, or mob, not the word so rendered in v. 5 above, and there explained. Rulers of the city, Politarchs, as in v. 6 above. Hearing these things, i.e. the charges first alleged against the Christians. Having taken security, literally enough, supposed to be a Latin law-phrase, the correlative of satisdare, to give bonds or security. From Jason and the others (or the rest), not Paul and his company, but the certain brethren mentioned in v. 6 above. Let them go, discharged them, a judicial term employed above in 16:35, 36, and often elsewhere. The security was probably to keep the peace, or to abstain from every thing opposed to the imperial government, or possibly to send away the causes or occasions of this tumult, as they did.

10. The brethren, disciples, Christians, acting in one body, as the same class had done long before, in a similar emergency, at Damascus and Jerusalem. (See above, on 9:25, 30.) Immediately, no doubt upon the same day, or in the course of the ensuing night. Sent away (or out from Thessalonica) both (τε) Paul and Silas, i.e. not only Paul, whose safety was particularly cared for, but also Silas, who might perhaps have been expected to remain, as he did at the next place from which Paul was driven. (See below, on v. 14.) Berea, another town of Macedonia, southwest of Thessalonica. It is a curious coincidence that Cicero, in his oration against Piso, represents him as escaping from the same Thessalonica to the same Berea. Coming thither, being there, having got there or arrived. (See above, on 5:21, 22, 25; 9:26, 39; 10:32, 33; 11:23; 13:14; 14:27; 15:4.) Went, or more exactly, went away, went out, perhaps because the synagogue was out of town, as at Philippi. (See above, on 16:13.)

11. These, i.e. the Jews of Berea, whose synagogue had just been mentioned. Calvin, it is true, understands it of the higher ranks, or first families in Thessalonica (the more noble of those in Thessalonica), a construction which appears to be adopted also in the Vulgate, and by Luther; but with these exceptions, interpreters appear to be unanimous in understanding it as a comparison between the Thessalonian and Berean Jews, the latter being represented as more noble in a moral sense, i.e. more candid and impartial, just and devoted to the truth. Received the word, i.e. listened to the preaching of the Gospel. Readiness of mind (Wiclif, desire; Tyndale, diligence of mind; Geneva, readiest affection; Rhemish, greediness.) They were not only open to conviction, but predisposed in favour of the new religion. (Day) by day, a strengthened form of the expression used above, in 2:46, 47; 3:2; 5:42, denoting not mere occasional but constant and assiduous investigation. Searching, the verb employed above in 4:9; 12:19, and properly denoting an official or judicial inquisition, thus suggesting the idea that they acted not as advocates or partisans, but judges, i.e. with unbiassed equanimity and conscientious love of truth. These things, i.e. the things taught by Paul and his companions, which had just been called the word. Were so, literally, had (themselves) so (see above, on 7:1; 12:15), i.e. as the Christian teachers represented.

12. Therefore, or rather, so then (see above, on 1:18; 2:41; 8:4, 25; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4; 14:3; 15:3, 30; 16:5), as might have been expected frosm these predispositions. Many of (or from among) them, the Berean Jews who had been just described. Believed in Christ, were converted, became Christians. And of the Grecian (i.e. Gentile) women, the respectable (see above, on 13:50.) The female converts were probably most numerous, and perhaps most distinguished, but of men too (there were also) not a few, i.e. there were many, as in v. 4, above.

13. Paul's labours at Berea were disturbed precisely as they had been at Lystra on his former mission. (See above, on 14:19.) Both cases serve to show not only the inveterate hostility, but the intelligence and energy, of these dispersed Jews, who appear to have been well informed of what was passing even at a distance, and habitually ready for decided action. Of (literally, from) Thessalonica, i.e. belonging to that place (see above, on 10:23, 38; 15:5, 19), not simply coming from it upon this occasion, for their coming is recorded in the last clause. The word of God, the Gospel, as a special revelation. (See above, on 4:31; 6:2, 7; 8:14; 11:1; 12:24; 13:5, 7, 44.) Preached, declared, announced, proclaimed (see above, on v. 3, and on 4:2; 13:5, 38; 15:36; 16:7, 21) of Paul, i.e. by Paul. Thither, literally, there, which some construe with what follows, there also stirring up the multitudes, because it is to this act, and not to that of coming, that the also must apply. Stirring up, exciting, agitating, elsewhere spoken both of bodily and mental agitation. (See above, on 2:25; 4:31; 16:26.)

14. Immediately then, i.e. as soon as this commotion had begun. The brethren, as in v. 10, implying the formation of a Christian society or church here also, as the fruit of the Apostle's short and interrupted visit. Sent away is not the same verb that is used in v. 10, but a somewhat more expressive double compound, meaning they sent out and away (to a distance, as in 7:12; 9:30; 11:22; 12:11.) To go, go away, depart, travel, journey. (See above, on 16:7, 16, 36.) As it were is in Greek a single word (ὡς) strictly meaning as, but often used by the best prose writers, with the preposition following it here (ὡς ἐπί), to signify the mere direction in which any thing or person moves, or at most the design to move in that direction. The full force of the phrase may be, to journey as (he must if he would get) to the sea. This idiom is so common in Thucydides, Polybius, and Xenophon, that it cannot be considered as implying an intention to elude pursuit, by seeming to go to the sea, but really journeying by land. That he actually went by sea, although not absolutely certain, is made highly probable, not only by its being easier and usually shorter than the land route, but also by Luke's silence as to any of the places through which he must have passed if he had gone by land. Both (ὡς) Silas and Timothy, not only Silas but Timothy, one of whom might have been expected to attend the Apostle. (See above, on v. 10.) Abode, not permanently, as the word in modern English usually means, but remained, continued, for a time, no doubt, according to Paul's constant practice, to watch and train the infant church there. It is very remarkable, considering the description above given (v. 11) of the class from which this church must have been chiefly formed, that it is never again mentioned, especially when such abundant evidence exists of Paul's solicitous regard for the Christians of Thessalonica and Philippi, in his three epistles to those churches still preserved in the New Testament canon. This silence has been variously explained, by supposing that although the word of God was preached in Berea (see above, on v. 13), no permanent society or church was formed there; or that it soon declined and died out; both of which hypotheses are far from having any antecedent probability.

15. Those conducting (or escorting) Paul, a different word from that in 15:3, and descriptive of a different proceeding, not, as in that case, the affectionate and honorary act of accompanying one for a short distance and then taking leave of him, but the more substantial service of attending him throughout a journey, both for guidance and protection. The word here used means strictly, putting (or setting) dovm, as a deposit in a place of safety, and is stronger than the corresponding phrase in English, as specially applied to the conveying of a person in a carriage to his home, or any other point along the way, while the carriage proceeds further. In the sense of conveying to one's destination, or his journey's end, the Greek verb is employed by the best ancient writers, and by Homer with specific reference to a voyage by sea. Brought (led, or conducted) him as far as (or even unto) Athens. For to come (see above, on 5:31.) The Greek construction is, that they as soon as possible (with all speed, or immediately) should come to him. This seems to favour the opinion that Silas and Timothy were merely left behind for safety, or to cover Paul's retreat, and that for want of time no church had been gathered at Berea, notwithstanding the favourable predispositions of the Jews there. (See above, on v. 14.) The urgent message sent to Silas and Timotheus may imply a wish for their assistance in the work which he believed to be awaiting him in Athens. But it may just as well imply a wish for such assistance in his work at Corinth, and an intention to remain at Athens only until they should join him. (See below, on v. 23.) The occurrences recorded in the rest of this chapter may have hastened his departure, so that his companions did not really rejoin him until after his arrival in Corinth (see below, on 18:5.) It would seem, however, from his own words elsewhere (1 Thess. 3:1), that Timothy did come to him at Athens, but was sent back to Thessalonica; unless we understand that passage, as some have done, of what happened at Berea, and of Paul's prospectively consenting to be left alone at Athens, as he was when his Macedonian escort had returned. Departed, literally, went out (or away) from Athens on their way home.

16. Having thus disposed of Paul's arrangements for his further travels and his messages to Silas and Timothy, Luke turns to his short but memorable stay in Athens. But in Athens itself, literally, in the Athens, a more definite expression than the one in the preceding verse. This city had for ages been the source and centre of Hellenic culture, the metropolis of Gentile science, art, and wisdom. Although now deprived of all political importance by the Roman conquest, it was still revered throughout the civilized world for what it had accomplished in the cause of human freedom, as well as for its literature and its genius. The Athenian schools were still frequented by the flower of the Roman youth, and the great names of its history idolatrously cherished. There is something, therefore, very striking in the contrast here effected between Jewish, Christian, and Hellenic wisdom in the visit of St. Paul to the intellectual metropolis of Greece and of the Roman Empire. Paul awaiting them (or while he waited for them), i.e. for Silas and Timotheus, whom he had left in Berea, but had summoned to rejoin him. It is a natural though not a necessary implication, that he only stopped in Athens for this purpose, which may help to account for his impatience and excitement, though its main source was a deeper one, as here described. Stirred, or more exactly, sharpened, set on edge, the verb from which comes paroxysm, violent excitement, as a medical term signifying the access or fit of an acute disease, as an ethical term commonly applied to anger (see above, on 15:37), but admitting of a wider application here, where we may readily suppose Paul to have felt, not only indignation in the proper sense, but grief, shame, wonder, and compassion likewise. In (or within) him may imply that for a time he was obliged or disposed to stifle his emotions, or at least to abstain from publicly expressing them. When he saw is more expressive in the Greek, where it agrees directly, as an active participle, with the pronoun which immediately precedes, his spirit was stirred within him seeing, or surveying as a spectacle (see above, on 3:16; 4:13; 7:56; 8:13; 10:11.) Wholly given to idolatry, a paraphrase (copied from the Vulgate) of the Greek phrase, being idol-full (or full of idols.) The original epithet occurs here only, but is formed on the analogy of many adjectives, compounded with the same preposition, and expressing the abundance of the object which the noun denotes (Κατάδενδρος, full of trees; Κατάμπελος, full of vines, &c.) It was peculiarly appropriate to Athens, which is repeatedly described by ancient writers as not only crowded with images and temples, but as containing more such objects than all other cities or the rest of Greece. Xenophon, poetically though in prose, refers to it as one great altar, one great sacrifice, etc. These general descriptions are abundantly sustained by the existing relics of these ancient structures, and still more completely by the enumeration and account of them in ancient writers. It was this peculiarity of Athens, visible and palpable to every one however ignorant or vicious, and not its mere moral aspect as devoted to idolatry, that Luke expresses here as the occasion of Paul's "paroxysm" while detained there.

17. In order to give vent to his emotions, he resorted to his customary method of communicating with the public. He disputed (or discoursed, the word translated reasoned in v. 2 above, and there explained.) With the Jews (literally, to them) and to the devovt persons (literally, worshipping, a term explained above, on v. 4.) We find therefore, here, as in Berea and Thessalonica, the same two classes of native or hereditary Jews, and Gentile proselytes or worshippers of Jehovah in the synagogue, with or without a formal profession of the Jewish faith. But finding this mode of access to the native mind of Athens still inadequate, Paul was obliged to employ the old Socratic method, handed down by a perpetual tradition, of conversing in the public squares or markets to the people whom he happened to encounter there. It has been disputed whether by the Agora (or Forum), here translated market (see above, on 16:19), is intended the Ceramicus (the ancient Forum) or the Agora Eretria (the new one); but it seems rather to be used generically, just as we might say the street, without intending any one exclusively. Daily is a still stronger phrase than that in v. 11, and means on (or throughout) every day, which seems to imply a sojourn or detention of considerable though uncertain length. Met with him, in English, may suggest the idea of a formal meeting or a previous appointment, both which are expressly excluded in the Greek phrase, meaning those who chanced or happened to be by, so that Thucydides employs substantially the same form to denote the first comer (i.e. any body), and the neuter of the same to denote whatever may turn up (i.e. any thing). No form of speech could therefore have been chosen to express more clearly a fortuitous or random intercourse with people in the public places, a circumstance not wholly without interest, because of its exact agreement, which has been already mentioned, with the old Athenian and Socratic method of instruction. The facility with which the great Apostle of the Gentiles here adopts peculiar national and local habits, for the sake of reaching the Athenian mind, is one of the most striking illustrations and examples of the holy art, with which he ever stood prepared to become "all to all," that he might "by all means save some" (1 Cor. 9:22.)

18. Out of the promiscuous mass with which Paul thus came into contact, Luke now singles two well known schools or classes of philosophers. That he says nothing of the still more illustrious schools founded by Plato and Aristotle, has been variously explained, by supposing that these had lost their influence even in their native city; or that they were more employed in abstruse speculation, and took less interest in practical discussions; or that their principles were less immediately assailed by Christianity; or finally, that the only schools who happened to be represented in the Agora, when Paul appeared there, were the two here mentioned. The Epicureans, or Philosophers of the Garden, owed their name to Epicurus, who died at Athens in the year 270 before the birth of Christ, leaving his house and garden to be the constant seat of his philosophy, which was accordingly maintained there till the time of which we are now reading. He taught that the highest good and great end of existence was serene enjoyment, which his followers interpreted as meaning pleasure, and that often of the grossest kind. He ascribed the creation of the world to chance, and although he acknowledged the existence of the gods, described them as indifferent to human interests and human conduct. The Stoics, or Philosophers of the Porch, were so called from the Stoa Pæcile or Painted Porch, adjoining one of the Athenian squares or markets, where their founder, Zeno, taught at the same time with Epicurus. The Stoics acknowledged the supremacy of moral good, and even affected to deny the difference between pain and pleasure. They also acknowledged a supreme God and a Providence, but the former confounded with the world or universe, the latter governed by a fatal necessity. In later times, the Epicurean system was a favourite with the Greeks, and the Stoical with the Romans, as suiting their national characters respectively; but each had adherents in both races, one of the most eminent Stoics (Epictetus) being a Greek of Asia Minor, and one of the most eminent Epicureans (Lucretius) a Roman poet. Encountered is the verb translated convened in 4:15 above, and met with in 20:14 below, which last may be the meaning here, to wit, that in his public walks and conversations he fell in with some philosophers of these two schools. It may, however, have the more specific meaning of conferring, or comparing views, in conversation. Babbler, literally, grain-picker, or seed-gatherer, an epithet at first applied to birds, then to beggars who collect and live on scraps, and finally, as an expression of contempt, to any low or worthless character, or more specifically to a retailer of borrowed sayings, which is very nearly the idea suggested by the English version. Some derive the same sense from a different etymology, according to which the compound strictly means a sower (or scatterer) of words. Setter forth, announcer or proclaimer, a noun corresponding to the verb employed in vs. 3, 13 above, and often elsewhere. Strange, not wonderful or singular, but foreign, which in the mouth of an Athenian necessarily suggests the accessory idea of barbarous, or to use a homely English term, outlandish. Gods, or demons, a word which has only a bad sense in the New Testament, but which in classic Greek was used to designate the gods of secondary rank, who in Latin were called Dii Minores, or more indefinitely, deities, divinities, or superhuman beings in general. The last clause has been variously understood as meaning that they, really or in pretence, took Jesus and Anastasis (Resurrection) for a god and goddess; or that gods is a generic plural, meaning Jesus only; or that it has its proper meaning, and refers to Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead. Although not necessary, it is very natural to understand these two characteristic speeches as proceeding from the Epicureans and the Stoics, as they had just been mentioned, and as the words themselves agree so well with the levity and gravity for which they were respectively proverbial preached, or announced as good news (see above, on 15:35; 16:10.)

19. Taking him, or laying hold upon him, not with force or violence, as in 16:19, but in a friendly manner, as Barnabas is said to have laid hold on Saul in 9:27, in both which cases the same verb is used. The most that can be meant here is a sort of mock arrest, in allusion to the place whither they were taking him. Areopagus, or Hill of Mars, a rocky ridge facing the Acropolis, where Mars was said to have been tried for murder, and from which the highest court of ancient Athens took its name. The seats of the judges, hewn in the solid rock, are said to be still visible. Some have supposed the name in this case to denote the court itself, before which Paul was now arraigned, as Socrates had been 450 years before, for the same offence of introducing strange or foreign gods. The objection to this supposition is, not that the court had been dissolved or deprived of its authority, which is uncertain, but that the ensuing context is without a vestige of judicial process, and that Paul, at the close of his address, went out, as it would seem, without the slightest molestation. (See below, on v. 33.) He was no doubt taken to the Areopagus as a convenient and customary place for public speaking, but with a sort of half jocose allusion to its being a seat of justice, and to the whole proceeding as a species of mock trial, which is perfectly in keeping with the national humour and traditions since the days of Aristophanes, and serves to explain his being taken up the steep hill, no doubt by the rocky steps which still remain, instead of being led into the more capacious Pnyx which was close at hand, or suffered to discourse in the Agora itself or one of its adjacent porches. It seems to have been very much as if a stranger, preaching in the streets of any modern town, should be taken, not before a court, but to a court-house, as a convenient and appropriate locality in which to answer for himself before the public. In the self-same spirit, and in exquisite agreement with Athenian taste and manners, is the half-comic courtesy of the request recorded in the last clause. May we know, literally, can we, are we able, i.e. morally, is it lawful, will it be allowed; a mode of address wholly out of place in a judicial trial, but exactly suited to the temper and the motives of the people, as described above. Another slight but striking trait of genuineness and consistency in this whole passage is the use of doctrine, not in its usual sense in this book and the Gospels (see above, on 2:42; 5:28; 13:12), but in that of the truth taught or the sentiment propounded. Whereof thou speakest, literally, by thee spoken, told, or talked of (see above, on 16:13, 14), i.e. in his previous colloquial discourses in the Agora or market (see above, on v. 17.)

20. Strange is not the word so rendered in v. 18, but the participle of a cognate verb, which might be Englished strange-seeming, i.e. startling or surprising. Elsewhere in Acts the Greek verb means to receive or entertain a stranger (see above, on 10:6, 13, 23, 32, and below, on 21:16; 28:7, and compare Heb. 13:2), but is twice employed by Peter in the kindred sense of thinking strange, or wondering (1 Pet. 4:4, 12.) To (or rather into) our ears (or hearing), although not without classical analogies, seems to savour of the comic or half-serious tone of this entire proceeding. We would know (literally, desire to know) what these things mean, or rather, what they may be, or more closely still, what they would wish (or choose) to be. Of this peculiar idiom we have already had an instance (see above, on 2:12.)

21. This is Luke's explanation of the eagerness with which the multitude at Athens, unlike that of other cities, sought to hear this stranger, without any disposition to believe his doctrine, or any sense of spiritual want. All the Athenians, not as elsewhere the more leisurely or idle classes, but the people as a body. Strangers, temporary residents or sojourners. Which were there, the same word that is used above in 2:10, and there explained. This class was very numerous at Athens,* as a famous seat of learning, still frequented from all quarters, both by students and by men already famous, of which we have an earlier example in the life of Cicero, who spent much time here and with great delight. These temporary residents would share of course in the peculiar habits of the natives with whom they had come there to hold intercourse. Had time (or leisure) for nothing else, a strong expression for their social and restless disposition. Some new thing, literally, something newer, i.e. newer than the last news heard before. The very same description, and with some of the same terms, is found in Theophrastus and in two orations of Demosthenes.† These ancient and authentic witnesses agree not only with Luke's own description, which he might be charged with having borrowed from them, but with the whole course of proceedings upon this occasion, which he could not have obtained in the same manner.

22. Stood, literally, standing, or, as the form in Greek is passive, being placed, or made to stand. Mars' Hill, the translation of the name retained in v. 19. The margin here has, "or court of the Areopagites;" but see above, on v. 19. Men of Athens, literally, Athenian men (or gentlemen), the form of address common with the Attic orators and constantly occurring in the speeches of Demosthenes. (See above, on 1:11, 16; 2:14, 22; 5:35; 13:16.) In all things, or in all respects, entirely, altogether. Ye are, literally, as, i.e. as being. Too superstitious is in Greek one word, and that a comparative, like the one translated new in the preceding verse. Superstitious, literally, god-fearing, or more exactly, demon-fearing (see above, on v. 18), a word used by the classical Greek writers, both in the good sense of religious or devout, and in the bad sense of superstitious, i.e. slavishly afraid of the divine wrath. This equivocal expression seems to be deliberately chosen here, as justly descriptive of the Athenians, and yet not liable to shock their vanity or prepossessions in the very outset of this great discourse. A multitude of passages has been collected from the ancient writers, which agree with this in representing the Athenians as the most religious (in their way) of all the Greeks, and indeed of all the ancient heathen. Of this distinction they were naturally proud, and Paul avails himself of that well-known feeling to secure attention and conciliate his hearers. This end, however, would have been defeated by directly and explicitly denouncing them as superstitious in the very first sentence that he uttered. It is not, however, on the other hand, to be regarded as mere praise, much less as empty compliment or flattery, but simply as conceding to them what they might have justly claimed, the credit of superior devotion in the heathen sense, which, at the same time, to a Christian, was the grossest superstition. I perceive, behold, contemplate (see above, on v. 16), stands last in the original, in all things as (being) more devout (than others) you I behold, with some surprise and admiration, not of their idolatrous delusions, but of their assiduous devotion to what they regarded as the true religion.

23. As I passed by, literally, coming through, which may mean simply passing through the streets, but it may also mean, passing through the city, on his way from Macedonia to Corinth (see above, on v. 16.) Beholding, an emphatic compound form of the verb used in the preceding verse, here suggesting the additional idea of attention, curiosity, or interest. Devotions, in the sense of religious services or worship, is an inexact translation. The one given in the margin of the English Bible (gods that you worship) is more accurate, but too restricted, as the Greek word denotes every thing connected with their worship, not its objects merely, but its rites and implements, including temples, images, and altars. Found seems to denote something more than saw, perhaps implying that the altar was not in public view, but in some corner or less frequented place, where Paul had unexpectedly discovered it or come upon it. Also an altar, the first of which words is omitted in the version, but essential to the sense, as meaning in addition to the well known and more obvious appurtenances of the heathen worship. With this inscription, literally, in (or on) which had been written (or inscribed.) The pluperfect form of the Greek verb may be intended to suggest the same idea of neglect, or at least of great antiquity. To an unknown (not THE unknown) God, a species of inscription not uncommon in antiquity, especially at Athens, where Pausanias and Philostratus bear witness to the existence of anonymous altars. Some light is thrown upon their origin by the statement of Diogenes Laertius, that when Epimenides was brought from Crete to stay a plague at Athens, he directed white and black sheep to be driven from the Areopagus, and where they first lay down, new altars to be built to the appropriate God (τῷ θεῷ προσήκοντι), i.e. to the divinity by whom the plague had been inflicted, and by appeasing whom it was to be removed. The practice, thus established or exemplified, of trying to propitiate an offended deity without even knowing who it was, agrees with the statements of the other writers above mentioned, that there were altars there to anonymous or unknown gods. Of this fact, plainly showing the uncertain and unsatisfying nature of the heathen superstition, which required so many gods to be appeased, and left it doubtful after all whether some had not been overlooked, the Apostle takes advantage, to show his cultivated but deluded hearers "a more excellent way." For whom and him, the oldest manuscripts and latest editors read what and that, which gives a better sense, because the object of their worship in such cases was not the true God, but a mere nonentity or vague abstraction. Jerome's arrogant and foolish statement—that the fact was not as Paul asserted, but that the altar was inscribed to the gods of Europe, Africa and Asia, and that Paul, having need of only one, so represented it—if worthy of regard at all, proves only that there was such an inscription as Jerome describes in his day, but not (as some seem to imagine) that there was none such as Paul describes four hundred years before. Ignorantly is in Greek a participle (not knowing), and worship a compound form of the verb commonly so rendered (see above, on vs. 4:17, and on 13:43, 50; 16:14), expressing the idea of peculiarly devout or pious reverence. (Compare the use of the correlative adjective in 10:2, 7 above.) What ye worship without knowing (what it is), that I declare unto you. The reference is not directly to Jehovah, as one of the foreign deities to whom they had erected altars; nor to the yearnings after the Supreme God, which are said to underlie the grossest forms of polytheism; but simply to the practical acknowledgment of insufficiency and worthlessness, included in the very fact that their religion allowed the worship of an unknown god. As if he had said, 'I perceive from one of your neglected altars, that you recognize another god (or other gods) besides the many which you worship formally by name, and I announce to you that under this indefinite description falls the very Being whom you ought to serve to the exclusion of all others. What yourselves acknowledge to exist and to be worthy of religious reverence, although you cannot even name it, I make known to you this day, in the person of the only true and living God.'

24. The God, whom he thus proclaimed to them, is the maker, and by necessary consequence the sovereign, of the universe, described in one clause as the world and all things in it, and in the other as heaven and earth, which is plainly an equivalent expression (see above, on 4:24; 7:49; 14:15.) Seeing that he is, in Greek a single word, existing, being (see above, on 16:3, 20, 37.) The inference from these two facts, to wit, that God is the Creator and therefore the Lord (or Sovereign) of the universe, is that he does not dwell in artificial (literally, hand-made, manufactured) shrines (or temples, see above, on 7:48, and below, on 19:24.) The error here denied is that of Heathenism and corrupted Judaism, namely, that the Deity could be confined or unchangeably attached to any earthly residence, not the genuine Old Testament doctrine of Jehovah's real and continued dwelling in the tabernacle and temple. There seems to be an evident allusion here to Stephen's words, which had been heard by Paul himself. (See above, on 7:48, 58.)

25. Another necessary inference from the doctrine of creation and divine sovereignty is God's entire independence of all human care and service as essential to his blessedness or glory. With (literally, by) the hands of men, i.e. by men (as the agents) with their hands (as the instruments.) Worshipped is not exactly the idea conveyed by the original expression, which means cared for, taken care of, in the way of service, by supplying want and (in the case of human subjects) healing sickness (see above, on 4:14; 5:16; 8:7, and the Gospels passim.) As though he needed (literally, needing) any (thing), or any (one), as the pronoun may be either masculine or neuter. It is somewhat singular that this same sentiment is uttered by Lucretius, the Epicurean poet, and by Seneca, the Stoic moralist. But in flagrant contradiction to these speculative doctrines was the whole religious practice, of philosophers as well as of the multitude, implying the necessity of human service to the divine blessedness. Seeing he giveth (literally, himself giving) to all (without exception or distinction) life and breath (the word translated wind in 2:2), as a necessary incident and condition of life. The phrase is, therefore, not a mere hendiadys for vital breath, though this is the essential meaning. And all the (things) required for the support of life.

26. This relation of the maker to the made is uniform and universal. With respect, not only to the local pride of the Athenians, as autochthones or aborigines, distinct from other races and the offspring of their own soil, but also to the general connection between the belief in many gods and that in many races, Paul here asserts the original unity of men, as the creatures of the same God and subjects of the same providential government. Blood is omitted in some manuscripts and versions and editions; but this omission is more easily explained than the insertion of an expression so unusual, although intelligible and appropriate, as evidently meaning a community of nature and of origin. Made may either mean created (as in 4:24; 7:50; 14:15, and v. 24, above) for the purpose of dwelling, &c., or caused (as in 3:12; 7:19) to dwell, &c. The difference is one of mere construction, the creation of the race being as certainly implied in one case as it is expressed in the other. The great fact here alluded to, though frequently assailed and sometimes given up by the defenders of revealed truth, is confirmed by every new discovery in science, showing that the actual diversities among mankind are not more real or more marked than those which can be clearly traced in the same species of other animals. All nations (literally, every nation) to dwell (or more specifically settle), begin to dwell (see above, on 1:19; 2:5, 9, 14; 4:16; 7:2, 4) on all the face (or surface) of the earth, a studied generality of language, apparently intended to exclude all reservation and exception, even in favour of the Greeks or the Athenians. Having determined (or defined), not in the metaphorical or secondary sense of the verb elsewhere (see above, on 2:23; 10:42; 11:29), but in its proper sense of marking boundaries or limits, either in reference to time (Heb. 4:7) or space, or both, as in the case before us. Times, set times, junctures (see above, on 1:7; 3:19; 7:20; 12:1; 13:11; 14:17), meaning here the dates of history, the turning points in the experience of nations. Before appointed, or according to the latest critics, simply appointed or commanded. Bounds, literally bound-settings, limitations, definitions of extent and mutual relation. Habitation, settlement, the noun corresponding to the verb dwell (or settle) in the preceding clause. In this verse Paul claims for the Most High the right to govern, and indeed the actual control of the vicissitudes of nations, whether temporal or local, as a part of his great providential plan or purpose.

27. A further statement of the end for which this one race was created and established in the earth. To seek the Lord, or according to the critics, God, which may, however, be an emendation founded on the supposition that the Lord does not express God's true relation to the Gentiles; but in this case it is perfectly appropriate, as meaning the divine authority or sovereignty, arising from the act of creation, and explicitly affirmed in v. 24 above. If haply (or by chance, implying contingency and doubt) they might feel or grope after him (as in the dark) and find him (even under all these disadvantages), a vivid and expressive exhibition of the state in which the Gentile world was placed, without a written revelation or direct communication with their Maker, yet with light enough to make their ignorance of God inexcusable. (See above, on 14:15–17, and compare Rom. 1:18–21.) Though he be, literally, though being, or existing, the same verb that is employed above, in v. 24, and here the last word in the clause or sentence. Not far, an instance of the figure called litotes or meiosis, the idea suggested being that of the closest and most intimate proximity. Each (or every) one of us, i.e. of men in general, mankind, the human race.

28. The relation thus existing between God and man is not a mere external nearness, but an intimate, essential oneness. For in him, not merely by or through him, which gratuitously weakens the Apostle's meaning, but in vital union with him, and included in him, as the source and sphere of our existence. Have our being, literally, are, the ordinary verb of existence, not the one employed in vs. 24, 27. Some suppose a climax in these words, the first denoting animal life, the last existence in the highest sense. Others suppose an anticlimax, live meaning spiritual life, move animal life, and are bare being or existence. Another view of the meaning is that without (or out of) God we could not live, nor even move, as some things without life can do, nor even (which is less than both) exist at all. But all these explanations are perhaps too artificial, and the words may be regarded as substantially equivalent, a cumulative or exhaustive expression of the one great thought, that our being and activity are wholly dependent on our intimate relation and proximity to God our Maker. That this was no peculiar tenet either of the Jews or Christians, Paul evinces by a sentence from a heathen poet, his own countryman, Aratus of Cilicia, who had lived in the third century before Christ, and who, in his astronomical poem, the Phenomena, translated into Latin by at least two illustrious Romans (Cicero and Germanicus), has these very words as part of a hexameter. The same idea, but conveyed in a direct address to Zeus or Jupiter, is found in an old hymn of Cleanthes the Stoic. Hence the plural form, some of your own poets, or of the poets among you (or belonging to you.) That Paul was familiar with the classics, although not deducible from this quotation, is much more probable, considering the reputation of his native city as a seat of learning (see above, on 9:11, 30; 11:25), than that his training was exclusively rabbinical. The use here made of heathen testimony is not an abuse, or even an accommodation, of the language quoted, which although applied by Aratus and addressed by Cleanthes to a mythological divinity, could only be regarded, even by themselves, as true of the Supreme God, as distinguished from all others. The for belongs to the quotation, and refers to nothing in this context. We also, as well as other orders of intelligences nearer to him. Offspring, family or race (see above, on 4:6, 36; 7:13, 19; 13:26.)

29. The relationship existing between God and man must be chiefly spiritual, not corporeal. To deify matter, therefore, is to make God inferior to man, the Creator to the creature. Forasmuch then as we are, literally, therefore being. Ought not, are bound not, as a matter both of interest and moral obligation. Graven, literally, with carving, sculpture. Art and man's device disturbs both the order and the syntax, the first and last noun being equally dependent on the second, art and device of man. The two ideas here combined are those of skill and genius, the power of execution and the power of invention or artistical creation, neither of which, nor both together, can change matter into spirit, much less clothe it with divine perfections. The Godhead, literally, the divine, i.e. the divine nature or essence. The corresponding abstract term in English is the Deity. The original order of this sentence, although scarcely reproducible in English, is peculiarly striking and expressive, the first word being offspring, and the last, the Godhead to be like.

30. A thought to be supplied between the verses is, that this degradation and denial of the Godhead had been practised universally for ages, i.e. in the whole heathen worship and mythology. The times of this (literally, the) ignorance (of what God was and what was due to him from man) include the whole of the preceding ages or the past history of the Gentile world. Times is not the word employed in v. 26, but one denoting periods, as distinguished from mere points or junctures. (See above, on 1:7; 3:21; 7:17, 23; 8:11; 13:18; 14:3, 28; 15:33.) Winked at is not only an inaccurate translation, but a very objectionable although unintended degradation of the subject, by applying to the Most High, even in a figure, a bodily gesture trivial in itself and its associations, and entirely wanting in the Greek, which simply means, having overlooked, or passed by, i.e. suffered or endured, without declaring his disapprobation. (See above, on 14:16, and compare Rom. 3:25.) This period of forbearance is now past. The revelation of God's will is confined no longer to a single nation. Now, in emphatic opposition to the past times of man's ignorance and God's forbearance (see above, on 4:29; 5:38.) Commands, peremptorily requires or orders (see above, on 1:4; 4:18; 5:28, 40; 10:42; 15:5; 16:18, 23.) All (men) every where, a double expression of the universality of the command, made still more striking in the Greek by the use of two cognate terms (πᾶσι πανταχοῦ), which might be Englished, everybody everywhere. To repent, to change their minds and reform their practice (see above, on 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 8:22; 11:18; 13:24), with special reference to this sin of idolatry, but not excluding a more general and comprehensive revolution both of heart and life.

31. Because refers directly not so much to what immediately precedes as to an intermediate thought, which is suppressed but may be readily supplied, to wit, this divine command is not without a sanction and a penalty. Its violation will be made the subject of judicial inquest, before one who has already been appointed and accredited by God himself. Appointed, set, or fixed (see above, on 1:23; 4:7; 5:27; 6:6, 13.) A day, i.e. a definite or set time, with particular but not exclusive reference to the final judgment. See above, on 10:42, where Peter presents Christ in his judicial character and office to another company of Gentiles. In the which, an obsolete redundancy or pleonasm in English, meaning neither more nor less than in which without the article, there being nothing corresponding to it in Greek, either here or elsewhere. Will judge, is about (or just about) to judge (see above, on 3:3; 5:35; 11:28; 12:6; 13:34; 16:27.) The world, literally, the inhabited (earth), here put for the whole world or its inhabitants, the whole human race. (See above, on v. 6 and 11:28.) In righteousness, not merely righteously or justly, as an epithet of quality or manner, but in the actual and active exercise of righteousness or justice as a moral attribute or trait of character. (See above, on 10:35; 13:10.) The judgment here predicted will not only be a just one, but a grand display of God's essential justice. (Compare Rom. 1:17; 3:25.) By that man, literally, in a man, not merely through the agency, but in the person, of a man as yet unknown to Paul's immediate hearers, but about to be more definitely set forth and identified. Ordained, the same verb with determined in v. 26, but here, as applied to a person, meaning designated, pointed out, as well as chosen and appointed. (See above, on 2:23; 10:42, and compare the use of the same verb in Rom. 1:4.) Wherefore he hath given assurance, literally, having offered faith (as in the margin of the English Bible), i.e. having made it possible by furnishing the necessary evidence. In that he hath (literally, having) raised him from (among) the dead, the same expression that is used above in 13:34, and there explained. The resurrection of Christ established his divine legation and the truth of all his doctrines and pretensions (see above, on 1:22), among which was his claim to the judicial functions here ascribed to him by Paul. As this discourse was interrupted (see below, upon the next verse), we have no right to describe it as a mere lesson in natural theology, nor even to assume (with Calvin and some others) that it is less fully reported in the last than in the first part. The Apostle showed his wisdom, in addressing such an audience, by setting out from principles of natural religion, and gradually introducing the distinctive doctrines of the Gospel, as he begins to do in this verse. That he did not fully carry out his plan, was the fault of his hearers, not his own.

32. When they heard, literally, having heard (or hearing.) Mocked, derided, ridiculed, the same verb that is used above, in 2:13, although the latest critics give it there a compound and therefore more emphatic form. The possibility of resurrection after death was not only no part of the Greek creed, either philosophical or popular, but was positively repudiated as a gross absurdity. The universal faith may be summed up in the poetical but strong and clear phrase of Æschylus, "Once dead, there is no resurrection." This incredulity appears to have been felt, not only by the mockers of the first clause, but also by the graver and more courteous class mentioned in the second. Others said (or some said). We will hear thee again about this, not the resurrection merely, but the whole theme of his discourse. This is commonly explained as a polite refusal to hear further, even on the part of those who did not mock or ridicule the speaker, and has sometimes been compared to the procrastinating speech of Felix to the same Apostle (see below, on 24:25.) Some, however, understand it as a serious proposal, which was never carried into execution, while some even think it was, and that one more conference at least was held, but as it led to no result, was not recorded. Here again, though not a necessary supposition, it is certainly more natural than any other, that the classes whom Luke so distinctly characterizes, by the few words which he puts into their mouths, were the gay Epicureans and the graver Stoics. (See above, on v. 18.)

33. And (omitted in some copies) so (or thus), not a mere connective or continuative particle, but like the same word as employed by Stephen (see above, on 7:8), summing up the substance of what goes immediately before. And thus rejected, thus derided by one portion of his hearers, thus put off to a more convenient season by another, and perhaps regarded with indifference by the rest, the Apostle of the Gentiles went out from among (or from the midst of) them, fortuitous but real representatives of Gentile wisdom and of Greek civilization. The way in which his going forth is here described shows clearly that he was not on his trial or under any personal restraint whatever (see above, on v. 19.) Whether he merely left the Areopagus, or now took his departure from the city, is a question which depends, in some degree, upon the explanation of the following verse.

34. Had the story of Paul's ministry at Athens ended with the foregoing verse, it would have seemed to be entirely fruitless. To correct this false but natural impression, an addition is here made to the whole narrative, the very form of which betrays its supplementary or qualifying purpose. Howbeit, yet, but, notwithstanding the apparent ill success of the Apostle's labours in this famous city, they were not without fruit after all. Some men (and one woman), cleaving to him, an expression which implies the sacrifice involved in doing so, adhering to him in the face of ridicule and opposition, believed his doctrine, and in Christ, as the Redeemer whom he preached to them. As if to make up for the fewness of the converts in this famous city, one of them was chosen from among the judges of the Areopagus itself, the most august tribunal of the ancient world. As usual in all such cases, the tradition of the church describes him as the first Christian bishop of Athens (so Eusebius), and a legend of much later date as having suffered martyrdom there (so Nicephorus.) A still less credible tradition has attached the name of Dionysius the Areopagite to certain mystical and hierarchical productions of a later age, which influenced both practice and opinion in the medieval church to a remarkable degree. The other name particularly mentioned here is Damaris, which differs only in a single letter from the favourite Greek female designation, Damalis, a heifer (compare Dorcas and Tabitha, 9:36, and Rhoda or Rhode, 12:13.) Some suppose her to have been the wife of Dionysius; but she would hardly have been simply called a woman. Some infer from her being so particularly mentioned, that she was a person of distinction; others, from her mixing with the crowd on this occasion, in direct violation of Greek usage, that she was a woman of bad character. More probable than either is the supposition that she was the only female convert, and is therefore named with Dionysius as the most distinguished male one, while the rest are indefinitely classed, at the beginning and the end of the sentence, as "certain men" and "other (men)," besides or with them.

CHAPTER 18

WE have here the conclusion of Paul's second mission, and the commencement of the third. The first of these divisions is entirely occupied with his ministry at Corinth. Becoming acquainted with Aquila and Priscilla, he takes up his abode with them, and works as a tent-maker, at the same time preaching in the synagogue (1–5.) The Jews opposing him, he leaves them for the Gentiles, and converts many of both classes (6–8.) Encouraged by a special revelation, he continues thus employed eighteen months (9–11.) The Jews accuse him before Gallio, but are ignominiously defeated (12–17.) Sailing from Cenchrea, he visits Ephesus, and with a promise to return, proceeds upon his journey to Jerusalem, and thence to Antioch (18–22.) While he is beginning his third mission by revisiting Galatia and Phrygia, Apollos makes his first appearance at Ephesus, but removes to Corinth before Paul's arrival (23–28.)

1. After these things, an indefinite expression, which cannot be rendered more determinate by any calculation or conjecture. Departed is in Greek a passive participle meaning parted, separated, as if by force or against one's will. (See above, on 1:4, and compare Matt. 19:6; Mark 10:9; Rom. 8:35, 39.) It may here imply that Paul left Athens with reluctance and regret. Corinth, a famous Grecian city, mentioned by Homer, situated on the Isthmus between Northern Greece and the Peloponnesus, with a port on each side, hence called by Horace bimaris (on two seas). The town was famous in remote antiquity for commerce, riches, luxury, and vice. It was destroyed by the Roman Consul Mummius, in the same year with Carthage (B. C. 146), but rebuilt by Julius Cæsar. It was now the capital of Achaia, one of the two great provinces into which Greece was divided by the Romans, the other being Macedonia. (See above, on 16:9, 10, 12, and below, on v. 27; 19:21.) It is now an inconsiderable town of two thousand inhabitants, with few remnants of the splendid buildings which gave name to the Corinthian order of architecture. Its identity is clearly ascertained, not only by its singular position, but by the Acrocorinthus, a hill eighteen hundred feet high, upon which stood the Corinthian Acropolis. Paul was no doubt directed to this place, as one peculiarly adapted to become a radiating centre of Christian influence.

2. Finding, meeting unexpectedly, falling in with; or perhaps it may mean, finding after search, upon inquiry (see above, on 11:26.) By name Aquila, by birth (or race) a Pontian or native of Pontus, one of the northern provinces of Asia Minor. By a curious coincidence, Suetonius speaks of a Roman senator named Aquila Pontius, a contemporary of Cæsar and Cicero, who also names him in his private letters. Hence some have hastily concluded that the Jew here mentioned was a freedman (or emancipated servant) of the senator, and according to the Roman custom, bore his name. But nothing can be more precarious than an inference from mere coincidence of names, a circumstance by no means rare either in history or real life. In this case the coincidence is double, as Aquila, the Greek translator of the Old Testament, is also said to have been born in Pontus. Lately, recently, a term originally applicable only to fresh or newly killed meat, then extended to fruits and flowers, and in the later Greek employed in a generic sense, without regard to its etymology and primary usage. Priscilla, a diminutive of Prisca, which form is itself used in 2 Tim. 4:19. On account of Claudius's having ordered all the Jews (not indefinitely, all Jews, but specifically, all the Jews there resident) to depart (the verb used in the preceding verse and there explained). Suetonius relates that Claudius expelled the Jews because they were continually making a disturbance (assidue tumultuantes) under the influence, or at the instance, of one Chrestus (Chresto impulsore), which some regard as the proper name of a person now unknown, but others as a mistake for Christus (which Tertullian mentions as a frequent error.) The reference may then be either to the Jewish doctrine of a reigning and conquering Messiah, or to the Christian doctrine of our Lord's Messiahship, which was a constant subject of disturbance and dispute among the Jews, with whom the Christians were as yet confounded. There is less probability in the opinion that the edict here referred to is one of the same emperor, recorded by Tacitus, in which all astrologers (mathematici) were banished. Came to them, i.e. to their house or dwelling, for he had already found them or become acquainted with them. His coming to them seems to imply that they were Christians, although some take Jew and Jews in the distinctive sense, and suppose that Aquila and Priscilla were among Paul's converts.

3. Besides the national and spiritual tie, there was also a professional or business one. On account of being a fellow-craft, or of the same trade, literally art, a term originally signifying manual employment, i.e. such as requires skill and not mere strength. It was an ancient Jewish custom to teach all boys some trade, even those who received a liberal education, both as a means of subsistence and a moral safeguard. He abode, continued, or remained with them, how long is not expressed (but see below, on v. 11.) Wrought, the old and genuine past tense of work, now superseded by the so-called regular form, worked. It is here used in its proper sense of manual labour. The last clause is explanatory of the "fellow-craft" in that before it. (He was of the same trade) for they were tent-makers. There was a great demand for tents in ancient times, both for travellers and soldiers. They were sometimes made of leather, whence Chrysostom explains the compound term here used as meaning curriers or leather-dressers; but still more frequently of hair-cloth, and especially of the coarse hair furnished by a species of goat which abounded in Cilicia, whence the Latin name (cilicium) for hair-cloth. As Paul was a native of that country, this may help to account for his having acquired this particular trade. As the demand for tents, though great, was variable, it is not improbable that those who made them went from place to place, which would account for Aquila and Priscilla having lived at Rome, and for their being there again when Paul wrote his epistle (Rom. 16:3–5.) These migrations may, however, have had other causes.

4. Here again Paul addresses himself first to the Jews, who were very numerous in Corinth, on account of its extensive trade and advantageous situation near the confines, not only of Peninsular and Continental Greece, but of Europe and Asia, and its immediate intercourse both with East and West by sea. As in Salamis (13:5), Antioch (13:14), Iconium (14:1), Thessalonica (17:1), Berea (17:10), and Athens (17:17), so in Corinth, he avails himself of the facilities afforded by the synagogue for addressing both the Jews and the devouter Gentiles, whether formal proselytes or mere inquirers. Reasoned, or disputed, both which equivalents are used in the translation of the same Greek verb in the preceding chapter. (See above, on 17:2, 17.) The second idea is rather suggested by the context than expressed by this word, which denotes argumentative discourse, even as uttered by a single person. Persuaded, endeavoured to convince, and in many cases did convince, both Jews and Greeks, i.e. Gentiles who frequented the synagogue. In such connections, all such Gentiles may be called Greeks, on account of the prevailing use of the Greek language; but in this case, as in 17:4 above, the word may have its primary and strictest sense.

5. There is some doubt both as to the reading and the sense of this verse. Instead of spirit, the latest editors read word, as found in several of the oldest manuscripts. The original meaning of the verb is held together, or compressed, as in 7:57 above, and in Luke 8:45. Sometimes it seems to denote a painful pressure on the mind or heart, as in Luke 12:50; Phil. 1:23; and perhaps 2 Cor. 5:14. This is the sense commonly adopted here, to wit, that Paul was painfully affected in his spirit, or constrained by the Holy Spirit to pursue a certain course. If the other reading be preferred, the sense may be, that he was painfully occupied in preaching (or constrained to preach) the gospel (compare 1 Cor. 9:16.) There is also some doubt as to the connection between what is here affirmed of Paul and the fact recorded in the other clause, to wit, the arrival of Silas and Timothy from Macedonia. The usual assumption seems to be, that their arrival gave him a new impulse, or imposed a new sense of necessity and obligation. But this is neither so intelligible in itself, nor so consistent with the form of the original, the verb being in the imperfect tense, as the supposition that this second clause describes, not the effect of their arrival, but the state in which they found him. And when Silas and Timothy came down from Macedonia, Paul was (already) pressed in spirit (or 'had been already pressed by the Holy Ghost'); or, according to the other text, 'Paul was solicitous about (or wholly taken up with) the word,' i.e. the preaching of the gospel. The effect of this pressure or constraint is given in the last clause. Testifying to the Jews, and through them to the Gentiles who were present at their worship. That Jesus was Christ is in Greek but two words, Christ Jesus, the sense of which, however, is correctly given in the English version. Testifying to the Jews, and all who were acquainted with the Hebrew Scriptures, that the Messiah there predicted was identical with Jesus of Nazareth. (See above, on 2:36; 5:42.)

6. The course of events here described is very similar to that at Antioch in Pisidia (see above, on 13:45–47), but precisely such as might have been expected wherever there were unbelieving Jews. They resisting (or opposing) is in Greek a military term, and strictly means, arraying themselves, as an army to resist an enemy, implying not mere private or fortuitous but systematic and concerted opposition. Blaspheming, either in the lower but more classical sense of reviling, abusing (i.e. Paul and his companions), or in the stronger Hellenistic sense of impiously maligning (God or Christ.) See above, on 6:11, 13; 13:45. Shaking, or shaking out, the same verb which in 13:51 means shaking off the dust, for the same purpose which is there explained. The accompanying words, however, are here different. Your blood, i.e. the blame of your destruction, be (or is, or shall be, as the verb is not expressed in Greek) upon your (own) heads, i.e. rest upon yourselves. (See Matt. 23:30, 35; 27:25, and compare Lev. 20:9; Deut. 19:10; Ezek. 18:30; 33:5.) Clean (am) I, or pure, i.e. guiltless of your ruin. (See below, on 20:26.) From the now (i.e. the present moment), henceforth, to the nations (i.e. other nations, Gentiles) I will go, i.e, as an apostle and a preacher. This and the parallel passage in 13:46 illustrate one another, by showing that Paul's language in such cases has immediate reference only to the place or the community in which he uttered it.

7. Removing, as the same verb is twice translated in Matt. 17:20. Thence, not from the house of Aquila, as some suppose, for which no motive is assignable, but from the synagogue, where this conflict with the unbelieving Jews had taken place. Entered, came or went in, not at that time merely, or once for all, but as a permanent arrangement. He began to preach there, as he had done in the synagogue. A certain man, literally, some (one). Named, literally, by name (see above, on 5:1.) Justus, a Latin name, which we have already met with, as the Roman surname of Joseph Barsabas (see above, on 1:22.) There is a singular diversity of reading in the manuscripts and versions as to this name, Justus, Titus Justus, Titius Justus, Titus son of Justus, Titus. Some have hence inferred that the Justus mentioned here was really the Titus often named in Paul's epistles (Gal. 2:1, 3; 2 Tim. 4:10; Tit. 1:4; 2 Cor. 2:13, et passim), but never elsewhere in the Acts, an omission which these textual variations may have been intended to supply. (See above, on 15:4.) If the supposed connection or identity has any historical foundation, the tradition of the Church has not preserved it. Both names are Roman, which agrees well with the description of Justus as worshipping the (true) God, a phrase commonly applied to Proselytes or Gentiles who acknowledged and adored Jehovah. (See above, on 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17.) He had now, no doubt, gone further, and recognized the Jesus whom Paul preached as the Messiah. Joined hard, an old English phrase for next, adjoining, or contiguous. It was no doubt for this reason that Paul chose it, as his removal and resort to it would be a kind of public declaration and memorial of his permanent secession from the unbelievers and blasphemers of the synagogue. A comparison of synagogue in this verse with the same word in 13:43, will illustrate the transition from the primary and proper sense of meeting to the secondary one of meeting-house.

8. Crispus, another Roman name, but in this case certainly belonging to a Jew, perhaps a proselyte, as Gentile birth might not disqualify him for his office. Chief ruler of the synagogue, in Greek a single word, the plural form of which is rendered simply rulers of the synagogue in 13:15. The chief may have been added on account of the article (the ruler), supposed by the translators to imply that there was only one. But the definite form of the expression may merely designate him as a person of some note, 'Crispus the (well known) ruler of the synagogue,' just as we say, "the Apostle Paul," "the Prophet Daniel," although there were many other Prophets and Apostles. There is also reason to believe, that these rulers of the synagogue were not elective officers, but the hereditary elders of the Jews, of whom there would of course be a plurality in every synagogue or congregation. (See above, on 4:5, 8, 23; 5:21; 6:12, and below, on 23:14; 24:1; 25:15.) If this be so, the position occupied by Crispus, although highly respectable among the Jews, was not so eminent, especially in Gentile eyes, as our translation may suggest to English readers. It could hardly be the reason, as some think, for Paul's baptizing this man with his own hand, as we know that he did from his own explicit statement in his first epistle to this very church. (See 1 Cor. 1:14.) It is well observed by Paley, that the correspondence here between the letter of the narrative is just sufficient, in degree and kind, to prove the authenticity of both, without exciting the suspicion of collusion or assimilation. If the epistle had been framed to suit the history, the names of Stephanas and Gaius would not have been added; in the contrary case, they would not have been omitted. Paul's departure from his ordinary practice in these cases, far from implying that they were peculiarly important, or entitled to particular attention upon his part, seems to be treated by himself as something accidental or fortuitous. (See above, on 13:9, and compare 1 Cor. 1:13–17.) Believed on (or in) the Lord (Jesus), as the true Messiah and the only Saviour. (See above, on 9:42; 11:17; 14:23; 16:31.) With all his house, or more exactly, with his whole house, household, family. (See above, on 11:14; 16:15, 31.) That they were all baptized is not affirmed, but seems to be implied both here and in Corinthians. The same thing is recorded, in the last clause of the verse before us, as to many of the Corinthians, i.e. Greeks or Gentiles, who, hearing (not of it, i.e. that Crispus was converted, but the gospel as Paul preached it in the house of Justus), believed, or were converted, became Christians, in the same sense as before.

9. And the Lord, i.e. the Lord Jesus, as in 9:17. Said by vision, i.e. a divine communication, with or without a visible appearance. See above, on 16:9, where the word appeared is expressly used. Fear not, perhaps implying that he was disposed to shrink from the dangers of his new position. Speak and be not silent, as he may have been tempted to remain. Or this may be merely the idiomatic combination of a positive and negative expression, as in other cases. The idea of some writers, that Paul was dejected, when he came to Corinth, by the failure of his ministry at Athens, and by a consciousness of having erred there in his mode of preaching, is at variance, not only with his apostolical authority, but also with recorded facts. The way in which he introduced the Gospel to his Athenian hearers is among the strongest proofs of his extraordinary wisdom. That he did not preach Christ fully to them, was because they would not hear, and not because he had begun with an appeal to the principles of natural religion. The divine approbation was attested by several conversions, perhaps many (see above, on 17:34.) The reference in the verse before us can be only to such natural misgivings as may be felt by the best and most courageous men.

10. This verse assigns the reason why he should not fear, by assuring him of the divine presence and protection. I am with thee, in a special and extraordinary sense, to aid and guard thee. (See above, on 10:38.) The effect of this protection is then stated. No man, literally, no one (see above, on 5:13, 23; 9:7, 8; 10:28.) Set on thee, an old English phrase, of which a kindred form still current is the noun onset. The Greek verb strictly means, to place or lay upon, impose, a burden (as in 15:28), a yoke (as in 15:10), stripes (as in 16:23), the hands (as in 8:17, 19; 9:12, 17; 13:3), the latter always as a spiritual or religious act; whereas a kindred phrase (to throw hands upon any one) means to seize or arrest (as in 4:3; 5:18; 12:1.) The other verb may here have a reflexive sense, to place or set one's self against, i.e. to assail, attack, in which sense it is also used by Xenophon and in the Septuagint (Gen. 43:18.) To hurt (or harm) thee, i.e. for the purpose of so doing, or as the actual result. (For the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 7:6, 19; 12:1; 14:2.) The last clause gives another reason why he should not fear. The meaning is not that there were already many converts in the place who would protect him, but that there were many yet to be converted, for whose sake his life must be preserved. (Compare John 10:16.)

11. Paul believes the promise and obeys the order. He continued there, literally, he sat, implying safety and tranquillity, perhaps with some allusion to the customary attitude of ancient teachers. (But compare Luke 24:49, where the same Greek verb is rendered tarry.) A year and six months, a much longer stay than any one before recorded in Paul's missionary life, and affording time for the abundant and extensive labours presupposed in his epistles to the Church of Corinth. The period here mentioned may be either that of his whole residence at this time, or the part of it extending to the incident recorded in the next verse. In the latter case, the sense will be, that he continued quietly and safely at his work for eighteen months, when it was unexpectedly disturbed and interrupted. Some prefer this explanation on the ground that it vindicates the truth of the Lord's promise (see above, on v. 10), that he should not be attacked, whereas he was attacked before he left Corinth. But this, though plausible, is inconclusive, as the promise may be understood to mean that no one should assail him with success, or so as really to hurt him, either personally, or by interrupting his work as an Apostle. Teaching among (literally, in) them (the Corinthians) the word of God (the true religion, see above, on 4:31; 6:2, 7; 13:5, 7, 44; 17:13.)

12. Gallio was the brother of Seneca, the famous Stoic, who describes him in his letters as a man universally beloved on account of his amiable disposition, and refers to his having caught a fever in Achaia (the province of which Corinth was the capital.) This relationship probably gave rise to the tradition and the fabrication of a correspondence between Seneca and Paul. According to one account, Gallio shared his brother's fate, being put to death by Nero; according to another, he destroyed himself. Gallio being (or acting as) proconsul, the Greek verb corresponding to the noun used in 13:7, 8, 12, and there explained. Here again Luke's accuracy, even in minute points, is remarkable. One historian (Dio Cassius) says that Achaia was at first an imperial province, and therefore governed by Proconsuls (see above, on 13:7); another (Tacitus) that it was afterwards transferred to the Senate, which would cause it to be governed by a Prætor; but a third (Suetonius) records its restoration to the Emperor before the time of these events; so that the nomenclature of the narrative is perfectly correct. Since Gallio's proconsulate is here assigned as the date of the new movement, it is probable that he arrived and entered on the office during Paul's abode there, and that his reputation as a man of easy temper led the Jews to make the attempt here recorded. Made insurrection, or rose up against, a strengthened form of the Greek verb used in 4:1; 6:12; 17:5, and there explained. With one accord, unanimously, which implies not only joint action, but preconcert and a systematic plan. (For the etymology and usage of the Greek word, see above, on 1:14; 2:1, 46; 4:24; 5:12; 7:57; 8:6; 12:20; 15:25.) Brought, led, not necessarily implying force or violence, but only the presenting of his person as a prisoner before the magistrate. The judgment-seat, or the tribunal of the governor, to which the Romans attached great importance and a kind of sanctity, so that the Prætors and Proconsuls, sent into the provinces, sometimes carried their tribunals with them. (For the meaning of the Greek word here used, see above, on 12:21, and compare Matt. 27:19; John 19:13.)

13. Saying that (ὅτι), the usual Greek formula of citation, even when the very words are given; whereas we use it only when we give the substance. It is omitted in translation here, as it was in 2:13; 5:23, 25; 6:11, 14; 11:3; 13:34; 16:36; 17:6. In the few places where it is expressed (7:6; 15:5), there is a slight change of construction to accommodate our idiom. Fellow is not expressed in Greek, but supplied by the translators, to convey the contemptuous meaning commonly attached to the demonstrative (this) when absolutely used. But besides the uncertainty of the alleged usage, the simple idea of this man (or person) would have been expressed precisely in the same way. Persuadeth, an emphatic compound of the verb so rendered in v. 4, and in 13:43; 14:19. above. To worship God, the Greek verb so repeatedly applied to the worship of Jehovah by the Gentiles. (See above, on v. 7, and compare 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17.) Against the law is understood by some to mean the Roman law, which, like those of Turkey and some Christian states, recognized certain kinds of worship or religion besides that established, and allowed no others. To the supposition that it means the law of Moses, these interpreters object, that with this the Roman magistrates had no concern, either as interpreters or executioners. But as this is just what Gallio says in the next verse, the objection rather favours that construction. It is possible, however, that the phrase was meant to be equivocal by those who used it, so that what was really a violation only of their own law might be taken by the inexperienced Proconsul as an offence against the Roman government, and as such punished.

14. Paul being about (see above, on 3:3; 5:35; 11:28; 12:6; 13:34; 16:27; 17:31) to open his mouth (see above, on 8:35; 10:34), i.e. to speak in his own defence and in answer to the charge just brought against him. Some suppose Gallio's interruption to be here recorded as a disrespectful or contemptuous act towards Paul himself. But it seems to have been rather like the practice in the English courts of hearing only one side when the case is too plain to require discussion, and stopping the party in whose favour the decision is to be. Thus viewed, the interruption was a virtual decision in Paul's favour, or at least an intimation that he needed no defence. The reason is given in the other clause by Gallio himself. If indeed, a particle suggesting that the case is only a supposed one. A matter of wrong, literally, an injustice, or a legal injury, a violation of your civil rights. Lewdness is too strong and too specific a version of a Greek word near akin to that translated mischief in 13:10, and denoting undue facility of action, i.e. recklessness, unscrupulousness, here determined by the epithet (wicked) to denote an immorality, perhaps as distinguished from an illegal act, which had just been mentioned. The two together are intended to describe the whole class of offences, of which the civil magistrate was bound to take cognizance. Reason would is an obscure translation of a dubious Greek phrase, which may either mean, according to reason, or throughout (your) speech. 'I would hear you as in duty bound,' or 'I would hear you to the end.' The verb does not literally mean to hear, but to bear or bear with. 'I would think it rational or right to bear with your complaints,' or, 'I would bear with you, as long as you thought fit to speak,' if your complaints had reference either to legal or to moral wrong.

15, 16. But if, as you know to be the case, which is equivalent to since, the conditional particle not always signifying doubt (see above, on 4:9; 16:15.) A question, literally, something sought, that is a subject of inquiry and dispute (see above, on 15:2, and below, on 23:29; 25:19; 26:3.) Words, literally, a word, or language, speech, as opposed to action. Names does not necessarily denote the names Messiah, Christ, and Jesus, although these may be included, as may those of Christian, Jew, &c. But the term has rather a generic sense, as when we say proverbially "names are things." The sentence is descriptive of mere verbal controversy or logomachy, as opposed to questions of principle or fact. And of law, the (law) with you, or that belonging to, prevailing among you, not us. The preposition and construction are the same as in 17:28 (your own poets, i.e. yours, not ours.) Look ye to it, literally, ye shall see (i.e. must see to that) yourselves, a very similar expression to that used by the chief priests in reply to Judas, when he repented of his crime and returned the price of blood (Matt. 27:3–5.) For a judge of these things I do not wish (or choose) to be. Nothing could be more characteristic of a Roman, such as Gallio is reputed to have been, than this contemptuous indifference, unmixed with any thing like spite or anger, towards the Jews and their internal feuds and broils. The perfect truth of these unstudied portraits, without any thing like formal or avowed description, is among the strongest incidental proofs of authenticity. (See below, on 25:18–20.) In perfect keeping with this speech is the act by which it was accompanied (v. 16), and which is not to be regarded as an act of brutal violence, but merely as a summary and practical expression of the resolution which he had expressed in words. Drave (or drove) them from the judgment-seat (tribunal, as in v. 12), i.e. peremptorily dismissed them and refused to hear them further. This attenuated meaning of the verb is found in the best Greek writers, who apply it to banishment, and even to the marching of an army.

17. Instead of Greeks, some manuscripts read Jews, according to which text the sense would seem to be, that they ascribed their failure to the way in which their case had been presented to the governor by Sosthenes. Another still less probable opinion is that Sosthenes, like Crispus (see above, on v. 8), was a Christian convert, and was beaten by the Jews on that account. But if Gallio would not even hear their charges against Paul, he surely would not have allowed such violence against his followers. According to the common text, the meaning seems to be, that when the governor so cavalierly sent them off, the Greeks who had been looking on expressed their indignation, or perhaps gave vent to their long cherished hatred of the Jews, by beating their official representative. The latest critics omit both words (Greeks and Jews), which leaves the clause indefinite, or refers it to all present; but as these must have been mostly Greeks or Gentiles, the essential meaning still remains the same. There is no need of assuming that Sosthenes was the successor of Crispus, or the ruler of another synagogue, as the office probably was not elective, and was held by a plurality of persons (see above, on v. 8.) That this is "Sosthenes the brother," named in the beginning of Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians, is not impossible, and rather favoured by the identity of name; but it rests on no other proof, and requires us to assume that he was afterwards converted. And none of these things concerned Gallio (or was a care to him.) The original construction is impersonal, like that in John 12:6, where the same form of the verb is used, whereas in every other case it is the present tense (see Matt. 22:16; Mark 4:38, 12, 14; Luke 10:10; John 10:13; 1 Cor. 9:9; 1 Pet. 5:7), and in one the imperative mood (1 Cor. 7:21.) The immediate reference in these things is to the disorderly proceedings of the multitude before the very judgment-seat of Gallio, whose silence and indifference is recorded as a token of his nonchalance or stoical apathy, and only indirectly of that callousness or coldness in religion, which is commonly regarded as the principal thing here intended; so that Gallio has become a standing type, and "Gallio-like" a stereotyped simile, in our religious phraseology. That he knew little and cared less about the true religion, is most probable; that he was equally indifferent to all religions, true or false, is possible; but neither of these facts is here disclosed, except by inference from what is really affirmed, to wit, that when the Jews accused Paul he refused to hear them, and when Sosthenes was beaten by the mob he suffered it, and none of these things troubled or concerned him.

18. The original construction is, 'And Paul, having still remained (continued on, or staid over) many days (literally, days enough), having taken leave of the brethren, sailed, &c.' After this, supplied by the translators, may be said to represent the particle with which the Greek verb is compounded, and which properly denotes addition or continuance. It may here suggest that he remained there longer than he first intended, as another compound of the same verb does in 10:48; 15:34. The brethren, the converts who composed the infant church of Corinth. Sailed thence, literally, sailed out, a kindred form to that in 13:4 (sailed away.) Into Syria, i.e. on his way to Antioch, though not by a direct course (see below, on vs. 19, 22.) Having shorn (or shaved) the head in Cenchrea, one of the two ports of Corinth, on the east side of the isthmus (see above, on v. 1.) It has been a subject of dispute for ages, and especially since Chrysostom and Jerome, whether this relates to Paul or Aquila. In favour of the latter construction, it is urged that Aquila not only is the nearest antecedent, but is postponed to Priscilla, as if to bring him into closer connection with the verb that follows. The force of this argument is much diminished by the fact that the names occur in the same order elsewhere (Rom. 16:3; 2 Tim. 4:19), perhaps because Priscilla was more active and intelligent or better known. The position of the name is also neutralized by the construction, in which there is a series of participles, all relating to Paul, unless this be an exception. If Aquila were meant, the natural expression would have been, who shaved (not having shaved) his head in Cenchrea. There is, moreover, no sufficient reason for the mention of a circumstance so unimportant in relation to a minor personage like Aquila. If meant to show Paul's tolerance of ceremonial observances among his followers and friends, which is by no means an obvious supposition, this design would doubtless have been more distinctly stated. But admitting that the words refer to Paul, there are still two questions to be answered. The first is, how this ceremonial act is to be reconciled with Paul's anti-judaic principles and practice. The answer is, that during the anomalous interval between the day of Pentecost and the downfall of Jerusalem, the observance of the ceremonial law, whether stated or occasional, was always lawful, sometimes necessary, often expedient, as a means of safety or conciliation. (See above, on 2:46; 16:3.) In the present case it may have had respect to persons with whom Paul expected soon to meet, either in Jerusalem or Antioch, where some suppose the conference referred to in Gal. 2:11–14, to have taken place soon after this, although it has been commonly referred to a much earlier date. The other question has respect to the nature of the vow here mentioned. Its form resembles that of the Nazarites, who abstained from strong drink and allowed their hair to grow for a specific time, at the close of which they shaved their heads and offered certain sacrifices, as prescribed in Num. 6:1–21. But as these rites could be performed only at the temple, or at least in Palestine, the most probable conclusion, on the whole, is that this was a personal or private vow, such as we read of elsewhere (e.g. Gen. 28:20; Lev. 27:2; Num. 30:2; Deut. 23:21; Judg. 11:30; 1 Sam. 1:11; 2 Sam. 15:7; Ps. 65:1; Ecc. 5:4), the outward formalities of which would naturally be conformed to those of which the law took cognizance. Some suppose that the shaving of his head was the assumption of the vow, but this is contrary to all analogy and usage. (See below, on 21:24, and compare Num. 6:13, 18.)

19. Came down, upon (or into) Ephesus, arrived there (see above, on 16:1.) Ephesus being opposite to Corinth, on the eastern side of the Egean Sea, may have been a customary stopping-place in voyages from Greece to Syria. Left them (Aquila and Priscilla) there (in Ephesus.) The relation of the clauses is obscure and doubtful. Some suppose the synagogue at Ephesus, as at Berea (see above, on 17:10), to have been outside of the city, and that Paul went out to it, leaving his companions in the town. But this, even if true, was too minute a circumstance to be recorded, which objection does not lie against the common opinion, that the leaving here meant was at Paul's departure to resume his journey eastward, and that after mentioning it, Luke reverts to his short stay there, for the purpose of noting that he did not neglect even this occasion of addressing the Jews in the synagogue. As if he had said, Aquila and Priscilla went no further, leaving Paul to complete his voyage alone, but not till he had gone into the synagogue and there addressed the Jews, showing how far he was from having abandoned the desire and hope of their salvation. (See above, on v. 6, and on 13:46; and for the meaning of the verb translated reasoned, on v. 4; 17:2, 17.)

20, 21. When they desired him, literally, they asking him (see above, on 3:3; 10:48; 16:39.) To tarry longer time, literally, for more time to remain. This request implies that they were favourably impressed with Paul's address, and, as some suppose, with his ceremonial act at Cenchrea. Consented, a Greek verb originally meaning nodded, as a natural and customary gesture of assent or affirmation. Bade farewell, the same verb that is rendered took his leave in v. 18. I must, or it is necessary for me (δεῖ με.) By all means, or at all events, whatever else may happen, in familiar English, any how. The feast, the coming (one), that now approaching or at hand. This is commonly supposed to have been Pentecost, as navigation was not commonly resumed before the passover, and no other annual solemnity was absolutely called "the feast." Keep, literally, make, which may either mean observe, celebrate, or spend, pass, as applied to time in 15:33, above. The latter is commonly preferred, because it seems less probable that Paul considered himself bound to keep a Jewish festival, than that he wished to take advantage of it as an opportunity of meeting with great numbers from all quarters. (See above, on 2:5.) Some of the latest critics expunge this clause, as an interpolation from 20:16, on the ground of its omission in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions. But others, with much more probability, account for this omission by supposing, that these old transcribers and translators fell into the natural mistake, still made by many readers, of believing that no visit to Jerusalem is mentioned in the context, and therefore thought it necessary to omit a promise which was not fulfilled (but see below, upon the next verse.) There is no doubt that the last clause of v. 21 is genuine. God willing, Vulg. Deo volente. Sailed, not the verb used in v. 18, but that in 13:13; 16:11.

22. When he had landed, literally, having come down (i.e. from the vessel) into Cesarea, and gone up (i.e. to Jerusalem), and saluted the church (i.e. the mother-church there, the only one that would be absolutely so called), he went down (from Jerusalem again) to Antioch, thus returning to his point of departure, as he did at the close of his first mission (see above, on 14:26.) It may seem more obvious and natural at first sight to apply the middle clauses of this verse to Cesarea, which is actually mentioned, while Jerusalem is not. But why should he have gone out of his way to Cesarea, if not in execution of the purpose so explicitly avowed in the preceding verse? And why should his saluting the church there be mentioned as a circumstance of any moment? He is also said to have gone up, for which no reason can be given at Cesarea, whereas it is the constant usage with respect to Jerusalem. (See above, on 11:2; 15:2, and compare Matt. 20:17; Mark 10:32; Luke 2:42; John 5:1; 7:8; 11:55; 12:20; Gal. 1:17, 18; 2:1, 2.) The same is true of going down from Jerusalem to Antioch (see above, on 8:5; 9:32; 11:27; 12:19; 15:1); but in what sense could he go down from Cesarea to the same place? To all these reasons may be added a conclusive one derived from the preceding verse. If Paul was not really in haste to reach the Holy City, how can his declaration there be justified, or what could be his motive for making it? If, on the other hand, this was his purpose, when was it carried into execution? Or if it was prevented, why is not that recorded, to explain and justify the failure? The only method of avoiding all these difficulties is by adopting what is now the usual interpretation of the verse before us.

23. A chapter might conveniently have been begun here, at the opening of Paul's third foreign mission. Having made (i.e. spent, see above, on v. 21 and 15:33) some time (at Antioch, see above, on 4:28.) Departed, literally, came out, went forth (see above, on 7:4; 10:23; 11:25; 12:17; 14:20; 15:24, 40; 16:3, 10, 40; 17:33.) Went over, literally, coming (i.e. passing) through (see above, on 8:4, 40; 9:32; 10:38; 11:19, 22; 13:6, 14; 14:24; 15:3, 41; 16:6; 17:23.) Galatia and Phrygia, interior provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned together with the same brevity as here, and with the same peculiar formula (the Galatian region) in the account of Paul's second mission (see above, on 16:6), but in the opposite order (Phrygia and Galatia), to which some refer the phrase in order here used; but it rather has respect to the methodical successive visitation of the churches, the details of which were probably diversified by no extraordinary incidents, as both visitations are so briefly mentioned. Strengthening, the same word that is rendered confirming (or confirmed) in 14:22; 15:32, 41, in all which cases, as in this, it denotes not a ceremony but an intellectual and spiritual process of instruction and conviction.

24. Having thus despatched in a single sentence Paul's revisitation of Galatia and Phrygia, Luke proceeds to the more important part of his third mission, namely, his residence at Ephesus; but first, as a preliminary topic, introduces the appearance of Apollos there before Paul's arrival. A Jew, by birth and education, in which sense Paul himself was one. Apollos by name, most probably a contracted form of Apollonius. (For similar contracted forms in as, see above, on 15:22.) An Alexandrian by birth (race or nation, see above, on v. 2; 4:36.) Alexandria in Egypt, so called from its founder, Alexander the Great, was at this time, not only a great commercial mart, but an illustrious seat both of Greek and Hebrew learning. A multitude of Jews were settled here under the Ptolemies or Macedonian kings of Egypt, and were thus brought into contact with the Greek philosophy and civilization. It was here that the Septuagint version had its origin, and the school of Platonizing Jews represented by Philo. There was no place where greater advantages of education were enjoyed in the age of the Apostles, among which may be reckoned the greatest library of the ancient world. Eloquent, a Greek word also meaning learned, especially in history; but the first sense is more common with the later writers, and is probably the prominent one here, as Apollos's scriptural learning is separately mentioned in the last clause. The original order is, arrived at Ephesus, being mighty in the Scriptures. This collocation, which is not retained in English, seems to separate the qualities ascribed to Apollos, as if one were previous and the other subsequent to his arrival; or as if the first were of a general nature, and the second had a more specific reference to the object of his visit. He was eloquent and educated, but when he appeared at Ephesus, displayed another special qualification, that of intimate acquaintance with the word of God, and an extraordinary power in expounding and enforcing it, both which ideas are suggested by the pregnant phrase, mighty in the Scriptures.

25. Was instructed might be understood to mean after he arrived at Ephesus; but the original expression is the usual form of the pluperfect passive, he had been instructed, i.e. already, or before he came there. The verb itself is one peculiar to the Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical Greek, and is used to denote oral elementary instruction, being the root of the words catechism, catechize, &c. (Compare Luke 1:4; Rom. 2:18; 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6, and see below, on 21:21, 24.) The way of the Lord is a phrase used elsewhere only in relation to the ministry of John the Baptist, as our Lord's forerunner (see Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4; John 1:23), and as John's baptism is expressly mentioned in the last clause, it has been suggested, and is not impossible, that it here means the religion taught by John, i.e. the doctrine of a Messiah come or coming, and of his kingdom as at hand (see Matt. 3:1, 2, 11, 12.) It is commonly, however, understood to mean the gospel, or the doctrine of Christ himself, elsewhere called the (this or that) way. (See above, on 9:2, and below, on 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22.) Fervent (literally, boiling) in spirit, is a phrase used by Paul in Rom. 12:11. Spake (or talked) and taught may signify private and public teaching (see above, on 16:13, 32.) Diligently is not the meaning of the Greek word, but exactly, accurately, or correctly, i.e. as far as he knew or had as yet been taught, if by the things of (or about) the Lord we understand the gospel. But if that phrase means John's prospective preaching of the Saviour, the adverb may be taken in its strongest sense. Knowing, knowing well, a stronger word than that which is commonly so rendered (see above, on 10:28; 15:7, and below, on 19:15, 25; 20:18; 22:19; 24:10; 26:26.) The baptism of John may be either the rite properly so called, or John's whole ministry and doctrine (see above, on 1:22; 10:37.) The meaning cannot be, that Apollos did not know that the Messiah had actually come, or who he was; for John had identified him and baptized him before the close of his own ministry. (See Matt. 3:13; Mark 1:9; Luke 3:21; John 1:29–36; 3:26–36.)

26. This same man (οὗτός τε), or this man also, besides talking and teaching as above related, now began to speak publicly and plainly (see above, on 9:27, 29; 13:46; 14:3) in the synagogue of Ephesus, where, as a native Jew, he had liberty not only of worship but of speech (see above, on 13:5, 14, 15.) But Aquila and Priscilla (whom Paul had left at Ephesus, v. 19), having heard him, in the synagogue which they still frequented, or to which they were attracted by the fame of this new preacher, took him unto (them), into their society or company, the same verb that is used above in 17:5. Expounded, set forth, stated, and explained, the same verb that is used above in 11:4, and in a very different sense, in 7:21. The way of God, i.e. his method of salvation, and the doctrine of his Son. The latest critics omit God, and simply read the way, which may then be an abbreviation of the phrase used in v. 25. That it means the same with that phrase, seems to follow from their teaching him this way more accurately or exactly, the comparative form of the adverb in v. 25. The English versions are peculiarly unfortunate in rendering this adverb by two entirely different English ones (diligently and perfectly), neither of which expresses its true meaning. The sense of this clause may be either that they gave him a more accurate idea of the gospel, the Christian system; or that they taught him more exactly what the way of the Lord was which John came to prepare.

27. When he was disposed (literally, he desiring) to pass, or go through, i.e. through the intervening space (see above, on v. 23) into Achaia, and no doubt to Corinth, as the most important place in the province (see above, on v. 1.) This wish may have been prompted by the representations and advice of Aquila and Priscilla, who perhaps preferred that he should build at Corinth upon Paul's foundation, rather than anticipate Paul's work in Ephesus. The brethren may denote the same two persons, but perhaps includes some other Christians whom they had found or gathered there. It is not impossible indeed that the Ephesian church was organized already, as Paul in his epistle to it nowhere claims to be its founder, as he does in other cases. (Compare 1 Thess. 1:5, 6, 9; Phil. 1:5, 6; Gal 1:8, 9.) There is here an ambiguity in the original, which has not been retained in the translation. Exhorting stands before the brethren wrote, and is by some supposed to mean exhorting (him), i.e. encouraging him in his purpose. But most interpreters explain exhorting as a statement of what they wrote, the verb and participle indicating simultaneous acts, as in 1:24; 19:2. When he was come, or, having arrived, i.e. in Achaia, and no doubt at Corinth (see below, on 19:1.) Helped, or contributed, the same verb that is used above in 4:15; 17:18, and below, in 20:14. Had believed, or been converted, not through his preaching, but through Paul's, before Apollos came. These he assisted, as appears from the next verse, in their controversy with the unbelieving Jews. Through grace is by some connected with the remoter verb, contributed or helped through grace, i.e. by special divine influence. To the other and more obvious construction with believed, it is objected that the statement would be here superfluous and out of place, as Luke is not relating how they became Christians at a former time, but how Apollos now assisted them. It may be doubted whether this consideration is sufficient to outweigh the argument derived from the collocation of the words.

28. The way in which he helped them is particularly stated. Mightily, intensely, vehemently, which may refer either to the force of his arguments, or to the warmth of his delivery, most probably to both together. (Compare Luke 23:10, where the Greek word is the same.) Convinced, refuted, or confuted utterly, in Greek an emphatic double compound verb, denoting not a change of mind in the opponents, as the English version would imply, but their logical discomfiture or failure in argument, and the complete triumph of Apollos over them. The adverse party were the unbelieving Jews, with whom he was particularly qualified to deal (see above, on v. 24.) Publicly (see above, on 16:37, and below, on 20:20), no doubt in the synagogue (see above, on v. 26.) Showing, evincing, or demonstrating. By (or through) the Scriptures, as the only means of proof (see above, on 17:2, 11.) The Christ, the Messiah of the Prophecies (see above, on v. 5.)

CHAPTER 19

WE have here the history of Paul's long residence and ministry at Ephesus. He first receives into the church twelve disciples who had only been baptized with the baptism of John (1–7.) He then preaches three months in the synagogue, and two years in another place, until the whole province had heard the gospel (8–10.) His preaching is attested by extraordinary miracles, which certain Jews attempt to imitate, but to their own discomfiture (11–17.) This is followed by a general confession and destruction of magical writings (18–20.) Paul prepares for his departure and sends two of his attendants into Macedonia before him (21–22.) Meantime the city is aroused against him by interested persons (23–34.) The tumult is allayed by the authority and reasonings of a public officer (35–41.)

1. It came to pass (or happened), a connective formula, resuming and continuing the narrative of Paul's third mission, which was interrupted (18:24) to record the first appearance of Apollos. While Apollos was, literally, in his being. He was gone to Corinth, therefore, before Paul arrived in Ephesus. Coasts, in the old English sense of borders districts (see above, on 13:50.) The Greek word here used properly means parts, i.e. divisions of the country. Upper, i.e. inland, perhaps with some allusion to the mountains in the interior of Asia Minor. The parts here meant may be Phrygia and Galatia (see above, on 18:23), or the country between them and Ephesus. This last was a very ancient city of Ionia, near the mouth of the Cayster, famous for its wealth and commerce, and for the temple of Diana just without its walls, built in the sixth century before Christ, burnt down in the fourth, on the night that Alexander the Great was born, and rebuilt in such a style as to be reckoned by the ancients one of the seven wonders of the world. (See below, on v. 24.) Ancient Ephesus was always flourishing, and under the Roman domination, the greatest city of Asia Minor, whereas now it exists only in ruins, near the Turkish village of Asayaluk; while Smyrna, by a singular but not uncommon contrast, is now more flourishing and populous than ever. In fulfilment of the promise made on his way from Corinth to Jerusalem (see above, on 18:21), Paul now commences his long residence at Ephesus, of which the fruits were so abundant and so durable. Finding, unexpectedly, and on his first arrival (see above, on 18:2.) Certain (i.e. some, a few) disciples, not of Apollos, or of John the Baptist, but of Christ, as the word always means when absolutely used (see above, on 18:23, 27), and as appears from the way in which Paul treated them.

2. Did ye receive the Holy Ghost when ye believed (or were converted)? not, have you received it since? which would be otherwise expressed in Greek. The verb and participle denote simultaneous actions, as in 1:24; 5:30; 10:39; 18:27. The Holy Ghost, i.e. his extraordinary influences, with their miraculous effects, by which baptism was so frequently accompanied (see above, on 2:38; 8:17; 9:17; 10:44–48; 11:15, 16; 15:8.) It might seem indeed to have been an invariable conjunction from Paul's question; but this question may have been occasioned by something else not here recorded; or it may have been customary in such cases, to ask whether these extraordinary gifts had been received or not, without implying that they were essential or invariable in every case of genuine conversion. Paul's doubt as to their baptism did not arise from the absence of these gifts, but from their imperfect knowledge of the true religion. If they had simply answered No, he might have questioned them no further; but the singular form of their denial led him to pursue the subject. We have not so much as heard, may be more exactly rendered, but (or why, i.e. so far from receiving it) we did not even hear if (or whether) there is a Holy Spirit. That they had literally never heard of his existence is incredible, even if they were mere Jews (whose Scriptures teem with references to him), or disciples of John, or of Apollos, much more if they had believed in Christ, which is the constant meaning of the verb believe when absolutely used. (See above, on 2:44; 4:32; 11:21; 13:12, 39, 48; 14:1; 15:5, 7; 17:12, 34; 18:8, 27.) Heard is in Greek an aorist relating, not to a long interval, but to a single point of time, to wit, the date of their conversion or profession. They did not then hear the Holy Spirit mentioned, any more than if there had been no such being. Far from receiving his extraordinary gifts, they were not even baptized in his name, or instructed in relation to his work and office. The expression of this fact is strong but natural, and not without analogies, even in the dialect of common life. As if an Englishman were asked whether he swore allegiance to the Queen on a particular occasion, he might simply say that no such oath was tendered to him; but if he wished to make his negative peculiarly emphatic, might express the same idea by declaring that he did not hear her named; or still more strongly, that he did not hear that there was such a person, without any risk of being understood to mean that he had never heard of her.

3. This second question is not founded on the first, but on their strange and unexpected answer. He does not mean to ask them how they could have been baptized at all without receiving these extraordinary gifts, for the two things did not always go together (see above, on 8:16); but how they could have been baptized without so much as hearing of the Holy Spirit. This implies, what is otherwise most probable, that Christian baptism was administered from the beginning in the form prescribed by Christ himself (Matt. 28:19), and that no one therefore could receive it without hearing of the Holy Ghost, in whose name, as well as in the Father's and the Son's, every convert was baptized. Since they could not be baptized into Christ (see above, on 8:16) without so much as hearing of the Holy Spirit, Paul infers that they had not been so baptized at all, and asks them into what they were baptized, i.e. into what profession or communion, into what creed or system, into what faith or religion, they had been initiated by the rite to which they had submitted. Unto, in both clauses, should be into, as the usual and strict sense of the Greek word, and as more expressive of the main idea here suggested, namely, that of initiation, union, and incorporation. But how could they be baptized into a baptism? Not at all, if by baptism be understood the sacrament or rite itself. They might be baptized with it, or according to it; but neither of these senses is expressed in the original, which means simply into it, as just explained. The solution of the difficulty is afforded by the use of the word baptism elsewhere to denote John's ministry or mission (see above, on 1:22), and the subject of his preaching (see above, on 10:37.) Retaining this sense here, to be baptized into John's baptism is to be initiated, by that rite, into the doctrine, system, or religion which he taught. This was the doctrine of repentance (see above, on 13:24), or reform of heart and life, not as sufficient of itself or practicable by itself, but as a preparation for something else, namely, faith in the Messiah, whose way John himself came to prepare. This Messiah he identified as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:29–36; 3:26–30), who must therefore be acknowledged by all who were baptized with the baptism of John. There is no ground, therefore, for supposing that these men knew nothing of Jesus as the true Messiah; for this was an essential part of John's doctrine, and without this they would not have been called disciples (see above, on v. 1.) Their deficiency consisted in their stopping short at the Messiahship of Jesus, without any knowledge of his doctrine, miracles, atoning death, resurrection, ascension, and effusion of the Spirit, in a word, of any thing distinctively or characteristically Christian.

4. Paul explains to them the prospective and preparatory character of John's ministry, who exhorted the people to believe, not on himself, but on the coming (one); and this coming one was Jesus. Though not expressed, it is implied that John had no church or religion of his own, into which men were initiated by his baptism, but merely introduced men to his principal, by whom alone they could be saved, or even fully instructed. Where this effect did not ensue, but men stopped short at the baptism of John, it was deprived of its whole meaning and effect.

5. And hearing, they were baptized. There is here a remarkable ambiguity of syntax, which has led to two entirely different interpretations of the narrative. Some of the older writers understand this as a part of what Paul said, and therefore as referring to the people mentioned in v. 4. And hearing (what John said about believing in the coming one) they were baptized (as so believing) into the name of the Lord Jesus (i.e. into union with him as the only Saviour.) The objection usually made to this construction, that John did not, in point of fact, baptize into the name of Jesus, begs the question here at issue, as this passage, if a part of Paul's discourse, would be sufficient to establish what is thus denied, though not in the most obvious meaning of the words. Paul may, in that case, have intended to describe, not the formula which John used, but the end he had in view. As if he had said, 'Since John called the people to believe on a Messiah yet to come, and this Messiah was Jesus, those who received his baptism were really (though not ostensibly) baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus.' This view of the passage is preferred by some who are unwilling to admit the fact of a rebaptism. Most interpreters, however, are agreed that these are not the words of the Apostle, but of the historian, describing the effect of what Paul said upon his hearers. Hearing (his statement in relation to John's baptism, as deriving all its worth and meaning from its relation to the Saviour) they were baptized in (or into) the name of the Lord Jesus. The question why this was required or permitted has been variously answered. Some say, because John's baptism was essentially distinct from that of Christ and could not answer the same purpose. But we do not read that Apollos was rebaptized, or our Lord's own disciples, some or all of whom had been baptized by John. It is true, however, that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, requires all to be baptized, without inquiring whether any had been John's disciples. To reconcile these seeming contradictions, some suppose that there was no fixed rule, but that baptism was administered or not, at the discretion of the minister, or even at the option of the convert, who might wish to be assured of his legitimate admission to the church, by a repetition of the rite, even where it was unnecessary, as for instance in the case before us. Another explanation is, that they were not again baptized with water, but for the first time with the Holy Spirit; an idea nowhere else expressed by the phrase, baptized into the name of Jesus. Perhaps the most satisfactory solution is the one afforded by the intimate relation between John and Christ, and the entire dependence of John's baptism upon faith in Christ for its whole meaning and validity. Where this was understood, and those baptized by John went on, as he instructed them, without undue delay or interruption, to embrace Christ as their Saviour and his doctrine as their faith, rebaptism would have been a ceremonial mockery. This was probably the case with most of Christ's disciples who were resident in Palestine. But where, from their removal on return to foreign countries, or from other providential interruptions, they had gone no further than this first step, but continued at the threshold to which John had led them, long after the conclusion of his ministry and life, the work had as it were to be begun de novo, not because John's baptism was invalid or even insufficient, when correctly understood and followed up, but because by being insulated and divided from the work of Christ and of the Holy Ghost, to which it was a solemn introduction, it became useless and unmeaning, and must therefore be renewed from the beginning. This hypothesis not only serves to throw light on the case before us, but to harmonize it with the other facts which have been mentioned. That these men regarded John himself as the Messiah, as we know him to have been by later heretics, is inconsistent with Luke's calling them disciples (v. 1), and Paul's speaking of the time when they believed (v. 2.) A similar question of construction has occurred before in 15:5; but a still more striking parallel is that in Luke 7:29, 30, because the reference is there, as well as here, to John the Baptist's preaching, and to its effect upon his hearers.

6, 7. Paul having laid (his) hands upon them, they prophesied, not foretold, but spoke by inspiration. (See above, on 2:17, 18.) The effect is similar to that described in 8:17; 10:44, except that in the latter case baptism had not yet been administered, and there was no imposition of hands. Those who explain v. 5 as the words of Paul, regard this as a confirmation of their previous baptism; those who do not, as a confirmation of that just administered. Such confirmation cannot now be practised, as it had relation, not to the sanctifying influences, but to the miraculous endowments, of the Holy Spirit, which have long since ceased. All the men were about twelve, is an unusual expression, meaning something more than a simple designation of the number. It may have been intended to preclude the false impression, that all the brethren in Ephesus (see above, on 18:27) were in this infantile state of ignorance and backwardness. All may then be understood to mean all told, or at the most. 'So far was this from being universal, that the men concerned in this transaction, on the highest computation, were not more than twelve.'

8. The occurrence just related took place at the time of Paul's arrival in Ephesus. Luke now begins the history of his residence and labours there. He gives his first attention to the Jews, not only in accordance with his general practice, but because they had invited him to come among them. (See above, on 18:20.) Disputing (or discoursing) and persuading may describe his preaching as both doctrinal and practical, didactic and hortatory; or the first term may describe his preaching, and the second its effect. (See above, on 18:4.) The subject of his preaching was all that related to the kingdom of God, the new dispensation, the doctrine and church of Christ. (See above, on 1:3; 8:12.)

9. When, literally, as, suggesting both the time and the occasion of Paul's conduct. Were hardened, became obstinate in unbelief. Believed not, in Greek a single word which may be rendered disbelieved, denoting not a mere negation, but a positive refusal. The Greek verb also suggests the idea of disobedience or resistance to authority. (See above, on 14:2; 17:5.) Speaking evil, vilifying, or reviling, here used as an equivalent to blaspheming (see above, on 13:48; 18:6), in its original or lower sense, and also in the secondary higher sense, so far as the evil speaking was directed against God or Christ. That way, literally, the way, i.e. the new religion, elsewhere more fully called the way of God, of the Lord, and of salvation. (See above, on 16:17, 18, 25, 26.) The same abbreviated form occurs above, 9:2. Before the multitude, i.e. the congregation in the synagogue, as appears from the preceding verse. The opposition was probably so violent and noisy as to make all further efforts in the same place useless or impossible. Departing, not merely going out from one place to another, but seceding, formally withdrawing. (See above, on 15:38.) From the bad sense of the Greek verb here used comes the noun apostasy. (See below, on 21:21, and compare 2 Thess. 2:3.) Separated the disciples, drew a line between them and the unbelieving Jews, withdrew them from the synagogue, and formed a separate society or church. This was no new measure (see above, on 13:46–49; 18:6, 7), but is mentioned here as having been occasioned by the violent resistance to the truth at Ephesus, which is the more remarkable because this very class or body, and most probably some of the same individuals, had urged Paul to remain upon his former visit. (See above, on 18:20.) Disputing, reasoning or discoursing, see above, on v. 8, and on 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19. The word has reference, no doubt, to the polemic, argumentative character imparted to Paul's preaching by the opposition of the unbelieving Jews. School, a Greek word originally meaning leisure or spare time, then study or instruction, then a place for teaching. One Tyrannus, or a certain Tyrannus, as the pronoun is translated elsewhere. (See above, on 5:1; 10:1; 12:1; 13:1; 15:1; 16:1; 18:2, 24.) As Tyrannus originally means a king, Calvin thinks it not impossible that the place here mentioned was a school or college built by some former sovereign of the country, who reigned before the Roman Conquest. It is commonly agreed, however, that it is a proper name, of which use there are numerous examples both in classical and hellenistic Greek. Whether this Tyrannus was a Jewish rabbi, and his school a beth-midrash or private synagogue; or a Greek sophist, with his school of rhetoric; is as doubtful and as unimportant as the questions, whether he and Paul occupied the room together, and whether it was hired or only borrowed.

10. This, i.e. this practice of discoursing daily in the school of Tyrannus. Continued, literally, happened, came to pass, was done, the same Greek word with which the chapter opens. By the space of, an obsolete and needless paraphrase of the preposition for, as in v. 8. Two years, from the time of his removal to the school of Tyrannus, and therefore exclusive of the three months mentioned in v. 8. (See below, on 20:31.) All those inhabiting Asia, i.e. Asia Proper, or Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was the capital. (See above, on 2:9; 6:9; 16:6.) All, a natural hyperbole, and not a strong one, as it may have been literally true, that the entire population of that province heard the new doctrine, not all by coming to Ephesus, nor all directly from the lips of Paul, but some from him or his assistants, in their journeys through the province. It was probably at this time that the seven churches of Asia, to which the epistles in the Book of Revelation are addressed, were originally founded. To this time, likewise, are now commonly referred the epistle to the Galatians and the first to the Corinthians, which last contains a reference to Paul's Ephesian labours in perfect harmony with what is here recorded. (See 1 Cor. 16:8.) The word of the Lord (Jesus), that of which he is both the author and the subject. (See above, on 8:25; 13:48, 49; 15:33, 36; 16:32.)

11, 12. Special miracles, literally, powers, not the common (ones), or still more closely, not those happening (readily or often.) The same phrase occurs again in this book, and is rendered, no little. (See below, on 28:2.) Powers or forces is a term applied to miracles, as being proofs and actual exertions of omnipotence. (See above, on 2:22; 8:13.) What distinguished these from ordinary miracles was not their number or intrinsic magnitude, but the way in which they were performed, through articles of dress, which had been in contact with Paul's body. Handkerchiefs and aprons are both Latin words in the original, the former strictly meaning sweat-cloths (sudaria, elsewhere translated napkin (Luke 19:20; John 11:44; 20:7), from sudor), and the latter half-girdles (semicinctia), i.e. going only half round the body, covering the front of the person. It here denotes most probably a workman's apron, perhaps those of Paul himself if we suppose, as some do, that the articles here mentioned were his own, and were carried to and fro between him and the persons to be healed. It seems more natural, however, to suppose that the people brought their handkerchiefs or aprons and applied them to Paul's person, for the purpose of securing a miraculous effect. Or (not and) may be intended to suggest, that it mattered little what the garment was, or that it was not always the same; as if he had said, handkerchiefs, aprons, or other articles of dress, that could be easily removed and carried. Brought unto (or upon), i.e. applied, imposed; but according to some critics, the true text is brought away. His body, properly, his skin (or surface), not implying that these articles were worn there, which was not the case with either, but that a mere superficial touch or contact was sufficient to impart the healing virtue. The idea of a vulgar superstition, with which Paul had no concern, and which was mercifully countenanced by the event, is as gratuitous and groundless here as in the case of Peter's shadow. (See above, on 5:15.) In either case, there was a special divine ordering, intended to communicate a healing influence to greater numbers and a greater distance, yet without allowing any doubt as to the source or channel of communication, such as might have arisen if the miracles had been performed by mere word of command, without actual proximity or contact, mediate or immediate, with the object. Departed, were got rid of, or escaped from, as the Greek word properly denotes. (Compare Luke 12:58; Heb. 12:15.) As in other cases of the same kind, demoniacal possessions are distinctly mentioned, as the worst form of disease, because entirely preternatural and arising from the real though mysterious agency of evil spirits, the expulsion of which furnished the most striking proof of a divine legation and authority. (See above, on 5:16; 8:7.) These were "the signs of an Apostle," by which Paul's commission was attested in Ephesus as well as Corinth (2 Cor. 12:12.)

13. Then (δὲ) undertook, took in hand, or attempted. (See above, on 9:29, and compare Luke 1:1.) Certain, some, see above, on vs. 1:9, Of, literally, from, i.e. from among (see above, on 12:1; 13:23; 15:5; 17:13); but the latest critics, following the oldest manuscripts, read some also (καί). Vagabond Jews, exorcists, is too strong a version, as the first Greek word (going about, wandering) is descriptive of their mode of life and not their character. (Compare its use in 1 Tim. 5:13; Heb. 11:37.) The whole phrase rather means, itinerant Jewish exorcists, as the second word may be either an adjective or substantive. (See above, on 13:6.) These were men who undertook to expel demons by the use of spells or charms, some of which, according to Josephus, were said to have been handed down from Solomon. Such exorcists were very numerous in the days of Christ and his Apostles, partly because there was a general taste for mysteries and occult science in that age, partly because the number of demoniacs was unusually great. (See above, on 5:16, and compare Matt. 12:27.) They used the name of Jesus, no doubt, because they had heard Paul so use it, and desired to try its efficacy for themselves. Over or upon, implying personal proximity, not merely as to them, in their behalf. We (or according to the oldest copies, I) adjure you, i.e. solemnly require you to come out of those whom you have thus possessed. These are here actively described as having evil spirits, as a sick man may be either said to have a disease, or to be seized, held, by it. As Jesus (or Joshua) was a common name among the Jews (see above, on 7:45; 13:6), the person meant is here distinguished as the Jesus whom Paul preached, or proclaimed as the Messiah.

14. This may either be a single case among those mentioned in v. 13, or a more specific statement of the only one there meant; as if he had said, 'the exorcists who did this were certain sons,' &c. Some or certain (omitted in our version) may be construed, as a qualifying term, with seven, in the sense of some (or about) seven. But it suits the collocation of the Greek words better to take them separately, one as an indefinite, the other as a definite description of the same persons, 'certain sons of Sceva, seven (in number.)' A chief priest, resident at Ephesus, is something strange, and has been variously explained according to the different senses of the Greek word. (See above, on 4:4.) It is not impossible that a member of the sacerdotal race, entitled to be thus distinguished, may have been residing there. But it is also possible that chief-priest here has reference to the worship of Diana, and that this Sceva was a renegade or apostate Jew. This is the less improbable because the Greek word (ἀρχιερεῦς) was not only in general use among the heathen, but occurs repeatedly on coins and in other inscriptions relating to the worship of Diana at Ephesus. The word Jew, as in 18:23, and often elsewhere, relates only to his origin. The name Scœva occurs both in Greek and Latin writers.

15. And answering, responding to this impious invocation. The evil spirit, i.e. wicked, fallen, as distinguished from good angels. The same idea is sometimes expressed by the phrase unclean (or impure) spirits. (See above, on 5:16; 8:7; Luke 4:36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42, and compare Luke 7:21; 8:2. and vs. 12; 19:13, above.) The evil spirit said, through the vocal organs of the man whom he possessed, but probably in such a manner as to indicate the presence of two personal agents. (See above, on 8:7.) I know is expressed by two entirely distinct Greek verbs, the last of which is commonly explained to mean a more familiar knowledge, though the first is applied even to our Lord's omniscience (e.g. in John 2:24, 25; 5:42; 10:14, 15, 27.) The difference meant to be expressed, if any, is probably rather one of quality than quantity, the first verb being more reverential and the second more familiar. 'I know who Jesus is, and as for Paul, I am well acquainted with him.' One writer paraphrases, 'Jesus I know (to my cost);' but this can hardly be included in the meaning of the verb, nor is it even necessarily suggested by the context, though readily deducible from other passages. (See Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34.) The question (Who are ye?) is expressive both of indignation and contempt, in which sense it is familiar to the dialect of common life. It is here equivalent to saying, What right have you to use this venerable name, at which the very devils tremble? (See James 2:17, 19.)

16. The verbal expression of contempt is followed up by corresponding acts, which are here ascribed to the man himself, as the words in the preceding verse are to the evil spirit, a variation altogether natural, as both belonged to both. Under the resistless power of the demon, the demoniac attacked the presumptuous exorcists. Overcame them, mastered them, lorded it over them, the same verb that is used in Matt. 20:25; Mark 10:42; 1 Pet. 5:3. Prevailed (literally, was strong or powerful) against them. Naked, i.e. with their clothes torn partially or wholly off. The Greek word sometimes means imperfectly or badly clothed (e.g. Matt. 25:36; John 21:7; James 2:15.) This violence was permitted both as a proof of real demoniacal possession, and as a punishment of the exorcists. Some of the oldest manuscripts and latest critics read against them both, as if only two of the seven were actually thus maltreated. But this may be a mere correction by some copyist who thought the disproportion too great between one and seven.

17. This occurrence was recorded, not for its own sake merely, though sufficiently remarkable, but on account of its effect in discouraging all such attempts, and vindicating Paul's miraculous performances from the charge or the suspicion of magical imposture. Was known, or became known, by report, to many who were not eye-witnesses. (See above, on 1:19; 9:42.) Jews and Greeks (or Gentiles, see above, on v. 10, and compare 14:1; 16:1, 3; 17:4; 18:4, 17), the two great classes or divisions of the people as to religion. Both are particularly mentioned, either because the Jews were very numerous in Ephesus and formed a large proportion of the population, or because they were primarily interested in this incident, as having taken place among themselves (but see above, on v. 14.) Jews and Greeks also, or both Jews and Greeks. Fear, not mere terror, or dread of similar discomfiture to that experienced by the sons of Sceva, but religious awe, a sense of the divine presence, such as signal providences sometimes produce, even in irreligious men. (See above, on 2:43; 5:5, 11.) This feeling had particular respect to the Lord Jesus, as the Saviour whom Paul preached (see above, on v. 13), and whose name had been profaned by the exorcists, but was now magnified, extolled, and honoured, by their ignominious defeat and punishment.

18. A further effect of this remarkable occurrence was to touch the consciences of many converts and constrain them to acknowledge their malpractices. Many too (τε) of those who had believed (in Christ) or been converted to the true religion. This may mean those who were converted now, on this occasion, in consequence of this event. But the past form of the participle rather seems to indicate those who had before believed or been converted, but were now re-awakened by this singular occurrence, and the proof which it afforded, both of Paul's divine legation, and of God's displeasure at all magical and occult arts. Came, no doubt to Paul, but whether publicly or privately, is not recorded, though the former is more probable from what is mentioned in the next verse. Came, not once for all, or all at once, but, as the form of the verb indicates, were coming, or continued to come, came from time to time. Confessing, or acknowledging, a Greek verb sometimes used in a good sense (e.g. Matt. 11:25; Luke 10:21; Rom. 14:11; 15:9; Phil. 2:11; Rev. 3:5.) Hence some of the old writers understood this verse as meaning, that those who had already been converted, and had gone forth to convert others, now came back to the Apostle, as the twelve and seventy returned to Christ (Mark 6:30; Luke 10:17), acknowledging and reporting, thankfully acknowledging and joyfully announcing (or reporting) their proceedings and performances, i.e. what they had been enabled to accomplish for the good of others. This construction, though it yields a good sense, and removes the appearance of tautology or needless repetition in the next verse, is otherwise less favoured by the context and the usage of the terms employed. Such a report from the Ephesian converts would be out of place between the reference to exorcism in the previous context and to magic in what follows. The word translated deeds, though in itself generic or indifferent (see Matt. 16:27; Rom. 12:4), is commonly used in a bad sense (see Luke 23:51; Rom. 8:13; Col. 3:9.) That the verb confess is also so used, see Matt. 3:6; Mark 1:5; Jas. 5:16. It is therefore commonly agreed, that deeds means evil deeds or sins, and the verb the confession of them, either privately to Paul, or publicly before the people. Some understand this as a general confession of misdeeds, occasioned by a new conviction or alarm of conscience; others, more specifically, that of magical or occult practices continued since their baptism; others still, that of having dealt with sorcerers or wizards, whose own confession is recorded separately in the next verse.

19. And (or but) many, not the word so rendered in the verse preceding, but one which literally means enough, and is of frequent occurrence in this book (see above, on 5:37; 8:11; 9:23, 43; 11:24, 26; 12:12; 14:3, 21; 17:9; 18:18.) Used, literally, practising, the verb corresponding to the noun translated deeds in v. 18. Curious arts, in Greek an article and adjective, the curious (things). The adjective originally means officious, over-busy; then meddlesome, inquisitive, as to the concerns of others (see 1 Tim. 5:13); then as to invisible realities with special reference to futurity, occasioning the use of magical or occult arts, as means of information and discovery. Curious means inquisitive in this sense, i.e. prying into the secret things of God (Deut. 29:29.) (The sense of rare or singular belongs to later usage.) For such practices Ephesus was famous in the ancient world, so that "Ephesian letters" or "inscriptions" (ἐφέσια γράμματα) was almost proverbial as a designation of written charms, amulets and talismans. These were connected with the worship of Diana there, on whose image certain mystical and unintelligible words (such as aski, lix, &c.) are said to have been inscribed, and thence transferred to the grammata aforesaid. To this bad eminence the city seems to have attained very early. Crœsus, king of Lydia, is reported to have muttered some of these Ephesian charms upon his funeral pile, and Eustathius relates a famous story of an Ephesian wrestler at Olympia, who could not be thrown until he was deprived of an Ephesian amulet about his ankle. It is not strange, therefore, that one of the effects of Christianity in Ephesus was to reveal this class of evil deeds. Some identify the persons here referred to with those mentioned in v. 18; others, with more probability, distinguish them as sinners of a certain sort from sinners in general, or as practitioners of occult arts from their patients or employers. Books, in a wide sense, writings, papers, so as to include the charms already mentioned and the large rolls or volumes which contained the rules and formulas of incantation. The converted sorcerers attested their sincerity by burning these instead of selling them, as they might have done for the enormous price mentioned in the last clause. Counted, calculated, or computed. Found, as the product of this reckoning, an expression often used in Greek, to signify an arithmetical result. Fifty thousand (literally, five myriads) of silver, but of what denomination is not mentioned, although commonly supposed to be the Attic drachma, varying in value from fifteen to seventeen cents of our money, making a total of at least seven or eight thousand dollars. This sum would be tripled or quadrupled by supposing the coin meant to be the Jewish shekel, which, however, is less probable, as Luke was writing for Greek readers, and is here relating what occurred in a Greek city. It must be remembered that all ancient books were dear compared with ours, and that books of the class here described are always rated far beyond their real worth and even their commercial value.

20. So mightily, in English, means with such force and rapidity, as that just mentioned. But in Greek, the first word does not necessarily qualify the second, but has an independent meaning, namely, thus, in this way, or by this means. Mightily, in Greek a compound phrase, with power, or by force. The word of God (the gospel, the Christian religion) grew, in extent of influence and number of adherents, and prevailed, became strong, as in v. 16 above. (See also, 6:7; 12:24.)

21. As (or when) these (things), not the growth and prevalence just mentioned, but the occurrences respecting the exorcists. Were ended, literally, filled or fulfilled, i.e. finished or completed. Purposed, literally, placed or set, i.e. settled or determined (see above, on 1:8.) In the spirit, i.e. under the divine direction, or in his own mind as determined by the Holy Ghost. Going (or having gone) through Macedonia and Achaia, the two great provinces into which Greece was divided at the Roman conquest (see above, on 16:1; 18:1.) To go, depart, or journey (see above, on 1:25; 8:26; 9:3; 12:17; 17:4.) To Jerusalem, to carry the collections which he had been making, or was now about to make, for the poor saints there, as appears from the first epistle to the Corinthians, written from this place and about this time. (See 1 Cor. 16:1–9, and compare Rom. 15:25, 26, 31.) Saying, either to himself in meditation, or to his friends in consultation. After having been there, or arrived there; having come so far, I must go further. I must (or it is necessary for me to) see Rome also, not to gratify a private wish and lawful curiosity, but as a part of the divine plan which he was engaged in executing, by the establishment of radiating centres at great points of influence throughout the empire, which of course would have been incomplete if Rome had been neglected. The same purpose or desire is expressed in his epistle to the Romans, written probably at Corinth, after leaving Ephesus (see Rom. 15:28, 29), but with a further intimation of his purpose to go by them into Spain. (On the perfect but unstudied agreement of these passages with that before us, and the evidence of genuineness thence arising, see Paley's Horæ Paulinæ.)

22. And having sent away into Macedonia, i.e. probably to Thessalonica and Philippi, two of those serving him (or ministering to him), both as personal attendants and as fellowlabourers in the Gospel. (See above, on 13:5, and compare 1 Thess. 3:2; 2 Cor. 8:23; Rom. 16:21; Phil. 2:25; Col. 4:11; Philemon 13.) These were probably sent before to set on foot the collections above mentioned. (See 1 Cor. 16:1, 10.) Most interpreters distinguish the Erastus here named from the one mentioned Rom. 16:23 (compare 2 Tim. 4:20), because the latter was the steward (or chamberlain) of Corinth; but he may not have become so until afterwards, and even while he held the place, it may not have required his constant presence, especially as it is quite uncertain what the office was, and whether it was shared by more than one incumbent. The general presumption is of course in favour of identifying persons who are called by the same name, without some positive reason for distinguishing them. (See above, on 18:17, and below, on v. 29.) But is supplied by the translators, being rendered necessary by their change of the construction. Stayed, literally, held on, an expression similarly used in colloquial English. (For a very different application of the same verb, see above, on 3:5, and compare Luke 14:7; 1 Tim. 4:16; Phil. 2:16.) For a season, literally, a time, without a particle prefixed, an indefinite expression like our English some time. In Asia, literally, into Asia, which some regard as a mere interchange of prepositions; but the more exact philologists explain it as a pregnant construction implying motion. The sense may then be that he stayed behind, and carried the Gospel further into Asia, i.e. Asia Proper or Proconsular (see above, on v. 10.)

23. This verse introduces an account of the extraordinary interruption to Paul's work in Asia after the departure of Erastus and Timotheus. About that time, the new religion, which had been triumphantly but quietly advancing since the defeat of the exorcists (see above, on vs. 17:20), gave occasion to a violent and sudden outbreak of hostility, the causes and effects of which are circumstantially recorded in the remainder of the present chapter. (At or about) the same time, the preposition being here omitted, as it is supplied in the preceding verse. There arose, happened, came to pass, began to be, implying previous tranquillity or freedom from disturbance. Stir, commotion, tumult, the same word that is so rendered in 12:18, and with the same qualifying adjunct. No small (literally, few, which can be used in English only with the plural), i.e. by a natural meiosis or litotes, very great. (See above, on 14:28; 15:2; 17:4, 12.) About that way is ambiguous in English, and may seem to mean, in those parts, or in that place, namely, Ephesus or Asia. But neither noun nor preposition has a local sense here, and the meaning of the phrase is, about, (i.e. respecting or concerning) the way, i.e. Christianity considered as a way of thinking, living, and salvation. (See above, on v. 9, and compare 9:2.)

24. For introduces or assigns the ground and the occasion of the uproar. One Demetrius by name, or a certain man by name Demetrius, a famous name in history, and also one in common use, derived from Demeter, the Greek name of the goddess Ceres. It occurs again in 3 John 12, where some suppose it to denote the same man, and infer that he had been converted in the mean time. (See above, on 18:17.) A silversmith, silver-beater, one who works in silver, used by Plutarch to denote a coiner, but here a manufacturer of silver wares, described more particularly in the next clause. Making, manufacturing, habitually, as his constant business. Shrines for Diana, literally, temples of Artemis, the Greek goddess corresponding most nearly to the Diana of the Roman mythology. Whatever may have been the points of resemblance, there was also a great difference, at least between the Diana of the Latin poets and the Artemis of Ephesus, the former being usually represented in the succinct garb of a huntress armed with bow and arrow, while the latter was a less pleasing form distinguished by its many breasts, supposed to represent the prolific and nutritive attributes of nature. The temples here meant were not shrines for Diana, to be used in the great temple, but either medals stamped with its image, or more probably small models of the edifice itself, which were sold in great numbers, to be used in devotion, or as charms and amulets, a practice common in the heathen world, and not unknown in certain parts of Christendom, for instance at Loretto, where such models of the Virgin Mary's house, (transported by the hands of angels through the air from Nazareth to Italy) furnish the staple of a constant traffic. Brought (afforded, yielded) no small (i.e. very great, as in the verse preceding) gain, or work, employment, which is the primary meaning of the Greek word, and from which the other sense is readily deducible. (See above, on 16:16.) To the craftsmen, artisans, or artists, those employed by Demetrius, or, in a wider sense, all who worked at the same trade. (See above, on 18:3.)

25. Whom having gathered, or assembled, the Greek verb, by its very etymology, suggesting the idea of masses or great numbers, which is not necessarily implied in calling them together. With the workmen, literally, and the workmen, or as it might be rendered, even the workmen, i.e. those already mentioned. But it seems more naturally to express another class besides these. Some suppose the distinction to be that between artists and artisans, those who devise and those who execute, or those who execute the finer and the coarser parts of the same work. But this distinction belongs rather to modern than to ancient usage, in which art (τέχνη) not only comprehends mechanical employments, but originally signifies no other, being applied by Homer to ship-building, the working of metals, &c. It is therefore more probable that the distinction here, if any be intended, is between the workmen whom Demetrius himself employed, and others of like occupation, or as the words literally mean, the (other) workmen about such (things.) Sirs, literally, men (or gentlemen); see above, on 1:11, 16; 7:26; 14:15; 15:7, 13; 17:22.) Ye know, or know well, ye are well aware, without my telling you. (See above, on v. 15; 10:28; 15:7; 18:25.) Craft, trade, business (see above, on 18:3), a word used in modern English chiefly in a bad sense, that of cunning or deceit. The Greek word is the one translated gain in the preceding verse, but even there denoting not so much the gain itself as the employment which produced it. Wealth, affluence, abundance, comfort, a Greek noun corresponding to the verb employed above in 11:29, and there explained. We have our wealth, literally, our wealth is, or according to the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, wealth to us is. He rouses their attention by appealing, first to their cupidity or selfish interest, and then to their religious feelings. (See below, on v. 27.)

26. Ye see, behold, contemplate as a spectacle, as something more than ordinary sights. (See above, on 3:16; 4:13; 7:56; 8:13; 10:11; 17:16, 22.) And hear, from others, what you do not see yourselves, referring probably to that part of Paul's work which is mentioned in the next clause as extending beyond Ephesus. The names Ephesus and Asia may be either genitives of place, as in the English version, or dependent in construction on the following noun, a great crowd not of Ephesus only, but of almost all Asia. The latter syntax is more regular, the first more natural and simple, both essentially the same in meaning. Having persuaded, or persuading, i.e. both convincing and alluring, (See above, on v. 8; 5:40; 12:20; 13:43; 14:19; 17:4; 18:4.) Has turned away, diverted, or perverted, from their former faith. The same verb, with the same essential meaning, is applied to Saul's removal, either from office or from life. (See above, on 13:22.) Much people, literally, a sufficient crowd. (See above, on v. 19.) They be, an old English form of the verb, simply equivalent in such constructions to the modern one, they are. The exact translation of the clause is, they are not gods, the (ones) by hands made (literally, being, made to be.) The doctrine here ascribed to Paul is substantially identical with that which we have heard him preach at Athens. (See above, on 17:29.)

27. So that, literally, and or but. Craft is not the word so rendered in v. 25, but one meaning simply part or portion, as in 2:10; 5:2, and in the first verse of this chapter, where it is translated coasts. Here it may either mean this portion, share, which we enjoy; or this part, department, of our business, as they were not merely manufacturers of shrines, but silversmiths or jewellers, though the former was much the most profitable part of their employment, and perhaps the only one in many cases. Is in danger to us, for us, with respect to us, and by necessary implication, to our loss and damage. (The English version treats the dative as a genitive and translates it our.) To be set at nought, literally, to come to (or into) confutation, a word occurring nowhere else, perhaps coined for the occasion, but admirably expressive of the speaker's meaning, as its obvious etymology determines it to signify not mere contempt in general, but logical or rational contempt, arising from a reductio ad absurdum, in allusion to Paul's arguments against the very being of a man-made god. We have here the transition from their own loss to that of their patroness or tutelary goddess. The temple, not the word translated shrine in v. 24, but a neuter adjective denoting sacred, i.e. set apart, appropriated to the deity, and constantly applied to the whole enclosure or consecrated ground, both at Jerusalem and among the heathen. (See above, on 2:46; 3:1; 4:1; 5:20.) The great goddess is not merely an expression of praise and admiration, on the part of the speaker or his hearers, but a sort of standing epithet or proper name, by which she was distinguished, not only from inferior deities, but also from all others bearing the same name of Artemis or Diana. Thus Xenophon describes an Asiatic Greek as swearing by his national ancestral god, "the great Ephesian Artemis." This eminence was partly owing to the peculiar oriental attributes ascribed to this divinity, and altogether different from those of the Hellenic Artemis and Roman Diana (see above, on v. 24), whose name was given to her, no doubt, on account of some minor and fortuitous resemblance, in accordance with the Greek and Roman custom of transferring the names of their own gods to those of other nations, though belonging to a system altogether different. (See above, on 14:12.) This method being practised by both nations, not only with respect to the barbarians, but to one another, is a chief source of the endless contradiction and confusion of the classical mythology. Another cause of the peculiar greatness, universally ascribed to the Ephesian goddess, was the greatness of her temple, which has been already mentioned (see above, on v. 1) as extremely ancient, and rebuilt after its destruction by Herostratus, on a scale and in a style which caused it to be reckoned among the seven wonders of the world. Besides the admiration which it thus commanded, it was built at the joint expense of many cities, who had thus a common interest, not only in its sustentation, but in the honours of the resident and tutelary deity, the great goddess Diana. Both these, the temple and the goddess, Demetrius here tells his associates, are now in danger to be reckoned for nothing, a much stronger expression than despised. The next clause, on account of its peculiar idiomatic form, can scarcely be translated into English, though its meaning is entirely clear. By a slight irregularity or change of construction, Luke proceeds as if, instead of giving the exact words of Demetrius, he were merely telling what he said in substance. This is what the old grammarians call the change from direct to indirect narration. And that her greatness was about to be destroyed, a Greek verb originally meaning to be taken down or pulled down, and therefore peculiarly appropriate, both in its strict sense to the threatened ruin of the temple, and in its figurative sense to the dishonour of the goddess. Whom the whole (of) Asia (or all Asia) and the world doth worship, no unmeaning boast, nor even an extravagant hyperbole, considering the facts already mentioned and the usage of the word here rendered world, the same that we have had repeatedly before (see above, on 11:28; 17:6, 31), and which originally means inhabited, but is indefinitely used to signify the whole world, or the Roman Empire, or some one of its divisions, as the writer chooses or the context may require.

28. But (or then) hearing (these sayings is supplied by the translators) and being (or becoming) full of wrath (anger, passion), they cried (in the imperfect tense, were crying, or continued to cry), saying, Great (is) Diana of the Ephesians (or the Ephesians's Artemis!) Here again, this is not a mere doxology or panegyric, but an assertion of their grand religious tenet, namely, that the goddess whom they worshipped was, in the strictest and the highest sense, entitled to be called THE GREAT.

29. Having caught, or rather, seizing and carrying along with them, the same verb that is used above in 6:12, and below in 27:15. The original order of the sentence is, they rushed with one accord into the theatre, seizing Gaius, &c. The latter is therefore only a secondary or accompanying act, and not the main one, as the English may suggest. The theatre, among the Greeks, was used not only for dramatic exhibitions but for public meetings, particularly those in which the whole population was assembled. A modern analogy is that of the theatre at Oxford, which is never used for dramatic purposes at all, but only for academical solemnities. The Greek theatres were vast unroofed enclosures, semicircular in form, with tiers of stone seats rising one above another. The amphitheatres, in which were held the fights of gladiators and wild beasts, were double theatres, or rather mere elliptical enclosures, with spectators' seats surrounding the arena. The theatre at Ephesus was one of great size, as appears from the enclosure, which may still be traced, although the seats, &c. have long since disappeared, the materials having been employed in other buildings. With one accord, or by a common impulse, such as often actuates a mob, without implying any definite design or knowledge of each other's purpose (see below, on v. 32.) Gaius, the Greek form of the Latin Caius, was a very common name among the Romans and their subjects, which greatly weakens the presumption (see above, on v. 22), that wherever it is used in the New Testament, it designates one and the same person. This, however, is by no means impossible; for although the Gaius mentioned afterwards in this book (see below, on 20:4) is described as a Derbean; and the Gaius of whom Paul writes (Rom. 16:23; 1 Cor. 1:14) would appear to have been resident in Corinth; and the Gaius to whom John writes (3 John 1) may have lived long after; none of these circumstances is sufficient to disprove the identity; the date of John's epistle being doubtful, and there being reason to believe that many of the early converts often changed their place of residence, both for prudential and religious reasons, like Priscilla and her husband. (See above, on 18:2, 18, 26, and compare Rom. 16:3; 1 Cor. 16:19.) Aristarchus is more commonly agreed to be the same who afterwards attended Paul to Palestine, and shared in his imprisonment. (Compare Col. 4:10; Philem. 24.) Both are here called Macedonians (or as the English version has it, men of Macedonia), which agrees with the description of Aristarchus elsewhere as a Thessalonian (20:4), and a Thessalonian Macedonian (27:2.) They are also here described as Paul's companions in travel, or more exactly, those who were away from home with him. (Compare the use of the same word in 2 Cor. 8:19.)

30. And Paul wishing (or intending) to go in, though not carried in by the people, probably because he was not in their way, as his companions were, who do not seem to have been sought for and arrested, but swept along by the living stream in its resistless course. (See above, on v. 20.) Unto the people, or into the assembly, the Greek word being that used to denote the people as a sovereign, or as acting in a corporate capacity. What was merely a mob or rabble (ὅχλος) in the streets, became a popular assembly (δῆμος), although not a legal one, when seated in the theatre. (See above, on 1:15, and below, on v. 39.) This attempt of Paul evinced that it was not from fear, or any other personal motive, that he was separated from the others. The brethren, his own converts, the Ephesian Christians, who appear to have been no less anxious for his safety than the same class at Damascus, Jerusalem, Lystra, and Thessalonica (see above, on 9:25, 30; 14:20; 17:10.) Suffered him not, did not allow him or permit him.

31. Some of the Asiarchs, not civil magistrates, nor priests in the ordinary sense, although their office was connected with religion. They were annually chosen in the cities of the province, to conduct the sacrificial services and public games in honour of Diana. They derived their title from the name of the province, as the corresponding officers in Cyprus, Syria, and Lydia, were called Cypriarchs, Syriarchs, Lydiarchs, &c. Those of Asia are said to have been ten in number; but whether equal and co-ordinate, and whether always resident at Ephesus, is doubtful. As the ancient narrative of Polycarp's martyrdom at Smyrna says that "Philip the Asiarch" refused to loose the wild beasts when required by the people, it has been inferred that there was only one such officer on duty at the same time, and with more probability that they exercised their functions at the different cities of the province in rotation, or as occasion might require. As the games and sacrifices over which these Asiarchs presided, were provided at their own expense, they were always chosen from the richest class, and may be said to represent the highest rank of the community. It is therefore no slight indication of Paul's standing with the highest class of heathen, that these Asiarchs are said to have been his friends, or rather friendly to him (αὐτῷ φίλοι), i.e. personally well disposed, without implying any faith in his new doctrine, which indeed seems inconsistent with their social and official station, as conductors of ceremonies altogether heathenish. It is worthy of remark, however, that the church-councils of the third and fourth centuries were sometimes called upon to lay down rules for the direction of those Christians who were summoned by official or hereditary duty to perform this very service. It is possible, therefore, that these Asiarchs were converts, or at least inclined to become Christians, though the terms of the narrative are satisfied by simply assuming a respectful and benevolent feeling upon their part towards the great Apostle. Even this throws an interesting light upon his character and social position in the midst of that idolatrous community, by showing that his teachings and his miracles were not done in a corner, and that he was most respected by the most intelligent and wealthy classes. (See below, on v. 37.) Sending to him, messengers or letters, but more probably the former, from their residence, private or official, or perhaps from the place where they were actually engaged in their public duties, and which may have been forsaken by the people when the tumult about Paul arose. Exhorted or besought him, the same verb that is used above in 2:40; 8:31; 9:38; 11:23; 13:42; 14:22; 15:32; 16:9, 15, 39, 40. Not to give (risk, or venture) himself into the theatre, already filled with the infuriated populace, whose conduct and condition are described in the next verse.

32. So then (μὲν οὖν), the resumptive particle so often used in this book after an interruption of the narrative or argument. (See above, on 8:2, 25; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4; 14:3; 15:3, 30; 16:5; 17:12, 17, 30.) Having told how the people rushed into the theatre, and then paused to relate what happened outside, Luke now resumes his account of what was done in the assembly. The description given in this verse is admirably true to nature, being perfectly appropriate in all its parts to many a convention and conventicle among ourselves. The more (part), the majority, the greater number. This clause shows that the one consent, with which they rushed into the theatre (v. 29), had reference only to that act, or at most to the general purpose of consulting what to do, but not to any definite proposal, which had been concerted, if at all, only between the leaders, i.e. those immediately connected with Demetrius. This agrees so exactly with the mode of managing such matters now, that it imparts to the whole narrative a striking character of authenticity and graphic truth.

33. And from (or out of) the crowd (assembled in the theatre) they (i.e. some, indefinitely) brought forward Alexander. Calvin and others have supposed this to be Alexander the coppersmith, of whom Paul says (2 Tim. 4:14) that he did him much evil (literally, showed him many evils), but whether at this time or afterwards, they are not agreed. The identity of name proves still less here than in the case of Gaius (see above, on v. 29), on account of its frequency in Jewish usage ever since the time of Alexander the Great. (See above, on 4:6, and compare Matt. 15:21; 1 Tim. 1:20.) The identity of business, too, is not sufficiently exact, although the Greek word used by Paul might possibly have some degree of latitude, or one who was properly a coppersmith (or brazier) might be led, by the prospect of extraordinary profit, to engage in the same business with Demetrius. But apart from this question of identity, and even granting that the person here named is one otherwise unknown, interpreters are much divided as to his relation to the parties and the matter now at issue. As the Jews put him forward, some suppose that he was to defend them from the charge of having any thing to do with Paul, and to explain the difference between Jews and Christians. Others think that he was himself a convert to the new religion (which is not inconsistent with the statement in the next verse), and that the unconverted Jews maliciously invited the attention of the Gentiles to him, in order to divert it from themselves. In either case, it was the Jews who put him forward, either to defend them or himself. Would have made his defence is too specific, as the Greek phrase simply means, wished to apologize, or make defence, but whether for himself or others, is not here expressed. Beckoned with his hand, or more exactly, shook it downwards, almost but not precisely the same phrase with that employed in 12:17; 13:16, and there explained. To the people, not as a mere mob, but as an organized assembly. (See above, on v. 30.)

34. But (they) knowing, recognizing, or discovering, the same verb that was used above in 3:10; 4:13; 9:30; 12:14, and there explained. How they perceived or ascertained this, we are not told, possibly by something Jewish in his looks or, language; or the information may have been communicated orally from those who knew him to the others, and eventually to the whole assembly. That he is, in the present tense, as if the scene were actually passing, a graphic trait of which we have had several examples. (See above, on 7:25; 9:22, 26, 38; 12:3, 9.) A Jew, i.e. by birth or nation, and therefore equally descriptive of an unconverted and a Christian Jew. (See. above, on v. 33, and compare 10:28; 16:1, 20; 18:2, 24.) There was one voice (or one voice arose) from all, a similar expression to the one in 4:32, but there relating to one heart and soul. Crying (or shouting) about the space of (literally, as for) two hours. The cry is the same as in the last clause of v. 28, and is here repeated, not as a mere act of adoration or religious praise, but as a kind of watch-word, an expression of their zeal and resolution in the cause of their insulted and endangered goddess. Viewed in the former light, it may be reckoned as a sample of the battology or "vain repetitions," which our Lord describes as characteristic of the heathen worship. (See Matt. 6:7, and compare 1 Kings 18:26.)

35. The first words, as thus rendered, seem to refer to something previously mentioned ('when the town-clerk had thus stilled the crowd'); whereas in the original, a new character appears upon the stage ('the town-clerk, having stilled the crowd, says, &c.') Appeased implies that they were satisfied, or reconciled to something which before offended them; whereas the Greek word means to put down, quell, subdue, not by persuasion, which was yet to come, but by authority and influence of character or office. In describing this effect, Luke, with great exactness of expression, substitutes the word denoting crowd or mob for that denoting an assembly of the people. (See above, on vs. 30, 33.) It was in the former, not the latter character, that they were shouting and extolling Artemis. This significant though slight variation may illustrate at the same time the resources of the language and Luke's power to employ them. Town-clerk is evidently much too modest a description of the person, whose appearance seems to have immediately restored the mob to order. The Greek word is Grammateus, the one so often rendered scribe (see above, on 4:5; 6:12), and like it means a writer, or one who has official charge of writings, whether sacred scriptures or official records. Like the English clerk and secretary, it admits of numberless gradations in the rank of those to whom it is applied, extending from a town-clerk (or still lower) to a secretary of state, which last is probably much nearer than the former to the meaning of the title here. Whether it be so rendered, or, as some prefer, recorder, actuary, chancellor, &c., it undoubtedly denotes a functionary whom the people were accustomed to respect, and whose very presence was sufficient to compose them; for until this was effected, he could neither reason with them nor exhort them. Besides abundant proof that Grammateus is used in classic Greek to signify not only humble but exalted office, there are extant inscriptions of Ephesian origin, in which this title is combined with that of Asiarch, before explained (on v. 31), in such a way as to suggest the question, whether the person here referred to was not a religious rather than a civil officer, and therefore the more likely to command a hearing, when the honour of the goddess was itself at stake. This is still more probable if, as Domninus says, the Grammateus at Antioch, on similar occasions, was the representative or spokesman of Apollo. But however this may be, it is unquestionable that the person here meant awed the multitude, as well by his official rank or personal character as by his arguments which follow, and the drift of which is to convince them that their riotous proceedings were superfluous and dangerous. Ye men of Ephesus, literally, Ephesian men (or gentlemen), the usual Greek formula of popular address (see above, on v. 25.) What man, in Greek, for what man, as if referring to something previously said but not recorded, possibly to something said before the noise was wholly stilled. (Q.d. 'Be silent, cease this uproar, which is both unnecessary and alarming; for what man, &c.') Who does not know is a form of rhetorical interrogation, also used by Demosthenes in speaking of a certain and notorious fact. How that, an old English pleonastic phrase, to which nothing corresponds in the original, the form of which is foreign from our idiom, consisting of a noun and participle, both in the accusative, who does not know the city being, &c. City of (the) Ephesians, like Diana of (the) Ephesians (see above, on vs. 28, 34) seems to have been a favourite formula in preference to city (and Diana) of Ephesus, like "Emperor of the French," and "King of the Belgians," instead of "Emperor of France," and "King of Belgium." A worshipper, or as the margin more exactly renders it, a temple-keeper. The Greek word is commonly explained to mean, at least in the first instance, temple-sweeper; but one of the old Greek lexicographers (Suidas) denies that there is any reference to sweeping, and declares the true sense to be that of decking or adorning. Hence some compare it with the English sexton, others with church-warden, the only difference being one of dignity and rank, as the essential idea is, in either case, that of one who has charge (or takes care) of a temple. This, even in its lower sense, was reckoned a great honour, when connected with the service of such a deity as Artemis, and such a temple as the one at Ephesus. (See above, on vs. 24, 27.) Even to sweep that sacred and magnificent abode was a distinction for which cities and crowned heads contended. The very epithet here used is found upon Ephesian coins still extant, and applied not merely to the city but the state or body politic (δῆμος νεωκόρος.) And of the Jove-fallen (image), a phrase used by Euripides in application to the same divinity as worshipped at Tauris. According to Pliny and other ancient writers, there was a wooden image of Diana at Ephesus, so old that it had outlived seven restorations of the temple, and was therefore fabled to have dropped from heaven, no unusual belief among the ancient heathen. Other examples are the famous Palladium at Troy and Rome, and an image of Cybele at Pessinus, as described by Livy. This notion has by some been traced to the real fall of meteoric stones; but in the case before us, we are told not only that the image was a wooden one, but also, by different authorities, of what wood it was made (vine, ebony, &c.)

36. The reference just made to their most highly prized distinction as a city was intended, partly as a solace to their national or local pride, and partly as the basis of an argument against tumultuous proceedings, which he now propounds distinctly. Undeniable, therefore, being these (things), namely, that their city was confessedly the constituted guardian of Diana's temple and its heaven-descended image. It is necessary (i.e. morally, in Greek a participial form, like binding and becoming) for you to be (or that ye be), continue, or begin to be (the same verb that is used above, in 5:4; 8:16; 14:8; 16:20; 17:27, and there explained.) Quiet is in Greek the passive participle of the verb at the beginning of v. 35, and might be here translated settled or subdued, but is still more exactly rendered in the Vulgate by the Latin word sedatos, which is really a corresponding form, and from which comes sedate in English. The idea meant to be conveyed is not that of coercion by superior authority or power, but a dignified and reasonable self-control. Rashly, literally, headlong or head-foremost, then precipitate, which means the same in Latin, but is always tropically used in English, as a synonyme of hasty, inconsiderate, or rash, as applied to human character and conduct.

37. With a skill showing natural sagacity as well as great experience in argument and public speaking, he now insinuates without asserting that they had actually fallen into the great error against which he had just warned them. Instead of saying that they had already acted rashly, he describes the act itself, without express qualification or description, which their own minds, influenced by what he had before said, would immediately supply. The only application which he makes himself is by the use of the word for, referring to the thought which he had first suggested but without expressing it. This aposiopesis (as the Greek grammarians called it) may be thus completed or filled up. 'You have the strongest grounds for doing nothing rash, and yet you have been acting, and are acting now most rashly; for,' &c. Ye have brought (or ye brought just now, in Greek an aorist) these men, not an expression of contempt, but rather of respect, the Greek noun being that employed above in vs. 25, 35, and there explained. Hither, supplied by the translators, is correct, but hardly adequate to give the full force of the speaker's language, which suggests not only the idea of locality (brought them into this place or assembly), but also that of mode or manner (brought them violently and disgracefully.) The rashness tacitly imputed to their whole proceeding lay in the fact that there was no sufficient ground for it afforded by the conduct of the prisoners themselves. These men (being, or who are) neither temple-spoilers (and so chargeable with sacrilege) nor revilers of (literally, reviling) your goddess (and so chargeable with blasphemy.) Robbers of Churches is a Christian phrase put into the mouth of a heathen, less absurd but not more accurate than the change of Passover to Easter elsewhere. (See above, on 12:4.) The latter statement of the Grammateus, in reference to Paul and his associates, has been very variously understood, by some as a mere falsehood, meant to calm the mob; by others as a true description of Paul's abstinence from all direct warfare against idol-worship; by a third class, as describing only his forbearance as to particular deities, or forms of heathen worship, which, according to Josephus, was avoided also by the Jews; and lastly, as denying not even this kind of attack, but only an offensive and insulting method of conducting it. Shaftesbury's reflection upon Paul for allowing false witness to be borne in his behalf, when he was not present, and could not have spoken if he had been, is both raise and foolish.

38. So then, as in v. 32, where it resumes the narrative, as it here does the argument, after a momentary interruption in v. 37, which is a kind of parenthetical allusion to their conduct as at variance with the rule which he had laid down. 'You ought to do nothing rashly—as you have done by your treatment of these persons—so then, if Demetrius, &c.' Craftsmen, artisans or artists (see above, on v. 24.) With him, not merely in his company, or in the same place, but on his side, in his interest, associated with him, members of his party. (See above, on 5:17; 14:4.) Matter, literally, word, here used like the corresponding Hebrew term, in a judicial or forensic sense, for cause, complaint, or accusation. (See Ex. 18:16, 22; 22:8; 24:14, and compare the full phrase, word of judgment, 2 Chron. 19:6.) Any (man), or more generically, any (person), the same pronoun that is so often rendered certain. (See above, on vs. 1, 13, 14, 24, 31.) The law is open, a mere paraphrase, the version being given in the margin, the court-days are kept. From a Greek word (ἀγορά) meaning both a market and a court (see above, on 16:19; 17:17) comes an adjective (ἀγόραιος), applied in 17:5 to idlers or frequenters of the public places, but here employed in the higher sense of forensic or judicial, and most probably agreeing with days understood. The verb (are led, passed, or passing) may be expressive either of a general fact (there are such times or terms of court), or of what was actually taking place at that time (there are such terms now held or holding.) There are deputies, a word before applied to Sergius Paulus (see above, on 13:7, 8, 12, and compare the corresponding verb 18:12), and there explained to be the Greek translation of Proconsul, the appropriate title of one who governed an imperial province (see above, on the passages just cited), such as Asia Proper was, and therefore often called Proconsularis. The only difficulty here arises from the facts, that the Proconsul was the highest judicial magistrate, and that there was never more than one in the same province. The plural form (Proconsuls) has been variously explained, as comprehending the legates or assessors of the governor; or as including the proconsuls of adjacent provinces, who may have been attending the Ephesian festival; or as denoting two procurators who about this time had murdered the Proconsul, and perhaps usurped his title; or finally, as a generic plural, representing the whole class, and not the individual, examples of which usage have been found by some in Matt. 2:20, where the plural is supposed to denote Herod, and in 17:18, above, where it is supposed to denote Jesus. Whether this be the true grammatical analysis or not, it is no doubt the essential meaning, which has reference not to the person but the office of the judges, whether one or many, whose existence and judicial functions are asserted as notorious facts. Implead (i.e. plead against) each other is a good translation of the Greek verb, which, although it strictly means accuse or charge, is here applied apparently to both the parties, although only one had been expressly mentioned.

39. Having shown them how all private litigation should be settled, he now gives them similar advice in reference to questions of more public interest, municipal or legislative matters. Ye, i.e. Demetrius and his associates, of whom he had just spoken in the third person, but to whom he may now have turned or specially addressed himself. It is equally admissible, however, and perhaps more simple, to understand these words as still addressed to the assembly, all of whom were really concerned in what is here asserted. Inquire, not merely in the popular or vague sense of seeking or desiring (as in 12:19; 13:7, above), but in the more specific one of controverting or disputing, commonly expressed by another compound of the same Greek verb. (See above, on 6:9; 9:29; 15:2, 7.) 'If you want a decision upon any other question not within the jurisdiction of the courts just mentioned.' Assembly is a general expression for all public meetings, but especially applied in classic Greek to legislative bodies, as in Scripture to the Congregation of Israel, and ultimately to the Christian Church. (See above, on 2:47; 5:11; 7:38; 8:1, 3; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:23, 27; 15:3, 4, 22.) A lawful assembly seems to be contrasted with an unlawful or forbidden one. The Romans, however, did not deprive their Grecian subjects of their darling right to hold public meetings, the abuse of which, by needless gatherings and speeches "in the theatre," Cicero (in his defence of Flaccus) represents as a chief cause of their political misfortunes. This Ephesian meeting, therefore, could be called unlawful, only with respect to its disorderly, tumultuous proceedings, and the opposite expression would denote nothing more than one decorously conducted; which would not be an appropriate antithesis or supplement to what had been already said about the court-days or assizes. It is plain that the Grammateus is stating two ways of determining two kinds of controversy, private and public, or forensic and municipal. The former must be settled by the regular tribunals, the latter in a general assembly, but of what kind? Not merely lawful or permitted by the laws; for such was this one, in itself considered. Not merely orderly and well-behaved; for such was this, since he had been addressing it. The true sense of the words is, the (not a) legal (or constitutional) assembly, i.e. the one held at certain periods (as at Athens thrice a month) for the transaction of public business, (Hence, in the margin of the English Bible, lawful is exchanged for ordinary.) The assembly now in session is described by implication, not as unlawful or forbidden, but as informal and without authority; just as a voluntary meeting or convention, although perfectly lawful, differs now from a judicial or legislative body. The word translated lawful, therefore, here means, not permitted, but required or constituted by the laws. Shall be determined, literally solved, implying doubt and difference of judgment, in relation to the principles or facts involved, (Compare the use of the same Greek verb in Mark 4:34, and of the corresponding noun in 2 Pet. 1:20.) This phrase, in the original, emphatically ends the sentence, in the legal assembly it shall be determined. The same argument is urged by Seneca against tumultuous and riotous proceedings.

40. Having shown that their tumultuous proceedings were gratuitous, there being other more legitimate methods of accomplishing their lawful ends, he now suggests a still more serious consideration, namely, that the same proceedings were extremely dangerous, not only to the persons who took part in them, but also to their whole community. The danger arose from the extraordinary strictness of the Roman government in reference to every thing like riotous disturbances among their subjects and dependents. It was not the mere act of assembling, even in large numbers (see above, on the preceding verse), which was prohibited, but what is here called uproar and concourse, corresponding to the Latin terms cœtus et concursus, which appear to have been technical expressions of the Roman law, and descriptive of a capital offence. We are in danger, the same verb that was used by Demetrius (see above, on v. 27.) To be called in question, also a single word in Greek, the same that was explained above (on v. 38), as strictly meaning to be charged or accused. The original construction is, to be accused of riot for today (or this day, see a similar construction of tomorrow, 4:3, 5), i.e. concerning, on account of, this day's conduct or proceedings. The danger was not merely that of being charged, but that of being left without excuse and unable to defend themselves. There being no cause, a judicial term, elsewhere translated fault (see Luke 23:4, 14), and here denoting, not a cause in general, but a guilty cause upon the part of those accused. There being (or existing, see above on v. 36) no crime or offence whereby (literally, as to or concerning which) we can, or adhering to the future form of the original, we shall be able, in the case supposed, of their being charged or called in question. Give (render or deliver, an emphatic compound, used above, 4:33; 5:8; 7:9, and there explained.) Account, literally, word, the one translated matter in v. 38, but sometimes signifying an account or reckoning, both in a financial and a moral sense. (Compare Matt. 12:36; 18:23; Phil. 4:17; Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 4:5.) In all the passages referred to, there is more or less distinct allusion to judicial process and self-vindication, which is here the main idea, and as such expressly mentioned. Concourse is the literal translation of the Greek word, and denotes a violent tumultuary running together. The idea of conspiracy, or lawless combination, may be also implied, but is not prominent in this case, as it is in 23:12 below.

41. And these things having said (or saying), he dismissed (or dissolved, the verb explained above, on 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40; 13:3; 15:30; 33; 16:35, 36; 17:9) the assembly (the ecclesia, as in vs. 32, 39.) This is evidently mentioned as an act of authority, implying that the tumult had entirely ceased, and that the people quietly dispersed; an important and remarkable effect, but not at all incredible, considering the proverbial mobility from which the mob derives its name, and also the extraordinary force and skill, with which the Grammateus appealed to their religious feelings, local pride, municipal usages, and selfish fears. The intrinsic merit of this speech, with reference to the end in view, its congruity and suitableness to the speaker and the hearers, and its total unlikeness to the other speeches here recorded, stamp it as palpably original and genuine. And this internal evidence instead of losing gains strength from the low views entertained by some of Luke's ability as a writer and the literary merit of the book before us.

CHAPTER 20

THIS division of the text contains the account of Paul's return from his third mission, from his leaving Ephesus to his leaving Miletus. We have first his visit to the Grecian provinces (1–3.) Then comes a list of his seven companions who went before to Troas and were followed by Paul and Luke (4–6.) Paul there preaches and performs a miracle (7–12.) His course from Troas to Miletus is recorded with great minuteness (13–15.) Passing by Ephesus, he sends for the elders of the church there to Miletus, and delivers a farewell discourse to them (16–35.) He then prays with them and takes leave of them (31–38.)

1. The cessation of the tumult is not given as the cause of Paul's departure, but as a mere specification of time, or rather an indefinite description, since the length of the interval is not recorded (see above, on 19:22.) Embraced is a secondary usage of the Greek verb, which originally signifies to greet or welcome, but is also used by Xenophon and later writers in the sense of taking leave or bidding farewell, which is the meaning here. Departed, literally, went out (see above, on 16:36, 40.) For to go, depart, or journey (see above, on 5:31.) Into Macedonia, as he had before designed, and whither he had already sent Timothy and Erastus (see above, on 19:22.)

2, 3. Having gone (or passed) through those parts, i.e. Macedonia, and perhaps some adjacent regions (see Rom. 15:19.) Given them much exhortation, literally, having exhorted them (i.e. the Christians in those parts) with much speech (or many words.) Greece, properly so called, or what the Romans named Achaia, to distinguish it from Macedonia (see above, on 16:1; 18:12, 27; 19:21.) Having made three months, i.e. passed or spent them, but perhaps with an implication of active employment (see above, on 15:33; 18:23.) This is the more worthy of attention, as Luke gives us no details of this second missionary tour in Greece, the greater part of which was probably spent at Corinth, where he is commonly supposed to have written the epistle to the Romans. Being about to sail into Syria, i.e. to enter on the voyage which was to terminate at Antioch, as in the case of his two previous missions. (See above, on 18:18, and below, on 21:3.) The words express his purpose, not the actual event, which was altogether different, as he did not reach Antioch, but was arrested in Jerusalem, and after being long detained in Cesarea, sent to Rome. A plot (the same word that occurs above in 9:24) being made, (or formed) against him by the Jews. What was the nature or occasion of the Jewish plot here mentioned, we have no means of determining. We only know that Paul was led, no doubt by the detection or divine revelation of it, to relinquish his design of setting sail from Corinth or Cenchrea (see above, on 18:18), and to revisit Macedonia for that purpose. Purposed to return, literally, there was a purpose (or it became his purpose) to return. The Greek noun properly means judgment or opinion, but is used by the purest Attic writers in the sense of will or purpose.

4. There followed with him, an expression which implies both association and subordination. They were in his company, not as his equals, but as his adherents and attendants. As far as Asia, in the usual restricted sense (see above, on 19:10, 22, 26, 27.) As far as may have reference to their waiting for him at Troas. It does not necessarily imply that they attended him no further, although only two of them are afterwards expressly named as being with him. (See below, on 21:29; 27:2.) Sopater, an abbreviation of Sosipater, and probably denoting the same person whom Paul mentions (Rom. 16:21) as a kinsman who was with him in Corinth. Some of the oldest manuscripts and versions have Sopater (son) of Pyrrhus, which seems more likely to have been omitted than inserted without reason. Of Berea, literally, a Berean, an inhabitant or native of that place in Macedonia, where the Jews gave Paul so cordial a reception and so candid a hearing (see above, on 17:11.) Secundus, a Latin name, occurring only here in the New Testament. Gaius (or Caius), commonly supposed to be a different person from the one so called in 11:29, because he is there called a Macedonian and here a Derbean, or citizen of Derbe, which was in Lycaonia (see above, on 14:6.) Some connect Derbean with Timotheus, and thus make Gaius a Thessalonian; but this construction is forbidden by the and between Derbean and Timotheus, unless, by another arbitrary supposition, we can change the form of the Greek particle (from καί to δέ) Some add, that Timothy was certainly of Lystra, not of Derbe; but that fact is too doubtful to decide the question here at issue (see above, on 16:1, 21), especially as Derbe and Lystra are so often named together, as if constituting one community. It is not certain, although commonly assumed, that these local adjectives denote the native place or constant residence of those to whom they are applied, as they may possibly denote the last place of abode, or some official position in the church or representative relation to it. The question is, however, less important, as Caius was one of the most common Roman names. In favour of the identity is the slight but noticeable circumstance, that the name is in both cases joined with that of Aristarchus. According to the usual construction, Timothy has no local epithet connected with his name, perhaps because his origin was generally well known. But besides the construction which has been already mentioned as forbidden by the syntax, we may read, Gaius a Derbean and (also, or from the same place) Timotheus, against which it may again be urged, but not more conclusively than in the other instance, that he was from Lystra. Of Asia, literally, Asians, Asiatics, i.e. representatives of Asia Minor, or rather of that part of it called Asia Proconsularis. Tychicus is several times named by Paul, as his messenger to the churches, and the bearer of two of his epistles. (See Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7; 2 Tim. 4:12; Tit. 3:12.) Trophimus was with him at Jerusalem, and there became the innocent occasion of his arrest and long captivity (see below, on 21:29.) He is also mentioned in the latest of Paul's epistles, as having been left sick at Miletus (2 Tim. 4:20.) The presence of these seven men on this occasion has been variously explained and understood. That it was not fortuitous, i.e. that they did not merely happen to be travelling the same way at the same time, is evinced by the formality and fulness of the catalogue, if not by their being named at all. That they simply attended Paul to aid him in his missionary work, is peculiarly improbable at this point, where he is about to leave his field of labour and to have less need of such assistance than before. That they accompanied him as a bodyguard, or to protect him from the violence or machinations of the Jews, seems inconsistent with the fact recorded in the next verse, that at the very outset of his journey, and before he left the country where his life had been in danger, they were sent before him, and thus separated from him, at least five days, and possibly much longer. Perhaps the most felicitous conjecture which has been proposed, is that these men went as representatives of the Gentile churches lately founded, in the presence of the mother-church and the Apostles; three representing Europe and four Asia, two of the latter the interior and two the western coast of Asia Minor. If they were also bearers of a general contribution from the Gentile churches for the poor saints at Jerusalem, as some infer from certain passages in Paul's epistles written about this time or not long before (e.g. 1 Cor. 16:1–4; 2 Cor. 7:1–5; Rom. 15:25–28), the whole number (seven) may have had some reference to that of the almoners or deacons in the mother-church itself (see above, on 6:3, and below, on 21:8.)

5. These, i.e. the seven named in the preceding verse, and not merely the two last, as some explain it, which is perfectly gratuitous and arbitrary. Awaited (waited for) us, i.e. for Paul and the historian himself a form of expression which has not occurred before since the sixteenth chapter, and the reappearance of which here has justly been regarded as a proof that Luke rejoined Paul at Philippi, where he had been left by him so long before. (See above, on 16:40.) It also shows that the writer was not Timothy, who is not only named in the preceding list, but explicitly said to have gone before and waited for the writer, as well as for Paul, at Troas.

6. After the days of unleavened bread, i.e. the week following the Passover. (See above, on 12:3.) This not only fixes the season of the year, but, as some suppose, assigns the reason for Paul's staying at Philippi, while the seven went immediately to Troas, namely, that he wished to keep the feast. But although such observance was by no means incompatible with Paul's principles of Christian liberty, it can hardly be supposed that he would have deferred his voyage on that account, or have attached as much importance to the spending of a paschal week in Philippi, as he might have done in Jerusalem. It is equally probable, at least, as Luke alone remained with him, while all the rest went on to Troas, that this delay had some connection with the state of the Apostle's health; or that he waited until Luke had made his preparations to withdraw from the place where he had probably been resident for several years, without detaining the whole company on that account. On either of these latter suppositions, the days of unleavened bread may be regarded as a mere date or chronological specification (see above, on 18:21), like Christmas and Easter in modern parlance, when employed to designate the season, without reference to religious observance. In, five days, literally, unto (or as far as) five days, the same particle employed above (v. 4) in its proper local sense, but here applied to time, and suggesting two ideas, namely, that this number was the maximum or limit, that they were not more than five days on the way, and also that this number was unusually great, as appears moreover from the fact, that on his first voyage from Troas to Philippi, he was only two days going the same distance, a diversity no doubt arising from a difference of wind. Abode seven days is the sense but not the form of the original, in which the last word is directly governed by the verb meaning passed or spent. (See above, on 12:19; 14:3, 28; 15:35; 16:12.) These minute chronological specifications are in perfect keeping with the previous intimation that the writer had again rejoined Paul. (See above, on 16:11.)

7. Cranmer's version, upon one of the sabbath-days, seems at first sight more exact, but is not even grammatical, the Greek numeral and noun being of different genders. Equally incorrect is Tyndale's version, the morrow after the sabbath-day, except that it retains the reference to the first day of the week. We have seen already that the Hebrew word sabbath, in its Aramaic form, resembles a Greek plural, and is often so inflected, even when a single day is meant. (See above, on 13:14; 16:13.) Still more natural is the use of the plural to denote the interval between two sabbaths, or rather a whole week, a division of time connected, both in origin and usage, with the religious observance of one day in seven. Even in Hebrew, weeks and sabbaths are convertible terms (compare Lev. 23:15 and Deut. 16:9.) In the Greek of the New Testament, a week is once or twice expressed by sabbath in the singular (see Mark 16:9; Luke 18:12), but usually by the plural (see Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; 1 Cor. 16:2), which, however, as explained above, is only such in form, but in reality a singular. The substitution of the cardinal (one) for the ordinal (first) is not a Hebrew idiom, but a usage equally well known to other languages, as in our own familiar phrases, "number one," "chapter two," etc. Thus the phrase which, rendered word for word, would mean one of the sabbaths, is determined by analogy and use to mean (the) first (day) of the week, a striking illustration of the curious fact, that literal translation is not always the most faithful. In the case before us, it is not a simple date or chronological specification of the day on which this meeting happened to be held; for such a circumstance was too minute to be recorded for its own sake, and is never given elsewhere. The only satisfactory solution is, that the observance of the first day of the week, as that of our Lord's resurrection, had already become customary, so that the assembling of the church at that time for the purposes here mentioned, was a matter of course, with or without special notice and arrangement. This agrees well with the form of the expression here, being assembled (i.e. as usual) to break bread, etc., and also with the words of Paul in 1 Cor. 16:2, where the designation of the day would be gratuitous and inconvenient, unless founded on a previous and familiar custom. The observance itself, though not explicitly enjoined, nor even formally recorded, seems to date from the very day of Christ's resurrection. Compare John 20:19, 26, where "eight days" is a common idiomatic expression for a week, and "again" implies a periodical reunion, not by chance, but by order or agreement, on the same day as before. The original or Jewish sabbath may have been observed, at least by Jewish Christians, either alone or in conjunction with the first day of the week, until the downfall of Jerusalem and final abrogation of the old economy, after which the former was entirely superseded by the latter, except among the Ebionites and Judaizing Gnostics, who were really, as well in form as spirit, rather Jews than Christians. In all the places which have now been cited, the expression used is simply, the first day of the week. The Lord's Day is a phrase derived from Rev. 1:10, which is also commonly regarded as a proof of apostolical observance, although some interpreters identify it with the day of the Lord (or of Jehovah), so often mentioned and foretold in prophecy.* The disciples being assembled, or, according to the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, we being assembled, which renders still more prominent the fact that the historian himself was an eye-witness of the facts recorded. (See above, on v. 5.) Assembled, literally, brought together, gathered, but not necessarily implying a special convocation, being elsewhere applied both to stated and occasional assemblies. (See above, on 4:6, 26, 27, 31; 11:26; 13:44; 14:27; 15:6, 30.) It is in fact the verbal root of the noun synagogue, the most generic hellenistic term for any meeting, though especially applied to worshipping assemblies. (See above, on 6:9; 13:43; 15:21; 18:7.) To break bread, socially and sacramentally, according to the primitive and apostolic usage, which attached the eucharist to an ordinary meal, as in its original institution. (See above, on 2:42, 46, and compare 1 Cor. 11:20–22.) Ready is in Greek the participle of a verb denoting mere futurity, to which we have no exact equivalent in English, and which is therefore very variously rendered. (See above, on v. 3; 11:28; 12:6; 13:34; 16:27; 17:31; 18:14; 19:27.) It might have been translated here, intending (as in 5:35), or still better, being about (as in 3:3, and v. 3, above.) To depart, or go out, go away, i.e. from Troas (see above, on v. 1.) On the morrow, or the next day (see above, on 4:3, 5; 10:9; 23:24; 14:20. Preached, the word translated reasoned and disputed elsewhere (see above, on 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9.) As it primarily signifies colloquial discourse or conversation (being the root both of dialogue and dialect), some understand it to have that sense here, as agreeing better with the extraordinary length referred to in the next clause. It is probable, however, both from the usage of the word in this book (see the places above cited), and from the circumstances of the present case, that it was not a desultory talk, but an act of official or professional instruction, however informal and unshackled by rhetorical or other rules. The length of the discourse depends upon the time when it began, which is not specified; but that it was unusual, seems to be implied in the suggestion that it was his last opportunity of meeting with them, and also in the incident recorded in v. 9 below. It is still more explicitly affirmed in the ensuing clause of this verse, where continued is a stronger word in Greek, meaning stretched out or protracted, i.e. beyond the time to which they were accustomed in such cases. Some infer from this verse, that the meetings of the Christians were already held at night, as they were afterwards in times of persecution; others that this was an extraordinary meeting held in view of Paul's departure. It is possible, however, that he spent the whole day in the manner here described, as he seems to have done afterwards at least on one occasion (see below, on 28:23), not in continuous discourse, but in animated conversation, with occasional intervals of rest or silence.

8. Lights, literally, lamps, but in a wider sense than that which we attach to it, including torches, candles, lanterns, etc., and therefore, both in etymology and usage, corresponding very nearly to the word used in the English version. Upper chamber, commonly the chief room in an ancient house, and best adapted to accommodate large numbers. (See above, on 1:13; 9:37, 39.) The mention of this circumstance, apparently so unimportant, has been variously and sometimes strangely accounted for. Some refer to the ancient (Jewish and heathen) use of lights, for ornament as well as use, in solemn ceremonies. Others suppose it to be intimated that the Christians of Troas took this method of avoiding the suspicious and malignant charges sometimes provoked by their nocturnal meetings. A third opinion is, that the multitude of lights is mentioned to account for the drowsiness of Eutychus; a fourth, to explain why his fall was instantly observed. More natural than either is the simple supposition, that the lights are mentioned, not with any definite design, but as a part of the scene strongly impressed upon the writer's memory, and therefore serving, in conjunction with the intimations previously given, to remind the reader that he is again receiving the report of an eye-witness. (See above, on vs. 5, 6, 7.) As Luke, in orally rehearsing this same narrative long after the occurrence, might have said to those who heard him, 'My recollection of that night is still so vivid, that I seem almost to see the upper chamber brightly lighted up, the crowd, the young man in the window, etc.,' so in recording it, first for Theophilus, and then for us, he might naturally use some of the same expressions, without any pragmatical or utilitarian design at all. Many, the word so rendered in 9:23, 43; 12:12; 14:21; 19:19. They were gathered, or according to the oldest copies, we were gathered, as in the preceding verse. In both these cases later copyists seem to have entirely overlooked the graphic and authentic character imparted to the passage by the use of the first person, or rather to have looked upon it as an incongruity, and so expunged it. It is certainly remarkable that these slight emendations of the text, supported as they are by such external evidence, should not only render the whole narrative more lifelike, but assimilate it still more completely to the context, and enhance the proof that the Apostle of the Gentiles had recovered his "beloved physician" (Col. 4:14.)

9. There sat (literally, sitting, seated) in a window (literally, on the window), i.e. on the ledge or window-seat. The definite form (the window) does not necessarily imply that there was only one; or denote one looking towards Jerusalem, as some suppose; but is exactly like our own familiar phrase, to look out of the window, without any reference to number or position. His sitting in the window has been thought to imply, that he was a careless, inattentive hearer; but with more probability, that there was no room elsewhere. The occurrence of the same name (Eutychus) in old inscriptions, as the name of freedmen or emancipated slaves, is no sufficient ground for the conjecture that this person was a servant. A young man is in Greek one word, corresponding to our youth, but even more indefinite. That it does not mean a child, see below, on v. 12, and above, on 7:58. The marked resemblance of this scene to one of our own public meetings, with its many lights and even crowded windows, serves to stamp the narrative as that of an eye-witness. Fallen and sunk are different participles of the same verb, strictly meaning borne (or carried) down, and specially applied in Greek to the effects of sleep, not only when the latter is expressed, as in our phrase to fall (or drop) asleep, but also when the verb is absolutely used. The medical Greek writers even use a cognate noun (καταφορά) to designate the lethargy. The present participle here denotes the natural relaxing influence of sleep, the aorist an additional corporeal movement as its result, by which he lost his balance. Into and with, although substantially correct, do not exactly reproduce the form of the original, in which the first is represented by the dative (ὕπνῳ), and the second by a preposition (ἀπό) meaning from. The final consequence was that he actually fell down from the third loft, i.e. floor or story, probably the highest in the house, as the upper room was usually next the roof (see above, on 1:13.) Taken up, raised, lifted from the ground, an uncompounded form of the verb used above (in 1:9) to denote the first stage or incipient movement of our Lord's ascension. Dead must of course be strictly understood, unless afterwards explained or qualified.

10. Going down, descending, to the street, or to the inner court, around which an oriental house is built, and into which "the window" may have opened. Embracing, not the word so rendered in the first verse, but a double compound, strictly meaning to seize with and around, often used by the classics in the figurative sense of comprehending or including, but here in its etymological import of folding or encircling in the arms. Said, to those who stood by, probably to such of the assembled Christians as had come down with Paul, or before him, and immediately after the occurrence of the accident. Trouble not yourselves (or be not troubled) seems in English to refer exclusively or chiefly to internal perturbation or disorder, and to mean, 'be not anxious or alarmed.' But the Greek verb properly, and almost constantly, expresses outward disturbance, and particularly noise or uproar, as the kindred noun is rendered in the first verse of this chapter, and the verb itself in 17:5, above. Its specific application here derives some illustration from its use in Matt. 9:23; Mark 5:39, where it evidently signifies the noisy and tumultuous expression of grief, which was customary at an oriental funeral. Such a demonstration had perhaps begun in this case, and Paul may then be understood, not merely as forbidding them to grieve, but as exhorting them to keep silence or be quiet. The reason he assigns has been very variously understood. His life (or soul) is in him, is by some explained to mean, 'he is not dead, as you imagine.' (Compare the words of Christ himself in the passages last cited.) Paul's language, thus explained, is then used to qualify Luke's absolute expression, in v. 9, as meaning, 'he was taken up for dead,' or 'he was taken up dead, as they supposed.' This reasoning, however, may be just as easily reversed, and the terms of v. 9 made to qualify those here employed, instead of being qualified by them. As we are there expressly told that he was taken up dead, Paul may here be understood to mean, his life is (again) in him. The "again" in this construction is no more forced into the text than "still" is in the other; so that in this respect they stand at least on equal ground. In favour of a real death, besides the positive assertion in v. 9, is the act, here ascribed to Paul, of failing on the body and embracing it, in obvious allusion to the conduct of Elijah and Elisha in cases of miraculous resuscitation (see 1 Kings 17:21; 2 Kings 4:34.) That this act was in either case designed to ascertain the fact of life or death, is far less probable than that it was intended to connect a miraculous effect with the person by whom it was caused or brought about. (See above, on 5:15; 19:12.) The present case is altogether different from that of Paul himself in 14:19, where the words, "supposing him to be dead," seem to give us a discretion, or an option, not afforded by the absolute expression, he was taken up dead. A further proof that this was a miraculous recovery from death may be founded on the fact that it is introduced at all, which cannot be explained by the startling impression or the vivid recollection of the accident; for although this may be sufficient to account for the minuteness and vividness of the details, it does not serve to show why Luke should thus have paused in his relation of this memorable journey, to record what happened to a person otherwise unknown and insignificant, unless it was accompanied by some display of Paul's miraculous endowments as the signs of his apostleship (2 Cor. 12:12.) Thus his last recorded visit to this place was rendered memorable by a signal miracle, as the first was by a vision and a special revelation. (See above, on 16:9, 10.)

11. Having then (δέ) gone up, to the room in the third story, where the Christians were assembled, and from which the youth had fallen. Eaten, literally, tasted, which may be strictly understood, as in Matt. 27:34; John 2:9; Col. 2:21. But the wider sense of eating, taking food, partaking of a meal, is found, not only in the later classics, but in Xenophon. (See above, on 10:10, and below, on 23:14.) Most interpreters identify this breaking of bread with that mentioned in v. 7 above, and which had been deferred by Paul's protracted conversation or discourse. It is possible, however, that the love-feast and the eucharist had been observed as soon as they assembled, and that the eating here described was what we call an early breakfast, preceding the departure of these honoured guests. Talked, the nearest Greek equivalent to our converse, both in its narrower and wider sense. (See above, on 10:27, and below, on 24:26, and compare Luke 24:14, 15.) It is somewhat curious that although this verb denotes familiar conversation, as distinguished from more formal or elaborate discourse, it was afterwards applied, in ecclesiastical usage, to the latter, and is the root or theme of the words homily and homiletics. (For a somewhat analogous change, see above, on 13:2.) A long while, literally, for sufficient (time), or (time) enough, a favourite expression in this book, and one which has already been repeatedly explained. (See above, on v. 8.) The strict sense is retained here by the Vulgate (satis) and its English copyists (Wicl. spake enough. Rhemish Vers. talked sufficiently.) This second mention of Paul's long continued talk illustrates his vivacious and communicative habits, and implies the interest with which the brethren or disciples heard him. Break of day, or rather, broad day-light, the Greek word properly denoting brightness and particularly sunshine. So, not so then, as a mere connective or resumptive (see above, on 19:32, 38), but thus, in this way, i.e. discoursing or conversing to the very last. (See above, on 7:8; 14:1; 17:33; 19:20.) Departed, literally, went out, not only from the room, or from the house, but from the city (see above, on v. 1.)

12. The sense is not, as some suppose, that in the mean time they had taken him home, but that now, about the time of Paul's departure, they brought him in, and showed him to the company, alive and well. Both verbs refer to the disciples, whose assembly had been so abruptly interrupted, and appeared to be completely broken up by this distressing casualty. Comforted, relieved from the shock which they had felt at first, and from their subsequent solicitude as to the issue. The word may indeed suggest still more, to wit, the natural reaction from distress of this kind to unusual excitement and exhilaration. Not a little is in Greek not moderately, an example of the figure called meiosis or litotes, which employs a negative expression to convey a very positive idea, such as much or greatly. (See above, on 12:18; 14:28; 15:2; 17:4, 12; 19:23, 24.) Young man is not the word so rendered in v. 9, but one which answers to our boy (Geneva Bible) or lad (Rhemish version), and like it may be substituted both for son and servant. (see above, on 3:13, 26; 4:25, 27, 30.) Wiclif's version (child) is here at variance with the previous description of him as a youth or young man (see above, on v. 9.)

13. We, i.e. the writer and his company, which here excludes Paul, as it did the others in v. 6 above. Going (or having gone) before, i.e. before Paul's own departure, although previously mentioned. (See above, on v. 11.) The idea seems to be, that they had left him in the house with the assembled Christians. To ship, or more exactly, to the ship, i.e. the one in which they were to sail. It is not necessarily implied that this was the same ship in which they came to Troas; or if it was, that they had chartered it, and kept it waiting on their movements. For their own protracted stay of seven days in one place may have been the consequence, and not the cause, of the ship's delay there, for the purpose of refitting, loading, or awaiting a more favourable wind. (See above, on v. 6.) Sailed, the same nautical expression used above in v. 3, and in 13:13; 16:11; 18:21, and there explained. Unto Assos, literally, into Assos, which appears to be the technical or customary form in such connections, being found in all the passages just cited. Some of the oldest manuscripts, however, have a different preposition in the case before us. Assos (or Apollonia), a Mysian seaport, opposite to Lesbos, and a few miles south of Troas, on a spot still marked by a wretched hamlet. There, literally, thence, from that place. Intending is too strong a term, especially as it was not their purpose, but his own, that was to be accomplished. The Greek verb is the one denoting mere futurity (see above, on vs. 3, 7), and here means simply that they were to take him, in pursuance of his own plan as expressed in the next clause. To take in, literally, to take up, i.e. from the land, which in nautical language is described as lower than the water. (See above, on 18:22, and below, on 27:3; 28:12.) He had appointed is in Greek a passive form, and may be therefore more exactly represented by determined or resolved. (For the meaning of the verb itself, see above, on 7:44; 18:2.) Minding, the same participle just translated intending, but here too, although purpose is implied, expressing only futurition (that he was to go, or being about to go.) Afoot (in modern parlance, on foot) may be strictly understood, as the distance was so short; but the verb is used by the best Greek writers (such as Xenophon and Aristotle) to denote a journey or march by land, as distinguished from a voyage by sea. The cognate adverb is employed in the same way by Herodotus and Thucydides, and may be so explained in Matt. 14:13; Mark 6:33. The cause of this arrangement has not been recorded and can scarcely be conjectured. Whether designed for health, or safety, or retirement, or intercourse with others, the unstudied mention of this fact without explanation, so far from discrediting the narrative, imparts to it a fresh air of reality and simple truth. In every such case there are acts and incidents, which naturally dwell upon the memory of those who witnessed them, although they neither can nor need be fully understood by others, not because they are mysterious or important, but perhaps for a reason diametrically opposite.

14. When, literally, as, an idiom common to both languages. (See above, on 1:10; 18:5; 19:9, 21.) Met, a Greek verb which primarily means to throw (or put) together, but has several secondary senses, three of which occur in this book. (See above, on 4:15; 17:18; 18:27, and compare Luke 2:19; 14:31.) It here means something more than met, which might have been fortuitous, whereas Paul joined (or rejoined) them, by express preconcert. Us, including the historian (as in vs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 13), whose continued presence is evinced, moreover, by the minute specifications both of time and place which follow. At Assos is the same phrase that is rendered unto Assos in v. 13. Took him in, took him up, as in the same verse. Mitylene, the capital of Lesbos, on the east side of the island, famous as the birthplace of Sappho and Alcæus, described by Cicero as noble, by Horace as beautiful, by Vitruvius as magnificent. It is now called Castro. The preposition is the same with that prefixed to Assos.

15. We have here Paul's itinerary given with all the precision of a journal, or the vivid recollection of one personally present. Sailing away, a different verb from that in v. 13, and a different compound of the one in v. 6. Came, came down upon, the verb employed above in 16:1; 18:19, 24. Over against, opposite to, implying that they did not land or touch there, but simply passed in sight of it. Chios, a beautiful and fertile island, near the coast of Asia Minor, between Lesbos and Samos. It is now called Scio, and is famous for the Turkish massacre in 1822. Arrived, a Greek verb, literally meaning to place one thing by or near another, for comparison or any other purpose. Hence in Mark 4:30, it means to compare, and is the root of the word parable. As a nautical expression, it means to come to, touch, or land, at any place. Samos, an island of the Archipelago, south-west of Ephesus, the birth-place of Pythagoras. Having remained, probably all night. Trogyllium, the name both of a promontory and a town, upon the coast of Asia Minor, opposite to Samos. Miletus, a famous seaport, about thirty miles from Ephesus, in Ionia, but near the Carian border, famous as the birth-place of Thales, and at one time the chief commercial town of Asia Minor. It is a curious circumstance, that the next day, thrice repeated in this verse, answers to three different Greek phrases, meaning the coming or ensuing (day); the other (day); and the adjoining or adjacent (day), the same expression that occurs in the latest text of 13:44, and is there explained.

16. This verse assigns the reason of Paul's visiting Miletus when he did not visit Ephesus, although much more important and attractive. Determined, literally, judged, implying not mere arbitrary resolution, but a deliberate opinion and conclusion (see above, on 3:13; 15:19.) To sail by, i.e. without stopping, though it really lay in his way (see above, on 18:18, 19.) Because he would not spend the time, though correct as a paraphrase, is not an exact version. That it might not happen to him (against his own will and judgment) to spend the time in Asia, which he felt bound to spend elsewhere. One fine trait, not apparent in the common version, is the Apostle's wise distrust of his own constancy suggested in the beginning of this clause. As if he had said, 'who knows what may happen, when I find myself again among my old friends and old enemies? In spite of present views and resolutions, I may be induced to waste time there, which I ought to be redeeming elsewhere.' Asia, i.e. Asia Proper or Proconsular, the province to which Ephesus belonged (see above, on v. 4.) For he hasted, was impatient, or solicitous (see 2 Pet. 3:12.) If it were possible, implying some doubt, and at the same time some anxiety. The last clause may be construed, that the day of Pentecost should be (observed or spent) in Jerusalem, without material change of meaning. (As to Pentecost, see above, on 2:1, and compare 1 Cor. 16:8.) It has been disputed whether this desire had reference to the observance of the feast, or to the multitudes assembled at it; but there seems to be no reason for excluding either motive, though the latter may have been the main one (see above, on 18:21.)

17. Sending to Ephesus, he called for, called to him, summoned (see above, on 7:14; 10:32.) The elders of the church, and as such its official representatives, as well as its divinely constituted rulers. (See below, on v. 28, and above, on 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4.) The church, i.e. the church of Ephesus, considered as one organic whole, whatever may have been its subdivisions or affiliated congregations. Whether this description is to be extended beyond the bounds of Ephesus itself, is a disputed question. Irenæus, followed by some later writers, understands the church to mean the church of the whole province or surrounding country. But this construction is intended merely to account for the use of the word bishops in v. 28 below, without relinquishing its later sense of prelates or diocesans. As Ephesus alone is mentioned; as a general citation would have taken time, of which Paul certainly had none to spare; and as the principle of such interpretations is precarious, and admits of an indefinite extension; it is safest to abide by the letter of the narrative, and understand the church to mean the Christian body then existing in the place which is expressly named. That he should cite these presbyters alone, is altogether natural, considering their central and conspicuous position, and the influence which they must have exerted on the other churches of the province. It is possible, indeed, and perfectly consistent with the apostolic mode of church extension (see above, on 19:21), that these other churches were supplied and governed by the elders of Ephesus, or that their own elders went and came to Ephesus, as the Apostles still did to Jerusalem, both as the mother-church, and as a central source of radiation (see above, on 15:2.) But however this may be, there can be no doubt that what Paul said to the elders of Ephesus on this occasion, he said through them to the other presbyters, not only of that province, but of the whole church, not only then, but ever since, and through all ages, for which end it has been left on record. It is therefore a comparatively trivial question who were personally present, as they virtually represented those who were not. The objection to supposing a citation of all the Asiatic churches does not lie with equal force against the notion entertained by some, that the elders of Miletus were among the persons here addressed, and not expressly named because, being on the spot, they were not sent for. There is no proof, however, that a church existed there at this time, or even at the date of 2 Tim. 4:20, which was some years later. Perhaps, indeed, the natural impression made on every reader by the narrative itself, is rather that Paul, wishing, for the reason before given, not to stop at Ephesus itself, sent for the elders of the church to meet him in a place where there was none, but where they could conveniently confer together.

18. When, lit. as see above, on v. 14. This discourse of Paul to the Ephesian elders has been justly regarded, not only as a masterpiece of apostolical and pastoral fidelity, but also as extremely characteristic of its author, and therefore affording a strong proof of its own genuineness, and of Luke's fidelity as a reporter. (See above, on 3:26.) Besides a multitude of verbal similarities between this speech and the epistles, too minute and indirect to be regarded as the product of a studied imitation, the discourse is full of those impassioned vindications of himself from various malignant charges, which occasionally burst forth in his writings, and especially pervade his second letter to the Church at Corinth. Some of these coincidences will be indicated in the exposition, but the greater part of the minuter ones, although by no means the least interesting, must be left to the reader's own comparison and observation. He first appeals to their own recollection of his faithful and unwearied ministry among them (17–21.) He then adverts to the dubious prospect now before him, but only to assert again his own fidelity and freedom from responsibility for their perdition (22–27.) He exhorts them to a like fidelity, and warns them of the perils that await them, still returning to the subject of his own unwearied labours, as a model for their imitation (28–31.) He finally commends them to the divine favour, with a parting protestation of his own disinterested toil among them, winding up with a memorable saying of the Saviour, nowhere else recorded (32–35.) The charge of egotism and boasting, brought by infidels against this valedictory discourse, never occurs spontaneously to any devout reader, a sufficient proof that it is not only false but artificial and factitious. Every such reader feels that these are not ebullitions of personal vanity or pride, but as it were official claims to apostolical fidelity, by one who had been placed there by the Holy Ghost, not only as an oracle to be believed, but as a leader to be followed, and an exemplar to be sedulously copied. Lest the whole effect of this divine arrangement should be lost on his departure, he concentrates in this last discourse expressions which might otherwise have been expanded over many, and details in words what otherwise might rather have been said in action. It is this necessity of uttering as much as possible, and in as strong a form as possible, on one occasion, that imparts to this incomparable speech the air which has been mentioned, but which none can fail to understand correctly, who have any sympathy with Paul's affections or his situation when the words were uttered. It may be added, that throughout the whole discourse, the idea is spontaneously suggested of malignant calumnies against Paul, possibly invented since he "fought with beasts at Ephesus" (1 Cor. 15:32), and designed not only to affect him personally, but to stop the progress of the new religion. That the Jews of Asia were among his most inveterate enemies, appears from their connection with his subsequent arrest (see below, on 21:27; 24:18.) The heathen feeling towards him we have seen displayed already (see above, on 19:23–34.) By supposing, as we naturally may, that this address was designed in part to be a general and final answer to such charges, we obtain another explanation of the prominence here given to himself and his Ephesian ministry. These general remarks upon a common misconception or perversion will preclude the necessity of dwelling on it, in connection with the several expressions which have given rise to it, as they present themselves. Ye know, or more emphatically, ye yourselves are well aware (see above, on 10:28; 15:7; 19:25.) He thus appeals to their own memory, in proof of what he is about to utter. As if he had said, 'whatever others may allege, as to my ministry among you, I abide by your testimony; you at least have been acquainted with my whole course since I first appeared among you.' That I came, literally, from which I entered, with reference not merely to arrival but to public appearance on this stage or field of action. Asia, in the same sense as before (see above, on v. 16.) At all seasons, literally, the whole time, which is understood by some to mean that he was never absent; but the emphasis is evidently on the adverb how, or as the English version justly but diffusely phrases it, after what manner, i.e. in what way. I was with you, not merely in the local sense of being personally present, but in that of intercourse, association. They were well aware of his relations to them, or connections with them, during the whole period of his residence in Asia.

19. The sentence is continued and the how of the preceding verse explained and amplified. Ye know how I was with you, namely, serving the Lord, not as a private Christian, but as a preacher and apostle, in which sense Peter, James, and Jude, as well as Paul, use the cognate noun (servant) to describe themselves in their epistles. (See James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:1; Jude 1; Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:10; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:1, and compare Rev. 1:1.) Humility of mind, in Greek a single word, but compounded of the two expressed in English. It is sometimes rendered lowliness (Eph. 4:2) or lowliness of mind (Phil. 2:3.) The adjective answering to humble has commonly a bad sense in the classics, namely, that of mean, base, abject, although sometimes used by Xenophon and Plato to express a virtue. Christian or evangelical humility was something unknown to the heathen, both in theory and practice. All humility, i.e. all kinds and degrees that were appropriate to his condition. This may be taken, in accordance with a previous suggestion, as a tacit answer to the charge of pride, which may have been alleged against him. Many tears, or according to the latest critics, simply tears, the many being reckoned an interpolation or unauthorized assimilation to Paul's language in 2 Cor. 2:4. Even the weaker phrase conveys a strong idea of Paul's sufferings in his ministry at Ephesus. One specific cause or occasion of these sufferings is here presented. Tears and temptations, i.e. tears arising from temptations, not in the restricted sense of allurements or inducements to commit sin, but in the primary and wider sense of trials, including troubles or afflictions, when regarded as a test of character. (Compare the use of the same Greek word in James 1:9, 12; 1 Pet. 1:6; 4:12; Rev. 3:10.) The trials thus referred to are then specified as those occurring to me (or befalling me) in the plots (or machinations) of the Jews. In does not merely mean by means (or on account) of, but suggests the additional idea of his being in the midst of them, surrounded by them. The Greek noun is the same with that in v. 3, and in 9:24 above, 23:30 below, in all which cases it is rendered by the English phrase, laid wait or lying in wait, a metaphor not found in the original, which simply means a plan, plot, or design against one. What these plots were we have now no means of determining; but the fact of their existence agrees fully with the glimpse which we obtained of Jewish policy and feeling in the riot of Demetrius (see above, on 19:33.) The same machinations still beset his path in Greece (see above, on v. 3.) The Jews of the Diaspora appear to have maintained an active intercourse among themselves, as well as with Jerusalem, and this enabled them to operate with more effect against the Christians (see above, on 14:19; 17:13. and below, on 28:21.) This verse, then, describes Paul's ministry at Ephesus as any thing but ostentatious and self-pleasing.

20. Having thus described the spirit and external circumstances of his mission, he proceeds to state its more substantial qualities of faithfulness and diligence, instructiveness and soundness. He first alleges negatively, and as if in answer to some charge of negligence or partiality, that he had withheld nothing and neglected no means to promote their improvement and salvation. How (or that) connects this sentence with his previous appeal to their own recollection. As they knew how humbly and amidst what trials he had toiled among them, so they knew that he had kept back nothing of the things expedient, i.e. to be known in order to salvation. In the other places where the verb occurs, it means to shrink, recoil, or draw one's self back. (See below, on v. 27, and compare Gal. 2:12; Heb. 10:38.) Here, being construed with an expressed object, it denotes the act of holding back what ought to be presented or exhibited. Expedient is in Greek a participial form, the etymology and usage of which both give it the sense of conducing or contributing, i.e. to the benefit of those concerned. (Compare 1 Cor. 7:35; 10:33; 12:7; Heb. 12:20.) The verb itself is used impersonally (like the Latin expedit, from which expedient is derived) except in 19:19, above, where it has its physical and proper sense of bringing together. But have showed you is the sense but not the form of the original, which literally means, so as not to show you, and describes not what he did but what he would have done, if he had kept back any thing to which they were entitled. What kind of withholding he is here disclaiming, is apparent from the last clause, where the same negative construction is continued, so as not to tell you and to teach you. The first of these verbs is the one variously rendered showed (19:18), told (16:38), declared (15:4), rehearsed (14:27), but strictly meaning to announce, to bring news, and in this connection, therefore, nearly equivalent to preach, in which sense it is joined with teach. (See above, on 4:2, 18; 5:21, 25, 28, 42; 4:26; 15:35; 18:11, 25.) It appears, then, that what he here denies having held back from them is the word of God, instruction in the truth, and the negative assertion that he did not so withhold the truth as not to preach and teach, is equivalent to the strongest affirmation that he did thus preach and teach it. Publicly, or (in) a public (place), before the people, in assemblies. From house to house, or in houses, as distinguished from the public meetings previously mentioned. (See above, on 2:46; 5:42; 8:3, where the singular number of the Greek noun is employed in the same manner.) Thus the two modes of instruction, which have ever since been found most efficacious, are here combined in Paul's description of his own Ephesian ministry. The church has yet invented nothing to supply the place or rival the effect of church and household preaching.

21. Having claimed for his ministry in Ephesus the praise of being humble, affectionate, diligent, and faithful, he now describes its specific character or substance, what it was and wherein it consisted. In the first place, it was testimony to the truth, a common description of Christian and particularly Apostolic preaching. (For the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 2:40; 8:25; 10:42; 18:5.) The subject of this testimony he reduces to two great heads of doctrine and of duty, repentance and faith. There is no distinctive reference to Jews and Gentiles, both being equally in need of both. Nor is it intimated that repentance can be exercised without regard to Christ, or faith without regard to God the Father. Repentance toward God (or with respect to God) is that change of heart and life which every sinner owes to God as his rightful sovereign, irrespectively of any offered mercy, although never really experienced till this has been revealed and apprehended. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ is that belief or trust, of which he is the specific object, and which cannot therefore be reposed in God as God, without regard to mediation or atonement. The two together constitute the whole of practical religion, and comprise all the lawful and obligatory themes of evangelical instruction. He who preaches the repentance and the faith here spoken of, in all their fulness and variety, will need to seek no other topics, and may humbly boast of having kept back nothing that was profitable to his hearers.

22. He now turns from the past to the future, from the recollection of his former labours to the anticipation of approaching trials. And now often marks the transition from one topic to another as a sort of logical connective (see above, on 3:17; 7:34; 10:5; 13:11); but here it may be taken in its proper sense, and now, at present, at this time, as distinguished from the former times of which he had reminded them. I go, or rather, I am going, journeying (see above, on v. 1, and on 19:21.) Bound in spirit has been variously understood as meaning, bound to the Spirit, i.e. under his controlling power; or encircled, guarded, and protected by him; or prospectively, though not yet really, a prisoner; or constrained in my own mind (see above, on 18:5, and compare 7:59; 15:16; 18:25.) Perhaps the meaning of the phrase is given in the next clause, not knowing the (things) about to meet (encounter or befall) me. Bound in Spirit may then mean, kept in ignorance, restrained from knowing, either in his own mind, or more probably by the Holy Ghost, who did not vouchsafe to reveal this to him. It thus appears that Paul's inspiration, though infallible, was not unlimited as to its objects, and did not extend to some things in which he was personally most concerned. There, literally, in it, or in her, i.e. in the Holy City, which he had just mentioned.

23. The negative statement just made is now qualified. The ignorance in which he had been left was not a total one. The Holy Ghost is here expressly mentioned as the source of what he knew upon the subject, and therefore probably as the concealer or withholder of that which he did not know, or in other words, as the Spirit by whom, according to the figurative language of the verse preceding, he was bound or kept in ignorance. In every city is too strong a version, the Greek phrase being not universal but distributive, city by city, or from town to town, which necessarily denotes no more than an occasional communication, here and there, as he proceeded. Witnesseth, the verb translated testifying in v. 21. Saying, either by direct revelation to himself, or by means of such communications as are afterwards recorded (see below, on 21:10–12.) That no such intimations have been previously mentioned, does not prove that they were not received, as they may frequently have been of such a nature as to be observed and understood by no one but himself. It is possible, however, that the reference is after all to internal revelations, which might just as well be made progressively as outward warnings. Bonds, imprisonment, captivity, a form of suffering which he had frequently inflicted upon others. (See above, on 8:3; 9:14, and below, on 22:4, 5; 26:10.) Bonds and (other) afflictions, a specific and generic term combined. Abide, await, are ready for me.

24. None of these things move me is a very free paraphrase of the original, which strictly means. I make account of (i.e. value, care for) nothing. (For this use of the Greek noun, see above, on 19:40.) The verb is in the middle voice, and therefore means to value for one's self, or on one's own account. This profession of indifference is then made still stronger. I do not even hold my life dear (i.e. valuable, precious) to myself (here expressed by a reflexive pronoun.) The Greek adjective is that used in 5:34, and there explained. The necessary qualification of these strong expressions is contained in the last clause. So as to finish (perfect, or complete) my course (or race) with joy, in allusion to the joy of victory in the athletic games or contests, from which Paul so often draws his illustrations. (See above, on 13:25, and compare Rom. 9:16; 1 Cor. 9:24, 26; Gal. 2:2, 5, 7; Phil. 2:16; 3:14; Heb. 12:1; 2 Tim. 4:7.) So as to finish is equivalent to saying, so that (or provided) I may finish. This is the condition on which, or the good compared with which, he cared for nothing, no, not for life itself. That this course or race was not his personal experience merely, is apparent from the last clause. And the ministry, i.e. (in fact, though not in form) even the ministry, to wit the ministry. This ministry was that of the Apostleship (see above, on 1:17, 25, and compare Rom. 11:13.) He valued it even more than life, not only for its fruits, but for its author. Which I received from the Lord Jesus, i.e. at the time of my conversion (see above, on 9:15, 17, and below, on 22:15, 21, and compare Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:1.) This definite allusion to a critical juncture in his history is weakened by translating the verb, have received. (See above, on 19:2.) Wherein this ministry consisted, he again tells, as if never weary of the repetition. To testify (the same verb as in vs 21, 23, meaning not only to proclaim but to attest as true) the gospel (good news or glad tidings) of the grace of God, i.e. the good news that he can and will be gracious even to the chief of sinners who believes in Christ. (Compare Rom. 3:26; 1 Tim. 1:15.)

25. The formula in v. 22 is repeated, perhaps because he had recurred for a moment to his previous ministry, and now comes back to his anticipations of the future. In both cases, lo (behold) as usual suggests something unexpected. As if he had said, 'See to what our friendship comes at last; after all our intimate relations, we are now to part, and part for ever.' The original order is, no more shall see my face ye all among whom I have gone, literally, I went through (see above, on 9:32), i.e. when I was resident among you. This does not necessarily imply, as some suppose, the presence of elders from other parts of Asia besides Ephesus (see above, on v. 17); nor is it an impassioned apostrophe to all among whom Paul had laboured, whether present or absent. It is simply an address to the Ephesian elders, not as individuals merely, but as representatives. We have here still another description of his ministry, but one with which we are already well acquainted, preaching (heralding, proclaiming) the kingdom of God. (See above, on 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8.) Some suppose that this was merely an opinion or surmise of Paul without divine communication or direction; but this idea was expressed in v. 22 by the phrase not knowing, and it surely cannot be assumed that knowing and not knowing mean precisely the same thing. If not knowing there denotes that it was hidden from him and remained uncertain, then I know must mean that it had been revealed in some way and was certain. To attach the same sense to directly opposite expressions, in the same context, and in reference to the same subject, is to nullify the use of language. The only natural interpretation of Paul's statement is, that he did not know in detail what should befall him, but he did know that imprisonment and other sufferings awaited him, and he did know that all those among whom he went about in Ephesus should see his face no more. The only motive for preferring a different construction is that Paul, according to some writers, was released from his captivity at Rome and did revisit Asia Minor. But this historical uncertainty, instead of altering the sense of plain words, must itself be qualified or settled by them. There is no need even of avoiding the supposed contradiction by insisting on the strict sense of the word all, as if Paul meant to say that he would never more be seen by every one then present, though he might be seen by some, perhaps by most of them. This, which is always true of every large assembly, with respect to one who is about to leave them, would not have been entitled to such solemn utterance. The obvious meaning of the words is that he was about to take a final leave of them and of their country.

26. I take you to record seems to mean, I cite (or summon) you as witnesses, as he had actually done in vs. 18–21. But the Greek verb here used means, I testify, I myself bear witness, or at most, with reference to the customary form of oath, I call God to witness. (Compare the use of the same verb in Gal. 5:3, and especially in Eph. 4:17, where the divine name is expressed, I testify in the Lord.) This day is very strong in the original, the noun day and the adverb to-day being both expressed, a combination which can only be imperfectly retained in English by such phrases as this very day. The very strength of the original expression shows that it was meant to be emphatic and significant, implying even more than now in vs. 22, 25. As if he had said, on this the last day we shall spend together, or the last day of our meeting upon earth, I testify, etc. The fact thus solemnly attested is, that if they perished it would not be his fault, or for want of faithful warning and instruction upon his part. This idea is expressed in scriptural and oriental form by saying, I am clean (pure, without stain, innocent) from the blood (i.e. the murder, or the guilt of the destruction) of all (i.e. of all among whom he had laboured.) Clean from, which has by some been represented as a Hebraism, occurs in classical Greek writers. There is obvious allusion in this passage to Ezek. 3:17–21; 33:1–9.

27. Shunned, the same verb that occurs above in v. 20, but without an expressed object as in that place. The essential meaning is, however, still the same, namely, held or drew back so as not to tell, announce, report, another verb occurring in that passage, and with the same infinitive construction. The whole counsel (plan or will) of God, respecting your salvation, comprehending the two cardinal requisites of repentance and faith. (See above, on v. 21.)

28. Having thus affirmed his own fidelity, he urges them to follow his example. Take heed, the same verb that is used above, in 5:35; 8:6, 10, 11; 16:14, and there explained. It denotes not mere attention but attendance, sedulous and anxious care. To yourselves, to your own safety and salvation, as a prerequisite of usefulness to others. The flock, a term applied by Christ himself to his disciples (Luke 12:32), and by Peter to the church already organized (1 Pet. 5:2, 3). It is a favourite figure with the prophets for the chosen people or the church of the Old Testament. (See Isai. 40:11; 63:11; Jer. 13:17; 23:2; 31:10; 51:23; Ezek. 34:3; Mic. 7:14; Zech. 10:3; 11:4, 7, 17.) Our Lord describes himself as the good shepherd, and believers as his sheep (John 10:1–16.) Peter describes him as the shepherd and bishop (or overseer) of souls (1 Pet. 2:25), and as the chief shepherd (5:4), to whom ministers are under-shepherds. Over the which is not a correct version, as it makes the overseers entirely distinct from and superior to the flock, whereas the original makes them a part of it, although superior in office. In which, in the midst and as a part of which. The Holy Ghost made, literally, placed or set, not only by creating the office, but by choosing the incumbents, either by express designation (as in 13:2), or by directing the choice of others (as in 6:5.) Bishops is the Anglicised form of the Greek word, which means overseers, inspectors. It is here applied to the same persons who were before described as elders (see above, on v. 17), proving clearly that the titles are convertible in this case, as they are in Tit. 1:5–7; a conclusion strengthened by the otherwise inexplicable fact, that both are never named together as distinct classes of church officers. (See above, on 11:30; 14:23; 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4, and compare 1 Tim. 3:2; 5:1, 17, 19; 1 Pet. 5:1.) That these bishops were diocesans with presbyters under them, is inconsistent with their being themselves called presbyters or elders. That they were subject to diocesans not mentioned, is precluded by the improbability that these, though superior in rank, should have passed unnoticed. That the office of diocesan was vacant at this time, is not only a gratuitous assumption, but at variance with the fact that Paul, when he warns the elders of approaching dangers, makes no allusion to their future prelate, but addresses them as if they were about to be left in sole charge of the flock. There is no tenable ground, therefore, but the obvious and simple one, now commonly adopted even by Episcopalians, that bishops and presbyters, when Paul spoke and when Luke wrote, were the same thing, a fact affirmed also by Theodoret and Jerome. When it is added that the name bishop was afterwards assumed by a higher order who succeeded the apostles, it is only true in reference to a subsequent though early deviation from the apostolic theory and practice. Throughout the New Testament the same class of officers are called both presbyters and bishops. To feed is a very inadequate translation of the Greek word, which means to act as (or do the duty of) a shepherd, and includes, not only feeding, but protection, regulation, and the whole care of a shepherd for his flock. (Compare the use of the same verb in Rev. 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, where the sense of feeding is entirely merged in that of ruling.) The church of God, or according to the latest critics, of the Lord. Both readings are very ancient, the latter being found in several of the oldest manuscripts, the former in the oldest one of all. The phrase church of God is of frequent occurrence (see 1 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5), whereas church of the Lord is without example elsewhere. But this fact is urged as an argument on both sides, some contending for the usage as decisive of the question, others accounting for the change of reading as an unauthorized assimilation of this one place to the others which have just been cited. The interest of the question arises from its bearing on the divinity of Christ, whose blood, according to the common text, is here described as the blood of God, a phrase found in several of the earliest Christian writers (such as Ignatius and Tertullian) as if in allusion to some text of Scripture. In favour of this reading it may also be alleged that the apparent incongruity of the expression would naturally tempt men to amend it, while the very same cause would prevent its introduction if it were not genuine. The blood of God is of course the blood of Christ who, though a man, was a divine person. Purchased, a Greek verb meaning properly to cause to remain over, then to save or lay by, then to acquire or gain. The middle voice denotes specifically to acquire for one's self, both here and in the only other place where it is used in the New Testament (1 Tim. 3:13.) The corresponding noun occurs more frequently and always in reference to redemption or salvation. (See Eph. 1:14; 1 Thess. 5:9; 2 Thess. 2:14; Heb. 10:39; 1 Pet. 2:9.) The motive here urged for fidelity is not, as in v. 27, that their office was created by the Holy Ghost, but that the church itself was purchased by the blood of Christ.

29. I know this can have no other meaning here than that belonging to the same words in v. 25. How he knew it, we are not informed in either case; but that he knew it, is explicitly affirmed in both. This, this too, besides what he professed to know before. Departing, in the original a noun, used by the old Greek writers (as Herodotus) to signify arrival, but by Plato and Demosthenes, a going home again, and then in the Apocrypha and here, departure in general, which may either refer to his death or to his leaving them at this time, the two things coinciding as to practical effect. (See above, on v. 25.) Wolves, the natural enemies of sheep, and therefore used as a figure for those who ravage or lay waste the Church. (See Matt. 7:15; 10:16; Luke 10:3; John 10:12.) Grievous (from the Vulgate graves), literally, heavy, but explained by the context to mean cruel and destructive. (See below, on 25:7.) Enter in among you (or come in to you), i.e. from without, as distinguished from those mentioned in the next verse. Not sparing, a litotes or meiosis (see above, on v. 12) for devouring or destroying.

30. Another class of enemies or wasters shall arise from a very different quarter, namely, of (i.e. out of, from among) your own selves. Men, not as opposed to wolves, which were also representatives of human beings, but a like class described without a figure. Wolves were to come in from without, i.e. wicked and destructive men, and such men were also to arise within. Some suppose the wolves, or enemies from without, to denote persecutors, as distinguished from errorists; but the only distinction here intended seems to be that between wasters from within and from without. Shall arise, appear, come forward. (See above, on 5:36, 37; 7:18.) Perverse, perverted, or distorted, i.e. from the standard of truth and rectitude. (See above, on 13:8, 10, and compare Matt. 17:17; Luke 9:41; 23:2; Phil. 2:15.) So as to draw away, the same infinitive construction that occurs above in vs. 20, 27. It may here denote either the design, or the effect, or both. They should not only teach error in the church, but rend it by schismatical divisions, forming schools or parties. Disciples seems to mean disciples of their own; but in the original it is the disciples, i.e. of Christ, by drawing whom away from the belief of the truth and the communion of the Church, these schools or sects were to be formed. After (or behind) them, implying not only influence and imitation, but dependence and subjection. With this prediction of the evils which were to invade the church at Ephesus after Paul's departure, may be compared the description of its actual condition many years later in the epistle of the Saviour to it, as recorded by John (Rev. 2:2–7.) We there learn that the church had been visited by false apostles, and infested by the Nicolaitans; but that although she had left her first love and fallen from her high estate, and was in danger of losing what she still possessed, she had endured and laboured in her master's cause, and had especially unmasked the false apostles, and abhorred the practice of the Nicolaitans; all which may be regarded as the fruit and the fulfilment of this very prophecy and exhortation.

31. Therefore, because these dangers threaten you, and you have been forewarned of them. Watch, in the primary and strict sense of the verb, both in Greek and English, be awake, be wakeful (1 Thess. 5:6, 10), and also in the secondary and more common sense, be on your guard (1 Pet. 5:8.) Remembering, as a motive and example of such vigilance, that Paul himself had exercised it night and day for three years, when the danger was less imminent. By the space of is supplied by the translators, as in 7:42; 19:10 (compare 13:20, 21; 19:8, 34), unless it be regarded here as a part of the translation of the Greek noun, which denotes a period or interval of three years, like the corresponding Latin form (triennium). This is here a round number, including the two years and a half expressly mentioned (see above, on 19:8, 10), together with the undefined period that Paul may have remained there after the two years expired. Night and day, a natural hyperbole, familiar in all languages, for constantly, unceasingly, at all times when he could be so employed, without regard to his own ease and comfort. Ceased not, paused not, another hyperbolical expression, to be understood in the same way. With tears, still another, meaning not that he was literally always weeping, but that his whole ministry was something more than a cold and heartless exhibition of the truth, being warmed and animated by the tenderest affection towards them, and a heartfelt desire for their salvation. Warning, literally, putting in mind, or into the mind, so as to include the ideas of instructing and reminding. This verb and the corresponding noun are used in the New Testament by Paul alone, with whom they are favourite expressions. Each one (or every one) who came within the reach of his instructions. This expression seems descriptive not of public but of personal or private warning.

32. And now, a third effort to conclude (see above, on vs. 22, 25), the others having failed, as it were, from strong emotion and unwillingness to leave them. Commend, commit, deposit for safe keeping (see above, on 14:23, and compare the very different use of the same verb in 16:34; 17:3.) The same idea is expressed, but by another verb, in 14:26; 15:40. The word of his grace may either mean the doctrine of salvation through God's mercy (see above, on v. 24; 14:3, and compare 11:23; 13:43), or his gracious word of promise. In the latter case, what follows must refer to God himself; whereas in the other case, it may be construed with the word or doctrine, which is able, as an instrument or means, to accomplish what is thus ascribed to it. To build up (or edify), another favourite of Paul's, who often uses it to signify spiritual progress or increase upon a firm foundation and a certain plan. (See 1 Cor. 3:10, 12, 14; Eph. 2:20; Col. 2:7; Jude 20, and compare the uncompounded form of the same verb explained above, on 9:31. Inheritance, possession by a filial right, the portion of sons. Sanctified, made holy, as the very end of their salvation (1 Thess. 4:3; Heb. 12:14.)

33. His labours had been not only faithful and affectionate but disinterested. Silver or gold or raiment of no one did I covet, i.e. when I was among you. Raiment or clothing is often alluded to in Scripture, as a principal kind of riches in the east, where the fashion of dress seldom changes, and the son not unfrequently inherits the apparel of his father. Hence the reference to moth as well as rust in Matt. 6:19, 20. A similar profession of disinterestedness is made by Samuel in relinquishing his office (1 Sam. 12:3.)

34. Here, as at the beginning of the whole discourse (v. 18), he appeals to their own knowledge of the facts which he asserts. The original order of the following words is, that to my wants, and to those being with me, ministered these hands, a much more pointed and emphatic collocation. Whether he showed his hands, as some suppose, exhibiting the marks of labour, is a doubtful question. There can be no doubt, however, that the form of expression is peculiarly appropriate to a person speaking, and would scarcely have occurred to a mere writer. To those with me, that is, to their wants, or to them considered as among his own wants. The word translated wants (or necessities) is one of very frequent occurrence in Paul's writings. Ministered, served, provided for. (See above, on 13:26, and below, on 24:23.) Although Paul teaches clearly that the preachers of the Gospel are entitled to support, he refused to avail himself of this right in the Gentile churches, lest his motives should be liable to misconstruction. (See 1 Cor. 9:11–15; 2 Cor. 11:7–12; 12:13–16; 2 Thess. 3:7–12.)

35. Showed, the same verb that is used above, in 9:16, and there explained. All things may be either the object of the verb, as in the English version, or an adverbial expression meaning always, or by all means, or in all things. This last construction is not only favoured by the collocation of the words in Greek, but by Paul's usage elsewhere (see 1 Cor. 10:33; Eph. 4:15.) So labouring, i.e. as I did, with my own hands, and without compulsion. Ye ought is in Greek a more indefinite expression, it is right (or necessary), as a general fact or principle of duty. The same word (δωῖ) is translated we ought elsewhere (see above on 5:29.) To support, a most expressive Greek verb which, according to its etymology, originally signifies to lay hold of any one (or some thing) opposite, as if to hold it up. (Compare the use of the same verb in Luke 1:54; 1 Tim. 6:2.) The weak, in Greek a participle commonly denoting weak in body, i.e. from disease (see above, on 9:37; 19:12), but sometimes weak in faith or conscience, i.e. scrupulous (compare Rom. 4:19; 14:1, 2, 21; 2 Cor. 8:9, 11, 12.) Some prefer the latter meaning here, viz., that Christians ought to waive their privilege in this respect, in condescension to the doubts or prejudices of others. This agrees well with Paul's principle and practice, but scarcely with the strong expression to sustain, support, or hold up. It is better, therefore, to explain the weak as meaning all who stand in need of such support from any cause. This also agrees better with the words which follow, and which speak of giving, not of refusing to receive or to depend on others. To remember too (τε), i.e. we ought (or it is right and necessary) so to do. The words of the Lord Jesus, nowhere else preserved, but breathing the spirit of his life and doctrine. As neither all his words nor deeds have been recorded (see John 21:25), there is no need of supposing that Paul here sums up several expressions of the Saviour scattered through the Gospels, as Matthew does the prophecies of his humiliation in the words, "He shall be called a Nazarene." (See above, on 2:22, and compare Matt. 2:23.) It is much more natural in this case to regard the words as literally spoken by our Lord, and incidentally recorded here. The words themselves are exquisitely simple, but embody an important truth and principle of action. Blessed, happy, or conducive to happiness, the very word used in our Lord's beatitudes (see Matt. 5:3–11; Luke 6:20–22), and often elsewhere, so that it may be described as one of his favourite expressions, which confirms the authenticity of Paul's quotation. The same sentiment is found in Aristotle, but with far less clearness and directness of expression; and the spirit of heathenism is no doubt much better embodied in the opposite maxim of an old poet, "silly the giver, lucky the receiver."

36. These things having said (or saying), placing his knees (upon the ground), with them all he prayed. The mention of his kneeling seems to imply that it was not his customary posture in public prayer, but one occasioned by the strength of his emotions. Long after, as we learn from Justin Martyr and others, it was the practice of the church to stand in public prayer upon the Lord's Day, although kneeling was no doubt used in smaller circles, as it is still by those who stand in public, or on special occasions, like the one before us. Prayed with them, no doubt in the sense attached to the words now, to wit, that of leading the devotions or praying in the name of all.

37. There was (or arose) a great (or sufficient) weeping of all, and falling on his neck (i.e. embracing him) they kissed him (an emphatic compound form denoting frequency or tenderness.) This childlike expression both of love and sorrow is to be explained, not merely from ancient or oriental usage, but as a proof of the intense regard, which Paul appears to have commanded on the part of all who were in bonds of spiritual friendship with him. As in many other cases, this attachment seems to have borne due proportion to the malice of his enemies.

38. Sorrowing, or in the passive form, distressed, grieved. The strength of the expression may be learned from its application elsewhere to maternal anguish and the torments of the damned. (See Luke 2:48; 16:24, 25.) Most (of all is supplied by the translators), chiefly, or especially, the usual superlative adverb. The word, not the whole speech as the Greek noun sometimes means (see above, on 2:41; 6:5; 18:14), but a particular expression in it (compare John 6:60; 7:36; 18:9; 19:8; 21:23.) Spake, or retaining the pluperfect form, had spoken, which suggests that it was not the close of his discourse that thus affected them, but something which he had said before, viz. in v. 25 above. That they no more are (about) his face to see, behold, contemplate (see above, on 7:56; 8:13; 10:11; 17:16, 22; 19:26.) Accompanied, escorted, literally, sent him forward. (For the verbal and the social usage, see above, on 15:3.)

CHAPTER 21

THIS division of the text contains the conclusion of Paul's voyage from Greece to Syria, his last recorded visit to Jerusalem, and the close of his active ministry or labours as a freeman. The chapter opens with a very particular itinerary of his route from Miletus to Tyre (1–3.) He spends a week there, and one day at Ptolemais (4–7.) He next visits Cesarea, where Agabus foretells his imprisonment, and his friends endeavour to dissuade him from continuing his journey (8–14.) The next stage is Jerusalem, where he is welcomed by the brethren and the elders with James at their head (15–18.) They rejoice in the conversion of the Gentiles, but describe the converted Jews as numerous and zealous for the law, and prepossessed against Paul as one who taught men to neglect it (19–21.) They advise him to conciliate these zealots by an act of ceremonial conformity, while at the same time they reiterate the previous decision as to Gentile converts (22–25.) Paul accepts their counsel, but while acting on it, is attacked tumultuously by the Jews with a design to kill him (26–30.) He is rescued by the Roman soldiers, but pursued by the infuriated mob (31–36.) The Roman commander takes him for another person, bat on being undeceived, allows him to address the people (37–40.)

1. And when (or as) it happened that we sailed, i.e. from Miletus, where the previous discourse was uttered. (See above, on 20:17.) After we were gotten, literally, having been torn from them, which means more than mere departure, namely, painful and reluctant separation. (See above, on 1:4; 18:1, 2.) Ran straight, the same Greek compound as in 16:11. Coos (or Cos), a small but fertile island near the coast of Caria, famous of old for wine, silk, cotton, the worship of Esculapius, and the residence of Hippocrates. It is now called Stanco, said to be a mere corruption of a Greek phrase meaning to (or into) Cos. Following, literally, in order, next. Rhodes, another Carian island, one of the Sporades, with a city of the same name, famed for its Colossus, or gigantic statue of Apollo, which however was now prostrate or in ruins. Patara, a town on the coast of Lycia, near the mouth of the Xanthus, where Apollo was believed to utter oracles at certain seasons, and hence derived one of his epithets or titles (Patareus). The minuteness and exactness of this narrative evince that it proceeds from an eye-witness, while the nautical phraseology shows him to have been familiar with the sea, though not a seaman by profession.

2. Sailing over, crossing, passing through the intervening sea, which may either mean, about to do so now, the present being then used for the future, or accustomed to do so periodically, in which case the present participle has its proper sense. Phenicia, see above, on 11:19; 12:20; 15:3. There was an open sea, and no doubt constant trade, between the Lycian and Phenician ports. Went aboard, literally, ascending, mounting, but applied (as here) to going on board ship by Mark (6:51) and John (21:3.) Set forth, the word translated launched in v. 1, and explained above, on 13:13; 16:11; 18:21; 20:3, 13.

3. When we had discovered is another technical expression, being in form a passive participle, not easily translated into English. The nearest approach perhaps is being (or having been) shown Cyprus, i.e. made to see it at a distance, passing in sight of it. As to the island itself, see above, on 4:36; 11:19, 20; 13:4; 15:39. The apparent play upon words here (left it on the left) is confined to the translation, the original containing two entirely different terms, the last literally meaning well named (or of good name) and then lucky, in which secondary sense it was applied, by a superstitious euphemism, to the left hand or side, which was regarded by the ancients as unlucky, though they did not dare to call it so. On the left hand is in Greek a single word, and that an adjective agreeing with the noun or pronoun (leaving it sinister or left.) They sailed therefore to the south of Cyprus, as Paul, on his first missionary voyage, had traversed its whole length from east to west (see above, on 13:5, 6.) Sailed into Syria, i.e. completed our voyage to it. (See above, on 20:3, and compare 18:18.) Landed, literally, were brought down, the converse or correlative expression to the one employed above in v. 1. (See below, on 27:3; 28:12.) Tyre, the famous sea-port and commercial city of Phenicia, which with Palestine formed part of the Roman province of Syria. (See above, on 12:20.) There, literally, thither, which may here have the former sense, as it seems to have elsewhere (see below, on 22:5), or be strictly understood as implying previous motion (going thither to unload), or motion from the harbour to the town itself. Was to unlade, literally, was unlading, which admits of the same two constructions as the participle crossing (see above, on v. 1.) Her burthen, literally, the load (or cargo), elsewhere put for merchandise or wares in general (see Rev. 18:11, 12.)

4. Finding, after search or previous inquiry. (See above, on 11:26, where the less emphatic uncompounded form is used.) The gospel had been early introduced into Phenicia (see above, on 11:19; 15:3); but the Tyrian Christians were probably few in proportion to the whole population, though enough to verify, at least prospectively, the prophecy in Isai. 23:18 (compare Ps. 87:4.) Tarried, staid over, remained longer than they had expected (see above, on 10:48; 12:16; 15:34.) This was probably because the ship was long discharging its cargo. The abrupt construction of the relative in English is exactly copied from the Greek. Through the Spirit, under his influence, by inspiration. (See above, on 1:2, 11:28.) Not to ascend (or go up), the expression commonly employed in speaking of motion to the Holy City. (See above, on 11:2; 15:2; 18:22.) This was not a divine command to Paul, but an inference of the disciples from the fact, which was revealed to them, that Paul would there be in great danger. It was not revealed to them, as it was to him, that he must go up at all hazards. Should not go up, besides being an unnecessary deviation from the form of the original, suggests the idea of a moral obligation more distinctly than the simple infinitive. Not to go up, i.e. if he valued his own ease and safety.

5. And when it happened (or befell) us to complete the days, i.e. the days of this involuntary stay at Tyre. Some understand the verb, however, in the sense of thoroughly equipping or supplying (compare 2 Tim. 3:17), and refer it to the ship, when we had got (it) ready (during) the days; but this construction is less natural. Going out we journeyed (or departed), all escorting us (see above, on 15:23; 20:38) until (or as far as) outside of the city; we were is supplied by the translators. Placing the knees, precisely as in 20:36, but with the local specification here, upon the shore or beach (see below, on 27:39, 40.) We prayed, i.e. the whole company, though led no doubt by the Apostle, as in 20:36.

6. Taken our leave, the verb translated saluted in the next verse and in v. 19 below, and in 18:22 above (in 20:1 it is embraced.) Took ship, the same verb that is rendered went aboard in v. 2, but without the noun, which is here expressed. Home again, literally, to their own (things or places, as in John 19:27), not to their own friends (as in 24:23 below), the own being masculine there and neuter here. (Both forms are combined in John 1:11.) The mention of these unimportant but impressive circumstances would not have occurred to any but a witness of the scene which he describes.

7. But we, as the other party, here opposed to those whom we have just seen going home. Having finished the voyage, not merely from Tyre, but the whole of their journey by water. From Tyre came down to Ptolemais (see above, on 16:1; 18:19, 24; 20:15.) The Greek collocation makes the construction less ambiguous, the voyage having finished, from Tyre we came. The aorist participle may denote a simultaneous act, as in 1:24; 19:2. Finishing the voyage (or the maritime part of our journey), we came down, i.e. in the act of coming down we finished it. Ptolemais, one of the oldest and most celebrated places in the world, the Acco of the Old Testament, which name it still retains among the Arabs, while its modern European name is Acre, or in French more fully, St. Jean d'Acre, from the Hospitallers, or Knights of St. John, by whom it was once occupied. It is situated north of Mount Carmel, and is still the best harbour on the coast. It was assigned to the tribe of Asher, but never actually occupied by them (Judges 1:31.) It was so near the frontier, that the ancient geographers assigned it to Phenicia, and a dictum of the Talmud says that it is and is not in the land of Israel. It was called Ptolemais no doubt as a compliment to some of the Ptolemies or Macedonian kings of Egypt. It is famous in history for its sieges, not only during the Crusades, and in the wars occasioned by the French Revolution, but also in the latest times, having been bombarded by Ibrahim Pacha in 1832, and by the Austrians and English in 1840.

8. The next day, literally on the morrow, as in 10:9, 23, 24; 14:20; 20:7. We that were of Paul's company, literally, those about Paul, the idiomatic phrase employed above in 13:13, and there explained, but here rejected by the latest critics, as not found in the oldest manuscripts, and probably added to begin a pericope or lesson. The reading then is simply, we departed, literally, going out, i.e. from Ptolemais. Cesarea, the new sea-port on the Mediterranean, built by Herod the Great upon the site of Straton's Tower, and when Paul was there the residence of the Roman Procurator of Judea. (See above, on 8:40; 9:30; 10:1; 12:19; 18:22, and below, on 23:23, 24, 33.) Entered (literally, entering) into the house of Philip the Evangelist (not the Apostle, but) one of the seven (whose appointment is recorded in 6:5, 6.) It has been disputed how he could be absent from Jerusalem, unless he had resigned his office there. Some say the office was itself a temporary one (but see Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12.) A more satisfactory reply is furnished by the history itself, from which we learn that in the persecution on the death of Stephen, all the church at Jerusalem were scattered abroad throughout Judea and Samaria except the Apostles (see above, on 8:1.) Among those thus dispersed was Philip, who seems never to have gone back after the re-organization of the church in which he was ordained a deacon. In the mean time he had "purchased (or acquired) to himself a good degree" (1 Tim. 3:13), and had long been doing "the work of an evangelist" (2 Tim. 4:5.) This word strictly means a preacher of the Gospel, but is specially applied to a particular office in the primitive church. It does not express, as in modern times, the negative idea of a minister without charge, or a mere it inerant preacher; nor the more positive idea of a missionary, or a commissioner invested with extraordinary powers for a special or temporary purpose; but a stated office in the apostolical church of great importance. While the local government and ordinary teaching of the church were committed to its elders, the work of preaching was performed by the Apostles, and by others whom they sent forth for the purpose, and who are called Prophets when inspired, but Evangelists in reference to their essential functions, just as the same persons were called Presbyters and Bishops (see above, on 20:28.) This was a temporary system, suited to the period of organization and formation, and to be gradually superseded by the pastors and teachers of particular congregations, who began to take the place of these itinerant instructors before the end of the Apostolic age, as appears from Paul's enumeration of church-offices in Eph. 4:11, "he gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers," with an obvious reference in the following verses to the temporary nature and design of the arrangement. This important office Philip had been executing since he left Jerusalem, if not before, although his ordination to it is not expressly recorded, as his being made a deacon is, not for its own sake, but as a preliminary to the martyrdom of Stephen and the great events occasioned by it. (See above, on 6:5.) It is not improbable that Paul and Philip had been formerly acquainted, being both Hellenists and in Jerusalem together (see above, on 6:5; 7:58.) But however this may be, the Apostle would naturally take up his abode with Philip, not only as a labourer in the same field with himself, but as being now, perhaps, the stated pastor and teacher of the Gentile church at Cesarea, formed at the conversion of Cornelius. (See above, on 10:48; 11:18.)

9. With respect to Philip's family, an interesting fact is stated, namely, that his four unmarried daughters, no doubt still residing with him, were inspired, literally, prophesying, not as public teachers, which would be wholly inconsistent with Paul's principle, as laid down both before and after these occurrences (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:12), but in private, perhaps actually prophesying in the strict sense at the time of Paul's arrival, i.e. predicting what was to befall him, like the Tyrian disciples (see above, on v. 4.) This would account for the mention of the circumstance, without assuming, as some Romish writers do, that Philip's daughters were the first nuns of the Christian church. Their virginity is probably referred to, only as a reason for their being still at home, and not as having any necessary connection with their inspiration. We read of prophetesses under the old economy, not only wives of prophets (Isai. 8:3), but themselves inspired, from Miriam (Ex. 15:20) and Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), to Noadiah (Neh. 6:14) and Anna (Luke 2:36.) Joel's promise of extraordinary spiritual gifts was to servants of both sexes, and to daughters as well as sons. (See above, on 2:17, 18.) It is possible, however, that the present participle (prophesying) was not intended to describe a constant but a special momentary inspiration pro hac vice, which would make what they predicted still more striking and impressive.

10. We remaining (longer), staying over, the same verb as in v. 4. Many, literally, more, i.e. more than one, equivalent to our modern use of several. (See above, on 13:31.) That the prophesying of Philip's daughters had respect to Paul's captivity, is rendered still more probable by this verse, which immediately connects with it another intimation of the same sort from a very different quarter. As if he had said, 'these prophetic warnings of the four inspired virgins were confirmed, before we left the place, by a prophet from Judea.' This last expression may denote Jerusalem (see above, on 11:1, 29), or that part of Judea nearest to Cesarea, where Agabus may have been when he heard of Paul's arrival. The former is more probable, as he is said to have come down, although this might have reference merely to the site of Cesarea on the seacoast. There seems to be no reason for disputing the identity of this man with the prophet who foretold the famine, and gave occasion to Paul's first official mission to Jerusalem. (See above, on 11:27–30.) That two contemporary prophets of Judea should have borne the not very common name of Agabus, though not incredible if well attested, is in itself much more improbable than that Luke might mention him a second time without referring to his previous appearance. (Compare the reference to Barnabas in 4:26; 9:27.) It does not follow from these two cases of prediction, that Agabus was a prophet only in the strict sense, and not in the wider and more usual New Testament sense of an inspired teacher. If these had been the only instances of his foretelling things to come, they would still have been entitled, from their very nature, to a more explicit record than his ordinary teachings, although equally inspired.

11. Coming to us, i.e. to the house of Philip, either as the place of usual resort for Christians, or because Paul and his Company were lodged there. It is probably though not necessarily implied that Agabus came to Cesarea expressly for the purpose of uttering this prediction. Taking, or more exactly, taking up (as in 20:9 above), or taking away (as in 8:33 above.) If the former, the idea is that Agabus picked up Paul's girdle, which he had laid aside while in the house (see above, on 12:8.) If the latter, that he took it from his person, which may then have been a part of the symbolical action, or prophecy by deed as well as word, of which we have repeated instances in the old Testament, and one relating also to a girdle. (See Jer. 13:1, 10, and compare Isai. 20:2; Ezek. 4:1, 8; 5:1; 1 Kings 22:11, &c.) The girdle was made use of, in the case before us, not because it happened to be lying near, or simply as an article of dress, but because it was essential to all active movement, and therefore a familiar metaphor or emblem of vigorous and energetic action. (See Job 12:18, 21; Ps. 18:32; Prov. 31:17; Isai. 5:27; 11:5; Luke 12:35; Eph. 6:14.) To bind him with his own girdle, therefore, expressed far more than to bind him with the strongest cord or heaviest chain. His own hands and feet is the unequivocal reading of the five oldest manuscripts (ἐαυτοῦ) and latest critics. The received text is ambiguous (αὐτοῦ or αὐτοῦ) and may be referred either to Paul or Agabus. But although the former reference may seem to agree better with the fact that it was Paul's girdle, not his own, the other is not only required by the true text, but is in itself more probable, as the acting or binding Paul himself for such a purpose would have been indelicate and inconvenient. Thus (literally, these things) saith the Holy Ghost, a formula equivalent to Thus saith the Lord in ancient prophecy, and claiming for the words of Agabus direct divine authority. The original order of his words is, The man whose is this girdle, so shall bind in Jerusalem the Jews, &c. Thus (or so), i.e. in such a manner as to paralyze or cripple his extraordinary energy. Deliver is the true sense of the Greek verb, which does not necessarily imply a treacherous proceeding, although frequently applied to the betrayal of our Lord by Judas. (See above, on 3:13, and compare the use of the same verb in 6:14; 7:42; 8:3; 12:4; 14:26; 15:26, 40; 16:4.) The Gentiles, literally, nations, i.e. other nations, not Jews (see above, on 4:27; 7:45; 9:15; 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:42; 14:2; 15:3; 18:6.) This whole prediction, with its symbolical accompaniment, though derived remotely from an ancient usage, takes its form directly from our Saviour's prophecy of Peter's martyrdom, recorded in John 21:18, 19.

12. Both we (i.e. the writer and the others who came with him) and they of that place, literally, the local (Christians), i.e. those of Cesarea. Besought, an expressive and significant Greek word, which means in different connections, to invite, entreat, exhort, console, which last sense would here be inappropriate. (See above, on 8:31; 9:38; 11:23; 13:42; 14:22; 15:32; 16:9, 15, 39, 40; 19:31; 20:2, 12.) This unanimous importunate request was prompted by the concurrent and accumulating tokens of impending danger. It implies, of course, that they were only acquainted with this fact, and not with the express communication of the divine will, which had been made to Paul alone. (See above, on v. 4, and below, on v. 13.) These Christians, therefore, were not guilty of dissuading Paul from obeying a divine command, but simply exercised the right, which all possess, of judging for themselves or others in a doubtful case.

13. Then, but, or and (δέ.) What mean ye to weep, literally, what do ye weeping? i.e. what is this that you are doing? or, without interrogation, see what you are doing, or consider the effect of your own conduct, which is simply to aggravate my present sufferings, without diminishing my danger, or affecting my unalterable resolution. To break (literally, crushing, shivering) my heart, i.e. weakening, as far as in you lies, my courage, and endeavouring to shake my resolution, by working on my own fears and my sympathy with your distress. The same verb (in its uncompounded form) is used by Aristophanes and Xenophon to signify the moral weakness caused by vicious indulgence. For has reference to something not expressed, e.g. 'it is in vain,' or 'cease these fruitless efforts to unman me.' The original order is, for I, not only to be bound, but also to die, at Jerusalem, am ready, &c. This last phrase is in Greek still more expressive, and might be rendered, hold (myself) in readiness. It is elsewhere used only by Paul (2 Cor. 12:14) and Peter (1 Pet. 4:5.) For the name of the Lord Jesus, not merely for his sake, or for the honour of being called by his name, but for all that his name or names import, viz. his sovereignty, Messiahship, and saving grace. (See above, on 5:41; 9:16; 15:26.)

14. He not being persuaded, or not obeying, both which ideas are suggested by the Greek verb, in accordance with its usage and its form, which may be either passive or middle. The word may have been employed here to express the pregnant sense of an obedience prompted by conviction, as distinguished from concession to mere force or even to authority. Of this sense we have had already three examples in a single chapter (see above, on 5:36, 37, 40), and in the present case it is peculiarly appropriate, as conveying the distinct but perfectly compatible ideas, that Paul was not convinced by their representations, and therefore did not yield to their mistaken wishes, being fortified not merely by his natural decision, but also by his certain knowledge of the divine will that he should go up to Jerusalem, whatever might befall him there. Though he does not seem to have avowed this knowledge even now, his friends appear to have inferred it from his fixed determination. We ceased, or more exactly acquiesced, not merely held their peace, but submitted to his positive decision, as appears from their own words here recorded. (For the meaning of the Greek verb, see above, on 11:18.) The will of the Lord be done (or happen, come to pass) is understood by some as a quotation or allusion to the third petition of the Lord's Prayer (Matt. 6:10; Luke 11:2), the substance and indeed the very terms of which were no doubt daily in the minds and on the lips of the first Christians. These words might also be explained as an expression of submission to the Lord's will in allowing Paul to rush, as it were, blindfold to his own destruction; but the natural impression, made perhaps on every reader, is the one already given, to wit, that of acquiescence in Paul's own decision, as itself indicative of what the Lord would have him to do. (See above, on 9:6, and below, on 22:10.)

15. After these days, i.e. at the end of the several (or many) days mentioned in v. 10. Carriages is here used in its old English sense of things carried, bearing the same relation to the verb carry, that luggage does to the verb lug, and baggage to the verb bag. This use of the noun occurs in Spenser and in several other places of the English Bible. (See Judg. 18:1; 1 Sam. 17:20, 22; Isai. 10:28.) It was here gratuitously introduced by the last translators, being found in neither of the older versions. (Wiclif: were made ready. Tyndale: made ourselves ready. Cranmer: took up our burthens. Geneva: trussed up our fardels. Rheims: being prepared.) The whole phrase answers to one Greek word, a participle, which might be more exactly rendered, having packed away (our baggage); either in the sense of stowing away what they did not need upon their journey to Jerusalem, or in that of packing off (or forwarding) all their effects. The latter explanation presupposes that the particle (ἀπό), with which the verb is here compounded, gives it the sense of packing up and sending off, the nearest approach to which in classical usage is the sense of clearing dishes from a table, which is found in Suidas. To the first sense above given it has been objected that if they wished to stow away superfluous incumbrances, they would have done so at Ptolemais, where their sea-voyage ended (see above, on v. 7.) But the plan may have been formed after leaving that place; or, which is still more probable, Paul may have expected to return very soon to Cesarea on his way to Rome (see above, on 19:21.) He would sail in that case, not from Ptolemais but from Cesarea, as he actually did, but not till after a delay and imprisonment of more than two years. (See below, on 24:27; 27:1.) All these constructions have respect to the received text (ἀποσκευασάμενοι), for which the latest editors, on the authority of several of the oldest manuscripts, have substituted another compound form of the same verb (ἐπισκευασάμενοι), more common in the classics, where it means to fit, prepare, or furnish (as a meal, a horse, a ship, etc.), in which sense Tyndale, and the Rhemish version understand it here, while the modern writers take it in the more specific sense of packing up, and so preparing for a journey. Went up, literally, go up, in the present tense, a graphic form of narrative, much used not only by ancient, but by modern, and especially by French historians.

16. And (δέ) at the beginning of the sentence is omitted in the English version, or perhaps merged in the also, which however corresponds to a distinct Greek particle (καί.) Disciples, i.e. Christians, members of the church there. Of (or from) Cesarea, which may either mean belonging to it (as in 10:23; 12:1; 15:5; 19:13), or denote more strictly motion from it (as in vs. 1, 7, 10 above.) Went (or came) with us, means of course to Jerusalem, there being nothing to restrict or qualify the language, as in v. 5, and in 15:3; 20:38. The construction in the last clause is unusual and ambiguous, so as to leave the meaning doubtful upon one point. This is the question, whether the disciples brought Paul to Mnason in Jerusalem, or Mnason to Paul in Cesarea. In the one case the construction is, 'bringing (us to one) with whom we might be lodged'—in the other, 'bringing (one) with whom we might be lodged,' &c. The English version changes the order of the sentence, and inserts "with them," which is not in the original. The first construction is now commonly preferred, and is certainly favoured by the fact that the disciples went with Paul to Jerusalem, whereas they might have brought Mnason to him without leaving Cesarea. There is less force in the argument that the other construction supposes Mnason to have been in Cesarea, though his home was in Jerusalem, a circumstance by no means strange on any supposition, but especially as Mnason was a Cyprian, and may have been returning now from Cyprus. It is not even necessary to assume that he was living in Jerusalem, since multitudes, like Paul himself, were on their way to Pentecost (see above, on 20:16), and Mnason may have simply invited them to share his lodgings. Whether he was an old acquaintance or even a convert of Paul's during his visit to Cyprus (see above, on 13:4–12), we have no means of determining. Old does not here mean personally aged, though he must have been so, but ancient, old as a disciple or a Christian. The Greek adjective, and the noun from which it is derived, are both applied in this book to the beginning of the Gospel or the Christian dispensation (see above, on 11:15; 15:7.) There is therefore no absurdity in the conjecture that this man was a disciple of our Lord himself, or at least a convert on the day of Pentecost, and possibly one of the "Cyprians," by whom the Gospel was first preached in Antioch (see above, on 11:19, 20.) It is worthy of remark how many points of contact are presented in this book between the apostolical history and the isle of Cyprus.

17. We being come, or having got there (see above, on 9:3; 13:5; 19:21; 20:16, and compare the compound form in 5:21, 22, 25; 9:26, 39; 10:32, 33; 13:14; 14:27; 15:4; 17:10; 18:27; 20:18.) The brethren, not their personal friends merely; nor the whole church as an organized body; nor its elders, whom they seem to have met for the first time on the next day; but such individual believers as they met with on the day of their arrival. Received us gladly, the same adverb that is used above in 2:41. Us, as well as Paul himself, and that not only upon his account, but as the representatives of Gentile Christendom or Christianity. (See above, on 20:4.)

18. The day following, or coming on, ensuing (see above, on 7:26; 16:11; 20:15), supposed by some to be the day of Pentecost. Went in with us, i.e. introduced us, showing plainly, that his travelling companions had a part to play in this transaction, as the circumstance that they were with him (or rather he with them) would be otherwise unworthy of repeated mention. There is not the slightest ground for doubting the identity of this James with the one already named in 12:17; 15:13, as president at Jerusalem. It is far less certain, although on the whole most probable, that this was James the Less (Mark 15:40), so called to distinguish James the Son of Alpheus from James the Son of Zebedee, whose death is recorded in this book (see above, on 12:2.) The anomalous condition of the church until the downfall of Jerusalem, sufficiently apparent from this very chapter, required the constant presence of an Apostle, while the others were engaged perhaps on distant missions. This responsible and arduous commission, which was far more than the pastoral care of any single church, however eminent or important, would not have been assigned to one of less than Apostolic rank, and is therefore a sufficient proof that James was an Apostle.

19. Saluted (greeted) them, in words of kindness and respect, which is far more probable, in this connection, than the idea, entertained by some, that he embraced or even kissed them. (See above, on vs. 6, 7, and compare 18:22; 20:1.) Declared, expounded, set forth in detail, the same verb that is used above, in 10:8; 15:12, 14, and there explained. Particularly is in Greek by each (or every) one, or giving to the particle its usual distributive force, every (thing) one by one. This strong expression shows that Paul's report of his missionary labours was by no means a mere vague or general account, but an exact and circumstantial statement. (See above, on 14:27; 15:12.) The original construction is, each one of the things which God did in the nations, or among the Gentiles (see above, on v. 11.) Here, as elsewhere, the efficient agency is ascribed to God, that of Paul being only instrumental. By (or through by means of) his ministry, i.e. his labours as an Apostle, both in the strict sense of a witness and an organizer, and in the wide one of a missionary and itinerant preacher. (See above, on 1:7, 25; 6:4; 14:4, 14; 20:24.)

20. They, i.e. James and the Elders, all of whom were present, as we learn from the preceding verse. Hearing (or having heard) Paul's report, confirmed by the presence of Gentile converts from the principal churches founded by him. Glorified the Lord, or God, which is the reading of the oldest manuscripts and latest critics. The effect is the same with that ascribed to previous disclosures of God's favour towards the Gentiles, and in one case to the Gentile converts themselves. (See above, on 11:18; 13:48.) The Greek verb is appropriate only to some signal exhibition and exercise of the divine perfections, as for instance to a miracle (see above, on 3:13; 4:21, and here to an extension of God's mercy, which the Jews no doubt considered equally miraculous.) Glorified, not only in their hearts, but with their lips, confessing it to be in truth the work of God. And said, or said too (τε), i.e. besides glorifying God, they also said to Paul what follows. The indefinite and plural form here used is worthy of attention, as James is often incorrectly mentioned as the sole author of the statement and advice here given; whereas it is not even said that he concurred in it, although most probably he did, and even acted as the spokesman of the Presbytery. It can hardly be unmeaning or fortuitous, however, that the narrative so carefully ascribes what is here said, not to an individual, not even to a sole Apostle, but to the whole assembly, in which he presided, and with which he acted jointly. (See above, on 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4.) Thou seest, beholdest as a spectacle, the verb employed in 3:16; 4:13; 7:56; 8:13; 9:7; 10:11; 17:16, 22; 19:26; 20:38, in all or nearly all which cases it expresses more than simple vision, and implies something strange and striking in the object. It cannot here refer to what he saw before him, which was only an assembly of the elders (see above, on v. 18, and below, on v. 22), but must rather denote what he had already seen and learned from his experience, the present tense imparting force and point to the expression, as in v. 15 and elsewhere. Brother, an expression both of personal affection and official recognition, the highest title given in the primitive church, even to Apostles. It is here important, as evincing the unhesitating recognition of Paul's claims as the Apostle of the Gentiles, even by the mother-church and Jewish Christians of Jerusalem. How many myriads (or tens of thousands) is not a mathematical but an indefinite and popular expression, meaning what great numbers, or (at most) vast multitudes, without defining their extent or sum. This is the primary sense of the original expression in the classics, where the definite idea of ten thousand is entirely posterior to Homer. It is also a favourite hyperbole of Paul himself, who writes to the Corinthians of their having had ten thousand teachers, and of his uttering ten thousand words in an unknown tongue (1 Cor. 4:15; 14:19), in both which cases he can only mean what we mean when we say "innumerable," numberless," or "endless," not to define or specify a number, but to convey the vague idea of a multitude, which is itself a relative expression, meaning more or less according to the context or the circumstances in which we employ it. These considerations are sufficient to remove the necessity of carefully inquiring where these myriads of Christian Jews were to be found, or what became of them afterwards, or how this statement can be reconciled with Origen's, that all the Jewish converts in the world would not amount to the apocalyptic number of a hundred and forty-four thousand (Rev. 7:4; 14:1.) It is not the statistics of the Jewish Church that we have now before us, but a strong yet natural expression of the fact that they were very numerous, a fact which is altogether credible, especially if we remember, that many of these Jewish converts afterwards apostatized or separated from the church as Ebionites or Judaizing heretics. This may also throw light on the character here given of them, although strictly applicable and explicitly applied to those Jews who had really believed or been converted. But that this conversion was not always real, we may learn from the use of the same word in reference to Simon Magus (see above, on 8:13.) And all, as a body or a class, no doubt with individual exceptions. Zealous, literally, zealots, the name given by Josephus to the ultra or fanatical anti-Roman party, whose excesses finally occasioned the destruction of the Jewish state and of the temple at Jerusalem. It is here, no doubt, applied to Christian or converted Jews; but such in every age, have often brought into the Church the spirit of their old profession, and the Christian zealots, here described, may have partaken largely of the violent fanaticism, which was already teeming and fermenting in the bosoms of their unconverted brethren. The verb stands in Greek at the end of the sentence, and is not the ordinary verb of existence (are), but that more emphatic form, with which we have already met repeatedly, and which in this connection, as in others, seems intended to suggest the idea of continuance, and might almost be rendered still are (or continue) zealots of the law, as they were perhaps before conversion. (See above, on 5:4; 8:16; 16:3, and compare 2:3; 3:2, 6; 4:34, 37; 7:55; 10:12; 14:8; 16:20, 37; 17:24, 27, 29; 19:36, 40.)

21. Are (or have been) informed is a correct though not an adequate translation of the Greek verb, which properly denotes oral elementary instruction (see above, on 18:25, and compare Luke 1:4; Rom. 2:18; 1 Cor. 14:19; Gal. 6:6), and is here descriptive, not of mere report or rumour, but of careful inculcation on the part of Paul's opponents. The Christian zealots of Jerusalem, or of the Holy Land, had been not simply told but taught by his calumniators what here follows. Of thee, not by thee (as in 2:24; 4:11; 10:33, 38, 41, 42; 12:5; 15:4; 16:4, 14; 17:13), but about, concerning thee (as in 1:1, 13, 5:24; 7:52; 8:34; 9:13; 11:22; 13:29; 15:6; 17:32; 18:15, 25.) Among, not the particle so rendered in v. 19, but a stronger one which might be rendered through, throughout (as in 8:1; 9:31, 42; 10:37), implying an extensive dispersion among various nations. These were the Jews of the Diaspora, so called in the original (though not in the translation) of John 7:35; James 1:1; 1 Pet. 1:1. To forsake Moses, or more emphatically and at the same time more exactly, apostasy from Moses. (Compare the verbal root or theme, as used above, in 5:37, 38; 12:10; 15:38; 19:9.) Saying that they ought not (or more simply and exactly, telling them not) to circumcise their children, nor to walk after (i.e. live according to) the customs (institutes, or institutions) of the ceremonial law or old economy. (See above, on 6:14; 15:1; 16:21.) This account of Paul's teaching with respect to the Mosaic rites was true only in the sense of his denying their necessity to personal salvation, but not in that of representing them as worthless or unlawful while the temple was still standing. (See above, on 2:46; 16:3; 18:18.)

22. What is (it) therefore might be understood to mean, what is the truth as to the subject of these accusations? What is really your theory and practice in relation to the law? But as they do not wait for or require an answer, it is better to explain the words, with most interpreters, as meaning, what then is (to be done)? how shall this false impression be removed? The very question, thus explained, implies that the Presbytery, as a body, did not credit the malicious accusation. They speak throughout of Paul's accusers, and of those whom they had prejudiced against him, as a class entirely distinct from themselves. The multitude should rather be a multitude, the article not being used, and cannot therefore mean the church or body of believers as a corporate or organized society, but rather a promiscuous assemblage, or an accidental concourse, of such zealots as had first been described (in the preceding verse), of whom great numbers were assembled in Jerusalem to keep the feast (see above, on 2:1.) Must needs (or by all means, i.e. unavoidably) come together, not in orderly assemblies to discuss the question, but in crowds or mobs to gratify their curiosity. The latest critics have expunged the words, the multitude must come together, but retain the adverb (πάντως) and connect it with the last clause, by all means (or inevitably) they will hear that thou art come. As the oldest manuscripts and versions are divided between these two readings, it is safer to retain the words in question, the omission of which it is at least as easy to explain as their insertion. Even the shorter reading, but still more the longer, gives us a clear glimpse of the interest with which Paul and his movements were regarded, both by friends and foes.

23. The original order is, this therefore do. Therefore, because there are so many zealots prepossessed against thee, and because they will unquestionably come together, when they hear of thy arrival. We say to thee, not I James, but we the assembled elders of the representative or mother-church (see above, on 15:2, 6.) We have; literally, there are to us, i.e. among us and belonging to our body, but also under our control, at our disposal. They must therefore have been Christians, and not unconverted Jews. The number (four) may have been fortuitous, there happening to be so many just at that time in the ceremonial condition here described. Or the elders may have chosen four out of a greater number, as sufficient for the purpose, and yet not so many as to give unnecessary trouble. A single subject would not have attracted public notice, while a dozen might have proved unmanageable or produced confusion. Having a vow upon them, no doubt that of Nazarites, provided for in Numbers 6:1–21, and explained above, on 18:18. This was not, however, as in that case, an informal private vow, externally conformed to legal usage, but a regular and normal case of ceremonial observance, as no other would have answered the proposed end of evincing Paul's respect for the Mosaic institutions.

24. Them take, literally, these (men) taking, i.e. to thyself, into thy company. The Greek verb is the same with that employed above, in 15:39; 16:33, in both which cases, as in this, it denotes not momentary contact but prolonged association. Purify thyself, or rather, as the Greek verb is a passive form, be purified (by others, i.e. by the priests), submitting to the necessary ceremonial rites. This is usually understood to mean, become a Nazarite like them, assuming the same obligation, and undergoing or performing all that they do. This agrees well with the general usage of the Greek word, and with its special application in the Septuagint version of Numbers 6:3, to the Nazarite abstinence or separation. But as this hypothesis creates some difficulty in explaining the details that follow, some understand the verb as signifying, not the Nazaritic vow itself, but those preliminary rites of purification which preceded every solemn act of ceremonial worship, as required by the law (see Ex. 19:10, 14) and still practised in the time of Christ (see John 11:55.) The exhortation, thus explained, is not that he should make himself a Nazarite, but merely that he should perform such preparatory rites as would enable him to take part with these Nazarites in the conclusion of their solemn service. Be at charges with them, literally, spend (money) on them, i.e. pay the expenses of their offerings and other ceremonial forms attending the conclusion of their vow. (Compare the use of the same Greek verb in Mark 5:26; Luke 15:14; 2 Cor. 12:15, and especially in James 4:3, where the construction is the same, though not the preposition.) That they may shave their heads (literally, the head), one of the chief external badges of the Nazaritic vow being long hair (Num 6:5), and its public cutting off or shaving the appointed sign of its completion (Num. 6:18.) Nothing is said of Paul's own hair, which no doubt was short already (see 1 Cor. 11:14), but only of his paying what was necessary to enable the four Nazarites to cut theirs likewise. That such participation in the vows of others by advancing money, was a practice not unknown in that age, we may learn from the statement of Josephus, that Agrippa (the Herod mentioned in the twelfth chapter of the book before us) on coming to Jerusalem from Rome, in this very way enabled many Nazarites to shave their heads. His motive was probably the same here suggested by the Presbyters to Paul, namely, to vindicate his doubtful claim to be esteemed a Jew, by publicly conforming to the rites and ceremonies of the law. All may know (or according to the latest critics, will know) that of the (things) which they have been informed (or taught) about thee, there is nothing (i.e. there is no truth in them or foundation for them), but that thou thyself also walkest (or that thou walkest even thyself) keeping the law. The verb translated walkest is a military term, and means to keep the ranks or march in order, then to walk by any rule, i.e. to act or live according to it. It is a favourite word of Paul's, occurring elsewhere only in his writings (see Rom. 4:12; Gal. 5:25; 6:16; Phil. 3:16.) Keeping, in the proper sense of watching, then observing or obeying (see above, on 7:53; 12:4; 16:4.)

25. All that the Elders had said thus far went upon the supposition that the charges against Paul were false, and that he looked on the continued observance of the ceremonial services as lawful in the case of Jewish Christians. But it might have seemed to be their purpose to lay down the same rule for converted Gentiles, which would have been directly contrary to all Paul's principles and practice. (See above, on 16:3; 18:18.) To preclude this false impression of their purpose, they expressly add, that as to the believing Gentiles (literally, the nations who had believed or been converted), they had nothing new to ask or offer, but adhered to their own previous decision (that recorded in the fifteenth chapter), that they should be only required to abstain from what was unavoidably offensive to their Jewish brethren. Written and concluded, literally, sent (by letter or in writing) judging (or deciding.) Observe, a different verb from that at the end of the preceding verse, but like it originally meaning to watch or keep (as in 12:5, 6; 16:23), and then to observe or obey (as in 15:5, 24.) No such thing, i.e. nothing ceremonial as a permanent observance or as necessary to salvation. These words (that they observe no such thing save only or except), though found in several uncial manuscripts, are wanting in the oldest, and therefore excluded by the latest critics, but on insufficient grounds. That they keep (or guard) themselves, the middle or reflexive form of the verb used in the last clause of v. 24. The specific prohibitions are the same as in 15:29, except that the genitive is here exchanged for the accusative throughout, and the plural for the singular in the first noun, and also in the third according to the latest critics.

26. Then is not the continuative particle δέ often so translated, but the adverb of time (τότε) strictly meaning then or afterwards, i e. when he had thus been counselled by the elders. Took, literally, taking (see above, on v. 24.) The men, the four who had been previously mentioned (see above, on v. 23.) Next, the word employed in 20:15 above, and there explained. The temple, in the wide sense of the sacred enclosure (see above, on 2:46; 3:1; 4:1; 5:20; 19:27.) To signify, literally announcing, giving notice, i.e. to the priests on duty. The accomplishment, fulfilment, or completion, of the days of purification, which may either mean the term of the Nazaritic vow, or the time of the concluding service. Should be offered, literally was offered, the form of the Greek verb being indicative and not subjunctive. This has led some to understand the verse as meaning that Paul notified the priests that the term of the vow was already finished, and then waited at the temple till the necessary offerings were actually made. The more usual interpretation is that the notice was prospective, or that Paul announced how soon the vow would be expired, in order that the priests might make arrangements for the sacrifices when the time for offering them should arrive.

27. And when (literally, as) the seven days were almost (literally, about to be) ended. It has been much disputed what the seven days were. Some suppose that the duration of the Nazaritic vow was optional, and that in this case it continued only for a week. But although the law prescribes no term ("the seventh day" in Num. 6:9, having reference to an unexpected interruption and renewal of the vow), a week would be too short a time to make the growth of the hair perceptible, and a month is mentioned as the customary period, both by Josephus and the Talmud. Another supposition is, that those who undertook to pay for others were allowed to keep a shorter term, and that when Paul joined these Nazarites, there were only seven days of separation left. But as this solution rests upon a mere conjecture, some understand the seven days to mean the first week after Paul's arrival, which is thought to be at variance with other chronological specifications (see below, on 24:11.) Others suppose a whole week to have been observed at Pentecost as at the Passover; for which however there is no ground either in the law or in historical tradition. Others still explain the seven days as seven sabbaths, or the interval of seven weeks between the two great festivals (Lev. 23:15, 16.) The question, although difficult, is unimportant, and its very difficulty, far from discrediting the narrative, confirms it by this natural reference to facts, with which Luke's Jewish readers must have been familiar, although some of them to us are necessarily obscure. The essential point, in this case, is that the time of Paul's ceremonial conformity was almost ended, when the following occurrences took place. The Jews from Asia, i.e. from the western part of Asia Minor (see above, on 20:4, 16, 18), and especially no doubt from the Ephesian district. The idea expressed in the common version (which were of Asia) is really suggested by the preposition here used (see above, on v. 16.) Having seen (or beheld) him, with an implication of something strange and unexpected in the sight. (See above, on 1:11; 8:18, and compare the like use of another verb in v. 20, and the places there referred to.) The Jews of Ephesus, among Paul's most malignant enemies (see above, on 20:19), may not have been prepared to meet him in the Holy City. Regarding him as an apostate, and as such no longer entitled to the privileges of a Jew, they were naturally moved with indignation, when they saw him in the temple, and perhaps engaged in ceremonial duties. These excited feelings they of course endeavoured to impart to others. Stirred up, literally, poured together, threw into confusion (see above, on 2:6; 9:22; 19:29, 32.) All the people, more exactly, all the crowd, the promiscuous assemblage or mixed multitude which filled Jerusalem at such a season. With his usual exactness in the use of such terms, Luke does not describe them as the people, either in the Greek sense (τὸν δῆμον) or the Jewish (τὸν λάον), but as the mob or rabble (τὸν ὄχλον), all which terms are carefully distinguished in the usage of this book. (Compare 12:22; 17:5; 19:30, 33 with 2:43, 4:1, 2, 10; 10:2, 41; 12:4, 11; 13:31; 15:14; 18:10; 19:4, and with 1:5; 8:6; 14:1; 16:22; 17:8; 19:33, 35.) Emboldened by the presence, and perhaps by the applause, of the assembled masses, they laid hands on Paul, i.e. arrested, seized him. (See above, on 4:3, 5, 18; 12:1.) This, though not perceived to be so at the moment, either by himself or others, eventually proved to be the end of his ministry at large, and the commencement of his long apostleship in bonds (See Phil. 1:7, 13, 14, 16; Col. 4:18; Philem. 10, 13; Heb. 10:34; 2 Tim. 2:9.)

28. We have here the way in which they acted on the multitude, to wit, by appealing to their national and theocratic prepossessions. Men of Israel (literally, Israelites), not merely sons of Israel or Jacob (compare Gen. 32:28), but as such members of the ancient church or chosen people, in which capacity the people are here summoned to the rescue. Help, succour, a verb, which from its very etymology, was specially appropriate in outcries like the one before us, being compounded of the two verbs cry and run, and often used by the Greek poets in like manner. The whole phrase corresponds to a well-known one in Latin (cives adeste!) It was not therefore as a mob, though truly such, but as the house of Israel, that the people were now summoned to protect the temple. The last clause clearly implies Paul's celebrity or notoriety among his unconverted countrymen. This is the man, of whom you have all heard, and whom some of us have often seen in other places. That teacheth, literally, the (one) teaching, i.e. habitually, constantly. All men every where, a double hyperbole or exaggeration, showing clearly what importance was attached by such men to the acts and influence of the apostle. Against the people, not the populace as such, but the chosen or peculiar people, against whose privileges Paul is represented as contending. The law, the whole Mosaic system under which they lived, and by which they were segregated from the other nations. This place, Jerusalem, the seat of the theocracy, and more especially the temple, as the heart and centre of the ceremonial law. This hostile cry must have painfully reminded Paul of that in which he had himself joined against Stephen, and in consequence of which he was arraigned before the council. (See above, on 6:12, 14.) But the charge against himself was more specific and exciting still And further also (or moreover, in addition to all this), nearly the same expression that is used above in 2:26, and there explained. Greeks, not in the national or local sense, but in the wider one of Gentiles, so called from the general and almost universal use of the Greek language among all known nations. Hence the perpetual antithesis of Jews and Greeks in the New Testament. (See above, on 11:20; 14:1; 16:1, 3; 17:4; 18:4, 17; 19:10, 17; 20:21, and compare Paul's epistles passim.) Into the temple, or sacred enclosure (see above, on v. 26), and especially the inner courts, from which all foreigners (or Gentiles) were excluded upon pain of death, by a stone wall and pillars with inscriptions warning against all profane intrusion. According to a speech which Josephus puts into the mouth of Titus, the Jews were suffered by the Romans themselves to kill a Roman who was guilty of such violation. Polluted, desecrated, rendered common, the verb employed above in 10:15; 11:9, and there explained. Holy, consecrated, set apart, devoted to divine use (see above, on 6:13.) Considering the character and spirit of the men by whom this cry was uttered, we might well regard it as a spiteful fiction, framed expressly to excite the Jewish zealots against Paul, but for the candid and impartial explanation which is given in the next verse.

29. The charge contained in the preceding verse was founded on a natural though inexcusable mistake of those who made it. Seen before, i.e. before they saw Paul in the temple, on the occasion just referred to. Trophimus, one of those who sailed from Greece before Paul and awaited him in Troas (see above, on 20:4.) He and Tychicus were there described as Asians (or of Asia), which is here made more specific, Trophimus the (not an) Ephesian, i.e. the one previously mentioned in more general terms, and also the one well known, both by name and person, to these Jewish countrymen. In the city, no doubt in the streets, beyond the temple-area. They supposed, were of opinion, or believed, a false impression which might easily have been corrected, which they consequently had no right to propagate, but which exonerates them from the charge of sheer invention or malignant falsehood. This is not to be explained away by saying that they used equivocal expressions, so that a mere inference or guess of theirs was taken by the people as a positive assertion of a fact. This would be a forced construction of the words before us, which are wholly unambiguous, and furnish a remarkable example of the fairness with which every thing is stated in the sacred history, whoever may be honoured or dishonoured by it, and however slow interpreters may be to own it.

30. All the city, the whole city, i.e. its entire population, a hyperbole so natural as scarcely to appear one. (See above, on 13:44, and compare Matt. 8:34; 21:10; Mark 1:33; 6:33; Luke 8:1, 4.) The people ran together, literally, there was (or arose) a concourse of the people (see above, on 19:40.) This rush was no doubt to the temple, whence the cry proceeded. They took, or rather, laying hold on Paul, the same verb that is used above in 16:19; 18:17, but sometimes not implying violence (see above, on 9:27; 17:19), which is here suggested by the context. Drew, on the contrary, does imply it, and might be translated dragged, both here and in the other place where it occurs (James 2:6.) Out of the temple, in the same sense as before, i.e. the court or enclosure of the temple (see above, on vs. 26, 27, 28.) Forthwith, immediately, without delay. The doors, or gates, of the enclosure before mentioned, either those communicating with the city, or more probably those separating one court from the other, i.e. the inner court or court of the Israelites from the outer court usually called (but not in Jewish books) the court of the Gentiles. The shutting of the doors has been variously understood. According to some, it was intended to prevent Paul's taking refuge at the altar, as Adonijah and Joab did (1 Kings 1:50, 53; 2:28, 29), although the law of Moses recognizes no right of asylum, except in the case of unpremeditated homicide (Ex. 21:12–14.) Others suppose that it was meant to save the sacred precincts from the defilement of Paul's blood, whom they were now about to put to death. A third opinion is, that the shutting of the doors, during the time of ceremonial service, was a formal suspension of that service. Equally satisfactory with any of these explanations, and perhaps more natural than either, is the simple supposition, that the Priests or Levites upon duty in the temple, when they saw Paul violently dragged out, shut the doors, in order to exclude both him and his assailants, with a view not only to their own security, but also to preserve the sanctuary from being made the scene of a tumultuous brawl.

31. Went about, in the old English sense of sought, endeavoured. (Compare John 7:19, 20; Rom. 10:3, where the Greek verb is translated in the same way.) The literal translation is, they seeking to kill him. The subject of the verb here is not necessarily the same as in vs. 27, 28, but more indefinite, referring not specifically to the Jews of Asia, but to the nearer antecedents in v. 30, i.e. the city and the people. Tidings, or rather, a report, either in the sense of rumour, or in that of official information, probably conveyed by the Roman sentries, on or near the spot, to their superiors. Came, went up, ascended, both in a figurative sense, from the lower to the higher military ranks, and in a literal or local sense, from the area of the temple to the tower of Antonia which overlooked it. This fortress was an ancient one, but had been several times rebuilt, and named by Herod the Great in honour of his friend and protector, Anthony. Josephus represents it as a lofty structure, at the north-west corner of the temple-area, with which it communicated both by stairs and by interior passages. It was constantly occupied by a Roman garrison, to watch and overawe the Jews, especially in times of more than ordinary concourse, as for instance during the great festivals. This is the force here called the band, corresponding to a Greek word which originally means a roll or coil (being the root of our word spiral), but in military history a maniple, the third part of a cohort, or two centuries. It is here supposed by most interpreters to signify the cohort itself, or a thousand men. Hence the commander of the force is called a chiliarch, or leader of a thousand, corresponding to the Latin tribune. Both these military terms are elsewhere used in the New Testament to denote the levitical guard of the temple and its Jewish leader. (See above, on 4:1; 5:24, 26, and compare John 18:3, 12.) As the Jews at this time were peculiarly impatient of the Roman yoke, and insurrections had been frequent (see below, on v. 38, and above, on 5:36, 37, and compare Mark 15:7; Luke 23:19, 25), the garrison was no doubt more than usually vigilant, particularly when the population was increased by multitudes of strangers in attendance on the yearly feasts (see above, on 2:5.) Was in an uproar, literally, has been confounded, i.e. thrown into confusion (see above, on v. 27.)

32. Taking with him, or along with him, the same verb as in vs. 24, 26. Centurions, commanders of a hundred men, whom Mark calls by their Latin name (Mark 15:39, 44, 45), but Luke and Matthew by the corresponding Greek one (hecatontarchs, Matt. 8:5, 8, 13; 27:54; Luke 7:2, 6; 23:47.) His taking more than one centurion implies that he was followed by at least two hundred men. Ran down, literally, from the fort or castle to the street or the exterior enclosure of the temple, and also in the figurative sense of rushing on, assailing, or attacking. Unto them, or more exactly, on them, i.e. on the mob who were attempting to kill Paul. And when they saw, or more exactly, but they seeing. Left, literally, paused or ceased. Beating of Paul, i.e. beating Paul, there being nothing in the Greek corresponding to the pleonastic preposition. This instantaneous effect illustrates the immense disproportion between mobs and armies, and at the same time the habitual submission even of the zealots to their heathen masters, till the national antipathy, exasperated by religious bigotry, finally burst through all restraints and brought about the great catastrophe.

33. Then (τότε), at that time, afterwards, or in the next place (see above, on v. 26.) Came near, coming near, approaching. Took him, laid hold upon, arrested, seized him, the same verb that is used above in v. 30. Paul was thus treated as the evident occasion of the uproar, whether innocent or guilty, which could only be decided by a subsequent investigation. In the mean time the tribune was bound to keep the peace and to secure the person who had caused the breach of it. With two chains, or two ligatures, applied to the hands and feet respectively, as some suppose, but more probably to both arms, fastening the prisoner to a soldier on each side, a Roman method of safe-keeping, which we have already seen exemplified in Herod's imprisonment of Peter. (See above, on 12:6, where the same Greek terms are used as in the case before us.) Demanded, asked, inquired, not of Paul himself, but of the people round him. Who he was, or rather, who he might be, the contingent particle prefixed to the Greek optative expressing a high degree of doubt and curiosity, whereas the other question, although similar in English, is in Greek more direct and categorical. What he had done, literally, what he is having done, a combination foreign from our idiom, consisting of the perfect participle of the verb to do with the present tense of the verb to be. The use of this peculiar form has been accounted for, upon the ground of the chief captain's knowing that he must have done something. But then the same form should have been used in the other case, for the chief captain was no less certain that he must be somebody.

34. Nothing can be more lifelike or more true to nature than this picture, which could scarcely have been drawn from hearsay or imagination. The highly idiomatic form of the first clause (others cried some other thing) does not admit of an exact translation; but the meaning is correctly given in our version. (For another instance of the same idiom, see above, on 19:32.) When he could not (literally, not being able to) know the certainty (the certain, sure, infallible), i.e. the true state of the case. for the tumult, on account of the confusion, noise, and uproar (see above, on 20:1.) Carried, in the wide sense of conveyed, conducted, not in the specific sense of borne or lifted, which is mentioned in the next verse. The castle is supposed by some to mean the fortress of Antonia described above (on v. 31), by others a fortified camp within it, or the barracks (quarters) which the soldiers occupied. The later classics sometimes use it to denote an army drawn up in a certain manner (compare Heb. 11:34), but commonly to signify a camp (compare Heb. 13:11, 13), both which senses have been put upon the word in one place (Rev. 20:9.)

35. Came, became, was, or began to be, the same verb that is used above, in vs. 1, 5, 14, 17, 30. The stairs, leading up from the area of the temple into the castle of Antonia, and particularly mentioned by Josephus in describing it. So it was, or rather, it occurred, chanced, happened, implying that what follows was entirely unintentional and unexpected. (For the use of the verb, see above, on 3:10; 20:19.) Borne, lifted, carried, not as an act either of hostility or kindness, but for the violence (or from the pressure) of the crowd (which followed.) This little circumstance is mentioned, not to show how carefully the Roman soldiers guarded and protected Paul, but simply as a vivid reminiscence of the scene by Luke, who well remembered seeing his beloved teacher, as the soldiers led him up the stairs, completely lifted from his feet by the resistless pressure of the crowd behind, so that without intending it, the soldiers carried him instead of leading him. (See above, on 20; 8:13, and for the usage of the verb, on 3:2; 9:15; 15:10.)

36. Three of the collective terms, or nouns of multitude, which Luke elsewhere so carefully distinguishes, are used successively in this connection, each in its proper and distinctive sense, although the English version has confounded two of them. Having stated in the foregoing verse that Paul was lifted from his feet by the pressure of the crowd (τοῦ ὄχλου), Luke now adds, by way of explanation, that the mass (τὸ πλῆθος) of the people (τοῦ λαοῦ), i.e. of the Jews, was following, the imperfect tense of the Greek verb denoting both continuous and simultaneous action. While the soldiers were removing Paul, the mob was following. (For the usage of the two first nouns of multitude, see above, on vs. 27:30; for the third, on 2:6; 4:32; 6:2; 14:4; 15:12, 30.) Crying, calling with a loud voice, shouting (see above, on 7:57, 60; 14:14; 16:17; 19:28, 32, 34.) Away with him, literally, take him (away), the same verb that was used above in v. 11, and the same cry that was uttered near the same spot, many years before, by a deluded and infuriated rabble, thirsting for the blood of the same person whom, within a week, they had welcomed with hosannas, as the true Messiah. (Compare Luke 19:38; 23:18; John 12:12, 13; 19:15.) The verse before us furnishes an explanation of what otherwise might seem strange, that although Paul was now in the possession of the soldiers, he was nevertheless closely pressed by his pursuers, who were following him even up the castle stairs.

37. Being about to be led into the camp (or castle) Paul says to the chiliarch (or tribune), the present tense, in this as in many other cases, representing the whole scene as actually passing (see above, on v. 15.) May I, literally, if it is permitted (or allowable) for me, to say something to thee. For the use of the conditional in asking questions (if it is, meaning, tell me if it is), see above, on 1:6; 5:8; 7:1; 19:2. The latest critics omit something (τι) although found in several of the oldest manuscripts, and read, speak to thee. Who said (or rather, and he said), Canst thou speak Greek (literally, dost thou know Greek?) The original for Greek is an adverb, corresponding to the Latin Graece, which is used by Cicero in a connection very similar to that before us, when he says of those who do not understand the language, qui Graece nesciunt. (See above, on 14:11, and compare John 19:20, where three such adverbs stand together.)

38. Art not thou seems to foresee an affirmative answer, and imply that the commander still regarded Paul and the Egyptian as identical; whereas he must have been convinced of his mistake as soon as Paul began to speak. This agrees exactly with the Greek phrase, which is hardly interrogative at all, and might be rendered, thou art not then (or so then thou art not) the Egyptian. He is evidently speaking of events still recent, and in which he may have been concerned himself Before these days is an indefinite expression, which determines nothing as to the precise date, since it may mean just before, or long before, according to the context. Madest an uproar is the verb translated turned upside down in 17:5, and trouble in Gal. 5:12, in both which cases, as in this, it means to revolutionize, or violently alter the existing state of things, and might be rendered here, who made (i.e. tried to make) a revolution; or if this is too strong, uproar is as much too weak, and insurrection may be taken as a mean between them. Leading out into the wilderness the four thousand men of the assassins. The omission of the article before the last two nouns materially affects the sense, by making the chief captain seem to speak of something known to him but unknown to his hearers; whereas the four thousand men of course means those four thousand men, of whom you have so often heard, or rather whom you well remember, not as murderers merely, but as the assassins, a defined and well remembered body, once perhaps the terror of the country. Assassins is in the original a Greek inflection of the Latin word (Sicarii), so called from sica, a short sword or dagger, and described by Josephus as a kind of robbers who concealed short swords beneath their garments, and infested Judea in the period preceding the destruction of Jerusalem. Such a band had been led by the Egyptian here referred to, who is also mentioned by Josephus, but in terms at once extravagant and inconsistent. In one place he describes him as the leader of thirty thousand men, of whom the most part were destroyed, while in another place he states the number of the latter at four hundred. It is not impossible to reconcile these statements with each other and with that before us by assuming what is altogether probable and common in such cases, that the number of his followers, small at first, was vastly multiplied by popular delusion and fanatical excitement, and eventually thinned again as this subsided, or the government began to use its strength against them. The four thousand may in that case be regarded as the military force of the Egyptian, and the thirty thousand as the aggregate number of his followers, in the height of his success, while the four hundred may have been the remnant finally destroyed when that success was at an end. That he should ever have enjoyed it is the less incredible because Josephus calls him a false prophet, which implies that he gained influence not only by appealing to political dissatisfaction, but to popular delusions. That the cases are the same is clear from he Egyptian origin of both, and from the date, to wit, the government of Felix (see below, on 23:24.) It seems that this Egyptian knew no Greek, which accounts for the chief captain's wonder when he heard Paul speak it, not because Egyptians did not usually do so, but because he knew that this one did not.

39. A Jew of Tarsus, literally, a Tarsean Jew, the same form of expression as in 9:11. The translators having introduced the name of Tarsus, place the following words in apposition with it, thereby changing the entire construction. The syntax, although not the collocation, of the second clause in Greek is, a citizen of no mean city of Cilicia, Tarsus being meant of course, but not expressly named, though really suggested by the adjective connected with the word Jew in the first clause. Mean, in the original, is negative, and might be rendered undistinguished. The Greek word is said to have been once applied to unmarked cattle and uncoined money. The very phrase here used, with its litotes or meiosis, meaning really illustrious or famous, is found, with very little difference of form, in the Greek poets, one of whom (Euripides) employs it, just as Paul does, to describe a city. Having thus asserted his respectability, he makes it the ground of a request, not for his own advantage, but for that of his kinsmen according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3), his love for whom could not have been more clearly proved than by his asking to address them at such a juncture, when his life had just been rescued from their fury by the interposition of a Roman soldier. To the people (λαόν), not the multitude (πλῆθος), or the rabble (ὄχλον), but the chosen people as there represented.

40. Given license is the same verb that is rendered suffer in the verse preceding. Standing on the stairs, where he had stopped when just about to go into the camp or fort to which they led (see above, on vs. 35, 37), and where the crowd was no doubt still in contact with him (see above, on v. 36.) There is something grand in the position here assigned to the Apostle of the Gentiles, in the custody of Gentiles, yet by their permission speaking to the Jews, not only in the Holy City, but in sight of the temple, and on the very verge of its sacred enclosure, which he had just been accused of wantonly profaning. So far, he could not have begun his passive ministry, or rather his apostleship in bonds, in a more imposing or auspicious manner. Beckoned (in modern English, motioned, gestured, made a sign) with the hand, an action previously ascribed in this book both to Paul and others (see above, on 12:17; 13:16; 19:33.) Much silence being, or arising, beginning, the same verb that means coming in v. 35. The silence was probably occasioned by the presence of the Roman officers and soldiers; by the sight, if not the hearing, of what passed between the Tribune and his prisoner; by Paul's unexpected presentation of himself upon the stairs and offer to address them; but above all by the circumstance recorded in the last clause, that he spake in Hebrew, not because they would not have understood Greek, but because he wished to rouse their better feelings, and to prove himself an Israelite indeed by using their own sacred language, or at least the kindred dialect in use among them. Some suppose an allusion to the Tribune's question, Canst thou speak Greek? 'Yes, but I would now speak Hebrew.'

CHAPTER 22

THE passive ministry of Paul, or his Apostleship in bonds, may be divided into trials or defences before various tribunals, the first of which is recorded in this chapter, with the subsequent occurrences until the second. He gains attention by respectfully accosting them in their own language (1, 2.) He avows himself a Jew by birth and education (3.) He describes his persecuting zeal against the Christians (4, 5.) He relates his miraculous conversion (6–11.) He shows that even his reception into the new body was by Jewish agency (12–16.) He comes at last to his Apostleship among the Gentiles, which he represents as unsought by himself and forced upon him by divine authority (17–21.) He is interrupted by an outburst of fanatical excitement (22, 23.) He is rescued from their fury by the Romans, and from the severity of the Romans themselves by avowing his citizenship (24–29.) He appears before the Sanhedrim, to make his second apology or self-defence (30.)

1. To the customary form of address, Men (and) brethren, or Men (who are) brethren (see above, on 1:16; 2:29, 37; 13:26; 15:7, 13), Paul, like Stephen, and perhaps in imitation of him (see above, on 7:2), adds Fathers, either as a general expression of respect, or, as most interpreters suppose, with reference to such priests or elders as he may have seen or known to be among the multitude (but see below, on 23:1.) Hear, as in other cases of the same kind, seems to bespeak their patience in the hearing of what might offend their prejudices (see above, on 2:22; 7:2; 13:16; 15:13.) Defence, in Greek apology, but without any implication of confession or acknowledgment. Thus the ancient Apologies, or defences of Christianity, presented to the heathen emperors, involved no admission of fault or error in the system thus defended, but on the contrary were often bold attacks upon the heathen superstitions. My now (i.e. my present, actual) defence unto you.

2. It seems to be implied that Greek would have been equally intelligible, even to the native Jews. His not employing it appears to have surprised as well as pleased them. The Hebrew dialect may either be the ancient Hebrew, which was still the sacred and the learned language of the Jews, or that Aramaic modification of it which had now become their vernacular dialect (see above, on 1:19); more probably the latter, as he was not addressing the Sanhedrim but the populace, composed both of native and foreign Jews (see above, on 6:1.) His wisdom in adopting this mode of suggesting his own Jewish origin and education was approved by the effect as here recorded. Spake, was calling to, addressing them, the same verb as in 21:40, often used by Luke elsewhere (see Luke 6:13; 7:32; 13:12; 23:20, and compare Matt. 11:16.) The more, i.e. even more than at first, as mentioned at the close of the preceding chapter. Kept silence, literally, afforded quietness, not the same word that was used before (21:40), but a stronger and more positive expression, denoting not mere silence but a studied stillness and attention. (Compare the still more expressive use of a cognate verb in 11:18; 21:14.) This breathless stillness of the multitude so lately raging adds to the sublimity of Paul's position, standing between the Jewish temple and the Roman fortress, and about to address, for the first and last time, his assembled brethren.

3. With admirable art and skill, he renders prominent whatever marked him as a Jew, in order to refute the charge on which he was arrested, namely, that of traitorous hostility to the religion of his fathers. Verily should rather be indeed (or it is true), a concessory particle which qualifies this whole clause, or its second member. 'I am a Jew, born it is true in Tarsus, but nevertheless a Hebrew of the Hebrews (2 Cor. 11:22; Phil. 3:5), and brought up among you.' The Jews of the Diaspora (see above, on 21:21), who did not intermarry with the Gentiles, claimed an absolute equality with those of Palestine (see above, on 2:39.) His being a Hellenist was therefore nothing to his disadvantage, especially as his early life was chiefly spent, not only in the Holy Land, but in the Holy City. Tarsus of Cilicia, i.e. belonging to it, situated in it. (See above, on 6:9; 9:11, 30; 11:25; 15:23, 41; 21:39.) A man which am a Jew, a needless and enfeebling circumlocution for a Jewish man, the Greek word (ἰουδαῖος) being properly an adjective which means belonging to the tribe of Judah or the country of Judea. (See above, on 2:14; 19:13.) Brought up, reared, or nourished, strictly denoting the nurture of children (as in 7:20, 21), but commonly explained here as denoting mental culture, on account of what immediately follows, at the feet of Gamaliel. Some, however, understand it strictly, as meaning that Paul was not only a pupil of Gamaliel, but an inmate of his family, perhaps a relative. There is no ground for disputing the identity of this Gamaliel with the eminent Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrim, who appears before in this same history, and often in the Jewish traditions (see above, on 5:34–40.) At the feet is commonly explained as an allusion to the customary posture of the ancient teachers and their pupils, but is much more probably a natural figure for their mutual relation. (See above, on 4:35, 37; 5:2, 10, and compare Luke 10:39.) At the feet will then convey the two distinct ideas of intimate nearness and subjection to authority. The meaning of this verse depends somewhat upon its punctuation. For a reason already suggested, some divide it thus, brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel trained (or educated.) But as both the other participles (born and brought up) precede the words which qualify them, this would be a harsh inversion. Most interpreters avoid the supposed incongruity of making Gamaliel Paul's nurse as well as his instructor, by treating both verbs as substantially synonymous, and here intended to express the same idea of education in the widest sense. The second verb means more than taught in English, namely trained, implying systematic discipline. (See above, on 7:22, and compare 2 Tim. 2:25; Tit. 2:12.) Its most frequent use in the New Testament, however, is in the secondary sense of correcting or chastening, as a necessary part of all such discipline. (See Luke 23:16, 22; 1 Cor. 11:32; 2 Cor. 6:9; Heb. 12:6, 7, 10; Rev. 3:19.) Perfect manner, literally, strictness or exactness (compare the corresponding adverb, as explained above, on 18:25, 26.) The reference is here to the Pharisaic rigor, both of theory and practice, as contrasted with the Sadducean laxity and latitudinarianism. (See above, on 4:1.) Zealous towards God, literally, a zealot of God, i.e. in his service, for his honour, as he then understood it (see above, on 21:20.) The last clause intimates that he had passed through what they now experienced and gone beyond it.

4. He proved the sincerity of his convictions by persecuting all that contradicted them. This way, this new sect or religion (see above, on 9:2; 19:9, 23.) Unto death, not only in desire and intention, but in fact, as we know him to have done in Stephen's case (see above, on 6:1, and below, on v. 20), and probably in others (see below, on 26:10.) With the rest of this verse compare 9:1.

5. This was no secret, resting only on his own assertion, but matter of record, or at least of recollection on the part of others. The (then) high priest, from whom he had received his commission, and who was still living, perhaps present. This is commonly supposed to have been either Theophilus or Jonathan, who had been displaced in the mean time by the Romans (see above, on 4:6.) Doth bear me witness, literally, testifies to me, which may simply mean, he is my witness, or the witness whom I cite in proof of these things; though the words seem rather to imply a personal appeal to him as actually present. 'Do you ask for proof? There is the very high priest who commissioned me.' The estate of the elders, a needless paraphrase of one Greek word, Presbytery, which is retained in the translation of 1 Tim. 4:14, while in Luke 22:66, it is simply rendered Elders. Estate is here used in the old sense of a national assembly, as in the phrases third estate, states general, etc. The body described is the Sanhedrim, as chiefly composed of elders or hereditary representatives, even the priests being elders of their own tribe (see above, on 4:5.) It was therefore under national authority that Paul went to Damascus (see above, on 9:1, 2.) To the brethren, i.e. to the Jews in Syria, not against the Christians there, a form of speech which, if not unintelligible, would have been offensive to Paul's Jewish hearers, and out of keeping with the rest of his discourse, in which, if ever, he became to the Jews as a Jew (1 Cor. 9:20.) There, literally, thither, which some understand as implying previous removal, perhaps flight from the persecution in Jerusalem (see above, on 21:3.) About to bring also those there being, i.e. in addition to those previously seized at home. For to be, literally, that they might be (see above, on 5:32.)

6. Here begins Paul's own account of his conversion, which should be compared throughout with that of Luke in 9:3–19, and need not be explained, except as to the points of difference. These are merely formal, and precisely such as might be naturally looked for in two free unstudied statements of the same occurrence. Some modern critics have affected to contrast the two accounts, as independent and discordant narratives, forgetting that the one before us was as much at Luke's disposal as his own, and that his not attempting to assimilate them is a clear proof that he looked upon them as harmonious, or he would not have inserted them in one and the same history. This verse is parallel with 9:3, and differs from it chiefly in grammatical forms, the infinitive being twice exchanged for a participle, and once for an aorist, of the same verbs, the preposition from for out of, etc. The only additions here are that of the epithet great (literally, sufficient) to the noun light, and that of the precise time when the scene occurred, to wit, about noon (or midday), the same Greek word that is elsewhere used in the secondary sense of south (see above, on 8:26.) These variations and additions are not only perfectly consistent with the truth of both accounts, but far more natural than perfect uniformity.

7. This verse is parallel to 9:4, from which it differs, in addition to the use of the first person for the third throughout, by substituting for the word earth (or ground) one which originally means a bottom or foundation, then a floor or pavement, and may here have reference to a paved road leading to or into Damascus. Still less important is the change of prepositions (on to into), and of the case of the noun voice (from the accusative to the genitive), though the latter is connected with the explanation of a seeming discrepancy to be noticed afterwards (see below, on v. 9.)

8, 9. V. 8 is parallel to 9:5, and differs from it chiefly in the change of said to answered, the addition of the pronoun (to me), and of the epithet (Nazarene) after Jesus. V. 9 answers to 9:7, from which it varies more than either of the two preceding verses from their parallels. The (men) who were (or being with me is less full and explicit than the phrase there used, the (men) journeying with him, although perfectly consistent. Speechless is here afraid, the cause being put for the effect or outward indication. There is, however, a much greater variation, and one which has been sometimes represented as a contradiction. Paul's companions are described in 9:7, as hearing the voice but seeing no one, whereas here it is affirmed, that they saw the light indeed, and were afraid, but the voice they heard not of the (person) talking to me. Besides the gross improbability of Luke's inserting what directly contradicted his own statement, there are several possible solutions of this seeming inconsistency, each one of which is more entitled to belief than the hypothesis of contradiction. One consists in referring the two statements to successive points of time, so that they are said to have heard the voice at last, but not at first, or vice versa. Another makes a difference between the accusative and genitive construction of the verb to hear, the one denoting mere sensation, the other intellectual perception. Substantially identical with this, but simpler and more natural, is the distinction, between hearing a voice speak and hearing what it says, as nothing is more common in our public bodies than the complaint that a speaker is not heard, i.e. his words are not distinguished, though his voice may be audible and even loud. In these two obvious and familiar senses, it might be said, with equal truth, that Paul's companions heard the voice, i.e. knew that it was speaking, and that they did not hear it, i.e. did not know what it said. Whether this distinction was designed to be suggested by the difference of construction or the change of case already mentioned, is a doubtful point, but one which does not affect the validity or truth of the solution. It is positively favoured, on the other hand, by the only remaining variation, namely, that instead of the voice (9:7), we have here the more explicit phrase, the voice of the (one) speaking to me, which, though it does not necessarily suggest, admits and justifies the supposition, that the voice which they did not hear was a speaking (i.e. an articulate, distinguishable) voice, and not mere vocal sound or utterance, without regard to words or language. A remarkable analogy is furnished by the case recorded in John 12:28–30, where some said that it thundered, and others that an angel spoke, implying that it was a voice (and not a mere sound) that they heard, while the Evangelist records the very words that it pronounced. In this case, as in that before us, it might well be said of the first class mentioned, that they did and that they did not hear the "voice from heaven." Their mistaking it for thunder proves, at the same time, that they heard it in the one sense, and that they did not hear it in the other.

10. This verse corresponds to 9:6, by a slight transposition or inversion, wholly unimportant and in strict accordance with the usages of common life, in which the same occurrences are seldom related, even by the same speaker, in precisely the same order. The first clause of 9:6, as we have already seen, is rejected by the latest critics, as an unauthorized assimilation to the one before us. Even admitting the correctness of this criticism, we are still in possession of the dialogue there given, although not precisely in the same form (see above, vol. i. p. 359.) The mental and bodily effects there mentioned (trembling and astonished) are omitted here, and the question (what wilt thou have me to do?) is abridged (what shall I do?) In the other clause, admitted to be genuine, there are only formal variations, some of which are not perceptible in the translation. Arise is an imperative in that place, and a participle in this. Go is there enter, here proceed (or journey.) For the city we have here the proper name, Damascus. Before the verb, the adverb there is here inserted. What thou must do is amplified, without a change of meaning, into about (i.e. concerning) the (things) which have been appointed (or ordained) for thee to do. (For the usage of the leading verb in this clause, see above, on 13:48; 15:2.)

11. This verse corresponds to 9:8, a comparison with which will show that the narrative is here abridged, though otherwise unvaried. I could not see is the sense but not the form of the original, which strictly means, I did not see, or was not seeing. The only addition here made to the narrative is the statement that his blindness arose from the glory (i.e. the celestial or divine effulgence) of that light, already mentioned in v. 6 above. That he was not merely dazzled but miraculously blinded, is suggested by the use of the word glory, which denotes something supernatural (see above, on 7:2, 55), and still more necessarily implied in v. 13 and the parallel passage.

12. Here again the narrative is abridged on one hand, and supplemented on the other. Paul omits what passed between the Lord and Ananias (see above, on 9:10–16), and proceeds at once to the interview between the latter and himself (9:17.) But in describing Ananias, he is more particular than Luke, in order to conciliate the Jews by showing that his introduction to the Christian Church was through a well-known Jew, of high repute among his brethren at Damascus. The certain disciple of 9:10, now becomes a pious (or devout) man, not merely in the Christian sense, but according to the law, i.e. the law of Moses, the religion of the Jews. But not content with this description of his spiritual character, he adds that he was certified, attested, recommended (see above, on 6:3; 10:22; 16:2) by all the Jews residing (for the time, or permanently settled) at Damascus. (See above, on 1:19; 2:5.) The emphasis and fulness with which Paul insists upon these circumstances, altogether wanting in Luke's narrative, although it does not in the least impair the harmony between them, calls for explanation; and this is furnished by the circumstances and occasion of his speaking at this time at all, and more particularly by his obvious desire to render prominent whatever was most Jewish in his own biography, and even in the mode of his professing Christianity, especially his being introduced into the Church, not by a Gentile minister, but by the hands of one whom all the Damascene Jews might be said to have endorsed, as a devout and exemplary member of their body. This shows a definite design in this address of Paul, but one involving no duplicity or evil purpose.

13. Coming to me (in the house of Judas), and standing over me (as he sat or lay there.) Brother Saul, or retaining the original order, both of this verse and the parallel passage, Saul (my) brother (see above, on 9:17.) Receive thy sight and looked up are imperative and indicative forms of the same Greek verb, and ought to have been so translated, the recovery of sight being not expressed but implied, whereas the relative position of the two men is expressly mentioned, and the natural relation of the order and its execution ought not to be hidden by a needless change in the translation. Ananias, standing over him, says, Look up, which he could not do unless his sight had been restored, and therefore when it is added that he did immediately look up as he was told, it is the strongest way of saying, though by implication, that his eyes were opened. Looked up upon him, i.e. Ananias, still standing by or hanging over him, was the first object of his restored vision. The same hour, i.e. time or moment (see above, on 16:18, 33.)

14. The words ascribed to Ananias in the parallel accounts differ not only in order but in substance, some things which in one place are described as having been addressed by Christ to Ananias being spoken in the other by Ananias to Paul. But this only shows that neither statement is complete, Ananias having naturally repeated much that he had heard, a repetition which was needless in the record. What is contained in this verse, therefore, was no doubt said to Paul by Ananias, although not recorded in the parallel passage. The God of our fathers, another intimation that both he and Ananias were native Jews, like those whom he was now addressing (see above, on 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:2, 11, 14, 15, 19, 38, 40, 45; 13:17.) Chosen, appointed, or prepared beforehand. (For a distinct but similar expression, see above, on 10:41.) To know his will, by special revelation, and to see the Righteous (or that Just One), the Messiah, who is expressly so called elsewhere (see above, on 3:14; 7:52.) To see is no doubt to be strictly taken (see above, on 9:17.) The voice of his mouth, literally, a voice from (or out of) his mouth, i.e. his immediate instructions, without any human intervention. This was necessary to put Paul upon a level with the twelve Apostles. (See above, on 13:3, and compare Gal. 1:1.)

15. What was just before implied is here expressed, that is, the reason why it was necessary that Paul should see and hear the Lord himself, to wit, because he was to be an Apostle, although not one of the twelve, and the essential function of that office was to testify of Christ, not from hearsay, but from personal acquaintance and direct communication with him. (See above, on 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 10:39; 13:3.) His witness, i.e. sent forth and commissioned by him, or a witness to him, i.e. testifying of him. (Compare the two readings in 1:8 above.) The extent of this official witness-bearing is determined or defined in a twofold manner. To all men, without social, personal, or national distinctions, Greeks and Barbarians, Jews and Gentiles, wise and unwise, bond and free. (Compare Rom. 1:14; Col. 3:11.) Of what (or of the things which) thou hast seen and heard, i.e. especially, though not perhaps exclusively, in vision and by revelation, or direct communication, from the Lord himself. (See below, on vs. 17, 18, and above, on 16:9; 18:9, and compare Gal. 1:12; 2:2; 2 Cor. 12:1; Eph. 3:3.) The nearest parallel to this verse, although very different in form, is that contained in 9:15.

16. The other narrative records the execution of this proposition, but not the proposition itself. As Ananias here calls upon Saul to be baptized, so in 9:18, we read that he received sight forthwith and arose and was baptized. Why tarriest thou, literally, what art thou about (to do?) or rather, why art thou about (i.e. still just about to act) instead of acting really? Arise and, literally, arising, which may either mean, address thyself to action, or be taken in the strict sense of arising from a sedentary, prostrate, or recumbent posture. (See above, on 9:18.) Be baptized is not a passive, as in 2:38, but the middle voice of the same verb, strictly meaning, baptize thyself, or rather, cause thyself to be baptized, or suffer (some one) to baptize thee. The form of the next verb is the same, but cannot be so easily expressed in English, as it has a noun dependent on it. This peculiarity of form is only so far of importance as it shows that Paul was to wash away his own sins in the same sense that he was to baptize himself, i.e. by consenting to receive both from another. As his body was to be baptized by man, so his sins were to be washed away by God. The identity, or even the inseparable union, of the two effects, is so far from being here affirmed, that they are rather held apart, as things connected by the natural relation of a type and antitype, yet perfectly distinguishable in themselves and easily separable in experience. Calling on the name of the Lord (or according to the latest critics, his name), i.e. invoking it in worship, recognizing Christ's divinity and sovereignty, as an indispensable prerequisite of baptism. (See above, on 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21.)

17. The historical formula (it came to pass) betokens a transition, or the introduction of another topic. The Apostle now approaches the most delicate and doubtful part of his assumed task, that of explaining and defending his peculiar mission to the Gentiles. Having traced the history of his profession as a Jew and his conversion as a Christian, without being interrupted or denounced as an apostate, he was probably encouraged to believe that even this most trying part of his defence would be received in the same spirit. He is not on that account, however, the less careful to connect this difficult portion of his task, as well as that which he had now accomplished, with the sacred places which he was accused of wantonly profaning. It was true that he had preached among the Gentiles, not of his own choice, but by express divine command, communicated to him not abroad, but in the Holy Land, but in the Holy City, but in the Holy House, i.e. within the precincts of the temple at Jerusalem. He therefore speaks of his return thither after his conversion, passing over many intermediate events, and leaving the chronology indefinite, though most interpreters identify this visit with the one described above, in 9:26–29. Nor is it merely his return to Palestine and to Jerusalem that he insists upon, but also his return to the temple, as a place of stated and habitual resort. It happened to me, having returned to Jerusalem, and I praying in the temple, i.e. in the inner court or customary place of prayer. (See above, on 2:46; 3:1; 5:20; 21:26–30.) The abrupt change of construction, from the dative to the genitive, might almost seem intended to give prominence to Paul's own person as the actor in these strange proceedings. As if he had said, 'You seem to think that after I became a Christian, I forsook the temple and the Holy City and my old associations as a Jew; but you are very much mistaken. I, even I Paul (1 Thess. 2:18; Philem. 9), came back to Jerusalem, and to the sanctuary; and it was while I Paul was actually praying there, that what I am about to tell occurred; so far is my conversion or apostleship from having severed my connection with the fathers and the covenants, the law, the service, and the promises to Israel (see Rom. 9:4.)' It came to pass (while I was there and thus employed) that I was in a trance (or ecstasy), i.e. under special divine influence, and in direct communication with my Master. (See above, on 10:10; 11:5, and compare the use of the same word in 3:10.)

18. The construction is continued from the verse preceding, (it came to pass that I was in a trance) and that I saw him, i.e. saw him again, with obvious allusion to the sight recorded in v. 14, where precisely the same verbal form is used in Greek. The person here meant therefore is the same as there, to wit, the Just One, i.e. the Messiah. His name may be suppressed because Paul was unwilling to offend his hearers by an unnecessary repetition or obtrusion of what he believed but they did not, and because he was still more unwilling to expose that name to their irreverence and even blasphemy, if they should be so offended. He may possibly have wished moreover to convey the idea, that in going to the Gentiles he had acted by divine authority, without expressly stating that this authority was that of Christ, whom he regarded as divine, but they as an impostor. By saying I saw him he might be understood to mean a theophany or vision of Jehovah, without specifying in or under what form he appeared to him. (For a somewhat similar ambiguous allusion to our Lord by Peter, but addressed to Gentiles, see above, on 10:38.) It appears, however, from what follows, that his hearers must have understood him as referring to a vision or appearance of our Lord himself (see below, on v. 19.) The unusual combination, saw him saying, is not to be explained away by taking the last verb in the diluted or extenuated sense of perceiving either by the eye or ear, which is equivalent to making see and hear synonymous. The true explanation is that saw him is a substantive or independent proposition, and that saying is an afterthought or subsequent description of the way in which he was employed when seen. The expression may be amplified or paraphrased as follows. I saw him (and when I saw him, he was) saying, etc., or I saw him (and at the same time heard him) saying, etc. This implies, however, that the seeing was not a mere incidental circumstance but something of intrinsic moment. So it is, when considered as a proof of Paul's Apostleship and of his being qualified to testify of Christ from personal acquaintance and communication (see above, on v. 14.) 'Once more, as his Apostle and his witness, I was suffered to behold him, and on this occasion heard him saying,' etc. Hasten and go out quickly (literally, in quickness, or with speed), a repetition which, together with the sudden and abrupt address, seems to imply that Paul had been already too long in Jerusalem, or even that he ought not to be there at all. This agrees well with the evidence which follows of his having entertained a false view of his own vocation. They (i.e. the Jews, or the people of Jerusalem) will not receive (as true or credible) thy testimony about me, to bear which was the very task imposed upon him, and the vital function of his apostolic office (see above, on v. 14.) This was therefore a distinct annunciation, that he was not an Apostle to Jerusalem or to the Jews, as Peter and the twelve were (see above, on 1:22, 26.)

19. We have here another instance of that singular reluctance on the part of God's most honoured instruments, and of that freedom in expressing such reluctance, which have been already noticed in the case of Ananias (see above, on 9:13.) To the observations there made, it may here be added, that the opposition is in all such cases momentary, and succeeded by implicit acquiescence, whether produced by rational conviction, or by simple iteration of the order as in this case (see below, on v. 21.) The words of Paul, as here reported by himself, are in fact, though not in form, an argument against the Saviour's requisition, and in favour of his own preconceived idea of the way in which he might expect most effectively to aid the cause which he had once sought to destroy (see above, on 9:21.) It is not a formal argument, because he only states the premises or data, without venturing to draw the bold conclusion, which, however, is too obvious to be mistaken. Lord, both in Greek and Aramaic, an ambiguous expression, which might either be addressed to man or God, though really applying here to Christ, in whom both natures were united. They know is very strong in the original, the pronoun and the verb being both emphatic, they (themselves) know (well), as if he had said, none know better. (For the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 10:28; 15:7; 18:25; 19:15, 25; 20:18.) Imprisoned and beat, or more exactly, was imprisoning and scourging, i.e. was continually doing it. The last word properly means flaying, skinning, but is used to denote the most severe and cruel kind of flogging. (See above, on 5:40; 16:37.) In every synagogue is too strong, like in every house (5:42; 8:3), in every city (15:21, 36; 20:23), in all which cases the Greek preposition might be rendered through or throughout (as in 8:1; 9:31, 42; 10:37), throughout the synagogues, or (as in 2:46; 20:20), from synagogue to synagogue. Those believing on thee, a periphrasis for Christians, which of course implies that Christ is the person here addressed, and therefore shows that Paul, though reserved in the use of our Lord's name where it was liable to be dishonoured, had no thought of dissembling his religion, which indeed was so notorious as to have occasioned his misfortunes upon this occasion.

20. To this general description of his own participation in the persecutions of the church, he adds one particular example, as the earliest in date, and most indelibly impressed upon his memory, as having given the first impulse to his youthful zeal in this fanatical and murderous direction. Bloodshed is probably here put by a familiar figure for loss of life by violence, without necessarily implying a specific mode of killing, although stoning may have been accompanied by literal effusion of blood. Martyr is itself a Greek word meaning witness, and repeatedly occurring in the book before us (see above, on v. 15, and on 1:8, 22; 2:32; 3:15; 5:32; 6:13; 7:58; 10:10, 41; 13:31), but in English having the specific sense of one who dies for his religion, or seals his testimony to the truth with his blood. The transition from the general sense of witness to the specific sense of martyr is traced by some in this verse and in Rev. 2:13; 11:3; 17:6. Our translators would, however, have done better to retain the usual term, witness, which is found in all the older English versions. I also is in Greek still stronger, as the pronoun means myself, or I myself. 'Not only other men, but even I, or I myself too,' possibly with reference to his youth, 'not only older men, but even I' (but see above, on 7:58.) Was standing is precisely the construction which occurs in the preceding verse, and here as there denotes continued action, but confined to one occasion. As if he had said, 'all the time that they were shedding Stephen's blood, I was standing by,' or more emphatically, standing over (see above, on v. 13), that is, on some spot which overlooked the scene of murder, or literally over Stephen's body as he knelt or lay upon the ground (see above, on 7:60.) Kept the raiment (literally, guarding, watching, the upper garments) of those killing (or dispatching) him, which they had thrown off for convenience in the act of stoning. This circumstance, recorded by Luke likewise (see above, on 7:58), would of course be deeply impressed upon the memory of Saul, even after his conversion. As mere reminiscences, these facts would have been out of place, both as originally uttered in the temple, and as here repeated on the castle stairs. The only way in which they can be made significant or relevant, is by supplying the conclusion evidently meant to be deduced from them, to wit, that as the first scene of Paul's persecutions, and of Stephen's martyrdom from which they took their rise, was in Jerusalem, that was the place for the convert and Apostle to retrieve his character, and there the most inviting field of labour in the cause which he had once sought to destroy, but which he now lived only to promote, because the last place where his motives or the truth of his conversion could be questioned, in the face of all the suffering and reproach which it had brought upon him. That the argument suggested (not expressed) in these words is a strong one, every reader feels, and has often been attested by its application to a multitude of later cases, as for instance when converted Jews or popish priests are sent to labour among those whom they have lately left, upon the very ground, at least substantially, which Paul here urges for remaining in Jerusalem. The frequent failure of such missions may be owing partly to neglect or misconception of the way in which Paul's argument was answered, as recorded in the next verse.

21. Though Paul may have expected a more formal answer to his tacit argument, derived from the facts mentioned in the two preceding verses, he could not have received one more cogent and conclusive than this stern and peremptory iteration of his Master's orders. The words derive a high degree of dignity and grandeur from the very absence of all ratiocination, and their purely imperative or juisive character. There is something also very striking in the childlike simplicity with which Paul here recites this crushing answer, i.e. crushing to his self-complacent and ambitious prepossessions, although no doubt long since fully justified and hallowed, even to himself, as proofs of the divine benevolence as well as wisdom. It is possible, however, that he might not have been willing to recite so publicly his own humiliating disappointment, which would otherwise never have been known, if he had not wished to use it as a proof that his devotion to the Gentiles sprang from no indifference to the interests of Israel, but from an absolute divine decree. And he said unto me (without any direct answer to my plea for license to remain), Depart (set out upon thy journey), because I to nations far off am about to send thee out away, the first and last verb both implying distance. (See above, on 1:10; 8:26; 9:3; 18:6; 21:5, and on 7:12; 9:30; 11:22; 12:11; 17:14.) Although uncertain, it is not impossible, nor inconsistent with this passage, to suppose that the departure here required is the one already mentioned in 9:30, and there referred to outward dangers and the anxious care of the brethren at Jerusalem. That the operation of such secondary causes is entirely compatible with an express divine command, is not only matter of experience, but exemplified in other cases upon record (see above, on 15:1, 4.) We have only to suppose, what is altogether probable and suited to Paul's character, that notwithstanding the impending dangers and the counsel of the brethren, he refused to leave the post of danger, till convinced that it was not the post of duty, and could not therefore be the post of honour. This conviction may have been effected by the argument in this verse, which may be resolved into the simple statement, that whatever God or Christ commands, it must be right, and safe, and wise to do, whatever man may have to say against it.

22. Notwithstanding the consummate skill with which Paul seemed to have conducted his defence, it was not to prove successful. What the Lord had said to him in vision long before was now to be verified anew, "they will not receive thy testimony concerning me" (see above, on v. 18.) If any thing had been required to confirm his acquiescence in the former disappointment of his hopes and wishes, it must have been afforded by this fresh proof, that his time and toil would have been thrown away upon his "kinsmen according to the flesh." Gave him audience (as in 13:16; 15:12), literally, heard, were hearing, or continued still to listen. (See above, on 14:9, and compare 16:25.) Unto, until, as far as, but no further, an expression applied sometimes to space (11:5; 13:6; 20:4), but commonly to time (1:2; 2:29; 3:21; 7:18; 13:11; 20:6, 11), and once or twice exclusively to neither (as here and in v. 4 above.) This word, not the word Gentiles, as the English reader may suppose, for it is not the last word in the Greek sentence, and word will bear a wider meaning, such as that of saying, proposition, or expression. The word meant is no doubt the last part of Paul's discourse, in which he undertook to justify his mission to the Gentiles on the ground of an express divine command, and more especially the last verse, in which that command is given totidem verbis. Voices, literally voice, as that of one man (see above, on 19:34, and compare the like use of the singular in 2:6; 4:24; 7:57; 8:7; 14:11.) Away with, literally take away, remove, i.e. by death, the same cry that was raised against our Lord himself almost upon the same spot. (See Luke 23:28; John 19:15.) The contemptuous term, fellow, is supplied by the translators, but in perfect keeping with the tone of this ferocious acclamation. Fit, becoming, the original word being also a participle in the common text, with which a verb must be supplied, (it is) not becoming. But all the oldest copies have the past tense meaning, it was not fit, or was not right, probably in reference to their previous attempt to kill him, and his rescue by the Romans. The sense will then be, 'We were right at first, it was not fit that he should live, as we declared before.' This allusion to their first attack upon him is of some importance, as explaining why they now refused to hear him further, and broke out with these intemperate expressions. It could not be the simple mention of the Gentiles that provoked them; for among these many of the Jews now present had their homes and business. It was not the intimation that the Gentiles might be saved, for this had always been conceded, and the Pharisees were famous for their proselyting zeal (see Matt. 23:15.) But Paul's claim to a divine commission as Apostle of the Gentiles (see above, on vs. 17–21) was immediately connected by his hearers with the previous charge against him (see above, on 21:28) of apostasy and blasphemy and sacrilege, which seemed to be confirmed by what he now said, so that they broke out afresh against him, not simply because he said he had been sent forth to the Gentiles, but because his saying this convinced them that he did reject the law, and had profaned the temple.

23. This verse describes the outward signs of rage, with which the words just given were accompanied. The construction is that of the genitive absolute, they crying, an unusual intensive form in Greek, which might be rendered by some stronger term in English, such as yelling, shrieking, screeching. Cast off their clothes conveys the false idea that they stripped themselves, which would be wholly unnatural and out of place, as well as foreign from the true sense of the words, which do not even mean that they cast off their upper garments, as a preliminary to the act of stoning (see above, on v. 20, and on 7:58.) This, though an appropriate Jewish punishment (see above, on 5:26; 7:59; 14:5, 19), was here out of the question, as the Romans had Paul in possession, and the Jews would scarcely have expressed the mere desire to stone him, when they knew they could not, by so violent and troublesome a gesture. Besides, we know that when they had him in their power and sought to kill him, it was not by stoning but by beating (see above, on 21:31, 32.) The verb, moreover, is not the compounded one which elsewhere means to cast off (see below, on 27:43), but a frequentative form of the primitive verb, meaning to throw about, to toss. The act described here may be either that of tossing up their loose cloaks or outer garments, or that of violently shaking them without removal; not as a gesture of concurrence or applause, in which sense agitation of the dress is sometimes mentioned in the classics, but as a spontaneous expression of intense and irrepressible excitement. Throwing dust into the air, not, as it has sometimes been explained, that it might descend upon their own heads as a sign of mourning, an idea probably connected with the false assumption that they rent their garments, whereas they only shook or tossed them. The act described is to be understood precisely like the one before it, as an outward symptom of internal rage, resembling its expression in the lower animals, and said to be quite common in the East, upon the part of whole crowds, when impatient or exasperated.

24. They thus acting, i.e. while and because they did so, the Roman Tribune, or commander of the garrison, saw that the time was come for a second interposition and rescue. But while he thus provided for the safety of the prisoner, he felt constrained to use some other means for the discovery of his crime, or of the charge alleged against him. This he had not learned from the speech of Paul, either because he did not understand the language, or because it would convey no definite idea to a Roman, even if complete, much less when violently broken off. The method of discovery to which he now resorted was no proof of peculiar cruelty or ill-will to his prisoner, but only of the rigour of the Roman discipline. To be examined by scourging (literally, scourges) was a species of judicial torture, intended like the similar but worse devices of the Inquisition and some other civilized but barbarous tribunals, to supply the want of proof or information, by extorting a confession or compelling a prisoner to accuse himself. From this use torture has acquired a euphemistic name, the application of the rack, the iron boot, the thumb-screws, and a hundred other hellish cruelties, being known in history as putting men (or women) to the question. In comparison with these refinements, there was something merciful in the Roman practice of examining by scourges. That he might know, discover, ascertain, a compound of the verb to know, employed above in 3:10; 4:13; 9:30; 12:14; 19:34, and there explained. For what cause, in the general sense of motive, ground, or reason (see above, on 10:21), or in the more specific one of a judicial cause, a crime or accusation (see above, on 13:28.) So, as usual, is not an expletive or idiomatic pleonasm (see above, on 1:11; 3:18; 7:8; 13:47; 14:1; 17:33; 19:20; 20:11, 35; 21:11), but means, in such a manner, i.e. here with such extraordinary fury, without any visible occasion or intelligible explanation. Cried, an entirely different word from that in the beginning of v. 23, derived from voice, and elsewhere used by Luke, once to denote the acclamation or idolatrous applause of Herod by his flatterers just before the Angel smote him (see above, on 12:22), and once the awful cry of "crucify him" by the rabble of Jerusalem (see Luke 23:21.)

25. Bound with thongs (or straps), a word used elsewhere only to denote the straps of shoes or sandals. (See Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16; John 1:27.) Our translation here supposes it to mean the straps by which the person to be scourged was fastened to a post or other fixture, or according to some writers, was suspended in the air. To suit this explanation, the preceding verb is rendered bound, but without authority from usage. It really means stretched forth or extended, and may here be literally understood of bodily position, or taken in a figurative sense, such as presented, subjected, or exposed, for which however there is less authority. This latter explanation of the verb requires the thongs (or straps) to be explained as meaning the lashes of the scourges to which they were about subjecting or exposing him. The same explanation of the noun may be combined with the literal or strict sense of the verb, to wit, that they stretched him out for the whips, i.e. in a suitable position for receiving them. All these interpretations coincide in one point, and the only one of much importance, namely, that the clause describes the preparation made for Paul's immediate scourging. This was prevented by a similar avowal of his civil rights to that made at Philippi and before recorded (see above, on 16:37.) That stood by, literally the (one) standing, i.e. standing there to see the Tribune's order carried into execution. The Roman historians sometimes speak of centurions as presiding over punishment, and an officer of that rank seems to have had charge of our Saviour's crucifixion (see Matt. 27:54; Luke 23:47; Mark 15:39, 44, 45.) And uncondemned, i.e. not even tried, an aggravating circumstance which Paul had long before urged at Philippi (see above, on 16:37.) Is it lawful, the impersonal verb so rendered 16:21, but elsewhere by the auxiliary let (2:29) or may (8:37; 21:37.) (Tell me) if it is lawful, see above, on 1:6; 5:8; 7:1; 19:2; 21:37. For you, the Roman soldiery, who ought to be the guardians and protectors of your fellow citizens.

26. Having heard (the question just recorded) the centurion coming to (him) reported (what he had thus heard) to the chiliarch (or tribune.) The last verb is the one employed in 4:23; 5:22, 25; 11:13; 12:14, 17; 15:27; 16:36, and there explained. For the meaning of the military title here used, see above, on 21:31. Take heed, literally, see (to it), a phrase synonymous though not identical with that in 13:40, but omitted here by all the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, who make the sentence interrogative, what doest thou? or more exactly, what art thou about to do? the first verb being that employed above in v. 16, and often elsewhere (see above, on 3:3; 5:35; 11:28; 12:6; 13:34; 16:27; 17:31; 18:14; 19:27; 20:3, 7, 13, 38; 21:27, 37.) For assigns the reason of his asking, or according to the other text, his warning, which indeed is equally implied in the interrogative construction. A Roman, not by birth or residence, but in right and privilege, a Roman citizen. As to the nature and the value of this civitas or citizenship, see above, on 16:37, 38.

27. Neither the centurion nor the chiliarch appears to have suspected Paul of claiming what was not his due, perhaps because of the severity with which false claims were punished (see above, on 16:38.) The centurion without hesitation goes to his commander, saying, This man is a Roman. The commander, it is true, interrogates the prisoner, but rather from surprise and curiosity than doubt or incredulity, which would have led him to stay where he was, instead of hurrying back to question him. Tell me if thou art, the full form of the abbreviated question in v. 25. The oldest manuscripts, however, omit if, so that the form of the interrogation is precisely that presented in the English version, except as to the order of the words, which in Greek is, Tell me, thou a Roman art? This might be construed as an exclamation, which would make the expression of surprise still stronger. Yea, in modern English, yes, a form scarcely used in the English Bible. The Greek particle occurs above in 5:8.

28. With (or for) a great sum (literally, much capital) this freedom (literally, polity, citizenship) I obtained (acquired or purchased, as in 1:18 above.) The chiliarch was probably surprised that one of Paul's appearance should possess the right at all, and still more that he should have the means to purchase it, the customary mode of acquisition, and the only one familiar to his own experience. The sale of such rights was undoubtedly a common practice in the reign of Claudius, and was especially promoted by his infamous wife, Messalina, who at first exacted the highest prices, but afterwards expressed her contempt for the distinction by allowing men to purchase it for almost nothing. But I was free born, literally, but I also have been born, an unusual expression, which most probably means, 'I not only have this freedom in possession, as it seems that you have, but was also born to it, as you were not.' It was not merely as a citizen of Tarsus that Paul claimed this birthright; for although that city received important grants from Julius Cæsar and Augustus, this was not among them. If it had been, Paul would have escaped imprisonment and stripes before, by simply stating his nativity (see above, on 21:39.) It was not a local but a family distinction, how or when acquired is now unknown, most probably by service which his father or some other ancestor had rendered to the state, or the successful party, during the long civil wars. As to his motive in avowing it precisely at this juncture, it was no doubt essentially the same as at Philippi (see above, on 16:37), but regulated by the same discretion which he exercised in that case. Here, besides exemption from a painful and disgraceful process, it seems to have procured for him the opportunity and honour of appearing in the presence of the Sanhedrim, as he had already in the presence of the people (see below, on v. 30.)

29. Then, not a particle of time, but a logical connective meaning therefore, i.e. because Paul had thus avowed his birthright as a Roman citizen. Straightway, immediately, without even waiting, it would seem, for an order from the Tribune, although some assume that it was given, but omitted in the record, as a matter of course or of routine. Departed, drew off, left him to himself (see above, on 5:38; 12:10; 15:38; 19:9.) Those about to examine him, i.e. by scourging (see above, on v. 24.) That they were influenced by fear in thus abandoning their task, appears from what immediately follows, and the chiliarch also was afraid (or frightened), not the subalterns or soldiers merely, but their chief commander. Knowing, or having ascertained, the same verb that is used above in v. 24. That he was a Roman, literally, that he is one, thus recalling the whole scene to mind as actually passing. And because he had bound him, not at first, as mentioned in 21:33, for this restraint still continued (see the next verse), and was lawful till the charge against him could be tried. The reference is rather to the binding mentioned in v. 25, in order to his being scourged, a measure inconsistent with Paul's civil rights, as well as with the statute of Augustus, still preserved in the Digest of the Civil Law, that process never must begin with torture (non esse a tormentis incipiendum.) It is not impossible, however, that the Tribune's fears had reference to Paul's imprisonment, but were not strong enough to put an end to it, especially as he was yet in doubt as to the charge against him.

30. Because he would have known, in Greek simply, wishing to know (see above, on 14:18, 19.) The certainty, in Greek, the certain (or infallible), i.e. the true state of the case, the real facts. (Compare the use of the same phrase above, in 21:34.) The article is here used in a way peculiar to the Greek idiom, and therefore not expressed in the translation, which would literally be, the why (i.e. the question or the reason why) he is accused, the present tense as in the verse preceding. By (or according to another reading, from, on the part of) the Jews. Loosed him, freed him from personal restraint. From his bands is omitted in the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions. Commanded, or required, no doubt by virtue of official powers in cases of emergency belonging to the governor when present, but devolving in his absence on the commander of the forces in Jerusalem, most probably the second Roman officer or magistrate in all Judea. (See below, on 23:24.) The chief priests are mentioned as the most important class of counsellors, and then all the Sanhedrim, the pronoun their being omitted by the latest critics. To appear, literally, to come, which would naturally mean, to him, into the castle; but the oldest reading is to come together, to assemble, i.e. in their customary place of meeting. This had once been in the temple, but according to an old tradition, was at this time in a hall upon Mount Zion. The former situation seems to be implied, however, in the phrase, brought Paul down, i.e. from the camp or castle of Antonia, by the stairs already mentioned (see above, on 21:35, 40), into the area or enclosure of the temple. Set him, set him up, caused him to stand (see above, on 1:23; 4:7; 5:27; 6:6, 13.) Before them, literally, into them, i.e. into the midst of the assembled council. This last attempt of the commander to find out what Paul had done or been accused of, by making a national affair of it and bringing him before the senate, was most probably suggested by his previous discovery that the prisoner, at first so harshly and contemptuously treated, was a Roman citizen of equal privileges with himself (see above, on v. 28.) The whole narrative illustrates the perplexity in which the Roman rulers of the Jews were constantly involved, and to which Paul owed this unexpected opportunity of making his second Apology before the highest court of Israel.

CHAPTER 23

IT is highly important here to bear in mind, that Paul was not a mere chance visitor to Jerusalem, accidentally involved in a disturbance there, but the Apostle of the Gentiles, specially commissioned to make, as it were, a last appeal to Israel, before he finally transferred his centre of operations to the great metropolis and mistress of the heathen world. All that is recorded of his acts and sufferings, in his farewell visit to the Holy City, must be viewed as having an official character on his part, and a representative or national significancy on the part of those with whom he came in contact, both as friends and foes. Having borne his testimony to the people from the castle stairs and been rejected by them, he now appears, for the same momentous purpose, in the presence of the Sanhedrim, of which he had once been a member, or at least an emissary. But the rejection of his testimony here is still more prompt and violent than in the other case (1–5.) Under the influence of party spirit, the Pharisees espouse his cause, but only for the moment, and so as to increase his personal danger, from which he is a third time rescued by the Romans (6–10.) The disappointed zealots form a plot against his life, from which he is a fourth time rescued by the Romans (11–22.) Having been thus repeatedly rejected by the Jews and protected by the Gentiles, he is finally delivered from the power of the former, and entrusted to the keeping of the latter, being transferred by the Tribune at Jerusalem to the Procurator at Cesarea (23–35.)

1. Gazing steadily (or intently), a favourite word of Luke's, especially in this book (see above, on 1:10; 3:4, 12; 6:15; 7:55; 10:4; 11:6; 13:9; 14:9), and therefore not to be explained here in any special sense, as denoting or implying weakness of sight, but in accordance with its general usage as expressive of earnestness and boldness, and especially of that good conscience which is afterwards expressed in words. Men (and) brethren, without the still more deferential title, fathers, which he used in the beginning of his speech to the people (see above, on 22:1), although here, as it would seem, peculiarly appropriate when he was addressing the Senate or Eldership of Israel (see above, on 22:5.) If the difference was not accidental and unmeaning, or belonging rather to the summary report than to the actual discourse, it may be understood as an indirect assertion of his equality with those whom he addressed, and as having forfeited no rights which he had once possessed, as a member of the body, or at least of the theocracy, a claim which is also then expressed in words. The notion that it was mere rudeness, or at best forgetfulness in Paul, is an absurd device of that neology which loves to pick flaws even in the manners of Apostles. Anticipating, probably, the interruption which ensued, Paul puts into a single sentence the sum total of what he wished to say, to wit, that so far from being an apostate or a renegade, he claimed to be still a faithful member of the chosen people, and to have uniformly acted in accordance with his theocratical obligations. This involved the doctrine which he always taught, that Christianity was the genuine developement of ancient Judaism, so that he, and not his adversaries, held fast to the true design and spirit of the Mosaic institutions. The word conscience and the phrase good conscience are confined (with the exception of John 8:9) to the dialect of Paul and Peter. (The full phrase occurs only in 1 Tim. 1:5, 19; Heb. 13:18; 1 Pet. 3:16, 21.) It here means consciousness of rectitude and faithfulness, not merely in the general, but with specific reference to those peculiar rights and obligations which are suggested by the accompanying verb in the original, though not at all by the translation. Lived is a gratuitous attenuation of a Greek verb derived from the noun citizen, and meaning therefore to act the part, enjoy the rights, perform the duties, of a citizen, or one belonging to some state or body politic. The only such organization that can be referred to here is the Theocracy, or ancient church, in its twofold form, ecclesiastical and national, of which the Sanhedrim was still the ostensible representative, but which was really continued in the Christian Church, without its national restrictions, and of which Paul therefore was more really a citizen than those whom he addressed. In this same proper sense, and not as a mere figure or accommodation, he applies the Greek word to the Christian life, in the only other place where it occurs (Phil. 1:27), and where it is no less diluted by the English version, although not precisely in the same form. The specific sense of theocratic citizenship is given to the verb here by the phrase, to God, which does not mean before God, i.e. in his presence, nor is it a superlative expression (see above, on 7:20) meaning truly or completely, but is to be strictly understood as qualifying what precedes, I have lived as a citizen to God, or of that body in which God is the immediate sovereign. That this sense of the terms is agreeable to Hellenistic usage, may be seen from the occurrence of the same verb in the apocryphal but ancient books of Maccabees, in reference to the practice of the Jews' religion, and accompanied by qualifying phrases corresponding to the one here used, e.g. to the law, to the laws of God, according to the customs (ἔθη) of their forefathers (2 Macc. 6:1, 11, 25; 3 Macc. 3:4.) Thus understood, the clause before us is not a vague profession to have acted conscientiously, either before or after his conversion, but a definite and bold claim to have acted theocratically, i.e. as a faithful member of the Jewish church, from which they represented him as an apostate. Until this day, or to this very day, not only while he persecuted Christianity, but still more since he was converted to it.

2. This was not an unmeaning act of brutal violence, nor a mere expression of resentment at Paul's not addressing them as Fathers, as it might have seemed to be if the preceding verse only contained the first words of his address without disclosing what he meant to say. But as it really contains the sum and substance of his whole defence, which he could only have explained and amplified if suffered to proceed, the action here recorded was an arbitrary but significant reply to it, clothed in the form of a symbolical gesture, like stoning and the rending or shaking of the garments. Striking on the mouth implies a previous unlawful use of it, as well as an injunction to cease speaking. This mode of silencing improper self-defence upon the part of accused persons is said to be still practised at the court of Persia. Translated into language it was here equivalent to saying, that Paul's claim, not only to integrity and innocence as some suppose, but to the highest theocratical fidelity, was false in itself, and grossly insulting to his judges, whom it charged, by necessary implication, with being themselves unfaithful to their great national and religious trust. (See above, on 7:51–53, where Stephen urges the same accusation in express and most offensive terms.) Whether this practical repudiation of Paul's theocratic claims can be regarded as the act of the whole body, depends upon the doubtful and disputed question, as to the position occupied by Ananias. It is commonly assumed, as a matter of course, or as the only sense that can be put upon this verse and v. 4 below, that he was the actual High Priest at this time, and as such presiding in the Sanhedrim (see above, on 4:6; 7:1.) That there was a High Priest of this name about the time in question, is expressly stated by Josephus, who describes him as an avaricious, overbearing man, and represents him as having been involved in a dispute with the Samaritans, in consequence of which the Roman governor, Quadratus, sent him to answer for himself before the Emperor. But whether he was there detained or sent back to Judea, and if so, whether he continued or was re-appointed High Priest, are disputed points, in reference to which Josephus has been variously understood, although the latest writers are inclined to the opinion that he did return, which vindicates Luke's accuracy in referring to him here. But even upon this hypothesis, it still continues doubtful whether he retained his office, or usurped it during a vacancy, or merely held a place among the many High Priests who had been successively put up and down by Roman intervention. (See above, on 4:6.) It should be remembered that the intricacy and confusion of the history on these points is not necessarily the fault of the historian, but arises from the actual irregularities existing at this crisis of the Jewish history, when every thing was tending to the outbreak of that war in which the Hebrew commonwealth was finally destroyed. As the same Greek word is rendered High and Chief Priests, and as there certainly were many titular High Priests at once, it is highly arbitrary to insist upon the strict interpretation of the title here, as meaning the one recognized and acting at the time here mentioned, although this is certainly the natural presumption, unless something in the context should require or suggest the wider meaning which is equally agreeable to usage. Those standing by him might denote those members of the council who were nearest to the prisoner; but the verb commanded seems to favour the opinion that the phrase denotes the ministerial officers or attendants of the council. There is no need, however, of taking bystanders in the specific sense of servants or attendants, which it is thought to have in Luke 1:19; John 18:22 (but compare John 19:26), as this would require us to read, standing by (or near) himself, i.e. the High Priest, whereas the natural construction is, those standing by (or near to) Paul. If Ananias is here introduced, not as the actual High Priest presiding in the council, but as a previous incumbent and the leader of a faction, this command may be addressed to his own adherents or those standing near to him, as the leaders in the English Parliament describe those acting with them as the gentlemen around or nigh them. The question as to Ananias cannot be conclusively determined without some regard to the ensuing verses.

3. Shall smite, literally, is (or is about) to smite, the first verb denoting simple futurity (see above, on 22:16, 26, 29), without expressing (although it of course implies) intention or determination on the part of God, much less a desire on the part of Paul himself; so that the old idea of a (human) curse or imprecation is at variance with the very form of the original. The only sense consistent with this form is that of a prediction or prophetical denunciation, not of the general fact that condign punishment awaits such sinners (compare Gen. 9:6; Matt. 26:52), but of the specific fact that this man was himself to be smitten of God. This is not only the natural meaning of the words, but is confirmed by the event, as we learn from Josephus that this Ananias, in the beginning of the Jewish War, was taken from an aqueduct where he lay concealed, and put to death by sicarii or assassins, perhaps some of the same zealots, whose fanaticism he encouraged and inflamed on this occasion. Whited, i.e. either washed or plastered with lime, as the original word signifies. A whited wall is a familiar figure for a fair outside, behind which or within which all is foul and filthy. Our Saviour uses the still stronger image of a whited sepulchre (Matt. 23:27.) In this case, as in that, there is reference, no doubt, to personal hypocrisy; but as the essential idea is a wider one, to wit, that of false appearances in general, it is natural to give the phrase a wider meaning, as applied not only to the private character of Ananias, but to the hollow and unreal nature of the very office which he held or had held, and indeed of the whole system which it represented. Nothing could well be more descriptive of the Ceremonial Law, as it was suffered to subsist till the destruction of Jerusalem, a mere shell or framework, venerable and beloved for the fathers' sake, but from which the vitality or essence had now passed into another form, than this homely figure of a whited wall, behind which there was nothing, at least nothing good or even sightly. Thus explained, Paul's language may be paraphrased as follows. 'You command me to be smitten, but a far worse stroke from God himself awaits you, the unworthy claimant of an office once ordained of God, but now itself a mere mask and disguise of human corruption under the name and garb of institutions, which have done their office and are soon to vanish even from the sight of men.' That this severe denunciation was a burst of sinful passion, is entirely at variance with Paul's whole position in this narrative, and not supported in the least by his complaint of the injustice done him, which he had a right to utter, even if only personally interested, much more when thus treated in his official representative capacity. For sittest thou, literally, and thou sittest, the conjunction having a peculiar force in such connections, nearly equivalent to then or so then (as in Luke 10:29, and elsewhere.) Sitting is probably in all languages and nations the appropriate judicial posture. (See Judg. 5:10; Ps. 9:7; 122:5; Prov. 20:8; Isai. 28:6.) Sittest judging (or to Judge) me, does not necessarily imply that Ananias was presiding, because every member of the Sanhedrim was acting as a judge on this occasion, and because by his command to smite Paul he had volunteered a premature decision of the case before he heard it, whether acting as the president or as an individual. (For a similar abuse of the same verb, but in another application, see above, on 15:19.) Contrary to the law is in Greek a participle, and means breaking the law, or acting lawlessly. (Compare the corresponding noun in 2 Pet. 2:16.) The lawlessness was twofold and consisted, first, in the unworthy and unjust treatment of Paul's person; then, in arbitrarily condemning him before he heard him. Here let it be again observed, that Paul was not on trial simply for himself, but for his Master, whose pretensions as the true Messiah were involved in Paul's defence before the Sanhedrim. The truth of his assertion in the first verse, that he had been faithful to the church of the Old Testament, depends entirely on the fact that Christ had not destroyed its institutions but fulfilled them. Here then, as well as in v. 6 below, he identifies his own cause with the cause of Christianity, and therefore when he speaks of having been unjustly dealt with, the complaint has reference to something more than personal maltreatment, and cannot possibly be reckoned as an ebullition of mere private feeling.

4. This has often been regarded as conclusive evidence that Ananias was the actual High Priest, because no other would be called the High Priest of God. But the force of this argument depends entirely on the persons so describing him. As we have seen before (on 4:6), the actual possession of the office was determined, not by the Mosaic law, but by the Roman government, who looked upon the priesthood chiefly as a national or civil function, representing the whole body, and the most convenient medium of communication with its foreign masters. This seems to be the only explanation of the fact that, while in other points the Jews were left in undisturbed possession of their own religion, the High Priesthood was subjected to continual change, at the caprice or discretion of the Romans. In the eyes of all strict Jews, however, there could be but one legitimate High Priest living at the same time, and his rights were founded on descent from Aaron, not on the decisions of a heathen power. There might indeed be adverse claims among the Jews themselves, and more than one competitor might be supported, each by his own adherents, as the legitimate incumbent. That there were such rivalries and conflicts, is not only in itself a probable result of causes which we know to have been in operation, but the natural impression made by the contemporary history. If they that stood by are the same in this verse as in that before it, where, as we have seen, the words may have respect to the immediate friends and partisans of Ananias, then the phrase God's high Priest only proves that his adherents so regarded him, while others may have been preferred by other Jewish factions, and still another recognized and upheld by the Romans in the actual possession of the title and prerogatives belonging to the office. If, on the other hand, Ananias was the actual High Priest, they that stood by will have the same sense as in v. 2, either the general one of persons present, or the more specific one of officers, attendants. On any of the suppositions which have been suggested, the adherents of the High Priest would of course regard Paul's prophetic denunciation as impious and insolent.

5. The fashionable sentimental view of this verse is, that Paul acknowledges his having spoken in a fit of passion, and apologizes for it. But besides the sheer impossibility of making I wist not (i.e. did not know) mean I did not consider (or remember at the moment), the acknowledgment itself would be at variance with all the facts and circumstances of the case. The objection is not, as some seem to imagine, that the great Apostle was entirely free from human weakness, but that its exhibition is precluded by the special commission under which he acted as a witness for his Master at Jerusalem, both to the masses and the rulers of the Jews. In what imaginable juncture of his history, if not in this, could he expect Christ's promise to be verified, "but when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak; for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak; for it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you" (Matt. 10:19, 20; Mark 13:11.) After having been directed to postpone his long-desired voyage to Rome, for the very purpose of this farewell visit and appeal to his own people, and then so providentially brought into contact, first with the representative assemblage from all nations in the area of the temple at the feast of Pentecost, and now with the official representatives of Israel in their aggregate and organized capacity, there is something monstrous in the supposition that a single act of violent injustice, added to the thousands which he had before experienced, betrayed him into an intemperate expression of unsanctified resentment, and that Luke has solemnly recorded this unhappy and unseasonable burst of feeling, for the sake of showing how inferior Paul was to his Master, and yet how gracefully and frankly he could make amends for such offences. Jerome's famous contrast between Paul's behaviour and that of Christ's upon a similar occasion (John 18:22, 23), though often quoted with applause, contains a double fallacy; first, in assuming that our Saviour literally acted on his own rule, that when smitten upon one cheek we must turn the other also (Matt. 5:39), whereas he expostulated and resisted no less really, though certainly in milder terms, than Paul himself; and then in taking it for granted that the conduct of his followers was to be governed by his own example in a situation to which theirs was never perfectly analogous, rather than by his immediate and express instructions with respect to the particular emergency in which they were to act. That Paul was thus directed and restrained, is not explicitly affirmed, but is really included in the promise above cited, which of course extends to Paul as an Apostle, and in perfect keeping with the whole series of events by which he had been brought into his present trying situation. Another fallacy, which runs through some interpretations of this verse, is that of confounding Paul's supposed infirmity of temper with the sins of Patriarchs and other holy men, so frequently and candidly recorded in the Scriptures. But in all such instances, the act is sinful in itself, and incapable of any other explanation, which is very far from being the case here; or the divine displeasure is distinctly indicated, either in express words, or by retributive judgments, or by both, as in the case of David (2 Sam. 12:10, 11); whereas no case can be found in which a Prophet or inspired man, acting by express divine direction, in a most momentous crisis, was allowed to fall into such errors in the very act of executing his commission, or another man inspired to record his weakness. (See below, on v. 11.) To the view now taken of the passage no objection can be drawn from the quotation in the last clause, which is simply tantamount to saying, 'I know the law that you refer to (Ex. 22:28), but I am not guilty of its violation.' This is at least as natural and easy a construction as the one which supposes the sudden recollection of the law in question to have brought Paul to his senses and convinced him of his indiscretion. But the question still remains, in what sense Paul could say, I wist not that he was the High Priest, or as the words ought to be translated, I knew not that he is the High Priest. Some say that Paul was not acquainted with his person, on account of his long absence and the frequent changes in the office. The reply often made to this, that the official dress and seat of the High Priest must have revealed him even to a stranger, much more to one so familiar with the Jewish forms and usages as Paul was, is only true upon the doubtful supposition, that this Ananias was the acting High Priest, in the strict sense of the terms, and as such presiding upon this occasion. Another answer is that Paul, from weakness of sight, or looking in a different direction, or the general confusion, did not know from whom the order had proceeded. But besides the statement in v. 3, that Paul addressed the words to him, i.e. to Ananias, this would not have been an answer to the general charge of speaking evil of the rulers of his people. Another objection to both these solutions is that they suppose Paul to mean, 'I did not know him but I know him now,' whereas the present tense (εστι) necessarily implies, that his ignorance, whatever it might be, still continued. The combination of the past and present forms can only be explained by understanding him to mean, 'I did not know (and I do not now know) that he is the High Priest.' This is referred by some to his irregular appointment, or to his having been deposed, or, by a sort of irony, to his personal unworthiness. 'I did not know that such a man could be the High Priest.' But the most satisfactory solution is, that Paul means to deny that Ananias was in any such sense High Priest, as to make him a violator of the law in Exodus. And this he might affirm, on either of the previous suppositions as to this man's actual relation to the office, i.e. whether he was acting now as High Priest, or was only one of many who had filled the office and still bore the title (see above, on v. 2.) This distinction is of less exegetical importance, because Paul's denunciation was not meant to terminate upon the individual, but through him aimed at the entire system, of which he claimed to be the representative. That this is not more clearly stated is a part of that reserve and toleration which distinguish the whole apostolic mode of treating the Mosaic institutions, during this anomalous and doubtful interval. As Paul could at the same time teach the independence of salvation upon all ceremonial observances, and yet conform to them himself for safety or conciliation, so he might virtually represent the priesthood, and the law of which it was the centre, as an abrogated system, without saying so explicitly, as long as God permitted the external framework to continue; a reserve which may have had respect to the prepossessions of the Christian Jews, of which they were not wholly disabused until the great catastrophe, a few years after these events. (See above, on 21:20.) If the views here taken of this difficult and interesting passage are correct, Paul's reply to the reproach of the bystanders may be paraphrased as follows. 'You upbraid me with insulting the High Priest of God, but whom or which of those who bear the name? The very presence of so many claiming this distinction shows how utterly your practice has departed from the ancient one, and makes it scarcely possible to know who or who is not the legitimate successor of Aaron. When I reproved this man, and threatened him with condign judgments for his malice against me and against him whose I am and whom I serve, I did not know, and do not now know that he is the High Priest of God. I know, though you do not, that the office exists only in appearance and in name, and that even that will soon be done away, so as to leave not a vestige of that ancient and divinely constituted priesthood, which I could not have reviled without a flagrant violation of the law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.'

6. When Paul perceived might seem to mean that among those present he now recognized persons belonging to both parties; but the meaning of the Greek is simply, Paul knowing, i.e. knowing it beforehand as a standing fact, and not that he discovered it as something new, by looking round him upon this occasion. Were Sadducees, or more exactly, is (composed) of Sadducees, and the other of Pharisees. These were the two great parties, commonly called sects, between which the nation was divided, and the representatives of which were no doubt as continually present in the Sanhedrim as Whigs and Tories in the British Parliament. (See above, on 4:1; 5:17.) Men (and) brethren, the same friendly but not flattering address which he had used before (in v. 1.) Son of a Pharisee, or as the oldest copies, versions, and Fathers have it, son of Pharisees, which some refer to both his parents, others to the whole line of his ancestry, as far back as these party lines existed, which are commonly hereditary, though the plural form does not exclude particular exceptions. The essential fact asserted is, that his connections had been always with that party, which contended for the national peculiarities of Judaism, in opposition to the liberal or latitudinarian concessions of the Sadducees. In their later and degenerated state, the former had been led to overload the law with mere traditions, and the latter to repudiate even some essential doctrines. Of one such difference between them Paul avails himself by crying, Of (i.e. about, concerning) hope and resurrection of (the) dead I am called in question, literally, judged or tried. By hope and resurrection many understand the hope of such a resurrection, by the figure called hendiadys (see above, on 2:42.) More probably, however, one is a generic and the other a specific term, the hope (of Israel) and (as a necessary part of it, or necessarily connected with it, that of the) resurrection of (the) dead. Now the hope of Israel, when absolutely used, must mean the hope of the Messiah (see below, on 26:6, 7), and this, in Paul's view, was inseparable from the great fact of his resurrection, which again, as he demonstrates in one of his epistles, is the pledge and foretaste of a general resurrection (1 Cor. 15:12–20.) Thus explained, the brief phrase, hope and resurrection of the dead, embraces all that was believed, as to the future, by the Jews in general, and by the Pharisees in particular. There was, therefore, something which the Christians held in common with the Pharisees, but not with the Sadducees, to wit, the doctrine of the resurrection; so that Paul, in making this last effort to conciliate his kinsmen according to the flesh, appeals of course to this remaining link between himself and the school to which he once belonged, abandoning the Sadducees as destitute of any thing on which to found the hope of reconciliation. I am a Pharisee means, therefore, as to this great point of difference between you; nor is this qualification merely left to be inferred, but distinctly intimated in the last clause. As if he had said, 'I am and always have been on the Pharisaic side, and opposed to the Sadducean doctrine with respect to resurrection, which indeed, as I connect it with the hope of a Messiah, is the real although not the obvious occasion of my standing here this day before you.' So a converted Papist might exclaim in an assembly of his former brethren, where the most contradictory opinions were asserted in relation to the doctrines of grace, 'I am Jansenist and always was a Jansenist,' without intending or being understood to express any further acquiescence in their views than as they stood opposed to those of Jesuits and Semipelagians. This view of his meaning, as suggested by the whole connection and the circumstances under which the words were uttered, will prepare us to appreciate the twofold charge which has been urged against him, in addition to the one already mentioned (see above, on v. 5), namely, that he used an unworthy artifice in order to divide his enemies, and that he misrepresented the true nature of the charge against him. The first objection is connected with the arbitrary notion, that this policy was suddenly suggested to him, when forbidden to proceed with his defence; whereas it probably formed part of the defence itself. The other rests upon the false assumption that he gives this as the formal charge alleged against him; whereas he means to say the very opposite, to wit, that this was not the formal charge at all, but that it might be easily reduced to this, as the great principle at issue.

7. He having said this (literally, this he having said) there arose (happened, came to pass, began to be) a dissension, not a mere difference of opinion, but an actual dispute (as in 15:2), or a violent commotion (as in 19:40), not in reference to doctrinal divisions, but to Paul and to the charges which had been alleged against him, as a teacher of apostasy and a profaner of the temple (see above, on 21:28.) The multitude does not mean the people as distinguished from the Sanhedrim or council, but the whole mass or body of the Sanhedrim itself, as distinguished from the parties into which it was divided. (For a like relative use of the same Greek word, see above, on 2:6; 4:32; 6:2, 5; 15:12, 30; 19:9; 21:22.) Divided, rent, split, the Greek verb from which schism is derived (see above, on 14:4, where the whole phrase occurs, both in Greek and English.) The division here described was not a permanent or new one, but a sudden paroxysm of their usual antipathy and party-zeal, immediately produced by Paul's avowal of his Pharisaic sentiments on one important subject, which would irritate one party in the same proportion that it pleased the other.

8. This is Luke's explanation of the effect produced by Paul's appeal to the Pharisees, consisting in a statement of the points of difference between the parties, so far as they affected this division. For, literally, for indeed, or on the one hand, corresponding to the but in the other clause, the two correlative particles employed to balance a Greek sentence or make it antithetical in form (see above, on 1:5.) For Sadducees (without the article) indeed say (i.e. are accustomed so to say or teach) that there is no resurrection (literally, not to be a resurrection) neither angel nor spirit, i.e. any other spirit, the genus of which angel is a species. Or spirit may be used in the specific sense of a disembodied human soul (as in Heb. 12:23.) This additional difference is mentioned, either on account of its connection with the other, since the resurrection of the body necessarily implies a previous separate existence of the disembodied spirit, or because of the allusion to it, made by the Pharisees themselves, in v. 9. It has been disputed how the Sadducees could reconcile their unbelief on this point with their reception of the Pentateuch, if not of the entire Old Testament, in which the reference to angels is so frequent. Some explain this by supposing, that the Sadducees regarded such appearances as transient, or believed that angels were created pro hac vice, and as soon as they had done their work, annihilated or absorbed into the Deity. But without resorting to such methods of solution, we may be content to know from all experience, that no limits can be set to the capacities of sceptical interpretation, which can easily eliminate from Scripture even its most palpable contents. But Pharisees acknowledge both, i.e. both the doctrines which the Sadducees had just been said to disbelieve, that of a future resurrection, and that of the existence of pure spirits. Angel and spirit are so evidently used to express one great idea, that it seems absurd to count them separately, so as with resurrection to make three, and then to ask how both can be applied to more than two. Chrysostom, who ought to be acquainted with Greek usage, says that it was so used; but this, though available in case of exegetical necessity, is not so satisfactory as the explanation which has just been given.

9. That the whole affair was one of passionate excitement, not of rational conviction, is sufficiently apparent from this mention of the cry or clamour. Arose is here employed, not only to express two different ideas, but to render two distinct Greek verbs. The first is that used in v. 7, meaning happened or began to be. The other is a participle and means standing up, arising from their seats, in tumultuous confusion. The Scribes of the part (i.e. party) of the Pharisees (considered as a portion or division of the council), their learned men and professional leaders, the official guardians and expounders of the law (see above, on 4:5.) These would naturally take the lead in doctrinal discussion, or in any other controversy growing out of it. Some suppose that all the Scribes were Pharisees, since none are mentioned, here or elsewhere, as belonging to the other party; while the opposite conclusion has been drawn by others from the form of expression here, which is really ambiguous and may be construed either to mean, 'such Scribes as were of the party of the Pharisees,' or 'the Scribes who were all of the party of the Pharisees.' The truth lies probably between the two extremes, to wit, that the majority of Scribes, as of the Jews in general, was on the Pharisaic side. Such was the magical effect of Paul's avowed agreement with them, that these Scribes, for the time, became his friends and champions, at least as much in opposition to the Sadducees, as from sincere conviction of his innocence. No evil, i.e. crime or ground of condemnation. If a spirit did speak to him or an angel is supposed by some to be a reference to Paul's visions, mentioned in his speech the day before (see above, on 21:14, 17.) There is also an obvious allusion to the Sadducean disbelief, and an indirect profession of their own faith in angels and spirits. In the previous disputes, the Sadducees may possibly have urged these visions as objections to the truth of the Apostle's story. Let us not fight against God is in Greek a compound verb, corresponding to the adjective in 5:39, from which the latest critics suppose it to have been interpolated here, as it is wanting in the oldest manuscripts and versions, and was probably inserted to complete the sentence, which without it is an instance of the figure of speech called aposiopesis. If a spirit did speak to him or an angel (what of that? or what is there incredible in that?) Some modern writers make it interrogative throughout, (what) if a spirit did speak to him or an angel? which amounts to the same thing. In favour of the common text it has been urged, that an interpolation would have probably retained the very form used by Gamaliel (see above, on 5:39.)

10. Much dissension arising, the same noun and verb as in v. 7 above. Fearing, in Greek a passive, meaning frightened or alarmed, and corresponding to afraid in its original participial form (affrayed), though now used only as an adjective. Pulled in pieces, literally, drawn asunder (or apart), which is no doubt to be strictly understood, as implying that both parties seized him and endeavoured to secure his person. Here again the ever watchful care and solicitude of the Roman commander is exemplified. The soldiers is in Greek a collective singular, translated army in v. 27 below, but really meaning in both cases a detachment, or a body of troops, whether large or small. Going down (from the tower or castle of Antonia into the enclosure of the temple, where the Sanhedrim must therefore have been meeting) to seize (or snatch) him from the midst of them, to bring him too (τε) into the camp (or fortified enclosure, see above, on 21:34, 37; 22:24.)

11. It is not surprising that Paul, after this extraordinary series of apologies, rejections, and rescues, should have needed some express encouragement and indication of divine approval. The coming (or ensuing) night, the corresponding phrase to that in 7:26; 16:11; 20:15; 21:18. The night here meant is that which followed the exciting scenes described in vs. 1–10. The Lord, i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ, as in 22:8, 10, 16, 19. Standing by (or over) him, perhaps as he lay upon his bed, though not necessarily in a dream, but rather in a waking vision. Be of good cheer (or courage), be courageous, cheerful. Such exhortations do not necessarily imply excessive or unusual dejection, but are simply assurances of the divine favour and approval. As if he had said, 'Be not troubled or discouraged by this opposition and rejection of thy testimony; it is enough that I approve and will reward thee.' The last clause intimates that he had now performed his mission in Jerusalem, and must turn his face towards Rome for the same purpose. The length of time and various events which were to intervene of course formed no part of this soothing and encouraging disclosure. But what was the testimony thus approvingly referred to as already borne, if not that very utterance to which a sentimental age would now attach the sense of an apology for hasty language and unbridled temper, and that last appeal to Pharisaic orthodoxy, which the scrupulous morality of modern sceptics brands as Jesuitical. If Paul's address to the people was a part of his apostolic testimony, so of course was his defence before the Sanhedrim, and nothing can be more unreasonable than the supposition of his having interrupted this official witness-bearing with a burst of sinful anger, except the supposition that in case he did so, his testimony would have been approved, as it appears to be in this verse, without qualification or reserve. This clause is not a simple warning that he was to suffer in Rome as he had done in Jerusalem, but a promise that having now discharged his functions in the Holy City, he should complete his work as the Apostle of the Gentiles, by appearing in that character at Rome itself.

12. It being (or having become) day, certain of the Jews, or according to the oldest text, simply the Jews, these zealots representing really the spirit and temper of the whole contemporary generation. Banded together, literally, made a combination, the same Greek word that is used above, in 19:40, and there rendered concourse, but here more nearly corresponding to the kindred term concurrence, i.e. concert and collusion. Bound themselves under a curse, in Greek anathematized themselves, i.e. pronounced themselves anathema or cursed of God, unless they executed this engagement. Anathema originally means a deposit, then more particularly something set up or suspended in a temple as a votive offering. Among the Jews it seems to have been used to represent a Hebrew word denoting an irrevocable vow, or something consecrated either to God's special service or to irremissible destruction. (Compare the usage of the Hebrew noun, Lev. 27:21, 28, 29; Num. 18:14; Deut. 7:26; 13:18; 1 Kings 20:42; Isai. 34:5; Zech. 14:11; Mal. 3:24.) Later ecclesiastical usage gave it the sense of excommunication, as in the ancient formula by which the councils of the church condemned essential errors, or denounced the man by whom they were believed or taught, (ἀνάθεμα ἔστω) "let him be anathema," a custom founded on the words of Paul in Gal. 1:8, 9 (compare Rom. 9:3; 1 Cor. 12:3; 16:22.) By such a curse these Jews had bound themselves, i.e. they had invoked the curse upon themselves if they should prove false to the pledge which they had given. Saying (promising, engaging) neither to eat nor drink, an ancient form of oath or vow, of which we have examples in 1 Sam. 14:24; 2 Sam. 3:35. By engaging to abstain from the most essential act or means of life until their promise was redeemed, they gave the strongest proof of their sincerity, and at the same time the most potent stimulus to prompt and energetic action on their own part.

13, 14. That this was not a scheme for the commission of an ordinary murder, is evinced by two things, first, that it was not the act of one or two desperadoes, but the joint resolution of no less than forty, probably well known in the community. The other reason is that it was not kept secret, but submitted to the Sanhedrim, whose tacit approbation gives it both a national and religious character. We have here a specimen of that fanatical yet conscientious zealotry, which ultimately brought about the downfall of Jerusalem (see above, on v. 5, and compare 1:13; 21:20.) We learn from Josephus, that this bigoted and sanguinary zeal was gradually ripening for years before the great catastrophe. The repetition in the last clause seems designed to show the grave deliberation and formality with which they set about their task, not as a crime, but as a pious act by which they thought to do God service, as predicted by our Lord himself (John 16:2.) To taste nothing may be simply equivalent to neither eat nor drink in v. 12 (see above, on 10:10; 20:11), but the idea naturally suggested is that of still more total and exclusive abstinence.

15. The Chief Priests and Elders were not only made acquainted with this plot, but summoned to take part in it, not as individuals but as a body, by bringing Paul into the power of his murderers through false representations to his Roman protector. It was evidently by a vote or act of the whole council that this plausible request was to be made, as it was founded on Paul's previous appearance in that body, and perhaps upon the fact that he had not obtained a hearing, which these zealots now propose to grant him, but with the avowed determination not to let him even reach the council hall alive. The same thing is suggested by the word translated signify, which properly denotes a formal or official notice. Some suppose that this flagitious proposition was made only to the Chief Priests and elders of the Sadducean party, as the Pharisees had openly espoused Paul's cause. But as this effect was owing to a momentary impulse, and as both parties afterwards accused him before Felix (see below, on 24:15), it is better to make no limitation not suggested by the text or context. Bring him down, from the tower of Antonia to the councilchamber, probably within the enclosure of the temple (see above, on v. 10.) As (if) about (or intending) to know thoroughly (or ascertain) more accurately (or exactly) the (things) concerning (or about) him. For the use of the Greek adverb, which is never accurately rendered in our version, see above, on 18:25, 26, and compare the corresponding noun in 22:3. Or ever, an old English phrase, precisely equivalent to before. Ready to kill, or ready for the killing, an unusual construction and peculiarly expressive. The proposal was not to despatch him in the council, but to relieve that body of the whole responsibility, by killing him while still afar off. If the Sanhedrim assented to this proposition, they were guilty of the grossest hypocrisy, as well as of complicity in the proposed murder.

16. The execution of the plot is prevented by its premature disclosure to the Romans. The providential instrument of this disclosure was a relative of Paul himself, not elsewhere mentioned, and the blank attached to whose name it is vain to fill with fanciful conjectures, as for instance, that his mother; the companion of Paul's childhood, was residing in Jerusalem, or that he was sent there, as his uncle had been, to receive his education; or that he accompanied him on this journey. Not only is there nothing gained by such conjectures, but they really detract from the air of authenticity imparted to all narratives by unexplained and incidental reference to facts intrinsically not improbable though often wholly unimportant. (See above, on 20:13.) What is more natural and likely than that Paul should have a nephew, otherwise unknown to history, but providentially employed to baffle the designs of his bloodthirsty enemies? Their lying in wait, literally, the ambuscade or ambush, not in the figurative sense of plot, but with a literal allusion to their plan of watching for him and despatching him while on the way. Heard of seems to imply that it had come to him by rumour, or that he had overheard their secret plottings. But the Greek text simply represents him as hearing the (plan of) ambuscade itself, i.e. hearing it proposed in some assembly, probably the Sanhedrim, as stated in v. 14. The whole affair appears to have been publicly concerted, at least so far as related to the Jews, the only concealment necessary being from the prisoner himself and from his Roman guardians. The providential fact that a near relative of Paul was in the midst of them, and in attendance on their meetings, was of course unknown to them and unsuspected; yet to this was owing the defeat of the whole project. Entered into the castle, which was probably accessible to any person, but especially to Paul's friends, as we know to have been the case at Cesarea (see below, on 24:23.) Told him, reported to him, brought him word, the same word that is used above in 4:23; 5:22, 25; 11:13; 12:14, 17; 15:27; 16:36.

17. The graphic minuteness with which all the details of this transaction are recorded may be due to Paul's own vivid recollection of the scene, but still more naturally seem to imply that the historian witnessed it himself, although we have no certain information whether Luke was with Paul till the time of his setting sail from Palestine to Italy (see below, on 27:1), when the use of the first person is again resumed (see above, on 16:10; 20:5.) One of the centurions on duty near him, or perhaps in charge of him (see above, on 22:25.) Bring, literally, take (or lead) away, implying that the Tribune was not close at hand. This youth, the word applied to Paul himself upon his first appearance in the history (see above, on 7:58.) To tell him, or report to him, as in the close of the preceding verse.

18. The deference paid to Paul's request may have been partly owing to humanity and partly to an interest in his mysterious character and mission, but perhaps more than either to his recognition as a Roman citizen (see above, on 22:25, 26.) The prisoner Paul may mean no more than that he was confined to the precincts of the camp or castle; but it may be, that the bonds, which are described as loosed in 22:30, had been now replaced and that he was again chained to a soldier (see above, on 12:6; 21:33.) Calling me to (him) asked, may have been intended to suggest that the centurion had not volunteered his services or begun the conversation, which might have seemed to show too great an interest in the prisoner and too familiar an acquaintance with him. Bring is the strict translation of the verb here used, which is the simple uncompounded form of that employed in the preceding verse. Who hath, literally, having, an active participle which agrees grammatically with young man or youth.

19. Taking his hand, or taking him by the hand, a mark of affability and kindness, which are not so strange and misplaced in a Roman officer of rank, as to imply a special divine influence compelling him to act in opposition to his real dispositions, although this, as well as every other part of the transaction, was undoubtedly controlled and ordered by an all-wise Providence, as means to an important end. Aside privately, are not in Greek two adverbs in immediate juxtaposition; but the former is included in the compound verb, which means to withdraw or retire (compare Matt. 4:12; 12:15; Mark 3:7; John 6:15), and from which, in its later application, is derived the English anchorite. Privately, apart, alone. The seeming eagerness of this interrogation is explained not only by Paul's sending him, but also by the commander's anxious wish to know the cause of Paul's arrest, and also perhaps the state of public feeling. No military service, probably, was ever more solicitous or harassing than that of Roman officers in Palestine, at this eventful epoch, when the whole nation was in such a state of feverish mobility, that a popular outbreak might be daily looked for. This anxiety was naturally heightened, in the case before us, by imperfect information and a want of personal acquaintance with the language and the institutions of the country. It would be amusing to observe the symptoms of this ignorant solicitude, combined with great professional sagacity and promptness, and with traits of natural nobility, if it were not all connected with the painful trials of the great Apostle, and the fearful doom impending over Israel.

20. Although the facts had all been previously stated, they are here repeated, no doubt in the very words employed by Paul's nephew, who most probably addressed both his uncle and the officer in Greek. The Jews again implies that this was only a fortuitous display of the spirit which now governed the whole nation (see above, on v. 12.) Agreed, literally, put together or combined, i.e. concerted or devised a plan. (Compare the use of the same verb in Luke 22:5; John 9:22.) To ask, desire, or request (see above, on v. 18; 3:3; 10:48; 16:39; 18:20), implying that they could not claim it as a right, or at least choose to ask it as a favour. As though, etc., precisely as in v. 15, except that know is here exchanged for inquire, both verbs in Greek usage meaning secondarily to ascertain.

21. But should be then or therefore, i.e. because the real motive of their plausible request is what he then proceeds to state. Yield to them, literally, be persuaded by them, as in 5:40, where it is translated by the verb agreed. Lie in wait, the verb corresponding to the noun in v. 16 above. Of them, literally, out of, from among them, which again implies that there was nothing peculiar in the spirit or the conduct of these forty zealots, but that they were merely representatives and agents of all Israel. Bound with an oath, the same verb that is rendered, bound under a curse in v. 12, but in the margin, with an oath of execration. That they will, etc., literally, neither to eat nor drink. Killed, not the verb used in vs. 12, 14, but that in v. 15, and often elsewhere, corresponding very nearly to despatch or make away with (see above, on 2:23; 22:20.) Looking for (i.e. expecting or awaiting) a promise (i.e. an assent to their proposal, an agreement to produce Paul as they wished.) Some prefer the sense of order, others that of notice or announcement, both which are agreeable to Classical but not to Hellenistic usage, or at least not to that of the New Testament, in which it always means a promise. For the usage of the book before us, see above, on 1:4; 2:33, 39; 7:17; 13:23.)

22. So then the chiliarch dismissed the youth, charging (or having charged, or strictly ordered) him. (For the meaning of the first verb, see above, on 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40; 13:3; 15:30, 33; 16:35, 36; 17:9; 19:41; for that of the second, on 1:4; 4:18; 5:28, 40; 10:42; 15:5; 16:18, 23; 17:30.) The English version changes the construction for the sake of uniformity, the Greek abruptly passing from the third to the first and second persons. Charging him to tell no one, that thou hast disclosed these (things) to me. The same end might have been secured by inserting saith he, as in 1:4. To tell, or more exactly, to speak out, or as we say in English, let out. Disclosed, the verb translated signify in v. 15 above. This prohibition was of course intended to gain time for sending Paul away, before the zealots knew that their design had been betrayed.

23. Calling to (him) some (or certain) two (an idiomatic phrase not easily expressed in English) of the centurions (under his command, of whom there were usually ten in a legion, as denoted by the titles, chiliarch, commander of a thousand, and centurion, commander of a hundred men. (See above, on 10:1; 21:31.) Make ready is in Greek a single word, prepare, provide. Soldiers, when absolutely used, denotes the heavy armed infantry of ancient warfare. To (as far as) Cesarea, on the Mediterranean coast, the Roman capital of Judea. (See above, on 8:40; 9:30; 10:1, 24; 11:11; 12:19; 18:22; 21:8, 16.) Since the death of Herod Agrippa, recorded in this book (see above, on 12:23), Judea had again become a part of the great Roman province of Syria, and was governed by deputies (or procurators) of the Syrian proconsul. Spearmen is in Greek a word occurring nowhere else in ancient Greek, supposed by some to be a term in popular but not in written use, apparently compounded of right hand and take, and variously explained as meaning those who take the right hand of the king, or of the general, or of the army; or those who take a weapon in the right hand, as a spear or dart; while one of the oldest manuscripts presents a different form compounded of right hand and cast or throw, a reading also found in the Peshito or old Syriac version. It is now commonly agreed that it denotes some kind of light troops, as distinguished from the heavy infantry and cavalry which are separately mentioned. Surprise has sometimes been expressed that so large a force should have been needed to protect Paul against forty zealots. But besides that these were only representatives of the popular feeling in Jerusalem, the country was at this time in a most unsettled state, and travelling particularly dangerous to strangers. At (literally, from, i.e. beginning, setting out from) the third hour of the night, according to the Roman computation, about nine o'clock of our time (see above, on 2:15; 3:1; 10:3, 9, 30.) This was late enough to escape observation, and early enough to give them a long night-journey.

24. Beasts too (τε) to provide (or furnish), i.e. riding animals, horses, mules, or asses. That mounting Paul, they might bring (him) safe (literally, save him through) to Felix the governor. The last word is generic (meaning leader or a leading man) and applied in Greek to any class of Roman governors. Claudius Felix, or Antonius Felix, as the different historians call him, perhaps because he was a freedman or emancipated slave of the emperor Claudius and also of his mother Antonia. His brother Pallas was a favourite of Nero, and through his influence Felix was made Procurator of Judea, at first either jointly with Cumanus or alone. He is described by his contemporaries as a cruel, avaricious and licentious man. Tacitus, in one of his most famous sentences, exhibits him as one who exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave. He showed great energy, however, in suppressing the commotions of the country, and especially in quelling the insurgent zealots, commonly called thieves or robbers, but not in the ordinary sense of the expression. (Compare Matt. 21:13; 26:55; 27:38; Luke 10:30; John 10:1, 8; 18:40; 2 Cor. 11:26.) On the other hand, he hired assassins to kill Jonathan the High Priest, to whose influence he partly owed his own appointment.

25, 26. Writing (or having written) an epistle containing this type, i e. form of words, though some prefer the opposite sense of sketch or draught, as distinguished from the very words, in which sense the term is said to be employed by Plato. V. 26 discloses, for the first time, and in a very natural and simple way, the name of the Tribune or Chief Captain, with whom the narrative has made us so familiar. Both names are common, one in Latin, one in Greek, which last is supposed by some to have been his native language, as he was only a Roman citizen by purchase (see above, on 22:28.) As Greek was in such extensive use, there is no need of supposing that this letter is translated from the Latin. It is not impossible that Paul obtained it at the time from Felix or the officer in charge of him, though some suppose that it was sent to Rome and Luke there found it in the public archives. Most excellent, the word so rendered in Luke 1:3, and most noble in 24:3; 26:25 below. It was a title of respect to public officers, like honourable, right honourable, excellency, etc. Sendeth greeting, literally, to rejoice, the usual salutatory formula in Greek epistles, used above in that from the council at Jerusalem to the Syrian and Cilician churches, and also in that of the Apostle James (see above, on 15:23, and compare James 1:1.)

27. The original construction is, this man, having been seized by the Jews, &c., I rescued him, the last pronoun being pleonastic. Should have been killed is now an equivocal expression, which might seem to mean, he ought to have been killed, whereas the Greek means simply, and about to be dispatched (for the usage of the two verbs, see above, on vs. 15, 21.) Then came I, literally, standing over, the same verb that occurs above in v. 11, but here applied to sudden attack, as in 4:1; 6:12; 7:5. With an army, with the garrison, the forces under his command (see above, on v. 10, where it is translated soldiers.) Rescued, literally, took out (or away) from them (see above, on 7:10, 34; 12:11, where deliver or delivered is the English version.) Having learned (or learning) that he is a Roman. This inaccurate expression has been often represented as a wilful falsehood on the part of Claudius Lysias, intended to conceal his own precipitate treatment of a Roman citizen and at the same time to display his zeal for the honour of the Roman name. But this elaborate invention, which a word from Paul or the accompanying soldiers would have instantly refuted, is far less natural and likely than the supposition of mere negligence, precisely such as a commanding officer might readily fall into, when reporting his own actions. As he did eventually save a Roman citizen from Jewish fury, he could scarcely be expected to report his first mistake and subsequent correction. This very negligence, in point of fact as well as of expression, is a much stronger proof of authenticity than that afforded by the supposed falsehood.

28, 29. Wishing to know the cause for which (or on account of which) they were accusing him, I brought him forth (literally, down, as in vs. 15, 20, and in 22:30) into their council, consistory, synedrion, of which sanhedrim is a corruption (see above, on 4:15.) Perceived, literally, found, discovered, with an implication of surprise and novelty. Accused of questions seems to represent the questions as themselves the crimes of which he was accused; whereas the meaning is, accused concerning questions, i.e. charged with crimes involving or relating to such questions (or discussions) of their law, the law of Moses, the whole Jewish system. But having no charge (i.e. being charged with nothing) worthy of death or bonds (i.e. confinement or imprisonment.) Compare this Roman estimate of Jewish strifes with that of Gallio (in 18:14, 15), and that of Festus (in 25:18, 19.)

30. But a plot against the man having been reported to me, (as) about (or that it was about) to be (attempted) by the Jews. For the word plot, see above, on 9:24; 20:3, 19; reported, compare John 11:57; 1 Cor. 10:28.) To be (or come into existence) by (or on the part of) the Jews, is an unusual construction, both in Greek and English; but the sense is plain. At once (forthwith, the word employed in 10:33; 11:11; 21:32), without further hesitation or delay. Having charged (or ordered, the verb used above in v. 22) the accusers also, to say the (things) concerning (or against) him before thee, a peculiar phrase appropriated to judicial hearing, as in Matt. 28:14, where the meaning is, if this come to be heard before the governor, or tried at his tribunal. The order mentioned in this verse was no doubt given after Paul's departure, but before the letter could reach Felix, and is therefore mentioned in the past tense, not with an intention to deceive, but in accordance with ancient epistolary usage, which has reference in such forms to the time of reading, not of composition. Farewell, be strong or healthy, the usual concluding formula of Greek epistles (see above, on 15:29, where the plural of the same Greek word occurs.)

31. The danger being greatest near Jerusalem, a large part of the military escort only went about two-thirds of the distance, leaving Paul to be conducted to his journey's end by the smallest of the three divisions, which was mounted. Soldiers, in the first clause, may be used generically for the whole detachment, or specifically, as in v. 23, for the heavy-armed infantry, who constituted the main force of every Roman army, whether large or small. In favour of the latter explanation is the form of expression in the first clause of v. 32. So then, as in v. 22, i.e. accordingly, in execution of these plans and orders. As it was (literally, according to the thing) commanded them, referring to the orders before given (see above, on vs. 23, 24.) Took, or more exactly, taking up, which is not only the original and proper sense of the Greek verb, but its invariable usage in this book (see above, on 1:2, 11:22; 7:43; 10:16; 20:13, 14.) It may here have reference to Paul's being mounted (see above, on v. 24.) Commanded, not the verb employed in vs. 22, 30, but the one used in 7:44; 18:2; 20:13, and originally meaning to arrange, with special application to military disposition or array, in which sense it may here be taken, as the orders had specific reference to the arrangements of the march and escort. Brought, led, conducted, as in vs. 10, 18 (compare 21:34; 22:24.) By night, literally, through (or in the course of) the night (see above, on 1:3; 16:9), which naturally seems to mean the first night, or the same night upon which they set out. To (or into) Antipatris, according to Josephus anciently called Capher Saba, but rebuilt by Herod the Great and named in honour of his father, Antipater the Idumean. The Crusaders identified it with a town upon the sea-coast; but the description in Josephus shows that it must have been some miles in the interior. He also speaks of it as situated on a stream; but this may have been nothing more than an occasional or temporary torrent flowing through the adjacent valley from the mountains. If so, there can be no doubt that the place is that described by Smith and Robinson, and still called by the ancient name, though partially concealed by needless variations of orthography. This is one of the most striking and instructive instances of old names surviving, in the local or popular tradition, those which had displaced them by authority or in the dialect of books, eighteen hundred years ago. According to the old itineraries, Antipatris was twenty-six Roman miles from Cesarea, and forty-two from Jerusalem. On the ground that this distance was too great to be accomplished, even by a forced march, in a single night, some suppose that the night meant is the second after their departure from Jerusalem, which seems to make the time as much too long; others, that the chief part of the journey was performed at night, but that they arrived at Cesarea in the course of the next day.

32, 33. The meaning of the first phrase, on the morrow (or the next day), will depend of course upon that of the one just explained in the preceding verse. According to the sense there preferred, the day here meant will be either the first or second after their departure from Jerusalem. Left, or more exactly, let, i.e. suffered or permitted (as in 5:38; 14:16; 16:7; 19:30) the horsemen to go (go on, proceed, or journey, as in v. 23, and in 8:26; 9:3; 16:7; 17:14; 19:21; 20:1; 21:5; 22:5, 21.) The grammatical subject is the same as in v. 31, to wit, the soldiers, who are here distinguished from the horsemen, and must therefore have the more restricted meaning in both cases. The spearmen or light infantry are not here mentioned, but as being an auxiliary force they probably accompanied the main force on its return to its camp or quarters in the castle of Antonia (see above, on 21:34, 37; 22:24; 23:10, 16.) There is something in the promptness and precision of these movements, both as to the order and its execution, that is perfectly in keeping with all that we know otherwise of the Roman discipline, and therefore the less likely to have been invented by a Greek physician, or any other foreign and unmilitary writer. Who, at the beginning of v. 33, refers back to horsemen in v. 32, a syntax less abrupt in the original, because the pronoun here employed, though often used precisely like the simple relative (as in vs. 14, 21 above), sometimes refers to the remoter antecedent (as in 17:11), or resumes an interrupted construction (as in 21:4.)

34, 35. The governor is not found in the oldest manuscripts and latest critical editions, but is readily supplied from the preceding verse. Reading (or having read), perhaps aloud, as an official form, which is the stricter and more ancient application of the verb in Greek, though afterwards employed (like the corresponding verb in Hebrew, which originally means to call) even in reference to silent reading. (See above, on 8:28, 30, 32; 13:27; 15:21, 31.) The object of the verb is not expressed but easily supplied, to wit, the letter, mentioned in v. 33, or the pronoun it, referring to the same. Having asked, not merely out of private curiosity, but in a judicial or official way, as seems to be suggested by the Greek verb, which is that employed in 5:27, and there explained (but see above, on 1:6.) Province, eparchy, the domain, jurisdiction of an eparch, a term used by the later Greek historians to denote the Roman ruler of a conquered country. He was, or more exactly, is, the direct form of narration being gradually substituted for the indirect, as in v. 22 above, but less abruptly; or the present tense may be intended to call up the scene as actually passing (see above, on vs. 5, 6, and compare 7:25; 9:26, 38; 12:9; 19:34; 22:29.) Having learned (or ascertained) by inquiry, which the verb itself denotes (see above, on vs. 19, 20, and compare 4:7; 10:18, 29; 21:33), and which is here expressly mentioned in the clause immediately preceding. That (he is or was) of (or more exactly from, i.e. belonging to, as in 6:9; 10:23; 14:19; 15:5, 19; 17:13; 21:16, 27) Cilicia (see above, on 6:9; 15:23, 41; 21:39; 22:3.) Hear thee, or more emphatically, hear thee through, i.e. examine thy whole case from the beginning, as the Roman magistrates were required to do, by a law still extant in the Pandects of Justinian, when a prisoner was sent from an inferior tribunal or authority, with a statement of the charge against him, technically called elogium. (Qui cum elogio mittuntur ex integro audiendi sunt.) The hearing meant is therefore a judicial audience and investigation. (See above, on v. 30, and compare the place in Matthew there referred to, where the simple verb to hear has the same judicial meaning.) Thy accusers, the Jews mentioned in the letter of Claudius Lysias, as having been directed to appear before the Procurator (see above, on v. 30.) Are come, are present, on the ground, arrived, the same verb that is used in v. 16, and often elsewhere (see above, on 5:21; 9:26; 10:32; 11:23; 13:14; 14:27; 15:4; 17:10; 18:27; 20:18; 21:18.) The connection of these clauses is historical not logical, as some suppose, who understand Luke as saying that Felix would not undertake to hear the case, until he knew that Paul was of Cilicia; just as Pilate, when he heard that Christ was of Galilee, sent him to be tried by Herod (Luke 23:7.) But the cases are not parallel, as Felix only ruled Judea as a deputy (or procurator, see above, on vs. 23, 24), and had no authority whatever in Cilicia. His question in relation to Paul's province is to be connected, not with what follows but with what precedes, that is to say, with the statement which he had just read in the elogium of Claudius Lysias, that Paul was a Roman citizen, and as such probably enrolled or registered in some division of the empire, to determine which the question was proposed, and not as a condition of the promise in the next clause, which was not dependent upon Paul's nativity or residence, but absolutely binding as a part of the governor's official duty. He commanded him too (τε) to be kept (or guarded as a prisoner, see above, on 12:4) in the Praetorium of Herod. The Praetorium was originally the commander's tent in an encampment (from the ancient military sense of Praetor), but the term was afterwards applied to the official residence of governors, and finally to any large palatial building. Here, no doubt it has the second of these senses, and denotes the palace of the Roman governor at Cesarea, at this time actually occupied by Felix. It is probably called Herod's, because built by Herod the Great, or perhaps by his grandson Herod Agrippa, for his own use when the sovereign of the country, and the scene of his melancholy death; for although smitten in the theatre, he lingered five or six days, both which circumstances are recorded by Josephus and entirely consistent with Luke's narrative (see above, on 12:23.) When Judea was again annexed to Syria and consigned to Procurators (see above, on v. 23), this palace of the former kings at Cesarea would of course become the official residence of their successors, and from them most probably derived the Latin name by which it is described in this verse. From these local statements, and from what is said in 24:23 below, it is plain that Paul, although under confinement or arrest, was not committed to a common prison.

CHAPTER 24

THIS chapter contains Paul's third Apology or self-defence, delivered before Felix (1–21), and his subsequent transactions with that governor (22–27) He is formally accused by the High Priest and Elders through an advocate (1–4.) The charges are the old ones of sedition, schism, and sacrilege (5, 6.) There is also a complaint of the Chief Captain's interference, and a reference to him for further information, with a full assent to all these statements, on the part of the Jews present (7–9.) Paul congratulates himself on the Procurator's knowledge of the country and the people, states the time and purpose of his visit to Jerusalem, denies the charge of having disturbed the public peace, and all the other charges brought against him (10–13.) He then more positively defines his relation to the Jewish Church and the Theocracy (14–16.) He then recurs to the time and purpose of his coming, tells how and where he was arrested, complains of the absence of his first accusers, and challenges those present to bring any other charge against him (17–21.) Felix, perceiving how the matter stands, postpones it, and commands Paul to be mildly treated (22–23.) To gratify his wife, he summons Paul again before him, not to defend himself, but to explain the new religion, in hearing which his conscience is alarmed and he remands the prisoner (24–25.) During the next two years he often talks with him, but only for the purpose of extorting money, failing in which attempt, and anxious to conciliate the Jews at the close of his administration, he leaves Paul still a prisoner at his departure (26–27.)

1. The five days have been variously reckoned from Paul's arrival in Cesarea, and from the order given to the Sanhedrim (see above, on 23:30); but nothing of historical or exegetical importance is dependent on this question, though the mention of the fact is an incidental proof of authenticity. Descended, went down, from Jerusalem to Cesarea, implying both a physical and moral difference of elevation (see above, on 9:32; 18:22, and often elsewhere.) The High Priest Ananias, who was previously mentioned in the same terms (see above, on 23:2.) Even here, though natural, it is not necessary, to explain the title in its strictest sense, as a well known chief priest (or former high priest) might be sent to represent the actual incumbent, more conveniently perhaps than he could leave Jerusalem himself. The necessity for this interpretation, however, is removed if, according to the latest investigations, Josephus does represent Ananias as acquitted and sent back from Rome, and still retaining his High Priesthood. He is then to be regarded here as representing, not an official superior, but the whole Sanhedrim and nation. With the elders, or as several of the oldest manuscripts and versions have it, some (or certain) elders, which is no doubt implied (though not expressed) in the received text, as the whole Presbytery, or estate of elders (see above, on 4:5; 22:5), could appear at Cesarea only by their delegates. A certain orator, a Greek word originally meaning speaker, but specially applied to public speakers in the national assemblies, then to advocates, and finally to teachers of eloquence or rhetoricians, a word derived from that here used. It is here used, no doubt, in the last but one of these senses, to denote what the Romans called an orator forensis or causidicus. From the name Tertullus (a diminutive of Tertius, like Catullus from Catius, and Lucullus from Lucius), and the well-known custom, to which Cicero refers, of young Romans practising at first in the provinces before they ventured to appear at home, some have inferred that the advocate here mentioned was of this description, and that he must have spoken in Latin. But the Jews of that age, and of every other till the present time, have been so accustomed to bear Gentile names, that nothing can be gathered from this circumstance with certainty (see above, on 1:13, 23; 6:5; 13:9; 17:7; 18:2, 7.) And even if Tertullus was a Roman, there was nothing strange in their employing him to plead their cause before a Roman magistrate, especially if (as Valerius Maximus affirms) the Latin language was employed in all the tribunals of the empire, even Greeks and orientals being forced to use it or to plead through an interpreter. On the other hand, a later Greek historian (Dio Cassius) represents his own tongue as continually heard in the Senate and the courts of Rome itself. Both statements may be reconciled, not only by referring them to different dates, but even at the same time by supposing such a joint use of the languages as now exists in Canada and Louisiana, where speeches are delivered, in the same assemblies, on the same occasions, both in French and English. Who, the relative employed above in 23:14, 21, 33, and here intended to include the remoter antecedent (Ananias) as well as the nearer (the elders and Tertullus), as taking part in the act described. Informed, in the forensic or judicial sense, of which we have examples in the English terms, informer, criminal information. etc. The Greek verb literally means to show or make appear, and is the same with that employed in 23:15, 22. The Geneva version (appeared before the governor) is inconsistent both with the form and usage of the Greek word. Whether this information was in writing or by word of mouth, is not determined by the narrative, and happily of no importance. The original expression may include both modes of accusation, i.e. written charges amplified in oral argument, an English parallel to which is furnished by the technical and popular sense of pleading.

2. He (Paul) having been called (cited or summoned to appear), according to the Roman law, which suffered no man to be judged without a hearing and an opportunity of self-defence (see below, on 25:16.) Began to accuse is not a pleonasm (see above, on 1:1; 2:4; 11:4; 18:26), but may be intended to suggest that only the beginning of Tertullus's oration is recorded, at least with any fulness, the rest being given in a summary or abstract. As if he had said, 'Tertullus then accused him in a speech, of which the exordium was as follows.' This exordium is an apt example of the conciliatory introduction (captatio benevolentiae) prescribed by Cicero and other rhetoricians, and from its very nature complimentary, so that the charges of gross flattery and lying, brought by almost all interpreters against Tertullus, although not without foundation, are a little overcharged, as will appear from the particulars recorded in the next verse.

3. The change of collocation in the version partially conceals the rhetorical and classical form of the original, which opens with the leading or emphatic words, Much peace enjoying through thee, etc. Peace, not in the vague sense of prosperity, nor even in the more precise one of tranquillity or quiet, but in the proper and specific one of freedom or deliverance from war and the commotions which attend it. To such disturbances the Holy Land had long been subject (see above, on 23:12, 23), partly from religious causes, and in quelling them Felix had been active and successful, having seized and sent to Rome a famous robber (i.e. zealot or guerilla partisan) named Eleazar, besides suppressing the rebellion spoken of in 21:38 above, and other prompt and energetic measures mentioned by Josephus. For these administrative acts the terms here used by Tertullus can scarcely be regarded as extravagant, or certainly not more so than was warranted by Greek and Roman usage. That the crimes of Felix are not also set forth, is a negative objection, which applies with equal force to the Apology of Paul himself. Nothing is gained by these exaggerated charges of deception, even against wicked men, which are often copied by one writer from another, till they finally almost become as disingenuous as that by which they were at first provoked. Apart from these traditional invectives, the oration of Tertullus is an average sample of forensic adulation in all ages. Enjoying, or obtaining, lighting upon, happening to acquire or be possessed of. (See above, on 19:11, where the participle of the same verb is employed to denote what usually happens and is therefore common.) By (or through) thee, by thy means or agency. Very worthy deeds, in Greek a single word denoting what is rightly done (recte facta, as Cicero defines it), but specially applied to martial achievements or exploits, and therefore here appropriate to the military or coercive measures which had just been mentioned. The Vulgate version (multa corrigantur), which makes it mean reformatory measures, rests upon another reading (διορθωμάτων for κατορθωμάτων) found in several of the oldest manuscripts, but not regarded by the critics as the true text. Done, happened, come to pass, or brought about, the same verb as in 23:7, 9, 10, 12. This nation is supposed by some to imply necessarily that the speaker was a Gentile; but although the conclusion is probably correct, the proof is insufficient, as Paul uses an analogous expression (this people) in speaking to the Jews themselves (see above, on 13:17.) By (or rather through) thy providence (or foresight) as an attribute of administrative wisdom. This was a favourite mode of flattery in that age, as appears from its occurrence on imperial coins (Providentia Cæsaris), a part of the idolatrous process, by which the Roman Emperors arrogated to themselves divine honours. Always and everywhere, or, preserving the original alliteration, at all times and in all places. Some connect this with what goes before, as a part of the description of the Procurator's merit, 'done to this nation through thy constant and universal providence;' but most interpreters connect it with what follows, always and everywhere (not merely now and in thy presence) we accept, and by implication thankfully acknowledge. (For the strong sense of the Greek verb, see above, on 2:41; 15:4; 18:27.) Most noble, excellent, or honourable, the same honorary epithet employed by Claudius Lysias in his letter (see above, on 23:26), and afterwards applied by Paul himself to Festus (see below, on 26:25), as it is by Luke to the person for whom both his books were originally written (see above, on 1:1, and compare Luke 1:3.) But for these examples, the use of the term here would probably have been among the sins imputed to Tertullus. As the epithet relates to the office, not the person, it was just as appropriate to Felix as to Festus, although very different in moral character (see below, on v. 27.) With all thankfulness, or all the gratitude to which such favours are entitled, whether great or small, and therefore not to be denounced as hypocritical exaggeration. The Greek noun is used elsewhere only by Paul (e.g. 1 Cor. 14:16; 1 Tim. 2:1), and John (Rev. 4:9; 7:12), but in later ecclesiastical usage was applied specifically to the Lord's Supper or Communion, on account of the thanksgiving (eucharist) by which it was accompanied. In both these cases, it denotes not merely the internal feeling but its audible expression. (For the sense of all, as here used, see above, on 4:29; 5:23; 12:11; 13:10; 17:11; 20:19; 23:1.)

4. Notwithstanding indicates an opposition or antithesis which does not really exist, the Greek word being nothing but the usual continuative particle (δέ), so often rendered but or and. That I may not more detain (or hinder) thee, a verb originally meaning to out in or into, then to stop one's way (as by a ditch), or cross one's path, to intercept, impede a person's progress. I pray (invite, exhort, beseech) thee, the verb so used in 8:31; 9:38; 13:42; 16:9; 15, 39; 19:31; 21:12. To hear us, the Jews, with whom be identifies himself as actually being one of them, or as an advocate, who makes his client's cause his own. Of thy clemency, or in thy moderation and impartiality (compare the cognate adjective in Phil 4:5.) The essential idea is not so much that of kindness or gentleness, as that of fairness, reasonableness, freedom from extremes of every kind. This is a peculiarly judicial virtue, and is therefore pertinently here appealed to. A few words is in Greek an adverb, corresponding, both in etymology and sense, to our concisely, an abbreviated but intelligible phrase for hear us speak concisely. This promise to be brief might almost seem to have been caused by some appearance of impatience in the Procurator, at the prospect of a formal and elaborate harangue. There would then be no need of supposing that the rest of the oration has been less fully given than the introduction (see above, on v. 2), the difference, on that supposition, being not in the report but in the speech itself.

5. The exordium being ended, he proceeds to the statement of the case itself. For may have reference to the request and implied promise in the verse preceding. 'We only ask your impartial attention to a few words; for all we have to say is, that having found, &c.' A pest (or plague), a natural and common figure in all languages for one who is at the same time troublesome and mischievous. It is so used by the two great orators, Demosthenes and Cicero, who speaks of different persons as the pest of the republic, of the state, and of the empire (pestis reipublicae, civitatis, imperii.) Pestilent fellow, though essentially correct, is a needless departure from the form of the original. Finding may either have its strict sense, and refer to their detection or discovery of Paul in the temple; or be taken in the secondary sense of ascertaining, finding out. Upon the meaning of this verb depends the construction of the clause, which may be either 'having found this man (who is) a pest,' or, 'having found this man (to be) a pest.' In either case, the syntax is irregular, the sentence having no finite verb, except in its relative dependent clause (see v. 6.) The sense is clear, however, and such freedom of expression may be found in the best writers of all languages, in whom it is frequently applauded as a beauty, while in Scripture it is censured as an imperfection. Here, however, it is perfectly in keeping as a natural effect of the orator's precipitate attempt to cut short what he saw would rather give offence than please. Moving, stirring up, exciting, see above, on 21:30. Sedition (literally, rising, standing up) may either have its proper sense of insurrection, or its secondary sense of strife, dissension (see above, on 15:2; 19:40; 23:7, 10.) Paul was really accused of both crimes, that of sowing strife among the Jews themselves, and that of rousing them against their Roman masters (see above, on 16:20, 21; 17:6, 7; 18:13; 21:28.) The ambiguous term may have been selected to suggest both these ideas; but the former is the one especially presented in the context. To all the Jews, not only among them, but to their injury or disadvantage. Throughout the inhabited (or civilized world), i.e. the Roman Empire, or indefinitely everywhere, in all directions. (See above, on 11:28; 17:6, 31; 19:27.) A ringleader too (τε, introducing an afterthought or supplementary idea, see above, on 1:13), not only a public pest in his own person, but the leader of a dangerous organization. The Greek noun is a military term, used by Thucydides to signify the front man on the right of an army in array, but afterwards more generally to denote a front rank man, and metaphorically, any leader. The sect (or party, see above, on 5:17; 15:5) of the Nazarenes, the followers of the Nazarene, contemptuously so called (see above, on 2:22.) Although this designation in the plural form occurs only here, it was probably in common use among the Jews, as Christians was among the Gentiles (see above, on 11:26), until after the destruction of Jerusalem, when Nazarene became the name of a Christian sect, which still adhered to the Mosaic law, but with less exclusive rigour, and with worthier notions of the Saviour, than the kindred party of the Ebionites (see above, on 21:20.)

6. An additional specification of the general charge. He was not only a pest, and a ringleader of the Nazarenes, but had attempted a particular offence against the law and the religion of the Jews, that of profaning the temple, literally, rendering accessible, depriving of its consecration, making common (see above, on 10:14, 15, where the verb, however, is not the same, as it is in Matt. 12:5.) Hath gone about, the old English phrase for sought or tried. (See above, on 21:31, where it represents a synonymous Greek verb.) The charge of actual desecration (see above, on 21:28) is here softened down to that of merely attempting it, perhaps because they had discovered their mistake (see above, on 21:29), or because they were unable to prove what they at first alleged. Whom also (καί, not expressed in the version), corresponding to who also in the first clause, both belonging to the summary or recapitulatory style, like the Latin item in an enumeration of particulars, and showing either that we have only a brief abstract of the speech, or that Tertullus found it necessary simply to recite the heads or salient points of the charge which he would otherwise have stated at full length. As if he had said, 'Another point is his connection with the Nazarenes; another his attempted profanation of the temple; another, the way in which we were prevented from trying him ourselves.' Whom also we took, laid hold on, seized, arrested (see above, on 2:24; 3:11.) And would have judged, in modern English, wished, desired to do so (see above, on 7:39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 19:33.) Judged, i.e. tried, according to due form of law (see above, on 17:31; 23:3, 6.)

7. Coming by (or along), as if by accident, the idea of attack being not expressed but suggested by what follows. With great violence (or much force) out of our hands took (literally, led) him away. There are several points here, in which the facts are, no doubt wilfully, misrepresented, so as to exhibit the conduct of the Jews in a more favourable light than that of Paul and Claudius Lysias, whose interference was at once injurious to their interests and humbling to their pride. That they wished to try Paul according to their law, is wholly at variance with the fact that they were beating him to death when the chief captain rescued him (see above, on 21:31, 32.) That rescue, therefore, was not from the peaceful protection of the law by brute force, as they here insidiously intimate, but from their own brute force by a lawful exercise of military power. The misrepresentation is the worse for being rather hinted than expressed; and although this may be ascribed in part to the professional adroitness of Tertullus, it no doubt entered into the concerted policy of those for whom he pleaded, and from whom he had of course received his instructions.

8. The first clause adds a supplementary complaint against the Tribune, who had not only thus deprived them of the privilege of trying Paul according to the law which he was charged with breaking, but had put them to great inconvenience by requiring them to come to Cesarea and accuse him before Felix. Here again the fact is truly stated, very much as Claudius Lysias had stated it himself (see above, on 23:30); and yet the whole connection irresistibly conveys the impression that they had not been well treated, and evinces a strong feeling of resentment against Lysias, who had acted so decidedly and conscientiously in opposition to their murderous designs. This clause, however, with the whole of the preceding verse, is rejected by the latest critics because not found in the oldest extant manuscripts; but this omission makes the speech, already brief, so strangely meagre, and the introduction of the passage is so hard to be accounted for, that its genuineness, is, on the whole, more probable than its interpolation, as it may have existed in still older copies now no longer extant. Upon this question of criticism depends the meaning of the other clause, which is admitted to be genuine. Of whom (i.e. from whom), if the disputed words are genuine, refers most naturally to Claudius Lysias, whom the Jews then desire Felix to examine, as the most important witness on their side. But if the disputed words are spurious, Claudius Lysias is not named at all, and from whom must refer to Paul himself. But such a proposition, to examine the prisoner on the truth of their assertions, would be either monstrous or superfluous; a further argument in favour of the genuineness of the words in question, to which may be added the extreme improbability that nothing would be said of Claudius Lysias in this complaint to Felix. The future form (thou wilt be able, in the English version, mayest) seems to refer to something which could not be done upon the spot, but would require time, whereas the examination of the prisoner might take place at once. Lastly, the reference to Claudius Lysias, rather than to Paul, though not made certain, is made highly probable by the ground on which Felix postpones the case (see below, on v. 22), and which would seem gratuitous unless proposed by one of the parties. But if, for these or other reasons, the words from whom, &c., be referred to Claudius Lysias, the genuineness of the clause in which his name appears becomes a necessary consequence. Examining, i.e. judicially (see above, on 4:9; 12:19), without any reference to torture, which is not suggested by the context, as in 22:24. The reference of from whom to the plural noun accusers, although natural in English, is impossible in Greek, where the relative itself is in the singular number. Take knowledge, i.e. gain it, ascertain, discover (see above, on 3:10; 4:13; 9:30; 12:14; 19:34; 22:24, 29.) The spirit of this verse, as just explained, is, 'Such are our charges, and the witness by whom we sustain them, is the very man who sent us here to make them, after interrupting our proceedings at Jerusalem, to whom we now refer you for all further information.'

9. The Jews, as represented by the High Priest and the Elders (see above, on v. 1.) Also, i.e. in addition to the charge made by Tertullus in their name and as their advocate. Assented is the meaning of the common text (συνέθεντο); but all the oldest manuscripts and late editions have a double compound form of the same verb (συνεπέθεντο), which yields the stronger sense of jointly set upon (compare the use of the single compound in 18:10), unitedly attacked him, or concurred in the attack made by Tertullus. Saying, not the ordinary verb so rendered, but a more emphatic form, elsewhere translated professing (Rom. 1:22) and affirming (see below, on 25:19.) Not content with simply saying, they formally and solemnly declared, asserted these things (those just stated by Tertullus) so to have (themselves), i.e. to be. (For this idiomatic usage of the verb have, see above, on 7:1; 12:15; 17:11.)

10. Then answered Paul, having signed to him the governor to speak. Signed, literally, nodded (compare John 13:24, and the compound form in 18:20 above.) There is a striking contrast here between the order and fairness of this Roman process, though conducted by a wicked man, and the passionate confusion of the Sanhedrim, although composed of Priests, Scribes, and Elders of the People (see above, on 23:2–10.) It seems as if the Jews and Gentiles were beginning to change places as the guardians of the church, a transposition afterward brought out in terrible relief at the destruction of Jerusalem, where Titus was as temperate and humane as the Zealots were ferocious to themselves and others. This circumstance imparts new interest to the crisis which we have now reached, and in which Paul begins his third Apology, or Apostolical defence of Christianity and of himself, not uttered, like the first, to a vast crowd of Jews from all parts of the world assembled to observe the feast of Pentecost; nor like the second, in the presence of the Sanhedrim or Eldership of Israel; but before a Roman magistrate, and under the protection and restraint of Roman arms, yet in the presence of the High Priest and a deputation of the Elders, so that he was still appealing to the chosen people, and before these Gentile witnesses attempting, for the last time, to convince them of the true relation between Law and Gospel, Christ and Moses. He begins, like Tertullus (see above, on vs. 2, 3), with a regular captatio benevolentiae, by ascribing to Felix at least one most important qualification for his present duty, that of long experience and thorough knowledge of the men with whom he had to deal. Here again the leading words stand first in the original, though needlessly displaced in the translation. As Tertullus had begun with much peace enjoying through thee, Paul begins, since many years a judge unto this nation. Since, literally, from, i.e. dating or beginning to compute from. Many, here as elsewhere, is a relative expression, and as Felix had been governor at least six years—still longer, if as Tacitus relates, he shared the power of Cumanus, his immediate predecessor—this was a long time, in the view of the Apostle, when compared with the ignorance and inexperience of a Roman just arrived among the Jews, even though he might be such an one as Porcius Festus (see below, on 25:1.) More cheerfully, or readily, with less apprehension of the issue, than if I were arraigned before a novice or an ignoramus. The latest critics, with the oldest manuscripts, read cheerfully without the more, which really implies the same as the comparative, though in a less emphatic form. (As to) the (things) about myself, (i.e. in my own case or behalf) I make defence (the same verb as in 19:33; Luke 12:11; 21:14.) The similarity of form between this exordium and that or Tertullus is too strong to be fortuitous. Even in substance, there is less diversity than those are willing to admit, who exaggerate the advocate's professional laudation into servile flattery and shameless lying. Each gives the Procurator credit for possessing what he really possessed, indomitable energy and long experience; while both are silent, as they should have been on this occasion, with respect to his bad qualities. That Paul's forbearance was not cowardly, we know from his deportment at another and more private audience (see below, on v. 25.) The unfairness of Tertullus, as we have already seen, lies rather in the substance of his speech than in the oratorical exordium.

11. This is not a deduction from the fact just stated, that Felix had been many years a magistrate in Palestine, but an additional reason for Paul's cheerfully defending himself namely, because Felix had the best means of knowing how lately he had come into the country, and how groundless was the charge of his being a disturber of the public peace. Because that thou mayest understand, an awkward circumlocution likely to mislead the English reader, as it has mislead a noble and devout interpreter of recent date (Lord Lyttelton), who explains it thus, "I speak so that thou mayest understand." The original construction is the genitive absolute, thou being able to know, i.e. since thou hast it in thy power, both from thy office and thy place of residence, to ascertain how long it is since I went up from Cesarea to Jerusalem (see above, on 21:15–17.) With this appeal to the Procurator's means of information, Paul confidently states the time himself. There are to me (i.e. I have lived or spent) not more than twelve days since (or from the day that) I went up, etc. A vast amount of calculation and discussion has been lavished on the question, how these twelve days are to be reckoned, all agreeing in the only point of any moment, namely, that Paul's statement may be justified in several ways, the variation having reference chiefly to the seven days spoken of in 21:27, and to the admission or exclusion of the days which had elapsed since his return to Cesarea (see above, on v. 1.) To (or about to) worship is in Greek a future participle, the same with that in 8:27, and like it denoting, not an incidental or fortuitous occurrence, but the very end and purpose of the journey. There is no need of explaining this away, as inconsistent with the statement in v. 17, for neither statement is exclusive of the other; or as at variance with his principles, for these not only suffered but constrained him to perform acts of worship in the temple upon fit occasions (see above, on 21:26.) While the temple was still standing, and the framework of the ceremonial law unbroken, even Paul the Apostle of the Gentiles could not go up to Jerusalem without some devotional as well as business purpose. By an almost insensible transition from his exordium to his argument, he here alleges two facts, bearing on his own defence; first, his recent arrival in the country, leaving him no time for such proceedings as were charged against him; and then, the avowed religious end for which he went up, to perform the duties of that very faith, which they accused him of renouncing.

12. The third point of his defence consists in a direct denial of the charge of having moved sedition (see above on v. 5.) He had been but twelve days in the country, and in those twelve days they had detected him in no disturbance of the peace or violation of decorum. They had found him neither publicly discoursing (the same verb as in 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 20:7, 9), nor in any other way raising up the people, literally, making a gathering of a mob. This he boldly affirms, not only in the general, but with specific mention of the only places where he could have done it, in the temple, in the synagogues, and through the city, i.e. in the streets, perhaps including private houses, so as to exhaust the list of possible localities. This bold assertion that he not only had not had the opportunity of doing that which they alleged against him, but still more categorically, had not done it, could never have been made in the presence of accusers who were capable of proving what they charged. Its very utterance is tantamount to a denial that the charges were susceptible of proof at all.

13. Not content with the implied denial in v. 12, he now repeats it in a definite and formal manner. Or the logical relation may be that of a deduction from admitted data. As if he had said, 'Since I have been only twelve days in Jerusalem, and during that time they have found me nowhere publicly or privately exhibiting the character which they would fasten on me, as a mover of sedition and a sower of dissension among the Jews throughout the world, I am entitled to conclude that they have no proof to adduce of that calumnious description, or of any charge which they have brought against me.' The confident and sweeping terms which Paul employs in these two verses seem to imply that he had carefully abstained during this visit to the Holy City, even from those customary modes of usefulness to which he was addicted in his proper sphere as the Apostle of the Gentiles, and as a necessary consequence, that his present mission was a temporary, special, and restricted one.

14. Having thus answered one of the two charges in v. 5, to wit, that which described him as "a pestilent fellow and a mover of sedition," he now takes up the other, which described him as "a front-rank-man (or leader) of the sect (or party) of the Nazarenes." The exquisite transition here is worthy of Demosthenes. Thus far he had denied and contradicted; now he comes to acknowledge and confess. But I own this to thee, perhaps with emphasis upon the pronoun, 'I have nothing to confess to them, and yet to thee I own that there is one charge which is true, though not in the sense put upon it by its authors.' The flattering charge of being a ringleader he modestly and wisely passes by in silence, but admits the more important fact that he was really a "Nazarene." According to the way which they call sect (or schism), I do thus worship the paternal God. The translation heresy, though found in all the English versions, is doubly objectionable; first, because it puts a meaning on the Greek word which it never has in the New Testament (see above, on 5:17; 15:5); and then, because it hides from view the striking correspondence between this defence and the accusation in v. 5, by using different English words to render the same Greek one. Tertullus calls him a ringleader of the sect (or party) of the Nazarenes. Paul admits that he belongs to it, but not that he is guilty of apostasy from Moses. The way (of thinking, living, worshipping, etc.) seems to have been a common Jewish name for doctrinal and practical diversities among themselves; a supposition which accounts for its repeated application to the Christian faith in this book (see above, on 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4), not as a specific but as a generic designation, i.e. representing it as one out of many such diversities existing in the bosom of the Jewish church itself. Heresy, as here used in its ancient sense of school or party, is a more specific term, and as such is distinguished here by Paul himself. 'That peculiar way of thinking, living, etc., which my accusers call a sect or schism, but which I deny to be so.' But how could Paul deny that in becoming a Christian he had ceased to be a Jew? This question is answered in the next clause by himself. So (i.e. in this peculiar way described by my accusers as schismatical) I worship the paternal God, i.e. the God of my forefathers and of theirs. There is great propriety and beauty in the use of the adjective paternal, constantly applied in the classics to the tutelary and ancestral gods of nations, families, and places. In addressing Jews, he employs the Scriptural phrase, God of our fathers (see above, on 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), which, in addressing Felix, he exchanges for a classical expression, more familiar yet to all intents and purposes synonymous. The idea commonly attached to this clause ('I worship as a Christian') is but half its meaning, and the least important half in this connection. Assuming that as undisputed and notorious, he asserts that when he worships as a Christian, he adores no new God, but the same who had been worshipped by his fathers, or in other words that Christianity was really the genuine continuation of Old Testament Judaism. This, although presented in a new form, is precisely the same claim that Paul asserted in the single sentence which comprised his defence before the Sanhedrim (see above, on 23:1.) As addressed to Felix, and adapted to his heathenish associations, it may thus be paraphrased. 'They charge me with abandoning our old religion, and with worshipping some strange god; but the very God, whom I thus worship, is our own ancestral God, whom I would no more leave than you would abandon your hereditary deities; and this I prove by my adherence to the sacred books of our religion, to that Law and to those Prophets, of which even you have often heard, as the very basis of our faith, and in which I now believe as firmly as I ever did, and more sincerely than the men who charge me with rejecting them.'

15. The relation of the clauses here is often misconceived, as if Paul meant to say that he indulged a certain hope, and then as a subordinate or incidental circumstance that other Jews indulged the same; whereas this sameness is the main idea here expressed, and that on which his argumentative defence entirely turns. Having a hope towards God which these (men) also themselves entertain (or look for, i.e. for its realization, as in Tit. 2:13.) This, it must still be borne in mind, is addressed to Felix, and intended to explain to him the true relation between Judaism and Christianity, so far as it could thus be made intelligible to a heathen, and thereby to meet the charge of having apostatized from his religion. The amount of this explanatory statement, as contained in this and the preceding verse, is that he still worships the same God; and still believes in the same sacred books; and still cherishes the same hope for the future. With these points of agreement, how could he be cast out as a schismatic or an apostate? But what was the hope which he still held in common with the unconverted Jews? It seems to be explained, in the last clause, as the hope of a general resurrection. But this was not held by the Sadducees, nor is it elsewhere represented as the great distinctive hope of Israel. Considering the brevity of this defence, or the abbreviated statement of it here presented, it is allowable to fill up its omissions and elucidate its darker places, by comparing it with the fuller (or more fully reported) Apology before Agrippa as contained in ch. 26. This will be done more particularly in the exposition of that chapter; it will here be sufficient to anticipate the inference, hereafter to be drawn (from 26:6–8, 22, 23), that the national hope referred to, even here, was the hope of the Messiah, and the resurrection, here connected with it, that of Christ himself but represented as the pledge and foretaste of a general rising, here expressed by saying, both of the just and unjust, i.e. of all kinds and characters without exception (compare Matt. 5:45.) The three points of adherence, then, to ancient doctrines, here alleged by Paul, are one God, one Scripture, one Messiah.

16. Herein (or in this), i.e. in this adherence to the God, the revelation, and the hope of Israel. I exercise (myself), a verb originally denoting any kind of hard work; then specially applied to athletic strife or training; and then to moral discipline, especially to that of the severest kind, in which sense it is the etymon or theme of ascetic and its cognate forms. It here denotes, not only constant or habitual practice, but methodical and systematic effort. Void of offence, in Greek a single word, suggestive of the two ideas, unoffended and unoffending, i.e. a conscience neither wounded by transgression nor allowing me to be the means of tempting others. The same word occurs once in the Apocrypha, but in the New Testament is confined to Paul and to the conscience (see 1 Cor. 10:32; Phil. 1:10), a strong though incidental mark of genuineness in the passage now before us. Toward (i.e. in relation or regard to) God (as the head of the theocracy) and to men (as my fellow-citizens or fellow-members.) Always, not perhaps in the restricted modern sense (at all times), but in the wider sense suggested by its etymology (in all ways), which agrees well with the form and original meaning of the Greek word (through all, or by means of all.) This word, though dislocated in the version, emphatically closes the whole verse in the original. If this verse merely meant, as many readers may imagine, that Paul was conscientious in his whole deportment, it would be a very needless and unmeaning close of the preceding argument in proof of his fidelity to the theocracy or ancient church. It is in fact the winding up of that whole argument, with obvious allusion to his words before the Sanhedrim, for which Ananias had required him to be smitten on the mouth (see above, on 23:2), and which he here takes occasion to explain and justify. As if he had said, 'In this sense and on those grounds, I affirmed before and now affirm again, that far from being an apostate or a renegade, I am and always have been, both before and since my confession of Christ, a conscientious and consistent Jew.'

17. Now, the usual continuative particle, translated and in v. 16, but in v. 14. After, literally, through, or in the course of (see above, on 23:31), but often used to signify the close as well as the duration of a period (see Matt. 26:61; Mark 2:1; 14:58.) Many, not the word so rendered in v. 10 above, but its comparative, strictly meaning more, and like the corresponding words in Latin and German, used in the modern English sense of several, i.e. more than one, in this case meaning about four years (see above, on 18:22, 23.) Having now defined his relative position to the Jews and their religion, Paul reverts to the purpose of his visit to Jerusalem, and to the charge of having come as a mover of sedition. In contradiction to this groundless calumny, he had already said (in v. 11) that he came to worship, to which he now adds that he came to bring alms (literally, to do or make, i.e. dispense them). This is perfectly consistent with the other motive, and is added to it as a proof that his whole object was pacific and religious, not divisive or disorderly. But what were these alms? Not the private charities or Paul himself, which must have been comparatively small, and could not have occasioned his long voyage and journey. He must refer to more extensive and important contributions, of which he was the channel or dispenser. But none such are mentioned in this book, a seeming difficulty which, when properly explained, becomes a striking incidental proof of authenticity. While Luke says nothing in his narrative of these "alms," Paul himself, in his epistles written just before this journey, is abundant in allusion to them (see above, on 19:21, 22; 20:1–4, and compare Rom. 15:25–31; 1 Cor. 16:1–4, 10, 11, 17; 2 Cor. 8:1–24; 9:1–15.) From these allusions it appears that at his own suggestion a general contribution had been made throughout the churches in the two great provinces of Greece for the relief of the poor saints at Jerusalem, and that one important object of Paul's visit was to deliver or distribute these benevolent donations. As they were not designed for Gentiles he expressly adds, unto my nation, thus suggesting that such conduct towards his kinsmen according to the flesh was incompatible with hating or despising them. And offerings, not the alms just mentioned; first, because the repetition would be needless; secondly, because the collocation of the words, both in Greek and English, shows that something additional or supplementary was meant to be expressed; and lastly, because the word here used is never applied elsewhere to mere charities, but always, either in the literal or figurative sense, to the oblations of the Mosaic ritual. (See Heb. 10:5, 8, 10, 14, 18; Rom. 15:16; Eph. 5:2.) It was to sacrifice, as well as pray, that Paul had gone up to Jerusalem. This might be understood as nothing more than a specification of the phrase to worship in v. 11. But a more precise sense is suggested by the fact that the very same term (offering) occurs above in 21:26, with reference to the sacrifices of the Nazarites, the cost of whose ceremonial purification Paul had undertaken. Here then are offerings, in the strict sense, which we know him to have actually made, or to have been upon the point of making, at the time of his arrest; a clear proof that he was not a despiser and blasphemer, even of the legal ceremonies, as his enemies alleged. It is certain, therefore, that the alms and offerings of this verse are distinct from one another, though adduced for the same purpose, that is, to establish his fidelity and loyalty to that which he was represented as rejecting and attempting to destroy. But the alms and offerings, though not the same thing, may have been connected if, as some suppose, the money spent by Paul upon the Nazarites was taken from the fund which he had brought from Greece, as a real compliance with the wishes of the donors, perhaps authorized if not proposed by the Elders at Jerusalem, though not recorded in the narrative of their conference with Paul (see above, on 21:23, 24.) But this, though in itself entirely credible, and serving to account for the peculiar way in which the alms and offerings are here put together, is a mere conjecture, and must not be forced upon the passage as a part of its essential meaning. To the question how Paul could be said to have gone up for a purpose, which was first suggested after his arrival, it may be answered, that perhaps this suggestion was but the occasion of performing what had been before projected, or communicated by the Holy Ghost; and also, that without this supposition, the peculiar way in which the offerings are added, by a kind of afterthought, may be intended to exclude them from his original design and to describe them as a subsequent expedient. 'How could I come up to defile the temple and divide the people, when I brought relief to many poor among them; yes, and while there actually offered sacrifices at the very sanctuary which I am accused of trying to profane.'

18. Whereupon should be in which, i.e. in which deeds or employments, aiding the poor saints and performing sacrifice. 'In the very act of proving my devotion to the race and my respect for the Mosaic law, they seized me, and have since arraigned me, as an enemy of both!' Some of the oldest manuscripts have which in the feminine form, and therefore necessarily referring to the feminine nouns alms and offerings, which only makes the reference more definite, without a real change of meaning. The defensive argument, implied in this clause, is still further carried out by adding, purified i.e. undergoing ceremonial purification, see above, on 21:24, 26) in the temple (i.e. in its courts or area, see above, on vs. 6, 12, and compare 2:46), thereby proving his respect for the Mosaic law in reference to two of its great parts or features, sacred rites and sacred places. The fact that Paul was thus engaged when seized and charged with sacrilege, was a genuine reductio ad absurdum for his false accusers. They could not even say that, although present at the temple, and apparently engaged in ceremonial duties, he performed them in an unbecoming or disorderly manner. Not with crowd (or concourse), so as to attract undue attention and disturb the devotions of his neighbours, nor with tumult (uproar, as in 20:1; 21:34), a stronger term denoting the natural result of mobs or lawless gatherings. There is here a question of grammatical construction, closely connected with one of textual criticism. This cannot be intelligibly stated to the English reader without restoring the original order of the sentence, which is this, whereupon (or wherein) found me purified in the temple, not with crowd nor with tumult, certain Jews from Asia. As the last words evidently constitute the subject of the verb found (which is plural), the translators have transposed them in accommodation to English usage. But the latest critics have inserted the continuative particle (δέ) after some (or certain) from a few of the old manuscripts, thus separating certain Jews from the preceding verb, and leaving the latter to be construed indefinitely, they (i.e. my enemies and false accusers) found me purified, &c., but (or and) certain Jews from Asia. The authorities for this emendation, although strong, are not decisive, as the oldest copy extant (Codex Vaticanus) either has the common text or has not yet been collated as to this point. Even admitting the proposed change, the construction may be made at least intelligible, although still singular, by repeating or supplying something from the first clause. They found me purified in the temple, not with crowd or tumult, but certain Jews from Asia (were the cause of these.) Jews from Asia, the same Greek phrase that is rendered Jews which were of Asia in Luke's account of the transaction here referred to. The preposition indicates that they not only came from but belonged to Asia Proper or Proconsular (see above, on 21:27.)

19. The mention of the Jews from Asia, as the real authors of the tumult at the temple, leads Paul to urge another circumstance, showing the unfairness and irregularity of this whole process. Who had accused him of profaning or attempting to profane the temple? Certain Jews from Asia. Why were they not present to sustain their accusation, either as witnesses or parties? Why was their place supplied by Ananias and Tertullus, who knew nothing of the facts except as they had heard them from those Asiatic Jews, whose absence could not be supplied by a contemptuous reference to Claudius Lysias as the only witness (see above, on v. 8.) To have been here (literally, to be present) before thee (i.e. as a judge, or at thy bar, the preposition used above in 21:30, and there explained.) This was no forensic quibble or finesse, but a legitimate objection to the whole procedure as evincing bad faith and a conscious inability to prove their charges. Object should be accuse, the same verb as in vs. 2, 8, 13, and in 22:30. The variation in the version here obscures the meaning by suggesting as Paul's meaning, that they ought to have been there to make objections to the method of proceeding or to his defence; whereas he means that they ought to have appeared as his prosecutors or accusers. If they had aught (or any thing) against me, is in Greek peculiarly expressive from the use of the optative mood, implying that the case was purely hypothetical, or in other words, that they had really no charge against him.

20. Or else seems to imply that Paul is here presenting an alternative, proposing two things, one of which ought to be done. 'Either let the Jews from Asia be brought forward, or else let these, &c.' But what he really says is, not that they ought now to be produced, but that they ought to have appeared from the beginning as his prosecutors. He proposes nothing as to this point, but merely censures what had been already done. With this relation of the verses agrees the connective particle which simply denotes or, the else being introduced by the translators. Or (as it is now too late to remedy this error, and the Jews from Asia have perhaps gone home) let these (Ananias and the Elders) themselves (not merely through an advocate, but in their proper persons) say, if they found any wrong (or according to the oldest copies, what wrong they found) in me, while (or when) I stood (lit. I standing) before the council (the Synedrium or Sanhedrim, see above, on 4:15.) The allusion is of course to the scene described in 23:1–10. Wrong, the word translated matter of wrong in 18:14, and there explained. Before, the same word as in v. 19, at their bar, at their tribunal. Having shown, from the absence of the original accusers and of all other witnesses, that the charge of sedition was abandoned, he now challenges the High Priest and the Elders to bring forward any other accusation which they could establish, even by their own testimony. They had not witnessed the alleged desecration of the temple; they had only seen him as he stood before the council (see above, on 22:30); if they knew any thing against him from their own observation, it must have happened then, and he accordingly gives this specific form and limitation to his challenge.

21. Except it be, in Greek a single letter, meaning than, i.e. other than, besides, except. For (or about) this one voice seems dependent in construction on a verb suppressed; or it may be connected with the phrase found wrong in the preceding verse, unless (they found fault or condemned me) for this one, etc. Voice, utterance, not only the words said, but the act of saying them. Among them, literally, in them, i.e. in their circle, in the midst of them. (For the idiomatic use of ὅτι, that, omitted in the version, see above, on 2:13; 3:22; 5:23, 25; 6:11; 7:6; 11:3; 13:34; 15:1; 16:36; 19:21; 23:20.) His quotation of his own words agrees as nearly with Luke's narrative in 23:6 as would be natural in any case of repetition. The only variations are that he omits hope before resurrection, and adds, this day by you. Called in question, here, as in the other case, means judged, tried, put upon my trial, summoned to defend myself. As this was the expression which created the division in the council (see above on 23:7), it has been disputed whether those to whom Paul here appeals (though not directly) were Pharisees or Sadducees. But this is a question of no moment, as he is not here appealing to their diverse principles or prepossessions, but is simply recalling what had happened on a recent occasion, for the purpose of strengthening his previous statement, that they could have nothing to allege against him. 'They have only seen me in their council at Jerusalem, and surely I did nothing there for which I must be tried, unless it was my uttering those words which threw them into such confusion.' The reference is not so much to what he said as to his having said so little, and that little so inadequate to justify their conduct. At the same time the Apostle, with consummate skill, by thus repeating his own words before the Sanhedrim, renews his enigmatical but solemn declaration, that so far from having given up his Messianic hope, it was because he held it fast in its original intent, it was because he had embraced the true Messiah when he came, while Israel at large denied him, this was the very reason of his being now a prisoner and called on to defend himself. That he still described his hope of the Messiah as a hope of resurrection, may have been intended to disguise a doctrine which the Jews would instantly regard as nullifying all that he had said in proof of his own loyalty to Israel and Moses. The key to this enigma of his being both a Christian and a Jew was furnished by his holding that Messiah had already come. But as this, distinctly stated, might have prevented their attending to his further statement, he excites their curiosity and gains their ear by speaking only of the resurrection, as the crowning attestation of our Lord's Messiahship, reserving a fuller explanation of his meaning for his last Apology and last appeal to Israel, before he left the Holy Land for ever (see below, on 26:6.) It is not to be forgotten that although this third apology was formally addressed to Felix, and was really intended to apprise him of the true state of the case which had been so misrepresented by the Jews, it was virtually an additional appeal to the Jews themselves, as there officially and representatively present, a further effort to convince them of the false position which they occupied in reference to Christ and Moses.

22. Having heard these things is omitted by the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, according to whom the verse begins, And Felix put them off, which comes next in the original. More exactly (see above, on 18:26; 23:15, 20) knowing the (things) about the way have been explained by some as the words of Felix himself. 'More exactly knowing (i.e. when I do know more exactly) the things concerning this way, said he, when Claudius Lysias,' &c. But this construction is condemned by the harsh transposition it involves and by the sense it puts upon the participle (εἰπών.) The way has here been variously understood to mean the present case; or the character and practice of the Jews; or the Christian religion, as in v. 14, and other places there referred to. This usage seems decisive in favour of the last interpretation; but the question still arises in what sense Felix is said to have understood the new religion more exactly. Some suppose the comparative to be here used, as it often is in Latin, to express a moderate degree of something (knowing pretty accurately), which, however, is by no means very natural or obvious. Others give the comparative its proper sense, but differ as to the things compared (knowing more exactly than was usual with Romans, or than could have been expected, or than the Jews imagined, &c.) all which supply something not expressed or necessarily suggested by the context. The simplest syntax and the best sense are obtained by supposing these words to describe the effect of Paul's discourse on Felix, whom, as we have seen, it was intended to enlighten with respect to the relation between Judaism and Christianity, a subject always puzzling to the Romans, though important to the exercise of their authority (see above, on 18:15; 23:29.) What Gallio and Lysias could not comprehend had now been made in some degree perspicuous to Felix by the masterly discourse of the Apostle. More exactly knowing (than he did before, the true state of the case) about the way (of living and believing) to which Paul adhered and which the Jews had represented as an absolute rejection of their whole religion. Seeing this charge to be a false one, and the whole proceeding frivolous and spiteful, he determined to get rid of it, but not by openly acquitting Paul, and thereby putting an affront upon the Jews, as represented in his presence by the High Priest and the Elders. This, as we shall see below (on v. 27), he had personal and selfish reasons for avoiding, while he must have seen that there was not the slightest ground for the proceeding against Paul. In this dilemma he resorts to the cowardly expedient of delay, embracing for that purpose the suggestion offered by Tertullus (see above, on v. 8), that the Tribune should himself be made to testify. When Lysias the chiliarch comes down (from Jerusalem, as in v. 1 above), I will know the things concerning you (or in which you are interested.) Some regard this as a threat that when he did obtain the necessary information, they might expect to be put upon their trial in their turn. But this agrees neither with the character of Felix, nor with his actual position, as Josephus describes both; nor with the natural import of the terms employed. The compound Greek verb (διαγνώσομαι) might be explained to mean, I will discriminate, and so decide (Geneva Bible); but usage is in favour of the sense, I will know (your matters) thoroughly (or through and through), perhaps with some allusion to the forensic use of knowledge to denote judicial cognizance or jurisdiction. The first of these ideas (that of knowing thoroughly) was no doubt meant to be conveyed by Tyndale's paraphrastic version, retained in King James's Bible, I will know the uttermost of your matter. That this adjournment was a mere device to end the whole proceeding, may have been apparent, even at the time, from the extreme improbability that Lysias could leave his post at such a turbulent and anxious juncture, and is now confirmed by the silence of the history in reference to any such appearance of the Tribune as a witness in this matter.

23. The impression made upon the governor by Paul's defence is further shown by the directions which he gave for his safekeeping. He was still to be detained, because not yet acquitted, and for other reasons afterwards disclosed; but to have remission (relaxation, mitigation of his bondage.) The translation liberty, if strictly understood, makes the sentence contradict itself. To be kept (watched, guarded), and at the same time to have liberty, are incompatible conditions. (For the true sense of the Greek word, compare 2 Cor. 8:13; 2 Thess. 2:17.) Some suppose an allusion to the technical distinction between different lands of custody practised by the Romans, such as the custodia publica, or confinement in the common prison; the custodia militaris, or perpetual surveillance by a soldier, and in its severer forms attachment to his person by a chain; and the custodia libera, in which the prisoner was entrusted to a magistrate or other well known person, who received him into his own household and was answerable for his safety. This last might seem to be the liberty which Felix ordered Paul to have; but it was practised only in the case of prisoners of great distinction, and it seems to be implied in the words before us that the centurion still had charge of him. That this was the centurion who escorted him to Cesarea (the other having gone back from Antipatris, see above, on 23:23, 32), although possible, cannot be inferred from the definite expression (the centurion), because this may only mean the one on duty, or the one who was entrusted with such matters. To forbid none of his own (friends or acquaintances, see above, on 4:23; 21:6), to wait upon him, minister to him, take care of him, supply his wants (compare the use of the same verb in 13:36; 20:34.) Or come to him, have access to him, visit him, even without performing services so intimate and confidential. To the latter class we may perhaps refer Philip and his household (see above, on 21:8, 9); to the former Trophimus (see above, on 21:29), Aristarchus (see below, on 27:2), but above all, Luke, "the beloved physician," and the author of this history, which may owe much of its contents to this renewal of the intercourse between them (see below, on v. 27.)

24. After certain (i.e. some) days, an indefinite expression, but suggestive rather of a short than of a long time (see above, on 10:48; 15:36; 16:12.) Came, coming, being there, the same as in v. 17; 23:16, 35, and often elsewhere (see above, on 5:21.) According to Tacitus, the wife of Felix was Drusilla, daughter of Juba the Numidian king, and grand-daughter of Anthony and Cleopatra. According to Josephus, she was Drusilla, daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose death is recorded in 12:23, and great-grand-daughter of Herod the Great. This might seem to be total contradiction, but for the statement of a third historian (Suetonius), that Felix was the husband of three queens, by which he no doubt means three wives of royal lineage. This would comprehend and reconcile the statements of Josephus and Tacitus, although there may have been some confusion of names, the double Drusilla being certainly remarkable. The Jewish Drusilla was betrothed in childhood to Antiochus Epiphanes of Comagene, but he refusing to comply with the conditions of the contract by receiving circumcision, she was actually married to Azizus king of Emesa, who did become a Jew. Felix, according to Josephus, was smitten with her beauty, and through the agency of Simon, a magician from Cyprus, but supposed by some to be the same with Simon Magus (see above, on 8:24), persuaded her to leave her husband. As the ordinary word for wife, in Greek as well as French, is woman, and as some manuscripts omit the pronoun, it might be understood as a contemptuous expression, with the woman Drusilla, like the woman Jezebel in Rev. 2:20. But the pronoun is expressed in many manuscripts, and two of the most ancient have the strong expression, with his own wife; so that most interpreters agree that she is so described, but in a popular sense, without implying that the marriage was a lawful one. If it took place about this time, of which we have no other evidence, the words of Luke might naturally mean, Felix arriving with his wife Drusilla, i.e. bringing her home for the first time, a circumstance more likely to be mentioned so distinctly than their merely going from one palace to another, or, as some suppose, from one apartment to another in the same. Being a Jewess, by birth and probably by actual profession, and as such naturally curious to hear the famous Christian preacher and learn something of the strange sect which was everywhere spoken against (see below, on 28:22.) That it was for her gratification that the Procurator sent for Paul, is clear from the difficulty of explaining otherwise the formal mention of her name and her religion. Heard him (not preach an ordinary sermon, but explain what was peculiar) about the faith in Christ, i.e. the new religion, of which Christ is the centre, the foundation, and the topstone, and a personal faith in him its only method of salvation (see above, on 4:11, 12.)

25. As he reasoned, literally, he discoursing (see above, on 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8, 9; 20:7, 9, and v. 12 of this chapter.) Righteousness, not justification, as the other terms denote human virtues, but justice, in the wide sense, or the rendering to every one his due (see above, on 10:22, 35.) Temperance, not in the restricted modern sense of abstinence from strong drink, but in that of self-control and moderation as to all the appetites, with special reference, in ancient usage, to chastity or continence, which last is derived directly from the Latin word answering to the one here used. The Christian doctrine upon these points must have been peculiarly awakening to the Roman's conscience, as his whole life seems to have been one of unjust tyranny and sensual indulgence, so that Tacitus uses, to describe his moral character, two of the strongest words afforded by the language (saevitiam et libidinem.) For another portrait, by the hand of the same master, see above, on 23:24. There is no need of supposing, as some have done, that Paul purposely went out of his way to gall the conscience of his hearers, or, as others imagine, that he preached the Law exclusively without the Gospel. This is not the apostolical method, which presents the two together, and convicts the individual, not by personal invective, but by manifestation of the truth, commending itself to every man's conscience in the sight of God (2 Cor. 4:2.) Paul no doubt complied with the request that he would state to them "the faith in Christ," in doing which he could not fail to treat of Christian virtues and their corresponding vices, as the fruits of faith and unbelief respectively; and this plain statement, without digression or exaggeration, would suffice to reach the conscience and to rouse the apprehension of that coming judgment, literally, the judgment, that about to be, the same verb that occurs above, in v. 15, and five times in the preceding chapter (23:3, 15, 20, 27, 30.) Becoming fearful (or alarmed), Felix answered, or responded to this terrible discourse, so unlike what he had looked for, as a gratification of Drusilla's curiosity or his own. For this time is in Greek an idiomatic phrase which can hardly be translated into English, consisting of an article and participle in the neuter gender, the having, i.e. the time having itself (being) now. (See above, on v. 9, and the places there referred to.) This is equivalent to our phrases, as the matter now is, for the present, and some others, different in form, but of the same essential import. Go thy way, in Greek a single word, depart, (begone!) Having got time, or obtained an opportunity, I will send for thee (again). It is a curious instance of the way in which a text may be severed from its context by the tradition of the pulpit, that the three points commonly made prominent in this verse are entirely adventitious and have no trace in the text itself. Trembled is merely Tyndale's loose translation of a phrase denoting inward feeling, not its outward indications; convenient is an epithet added by the same hand to the bare noun time or opportunity; and lastly, the traditional assertion, that the season never came, is directly contradicted by the following verses.

26. At the same time also, a phrase only partially translated in our Bible, which throughout this passage follows Tyndale closely. At the same time that he thus dismissed him, hoping that money will be given him by Paul. The remaining words, that he might loose (or free) him, although no doubt a true statement of the motive, are omitted by the latest critics, because not found in the oldest copies extant. Wherefore, because he entertained this mercenary hope, the oftener (or even oftener, than he would otherwise have done so) sending for Paul (from the Prætorium to his own house, or from the prisoner's apartments to his own, if they were under the same roof) he conversed with him, the verb employed in 20:11, above, and there explained. That Paul abstained from all religious conversation in these frequent interviews, is utterly at variance with his character and practice (see above, on 20:20, 21, 26, 27; 31, and compare Col. 1:28.) It cannot, therefore, be alleged that although Felix often talked with Paul, it was exclusively on business, and he never found an opportunity of hearing him again "concerning the faith in Christ." The very fact that Felix, while his conscience trembled, could conceive the plan of getting money out of him, shows that he would not shrink from hearing him reason of righteousness, temperance, and future judgment, every day, if thereby he might gain his darling end. This hope of bribe or ransom must have rested on the zeal of Paul's friends and his influence upon them, not without some reference to the foreign alms of which he was the bearer (see above, on v. 17.) The same spirit that collected these would surely do still more for the Apostle's liberation. But however plausible the expectation, it was disappointed.

27. A biennium (or period of two years) having been completed (or elapsed since Paul's imprisonment), Felix received a successor, Porcius Festus. The date of this change has been commonly assigned to the summer of the year 61; but the latest chronological investigations make it probable, at least, that it occurred a twelvemonth sooner, in the summer of A.D. 60, ten years before the destruction of Jerusalem. Wishing too (τε) to deposit favours with the Jews, i.e. to place them under obligations, thereby laying up in store a future claim upon their gratitude or kindness. The same figure is employed by Demosthenes and other classical Greek writers. It may seem strange that a ruler so unscrupulous as Felix, who practised every method of extortion and oppression on this very people, should be so desirous of securing their good will when he was taking leave of them for ever. But like Pontius Pilate, and some others of his predecessors, he was recalled to answer the complaints of the oppressed Jews, and was therefore anxious to propitiate them and perhaps induce them to withdraw their charge, before he made his appearance at the emperor's tribunal. From contemporary history we learn that he escaped through the intercession of his brother Pallas, then a favourite of Nero, but a few years later put to death by him, perhaps involving Felix in his own destruction.

CHAPTER 25

WE have here the narrative of Paul's fourth Apology, or public appearance, as a prisoner, in defence of himself and his religion, together with the circumstances which prepared the way for the fifth, recorded in the following chapter. The one related here, like that before it, was at the tribunal of the Roman governor, but in the presence of Jewish representatives, and like it also exhibits only a brief summary of the defence itself, with a fuller statement of the interlocutory proceedings. The chief points of difference are those of character and situation between Felix and Festus, and the step in advance which the Apostle here takes by appealing to the Emperor. The chapter naturally falls into two parts, the first of which contains the direct transactions between Paul and Festus (1–12). Under this head are included the arrival of Festus, his first visit to Jerusalem, the renewal of the charge and plot against Paul, the refusal of the Procurator to remove him, and the appointment of a new trial at Cesarea (1–5). Then comes the trial itself, with a summary statement of the charges and defence (6–8). Paul refuses to be tried once more at Jerusalem, and appeals to the Emperor in person, which appeal the governor allows (9–12). The remainder of the chapter describes the occasion and preliminaries of his fifth appearance (13–27). Among these is a visit from Agrippa to Festus, and a statement of Paul's case by the latter to the former, with an expression of Agrippa's wish to see and hear him (13–22). Then follows an account of the meeting for this purpose, a second statement of the case by Festus, with his own reason for desiring Agrippa to hear the prisoner himself (23–27).

1. Festus is also mentioned by Josephus, in both his histories, as the successor of Felix in the government of Judea, and as having been occupied, during his short administration, in suppressing the Sicarii (or Assassins) and other disturbers of the public peace, including an impostor who had tried to raise the people in rebellion by fanatical delusions (see above, on 5:36, 37; 21:38.) In these respects his government was very similar to that of Felix (see above, on 23:24; 24:2, 3), but his personal character much better, as appears, not so much from any positive description, as from the way in which Josephus contrasts him with his successor Albinus, as a man who governed in a manner altogether different, and had a hand, in every kind of wickedness. According to the latest chronological authorities, Festus administered the government a little less than two years, from the autumn of A.D. 60 to the summer of A.D. 62. From an incidental statement of Josephus ("that the Emperor, hearing of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to Judea as his Procurator"), we learn that, unlike most of his predecessors and successors, he died in office. In justice to the memory of this short-lived and comparatively upright magistrate, he ought to be carefully distinguished from his predecessor (Felix), with whom, no doubt from the resemblance of the names, he has sometimes been confounded, not only by superficial readers, but by learned writers. Festus then (or therefore), a resumption of the statement in the first clause of 24:27. Having come, literally, come up, mounted, or ascended, sometimes applied to embarkation on board a vessel (see above, on 21:2, 6, and below on 27:2), but also to entrance or arrival in a country (see above, on 20:18); and as this is perfectly appropriate here, there is no need of resorting to the figurative sense of entering on his government (or office), which however, although not expressed, is necessarily implied in his arrival and the acts that follow. After three days may be strictly understood as meaning three whole days, or, according to a common ancient idiom, as implying that he took one entire day of rest between his arrival at Cesarea and his journey to Jerusalem. This prompt departure to the Holy City may evince both official promptness and a natural curiosity to see a place so famous even in the history of empires.

2. Then (δέ) the High Priest, or according to the oldest copies and the latest critics, the High (or Chief) Priests, in the plural number. The actual High Priest, at this time, as we learn from Josephus, was not Ananias (see above, on 23:2; 24:1), but Ishmael the son of Phabi, nominated to that office by Agrippa (see below, on v. 13.) The chief or first (men) of the Jews, a general description of the class commonly described as elders (see above, on 4:5; 8:23; 6:12; 23:14; 24:1), with whom they are identified by Festus, in relating this very occurrence (see below, on v. 15.) Informed, the same verb, with precisely the same meaning, as in 24:1, where it is explained. This revival of the criminal information against Paul, after an interval of two years, shows the national importance which the Sanhedrim attached to the proceeding, if not the personal malignity and rancor of its leading members, which, at all events, is evident enough from the petition here recorded. (For the usage of the last verb, see above, on 2:40; 8:31; 16:40; 20:12; 21:12; 24:4.)

3. Not content with renewing their old accusation, they present a petition of the most extraordinary kind. Asking (for themselves) favour (or a favour) against him, the idea of gratuity or special favour being doubly suggested, by the added noun and by the form of the verb, which is in the middle voice and has the same reflexive sense as in many other places (see above, on 3:14; 7:46; 9:2; 12:20; 13:21, 28.) This direct demand for partial judgment, or respect of persons, a sin so frequently forbidden in their own law (see above, on 10:34), would seem to imply an unfavourable estimate of the new Procurator's character and judgment, were it not more easily referred to that insane delusion, under which the Jews, at this eventful crisis of their history, appeared to act, and which has been already mentioned as transforming them, in temper and spirit, from devout Jews to ferocious heathen (see above, on 24:10.) One of the clearest premonitions that the days of Israel, as a church and as a state, were numbered, is this very loss of the true theocratical spirit, and this callousness of conscience both as to means and ends; a change made known to us, not only or most vividly in Scripture, but in the writings of the contemporary Jewish historian. It is possible, however, that the words, asking favour, in the verse before us, relate not to the form of the request, but merely to its secret motive. The sense will then be, not that they entreated Festus to confer this favour on them, but that they simply asked him to transfer the trial to Jerusalem, as a matter of right or of convenience, while the real purpose of this proposition would have made the granting of it by the governor a gross act of judicial partiality or favour to one party at the cost and hazard of the other. This may seem more natural and credible, in itself considered; but the other is more readily suggested by the language of the narrative. Laying wait, literally, making an ambuscade (or ambush), either in the strict sense, or in that of plotting. (See above, on 23:21, and compare the use of the cognate verb in 23:16 and Luke 11:54.) If literally understood, the present participle (making) may be used for the future, or imply that they were actually making preparation to way-lay Paul. To kill (despatch, or make away with) him in (by or along) the road. (For the usage of the verb, see above, on 2:23; 9:23; 16:27; 22:20; 23:15; and for that of the preposition, on 5:15; 8:36; 16:7.)

4. But, or so then, the resumptive particle, following the parenthetical statement in the last clause of the third verse (see above, on 1:6; 2:41; 8:4; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4; 16:5; 19:32; 23:18, 22, 31.) Should be kept is not the meaning of the Greek verb, which is in the infinitive mood and present tense, and according to Greek usage means that he was actually then kept (i.e. watched or guarded, see above, on 12:5, 6; 16:23; 24:23.) The governor's reply to their exorbitant or treacherous petition was, that Paul was already in safekeeping at the seat of government, and as the governor expected to be there himself before long, his removal was unnecessary and indeed would be inconvenient. Would depart, or was about to set forth (see above, on 9:28, and on 24:15, 25.) Thither (i.e. to Cesarea) is unnecessarily, but not erroneously, supplied by the translators.

5. Therefore, i.e. because it would not be convenient to remove him. Able, i.e. able to do so, as in 11:17 above (compare Luke 14:31; Rom. 4:21; 11:23; 14:4; 2 Cor. 9:8; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:9; Heb. 11:19; James 3:2.) The meaning then is, 'Such of you as have it in your power to attend there.' But although this usage of the Greek word is established by the passages just cited, and by its frequent construction with the infinitive in the classics, most interpreters prefer the stronger sense of powerful, which occurs above, in 7:22; 18:24 (compare 1 Cor. 1:26; 2 Cor. 10:4; 12:9; 13:9; Rev. 6:15.) This may then be taken either as a vague description of the leading men (like first or chief in v. 2), or as a more specific designation of the persons authorized, by office or by special delegation, to perform the duty here prescribed, and represent the Sanhedrim at Cesarea. The first interpretation, although favoured by a similar but rare use of the Greek word by Josephus and Thucydides, is less appropriate and natural, as being a mere complimentary description, than the other, which denotes official rank and obligation. The word wickedness, although not printed in italics, is supplied by the translators, being found neither in the common text nor in the critical editions; but several of the oldest copies have a Greek word (ἄτοπον) elsewhere rendered harm (28:6), amiss, (Luke 23:41,) unreasonable (2 Thess. 3:2.) The idea of fault or crime is of course suggested even by the shorter reading, 'if there be any thing in this (or the) man.'

6. Having spent (or passed), the same verb as in 12:19; 14:3, 28; 15:35; 16:12; 20:6. The marginal reading, not more than eight or ten days, is now regarded by the critics as the true text. The difference between this and the common reading is, that the latter seems to represent the sojourn as a long one ('he said he would set out soon, but he really remained there more than ten days'); while the other refers to it as very short ('he said he would set out soon, and accordingly he staid there only eight or ten days.') Going down to Cesarea, on the morrow sitting (or taking his seat) upon the bench (or tribunal, see above, on 12:21; 18:12, 16, 17.) Here again Festus is presented to us as a prompt and active man of business (see above, on v. 1), punctual to his engagements and exacting punctuality of others.

7. Come, arrived, i.e. either from the prison to the palace, or from one apartment of the latter to another (see above, on 24:17, 24.) Having (or who had) come down, in obedience to the procurator's order, and as representatives of the national council (see above, on v. 5.) Stood around him, according to some ancient copies, which is commonly regarded as the true sense, although not perhaps the true text. Some interpreters, however, understand it to mean, round about (the judgment-seat); but this is really included in the other, which suggests the additional idea of the eagerness with which they crowded round their long-lost victim. The charges are described in general terms as many and grievous, literally, heavy, which might here have been retained, as it could not be in the translation of the same word in a former case (see above, on 20:29.) Complaints, charges, accusations, grounds of punishment, a kindred form to that in 13:28; 22:24; 23:28, and primarily meaning causes. The nature of these charges may be gathered from the former accusation (see above, on 24:5, 6), and from the abstract of Paul's answer in the next verse. Laid, literally, bearing, bringing, which is equally agreeable to Greek and English usage. Which (complaints or charges) they were not strong (enough, or able) to prove (literally, show forth, as in 1 Cor. 4:9; 2 Thess. 2:4), i.e. show to be true. (See above, on 2:22, and for the usage of the preceding verb, on 6:10; 15:10; 19:16, 20.)

8. Paul's defence is stated in the same compendious and summary form. He apologizing, saying in his own defence (see above, on 19:33; 24:10), not once for all, perhaps, or in a continuous discourse, but, as the absolute construction seems to intimate, from time to time, replying to each charge as it was opened or alleged against him. (That, omitted in the version, as at variance with English usage, see above, on 24:21.) Against, or more exactly, as to, with respect to, the idea of hostility or opposition being really suggested by the context. (See above, on 2:25; 6:11; 9:1; 17:21; 20:21; 24:15, 24.) From what Paul here denies we learn what his enemies affirmed, to wit, the same old charges of schism or apostasy (from the law), sacrilegious desecration (of the temple), and treacherous revolt (against the emperor.) These are substantially the charges urged, two years before, at the bar of Felix, by Tertullus (see above, on 24:5, 6.) Cesar, properly the name of a patrician Roman family, from the most illustrious of whom (Julius Cesar) it was derived by his adopted son (Augustus), and from him by his adopted son (Tiberius), and from him by his successors (Caligula, Claudius, and Nero), under whom it had become a royal title, equivalent to Emperor (see above, on 11:28; 17:7.)

9. To do the Jews a pleasure, almost the same phrase with the one applied above (in 24:27) to Felix. The variation between do and show belongs exclusively to the translation, which, however, is in neither case exact, the Greek verb meaning to deposit or lay up in store. A real difference of form, not observed in the translation, is that between the plural (favours) in the other place and the singular (favour) in the one before us. This may have reference to the fact that Felix had used many such means of conciliation, whereas this was the first and perhaps the last attempt upon the part of Festus. It cannot be denied, however, that the sameness of expression in these cases shows that Festus, though apparently less selfish and unscrupulous than Felix, was in some measure actuated by the same desire to secure the good will and the good word of his subjects, when he should come to give account at Rome of his administration. The means by which they undertook to gain this common end, however, were extremely different. While Felix, after keeping Paul in prison two years, left him still in bondage at his own departure, Festus merely asked him if he would consent to undergo another trial at Jerusalem. This might indeed be regarded as a wholly unobjectionable proposition, made by a new-comer, unacquainted with the murderous designs of the accusers, and regarding their request as one of little moment. But this favourable view of the Procurator's conduct must be very materially qualified by the tone and substance of Paul's answer, as recorded in the next two verses. It should also be remembered that Paul had just been tried already, as we read of charges and defences summarily but distinctly spoken of in vs. 7, 8 above. This was therefore a proposal to be tried once more, and that before the Sanhedrim, though in the presence of the governor, and subject to his ultimate decision. (See above, on 23:30; 24:19, 20.)

10. To the unreasonable proposition in the ninth verse, which could only be intended to conciliate the Jews by a gratuitous reiteration of a process which had been already several times repeated with the same result, Paul replies by re-asserting, for the third time, his immunities and rights as a Roman citizen. (See above, on 16:37–39; 22:25–29.) At Philippi he had done this to reprove the magistrates for scourging and confining him; at Jerusalem, to prevent the repetition of that outrage; but now at Cesarea, to secure himself from being sacrificed by Festus, even through mere ignorance or weakness, to the malice of his enemies. I stand at (or before) Cesar's judgment-seat (i.e. the tribunal of the Emperor.) This is not to be confounded with the appeal at the close of the next verse, but explained as a preliminary to it. I am standing (now) at Cesar's bar, i.e. before his representative, as the very title Procurator signified, and not at that of the Jewish Sanhedrim. He here claims the protection of that Roman power, to which the Jews had virtually betrayed him, and by which he had been long robbed of his liberty. Where (i.e. in the Roman not the Jewish courts) I ought to be (or still more strongly, must be) tried (if tried at all.) This naturally followed from the fact that he was actually in Roman hands and under Roman jurisdiction, and that no reason could be given for removing his case elsewhere. It followed, still more clearly and conclusively, from his being an hereditary Roman citizen, and as such entitled to the full advantage of the Roman laws. These claims would have been valid, even if a case had been made out against him by the Jews; how much more when they had utterly failed so to do. This third ground is stated in the last clause, with a confident appeal to Festus's own judgment, as to the nature of the charge against him. The Jews I have (in) nothing wronged, in the judicial sense, i e. they have no ground of charge against me. If this was merely a profession of his innocence, it would be no argument at all, as it would really be tantamount to saying, 'I am not guilty, and therefore ought not to be tried,' a mode of reasoning which would put an end to all judicial process, except in the case of persons pleading guilty. This absurd sense has been sometimes put on Paul's expressions by interpreters who overlook the fact that this was not a mere preparatory meeting, a discussion about trying him, but that he had just been tried on many grievous charges, and defended himself against them (see above, on vs. 7, 8), and that he here asserts his innocence, not as a witness in his own behalf, but with explicit reference to the result of the preceding trial. 'With respect to the Jews, I am not guilty, having just been proved so by their total failure to substantiate their charges.' This view of the matter also serves to explain the last clause of the verse, which has very much perplexed interpreters. As thou also (not expressed in the translation, i.e. thou thyself as well as I and others) knowest right well (literally, better.) This comparative expression, like the one applied to Felix (see above, on 24:22), has been variously explained as a superlative, or as meaning better than could be expected, better than thou choosest to acknowledge, &c. But in this, as in the other case, the simplest and most satisfactory hypothesis is that which compares his present with his previous knowledge, as thou also knowest better (now than thou didst a little while ago.) Besides the simplicity of this construction, the strict sense which it puts on the comparative expression, and the analogy afforded by the other case just cited, it is furthermore confirmed by the usage of the verb translated knowest, which elsewhere means to recognize, discover, ascertain, or come to know what was previously unknown or misunderstood. (See above, on 3:10; 4:13; 9:30; 12:14; 19:34; 22:24, 29; 24:8.) As thus explained, the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows. 'Why do you ask me such a needless question? Can you really expect a Roman citizen, already standing at the Roman bar, to consent to undergo another trial at the tribunal of these Jews, who have just failed again to prove their charges against me, and have therefore not the slightest claim upon me, as you most yourself be now convinced, if yon knew it not before?'

11. This verse shows still more clearly that the ground assumed by Paul in that before it, is the ground of his own innocence, not merely as asserted by himself but as judicially established. He indignantly disclaims a base desire to shun investigation or to escape any punishment of which he may be proved worthy. For relates to this disclaimer—'I am not merely seeking to shun danger, for if,' &c. If I am guilty, the same technical expression used in v. 10, although here translated by a different phrase (if I be an offender), which obscures the connection to the English reader. If I have done, etc., i.e. if I am proved on trial to have done so; if such is the result of the investigation just concluded, then I do not refuse, literally, beg off, ask to be exempted as a favour from the punishment which I deserve. (Compare the less emphatic use of the same verb in Luke 14:18, 19; 1 Tim. 4:7; 5:11; 2 Tim. 2:23; Tit 3:10; Heb. 12:19, 25.) If there be none of these things, i.e. if their charges have been proved already to be frivolous and groundless. This is really equivalent to saying, since they have been proved to be so, the conditional expression being often so employed in Greek (see above, on 4:9; 11:17; 23:9.) No (one) can (i.e. lawfully) deliver me, a very inadequate translation of the Greek verb, which means to do a favour, or bestow a gift (see above, on 3:14, and below, on 27:24), and should be taken in its strict sense here. 'If I have been found guilty, let me suffer, without further trial. If I have not, to remand me to their bar would be to make a present of me to my enemies, which no man, no, not even you, can rightfully or justly do.' From this reply of Paul, we learn that Festus, although not unfriendly, and no doubt convinced of his innocence, had made a gratuitous and dangerous proposal, simply to gratify the Jews, by conceding what appeared to him a matter of indifference, or at most a matter of mere form. By this proposal he betrayed such a deficiency, either of judgment or of knowledge, that no uprightness of intention or amenity of temper could have made the cause of the Apostle safe so long as it was under his control. By a prompt and unexpected movement, therefore, he removes it instantly beyond the reach, not only of the Jews, but of the governor himself. I appeal unto Cesar, or, as the words primarily signify, Cesar I invoke, the same verb that is elsewhere used to denote the religious invocation of our Lord by his disciples (see above, on 2:21; 7:59; 9:14, 21; 22:16.) The essential meaning may be that of calling to one's aid, invoking help, either in prayer to a superior being, or by appeal to a superior tribunal. The right of appeal to the people, in a body or as represented by the tribunes, was one of the most valued rights of Roman citizens, and still continued to be so regarded, even after the supreme judicial power of the people had been transferred to the emperors. Particular importance was attached to the right of appeal from the judgments of provincial magistrates. According to ancient writers, no delay or written form was requisite, the only act necessary to arrest the judgment being the utterance of the word Appello! The magic power of this one word is described as similar to that of the talismanic phrase, Civis Romanus sum! (See above, on 16:37; 21:25.) Indeed the two things coincided, as it was the Roman citizen, and not the mere provincial subject of the empire, who could thus transfer his cause from any inferior tribunal to that of the Emperor himself. The possession of this citizenship, therefore, was the providential means of saving Paul, at this critical juncture, not only from the power of his Jewish foes, but also from the weakness of his Roman friends. For it will now be seen, that while in v. 10 he contrasts the Jewish courts with that of Festus, as the representative of Roman justice, in the close of that before us, he ascends even from the bar of Festus to the tribunal of his lord and master. (See below, on v. 26.)

12. Having conferred (literally, talked or spoken) with the council, not that of the Jews, which was not present as a body, and is never so described, the Greek word elsewhere always meaning consultation, Matt. 12:14 not excepted; but his own assessors or advisers, a kind of local court or jury, who assisted the provincial magistrates in their judicial functions. The conference, in this case, was occasioned not so much by any doubt or difficulty as by the surprise which Paul's abrupt appeal occasioned. According to the ancient legal books, there were some excepted cases, in which the right of appeal was suspended or entirely withheld; but it seems to have been only where the public peace or safety was endangered by delay, as when a pirate or insurgent was detected in the very act. However this may be, the Procurator's council could see no ground for refusing Paul's appeal, and Festus therefore entertains it. Hast thou invoked (or appealed to) Cesar? may be also read affirmatively, as in the oldest English versions and the best modern commentaries, thou hast appealed unto Cesar. It is objected, that the interrogative construction makes the clause more spirited and pointed; but the very argument against it is, that it imparts to this reply of Festus a flippant and sarcastic tone, which does not properly belong to it. Without the question, the words simply mean, '(As) thou hast appealed to Cesar, unto Cesar thou shalt go,' which may have been the customary formula in granting or sustaining such appeals. By this decided and sagacious step, Paul, acting under the divine direction, although not perhaps entirely aware of what was to ensue, not only placed himself beyond the reach of his vindictive enemies, but secured his long designed and promised visit to Rome. (See above, on 19:21; 23:11, and compare Rom. 1:15.)

13. The appeal recorded in the verse preceding put an end to all judicial process against Paul, both in the Jewish and the Roman courts of Palestine. It might have seemed, therefore, that he could have no further opportunity of self-defence or argumentative appeal to his own nation. And yet he did appear once more, before its highest representative, and there delivered what, in some respects, is the most characteristic and complete of his Apologies. This singular and unexpected close of Paul's extraordinary mission to Judea seemed to call for explanation, to afford which is Luke's purpose in the remainder of this chapter, where he states distinctly the apparently fortuitous occasion of this last appearance. After certain days, literally, some days having intervened, or happened, come to pass, between (see below, on 27:9, and compare Mark 16:1.) Agrippa the king, sometimes called Agrippa the Second or Younger, to distinguish him from his father, Agrippa the First, always called Herod in this book, whose miserable death is recorded in 12:23 above. When that event took place, the Emperor Claudius, the friend and patron of the younger Agrippa, who had been brought up at Rome, was dissuaded by his counsellors from giving to a youth of seventeen the whole dominion of his father (see above, on 12:1), but bestowed upon him the kingdom of Chalcis which had belonged to his uncle Herod, and afterwards gave him the tetrarchate of his uncle Philip, with certain parts of Galilee and Perea, with the royal title. To this was eventually added the guardianship of the temple, the keeping of the sacred vestments, and the right of nominating the High Priest. Here again the writer's truthfulness and knowledge of his subject are evinced by the precision and the confidence with which he steers through all these complicated changes without once committing even an anachronism or misnomer. Three times, in the course of the New Testament history, we find a Herod on the throne, yet always with some variation in the circumstances, which would have proved a snare to a fictitious writer. Thus the two Agrippas were both kings, but not of the same kingdom, the father reigning over Judea, while the son was present only as a visitor, and the province was again annexed to Syria and governed by a Procurator (see above, on 23:23.) He is represented by Josephus as a zealous Jew, at least externally, and even in the Talmud there is a story of his weeping at the public reading of the law forbidding any Gentile to bear rule in Israel, whereupon the people cried out to console and reassure him. According to Josephus, he was not regarded by the Jews with much affection or respect, on account of his heathen education and equivocal position between Jews and Gentiles, which was afterwards defined by his adhering to the Romans, in the final struggle which destroyed the Jewish church and commonwealth. During the short administration of Festus, he and Agrippa were involved in a controversy with the Jews, occasioned by the king's erecting an apartment in his palace on Mount Zion, from which he could see all that passed in the enclosure of the temple, even when reclining at his meals, to obstruot which view the people built a wall before his windows. This dispute was carried up to Rome, and finally decided in favour of the people through the influence of Nero's wife, Poppæa, whom Josephus speaks of as devout, that is, a secret or avowed adherent of the Jewish faith. All this was subsequent to what is here recorded; for we find Agrippa paying a visit of congratulation to the newly arrived governor, with whom he may have been acquainted formerly at Rome. The incestuous marriages, for which the Herods were proverbial are said to have had, one example in the case of this Agrippa and his eldest sister Berenice, who now attended him to Cesarea. Her first husband was her uncle, Herod king of Chalcis, after whose death she resided with Agrippa, till, in order to avoid reproach and scandal, she persuaded Polemon, king of Cilicia, to become a Jew and marry her, which he did for the sake of her supposed wealth, but afterwards forsook both his wife and his religion, whereupon she returned to her brother, and at length crowned her infamous career by becoming the mistress of two successive Roman Emperors, father and son, Vespasian (so says Tacitus) and Titus (so says Suetonius.) With such representatives of Judaism long resident at Rome, it is no wonder that the poet Juvenal, in one of his most bitter and severe allusions, should combine the sabbath and abstinence from, swine's flesh with the incest of Bernice and Agrippa, as characteristics of the race and the religion. This odious relation, as a key to Agrippa's moral character, is thought by some to be suggested by the prominence here given to Bernice, without any designation of her rank or lineage. That these corruptions were not merely personal, but tainted the whole family, may be inferred from the description previously given of Drusilla, a younger sister of the two here mentioned. (See above, on 24:24.) Some suppose Agrippa's visit upon this occasion, though ostensibly designed to welcome Felix, to have had some reference to the case of Paul, which he may have regarded as belonging to his own jurisdiction as the guardian of the temple and protector of the Jews, though not the civil ruler of Judea. But as no such motive is suggested in the context, and as both Agrippa and Bernice paid similar visit to the Procurator Gessius Floras, it is better to explain it as a complimentary attention, or perhaps as an official recognition of the Roman sovereignty by the successors of the native kings.

14. When (literally, as, or while) they had been (literally, were spending time) there, the same Greek verb that is used above in v. 6. Many, literally, more, i.e. more than one, several, a few (see above, on 13:31; 21:10; 24:17.) Declared Paul's cause, or more exactly, stated (or referred) the (things) concerning Paul. (Compare the use of the same verb by Paul himself, Gal. 2:2.) The idea is not that of official reference or report, but rather of a casual colloquial statement, although Festus, if the motive afterwards expressed was real, may have meditated such a course from the beginning. This narrative of Festus is as near to that of Luke as would be natural in such a case, although there may be some exaggerations or embellishments, as we shall see below. In bonds, literally, a prisoner, or imprisoned, the Greek word being used in the classics as an adjective, but in the New Testament always elsewhere as a noun (see above, on 16:25, 27; 23:18, and compare Matt. 27:15, 16; Mark 15:6.) In Paul's epistles, written during his captivity, he uses this word as a favourite description of himself (see Eph. 3:1; 4:1; 2 Tim. 1:8; Philem. 1, 9.)

15. About (concerning, with respect to) whom, I being at (or to, i.e. having previously come to) Jerusalem. Informed, as in v. 2 and in 24:1 above. Desiring to have, literally, asking (for themselves), the same verb in the middle voice employed above in v. 3. The expression here is not so strong, however, since instead of favour, they are said to have asked judgment, not condemnation, as the Greek word elsewhere means from its connection (see below, on 28:4, and compare 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7, in all which places it is rendered vengeance), but justice, i.e. a fair trial, which was the pretext of the application, as appears from Luke's account of it (see above, on vs. 3, 9.) They desired Paul's condemnation, no doubt, as the issue of his trial at their bar; but all they dared to ask was justice.

16. This reply is altogether different from that in v. 4, where the application is refused from mere considerations of convenience. It is altogether possible, however, that both answers were returned, and that Luke has chosen to record each only once. Another explanation of the difference, less pleasing in itself and less creditable to Festus, is that he embellished his statement to Agrippa, by relating not only what he said but what he might have said on that occasion. The reply itself has always been regarded as a true and honourable testimony to the Roman love of justice, the most real and conspicuous of the national virtues. Manner (or custom) is a feeble reproduction of the Greek word (ἔθος), which, in reference not only to the Jews (see above, on 6:14; 15:1; 21:21), but to the Gentiles (see above, on 16:21), would necessarily suggest the additional ideas of established law and religious usage. The practice here repudiated was to the Romans both illegal and irreligious. To deliver, as a gift, or as a means of gratifying others, the same expression that occurs above in v. 11, and which Festus may have borrowed from Paul's speech on that occasion, a remark admitting of a wider application to the whole of this fine Roman sentiment, for which the judge was very possibly indebted to the prisoner at his bar. To die, literally, to (or for) destruction (or perdition, see above, on 8:20); but these words are not found in the oldest copies, and are therefore omitted by the latest critics, the idea being certainly implied, if not expressed. He which is accused, or more simply and exactly, the accused, corresponding, both in form and sense, to the accusers. The combination of the singular and plural form was probably suggested by the case in hand, where one man was accused by many. Face to face, literally, to (his) face, i.e. before him, in his presence (see above, on 3:13), which may be regarded as an abbreviation of the other phrase (see 1 Cor. 13:12, and compare the marginal translation of 2 John 12; 3 John 14.) License to answer for himself, or more exactly, place of apology (or self-defence), which some take literally in the sense of a place where he may defend himself, but most interpreters in that of opportunity, including a sufficient space of time. (Compare place of repentance, Heb. 12:17, and the corresponding Latin phrase, poenitentiae locus, used by Livy, Tacitus, and Pliny.) The crime laid against him is in Greek a single word meaning charge or accusation, as explained above (on 23:29.)

17. When they were come hither, literally, they having come together here, i.e. at Cesarea, in obedience to the order here omitted but before recorded (see above, on v. 5.) Without any delay, literally, making no delay (or postponement), a noun corresponding to the verb used above (in 24:22) of Felix, to whose gratuitous procrastination there may here be a complacent reference, though true in fact, as the testimony of Festus is confirmed by that of Luke himself (see above, on v. 6.) Sitting (or having sat down) on the bench (or judgment-seat, tribunal, see above, on vs. 6, 10), I commanded the man to be brought (in or forth, i.e. from the prison, as supplied by the translators.)

18. Against whom, literally, about whom, which may either mean, concerning whom, as in the last clause of v. 16, or have its primary and local sense, around him standing, an idea before expressed by a verb compounded with this same preposition (see above, on v. 7.) This construction is now commonly preferred, as it connects the first words of the verse together, and at the same time makes the scene more lively by describing the accusers not as standing merely, but as standing or gathering around the accused. None, as an adjective directly coupled with a noun, belongs to old English usage, the modern dialect, in all such cases, substituting no. (Other examples of the old form may be seen in Deut. 28:66; Mic. 3:11; 1 Cor. 10:32; 1 Tim. 5:14.) Of such things as (or those things which) I supposed (surmised, suspected, or conjectured), implying a want of clear and definite knowledge (see above, on 13:25, and below, on 27:27.) Festus here refers, no doubt, to that which Gallio expressly named upon a like occasion (see above, on 18:14), namely, legal or moral wrong, as distinguished from mere error of opinion. The resemblance between these two speeches, although not so great as to impair their individuality, is just what might have been expected from the similarity of circumstances, both the governors in question being strangers or new comers, and entirely unacquainted with the Jews' religion.

19. Questions, the plural of the word employed by Gallio, in 18:15, and there explained. Against him, literally, to or at him, as the person whom they charged with heresy, the preposition signifying not hostility directly, but the object of address or controversy (see above, on 11:2.) Of (about, concerning, as in v. 16) their own religion, an equivocal expression, upon which the speaker and the hearers were at liberty to put their own construction, as denoting either piety or superstition. It is a kindred word to that employed in the exordium of Paul's discourse at Athens (see above, on 17:22) and there explained. From the use of this word (in the sense of superstition) it has been inferred that Agrippa could not be a Jew, or Festus would not have insulted him so grossly. But the argument is all the other way, to wit, that as we know Agrippa to have been a Jew (see above, on v. 13, and below, on 26:3, 27), the word must at least admit of a good sense. That this speech is not copied from the speech of Gallio, is apparent from the circumstance that while the latter uses terms of general description (words and names and law), Festus fastens on a single question, that of Christ's resurrection, and describes it just as might have been expected from a Roman of good sense, but not acquainted with the Jewish Scriptures or the Christian doctrines. The transition from the general to the special statement of the points at issue is indicated by the and—'about their own religion and (especially) about one (or a certain) Jesus (now) dead (or a certain deceased Jesus), whom Paul affirmed (or solemnly declared, the same verb as in 24:9) to live (i.e. to be alive), which may either mean to live still (i.e. not to have died), or to live again (i.e. to have revived or risen from the dead.) The very ambiguity of this expression corresponds no doubt to the precise state of the speaker's mind on this perplexing and confounding subject, as he probably was not aware precisely what Paul meant beyond the general assertion that the man in question was alive. The charge of scornful and incredulous misrepresentation, brought by some of the old writers against this description of the controverted question, is at variance with what we know besides of Festus, and far less natural in this connection than the view just taken of the passage, as exhibiting precisely the impression likely to be made upon the mind or even an intelligent and candid heathen, by the complicated issues of the controversy between Jews and Christians. This character of truthfulness is made more striking by the fact that the specific point, which Festus singles out in his description of the charges against Paul, is precisely that which Paul makes even strangely prominent in his own discourses (see above, on 23:6; 24:15, 16, and below, on 26:6–8). The more inexplicable this proceeding upon Paul's part may as yet appear, the more surprising is the strict fidelity with which it is reproduced by Festus, to whom it must have been still more enigmatical, and whose account of it is therefore a strong proof of authenticity and genuineness in the record. Besides the points of similarity and difference between the words of Gallio and Festus, they may also be compared with those of Claudius Lysias in his letter to Felix (see above, on 23:29), where the same natural perplexity appears, but with more reference to practical than speculative difficulties, and with a more negative description of the "questions," as involving no offence deserving death, or even imprisonment.

20. Because I doubted, literally, being at a loss, perplexed, confounded (see above, on 2:12, where the etymology and usage of the Greek verb are explained.) The marginal version of the next words (how to inquire hereof) is probably nearer to the sense of the original than that given in the text, though both are paraphrases rather than translations. Being perplexed (or at a loss) as to the inquiry about these (things), i.e. how such matters could be judicially investigated. The word here rendered inquiry is a cognate form to that so often rendered question (see above, on 15:2; 18:15; 23:29, and below, on 26:3), but with a difference of termination (ζήτησις and ζήτημα), regarded by the best Greek philologists as expressing two distinguishable shades of meaning, namely, the subject and the act of disputation. The questions mentioned in v. 19 were themselves perplexing to the mind of Festus; but the particular perplexity, of which he here complains, was in relation to the method of inquiry or investigation. 'Being doubtful how such questions could be made the subject of inquiry in a court of justice.' This seems a natural and reasonable ground for wishing to transfer the case to Jewish hands; but it is not found in Luke's account of what was said on this occasion, which ascribes the Procurator's proposition to a very different motive (see above, on v. 9.) Nor is any such reason presupposed or recognized in Paul's reply, which treats the proposition as unreasonable and unfair, and makes it the occasion of his own appeal. From all this it is probable that Festus, like too many men in similar circumstances, instead of simply stating what he said before, avails himself of what has since occurred to him upon reflection, and improves the logic of his speech at the expense of its historical exactness. He originally made the proposition, as Luke tells us, to conciliate the Jews, but afterwards excogitated reasons of a higher kind, by which it might be plausibly supported. Such variations may be made almost unconsciously, and cannot therefore be adduced as proofs of mala fides or malus animus, although they may evince, as in the case before us, a greater care for one's own credit than for truth or for the interests of others. These (things) is the reading of the oldest manuscripts and latest critics; the received text is this, in the singular number, which in Greek may be either masculine or neuter, this (man), i.e. Jesus, whose life or death was in dispute, or this (thing), i.e. this whole matter or affair, which is substantially the same thing with the plural reading. I asked him (literally, said) if (or whether) he would go, not an auxiliary tense but two distinct verbs, whether he desired (or was willing) to go. (See above, on 17:20; 18:15; 19:30; 22:30; 23:28; and for the like use of a different verb, on 7:28, 39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 17:18; 19:33; 24:6.) Go, depart, or journey, a verb implying distance and removal (see above, on v. 12.) Judged, tried, put on trial (see above, on vs. 9, 10.) Of (about, concerning) these (things), or about these questions, which to Festus were so puzzling and inscrutable. The impression naturally made by this whole statement must have been, that Paul had not been tried at all since Festus came into the province, but had stubbornly refused to be so, and in order to avoid it had appealed to Cesar. But this impression is to us corrected by the narrative of Luke himself, from which we learn that it was after Paul had been accused and heard in his defence by Festus, with an utter failure, on the part of his accusers, to substantiate their charges, that the governor had asked him to be tried again at Jerusalem, from which gratuitous and dangerous proposal, whether made ignorantly or insidiously, Paul was obliged to escape by suddenly appealing to the Emperor. Whatever impression this misstatement may have made upon Agrippa, it has not been without effect on some interpreters, who seem to take their views of Paul's case rather from what Festus asserts here than from what Luke relates in vs. 7–12 above.

21. Paul appealing (or having appealed) to be reserved (or kept) seems at first an incongruous construction; but the first verb really includes the sense of claiming, which would here be perfectly appropriate. He appealed (and thereby virtually claimed) to be reserved, etc. Hearing (margin, judgment) is in Greek diagnosis, a term still employed in medicine to signify the critical discrimination of diseases, but applied more widely in the classics to any discriminating judgment or decision. (For the usage of the primitive or cognate verb, see above, on 23:15; 24:22.) Augustus, like the Greek word which it here translates, is properly an adjective denoting venerable, reverend, august. It is strictly a religious title, and describes its subject as entitled to divine honours, in which sense it was idolatronsly given by the Roman Senate and people to Octavian Caesar, the first Emperor, from whom it was inherited by his successors, as an official title or description. It is here applied to Nero, not by Paul, who uses only the family name Cesar (see above, on vs. 8, 10, 11, and compare Phil. 4:22), but by Festus, not as a mere honorary title, but no doubt in its highest and most heathenish acceptation, though he also uses the less flattering name in this same sentence. To be kept, another tense of the verb rendered in the preceding clause, to be reserved, both suggesting the additional idea of being watched or guarded (see above, on v. 4, and on 12:5, 6; 16:23; 24:23.) Until (the time when or at which) I might (should or could) send him to Cesar. The delay referred to might have reference to legal forms required in such cases, or to military orders for the escort of the prisoner, or to an opportunity of safe and speedy passage from Judea into Italy. The interval, however, was not probably a long one (see below, on 27:1.)

22. Would hear, like would go in v. 20, is not a compound tense of one verb, as in English, but a phrase consisting of two distinct and independent verbs, the first of which means to desire (or wish), and is here in the indicative imperfect form. The simplest and most obvious version, therefore, would be, I desired (or I was wishing), with respect to past time, more or less remote. Some accordingly explain it as referring to a wish excited in Agrippa's mind while listening to Festus ('I was wishing just now that I could myself hear him'); others to a wish of earlier date and longer standing ('I desired to hear him long ago,' or 'before I came upon this visit'), which might then be understood as implying that he came at least in part for this purpose. This construction is especially preferred by those who think it not unlikely that Agrippa came to Cesarea, with a view to claim at least concurrent jurisdiction with the Procurator over Paul's case as that of a native Jew, and as such under his protection and control (but see above, on v. 13.) Most interpreters, however, and especially the most exact philologists of modern times, explain the Greek verb, like the similar imperfect used by Paul in Rom. 9:2, as the indirect expression of a present wish, correctly rendered in the English version. The nice distinction in Greek usage, as explained by these authorities, is that the present tense would have represented the result as dependent on the speaker's will (as in Rom. 1:13, 16, 19; 1 Cor. 16:7; 1 Tim. 2:8); the imperfect with the qualifying particle (ἄν) would have meant, I could wish (but I do not); whereas this precise form is expressive of an actual and present wish, but subject to the will of others, 'I could wish, if it were proper, or if you have no objection.' This courteous suggestion or request is promptly responded to by Festus, who was no doubt glad of such important aid in settling this vexatious question. The dramatic movement of the sentence is still more marked in two of the oldest extant manuscripts, which omit the verb said in the first clause, and its subject or nominative (ὁ δέ) in the last clause.

23. On the morrow, a favourite expression in this book, though not always uniform in English, being sometimes rendered the next day. (Compare 10:9, 23, 24; 20:7; 22:30; 23:32, with 14:20; 21:8, and v. 6 above, in all which places the original expression is the same.) Agrippa having come (or coming) and Bernice, again named as his companion, and again without describing her relation to him, perhaps for the reason before hinted (see above, on v. 13.) With great pomp, literally, much fantasy, a Greek word current in old English, in the restricted sense of fancy, which is really contracted from it, but in ancient usage meaning show, display, parade, pomp, as it is here correctly rendered. This might be nothing more than the usual and necessary state maintained by royal personages, as the only means of distinguishing their rank; but most interpreters suppose it to be here recorded in the way of censure, as a needless and excessive ostentation, throwing light upon the character of these two persons, and made doubly odious by their mutual relation and by the local circumstance, that this display was made almost upon the very spot where their father, a few years before, was smitten by an angel and devoured by worms, for the indulgence of a pride very similar to that supposed to be here charged upon his children. (See above, on 12:21–23.) Entered, literally, coming in, a compound form of the verb coming in the first clause. Place of hearing is in Greek a single word, not used by the ancient classics, and supposed to have been formed upon the model of the Latin auditorium, which properly means any place of hearing, such as a lecture-room or court-room; but as this last usage, even of the Latin word, did not become fixed till the second century, its Greek equivalent most probably denotes, not a place constantly appropriated to this use, but one appointed for the present occasion, no doubt an apartment of the Praetorium in Cesarea (see above, on 23:35.) The other persons mentioned were probably invited to give eclat to the audience, which in this respect was therefore the most brilliant and imposing of all Paul's appearances. Chief captains, chiliarchs, commanders of a thousand men, i.e. of cohorts (see above, on 10:1, 21, 31), five of which, as Josephus mentions twice, were stationed at Cesarea, as the political capital of the province. Principal men, literally, men by (way of) eminence (or prominence), the prominent or leading men of Cesarea, whether ex officio or as private citizens.

24. For the information of the strangers present, and perhaps to justify the singular occurrence of what seemed to be another trial after an appeal to the supreme tribunal, Festus opens the assembly with an explanatory statement of the previous proceedings and of his own design in this. King Agrippa (in the original, Agrippa King) is first addressed by name, as the highest in rank of the spectators, and the one for whose gratification this assembly had been really, though not perhaps ostensibly, convened. And all the men (or gentlemen) present with us (here is supplied by the translators.) Bernice, although present, is not named, because a woman could not be considered as taking part in judicial business, without a violation both of Oriental and Roman usage. Ye see, behold, survey, contemplate as a strange sight (see above, on 7:56; 8:13; 10:11; 17:16), or imperatively, see, behold (the man of whom you have so often heard.) All the multitude (or mass, see above, on 2:6; 6:2; 15:30; 23:7) may be either a hyperbole, relating to the priests and elders, or a reference to some popular movement not recorded elsewhere, although perfectly consistent with the known facts of the case, and with the habits of the people at Jerusalem (see above, on 21:36.) Dealt with me, applied to me, petitioned me, a Greek verb originally meaning to fall in with or encounter, then to meet, confer, converse, negotiate, intercede, either for, as in every other place where it occurs (Rom. 8:27, 34; 11:2; Heb. 7:25), or against a person, as in this place. Crying, shouting, and thereby showing the passionate excitement under which they acted. Here, at Cesarea, in allusion, no doubt, to the deputation from Jerusalem, of which we read in vs. 5, 17 above. As no popular commotion is recorded to have taken place there, it is not improbable that even what is said in the preceding clause has reference to the Sanhedrim and not to the rabble at Jerusalem.

25. When I found, literally, apprehending, ascertaining, or perceiving (see above, on 4:13; 10:34) him to have done nothing worthy of death, another proof that Paul had actually been tried before Festus, when the latter made the proposition which occasioned his appeal (see above, on vs. 7, 8, 20); for on what other ground could Festus here assert his innocence? Had Festus promptly acted on the strong conviction here expressed, by setting Paul at liberty, the latter could have no pretext for appealing. It was because Festus, though convinced of his innocence, instead of giving judgment in his favour, weakly and unreasonably asked him to submit to a new trial, at another and most prejudiced tribunal; it was therefore that Paul found himself compelled to gain deliverance from both by an assertion of his civil rights. This (man) himself having appealed to Cesar, from what decision, or for what cause, Festus carefully abstains from saying, either here or in his previous and private statement of the case to Agrippa. I determined to send him, not by an arbitrary act of will, or even by a peremptory act of judgment, which is not the meaning of the Greek verb (see above, on 3:13; 4:19; 15:19; 20:16; 21:25), but I came to this conclusion, I was satisfied that this was the true course, as it was in fact the only one left to his discretion (see above, on v. 12.) Before proceeding to the next verse, it is indispensable to get a just view of the painful and embarrassing position, to which Festus had reduced himself by a vacillating and time-serving policy. Here was a man who had been tried before him (see above, on vs. 7, 8), with an utter failure, on the part of his accusers, to substantiate their charges, as the governor himself admits in this verse. He was therefore virtually though not formally acquitted, and his appeal was not from a decision in his favour, which would be absurd, but from the Procurator's failing or refusing to pronounce such a decision, unless Paul would submit to a new trial at Jerusalem.

26. Having seen the false position in which Festus had been placed by his attempt to please the Jews instead of acting on his own sense of justice and conviction of Paul's innocence, we come now to his own disguised confession of the error into which he had thus fallen. Of (about, concerning) whom (as in v. 24) any (thing) safe (infallible or certain, see above, on 2:36; 5:23; 16:23; 24; 21:34; 22:30) to write unto the Lord I have not; wherefore (for the reason just assigned, that he had nothing definite or certain to report) I brought him forth (or forward) before you, and especially before thee (as a judge, which idea is suggested by the Greek preposition, as in v. 9, and in 23:30; 24:8, 19, 20.) Not that Agrippa was to be a real judge in this case, or could possibly decide it after the prisoner's appeal to Nero; but by acting just as if he could do this, he might relieve the governor from some perplexity. That the inquest (or examination) having taken place, I might have somewhat to write (or according to the latest critics, have what I may write.) This plausible address, without directly violating truth, is suited, and was probably intended, to convey the false impression, that the governor's embarrassment arose entirely from his ignorance of Jewish usages and doctrines, and could therefore be removed by the assistance of a person so well skilled in all such matters, and at the same time so exalted in position, as the king Agrippa. But this embarrassment, though real when the cause first came before him, must have been removed in a great measure by the trial spoken of in vs. 8, 9, or he could not have pronounced Paul guiltless, as he does in v. 25. The real difficulty of his present situation lay in the necessity of sending Paul to Rome, because he had himself neglected to perform his duty, and was therefore utterly unable to report the case to Nero without self-crimination, unless something should occur in this mock-trial or rehearsal of the one before the Emperor, to put a new face on the whole affair, of which he seems to have indulged some vague and groundless expectation. The Lord (or Master) in this verse is not a synonyme for sovereign, in the ordinary secular or civil sense, but like Augustus (see above, on v. 21), a religious or idolatrous description of the Emperor as a divine person (see above, on 24:2.) There is here a strong proof of the writer's intimate acquaintance with the facts to which he even incidentally alludes, or rather of the absolute fidelity with which he has reported what was said by others, in the circumstance that this very title (Dominus) had been indignantly rejected by Augustus, and in imitation of him by Tiberius, but afterwards accepted by Caligula and Claudius, and exacted by Nero, to whom Festus here applies it. (For kindred arguments derived from the right use of the titles corresponding to proconsul, king, etc., see above, on 13:7; 17:7; 19:38.)

27. Unreasonable might perhaps be still more exactly rendered irrational, absurd, something not only unbecoming or improper, but a suitable subject of contempt and ridicule. This strong expression, which would hardly be appropriate to such an error if arising from mere ignorance of Jewish laws, betrays a secret consciousness that he had played the fool, as well as failed in duty, by allowing Paul to take advantage of his weakness and escape from his control before he had passed judgment in the case, and while he was gratuitously urging a new trial, with the risk of an unrighteous condemnation, merely because the Jews desired it, though convinced by what had passed already in his presence, that the prisoner was guiltless of the capital offence with which he had been charged (see above, on v. 25.) It is very probable that Festus would have forced Paul to submit to a new trial at Jerusalem, not for the purpose of destroying him, but simply to gain favour with the Jews, if such coercion had been in his power. But from this the Apostle was delivered by his civitas or citizenship, which enabled him, by one decisive act, to overleap the heads both of the High Priest and the Procurator into the presence of the Emperor himself. To this, no doubt, he was divinely guided, as the providential means, not only of prolonged life and of safe escape from Palestine after he had done his errand, but also of a final apostolical appearance at the bar of Nero (see below, on 28:30, 31.) To send (literally, sending) a prisoner, and not withal (literally, not also) to report (or signify, but not in the same sense as in 11:28 above) the charges (literally, causes, grounds of punishment or prosecution, as in v. 18) against him (laid is introduced by the translators.)

CHAPTER 26

THIS division of the text contains Paul's fifth Apology, the one before Agrippa, representing both the Jewish and the Roman power, at whose joint tribunal the Apostle recapitulates or sums up his defence, thereby closing his extraordinary mission to the Holy Land with another attempt to gain his kinsmen according to the flesh. The chapter requires and admits of no division beyond that afforded by the progress of the argument or drift of the discourse. Being called on by Agrippa to defend himself, he expresses satisfaction at the opportunity of doing so before one so familiar with all Jewish matters (1–3). Then referring to his early Pharisaic life, as well known to the Jews, he points out the remarkable circumstance, that his old associates now accused him of believing their own doctrines (4–8). Then resuming his narrative, he paints in the strongest colours his own persecuting agency, with aggravating circumstances not recorded elsewhere (9–11). This is followed by a third account of his conversion, with a fuller statement of his great commission then received from Christ himself (12–18). This commission he had faithfully fulfilled, and by so doing had been brought into his present situation (19–21). He continues to maintain, however, that his teaching is in strict accordance with the ancient Scriptures, as to the Messiah's being both a sufferer and a saviour (22, 23). At this point Festus interrupts him with a charge of madness, to which Paul replies by courteously denying his assertion and reminding him that this defence was not addressed to him, but to a person well acquainted with the subject, and indeed a believer in the Scriptures (24–27.) Agrippa acknowledges the power of Paul's argument, and agrees with Festus that the charges were without foundation, but reminds him that he ought to have discharged the prisoner before, instead of letting him appeal to Nero (28–32).

1. Agrippa here begins to act his part as judge in this mocktrial, which was a sort of rehearsal or anticipation, on a small scale, of what might be expected to take place before the Emperor. It is permitted to thee, for thyself to speak. The first verb, in the classics, usually means to commit or to entrust, but sometimes to permit, which is its only sense in the New Testament. (See above, on 21:39, 40.) Then, in the first clause, is the usual connective (δέ); in the last clause, the adverb (τότε) meaning at that time, or after that, as soon as he received permission. (See above, on 21:26, 33; 23:3; 25:12.) For himself is not expressed, as for thyself is, by a pronoun and a preposition, but by the middle voice of a verb which originally means to talk off, or save from punishment by speaking. (See above, on 19:33; 24:10; 28:8.) Extending (or stretching out) the hand, not motioning for silence, as in 12:17; 13:16; 19:33; 21:40, where the Greek verb means to shake or shake down; but either as a customary gesture at the opening of a speech; or a specific recognition of Agrippa, as the one whom he consented to address; at the same time intended to remind him and the others of Paul's unjust confinement, by exhibiting the chain, with which he was fastened to his guard in prison. (See above, on 24:23, and below, on v. 29.)

2. Paul begins, as he did before Felix (see above, on 24:10) with a conciliatory exordium (captatio benevolentiae), but more strongly expressed, as might have been expected from the difference in the judges. Here again the original order of the words is more sonorous and rhetorical than in the version "As to all the things of which I am accused by Jews, king Agrippa, I have thought myself happy, before thee being about this day to defend myself." By Jews (not by the Jews), i.e. by persons of the same religion which the king professed, and with which Paul describes him as being so familiar. Happy, a much stronger term than cheerfully in 24:10. Have thought, in the perfect tense, i.e. since I heard of this appointment or arrangement, which was probably announced to him as soon as it was made. Being about, the verb expressive of futurity, so often used in this book (see above, on 24:15, 25; 25:4.) To defend myself, the same verb as in v. 1. Before thee, not merely in thy presence, but at thy tribunal, as appointed pro hac vice to sit in preliminary judgment on the case before it is submitted to the Emperor.

3. Especially may either indicate his principal reason for rejoicing, namely, because Agrippa was expert, etc., or may qualify what follows, expert (in other things no doubt but) especially, etc. The words, I know thee, are supplied by the translators, the original construction being the comparatively rare one of the accusative absolute. Expert, literally, a knower, corresponding to the French connoisseur, but without its restricted application. Customs, legal and religious institutions (see above, on 6:14; 15:1; 16:21; 21:21; 25:16.) Questions, controversies, subjects of dispute (see above, on 15:2; 18:15; 23:29; 25:19.) Among is in Greek a stronger word, meaning through, throughout, and thus suggesting the idea that the things in question were of universal not of local interest. (See above, on 8:1; 9:31, 42; 10:37; 11:1; 13:1; 18:15; 21:21, 24; 5:12.) This was not an idle compliment, but a fact of great importance in relation to Paul's testimony or defence both of himself and his religion. Of the four apologies already past, two were delivered to the Jews, but in the presence of the Gentiles, and two to the Gentiles in the presence of the Jews. (See above, on 21:39, 40; 22:30; 24:1; 25:6, 7.) As a winding up of this extraordinary mission to Judea, he was now to recapitulate and close his whole defence, before a man who might be said to represent, in his own person, both religions and both governments; a Jew by education and profession, the official guardian of the temple and defender of the faith, but at the same time a crowned vassal of the Roman Empire, bound to it not only by political necessity, but by personal interest and predilection. There was certainly no man living who united in himself so many diverse qualifications for the singular position in which Providence now placed him; a knowledge of Roman affairs rare among the Jews; a knowledge of Jewish affairs still more rare among the Romans; official authority, both civil and religious, with the adventitious dignity belonging even to a tributary and dependent sovereign. No wonder that the "prisoner of the Lord" (Eph. 4:1), after pleading his cause before the people and the Sanhedrim, and at the bar of Felix and of Festus, should have thought himself happy, i.e. highly favoured by the providence of God, in being suffered to sum up his cause before an auditor so singularly qualified and chosen. Wherefore, the rather as thou art thus qualified to understand my case and to appreciate the grounds of my defence, I pray thee, I make bold to ask thee, not as a mere favour but a right, arising from our mutual relations at this singular conjuncture, to hear me patiently, or with long-suffering, a Greek word modelled on a Hebrew phrase of frequent occurrence, especially in application to the divine forbearance with the sins of men. (Compare the Septuagint version of Ex. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Ecc. 7:9; Prov. 29:11.)

4, 5. After this exordium he begins, as in his first Apology (see above, on 22:3), with his early history, but instead of repeating the details, refers to them as well known to the Jewish population, and requiring no other proof than that which it could furnish. My manner of life is a correct paraphrase of one Greek word, meaning life or living, and occurring only here. Which was at the first, literally, the (life) from the beginning past (elapsed or happened.) In my (own) nation, not abroad, among the Gentiles. In Jerusalem, the capital and Holy City, not in any obscure province or provincial town. Know all the Jews, implying that he not only came very early to Jerusalem, but was there conspicuous and well known, either from his family connections, his relations to Gamaliel (see above, on 22:3), or his personal ability, activity, and zeal. The fact that he was thus so well and generally known is repeated with great emphasis, as one of some importance to his own defence. Knowing me before, i.e. before these present troubles, as if he had said, 'I am no stranger or new acquaintance of these people, but an old familiar friend and neighbour.' From the beginning is the literal translation of the phrase rendered at the first in v. 4, and employed in v. 5 to express an adverb strictly meaning from above (as in Matt. 27:51; John 3:31; 19:11, 23; James 1:17; 3:15, 17), but applied less frequently to time (see Luke 1:3, and compare John 3:3, 7; Gal. 4:9.) If they would testify, i.e. are willing so to do (see above, on 7:39; 10:10; 14:13; 16:3; 24:6; 25:9.) This seems to imply that his accusers had affected to know nothing of his antecedents. Most straitest, an anomalous pleonasm, not found in the original, but handed down from Tyndale through the later English versions. Straitest, i.e. strictest, most exact, in reference both to doctrinal and practical rigour. (See above, on 18:25, 26; 22:3; 23:15, 20; 24:22.) Religion is in Greek a word denoting more especially the external form or mode of worship, and therefore peculiarly appropriate to the Jewish ritual, as rendered still more ceremonial by the Pharisees (see above, on 4:1.) I lived a Pharisee, an excellent translation of a beautiful and pointed phrase, which would be greatly weakened by inserting as. He not only professed this form of Judaism, but lived it, exemplified, embodied it, in his life and practice.

6. And now, the usual transition from the past to the present (see above, on 3:17; 10:5; 13:11; 20:22, 25; 22:17), but here suggesting an antithesis or contrast. 'Such was I of old, and now see what and where I am.' He here repeats, but more distinctly, the assertion made upon his trial before Felix (see above, on 24:14, 15), that the real ground of his arrest and prosecution was not his having left the old religion, but his having too faithfully adhered to it. For the hope of the promise, i.e. founded on, excited by the promise; or the sense may be, the hope of its fulfilment. (See above, on 1:4; 2:33; 7:17.) Made, happened, brought into existence (see above, on v. 4, and on 25:15, 26.) To the fathers, i.e. to the Patriarchs and to the intervening generations. Our, which identifies the speaker with the Jewish race and church (see above, on 3:13, 25; 5:30; 7:2, 11, 12, 15, 19, 38, 39, 44, 45; 13:17; 15:10; 22:14), is omitted by the latest critics. I stand and am judged, literally, stand (or have stood, see above, on 1:11; 9:7; 21:40; 24:20; 25:10) being tried (or on my trial.) The hope here meant is more explicitly described in the next verse.

7. Promise is correctly supplied by the translators from the verse preceding, the antecedent being indicated by the gender of the relative in Greek. Our twelve tribes, in the original a single word, not occurring elsewhere, but of obvious etymology and meaning, being properly a neuter noun denoting a collective body composed of twelve tribes. (Compare the words translated two years, three years, in 20:31; 24:27.) It is here put for the whole Jewish race or nation, either because it was at first composed of twelve tribes, although now reduced to a much smaller number; or because it virtually still consisted of twelve tribes, the ten being represented by the descendants of such as adhered to Judah after the Assyrian Conquest, and of such as returned with Judah from the Babylonish exile. The expression here used is equivalent to saying, the Theocracy or Jewish Church. Instantly, literally, in tension, i.e. with intensity, the Greek noun corresponding to the adjective in 12:5. This may refer either to the traditional hereditary zeal with which the Jews adhered to the Mosaic law, or to the expectation, which is known to have been specially alive at this time, of Messiah's advent (see above, on 2:5.) Serving, worshipping, a Greek word primarily signifying work for wages, and even in its higher use suggesting the idea of hard labour undergone with a view to some valuable recompense, an excellent description of the old economy with its burdensome impositions and restrictions (see above, on 15:10), borne by some as meritorious, by others simply in obedience to the will of God, by others still as a provisional or temporary system until Christ should come. Hope (agreeing with the singular collective in the first clause) to come, come down, arrive at, or attain to. (For the local usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 16:1; 18:19, 24; 20:15; 21:7; 25:13; for its higher application to spiritual attainments, compare Eph. 4:13; Phil. 3:11.) Of (about, concerning) which hope, I am accused (and that) by Jews (not the Jews, see above, on v. 2), i.e. by men whose whole religion rests upon the very hope which they accuse me of maintaining. The hope described in this verse cannot be that of a general resurrection, which is only partially revealed in the Old Testament, and was not held by all the Jews at this time (see above, on 24:15.) The only hope answering to the description, as an ancient, national, and still intense one, is the hope of the Messiah, as promised to the Patriarchs, prefigured in the Law, predicted in the Prophets, and still ardently expected by the People. This was in fact the end at which the complicated legal system aimed, and towards which it continually pointed. The words, king Agrippa, are omitted by the latest critics, as an unauthorized repetition from v. 2, though several of the oldest manuscripts have one or both. The sense, in which Paul represents himself as charged with holding fast the hope of the nation, although not distinctly stated, must have been perceived by every Jewish hearer. Common to him and his accusers was the hope of a Messiah; the breaking point between them was the question whether he had come, which they denied and Paul affirmed. He could therefore say with perfect truth, that he was tried (or on his trial) about, concerning, in relation to this hope, i.e. to its fulfilment.

8. The first word may be also construed as an exclamation, What! is it judged incredible, etc.? This is now commonly preferred, as giving more vivacity and point to the apostrophe. Is it (not should it be) judged incredible with you, i.e. among the Jews, including Agrippa, whom Paul here addresses as their representative. That God should raise, or rather, if God raises dead (men), not as a mere possible contingency, but as an actual fact, equivalent to saying, since he has done so. (For this use of if in Greek, see above, on 4:9; 11:17; 16:15; 23:9.) The reference is plainly to the resurrection of Christ, as the crowning proof of his Messiahship, and thus the nexus between this verse and the one before it, which appeared to be abruptly broken, is completely re-established. As if he had said, 'they believe in a Messiah, so do I; but they expect him yet to come, while I believe that he is come already, not without grounds or on hearsay, but because God has identified him by raising him from the dead; and surely this, if properly attested, cannot be thought by any devout Jew to be beyond his power.' Dead (not the dead) is in Greek a plural, and by some explained as a generic form relating to a single person (see above, on 17:18); but it is rather an allusion to the general resurrection, of which Christ's was the pledge and the example. (See above, on 24:15, where this part of Paul's doctrine is more prominently brought to view.)

9. I Verily, or rather, so then, the continuative particle resuming what had been previously dropped or interrupted (see above, on 8:4, 25; 9:31; 11:19; 12:5; 13:4; 15:3, 30; 16:5; 17:12, 17, 30; 18:14; 19:32, 38; 23:18, 31.) It here connects this verse with the last words of the fifth (I lived a Pharisee), from which he had digressed to point out the remarkable fact that he was now accused by Pharisees for holding their own doctrines, and to which he now returns, by showing how his Pharisaic spirit was displayed in action. 'Well then, as I was saying, being such a Pharisee, I thought, etc.' With (to or in) myself, a pleonastic phrase, found also in the classics, and suggesting the idea both of independent judgment and of intimate conviction. Ought (or must), in Greek the infinitive of a verb used to denote both physical and moral necessity (see above, on 25:10, 24.) Contrary (hostile, or in opposition) to the name of Jesus the Nazarene (see above, on 2:22; 3:6; 4:10; 6:14; 22:8; 24:5), i.e. opposed to the person so called in contempt, even by Saul the Pharisee himself; or, according to the usage of this book, against all that is denoted by his names and titles, which describe him as a Saviour, the Messiah, Prophet, Priest, King, etc. (See above, on 2:38; 3:6, 16; 4:10, 12, 17, 30; 5:41; 9:15; 15:14, 26; 19:5, 13, 17; 21:13.) It never simply means the person of Christ, nor those who bear his name. Many (things) may either signify a frequent repetition of the same acts, or various forms and modes of opposition.

10. Which also I did, i.e. I acted on this strong conviction of necessity and duty, beginning at Jerusalem. The saints, or holy ones, a designation of believers used three times in one chapter of the book before us (see above, on 9:13, 32, 41), and still more frequently in Paul's epistles (see Rom. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2, 15; 1 Cor. 1:2; 4:12; 14:13; 16:1, 15; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1; Col. 1:2, 4, 12, 26; 1 Th. 3:13; 2 Th. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:10; Philem. 5, 7; Heb. 6:10; 13:24.) The use of the term here implies an acknowledgment of his former error in relation to these Christians, whom he now admits to have been saints of God. But while he thus confesses his own sin, he denounces that of the Jewish rulers, by declaring under what authority he acted, namely, that of the chief priests, here put for the whole Sanhedrim or national council (see above, on 4:5, 23; 5:24; 9:14, 21; 22:30; 23:14; 25:15.) In prison, literally, in prisons. They also (τε) being executed (or despatched, see above, on 25:3), I gave my voice (literally, brought a vote) against them. This is literally understood by some, as proving that Saul was a member of the Sanhedrim, which others think improbable for various reasons, and explain the phrase as a figure for personal concurrence and assent, which is elsewhere spoken of in literal terms (see above, on 8:1; 22:20.)

11. The second and is supplied by the translators. The original construction is, and often punishing them, forced them to blaspheme. In every synagogue, or more exactly, throughout all synagogues, a natural hyperbole, implying that this persecuting agency was not confined to one community or congregation, nor indeed to one country, as appears from the statement in the last clause. Punishing, no doubt by scourging, which was a customary form of punishment, and practised in the synagogues or public meetings for religious worship (see Matt. 10:17, 23, 34; Mark 13:9.) Forced them to blaspheme (or curse the name of Christ), not only tried to do so, but succeeded in the case of those whose faith was weak or spurious. In the reign of Trajan, forty years later, as we learn from one of Pliny's letters, the same thing was required of the persecuted Christians in Bithynia; but he says that none who really believed in Christ could be induced or forced to do it. The last clause is descriptive of the highest point to which his persecuting zeal attained, and which he here looks back upon as a paroxysm of insane excitement. Exceedingly too (τε) raving (being mad or furious) against them, I pursued (or persecuted) them even also (or as far as even) to the foreign (literally, outside) cities. As Damascus is the only one of these expressly mentioned, some suppose the plural here again to be generic (see above, on v. 8); others think that this one instance was selected out of many, because connected with such great events. Most probably, however, Paul's commission extended to other cities, but his progress was arrested at the first.

12. In which (things), i.e. while thus employed (compare a similar expression in 24:18 above.) As I went, literally, journeying, proceeding (see above, on 24:25; 25:12, 20.) Commission, a noun corresponding to the verb employed above in v. 1. Paul insists upon his regular commission and authority, not so much as an extenuating circumstance in his own case, as because it proved the personal and national complicity of those who now accused him. As if he had said, 'Let it be observed that this fanatical mission, mad and wicked at it was, must not be reckoned a mere personal or private act, but one performed by national authority and under the most sacred auspices, to wit, those of the Priesthood and the Sanhedrim.' In the account of Paul's conversion which now follows, it will only be necessary to advert to what is new, or to remove apparent inconsistencies between this and the two previous narratives of the same event. (See above, on 9:1–9; 22:6–11.)

13. Here, as in 22:6, the time of day when this occurrence took place is particularly mentioned, namely, mid-day (or the middle of the day), which may be intended either to remind the hearers that this was no nocturnal vision, but an incident occurring in the blaze of noon, or as a vivid recollection, which would naturally dwell upon the mind of the chief actor, although just as naturally passed by in the narratives of others. An addition to the previous accounts is the description of the light from heaven as above (or beyond) the brightness of the sun, and as shining not only about Paul himself, but also about those journeying with him.

14, 15. We all having fallen to the earth, i.e. Paul and his companions mentioned in the verse preceding. This is not at variance with the statement in 9:4, 7, where Paul alone is spoken of as falling to the earth, and those who journeyed with him as standing speechless. But the verb stood, there used, may be rendered had stood still, or stopped, at the first appearance of the light, and is opposed not so much to lying prostrate as to going on. They may therefore have fallen after Paul did, whose prostration Luke records exclusively, as that of the chief actor and great subject of the history. In the Hebrew dialect, i.e. perhaps the ancient Hebrew, although commonly explained to mean its Aramaic corruption, then vernacular in Palestine (see above, on 21:40; 22:2.) The last clause is admitted to be genuine in this place, even by those who reject it in 9:5, where it has already been explained as a proverbial expression, not for difficulty merely, but for danger as attending blind resistance to superior power. The question and answer in v. 15 are substantially the same in all accounts (but see above, on 22:8), the chief variation being in the collocation of the words, which here follow, as in 9:5 they precede, the proverbial expression just referred to. This is no contradiction, inasmuch as neither of the narratives professes to record the exact order of the incidents, which indeed is altogether unimportant.

16. In the following verses, some things are ascribed directly to the Saviour, which in the former narrative are put into the mouth of Ananias, either because they were originally uttered by the Lord, and then repeated by his messenger, or because the distinction between what came directly and indirectly from the same source was considered unessential to the purpose of Paul's narrative. The command to arise is found in all the narratives, but in the first two followed by an order to go into the city, and there receive further instructions, which are here given immediately as if uttered on the spot. Stand upon thy feet is an additional expression, no doubt preserved in Paul's own memory, though not recorded in the other places. To make, the verb translated chosen in 22:14 above, and there explained. A minister and a witness may be understood as a generic and specific expression of the same idea, one who ministers by witnessing; or each term may have its distinct meaning, one who administers and one who testifies, which is not only a simpler construction, but appropriate in this connection, where the things referred to in the last clause are the divine communications and commands, which Paul was both to execute and make known to others Which thou sawest (just now) or hast seen (on this occasion), referring to the whole interview or vision in which Christ appeared to him at his conversion. And of the things which (i.e. as to which or in which) I will appear to thee, communicate with thee, or make revelations to thee, hereafter. The causative construction (I will make thee see) is consistent neither with the form nor the usage of the Greek verb.

17. Delivering, rescuing from danger or the power of another, is the constant meaning of this verb in the New Testament (see above, on 7:10, 34; 12:11; 23:27, and compare Gal. 1:4), except where it is used in its primary and physical sense of taking out (as in Matt. 5:29; 18:9), from which, in classical usage, it derives that of choosing (picking out), and this is preferred by some modern writers in the case before us. But besides the settled Hellenistic usage, to which this would be almost the sole exception, there is something not entirely natural in representing Paul as chosen from among the Gentiles as well as the Jews. The words indeed admit of an intelligible sense (to wit, that he was chosen out of the whole field in which he was to labour), but by no means so appropriate and obvious as that which is obtained by adhering to the usage elsewhere, namely, that although he was to be in danger both from Jews and Gentiles, to whom Christ was now about to send him, he should be finally delivered from their enmity and power.

18. Having assured him of his own safety, the Lord now describes the work to which he was appointed, by a full specification of the moral changes to be wrought, through his agency, upon the Gentiles, as the words are usually understood, but, as some of the best modern writers understand them, both on Jews ("the people") and Gentiles ("the nations"), as the double antecedent of the relative (to whom) in the last clause of v. 17. This agrees not only with the form of the expression here, but with the fact which runs through Paul's whole history and writings, that wherever he had the opportunity he preached to Jews as well as Gentiles. (See above, on 9:20, 29; 13:5, 14; 14:1; 16:1, 3, 13; 17:1; 18:4; 19:8, and compare Rom. 1:16; 9:3; 10:1.) The effects themselves are stated both in a literal and figurative form. To open their eyes, i.e. remove their spiritual blindness and enable them to distinguish spiritual objects (1 Cor. 12:14) by communicating both the object and the power of perceiving it, the truth itself and a believing apprehension of it. To turn (them), or convert them, which is only a corresponding Latin form, both denoting change of condition and especially of relative position, with respect to God, his service and his favour. Darkness and light are common figures in the New Testament, not only for ignorance and knowledge, especially of spiritual things, but for the several states or characters, of which these are necessary incidents, a state of sin and one of holiness. (See Matt. 6:23; Luke 1:79; John 3:19; Rom. 13:12; 1 Cor. 4:5; 2 Cor. 4:6; 6:14; Eph. 5:8; Col. 1:13; 1 Thess. 5:4, 5; 1 Pet 2:9; 1 John 1:5; 2:8–11.) The two worlds thus distinguished are then described by naming their respective sovereigns, from the power (or dominion) of Satan (the great adversary, see above, on 5:3) to God, not only to his power or dominion, but to himself, implying a more intimate union and communion. This change of relation, comprehends or carries with it, exemption from punishment and guilt, or the remission of sins (see above, on 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; 13:38), and as its positive result, participation by a filial right in the holiness and happiness of those who are heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8:17.) By faith in me does not qualify the last preceding clause above, but is presented as the only means or principle by which any of the changes here described can be effected.

19. Whereupon, literally, whence, from which place (as in 14:26 above and 28:13 below), but sometimes logically used, from which cause, or for which reason (as in Matt. 14:7; 1 John 2:18), an idiom particularly frequent in the epistle to the Hebrews (2:17; 3:1; 7:25; 8:3; 9:18.) This is the only sense appropriate in this place, where the reference is clearly to the previous description of the work to which he had been called. For which cause, i.e. because thus instructed in the nature of the work before me, I was not (or rather, did not become, in consequence of this disclosure) disobedient to the heavenly vision, or divine communication from the visible Redeemer, the extraordinary sight being put for the whole revelation which it accompanied and attested. (Compare the like use of a kindred verb in v. 16 above.) Thus understood, the verse seems to imply that if controlled by selfish motives, or a merely human wisdom, Saul would have recoiled from the responsibilities and hardships of the ministry, to which he was thus set apart by Christ himself.

20. Far from refusing his commission, he accepted it and instantly began its execution, although not avowedly as an Apostle until long after his conversion (see above, on 13:9.) The particular localities here named are probably designed to show how promptly and how fully he had executed his important mission. But to the (Jews) in Damascus first, the very place where he became a Christian (see above, on 9:20–22), and (to those) in Jerusalem (as soon as he returned there, see above, on 9:29), I showed, the verb so rendered in 11:13; 12:17, but elsewhere more exactly told (5:22–25; 12:14; 15:27; 16:36; 22:26; 23:16, 17, 19), and once reported (4:23.) The act here described is that of preaching, considered as a publication or announcement of the Gospel. This was not confined to the metropolis, but penetrated also (τε) into the whole region of Judea. (For the English usage of the word coasts, see above, on 13:50.) If this related to the beginning of his ministry, it would be inconsistent with his statement in Gal. 1:22; but he here puts together his whole ministry among the Jews, before proceeding to the other and chief part of his commission, to the nations, i.e. other nations, Gentiles (see above, on v. 16.) Having shown his prompt obedience as to time and place, he now asserts his fidelity in reference to the subject of his preaching, as prescribed in his divine commission (see above, on v. 18), the substance of which is here repeated in another form. (Announcing both to Jews and Gentiles by authority, in other words commanding them) to repent (see above, on 2:38; 17:30), and turn (convert, or be converted) unto God (see above, on. v. 18, and on 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 20:21), doing (habitually, practising, a word derived from that here used) works (acts, habits,) worthy of repentance, not merely consistent with it, but suited and proportioned to it, both as its necessary fruits, and as proofs of its existence and sincerity. This varied yet harmonious statement of Paul's great commission may throw light also on the ministerial work in general, and on that of the missionary in particular.

21. Having stated his commission and its execution, he proceeds to connect it with his present situation as a prisoner. For (on account or for the sake of) these (things), i.e. because I had received and executed this commission, as a teacher and apostle (2 Tim. 1:11) both to Jews and Gentiles. This was the true ground, even of the first charge against him, which occasioned his arrest (see above, on 21:28, 29.) The alleged profanation of the temple would not have been thought of by the Jews from Asia, but for their previous knowledge of Paul's intercourse, as a religious teacher, not with Jews only, but with Gentiles, in their native country (see above, on 19:8–10.) That he should venture to preach Jesus as the true Messiah, expected by the Jews and predicted in their Scriptures, and invite the Gentiles to partake of the advantages belonging to his kingdom, without even passing through the vestibule of Judaism; this was the real crime of Paul in Jewish eyes, for which they seized (me) in the temple, and endeavoured to despatch (or make away with) me by summary violence, without legal process, though the verb here used is elsewhere applied to the judicial murder of our Lord himself (See above, on 5:30, and compare the account of the attempt on Paul's life, 21:31.)

22. The order in Greek is somewhat different. Succour, help and protection against enemies, which is the specific usage of the Greek word. Then (or therefore) is not to be pressed as a logical connective, though it really refers as such to an intermediate fact or thought, not here expressed, to wit, the failure of the murderous attempt just mentioned. 'They would gladly have despatched me, and repeatedly attempted it, but God confounded all their plots, and so (or therefore) etc.' Having obtained, experienced, met with, the same verb that is used above in 24:2 (3), and there explained. From God, as the ultimate and sovereign author of this help, in whose hands the Romans were but instrumental agents, as declared by Christ himself to Pilate (John 19:11.) Unto this day, from its position in the sentence, may be construed either with the words preceding it in Greek (having obtained help from God), or with those following it (I continue) both of which it qualifies in fact, although the last grammatical construction is entitled to the preference, because the other leaves the following verb too insulated. I continue, literally stand, or have stood (see above, v. 6, and on 1:11; 9:7), which means not merely, I am still alive in spite of these attempts to kill me, but more pointedly, I still maintain my ground, I hold fast my position, the idea expressed in Hebrew by the phrase, to stand in judgment (compare Ps. 1:5.) But even this is not the whole of what Paul here claims. It was not only negatively true that he had been sustained as an innocent though accused party, but also positively true that he had stood fast as a witness to the truth. Witnessing (or testifying), not as a self-commissioned volunteer, but in execution of the charge which he received at his conversion (see above, on v. 16.) Both to small and great, an idiomatic phrase for all classes and varieties of condition, without exclusive reference to rank (high and low) or to age (old and young.) A similar expression (from small to great) is employed above in 8:10 (and in Heb. 8:11), though needlessly disguised by a superlative translation (from the least to the greatest.) Still nearer to the formula here used is one repeatedly employed by John in the Apocalypse (see Rev. 11:18; 13:16; 19:5, 18; 20:12.) If the common text (μαρτυρούμενος) be here retained, the clause will have a wholly different sense, this participle being always passive elsewhere (see above, on 6:3; 10:22; 22:12, and compare Rom. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:12; 1 Tim. 5:10; Heb. 7:8.) Some accordingly translate it here, attested (testified, accredited) both by small and great (as) saying nothing, etc. But besides that the expression, small and great, is not so natural on this construction, it contradicts the known facts of the history, as all did not bear witness to Paul's faithfulness in this respect, or he would not have been a prisoner or had occasion to defend himself at all. By a happy coincidence which does not often happen, the best sense here agrees with what the latest critics reckon the true text, four uncial manuscripts and several Greek Fathers having another reading (μαρτυρόμενος), the participle of a different though kindred verb, occurring elsewhere only in an active or deponent sense (see above, on 20:26, and compare Gal. 5:3; Eph. 4:17.) The last clause then describes this testimony, not as something new or anti-jewish, but in strict accordance with the Hebrew Scriptures. Saying none other things (literally, nothing saying) than (literally, outside of, besides, except) those which the prophets spoke of (as) about to come (to pass, take place or happen.) For the usage of the two last verbs (μελλόντων γίνεσθαι) see above, on vs. 2, 4, 6, 19. Lest his profession of agreement with the prophets should be understood in too confined a sense, he adds, by a kind of afterthought, and Moses, not the other prophets merely, but the great prophetic legislator, from whom I am particularly charged not only with apostatizing, but with teaching apostasy to others also. (See above, on 21:21.) The emphatic position of these words in the original is lost in the version by connecting them directly with the prophets.

23. Having thus far spoken of his preaching as a testimony borne to small and great, perhaps with some allusion to the rank of those whom he addressed on this occasion, he now remembers, as it were, that it had also a polemic character, in reference to certain Messianic doctrines, upon which its truth depended, and which he had been under the necessity, not only of expounding but defending from the open opposition or corrupt interpretation of the Scribes and their disciples. What the version positively states as Paul's own doctrine, he himself states as a subject of discussion or debate between him and his Jewish adversaries. That Christ should suffer, literally, if (or whether) the Messiah (is or was to be) passible (susceptible or capable of suffering.) As we know, however, that the same parties who denied that the Messiah was to suffer, also denied that he was to be a divine person, the last word in this clause is probably to be taken, not in a philosophical or technical but rather in a popular and loose sense, as referring less to his capacity of suffering than to his suffering in fact, and the prediction of that fact by the ancient Prophets. Thus understood, it might be rendered, whether the Messiah (was to be) a sufferer. As the suffering meant is that of death (see above, on 1:3; 3:18; 17:3), it would of course imply his resurrection, which is stated as another controverted question. Whether (he, as the) first from (the) resurrection of (the) dead) i.e. the first so to arise, is (or is about) to proclaim light (i.e. truth, holiness, and happiness, see above, on v. 18) to the people (of the Jews) and to the (other) nations (i.e. to the Gentiles.) As thus explained, the whole verse may be paraphrased as follows. 'Through the help of God, I have maintained my ground to this day, bearing witness of the truth, to men of all conditions, and discussing the great question, whether the Messiah of the prophecies was to die and rise again, before he could be set forth as a Saviour, both to Jews and Gentiles.' Here at last we have the key to that mysterious connection between the doctrine of Messiah and the doctrine of a resurrection, which seems to be implied though not expressed in Paul's defence before Felix (see above, on 24:14–16.) It is now clear that in speaking, upon that occasion, of the general resurrection as the hope of Israel, he tacitly connected it, perhaps expressly in his self-defence as actually uttered, with the resurrection of our Lord himself as the Messiah foretold in the Hebrew Scriptures; and on this ground claimed to be a strict adherent of the old religion, holding all that was taught in the law and the prophets, and therefore able conscientiously to claim his birthright as a faithful member of the Theocracy or Jewish Church, and as such guilty of no treason or disloyalty to God or man.

24. As Paul had addressed himself directly to Agrippa (see above, on vs. 2, 7, 13, 19), and had therefore presupposed an acquaintance with the Jewish Scriptures and religion, much that he said must have been wholly unintelligible to the Romans present (see above, on 25:23), while the warmth with which he uttered these mysterious doctrines would of course appear irrational to such a hearer. It is therefore altogether natural that Festus, without any feeling of malignity, or even of contempt, but simply as a Roman, ignorant of both religions now in conflict, as the same in principle but opposite in fact, should have uttered just such an apostrophe as that recorded in the verse before us. He apologizing these (things), i.e. saying these things in his own defence, seems to imply that Festus interrupted him, but probably not long before the meditated close of his discourse. The loud (or great) voice only implies eagerness and boldness, not contempt or insolence, which Paul could not consistently have answered as he does in the next verse below. Thou art beside thyself, in Greek a single word, thou ravest, thou art mad. Much learning, literally, many letters, which, according to its Greek etymology and usage, may denote either books and writings (as in John 5:47), or the knowledge obtained from them (as in John 7:15), i.e. literature, learning, as in our phrases, men of letters, polite letters, etc. The latter sense is given in the English version and preferred by most interpreters, although the other is no less appropriate and much more pointed. There is no need of supposing a specific reference to the books and parchments over which the governor had seen Paul poring while in prison (compare 2 Tim. 4:13); but there does seem to be an obvious allusion to the Jewish Scriptures, from which his arguments were drawn, on the sense of which the truth or falsehood of his claims depended, which moreover were habitually designated by a kindred Greek word (γραφαί), and at least in one place (John 5:47) by the very word here used (γράμματα.) The sense will then be not that learning in general had disturbed his reason, which a cultivated Gentile would be slow to think, but that Scripture learning in particular had this effect, which any Greek or Roman would have thought most natural. Doth make thee mad, literally, turns thee round to mania, which may either mean, inclines thee to insanity, or more emphatically, overturns thee, i.e. subverts thy reason, to (or so as to produce) insanity.

25. I am not mad, the first person of the same verb, mood, and tense employed in the preceding verse, though rendered by a different one in English, thus destroying the antithesis which gives force and beauty to the answer. I am not mad may correspond in substance to the phrase, thou art beside thyself; but how much more exactly to the literal translation, 'Thou art mad.… I am not mad.' Most noble, excellent, or honourable, an official title, not a personal description (see above, on 24:3, 7.) As the use of it was optional, Paul's application of the term to Festus must be understood as a respectful recognition of his office, if not of his character, which would not have been uttered if the speech that called it forth had been an insolent or scornful one. As it is, the Apostle turns to Festus, whose proximity he seemed to have forgotten, saying, 'I am not surprised that your Excellency thinks me mad, but you are much mistaken.' But words of truth and soberness, or sanity, the opposite of madness, which is the precise sense of the Greek word here employed. I speak out, utter forth, as with authority, the Greek verb used above in 2:7, and there explained.

26. The tact and courtesy have always been admired, with which the Apostle here reminds the governor, that this Apology was not addressed to him, but to Agrippa. Festus had already sat in judgment on him, and by trying to conciliate the Jews at Paul's expense had forced him to appeal to Nero, thereby involving both the prisoner and himself in great embarrassment, from which he was now trying to escape by letting king Agrippa hear the case again, while Festus himself sat by as a spectator. He had no right, therefore, to disturb or interrupt a proceeding which he had himself requested, and in which he was incompetent to take an active part, as he had more than once acknowledged (see above, on 25:20, 26.) To this Paul delicately here refers, as if he had said, 'It is not surprising that you cannot understand me, as I am not speaking now to you but to the king.' For the king knows (or is well informed, see above, on 19:15, 25; 20:18; 22:19; 24:10) about these things (the usages and questions mentioned in v. 3 above), to whom (not before whom, but directly to whom) I speak freely (or speak using freedom, see above, on 9:27, 29; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8.) The reference is not so much to boldness as to plainness or freedom from reserve, because he knew that what he said would be intelligible to his hearer, not only from his general acquaintance with the matters in debate, but from his previous knowledge of the facts in this particular case. For any of these (things) to be concealed from (or escape) him, I do not believe (literally, am not persuaded); for not in a corner (i.e. in obscurity or secret) has this (thing) been done, i.e. this whole affair or series of events, in which Paul had been actively or passively concerned. In thus acknowledging the king's acquaintance with the subject and capacity to understand his statements, Paul's design is not to flatter or exalt him, but to humble Festus, without giving him offence, by reminding him that what appeared to him mere visionary raving might be perfectly coherent and intelligible to another, who was qualified by early education and experience to comprehend the subject of discussion.

27. All that precedes might have been said, had Agrippa been a heathen, but familiar with the Jews' religion, which would certainly have given him a great advantage over any one as ignorant as Festus was of these things, however intelligent in other matters. But besides this mere difference of knowledge, there was one of more importance in the fact, that Agrippa was a Jew by education and profession, and as we here learn by sincere conviction that the Scriptures were inspired of God. This interesting circumstance Paul here turns to his own advantage, not by boldly stating it, but by a natural rhetorical expedient, carrying it home with tenfold force to all who heard him. Believest thou, (oh) king Agrippa, in the prophets? i.e. dost thou trust them and rely upon them as the spokesmen and messengers of God himself? With another stroke of skill and power worthy of Demosthenes, instead of waiting for an answer to his question, he replies to it himself, I know that thou believest (i.e. in the inspiration of the ancient prophets.) I know cannot mean I think or I conjecture, any more in this place than in 20:25, 29. Even if the absolute expression did admit of this attenuated meaning elsewhere, it is here forbidden by the solemnity of the occasion, and especially of this appeal to the convictions of Agrippa, which would be greatly weakened if the last words only meant, 'I think you do.'

28. Without explicitly assenting to what Paul had said, Agrippa really responds to it by stating the impression which he had received from Paul's discourse, the argumentative effect of which depended wholly on the divine authority of those very writers, in whom he had just been represented as believing. This remarkable expression of Agrippa has been variously represented as a trivial jest, a bitter sarcasm, a grave irony, a burst of anger, and an expression of sincere conviction. Corresponding to these different conceptions of the temper in which the words were uttered are the senses put upon the words themselves, or rather on the first two words in Greek (ἐν ὀλίγῳ), which might be literally rendered, in a few, but that this word is exclusively employed with plural nouns, whereas the Greek word is a singular in form and meaning, and may therefore be translated, in a little. (See above, on 12:18; 14:28; 15:2; 19:23, 24.) Almost, the common English version, although very ancient, is immediately derived from the Geneva Bible, being found in none of older date. It supposes the Greek phrase to mean within a little, wanting a little, or the like, in which sense several kindred phrases are employed, but not the very one here used. Another objection to it is, that it requires the corresponding phrase in Paul's reply to mean altogether, which it never does elsewhere. Adhering to the strict sense, in a little, some supply time, in a little while, or soon; but this requires the present tense (thou persuadest) to be taken as a future, and the corresponding phrase (in v. 29) to mean, in a long time. Still more unnatural is the explanation of some recent writers, with little trouble, easily, which not only takes the words in an unusual sense, but assumes an irony, of which there is no other intimation. By far the simplest and most satisfactory interpretation, although not even mentioned by some modern writers, is the one found in the oldest English versions, in a little, i.e. in a small degree, (Tyndale and Cranmer, somewhat.) The idea then is, 'thou persuadest me a little (or in some degree) to become a Christian,' i.e. I begin to feel the force of your persuasive arguments, and if I hear you longer, do not know what the effect may be. This is neither sportively nor bitterly ironical, but rather complimentary and courtly, no doubt expressing a sincere admiration of Paul's eloquence and logic, and a strong persuasion of his innocence, but not a genuine conviction of the truth of Christianity, as may be gathered from the later history of this man, as recorded by Josephus, and from his use of the term Christian, which had not yet been adopted by the church itself, but was still a heathenish if not a disrespectful designation. (See above, on 11:26.)

29. The Apostle's answer to this courteous but evasive compliment, no doubt intended to ward off all appeals to the king's conscience, has been always praised as a model of Christian dignity and kindness, and a rhetorically admirable peroration. I would to God, or more exactly, I could pray to God, i.e. if it were proper and would not offend, I could now burst forth into an audible petition, which with graceful art he does indirectly, even while he seems to be deferring it. Another fine trait in this closing sentence is the ease with which he passes from Agrippa, hitherto the only auditor whose presence he had recognized, except when Festus for a moment interrupted him, to all those present, not by a direct address, which could not have been made becoming at the very end of his discourse, but by including all in his benevolent petition. Were (or rather, might become) both in little and in much (or in a small and great degree) such as even I am, save these bonds (which he again perhaps held up to view.) The exquisite mixture of severity and tenderness in this allusion to his own unjust confinement, and the accompanying wish for their exemption both from this and from a far worse bondage, forms a noble peroration of this great discourse, and an appropriate winding up of the whole series of Apologies, which occupies the history of Paul's last visit to the Holy Land.

30. When he had thus spoken (or he having spoken these things) is omitted in the oldest copies and excluded by the latest critics. Some suppose their rising to be here described as an abrupt one, prompted by the king's unwillingness to hear more; but the regular and beautiful conclusion, to which Paul's address was brought in the preceding verse, seems rather to imply that he had said what he intended, and that the purpose of the audience was accomplished. The persons who composed the assembly are enumerated in the order of their personal rank, and not of their official authority; first the King, as such, and on account of his relation to the Jews, although without political power in Judea; then the Governor, whose relative position was the converse of Agrippa's; then Bernice, as a person of royal lineage, and the sister of the highest dignitary present; after which the military officers and citizens (see above, on 25:23) are grouped together as assessors, or those sitting with the chiefs just severally mentioned. These are little things, of no importance in themselves, but tending to confirm the supposition that the writer was a witness of his master's last Apology in Palestine. (See above, on 24:23.)

31. Some explain the first words, and withdrawing, or as they withdrew from the "place of hearing" (see above, on 24:23), they conversed among themselves as follows. But the constant meaning of the Greek verb is to go aside for safety, privacy, or consultation (see above, on 23:19, and compare Matt. 2:12; Mark 3:7; John 6:15.) This is especially appropriate in this place, where the whole proceeding had a definite design (see above, on 25:26), which would not have been accomplished without something more than a colloquial expression of opinion. The only question is, to whom this verse refers as thus withdrawing and consulting. Not to all those mentioned in v. 30, who would then be represented as withdrawing from themselves. The most probable solution is afforded by the next verse, where the two leading personages are expressly named, and may therefore be regarded as the subjects of the verb in this verse. The sense will then be, that Agrippa and Festus, withdrawing from the company, perhaps going aside but in the same apartment, there exchanged views in relation to the hearing which had just been held, and coincided in the judgment previously formed by Festus (see above, on 25:25), that the prisoner was guilty of no crime deserving either the highest or the lowest form of punishment, imprisonment or death. Thus again the innocence of Paul had been triumphantly established, not only to the further satisfaction of the governor, by whom he had been virtually cleared before, but also in the judgment of the best informed and most disinterested arbiter before whom he had yet appeared.

32. If this meant only that the charges against Paul were groundless, it would be a needless and unmeaning repetition by Agrippa of what he and Festus had agreed upon already in the verse preceding. But Paul's was not the only case on which Agrippa was to sit in judgment. The very man who had requested his assistance as an arbiter in Paul's case, had by that act made him judge of his own conduct. We have seen already (on 25:9 above), that Festus by neglecting to discharge Paul when his innocence was proved, had forced him to appeal, and at the same time placed himself in the embarrassing position of a magistrate sending home a prisoner, who might have been disposed of on the spot, but for his own neglect of duty. During this last hearing by Agrippa, Festus seems to have indulged a hope that something would occur to relieve him from his false position; but of this hope he was now deprived by the expression of Agrippa's jugdment here recorded. This man could have been discharged (or set at liberty), the technical expression for judicial liberation, used above in 3:13; 4:21, 23; 5:40; 16:35, 36; 17:9. He does not say that he could now be set free, but that he might have been so at some former period, both verbs being in the past tense. This can refer only to the time of Paul's appearance before Festus (see above, on 25:6, 25), and is therefore a civil way of saying that he ought to have been set free then. If he had not appealed unto Cesar is not added to exonerate Festus, but in reality to make him answerable for the whole result, as having forced Paul to appeal by his denial or delay of justice. It is worthy of remark that this appeal, though apparently precipitate on Paul's part, and embarrassing to him as well as to the Procurator, was the providential means by which he was removed from Palestine and brought to Rome, an end which might never have been reached, if he had not, as many of his friends no doubt lamented now, appealed to Cesar.

CHAPTER 27

THIS chapter is entirely occupied with Paul's last recorded voyage, from his leaving Cesarea to his shipwreck on the island of Malta. It is chiefly remarkable for the fulness and exactness of its nautical details, which the latest and most critical investigations have only served to render more surprising in themselves, and more conclusive as internal proofs of authenticity and genuineness. This view of the chapter has been recently presented in a masterly monograph,* the valuable substance and results of which, omitting technical minutiae, are embodied in the following exposition. The original narrative begins with the delivery of Paul and other prisoners into the custody of a Roman officer, their embarkation in a ship of Asia Minor and short stay at Sidon, with their subsequent slow progress till they reach Myra in Lycia (1–5). Here they are transferred to an Alexandrian vessel bound to Italy, but are forced by contrary winds to the east and south of Crete, where they find a harbour, but, in opposition to Paul's warnings, leave it for another more commodious on the same coast (6–12). While prosperously nearing it, as they suppose, a violent and sudden change of wind drives them to the southwest and involves them in the greatest danger (13–19). When the storm has continued many days, Paul assures them, on divine authority, of their ultimate escape, but predicts an intervening shipwreck (20–26). In the fourteenth night they make land, and are now exposed to danger of another kind, which tempts the crew to leave the others to their fate; but their proposed desertion is prevented, at Paul's instance, by the soldiers (27–32). He then induces the whole company (the number of which is precisely stated), both by exhortation and example, to partake of food before the ship is lightened for the last time (33–38). As soon as daylight renders the land visible, they run the ship aground, but are still in a position of great peril, from which Paul is the occasion of their all escaping (39–44).

1. When (literally, as) it was determined that we should sail, or rather (about) our sailing, i.e. as to the precise time and mode of their departure, the general determination having been previously formed and recorded (see above, on 25:12, 21, 25, and compare 26:32.) We, including the historian, the first occurrence of this form of speech since the appearance of Paul and his companions before the presbytery at Jerusalem (see above, on 21:18.) Paul's arrest no doubt separated these companions from him, at least until Felix ordered that his friends should have access to him (see above, on 24:23.) Sail, literally, sail away, i.e. from Palestine, one of several compound forms of the same verb, belonging to the nautical dialect of Greece, and used by Luke in this book with great freedom and precision. (See above, on 13:4; 14:26; 15:39; 18:18; 20:6; 21:3, and below on vs. 2, 4, 6, 7, 24.) The one here employed suggests, more distinctly than the simple verb, the idea of separation and departure from the Holy Land, where his mission was now ended. The place of departure, though supposed by some to have been Ptolemais (see above, on 21:7, 15), is commonly, and no doubt justly, understood to have been Cesarea, as being both the seat of government and the most frequented seaport on the coast, as well as the scene of the last previous transactions, without the slightest intimation of their setting out from any other point. Into Italy, i.e. as their final destination (compare into Syria, 18:18; 20:3; 21:3), but not directly, as appears from the next verse. They delivered has been variously explained, as a generic plural meaning Festus only (see above, on 17:18; 19:38); or as a proper plural including his assessors and perhaps Agrippa (see above, on 25:12; 23:26); or, more probably than either, as a plural indefinite (like that in Luke 12:20; John 15:6) which, though comparatively rare in Greek, is one of our most familiar English idioms, the plural being used instead of the indefinite pronouns in French (on) and German (man.) For the most part it may be resolved into the passive, as in this case, Paul was delivered, etc. Certain other prisoners, who may have been accumulating for some time at Cesarea. To a centurion, strictly the commander of a hundred men, but used perhaps with some degree of latitude (see above, on 10:1; 21:32.) Of a band (called) the August (or Augustan), the feminine form of the word used above in 25:21. (For the meaning of the word translated band, see above, on 10:1; 21:31.) As the epithet August appears too strong for a subdivision of the army, it is commonly explained to mean Augustan, i.e. belonging or related to the Emperor in some peculiar sense or manner. That this honorary title was bestowed on certain Roman legions, is a certain fact of history; but not that any such were stationed in the East. Hence some suppose the word to mean Samaritan, from Sebaste, the name given to the ancient Samaria when rebuilt by Herod (see above, on 8:5); but although Josephus does speak of Samaritan battalions in the Roman service, he uses a different derivative, as Luke would no doubt have done also, to express the same idea. Some maintain that the Augustan rank (equivalent to that of imperial guard) was given not only to legions, but to cohorts and even to still smaller corps; others, that the title here describes the Procurator's body-guard, as that of the Emperor's official representative. All these explanations presuppose that Julius was detached, for this important service, from the army in Palestine; whereas it is at least as probable that he came from Italy, perhaps with a special commission, and was now returning thither, which removes the necessity of explaining the epithet Augustan, whether Julius be identified with any other person named in history or not.

2. There seems to have been no direct communication, just at this time, between Palestine and Italy, or at least no vessel of the requisite capacity about to sail immediately in that direction. Besides the other prisoners, who may have been numerous, as we read in contemporary history of many being sent from Judea to Rome together, the centurion commanded a military escort, as we learn from the mention of the soldiers in vs. 31, 42 below, and this detachment may have been a large one (see above, on 23:23.) Entering, embarking, see above, on 21:2, 6, and compare 20:18; 25:1. Adramyttium, a seaport of Mysia, on the western coast of Asia Minor, opposite to Lesbos (altogether different in form from Adrumetum on the coast of Africa.) This vessel, having sold its cargo, was now upon its homeward voyage, and Julius availed himself of its accommodations to reach Asia, where he knew that he should meet with vessels on their way to Italy; just as Americans who visit India often go by way of England, the circuitous route being more than made good by the greater certainty, frequency, and ease of the communication. Even this ship, however, was not going directly to its final destination, but about to sail (or navigate) the places along Asia, i.e. probably to carry on a coasting trade along the western and southwestern shore of the peninsula which we call Asia Minor (see above, on 21:27; 24:18.) Meaning, in Greek a verb denoting mere futurity (see above, on 26:2, 22, 23), and according to the common text (μέλλοντες agreeing with the subject of the verb (we launched or sailed), but in the oldest copies with the ship itself (μέλλοντι), as explained above. It is possible, however, that this clause has reference not to trade but to the necessary route from Cesarea to Adramyttium, which was also the course usually taken from Palestine and Syria to Italy. They were really, therefore, on their way until they reached the south-west corner of the peninsula, although obliged to seek another vessel to complete their voyage. Launched, set sail, departed, went out to sea, another nautical expression, of which we have already met with several examples (see above, on 13:13; 16:11; 18:21; 20:3, 13; 21:12.) One Aristarchus seems to imply that he had not been previously mentioned; but see above, on 19:29; 20:4. He is here described by his country (a Macedonian) and his city (a Thessalonian, see above, on 17:1, 11, 13.) How long he was separated from Paul, and when he rejoined him, can only be conjectured. The praise of constancy bestowed by some upon this man, though doubtless just, has no foundation in the text here (being with us) but only in the Vulgate version (perseverance nobiscum). In two of Paul's epistles, commonly supposed to have been written during his captivity at Rome, Aristarchus is mentioned, once as his fellow-labourer (Philem. 24), and once as his fellow-prisoner (Col. 4:10), which may have reference to his voluntary share in Paul's confinement during and after the voyage here described.

3. Their first day's course, instead of being north-west towards the coast of Asia (Proper), was considerably east of north, along the coast of Palestine and Phenicia, so as to reach Sidon (see above, on 12:20) on the next day (literally, the other, as in 20:15) after leaving Cesarea. This movement may have been for purposes of trade, or simply occasioned by the westerly wind, which is almost as constant as a trade wind, in that part of the Mediterranean, during the summer and autumn. Such a wind would be a fair one between Cesarea and Sidon, and a day would thus be gained in their course towards the coast of Asia Minor, even if there were no business to be there transacted, either by the ship or the centurion. In favour of the latter supposition, however, is the fact, that the vessel remained long enough at Sidon to admit of Paul's visiting his friends there. Courteously, benevolently, philanthropically (a word of kindred origin with that here used.) Touched, came to, or landed, is in Greek a passive, literally meaning, we were brought down, i.e. from the high sea to the shore (see above, on 21:3, and compare the converse or correlative expression in the first clause of the next verse. Entreated, in its old sense of treated (now superseded by that of prayed, besought) or used, which is the literal meaning of the Greek verb. This clause (benevolently using Paul) though relating strictly to the instance here recorded, may be also taken as a general description of the Roman officer's deportment towards his prisoner throughout the voyage. It is not to be regarded as implying any faith in Paul's religious doctrines, which would no doubt have been more distinctly mentioned, nor even as arising wholly from a personal regard for him. Whatever part of the result may have been owing to the free-will or discretion of the officer, there can be no doubt that he acted in obedience to specific orders, similar to those which Felix issued after Paul's defence before him (see above, on 24:23), and prompted in both cases, not by mere humanity or good-will to the individual prisoner, but also by respect for his rights and privileges as a Roman citizen. (See above, on 16:38; 22:29.) Gave him liberty, literally, permitted (see above, on 21:39, 40; 26:1.) Going to the friends (whom he had there), either old acquaintances, or simply Christians, who as such were necessarily his friends, at Sidon no less than at Tyre (see above, on 21:2–4), the other great city of Phenicia, into which country the Gospel had been early introduced (see above, on 11:19.) These two cities are always named in the New Testament together, except here and in Luke 4:26, where Sidon stands alone. It was much more ancient than Tyre, which is mentioned neither in the Pentateuch nor by Homer, whereas Sidon is named not only by Moses but by Jacob, as a well-known boundary or landmark even in the patriarchal age. (See Gen. 10:19; 49:13.) In the book of Joshua (19:28) it is called Great Zidon (Zidon Rabbah) and apparently assigned to Judah, but remained unconquered (Judg. 1:31; 10:10, 12), and was afterwards eclipsed by Tyre (2 Sam. 5:11; 1 Kings 5:6; Isai. 23:8; Ezek. 26:15; 27:8; 28:21), subdued by the Assyrians, destroyed by the Persians but rebuilt, reconquered by Alexander the Great, alternately possessed by his successors, the Greek kings of Syria and Egypt, until finally wrested from them by the Romans. It is still a town of more than five thousand inhabitants, under the slightlyaltered name of Saida, and for some years past the seat of an American mission. The ancient geographers describe its harbour (or rather harbours, for it seems to have been double) as the finest on the mainland, from the shelter afforded by a natural breakwater or ridge of rocks; but it was filled up during the middle ages. To refresh himself, literally, to obtain (experience, meet with, as in 24:2; 26:22) care, attention, which may either denote hospitality in general, or more specifically nursing, care required by delicate or ill health, to which a Greek medical writer applies almost the same expression (ἐπιμέλεια σώματος.) As to Paul's bodily infirmities, see above, on 16:10; 20:6.

4. And thence (from Sidon) loosing (setting sail, departing), in form as well as sense the converse of the verb translated touched in the preceding verse. Launched is applicable strictly only to boats or vessels which were drawn up on the land (as in Luke 8:22.) Undersailed (or sailed under) Cyprus (see above, on 11:19; 13:4; 15:39; 21:3), another nautical expression, falsely understood by some as meaning south of Cyprus, and by others close beneath its shore; whereas the best authorities explain it to mean under the lee of Cyprus, i.e. between the island and the wind (or the point towards which the wind was blowing.) They did not therefore leave it on their right hand, which would have been the direct course to the coast of "Asia" with a favourable wind (compare Paul's last voyage in the opposite direction as described above, on 21:3), but upon their left hand, i.e. to the west, sailing along the eastern coast and northward, as the only course permitted by the wind, and also for a reason brought to light by modern nautical investigation, that from Syria to the Archipelago, along the coast of Asia Minor, there is a constant current to the westward, so strong at certain times and places as to break into the cabin windows, even in calm weather. By getting into this strong current they would be able to make some way westward, even in the face of an unfavourable wind. This fact, derived, from the familiar practice of those seas and attested by professional experience, not only stamps Luke's brief account as nautically accurate, but shows the ship to have been managed just as it would have been at this day by the most experienced and skilful mariners. It also confirms the previous statement, that they sailed not to the south but to the east of Cyprus, which is further shown by the repeated mention of the reason, for (or on account of) the winds being contrary, i.e. from the west. Had they left the island on the right hand, this wind must have been directly in their face or nearly so, whereas by sailing to the north they were enabled to avail themselves of it as a side wind, and at the same time to secure the advantage of the current on the coast of Asia Minor. That they sailed close to the shore, though not expressed, may be implied, or is at least most probable.

5. That their course was northward, and to the east of Cyprus, now becomes still more apparent from their being next found in the sea of (or along) Cilicia and Pamphylia, i.e. that part of the Mediterranean which washes the two south-eastern most provinces of Asia Minor in the modern sense of that term, although not included in the ancient Asia, the neglect of which distinction by some writers on this passage has involved it in complete confusion. These are just the waters into which they would be brought by sailing towards the north along the eastern coast of Cyprus, and which Luke accordingly describes them as now sailing through (not over), another compound of the verb to sail, belonging to the technical vocabulary of ancient navigation (see above, on v. 1.) By the aid of the current which has been already mentioned, and the indentations of the coast of these two provinces, they came down (we are not told how soon), an active verb equivalent in meaning to the passive one in v. 3, both denoting arrival at a port or harbour. Lycia, a south-western province of Asia Minor, also included in the strict and ancient sense of Asia. It was only now, therefore, that the ship began to reach its destination, and to navigate the places along (the coast of) Asia (see above, on v. 2.) The first of these was Myra, now in ruins, but at that time an important city with its port Andriace, at the mouth of a small river with the same name (now Andriaki.) The size of the city in its palmy days is supposed to be indicated by that of its theatre, which may still be traced and is of vast extent. (See above, on 19:29.) Lycia often changed its political relations, having been dependent upon Rhodes in the period of the Roman Republic; then a free state under the first Emperors; then deprived by Claudius of this honour on account of its perpetual commotions, and united with Pamphylia as one province, ruled by a Proconsul, as appears from inscriptions still extant; and at last separately organized with Myra for its capital. But these political vicissitudes do not affect its geographical position as a part of Asia Proper. Myra was still a place of note and resort during a great part of the middle ages.

6. The centurion's expectation of finding an immediate opportunity to Italy was fulfilled as soon as he arrived upon the coast of Asia. And there (at Myra) finding an Alexandrian ship sailing (then or periodically, see above, on 21:2) into Italy, That a vessel bound from Alexandria to Italy should be found at Myra on the coast of Asia Minor, may seem at first sight purely accidental, as the direct route between those two countries was much further to the south, between the island of Crete and the coast of Africa. Yet Julius seems to have counted upon it as a matter of frequent if not usual occurrence. The solution of this difficulty is afforded by the fact that the same wind, which forced the ship from Cesarea to sail northward on the eastern side of Cyprus, might force the ship from Alexandria to the coast of Asia Minor, with the same advantage, on arriving there, of a powerful current setting westward and a local land wind in the same direction. Julius was justified, moreover, in expecting to find a ship from Alexandria, not only by the general trade of which that city was the centre, but by the special and extensive trade in wheat, with which at this time Rome was supplied chiefly from that quarter. The vessels built for this trade were of great size, fully equal, it is said, to the largest class of modern merchantmen, and therefore able to accommodate a much larger company than that which now embarked at Myra, and afterwards at Malta (see below, on 28:11.) About this same time, as we learn from Josephus, he was shipwrecked in a vessel of this class with six hundred others. A few years later, Titus, after conquering Jerusalem, returned to Rome in one of these store-ships. In the second century, one was driven by stress of weather into Athens, where it was visited as a great curiosity, and is described in one of Lucian's dialogues, From all this it is plain that what Luke here records, far from being incredible or even strange, is in strict accordance with contemporary usage and familiar facts of history. Put us therein, embarked us, made us go aboard (compare the verb in v. 2.) That such changes and transfers were by no means rare upon that coast we have already had a proof in Paul's adopting the same measure, on his eastward voyage, at Patara, another port of Lycia (see above, on 21:1, 2.)

7. On leaving Myra and attempting to go further westward, they were met by the still prevailing wind from that direction, without the counteracting influence before exerted by the local wind and current of the southern shore. Hence their progress was not only slow but difficult. In many (literally, sufficient) days slow-sailing, a Greek word not found in the classics, but obviously belonging to the nautical dialect, only a small part of which would find its way into contemporary literature, as in modern cases of the same kind. Scarce, or scarcely, should rather have been rendered hardly, as in the next verse, and taken in its proper sense, with difficulty, namely, that of "working to windward," or advancing in the face of adverse winds. Over against (opposite or parallel to) Cnidus, a peninsula projecting between Cos and Rhodes (see above, on 21:1) into the Ægean Sea (or Archipelago) of which it may be said to mark the entrance. The distance between Myra and Cnidus (about 130 geographical miles) being only one day's sail with a fair wind, the delay must have arisen from its being still adverse, as intimated in the next clause. This renders needless and gratuitous the supposition that they were becalmed, which also agrees less with the expression hardly, as explained above. Not suffering, another word unknown to classical Greek usage, and possibly belonging to the dialect of sailors. It is in form a compound of the verb to let (or suffer, see above, on 5:38; 14:16; 16:7; 19:30; 23:32) and the preposition to or unto, expressive either of addition or approach, advancement. Some understand it here accordingly to mean, not admitting (or permitting) us to (enter Cnidus), as a reason why they did not land there as at Myra. Others, including the best nautical authorities, explain it to mean, not allowing us to proceed (or go further) in the same direction, i.e. west by south, from the point of the peninsula to Italy. The wind forbidding this, according to the same authorities, must have been what is popularly called north-west, the very wind which even now, as we have seen, prevails in those seas towards the end of summer. Repeated instances are quoted from the history of modern navigation, in which the same cause has produced the same effect, to wit, that of driving the vessel to the east and south of Crete, along the northern coast of which her direct course would have lain in this case. Undersailed (or sailed under) Crete has precisely the same sense as in v. 4, where it is applied to Cyprus. The only difference in the cases is, that in the one they would otherwise have sailed along the south and in the other on the north side of the island, but in both they actually sailed on the east side, so as to be under its lee, or protected by it from the wind. Over against Salmone, is no doubt the true translation of the Greek phrase which corresponds in form and sense with over against Cnidus in the first clause. Towards (or in the direction of) Salmone, the construction preferred by some, would be equally grammatical and equally agreeable to usage, but a needless variation from the sense which must be put upon the same phrase in the clause preceding, and yielding scarcely so appropriate a meaning, as they rather passed in sight of than sailed towards Salmone. This is still, slightly modified, the name of the extreme point of the island eastward.

8. Having hardly (or with difficulty, as in v. 7) passed or rounded this point, they were soon upon the southern coast of Crete, and therefore in the same relative position as before they left the coast of Asia, i.e. with a high indented shore upon their right, and perhaps with something of the same advantage from a land-wind and a westward current, which would account for their apparently soon reaching a comparatively safe port called Fair Havens, a name not unknown to modern and American geography. That they chose to get upon the southern coast because the northern had no harbours, is a common error founded on a statement of Eustathius, refuted by the now familiar fact that there are at least two excellent ones (Souda and Spina Longa) upon that side of the island. It is clear from the narrative of Luke that they were driven to the east and south of Crete against their will and by the north-west wind, which would also allow them to proceed as far as Cape Matala, where the coast begins to trend towards the north-west, thus exposing them without obstruction or defence to the wind from that direction. The harbour which they reached must, therefore, have been situated to the east of Cape Matala, and there accordingly it was discovered by Pococke in the seventeenth century, two leagues east of that point, and has since been repeatedly identified, both by the Greek name which it still retains almost unaltered, and by its position furnishing a shelter from the very wind to which Paul's vessel was now exposed, but not from all the winds by which it might be threatened during a whole winter (see below, on v. 12.) This place is described simply as a harbour (or harbours) but not far from the city of Lasea (or Lasaia), which was long supposed to have entirely disappeared, both from books and from the surface of the earth, but the remains of which, with the old name still preserved in the local tradition, were identified by two Scotch travellers (Brown and Tennent) in the year 1856.

9. Now (δέ, and, or but), much time (literally, time enough, as in v. 7; 8:11; 18:18) having passed (elapsed, or happened, as in 25:13), and the sailing (or navigation, rendered course in 21:7 above, and voyage in v. 10, below) being already unsafe (a correlative expression to the one translated safe in Phil. 3:1, sure in Heb. 6:19, and certain in 25:26 above) because (or on account of, the same construction as in v. 4) the fast being already past (or gone by), i.e. the annual fast of the Mosaic calendar, the great day of atonement, being the tenth day of the seventh month, corresponding partly to September and October. (See Lev. 16:29–34; 23:26–32.) It is here used simply to define the season of the year, like Pentecost in 20:16, or like Michaelmas in English, which occurs about the same time. There is of course no reference to any physical connection of the close of navigation with the Jewish fast as a religious service, or, as some have strangely thought, with the abstinence of the crew from food during the previous toils and perils of the voyage (see below, on vs. 21, 33.) Others, though regarding it correctly as a simple designation of the season, would derive it from some fast connected with the Greek mythology and heathen worship, on the ground that the ship's company were not Jews; as if that would prevent Luke from using Jewish marks of time, with which his readers were familiar, any more than an English writer would abstain from saying Michaelmas to designate the season, although writing about Turks or Chinamen. The Roman period of the mare clausum (or suspended navigation) began later, reaching from about the middle of November to the corresponding part of March. It is probable, however, that the two preceding months were reckoned unsafe or precarious, although navigation was not absolutely interrupted. Paul admonished (or exhorted), a Greek verb used only in this chapter (see below, on v. 22), but originally meaning to commend, and then to recommend, advise, especially in public, as a speaker in the Greek assemblies. It is probable, therefore, that this exhortation was addressed to the whole company, not merely to the chiefs and officers (compare the more part in v. 12 below.)

10. Saying to them, i.e. either to the whole ship's company, including sailors, soldiers, and the officers of both sorts, or, as some infer from the next verse, only to the latter (see above, on v. 9.) Sirs, an excellent translation of the Greek word literally meaning men, which in English would be rather disrespectful than the contrary. (See above, on 1:11, 16; 2:14, 22, 29, 37; 3:12; 5:35; 7:2, 26; 13:7, 16, 26; 14:15; 15:7, 13; 17:22; 19:25, 35; 21:28; 22:1; 23:1, 6.) These may either be the words he uttered once for all, or the sum of what he said on more than one occasion, during their long stay at Fair Havens. I perceive, behold, contemplate (see above, on 25:24), denoting something more than simply seeing. Whether it here means supernatural perception, inspiration, revelation, or mere human forecast and conviction, is disputed. In favour of the latter may be urged the very different assurance afterwards imparted on express divine authority (see below, on v. 23.) The first is then to be regarded as an error; but the two may be reconciled without this supposition, by explaining loss and damage as concise expressions for the risk or danger of them, as in 15:26 above. Hurt, a Greek word properly denoting insolence and insult, as the attributes or acts of human agents, but applied by Pindar and some other poets to the fury of the elements and its effects, which seems more natural in this connection than to understand it of the mariners themselves, 'with arrogant presumption on our own part and much loss, &c.' Loss and damage, both which negative and positive ideas are expressed by this one Greek word. Lading, load, freight, cargo, from the verb to carry, like the noun translated burden, 21:3, from the verb to fill. Lives, the word so rendered in 15:26, but souls in 15:24 (compare 2:27; 3:23; 4:32 with 20:10, 24), the primary idea being that of the soul as living or a vital principle. This voyage will (or is about to) be stands last in the original, with some irregularity of syntax, not affecting the sense and occurring in the best Greek writers.

11. The centurion, as commander of the troops and guardian of the prisoners, appears to have possessed the chief authority, either because he had chartered or engaged the ship on that condition (see above, on v. 6), or as a necessary consequence of his official rank and special mission in the public service (see above, on v. 1.) Believed, literally, was persuaded (or convinced), the same passive verb employed above in 5:36, 37, 40; 17:4; 21:14; 23:21; 26:26, and implying previous doubt and reasoning, as distinguished from the exercise of mere authority. The master, governor (a word of kindred origin with that here used), or pilot, who steered the vessel with his own hands, or at least, in modern parlance, sailed it. Owner of the ship, in Greek a single word, ship-owner, who in ancient times most commonly accompanied his vessel in person, although sometimes represented, as at present, by a supercargo. That Julius should defer to the opinion of these mariners, in preference to that of his own prisoner, was natural enough, and is here recorded, not as a reproach or censure, but as the unintentional occasion of the subsequent disasters (see below, on v. 21.)

12. The haven (port or harbour) being, from the beginning, i.e. naturally, always (for the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 3:2; 14:8; 16:3; 17:24; 21:20; 22:3.) Incommodious, unsuitable, badly situated, probably another technical expression, as it is not used by classical Greek writers. It is here to be comparatively understood, as meaning that the harbour did not afford shelter from all the winds to which the ship would be exposed if it should winter there (see above, on v. 8.) To winter in is not a verb in Greek (as to winter in the next clause is), but a cognate noun preceded by a preposition, for wintering (or for a winter-station.) Both words are used in classic Greek, and the verb by Paul in his epistles (1 Cor. 16:6; 3:12.) The more (part supplied by the translators) is in Greek a plural adjective, meaning the more (men or persons), i.e. the majority of those consulted, or of all on board the vessel, to whom the decision of this question seems to have been left. Advised, or as some explain the phrase, gave counsel, might be more exactly rendered, laid a plan, or adopted a resolution. The verb (meaning literally placed or put) is one used elsewhere in the strong sense of determined (see above, on 1:7; 5:4; 19:21); the noun in that of will, design, or purpose (see above, on 2:23; 4:28; 5:38; 13:36; 20:27.) According to this usage, the whole phrase denotes not mere advice but positive determination, whether that of the whole company or of the officers, decided by majority of voices, although not, most probably, by formal voting. To depart, the word translated loosed in 13:13, sailed in 18:21, and launched in v. 2 above, where its usage is explained more fully. Thence, i.e. from Fair Havens, where they still continued. The reading and thence (or thence also) is not found in the oldest manuscripts, and seems to be preferred by certain critics only on account of its embarrassing the syntax. If by any means (or if perchance), implying the uncertainty and hazard of the course proposed (compare Rom. 1:10, 11, 14; Phil. 3:11, the only other cases of its use in the New Testament.) They might be able, coming down to (or arriving at) Phenice (or more exactly, Phœnix, the masculine form of that occurring in 11:19; 15:3; 21:2.) Although Ptolemy mentions such a place, its situation remained undiscovered till within a few years, when it was identified with what is now called Lutro, and in 1856 the ancient name was found, as in so many other cases, to have been preserved by popular or local tradition (see above, on v. 8.) The proof of the identity, however, is afforded by the fact that no other place upon the southern coast of Crete affords a shelter even from the winds to which it opens, and which never "blow home," but expend their force before they reach the roadstead. The only difficulty is that Lutro opens to the eastward, whereas Phœnix is here described as lying (literally, looking, an expression used by Cicero and modern writers to express the same idea) toward the south-west and north-west, here denoted by the Latin names of winds from those points of the compass. The obvious sense of this translation is that the harbour could be entered only from the south-west or the north-west; and this is insisted on by some as the only meaning which the Greek itself will bear. But as the preposition here used (κατά) is among the most variable in its application (see above, on vs. 2, 5, 7), and sometimes (with the genitive) denotes a downward motion (as in Mark 14:3; 2 Cor. 8:2), it may here mean down the winds in question, i.e. in the direction towards (not from) which they blow. The harbour then will be described as opening to the north-east and the south-east, which accords exactly with the site of Lutro, whether the double aspect be referred to an island in or near the mouth of the harbour, having two entrances at its extremities, or understood more generally as descriptive of a spacious entrance stretching far round in different directions. This construction, although certainly not the most obvious, is rendered less harsh by the doubtful meaning of the preposition, and more positively recommended by its reconciling the description with the features of the only port upon the southern coast of Crete where the ship can be supposed to have sought refuge. That Lutro is not now frequented or accessible to large ships, if a fact, which seems uncertain, may be readily accounted for by long neglect and by the gradual encroachment of the sand, which has destroyed so many fine ports in the Mediterranean (see above, on v. 3.) That the ancient ships sometimes wintered here, is clear from an inscription, found by recent visitors, in honour of the Emperor Nerva (himself of Cretan lineage), erected by a pilot (gubernatore) and the superintendent of some public work upon the island. It appears from this verse that the judgment of the captain and the owner, which the centurion preferred to Paul's, was not merely arbitrary or capricious, but founded on their knowledge of a harbour better suited to their purpose. It appears, moreover, that the hope of reaching Italy before the spring was now abandoned, and the only question where they might securely winter. Some indeed explain the cognate verb and noun in this verse, from one of the senses of the root (χειμών or χεῖμα), to mean shelter from the storm or tempest then upon them; but no example of this usage has been cited, while the other has the sanction of Demosthenes, Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus.

13. The plan of removing to Phenice (or Phœnix) was not only reasonable in itself, because founded upon maritime experience, but apparently most feasible and on the eve of being carried into execution. A south wind blowing gently, literally, underbreathing, a beautiful Greek compound which, according to the usage of the particle (under) in composition, denotes a small degree or a subdued force (as rideo in Latin means to laugh and subrideo to smile.) A south wind, the Greek word used by Aristotle as the opposite of Boreas (compare Luke 13:29; Rev. 21:13), but applied by Hesiod to the south-west, and by Herodotus to both. A gentle south wind would, according to the nautical authorities, be altogether favourable to their course from Fair Havens to Cape Matala, lying four or five miles distant; and as Phenice was only thirty-four miles further to the west-north-west, it is not surprising that they looked upon their purpose as already accomplished. Supposing (thinking or believing, as in 12:9; 26:9) to have gained (or more emphatically, mastered, seized upon, obtained possession of, as in 2:24; 3:11; 24:6) the purpose (see above, on 11:23), i.e. the purpose of removing to Phenice (as stated in the verse preceding.) Loosing, not the word so rendered in 16:11 (see above, on vs. 2, 4, 12), but one which primarily means taking up or raising (as in 4:24; 20:9), and in nautical language may be applied either to a boat (as in v. 17), a sail, or an anchor, with both which it is coupled by the ancient writers. As absolutely or elliptically used here it may be translated either setting (sail) or weighing (anchor), without effect on the essential meaning, which is that of leaving or departing from a port, to go to sea or to proceed upon a voyage. (See above, on vs. 2, 4.) Sailed close by Crete is the exact sense, but not the form, of a peculiar nautical Greek phrase, consisting of an adverb meaning nearer, i.e. nearer than usual or nearer than before, when coming to Fair Havens, as related in v. 8, and of the same verb that is there used, strictly meaning they laid themselves (or laid their course) by (or along) a certain place. (Compare the corresponding Latin phrase, legere oram.) This close adherence to the land between Fair Havens and Cape Matala, was at once their shortest and their safest course with such a wind.

14. Not long after, literally, after not much, i.e. probably as soon as they passed Cape Matala, beyond which the coast of Crete turns abruptly to the north and afterwards to the west, so that their direct course lay no longer close along the shore, but across a bight or bay of some extent. Arose, literally threw or cast (itself), of which reflexive sense examples may be found in Homer, who describes a river as throwing (i.e. throwing itself) into the sea, or as we should say in English, emptying (i.e. emptying itself and its contents.) Against it has by some been understood to mean against the purpose mentioned in the first clause of v. 13, and defeated by the change of wind here spoken of. Others refer it to the ship, although the pronoun is a feminine in form, and the noun in vs. 2, 6, 10 is neuter; to remove which grammatical objection, Luke is supposed to have had in his mind another noun of the feminine gender, which he actually employs below in v. 41, or still less probably, some part of the vessel (as the prow, the stern, etc.) A third interpretation refers the pronoun to the island; either in the sense against it, which is inconsistent with the facts, as they were driven from the island, not upon it; or in that of down from it, as the preposition (κατά) sometimes means (see above, on v. 12, and compare Matt. 8:32; Mark 5:13; Luke 8:33.) This last construction is the one adopted by the latest philological and nautical interpreters, as being in accordance both with the usage of the language and the circumstances of the case. Tempestuous, in Greek typhonic, i.e. like a typhoon, a word still used to denote the hurricanes or whirlwinds of the eastern seas. In Greek it seems to have a mythological origin, such tempests being superstitiously ascribed to Typhon, Typhos, or Typhœus, a giant buried under Etna. The (one) called, suggesting the idea of a local name, such as Pliny says are particularly frequent with respect to winds. Euroclydon, accordingly, is not found elsewhere, and is here variously written in the manuscripts and ancient versions, though the weight of critical authority is strong in favour of the common text, which seems to be compounded of Euros, the south (or south-east) wind, and a noun denoting waves or billows, a combination somewhat incongruous and less descriptive of a wind than of a sea. Another reading is Euruclydon, which seems to mean wide-wavy (from the same noun with the adjective εὐρύς, broad), or wide-washing, wide dashing (from a cognate verb.) As none of these poetical compounds seem appropriate to a wind, some of the best authorities, both nautical and philological, prefer still another reading, found in two of the oldest copies and the Vulgate (Euroaquilo), and denoting the north-east wind, which is just the one that would produce the effects afterwards described. Some prefer the supposition that the wind did not blow from any fixed point, but from various quarters at the same time or in quick succession. Such winds, however, are but momentary, whereas this one drove the vessel long and far in one direction. The sense of north-east wind is put by some even on the common text (εὐροκλύδων), which they regard as a corruption, very easy among sailors, of the original name (εὐρακύλων.) It is more than a fortuitous coincidence, that modern navigators speak of sudden changes from a gentle south to a tempestuous north wind as not only frequent, but almost invariable in that part of the Mediterranean.

15. And the ship having been (or being) caught, the same verb that is used above in 6:12; 19:29, and strictly meaning seized together, or carried along by some impetuous movement, swept away in its resistless course. And not being able to face the wind, or look it in the eye, an expressive compound very common in Polybius, who applies it to the facing of an enemy in war or battle. The transfer of this figure to a ship is much more natural and striking than the reference, assumed by most interpreters, to a practice still prevailing in the coasting craft of the Mediterranean, that of painting an eye on each side of the bows. We let her drive, literally, giving up (the ship or ourselves) we were borne (or carried along) without resistance (see above, on 2:2), i.e. in nautical phraseology, they were forced to scud before the wind, and therefore towards the south-west.

16. Running under, a technical expression similar to sailing under in v. 7, but distinguished from it by the nautical interpreters, both denoting that they sailed to leeward of the nearest land, but in that case with a side wind, and in this before the wind; a nice distinction, resting on professional authority, and showing Luke's precision in the use and application of sea phrases. A certain island or islet, the Greek noun being a diminutive in form. Clauda or Claude, written in the Vulgate Cauda, and in several other forms by ancient writers, now called Gozzo, a small island off the southern coast of Crete and south-west of Cape Matala. Had much work (literally, were hardly able) to come by (i.e. to obtain, or more exactly, to become possessed or masters of) the boat. Some of the older writers, disregarding the article, strangely understood this to mean that they had difficulty in procuring a boat from the people of the island; whereas the sense is, that the raging of the storm made it hard to secure the boat belonging to the ship and probably towed after it. This circumstance is mentioned as a proof of the elemental strife in which the vessel was involved.

17. Which (referring to the boat already mentioned) having taken up (see above, on v. 13), i.e. on deck from the surface of the sea where it was floating. Helps, not the assistance of the passengers, as some of the old writers thought, but either such extraordinary methods as are mentioned in the next clause, or perhaps the appliances and means provided for that purpose. Undergirding, not fastening the boat under the ship, as one interpreter absurdly thinks, a process equally useless and impossible, but strengthening the hull by compression, either by means of wooden stays within the vessel, or more probably by cables passed repeatedly around the outside and made fast on deck. This operation is still known to modern seamen by the technical name of frapping, and although not often practised now, has been resorted to in several well-known instances of recent date, among the rest especially by Captain Back on his return from his arctic voyage in 1837. In ancient navigation it was so habitually practised that the undergirding apparatus formed a part of every complete ship's provision, as appears from the inventory of the Athenian navy discovered a few years ago. The learned editor of this work, and some writers on the passage now before us, have supposed that the cables passed from end to end (or stem to stern) around the sides; but this would not be undergirding, or effect the purpose; and it has now been shown conclusively that both the ancient and the modern practice was to pass the cables vertically round the hull so as to tighten it by outward pressure. Fearing, in Greek a passive form like being afraid (see above on 22:29.) Fall, or more exactly, fall out, an expression also used in classic Greek to signify the driving of a vessel from its course or from the high sea upon shoals and rocks. Quicksands is in Greek a proper name, the Syrtis, one of two sandy gulfs particularly dreaded by the ancient seamen on the northern coast of Africa, the Syrtis Minor near Cathale, and the Syrtis Major near Cyrene, which last is the one here meant, as being that to which a north-east wind would naturally drive them from the coast of Clauda. Strake sail is regarded by the latest nautical interpreters as not only incorrect but contradictory, denoting not a wise precaution against danger but a reckless rushing into it. The first word properly means loosing, slackening, then lowering (as in 9:25 above.) The other is a very comprehensive term, which has no exact equivalent in English, corresponding more or less exactly to our vessel, utensil, etc. As a nautical term it is translated gear or tackle, and supposed in this place to denote, not the mast which was immovable in large ships then as now, but the yard with all that was attached to it, or more specifically what is called the "head-gear" or "top-hamper," i.e. the top-sails and other tackle used only in fair weather.

18. We being) exceedingly (or vehemently) tempest-tossed, a single word in Greek, used in the same sense by Thucydides and Plato. The next (day), see above, on 21:1; 25:17, where the same form occurs and is explained. This phrase is not to be connected, as in some editions both of the Greek and English text, with what precedes, as if the tempest were particularly violent the next day, but with what follows as the date of the proceeding there recorded. The next day, not after the beginning of the tempest, but the next day after they used helps, &c. Lightened the ship, literally, made an out-cast (or ejection) for that purpose, the translators having put the effect for the cause. The original expression is entirely different from the one so rendered in v. 38 below. What was thrown out in the first instance is not stated; but no doubt it was the least valued portion of the ship's contents.

19. The third day, in reference to the next (or second) mentioned in the verse preceding. With (our) own hands is in Greek a single word (own-handed, self-handed), and implies that others besides the crew took part in this second operation. The tackling, a cognate form to that in v. 17, and meaning generally apparatus, equipage, &c., but in reference to a vessel, understood by some to mean its furniture, by others the passengers' baggage, but by the nautical interpreters some heavy portion of the rigging, such as the mainyard with its appurtenances, by throwing which overboard the ship would be materially lightened. All these methods of relief have been repeatedly exemplified in later voyages, from the narratives of which some writers have collected parallels, corresponding to the narrative before us, almost verse for verse.

20. Neither sun nor stars appearing to (or shining on) us for many days, literally, more days, i.e. several (as in 25:14.) And no small tempest, i.e. by a figure of speech common in this book, a very great one (see above, on 12:18; 14:28; 15:2; 17:4, 12; 19:23, 24.) Lying on (us), i.e. pressing, weighing, as in Luke 5:1 (compare John 11:38; 21:9), elsewhere metaphorically used to signify the pressure of necessity, duty, importunity, &c. (see Luke 23:23; 1 Cor. 9:16; Heb. 9:10.) Then, or rather thenceforth, after that, literally, (for) the rest (Compare Matt. 26:15; Mark 14:41; 1 Cor. 7:29; Heb. 10:13.) All hope of our being saved (from death or shipwreck) was taken away, or, as the compound Greek verb strictly means, taken away all round, in which sense it is literally applied to the removal of the anchors in v. 40. As their state could not be rendered hopeless by the darkness mentioned in the first clause, nor even by the tempest mentioned in the second, which might possibly have driven them into some safe harbour, the nautical interpreters suppose it to be tacitly implied, though not expressly mentioned, that the vessel was already leaking, and their situation therefore looked upon as desperate.

21. Much abstinence (literally, foodlessness) existing (or continuing, see above, on v. 12, and on 5:41), not a religious fast, nor a scarcity of food, as the vessel must have been provided for a much longer voyage, and indeed appears to have been loaded with wheat (see below, on v. 38), but that neglect of regular repasts, which is so frequent a concomitant of storms at sea, and so familiar to the readers of the history of shipwreck and marine disaster. Then (not expressed in the translation), i.e. after this long period of fasting or indifference to food. At this juncture Paul the prisoner comes forward, not as a mere adviser, but a cheerer and encourager of his companions in distress and danger. Stood forth, literally, standing, or still more exactly, stationed, i.e. having taken his stand in some conspicuous position, where he could address the whole ship's company. In the midst of them, among them, and surrounded by them (see above, on 1:15; 17:22.) Sirs, literally, men (or gentlemen, see above, on v. 10, and compare 7:26; 14:15; 9:25.) Ye should, literally, it was right (or necessary, see above, on 1:16; 17:3; 24:19.) Have hearkened, literally, obeying, yielding to authority, the same verb that is used above in 5:29, 32 (compare Tit. 3:1), and there explained. It has here a peculiar propriety and force (not preserved in the translation) because Paul had spoken with authority, not as a mariner, but as a person under divine influence, although they knew it not, until they learned their error by experience. As if he had said, 'You may now see that when I counselled you to stay where you were, I did not speak at random, but with an authority entitled to obedience.' He then reminds them what it was he had advised, namely, not to loose (sail or depart, see above, on vs. 2, 4, 12) from Crete, i.e. from the port in Crete where they were already safely housed, to wit, Fair Havens (see above, on vs. 10–12.) And to gain (or to gain too) this harm and loss, the same two nouns that are translated hurt and damage in v. 10 above, and which have certainly the same sense in both places; so that the first cannot mean presumption there, as this idea would be wholly inappropriate here. To gain this outrage (of the elements) and injury, may either be ironical, or mean to shun, escape, an idiom of which several examples have been quoted from the classics.

22. Lest they should regard this reference to his previous counsel as a taunt or a reproach, he immediately resumes the tone of consolation and encouragement. And now, the same peculiar formula of transition that occurred above in 20:32 (compare 4:29; 5:38; 17:30.) It is here equivalent to saying, 'but whatever may have been your error in rejecting my advice before, there is no need of desponding now.' I exhort you (see above, on v. 9) to cheer up (or be of good cheer), a verb corresponding to the abverb used in 24:10. Loss, literally, rejection, casting away, as in Rom. 11:15 (compare the cognate verb, Mark 10:50; Heb. 10:35.) Of any man's life, literally, of life from (among) you. But (only) of the ship, literally, excepting of the ship, an expression foreign to our idiom, but not unusual in Greek.

23. He claims attention to this cheering assurance on the ground of its divine authority and origin. 'Do not regard this as an unauthorized assertion of my own, for, &c.' Stood by me (as in 1:10; 4:10; 9:39; 23:2, 4.) Not at a distance, but at hand, within reach of my senses. The angel of God (or rather, an angel of the God, whose I am, i.e. whose property, to whom I belong) and whom I serve (or worship, see above, on 7:7, 42; 24:14; 26:7.) This form of expression was particularly natural in addressing Gentiles, who knew little or nothing of the true religion, but to whom the word angel was familiar, not only in its general sense of messenger, but as more specifically meaning a messenger from heaven (see above, on 14:12.)

24. Fear not (or be not terrified), the same expression as in 18:9, where Paul, in the beginning of his ministry at Corinth, was encouraged by a similar divine communication. Brought before, the same tense (but a different mood) of the same verb that is rendered stood by in the verse preceding, and which here means to stand before (or in the presence of) Cesar, the Emperor Nero (see above, on 11:28; 17:7; 25:8–12, 21; 26:32.) This is an obvious allusion to his own appeal, as one link in a chain of causes and effects which could not be curtailed or broken. As if he had said, 'You have appealed to Cesar, and before Cesar you must stand, or the purpose of God will be defeated.' And behold, as usual, introduces something unexpected and surprising. Paul knew that he must go to Rome, but not that for the sake of securing this result, the lives of a multitude should be preserved. God hath given thee, presented to thee, or bestowed upon thee, as a free gift and a token of his favour see above, on 3:14; 25:11, 16.) All those sailing with thee, i.e. their lives, here expressed as if their persons had been given to him.

25, 26. Wherefore, because of this divine assurance, cheer up, be cheerful, or of good cheer. Sirs, as in vs. 10, 21. For assigns the reason of this exhortation, I believe (or trust in) God, not only in the general, but that it will be (come to pass or happen) even as, literally, after what manner (see above, on 1:11; 7:28; 15:11) it has been told (or spoken to) me. Howbeit (δέ, but) we must (or it is necessary for us) upon (literally, in or into) a certain island be cast (literally, fall out, see above, on v. 17.) The name of the island, it would seem, was not revealed to Paul.

27. When (literally, as) the fourteenth night (since leaving Crete) was come (occurred or took place, see above, on 23:12.) We being carried about, literally through, a verb used in the classics, as the corresponding Latin verb (differo) is by Horace, to denote the driving of a vessel up and down or hither and thither by the wind. Adria, or the Adriatic (sea), not in the modern sense, which confines it to the gulf of Venice, but in the ancient sense, which makes it co-extensive with the central basin of the Mediterranean, between Sicily and Greece. This difference of usage is a point of some importance in identifying the place of Paul's shipwreck (see below, on 28:1.) About midnight, literally, towards (or near) the middle of the night. Shipmen, sailors, mariners, the officers and crew belonging to the vessel, as distinguished from the soldiers, prisoners, and other passengers. Deemed, conjectured, or suspected (see above, on 13:25; 25:18) that they drew near to some country, literally, that some country drew near to them, or retaining the original construction, they supposed some country to approach them, in accordance with the optical illusion, mentioned by Cicero and other ancients, and familiar to all navigators now, according to which the vessel seems to stand still and the land to move. The word translated country does not mean land indefinitely as opposed to water, which is forbidden by the pronoun, but a certain land or country, not yet recognized (see below, on v. 39; 28:1.) They discovered the proximity of land, not by the sense of smell, as some interpreters imagine, which supposes that the wind blew from the land, whereas their danger was occasioned by its blowing in the opposite direction; but by the sight or sound of breakers on the rocky coast.

28. Having sounded (heaved the lead, to ascertain the depth), they found (it) twenty fathoms. The Greek word is derived from a verb meaning to stretch out, and properly denotes the space between the extremities of the outstretched arms, most measures of length, in all languages and ages, being taken from the human body (such as foot, handbreadth, span, ell, &c.) The ancient fathom and the modern coincide so nearly, that the nautical interpreters, in their calculations, treat them as identical. Having stood apart a short (distance), or advanced a little further, and again sounded, they found (a depth of) fifteen fathoms. Such a diminution would of course be looked for, in approaching any land; but as the greater depth here mentioned must have been close to the spot where they perceived the nearness of the land, and in a certain direction from the second sounding, and at such a distance as to give time for the operation mentioned in the next verse; these data, when combined, may aid us in determining the place where the ship was run aground (see below, on 28:1.)

29. Then, or more exactly, also, likewise, too, which may here be taken as equivalent to and. Lest we should fall out (from our course or from deep water, see above, on vs. 17, 26) upon (or into) rocks, literally, rough (or rugged) places, a technical term of Greek hydrography. Casting (or having cast) four anchors from the stern, which was not the customary mode in ancient vessels, although more frequently resorted to than now, from their different construction, and from their having both extremities alike. In a picture found at Herculaneum, and belonging to the period of which we are now reading, there is a figure of a vessel with the hawser and anchor at the stern. The same mode of anchoring has been occasionally used in modern times, for instance by Lord Nelson at the battle of the Nile, although the other is in ordinary circumstances more effectual in promptly stopping the ship's way or progress. Wished for the day, or more exactly, prayed that day might be (begin or come, the same verb as in v. 27.) The first verb properly denotes prayer as an expression of desire, and then desire in general, which most interpreters suppose to be the meaning here, although there seems to be no reason for excluding the idea that the crew, or the whole company on board, did literally pray to the objects of their worship for deliverance in their extremity.

30. The ship had been anchored to retain her in her actual position until morning, when she might perhaps be safely run aground. This precarious chance of safety did not satisfy the crew, who now, with natural but odious selfishness, determined to abandon both the ship and their companions in misfortune and escape at once to the shore, under the cover of a nautical manœuvre which they reasonably thought the others would not understand. The shipmen (sailors, see above, on v. 27) seeking (attempting, using means, see above, on 13:8; 16:10; 17:5; 21:31) to escape out of the ship, and lowering (the same verb as in v. 17) the boat, belonging to the ship, which had been taken up on deck soon after the beginning of the storm (see above, on v. 16.) (Under) a pretext (or pretence) as being about to extend (or carry out) anchors from the prow (or forepart of the ship), in addition to those previously cast from the stern (see above, on v. 29.) This was a measure the necessity of which could hardly be appreciated by a landsman, and which therefore furnished a convenient means to gain possession of the boat without endangering its being sunk by others crowding into it. This treacherous contrivance, founded on the ignorance of those who were to be abandoned, is not without its parallels in modern shipwrecks, and would no doubt have proved successful, but for a sudden interposition from an unexpected quarter, as related in the next verse.

31. For the third time in this memorable voyage and tempest (see above, on vs. 10, 21), Paul the prisoner comes forward as the counsellor of those who seemed to have his life and liberty at their disposal. Perceiving, either by a natural sagacity, by nautical experience, or by special revelation, the ungenerous purpose of the crew, perhaps including both the captain and the owner (see above, on v. 11), he addressed himself to the military portion of the company, to wit, the centurion and the soldiers under his command, all of whom, with the prisoners committed to their charge, would have fallen victims to this murderous desertion of the vessel by the only men on board who knew how to control her, or could be expected to avail themselves of the precarious and dubious opportunity of safety which might be presented when the morning dawned. Except (or unless, literally, if not) these (mariners or sailors, who were in the act of lowering the boat, or had already done so) abide (remain, continue) in the ship, ye (the soldiers whom he was addressing) cannot be saved (from shipwreck or from instant death.) The condition thus prescribed, though often used to prove that the divine decrees are not absolute, is perfectly consistent with the previous assurance (in v. 22) that they should all escape, because the means are just as certainly determined as the end, which in this case was to be secured by the prevention of the seamen's flight, and that by the very exhortation here recorded, and its effect upon the soldiers, as related in the next verse.

32. Then, not the mere connective (δέ) often so translated, but the adverb of time (τότε), meaning at that time, or afterwards, when Paul had thus addressed them, and by necessary implication, as a consequence of that address. The soldiers, indefinitely, meaning some of them, acting perhaps under the centurion's orders, but more probably prompted by the sense of their own danger and the instinct of self-preservation. Cut off (or cut away) the ropes (originally meaning rushes twisted into cords, but afterwards applied to ropes in general) of the boat (either those by which it had been lowered, or those by which it was still fastened to the ship, the sense preferred by nautical interpreters) and let (permitted, suffered, as in 14:15; 16:7; 19:30; 23:32, compare v. 7, above) her (the boat) fall off (or out, the same verb that is used above, in vs. 17, 26, 29), but here to be literally understood as meaning to fall from the ship into the sea, implying that she had not yet been entirely let down, unless the verb be taken in the less specific sense of separation or removal from the vessel.

33. For the fourth time Paul the prisoner assumes, as it were, the command of the vessel, or at least the direction of the company, wisely and carefully providing for the crisis which was now approaching, and in which they would have need of all their strength and spirits, unabated by neglect or insufficiency of food. While the day was coming on, or more exactly, until it was about to become day, implying that throughout the interval from midnight (or a little later) to the dawn of day, Paul was exhorting them, which is the proper force of the imperfect tense here used. (For the usage of the verb itself, see above, on 2:40; 25:2.) The fourteenth day to-day expecting (as in 3:5; 10:24), looking for, deliverance or shipwreck, without food (foodless, an adjective corresponding to the noun in v. 21) ye complete (or spend the time), i.e. continue or remain. Having taken nothing is not to be strictly understood, but as a natural and popular hyperbole, denoting the omission of all stated meals, with the deficient and irregular supply of food, which may be said to be invariable incidents of storms at sea, and as such recorded in most narratives of shipwreck and marine disaster (see above, on v. 21.) The irregularity arises partly from forgetfulness and want of appetite occasioned by anxiety or sense of danger, and partly from the difficulty of preparing, serving, and partaking of the usual repasts, amidst the disorder and confusion of a storm, by which the provisions are often damaged or swept away before they can be used. Some, with less probability, suppose an allusion to religious fasting; others to scarcity or failure of provisions, which is inconsistent with the facts recorded in the following verses.

34. Wherefore, because you have already fasted so long, and because the consequent debilitation must unfit you for exertion, at the very time when you are most in need of all your energy and vigour. I pray (exhort, invite, entreat) you (the same verb that is used in the preceding verse) to partake of nourishment (or meat, in its wide old English sense of food, the only one belonging to the word in our translation.) For this (the act of eating, or the use of food) is (the same verb that is used above in vs. 12, 21) for (connected with, belonging or conducive to) your safety, the word usually rendered salvation (see above, on 4:12; 13:26, 47; 16:17), but here used in the lower sense of salvation or deliverance from danger. The common version (health) is too restricted, unless taken in the wider sense of welfare, safety. The second for has reference to an intermediate thought, implied though not expressed. 'What I advise is an appointed means to the appointed end of your deliverance, for, &c.' The collocation of the last clause is peculiar, for of none of you a hair from the head (i.e. a hair from the head of none of you) shall fall (to the ground), a proverbial expression for the slightest injury or loss. (Compare Matt. 10:30; Luke 12:7.) Instead of fall, which is the Hebrew or Old Testament formula (see 2 Sam. 14:11; 1 Kings 1:52), the oldest manuscripts and versions here have perish, which may however be a mere assimilation to the form of the same proverb used by Christ himself (see Luke 21:18.)

35. Saying (or having said) these (things), and taking (or having taken) bread, he thanked God before (them) all, and breaking (or having broken it) began to eat. In this Paul is supposed by some to have acted as a Christian minister keeping a love-feast if not administering the communion; by others, as the father of a family, asking a blessing on his children's food; by others, as a pious Jew, acknowledging the Lord in all enjoyments. The most natural construction of his conduct is, that his primary design was to induce the rest to eat by his example, but that in so doing he did not forget the Christian practice of returning thanks for providential bounties. (See Matt. 15:36; 26:27; John 6:11, 23; Rom. 14:6; 1 Cor. 10:30; 11:24; 14:17; Eph. 5:20; 1 Thess. 5:18.) This religious act was commonly connected, both by Jews and early Christians, with the breaking of bread as the formal commencement of the meal. It is not, therefore, necessarily implied that bread alone was eaten upon this occasion, though it may have been so; but in that case it is necessary to suppose a regular and orderly participation of this frugal fare, as distinguished from the scanty and occasional refections of the previous fortnight (see above, on v. 33.) Began is no more pleonastic here than elsewhere (see above, on 1:1; 2:4; 11:4, 15; 18:26; 24:2), but denotes that he made a beginning which the rest continued, or that he began what others finished, as related in the next verse.

36, 37. Then (δέ, not τότε, as in v. 32) being encouraged, or becoming cheerful (see the corresponding verb in vs. 22, 25), they also (or themselves too) i.e. the whole ship's company as well as Paul himself. Took, the verb used in the last clause (and akin to that used in the first clause) of v. 33, and strictly meaning took to (themselves), as in 17:5; 18:26, where it is applied to persons. The same verb is found also in the received text of v. 34; but the oldest manuscripts and latest critics have the same form there as in the first clause of v. 33 (μεταλαβεῖν, to partake.) That this participation embraced all on board the vessel, is apparent from the statement in v. 37, which does not mean we were in all so many, for this would here be out of place between vs. 36 and 38, but we (who thus partook of this last meal) were all the souls on board the ship (amounting to) two hundred and seventy-six. This number, far from being incredible, as some have thought, is not unusually large, considering the size of these Egyptian storeships (see above, on v. 2), and compared with the statement of Josephus, that about this same time he was wrecked in the Adriatic with a shipload of six hundred.

38. And being satisfied (or sated), having eaten heartily, their first full meal since the commencement of the storm. Lightened the ship, the very phrase employed in v. 18 above to represent a Greek one altogether different from that here used, which is a technical term in ancient navigation. In this case we are told more particularly what it was that they threw overboard. Casting out the wheat into the sea, i.e. as some explain it, the remainder of the ship's provisions, as no longer needed, since they expected either to be rescued or to perish without long delay. To this it is objected that the provisions would have made but little difference in the burden of the ship; whereas the cargo, which had not been previously mentioned, would be naturally spared until the last, and would most probably consist of wheat, as this was the great staple of the trade between Italy and Egypt (see above, on v. 6.)

39. When it was (or became) day (see above, on v. 29), they did not recognize the land, as one already known to them (compare the use of the same verb in 3:10; 4:13; 12:14; 19:34.) Discovered, or as the verb strictly means, observed, examined closely, then discerned, distinguished (see above, on 7:31, 32; 11:6.) A creeks, in its proper English sense of a small inlet, cove, or bay, metaphorically called in Greek and Latin a bosom. With a shore, literally, having a beach, and therefore suitable for landing. This specific usage of the Greek word is found in the best writers, and removes the ground of the objection that all creeks have shores, as well as the absurd construction founded on it, a creek with a shore, i.e. a shore with a creek. They were minded, i.e. they intended, purposed, such was their design (see above, on 5:33; 13:37.) If it were possible, lit., if they were able, if they could, the optative form suggesting the idea of contingency and doubt. To thrust in, or rather, to thrust out, the particle referring not to the creek but to the sea from which they there found refuge. (See the same verb as employed above, in 7:45, and compare the kindred verb in vs. 27, 39 of the same chapter.)

40. Having taken up (or away all round), the same verb that occurs above in v. 20, and which is here more correctly rendered in the margin of the English Bible (cut the anchors.) The same remark applies to the words following (committed themselves unto the sea) which the margin properly explains as still referring to the anchors, and left them in the sea, or as it may be still more exactly rendered, let (them fall) into the sea, the verb being the same with that applied in v. 32 to their letting the boat fall off or away. At the same time (ἄμα, in the version simply and) loosing (relaxing or unfastening, as in 16:26) the junctures (ligatures or fastenings) of the rudders, which in ancient ships were two large oars on each side of the stern, and which in this case had no doubt been raised out of the water and lashed together while the ship was anchored by the stern (see above, on v. 29) but must now be loosed again in order to direct her movement towards the shore. And raising (hoisting) the artemon, an ancient nautical expression still retained in several modern languages, and variously applied to all the principal sails (the main-sail, mizen-sail, &c.) but believed by the latest and best nautical interpreters to mean the fore-sail, both on historical grounds and as the most appropriate in the circumstances here described, to which interesting parallels are cited from the history of modern navigation. To the wind, literally, to the breathing (air) or blowing (breeze), an ellipsis also found in Xenophon and other Attic writers. Made toward, literally, held down, i.e. by steering, kept her head in that direction. Herodotus combines the very same verb, particle, and noun (meaning beach or sandy shore, as in the verse preceding.)

41. Falling into, literally, falling round, embracing, but with the secondary sense of falling among, so as to be surrounded by, robbers (as in Luke 10:30), or temptations (as in James 1:2), or falling within (getting inside of) a place, as here. Where two seas met, in Greek a single word and that a compound adjective, analogous to bimaris, the epithet applied by Horace to Corinth on account of its position on an isthmus (see above, on 18:1.) The same sense was adopted by the older writers here and referred to a projecting point or tongue of land, on which the vessel struck or ran aground. Later interpreters suppose it to denote the meeting of two opposite currents forming a shoal or sand-bank. But the modern nautical interpretation understands it of a narrow channel between two seas or two portions of the sea, as Strabo uses the same term in application to the Bosphorus. Ran aground, another technical term belonging to the nautical dialect of Greece and still preserved by other writers, such as Xenophon, Polybius, and Herodotus. The forepart (prow or bows), the word translated foreship in v. 30. Indeed (μέν), corresponding to the but (δέ) in the next clause, is omitted in the version (see above, on 1:5; 5:23; 11:16; 19:4; 22:3, 9.) Stuck fast, literally, leaning (resting upon something), and then settling, fixing itself, in a certain situation, here most probably a bed of sand or clay. Unmoveable (in modern phrase, immoveable or motionless), a term used elsewhere only in a figurative sense (Heb. 12:28.) But (δέ, in opposition to the μέν preceding) the hinder part (or stern, as it is rendered in v. 29) was broken (literally, loosened or dissolved, see above, on 2:24; 7:33; 13:25, 43; 22:30; 24:26) with (or rather by) the violence (see above, on 5:26; 21:35; 24:7, where it is applied to human subjects) of the waves. This is supposed by nautical writers to imply that the stern of the vessel was imbedded in mud and thus exposed to the action of the sea.

42. As the sailors had their plot (see above, on v. 30), so the soldiers had their plan, but of a very different nature, not to save their own lives, but their honour and the charge entrusted to them, a proposal in the highest degree characteristic of the Roman discipline and spirit. The soldiers' counsel was, seems to imply a consultation and the asking of advice by the centurion from different classes, of which this was one. But this is not the sense of the original, which might be more exactly rendered, of the soldiers there arose a plan (or proposition), without reference to any other which had been proposed. That they should kill the prisoners (Paul and the others mentioned in v. 1), lest some (or any one), swimming out (or from the vessel) should escape, and thereby bring dishonour on the Roman arms, by which they had been guarded and protected. Far from seeking to preserve their own lives by the sacrifice of others, they proceeded rather on the supposition that they were to perish in the shipwreck, while some of those entrusted to them might escape, a thought intolerable to their stern fidelity and rude sense of military honour.

43. The centurion, as the first in rank and in responsibility, willing (or rather wishing, although never so translated in our Bible; see above, on 5:28; 12:4; 17:20; 18:15, 27; 19:30; 22:30; 23:28; 25:20, 22) to save Paul, literally, to save him through, or bring him safe through (see above, on 23:24), which implies more hope of their escape from shipwreck than the soldiers seem to have indulged. Here again, as in v. 3 above, the language does not necessarily imply a personal regard for Paul, as the governing motive in the mind of the centurion, but rather a desire to execute his own trust and discharge his obligations, by bringing this important prisoner at least, through the perils which beset him, safe to Rome and into the imperial presence. Preferring the precarious chance of doing this to the desperate remedy proposed by the men under his command, he kept them (literally, hindered or withheld them; see the various versions of the same Greek verb in 8:36; 10:47; 11:17; 16:6; 24:23) from their purpose (a kindred form to that translated counsel in v. 42), i.e. from its execution, as distinguished from the proposition or conception. And commanded, or commanded too (τε) those able to swim, throwing (themselves) out first, upon the land to go forth (from the ship or from the sea.) By issuing this unrestricted order, the centurion, boldly but prudently, incurred the risk of some among his prisoners escaping, for the even chance of saving all their lives and yet securing all their persons.

44. The construction is continued from the verse preceding; we have here the second part of the centurion's order. (He commanded those who could to swim ashore) and the rest (who could not swim, to get to land) some indeed (μέν, as in v. 21) on boards (or spars, perhaps thrown over for the purpose), but (δέ) others on some of the (things) from the ship, i.e. articles of furniture or others which had been swept overboard, or broken pieces of the ship itself, as the English version rather paraphrases than translates it. And so (or thus) i.e. by these means, namely, swimming and floating with the aid of such appliances as those which had been just described, it came to pass, or happened after all, as something more than could have been expected, that all (without exception, sailors, soldiers, and prisoners, the whole ship's company of 276 souls) escaped safe (the passive of the verb translated save in the preceding verse, and strictly meaning in both places to be brought safe through, impending or surrounding perils. Although not expressed, there is an obvious allusion to the promise in vs. 22, 23. Not only was Paul's prophecy fulfilled, but the divine assurance upon which it rested shown to be no mere invention or imagination, but an authenticated, proved reality. Besides the singular position of authority, already occupied by Paul the prisoner (see above, on vs. 10, 21, 31, 33), he now stands forth in the extraordinary character of one to whom his God had made a present of 276 human lives, although he might have rescued him alone or with a few companions, thus displaying the benevolence as well as the omnipotence of Him whose worshipper and servant Paul professed to be, and whose immediate agency in this miraculous deliverance was placed beyond the reach of doubt by the distinct prediction of the danger (v. 10), of the ultimate escape (vs. 24, 34), and of their intervening shipwreck on an island (v. 26), a minute specification no impostor would have ventured, and which could not have been verified by accident.

CHAPTER 28

THIS chapter winds up the whole history by recording Paul's arrival at the great metropolis and centre of influence, and the beginning of his labours there. It may be divided into three parts, one of which describes his three months' residence in Malta (1–10); the second, his continued voyage to Rome (11–16); the third, his proceedings when he first arrived and through the following two years (17–31). They find themselves in Malta and are kindly treated by the natives, who regard Paul, first as a murderer, and then as a god (1–6). He is hospitably entertained by the chief man of the island, and performs a miracle of healing in his household, followed by many others, with a marked effect upon the population (7–10). Leaving the island in the spring, they touch at Syracuse and Rhegium, and land at Puteoli (11–13). Thence they proceed by land to Rome, by the way meeting two deputations from the church there; and on Paul's arrival he is treated with indulgence, although still a prisoner (14–16). He convokes the chief men of the Jews and vindicates himself before them, being his last Apology on record (17–22). At their own request, he expounds and proves his Messianic doctrine, with the usual diversity of effect upon the hearers (23–25). This last appeal to his brethren according to the flesh, he winds up by applying to them a well-known prophetic picture of judicial blindness, as exactly descriptive of their own condition (26–29). Having thus brought the Apostle to the end of his exertions for the Jews, and to the beginning of his work at Rome, Luke concludes with a brief statement of his unobstructed labours there for two whole years (30, 31).

1. Having been saved, or brought safe through, the same verb that is twice employed in the two preceding verses (27:43, 44.) They knew, or according to the oldest manuscripts and latest critics, we knew, or rather came to know, discovered, ascertained (see above, on 27:39), either by further observation, or from the natives, who are mentioned in the next verse. Was called, literally, is called, being still so called when Luke wrote. Melita, or Melite, now Malta, an island south of Sicily, described by Diodorus as a Punic or Phenician colony, and once a famous seat of Carthaginian manufactures, especially of cloth. There was another island of the same name, on the Illyrian coast and in the gulf of Venice, now called Meleda, which one of the Greek emperors of Constantinople, followed by some later writers, supposed to be the scene of the Apostle's shipwreck. The arguments in favour of this notion are, that Malta is not in the Adriatic; that its people were not barbarous but civilized; and that venomous animals are there unknown, though numerous in Meleda. But in ancient geography, the Adriatic was the whole central basin of the Mediterranean (see above, on 27:27.) Barbarous (in vs. 2, 4) simply means not Greek or Roman, and was therefore applicable to the Punic population of Malta, but not to that of Meleda, which was probably of Greek or Roman origin. The presence of venomous reptiles in the latter is ascribed by the writers who assert it to the island's being damp and woody, which was once the case with Malta, but is so no longer. Precisely the same change, and arising from the same cause, has been noted in the Isle of Arran and in other countries. Against Meleda, as the place of shipwreck, it may be objected, that it lies entirely out of the course which the ship had been pursuing; that the presence of the other Alexandrian vessel there cannot be accounted for; that it does not agree with the subsequent course of the shipwrecked vessel, as it is described below in vs. 11–13; whereas Malta agrees perfectly with both, being in the way from Crete to Puteoli and south of Sicily. The bay of Saint Paul, on the north-east coast of Malta, which tradition assigns as the place of shipwreck, presents all the features mentioned in the narrative; a rocky shore with creeks or inlets; a place of two seas, both in the sense of a narrow channel and in that of a projecting point; a tenacious anchorage, with beds of mud contiguous to banks of sand and clay; soundings exactly answering to those recorded, and in the same relative position; and precisely such a coast, as to shape, height, breakers, currents, etc., as would account for a shipwreck taking place just here, in this case and in others of more recent date. If any thing is wanting to complete the resemblance, it is easily accounted for by changes which geologists regard as quite demonstrable. That the seamen did not recognize the island at first, is easily explained from the fact that it was not the most frequented part, and presented no marked features by which it could be readily identified. To all the coincidences which have been recited, it may now be added, that independent calculations, made by several experienced naval officers, as to the rate at which a ship would drive before the wind in such a storm as that described above, agree almost exactly in the singular conclusion, that the vessel, on the fifteenth morning after leaving Crete, must have been precisely where tradition has assigned the place of the Apostle's shipwreck.

2. The barbarous (people), the same word that is rendered barbarians in v. 4, and applied by the Greeks, and afterwards by the Romans, to all nations but themselves, with reference rather to a difference of language than of civilization. In this connection, it is nearly equivalent to the common use of natives for the inhabitants of unknown countries. Showed, literally, afforded, or extended to us. No little, literally, not common (see above, on 19:11.) Kindness, literally, philanthropy (see above, on 27:3.) Kindled, literally, touched (or lighted) up (compare Luke 12:49; James 3:5.) Received us to (it), i.e. to the fire, or to their company (as in 17:5; 18:26.) Every one, literally, all, agreeing with the plural pronoun (us.) Because (or on account) of the rain, the present, literally, having come upon (us), which some refer to the preceding storm, but most interpreters, no doubt correctly, to a rain which followed it. The ideas of suddenness and violence (compare lying on, 27:20) are not expressed by this word, but suggested by the context. The cold shows that the wind, which no doubt still continued, could not be the south-east or sirocco with its stifling heat, but must have been the northeast (see above, on 27:14.)

3. Paul assists in keeping up the fire, which affords occasion for a new proof of the special divine care extended over him. Having gathered, literally, turned (or twisted) together, a verb corresponding to the noun applied, in 19:40; 23:12, to human gatherings and combinations. Fire, not the element so called, but a cognate form, meaning a heap or pile of burning fuel. Came out, or according to the latest text, coming out through the wood or sticks, in which it had been lying, no doubt in a torpid state, until aroused by the heat. Out of, or as some explain it, away from, or because of, as in Rev. 8:11, which is a rare use of the preposition. Fastened on, literally, fitted (itself) down upon, i.e. with its mouth or teeth, though some infer from v. 5, that it merely coiled itself about his hand without biting it (but see below, on that verse.)

4. And when (literally, as) the barbarians (or natives, as in v. 2) saw the beast (a Greek word specially applied to venomous serpents) hanging from (or out of) his hand, which seems naturally to imply that he was bitten, although some suppose the viper to have merely clung to him without inflicting any wound (see above, on v. 3.) No doubt, or by all means, certainly (see above, on 18:21; 21:22.) Saved (saved through, or rescued, the same verb that occurs at the beginning of the first verse.) Vengeance, literally, justice, either as an act or an attribute of God (compare 2 Thess. 1:9; Jude 7.) There is no need of supposing a personification, or a reference to the Nemesis, or goddess of retributive justice, represented by the Greek mythology as the daughter and avenger of the supreme Deity. Suffereth, literally, suffered, in the past tense, as denoting a result already fixed and certain. The inference drawn by the barbarians is supposed by some to imply that murder was punished in Malta by the bite of serpents, which appears gratuitous and far-fetched. Others suppose it to imply a popular belief that the guilty member would be providentially punished, but murder is not the only crime committed with the hand. The only natural supposition is, that seeing Paul to be a prisoner, perhaps still fastened to a soldier, they inferred that he was guilty of some crime, and seeing him assailed by a venomous animal, whose bite they well knew to be mortal, they concluded that his crime was that of murder, as the highest known to human laws, and one appropriately punished by the loss of life.

5. And, or so then, the resumptive particle so common in this book, by which the writer, after telling what the natives said, returns to his main subject, and relates what Paul did. (See above, on 26:4, 9.) Shook (or more exactly, shaking, having shaken) off, (the verb employed in Luke 9:5, and a kindred form to that in 13:51; 18:6 above.) The beast, or reptile, as in v. 4. The fire, not the word so rendered in vs. 2, 3, but the primitive form, meaning fire in the proper sense, or fire itself. Felt no harm, literally, suffered (or experienced) no evil. This does not mean that the viper did not bite, or that it was not venomous, though so regarded by the natives, who must have been acquainted with its nature and habits, and who could not have expected such effects without a reason (see below, upon the next verse.)

6. But they waited (or were waiting), the imperfect tense of the verb used above in 3:5; 10:24; 27:33. Or, retaining the original construction and Greek idiom, they expected him to be about (see above, on 27:2, 10, 30, 33) to be inflamed, the only sense supported by the usage of the Greek verb, that of swelling being either implied as an effect and sign of inflammation, or derived from a confusion of this verb with one which differs from it only in a single letter, and means strictly to be filled or filled up. Sudden and violent inflammation is described, both by Lucan and Lucian, as an effect of the bite of serpents. Or to fall down suddenly dead, an alternative suggested also by experience. ("Tremblingly she stood and on the sudden dropped," Shakspeare, Anthony and Cleopatra, 5:2.) But for much (time, i.e. long, compare 16:18; 27:14), they waiting (or expecting), and beholding (see above, on 25:24; 27:10) no harm, literally, nothing out of place, i.e. amiss, injurious, elsewhere used only in a moral sense (see Luke 23:41; 2 Thess. 3:2.) Come to him, literally, happening (occurring, taking place) to (or towards, in relation to) him (see above, on 2:25; 6:11; 20:21; 24:15; 25:8, 20; 26:7.) Changing (themselves or their mind), a verb used in the classics, both without and with a noun, to signify a change of judgment or opinion. The change in this case was the opposite of that undergone by the idolaters at Lystra, who first tried to worship Paul, and then to kill him, or at least consented to his being stoned (see above, on 14:11, 13, 20.) A god, not necessarily any particular deity of their own or of the classical mythology (Æsculapius, Hercules, etc.), but a divine person; not because the serpent was itself regarded as divine, but because he had escaped what they knew to be the usual, perhaps the invariable, effects of its virus.

7. In the (parts) about that place, i.e. the place of shipwreck, on the north-eastern coast of Malta (see above, on v. 1.) Were a verb implying permanent possession (see above, on 4:34, 37; 5:4.) Possessions, literally, places, lands, the same word that is used above, 4:34; 5:3, 8, and the plural of that in 1:18, 19. Chief men, literally, first (i.e. in rank or office. Compare the plural of the same Greek word in 13:50; 17:4; 25:2.) That it does not denote mere superiority of wealth or social station, some infer from the fact that his father was still living, who, in that sense, would have had precedence. That it rather signifies official rank, may be inferred from the Roman name (Publius), and from the fact that two inscriptions have been found upon the island, one in Greek and one in Latin, in which the same title is preserved (MEL. PRIMUS … ΠΡΩΤΟΣ ΜΕΛΙΤΑΙΩΝ) and in one of them applied to a Roman knight, most probably the Governor. Cicero, in one of his orations against Verres, speaks of Malta as dependent on the Prætor of Sicily, whose legate or lieutenant Publius may have been. Receiving us, in Greek a more emphatic term, implying cordiality and kindness, although not so strongly as the cognate form of the same verb in 2:41; 15:4; 18:27; 24:3. Lodged, in its modern sense, is too restricted to convey the force of the original, which means to entertain as guests, and comprehends all the rites of hospitality, as well as the mere furnishing of shelter for the night or even comfortable quarters (see above, on 10:6, 18, 23, 32; 21:16.) Courteously, not the word so rendered in 27:3, but an analogous compound of the same verb or adjective with another noun, and meaning benevolently, amicably, kindly. Three days, i.e. probably until they could be otherwise accommodated for their residence of three months in the island (see below, on v. 11.) Us, not the whole ship's company, as some suppose, for this was too large to be so received, and probably dispersed at once; but, as in v. 10, Paul and his companions, Luke and Aristarchus (see above, on 27:2), with probably the Roman officer, and possibly the whole detachment under his command.

8. The Apostle was enabled to repay this kindness to himself and his companions in a very gratifying manner. It came to pass, or happened, either afterwards or at the time of this hospitable entertainment, that the father of Publius lay, or was lying down, the same verb that is rendered kept his bed in 9:33, and repeatedly applied in the Gospels to a recumbent posture, both at meals (Mark 2:15; 14:3; Luke 5:29) and on a sick bed (Mark 1:30; 2:4; Luke 5:25; John 5:3, 6.) Seized, confined, or held fast, elsewhere applied to pressure outward (7:57) and inward (18:5), and in the Gospels to the pressure or constraint of fear (Luke 8:37) and illness (Matt. 4:24; Luke 4:38), which is the meaning here. Dysentery and fever, by which, in its worst form, it is commonly attended. A fever, literally, fevers, in the plural, a form of expression also found in the Greek medical writers, and supposed to refer to the intermittent paroxysms of the disease. This is one of the passages in which it is thought by some that Luke's professional habits may be traced. (See above, on 3:7; 9:18, 33; 12:23; 13:11; 20:9.) It has been alleged that this disease is unknown on the island of Malta; but besides the changes wrought in this respect by lapse of time and the advance of cultivation, the assertion is disproved by the experience both of travellers and resident physicians. Going in and praying (or having prayed, but see above, on 1:24), thereby avowing that he healed him, not in his own strength, but as an instrument of the divine mercy (see above, on 9:40.) It has been well observed, that Paul experienced, almost at the same time, two fulfilments of his Master's promise, "they shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover (Mark 16:18.)"

9. The healing of the father of their host was only the beginning of a series of such miracles, including, if the words are to be strictly understood, all the sick upon the island, or at least all who could be brought to the Apostle. Nor is this incredible, the population being probably a small one, and his stay protracted through the winter. This therefore having taken place (i.e. the miracle of healing mentioned in the verse preceding) others (or more exactly, the rest, those remaining, as in 2:37; 5:13; 17:9; 27:44) having infirmities (diseases, the noun corresponding to the adjective in 4:9; 5:15, 16, and the verb in 9:37; 19:12) came (or more exactly, came to, i.e. to him), as he could not go to them, being still a prisoner (see above, on v. 4) and were healed, or more exactly cured, the Greek verb meaning strictly cared for, but with special reference to the sick (see above, on 17:25, and compare 4:14; 5:16; 8:7.)

10. The effect of these extraordinary favours on the barbarians or rustic population is expressed by two of its external signs. Who also (i.e. not content with praising God, or simply thanking Paul) honoured us (the whole party) with many honours (or attentions), i.e. marks of affection and respect during our stay among them. As the word translated honours sometimes means price or value, and is always so used elsewhere in the book before us (see above, on 4:34; 5:2, 3; 7:16; 9:19), some retain that meaning here and understand the clause of fees or pecuniary gifts, to which the word honorarium is applied in Latin, and even the word honos, it would seem, in one of Cicero's epistles (ut medico honos haberetur), and the Greek word itself in 1 Tim. 5:17 (compare v. 3 of the same chapter) as explained by some interpreters. But all these parallels, together with one found in the Apocrypha (Ecclus. 38:1), are either doubtful or determined by the context; whereas here the wider sense is equally appropriate and much more natural, especially as these honours seem to have continued during their abode upon the island, and to be distinguished from the presents made to them at their departure. Laded us, literally, laid upon us, which denotes not merely that they put the things into the ship, but that the gifts were very numerous and abundant. When we departed, literally, on our setting sail, or setting out, the nautical expression for departure from a seaport, used above in 13:13; 16:11; 18:21; 20:3, 13; 21:1, 2; 27:2, 4, 12, 21. Such things as were necessary, literally, the things (pertaining) to the use or need (or according to the latest critics needs or wants) of Paul and his companions. For the usage of the Greek noun, see above, on 2:45; 4:35; 6:3; 20:34 (comparing Phil. 2:25; 4:16.) These gifts, consisting no doubt chiefly or entirely in provisions and other necessaries for the voyage, were particularly seasonable after the hardships and losses of the shipwreck.

11. After three months, probably as soon as navigation was considered safe (see above, on 27:9.) We departed, set sail, put to sea, the same verb that occurs in the preceding verse. Which had wintered (literally, having wintered) in the island (Malta), perhaps driven there as the other was, but more successful in avoiding shipwreck. An Alexandrian (vessel) like the other; this particular is added in the Greek text by a kind of afterthought to the statement of its having wintered in the island, as if he had said, 'which, by the way, was also a ship of Alexandria.' Whose sign was is in Greek a single word, and that an adjective, meaning signed, signalized, distinguished, designated by a badge. The ancient ships, besides the image of some tutelary god upon the stern, bore a carved or painted figure-head upon the prow, which gave name to the vessel; but in some cases, and perhaps in this, the insigns and tutela were the same. Castor and Pollux, literally, Dioscuri, i.e. the boys or sons of Jupiter (and Leda), regarded by the ancients as the gods of navigation and the guardians of seamen. This particular is mentioned, not to show the piety or superstition of the mariners, nor to show how Paul was brought into compulsory contact with heathenish corruptions, but as a lively reminiscence on the part of an eyewitness. As to the number, size, and quality of these ships, see above, on 27:6.

12, 13. Landing, literally, being brought down (see above on 21:3; 27:3.) Syracuse, the famous capital of Sicily, on the eastern coast, still in existence under the same name, but with not more than a twentieth of its ancient population. Tarried, remained over (see above, on 10:48; 15:34; 21:4, 10), either for purposes of trade, or waiting for a favourable wind. Fetched a compass, literally, coming (or going) round, i.e. as some suppose, round the island or the southern point of Italy, or out to sea in order to avoid the coast, or along the windings of the coast itself; but most interpreters now understand it either of the zigzag movement technically known as tacking, or of the more irregular course caused by an unfavourable wind. Came, or came down, the verb used to denote arrival at a place in 16:1; 18:19, 24; 20:15; 21:7; 25:13; 26:7; 27:12. Rhegium, now Reggio, a seaport near the south-west point of Italy opposite Messina. It was ruined by an earthquake in 1783, but is still the chief town of the province of Calabria in the kingdom of Naples, and has nearly twenty thousand inhabitants. The south wind (see above, on 27:10) springing up, arising, a Greek verb used in the same sense by Polybius and Thucydides. The next day is in Greek a plural adjective analogous to secondary, but used in the specific sense of belonging to (or happening on) the second day (compare the similar derivation from four in John 11:39.) Its application to persons (we of or on the second day) is wholly foreign from our idiom; but the sense is clear. One day would be sufficient with a fair wind to proceed from Rhegium to Puteoli, now Pozzuoli or Puzzuoli, seven miles south-west of Naples, once a place of great resort, both on account of its mineral springs from which or from their odour it derived its name, and as the landing place of the Egyptian corn-ships, the arrival of which was an occasion of great interest, as described by Seneca and Suetonius.

14. Even here they found Christians, showing how extensively the gospel had already been diffused, though some suppose the "brethren" at Puteoli to have been Alexandrians residing there for purposes of trade. We were desired, invited or entreated (see above, on 27:33, 34.) The very same verb followed by the same preposition has in 2 Cor. 7:7 the sense of being comforted in, which some suppose to be the meaning here; but this requires a change of text, so as to read tarrying (not to tarry), an emendation without manuscript authority. It seems to be implied that this request was granted, which could not have been without the leave of the centurion, another proof of his indulgent treatment of his prisoner, whatever may have been the motive (see above, on 27:3, 43.) And so, i.e. after these delays and interruptions, we went toward Rome, a phrase analogous to that in 27:1 (sail into Italy) and others there referred to. But the best philological interpreters regard it as denoting their arrival, as it does in the beginning of v. 16, and explain what intervenes as a parenthesis or supplementary addition. 'So we came to Rome, but on the way, certain brethren came to meet us, &c.'

15. And thence (from Rome) the brethren (Christians there residing) hearing (or having heard) the (things) about us (or concerning us), i.e. of their arrival at Puteoli, their stay at which place would afford time for the news to be received at Rome. Came out to meet us, an attention similar to that so often paid at parting with distinguished and beloved guests (see above, on 15:3; 20:37; 21:5.) There is no need of supposing a formal division into two companies, but only that some set out earlier than others, so that Paul found them waiting at two well-known stopping places on the Via Appia, the oldest and most famous of the Roman roads, leading from the capital to Capua and thence to Brundisium. Appii Forum was a market-place, and Tres Tabernae a group of shops or inns, the former above forty miles from Rome, the latter about ten miles nearer. Appii Forum is described by Horace in a well-known passage of great humour; and both are named together in one of Cicero's epistles, dated from Appii Forum and referring to another letter written a few hours before from Tres Tabernae. Whom Paul seeing, and beholding in them living representatives of that important church which he had so long purposed and desired to visit (see above, on 19:21; 23:11, and compare Rom. 1:9–15), having thanked God, for his safe arrival and the fulfilment of his hopes so long cherished and deferred, he took courage, either in the passive sense of receiving encouragement from God, or in the active sense of rallying his jaded spirits, and rousing himself to new or more implicit trust in the divine protection.

16. Having mentioned Paul's reception by the Christians (or the church) at Rome, Luke now describes his treatment by the public authorities. We came, implying that the writer was still with him. We came to (or into) Rome, the same phrase with which v. 14 closes, the narrative there interrupted being here resumed after the statement (in v. 15) of what happened by the way. As if he had said, 'so then, when we got to Rome at last, the centurion, etc.' The special commission of Julius now expired on his delivering Paul to the captain of the guard, or as the Greek word literally means, the commander of the camp, i.e. of the Prætorian camp, occupied by the Prætorian or Imperial Guard, created by Augustus, and permanently organized under Tiberius by Sejanus. This formidable force, like the Janissaries of modern history, became the most powerful body in the state, and finally controlled the choice of the Emperor himself. There were usually two Prætorian Prefects, or commanders of this guard; but under Nero, the place was filled for a time by his preceptor Burrus without any colleague. Hence some have inferred that as only one is mentioned here, it must have been this person, and attempt to fix the time of Paul's arrival by the fact that Burrus was put to death in March, A. D. 62. It is evident, however, that no such conclusion can be drawn from the use of the singular number, which may just as well denote the one on duty, or be taken as equivalent to one of the prefects or commanders. The delivery of Paul to this high officer agrees exactly with an order of the Emperor Trajan, forty years later, to the younger Pliny, that a prisoner from his province should be sent to the Prætorian Prefects. (Vinctus mitti ad praefectos praetorii mei.) The first clause relates to the delivery of all the prisoners (see above, on 27:1, 43), but the last to the disposal made of Paul in particular. But to Paul it was permitted (or allowed, as in 21:39, 40; 26:1; 27:3), not by the centurion, whose power over him had ceased, but no doubt by the Prefect, who had now assumed the charge of him. To dwell (literally, to stay, remain, abide, continue) by himself, i e. apart from other prisoners, but not entirely alone, as appears from what is added in the last clause, with the soldier (not a soldier, but the one already mentioned as) keeping (i.e. guarding, watching) him. (See above, on 12:6; 21:33; 22:30; 23:35; 24:23; 26:29.) The definite form of the expression has respect to the general method of confinement, not to the person of the guard, which was no doubt continually changed, thereby affording Paul the opportunity of talking with a multitude of the imperial guards in turn, to which some suppose him to allude in Phil. 1:13. Even the confinement here described was indulgence in comparison with that to which most prisoners were subjected, and was probably owing to the favourable statements made by Festus in writing and by Julius orally. (See above, on 25:25; 26:31.)

17. It came to pass is not a pleonastic or superfluous expression, but equivalent to saying, the next remarkable occurrence after Paul's arrival was that after three days, etc., thus marking, as it were, the stages or divisions of the narrative. After three days, during which interval Paul may have removed from the Prætorian camp to the private lodging mentioned in v. 23, and where the interview about to be recorded would more probably take place than in a camp or prison. Paul, or according to the oldest manuscripts and versions, he, without expressly naming him. Called together, to or for himself, which is the full force of the middle voice in Greek. The chief, or more exactly, those being chief, to wit, at that time, the actual existing chiefs, perhaps with some allusion to their banishment by Claudius (see above, on 18:2) and restoration under the mild government of Nero during the first five years of his reign. The sense will then be, 'those who now again were recognized as chiefs and representatives of the Jews at Rome.' (Compare the similar expression used in 13:1, and there explained.) It has been disputed whether these were elders and rulers of the synagogue, or merely heads of families and men of weight in the community; but the two classes are in fact coincident, the elders both of the Jewish and the early Christian church comprising most of those to whom the description above given would apply. Some have thought it strange that the Apostle's first communication should have been with unbelieving Jews, and not with that community of Christians, in whom he had long felt so deep an interest, and to whom he had addressed the greatest of his doctrinal epistles. But having related the readiness and eagerness with which the Roman Christians came forth to receive Paul, Luke might leave his readers to infer from that fact, as a matter of course, the cordial, confidential intercourse which afterwards took place between them, and instead of dwelling upon facts that any one could take for granted, might proceed to mention others not so easily conjectured, and for that very reason needing to be placed on record. The surprise felt at Paul's negotiation with these Jews is of itself enough to justify its being given at full length, while other matters are omitted, which if stated would have generated no surprise at all. As to the motive of this singular proceeding, it was not mere anxiety to stand well with the Jews at Rome, or to avoid their machinations, neither of which could give the great Apostle, after all that he had passed through, much uneasiness; but rather an intention to wind up his dealings with his unbelieving brethren by a solemn declaration of the truth as to himself and the religion which he now professed, and thus, through them as representatives, to bid farewell to Israel according to the flesh for ever. In this last appeal and apology, he uses his old formula, Men and brethren, thereby acknowledging them still, not only as his countrymen, but also as his coreligionists, or fellow-Jews. (See above, on 2:29; 7:2; 13:26; 22:1; 23:1, 6.) I having done nothing contrary (or hostile, see above, on 26:9) to the people (i.e. to the rights and privileges of the Jewish church or chosen race) nor to the paternal (or ancestral, see above, on 22:3; 24:14) institutions (see above, on 6:14; 15:1; 16:21; 21:21; 26:3), (nevertheless as) a prisoner from Jerusalem was delivered into the hands of the Romans. Two questions have been raised as to the truth and ingenuousness of this statement. The first is, how Paul could deny that he had opposed the Jewish church and institutions, when his whole life as a Christian had been spent in maintaining that they were not necessary to salvation. The answer is the same that Paul himself gave before Felix (24:14–16) and Agrippa (26:6–8, 21–23), namely, that he did not embrace Christianity as a succedaneum for the old religion, but as its legitimate successor and predicted consummation, so that the Christian was in fact the best Jew, or rather the only Israelite indeed in whom there was no guile (compare John 1:48.) The Mosaic ceremonies, having been intended for a temporary purpose now accomplished, could no longer be essential or even conducive to salvation. The other question is, how Paul could justly represent the Jews as having betrayed him to the Romans, when in fact he had himself declined the jurisdiction of the Sanhedrim and appealed to the imperial tribunal (see above, on 25:9–12.) The answer is, that Paul is here referring not to the outward form of the proceedings, but to their secret springs and actual effects. His original transfer from the power of the Jews to that of the Romans, though immediately occasioned by the armed interference of the latter, was ultimately referable to the violence and malice of the former (see above, on 21:31, 32.) So too, his final appeal to Cesar, though a voluntary act, was rendered necessary by the continued machinations of the Jews against his life and the apparent connivance of the Procurator Festus (see above, on 23:12; 25:3, 9–12.) It was therefore true, in fact if not in form, that Paul was forced into the power of the Romans and the presence of the emperor by the treacherous and murderous designs of his own countrymen. The immediate reference is here to his original transfer from the Jewish to the Roman power, as appears from what is added in the next verse.

18. As an aggravation of their guilt in thus betraying him, he adds, that they prevented his acquittal by the Romans when convinced that he was innocent, after a judicial investigation (for the usage of the Greek verb, see above, on 4:9; 12:19; 24:8.) This is not a mere inference or conjecture, but a supplementary completion of Luke's narrative in 25:8, 9, where we read that after Paul's refutation of the charges, Festus asked him if he would be tried again before the council at Jerusalem. The seeming abruptness of this proposition, and its destitution of all ground or reason, are in some degree removed by Paul's own statement to the Jews at Rome, which although perfectly consistent with the other narrative, completes it by informing us, that in the interval between Paul's defence and Festus's proposal, the latter had expressed a wish to set him free, but by the opposition of the Jews had been induced to offer a new trial as a sort of compromise. This, while it explains the Procurator's conduct, does not in the least extenuate his error in sacrificing Paul's rights to the wishes of his enemies, and proposing a new trial when he ought to have acquitted and discharged him. (See above, on 25:12, 25; 26:31, 32.)

19. The Jews contradicting or opposing (the proposal to acquit or set him free), I was constrained (compelled or forced) to appeal to Cesar (or invoke the emperor, see above, on 25:11.) The compulsion here alleged is not a physical compulsion, forcing him against his will to take this step, but a moral force, depriving him of any other means by which he could ensure his safety. As the Jews were determined to destroy him, and Festus seemed unable or unwilling to protect him, he was forced, as his only means of safety, to assert his civic rights and to invoke the imperial protection. It was therefore simply a defensive measure, and involved no charge against the Jews as a nation, of which he here still claims to be a member. The idea is not that his persecution in Judea was a local one, for which the Jews at large were not responsible; for the sacred history uniformly treats the proceedings against Christ and his apostles as a national offence. The distinction drawn is not between the whole race and its subdivisions, but between offensive and defensive action on the part of Paul himself; and even this has reference only to his formal appeal. He does not say, and could not say with truth, that he had no complaint to make against his nation; nay, he had already made one in this very speech, to wit, that they had betrayed him to the Romans and prevented his acquittal and discharge. Not that I had, might have been translated more exactly, not as having, and immediately connected with the verb preceding, I was forced to appeal to Cesar (for my own protection) not as having any thing to charge my nation with (at this tribunal.) This view of the grammatical construction does away with an additional charge of disingenuousness, by evincing that the last clause of the verse before us has exclusive reference to the form and ground of Paul's appeal to Nero, which was purely a defensive act, involving no attack whatever upon others, whether innocent or guilty with respect to the appellant.

20. For this cause, not the one suggested in the last clause, as the English version seems to mean, but that involved in the preceding statement; because he had been passive in this whole affair, not active; because he was "more sinned against than sinning;" because his present errand to the court was not to bring a charge against his nation, but to save himself from their injustice; for this cause he had called for (or invited) them, to see (them) and speak with (or talk to) them, that they might not of themselves suspect, or be induced by others to believe, that he was an apostate and a traitor to the theocracy in which they gloried. For (not because, which changes the relation of the clauses), so far is this from being true, that I am actually suffering because of my fidelity to that religion which they charge me with abandoning. on account (or for the sake) of the hope of Israel, I wear (or am surrounded by) this chain, the one by which he was attached to the accompanying soldier. (See above, on v. 16, and compare the use of the same compound verb in Heb. 5:2; 12:1.) By this skilful but most natural conclusion, Paul connects the simple statement of his own case, and the purpose of his present visit, with the great Messianic doctrine which was at once the centre of the Jewish and the Christian systems. Here, as in 23:6; 24:15; 26:6, 7, the hope of Israel is faith in the Messiah as predicted in the Hebrew Scriptures. Here too, as in his previous apologies just cited, he describes this hope as the occasion of his sufferings, because it was his Messianic doctrine that had caused the breach between him and his countrymen, and thus led to his loss of liberty and accusation as a renegade and heretic. But this doctrine, far from involving a rejection of the ancient Jewish faith, was in his view an inflexible adherence to it, and he thus comes back to the point from which he set out, namely, that the best Christian is the best Jew in the true sense of the term; "for," as he had said long before in writing to the Jews at Rome, "he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither (is that) circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he (is) a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision (is that) of the heart, in the spirit, (and) not in the letter, whose praise (is) not of men, but of God." (Rom. 2:28, 29.)

21. Paul's address presented two points to his Jewish hearers; his motive in appealing to the Emperor (vs. 17–19), and his firm adherence to the ancient doctrine (v. 20.) To both these they reply in the same order, to the first in this verse, to the second in v. 22. Letters, the same word that is rendered learning in 26:24, the strict sense in both cases being writings. Nor did any (one) of the brethren coming (or arriving here) report or tell any (thing) about thee (that was) evil. Report and tell may possibly have reference to official and colloquial communication. Any of the brethren coming (or that came) may seem in English to imply that some had come, but that none of them had brought any bad account of Paul. In the Greek, however, there is no such implication, as the participle (coming) agrees with the singular pronoun (any one.) It is rather implied, though not explicitly affirmed, that no one had arrived who could have brought the news of Paul's appeal before him. This is not improbable, as he had left Judea near the close of navigation (see above, on 27:9), and no doubt soon after his appeal (see above, on 26:32; 27:1), and any vessel sailing near the same time must have been arrested in the same way and could scarcely have reached Italy before him. This may serve to account for the fact here alleged by the Jews, without supposing that their banishment by Claudius had interrupted all communication with Judea, or that this denial was untrue and meant to avoid participation in a feud with which they had not been immediately concerned, and in which they may have seen the powers at Rome to lean in favour of the prisoner. This last hypothesis, though not at variance with the Jewish character in that or any later age, is less probable in reference to a number of the leading men than it would be in the case of a private individual.

22. This is their answer to his second point or closing intimation, that the cause of his imprisonment was not his abjuration of the old Jewish doctrine, but his close adherence to it. We think it right (perhaps with the suggestion of a wish, see above, on 15:38) to hear from thee what thou thinkest, and how thou feelest, for the Greek verb denotes not mere opinion but affection (compare its use in Matt. 16:23; Rom. 8:5; 1 Cor. 13:11; Phil 2:5; 3:19; Col. 3:2.) This is therefore a respectful proposition to do justice to Paul's doctrinal as well as his legal or forensic position, by allowing him to state his own views with respect to the great doctrine which divided between him and other Jews, and on which his pretensions to be still an orthodox and faithful Israelite of course depended. For (the reason why they wish or think it right to hear him) as to (or concerning) this sect (or schismatical party, see above, on 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5), meaning of course the Nazarenes or Christians, to whom Paul notoriously belonged, as he was no doubt understood by them to hint in the conclusion of his first speech (see above, on v. 20.) We know, literally, it is known to us, perhaps implying that they knew no more, as if they had said, 'all we know about it is, that it is every where opposed (or contradicted),' i.e. by the Jews, with whom they were in correspondence or communication. This, if not a prudent or contemptuous pretence, implies a singular want of information with respect to a religion represented by a large and famous church in Rome itself, whose faith had long been spoken of throughout the whole world (Rom. 1:8.) This description of the Roman church by Paul himself, some years before the date of these events, precludes the explanation which might otherwise be drawn from the extent, confusion, and diversified interests of the imperial city, where two religious bodies might well co-exist in ignorance of one another. Some would account for the phenomenon in question by supposing that the temporary exile of the Jews from Rome, already mentioned, had prevented their knowing many things that had occurred there in their absence, and among the rest the rise and progress of the Christian Church. But the edict of Claudius is supposed by some judicious writers not to have been fully executed, or at least to have been soon repealed by Claudius himself, and it certainly would seem from Rom. 16:3, that Aquila and Priscilla had returned before the date of that epistle (see above, on 18:2.) On the whole, the natural impression, made perhaps on most unbiassed readers, is that the Jewish leaders here dissemble or disguise their knowledge of the Christian sect, either from a supercilious disposition to disparage its importance in addressing one of its ringleaders (see above, on 24:5), or from prudential motives and a natural unwillingness to be involved afresh in quarrels which perhaps had caused their previous misfortunes, but which certainly seemed likely now to bring them into conflict not only with the church itself but with the government which at this moment seemed disposed to favour it. This obvious and natural hypothesis accounts for all the facts, without being open to the same objection with the similar assumption in relation to the statement in the verse preceding.

23. Having appointed (or, as the Greek verb originally signifies, arranged, agreed upon) a day with (or to) him, after how long an interval is not said, but the natural implication is a short one. Many, literally, more, which may be understood indefinitely, either of a great or small number (see above, on 2:40; 13:31; 21:10; 24:17; 25:14; 27:20), but is commonly explained here strictly as a comparative, meaning more than had attended the first interview. Besides the leading men then present, there were others now assembled, to hear Paul's account of the new religion. Lodging, a Greek word used by the older classics in the wide sense of hospitable entertainment (compare the cognate verb in v. 7), but by the later writers in the more restricted local sense expressed in the translation. Here (and in Philem. 22) it may denote a private house where Paul was entertained as a guest, perhaps that of Aquila and Priscilla (see above, on 18:2, and compare Rom. 16:3); but most interpreters identify it with the hired house mentioned in v. 30. One modern writer paradoxically holds that Paul was now at liberty, his trial and acquittal having taken place between the two meetings with the Jews here recorded. But the principal ground of this opinion, a provision of the Roman law requiring such appeals to be determined within five days, has been shown to be an error, that provision having reference, not to the trial of the merits, but to the preliminary forms, receiving the appeal, &c. (That Paul was still a prisoner at the close of this book, see below, on v. 30.) The terms used in describing Paul's address are very similar to those employed before on like occasions. Expounded and testified, literally, expounded testifying, not as two distinct acts, but as one, partaking of both qualities, and answering the twofold purpose of explaining and attesting the true doctrine. (For the usage of the Greek verbs, see above, on 2:40; 8:25; 11:4; 18:5, 26; 20:21, 24.) The kingdom of God, the reign of the Messiah, the new dispensation, as predicted by the Prophets and fulfilled in Christ. (See above, on 1:3; 8:12; 14:22; 19:8; 20:25.) Persuading them too (τε) concerning Jesus, i.e. not merely proving him to be the Christ, but striving to enlist them in his active service. (See above, on 13:43; 18:4; 19:8, 26; 26:28.) The verb denotes, not the actual result, nor yet the mere endeavour, but the whole subjective process as performed by Paul, without respect to the diversity of its effect. Both out of the law, as the source of his argument, or more exactly, from the law, as his starting-point, and the prophets, or remaining scriptures, as expounding and confirming Moses. (See above, on 3:18, 21, 24; 10:43; 13:27; 24:14; 26:22, 27.) From morning, more exactly, from early (in the morning) until evening, i.e. all day long. The whole day was thus occupied, of course not in formal or continuous discourse, but partly in familiar and colloquial discussion (see above, on 20:7.)

24. As in most other cases where the auditors were Jews, the effect was a divided or diverse one. (See above, on 13:43–45; 14:1, 2; 18:4–6, 8, 12; 19:8, 9.) Some believed (or more exactly, were persuaded or convinced by) the things spoken, that Paul's doctrine as to the Messiahship of Jesus was correct, and as a necessary consequence that he and not his enemies had held fast to the old religion. (For the usage of the passive, see above, on 5:36, 37, 40; 17:4; 21:14; 23:21; 26:26; 27:11.) This effect was probably foreseen by Paul, who had not been led by accident to give this exposition of his Messianic doctrine, but had deliberately seized the opportunity, afforded by the Jews themselves (v. 22), of bearing witness to the truth before his kinsmen according to the flesh, however his testimony might be treated.

25. Being discordant, a musical expression (literally, unsymphonious), but applied by Plato, as it is here, to diversity of feeling and opinion. They departed, not abruptly, or before Paul had accomplished his design, as may appear to be the meaning of the English version, but they were dismissed (or sent away) by Paul himself. (Compare the use of the same verb in 19:41.) Paul saying (as they went), or having said (before they went), not as the reason or occasion of their going, which they would have done if he had added nothing, but as a solemn close of the whole interview, a last farewell to them and to the doomed race whom they represented. Here, as well as in the preceding verse, it is implied that the greater number persevered in unbelief and the rejection of the true Messiah (but see below, on v. 29.) One word, saying, dictum (see above, on 10:37; 11:16), full of fearful import, selected, not at random, but as an appropriate conclusion to Paul's dealings with his unbelieving brethren. Well, not properly or truly, which would be superfluous, if not irreverent, in allusion to words uttered by the Holy Ghost, but exactly or appropriately, as a description of the sons, no less than of the fathers, to whom and of whom it was primarily spoken. The form of expression is derived from Christ himself (see Matt. 15:7; Mark 7:6.) Our fathers still identifies the speaker with the hearers, as descendants of the same progenitors (see above, on 3:13, 25; 5:30; 13:17; 15:10; 22:14; 26:6.) But the oldest manuscripts and latest critics read your fathers, which appears more natural in this connection, just as Stephen, after using the first person ten times, suddenly adopts the second in his closing invective or anathema (7:2, 11, 12, 15, 19, 38, 39, 44, 45, 51, 52. For the idiomatic use of ὅτι, that, in a direct quotation, see above, on 2:13; 3:22; 5:23, 25; 6:11; 11:3; 13:34; 15:1; 16:36; 17:6; 18:13; 19:21; 23:20; 24:21; 25:8, 16; 26:31.) The passage quoted is here recognized, not only as the genuine composition of Isaiah, but as a prophecy inspired by the Holy Ghost. (See above, on 1:16; 4:25.)

26. The passage chosen for Paul's final utterance to the Jews is still found in the writings of Isaiah (6:9, 10), where it constitutes a part of the renewed (or, as some think, the original) commission of the Prophet, after a solemn vision of Jehovah in the temple, and a symbolical assurance of his own forgiveness, as a preparation for the painful duty now to be imposed upon him. This consisted in preaching to the people, but with an assurance that it would have no effect, as to the mass, except to blind and harden them. Hearing (or with hearing) ye shall hear and not (at all) understand (the Greek negation being very strong), and seeing ye shall see and not (at all) perceive (or looking ye shall look, and not see.) Hearing and seeing, though alike in English, are entirely different in their Greek form, the last being the active participle of the verb to see, agreeing with the plural pronoun (ye seeing), and the first a noun derived from the verb to hear, and construed as the dative of means or manner. The distinction in both phrases is between sensation and perception, or between a mere impression on the organ and a corresponding intellectual effect (see above, on 22:9.) The combination to the noun and participle with the cognate verb is designed to represent a common but peculiar Hebrew idiom, which joins an infinitive and finite verbal form, for the sake of emphasis in general, or of some particular intensive meaning. Thus in this case, it may either simply strengthen the expression (ye shall hear indeed, ye shall certainly hear), or suggest the accessory ideas of clearness (hear distinctly), or abundance (hear sufficiently), or continuance (hear on), or repetition (hear again), &c. The idea of hearing and seeing in one sense without hearing or seeing in another may have been proverbial among the Hebrews, as we know it to have been among the Greeks, from a similar expression of Æschylus, and still more clearly from another of Demosthenes, who expressly cites it as a proverb, "seeing not to see, and hearing not to hear."

27. This part of the original prediction has the form of an ironical commission or command, in which the Prophet is required to stupefy and blind the people, which is only a strong and paradoxical mode of commanding him to do his duty or perform his office, with an accompanying intimation of its actual effect upon the people through their own perversity and unbelief. (Compare the similar command of Christ in Matt. 23:32.) In this fearful process there are three distinguishable agencies expressly or implicitly described, the ministerial agency of the Prophet, the judicial agency of God, and the suicidal agency of the people themselves. The original passage makes the first of these most prominent (Fatten the heart of this people, dull their ears, shut their eves, &c.) The quotation in John 12:40, draws attention to the second (He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart.) That in Matt. 13:15, like the one before us, dwells upon the third and represents the people as destroyed by their own insensibility and unbelief. We have thus a striking and instructive instance of the way in which the same essential truth may be exhibited in different parts of Scripture under several distinct aspects or successive phases. Heart is neither the affections nor the intellect exclusively, but the whole mind or soul as comprehending both. (See above, on 2:37; 4:32; 7:23; 8:21; 11:23; 14:17; 15:9; 16:14; 21:13.) Waxed gross, literally, fattened, made fat, i.e. gross and stupid. Their ears are dull of hearing, literally, with (their) ears they have heard heavily, i.e. obtusely, dully, indistinctly. Closed, in Greek a strong expression, strictly meaning shut down, i.e. shut fast, and applied especially to sleep and death. The corresponding word in Hebrew is still stronger, meaning smeared, or glued fast, so that they cannot be opened. The moral effect of this insensibility is stated in the last clause. Be converted, literally, turn, i.e. to God by true repentance (see above, on 3:19; 9:35; 11:21; 14:15; 15:19; 26:18, 20.) As in the previous description, their own agency is prominently presented, so in this, without excluding that of God in either case. Heal them, forgive and save them, sin being often represented in the Scriptures as a spiritual malady. (Compare Ps. 41:4; Jer. 3:22; Hos. 14:4; 1 Pet. 2:24.) The terms of this quotation, not excepting the change of construction in the verse before us, are derived, with little variation, from the Septuagint version of Isaiah.

28. Therefore, because you are thus hardened, and exhibit just the character and state described in this appalling passage as the fruits and symptoms of judicial blindness and abandonment by God. Be it known unto you, the same emphatic formula employed by Peter at Jerusalem (2:14; 4:10), and by Paul himself at Antioch in Pisidia (13:38), to introduce a solemn and authoritative declaration. Salvation, not the Greek word commonly so rendered (as in 4:12; 13:26, 47; 16:17), but one used only by Luke (Luke 2:30; 3:6) and Paul (Eph. 6:17.) It is properly an adjective meaning salutary, saving (as in Tit. 2:11), but here, and in the passages just cited, absolutely used without a substantive to signify God's method of salvation, the remedial system made known in the gospel. Is sent, literally, was sent, i.e. has already been sent. The past tense seems to be employed, and not the future, because what he here refers to was not something yet to be begun in consequence of what had just occurred, but something begun long before and still in operation, of which this was only the farewell annunciation, repeating to the Jews of Rome what Paul had previously said to those of Antioch (13:46) and Corinth (18:6), and no doubt in other cases not recorded. In the present case, however, it is made particularly impressive by its being the conclusion of Paul's efforts to convert the Jews, and the commencement of those undivided labours for the Gentiles, of which Rome was now to be the seat and centre. To the Gentiles, literally, the nations, i.e. other nations (see above, on 4:25, 27; 9:15; 10:45; 11:18; 26:17, 20, 23.) They shall hear it, in the lower sense, i.e. shall have the opportunity of doing so, and (many) will hear it, in the higher sense, i.e. give heed to it, accept it, and obtain salvation by it.

29. This verse is rejected by some critics, because not found in several of the oldest manuscripts and versions, but retained by others on account of the agreement as to form among the copies which do give it, and because its insertion is as hard to be accounted for as its omission. It contains a natural though not a necessary close of this transaction with the Jews at Rome, again recording that they were not all of one mind, but divided on the subject of Paul's Messianic teaching. He having said (or saying, i.e. as or while he said) these words (to wit, the one word mentioned in v. 25, but more especially his last words in v. 28), the Jews departed, not the passive verb so rendered in v. 25, but one which properly means went away (employed above, 4:15; 5:26; 9:17; 10:7.) And had, (literally, having, i.e. at the time, or as they went) great reasoning, literally, much dispute, the same word that is used above, 15:2, 7 (compare the cognate verb in 6:9; 9:29) among themselves, literally, in themselves, which might be strictly understood of an internal conflict, as a like phrase is employed above in 10:17; 12:11, but for the preceding noun, which originally means joint inquiry or investigation, and therefore necessarily implies a plurality of persons. (For the use of in to mean with or among, see above, on 2:29; 4:12, 34; 5:12; 6:8; 7:44; 12:18; 13:26; 15:7, 22; 17:34; 18:11; 20:25, 32; 21:19, 34; 24:21; 25:5, 6; 26:4, 18.) This is in one sense the conclusion of Paul's ministry, i.e. so far as it extended both to Jews and Gentiles. From the former it was now to be withdrawn, and during the remainder of his life exclusively directed to the latter, not so much, if at all, by travelling among them, as by setting a ministry in motion at the heart of the empire which should reach to its extremities, and giving an impulse to the energies of others that should still be felt when he had left the field of labour.

30. Having brought the Apostle of the Gentiles to the heart and centre of the Gentile world, and recorded his last dealings with the Jews, the history closes with the interesting fact, that he continued to exert his apostolical influence, from this great radiating point, without interruption or obstruction, for a whole biennium or period of two years after his arrival. Dwelt, remained, continued (as in v. 16 above.) Two whole years, literally, a whole biennium, or period of two years, the same word that occurs above in 24:27. The word whole shows, not only that the two years were elapsed when Luke wrote, but that the condition here described continued without any interruption for that length of time. His own, or as the word may mean, a separate or private dwelling, which amounts, however, to the same thing. (See above, on 1:7, 19, 25; 2:6, 8; 3:12; 4:23, 32; 13:36; 20:28; 21:6; 23:19; 24:23; 25:19.) Hired house, a single word in Greek, used in the Classics and the Septuagint to denote the act of hiring or the hire itself, but here the thing hired or rented, which the context determines to have been a place of residence, and therefore an apartment, if not an entire house. Whether this hired lodging was the same that is referred to in v. 23, or one to which he afterwards removed, is a question happily of little moment, as the narrative does not afford data for its satisfactory solution. And received (as visitors or guests) all the (persons) coming in to him (as such), a statement which implies that his intercourse with others was confined to his own dwelling, and as a necessary consequence that during these two years he was still a prisoner, an inference corroborated by the allusions to his bonds in the epistles written at this time. (Compare Philem. 1, 9, 10, 23; Col. 4:18; Phil. 1:13, 14, 16.)

31. These were not visits of mere courtesy or friendship, but connected with the great work even of his prison-life. (Compare Phil. 1:12–21.) Preaching, proclaiming as a herald (see above, on 8:5; 9:20; 10:42; 19:13; 20:25, and compare the cognate noun in 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11.) The kingdom of God, see above, on v. 23. Teaching, explaining, as well as heralding, announcing (see above, on 15:35; 18:25; 20:20) the (things) about (of or concerning) the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e. Jesus as a sovereign, and as the Messiah of the Scriptures, the predicted Prophet, Priest, and King, not of the carnal but the spiritual Israel. (See above, on 2:30, 36; 8:12; 9:22; 15:26; 17:3; 18:5; 19:4; 20:21.) With all confidence, the word translated boldness in 4:13, 29, 31 (compare the kindred verb in 9:27, 29; 13:46; 14:3; 18:26; 19:8), but always meaning strictly freedom and plainness of speech, as opposed, not only to a timid reserve, but to a partial and obscure exhibition of the truth (see above, on 2:29; 26:16.) This is the gift for which the twelve apostles prayed in persecution (see above, on 4:29, 31), and of which Paul speaks repeatedly in his epistles, as essential to the full proof of his ministry. (Compare Eph. 6:19, 20; Phil. 1:20; 1 Thess. 2:2.) All, i.e. all that was required for this purpose (see above on 4:29, and compare the use of the same epithet in 5:23; 13:10; 17:11; 20:19; 23:1; 24:3.) The mention of this circumstance as something singular, or contrary to what might naturally have been looked for, serves to confirm the previous conclusion that throughout these two years he was still a prisoner (see above, on v. 30); and the same thing may be said of the emphatic adverb which concludes the whole book, and to which our language affords no nearer equivalent than unforbidden (or retaining the adverbial form, unforbiddenly), the essential meaning being that of the English phrase, without let or hindrance. This emphatic and sonorous close shows that the book is not unfinished, as so many have imagined, and endeavoured to account for its abrupt conclusion on the ground that Luke was interrupted, or intended to compose a third book (see above, on 1:1), or that the original conclusion has been lost, &c. These are not only arbitrary and gratuitous assumptions in themselves, but are invented to explain a fact without existence. Because no account is given of what afterwards befell Paul, of his condemnation or acquittal, his release and re-arrest, and final martyrdom, it does not follow that the history is incomplete, but only that these interesting facts were not included in the writer's plan. The book is not a personal biography of Paul, who is not even named until the close of the first subdivision (see above, on 7:57), but a history of the planting and extension of the church among the Jews and Gentiles, by the institution of great radiating centres at important points throughout the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome. The ministry of Paul, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, fills a large part of the book, and as soon as he arrives at the last point in the series just referred to and commences operations there, the subject is exhausted and the history complete. All subsequent occurrences, however interesting in themselves, or useful for another purpose, belong rather to biography than history, or rather to the later apostolical history and the interpretation of the Pastoral Epistles, than to this succinct and well-defined account of the great process, by which Christianity was carried from its cradle at Jerusalem, not only to its secondary homes in Antioch, Philippi, Corinth, Ephesus, and other cities of inferior rank, but also to its throne in the Eternal City, the locality selected for its highest exaltation and its most profound abasement. To have added any thing beyond this point, except so much as might suffice to show that Rome did really become a radiating centre before Paul died, would have been to open a new history and not to close an old one. However tantalizing, therefore, the reserve of the historian may be to modern curiosity, it gives his work a unity and relative completeness, which could only have been marred by supplementary additions. He does not even stand in need of the apology, which some have made for him, that all the rest was well known to Theophilus, and therefore needed not to be recorded; as if the book, although inscribed to one man, was not meant from the beginning for the use of all men. It ends where it does, for no such personal or trivial reason, but because the writer's purpose is accomplished and his task performed. As soon as he has traced the course of Christ and Christianity from the Holy City to the Mistress of the World, he has already shown the virtual fulfilment of the promise and the plan with which the history begins, "Ye shall be my witnesses, both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth." (See above, on 1:8.)

THE END.

-----

MONERGISM BOOKS

The Acts of the Apostles Explained, Joseph Addison Alexander, Copyright © 2022

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the non-exclusive, non-transferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafter invented, without the express written permission of Monergism Books.

ePub, .mobi & .pdf Editions February 2022. Requests for information should be addressed to: Monergism Books, PO Box 491, West Linn, OR 97068

Table of Contents

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1

CHAPTER 2

CHAPTER 3

CHAPTER 4

CHAPTER 5

CHAPTER 6

CHAPTER 7

CHAPTER 8

CHAPTER 9

CHAPTER 10

CHAPTER 11

CHAPTER 12

CHAPTER 13

CHAPTER 14

CHAPTER 15

CHAPTER 16

CHAPTER 17

CHAPTER 18

CHAPTER 19

CHAPTER 20

CHAPTER 21

CHAPTER 22

CHAPTER 23

CHAPTER 24

CHAPETR 25

CHAPTER 26