noon, or, more exactly, the middle space between noon and

sunset.

...

Ver. 2. Πρὸς τὴν θύραν . . . Ωραίαν—at the gate of the temple called Beautiful. It is a matter of dispute what particular gate is here alluded to. Our information concerning the gates of the temple, both from Josephus and the Talmud, is defective: nor is there any of the gates described which has the name of Beautiful. Josephus, however, informs us that there was one of the gates which excelled all others in magnificence and beauty. It was made of Corinthian brass, and hence called the Corinthian gate. "Nine of the gates," he observes, "were on every side covered over with gold and silver, as well as their side posts and lintels; but there was one gate that was without the holy house, which was of Corinthian brass, and greatly excelled those which were only covered over with silver and gold. Its height was fifty cubits, and its doors were forty cubits; and it was adorned after a most costly manner, as having much richer and thicker plates of silver and gold than upon the others" (Joseph. Bell. v. 5. 3). In all probability this was the gate which received the appropriate name of Beautiful. It is, however, doubtful to what gate Josephus alludes. The general opinion is that it is the inner gate, called in the Talmud "Nicanor,” which led from the outer into the inner court. This is certainly the gate mentioned by Josephus, when he says: "Moreover, the eastern gate of the inner temple was of brass, and vastly heavy, and could be with difficulty shut by twenty men, but it opened of its own accord about the sixth hour of the night" (Joseph. Bell. vi. 5. 3). Others, again (Bengel, Olshausen, Lange), suppose that the Corinthian gate of Josephus was an outer gate to the east of the court of the Gentiles, in the neighbourhood of Solomon's porch, elsewhere called the gate Shushan. It is argued that the beggar would take his place at an outer and not at an inner gate, because all would enter by it; and it is expressly said that Peter and John were about to enter into the temple. It is, however, probable that there would be several beggars at the different gates of the temple. Lightfoot supposes that

it was the gate Hulda, situated to the west of the court of the Gentiles. He derives Hulda from a word signifying time, and translates paíav (from apa, an hour) porta tempestiva, the gate of time. We learn from Martial that beggars sat at the gates of heathen temples. Chrysostom recommends the practice as regards Christian churches.

Vers. 3-5. As Peter and John were about to enter the temple-either into the outer court by the gate Shushan, or more probably into the inner court by the gate Nicanor— they encountered a lame beggar sitting at the gate, who asked alms of them. Peter-compassionating his miserable condition, and doubtless moved by a divine impulse, which intimated to him that the divine energy was about to be displayed by the illustrious miracle to be wrought by his means-looked intently at him, and said, "Look on us;" thereby seeking to arouse his attention, so that the cure which he was about to confer on his body might benefit his soul. The lame man, however, did not expect anything extraordinary: all that he hoped for was something in the way of alms.

Ver. 6. 'Ev To ovóμarı I. X.—in the name of Jesus Christ. That is, in virtue of the name; as that which is the efficient cause of the miracle; as that by the power of which the lame man was to arise and walk. The difference in the manner in which Christ wrought His miracles, and the apostles performed theirs, is here observable. The apostles. performed their miracles through Christ, in virtue of His name and authority. It was in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Messiah, that this miracle was performed. They were the mere instruments; He was the efficient agent. Christ, on the other hand, performed His miracles in His own name and on His own authority. He wrought independently. His language was that of omnipotence; theirs was that of faith in Him. He said, "I say unto you, Arise;" they said, "In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." He was the Messiah, the Son; they were the servants of the household.

Vers. 7, 8. From these verses we learn the greatness and

The man had been lame

the perfection of the miracle. from his mother's womb; his lameness was not caused by some disease which might be cured, but arose from a defect of nature; he never had walked; he had to be carried to the Beautiful gate of the temple; he was above forty years of age (ch. iv. 22). He was a well-known character; there could be no deception in his lameness. The miracle was publicly performed: it was not wrought in the closet, but at one of the chief entrances to the temple. Ai Báoes are here the feet, as the instruments of walking: so Wisdom xiii. 18; Joseph. Ant. vii. 5. 5. The word literally signifies a step, pace. Tà opupá, the ankles, here added as showing wherein the lameness of the man consisted. He leaped and walked as an evidence of his joy and exuberance of spirits; certainly not, as Bloomfield strangely imagines, at first from ignorance how to walk, by which his essays would be rather leaping than walking. Thiess imagines that the beggar only pretended to be lame, and that, frightened by the severe rebuke of Peter, he rose up and walked, and that afterwards, from fear of the rage of the people, he kept close to the apostles. Such an opinion changes the entire narrative, and converts the apostles into deceivers: it is here only mentioned, to show the length to which the rationalistic school can go, and the extreme shifts to which they have recourse, in order to destroy the miraculous in the narrative, and yet to preserve its credibility.

Vers. 9, 10. Here we are informed of the effect of the miracle upon the multitude. The lame man was well known. He was laid daily at one of the most frequented gates of the temple. And now the people are filled with astonishment to see the same lame man in full possession of the use of his limbs-leaping, and walking, and praising God. The great design of the miracle seems to have been to arouse the attention of the multitude-to convert them into inquirers. As has been well said, "miracles are bells to call the people to worship." Of course, over and above this, they are also the divine credentials of the messengers-of those who are to conduct the worship.

Ver. 11. Ἐπὶ τῇ στοᾷ τῇ καλουμένῃ Σολομῶντος — to the porch called Solomon's. This porch or cloister was on the eastern side of the "court of the Gentiles." It is thus described by Josephus: "These cloisters (the eastern cloisters) belonged to the outer court, and were situated in a deep valley, and had walls that reached four hundred cubits in length, and were built of square and very white stones, the length of each of which was twenty cubits, and their height six cubits. This was the work of King Solomon, who first of all built the entire temple" (Joseph. Ant. xx. 9. 7). It is not, however, probable that any of the porches built by Solomon survived such a lapse of time and so many disasters. Solomon, we are informed, filled up part of the adjacent valley toward the east, and built there an outward portico which was called Solomon's porch. The artificial embankment would perhaps remain; but the porch itself would be destroyed. This porch, then, was called Solomon's, not because it was the very same that was built by Solomon, but because, being erected on the same artificial terrace, and constructed on the same plan, it retained its original name. It was in this porch, or in the court in front, that the traffic of the money-changers and the sale of oxen and doves were carried on; and it was here also that our Lord was surrounded by the unbelieving Jews when they threatened to take away His life (John x. 23). And now here another crowd of Jews, actuated by better feelings, filled with astonishment at the great miracle which had been performed, surrounded the two apostles.

Ver. 12. 'ATEкрívaтo- not addressed the people, but answered them; because their astonishment and exclamations of surprise expressed a wish for an explanation of the wonderful event that had happened. (Compare ch. ii. 12, "What meaneth this?") Tour-masculine, not neuter: not, as in the authorized version, Why marvel ye at this? but, Why marvel ye at this man?-corresponding to nuîv in the second clause of the sentence. Their wonder was not in itself the subject of censure, but because they referred the miracle to the power or piety of the apostles. It took this

shape: What wonderful men are these who have performed so great a miracle? 'Idía duváμei-by our own power, in virtue of our inherent power; evσeßeía—or piety. Some transcribers, not seeing the connection between the performance of the miracle and piety, have written, éžovolą, authority. But the obvious meaning is as if we were such pious people, that God should reward us with the power of working miracles. Hence Luther renders it Verdienst, merit, which certainly is implied in the term.

Ver. 13. O eòs 'Aẞpaap- the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers. The apostle most appropriately commences his discourse with the mention of God as their ancestral God. He thus shows them that it was no new religion, inconsistent with the law of Moses, that Jesus came to introduce, but that the God of their fathers was the author of them both: in short, that the gospel and the religion of Moses sprang from the same divine source. He thus at the outset removes what might have been an obstacle to their reception of the truth.

This by

Τὸν παῖδα αὑτοῦ Ἰησοῦν—His servant Jesus. the Vulgate and almost all ancient interpreters, and among moderns by Kuincel and Heinrichs, has been rendered as if it were the same as His Son Jesus. But the word for "son" is viós, not Traîs. Almost all modern interpreters are now agreed that the phrase must be rendered His servant Jesus. So Bengel, Nitzsch, Olshausen, De Wette, Meyer, Baumgarten, Lechler, Stier, Hackett, Wordsworth, Alford. Lechler observes, that since Nitzsch has thrown light upon the subject, all modern interpreters have agreed that waîs coû is not the Son of God, but the servant of God. It thus designates not His nature, but His official and Messianic character as the servant of God so often foretold in the later chapters of the prophecies of Isaiah (xl.-lxvi.). This title is directly applied to Christ in St. Matthew's Gospel, in a citation from these prophecies, "Behold my servant (Taîs) whom I have chosen" (Matt. xii. 18); and in the Acts of the Apostles it occurs four times in reference to Christ; in our passage, in ver. 26 of this chapter, and in

VOL. I.

I