clearly described. According to this supposition, he was examining the prophecies with reference to the question whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah—whether the prophet Isaiah described His sufferings or those of some other man.

Vers. 29-31. Eiπev dè Tò IIveûpa-then the Spirit said. The first of those intimations of the Holy Spirit which were afterwards of frequent occurrence. The Spirit spoke by means of an internal intimation. 'Αράγε γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις— Understandest thou what thou readest? Philip heard him read the prophet Isaiah, but was doubtful whether he understood its Messianic reference. Πῶς γὰρ ἂν δυναίμην—How can I, except some man should guide me? The fulfilment is the key to the interpretation of the prophecy. Now, although the Ethiopian eunuch must have heard something of Jesus in Jerusalem, yet he was in a great measure ignorant of His life and death, and therefore wanted this key of interpretation; and hence he requests Philip to explain the passage to him.

Vers. 32, 33. This passage is taken almost verbatim from the Septuagint of Isa. liii. 7, 8: the only differences are, that in the Acts αὐτοῦ is inserted after ταπεινώσει, and δέ before yeveàv. The words, however, differ somewhat from the original Hebrew, where, instead of "In His humiliation, His judgment was taken away," we read, "He was taken from prison and from judgment.'

Ver. 33. Ἐν τῇ ταπεινώσει αὐτοῦ ἡ κρίσις αὐτοῦ ἤρθη-In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. This difficult verse has been variously interpreted. The chief difficulty lies in the meaning of the words, "His judgment was taken away." Some (Bengel, Lechler) render them, "The judgment pronounced on Him by His enemies was taken away— cancelled or set aside by God." Others (Meyer, Robinson) render them, "His judgment, the punishment inflicted upon Him by His enemies, was taken away-removed, ended, or finished by His death." Humphry supposes that the judicial power of the Messiah as Son of God is here alluded to: "In His state of humiliation, while He was in this world, His

VOL. I.

U

judicial power was taken away-He did not appear as the Divine Judge of men." On the whole, the popular meaning is to be preferred as the most simple and natural: "His judgment-the judgment due to Him-His rights of justicewere withheld by His enemies." Jesus appeared in a form so humble, a man so poor and insignificant, that Pilate, though convinced of His innocence, thought it not worth while to hazard anything to preserve His life.

Τὴν δὲ γενεὰν αὐτοῦ τίς διηγήσεται—and who shall declare His generation? Different interpretations have also been given of this clause. The Fathers in general referred it to the mystery of the Messiah's deity: Who shall declare His generation-His Divine Sonship?-a meaning approved by Wordsworth, but which ill suits the connection with the following clause. Others (Luther, Calvin, Beza, Vitringa, Bengel, Hengstenberg) refer the words to the duration of His kingdom and His spiritual seed; as if the prophet had said, Who shall declare the duration of His reign, or count the number of His spiritual offspring? Teveá may certainly signify posterity, and may thus refer to the spiritual offspring of the Messiah; but then such a meaning does not well suit the following clause, " for His life is taken from the earth :" at least the connection is remote. Besides, such an interpretation would be tautological; for the prophet in a subsequent verse expresses this idea in clearer terms: "He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days" (Isa. liii. 10). Bishop Lowth renders the passage, "His manner of life who shall declare?" He informs us that it was the custom, before any one was punished for a capital offence among the Jews, to make the following proclamation: "Whoever knows anything of the innocence of this man, let him come and declare it." And he supposes that when such a proclamation was made in the case of Christ, no one stood up in His defence. But such a meaning is inadmissible, as yeveά does not signify manner of life. Others (Meyer, De Wette, Lechler, Robinson, Alford) render the passage: "Who shall declare His generation?"—that is, set forth the wickedness of His contemporaries? This meaning certainly best suits the context:

"For"-as a proof and demonstration of this indescribable wickedness-"His life was taken from the earth," i.e. He was put to death.

Ver. 34. Περὶ τίνος ὁ προφήτης λέγει τοῦτο ; περὶ ἑαυτοῦ,

TEρì ÉTÉρOV TIvós-Of whom speaks the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? The eunuch, in studying the prophecy with reference to Jesus, saw a possible objection: that the words might not be a prediction, but the historical statement of a fact; and that Isaiah might be speaking of himself either as an individual, or as the representative of the prophetic class. Perhaps the opinion that Isaiah was the person spoken of might have been advanced by the Jews in Jerusalem in their arguments with the disciples of Jesus, and the eunuch might have heard the passage so expounded.

Ver. 35. Εὐηγγελίσατο αὐτῷ τὸν Ἰησοῦν—He preached to him Jesus. Philip showed the correspondence between the life and death of Jesus and the predictions of the prophet, and thus proved from this and other prophecies that Jesus was the Messiah whom the Jews expected. The Messianic nature of this prophecy has been generally admitted by all Christians; it is one of the strongholds of Christianity; indeed, when reading this fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, we seem rather to be reading a history of the past than a prediction of the future, so clear is the correspondence between the prophecy and the history of Jesus. In these later chapters of Isaiah there is a description of "the servant of the Lord;" and it is of him that the prophet speaks. Modern Jews have referred the prediction to various individuals to Hezekiah, to the prophet Isaiah himself, and to Jeremiah; but all these applications are inadmissible: there is little or no correspondence between the prophecy and its supposed fulfilment in any of these persons. More plausible is the opinion, that by "the servant of the Lord" Israel collectively is meant. But here also the application is forced; and even although there may be a reference to Israel, yet it can only be in a subordinate sense, as a type of the Messiah. Accordingly several Jewish writers, such as Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, and Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel, admit that the Messiah

is here spoken of, although they are either so blind or so prejudiced as not to draw the inference that Jesus of Nazareth is that Messiah.1

Ver. 36.-H0ov éπí Ti üdwp-they came to a certain water. As the particular road along which Philip and the eunuch travelled is a matter of conjecture, so the water, the fountain or brook in which he was baptized, must remain undetermined. Tradition fixes on a fountain near Bethsur, on the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, which passes by Hebron, and which, as we have already seen, was probably the way along which the eunuch was journeying. Both Eusebius and Jerome concur in this tradition. The latter states: "Bethsur, now called Bethsoron, is a village on the road from Ælia (Jerusalem) to Hebron, at the twentieth milestone, near which there is a fountain, which issues at the base of the mountain, and is absorbed by the same ground in which it rises; and the Acts of the Apostles relates that here the eunuch of Candace was baptized by Philip"" (Jerome, de loc. Heb. Bethsur). The site of this fountain has been identified near a village called Betur, beside which are the ruins of a Christian church. It is, however, improbable that this was the spot, as Bethsur is situated before that part of the road is reached which can with any propriety be called desert. In the age of the Crusaders, Ain Haniyeh, five miles south-west of Jerusalem, was fixed upon as the place of the baptism, where there is still a fountain, known by the name of St. Philip's fountain. Dr. Robinson supposes that the baptism took place in a brook near Tell el-Hasy, on the road from Beit Jibrin to Gaza. "When," he observes, we were at Tell el-Hasy, and saw the water standing along the bottom of the adjacent wady, we could not but remark the coincidence of several circumstances with the account of the eunuch's baptism. This water is on the most direct route from Beit Jibrin to Gaza, on the most southern road from Jerusalem, and in the midst of a country now desert, that is, without villages or fixed habitations."

66

1 See Du Veil on the Acts of the Apostles, p. 210.

2 Pearson's Lectures on the Acts.

Vers. 37, 38. For ver. 37, see Critical Note. Els Tò üdwp -into the water. It is generally supposed that these words are in favour of baptism by immersion. But whatever was the practice in apostolic times, the words do not necessarily bear this meaning: they merely imply that Philip and the eunuch went into the water for the purpose of baptism; but they state nothing as to the mode of its administration.

Ver. 39. The Alexandrine Ms. (A2, but according to Tischendorf corrected by the original scribe) after datos reads, Πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν εὐνοῦχον, ἄγγελος δὲ Kupiov, etc.-" The Holy Ghost fell upon the eunuch, but the angel of the Lord caught away Philip." This reading is also found in seven cursive Mss., two versions, and Jerome. It is curious, but doubtless spurious, and has never been adopted by any eminent critic. Πνεῦμα Κυρίου ἥρπασε τὸν PITTOV-the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip. Some (Olshausen, Hackett) suppose that these words merely intimate that Philip felt himself urged by a divine impulse to depart, but not that the mode of his departure was miraculous in any other respect.1 But the impression which the narrative leaves upon the mind, the forcible word йpπаσε, the eunuch seeing him no more, and Philip being found at Azotus, upwards of thirty miles distant, is, that the removal was miraculous, although its mode and nature are not described. So Meyer, De Wette, Bengel, Alford, Wordsworth. Similar miraculous removals appear to have happened in the case of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 12; 2 Kings ii. 16). The same verb occurs in the description of the ecstasy of Paul (2 Cor. xii. 2, 4). Zeller infers, from the account of the miraculous nature of Philip's removal, that the whole narrative is mythical, and that the only historical truth in the account is, that a certain Ethiopian nobleman was converted to Christianity. Such attempts to explain away the miraculous by mere unsupported assertions cannot be met with arguments. If the miraculous be denied, then certainly the whole narrative is mythical. But if once admitted, then our 1 Hackett on the Acts, p. 158.

2 Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, pp. 175, 176.