Page images
PDF
EPUB

Meyer, and De Wette. Ver. 15. A, B, C, N, have ådeλøŵv, the reading adopted by Tischendorf and Lachmann, instead of μαθητών, contained in D, E. Ver. 25. λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον, found in A, B, C, D, is much better attested than λaßeîv Tòv Kλnρov, found in N. Ver. 26. Instead of avrov, A, B, C, N read avroîs, the reading adopted by Tischendorf.

EXEGETICAL REMARKS.

Ver. 13. Kai őre elonλov-and when they came in, namely into the city. 'Els Tò VTEр@ov-into the upper room. Some (Lightfoot, Du Veil, Hammond) suppose that this upper room was one of the chambers attached to the temple; but it is in the highest degree improbable that the Jewish hierarchy, who had the charge of these rooms, would permit the disciples of Jesus to assemble in one of them for worship. We are then to understand the upper room of some private house which the apostles had hired, or whose possessor was a disciple. Epiphanius tells us that it was on Mount Zion, and that a Christian church was afterwards erected on the spot where it stood. It is to be observed that this upper room is particularized by the definite article-the upper room, some well-known upper room; perhaps, as Ewald suggests, the large upper room in which our Lord partook of the passover with His apostles (Luke xxii. 12), or the room where He appeared to them after His resurrection (John xx. 19, 26). Upper rooms, directly under the flat roof, were in the East large and spacious, and were often set apart as halls for meetings. Thus it was in an upper room that Paul delivered his farewell address to the disciples at Troas (Acts xx. 8).

Οὗ ἦσαν καταμένοντες—where abode. This is not at variance with the statement in Luke's Gospel, that after the ascension the disciples were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God (Luke xxiv. 53): for that statement merely implies that, as devout Israelites, they were to be found in the temple at the stated hours of prayer; whereas here we are informed that at other times they assembled in this upper room for prayer and religious fellowship.

"O Tе Пéтρоs-both Peter. This is the fourth catalogue which we have of the apostles. The other catalogues are Matt. x. 2-4, Mark iii. 16–19, and Luke vi. 14-16. They all vary in the order in which the names are given, and several of the apostles are mentioned under different names. Peter, John, James, and Andrew are in all the catalogues, though not in the same order, placed first. Philip is said to be of Bethsaida; and Thomas is surnamed Didymus, or the twin (John xi. 16); Bartholomew is supposed to be identical with Nathanael of Cana (John i. 46, xxi. 2); Matthew is called the publican, and is identified with Levi (Luke v. 27), as the circumstances of his call and that of Matthew are the same (Matt. ix. 9). James is here, and in the other three catalogues, designated 'Aλpaíov, of Alphaus; the genitive being used to denote relationship, and signifying in general, the son of. Whether he is the same as James the Lord's brother, the so-called bishop of Jerusalem, is a matter of dispute, and shall afterwards be considered.1 Simon, here surnamed Znλwrns, the zealot, is in St. Matthew's Gospel called Kavavaîos, a word of similar import. Some ὁ suppose that this surname refers to his having previously belonged to the political sect of the Zealots, and others to his ardent disposition. The last name is Judas of James, which some render Judas the brother of James (Jude 1), and others Judas the son of (an unknown) James, regarding him as a different person from Jude, the author of the epistle. He is in St. Matthew's Gospel called "Lebbæus, whose surname was Thaddeus" (Matt. x. 3); Lebbæus signifying, according to Lightfoot, a native of Lebba, a maritime town of Galilee; and Thaddeus being, according to Dr. Wordsworth, of similar derivation with Judas.

2

Ver. 14. Σuv yuvaığìv—with the women. The women here mentioned are probably those devout women of Galilee who followed Christ in His missionary journeys, and accompanied Him on His last visit to Jerusalem, and who were present both at the cross and at the sepulchre. The Gospels men

1 See note to Acts xii. 17.

2 The reading of B, C, D, adopted by Tischendorf, Matt. x. 4.

tion by name Mary Magdalene; Mary the mother of James and Joses; Joanna the wife of Chusa, Herod's steward; Salome the mother of James and John; and a certain Susanna. Καὶ Μαριὰμ τῇ μητρὶ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ—and Mary the mother of Jesus. Mary is here mentioned for the last time. Her subsequent history is involved in obscurity. According to one tradition, she died in peace at Jerusalem; and according to another, she accompanied the Apostle John to Ephesus, where she died in extreme old age. Her assumption into heaven is a comparatively modern legend. Kai σὺν τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ—and with His brethren. We reserve consideration of the relationship of these brethren to Christ.1 There are two opinions. The one is, that the word brother is here used to signify near relatives, cousins; and that among these brethren are to be reckoned two of the apostles, James of Alphæus, and Judas of James. The other opinion is, that they were the real brethren of Jesus, being either the sons of Joseph and Mary, or the sons of Joseph by a former marriage, who would be considered as His brethren; and that none of these brethren were apostles. This verse favours, though slightly, the latter view: the brethren of Jesus are here apparently mentioned as a distinct class from the apostles.

Ver. 15. Kaì ev Taîs ημépais тaúтais—and in those days, that is, during the ten days intervening between the ascension and Pentecost. 'Avaσràs IIérpos-Peter rising up. Peter here, as well as elsewhere in the early part of the Acts, takes precedence. It is evident that he possessed a certain degree of priority among the apostles. He was honoured by our Lord to be the first to preach the gospel, both to the Jews and to the Gentiles. St. Chrysostom calls him "the mouth of the apostles, and the head of their choir." But, at the same time, this priority gave him no authority over them. He does not here, in virtue of his primacy, take upon himself the right to fill up the vacancy in the apostolic office, but

1 See note to Acts xii. 17.

2 Chrysostom's Lectures on John, Homily 88, orópa τâv μadníãv nai κορυφὴ τοῦ χορού.

brings the matter before the brethren. And it is not the apostles only, but the whole assembly, who agree to the proposal of Peter, and set apart two as fit candidates for the apostolic office.

Ἦν τε ὄχλος—the number of the names together was a hundred and twenty; that is, the number of persons-the apostles, the women, the brethren of Jesus, and others—then present in the upper room. There is here not the slightest discrepancy, as Baur and Zeller suppose, with the statement of Paul, that our Lord, after His resurrection, was seen of above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor. xv. 6).1 On the one hand, Paul does not mention where this appearance took place: most probably it was in Galilee, where the disciples would be more numerous than at Jerusalem. And, on the other hand, Luke does not here give the whole number of the disciples, but only the number present in the upper room. It is probable that this was the whole number then in Jerusalem, and that the Galilean disciples had not yet come up to the feast of Pentecost.

Ver. 16. "Avdpes ådeλþoí—Men and brethren, it was necessary that this scripture should be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost foretold by the mouth of David concerning Judas. The allusion here is to those two passages from the book of Psalms, afterwards mentioned in the twentieth verse. David is there regarded as the type of the Messiah, and the enemies of David as the type of the enemies of the Messiah; and thus all those calamities which David predicted or imprecated as befalling his enemies, were predictions of the calamities which should befall the enemies of the Messiah. David, it is probable, intended only his own enemies; perhaps there was no reference, or only an obscure reference, to the Messiah in his mind for it is to be observed that it is not said that the scripture should be fulfilled which David foretold concerning Judas, but which the Holy Ghost foretold. These prophecies are examples of what are termed secondary prophecies primarily they refer to David and to the enemies of David; but in a secondary and higher sense they re1 Zeller's Apostelgeschichte, p. 117.

ceive their full accomplishment in the Messiah and His enemies.

Ver. 17. "OTI KатηριÐμημévоs v-for this man was numbered among us, and received the office of this ministry. Literally, the lot (тòv Êλñρov) of this ministry. This word, however, was used metaphorically to signify the office allotted to a person. St. Peter does not mention the apostleship of Judas in order to aggravate his crime, that he sinned notwithstanding his great privileges, but with a view to the prediction mentioned in ver. 20: "His office (Tǹv èπIOKOTÝV) let another take."

Vers. 18, 19. These two verses are by many (Calvin, Kuincel, Olshausen, Hackett, Humphry) supposed to be not a part of the address of Peter, but an explanatory clause inserted by Luke. It is argued that it was superfluous in Peter to relate the death of Judas, as this fact must already have been well known to the disciples; and that the translation of the word åkeλdapáx would not occur in an address spoken in Aramaic, whereas it was appropriate in a history addressed to Gentile readers. But Peter does not mention the fate of Judas in order to give information to the disciples, but to show that it was the fulfilment of prophecy. Besides, the connective particles μèv ovv in ver. 18 forbid us to suppose this clause to be an insertion. And the rhetorical style is that of an address, not of a narrative. Hence we conclude that these verses are part of the address of Peter, and that the only words inserted by Luke are τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ avrov, and the translation of the Aramaic word Akeldama, τοῦτ ̓ ἔστιν χωρίον αἵματος.

The account here given of the death of Judas is apparently at variance with the account of the same event given by Matthew (Matt. xxvii. 3-8). There are three points of difference. 1. We are here informed that Judas purchased a field with the wages of his crime; whereas Matthew informs us that the chief priests and elders purchased the field with the money which Judas restored. 2. The death of Judas is here described as occasioned by a precipitous fall; whereas in the Gospel we are told that he went and hanged

« PreviousContinue »