th el Aer nae Ras, Toppa al 2M lr dle Soh pe 4 ns : : ΤΉΝ ~~ : ἡ Tas μενα am στ μὴν εἶτα δ καρ εν κα ohh μὰ μὰ, Strat τον τὸ © da gene EP ETE Θεὸ LENE: IM OAVAFS PREY My ; - SNE NCES κὸν Ἀν τσ te way TRE ἐλέγαν. ΠΝ ἔρως ζουσυτι σα με τον τε πω τνι Paina ne re ἐτνανας wie, ; ; ν᾽ ν᾿ Bd δορων ταν MaMa eh he Fee = ak Tag hh 272 0 4 See ese VAN eg oat Tersiyese INN atest late te ty τὶν PSN Esk GENTS MILA Ce whiny τς gee Pe 6 Sen σαν Sh ah ete an μήτ 3 Α = myeiate macy 8 τνδνοις πεν να Caron ces ‘ se Araneae te ees hantietes i SHAM Ley ee neti ate tates SINT AN eke ταν, PAINE way tutes yong een - ᾿ PARAS ree sess ΤΕ ΣΤᾺΣ " Magny υνετ νον τνπιδ, oN ΤΟΥΣ eres eect 4 Ὁ 2 TR eer ames a Meaney MEN ‘ RES rat DEEL Soe el eee κ αν μέν ᾿ πον ρ νγετον Fad Note tye sat ay aah ΠΥ sa ewes” MINI ANSE dee Paty tele eae: ν᾿ μα Αα παν δ, οὐ ἐν τγτμάν τα, NET CUO, ty. TEAL Tan int ae tec Ppeperene seer σον ΣΝ ; μῶν Ree ὅν aes one ] GN ΠΕ σι Ὁ se Dheologicgs . Rs οἵ Petniy, ἌΝ PRINCETON,N. J. “4 ‘Se Presented by wees TOS ee \Weacar ae σα δῶ D1V1S10N .----..ΨΨ τ ὦ of - ae ἌΣ ᾿ς ὉΠ ΒΘΕΩΒΑΘ .052 v.4 Olshausen, Hermann, 1796-1839. Biblical commentary on the Gospels ΔῊΝ ae " mie ay sh J Pease uw lA CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. VOLUME XIX. Gishausen's Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. VOL. IV. EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET; LONDON : SEELEY AND CO.; WARD AND CO. 3 AND JACKSON AND WALFORD. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON. NEW YORK : WILEY AND PUTNAM. PHILADELPHIA: J. A. MOORE. MDCCCL. PRINTED BY M‘COSH, PARK, AND DEWARS, DUNDEE. BIBLICAL COMMENTARY ON Here 1 Gr Goose ΡΓ ΕΣ; AND ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. a BY HERMANN OLSHAUSEN, D.D.., PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF ERLANGEN. TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN, WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES, BY THE REV. JOHN GILL, WITHAM ; THE REV. RICHARD GARVEY, A.M.; AND (ON THE ACTS) BY THE REV. WILLIAM LINDSAY, D.D. VOLUME IV. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, ἃ CO. ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, & CO. ; SEELEY ἃ CO.; WARD &CO.; JACKSON & WALFORD, ETC. DUBLIN; JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCL, ae oD ; - § TABLE OF CONTENTS. | EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN, TRANSLATED BY Rev. JOHN GILL, Wiruam. PART SECOND. CONTINUED FROM VOLUME IIt. 7. The raising of Lazarus (John x. 40—x1i. 57), PART THIRD. 1. The anointing of Jesus and his entrance into Jerusalem (John xii. 1—19, | Matt. xxvi. 6—13 ; Mark xiv. 3—9,]) 2. Last public discourses of Jesus (John xii. 20—50), 3. The washing of the feet (John xiii. 1—30), 4, Last discourses of Jesus addressed to his disciples before his death (John xiii. 31—xviii. 26), THE SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, Rey. RICHARD GARVEY, A.M. PART FIRST. OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATIC OF JESUS CHRIST. 1, The last meal of Jesus Christ with his disciples (Matt. xxvi. 17—35; Mark xiv. 12—31; Luke xxii. Page 21 25 38 48 xiii, 2129), . ; ; : 122 vi CONTENTS. Page § 2. Jesus’ struggle in Gethsemane, and his arrest (Matt. xxvi. 36—56; Mark xiv. 32—52; Luke xxii. 40—53; John xviii. 1—11), 172 5. 3. Examination of Jesus before ‘Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim —Peter’s denial (Matt. xxvi. 57—75; Mark xiv. 53— 72; Luke xxii. 54—71; John xviii. 12—27), : 188 § 4. Proceedings before Herod and Pilate (Matt. xxvii. 1—31 ; Mark xv. 1—20; Luke xxiii. 1—25; John xviii. 28 —38; xix. 1-- 16) 204 8 5. Crucifixion and death of Jesus (Matt. x XXVli. 3256; Mark xy. 21—41; Luke xxiii. 26—49; John xix. 17—30), 233 § 6. The burial of Jesus (Matt. xxvii. 57—66 ; Mark xv. 42— 47; Luke xxiii. 5|0—56; John xix. 31—42), ; 254 PART SECOND. OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST, ; 263 § 1. The history of the resurrection (Matt. xxviii. 1—15 ; Mark xvi. 1—11; Luke xxiv. 1—12; John xx. 1—18), 271 § 2, Further appearances of Christ on the day of his resurrec- tion (Luke xxiv. 13—43; Mark xvi. 12—14; John xx. 19—29), ; 283 § 3. Concluding verses of the four evangelists (Matt. XXViii. 16— 20; Mark xvi. 15—20; Luke xxiv. 44—53; John xx. 30—31), ; 296 § 4, Appendix to John’s Gospel (John xxi, tes. : 313 COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, TRANSLATED BY Tue Rev. WILLIAM LINDSAY, D.D., Note by Translator, : A ᾿ : 329 Introduction, ‘ ; ; : 331 First chronological twhic: c : ᾿ ; 341 Second chronological table, . - Ξ : 942 PART FIRST. FROM THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST TILL THE CONVERSION OF PAUL, § 1. Christ’s ascension. Choice of an apostle (Acts i. 1—26), 347 g 2. Celebration of the First Pentecost (Acts ii. 1—47), —. 366 (rN urn “Οὐ up O~T σὺ οι ὦ an δὴ un mr He bo MM “ΣΧ OD οἱ CONTENTS, . Cure of a lame man (Acts iii. 1—26), . First imprisonment of Peter (Acts iv. 1—31), . The community of goods (Acts iv. 32—v. 11), . Second trial of the apostles (Acts v. παν cal . History of Stephen (Acts vi. 1—viii. 1), . Spread of the Gospel beyond Jerusalem (Acts v. Vili. 1=40), PART SECOND. FROM PAUL'S CONVERSION TO HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. . History of the conversion of Paul (Acts i ix. 1—x. 30), . First preaching to the Gentiles (Acts ix. 31—x. 48), . First proceeding on account of the Gentile Christians. Paul’s stay in Antioch and eats to Jerusalem (Acts xi. 1—30), . Peter’s imprisonment and deliverance. "Herod’s death (Acts xi. 1—25). . Paul’s first missionary journey (Acts xili. 1—xiv. 28), . The apostolic council (Acts xv. 1—35), . Second missionary journey of Paul (Acts xv. 36—xvill. 22), PART THIRD. vii Page 398 407 414 421 429 452 467 483 499 5058 511 528 545 PAUL’S THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY TILL THE FIRST CAPTIVITY AT ROME. 8... § 2. § 3. § 4. or § § 6. Paul's third missionary excursion. Abode in Ephesus (Acts xviii, 23—xix. 41), Paul’s journey from Ephesus to J erusalem (Acts EX, 1—xxi. 16), : The apprehension of Paul in “Jerusalem (Acts xxi. ὝΕΣ xxiii. 10), Paul’s deportation to Caesarea and imprisonment there (Acts xxiii, 11—xxvi. 32), . Paul’s journey from Caesarea to Rome (Acts XXVii. ἜΠΟΣ XXViii. 16), : Paul’s stay in Rome (Acts XXViii. 16—31), ΕΞ ORDER OF THE SECTIONS OF THE GOSPELS, ARRANGED AFTER EACH GOSPEL, MATTHEW. Page Chap. xxvi.6—13 ΝΌΣΩΝ » ἄχνὶϊ, 17—35 . RO 19. > » xxvi. 36—56 . oS Ἢ » xxvi.57—75 . . 188 τ παν. 1-.-.-Ὁ9}. - . 304 Chap. xiv. 3—9 : .- 921 | Chap » xiv. 12—31 3 . mae | > xiv. 82—62 .. “aye Ἢ » xiv. 58—72 ἘΠ - 188 | ue », xv. 1—20 : 204 » Chap. xxii. 7--8.. - 122 » xxii. 40—53 . + eee ὶ » xxii. δ4-71. pee tes) =e ~ xxi. 1—25 “ὦ ΟΣ é » xxiii, 26—49 . 233 JOHN Page Chap.x. 40—xi. 57. ; 1 », xii, 1—19 5 Sor ye! 5 » xii, 20—50 : ΑΞ ᾿ » xiii. 1—30 : oe FA 3) xin. S1—xviiL. 26: , .. e348 δ », xii. 21--2, , lee le ys ata 1 —L) 443 a 6 ω »" ΧΥΣΙ, 12—27 . . 188 Ns ERRATA. Chap. xxvii. 32—56 xxvil. 57—66 Xxvili. 1—15 xxviii. 16—20 . . xv, 21—41 xv. 42—47 xvi. 1—11 xvi. 12—14 xvi. 15—20 . xxill. 50— 56 xxiv. 1—12 xxiv. 13— 43 xxiv. 44—53 . xviii. 28—88 xix. 1—16 xix. 17—30 xix. 31—42 xx. 1—18 xx. 19—29 xx. 30—31 xxi. 1—25 The Translator of the first part of this volume has found it needful to insert the following list of errata, as his distance from the press did not permit him to see more than one proof. Page 10, line 20, for “ be beneficial to her,” read: have its due effect upon her « i, .. 1, for“ viewed by itseif is being without the opposite (that,” antagonist principle. say: o< 8B, fer =D read 7D. ™ - -» 18, ., 20, for“ in some measure,” read: in a certain manner. -. WW, .. 6, add at the end of the line the words: in general. - S33, .. 1, for“ really given himself to her,” read: given her her true self. , 2, .. 2, for Matt. xvi.” read: Malt. χαί. . 26, .. 14, leave out the words “ and, it may be, actuated by other reasons.” . 35, .. 31, for "p23 read 3"ps. ,, 46, .. 19, for dove read ἄρτι. , 48, .. 29, for finally,” read: now. 49 . 16, for “"" no marks,” read: no such marks. ἢ 65, note line 1, for * to,” read ae. "read: comprehends being without the 80, line 6, for “ And his teaching again does not comprise merely," read: And again the peculiarity of his teaching is not. .. 100, .. 17, for of rll read: idols, 113, 33, for “ TY read: That of which, in the beginning, man, in criminal ambition, endeavour himeel/, iat which, in the beginning, man in criminal ambition endeavoured to obtain Ὁ robbery,” to deprive EXPOSITION OF THE wen SP BE OR? TO EN: § 7. THE RATSING OF LAZARUS. (John x. 40—xi. 57.) THE last verses of chap. x. form only a transition to the following narrative. The Lord left Jerusalem, but did not return to Galilee. He went to the other side of Jordan into the neighbourhood which John the Baptist had consecrated by the commencement of his ministry. Many old friends of the Baptist here collected around Christ and found the words of the Baptist confirmed in him. Although John had not appeared as a worker of miracles, yet they were convinced that a prophetic spirit dwelt and operated in him. Hence they followed the direction of this spirit and believed in Jesus, to whom John professed to be only aforerunner. (Concern- ing ver. 41, compare the observations on 1. 27.) Tn the eleventh chapter follows the important account of the re- suscitation of Lazarus. From this we take occasion to glance 1 Tt certainly is extraordinary that this account is wanting in the synoptical Evange- lists. I cannot regard the omission as accidental, or explain it from the circumstance that these Evangelists relate more especially what took place in Galilee. On the con- trary, it must have been a definite reason that restrained them from inserting an occur- rence which excited so much wonder. Perhapsit may be correct to conjecture that it was not wished to direct attention to the family of Lazarus while they survived, or at all events to himself during his life. With John this scruple was of no force, because he wrote at a later period, and when he composed his Gospel, he lived out of Palestine. - VOL. IV. A 2 GOSPEL OF JOHN x. 40. again at the nature of that death (comp. the remarks on the re awakening of the young man at Nain, in the Comm., Luke vii. 11), upon the acknowledgment of which, in cases of resuscitation, all depends ; and we do so, because the precision that characterizes this narrative furnishes the highest conceivable degree of historical certainty, and hence, in considering the subject, it is most appro- priate to weigh this important circumstance. To this day, death is such a mysterious event, that instances occur in which, before de- composition (so often long delayed) has commenced, the physician finds it necessary to adopt all possible criteria, in order that he may determine whether the inanimate condition of the body is real death, or only a profound swoon, a trance. How much more must this have been the case during the imperfect state of medical science in antiquity, and especially in the East, among the Jews, who did not leaye their dead unburied after sunset! It is therefore vain for us to attempt to demonstrate upon external grounds, that those whose reanimation is narrated in evangelical history (and amongst them Lazarus) were no¢ dead in appearance only." Hence Spinoza (comp. Bayle’s Lex. under the article Spinoza), when he declares himscl’ prenared to abandon bis system, and to embrace the Christian faith, if any one can convince him that the resurrection of Lazarus is a fact, well knows that such a proof is impossi- ble to the sceptic,—and according to the wise appointment of God it is intended to be so.” For no miracle can compel him who opposes it to believe; all it can do is to confirm in faith him who yields himself to do it with all the inclination of his mind. To persons of the latter character, our narrative on the one hand af- fords abundance of welcome accessory evidence, while, on the other, it obviously contains the chief support of belief in resuscitations of the dead, viz., the open, unequivocal, declaration of Jesus that Lazarus was dead (xi. 14.) The veracity of the Lord is the only perfectly sure foundation on which to rest our conviction that re- animated persons had been really dead,—a fact which we cannot esta- 1 This kind of proof is urged against Paulus and Gabler (in the Theol. Journ. B. iii.), by Heubnerand Reinhard. But, although they make many excellent remarks, the proof is deficient. 2 It is true, xi. 39 has been regarded as proving the commencement of the process of decomposition, the sure external sign that the animating and preserving soul has de- parted ; but the exposition of the passage will shew that the words ἤδη ὄζει cannot be employed as the means of proof. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. I, 2. 3 blish in any other way.' Accordingly, where the Redeemer him- self denies death, we cannot recognize an awakening of the dead without taking away the most certain basis of the very conviction we entertain. (Comp. the observations on the daughter of Jairus in the Comm. Matt. ix. 24.) The form in which the occurrence under our consideration is related brings to view a circumstance which in all miracles is spe- cially to be noticed. The copious conversations held by Jesus with the disciples and the two sisters, clearly shew that in them all the Lord designed the advancement of their spiritual life. Indeed we must presume that this was the purpose of the transaction in regard to Lazarus himself; the supposition that he was employed merely as a medium for the sake of others would be unworthy. We may discover in the man himself sufficient causes to induce such extraordinary and wonderful proceedings. I am inclined to think that his con- dition was somewhat as follows. Doubtless he was a man of high spiritual vocation, on which account the Redeemer loved him; but he may have had severe temptations, and may not have attained to the new life of regeneration without difficulty. Hence perhaps he needed a peculiarly strong excitation, which the wisdom of God saw fit to produce in this particular form. The unusually detailed character of the narrative is, no doubt, to be accounted for by the fact that the occurrence is so intimately connected with the main theme of John. For, here Christ appears to be tm reality the ζωή, having the power to overcome death itself in its most repulsive manifestation, viz., the physical. Moreover, on account of the proximity of Jerusalem, the event involved consequences of greater importance than those which attended others of this kind. Chap. xi. 1,2. John, in the first place, describes the scene of action. It is presumed that the family is known to the readers, and hence the reference to a fact not related till afterwards (xii. 1, ff.) Since Jesus so oftengstayed with these friends, and during the last days of his life on earth so frequently visited them, this is very easily explained. It is remarkable, however, that Bethany (situated only fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, comp. ver. 18) is called a κώμη of Mary and Martha, 1 If Paulus and Gabler wish further to prove that Jesus did not regard Lazarus as actually dead, foreseeing his resurrection, it is evident that they must do violence to the simple phraseology of the text; and, in relation to this, controversy is perfectly victorious against them, Az 4 GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 3, 4. not of Lazarus. This might be understood as implying that the sisters were owners of the spot; but such a view is contradicted by the Jewish constitution, which rendered the possession of entire vil- lages impossible. Accordingly, this expression is to be appre- hended as denoting nothing more than the affection of these sisters for the Redeemer, on account of which Bethany was named after them. Ver. 3,4. As soon as Lazarus became ill, the sisters hastened to apply to him whom they themselves had already tried and proved asa helper in all circumstances of need. Itisremarkable that the Lord, on receiving the intelligence, affirms: αὕτη ἡ ἀσθένεια οὐκ ἔστιπρὸς θάνατον, whereas Lazarus died. It might be supposed that the disease was not of a fatal character at the time when the news was brought to Jesus, but became so afterward. Yet, if we here exclude the higher knowledge of the Redeemer, how could he speak in such decided terms upon the mere information of the messenger? It is far more simple, and more consistent with the whole account, to say that the Saviour spoke these words with respect to the resurrection which he already beheld in spirit as accomplished. The obscure form of the language was occasioned, as Tholuck justly remarks, by the design that Jesus cherished in regard to the sisters. It was his purpose that they should be perfected in faith ; and since Laza- rus was dead, when the statement that, according to the declaration of Christ, the sickness would not issue in death reached them, they must have felt themselves involved in an inward conflict as to whether their exalted Friend had spoken the truth. Tholuck thinks that Jesus, when he uttered these words, had the disciples also in view, who, if he had expressed himself plainly respecting the disease, and then had waited two days before going to the relief of the family (ver. 6), could not have borne the delay. But to me this appears the less probable, because, in order to set them at rest, he certainly might have communicated to them his reasons for the delay. As the design of the sickness, the δόξα τοῦ Θεοῦ is n@w men- tioned. (Comp. ix. 8, where, in a similar connexion, the φανέρωσες τῶν ἔργων τοῦ Θ. is spoken of.) It was intended as a circumstance by which the glory of the Father should be displayed in the Son. At the same time we must not overlook the fact that in these words only one part of the object contemplated by the sickness is ex- 1 The expression ἀσθένεια πρὸς Odvarov corresponds with the Hebrew ΤΑ nbn, 2 Ἢ. WF Kings xx. 1, concerning the sickness of Hezekiah, GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 5—8. 5 hibited ; for, as we have already remarked, Lazarus could not be employed merely as a medium. His whole experience through life just as much belonged to his own spiritual development as it was meant to form an item in the gradual manifestation of the glory of Christ to the world. Ver. 5—8. The Evangelist places the love of Christ to the family of Lazarus, as well as to Lazarus himself, in immediate con- nexion with his delay in Perea, on account of the strong contrast ; it is not till two days afterwards that the Lord invites his disciples to depart. But why did not Jesus immediately hasten as soon as possible to afford the family that relief which he intended to give them? Here I agree with Tholuck, who thinks it is not sufficient to say, with Liicke, that Christ had found in Perea such a fertile field of operation that he would not relinquish spiritual interest for the sake of rendering corporeal assistance. For, he might have left some disciples behind and soon have returned, in which case he would not have incurred any neglect there. Besides which, the resuscita- tion of Lazarus certainly was to Lazarus himself, to the sisters, and to the numerous acquaintances, an occasion of spiritual aid ; it was evidently designed that, through this manifestation of the glory of God, all of them, Lazarus himself included, should grow in the inner man. Moreover, ver. 15 makes it certain that the Redeemer was not detained in opposition to his wish; on the contrary, he deferred the journey. The only correct view must be that accord- ing to which this delay was meant to assist the faith of those con- cerned in it. Jesus here acted similarly to his mode of proceeding in the case of the Canaanitish woman, in order that he might powerfully raise the energy of the spiritual life.* John now reports an intermediate conversation between Christ and the disciples, who endeavour to dissuade him from going to Judea. Their love for Lazarus certainly was active enough to induce the wish that Jesus could be with him ; but probably they thought the danger was not so imminent, and that the Lord could do Lazarus good at a 1 De Wette in his Andachtsbuch (Berlin, 1825.) B.i., 5, 292 f., remarks, in opposition to this, that Jesus never designedly and of his own accord occasioned or magnified his miracles, and hence it must have been something external that detained him. The same sentiment is expressed in his Commentary on the passage. But only let it be kept in view that the Redeemer did not delay of his own accord, but from the inward impulse of the Father, without whose will he did nothing,—and the objection falls to the ground. The only person that can enter his protest against this is he who regards Christ as a mere man: 6 GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 9, 10. distance, by his will. (Nv is here equal to ἀρτίως in the signification “just now,” “recently,” as it occurs also in profane writers.) Ver. 9, 10. The Lord answers the warning of the disciples not to put himself in peril, by a mysterious declaration, which, however it may be taken, is not purely harmonious with the connexion. Τῇ, with Liicke and others, we fix our attention upon the words ov yt δώδεκά εἰσιν ὥραι τῆς ἡμέρας, itis true that this expression is emi- nently appropriate as a mode of designating the time for labour, during which we may quietly pursue our calling, so that the meaning is parallel with the passage ix. 4, 5—‘‘I must work while it is day,” But, in the sequel, the words περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ νυκτί are not at all applicable to the Redeemer ; unless we regard ver. 10 merely as an expansion of the metaphor, having no particular signification, but introduced simply as the antithesis to περυπατεῖν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ----ἃ supposition, however, which, considering the depth of thought contained in the figurative discourses of Christ, does not commend itself. On the other hand, if attempt be made, with Chrysostom, Calvin, and Lampe, to shew that these words are im- portant, by referring them to the disciples, to whom Jesus represents himself as the light that illumines their path, then the twelve hours do not appear consistent. Liicke says that, besides this, any reference of the φῶς to Christ, as the Light of the world, is inad- missible, because it is expressly said: φῶς τοῦ κόσμουτούτου. But, in making this remark, he has overlooked the circumstance that this appendage relates only to the metaphor; whereas, in the in- terpretation of the simile, the sun is evidently to be regarded as an image of something higher. In the other case, this obscure lan- guage would be employed for the purpose of directing the attention merely to a trivial fact, asif it had been said : ‘‘ one may travel more safely and peacefully by day than by night ;’ but no one expects such remarks as this from the lips of Christ in moments when his soul was occupied with the loftiest thoughts. Hence nothing re- mains (as we have already remarked on ix. 4, 5, compared with xii. 85, 86), but to suppose that the words of the Saviour contain more than one reference.’ He again conceives of himself in a two- 1 Here again De Wette considers it contrary to the rules of exposition, as well as to the spirit of the Gospel, that we should attach more than one sense to a declaration of Christ; whilst in other passages he himself maintains the very thing to which he here GOSFEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 11—16. 7 fold view; first, as standing fraternally on a parallel with men, and fulfilling his appointed day’s work ; secondly, in his higher dignity, as the spiritual illuminator of the world, as the promoter of everything good and beautiful upon earth. In the first words, the former reference prevails ; in the others, the latter predominates. Hence the first sentence relates chiefly to the person of the Lord ; the latter rather to the disciples. With their anxiety concerning the Lord, there was also a mixture of fear for themselves (as is clearly shewn by ver. 16, whence it appears that they apprehended death from the journey to Judea) ; in allusion to this Christ directs their attention to the fact that being with him, in the lustre of his light, they would have nothing to fear. A reference to enemies as those who, creeping in the dark, choose a serpentine path (according to which De Wette even thinks that an allusion to Matt. x. 16 is to be discovered in our passage), is by no means to be supposed, such a reference here being entirely unsuited to the connexion ; the words περιπατεῖν ἐν τῇ νυκτί are intended to admonish the disciples that without him and his light they should never walk, but that zt him they might go to all places at all times. This view—that in our verses two senses are blended—affords the greatest facility in explaining the difficult clause: ὅτι τὸ φῶς οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτῷ. The simile strictly carried out requires αὐτῷ, and according to the interchange of prepositions and constructions, which has long been a favourite practice, ἐν αὐτῷ would stand for αὐτῷς However, the literal sense is to be rigidly retained, and in these words we may discover the transition from the metaphorical to literal language. (Luke xvi. 8, a similar transi- tion from figurative to literal language occurs.) In the simile itself, of course the light is to be regarded as operating externally ; but, in the solution, φῶς means that internal energy which enlightens man concerning God and his relation to God. This is precisely what is indicated by ἐν αὐτῷ. Ver. 11—16. After the expiration of two days (ver. 6), the Re- deemer announced to his disciples that which he knew in the Spizit. (We are not to suppose that fresh messengers were sent with the intelligence of the death ; if such a circumstance had taken place, objects. Surely we ought not to pronounce the profound language of Christ destitute of that which is readily acknowledged in a Shakspeare or a Jean Paul! (Comp. the Exposition of John iy, 12 and xiv. 18.) 8 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 11—16. so carefully accurate as John is in giving the narrative before us, he would not have omitted to mention it.) He told them that Lazarus was dead, and that it was his intention to go and awaken him. But, as Jesus called death sleep, the disciples thought he meant literal sleep, and looked upon it as a favourable sign ; doubt- less they adduced this as an argument to shew that the perilous journey he proposed was unnecessary. It was not till then that Jesus said in unambiguous terms (παῤῥησίᾳ) : Aafapos ἀπέ- Pave, at the same time, however, adding that his death was no loss, but a circumstance calculated to heighten their joy, since it would be the means of advancing their faith. Still, in the minds of some at least of the disciples, the fear of death was not yet com- pletely overcome. Thomas’ (comp. the remarks on Matt. x. 3), convinced that their death, like that of their Master, was inevitable, exclaimed: ἀποθάνωμεν pet’ αὐτοῦ. These words certainly ex- press great fidelity, but, at the same time, they indicate weakness of faith, and that exaltation of external circumstances and rela- tions above the victorious power of the Spirit which generally cha- racterizes this apostle.” (Comp. the remarks on John xx. 24, ff.) There are only two things remaining in this passage that need special attention, viz., the term κοιμᾶσθαι, and also ἐξυπνίζειν which corresponds with this idea. As regards the first expression, its wse to denote death is sufficiently familiar. (Comp. Matt. xxvii. 52; Acts vii. 60, xiii. 36 ; 1 Cor. vii. 39, xi. 30, xv. 6. 18; 1 Thess. iy. 13, ff.) The only question is as to the sense in which it is here used. It is very natural to think merely of the external similarity between a corpse and the body of a person asleep, and indeed it is probable that this first gave rise to the usus loquendi of which the passage before us furnishes an instance. But, though it may be altogether obscure to most persons, it certainly appears that something more than this outward resemblance is included in the representation, viz., the idea that the dead person is also spirit- ually in ἃ condition similar to sleep. Without conveying the idea of entire spiritual inaction, it may be said that the separa- 1 This is the only passage in the New Testament where the term συμμαθητής occurs. 2 Tholuck justly observes that the perfectly undesigned occurrence of such a psychological conformity in the characters is an important circumstance in support of the historical credibility of John. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 17—27. 9 tion of the soul from the σῶμα, as the necessary medium of its operation, must produce in it a certain depression of consciousness, In harmony with this very principle, the life of the ψυχή without the σῶμα till the resurrection, according to the doctrine of Scrip- ture (which knows of no immortal life purely spiritual and apart from the resurrection of the body), is a mere state of transition.— In conclusion, the term ἐξυπνίζειν is not found anywhere else in the New Testament. (Acts xvi. 27, ἔξυπνος occurs in the ordinary sense.) It is employed simply on account of the metaphorical ὕπ- vos; it cannot be used directly for avictavat. It occurs also Job xiv. 12, only in connexion with ὕπνος, and is figuratively ap- plied to the resurrection: ἄνθρωπος δὲ κοιμηθεὶς οὐ μὴν ἀναστῇ, ἕως ἂν ὁ οὐρανὸς οὐ μὴ συῤῥαφῇ, καὶ οὐκ ἐξυπνισθήσονται ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτῶν. Ver. 17—20. In the verses that follow a detailed account is given of the interview of the Lord with the two sisters. When Jesus reached the neighbourhood of Bethany, the deceased had lain four days in the grave. The proximity of Jerusalem had induced the presence of many friends who came with a view to console the afflicted survivors. (Ver. 19, αἱ περὶ Mdp@av καὶ Μαρίαν, accord- ing to a known Greecism, cannot mean any others than the persons named. Comp. Winer’s Gramm. 5. 384. Still, it must here be said, that mourners had already come from the town itself, and that others from Jerusalem came in addition to them.) Mary was in the house with these. Martha may have been occupied out of doors; at all events she first learned the arrival of Jesus, and immediately has- tened to meet him. Here again, as in the case of Thomas, the known character of the individuals (the sisters) is stamped upon the narrative ; Martha appears the more prominently active, Mary quiet and retiring. Mary did not know that Christ had arrived. He paused before he came to the town (ver. 30), probably because he was near the place of interment ; and Martha, in announcing to Mary that Jesus was come, said: ὁ διδάσκαλος πάρεστι. This remark would have been unsuitable, had Martha known that Mary had already been informed of the Lord’s arrival ; in this case Mary also would have hastened to Jesus. Ver. 21—27. The Evangelist, in the first place, reports the con- versation of Jesus with Martha, which she opens with the avowal of her belief that, if he had been present, Lazarus would not have died. 10 GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 21—27. (Mary expresses herself just in like manner, ver. 82.) Doubtless she thought that then God would have heard the prayer of Jesus, and would have restored Lazarus. On the power of this prayer, she proceeds to say, she s¢é// rests her hope (ver. 22.) The pre- cise object, however, to which she refers as yet within the reach of the prayer of Christ, is not evident; for, according to ver. 39, it appears that she had not thought of a resurrection ; while at the same time, we certainly cannot here suppose anything of a different kind, as Christ speaks of the resurrection immediately afterwards. No doubt the most correct mode of explaining the matter is to view the mind of Martha herself as oscillating between hopes and mis- givings ; first the former animated her soul, and then the latter gained the ascendancy. Hence, when the Lord mentions the resur- rection, she first understands the general resurrection at the last day, and finds that this postponement does not fully satisfy her de- sire. Accordingly the possibility of a momentary awakening now floats before her. Meanwhile her longing to have the dear deceased restored to her certainly involved much that was corporeal and per- sonal, which it was necessary to remove in order that the resuscita- tion of the brother might be beneficial to her. Had she received Lazarus back from the jaws of death merely as a mortal man, there would still have remained the distressing and constant apprehen- sion that he would soon be snatched from her again by the same foe. Hence it was needful that she should recover him in such a manner that it would be impossible to lose him, and accordingly that she should become rooted with him in the element of imperish- ableness. ΤῸ this her attention 15 directed by the profound lan- guage of the Redeemer. He leads her thoughts from the departed brother to the present Saviour, the Saviour both for Lazarus and for herself, and shews her, that in him alone she may obtain the per- fect remedy against death both corporeal and spiritual. The principal thing to be noticed in the important verses 25 and 26 is the relation between ζωὴ and ἀνάστασις. As we have already remarked on John i. 4, the two expressions are properly synony- mous. As Christ is called the Life, not merely because he makes alive (ζωοποιεῖ, John v. 21), but because, as the source of life (7. ὁ. of the true being), he ¢s life ; just in like manner he is called the resurrection, not merely because he raises the dead, but because he actually ἐξ that resurrection. The resurrection, however, is nothing 2 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 28—382. ll else than the ζωή in conflict with θάνατος ; the ζωή viewed by itself is being without the opposite (that which is to be vanquished), while, in the ἀνάστασις, life appears in the act of destroying death (in itself and others.) It is in this victorious aspect that life is ex- hibited in the person of the Lord. The transition of his vital powers is effected by means of faith ; where this dwells, (physical) death does not prevent the manifestation of spiritual life ; where this is want- ing, there is spiritual death as well as physical. Some difficulty presents itself respecting the connexion of ver. 26 with ver. 25, in the language πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων. If we understand ζῶν as relating to physical life, this gives rise to the sense that the believer does not die physically at all; if the ex- pression be understood spiritually, then the words ov μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα are not suitable, because they denote the same thing as those preceding. Hence the words ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων best commend themselves when taken as ὅν διὰ δυοῖν, in the signifi- cation “he who vitally believes,” &c. But then ver. 26 is com- pletely tautological with the foregoing: ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ, κἂν ἀποθάνῃ, ζήσεται ; whereas, on the contrary, the passage appears to contain an advance in the meaning ; for, first, it is said : ὁ πιστεύων ζήσεται (κἄν ἀποθάνῃ is added merely by way of giving force to the statement), and then the Saviour declares: ὁ ζῶν (¢. e., he who through faith has received life, so that πιστεύων εἰς ἐμέ is appended simply for the sake of explanation) οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς Tov αἰῶνα. These last words express the absoluteness of ¢he life which Christ imparts, in the highest form of its manifestation, the vanquishment of physical death. In reply to the question of Jesus,—whether Martha believes this,—she proves that she has thus believed and still thus believes (πεπίστευκα), from the fact that she regards him as the true Messiah in the highest sense of the word, as the Son of God, the Revealer of the Father. (Respecting υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ in union with Χριστός, comp. the remarks on Luke i. 35. As in this instance Χριστός stands first, the passage occasions no difficulty.) Ver. 28—32. Now follows the conversation of the Lord with the other sister, Mary, whom Martha, deeply impressed by the inspired words of Jesus, went and called, without communicating to the Jews who were present the reason of her withdrawment. (Comp. the ob- servations on ver. 17.) They conjecture from her departure that she 12 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 383—86. is gone to the grave of her brother, in order to weep over it, as was usual among the Jews,! who, during the first few days after death had occurred, were accustomed to visit the grave several times a day. When Mary sees Jesus, she throws herself, in the impulse of her feelings, at his feet, and cries out, as Martha did (ver. 21) : κύριε, εἰ ἧς ὧδε, οὐκ ἂν ἀπέθανέ μον 6 ἀδελφός. From this close accord- ance of the first words which both the sisters addressed to the Lord, we may gather with what longing desire they had awaited the arrival of their divine Friend. Ver. 33—36. The intense emotion of Mary went to the hearts of the Jews who had hastened thither ;—they wept, and the Redeemer, far from Stoical unconcern, wept with the weepers (Rom. xii. 15.’) This sympathy with the common feeling of those present awakened in the minds of the Jews sentiments of approbation, and they ex- claimed : ide, πῶς ἐφίλει αὐτόν. ‘The superiority of Christian morality (displayed in that warm and lively sympathy with the griefs of others which here shewed that Jesus was a true man) to the frigid inanimateness of Stoicism needs no argument to demonstrate it; but it may be questioned whether the sorrow of Jesus in this case was altogether real. He certainly knew that he was about im- mediately to awaken Lazarus, and indeed he had said, ver. 15: χαίρω, ὅτι οὐκ ἤμην éxet,—how then could he weep? ‘This difficulty is less regarded by expositors than it deserves to be, for, ver. 38, it is said again: ἐμβριμώμενος ἐν ἑαυτῷ x. T.r.. It has been thought enough to shew that ἐμβριμᾶσθαι has not only the signification of being angry, but that of being grieved. The former certainly does not suit the connexion of our passage, for the Jews had done no- thing that could excite anger ; while the opinion of Chrysostom, that Christ was angry with himself because he had shed tears, evidently arose from Stoical principles, and is utterly inapplicable to the case. 1 Comp. Geier de luctu Hebr. (lrancof. 1683) pag. 183 sqq.; where it is also stated that other nations practised similar customs. 2 Here we may compare the excellent remarks of Lange in the Stud. 1836, ἢ. 8, 5, 714, ff. He thinks ἐμβριμᾶσθαι is to be understood in a sense altogether general, as denot- ing powerful emotion, in which sympathy, pain, indignation, and even joy in the antici- pation of his great victory were united. Still I think it cannot be denied that the tears of Jesus indicate the decided predominance of pain in the state of his mind. It is true De Wette is of opinion that to the enlightened understanding every sensation of pain appears of no consequence; but this illusion belongs purely to pagan Stoicism, and not to Christianity. GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 87—39. 13 However, the signification ‘to mourn,” as belonging to ἐμβρι- μᾶσθαι, which denotes any powerful agitation of the mind, is suffi- ciently certain, as it corresponds with the Hebrew YY which likewise unites the two senses. (Comp. Gesenius in his Lexicon on the word.) The difficulty involved, as we have remarked, in the expression of sorrow on the part of Christ, is solved in a simple manner, if we say that the object of his sorrow was not so much the single instance of the death of Lazarus (for by means of his reanimation this immediately became a source of joy), as it was death, and its horrors in general, as the wages of sin, in the power of which Lazarus was still held after his resurrection, so that he twice tasted death. The spirit of Christ always comprehended the whole extent of everything presented to his view, and hence the grief occasioned by a single case brought before him the entire range of the calamity, and the contemplation furnished abundant reason why the Lord should with perfect sincerity participate the sorrow of those around him, because the general calamity was by no means removed in the isolated circumstance of the awakening of Lazarus. Accordingly, it is not without cause that the Kvan- gelist here says: ἐνεβριμήσατο τῷ πνεύματι, not TH ψυχῇ. (Comp. the remarks on John xiii. 21, ἐταράχθη TO πνεύματι = ἐτάραξεν ἑαυτόν in our passage.) The latter expression would have conveyed the idea of individual human excitement, too much to have been suit- able here. Should it be said that Jesus wept only as the Son of Man, but that as the Son of God he knew Lazarus would be resuscitated, this would lead to a Nestorian separation between the divine and human in Christ. What Christ knew in his earthly life generally, he knew also in his human consciousness, which we cannot suppose to have been, so to speak, for some moments annulled. Ver. 87—39. At the sight of the Saviour’s tears, even some of the Jews remark that surely Jesus—the great worker of miracles, he who gave sight to the man born blind—could (by his prayer, ver. 22) have prevented the death of Lazarus. ‘There is no ground whatever for attributing this observation to inimical motives, as if they had meant to intimate that probably the cure of the blind man was not a true miracle ; for the circumstance that some, ac- cording to ver. 46, reported the resuscitation of Lazarus to the Pharisees, may be viewed as the mere result of the pleasure felt in communicating interesting news. Meanwhile the Lord came 14 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 40—42. to the place of interment, and directed that the stone which closed it should be removed. The Jewish graves usually were cavities cut out in rocks, within which smaller spaces were formed in the sides for the reception of bodies (after the manner of the Egyptian graves in which mummies were deposited) ; the external aperture was covered by a fragment of rock. Upon these words the unbe- lief of Martha was excited in a conspicuous manner. She did not think of the possibility that her beloved brother could be reani- mated ; she only feared that, at the sight of putrefaction, the image she retained of him might be marred; hence she suggested that the tomb should not be opened. The words ἤδη ὄζει are not to be understood as expressing a fact ascertained by experience, “ I know that he has already become offensive ;’ but simply as a con- jecture, derived from the length of time during which he had lain in the grave.' Accordingly, this passage cannot be employed as a proof that Jesus resuscitated the already decomposed body of Lazarus. As there is no express statement to that effect, to main- tain that such was the case would involve a designed augmenta- tion of the miracle; and this the expositor must guard against. It is far simpler to suppose that, as cases frequently occur in which decomposition does not commence until very late, the body of Lazarus, just because it was to be reanimated, was, by the provi- dence of God, preserved from corruption. In fact, the revivification of a corpse already putrid would give to the miracle a monstrous character ; for even in the general resurrection of the dead, it is not the corruptible body that rises, but the incorruptible. (Terap- Tatos occurs Only here in the New Testament. The profane writers often use it, like τριταῖος, πεμταῖος, and similar forms. Comp. the passages in Schleusner’s Lex. on the word.) Ver. 40—42. The Lord now rebukes the expression of unbe- lief on the part of Martha, and reminds her of what he had said previously (ver. 25.) It is true that he did not there employ the very words ὄψει τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, but still the subject on which he then spoke was the ability of faith, as the means, to ap- 1 The utmost that is required is to grant the possibility of the words ἤδη ὄζει being uttered as the result of experience; in no case, however, can they be taken as containing a proof that the body of Lazarus had already become putrid. Since this is not implied by the words, to maintain that they furnish a sure proof of the death of Lazarus, only renders the miracle in general suspicious. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 48—46. 15 propriate the plenitude of the powers dwelling in Christ. Hence it is not necessary for us actually to adopt the supposition that the Evangelist reported the words of Jesus in an abbreviated form. After the removal of the stone, the Saviour breaks forth into prayer, and that in a truly sublime manner ; he does not ask that his desire may be granted, but gives thanks for its fulfilment, and even this he does not do on his own account, but for the sake of those around him. It has been considered strange that Jesus ut- tered this declaration in the presence of the assembly. It might be said that he did it in a lower tone, and this would appear con- firmed by ver. 48, where it is expressly stated that he raised his voice. But, xii. 30, a similar sentiment is directly addressed to the people. Accordingly we must say that it was the very de- sign of Jesus to make the people acquainted with his position in reference to this occurrence. Ver. 43—46. Upon the summons: Adfape, δεῦρο ἔξω, the dead man came forth from his grave just in the state in which it was customary to bury corpses. (The κειρίαι or ὀθόνια [xix. 40] were narrow strips of linen with which, asin the case of mummies, every limb was bound separately. Hence the possibility of motion is nothing extraordinary. Σ᾽ ουδάριον, from the Latin sudarium, has passed even into the later Hebrew language, in which it is called s4yp or ΜΠ. Here it signifies the cloth that was wrapped round the forehead of the deceased [Luke xix. 20; Acts xix. 12]. "Oris stands for πρόσωπον = yy9579, as Rev. i. 16.) The occurrence was so overpowering that even many of the Jews believed, although at the same time their faith appears to have been rather a result of the external mastery over their minds obtained by the omnipotence of the miracle than an inward surrender to the influence of the Redeemer. For even admitting that they were not actuated by hostility in reporting the new wonder to the enemies of Christ, yet their eagerness to go and chatter about it does not evince that it had taken a deep inward hold of their minds.} 1 Respecting Lazarus, history says no more. Quadratus, however (in Euseb. H.E. iv. 3), relates that in his time (the beginning of the second century) many of those whom Christ raised from the dead were living. Quadratus says the same thing concerning many of those who were healed. Nothing can be more opposed to the theory of myths than such accounts, by means of which we are placed so completely on historical ground. (Comp. also the statements of Papias in Euseb. H. E. 111, 39.) 16 GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 47—52. 47, 48. By way of describing the effect produced by this amaz- ing miracle, John here tells us what the Sanhedrim, at the sugges- tion of Caiaphas, resolved in consequence. (Respecting the San- hedrim, comp. the remarks on Matt. xxvi. 57; John xviii. 12.) They feared that the number of adherents to Jesus would prodigi- ously increase, and thus destroy their authority. That this was the fundamental sense of the words: ἐλεύσονται ot ἱ Ῥωμαῖοι, καὶ ἀροῦσιν ἡμῶν καὶ τὸν τόπον Kal τὸ ἔθνος, is clear ; the special meaning, however, is obscure. It does not appear how the members of the Sanhedrim could think that the extension of the effects pro- duced by the Redeemer's ministry would bring them into political collision with the Romans; they surely must have known that he alto- gether abstained from the exercise of any external political influence. Still it appears that the notions of these men concerning the true design of Christ were but very confused. Perhaps they in reality believed that he was only waiting for the right moment to rise as Messiah against the Romans ; in such an experiment, however, they did not place confidence, but thought the legions would overpower him with his adherents, and that then the Romans, charging the fault upon ¢hem, would destroy whatever vestiges of their indepen- dence yet remained. At all events it was by this course of thought that they endeavoured to palliate their wicked machinations, in their own minds and in the view of others. Τόπος in connexion with ἔθνος can only signify ‘“ country.” Had it referred to the Temple, it would have been necessary to add ἅγιος or οὗτος. (Comp. Matt. xxiv. 15, with Acts xxi. 28.) Just in like manner in the Hebrew, pi alone cannot denote the Tem- ple, although wap or “ place of holiness,” ‘‘ sanctuary,” certainly does. Aipew, which properly applies only to τόπος, by means of a zeugma has reference also to ἔθνος. Ver. 49—52. Caiaphas (respecting his person and official posi- tion, comp. the Comm: on Matt. xxvi. 57 ; John xviii. 12), now came forward with the politic but diabolically malevolent advice to despatch Jesus out of the way. The hypocritical language, that it was a mat- ter of importance to save the nation, was based upon the ambitious lust of power cherished by Caiaphas and his Pharisaic confederates. They sought to maintain the kingdom of lies and hypocrisy in oppo- 1 Concerning els τὰς comp. the observation on Mark xiv. δι. GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 49—852. LT sition to truth and sincerity. They felt that one of the two must fall! The influence of this powerful leader at once carried with him the whole college, and the first authorities of the people of God now entered upon deliberations (ver. 53) as to the manner in which they might put the Holy One of God to death, without in- curring danger to themselves from the populace. (The phrase οὐκ οἴδατε οὐδέν is to be taken as a form of censure, conveying a re- pulse, somewhat in the same manner as τύ éuoe καὶ σοί; John ii. 4. Others regard 1 Tim. vi. 4, μηδὲν ἐπιστάμενος, as parallel with it, and ascribe to it the signification “ to be weak in mind ;” this, however, certainly is mistaken. Those Gnostics whom Paul rebuked were not weak, they rather misused their strong minds. Proy. ix. 13 is more appropriate for comparison, although in that passage also the meaning which we have mentioned is not suitable. The interpretation that John gives of the words spoken by the High Priest is in the highest degree interesting. He regards them as pointing out the death of the Lord as the true sacrifice for the people, and for all those among men whose minds are susceptible of divine influence ; so that this death of Christ appears as a means of healing every breach. (Comp. the remarks on x. 16 ; xii. 32,33.) Moreover he does not allow this interpretation of the words to be viewed merely as a subjective exposition; he states that the High Priest uttered them prophetically. Προφητεύειν is here evidently intended to denote “‘ speaking under the influence of God,” in opposition to ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ εἰπεῖν (speaking from one’s own impulse), and as the latter is denied, so the former is as- serted of Caiaphas. Now if this expression stood alone, the pas- sage would easily be explained ; for the fact that Caiaphas was estranged from God does not militate against his having prophesied, any more than his unconsciousness of it does. Of the former case a remarkable instance is furnished by Balaam (comp. Numb. xxii.), while it is evident that the latter—that of a person prophesying without knowing it—is still less open to objection than that in which an individual utters a prophecy at the very time when he is offering the utmost resistance to it, as Balaam did.1 However, the additional remark, ἀρχιερεὺς ὧν τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου, presents a 1 Hence the Rabbins entertain the conviction that it is possible to prophesy without knowing it. Comp. Schéttgen hor, ad h, 1. vaticinata est filia Pharaonis et nesciebat quid vaticinaretur. VOL. IV. B 18 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 49—852. very considerable difficulty. According to this, the Evangelist appears to say that the prophecy of Caiaphas stood in necessary association with his office as High Priest. It is true, the attempt -has been made so to explain the words as not to allow any con- nexion between this and the prophecy, regarding them merely as in- tended to convey the information that Caiaphas was High Priest in this particular and remarkable year. In ver. 49, indeed, it is quite suitable so to understand them ; but since in verse 51 they are repeated, and placed in such close connexion with προφη- τεύειν, in our passage the dependence of the prophecy upon the pontifical office, according to the view of John, is beyond doubt. The easiest way of solving the difficulty is to say, it was a popular notion among the Jews that the High Priest possessed the gift of prophecy; and this opinion appears to have been participated by John. Liicke in reality agrees with this view, only he expresses it in more modified terms. ‘This assumption is at least more candid and liberal than the attempt to refine upon the punctuation (by putting a stop after ἐκείνου, and then, as a matter of necessity, inter- polating in conjunction with προεφήτευσε such an expression as “in some measure”), or than the explanation of προφητεύειν in a modified sense and the like. The only objection that may be urged against it is, that the very fact on which the interpretation rests (viz., that the people in general believed the High Priest to be en- dowed with the gift of prophecy) is merely a conjecture derived from this passage. However, I think it must be confessed that this conjecture is in the highest degree probable. To pass by the custom of consulting Urim and Thummim, which, as it appears tome, indicates a knowledge of the future,—the idea of the High Priest, as representative of the Theocracy, surely involves the presumption that he stood in the closest connexion with God. We have already seen that, on account of such connexion, magistrates were called Elohim,—how much more might this be the case with the High Priest! (Comp. the remarks on x. 84.) Moreover, it is perfectly consistent with Mosaic principles to regard the office as entirely independent of the character manifested by the individual. The High Priest, who was permitted by God to enter the Holy of Holies on the great day of atonement, for the purpose of expiating the sin of the people, might by sin have rendered himself in the highest degree culpable, but this neither prevented him from approaching God, GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 54—957. 19 nor made his expiation the less effectual. If, then, we only keep in mind the consideration that John did not mean to represent every High Priest as necessarily prophesying, but to shew that the High Priest was the natural medium through whom God might at times reveal himself, this view harmonizes with the circle of ideas entertained by the Evangelist, as well as with Scripture. In a doctrinal light this passage is very interesting, because, in the first place, it contains, as a prophecy, the declaration of Christ himself that the Gentiles were to be brought into the kingdom of God; for, since the τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ are distinguished from the ἔθνος, the former of these designations must refer only to those among the Gentiles who were of superior natures. And, in the second place, it evidently expresses the sentiment that not the law, but the death of the Lord, would be the bond of union between Jews and Gentiles,—this involving also the truth that the Gentiles would enter the kingdom of God immediately without the law (comp. the Comm. on Acts x. 1, ff.), and indicating the expiatory virtue of the death of Christ, which removes the wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles. (Comp. the remarks on Ephes. ii. 14.) (In this pas- sage ἔθνος is used to designate the people of Israel, whilst the term ordinarily adopted is λαός. In the Old Testament, the expressions py and »43 are employed just in like manner, these also being inter - changed.) Ver. 54—57. The hostility of the Jews now induced the Saviour to retire into seclusion till the Passover, it being proposed even by the Sanhedrim that whoever knew his place of residence should make it known (ver. 57.) The neighbourhood to which Jesus went—that of the city of Ephraim—lay north of Jerusalem, where the desert of Judah stretched. Ephraim is mentioned by Josephus (B. J. iv. 88), and perhaps in 2 Chron. xiii. 19. In the latter place, however, the reading is doubtful. (In our passage, also, the Codices differ ; the word being written in some "Edpép, in others "Edpdapu?) Meanwhile, the Passover approached, and many hastened from the neighbourhood of Ephraim to Jerusalem, before the com- mencement of the Feast, for the purpose of purifying themselves, according to the Levitical law, from their various pollutions. (Ay- vite, ver. 55, is here to be understood as denoting merely Levitical purification.) The minds of these individuals were so full of the person of Christ, and that which related to it, that they en- B2 20 GOSPEL OF JOHN XI. 54—57. tered into earnest debates as to whether it was likely that Christ would come to the Feast. (Ver. 56, in the question οὐ μὴ ἔλθῃ, the ov μή is merely the increased negation, and consequently,—as is generally the case in questions formed with ov,—an affirmative answer, “I should think he certainly will come to the Feast,’ is expected. Comp. Winer’s Gramm. 5, 472 f.) . δ LT. PART THE THIRD. LAST RESIDENCE OF CHRIST IN JERUSALEM AT THE PASSOVER, (John xii. 1—xvii. 26.) δ 1. THE ANOINTING OF JESUS AND HIS ENTRANCE INTO JERUSALEM. (John xii. 1—19. [Matt. xxvi. 6—138 ; Mark xiv. 3—9.]) In this last part of John’s evangelical history, which extends to the account of the Sufferings, everything is so closely connected with the main design of the Evangelist, that no further remark on this point is requisite. For, even the first circumstances from the history of the Lord presented for our consideration in this para- graph (viz., his anointing and entrance into Jerusalem, circum- stances which, if necessary, might have been omitted) are selected with evident regard to the end in view, inasmuch as they serve on the one hand to characterize Judas, whose motive for his conduct as the betrayer would not have appeared but for this account, and on the other, to represent the inconstancy of the people, who, at the Redeemer’s entrance, shouted, ‘‘ Hosanna to the Son of David!” and soon afterwards cried, “ Crucify him!” Everything, however, that has reference to the bringing on of the Lord’s death—the growing hatred of the Pharisees, the increasing villany of Judas, the fickleness of the multitude—all this John brings before the reader, and although only in an incidental and purely historical manner, yet without losing sight of, or doing any injury to, his grand doctrinal purpose. As regards the account of the anointing of Christ by Mary, we 22 GOSPEL OF JOHN xu. 1, 2. have already spoken (in the former part of the Commentary) con- cerning the difference between this and the kindred history related Luke vii. 36, ff. But certain as it is that these two differ, it is equally certain that the accounts, Matt. xxvi. 6, ff., Mark xiv. 8, ff., are per- fectly identical with ours in John. In modern times, opinions on this point have been quite harmonious. The only writers who have majntained the diversity of the narratives are Origen, and more re- cently Lightfoot and Wolf. The statements of the synoptical Evan- gelists agree with those of John in all that is essential, only that according to Matthew and Mark the person of Mary is the most con- spicuous, while in John, on the contrary, that of Judas Iscariot, whose character is intimated in order to throw light upon his sub- Sequent act, stands most prominently in view. John xii. 1, 2, the narrative begins with a date: πρὸ ἕξ ἡμερῶν" τοῦ πάσχα x.T.. Respecting the relation of this to the account given by Matthew and Mark, it has already been remarked (in the Comm. on Matt. xxi. 1), that these Evangelists have not in this instance observed chronological order ; for whilst, according to John xii. 12, the entrance did not occur till the day after the events here recorded, according to Matthew and Mark, it took place long before. It is most probable that the supper was given on a Sabbath, the Jews being fond of having entertainments on that day, so that the entrance happened on the Sunday. In the six days, that of the supper is reckoned as the first, but the first day of the Passover is not included. The place where the meal was partaken is, in John’s account, left undetermined ; Matthew and Mark observe that it was held in the house of a certain Simon who had been afflicted with leprosy, of which it is probable that Jesus had healed him. Sup- posing that this Simon was connected with Lazarus by any natural relationship, we have an easy explanation of the circumstances that Martha rendered assistance at the supper, that Mary acted in such an unrestrained manner, and that Lazarus was present as a guest. (Comp. xii. 2, Aafapos εἷς ἣν τῶν ἀνακειμένων. Liicke thinks that these words are intended to express the reality of the awaken- ing of Lazarus ; to me, however, this appears forced.) Ver. 3, During the supper, Mary, with overflowing feelings of gra- titude towards him who had just restored to her her beloved brother, 1 The words πρὸ Ἐξ ἡμερῶν stand elegantly for ἕξ ἡμέραις πρὸ τοῦ πάσχα. Comp. Fritzsche on Matthew, 5, 706, Winer’s Gramm. 5,518, GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 4—6. 23 and had, for the first time, really given himself to her by the commu- nication of a higher life, approached her Lord and anointed him. (Comp. the remarks on Luke vii. 38, where we have, essentially, the same thing related ; Mark and John alone call the ointment “ spike- nard ointment.” [Ndpdos = "7.2, an odoriferous herb.] Hence they describe it as costly [βαρύτιμος, πολύτιμος, πολυτελής], OD which account it was preserved ina corresponding vessel. [᾿4λά- βαστρον denotes the stone as well as the vessel formed from it ; it appears, however, that alabaster boxes were very commonly used for salves, because they kept well in them, for which reason the Scholiast to Theocrit’s Idyl xv. 114, gives the explanation : σκεῦος μύρων δεκτικόν The term πιστικός, employed by Mark and John, is obscure. It has been proposed to take it as derived from πίνω, and signifying “ drinkable, ἡ. 6. liquid.” The derivation from πιστεύω in the sense ‘‘ genuine,” “ pure,” is better, because nard- oil was often adulterated.) John states that Mary anointed the feet of Jesus, and in this respect differs from Matthew and Mark, who say that she anointed his head. It may be supposed that Mary did both, and in that case the circumstance of her using so much of the ointment is at once explained. (John speaks of a λίτρα μύρου ; this quantity has been thought-too large, but the whole act must be regarded as a kind of extravagance of love. Mary gave all that she had without hesitating or economising.— The words ἡ δὲ οἰκία ἐπληρώθη ἐκ τῆς ὀσμῆς τοῦ μύρου, would also apply toa great number of ointments.) Ver. 4—6. Mary’s ardent, self-forgetting, expression of love was objected to, as John relates, by Judas; Matthew and Mark say by the disciples in general,—probably because, being excited by the language of Judas, they allowed themselves to be carried along with him. (Matthew and Mark here use the word ἀπώλεια, which is to be understood in the sense of “ destruction,” ‘‘ throwing away without an object.”) He would have the costly ointment sold for the poor. (Matthew has merely πολλοῦ, scil. apyupiov. The two other narrators mention a definite sum, viz., 300 demaril, 7. e., from twenty-five to thirty rix dollars.) John, however, expressly informs us that Judas spoke thus without any true love to the poor, and merely from avarice. (Respecting the character of Judas, comp. the particulars on Matt. xxvii. 3, ff.) He held the funds belonging to the society of Jesus, and from these had appropriated much to his own 24 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 7—16. use. (Concerning the gifts presented to Jesus, see the remarks on Luke viii. 8. Tholuck is mistaken in the opinion that Jesus himself placed contributions in the coffer. This certainly was not the case, for he had no property.—IAwecoxopor literally signifies a small case for mouth pieces [γλῶσσαι] of flutes, and then small boxes in general. One of the finer form was γλωττοκομεῖον, ---- with the Rabbins smDib: or, according to the interchange of the aspirates, Seven "Ἴ, Comp. Bust. lex. p. 448.) Ver. 7, 8. The Lord, in a mild and beautiful manner, reproves this language of the disciples, and defends the abashed Mary against their attack. He directs attention to the excellent feeling from which her action sprang, and the impulse of her ardent love, which, even if she had not expressed it in a perfectly suitable manner, certainly deserved to be acknowledged. In order, however, to re- move all appearance of unsuitableness, the Redeemer, with inex- pressible delicacy, attributes a still deeper meaning to what she did; “she anoints me for my burial,” saith the Saviour. It may be that he intended by these words also to give her an intimation of the unspeakable sorrow that awaited her. For what must she have felt when she saw him who had power to rescue her beloved Laza- rus from the grave die on the cross! In what a struggle must her faith have been involved by such contrasts! According to Mat- thew and Mark, the Saviour crowned his gentleness and tenderness with the remark, that in the act of love done to him she had erected to herself an eternal monument, as lasting as the Gospel, the eter- nal word of God. From generation to generation, this remarkable prophecy of the Lord has been fulfilled; and even we, in explain- ing this saying of the Redeemer, of necessity contribute to its accomplishment. Ver. 9—11. The proximity of the place to Jerusalem drew thither many Jews, who were anxious partly to see Jesus, and partly to get a sight of Lazarus, the man that had been raised from the dead. This movement in their minds aroused the rage of the opponents of Christ ; they sought to remove out of the way not only the Redeemer, but him whom they regarded as a visible trophy of his heavenly power and glory. Ver. 12—16. Jesus, however, instead of fleeing, openly en- countered them ; on the day after the supper, amidst the cheers of the multitude who had for the moment turned to him, he entered GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 17—22. ἃ 25 the Holy City as if it were his own. (For the particulars con- cerning the entrance of Christ, comp. the Comm. on Matt. xvi. 1.) Crowds of people went out to meet him, shouting and decked with branches of palm. (The expression Baia τῶν φοινίκων oc- curs only here. The word Saiov must have been derived from the Coptic, and signifies “ palm branch.” Φοῖνιξ also signifies “palm” [comp. Rev. vii. 9], and is here added by way of expla- nation.) The citation (from Zech. ix. 9) is quoted merely from memory. Here again, however (comp. 11. 22), John remarks that he did not clearly understand the meaning of this passage until a subsequent period, after the glorification of the Lord. (Respecting δοξάξεσθαι, see the remarks on xiii. 31.) Ver. 17—19. The fact that had produced this powerful excite- ment of mind was the awakening of Lazarus ; this led the simple people, who had not,been drawn into error by sophisms, justly to re- cognize in Jesus a messenger of God, even the Messianic King of Israel himself. But the Pharisees saw from this event, that, if they meant to keep up their credit in the kingdom of falsehood, they must interpose. (4πέρχεσθαι ὀπίσω τινός is a Hebraism, son py’ SATIN: Comp. Gen. xxiv. 5, xxxvii. 17.) § 2. LAST PUBLIC DISCOURSES OF JESUS. (John xii. 20—50.) Ver. 20—22. Without fixing the date, John further informs us of a discourse delivered by Christ in the presence of certain Greeks, who wished to see him. These” Ἕλληνες cannot have been either Jews who spoke Greek ((Ελληνισταί), or Pagans, because it is stated that the object of their coming was προσκύνησις. No doubt they were Greeks by birth, who, as was the case with many Gentiles in the time Ἢ Christ, from inward desire after truth, had turned to Ju- dam. Hence they were proselytes, or so-called σεβόμενοι τὸν 1 Bas, expositors conceived that the spiritual meaning of the entrance of Christ τος = sone uresentation of himself as the true Paschal Lamb. In the most recent times, Pehneck\urger (Beitr. 8. 15) has again brought up the same idea. 26 GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 20—22. Θεόν, but whether proselytes of the gate, or of justice, cannot be precisely determined. The accounts concerning Christ may have convinced them that in him divine power was to be found,-which would satisfy all their anticipations. Probably a dense concourse surrounded the Lord, and they were unable to get near him ; they expressed their wish to Philip, who may have stood nearest to them, and he, after conferring! with Andrew, communicated it to Jesus. Had the wish of these Greeks to see Jesus proceeded from mere curiosity, the Redeemer would certainly have left it unnoticed; but since it was a true expression of inward desire, the gracious Lord readily gratified it. Doubtless he not only shewed himself to them, but also addressed some words to the strangers personally, which the Evangelist,—not deeming them suited to his design, and, it may be, actuated by other reasons,— omitted. He reports only those words of Christ which he spoke in consequence of this occurrence, after the personal salutations. Now, although in the beginning of the account no date is given, yet we may conclude from ver. 36, that this was the last public discourse which Christ delivered, and hence that this fact belongs to the last days before the evening with which the Passover com- menced. It is not until the following discourse is thus viewed that the general concluding remarks (ver. 87—43), as also the conversation itself, gain their full meaning. We then discover in them, so to speak, an actual transfer of the Gospel to the Gentiles, and a re- jection of Israel, which latter great event the Evangelist brings more distinctly into notice by reference to its prophetic announce- ment; and thus apprehended, this paragraph strictly belongs to the evangelical history of John, which appears to have been in- tended especially for the Gentiles, whose condition was one of deeper need. (Respecting the apparent argument drawn from ver. 1 Liicke conjectures that Philip deemed this conference necessary on account of the introduction of the Greeks into the front court ofthe Temple. Tholuck was of opinion that Philip feared he should trouble Jesus by the proposal to bring the Greeks befo~ him. Liicke’s view appears to me the more probable; for surely the disciples were! accustomed to think that anything by which happiness was to be produced w/d be troublesome to the Lord. Tholuck, in the last edition, utters the conjecture ἐπ P bilip may have thought the wish of the Greeks was founded upon mere curios’* ° his an more plausible than his former idea, and would well combine with thr /“PP°S!tion of Meyer, that Jesus did not permit 5 iia to be brought before hir ἡ GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 283—25. OF 44, ff., against the opinion that the Redeemer closed his public ministry with this discourse, see the exposition in that place.) ᾿ This view of our passage is further very consistent with the account which it contains of the voice that came from heaven (ver. 28, ff.) We do not find similar solemn sanctions of the person and work of Christ in the course of his ministry; they occur only at its com- mencement (at the baptism, comp. the Comm. on Matt. 11. 17) and here at its conclusion. Inthe former instance the voice was heard on the shore of Jordan; upon ¢Azs occasion in Jerusalem, and perhaps in the very centre of the sanctuary, asit is probable that the trans- action took place in a court of the Temple. Hence the occurrence is like a formal installation of Christ as the Lord and King of Israel upon the holy hill of God (Ps. ii. 6.) Ver. 283—25. If the language of Christ, ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα κ. τ... appear unsuited to the preceding circumstances, it is to be ob- served in the first place that (as we have already remarked) the report given of what the Saviour said certainly is imperfect ; and secondly, that the following words of the Lord are themselves con- nected in a very intimate manner with the wish of the Greeks to see him, although this connexion is not so obvious as to strike our at- tention at first sight. It could not be otherwise than that, with all the sincerity by which the desire of those Greeks was characterized, there should yet be much mingled with it which needed correction. Probably they expected that Christ would be surrounded by a peculiar, sensible glory, whereas his appearance did not present anything striking ; least of all could they have supposed any suffer- ing in his person. But since the time of his passion was so near at hand that these Greeks themselves undoubtedly saw him suffer and die, the Redeemer, in accordance with his tender love, sought to give them a previous intimation of the event, so that it might not form a stumbling block to them. It is true that he did not on this account disclaim the δόξα, while a voice from heaven represented him as already glorified; but humilia- tion was mingled with the δόξα, for Jesus himself did not refrain from disclosing his inward agitation on the approach of his suffer- ings (ver. 27.)' We are not to suppose that on this occasion Christ 1 Tholuck thinks it unnatural “ that Jesus should designedly have given the Greeks, by way of preparation, a prelude to his approaching sufferings;” but does not himself offer any explanation of the fact before us. Now, if this did not take place in the pre. 28 GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 28—25. was involuntarily overpowered by the anticipation of his suffer- ings, but rather that his conduct was deliberate, and adapted to the circumstances, although it was far from anything affected, since it displays the charm of the most unconstrained activity of soul. (Con- cerning ἐλήλυθεν ἡ ὥρα, comp. the remarks on vii. 44, viii. 20. As regards δοξάζεσθαι, the observations on xiii. 31 may be consulted.) The way, however, to this glorification would appear to destroy the very glory pertaining to 10. Hence, on account of this strong contrast, the discourse is commenced with ἀμὴν ἀμὴν.--- ΤῊ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου, here selected by Jesus as an illustration, forms a pleas- ing, and at the same time deeply significant, image of that life which springs forth afresh out of death." The grain of seed must rot in the earth, if it is to answer its end and bring forth fruit ; otherwise it remains alone. Such an illustration mitigates the bitterness of death, and even makes it appear desirable as a necessary passage to a glorious goal. Only, the figure must not be stretched too far ; for we are liable to tread on the boundary of the difference between the image and that which is compared with it. For example, if we were to extend the simile so far as to institute a comparison be- tween the grain of corn and the sacred hody of Christ, a flaw would arise in the metaphor, because the body of Christ was not decom- posed. The only point of comparison to be kept in viewis death, sence of the Greeks accidentally,—considering that even in Gethsemane the Redeemer did not expose himself to the view of all his disciples in the time of his fear,—scarcely anything else remains than the interpretation which I have propounded. In that inter- pretation nothing is said about a prelude to the sufferings; it merely supposes an open disclosure of the impression produced upon the mind of Christ by the prospect of his sufferings. Still, it may be a question whether Meyer has not taken the right view in thinking that Jesus did not permit the Greeks to be brought into his presence at all; at any rate, this supposition would entirely set aside the difficulty of which we have spoken. 1 The same metaphor has been employed by the oriental mystics, who are so emi- nently distinguished for their profound reflections upon nature. Thus speaks Dschela- teddin (in Tholuck’s Bliithensamml, 5, 109) : Into the bosom of the earth cast grains of corn, And soon upstarts the golden ear both large and full; Then let the flail with bruises part the ear in twain, And from the broken ear comes food to nourish us. Nature, conceived of as animated by the breath of the Eternal, and sustained by the Almighty Word of God, contains in her phenomena the most pregnant symbols of all the truths pertaining to the spiritual world. Hence, upon a close examination of the most diverse periods and nations, we frequently meet with the same metaphors chosen to illustrate the same ideas, GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 25—27. 29 into which the holy soul of Christ sank; the sacrifice of his life, however, was like the generation of a higher description of life, for from this a whole world receives its nobler being. Ver. 25, 26. The Saviour, in order that he may not be regarded by the strangers who are listening to him, merely in an objective light, with admirable wisdom passes in his address to the subjec- tive view, and shews them how that which in its highest degree was his sacrifice, in proportion awaits each of them also. The way to eternal life is μισεῖν τὴν ψυχήν. (On this subject comp. the Comm. Matt. x. 89.) He, however, who follows the Redeemer in this path, which leads through death to life (Rom. vi. 5) shad/ be where he is, and (as a privilege associated with this) shall share his δόξα (John xvii. 22), which the Father confers upon him. Ver. 27. The Redeemer follows this with an expression of deep and sorrowful agony: νῦν ἡ ψυχή wou τετάρακται. We must not overlook the circumstance that here the term ψυχή is selected ; this expression denotes an individual, personal, sorrow, whilst πνεῦμα indicates rather that which is general. The former, as personal sor- row, is indeed to be considered more limited than the latter, but hence also more intense. (See the remarks on John xi. 83 ; Matt. xxvi. 88.) With the cry of lamentation itself, is blended a prayer to God, which at the same time, by the repetition of the name ‘ Father,” shews the continued vigour of the Son’s emotion. (It was just so during the conflict in Gethsemane, Matt. xxvi. 39, 42 ; and also on the cross, Matt. xxvii. 46.) Under the expression dpa autn Christ comprehends the whole time of suffering, which he recognizes as necessary to the perfection of his work, and for which he entreats the special support of the Father. The words διὰ τοῦτο im- ply the idea “in order to redeem mankind, to complete my work.” It is an aposiopesis, which is easily explained by the excited state of hismind. The victory gained is expressed in the language πάτερ, δόξασόν σου τὸ ὄνομα scil. ἐν ἐμοί. (Ὄνομα = py) stands for the divine entity itself in its manifestation, which δοξάζειν neces- 1 Tt is true, the words: ὅπου εἰμὶ ἐγὼ, ἐκεῖ ὁ διάκονος ὁ ἐμὸς ἔσται are employed only in a general sense, without any special explanation; but if we compare such passages as 1 John iii. 2, John xiv. 2, 3, it is impossible to doubt that here the immediate pre- sence of believers with Christ after death is expressed; which implies that, in their case, Hades and the abode in it is surmounted. (See the Comm. on Luke xvi. 19, ff.) 30 GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 28—30. sarily indicates ;1 for it is only as manifesting himself that God can disclose his δόξα, the highest point of which is presented in the completion of the work of the Son. The similarity of this occurrence to the conflict in Gethsemane is obvious ; only that, here the struggle was shorter and in public, whilst in Gethsemane, on the contrary, the agony of Christ was longer, atid took place in the presence of no more than his three most intimate companions. (Comp. the exposition of Matt. xxvi. 36, ff.) What may have induced the Redeemer, under the circum- stances that obtained in this instance, to shew himself to those strangers in his humiliation, has already been suggested. Hence it only remains to be observed that, according to our passage, the Christ of John, in relation to the conflict through which he passed, does not appear different from the Christ of the synoptical Evangelists. That which the conflict of Jesus in Gethsemane is to the latter, this passage is to John. (Respecting the attempt to shew the identity of the two events, comp. the particulars in the Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 36. Ver. 28—380. This prayer of the Redeemer was followed by, as it were, an answer, a voice from heaven, in which the glorification of God in the Son is first represented as a process already going on, and then (in reference to its completion) is promised as yet to come. (For the details on this subject comp. the remarks on xiii. 31.) This passage is remarkable, inasmuch as it mentions not merely the voice from heaven, but the circumstance that the bystanders made ob- servations upon it. Some said it thundered ; others, that an angel had spoken. Besides this, however, we have the express declara- tion of the Lord that it was not an incidental, natural, occurrence, but a designed φωνή, the intention of which was to sanction the Redeemer in their presence. The opinion that we have propounded respecting voices from heayen, on the occasion of a similar event, Matt. ii. 17, is thus perfectly established. For the very reason that they revealed the spiritual world, it was only with the spiritual ear that they were perceived in their true character. Where there was an entire absence of susceptibility to spiritual things, a hollow external impression might be made upon the hearers, but no mean- 1 Concerning δοξάζειν, comp. the observations on John xiii. 81. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙΙ. 28—30. 91 ing was apprehended ; accordingly they compared it with a similar sound, a kind of low thunder. Those who were more suscep- tible, and probably were at the time watching the countenance of Jesus,—whose looks no doubt reflected the state of his mind,—re- marked that some one spoke with him, and attributed what they heard, as well as what they saw in him, toan angel. Those alone who were truly enlightened received the true and pure impression of the voice. Thus the fact assumes a very distinct and simple form. It is true, polemic opposition to any extraordinary disclosure of the spiritual world and its almighty Lord has induced the attempt to elude it also in this instance. Even Liicke, in the exposition of this passage, has decidedly espoused the hypothesis of the Bath Kol. (On this subject comp. the Comm. Matt. iii. 17.)* But, alto- gether apart from the great improbability that a custom so liable to abuse should have been sanctioned by God, the unsoundness of this theory is plainly shewn by a remark which Tholuck has already made on the passage—viz., it is perfectly indemonstrable that the Bath Kol consisted in anything else than Auman words. Moreover, if it be borne in mind that we have accounts (and we can hardly suppose that they are all fabulous) of heavenly voices being heard in other instances not unfrequently occurring (comp. Joseph. Ant. xiii. 9, de Bell. Jud. vii. 12, Epist. Smyrn. de Polyc. c. 9),—and if it be further considered that, in every case of theophany, a voice is audi- able,—here it is only necessary to presume that the appearance was invisible, and then—if the possibility in general of a manifestation of the higher economy be not denied—no substantial objection can be urged against our view., 1 The following is a portion of Olshausen's remarks with reference to the Bath Kol, in his Comm. on Matt. iii. 17. “ The so-called bop m2 ‘daughter of the voice’ is here en- tirely out of question. The Rabbis assert, it is true, that it has been audible since the period of the second Temple, or, what amounts to the same, since the gift of prophecy disappeared from among the people of Israel. Yet, this can be regarded the less as an historical statement, inasmuch as the whole affair contains something which easily leads to misconceptions and abuses, so that it cannot be believed that Providence destined it as a compensation for the silence of the prophets. * * * The name ‘daughter of the voice’ has been explained, moreover, very correctly by Buxtorf Lex. Tal. p. 310, where it is called: filia, ὁ. 6. vox secundaria, ccelestis vocis partus, ‘the daughter, i. ¢., a secondary voice, born of the celestial voice.’” Loewe’s Translation, p. 179, f. note—TR. 2 Kling (loc. cit.s. 675) is decidedly opposed to Liicke, and adopts the hypothesis of something supernatural which was to be heard on this occasion, and which men quite erroneously took for thunder. Licke, in support of his view—that thunder also, and not 32 GOSPEL OF JOHN xu. 831—33. Ver. 31—33. With the declaration respecting the design of this transaction, Jesus in his discourse connects a more precise defini- tionof the importance that belonged to the moment in which he spoke. He calls it the time of judgment concerning this world, and associates with it the victory of truth. Thus these words ex- press the same sentiment, only viewed in two different lights. The fall of the Evil One necessarily involves the victory of the Good, for it is only the latter that can render the former possible. The exclusion of Satan, and his angels with him, from heaven (Luke x. 18; Rey. xii. 7, ff.) necessarily presupposes the exaltation of Christ, and of those who are his with him, from earth to heaven. The fundamental idea of the passage in reference to the κρίσις is clear, according to such passages as Luke x. 18 ; John iii. 17, ff. Judg- ment, as the separation of the Evil One from the great living com- munity of the universe, is not to be regarded merely as concen- trated in the end of time, but proceeds through the course of the world’s history, and is specially manifested in single circumstances that display the operation of that which is good in its full energy. When the disciples, with the powers of the higher world, expelled those evil spirits who had bound sons of Abraham (Luke x. 18), the Lord recognized in that a fall of Satan from his throne ; and when . upon this occasion Gentiles pressed into the kingdom of God, he recognized the complete destruction of Satan. (John xvi. 11.) The partition-wall of the law, which sin had necessarily erected between the nations, was destroyed by the power of truth; and the result was, instead of separation, the unity of all (Ephes. ii. 14.) In ver. 31, the mention of the Devil without any occasion being offered, and in the presence of Greek strangers, is important. Even the most ingenious theory, framed for the purpose of reconciliation, has in this instance a very difficult task to perform; for it appears that if that idea had contained no real truth, it would have been necessary, especially here, to avoid it in the most decided manner, since it might be spread abroad to spheres where as yet it was not known. (The name ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου occurs no where merely words, was considered as Bath Kol—appeals to Tract. Sanhedr. fol. 11, where it is said, vox super ipsis edita est de coelo. Butin these words the vox may have been the divine voice itself, of which the echo on earth was only deemed too certain an indica tion. Thunder would not have been called vox de coelo ; it is not called soin the Old Testament—not even in Psalm xxix., which contains the most minute description of thunder. 2 ~ GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙΙ. 31—83. 99 else except in John [xiv. 89, xvi. 11.] It corresponds with the Hebrew πὴ Shor mato syey “wy. Paul uses, instead of this, Θεὸς τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου, 2 Cor. iv. 4. The expression κόσμος οὗτος is rare [compare also John viii. 23.] The pronoun is strictly pleonastic, for κόσμος μέλλων never occurs! Κόσμος is here quite synonymous with aiwy, as 2 Cor. iv. 4. The reading κάτω for ἔξω indicates that we are to understand ἐκβάλλεσθαι as meaning a removal from heaven.2 The latter reading, however, is the only correct one ; it supposes the metaphor of a temple or the dwelling of God, from which the prince of this world is cast out.) That ὑψωθῆναι, ver. 32, primarily conveys the idea of glorification, there can be no doubt. (On this subject compare the Comm. iii. 14, viii. 28.) The different interpretation given of it by John will be discussed in the immediate sequel. But before we pass on to that, there remains for our consideration the sentence πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν. Now it is evident that ἑλκύειν (as we have already remarked on vi. 44) does not involve the notion of any- thing violent and compulsory, but rather indicates the power of Christ which awakens the will itself, and by which he gathers men from their state of separation, attracting them, like a magnet, to himself. The word πάντας must not be overlooked. This ex- pression might appear very favourable to the ἀποκατάστασις τῶν πάντων, Since πάντες. although with the article it may denote a certain precisely defined whole, 6. g. the called, yet, in the absence of the article, signifies the whole without any more limited restric- tion. But probably the idea, that the doctrine of the restoration is here intimated, might be sufficiently met by observing that πάντες designates the Gentiles in distinction from the Jews who thought they were the only objects of the Messiah’s coming, while the circumstance that there will be unbelieving Gentiles also is no part of the subject under consideration. The words relate to 1 In Heb. ii. 5, we find the parallel expression οἰκουμένη μέλλουσα, but this does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament. 2 Liicke, in speaking on this subject, asks, “ Of what consequence is it to us, that a transcriber understood the passage thus?” With one who denies the Johannine origin of the Apocalypse, this observation may have some force; but to us, who admit that, the matter is of unquestionable importance. Rev. xii. 7, ff., the dragon is for the first time cast out of heaven. That passage does not involve anything essentially different from what is referred to here, the only variation is, that there the result produced by the work of Jesus is represented as absolutely complete. (Comp. Job i. 6, ii. 1.) VOL. IV. Cc 34 GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 34. the divine purpose, which, indeed, through the resistance of many, is not fulfilled in all. Christ draws, not some men, but all ; those only who resist this attraction are excluded from salvation. In fact this passage teaches the universality of the operations of grace. (Comp. the remarks on Rom. xi. 32.) John’s interpretation of the language of Christ now leads us to the following verse. Ver. 34. The people understood ὑψωθῆναι, according to the known signification of the word (comp. the Comm. on iii. 14, viii. 28), as denoting crucifixion. This is evidently implied by the antithesis to μένειν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, and by the following answer of Christ (ver 85) : ἔτι μικρὸν χρόνον κ. τ. . That the people should have attached this meaning to the expression is not strange; but that John appears to agree with that interpretation is extraordinary, considering that in the words of Christ ὑψωθῆναι is so evidently employed to designate glorification. It would certainly be the shortest way to say, that John was mistaken in this explanation. But since, xvill. 82, he again refers to what Christ had said, as a prophecy of Christ concerning his death, he appears to have laid stress on this (in other cases, generally speaking, he would not have made such a remark at all) ; and it is hardly to be conceived of the inspired John, that in doing so he was altogether mistaken. In my opinion the simplest method of solving the difficulty is to suppose that John regarded the crucifixion of Jesus as a symbol. His elevation from earth on the cross is, to the Evangelist, an-em- blem of his being set up as the ensign (ps Isaiah xi. 10) around which the nations should rally ; and he would describe the attrac- tive power of the cross of Christ as so great, that those who are susceptible follow it, although, in the case of every one of them, the way to Christ should lead again through death on the cross. Thus there is in these words a retrospective allusion to what pre- cedes (ver. 25, ff.), where Christ claimed the surrender of life. It is necessary, as we have frequently remarked, to guard against rejecting such a twofold sense in mystical phraseology, because the use of it is prevalent, especially in the oriental philosophy, and the language of Christ decidedly partakes of its peculiar character. As regards the idea of the Messiah's eternal continuance,—it very 1 On this subject comp. the details in the Leidensgeschichte, at the crucifixion, Luke xxiii. 3, ff GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 35—40. Ὁ naturally arose from such passages of the Old Testament (νόμος = γραφή) as ascribe to the Messiah an eternal kingdom (Ps. cx. 4 ; Dan. vii. 14.) Only it was overlooked that, in the Old Testament, the first and second advents of the Lord are not clearly distin- guished, and hence it was thought that the Messiah, at his first coming, would continue for ever. It remains to be observed, that it appears as though this passage farnished proof that the names vids τ. ἀ. and Χριστός are synony- mous. But if it be only granted—as it undoubtedly must be—that the discourse of Christ was not fully reported, and that he previously called himself Son of Man, then this apparent feature vanishes. The passage, on the contrary, opposes the view that υἱὸς τ. ἀ. was a common designation of the Messiah. The assembly felt, when Christ applied the name to himself, that the signification must he kindred to the name of Messiah, but they could not rightly under- stand it, especially as he connected with it the mention of the word ὑψωθῆναι, and consequently they even conjectured that by the υἱὸς τ. a. he meant some one else than himself. Ver. 35, 36. As the question could not be answered without en- tering into a full discussion, and this, under the existing circum- stances, was not possible, Jesus conducts the minds of his hearers to the consideration of that which was of practical moment. It was important for them to make use of him while he continued amongst them ; when he withdrew the light departed, and the dark night of temptation, fraught with peril, broke in upon them. The senti- ment expressed in ver. 35 being explained by ver. 36, the passage contains no difficulty, especially as the very thing by which similar passages (vil, 34, ΙΧ. 4, xi. 9) are rendered obscure, is in this case absent. (Instead of the more difficult ἐν ὑμῖν, the text. rec. has μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν, which certainly is not the original reading. Here ἐν must be explained according to the Hebrew 3773 = “among you.” It is true that, in the language of John, ἐν τινί εἶναι has a pregnant sense, and this might be indicated here by the expression υἱοὶ φωτός. But the connexion shews that the hearers are persons who do not even admit the light into themselves, but reject it ; hence ἐν ὑμῖν can only be understood as referring to the mass. “The light still acts for a little while in you, ἢ. 6. in the nation, or among you.’ ) Ver. 37—40. As the public ministry of Christ here closed, John ea 890 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙ. 4]. appends some concluding remarks on the unbelief of the people. First, he speaks of those who were quite unsusceptible, and then (ver. 42, 43) of those who were impressed, but were restrained by the fear of men from free confession. The design of these obser- vations evidently is, to shew that this unbelief did not at all set aside the purposes of God, but, on the contrary, fulfilled them. (Hence the form ἵνα πληρωθὴ is to be taken in its most literal sense. Comp. the Comm. on Matt. i. 22.) The first passage states merely the actual result of the preaching of the suffering Redeemer. (It is quoted from Isaiah 1111. 1, and exactly corresponds with the LXX.} But the words οὐκ ἠδύναντο πιστεύειν already convey the sterner sentiment which the second passage (Isaiah vi. 10) ex- presses in the strongest possible manner. (This citation seems to have been made merely from memory; for it differs very much from the original as well as from the LX X., while it does not appear that the variation was designed.) We have already shewn at large (in the Comm. on Matt. xiii. 10, ff.) that this rigid statement must not be modified by exegetic art, but, on the contrary, by surmount- ing the internal difficulty, it may be harmonised with the general doctrine of Scripture. It is the very curse appointed by God to rest upon the wicked, that wickedness increases until at length all susceptibility to that which is good is at an end, so that the most glorious manifestation of that which is good, according to the inva- riable law of justice, instead of conferring blessings, brings only condemnation upon those who are confirmed in evil. Ver. 41. This quotation of the Evangelist is very important to us, on account of the express statement that Isaiah saw His (Christ's) glory, and spake of Him. (The connexion shews that αὐτοῦ cannot be applied to any one but Christ, and that it does not refer to God as, in a forced manner, it has been supposed.) Hence John recognised the majestic appearance seen by Isaiah (Is. vi. 1, ff.) as a manifestation of the Logos, the Son of God. This necessarily follows from the essential relation of the Son to the Father. For the Son is the revelation of the Father, as lan- guage is the disclosure of the hidden mind in man. As man can- not communicate himself except by language, so the concealed, in- visible Father (i. 18) reveals himself only in the Original Word, the Son. The Son is the King Jehovah who rules in the Old Testament and appears to the elect, as in the New Testament the GOSPEL OF JOHN XII. 42—80. 37 Spirit, the invisible ὑπηρέτης of the Son, is the Director of the Church, and the Revealer in the sanctuary of the heart. This pro- found mystery of the Godhead was first unveiled to us by the Son when he was glorified in death. (Comp. the remarks on vii. 39.) Such passages as 1 Cor. x., Heb. xi. 26, 1 Pet. i. 11 shew that the same view respecting the Son as the Revealer of the Father was entertained by the other writers of the New Testament. Ver. 42, 43. The above remarks concerning the general unbelief are now limited by the statement that many, even among the apyov- tes of the people, believed, although through fear of man they did not openly confess their faith. Nicodemus and other adherents of Jesus, who were characterised by a similar disposition, are here censured (v. 44.) Ver. 44, 50. The circumstance that the Evangelist here again introduces the Lord as speaking appears opposed to the view given in our exposition of ver. 20,—that the above discourses were, the last delivered by Christ in public. ‘Some commentators connect these words with ver. 36, and suppose that the Lord turned round once more before his departure and uttered the language that fol- lows. It is true that this opinion might derive support from ἔκ- paée, since the term seems to indicate an actual utterance.’ But the greatest weight is on the side of the considerations which have induced Liicke and Tholuck, after the example of J. D. Michaelis and Morus, to regard the entire contents of the subsequent verses, not as an actual discourse of Christ, but as an epitome of his dis- courses by the Evangelist ; in which case the words ἔκραξε καὶ εἶπεν are to be taken as meaning, “‘ Jesus was accustomed empha- tically to declare.” The arguments for this hypothesis are as fol- lows: First, the sequel to the phrase just quoted does not contain any thought not previously expressed ; second/y, the sentences are purely single, and linked together without any strict internal rela- tionship ; ¢hird/y, the sayings selected are the very ones that stand in close connexion with the foregoing accusation of unbelief against the Jews, for in these Christ states the purpose of his sublime mis- sion, and points out the blessing resulting from faith, as well as the 1 This is appealed to especially by Kling (loc. cit. 5. 677, ff.), who has at last espoused the opinion that the Receemer actually spoke these words. De Wette, indeed, refers the section to the Evangelist, but in such a manner that he thinks the Evangelist actually ascribed to Christ a regular discourse which he never delivered; a view, of course, un- tenable, as destroying the character of inspiration. 38 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΠΙ. 1—80. curse that attends unbelief. (Respecting ver. 44, comp. the pas- sage vil. 16 ; ver. 45, xiv. 9; ver. 46, viii. 12 ; ver. 47, 111. 17, 18, v. 45; ver. 48, iii. 8. viii. 24; ver. 49, iii. 11. v. 20; ver. 50, v. 30, vii. 16.) In this concluding verse, the only peculiarity is the clause, ὅτε ἡ ἐντολὴ αὐτοῦ ξωὴ αἰώνιός ἐστιν. This needs a special consideration. The ἡ ἐντολή certainly refers to the preceding ἐν- τολή (without an article) ; but still the subject of discourse in this place, cannot be merely this ove command of God concerning what the Redeemer should say, for the ζωὴ αἰώνιος belongs to Christ in and for himself, and not because he obeyed this ἐντολή. Accordingly the words are to be understood in a general sense, and the meaning is this: “‘ every command of God is eternal life ; happy therefore is he who receives my word, for all my words are spoken under God's authority, that is, by God’s command.” One thing here is of the greatest importance, viz., the ἐστίν. This expression (as xvii. 8) is not to be modified by taking it as synonymous with the language : “Ὁ produces or procures eternal life, 7. e., when obeyed.” Such an interpretation is opposed to that perception of the internal reality which characterises the views of John. ‘To him the ἐν- τολή of God isa living utterance of God himself, a real power ; and hence, like the true γνῶσις, as such it is eternal life. He who re- ceives the word of God, and allows it to operate within him, has in it eternal life. Accordingly, although it would appear that the év- τολή leads to the dega/ point of view, still here it is clearly seen that the expression is associated with the life of faith, which in- cludes the knowledge of the divine νόμος (and its individual expres- sions, the évtoAav), the divine element received by the believer being the very element whence the Law proceeds. § 3. THE WASHING OF THE FEET. (John xiii. 1—30.) The Redeemer, having thus closed his public ministry, now turned his attention entirely to that small flock of followers who not merely believed (as those who were fearful, xii. 42), but also courageously confessed their faith. The event to which John gives GOSPEL OF JOHN xu. 1—s0. 39 special prominence, in the period of this intimate fellowship, is the last meal of Jesus with his disciples. The identity of this δεῖπνον with the last Supper is supported, first, by the parallel Luke xxii. 27, which evidently relates to the washing of the feet, and fixes it in the time of the Supper ; secondly, John himself (xii. 21, ff, 38, ff.) mentions the same conversations, as, according to the other Evangelists, took place at the Passover; and, firally, this inter- view, which is perfectly connected in itself, is immediately succeeded by the departure of Christ to Gethsemane (xvii. 26, xviii. 1.) For the particulars respecting the objections that have been urged against this view, and for the hypothesis propounded in order to reconcile the synoptical Evangelists with John, in reference to the chronology, comp. the remarks on Matt. xxvi. 17 inthe Comm. on the History of the Sufferings. Here there is only one point (not mentioned there) that needs solution; viz., why was the institution of the sacrament of the Holy Supper not related by John? In the Jirst place, it would be quite sufficient, in explanation of this omis- sion, to remark that John may have deemed the institution of this sacrament unimportant to his main design, on which account also he is silent concerning the sacrament of baptism ; especially since he wrote for persons, all of whom were already acquainted with the essentials of the Gospel, so far as its external form was concerned. And, further, the institution of the Supper was narrated with such precision by the other Evangelists, that it did not need any repeti- tion whatever. Such information respecting the incidents connected with the last meal of Jesus as they omitted—e. y., the washing of the feet—John here supplies. Meanwhile, this latter fact is by no means related merely for the sake of supplying what the synopti- cal gospels do not contain; on the contrary, it stands in immediate connexion with the designs of our author. On the one hand, it was intended to form an historical basis for the great discourses of Jesus which follow; while on the other, John doubtless inserted the account of the washing of the feet in order that the Redeemer, whom he had so frequently represented as exalting himself (when he called himself the Light of the world, the Water, the Bread of Life, and so forth), might be exhibited in that self-abasement which resulted from genuine humility, and constituted his finest ornament, though the Gnostics were but too much disposed to mis- take it. And furthermore, the notices of Judas that occur in the 40 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 1—30. narrative were important to John, for the purpose of shewing the relation of Jesus to his betrayer. As regards the washing of the feet itself—z the first place, the occasion that induced it is clearly seen in the passage, Luke xxii. 24, ff., where mention is made of strife amongst the disciples. This led to an act which set forth, in the most striking manner, the deepest self-humiliation of Christ, and also recommended the same to the disciples. Secondly, this proceeding, according to the design of the Lord, was meant to have a symbolical signification (comp. the details on xiii. 10.) For while baptism relates to that purifi- cation and renovation of the whole man which happens on/y once, the washing of the feet was intended to illustrate a daily cleansing from that contamination of the world, which even the regenerate man cannot avoid, but which would become injurious to him only in case he did not immediately endeavour to remove it. Thus we are not so much to suppose a double sense in the words, as to recognise a symbolical character in the ¢ransaction ; a case which, as we have already several times remarked, frequently occurs in the evan- gelic history. (Comp. the Comm. on Matt. xxi. 18, ff.) Sucha metaphorical admonition was more than ever necessary for the dis- ciples at this particular time. They were about to encounter cir- cumstances in which their faith might easily be shaken ; hence it was important for them to know that one sinful emotion, a single instance of being overtaken by surprise, would not suffice to wrest them from their state of grace, but that they needed daily fresh par- don for such defilements. Another remarkable point in this account is, that the transaction appears to have all the criteria of a sacramental one. It wears the aspect of an external rite instituted by Christ, to which a promissio gratiae is appended. ‘The washing of the feet, in its relation to the following supper, seems emblematical of repentance, in so far as daily repentance is necessary even to the believer, and is calcu- lated to produce new assurance of forgiveness before the participa- tion of the Holy Supper. Not a trace, however, of a sacramental washing of feet is to be found in the oldest tradition of the church, and the thought of adopting this rite was never entertained by the scholastics of the middle ages,—with all their disposition to increase the number of sacraments,—-or even by the Reformers, notwith- standing the fact that they at first regarded poenitentia as the third GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. l. 4] ᾿ sacrament. (Comp. conf. august... 7.) Still if would possibly ap- pear to some persons that the words of Christ, although not affording ground for the admigsion of it as a sacrament, might serve to recom- mend its retention as a vite in the church. In fact, we meet with the practice of feet-washing here and there in the ancient! church, although it never was general, and it took place only as a supplement to the ceremony of baptism.2 Meanwhile it was very soon found that the relations of the sexes, as also the differences of climate, rendered it impossible to continue the usage in large communities. (Amongst the modern sects, that of the Brethren has attempted to introduce it again.*) This circumstance, therefore, is a remarkable example of the truth that the words of the Lord, which are spirit and life, are to be apprehended with spirit and life. Had the an- cient church, out of rigid adherence to the letter, required the ex- ternal performance of washing the feet on the part of all its members mutually, as a religious duty, this certainly would have been a mistake. (For further remarks respecting the feet-washing, comp. the Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 26.) Chap. xiii. 1. As regards the construction of the first verse,— Liicke, in his first edition, follows the view of Knapp, according to which ver. 2 stands in parenthesis, and εἰδώς, ver. 3, is resumed from ver. 1. But, to say nothing of the circumstance that this construction increases the chronological difficulty involved in the words πρὸ δὲ 1 In the apostolic church the traces are altogether wanting, for 1 Tim. v.10, πόδας νίψασθαι is mentioned merely as an act of kindness done to others, not as a frequently repeated symbolical ceremony performed without real necessity. The Anabaptists and Mennonites have discovered, in this passage, a reference to washing the feet in a literal sense. ‘Thus in the Confessio of the Mennonites in Prussia, of the year 1678, it is said: quodsi quidam ab ecclesia ad exequenda quaedam spiritualia mittuntur, primo in domos nostras introeuntes, osculo sancto salutantur, et in signum humilitatis et cari- tatis erga illos pedes lavantur (comp. Schréckh’s K. G. nach der Reform. B. v.s. 457.) 2 On this subject, comp. the passages in Bingham orig. eccl. vol. iv. 394, sqq. 3 In those churches, however, it is not a universal regulation, but is left to the male and female leaders of the services to introduce it or not, es they think suitable. This wise arrangement displays a very just sense of the doubtfulness that attaches to the general practice of it in our circumstances ; it is evident that the only intention is to spare the consciences of those who regard the performance of the rite as aduty. The ceremony in the Romish Church, customary with the Pope and with Princes, is known. On this subject Bengel finely remarks: Magis admirandus foret pontifex unius regis, quam duodecim pauperum, pedes seria humilitate lavans. In several rural districts, the custom of washing the feet on the evening before communion day still prevails in the evangelical churches. This evidently shews that the washing of the feet is regarded as an act expressive of purification in pes: 42 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 2. τῆς ἑορτῆς τοῦ Tac ya, it certainly is not altogether suitable, because the εἰδώς ver. 3 is quite distinct from that in ver. 1. The latter re- lates to the consciousness that the hour of his suffering was near, the former to the consciousness of full divine authority ; and hence the one cannot be taken as a resumption of the other. If, on the contrary, the first sentence is completely finished with the words ἠγάπησεν αὐτούς, and the second period opened with καὶ δείπνου γενομένου, all obscurity in connexion with πρὸ ἑορτῆς vanishes ; for this eXpression then refers, not merely to the detzvov, but to the whole time imme- diately before the Redeemer’s passion, during which season the love of the Lord to his own was specially ardent, and continued in this ardour and energy to the end of his earthly pilgrimage.1 (Respect- ing his disciples, it is emphatically observed, that they remained ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, and in the midst of their temptations, for the purpose of giving force to the antithesis that Christ himself was about to leave the sinful world in order that he might pass into the kingdom of peace [πρὸς τὸν πατέρα]. “Iva is not to be taken ἐκβατικῶς ; but should be translated : “ he knew the hour was come, the intention of which was that he should be removed to the Father.’’) Ver. 2. The Evangelist now connects with the subject more imme- diately in hand the cursory remark, that Judas Iscariot had already conceived the design and formed the determination to betray Jesus. As regards the position of this statement in this particular place,— it is by no means accidental. For since Judas was present at the washing of the feet, and the Redeemer washed his feet also, this observation is intended to shew the amazing greatness of the Re- deemer’s self-abasement, while at the same time it exhibits the shamelessness of the wretched disciple (especially in contrast with Peter) who could bear the thought that the Holy One of God, whom he was about to betray, should perform for him the meanest service. Hence in the person of Judas, the thorough presumption of sin stands out in glaring opposition to the humility of the Saviour. Respecting the statement itself, ver. 27, and Luke xxii. 3, may 1 Respecting the construction of the passage, comp. the remarks of Kling (loe. cit. 5. 679, ff.) He justly censures Liicke for making the distinction between ἀγαπήσας and ἠγάπησεν, that the former denotes the disposition of love, but the latter the evidence of love, and taking the words eis τέλος as signifying “ finally.” It is evident that the sense of the words is; ‘the love which he had always cherished towards his own, he continued to cherish unto the end,” «- GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 83—9. ς 43 be compared., According to the former passage, it would appear that βάλλειν εἰς καρδίαν is something less than εἰσέρχεσθαι εἰς τινά, and indeed it is certain that there is a difference between the two phrases ; meanwhile Luke xxii. 3 shews that the distinction must not be urged too strictly, the difference being not so much in kind as in degree. A more important distinction—not indeed actually expressed, but involved in biblical psychology—is to be observed between βάλλειν εἰς νοῦν and εἰς καρδίαν. The former relates only to the faculty of knowledge and to consciousness; and an excitation of the most wicked thoughts, by hostile powers, is possible even to the most pious man. But in such an individual, the καρδία, as the centre of the personality and will, puts forth a decided resistance to such thoughts, so that they cannot become inclination. Βάλλειν εἰς τὴν καρδίαν, on the contrary, implies, not merely the activity of Satanic incitements, but also the inclination of the evil will, which coincides with these influences. Hence, the latter expression is to be regarded as the stronger. Ver. 3—5. The Evangelist finely introduces the remark, that at the very time when the Redeemer was about to enter upon his lowest humilation, he possessed a full and lively consciousness of his eternal glory. From the height of his divine standing-point, he stooped to the most profound depth of self-abasement. Having come from God, the Saviour descended to the deepest abyss, in order that he might raise humanity with himself to the sublimest elevation. This coming down into the nature and circumstances of another, and becoming as the object loved, constitutes the true essence of love. It remains to be observed that the occurrence did not take place before supper (as is plainly shewn by the words ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ δείπνου), but the Lord rose from supper upon the occasion of the strife between the disciples. This gave to the act an expressive character ; all must have perceived that he had some design in it, as it was unusual to repeat the washing of the feet after a meal had commenced. (Aévtvov = linteum. The Rabbins also adopted it in a corrupted shape; they formed from it mand or mandy: Comp. Buxt. lext. talm. p. 1148.) is Ver. 6—9. The conduct of Peter, at the washing of the feet by the Lord, is in the highest degree characteristic. His very love 1 Concerning these passages, comp. the Leidensgeschichte, Matt. xxvi, 24, 44 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙΠ. 10, J 1. and zeal for Jesus led him into error,—an important circumstance to shew that mere zeal is of no service in the cause of the Redeewer, but that, besides this, the surrender of all self-will is requisite. This failing often causes man, with an apparently good intention, to oppose the purposes of God. The energy in Peter's character was associated with strong self-will, which even induced him to re- sist the repeatedly expressed will of Jesus, because, from false mo- desty, he thought he must not permit any thing that seemed to him unsuitable. (On this passage Calvin very finely says: laudabilis quidem modestia, nisi quovis cultu potior obedientia esset.) Thus every virtue, even the noblest, if practised merely from self-will and not in the strength of grace, may become asin ; “‘ for love receives nothing that love (the love of God in man) has not done (pro- duced).” Upon the rebuke of Christ, οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, the wayward disciple does indeed yield, but now he strikes off to another extreme. Fellowship with the Lord was the element of his life, and he cannot renounce it ; instead, however, of doing just what is commanded, in simple obedience, he goes much farther,—he wishes to have also his hands and his head washed. Psychology fully explains the circumstance ; for if the whim of the self-willed man be restrained in one way, he immediately manifests it in another. Ver. 10, 11. Here the Saviour gently corrects him, and imme- diately points out the symbolical meaning of the act, already plainly indicated by the language: οὐκ ἔχεις μέρος μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, which would surely be too strong if interpreted as referring merely to the refusal to be washed externally. Such a symbolical signi- fication, however, is, in modern times, almost universally denied, and that in the last instance by Liicke. (The ancient authors were unanimous in acknowledging it.) The eminent expositor, whose name has just been mentioned, and who is joined by De Wette, even thinks that the words re- late merely to corporeal bathing, after which, on proceeding from the bath, it was customary to give an additional washing to the feet alone, as they would easily become soiled. He considers that the figurative sense of the expression καθαρός does not be- gin till the clause ἀλλ᾽ οὐχὶ πάντες καθαρόν ἐστε. However, Liicke’s view appears modified in the second edition, by his as- senting, in the most express manner, to the symbolical reference of the bathing and washing, although he adheres to the opinion GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΠΙ. 10, 1]. ἧι 45 that λοῦσθαι and νίπτεσθαι, in this passage, do not directly con- vey the spiritual meaning. Still it does not appear why they should not. Liicke cannot positively prove the fact of the previous bathing ; the needy circumstances of the disciples render it impro- bable that they could adopt the habits of the higher classes ; καθα- pos, at the conclusion of the verse, certainly must be taken as haying an immediately spiritual signification, and therefore why not also the foregoing expressions? The sudden transition from symboli- cal to literal language is unquestionably harsh. On the other hand, nothing is simpler than to suppose that the washing of the feet, which then took place, furnished Jesus with the occasion for passing on to this metaphorical description of their spiritual state. I have only two further remarks to offer on this subject. In the Jirst place, I do not think that even the exclamation of Peter (ver. 9) must be understood as denoting that he needed an entire purifi- cation ; for, just before (ver. 7), it was said to him by the Lord: ὃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ, σὺ οὐκ οἶδας ἄστι. The meaning of what Jesus did was not disclosed to him till afterwards. In the second place, pu- rification and renovation, or sanctification, are not to be inter- changed. It is evident that the symbol of washing, set forth also in the sacrament of baptism, relates primarily to the ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν alone. This, however, is a negative circumstance, namely, the removal of hindrances ; it is only by union with the creative Spirit (who, indeed, always operates upon the mind in im- mediate connexion with this) that it takes a positive form. Now, forgiveness is twofold—first there is the general remission with which the life of faith in general commences, and secondly the daily pardon rendered necessary even in the case of believers, by the un- avoidable contaminations of the world. The former is denoted by λοῦσθαι, the latter by νίψασθαι. The terms renovation, regene- ration, sanctification, are far more expressive of the positive part of the new life, and hence are not suited to the metaphor chosen here. —From the defective Peter, whose feet were defiled by the dust of sin, the Redeemer now passes to the miserable disciple whose en- tire old nature, with all its abomination, was still predominant— 2. 6., he had not yet been washed through true repentance and faith, or rather, after purification (for he certainly had experienced much in his heart), had fallen again into the mire of sin (2 Peter li. 20, ff.) Jesus in the immediate sequel (ver. 18, ff.) returns to 46 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIU. 12—19. this lost son, and expresses his grief concerning the sin that Judas was about to commit. Ver. 12—I7. After completing the process, the Redeemer again sat down at the supper, and instructed his disciples concerning the meaning of what he had done. He speaks first of the subor- dinate relation in which they themselves acknowledged that they stood to him. (The names διδάσκαλος = 34, κύριος = SVD Dan. ii. 47, iv. 16,1 according to the Rabbinical view, denote a re- lation of learners to teachers, which involved the obligation upon the former to serve the latter.) Hence it would follow that it was their duty to serve him; notwithstanding, he had ministered to to chem out of condescending love. (Comp. the Comm. on Luke xii. 87.) Jesus represents this very act as a ὑπόδειγμα τῆς Ta- πεινώσεως which they should follow. According to the above re- marks I presume it is now quite clear that the meaning here relates to the general practice of self-abasing love. ‘‘ Could I, the master,” Jesus would say, “ thus humble myself, surely ye may well do so ; the servant is not above the Lord.” In order, however, that know- ledge may be raised to action, Christ, ix conclusion, points out the fact that the blessing rests not on the former, but on the latter. This exhortation to self-abasement, like humility in general, is something altogether peculiar to the Gospel, and there are only a few religions that possess even distorted analogies to it. Ver. 18, 19. These two verses form a parenthesis, for ver. 20 is again connected with ver. 16, 17, as their completion. The above words of Christ did not apply to all the disciples. Judas was to be excluded. It is true Jesus had washed his feet also, for had he passed over him alone this would have directed attention to him, while, according to the synoptical evangelists, it is clear (and it is confirmed by John xiii. 21—30) that the Lord did not pub- licly name him, but merely pointed to him by a hint. The wash- ing of the feet, in his case, lost its proper meaning, since he was not a Kafapos—nay, inasmuch as he could regard with indifference the self-abasement of the Lord displayed in this act, it only har- dened him in his wickedness. However, with all the Redeemer's delicacy towards the unhappy man, it was necessary that he should prepare the disciples for the melancholy event, which, had they be- lieved that Jesus himself did not know Judas, but had been de- 1 In the English, ver. 19.—TR. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIil. 18, 19. © 41 ceived by him, might have proved ἃ πρόσκομμα to them. Now the Saviour designed, on the contrary, to make this very circum- stance a support to their faith, and for this purpose he gives them an exact account of the whole matter beforehand. The words οἶδα ods ἐξελεξάημν primarily express the general higher knowledge of Christ respecting the souls of men, from which the more special follows. (The passages xiv. 29, xvi. 1, are a parallel with ver. 19. The only difference is that in xvi. 1, the same thing is said negatively [ἵνα μὴ σκανδαλισθῆτε] as is here expressed pasimvely [ἵνα πιστεύσητε]. ᾿Απ᾽ ἄρτι, as in xiv. 7, is equal to ἄρτι with a strengthened signification, as is the case also with the form amapti, or better ἀπάρτι, used by profane writers. Comp. Passow in his Lex. under the word. Concerning ἐγώ ews, comp. the remarks on iv. 26). It is remarkable that even in the betrayal by Judas, Jesus sees the fulfilment of a prophecy. (The same thing is Bepesey in the intercessory prayer xvii. 12, by the same phrase: ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ.) This one circum- stance must have been to the disciples a most powerful confirma- tion of their faith. It convinced them that neither accident nor a slight mistake had brought the betrayer amongst the flock of disciples, but that, according to the appointment of God, it was necessary that this should take place. (Respecting the person of Judas, his election to office and his sinful history, see the de- tails in the Comm. on Matt. xxvii. 3.) As regards the oe ey itself, it is taken from Psalm xli. 10.1 In the LXX. , however, it runs: 6 ἐσθίων ἄρτους μου ἐμεγάλυνεν ἐπ᾽ ἐμὲ πτερνισμόν. (In the Hebrew it stands : apy οἷος 23) ban wand bin.) Tholuck supposes an independent translation of the passage by John ; but this seems to me improbable, for it does not appear that here (as is the case some- times in Matthew) there is any connexion between the translation and the matter in hand ; John might just as well have retained the rendering of the LXX. The Psalm itself indeed relates primarily to David and his betrayer, Ahithophel ; but in these circumstances there is an allusion to the more important fact of the Lord’s be- trayal, and, according to this typical view, the reference is perfectly suitable. The point to be discriminated is that ἄρτον τρώγειν must be taken spiritually, as Judas was not in a corporeal sense fed by 1 In the English, ver. 9.—Tr, Also in Acts, 16, this passage is, no doubt, alluded to. 48 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 21—30. Christ, who had nothing of his own. Every day, however, he re- ceived from the Redeemer the bread of life, and on this account was bound to be faithful to him by a far stronger obligation than if he had only partaken corporeal food. (᾿Επαίρειν πτέρναν ---ἃ metaphorical expression for insidious persecution. ᾿Αλλά is used. elliptically ; γέγονε τοῦτο, or something to that effect should be supplied. Ver. 20. In the following verse, the connexion altogether escapes the reader, and in fact it would here be pardonable, if expositors accepted a gloss from Matt. x. 40 (where the interpretation should be compared), or at any rate if, instead of that, they supposed that several intermediate parts of the discourse are omitted. Meanwhile, it has already been remarked by Tholuck and Liicke, after the ex- ample of Storr, that the connexion of the ideas is not entirely want- ing, if we only unite ver. 20 with ver. 16, and regard the mention of Judas as an episode. For, whilst ver. 16 contains that which would humble the disciples, viz., the statement that they must share in the Lord’s abasement,—on the other hand ver. 20 furnishes an elevat- ing view of their participation in his glory. The disciples entirely represent him, so that in his suffering just as much as in his glory, they are as He is. (1 John iv. 17.) Ver. 21—30. Concerning the following verses, such remarks as may be necessary will be found in the Comm. on the history of the sufferings, in the section that treats of the Redeemer’s last meal, because the frequent parallels between them and the synoptical gos- pels do not permit a separate interpretation. § 4. LAST DISCOURSES OF JESUS ADDRESSED TO HIS DISCIPLES BEFORE HIS DEATH. (John xiii. 831—xviii. 26.) We come finally to that portion? of the evangelical history, which 1 The correctness of this connexion is strikingly confirmed by John xv. 20, ff. Here the Redeemer himself refers to the saying: οὐκ ἔστι δοῦλος μείζων τοῦ κυρίου αὑτοῦ, and interprets it as implying not merely self-humiliation, but the suffering which the dis- ciples, like the Lord, would have to endure. This leads to the statement; é ἐμὲ ἐδίωξαν, καὶ ὑμᾶς διώξουσιν, and the precise antithesis to this is formed by the words: ὁ λαμβάνων ἐάν τινα πέμψω, ἐμὲ λαμβώνει. 2 Upon this whole section, comp. the exposition by Stark. Jena 18]4. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 3!—xvil. 26. ς 49 we may with propriety call its Holy of Holies. Our Evangelist, like a consecrated priest, alone opens to us the view into this sanc- tuary. This is composed of the last moments spent by the Lord in the midst of his disciples before his passion, when words full of heavenly thought flowed from his sacred lips. All that his heart— which glowed with love—had yet to say to his friends, was com- pressed into this short season. At first the interview with the dis- ciples took the form of conversation ; sitting at table they talked together familiarly. But when (xiv. 31) the repast was finished, the language of Christ assumed a loftier strain ; the disciples, assembled around their Master, listened to the words of life, and seldom spoke a word (only xvi. 17, 29.) At length, in the Re- deemer’s sublime intercessory prayer, his full soul was poured forth in express petitions to his heavenly Father on behalf of those who were hisown. Meanwhile, his discourse retained the form of free communication, in which no marks of designed arrangement are to be discovered, as would be the case with a formal oration. [t is a peculiarity of these last chapters, that they treat almost ex- clusively of the most profound relations—as that of the Son to the Father, and of both to the Spirit, that of the Christ to the church, of the church to the world, and so forth. Moreover, a considerable portion of these sublime communications surpassed the point of view to which the disciples had at that time attained ; hence the Redeemer frequently repeats the same sentiments in order to im- press them more deeply upon their minds; and, on account of what they still did not understand, he points them to the Holy Spirit, who would remind them of all his sayings, and lead them into all truth (xiv. 26.) As regards the first words (xiii, 31—88) such observations as may be necessary, respecting the circumstances under which the Redeemer uttered them, will be found in the Intro- duction to the History of the Sufferings. Hardly had Judas left the company, when the Saviour felt himself free in the pure circle of his own disciples, and broke forth in the language: νῦν ἐδοξάσθη ὁ vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου. The whole paragraph here reported by John, from the conversations, is to be placed immediately before the institution of the holy Supper, to which the ἐντολὴ καινή (xiii 34) is beautifully appropriate. Then the institution of the sacra- ment belongs to the conclusion of the chapter (xiii. 38) and all the rest, from xiv. 1, was spoken subsequently. The only part of this VOL. IV. D 50 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. $l, 82. section to which the synoptical Evangelists have furnished a parallel is the passage xiii. 836—88, wherein the Redeemer directs the attention of Peter to his approaching denial. Ver. 31, 82. Upon the withdrawment of Judas, the Saviour felt that the crisis had arrived, and, full of joy on account of it, he ex- pressed himself in language of the highest triumph. Jesus viewed the glorification of the Son of Man and of God in him as complete. Here, however, we need, in the first place, an exact definition of δοξά- ἕειν in its relation to ἁγιάζειν, which latter expression (Jolm xvii. 17. 19) appears to be used very similarly. The two terms have one fundamental signification, but this is modified according to the difference of the subject and object. Thus δοξάζειν, in the original sense, means to assign a δόξα ; but applied to the creature in rela- tion to God, it cannot designate a real communication, for that which is created cannot give anything to God, and hence it means “to extol,” “ to acknowledge and praise the δόξα of God.” (Matt. vy. 16; Rom.i. 21.) Just in like manner ἁγιάζειν primarily sig- nifies “‘ to separate” (ἀφορίζειν). viz. for a holy use; but, when employed respecting man in relation to God, it can only denote “ to praise,” “to extol” (1 Pet. ii. 15; Matt. vi. 9), ἡ. ὁ. to acknow- ledge as separate, holy. On the other hand, the sense takes quite a different modification, when the relation of God to sinful man is the subject of discourse. In that case the idea of δοξάζειν cannot. have any primary application whatever, because that which is sin- ful, as such, cannot receive any δόξα ; the ἁγιάζειν must precede. Thus we find it, xvii. 17. 19. 22, when the Redeemer first prays: ἁγίασον αὐτούς (viz. the disciples), and not till after that (ver. 22) does he mention the communication of δόξα to the ἡγιασμένοι. It is true that here the original signification of ἁγεάξειν is not de- stroyed, but, in this application of the term, the idea of making the sinful individual holy—which is not applicable in reference to God—is decidedly prominent. In relation to the person of the Lord, the use of the word takes a form altogether peculiar. According to his divine nature, the δόξα (John xvii. 5) belongs to the Son, as to the Father from eternity, but’in his incarnation he resigned it. (Phil. ii. 6, 7.) At the same time he was not like men in their sinfulness ; and hence, 1 In reference to ἁγεάζειν, comp. the remarks on Matt. vi. 9. GOSPEL OF JOHN xtll. 31, 82. ? ὌΝ in his case, it was not needful that the ἁγιάζειν should precede the δοξάζειν. On the contrary, the term ἁγιάζειν applied to the Son (xvii. 19) has the pure signification ‘‘to devote himself, to offer him- self up,” without the idea of making holy. But although Christ, even according to his human nature, was ἀναμάρτητος, his huma- nity contained a certain ἀσθένεια ;—it did not possess immortality, it wanted perfect glorification. It was glorified gradvally, and only by the indwelling of the Father in him. Hence the idea of δοξά- few, in reference to him, has its full application. It is not said: ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐδοξάσθη, but ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου," and, in order that his glorification may not be conceived of as something sepa- rate and distinct from that which is divine, the Lord adds: Θεὸς ἐδοξάσθη ἐν αὐτῷ, the Son is the true δόξα, the full reflection (ἀπαύ- γασμα, Heb. i. 2) of the Father. The δοξάζεσθαι is, however, described as already completed, according to the prophetic mode of expression, which frequently represents what is yet in the germ as developed. Strictly speaking, the work of Christ was not com- pleted till his death, but the Redeemer, at the commencement of the period of his passion, transports his own view and that of his disciples beyond it, and looks upon the whole as already finished. It is very remarkable that Christ does not confine himself to this, but speaks of a still more elevated form of δόξα, the completion of which was also near (εὐθύς.) This is expressed in the words: ὁ Θεὸς δοξάσει αὐτὸν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. Thus, whilst the glorification of God in the Son is viewed as already accomplished, that of the Son in God is designated as yet to come. The profoundness of this idea is often put out of sight by the remark that ἐν here stands for διά (= the Heb. a) and the result is a purely superficial sense ; for that God glorifies through and from himself is self-evident, since God always operates only from and through himself. Here, in the ἐν ἑαυτῷ, as on a former occasion in ἐν αὐτῷ, the strict signification of ἐν should be retained. This sublime passage speaks of the mu- tual relation between the Father and the Son. In the first instance, the Logos (ἐνδιάθετος) goes forth (προφορικός) from the Father, 1 It might be inferred from this that vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, in this passage, is employed to designate the humanity of Christ in its state of humiliation, which has already (Comm. on Luke i. 35) been denied, but the δοξάζεσθαι is something fitting for humanity as such,so that the Redeemer, although he represented the ideal of humanity, yet needed glorification. Hee 52 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIIL. 34, 35. and as such lives upon earth ina human form, in veiled glory. But all that proceeds from God carries within it, as the fundamental principle of its nature, the tendency to return. Thus the Son returns into the depth of the divine being, but with sanctified humanity; so that,in him and /Azs human nature, humanity is united to God in its true, perfect idea, and received into the divine essence. That which the synoptical Evangelists express in the terms “to sit on the right hand of God,” is here put in a form more adapted to the readers of this Gospel, and is called the δοξάζεσθαι Tod υἱοῦ Tod ἀνθρώπου ἐν Θεῷ. In a similar manner also Christ first glorifies himself in men, that he may then receive them glorified in him," After this lofty flight, the Lord turns with touching feeling and condescension to the disciples, whom he here for the first time calls τεκνία, “ begotten anew from the word of life,” and reminds them that the attainment of his glory, in their case, would be connected with the experience of painful loneliness. In the same words in which he had addressed the Jews, ζητήσετέ we κ. τ. d., he speaks to the disciples also; but the sense is changed. For in vii. 34, although ζητεῖν, as we saw, meant “ to seek from desire,” the state- ment that they would not find him was a threatening conveying rebuke; but here the language : ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω, ὑμεῖς οὐ δύνασθε ἐλθεῖν is only an observation made in love. And, as Jesus never- theless refers to the words that he had addressed to the Jews, it may be seen that the Redeemer himself was fond of placing the same sayings in various lights. Ver. 34, 85. The connexion of what follows with that which pre- cedes is not quite clear. It appears to me, however, that the ἐντολὴ καινή of brotherly love must be viewed as given for the interval _ between the Redeemer’s departure from his disciples and their future reunion. This love was to be a distinctive mark of those who be- longed to the Lord, and was to form, as it were, a compensation for the want of his presence. In this love he himself, the Lord, is invisibly present with his followers, since he is the principle of love within them. The chief difficulty in this passage has been occasioned by the 1 With respect to the glorification of Christ through the Holy Spirit, comp. the re- marks on xvi. 14, GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΠΙ. 34, 35. Ὁ δ9 expression : ἐντολὴ καινή, it having been already commanded, in the Old Testament, “ thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” (Comp. the Comm. on Matt. xxii. 39.) Here, at the very outset, we must reject those expositions which either supposititiously attri- bute to καινός another meaning, 6. g., “ excellent,” “distinguished,” or interpret it in the sense of ‘‘ another command,’ as if the Re- deemer had intended to place this command as the second by the side of that respecting washing the feet as the jivst,—and we must deal in like manner with the view of Eichhorn, who takes the ad- jective adverbially in the signification ‘‘ anew.” (On this subject, comp. Winer's Gramm. 5. 435, note.) And as to such remarks as those of Clericus, that here the new element in the precept con- cerning love, consists in the circumstance that, in the Church of Christ, Jews and Gentiles were commanded to love one another as brethren, they really do not require a serious refutation. We might with more propriety attach importance to the interpretations which take ἐντολή in another signification. For example, Heumann and Semler take it in the sense of mandatum, ?@. 6. a bequest, as it is ren- dered by the Vulgate, John xiii. 34. (Comp. Knapp scr. var. arg. p- 381, in the treatise on this passage.) But it is evident that with the command : iva ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, the idea of a bequest is incompatible, and the constant usus loquendi of John, when he em- ploys the word ἐντολή, does not allow us to make any deviation in this connexion. Hence there remains but one exposition for our closer consideration—viz., that proposed by Knapp, approved by Liicke and Tholuck, and hinted even by some of the Fathers :2 that the ἐντολή of Christian brotherly-love was called new, because the love that accorded with the Old Testament point of view was of a subordinate kind, since, in the old covenant, justice prevailed. The Old Testament commanded men to love others as themselves ; according to this interpretation the New Testament enjoins that we should love others more than ourselves. ‘This, it is said, is the meaning of the words, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑμᾶς : Christ offered up his life, and therefore he loved men more than himself; just so ought Christians also to love one another. But, as Tholuck has ‘already remarked in parenthesis, it is not right to insist upon man’s 1 Comp. the Programm on this passage by Prof. Weber. Halle 1826. 2 Thus Euthymius says on this passage: ἡ παλα:ὰ ἐκέλευεν ἀγαπᾶν τὸν πλήσιον ὡς © , “ δι 1 «- , « , EAUTOV, αυτὴ VE και UTEP ξεαυτον. 54 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIll. 34, 85. loving his ‘neighbour more than himself. For, owt of God he ought not to love himself at all, because, as such, he is in sin; whilst im God, ἡ. e. in accordance with the true idea of his nature, his love to himself is the very will of God, and it does not appear how, under these circumstances, he can love another more than himself. (On this subject, comp. the observations in the Comm. on Matt. xxi. 39.) That true love which is the nature of God is everywhere one and the same; it is not in one place more and in another /ess, but communicates itself to every thing, just in the proportion in which God has appointed it. Hence, Matt. xxii. 39, it is expressly said concerning the law of love, that nothing surpasses it. The only point of difference to be observed is, that before Christ it was not completely fulfilled. Accordingly, as the interpretation which we have thus considered is inconsistent with the fundamental principles of Scripture, it only remains (and in reality, according to rule, the best plan is to interpret every author from himself) to adduce the parallels 1 John 11. 7, 8; 2 John, ver. 5.1 From these it appears that the formule ἐντολή, παλαιά, and καινή are used by John in a sense altogether peculiar, viz., so that that which is permanent, eternal, resting in the nature of God, is called old as well as new ; the former because it is from the beginning (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς), the latter because it never wears out, but constantly penetrates the soul with youthful freshness. The command respecting love is in admirable harmony with this profound idea; for it is not meant to enjoin that man should emit a love from himself, and that apart from, and in addition to, God, he ought to love as God himself does ; this would be the same as saying that Gods must be added to God. On the con- trary, the meaning of the injunction is this: there is only one fountain of love, that is God himself; from this fountain the crea- ture should conduct a rill into his own heart, so that in the strength of this, he may love as God does. Hence the mother of all other commands from the beginning, is the precept: thou shalt love God and thy neighbour! The injunction to cherish brotherly love re- 1 Liicke and Tholuck, indeed, say that, in the passages referred to, the idea “ con- stantly new,” “never growing old,” as the meaning of καινός, arises simply from the antithesis in whieh it stands with παλαιός; but this does not appear to me correct. In the first passage especially, the antithesis with παλαιός is merely explanatory ; the sense itself does no depend on it. Where that which is divine is the subject of discourse, in the nature of the case, καινός cannot be interpreted otherwise than as signifying “ per- manent,” “ nndecaying ;” and hence nothing more is required than to apprehend ἐντολή GOSPEL OF JOHN XIII. 36, 38. δῦ = presents the original eternal statute of the universe, which is pre- served in renewed youth purely by love; and thus the oldest law, the fountain of all the rest, is called an ἐντολὴ K α ἐν 7. The love here described is by no means to be viewed as a mere JSeeling of happy union in the Lord for eternal life; on the con- trary, it is also a living, self-sacrificing energy. In attaching value to that feeling alone it is easy to be misled, for, according to its own transient nature, it passes away from man. But the strength of love may even be manifested without emotion, and this affords to the world the surest proof of the sacrifices of which Christian brotherly love is capable. (On this subject comp. the excellent remarks of Neander, Kirchengesch. Th.i.s., 421, ff. In- stances of the cordial love of the first Christians to one another are adduced by Neander, in the Denkw. Th.i. 5. 97. Tertullian’s re- port of what was said by Pagans, respecting the love of Christians. is known : “ See,” cried they, ‘‘ how they love one another and are ready to die for one another!” Apolog. c. 39.) Ver. 836—88. Peter, referring to the observation of Christ con- cerning his departure (ver. 33), asks where he would go, evidently thinking of a physical change of place which he (like the Jews, xi. 8) supposed to be associated with danger. The Redeemer, without entering into positive explanations, intimates to Peter that he can- not follow him now, but that, at a future time, he shall. With this, however, the restless, self-willed love of the disciple is not satisfied ; he protests that he will follow Jesus through all perils. This renders it necessary that the Lord should admonish him of his weakness and foretell his denial. (In reference to this, comp. the Leidensgeschichte, Luke xxii. 32.) Chap xiv. ver. 1. Now, between this fresh interview,’ which ex- tends to the conclusion of the repast, xiv. 81 (and in which Thomas, ver. 5, Philp, ver. 8, and Judas James, ver. 22, take a part) and what not merely in its external aspect, but to the substantial will of God. Kling (loc. cit. s. 682) espouses the view of Bengel, who thinks καινός is not placed in antithesis with the Old Testament, but with the earlier and more subordinate forms in which Christ revealed the truth to his disciples. But if this injunction was given in the Old Testament, surely it was still more conveyed in the early communications of Christ to his disciples. To say, however, as Liicke dves, that the precept of the Old Testament was imperfectly known and practised, appears to me equally unsatisfactory. For here it is not the appre- hension of the divine command by mankind that is spoken of, but its essential contents themselves. i Comp, Knapp’s interpretation of this section in the ser. var. arg., p. 301, 564. 56 GOSPEL OF JOHN xiv. |. precedes, the institution of the holy Supper is to be placed, as we have already remarked. Since the Saviour had there spoken so plainly of his approaching passion and death, he might presume that the disciples would now know where he was going (xiv. 4), which Peter, according to xiii. 36, did not know ; hence, supposing the previous institution of the holy Supper, there is nothing strange in the language: ὅπου ἐγὼ ὑπάγω οἴδατε Kai τὴν ὁδὸν οἴδατε. Moreover, this view being adopted, the words at the beginning of the discourse, μὴ ταρασσέσθω ὑμῶν ἡ καρδία, do not appear at all out of place; for the affecting representation of the distribution of his flesh and blood had, as it were, placed them in the midst of his sufferings, and the first impression made upon their loving hearts was sorrow and pain. On this account the Lord graciously con- soles them, and exhorts them first to exercise faith. (Here the use of the word καρδιά, as also ver. 27, must not be overlooked ; the term ψυχή might have been employed, the καρδία being the centre-point of the ψυχή, but πνεῦμα could not. Here the dis- course has respect to purely human, personal emotions of mind, which affect the soul. On this subject, comp. my Programm de, trichotomia nat. hum. in the opuse. theol. pag. 146, 544.) Our verse presents some difficulty as to the conneaion between πιστεύειν εἰς Θεόν and eis ἐμέ. If the passage be taken as convey- ing atwofold exhortation,—* believe in God and a/so in me,’—so as to make πιστεύετε imperative in both instances, then the posi- tion of εἰς ἐμέ is strange, since in that case these words should fol- low πιστεύετε instead of preceding it ; besides which, faith in Christ is never added ¢o faith in God, but the object of faith is God in Christ. On the same ground, moreover, we cannot well interpret πιστεύετε as indicative in both instances (“ ye believe in God and also in me’), not to mention that even the disciples were feeble in their faith, Hence it only remains with Erasmus, Beza, and Gro- tius, to take the first πιστεύετε as indicative, and the second as imperative, the words then meaning : “‘ ye believe in God, therefore believe also in me.’ ~ ‘Thus arises the fine sense that true faith in God is accompanied by faith in the Redeemer, because in him God perfectly reveals himself, so that faith in Christ appears to be only a development of general faith in God. ‘There is, however, another way in which the passage might be rendered : we might regard the first πιστεύετε as imperative, and the second as indicative, and the GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 2, 3. 57 meaning would then be : “ believein God, then will ye believe also in me.” This interpretation may possibly be the more appropriate of the two, since the very faith of the disciples in God wavered.! Ver. 2,3. After this preliminary exhortation to faith, the view opens, and there appears the prospect of a speedy re-union in the heavenly dwelling of the Father, as the true home of all the chil- dren of God. As to the construction of the sentence, there 15 no doubt that the interpretation first employed by Laur. Valla, subse- quently espoused by Calvin and Beza, and in recent times adopted by Knapp, Liicke, and Tholuck, viz., that according to which the stop is placed after εἶπον av ὑμῖν, is the only correct one. The old expositors added all these words to the sequel, this connex- ion being very much facilitated by the reading OTL TopEevopat. (Thus the MSS. A. B. D. and several versions read.) But it isin the highest degree probable that this reading was formed only for the purpose of supporting that connexion, which must necessarily be abandoned, because it gives rise to a sentiment directly contrary to what follows. Then, according to the above division of the words, the sense is this :—“‘ if it were not so, 1 would tell you plainly, Τ would not conceal the truth from you in that way.” Thus the language is an expression of the most open friendship. Now in the divine dwelling itself, wovaé are distinguished. (Luke xvi. 9, σκηναὶ αἰώνιοι, Heb. ryt) That this term de- notes, as it were, habitations for the individuals in the vast family of the Father, there can be no doubt. Thus Jude, ver. 6, οἰκητήρια are ascribed to the angels. When, however, this passage is employed by the authors of a modern speculation, in order to obtain scriptural sanction for their chimera, respecting a distribution of souls to all the planets and fixed stars, we feel compelled decidedly to oppose them. Holy Scripture certainly speaks of angels, heavenly beings, but not of persons inhabiting the stars; nor does it afford the 1 In consequence of the relation between the Father and the Son, it might also be said, “ believe in the Son, and thus ye will believe also in the Father ;” faith in Christ proves faith in God; this is shewn by the kindred passage, ver.7. Here, however, it is intended that the disciples should be led on from a general belief in God to the deeper faith in the Son; it is true, the former does not necessarily imply the latter, for the unbe- lieving Jews believed in God although externally alone; but the general faith of which we have spoken, in its full truth, leads to faith in the Son, for the Son is only the mani- festation of the Father, and hence he who knows God must also acknowledge him in the Son, 58 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 2, 3. slightest intimation that disembodied souls go to otherstars. The residence in the heavenly μοναὶ τοῦ πατρὸς, is, according to Scrip- ture, only a state of transition; at the resurrection all souls will return to the glorified earth, and that which is heavenly itself will dwell upon it. The clause εἰσὶ π᾿ ον λα ὶ μοναὶ primarily relates to the disciples,—‘* there is,room for you and all mine.” But from this epithet we may also infer, that the utmost variety will obtain in the heavenly world, according to the degrees of development ob- tained by those who shall enter it. Although the entire discourse is marked by a simplicity calcu- lated to charm the artless, yet the words ἑτοιμάσαι τόπον cannot be regarded as conveying a sense altogether superficial. But to determine their precise meaning may be somewhat difficult. All we can say is, that it certainly is incorrect to conceive of hea- venly relations as arranged in rigid and inanimate fixedness, with- out internal progress ; while, at the same time, the term ἑτοιμάσαι must necessarily refer to something of the kind, since even heavenly relations depend on the Redeemer as the effectual cause of their continuance. The promise respecting the preparation of the dwell- ing is followed by the announcement of the Saviour’s return for the purpose of taking them to himself. It is evident that here πάλιν ἔρχομαι does not relate to the future advent of Christ at the end of the world ; because, with this the resurrection of the body and the transformation of the earth will be associated, whereas in this pass- age the subject of discourse is the elevation of believers to Christ in heaven. A comparison of xiv. 18. 28, xvi. 7, is sufficient to produce the conviction that here we are to understand by ἔρχεσθαι the spiritual coming of Christ in the communication of his spirit. The circumstances of his death and subsequent resurrection, as also that of his renewed intercourse with the disciples, which succeeded the resurrection, are not here referred to ; he views his future rela- tion to the disciples only in two grand aspects, viz., as an external departure, and as an évéernal spiritual return. However, it does not hence follow, as it has been asserted (and among the moderns by Fleck, comp. the Comm. on Matt. xxiy. 1), that what John teaches concerning the last things assumes a form altogether dif- ferent from what is stated by the synoptical Evangelists. On the contrary, the only difference betrayed in the Gospel of John is, that he had in view those readers who were of Gnostic bias ; where this 8 GOSPEL OF JOHN xiv. 4—6. 59 was not the case, as in the Apocalypse, every one may see that his views perfectly harmonise with those of the other Evangelists. Finally, the purpose for which believers are received by the Lord, is that they may be where he is. (In regard to this subject, comp. the remarks on John xii. 26.) Ver. 4, 5. The words themselves, to which the disciples had lis- tened, certainly might have enabled them to understand what de- parture it was that Jesus alluded to, and still more the Supper, so recently instituted, might have served to explain it. But their external inclination towards an ostensible manifestation of the Messiah's kingdom prevented them from penetrating into the sense of his language. Thomas ingenuously says that they do not know the place to which he is going, and therefore they cannot know the way. Ver. 6. The answer of the Lord does not seem altogether suited to the question of Thomas; he spoke of the departure of Christ himself (οὐκ οἴδαμεν ποῦ ὑπάγεις) ; but Jesus in his reply entirely passes over this point, and refers merely to the second part of the words of Thomas. Thus the Redeemer brings forward only that which is practically important, and keeps all else in the back ground. He presents himself to the perplexed disciple in his proper office, aware that the knowledge of himself would lead to everything else that was requisite. Christ first calls himself ἡ ὁδός (as x. 7, ἡ θύραν in order to lead the thoughts of the disciples entirely away from any external road, and to fix them simply upon himself as the only Mediator who can conduct to the Father. He does not term himself ὁδηγός, because it is by his own element of life, which he imparts to his people, that he prepares the way to God. We come to God only by becoming God-like, since no change of place, and just as little anything operating merely from without (as in- struction and example), can lead the soul to eternal good ; this cannot be accomplished, except by the secret inward communication of the divine nature itself. This communication, however, takes place through Christ, and hence he does not lead to God by means of any thing foreign to himself, but through himself. The Lord further calls himself, not only the way, but the end, the ἀλήθεια and the ζωή. This is remarkable here, because, as the following words indicate, the Mather is the end to which the Son leads. But the whole conversation with Philip, which follows (ver. 8, ff.) 60 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 7. makes it clear that the Lord here views the Father in himself and himself in the Father. Accordingly the design of these words was that the disciples should be directed to depend on Christ as the all-sufficient. When, however, Jesus speaks of himself as going to the Father and making a change of place (ver. 2), of course he refers only to his human existence, for, according to his heavenly nature, he ever was in and with the Father and the Father in him. (Respecting the absolute signification of ἀλήθεια and ζωή, comp. - the remarks on i. 14 and i. 4.) Ver. 7. The Redeemer proceeds and directs the attention of the feeble among his followers to his relation to the Heavenly Father ; he shews them that in him the Father manifests himself to men most purely and perfectly, and that therefore they should seek God not owt of him, but 7 him. It appears as if the more profound among the disciples,—Peter,' John, James,—had already received a living conception of Christ as God revealing himself; for here the Redeemer confined his address to the weaker ones, anxiously care- ful, once again, just previous to his departure, to place before them the right point of view in which he is to be known. ‘To suppose a prolepsis of the future, as Tholuck does, seems to me too harsh. Here again γινώσκειν is not to be viewed as conveying the idea of the reflective understanding, but of that sanctified reason which actually perceives what is divine as such; as is indicated by the parallel between this and seeing. It may indeed be said that the words ἑωράκατε αὐτόν here relate to the act of beholding the pre- sent Christ. But this makes no difference, for still it is clear that the Father could not be seen in him with the eyes of the body, but only with spiritual eyes. As to the construction of the verse, there can be no doubt that the words εἰ ἐγνώκευτέ pe. K. τ. Δ. are to be rendered : “if ye had known me, then ye would know,” &c. Thus they imply that the disciples had mot before known him in the full sense. The Lord, however, declared to them the possibility of doing so even now, and hence he adds: καὶ am’ ἄρτι γινώσκετε 1 According indeed to xiii. 86, 37, even Peter—at least when he spoke those words— appeared not to have penetrated into the meaning of the Redeemer’s language. Upon a comparison of this with the earlier declarations of the same disciple (Matt. xvi. 16), it would seem that what he uttered in such instances proceeded rather from a momentary impression upon the mind than from calm consciousness ; a view which is confirmed by other cireumstances as well, At any rate, however, the three disciples whom we have named are to be regarded as having advanced “ greater attainments than the rest. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΠΠ. 8—-10. 61 αὐτὸν καὶ ἑωράκατε αὐτόν. Here, καὶ is to be taken as adversative, and ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι = ἄρτι in the signification “ even now.” The opi- nion that γινώσκετε and ἑωράκατε are to be regarded as futures, and that ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι must be translated “ henceforth,” so as to give the meaning “‘ from this period,” ὁ. e., ‘‘ from the outpouring of the Holy Spirit ye will know me rightly,” is sufficiently refuted by what follows. For the Lord just afterwards censures Philip for not having known him, which it was not possible that he should do, if that knowledge was not to be produced except by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost. Ver. 8—10. Philip (and with him certain others of the weaker disciples) did not yet comprehend the words of the Redeemer. He wished to see the eternal, invisible God (i. 18), (who can be known only in the Son) as a distinct Being bes¢des the Son, in some splen- did manifestation, as the prophets beheld him,—although even in their case it was the Son that was seen. The Lord now exclaims, with emotions of grief: τοσοῦτον χρόνον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι, καὶ οὐκ ἔγνωκάς με ;—language which plainly indicates that the struggle with the weakness of the disciples formed a part of the Redeemer’s sufferings. The incapacity of Philip to comprehend the meaning of Christ excites our astonishment, but the childlike simplicity of his request reconciles us to him. His heart was pure as gold, but his wnderstanding was enveloped in darkness. Accordingly, the account shews how weak powers of apprehension may be associated with sincerity in the disposition and in the whole bent of life; and how tn this case that weakness did not prevent union with the Sa- viour. The feeble, infantile disciple nevertheless was a disciple, a true child of God. The formula here again adopted by John (comp. x. 38): ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστι (or μένει, comp. i. 32), like the expression ἕν εἶναι (x. 80), denotes, not a moral, but an essential union. ‘This is indicated here by the parallel sentiment: ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, ἑώρακε τὸν πατέρα, which, as is self-evident, cannot have reference to a simply moral union, for in that case it must be said that we see the Father in every morally good man. It is true, we may perceive rays of the higher Light in excellent persons, but the Deity itself, in living concentration, has appeared only in Christ Jesus. The two portions, however, of the sentence, ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί, and ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί, ave by no means to be regarded as forming a mere tautological repetition ; 62 GOSPEL OF JOHN x11. 8—10. both, indeed, designate the idea of union, of intimate oneness, but in such a manner that they at the same time express a mutual ope- ration which takes place between Father and Son. (Comp. the re- marks on xiii. 82.) As the Father loves himself in the Son, so the Son again finds himself in the Father as his origin. The expres- sion is profoundly spiritual, as resulting from the most vivid view of the relation between Father and Son. From this unity the Lord deduces the consequence that all he does (his ῥήματα and ἔργα, John vi. 08) is God’s; and on this is founded his claim to faith, It is as though Christ said: “Since ye are suscep- tible of that which is divine, ye can believe, for in me it is manifested with perfect clearness and completeness. Now here it might appear that the ἔργα and the ῥήματα are syno- nymous." (Comp. the remarks on ver. 36.) But, apparent as this is, the connexion with ver. 11 shews the contrary. For in that verse the disciples are referred to the épya, evidently on the supposition that they cannot believe on account of the mere ῥή- pata. Here then, as everywhere else in the language of John, the ἔργα are the external aids to faith, which confirm what is spoken. Only let the ἔργα be understood as comprehending not merely miracles strictly so-called, but all external manifestations of the ministry of Christ (those alone excepted which were purely ¢der- nal), and all difficulty in the use of the term vanishes. The ap- pearance of synonymity between ρήματα and ἔργα, ver. 10, arises simply from the circumstance that the former expression is used comprehensively. Every ἔργον, as the more external, has its root in a ῥῆμα (although even an unuttered, inward one) ; and inversely, the ῥῆμα is, soto speak, an opus ad intra. 1 Comp. Stark’s Excursus on the idea of the ἔργα, at the conclusion of his interpre- tation of John xiiii—xvii. (Jenae, 1814.) He also incorrectly understands by the term the whole Messianic work of Christ, external as well as internal. He confounds the singular and the plural, and does not distinguish that part of Christ’s ministry which was externally manifest (the chief clement of which consisted in actual miracles) from the internal portion. Now, the former is the very means of proving the latter, and there- fore the two cannot be identical. Liicke, in his second edition, is of opinion “‘ that τὰ ἔργα, the collective name of which is τὸ ἔργον, mean first, in the wider sense, the en- tire Messianic work of Jesus, including his teaching, and then, in the narrower sense— as, for example, ver. 1l—so much of his δόξα as was exhibited in divine works gene- rally (his teaching being excepted), and especially in his miracles.” But in these re- marks the identity of ἔργον and ἔργα is assumed ; whereas Christ proves by the ἔργα and ῥήματα the divinity of his person and of his ἔργον, and hence the two expressions can- not be identical. GOSPEL OF JOHN xiv. 1I—14. 63 Ver. 11—14. Now again, with ver. 11 isintroduced a direct ex- hortation to faith. (Comp. ver. 1.) The fact that this is based upon the ἔργα harmonises, as we have said, with the general re- presentation of Scripture. (Comp. the Comm. on vy. 36.) But it is not clear, how the Redeemer can have passed from the challenge to delieve on account of the works, to the subject of working miracles by faith. Liicke thinks that ver. 14 closes the intervening conversation with Thomas and Philip, and that ver. 12 should be connected with ver. 4. But this view certainly is mistaken; for in ver. 4 the topic of discourse was the transition to the heavenly life, whereas here it is the working of miracles on earth; where is the connexion? On the other hand, πιστεύειν forms a natural transi- tion from ver. 11 to ver. 12. The Lord does not return to the train of thought commenced in the first verses, until ver. 15. Ac- cording to my view of the passage, vers. 11 and 12 are shewn to harmonise thus : the disciples of Christ stood in a twofold relation to the épya—first, they saw the ἔργα of Christ, and these were a means of support to their faith in his pywata,—secondly, they themselves also performed the same (comp. Matt. x.) It is true, the practice of these ἔργα presupposed a certain degree of πίστις, but then again they produced an increase of faith, for those who wrought them thus attained an immoveable certainty that God was with them. Just in like manner here, the ἔργα are viewed, as indeed proceeding from a certain degree of faith already possessed by the disciples, but also as eliciting a still higher degree. The declaration, that the believer shall do even éypa μείζονα than the Lord himself is peculiar. The ancient opinions concern- ing this passage, according to which the greatness of the miracles consisted in the more astounding things that were done, and in proof of which appeal was made e. g. to the cures brought about by the shadow of Peter (Acts v. 15), are to be regarded as out of date. There are two considerations that elucidate this point in a very simple manner. The first is the process of development by which every phenomenon in the temporal economy is advanced. As the person of the Redeemer himself grew from childhood to manhood, so also his church goes forward, and of course the higher powers are manifested in it just in proportion to its inward progress. The second is the circumstance, that the whole of the power manifested in the church is the power of Christ himself, so that, whatever great 64 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIv. 1]—14. and glorious achievements his people make, they accomplish them purely through him. Thus he is not circumscribed, when it is said that the disciples achieve yreater things than the Master, for he lives, operates, and perfects himself ἐμ them. Christ, perfect in himself, is, as it were, a new element of life to the whole body, whose energy pervades only by degrees, and changes that which it penetrates into its own nature. This passage, however, cannot be employed as a proof that ἔργα does not signify merely external acts, for the meaning surely cannot be “ the disciples shall carry on a greater redeeming work than I do’—since they did not do any- thing of the kind. Here, as before, the ἔργα can only be external operations, 6. g., to this category belong those extraordinary con- versions of thousands, which the apostles were instrumental in bringing about by their preaching.’ In perfect harmony with this view is the fact that these operations of the disciples are made dependant upon the departure of Jesus to the Father. For with this act he entered upon the full possession of divine power, and was thus enabled to afford his people continual support. This ¢mparting activity of Christ corresponds with the receiving activity of the disciples, which is prayer. Hence the Saviour espe- cially recommends the practice of it, and shews that the purpose for which it is heard is the glorification of the Father in the Son. (Comp. the remarks on John xiii. 32.) Here the highest importance is to be attached to the words: αἰτεῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου (ver. 13, 14.) In regard to the contents of this phrase, which is employed again xvi. 23. 26, we remark, in the first place, that the right interpretation depends alone upon the significa: tion of the term ὄνομα. For although the expression occurs in the New Testament in very different connexions (besides ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι, we find εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, Matt. xxviii. 19, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι, Luke xxiv. 47, διὰ τὸ ὄνομα, John xy. 21), still the fundamental meaning is the same, and by the difference of particles it merely sustains a dif- ferent relation. (On this subject comp. the Comm. on Matt. xviii. 19.) Ὄνομα, pyi, used in application to God and to Christ as the manifestation of God, always denotes the divine entity itself, in the whole compass of its properties. Accordingly prayer in the name of Christ is such as takes place in the nature, mind, and 1 So also Kling loc. cit. 5, 683. GOSPEL OF JOHN xIV. 1]—-14. 65 spirit of Christ. As such, however, it is not anything dependant upon the resolution or good will of man (for no man can arbitra- rily enter into the mind and nature of Christ), but it presupposes the renovation of the mind by the power of Christ. When this power predominates in the mind, then, and not till then, can man obey its impulses, and accordingly pray in the name of Jesus. In the second place, I would suggest the manner in which it appears to me that the promise of the universal and perfectly unlimited ful- filment of prayer offered in the name of the Lord (6, te ἂν αἰτή- ONTE κ. τ. Δ. τοῦτο ποιήσω) may be understood. It cannot be the quality of the objects asked that is here referred to ; for although the believer will first bring before the Lord the affairs of the king- dom of God, yet it may also happen that he asks something ex- ternal for himself; and if this petition be presented in the name of the Lord, notwithstanding the nature of its object, it is heard. The source from which the impulse to the prayer arises must be regarded as the criterion. If that impulse proceed from our own will, the prayer is not in the name of the Lord, even although it relate to spiritual good, which, not less than earthly advantage, may be sought after in a spirit altogether false ;’ but when the incitement to prayer is derived from an inward divine operation, that prayer is truly offered in the name of the Lord, and is now fulfilled in itself.’ For where God incites to pray, there of course he gives, according to his veracity and faithfulness, to him who prays. In conclusion, the expression ἐγὼ ποιήσω contains an argu- ment for the divine dignity of Christ, stronger than such as are contained in many passages ordinarily adduced as proofs of his divinity. The declaration, that he will accomplish what the disci- ples ask in his name, presupposes omniscience as well as omnipo- tence. Here again, however, of course that which Christ does is not to be conceived of as something apart from the operation of the Father, but the Father who dwelleth in the Son, he doeth the 1 Hence in the passage xv. 7, ὃ ἐὰν θέλητε αἰτήσεσθε Kal γενήσεται ὑμῖν, we are not to understand θέλειν as designating unlimited discretion, but as applied to the state of the true child of God, since God himself produces the right will (Phil. ii. 13.) 2 Justin like manner, the parallel sentiments in the Old Testament are to be under- stood: for example, Psalm exly. 19, "ὙΠῸ Lord will fulfil the desire of them that fear him,” for, in accordance with their fear of God, they desire just that which God wills; what they desire contrary to the will of God, they do not desire as those who fear God, but as sinful men. The fundamental petition of the godly man always is, “ Lord, thy will be done!” This prayer is never unheard. VO uy. E 66 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΙΨ. 18, 16. works (ver. 10.) Hence there is no contradiction when it is said, xvi. 23, that the Father does what believers ask; for the Father and the Son never work without one another. Ver. 15, 16. The Redeemer now, ver. 15, returns to the begin- ning of his discourse, first shewing the disciples what he will give them as a compensation for his absence, and then immediately pur- suing the train of observation thus resumed. With faith (ver. 11, 12) love must be united, which is not mere feeling, but mani- fests itself as power in the keeping of commands. (Comp. the Comm. on viii. 51, respecting λόγον τηρεῖν.) The expression ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν only designates something more restricted than the former, since the ἐντολαὶ are only a part of the general λόγος. It is also to be observed that in the phrase ἐντολὰς τηρεῖν, the sig- nification of practice is more strongly prominent, while at the same time, the original profound idea involved in τηρεῖν, viz. that of re- taining, inwardly preserving, the higher element imparted, cannot be altogether dropped. For the ἐντολαί of Christ are not, as those of the Old Testament, naked injunctions, like the categorical im- perative, but precepts that pour the life and power of the Spirit into the soul. When Christ commands, he at the same time gives to be- lievers the power to observe that which is commanded. (Hence the saying of Augustine, when rightly understood, contains a perfectly true idea: da quod jubes, etjube quod vis.) The transition: καὶ ἐγὼ ἐρωτήσω, so connects the sequel with what precedes, that the mis- sion of the Holy Spirit appears as a remunerative consequence of keeping the commands. ‘The word ἐρωτᾶν expresses the idea of Christ's intercession, ¢. e. the continuous activity of the Redeemer for the salvation of men. (A remarkable view of this is given xvi. 26, respecting which the exposition itself may be consulted.) Here, for the first time, we meet with the name παράκλητος! as a designation of the Holy Spirit (which name, however, the word ἄλλος equally applies also to the Lord himself); and accordingly it requires a close consideration. As to the etymological import of the expression, we have to choose only between two interpreta- tions which themselves amount to the same thing, viz. ‘“‘ Com- forter"’ and ‘ Intercessor” (Advocate, Counsel). It has in- deed been proposed to take παράκλητος in the signification of “Teacher;” but it is quite indemonstrable that the verb παρακαλεῖν 1 Comp. de Spritu 5. et Christo paracletis, In Knappii scr, var. arg. p. 125, sqq. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 15, 16, L7. 67 and the substantives derived from ἰἰ,---παράκλητος, παρακλήτωρ, mapakdnows,—had received the idea of teaching. Παρακαλεῖν means, in the first place, simply to call near, then to call near for assistance, and hence to help, to stand by, to console, which latter is nothing more or less than spiritual aid. Such a comprehensive term appears to have been chosen designedly, because the operations of the Spirit are manifold; and just on this account it is not advis- able to fix, as Tholuck does, upon ove meaning alone. He expressly excludes the signification ‘‘ Comforter,” and retains only that of ““ Helper, Advocate.” This, however, is groundless. Here the passive form of the word does not create the Jeast difficulty : it is perfectly parallel in sense with παρακλήτωρ. ‘The original signi- fication, “‘ one who is called near (for assistance)” advocatus, is entirely merged in the general idea of ‘‘ Helper, Counsel, Com- forter.” Moreover, the signification ‘“‘ Comforter,” as a designation of the Spirit, is eminently suited to the connexion of all those pas- sages in which the term in question occurs. ‘This term is asso- ciated with the mention of Christ’s departure, by which the disci- ples were left alone and in sorrow (as opdavoi, ver. 18); hence the Lord promises them a Comforter for their loneliness. Then the idea of comforting implies that of efficient succour. On the other hand, the signification ‘“‘ advocate,” for παράκλητος, as a name of the Spirit, is not so suitable, although it occurs 1 John ii. 1 as aname of Christ. ‘There Christ appears as he who re- conciles or propitiates the justice of God, and to this relation that sense of the term is appropriate. In our passage, however, Christ is called a παράκλητος to the disciples simply as a con- soling Helper, whose place the Spirit supplied at his departure. (The LXX., Job xvi. 2, render ona παρακλήτωρ, but Aquila and Theodotion have παράκλητος. “The later Rabbins adopted the Greek word in the form sordprp- For example, Job xxxili. 23 they substitute it for ΟΝ Comp. Buxt. lex. p. 1848.) Now the purpose for which the Spirit is sent is no other than to secure permanent (iva μένῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) consolation for the dis- ciples, in contrast with the transitory corporeal presence of Christ. In the Spirit, however, he also himself was with them, for in the Spirit he spiritually returned. (Comp. the remarks on ver. 3.) Ver. 17. The following verse makes it clear that this promise in- E 2 68 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 18, 19. volves not merely something subjective, but a kind of inspiration which would take their minds beneath its influence. The Re- deemer promises a new, higher principle, up to that time unknown (comp. on vii. 39), the πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας, and predicts the future display of its powers. This expression implies that the Spirit ἐδ the truth itself, as well as that he produces the truth in those who receive him. For, as God himself zs the truth, and the Son as the revealer of the hidden Father zs the truth, so also the Spirit, the highest manifestation of the Deity, 7s in him- self the truth, and communicates the ¢ruth only by imparting his own nature. This is further evident from the considera- tion that here again (comp. the Comm. oni. 14) the ἀλήθεια is not a truth to be apprehended by the understanding, but the absolute principle of truth. Hence, in the communication of this truth, all ματαιότης of the natural sinful life is overcome. Accordingly this Spirit is also described as permanently dwell- ing (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένει) in the inmost depth of the life (ἐν ὑμῖν ἐσται). The Lord could already appeal to the experience of the disciples (γινώσκετε αὐτό, not merely as future,—‘‘ ye will know him,’—but “ ye know him now, already”), although they had not yet received the Spirit, because they had already felt his prelimi- nary operation in their hearts, in some happy hours of their inter- course with the Lord. The counterpart to the disciples is the κόσμος, by which term we are here to understand those human souls who exist in the natural element of life; these cannot receive the Spirit because they are unable to see and to know him. Hence the latter is the condition of the former, although it might have been supposed that, inversely, the reception must precede the knowledge. ‘This is true respecting the most profound form of knowledge, but nevertheless a preliminary knowledge is necessary in order to the reception of the Spirit. Such knowledge awakens the slumbering desire within. ‘The world can no more receive the blessing of the Spirit until that desire which is the condition of reception is aroused, than a perfectly closed eye can admit the material light. Ver. 18, 19. The Saviour now goes back to the same thought from which he proceeded, ver. 3, viz., that although he was indeed about to depart shortly, they would see him return. The pleasing expression, οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς, refers to the relation of GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 20, 2]. 69 Father and Mother to their children. The Saviour regards his dis- ciples as spiritual children, begotten through the σπέρμα of his word: His departure should not leave them solitary! Now, as respects the ἔρχεσθαι of Christ here, there might be a temptation to think of Christ's return to judgment, arising from the words ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε, and also ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ. But even the most superficial view of the passage shews that this theory cannot be maintained; for at his second advent the Saviour will manifest himself, as judge of the world, to a// ; not to mention other circumstances that oppose this interpretation, which has not found a single defender, even to this day. On the other hand, the very words: ὁ κόσμος με οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ appear strikingly confirmatory of the hypothesis that refers the ἔρχεσθαι to the resurrection of Christ ; for respecting this event it is said also by the synoptical Evangelists, that it should be to the world like the sign of Jonah (é. 6. invisible, belonging merely to faith). But, ix ¢he first place, this exposition does not harmonise with the circumstance that the Redeemer, after his re- surrection, was with the disciples only a few days, and then left them alone, whilst (according to ver. 17) the words: οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανούς are to be understood as speaking of an eternal fel- lowsbip which he promises to his own. Jn the second place, if this explanation of the passage be adopted, the language : καὶ ὑμεῖς ζήσεσθε retains its difficulty ; to suppose the resurrection of the apostles would be inconsistent, unless it is said that here (as in the synoptical gospels, comp. the remarks on Matt. xxiv. 1) the gene- ral resurrection is contemplated as very near; while, if the words are apprehended as relating to the inward spiritual life, the same ex- pression must have two different meanings in immediate proximity to each other. Ver. 23, however, is quite decisive against the opinion in question ; there the Lord, in reply to the interrogation of Judas, describes his coming as an inward presence in the mind. This view has been adopted by all distinguished modern expositors. (Comp. the Comm. on Matt. xxiv. 1.) With the Spirit and ἐγ) him Christ himself comes, for the Spirit takes of that which is Christ's. (Comp. the observations on John xvi. 14.) The world cannot see him (ver. 17), but his own perceive him. Accordingly the declara- tion: ὑμεῖς θεωρεῖτέ με refers, not to the physical sight of the cor- poreal resurrection, but to the spiritual perception of him in the mind. Ver. 20, 21. The sequel also is in harmony with the above, 70 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 20, 21. Here, with the coming of Christ is associated the true γνῶσις of him and of the Father. Now this was not connected with the corporeal resurrection of Christ, but with the outpouring of the Spirit in which Christ (ἡ ζωή) communicated ζωή to his people, and in it the divine essence, which is accompanied by the true γνῶσις. The object of this knowledge, however, is not only the relation of Christ to the Father (comp. the Comm. on ver. 10), but also the relation of Christ to the disciples. Now when, in reference to the latter, the terms: ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοί, and ἕν εἶναι (xvii. 21) are em- ployed, it does not follow that these formule do not denote any con- substantiality. On the contrary, the gnosis of John contains the profound idea that the Redeemer imparts his own essence, and in the holy supper, even his glorified humanity, to men, his brethren. This communication of his nature is pure love, and Schleiermacher very justly represents the communicative activity of Christ as form- ing Person, since the power of Christ imparts a higher heavenly consciousness, as the true centre of personality. The personality of the Son himself, however, as the comprehensive element, takes all the personalities of his people into itself, and then again pene- trates them with his life, like the living centre, so to speak, of an organism, from which life streams out, and to which it returns. Hence the words: ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοι καὶ ἐγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν again (comp. the remarks on ver. 10) describe the mutual operation in love. (The same John-like view occurs Rey. iii. 20, where the idea of recipro- cal communion is delineated under the metaphor of a repast, and it is said : δευπνήσω μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς wer ἐμοῦ.) Ver. 21, Jesus in conclusion goes back again to ver. 15, and points out the man- ner in which love must be evinced, viz., as fidelity in the keeping of ἐντολαὶ ; not indeed in conformity with the Catholic-Pelagian theory—according to which here the purely legal point of view would be commended, as if man could love God before God loves him—but, as we have already indicated in our observations on ver. 15,in harmony with the profound view of John, according to which the communication of the ἐντολαί is the highest act of the love of God, the bestowment of ζωὴ αἰώνιος itself, (xii. 50.) Here the question arises,—how are the ἀγαπᾷν of the Father and that of the Son related? In the Father, Deity is always displayed in its most general forms of manifestation, as the absolute Power ; GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 22—24. 71 hence the first intimations of love, which the soul receives from God, are the attractions of the Father to the Son. On the other hand, in the Son, Deity appears in a higher form of manifestation, as unfathomable love and mercy ; consequently the impressions produced by the love of the Son are deeper and superior. It is only of the Son that it is said: ἐμφανίσω αὐτῷ ἐμαυτόν, because the hidden Father manifests himself personally only in the Son (in the attractions to the Son, he reveals himself only in the way of his operations), as the Logos, the angel of his presence. (Comp. the Comm. i. 1, 18.) Finally, it is self-evident that ἐμφανίζειν, as above θεωρεῖν (ver. 19. 22), can only be understood as meaning to disclose for inward contemplation. Ver. 22—24. The sublime words of Jesus still surpassed the power of comprehension possessed by the disciples ; to them the ex- hibition of the glorious Messiah to the world was the very thing that appeared important, and Christ had denied it ; this Judas knew not how to explain, and hence the following question. (Respect- ing Judas, who is probably identical with Thaddeus or Lebbeus, comp. the Comm. Matt. x. 8. The words τί γέγονεν correspond with the Hebrew mr Mm: in the sense.“ how comes it ?”’) The Redeemer does not enter more minutely into the distinction between his future external appearance and his internal manifestation in the mind; but he shews what is the only basis on which the latter rests. This involved an answer, although it may have been other- wise understood ; the internal manifestation of Christ in the mind is described as being in its nature necessarily visible even to one who is weak, and it is added that what still remained obscure the promised Teacher of truth should explain. (Comp. ver. 26.) The meaning strictly expressed by the whole answer is the following : “* Adhere to what is essential, and direct your view from the exter- nal to the internal.” That which ver. 23 first states positively, re- specting believers, is then repeated negatively, ver. 24, in reference to the world. Sincere love in keeping the word (comp. ver. 11) renders the individual worthy of the renewed love of the Lord ; the want of the former renders him unworthy of the latter. Here themore precise description of the new proof of love, ver. 23: πρός αὐτὸν ἐλευσόμεθα καὶ μονὴν Tap αὐτῷ ποιήσομεν, 15 impor- tant. Some few critical authorities, indeed, have the singular, ἐλεύ- σομαι---ποιήσομαι, but it is easy to see that this reading is only 72 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 22—24. a correction, it being wished to remove the extraordinary idea that the Father will make an abode in the believer.'' One thing in this language certainly is remarkable, viz., that the Lord also speaks of a coming of the Father to the believer, whereas we must suppose the Omnipresent, as such, to be always near, nay, to be operating in man, even in the unbeliever and the wicked. But this general relation of God to man is a very different thing from that which is here denoted. In this place, the Lord refers to the revelation of God as a Father to the soul, which does not take place until the Spirit comes into the heart and teaches it to cry, “ Abba, Father.” (Rom. viii. 15.) Tt certainly is peculiar to our passage that this is represented as a coming of the Father himself, and not merely as his operation. Ordinarily it is said only of Christ that he should be “ formed within” us, that we must “ put him on” as it is ex- pressed in the phraseology of Paul. For in Christ the very mode in which the Divine Spirit acts is to call forth a new, higher, hea- venly consciousness, Christ reproducing himself in the soul. But although the expression is unusual, it is justified to Christian con- sciousness in a very simple manner. Where the Son is, there of necessity is the Father also, as well as the Spirit, for the three are one, or different forms of manifestation of the one divine being. Thus, with the creation of the new man, the Trinity itself is mani- fested in him, although indeed the degrees in the inward Christian development presuppose the predominance of one or the other divine activity (1 John ii. 13, 14.) The phrase μονὴν ποιεῖσθαι implies the idea of permanent in- dwelling, whilst the operations of the Spirit under the Old Testament were but transient. (Hence Paul terms believers temples of God, 1 Cor. iii. 16, 17, and 2 Cor. vi. 16.) This passage is further in- structive, as it shews in how deep and comprehensive a sense the limit fixed for the doctrine of the Trinity, ‘‘ Person,” must be understood,” if it is, to correspond with the scriptural idea of the doctrine of Father, Son, and Spirit. The Father, Son, and Spirit 1 This profound idea, the proper point of the Gospel, had already been caught by some of the more profound Rabbins, from the intimations of the Old Testament. (Comp. the four "Programs of Danz on our passage, respecting the Schechinah cum piis cohabitans, in Meuschenii N. T. ex Talmude illustratum, Lips. 1786, 4, pag. 701—739. In the most recent times Schleiermacher, in his Glaubenslehre, has finely developed this thought from the idea of divine love as the communication of itself. 2 On this subject comp. the particulars in the Comm. Matt. xxviii, 19. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 25, 26. 73 live diffused in the whole body of believers: thus Spirit lives and operates in Spirit, without losing its specific character and its unity of consciousness. At the same time, itis impossible to com- bine with the representation of Scripture the puerile notion con- cerning the 'Trinity—always combated indeed by the more profound of the Fathers, e. g., by Augustine——according to which the three Persons are conceived of as individualized Entities existing 7m ad- dition to one another. (Comp. also the remarks on Matt. xxviii. 19.) Ver. 25, 26. To these words, which express all that Jesus felt he could say on the subject to his disciples under present circum- stances (παρ᾽ ὑμῖν μένων), he adds the promise of the Spirit, who would supply whatever was wanting. (Comp. xvi. 12, 13.) Here it is said of the Spirit, that the Father sends him ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Χριστοῦ, ὃ. e., as the Spirit of Christ (Rom. viii. 9) in whom the Father testifies concerning Christ (see the observations on xv. 26), and takes from him that which is his own (comp. the Comm. xvi. 14.) Doubtless the personality of the Holy Spirit, of which many have found it so difficult to conceive (although Spirit is the very thing itself that is personal), is supported, not so much by the word ἐκεῖνος, which refers to παράκλητος, as by this personal designation itself. (The importance of the masculine ἐκεῖνος is more apparent in the passage xvi. 15, because in that case παράκλητος stands at a considerable distance, viz. ver. 7.) Only the idea of personality must be viewed according to the suggestions made, ver. 23. This Spirit is described as the Teacher of a// truth. (Comp. the remarks on xvi. 13.) Here the idea of the πάντα must not indeed be extended to all conceivable concrete minutix ; but just as little should it be limited to a few abstract dogmas. On the contrary the subject of discourse here is the prénciple of all essential truth, with which we receive the true knowledge of God, and in him of all things.’ This Spirit, for the very reason that he is divine, teaches the same truth as that propounded by Jesus, the revealer of the hidden God; and hence also the Spirit could awaken those words of Christ which lay, like slumbering germs, in the minds of the disciples, and bring them to living consciousness. The reality of this Spirit, and the actual impartation of the same to the disciples, 1 Respecting the relation of the prophetic ministry of Christ to the Holy Spirit, Augustine finely says: dicente Christo yerba capimus, docente spiritu eadem yerba in- telligimus. 9 1. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 27. ; form the ultimate ground on which all the credibility of their communications is founded. As the same Spirit still continually operates in the souls of men, he continually convinces of the eternal truth of that which the church has handed down in the apostolic writings ; and this testimony of the Spirit is their only impregnable basis. No historical demonstrations of the authenticity of the holy Scriptures gain their true importance, until this foundation of faith rests in the mind ; for any one may hold all the books of the Bible to be genuine, without believing in them, as we may acknowledge the genuineness of the Koran without putting faith in it. Ver. 27. The Saviour, hastening to depart, ver. 31, once again (comp. ver. 1) consoles them and promises them, as a kind of sacred legacy, his εἰρήνη. Here the Lord certainly may have alluded to the ordinary form of salutation on coming or going (ob iby). but even where the words εἰρήνη ὑμῖν are spoken strictly as a salu- tation, in those very instances, when uttered by Aim, they have their deeper signification and their essential force. With the utterance of the word, the accompanying influence was imparted, and a breath of peace pervaded the hearts of the disciples. Here, however, the repetition itself (ἀφίημι and δίδωμι εἰρήνην) indicates something more than an adieu; the language conveys a condensed viewof the entire ministry of Christ, as in departing he dedicates it to his dis- ciples. (ΖΔ ίδωμι 15 the strongerexpression ; while ἀφίημι israther the negative term, δίδωμι expresses positively imparting, bestowing activity.) This is shewn by the comparison between /is peace and that of the world ; the latter consists in the undisturbed enjoyment of the transitory life of sense, which must necessarily be of short duration, because that on which it is founded passes away.' The peace of Christ rests in the enjoyment of eternal good, and hence, hke that good itself, it is imperishable, nor can it be lost, even amidst all the storms of the external life. The Redeemer produces this state of inward peace, as he carries it in himself (hence the εἰρήνη is emphatically termed ἐμή), first by the ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρ- τιῶν, Which removes the element of discord from the soul, and then 1 Kling’s hypothesis (1. ο, s. 685)—that the contrast with the peace of the world relates to the powerlessness of the ordinary form of salutation, whilst the words of Christ pro- duced an effect—is unsatisfactory ; because the reference to that form of salutation can only be viewed as a slight allusion, The contrast is more pointed than if it consisted merely in an opposition between that which has power and that which has not; it op- poses the true to the false and deceptive. 9 ~ GOSPEL OF JOHN XIV. 28, 29. 75 by the impartation of his own divine life ; for that which is divine cannot love and enjoy anything except that which is divine. Ac- cordingly the words εἰρήνη ἐμή imply that the peace of believers is the very peace which the Redeemer enjoys in himself, for love leads him to impart every principle of happiness that he possesses, with- out reserving or grudging anything., Ver. 28, 29. All the consoling words of the Redeemer could not restrain the distressing grief that in the first instance seized the minds of the disciples at the thought of his approaching departure ; and it was not intended that they should. ‘Their sorrow was just, and it was in the heart of Jesus*himself! Yet from a higher point of view he calls up joy! This produces an inexpressible mixture of pain, sorrow, and joy. The idea that he mentions his departure in order to assure their faith in the hour of fear, has already oc- curred, xiii. 19, and is again repeated, xvi. 1. But one thing in the passage before us is peculiar, viz., the saying of the Redeemer, that one cause for rejoicing at his departure was ¢h7s, that he went to the Father : ὅτι ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μου ἐστί. These obscure words are, according to my conviction, ordinarily misunderstood, and even by Kuinoel and Liickeare not viewed correctly. Tholuck and Meyer, on the contrary, agree with me. ‘The former two of these scholars explain the language as intended to convey a consolation to the disciples concerning the departure of Christ ; they regard μείζων as referring to the divine Omnipotence, and take the sense of the words in the following shape: ‘‘ my departure is good for yow, for the Almighty Father can defend you better than I.”* But itis evident that this connexion is not consistent with the firstsentiments of the verse, in which the joy required of the disciples by the Redeemer respecting his departure, is founded upon their love to him. If the view in question were correct, the joy must have been based upon love to themselves. Besides which, if this interpretation be adopted, the exceeding delicacy of thought, expressed in the circumstance that the Redeemer claims the love which they bear to him, for their consolation, is entirely lost. Accordingly the sense is to be taken thus: ‘ Ye love me; then rejoice that I go to the Father, for it is good for me.” 1 In this profound sense, the Messiah is called, Isaiah ix. 5, Disy—nw. (Comp. Phil. iv. 7, 9, where the εἰρήνη Θεοῦ is described as ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν.) 2 Thus understood the passage would be parallel with the words, xvi. 7. 76 GOSPEL OF JOHN xiv. 30, 81. Here, however, a further question arises, viz., how can the words μέιζων μου ἐστί express these thoughts? If the passage be con- sidered without doctrinal prejudice, the answer is very simple. The Son was born from the essence-of the Father, but not inversely the Father from the Son; hence the Father is the cause of the Son, but the Son is not the cause of the Father. Now since the Son proceeded from the Father (xiii. 3), there must be in him the de- sire to return to the Father, as every being is attracted to its origin ; accordingly the return to the Father was the satisfaction of the de- sire felt by the Son who longed after his origin, and this is the relation of the Son to the Father indicated by the words μείζων μου ἐστί. Thus itis self-evident, from what has been said, that this ex- pression does not favour Arian notions of Christ ; but we must not, in order to refute such opinions, resort to views which are obviously at variance with the train of thought. The orthodox Fathers took the passage as relating to the human nature of Christ, but when the return to the Father (which he accomplished as υἱὸς tod Θεοῦ) is spoken of, it cannot be the human nature alone that is referred to. The expedient hit upon by Calvin, who justly perceived this, certainly is not satisfactory. He says: pro infirmitatis nostrae captu se medium inter nos et Deum constituit. According to that the Redeemer, by way of accommodation to a weakness of the dis- ciples, uttered an Arian opinion! ‘The words, on the contrary, re- late quite simply to the real existence of the difference between Father and Son, which, as the church has always held, is no other than this : that the Father is ἀγέννητος, the Son γεννητός. Only the idea of subordination must not be rigidly avoided, for if this difference is to be called subordination, as indeed it may be, it is undeniable that the doctrine of the church does not mistake it. Ordinarily, how- ever, subordination is understood as implying a difference of nature between Father and Son, and it is against this view that the church would justly contend if she should deny every subordination. Ver. 30, 31. The Lord now winds up the conversation, by giving the disciples a renewed assurance that his departure is close at hand, and by pointing again to the conflict which awaited him. In this very conflict, however, Jesus finds the purpose of his coming ; it is the command of the Father to endure it (xii. 50), and hence the world may see in it his love and obedience to God. Upon this follows the conclusion of the repast (xiii. 4) with the summons to GOSPEL OF JOHN XV. 1, 2. Ti Gethsemane (xviii. 1.) Here the only thing requiring our close consideration is the language in which the Lord describes the struggle about to take place. The foe to be vanquished is the Prince of the world: as he approached the Redeemer at the com- mencement of his ministry and tempted him with the snare of plea- sure (Matt. iv.), so now, at the end of his work, he appeared to him and tempted him by means of fear. (Comp. the Leidens- gesch. Luke xxii. 53.) "Ερχεσθαι therefore expresses the hostile advance. (Concerning ἄρχων «.t. comp. the remarks on xii. 31.) But, as in the former case, so here, the attack was fruitless : καὶ ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν. It is evident that καὶ in this sentence must be taken as adversative ; the words ἐν ἐμοὶ οὐκ ἔχει οὐδέν, how- ever, are not so clear. Semler, Storr, and Morus, who are followed by Tholuck and Liicke, supply after οὐκ ἔχει, according to Luke xii. 4, the infinitive ποιεῖν, in the sense, ‘‘ but he can do nothing effectually against me.” In the first place, however, 1 think this ellipsis is without example ; in this formula : οὐκ ἔχειν ποιεῖν, the word ποιεῖν is the very one that contains the main idea, which cannot possibly be omitted. Hence I should prefer supplying ἐξουσίαν, but that, secondly, the expression ἐν ἐμοί is opposed to this, as to the first supplement. We cannot substitute εἰς ἐμέ for ἐν ἐμοί, without arbitrariness. Guided by the latter phrase, we gather from these words a very profound meaning, doctrinal as well as ethical. Jesus says: “but he possesses nothing within me, he can call nothing Ais, ἡ. e., he cannot assume any power over me.” This involves the idea that the Prince of Sin can only rule where there are germs of sin on which he can work. ‘The sinless Re- deemer gave his life in death voluntarily ; no one could take it from him (x. 18.) Nay, according to what he intimated above (xiv. 23), respecting the communication of his sinless nature to believers, his words suggest the further thought that the Prince of this world finds nothing in them which he can call his own ; and thus their victory also in every conflict is secured. Chap. xv. 1, 2. As to the manner in which we are to understand the words ἐγείρεσθε, ἄγωμεν evred0ev,-—according to xvii. 1, there can be no doubt. That passage is the first place in which the egress of Jesus from the city is related, and accordingly here the ac- count cannot refer to anything but the risémg from supper and the preparation to depart. The solemnity of the moment when the 78 GOSPEL OF JOHN XV. l, 2. Redeemer rose to leave must have produced the most powerful effect upon the hearts of the disciples! Up to this period they were united in a peaceful band, and the beloved Master was yet with them ; what a separation awaited them in a few hours! ‘The anticipation of this arrested their steps; the assembly broke up, but no one moved; they stood in silence around the Lord. Then it was that he again opened his lips, and delivered the following discourse, which made an indelible impression on the mind of the beloved dis- ciple. It may be that Jesus was led to begin with this comparison by a special occasion; perhaps a twig stretched through the win- dow into the room where he was, or the apartment was decorated with the foliage of the vine. Rosenmiiller (in the new Exeg. Re- pert. i. 172) has offered a peculiar interpretation of the choice of this metaphor. According to Josephus (Antiq. xv. 11, B.J.v. δ), on the door, 70 cubits high, which led into the Holy Place of the Temple, an artificial vine was spread out, the branches and leaves of which were made of precious metal, and its clusters of diamonds and pearls. Doubtless this vine was, according to prophetic pas- sages, intended as a type of Israel, often called a vine of the Lord. Now, Rosenmiiller thinks it was by the sight of this that Jesus was led to institute the comparison before us. (Comp. Jerem. il. 9) ; Ezek. xix. 10 ; Joel i. 7; Ps. lxxx. 9,’ ff. ; Mark xii. 1.)? But, in order to justify this, it must be supposed that Jesus uttered the following words in the Temple; and, since it was night, it is not probable that he again visited the Temple. He quitted it when the voice from heaven (xii. 12) had inaugurated him as Messianic King on the holy hill (Ps. i. 6.) The comparison itself is so drawn that metaphorical language alternates with explanation ; and in form also it is (like that of the Shepherd, John x.) rather a similitude than a parable. But the funda- mental idea that lies at the bottom of the whole comparison is this : the intimacy of the union between Christ and his people is as great as if one life, one blood, flowed through them all, and this very union is the only condition under which true fruits can be borne. In the same sense Paul compares all believers to a σῶμα, an organic body, in which Christ is the Head, and the several believers are the mem- 1 In the English, ver. 8.—TR. 2 Mention is made of the vine, and of treading its clusters, in the bad sense also, to designate Antichrist and his confederates. (Comp. Rev. xiv. 18, ff.) GOSPEL OF JOHN xvV. 3, 4. 79 bers. Hence the similitude is designed torecommend the preservation of that spiritual fellowship with the Lord (κοινωνία according to the usus loquendiof John. Comp.theComm. 1 Johni. 3) without which the disciples could not hope to have their efforts crowned by a bless- ing. (Respecting ἀληθινός, comp. the Comm.i. 9. Every physical vital-unity, of which the vine forms an example, is, as it were, a copy of the spiritual vital-unity of believers ; accordingly this is, in the full sense of the word, a living spiritual growth. The selection of the vine, as an illustration of these thoughts, is well devised, for the vine is the most generous of plants, its juice yields wine, which the Re- deemer, in the Supper, calls his blood. ‘The Creator of this vital communion is the F'ather, who is frequently represented in this re- lation. [Comp. the remarks on Mark xu. 1.] The expression yewp- yos is here to be taken as equivalent to the more special ἀμπελ- oupyos.) In the following verses the metaphor is carried out with special minuteness. The vine-dresser requires fruit from the vine-branch (κλῆμα, a frail, slender branch, perhaps from «Ado, to break); if it yield none, he removes it. Here we must guard against limiting the idea of καρπός to legal works ; it is true externa] actions are not to be excluded, but they must proceed from true faith and the power of the Spirit of Christ (ver. 5) ; the branch must receive the sap from the root and then it is enabled to bear fruit. This in- volves an apt representation of the receptive activity of the be- liever in the life of prayer. Accordingly the fact, that no fruit is borne, is always a presumption that already the internal vital com- munion with the Redeemer has been dissolved (ver. 6), even though the external form is preserved. ‘This, however, is finally followed by the severance of the external connexion, which is the κρίσις. (Ver. 6 contains a description of this, under the ordinary image of burning.) On the other hand, in the case of that which bears fruit, the divine activity assumes a promotive aspect; even in the sincere believer there are sinful elements; these are gradually pene- trated by the sanctifying energy of Christ, and thus the whole man is rendered fruitful unto good works. Ver. 3, 4. It appears strange that the disciples should already be called καθαροί (xiii. 10), whereas thus far they can only be viewed as κλήματα, which, although fruitful, stood in great need of purification ; for still, even a Peter could fall. But here, as before, 80 GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. 5—8. they are called καθαροὶ διὰ τὸν λόγον, only in order to give them the consolation that they should not be severed. In these very words it is intimated that the actual purification yet awaited them, but on account of the word of Christ they are already regarded as καθα- ροί,---λογίξεται αὐτοῖς ἡ καθαρότης. (According to the analogy of Rom. iv. 3.) Now λόγος does not signify a distinct discourse of Christ, but his teaching and ministry in general. For this reason also the expression τὰ ῥήματά μου ver. 7 is employed. And his teaching again does not comprise merely the circle of ideas which it communicated, or a peculiar kind of teaching, but the spiritual power that accompanied it and penetrated the souls of all who were susceptible, with comfort full of fountain-vigour. This power was a purifying element, and in its reception lay the security that what was wanting would soon be supplied; hence the one important point, in order to continue in constant union with the source of strength, was μείνατε ἐν ἐμοί. Without connexion with the root (ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ) the branch cannot yield fruit, and, in like manner, the believer cannot, in the absence of living connexion with Christ. (Ephes. v. 80, ὅτι μέλη ἐσμὲν τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.) Ver. 5—8. This idea: is specially amplified in the verses now following, of which the words: ὅτι χωρὶς ἐμοῦ οὐ δύνασθε ποιεῖν οὐδέν, form the centre.’ Here, in the first place, we must not lay stress upon the verb ποιεῖν, as if, although man cannot do any- thing without Christ, yet he could w7d/ or think. For it has already been remarked, that in this discourse the Lord (in speaking of the καρπός) refers, not merely to the external phenomenon of action, but also to the izterna/ emotions of the mind. The latter are, in every case, the causes of the former. If man could, whenever he pleased, and without the power of Christ, create in himself noble, holy inclinations and resolutions, then he could also act without Christ. On the other hand, οὐδέν is to be taken as very emphatic. For if it be said, it is not a@// acting absolutely, but only what is good that is impossible, still it must be confessed that only that 1 Meyer's interpretation of this saying is quite mistaken. He thinks that the mean- ing does not relate to amoral and religious life at all, but merely to the assiduity of the Apostles in pursuing their vocation. There is nothing in the context to authorise this hypothesis. On the contrary, the metaphorical reference to the vine, and to the bearing of fruit by the branch that continues in it, is evidently intended to represent the life of believers in every respect as dependant upon the connexion with Christ, GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. 5—8. 81 which is good is real (ὄντως ὄν), while what is evil is futile (the μὴ ὄν.) Or should it be said that man can perform good actions of several kinds without Christ,—as 6. g. the heathen did by na- ture the things contained in the law (Rom. ii. 14),—it must not be overlooked that Christ, as the Logos from eternity, who “lighteth every man” (John i. 9), is in all ages the power that excites to all good. Accordingly οὐδέν maintains its position in the full extent. No one is good but the one God, and he in whom God operates through the Son; there cannot be a good person in addition to him who is the only Good! Then, from this life of the power of Christ in believers, there fol- lows the fulfilment of their prayer, which proceeds from the impulse of this very power (ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ.) (Comp. the remarks on xiv. 12.) And further, this involves a δοξάζεσθαι of the Father (ver. 8), since the power of God is displayed through the Son in believers. (Comp. on xiv. 18.) No reference whatever is here made to the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles ; καρπὸς πολύς relates, in harmony with ver. 2, to the perfection of the inner life, and γενήσεσθε ἐμοὶ μαθηταί simply to the disciples who were pre- sent. It is indeed correct that the manifestation of the δόξα of the Father in them, was one of the means whereby the gospel was extended ; but nothing is said on that subject in our passage. As regards a connexion of vers. 7 and 8, made by the words ἐν τούτῳ, * the association with what follows is preferable. It is true, it cannot be said that ἐν τούτῳ in John always refers to the sequel ; in some cases, as Liicke justly remarks, it must have reference to the main idea that precedes. But ver. 8, referred to the main idea of ver. 7, does not convey an appropriate sense. On the other hand, if the words ἐν τούτῳ iva φέρητε are taken as synonymous with ἐν τῷ φέρειν ὑμᾶς, as Kling proposes (loc. cit. s. 688), then ver. 8 exactly suits. In that case, the Aorist ἐδοξάσθε is to be regarded as a prolepsis, which frequently occurs in these last discourses of Christ, since the Lord views what is to come as already accom- plished. Consequently the future γενήσεσθε (for γένησθε is merely a correction of the transcribers), immediately following, does not form any antithesis to ἐδοξάσθη, but designates that which already 1 Wahl, in his Clavis, proposes to take ἐν τούτῳ in the sense of “for this reason,” but Liicke justly states, in opposition, that this signification is foreign to the usus loquendi of John. VOL. IV. F 82 GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. 9—15. exists, only as continuous and permanent. “ Ye are my disciples, and shall remain so.” Ver. 9, 10. The sublime model for the relation of the disciples to Christ is the relation of the Son to the Father. The love of the Father and the Son is the model of the love of believers, and the latter is evinced in the τηρεῖν of commands. (Comp. the Comm. xiv. 15.) The expression ἀγάπη μου or ἀγάπη ἐμή is not to be understood as meaning either active love alone, or passive love alone, but both forms of its manifestation together. In reality, love is always a reciprocal action of giving and taking ; hence the phraseology : “ I in him, and he in me.” If, however, ver. 10, the continuance of Christ in the Father's love appears to be made de- pendant upon his keeping the Father’s commands, it is evident that this mode of expression must be viewed in the light of his buman nature, since the Lord thinks fit to place himself on a perfect parellel with the disciples. Ver. 11, 12. The Saviour now resolves all his commands into perfect self-forgetting love. (Comp. the Comm. xiii. 34, 85.) To be able to practise this is happiness itself, and that happiness ad- vances as the power to love increases ; hence Jesus could say it was the design of these words, that joy should fill them, and that their joy should become complete (xvii. 13.) Now the sense in which Christ calls the yapa his own is easily to be perceived. Namely, it is the same as that in which hejust before termed the ἀγάπη, and previously to that (xiv. 27) the εἰρήνη, his own. First, inasmuch as he himself experiences this joy, his own nature being pure self- devoting love itself ; secondly, inasmuch as he produces it in the minds of his people through the communication of his nature. Accordingly, the μένειν of the χαρὰ ἐν ὑμῖν is to be taken in the strict sense, 7. 6. as meaning the continuance of believers in connexion with Christ, in the element of his spirit. Those in- terpretations, according to which the joy is understood as being the joy of Christ in heavenly things, or the Lord's future joy in his approaching glorification, lead astray from the profundity of thought that characterises the passage. The connexion, like the usus loquendi, conducts only to that view of the words which we have given above. Ver. 13—15. The Redeemer regards the offering up of life, and that for friends, as the highest expression of love. (Comp. the GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. |6. 83 remarks on x. 15, ff.) Here it is implied, not only that the Lord gave his life for his friends, but also that they should be ready to devote their life, in return, for the Lord, whether in external mar- tyrdom (to which ver. 18, ff. refers), or to internal self-denial, as was the case with the Evangelist John. (Here again iva appears to be used simply ἐκβατικῶς, for if we ascribe to love the positive design to offer up life, the interpretation is forced.) Some difficulty is occasioned in this passage by the circumstance that the Saviour calls the disciples φυλοί, whereas a little before he called them δοῦλοι (xiii. 16), and in the sequel (ver. 20) he again applies to them the same designation. But it is plainly to be seen from our passage that Jesus terms the disciples φιλοί only in a conditional relation, viz. ἐὰν ποΐητε ὅσα ἐγὼ ἐντέλλομαι ὑμῖν. Hence friendship with the Redeemer is determined accord- ing to the degree of advancement in practically active love.’ As the criterion of the relative friendship that Christ assigns to his people, he mentions the free communication of what the Father has said to him. Here it appears as though there were a contradiction to xvi. 12; for in the latter passage it is said: ἔτι πολλὰ ἔχω λέγειν ὑμῖν, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύνασθε βαστάζειν ἄρτι. But the passages are reconciled if we only bear in mind that, in the words under our consideration, the Lord does not allude to all that he received from the Father for himself, but only to what he received for communi- cation to the disciples. Then the sense is this: ‘‘ I have been ena- bled to impart unto you, according to the truth and sincerity of your hearts, all that was given to me by the Father for you.” This involves no denial of the fact that more yet remained, which could not be communicated to them. Ver. 16. Meanwhile, to prevent any misunderstanding at the mention of friendship, the Redeemer proceeds to say that this is not a human friendship, in which case there is a complete recipro- city between the friends, but it is one in which he, the Lord, alone determines and chooses. (Comp. ver. 19, where the mean- ing of ἐκλέγειν is defined by means of the appendage: ἐκ τοῦ 1 The manner in which some attempt to solve this apparent contradiction, viz. by taking οὐκέτι in the sense “ not exactly,” and λέγει as a preterite, is grammatically un- tenable, and gives an unsuitable meaning. Christ cannot intend to say, “I called you not exactly servants,” ὁ, 6. I called you servants only in a figurative sense; for the re- lation of dependance on the part of the disciples to Jesus was perfectly real. F2 84 GOSPEL OF JOHN XV. 16. κόσμου.) An interesting practical parallel to this is formed by 1 John iv. 10, “not that we loved God but that he loved us.” From this circumstance the Saviour deduces the conclusion that every- thing in them is his work. Here, however, the similitude of the vine undergoes a modification, for the several disciples appear as fructiferous trees, and Christ as the du7redovpyos,—whilst, be- fore this, where the idea of κοινωνία predominates, he calls him- self the ἄμπελος. (Τιθέναι is here employed = pyy for φυτεύειν, and ὑπάγειν --- Jon as denoting continuous activity. The refer- ence of this expression to the assiduity of the Apostles in prosecut- ing their mission is altogether incorrect; for, even if this be in- cluded in the meaning, it is the word καρπός that involves it and not ὑπάγειν, otherwise literal and figurative language would be mixed together. In ver. 2. 8. the subject of discourse was simply πολὺς καρπός ; an entirely new thought is now presented in the clause : καὶ ὁ καρπός ὑμῶν μένη. This evidently conveys the idea of the imperishableness of those fruits which participate the peculiarity of the element whence they proceed. Hence it is clear that καρπός does not denote individual, isolated, actions as such,—for to them, as temporary phenomena, imperishableness cannot be ascribed,— but that the term refers to actions in living connexion with the ele- ment from which they proceed. In this connexion the character of the element may be ascribed to those actions themselves, because they are incessantly reproduced from it as their cause. (Comp. Rey. xiv. 13, where the same thought is implied in the expression : “Their works do follow them.”) We now come to a second ἵνα, associated with the sentiment, already considered xiv. 13, respecting prayer in the name of the Lord. ‘The question occurs, whether this is co-ordinate with the first Ya. It may be thought that the difference of meaning is not important, and that the question may be answered either affirma- tively or negatively ; but to me the difference appears of sufficient moment to speak decidedly against the co-ordinate interpretation. For, in that case, the second ἵνα also would be dependant upon ἔθηκα, and the sense then arising would be this: “1 have planted you that ye may pray in my name.’ Now, to regard prayer as the ultimate purpose of the divine calling (and planting) involves something altogether inconsistent. On the other hand, the lan- GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. 17—19.- δ guage assumes a very appropriate form, if the second ἵνα be taken as dependant upon the permanence of the fruit; in this case, the development of the Christian life is contrasted with that of the Old Testament, which consisted rather in isolated ἔργα, and the sense of the passage is as follows: ‘‘ Ye should bring forth fruit, and that permanent fruit, so that ye may enter into that internal relation to God from which prayer in the name of the Lord proceeds.” Ver. 17—19. In passing to the persecutions of the world which awaited the disciples, the Redeemer once again mentions that bro- therly love which is to the believer, as it were, a compensation for all the circumstances of need prepared for him by the sinful world. Tholuck here finds a difficulty in the expression ταῦτα ; he says it must stand for τοῦτο, as only one command is spoken of. Accord- ingly, he construes ver. 17 thus: “ this ove thing I command you, namely, that ye love one another.” But this view rests upon the erro- neous presumption, already noticed in our remarks on ver. 8, that John always refers the demonstrative word to what follows. That this is not the case is clearly shewn ver. 11, where ταῦτα surely can- not mean the permanence of the χαρά, but must relate to that which precedes, as is indicated by the perfect λελάληκα. (Just so xvi. 16.) In like manner also here, ταῦτα has reference to what comes before, and ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους expresses the ultimate design of all ἐντολαί of the Lord, love being the ἀνακεφαλαίωσις of all com- mands (Rom. xiii. 9.)' The bitterest part of the world’s persecu- tions to the children of God is not the suffering which those persecutions occasion, but the hatred they manifest. As εἰρηνο- ποιοί (Matt. v. 9), not only do they abhor hatred in themselves, but they are grieved to see it in others ; they strive to quench it in the hearts of their brethren, and the want of fruit from this endea- vour causes them special distress ; they fear lest the guilt should rest with them. Under these circumstances, however, consolation is to be derived from the thought (ver. 18) that the ardour of the Lord's love itself could not subdue this hatred ; it rose even against him ; nay, the purer the glow of his love, the more furiously did it rage. ‘The key to this phenomenon is found in ver. 19. Different 1 The whole of our Evangelist’s first Epistle is, as it were, a commentary on this thought, that true brotherly love involves the right love of God, because love is in its na~ ture one, and with it all is given to man, 86 : GOSPEL OF JOHN XV. 20, 21. principles obtain in the ἐκλεκτοί and in the κόσμος. In the for- mer, the heavenly nature is manifested ; the latter allows the predo- minance of sin. Hence between these two there cunnol but bea stern contrast; the φιλία of the world is ἔχθρα τοῦ Θεοῦ, and consequently the φιλία τοῦ Θεοῦ (ver. 14) is ἔχθρα τοῦ κόσ- μου. (Comp. James iv. 4.) The light of Truth which radiates from the children of God ἐλέγχει τὴν ἁμαρτίαν (xvi. 8); he who yields to the reproof submits in μετάνοια, and thus learns to hate his own sinful nature; but he who withstands the accusations of the Spirit, sets himself, with a mind full of hatred, against the Ad- monisher who troubles him.’ Ver. 20, 21. In order to make this thought still plainer, the Re- deemer refers to what he had said before. (Comp. xiii. 16.) It fol- lows from the relation of the κύριος and the δοῦλος that the latter is not spared from that which befals the former. The proverbial sen- timent is not applied here in any other sense than that which obtains in xili. 16. For, xiii. 14, 15, the subject of discourse was that par- ticipation of the disciples in the self-humiliating love of Christ, which includes all his sufferings ; and, ver. 20, the participation of his glory is placed in contrast with it. Just in like manner, in this instance, the expressions διώκειν and λόγον τηρεῖν mark the anti- thesis here. Liicke, indeed, would understand the meaning as if the words λόγον μου ἐτήρησαν κ. τ. δ. implied something ironical, so that the idea to be supplied would be: “ but they have not kept it, and therefore neither will they keep your word.” Certainly the sequel appears to speak in favour of this interpretation, for the topic on which the Lord discourses is merely that of persecution ; but still something contradictory is involved, because, according to this hypothesis, the first proposition must be apprehended differently from the second,? which is not admissible. Hence Liicke, in the second edition, has abandoned this view. On the one hand, the world is the hostile principle against the Church, but, on the other, the Church is continuously increased and completed from the world. ‘The world is not the Satanic element, 7. é., it is not itself | utterly opposed to what is divine, but only receives many Satanic influences, while it also contains germs kindred to God, which 1 Respecting the relation of ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου and ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι, comp. on Jolin xvii. 13.15, 2 That is, the one ironically and the other not so.—TR. GOSPEL OF JOHN Xv. 42—25. 87 receive the word of truth. Now it is hardly to be conceived that the Saviour, in his discourse, would lay no stress upon the result of the preaching of the gospel; whilst, if we interpret λόγον τηρεῖν without the supposition of irony, this very point appears promi- nently in view. For then the sense is as follows: ‘ As they have persecuted me, so will they persecute you also; but as many kept my word, so those will be found who will receive your words.” Since, however, the reference to persecutions is the main subject here, nothing further is communicated respecting the result that would follow the preaching of the disciples. It is merely added that the secret reason for persecuting believers is repugnance to the name of Jesus. Here again certainly ὄνομα (comp. the Comm. xiv. 13) is the nature itself with all its properties, and in its entire peculiarity ; but the external word, the name, awakens the series of ideas connected with the nature of Jesus, and that which is peculiar to him. Hence the world is opposed even to the confession of the holy name of Jesus itself; it loves (as we have already hinted in the remarks on Matt. x. 22) a certain degree of natural virtue, it approves a certain reference of the same to the Deity under the general designations, “‘ Providence, Heaven, the Good God ;’ but the name of Christ, which is extolled in eternity, it carefully avoids. And yet, he who has not and knows not Jesus neither has nor knows God. (Comp. on 1 John ii. 23.) Ver. 22—25. The oneness of God and Christ, who is the pure and perfect Revealer of the Father, is now further set forth in the fol- lowing words of the Lord. As love to Christ is the love of God, so hatred to Christ is hatred to Deity itself. In receiving the principle of hostility, man, so to speak, opens the port of his heart to the in- fluences of hell (Gen. iv. 7), and thus he is on the way to be changed from a natural man to a devilish, a υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλείας. (Comp. the observations on xvii. 12.) Just inlike manner, the influence of Christ converts the natural man into an ἄνθρωπος Θεοῦ. (2 Tim. iii. 17.) The sentiment, that the revelation of Christ to men increases their culpability (comp. xvi. 9), has already been noticed, ix. 39, ff. Here the Lord brings it to a climax, by associating with ἐλάλῃσα (ver. 22), ἐποίησα (ver. 24.) That which his heart-affecting words did not produce ought to have been effected by his miracles. (Comp. the Comm. xiv. 10,11.) Then, in order to explain this pheno- menon of unbelief in spite of all the remedies applied, the Redeemer 88 GOSPEL OF JOHN xv. 26, 27. again alludes to the prophecies of Scripture in which divine neces- sity is expressed, although without annulling human freedom. (’A)- Ad scil. τοῦτο yéyove-—The words quoted occur Ps. lxix.4. The same words are to be found also Ps. xxxv. 19. Both Psalms de- scribe the sufferings of the Messiah under the type of David's. —Awpeav answers to the Heb. psp, “ without reason.”’) Ver. 26, 27. The mention of suffering, however, is accompanied by that of the victory which the promised power of the Holy Spirit secures. This convinces the world, not only of its own sin, but of the righteousness and perfection of Christ. (Comp. the Comm. xvi. 10, 11.) If the disciples are set up as special witnesses (ver. 27) to the Lord, this is the case only inasmuch as they, the con- stant observers of Christ, had opportunity to watch the slightest movemenis of his inward nature, and yet were unable to accuse him of asingle sin. (Hence az’ ἀρχῆς is to be taken as equal to ἐξ ἀρχῆς [xvi. 4], viz., from the commencement of Christ’s ministry.) In reference to the expressions παράκλητος, πνεῦμα τῆς ἀλη- θείας, we have already made such remarks as may be necessary in the exposition of xiv. 16. But in this passage two things remain to be noticed. Wrst, the expression ἐγὼ πέμψω παράκλητον (comp. also xvi. 7) is peculiar, since in xiv. 16, 26, the Father is spoken of as he who sends the Spirit. However, the words are to be explained according to xvi. 15, where it is said: πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ, ἐμά ἐστι. From this language it follows that every act of the Father may be ascribed also to the Son, the Father working only through the Son. At the same time, according to this, it is evident that the mode of expression adopted by the Greek church is erroneous, for it denies the procession of the Spirit from the Son. Secondly, this is the only place in which the verb ἐκπο- ρεύεσθαι, which has become a symbolic term, is applied to the Holy Spirit. The word is very expressive ; the idea it conveys is founded upon the metaphor of a stream that issues from the throne of God, under which figure the communication of the Spirit is frequently re- presented. (Comp. Rev. xxii. 1 with Ezek. xlvii. 1, where the Seventy have the very term ἐκπορεύεσθαι for pyvs,) The remark of de Wette on the passage results from an incorrect view of the relation between the Trinity, and is quite calculated to mislead. He thinks that παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται relates, not to the na- ‘ure, but to the appearance of the Holy Spirit in his Christian mi- GOSPEL OF JOHN xVI. ]——T. 89 nistry. The words: πέμψω παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς rather refer to this ; but in the other clause (τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας 6 παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται), the precise thing expressed is the eternal essential relation of the Spirit to the Father. Chap. xvi. 1—7. Meanwhile the Redeemer considered the ad- monition respecting the coming conflict of great importance to the life of faith in the disciples, and therefore he returned to it once again, and expressly remarks that he has directed their attention to it in order that, when it arrives, they may not err in their faith. (Comp. xiv. 29.) Hence also he enters the more minutely into particular points, warning them of exclusion from the theocra- tic system of the Old Testament (comp. ix. 22), and even speak- ing of death, which awaited many of them. (Comp. Matt. xxiv. 9.) Men in their blindness will even think to serve God by slaying believers, as if they were God’s enemies. (Aatpeia = May may also signify sacrifice, as a main part of the service of God under the old covenant. The Rabbins designated the murder of the un- godly a sacrifice pleasing to God. Comp. Liicke and Tholuck on the passage. ) A difficulty is presented by the clause (ver. 4): ταῦτα δὲ ὑμῖν ἐξ ἀρχῆς οὐκ εἶπον. These words appear to contradict several pass- ages in the synoptical Evangelists (comp. Matt. v. 10, x. 16, ff, 22, ff.), where the Redeemer, at an earlier period, speaks of perse- cutions. But the nature of the case involved reasons why the Lord should not make the very commencement of his ministry by in- forming the disciples of the perils that threatened them. Hence, even although some hints on the subject may have occurred in ear- lier discourses, yet it is probable, as we have already remarked, that the synoptical Evangelists transferred the detailed discourses re- specting approaching persecutions from the later discourses into the earlier. (In reference to this point comp. the Comm. on Matt. x. 21.) There is some obscurity also in ver. 5. The greater number of expositors, however, in the interpretation of the passage, think that Christ intended,—by the remark : οὐδεὶς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐρωτῶ wer ποῦ ὑπάγεις ;—to arouse the energies of the disciples, who had sunk into profound sadness. In that case, the difficulty involved in the cir- cumstance, that this question had already been asked (by Peter xiii. 836, and by Thomas xiv. 5), is relieved by saying: the Re- 90 GOSPEL OF JOHN xvI. 8—-11. deemer felt that the disciples had not yet thus rightly apprehended his departure, and therefore he wished to induce a further discussion of the subject. This view of the passage is satisfactory, so far as it concerns that which is essential, for the question of the disciples, ver. 17, shews that their notions respecting what was at hand were in fact still obscure. Only, this interpretation being adopted, we must, with Kuinoel, connect the first words of the verse with what precedes, and make a pause after πέμψαντά με, the discourse being resumed with the question καὶ οὐδείς x. τ. X. Then the connexion is as follows: ‘‘ So long as I was with you, I said nothing to you respecting the persecutions that threatened you; but now I go to the Father, and therefore I could no longer be silent on the subject.” After a pause, during which Jesus looks upon the disciples who stand around him in sorrow, he continues: ‘‘ and does no one of you ask whither I go, but, because I have spoken thus to you, is your heart quite filled with sorrow?” After which he beautifully proceeds (ver. 7) to enlarge upon the fact that, although his de- parture was indeed painful for them, it would become a source of blessing to them. (Respecting the connexion between the departure coincident with the glorification of the Son, and the mission of the Holy Spirit, compare the particulars in the exposition of John vii. 39.—Again, ver. 7, in the words : συμφέρει ὑμῖν iva ἐγὼ ἀπέλθω, iva cannot be taken τελικῶς without violence.) Ver. 8—1]. The following passage is one of the most preg- nant with thought occurring in the profound discourses of Christ. With a few great strokes he depicts all and every part of the minis- try of the divine spirit in the world,—his operation, in regard to individuals as well as in regard to the mass, upon unbelievers as well as upon believers. ‘The peculiarity in the ministry of this Spirit (who is again viewed not as present, but only as coming, comp. the remarks on John vii. 39), is marked by the one expres- sion ἐλέγχειν, in which, as Tholuck justly observes, the two signifi- cations of conviction and reproof penetrate each other. Now there are three objects to which the ἐλέγχειν of the Spirit has reference,— ἁμαρτία, δικαιοσύνη, and xpiots,—and in each of those cases the Redeemer adds the yrownd upon which that reference ismade. Jn the first place, the Spirit discovers sim, not in its externality (in this respect the Law awakens the knowledge of sin. Rom. iii. 26), but in its deep internal root. Now this is nothing else than} GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 8—11. 91 ! unbelief, which may be called the mother of all sinful actions ; but ‘unbelief itself, in its most glaring form, is unbelief in the Christ who has appeared. ‘The incapacity to recognise the purest mani- festation of Deity presupposes entire blindness. Further, as the Spirit unmasks the negative side, so,in the second place, he discloses the positive, viz. righteousness. Τῇ the connexion had been simply kept in view, there would not have been so much difficulty found, in this second case, as has been experienced. Nothing is more natural than that the insight into sin should be succeeded by a view of that condition in which sin is removed, ἡ. e. righteousness. However, it is not seen at once what is the relation between this and the words that follow: ὅτι πρὸς Tov πατέρα μου ὑπάγω Kal οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με. Were it merely the going to the Father that is spoken of, this might be regarded as a proof that righteousness was fulfilled 7 Christ; but this view being taken, no significa- tion is attached to οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με. Hence we must regard ὑπάγειν as expressing visible removal, and this (corporeal absence) combined with an invisible all-pervading activity. Then arises the following sense, which is perfectly suited to the connexion : ‘‘ The Spirit convinces, as of sin, so of righteousness, for he shews how the Redeemer, although corporeally invisible, yet invisibly operates and perfects the inward life.” This interpretation—certainly the only right one—besides being decidedly supported by the most modern expositors, Liicke and Tholuck, is adopted also by Ben- gel, Beza, Theophylact, and Chrysostom. Other hypotheses—in which the righteousness of the Apostles, of the world, or of God are respectively regarded as referred to in this passage—being opposed partly by the whole con- nexion and partly by the appended clause (ὅτε πρὸς τὸν πατέρα κ. τ. X., need no refutation. But the opinion propounded by the Reformers (Luther, Melancthon, Calvin), and subsequently es- poused by Lampe and Storr, that here δικαιοσύνη is to be under- stood as meaning “ justification before God,” requires a closer con- sideration. ‘The supporters of this view take the supplementary clause in the following manner: ‘‘ the Spirit convinces also of the justification necessary for sinful men, for, after my atoning death, I go to the Father and shall work for you invisibly.” But every one feels that, if this interpretation is to be looked upon as tenable, the death of Christ must necessarily have been the express subject of 92 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 12, 13. discourse in the clause just mentioned ; whereas the phrase : ὑπάγειν πρὸς Tov πατέρα only implies a distant hint at his death, inasmuch as that must be regarded as preliminary to his exaltation. Moreover, no signification whatever can be gained for the words: καὶ οὐκέτι θεωρεῖτέ με, unless they are referred to the invisible operations of grace ; these operations however relate to sanctification, not to justification, and hence are not compatible with this interpretation. And further, δικαιοσύνη never means justification, not only in the language of John, but even in that of Paul. The very profound and true idea contained in the Lutheran doctrine of justification is expressed by the phrase: λογίζεσθαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην :----δικαιο- σύνη itself alone never has that signification. (For the proof of this assertion, as well as for the entire development of the usus lo- quendi of δίκαιος and its composites, the Comm. on Rom. iii. 21 may be consulted.) inadlly, the last object on which light is thrown, by the ἐλέγκειν of the Spirit, is the κρίσις. As the ele- ment to be separated, the ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου is named; the Re- deemer views bim, with his influence and his kingdom, as already judged, for here (as Luke x. 18) he looks upon his own work as already finished. (Comp. also the remarks on John xii. 81.) However, the judgment respecting the world of evil does not mean merely the future concluding scene of the world’s deve- lopment ; it goes on ¢nvistbly in the hearts (iii. 18), both of be- lievers (who, judging themselves, separate evil from themselves, 1 Cor. xi. 91) and of unbelievers, who, fleeing from the light, with- draw themselves from its benignant influence. Ver. 12, 13. This communication is now followed by further in- struction respecting the nature of the Spirit. As he in a peculiar manner excites the whole life of the sou? (which was the subject of discourse in the preceding verses) so also he exerts a like influence upon the powers of knowledge. The Lord, feeling the weakness of the disciples, and the scanty development of their consciousness, which did not permit them to comprehend more, consoles himself with the certainty that the Spirit of Truth will lead them into the: full truth. It has already been observed, in the remarks on John xiv. 26, that we are not to understand, by the expression πάντα (1 John ii. 27) or πᾶσα ἀλήθεια, every isolated particular, but simply the complete development of the truth, the germ of which develop- ment is imparted with the principle itself. Hence the impropriety GOSPEL OF JOHN xVI. 14, 15. 93 of abusing this passage—as all visionaries have done since the time of the Montanists—by taking it as a guarantee for expecting from the ministry of the Spirit, doctrines altogether different, and stand- ing in no connexion with the circle of evangelical truths. If such doctrines were to be expected, the Lord could not have said alittle while before: πώντα ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν (John xy. 15). The revelations of Christ contain nothing peculiar and strange, as the carnal man wishes, but only simple, infinite, eternal truths. These truths, however, which he proclaimed and they received, were like germi- nating grains of seed, whose full development was hidden from their own eyes ; they ad the truth, but without themselves know- ing how great and pregnant with results was the treasure they car- ried within them. The Redeemer, therefore, in this affecting hour of separation, entrusts the hearts of his people to that Holy Spit, who will assuredly accomplish the perfection of the Church, in order that he may gradually lead them to the full consciousness of what they had received.—Liicke proposes to supply after ὅσα ἂν ἀκούσῃ (ver. 13) the words: ἐκ τοῦ πατρός. Kling justly op- poses this (loc. cit. 5, 690), for ver. 14 the language: ἐκ τοῦ ἐμοῦ λαμβάνει, shews that John admits a relation between Jesus and the Spirit similar to that which exists between the Father and the Son. Ver. 14, 15. There now follows, as a conclusion to this series of thoughts, a hint respecting the relation of the Spirit to the Son and to the Father, as well as his communications concerning the future. This Holy Spirit, who, so to speak, contains in himself all the germs of advancing attainments, opens to him who receives him a view into the future. This particular operation of the Spirit appears concentrated in the Evangelist John ; whilst the Spirit il- luminated the rest rather as to the present, for the sake of their immediate practical work, he disclosed the future to John the Seer more fully than to the others, and thus rendered him the prophet of the New Testament. All communications of the Spirit, how- ever, bear that mark of immediateness which also distinguished the words of the Redeemer. He speaks (internally in the souls of be- lievers) what he sees and hears. Accordingly he does not work in isolation and arbitrarily (ἀφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ), but in intimate, vital, fellow- ship with the Son, as the Son again stands in the same relation to the Father. (Comp. viii. 28, 88.) This passage is of special im- portance as regards the right oe respecting the Scriptural doctrine 94 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 16—20. of the Trinity, (comp. the Comm. Matt. xxviii. 19), since it illus- trates the living ¢nter-existence of Father, Son, and Spirit, and just in like manner opposes Arian subordination, as a blind unmeaning arrangement of the persons of the Trinity by the side of one an- other, even although it may be adopted in orthodox formule. The latter theory has given rise to that interpretation which regards the words: ἐκ Tod ἐμοῦ λήψεται (ver. 14) as having reference to the doctrine of Christ, as if the sense were: ‘the Spirit will further explain my doctrine. But then it follows that in ver. 15 also, that which the Father has must be called the doctrine of the Father. The only correct view of the words is that, according to which, in the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit, no distinction whatever is made between knowledge and being; the divine essence itself is knowledge, and since the Son receives /nowledge from the Father, he receives also being,’ and so again the Spirit in like manner. At the same time it is equally clear from this passage, that, as we have already remarked, the Greek Church, in denying the procession of the Spirit from the Son, does not employ an adequate doctrinal limitation —Now, as the Father glorifies the Son and the Son again the Father (xiii. 31), so the Holy Spirit also glorifies the Son, viz., not in himself, but in the whole community of believers, the Church, wherein the life of Christ is manifested (1 Cor. xii. 12), which the Spirit brings to perfection. (Comp. the Comm. on John xvii. 1, 4, 5.) Ver. 16—20. Here, however, Jesus intimates that, before this Spirit could exercise his beatifying ministry, a painful separation was necessary, although indeed it would soon be interrupted by an interval of reunion. ‘These words were so obscure to the Apostles that they declared themselves unable to comprehend them, a cir- cumstance from which it may be seen how little they had pene- trated into the meaning of the discourse. The Lord therefore gave them the needful assistance, and in the first place, ver. 20, ex- plained his language : μικρὸν καὶ ov θεωρεῖτέ we. He speaks of their sorrow and the joy of the world, and thus places the reference to his approaching death beyond doubt. (Muxpor scilicet διάστημα χρόνου = WY Hos. i. 4.) The second part, καὶ πάλιν μικρὸν καὶ ὄψεσθέ με, is not soclear. But all interpreters of the better class 1 That is, lhe receives the being or essence of the Father.—Tr. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 21—28. 95 have now decided that a reference to the corporeal resurrection in par- ticular is not to be supposed, as is indicated also by the words : ὅτε ὑπάγω πρὸς Tov πατέρα, with which such a reference would not be consistent ; on the contrary, here, as in John xiy. 19, the seeing again (like the ἔρχεσθαι, xiv. 8) is to be understood as relating to the internal spiritual operation of Christ. The corporeal resurrec- tion of Christ certainly was the beginning of that joy which springs (ver. 22) from the communication of the Spirit of the Lord, and cannot be lost. But John prefers, for the sake of those readers whom he had more immediately in view, always to give the chief and most prominent place to that which is internal ; and this is to be sought in that communication of the Spirit whereby the disciples were filled with unceasing inward joy. ‘The following verses, which are, as it were, a commentary on the second part of ver. 16, prove beyond dispute that the Evangelist here also referred to the seeing of Christ in his spzrz¢wal ministry in the mind. Ver. 21—23. Under a different figure from that employed xu. 24, the Saviour further describes the approaching time of suffering, and the joy that would result from it ; the metaphor is that of birth, during which the woman suffers pain, but afterwards she experiences great delight over the infant born. Here, however, arises the question,—how is this comparison to be viewed? It might be thought that the suffering humanity of Christ is meant by the la- bouring mother, and that humanity risen, glorified, is the new-born ἢ man ; but the Redeemer (ver. 22) speaks of the suffering as being endured by the disciples; and how then is the new-born ἄνθρω- mos related to them? ‘The shortest method is here again to say that we are not to lay stress upon the individual features of the com- parison, but that the meaning of the simile is merely this: great sorrow is followed by joy. However, I cannot agree with this view, on the one hand, because in that case Christ would only have hinted the parallel, and would not have carried it out to such an extent, and, on the other, because the general rules of interpretation sanc- tion the most strict use of the various features in comparisons, so far as is possible without violence. Accordingly, the proper mean- ing of the figure seems to be, that the death of Jesus Christ was, as it were, a painful act of giving birth on the part of all humanity, in which act the perfect man was born to the world ; this birth of the new man forming the source of —- joy for all, since by him and 96 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 28, 24. by his power the renovation of the whole is made possible." Thus the death of Christ becomes a fact in the histoy of the world, which everything before it was intended to usher in, and from which the entire development of succeeding ages is matured. ‘This state of perfect joy and complete satisfaction is indicated by the words : ἐμὲ οὐκ ἐρωτήσετε οὐδὲν. That this phraseology is not suitable, as a description of the time from the resurrection of Christ to the ascen- sion, is shewn by Acts i. 7 ; a circumstance which confirms the evi- dence that ver. 16 can only relate to that spiritwal presence of Christ in the soul whereby every desire of the mind is actually sa- tisfied, and all knowledge is supplied. Accordingly, here the whole of John’s mode of conception is purely internal, and forms a re- markable antithesis to the external mode which characterises the synoptical Evangelists, although at the same time it involves no contradiction ; for it belongs to the peculiarities of this Gospel that it connects things which are most remote, and not only sup- lies the want of spirituality, but satisfies that longing after the real appearance of the internal in the external, which rests on as true a basis as the former. Ver. 23, 24. As the means whereby the disciples might obtain this happy satisfaction of their desire, the Lord directs their atten- tion to prayer,——prayer in his name,—which will never fail to be heard. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiy. 12.) The only remark- able thing in these verses is the language: ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ἠτήσατε οὐδέν ἐν TO ὀνόματί wov. But prayer in the name of Christ (as also prayer to himself) presupposes his glorification ; before this, that which was human in Christ must have made the strongest im- pression upon the minds of the disciples ; it was only, so to speak, in single sublime circumstances that they perceived the exalted na- ture of the Lord. (Comp. the remarks on Matt. xvi. 16.) Ver. 25—28. The following verses contain a further reference to the different position of the disciples towards Christ before and after his glorification and return to the Father. The Redeemer 1 Tholuck (on the passage, in the fifth edition) hesitates to acknowledge this view; he thinks it cannot be adopted unless the representation, given by St Martin, of the new humanity as homme universel, were scriptural. But there is no occasion whatever to re- sort to such opinions as this. That Christ is the second Adam—that in him all are made alive, as in Adam all are dead—surely is the doctrine of Scripture ; and this is quite suf- ficient to justify our interpretation of the passage before us, (Comp.1 Cor. xy, 22, 45, ff.) GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 29—382. 97 distinguishes ἐν πταροιμίαις λαλεῖν from παῤῥησίᾳ λαλεῖν or avary- γέλλειν περὶ τοῦ πατρός, and promises the latter precisely at the time when they would pray in hisname. That we are not here to un- derstand by παροιμίαι literal parables, is self-evident ; for none of such had occurred in the whole of these discourses. But it may be said that the entire human language is a παροιμία, as it does not admit of adequate expression respecting divine things. The Lord therefore contrasts with the use of this feeble medium of communi- cation the employment of one more internal and more real. By the impartation of his Spirit, the Lord teaches the knowledge of the nature of God freely and openly (παῤῥησίᾳ), without any fear of a misunderstanding. This internal instruction, because it is a real communication of divine being and life, carries with it, not only prayer in the name of Jesus, but free access to the Father himself. The reconciled heart is led by the Son to the Father, and is itself madea child of God. (2 Cor. vi. 18.) This condition, however, is here viewed ideally; in fact, here below it can only be attained approximately, for so long as the old man lives and acts, there is need for the intercession of Christ and the daily washing from the contaminations of the world, whereby alone the believer, notwithstanding his defects, can enjoy divine grace in peace. Hence the love of the Fathef is associated with love to the Son and faith in him (ver. 27, 28); because, as the Father draws to the Son, so also the Son alone in the Holy Spirit can lead to the Father. Ver. 29—82. The disciples, although they had not in reality perfectly comprehended any part of the discourse of Christ, caught the meaning of the last words of the Redeemer, and joyfully exclaimed that they now rightly understood him, because he had spoken plainly and clearly. Although this affectingly shews the simplicity of their faith, yet the exclamation also betrays their spiritual infancy in the most striking manner; they had no idea that they had no¢ understood ! However, the words of Christ were not spoken in vain; the disciples divined the copiousness of their meaning and preserved them in their hearts, till subsequently the Spirit caused these seeds to germinate and bring forth their rich fruits. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiv. 26, τὸ πνεῦμα ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἅ εἶπον ὑμῖν.) Jesus feels that, in the present state of the minds of his disciples, it is not possible to demonstrate to them the opposite of their conjecture, and hence he is satisfied with VOL. IV. G 98 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVI. 33. exciting their doubts by reminding them of the approaching mo- ment when he will be arrested and they dispersed (Matt. xxvi. 31), the latter of which circumstances was quite sufficient to shew their weakness. (Certainly it is the more correct view to regard ἄρτι πισ- τεύετε as a question. Others take the words as an affirmation in which the Lord admits what they have said: ‘‘ Ye do indeed believe now, but,” &c., because they did in fact believe ; but the very thing which the Saviour intended to represent was the weakness and imper- fection of this faith, and to this object the question is far better adapted. That which, according to xiii. 88, the Lord said to Peter alone, he here declares to all the disciples.) The Saviour, however: comforting himself in the anticipation of his approaching hour of suffering, adds: καὶ οὐκ εἰμὶ μόνος, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἐστι. (Comp. viii. 29.) Respecting the reconciliation of this with the la- mentation into which the Redeemer broke forth on the cross, comp. the particulars on Matt. xxvii. 46. Ver. 33. The Redeemer now, in the concluding verse, adds a word of comfort for the disciples, who probably stood around deeply dejected at his last admonition. He reminds them that the purpose of all his discourses is to lead them to peace in him. He did not wish to chide them, but aimed to impart consolation to them in their weakness. The εἰρήνη ἐν ἐμοί is here contrasted with the θλίψις ἐν TS κόσμῳ ; although the disciples were feeble in the life of faith, yet, with their love and their desire, they belonged to the higher world. ‘The life of the world was strange and burdensome to them. It might, indeed, for a moment overcome them through the power of its Prince (ver. 32), but it could not draw them into it. Their hearts were always where their treasure was, that is in Christ, in his happy spiritual fellowship, in real unity with him. To secure this to them for ever, to withdraw them from all over- powering influence of the world, was the great design of Christ ; and he invites them, in contemplating the sure success of his work, to take courage and maintain the conviction that, in him and through him, they themselves also would eventually conquer the world. | And now (chap. xvii.) the Redeemer breathes out all the wishes of his heart for his own, in a sublime prayer usually called the intercessory prayer, because in this the Lord prays for the dis- ciples and the whole of his future church that should result from GOSPEL OF JOHN xvil. l, 2. 00 their ministry. The peculiarity of John’s Gospel is expressed in this prayer, in a kind of concentrated form. The thoughts con- tained in it are so natural and simple that they seem to be free from all difficulty ; and yet, with all their perspicuity, they are so unfathomably profound, that every attempt to exhaust them is in vain. ‘Plain and artless,” says Luther, “as it sounds, it is so deep, rich, and wide, that no one can find its bottom or extent.” Hence Spener has never ventured to preach on this prayer of Christ, humbly confessing that “the right understanding of it surpasses the measure of faith which the Lord usually imparts to his people during their earthly pilgrimage.’ And no doubt it will be found most suitable if we also do not venture to make more than a few remarks on this precious gem of the church, but leave it to the Spirit to give every reader a more complete and clear disclosure of its glories. The prayer itself falls into two parts. In the first (ver. 1—8) the Lord speaks of himself, and his relation to the Father and to men in general. In the second part Jesus prays for his own, (ver. 9—26) ; first supplicating on their behalf that they may be Aepé in his name (ver. 11—16), then asking that they may be sanctified in the truth as he has sanctified himself for them (ver. 17—19), and finally, his view being extended over the whole future church, represented by the Apostles as its germ, entreating that a// believers may form such a unity in love as that which exists between the Father and the Son (ver. 20—26.) Chap. xvii. 1, 2. The Redeemer begins by referring to the mag- nitude of the crisis now arrived. The hour which the Father had ap- pointed was come,—the period for the glorification of the Son, which again reciprocally glorified the Father. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiii. 31.) The Son prays for this very glorification, although it could only be accomplished by means of the most severe conflict. The glorification of the Lord, however, was by no means confined to his individuality ; on the contrary, Awmanity' was placed before him as the object of his ministry, and his exalted vocation was to bring to it eternal life,—the communication of which to mankind is the very thing in which the glorification of the Father through the Son consists. (καθώς is here to be understood as extending 1 Πᾶσα cdpé =swa-Sz (Luke iii. 6), adesignation of all mankind (not merely believers, ver. 9), who, as regards the divine purpose, are without exception contemplated as ob- jects of the redeeming work of Christ, although they do not become so in effect. GR [00 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 3. the subject : “ even as” or “ according as.” Comp. Rom. i. 28; 1 Cor. i. 6.) , Ver. 3. The following verse shews, in a precise manner, how the communication of eternal life is a glorification of the Father, this life consisting in the knowledge of God itself. The idea αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ζωή must not be superficialised by the interpretation that the γνῶσις of Godis one of the meuns to the attainment of eternal life, as if the words ran : ἡ ζωὴ αἰώνιος ἔρχεται διὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ θεοῦ. On the contrary, as we have often remarked, the γινώσκειν, according to the profound and spiritual mode of contemplation which charac- terises John, is not a defective, notional knowledge of God, but a real possession of his being and nature,‘ so that thus the γνῶσις τοῦ θεοῦ rests upon a real impartation of himself to believers.2 On this account also it is only the knowledge of the θεὸς ἀληθινός, who is himself light and life, that can be eternal life. There is no reference here to the antithesis between God and gods ; if there were, the term ἀληθής would be employed ; gods not only give no life, but produce death. In the érwe religious life,s however, there is a gradation ; there is the degree existing under the legal dispensation, upon which the Deity acted, not by impartation, but by requirement ; with this the Redeemer contrasts the New Testament degree of life, the peculiarity of which consists in the actual communication of divine life to all those in whom the desire has been awakened by means of the law. The older expositors employed this passage as an argument for the divine nature of Christ, taking the words: τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν (according to 1 John vy. 20) as an apposition to ‘‘ God and him whom thou hast sent, Jesus Christ.” (Comp. Augustine de spir. et lit. c. 22.) In modern times, on the contrary, the passage is frequently used to deny the divine nature of Christ, since it is said: “ God is called the only true God, and consequently Christ cannot be God.” Both extremes are to be avoided. As regards the construction of Augustine, it is decidedly incorrect, as is now 1 So also justly Kling on this passage, loc. cit. 8, 691. 2 Comp. Iren. adver. haer. iv. 20, ζῆσαι ἄνευ ζωῆς οὐχ οἷόν τε ἐστί' ὁ δὲ ὕπαρξις τῆς ζωῆς ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ περιγίνεται μετοχῆς" μετοχὶ δὲ Θεοῦ ἔστι τὸ γινώσκειν Θεὸν καὶ ἀπολαύειν τῆς χρηστότητος αὐτοῦ. 8 Here also ἀληθινός has its ordinary signification ; it denotes the absolute, in op- position to the relative. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 3. LOL universally acknowledged, and accordingly we must say that this verse cannot be available as an argument. Just as little, however, 1s it opposed to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. In the jirst place, as Tholuck has already justly observed, the passage is to be interpreted precisely in the same manner as all those in which the humanity of Christ alone is presented to view. Nothing more can be deduced from this verse against the divine nature of Christ, than from 1 Tim. ii. 5, (εἷς Θεὸς καὶ εἷς μεσίτης, ἄνθρώπος Χρισ- τὸς ᾿Ιησοῦς), or from Titus ii. 18, (if σωτήρ be separated from Θεός). And, secondly, our passage clearly involves, by way of in- ference, the meaning that the nature of Christ, while human, is at the same time also of a higher kind. It would be inconceivable, respecting any other person (for example, Abraham, Moses, or Isaiah), that he could be represented as co-ordinate with God as the object of that knowledge which is eternal life. The juxta- position of God and Christ, adopted here, can only be appropriate on the supposition that Christ himself is of divine nature, and thus, as God, carries life in himself. Every one feels that it cannot be said under any condition: “ this is life eternal, to know God and Abraham or Moses.” There is nothing to be known in them, that could produce eternal life, since they are mere men. It is only in so far as the power of God wrought in them, that we can speak of knowing God through Abraham or Moses. And it is thus that our opponents would literally take the meaning here : “ this is eter- nal life, that we know God, through the doctrine of Christ.” But neither “through” nor “the doctrine” stands in the text ; the text speaks only of the person of Christ, and represents it as co-ordi- nate with God. If, therefore, it is not well that this verse should be employed in positive theology as an argument for the divinity of Christ (because it does not contain a direct expression of the doctrine, but that doctrine must be deduced by way of inference), at the same time the resort that is had to this passage, by those who contend against the doctrine, is altogether out of place, since an impartial view of the words shews that the author of the gospel, here as every where else, does not conceal his idea of the divine nature of Christ. (Ver. 8, ἵνα is again used in such a manner that it cannot be taken τελιυκῶς, without violence. Comp. the remarks on Matt. xiii. 10, ff.) The opinion that Χριστὸν is here to be taken as a predicate, which Liicke and Meyer have again avowed, is 102 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 4, 5. opposed, as Tholuck has already justly remarked, by the ecireum- stance, that in that case the article could not be wanting. It is asserted, in opposition to those who maintain a literal report of the discourses of Jesus by John, that here certainly the Redeemer bim- self only said “me,” without pronouncing his name, and that the mention of the name is doubtless to be traced to the Evangelist. But Liicke justly refers to the solemn style of the prayer which per- mitted the supplicant to name himself. Ver. 4, 5. The sense of this verse and its connexion with ver. I are not clear, unless a strict distinction is made between the three kinds of Christ’s glorification spoken of by John in different pas- sages. (Comp. the Comm. on John xiii. 31,82, xvi. 14.) Inthe Jirst place, the Evangelist mentions a glorification of Christ in his personality, and for this he uses the expression : Θεὸς dofaee υἱόν (xiii. 81). Viewed in another light, however, this may be called a δοξάζεσθαι Θεοῦ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ (xiii. 81), since it is God him- self who manifests his glory in the Son. The phrase : δόξασόν cov Tov υἱόν, (xvii. 1), is also to be understood as referring to the same thing, the only difference being that in this instance, being viewed as real, it appears as yet to be accomplished, whereas xiii. 31, viewed ideally, it appears as having taken place. Secondly, John employs the expression “‘ glorification of Christ iz God” (xiii. 32, xvii. 5.) This relates to the circumstance of the Son’s return to the bosom of the Father, at his elevation into the heavenly world of Spirit. Finadly, reference is made to a glorification of Christ in men by the Holy Spirit (xvi. 14.) But, as we remarked re- specting the first mode of expression, that the (personal) glorifica- tion of Christ may likewise be termed a glorification of God in the Son, so also this third form denotes the glorification of the Father, through the Son in men (xvii. 1.) Accordingly the refer- ence in verses 4 and 5 is different from that in ver. 1. In the begin- ning of the chapter the Redeemer spoke of his personal glorifica- tion, and that ministry amongst men which was conditional upon it; ver. 4 and 5, however, the Lord founds upon his miistry among men his return to the bosom of the Father. . As regards the single points in ver. 4 and 5, the phrase ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς forms an antithesis with the heavenly world. In the latter no special δοξάζειν is needed ; but the earth, during the predominance of sin, is without δόξα, and is only re-illumined with divine glory by GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 6—8. 108 Christ, this being the great commission (τὸ ἔργον) of God, which the Saviour had to fulfil here below, and which he even now contemplates in spirit as already completed. The antithesis of ver. 4 and 5, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς---καὶ viv δόξασόν με (ἐν οὐρανῷ or παρὰ ool), is peculiar. It appears as if the Lord here asked the glory of the Father as a compensation for the completion of his work. We are not, however, here to suppose a remunerative re- ward, so much as an exchange of love. Out of free love, the Lord became poor as we; out of free love the Father again raised him above all, and the Redeemer claims this exaltation with perfect confidence, as it is the manner and nature of love to do. Hence this glory with the Father, which the Son had in his eternal being (John i. 1), (πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι) is not to be explained (as it has been attempted) as meaning mere existence in the know- ledge and will of God, in which sense an eternal vocation to happiness is ascribed to add believers. (Ephes.i.4; 2 Timothy i. 9.) For, granted that the expression : ἣ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κύόσ- μον εἶναι, viewed in a purely grammatical light, may be understood otherwise than as meaning an actwal possession of eternal glory before all creation,—yet the principle, that every author should be interpreted from himself, renders it necessary to retain throughout the reference of the words to a real personal existence. ‘The proc- mium of the Gospel alone is a sufficiently strong proof that John as- cribed to the Son such an existence with the Father; on this ac- count, here also the words cannot mean anything else than that which they literally express. Ver. 6—8. The following verses carry out the sentiments of verses 2 and 4 to a further extent ; they give a more precise description of Christ's ministry among men, as a kind of proof that the work committed to him by the Father was fulfilled. The manifestation of God's own entity (ὄνομα) to men here designates the sublime ministry of Christ; and they (those who had become believers) received into themselves and kept the word of the Son (full of spirit and life, John vi. 68) by which he revealed the Father. (Comp. the Comm. on λόγον τηρεῖν, John viii. 51.) The result of this recep- 1 The singular (τὸ ἔργον) here denotes the whole of Christ’s work of redemption, that which is external and that which is internal unitedly ; the plural (τὰ épya), on the contrary, signifies the external part of his work in distinction from the ῥήματα, which constitute the internal. (Comp. the observations on John xiv. 10, ff.) 104 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. θ8---8. tion is more minutely described in verses 7 and 8. The life commu- nicated by Christ to the soul produces in it true knowledge and faith (respecting the γινώσκειν which precedes, comp. the remarks on John vi. 69, x. 88; L Johniv. 16) since it gives to him who re- ceives it the certainty that everything in the Redeemer is of divine origin, nay that he himself (as the Son from the Father) came out from God. In this clear connexion there is only one thing remarkable, viz., that the Lord so decidedly restricts the φανέρωσις (ver. 6) to those men who had been given to him by the Father owt of the world. In combination with ver. 9, which expressly eacludes prayer for the world (in reference to which subject, the interpretation immediately following may be compared), this appears to indicate a choice of a Jew out of the general massa perditionis. Meanwhile, according to the remarks made at an earlier part of our exposition on the διδόναι of John (vi. 87, 44; x. 29), it is already plain that this διδόναι or ἑλκύειν is a progressive act ; the Church of Christ, proceeding from a small beginning, continually extends, till the attraction of the Father to the Son has been applied to αὐ. Those to whom this did not happen 7” @ certain time are not, on that account, rejected ; on the contrary, so far as this circumstance merely is concerned, they only stand in an Old Testament position. When, however, the call takes place, and is refused, as in the case of Judas (ver. 12), then, and not till then, the full ἀπώλεια begins. Jesus gives utterance to the words (ver. 6) : cot ἦσαν καὶ ἐμοὶ αὐτοὺς δέδωκας, with which the expressions verses 9 and 10 are pa- rallel, in order to indicate the mutual relation of love between the Father and the Son. All that the Father has he gives to the Son (1 Cor. xv. 26, ff.), and the Son receives it only that he may, by the Spirit, restore all to the Father. The view of de Wette, however, is quite incorrect, when he understands the words col ἦσαν as de- nying that all men before their conversion are children of Satan. In so far as men are sinful, they are all children of Satan, while in so far as the imaage of God, although defaced in them, is not absolutely destroyed, they are at the same time all God's. Here the reference is only to the elect in particular, but the very fact that it was necessary for them to be taken from the world and given to Christ, shews that they also were in the power of the Prince of this world. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. ll. 105 Ver. 9, 10. Now follows the express prayer of Christ to the Fa- ther for his own ; that all whom the Father had given him might be received from him again by the Father (being led to the Father) as his! This ove petition becomes divided in the sequel into three gra- dations, in which the single circumstances, whereby the leading back to the Father is accomplished, are detailed. The Lord already finds the certainty of being heard, in the relation of his person to the Father generally : neither Father nor Son have anything of their own in separation from each other (τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα od ἐστι Kal Ta σὰ éua) ; the Redeemer himself is glorified in believers, and accord- ingly in them he leads back himself and his own image to the Fa- ther.—To the positive prayer is added the negative: ov περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ. That these words are not meant to imply any aé- solute refusal to pray for the world is proved, on the one hand, by the entire nature of Christ's work, which consists purely in setting the sinful world free from sin; and, on the other, by the circum- stance that the only source from which the Church is filled is the world, the Church being destined at length to penetrate the whole family of man, on which account (as ver. 20 shews) the prayer of the Lord must have reference to a world that was yet in alienation from him! But the prayer of Christ for the world takes quite a different form from that for the Church. The former is to the effect that the world may cease to be what it is; the atter, that the Church may be perfected in that which it has received into itself. Now, here the /atter only is the object in view, and this express reference of the prayer to the Church is intended to be pointed out by the phrase: οὐ περὶ τοῦ κόσμου ἐρωτῶ. Ver. 11. In this verse the Redeemer presents the firs¢ principal request, that his disciples may be preserved from the world. It expresses the negative part of that which the Lord wished for his own (the positive part follows in ver. 17), viz., that the germ of the higher life which had sunk into their hearts, might not be sup- pressed by the power of the opposing element of the world. Jesus shews the reason for this petition, by mentioning the fact that he himself, through whom they had been protected up to this time, 1 Comp. the excellent remarks of Luther in Walch’s Edition, Β, viii. s. 730, ff, “to pray for the world, and not to pray for the world, must both be right and good. St Paul certainly wes of the world when he persecuted and killed Christians. Yet St Stephen prayed for him. Christ also prays in like manner-.on the cross. Luke xxiii. 34,” 2 106 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 12. was about to leave them, and therefore they needed other protec- tion, that they might not remain helpless (John xiv. 18.) The first thing to be remarked here is the name πάτερ ἅγιε, whereas ver. 25, πάτερ δέκαιε occurs. This epithet is intended to point out that power of God which defends from the unholy in- fluences of the world, and whereby the disciples would be preserved in their conflict. The higher element, in which Christ desires his people to be kept, is here called ὄνομα τ. ©. If we compare ver. 14, and such passages as 1 John ii. 14, iii. 9, it is clear that the divine name here means the same thing as is there expressed by the terms λόγος, σπέρμα τ. O. Here, as before, the name is no- thing else than the divine essence itself, which the Redeemer in his Spirit communicated to the disciples, the higher φῶς given by him to believers, which struggles with the σκότος that predominates in the κόσμος. (The reading @ is at all events preferable to the ordinary one: ods, and to another—®. It has already been received into the text by Griesbach and Schulz. The best codices A.B.C. E.H.L.M.S., besides many others, have ᾧ ; the reading οὕς occurs nowhere else but in the codex D. and in versions. Semler unne- cessarily conjectured ws.)—As the ultimate and glorious end of preservation in the name of God, the ἕν εἶναι of believers is antici- pated ; into which subject, we shall enter more fully in the exposi- tion of ver. 20, ff. One other matter here presses itself upon our attention, viz., the enquiry how this prayer of the Lord to the Father, for the preservation of his people, is related to his declar- ation: “7 am with you to help you alway, even unto the end of the world.” (Matt. xxviii. 19.) Now it is evident that we must say this is only a different mode of expression for the same thing, as is plainly shewn also by xiv. 18, where the Redeemer promises his disciples, as a consolation for them in their time of desertion : “ 7 will come again,” viz., in the Spirit. According to the repre- sentation of Scripture, the Father operates ‘rough the Son, and in particular the exercise of that power which protects the Church, is commonly ascribed to the latter. Hence the prayer to the Fa- ther for the preservation of his own must be apprehended in that human point of view, which it was necessary for the Redeemer to adopt in order that he might be intelligible to his disciples who were present.! i The same thing is conveyed also, ver. 13, by the words: ταῦτα λαλῶ ἔν τῷ κόσμῳ, i.e. 80 long as 1 remain here below and saps: returned to God. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 138, 14. 107 Ver. 12. The mention of the preservation of the disciples through him led the Lord to speak of one unhappy individual who had been lost,—Judas Iscariot. In doing so, he intimates that the cause of the condition of that disciple is not to be charged to him (the Lord) or to others, but is to be sought in a higher necessity, and in the fact to be presupposed, that the disciple himself was insin- cere. (This is implied in the words: ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ πληρωθῇ, since the Scripture contains an expression of the will of God, which as such is necessary. Concerning the conflict of freedom with ne- cessity in the history of Judas, compare the remarks on Mait. xxvii. 3.—According to John xiii. 18, there can be no doubt that the Redeemer recognized references to the treachery of Judas in the Old Testament.) It must be further presumed, respecting Judas, that the name of God had been made known to him as to the other disciples ; for the glory of that manifestation of God which he be- held was the very thing that rendered his sinful course so criminal ; only, in accordance with his insincerity and perfidy, he was not kept in the name of God, but was overcome by those temptations of the world which found an ally in his own heart. Thus, as the other disciples, through the faithful preservation of that heavenly blessing imparted to them, were gradually changed from natural men to regenerated men of God, so Judas completely sank from the grade of the natural man (which stil] contains germs of good) to the state of lost children of the Devil. Severe as the sentiment is, yet if such passages as John vi. 44 are compared, it cannot be doubted that the words imply it. As regards the designation : υἱὸς τῆς ἀπωλέιας, it occurs again 2 Thess. ii. 8, in application to Anti- christ, the ἄνθρωπος τῆς ἁμαρτίας, of which Judas was, as it were, a symbol. (Comp. John xiii. 27.) The mode of expression is formed hebraically, according to the known usus loquendi with »y, μ᾽ means of which an epithet is applied to its subject. Accordingly “son of perdition” means, one who is given over to destruction. (Isaiah lvii. 4, the expressions yop: and WW yy are em- ployed in Ue Oo and are translated by the LXX.: τέκνα ἀπωλείας, σπέρμα ἄνομον. ‘The ideas of sin and destruction na- turally suggest each other, since they are to be regarded as neces- sarily correlative.) Ver. 18, 14. After this parenthetic remark (ver. 12), the Re- deemer, returning to the prayer itself, observes, in the first place, 108 GOSPEL OF JOHN Xvil. 15—19. that its design was to complete the joy of his people. This thought is parallel with that conveyed above (ver. 11) in the words ἵνα ὦσιν ὃν καθὼς ἡμεις, which also, as we have already observed, are intended to express the purpose of the petition. (Respecting χαρὰ ἐμή, compare the observations on John xy. 11.) Ver. 14 then fur- nishes the reasons why they needed such a defence ; first, because the Lord had given them his word, ¢. e., had made them pillars of that new spiritual community which he had come to establish, and hence in them the whole church was defended ; secondly, because the world aed them, since they did not belong to it. (Compare the Comm. on John i. 9, vii. 7.) In accordance with their proper element of life they belong to the heavenly world, to which their desires and hopes are directed ; therefore the world feels that they are foreign to it and thrusts them from it. Hence the words ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου εἶναι indicate the origin and stand in contrast with ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶναι ; ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ εἶναι, on the con- trary, relates merely to ἐοοαϊίέψ, which may be associated with a perfect difference of nature and disposition. Ver. 15, 16. But, since it is their vocation to bring down the nature of heaven to earth, the Redeemer cannot ask that they may, by a mere change of place, be removed from the conflict in the world ; on the contrary, they must remain in the world, but avoid the evil. Here it is plain (comp. the remarks on i. 9) that κόσμος and πονηρόν are not identical. The world simply contains elements of evil and likewise of good. Believers are to collect the latter into the church, but the former they are to shun, they themselves being born from the word of Christ (hence resembling him in their in- most nature), and, by reason of this, able to appropriate that which is kindred to it. (‘Tholuck thinks that, on account of the passages 1 John ii. 18, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ is here to be understood as meaning the Devil, the Prince of this world. In this particular instance, however, this seems to me the less probable, because the words are parallel with ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. Had it been intended to parallelize the world with a personality, in my opinion this would have been more definitely expressed, for example, by ἄρχων τοῦ κόσμου.) Ver. 17—19. The negative part of the prayer (ver. 11) is now followed by the positive. The Saviour, having prayed for the pre- servation of the disciples from the hostile element, further entreats GOSPEL OF JOHN xvil. 17—19. 109 that they may be perfected in the right element of the truth. The connexion necessarily indicates that here again ἀλήθεια signifies, not merely a relative intellectual truth, but the essential truth, as we endeavoured to shew in the discussion of i. 14. The divine Word, 7. e., the spiritual communication of God, is the Truth itself. If λόγος be understood as meaning the doctrine of God communi- cated by Christ to the world, it deserves to be well considered that the doctrine as such cannot sanctify. The doctrine operates upon the understanding, and through it certainly may influence the will ; but, since in this way nothing higher is imparted to man, it would be necessary rather to say, that he sanctifies himself. Besides which, the doctrine frequently does no¢ influence the will, so that the right doctrine is contained in the head and the wrong incli- nation in the heart. According to the view of John, however, the λόγος Θεοῦ is a divine σπέρμα, which fills the soul and awakens in it a higher life, while the same power that has awakened it also perfects it. (Comp. 1 John ii. 14; 11, 9.) Christ proceeds in his prayer to say that the disciples urgently need this sanctification, because they are sent (like the Son by the Father) into the world (the future being viewed as, already present and fulfilled),’ in order to the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth, and therefore it is necessary that they also should be consecrated in the truth. The last statement (ver. 19): ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτὸν, ἵνα καὶ ἀυτοί ὦσιν ἡγιασμένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ," occasions some difficulty. I do not mean the question whether ἁγειάζω ἐμαυτὸν refers to the whole saving work of Christ (as has been maintained in accordance with the views of Socinians, especially by Heumann and Nosselt), or to his sacrificial death ; for it is unanimously acknowledged, by the mo- dern expositors, that the latter opinion alone is correct. Liicke justly observes that the parallel (John xvi. 7, ff.) and precisely in like man- ner our passage connect the communication of the Spirit of truth (and the sanctification thereby effected) with Christ’s departure. Besides 1 Liicke makes reference to the circumstance that the sending forth of the disciples had already occurred at an earlier period ; but these earlier missions (comp. on Matt. x.) were rather preparatory operations than a real ἀποστολή, which did not take place till after the command Matt, xxviii. 18. 2 Meyer lays stress upon the absence of the article in the expression: ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, and takes it as merely equivalent to ἀληθῶς. But the phrase : ἁγίασον ἐν TH ἀληθείᾳ (ver. 17) evidently does not permit this, and the absence of the article is therefore only to be ex- plained by the circumstance that the ἀλήθεια is treated as an idea sufficiently known from preceding passages. 110 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 20, 21. which, it is only thus that the present tense gains its right signi- fication. Similarly the question, whether the words: ἵνα ὦσιν ἡγιασμένοι are to be understood just in the same way as ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτόν, might easily be settled. This doubtless is to be answered affirmatively, the only variation in the sense being, that on account of the difference between the position of Christ and that of the dis- ciples, the term ὡγεάζειν, applied to Christ himself, means only “ to consecrate ;” whereas, in application to the disciples, it signifies to consecrate, with the additional idea of previous sanctification, since nothing but what is holy can be presented as an offering.’ But if, in accordance with this, the passage is to be translated, ‘ 1 consecrate myself for them, so that they also may be consecrated in the truth,” it may be said that here the life of the disciples, in its sacrificial character, is unduly paralleled with the sacrificial death of Christ, the latter sublime fact being always represented in Scripture as an incomparable event. However, in the first place, analogous pas- sages are not altogether wanting, although they are rare. For ex- ample, 1 John iii. 16, the love of Christ, which impelled him to lay down his life for men, is set up as a model, that we also should lay down life for the brethren. And moreover the juxtaposition is so formed here that any misunderstanding, as to whether the Apostles did exercise a redeeming work resembling that of the Lord himself, is rendered impossible. The whole self-sacrificing work of the disciples here appears as a mere resw/t of the offering of Christ, since the language: ἐγὼ ἁγιάζω ἐμαυτὸν, ἵνα x. τ. X. must be in- terpreted as meaning, “I consecrate myself (for you and for all) that ye also may then be enabled (by my power) to consecrate yourselves.” Ver. 20, 21. The Redeemer now adds to the two petitions, for the preservation and sanctification of his own, the final request for the glorification of those preserved and sanctified. In presenting this last prayer, Christ immediately extends his view. He sees in the company of apostles the whole body of those who, through their word, believein him. (According to the plan of the whole prayer, the ordinary reading πιστευσόντων is to be rejected, since, through- out, the future is viewed as present; while the critical authorities also speak in favour of πιστευόντων.) In reference to this glori- fication, the Saviour first enters more largely into the subject 1 Respecting ἁγιάζειν and δοξάζειν, comp. the particulars John xiii. 31, GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 22, 28. Mel briefly touched upon ver. 11, viz., the ἕν εἶναι of believers. This unity of believers in love is intended to be a witness to the world for the divine mission of Christ, and the experience of the apostolic church has shewn,! how the glow of that love which is entertained by believers for each other has afforded proof to the heathen, that there must be something superior in the bosom of the despised new sect. In the course of time contentions certainly have often arisen, which have marred the beauteous form of the unity of the church ; but it must be borne in mind that the language of the Lord in our passage relates to the true, inward, fellowship of the faithful ones, which indeed exists ¢v the external church, although not identical with it, and in this true church the unity of love has never been wanting. Respecting the idea itself of ἕν εἶναι, and the parallel between the oneness of the disciples and that subsisting between Father and Son, with which the former is compared, we have made such remarks as are necessary in the exposition of x. 30, xiv. 10. The mode of view peculiar to John by no means permits us to re- gard the unity of believers merely as an accordant wid/, allowing every one to remain in his own isolation ; on the contrary, it is in conformity to the Spirit of Christ, a uniting element, that destroys all isolation, and blends souls together ; and it is by this alone that harmony of will is rendered possible. All attempts to bring it about in any other way, by force, instruction, or persuasion, have to this day proved abortive, and they always will be so in time to come. Accordingly, the parallel of the unity of believers with the unity of the Father and the Son can only speak ἐγ) favour of the oneness of nature expressed by ν εἶναι, and cannot afford any evi- dence whatever against it.” Ver. 22, 23. The unity itself which the Lord entreats for his own is also capable of inward enhancement. In the very first be- ginnings of the Christian life, in which man still, like a feeble child, needs protection, the energy of the uniting love (ver. 11) displays itself, but it is not till he experiences the glorifying power of Christ that he is perfect in this love (ἵνα ὦσι τετελειωμένοι εἰς ἕν, Ver. 1 In reference to this subject, comp. the Comm. on Jobn xiii. 35. 2 Very similar expressions respecting the union with the Absolute occur also in the writings of the Mohammedan Mystics. (Comp. Tholuck, Bliithen samml. s. 120, and 125.) They conceive of a union of essence, but they associate it with the annihilation of personal consciousness, so that the individual is lost, like a drop in the ocean of Deity. According to the Christian view, consciousness, so far from being annihilated in the union with God, is, on the contrary, only thus truly perfected in its own peculiarity. 112 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVII. 24—-26. 28). Since it is said, concerning this perfected unity in love, that God has sent Christ (the founder of that unity) in order that the world may knowit, it is clear that the δόξα, ver. 22, must be under- stood as meaning that glorification of the inner life which is mani- fested here below. Only, it must not be overlooked that the δόξα of the present state forms, as it were, a continuous chain with that which is to be expected in eternity; as the ζωὴ αἰώνιος, so also the δόξα of the believer already begins internally. ‘The advance in the meaning is plainly shewn at the conclusion of ver 23, since after the words: ὅτε σύ με ἀπέστειλας (which in ver. 21 stood alone), it is added : καὶ ἡγάπησας αὐτοὺς, καθὼς ἐμὲ nyatnaas. Accord- ingly, the Apostles do not merely point, by their δόξα, to Christ as the source of it, but they also appear as independent objects of divine love. And these new sublime thoughts now terminate the concluding verses of the prayer. Ver. 24—26. At first indeed the connexion appears to lead to something fresh, since, ver. 24, a new petition follows,—that the Father will collect all believers to the Lord. (Comp. the Comm. on xii. 26.) However a closer view of the passage shews that there is no transition to a different subject, but that the Lord merely car- ries on the thoughts already embraced in his discourse, to their highest point. For since it was said, ver. 22, that Christ had given the δόξα to his people, the Redeemer cannot mean the same glory here, when he speaks of their beho/ding it in their union with him; on the contrary, we are to understand the words of Christ as referr- ing to the perfected δόξα of the heavenly world, whereas in the previous instance, the term was employed to designate inward glori- fication. The beholding of the δόξα of Christ, however, involves, to a certain degree, the possession of it, 1.6. so to speak, its reflec- tion ; but, at the same time, the expression clearly indicates that in Christ a glory will be manifested of so peculiar a nature that the contemplation of it, like the vision of God (Matt. v. 8), may be a designation of felicity. (Respecting πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, comp. ver. 5, πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι. ‘The expression occurs also Matt. xiii. 35.) In reference to the fulfilment of this request, the Son appeals to the righteousness of the Father, who, while admitting to the vision of that glory believers who are filled with divine influences, at the same time excludes the world which is estranged from himself. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIT. 241—26. 118 Tholuck, on the passage, says that δίκαιος is here to be taken as equal to ἅγιος (ver. 11) ; but, although it is certain that the two ideas are related, it is quite as certain that they are not exactly identical. There would have been more ground for proposing to take δίκαιος here in the signification of good,” (a sense which the word evi- dently bears, Matt. i. 19), since it might appear unsuitable that Christ should here appeal to the divine righteousness. But let it be borne in mind that in these words the Lord refers to the separa- tion between the world and the children of God ; and it will be seen that the mention of the divine δικαιοσύνη, in relation to this its manifestation, is to be regarded as in the highest degree ap- propriate. In conclusion, the knowledge of God (ver. 8), which is life eter- nal itself, is again placed prominently in view as the privilege of the disciples, with this additional circumstance, that it is represented as continually tncreasing (καὶ γνωρίσω.) Then the result of this is the indwelling of the highest and purest love itself, ‘hat love with which the Father loves the Son. And the indwelling of this (John xiv. 23) in the soul involves the participation of the divine nature, for God is love! (1 John iv. 8.) ‘Thus, as the individual believer is said to be a temple of the Holy Ghost, so also the Deity makes an abode in men collectively, and this constitutes the perfection of the whole. That which, in the deginning, man in criminal am- bition endeavoured, to obtain by robbery (Gen. iii. 5), humanity receives at dast through the Redeemer, as the gift of grace, viz., glorification in God. With this elevated thought the Redeemer concludes his prayer for his disciples, and in them for his church through all ages. He has compressed into the last moments given him for conversation with his own, the most sublime and glorious sentiments ever uttered by mortal lips. But hardly has the sound of the last word died away, when Jesus passes with his disciples over the brook Cedron to Gethsemane—and the bitter conflict draws on. The seed of the new world must be sown in death, that thence life may spring up ! The Evangelists have given their representations of the sufferings and death of the Son of God, as well as of his subsequent resurrec tion, in such detailed and kindred forms, that we must devote to them a separate synoptical consideration. VOL. Iv. Η oe pion ir sf δὴ Zt ee τς arn ie ΠΣ, aes: δ sti ire ψ a} ar ἂν ΜΠ ha, ΓΙ, ae ἼΟΣ yee tf POP NRLES CY ᾿ ὉΠ ἐι law) itis % é ᾿ ΠΤ bt ὍΝ {γί ΑΙ χη ἡ Asn a d Avs . »7 . , } or) ¥¢ ᾿ δ a KLEE Ἦν [ΠΗ ΠΡ] ivi. aes, Nie δύ ἢ ΕΝ 7 bei gel ᾿ ; εἰν 3 OR Sard hi! we aed “" τῇ 5 π᾿ !ῷδνδ _— 2178 TR μ᾽ "7 ! Ὶ rey ἡ i A, " ΣΝ 4 be Α, ᾿ py rem : J ᾿ ἢ Tg ? +" Lia ΚΣ ah i af Ὁ "ἢ PA ¥ ᾿ passe δὲ POLE ees τὴν) δός α 5, ’ 7 Wis ond TVA ~~), ? chs. ΜΠ ost ὗ 7 t “ai ap aS ὉἿΣ καρ ΠΟΤ Lit rey : OTe ΤῊ ΓΑΙ tis! atts ᾿, ΠΣ, . ie ὰ ΠῚ Lb ὶ { 44% Δ ΠῚ * ? are ; ΠΡ ἢ >) 1 ee SR ee ι ae 8 fii 1 _ ᾿ ! at | "ite ῃ “ i (vii) if f 5 ἘΝ ᾿ 7 εἰ! Pitt ' 7 i ᾿ Β "Ὁ ͵ Cees ea ἢ iin | é ’ Β ' εὐ ἢ i. 1 iI ᾿ ᾿ ‘ " ἃ » (ὦ =4 ὯΙ! efit Ὶ Ἂ ἐ “ἢ A ᾿ ᾿ é ᾿ 4 Ἧς f PAA νυ ( I ‘ ᾿ , “μὲν Γ. ᾿ ὁ ὧν dtiy : ΤΆ] ' ΟΣ { 2 ΄ Μ Γγ. 4 A a4 48 oat “ἡ - ῦ “μῆς Ἵ i. dep eK ie 4 nit Sty ἷ ν Ἂ } - , ᾿ » αᾧ ; j ἢ ro | <2 2A Wit MOULD ΠΤ Bi Wee ἢ it ὅἱ a A ‘tha τ τὸ nm 4 £6 7 d . Ὃ ee ὁ ‘ σου SOL ORL FY iy. Ὁ ΠΩ ἐδ 8} 208 ΣῈ ea Gal ni τὰ ἊΝ ὲ br Pp ' q ΐ 7 ‘ > A : 4, Ὁ at ΔΤ δὲ ΠΟΤ, ’ ‘ nT La 3 / , oF ft Η ᾽ ΠΟ: ᾿ ay Γ ee ae ΤΠ i? ᾿ i 7 A} ye an, ὁ i* | +h We ey 1}. » pe | ae eu ) 4 fe he } ; / A on Ἢ ὍΔ τὴν of 4 ᾿ς aon ay} | Acie τῷ oF ¢ oo La a γα; Cas ΓΝ μᾶν σοῦ πὰ ἢ a τς} ἯΙ Hiv ou “ee Ya, ἬΝ ἴα ᾿ ᾿ Bug goat y, wih uae ; ‘ _ ταν 7 sins Bo Μ᾿ pI μὴ a 4 ΕΝ gett, baa: * ᾿ τ πον be Lie] Batis αἱ. a a ᾿ ae : - ΣΤ νὼ ; yy tt ρα ε ἌΝ a τῶν 4 ν e; THE SUFFERINGS, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION JESUS CHRIST. hg fF Mh HUT an "ἂν ᾿ νὴ ρὸν INTRODUCTION. THE accounts given by the four Evangelists of the passion, death, and_resurrection of Christ, constitute a whole, complete in itself, which, according to its chief feature, we entitle ‘‘ The His- tory of His Suffering,” and subject to a separate consideration. Not only have all our canonical gospels treated this portion of the history of the Lord, as its importance demanded, with distinguished explicitness and predilection,—since they present to us the most special account concerning a few days, so that thereby it stands out before the remaining parts of the gospel history,—but also, it bespeaks for itself regard, from the way of its representing, in the picture of the Saviour himself, another character altogether than we hitherto discovered in the four gospels. Although, for in- stance, the garment of lowliness and poverty enwrapt the whole ap- pearance of the Lord, from the manger to the cross, yet from under this raiment of obscurity, an astonishing glory hitherto manifested itself. Though Jesus had not where to lay his head, still, he ruled as prophet and as king. He spoke as never man had spoken. He legislated over the hearts of his own. He ruled in the very midst of his enemies, who—restrained by the invisible bands of the Spirit— could not bound him in his comprehensive ministry. He exer- cised unlimited sway over the powers of nature: commanded the storms: walked upon the waves of the sea: fed thousands with a few loaves: healed the sick : cast out evil spirits. But in the last days of the Saviour’s earthly pilgrimage, this gradually-resigned lustre of his sublime appearance all vanishes. His discourse, alike meek and forcible, ceases for the multitude of hearers, to whom it had been uttered in vain. Jesus confines himself to the little company of his own disciples, and seeks to implant irradicably in their chearts the germs of the 118 INTRODUCTION. kingdom of God. His splendid miracles cease. Everything bril- hant, everything uncommon, vanishes. The poverty and lowliness ‘of the exterior extend themselves over his internal appearance. He sinks, as it were, from step to step, deeper down. The eye rendered keen for the apprehending of true glory and beauty readily confesses the heavenly picture, whose lustre is concealed, to be only so much the purer and brighter. For the active virtues glow stronger, but the passive virtues are greater and more difficult to ex- ercise, but even these come out perfected in the suffering of Christ. The history of the passion breathes only heavenly patience, meek- ness, and forbearance. Now if we conceive and judge of the person of Christ as merely human, even according to that view, the history of his sufferings presents an affecting, deeply impressive picture: Only a true glance into the signification of the events which the Evangelists re- Jate of the Lord’s last days upon earth, gives pre-eminently the higher view of his person. The faith that: in Christ Jesus the word of the Father became flesh: that all the prophets prophesied of him, and his appearing : that he was appointed to ransom what was forfeited by the fall of man, and to restore all that was lost: This faith first gives to the history of his suffering the full signification which belongs to it ; lets the connection be seen between the resurrection of Christ Jesus and his passion and death; as it does also the object of all this sublime procedure. It was the Lord of glory who hung upon the cross—Acts 11]. 15—who in that moment had power to descend from the cross and evade its pains, as well as death. His passion and death appear to the eye of faith not assomething brought about through the power of circumstances : not as a noble sacrifice for a peculiar truth—not as a sublime idea—but as a sacrifice of the Son of God presented out of free love, for the reconciliation of an entire sinful world. But the resurrection appears as the necessary sequel of the death from pure love, since the invincible power of love vanquished death itself, and therefore could not be held by his bands. If in the history of the sufferings and resurrection of Jesus, we perceive the main point of the gospel, the source of new life which rests in him ; so in like manner, the apprehension of the same assumes therein its peculiar form. It will then be to us less improbable than it INTRODUCTION. 119 used to be, to think that the individual events in this history consti- tute the significant feature in the admirable picture. It all will gain in signification for us, because it refers to him, and to him in these sacred moments. We do not find the external circum- stances of any importance. There forces itself on the believer a nobler way of apprehending the history, in course of which, we dis- cover not mere phenomena, but an arrangement determined from above. ‘This order, associated with actions and events, speaks to the world an almost living language. Although the mouth of truth had become silent, and crucified love no longer held its exhortations to men, yet the entire pre- vious career of the Lord spoke, and still speaks to the world of sin, more livingly and powerfully, through all the particular incidents which completed it, than in all the conceivable exhortations and warnings of prophets and men of God. - The suffering, dying, and victoriously rising Saviour, with his various accompanying graces, affords a complete picture of the great strife between the worlds of good and evil; about which strife the world’s history employs itself in its development. In this accepta- tion ‘ the history of his suffering” first gains its deep—one might say its eternal character. If, for instance, in the history of Christ’s last moments upon earth, the external side only were regarded, then might the trials of many another sufferer seem greater, as to the agonies which accumulated upon him: more imposing through the constancy and dignity of the sufferer, since Jesus appeared fainting and wavering, in the inmost recesses of his soul, a circumstance which is more closely considered, in the account of the Lord’s conflict in Gethsemene : and more attractive, through the abundance of ex- citing events in their struggles. But according to its internal side, as little can any other histori- cal phenomenon whatever bear comparison with that of Christ's sufferings and death, as any human teacher whatever with him personally. Whilst it is the sublimest devotion of the earthly sage to be an enquirer after pure truth, Christ is the essential truth it- self, which such an one seeks. So in like manner, also, all the beams of glowing virtue which ever displayed themselves in any champions and martyrs, for truth and right, appear united in him as their Sun, and melted into an inexpressible unity of essence and 120 INTRODUCTION. existence. Hence, as in relation to knowledge, so in relation to being, Christ is the centre from which all knowledge and being proceed, even to those of the existences exerting themselves on creation’s periphery, and to which they must return. As distinct treatises on the portion of the evangelical history which we comprehend in this section, should be noticed :— Bynaeus, ‘de Morte Jesu Christi,’ Libri Tres. Amstelodami, 1691-98, 8, vols. 4. J.D. Michaelis’ “ Erklarung der Begriibniss-und, Auferstehungs- geschichte, Christi.” Halle 1783—with an addendum containing the fifth of the fragments of Wolfenbuttel, and with Observations by J. D. Michaelis. Halle, 1785. J. W. Henneberg’s “ Commentar iiber de Geschichte der Leiden und des Todtes Jesu.” Leipzig, 1822. Desselben ‘“ Commentar iiber die Geschichte des Begriibniss, der Auferstehung, und Himmel-fahrt Jesu.” Leipzig, 1826. CHE.) FIRST: PART. OF THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST. (Matt. xxvi., xxvii.; Mark xiv., xv. ; Luke xxii., xxii, ; John Vill. oXIx, } (Matt. xxvi. 17.) Before we proceed to an explication of what is particular, we shall take a brief general view of the harmony of the four Evan- gelists, in reference to the order of events, in ‘‘ the History of Christ's Sufferings,” in the stricter sense of the words. Whilst John so early as in the passage chap. xii. 1 describes the last meal of the Saviour with his own disciples,—a description which, together with the discourses of the Lord therein put together, extends to John xvii. 26,--Matthew enters far later upon this delineation, Matt. xxvi. 17.—Compare therewith Mark xiv. 12, and Luke xxu. 7..-From this it may seem that a synoptical treatment of all the four Gospels, in this section of the evangelical history, should in- volve great difficulties. Yet upon closer examination, these are far less than one might expect. With the exception of the one account, of the anointing in Bethany, by Mary——John xu. 1—8; Matt. xxvi. 6-—13-—which we have reviewed already in the exposition of John, the three synoptic gospels impart no fact which was to be placed antecedent to the last meal, John xii. 1, sqq. Only in two short sentences comprehended in general terms, (Matt. xxvi. l—5, and 14-- 10 :—-with their parallels in Mark and Luke—) the par- ticulars of which shall receive their explication in other places, do they make mention of the malevolent designs of the Pharisees, and the treason of Judas, as what were already preconceived. The case then assumes this aspect, viz., We have only two se- veral accounts concerning the last meal of Jesus with his disciples ; 189 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. the one, that of John, has been considered already, in the connected exposition of that Evangelist. The second, the account of the Synopticks, now lies immediately before us. The single passage, John xiii. 21—29, in which the previous history of Judas is—according to his arrangement—questionable, would, in the explication of John’s Gospel, involve a delay to the illustrating of Matt. xxvi. 20, sqq., for so nearly does it run col- lateral with the account of the Synopticks, as that the one relation, without the other, could be treated upon. The consecutive col- lecting of all the four narrations begins after that, first with the passage John xviil. 1, sqq., where the arresting of the Lord is men- tioned. As, be it observed, in the account of Christ’s last supper with his disciples, according to John, who is the most circumstan- tial reporter, since he alone delivers in connection the sublime dis- courses that the Saviour held to the company of his disciples after the conclusion of the meal, the relation then seems turned right round to the part of the evangelical history which lies between the entry into Jerusalem, five days before Easter, and the last supper —John xii. ]—12; Matt. xxi. 1; Mark xi. 1; Luke xix. 29. Here, with Luke, John appears the most concise narrator—(com- pare the particulars in the commentary on Matt. xxi. 1)—since he entirely omits all those important discourses which the Lord held at Jerusalem, with the Pharisees and the disciples, according to Matthew—chap. xxi. 25— who on this point is most express. On account of the few points of contact between the accounts of John and the Synopticks, up to the arresting of the Lord, there is a sepa- rate treatment of both narrations, as we have already to some extent represented them, and respective of the Synopticks’ account of the passover, which alone is desirable, shall similarly representit. But froin the arrest of Christ, a precise synoptica] treatment of the four historians is perfectly practicable. § 1. THE LAST MEAL OF JESUS WITH HIS DISCIPLES. (Matt. xxvi. 17—35. Mark xiv. 12—381. Luke xxii. 7—38. John xiii. 21—29.) The Lord had ended his great public ministry. His discourse, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. Ife 123 which even in the immediately preceding days, had so powerfully flowed forth in warnings, reproofs, exhortations, prophesies, was become silent. ‘The obduracy of the Pharisees, and the unbelief of the people, had limited its operation. But no obduracy, no un- belief, could retard the completion of the sublime work of Christ. With the firm persuasion of his death being near, the Saviour had come to Jerusalem, to the feast. And with firm resolve he ad- vanced to meet this death ; wherewith, from his fall, should spring forth new life for a sinful world ; and whereby the Comforter, the Holy Ghost, might come, who should remind the disciples of all that the Lord had spoken, in order that they might be placed in a condition to catch up again his effective, thrilling announcements, and, through the Scriptures, to establish their signification and power for ages, and for millions. From the tumultuous world of the festally-excited Jerusalem, the Saviour now withdrew himself back into the quiet circle of his own. The Twelve whom he had selected to be the abuttments and columns of an entirely new world, were they in whose midst Jesus resolved to solemnize the festival. Yet in that most limited com- pany of his own, the empire of evil had its representative. Indeed, none of the disciples, in his inmost nature, was 50 erounded and confirmed in holiness as to be able throughout to resist the aggressive assaults of the enemy. When the Shepherd was smitten, all the sheep dispersed themselves. Meanwhile, only one had laid himself so open to the influence of evil that, instead of being a friend,—if even a weaker one than the rest,—he was an opponent of the holy God. Now this unhappy man was, from the first, ever present amongst the Twelve. But, later on, he left a circle whence he had been spiritually excluded, long previously. The presence and the removal of this child of perdition must natu- rally give to the description of the meal an entirely distinct cha- racter, and, accordingly, it divides itself into two unlike portions. The latter alone warrants the impression of a thorough intimate association of Jesus with his faithful ones, whose pure enjovment nothing troubled, but a glance at the still prospective hour of sepa- ration, and of bitter suffering. All the four historians hasten away from the first part. They give us thereon only so much as seemed necessary, in order to admit our understanding how the as- sociation of the disciples with the Lord maintained itself, so long as 124 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. Judas was still amongst them. But with love and susceptibility of heart do they linger in delineating the second part of the meal, where the Saviour, in the whole fulness of his divine nature, re- vealed himself to them. Especially does John rest with a languish- ing desire upon this period, in which he last reclined upon the breast of Jesus, seeming as if he hesitated to describe the hours, whose recalled image must so deeply have troubled his soul. As regards, then, the particular incidents which have been re- lated to us of the meal by the Evangelists, it was already re- collected that John communicates, concerning them, other par- ticulars than the Synopticks, up to John xiii. 21—29, which passage coincides with the accounts of these latter. Only the variations in the narrative of Luke, as well from John as from Matthew and Mark, make necessary a careful examination of the course of events antecedent to the meal. Luke places, for instance, the complaint concerning the traitor after the institution of the holy supper (Luke xxii. 21—28), whilst in Matthew and Mark it stands before it. John, indeed, as was already observed at John xiii. 1, sq., omits entirely to mention the institution of the supper, and hence, in reference to this fact, the placing of the complaint concerning the betrayer can- not be precisely determined. But, from the intent of the holy supper itself, which should be a meal of the most intimate love and union, it is most probable that so estranged a member as Judas was could not have part in this meal; not to mention that it would have been even contrary to the love and mercy of the Lord to per- mit the traitor in his unworthy intent, and to the further augment- ing of his guilt, to partake of that holy repast. Another particular in the narrative of Luke which does not coincide with John’s account, is the placing of the strife concerning the greatest in the kingdom of God amongst the disciples, after that complaint as to the betrayer, Luke xxii. 24—380. This dispute, undoubtedly, as the words in Luke also intimate, was connected with the feet washing——John xii. 4—20. Through this symbolical act the Lord wished to make manifest to them that self-abasing love is the only true elevation in the kingdom of God. But now John shows, xiii. 4, that the feet washing had occurred even during the meal, and pro- bably at the beginning of it, whilst the complaint concerning the traitor, as we saw, should be placed before the supper. And the 3 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. ]25 supper occurred, according to the clear expressions of Luke him- _self, with whom Paul, 1 Cor. xi. 25, literally agrees, immediately upon the time of the Passover. (μετὰ---τὸ---δευπνῆσαι.) We must hence say, in both points, Luke evidently has not re- ported minutely. According to him one might allow himself to be- lieve that Judas had partaken of the holy supper, which yet neither the narrative of Matthew and Mark nor the idea of the holy ceremony corroborates. And so, accordingly, might one think that the dis- ciples had, even after the holy supper, striven one with another, which, manifestly, 15 entirely contrary to the state of their souls on the occasion, as we learn it from the account of John. This ap- pearance in Luke is explained, less, indeed, from the circumstance that he himself was not present there ; for that objection would avail equally against Mark, who nevertheless narrates entirely, than from the fact that he, in this narrative, generally did not desire to sketch a perfect picture of the procedure at the supper, but only to give supplementary information. On this account he here re- garded the sequence of events less than the communications them- selves. But, if we take all the four relations together, the indi- vidual incidents in the last meal of Jesus arrange themselves thus : In the first place, the Synopticks record the preparation for the meal through the command of Jesus. Luke alone has pre- served, xxii. 14—18, the Saviour’s words introducing the meal itself, and similarly the mention of the first cup which was given round at it. Next arose the strife amongst the disciples as to who should be the greatest, Luke xxi. 24—80. With that is closely connected the account of the feet washing, which John alone gives, John xii. 4—20. After this transaction, the complaint con- cerning the betrayer, and what stands in connection therewith, the withdrawal of Judas, may have occurred. Upon his removing, the Saviour’s love to his disciples broke forth from his heart, like a stream hitherto restrained, in the words, “ΝΟΥ is the Son of Man glorified,” John xii, 31, sqq. After these words, probably, accor- ding to the intimation of John xiii. and xxxvi. sqq., the warning to Peter, which Luke alone contains, Luke xxii.81—88, took place; and then followed the instituting of the sacred supper, the break up from supper after the hymn, and, finally, the discourses, John, chap. xiv.—xvii., which Christ uttered to his disciples, pro- bably whilst yet standing in the apartment. 126 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. According to this order of sequences, we shall illustrate the specific events in the last meal; with the exception of John’s. account, up to the quoted passage, John xiii. 21—29, which has already been discussed in the connected exposition of this Evan- gelist. But now, the treatment of the Synopticks’ account, a proper understanding of which requires a view of the way and manner in which the Jews solemnized the paschal feast. ‘The Johannine description required this the less, because it almost entirely omits to touch upon the peculiar forms of this solemn meal; hence we, at the passage John xiii. 1, passed it over. But the narrative of Luke, in its relation to Matthew and Mark, makes a consideration of the Jewish custom indispensable. Certainly, we have upon the same, besides the institutions in the Pentateuch, only the modern notices which are contained in the Talmud. But it is most pro- bable, that a knowledge of the manner in which the feast was observed,’ perserved itself correct in essentials, in the course of tra- dition. The Passover was confessedly, according to the Mosaic legisla- tion, next to the feasts of Pentecoste and Tabernacles, the chief feast of the Jews. It was, as is known, founded upon the exodus from Egypt, and held its name from the sparing of the first-born. The name of the paschal lamb ppp, [from Mop to spare ; whilst sparing, to passover] was transferred to the feast itself, as the title of an offering for the exempting of the first-born. The Greek πάσκα is formed after the Aramaic NINDD: Another usual name of the feast was pixar 3M; to which agrees the Greck ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων, Luke xxii. 1. The name was borrowed from the un- leavened bread, the use of which is peculiar to this feast. The introduction to the passover was formed by the offering and the enjoying of a lamb. ‘This was regarded as a sacrifice for the sparing of the first-born, and hence, possessed on the one hand, the true nature of an offering, in which always lies the idea of a sacrifice on behalf of another. Put, on the other hand, it was devoted to joy and enjoyment, because out of its sacrifice the feeling of deliverance evolved itself vividly. In most recent times, it has been denied that the paschal lamb was at all an offering, which yet is expressly stated in the Mosaic law. Compare Exodus xii. 27, xxiii. 18, xxxiv GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. N47) 25.) And Hengstenberg (Christology, sect. 277) believes himself necessitated to concede that it was not an offering of atonement.’ In so far is this altogether correct, as that the paschal lamb would be reckoned neither for the deb¢t nor for the stn-offering, in which only the idea of atonement lay expressed : for, in the first place, they used no lambs for these ; and secondly, the offerings made were burnt: but the paschal lamb, like a thank-offering, was, for the most part, eaten by them who offered it. The idea of substi- tution is entirely clear in the offering of the paschal lamb, since with its blood the posts of the dwellings of the Israelites were sprinkled, in order that the destroying angel might pass over, Ex- cdus xi. 7. Hence, with the utmost correctness one may say, the paschal lamb possessed a specific character entirely its own. There penetrated it the peculiarity of the expiatory offering, with that of the thank-offering, and even in this concatenation arises its typicality of the offering of Christ, in the most impressive man- ner; since in the latter is united just as well a ground of the deep- est sorrow, as an occasion for the purest joy. ‘The paschal lamb, as the first offering enjoined by God, for the Israelites, accordingly combined in itself collectively, as it was the germ of all the others, their peculiarities. So early as on the tenth of the month Nisan or Abib, should the Patriarch, agreeably to the institution of Moses, select the male-kid for the offering. It might be of the sheep or of the goats, only, like all sacrificial beasts, without blemish. On the fourteenth day of the same month towards evening— pay pa—Exodus ἘΠῚ 05 - an indefinite impression obtained that half of the time should be before sunset, from three to six o'clock in the afternoon, and half of the time after sunset, from six to nine o’clock in the evening— should the victim be slaughtered in the Temple (on this ac- count the passover could be held only in Jerusalem), and then the meal prepared. The fourteenth of Nisan, moreover, could fall on any day of the week, according to the custom of the Jews at the 1 Scholl, in his work on The Ideas of Offerings, amongst the ancients, especially the Jews—in Klaibers Stud. Der Evang. Geistlichk. in Wirtimberg, 4 ten. bandes, erstes Heft Stuttgardt 1582, S. 50, ff.—proves that after the Old Testament view, every offering, even the thank- offering, was regarded as expiatory, if the offerer stood in need of expia- tion. The expiation was in all offerings the essentially fundamental idea. 128 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. time of Christ, for this indisputably comes out from the history of the Easter-Controversy in the primitive church. In the Christian church the custom gradually predominated, of fixing the Easter festival always on the Sunday. The kalender of the modern Jews is certainly so regulated that the fifteenth of Nisan never can fall on a Friday. Compare Ide- ler’s Chronological Manual, Bk. I, sect. 515,sqq. But this custom cannot, as is done by Ideler, and by Hitzig, a correspondent to Ideler, in his Oster und Pfingsten, be transferred to earlier times. Probably this latter regulation of the Jews had its origin only in the wish to prevent the coincidence of the feast with the Christian Sabbath. Hitzig’s hypothesis is the other, standing also in oppo- sition to this acceptation. It entirely fails—(compare in Loco Ci- tato, sect. 26) “that the week Sabbath always coincided with the festivals’ Sabbath.” The determining of when the feast should begin depended purely upon the relation of the moon's phases to the vernal equinox, and was entirely independent of the days of the week. (Compare Neander’s Kirchengesch, B. 11., 5. 522, 566.) For the proper solemnization of the feast, which extended from the fifteenth to the twentieth of Nisan, the dwelling was carefully purged of all leaven. Compare on the signification of this symbo- lical usage 1 Cor. v. 6, sqq., and the exposition upon this passage ; and during the feast only unleavened bread (ἄξυμα = pyjyyy) was used as bread of sorrow: ἄρτος πένθους, ὀδύνης, θλίψεως, Deut. xvi. 3; Psalms exxvil. 2; 7 Kings xxii. 27. Now, the paschal lamb itself could not be seethed in water, but should be roasted with fire. It was eaten with bitter herbs— Ὁ -ηα unleavened bread. At the meal, not under ten and not over twenty persons might be present who should use all the lamb; the residue was burnt with fire. The whole procedure at the meal was likewise specially prescribed, and, according to the latter account of the Talmud, was as follows. The head of the household who officiated as priest opened it with a short prayer, and then handed round to those present a cup of wine mixed with water. After all had drank and washed their hands, the viands mentioned, viz. the lamb, the bitter herbs, with the unleavened bread, and other dishes besides these were GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. 129 brought in. Whilst they ate, the son of the house asked the father what all this imported, and the latter then mentioned that it was done in commemoration of the departure from Egypt. Upon this the 113th and 114th Psalms were read, of which the first is a general song of praise ; but the other is a song of triumph, in which is described the departure out of Egypt as a mighty salvation of Jehovah. After this the second cup passed round, when drank, the patriarch took the unleavened bread standing by in flat cakes, broke it, and divided it to those pre- sent, who dipped it in the liquor of the bitter herbs—pp}An— and ateit. Thereupon followed the third cup, which is called “ The cup of blessing” ΓΙ ΞΙΤ DAD, and to this succeeded the singing of Psalms exv.—exviil. After the fourth cup—upon occasions, one re- cited the Psalms cxx.—cxxxvii., of these exx.—cxxxiV. are the so- called songs of degrees, those next songs of praise, all which col- lectively are entitled the great hallelujah ; and then with a fifth cup the meal concluded. Compare on this Leundius’ Judische Heiligthumer, 5. 970, and Jahn’s Alterh. Th. iii. Winer’s Bibl. Realler, B. II. sect. 230 —and in the Old Testament the principal passages upon the paschal feast, are Exodus xii. 1—20 ; Levitic. xxiii. 4-8 ; Numb. xxviii. 16—25 ; Deut. xvi. 1—8. Now the accounts which the Evangelists give of the Passover of Jesus agree in essentials with the above description. The Lord amongst his own disciples officiated as head of the family and priest engaged in the prayer and song; broke the bread and divided the cup of wine; but, above all, seized the usual intent of the passover in its deepest signification, and consecrated it to holy engagements of a higher kind, which are to be repeated in the New Jerusalem, the Church of the Lord, until the day of his second coming (1 Cor. xi. 26.) After these general remarks we shall consider, in the next place, the narrative of the Synopticks (Matt. xxvi. 17—19, and paral- lels) upon the preparing of the paschal-feast in Jerusalem. The account is commonly so understood as to include a mi- raculous element. Miraculous, accordingly, must be the pre- science of Jesus, that the two disciples sent should meet a ser~ vant with a cruse of water! Miraculous, also, the giving of the apartment for the passover by the householder ' VOL. IV. I 130 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. L7. But the narrative gives to the impartial interpreter not the least clue by which to know that this acceptation is correctly made out. And even so very much as one has to guard himself from ἃ super- ficializing of such narratives, as, after an examination of the his- torians, evidently contain a wonderful element ; just as much has he to beware of introducing that same element into places in which it does not lie expressly signified. It answers perfectly to the mean- ing of the reporters, if one so understands the occurrence, as that Christ previously covenanted with one in Jerusalem ; had arranged with him, he being a favourably disposed man to hold the passover with his disciples in an apartment of his house. That the Lord did not plainly mention the man’s name and his residence to the disciples whom he sent, to prepare beforehand for all the Twelve, but referred them to the guidance of a servant, explains itself very simply. As already Theophylact, and many after him, have ob- served, it was in order that Judas Iscariot should not know pre- viously where the paschal-feast was to be solemnized; otherwise, he would have been able to let the high priests arrest Jesus in the city ere the meal. And it naturally became the Saviour on this occasion to observe the sacred meal, as yet, in rest and quietude with his followers. Upon their proceeding to the meal, now cer- tainly Judas learned the place, but then, without exciting suspicion, he no longer could withdraw himself in order at once to an- nounce it to the priests. And when before the Supper, he was per- mitted to depart, it was already night—John xiii. 30—and Judas could not hspe,if he were to have collected the officials, to find Jesus still in the city ; hence he led them straight to Gethse- mene, If one were to maintain the miraculous character of the account, yet would he be able to assign no object of the marvel ; and yet this criterion should ever be applied, since thereby veritable miracles distinguish themselves from useless games with higher powers. But what object of the wonderful, in such an occurrence, can be perceived here? One might ΒΥ, “It should subserve the strengthening of the disciples’ faith.” But, in the first place, they betrayed no such weakness, that a strengthening of faith would just then have been necessary to them. Secondly, after the infinity of more exalted miracles which they had witnessed, the fact was not sufficiently significant to essentially GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. 151 strengthen them. Finally, in order that it should at all be acknow- ledged as a miracle, it should have been appended to the account, that no pre-arrangement occurred. Now, since the historians do not intimate this with even a word, the above-submitted acceptation of the affair remains the only one tenable. Further, the accounts of Luke and Mark are distinguished from the rest, through the minuteness and carefulness of their information. Both make men- tion of the man with the jar of water who should conduct the two disciples ; describe the kind of room that was chosen for the meal. And Luke xxii. 8 expressly mentions Peter and John as the two disciples, who received the order to make the preparations for the evening (T. but neither represent the procedure as of a miraculous kind.) Matt. xxvi. 17. The Synopticks unanimously give the day on which this preparation was made, as the: πρώτη ἡμέρα τῶν ἀζύμων. Matthew's addition: ποῦ θέλεις ἑτοιμάσωμέν σοι φαγξιν τὸ πάσ- ya ;—and still more definite the observations of Mark: ὅτε τὸ πάσχα ἔθυον, scil. οἱ---Τουδαῖοι---ἀὐαἃ of Luke: ἐν ἣ ἔδει θύεσθα, τὸ Taaxa—leave indeed no doubt upon the meaning of the expres- sion. The day is meant on which they already had removed all leaven, and all leavened bread, from the houses, and when,—at ¢he common: point of both days: the 14th and 15th of Nisan, which arrives agreeably to the Jewish custom—about six o'clock in the evening at sunset, they slaughtered the lamb, and with using it, opened the feast.* Tf in this passage one were to regard itself alone, no difficulties could ever have arisen. The difficulty arises first, after comparing John xii. J, xviii. 28, xix. 14 and 31. According to these passages for instance, it would seem that the Saviour had not, agreeably to the representing of John, eaten the paschal lamb, at the legally ap- pointed time, together with the Jews. Indeed, since John has not spoken anything of the passover, according to him it remains doubtful whether Christ at all observed this feast with his disciples. It might appear even equally remark- 1 According to Rauches’ view, one to be characterized as accurate, and which pre- viously Frisch had promulgated in his treatise on the Easter lamb, 17/8,—the paschal lamb was eaten, not at the end, but at the beginning of the 14th of Nisan, also at the transition point from the 13th to the 14th, from three in the afternoon to nine in the evening, after our reckoning: A hypothesis which, indeed, throws light upon many points, yet meanwhile in no way removes all the difficulties, I 2 ow 132 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. able, that the Jews, as appears from the representation of the Synop- tics, must have condemned Jesus on the first day of the passover ; which seems to be opposed to the character of the feast! But on this point it is not to be overlooked that they who executed the sentence were certainly heathen Romans. As regards the judicial proceedings, so little contrary were they to the character of the feast, that, as Tholuck, on John xiii. 1, observes, the Judges had a greater commentary (Leocal) bana even, for the Sabbaths and feast days, because on such days the cases were more nume- rous. The passing sentence, and every thing connected therewith, as, for example, the arrest, was regarded as a sacred proceeding, altogether commensurate with the character of the feast. Compare on this point John vil. 37, 45, 46 ; John x. 31; Acts xii. 8. Fur- ther, it is to be added that the typical character of the paschal lamb, 1 Cor. v. 7, even makes probable the hypothesis that the Lord died exactly on the day in which the paschal lamb should be slain. After this, the passages of John which were quoted above alone form the peculiar difficulty. These separately regarded, mean- while, admit of being reconciled without great difficulty, even up to the passage John xviii. 38. John xiii. 1, that: πρὸ δὲ τῆς éop- τῆς Tov πάσχα, is very easily explained, when one reflects that John wrote for Greeks, who do not, as Jews do, compute the be- ginning of the day at sunset. Hence the fourteenth of Nisan could just as well be called “the day before the passover,” as it could also, after six o'clock in the evening, “‘ the first day of the feast.” And further, it is to be observed, that the words quoted are con- nected immediately, not with the description of the meal of Christ, but with the knowledge of Jesus that his hour was come. [ἢ ver. 2, especially, καὶ δείπνου γενομένου so occur, that one sees plainly the same was later. Accordingly, we must translate—‘‘ When the passover drew nigh, Jesus knew that his hour was come, and when, therefore, the meal was prepared,” et cetera. (On the difficult construction, consult the particular-critique, in our illustration of the passage.) Now, in the passages John xix. 14—381, in which the day of the Saviour’s death is called παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα, this expression can very easily be so understood, that this day means the one pre- vious to the Sabbath, that occurs during the paschal feast ; and GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. 199 even thereby observed as a peculiarly sacred forerunning-day, or rest day. This explanation of the expression gains the more force from the fact, that not the slightest proof can be adduced that πα- ρασκευὴ was also used in the sense of rest day for a feast: com- pare the particulars in the exposition of the quoted passages. But far more difficult is the passage John xviii. 28, and only in connec- tion with it do the others receive their proper signification. Here, for instance, ‘tis said, ‘‘ the Jews went not into the Pratorium of Pilate, lest they should be defiled, but: ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα φάγωσι τὸ πάσχα---80 they would seem not to have held the passover, whilst, agreeably to the Synopticks, Jesus had already, on the previous evening, held it with his own disciples. This striking variation in the chronology has, to some extent, led scholars to very arbitrary conclusions! Whilst Bretshnieder makes use of it to repudiate the Gospel of John, others, as Usteri and Theile,? have drawn from it inferences in favour of John, and against the Synopticks. But in opposition, in a distinguishing manner, to the assumption of both parties, as involved in this dis- agreement, is the remarkable circumstance,—on which also Tholuck (on John xiii. 1) lays very much importance,—that the churches of Asia Minor’ even maintained the view, that the paschal feast should be observed at the same time with the Jews, agreeably to the custom that was come into use in Ephesus, through John. The Western churches, on the contrary, maintained the opposite view, after the authority of Peter and Paul. From this it clearly follows that we do not find the description by John in any way contradictory to the hypothesis that Jesus held the passover at one time with the Jews. But, even if the contra- 1 Tholuck (fifth edition of the Commentary on John, sect. 247, note) remarks very correctly, that, even if all attempts at reconciliation failed, yet from this apparent discre- pancy nothing could be inferred against the credibility of the evangelical history, since tis self-evident that a real discrepancy could not have occurred amongst the Evangelists on such a point. Especially so, I would subjoin, since ’tis inconceivable that a myth or legend could have sprung up upon a point in itself so irrelevant, and, historically considered, so difficult to be overlooked. Now, since the discovery at any time of a new archelogical fact,—as Tholuck quite correctly remarks,—might turn the proof either to the right or left, one, therefore, acts best to treat this entire investigation as purely one of antiquarian importance. 2 The former in the “ Commentatio critica, in qua evangelium Joannis genuinum esse ex comparatis quatuor evangeliorum, narrationibus, de caena ultimo, et de passione T. Chr. Ostenditur. Turici, 1823.” The latter in Winer’s “ Kritich. Journal,” vol. ii. pt. 2. 3 (In the celebrated controversy on the Easter Festival, in the second century.) 134 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. riety itself were incapable of being reconciled, still, it may be asked if it is not admissible here, as in other passages, to say simply that John, or even the Synoptics, in assigning the time of the meal, had fallen into a mistake and interchanged one day with the other, without further consequences thence arising against their credi- bility ? The impossibility thereof one cannot at this time directly determine. Yet this supposition cannot, with any kind of proba- bility, be made. For, even in those last hours in which the Lord tarried on earth, the Johannine representation bears a character of precision and carefulness that makes it improbable he could have mistaken, in so significant, so easily retained a circumstance. And, as to the Synoptics themselves, it is hardly conceivable that they could have been deceived in so important an item. [{ so, this then should pre-eminently afford an impulse to the attempts at reconci- liation to which uncommonly vast acumen and ingenuity are di- rected. Compare the more special investigation of this subject in Tholuck’s Commentary, fifth edition, on John xin. 1. Mean- while, many hypotheses on this point are, from the very outset, to be rejected. To which belong the view of Beza, Calov, and others, that the Jews had delayed the eating of the Easter lamb a day, for which no ground whatever is perceptible, similarly the opinion, on the other hand, that Jesus had arbitrarily observed the festival a day earlier. In order to make the clearer this earlier date of the feast of Jesus, some persons, since the time of Iken, appeal to a distinct mode of computation from the moon and its phases which should have obtained amongst the Pha- tisees and Sadducees, whereby at least the arbitrariness of the earlier celebration would be done away with. But this hypothesis rests merely on the fact that the more modern sect of the Karaites, which sprung out of that of the Sadducees, had a different mode of computing the moon’s phases; but whether the Sadducees had this mode just at the time of Christ or not is uncertain. There remain, therefore, only two hypotheses which are of con- sequence, and which claim any consideration. ‘The one is the hypothesis originated by Grotius: that the Saviour only ate a πάσχα μνημονευτικόν, hot a θυσιμον, By the first name is sig- nified, for instance, a lamb, that without being an identical pas- chal lamb— which, as was observed above, could be slaughtered and eaten in Jerusalem only—was eaten as a substitute for it. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 17. 135 The Jews ate such a commemorative passover, after the destruc- tion of Jerusalem, since which event they have lived dispersed amongst foreign people. But that it had been the custom, during the existence of the Temple, at the time of Christ, also to eat a com- memorative passover when out of Jerusalem, is not only indemon- strable, but also improbable: not to mention that Luke xxi. 7 must certainly be referred to the θυσιμον, it is even inconceivable that in Jerusalem itself, Jesus would have eaten any other than the cus- tomary paschal lamb. Hence it is that the Jews observed even their commemorative passover also on the evening of the fourteenth of Nisan, in order as much as possible to approximate the feast to the character of the original. Hence, then, it is not to be seen how in this way the disagreement can be settled. On the contrary, a fundamental solution of the difficulty is to be hoped from the other interpretation of John xviii. 28. At the conclusion of the first day of the passover, a ceremonial offering was presented, which was called ΓΙΣΟΔΓΤ' This offering, like all other offerings presented on the day, was also called mop. Deuteronomy xvi. 2 proves that, most clearly, where it is said—pirny Mop Aman 422 TRE Here great and small cattle are comprehended under the ΓΞ: But the peculiar passover should always be, a male kid of the sheep or goats. Hence it will follow that the other sacrifices during the feast of the passover, for which they took oxen, were also included under the word TDD: Similarly also must be understood, in 2 Chronicles xxxv. 7, et seq. τυ ὩΣ NDP of the various passover offer- ings. ΤῸ this must still be added ‘the circumstance to which By- naeus directs attention, that the entering of a heathen house defiled the Jews for the same day only: a defilement which they termed bray-o- Thus the entering the Pratorium of Pilate might have excluded indeed the Jews from the Chagigah, but not from the passover ; which, assuming that Jesus died on the fourteenth of Nisan, would not have occurred until the following day, to wit, at six o'clock in the evening. Tholuck also declares himself in favour of this view. Upon the whole, Lucke takes the same view, only he is opposed tc the usus loquendi that TIDp can also signify other offerings, which nevertheless, besides the passages quoted from the Old Testament, passages from the Rabbinical writings also, fully confirm. In this 136 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 18, 19. hypothesis, only the use of the article in the phrase φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, John xviii. 28, can remain strange, since it seems to point towards the real passover ; meanwhile, even the placing of the arti- cle in this connection admits of explanation very simply from the fact, that John presumed it well known to his readers, that the yet prospective participation of the Chagigah was signified by the name πάσχα. Ver. 18, 19. Under the ἑτοιμάζεῖν of the Passover, which Jesus en- trusted to the two disciples, Peter and John (Luke xxii.8), the con- 1 Tholock, in the fourth edition of his Commentary on John, stated that the treatise of Rausch upon the last passover of Jesus (in Ullucaus’ Stud. und Kritisch, Jahrgesch 1832), seemed to him to solve all doubts respecting the difference between John and the Synopticks. Rausch calls attention to the fact, that if the passover, agreeably to the law, should be eaten on the fourteenth of Nisan, not the end, but the beginning of the day is to be understood. On this he appeals to Josephus (Arch. ii. 5, iii. 10.) So that, thus in the transition from the thirteenth to the fourteenth of Nisan, the pascha] lamb should be eaten. Now even if this were quite correct, still I don’t see how by that means alone the difficulties can be entirely obviated. This Tholuck also admits in the fifth edition. For the most difficult passage, the φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, John xviii. 28, can, even after this view being granted, no otherwise be understood than as referring to the additional offering connected with the feast, or indeed, as Rausch prefers, to the un- leavened bread. But since according to this hypothesis there must be assumed an inter- vening day, not a festival day, between the partaking of the paschal meal and the first feast day, this manifestly does not commend it to a favourable reception. Compare De Wette (in den Stud. 1834; h. 4.) In other respects several important considerations favour this hypothesis of Rausch. For instance, the passage in the Tal- mud (Sanhedrim, fol. 43, s. 1), where ’tis said, “on the evening of the passover,” that is, at the end of the day, “ they crucified Jesus.” This, for example, seems to assume that Jesus ate the lamb at the beginning of the day. Also, the statement of Clement of Alexandria—in the fragments of his Treatise on the Passover, published in J. A. Fabri- enises’ edition of the works of Hippolytus, vol. ii. p. 66—that the paschal festival of Christ, as a symbolic one, fell upon the thirteenth, and his sufferings on the fourteenth of Nisan; accordingly thereto, admits of being fully explained. For he gave the be- ginning of the day as occurring agreeably to Jewish computation, at six o’clock in the evening; and according to the Greek mode of computing, as belonging to the previous day. Compare hereupon Ideler’s Chronology, Berlin 1831, sect. 216, sqq. Schnecken- burger’s view as to the chronology of the passion-week, in his contributions to an intro- duction to the New Testament, s. 1, sqq., is still less satisfactory than Rausch’s. Ac- cording to his view, the Lord must have been crucified so early as in the mid-week, and have lain in the grave three whole days, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday. He seeks to establish this hypothesis by the following means:—He understands the παρασκευὴ (Jolin xix. 31, 42) as a distinct feast, belonging to the cycles of the passover, which had reference to the harvest, and was, so to speak, a preparation for Pentecost. Meanwhile, the passages from Philo, to which the said scholar appeals, have failed to convince me of the tenability of this explanation. I entirely agree with Suffert (uber den Matthaus s. 128: note), when he says, “ The entire investigation concerning the celebration of Jesus’ last paschal meal, has no influence whatever, to determine the day of the week. Christ was crucified on Friday, according to all the Evangelists. Hence the only question is, ifthe Friday was the fourteenth or the fifteenth of Nisan.” GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 18, 19. 197 venient arrangement of the room is not to be understood merely, but also and chiefly the slaying of the lamb. That should be done in the Temple, and on that day every Israelite exercised, so to speak, priestly functions." The room in which the festive meal should be held (Mark and Luke use for it κατάλυμα = ξενοδοχεῖον, so Luke i. 7. Yet the LXX. use the word κατάλυμα for naw which in 1 Samuel ix. 22 occurs even of a refreshment-room also), the two careful reporters describe as an ἀνάγαιον (= poy), ὑπερῷον) ἐστρωμένον. δ Mark explains the latter expression by means of the annexed ἕτοιμον, that is, prepared for a banquet, furnished with table and couches. It corresponds to the Latin Sternere, which was used, namely, of the preparing couches for a banquet. We have learned no particulars concerning the person of the house-owner. If—as above was observed—Jesus did not wish, on account of Judas, to name him, yet it would seem that Matthew afterwards might have given his name when he wrote. Still he says only πρὸς τὸν δεῖνα. This expression agrees to the Hebrew s44p, which always occurs connected with ΟΝ, It signifies something which, though known, yet one does not wish to express. Compare Ruth iv. 1; 1 Samuel xxi. ὦ. But the supposition is not improbable, that Matthew did not name the man, in order not to compromise him. Whence either he, or at least his family, must have been living when Matthew wrote. It is not expressly stated that he was a disciple of Jesus: but the words 6 καιρὸς pou ἐγγύς ἐστιυ in Matt. xxvi. 18, make it most probable. The expression καιρός μου can in no wise refer to the mere appointed time of the meal, but to the entire developing of the life of the Son, as ordained by the Father, which now approximated itself to its completion. Evi- dently, if the expression καιρός μου, or the synonymous one 1 Philo de vita Mosis, p. 686, says of the paschal feast, σύμπαν τὸ ἔθνος ἱερᾷται. “ The priests alone could not possibly slay all the lambs, the number of which, at this feast, when resorted to, must have amounted to two millions, according to Josephus.” But this calculation is surely exaggerated, since at least ten persons should eat of eyery lamb. Let us suppose that, during the paschal feasts, there were two millions of men present in Jerusalem. Then, at the outside, the number of lambs would amount to 200,000. Nevertheless, is this number quite great enough still in order to make it impossible for the priests, in the space of a few hours, from three o'clock in the after. noon until nine in the eyening, to slay them 138 GOSPEL OF LUKE ΧΧΙΙ. 14—18, ὥρα μου occurs of a mere date—e. g. John ii. 4, vii. 6—yet a closer examination shows that even, in these passages, it has a deeper signification, whereto the pronoun manifestly refers: For instance, it must indicate that the time was fixed by the will of the heavenly Father. Compare the explication of the above pas- sage. ‘This then makes it probable that the possessor of the house was an intimate friend of the Lord. We might hazard a supposi- tion, as to Joseph of Arimathea or Nicodemus, since the sequel seems to assume that he was a distinguished man. ‘This view be- ing taken, the πρὸς σε ποιῶ τὸ πάσχα will not convey the sense of a dry announcement merely, but it will then appear aS an expression of the Saviour's love towards this disciple. ‘“‘ Even in your house { wish to hold the feast with my disciples.” Like Zaccheus, so also would this man have seen a token of fa- vour in the fact, that the Lord should in this way consecrate his dwelling. That he himself was not present at the meal is self-ex- plained very simply ; because, as patriarch, he had to officiate in his own family in partaking of the paschal meal. After this account concerning the preparation of the meal imme- diately follows the description of the procedure at the meal it- self. Towards evening (at the beginning of the 15th of Nisan as well) Jesus sat him down with his own, and indeed with all the Twelve, as the Synopticks unanimously state, to the repast, Matt. xxvi. 20: ὀψίας γενομένης. Luke has ὅτε ἐγένετο ἡ ὥρα. Here it is purely appointing of time, since the pronoun ov is wanting. The article marks out the appointed time for the feast of pas- sover, so that the meaning of the statement is, “ When the hour appointed agreeably to the law was come.’ For the ἀνέκειτο in Matthew, Luke has (xxii. 14) avewéce. Both expressions are those usual for the sitting down to a meal. Luke alone—xxii. 14—18—gives us the words with which the Saviour introduced the meal itself, and the solemn opening of the same. The words were suggested, as was natural, by the mention of his prospective trial, and by the desire of Jesus to partake of the paschal feast, yet once, and for the Jast time, in this temporal terrestrial scene, with them (in the αἰὼν avros). The beginning, ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπεθύ- pnoa κ. T,X. possesses something deeply intense and heart-stir- ring. How purely human and all-susceptible of love, desire, sorrow ; GOSEL OF LUKE XXII. 24—30 159 how far from all stoical apathy, appears the Saviour!! Here ἐπι- θομεῖν, as often in its noble sense, signifies a strong desire, longing, equivalent to JOD: The meaning is yet further strengthened by the annexed ἐπιθυμίᾳ. Compare Genesis xxxi. 30, where the LXX also have it. Altogether commensurately to the above de- scribed Jewish customs Jesus now offered the meal with a thanks- giving prayer (εὐχαριστήσας εἶπε), and then gave the cup around, Luke xxii. 17. This cup is indeed to be distinguished from the cup reached around at the holy supper, which was filled only when the repast was ended. (Compare Luke xxii. 20.) This is ‘the first cup before the meal. Of the others immediately following after it the evangelical history is silent. Upon the usual words with which this cup was reached around, viz., λάβετε τοῦτο, Kal διαμερίσατε ἑαυτοῖς, Luke, verse 18, raises the further comment, οὐ μὴ πίω απο τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπήλου, ἕως ὅτου ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ ἔλθῃ. According to Luke xxu. 16, where he has mentioned the φαγεῖν τὸ πάσχα, Jesus had previously expressed the same thoughts. Only, in the latter place, the for- mula πληρωθῇ ἐν TH βασίλεια stands for the ἔλθῇ ἡ βασιλεια. The reading βρωθῇ is certainly formed according to Matthew xxvi. 29, and ought be rejected. But the question arises, What should be supplied in πληρωθῇ We might supply πάντα. However, agreeably to Matthew xxvi. 29, where the same thought is more precisely expressed, πάσχα must be supplied. Hence the meaning is, “until the passover. in a more perfect form, shall be observed in the kingdom of God.” Upon the thought itself we shall speak more definitely at Matthew xxvi. 29. Here it remains only to enquire whether, according to Luke, the placing of these words before the supper or after the same, according to Matthew xxvi. 29, be the more correct. To me it is in no respect improbable that Jesus had uttered the same thought more than this once. In it concentres the whole consolation that the Saviour imparted to his disciples upon the mentioning of his suffering and of the last meal. ‘‘ For now, in- deed, we shall no more keep the pagsover feast together, but here- after we shall more gloriously observe it in my kingdom.” Very powerfully in favour of this is the fact that Jesus recurred to the same thought, Luke xxii. 29, 30, in the altercation of the disciples as to who should be the greatest. But if one will not admit this 140 _ GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 24—26. repetition, then will this thought stand more appropriately after the supper commensurately with its object. For even already in the supper the passover is spiritualized ; and hence, therefore, the idea seems to intimate the fact that in the kingdom of God it will receive its final fulfilment. At this point, doubtlessly, as was above observed already, when arranging the sequence of events in the last supper of the Lord, the strife amongst the disciples as to who should be the greatest oc- curred, Luke xxil. 294-90, through which the feet washing, John xiij., was occasioned. This happened, as is manifest from John xiii. 4, ἐγείρεται ἐκ τοῦ delrvov—compare verse 12— after the sitting down to the meal, but also during the presence of Judas. Hence the Saviour washed his very betrayers’ feet. Here only can this discourse be placed, because immediately after the declaration of Jesus concerning his traitor the latter with- drew. As to the occasion of that dispute nothing is mentioned, but the common conjecture as to its origin, viz., that the Apostles were con- stantly still expecting the setting up of an earthly kingdom of Christ, and aspired after the highest places which they supposed it would include, which hardly admits of being reconciled. The remark of Jesus would, for instance, if such motive had insinuated itself into the mind of the disciples, be by no means calculated to destroy these false expectations of theirs. In fact, it would have been entirely calculated to confirm them therein, since Jesus promised to them that they should sit on thrones and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. Compare Luke xxii. 30, with Matthew xix. 28, and what hereupon is observed in the Commentary. In the parallel case (Matt. xx. 20, sqq.), which proceeds from an external occasion, in which case the rest of the disciples thought they perceived at least such a striving after divine power in the earthly kingdom in the children of Zebedee; there is wanting even any expression which could be so misunderstood as that the Saviour himself fa- voured such ambition. Much rather does Jesus, Matt. xx. 28, represent the abandoning of even life as tlie necessary expression of pure love. Besides, according to this view, the disciples would appear to the highest degree devoid of sympathy, if it were possible for them, in so sacred a moment, to think of themselves more than of their GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 87—29. 141 lord and master. Far more acceptable, therefore, seems the con- jecture that something concerning the places at the meal spun itself out into a dispute. Each one wished to seat himself immediately in the place near the Lord; and only the attainment of these places which at bottom love allowed them to seek, might have caused any reference to higher or lower stations in the kingdom of Christ. These references, although indeed but casually expressed, led Christ yet again to inculcate upon the disciples meekness and self- abasement as the peculiarly Christian virtues. Luke xxii. 34 contains the expression φιλονεικία, which does not again occur in the New Testament. 2 Maccabees iv. 4, it stands as equivalent to μάχη. In the phrase TO τίς αὐτῶ, κ. τ. Δ. τὸ must be regarded as the accusative absolute. Ver. 25, 26. The following words correspond entirely to the pas- sage Matthew xx. 25, sqq. Still the differences are not found quite so great, that one requires to imagine a transfer of these words from one occurrence to an- other. The simple thoughts might very easily upon similar occa- sions have been repeated. The name εὐεργέτης is peculiar to Luke's gospel. As a title of honour, it was on occasions given to kings (e.g.) to Ptolomy Euergetes.' Philo in the (Legat. ad Gasum) names the Ceser Caligula σωτὴρ Kat εὐεργέτης. In 2 Maccabees iv. 2, the phrase seems not to be a title, but only a designation of the ministry of Onias. In the ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐχ οὕτως, it were best to supply ἔσεσθε. Meifwv is, by means of the antithetical- correlate γεώτερος, determined in its signification. Matt. xx. 26, place διάκονος in antitheses to the μέγας. Ver. 27. The words, ἐγὼ δέ εἰμι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν ὡς ὁ διακονῶν manifestly lead to the feet-washing, so that the account in John, derives no insignificant support from this passage. Comp. John xill. 7, 566. Ver. 28. How this verse stands connected with the preceding seems obscure. Kuinoel conjectures: that the disciples had spoken much between, which is omitted. But that is little probable, even if the discourse should have been abridged, still in the very abridge- ment, at the least, there should be an intelligible connection. That 1 Luther translates the words εὐεργέται καλοῦνιαι. They are called gracious lords = Man heist sie Guadige Herren. An expression entirely corresponding to that in the context. 3 142 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 29, 30. connection is doubtless as follows: Upon the humbling remark of Jesus, which had been called forth by the manifestation of their carnal speculations, the Redeemer addressed further to them an encouraging word. He acknowledges their true patience and devotedness to him, which had enabled them to share with him all his trials and con- flicts. Thereby, had they shown that this self-abasing love even already -existed in them (¢.e., in their renewed nature), and this made them meet for and worthy of the kingdom of God. (Πειρασμός is equivalent to διωγμός. Corp. Luke viii. 13 with Matt. xiii. 21.) Ver. 29. As his true disciples, yea children of the Spirit, the Saviour gives them the direct inheritance of the kingdom. The strict signification of διατίθεμαι (whence διαθήκη, Testament) must be retained firmly, and can in no way (as Kuinoel, Henneberg, and others would argue) be resolved into its general signification ‘ to promise.” The resemblance in the transfer of a worldly inheritance from Father to Son, directly leads to the idea of a κληρονομία, which the Lord at his departure bequeathed to his own as a sacred legacy. (Comp. remarks on John xvii. 22.) Ver. 30. The manner in which the kingdom is described evi- dently does not permit us, as was previously remarked, to think the apostles so completely sunk in Judaism, as to maintain the Jewish notions of the Messiah, else would the Saviour assuredly not have confirmed them in their errors. (Comp. the comments upon the ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν in Matt. viii. 11, xxvi. 29; Luke xiv. 15. Upon the καθίζειν ἐπί θρόνων, K.T.r. in Matt. xix. 28 in the Commen- tary). The words ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ are wanting in very good codices. Perhaps to many transcribers they seem superfluous, after the ἐπὶ.--- τῆς--τραπέζης---μουι The reading καθίσησθε is the usual one ; καθίσεσθε in respect of authorities is about equal. But the aris- ing of the former is more easily cleared up than that of the latter ; for the preceding ἐσθίητε καὶ πίνητε easily allowed of καθισησθε being written. It would not be inconceivable, that the following words directed to Peter, as Luke imparts them, had transpired im- mediate to the foregoing. But, as was observed in our general sur- vey upon the sequence of events in the Lord's last meal, the paral- lel passages in John xiii. 31—88 still make this supposition im- probable. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 21—-28. 145 Since, forinstance, this Evangelist preserves the order of sequence so accurately, whilst Luke, in this part of his history, evidently neglects it—it is incredible that the Lord should have uttered the same or entirely similar words twice upon the one occasion—- therefore, we must agreeably to John’s account, allocate the pass- age, Luke xxii. 831—88, more towards the end of the meal, to which arrangement the contents of the latter are perfectly accordant. Here Luke has but in an abridged form delivered the elements of the discourse. Very interesting thoughts which completed it have been withheld from us. According to the above adjudged sequence of the individual events in the supper, the next passage which now lies for explana- tion before us, is consequently the complaint of the Lord concern- ing the betrayer, upon which his withdrawal occurred (Matt. xxvi. 21, 866. ; Mark xiv. 18, sqq.; John xiii. 21, sqq. ; Luke xxii. 21—— 23.) This followed the preceding guarantee made to the faithful dis- ciples most ¢onformably and proportionately to its object. The joy on the former circumstance must,in the mind of the Saviour, through the contrast, awaken sorrow concerning the latter. Concerning the less suitable locating of the words belonging to this event by Luke, what was necessary has already been observed above. But all which John relates, as was elsewhere remarked already, comes under discussion here. For the variations in the accounts which first become comprehensible through John’s narration, require a special synoptical treatment. For instance, Luke places those words concerning the traitor, not only too late,—since he allows them to have been uttered after the supper,—but also merely gives them by allusion. Matthew and Mark contain them certainly more expressly, but one might so understand their representation as that Jesus, aloud, before all, had spoken the words—é ἐμβάψας per’ ἐμοῦ, οὗτός με παραδώσει. John alone, by his statements, makes evident the whole proceeding. But, in Matt. xxvi. 25, one fact appears to have been supplied by this Evangelist which is wanting in John. Concerning the way in which he can be annexed to the history, the particulars shall immediately be observed. Ver 21, 22. During the meal (εσθιόντων αὐτῶν) the Lord was powerfully affected with sorrow and depression of mind, at the re- flection that one of his disciples would betray him, (John xiii. 21 (ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεύματι.) τῷ 144 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 23. He now openly expressed these thoughts, partly perhaps in the hope, yet through the power of his sorrowing love, to affect the heart of the ill-fated disciple—(compare on this the par- ticulars at Luke xxii. 82)—but also in order, in the event of the contrary happening, to occasion his withdrawal: since he made known to him, that his black design was discovered. But, even here, the Saviour still exercised the highest forbearance, since he did not speak out openly to the other disciples, only to Judas himself. Much less did he vituperate or express dislike, but allowed the traitor to depart under a convenient appearance. (John ΧΙ]. 27, sqq.) Ver. 23. The disciples, dismayed at this disclosure of their mas- ter, and in their innocence rather seeking the guilt in themselvesi than charging it on any one else, though they might have antici- pated the condition of Judas, ask Jesus (ἀπορούμενοι περὶ τίνος λέγει, John xiii. 22), “is it I.” According to the representing of Matthew and Mark, the Lord appears to have given an entirely open answer to this question ; since, he says, ‘“ Who dippeth with me in the dish, he it 15. But, in the first place, the question of Judas, ‘‘ Whether it was he ?’ Matthew xxvi. 25, appears, according to this supposition, altogether superfluous. Secondly, the forbearing manner in which John ad- mits the Saviour to have acted, is contradictory to this open an- swer. Doubtless, then, we must complete the narratives of Matthew and Mark from that of John; and supply, to the question of John, which Peter suggested, Jesus replied, in a low voice, to the former, “he it is for whom I shall sop a morsel.” Cer- tainly, even thus, a difference still remains, but really an un- essential one. According to Matthew and Mark, at the mo- ment Judas dipped in the dish with Jesus. According to John, Jesus dipped a morsel for him. But to this unessential dis- crepancy no importance whatever should be attached: suffice it to say, in order to avoid mentioning his name, Jesus gave a sign to John by which he might know the betrayer. Upon the whole, however, we must say John has certain] y given the correct 1 But John and Peter, who were most developed in consciousness amongst the dis- ciples, were clear to themselves, that, in them, the possibility of such a deed could not be supposed. They appear to have asked, not “ Is it I?” but, merely, ‘ Who is it ?” GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 24. 145 representation of the occurrence, the other two Evangelists have narrated the same, in a manner somewhat modified. The render- ing which Henneberg further would maintain, according to which the 6 ἐμβάψας μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ in Matthew and Mark should be taken merely in the signification, “‘One of my domestic friends, who daily eats and drinks with me,” is one entirely irrelevant. That: in fact, agreed to each of the disciples, and hence was no answer whatever to the question—“ Is it I?” Moreover, the occurrence of dipping a sop, as John has it, explains itself altogether simply from the customsof the feast. The patriarch, for instance, took a piece of the Easter cake (ψομίον), dipped it in the bitter liquor (ΓΤ) and reached it in turn to each person at table. Hence if we reflect that, at the question of John, ‘“ who is it?” just was come the turn of Judas, then is quite simply ex- plained what occasioned the Lord to select this particular sign. (τρύβλιον or τρυβλίον, is by Suidas explained through πινά- κίον, patina, paropsis. In the LXX. for ΤΣ» Exodus xxy. 29. The discourse of Christ now links the history of the Son of Man to a sublime necessity, Luke xxii. 22—xaTa τὸ ὡρισμένον, scil. ὕπο Tov θεοῦ. ‘This necessity is the will and ordination of God, which are made known in the prophecies concerning Christ. Matthew and Mark have: καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ. Com- pare upon the prophecies here meant, Luke xxiv. 26, 27; 1 1 Cor. xv. 4. The ὑπάγειν in Matthew and Mark, like πορεύεσ- θαι in Luke, agrees to the Hebrew ἼΘΙ in the signification, “to die.” (Compare, for example, Genesis xv. 2.) But the ne- cessity of the way of the Lord being completed, according to its purely objective aspect, does not in its subjective aspect, destroy man’s free agency. Compare observations on Matt. xxvi. 54. It gives no predestination to evil ; compare in Commentary, Part I. on Matt. x. 1, xii. 10, sqq. xxiv. 1. Hence, therefore, the curse of the Lord comes upon “ him, through whom the Son of Man goeth.” The form of execration: καλὸν ἣν αὐτῷ κ. τ. X., is the expression for the deepest apostacy, for utter perdition. It is so strong, that it portends the exclusion of every hope. For one, even if late in attaining to eternal life, manifests still the new birth as a beneficent act. We may say, the declaration “ It were better for him that he had never been born,’ is the strongest in all the Scriptures for the doctrine of an eternal damnation. (Compare John xvil. 12, ὑετὸς VOL: IV K 146 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 94. τῆς ἀπωλείας. In the Old Testament, Job. iii. 11 ; Jeremiah xv. 10, xx. 14. (Upon the development in Judas of his sinfulness in ge- neral, and his condemnation, compare the particulars at Matt. xxvii. 9.) John still subjoins a remarkable statement, xiii. 27, in the pa- rallel passage to the latter, μετὰ TO ψωμίον τότε εἰσῆλθειν εἰς ἐκεῖ- νον ὁ Σατανᾶς. ‘These words refer back to John xiii. 2, and, at Luke xxii. 8, have a real parallel. From the similarity of these pas- sages, itis inferrable that the expression εἰσῆλθε is not to be strained. Since Luke previously, when speaking of the entrance of the Devil into the heart of Judas, where John uses that expression, only says—‘ he put the thought into his heart,” thus exercised upon him a far less immediate operation. The meaning of the statement is now clear and intelligible. It positively expresses the deepest depth of moral depravity. But I cannot assent to the ob- servations of Liicke (Part II. s. 482,) where he terms the expres- sion a figurative one. With equal right might we designate the operation of the Holy Ghost a figurative expression, which Liicke, however, will not assert.' If the existence of a kingdom of darkness is certain, so also is its agency to be admitted, and that a real agency in all respects, but of course not material. Perhaps, in order to guard against gross material views of the operations of the world of evil, the aforesaid scholar may have chosen that expression. Now, such passages are important, especially so in John, for they show thatin the gospel he teaches the same doctrine concerning the Devil which he expresses in the Revelations, and which all the writers of the New Testament support. 1 Liicke, on this subject, in his second edition, remarks, “ He does not call the ope- ration of the Devil a figurative expression ; but the particular words εἰσῆλθεν εἰς ἐκεῖνον ὁ Σατανᾶς." This certainly is an important distinction. I acknowledge to have pre- viously understood his words as Schleiermacher interprets them. That, for instance, every mention of the Devil and his agency was explainable from a tropical usus loquendi. Yet, even of the εἰσῆλθεν εἰς, I cannot concede that it is a mere figure, i. e., a figure without there being a real truth corresponding. Certainly we must not suppose the operations of the Devil to be material ; I will say further, they cannot be reduced from a purely spiritual influence to a material one more or less subtil. But, as generally the operations of the Devil are to be deemed real, so also is the εἰσέρχεσθαι. As the sacred operations of the Spirit of God gradually take possession of a man, until God himself makes lis abode in the man, similarly also of the evil powers of darkness. As God, albeit he must be thought the highest of all per- sonalities, enters and makes his abode in the souls of disciples; so also the Prince of Darkness enters into the souls of those who lay themselves open to his influence. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 25. 147 According to John’s observation, the fulfilment of the dark deed of Judas followed immediately upon his receiving the sop which the Saviour gave him (μετὰ τὸ ψωμίον). It is indeed not improbable that either he understood the question of the Evangelist to Christ, or that he suspected its intent, when taken in connection with the action of Jesus subsequent thereto; and that this inflamed his malignity. But it must ever remain worthy of consideration, that this pre- senting of the bread to Judas was to him the sign of a curse, whilst, correspondingly, in the supper the bread was to the faithful disciples the harbinger of blessing. Ver. 25. Still Matthew conclusively remarks that Judas also had asked the Lord “ Is it 1?” and that the Lord answered plainly ov εἶπας (precisely similar in the Latin, “ tu dixti;” compare Plautus’ Mercat. 1, 2, 52.) This statement seems to stand in contradiction to John xiii. 28, according to which passage the design of Judas remained unknown to all the disciples. The most simple course is to say, therefore, that Judas, under the shame and wrath of seeing himself detected, probably also stammered out the same question which the other disciples had asked; but either the distiples did not observe it, or else both it and the answer of Jesus also were uttered briefly and in a low voice, so that the disciples thereby learned nothing further. John and Peter, who knew him to be the traitor, may not have expected that the time for carrying out his design was so near. According to John’s account, which on this point is so careful, the Saviour himself required him to hasten with the prosecution of his preconceived plan, ὅ ποιεῖς ποίησον τὰἄχιον. In these words ——as from themselves alone may be understood—lies no sanction- ing to the deed, but only to the withdrawing from the circle of his own disciples, and to the completion of that which was al- ready certain to him. The disciples might easily misunderstand the meaning of these words; and John himself, who knew Judas was the traitor, might think the time of his proceedings was not so near hand. Hence they formed different surmises concerning his withdrawal, but certainly not at all probable ones ; for, as it already was night, neither might purchases be made conveniently, nor even alms distributed. (Upon γλωσσόκομον, consult the re- marks on John xii. 6.) John concludes his communications with K2 148 GOSPEL OF LUKE ΧΧΙΙ. 31. the graphic words, ἣν δὲ vo&. These awaken in the readers’ mind, too, the chronological reference to the previously-remembered time of the day, that it was the hour in which darkness had power. (Luke xxii. 53.) With the removal of the representative of darkness, the Lord’s innate love now broke forth, in the circle of his own, like to a long-restrained stream, in the words: viv εδοξάσθη ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ανθροποῦ, κ. τ. X., the explication of which we have already given at John xiii. 31, et. seq. With the following words in John (quoted by us elsewhere), a discourse, the mere elements of which Luke gives, xxii. 31—38, bears a great resemblance. Save that the former has for the most part omitted what is personal, up to the passage John xiii. 86-38, and rather given what is general; Luke, on the contrary, has directly mentioned what had reference to Peter expressly ; on which account, both reports can very well be explained independently one of another. This dialogue of the Lord with Peter arose very appropriately after the complaint concerning the betrayer. The latter was en- tirely destroyed under the temptation. Peter, on the contrary,— although, according to his natural proneness, rendered liable to the assaults of the enemy,—fell certainly ; meanwhile, in the sincerity of his inmost soul's principles, he had power through faith and re- pentance, to raise himself from his fall again: That event, too. should minister to him for the best, since it broke thoroughly his old nature, and so, matured him to become a real efficient labourer in the kingdom of God. The remembrance of his fall from the Saviour’s side, would work a beneficent humiliation in the Apostle’s mind, and hinder all exultation over the ill-fated Judas. To what occurred before the supper belongs meanwhile this statement. Also, since (Matt. xxvi. 20) immediately after the hymn with which the supper concluded, the departure to the Mount of Olives occurred ; whilst the great discourses given by John, chaps. xiv.—xvii., in which these words also cannot be included as belonging thereto, had been spoken previously. But, above all, the question still arises, how the words (Matt. xxvi. 30--35; Mark xiv. 26—-31) connect themselves with the preceding passage of Luke ? Both the Evangelists, Matt. xxvi. 30, Mark xiy. 26, place the words after the concluded supper, so that GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 31. 149 they should have been spoken somewhat on the way to the Mount of Olives. It would in fact be a very possible supposition, that the Saviour had once again reverted to the same circumstance. As indeed John also, xvi. 81, 32, in a somewhat modified way again turns back upon it. But yet I must confess, that in consequence of the intelligibly close connection with the passage in Luke, it is to me more probable hat all was spoken in one connected consecutive discourse. At least, it is suitable for the exposition to associate alike the account of Matthew and Mark, with the narrative of Luke, since every essential point is in both identical. The discourse of Jesus, when Judas had left the room, might properly have arisen from the general observation, πάντες ὑμεῖς σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, Matt. xxvi. 81, which forms an antithesis with the above εἷς ἔξ ὑμῶν παραδώσει με. (Matt. xxvi. 21.) The discourse accordingly is calculated to damp every self-approving emotion. Upon σκανδαλίζεσθαι, compare in Commentary, Part I. on Matt. xviii. 6. The necessity for this revelation, led the Savi- our back to a prophecy from the Old Testament, Zech. xiii. 7. The passage is according to its connection, like the last chapters of Zechariah generally, very difficult. But they undeniably con- tain references to the Messiah, as Christ's employment of it in the passage under discussion clearly shows. The accounts of Matthew and Mark nearly agree in the quotation. Only Matthew subjoins τῆς ποιμνῆς. This again is a hint which directs to another form of the quotation, which Matthew and Mark might have preferred; for the LXX. read: πατάξατε TOUS ποιμένας καὶ ἐκσπάσατε τὰ πρόβατα. The Alexandrine MS. reads πά- ταξον and διασκορπισθήσονται. But this perhaps is a cor- rection according to the quotation in the New Testament. The Hebrew text has the imperative of the singular yy. But the hypo- thesis of “a proverbial usage of the words’ which has been put forth, is evidently forbidden by the γέγραπται yap. There is ex- pressed in the object of the passage, pre-eminently, the intimate, connecting, preserving, associated, efficacy in the agency of Christ. He is the living power-diffusing centre of his church, like the heart of the body. If he suffer, all suffer with him. The oc- casional mention, that the Lord would, after the resurrection, 150 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 32. go into Galilee (Matthew xxvi. 32), will again be touched upon, with the passages, Matt. xxviii. 7; Mark xvi. 7. Here the only question is, ““ How are we to understand the connection of these words in Matthew and Mark?” Obviously, there should be intimated to the dispersed disciples a general place of rendezvous. ‘“‘ There, in Galilee,” Jesus wishes to say, ‘“‘ you shall again see me after the dispersion.” By those words of Christ, πάντες υμεῖς σκανδαλισθήσεσθε, is greatly simplified now with the reply of Peter, “‘ Though all should be, yet will not I.” (Matt. xxvi. 33.) The transition tothe warn- ing given him. (Luke xx. 81.) ‘Even before thee,” answered Jesus, ‘‘ stands the most difficult strife.” The expression, 6 σατανᾶς ἐξητήσατο ὑμᾶς τοῦ σινιάσαι ὡς TOV σῖτον, utters the following idea: “ There are in the course of our moral development times in which the whole power of evil, with every temptation, approaches a man. In such moments, what is goad in the man preserves itself; but also what is impure is mani- fested.” To the representations of the wicked one is this distinctive activity therefore to be referred, for sin in all its aspect is to be re- garded as subject to him. On the other hand, the divine activity _ assumes a negative form; such as leaving one to the world of sin, or holding back the power of grace from him. (Compare the ex- press representation in the prologue to Job, which is altogether corresponding to this idea.) The object of such sifting is first, the founding and perfecting of unmixed goodness; and, secondly, also, the eradicating of un- mixed evil, in order that they might be distinguishable. The reference of σατανᾶς, to human impersonations, whether in Synedrist, or in Judas himself, who had sought to lead astray the other disciples, is to be rejected here, just as well as in the history of the Lord’s temptation, as both unhistorical and unexe- getical Compare on Matt. xvi. 23. The expression σινιάσαι occurs only here. It comes from σίνιον, Vannus, a winnowing- machine. Compare Matt. 111. 12. According to the signification it resembles πειράζειν, still it denotes the strongest forms of temp- tation. Ver. 32. In this sifting, Judas proved like chaff. Peter was GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 32. 151 indeed caused to fall, but in faith he raised himself again. Here the Lord demonstrated his own prophetic power, and traced back the victory of Peter's faith, to his own prayer on his behalf. This remarkable reflection leads to the subject of intercession. For in- instance, we cannot here free ourselves from the reflection, did Jesus pray also for Judas? On this the Scriptures give no decided state- ments. But from the idea of intercession one may answer the ques- tion in the following manner. Intercession, even that of the Saviour himself, must ever be re- garded as not destroying the free agency of those for whom it is made. It may hence well support the decision for the truth of the mind which is directed to goodness ; but may not constrain to good, the mind striving in opposition to it. Hence it is allowable to say, whilst Judas was yet the victim of inward fluctuations, whether or not he should yield himself up to the biack purposes of his heart, so long would the Lord have included him in his supplication, in order to secure the victory for what was better in him. But, after he had voluntarily resigned himself to those purposes, the act was virtually already performed ; and hence, in such case, the power of the spirit could but prove detrimental to Judas by its contrary impulse, since, on account of his supposed opposition thereto, it should aggravate his guilt. (Compare on this subject the particulars at 1 John v. 16), where prayer for him who has committed a sin unto death is represented as not necessary.) When this self-abandonment commenced with Judas cannot posi- tively be determined. According to John xiii. 11, Jesus knew particularly that Judas was his betrayer ; and, according to vi. 64, knew so even ἔξ ἀρχῆς, that is, from the calling. But now the prayer for Peter had for its object his strengthening in the πίστις, not his sincerity nor his preservation from the fall. The fall seems, for example, like a beneficial crisis in perilous disease, to have been necessary for Peter, in order thoroughly to destroy his old man, and completely and permanently to achieve the vic- tory for his new man. It was necessary, in order that he might be able to raise himself quickly again from his fall, that Peter should firmly maintain his faith in the Lord’s forgiving love. On his recovery from the fall, through faith and repentance (compare remarks at Matthew xxyi. 75), therefore depended his effici- 152 GOSPEL OF LUKE ΧΧΙΙ. 32-—38. ency. He, therock of faith, after his conversion, should strengthen the weak in faith. These words of Christ, “I have prayed for thee, et cetera,” are also very important, inasmuch as they show that faith is not the work of man but the work of God in him. Man’s work is merely not to strive against the faith-producing power of God. All Christians generally are ἀδελφοί, the Apostles and nearest friends of the Lord not excluded. ‘‘The Acts of the Apostles” shows how it was Peter who strengthened the wavering faith of the other disciples. ᾿Επιστρέφειν, equivalent to 3 y5, is here to be understood as the meaning of μετάνοια, viz., spiritual con- version. Kuinoel’s observation that the first mention of the fall of Peter occurs at verse 34 is very easily explained when we reflect that the ἵνα μὴ ἐκλείπη ἡ πίστις cov assumes the fall as known. The MSS. D.K., and mayy others, have the reading ἐκλίπῃ, meanwhile ἐκλείπη is more correct. Ver, 33, 34. So great was the natural security of Peter, his con- fidence in his own power and good intentions, that he did not sus- pect himself at this warning of the Saviour. But Jesus foretold to him his denial altogether unequivocally. Here we are not to con- jecture any insincerity in the mind of Peter. He meant ingenuously what he professed. But in his inexperience he knew not how often, with the permission of God, all inward power fails a man, and how, in such a state of inward nakedness’ and destitution, only humble faith in the power of God can accomplish the victory. In the momentary feeling of his power, and in hopeful self-con- fidence, he held himself to be invincible, even in the most severe conflict. Mark, in the passage parallel to this, xiv. 30, writes, ἢ dis ἀλέκτορα φωνῆσαι. This expression goes upon the supposition that the cock crows about midnight and then again towards morning. (φωνεῖν, equivalent to ny.)- On this account the morning watch is styled ἀλεκτοροφωνία, Mark xiii. 35. According to Matthew xxvi. 85, Peter, persuaded of his own sincerity, did not at this dis- tinct pre-announcement of his fall even then retract, but yet once more boasted that he would go with Jesus to death. To the cha- racter of Peter such mental egotism, bordering upon presumption, . corresponds entirely, and, accordingly, the subjoined statement of Matthew possesses nothing improbable. Ver. 35—38. The following passage, which is peculiar to Luke, contains something very obscure,—Christ evidently wishes to repre- GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 85—38. 153 sent his prospective passion as the acmea of his humiliation. To that conclusion we are led by ver. 87, in which the καὶ μετὰ ανό- pov ἐλογίσθη from Isaiah liii. 12, to the general idea of the suffer- ing and death of the Lord, annexes further the particular one: ἔτε tovro—that he should die, not as a righteous person, but with the appearance of unrighteousness and amongst malefactors. The LXX. read here: ἐν τοῖς ἀνόμοις. We must not lose sight of the fact that our Lord himself explains this passage from Isaiah 1111. as referring to himself, which, for the general view of that important chapter, is of the utmost consequence. Τελεσθῆναι has here a like signification with πληρωθῆναι; so has τέλος ἔχειν with πληροῦσθαι. But it is remarkable that the fulfilment of the prophecies referring to the Lord (τὰ περὶ ἐμοῦ) is conjoined to this point of time, even previous to the arrest. For the Scriptures prophecy, also, of the Lord’s coming in his glory ; and there are particular incidents in the sufferings of the Lord prophesied, 6. g. “1 thirst,” and “A bone of him shall not be broken,” John xix. 28—36, which fall later. The simplest course is to say that the Saviour probably comprehended, as a whole, the prospective event of the sufferings which should end his earthly being. The expression Ta περὶ εμοῦ τέλος ἔχει should then be rendered in the following manner, “‘ What stands written of me, as regards this earthly life, with all which it involves, is being fulfilled.” Then the events, apparently still future, fall in with the present. The Saviour now contrasts this last disastrous time, in which darkness had the power—Luke xxii. 53—with the for- mer times of blessing. The description of that time of blessing is thrown into words taken from the instructions given the Apostles, Matt. x. 9, 10. Compare what is stated in the Commentary, Part 1. on this passage. All external things fell to them then without care, and the fulness of those external supplies was a type of the spirits’ power diffused within them. But to this time of blessing now comes in opposition the time of conflict and necessity, in which one must carefully provide all he is able to procure. So far the connexion is now clear, and the meaning of the figura- tive discourse easy to be understood.’ But the subjoined 6 μὴ 1Cf. diss. Winterbergie in Velthusen syll., vol. v., p. 104, sqq. Here the knot is cut asunder. In this a misunderstanding of Christ’s words on the part of the disciples is assumed. De Wette appears altogether obscure and erroneous in his explication of this 154 GOSPEL OF LUKE XxIl. 38—38. ἔχων πωλησάτω TO ἱμάτιον αὑτοῦ Kal ἀγορασάτω μάχαιραν, together with the remark of the disciples and the answer of Jesus, present a difficulty. First: As regards the μή ἔχων, it evidently stands in contrast against the ἔχων, but to what end is this anti- thesis does not appear. ‘This difficulty has led some to an expla- nation of the ἀράτω, according to which, it should be rendered, «to make away with, to sell.” So that the meaning would be, “‘ he who has scrip or purse, let him sell them; he who has them not, let him sell his mantle, and buy asword.” But then the important contrast with verse 35 falls quite away !—not to dwell upon the perversion of language, that aipew should be rendered, * to sell.” Obviously, the Lord wishes to say, “then might every one leave scrip and purse at home ; but now must he who has them take both with him.” Hence the passage is better to be understood thus: he who has anything, let him take with him what he can, and also a sword; but he who has nothing, let him seek to supply himself at least with a sword, even at the greatest sacrifices,—(udtvop, a sym- bol of what is most necessary. One can then take the μή ἔχων as equivalent to οὐδὲν ἔχων = ab pS TW, Secondly : The second difficulty lies in the mentioning of a sword. It naturally seems strange that the Saviour, the King of Peace, should wish to incite his friends to external resistance! Little ac- cordant thereto, if such a case were at all conceivable, which it by no means is, is the ἱκάνον ἐστι, verse 38, when yet there were only two swords ; and just as little the words of Christ to Peter, “ put up thy sword into the sheathe,”’ Matt. xxvi. 52, when he wished to make use of it. Those interpretations of the passage, which assume an error in the translation, or in which μάχαιρα is taken for a butcher’s knife, so that it is parallel with βαλάντιον and apa, as implements for a journey, have evidently proceeded from despair as to the rendering of the passage. The only way to explain it cor- rectly is this: to take μάχαιρα just like βαλάντιον and πηρα, in a figurative sense. ‘The expressions cannot here have refer- ence to journeying, for no journey was to be accomplished ; they passage. He prates that 1 understand the passage as “ figurative, or rather equivocal,” and yet his explanation comes out to be nearly the same. At the conclusion ἱκανόν ἐστι is explained altogether plainly as it was by me. “In a twofold sense two swords are enough, and there is enough on this subject. You do not yet understand me.” Where, then, remains the exegetical consequence ? GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 155 merely signify, to hold themselves in a state of preparation, to make ready. In just the same way, μάχαιρα relates to defence, not how- ever to bodily, but to spiritual defence. Accordingly, it is the sword of the spirit that is meant (Eph. vi. 17), with which they should provide themselves. The meaning of the whole passage then is this: “ Hitherto, in the days of blessing, the Lord cared and fought for you, ye needed not to provide anything; all flowed to you; but henceforth, in the evil days, you must employ all care and effort, and hence what you possess as means subserving to your spiritual life, collect together: but at least you need the sword of the spirit, in order to be able to stand in the evil day, and to main- tain the field. Purchase ye, therefore, the same, with your most extreme endeavours, renounce everything earthly, even to the most necessary, in order to depend on him alone, who is from everlast- ing, and to experience his power.” (Compare on the distinction of good and evil days at Luke xxii. 53.) Now the disciples misunderstood this concealed meaning of the words of Jesus; they were thinking upon iron swords, and re- plied that they already had some. ‘The Saviour felt that it would be useless, at such a moment, to enter into explicit details of what was so simple; the disciples were already too mistaken to allow a hope of bringing them to a right position for understanding him ; he therefore uttered his ἐκανόν ἐστι, as we give an evasive answer to children, when we experience the impossibility of making our- selves intelligible to them. The phrase ἐκανόν ἐστί includes a kind of double meaning, since it can refer to the two swords, in the sense “ two swords suffice,” just as well as it can also to the whole dialogue, in the signification, ‘there is enough on this subject, I see you do not yet understand me.” The supposition of zrony in the meaning, “ Yes, your two swords will do, that will be a fine protection,” seems to me to be unsuited to the solemn decision of character of the Lord. (In the Hebrew, the word 35 agrees to ixavoy, in the formulae MAY 27; ob 345 or Ae 34; compare Gesenius in his lexicon, under the word ea) Finally, The history of the institution of the holy supper, forms the conclusion of the account of the Lord’s last meal. (Matt. xxvi. 26—29 ; Mark xiv. 22--25; Luke xxii. 19, 20—- 2 156 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. compare therewith | Cor. xi. 23—26.) For the holy supper, the immediately foregone exhortations to repentance, and admonitions of Jesus, constitute, as it were, the confession sermon, which should lead the disciples to sincere self-examination. (1 Cor. xi. 28.) After Judas had withdrawn, and when all that was necessary had been spoken, the Saviour proceeded to the instituting of a sacred ordinance, which he should leave behind to his church, as an ever- during remembrancer, until his second advent. In the most hidden stillness of the little circle of his own dis- ciples, the Redeemer instituted that undazzling service, which was to become of world-wide interest. But even that repast of love had, up to the present, been an occasion for the most violent disputations amongst those by whom the histories of the church and its dogmas were to be recorded.” The simple words of the institution have hence been forced to the most different construc- tions. An exegesis might meanwhile comprehend the whole problem of 1 The supper, as many seem to think, has its extraordinary—not mere historical —in- terest in the fact, that in the course of centuries it has furnished occasion to so much disputation and conjecture, Millions also have regarded, and still regard it, as but a costly ornament of the church. But it pre-eminently has its significance purely in it- self. One of the deepest metaphysical problems,—the question of the relation of spirit to matter,—comes under discussion in the doctrine of the holy supper; as it does emi- nently in the doctrines of the resurrection and glorification of the flesh. From the va- rious principal views concerning this doctrine arise also, on account of their number and variety, the several theories regarding the supper. Jdealism appearsin the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation, in which the matter is volatilized into spirit. Dualism is expressed in the view of Zeuinglius, in which spirit and matter are rigidly and absolutely dissevered. Realism distinguishes, on the contrary, the Luthero-Calvin- istic interpretation, which conceives spirit and matter as neither changed nor dissevered, but as both existing in their true connection and mutual dependence. The doctrine of the two natures in Christ, is, accordingly, the ante-type for the doctrine of the relation of the higher and lower in the supper. Asin Christ divinity and humanity are united, without the one being deprived ofits identical nature by the other; so also in the sup- per, the word of God attaches itself to the matter, and consecrates it to the sacrament. ** Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.” In these words of Augustine, rests the only true canon for the doctrine of the sacraments. 2 The latest writings upon the supper, are by Scheibel—Breslau, 1823; by Schultz— Leipzig, 1824, by Schultbeg—Leipzig, 1824; by Leindner—Leipzig, 1881; Sartorius has given a review upon thie latest treatises on the doctrine of the supper in the Evang. R. Zeitung, 1832, Maiheft. Yet we might compare Eisenlohr in “ Klaiber’s Stud., B. i. c.i. s.i,, ff Upon the question, “In his last meal held with the Apostles, had Jesus an intention to found a religious ordinance ?” compare further, ‘“ Upon the substance of the holy supper,” by Moses: examine the latter, with reference to Staudel’s essays in the Tubuiger Zeitschrift Jahrg. 1832—1833. T. The passages of the two latter are numerous, and extend over much of whole works. 2 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. ΤΟΝ it, if it were to enter into the detail of the explanations which have been invented in support of the views of one party or another. It is the business of a history-of-dogmas to treat on this subject. Much rather ought an exegesis only directly render the readings back simply to the train of ideas which the Saviour must have had in speaking the words, and the disciples in hearing them. But the interpreter must certainly present openly his individual view thereon in connection with the prevailing view. On this point, in the next place, it should not be overlooked that the view entertained by the disciples of old, concerning the Sacrament, even at the instituting of the sacred meal itself, cannot be considered as perfect. On the contrary, it is most probable that they by no means understood fully the idea which the Saviour connected with it. We find them, before the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, so unresolved in all respects, that it is probable they would, for the first time, have fully understood the profound meaning of the service after that event. We have then no oc- casion whatever to suppose, that, with the service, Christ had united an explanation as to its nature. This consideration is comfort- ing, in so far asit warrants the inference, that the blessing of partici- pating in the supper does not depend on the condition of the degree of purity by which its nature is represented, but on the sincerity of the desire after power and assistance from above. It is assumed that the mind's eye is not wilfully averted from the correct mode of its representation. Accordingly, therefore, disciples of all shades of opinion, who hold the most distinct notions of the supper, may with profit enjoy it, provided only they have faith ; that is, spiritual suscep- tibility of the powers of life, which, through Christ, are therein delegated. Secondly, an exegesis should not—in order to render our present readings back to the train of ideas which the Lord himself and the Apostles, after their illumination by the Holy Ghost, severally had in the instituting and observing of the sacred supper—be thought quite independent of the ecclesiastical rubric (— Praxis) as to the authentic declarations of the Scriptures concerning the nature of the supper, and independent of the general connection of the Chris- tian doctrines. In either case it should betray us into error. First—as regards the ecclesiastical rubric—that for instance 158 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. must be referred to here, since the discussion is concerning a ser- vice of a repetitionary kind. If an exegist were to expound the narratives of only Matthew and Mark, and them, in a mere gram- matical manner, then might he infer that Christ had only intended to take his parting leave of his disciples, by means of a symbolic service, picturing forth his death, that he had not thought at all upon this meal being repeated." On the contrary, from John xiii. 14—17, he might infer that, agreeably to the intention of Jesus, the feet-washing should be repeated. But the ecclesiastical rubric of the old church, which church was founded by the Apostles, whom we must regard as authentic interpreters of the meaning of the Lord, exhibits directly the con- trary of both inferences. And since the accounts of Luke and Paul also contain the positive command for repeating it in the in- stitutory words of the ordinance, it is clear, from the ecclesiastical rubric, known to their readers, that Matthew and Mark took for granted the repeating of the ordinance. 1 Moreover, it seems difficult, concerning the first supper, to retain firmly the full sig- nification of the Sacrament ; inasmuch as the work of Christ was not yet completed, his body not yet thoroughly glorified, the Holy Ghost not yet shed abroad. We might be- lieve that this first participation possessed only an ante-typical character: that it was after the resurrection, the entire power was, for the first time, to be experienced in the ordinance. A remembrance upon the Lord’s death could not in fact obtain in the first supper. For this event was still prospective. The breaking of the bread and the dis- tributing of the cup possessed more of a prophetic character. It was, in the first in- stance, an ante-type, and, after the death only, became an after-type. Kuinoel in his book “of the Christian religion,’ Danzig, 1835, 5, 218, expresses himself to the effect that, in the first supper, the disciples as yet enjoyed but the sacrament of the old cove- nant. But, according to that view, would certainly altogether be wanting the founding of the sacrament of the new covenant! Besides, the disciples even before the supper, ate the paschal lamb. Much rather is one compelled to say, “ the first supper was the event which fulfilled what in the Old Testament was a type: the removing of the sha- dows before the substance.” Zinzendorf puts forth the discordant opinion, that, in the first supper before the passion, it was only the bloody death-sweat of Jesus that was partaken of. Besides the repulsiveness of this theory, really the struggle at Gethsemene took place posterior to the instituting of the supper. Compare Acta hist. Ecel., vol. xx. p- 806. But to those who admit that the glorification of the humanity of Christ did not begin till the resurrection or ascension to heaven, is really incomprehensible how Jesus, even before his passion, could have dispensed his flesh and blood. To them nothing remains but to say, “then Christ had produced out of nothing his own flesh and blood.” According to our view, as to the glorified humanity—which view confirms itself to us more and more upon every closer examination, from whatsoever point we proceed—the full efficiency of this first supper is, on the contrary, to be made altogether obvious. The Saviour bore the glorified body already there in himself. The mortal body enveiled it as the shell does the kernel. Accordingly there could also, even then, proceed from lim an efficiency of this glorified humanity. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 159 Secondly. As regards the authentically delivered declarations ; as especial ones, 1 Cor. x. 16, 17, x1. 28—29, and, in a certain respect, as to which should be observed the particulars in the commentary on the same passage, also John vi., are to be. enu- merated. In these passages there is ascribed to the supper a specific spiritual character. There is a self-examination enjoined previous to the reception of it, and a blessing or curse annexed as sanctions to it. Thus is excluded, before that here given, the Zuinglian view, ‘that the supper was merely a commemorative meal;” for, accordingly to that view, no specific character in the sup- per is imaginable. Finally. To a decision of the question, “‘ How does what is specifically superior attach itself in the supper to the mere ele- ments ?” there is necessarily demanded a renewing of the connec- tion in which this doctrine stands with the whole remaining course of gospel doctrines ; according to the fundamental principle of in- terpretation, ἢ. e. after the analogy of faith. Pre-eminently, there come under discussion—in the doctrine of the supper—the biblical doctrines of the relations of σάρξ and πνεῦμα generally, and of the glorification of the body in particular. Now, where the biblical doctrine of the Resurrection, and of the σῶμα πνευματικόν, | Cor, xv. 44, sqq., which believers hold it to include, are denied ; and where one holds, that Sprit and Body exist therein, in rigid Dualism, one from another, without any approximation ever oc- curring, there must naturally be an evaporation into common spi- ritual operation of that which is specific in the supper, as 10 also makes itself known in prayer. Just in the same way, according to the ana- logy of faith, the Catholic theory of Transubstantiation also appears erroneous. For as the word, which is become flesh (John i. 14) did not change the σάρξ into its own substance, nor itself into that of the σάρξ, but as always, even in the case of the glorification of the σῶμα of Christ, humanity and Deity are in him united, precisely is such the case also in the supper. Hence according to the doctrine of the Catholics, of a tran- substantiation of what alone was physical, the supper appears but as a repeated sacrifice ; but against this is the circumstance, that Christ in such case must have sacrificed himself, prior to the true sacrifice that he offered on Golgotha; for he instituted the supper before his death. But one may with propriety regard—as 160 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. was observed above—the original institution of the supper, like the Old Testament sacrifices, as ante-typical to the coming sa- crificial death of Christ. Similarly we can regard the constantly renewed repetition of the supper, as an after type of the same. But yet this is only one of the many relations, and indeed not the most essential one amongst them, which in the supper are bound up like roses in a chaplet. In accordance to what was said, I hold paramountly Luther's notion of the holy supper, as that which coincides in all essen- tials, alike with the ecclesiastical rubric; with the authentic de- clarations of the words instituting it ; and with the connection of the Scripture doctrines. According to my conviction, the Scrip- ture teaches that in and under the elements of the holy supper, he who now sits with his glorified humanity at the right hand of God, the Saviour, dispensed even this his glorified bodily nature, which certainly can never be dissevered from a spiritual and divine exist- ence—this his spiritualized flesh and blood, to the faithful; for a φάρμακον τῆς ἀθανασίας, as Ignatius titles it; a germ of new life also, for their own bodies, which are hereafter to be awakened. (Compare the remarks on John vi. 54, sqq.) But my view deviates from that of Luther in the instances ; that first, it does not appear to me to be included in the idea of the supper, that all who partake of it receive the Lord’s body. Although, for instance, the Lord’s body is partaken, yet still is it not received “ orally,” (as Luther says—compare the passage concerning the supper in Scheibel s. 844) since it is a spiritual body. ‘This, at the least, is a mode of expression, which, even if it admitted of being proved correct, yet is foreign to the Serip- tures, and which, on account of proximity to a misconception, is better avoided. Where, accordingly, the organ for partaking of the spiritual body is deficient, viz., the mouth of faith, where especially no new spiritual man has been born through baptism, in 1 Scheibel probably but wishes to promulgate this after-typical character of the supper, when he would have it thought to have obtained as a sacrificial repast. This expression should consequently but make remarkable the idea, that as a man pledges himself to some one general object, by means of a sacrificial meal; in like manner, the supper ought to be for the faithful the spiritual-bodily means of union. St Paul, 1 Cor. x, 17, gives prominence expressly to this relation, since he regards the faithful many as one body—(as many bread corns form one loaf)—because they are partakers of the same bread. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 161 such cases the body of the Lord cannot be received. But where in one who had been born again, depravity, faithlessness, and there- with apostacy from religion, occurs, in such case the power of the supper thrusts away from itself the man ; just as the Holy Ghost departs from, and does not enter into such an one. (Upon | Cor. xi. 29, from which passage some persons seek to prove the contrary, compare the Commentary.) Hence, according to my persuasion, in the supper is partaken of, not the whole Christ, but an operation of him, and indeed of the Saviour as glorified. The view that the whole Christ is partaken in the supper, leads to the doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ, and of the divine attributes. This, regarded as personal ubiquity, is certainly not biblical. The only truth contained in this representation is as follows. The Lord, agreeably to his union of natures, can even with his humanity operate on behalf of all. As the sun sends forth its beams over all, so the Saviour breathes from himself a vivifying power. This power, being alike divine and human, is calculated also to glorify in soul and body, the man who is born again of the Spirit; and this power is received where moral capacities for receiving it are ready provided. But every operation of Christ contains the power to produce him complete in the mind,* 1 This thought should not be overlooked, since without it my view might be misun- derstood, when I say that “ not the whole Christ, but an operation of him, is present in the supper.” In Luther's doctrine of the ubiquity of the body of Christ rests chiefly, on the one hand, something bordering upon “ Doketic Monophysics”—(which comes out particularly in the conclusion, that the attribute of God is paramount; which undoubt- edly is contrary to the meaning of the writers of the sacred Scriptures)—and so far is it erroneous, But, on the other hand, Luther also had something altogether correct in view, since he states it, for instance, as a necessary assumption, “ that the glorified hu- manity of Christ, the omnipresent agency of the Son of God, must be allowed to follow, if the discourse should be of a real presence of the flesh and blood of Christ in the sup- ” per. We might firmly hold this latter opinion, without venturing to admit the Lutheran doctrine of the ubiquity of Christ and of the divine attributes, if one could regard the individual personality of the God-Man, dissociated from the efficiency proceeding from him. But really this efficaciousness cannot be considered as what is absclutely distinct from Christ, nor so undersiood; if otherwise, then would it follow that Christ is not what is in the supper, but something else, to wit, his efficaciousness. Much more should it be firmly held, that everything which is in Christ, and which proceeds from him, and similarly also with his divinely human efficiency, partakes of his nature. For example, in this efficacy he himself is present, viz., in the germ, or in the ability of producing himself, as in the wick rests the capacity to produce the greatest flame, in susceptible materials. Similarly, the soul which participates of the real efficiency of Christ, receives therewith the power to become like him. In him the divine corn of seed calls forth a VOLS DV. L 162 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. as the spark can beget the flame from which it sprung. (Compare on John iv. 14.) Accordingly, as in the person of the Saviour, the divine and the human natures, unmingled, but also inseparable, are united, pre- cisely so in the supper is the power of Christ associated with bread and wine, without the one destroying, or even so much as altering, the nature of the other. If after this we regard the individual accounts concerning the supper, in the foremost instance, it is clear that 1 Cor. xi. 23, sqq., must be considered as the chief passage. For Matthew and Mark report more briefly the prescript of church ordinances ; whilst in John is entirely wanting the history of the institution of the holy supper, for John vi. merely alludes to the supper —compare upon the grounds of this omission the remarks on John xiii. 1—Luke also makes a retrogression, although on the whole following after Paul, particularly in the account of the τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν (Luke xxii. 19.) And above all, the Apostle declares, 1 Cor. xi. 23, that in an immediate way he had received from the Lord information concerning the supper, even for the church's appointed ordinance. We may, therefore, say, “‘ the Saviour did express himself as to his view in the founding of the supper in that conclusive passage.” (Upon the παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, compare the Commentary on 1 Cor. xi. 23.) In the exposition of the Synopticks that communication of the Saviour cannot, therefore, remain unreviewed. Further, as regard~ ing the form of the service, it was already, in the introduction to this paragraph, observed that a dividing of bread and a sending round of several cups of wine, during the singing of psalms, was customary in every paschal feast. To this custom the Saviour gave a more profound import, since he viewed the breaking of the bread and the distribution of the wine as symbols of his vicarious death upon the cross. According to the constitution of the tran- substantiation doctrine, it nearly stood that the supper should be new spiritual production, which glorifies first the soul, next the body also, and which, without that efficiency of the Saviour, never could have been produced. Sartorius, in the spirited essay in the “ Evang. R. Zeitung, Jahrg. 1833, Feb.,” on the communicatio idiomatum, has defended to the last point the harsh Lutheran view of the ubiquity (con- cerning the ubiquity of the attributes of God, compare the particulars in Matt. xxvi. 62, et seq.) GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 163 viewed as an actual repetition of the sacrifice itself. But this view is contradicted by the rubric of the ancient church, similarly by the connection of the Scriptures throughout. There should be, as was already observed, represented figuratively, only the one offering by which he perfected all who are sanctified, Hebrews x. 14. The essence of the holy supper consists in the accompanying of the ex- ternal rite by the word, which as the word of God is spirit and life (John vi. 63), and operates accordingly. In the next place, now remains to be noticed the expression—)dPere, φάγετε, πίετε —which is preserved by only Matthew and Mark. In Mark, too, the latter two phrases are wanting. Several codices, indeed, have the reading φάγετε, but it has been derived into their text from Matthew only. In these words is expressed on the part of the disciples who represent the church, their acceptance. Christ is what is dispensed, appeasing with himself their spiritual hunger and thirst. Through him the church is nourished. From this relation it follows that the Lord himself cannot have mutually partaken of the bread and wine. The discussion here is not concerning one particular supper, in which all disciples as co-ordained enjoy the same food, as a sign of intimate union, but concerning one that became nourishment, like as nourishment is imparted to the infant by means of the mother's breast. Consequently our discussion cannot be concerning any reciprocity of nourishment.’ Hence is warranted the inference, that agreeably to the intent of the sacred ordinance there cannot occur a communion of saints —a self-communication of the spiritual, as is usually thought, not only in the Catholic church but also in the evangelical churches in various places. He who spiritually officiates occupies, so to speak, the place of Christ. They who partake of the sacred supper represent the church. But, in self-communication, the one who spiritually officiates should unite both characters in himself, which seems to be contradictory. (Compare Ruswurm upon the Commu- nion of Saints, as held by Evangelical Churches. Hanover, 1829.) Where, however, the custom already obtains, and that one cannot persuade himself it is inappropriate, there also will the Lord in such wise dispense to the recipient his blessing. Next comes under dis- 1 This was erroneously believed formerly by Chrysostom, who, in his exposition of Matthew, Homily 72, says—ro εαυτοῦ αἷμα, καὶ αὐτὸς ἔπιε. L2 [0:1 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. cussion as to the signification of the mutual participation, the words: τοῦτό ἐστι TO σῶμα pov, TO αἷμά pov. In the Ara- maic language, which doubtless Jesus spoke in that most narrow circle of his disciples, probably the words uttered were OT NIT SWS NAT or more correctly, according to Scheibel (in a passage quoted elsewhere, 135), spy,-s977-M}- DTN. At least ab is in any case more correct than “wa which corresponds to the Greek σάρξ, since assuredly, in regard to these so significant words, the greatest preciseness of expression would be observed by the Evan- gelists. As, therefore, all the four reporters have σῶμα, which for that reason is so much the more striking, since the following αἷμα should rather lead to σάρξ, which latter expression moreover occurs in John vi. ; hence σῶμα is the preferable expression. The reason why σῶμα is just here selected, may be understood from the statements of Luke' and Paul. The subjoined expression, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον, κλώμενον, imperatively requires it. Since, for in- Stance, σώμα, indicated as a whole, the physical organization, whe- ther dead or living, of which organization the living substance is called σάρξ, its lifeless substance xpéas; hence to an idea of it as destroyed by death, which the κλώμενον, with a reference to the breaking of the sacrificial cakes, signified—only σώμα could have referred. (Compare upon the ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον εκχυνό- μενον, in reference to the atoning vicarious death of Christ, and similarly concerning περὶ πολλῶν, the detailed explanation in Comm., Part I., on Matt. xx. 28.) Moreover, the Saviour in his body resembled the whole cake m7 which he broke. He did not give to each the whole, σώμα, but as he did a part of the cake, so he gave to each a part of the σώμα, that is σάρξ.3 According to the intent of the ordi- nance, σάρξ might just as properly be used ; only that, on account 1 The independent character of Luke’s account from that of Paul—compare introdue- tion Part I., s. 17, sqq.—is expressed unmistakeably in the words of the institution of the supper. 2 This view concerning the breaking of bread in the using of the supper, as typical of the destruction, of what is inferior in order to the calling forth of what is superior, ocenrs also in “ Oschelaleddin”—in Tholuck’s Bluthensamnel, s. 104—who sings— When blossoms fall superior fruits arise, When bodies die, then spirits mount the skies; GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 165 of the symbolic reference to his death, Jesus chose σώμα, equiva- lent to Ὡ5Δ: In αἰμα here, no difficulty whatever rests, since the whole quantity of it cannot be otherwise expressed, than by the name for, a part of it. But as each person did not receive the en- tire σώμα, so, similarly, each did not receive the whole of the αἷμα ; for instance, not all the full of the cup, signifying the blood, but all partook of the one cup, so the one Christ dispensed himself amongst them all, in order that he might live in them and they in him. Aiwa together with oap&—for which expression σώμα is in the institutive words to be taken—constitute the other half of the phy- sical presence. Whilst σάρξ is the more material part, aya as that which, in life, the σάρξ comprehended, becomes the bearer of the Wuy7j—Genesis ix. 4, 5; Deuteronomy xii. 23. Both, there- fore, with the πνεῦμα, completed the human nature.’ So is destruction destined to disclose, Else from its womb the immortal ne’er had rose. Hence, thus in parts must broken be the bread, That man thereon be nourishingly fed. i Liicke, in an interesting programme for the hallow-night feast, 1837, has brought afresh under discussion the question, “ How ought the twofold form of communion, by means of bread and wine, to beregarded?” Meanwhile I cannot agree with his conclu- sion, which leads altogether to the Zuinglian view of the supper. For instance, the ehief idea of the supper should be the founding of the new covenant, through the sacri- fice of Christ, which is symbolically represented in the supper. This idea should now be for the first time brought home to the consciousness of the disciples through a par- taking of the bread, but only in the reception of the cup be truly and perfectly expressed. Liicke, on the contrary, cannot find the idea of Christ’s presence in the supper. Accord- ing to page 8, the sentence: τοῦτο ποιξιτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν avduyynow, ought rather to show clearly, that mortis meditationem esse primariam, quin potius unicam in sacra coena. To such a conclusion as this one may come, if he regards the institutory words merely, and as such. These, then, as containing the mystery, in order to be perfectly understood, require necessarily an employment of the great doctrinal discourse of Jesus, John vi., and of the Pauline explanations, 1 Cor. x. 11. From thence results, that the supper should especially be a symbolic representation of the sacrifice of Christ; that the ἀνάμνησις should refer to the historical event of Christ's death; that, moreover, a seal- ing of his covenant is therein signified. But that: besides, still more should lie in this service, so pregnant of references, to wit, a real partaking of his very existence. (Com- pare on this subject the explanations in the Commentary on the passages quoted.) Now, the reason why this participation was made in a twefold form, might be the following. First, the form of the meal, which was got up as one of eating and drinking, required this. At the paschal meal they ate the lamb, and drank of the cup. Christ seized this custom, and filled it with higher powers. Secondly: the symbolic representation of the death required a separatedness of the blood from the body, in order to bring the idea of the shedding thereof to consciousness. Lastly ; the totality of humanity was signified but by σώμα and αἷμα. dua alone would represent only its material part. The αἷμα 166 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. The discussion now, as is self-evident, is not concerning the Spirit's agency, but concerning the σάρξ and αἷμα, which at the supper the Saviour distributed to his faithful followers. The an- nexed pronoun, moreover, has naturally a peculiar force σώμα μου, αἷμα pov. In themselves flesh and blood are of no profit, John vi. 63 ; Rom. vii. 18. They cannot even inherit, much less bestow, the kingdom of God, 1 Cor. xv. ὅθ. But the flesh and blood of Christ, which are imperishable and glorious, possess power of eter- nal life. He who eats and drinks thereof shall have life in himself, and will be raised up at the last day. John vi. 53, sqq. With this heavenly flesh and blood, moreover, the Lord fed his own disciples, as in her breast-milk a mother, with her own blood, nourishes her infant child. Schultz (the passage quoted elsewhere, 5. 98, sqq.) thinks, one might indeed speak of σώματα ἐπίγεια and ἐπουράνια, but not of σάρξ πνευματική, or the life. By mere accident this expression does not occur throughout in the New Testament ; but still a σώμα stands, and, necessarily, from σάρξ. The choice hence is between a gross earthly nature and a glorified nature, and so must not be disregarded, for on this account the epithet could not also be applied to σάρξ. Agreeably to his Dual- ism, however, of the absolute separatedness between matter and spirit, Schultz, by way of consequence, was forced to assert that “there could not be a σώμα πνευματκον, for that, once for all, spirit and body are near one another, not in one another, ac- cording to this—(T. viz. our) system ;” which certainly the holy Scripture does not acknowledge. as the bearer of the element ψύχη, should also be embraced. On this account, proba- bly, it is that σώμα not σάρξ, in the institutory words, was employed. Because the latter forms the antithesis with πνεῦμα, but σώμα with Ψυχὴ. In the next place, the discussion is not concerning a partaking in the supper of the spiritual part, but of the human; which is constituted of soul and body. Moreover, the choice of the expression σώμα, in the institutory words, can be explained from the fact, that it signifies bodily completeness, its organic collectiveness ; whereto, also, the idea of the breaking better agrees. Meanwhile, as above was inferred, when regarded alone and as such, the σάρξ of Christ in the supper may also be spoken of. 1 One must then take σώμα as equivalent to οὐσιά, as Tertullian uses corpus — sub- stania: and hence, say-of spirit “ est corpus sui generis.” Schultz seems to unite with the conception of σώμα, only the abstract thought of something entirely dissociated. But accordingly to this, what is a σώμα πνευματίκον" What in fact other than the body individualizes the spirit? No one would wish to revive the Gnostic doctrine of an ὅρος, that is, of one whom the spirits individualize—a doctrine bordering in principle upon the latter; and still is it a powerful proof of how difficult it is, without the hypo- thesis of a glorified state of the body, to fix the individuality of spirits. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 167 But according to this definition of σώμα and αἷμα, the query now occurs, “ how, in the founding of the holy meal, could Jesus have spoken of his glorified body, when he yet bore the mortal body?” The expressions in Luke and Paul, ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδό- μενον, ἐκχυνόμενον, seem to favour the opinion, that the body which the Lord intended to distribute, was not the glorified one, but that which was natural, capable of suffering, and of being nailed to the cross. Yet even the most zealous defenders of this view admit that as the body of the Lord participated in the power of eternal life, hence it cannot be like to the perishable sinful human body. To them the assertion, “ it is the body of the Lord that was nailed to the cross,” is important, only in so far as they thereby could controvert the opinion of an ideal, aetherial body, in order to maintain the reality of the body of Christ. And in this respect the latter assertion is quite correct ; but if differently expressed, it would be more appropriate to the object : for then we might indeed assert the reality and identity of the body of Christ most forcibly, in opposition to all the errors as to its ideality ; and yet perfectly distinguish between Christ's body as glorified, and as not glorified. But naturally, a partaking of the flesh and blood of Christ could never occur only of the former. If we now suppose that the glorification of the Lord's body was gra- dually carried on till perfected (on this subject, compare in the Commentary Part I. on Matt. xvii. 1, and the remarks in the history of the resurrection), then will the efficaciousness of it, prior to its return from the dead, contain nothing surprising whatsoever, any more than it is surprising that, by breathing, the Saviour could already impart the spirit (John xx. 22), although the spirit could be diffused abroad only afterwards, John vii. 39. In the mortal body the immortal one already rested ; similarly as in the regene- rated, the new man lives, albeit, yet enshrouded by the old. The resurrection was merely the breaking loose of the butterfly from out the chrysalis, in which it long previously had completed its deve- lopment. Τοῦτό ἐστι, therefore, are the only words that remain for exami- nation ; those words which some persons have so long regarded as the key to an understanding of the whole passage. Yet Schultz (s. 116, sqq.) is certainly right when he remarks 168 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 27. 28. that nothing can be proved, either for the one or the other view of the supper, from this formula. Certainly, if the Catholic view were substantiated by the word of Scripture, then μεταμορφώθη, or something similar, should stand.’ But just as well may we render τοῦτό ἐστι---““ this represents’ — as ‘‘this is, actually.” Hence, according to these mere words, no distinction can be made between the views of Luther and Zuinglius. (Of the numerous examples quoted by Schultz, con- cerning τοῦτό ἐστι, we would merely compare the following : 1 Peter i. 25; Philemon, verse 12; Luke xii. 1; Hebrews x. 20. Of the tropical usage of eivas, John, who frequently employs it, ought to be consulted, John xv. 1—5, xiv. 6, x. 7-—9.) Yet it may just as well have the other signification, viz., “ this is in deed, and in truth.” In the passage, according to our version, there is no distinct motive given for the one view more than for the other, save that the authentic statements of Scripture, and its connection of doctrines, combined with the rule-of-ordinances (= praxis) of the most ancient churches, lead to a decision in fa- vour of the STRICT RENDERING of the words. (Compare my re- marks in the ‘“‘ Evang. Kirchen-zeit. Jahrg. 1884, N. 48,” that “the words institutive of the ordinance contain the mystery, but not its solution.) Ver. 27, 28. It yet remains to make mention of the expression αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης, as in Matthew and Mark, for which Luke and Paul use, ἡ καινὴ διαθήκη ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ αἵματι. The two formulae are not essentially distinguishable. Both comprehend only the relation of the Redeemer’s shed-blood, to the new life established according to the New Testament. The only question that arises is, ‘‘ Wherein is this relation peculiarly founded ?” Evi- dently, in the ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, for without shedding-of-blood no forgiveness occurs (compare upon this thought at Hebrews ix. 22.) In the New Testament, sin is no longer borne with by the 1 If, however, the doctrine of transubstantiation had been stated in such a way that we might regard the alteration of the matter only as one which occurs in the momentary event of the consecration and participation, then would the biblical view admit of but little opposition to the same. But the passages (1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 26) speak of the bread, even after consecration, and whilst being partaken of, in a way that only by a forced construction can be made to harmonize with such a view as the Catholic. In conclu- sion, ‘tis certainly very much to be regretted that this form of interpreting the dogma does not ubtain as the prevailing one in the Greek and Latin churches; for by means of it a great part of their destructive code-of-ordinances would fall away. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI1. 27, 28. 169 divine patience, as it was under the economy of the Old Testament, Rom. iii. 25, but, through the reconciliation perfected by Christ’s vicarious death, the means was made out for bearing with it (Coloss. 1. 14), since he became a curse for us, Gal. ii. 12. Hence, both the above modes of expression might have been chosen, inasmuch as the new relation of men to God, was founded by means of the = 1 shedding of the blood of the Lord. The assertion, that in the supper the Lord represented his death as not a sin-offering, but a covenant sacrifice, which is expressed by Dr Paulus, even in the recension of Usteri’s Paul. in the Heidelberg Annual, 1831, September, s. 844, is sufficiently op- posed by means of the annexed sentence from Matt. xxvi. 28, viz.: ἐκχυνομενον εἰς ἄφεσιν αμαρτιῶν. But Luke and Paul have merely the decided injunction: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς THY ἐμὴν ανάμ- vnow. 1 Cor. xi. 26 determines alike the species of thought, and the precise phraseology. The former consequently should refer to the death, as that where- in was concentrated the reconciling high-priestly-agency of Christ. The latter should refer to the παρουσία (ἄχρις οὗ ἔλθῃ.) Accordingly, the solemnization of the holy supper should always typically repeat the great act of accomplishing on Gol- gotha the reconciliation of the world ; and thereby should preach to the world (καταγγέλετε τὸν θάνατον τοῦ κυριοῦ) : that it is reconciled. Just as, under the economy of the Old Testament, every sacrifice preached that Adam fell, and that a restoration of human nature was necessary. But whilst the Jewish sacri- fice only awakened the desire after the forgiveness of sins, the holy meal, powerfully effective, nourishes men with the bread that 1 Lindner, in his treatise concerning the supper, Leipzig, 183], has, in consequence of this latter passage, put forth the view, that “the very thing which Christ in the supper dispensed was even the forgiveness of sins.” But this representation is surely incorrect. There is eminently, wherever Christ is, forgiveness of sins, and, since he is present in the supper, it cannot be without remission of sins. But the specific character of the supper consists not in that fact; much more does it assume the forgiveness of sins as its negative side, and supplies it by means of what is positive, to wit, the partaking of new and higher life. The general forgiveness of sins is, for example, so far assumed as that only the baptized and faithful can partake the supper. The foregoing daily re- mission of sins was symbolized by the feet washing that occurred ere the instituting of the supper, of which remission the consecration, together with the absolution, constitute the after-type. To the enjoying of the supper, moreover, the Christian comes as one who already has received the forgiveness of sins ; in whom the germ of new life already rests; but who in this new life must now be nourished and strengthened by means of heavenly meat. 4 170 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 29. came from heaven to give life to the world. Accordingly the sup- per necessarily presupposes baptism, but the supper does not in- clude baptism. Only they who are born according to the flesh can partake of bodily meat ; similarly, also, only those born after the Spirit may enjoy spiritual meat. And as the act of parturition is the act of but one time, whilst the using of meat is frequently repeated, so also baptism is to be but once effected, whilst the supper must be often solemnized. This analogy is contradicted apparently by the facts, that the supper appears to have been instituted prior to the institution of baptism, and certainly even before the glorification of Christ. (Compare thereupon Matt. xxviii. 18.) Only one, namely, Mat- thew (xxviii. 18), explains that, even previously, baptism was prac- tised by John the Baptist and by the Apostles (compare on John iy. 1,544.) Then by the other Evangelists the general rite, as appointed of the Lord, for all people, is rendered prominent. Hence this re- flection admits of being reconciled. If Jesus, after his resurrec- tion, when glorified, were to have instituted the supper; then, in consequence of this circumstance, a view of the supper*as ideal might easily have obtained. But in fact the nearer was this to having been the case, the more carefully must it here be avoided, as the history of the first century testifies. Ver 29. Now, the object of thus representing under the aspect of the supper, the Lord’s death for the sins of the world, could pos- sess a significancy only so long as the Lord was separated from his community beneath. After his glorious return, the supper would have to be differently disposed. ‘To this conclusion, the termination of the Lord's discourse, according to Matthew and Mark, points. In the course of it, the Lord declared that “ next he would drink of the fruit of the vine, in the kingdom of his heavenly father.” (On the proper placing of these words, compare at Luke xxii. 16.) It must not be overlooked that Luke has the words three times (chap. xxii. 16, 18, and 30), from whence it is highly probable that the Lord spoke them several times, during the last meal. Yet from these words we might think ourselves warranted to infer, that the Lord himself partook with the disciples of the supper. The words σώμα μου, αἷμα μου, however, contradict this supposition too much every way; more simply, LEIS, may one say that, πίειν GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 29. a ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπήλουι refers to the former using of the cup of wine, Luke xxii. 17, from which the Lord also drank. To this decision, Luke xxii. 16 also leads in a particular man- ner, where it says of the paschal lamb : οὐκέτι οὐ μὴ φάγω ἐξ αὐτοῦ ἕως ὅτου, K.T. AX. From this it is clear, that the discourse cannot have been concerning bread in the supper, but concerning the paschal lamb. Moreover too, the meaning of the words is this: “in the kingdom of God I will hold a new paschal feast along with you.” As to what this particular idea comprehends (compare the ob- servations relevant thereto, in the first part of the Commentary on Luke xxii. 80), some persons, according to the prevalent Idealism, have accustomed themselves, in contempt of the resurrection and glorification of the flesh, to maintain, that it includes merely the general representation of joy. ‘‘ There shall we enjoy ourselves more intimately with one another, and in a more spiritual manner than here.” Accordingly, then, one would be tolerably correct in acknowledging, that very mistakeable expressions were selected for these thoughts; namely, for the thoughts one intends in speak- ing of ‘‘ the gross material confused notions the disciples enter- tained of the Messiah.” Without doubt those? are nearer to the grammatical ‘truth-—we particularly allude to the ὅταν αὐτὸ πίνω kawvov—who confess, “in this passage throughout shines the Jewish idea of a banquet that should take place in the kingdom of Messiah ; where what was physical would also be glorified. But itis most conformable to the doctrine of Scripture to say that this particular idea possesses its internal truth, in reference to the marriage supper of the lamb, (δεΐπνου τοῦ γάμου Tov apviov. (Re- velation xix. 9.) All anxiety about materialism in this view, is sufficiently removed by the observation that, in the world of the glorified, everything is glorified. Accordingly, the idea is of a covenant feast that will be held in a glorified manner with the Lord, in the world of the resurrection. 1 Oneshould carefully note that Jesus does not say, “" ἐκ τούτου τοῦ ποτηριοῦ,᾽ but “ ἐκ τούτου τοῦ γευνήματος." The οὗτος evidently forms the antithesis with καινός, and therefore the discourse in these words reverts to the meal in general. 2 The explanation of this passage, from the association of Christ with his disciples [T. during the forty days] after his resurrection, is altogether unsteady; for this time alone is never called βασιλεία Tov Θεου. 172 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 36. So understood then, this thought in an eminent manner inti- mates a final conclusion of the meal; for over against the time of . the gradual development in the κοσμος, of “the grain of mustard seed,” the time when the kingdom of God is, amid much strife and contest, erecting and extending itself, the Lord places the pro- spects of himself with his own perfected harmony of life; and paradise recovered, before their view, in which also the κτίσις seems to agree with the moral character of this state of felicity. (Comp. remarks on Romans viii. 18, et seq.) Accordingly, as in Paradise, only the nourishment afforded by plants was made use of ; so moreover the Saviour founded instead of the bloody passover, a bloodless feast of the most simple means of nourishment. Amongst them, the superior powers of life flowed to man analogously, as he once from the eating of the fruit was subjected to the power of death. With this glance into paradise again recovered, then the Lord comforted, advances against the Cherub's sword, that would pierce through the heart every one who might wish to enter, but over whose terror Jesus has triumphed on behalf of all who by faith appropriate to themselves this recompense of faith. § 2. JESUS’ STRUGGLE IN GETHSEMENE, AND HIS ARREST. (Matt. xxvi. 86—56; Mark xiv. 32—52; Luke xxii. 40—58 ; John xviii. 1- —11.) After the meal was ended,’ on which occasion, as was already noticed above, the discourses reported by John, chs. xiv.—xvii., (which without doubt were spoken whilst in the very eating- room), had taken place; the Saviour with his disciples now hastened out from the city. From it his gracious presence was now averted. Jesus went over the mountain stream Cedron to the Mount οὔ 1 Matt. xxvi. 80, applies ὑμνήσαντες to the psalms which were wont to bejsung atthe conclusion of the meal. They are called by some persons “the great hallelujah.” Compare the above description of the procedure in solemnizing the Jewish passover. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 36. 173 Olives. Kedpav = yy from ὙΠ dark, to be black. Perhaps the name is derived from the depth of the densely-grown forest valley through which the brook flows. The reading τῶν κεδρῶν, arose certainly from the ignorance of transcribers, who thought they should regard the name as of a plural form. ‘The brook flows between the city and the Mount of Olives, and pours itself into the Dead Sea. It is often named in the Old Testament. (Comp. 2 Sam. xv. 23; 1 Kings ii. 37, xv. 18; 2 Kings xxiii. 4—6. Upon ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν comp. in the Commentary Part I. on Matt. xxi. 1.) Here in a desolate place, near the Mount of Olives, was an estate --Οχωρίον, Matt, xxvi. 36 ; Mark xiv. 32, with a garden, κῆπος = 5, John xviii. i. 2, which Jesus had often visited with his disciples, and which was well known to Judas. Thither proceeded the Lord. Τεθσημανῆ or Γεθσημανεί is the name given by Matthew and Mark to the estate, that is nw m3 oil press, or olive press. Scarcely had he arrived than he retired into the deep solitude of the garden. The rest of the disciples may have remained in the house with the friendly host, only three ventured to accompany him, and beheld the mighty struggle of his soul. These were they who also were present during the transfiguration. (Compare Matt. xvii. 1, sqq.) Hence they were able to compute alike the height and the depth of the Lord’s life. "Adnuovéw from ἀδημῶν, sorrow- ful, with anguish, it is a strong expression for agony, trembling or fainting of soul. Symmachus uses it for pray, Psalm Ixi. 8, and and for ΤΏ, Psalm cxvi. 11. s Here we have now arrived at the event, which we might regard as the beginning of the passion of Christ, in the stricter sense of the words, and it is but meet to make a resting point here, in our treating of what is particular, in order to take a glance at large’ over the development of the Saviour’s life. That suffering without measure now burst in upon the holy 1 (Compare on this subject my essay in Knapps’ Cloristoterpe Jahrg. 1832, s. 182, sqq.) which contains a further expatiation of the thoughts here intimated. Here, how- ever, I would observe: that the symbolic characters of the names Cedron, Gethsemene, Golgotha, is not to be overlooked. Throughout the whole of the sacred Scriptures, the comprehension of names appears to be a very significant index to the characters of per- sons or relations. The essay of Dettinger in the “Tubinger Zeitschrift,’ 1838, ἢ, 1, contains a defence of the historical character of this narrative concerning the agonizing of Christ, against the attack of Strauss, which is eminently worthy of being studied. 174 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 36. one of God, seems to be the less surprising, the noblest of human heroes have been conducted through great privations and strife ; and in fine the suffering of Jesus now became only visible; invisible, it long was a burden! on him. The beholding of the sinfulness of the world, the unbelief, want of love, and ignorance, of men, had been long an acute suffering to the heart of the Son of God. In the latter moments of his earthly pilgrimage, it only, as it were, concentrated it- self in greater intensity. But to the observer, it appears won- derful, that the Saviour in such suffering, did not stand altogether unmoved, like the rock in a tempest, but that he trembled, moaned, implored his heavenly Father that the agonizing hour might pass away! If, for instance, we contrast this demeanour of Jesus with the conduct of others, even of persons who lived before the time of Christ, Socrates for example, or of noble Christian martyrs, as Huss, Polycarp, and others, then more steadfastness and courage seem to display themselves in those persons than we discover in Christ. To a correct understanding of this appearance the following observations may serve. First, It must not be overlooked, that the Gospel opens up a new appreciation of life, in consequence of which, stoical indiffer- ence, hardihood, and inflexibility, in regard to pain and suffering of every kind, do not appear as the most exalted virtues. It much more carefully honours and fosters the tender susceptibilities of meekness, of compassion, of sympathy, and is not ashamed of tears, or of the true, plain expression of anguish, nor even of tremblings. However, it should be here well observed, that the Lord did not tremble before the rude populace, who would have misunderstood the true expression of his sorrows, but only in presence of his most confidential friends. The former would have been contrary to de- corum, the latter was not. Secondly, The faintness of Jesus was not trembling before visible enemies, and under physical pain.2 His struggle was an invisible 1 Clemens, Alexandrinuss, quis dives salvetur, ὁ, 8, Segaars’ edition, p. 22, πάσχει δὶ ἡμᾶς ὁ σωτὴρ ἀπὸ γενέσεως μέχρι τοῦ onulov. Id est:—usque ad crucem. The pilgrimage in a sinful world was, as such, to the holy one of God, necessarily a protracted suffering and sympathy. 2 The view, that prospective extreme bodily suffering called forth the Redeemer’s struggles, perplexes altogether, yea annihilates the nature of his manifestation of that struggle. Christ would in fact, according to that view, as regards firmness of soul, stand GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 36. 175 agony of the soul; a being-forsaken of God (compare remarks on Matt. xxvii. 46) ; a contest against the power of darkness (com- pare Luke xxii. 53.) As, for instance, in the beginning of his ministry, the Saviour was tempted by the enemy on the side of de- sire, 80 now at its end was he assailed on the side of fear. Compare in the Commentary P.I.S. 181. Finally, the suffering of the Lord was not something that re- ferred only to his own individual life, Hebrews 11. 10, but it equally stood in connection with the life of mankind at large. (Compare the particulars at Matthew xxvii. 45, sqq.) Christ suffered and endured as the representative of mankind collectively. He bore their guilt. Hence his suffering sustains a specific character, in- comparable with any other species of suffering. But it is not merely the fainting in itself that is surprising in the following statement concerning the Lord, but also the fluctuation in the in- ward resolution of Jesus. Let us compare for instance the confi- dent faith and heroic courage which breathe through the interces- sion of Christ as high priest, John xvii. ; then it thoroughly will as- tonish us that, after a few hours, the Saviour could appear involved in such an inward struggle as the coming passage will present him tous. Itis hence conceivable that some persons may come to the decision ‘that the narrative of the Synopticks, concerning the struggle of Jesus in Gethsemene, is perhaps erroneous, since, for instance, the minute narrator John, who alone of the Evangelists was an eye witness of the occurrence, narrated nothing thereof.” Usteri and Goldhorn’ in particular have maintained this view. Luke contains the account, abridged certainly, but yet, in what is essential, similar to those of Matthew and Mark. To the supposition that the Saviour cannot have endured any such inward struggle of the soul whatever, too much meanwhile speaks in opposition. In the first place, for example, John himself also speaks of such a struggle, though in other passages of his Gospel. (Compare John xii. 20.) And, in the next place, the other Scripture writers of the New Testament—Heb. v. 7, sqq. ; behind not only many martyrs, but even many unrenewed, yea, immoral men, who without trembling bore far more fearful martyrdoms. 1 The former in his celebrated critical essay concerning John, the latter in a distinct treatise in Tzschirner’s Magazine, B. I. Part 2. 176 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 80. and similarly even the prophecies of the Old Testament—Psalm xxii. 69; Isaiah liii—have mutually included the idea of the fainting in their portraiture of the Messiah. One should choose, therefore, a milder mode of representing the matter, and just say, “the struggle in Gethsemene certainly occurred; and the first three Evangelists have given to it a place in their accounts, only not the right place. It belongs to an antecedent time, that to which John xii. 20, sqq. assigns it.” Such a transposition would now be quite possible to us, but the event which is mentioned by John xii. 20, occurred under entirely different circumstances, hence we should, besides a transposing according to chronology, assuming it necessary, suppose also an actual perversion of the occurrence on the part of the Synopticks. We cannot presume upon such an assumption, for in John there occur frequent omissions of matters which the Synopticks have re- presented carefully. The case is easily harmonized, if we can assign only a cause from which such sudden fluctuations in the inward life of Jesus may be accounted for; now the same appearance (faint- ings under mental agony) exhibits itself often in the life of believers,—e. g., the Apostle Paul, according to 2 Cor. xii., and at least can be employed as an analogy to show, that a sudden withdrawal of the higher powers of the spirit took place, which were an essential condition of the mind’s inmost resolution. That such a forsaking occurred on the cross, the evangelical his- tory expressly asserts, Matt. xxvii. 46. In the history of the tempta- tion we saw ourselves obliged to assume it. (Comp. in Commen- tary, Part I. on Matt. iv. 1.) Nothing therefore is more simple, than that here also we suppose something similar. By means of this assumption alone, does the greatness of the struggle of Jesus on the one hand, and of his victory on the other, gain its full signi- ficance. Whilst a Socrates can conquer, only so long as he remains in the full possession of his spirit’s complete power, the Redeemer 1 1 hold it impossible to assign for this omission other causes than what are assigned. We might think that John may have had his Gnostic readers in retrospect, since he omits this account, which might have supported them as to the infirmness of Christ, But John was not necessitated to make any allusion whatever to the event. Accordingly the remark would prove too much, and consequently prove nothing, if one may at all 8 ttribute to it a signification. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 26. 177 triumphed over the whole power of darkness, even when forsaken by God, and by the fulness of his own Spirit.—The further expan- sion of this thought is given in the treatise quoted in “ the Chris- toterpe.” The anxieties expressed by Dettinger on this subject (in the pas- sage quoted elsewhere, s. 108) are entirely unfounded. He asks if πνεῦμα here should signify the divine nature, or only the spi- ritual principle of human nature? I answer, “both.” A contest, whilst in full possession of the divine nature, is a nonentity. Hence the Scripture indoctrinates us, Philemon ii. 8, that God, in becoming man, disrobed himself especially of his full divine power. In the moment of the withdrawing of God, as in Gethsemene, and on the cross, this privation attained its extremest point. The pri- vation and the being forsaken of God, as might be supposed, is a subject eminently difficult, but this difficulty rests in the subject, not in my representation ; and, moreover, it is not greater than that involved in the doctrine of the incarnation and in other dogmas. Meanwhile, nothing can be more perverted than is the idea of the withdrawal of God-—-it is alike unmetaphysical and immoral to name it—as made out by De Wette, when he thinks that thereby the omnipresence of Ged is destroyed. This is by no means the fact, if we regard the withdrawal of God only as ACTUAL, not as ES- SENTIAL. Such an actual, distinct, all-presence of God we, how- ever, must in every case suppose, otherwise, everything would be involved in chaos. But the omnipresence presents different phases, as in heaven, hell, in the heart of the righteous, and in the heart of the godless, respectively. God, in his absolute freedom, possesses also the free exercise of his peculiar attributes. As (according to Rom. iii. 25) be suspended the full exercise of his justice, in the time before Christ, so in like manner God may restrain the merciful operation of his nature. In this acceptation, the oneness of the person of Immanuel is not destroyed by the divine withdrawment. Tn that event, God is revealed in him, only not as the gracious, but as the just God. That is, he-——Immanuel——as representative of mankind, sustains the wrath of God. The objection of Dettinger and De Wette proceeds from an incorrect view of the relation of the divine attributes to his Being. God is not constrained through any innate necessity to let the collective attributes of his nature be always and on all occasions operative. His freedom stipulates the. VOL. IV. M 178 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 38. 39. form of its own display. Besides, to the explication of Christ's faintness the following supposition will tend, that in Gethsemene did not occur a like withdrawal of God, as occurred when Christ hung on the cross. Moreover, when one reflects upon the assumed difference between ψυχὴ and πνεῦμα, namely, a limitation of energy of the latter, it must be supposed that, in his humanity as such, there was a con- dition, agreeable to the ordinance of God, of exposure to the whole aggressiveness of the power of darkness. What thus occurs in sin- ful man as a consequence of sin, he, as representative of mankind, of his own perfectly free will, became liable to, viz., an enfeebling of energy of the πνεῦμα, and a divorce of the ψυχὴ from the body in death. In his sinless soul he achieved the complete victory alone ; was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross ; and learnt perfect sympathy in that, that he himself suffered: Phillipp. ii. 8; Heb. ii. 17, 18, iv. 15. According to this interpretation, we need not at all suppose, as Dettinger, agreeing with Strauss, thinks —in a passage quoted—that the soul resembles a lake, which ebbs and flows just accordingly as its conducting canals are closed, or its sluices opened. Much rather should we abandon the unbiblical view of the identicalness of soul and spirit. As a man can lose his body without annihilation of his personality, so also can he the spirit. The ψυχὴ is the sustainer of both. Ver 88, 39. The acknowledging of his profound sorrow, and the entreating request to his disciples, by their proximity and their watching, to strengthen him, pictures forth a wonderfully striking contrast with the decision of Christ, and with the very object of this suffering. He, the helper of the whole world, confesses to those to whom he brings help his own need of help, and really requests help from even those who were unable to render it! Περίλυπος occurs in Mark vi. 26, and Luke xviii. 23, 24. It is formed, agreeably to analogy, from περιχαρής. The ἡ ψυχὴ μοῦ does not stand merely for ἐγώ : it is to distinguish the ψυχὴ from τὸ πνεῦμά pov. ‘The former signifies rather what is purely human, the feel- ing susceptibility ; the latter means the spiritual consciousness. Compare John xiii. 21, there the personal feeling was less in- tended, hence ἐταράχθη τῷ πνεῦματι was employed. Compare 1 The words are accordant with the passages of the Psalms xli. 5—11, xhi. 5, which probably recurred to the memory of the Saviour in the heavy hour of his sufferings, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 38, 39. 179 John xi. 34. In his praying, Jesus removed to some distance from his disciples, and fell upon his face down to the ground. Luke subjoins the particularly decisive ὡσεὶ λίθου βολήν, xxii. 41. In the phrase ἀπεσπάσθη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, there is expressed, the suddenness and violence in the excitement of Jesus. Mark gives the very prayer in the most express manner, since besides the “passing away of the cup’—compare Matthew xx. 22—he also mentions the passing by of the hour of suffering. But now it is re- markable in this supplication of the Saviour, which is based upon the omnipotence of the Father (πάντα δυνάτα cov) that he re- quests the hour of suffering to pass from him. With a decided knowledge of the will of the Father, there seems to be expressed a contrary will on the part of the Son. But, as a first obser- vation, this supplication is not to be taken isolated, dissevered from the appended words: πλὴν οὐχ ὡς ἐγὼ θέλω, ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σύ. Inthe first petition is only expressed, the ἀσθένεια τῆς σαρ- κός, 2 Cor. xiii. 4, which the Saviour should participate, unless his suffering were to be merely the semblance of suffering. In the second prayer there is the expression of the victorious spirit. Again, it must not be disregarded, that the wish to be exempted from death, and from the bitter course of suffering, is not a sinful one, but much rather a pure, sincere, holy wish. For death is the re- ward of sin, and, as such, peculiarly bitter to sinful creatures. To them, with a certain reservation, viz., a freedom from sin and want, he can be likened ; how much more then must it have excited a shuddering in the pure unspotted soul of Jesus? It would have argued a false, unlovely, blunt, unfeeling state of soul, if, in pro- spect of the dark valley of death, and whilst such internal percep- tions, warm with life, were exciting even the bone and marrow, the Saviour were without any expression of the shuddering of his holy human soul.’ This feature, so far from deteriorating his sa- 1 Luther also makes an observation upon Christ's bodily perfection, and the acute- ness of suffering thereby occasioned. He writes, “we men, conceived and born in sin, have an impure hard flesh that does not soon feel. Yea, the purer and sounder the man js, the finer the skin, and the purer the blood are, so much the more does he feel, and is he susceptible of what befalls him. Now,since Christ’s body was pure and sinless’ whilst ours is impure, we therefore scarcely feel the terrors of death in one fifth of the degree in which Christ hath felt them. Since he was to be the greatest martyr, he there- fore had to suffer death's extremest terrors.” Compare the sermon, on Christ’s passion in the Garden, Leipzig edition, Part XVI. 187. M 2 180 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 40, 41. cred picture, tends entirely to its perfection. But now, a superior obligation required the subduing of this feeling, which in itself was real throughout. Certainly no compelling will of the Father urged the Son on to this bitter death, for the divine will of the Son was one with that of the Father. But the conflict of absolute justice with mercy, in a word, the mystery in the work of salvation for the race of man, demanded an adequate sacrifice, and the free-will entering into the obligation ; that work was impossible, without a severe con- test against human feeling, as we find intimated in this sublime event. With the victory in Gethsemene, therefore, everything was already virtually completed ; the Father's will itself was alto- gether apprehended by the ψυχὴ of Jesus. And as in the human champion, the mind again becomes tranquil when the re- solution abides unalterable, so also do we here discover the same in the life of the Saviour. Hence the struggle in Gethse- mene was even more fearful than that on Golgotha—(compare Hebr. v. 7)—as commonly, to the excitable mind, the expecta- tion of danger is more painful than the danger itself with all its terrors. Ver. 40, 41. After this, his first victory over the attack of dark- ness (T. in the garden), Jesus returned to the three disciples, and found them sleeping, heedless of his admonition. The comment of Luke xxii. 45—“ ἀπὸ τῆς vrs’ —for sorrow, may be ex- plained thus: that their trouble, by reason of the violent men- tal excitement it called forth,is to be understood as the cause of this lassitude and sleepiness. According to the same view, εἰς λύπην stands in the LXX. for 494, sick. Addressing Peter as their speaker, the Lord again exhorted them to watchfulness and prayer, with the warning that both are the means of evading temptation. Here the connection of ideas is manifestly as follows. “ A yielding to sorrow, and its sequent emotions, repels the dominant energy of the spirit, and thereby facilitates the victory of indwelling sin; a struggle against the accroaching determination, and to pray, which, from the spiritual world, leads back new energy to man, secure us against temptation. Hence Christ makes upon the weakness of human nature the remark, ἡ σὰρξ ἀσθενής, which hinders the conveying out of what man’s nobler part, πνεῦμα, or, according to St Paul, νοῦς, would GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 48-—44. 18] choose. Compare upon those words the particulars in Romans vii. R2, 23. Ver. 42--44. A second and a third time goes the Redeemer to prayer ; and again on his return, he finds the disciples sleeping, subdued by the all-prevailing power of darkness. Luke has not mentioned this threefold striving-in-prayer, but comprehends it briefly, as if only one prayer occurred ; but assuredly, the precise description of Matthew and Mark is the more correct. These three assaults, through the medium of fear, stand parallel to the three irruptions in the history of the temptation. In Luke xxi. 49, 44, however, some features have been supplied, which the two other Evangelists neglected. Yet these two verses are wanting in the manuscripts A.B. 18, 69, 124, and others. Some MSS., as E.S. 24, 36, have asterisks, in place of these verses. But nevertheless they are authentic. The omissions and signs ori- ginated in the fact, that some have thought the strengthening of Jesus by an angel would have degraded him ; and feared, lest the words might seem favourable to Arianism. ‘This passage be- longs to those in which under the ἄγγελος no external appear- ance,’ as of a visible impersonation, ought to be understood. It certainly appeared to Christ alone ; ὥφθη αὐτῷ, and probably did so but inwardly, in his spirit. The strengthening by the angel is hence to be understood of an 1 It is surprising that a man such as Dettinger (in the passage quoted elsewhere, 1835), can take scandal at this conclusion, in the opinion, that through this hypothesis would be involved the historical truth of the account. “ Then we may rather say plainly with Strauss,” he thinks “ that it is a mythical decoration.” I thought the words, “ There is here under the ἄγγελος, no appearance, to be understood, as of a visible personality,” signified my meaning plainly enough, to make such a misconception impossible; but since they are not so considered, I shall explain myself more particularly. I distinguish two sorts of angelic appearances; first, those where the appearing angel, as a per- sonified being, comes in view to him, whose the vision has been; and secondly, purely spiritual appearances, Of the first kind was the angelic vision which, according to Luke i, was made in the temple on behalf of Zacharias ; of the second was the one here mentioned. In this hypothesis I am decided, by the relation of angelic visions to the other aspects borne by the revelations of the superior world. They belong to the inferior class of revelations; and hence_agree not to those which all the angels of God ascend and descend to effectuate, John i.51. Hence it arises, that the angel here could obviously strengthen nought but Christ, according to his human nature. Hence, there - fore, the personality of this angel is done away with, and the case itself declares his appearance to have been none other than, as in the expression, “an energy from above was infused into him.” This understanding of what is meant by the angel, as of power, with the personality dismissed, is particularly revealed in the Old Testament, in the doctrine of the cherubim, But this is not place to expatiate on such doctrine. 182 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 42—44. influx of spiritual power, which in his most extreme agony, was encircling the Saviour. But that an angel could strengthen Christ —in whom the eternal word of the Father was become flesh, John i. 1—14— is conceivable, when one firmly retains the idea, that in the season of temptation and of struggle the fulness of his divine life withdrew itself, so that the human ψυχὴ of Christ was what was striving, and also exactly what was strengthened. Without doubt we must conclude that this strengthening was consequent upon the threefold prayer, of which, however, Luke makes no men- tion ; for parallel to the same is Mark i. 13, where it is said: “ after the temptation was ended,’—* οἱ ἄγγελοι διηκόνουν αυτῷ. The following καὶ γενόμενος x.T.r. is consequently to be understood as the pluperfect tense, and signifies, the most extreme height of the struggle, and of the emergency with which consequently the help occurred. Although this inference is grammatically admissible— compare Winer’s Gr. 5. 251—yet still, the καὶ γενόμενος, when taken in connection with the following: ἐγένετο δέ, seems to con- tradict it. Hence, in conclusion, we can but say : that Luke in this place also, has not delivered altogether precisely the sequence of the events. ‘Aywyvéa is often of like significance with ἀγών, strug- gle, strife. Hence it means agony, faintness, death-struggle. In the New Testament, it occurs but in this passage. ‘“Exrevéotepov is from ἐκτενής, which also occurs concerning prayer, Acts xii. 5. As a physical expression of the Saviour’s fearful struggle, Luke terms even the ἱδρώς, to be ;—a@cel θρόμβοι ἄιματος. Agreeably to medical statements, that in the highest stages of mental agony, a blood exudation can take place—compare the passages in Kuinoel, vol. ii. p. 654—-yet still we must acknowledge that in those words of Luke, a comparison only of the sweat, with drops of blood, is immediately expressed. If the discourse had been concerning identical drops of blood, the word ὧσει would have been altogether unsuitable. But the point of comparison is twofold; first, the cireum- stance that the sweat of Christ presented itself in the form of drops, which assumes a great degree of effort; then, these drops, through their largeness and weight, loosened themselves and fell to the earth. Possibly now it was, as a third point of comparison, that the red colour was superadded; which thence would lead to the exudation of the veins. Meanwhile it is not decidedly ex- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 47. 188 pressed in the words ; yet certainly the words are not directly con- tradictory of this hypothesis ; and since in the church it has once become the usual hypothesis, there is no reason a priori to deviate from, and still less to contend against it. Ver. 47. Here is related the very act of the arresting of Christ. After Jesus had wrestled through the heavy struggle, tranquil- lity and full self-possession were again restored to him; so that to Judas and the company that attended him he appeared with influ- ential dignity. Mark and Luke give the rest of the occurrence in an abridged form ; but Matthew and John narrate it expressly, and mutually supply the account one from the other. Concerning the preparations for the seizure of Jesus, John xviii. 3 mentions that, uncertain whether the disciples of Christ would not defend him, the high priests had not only taken with them some of those who guarded the Temple, ἐκ τῶν ἀρχιερέων ὑπηρέτας, but had also taken a company of Roman soldiers. ἡ σπεῖρα is exactly what a cohort is called, compare Acts x. 1, xxvii. 1. A cohort at the time of Augustus was 555 men strong. In this passage is natu- rally meant only a division of the cohort that was stationed in Je- rusalem. The forces had not only furnished themselves with weapons, but also with torches, φανοί, of pitch or wax, and with lanterns, λαμπάδες, in which oil was burning. These torches—since, on account of its being the season of the passover, it must necessarily have been moonlight—were employed, either in consequence of the heavens being overcast, or on account of the carefulness enjoined om the soldiers lest Jesus might have concealed himself in the house, or in the garden. Now, according to Matthew and Mark, Judas, who conducted the army, had with the soldiers concerted a sign, Mark xiv. 44 has the expression σύσ- onmov. It signifies a sign agreed upon by several persons where- by they might easily know the person Jesus, viz., that he would kiss him. The saying of Christ to Judas: "Iovéa φίλήματι τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ανθρώπου παραδίδως, exposed this prostitution, that Judas should have selected what ought to be the expression of friendship and love as a signal of the most detestable treachery. Luke xxii. 48. But John xviii. 4, et seq., gives a.still more particular account con- cerning the occurrence in the approaching of Judas with the army. The Lord, in the full glory of his consciousness as to the events 184 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 47. signified by the time : εἰδὼς πάντα Ta ἐρχόμενα ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν : went to meet them, enquired whom they sought, and surrendered him- self to them, with the saying: ἐγὼ εἰμι. On this part of the nar- rative, John xviii. 6 mentions that they: ἀπῆλθον eis τὰ ὑπίσα καὶ ἔπεσον χαμαί. We do not need to postulate, altogether, a particular miracle for this appearance ; rather is the person Jesus himself the miracle, and the dignity which beamed forth from him could easily have influenced men that knew of him, yes, that in part belonged to him—compare John vii. 46—to be affected in a manner the most extreme. Indeed, precisely similar appearances have occurred in the lives of some men, as Marius, for example, in whom mere rude energy of aspect was of commanding influence. Besides, it is conceivable, that the act of falling down ought not to be concluded as strictly true of all without any exceptions, nor be considered as an overturning of them one and all with the suddenness of a flash of lightning. The impression on their spirit was oply so potent that it made itself physically observable in their timorous re- treat, in which one or more fell to the earth. The account of Judas’ kiss, by Matthew, agrees very simply, as Liicke, Part II. s. 599, observes, with the account of John, when one supposes Judas to have preceded the others by himself. When the Lord beheld Judas, and that Judas had kissed him, the Lord went with Judas towards the approaching forces, in order to defend his disciples, and on this occurrence the armed troops fe!l down, influ- enced by the power of his spirit. In this preservation which the Saviour externally afforded to his own disciples, John xvii. 12, even so early discovers a fulfilment of the word of Christ, whose peculiar thought, however, refers to the eternal preservation of their souls. In this example is evinced, how the disciples of the Lord himself understood his precious words, as containing manifold al- lusions, a fact which, as Tholuck properly remarks, is not unim- portant to the understanding of the Old Testament prophecies. The undertaking of a disciple, with the two provided swords, Luke xxii. 88, to make a defence, is recounted so particularly by John, that he mentions Peter as the disciple, (from whose very character, such a hazardous attempt admits eminently of being anticipated), and also the servant of the high priest, whose name was Malehus. Since John was known in the house of GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 52, 53. 185 the high priest, John xviii. 15, this circumstance is easily explained. According to his gospel, xviii. 26, John also knew the relatives of this Malchus. Moreover, both John and Luke remarked particu- larly, that it was the right ear which was cut off. But Luke alone relates concerning the sudden healing of the wound, Luke xxii. 51. The latter circumstance is best explained as having been effected, in order that Peter might withdraw himself unhindered. The astonishment at the healing ought to have arrested gene- ral attention. According to John xviii. 11, the Lord said to Peter, apart from the command, “to put up his sword into its sheath,” also those words so full of import: τὸ ποτήριον ὃ δέδωκέ μοι ὁ πατὴρ, οὐ μὴ πίω αὐτό; Matt. xxvi. 52, 53 gives the discourse in a more express form. The surprising character of a long discourse to Peter, under the prevailing circumstances, becomes lost, when one conjectures that the words were uttered during the healing. The attention of all was directed to this event, and that rendered it possible to Christ to impart the necessary hint to Peter. In the first case, as regards the words of Jesus: οὗ λαβόντες μάχαιραν, ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ἀπολοῦνται, they doubtless refer to Peter. According to Genesis ix. 6, Revelations xii. 10, an overweening self-defence against injurious procedures is closely allied to murder. The reference to the Jews, which hitherto was put forth as herein contained, by Euthymius Zegubenus, in the sense, “those my murderers shall yet be destroyed, is altogether unfounded. The choice of the word μάχαιρα, recurs manifestly to the preceding, ἀπόστρεψόν cov την μάχαιραν. And what follows places the help of God in opposition to the self-sufficiency of Peter. As parallel therewith also is the expression: ἐᾶτε ἕως τούτου, Luke xxii. 51, to be understood, which saying some would have also to refer to the servant in the sense, “ Suffer me to delay so long, to wit, until Malchus’ ear shall be healed. Better take the words as an injunction referable to the disciples, “ stay ye here and go not any farther.” Again, however, the thought concerning the twelve legions of angels, is very remarkable. The number twelve might indeed have been selected with respect to the number of the disciples, and the expression λεγεών alludes evidently to the στρατία ovpavios, Luke ii. 18, corresponding to the MimM—Nay- Hence then would result 4 186 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXIV. 52, 53. the general idea: “ think you that I need earthly aid from you, so few as you are, when the heavenly aids of the armies of God is in my power to command?” Παραστήσει is by a Hebrew idiom substituted for παραστῆσαι. Comp. Gesenius’ Lexicon, 5. 771. But what is striking in the words, lies in the ἢ δοκεῖς ὅτι οὐ δύναμαι ἄρτι ; that is, even now, after it has already proceeded so far—rapaxanrécar x. τ. Χ. According to these words it seems, as it were, that the Lord affirms the possibility, that he need not proceed to hisdeath ; whilst yet the words immediately following, ver. 54, ὅτι οὕτω δεῖ γενέσθαι, again express the necessity of his death. On the passage, Matt. xxvi. 24, our discussion already has had reference to the relation of necessity and freedom; but there the necessity of Christ's death, with the freedom of action in Judas who betrayed him, were compared together. Here, on the con- trary, the possibility of Christ’s evading death seems to be deter- mined by himself. But even here we again can understand the possibility only as such subjectively. In Christ’s humanity as such occurred in every respect the possibilitas peccandi. In it lay thence the possibility of not entering into the superior obligation; but since in the person of the Lord the humanity did not appear iso- lated, but was in union with the divinity, which union would time after time have become more intimate, and as in his prospective glorification, would be already assumed a total penetration, as it were, of the humanity by the divinity; hence, there was also in Christ the impossibility objectively given, to will anything else than what was resolved in God’s eternal counsel. In this relation, accordingly, there appears the same connection of antitheses in the person of Christ, which in other respects we met with in him. Jesus in his human soul, with unconstrained devotion, compre- hended the eternal counsel of the Father, ‘‘no man took his life from him, he laid it down of himself.” (John x. 18, comp. in the Commentary, Part I., at Matt. iv. 1—Compare upon the πῶς οὖν πληρωθῶσιν, ai γραφαί; a thought which repeats, ver. 56, what was observed at Matt. xxvi. 24.) The Scripture is the revealed will of God; in so far rests in it, the necessity. Its prophecies are independent of the truth, or infi- delity of man: they are fulfilled unconditionally : yet without de- stroying the freedom of his will. In the concluding verses, Matthew xxvi. 55, 56, however, the Saviour rebukes the soldiery and ser- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 52, 53. 187 vants ; that they were come, as if against a robber, with weapons. He reminds them as to his free open teaching in the Temple, and thereby exposes their insincerity, since they were afraid of the peo- ple to take him openly. But this also should have come to pass ; τοῦτο δε ὅλον γέγονον, in order that the prophecy—Luke xxii. 37, Isaiah 111. 12—might be fulfilled. According to Luke xxii. 53, he concludes hereupon with the sentence so full of significance : αὕτη ὑμῶν ἐστιν ἡ Opa, καὶ ἡ ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους. An irony in the sense: “Βαΐγοι, bad men, carry out your deeds with greatest pre- ference for the night-time,” is not to be thought of. Partly, because it would be unbecoming for the Saviour on such an occasion, and partly because the expression ἔξουσία τοῦ σκότους, does not agree thereto. The translation which Kuinoel defends, “ this is the time given of God to you for the prosecution of your design; and the power of your sin,” in the first member of the sentence, is doubtless correct ; but as regards the second, the expression: ἔξουσία τοῦ σκότους, does not agree to the sin of the hireling attendants them- selves. Σ κότος does not signify the sin of one or another indivi- dual; the latter is always called ἁμαρτία ; but the sinful element, generally ; the antithesis of Light, φώς. Hence there is expressed in these remarkable words the thought, that even what is sinful can attain to reality only according to the will of God [which we, in reference to evt/, understood as negative working, quoad formale actionis, id est, as permitting.] And in certain times God decrees the prevalence to the Light, and at other times to the darkness, according to his own wisdom. Compare at John ix. 4, and at Luke xxii. 85. The moment in which the holy one of God could be sacri- ficed on the cross, was the culminating point of evil generally. But in reaching that zenith, it destroyed even itself, and thus re- vealed its own nothingness, since the murder of the Just One ex- piated the sins of the whole world. According to the prophecy of the Lord, Matthew xxvi. 31, the disciples of the Saviour now were scattered abroad, Matt. xxvi. 56. Mark xiv. 51 relates yet the particular incident of one young man, who was apprehended, but who, being lightly clothed, escaped, leaving his linen garment in the soldier's grasp. This communication will gain significance, only if we suppose the person of whom it is related to be in any way at all remarkable. To me it appears most probable, that here Mark writes concerning 188 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 57. himself. (The pleonastic composition of εἷς τὸς occurs in the New Testament at John xi. 49. Compare Winer’s Grammar, 4th edit. 5. 105, where εἷς stands for the indefinite article, John vi. 9.— Tis or εἷς would have been sufficient. Xwédev is derived either from Sidon, or perhaps from the Hebrew TD. Compare Gesenius in his Lexicon under this word. It is equivalent to λέντιον, linen garment: that of the young man who was apprehended : Νεανίσκοι, —these were the ὑπηρέται ἀρχιερέων, John xviii. 3.) § 3. EXAMINATION OF JESUS BEFORE CAIAPHAS AND THE SANHE- DRIM. PETER’S DENIAL. (Matthew xxvi. 57-75 ; Mark xiv. 583-72 ; Luke xxii. 54—71; John xviii. 12—27. John xvii. 12—-14 = (Matthew xxvi. 57; Mark xiv. 58; Luke xxii. 54.) A correct apprehension of the scene, which reveals itself to our view in what follows, requires a description of the jurisprudence of the Jews at the time of Christ. It was already observed at Matt. v. 21, x. 17, that the Jews in all distinguished cities—indeed in all cities of a population exceeding 120, according to the Talmud—had lesser tribunals, hence entitled, “small Sanhedrim.” There were two of these in Jerusalem. But in Jerusalem, as the most important locality, was also held the great Sanhedrim ; = (py 7730.) which consisted of 71 persons. We derive the origin of this tribunal from Moses himself, who named 70 elders—Numbers xi. 17—which, with him as president, made out the 71. But yet the Greek name points to a much more recent time. The word! συνέδριον, for in- stance, occurs. Perhaps Ezra founded the tribunal ; but certainly the name of it arose only during the Greco-Syrian dynasty. Now, the composition of the tribunal was the following. The officiating high priest = ἀρχιερεύς was pro-tem. the president : he bore the name ND: that is prince, princeps. Secondly, to it be- 1 Twice only called the Sanhedrim in the New Testament. ἸΤρεσβυτέρῶν according to Luke, in Luke xxii. 66, and Acts xxii. 5. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 57. 189 longed the displaced high priests; the twenty-four presidents of the classes of priests—Matt. ii. 24—who also were called ἀρχιερεῖς : the wardens of synagogues = πρεσβύτεροι, and other persons of consideration, by law appointed = γράμματεῖς. For their meetings they had a particular court. In cases of emergency, the meetings were held also in the dwelling of the high priest, and such was in the present instance the case in the examination of Christ. To the cognizance of this court of jurisprudence belonged all important cases, but properly all spiritual affairs. Now, since they denounced Jesus as a false Messiah, they naturally drew his case before their tribunal. Meanwhile, if their wickedness had not subsequently determined them to put Christ to death, they might have entirely concluded his prosecution. But forty years before the de- struction of Jerusalem, and three before the death of the Lord, the Romans took from the Sanhedrim the jurisdiction concerning life and death, and hence the transference of the judgment to Pilate. (Comp. J. D. Michaelis’ “ Mos. Recht.” Part 1. s. 50, sqq-—Winer’s “ Real- lex,” s. 677, sqq.—Buxtorf. Lex. p. 1518, sqq.) But now it is strik- ing, that, according to John xviii. 18, Christ was not conducted by the guard to the nny high priest, Caiaphas, directly, but to his father-in-law, Annas.’ The latter had previously been high priest —Josephus. Antiq. xviii. 2——but under Tiberius, was deposed by the Roman procurator, Valerius Gratus. In his stead, Ismael was appointed, then Eleazer, the son of Annas, next Simon, the son of Camithus ; and, lastly, in the year a.D. 26, Joseph or Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas. Now it is probable that this Annas, as formerly having been a high priest, and because the father of one high priest, and the father-in-law of another, possessed much influence.2 Indeed itis 1 As regards the form of the names of both the officient high priests—according to the New Testament—” Avvas is derived either from "OF OF ἬΝ. Dr Paulus, in his Exegetical Manual, Part I. Div. 1,5. 346, declares for the latter. Caiaphas i is exactly the name Joseph, as is observed by Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 3,2. Καϊάφας is co- signifiant with Πέτρος, and is formed from N5"D. Caiaphas should have been the true rock of the Church of God, but he was its caricature; and Simon Peter, as the rock of the new church, ad- vanced into his place. Compare the succession of high priests at the time of Christ, to- gether with the passages quoted as proofs, in Schraders’ “ Leben Pauli,” 5.1, ff. 2 In the determining of those who were eligible to the high priesthood, ἃ sort of nepotism must have arisen, They were chosen generally from those influential families , which were entitled as the—yévos ἀρχιερατικόν, Acts iv. 6. 190 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 57. possible that he also was vicar yo of the officiating high priest, and on that account they probably would request his advice con- cerning the difficult question before them. Finally, the palace of Annas may have been so situated, that the guard with Jesus under their arrest, touched upon it soonest. Accordingly, it ap- pears that Jesus was detained here until the Sanhedrim was as- sembled in the palace of Caiaphas. This latter supposition seems so much the more worthy of approval. as it is uncertain even whether Annas would at the time have been dressed ; and because, moreover, no proper examination occurred in his palace. We may therefore conjecture that the latter admitted Jesus to his presence, out of novelty principally, and only directed a few hurried ques- tions to him. But John called to mind, when he mentioned the - name of Caiaphas, in his earlier narration, that he previously had counselled, to devote one to death, on behalf of all—comp. on John xi. 49, 50—the signification of which counsel will hence appear in this trial. The most difficult circumstance in this section, is the synoptical relation of the four Evangelists. Whilst, for instance, John states expressly that Jesus was conducted first to Annas, and only so late as at xviii. 24, makes mention of the sending to Caiaphas ; the Synopticks simply give an account of the examination in Caiaphas's palace. Moreover, they refer thereto the denial by Peter, whilst according to John it remains doubtful whether that occurred in the palace of Annas or in that of Caiaphas. Indeed, he makes mention of the same occurrence as well before—xvili. 15—-18—as after—xviii. 25—-26—the sending of Christ to Caiaphas. In ancient times some attempted by very violent means to solve this difficulty ; they transferred ver. 24 to ver. 18, after the πρῶ- τον. One MS. so reads still, and in the Philoxenian transla- tion, ver. 24 is marked on the margin as interpolated. Yet it would have been easier, in ver. 24, to understand the ἀπέστειλε as the pluperfect tense. Then would everything which is related of the trial, and of Peter's denying, have to be referred to the palace of Caiaphas. Liicke and Meyer directly declare themselves in favour of this hy- pothesis. Above all, too, it involves no essential difficulty, since the enallage is perfectly agreeable. Compare Winer’s Grammar, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 57. 191 s. 251, where passages quoted from profane writings also show the admissability of employing the aorist as a pluperfect. Yet the want of a transitive particle, and similarly the position of ver. 24, seem not entirely to agree with our hypothesis. If the words stood after ver. 18, then would the hypothesis of an enadlage be still more tenable. We at least are compelled to say, that John had written very negligently. If one reads only John, it will yet evidently ap- pear that he would mention that a trial had occurred in the palace of Annas, and similarly even that Peter had been in his palace. Without the Synopticks’ account, no one would have been able to understand his account differently. Hence, I declare myself with Euthemius, Grotius, and others, favourable to the supposition that here John wished to correct and complete the accounts by the Sy- nopticks, and for that reason supplies the notice of the examination in the palace of Annas. ‘That there is an error in the account of John we cannot imagine, for he was an eye-witness, and has be- sides made a minute report; so minute in this part of his history that he has given even the kinship of the high priest’s servants, John xviii. 26. What is here superadded, concerning the examination by the high priest, has no resemblance to that held before Caiaphas. Hence it cannot possibly be identified with the latter. This conclu- sion is strengthened by the fact, that the Synopticks who were not present at the scene, and who, therefore, had everything from re- port, might most readily have understood the place incorrectly; since the two, Annas and Caiaphas, are named high priests. If, therefore, they were to hear that it occurred in the palace of the high priest, whether of the former or of the latter, they would im- mediately think of Caiaphas, the officiating one, and transfer every- thing in the trial to him. This latter error John easily corrected ; but he omits altogether, what was expressly and circumstatially re- lated by the Synopticks, the distinct examination in the place of Caiaphas.” The course of events would accordingly be as follows: When 1 In his most recent edition, Tholuck comes to the conclusion that verse 24 might be merely a gloss, which some reading of the gospel subjoined, to meet the misconception that the recorded events should have been referred to the palace of Annas. But such a hypothesis would then only be confirmed if the critical means of help we possess pointed to an unauthenticity of the passage, verse 24, But such is nowhere the case, 192 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 57. the guard conducted Jesus into the city, they brought him first to the house of Annas, which they soonest arrived at; partly, as was remarked, that he might be detained there until the Sanhedrim might be summoned together; and partly that Annas might wish perhaps to see and speak with him. Annas opened a conversation with Christ also ; but in consequence of his reply, one of the servants smote the Redeemer; and whilst Annas, who had satisfied his curi- osity, and saw that from his answers he would become nothing the wiser, withdrew himself, the rude multitude practised their mockeries upon the holy person of Christ. Peter, under the influence of John, had pressed with him into the vestibule, but he denied that he knew the Lord, when one urged the question on him. One of these denials occurred just at the moment—ver. 24, 25—in which Christ was being led to Caiaphas, on which account Jesus could have regarded him with a glance full of meaning. When arrived at the palace of Caiaphas, the Saviour came under trial ; and the judg- ment, and transference to Pilate, succeeded thereupon. In this place too there was no moment supposable, in which the rude ill- treatment of Christ could have occurred. According to Matthew xxvi. 67, 68, Mark xiv. 65, it would seem that it had occurred in presence of the Sanhedrim ; but this view is by all means incom- patible with the dignity of the highest assembly of the land, a dignity to be at least externally perserved. Luke xxii. 64—71, appends the whole examination only supplementally. Upon his placing of those scenes, therefore, there is really nothing to be mentioned. But how suitable everything appears, if we regard the common ruffianism which a menial ventured to practise against Jesus, in the very presence of Annas, as somewhat like a signal, which, after the withdrawal of the latter, called forth still more numerous expressions of rude insolence. The common crowds of soldiery, and guards of the temple, could dare to mock him, only where they had been admitted with Jesus, then under arrest. But the guards did not at all enter into the palace of Caiaphas with Christ. The only thing which can be objected against this interpretation is the fact, that, according to the general supposition, John was acquainted with Caiaphas, not with Annas. We, however, may argue, that both the high priests were nearly related, hence it would appear that, with the acquaintanceship GOSPEL OF JOHN xvill. 15—18. 198 of the one, that of the other also was given. As to what concerns the name ἀρχιερεύς, the same name was ascribed not merely to the officiating high priest, but also to retired or deposed high priests. John xviii. 15—18, 24—27. According to the sequence of events specified, we shall now consider, in the first instance, Peter's denial,’ and the examination of Christ before Annas. Both proceed nearly simultaneously. Crowds of soldiers and guards of the Temple, along with the servants of the high priest, filled the fore-court. In a hall which ran out to the forecourt, An- nas probably spoke with the Saviour, whilst Peter was ques- tioned by those without, and the question was again repeated when they were leading away Christ to Caiaphas. In the next in- stance, as regards the ἄλλος μαθητής, ver. 15, there can be no doubt that, by this expression, John signifies himself. What some persons objected against this opinion is altogether insignificant. Yet it is most manifest that John, being the son of a Galilean fisherman, could scarcely have had acquaintance with the high priest. However, as has often been remarked, we are not by any means to think that the circumstances of Zebedee were contemp- tible. John was perhaps acquainted only with the domestics of the high priest. This supposition is not improbable, from the expres- sion γνωστὸς τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ. But we must not forget that ex- traordinary engagements often bring together persons whose po- sitions in society are most dissimilar. Furthermore, as to what concerns the particulars in the denial of Peter, here John de- viates again from the Synopticks. In the second denial of the disciple, John distinguishes two distinct acts, verses 25, 26; in the first, several persons inquire of Peter, μὴ καὶ σὺ ἐκ τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ εἶ; in the second, only one, a δοῦλος, speaks. The agreement, however, is not made out by this; for, according to Matthew xxvi. 71, and Mark xiv. 69, the second question, as well as the first, proceeded from a damsel. Besides, Luke does not agree with Matthew and Mark, since he, xxii. 58, speaks of a δοῦλος, where those two name a damsel; and where they speak of the whole surrounding concourse, Matthew xxvi. 73, Mark xiv. 70, he mentions a second individual (male) servant. Attempts to reconcile such petty differences are altogether un- 1 Compare the treatise by Rudolph upon the denial of Peter, in Winer’s “ Zeitschr. f. Wissenschr. Theol. ἢ. 1, s. 109, ff.” MOL. Lv. N 194 GOSPEL OF JOHN xviit. 15—18. rewarded ; we must take them as they are given. ‘They are, at least, a security for the independency of the evangelical narratives, and, as such, are useful rather than otherwise. Yet, on account of Christ’s antecedent prophecy, Matthew xxvi. 75, the threefold denial must have, without a doubt, actually occurred. Here John does not desire to give a complete report of the event, but only to determine correctly the place where it occurred. To the threefold denial, the thrice repeated question, Joln xxi. 1, et seq. also adverts. The palace of the high priest was, without doubt, a great magnificent building. It enclosed a court (αὐλή) in which loitered the guard, who, in consequence of the coldness of the night, had kindled a fire. This court lay deeper than the principal building, to which they ascended probably by a staircase. Mark xiv. 66. A colonnade extended to the street—there was as usual a superstructure thereon (προαύλιον. Mark xiv. 68, πυλῶν in Matthew xxvi. 71), through this colonnade lay the passage into the court. There was stationed a damsel as doorkeeper, John xviii. 17. The Romans and Greeks had men for doorkeepers ; the Jews, women generally. Compare 2 Samuel iv. 6; Acts xii. 18. This doorkeeperess seems to have recognised Peter, who at the beginning had fled with the other disciples, but followed Christ at a distance, μακρόθεν, and, by the influence of John, was admitted immediately to the house; probably she recognised him by his demeanour and his personal timidity, which must have vividly expressed themselves, as it so generally happens. He had followed his Lord to see what might be the issue— ἰδεῖν To τέλος, Matthew xxvi. 58. He already evidently feared the worst. The damsel keeping the door fixed a piercing glance on him, ἐμβλέ- ψασα αὐτῷ, Mark xiv. 67, dtevicaca αὐτῷ, Luke xxii. ὅθ, and asked him about his connection with the ‘‘ Nazarene.” So early as on this occasion Peter made one denial. Meanwhile, in order to remove himself from the place of danger, he hastened to the vestibule (Pylon), Matthew xxvi. 71 ; Mark xiv 68, in which was the door that led to the street. But here another damsel asked him, and again, and with an oath, the weak disciple denied. This fresh question prevented Peter from leaving the court. He drew near to the burning fire of the guard, and, with affected bold- ness, seated himself amongst the servants of the Temple, who there kept guard. John xviii, 18—25. A whole hour—Luke xxii. 59 GOSPEL OF JOHN xviir. 15—18. 195 —Peter kept himself quiet here, and during this time remained un- noticed. This occasioned him probably to make enquiries concern- ing Jesus; and now, because of his accent, all knew him to be a Galilean. Matthew xxvi. 73 3; Mark xiv. 70. The accent of the Galileans was broader and flatter than that of the inhabitants of Judea. Compare Buxtorf’s Lexicon, page 484. One in particu- lar, a relative of Malchus, whose ear Peter smote off, and who him- self was present with Malchus, at the arresting of Jesus, John xviii. 26, professed that he knew him. But again Peter denied his Lord. On this very occasion the cock crowed. This sign, which had been named, brought to the disciple’s memory the thought concerning Christ's word of warning, and a penitent feeling gained predomi- nance in his soul. Luke xxii. 61 pointedly observes that the Lord had turned himself around, and that his glance had pierced through Peter’s heart. This fully corresponds with John xviii. 24, et seq., according to which Jesus was just being led to Caiaphas, when the last denial of Peter occurred. Hence, as he should pass through the court and the Pylon, he could have glanced at the disciple. Upon his master being taken thence, the disciple too hastened out, and wept bitterly, Mark xiv. 72. ᾿Επιβαλὼν ἔκλαιε, as regards its import, is doubtful. Frische, however, very reasonably defends the ancient explanation of Theophylact, in which ἐπιβαλὼν is explained by ἐπικαλυψάμενος τὴν Kepa- Anv. The action of veiling is confessedly a natural expression of bashful sorrow, and accordingly this meaning very well corresponds with the circumstances. Frische, indeed, thinks that Peter, by such act, wished to conceal himself; but in this view I cannot agree, for the very reason that the sudden veiling would have made him recog- nizable rather than the contrary. As to what concerns the usus loquendi here, our view is sufficiently corroborated, which is not at all the case with the other interpretation, that is, for example, if we supply τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς, and translate, “ directing to Jesus the eyes, or τὸν voov, and understand the words thus, viz., “ ob- serving (him) he wept.” It would still be somewhat more conformable to regard the par- ticiple ἐπιβαλών as in parallelism with πικρῶς, and to understand it as said of the violence of the weeping. ᾿Επιβαλών, for instance, ® « ral . . . like ὁρμᾶν, does occur concerning violent excitements. N2 196 GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΥΠΙ. 15—18. In this narrative concerning Peter is now first presented to us a figure significant of utter weakness and cowardice present amongst the faithful, and it stands in opposition to the valuable picture which the history of the Lord's sufferings exhibited to us. The most energetic, the most zealous amongst the disciples, ap- pears utterly feeble, completely wretched! ‘‘ The spirit was wil- ling, but, alas! the flesh was weak.” How affecting is the naiveté with which the Evangelists relate this deep fall of a chief one amongst them! They do not soften down its harshness. They plainly state that a damsel asked him. But, as they do not ex- cuse Peter, neither do they criminate him nor express wonder at him. Without any comment whatever, they state the simple fact. Now, when we reflect on this occurrence, we are compelled to propose to ourselves the question : “‘ how was it possible that Peter, this resolute disciple, to whom Christ had expressly foretold his fall, could, even when no danger threatened him, deny his Lord so distinctly?” The denial might be conceivable if he had had death in prospect as the alternative. But really the eaami- nation had no reference to the association with Christ: Peter was thus terrified at the question of a maiden. According to a merely superficial interpretation of the narrative, there appears to lie here a psychological enigma. But, if we penetrate more deeply into the scene, then, in order to an explanation of the case of Peter, precisely as in the case of Christ’s struggle in Gethsemene, we shall be forced to admit the existence of in- ternal causes. It was the hour of the power of darkness—Luke xxii. 53—which had in so inconceivable a way impaired and obscured the spiritual energy of the disciple, that he could not only deny Christ, but also remain exposed to the danger of repeating his crime after he had once denied him. ‘There befel Peter on this occasion a more than merely human temptation—compare at 1 Cor. x. 18—which was necessary, to cure him from his self-approving delusion, and to 1 Doctor Paulus really undertakes to defend the Apostle’s denial. He is of opinion that Peter did not tell a lie, because no one possessed the right of asking him. ‘“ Never- theless it is to be objected against him,” he says, “ that Jesus gave command ‘ to confess him before men.’” Exposition of the Gospels, Bk. ili. s.649. This astounding asser- tion, meanwhile, needs no further confutation, than to be heard. We merely mention it as a psychological marvel. GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIII. 19--238. 197 make him a mirror for others ; a temptation from which our Lord hath taught us to pray to our Father for deliverance, who also would have rescued Peter, if he had previously humbled himself, agree- ably to the word of his Lord. Thus the Lord practices towards his own people the most decided discipline, in order to the perfecting of their inner being. As Peter's fall tended ultimately to his sal- vation, so did the preservation of the others from a like fall to theirs. As his fall led the proud Peter to humility, so their de- fence from such peril as that in which Peter fell, confirmed the rest of the disciples immoveably in their confidence in the grace of the Lord, which bad preserved them. Ver. 19—23. Here commences the discourse of Annas with Christ. It was evidently the offspring of inquisitiveness rather than a formal examination. As afterwards Herod had such a wish, so on this occasion the high priest desired to look upon the extraordinary man, and to see something wonderful effected by him. Hence, also, the form of the answer of Christ! In- deed, it would not have been suitable for a judicial examina- tion. The party accused, whether rightly or wrongfully, and interrogated in such way, ought to bear with the language of legal authority. This submission to authority we see observed by the Saviour, in the most delicate manner. He replied de- corously, even to the unjust, wicked judge; and where all de- fence would have been in vain, he kept silence, Matthew xxvi. 63. Here, however, was really no duty of submission, since An- nas was no longer high priest. On this account, the Lord could censure the equally impertinent and sinful curiosity of the priest. Highly worthy of notice also, is the demeanour of Christ, dur- ing his rude maltreatment by the servant. We have therein, as it were, an authentic exposition of the command, Matt. v. 39. As was already observed in the Commentary, Part. I. on Matthew v. 43, it would have been a furtherance of the insolence, if the Saviour had not here taken upon himself the right of repri- manding it, since the injury was done him in the presence of the servant's master, whose duty it was to punish it in the servant, but who did not do so. When he was afterwards devoted a solitary prey to the rudeness of absolute licentiousness, there remained to the Redeemer no other 198 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 59-—-61. weapon than that of silence ; for an appeal to justice, made in the midst of mockery, is merely a provocative of the mockery. Besides, this act of violence, after Annas had retired, was probably a signal to several others. Matt. xxvi. 67, 68; Mark xiv. 65; Luke xxii. 63—65. It is wonderful that the spirit of prophecy considered it not unsuitable to its dignity, to predict minutely this maltreat- ment, particularly Isaiah 1. 6, Micah iy. 14, and in like manner to intimate in what contrast the state of mind of the holy one of God should stand ‘to that of the wicked multitude. ‘‘ The Lord helped me,” speaks the spirit of inspiration in Isaiah |. 7, “ there- fore was I not put to shame: therefore did I set my face like a flint stone.” Here is expressed his unwavering faith in God’s eternal love, even in the deepest extremity. Just so, too, does the prophet in another passage depict the inexpressible meekness and patient re- signation, which no malice could disturb, in the words, ‘‘ When he was oppressed and afflicted he opened not his mouth,” but was “‘ as a lamb that is led to the slaughter ; and as a sheep that is dumb before its shearer,” Isaiah lili. 7. In order to estimate the entire greatness of this conduct we should be constantly persuaded of the fact, that it was on account of us, and of all such as we, the eternal word of the Father became flesh, and suffered thus. Matthew xxvi. 59—61 ; Mark xiv. 55—-59; Luke xxii. 66—71. After the Lord had been led away to Caiaphas, John xviii. 24, immediately followed the formal trial before the collective Sanhe- drim. According to Luke xxii. 66, in the interim, whilst the Sanhedrim was assembling, the morning had already dawned. Matt. xxvii. 1, and Mark xy. 1, do not allocate the passing of sentence to a previous part of their account than that referring to the morn- ing, nor does John xyiil. 28 the leading away of Jesus to Pilate. But we may argue, that since they could designate the earliest purpling of day as ‘‘ morning,” we are unable to prove that an ana- chronism is involved. Besides, the summoning of the whole San- hedrim might well have so occupied the time, that the chief part of the night would have elapsed. Now, as concerns the sitting of this high council, the examination of the cause of Christ was a matter in itself of no ordinary importance. This college, for instance, had not merely permission, but was expressly obliged, to test according to the word of God the preten- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 62—66. 199 sions of every one laying claim to be a prophet, or the Messiah. Compare Matthew xxi. 23, in the Commentary, Part I. But, im the first case, it was a false proceeding of the Sanhedrim to arrest Jesus, since they had received already in reply to their en- quiries the most open declarations of his dignity as the Messiah ; and, secondly, contrary to their better knowledge, to seek out false witness against the Holy One of God. Manifestly, they had the pretended witnesses against him provided beforehand, for otherwise these could not during night have been forthcoming. In this pro- eedure is expressed, evidently, their ill-will towards Christ, and he exposed their ill-will by keeping silence during the accusations. it was in the further enquiry only that he expressed the duty of a true subject before his unjust judge. First appeared against Christ several false witnesses, according to prophecy, Ps. xxvu. 12. But, as is observed by Mark xiv. 56, their evidences did not coin- cide, they in their asseverations contradicted one another. [The reading is uncertain in the text of Matthew xxvi. 60. The usual text reads thus: καὶ οὐχ εὗρον καὶ πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύρῶν προσελθόντων οὐχ εὗρον. According to the best authorities, this reading contains the thought to be expressed, only somewhat amplified by transcribers. Griesbach and Schultz have deter- mined the text as follows: καὶ oby εὗρον πολλῶν ψευδομαρτύρων mpocedOovtwv.| But at last came two witnesses who impeached Christ for his assertion relative to the destruction of the Tem- ple. We have already, at John ii, 19, 20, discussed the question —‘ to what extent can those latter persons be styled ‘ false wit- nesses, since Christ in fact did utter this assertion ?”* Matthew xxvi. 62—66,; Mark xiv. 60—64. Now, when Caia- phas, who presided over the assembly, perceived that by this means nothing was to be gained in favour of their design, he silently, in- deed, but yet eloquently, sought to remove Christ's defensive evi- dence from being placed against that of the false witnesses. He required him to make a defence for himself, and, as Jesus still kept silence, he adjured him to declare if he was Christ, the Son of God, to which question the Saviour then gave a direct 1 How such an assertion wounded the Jews, who so adhered to the sensible Temple, is shewn also in Acts vi. 13—14, where they in like manner accused Stephen, for having said something similar, 200 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 62—66. affirmative answer. Immediately preceding this decisive ques- tion and answer should probably be placed that sentence in Luke xxl. 67, 68, which declares the Saviour'’s motive for keeping silence. The latter Evangelist, it is true, allows that expression to be preceded by the question: εἰ σὺ εἶ ὁ Χριστός εἶπε ἡμῖν ; yet this might be attributable to the want of precision in arrange- ment, several instances of which occur in the last chapters of Luke ; for, in verse 69, the declaration of Christ's sitting at the right hand of God does not concur happily with the motive of Christ’s silence. But it stands very appropriately before the question of the high priest, and softens down what would other- wise seem harsh in Christ’s utter silence at the high priest’s question. Probably, therefore, the Lord delayed his answer only in order to give them the impression that he knew how useless any defence would be, since really his death was already resolved upon. He preserved decorum before the legal supremacy, which, even in its degeneracy, was yet God's minister, and thus through his conduct bore testimony against sin, and the testimony of his con- duct was in hallowed conformity with his sacred office. In the question of the high priest, again, we remark, Χριστός and υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ are placed together. But since the name “ Son of God” here stands last, nothing can be more simple than to perceive that it is a particular determination of the first expres- sion. But, because the high priest uses the name “ Son of God,” it follows not that that name was then understood as merely general. Much rather must we, according to John x. 39, understand the question and name thus: “‘ art thou ¢de Son of God, whom thou professest thyself to be?” Accordingly, the context shews that now the high priest—as previously the people—saw a blasphemy’ in the pretension ; which would not have been the case in declaring that he was the Messiah. The accusation, ‘ he has declared him- self to be the Son of God,” was then, in itself alone, a charge in- volving life and death, for it was, as John v. 18, x. 33, prove, regarded as blasphemy. On the contrary, the accusation, “ he hath declared that he is the Messiah,” would have needed proof in presence of the Sanhedrim ; viz., the proof that he was not the ~ 1 Compare on this question at John xix. 7, where the charge against Christ before Pilate, is that “ he hath called himself God's Son.” GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 62—66. 201 Messiah, but in no part of the trial of Christ has the controversy reference to such proof. It is moreover evident that the Pharisees could not allow the trial to take such a turn as that of seeking out whether Christ exercised the functions of Messiah or not, since Jesus had performed too many miracles to allow any want of proof that he really was the Messiah. Accordingly, this passage serves as a decisive proof that, υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, at the time of Christ, was not an unusual name of the Messiah. Compare upon υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, at Luke i. 36, and Matt. xvi. 16. ᾿Εξορκίζω equivalent to ὁρκίζω, equivalent to sya, Mark v. 7; Genesis xxiv.3. The name: Θεὸς ζῶν in this connection signifies God as the all present punisher of false- hood. Now the open and solemn affirmation of Christ that ‘he was the Son of God,” together with its special relation to his coming revelation in the glory of the Father, is very important for the reason, that, in the first place, we thence perceive how the com- mands of the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew v. 34, are to be understood ; that, for instance, they should not bind believers in their relations to the κόσμος. Secondly, this passage is important, because in it Jesus officially expresses, before the highest theo- cratic authority, that which hitherto he had but privately taught. Thereby Christ completed the idea of Messiah's character, and just as completely confirmed the certainty that in him this idea was realized perfectly. In like manner, this discourse of Christ to the Sanhedrists, brought before their consciousness, in all its force, the import of that moment. They must own in their souls, that they were then giving judg- ment against the king of their people, against him of whom all the prophets had prophesied. This plain declaration of the Saviour thus determined the essential character of their guilt. In this sublime event moreover the discourse of Christ gains a character of kingly dignity: He speaks as Lord of heaven, not as a helpless impeached prisoner ; and, sequent to the confession of his Mes- siahship, comes the threatening of his second advent. A sublime and profoundly affecting contrast is also presented in this event, as happens so frequently in the evangelical history. The Judge of both quick and dead stands as an accused prisoner before a human judge! and by him is condemned: yet in this 202 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 62—66. humiliation the Saviour opens his divine lustre upon the view, with a glory that reveals him as judge of all the world, even of his own judge. (Πλήν is used adversatively, but, in the beginning of the discourse, as equivalent to bay. as imo, utique.) For ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι Luke xxii. 69 has ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν : we should be most correct in re- ferring it merely to the sitting’ at the right hand of God, which is so prominently revealed in the spiritual agency of Christ; for then we entirely avoid the difficulty as to how Christ, even at present, can represent himself as coming. Another reason for making this reference of the word is, that the idea of the ἔρχεσθαι, only ἄρτι would be suitable, but not ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι; for by the latter expression, the cominG of Christ again would be represented as a continued activity, whilst yet it is but one event. Meanwhile, if we would but firmly retain the connection, then the thought embodied in the speedy coming in glory, according to Matthew x. 23, xvi. 28, xxiv. 80, would be explicable. We assume, as known, the interpretation of “the coming in glory,” as in Mat- thew xxiy. 30; but the καθῆσθαι ἐκ δεξιῶν, in this place, re- quires a particular discussion. Instead of this expression, in one place, Acts vil. 55, 56, with the meaning a little modified, occurs, ἕστως ἐκ δεξιῶν; and in a few places, viz. Rom. viii. 34; 1 Peter ili. 22; Heb. i. 8, viii. 1: eivar ἐν δεξιᾷ occurs, instead of καθῆσθαι, x. τ. dr. The latter formula does not occur in any of John’s writings, not even in Revelations. Yet the Apo- calypse describes Christ as sitting on the throne of the father. Rev. iii. 21, xxii. 1, 8. To understand the force of this form of expres- sion, it is of the utmost importance to observe, that, before he became man, it is never said of Christ, “he sar at the right hand of God.” Thus, doubtless, the expression refers to the exaltation of his humanity glorified, in which the Lord is represented as partaker in the divine sovereignty of the universe. But why the Scripture 1 By this main idea also Luther's theory of “ the ubiquity of the attributes of God” is to be estimated; a theory to which he surely could never have come, but that the Reformers, in opposition to his doctrine of the “ ubiquity of the body of Christ,” pleaded against him the doctrine of the sitting at the right hand (or, in the prerogative) . of God. They, for instance, say, ‘‘ The riglt hand of God is over all, hence manifestly the reality of Christ's glorified body is annihilated by this theory.” The anxiety, lest in this restricting of the right (—) of God, the omnipresence should be involved, is just as un- founded as is the notion that, supposing the soul dwells in a man’s head, the filling of his whole organism by the soul's being may be considered as destroyed, God, as is self- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVI. 62—66. 203 writers of the New Testament have selected for that object this particular manner of intimation is doubtful. J. D. Michaelis understands herein a reference to the Ark of the Covenant, which is represented as the throne of God; but itis not evident howeven by the Ark of the Covenant the right hand of God can be signified. Better, therefore, to regard the position on the right hand, as a place of honour. This is done by Knapp (ser. var. arg. p. 89, sqq.), who makes it out by an induction from the general custom of all nations. (Compare Just. Lipsius quis locus hones- tior priscis, dexter an sinister? opp. i. p. 759, sqq. Callimachi hymn. in Apoll. vy. 80, says of Apollo: δύναται γὰρ, ἐπεὶ Διὶ δεξιός ἧσται.) In this is included the idea of the most exalted honour, the participating in God’s universal sovereignty. Ac- cordingly Christ was convinced of this, even in the depth of his humiliation, and employed it as an argument to warn his unjust judge. Therefore, if we consider with what solemn earnestness and energy of spirit the Lord must have uttered these words, then it will be supposable, that an indistinct apprehension, lest he may have been speaking truly, must have thoroughly intimidated the priests. However, they had proceeded already too far to be able now to retreat. In hypocritical sorrow the high priest rent his garment, because inwardly he must have been rejoicing at thus having entrapped Christ through his own acknowledgment. Com- pare Joshua vil. 6; Judges xi. 85; 2 Samuel i. 11. He de- clared Jesus a blasphemer,’ John x. 33. The Sanhedrim then condemned the Lord of Glory! Him, who even unto death loved them, did they pursue to death with hatred! They had not a thoroughly clear knowledge that he was the Lord of Glory. 1 Cor. i. 8; Acts iii. 17; Luke xix. 42. They may have regarded the very fact of Christ's being a prisoner, as a proof that he was not evident, is all present, yet, nevertheless, as we formerly observed, hé reveals himself va- riously in the hearts of the righteous and the godless, in heaven and upon earth respec- tively. Now, God’s dwelling in heaven—which is the highest concentration of his power—we atlirm it, is signified by the right (hand) of God: And Christ to sit at the right hand of God is accordingly nothing but his being associated in the most inti- mate communion with the Father, and in the exercise of all the divine attributes, and his participation in the divine universal sovereignty. 1 Here we ought to give prominence to the fact, that if the Lord were not in deed and in truth the being whom he professed himself to be, then must he, by such a name, have been miscalled. Hence, every hypothesis which disputes the heavenly dignity of Christ, is lable to the danger of altering his moral character, 204 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 1—10. the Messiah, still less the Son of God. Yet were their insin- cere hearts affected by the prospective glory of his divine exist- ence. And it was merely because they had closed up the mind's eye, lest they should learn too much, and be forced to make admis- sion of their own sinful nature, that they attained not to a perfectly clear understanding. Hence their very ignorance was their guilt, and the fearful curse of this guilt was, that they became by this blindness murderers of the holy one of God. § 4. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HEROD AND PILATE. Matthew xxvii. 1—81; Mark xv. 1— 20; Luke xxiii. |—25; John xvi., xvill. 28, xxviii. 19. Matthew xxvii. 1, 2. The sitting of the Sanhedrim was held on the night of Jesus’ arrest. Now when morning approached, the council sentenced him to death, and led him away to Pi- late ; for the Jews themselves had been stripped of the right of jurisdiction concerning life and death. Compare Josephus’s An- tiq. xx. 6. All that was requisite has been observed concerning the remark of John, “ that the Jews went not into Pilate’s hall of judgment, in order that they might be entitled to eat the passover.” Under the word passover, Chagigah should here be understood, for it was to be eaten on the same day. By means of the defilement which entering a heathen house would produce, they would have been debarred from partaking of this feast. ‘They could not have been so excluded from partaking of the paschal lamb, because this would be slaughtered and eaten on the following day only, at which time they would be again clean according to law. Here, now, Matthew traces out the history of the unhappy Judas, who becomes the second figure in the sublime picture of the history of Christ's passion. In the history of Judas, as a whole, a unique impression is produced. Hence we shall here combine every particular which refers to him, T. as to his fate, conduct, motives, &c., and to the state of his spirit. Ver. 8—10. We shall first consider the statements made con- cerning his external fate. Judas, when he perceived the issue of his treachery, terrified, and, seized with remorse, cast down the GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 1—10. 205 pieces of silver! before the high priest. Μεταμέλομαι also oc- curs of true (μετάνοια) repentance. Compare Matthew xxi. 29, 32. But here it signifies mere regret concerning the fruits of sin, not concerning the sin itself. That feeling of regret pro- ceeded from a lively consciousness of his having betrayed an inno- cent person, for as such he had known Christ. Compare upon αἷμα ἀθῶον at Matthew xxiii. 35, where αἷμα δικαιον is employed. With icy coldness the hypocritical Pharisees discarded? the ill-fated wretch : they laid on him the burden of the guilt, and persuaded themselves that they were free from it ; whilst yet they were in all respects like him, culpable to the highest degree. Σ᾽ ὺ ὄψει, atti- cally for oyy,3 is parallel to the Hebrew s33 59 ἀῶ ΤΙΣΙΝ» 1 Samuel xxv. 17. The LXX. give: νῦν γνῶθι καὶ ἴδε σὺ τί ποιήσεις. Re- duced to despair by this cheerless reply, he threw the money from him, and hanged himself. The ἐν τῷ ναῷ in this passage causes altogether a difficulty ; since the ναός, the temple proper, might be entered by the priests only. If we understand that the money was thrown in through the opened veil in front into the holy place, then of ne- cessity εἰς should be used, and besides, this act would be some- what strange. Hence, it is better to understand that ναός in this passage is employed somewhat loosely, as ἱερόν, and that the scene occurred in some outer hall. But again, Luke in the Acts of the Apostles seems to come into opposition with the ἀπήγ- ξατο of Matthew. In Luke's history, for instance, it is mentioned that Judas fell headlong downwards: πρηνὴς γενόμενος, and burst asunder in the midst, ἐλάκησε pécos. (Aaxéw directly signifies to sound, to make a crash—with a crashing noise, hence, to burst asunder,—’EXdxnoe is equal to dveppayn—so that his bowels gushed out.) In order to reconcile this disagreement, very violent and altogether untenable hypotheses has been framed. 1 The expression: τριάκονια ἀργύρια, is according to the Hebrew D2, which is often connected with ope. Here doubtlessly 30 shekels—somewhat about 15 dollars—are meant. Thgre i is something contemptible in the amount, which was but the lowest price ofaslave. Compare Exodus xxi. 32. Zechariah xi. 12. 2 The Pharisees expressed that shameful exultation, which often arises in the human heart, when one sees a brother fallen into sin. Yet in this emotion, hateful as it is, there is also expressed, from the greater depth of the mind, the wish to be free from sin. In so far, therefore, it is a corrupted expression of what is noble in man. 3 Compare similar forms in Winer’s Grammer, s. 72. 9° 206 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 3—10. Some would have ἀπήγξατο to refer to his trouble of mind, “he became lethargic from agony and remorse of mind.” Others_would understand πρηνής γενόμενος like ἀπήγξατο, “ he hanged himself.” Rather than give assent to these forced interpretations, we would suppose that a twofold tradition obtained concerning the fate of Judas, since elsewhere in like secondary matters, disparities occur. Yet we must confess that the accounts so harmonize as a whole, that we may suppose the cord to have given way, and thatin falling down his bowels gushed out. We may then translate the πρηνής γενόμενος, “as he fell prone down,” 7. e. in reference to the posi- tion of his body.! After Judas had got rid of the money, a new trait of hypo- crisy displayed itself in the Pharisees and high priests. As it was blood-money, they would not place the thirty pieces of silver in the treasury of the Temple, lest they should defile it: yet did they not attain to a conviction of their own sin, in that they had con- demned the innocent! KopBavas, 1232 is the sacred treasure of the Temple, which was kept in seven chests called trumpets τ. Comp. Mark vii. 11. Τιμὴ αἵματος, the reward of blood, money paid for the betrayal of one who was innocent. They therefore diverted the thirty pieces of silver to the purchase of a place of burial for pilgrims, yévor. Matthew thoroughly determines this field by means of the: ὁ ἀγρός τοῦ κεραμέως. The article inti- mates that there was a spot which bore this name ; perhaps be- cause it belonged to a potter; or because potters’ clay abounded there. The field is now called ἀγρὸς αἵματος, equivalent to ἀκελδαμά, Acts i. 19, according to the Hebrew ben NOT. Ac- cording to Acts i. 18, Judas should have acquired possession of the place himself. Meanwhile ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ μισθοῦ, 15 easily explained so as to obviate such an impression, 6. g. the pur- chase is referred back to Judas himself, because it occurred in consequence of his deed of treachery. Now in this occurrence Matthew discovers the fulfilment of a prophecy. But in reference 1 Yet another tradition seems to have obtained concerning the end of Judas, It was. entertained by Papias, judging from his aecumenick, on Acts i. 18. and by Theophylact, judging from his writings on the same passage, and on Matt. xxvii. 5, It was, that Judas was crushed to death by a waggon, according to which therefore his suicide seems entirely done away with. Comp. Schleiermacher’s essay concerning the evidence of Papias, in “ Ullman’s Studien,” year 1832, heft 4, s. 748, note. 4 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXxVII. 3—10. 207 thereto, it is at first very astonishing that the prophecy does not (as mentioned) occur in Jeremiah. [The reference of the quo- tation as in our version, to Jeremiah xxxii. 6, et seq., IS SO uncer- tain, that it deserves no regard.] Several manuscripts at present, for that reference, read “ Zechariah and Isaiah.” The latter name indeed is not at all to be noticed, it has been introduced into this passage only through the neglect of transcribers, for there does not occur in Isaiah anything like the passage according to our version. But in Zechariah a passage occurs actually related to Matthew's quotation, Zechariah xi. 18.14. It would hence be the most simple course to suppose that either the Evangelist or the earliest transcribers had erred as to the name of the prophet, it may be indeed that they had incorrectly rendered some contrac- tion for the name. Or perhaps in the beginning no name stood there at all, and that a transcriber supplied its want erroneously. Yet this hypothesis seems again to speak in contradiction to the relation of the passage in Matthew, to the text of Zechariah. There seems to be but a remote similarity ; partly because, in the text of Zechariah, there is altogether wanting what would be im- portant in that of Matthew, viz., the casting down of the money in the Temple, of which Matthew, ver. 5, has made a particular mention, and partly because Zechariah does not at all admit the subjoined statements, that seem made by Matthew. Hence some have thought that this citation (of Matthew) must be traceable to an apocryphal writing, and thence it next followed, to regard it as an apocryphe of Jeremiah. Some believe that this view can be made particularly apparent, by the circumstance, that Hieronymus declares he had seen such an apocryphe on this passage.” So in like manner does Kuinoel. But this apocryphe, which is in the Hebrew language, like others under the name of Jeremiah, in the Arabic and Sahidic languages, doubtless were not made until after the birth of Christ. We have no traces whatever of such apocrypha having already existed prior to that event. Much more certain is it, that they arose out of the great religious excitement which characterized the first century after Christ. Then probably the originators of such writings made use of this particular pass- 1 (T. we insert this note in the text, because relevant, and by the author.) 2 Compare my history of the gospels, s. 57. 208 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 3—10. age, in order to publish a book surreptitiously, under the name of Jeremiah, in which design this passage formed the principal argu- ment. ‘Thus Frisch correctly thinks on this passage. Hierony- mus also declares himself favourable to this hypothesis, for the reason, that the quotation is taken from Zechariah. Whether then the Evangelist mistook the name, or that in after times the name of Jeremiah crept in falsely, the matter is but little affected. If we but compare the passage more closely with the original text, then shall we see, that every thing which Matthew gives is contained also in Zechariah. There fails only the one reference in Matthew, viz., that of throwing down the money, which the prophet plainly predicted. But the order of thought is different, and also Matthew does not follow the LXX., hence the discrepancy appears so great. As regards the appended statement of Matthew, τὴν τιμὴν τοῦ τετιμημένοῦ, ὅν ἐτιμήσαντο ἀπὸ υἱὼν ᾿Ισραηλ, it is clearly re- ferable to Zechariah xi. 12, 18, where the LXX. for τιμὴ read μίσθος, and have δοκιμάζεσθαι for τιμᾶσθαι. In the Hebrew DY is put for μίσθος ov. The Hebrew syi-by. which is given by the LXX. as εἰς τὸ χωνευτήριον, 7. e. in the smelting furnace, is by Matthew, conformably to his object, more precisely determined by means of the subjoined ἀγρός. Finally, the words καθὰ συνέταξέ μοι κύριος in Matthew correspond to the: εἶπε κύριος πρός με inthe LXX. The καθά, equal to καθ᾽ &, which is identical with καθώς, occurs only in this passage of the New Testa- 1 Comp. Hengstenberg’s Christology, vol. ii., 5.5. 258, 465, sqq. Thisscholar thinks that the difficulty can be solved by this means, viz., he, as in Mark i. 2, 8, supposes that the prophet Zechariah, in the passage Zech. xi. 12, 13, had taken a retrospect of ante- cedent prophesies of Jeremiah ; to wit, of Jeremiah chs. xviii., xix. Now since Matthew quoted the passage as Zechariah’s, he would—if this view held good—have attributed the prophecy to the first source of it, namely, Jeremiah, whence it was already made a quota- tion of by Zechariah himself. But the correctness of this assumption, that Zechariah borrowed from Jeremiah, seems to me to have been left unproved by Hengstenberg. In the two chapters of Jeremiah, the 18th and 19th, the discourse is only concerning the potter, as in Romans ix. 9], sqq., to wit, in so far as he is a symbol of creative agency. ‘The cruse purchased from the potter, which Jeremiah dashes to pieces before the ancients of the people, symbolizes the divine retributive justice. On the contrary, in the whole connection of Zechariah, the discourse is concerning the ingratitude of Israel, which suffered that people to undervalue the grace of Jehovah. How this thought can have been borrowed from the cited chapters of Jeremiah, I confess I cannot perceive. “Ὁ ἄν GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 8ὃ---10. 209 ment. Hence then the only question now to be considered is, ‘‘ whether this passage, Zechariah xi. 12, 13, is really to be under- stood as containing reference to the Messiah ?” Now as regards its exposition, the second half of Zechariah is one of the most difficult parts of the Old Testament. Compare upon the credibility thereof, Hengstenberg’s treatise upon Daniel, Berlin 1831. Ap- pendix. But, since we may interpret this part of the oracle of Zechariah as we must other parts also of holy writ, in its connection with the whole book whence it is taken, we shall be obliged, by so doing, constantly to acknowledge that it is full of remarkable allusions to the Messiah. Compare, for instance, Zech. 1x. 9 ; se A se x) LO—=13) sa. 8. ἢ: τιν Ee Aherefore;, the, most immediate reference of this passage is not traceable to the per- son of Messiah——as to me it seems to be—yet does it in every re- spect allow the people of Israel to be regarded as a type of the only Saviour, and, accordingly, to point typically to his fate, like pro- phecies relating to the same event. After this discussion of the historical statements concerning the end of Judas, let us now proceed to a judgment of his personal character., On this subject the question immediately suggests itself: from what motive could the Lord have called him into proximity with himself? Certainly the fearful sin in which he was destroyed became possible only by means of that calling. The easy answer, ‘Christ made a mistake in the selection” of the twelve, must be rejected ; partly because it tends to alter the essential character of the Saviour, and partly because it stands in manifest opposition to John vi. 64-—70. As Jesus eminently knew what was in man, he knew what was in Judas, John 11. 25, and therefore that he would betray him. Accordingly, we are obliged to penetrate deeper into the difficult question.’ 1 It is remarkable how the most opposite extremes combined in the character of the people of Israel. That which was of the holiest nature, just as well as what was most unholy, issued forth from their bosom; the most exalted fidelity, and the blackest treachery! In Genesis xlix. 17, the treachery of Judas is perhaps prophetically inti- mated. Ifso, we may thence conclude that he was descended from the tribe of Dan. 2 Compare Doctor Schollmeyer’s treatise, “ Jesus and Judas,” Luneberg, 1856. He is of opinion that the sinfulness of Judas did not originate until after his entrance into the company of the Apostles, and also that the Lord did not err when he chose him. But, in this view, the question still remains to be answered ; for what reason did Jesus retain VOL. IV. O 210 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 3—-10. Tt would be no true benefit to a man if the evil germ which lay within him did not advance directly to maturity. Hence, even if Judas had not actually betrayed Christ, yet would not that have changed his nature, nor, therefore, have profited him anything. Again, too, proximity to Christ might and ought to have been to him a means to facilitate the annihilation of the germ of iniquity within him. Judas, accordingly, was in this respect like every other person to whom abundant means of spiritual sup- port have been vouchsafed, but who neglect to profit by them. We may say, “1 were better for him that this privilege were not extended to him,” only that thereby all possibility of help would have been removed. The case of Judas, however, assumes a pecu- liarity of character by the fact that a necessity of effecting the deed seems to have been imposed on him. According to the prophecies of the Old Testament, Christ should die. His death was to become the foundation of the world’s redemption. It seems, therefore, that there must also have been some one who should betray him, and hence that Judas only had the misfortune to be obliged to play this part, but that the guilt thereof was foreign from him. This observation leads us back to what has been often treated upon already, the consideration of the connection of free and necessi- tated agency: on which subject, what is observed at Matthew xxvi. 24 should be consulted. There the Saviour expresses the necessity for his own death, yet declares that the whole burden of the guilt rests upon Judas; that is, that he had acted freely. To sit brooding over this vast abyss produces nothing. ‘The soul of man comes evermore to the conclusion already expressed, that in man everything is free, in God everything is necessary ; that, consequently, the divine knowledge of man’s moral development and action is necessarily the knowledge of man as a free agent. The very same difficulty which is here presented to us, is in- volved also in the development of every sinful life, hence it by no means belongs peculiarly to the history of Judas. We ought to remember in respect of him, first, that his election was not accidental, but that Jesus, from his profound knowledge of man’s. him in his community, till he had opportunity for the carrying out of his wicked in. tention? Thus the difficulty is by this view not solved but removed farther off; the more so, since Jesus must have foreknown that the germ of sinfulness hereafter to be developed was already existing in the heart of Judas, GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXvVII. 3--10. OY II inmost nature, had chosen the twelve; then it will be evident that he could not exclude Judas. Though his great privilege of having been called brought Judas into this position, yet it and it alone gave a possibility of his salvation, but certainly with this possi- bility was associated the alternative, which, through Judas’s free self-determination, became the actual consequence, namely, that he might despise the offered grace, and plunge himself into the abyss of perdition. But let us now glance at the gradual manner in which the siu- fulness of his nature was developed. The Scriptures specify covetousness as his master passion. John xii. 6. This lust is called in 1 Tim. vi. 10, ῥίζα πάντων τῶν κακῶν. How this is meant, we shall easily understand if we reflect that the essence of covetousness is nothing else than absolute self-seeking; to appro- priate to one’s 561} As regards the accumulating of external goods, this passion appears, but in its rudest form. Spiritually, it is the sinful motive; to an absolute appropriation of everything to its individual self. The entire exertion of Judas for the pro- motion of the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ, without doubt proceeded from the expectation : of becoming some great personage. Vain wishes of the kind may have showed themselves in the minds of the other disciples also, but their hearts were filled with a different love than that to their mere selves. The design of Judas certainly, but gradually expanded itself. The petty dishonesties on which he ventured, and after which he yet could bear the proximity of the Holy One, without repenting and confessing his sin, gradually hardened his heart, and subjected him to the influence of the power of darkness. Now when the hour came that it had full power, and when its infernal purpose was infused into his heart, then all power of resistance failed him. The pieces of money which the priests offered to him blinded his perverted judgment. Matt. xxvi. 14. That which was betterin him, might have struggled longer against the Satanic thought, but that the fetters of darkness had already bound him :—he yielded himself their captive. The tragic fate of the unhappy disciple, together with the remorse that arose in him, 1 Meanwhile, this lust, because it is like the sinfulness which rejects God, is the reason why, in Ephesians vy. 5, the covetous man is called εἰδωλολάτρης. 02 912 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 83—10. upon beholding the consequences of his act, have in modern times given occasion to many divines to palliate his guilt, and to attri- bute to him one and another less diabolical motive for his action. Viewed in one aspect, such attempts certainly are evidences of a charitable judgment, which loves to view the sins of a brother in the mildest light. But in another point of view, they are conversely, not unfrequently evidence of a want of moral decision, and of that secret horror, that fears to behold in prospect the whole extent of sin’s development, because we trace its actual root in our own breast. It is in the faithful disciple only,—in him, who knows sin as such, in all its magnitude, and is thus taught by the power of the Saviour predominating in him, and overpowering inbred sin,—that lenity in judging appears associated with the full power of truth, and that his judgment in reference to sin expresses itself in such wise, that he calls only what is evil, “evil.” If veritable repent- ance had been awakened in Judas, then even he would have ex- pressed sentence of condemnation against himself; and commensu- rately with truth, he would have entitled his sin a devilish act ; this sin, which was of ‘such a quality, that it could be only the fruit produced by the full development of a life altogether wicked. But his weak regret was merely fear concerning the consequences of his action. From it therefore nothing but doubtfulness could proceed. Now if this morally strict interpretation of the conduct of Judas be maintained, then can we in no way ascribe to him an ordinary character. The sorrow concerning his act, although a fearful evi- dence of his unbelief—for if he only could, by faith, perceive the love that was in Christ, he would be sunk in his embrace——never- theless clearly proves, that his better self was capable of shudder- ing, on viewing the fruits ofhis crime. Again, his suicide, the new sin, offspring of the first, still removes him from the rude ordi- nary character, that would suffer its possessor to enjoy quietly the fruits of his treason. But yet the exalted spiritual privilege of his calling, which had introduced him into the circle of the apostles, only plunged him into the deeper perdition since he fell so short of its requirements. Common men become but petty villains, if they yield themselves to the power of darkness; great characters become greatly wicked, when once they allow sin to lord it within them. We may hence suppose, that Judas presented to himself every kind of exculpation of his treachery that he could ; GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVil. 11—14. 213 how his vanity had been curbed by the reprimand of Jesus to him, John xii. 7; how his ambition desired a more sudden re- velation of the Messiah’s kingdom, and that he hoped to hasten it, by delivering Jesus into the Lands of his enemies, con- vinced that Jesus could at any time, by means of a miracle, will himself free; but the deed of Judas is not essentially altered by such considerations. His traitorous act, for instance, sustains its horrific character, not in what was the external part of the per- petration, but in the root of it, the judgment from which it grew. This was alienation from God, the absence of faith and love; at- tachment to the creature, and to his own mere self; hence, the first sin became in course parent to another, and his end was that he went unto his own place. Acts 1. 26. We may imagine, that in his fiery self-willed nature Peter would have conceived the thought, that if he were only to deliver Christ into the hands of his enemies, then he should reveal his glory ; but if we may institute such a comparison, yet shall we be obliged to admit, that however related in all external respects, yet would a specific internal difference remove his act from that of Judas. For assuming that it was actually done by Peter, and that the Sa- viour was condemned, as happened after the treason of J udas, how would Peter then have demeaned himself? Sorrow indescrib- able would have seized him. But because in Peter such perverse- ness would at least have been uprightly meant, he would not have relinquished faith in Christ's pardoning love. Hence, his sin would have led him, not to a sorrow that has no hope, but to true repent- ance of faith. Thus, too, his deed would have become, not, as it were, the parent of fresh disobedience, but a source of thorough re- generation. Upon the literary merits of the question just treated, compare Hase’s Leben Jesu. s. 163, ff. Ver. 11——14. In all the following section the Evangelists mutu- ally supply each other's omissions very admirably. Matthew and Mark give only brief notices of the trial of Christ before Pilate. Matthew, however, does introduce the interesting particular con- cerning the dream of Pilate’s wife, Matt. xxvu. 19. Luke com- municates the proceedings before Herod, Luke xxui.4—12. But John narrates what is the most important, viz., concerning the discourse of the Lord with the Roman statesman. By means of these communications we shall be placed in a proper position to 214 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙΙ. 1]---] 4. take a deep glance into the heart of Pilate, and to regard him as the third most significant figure in the picture of Christ's last mo- ments. Whilst, for instance, Peter represents the weak in faith, and Judas those who apostatize and go over to the ranks of the Lord’s declared enemies, Pilate, on the other hand, introduces to us the character of a naturally worldly man; of one who indeed is not void of susceptibility as to the operations of the divine being— nothing of which susceptibility shows itself in the Pharisees—-but who is immersed in the scepticism of the then fashionable world ; and who, bound by worldly regards of every kind, sacrifices his conscience to circumstances, for circumstances are his god. Pon- tius Pilate was the fifth procurator of Judea, and the successor of Valerius Gratus. Compare the first chronological table, at the end of the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles. In the thirteenth of the reign of Tiberius, he entered upon his dignity, Josephus’s Antiq. xviii. 2. He bears, indeed, here the name ἡγεμῶν, but the proper title of his office was that of ἐπίτρο- mos. ‘The former title, for instance, attached to independent ad- ministrators of the Roman provinces, viz., to proconsuls = ἀν- θυπάτοις, and propractors = ἀντιστρατήγοις. Meanwhile, the title of ἐπίτρόποις was also often given to the procurators, who yet were properly subject to those former officers. This practice of entitling obtained, like the custom that at present prevails : that of placing each one by courtesy a step higher in rank than that which he is actually entitled to. Compare Acts xxiii. 24, xxiv. 1, xxvi. 90. The procurator of Judea was subject to the proconsul of Syria, who resided in Ceserea. According to the account of Josephus, Pilate must have ventured to practice many oppressions and grievances against the Jews. To these, however, he may have been excited, partly by the frequent alarms and fears expressed con- cerning them during the reign of Tiberius, and partly because it was customary with all the Roman officers of state, in the pro- vinces, to practice extortions of every kind. The accurate descrip- tion given by John is distinguished for its delineation of his moral character. Ile was susceptible of the operations of the divine be- ing. Against his will, he believed in Christ. But partly his scepticism, which at that time made so many of the nobility its captives, and partly his fear of man, occasioned to him also a fatal fall. According to the account of John xviii. 29—382, Pilate was GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 1]——14. 215 aware of the reason why Jesus was accused before him. He might have already heard much concerning Jesus—which conjecture is sustained by the dream of his wife—and have known that it was on account of spiritual matters the Jews persecuted him.1 Hence he requested that they should bring him before the forum of the Sanhedrim, and punish him according to their own law. But this they refused to do, observing that he was adjudged worthy of death, but that the execution of the sentence was not permitted to them by law. It has been noticed above, that—according to Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6, with whom the accounts of the Rabbies coincide—the Jews lost the authority to decree punishment of death forty years be- fore the destruction of Jerusalem. Accordingly, the meaning of the passage, where the Jews require Pilate to acknowledge and approve of the sentence of death they had passed, is quite simple when thus understood. But, because of the stoning of Stephen, Acts vii., several scholars have supposed that it must be thought, that the high council retained the blood-ban in affairs of religion, and hence, that in this case the appeal to the Roman jurisdic- tion was adopted only because they wished to put Jesus to death, from political motives, as an usurper of the kingdom. But it is nowhere to be discovered for what reason the high priests would have sentenced him as one directly the object of political suspicion. We must, at least, say the evangelical history con- tains no trace of any significance which mighi lead to a parti- cular view on the subject. We see rather, from John’s careful description, quite clearly that the sole cause why aught of a po- litical nature came at all to be mentioned, was this: they hoped by this very means to conquer the obstinacy of Pilate. To this must be added the fact, that the stoning of Stephen was not a legal pu- nishment, as of a criminal, but was self-revenge of the people. In every Other explanation of it, the passage, as we have it, will con- tain something forced. For example, in the words ἡμῖν οὐκ ἔξεσ- TW ἀποκτεῖναι οὐδένα, we should supply “ on account of political offences,” or we should supply, “‘ on the Sabbath day,” as Augustin 1 Compare Matthew xxvii. 18, from which passage we may see that Pilate judged quite correctly, as to the position of the Pharisees, relatively to Jesus. If not previously, yet from the fact of their arresting Jesus, he must have learned it, since he was obliged to issue command for that object to the Roman soldiers. But probably the rumour of their envy against Jesus had already forced itself upon him. 216 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙΙ. 1]——l4. thinks, who is followed by Kuinoel, for which changes of the text, there manifestly is no ground whatever given. But the circum- stance was by no means indifferent, that, agreeably to the ordinance of God, the Saviour should be delivered over to the jurisdiction of the Romans. Since, for instance, the Jews could not inflict the punishment of crucifixion, which for heavy offences the Romans de- creed to such persons as were not Roman citizens; therefore this manner of punishment was the consequence of this transference of Christ to the Roman authorities. For, most assuredly, if Pilate had been pliant, and had sentenced Christ immediately upon the religious accusations, he would probably deliver him to the Jews to be stoned. But, when the Jews saw themselves obliged to intro- duce something political against him, then Pilate was obliged, through his soldiers, to execute him according to the Roman law. This fact was important to John, who, by reason thereof, saw— xvill. 32—fulfilled one of Christ's prophecies concerning the man- ner of his death. Compare John viii. 28, xii. 32, 33, with Matthew xx. 19, and the comments on the latter passage. But this prophecy was full of significance, not merely as foretelling an accidental cir- cumstance, but also for this reason, that crucifixion was at one time understood as a symbol replete with allusions—we shall, in a later part of this work, introduce the particular facts concerning this last- mentioned cireumstance—and therefore, because the crucifixion connects itself essentially with the resurrection. Dreadful as was this mode of execution, yet it destroyed not the bodily orga- nization, nor altered it, like stoning, and other death-punish- ments. Hence, divine wisdom allowed that the Son of God should be perfected even in this way, in order to preserve his sacred body from any species of mutilation. Now, the following dialogue of Christ with Pilate, John xviii. 33, et seq., clearly proves that, at first, there was no mention made of political accusations. ‘That conversation arose concerning the notion of the Messiah’s kingdom, whence it evidently results that the Jews accused him immediately only as a false Messiah. The same appears also in Matthew xxvii. 11, and in Mark xv. 2. Luke xxiii. 2, on the contrary, has directly, at the beginning of the trial, given prominence to the political element ; but that must be allocated to the sequel of the examination. Now, when Pilate saw that, during all the accusations, the Lord in calm dignity GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIII. 88—338. 1 maintained a silence, he marvelled at what appeared to him such unusual conduct, Matthew xxvii. 12, 18; Mark xv. 3—5. He therefore ordered Jesus, who hitherto was standing before the mul- titude of people, to be led into the Pretorium, and there held with him a private conversation. John xviii. 33—88. In this passage, in order to a precise ap- prehension of the proceedings of Pilate with Christ, we must pre- sent to ourselves the immediate scene. The Procurator occupied the palace, in former days, the palace of Herod in Jerusalem, an extensive and courtly edifice. (Josephus Ant. xv. 9, 3, B. J. 1. 21,1.) In front of this building stood the judgment-seat—Bjjpa —John xix. 13, on which Pilate sat when he adjudicated amongst the Jews. But, in order to speak with Christ in private, he several times entered the palace. (John xviii. 83, xix. 9.) Just like the residence of Annas, this palace had a vestibule or court, αὐλὴ, in which was stationed a cohort of Roman soldiers, Matthew xxvil. 27; Mark xv. 16. This was extended to the street by a colonnade —Pylon—through which a door conducted. The Jews durst not enter through this lest they should be defiled, John xviii. 28. They therefore remained outside, standing around the judgment seat. The mansion itself, together with the vesti- bule, is called by the Evangelists πραιτώριον. This is shown by Mark xv. 16, where it is said that: of στρατιώται ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν ἔσω τῆς αὐλῆς, ὄ ἐστι πραυτώριον. Hence, in those pas- sages of the history of sufferings, no uncommon sense of the word requires to be supposed. The case is different as regards the Acts of the Apostles, where it is used—not of the Roman magistrates’ official residence—but merely for the Palace. The case is just similar in Sueton. August. 63, 72. Calig. 37, Titus 8. In like manner it occurs in Philippians i. 13 in a different sense. Immediately upon Pilate having retired into the Pretorium— the vestibule, or court, perhaps—and having ordered Jesus before him—éfavnce τὸν ‘Incotv—he asked him if he were the king of the Jews. The Lord’s reply as to whether Pilate made this en- quiry merely of himself, leads to the conclusion that, in the open accusation which had been presented against him at the com- mencement of the trial, the expression 6 βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαιῶν, at least, had not occurred. It belonged to the situation of Pilate to get an answer to this question: to Christ it was important to 218 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIII. 38—88. know in what sense he should apprehend the question ; whether as a Roman, in a purely external signification of a political so- vereignty, or, according to the Jewish view, of a theocratic king, Messiah. Pilate, on this point, openly explained that he was not a Jew, hence that he wished not to determine concerning questions of the Jewish religion, but that the high priest had brought Christ as a punishable offender before his tribunal. Now when the Saviour perceived that Pilate rightly understood the state of the case, and that no misconception need be appre- hended, he openly declared that he was a sovereign, and had a kingdom, ver. 86. But Jesus did not describe directly the nature of this kingdom, but merely negatively, “Τὺ is not of this world.”, The proof of which was given by the Saviour in a way very en- lightening to the Roman procurator, viz., Jesus had suffered him- self to be arrested without making any resistance to the authorita- tive mandate. Hence it was to be understood that he had no desire to undertake anything of a hostile character. These words of the Lord, ἡ βασιλεία ἡ ἐμὴ οὐκ ἔστιν εκ TOD κόσμου τούτου, have been employed by many to prove that ‘the kingdom of Christ” should be understood as confined to the in- ternal or moral world. Certainly, in this instance, the discussion merely concerns the relationship of Christ’s kingdom to the king- doms of the world: ἐκ points towards its origin. This the king- dom of God does not derive from the κόσμος, like the kingdoms of the earth ; but in no way is the boundary of the kingdom of God itself ever narrowed. Just like the kingdom of truth, it necessarily has the tendency to become universal and all prevalent, and that, not only internally, but it shall manifest itself at last in the exter- nal form also. From the meaning given by Christ to his kingdom, βασιλεία, Pilate now gives prominence to the idea of the βασιλεύς, and re- peats the question as to whether he considered himself a king, to which Christ, without evasion, gives an affirmative reply. Very many exegists, and Tholuck’? amongst the rest, perceive mockery 1 The Lord confessed his regal dignity in presence of the greatest political authority, and his sonship to God before the most exalted theocratic council. 2 In the most recent edition of his commentary, Tholuck meantime declares him- self favourable to the opinion that, in the eliciting of a question relative thereto from Pilate, the expression of mental dejection can be traced, viz., that truth should be yeiled 3 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIII. 883—s38. 219 and hauteur in this question of Pilate. But it appears to me, that the gravity of the Redeemer’s answer is not at all correspondent to such a view. Besides, the following description of the moral operation which was going on in Pilate will testify that his mind was affected. The nature of Christ wasimpressing him: he at least respected Christ as possessing somewhat of a noble and honourable personal influence. But the particular decisiveness which the Lord annexed to his explanation, in its deepest essen- tiality, regards the notion of the βασιλεύς. In the first instance, he states his origin to be from above this world, whence is signified also that this kingdom itself is superior to what is earthly. In γεγέννημαι the act of birth is signified ; in the words ἐλήλυθα εἰς τὸν κόσμον the remaining to live in the world is embodied, hence the two forms of expression are not co-significant. But here Christ steps forth as champion for the truth, which forms his true kingdom; or rather as its sovereign now dwelling at a distance from his kingdom, Luke xix. 12. Every one who springs from his kingdom (the truth is pregnant with such, they are born of it) hearkens to the call, and rallies beneath the banner of Christ its champion. This announcement should evidently have been a motive for Pilate to acknowledge himself as the friend of truth, one of Christ's subjects, but unbelief was too deeply rooted in his heart. The call of Christ thrilled within him, but worldly fetters re- strained him from obeying it. But here arises the query: ‘“‘ Whe then, in this sinful κόσμος, can be called an ὦν ἐκ τῆς ἀληθειάς ?” If we compare John x. 14, then shall we see that this expression does not signify perfect sinlessness, but only a susceptibility of soul for the truth; for the Apostles hearkened to the voice of Christ, but that they were not sinless is sufficiently shown in the denial of Peter. There are unsusceptible dead souls in whom the from mortal creatures. With correctness he remarks upon the scepticism which at the time of Christ obtained amongst many of the distinguished Romans and Greeks, since they regarded as vain all more profound inquiries after truth. In this view, Pliny the elder, in his preface to his natural history, penned the words : Solum certum est, nihil certe esse, nec miserius quidquam homine, nec superbius.” The fearful laxity of morals at that time must doubtless, to a great degree, be traced to this internal diffidence. The revelation of the eternal truth alone was able to breathe new life into ruined human nature, and that in the apprehension of complete redemption. 220 GOSPEL OF JOHN XVIII. 33—88. sound of truth excites no echo of itself; but there again are other spirits whose inmost nature vibrates when a sound of the eternal truth is raised within them : since they experience that it alone has ability to still their secret longing desire. These all call the Saviour “the Lord and King of truth,” so strives his will within their hearts to govern absolutely. Now Pilate very well knew, since it was depicted in the Hellenistic philosophy, that the Lord could use the name ἀλήθεια in the most absolute sense of the word, John i. 14, but even the possibility of attaining to a knowledge of abso- lute truth was to him doubtful. Like so many of the noblest men of that wonderfully excited time, Pilate had fallen into the depths of scepticism. He had pro- gressed through the curriculum of philosophical systems without having discovered the truth sought after. The question: τὶ ἐστιν- ἀλήθεια, alone, sufficiently expresses this doubtfulness, whence, in it is so little of mockery or scorn to be discovered, that it would have been much rather the dejected expression of internal comfortless- ness.1 The Roman, being excited, broke up the dialogue; and, hea- then though he was, defends the king Messiah against the Jews, against the people of the theocracy, Christ's own people, John i. 11, who were breathing out nothing but wrath against the holy one cf God! He made them the proposition to set a prisoner at liberty. According to custom on the feast, he would give them the prisoner Jesus, the Christ. But here the question arises, whether—according to the account of Luke xxiii. 7—17, sqq-, compare—this proposal of Pilate to set Jesus at liberty ought not to be placed immediately after the sending of him to ifevod? The discussion is uot now concerning any formal dis- crepancy between Luke and John in this question, for the lat- ter does not at all mention the sending of Christ to Herod; yet the verses 99, 40 of John, xviii., connect themselves so very immediately with the foregoing account, that everything argues for the conclusion, that John meant the events to be regarded as hay- ing transpired in this order of sequence. We may contend, that ! As the answer to the question “ What is truth ?” the only correct Biblical answer is, “Christ is the truth.” For absolute eternal truth is not a mere presentation nor a rela- ion of any kind, but it is both Essence and Being. Now the Spirit is the true being, but the Spirit is Person, and Christ is the i exalted personavion. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIl. 15—25. 22] as John has referred to them with such uncommon precision, whilst, in this part of the evangelical history, Luke appears tu be much less careful ; and, further, let us take into consideration, that it was upon the first hesitation to sentence Christ to death, the preceding political accusations, Luke xxiii. 5, gave rise to the occasion of sending him to Herod. Hence everything con- sidered, it 1s probable that the whole scene, in which the people desired the releasing of Barabbas, should be referred to the period previous to the sending of Christ to Herod. As regards the cus- tom to release a prisoner at the period of the feast, it is uncertain whether it was of Roman or Jewish origin. According to Livy, Book V. 13, during the Lectisternia, all prisoners in Rome were freed from their fetters. In this passage, however, there is men- tion made apparently of only one who should get his freedom ; hence it may be the more probable conclusion that it was a Jewish custom. There is something so very natural in it, that even at the present day it obtains in many states, for instance in Oriental states. Something similar occurs too in western countries upon the ascend- ing the throne. According to Matt. xxvil. 15, sqq.; Mark xv. 6,sqq.; Luke xxii. 13, sq., along with the Saviour, there was proposed to their choice another prisoner as a candidate for liberation ; one who in an insurrection had committed a murder. Mark xv. 7; Luke xe 19. This man, who otherwise is no furtber known, was called Bap- αββᾶς = sox qn. But it is remarkable that three manuscripts, and moreover the Armenian MS., besides, a Syrian translation of the latter, give in addition the name Jesus, Ἰησοῦς. That this reading is very ancient, is shown in his exposition of Matthew on this passage by Origen. He observes that ‘several manuscripts also had not the name ’Ijcods’—consequently the greater number must have had it. These too may really have heretically added it. Griesbach has sought to stript these words of this father of the church of all signification, by means of the statement: that he him- self found this explanation of Origen’s to be contained nowhere but in the Latin translation, in which much was corrupted, hence it might really be the fact, that this statement did ποῦ at all emanate from Origen himself. Yet this conjecture is thoroughly impro- 222 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 15—23. bable, since in this case no doctrinal interest was concerned to make any such interpolation. If the passage is actually from Origen, then it is in the highest degree probable, that ᾿Ιησοῦς Βαραββᾶς is the correct reading. This father, for instance, points out how ᾿Ιησοῦς became lost out of the text. They found it discordant, that a murderer also should have borne the sacred name Jesus, and therefore retained merely Barabbas in the text. It was very singular that two with the name of Jesus should have met thus, from which circumstance Pilate’s question would take the form, ‘‘ whether do you wish that I should release Jesus, who is named the Christ, or him who is called Barabbas? Here, indeed, how applicable is the comment: “ ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.” We find more than once, in the history of Christ's suffering, an example of a like order of providence, in apparently unessential matters If for instance, the other name, (7. e.) Barabbas, has any signification, it signifies “Son of the Father.” Hence, all which to the Saviour was essentially natural, appeared in the murderer caricatured. Moreover, it is not improbable that his whole enterprize had been a caricature of the most holy undertak- ing of Christ ; that probably he had arrogated to himself the pleni- potential character of the Messiah.1 But the blinded multitude, in their insanity, chose the hellish caricature, in preference to the heavenly Archetype.’ All the endeavours of Pilate were fruitless, as he well knew the 1 It is quite in the order of things, that, in rendering prominent such allusions, unbelief and estrangement from God can see only areprehensible play of the fancy. If unbelief were without any concealment to express itself, then would it give precisely the same decision, as to similar allusions, which are stated by the writers themselves of the holy Scriptures ; for instance, that preserving the limbs of Christ from being broken, and the streaming forth of water and blood from his wounded side, should be significant. But he, towhom the Bible is the true word of God, and who believes that Christ is indeed the Son of the living God, will know how both these and similar re- ferences are to be respected. 2 Those self-suggestive ideas, that in the soul struggle towards gaining birth, invari- ably appear but caricatured in spirits that are disingenuous. These spirits are excited by those ideas, without being able to produce them in their true aspect. At the time of Christ, as in our day, the struggle after freedom gradually spread its conquests. In this struggle the idea was correct; but men erroneously sought its realization in merely ex- ternal things, and hence implanted something dangerous in all the allusions made by them. Whom the Son maketh free, he alone is indeed free. John viii, 36. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 15—253. 2238 secret motive of the hatred of the high priests against the person of the Saviour, was envy. This passion caused them to fear, lest they should lose all their prerogatives as a nation through Christ, Matt. xxvii. 18; Mark xvi. 10. The high priests demanded the release of Barabbas, and desired that Jesus might be crucified. As the procurator now descended from the judgment seat, and delivered Christ over to the hands of the priests, that were ravening for his blood, to drag him thence, he received a message from his wife. She wished to call his attention to the righteous character of the person, whom he was called upon to judge. Matt. xxvii. 19. ‘Tradition gives the name of this woman as Claudia Procula, and states that she had accompanied her husband into the province. According to Tacitus, Annales iii. 33, 1t certainly was forbidden to the officers of the Roman government to take their wives into their respective provinces 1n company with them ; but the mandate was not rigorously enforced. Probably too she had heard a great deal concerning Christ, and knew therefore the danger to which her husband was exposed of per- petrating an awful act of guilt, by passing on him sentence of con- demnation. No disproofs are needed by those strange conceits, that the dream-vision of Procula had been a piece of sorcery on the part of Christ, in order to save himself! or, indeed, magic of the devil to hinder Christ’s atoning death. Yet, in considering this re- markable event, one cannot disencumber oneself of the reflection, “From what motive at all may this warning have been given by the decree of Providence? For instance, as the death of Christ was pre-ordained, this dream would seem to have been of only injuriousinfluence. It would, be it observed, increase the re- sponsibility of Pilate. He already knew too much to be innocent, yet was he too firmly bound by worldly lust to venture boldly to intercede for the right.” Now, it is directly allowable to say, on this subject, that the dream would have been advantageous 1 So Nicephorus names her, in his Church history, i. 30. Of late days, some persons have regarded the account of Procula’s dream as an interpolation in the text of Matthew of a subsequent period ; but without a trace of probability. It is an unique pruriance of our modern critics, by means of the charge “ Znterpola- tion,” or otherwise to desire the removal of every peculiarly interesting feature of the evangelical history, in order to make every thing strictly common place. 0μ GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIII. 4—12. to Procula herself, and it is not impossible that by its silent agency she had been converted to the faith as it is in Christ. But, se- condly—as has been frequently remarked—and chiefly, the no- tion of what is necessary is not to be so conceived as that it circum- scribes the freedom of individual agents. In a humanly-subjective point of view, there remained at any moment the perfect possibility to Pilate—yes, even known to himself, to release Christ. Just as it remained possible that those members of the Sanhedrim favourable to Christ, Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, might have openly confessed their faith, and effected a reversal of the sentence of the council. If anything of the kind had happened, then the world’s history would have been entirely different. This remark reverts hence to the higher, or objective necessity. But this necessity is only in God, not in human individuals. Their actions, though free agencies, carry into perfect effect the divine necessity. Accordingly, it was proper, also, in the councils of God—since Christ’s death was not merely apparent, but a verit- able fruit of the sin of mankind—that to Pilate everything should be brought home that could give him certainty concerning the sinlessness of Christ. If thereby Pilate’s own guilt was aggra- vated, then was this result solely the curse of his faithlessness, by which his very susceptibility for what was godly, and all the means of help vouchsafed him to discover it, became to him im- pulses to his destruction, since they could not bring him to a deci- sion for that which was good. Luke xxiii. 4—12. Now, in order to recall Pilate from his ex- ertions on behalf of the Saviour, the priests presented accusations against Jesus that were very distressing to Pilate; they accused him of political offences. Jesus was charged with having excited an insurrection of the people [Luke xxiii. has at ver. 2 διαστρέφειν, for it; and at ver. 5 avaceiew, and at ver. 14 αποστρεφειν, are employed by him] and with having dissuaded them from paying the tribute. The power of darkness had so completely blinded them, that they saw not the contradiction involved in their desiring the actual in- surrectionist to be released, and falsely charging with insurrection him who had delivered the precept, “render to Cesar the things that are Ceesar’s.” Matt. xxii. 21. But whilst, to the anxious and excited Pilate, they repeated these dangerous accusations, with GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 1-- -10. 225 all virulence of impression (ver. 5 ἐπίσχυον, ver. 23 κατίσχυον), they also mentioned that he had commenced his operations from Galilee. Luke xxiii. 5. This mention is seized by the unhappy Pilate, desiring, hoping, to free himself from the burden of the responsibility, if he could devolve it upon any one else, whilst yet he was evidently placing in jeopardy the life of the righteous One, which he should have shielded with his own very life, since Herod could have taken the resolution to surrender him, as his own subject to death. Here we find him then already toppling to his fall. The sending away of Christ to Herod was but a brief respite, which he took for his smitten conscience. Herod Antipas, the then governor of Galilee —compare the first chronological table in the introduction to Acts— just at the time of the solemnization of the feast, was in Jerusalem. Hence Pilate ordered that Christ should be conducted to him. Here it is necessary to state, that Jesus was not born in Galilee, but in Judea. Herod therefore sent him back, without having brought the case to ahearing. From this state of the matter, then, the con- duct of Christ towards him admits of explanation. If Herod was directly his country’s governor, inasmuch as Christ had lived a long time in his territory, yet he was not born under him, nor did he now stand before him as an accused person before his official judge. Here, therefore, Jesus gave as little licence to the reprehensible curiosity of his seeming lawful prince, as in his former conversation with Annas. In ver. 8, 9, is employed ἱκανός, equal to πολύς, εξ--- ἱκανοῦ scilicit ypovov. The desire of Herod—mentioned in this passage—proves that the fame of Christ, and of his works, had been generally spread abroad. Besides, too, the vindictive priests had accompanied the Lord to Herod. They surrounded him and accused him violently. Ver. 10. εὐτόνως occurs again only in Acts xvili. 28, in the New Testament. But when it happened that Herod saw no miracle performed, he ascribed this to the want of power in Jesus. He with “ his men of war” mocked Jesus, and, clad in an (old) purple robe, out of ridicule, sent him back again to Pilate. Ver. 11. The στρατεύματα here mentioned were the minions in the suite of Herod who had attended him to Jerusalem. The word otherwise, in the New Testament, signifies invariably an army. In Acts xxiii. 10, Kuinoel contends, but erroneously, that it also signi- VOL. IV. Ρ 226 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIX. 1—16. fies a body guard. In the λαμπρός, by which is indicated the colour of the garment Christ wore, the brightness of it is expressed. It may just as well signify a white colour as any other. According to Jobn xix. 5, and Matthew xxvii. 28, however, it is most probable that the robew as of a purple colour, and therefore must have been a scoff at the kingly dignity of the Lord. In conclusion, Luke notices further that this day Pilate and Herod had been reconciled one to another, hence formerly they were inimical to each other. It cannot now be shown, whether it was the cruelty of Pilate to any of Herod's subjects that had exeited this enmity, Luke xiii. 1. Nor is it said that the sending of Christ to Herod was the occa- sion of their reconciliation. We are informed merely that both events occurred on the same day. This observation would be entirely superfluous, were it not that Luke had had some more profound meaning in his comment. ‘This more profound idea of Luke was, that most sage contemplation, that—as often occurs—if there arise a coutest against something more noble, the formerly adverse in- terests of worldly men all unite to smother the principle that ap- peared strange to them. From this issues, although not always consciously, the prudential feeling, that the unrestrained develop- ment of this adverse element would annihilate their common inter- ests. Hence, individual considerations are merged, in order to conserve the general weal. The persecutions of the church repre- sent the same drama at large. Psalm 11. ὦ. John xix. 1—16. With what feelings must Pilate have observed the tumultuous concourse again wending towards his palace! He had hoped to render himself free from the responsibility, and lo, the burden will again be devolved upon him! He repeats that he finds no fault in Jesus, and reminds them that Herod also had found none. Luke xxiii. 13—16. In order meanwhile to give some satisfaction to their wild hatred, he commanded Jesus to be scourged. In his view, this must have been an act of lenity, thereby, if possible, to save his life, Luke xxiii. 16, 22; John xix. 1. Whilst the soldiers scourged Jesus in the court of Pilate, he probably had retired into the interior of his dwelling.1 In his absence, the soldiery indulged their ungoverned 1 Tholuck thinks with others, that the mockery was enacted in the presence of Pilate. This view is incredible, if but for the reason, that the dignity of his Magistracy might not suffer the Jike in his very view. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. |—l16. eit passion, in mockery of the sublime prisoner.” But without know- ing what they did, they were picturing forth a profoundly significant symbol. It awakens a consciousness of thoughts the most con- trasted. They crown with a coronet of thorns the king of earth and heaven, as if to intimate how painful to him was the sovereignty he exercised over the souls of millions. When they had thus trickt out the Redeemer, Pilate again led him forth from the Court,’ in his sad finery, and in his thorny crown, exhibited to the people their king, saying ἴδε ὁ ἄνθρωπός. The only true interpretation of this expression is that according to which it is regarded as the efflux of the Roman’s utmost sympathy with the fate of the being who had exercised on him so mighty an influence. Those views can in nowise be defended, according to which the words were expressed, out of scorn or mockery, or from the motive of presenting to the Jews their king, as an insignificant, not a formidable being. The view in which Pilate is regarded as an entirely superficial man of the world, destroys eminently the profound character of the scenes between him and Christ. He appears to have felt but too much of the greatness of the Lord, but thereby to have also rendered himself infinitely more culpable, than would have been the case otherwise. The view of him which we have here inferred is corroborated, even by his scepticism, to which altogether superficial minds never feel themselves attracted; and still farther by the discourse with the Lord that followed, this discourse discovers, in a touching man- ner, the inward moral struggle of the unhappy Roman, and per- mits the germ of faith which would unfold itself in his heart to be recognised. Now, whilst the stubborn Roman, who had grown up amid the din of battle, and. had familiarised himself with hardship and suffer- ing, was seized with a feeling of tender sympathy upon beholding in his thorn-crown the king in whom so wondrously commingled 1 Both Matthew xxvii. 26, et seq. and Mark xv. 15, et seq., somewhat vaguely allocate the scourging and the mockery of Christ subsequently to his being sentenced. The mockery of Christ may, when Pilate had quite withdrawn, have been repeated, but cer- tainly not the scourging. 2 Verse 5 is a parenthetical sentence, in which the discourse of Pilate breaks off. He went forth, verse 4, addressed the people, and during his address, now—(at perhaps a signal from Pilate, T.)—the Redeemer came forth through the door, from the court, end showed himself to the people. P2 228 GOSPEL OF JOHN Xtx. 1—16. heavenly dignity with the deepest humiliation,—they who were accustomed to what was holy, who their life-long had employed themselves about the sacred law and the prophecies relating to this very being, vociferated their merciless ‘‘ Crucify him, crucify him !” Still once more, Pilate wished to deliver him over to them for punishment, which, consequently, could not have been the punish- ment of death, but they longed for his blood. They, therefore, carried on the prosecution with a new accusation, one which incurred death according to the law, viz., ‘‘ that he was a blasphemer be- cause he made himself out to be the Son of God,” verse 7. Now this passage proves clearly that the Jews did not employ υἱὸς Θεοῦ as equipollent with Χριστὸς or Βασίλευς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ; because with the latter name they had charged Jesus at the immediate be- ginning of the examination, but this name was perfectly new to Pilate. Moreover, in this name alone did they perceive a blas- phemy, which, according to the law, demanded death. Compare on John x. 34, et. seq., and also Leviticus xxiv. 16. This new statement frightened still more the already affected Pilate, μᾶλλον ἐφοβήθη. He again once more ascended his judgment seat, ordered Jesus to be led into the Pratorium, and began particularly to inform himself concerning his descent (or origin.) As the de- scent of Christ according to the flesh was already made known by means of his having to be sent to Herod, hence the enquiry πόθεν εἶ σύ can refer only to the name υἱὸς Θεοῦ. Pilate thus wished to know if he actually was of higher origin: a son of God. His notion of “a son of God,” like that of the centurion, Matthew xxvii, 54, may in some respects have been very obscure. But in any case, even if but in the most indefinite generality, he could have conceived of Christ as a heavenly being. The fact that such a conception could be suggested to this sceptic, only from distant contemplations, decidedly contradicts the idea that he was super- ficial. ‘Through the appearing of Christ, “the life,” his hollow system of scepticism was overturned. The reality of the divine na- ture, by its indwelling power, affected him, whilst he, in his repre- sentation of it, denied that it was actual. The deep inmost wants of his nature, which from misunderstood speculation had conducted him to scepticism, became, in this instance, all forcibly manifested. 1 Compare concerning the πόθεν in this sense, the passage, John vii. 27, 28. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 1---ἰ. 229 His mind’s eye saw light, and he could not impose upon himself to believe that it did not exist. But what a glory and dignity must have shone forth from the nature of Christ, since in his lowest humiliation, in the midst of Jews, a person hateful to the heathen, and in his raiment of mockery, it could thus triumph over the mind of a Pilate! But now the Saviour answered no farther to the question of Pilate. He perceived that Pilate would not be able to fight through the battle, therefore he wished not to lead him into a greater trial. This silence, however, fixed the Roman alike in amazement and anxicty ; he sought to necessitate Christ to an answer, by reminding him concerning his own authority. But now the Lord employs this allusion to Pilate’s power, in order to admonish Pilate himself concerning a superior power, which was above even him. By this remark, he once more elicited the feel- ing of his dependency in Pilate. But Christ also intimated his sacred consciousness, that he himself was swayed, only by the superior power of God, not by his own power. Yet in intimate sympathy with the condition of the unhappy Pilate, the merciful Redeemer added—taking for granted the issue of Pilate’s moral struggle—that those hard-hearted priests, who not only thirsted for his own blood, but also had brought Pilate into so difficult a temptation, had sinned more heavily than he. Thus the ac- cused, the deeply humbled, here also again appears, as he ap- peared before the Sanhedrim, the judge and commander of the Roman governor, whilst he computes the amount of his sin, and suffers a ray of hope for pardon to shine in upon him. [If those priests perhaps sinned against the Holy Ghost, or at least approxi- mated this sin, Pilate indeed only sinned against the Father or against the Son of Man, and did so, according to the lesser de- gree of his moral or religious consciousness, accordingly, if not for the latter consideration, at least for the former, there could be for- giveness for him. (Compare upon Matthew xu. 31.) With what sublime dignity would the Saviour have thus spoken to Pilate! But Pilate, instead of allowing himself to feel fully conscious of the force of such address, began, under its influence, at once to strive for the liberation of Christ, as if he had not hitherto, even from the beginning of the examination, been making the same attempt. His exertions, however, were faint. ‘The secret bonds of worldliness held his feeble nature captive in their fetters. Upon 230 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 1—-16. the popular exclamation οὐκ εἶ φίλος τοῦ καίσαρος being made, he was a fallen man. The name φίλος τοῦ καίσαρος, is not to be appre- hended in the sense of the honorary title, amicus Caesaris ; but must be understood as referring to his loyal adherence,—-faithful towards the emperor. Accordingly the meaning is, “ If you liberate this man, you thus prove that you are not faithful to the emperor.” Now, to a Tiberius,' a mere suspicion was as bad as an actual offence. Hereupon Pilate hastily commanded Jesus to be led forth, seated himself upon the judgment-seat, and after he had again cried out ide ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑμῶν, verse 15, ΟἹ this occasion, less in order to excite compassion, than to conciliate the people, who so painfully urged him to act in opposition to his conscience,—he delivered over to them the Saviour to be crucified. Verse 13. —The place where the βῆμα stood was named λιθόστρωτον, equivalent to 3. The Hebrew name is derived from the elevation of the place from jy) to be high ; the Greek from a Mosaic paving which formed the floor beneath the βῆμα. The Roman magistrates and generals carried similar pavimenta tessa- lata with them on their journies into the provinces. Compare Sueton. caes. 46. Upon the παρασκευὴ τοῦ πάσχα compare at Matthew xxvi. 17. ‘The expression must be understood as relating to the usual rest-day, that is Friday, which was called the rest-day of the passover, because occurring at the period of the feast. This conclusion is supported in an especial manner by the fact, that the Synopticks most directly give the name παρασκευὴ to the day of the Saviour’s death. Matt. xxvii. 62; Mark xv. 42; Luke xxiii 54. Mark indeed subjoins further the expletive 6 ἐστε προσάβ- Batov. Moreover, for the same day, John writes παρασκευὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων, which can in no case be understood as relating to the pre- paration day of the Easter Festival. Furthermore, this expression is never used in that sense in any other connection. Still, there remains a chronological difficulty in determining of the hour at which the passing of the sentence may have occurred. John, in this passage, names the sixth hour as that of the sentence, whilst, according to Mark xv. 25, it was the third hour in which the crucifixion took place. If this passage of Mark were the only theme that here comes under discussion, ! Tacitus, concerning the time of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, says, “ Magestatis cri- men omnium accusationum complementum erat.” GOSPEL OF JOHN xIx. 1—16. 231 then should we, of a surety, prefer the account of John ; but it is here to be considered also that, according to Matthew xxvil. 45; Mark xv. 33; and Luke xxiii. 44, about the sixth hour the Sa- viour had already hung a long time on the cross. I declare my- self favourable with Theophylact, Beza, Bengel, and TLiicke, to the reading τρίτη in the text of John, for the following reasons : Seve- ral MSS. (as D.L.) read τρίτη in John ; the numeral-signs of 3 and 6 might easily have been mistaken one for the other ; it might easily have happened that some transcribers transposed the events, and hence, as in John, no further specifications of the hour occur, that they, on the authority of Matthew xxvii. 45, and the parallel passages, transferred the number 6 from the crucifixion to the time of the sentence being passed. Meanwhile, some are of opinion that ἕκτη should have been ex- pressed, So thinks Tholuck. He discovers no probability that any discrepancy could have crept into the MSS., if the correct number originally stood therein. All things considered, we must say that the variation certainly arose from the circumstance, that the decision was made originally, according to the division of the day. In consequence of this mode of dividing, the day was parti- tioned into four sections of three hours each. Hence, the second section of the day included the time from the third to the sixth hours. Of this section, then, Mark had mentioned the beginning, John the end. Meanwhile, even after this view, there will yet per- manently remain a want of precision on the part of John ; since the passages Matthew xxvii. 45, and parallels, show that at the sixth hour the Saviour had hung a long while already on the cross. Hence, rather than to this supposition, the preference may be con- ceded to the hypothesis of Rettig, who in this case, and at John i. 39, iv. 6, would apply the mode of computing the hours, viz., from midnight to midnight ; which Aulius Gellius, Attic Nights i. 2, and Pliny, Natural History, 77, show to have been the Roman mode of computation. To this hypothesis admirably accords the fact that John wrote for the people of Asia Minor; but not so much so does the circumstance that, according to John xviii, 28, it was already morning when they led Jesus away to Pilate. But the proceedings before him and Herod must have consumed considerable time. Compare Ulliman’s Stud. Jahrg. 1830, ἢ. 1, s. 101, ff. 282 GOSPEL OF JOHN xIx. 1—16. Finally, an account is given by Matthew alone, xxvii. 24, 25, that Pilate, by a symbolic proceeding, had in the view of the multi- tude excused himself from guilt, as regarded the murder of the Lord. But his giving sentence, and, moreover, his declaration, that he whom he delivered to them to be crucified was a righteous person, must naturally give to that ceremony the character of mere vanity. Compare upon the symbolic ceremony, Deuteronomy xxi. 6. ᾿Αθῶος ἀπὸ is the same as 12 p>: But the blinded multitude cried out, τὸ dua αὐτοῦ ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ τέκνα ἡμῶν, with which imprecation they, unknowingly to themselves, were invoking the greatest blessing, because, whilst the blood of an Abel cries for vengeance, the blood of Christ calls only for for- giveness, Hebrews xii. 24. After the removal of Pilate, who by this time had released Barrabbas to the people, the barbarous soldiery might, as was observed above, have further set Christ at nought, since he was still wearing the purple robe and the crown of thorns. But, when they were about to lead him to the place of execution, they again invested him with his own rai- ment-—Matthew xxvii. 81; Mark xy. 20—and next laid his cross upon him. In this place, upon concluding the examination of Christ before Pilate, some notice concerning the fate of the unhappy Roman will not be inappropriate. Ne account is given us of the effect pro- duced upon Pilate by the tidings of the resurrection. According to Josephus, he afterwards indulged in such gross oppressions and malyversations, in the province under him, that, in the last year of the reign of Tiberius, the Proconsul of Syria deposed him from his government, and exiled him into Gaul. Compare Josephus Antiq. xvii. 5; Tacitus’ Annals, xv. 44. As to what the ecclesiastical fathers recount concerning the ‘ Actis” of Pilate, which, in relation to the death of Christ, he should have sent to the Emperor Tibe- rius, and which, indeed, on the authority of tradition, occasioned the latter to order that Christ should be included amongst the num- ber of the gods, the story is doubtless tricked out with legendary grace. But, according to the evangelical history, it is in the high- est degree probable that Pilate did actually write to Tiberius on the subject, for, since the affair had reference to political relations, Pilate would not have wished that any information whatever concerning a king of the Jews should reach Rome before his own GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 82. 233 account. But, now that he had sentenced Jesus to death, there was no longer any motive whatever with him to conceal his fa- vourable decision concerning the Saviour. Hence, in after days, from the benevolent opinions of Pilate con- cerning Christ, a legend might have originated, that Tiberius had ordered that Christ should be admitted by the Senate into the number of Gods. Justin Martr. Apology i. 76—84; Tertullian’s Apol. v. 20; Eusebius. Eccles. Hist. ii. 2; Epiph. haer. ἘΠῚ. Compare Winer’s Bibl. Realworterb. under this word. § 5. CRUCIFIXION AND DEATH OF JESUS. (Matt. xxvii. 82—56; Mark xv. 21—41; Luke xxii. 26—49 ; John xix. 17—30.) In the following description of the Saviour’s crucifixion and death, the representation of John falls very far short of being a complete picture. On the other hand, however, Luke supplies several particulars which render the painful scene uncommonly vivid, and which are peculiar to him. Of these, for instance, are the address of Jesus to the women of Jerusalem who were la- menting concerning the Lord, Luke xxiii. 27, et. seq., and the scene which transpired with the two malefactors, Luke xxii. 39, et. seq. Some few particulars, also, are peculiar to Matthew, and chiefly the description of the astonishing phenomena that occurred at the death of the Redeemer, Matthew xxvii. 51, et. seq. In their wild haste the high priests, contrary to all usage, scarcely suffered him who was sentenced to death to be conducted even to the appointed place of execution. Guarded by some Roman soldiers, of the German legion which was stationed in Pales- tine, he proceeds, bearing his cross,' John xix. 17, innocent as the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. 1 Those who love myths should ever seek the Christian myths in the Christian poets, where they are to be found clothed with all the adornments of fancy, but not in the his- torical incidents of the time of Christ. Dante and Calderon are of the number of those poets referred to. In his beautiful dramatic poem ‘‘ The prophetess of morning,” the Spanish poet has invented an astonishingly beantiful myth concerning the tree whence the wood of the cross was furnished. He makes it to havesprung from a shoot of the tree of life, which withered after the fall through Adam’s sin in Paradise. If the 234 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIII. 27—#4. The symbolical expression, λάμβανειν τὸν σταυρὸν αὑτοῦ, which often occurs in the Gospels—e. g., Matthew x. 38, xvi. 24—is sublimely consecrated by this affecting incident. But probably, the Saviour was so exhausted from the heavy conflicts of both his body and soul, that he fainted beneath the weary burden. Hence they were obliged to compel another to bear the cross for him, the helper of all, a certain Symon of Cyrene. Some are of opinion, generally according to the authority of Grotius, that this Simon was a person attached to Christ, and that he was chosen by them on that account. This supposition, however, to me ap- pears the less probable for the reason that, if he were such, then would he certainly have been in the city, and have been present at the examination of Christ. Since he was coming in from the country it seems to me a more admissible opinion that hitherto he had not known Christ. But, perhaps even this service which Simon rendered to the Redeemer may have been the means of leading him to God, so that his bodily toil was recompensed with a heavenly reward. What is observed by Mark xv. 21 leads to the cer- tain conclusion that Simon and his family afterwards attached themselves to Christ; for instance, that “he was the father of Alexander and Rufus,” persons who undoubtedly must have been known to the first readers of the Gospel. Upon ayya- pevey compare at Matthew vy. 44. Now, in the progress of Christ to the place of execution, many accompanied him. Particu- lar notice is made of some persons of the female sex who uttered their tender sympathy through wailings and tears, Luke xxiii. 27 —34. Yet the reply which the Lord made to those sympathising hearts seems to contain something surprising. His words con- tained nothing, apparently, of a comforting, beneficent character, but much rather somewhat of terrific import. But we cannot suppose that in this company of females were those believin+ women, who, according to Luke xxiii. 48, et. seq., beheld the death of the Lord from a distance. To the latter these words of Christ would not, indeed, have been suitable, because they cer- tainly had no reason to be alarmed at the heavy coming retribution history of Jesus had been embellished by legends, then should we have no want of all kinds of fabulous poetic descriptions, concerning the potency of his blood, his garments, aud such like; since invariably,in ordinary martyrdoms, it is the conduct of the super- stitious to misapply to this and that object the blood and the clothing of those who have suffered, 4 GOSPEL GF LUKE XXIII. 27—34. 235 whereof Jesus spoke; since, according to the promise of the Lord, they should, like Noah and Lot, be preserved therefrom. Com- pare Matthew xxiv. 37, et. seq. And, secondly, the sympathy of those women must be regarded less as a true expression of their full-consciousness concerning the event that was then occurring than as a mere natural feeling of pity, as it so frequently is expressed in the excitable female sex. Nevertheless, on the Saviour it cer- tainly made a grateful impression, after the rude violence he had suffered, to trace this warm sympathy. But his sublime soul, in the prospect of a bitter death, thought not upon his own personal enjoyment of what would have followed, if he, with a tender thanks towards the women, required them to dry even the mild stream of their tears, and to gain for himself the praise of such conduct. Much rather did he desire to secure a blessing that should be permanent to their well-meaning hearts. But this could result only from their being brought in sincere repentance to the conviction of the great importance of the proceeding, and of its necessary consequences. Hence the Redeemer exhorted them to turn their attentic a from him to themselves, to bewail not him, but, on the contrary, themselves. ‘They, as members of the populace, partook also of the guilt of the people (compare at Acts ii. 23), and hence were also obnoxious to the same punishment. ‘The mag- nitude of this retribution is described by the Saviour in Old Testament language, Isaiah 11. 1O—19; Hosea x. 8; and Reve- lations vi. 16. With a proverbial form of expression, in which the righteous are resembled to green trees, and the godless to dry, concludes his address to them. Hence its meaning tended to awaken in them a consciousness of their alienation from God, and to occasion them with earnestness to seek after the way of sal- vation. Upon βουνός compare Luke iii. 5. Now there were led forth along with Christ also two malefactors, Luke xxiii. 32, who were crucified with him on Golgotha, one on his right hand and the other on his left, Matthew xxvil. 98; Mark xv. 27, 28; John xix. 18. The word of prophecy, Isaiah 111. 12, was accordingly ful- filled to a tittle as regarded Christ, μετὰ ἀνόμων ἐλογίσθη, fulfilled in fact more literally than we should have expected, Mark xy. 28. Certainly, however, in several codices, A.B.C.D. for example, the quotation in the text of Mark is deficient. In Mark, hence, the 236 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 27—84. quotation does not appear to be authentic, but to have been derived from Luke, since its being subjoined by the latter is more easily explained than the important omission of Mark. As regards the crucifixion proper, it was carried out at the com- mon place of execution, called the κρανίου τόπος, or according to Luke xxiii. 33, the xpavios. (The literal translation of the latter is from the Chaldee nibaba, and the Hebrew semogh3—skull), the place of a skull, from the accumulated skulls of the wretched per- sons who had there lost their lives. Respecting the manner of the crucifixion, only one point further needs to be investigated, viz., whether it was customary to nail or only to bind the feet of the crucified. The whole church, both ancient and modern, understand this in accordance with the prophecy of Psalm xxii. 17, in connection with Luke xxiv. 39, in which latter passage the risen Redeemer even shows that his feet were pierced through. The chief person, who in the most recent times has asserted the contrary, is Dr Paulus, who is followed by Rosenmuller, Kuinoel, and Frische The only fact which they have adduced in support of their view, is, that the feet were bound. Yet this in every case was done also with the arms, whilst yet it is acknowledged that the hands were pierced through. Hence the binding does not exclude, but rather implies the nailing. Again: there are several distinct authorities for the nailing, for instance [Plautus Mostellaria, Act. ii. se. 1. v. 18; Tertullian adv. Mare. iii. 19. The principal work is that of Justus Lipsius de cruce, Antwerp 1595. Of the moderns should be com- pared, Hengstenberg’s Christology, Bd. i. s. 183, ff., and the very circumstantial and erudite treatise of Bahr, preacher in Baden, in Heidenreich’s and Huffel’s Zeitschr. f. Prediger—Wissenschaften, Bd. ii. h. 2 and 8. The two latter oppose Dr Paulus. This scholar, in his contrary statements, appeals to Socrat. H.E.I., 17 according to which, Helena, the mother of Constantine, found only two nails in the cross. Yet to this legend we can attach no his- torical importance, for also it does not base itself upon even the 1 According to the Christian myth, Golgotha was the place where Adam was buried. Out of the grave of the old Adam sprang forth the second Adam, who Jike ripe fruit de- pended from the tree of life. With this myth should be compared, the Manichaean view of the Ἰησοῦς παθητός, who is therein regarded as diffused throughout all nature. ὃ GOSPEL OF LUKE ΧΧΠΙ. 27-—34. 237 slightest fact. The Zeitschrift, fur die Giestlichkeit des Erzbis- thums Freiburg, Jahrg. 1830, heft 5, s. 1, ff., also contains very instructive statements on this subject. ] Just before the crucifixion, the Romans used to present a stupifying drink, wine mingled with myrrh, to the unhappy suf- ferers, in order to deaden their sensibility of the awful agonies of this dread punishment. Mark. xv. 23 contains the usual expres- sion οἶνος ἐσμυρνισμένος, from σμύρνα, which is equivalent to 2, Matt. ii. 11. Matthew, on the contrary, contains the expression, ὄξος μετα χολῆς μεμυγμένον.. This expression, however, and that of Mark, can be reconciled as to signification. For ὄξος was nothing else than the common sour wine, and χολή, like yipy (for which word it is employed by the LXX. in Psalm lxix., 22), was used for bitters of every kind. We should further compare Luke xxiii. 36, where it is expressly included under the acts of mockery practised by the soldiers that they gave ὄξος to the Saviour. And we might review Psalm Ixix. 22, where it is reckoned amongst the sufferings of Messiah that he should receive ὄξος and χολή. Thus there is certainly not a doubt that the Evangelists have also understood this very event as an aggravation of his sufferings. ‘That this cruelty was not the original idea in giving the drink by no means contradicts this conclusion as to its reference to his sufferings. Even if it was apparently an act of charity, still was it the expres- sion of a most unholy charity. Hence, to the Saviour it assumed the appearance of but a fresh mockery ; for which reason, as soon as he had tasted the drink he rejected it, for he could not desire to meet death otherwise than with clear consciousness. Probably it was whilst being nailed to the cross that the Lord uttered the affecting prayer : πάτερ ἄφες αὐτοῖς οὐ yap οἴδασι Ti ποιοῦσι. The address πάτερ directly supports the conclusion that even in this moment, when he hung transfixed upon the cross, his divine filia- tion (or God’s sonship) was vivid in his consciousness. In his prayer, too, he included not merely those soldiers who were carrying into effect the crucifixion,—these were mere instruments only, irre- sponsible, yea, even guiltless therein, that guilt excepted which they themselves incurred by unnecessary violence in what they were doing, —but infinitely more. The Saviour's prayer in its widest compre- hension has reference to all those who in any way inculpated 238 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIX. [9—R2d4. themselves in his death. For instance, it avails thus for both the high priests and Pilate. Now, if their ignorance as to what they were doing seems to be rendered prominent by being pleaded as a ground for their forgiveness, thence it will follow, as was pre- viously remarked upon Matthew xxvii. 1, ‘‘ that the ignorance as to the fact that they were murdering the holy one of God was itself their guilt,” and, in order to their being forgiven, this required the high-priestly intercession of the Lord. Compare further the ob- servations upon Acts iii. 17, and 1 Cor ii. 8. The Synopticks give only very brief notices concerning the parting of the raiment of Jesus and the superscription over the cross. But these minute events are very circumstantially traced out by Jobn xix. 19—24. It was customary amongst the Romans, as it is still, for example, in the Turkish empire, in all executions of persons, to suspend a tablet which expressed the cause of their punishment. In the language employed by the Romans, this was called Titulus. See Suetonius. Caligula, cap. 32, and Domitian, cap. 10. At the beginning, Pilate may have ordered the superscription to be made out without regard to its import; but when he noticed that the style in which it was comprehended was unacceptable to the priests, whom he detested, he adhered firmly to it, and would admit of no alteration. The subtle priests apprehended an evil impression from it, to wit: Since Jesus was represented as ‘‘ King of the Jews,” without limitation of the meaning of this title, this was to be thought as lying too proximate to those passages of the Old 'Testa- ment, in which the Jews are described as despisers of their king, and he himself represented as deeply humbled. These passages could accordingly be employed as media of proof that Jesus was the true Messiah ; and for such reasons, they had occasion to fear from its being placed over him. After the nailing to the cross was completed, four soldiers, appointed to that duty, took their sta- tions beneath it. ‘These divided the clothing of Jesus into four parts (‘‘ for each soldier a part, T.”), but cast lots amongst them- selves for his tunic, which was formed of a single web. The Evangelist, upon this point, makes a reference to Psalm xxii. 19, in which this proceeding was with astonishing precision previously revealed. Whence a new proof is given how the Lord in him- self, and in his fate, represents the greatest and the least in con- trasted union. The LXX. follow the quotation closely. In the GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 19——24. 239 passage, Matthew xxvii. 35, the same quotation occurs, but it 15 rejected by the best critics. Without doubt, it was written on the margin from John, and gradually became incorporated in the text. The χιτὼν, equivalent with py, was the under gar- ment, and was thoroughly wrought. This epithet should intimate its custliness, so that thus the Saviour was not clothed remarkably meanly. Even in this respect he would have observed the middle course. The expressions appados and ὑφαντὸς δὲ ὅλου, occur only in this place. ‘They signify the unity of the weft, which was with- out seam, or addition together of several pieces." So hung the Son of God, there between earth and heaven, nailed upon the tree of the cross, on his altar, as the patient lamb bearing the sin of the world, and yet was not the measure of his sufferings filled up. They who passed by blasphemed him. To mock him, the priests, in impotent malignity, shouted out the words he had spoken, Matthew xxvii. 39, et seq. According to Luke xxiii. 86, even the soldiers also mocked him. ‘Those parti- culars here quoted are in fact prophesied in Psalms xxii. 7, et seq. ‘The wagging of the head is often mentioned in the Old Testament asa gesture_of ridicule. Compare Job xvi. 4; Psalm cix. 25 ; Isaiah xxxvii. 22. Luke xxiii. 85 contains the word ἐκμυκτηρί- few, upon which is to be compared the remark of the same Evan- gelist at ch. xvi. 14. As regards the allusion to the words of Christ concerning the destroying and rebuilding of the Temple, there appears to be, as was remarked in Matt. xxvi. 61, an in- verted application of the word, since to the Saviour is ascribed the καταλύειν, whilst he himself vindicates his own power only in the οἰκοδομεῖν. ‘The abbreviated form κατάβα for κατάβηθι occurs oftener in the New Testament. In Revelations iv. 1, avaBa stands. In Acts xii. 7, and Ephesians v. 14, ἀνάσβα. Sul, however, the longer form occurs more commonly. Compare Winer's Gramm., s. 72. Matthew xxvii. 42, and in the parallel passage of Mark xv. 82, the readings vary uncommonly by the construc- tion of the πιστευέιν, since it is sometimes without and sometimes 1 The ecclesiastical fathers understand this account of the garment of Christ in an allegorical sense, and illustrate it by the one indivisible Charch of the Lord upon earth. 240 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXII. 89—43. with an object, being connected with adv or em’ αὐτόν indiffe- rently. The Evangelists probably read variously, and indeed the readings in Matthew ez’ αὐτῷ, and in Mark αὐτῷ, are respec- tively correct. In Matthew xxvii. 43, the εἰ θέλει is after the LXX. in the passage, Psalm xxii., where these words stand for 55 "2 YOU. Luke xxiii. 89—43. Now whilst it is specified without any par- ticular discrimination by Matt. xxvii. 44 and Mark xv. 82, that those who were crucified with Jesus ridiculed him also, Luke re- counts more precisely that but one had thus conducted himself. Of the other, he, on the contrary, remarks that, on the prospect of his near death, he besought Christ that he might be admitted into his kingdom, and that the Saviour granted him his prayer. There is a mysterious charm shed upon this little narrative. So unexpectedly does the joyful event which it recounts occur, in che midst of a multitude of circumstances the most sorrowful which fill up the scene, that it takes us by surprise. Whilst all the disciples disperse, the faithful John alone excepted, who stands at the foot of the cross,—whilst a Judas betrays his Lord, and a Peter denies him,—whilst, from both the priests and the people, wild enmity pours forth against the Saviour,—and whilst in Pilate pitiful weakness displays itself, under all these unfavourable circum- stances, living faith appears in a robber and murderer, with a strength to merit admiration. As long as Christ was yet un- fastened to the cross, many a person attached to him might cherish the hope that even yet he would free himself by a miracle. But who could deem him an adequate guide through the dark valley of death, who was himself fastened on the tree of the cross ? Who could esteem one that was dying the death of a culprit, as worthy to give command concerning the gates of paradise ? In every aspect, we must suppose that this unhappy man was yet possessed of a nobility of character. He might, also, previously have heard something concerning Christ, and might have expe- rienced many a powerful (moral) emotion. He must abide perpe- tually as a matter-of-fact proof that Jesus Christ came to save sin- ners, and shall stand (whilst time endures) as a hero of faith ; for he believed when faith forsook even the very persons who had previ- ously professed aloud that they acknowledged in Christ the Son of the GOSPEL OF LUKE XxIII. 39—48. 241 living God. Secondly—There is here forced upon the observer, who is unenslaved by prejudice, a character of the history of the sufferings of Christ——pre-eminently worthy of regard, T.—namely, its symbolic character,! to which we alluded in the Introduction, but which then was only hurriedly noticed. The suffering Christ, as a symbol of a fullness of truths the most profound, and refer- ences the most significant, speaks a language to the world which, whilst living, his own word could scarcely have sounded forth. If, regardless of this or that dogmatic view, one were simply to interpret the history of the dying Jesus altogether, as it is given by the Evangelists, he would be constrained to acknowledge that even the most boundless imagination could never have produced a poetic composition corresponding in effect to this history. The ima- gination, for instance, pictures forth only according to analogy, but here is something in every respect dissimilar to suggestions of analogy; power gone forth anew from the divine Creator. The same being, who was in the beginning with the Father, who could dare to say “‘he that seeth me seeth the Father,” that “men should also honour the Son even as they honour the Father,” and who re- linquished all his glory in order to assume our flesh and blood, —John i. 1—-14, v. 23, xiv. 9, xvii. 24—hangs naked upon the tree of the cross. Already sunk deep in poverty, he now abandons everything, in order, by his poverty, to make us rich, 2 Cor. viii. 9. Yet do all his own forsake him and throw away their faith. Only murderers and heathens, convinced but partially, believe, and bear witness concerning his sonship to God, and concerning his ability to save. Above his head, which is crowned with thorns, as typical of the sufferings which the sin-defiled earth, the mother of thorns, pre- pared for him, waves his sacred name as a banner set up there. The cross publishes in the three chief languages of the earth that it is the king of honour whom the race of man has nailed thereto. 1 Here we might compare Calderon’s Prophetess of the Morning—Seherin des Mor- gens, as translated by the Lord of Malsburg, vol. 4, s. 76, et seq., where the symbolic character of the history of {Πρ crucifixion is employed with a profound sagacity. More- over, in each of its graphic descriptions there is given eminently to this character its due embellishment, and its spiritualimport. According to this poem, Christianity is in its principles favourable to science, since it presents the most profound ideas in a typi- eal form, VOL. IV. Q 242 GOSPEL OF LUKE ΧΧΙΠ. 39—43. Fis arms distend as if they would embrace the world which thrusts him from it, and after the salvation of which he yet thirsts, John xix 28. On his left hangs the infidel malefactor, who with the violent mob ridicules the holy one of God. On his right is the sinner brought to repentance ; so that about the Saviour of the world the various representatives of the human race assemble them- selves, representatives alike of those who are lost as of those who are saved. Nevertheless, in his deep humiliation the Saviour now exercises an act of divine glory. He receives the homage of a believing soul, he opens to him the gates of the kingdom of heaven. The cross of Christ becomes asit were a throne, the place of skulls, the tribunal of universal judgment.'_ Now, as regards what is pe- culiar in this record, there have not been wanting attempts to rob it of its immensely admirable character, yet, without exception, these attempts have happened to be extremely impotent. The prayer of the thief: μνησθητί μου, κύριε, ὅταν ἔλθῃς ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ cov, some would understand, as concerning a mere friendly reminiscence in the world of the blessed. But it is clear that ἔρχεσθαι ἐν τῇ βασιλειά, viz., to enter into his kingdom, and then abide there, cannot possibly be said of mere happiness. But if the man should have suspected that in Christ he addressed the very Messiah, and even have applied to him what was fore- shown concerning the sufferings of the Messiah; then is that the astonishing circumstance, that this man could do so, and yet not be a disciple. But on this matter there is nothing explained further. The sublime promise of Christ: ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, σή» μερον μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἔσῃ ἐν TH παραδείσῳ, has been superficialized to such a degree by some, that they render the words thus: “I to-day, say unto thee,” 1. e., now, so that the comma—,—is made to stand after σημερον--- Thou yet shalt enter into Paradise. God is love, and he yet will make thee also happy.” But, as Kuinoel observes on this passage, the impressive ἀμὴν λέγω σοι, does not at all harmonize with such a mere assurance, one which any person could have expressed. It is manifest thatthe evangelical history so represents the pro- a 1 The suffering Christ, also, is naturally a type of the church's fate, and of that of many an individual member thereof. The church, also, at one time seems to have been aban- doned of God and forgotten by her children, And murderers and heathens, to whom urece was given, were the only witnesses who bore testimony to its divine original. GOSPEL OF JOHN XIX. 25——27. 248 cedure, as that the two essential elements of salvation, faith and repentance, were before hand in the mind of the man. ‘That these elements might previously have had preparatory causes is very pro- bable. But that does not destroy what is astonishing in the occurrence : that in such a moment, and with a faith generating repentance, this man could embrace Christ, as no other person would have been able to do. And now, as concerns the name παράδεισος, it appears, as was previously remarked at Luke xvi. 24, et seq., that this expres- sion is in no way cosignificant with heaven, as heavenly world. This passage leaves no doubt whatsoever on this point. As for instance, σήμερον is annexed, and that it (elsewhere) is expressly mentioned, the soul of Christ, at his death, went into Hades. 1 Peter iii. 18. Hence it follows, that Christ could only say: ἔσῃ μετ᾽ ἐμοῦ, if the soul of the person crucified with him, also really went to the place of general assemblage of the dead., Further, the whole condition of the thief considered, will lead us to this conclusion. For with whatever readiness of mind, we acknowledge him as a truly converted man, vet we cannot in any way speak of him as a renewed man, one of whom it is allowable to quote the word of promise, “ Where I am, there also shall my ser- vant be ;” and at a time when as yet Christ was not exalted to the right hand of God. But in 2 Cor. xii. 4, the τρίτος οὐρανός, or heavenly world, seems to be styled Paradise. However, as was previously observed, the Jews used to dis- tinguish the superior or heavenly paradise, Παράδεσιος τοῦ Θεοῦ, Rev. ii. 7, from the lower Paradise. The latter is synonymous with Κόλπος “ABpadp, and signifies the place of joy in the death kingdom, as Γεέννα signified the place of suffering. The form of the name Παράδεισος equal to py yp, Hosea vi. 13; Ec- clesiastes 11. 6, springs confessedly from the Persian. The word primarily denotes a pleasure garden, a park, and hence is used con- cerning every blissful place of residence. John xix. 25—27. In this infinitely sublime scene, wherein the Saviour figures as Lord of the heavenly world, another event transpires, which illustrates, how the Lord in his most violent 1 The contrary opinion is supported by the saying of Samuel, whose soul had been evoked from the dead to Saul, by the Witch of Kndor: “to day shalt thou and thy son be with me (in Scheol.)” 1 Samuel xxviii. 19. Q 2 244 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIX. 25--27. struggle, whilst offering up the sublime sacrifice of his life, re- membered also the little relations of earthly interests, of which he seemed to have been long since divested. In the force of perfect love, which is evermore regardless of self, and consults the happi- ness of others, he remembers Mary his mother. Whilst her divine Son hangs upon the cross, that sword of which Simeon once prophesied to her, pierces through her soul. Luke ii. 85. Every thing which she experienced in the most happy period of her life, now becomes darkened to her; doubts agitate her soul. The mo- ment. of her own new birth had come: the earthly mother of Christ must now also bear the new man, the Christ within us! To John, the faithful disciple, it is natural to suppose, that no exhortation was necessary to make him take to his own home the mother of his Lord.’ She dwelt indeed in the bosom of love, so that nothing could ever have been wanting to her. But for her sole sake, the Lord from his cross dropped down the word of con- solation. The feeling of abandonment would have been too violent to her, hence Jesus presents to her a second son, instead of the beloved one she deemed herself to have lost. In reference to the persons who have been mentioned as standing near to the cross, John xix. 25, it is to be observed, that ac- cording to Matthew xxvii. 55, and the parallel passages, still other persons are named. Luke xxiii. 49, says in fact πάντες δι γνωστοὶ αὐτοῦ, where it is plain the πάντες is not to have a strained application, beheld the occurrence from a distance, pax- podev. This statement harmonizes very simply with the descriptions of John, if we suppose that afterwards some few of them had ap- proached near to the cross. Of the disciples, only the true John seems to have thus ventured. Amongst the women a third Mary still is named, besides Mary the mother of Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Salome. John xix. 25, expressly calls her the sister of the mother of Jesus, and the wife of a certain Cleopas. But Matthew and Mark distinguish her as the mother of James, whom Mark xv. 40, names “ James the less,” and of Joses. If on this point we compare Matthew xiii. 55, it will appear, that amongst the so-called ἀδελφοῖς τοῦ Kupiov, there were two persons of this name. Hence 1 This passage is to me decisive on the question, that Mary had no bodily son, else would not the Saviour have entrusted his mother, as a solitary widow standing there, to a stranger. ‘bis would have been an open slight to a brother. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXxviI. 45——40. 245 the supposition is rendered very probable, that those brothers of Christ were sons of his mother’s sister, and consequently his cou- sins. The name “ James the less” was employed to distinguish, as an ordinary disciple, that brother of the Lord thus named, from James the Apostle. According to John vii. 5, and Acts i. 14, for example, it is quite certain that amongst the twelve there was no brother of Jesus. Matthew xxvii. 45—50. After these affecting incidents upon Golgotha, the moment at length approached in which “ the prince of life” expired, Acts iii. 15. With the sublimity of this moment Nature itself seems to have been symbolically affected. The light of the world seems to have been extinguished, and from the sixth until the ninth hour, darkness was spread over the whole land. γῇ is to be understood as referring to the land of Palestine Luke remarks further, and very expressly, ἐσκοτίσθη ὁ ἥλιος. ‘This might be explained by the supposition of a solar eclipse, were it not that, the full moon occurring at the period of Easter, forbids such an hypothesis. But, on the other hand, nothing hinders the supposition of other general physical causes, to account for this darkening, for neither is it mentioned that anything peculiarly miraculous was therein in- volved, nor can there be any object subserved in making such an assumption in this investigation. Here the idea is merely sug- gested that with the Lord of Nature the creation itself also suf- fered : that it spread around the tragedy of Golgotha the curtain of night, to veil the guilt which was there consummating itself, and to that object God may also have directed natural laws.’ The 1 Concerning the darkness at the death of Jesus, compare the treatise by Grausbeck Tubingen, 1835. How deep lies its foundation in human nature to make assumptions, of such a symbolical appearance of natural events, as manifest a sympathy between the life of nature and the exigences of humanity, is shown by parallel passages from the profane writers. Amongst these, particularly worthy of note, is the passage of Virgil, Georgic i. 463, et sq. Sol, tibi signa dabit; solem quis decere falsum. Audeat? Ile etiam caecos instare tumultus. Saepe monet, fraudemque et operta tumescere bella. Ille etiam extincto miseratus caesare Roman: Quum caput obscura nitidum ferrugine (i. ὁ. caligine) texit, Impiaque aeternum timuerunt saecula noctem. Such parallels are so little caleulated to favour a mythical interpretation of the evan gelical history, that they much rather afford distinctive evidence of its historical charac- 246 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 4 ὅ---ὅ0. Scriptural doctrine of the divine Omnipresence, which excludes all chance coincidences, warrants no other acceptation of this event, than that which we have specified. When the moment of his death drew near, a still severer trial befel the Saviour. It was the last of his mortal life, replete with trials, but per- haps the severest, since the soul forcibly released itself from the bonds of the sacred body, which was of necessity the more sensi- bly agonizing to the body, because of its freedom from sin. Here in general obtains what was observed on Matthew xxvi. 36, et seq., in reference to the conflict of Christ in Gethse- mene. But what we had to assume, in order to explain the phenomena of that conflict, is here clearly expressed. Now, for instance, the Saviour openly complains of his being forsaken of God, in the words of Psalm xxii. 1. At the outset, every attempt to explain away this mysterious exclamation is to be rejected. The Saviour expresses nothing to justify such an explanation, for the 22d Psalm directly contains the words he quoted. Agreeably to the inward truth and harmony of his whole life, the Saviour spoke no word which did not perfectly accord with the reality. But to refer the abandonment to his outward sufferings, is forbidden by every more profound interpretation of that event; for the most extreme physical suffering is no abandonment of the being whose internal nature is filled by divine energy and happiness. Now the immensity of the sufferigs of Christ consisted in the fact, that his physical torments united with a divestiture of his soul of all spiritual energy. His bodily nakedness was, as it were, only a type of his being inwardly divested of all heavenly adorn- ments. When we reflect that such abandonment was experienced by him who had said, “I and the Father are one. He that seeth me seeth the Father also. The Father leaves me not alone,” John viii, 29, then will result the conclusion, that the object of ter. In the history of Immanuel, appear in their complete and actual truth what were but erroneous, and diversely distracted, suppositions of mankind. The passage quoted from Virgil gains a peculiar interest, if we compare the description by Dante (Inferno, Canto, 34), where the death of Caesar and that of Christ are brought forward asso- ciated: Since the poet discovers in the former sufferer, the representative of all earthly power, and in the latter the possessor of all spiritual might. After Judas, Brutus and Cassius appear to the poet as the greatest criminals in the history of the world, and as such are placed in the deepest depth of hell. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 45—50. 247 such abandonment, like that of the death of Christ generally— (which is to be regarded only as the acme of all sufferings)— must have been a peculiar object, and one infinitely great. Com- pare at Matthew xxvi. 86, where intimations as to the following inference have been previously given. According to Scripture itself, this object was twofold. First, The course of suffering, and the severe withdrawal of God from him, were necessary to render perfect the human personality of the Lord. In the epistle to the Hebrews we have the clearest state- ments to this effect. Sufferings, it is said—Heb. ii. 10-—had made the captain of salvation perfect; and, although he was the Son of God, yet had he learnt obedience in that he suffered, Heb. v. 8, 9, vil. 28. For example, in this epistle, the reference to the compassion of Christ is made prominent. Hence it says, ii. 17, he was obliged to become in all things like to his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest before God. Compare Heb. iv. 15. But, secondly, the Saviour, by himself, and that personally, completed the entire work, of which, as the second Adam, he bore in himself the potency to perform; as it is mentioned in Heb. x. 14, “by one offering, hath he perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” But this ‘“ perfecting of all” has both a nega- tive and a positive character. These indeed always occur together and in close connection, but yet cannot be regarded as inter- changeable. The negative character consists in the cancelling of the guilt of sinful beings; reconciliation with God ;' the for- giveness of sins. As shall be explained, when we come to treat of Romans iii. 25, and Hebrews ix. 22, this negative efficacy would have been impossible, in consequence of the absolute justice of God, without the shedding of blood; in submitting to which condition 1 We may compare, concerning the idea of satisfaction, the profoundly intelligent essay, published, with a particular reference to Gosebel, on this question, in Tholuck’s “ Litter. Anzeiger, Jahrg.1833, Num. 10, ff.,” with which should be compared the particu- lars in the observations on Rom. iii, 25. When Schleirmacher, in his “ Glaubenslehre,” interprets the reconciliation as merely “ the reception in the community of the happi- ness of Christ,” then, of necessity, vanishes from it the objective character which pre- eminently enters into it, namely, the harmonizing of justice and grace in the divine nature itself. Rissch Christl. Lehre. 5. 186, in the forcible style of a realist, expresses this opinion very suitably as follows, ‘Christ, following the impulse of divine mercy» produced in himself the principles of life and death. 248 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 45—50. there is presented (by the Saviour) the most exalted manifestation of the voluntary self-devotedness of sacrificial love. In this respect, therefore, the dying Saviour appears as the “lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world.” ‘The positive character con- sists in a participating of the principal, of superior life ; emancipa- tion from the slavery of sin; the creation within us of a new man, of Christ. Now the latter (or positive) intimates in the way of consequence the resurrection, which is the necessary sequel of Christ's death. The former (or negative character) points towards the death of Jesus, the ultimate point of his self-sacrificing love, Rom. vi. 1, et seq. In regard to the notion of his being forsaken, it is requisite to remember that none of the Gnostic explanations whatever are to be admitted, as of the returning of the celestial Christ, so that only the human Jesus suffered. Passages such as John viii. 29, xvi. 32, show that the union of the divine and human natures in Christ was such that they were uncommingled, and also that they cannot be deemed separable. The withdrawal of God must therefore be represented as a κρύψεις only of the divine nature, not as a particular removal of it. As regards the form of the citation, Mark xv. 34 further gives in a more precise manner the Aramaic text. For the Hebrew Ηλί, which is equal to sbyy he has Ἔλωΐ = aby. For the Hebrew sD, both have the Aramaic “FW: The form Θεί of the 1 Sartorius, in the distinguished treatise upon the relation in Christ of the divine and human natures (in den dorpatischen Beitragen, ersten Heft, im auszuge in der Evang. K.-Zeit. Feb. 1833), expresses himself concerning the relation of the divine nature in Christ, to the sufferings of his human nature, in the following manner :—“ God limited the fulness of the divine nature in the haman by the veil of the flesh, but with- out, on that account, altering it. In like manner as the eye, when it lets down the eye- lid, suffers no change nor limitation as to the nature or the possession of its peculiar faculty of operating at an immense distance ; but merely experiences a restraint of the exercise of this faculty. Without this enshrouding, no incarnation, in the form of a servant, would have been possible, because the infinite brightness of deity would have repelled altogether the darkness of human suffering. But thus the shadows of death might lie around the veiled majesty. Or rather, not merely might its shadow obscure the veiled majesty ; but, through the unity of the divine and homan consciousness, the veritable feeling of sufferings might penetrate the very mind of deity. Thus, indeed, the soul, by its very nature, is immortal and lives, whilst the body is dying, and after the body is dead, it still, by reason of its personal union with the same, experiences, in the union of consciousness, all bodily pain from sickness, and all the horror of death, from this personal association. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 45-—50. 249 vocative in Matthew is entirely unusual. Compare Winer's Gramm. 5. 62 thereon, and also upon ἵνα τί in the signification of “‘ Wherefore,” 5. 145. In the following verses, 47 et. seq., it is mentioned that the bystanders misunderstood the exclamation of Christ. They thought he called for Elias, whom they expected as the forerunner of the Messiah. Several commentators have been disposed to regard these words as additional mockery, but this conclusion is not intimated by even one syllable. Much rather was it the fact that at this precise moment a secret horror overspread their minds, as is often the case with even the most violent characters, and that it subsequently affected them powerfully. Matthew xxvii. 54, Luke xxiii. 48. Those rude mockers may even have feared that there might be somewhat (of truth) in the Messiahship of the crucified Jesus, that Elias might appear in a hurricane. Psychologically considered, this conclusion is still the more probable. For even the rudest na- ture, when it has wearied itself with mockery and insult against suffering innocence, feels it necessary to cease its injuriousness, and, if only in terror of its guilty conscience, some nobler feeling assumes for a time the mastery. Hence, when the Lord still cried out “I thirst,” John xix. 28, 29, immediately a person ran and presented to him the draught. John calls to mind that even this exclama- tion had fulfilled a prophecy of Psalm Ixix. 22. (In the Comment. of John, ἵνα τελειωθῇ (the latter word is-equivalent to πληρωθῇ), the ἵνα must not be referred to Jesus as if his only object in utter- ing this exclamation was that, by means of it, this prophecy also should be fulfilled, but it must be referred to God's general decree. The reference of the formula to εἰδώς, which is maintained even by Bengel and Tholuck, I regard as entirely untenable. iva in this passage must be taken with the force of τελικῶς.) Whilst Mat- thew and Mark mention that the sponge filled with sour wine, ὄξος, was tied upon a reed, John says more particularly it was tied upon a stalk of hyssop. This plant has indeed but a short stalk, but then the cross was very low down, thus only a short reed was re- quisite to the object contemplated. After Jesus had received the drink, he cried yet again, with a loud voice, and expired. Ac- cording to John xix. 30, the Redeemer uttered the saying τετέ- λεσται. This expression did not refer to what was merely physical, 3 250 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 51—d4. as is evident from the preceding sentence, εἰδὼς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς, ὅτι πάντα ἤδη τετέλεσται. But, irrespective of that sentence, a reflec- tion upon the personal character of the Lord will lead to a more comprehensive signification of that great saying. Ever filled with the remembrance of the sublime object of his mission, he now re- garded this (climax) as its complete fulfilment and effect.’ By his victory over all the assaults of darkness was ensured the triumph of the whole object of his mission, just as in the fall of Adam all was lost. (Compare at Rom. v. 12, et seq.) According to Luke xxiii. 46, Jesus, conformably with the words of Psalm xxxi. 5, subjoined still the expression πάτερ εἰς χεῖράς σου παραθήσομαι τὸ πνεῦμα μου. In the address “ Father,” he expresses that full consciousness of filiation which was undisturbed by even his extreme sufferings. Now, in his death, the soul of Christ went to ‘‘ Scheol” (or Hades), 1 Peter iii. 18. At the same time his body rested in the grave, and his spirit returned again to the Father. In the re- surrection, all three again reunited in harmonious unity. Ver. 51—54. Relative to this plain description,—upon which no strictures are made by the Evangelists,—of the great incident in the history of our world, the very turning-points of the ancient and modern worlds, the Synopticks, however, make certain communica- tions as to accompanying and following phenomena, in which the material universe, by means of physical occurrences, gave wit- ness of the event which was accomplished :? as in the vision of angels, at the birth of Jesus, the sympathy of the spiritual world was expressed. At the moment when the Prince of Life, Acts 1 Agreeably with this interpretation, the Christian poet has expressed himself: “That too, which day and night I perfect, Is by e’en thee, in me perfected.” Accordingly, the perfection of every particular needed not in the first instance to have been at once effected, but in faith it will be received from the riches of Christ. 2 In the Christian Treasury of Song, the ethical importance of these occurrences is prominently represented in those celebrated lines : If, when Christ dies, creation heaves around, Thou too, my soul, shouldst not unmoved be found. Da selbst die creatur sieb regt, So, sey auch du, mein herz bewegt. In the turning-point of man’s moral history, the κτίσις always appears in pecu- ὃ GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. δ1--- δά. 251 iii, 15, expired, the earth quaked, the rocks were burst asunder, and the veil of the Temple was rent. In Matthew the καὶ ἰδοὺ affirms that this was a simultaneous coincidence. Luke xxiii. 45 has an- ticipated the date of these phenomena in his account. The κατα- πέτασμα corresponds to the Hebrew ps 5p, which signifies the curtain in front of “ the holiest of all.” The curtain in front of ‘‘ the holy place” was called JO. which is rendered by κάλυμμα in the LXX. (Compare the words in (sesenius’ lexicon.) Here again it is quite indifferent, whether we regard the earthquake as a usual one or not. For this question, as is self-evident, is entirely left out of view. Hence then must ever stand the eventful, profoundly significant symbol. With the death of the Saviour, light penetrated into all which was previously hidden. The graves threw themselves open. Hades and its dead beheld the celestial light. The debarred entrance to the “ holiest of all,” the heaven of God, which was typified in the earthly temple, was made accessible to man. Now when those who stood around observed those excitements in all nature, an indistinct apprehen- sion led them to the correct conclusion, that there was a connection between these appearances and the crucifixion of Christ. The Ro- man centurion even uttered his conviction, that this person might well have been a Son of God. According to Luke xxiii. 47, he called upon God in prayer, ἐδόξασε τὸν Oedv—as he was probably a proselyte—and termed Jesus ἃ δίκαιος. Comp. Matt. xxvii. 19. In Mark xy. 39, the description is loose, since the reference to the earthquake occurs in a dissociated manner. A feeling of horror too seized the rest of the spectacle-seeking multitude. They smote upon their breasts and returned home; they knew not that they had just effected an event, which the angels desire to contemplate. 1 Peter 1. 12. Matthew subjoins still, anticipating its date, a most remarkable statement. He relates, that at the earthquake not only liarly associated operativeness with the spirit. Several interesting parallels favour, in this respect, a comparison of the history of the fall with the history of Christ’s sufferings. By a tree, viz., the tree of knowledge, mankind fell: by a tree, that of the cross, he again was redeemed. In the garden, Eden, the first Adam ate the fruit and fell: in the garden, Gethsemene, the second Adam conquered the powers of darkness, and there en- joyed in the grave the Sabbatic rest. In the fruit of the tree of knowledge the first man ate to himself death : in the fruit of the vine believers at the Lord’s supper enjoy eternal life. Sin caused those thorns to grow which were to form the regal coronet of the Son of God, 252 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙΙ. 51—54. did the graves (cut in the rocks) open, but that also many of the saints arose, and (afterwards) went into the holy city, and there appeared to many. The only interpretation, concerning this account, which, next to the literally historical one, can gain currency, is the mythical. For the (so-called) natural explication, viz., that the loss of some of the bodies, which the earthquake had projected from the graves, taken in connection with certain casual dreams of some citizens of Jerusalem, account for the event, is too puerile." But in so extraordinary an occurrence, the mythical interpretation cer- tainly appears very much to commend itself; and hence it is no wonder that for the most part the opponents of the doctrine of a resurrection of the body all incline towards it. Meanwhile, against understanding this as a myth, there is also applicable here, the argument which holds generally, namely, the very close proximity in time, between Matthew's account, and the date of the occurrence referred to, would have prevented the fabrication of a myth, in the very presence of cotemporary op- ponents. Still, the supporters of such view, in the latter case, might fly, as a subterfuge, to the character of Matthew's account. In which resource accordingly, many would understand that this gospel, in the form in which we possess it, is not by the apostle Matthew himself. Now improbable as this conjecture appears to me, yet we may at any moment concede its probability, and still maintain, as a decisive argument against interpreting the account mythically, the very passage as we possess it. This account of Matthew’s, for instance, is formed throughout, in contradiction to analogy, yes, even contrary to the generally received statement of faith. We certainly consider Christ himself as the πρωτότοκις ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν with which view this statement (by Matthew) appears to be irreconcileable. Coloss. i. xviii. Rev. i. 5. Were the passage a myth, this statement therefore would undoubtedly have been inter- polated into the account of the resurrection of Christ, but certainly not into the description of his death. But, if the resurrection of the dead is only (in the statement of this occurrence) become eminently manifest to the consciousness of Christians, then in this occurrence, 1 Just as little does the crotchet of Stroth, that the passage is not authentic, need a particular contradiction. (Comp. Eichhorn’s Bibl, B. ix.) For this latter conjecture, no proofs, physical or moral, can be adduced. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 51—54. 2538 is expressed only this plain thought: the resurrection occurs gradually, and with the Saviour the saints of the ancient covenant attained to the glorification of the body. Isaiah xxvi. 19. (This thought in another reference of it, viz., to the righteous under the New Testament dispensation, has already been discussed by us upon Luke xiv. 14.) Inevery point of view, the hypothesis of the late Steudel, ‘‘ Glaubenslehre,” 5. 455, with which Krabbe ‘ Von der Sunde, s. 297,” agrees, is altogether untenable ; that, for in- stance, there is here no mention at all of a bodily resurrection, but only of mere apparitions of the dead, by which was given a surety concerning their life. This hypothesis is contradicted in the most decided manner, by the plain meaning of the words πολλὰ σώματα TOV κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων ἠγέρθε. Itis but reasonable to suppose, that here no corporal resurrection is mentioned, to which again was subsequently linked the continuation of death. Hence no other view remains than the one we have expressed : one which corresponds most closely with the whole Scriptural view of the doctrine of the resurrection. The difficulty so often touched upon respecting the relation of this resurrection to Christ, to the πρώτοτοκος ἐκ νεκρῶν (on this subject the discussion cannot concern the cases of Enoch and Elijah, because they did not taste death at all) would have to be thus removed. The actual going forth out of their graves, did not occur until after the resurrection of the Lord ; so that μετὰ τὴν &yepow should be taken in connection with ἐξελθόντες. Accordingly the death of Christ appears as a stroke, which vibrated through all things ; but his resurrection as the pe- culiar (quickener) ξωοποιήσις to the sleeping world of the dead. The first advent of Christ, moreover, possesses in this event a dis- tinctive character, by means of which it stands as a more intelligible antetype of the stili looked-for glorious appearing of the Lord. Every thing which shall yet occur in the fullest extent in the Pa- rousia,! has thus already appeared by way of premonition in Christ's first advent. 1 We might compare in Rev. xi., where the resurrection of the two witnesses, the earthquake accompanying that event, and the opening of the temple of God are described. This stands in parallelism with the rending of the veil, and the other incidents of the crucifixion. 254 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 8] —37. § 6. THE BURIAL OF JESUS. Matthew xxvii. 57—66 ; Mark xv. 49--- 7; Luke xxiii. 50—56 ; John xix. 31——42. After the soul of Jesus had forsaken the pure temple wherein it had dwelt, his sacred body was by no means left unregarded, as the mere hull of a heavenly revelation, itself unimportant ; but a wondrous providence of God hovered over it, and averted from it everything that could affect its susceptibility of destruction. John xix. 81—37, conscious of the importance of this statement, has re- counted carefully every thing relevant to it. In this account we possess as decisive a guarantee as was possible, especially in a phy- sical point of view, concerning the reality of the death of Jesus ; and also a proof of the significance which corporeity must have in the consciousness of Christians. Christianity is far from agree- able to that comfortless view of things, according to which the body is merely the prison of the human spirit ; a view which conducts but to rigid asceticism. And just as foreign is it from that hollow representation, that sin occurs merely from the attraction of what is sinful, and hence that at death, with the cessation of the latter, ceases also the existence of the former : a view, which favours Epi- cureanism. ‘The Gospel much rather considers, as the object of the connection between body and soul, that the former should be glori- fied for a temple of the Holy Spirit, so that the word of a certain spirited thinker is quite scriptural, ‘‘ without body no soul, without corporeity no felicity.” According to the Jewish custom, Deuteronomy xxi. 22, 23, the bodies of persons who had been crucified, were required to be re- moved on the same day in which they died. The Jews besought Pilate, therefore, that they might end the lives of those who were crucified, as it was then the preparation day before the Sabbath.' 1 Compare the observations on Matt. xxvi. 17, and John xix. 14. Liicke erroneously supposes, that against the view of the παρασκευή which we have stated, some objection may be made; since he says, “ The annexed expletive would Lave no object, if the παρασκευή was the ordinary Sabbatical one.” On the other hand, however, Tholuck has correctly remarked (on John xiii, 1, s. 250), that the object of annexing this exple- tive is sufficiently plain, from the circumstance that the Sebbath, falling during the Easter festival, and yet not coinciding with the first holy-day of the passover, thereby GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 31—-37. ROD (παρασκευή, itis so called also by Mark xy. 42, and by Luke xxiii. 54, who calls the succeeding Sabbath “‘ great,” because occurring during the Easter festival.) It was (considered) requisite that the hmbs of those who were suffering crucifixion, who invariably were persons of the meanest condition, should be broken, in order to hasten on their death. This was done with clubs, after which a stroke on the breast terminated the sufferings of the unhappy beings. Compare Lactantius’ Divine Institutes, iv. 26. Pilate probably sent on this duty a distinct section of soldiers. These completed the punishment, in reference to the two malefactors ; but when they came to Jesus, to whom, in accordance with their orders, they would have shown no distinction or partiality, they found that he was dead already. In order, meanwhile, to assure themselves concerning his death, one of these soldiers pierced his side with a spear, whereupon there flowed forth blood and water. But in other respects they touched him not, so that by the most remarkable providence his body was obliged to be left free from any, even the slightest mutilation. (Of ver. 34, vooow certainly often signifies only to rend, but also it signifies “to wound deep,’ “‘ to pierce into.” As, for instance, in the Iliad of Homer, E. y.v. 45, et seq. : Tov μὲν ap’ ᾿Ιδομενεὺς δουρικλυτὸς ἔγχεϊ μακρῷ Νύξ᾽, ἵππων ἐπιβησόμενον, κατὰ δεξιὸν ὦμον. In immediate sequence is then mentioned that he who was wounded with this spear-thrust died.) John was eye-witness of this proce- dure himself. With the most energetic impressiveness he now as- gained a particular dignity. Besides, in the latter event, no mention could be made of a great Sabbath-day, by way of distinction, for if the first day of Easter were to fal! upon a Sabbath, the same should be the case also with the last day of Easter. As we already remarked on Matt. xxvi. 17, all the Evangelists are agreed unanimously, in respect to the week days of the passion week, it is only concerning the time of tlie paschal meal that they seem to vary in their accounts. Hitzig’s representation of the case, ‘* Easter and Pentecost, 5. 88,” according to which, John’s account is made out to be correct, and that of the Synopticks erroneous, is untenable, for the following reason, namely, because, between the Sabbath, in which the Lord lay in the grave, and the day of resur- rection, he quite arbitrarily intercalates a σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον. But in reference to this hypothesis, nothing in the Evangelical history can guarantee as evidently correct this specification of the time, that the Messiah rested in the earth three days and three nights. Matt. xii. 40. Yet however one might attempt to explain this passage (of Hitzig) in no case could the sequence of events, in the days of the passion week, be determined agreeably to it; and least of all, in its explanation, could so obscure an ex- pression as σάββατον δευτερόπρωτον, be here introduced. Compare Luke vi. 1. 256 GOSPEL OF JOHN XIXx. 31—87. serts his assurance of the truth of his record ; and does so in order thereby to produce faith in his readers. In like manner, he intro- duces two quotations of passages from the Old Testament which _ Intimated these events, namely, Exodus xi. 46, and Zechariah xii. 10. The former, Ex. xii. 46, refers to the paschal lamb,' of which a bone should not be broken. In this John discovered also a type of the Saviour. In the Septuagint the passage reads thus: καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. In the second passage, Zech. xii. 10, is intimated not only the wounding of Christ, but also the circumstance that his wounds should be, as it were, a mark by which to know him, in the first instance to the Jews, then to the world generally ; compare particularly the passage Rey. i. 7. Besides, the translation which John gives has not been by a mere accident made different from that of the LXX., but was made expressly in reference to the facts lying before him, agreeably to the original text. The LXX. have, for instance: καὶ ἐπιβλέψονται πρός με, ἀνθ᾽ ὧν κατωρχήσαντο." John could not at all have employed the passage, for his object, in this form. He therefore translated the Hebrew τόμ ΓῊΝ W727 that is, the very person whom they pierced εἰς ὅν ἐξεκέν- τησαν. ‘The LXX. could not make these words intelligible, as said concerning God. ‘They therefore took 3271 In the sense of “ to despise,” and explained the words “WN Ms as if the expression were WD, After this general explanation, the question now arises, why is it that John should attach so much importance to this fact? Some may think that it was meant to be a medium of proof as to the cer- tainty of the death of Jesus. Some in modern times have actually so regarded it ; yet we nowhere find any trace of the fact that in the ancient church the reality of Christ’s death was doubted. Not even a trace of this notion is found in ancient Christendom. Far more probable is it that this account (of John) had reference to doketic views, and accordingly was meant to establish, in oppo- 1 Upon the question whether the paschal lamb was a sacrifice, and hence capable of being regarded as a type of the sacrificial Christ, compare the observations upon Matt. xxvi. 17. 2 Phavorinus explains the κατωρχήσαντο by means of ἐνέπαιξαν, “ they despised,” “ mocked.” GOSPEL OF JOHN XIx. 3]—37. PW sition thereto, the reality of the corporeity of Christ. To this con- clusion too tends the observation of Celsus, that many persons, expressing themselves in accordance with the Gnostic opinions, ascribe to Christ a kind of ichor, since they regard his body as eetherial. Compare my History of the Gospels, s. 350. The remark- able way in which John understands the water and the blood which issued from the wound in the side of Jesus, as being of a symbolic character, will be particularly treated on at 1 John v. 6, et seq. A second question, however, besides what John immediately intended in these words, is the following, namely, “‘ What says the passage to us ?” Now, since some have begun to doubt as to whether the Lord ac- tually died on the cross, we require, as should be particularly ob- served, the account of this subject delivered by John, in order to make good the proof of it, by the fact that the spear-thrust, which most probably penetrated the pericardium which was filled with water, and the heart (wherein was the blood, T.), should have caused death to Christ, if there had been life yet in him. And so much is certainly clear, that the view of the soldier was by the very spear-thrust to end his life,’ if he should by any means have only fallen into a faint. It certainly is more advisable, in 80 important an enquiry as that concerning the truth of the death of Christ, not to conduct it upon external data exclusively, for by the doubting mind these may be readily interpreted either for or against the fact. Since the fact of his death (as was observed previously in the account concerning the awakening of the dead), regarded physically,? cannot be demonstrated, we must adduce moral proofs of the facts, which will be more particularly examined in the history of the resurrection. At present we shall content ourselves with making this general remark on the subject, thatit must be regarded asa particular pro- 1 This has been ascertained upon medical principles by the physician Gruner, and more recently by Schmidtmann. Besides, we might compare the treatise entitled ‘‘ Is the death of Jesus to be understood as merely an apparent death?” In Klaiber's Stud. vol. 2, H. 2, 8. 84, et seq. 2 The piercing of the heart would indeed have been an absolutely mortal wound, but as the heart is not here expressly named as the part that was wounded, to him who wishes to doubt, the resource is constantly available of regarding the wound as aless dangerous one. The Scriptures will never force men to believe, hence they permit on this peint a possibility of doubt to the unbelieving. VOL. IV. R 258 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ΧΧΥΊΙ. 57—61. vidence of God, that in the Redeemer the heart should have been opened (by the spear-thrust, T.), and sources of his blood disclosed in his hands and feet, yet without destroying or altering his perfect organism. After this event is recorded by the Synopticks (see Matt. xxvii. 57—61, and parallels, and compare therewith John xix. 88—42), the exertions of certain influential friends of Jesus in reference to his body, John, ver. 39, names Nicodemus, with an allusion to his having visited Jesus by night, as is reported in John ill. 1, et seq. The principal person, however, was Joseph of Arimathea. ᾿Αριμάθαια is either sy in the tribe of Benjamin, which is mentioned in Matthew ii. 18, and is named in Syrian NOWDIN. Or, what is more probable, since that town is called ‘Papa by Matthew, it was ὈΣΓΥΔ a city in the tribe of Eph- raim, 1 Sam. i. 1, which the LXX. call by the name of ’Apaya- θαίμ. This city originally, indeed, stood in the territory of the Sama- ritans, but afterwards it was annexed to Judea, 1 Maccabees xi. 28—314; and hence Luke xxiii. 51 might with propriety distin- guish it as a πόλις τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. This worthy man was an enquiring disciple of Jesus, but the fear of man had hitherto prevented him from openly professing his attachment to Jesus, John xix. 38. Meanwhile what he could not prevail on himself to do whilst Jesus was living, he had resolution to do now that he was dead. He besought Pilate for the body of Christ. Apart from his infirmity, Joseph certainly belonged to the nobler minded class of the Jewish people, who awaited with eager expectation the time of the fulfilling of all which was pro- phesied. Compare upon the προσδέχεσθαι την Βασίλειαν του @cov, upon Luke ii. 25. He was a man of a benevolent character, Luke xxiii. 50, ἀγαθὸς καὶ δίκαιος. Besides, he was wealthy, Matt. xxvil. 57, and an influential member of the Sanhedrim—evoyrjpov Bovdevtyns—Mark xv. 43. Many wish to make it appear that he was a senator of Arima- thea, but this supposition is forbidden by Luke xxiii. 51, in which passage it is expressly mentioned that he had refused his concur- rence in the sentence against Jesus, or rather that he gave it his op- position. Jesus then may have been sentenced only in consequence GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 57—61. 2959 of a majority of voices of the Sanhedrists, whilst such men as Ga- maliel and others may have decided contrary to the view of the majority. Σ᾽ υγκατατίθεσθαι scilicit ψῆφον, signifies calculum adjicere—to vote. It occurs here only in the New Testament Yet in Acts i. 26 the synonyme συγκαταψηφίζεσθαι is employed, and still more frequently in the Septuagint. Compare Exodus xxiii. 1—82. After Pilate had learnt that Jesus was dead, from the centurion, who had been commissioned to hasten on the death of the three that were crucified, Mark xv. 44, he granted his body to Joseph. The ἐδωρήσατο, in Mark xv. 45, is to be understood in its proper force; only altogether avaricious men, such as Verres (Cicero in Verrem V. 45, 51), required to be paid for delivering up the bodies of condemned persons to be interred by their relatives or friends. Joseph, when he had re- ceived the precious boon, enfolded the body of Jesus in a roll of linen, with a mixture of sweet spices—John xix. 89—placed it in a new sepulchre in his garden, and rolled a stone to its front. The fact of the sepulchre having been new, and unused previously, is rendered prominent as being somewhat of a mark of honour. Proba- bly it was the vault intended for the interment of his own family, that Joseph devoted to the body of Christ. But the whole proceed- ing was made in haste, as the Sabbath was already drawing nigh, Luke xxii. 54. Meanwhile, oppressed with anxiety concerning Jesus’ body, a few women who had faithfully accompanied their beloved Master from Galilee, followed him still, even to his grave, where they sat down, sunk in dejected sorrow, Matt. xxvii. 61, in order to be near at hand to see how his body would be placed. After their return, they prepared at home an ointment of sweet spices, in order, immediately after the Sabbath, to place the loved body in a meet condition for its rest. For on the Sabbath-day itself they should be still, according to the ordinance (ἐντολή) of the law, νομος, of Moses. Upon σινδών, compare at Mark xiv. 51. John, for the same word, employs, xix. 40, ὀθόνια. which is equivalent to κερρίαι. Compare at John xi. 44, whereby are meant the swathes in which they used to enfold the corpses. Εντυλίσσω, Mark has ἐνευλέω for it, means to enshroud. In Hebrew it is JID. Compare Buxtorf's Lexicon, p. 1089. . The burying places of the Jews were frequently hewn out in rocks—AaTouéw from λᾶς and τέμνω,---ἃ block of stone closed up the door way, or horizontal entrance. Comp. at John xi. 40 R 2 260 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVII. 62—66. In Luke xxiii. 53 occurs the unusual expression λαξευτός from λᾶς and ξέω, to polish, to hew out smoothly. A difficulty still appears in the narration of John, in the remark that Nicodemus provided a μίγμα σμύρνης καὶ ἀλόης ὡσεὶ λίτρας ἑκατόν. John xix. 39. If we take the pound here to have been the corresponding weight in use amongst the Romans and Greeks, containing twelve ounces, then the quantity will appear too great. Hence Mi- chaelis would have us to understand under the name λίτρα, a lesser weight. But it is altogether incapable of proof, that the litra can signify such a lesser weight. We must consider therefore that this extraordinary quantity of spices was employed. partly as an expression of inward reverence, (like the over- abundant effusion of ointment, by Mary, John xii. 1, et seq.), and partly in order to surround with it the whole body of Jesus. Ver. 62—66. There is something remarkable in the time being specified as: τῇ δὲ ἐπαύριον, ἥτις ἐστὶ μετὰ τὴν παρασκευήν, since thereby the Sabbath should be characterized. For usually no such reference could in a natural order have been made, as the important day could not be mentioned after the unimportant one. Yet here this mode of expression is perfectly relevant, for this reason, namely, because the παρασκευή, by the fact, that the death of Christ had occurred upon it, gained a greater significance than appertained to the Sabbath. Compare the particular discussion of this question, in my programme, upon the authenticity of Matthew. The struggle and contest being completed, the Sabbath was now the day of rest’ for the friends of the Lord. Yet the enemies of Christ rested not. The torture of a guilty conscience drove them again to Pilate. 1 The signification of “ great” (viz. as to stillness) in reference to this Sabbath, is not rightly understood yet in the church. The word may as well signify, that the day was not to be solemnized, as also that, for its observance, suitable songs were requisite. Being the day of his rest, who was life itself, liketo the rest after creation, of him the second Adam, it possesses so highly poetical a signification,—(as that involved in this title “ of great,” T.) Bat in reference to polemics, the two main cliuracteristics of the great Sabbath are os follows: 1. 10 is meant to typify the rest in the kingdom of God, of the church uni- versally. 2. That in the intermediate time, the soul of Jesus was actually in Scheol. But the church has not duly appreciated the Sabbatic rest as yet, and the momentous doctrine of the descent to Hades, as yet is not transferred perfectly to, (i e, does nut exercise its due influence on, T.), the life of believers. Hence results the desecration of this day. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW ΧΧΥΙΙ. 62—66. 261 They told him of the prophecy concerning the resurrection, and requested that a watch might be placed over the sepulchre until the third day. At this communication, what a feeling must have agitated Pilate! It may be conceived, by reflecting how power- fully he had been affected already, upon learning that Jesus had called himself the Son of God. Perhaps he even gave his consent so hastily, on that account, that he might receive certain informa- tion as to what might occur relative to Jesus. Indeed the least conceivable thing to him, even in imagination, was the return (to life) of a dead person, yet it is characteristic of the mind, that its more divine faculties often prevail over unbelief, so that he who has least of true faith may notwithstanding become very credulous, since the pertinacious conviction of the realities of the unseen world predominates in antagonism with his imaginations. Κουστωδία be- longs to that class of Latin words, which being derived chiefly from military transactions, were borrowed by the Greeks and other people. But as regards the circumstance, that the sepulchre of Christ was surrounded by a guard of Roman soldiers, a modern critic’ has dis- puted the fact, with apparently feasible reasons. On the other hand, many of the remarks made in opposition to this fact, dis- prove themselves, as, for instance, that it is improbable the Jews would on the Sabbath have requested from Pilate the watch to be placed; or that afterwards the apostles would have themselves complained concerning this fact; yet are there other arguments that require to be controverted. And first, the silence of the other three Evangelists is sug- gested, when this event would have so mainly confirmed the (account of the) resurrection. However, if we take in connec- tion the more recent statement of Matthew xxviii. J] 1—L5, it will be evident, that the Evangelists had had a positive reason for leaving untouched the occurrence regarding the watching of the sepulchre. For if once such a report, as that the disciples had stolen away the body of Christ, were to have gained currency, then it is manifest that the event (of the watch having been set, 'T.) could not be employed as a means of proving the fact of the resur- rection to sceptics ; hence, Matthew does not apply the fact to such purpose, he merely reports it. But, secondly, some persons have adduced a distinctive objec- 1 Comp. Stroth in Eichhorn’s Repertorium, vol. ix, and Dr Paulus’ Comm, ‘‘de cus- todia ad sepulchrum. Jesu disposita, Jenae 1795.” 262 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 62—66. tion even from this narrative itself, Matthew xxviii. 12, where it is stated that the Sanhedrists held a formal sitting, συμβοῦλιον λαβόντες, in consequence of information given by the soldiers, and in this assembly passed a resolution to corrupt the soldiers. This procedure, for instance, appears to be contradictory to the decorum of such a college, and also to the latter explanation con- cerning Gamaliel’s not having consented, Acts v. 84. Had he al- lowed the measure to pass unopposed at the time, he would have done so merely in order that he might discover whether or not there was anything divine in the new Christian church which was then form- ing itself. We must also believe that such a piece of deception could not have escaped the knowledge of Pilate, and it would seem that its proposal by the Pharisees would have occasioned him to discover it. As to the circumstance that the women whilst going to the sepulchre had no thought about the watch, to that I should attach no importance, for the latter persons had received no orders to prevent the body of Jesus from being duly arranged. ‘They, 100, may not have had any knowledge of the preceding occur- rences during the Sabbath. Whether these difficulties can be completely obviated I know not. One reflection, however, oc- curs to me. Pilate himself may really have wished that the resurrection of Jesus should be without foundation, and on that ac- count desired to silence the report of it, since the feeling of per- sonal guilt oppressed him in the matter. But that by means of the resolution of a college such an imposition should be sanctioned I cannot believe, since such men as Gamaliel, Joseph of Arimathea, and Nicodemus, were members of it. No less untenable, mean- while, is the hypothesis that would regard the whole account as a tradition of a later date. Matthew, who, as an eye-witness of the event, wrote in Jerusalem at a time when many persons must still lave been present there who had had contemporaneous knowledge of the fact, could not have published a thoroughly false statement of this kind concerning an event that was become so notorious. Hence, it is most commeusurate with wisdom—and with a full impartial view of the case,—to regard the fact as essentially cor- rect, but to suppose that the statement as to the assembling of the Sanhedrim contains some want of preciseness. Probably Caiaphas, as Officiating high priest, disposed of the case in an underhand way alone, and in this acceptation of it, no part of the event con- tains anything improbable. Compare Hase'’s Leben, Jesu 5. 194. 11. SECOND PART. OF THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST. (Matthew xxviii. ; Mark xv. ; Luke xxiv. ; Jobn xx., xx1.) The death of the Lord, and the shedding of his blood (Hebrews ix. 22), were essentially involved in the prosecution of the work of redemption. Equally necessary was it, too, that by his subsequent resurrection,! death should be vanquished.? The very notion of a Saviour from sin and death, includes as its constituent elements, that that Saviour should himself be free from sin ; and consequently capable of dying, only by his voluntary submission to death. This was necessary to the redemption of man. But not so that he should be holden of death, in consequence of his voluntary submission to it. By death, and by the resurrection connected with it imme- diately, he stripped of power him who had the power of death, He- brews ii. 14. This he did that he might ransom and establish in newness of life, men, his own brethren, whom through his death he had reconciled to God. Hence the death and resurrection of Jesus represent the two parts of his collective ministry ; the negative as well as the positive. Romans vi. |, sq. 1 Amongst interesting writings upon the resurrection, the reader should consult Griesbach, “ De fontibus unde Evangelistae suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes, hauserint,” Jenae 1793. Niemiger, “ De evangelistarum in narrando Ciristi in vitam reditu dissensione,” Halle, 1824. Further, compare the treatises by Velthusen in “ Syl- loge Commentt., vol. iv. page 77, et seq.,” and by Seiler in the same work, vol. vi. page 503, et seq. The latter treats rather of the ascension into heaven. Above all, should be compared in reference to the nature of the resurrection, Krabbe on the doctrine of sin and death. Hamburg, 1836, s. 275, et seq. 2 With a view to our following observations upon the resurrection, consult what is stated in Acts i, 11, concerning the asceision into heaven. 264 GOSTEL OF MATTHEW XXVIJJ. 1. From what has just been stated, it appears, that the resurrection was altogether an event essential to the completing of the sublime object of the Saviour’s life, and precisely as such does the history of the Apostolic churches also represent it to us. The resurrection was the great fact, which the Apostles were wont to publish, and to publish as the proper end of their preaching, and apart from every- thing adventitious. After the ascension to heaven, and the out- pouring of the Holy Ghost, which were the first acts of the glorified Saviour, then those disciples, who but a few days befvre displayed such personal infirmity, appeared thoroughly transformed in their moral nature ; furnished with invincible boldness, and in like man- ner, with wisdom, calmness, and clearness of intelligence. The origin of the Christian church is an incontrovertible matter- of-fact proof, that a great event, a comprehensive proceeding, must have occurred, which could supply its supporting principles, and furnish the persevering power necessary to such an undertaking.” Yet this importance of the resurrection results only in the event of our being firmly persuaded, that the Saviour did not again arise with the mortal body which he bore before his crucifixion.” If, as many well-meaning persans do, we should think that the Saviour, when truly dead, was again quickened by an act of divine Omunipotence, without any change of nature having occurred in his body, we should carefully consider the principles wherein the importance of such a fact as the latter would consist. The raising of Lazarus would, then, have really already been a similar event, and in no way would the Apostle Paul, asin 1 Cor. xv., have been able to represent this occurrence as the basis of faith and as an achieving of the victory over death and the grave. Accor- dingly, the ascension to heaven, in which event the advocates of 1 Hase, in his “ Leben Jesu, 8, 199,” is entirely correct in saying—* Not only does the essence of Christianity depend on the resurrection, but even its very appearance does also. The church was founded by means of it.” But yet it is hard to discover how the scholar just named can give this significance to the event of the resurrection, when yet on the same subject he makes it out to be but merely an awakening from apparent death. 2 This has been ably demonstrated by Krabbe (Loco citato, s. 300, et seq.) In the passage, Romans vi. 9, the Apostle asserts the impossibility of a recurrence of death to the ri: n Saviour. This passage, taken in connection with Philippians iii. 21, where a σῶμα τῆς δοξής is attributed to Christ, warrants the inference, that Paul himself re- garded the resurrection body of Jesus as one that was glorified, since with the resurrec- tion of his body the δόξα of Christ commenced. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. l. 265 this view are acccustomed to pre-suppose the glorification of Christ's body, would have to be interpreted as the victory alluded to over death ; which yet would not have been the fact, since in the ascen- sion was perceived by all the Apostles only a mere consequence of the resurrection. The latter was peculiarly the main fact on which this victory rested. It is moreover certain that this mode of inter- preting the resurrection, which is now adopted by even Tholuck, on John xx. 19, 20, could never have been promulgated if the statements relative to the appearance of the risen Redeemer did not seem to vouch for its correctness. The Lord, for instance, appears with a body possessing flesh and bone, Luke xxiv. 39, a body which bore in it the wounds he received, John xx. 27; one that partook of food, Luke xxiv. 42; one, in short, bearing en- tirely a resemblance to an ordinary mortal body, and such expres- sions and statements do not seem to be suitable to the idea of a glorified body. Yet, however significant at a first glance those remarks may seem to be, still, upon a more careful examination, their untenable character is easily inferred. In the foremost case, for example, the σῶμα πνευματικόν must not be confounded with the πνεῦμα properly so called.’ In the express description by the Apostle Paul, consequently, the σῶμα ψυχικόν is mentioned instead of πνευματικόν in the resurrection, but it stiJ]l remains a true σῶμα. We may argue, further, that if the body of Christ, from his birth up, was in all respects similar to our body, yet it was also very distinctly different, since to it ap- pertained certainly a possibility but not the necessity of death? And hence the alteration it endured during the course of its being glorified would have been the less striking. Thus are self-explained, on the one hand how the disciples knew him and could examine the marks of his wounds, and on the other hand, why they discerned in him an alteration so ’ 1 Hase, in his “ Leben Jesu,” 5, 202, falls into an error as to this confounding of the σῶμα Ψψυχικόν with the πνεῦμα as such, when he asserts that the doctrine of a glorified body is a doketic doctrine. How little is the identity between the two doctrines, is shewn in the best way by the polemical discourses of the most ancient fathers of the church against doketicism ; albeit they, without one exception, taught tlie doctrine of the glorification of the body, 2 That this character was proper to the body of Christ is proyed by facts; for instance the walking of the Lord upon the sea; similarly by his glorification, and other events of the evangelical history, ») 266 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 1]. great that frequently they knew him not. This consideration gains an importance proportionately when we suppose that the process of glorification was being carried on during the forty days (Christ remained on earth after his resurrection, ‘l’.), and was not completely perfected until the period of his ascension to heaven. Lastly, in the history of the resurrection, Luke xxiv. 42, no mention occurs of his partaking of food because requiring so to do, for his eating had for its sule object to convince the disciples present of the reality of his body. Besides, too, it is really assumed in Scrip- ture, see Revelations xxii. 1, that the bodies of the glorified may partake of food, but certainly in such case the physical process is expressly excluded, 1 Cor. vi. 13. According to Genesis xviii. 8, the three men who appeared to Abraham,—of whom one was the Angel of the Lord, κατ᾽ εξοχήν, that is, Jehovah,—did certainly eat, although they must be thought to have been without corporeity, merely invested with apparent bodies. Hence, the difficulties involved in the hypo- thesis, of the glorified nature of the Lord’s body in the resurrec- tion, admit of solution. In no case are they of a nature to cause any error in what is the essential point of this whole occurrence, namely, that the Redeemer must have so arisen that henceforth it is impossible that he again can die. But this could have occurred only by his body being glorified. An entirely different view of this subject is entertained by some persons, who are not merely without any clear apprehensions as to the temporal occurrence of the glorification, but who regard with suspicion this very doctrine, if they do not also deny the resurrection. Alas, that the most modern philosophy, notwithstanding its predominating idealism, has been unable hitherto to appropriate the idea of a glorification of the body and of matter generally! Compare at Romans viii. 19, et seq. Only a few men, who, for that mere reason, are distinguished as searchers of nature as well as being also philosophers, namely, Schubert and Steffens, have acknowledged the truth and import- ance of that doctrine.’ 1 Itis striking that to intimate the relation between the new body and the old nature from whose elements it has evolved itself, the Holy Scripture does not avail itself of so immediate an analogy, as that of the butterfly and the chrysalis, from which it releases itself. It would seem that the reason of it consists in the fact that Holy Scripture leaves animal life generally very much in the background, and borrows its ficures more frequently from vegetable nature, ee greiained life of mere animality, and the im- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. l. 267 ‘The sacred Scriptures do not acknowledge that Dualism. which is included in the doctrine of an absolute separatedness of matter and spiritin man. As in man the spirit appears to be invested and bound up with the material frame, so also are we taught by Scrip- ture that the material nature exercises an influence upon the spirit, defiles, or aids in sanctifying it, and, in fine, is susceptible itself of being rendered glorious. Instead of making this pro- found and comprehensive doctrine their own, and of examining by degrees concerning its speculative influence, some persons trans- plant everything it includes, undistinguishingly, into the land of mysticism. The mere idea of a returning to life of Jesus, who would, ac- cordingly, have returned from the world of spirits, ought, according to their view, be expressed in stating the resurrection. Yet the plain narratives of the Evangelists, which originate from an event purely historical, and are composed by men who were eye-witnesses of it, stand—as we have already observed more than once—in the most glaring contrast with the hypothesis of a myth. Besides too, as we explain away the fantastic glitter of the myth (which some suppose to have been framed concerning the resurrection, T.), we discover that a supposition which would annihilate the effective agency of the Redeemer must be received for truth, if we reject the description of the event given by the Evangelists. If, for instance, the corporeal frame of the Lord had not actually risen again, and had not been glorified, it follows, a fortiori, that the very victor over the grave must in every case, and by all means, be himself still the captive of the grave,’ if his spirit only has withdrawn back to the spiritual world. After these remarks, there still remains to be noticed a view which does not so much regard the resurrection in a peculiar light as it gives a plain denial to the whole doctrine. One class of the advocates of this latter view, 6. g. Dr Paulus and Henneberg, firmly maintain the fact itself, but in the resurrection of Christ will perceive only an awakening out of a swoon. In the view we first touched upon, which makes out that the Saviour rose again in his perfect brutish susceptibility and unconscious character of it, renders it less suitable for illustrations of beings wherein consciousness is apparent, and of the spiritual life, developing itself gradually from the imperfect state of the mind in infancy. 1 Thus Hase, in his “ Leben Jesu,” 5. 204, also expresses it, and that openly. 268 ; GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. ]. mortal body, this opinion of Dr Paulus and Henneberg cannot be easily confuted with arguments of a physical kind. For the physical proofs as to the reality of Christ’s death, from even the wound made by the spear-thrust, are at least not urgent. But, on the other hand, according to our interpretation, this hypo- thesis is not in the least degree significant. For, assuming that the Redeemer was only apparently dead, yet that by no means would alter the signification of this event. For its proper signifi- cance consists, not in the return to life of Jesus (that would have happened in the other case also—v. e., the case of mere apparent death, T.—without involving anything particularly important), but in the impossibility to die again, which, by his being glorified, was given in connection with his return from death to life. This latter view really assumes a peculiar agency of God in (causing) the re- surrection, which can never be evaded by the flimsy hypothesis of an apparent death. But, leaving aside all uncertain physical proofs, still we have in Christ’s prophecies concerning his death, an im- movable foundation whereon to rest our conviction as to the reality of his death. As in the cases of Lazarus, and all other persons who had been dead, and were awakened again to life, it is only from the word of Christ we can certainly conclude that they had been dead ; since he openly declared that they but slept, where death had not as yet oc- eurred.2, Therefore is the word of Christ—of him who is the true witness—the rock whereon alone rests the certainty that “ He was dead, and is again alive,” Rev. i. 18. Attempts have not been wanting to obviate those clear, direct expressions of Jesus, in reference to his prospective death and resurrection, which we have in Matthew xvi. 21, xvii. 22, xx. 19: in Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34; in Luke xviii. 33 ; and, be- 1 Compare Bretschneider’s essay in opposition to Dr Paulus concerning the apparent death of Jesus, in “ Den Studien,” 1882, h. 3, 5, 625, et seq. He exposes an instance in which Dr Paulus falsely quotes Josephus, vit. c. 75, wience he conchided that men, after having been taken down from the cross, were after three days reaffixed to it. But, as Bretschneider shows, nothing of the kind is contained in the misquoted passage. 2 Compare my explanation relatively to the awakening of the daughter of Jairus, Comm. Part I. on Matt. If we must invert the signification of the simple, distinct declaration of Christ, “The maiden is not dead, but she sleepeth,” into the asser- tion, “ The maiden sleepeth not, but she is dead,” 1 then freely confess that I cannot see how we can hereafter speak of any certainty resulting from Exegesis. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 1. 269 sides, in the less determinate passages, Matthew xii. 40, xvi. 4. Yet so very weak are the arguments, by means of which some persons have sought to make it probable, that these prophecies were attri- buted to the lips of Christ by the disciples post factum, as to make it evident that only the consciousness of the necessity of rendering this great fact suspected, which in this way alone they could do, must have influenced the originators of this attempt to lend any signification at all to them. As a first instance, some persons say “the risen Redeemer appealed to the prophecies of the Old Testament, Luke xxiv. 46, to show that Christ must needs suffer and rise again, 'T.—but not to his own prophecies.”’ Now any one may easily see for what reason the Lord made reference to the Old Testament ; because, for example, it plainly devolved upon him, in such circumstances, to demonstrate to the disciples the mutual reference alike of the New Testament and the Old Testament eco- homies, to his own personal fate. A retrospective reference to his own words would, in this case, have been devoid of any significant object. But again—some persons refer to the hopelessness of the disci- ples, which would not have been conceivable, if they had known anything of the resurrection. But we may argue thus: the fact of the resurrection is extremely harg to be believed : so much 80, that even after a lapse of 1800 years, many are still unable to believe it : this is the case, although the church, in the strictest cycle of its dog- mas, has received the doctrine. Hence we are obliged to determine more indulgently concerning this inability of the disciples to believe concerning the resurrection, ere it had occurred, and are unable to attribute to it any power of disproving those clear prophecies of the Saviour. Not to mention other circumstances proving this assertion, even Peter did not believe that he could deny Christ, although this was foretold to him, which shows that there were many sayings of 1 Luke xxiv. 6—8. The angel, too, referred to Christ's prophecies concerning the re- surrection. This circumstance leads to the conclusion, that the Apostles had noticed similiar pre-announcements of it in his discourse, which in after times they called to mind. The Lord’s appealing to the Old Testament had besides the most important sig- nificance in his lips, for thereby he acknowledged it as the eternal word of God, Matthew Vadis 270 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. l. the Lord that the disciples were not able to receive.1 There now remains to be noticed by us, only that absolute interpretation or opinion, which, like the Woolfenbuttle Fragments, employs the seeming discrepancy that exists amongst the four Evangelists, in order to make it probable that there was a deception in the whole occurrence of the resurrection. Now the account would have been far more to be suspected of deception, if, in unessential points, it were entirely free from discrepancy. It is now perfectly harmonious in the main facts of the narrative, but moves more freely in refer- ence to adventitious matters. Assuming, further, that the discre- pancies were utterly unexplainable, yet would not this circumstance damage the credibility of what is essential in the account. But an explanation of particulars would show that the disagreements of the Evangelists are merely the results of free interpretations of the same occurrence. A contrariety of statements generally arises where several reporters, unconnected one with another, recount the same event. (Upon the literary merits of this question compare Hase’s Leben Jesu, p. 196, § 135, and the subsequent paragraphs.) The history of the resurrection possesses a peculiarity of cha- racter from the fact, that the holy Scriptures themselves make use of it, to typify the spiritual and corporal resurrection, alike of the individual Christian and of the whole church. For instance, in Romans vi. the Apostle Paul treats of baptism in the twofold refer- ence of that ordinance, to immersion and emerging, as ante-typical of the death and resurrection of Christ. 1 A remarkable external evidence concerning the resurrection of Jesus is contained in the passage, 1 Cor. xv. 6, in consequence of which appears, that many of the 500 disci- ples who in Galilee beheld the risen Lord, lived even at the time when the Apostle wrote to the Corinthians. A more striking event, in contradiction to the hypothesis, that the history of the resurrection is of a mythical character, is scarcely imaginable. The de- fenders of the myth have not permitted themselves to feel their weakness, by attempting to invalidate such decisive evidences as these—evidences which, in connection with the Notorious authenticity of the Pauline epistles, possess so much the more importance. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. |. 27] § 1. THE HISTORY OF THE RESURRECTION. Matthew xxviii. 1—15; Mark xvi. 1—11; Luke xxiv. 1—12; John xx. 1—18. The physical occurrence of the resurrection, abstractedly con- sidered, is like every process by which any thing is produced, for the first time, enveloped with obscurity. The inspired penmen of the New Testament merely make mention of what they themselves saw, as that ‘‘ the sepulchre was already empty.” ‘The Creatorial ener- gies operated in silence, and unobservedly, and for the sublime per- son of the Lord, wove, as it were, a raiment of celestial light; one worthy of investing the monarch of the world of light. Hence, accordingly, no human eye beheld, at that moment when the ener- gies of life were influencing it, how the body of the holy One arose. This may have been meant to typify, that the resurrection at the end of time, to which we still look forward, shall also be occasioned by an unseen act of divine omnipotence. The great Sabbath on which the Lord—a second time, T.——rested from his work, was spent, by the male and female friends of Jesus, in a religious meet- ing, as yet thinking that they hadlost him whom their souls loved. But it was not their love to Jesus that betrayed them into this error. In consequence of it they would have been forced to con- elude definitely, that Jesus was not the Messiah. So firmly did they regard him as such, that scarcely had the hght of another day be- gun to dawn, when they hastened to complete the anointing of the Lord’s body. Now in the account of this proceeding of the women to his tomb, very remarkable differences appear amongst the Evan- gelists. These require to be stated at the outset. In the first place, then, as regards the Synopticks, they are in the main una- nimous. Mary Magdalene, and Mary the wife of Cleopas, and—accord- ing to the annexed statements of Mark and Luke respectively—- Salome, and Johanna, the wife of Chuza—Luke xxiv. 10, comp. Luke vii. 8—went about day-break, Mark xvi. 2, towards the sepulchre with the spices. On their way thither, they were speak- ing to each other upon the difficulty they should experience in roll- ing away the stone from the entrance to the sepulchre. Mark xvi. 3. Qe GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 1. But as they drew nigh to the tomb, they found that the stone was removed, and near to the place where Jesus lay, they saw an angel. Here the first narration of the account occurs, Luke xxiv. 4, deviates from Matthew and Mark, by mentioning two angels, whilst they make mention of one only. ‘This angel addressed the women, informed them of the Saviour’s resurrection, and directed them to publish the tidings to the disciples. Luke xxiv. 7, 8, in the address of the angel, contains something indeed which the other two writers have not, but the peculiar formal discrepancy proceeds from Mark xvi. 8, in which passage it is said: οὐδενὶ οδσὲν εἶπον. At this point Luke breaks off his account, only remarking in a cursory manner at xxiv. 11, 12, that the apostles at the report of the women did not believe, but yet that Peter hastened to the sepulchre. The other two Synopticks still append to those facts, the additional one, that Christ himself appeared on the occasion. Matthew observes that he met the women when they were return- ing. Mark speaks only of his appearance to Mary Magda- lene, without ‘particularizing how she came to have separated from the other women,—compare Matt. xxvill. 9, 10, and Mark xvi. 9, 10. Now if we had only the accounts given by the Synopticks, the narrative might be regarded, to all intents and purposes, as unanimous. For, so far as the number of the angels is concerned, to any one who desires such minute defi- niteness, it is certainly quite allowable to say, that that appa- rent diversity occurred in the statement, because of Matthew and Mark’s alluding only to the angel that spoke to them, whilst Luke has made mention also of the less active heavenly mes- senger. Those words of Mark, ovdéve οὐδὲν εἶπον, ver. 8, will moreover harmonise with the whole account easily, provided we limit their comprehension, by supplying as an expletive: “ in the first moments” of their astonishment. ‘To this mode of in- terpreting it, we are guided by the following : εφοβοῦντο γάρ. The deviation of Mark's account appears, to say the least of it, the most conspicuous, Mark xvi. 9, where he all on a sudden makes mention of Mary Magdalene alone, and states that Jesus appeared first to her. Yet if we had not the narrative of John, even this diversity would not appear at all essential, for we should but be necessitated to suppose that a separation of Mary from the GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. ]. he other women occurred, but was left unmentioned, in order to regard the two statements as nearly coinciding. But the question assumes altogether a different aspect, upon comparing what the Synop- tics narrate, with the account given by John. According to the latter, Mary Magdalene went alone to the sepulchre, when the morning was yet dark, she found the stone rolled away from it, and hastened back immediately to Peter and John, to whom she expressed her apprehensions that the body of the Lord had been taken away by some persons. On hearing this, the two dis- ciples ran to the sepulchre. John arrived at it the first. Peter, however, was the first who ventured to enter. After they had convinced themselves that the body of the Lord was not there, they returned back. Mary still remained at the sepulchre weep- ing. Whilst she sat thus, she beheld two angels. Immediately after this vision, she beheld Jesus also. After this she has- tened to the disciples, and mentioned what she had seen. John xx. 1—18. On a first view, there appears no similarity whatever between this account and that of the Synoptics. Inthe merely passing observa- tion of Luke xxiv. 12, that Peter entered into the sepulchre, there is some appearance of an echoing response to the narration of Jobn. A statement precisely similar occurs too in Mark xvi. 9, 10, where it is mentioned that Jesus, on the first occasion, appeared to Mary. Yet, upon a more particular notice of them, it will appear that this great discrepancy, by merely making some inconsiderable suppositions, resolves itself into a perfect harmony, and that the several accounts concatenate accurately. Such must ever be the case when several reporters relate the same event, and do so merely in accordance with those phases of it which they themselves had observed. Even the accounts of several eye-witnesses, as to events that transpire in their very presence, almost always present a diversity of character, since the rule by which those events are interpreted varies with the point of view from which the several reporters con- template them. Hence, Griesbach and Hess have already rendered current the following mode of reconciling those discrepancies, in opposition to persons who, from those discrepancies, have adduced an objection against the historical veracity of the resurrection. The accounts of the Synoptics form two series, that run collate- VOL. IV. 5 9274 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. l. rally: John recounts merely what he himself was identified with, but the Synoptics learned what they relate probably from one of the women. Now, by making this simple assumption, viz., that Mary separated herself from the other women, came at first to the sepulchre alone, and then summoned Peter and John thither, the parallelism of the two accounts wil] become clear and visible. The order of sequence of the events is hence as follows. Early in the morning, Mary betook herself to the sepulchre in company with the other women. But she hastened in advance of her female com- panions, and to her astonishment found the sepulchre empty. Im- mediately Mary runs in haste to Peter and John. In the mean- while, the other women arrive, see the angels, and receive their commands and tidings. After they had gone away, Mary arrives with the two disciples. These scrutinize the empty sepulchre, and then return home. Mary still remains by the tomb weeping. And now the angels appear to her also, and next the Lord him- self. After this appearance of the Lord, which was made on be- half of Mary alone, the Saviour again revealed himself also to the astonished women, on their way as they returned. Accord- ing to this interpretation, all discrepancies vanish. There is only one circumstance against which any one can object, namely, ‘‘if the events occurred so near one to another, how can Mark, as at xvi. 9, 10. declare so decisively that the Lord appeared first to Mary? The other women certainly saw him about the same time, or at least so soon afterwards that it was not to be remarked as a distinct circumstance that he revealed him- self to Mary first. In reference to this objection, if we may suppose that in his account Mark deviates here from the guidance of Matthew, and separately relates this appearance as occurring to Mary altogether alone, from the data in Matthew’s assertion that Jesus showed himself to the women on their return, then, in refe- rence to this point, it certainly is more probable that Matthew had somewhat loosely extended to all the women the appearance that oceurred on Mary’s behalf peculiarly. This discrepancy, however, does not essentially affect the veri- table character of the accounts. Indeed, it serves rather precisely to establish their freedom from any collusion, and the independency of the Evangelists, who, besides, display nearly perfect accuracy in σι GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 1--- 10. Pegg reference to the main facts of the case. Having made these gene- ral remarks, we shall now treat of the particular events of the whole occurrence, according to the parallel passages specified. Ver. 1—10 and the parallel passages in the Synoptics should be compared. As to what directly concerns the specifying of the time of the resurrection, the expression διωγενομένου τοῦ σαββάτου, which occurs in Mark xvi. 1, serves to explain the ὀψὲ σαββάτων in Matthew. For instance, σαββάτον, equivalent to FAY), even in its plural form τὰ σάββατα, is used for the Sabbath, the one day. Compare the Septuagint version of Exodus xx. 10, and Leviticus xxili. 82. Οψὲ is, however, used in the sense of “ After.” Cer- tainly this is the only passage in which it occurs in the New Testament. But it occurs also in this signification in profane writ- ings. [Compare Philostratus, in Vit. Apoll. iv. 18, where ὀψὲ μυστηρίων is employed for “ after the mysteries.” So also in Thucyd. iv. 93 and Aelian, V. H. ii. 23. At the word ἐπιφω- σκούσῃ the reader should supply ἡμέρᾳ. ᾿Ανατείλαντος τοῦ ἡλίου corresponds to the ὄρθου βαθέος, occurring in Luke xxiv. 1 and Mark xvi. 2. John xx. 1 employs σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης, which must be understood as referring to the morning twilight, and which, therefore, coincide with the statements of the other Evangelists. | Now, the day itself on which the women went forth to the sepulchre is called by all the Evangelists unanimously the μία σαββάτων, that is, the first day of the week, since the writers use μία as equal to 4q¢- (The same phrase occurs in 1 Cor. xvi. 2.) But σάβ- Bara has also the signification of “the week.” Compare Luke Vit 12. The following verses, viz. 2—4, which contain statements pecu- liar to Matthew, describe the occurrence of the resurrection itself, or, at least, of the incidents immediately accompanying it. We might conclude, that in this passage Matthew had not meant to pen a historical account, but merely by a retrospective course of re- marks to determine the facts of the preceding appearance of Jesus, and hence the word ἰδοὺ would have been used merely as a vivid mode of description. But those decided little touches——in the pic- ture—the ἀπεκύλισε τὸν λίθον, and more particularly the ἐκάθητο ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ do not allow us to form this latter hypothesis. Hence we must regard the account as referring to some other evidence, S 2 276 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XxvllII. ]1—10. perhaps that of one of the watch.—’Idea is equivalent to NW. Like every celestial vision, this one also appeared amid a halo of light: ἀστραπή. Luke xxiv. 4 has ἐν ἐσθήσεσιν ἀστραπτούσαις. To this conclusion we are led further lie the mention made con- cerning the white raiment. Upon verse 4, and the passage xi. 15, which is connected with it, compare the remarks made at Matthew xxvii. 62—66. When the women approached the sepulchre, they beheld the angels... In Luke only xxiv. 5 have we any description of the astounding impression which this vision made upon them. These celestial ambassadors, as the women drew nigh, made known to them the resurrection of the Lord.? In verse 6 the ὁ κύριος, in the mouth of the angels, is replete with meaning. They too, according to Luke xxiv. 6—8, reminded the women of the promise which Jesus had made relative to this fact. Here, too, the women were commissioned to make known the tidings to the disciples, that he would go before them into Galilee. This we learn from Matthew, and from Mark xvi. ἢ. The latter, moreover, expressly particularizes Peter. In verse 10, Jesus him- self repeats this injunction. In verse 16, too, it is stated that the disciples went to Galilee. The object of this arrangement, which Jesus had previously intimated, on the occasion of the supper, Matt. xxvi. 82, was, without doubt, no other than this :—The Lord re- garded the stillness and seclusion of Galilee as rendering it a more appropriate place, than could be found in the tumultuous metro- polis, for the disciples to receive his solemn sanction to their apostolic commission. The first appearances of the Lord, though occurring in Jeru- salem, had for their object only to convince the disciples, who were dubious of the fact, that he was risen in truth. In the verses 9, 10, with which Matthew concludes this subject, the κρατεῖν πόδας is to be understood merely as a gesture of supplication which had been elicited by fear. Compare what is particularized at John xx. 1 Like the commencement of the Lord’s life upon earth, this beginning of his glori- fied life was also adorned with kindred angel-visions, visible to many persons. The other visions of angels, of which we meet with occasional mention, as having oc- curred subseryiently to Christ, seem to have been internal revelations only. 2 In the question of the angels, which occurs in Luke xxiv. 5, viz.: τί ζητεῖτε τον, ζῶντα μετὰ τῶν νεκρῶν; the word ζῶ ν must be interpreted as having the force, “ bim who is the life itself.” Compare John i. 4. GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 1—18. Q277 17. Mark, verses 9—11 (on the authenticity of the concluding portion of Mark’s Gospel, see our observations on Mark xvi. 14) makes mention only of the vision seen by Mary Magdalene, with the comment that out of her Jesus had cast seven devils. Compare at Luke viii. 2, and Matthew xii. 45. By this very event is ren- dered strikingly prominent the fact that the Saviour is rich in mercy, seeing that he revealed himself first to the meanest and most wretched of his followers who stood most in need of his as- sistance, but who was also inflamed with the most ardent love to him. The disciples, meanwhile, in consequence of the death of Christ, were as yet so bewildered in mind that they yielded no credence to the joyous tidings of their Lord’s resurrection, notwithstanding that he himself previously had so often and so positively foretold it to them. According to Luke xxiv. 11, they declared that the re- port of the women was mere λῆρος, that is, like the Latin, nuge, a deceptive, vain word or thing. John xx. 1—18. From this point the account of the Synoptics runs parallel with the narrative of John. The latter proceeds next to relate of himself and Peter, that they, under the! conduct of Mary, were the only disciples who hastened forth to the sepul- chre. Impelled by love, John was swifter in running than Peter. But he trembled at the idea of intruding himself into the hallowed scene of Christ’s resurrection. The daring, resolute Peter, on the contrary, went directly into the sepulchre. Although at the time Peter had not as yet obtained immediately from the Lord the pardon of his grievous sin, yet, so steadfast was his faith in Christ's pardoning love, that not for a moment would he acknowledge him- self to be excluded from his Lord. But how deeply the affectionate soul of John was impressed by the scene of that great event is mani- fest from the simple circumstance that he, verses 6, 7, minutely de- scribes how the interior of the sepulchre was furnished. The grave clothes (or winding shrouds of the dead = ὀθόνια, Luke xxiy. 12, compare John xi. 44) and the napkin which had enwrapped the head of Jesus, lay there, the latter being folded and in a separate place. ᾿Εντυλίσσω expresses ‘to envelope,’ but it has also the signification ‘‘ to fold.” Compare Matthew xxvii. 53. As the circumstance of the napkin being folded, &c., is also no- ticed in Luke xxiv. 12, it is hence necessarily rendered impressive, 278 GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 1—10. as if of considerable importance. Tholuck very properly observes that it stipulated the condition on which the ἐπίστευσεν of the dis- ciples was manifested. For instance, at the first, when John was speaking to Mary, he, like her, might have believed that the body of Jesus had been stolen away ; but when in the sepulchre he per- ceived not the slightest trace of hurry or disorder, but found every- thing so carefully regulated, then’ arose in him rea] faith in the Lord’s resurrection. Hence the ἢ δείσαν which follows in verse 9 is not, as Tholuck would have it to be regarded, as a pluperfect tense. We only require to translate the passage thus, “ they understood not the scriptural references to this event.” This ap- plication of the words to their faith concerning the resurrection is in every view of the case more appropriate than to conjecture with Liicke and others that they refer merely to their credence of the report of Mary. Relative to the Old Testament prophecies of the resurrection, compare the observations made at Luke xxiy. 46 and Ι Cor. xv. 5. After this occurrence, whilst the disciples betook themselves to their homes, Mary remained behind, weeping alone by the sepulchre. Looking into it she now beheld two angels, who were sitting, the one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain. Upon the authority of this pas- sage it is allowable to infer that at pleasure angels can render themselves visible or invisible. For instance, in the present case, we are without doubt to understand that these were the same ᾿ angels whom the women had seen previously, and who had remained present, but invisible. Mary Magdalene might not at first have thought they were angels. Hence, probably, her meek childlike answer to their question. In the very same man- ner she did not at first know Jesus when she saw him turning round toher. As she happened to be in the garden, Gethsemene, she supposed that he was the gardener.’ Κηπουρός, from κῆπος and οὖρος, overseer, occurs only here in the New Testament. “But immediately upon hearing his voice she knew the Lord, and 1 Even Tholuck makes the further assertion upon this circumstance that after his re surrection Jesus might really have on him the clothes of the gardener. Questions such as, “Whence did Christ getthe necessary raiment he wore?” ‘*How could he walk, seeing that his feet were pierced through and through ?” are suggested to persons only in consequence of their believing that he rose again in a mortal body. According to our interpretation, as little do such queries merit any answer as does the analogous one, * From whence did the angels obtain their white raiment ?” GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 1—10. 279 exclaimed with joyous affection ᾿᾽Ραββουνί. Compare Mark > Mary, whilst thus speaking, ran to embrace the Lord’s feet. (Ac- cording to Matthew xxviii. 9, the other women did so likewise.) Then it was that the Lord addressed to her the admonitory words, μή μου ἅπτου. Of the many attempts to explain these words, which have been made, all those which would alter the text should be re- jected at the very outset. Such are the conjectures of Gersdorf and Schulthez, σύ, μου ἅπτου, touch me, thou, and of Vogel, μὴ οὐ πτοου, fear not. ‘The critical authorities perfectly establish the correctness of the reading μή μου ἅπτου. But as to the import of the latter, there are various explanations suggested, which must also be deemed obsolete, and hence may equally with the foregoing be dismissed from the view hereafter to be established. To those last alluded to belong, first, the interpretation, accord- ing to which ἅπτεσθαι should be regarded as cosignificant with the Hebrew at and the Latin “‘ adhaerere,” ‘to delay ;’ so that the meaning of the passage would accordingly be, ‘‘ hasten to thy brethren without making any delay, &c.” Secondly, another inter- pretation to be rejected is, that according to which, the attempt at touching the Lord had, on the part of Mary, for its object, to assure herself whether the body of Christ was real or not, so that the μή μου ἅπτου would have been a reproof to her unbelief. But leaving all other considerations out of view, the context by no means harmonizes with either of the interpretations last noticed. For, on such an occasion, the instantaneous homage which Mary was about yielding to her heavenly friend was not at all an action to merit the repulse they would make out she received. And, further, it should be observed that the subsequent οὔπω yap ava- βέβηκα can in no wise agree with the unbelief attributed to Mary. Accordingly there remain only the following acceptations of the words to treat of particularly. And first, the view promulgated by Augustine, and commended by Calvin and Beza, is one according to which the ἅπτεσθαι is to be regarded as employed tropically, “and having a spiritual reference ; so that the meaning of the passage would accordingly be, ‘‘ Cling not, fully satisfied, to my revelation of myself thus on earth, for I shall yet be exalted in heavenly glories.” This notion is very agreeable to reason, and it enters harmoniously into the connection of the passage ; but the tro- 280 GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 1—10. pical interpretation of ἅπτεσθαι is so harsh, and so inappropriately would the οὔπω come after it, that we cannot assent to this mode of explanation. Secondly, other interpreters, Tholuck for instance, understand ἅπτεσθαι as referring to the gesture of the προσκύ- νησις (of worship; literally, kissing-towards, T.), and supply ποδῶν or γονάτων, as the embracing of knees occurs often in Ho- mer, and occurs in the Old Testament in 2 Kings iv. 27. The meaning of the passage would accordingly be, “do not worship me, [am not a heavenly being. Glorification as yet is prospec- tively before me.” But how could the same person refuse such worship, who had given expression to those memorable sayings, “ all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father ;’ “he who seeth me seeth the Father,” John ν. 23, and xiv. 9; and who, in strict conformity with the eminence thus claimed by him, permitted Thomas to ad- dress him as ὁ κύριός μου, καὶ 6 θεός μου, John xx. 29. And, fur- ther, supposing we were to concede the point, that rendering divine worship to Christ should not begin until after the ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τον πατέρα, then assuredly the subsequent words of Christ, “to my Father, and to your Father, to my God, and to your God,” would be in no wise accordant with the injunction concerning his being wor- shipped. Moreover, in these words of the Saviour just quoted, is embodied the idea of the intimate personal proximity of the disci- ples to Christ. The meaning of the words is, consequently, ‘‘ The same God is mine, and yours, we are brethren.” But let the μή μου ἅπτου be referred to the prohibition of worshipping Christ, and then directly we shall have the infinite separation or difference be- tween Christ and his disciples rendered prominent. For instance, in that case, the course of thought would be as follows, ‘‘ wor- ship me not, for as yet 1 am by no means glorified ; but when 1 shall have been glorified, and thereby exalted above you infinitely, then worship me,” ‘Thirdly, there remains, therefore, before 1 Krabbe, in his work “ on Sin and Death, 5, 316, et seq.,” promulgates another ex- planation of this difficult passage. His explanation is somewhat similar to that pre- viously given by Chrysostum and Erasmus. He thinks the meaning of the words τὸ be this—“ Do not touch me; that is, think not that former confidence still subsists be- tween us. My relation to you has become different from what it was, and, as such, you must henceforth respect it. Still you have not erred by calling me ῥαββουνί, for such I am, yoar risen Lord; but I have not yet been conducted up to my Father.” This interpretation commends itself to us, when taken in reference to the account of Mary's GOSPEL OF JOHN Xx. 1—10. 281 our consideration, only the interprétation of those words, μὴ μου ἄπτου, which Schleiermacher has put frtha If we would only reflect, that the oceurrence of the resurrec- tion and of the glorification of Christ, were essential to his nature and office, from this mere conviction will be immediately suggested the thought, that every interpretation of this passage, by which those events would be denied or deprived of their full significance, must necessarily be regarded as foreign from the intent of the pass- age. In the ἀναβαίνειν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα μου, as a necessary consequence, therefore, the completion of the Saviour’s glorification is intimated. According to this view, the words ἀναβαίνω πρὸς τὸν πατέρω μου, καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, which follow, completely harmonize with the preceding statement. But in the μή μου ἄπτου there seems, to be involved something contradictory. Our impression of this anointing of the feet of Jesus. But as Krabbe himself has already observed, the οὔπω γὰρ ἀναβέβηκα, which follows, does not, according to this view, connect itself suitably with the μὴ μου ἄπτου. Then the supplying of the sentence, “thou hast not erred in calling me ῥαββουνί, for such I am,” &c., is manifestly an entirely arbitrary proceeding Neither will one avoid error by taking this latter interpretation of the passage somewhat. modified. It must be entirely rejected, T. If for instance we should conclude, as re- sults from the view of Augustin, the meaning ofthe words to be this, “‘ rest not satisfied with my tangible nature, but become exalted by faith to an apprelension of the spiritual nature of the Son of God. The former will vanish from you. The latter will remain with you, ever present. For 1 go to my Father, to whom you also shall hereafter approach,” then the οὔπω, as we have already observed, entirely militates against this thought. The connection in which stands the saying, “touch me not, for I am not yet ascended,” &c., leads me back from every other exegesis, to the interpretation given in the context itself, and which is maintained by Schleiermacher, little as | agree with his peculiarity of thought. The explanation given by De Wette, perhaps allows its proper force to the οὔπω more so than does that last alluded to. De Wette gives the following as the mean- ing of the passage: “ Mary finds her entire contentment in the appearance of Jesus, and with this feeling would embrace him. But Jesus reminds her of the fact that this content of hers was as yet premature.” Yet, in this view the grounds for explaining Mary’s expression of contentment by touching the Saviour; and, on the part of the Saviour, the prohibition μή μουἄπτου, as an injunction not to seek this kind of contentment, re- main very obscure. 1 Schleiermacher’s festival sermons, the fifth edition collected, Berlin 1826, 5, 303, In the incomparably beautiful sermon entitled “ The resurrection of Christ a type of our new life,” his words in reference to this passage are as follows: ‘‘ When the Saviour at first appeared to Mary, he then, as if fearful and susceptible, his glori- fied life being new to him, said, ‘Touch me not; I am not yet ascended to my God and to your God;’ but, after a few days, he presented himself to Thomas, and required him heartily to test the reality of his body, to thrust his hand into his side, &c.” 282 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 13. discordance suggests the following thought : the Lord seems to say to his disciples, ‘‘ since I became mortal like you, ye like me shall become glorified, by being born again, and made true children of God, and my brethren.” § 2. FURTHER APPEARANCES OF CHRIST ON THE DAY OF THE RESURRECTION. Luke xxiv. ]3-—48 ; Mark xvi. 12--14; John xx. 19--29. The Lord, according to his promise, would probably have showed himself to his disciples only in quiet Galilee, if they with a lively faith in his resurrection had immediately proceeded thither. But the statements of the women who were first privileged to behold the Saviour did not satisfy them. They were unable, on the strength of those statements, to rise above their earthly views to the sublime elevation of an unwavering faith. According to John xx. 8, it is, however, probable that he, but only he, was convinced of the truth of Mary’s report. After the first day the risen Redeemer does not appear to have again revealed himself to the disciples in Jerusalem. The other appearances, which confessedly occurred, belong all probably to Galilee. In order to understand precisely the character of Christ's association with his disciples after his re surrection, so far as the preceding documents represent it to us, we require yet to treat minutely of several difficulties, which are pre- sented to us in this part of the evangelical history. In the first place, for instance, the question suggests itself, have the Evan- gelists related to us all the appearances of the Lord ? or may there not have occurred many others, of which we are not in- formed ? Upon comparing | Corinthians xv. 6, et seq., we find that the Apostle Paul even there makes mention of certain re- velations of the Saviour, concerning which the gospels are silent ; those, for example, with which Peter and James were privileged. The omission of these by the Evangelists is explainable, however, from the fact, that the Saviour showed himself to these two disci- ples for particular reasons: to Peter probably the appearance was made with some reference to his denial of the Lord, but to James, the brother of the Lord, because hitherto he had never yet been GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 13. 283 able to believe in Jesus. Compare John vii. 5, and Acts i. 14. Both these appearances, moreover, had as their object individual instruction, and on that account present nothing of general interest. The apostle Paul speaks of another appearance still, besides the two noticed. At this over five hundred brethren were present, many of whom were yet living at the time when Paul wrote his epistles to the Corinthians. But this appearance may probably be that of which the Synoptics make mention, as having hap- pened in Galilee, compare at Matthew xxviii. 16, et seq. Hence it appears to me most probable that no other appearances took place than those of which we have intelligence in the Scriptures. Jesus showed himself to his disciples only, as he had promised, and even to them in unfrequent visions only. On this account, his as- sociation with the disciples after his resurrection, gains a peculiarity of character. His resurrection was poste-typical of the sign of the prophet Jonah, to the Pharisees, and to all who had not turned to Christ with full purpose of heart. It was presented secretly and merely to further their belief. In his glory, the Lord could not reveal himself to them. If he were to do so, and they were then to resist him, their culpability would have been greatly aggravated; and if, on the other hand, they should yield them- selves in discipleship to him, then would it be apparent, from the very nature of the case, that such a reformation could not be sincere, in a moral point of view, but would have been one pro- duced by fear only. But if any one, by the operations of the risen Redeemer, should be brought to render to the doctrine of his resurrection the ho- nour due to truth, and that, without having seen Jesus alter his resurrection, then it may be taken for granted that he had morally directed himself to the light. From appearances of the risen Sa- viour, if made to all or to any of his opponents, nothing but in- jury could consequently bave resulted. But, as regards the disciples, they had previously enjoyed fully the privilege of the Lord’s constant intercourse with them. Now was only added his giving to them, as it were, the final completion and consecration of that intercourse, in order to make them fully qualified agents for (labouring in the) kingdom of God. Hence the Lord, after bis resurrection, showed himself to them only upon peculiarly sacred occasions, and in ways most impressive and 284 GOSPEL OF LUKE XxIV. 18—24. mysterious. Moreover, we find that the disciples were invariably seized with a secret feeling of awe on each occasion that they be- held the Saviour, which feeling, in a peculiar way, mingled itself with their joy at possessing him who was the beloved of their souls. Still, they evidently knew that they now had the privilege of as- sociation with him in 5. different manner from what formerly was the case. Hence, when in his ascension to heaven the Saviour withdrew altogether from them, they were filled with joy. They in no way indulged in their former sorrows, for they knew that Christ would remain in spirit present with them, and be himself personally exalted to sit at the right hand of God. The questions, “‘ Where did the Lord abide in the time interme- diate between his appearances ?” and “ how did he draw near to those who beheld those revelations of him ?” have been mooted by certain persons of modern times, from indistinct views concern- ing the nature of the risen Redeemer’s life. In Christian an- tiquity, such questions could not have been raised relative to the fundamental grounds of the resurrection. But if we reflect that, even prior to the resurrection, the Saviour walked upon the waves of the sea, and fed thousands of persons with a few loaves, then indeed we may well take for granted that after the resurrec- tion the glorified Saviour would have been restrained still less by the physical laws of nature; and hence, moreover, that those ne- cessities commensurate with human dependancy could have had no influence whatever on the glorified Jesus. Ver. 13—24. The first appearance of Jesus on the resurrection day itself (besides those at the sepulchre, T.) was that which Luke xxiv. 13—24 expressly mentions, and which is briefly glanced at in Mark xvi. 12—14. Two disciples were on their way to Emmaus. Of these one was Cleopas, Κλεόπας = Κλωπᾶς. He was perhaps a relative of Jesus. John xix. 25. (KnXeos = glory, and mas = mar = πάτερ = father of glory, or glorious father, 1.) It was then the afternoon, for it was evening when they returned, John xx. 19. ‘Eppaovs or ’Appaovs, was, as is mentioned by Josephus, B. J. vii. 6, 6, a little village, distant from Jerusalem a Sabbath day’s journey, that is, sixty stadia. ‘This village must not be con- founded with the city of the same name which lay at a distance of twenty miles from Jerusalem, and which in after times received the GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 13—24. 28h name of Nicopolis. It was inthis latter named city that Judas Maccabeus defeated Gorgias, the Syrian general. Compare 1 Mac- cab. ii. 40—57 ; also Winer’s Real-worterbuch, 5. 382. The two disciples were conversing together concerning the great events of the few past days, when, without being recognized, Jesus himself joined company with them. On this fact, Luke xxiv. 16 has re- marked that “‘ their eyes were holden,” οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτῶν éxpa- toovto. But Mark xvi. 12 gives prominency to the fact that Christ himself, ἐν ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ. had appeared. We may suppose that both circumstances obtained: that on the part of the Lord, there was a veiling of his person from them ; and also that the ‘“‘eyes’” of the disciples “ were holden.” But all attempts to account for his not being recognized, through the trouble of the disciples, and similar suppositions, should be rejected as utterly unscriptural. We should much rather keep firmly in mind the conviction, that the foreign kind of appearance of the Lord was involved partly im the circumstance of his being glorified, but may also to some extent have been intended by him. There is greater difficulty in the quc$- tion, ‘ What was the reason why the Lord did not reveal himself openly at first to them, and why was it that afterwards. wheu, he was known, he should withdraw himself suddenly from: the. ?” Perhaps the reason was something connected personally with the two disciples. They appear, from ver. 21, to have been entirely in error, as to the Messiahship of Jesus, and hence were in need of some powerful support to their faith. This the Saviour vouchsafed to them, by explaining to them the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious death, as taught through the Scriptures. But ifJesus had made him- self known to them, before he had convinced them, on this subject, by means solely of the force of Scriptural proofs, then would his appearance have beyond measure overpowered them, so that they would not have been capable of such a calm investigation. For this reason, the intelligible revelation of his person did not occur until after he had effected the principal object of his appearing at all. The Saviour opened the conversation with them, by an inquiry as to the cause of their sadness. Σ᾽ κυθρωπός, consult Matthew vi. 16. Τὸ this Cleopas made answer, and rehearsed to him the no- torious, and great events of the few preceding days. Παροικεῖν, like 4y55, does not merely signify to tarry as a stranger or foreigner 286 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 13—24. ina place; but it also expresses generally, “ to dwell,” “ to be- long” —as a native—“ to the place.” See Genesis xxiv. 37. Dr Paulus would make it appear that the dialogue of the two disciples concerning the fate of Jesus, happened to be in the Samaritan dialect: So that, of verses 19, 20, the one disciple would have addressed the following ver. to the other. To this supposition he has been led, by the circumstance that verses 19 and 21 seem to be contradictory one to another: according to the twenty-first verse: they would seem to have given up all hope that Christ should effect the work of redemption, T. ; but according to verse nineteenth, they still call Jesus a prophet. Now, if we suppose that the two disciples held distinctly different views of this doctrine, that one had for instance exhibited more faith than the other, then would this contrariety be easily explained. But as it is not intimated by even a word, that verse 21 followed as the reply of one of the interlocutors to the other, this supposi- tion is accordingly difficult to be maintained. It is more proper to regard the expression ὁ μέλλων λυτροῦσθαι τὸν Ισραήλ as referring to the Messiah, and by way of distinction to understand verse 19, relatively to the notion of the prophets concerning him. ‘The dis- ciples might have doubted whether Jesus was the Messiah, and yet have esteemed him to be a prophet. The prophets, many of them had been put to death, hence the death of Jesus could not have occasioned them to err, in their belief, as to his prophetic dignity. But. as regarded the Messiah, they still seemed to entertain the indistinct popular notions, but which notions were by no means the general ones, even amongst the enlightened classes of the Jews. Compare at John i. 29. Hence they were, in consequence of the death of Jesus, persuaded that the exercise of his Messiahship was annhilated. In their view, therefore, the λυτροῦσθαι τόν ᾿Ισραήλ would have but a very indeterminate signification, one perhaps political to some extent. Finally, the following words, in verses 22— 24, express the report concerning the resurrection of Christ, but it was one to which these disciples would not yield any credence. Their words, however, corroborate the twofold appearance that oc- curred of Jesus to the women, which the Synoptics relate, and that which was made by him to Peter and John, of which the latter himself makes mention. ‘This evidence is of so much the more force since it cannot have been intentionally as such derived by GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 25—35. 287 Luke into his narrative, whilst, on the other hand, John has made no mention whatever of the occurrence concerning the two disciples at, Emmaus. Verses 25—35. Consequent upon this lament of theirs, the Lord addressed to them his discourse of reproof and of consolation. The first reprehended the want of susceptibility manifested by the dis- ciples, as to the predictions so clearly made by the prophets. ’Avoy- Tos is in no way synonymous with βραδὺς τῇ Kapdia: on the con- trary, the former signifies an incapacity of the νοῦς, the latter an unsusceptibility of the καρδίᾳ: so that taken together, the two expressions describe the want of susceptibility of the whole man, both in relation to head and heart. But, secondly, Christ quoted the individual prophecies of Scripture concerning himself, and ex- pounded them to the two disciples. The suffering of the Messiah was necessarily connected with the perfecting of his whole work, and with the completion of his δόξα. Comp. on this question the remarks made on John xiii. 38, and on Matthew xxvii. 46. This divinely decreed necessity was what the prophecies of the Old Testament expressed. They refer as well to the resurrection of the Lord as to his death. Comp. Luke xxiv. 46, and 1 Corinth. xv. 8.4. Christ now introduced the disciples into the truly spiritual manner of apprehending those prophecies, Luke xxiv. 44. There are specified Moses, the prophets, and the Psalms. This passage affords a proof that our present classification of the Old Testament Scriptures into TA OND: and pan: obtained even at the time of Christ ; since in the lust class is named “ the psalms” in reference to the first book only. This last statement becomes now of the ut- mostimportance to us, inasmuch as it warrants us to regard those explanations of the Old Testament prophecies, which the apostles give us in their writings, as the authentic expositions of the Saviour himself. They thus gain adegree of security and stability, which to all unprejudiced critics or judges, exalts them to the character of abutments of faith which cannot be shaken. Moreover, those pro- phecies given by the Spirit of God, have been all interpreted again in their spiritual reference by the Lord, 2 Peter i. 20, so that a secure ground on which to rest their faith is afforded to all, who were perplexed with doubts, merely because of the infirmity of the human understanding. And to the wilfully sceptical alone, who 288 GOSPEL OF LUKE XXIV. 25—835. are the authors of their own unbelief, is the possibility remaining, to say of every prophecy, ‘‘the Lord would certainly not have applied this with the others to himself.” Besides, after Matthew v. 17, these passages constitute the most certain demonstration of the divine inspiration of the Old Testament from the lips of the Lord himself. Hence, presupposing confidence in the Saviour per- sonally, not only is there a ground afforded to faith in its prospective tendency, as to the divine inspiration of the New Testament, but also in its retrospective exercise as to that of the Old Testament. After this conversation on the journey, the Lord was about to withdraw, since his chief object had been at- tained. But he, unknown though he was, so dear when known, had filled their hearts wondrously with the energy of love. They were not able to bear separation from him. He accordingly went with them into the house where they stopped, and in the act of breaking of bread, disclosed himself to them. But imme- diately afterwards he vanished from before their eyes. There is no need of inferring arguments to prove, that according to the intention of the reporters, no mere ordinary quick departure is here intimated by the: αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, ver. 31, any more than that in the previous sentence: αὐτῶν διηνοί- χθησαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ, the reference is to ordinary knowledge. Their zeal was certainly so great, that at all hazards they would have fol- lowed him, ‘The only correct interpretation of the passage is that which regards his whole appearance on the occasion, his coming, his intelligent revelation of himself, his departure, all, as involving somewhat mysterious. Although the identity of Christ was unaf- fected, by the resurrection and glorification of his body, yet were his being and nature more sublime, more consecrated than formerly. His appearance, although it was corporeal, was yet similar to that of celestial natures. Besides, the ἐγένετο ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν cannot be involved in the words quoted, in such a manner, as that the γένεσθαι, ἀπὸ τινός should have been employed in the sense of, “‘ to separate himself from any one.” According to such an interpretation, it is evident that the word ἄφαντος would be very unsuited to the. connection. On the contrary, the ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν, to which we might supply πορευό- μενος, should be regarded as appending the signification (to the whole account) that Jesus did not merely become invisible, or re- GOSPEL OF JOHN Xx. 19-—23. 289 main invisible, but that he withdrew himself entirely. After this occurrence, therefore, the two disciples also hastened from thence, to the place of assembly of the Apostles. There the latter met them, with the tidings that the Lord had appeared to Peter, 1 Cor. xv. 5, and Luke xxiv. 34. This intelligence they recompensed with an account of what they themselves had experienced. John xx. 19—23. Scarcely had the two disciples from Emmaus entered the place, when the Lord himself also stood in the midst of them. In their accounts of this fresh appearance, Luke and John mutually supply certain facts. John directly describes the scene, concerning which Luke is silent, and then Luke labours to give most specifically all that concerns the proving of the reality of the Lord’s corporeity, a matter of which John makes but cursory mention. Now as regards the place in which the disciples were assembled, John, verse 19, mentions, that for fear of the Jews, the doors were shut. Long before the present time, interpreters had discovered something wonderful in Christ's entering, when the doors were closed. Some have thought that the doors were opened in a miraculous way. ‘This was the opinion of Hieronymus, who on this subject employs the words: creatura cedente Creatori. Others would make it appear that he had entered even whilst the doors were shut. So Theophylact thought, as if the words dia τῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένῶν were employed. He also expresses the un- scriptural notion, that the Saviour arose without the stone having been removed from the sepulchre. Comp. Matthew xxvii. 2. It is quite plain that the text in no way justifies us in framing such hypotheses. It is also a great error for any to attribute a dogma- tical reference to this passage, as is done by the Lutheran exposi- tion in the doctrine of the ubiquity. Meanwhile, as positively as we should evade any super-marvel- lous interpretation, just as decidedly shall we see ourselves necessi- tated to oppose that interpretation, which gives tc the appearing of Christ, on this occasion, the signification of a merely ordinary mode of entering. The latter is contradicted, not only by the ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον, ' 1 The repetition of this precise salutation, when taken inconnection with the formula, πῶν θυρῶν κεκλεισμένων, verse 26, withont in the latter case any mention being made concerning “ their fear of the Jews,” refers to something of profound significance, as therein involved. Moreover, φανεροῦσθαι is employed descriptively of the appearances VOL. IV Τ 290 GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 19—23. which points to something of a sudden character, but also by that important passage, John xx. 30, in which the appearances of the Lord are designated as σημεῖα; compare the particulars on this passage. In one of those very σημεῖα, for instance, according to the correct interpretation of the disciples, there was revealed to them something exalted and celestial ; for the Lord himself appeared to them as of a super-terrestrial nature. And this unusual char- acteristic was indicated by his entering suddenly, without any pre- vious intimation having been given them. In this view alone the following account of the pains taken by the Lord to convince them that his was a real body, becomes explicable. If he had entered in the same manner as the others, then no such mode of convincing them would have been required. It is now mentioned, for the first time, that the Lord said to the assembled disciples : εἰρήνη ὑμῖν. Which saying he afterwards, verse 21, repeated impressively. This was quite a usual form of salutation amongst the Jews [nob oidw. 1 But in the lips of the glorified Redeemer, it contained not only a superior signification— as wishing them temporal and eternal peace, but it contained also an essential power. When the Lord entered, they were imme- diately penetrated by a feeling of sacred peace. ‘They felt that they were in immediate proximity with the holy one. Hence then the supposition, that it may have been the appearance of a spirit in the form of Jesus. In Luke xxiv. 37, πυεῦμα is employed in a like sense, with that of φάντασμα in Matthew xiv. 26. To the Apostles the notion of a spirit may have been just as obscure as is that of a ghost, to persons of our day. Some of them too may perhaps, in that event, have regarded Christ’s as a disembodied apparition. It became the Lord to disabuse their minds of this doketic illusion. ‘The essential character of the resurrection did not con- sist in the returning again of the spiritual principle: but directly in the renewal of corporal life. Accordingly, if the Saviour, to prove that his was a real body, showed to them, according to Luke xxiv. 88—438, his hands and his feet, bearing the marks of his of the risen Saviour, in which is manifestly expressed, the fact, that they were the en- trances of an exalted being, like divine or angelic visions. John xxi. 1. GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 19—23. 20] wounds, and even ate in their very presence ; from this occur- rence, aS we previously remarked, nothing whatsoever could be objected in disproof of the fact, that the body of Christ was a glorified body, for though it was glorified it still was corporeal in the true sense of the word. Yet we are not warranted to infer, that he ate because at all in need of food. Such a supposition would be incompatible with the doctrine that his was a glorified body. But his having eaten thus should be regarded as the actual proof employed to demonstrate that his body was a real one. The reason that many most estimable theologians discovered in such passages of Scripture as this, meanings contradictory to the hypo- thesis, that the body of Christ was raised in a glorified state, origi- nated in the fact that they primarily do not admit as true, the ge- neral doctrine of the body’s being susceptible of glorification, but monophysically conclude that a complete annihilation of the body through the agency of the spirit is effected. The propensity of the present day to represent as ideal all profound and mysterious doc- trines, T., have conducted to this view, which is meanwhile in the most decided terms repudiated by holy writ. Compare 1 Cor. xv. and 2 Timothy ii. 18. How profoundly characteristic of human nature do we feel the remark to be, which occurs in verse 41, that the disciples were filled with joy, and yet, during this joy, ventured not to believe firmly that it was in truth Jesus whom they beheld present with them! The mere man felt for instance a secret awe and misgiving in presence of the entirely and purely spiritual nature enfolded in the veil of corporeity. The appearance of Christ was precious to them, and a source of sacred joy, only when they felt certain as to the reality of his body. In this circumstance an indirect support is afforded to the con- clusion that God is not the author of death, Wisdom of Solomon i. 18 ; that the severance of the connecting bonds between soul and body is opposed to nature, and that only in this union of soul and body can the former find its full satisfaction. ᾿Οπτός, from ὀπτάω, broiled or roasted, Luke xxiv. 42. Μελίσσων κηριόν is used for the honey of bees, in distinction from that of flowers or the exudations of fruits. John xx. 20 barely hints at this incident, for he there chiefly wished in a still more particular manner to men- tion what referred to Thomas. On the other hand, he states a cir- eumstance which is different and very remarkable. He, for in- ἂν 9 292 GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 19—23. stance, mentions that the Lord yet once more and very impressively uttered the words, ‘‘ Peace be unto you,’ then reminded them of their divine mission to the world, and, breathing upon them, said, ‘Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” In those words is repeated their installation as Apostles, and their exalted prerogatives are con- firmed. Upon the forgiveness and retaining of sins compare at Matthew xvi. 19. : That somewhat of the kind should be expressed by the risen Saviour seems in the highest degree suited to the occasion ; that the disciples should receive from him, secured anew to them, that which had been previously promised to them; but this event does not seem quite so well suited to the resurrection day itself (as it would have been to the day of ascension, T.), for, besides, (that Christ was to appear yet again to them during forty days, so that this was not his final farewell, T.) Thomas was not present on this occasion, and he ought not to have been excluded from the apostleship thus determined. Far more suited to its object would it have seemed if such consecration had been repeated at the end of the forty days. Then the confirmation of his choice of the Apostles would stand gloriously as the concluding event of his earthly sojourn. With this, moreover, would harmoniously agree the accounts of the Synoptics concerning the last commands of Jesus, by which the apostles were authoritatively commissioned to be his ambassadors. I feel almost inclined to suppose that on this point John relates in an abridged manner,—that such is done by the Synoptics might directly be proved, and on that account includes in his notice of this appearance certain incidents which did not transpire until afterwards. The account that follows concerning Thomas is not contradic- tory of this hypothesis, This account is evidently supplemeutary. Its object is to describe the means by which this disciple was led to believe in the resurrection of Christ. John concludes his Gospel at the 20th chapter and 30th verse ; for, every case being considered, the 9150 chapter is an addition which was afterwards made to the already complete work. But, besides, I regard as altogether untenable the opinion that the λάβετε πνεῦμα ἅγιον should be understood as referring to the anticipated outpouring of the Spirit upon the day of Pentecost. Were that opinion correct, the symbolical act of breathing on the GOSPEL OF JOHN XxX. 24—-29. 293 disciples would be altogether a mere empty ceremony, if it could be regarded as being unaccompanied by any spiritual influence. The communication of the Spirit to the disciples should much rather be understood as a reception by gradual augmentation. Upon their being sent forth the first time, Matt, x., the disciples received a superior degree of spiritual power. In the present case the Lord further augments that gift. On the occasion of the feast of Pentecost the fulness of the Spirit was poured out upon them. With the possession of the Spirit was connected the power of for- giving sins and that of not forgiving, that is of retaining them ; for, in its very nature, it includes the conditions through which alone the proper exercise of such power could have been secured with freedom from abuse. Compare at Matthew xvi. 19. If we could imagine between this communication of the Spirit and the pouring forth of the Holy Ghost upon the day of Pentecost that there existed a difference both as to degree and kind ; and that in such a way that the former had reference to sanctification and to the apostolical office, but that the outpouring at the feast of Pentecost had reference to miraculous gifts, then the two communications would have been incompatible, for the following reason, viz., be- cause, according to Matthew x. 1, et seq., the Apostles, long pre- viously to the event on the day of Pentecost, had been endowed with miraculous gifts. ‘The symbolical act of breathing does not again occur in the Sacred Scriptures. But, taken in connection with the meaning of πνεῦμα, from mvéw, to breatbe, the act is self-ex- plained. Hence, in all languages, the expression’ that have been framed to convey the signification of “communications of the Spirit” have all been borrowed from “ breathing.” On this state- ment compare Knapp. Scr. Var. Arg. pp. 29, et. seq., in the treatise upon 2 Peter i. 19—21. Compare also in my Opuse. Acad. the treatise upon Hebrews iv. 12, 13, the pages 4 and 8. Verses 24—29. At the beginning of this paragraph we have al- ready remarked upon the probability that none of the later appear- ances of Christ had occurred in Jerusalem. Amongst the latter I include also that which was made eight days after the resurrection, on behalf of Thomas, verse 26. John relates this appearance less for its own sake than in order to explain the circumstance of Thomas's being absent on the former 294 GOSPEL OF JOHN xx. 24—29, occasion. At the same time, however, the precise description he gives of the way in which Thomas was convinced as to the reality of the body of Christ may, on the part of John, have really had a reference to his doketically informed readers. ‘To such it would have been every way difficult to believe that the Lord was possessed of true humanity. It has been already often observed that in Thomas's conduct was indicated the fact of the reflective (rather than the susceptible, 1.) faculties predominating ; so that we may entitle him the greatest rationalist’ amongst the Apostles. To such persons it is extremely difficult to form a conception of what is divine, for in them the active powers of the mind exercise a do- minion over the passive, and hence they conclude that we are able to attain to imaginations only concerning what is divine, but never to a true possession of the idea. If, however, the force of what is divine once assert its supremacy in their moral nature, then the ideal edifice which their imaginations had framed, is razed effec- tually, and their perception of that which is superior, expresses itself in bold faith. Thus was it with Thomas. Once convinced he exclaimed ὁ Κύριός μου, καὶ ὁ Θεός μοῦ. According to a Hebrew idiom the nominative with the article stands here for the vocative. Many attempts have been made to represent these words of Thomas as a mere exclamation, without at all signifying his belief. But these are one and all shattered by both the grammatical connec- tion in which the words stand, and by a psychological regard to the character of Thomas. ‘That the name of God was commonly used as a mere exclamation by Jews just as the evil custom of so using it obtains amongst us, is altogether indemonstrable, indeed incre~ dible, because of the stringent character of their law. In such an exclamation they would discover a transgression of the command, “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” Besides, the words εἶπεν αὐτῷ demand that they should be referred to Christ personally. Hence, therefore, it only remains to say that Thomas styled Jesus “God.” Some have asserted that on 1 On this passage Tholuck beautifully remarks, “ we may see that a passion for the marvellous was by no means a fault common to all the Jews. Moreover, it could hardly ὦ be a myth, that a disciple had doubted thus. His incredulity becomes to us, accord- ingly, a very convincing proof of the truth of the resurrection. ‘Dubitatum est ab illo,’ says Leo the Great, ‘ ne dubitetur a nobis,’ ” GOSPEL OF JOHN Xx. 24—29. 295 this occasion Thomas employed an attributive predicate, of which Jesus was the subject, but which expressed more than he would have confessed in moments of quiet reflective consciousness. Were this assertion made in reference to the previous condition of the apostle, I should, in such a case, readily concede its truth, but to interpret the fact concerning his position subsequently in such a way as that he, in a moment of great excitement, had said more than was meant, is a decision altogether unpsychological. Such natures as that of Thomas, if once conquered by what is heavenly, adhere to it firmly, so much the more so, because in consequence of the hostility with which they offered resistance to it, it must have been by its actual omnipotence that they were convinced. Hence we are much rather compelled to understand this occurrence in such a light, as that the revelation here made of himself by Christ, was to Thomas an event by which he was thoroughly illuminated with divine light, and renewed in the inmost recesses of his nature; so that on this occasion, for the first time, the Lord revealed himself, and showed himself to Thomas, not only externally to the eye, but also inwardly to his soul, and that in the glory of his divine na- ture. But above all, the employing the name 6 θεός μου, assumes as known by Thomas the fact that Christ himself had previously laid aside his divine honours. Previous to his resurrection any such expressions could have been applied to him only unintelligently, or even with insolent mockery, but now they applied to him in their true perfect signification. Thus Christ's revelations of himself were attended by the most exalted effects. In the cases of Peter, James, Thomas, for instance, they tended to perfect in them the new or second-birth, which was being gradually developed in them. To these disciples, so far as regards appearance, they stood in perfect parallelism im their influence upon them, to that of the revelation made on behalf of the apostle Paul when on his way to Damascus. The reply of Jesus when thus addressed, still further confirmed the humiliating impression experienced by the apostle from this precedure. For Jesus directed his attention to the fact, that his doubting proceeded from sinfulness : viz., from the too partial pre- dominance of one class of his mental faculties, those of the under- standing, by which means the susceptibility for what was divine, the capacity of appreciating what referred to the heavenly world, 296 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. had been impaired. Upon the relation existing between faith and sight, compare at 2 Corinthians v. 7. § 3. CONCLUDING VERSES OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS. (Matt. xxviii. 16—20; Mark xvi. ]5—20; Luke xxiv. 44—53 ; John xx. 30-—-31.) If we compare the concluding portions of the whole four Gospels one with another, we shall discover that they involve a certain species of indefiniteness. In Matthew xxviii. 16 it is certainly very ex- pressly stated, that the Lord appeared to his disciples in Galilee, as he had promised ; even the place where the appearance occurred is particularly intimated. But yet in Matthew's account no mention of the ascension into heaven occurs. From thence, we are left in darkness as to the fact how those discourses of the Lord, contained in the account Matthew has given of this appearance, which seem to have been his final farewell discourses, stand related to the great concluding event of the Lord’s life upon earth. Mark, who but briefly alludes to the ascension into heaven, gives meanwhile, in the verses imme- diately antecedent, 15—-18, the elements of discourses which are closely related to those at the conclusion of Matthew. But even these are so obscured in consequence of the vague transition denoted by καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς, ver. 15, and so confounded with what precedes them, that one would think the Saviour had expressed them during his appearance on the evening of the resurrection day. Just so Luke, also, in his account of the ascension of Jesus to heaven, separates it from its natural connection in his narrative. The verses 44—49, moreover, connect themselves so loosely with what goes before them, that it remains doubtful whether the discourses noticed in them are to be regarded as having been uttered during the Saviour's last appearance or not. Finally, after his account concerning Thomas, John, at xx. 30, 31, concludes his gospel with a concise reflection, which is given in the form of a general axiom. For chapter xxi. is a supplement afterwards made to what he wrote. In John, accordingly, are wanting those parting addresses of the Saviour as the Synoptics GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16— -20. 297 have them. Nothing of them whatever is contained in his state- ments as to the appearance made in Galilee which occur in chapter xxi. But these statements treat merely upon subjects of a personal character, and indeed principally in relation to Peter. This apparent indefiniteness demands to be explained, for it is very striking. We should think that the Evangelists ought feel bound to relate, in the most circumstantial manner, the history of the resurrection, since every subsequent appearance of the risen Lord, together with every particular incident appertaining to him, would have been so much more evidence as to the truth of the re- surrection. But, instead of so doing, they narrate the circum- stances in a general and obscure manner. They do not at all acutely distinguish between the several appearances made. ‘They leave it quite uncertain whether the discourses of the Lord which they quote were delivered on the latter, or on some former occa- sion. Yet, upon a closer examination of their accounts, there isin this manner of representing those events an important internal truthfulness emphatically indicated. When, for example, we entirely omit those references which are merely personal, such as occur in the accounts of the appearances that were made chiefly on behalf of Thomas and Peter respectively, then most probably we shal] find, that in all the evangelical ac- counts, the appearances which occurred are the same. These were in nowise intended to impart additional and new information ; to disclose new aspects of the (Saviour’s) agency ; but rather, by confirming the faith of disciples in the Saviour per- sonally, to establish the foundations for their hopes, which had been already laid. Hence the appearances were upon the whole but few in number, and probably also of only a brief and transi- tory kind. In comprehensive intimations, the Saviour informed the disciples of things pertaining to the kingdom of God, Acts i. 3, and respecting the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning him- self, Luke xxiv. 44 ; and this he did to produce in them a decided adherence to the cause of God. Accordingly, and by reason of the similarity of the truths expressed by the Saviour in those appear- ances, not only might the Evangelists easily transpose or inter- change the particular appearances, but it was competent to them also to comprehend in certain general reflections those several distinct discourses of the Lord, in which a common object was 298 GOSPEL OF MARK XVI. 9—20. discernible. On this subject, a particular disquisition' on the criti- cal question concerning the esteem in which the conclusion of Mark's Gospel, xvi. 9—18, is to be held, is still required. The testimony afforded by codices and other critical means of help, is of such a kind as to render very admissable the view, that this section is not authentic. J.D. Michaelis has already declared himself favourable to this view. After him, it is adopted also by Griesbach, Grats, Bertholdt, Schulthets, Schultz, and Frische. Meanwhile, however feasibly the result that this section is not authentic has been made out ; although the last named scholar re- gards it as even demonstrated, such result cannot in any way be correct. This assertion of ours is sufficiently corroborated by Storr, Mat- thai, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, Paulus, Schott, and Saunier, those illus- trious names, by which the authenticity of the passage is defended. They show that many a circumstance in proof of its authenticity forces itself upon the notice of the exegist. But perhaps even the most directly decisive considerations on this question may have been overlooked by the defenders of this section. These considerations shall now have their due prominence briefly given to them. If we immediately regard the critical authorities only, it is un- doubtedly the fact, that after their testimony the section will appear suspicious. In those codices to which access is to be had, the pass- age is wanting, except in codex B. Some, however, have asterisks, others scholia,” at this section. Several fathers of the church also mention that Mark xvi. 9—18 is wanting in many of the codices. ‘This is plainly asserted, not only by Euthymius, and Victor of Antioch, but also by Hieronymus and Eusebius; an- cient, and in no way suspicious evidences. The first of these, in one passage, opp. vol. ill. 96, certainly mentions that almost all the Greek manuscripts want the questionable section. How- ever in another passage, opp. vol. ii. 198, he himself limits this assertion to some of the Greek MSS. Probably Eusebius did not meet with the section in the manuscripts collated by him, or at 1 Concerning the critical consideration of the conclusion of Mark’s Gospel, compare the appendix to Rodiger’s Synopsis, s. 235, Ke. 2 In the codex I. there certainly occurs quite a different recension of the concluding section of Mark, In a marginal note, it reads as follows: φέρεταί που καὶ ταῦτα" πάντα δὲ τὰ παρηγγελμένα τοῖς περὶ τὸν Πέτρον συντόμως ἐξήγγειλαν. Mera δὲ ταῦτα καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς καὶ ἄχρι δύσεως ἐξαπέστειλε Ov αὐτῶν τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας. GOSPEL OF MARK XVI. 9—20. 299 least regarded it as unauthentic ; for his canons conclude with verse 8. Jreneus, however, 111. 16, early as he wrote, acknowledges the section questioned as part of the gospel of Mark. Now, that this apparency of proof is very striking, cannot be denied. Ne- vertheless, to apparency of proof, all the arguments adduced against the authenticity of the passage will be found to dwindle. Some persons indeed have adduced as an argument the fact, that the manuscripts which retain the passage present also a crowd of contrary readings of it, which make against its authenticity, since such are the means, T.—by which spurious additions to the text are wont to be gradually introduced. Yet if we compare this section with the history of the adultress, John viii. 3—11, we shall be ready to acknowledge how little foundation is afforded to such a line of argument as this. In many passages, of whose authenticity no one entertains a doubt, there occur many more dis- crepancies than appear in the concluding portion of Mark. In like manner there is no signification whatever in the objection, that as Mark had said, xiv. 28, and xvi. 7, that ‘‘ Jesus would reveal himself to the disciples in Galilee,” if Mark had written this con- cluding section, then would he also have recorded the appearances of Jesus in Galilee; but this not being done, therefore the com- position must be attributed to some different person.” But, as a comparison of the passage with Matthew xxviii. 16 will manifestly show, verses 15—18 of Mark xvi. do really describe Ohrist’s appearing in Galilee, and hence, from the fact that an ex- press mention of Galilee does not occur in the passage, there is only betrayed a mark of that absence of preciseness so often discoverable even in the best historical writers. But let us, in deference to those acute critical reflections, make, for argument’s sake, the supposition that the passage is not authen- tic. Since the annexation of it to codices that wanted it admits of explanation, but its omission from any which might have had it can in no way be explained, will the whole matter, then, be quite plain and easy of comprehension ? I very much question it. In what way, then, is the origin of this “‘ appended section” to be accounted for? Perhaps, it originated from those materials furnished by tra- dition, or from an apocryphal gospel ? But that cannot be deter- mined by any one; for the conclusion of Mark contains none of those special accounts of kindred particularity with what is either 2 300 GOSPEL OF MARK XVI. 9—20. traditional or apocryphal. Thus then it must have taken its origin from materials furnished by our received gospels! If so, its composer must have intentionally excluded the Gos- pel of John from his notice, because he recounts nothing which is therein contained! Now, such an exclusion would be altogether inexplicable. Surely, in after times, when a collection of the gos- pel writings had been made, no one would have taken his infor- mation from Matthew and Luke to the utter neglect of John! And again, if any one wished to include,—as an authority from whom to derive materials for his composition, T—Mark, with his super- ficial generalized descriptions of the appearances of Christ, he doubtless would also borrow materials from John. But, improbable as it is, let us make the supposition that, in order to construct a conclusion to the Gospel of Mark, some person availed himself of Matthew and Luke only, does this supposition suffice to account for its production ? At a first glance it seems sufficient, inasmuch as Mark has given, in a condensed form, everything given by the other two Evangelists ex- pressly ; yet, upon enquiring more particularly, we shall be forced to admit that even this hypothesis cannot be maintained. For in- stance, if the conclusion of Mark’s gospel were a compilation such as we have supposed, then should we discover in it a slavish adher- ence to the sources whence its information was derived. But, on the contrary, this section, although it contains no entirely new account of any thing,—the same indeed is true of the whole Gospel of Mark, yet it betrays new features of the style so peculiar to this gospel, which circumstance altogether coincides with the character of this Evangelist’s sacred composition ; but the same cannot be asserted concerning any supposed compilation of the passage whatsoever. Of this internal evidence the words which occur in ver. 12: ἐφα- νερώθῃ ἐν ἑτέρα μορφῇ, form part, and that entirely peculiar form of expression, γλώσσαις καιναῖς λαλεῖν, in ver. 17, and simi- larly all which is quoted in ver. 18, under the signs to be expected as accompanying them that should believe, viz., the touching of ser- pents, the drinking of deadly substances, the praying concerning the sick. Now, as throughout the section no foreign character appears in the style of the composition, we must acknowledge that the unauthenticity of this concluding section cannot be thus established. Neither can there be assigned any imaginable 8 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. 301 reason why Mark should have been induced to leave his work in an incomplete state. He certainly never could have meant to con- clude with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ, at ver. 8. The hypothesis put forth by Michaelis to explain this circumstance is so flimsy, that it only shows how very little of a satisfactory character can be said on the supposition that Mark himself did not write the conclu- sion. He is of opinion that Mark derived his information from Peter ; that Peter, when he was thrown into prison, was unable to make further communications to the Evangelist, and consequently, that Mark was obliged to break off his narrative abruptly. But surely we must not imagine that the Evangelist could have been so painfully restricted to the narrations of Peter. Even assuming that such had been the case, yet would Mark at any moment have been qualified to compose a brief conclusion for his gospel ; not to mention at all that other persons besides had considerable informa- tion concerning the appearances of Christ, from whom he could have learned whatever was necessary to the completion of his gos- pel. What avery plain aspect does the case assume when, on the other hand, we proceed upon the supposition that this concluding section is authentic! The concluding portion was severed from the manuscript. It might have been written upon a separate parch- ment from that which contained the rest of the gospel. This prin- cipal parchment concluded with the words ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ. The transcriber, who was guided by the latter codex, left out of his copy the concluding verses ; and persons who noticed this want attempted of themselves (this is proved by codex L.) briefly to finish the gospel. In the greatest number of manuscripts, meanwhile, the authentic conclusion was preserved, and by these means the two recensions of Mark, the complete one and that which was incom- plete, have come down to us. Matthew xxvii. 16—20. As regards particular incidents, the narrative of Matthew alone requires any particular disquisition : for it virtually involves the account given by Mark. The statements of Luke on this subject have been already explained to some extent, ¢.g., the passage Luke xxiv. 44—46, when we treated upon Luke xxiv. 26. But the statements of Luke require to have their subsequent portions compared on account of the κηρυχθῆναι μετάνοιαν, which occurs in verse 47, see the remarks at Acts v. 31. 909 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. Finally, the last two verses, 48 and 49, contain but the promise of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the command to tarry in Jerusalem in the expectation thereof. Concerning ἐξ ὕψους, com- pare at Luke i. 78. Ἐνδύσασθαι is equivalent with yigh. Simi- larly the parallel expression Χριστὸν ἐνδύσασθαι, must be under- stood of such possession of the Spirit of Christ as may be called complete, essential, and what thoroughly influences the moral na- ture. Upon the abridged accounts by Mark and Luke of the as- cension to heaven, and upon all which comes under discussion in connection with it, namely, the omission of those incidents by Matthew and John, compare the particulars stated Acts i. 9, et seq. The concluding words of Matt. 28, 16—20, are uncommonly sig- nificant. Firstly, this Evangelist remarks that the following dis- courses of the Lord were delivered by him upon his having ap- peared as he had promised, Matt. xxviii. 7, in Galilee, and indeed upon a mountain. ‘Tradition itself does not specify local circum- stances more particularly. This appearance of Jesus, however, is possibly the identical one intimated in 1 Corinth. xy. 6, at which five hundred of the brethren were present. Certainly the words of Christ which follow would seem to have been addressed to the twelve, or to them, together with the seventy (disciples sent out on a former occasion, T.) We, however, must only suppose that those who were standing immediately near to the Lord were chiefly regarded by him in some parts of his discourse; on other similar occasions we find that such was the case. Hence, therefore, no- thing hinders our regarding those appearances as one and the same. Besides, too, the solemnity of the discourse all through appears precisely suited to a great and sublime occasion. To our conclusion the great numbers assembled together on that oceasion affords further confirmation. They were probably all the persons who, up to that time, had become believers in the Lord. According to this latter supposition is also easily ex- plained how, as stated in verse 17, many could still have doubted. This incredulity cannot certainly be conceived of, in reference to the very apostles, at that time. But to many of the disciples who had seen the Lord for the first time in Galilee, it might apply completely, so too it might to the apostles at the beginning. Beza conjectures that οὐδέ, not of δὲ ἐδίστασαν, would be the cor- GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. 303 rect expression, but no manuscript supports that reading. Now, during this appearance in Galilee, at the termination of which it is indeed probable the Lord took his solemn leave of his disciples, he represented himself to them as the Lord of both heaven and earth. Compare Matt. xi. 27, John xiii. 3, and xvii. 2. From the connection it may seem that this expression merely referred to Christ's moral dominion, since, in immediate sequence to it, follows the command to teach the nations of the world. But yet the ἐν οὐρανῷ is so very express, that it must neces- sarily refer to more than moral dominion ; and moreover, leaving the latter point out of view, the teaching of all nations, as com- manded by Christ, presupposes on his part more than mere tem- poral rule. For under it a mere διδάσκειν, communication of ideas, cannot be intended. At the conclusion of the verse, this latter species of teaching is distinguished from that pre-eminently enjoined. A gaining of the whole man over to the cause of the gospel is what must be understood ; and this can be effected only by means of the communication of a superior, a heavenly spirit. By this view, then, the connection of ideas between verses 18 and 19 is also rendered clear. Because the positive mandate to go out and to make disciples of all nations, which mandate must have contained something humiliating to the apostles, inasmuch as they felt how weak they were for such a mighty work, appeared capable of being carried into effect solely through the potency of him who was sending them. In the 19th verse follows next the important institution of the sacrament of baptism.! The words which directly refer to this in- stitution (viz. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, T.) placed as they are in the middle of Christ's last command and promise to his disciples, T., form, so to speak, 1 There is something remarkable in the fact that baptism was instituted after the Lord’s Supper. It seems to be implied in the relation of the two sacraments, that bap- tism should occur antecedently to the supper. For only the baptized, only he who has been born again, may partake of the heavenly food. However, as the disciples, accord - ing to John iv. 2, baptized yet prior to this event, we are compelled to think, concerning the occurrence, in such a way as follows: Baptism was not on this occasion for the first time instituted, but was appointed by Christ on this occasion to be performed on every one who afterwards should enter into the Church, and was by him enriched with powers from on high. Doubtless the disciples at first baptized only Israelites, and their earlier baptism was not essentially different from the baptism of John. 804 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. the soul of the command, but they are preceded and followed by annexed expressions which embody it. Those expressions last referred to we shall in the first place con- sider. It is manifest that some persons have here quite misunder- stood the passage (as has been already particularly intimated), by their understanding the μαθητεύσατε as what should precede baptism, just as if the meaning of the words had been, “first in- struct, then baptize them.” Even the grammatical construction does not warrant such a mode of statement; for the two participles βαπτίζοντες and διδάσκοντες are precisely what constitute the μαθητεύειν. But, again, that view is contradicted by the apostolic practice, according to which instruction never preceded baptism. On the contrary, baptism followed upon the mere confession being made that Jesus was the Christ. But when, through baptism, the believer had become a member of the community of the saints, then he as such participated in the progressive courses of instruc- tion which obtained in the Church. To this refers the διδάσκοντες αὐτοὶς τηρεῖν πάντα, ὅσα ἐντει- λάμην ὑμῖν, which follows the command concerning baptism. Comp. at Acts ii. 87... But πάντα τὰ ἔθνη are represented as the object of this ministration. In this passage, we behold Christ in the aspect of his universally extended sovereignty, according to which, the whole human race is the object of his vicarious agency. On the more restricted view of his ministry, comp. at Matthew x. 5, 6. Subject to his sacred influence, sent to them from above, and which shall never cease, the Lord desired that all the nations of the earth should attain to spiritual life, and that it should be perfectly de- veloped in them. But yet this blessing was not to distinguish his church as a merely moral communication, consisting in love and faith. It was also to come forth in external manifestation. The institution of an external rite, whereby all his disciples should — be consecrated, leads to the conclusion just stated. But the fact, that at the beginning even the apostles did not catch this compre- hensive meaning of the words, is shown in the history of Peter— Acts x. 9, et seq.—to him it was only then and gradually ex- 1 Meantime, however, the connection of the μαθητείσατε with the βαπτίζοντες and διδάσκοντες, undeniably intimates, that in uttering these words, the Saviour had no im- mediate thought concerning infants being baptized. We might compare on this sub- ject, the observations at Acts xvi. 14, 15. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. 805 plained by the Spirit. The recension of Mark xvi. 15, πορευ- θέντες εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἅπαντα, as connected with the κηρύσσειν To εὐαγγέλιον πάση τῇ κτίσει, is somewhat peculiar. Now a single glance shows that the latter expression here, the κτίσις 15 employed as equivalent to the earlier world. Hence, when Light- foot, on this passage, by reference to the use of the term amongst the Rabbies, according to which it is equivalent to pyyyg, that is, creatures, created beings, infers that this is said in reference to the heathens, such an interpretation restricts too much the mean- ing of the expression. The Jews also were still to be preached to. Hence, chiefly with reference to its usage in Colossians 1. 15 and 23, and Hebrews iv. 13, this phrase is usually interpreted as cosignificant with πάντες ἄνθρωποι. These latter passages, however, should be differently rendered. In Col. i. 15, the κτίσις is put for creation universally. In Col. i. 28, it should be ren- dered, as referring to the whole earth, all that is under heaven. In Heb. iv. 18, κτίσις, without the article, stands for an indi- vidual created thing. But in an intermediate sense, «tious may doubtless signify humanity; yet πᾶσα κτίσις certainly cannot. The latter formula, from the very nature of the case, must always refer to what is universal. On this account, the passage under discussion by us, must not, as is most commonly done, be go inter- preted as that mankind should be apprehended to be therein re- ferred to, in positive dissociation from the created world, generally. By so doing, we should obliterate that profound idea which pervades all the New Testament. For instance, that there is given to us in the gospel, which certainly in its first source contemplates the world of men, but yet gradually penetrates all nature,—an illustra- tion of all which has been created. Compare thereon the parti- culars at Rom. viii. 19, seq. The κτίσις, accordingly, is put for humanity, only in so far as humanity is the flower of the whole creation.” The formula, institutory of baptism itself, is all that now re- 1 Full of spirit is the expression of the pious Hildegarb, “When God was creating the world, he impressed on man the stamp of the whole creation, as we inscribe on a small bit of parehment the events and dates of a whole year. For this reason, in the language of God, man is designated “every creature.” Compare Sailer's letters in the “ Allen Jahrh.” vol. iv. s. 14, VOL. IV. U 306 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. mains to be explained. As a prelimivary remark, it is plain that the Lord intended by it to appoint a rite, which was to remain perpetually with the church. In this rite, baptism itself, together with the doctrine it embodies, has reference to all human creatures. Hence it results, therefore, that baptism, as in this case, ordained of Christ, is essentially different from the baptism of John, which possessed only a temporary signification. Comp. at Matthew iii. 13. The Christian sacrament of baptism was not to be merely a βάπτισμα τῆς μετανοίας, but rather a symbol of the second birth, coincident with the external ordinance. Comp. at John iii. 5. On this account, too, a real connection could be shown to exist be- tween regeneration, John 111. 8, and baptism between salvation, and baptism, as appears from the passage parallel to the last cited, viz., Mark xvi. 16, and between baptism and faith, which it necessarily presupposes. The second half of the verse, as in it, the ἀπιστήσας alone, without a μὴ βαπτισθείς, is placed in opposition against the πιστεύσας, serves to give the institutory words the signification, that the inward production of the. new birth is essentially necessary to salvation ; but that in certain cases the external ordinance of baptism, which, according to the original institution, coincides with it, may be dispensed with.’ By the introducing of paedo-baptism,, the position which this ordinance occupied is changed. Paedo- baptism is not apostolic for certain. But it became necessary in the church, when once the active flux of the powers of the Holy Spirit had ceased. Now, the external rite retrogrades to the position 1 According to this signification, the ancient church was perfectly correct in ac knowledging even unbaptized persons, who during the persecutions of Christians, had confessed Christ, and been put, in consequence thereof, to death, to be believers, On the other land, if they who so confessed had remained living, then obedience to the command of the Lord should have impelled them to seek and attain baptism. 2 Under the correct impression, that infant baptism cannot itself be regeneration, our church has ordained that baptized children, ere they are confirmed, cannot participate of the Lord’s supper, which otherwise, as regenerate persons, could not be refused to them. But yet infant baptism is not without effect. The Holy Ghost can, even in the mother’s womb, operate in the babe. Luke i. 41. But yet the operation of the Holy Ghost in infant baptism cannot so be regarded, as that thereby tue dominance of earthly sinfulness is destroyed. This has never been asserted, not even in the Lutheran dogmas. Comp. the observations on Acts xvi. 14,15. Taken in this sense, namely, as a subjugation of the dominion of mortal sin, regeneration, with- out consciousness, and without a personal appropriation of grace, is not to be conceived of. Upon the application of Christian baptism to those who had received the baptism of John previously, comp. the observations at Acts xix. 1, et seq. - GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16--20. 307 occupied by the baptism of John, and only receives that completion necessary to it through confirmation." But, further, as regards the meaning of the words: βαπτίζειν εἰς TO ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς, Kal TOD υἱοῦ, Kal τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, we shall be led to it in the best manner, by those passages, such as 1 Cor. i. 13, x. 2, in which baptisms are discussed—eds τὸ ὄνομα Παύλου, and εἰς τὸν Μωσῆν. The βαπτίζειν εἰς τινά signifies baptism as devolving a thorough obligation ; ἃ rite, whereby one is pledged ; and the sublime object to which baptism binds, con- sists of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Ὄνομα, which is equi- valent to pys, signifies moreover, in this connection, the very essence of God. The unbaptized are hence regarded as not possessing any essen- tial connection with God; as those who are godless. This aliena- tion, which in its cause and nature is sinful, and which is, at the same time, the source of all misery, both external and internal, to man, is removed by baptism and regeneration. Thus, divire power becomes wedded with that of the human soul, and becomes itself the parent of superior heavenly consciousness.? But here it is worthy of notice that the Saviour does not directly give the name of God, but those of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as the sublime object to which the votary of baptism becomes pledged. This is the only passage in the Gospels in which the Lord himself names the three divine persons after one another. Certainly, in many passages the Saviour describes both the Son and the Holy Ghost individually as divine personages. But in the present case they also appear, one after another, in positions of equal dignity, T., and mutually or in common express the exalted object to which believers bind themselves by baptism. Here, therefore, the con- 1 According to this, it cannot be asserted that infant baptism is necessary to salvation, (of infants, T.) for the inward act of being born again, which is possible only where consciousness of its nature, T., exists,cannot be experienced therein. By Augustine, the baptism of John, and paedo-baptism, which is parallel thereto, were brought to be regarded in the Church as interchangeable with the baptism, which is specifically Chris- tian, and as such to prevail. 2 In Ullman’s Studies, 1832, H.2.s. 410, et. seq., Dr Buidseil of Halle explains the words βαπτίζειν εἰς ὅνομα τοῦ πατρός. κ. T.X., “ firstly, as an expression of submission towards, i. e., of better obligation to, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; but, secondly, as also necessarily intimating an elevation of the candidate to superior dignity.” But the institutory formula, per se, does not at all signify the latter thought, even if it can be said really to express, directly, the preceding relation. Gass \ 308 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16——20. stituent elements of the doctrine of a Trinity are given in Christ's identical words. But the doctrine occurs quite unexpanded. To the wisely-conducted ministry of the church is handed over the unfolding of the mystery. The fixed doctrine of the Trinity in the church is in essentials that of the Bible also, but the symbolically formed expression of Person involves something unsuited to it, and may of itself readily betray into error. However, human language does not furnish an expression by means of which can more appro- priately be signified the connection between a unity of essence, with an independency of consciousness, in Father, Son, and Spirit. Hence we cannot bring charges of error against the teachers of the church on account of their having made choice of this expression, but must only lament the imperfection of human language, which renders it incompetent, by means of precise notions and expressions adequately corresponding, to signify those relations which are abso- lutely the highest, and which, only through the manifestation of associated intelligences, purely represent themselves. The error, for instance, to which the word ‘‘ Person” leads, and which has constantly been opposed by all the more profound teachers of the church, and in particular by Augustine, in his deeply intelligent work on the subject of the Trinity, is as follows. Some persons, according to its force, think Father, Son, and Spirit are to be understood as being locally or mechanically apart one from another, whilst yet vividly interpenetrating or influencing one another. ΤῸ this view is opposed whatever of truth has pro- minence given it, in Sabellianism. Sabellius properly acknow- ledges this unity of nature, yet without falsely supposing there- with what is involved in the denial of the individual indepen- dency of consciousness of Father, Son, and Spirit. At Matthew xii. 82, and at John i. 1, I have intimated my own conception of the doctrine of a Trinity. Meanwhile, to facilitate our survey, I shall here state the same again in a condensed general form. For perceiving intuitively the compatibility of a unity of essence with a distinction of consciousness in Deity, in man’s moral na- ture only, in that which is a precise type of God, is any corres- ponding analogy afforded to us. As in man not merely is there given the spiritual being but also the consciousness of this being, similarly also in the divine nature, if we apprehend it in reference to a living God, not as a dead notion, we must infer both the being and GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. 309 the knowledge of the same identical being. The Son is precisely this wisdom of God; and, as such, in him dwells the Father him- self, and through his agency effects everything that he does effect. But, as all the powers of the Father concentrate themselves, so to speak, in his very consciousness; similarly, also, they ever revert through the Son to their primary source the Father, and this re- turn is by the agency of the Holy Ghost. Accordingly, that scrip- tural usus loquendi is explainable, agreeably to which it is said that “ the Father draws (every one who can come) to the Son,” whilst * the Son, through the influence of the Holy Ghost, again leads them back to the Father.” Hence, considered in the light of their operativeness, there is a gradation represented as existing be- tween the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. From the Father, as absolute power, proceeds all the knowledge of God we have re- vealed to us, T. It proceeds through the Son, in whom is repre- sented perfect love. It proceeds to the Holy Ghost, who is com- plete holiness. But regarded conversely, the Holy Ghost leads back directly to the Father. Thus the end again issues in the be- ginning. And thus, in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost is repre- sented the eternal nature of God in its real moral motivity. Ac- cording to this explanation it may seem dark how the inward ac- tions of the divine being can be interpreted to be “ consciousness.” This, however, is explained by the consideration that the operative- ness of absolute spirit are, according to its nature—but purely con- cerning—life, being, and consciousness. But, certainly, if we were to understand the notion of individuality in the sense “ that a per- son or an individual is that which is in itself quite excluded from other spiritual existences, then would we have fallen into precisely the same error previously referred to. The Scriptures, moreover, show, throughout their entire mode of expression, that in such a sense the Son or the Holy Ghost is not to be understood as a person. Indeed, the Son appears to be individualized in the person of Jesus, but he labours, by its regeneration, to assimilate to himself the whole nature of man, and even to his own nature, on which ac- count the whole church is directly called after Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 12. The Holy Ghost also appears to be shed abroad in the hearts of all believers; and similarly of the Father, who throughout the whole universe is the All-present. As the consciousness of 310 GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—20. God can be conceived of only as what is all-comprehending, simi- larly too, therefore, the notion of Person, according to the meaning of it in the doctrine of the Trinity, is to be understood in a com- prehensive sense. By this means will be obviated a great deal of the difficulty that persons have hitherto found in this doctrine. An- other question besides the latter comes under discussion in this im- portant passage. For instance, “ Whether, in the institutory words quoted, the Lord intended or not to give a fixed formula of bap- tism ?” This question would not have been suggested to us if the other sections of the New Testament Scriptures proved that the dis- ciples, in dispensing baptism, had employed these identical words. But, instead of such having been the case, we find that, as often as mention occurs of baptism in them, even in the history of the Aets of the Apostles, it was performed only, εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, or ἐπὶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ, or Χριστοῦ However, in none of these passages is the object to give a direct description of baptism itself, but merely to signify ¢he bapdism in the way of nominal distinction. On this account it is not allowable to infer, from the usage of those phrases, that the express formula, as in the passage under discussion, was notemployed. Such phrases might have been employed merely in order to distinguish baptism, as a Christian ordinance, from that of John. This opinion is corroborated by the fact that some especial passages occur, in which the Son and the Holy Ghost are placed in such a connection with the baptism, that it is every way probable the disciples, in baptizing, did make a reference to the formula. Hence too the most ancient Cliristian commentators, Justin Mar- tyr, for instance, quote the words of the passage before us as the baptismal formula. Compare Justin Martyr's Apology 1. p. 98, in my ‘* Monum. Hist. Eccl.” vol. ii. p. 167. Doubtlessly, as in the institution of the holy supper, so too in like manner, when institut- ing baptism, the Saviour would have employed the words best suited to the object of signifying the spiritual character of the cere- mony. Whence, therefore, results on the part of the church an obligation to retain firmly those words, as the formula in dispensing the saerament. Meanwhile, the ancient church was 1 From this circumstance, and because the formula of baptism fails to be mentioned in Mark, Teller would even conclude upon the unauthenticity of the passase in Mat. thew! A hypothesis which can rest on no foundation whatever, and which arose increly from the polemical controversy against the doctrine of the Trinity. GOSPEL OF MATTHEW XXVIII. 16—-20. 311 quite right in assuming considerable freedom of decision with re- gard to the whole external part of the ordinance. Hence it may certainly have occurred, in some particular cases, that they bap- tized merely in the name of Jesus. That this was actually the fact appears from the latter controversies maintained by Cyprian against the baptismal heresy. Compare Cypriani epist. 73, in my “ Monum. Hist. Eccl.” vol. 2, page 118, note. Such a baptism, performed solely in the name of Jesus, was however no less avail~ ing than one effected according to the complete formula. For “ Christ’’ implies, even to a very great degree of signification, alike “the Father’ and the “ Holy Ghost ;” but the converse will not hold, namely, that ‘“ the Father’ also implies the Son. Hence the modern phrases, such as “to baptize into the eternal love.” should be rejected as unscriptural. They would be more accordant with the Old Testament dispensation. The Saviour now supports the command given to the little army of his disciples, to impart—the glad tidings of, T.—new life to the whole world, ex- clusively by the promise of his own all-sufficient presence, which should never be withheld from them. Further, the συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος, in this passage, must be understood in reference to the time in which is progressing the setting up of the βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ, for only thus far shall extend the time of its militant condi- tion, which renders the help of Christ necessary. In the kingdom of God (on high) also, the presence of the Lord certainly is expe- rienced, but then it is to be understood, in such case, solely as a source of felicity, not as a defence amid dangers. On this point, compare at Matt. xxiv. 3. The passage Mark xvi. 17, 18, in a more especial manner, describes the abundant help to result from the presence of Christ during the period of the church’s militant state, since it names (particularly) the σημεῖα which through his power the disciples should experience.’ Sufficient examples occur in the Acts of the casting out of daemons, and of the healing of sick persons. Even of the touch- ing of serpents there confessedly occurs one account, Acts xxviii. 3. On the other hand, there was no instance whatever of the drinking 1 Some would hold this passage also as unauthentic, But the critical authorities, and also its own contents, clearly testify to its authenticity. For instance, the mention of the drinking of deadly substances would not surely have been introduced if the passage had been interpolated, because no accredited example of that sign admitted of being adduced, 812 GOSPEL OF JOHN Xx. 50, 81. of deadly poisons (θανασιμον, scilicit φάρμακον), and hence, as we previously noticed, in this very fact there rests an evidence of the genuineness of this passage of Mark.’ Upon the γλώσσαις λά- Aevv, compare at Acts il. 4, the particulars stated there. The ex- pletive sentence xawats γλώσσαις λάλησουσι occurs only here. Every hypothesis concerning it will have some difficulty to contend against, since neither the languages nor the tongues, in any pecu- har sense, were new. And in every point of view it would seem harsh to understand xawvais as directly cosignificant with ἑτέραις, Acts i. 4. It is perhaps the plainest course to suppose, agreeably to 1 Cor. xiii. 1, that the speaking of the yAwoon λαλῶν was occa- sionally regarded by the disciples as an angelic language, and that they designated it for that reason a new language. The use of the plural form of expression admits of explanation from the consideration that, as is shown by | Cor. xiv., the speaking of tongues manifested itself in several distinct forms, as, for example, praying and singing in the spirit. John xx. 30, 31. If we now compare the conclusion of the fourth gospel, that of John, with the beginning of the same work, we shall see that it is beautifully turned. John just concludes with the history of Thomas, and at the saying: μακάριοι of μὴ--ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες. For therein rested the most powerful, though an indirect, admonition to the reader, viz., that he also, even with- out having beheld the Lord with the bodily eye, should believe from the revelation given of him, “ who dwelt amongst them full of grace and truth.” And to awaken this faith, to convince his readers concerning the fact, that Christ the Messiah was the true Son of God, that was the entire and the great object of John’s whole publication. As Christ, who is the ζωή, John iii. 4, imparted to John, through faith, the ζωῃ, so also the disciples, impelled by love, would render this happy life (= ἕωη, T.) attainable to his readers. In order, meanwhile, to give his readers an insight into the infinitely copious life of Christ, and to influence them candidly to receive the accounts of other writers which should follow, John intimates that he had not related every thing but only many things, so that much also remained 1 It is mentioned, in an apocryphal writing, that John had drank poison without sus- taining any injury, Fabrieti codex apoer. vol. ii. pp. 575, et seq., but the legend probably was composed in consequence of this passage in Mark GOSPEL OF JOHN XXt. l. 919 to be enquired out by them, if they, in consequence of hav- ing read his preceding communications, should have had a spirit of enquiry awakened in them. As Liicke and Kuinoel quite cor- rectly conjecture, according to the connection in which it occurs, the σημεῖα can refer only to the appearances of the risen Redeemer. On account of the concluding verse, ver. 31, Tholuck would refer the expression to all the previously mentioned miracles. But we shall be more correct in supposing that ver. 30 arises in immediate con- nection with what most directly precedes it, and that then the con- cluding verse follows. Hence the connection would be “ of the appearances of the Lord there are yet many things that admit of being mentioned, but what have been specified, viz. of the latter two appearances, suffice as a basis of faith in him.” But, more- over, the appearances of Christ themselves are called σημεῖα, just as φαναροῦσθαι is used otherwise in reference to them, which must be regarded as favouring the hypothesis, that in the opinion of the Evangelists, the Saviour had arisen in a glorified body. Finally, verse 31 expresses simply the main object of the Gospel, as we have observed above in the introduction to the Gospel of John. Yet, in the ancient church, it was considered as primarily the positive aim of his description to establish the fact thatJesus was the Christ and indeed the Son of God: yet was not the general re- ference of his gospel undiscovered. Besides, in this passage, again the υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ is evidently to be regarded, in a Christian point of view, as explanatory of the Xpiotos. Hence, from this place cannot be inferred that υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ had been confessedly an usual name amongst the Jews of that time for the Messiah. Com- pare on this point the remarks made at Luke i. 35. Having thus specified his motive, John appropriately concludes his work in order to excite in his reader a consciousness of the ob- ligation devolved upon him, by the tidings that the long promised Saviour had appeared. § 4. APPENDIX OF JOHN’S GOSPEL. John xxi. 1—25. The fact that the last chapter of John’s gospel forms a supple- ment to the complete writing is so plain, and now so generally ac- 314 GOSPEL OF JOHN Xx. |. knowledged, that it needs no further proof. But as to the ques- tion, “‘ who should be regarded as the composer of this appendix ?” commentators have not, as yet, been able unanimously to decide. Meanwhile, as the only tenable result of all the investigations con- cerning this subject which have been published, the conclusion that, in proportion as it is pondered, commends itself is this: that the only last two verses are not by John, but that the rest of the chapter was annexed by him, the very composer of the gospel,’ to the complete work. To this effect, for instance, Tholuck expresses himself. Schott and Liicke occupy a prominent standing amongst those scholars who deny the authenticity of the whole chapter. Now they may mean merely to suppose some especial person, as, for example, the presbyter John, to have been the composer, or some unknown person ; or, indeed, as Grotius would have it, to refer the compo- sition of the chapter to the Ephesian Church. But they borrow their most important reasons for this view merely from the last verse. ‘The unnatural hyperbole of verse 25 certainly does not ac- cord with the spirit of John as a writer. From him the most beautiful moderation of expression constantly proceeds. Just as little, too, does the plural οἴδαμεν of verse 24 correspond with the beginning of the statement, οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ μαθητὴς ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ τούτων καὶ γράψας ταῦτα. Of the greater part of the chap- ter, Kuinoel and Weber have proved most satisfactorily that no sufficient reason can be adduced to cause its rejection, since all manuscripts contain it; the ideas are characteristic of John; and that even the language itself presents no distinguished contrariety to his composition. Hence an objection could be made out only from the contents of the chapter against its authenticity. What is contained in it is entirely characterized by much of an astonishing nature. By all means, therefore, is the question suggested to us, ‘* What could have influenced John to append such statements to his gospel after he had already brought it to a conclusion?” But, from the contents, to conclude asto its authenticity, is every way a doubtful course of procedure. Hence, in the very contents, there may (without affecting its authenticity, T.) be somewhat of a deviation 1 Compare on the authenticity of the conelnding chapter of John in partiewlar, Gue- rike’s Beitrage vol. i., 5, 67, et seq. GOSPEL OF JOHN XxI. lI. BE from the ordinary habits of thought, and from the spirit of the pro- fessed composer thereof. No such differences, however, can be shown to be involved in the chapter under consideration. But its contents, when compared with the former communications of the Evangelist, seem poor and insignificant. This assertion would hold good, at least, concern- ing the first half of what is here related, so long as we interpreted it according to externals only, since a successful take of fish is the only thing it recounts. But in the second half, on the other hand, an event presents itself, which might certainly have occasioned the Evangelist to touch upon it in a particular supplementary note, namely, a report that he should remain living until the future ad- vent of the Lord. But if the latter had been the sole motive of John for composing this appendix, what purpose then is served by such a lengthened, unmeaning preface concerning the occurrence upon the lake of Genesareth ? To this question, no completely satisfactory reply can be afforded, by those who defend the authen- ticity of the chapter, so long as they controvert the mode of inter- preting this occurrence—(viz., as symbolict)—which formerly ob- tained currency, through the most spiritually intellectual fathers 1 Upon the symbolical procedures of Christ generally, compare in the Commentary, Part 1., at Matthew xxi. 19. 2 I shall here quote the words of Augustine, who in essentials correctly explains the passage, albeit, he may go too far in discovering the signification of minutiae. He refers the take of fish to the spiritual agency of Peter, which was looked forward to. But he now comprehends the take of fish, here mentioned, together with the analagous account of Luke v., and explains himself on the subject in the following manner :— Hoc loco qualiter in seculi fine futura sit ecclesia dominus significat, alia piscatione significavit qualiter nunc sit. Quod autem illud fecit in initio praedicationis suae, hoc vero post. resurrectionem suam, hine ostendit illam capturam piscium, bonos et malos significare, quos nunc habet ecclesia; istam vero tantummodo bonos, quos habebit in aeternum, completa in fine hujus seculi resurrectione mortearum, Denique ibi Jesus non sicut hic in littore stabat, quando jussit pisces capi: sed ascendeus in unam navim, quae erat Simonis, rogavit eum, ut a terra reduceret pusillum et in ea sedens docebat turbas, ut cessavit autem loqui, dixit ad Simonem: “ duc in altum et laxate retia vestra in capturam.” Et illic quod captum est piscium in naviculis fuit, non sicut hic rete ex- traxerunt in terram. His signis et si qua alia potuerint reperiri, ibi ecclesia in hoc seculo, hic vero in fine seculi figurata est; ideo illud ante, hoe autem post resurrec- tionem domini factum est, quia ibi nos Christus significavit vocatos, hic resuscitatos. Tbi retia non mittuntur in dexteram, ne solos significent “ bonos, nec in sinistram, ne solos malos, sed indifferentur: ‘laxate” inquit, “ retia vestra in capturam,” ut permix- tos intelligamus bonos et malos. Hie autem iniquit: “ Mittite in dexteram navigii rete ut significaret eos, quistabant ad dexteram, solos bonos. Ibi rete propter significanda schismata rumpebatur, hie vero quoviam tune jam in ila summa pace sane orum nulla 316 GOSPEL OF JOHN XxI. 1—6. of the church, and which in this section of the evangelical history, receives the most undeniable commendations from the account of the event itself. All through the second half of the chapter, the symbolic charac- ter manifestly prevails, “ the girding’—foreteld to Peter—* the stretching forth of the hands,’—for that girding—the command given Peter “ to follow” the Lord, and the mention of John’s “ tarry- ing” until the Saviour should again come, cannot in any case be understood in a merely literal sense. Hence the same sym- bolic character can very simply be extended also to the first half. Such application of it to the contents of the preceding half of the chapter, may obtain so much the more easily, that previously, in another connection, Luke v. 4, et seq., the identical words of Christ, concerning a fact entirely similar, authorize the same interpretation. On this point, compare the circumstantial discussion in the Jomm. Part. I. The fact that in the entire chapter, not John, but Peter, plays the principal part, evidently, and pre-eminently, testi- fies in favour of the authenticity of the chapter, and against its composition at a later date, by any other historian. If it had been subjoined by some teacher in the church, who was of the school of John, then, without a doubt, he would have given to the description a form more to the favour of John. But here we have a pure history, written all through sine ira et studio. John xxi. 1—6. The two concluding verses of the Gospel, viz., 30, 51 of chap. xx., should be expunged, and the subsequent ac- count relatively to the last appearance of Christ, linked on to verse 29 of chap. xx., by means of the μετὰ ταῦτα, which it begins with. Compare chap. xxi. 14. The fact, that according to this subsequent description, the disciples were prosecuting their worldly vocation, loses its surprising character, if we reflect that even Paul, during the course of his apostolic calling (on an occasion, 'T.), also practised his handicraft. Furthermore, too, on this occasion, the appearing of Jesus was sudden. [re the disciples could have ob- served his approach, he was there standing upon the shore of the lake, T. (In verse 4, εἰς does not supply the place of ἐν. On the con- erant schismata, pertinuit ad evangelistam dicere: “ et cum tauti essent, non est svis- sum rete.” ‘Tanquai illnd respiceret ubi scissum est et in illius mali comparatione com- mendaret hoe bonum.” Cf. Opera Augustini edit. Benedict. vol iii. pp. 591, et seq. GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΧΙ. 7—1 1. ay ky trary, rather in the ἔστη, only the foregone movement of Jesus should be supplied. Προσφάγιον is equivalent to the usual ὄψον, by-meat [condiment] that which is used to facilitate the eat- ing of dry bread.) Ver. 7—14. By the propitious draught of fishes, the beloved disciple discovered the gracious presence of the Lord, and the excitable Peter at once hastened swimming to him. Γυμνός ex- presses here that he was merely clad with his under garment. He therefore wrapped an over-garment around himself, probably in order to appear fully dressed on the shore. Some persons er- roneously have desired that ἐπενδύτης should be understood as re- ferring to the under garment, but that is called ὑποδύτης, which appears too from the etymology of the word. In the sequel of this account, verse 9, it is surprising, that when the disciples were come with the ship to the shore, they found a fire of coals, an (οψάριον) of fish which was roasted on the coals, and bread. Some commentators, by hazarding opinions, in order to explain this statement, have in part gone quite astray, for example, that all this was produced out of nothing ! an opinion which needs no particular disproof. However, in the manner in which the statement stands, the fact is still very remarkable. It is so, even when we have assumed, which seems the simplest course, that the Lord had got all this prepared upon the shore. Some may ask, for instance, ‘‘ Yet, what end was to be subserved by hisso dog?” ‘* Would not the risen Lord have had, at least, as little need of a meal as the disciples? Would they have at all needed one, who had their own dwellings adjacent ?” ‘‘ Would not, moreover, this external proceeding hinder the powerful effect on their moral nature, which surely Jesus contem- plated producing by his appearance?” ‘The view of this occur- rence, as having been a symbolic proceeding, can alone furnish an answer to these questions. As such, it may to us who inhabit western countries involve something strange. But inthe East, such was a very usual mode of instruction, and to every capacity, even the least developed, it was wont to contain somewhat of a very impres- sive character. How, for instance, would the draft of fishes have admonished all the disciples, and particularly Peter, concerning their being first called by Jesus, and concerning the abundantly blessed results 318 GOSPEL OF JOHN XXI. 1J—17. of their ministry promised to them. (To be made fishers of men, T.) ! ; Similarly the meal prepared by the Saviour for them, after their work was completed, pointed forward towards that happy banquet, which the Lord has provided for his disciples, with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God.' Thus will accord the ceremony itself, the intent of it, and its signi- fication, and the connection of what follows with it will be obvious. The remark that then Jesus had for the third time appeared—after his resurrection, T.—is correct, when we refer it to enly those ap- pearances of his which occurred to a number of spectators. Ver. 15—17. According to the interpretation just given, what follows will arise in admirable sequence to the first half of the account, so that the two will form an unique whole. For instance, after the Apostle had got a prophetic glance into the greatness of his future ministry, the Lord directs his attention to the conditions on which it should depend. Love to Christ, and voluntary self-devotion, are its indispensable requirements. That the threefold question of the Lord had a reference to the threefold denial of him by Peter, is too immediately suggested to escape our cognizance. But when Tholuck conjectures that the Lord, after some intermediate speech with the other disciples, which is omitted from the report, had first upon the second question, and next at the third one, directed his conversation to Peter, to me his conjec- ture is anything but probable. For the immediate repetitions of the question, expressed directly in succession one to another, would have mightily contributed to give effect to the impression, which the Lord contemplated producing. At first, then, Peter is quite unmoved, and appeals to the knowledge of the Lord himself; but at the last question he is sensible that Jesus, by making it, has for his object to produce a salutary humiliation in him, and he is moved with sorrow. Yet he could with heartfelt truth make appeal to his love of the Saviour, and because that was the case, the Lord therefore affixed the seal now to his blessed commission, in the Booxe τὰ πρόβατά pov. And there is still another circumstance, which in his exposition of this passage, Tholuck seems to me to have mis- 1 Augustine (in loco citato, s. 594) so interprets this passage, that he finds in the meal, in like manner, an allusion to the Lord’s Supper, for he says :—‘ Piscis assus, Christus est passus; ipse est panis, qui de caelo descendit; huic incorporatur ecclesia, ad participandam, beatitudinem sempiternam,” GOSPEL OF JOHN ΧΧΙ. 15—~-17. 319 taken. For example, he would have the question, ἀγαπᾶς je πλεῖον τούτων, in ver. 15, to refer retrospectively to Matthew xxvi. 33, where Peter had said, “ though all should be offended for thy sake, yet will not I be offended.” As it were, that Christ would therein have produced in him the conviction that he (Peter) had quite mis- taken his own character. Yet, as we previously noticed, relatively to Matthew xvi. 19, Peter did in fact enjoy a certain spiritual emi- nence, beyond the other disciples, as regarded even that spiritual energy which manifested itself in external effects. It might, therefore, be with perfect truth said of him, that he loved the Lord with more energy than any of the others did. And that the Saviour would not have denied this results plainly from the fact that he appointed him to be the shepherd of his flock, without Peter's having made any such apology as ‘‘I love thee far less than do the others, since I could have denied thee.” The ob- ject of Jesus was therefore, not to prove to Peter that he felt no love to him, for Peter really did possess love to Christ, even when he denied him, or otherwise he would never have been able to rise triumphant again, and so soon, to the enjoyment of faith, after the waves of darkness had rolled over his head. The object of the questions was, on the contrary, rather solely this : to lead the apostle to perfect poverty of spirit, and to emancipation from the thraldom of self. But these effects would not have consisted in the fallacy of one’s saying that “‘ he had not love to Christ,” if one really had any ; such profession would have been but mere uncon- sciousness, or else false humility. But the result contemplated would reveal itself in such a way, that the man would ascribe every thing he possessed or enjoyed to the operations of grace, not to himself, as a secure unalienable possession : that he would regard them as presents of no absolutely enduring character, but which the Lord, who bestowed them, could again whenever he pleased withdraw. Thus the sow! should remain humble, feeling its own littleness even amid all the adornments of divine grace. These it would never claim as its own hereditary estates. But that was what Peter had done! The ardour of love which, in the ful- ness of the spirit, inflamed his soul, took entire possession of him ; he felt strong as a hero in his own fancies, but when this fulness of power forsook him, he, in the prospect of imagined dangers, denied his Lord. 320 GOSPEL OF JOHN XxI. 18—19. Finally, when the ‘‘ Catholic” church refers this passage to the . primate of the papacy, there will result from such a reference those consequences observed upon at Matthew xvi. 19. What is here said to Peter, as the representative of the apostles, refers equally to them all. But as such representative Peter is cer- tainly and indeed selected: this cannot be gainsaid.’ But that such representativeness involved superior ambassadorial potency, or a succession, is just as incapable of proof, and as improbable, as that, after the death of the twelve apostles, the church that con- sisted of them alone planted and multiplied itself. Ver. 18, 19. After the designation by which the Saviour con- fided to Peter the office of pastor over believers follows imme- diately a solemn admonition concerning the end of his earthly pilgrimage. Although he was to be great in the kingdom of God, still the issue of his career was to be disastrous, and in hostile op- position to the human will. The figurative words, in which this admonition is couched, should be resigned as the arbitrary spoil of the expositors, far more positively than now is the case, if the Evangelist himself had not subjoined this explanation of them. According to tradition, Peter died upon the cross, Eusebius’ Hist. Eccles. ii. 25. And, moreover, the most ancient teachers in the church understood the words as referring to his’ crucifixion. Itis only in modern times that some have thought the words can be understood as referring merely to his being arrested ; because, if they be understood concerning his crucifixion, then should the “ girding” have occurred previous to the “ stretching out of the hands.” 3 ; 4 \ Cs (829): ) NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. THE merits of OLSHAUSEN’s Commentary have been acknow- ledged on all hands, and the Translator of the portion relating to the book of Acts feels it to be superfluous to say any thing on this point. Without that superabundance of verbal criticism which cha- racterises Some expositors, our author brings out the sense of the original Scriptures clearly, and in general accurately, and he is at great pains to keep the connection of the several parts constantly before his readers. In some few passages, indeed, he indulges in a kind of mystical dreaming which 15 not congenial to the practical character of the British mind ; but the substantial excellencies of the Commentary as a whole may well make us bear with a few such defects. ‘The Translator would only add, that he does not consider himself responsible for all the sentiments of OLSHAUSEN. Not un- {frequently his own opinion is very different ; and in some cases he has added notes in which he takes the liberty of opposing the Ger- man commentator. He has not considered it necessary, however, to mark every thing of which he disapproves. The work is designed for those who are acquainted with the original Scriptures, who are in the habit of consulting commentators of different sentiments, and who are able to judge for themselves what should be adopted and what rejected. With regard to the execution of his task, the Translator has only to say that he has made it his endeavour to exhibit the sense of the original as exactly as possible, and at the same time to employ none but English idioms. It is often extremely difficult to attain these two ends at once. German modes of expression are so very diffe- rent from English ones, that, if you keep close by your original, you are in great danger of giving a German colouring to your ver- 330 NOTE BY THE TRANSLATOR. sion. To give the sense exactly in all its shades, and yet to em- ploy an English style that will not betray itself to be a translation, is a task of extreme difficulty. WILLIAM LINDSAY, GLAsGow, 5th Angust, 1850, {838}. Ir has been our practice hitherto to prefix to each book a short introduction, because in our progress we must refer, on account of particular discussions, to the branches of knowledge which Intro- duction embraces. In the case, however, of the Acts of the Apostles, there is comparatively little need of introductory remarks, because, in the first place, with respect to most of the questions which are handled in introductions, there is little to be said in reference to this treatise: their importance is smaller here than in the other books of the New Testament; the genuineness of the work, to give but one example, having scarcely ever been doubted. And, in the second place, the necessary biographical notices, especially respect- ing Paul, will naturally present themselves both in the exposition of the book of Acts itself, and also more fully still in the exposition of the Pauline epistles and in the general introduction to them, on which account, to save repetitions, they are here entirely omitted. And finally, with respect to chronology, although it is certainly a very important subject and plainly belongs to an introduction to the Acts, yet its peculiar nature is such that, on account of its ma- thematical and astronomical aspects, a fundamental and indepen- dent investigation of it is practicable only to a few, and yet without this investigation, detailed communications on the subject are of little value. I have therefore satisfied myself with giving in the exposition short notices, according to the best authorities, as hints to those readers who wish to see their own way in this intricate region: for deeper researches application must be made to the chronological works themselves. It has already been remarked in the introduction to the Gospel of Luke (see Comm. Part I., sect. 6), that the Acts of the Apostles is just the second part of the historical work, which the Fvan- 332 INTRODUCTION. gelist prepared for Theophilus (Luke i. 1; Actsi. 1)... This con- nexion with the Gospel furnishes a powerful argument in defence of the genuineness of the book of Acts. Everything in fact which serves for a proof of the genuineness of the Gospel, proves the same thing in reference to the Acts, in consequence of their unity as a literary production. And as withal there is nothing in the book itself tending to awaken suspicion, so no one has affirmed the spuriousness of it in the proper sense of the term: the most that has been attempted has been to bring into doubt, the credibility of some of the sources which Luke has employed. In this way, for example, are we to un- derstand the doubts which De Wette (Introd. to the New Test. p. 203) has expressed against the book of Acts. And the history of the book in the most ancient times accords entirely with what we have stated. The Acts of the Apostles was never assailed in the urch universal ; and therefore it was ranked among the homolo- μα (Compare Euseb. H. E. III. 25.) Individual sects indeed of later origin, as the Severians (Kuseb. H. E. IV. 29), the Marcionites (Tertul. cont. Mare. V. 2), the Manichaeans (August. Epist. 237) rejected the Acts, but only on dogma- tical grounds, and without holding the work to be fictitious. It is quite recently that Baur (‘Tiibing. Zeitscrift, 1836, H. 3), has at- tempted for the first time to transfer to the Acts of the Apos- tles the mythical character which Strauss has ascribed to the Gospels. He sets it down altogether as a historical romance, and regards the whole work as an apologetic fiction in defence of the Apostle Paul against the assaults of the followers of Peter ; and this he holds to be proved by the circumstance that the author always gives designed prominency to the fact, that Paul preached first to the Jews, and then went to the Gentiles when the Jews re- jected him. But the utter emptiness of this hypothesis has been already exposed by Kling. (Studien. 1837, Part 2.) Yet although the Acts of the Apostles was always acknowledged by the great body of the primitive church, it was not one of those ' In the Gospel all references to the Acts are awanting: the question therefore sug- gests itself, whether Luke while composing the one designed to add the other. Per- haps the plan of the Acts was first formed after the completion of the Gospel: yet it is highly probable that there was no great interval of time between the composition of the two.—The opinion of Mayerhoff, which he has expressed in his introduction to the writings of Peter, that it was not Luke but Timothy who wrote both the Acts of the Apostles and the Gospel that bears Luke's name, has already been sufficiently refuted, (Compare on this point Tholuck’s Credibility, page 136, and Bleck’s Review in the Studien, 1836, No, 4.) » - INTRODUCTION. 999 books of the New Testament that were widely circulated and much read.t. The Gospel of Luke it is probable excited more general interest, particularly as the history of Paul and Peter, wherever these apostles had been heard themselves, would be orally com- municated ; and therefore the former half of Luke’s work was more frequently transcribed, and was placed at an earlier period in the collection of evangelical writings. With most correct appreciation, however, the church admitted the Acts of the Apostles also into the Canon of the New Testament ; where it forms a most essen- tial link of the chain : it is like the stem, shooting up straight from the root of the Gospels, and bearing the rich crown of the epistles as its flowers. The separation, however, of the book of Acts from the Gospel has had the effect, first of causing a peculiar title to be affixed to the book, and secondly of exposing its text to greater cor- ruption than that of the Gospel. The corruptions of the text appear particularly in the codices D. and E., which exhibit very marked interpolations in the Acts of the Apostles. They are not however to be regarded as constituting a separate recension of the book: the interpolations bear evident traces of having sprung in- cidently from the difficulties of the narrative, or of being short notices that have been appended. ‘The cause of their great pre- valence in the Acts might be, that for a long period this book was but little read in the church, and thus the opportunity was awant- ing of immediately removing spurious additions, by the comparison of different copies. ‘The more widely it is plain that any writing is cir- culated, and the more numerous the copies are which are taken from it, the more difficult must it be for spurious additions to spread them- selves through the whole mass of manuscripts in circulation. The title of the book πράξεις τῶν ἀποστόλων Was certainly not prefixed to the Acts by Luke: forthe manuscripts differ very much with respect to it ; he would himself probably have named it λόγος δεύτερος. But stil] the name would very readily suggest itself, after the separation of the book from the Gospel, since even in profane authors πράξεις 1 Even at the close of the fourth century, Chrysostom, at the commencement of his exposition of the Acts, writes: πολλοῖς τοῦτο τὸ βιβλίον οὐδ᾽ ὅτι ἐστὶ γνώριμον ἔστιν. In this however there is probably something of rhetorical exaggeration. We know that the book of Acts was regularly read in the Greek Church between Easter and Pentecost, and according to Augustine the same custom prevailed in Africa too, This book of Scripture therefore could not possibly be so utterly unknown to Christians. (Comp, Bingham orig. vol, vi. 63, &e.) 334 INTRODUCTION. occurs in the signification of ‘“‘ ves gestae’ proceedings. (Comp. Xenoph. Cyrop. I. 3, 1.) It is certain, however, that the name of + the canonical book was not derived from the apocryphal πράξεις, but the reverse ; the canonical is the older work, and furnished the occasion for the forgery of the other. As to the ¢ime and place of the composition of the book of Acts, the necessary statements have already been made in the remarks upon the Gospel of Luke. I have only here to add that De Wette is certainly wrong, when heconcludes from Luke xxi., that the Gospel as well as the Acts of the Apostles must have been written after the de- struction of Jerusalem. The pointed references of that chapter to this great event, can furnish no ground at all for supposing the predic- tions which it contains to have been written after the event; be- cause there were already quite similar predictions to be found in the Old Testament. (Comp. the Commentary on Matt. xxiv.) Again, the design and language of the Acts of the Apostles are determined by the fact that the book is addressed to Theophilus. As to its design, the circumstance in question clearly shows that it must have been mainly of a private nature: it was intended to give Theophilus, who, as was remarked at Luke i. 8, was probably a distinguished Roman, and had been converted to the gospel, infor- mation both respecting the character of Christ and the first forma- tion of the church. Theophilus accordingly stands before us as the representative of enquiring heathens in general; and the Acts of the Apostles is a book most thoroughly adapted to their wants. It makes its readers accurately acquainted only with the individuals who had laboured among the Gentiles, especially in Rome it- self, viz., Peter and Paul; and yet it treats only of their labours beyond the limits of Rome and Italy, for what happened there is presupposed by Luke to be known. In like manner we find the way in which the Gospel passed from the Jews to the Gen- tiles described with peculiar minuteness, as in the history of Cor- nelius, and how the relation between the Jewish and the Gentile Christians was settled ; yet so that we are not entitled to re- gard it as the main design of the author, to exhibit the transfer- ence of Christianity from the Jews to the Gentiles. The marked prominence which is given to points relating to this matter, is rather an incidental result of the very ample account we have of Paul, by whose ministry the conveyance in question was effected. Any aim INTRODUCTION. 385 of a different kind, such as perhaps the writing of a history of all the apostles, or a general history of missions, or of the Christian church, is not to be ascribed to the author, because there is none according to which the contents of the book would appear suitably divided. Now these circumstances plainly lead to the conclusion that the Acts of the Apostles could not have been written in any other than the Greek tongue; and the same remark has already been made as to the first part of the work, viz., Luke’s Gospel. The Hellenistic tongue, in fact, was the general medium of literary communication at the time; and as Luke himself was of Greek origin, nothing was more natural than that he should use this language. The strong Hebraisms of the work have been sup- posed to furnish an argument, rendering it probable that Luke wrote the Acts in Hebrew, or rather in Aramaic; but it has been forgotten that the author's own style must be carefully distinguished from the language of the original documents which he employed. (Comp. Comm. on Luke i. 1—4.) For as we have seen that Luke employed documents in preparing his Gospel, we must suppose the same thing here with respect to the Acts of the Apostles. Unfor- tunately we have never yet received from the celebrated critic, to whom we are indebted for so accurate an investigation of Luke, the promised treatise on the Acts; but, at all events, the leading idea stands secure, that in the case of the Acts too, Luke elaborated his work from documentary evidence. Whether Schleiermacher entertained the same view of the Acts of the Apostles, which he has defended in reference to the Gospel, viz., that the author inserted his documents without change, I know not; but at all events I cannot acquiesce in this idea. As in the Gospel, so do I find in the Acts too upon the whole, with the exception of a few passages (see, for example, what is stated at chap. xiii. 1), a free treatment of the documents employed, which for the most part betray them- selves to us, only by the style deviating perceptibly from that of Luke himself. To specify, therefore, with precision, where one document ends and another begins, I hold to be a very doubtful proceeding. In like manner, it is impossible to state with certainty any parti- culars respecting the origin of the documents : only you may reject, without a scruple, those conjectures which have been made as to the use of the apocryphal πράξεις by Luke. For these apocryphal Acts 336 INTRODUCTION. came into existence, as was formerly remarked, at a much later pe- riod ; and, besides, the historical documents of the Acts of the Apos- tles have not a syllable in them that savours of the apocryphal character. Far more probable is it that Luke, in reference to events which he had not observed as an eye-witness, consulted, for infor- mation on single incidents, journals or memoirs whose credibility he had sufficiently ascertained, (Luke i. 4.) It has, indeed, been doubted in recent times whether Luke ever relates anything as an eye-witness. Schleiermacher, even in his day, alleged that the pas- sages in which the narrative proceeds in the plural, furnish no cer- tain proof that Luke journeyed along with Paul, for the plural might proceed from the author of the travels consulted by Luke, who appears to have been Timothy. Mayerhoff followed out this supposition so far, as to declare that Timothy was the author of the whole book of the Acts, as has already been mentioned. Bleek, in the review of Mayerhoff's work, referred to in the note on page 332, while he is opposed to the idea that Timothy was the author of the Acts, yet thinks that there is certainly some truth in the supposition, that Luke is not to be viewed as included under the plural form. The same view has also been maintained by Ulrich in the Studien. 1837, Part ῷ. Now, although there is certainly much that appears to favour this new observation, yet I have not been able to convince myself of the soundness of it, and I shall bring forward the grounds which have determined my judgment when I come to Acts xvi. 12. Here I only remark that, although the ob- servation were quite confirmed, it could have no influence upon the credibility of the Acts ; for this rests not upon the circumstance of Luke's being an eye-witness, which in any case applies only to the smallest and least important part of the work, but upon the apos- tolic authority of Paul, and upon the testimony of the ancient church, which had the Gift of trying not only the genuine and the spurious, but also the divine and the human. And what holds good of the historical parts of the Acts of the Apostles, that for the most part at least they were compiled from written documents, must also be supposed in reference to the speeches, which, doubtless, in general formed integral portions of the documents which Luke employed. Only, of course, it cannot be supposed that these speeches were written down on the spot as they were delivered. You have only to imagine to yourself INTRODUCTION. 337 affecting situations, the parting for example of Paul from the Ephesian elders at Miletus, Acts xx. 17, &c., to feel the unsuit- ableness of this supposition. The speech of Paul on the occasion referred to, so greatly moved the minds of all who were present, that they burst into tears. Who, in such circumstances, thinks of mechanically writing down the spoken living words? It may be apprehended, indeed, that, if no writing took place at the moment, then all security for the credibility of the speeches is gone. But this fear, as has already been remarked in the introduction to the Gospels, plainly proceeds from a want of faith in the power of the Spirit of truth. If we do not suppose this Spirit to have been at work in the mind of the writer of the Acts, and of the Apostles under whose eye he wrote, then we have no guarantee at all for the contents ; but, if such an influence of the Spirit be acknowledged, then no harm can result from the looser view of the speeches indicated above. This, however, does not oblige us to deny that notations might be made of many impressive speeches, a few hours or days after they were delivered. Rather is it in the highest degree pro- bable that this was the case from the nature of many discourses, as, for example, of the speech of Stephen; for the contents of this speech are so peculiar, that you cannot conceive it to have been constructed without any notations at 411.} Only you must not insist upon a literal reproduction of what was spoken, but rather be satisfied with holding that the essential matter of the most ab- breviated discourses, and, above all, the spirit which breathed in them, iscommunicated to us. And thus these discourses perfectly fulfil the important service which, like the whole book of the Acts, even in its historical portions, they were designed to perform for . 1 This is rather strongly expressed. Still, it is true that the inspiration possessed by the sacred penmen does not require us to suppose that they employed none of the ordi- nary methods of preserving the memory of important events and declarations. Doubt- less they made notations of such things as they wished to remember, and doubtless they investigated with care whatever they were about to record. Luke plainly mentions that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, or, as the words rather mean, that he had carefully examined or traced out, παρηκολουθηκοτι, all things from the very first, before proceeding to write to Theophilus. The inspiration of the Holy Ghost did not suspend the faculties of the apostles: their powers of memory and judg- ment and imagination were all in vigorous exercise when they wrote and spoke, and hence the individual peculiarities that characterise their writings. But their unexam- pled distinction was this, that they were infallibly guarded from error, and guided to truth. _The Spirit of the Most High gave them understanding. They spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.—Tr. VOL. IV. Y 888 ᾿ INTRODUCTION. the later ages of the church. They afford us a completely accurate view of the labours of the Apostles in teaching, and of the whole inner life of the ancient churches. In this respect the Acts of the Apostles is a work whose value to the church is quite inesti- mable; and, if by any mischance she had been robbed of it, there would have been produced a gap in her history which nothing could supply. Even although the lost writings of Papias and Hegesippus were still at our command, the want of the book of Acts would be most sensibly felt, because it communicates to us nothing but genuine information, whereas in those works truth ap- peared very largely mingled with error, and we should have been unable in all cases to separate the one from the other with cer- tainty. With respect to treatises upon the Acts of the Apostles, the exposi- tions of Clemens Alexandrinus in the work styled ὑπτοτυπώσεις, of Origen, of Diodorus of Tarsus, of Theodorus of Mopsuestia, have perished. Only of Chrysostom there are preserved to us fifty-five homilies on this book. But they are not to be ranked among the best productions of this great preacher, so that some have been dis- posed even to doubt their genuineness. Their inferiority, however, is accounted for by the consideration that he must plainly have com- posed this commentary amid manifold interruptions, and therefore must have bestowed less pains upon it than upon his other expository works. Belonging to a later period we have the commentaries of CGicumenius and Theopbylact. In more recent times, with the exception of expositions of the Acts contained in the general works of Grotius, Wolf, and others, we have received very few special commentaries upon the book. Besides Limborch’s great work (Rotterdam 1711),.we must particularly notice the Dissertationes in Acta Apostolorum of J. E. Chr. Walch (Jena, 1756-1761, 8 vol.) ; the exposition of Morus, edited by Dindorf (Leipsic 1794, 2 vol.) ; a translation of the Acts, with Annotations, by Theiss (Leipsic 1800.) In Koppe’s New Test., vol. iii, there is an exposition of the Acts by Heinrichs (Gottingen 1809.) The most recent expo- sition is that of Kuinoel (Leipsic 1818.) Stier has written upon the speeches in the Acts (2 parts, Leipsic 1829, 1830.)! Men- 1 Stier attempts to point out most precise arrangements in the speeches of the Acts ; but in my judgment this method of treating the book, which had already prevailed in the school of Baumgarten, is not serviceable to the exegesis of it. In another quarter, too, INTRODUCTION. 389 ken’s work, styled, ‘‘ Blicke in das leben des Apostels Paulus’ (Bre- men 1828), embraces an exposition of chapters xv.—xx. of the Acts. Among recent commentators upon the whole New ‘Testament, Meyer as yet is the first who has handled the Acts. Last of all, as respects chronology,' it is only here and there that Luke specifies the interval of time between the occurrences which he narrates, and even then it is only general periods of two or three years he mentions. (Compare Acts xx. 31, xxiv. 27, xxviii. 30.) He usually confines himself to indefinite expressions, such as ἐν ταύταις ἡμέραις, κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρόν, from which chronology can derive but little assistance. However, he mentions some oc- currences which are recorded in profane history, and whose date therefore can be in some measure ascertained. From these points chronologists have endeavoured with uncommon acuteness to form an arrangement of the leading events in the Acts of the Apostles. Among such points may be mentioned particularly (1) the famine under Claudius Cxsar, which the prophet Agabus predicted (xi. 28) ; (2) the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the same Emperor (xviii. 2) ; (8) the entrance upon office of the procurator Porcius Festus (xxiv. 27.) By means of these ascertainable points you may with some probability arrange in chronological order the leading events of the Acts; yet how far your arrangement falls short of historical certainty, is apparent from the great raultitude of different computations which have been derived from the premises in question. ‘The uncertainty, besides, of the year of Christ's birth and death encreases the chronological difficulties. I confine my- self to the task of laying before my readers two chronological tables. The one presents a view of political circumstances in connexion with the parallel events of the Acts, according to my own opinion of the chronology, in which, upon the whole, I have followed Hug ; the other presents a comparative view of the different computations that have been made respecting the leading events of the Acts. For the latter the learned world is indebted to Dr Géschen (see Ull- mann’s Studien, year 1831, H. 4), who has, in the most friendly I refer to Seyler (in Ullman’s Studien 1832, part i., page 44, &c.), a similar treatment of the text of the New Testament is recommended. But the thoughts in the New Test. and in the Holy Scriptures generally, appear to be not so much erranged after a logical method, as held together by a higher unity of spirit. 1 Compare the chronological work: Rud. Anger de temporam in Actis Apostolorum ratione. Lipsiae, 1833. ὙΡ 340 INTRODUCTION. manner, permitted me to insert it in my exposition of the Acts. For the relationships which subsisted between the different branches of the Herodian family, I refer to the genealogical tree, which Karl von Raumer has designed in his geography of Palestine. (2d Edit., p $73.) FIRST CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. Aera a, Rulers of Diony- Emperors. Rulers of Palestine. Neighbouring Events in the Book of Acts. sius. Slates. jupea. | GALILEE. βαυμονιτιβ,, ABILENE. CHALCIS. 14 | Tiberius | Roman pro- ‘Herod An. | curators go-|tipas = vern thar Ρ Philip ] | country | ee 33 | Philip + | 33. Ascension of Christ. 35 (35. Conversion of Paul. 36 Pilate dis. ] ; placed 37 Caligula Antipas ‘displaced 38 ! 38. Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem, Acts ix. 26, compared with Gal. i. 18. 40 Herod Agrippa governs the whole of Palestine 41 /Claudius Lysanias|Herod, 41. Paul goes with Barna- ‘brother of bas to Antioch, Acts Agrippa xi. 25. 44 Famine in Palestine 44, Paul’s second journey Agrippa +. Acts xii. 20, &e. to Jerusalem. Roman procurators govern the First missionary jour- land ἜΤ of Paul, Acts xiii. 1; xiv. 28. 49 Herod + 49, Paul’s return to Anti- Agrippa och, Acts xiv. 28. min. fol- ‘lows 52 Expulsion of the Jews from Rome,|Lysan- 52. Paul’s third journey to Acts xviii. 2, ias.+ Jerusalem, Acts xv.; Gal. ii. 1 ] Towards end of the year second missionary journey. 53 | Agrippa minor re Chaleisis 53. Paul in Corinth. ceives Gauloni- pzare j j ito Syria Ras, Nova tis and Abilene J | 55 δῦ. Pentecost. Panl's fourth journey to Je rusalem, Third missionary jour- ; ney 56, 57 56,57. Stay in Ephesus. 60 160, Paul's fifth journey to | | Jerusalem. Imprisonment. 62 | Poreius Festus is procu- 62. Paul’s trial before Por | rator cius Festus. 63 | 63. Paul's arrival in Rome 65 65. Completion of Book ὁ Acts. Second κονίαν ἡμὴ | 66 Gessius Florus,procurator 67 67. Death of the Apostle. | 68 [Nero + Jewisb war. ( 342 ) SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 1 Eusebius. 2 3 4 5 EVENTS. Hieronymus. | Baronius. Usher. Calvisius. -—-__o |__| | -ῦ-------ς.-ςς--.-:--ς-. 2 or 1 before|2 orl before} 3 before 5 before 3 before Birth of Christ Chr. aera, { Chr. aera, Chr. 25 Dee, 25 Dec. in October ἽΝ Το ΟΝ Baptism 6 ral 30 29 33 33 Death March 3 April 3 April Stoning of 82 g of Stephen 26 Dec 34 33 Conversion of Paul 34 35 34 Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem, Acts 37 38 37 ix., Gal. i. 18 The second, Acts xi. 12 ᾿ 42 44 38 ee ee — | -..-.-----..-.-.-ς... 52 : 49 48 The third, Acts xv., 14 years after [14 years after|14 years afte eas Fit, conversion | first journey} conversion ee fourth, Acts xviii. 56 52 A problematical jour- ney to Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 1 The fifth journey and 56, about imprisonment 56 60 Pentecost ΣᾺ to Felix* Paul's arrival in 63 59 Rome 57, May in Spring Deliverance from cap- tivity 59 61 Return to Rome Death 69 67 67 64 * See note page 346. SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 945 θ 7 8 9 10 EVENTS. Bengel. Vogel. Susskind. | Eichhorn, Schmidt. 4 before 3 before Birth of Christ Chr. = pelore Ghee. Pee ee 25 Dec, | Chr-8era begin of Mar) ὅλ᾿ 27 29 | Baptism 8 Noy. 28 begin. March 30? 30 1 Death 6 April 31 32 32 Stoning of Stephen 30 32 -37 Conversion of Paul 31 33 32 37 or 38 41 Paul’s first journey to Jerusalem, Acts ix., 33 36 35 40 or 41 | Never made Gal. i. 18 Gal. ii. 1 The second, Acts xi) 4)_44 44 46.14 5 44 , 14 yrs. aft. 41 - 12 conversion Gal. i. 18. Εν 47, 14 years 47 Te | ater the first|14 years after, 47 ? 52 55 nee journey. conversion ΤῊΣ fourth, Acts xviii. 49 54 50 56 A problematical jour- ney to Jerusalem, Gal. ii. 1 The fifth journey and} 53, about 57 53, about | _ 60 59 imprisonment Pentecost Pentecost | in Summer Paul’s journey to Ὁ 61 Roni 55 59 55 6 Pauls arrival in 56 63 _ $2. Rome in Spring 59 or 60 in Spring | in Spring Deli e from cap- i Took not Took not aur oe ᾿Ξ 62 place place Took not Took not Return to Rome Ὡ is ἌΝ place Death 29 oe ὧν ae i Si ee a en nae BR eee 344 SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. ll 12 18 14 15 oi) cael Haenlein. | Bertholdt. | Heinrichs. 7 Kuinoel. Hug. 1 before Birth of Christ ? Chr. aera in Feb. pe SS fe, Gal. i. 18 Baptism ? 29 in Feb. Death i 33 | 33 Stoning of Stephen 36 | 87 or 38 Conversion of Paul 40 37 | 40 Paul's first journey to Jerusalem, Acts ix., 43 40 | 43 =—_ 14 years after) 44,4 years | 44, 4 years 44, 4 years after after Gal. ii. 1 | conversion | first journey | conversion The second, Acts xi. 44 12 52, 14 years ΡΝ ee 49? 52 ? 52 after first ΤΣ, journey The fourth, Acts xviii.® 54 55, about 29 55 52 Not made Pentenadé A problematical jour- ney to Jerusalem, Gal. iii. 2 The fifth journey and 58 after 59 πόνον λας J 59 or 60 Pentecost 60 Pentecost Paul’s journey to ioe 61 or 62 60 62 Arrival in Rome ἐν aa Deliverance from im- prisonment 68 65 Return to Rome ? Death 67 EVENTS. Birth of Christ Baptism Death Stoning of Stephen Conversion of Paul Paul's first journey to Jerusalem, Acts ix., Gal. i. 18 The second, Acts xi. 19 ~ The third, Acts xv., Gal. ii. 1 The fourth, Acts xviii. 22 A problematical jour- ney to Jerusalem, Gal. iii. 2 The fifth journey and imprisonment Paul's Rome journey ἴο Arrival in Rome Deliverance from im prisonment Return to Rome Death SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 3845 16 a 18 19 20 ae Schrader. Hemsen. Schott. Feilmoser. 1 before Chr. aera ? in 25 Dee. 25 end, or 26 beginning 29 29, 15 April acc, to Ideler 35 88 16 b. | De Wette 85 35-38 39 85 | 40 or 41 35 38-41 42 93 42 or 43 38 44 end, or 44 44 44 45 beginning τ: 52, 14 years 47 or 48, 52, 52 47 after first | 4 years after 14 years after journey | first journey | first journey 51, about 55, about Ξ Bb Pentecost Pentecost 55 56, 14 years after the first journey 59 : 58 Pentecost ἐπ of Pentecost 61 61 62 62 Spring Spring Took not Took not place place Took not Took not place place 64 64 ( 846 ) NOTATIONS FOR THE SECOND CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. 1. Eusebii Cbronicon. Hist. Eccl. i. 5, ii. 1, 22, 26, iii. 1, vii. 2, vil. 1. 2. Hieronymi Chronicon. Ed. Vallarsii, T. viii. Catal. Viror. illust. c. 5. Comment. in Jes. c. 2. 3. Baronii Annales, vol. I. 4. Usserii Annales. Genevae, 1722, p. 568. 5. Calvisii opus Chronologicum. Francof, 1620, p. 424. 6. Bengelii ordo temporum. Stuttg. 1741, p. 218. 7. Vogel, Versuch iiber Chronologische standpunkte der Le- bensgeschichte Pauli. In Gabler’s Journal fiir auserlesene Theo- logische literatur, Bd. 1, st. 2. 8. Siiskind, neuer versuch uber chronolog. standpunkte in Ben- gel’s Archiv. Bd. 1, st. 1. 9. Eichhorn’s Einl. ins N. T., B. i. 5s. 440; Bd. ii. 5. 48; Bd. lii. s. 32, ff., 364, ff. 10. Schmidt (J. E. Chr.) Chronologie der apostelgeschichte, in Keil’s und Tzschirner’s Analecteu, Bd. iii. st. 1, s. 128, ff. Ejin- leitung in N. T. Giessen, 1804, 5. 184, ff. 11. Hiinlein Einl. ins N. T. 2te auft. Erlangen, 1809. Bd. 11]. s. 158, s. 298, ff. 12. Bertholdt, Einl. Bd. v. 2te hilfte 5. 2698, ff. 13. Heinrichs Acta Apostolorum, Gott. 1809. 14. Kuinoel Comment. in Acta Apostolorum. Lips. 1818. 15. Hug’s Einl., 3te Auft. Bd. ii., 8. 307, ff. 10. ἃ Sanclementii de vulgaris «rae emendatione Rom. 1793. Ideler’s Handb. ἃ. Chronologie Th. ii.,s. 366, ff. 16." De Wette’s Einl. ins N. T. s. 212. 17. Schrader’s Apostel Paulus. 18. Hemsen, der Apostel Paulus. 19. Schotti isagoge in N. T. P. 189, sqq. 20. Feilmoser's Ein]. ins. N. T. 2 te. aufl. Tiibingen 1830. S. 308, ff; 318, ff. In the second chronological table, see page 342, where Paul’s arrival in Rome, as fixed by Baronius, is stated, the words are added, “ the two years refer to Felix.” The two years meant are those mentioned in Acts xxiv. 27, which all chronologists, with the exception of Baronius, have understood to refer to Paul's captivity ; but Baronius understands them to refer to Felix, and therefore he places the Apostle’s arrival in Rome in the same year as his fifth journey to Jerusalem. Inthis he is undoubtedly wrong, for the administra- tion of Felix had lasted a number of years, as is plain from Acts xxiy. 10; and there being no special event in his life mentioned to which the two years can apply, we are shut up to the conclusion that they refer to the imprisonment of Paul in Cesarea,. —Tr. ( 847 ) EXPOSITION OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. I. PART FIRST. FROM THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST TILL THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. (Acts 1. 1—viii. 40.) § 1. CHRIST'S ASCENSION. CHOICE OF AN APOSTLE. (Acts i. L—26.) The first part of the Acts of the Apostles contains a short gene- ral survey of the earliest occurrences in the church. With the ascension, which had already been announced at the conclusion of the Gospel history, Luke here sets out, that he may first describe in connexion with it the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and then give some accounts of the first results of the preaching of the Gospel. Respecting the source of the information which is here communicated to us, unfortunately we are not now able to state any particulars. The hypothesis has indeed been advanced, that Luke in this first part of the Acts of the Apostles may have used docu- ments belonging to the school of Peter, because notices of Peter predominate in it. But this is the case only in appearance, and consequently the hypothesis is deprived of all foundation. It is true, indeed, that after Pentecost Peter appears almost alone as a speaker ; but this happens, not because we have Petrine documents, but because in fact Peter was the leading speaker of the young com- munity. From whatever quarter therefore the accounts might come, provided only they were true, Peter must occupy the most promi- 348 ACTS I. 1, 2. nent position. As early, however, as the v. and viii. chapters, this apostle begins to appear only incidently, and in the vi. and vii. his name does not occur, a circumstance which is by no means favour- able to the hypothesis in question. We think it best therefore to leave undetermined what is unknown, and to content ourselves with a eareful examination of the precious fragments themselves, respect- ing the apostolic church, which the narrative of Luke presents to us. Vers. 1, 2. The Evangelists commence their narratives with the coming of the Redeemer from the world of holiness and bliss into this world of sin and sorrow ; but Luke, on the other hand, in this second part of his work, commences with the return of the Lord into the bosom of the Father. This return itself, however, is also in another point of view a coming of Christ (see Comm. on John xiv. 8), because his departure was the condition on which was sus- pended the communication of the fulness of the Spirit (John xvi. 7), through whom the Lord now lived among his disciples, not in a mere bodily and outward manner, but dwelling in them consti- tuted the principle of their life. Hence the grand history of what Jesus did and taught (Acts i. 1), does not conclude with his de- parture to the Father; but Luke now first begins it in a higher strain ; for all the subsequent labours of the apostles are just an exhibition of the ministry of the glorified Redeemer himself, because they were acting under his authority, and he was the principle that operated in them all. Before our author particularly describes the sublime scene of Christ's departure, already announced by him in Luke xxiv. 50— 53, he takes care to connect his second book with the first, viz., his Gospel. (Adéyos is to be taken in the signification of book, treatise, equivalent to spp, comp. 1 Chron. xxix. 29, in the Septuagint.) The clause, ὧν ἤρξατο ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς x. τ. X., is commonly understood by interpreters as if ἤρξατο were pleonastic ; but it is better to retain the proper meaning of this word, and to make the implied con- trast lie between the ministry of our Lord upon earth, and his subsequent invisible ministry. (Compare Winer’s Gram. p. 589, &e.) As forming the conclusion of Christ’s work upon earth, the avadywis is named (compare in reference to ἀνελήφθη the parallel word ἀνεφέρετο in Luke xxiv. 51), which took place after all his commands and charges to the apostles were completed. (Compare John xiv. 15, xv. 12—17.) In the construction there ACTS I. 8—05. 349 is an uncertainty about the connection of διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου ; but there is difficulty whether you connect it with évTevAdpevos or with ἀνελήφθη; and therefore the general opinion has been in favour of joining it with δὺς ἐξελέξατο. Further, the whole period seems to want something for its completion, the μὲν having no δὲ coming after it. The train of thought suggests the additional idea: ‘from this point I now continue my narrative in a second treatise ;’ but the mention of the apostles occasions our author to let go his thread. (Comp. Winer’s Gram., p. 500.) Vers. 8—5. The first sentence contained in verses 1, 2, is plainly shown by its connexion with the following one to want its concluy sion: the τὸν μὲν πρῶτον should naturally have had a ὁ δὲ dev- Tepos after it. But from the word ἀνελήφθη Luke immediately takes occasion to proceed to the fact of the ascension, after briefly touching upon the interval between the passion and the final de- parture of Christ. The presence of the Saviour for forty days he mentions first of all as a perfectly authenticated fact,! and then he brings into view what was the great subject of our Lord's conver- sations with his disciples, viz., the whole compass of the interests of the kingdom of God. For we must distinguish between λέγων περὶ τῆς βασιλείας and λέγων τὰ περὶ τῆς βασιλείας, the latter of which phrases expresses the thought just indicated. The eir- cumstances also lead to the conclusion that Christ would confide to his disciples, during these last moments of his personal presence, all that he had yet to say respecting the kingdom. Further, it is plain from verse 6, that the word βασιλεία cannot here denote the Christian religion, as Kuinoel supposes. On the idea of the Bace- λεία consult the Commentary, Part I., upon Matthew iii. 2. The only particular command of Christ to his disciples, given during this period of forty days, which Luke mentions, is the one to wait patiently for the promise of the Spirit's baptism : with this baptism the public ministry of the apostles was to take its rise. (On this subject compare Luke xxiv. 49, and Matt. in. Me)nBhe style changes suddenly from the indirect form to the direct, which is frequently the case with Luke, as, for example, in Acts xvii. 3, xxii. 24, xxiii. 22. There is a grammatical difficulty im this pas- ι The word τεκμήριον, which occurs in no other part of the New Testament, em- bodies the idea of settled, fixed, accredited. 3 350 ACTS I. 6—8. sage connected with the word συναλιζόμενος in ver. 4. First of all, as respects the reading, many codices have συναυλιζο- μενος, Which means “ dwelling together, living together.” ‘The codex D, reads συναλισκόμενος μετ᾽ ἀυτῶν, the meaning, accord- ing to the signification of the verb, being, ‘‘ to make expenses to- gether,” “το be at joint expenses,” ‘to live together.” But both readings are with one voice rejected by critics,-and the conjecture of Hemsterhusius (who would read συναλιζομένοις) as little de- serves to be approved or admitted into the text, though this read- ing certainly would make the construction much more simple. And now, with regard to the reading, which must stand as the right one, the question presents itself how the participle cvvadufo- μενος ought to be understood. It may be connected with αὐτοῖς as a passive participle, or it may be taken as a middle with αὐτούς supplied. ‘The latter view has been preferred by Heinrichs and Kuinoel, on the ground that παρήγγειλεν requires αὐτοῖς to be connected with it: yet there is no certain example to be found οὗ the use of the word in the middle voice. The verb συναλίζω is used as equivalent to συναθροίζω, to assemble, convene: it comes from the Ionic word ἁλῆὴς, equivalent to the Attic ἀθρόος, “ confer- tus”: from which is derived the adverb ἅλις, meaning in “ crowds,” also equivalent to ὅλως, ‘‘ enough, sufficient.” It is just the Latin word “ salis,” from which “ satis” was formed. Vers. 6—8. From Luke xxiv. 49, 50, it may be plainly per- ceived, that the meeting mentioned in verse 4, and the one in verse 6 are not the same. ‘The promise of the baptism of the Spirit, and the command to tarry for it at Jerusalem, were given by the Lord before his last meeting with the disciples upon the Mount of Olives, where the words that follow were spoken. (Com- pare verses 9 and 12.) The connexion accordingly is this: ‘“ After Jesus had collected his disciples, he commanded them not to leave Jerusalem. When they were afterwards assembled toge- ther anew, and that for the last time, they enquired at the Lord whether he would now establish the kingdom to Israel, and whe- ther they should have to continue waiting in Jerusalem for the inauguration of it.” Meyer supposes that it is not the earlier ap- pearance of Christ in Jerusalem which is incidentally mentioned by Luke in the 4th verse; but that the 4th and Gth verses relate to the very same meeting, at which Jesus only enforces anew the direction ACTS I. 6—8. 90] previously given. But that supposition is inadmissible, because the last appearance in verse 6 is introduced as quite a new topic by ov μὲν οὖν : whereas verse 4 follows only as a brief reference to ὀπτα- νόμενος and λέγων in verse 3 : there is not as yet presented any in- dependent statement in verse 4, but only the connexion with the close of the gospel history, and the introduction to succeeding mat- ters, which you have in the declaration of the continued presence of the apostles in Jerusalem. The meaning of the question respect- ing the nearness of the kingdom of God cannot appear in any re- spect doubtful. The disciples expected, in accordance with their earthly views of the Messiah, a splendid visible introduction of the kingdom of God, accompanied perhaps with a political movement against the Romans, and with respect to this event they enquire whether it should take place just now. Ideas, therefore, like those of Lightfoot—‘ thou wilt not now set up thy kingdom for the wicked Jews, who killed thee upon the cross ?” or ‘‘ wilt thou indeed now, when the hatred of the rulers is so strong, and our power so small, wilt thou erect the banner of thy kingdom ?”—need no se- rious refutation.' But, at the same time, there is no tolerable pre- text to be found for conceiving the answer of Christ to be of sucha nature, as would take away all prospect of a future manifestation of his kingdom in an outward shape. It is obvious rather, as has been already remarked on Matt. tii. 2. xix. 28, that the very idea of the βασιλεία implies, that it shall one day burst out from its secret character, and display itself in a visible and external shape. Al- though, therefore, there were still obscurities in the views of the disciples respecting the kingdom, yet the Redeemer did not judge it necessary to sift them, because they could not fail to have the more spiritual idea suggested to them by the power of the Spirit whom they were toreceive. He expresses himself only in reference to the time, but in such a manner as neither to fix any thing re- specting it, nor yet to deny, which would have been a negative fixing. (See on this subject at Matt. xxiv. 1.) The time of the manifestation of God's kingdom, he declares, it is not given to the disciples, nor to any of mankind at all to know, but it is a thing 1 This latter view was not that of Lightfoot, but of Barkeyus, advanced in the Bib- lioth. Hagana, T. i. p. 603. He supposed that the words of the disciples expressed astonish- ment and admiration that, in the circumstances of the case, with so little apparent pro- bability of success, their Master shonld propose to restore the kingdom to Israel.—Tr, 4 352 ACTS I. 6—3. reserved for the omniscient eye of God. And the circumstance that πατήρ stands here in the text, and not @eds, shows that the pas- sage 1s similar to the words of Mark xiii. 32 (consult the Com- mentary, Part I., p. 902), where the knowledge of this period is denied even to the Son. However, the two passages are by no means to be identified : the passage in Mark xiii. 32 might indeed be explained from the κένωσις of God's Son, but here such an ex- planation is negatived by the connexion, for the words were spoken by the glorified Redeemer, in whom humiliation (κένωσις) can have no more place. Here, therefore, we must suppose our Lord only teaches his disciples that such knowledge reaches beyond the position of man as such, for whom it would not be advantageous : of his own relation to the Father he says nothing at all here; but as the invisible Father dwelt in him, and was glorified in him (John xiii. 31), so could his knowledge in no respect be different from the knowledge of the Father himself. Respecting ἀποκαθιστάνειν, see Comm. on Matt. xvii. 11. Here the idea “‘ of bringing again into the ancient condition” looks back to the splendour of the kingdom of David, which the Jews ex- pected the Messiah to restore. The excellent among them, how- ever, conceived this glory to rest upon true godliness and devotion, which they expected the Messiah to instil ito his people-—The expression χρόνοι καὶ καιροί probably follows that of Daniel ii. 21, SPIT] NTT for which the Seventy employ the same two words. In: χρόνος it is rather simple time that is expressed, “" tampecis in καιρός the relations and circumstances of time, “opportunitas.” As if to compensate for the knowledge which he thus denied to his disciples regarding the times, the Redeemer promises them the power of the Holy Ghost (Luke xxiv. 49) ; by which they were to be constituted, not so much prophets of the future,! as witnesses of the past. It is the mighty works of God in and by Christ for the salvation of the world, especially his resurrection from the dead, which the apostles were to proclaim to the world. From Zion the light goes forth (Isaiah ii. 2), and spreading in circles of ever widening compass, it fills the globe. We are not required by the phrase ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς. to defend the untenable position that 1 The gift of prophecy is not, of course, here denied to the apostles: it is only repre- sented as not lying at the very foundation of their office. The unveiling of the future appears in a decided munner only in some of them, as, for example, the Evangelist John. Acts 1. 9—11. οὔθ the apostles themselves went into all lands: these words of Christ rather apply through the apostles to all future generations of teachers, and find in them their fulfilment. (See Comm. on Matt. x., where Christ's instruction of the apostles embraces, at the same time, the elements of all the instruction needed by teachers.) To make the words refer to Palestine is quite unsuitable, for the parts of Palestine have been already mentioned : ἔσχατον τῆς γῆς corre- sponds to the Hebrew phrase VANTT YP. PS: Xix,. Ὁ: Vers. 9—11. In these verses the act of the ascension, itself is described. With respect first of all to the scene, it is so plainly pourtrayed, that you cannot possibly misunderstand it, but through some over-refinement. ‘The Redeemer was raised on high before the eyes of his disciples and then received by a cloud, most proba- bly a cloud of light, which removed him from their view. Instead of ἐπήρθη here Luke has (xxiv. 51) διέστη ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ave- φέρετο eis τὸν οὐρανόν, and Mark (xvi. 19), ἀνελήφθη εἰς τὸν odpa- vov, as in Acts i. 2. Luke names (xxiv. 50) as the place where the ascension took place, the neighbourhood of Bethany ; (ἐξήγαγε αὐτοὺς ἔξω ἕως εἰς Βηθανίαν), with which agrees the statement in verse 12, that the disciples returned from the Mount of Olives, at the base of which Bethany lay. The same place, therefore, where the deepest humiliation of our Lord occurred, viz., in the conflict of Gethsemane, witnessed also his sublimest elevation. (Compare Zech. xiv. 4, Ezek. xi. 23.) Blessing his disciples, and setting them apart as the champions of truth and righteousness, the Saviour left the scene of his tears and prayers. (Compare Luke xxiv. 50, 51, καὶ ἐπάρας τὰς χεῖρας ἁυτοῦ εὐλόγησεν αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εὐλογεῖν αὐτὸν αὐτοὺς διέστη ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν) And while the disciples were gazing intently after him, suddenly there stood by their side, without their having noticed whence they came, two men in white raiment, that is, in heavenly robes of light ; who suggested to them the fruitlessness of thus looking with the bodily eye after Christ, and rather directed their thoughts to his future return, when they should behold him coming as they had now seen him depart. That this view of the scene is the only one which cor- responds to the mind of the narrator, should be acknowledged even by those who deny the reality of the fact: if you compare 1 Compare the discussion of Seiler in Velthusen Sylloge Comments. vol.vi. p 508, sqq VOL. IV. Z 854 ACTS 1. 9—I11. - particularly Mark xvi. 5, Luke xxiv. 4, with Matt. xxviii. 2, John xx. 12, it will plainly appear that the latter passages re- present as angels the men in white robes named in the former ; and therefore it admits of no doubt at all, that here too we must understand angels to be meant by the sacred historian. In like manner the phrase ὅυτως ἐλεύσεται, ὅν τρόπον ἐθεάσασθε kK. τ. X., refers, beyond all question, to the vis7d/e return of our Lord in his glorified humanity, which is taught by all the New Testament writers (comp. Comm. on Matt. xxv. 31, xxiv. 1), and, therefore, also his previous departure is described as a going to the Father, and a sitting down at the right hand of God. (Mark xvi. 19.) All attempts, therefore, to explain the facts of the case on na- tural principles, by referring them to a withdrawment of Christ amid thunder and lightning and thick clouds, are liable to this ob- jection, that they put something into the text which is not there. And should any one take this view of the subject, that the narra- tors really supposed their Master to be exalted to heaven, but that this idea of theirs proceeded from a misunderstanding of some such occurrence as is indicated above; this view too would be alien to the moral character of Christ, who never could lend himself to the device of using accidental external circumstances to deceive his dis- ciples, that they might be led to suppose him elevated to heaven, while he continued to live concealed in some unknown region." There is far more plausibility in the mythical view of the occur- rence before us, which makes a reference to analogous cases in his- tory, such as those of Hercules, Romulus, and others.? The fun- damental fact remains, on this principle, altogether uncertain : we are only to hold fast the idea that he who comes from God must again return to God ; this idea is legibly stamped upon the ac- count, even as it is given to us by Luke. Yet in truth this view is only in appearance more moderate and historical than the for- mer. ΤῸ leave the fact uncertain, embraces the very same error, 1 The utmost extreme of this view was presented in the hypothesis of Brennecke (Liineburg, 1819.), who supposed that Christ continued to labour for twenty-seven years after his crucifixion in concealment; for he considers the appearances of Jesus to Paul as proofs of his continued presence upon the earth, The absurdity of this view supplies its own refutation. 2 With respect to these analogies, let it not be overlooked that they are in no way ap- plicable: of a glorification of the σῶμα, no mythology knows anything: the heathen apotheoses are only deifications of the ψυχή. ACTS 1. 9—LI. 355 from which the explanations on natural principles take their rise. For every one must immediately say to himself, since Christ was once a historical personage, he must have left the earth upon which he lived in a definite manner. Now, if his departure did not take place in the way recorded, which some will have to be mythical, then there remains no other than the common exit ; and thus we see ourselves conducted to conclusions as inconsistent with the character of Christ, as those to which the former view led us.! Add to this, what was formerly remarked in reference to the mythical view of the early history of Jesus, that the composition of the Acts of the Apostles’ lies too near the historical occurrences, to allow time for a circle of mythical legends to have formed themselves around the person of Jesus. However, the advocates of this view make their appeal here to a circumstance which at first sight must appear sur- prising. They remind us that the ascension, if it really occurred, is so important an incident in the history of Christ, that in none of the gospels could it be overlooked ; it is the key-stone of the whole, without which the building cannot be completed. Nevertheless, this key-stone is awanting in the Gespel of Matthew, who yet was an eye-witness ; yea, it is even awanting in John, for whose mode of exhibiting Christ's history it would have been doubly important, setting out, as he does, from the original state of the Logos with the Father, to which same position there would have been an evi- dent propriety in following him back. Besides, it is remarked that no other apostle speaks of the occurrence, neither Peter, nor Paul, nor James: it is only the two penmen of the New Testament who were not eye-witnesses, Mark and Luke, who narrate the ascen- sion, for which reason it is regarded as not improbable that they drew their narrative from troubled sources. ‘This is by no means an unimportant observation, and I confess that for a long time I was disquieted by it, because I could nowhere find a satisfactory explanation of the fact. What at last presented itself to me as an explanation, after carefully considering the circumstances of the case, I will now attempt shortly to unfold.’ 1 The beautiful conclusion of the life of Jesus by Hase (p. 204), “ his departure was not the troubled parting of a mortal, but the blessing of a glorified being, who once promised by his favour with God to live on immortal among lis disciples; and he does remain with us,’ sinks down, therefore, to mere words; because shortly before, Chirist’s grave was presupposed, and with it the troubled parting of a mortal. 2 Hase, in his life of Jesus, who decides in favour of the mythical view of the resur- Z2 950 acts 1. 9—11. First of all, it bas already been often remarked, and with justice, that references to the ascension are not so entirely awanting as has been supposed. In the Old Testament, it is true, there are pas- sages, such as Ps. cx. 1, containing mere hints which can be di- rectly applied to the ascension only on the authority of the New Testament; but yet, in 2 Kings 11. 11, we are presented with an obvious prefiguration of it in the history of Elijah.’ It would, therefore, very readily suggest itself to the Rabbins, who transferred everything glorious and beautiful in the Old Testament to the Messiah, to suppose also that he should ascend to heaven. (Com- pare Scheettgen, Jesus der wahre Messias, Leipsic, 1748, p. 844, &c.) And, what is of more weight, Jesus himself refers to it, not only in the expression, so often repeated in the last chapters of John, ὑπά- γω πρὸς Tov πατέρα, but also more definitely in the passage of John vi. 62, ἐὰν οὖν θεωρῆτε τὸν υἱὸν Tod ἀνθρώπου ἀναβαίνοντα, ὅπου ἦν τὸ πρότερον, where the connexion, as well as the words vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, plainly point to an exaltation of his human nature. In the apostolic epistles, in fine, there are passages, such as 1 Tim. iii. 16, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ, which contain manifest allu- sions to the fact in question; and even other passages, such as Ephes. ii. 6, iv. 8, and 1 Pet. iii. 22 (πορευθεὶς εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν, where, besides, you have mention of the ἀνάστασις immediately going before), are not to be overlooked, nor yet any of those decla- rations which represent Christ as sitting continually at the ‘right hand of God, particularly Matt. xxvi. 64. However, it must be acknowledged that in most of these passages the specific circum- stance distinctive of Christ's ascension, viz., the elevation of his body, is not expressly brought forward, and, therefore, many of them might be applied to persons who have blissfully fallen asleep, like the words “ he has gone to heaven.” But, again, let it be supposed that the declarations of Mark and Luke regarding the ascension were awanting likewise, and that rection, declares the silence of the eye-witnesess to be altogether inexplicable. And to what point he was led by this mythical view appears from the words, “ as the grave of Moses, so also his was not seen.” Had he then his grave, he who swallowed up death for ever?! (Hase, ns cited above, page 204.) 11 designedly mention only lias, because the departure of Enoch and Moses is not represented expressly as a bodily glorification. 2 Ephes ii. 6 is a passage particularly worthy of notice, because Paul there views the resurrection and ascension of Christ as an image of the resurrection and exaltation of believers. ’ ACTS I. 9—11. 357 we were quite at liberty to imagine to ourselves what was the end of Christ's earthly life ; and should we then be able to conceive any other departure of the Lord, that would recommend itself to the consciousness of Christians? As it is allowed the Saviour was not a mere phantom, like what the Docetae supposed, but lived in a real human body upon the earth, we are necessarily driven to suppose, if the glorification of his body be not admitted, that a separation of his soul from his body again took place. But this separation would just be death, and therefore we must say that in some way or other Christ died again, and that his soul returned to his Father. But where, then, is the victory of Christ over death ? What becomes of the significancy of the resurrection, which all the Apostles have cele- brated as the great work of God, and as the foundation of faith. (Comp. Comm. on 1 Cor. xv.) It has already been remarked in the history of the resurrection, that the raising of Christ is important, only as being the highest point of the power of the ζωή ; for Christ conquered death in his humanity, and rose with a glorified immor- tal body. But what boots a resurrection, that is followed by a new death? If the Redeemer, therefore, is to continue always, what he is to the church, the conqueror of sin and death, then his depar- ture from this world cannot be conceived to have been different from what the Evangelists declare. Now let this be granted, and the question will present itself in quite a different shape. The fact of the ascension is certain, on internal grounds, and the only question that now remains is, why this concluding scene receives so little promi- nence in the apostolic writings? To this question you find a suf- ficient answer in the relation, which the resurrection and the ascen- sion necessarily bear to one another. The ascension, as the con- cluding act of our Lord’s career upon the earth, did not, by any means, appear so important to the apostles as it does to us: in their view it seemed only a circumstance consequent upon his resurrection. They had already become accustomed, after their master’s death, to regard him as absent and gone: they had no continuous enjoyment of his presence after he rose from the dead: there was always something sudden and unexpected about the individual appearances he made to them, and each might be the last. And though indeed the ascension was an express leave-taking and a solemn departure, yet even after it Jesus appeared again, for example, to Paul! The 1 Hence, too, the apostle Paul (1 Cor, xv. 8) enumerates, along with the other ap- 358 Acts 1. 9—11. ascension itself, therefore, was really not so important an act ; the moment of our Lord's departure appeared like a fleeting instant, and therefore there was no feast of the ascension known to the an- cient church... Every thing of importance in a doctrinal point of view was concentrated in the resurrection ; with it closed the earthly being of Christ: the ascension, and also the outpouring of the Spirit, which was connected with the ascension and dependent upon it, are only results of the resurrection, viewed as the glorification of the body, and consequences of the victory over death. Whilst in the assumption of humanity the divine became flesh by birth, the resurrection is something like a birth of the flesh into spirit ; and the ascension is the return of the glorified body into the eternal world of spirit, with which the session of the glorified Redeemer at the right hand of God, and his consequent participation in the divine government, must be viewed as necessarily connected. As therefore the earthly sinks by the essential tendency of its nature down to the earth, so likewise does an inward impulse guide the heavenly back to its source. The Redeemer therefore, glorified in body, could not leave his σῶμα πνευματικόν upon the earth, but he took it with him into the world of spirit. And according to the representative character which Christ bears in relation to mankind, the whole race was elevated in him, and he now draws up to his own elevation his faithful people, and grants to them to sit upon his throne, as God has granted to him to sit upon his throne. (Rey. iii. 21.) If but one Evangelist, therefore, had neglected to mention the resurrection of Christ, the omission would have been inexplicable, but the omission of the ascension in the Gospels of Matthew and John is only to be regarded in this light, that they pearances of Christ, the appearance of him with which he himself was favoured, although it did not take place till after the ascension, and he speaks of the resurrection without making any mention of the ascension at all. 1 In the days of Augustine and Chrysostom the ascension was indeed celebrated in the church, and because they did not know the origin of the feast that commemorated it (adscensio, ἀνάληψις), they traced it back to the apostles; but in the writings of the fathers of the first three centuries, there is no trace of it to be found, (Comp. Binghami origg. ecel., vol. ix. p. 126, sqq.) How much too the importance of the feast of ascen- sion has fallen below that of the feast of Easter, in the estimation of Christians, is plain from our collections of sacred psalmody, ‘lhe abundance of admirable hymns for Easter stands in glaring contrast with the few and rather unimportant songs which refer to the ascension. The cause of this fact undoubtedly is nothing but this, that the imagination of poets has not found in the event any peculiar idea, but a mere conse- quence of the resurrection. ACTS I. 12——] 4. 359 have narrated one fewer of the appearances of Christ. That the risen Redeemer has ascended to heaven with his glorified body, and sits on the right hand of God, lies at the foundation of the whole apostolic view of his ministry ; and without this idea neither the significant rite of the Supper, nor yet the doctrine of the re- surrection of the body, can be retained at all with consistency. And therefore, in fact, the New Theology has not hitherto been able properly to incorporate with itself either the one or the other, be- cause, on account of its prevailing ideal tendency, it has misunder- stood the import of the ascension. Vers. 12—14. Luke next gives an account of the return of the disciples to Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives. The usual name of this mountain (see Comm. on Matt. xxi. |) is ὄρος τῶν ἐλαίων. The name here employed, ὄρος τοῦ ἐλαιῶνος, is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament, but it also occurs in Josephus, Ant. vii. 9,2. It comes from ἐλαίων, olivetum, a place planted with olive trees. The LXX. use it for my. Exod. xxiii. 11. This mountain lay, it is well known, near to the city, at the distance of a Sabbath day's journey. (The Jews might walk on the Sabbath two thousand yards, or seven and a half stadia or furlongs. Josephus states the distance of the Mount of Olives sometimes at six furlongs [Ant. xx. 8, 6], and sometimes at five [Bell. Jud. i. 5.2], according as he counted from the top of the mountain or the foot. Here itis only an indefinite statement that is made.) When Luke intimates in verse 13 that the apostles assembled in a private house (ὑπερῶον equivalent to spy, an upper chamber,’ which was usually constructed in the form of a hall, and therefore commonly served for meetings, Acts ix. 37, xx. 8); it is only in appearance that this contradicts the passage In the Gospel of Luke xxiv. 51, where it is stated that they were in the temple. For the word that is added, διαπαντός, shows that it is not there meant to be affirmed that they went directly from the Mount of Olives to the temple, but rather that as pious God-fearing men they were frequently to be found in the common sanctuary of the nation. But in the passage before us the discourse relates to an immediate meeting, after the return from the Mount of Olives, (Respecting the list of the apostles, see the Commentary on Matt. x. 2.) 1 Undoubtedly it was in the house of a family friendly to them, perhaps in the same where the last supper was observed, 360 acts 1. 15—17. Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned by name as a mark of respect, and it is for the last time. It is not to be overlooked that the brothers of Christ are distinguished from the eleven apostles, for this circumstance clearly shows that none of them can have be- longed to that body. It is not to be doubted, however, that they were now attached to the Gospel, and perhaps liad been so from the time of Christ’s appearance to James (1 Cor. xv. 7.) (Comp. the Comment. on John vii. 5, and Matt. xin. 55.) Although the Lord had now left the disciples, and they stood alone like sheep among wolves, yet they were filled with a blessed joy. (Luke xxiv. 56.) They had learned, that by means of the resurrection of Christ, the foundations of the kingdom of God were immoveably laid, and that all their hopes should be realized. Therefore they joined together in heartfelt prayer, that the purposes of God towards maukind might be carried into effect through them. From the historical statement of the individual fact, ὅτε εἰσῆλθον, ἀνέβησαν, there is a transition made to a general form of expression in the words, δυ ἧσαν καταμένοντες and ἦσαν προσκαρτεροῦτες. Here in the place indicated they were wont to assemble for prayer. (Comp. verse 15.) ‘The word ὁμοθυμαδόν, in verse 14, also in chap. ii. |, 46, is worthy of notice: it is only to be found once in the other books of the New Testament, viz., in Rom. xv. 6. It denotes that oneness of life in the disciples which was displayed in a living community of feeling and consciousness. Vers. 15—17, During the days that intervened between the ascension and the day of Pentecost (ii. 1) the apostles proceeded to the election of a new member of the apostolic college in the room of Judas. First of all, in reference to this transactiun, it seems strange, that when the Redeemer himself had not supplied the vacancy during the forty days that followed his resurrection, the apostles did not wait till they received the Holy Ghost. In that case they might have been able to dispense with the use of the lot, which necessarily betrays a deficiency of the gift of discerning spirits: if Peter, for instance, had had this gift of the Holy Ghost, then he could at once, by heavenly guidance, have selected a new apostle. But this would have been a proceeding obviously opposed to all pro- priety, for one apostle could not nominate another: all of them required to be appointed by the same Lord.' Their use of the lot 1 Τῇ this circumstance probably we find the reason why in the ancient church the acts I. 15—17. 361 therefore only gave expression to the idea, that they wished ‘to de- cline the decision themselves, and to put it wholly ito the hands of the Saviour. Yet certainly this occurrence will always remain a proof not to be overlooked of the lawfulness of the lot, in those cases where a decision needs to be given, and where it transcends the ability of man to discover what is the nght. It is well known that in such cases the church of the United Brethren use the lot; and, according to the latest accounts regarding the practice, they use it with such prudence that scarcely any well grounded objection can be made to it. But further, in the speech of Peter, there is exhibited a manifest consciousness of the importance of the office which was conferred upon him and all the apostles, and of the completeness of the body which the twelve were designed to form. And just because they were to stand purely as the representatives of Israel (comp. Comm. at Matt. x. 1), even Paul himself afterwards could not be ranked in the apostolic circle, for as the apostle of the Gentiles, he did not belong to the number of the twelve. And finally, our admiration is excited by the calmness and the clear conscience with which Peter speaks of Judas in this first speech which he delivers. Though he had himself so deeply fallen, he could, after receiving pardon as a penitent, take that lead among the disciples to which the Lord had called him, without being held back by a false humility, and proceed to supply the place of Judas who had destroyed himself in despairing remorse. So greatly do sins differ from one another in their consequences, according to the state- of mind from which they proceed! Only let the heart be at bottom sincere and true to God, and the soul may soon rise again from a very deep fall. The whole body of the little church at Jerusalem amounted at that time only to one hundred and twenty souls. Ὄνομα, the name, is here employed to denote the person himself. The word is used in the same manner in Rev. 111. 4, where it stands plainly for ἄνθρωποι. Among profane authors this usage is only to be found teachers of religion were not also appointed by lot. The apostles were named imme- diately by the Lord, and therefore the filling of the vacancy which had occurred was also left to him. But the overseers and teachers of individual churches were always named by the apostle who planted them, and the church kept up the number by election. It is only at a late period that traces of election by lot are to be found in Spain (see Binghami orig. 666]. vol. ii. 80), but it was probably just the passage before us which led to the adoption of the practice when it did arise. 2 362 AcTs I. 18, 19. in poetical diction. For ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, equivalent to VIM, you find only once κατὰ τὸ αὐτό, viz., in Acts xiv. 1. This ‘phrase ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό occurs chiefly in the writings of Luke and Paul, though also in Matt. xxii. 34. In signification it refers usually to place, χωρίον being understood, yet sometimes also, as in Acts iii. 1, to time, in the sense of “* at the same time, together.” It unites there- fore in itself, like a7: different references. The passages to which Peter refers in his speech, as relating to Judas, are cited in verse 20. In accordance with the universal doctrine of Scripture, the word of prophecy is here considered as neces- sarily reaching its fulfilment. That this objective necessity does not interfere with the subjective free determinations of the mind, but that God knows free actions as such, has already been repeatedly brought under notice. It is probably in such passages as verse 17, κλῆρος τῆς διακονίας, compared with verse 25, that we are to seek the origin of the word clerus, as applied to the spiritual functionaries of the church. At the very beginning of the church, it was supposed, you must find the commencement also of the spiritual office; and this name very naturally presented itself, having been applied to the apostles as the representatives of that office. Κλῆρος denotes the lot, then whatever is distributed by lot, as abn. and then gene- rally that which is distributed ; here it means a thing conferred by God, which of course implied that the individual who had received the special blessing, was laid under special obligations to God in re- turn.! Κλῆρος διακονίας must therefore be translated, “ munus mi- nisteril,” but the expressions are by nu means synonymous, as Hein- richs and Kuinoel assert. Vers. 18, 19. These two verses appear not to belong to the original speech of Peter. As the miserable end of Judas was uni- versally known in Jerusalem (verse 19), it is improbable that Peter should have here detailed it so minutely.? The verses, therefore, 1 Thus speaks Jerome, Epist. ii. ad Nepot., ministri Dei propterea vocantur clerici, vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors id est pars clericorum est. See Binghomi orig. eccl. vol. i.50. 2 Itis too sweeping a conclusion which is here drawn by Olshausen. ‘The statements of these verses are necessary to the speech of Peter; they are connected by conjunctions with the foregoing and the following verses; and the description of the fate of Judas prepares the way for the quotation from the book of Psalms. It might have been need- Jess to mention a fact universally known, if it lad been simply mentioned; but it is menuoned as a fulfilment of what is stated in the book of Psalms, γέγραπται γὰρ, 3 ACTS) 1.1.20. 363 are most properly to be regarded as ἃ historical, supplement of Luke, who in his gospel had mentioned no particulars respecting the fate of Judas. ‘This supposition will appear the more plain and natural, when it is considered that this view must at any rate be taken of verse 19, because we must suppose that Peter spoke in Hebrew, and therefore we cannot imagine that a translation of the word ᾿Ακελδαμά would occur in his speech. Meyer, however, is right in saying that, as to their form, these verses are to be consi- dered as belonging to the apostle’s speech. Regarding the parti- cular circumstances mentioned in them, as well as the fate of Judas generally, and the purchase of the piece of ground made by the priests, see the details in the Commentary at Matthew xxvii. 5. Ver. 20. According to this view, then, the quotations from the Old Testament connect themselves immediately with the 16th verse, where mention of them is made. With respect to the first passage, it is taken from Ps. Ixix. 25." In the LXX. it stands thus : yevn- θήτω ἡ ἔπαυλις αὐτῶν ἠρημωμένη καὶ ἐν τοῖς σκηνώμασιν αὐτῶν μὴ ἔστω ὁ κατοικῶν. Probably the passage has been quoted from the Septuagint, but only from memory, for the variations from the LXX. are not material. The employment of the singular number, however, is plainly intentional, that the reference of the passage to Judas may bethe better marked. But in this there is by no means any disfigurement or essential alteration of the sense. Judas is only viewed as representing the ungodly in general, and the sentiment which is applicable to them all, holds good of him pre-eminently. On this principle, it is to be explained how the passage admits of being applied to Judas, and the word ἔπαυλις, equivalent to οἰκία, and occurring only here in the New Testament, to his apos- tolic office.2 We need not at all suppose that David, in the strict and proper sense, had a view of Judas and his office clearly before his mind ; but he scanned deeply the fundamental relations between good and evil, as they are developed in the history of the world. x. 7. A., and therefore the notoriety of the occurrence only made it the more suitable to be stated. And, as to the reason grounded upon tlie interpretation given of Aceldama, it can only at the most show that the few words of explanation were inserted by Luke for the information of Theophilus.—Tr. 1 In the Hebrew it is the 26th verse, which runs thus: om>nNa mse AME AN ‘ pagers ἐὰν rip ie SW FTN 2 On the 69th Psalm in general see the Comment. on John ii, 17, 364 ACTS 1. '215°22, For it is God's plan to permit the evil to bear sway for a time over the good, but judgment at length goes forth, and the evil is driven from the position it held. Then the place of the evil is supplied by a good which repairs its disasters. This deep thought was ex- hibited typically in the life of David, and it was realised in a great historical event in the case of Judas, but it shall one day be fully vindicated in the complete triumph of the good. The second pas- sage is quoted from Ps. cix. 8, and it corresponds word for word to the LXX. To this Psalm the same remarks exactly are applicable, as have been made regarding Ps. Ixix. There too David, the repre- sentative in his day of all godly living, is described as being in his persecutions a type of the Messiah. (᾿Επισκοπή corresponds to the Hebrew word 7777p, office.) Vers. 21, 22. It is not inward qualifications which Peter here brings forward as requisite to an apostle, but something altogether external, viz., constant intercourse with Christ and his circle of followers. This, indeed, may appear a faulty principle, when it is considered that Paul, who enjoyed no such intercourse, yet Jaboured far more than Matthias who was chosen. But it must not be over- looked that three years’ intercourse with Christ, though a thing purely external in itself, was yet of such a nature that during it a decided change of some kind must unavoidably take place in the individual: either he would enter upon a really pious life, or he would sink as deep into sin as Judas. The heavenly light which proceeded from Christ Jeft no room for indecision. The idea of Peter, accord- ingly, must be conceived in this manner, “ we can choose none, but one who has already approved himself.” We do not find any re- spect at all paid to opulence of natural endowments in the choice of the apostles. The majority of those who were chosen by Christ himsel/ do not appear to have been in any way pre-eminently distin- guished by talents. Integrity, truth, and experience were the only qualities that were looked to, and these qualities are still of most importance in the church of Christ. Again, it is the resurrection only, ἀνάστασις, which Peter prominently exhibits, although he also mentions the ascension. It was not witnesses of the ascension the church needed, but witnesses of the resurrection, for the former was a necessary consequence of the latter. The phrase εἰσέρχεσ- θαι and ἐξέρχεσθαι is formed upon the model of the Hebrew MNw NID: and denotes the close and intimate intercourse of life. ACTS I. 28—26. 90 ὃ Ver. 23. ‘wo persons, who possessed the qualification required, were now appointed as candidates, viz., Barsabas and Matthias. The former thad three names, like Thaddeus among the apostles. (Comp. Comm. on Matt. x. 3.) For ᾿Ιωσήφ, however, some codices read ᾿[ωσῆς ; and for Βαρσαβᾶν, codex D., in particular, has Bap- νάβαν. Both names appear to have been frequently interchanged with the kindred forms. This Joseph Barsabas has been con- founded by transcribers with the well known Joses Barnabas men- tioned in chap. iv. 86,! and there too, indeed, some codices read Βαρσαββᾶς. (The etymology of Βαρσαβᾶς is unknown. Grotius explains it to mean son of an oath, from “2 and paw. The name Justus was borrowed by the Jews from the Latin tongue, and assumed the form of spp. Vers. 24—26. The question presents itself, to whom is this prayer addressed? The word κύριε, placed absolutely, denotes in the New Testament almost universally the Son? ; and, besides, the words ἀνάδειξον ὃν ἐξελέξω are decisive. The apostles are just the messengers of Christ; it is he who selects them, and of him they are to bear witness. Here, therefore, we have the first ex- ample of a prayer offered to the exalted Redeemer, which furnishes indirectly the strongest proof of his divinity. Καρδιογνώστης is equivalent to 445 Sn Jerem. xvii. 10; comp. John ii. 25. Of Matthias, who was chosen, history gives no particular information. Adovat κλήρους equivalent to Pale 2: Lev. xvi. 8.—The word συγκαταψηφίζεσθαι, meaning to be chosen with general consent, occurs in no other part of the New Testament. There has been found some difficulty in the statement these verses make concerning Judas, that he went εἰς τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον. False principles of moderation have created a wish to shun the ob- vious sense of the words, and therefore πορευθῆναι, has been made to refer back to λαβεῖν, and τόπος has been understood to mean office ; so that the sense of the whole has been made this: show, Lord, whom thou hast chosen to receive the office, and to enter into 1 Against the identity of the two men yon have decisive evidence in the chapter men- tioned above, iv. 86; where, certainly, if Barnabas had been the same with Barsabas, some reference to this fact was to be expected. What Ullmann (Studien 1828, ii., page 377, ff.) has adduced in favour of their identity has not convinced me of it. 2 Consult Winer’s treatise, de sensu vocum, κύριος et ὁ κύριος, in actt. epist. apost. Erlangee, 1828. 366 ACTS: 11. 1. the situation thus devolving upon him. But this exposition is so ungrammatical and violent, that it cannot maintain its ground for a moment, for as the words ἐξ ἧς παρέβη ᾿Ιούδας stand between λαβεῖν and πορευθῆναι, it is perfectly clear, that without καὶ these two infinitives cannot be connected. ‘The explanations too which, referring the clause to Judas, understand the word τόπος of the grave or of his habitation, and make the meaning to be that he withdrew himself entirely from the company of believers, are just as little deserving of attention. Nothing is left therefore but to regard τόπος ἴδιος as a euphemistical designation of the place of punishment, to which it was befitting that Judas should be con- signed on account of his sins One codex has δίκαιος τόπος, meaning, according to the fundamental signification of this word : ‘‘ What is due to any one, what righteously belongs to him.” Al- though this undoubtedly is the meaning of the words, yet interpre- ters have not brought it prominently out, how τόπος ἴδιος forms a contrast with ἔπαυλις and επισκοπή in ver. 20. The heavenly position in the kingdom of light and truth to which Judas was called, but which he lost by his unfaithfulness, has standing op- posed to it the kingdom of darkness, whose powers draw him down to themselves. As the iron between two magnets, so stands the soul there between the powers of light and of darkness; and the principle to which it yields the supremacy, draws it upwards or downwards to itself. § 2. CELEBRATION OF THE FIRST PENTECOST." (Acts ii. 1—47.) Ver. 1. And now the sacred number of the twelve was again re- stored to its completeness, and the closed circle of the disciples were waiting in prayer for the promise of the Father (i. 4.) Nor did the Redeemer, exalted to heaven to the nght hand of power, leave them long alone (John xiv. 18); but he opened the streams of the celestial world, and in the language of Isaiah xlv. 8, made 1 See the discussion by Hase in Winer’s Zeitscrift f. wissensch, Theolo., part ii. page 264, ff. Likewise Schneckenburger iiber die Pfingstbegebenheit in der Beitragen, p. 70, &e. ACTSilits lh 367 the heavens drop from above, and the clouds pour down righteous- ness. The fulness of the Spirit from above, which had vanished with the sin of mankind, returned once more ; and by means of that fulness there was laid in the church of Christ the foundation of the kingdom of God upon earth. Broken into fragments by sin, mankind were melted together anew into a holy unity ; and in order to seal this restored unity, the diversity of languages, which was the consequence of the breach made by sin, was neutralized. This effect, it is true, lasted only for a brief period, but still it served as a real pledgeof the permanent condition one day to beexpected. This great fact, however, the birth-day of the young church, the new birth of Israel according to the Spirit, is preserved to us only in the one short narrative of Luke; and therefore it is not easy to form to one’s self a clear conception of the event, the more especially as there are difficult collateral points connected with the main question. We begin our statement with an explanation of the text, that we may first investigate carefully what it was the author designed to communicate, and then we shall subjoin a vindication to the con- sciousness of Christians of what he declares, as also remarks upon other views that have been taken of the event. And jirst of all, with regard to the time of the occurrence, there is a difficulty in the words, ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντακοστῆς. The word συμπληροῦσθαι or πληροῦσθαι applied to points of time, denotes invariably in the New Testament, the reaching of a term, which stands related to an earlier period. Here the view is directed back to the feast of the Passover, and on the arrival of Pentecost, the interval between the two feasts was, as it were, filled up. The words before us therefore cannot be translated, when the day of Pentecost approached, but when it was reached. > υμπληροῦσθαι occurs in this sense only in another passage, Luke ix. 51; but πληροῦσθαι, like sor in the Old Testament, occurs with singular frequency, especially in Luke. Also in Mark i. 15, Jobn vii. 8. Further, the phrase ἡμέρα τῆς πεντηκοστῆς, must not be translated “‘ the fiftieth day ;” the Greek for that would be ἡμέρα πεντηκοστή; but “the day of Pentecost,’ πεντηκοστή having ac- quired quite the force of a substantive. The supplement of ἑορτὴ is altogether unnecessary, but it is not absurd, as Meyer maintains, any more than our own word “ pfingstfest,” feast of Pentecost. He erroneously supposes that πεντηκοστὴ ἑορτή would mean the fiftieth 568 ACTS 1. l. feast ; but that this is not the case, is clear from a passage in Tobias ii. 1, ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῆ ἑορτῆ, ἡ ἐστιν ἁγία érta ἑβδομάδων. 2 Mace. xii. 32. Among the Jews Pentecost was called 97, Miyavi: the feast of weeks, that is of seven weeks, Deut. xvi. 9, Tobias ii. 1. It was celebrated as a memorial of the giving of the law of Moses on Mount Sinai, and also as a feast of ingathering.” It corresponded therefore entirely to the Christian Pentecost, inas- much as it celebrated the establishment of the Old Testament cove- nant, when God wrote his law outwardly upon tables of stone, while now he wrote it with the finger of the Spirit upon the living tables of the heart. The reference also to the harvest had its spiritual signification, because the Christian Pentecost was something like the complete harvest of the Jewish people ; for those who had been brought to the fruit of true repentance and renewal of heart, were gathered in and consecrated to God. The name πεντηκοστή takes its rise from the relation of this feast to the Passover ; for it was to be celebrated on the day following the completion of seven weeks or forty nine days, and consequently fell upon the fiftieth day. Sull however there is a question respecting the point from which the fifty days were counted. According to the appointment of Moses (Lev. xxiii. 15), the fifty days were reckoned from the day after the first day of the Passover, or from the sixteenth day of Nisan; for it is said in the passage referred to paying Hapa, where nay denotes the first day of the Passover, which was observed as a Sab- bath. Now since, according to the accounts given regarding the time of the feast, the Passover in the year of our Lord’s death fell so, that the first day of the feast lasted from Thursday evening at six o'clock till Friday evening at the same hour, it follows of course that it was from Friday evening at six o'clock, that the fifty days began to be counted. The fiftieth day fell therefore, it appears, upon Satur- day, while the whole church, so far as we can trace the history of Pen- tecost, have celebrated the feast on Sunday. Fora solution of this difficulty an appeal is made to a different exposition of Lev. xxiii. 15. While the Jews, trained in the schools of the Rabbins and Pharisees, explain τ of the first day of the Passover, the In the formerrespect it is called m='nm my, the festival of the law. In reference to the first fruits it is called by Philo, ἑορτὴ πρωτογεννημάτων, equivalent to ph ὩΣ π. See Numb. xxviii, 26. AcTs az. d. 369 Karaites understand it of the real Sabbath, that occurred during the paschal feast, which- it is known lasted eight days. But certainly it is an objection to this view, that we cannot well trans- fer the customs of the Karaites back to the time of Christ; at least we have no evidence at all to warrant us to do so. The practice of the church, however, when more narrowly considered, is not at all in- consistent with the reckoning stated above, and, therefore, we may entirely relinquish the appeal to that uncertain hypothesis. It is only necessary that you do not allow yourself to be misled by the different commencement of a Jewish day. Undoubtedly the Jewish Pentecost in the year of our Lord’s death fell upon Saturday, but it began at six o'clock in the evening, when the Sabbath was at a close, and it lasted till six o'clock on Sunday evening. As the church, therefore, has quite rightly fixed the day of the Redeemer’s death upon Friday, although the Passover began on ‘Thursday evening at six o'clock, so also has it with equal propriety fixed the first Pentecost upon the day, which occurred exactly seven weeks after the resurrection. In those congregations of the primitive church, which at first, according to Jewish custom, observed Easter on the day of the week on which it fell by the reckoning, they would also, without doubt, assign Pentecost to the day of the week which came round at the expiration of seven weeks after Easter, but, when the custom became general of statedly observing Easter upon Sunday, the whole church likewise celebrated Pentecost on the seventh Sunday after Easter.’ There is another considerable difficulty, with respect to the place where the event recorded occurred. As we know (ii. 15) the hour of the day exactly, viz., nine o'clock morning, which was one of the solemn hours of prayer among the Jews, we cannot suppose that’ on the morning of the first Pentecost, the apostles would not be assembled in the temple for prayer. The great multitude of men, too, of so many different nations that streamed in upon them, appears to point to the temple as the place, because it was the central point to 1 The state of the case would, indeed, be quite different if Hitsig’s view were right, which is developed in the circular letter to Ideler, entitled “ Ostern und Pfingsten zur zeitbestim- mung im Alten und Neuen Testament,” Heidelberg 1837, page, ὅς. According to the view there given, the Passover and Pentecost were not moveable feasts at all. But the correctness of this view appears tome a matter of doubt. However, I venture no judg- ment on this difficult question. I have rather desired that it might please the venerable man, to whom the circular letter is addressed, to express his opinion of Hitsig’s view. ὙΘΕΣ Ly. x A 370 ACTS It. 1. which all eagerly flocked. Yet, on the other hand, the expression ὅλος οἶκος in verse 2 seems to indicate a private house, in which case the scene would be entirely altered ; and particularly it would be inexplicable, how so many persons, and so different from one another, could assemble round the apostles. But the accounts given by Josephus respecting the construction of the temple guide us here to the right conclusion. According to his description, the main building was surrounded by thirty rooms, which he names οἴκους (Joseph. Antiq., viii. 3, 2.), and it is probable the apostles, along with their little company, assembled in one of these spacious apartments. And thus the solemn inauguration of the church of Christ presents itself as an imposing spectacle in the sanctuary of the old covenant. The weightiest objection which can be brought against these views, arises out of the idea, that the Pharisees would hardly have permitted the apostles to assemble in the temple. But let it be considered that hitherto the apostles had been treated as quite harmless people, and that, probably, there was no need of any special permission for such a meeting, because these halls, being employed for various purposes, stood to some extent open, and were accessible to every person, and then the force of the ob- jection will completely disappear. Unless you make this supposi- tion, the whole occurrence must present itself as one of a far less significant character. As the crowning inauguration of Christ took place in the temple (John xii. 28), so behoved it also to be the case with the founding of the church. Here the hundred and twenty assembled (i. 15) (that is ten times twelve), and by means of their preaching and help at baptizing (ii. 41) the number imme- diately grew to three thousand (that is twenty-five times one hun- dred and twenty.) Without doubt, therefore, we must suppose that not the twelve only but the whole hundred and twenty received the Holy Ghost, for this gift was to be something common and acces- sible to every believer. It was, therefore, bestowed upon the first little company of decided believers for further diffusion among all who should become connected with them. Certainly, however, the twelve possessed the Holy Ghost in a different way from the other believers, as is indicated particularly by the circumstance that they only at first appear to have been gifted with the power of commu- nicating the Spirit. (See Commentary on Acts viii. 15.) Vers. 2, 3. If we examine the text then, quite without prejudice, ACTS Il. 2, 3. 371 it will be seen that the historian presents the astonishing occurrence in this light. While the disciples were sitting in the apartment, there suddenly arose a rushing noise (ἦχος means any sound, but especially a rushing or whistling sound), which appeared to come downwards from heaven : it might be compared to the rushing of a mighty wind that fleets along, and it filled the spacious hall gra- dually, although moving quickly onwards. The whole description is so picturesque and striking, that it could only come from an eye- witness. After these sounds, there are described the sights that accompanied them. The disciples saw (ὥφθησαν αὐτοῖς can only be understood thus, “ there appeared to them,” that is, they saw, not “there were seen upon them,” “ visae sunt super 1105} fiery flames, which seemed to proceed from a common centre, but disparted and divided themselves: these flames touched each of the company and rested upon them, and they all now felt themselves to be filled with a high and holy principle of life, and they began to speak with tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. In the phrase γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, the word γλῶσσα, like ww i in Isaiah v. 24, must be understood in the sense of flame. ice the word ὡσεί is inserted because, although the appearance was indeed one of fire, yet its effects showed it to be different from an actual earthly flame. The word διαμεριζόμενος refers to an ori- ginal unity, which has resolved itself into parts. The author mani- festly intends that we should form to ourselves the idea of a fiery stream, which divided itself, and whose radiations spread over all and rested upon them. The word μένειν, so great a favourite with John, corresponds entirely to καθίζειν. As respects the explanation of this occurrence, it may be alleged, in the first place, that the disciples saw and heard every thing in a state of ecstacy or trance. and that accordingly the gathering crowds (verse 6) heard not the rushing noise, but were attracted to the place by the Sound of the disciples’ voices. But a trance happening at the same time to many persons, let it even be but to twelve, is a thing utterly unheard of. We must therefore suppose there was something external which produced this common ecstacy, the more especially as it was attended with real consequences, for the apostles suddenly stand forth after this occurrence as inspired witnesses of Christ, and preach the Gospel. Ov¢hers therefore are inclined to suppose there was some physical phenomenon in the 2a2 ~ 279 ACTS. 11. 2, 8. air, a thunder-storm or electric meteors, which were interpreted as manifestations of God from heaven in favour of the apostles, as the fulfilment of the promise of the Father. But neither can this sup- position prove satisfactory, for, in the first place, other men too must have seen these atmospheric phenomena, and could not there- fore have had occasion to wonder at the event; and, secondly, an interpretation put by the apostles upon a thunder-storm, could never have secured that lasting power which accrued to them from the scene, and least of all could it have given rise to such peculiar ex- hibitions as the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, “ speaking with tongues,” which lasted for many years in the church. Nor again, is the mythical view of the occurrence, which is grounded upon the idea pre- valent among Jews as well as Gentiles (see Schoettgen on this passage, Liv. 1. 89, Virg. Aen. 11. 680, sqq.), that in peculiar cir- cumstances rays of light have played around distinguished per- sons, at all admissible here. For, not to advert to the cireum- stance that we cannot allow the possibility of myths arising in the time of the eye-witnesses, and passing over too the consideration that this myth would be formed contrary to all analogy, the gift of tongues being a thing wholly unprecedented; the view before us would lead to the conclusion that the power which subsequently dis- played itself in the ministry of the apostles was a mere development of their own life, a conclusion that would entirely set aside the peculiar work of the Holy Ghost. Even should you be unable, therefore, to reconcile yourself to the occurrence, still you must confess, that it is the author's design to declare that a higher and a heavenly power came upon the apostles, amid audible and visible manifestations ; and the very fact of the existence of the church obliges you in any case to suppose that there must have been something to produce so mighty a change in the timid disciples. Many have found the cause of this change in the resurrection of Christ (Hase’s Life of Jesus, page 196) ; but not one of the disciples taught publicly before Pente- cost : it was on the day and in the hour of the outpouring of the Spirit, that the church was first permanently established, and there- after it grew from day to day and from century to century. Now let us only disengage ourselves from the prevailing ideas respecting the relation between spirit and matter, of which we have already said something in the history of the resurrection, and much of the difficulty which these ideas have been the means of spread- ACTS 11. 4—I11. 373 ing over the history of Pentecost will disappear. The supposition of an absolute separation of the spiritual world from the material is altogether incapable of proof, and it is in the highest degree im- probable, because the very constitution of man himself furnishes us with an example of spirit acting in matter. The essence of the Absolute Spirit, which is love, implies moreover the power of im- parting himself, and the supposition that spirit can receive spirit, that two such homogeneous natures may be united, involves nothing which should restrain us from adopting it: yea the consciousness of spiritual poverty, viewed along with the greatness of the calling which man feels, necessarily gives indication that a higher ful- ness shall one day supply the want that is felt. Hence, too, the longing desire that runs throughout the whole of the Old Testa- ment, and the promise of a spiritual fulness to be poured down upon mankind. The only thing in the narrative before us, according to the view we have given, which might still occasion doubt, even to the man who readily admits the idea of spiritual communication, is the fact that here the spiritual power displays itself in physical effects, from which it is feared materialism may result. But this, too, on closer consideration, 15. very easily explained. It is not said that the spiritual is itself material, which certainly would be quite inconceivable, but only that the spiritual, when it was mani- fested, was accompanied with physical effects. And if any one should suppose even this to be contradictory, then every outward manifestation of the inward spiritual life in man, yea his very ex- istence, which exhibits spirit in a material covering, would also be a contradiction, which no one will pretend to assert. Vers. 4—11. The whole description of the ovcurrence that follows, serves for the illustration of the mysterious gift of tongues, which was now manifested in accordance with the pro- mise given in Mark xvi. !7. ‘The feast had brought Jews from all parts of the world to Jerusalem, who were assembled in the Temple at the hour of prayer; and pressing forward where the sound proceeded frum the chamber of meeting, they were asto- nished to hear the company speaking in their several dialects. We are at once led to ascribe to the historian the idea, that an effect was here exhibited, exactly the reverse of the separation that once took place among the nations by the confusion of tongues (Gen. ΧΙ. 7.). The outpouring of the Spirit of God, through the instru- 374 ACTS 11. 4— il. mentality of the gift of tongues, melted together again the broken fragments into a new unity. Hence the minute catalogue of na- tions, which are enumerated according to their order of position, from east to west, from north to south, in order to indicate the whole world: every one hears his own speech, and feels that the wall of separation which divided him from his brethren is taken away. ‘The expression γλώσσαις λαλεῖν appears therefore plainly to mean speaking in various dialects, so that all who were present understood what was advanced. There is something of inexactness certainly in the words: εἷς ἕκαστος ἤκουον τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ λα- λούντων αὐτῶν in verse 6; for every one of the multitude could not hear every disciple speaking in his own language: manifestly, however, it is only the expression that is somewhat indefinite: be- cause the meaning must be, that every one of the collected throng heard his own language from some one of the disciples. This is clear from the speech which Luke in the 7th and following verses, puts into the mouth of the multitude, for of course these words could not be spoken in such a shape: what individuals may have actually said or thought of individual speakers, is exhibited by Luke in the form of a general judgment respecting the whole. Respecting εὐλαβής in verse 5, see the Comm. on Luke ii. 25.— κατοικεῖν, equivalent to ἐπεδημεῖν, denotes a short stay or sojourn in a place, like the Hebrew 4y5s, in Gen. xxvii. 44. Tov ὑπὸ τὸν ovpavor 501]. ὄντων, ‘* that are under heaven,” is a picturesque form of expression to denote extension on every side.—Ver. 6, συγχύνο- μαι, in the sense of being amazed, perplexed, ‘‘ confundi,” occurs in the New Testament only in the Acts of the Apostles (ix. 22, xix. 32, xxi. 31.)—Verse 7. The question, οὐχ οὗτοι Γαλιλαῖοι, is to be explained on the ground of the well-known deficiency of educa- tion, which prevailed in Galilee, and which left no room for ex- pecting strange and distant languages among them.—Vers. 9—-11. The catalogue of the nations of the Greek and Roman world is plainly constructed according to a rule. Those in the east are first mentioned, then those in the north, next those in the south, and finally those in the west. ‘The western nations are thrown together under the utle of “Ῥωμαῖοι ;‘ and in conclusion, it is re- 1 The addition of ἐπιδημοῦντες shows that they were not merely Roman citizens dwelling elsewhere, but that they resided in Rome itself, and were therefore properly Romans, ‘Strangers of Rome,” Acts u. 4—11. | RR marked of all the nations mentioned that both Jews and Prose- lytes' (for the passage does not refer at all to Gentiles, who had no occasion to come to the feast) were present from amongst them. And by way of supplement, Cretes and Arabians are mentioned, somewhat unconnectedly with the rest. The only strange thing in the list of countries, is that Judea, ᾿Ιουδαία, verse 9, 1s likewise mentioned ; as it is foreign nations that are to be enumerated, and the discourse relates to an event that happened in Jerusalem, the mention of Judea obviously does not seem appropriate. But when it is considered that Luke wrote in Rome, one easily sees why in his enumeration, commencing with the distant east, he should also name Judea: respect is had to the position of his Roman readers. Theophylact, however, has omitted the word : Tertullian and Augus- tine read Armenia ; others have conjectured India, Bithynia, or the like. India is not suitable, for being the most easterly country, it should have stood first, but Bithynia fits admirably. The very fact, however, that there is a difficulty connected with the reading ‘Iov- daia, must prevent conjecture from prevailing against the manu- scripts.—Verse 11, μεγαλεῖα 561]. ἔργα, equivalent to ΓΑΔ, Ps: Ixxi. 19. But to consider more closely the gift of speaking with tongues (γλώσσαις λαλεῖν), first exhibited at Pentecost, certainly it is a phe- nomenon of the most remarkable kind. While of almost all the great features in the Gospel history, there are not only intimations in the Old Testament,, but also anticipations among the Rabbins, and analogies among other nations, this phenomenon has absolutely nothing akin to it, a circumstance of itself sufficient to divest the my- thical mode of explanation of every shadow of probability. And yet it is this very wonder of speaking with tongues which occurs with such frequency in the church, for in the apostolic times, and in the times too of primitive Christianity, it very copiously accompanied the communication of the Holy Ghost. Without the detailed in- formation, however, which the apostle Paul gives us in 1 Cor. xiy. respecting this gift, and its relation to the προφητεία and t& the 1 The passage adduced by the Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. xiy. 21, from the Old Testa- ment, is of such a kind, that apart from his citation of it, it would never have been re- garded as referring to the γλώσσαις λαλεῖν. See the exposition of this passage, 1 Cor. xiv.21. Ps. Ixxxvii. 6, is a passage of the Old Testament particularly deserving of attention, because undoubtedly you may recognise in it an intimation of the gift of tongues, 376 ACTS 11. 4—11. ἑρμενεία γλωσσῶν, it would be quite impossible for us to acquire clear views of the subject. And for that reason the particular con- sideration of it must be delayed till we reach the passage referred to. At present I shall only give a preliminary abstract of my view, and also a survey of the principal opinions respecting this mys- terious gift. First, with respect to the names which this gift (1 Cor. xii. 4— 11) bears in the New Testament, you find, besides the phrase éré- pas γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, also Kawais γχώσσαις λαλεῖν in Mark xvi. 17, and further simply, γλώσσαις and γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, also γλώσ- on προσεύχεσθαι, ψάλλειν or ψάλμον ἔχειν, γένη γλωσσῶν (xii. 28) ; also simply, γλῶσσαι (xiii. 8), or γλῶσσα (xiv. 26.) In Treneus (v. 26) the phrase παντοδαπαῖς γλώσσαις λαλεῖν occurs. (Comp. the leading passages in 1 Cor. xii. and xiv.) It is probable that the words λαλεῖν, προσεύχεσθαι, and ψάλλειν denoted the different forms in which the gift appeared, the last word, for ex- ample, denoting the poetical and musical form of it. (See the Comm. on 1 Cor. xiv. 15.) As to the point whether the name γένη yAwo- σῶν also denotes a peculiar form of the gift, consult the Commen- tary on | Cor. xiv. 10. Again, with respect to the views which have been entertained of the gift of tongues, we may consider some of them as abandoned. To this class belongs the old orthodox opinion, that the gift of speaking all the languages of the world was bestowed once for all upon the apostles, as a permanent endowment to fit them for their apostolic office. This idea is repugnant to the history of the church, because, not only had the apostles their interpreters, but many persons also received the gift of tongues whose office it by no means was to preach the Gospel to all nations. (Compare what is said in Acts x. 46 regarding Cornelius.) In like manner we may regard as set aside the view which Cyprian, Gregory of Nazianzum, and, at a later period, Erasmus and Schneckenburger have defended, that the miracle lay not in the speakers but in the hears, as if the apostles had spoken in their usual manner, and the hearers supposed each that he heard his own language. If this hypothesis, which rests particularly upon the form of expression used in verse 6, were tenable, then you must at the same time sup- pose that the primitive tongue was again made known by the Spirit to the apostles, and that each of the hearers thought he found his AcTs 11. 4—1 1]. O17 own dialect in it. This is the view of the gift which Billroth (on 1 Cor. xiv.) has attempted to uphold, and I confess that his argu- ment, taken in connexion with the statement of Baur, has made me waver in my opinion. ‘This explanation is attended with the special adventage of bringing out quite clearly the contrast between Pen- tecost, as the period of a restored unity of speech, and the confusion of tongues at the building of Babel. Only I feel myself too much hampered by the text, both here and in 1 Cor. xiv., to be able to adopt this opinion as my own. Especially does the expression γένη γλωσσῶν in | Cor. xii. 28 appear to me incompatible with this hypothesis. And if these explanations are untenable, equally must we dis- miss the so-called natural explanation of the event, which makes the whole fact, so full of significance, degenerate into a mistake. We are required to suppose that the Christians who spoke were Persian and other Jews, and that they prayed in their own Jan- guage, and when a great storm brought many others to the place, who took the Christians for men of Galilee, they were filled with astonishment, and fancied it was a speaking with strange tongues which they heard. In this manner even Meyer under- stands the gift of tongues, but at the same time he supposes that Luke has disfigured the historical fact, and imagined there really was a miraculous speaking in strange languages. In particular, he supposes that he has found a support for this superficial view in verse 15, because he imagines that if all present, even the apostles, who were Galileans by birth, had spoken in strange lan- guages, then Peter would not have said οὐ yap οὗτοι μεθύουσιν, but ov yap ἡμεῖς μεθύομεν. But on the principle of this conclu- sion the apostles would be the only persons who did not speak with tongues, while yet Paul declares, in 1 Cor. xiv. 18, that he spoke with tongues more than all of them. That this explanation suits none of the later passages, in which mention is made of the com- munication of the Spirit, is so clear that there is no need of any remarks upon the subject. Between the extremes which have been mentioned, there lie in- 1 Yet with Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. B. I., p. 172., note 1) you might explain this ex- pression of the different forms in which the gift of tongues presented itself, as προσφεύ- χεσθαι, ψάλλειν, and the like. (Comp. 1 Cor. xiy. 15.) But if you observe the manner in which, with reference to the name γένη γλωσσῶν, the words γένη φωνῶν are em- ployed in xiv. 10, you will find yourself obliged to renounce this expedient, 378 ACTS ΤΙ. 4-—11. . termediate views, which may be the subject of controversy. This much we may regard as generally acknowledged at the present day, that an elevated tone of mind, and one bordering upon ecstacy, was an essential element implied in speaking with tongues. A more vivid conception than the older theologians had reached, of the manner and way in which the Spirit works upon the mind, has gradually brought about this acknowledgment. (Compare the re- marks on the ἔκστασις at Acts x. 9.) The description of Paul leads also necessarily to the same conclusion, as the particular ex- position of 1 Cor. xiv. will further show. The power of the higher Πνεῦμα seized the soul of theinspired person so strongly, that hisown consciousness (νοῦς) was depressed, or put down, and he declared things that lay quite beyond his own individual point of view. The state of tranquil clearness under the full working of the Spirit, and of perfect consciousness, constitutes the προφητεία, which stands higher than the gift of tongues. That on the occasion of Pentecost the whole company were under a powerful excitement, is plain from the expressions (verses 12, 13) that were uttered by the gathering crowds. But here the question presents itself, how this exalted spiritual condition was manifested, and why it received the name it bears, for every ἔκστασις was not a speaking with tongues. The answering of this question brings out views which differ widely from one another. At this point, however, the philological investigation of the word γλῶσσα becomes indispensable. Τλῶσσα has three significations : 1, the tongue; 2, language; 3, an antiquated poeti- eal or provincial word. The first signification Bardili and Eichhorn have attempted to prove the right one here, supposing that when the disciples spoke in the state of ecstacy, they did not utter distinctly articulate sounds, but only a kind of stammer. They appeal in defence of this view particularly to 1 Cor. xiv. 7—9, where speaking with tongues is compared with indistinct tones from an instrument. But this comparison does not refer to the single sounds of an instru- ment, but to the whole melody produced upon it; and therefore it can only be the obscurity, usually prevailing in the speeches taken as a whole of the person who spoke with tongues (γλώσσαις λαλῶν) that is indicated, and not the inarticulateness of single words, which would Lave made the discourse unintelligible even to the inter- preter. Besides, there is the philological argument against this ACTS 11, 4—l1lL. 379 supposition, that it would always require the phrase γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν to be used, while yet you have the plural γλώσσαις ap- plied to an individual speaker in 1 Cor. xiv. 6. This first sig- nification of the word must therefore, at all events, be abandoned. On this very account, however, there has been the greater vigour displayed of jate in-defending the third cf the significations speci- fied above. Bleek’ has shown, by ample details, what indeed was not doubted, that γλῶσσα may mean “an old provincial expression.” Besides other passages, he appeals in particular to the words γλῶσ- σαι κατὰ πόλεις Occurring in the “ Anecdotis Graecis” of Becker, by which are meant the provincialisms of particular Greek cities. Γλωσ- ona is used quite synonymously with γλῶσσα, and is by no means the explanation of a provincialism or rare poetical expression, as 1s usually supposed. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (de verb. or composi. c. 25) calls poetical expressions γλωσσηματικαὶ λέξεις. Now fol- lowing this signification of γλῶσσα, Bleek supposes that the γλώσ- cats λαλεῖν, meant an inspired address uttered in the common language, but intermixed with unusual poetical expressions. But he himself confesses, that although all other passages of the New Testament in which this gift is mentioned might appear favourable to his hypothesis, yet the history of Pentecost is not so; for the first and abiding impression made by Luke's statement is, that the gathering strangers heard the disciples speak not in poetical and uncommon diction, exhibiting here and there an Arabic and Egyptian phrase, but in their own language, and accordingly γλῶσσα and διάλεκτος are interchanged with one another in verses 6,8, 11. Bleek, therefore, can only construct a negative argument here, for he attempts to show that the idea of the use of foreign tongues involves an inconsistency, and ought therefore, notwith- standing what the text seems to affirm, to be rejected. But the correctness of this assertion may be easily controverted,z and this 1 In Ullmann’s Studien, 1829, part i., page 33, &e. 2 Oldbausen does not here display his usual good sense. He seems to concede to Bleek, that, unless it can be shown how the gift of tongues might originate, we are war- ranted to deny it altogether, and to take some other view of the passage, though it affirms so plainly that foreign languages were spoken. And, aecordingly, he sets himself to explain how individnals might speak a language which they had never learned, and appeals to animal magnetism as exhibiting similar plenomena, But this is mere trifling. The gift of tongues is manifestly exhibited as a miraculous oceur- rence, and it is vain for us to attempt explaining how it was brought about: miracles 380 ACTS 11. 4—I1 1. leads us to the consideration of the second meaning of γλῶσσα, viz., language. Of the suitableness of this signification in the passage before us there can be no question, for, in Acts ii. 6, 8, 11, as has already been remarked, the words γλῶσσα and διάλεκτος are manifestly inter- changed, of which the latter can never stand for poetical expres- sions : besides the whole description accords with the supposition, that the apostles spoke in foreign languages. But it appears surpris- ing that in no other part of the New Testament is there anything ex- pressly said of speaking in foreign languages: on the contrary, it is only the sublime and the obscure which are exhibited in the speeches of the γλώσσαις λαλῶν. For this reason I differ in my view from the old and certainly untenable supposition, already opposed in these pages, that the gift of tongues was the permanent power of speaking foreign languages. To me it appears to be the fact that the gift of speaking with tongues was frequently manifested, simply in the way Bleek describes, as a kind of elevated speaking in which single uncommon words might be introduced ; but /rsé, it was not, always so, and second/y, I am persuaded*that the name was not borrowed from the unusua! expressions. We must rather main- tain, in accordance with the account of Pentecost given by Luke, that on that occasion the gift undeniably displayed itself in the employment of foreign languages. But the power of using them was not a permanent endowment, but only an ability communi- cated for the time ; and was displayed as part of the gift, only when the gift was exhibited in its highest form. The miraculous features of the gift must of course be acknowledged as such, although there are analogies which enable us to soften down its start- ling aspect.’ The foreign tongues, in which the individuals γχῶσσαις would cease to be miracles if they could be explained on natural principles. The only question we have to do with in studying the word of God, after we are convinced it is the word of God, is whatis the meaning which, on fair principles of interpretation, the different passages must bear. After we have settled this question we are not at liberty to reject a meaning because it may not accord with our notions of what is reasonable, And as Bleek himself acknowledges that the passage in this chapter plainly refers to strange languages, we are bound to take this as the meaning. It is presumptuous to say that because we cannot comprelend how the thing could be, therefore, although the text plainly says it was so, we must throw it aside and seek another explanation, This is the arrogant presumption of sitting in judgment upon God himself. And, with re spect to Oldhausen’s illustrations from animal magnetism, it is quite inappropriate, for even supposing the alleged facts of that very questionable system to be well founded, it would make the inspired individual who spoke with tongues dependent for what he said upon the nninspired foreigner.—Tr. ᾿ 1 Neander, in his excellent and exceedingly instructive work on the times of the apos- ACTs I. 4—11. 381 λαλοῦντες spoke, were only such as were used by strangers actually present: no apostle spoke Chinese, because no individual from China was there. If we think of the imparted Spirit as the prin- ciple of love and true communion (κοινωνία), then we may imagine how his communications rendered a meeting of hearts possible, and in this way led to a transference of one into another. When the fire which filled the apostles passed from them into the hearts of the strangers, so as to make them also believe, then too the language of the strangers went over from them to the apostles. There is pre- sented, upon the very different region of animal magnetism, a pheno- menon which affords an illustration of this transference. We find that somnambulists speak languages, of which at other times they are ignorant, when they are brought into connexion with those who know them. This in like manner is a fact which can only be ex- plained by supposing the inward life of different individuals to be communicated to one another. At Pentecost the gift of tongues appeared in its first full power, and displayed itself in the speaking of foreign languages. From this first exhibition of it it took its name, which in the full form ran thus: ἑτέραις, or καιναῖς yAwo- cats λαλεῖν, or more shortly γλώσσαις, or γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, also γένη γλωσσῶν (see 1 Cor. xii. 28, and Comm. on 1 Cor. xiv. 10), and the same name continued to be employed afterwards, even when the gift was not so fully manifested. In the phrase γλώσσαις λα- λεῖν, then, the signification of danguage is the only one that is ap- licable to γλῶσσα, and this signification too brings out plainly the tles (part i. p. 17), aflirms that different foreign languages cannot here be spoken of, because in all the regions that are named the Greek tongue was at that time the prevail- ing one. But this view I think is only the consequence of the general notion which this learned man entertains of the nature of the gift of tongues. Neander considers this gift only as the original index of the great change, which Christianity accomplishes in the hearts of men, and he appeals for proof to such passages as Luke xxi.J5. (Apost. Zeit. p.19.) He supposes, however, that afterwards, the expression “speaking with tongues,” was fixed particularly to denote that inspired speaking in which the consci- ousness of the speaker himself disappeared. But,in reference to the passage before us, this view appears to have little to recommend it; for Luke’s intention in giving the catalogue of nations could be nothing else, than to indicate that all the languages of the world were understood. Neander supposes he is able to justify his view by passages from the fathers, but the places he quotes are of such a kind as are quite compatible with other views of the gift of tongues. The passage from Irenaeus, v. 26 in particular, presenting the expression παντοδαπαῖς γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, which does not at all occur in the New Testament, points evidently to an actual speaking in different languages. But the declarations of the Fathers, proceeding as they did upon the principle that the gift was known from observation, are of too general a kind to allow anything decisive to be inferred from them respecting its nature. 9 382 AcTs 11. 12—16. meaning of γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν, for this form arose from the fact that sometimes there was only speaking in one foreign language. But if you take Bleek’s view of γλῶσσα, this phraseology must always appear improper, because no person could display the gift of tongues in a speech by the employment of a single provincialism or antique word. Regarding the details, see Comm. on | Cor. xiv. Of works on the subject before us, a full enumeration is given by Kuinoel at the passage, and by Bleek in the work mentioned above. ‘The most important are: J. A. Ernesti opusc. theol. pag. 455—477. Bar- dili significatus primitivus vocis προφήτης, Gotting. 1786. Eich- horn, allgem. Bibl. der biblischen Literatur Bd. I. iii. Herder, von der gabe der sprachen, Riga, 1794. Storr notitiae hist. in epist. Pauli ad Corinthios, Tubing, 1788. Melville observationes de dono linguarum, Basil, 1816. Again Bleek’s treffliche abhand- lung in den Studien von Ullmann und Umbreit as cited above. Together with the supplement to it, 1830, parti. page 45, &e. The latter has reference to my remarks, which are to befound in the same journal, 1829, Part 111. p. 538, &.; 1830, P. 1. p. 64, Xe. ; 1831, Part III. p. 566, &e. The papers of Baur and Steudel in der Tiibinger Zeitscrift fiir Theologie, are uncommonly instructive, 1830 and 1831. Consult also the article of Scholl in Klaiber's Studien, Bd. iii. ἢ. i., 1831, p. 168, ff., and that of Baiimlein in the same work, Bd. vi. ἢ. 2, 1834, p. 40. ff. On the Catholic side Wei- hart has expressed himself on the subject in den Jayrb. fiir Theol. und Christl. Phil., Bd. v. h. 2, p. 288, ff Frankf. A. M. 1835. Again, the gift of tongues is handled by Flatt, in a special appen- dix to the first epistle to the Corinthians, p. 414—448, and by Billroth at the 14th chap. of the first epistle to the Corinthians, and finally by Jiiger, in his exposition of the epistles to the Corin- thians, Tiibingen, 1838, appendix p. 186, Xe. Vers. 12—-16. In few words Luke further describes the uncer- tainty of the strangers who had come together: the more timid natures among them apprehended some danger from this violent excitement, the more bold mocked at it. Yet plainly this mockery is not to be regarded as bitter and malignant mockery, but as good- humoured jesting. ‘Their observation of the scene was in fact accurate, for the outward appearance did resemble drunkenness (Ps. xxxvi. 9); and therefore Peter, in the speech that follows, censures their allegation but mildly. ACTS Ir. 17—21. 383 Here Luke communicates to us the first preaching of the Gospel by the apostles, and thus the institution of the preacher’s office ap- pears connected with the very founding of the church. All the peculiarities of the apostolic κήρυγμα we discover in this first dis- course. It embraces no reflexions or reasonings upon the doctrine of Christ, no enunciation of new and unknown dogmas, but simply and alone the proclamation of historical facts. The apostles appear here quite in their proper character as witnesses of what they had experienced, and the resurrection of Jesus forms the central point of their testimony. In the further development of the church it is true they could not abide by this bare proclamation : preaching was gradually directed to the additional object of guiding believers onwards in knowledge. Yet never in preaching ought the simple declaration of the mighty works of God, such as is here made by Peter, to be awanting for the sake of those whose hearts have not yet been penetrated by the word. This disciple is here again presented to us, notwithstanding his denial of Christ, as the organ of the apos- tolic company : he is, as it were, the mouth by which they make themselves understood, their speaker. (Avayrcvdfo equivalent to the more common χλευάζω, corresponds entirely to the word εμπαί- ζειν.----Γλεῦκος equivalent to aa Job xxxii. 19, Ιχχ.--- Ενωτί- ζεσθαι, equivalent to PINT appears to belong to the Alexandrian dialect. Vers. 17-21. For the purpose of leading the Jews who were assembled to the meaning of the spectacle before them, Peter quotes in detail a remarkable prediction from the Old Testament (Joel iii. 1-—5), in which the outpouring of the Spirit was promised. The idea of spiritual communication was quite familiar to the prophets of the Old Testament, as has already been remarked ; they had themselves experienced in a lively manner the breathing of the Spirit, and yet still there remained to them the feeling of a void and of longing desire: hence they were able to conclude from the analogy of development, which displays itself in greater and greater results, that one day an infinitely richer fulness of the Spirit would be poured out, not upon a few merely, but upon all flesh, upon the en- tire community of those who were concerned for salvation. And to this conclusion the Spirit of prophecy affixed in their minds the seal of perfect certainty. Hence, besides Joel, several other prophets speak of the effusion of the Spirit to be expected. (Comp. Numb. xi. 29 ; 3 984 acts m1. 17—#21l. ! Isaiah xxxii. 15, xliv. 83; Ezek xxxvi. 25, xxxix. 29); but Peter quotes the passage before us, because it describes not only the out- pouring of the Spirit, but also its effects, and that too in such a manner, as to furnish an explanation of the inspired state in which the assembled believers were seen to be. The γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, together with the whole excitement, which displayed itself not only in the men but also in the women (i. 14), Peter comprehended under the προφητεύειν, which Joel promises. He says, therefore, as it were, ‘“ behold we all prophecy! instead of the few single prophets of the Old Testament, the whole people are now filled with the prophetic spirit.” As to the relation of the words quoted, to the original text, and to the Septuagint, there is agreement in every essential point; only as they are quoted from memory, it is not surprising that there are transpositions and unimportant addi- tions. One deviation, however, from the Hebrew and the Sep- tuagint must not be overlooked. Just at the beginning, Luke (verse 17) writes, ἔσται ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις. This expression is surprising, because it was not yet the last time, when the spirit fell upon the apostles. Besides the Septuagint has only ἔσται μετὰ ταῦτα, and the Hebrew Ὶ ΤΙΝ 7 which expression appears far more suitable to Peter's purpose. ‘But this passage is to be ex- plained from the idea of the apostles, which pervades the whole of the New Testament, that with the advent of Christ in the flesh the end of things was really at hand. ‘Therefore the apostle quotes also the verses, in which mention is made of the terrible signs con- nected with the future: this description is designed to excite to re- pentance by means of fear, while verse 21, allures to it by the ex- hibition of mercy. (See the particulars in the Comm. on Matt. xxiv. |. Respecting the promised wonders too compare the pro- phetical passages of the New Testament, Matt. xxiv. 2 ; 2 Pet. ii. 3; Rev. viii.) Besides this deviation, there is also in the Hebrew text of Joel, a remarkable difference from the Septuagint ; and the passage as given by Luke entirely agrees with the Septuagint. While in the Hebrew it is said with comprehensive g generality, THY Ms TWN: Luke and the Septuagint have ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνευματός μου. By this latter mode of expression, the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, powerful and mighty as it was, is yet charac- 1 Regarding verse 13, see Comm. on Rom. x, 19. ACTS IT. 22—24. 385 terised as a partial effusion ; so that the prediction of Joel in its original form still remains for the future, when the complete ful- ness of the divine Spirit is to be conferred upon the church, which shall then have received into her bosom the countless kindreds of mankind. (Comp. Comm. Part I., at Luke iv. 18, 19.) Vers. 22—24. The predictions of the Old Testament referred to by Peter, afforded a proof that the new economy, now brought under the notice of the gathering multitude, was the fulfilment of prophecy, the flower as it were of the ancient stem. The apostle therefore now appeals to his hearers with the view of awakening their hearts to repentance, and thus preparing them to receive the rich grace of the Gospel. He reminds them of their wickedness, in putting Jesus to death. But in this it seems as if Peter were accusing the innocent, for it is inconceivable that the strangers from afar, who had come to Zion only under the impulse of longing desire, and in obedience to the law, should have taken part in the murder of the Holy One; andeven supposing there were some of the multitude who had joined in the cry, “crucify him, crucify him,” why does Peter accuse them all without distinction of so heimous a erime, when doubtless they were not all in the same condemnation." Now strange as such language sounds to man in his natural isolation, in which he fancies himself separate from all his brethren, and bearing alone his own guilt and merit, it yet appears plainly true to him who feels himself connected by the social principle with the great whole of human life. What any one member of the community performs, he recognises as the deed of the community ; what any one man performs, he recognizes as the deed of the race. Every thing good, therefore, awakens in him sympathetic joy ; every thing evil, pity ; for he shares in them both. Of all evil in particular he discovers the root in his own heart, which in unfavourable cir- cumstances might have borne all the bitter fruits, which it anywhere 1 Meyer makes the apostle’s charge rest simply upon the fact, that Jesus was put to death by the Sanhedrim, the highest court of justice among the Jews, and that therefore his death was a judicial murder perpetrated in the name of the whole nation. But in that case Peter should have said the very thing which Meyer improperly starts as an ob- jection to my view, “ We have killed him,” for Peter and the other apostles belonged to the Israelitish nation too. What Peter here says to the Jews, may be said at all times and among all nations. Itwas the sin of mankind that brought Jesus to the cross. And he only is free from this sin, who has confessed it with penitence and faith, and received pardon. Now as this was the case with the apostles, Peter could not speak in the first person. NOE. IV. 25 386 ACTS II. 99--- 94, tends to produce. But the murder of the Holy God is just the highest point of development which sin could reach ; and always and every where it is the nature of sin to hate him (and hatred is murder itself, 1 John iii. xv.), who has come to exterminate it. Just as widely, therefore, as sin prevails in man, does hatred against the Lord possess him ; for Christ and sin are always opposed to one another, they seek each other’s destruction : first of all, sin kills the Prince of Life, but, when his life is reproduced by its own power, he destroys sin finally. This deep connexion of the individual with the whole race, the hearers of Peter apprehended quite correctly, al- though the feeling was then first excited within them. Not one of them declares he is innocent of the death of the Lord, but on the contrary the word of the Spirit like a sword pierced them through the heart (verse 37), and they recognised in the death of Christ a common act of the human race, which contracted a common guilt. Fora fuller consideration of this subject, see Comm. on the leading passage respecting it, Rom. v. 12, &e. ‘On the ideas expressed by δύναμις, τέρας, σημεῖον, see at Matt. viii. 1. The word arode‘xvupe here indicates the authentication, which the miracles referred to were intended to give to the divine mission of Christ. ‘Avro is not equivalent to ὑπὸ, as Kuinoel sup- poses, but indicates that the miraculous power proceeds from God.— Ἔκδοτον with λαμβάνειν, as well as with δοῦναι, occurs very fre- quently, especially in Josephus, in the sense of “ delivering into the power of any one, or receiving.” Προσπήξαντες must have σταυρῷ supplied to it. The higher necessity that existed for the death of Christ has already been made the subject of detailed re- mark in the history of the passion at Luke xxii. 99. The ideas denoted by βουλή and πρόγνωσις are will and knowledge, which in God must necessarily be viewed as one. ‘puopevos expresses the fixedness and absoluteness of the divine will. See the particulars in the Comm. on Rom. viii. 29. The sin of man, however, was retrieved by God's mercy, which ealled back the crucified Redeemer into life. In the simple thought presented in the 24th verse, there is only one thing doubtful, how we are to understand the words οὐκ ἣν δυνατὸν κρατεῖσθαι αὐ- τόν ; whether it was impossible that the bonds of death should hold him, because he was himself the ζωή, and consequently also the ἀνάστασις, or because God designed to raise him. But both ACTS Π. 25—81. 387 reasons unite together, when you keep in view, that it was the will even of the Father, that the Son should have in himself the foun- tain of life (John v. 26) ; and therefore it is sometimes said the Father raises the Son, and sometimes the Son takes up life again himself (John x. 18.) The expression ὠδῖνες θανάτου cor- responds entirely to the Hebrew pay ἐς, The Septuagint sometimes renders the phrase by σχοινία (Ps. exix. 61.), and some- times by ὠδῖνες (Ps. xviii. 5.), because the Hebrew word unites the two significations of “cord” and ‘‘ child-bed pains.” In the pure Greek tongue, @dives has only the latter signification, but in the Hellenistic it has acquired the other too, because they are conjoined in the Hebrew word. In the passage before us, λύειν and xpa- τεῖν plainly point to the signification of “ band or cord” as the pro- per one.!. The reading ὕδου instead of θανάτου is supported by such weighty authorities, that it stands at least upon a level with it ; but with respect to the sense there is no difference, for Hades is just to be conceived as the place of the dead, and so is identical with θάνατος. Vers. 25—381. For the purpose of exhibiting the correspondence between the fact of the resurrection and the predictions of the Old Testament, Peter quotes a passage, following the Septuagint ex- actly, from Ps. xvi. 8—1], and subjoins an exposition of these verses in verses 29—381. In this exposition he shows that the words of the psalm were not applicable to David, because he was dead and buried. His explicit declaration makes a typical view of the words quite inadmissible ; for in no sense has the prediction been fulfilled in David, that he should not see corruption. We must here accordingly, as in Psalm ecx., acknowledge a real direct prophecy. Yet we are not to view it as having no subjective connexion with the person of David: even in direct predictions some such connexion must always be supposed as the ground-work. In the case before us, it may be thus conceived, that in David the dread of corruption and of the dark valley of death awakened the longing desire of victory over it ; and this victory the prophetic Spirit led him to see realised in the person of the Messiah. Now, 1 Meyer, on this passage, doubts whether in the Hellenistic dialect ὠδὶν was used in the signification of “ band, fetter.” The passages quoted by Schleusner in his Lexicon on the Septuag., tom. v. p. 571, sqq. might teach him better. ἢ ‘5 a BA 388 ACTS Π. 25—81. in Psalm xvi., death is contemplated in its twofold operation, first in relation to the body, and secondly in relation to the soul. The body is represented as guarded against the last effect of death, viz., corruption, διαφθορά ; and the soul is described as beholding indeed the dark place of shades, but as speedily delivered from it, and restored to the kingdom of light. The exactness with which these points were realised in the development of Christ’s life, makes the prediction one of the most remarkable in Holy Writ. While his sacred body was untouched by corruption, and rose from the grave, his soul went to the dead (1 Pet. iii. 18), but speedily returned again, and ascended with his glorified body to the eternal mansions of light. The word προωρώμην, in verse 25, expresses the idea of contem- plating an object, ‘‘ having it before the eyes.” The expression ἐκ δεξιῶν, equivalent to sysyynyy, carries with it here the idea of help, support.—For ἡ γλῶσσά μου the Hebrew text has 4445, meaning ἡ δόξα μου. It is probable that the Seventy, who like Luke have γλῶσσα, already read the original differently: perhaps their He- brew MSS. had sw. -- Κατασκηνοῦν, equivalent to jDw: denotes rest in the grave. —On the subject of Hades, comp. Comm. on Luke xvi. 23. To εἰς ἅδου we must obviously supply otkov.—Ver. 27. As to the reading pron in Ps. xvi. 10, see De Wette’s Com- mentary on the passage before us.—In the expression ὁδὸς ζωῆς. in verse 28, the outward and the inward are intimately combined. According to the connexion, the word ζωή refers primarily to the outward life, but the highest manifestation of the life that over- comes death is never to be conceived apart from the inward ζωή, which the πνεῦμα bestows.—In verse 29 David is called the pa- triarch, which the Seventy, in 1 Chron. xxiv. 31, put for yiigy ΓΞ, Comp. Acts vii. 8, 9 ; Heb. vii. 4.—The supposed tomb of David was pillaged by Joannes Hyrcanus and Herod. Comp. Jo- seph. Arch. vil. 15, 3, xiii. 8, 4.—In verse 30, Peter refers to Ps. Ixxxix. 4, 5, and cxxxii. 11, which represent David in his peculiar re- lation to the Messiah, not simply as one of his ancestors, but also as a prefiguration of the theocratical kingdom. This position pre-emi- nently fitted him for receiving those prophetic views into the future, which the apostle had just explained to his hearers. The reference, however, to these passages is only of a general kind ; and therefore ACTS ll. 82—41. 389 καρπὸς τῆς ὀσφύος is put for wa 7 while more strictly κοιλίας might have been employed. ᾿Εκ καρποῦ must have τινά supplied. Vers. 32—36. Along with the resurrection of our Lord, Peter also mentions his ascension, with which the outpouring of the Holy Ghost was most closely connected. In this respect too Peter again compares David with Christ, and shows that he styled the Messiah his Lord, and foretold his session at the right hand of God. And thereupon the apostle demands of the house of Israel that they acknowledge him who was crucified a few weeks be- fore as their Lord and Messiah: And they believe! A stronger proof cannot well be imagined than this, that it was the power of the Holy Ghost which made the words of the preacher move the hearts of the hearers! To all Jews the cross of Christ was a stumbling-block, and yet they recognise, on the word of a private individual, the crucified and deeply abased Jesus as their Saviour. In verse 82 6v is not to be understood as neuter. The apostles are the witnesses of Christ, and not merely of his resurrection. This is clear from the parallel passage in chap. v. 31, where it is said ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν αὐτοῦ μάρτυρες τῶν ῥημάτων τούτων. In ver. 33 τῇ δεξιᾷ ὑψωθεὶς }5 not to be understood as meaning “ exalted by the right hand of God,” but “ exalted to the right hand of God,” as is shown by ver. 34 and the parallel passage in chap. v. 31. The connexion, it is true, of the dative with verbs of motion is rare, and occurs almost solely in poetical diction. But the representation here given par- takes somewhat of a poetical strain. or more particular informa- tion on this point consult Winers Gramm. p. 191 sq.—Ver. 33, respecting ἐπαγγελίαν λαβὼν παρὰ Tod πατρός see Comm. on John xiv. 16.—Ver. 34. The quotation is taken from Ps. ex. 1. Comp. what is said respecting the Psalm in Comm. on Matt. xxii. 44. Vers. 37—41. To the question of the hearers, τί ποιήσομεν ; the apostle replies by admonishing them to repentance and faith, both of which are presupposed in baptism. It is not to works of one kind or another he points, but to an inward change of heart. The word μετανοήσατε in ver. 38 defines more narrowly the idea sug- gested by κατανύττεσθαι τῇ καρδίᾳ. In this expression, as here employed, the idea of pain is not the predominant one, as is usually alleged, but there is only indicated by it in general the idea of being struck or arrested. The discourse of Peter touched them to the inmost soul, and excited feelings of every kind, sad us well as joyful, 390 ACTS Il. 37—A Ll. for the apostle had let them see, that the promises of the pro- phets were now fulfilled. (The proper signification of κατανύττω is “ to pierce,” “‘compungere,” then by piercing “ to excite,” ‘* to awaken.”) In the word μετάνοια, on the other hand, the idea of pain predominates. The admonition of Peter is accordingly to be conceived thus: ‘‘ First of all, lie low in your sin and abase your- selves, that you may feel the full sorrow it should inspire, and long for a thorough conversion.” With this μετάνοια baptism is then connected, which necessarily presupposes faith, because it requires an acknowledgment of Christ as the Messiah. And baptism is accompanied with the ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν as a result. This is the negative side of the blessing, the removal of the o/d man, which is a necessary preparation for the positive side, the communication of the Spirit, with which the establishment of the new man takes place , Quite correctly, therefore, does Luther say, that ‘‘ where there is the forgiveness of sins, there is lifeand blessedness,” fora reconciled heart, as such, possesses the gift of the Holy Ghost, although not in the form in which it was displayed in the apostolic church. (Compare Acts viii, 15.) If you compare now the description given in Matt. iii. 11 of the baptism of John, its relation to the baptism of Christ will appear quite obvious. The former aims at the awakening of repent- ance (εἰς μετάνοιαν), the latter begins where the former ends : it pre- supposes repentance (μετάνοια) together with faith, which it confirms and seals, and it communicates a real heavenly power. There isa difficulty still in verse 39, where Peter represents those likewise who are far away (6c εἰς μακράν), as called to receive the Holy Ghost. The question presents itself, whether Peter was here thinking of the Gentile world. It has been supposed that what is mentioned in the tenth chapter obliges us to doubt this, and to refer the expres- sion either to the Jews scattered through the Gentile world, or taking the idea of time, as Beza does, to the remotest posterity. Let it be considered, however, that Peter, according to chap. x., did not doubt the calling of the Gentiles, but only whether they were to be called without passing through Judaism, and then it will be evident that the ground completely falls away, which might lead us to exclude from the meaning of Peter all reference to the Gen- tiles. In fact, the words ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν necessarily point to the Gentiles, for the Israelites could not then be called for the first time, as they were already in possession ACTS I. 387—-4 1. 391 of God’s gracious covenant. (Respecting baptism in the name of Jesus, see Comm. on Matt. xxviii. 19.) The words of Peter which are recorded, are only a brief specimen of his more detailed admo- nitions, from which the author adduces yet one other exhor- tation: σώθητε ἀπὸ τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς ταύτης. ‘The word σώζεσθαι is here to be understood as referring to the judgments, described above in verses 19 and 20 as near; so that there is plainly suggested a comparison with the flood or the destruction of Sodom. ‘“ Save yourselves like Noah or Lot, getting out from amongst this untoward generation, that is doomed to destruction.” Τενεὰ σκολιὰ agrees with Deut. xxxii. 5 ; comp. Phil. ii. 15. Σ΄κο- λιός denotes primarily ‘“ crooked” (Luke iii. 5), then, as applied to moral subjects, “impure, sinful.” As the hearers received with joy (ἀσμένως) the intelligence of sal- vation presented by Peter, baptism was immediately administered to three thousand persons. Thus, along with the preaching of the word, the sacrament of baptism was at once dispensed on the day of Pentecost, and that too no longer, like the apostolic baptism which preceded the outpouring of the Spirit, as a mere baptism of re- pentance, but as the baptism of regeneration. This baptism, how- ever, took place without any preparatory instruction. It was after baptism that the διδαχή, mentioned in verse 42, was first given, which was probably however confined to the proof of the Messiahship of Christ from the Old Testament; and hence we may see that it was not dogmas upon which the apostles laid stress, but the disposition and bent of the mind.? The man who 1 Respecting the question, whether those wlo had been baptized by John the Baptist were again baptized by the apostles, see the remarks on chap. xix. 5. It is difficult, how- ever, to answer the question how the baptisin of three thousand persons could be per- formed iu one day, according to the old practice of a complete submersion, the more és- pecially as in Jerusalem there was no water at hand with the exception of Kidron and a few pools. But to have baptized so many persons in these would necessarily have ex- cited in the highest degree the attention of the authorities The difficulty can only be removed by supposing that they already employed mere sprinkling, or that they bap- tized in houses in tubs; formal submersion in rivers or larer quantities of water pro- bably took place only where the locality conveniently allowed it. 2 Neander, in the work cited above, page 28, observes correctly, that we must not re- gard the three thousand who were converted in one day as all at once transformed into thorough Christians: without doubt, the very suddenness of the change that took place in their condition would leave much of a heterogeneous character connected with them. But, on the other hand again, it must not be overlooked, that this sudden conversion undoubtedly produced in the thousands mentioned a specific change. Asa tree always continues an improved one, although below the precious graft water-shoots continue ΄ 5392 ACTS Ul. 42—47. received the proclamation of the Gospel with susceptible mind, who professed faith in Christ, who was penetrated with the new princi- ple of the higher life brought by the Saviour to mankind, was for that reason baptized, and by this means his faith was con- firmed and sealed, the powers of the Spirit were imparted to him, and he was thus separated from the world, and became a saint, ἅγιος, ἡγιασμένος. But in proportion as the original power and fulness of the Spirit disappeared in the church, the necessity would become the more urgent for making instruction precede baptism, because the communication of clearer views respecting the specific nature of Christianity, was the only means in the more lifeless period of the church, of giving to the weaker influences of the Spirit as they came upon the mind, that right direction, which He himself at an earlier period had instinctively, as it were, imparted to sincere minds, by his more powerful working. The church therefore in its gradual development followed exactly the course of development in the indi- vidual. As in the child simplicity of mind prevails, and though life certainly is present, there is not the clear consciousness of the properties of life, so also was it in the young church: it is in youth that the intellectual faculties begin to assert their .pre-eminence, and so also in the church the need of Christian knowledge gradually inade itself apparent, a need which, in the great mass, presents itself as the requirement of instruction before baptism. The perfection of the church will be the return of the original immediateness of life, connected with perfect clearness of knowledge. Vers. 42—47. In connexion with the special account of the first Christian discourse of Peter and its effects, there is presented in the following verses a general view of the life of the church in Jerusa- lem. Passages thus running into a general view are intermixed in the Acts of the Apostles with special accounts of particular occur- rences ; at first the general statements are longer (iv. 32—35, v. 12— 16), then they become shorter (v. 42, vi. 7, viii. 25, xii. 24—25), and at last they cease altogether after xiii. 1, and the narrative becomes a connected particular statement. Now, as this coincides exactly with the point where the particular accounts of the apostle Paul and his journies commence (xiii. |), it is certainly more to grow; so also were those minds, which had been put by the leaven of the Gospel into spiritual fermentation, really born again, although in them the old man was not yet annililated. ACTS 11. 42—47. 393 than probable that this interchange of special accounts with gene- ral views, in the first half of the Acts of the Apostles, is to be traced to the manner in which the book was formed. The general observations have e¢ther proceeded from Luke himself, and been inserted among the special accounts drawn from documents of par- ticular occurrences, or they are the concluding statements of those documents themselves. I would declare myself for the former view, if in the general observations there appeared any perceptible difference of style ; but so little is that the case, that in them, just as in the particular accounts, the Hebrew colouring of the language can be very plainly recognised. The language from the beginning of the xii. chapter has a far less heterogeneous stamp ; and there- fore it is in the highest degree probable, that in the second half of the work, Luke wrote less from documents lying before him, than from his own knowledge. Further, the general view itself, which is presented to us in this passage, is by no means without interest, because with a few touches it describes the mode of life in the most ancient Chris- tian church, and exhibits the earliest elements of worship.1 The peculiar spirit of the Gospel is exhibited by this description quite clearly before the eyes. Those men who had poured in from curiosity to see what was going on, we find here knit 1 Although the Gospel teaches that God is to be worshipped in spirit, it yet requires an outward form of worship. The Redeemer designed to found a visible church, which necessarily presupposes an external service of God (cultus.) Worship accordingly ex- ists in the Christian church not merely for the sake of the weak, but also for the most advanced, in whom the old natural man that needs an outward form still lives; worship too is instituted, not merely for the proclamation of the Gospel to unbelievers, but it also embraces an elemeut of pure adoration for the faithful. The worship of the church is designed for a perpetual thank- offering of believers, which is presented to the Lord for his propitiatory sacrifice of ever-during validity (1 Pet. ii.5; Heb. xiii, 15.) This ele- ment of adoration with spurious objectiveness has acquired in the Catholic church an undue predominance, while in the Reformed church with spurious subjectiveness the preacher and his discourse have too much supplanted the element of adoration. The middle course is the right one, and it requires the two to be so distributed that the minis- ter may stand forth, not onlyin his subjectiveness as a teacher, but also as a true “ li- turgus,” that is, as the organ through which the adoration of the church receives expression. According to this view divine service has two essentially different halves ; first, the preaching of the Gospel, which is designed partly to convert unbelievers, and partly to advance believers in knowledge; secondly, adoration, which has its central point in the eucharist, the great thank-offering of the church, and ἃ symbolical represen- tation at the same time of the sacrifice of Christ. For these ideas I am indebted to the spirited preface to the Romish hymn book, in which (page Ixxxyi. &e.) they are deye- loped in an uncommonly attractive and convincing manner. 9 ~ 994 ACTS Il. 42—A47. together by the uniting spirit of Christ into a living brother- hood. The young church of Christ had but few peculiarities in its outward form, or even in its doctrine: the single discriminating principle of its few members was, that they all recognised the cru- ecified Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. This confession would have been a thing of no importance, if it had only presented it- self as a naked declaration, and would never in such a case have been able to form a community, that would spread itself in a few years over the whole Roman empire: this confession of Jesus as the Messiah acquired its value, only through the power of the Holy Ghost passing from the apostles as they preached to the hearers, for he brought the confession from the very hearts of meu (1 Cor. xii. 3), and like a burning flame made their souls glow with love. By the power of this Spirit, therefore, we behold the first Christians not only in a state of active outward fellowship, but we find them also internally changed: the narrow views of the natural man are broken through, they have their possessions in common, and they regard themselves as one family. The first thing, which is named as an element of Christian wor- ship, is the διδαχὴ τῶν ἀποστόλων. As the original form of church order was borrowed from the Jewish Synagogue, we may conclude that the apostolic διδαχὴ would have the writings of the Old Testa- ment for its basis. Its specific Christian character was derived from the circumstance, that the predictions of the Old Testament were exhibited in their fulfilment in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. As however no instruction preceded baptism. the teachers of the church in their lessons from the Old Testament must have provided, according to circumstances, for the advancement of believers in all parts of knowledge, which, particularly among the Gentle churches, must have been imperatively necessary. The second point, viz., the κοινωνία, is attended with more diffi- culty. ‘Che word cannot possibly be understood of the general fellowship of the Spirit, for this could not have been represented as a separate particular, being the general principle from which every thing else proceeded. And to connect the word with κλάσις ἄρτου, so that κοινωνία and κλάσις may be viewed as a heudiadys, is plainly precluded by the repetition of καὶ, which places enspcevis upon the same level asthe other three particulars. It only remains therefore that we understand κοινωνία, as not ouly Mosheim (de rebus Christianis ante Const. p. 113, sqq.), but also the most re- ACTS Il. 42—47. 395 cent interpreters of the Acts of the Apostles do, to signify the be- stowment of outward means of support, whether in money or goods.1 To express this idea the apostle Paul uses the word frequently (Rom. xv. 26 ; 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13), and in so far as such a physi- cal cowvwvia, if I may use this expression, was collected and remitted to strangers, it was called also διακονία. (Acts xi. 29, compared with 2 Cor, viii. 4, ix. 13.) As the passage before us, however, speaks of the meetings of believers for the worship of God, this circumstance gives to κοινωνία a modified signification. It must denote such gifts as were presented in the public assemblies. But these are just what were named oblations at a later period, in which therefore we must recognise a primitive Christian institution. Mos- heim rightly observes that the offering of Ananias, mentioned in chapter v.. must have been such an oblation. There are fewer difficulties connected with the third point, viz., the κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου. The whole question, whether common or sacred repasts, should be understood by the expression, loses its importance, when it is considered that the ancient Christians were in the habit of eating together daily, or holding the love-feast, and never took a common meal without observing the Lord’s Supper. In the apostolic church at Jerusalem there appears to have obtained, as is plain from the very idea of a community of goods, a family union of all believers in the strictest and most proper sense. Ac- cordingly they took food together daily (verse 46), that is, they celebrated the “ agapae,” and to the common meal the Lord’s Supper likewise was daily appended. In the African church, where the ancient Christian institutions maintained their ground, in other respects, for the longest period, we yet find that even in the days of Tertullian the supper was separated from the “ agapae.” (See Nean- der’s Tertullian, p. 153, &c.) In the first century it was probably 1 Neander supposes that kowwvia can only mean the whole of the common inter- course of Christians, of which two parts, viz., the fellowship of meals and that of prayer, are particularly brought into view. But this supposition, as it seems to me, is un- tenable, because every thing in the enumeration refers to the worship of God, as the first named word διδα χή plainly shows: if Neander’s view were the right one, then κοινωνία would necessarily have been mentioned first. See Neander’s Geschichte der pilanzung und leitung, &c., page 30, note. 2 The Catholic church employ this expression for the purpose of proving from Serip- ture the administration of the Lord’s Supper “ sub una specie” in the days of the apostles. (Compare the confut. conf. Aug. in Meyer’s Ausg. der symbol. biicher, p. 543.) Of course, however, this name las been given to the whole act only a potiori. 3 396 ACTS Il. 42—417. everywhere celebrated, conformably to the last meal of Christ, in connexion with a common meal. In the last place prayers are mentioned, which are connected especially with the celebration of the Lord's Supper. There is no mention made of singing, but it is certain that at a very early pe- riod’ it was an element of divine service. (Plin. Epist. x. 97, in Olshaus. Histor. Eccles. veteris Monum., vol. i. p. 24. Affirmabant Christiani quod essent soliti stato die? ante lucem convenire, car- menque Christo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem.) Perhaps we may suppose that the prayers were spoken, not merely by one in the name of all, but by all in common; and if we suppose, at the same time, that perhaps psalms were read as prayers, then we might find something of the nature of song in the rythmical utterance which the Jews were accustomed to employ in the reading of Scrip- ture. Yet it is more probable that church singing first arose along with Christian poetry, which did not appear before the beginning of the second century. To render the blessed joy of the little company of believers the more conspicuous by contrast, the fear (φόβος) of those who did not believe is brought into view. All who were of susceptible minds traced the mighty power of the Spirit, and this could not but first of all excite fear. Yet from these did the church recruit her ranks (ver. 47.) In contrast with the fear of the unbelievers, the active unity of the Christians is pourtrayed. As to the mean- ing, first of all, of the phrase εἶναι ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ, the number of the converts (ver. 41) forbids us to refer it to one place of meeting ; and, indeed, the words κατ᾽ οἶκον in verse 46 lead to the conclusion that there were houses in several parts of the city where they met. The collective body of the faithful had, therefore, been obliged to divide themselves into smaller societies, and thus was the establish- ment of various churches and the appointment of church office- According to Acts xvi. 25, Paul and Silas sang in prison, but this perhaps should only be understood of the rythmieal utterance of a psalm in prayer. 2 According to this quotation, it appears that by the time of Pliny the daily meeting had been given up; and, according to the nature of things, it could only continue so long as the number of believers was small. In the lesser churches, however, they might meet daily till a later period. The observance, too, of love feasts, became difficult as the churches became larger. The church of the United Brethren, it is well known, have introduced them again. See respecting their rise Spangenberg in his life of Zinzen- dorf, vol. iii., page 446, ἄς, ACTS 11. 42—47. 907 bearers brought about, as we find was the case at an early period in the larger cities. The more particular consideration of the community of goods, intimated in verses 44, 45, we defer till we come to the exposition of chap. iv. 32, &c., a passage that is more decisive on the subject.. From the passage before us, taken by itself, nothing farther can be gathered, than that a highly ex- cited spirit of beneficence led the followers of Christ to regard their property and goods as common, and to support the poorer brethren. But from chap. iv. 32, &c., it has been supposed that a common chest was formed of the proceeds of all goods that were sold, a view which will be afterwards more narrowly considered. Κτήματα denotes here “ houses, lands, real property ; ὑπάρξεις, on the other hand, means “‘ moveable possessions.” Verse 46 may ap- pear a repetition of verse 42, but in this verse the stress is to be laid upon the opposition between ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ and Kat’ οἶκον. The latter expression cannot be understood to mean, as Erasmus and Kuinoel suppose, from “house to house.” Doubtless there must have been, on account of the large number of believers, several places of meeting, and they may have changed from one to another, but this is not expressed in the words before us. It is rather the private that is placed in opposition to the public. The earliest Christians of the church at Jerusalem had not ceased to associate with the Jews in the services of the temple, they only held their Christian institutions in connexion with the ordinances of the Old Testament, and, so little did this appear to the people an incompatible thing, that they wished well to the Christians. But so soon as the fickle multitude perceived, in addition to the loving spirit of the brother- hood of believers, the moral earnestness which reigned among them, they changed their views, and began to persecute the Christians. (See chap. xii. 1, &c.) The Christian church in Jerusalem in its outward appearance may have had at first much resemblance to the societies of the Essenes, because like them it presented the spectacle of an intimate union of hearts. But in its inward cha- racter the church stood immeasurably higher, because in it the union of souls was a reality, established by a uniting, heavenly power, while among the Essenes, it was something formed by themselves, and therefore, as in all associations of a sectarian kind, unreal, and mingled with much impurity ἢ 1 In particular, a spiritual conceit was spread among the Essenes, which went so far, 398 ACTS 111. 1—10. Προσκαρτερειν is commonly construed with the dative, when you are speaking of ¢hings to which the continuance relates ; but in Rom. xiii. 6, it is connected with εἰς. Applied to place it is followed by ἐν, as in the apocryphal book of the history of Susanna, verse 7.—The word adedorns occurs in no other part of the New Testament but this. Itis similar to ἀφέλεια, which Josephus (Arch. 111. 12, 2) uses for ὁλοκληρία, “ integritas,’’ in a physical sense. Transferred to spiritual things it denotes, like ἁπλότης, simplicity or singleness of heart. The adjective ἀφελής is derived from φελλός, φελός, φέλα, in the Macedonian dialect, which denotes a stone, and therefore the words πεδία ἀφελῆ mean level fields, with- out rocky inequalities. \ § 3. CURE OF A LAME MAN. (Acts iii. 1—26.) Vers. 1—10. After the general description which has now been presented to us, there again follows a detailed particular statement respecting the cure of alame man, with which a discourse of Peter is connected. Luke had already, in chap. ii. 43, made mention in gene- ral terms of the miracles of the apostles; but now for the first time there is an occurrence of the kind described in detail. The nar- rative itself, however, embraces nothing peculiar, (see the remarks made on miraculous cures in general, in the Commentary on Matt. vill. 1), only it must not be overlooked that Peter (ver. 6) performs the cure not in his own name, nor in the name of God, but in the name of Jesus. By no means therefore did he consider himself as pos- sessing independently the power of healing, but simply as being the instrument of Christ: he was conscious to himself, that it was the power of the Lord which wrought by him. There is here presented indirectly a striking proof of the higher nature of Christ. The view of Thiess, that the man only pretended to be lame, is a lame view, and needs no serious refutation. As to the particulars of the narrative, we are informed that Peter and John went to the temple at one of the usual hours of prayer, and found a lame man at one of the gates. that the members of the higher classes regarded themselves as polluted by simple con- tact with the humbler brethren. ACTS ty. 115 19 399 It has already been mentioned in reference to ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ at chap. i. 15, that it must be understood here not of place, but ra- ther of time, and be taken in the signification of ‘‘together,” ‘ at the same time.” This idea was lost sight of by a number of transcribers ; and therefore they annexed ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ to the close of the second chaper, while they left out τῇ éxxAnoia. The new chapter they then began with Πέτρος δέ «. τ. X., or with ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις. The critical authorities, however, sufficiently establish the common text. The gate beside which the lame man sat, is name ἡ ὡραία. The name probably took its rise from the magnificence of the gate, and it is likely that the same gate is here meant to which Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 5. 8) gives this name, and which is styled by the Rabbins Tor: probably from the bass-relief lily work in Corinthian brass (see 1 Kings vil. 19), with which, according to the account of Josephus, the door was covered. In reply to the entreaty of the infirm man, Peter declares that he has no earthly help to give, but he has something greater to bestow ; and at his touch the lame man rises and is able to walk. (Verse 8. According to a well-known Greek idiom λαβεῖν is redundant with words of giving.—At verse 5 you inay supply νοῦν to ἐπεῦχε ; the outward look is necessarily implied along with the attention of the mind.—Ver. 7. The word ἐστερεώ- θησαν indicates that the man’s lameness had its origin in debility. Βάσις denotes commonly the step, but here in connexion with σφυρὰ, the ankles, it denotes the sole of the foot, together with its muscles and ligaments ) Vers. !1—13. The man who was healed immediately siinohad himself to his benefactors, and followed them with a great multitude of people to the porch of Solomon. (With respect to this porch, see Comm. on John x. 23.—Kpareiy, to hold, is here employed like ya to denote an inward attachment, a cleaving of the mind to another.1 The Seventy, in 2 Sam. 11. 6, have translated In in a similar connexion by κρατεῖν) And here Peter began (see - 1 Meyer, on this passage, insists that the physical signification of holding fast ought to be here retained. His translation is, “but when he held Peter and John fast, that is, seized them and held by them.” But in this case undoubtedly yepoi would have been added. The signification of κρατεῖν is not altered by my view of the pas- sage: the word is only explained as referring not to a physical seizing and holding, but to a spiritual. 400 ACTS ΠῚ. 14—16. on ἀποκρίνεσθαι the Comm. at Luke i. 60), and spoke to the people. The address of the apostle which follows has very much resemblance to the first one : the very same ideas in substance are ex- pressed ; the Messiahship of Jesus is proved from the Old Testa- ment, and the people are invited to repent and believe on him. Only in verses 20 and 21 there is introduced a peculiar thought, in the promise of times of revival. In the first place, the apostle puts away from himself all the honour of the cure, and ascribes it to the Lord, whom God had glorified. In verse 12, some transcribers have taken offence at the connexion of δύναμις and εὐσέβεια ; and have therefore, instead of the latter word, written ἐξουσία. But there is no ground at all for this change. Piety is viewed, on ac- count of the connexion of the pious individual with God, as im- parting a real power. In verse 18 there is the peculiarity of the name παῖς θεοῦ being applied to Christ, and it is repeated in chap. iii. 26,iv.27—30. After the observations of Nitssch (in Ullmann’s Studien, 1828, Part II. page 331, &c.), no one probably will ever again be disposed to maintain that the expression is identical with ὑιὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ. It has already been remarked, in the Commentary on Luke i. 35, that παῖς corresponds to the Hebrew word ἼΣΥ. which is so frequently applied to the Messiah, particularly in the second part of Isaiah. The Seventy translate it by παῖς, which word occurs also in Matt. xii. 18 in a citation from the Old Testa- ment. According to the same usage, David also is called παῖς in Acts iv. 25, and the people of Israel in Luke i. 54—69 This name accordingly stands less related to the person of our Lord than to his office; and, considering the frequent use of Jay in the Old Testament, we may with more propriety wonder that in the New Testament παῖς is so seldom applied to Christ, than that it is so used at all. In verse 13, κατὰ πρόσωπον is to be explained with Meyer : ye denied him in the presence of Pilate. Vers 14—16. For the purpose of placing their sin in all its hideousness before the minds of the people, Peter contrasts their conduct towards the Redeemer with their conduct towards Barab- bas. It is a peculiar name, ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς, which is applied in this passage to the person of our Lord. In Acts ν. 31, you find ἀρχηγὸς καὶ σωτήρ, and in Heb. ii. 10 ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτη. pias. Critics in general attempt to show that the proper significa- tion of ἀρχηγὸς is that of author. Much light is thrown upon the ACTS III. 17—19. 401 meaning of the word by the passage in Heb. xii. 2, where ἀρχηγός and τελειωτὴς τῆς πίστεως stand together. According to this connexion the signification of “ beginning, leading to something,” suits the word ; although indeed this does not by any means stand in contradiction to the sense of “ producing.” The word ζωή must here (comp. John i. 4) be taken in the absolute sense, and in the most comprehensive application. It embraces not only the higher spi- ritual life, which Christ has introduced into the world, and to which he guides his followers; but also the conquest of physical death by the resurrection. And now in verse 16 to this Jesus whom they had despised, the miracle which was filling the multitude with astonishment, is ascribed. The construction of the sentence, how- ever, is not quite plain. If with Kuinoel you translate ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ : “ propter fiduciam in Christi auxilio repositam ;” then the second half of the verse exhibits a complete tautology, which you do not remove by putting a point after ἐστε- péwoe, and attaching τὸ ὄνομά ἀυτοῦ to what follows. The pas- ᾽ sage becomes intelligible only when you translate ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει, ‘* for faith,” or “to faith ;”’ that is, Peter healed ihe infirm man for the purpose of leading him, as well as others, to faith in the name of Christ. So Heinrichs rightly. With respect again to the expres- sion ἡ πίστις ἡ δι αὐτοῦ in the second half of the sentence, Kuinoel is likewise wrong, when he supposes that it is quite synonymous with the forms πίστις εἰς αὐτὸν or πίστις αὐτοῦ. This mode of expression is plainly designed to represent the πίστις as something called into existence by grace, in opposition to a self-originated and therefore inefficient opinion. Here the word ὁλοκληρία is to be understood only of physical “ integritas :” the substantive (see James i. 4) occurs in no other part of the New Testament but this. Vers. 17—19. After having addressed them with some severity, the apostle turns round again, and brings into view the higher ne- cessity which the prophecies have declared to be connected with the death of Christ, and thus mitigates their guilt. It has already been remarked at Luke xxiii. 34, that the ἄγνοια by no means takes away the guilt completely, for it was itself deserving of blame ; 1 There is mention here expressly made of ali the prophets, which many regard as a hyperbolical expression, and therefore modify it to mean some. But, according to the typical view of sacred history, it is perfectly true that they all prophecy of Christ. VOL. IV. 20 402 ACTS an. 2OGRt. but certainly it has a mitigating effect (1 Cor.ii. 8) ; and you can- not well say, in accordance with these passages, that the chief priests and members of the Sanhedrim who put Christ to death, committed the sin against the Holy Ghost. (See Comm. Matt. x11. 82.) By the extenuation thus made, the way is now paved for an invita- tion to repentance and conversion. The word ἐπιστρέφειν implies also the πίστις, of which mention has already been made in the 16th verse. As the first consequence of penitence and conversion, the forgiveness of sins is now brought into view, which again must be considered as involving life and blessedness. To denote the ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν the word ἐξαλείφω is here employed, which oc- curs in a figurative acceptation only in this passage. The ground work of this figurative usage is the idea of a bond (Col. ii. 14) which is cancelled. The same image is to be found in the Old Tes- tament, for example in Isaiah xliii. 25, Τὺ TID ΣΝ Where the Seventy also use ἐξαλείφω. 1 ila Vers. 20, 21. It is a peculiarity, as has already been observed, of this discourse of the apostle, that it makes mention of times of refreshing. ‘The very different explanations which have been given of this passage are to be judged of, altogether in accord- ance with the observations which I have prefixed to the lead- mg passage respecting the last things, viz. Matt. xxiv. 1. . The alleged fact that the apostle conceives the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως to be quite close at hand, has led some interpreters to regard the time of death as what is meant, others the abrogation of the Jewish ceremonial law, or perhaps a delay of the judgments im- pending over the Jews, or the warding off of persecutions. These ~ different suppositions, however, do not need to be seriously confuted. They may be looked upon as antiquated, because it is only the reference of the words to the times of the Messiah that is tenable. Still, it is a question whether the χρόνοι ἀποκαταστάσεως iN Verse 21, and the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως in verse 20, be identical, or whether the former expression refers to the future, and the latter to the pre- sent. According to the fundamental ideas of the New Testament, both views considered in themselves might be entertained, for we notice a double form of representation in the doctrine of the Baou- λεία TOV Θεοῦ, of which the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως are the realization ; Jirst, one according to which the kingdom of God appears as al- ACTS IIE. 20; 21. 409 ready present, secondly, another, according to which it appears as future. (See Comm. Part i. at Matt. iii. 2.) But the gram- matical connexion admits only the first view, which requires us to consider both expressions as the same, and as not referring to the present time. Without doubt the apostle Peter, as well as all the dis- ciples and the whole apostolic church, regarded the coming of Christ as near at hand, but still always as something future. If the refe- rence of verse 20 to the present be maintained, then the words ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσι---καὶ ἀποστείλῃ must be translated “cum venerint, et Deus miserit,” as Kuinoel supposes. But this translation is incon- sistent, not only with the particle av, which is not connected with the conjunction ὅπως, excepting when the end is conceived as attain- able only in the future, but also with the employment of ὅπως in con- nexion with the subjunctive mood, for it can only mean ‘‘ when, as” in connexion with the indicative. (Comp. Passow’s Lex. under this word, and Winer’s Grammar, page 285.) The coming of Christ, accordingly, that is, his παρουσία, is to be conceived as coinciding with the times of refreshing, and his sojourn in the heavenly world closes with his return to the earth for the completion of his work. The conversion of men, therefore, and the diffusion of faith in Christ, are the condition of the speedy approach of that blessed time, a thought which occurs again in 2 Pet. iii. 9. The expression oc- curring here, καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως, is easily explained. Life in this sinful world is conceived as a time of conflict and distress, and it is followed by rest in the kingdom of the Messiah. The phrase is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament, and it is but feeble parallels to it which the Old Testament supplies, as for example 2 Sam. xxiii. 7. Probably it takes its origin from a com- parison of the Messianic era with a Sabbath-day in the highersense, which it is known was very current among the Jews. The expression ὠπὸ προσώπου, equivalent to sypy9, which is by no means quite synonymous with πρὸ προσώπου, equivalent to spb. embodies the idea that the revival or refreshing proceeds from the Lord, that he himself produces it.—Instead of the common reading προκεκηρυγμένον, many and important manuscripts, (A, B, C, Ὁ, E, and fifty-three others,) besides several versions, read 7 po- κεχειρισμένον, which, as the more unusual reading, certainly de- serves the preference. ΠΤροχειρίζεσθαι occurs only in the Acts of the Ὁ Ὁ 404. ACTS It. 20, 21. Apostles (xxii. 14,xxvi. 16), in the sense of “appointing,” “electing to something.” Properly it means “ to take in hand, to undertake, to determine.” It is to be found in the best profane writers, and the Seventy also use it frequently, as in Joshua iii. 12, for m- In the 21st verse there is contrasted with the coming of Christ to this world his heavenly condition, described in the words δέχεσθαι οὐ- pavov, which cannot be referred so well to the act of reception, as to the state of possession and authority. For the view of the words which takes οὐρανὸν as the subject in this sense, ‘ the heaven must receive him,” which, after Beza’s example, Ernesti, Kuinoel, and Schott have defended, although it is certainly not inadmissible on grammatical grounds, yet must, give place to the other, because it is an unscriptural view to conceive heaven independent like an agent receiving Christ into itself, while it is he, as Lord and King, who takes it and holds it in possession. With as little propriety can you make the former of these statements, as you can say the throne takes up the king upon it. Beza, without doubt, has been led to this idea by his views as connected with the reformed Chureh.' 1 This passage has always been differently interpreted by the Lutheran and the Re- formed churches ; and if Beza might be unduly biassed to the one side, Olshausen himself might lean in a similar manner to the other. The Lutheran Chureh has viewed év as the subject, and understood the meaning of the clause to be that Christ took possession of the heavens: their feeling has been that the omnipresence of Christ would be compro- mised by saying that the heavens receive or contain him. The Reformed Church, again, make οὐρανὸν the subject, and translate, as in our yersion, whom the heavens must receive: their idea has been that the simple object of the clause is to describe Christ as dwelling now not on earth, butin heaven. The words doubtless are ambi- guous in construction, and admit of either rendering, for the verb δέχεσθαι is to be found in both shades of meaning. The cases, however, are more numerous where it is applied to a place receiving or containing a person, than to a person taking possession of aplace. Indeed, only one passage has been produced from Buripides, Alc. 817, in support of the latter meaning, and the bearing of it has been disputed, so that on mere philological grounds the interpretation of the Reformed Church deserves the preference. Nor is there much foree in our author’s argument that it is unseriptural to conceive of the heavens as yeceiving Christ, receiving him as a place does the person who enters it. Was he not, without prejudice to his omnipresence and divine authority, in this world for a term of years ; and why might he not, with as little prejudice to these attributes, be described as received into heaven when he left this world, to remain there till the period specified in the text? Calvin expresses himself with more moderation than those who followed him in the Reformed Church. Ceterum loquutio est ambigua: quia tam inte)- ligere possumus Christum caelo capi vel contineri quam caelum capere. Ne ergo ver bum dubiae significationis urgeamus: sed eo contente simus quod certum est, Christum, interea dum speratur ultima rerum omnium instauratio non alibi quam in caelo quaerem- dum esse. Caly. in loc.—'TR. ACTS II. 22—26. 405 The form of concord expressly rejects this interpretation (sol. declar. art. vii. towards the end.’) As the period of the Redeemer’s return, the Messianic era is again mentioned, which is here styled χρόνος ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων. This connexion of ideas occurs only here, though in He- brews ix. 10 there is to be found the very similar expression καιρὸς διορθώσεως. Respecting the sense of the term, however, no doubt can arise, if you keep steadily in view the relation of the Redeemer to this sinful world: Christ is the restorer of the fallen creation, and therefore the word ἀποκατάστασις derives from his redeeming power its peculiar meaning, viz., that of bringing back to an ori- ginally pure condition. It seems, indeed, from the connexion of the passage, as if πάντων had reference only to what the prophets have spoken, but not to the universe of existing things or circum- stances in general But the prophets have really spoken of all things ; and therefore the expression ἀποκατάστασις πάντων denotes the restitution of every thing. That πάντων is not to be understood as masculine, is self-evident. (The substantive ἀποκατάστασις does not occur any more in the New Testament, but the verb does, being applied to physical restoration, as in Matt. xii. 13; Mark viii. 25; Luke vi. 10, and also to spiritual, as in Matt. xvii. 11; Acts i. 6.—At the close of verse 21, there are some various readings. ‘The textus receptus has inserted πάντων before ἁγίων προφητῶν, but it should be struck out here, because it is certainly an interpolation from the 18th verse.—The phrase az’ αἰῶνος, however, is improperly omit- . ted in some manuscripts; 10 15 not so definite a period as is imme- diately specified in what follows, and therefore we may refer the expression to the whole series of God's promises with respect to the restoration of men, because there are prophets mentioned in the New Testament who were prior to the deluge. (See Jude ver. 14.) Vers. 22—26. Looking back to the admonition to repentance given in the 19th verse, the apostle adduces some passages from 1 The Form of Concord (Concord‘enformel ) here mentioned is one of the symbolical books of the Lutheran Church, though not so important a one, nor so universally ac- knowledged, as the Confession of Augsburgh. It was called the book of Torgaw, from the place where it was composed in the sixteenth century, and the book of Concord, from the purpose it was designed to serve. It became the source, however, of many dis- putes, and was violently opposed, not only by the Reformed Church, but by some also of the most distinguished Lutheran churches and divines.—Tr. 406 ACTS Ill. 22—26. the Old Testament,’ in which the necessity of recognising the great Messianic prophet is exhibited with peculiar force. First of all, the well-known passage in Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19, is cited. The language of the Septuagint is followed in the main ; but the words of the 15th and 18th verses are drawn together, and in the 1 9th, in- stead of ἐκδικήσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ, you have ἐξολοθρευθήσεται ἐκ τοῦ λαοῦ, the Hebrew being 4x75 Way. From the connexion cer- tainly it appears that this passage refers in the first instance to the order of prophets in general, but as the prophetical character is ex- hibited im the Messiah in the highest, nay in absolute perfection, the passage applies to him too in the very highest sense. In this view the words ὡς ἐμέ (s54yy) must have a decided reference to the legisla- tive character, which was exhibited in Moses, and afterwards ap- peared only in Christ. As it stands in the Old Testament, the threatening of the 23d verse has an external reference, but accord- ing to the economy of the New, it is to be understood spiritually, and in this respect, it is quite similar to the words of our Lord, ὁ μὴ πιστεύων ἤδη κέκριται, in John iii. 18. All promises belong primarily to the seed of Abraham, according to the divine appoint- ment, and upon that consideration Peter grounds the invitation to his hearers, to appropriate to themselves the blessing that is in Christ. The quotation in verse 25 is taken from Gen. xii. 3, or xvill. 18, xxii. 18. It is almost exactly in the words of the Sep- tuagint, which instead of πατριαὶ, reads ἔθνη or dvNai.—The words ὑμῖν πρῶτον ὁ Θεὸς---ἀπέστειλεν αὐτόν, in verse 26, contain an intimation of the universality of the grace that is in Christ, that is, of the introduction of the Gentiles into the Christian church, which the prophets had so frequently foretold; for it was not against this introduction considered in itself that Peter at a later period (chap. x.) entertained scruples, but only in so far as it might take place directly, without the reception of the law on the part of the Gentile converts. 1 Respecting the want of precision in the words : πάντες ὁι προφῆται ἀπὸ Σαμουὴλ καὶ τῶν καθεξῆς ὕσοι ἐλάλησαν, consult Winer’s Grammar, p. 464, ACTS IV. 1—7. 107 § 4. FIRST IMPRISONMEN1 OF PETER. (Acts iv. L—31.) The auspicious opening bloom of the young church of Christ could not fail speedily to attract the attention of those who occu- pied the seat of Moses. But as they were themselves the murderers of the Son of God, and would not humble themselves before him to receive even the pardon of their sins, which was offered to them by the apostles preaching in their presence, they fell of consequence into the new sin of seeking to quench the Spirit. Yet their first undecided procedure against those who announced the resurrection of the crucified Jesus, plainly evinces that a smitten conscience bore witness to them, of their alienation from God and their struggle against the defenders of true piety. But soon we behold them grow more daring, and by gradually working upon the mass of the people, they excite the fickle multitude against the Christians, as despisers of the national religious solemnities. Vers. 1—7. In the power of the Spirit the apostles continued to preach, and their word wrought so powerfully, that already about five thousand men believed. In verse 4 it appears, if you compare it with chap. v. 14, that men only are named exclusive of women. It might, therefore, be supposed that the number of the Christian community was much greater. But at first perhaps it might be only men that were added to the church. In all likelihood this occurrence must be placed only a few days after Pentecost, for it is hardly to be supposed that the priests would not interfere at once, for the purpose of extinguishing the flame as speedily as possible. ‘The conversion of so many was the’ source of vexation to the whole party of priests, but above all to the Sadducees ; whose views were most directly impugned by the preaching of the resurrection. (Compare the Commentary on Matt. iii. 7, and xxii. 23.) The person who took the active part in the arrest of Peter (for John ap- pears in all these transactions only as the companion of Peter, without any independent agency),' is described as the στρατηγὸς τοῦ t This may be explained partly from the circumstance, that these sections of the Acts of the Apostles were taken from some writing or from several short memoirs, whicli’ 408 ACTS Iv. 8—12. ἱεροῦ. It has been erroneously supposed that the expression de- notes a Roman officer; but it should rather be understood as meaning the captain of the Levitical guard of the Temple who was on duty. This guard had the charge of preserving tran- quillity in the neighbourhood of the temple; and the pretence, that the apostles were disturbing the peace, was made to furnish an occasion for their arrestment. (Compare Josephus, Arch. xx. 6,2. ΒΒ... 12. 6. 2 Maccab. iii. 4, where προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ is the title used.) As it was already late (verse 3), the ex- amination was delayed till the following day, when the Sanhedrim assembled. ᾿Εγενήθη, in ver. 4, is a form that does not occur in the Attic writers, though it is frequently to be found in the common Greek. Compare Lobeck ad Phryn. page 108. Respecting ἄρχοντες, πρεσβύτεροι and γραμματεῖς, as also respecting Caiaphas and An- nas, see the particulars stated in Comm. at Matt. xxvi. 57. At the same place too see regarding γένος ἀρχιερατικόν. Nothing is known of the two other persons whose names are mentioned. Lightfoot on this passage supposes that John corresponds to an individual, of whom intelligence is preserved in the Talmud. He is called Rab- ban Jochanan ben Zaccai, and is described as a priest of distine- tion. Far more improbable is the conjecture which has been made, that Alexander may be the brother of Philo; for he was named Alabarches of Alexandria, and could not therefore be a member of the Sanhedrim in Jerusalem. Compare Eusebius Hist. Ece. ii. 5, and the note of Valesius upon that passage. Alabarches was con- sidered the highest magistrate of the Jews in Alexandria and all Egypt. Vers. 8—12. The Sanhedrim had interrogated the apostles re- specting their authority to teach publicly, a question which undoubt- edly was competent to them. (Consult the Comm. on Matt. xxi. 23.) And Peter now replies to their question, by appealing to a decided miracle, the healing of the lame man, as his authority ; and he aseribes this miracle to the power of Jesus of Nazareth.! The originated with the school of Peter; but the character of John too, on the other hand, renders it probable, that he did not at the first display very great energy. (Compare the Commentary on John, page 4.) 1 In verse 8 it is expressly mentioned, that Peter spoke these words πλησθεὶς πιεύ- ματος ἁγίου. The same thing is said in iv. 31, xiii. 9, and very frequently of Paul. In this we are not simply to recognise the general idea, that the apostles spoke at the sug- ACTS IV. 8—12., 409 first consideration was quite a natural one, for miracles were to be the means of establishing the authority of a prophet (compare the passage quoted, viz. Ps. exviii. 22), but the second point is remarkable. Ac- cording to Jewish principles the prophet was required to perform his miracles in the name of Jehovah the true God ; but the apostles wrought theirs in the name of Jesus. In this way, therefore, they indirectly declared him to be their Lord and God: they announced that in him God dwells and is manifested ; and the members of the Sanhedrim would undoubtedly understand their words to mean, that they proclaimed themselves to be the messengers of Jesus, and re- cognised a divine majesty as belonging to him. With undaunted boldness Peter now reproaches them with having rejected this corner stone of the spiritual temple, while yet it was Christ only in whom there was salvation for them. . He therefore, the impeached humble citizen, preaches the way of salvation to the godless ministers of the sanctuary! (Respecting the quotation from Ps. exvill. 22, consult Comm. at Matt. xxi. 42.) The 12th verse is attended with peculiar doctrinal difficulties : it confines the σωτηρία so strictly to Christ, that the question may present itself, How, then, can those who have never heard of him, be σωζόμενοι or become so?» Quite inadmissible is the shift which some have had recourse to, of making the σωτηρία relate only to what is physical, because the subject previously under consideration has been the healing of the lame man. It is plain from the preceding citation in the 11th verse, that σωτηρία can only mean the Messianic salvation, which Christ bestows. Nevertheless it was a total misunderstanding of this passage, from which however the primitive church stood clear, when it was explained, so as to exclude unbaptized children and Gentiles from the σωτηρία. The ancient fathers rightly conceived every exhibition of superior excellence, even in the heathen world, to be the effect of the λόγος σπερματικός (so expressly says Justin Martyr, page 51 c.), and for all, to whom noray of divine light had penetrated, they opened up in the “‘descensus Christi ad inferos” the possibility of obtaining gestion of the Holy Ghost, and not by their own ability; but we are rather to see an evident proof, that the Holy Ghost, who was always really working in them, was at these moments producing effects that were peculiarly palpable. In the inward spiritual life of the apostles, therefore, we must distinguish between periods of high excitement and pe- riods of less elevation (see Comm. on 2 Cor. xii.); and the expression before us denotes the former. 410 ACTS 1V. 138—22. salvation. But as the circle can only have one centre, so also the divine being alone can be the Saviour, and this is the deep thought of the apostle’s language. Not without reason, therefore, is the general expression οὐκ ἔστιν more narrowly defined in the second clause by the words ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι, by which the possibility of any other way of salvation is most decidedly excluded. Only the one λογος, “ logos,” has very various forms of manifestation ; in conse- quence of which there arises an apparent variety of ways of access to God. (Regarding the expression δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις, con- sult Winer's Grammar, page 177.) In accordance with the sense, it may be said that ἐν stands for the dative; but grammatically it is more correct to give it the signification of ‘‘ among,” making the thought this: ‘ there is no other name given,” that is, “ exhibited” among men, and at the sametime for them. Vers. 183—18. The Sanhedrim were unable, partly because they were restrained by the power of the Spirit of truth speaking in the apostles, and partly because they feared the people (verse 18), to adopt any severe measures against the preachers of the resurrection of the crucified Jesus. They dismissed the apostles with an unmeaning admonition. The two expressions ἀγράμματοι and ἰδιῶται appear to be synonymous, for the latter, as well as the former, frequently denotes the unlearned as opposed to the learned. Suidas explains it by ἀγράμματος and ἀμαθής. But the word is also applied to the /ow/y as distinguished from the great and the wealthy, and therefore it is best to give it this sense for the pur- pose of making a distinction between it and ἀγράμματος. This Jatter word, it may be further remarked, implies nothing more than the want of formal Rabbinical training; for, where this was awanting, the Pharisees, whose minds were quite ossified, were unable to recognise any higher knowledge as existing. Ζιανέμω, denoting ‘to divide, to- disperse,” and thence “ to propagate,” occurs in no other part of the New Testament but this. Vers. 19—22. Although the apostles openly declare that they cannot comply with the admonition given to them, yet the chief priests dismiss them without punishment, merely adding a threat. Perhaps it was their hope that by mildness they might most effi- ciently suppress the growing sect, which appeared to them so dan- gerous. But the apostles at once give utterance to the great principle, which is repeated by them (chap. ν. 29) at their second im- ACTS Iv. 283—381. 411 prisonment, that we must obey God rather than man. The relation of this principle to the general command, to obey “‘ the power’ as the minister of God (Rom. xiii. 1), is attended with some difficulty, especially when, as in the case before us, that power enjoins no posi- tive sin, but only negatively forbids something. Many enthusiasts and rebels have misapplied this principle to the defence of their insane or mischievous undertakings. Now such an abuse cannot be prevented by restrictions and regulations, because this principle, like every other, is regulated in practice by the character of those who apply it, whose insincerity may pervert what is most excellent. But, in its purely objective character, the highest freedom of the believer maintains no conflict at all with his unqualified obedience to “the power,” even though it be an unrighteous one. He moves, in fact, with his old and new man, as it were, ina twofold world. In the one character he is placed in subjection to earthly relations, and therefore willingly gives to Ceesar what is Ceesar’s ; but in the other he is a member of the spiritual world, and therefore gives to God what is God’s. And because he thus leaves to the earthly power what- ever belongs to it, he secures to himself perfect liberty of deciding in accordanee with a higher will, in whatever does not belong to it. But every misapplication of the principle has really the earthly element in view, to obtain which the heavenly is only used as a means. Where such obliquity does not disturb the inward vision, the connexion of the two commands will be easily perceived. Peter appeals, therefore, with respect to the truth of the principle that God's command rises above that of man, to the moral feeling of the Sanhedrim themselves, and they were unable to resist it. In verse 20 we must with Lachmann prefer ἔιδαμεν as the more unusual Alexandrian form, which is also to be found sometimes in the LXX. See 1Samx. 14; 2 Sam. x. 14. In verse 21 μηδὲν must be taken as an absolute accusative; it stands for μηδαμᾶ or μηδαμῶς. Vers. 23—31. After their release the apostles repaired to their friends, who broke out into a prayer of thanksgiving to God. ἬἼδιοι cannot mean all Christians, for all could not assemble in one place, but only the household church of the apostles, those with whom they were accustomed to unite in social prayer; compare xii. 12, it cannot mean, as Meyer supposes, the other apostles. It is self-evident, that this prayer of thanksgiving was either uttered by 412 ACTS IV. 23—81. one in the name of the rest, or that the common feeling of all is ex- hibited in these words. ‘The latter idea is rather favoured by the expression : ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἦραν φωνὴν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. And in this case the form of the thoughts belongs either to Luke, or perhaps rather to the author of the memoirs, which he employed in construct- ing his narrative. Meyer's supposition is quite inadmissible, that the prayer which follows may have been a form that was in use in the church of Jerusalem ; in this way you will improperly transfer to the primitive church the usages ofa later time. In the prayer, it is the concluding verses only (29, 30) which touch upon the fact to which the whole scene refers ; and they do so only cursorily, in the entreaty that the threatenings may be averted. The first verses are en- tirely occupied with the fruitless attempts against the Redeemer, a thing which appears unseasonable. But on closer consideration this is seen to express a very deep feeling, which affords a strong warrant for the correctness of the narrative. The apostles were so thoroughly engrossed with the person of Christ and his affairs, their own individual concerns were thrown so much into the back- ground, and it was so exclusively Christ's cause which appeared to them intrinsically important, that, they saw even in their ownsuffer- ings nothing but persecutions directed against Christ. Their prayer therefore concerned itself only about him ; and their desire looked exclusively to this, that they might be enabled to glorify him. Of the omnipotence of God, mention is made, to bring into view the fact, that he is able everywhere to give help. (On δεσπότης, comp. Comm. on Luke ii. 29.) This power of the Almighty, protecting against all the rage of men who are in rebellion against heaven, is strikingly described in Psalm ii. 1, 2, which passage is quoted ex- actly according to the ILXX., and explained as referring to Christ. (Vers. 27, 28.) The second psalm is very frequently applied to Christ in the New Testament.') (Acts xiii. 33; Heb. i. 5, v. 15; Rev. ii. 26, 27, xii. 5, xix. 15.) There may certainly be in the psalm a his- torical basis, and it may relate to the installation of a king in Israel ; but the peculiar reference of it to the Messiah, the universal king, cannot be mistaken. (Comp. Hengstenberg’s Christology, vol. i. 1 Peter ascribes it to David, although both the Hebrew text and the LXX. have no inscription. In this he follows the general opinion of the Jews, which ascribes to David all psalms whose authors are not definitely marked, With respect to the second psalm, the correctness of this view is not to to be doubted. ACTS Iv. 28—v. 11]. 413 page 95, &c.) The hostility of the world is so little able to over- throw God's plan, that it is compelled to become the means of accomplishing it. (Ver. 29.) This idea of a divine necessity in the free actions of men has already been made the subject of considera- tion at Matt. xxvi. 24. Respecting ἱνατί, see Comm. on Matt. xxvii. 46. φρυάττω, equivalent to Ὁ, is first of all applied to neighing horses, and then it denotes, “ to storm,” ‘to rage.”—In verse 27, ἐπ᾿ ἀλη- θείας is used, as in Luke iv. 26, xxii. ὅθ, by way of asseveration. According to the common text, it connects itself immediately with ἐπὶ Tov ἅγιον παῖδά cov ; while Griesbach, following codices A. D. E., and others, has inserted ἐν τῇ πόλει τάυτῃ. If we compare such passages as Matt. xxiii. 87, Luke xiii. 33, this addition acquires very great force. The holy city, Luke means to say, they have made the seat of infamous treachery.—Tavdy occurs again in Acts xvii. 90, xx. 32, xxvii. 22. It is used also by profane writers as synonymous with νῦν. Compare Herod. vii. 104. After the prayer was concluded, the place where the disciples were assembled was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. It has already been remarked at chap. iv. 8, that the being filled with the Lioly Ghost, must be regarded as denoting a state of unusually high spiritual excitement ; for at Pentecost the apostles had received the Holy Ghost once for all. The common excitement which here found place in all who were assembled was, like the outpouring of the Spirit described in chap. 11. 2, accompanied with an external manifestation, viz., the shaking of the place. Now, a common earth- quake is as little to be thought of in this place, as a common storm was at chap. 11. 2; for both of these must have struck the city, and not merely the place of meeting. But certainly there is something parallel to this occurrence in the view of the ancients, for they re- garded earthquakes as a sign from the gods. Virg. Aen. iii. 89. The earthquake was to them like a gigantic exhibition of the power of the gods, a token of their presence, and at the same time of their favour. 414 - ACTS IV. 382. δ v. THE COMMUNITY OF GOobs. (Acts iv. 82—yv. 11.) After the special narrative thus given, there follows again a ge- neral view of the state of the church in Jerusalem, (Compare at ji. 42—47.) This passage only brings more prominently into view a particular usage, viz., the community of goods, of which mention has already been cursorily made, in the passage just referred to... And in connexion with the general statement respecting the community of goods, two particular narratives are presented, in which the use and the abuse of the practice are described. With respect to this ancient Christian institute, we may now, after Mosheim’s en- quiry (“de vera natura communionis bonorum in ecclesia Hierosoly- mitana” contained in “ diss. ad hist. ecel. pertin. vol. i. diss. i.”), re- gard the old view as antiquated, which supposed that all property had ceased among Christians. They must in this case have lived upon a common fund, which would have speedily wasted away; and, in- stead of the dwellings which were sold, others must have been hired anew. ‘The passages ii. 45, iv. 35, appear at first sight to fa- vour this view, because it is there said, Ta κτήματα καὶ τὰς ὑπάρ- ἕξεις ἐπίπρασκον, language which seems to include all possessions, whether moveable or real, and because in the latter passage, iv. 35, the distribution is represented as so general, that one is tempted to think of a common fund out of which every individual received what he needed. But when we investigate the circumstances more narrowly, we come upon invincible difficulties, and find ourselves compelled to admit only an active liberality, which led the more wealthy to sel] much for the support of their poorer brethren ; and so disposed every one that he managed his own private property for the common good of all. There is only one circumstance which 1 That in the progress of mankind there is a tendency to the abolition of private pro- perty, is illustrated by the sect of the St Simonians in France, whose case is worthy of attention in a history of the church. Only, this party ridiculously pervert a right feel- ing, because they strive to establish by external regulations, what can only be effected by the power of love operating from within. No power or plan can supply the place of the omnipotence of love. The gospel establishes in a truly cordial manner a commonity of goods, because, without changing anything externally, it awakens pure love, which teaches us to regard and to treat the need of a brother as our own. ACTS Iv. 32. 415 seems still to lead to the conclusion, that in the earliest time there did in fact prevail in Jerusalem a proper community of goods. We find the church there remarkably poor, so that Paul, in particular, is continually occupied with collections for the mother church. The fact might be explained in this manner: in the first glow of love, the believers in Jerusalem really went too far; they sold all their possessions, they lived upon the common fund, and hoped the Lord would soon return to conduct them into his kingdom. But, when the advent was delayed, they fell into temporal destitution, and needed support. From this circumstance too it might be explained why there is not even a trace of this institute to be found in any other church. It may be said that the apostles, taught experience by this trial, ceased to form after the manner of the Essenes such a common stock, and nowhere else established it. In opposition to this view, it would be no proper argument to say, that the apos- tles must in this case have either made or allowed an unsuitable regulation ; for the apostles do not by any means appear infallible, excepting where a matter of faith is concerned : in a regulation for the church, therefore, they might perhaps have conceived wrongly for a moment, and the more so as they themselves would have erred as individuals in such a case: their whole error would have consisted in applying too pure and heavenly a standard to the cir- cumstances of an earthly church.” But other considerations present themselves, which forbid me to regard the foregoing argumentation as sufficient to prove, that a complete community of goods prevailed among the primitive Chris- tians. First of all Peter expressly declares to Ananias (chap. v. 4), that it was in his own power either to sell the field or to retain it : it is inconceivable, therefore, that it could be a lawin the church, as it was among the Essenes, that every one must sell all his goods. Again we find, in chap. xii. 12, an example of the private posses- sion of a house. The poverty therefore of the Christians in Jerusa- lem, which is certainly a very remarkable fact, must be accounted 1 The statement here made regarding the apostles is pushed too far, nor is there any ground for it in the practice under notice, for this practice resulted out of the spontan- eous love of believers, and was not wrons. The apostles were appointed by Christ not only to proclaim the truth, but also to plant and regulate churches, and they received the promise of the Hely Ghost to fit them for these duties. Their infallibility therefore went beyond mere matters of faith, and extended also to the ordinances and institutions which they established for the churches. Apostolic practice, clearly made out, is a good rule to us.—T Rr. 416 ACTS Iv. 82. for in some other way. Either the church was formed from amongst the poorest inhabitants of the city, or many, without the constraint of any law, went so far under the influence of spontaneous affection in selling their possessions, as to impoverish themselves too much, or finally both causes may have operated together, which is perhaps the most probable opinion. And the way in which the apostles might be led to the idea of a community of goods, is very easily conceived, when one considers that difference of possession is no- thing but a consequence of sin. (Comp. Comm. on Luke xvi. |, &c.) The ideal perfection of man’s condition is just that, in which neither poor nor rich are to be found, but every individual has his wants supplied. Anticipations that such a condition must one day be realised, are to be found, not only in the daring cry after freedom and equality, but also in the most exalted of our race. Pythagoras and Plato were captivated with this idea: the Essenes! and other small sectarian bodies attempted to realize it. But the outward realization of it requires certain internal conditions ; and just because these were awanting, the attempts referred to could not but fail. These conditions, however, were secured by the Redeemer, who poured true brotherly love into the hearts of believers ; but as the church herself still appears in this world externally veiled, so the true community of goods cannot be outwardly practised: this will only take place when the kingdom of God is openly mani- fested, as the victorious and ruling power at the advent of the Lord. With respect to verbal criticism, there is not much to be noticed in these words. In the first place, it is not without reason that in verse 32 the expression is employed : ἣν ἡ καρδία Kai ἡ ψυχὴ μία. It could not have been said τὸ πνεῦμα ἕν ἣν, at least this would have conveyed quite a different meaning, it would have referred rather to knowledge than to feeling. But here the idea to be ex- pressed is that the church was feelingly sensible of its community of life; and therefore the ψυχὴ is brought prominently into view, and its middle point the καρδία, as the centre of feeling. Again, 1 The Essenes really and traly had no private property : all that they earned went into a common fund, out of which all were supported. (Comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud, ii, 12.) The question, whether the Essenes had any influence upon the Christian institute of a community of goods: I would thus answer, “ not upon the institute as such, which ori- ginated solely in Christian love; but their regulations may perhaps have exercised an influence upon individual Christians who knew them, and may have recommended the institute to them and led them to prize it.”’ ACTS IV. 386, 37—v. 1—6. 417 at first sight, verse 83 appears to interrupt the connexion, because verse 34 treats anew of the community of goods. But closer ob- servation makes it plain that verse 34 does not look back to verse 32, but refers immediately to verse 83. It was the brotherly love, which displayed itself among the Christians, that won for them in so high a degree the favour of the people. In verse 35 the words τιθέναι Tapa τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἀποστόλων are a symbolical expres- sion meaning to place under their control. Vers. 36, 37. Regarding the well-known Joses, surnamed Bar- nabas, of whom mention is so frequently made in the sequel, the information is here communicated, that, with an upright purpose, he sold a field, and handed over to the apostles the money realised by the sale. ‘The pretended identity of Barnabas with Barsabas, and the different reading of the names, have been already suffi- ciently considered at chap. i. 23. In this passage the tribe to which Barnabas belonged and the land of his birth are mentioned. For the purpose of exhibiting the import of the name Barnabas, Luke gives a Greek translation of it, bles παρακλήσεως. It is un- certain, however, what etymology the sacred historian had before his eyes: one is most readily led to think of ggq5, but this word denotes “ to foretell, to prophecy.” Admonition, however, and con- solation are certainly a part of the functions of a prophet ; and there- fore Luke might put παράκλησις for προφητεία. At least this idea is certainly not so harsh as the supposition of Grotius, that παρά- κλησις just means prediction, which cannot at all be made good. Chap. v., vers. 1—6. The event which follows embodies a case of a totally different kind, viz. an example of the abuse, which sordid individuals were tempted to make of the institute of a community of goods. This is the first trace of a shade, which falls upon the pure bright form of the young church. A member of the Christian body misguidedly attempts, along with his wife, to deceive the apos- tles and the whole church, by bringing forward a smaller price than he had received for a piece of ground which he had sold. Hypocrisy was therefore the peculiar sin of Ananias and Sapphira. It is probable that among the new Christians a kind of holy rivalry had sprung up: every one was eager to place his superfluous means at the disposal of the church: now this zeal actuated many a one, who was not in heart properly freed from attachment to earthly things ; and thus it happened that Ananias too sold some property VOL. ΕΥ̓͂, 2D 418 Acts v. 1—6. but afterwards secretly kept back part of the price. Vanity was the motive of the sale, hypocrisy the motive of the concealment : he wished to appear as disinterested as others, and yet he could not let go his hold of mammon. But still the punishment with which he was visited always appears very severe, especially when we com- pare it with the treatment which was given to far more dangerous individuals, Simon Magus (chap. viii.) and Elymas (chap. xiii.). Appeal indeed is made to the fact that the hypocrisy of Ananias and his wife was uncommonly daring, and must have undermined, if it had succeeded, the consideration of the apostles ; and certainly this remark 15. ποῦ without force. But the proper solution can only be found in this, that these persons had experienced the power of the Holy Ghost. and yet could abandon themselves to so gross a sin. It is not the deed therefore itself alone, but also the condition of him who perpetrates it, which determines the measure of the guilt. Simon and Elymas were free from the great responsibility which lay upon Ananias, because they had not the experience of the power of the Spirit, which we must ascribe to him. Where this experience existed, even an apparently smaller sin required to meet with the severer punishment. Ananias (99977) and Sapphira (from “"HD) his wife sold a piece of land, for the purpose of putting the proceeds into the chest of the church, but they secretly kept back a part of the price. Kriya might mean a moveable possession, but verse 3 shows that it here denotes χωρίον, a field.—_ Noo difer Oar comes from νόσφι, “ remote,” “apart.” In Homer νοσφίζεσθαι occurs both in the sense of physi- cal withdrawment, and moral or spiritual, that is turning away from one ont of hatred. Later writers use it also as an active verb, im the signification of “ removing, robbing, stealing.” And still more fre- quently is the middle voice to be found in this sense in Xenophon, Polybius, and others. In the New Testament you find it again in Titus ii. 10, and in the translation of the LXX. it occurs in Jo- shua vil. 1. In his address, Peter first exhibits the greatness of the guilt of Ananias, ascribing the idea of the deception to diabolical influence, and representing it-as directed against the Holy Ghost. The unholy accordingly appears here in conflict with the Holiest ; as the repre- sentatives of whom, the apostles are to be regarded (comp. Acts xv. 28) as filled with the Holy Ghost. It almost appears as if the AcCTs v. I—6. 419 act of Ananias were represented as ἃ sin against the Holy Ghost, which would explain the fact, that all admonition to repentance is wanting, and all mention of pardon; the apostles in this case only exercise their prerogative of retaining sin. (Comp. Comm. ou Matt. xvi. 19.) And from this it follows that the peculiar procedure of Peter in this affair is inexplicable, if you suppose that he had learned by information from others that Ananias committed this fraud : an ex- ternal communication respecting the fact could not place the apostle in a position to determine the degree of the man’s inward guilt. Yet such a determination was necessary to him, if he wished not to do injustice to Ananias, and for this therefore nothing but the power of the Spirit could qualify him. It has already been remarked on verse 4, that the words of Peter clearly show, there was no obli- gation resting upon Ananias to sell the ground; yet that he might not be outstripped by others, he parted with it, but hypocritically kept back a part of the price. Further, the fact that verse 4 ascribes to Ananias himself, what verse 3 imputes to Satan, involves no contradiction at all; nor is it right to say that the ascription of the evil thought to Satan is only a popular expression for the simpler idea, that the thought came from the heart of Ananias himself. The twofold form of expression in these verses, is one quite suitable to the nature of the circumstances, because the in- fluence of the devilis not compulsory ; and accordingly the recep- tion into the heart of an evil thought suggested by him requires the consent of the will. In like manner, the expression in verse 4, οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ, does not deny that Ananias had lied also to men; but as this aspect of his misdeed came not at all into consideration, in comparison with the deceiving of God, the apostle in the ardour of speaking denies it. Explanations therefore such as these, “ποῦ only to men, or not so much to men as to God,” are to be rejected as enfeebling the thought. With regard, finally, to the sudden death of Ananias, mentioned in verse 5, many interpreters, on the one hand, explain it as an apoplectic fit brought on by terror; and many, on the other, as a purely supernatural oc- currence. This total separation between the natural and the super- natural is another mistake ; there is nothing to prevent us from sup- posing that the death of Ananias might be quite a natural event; but this supposition does not destroy the marvellous character of the scene. What is natural in itself may become miraculous by con- 2D2 420 ACTs v. 1—6. nexion with circumstances and adjuncts ; and in this case it is plain that the death of Ananiasis an event supernaturally arranged by a higher power, because it is connected with the penal sentence of the apostle, which was spoken in the power of the Spirit, and like a sword pierced Ananias, while alarmed on account of his sin. The sudden death of Ananias naturally excited a solemn awe in the minds of all who were present. The servants of the church buried the lifeless body. Certainly Mosheim is right (comm. de re- bus Christ. ante Const. p. 114), and he is followed by Kuinoel (Hein- richs leaves the question undecided), in supposing that νεώτεροις, equivalent to νεανίσκοις in verse 10, denotes not merely some young men, but the regular servants of the church, who are also in He- brew styled px yy9, The article plainly leads to the conclusion, that it was not any young people who pleased that took charge of the interment, but certain definite persons, and as, moreover, they performed this duty unsummoned, we are left to suppose that they regarded it as belonging to their office. These νεώτεροι are best conceived as occupying a position similar to that of the acoluthi or acolytes at a later period.’ The agapae or love-feasts, and the nu- merous meetings held, must in fact have made the need of servants be felt, as early as that of rulers. (Συστέλλω or περιστέλλω is, like συγκομίζω in Acts viii. 2, applied to the burial of the dead and the whole preparatory steps, like the Latin “ pollingere.” In the New Testament it is only to be found in this passage ; but it occurs also in the Septuagint, Ezek. xxix. 5, and in profane authors, 6. g., Herod. ii. 90. It denotes primarily the dressing of the dead body with a shroud, from στέλλω, “to place, to set in order, to prepare, to dress,” whence o76d.—In like manner, ἐκφέ- petv equivalent to ‘ efferre,” is a common expression for performing the interment of the dead.) 1 Neander (Apost. Zeitalt., page 89) advances the opinion, that the νεώτεροι here men- tioned might be no regular church-officers, but only younger members of the church who undertook the interment. But in this case, doubtless, another expression would have been chosen instead of νεώτεροι, and at all events τινὲς would have been added: the article points to known individuals. It might rather be supposed that the expression denotes the deacons, if the existence among the deacons of such men as Stephen and Philip did not render it improbable, that employments of this outward kind would be imposed upon them. Certainly there were in the church at a very early period persons who were entrusted with the care of mere external matters, such as the cleaning of the places of meeting and the like: these might also take charge of the interment of the dead, ACTS Vv. 7—IL11. 421 Vers. 7—11. After the lapse of a few hours, the wife of Ananias likewise appeared ; and, as she boldly persisted in the concerted fraud, the same ‘ate befel her. The precision of the narrative dis- covers itself in the careful fixing of the time (verse 7.) The only pe- culiarity of these verses is the idea exhibited in πειράσαι τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίους Though the expression “ to tempt God,” ovr bya ΓΘ; occurs frequently, especially in the Old Testament, yet the phrase “to tempt the Spirit” is only to be found in this passage. There is expressed in it the idea that Ananias and Sapphira not only in general tempted God, as he is made known in the remoter manifesta- tions of his character, but even supposed that they were able to con- ceal their sin from the Holy Ghost, the bighest exhibition of the divine agency (ψεύσασθαι τὸ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ver. 3), although he searches not only the depths of the hearts, but even the deep things of God. (1 Cor. ii. 10.) The view of Pott and Kuinoel is quite wrong, that to tempt God is exactly the same thing as sinning in general. It rather means a species of sin, viz., that sin which dis- plays itself audaciously and presumptuously. Man frequently puts God's love and mercy and omniscience, as it were, to the proof by his sins ; and this boldness of the creature against the Creator is called ‘‘ a tempting of God.” ‘That in this case covetousness was also at work by no means excludes the idea indicated; for a mere common covetousness would have either wholly restrained Ananias from joining himself to the church, or at the least would have been a motive to forbid the sale of his property. In ver. 9 the phrase τέ ἐστι ὅτι συνεφωνήθη ὑμιν, “ wherefore have ye agreed, or concerted together,’ must be explained on the principle of the well known construction of the passive with a dative. Compare Winer’s Gram. page 196. In the words ἐδου os πόδες κ. τ. X., you recognise the expression of immediate knowledge: ‘ behold, we hear the tread of the returning young men.” § 6. SECOND TRIAL OF THE APOSTLES. (Acts v. 12—42.) This narrative of matters in the bosom of the church is followed by a scene of a more public kind, and we have an account of a Ἂ 3 422 ACTS V. 12—23. new imprisonment of the apostles. It is introduced by a general description of the healing power of the apostles (verses 12—16), especially of Peter. This excited attention in so high a degree, that even from the neighbouring cities sick people were brought to Jerusalem ; which indicates that probably in these cities too small bodies of believers would be formed, because, according to God's appointment, outward circumstances were always designed to be a means of drawing attention to the inward spiritual truths which the apostles proclaimed. Respecting the porch of Solomon, comp. Comm. on Acts iii. Ll. It appears to have been the usual place where the apostles met. In verse 13 the expression τῶν δὲ λοιπῶν is undoubtedly to be understood of the multitude of those who were not yet converted, but whose attention at the same time was arrested by the spiritual — power of Christianity.—KonAdo Oar, equivalent to pat is frequently applied to scholars and their attachment to teachers. The Chris- tians remained together, and a certain awe restrained the multi- tude from mingling themselves with them. According to verse 14 there were many women also who believed: their baptism rendered the appointment of deaconesses necessary, who it is probable ex- isted from a very early period in the church at Jerusalem, although they are not expressly named. The devout women among the fol- lowers of the Lord himself were probably not baptized, any more than the disciples, who had only received the baptism of John. ‘The baptism of the Spirit compensated in their case for the outward baptism.—-Verse 15. What is mentioned of the shadow of Peter is to be regarded primarily as a view of the people, but this does not imply that the view was a mere notion : we must rather suppose that where pure and childlike faith existed, it was not put to shame. Certainly, however, it was not the shadow that could heal, but only the wondrous influence which streamed from the apostle in con- formity with his will. ‘The passage is analogous to what is said of the touching of the hem of Christ’s garment.’ Comp. Comm. on Matthew ix. 20.—Verse 16. πέριξ in the signification of “ round about” occurs in no other part of the New Testament but this. On the position of the adverb with respect to the substantive, compare Bernhardy’s Syntax, page 323. Vers. 17—-28. The statement that follows of a new imprisonment 1 Something similar is related of Paul in Acts xix. 12. acrs Vv. 17—23. 423 of Peter and several other apostles (verse 29), agrees in substance with the account of the first imprisonment (iv. 1—22.) The only things which are peculiar to this narrative, are the mention of their deliverance by an angel (verses 19, 20), and the information re- specting the proceedings in the Sauhedrim itself (verses 33—42.) With respect to the first circumstance, however, we pass it over here, because it will receive a minute consideration at the passage in xii. 7, &c., connected with xvi. 26, &c., where deliverances quite similar are narrated far more in detail. Ver. 17. The expression ἡ οὖσα ἅιρεσις τῶν Σ᾽ αδδουκαίων, which stands related to the preceding words, ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ πάντες δι σὺν ἀυτῷ, denotes that the high priest and even his family were attached to this sect, and in a manner represented it.—Verse 20. The phrase ῥήματα τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης is a singular one, because the expression ζωὴ autn, agreeably to the analogy of ἄνων ὅυτος, might appear to be employed in opposition to ζωὴ μέλλουσα or ἀιώνιος ; but, in the first place, such a mode of speaking does not occur in the language of Scripture, although it is quite common in German and English, and, in the second place, it does not suit the connexion, which would rather have required ζωὴ αἰώνιος. The forced conjecture has been made that for ζωὴς we should substitute ὁδοῦ ; which indeed removes the difficulties, but for want of critical authorities it cannot be admit- ted. Itis common toregard the expression as a hypallage for ῥήματα ταῦτα τῆς ζωῆς, but Winer (Grammar, p. 519) supposes that the phrase might be better understood thus, ‘‘ words of the salvation, in proclaiming which the apostles were just engaged.” But this idea is harsh here, because there has been no mention at all pre- viously made of the proclamation of the gospel. Meyer prefers to understand it thus: ‘* the words of this life, that is, of the life pre- sent to your ideas and to your interest,” but neither can this be called simple or plain. Perhaps it is best, as the hypallage of the pronoun is doubtful, to explain the words on the principle that re- ference is made to the fact that it is the angel, a being from heaven, who is speaking. In this view the sense will be : “ the words of this heavenly life, of which I speak to you.’—Ver. 21, Γερουσία means ‘council, assembly of the elders :” itis to be found in no other part of the New Testament. This council of elders is here distinguished from the Sanhedrim ; it must denote experienced men, who in part- cular cases were associated with that body in their deliberations. In 424 ACTS V. 24—82. the Apocrypha the word denotes the Sanhedrim itself. Compare 2 Macc. i. 10, iv. 44. Vers. 24—28. Freed from imprisonment the apostles imme- diately resumed preaching in the temple; which they only left when brought away by the astonished officers to be placed before the court. The word ἱερεὺς, in ver. 24, is remarkable on account of ἀρχιερεῖς which follows; and hence may be explained the omis- sion of it in A.B.D. and other authorities. Without doubt, how- ever, it is genuine, because it is inexplicable how it could be in- serted. “Ἱερεὺς is here used absolutely for the high priest, while ἀρχιερεῖς denotes the members of the Sanhedrim. Ver. 28. παρωγγελία occurs again in Acts xvi. 24; 1 Thess. iv. 2; 1 Tim. 1,5. In connexion with παραγγέλλειν, however, it is only to be found here, and this addition as usual gives force to the thought. In the chiding words of the Sanhedrim, there is here a peculiar expression: βούλεσθε ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸ aia. These words doubtless express not only the apprehension that the people may hold them guilty of the death of a righteous man, but also the consciousness of guilt itself. Vers. 939-92. Peter first of all reminded them of his former public declaration, (iv. 19) that we must obey God rather than men ; and then he again proclaims to them that Jesus, who had been put to death by the Sanhedrim, was raised from the dead, and exalted to the right hand of God. At the same time, however, he shows that there was pardon even for their sins in the Saviour. Διαχειρίζεσθαι, “το kill, to strangle, to put to death,” occurs again in chap. xxvi. 27.—KpeuaoOar ἐπὶ ξύλου is equivalent to nbn ye by, the usual expression in Hebrew for crucifixion. — Apyn- yos τῆς ζωῆς occurred in chap. iii. 15: we need not here with Kuinoel suppose the signification to be different, because ἀρχηγὸς stands alone. ‘The leading idea implied in it is, that the Redeemer goes before men, and prepares the way for them. In the first pas- sage the ζωή is only stated to define as the object, which here is not named. The most important idea in these verses is the one embo- died in δοῦναι μετάνοιαν, in verse 31. We have already, in Luke xxiv. 47, found the μετάνοια in conjunction with the ἄφε- ols, appearing as the object of the preaching of the Gospel. Here, however, there is a more precise intimation given in the word δοῦναι, ACTS V. 32—87. 425 that the μετάνοια is not a thing which can be produced by the will of man, but must be effected by grace. All Pelagian modes of conception therefore stand in most decided opposition to this pas- sage. . Vers. 32. Their testimony to the events described, the apostles conceive as borne and supported by the Holy Ghost, whose in- fluences they at the same time presuppose in the hearts of their hearers. Vers. 383—35. The wild hatred of the rest, which this discourse of Peter had excited, was opposed by the wise Gamaliel alone, and he guided them back to reason.!'—Avarpiw occurs again in chap. vii. ὅ4 : it denotes properly ‘‘ to saw through or in pieces,” then “ to gnash with the teeth, to grow furious.” -- Γαμαλιήλ dpsbyyy (Numb. i. 10; ii. 20) was the instructor of the Apostle Paul. ‘Acts xxii. 3.) According to the Talmud, he was the son of one Rabbi Simeon, and grandson of the celebrated Rabbi Hillel; and on account of his piety and rabbinical learning, he had acquired much fame, and at the time of Christ was president of the Sanhedrim. (Comp. Lightfoot on this passage, and Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 3.) The expression, ἔξω ποιεῖν, which occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, bears in verse 34 the signification “to put away,” “ to send forth,” “toremove.” It is to be found also in the best pro- fane authors, for example in Xenoph. Cyrop. iv. 1, 3. Vers. 36, 37. Gamaliel strikes into a historical path, for the pur- pose of leading the Sanhedrim to a temperate view of the new phe- nomenon, which was presenting itself to their eyes. He makes mention, of Theudas and Judas Galilaeus,” who both represented themselves as the Messiah, but were soon unmasked as deceivers, and he predicts a similar speedy destruction to Christianity also, if no higher power were at work in it. First, as to Theudas, Josephus informs us (Ant. xx. 5, 1), of a rebel of this name, who appeared under the Proconsul Cuspius Fadus, declared himself to be a pro- 1 Respecting Gamaliel and the character of Jewish learning, compare the discussion of Tholuck in the Studien 1835, Part ii., on the life and character of the Apostle Paul, page 367, &c. According to the tradition of the church (Recognit. Clem. i. 65. Phot. bibl. cod. 171), he was a Christian secretly. 2 Comp. on chap. v. 36, 37, the ample discussioa of Dr Kuhn, in the Kath. Zeit- sehrift. Jahrb. fir Theol. und Christl. Philos. Von Kuhn, Staudenmaier and others. Frankf. A. M. 1834. Vol. 1. Part i. Also Tholuck tiber die Glaubwiirdigkeit der evang. Gesch. p. 388, &c. 426 ACTS V. 36, 37. phet, and promised to the multitude whom he had collected together, that he would divide the Jordan before them, and lead them through it. But Roman troopers scattered the multitude, and killed Theudas. We naturally at first think of this man; but he lived under Claudius Cesar, and therefore much later than the time when Gamaliel uttered this speech. Many interpreters bave supposed, that Luke here gives the speech of Gamaliel freely, and that he falls into an anachronism, by making him mention a man who appeared at a much later period. If we consider that Luke could hardly possess such accurate information of the proceedings within the Sanhedrim, as to be able to give word for word the speech of Gamaliel as it was spoken, then one might feel disposed to conclude that there was such an oversight committed here. The character of Holy Scripture would in no respect suffer by this sup- position ; but only the literal theory of inspiration, which must be given up at any rate as opposed to truth, and as presenting a weak side. to the assaults of adversaries. Infallibility belongs to the Scrip- tures only in matters of a religious and moral kind; in circum- stances that are purely external, it has the full ‘fides humana,” as much as any other work can deserve it; but it is no rule on such points, and therefore not infallible. But there is one consideration which prevents me from adopting this opinion as my own ; in verse 37, Judas is expressly placed after Theudas (μετὰ τοῦτον ἀνέστη ‘Iovdas), and according to the above supposition, Luke must have committed a double oversight : in the first place, he has let Gamaliel name a man who lived after him; and, in the second place, be has put Judas, who appeared under Augustus after Theudas, who lived under Claudius. ‘That Luke should have committed the latter mistake, is really altogether improbable, because such false prophets and false Christs must have strongly attracted the notice of all believers who lived along with them; and the time therefore of their appearance we must regard as universally known among their contemporaries. I decide therefore in favour of the other view, which supposes an earlier Theudas under Augustus, of whom Josephus has made no mention. And this is quite consistent 1 Olshausen seems here very needlessly to go out of his way, to make the statement that Luke might fall into a mistake, while after all it appears he is convinced there was no mistake. It is a very large promise which Christ gives to his disciples that he would send the Spirit, who should bring all things to their remembrance, and guide them into ACTS V. 88, 89. 497 with the circumstance, that according to the statement of Luke the whole number of his followers was so insignificant that it only amounted to four hundred. (Respecting the phrase, λέγων εἶναί τινα ἑαυτόν, in verse 86, com- pare the parallel passage in chap. vili. 9, where the same is used in full of Simon Magus, with the addition of μέγαν to ἑαυτὸν λέγων. Some codices have added μέγαν here too, but critical authorities are awanting to prove its genuineness, and it is not even necessary as a supplement. ‘The phrase εἶναί τινα forms a contrast with the phrase that follows, γίνεσθαι εἰς ovdév.—Instead of προσεκολλήθη, there are found in manuscripts the readings προσεκλίθη, προσεκλήθη, προσετέθη. The first of these three, the reading προσεκλίθη, has the most critical authorities in its favour, and perhaps, as being the more unusual expression, it is to be preferred to the common reading.—A arto, ‘ to unloose,” here applied to the band of rebels, to ‘‘scatter,” is equivalent to διασκορπίζω in ver. 87.) The second false prophet was Judas Galilaeus, who, as has already been mentioned, appeared in the days of Cesar Augustus. On the occasion of the census under the Proconsul Quirinus (comp. Comm. on Luke ii. 1), this Jew (Josephus Ant. xviii. i. 1), raised a disturb- ance, and declared that it was not at all allowable to the Jews, as the people of God, to pay taxes to the heathen Romans. Josephus, though not with any propriety, considers the followers of this man, whom we must regard as political fanatics, as the fourth Jewish sect. The followers of Judas actually maintained their position till the great Jewish war under Titus. Vers. 88,39. By referring to these rebels, Gamaliel made way for the declaration, that God’s power displays itself in shaping his- torical events, and that without his will nothing can acquire en- during stability. Now with respect to the idea embodied in this celebrated judgment of Gamaliel, we should of course greatly err, if all truth. Certainly these words of our Lord do not suggest the idea, that it was in some respects only they were to be infallibly guided, while in others they were to be left to the risk of mistake. But how, we are asked, was Luke to know what Gamaliel said in the Sanhedrim? Doubtless, he gathered it from some sure source, for he tells us that he investigated every point with accuracy and care (axp:fws.) But in whatever way he might learn this and an hundred other things he describes, our security rests not upon his diligence, but upon the fact that he enjoyed the direction of the Holy Ghost. Like the holy men of an earlier age, he spake as he was moved by the Holy Ghost.—Tr, 428 ACTS V. 40—4Q. we conceived it to mean that man should allow every thing to go in its own way, on the ground that that only can secure success which is accompanied with the blessing of God, for according to this view it would be necessary to leave untouched every evil that might spring up. The words of Gamaliel can only have a claim to be reckoned wise, if we suppose that he regarded Christianity neither as a thing plainly objectionable, nor yet as a thing to be entirely approved of: he knew not what to think of this new phenomenon ; and therefore he left the explanation of it to time, which could not fail to develope fully its true character. Had he perceived it to be decidedly objectionable, then he would have felt constrained to crush it; had he perceived it to be decidedly good, then he would have been obliged to recognise it openly as such. It might be said indeed, that Gamaliel ought rather to have in- vestigated what the nature of Christianity was, than to wait for the development of it ; but undoubtedly he had instituted researches,’ though without being able to come to a decision. Yet this must not be made a ground of reproach against him, for the old man pro- bably was no longer sufficiently plastic to be transplanted into the new element of the gospel life, and perhaps it was rather his desti- nation, like the Baptist, to be perfected in the Old Testament life. (Θεομάχος occurs in no oiher part of the New Testament.) Vers 40—42. In consequence of Gamaliel’s advice, the Sanhe- drim dismissed the apostles again ; and they continued with joy to preach the gospel. (Ver. 40. On the beating of the apostles, comp. Luke xxii. 16.—Ver. 41. With respect to the joy that was felt under the suffering of persecutions, comp. the remarks on Matt. v. 10. Ver, 43, The expression κατ᾽ οἶκον stands opposed to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, and denotes the private meetings which the apostles held in various parts of the city. Comp. chap. ii. 46.) 1 I entirely agree with Neander (Apost. Zeitalter Th. i. 5. 56, &c.) in my view of the state of Gamaliel’s mind. It is not to be supposed that this Jewish scholar was secretly attached to the gospel: on the contrary, he was honoured to the end of his life as a model of the piety prevailing among the Pharisees. But as a Pliarisee, he was moderate and well-intentioned ; and he may therefore, upon the whole, have received an impression of the character of the apostles, which gave him the conviction that these men aimed at nothing decidedly objectionable. He prevented therefore violent means of suppres- sion, and rather left the cause its free course, supposing it would probably soon come to nothing of its own accord. ACTS νι. 1—7. 429 § 7. HISTORY OF STEPHEN. (Acts vi. 1—viii. 1.) Vers. |—7. With respect to the first division of this paragraph (vi. I—-7), it might be supposed that the Evangelist’s design in it was to communicate some information regarding the public regu- lations of the Church at Jerusalem. But a closer consideration of the connexion of the passage with what follows renders this supposi- tion quite improbable. Ifthis were the author's design there would undoubtedly be some information communicated, not only respect- ing the deacons, but also respecting the presbyters and their elec- tion : nay in this case the narrative even of the choice of the dea- cons must have proceeded quite differently from what it has done ; because the seven that are mentioned, as will be more clearly shown immediately, could not be the only deacons of the Church at Jerusalem. The whole complexion of this narrative makes it about certain, that it could only be designed for an introduction to the history of Stephen: Luke wished to inform his readers shortly of the occasion on which this celebrated martyr received an office in the church, and thus to introduce him to them as a dis- tinguished member of the body. With respect to the position of the seven individuals who were chosen, there can be no doubt that they are to be regarded as deacons.! We are led to this conclusion not only by the expressions διακονία καθημερινή in ver. 1, and διακονεῖν τραπέζαις in ver. 2, but also particularly by the view of the seven which has been handed down from primitive times. The ancient church did not venture, in consequence of the number here specified, to go beyond seven deacons in any church. In the third century there were in Rome along with forty presbyters not more than seven deacons. (Compare Euseb. H. E. vi. 43.) Certain however though it be that these newly chosen individuals are to be regarded as deacons, it is equally certain that they could not be the first nor the only deacons. For the service of the church, even at an earlier period, 1 Some learned men have been disposed to regard as presbyters the individuals whose election is described in this passage: so the celebrated Canonist J. H. Bobmer (in his diss. jur. eccl. ant. diss. vii., p.573, &c.) But this view does not at all admit of being properly established, and ought decidedly to be rejected. 430 ACTS Vi. 1—7. must have required persons to manage the funds, to take charge of the sick, and to attend at the love-feasts. At the first these were chosen from amongst the Jews of Palestine ; but when the Greek Jews complained of the neglect of their poor, it is pro- bable that the church proceeded to the election of these seven men from amongst the Hellenists, for they all bear Greek names. Now if the poor of the Jews of Palestine had been committed to the care of these men, the same complaint might readily have been repeated on the other side. Undoubtedly, therefore, there were more than these seven deacons instated in office in the ancient church of Jerusalem. (Compare Moshemii Comm. p. 118, &c.) That there were also presbyters appointed from the earliest date in the church of Jerusalem, is rendered probable by the very mention of the νεώτεροι in chap. v. 5; and besides, they are expressly named in the passages xi 30, xv. 3.1 The ecclesiastical duties to be performed, especially baptizing and the internal government of the church, rendered the speedy appointment of presbyters abso- lutely necessary. The proper work of teaching (διακονία τοῦ λόγου) the apostles appear at first to have reserved entirely to themselves. (Compare ver. 4.) It is certain, however, that from amongst the number of the presbyters, no bishop had as yet assumed the rule, because the college of apostles retained the prime direction of affairs. It was when the apostles left Jerusalem that the need was first felt of unity; and from that time James, the brother of the Lord, governed the church as bishop. (Euseb. H. E. II. 23.) 1 Neander ( Apost. Zeitalt., page 40, &c.) supposes that the deacons were first appointed, and that until their election all the members of the church at Jerusalem stood upon a level, so that the apostles themselves were the only rulers and guides. During the first weeks or months this may have been the state of matters. But if we consider how rapidly the church increased, how much the time of the apostles was oceupied by transactions with magistrates, by imprisonment, and the like, it will appear, I think, more probable that very soon men with the gi‘ts of teaching were appointed by them as presbyters, and per- sons with powers of management chosen for deacons. (Compare at Rom. xii.4.) If we only give up the idea, that Luke designs here to inform us expressly of the election of the deacons, and if we suppose instead that the whole narrative is just intended as an introduction to the history of Stephen, then there is nothing which can be advanced against this supposition. Now that it is not Luke’s primary object here to make formal communications respecting the nature of ecclesiastical offices plainly appears, in the first place, from the conciseness of the whole account, and, in the second place, particu- larly from the circumstance that he says not a word of the presbyters, although they come before us in chap. xi 80, and xv. 2, as office-bearers already appointed in the church. ACTS. VI. 1—7. 431 With respect to the particulars of this section, the indefinite ex- pression ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις does not permit us to fix pre- cisely the chronology of the event. Still, however, it must be placed in the earliest times of the church, and accordingly the fact is undeniable, that at a very early period differences displayed them- selves in the Christian community. The pure ideal conception of the apostolic church cannot stand before these and similar facts, which we shall have to consider in the sequel ; but by no means do they prove prejudicial to a temperate estimate of the life displayed in it. Never can the earthly fellowship of believers be without blemishes, partly because it always comprehends individual un- worthy members, partly because even in the best the sinful prin- ciple is not yet entirely extinguished ; but never was the life of faith more purely and powerfully exhibited than in the apostolic age. And particularly as to the contest before us, it was really just an emulation of love: each party would have their own poor taken care of in the best possible manner: we are not to suppose there was any deceitful overreaching of either party by the other. The two contending parties, who are mentioned in this passage, are the ἑβραῖοι and the ἑλληνίσται. By the former expression we’ are undoubtedly to understand the Jews of Palestine who spoke Hebrew, and by the latter the Jews who spoke Greek, and who had come to Jerusalem from abroad." The only point about which there can be any uncertainty, is whether the word é\- ληνισταί includes proselytes or not. But since (verse 5) there is one proselyte to be found among the seven deacons who were chosen, it admits of no doubt that this class is to be understood as included ; and indeed it is difficult to imagine that the proselytes who went over to Christianity should be kept back in any way, or separated from the rest. It was language only which established a distinction between the Hebrews and the Hellenists ; and all prose- lytes on the very ground of their language belonged to the latter class. Again, as to the swdject of the contest, the Hellenists affirm that their widows were neglected in the daily ministration. This passage confirms the view we have already expressed at chap. iv. 1 The word ἑλληνισταί never has the same signification in the New Testament as ἕλληνες, which means Greeks, who were not proselytes. In chap. xi. 20, ἕλληνες is the right reading. 432 ACTS vI. 1—7. 32, that it was only the poor and the destitute who could be sup- ported out of the common fund : the widows are here put by synec- doche for all poor and needy persons. And the expression διακονία καθημερινή leads to the conclusion, that the assistance was not given in money, but in food, which is also confirmed by the phrase dvaxo- νεῖν τραπέζαις in verse 2. It is probable that in various parts of the city, in the places of meeting belonging to the church, there were apartments for eating prepared, in which the poor were fed free of expense. And thus we see appearing at the very origin of the church, the charitable feeling, which is so peculiar to the gospel, and which has produced so many institutions in the church. (The adjective καθημερινός, formed from καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, is to be found in no other part of the New Testament.) The matter in question was laid by the apostles before the whole body. Here accordingly we find the democratical element prevail- ing in the church ; but it gradually passed through the aristocrati- cal into the monarchical.’ This transition was by no means merely a result of priestly ambition, though certainly at a later period that passion was often enough displayed in the church, but it was a neces- sary consequence of the course of events in the church as a whole. So long, for example, as the Christian spirit continued to display itself vigorously in the church, the public voice might well be con- sulted ; but when this spirit afterwards disappeared, it would have been ruinous to the church if the plurality of voices had been allowed to decide. A glance at the rudeness of the masses in the middle ages may convince us of the necessity of their being guided by those above them. Even in the latter part of the apostolic age, as is plain from the pastoral epistles, the democratic element ap- pears to have fallen back in the church; and the predominating influence in the management of affairs is seen to proceed from the body of the teachers. Further, the great numberof believers, without doubt, made many places of meeting necessary for them, in which the assemblies might be conducted by individual apostles. 1 It must not be overlooked that the multitude here certainly exercise the right of election, and yet the apostles retain the right of ratifying the choice (éus καταστή- σομεν, verse 3.) But, according to the pastoral epistles, the bishops appear to have possessed the appointment of office-bearers: there is no trace in them of an election by the church. Among the Gentile churches, which were often but little confirmed in the faith, it might be early found by the apostles that a general election was imprac- ticable. ACTS vI. 8—10. 433 In ver. 8, σοφία is taken in a more restricted sense, than pru- dence in outward affairs: it is not to be conceived, however, as a natural talent, but as a gift of the Spirit, for Paul enumerates even the διακονίαν among the Charismata, 1 Cor. xii. 5. The word χρεία, “ want, need,” is also used synonymously with λει- toupyia, ‘office, employment ;” on the principle that every em- ployment presupposes some need. So also in profane authors, for example Polyb. vi. 12, viii. 22. Ver. 5. Of the seven deacons that were chosen, Stephen and Philip (chap. viii.) only are known. Of Nicolaus it has been falsely supposed, that he was the founder of the sect of the Nico- laitanes: on this subject see more at Rev. ii. 6.—Ver. 6. Al- though it was the church that made the choice, yet the apostles had the right of confirmation and consecration, as being endowed with the gifts of the Holy Ghost. The form of consecration was the im- position of hands with prayer. The χειροθεσία, Os MIND. 1s a usage which is to be found even in the Old Testament in Gen. xlvili. 14, Numb. xxvii. 18, and which also occurs in the New, as in Matt. xix. 18, Mark vi. 5. It was a standing ordinance in the church for the communication of the Holy Ghost (Acts vii. 17), and for the consecration of office-bearers (1 Tim. iv. 14; 2 Tim. i. 6.) The idea embraced in the laying on of hands was really just this, that by means of it there was effected a communi- cation of the Spirit from the individual consecrating to the one ordained. It is expressly stated in verse 7, that among the increasing number of believers there were many priests even to be found. They belonged probably to the sect of the Pharisees, who were far more likely to be subdued by the power of the truth than the sensual Sudducees. The Essenes had no priests. Vers. 8—10. After the account of the election of Stephen along with the six other deacons, the narrative proceeds immediately to a more particular statement respecting him. First of all, it is mentioned of him that he wrought miracles. In him accordingly we see this gift removed already one step farther from its source, for Christ bestowed it upon the apostles, and they upon Stephen. Later traces of the gift of healing are to be found even in the se- cond and third century of the church (compare Justin Martyr, apol. i. p. 45; Tren. adv. baer. ii. 56; Orig. cont. Cels. vii. p. 384) ; but the farther we recede from the apostolic age, the more do these VOL. IY. 2E 434 Acts vi. l1—15. very striking exhibitions of the power of the Spirit become lost to our view. (Regarding the particular Charismata, see details at 1 Cor. xii.) Of the Jews, who were connected with the foreign synagogues existing in Jerusalem (compare Comment. on Matt. iv. 23), several now fell into disputation with the zealous Ste- phen ; but he overpowered them all. It is remarkable that the Libertini are mentioned along with the names of nations, and that they had a separate synagogue. Per- haps freedmen (and beyond all doubt, as the name indicates, Roman freedmen, not Palestinian, as Lightfoot supposed, for the institute of freedmen was entirely of a Roman character) built the synagogue, and from this circumstance it derived its name; yet we need not suppose that freedmen only were connected with it, any more than that the other synagogues numbered among their members only men of Alexandria or Cyrene, They had their names either from their founders, or from the preponderating class of people who were connected with them. Valckenaer’s con- jecture of Διβυστίνων is a very prepossessing one, only it wants all critical authority. ‘The supposition of a city named Libertum is not sufficiently confirmed to permit us to think of Jews from it. Sickler, in his Ancient Geography, recognises no city of this name. Vers. 11—15. The success of Stephen’s ministry raised up a keen opposition to him. His enemies accused him before the Sanhe- drim as a blasphemer of God and of the law. And just as in the case of the accusation brought against the Lord himself (comp.Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 60, &c.), so here likewise it is said, that false witnesses appeared against him. These give testimony that Stephen said, Jesus would destroy the Temple, and change the Jewish manners and cus- toms. In this the Jews, according to their ideas, might find a blas- phemy against the Temple and against Moses, who had founded and regulated its services, but not any blasphemy against Goda Itmay be said that indirectly there is blasphemy against God, inasmuch as Moses arranged his religious institutions according to a divine command ; but that is not sufficient, for it is only on account of this circumstance that a word against Moses could be regarded as blasphemy at all: if he were not viewed as a messenger sent from 1 In the Talmadie tract styled Sanhedrim (clap. vii. 4) it is said: Lapidator profa- nator Sabbathi, magus et qni ad apostasiam impellit, ACTS vi. 1 I—15. 435 God, then no reproachful word uttered against him would be diffe- rent from the reproaches thrown upon any other man. The ῥήματα βλάσφημα εἰς Θεόν must therefore still have some special reference ; and that without doubt is no other than what lies in the exhibition of Christ's divine worth (comp. Comm. on Matt. xxvi. 65.) But here again the question presents itself, as at Matt. xxvi. 60, how these witnesses can be named μάρτυρες ψευδεῖς, when in fact Stephen did teach Christ’s divine dignity, and declared that God dwells not in temples made with hands (chap. vii. 48), which contains an in- direct intimation that the Temple at Jerusalem might be dispensed with? One would expect, not that the witnesses should be ac- cused of falsehood, but rather the Sanhedrim of a deficiency in discernment, which prevented them from perceiving that the ideas promulgated by Stephen did not at all contradict the true sense of the Old Testament, and consequently not the divine will. This difficulty, however, will be solved, if here again we make the sup- position that the Jews, with a disposition of mind that looked to outward things, did not rightly comprehend the thoughts of Ste- phen, but took a distorted view of them. Whathe had represented as a consequence of the operation of the Spirit of Christ, whose de- sign it was to consecrate the world as a great temple of God, and to guide religion from externals to the heart; that the Jews con- ceived as a purpose to be accomplished by violence ; and thus they ascribed to him the destruction of the Temple, and the abolition of Jewish usages, things which he had never attempted. Stephen, in fact, blames the Jews that they had not kept the law of Moses (vil. 58), while, if he had been aiming at the positive abolition of it, they would have been acting exactly according to his wish. The New Testament, therefore, does not abolish the Old in a violent manner, but only in the way of organic development, that is, in such a man- ner, that the eternal and permanent substance of the Old Testa- ment is preserved, and passes over into the New Testament life itself. The Holy Scriptures testify against all revolution, whether in political or ecclesiastical affairs; and, on the contrary, recom- mend the gradual remodelling of what is old, in accordance with the necessities of the times. The fact, however, that this relation of the gospel to the external aspect of the Old Covenant, which was thus placed as a hedge between Gentiles and Jews, came into ques- tion in connexion with the person of Stephen, and not in connexion 2ER 436 ACTS Vil. 1—3: with one of the twelve apostles, undoubtedly had its ground, as Baur (in a holiday programme of the University of Tubingen, of the year 1829), and Neander (Apos. Zeitalt., page 60, &c.) rightly re- mark, in the course of culture through which Stephen had passed. As a Hellenist, he had undoubtedly from the very first entertained freer notions of the Old Testament, than was possible for a Jew of Palestine ; and therefore the Spirit might more readily bring into his view that aspect of Christianity, by which it was to draw the whole heathen world within the circle of the higher life, an object that necessarily presupposes the dissolution of the Temple at Jeru- salem as a centre of union. Rightly, therefore, may Stephen be styled the forerunner of Paul the apostle of the Gentiles. Out of his blood grew this powerful preacher of the heathen world, and the echo of the words heard from Stephen may have been to Paul after his conversion, the main means of drawing out his ministry in the direction of the heathen world. Ver. 11. Ὑποβάλλω occurs nowhere else in the New Testa- ment: it means primarily ‘“ to lay under,” ‘to push under,” then like the Latin subornare, ‘‘ anstiften,” to ‘ contrive, to instigate, to abet,” and therefore ὑπόβλητος is a secret accuser. Joseph. Arch. vii. 8, 4. Ver. 13. βλάσφημα is undoubtedly spurious: itis merely an interpolation from verse 11.-—Ver. 15. The words ace πρόσω- mov ἀγγέλου describe the glory that brightened the features of Stephen, supported as he was by the consciousness of the divine favour. Similar is the expression in 2 Sam. xiv. 17, mony son yo oy Syn. Chap. vii. 1—3. "The speech of Stephen which follows, exhibits both in its general structure and in its particular parts, much that, is striking and difficult.’ First of all, as to its general bearing upon the position of Stephen, the address does not appear to be very suitable. It is only an incidental reference that is made to the charges that were brought against him (verses 48, 49), and the rest of the discourse embraces nothing but a review of the history of the Jewish nation till the time of Solomon. But this peculiar cha- racter unquestionably imprints upon it the seal of genuineness, 1 Comp.in Heinrichs’ Commentary, the sixth and seventh excursus, which refer to this speech of Stephen. Further, the treatise of Luger (Liibeck 1838) respecting this discourse, and the remarks of Lange in the Studien 1836, Part iii., page 725, &e. Above all, Baur's programme de orationis a Stephano habitae consilio. Tubing. 1829. ACTS Vil. 1—3. 437 for no one certainly would have thought of framing a discourse of this kind for the circumstances in which Stephen was placed. More- over, as there were many priests, according to chap. vi. 7, con- nected with the church, the question can occasion no difficulty, how the speech delivered before the Sanhedrim could become known. In order to explain the peculiar character cf this discourse, many interpreters have supposed, that the narrative of the fortunes of the Jewish people embraces a concealed parrying of all the charges, which had been bronght against Stephen. But this view leads to forced interpretations, as for example, that the history of Abraham was intended to intimate that there were pious men even before the building of the Temple, and that accordingly it cannot be service in the visible temple which alone is acceptable tv God. So Grotius. The simplest view is, that Stephen's reason for narrating the history of the Old Testament so much in detail, is just to show the Jews that he believes it, and thus to induce them, through love of their national history, to listen with calm attention. For, although the nature of the history itself was fitted to make it a mirror to the hearers, and particularly to bring before their minds the cireum- stance, that the Jewish people in all stages of their progress and of divine revelation, had resisted the Spirit of God, and that conse- quently it was not astonishing they should now again show them- selves disobedient ;! yet it does not appear to me that this object was definitely kept in view in the discourse, and that for the fol- lowing reasons. First, because in this case the mode of exhibiting 1 Even Baur, in the treatis2 already quoted, regards this as the main thought of the discourse : Quo ampliora fuerint Dei beneficia, eo alieniorem a Dease gessisse populum. But if this really stood before the mind of Stephen as a definite purpose, while he was speaking, then it will be difficult to give any reason for the fulness with which accessory points are handled, which admit of no reference to this main thought. We shall be obliged therefore to suppose, at the least, that there are other objects besides this, as for example, to show that he is well acquainted with sacred history, that he believes it, and that he holds it in high honour. Such detailed references to the points of charge against Stephen, as Meyer and Luger suppose to be in this speech, I cannot find in it, and I re- gard the effort to make them apparent as quite fitted to mislead. Luger supposes that, according to my representation, the design of Stephen’s discourse was not answered, inasmuch as the Jews after all did not listen to him when he came to the main point. In so far as the Jews interrupted him, the failure certainly is a fact; but on any other ex- planation the martyr’s speech appears equally in this sense to have miscarried, and in particular, according to the view brought forward by Luger, that his object is to parry the individual charges, it certainly failed, for the Jews after all killed him. There was notany | failure, however, iu so far as Stephen obtained ample opportunity of declaring his faith in the word of God, and making it plain to every lover of truth that he was innocent. 438 ACTS vul. 1—8. the history of the people of Israel would have been different. Stephen would have allowed the contrast to come out far more decidedly, and would have paid less attention to secondary points than he has done. And further, the Jews would not have listened so quietly, if they had noticed any trace of such a design. We should therefore be obliged to suppose that the speech of Stephen had failed of its object, inasmuch as the Jews did not at all perceive, that it inflicted any censure upon them. Again it is a characteristic of this address, that it contains so many references to Rabbinical tradition, of which traces are also exhibited in the translation of the LXX., which is frequently followed by Ste- phen.’ Reference has already been made in an earlier part of the Commentary (at Luke iv. 18) to those deviations of the LXX. which are received by the New Testament writers; and I have re- | marked that they are by no means at once to be rejected. And with respect to these references to tradition, they render it in fact very probable, that ancient genuine elements were preserved traditionally among the Jews, which received their higher con- firmation by admission into the New Testament. If we consider the general prevalence of oral tradition among all ancient nations, and particularly the stationary posture of things which was common among the Jews; such a descent of genuine traditionary elements through a succession of centuries will lose the astonishing cha- racter which it seems to have. The speech commences with Abraham, the root of the Jewish na- tion, and the first appearance of God with which he was favoured. In the very first verses, however, the historical statement does not appear to be purely connected with the original sources ; for there is no mention made in Genesis of any appearance of God before the departure from Ur. The words which are here (ver. 8) quoted, as spoken before the residence in Haran, were spoken according to Gen. xii. 1, during the appearance with which Abra- ham was favoured 7 Haran. It has been attempted to remove the 1 This reference to traditional elements in the discourse of Stephen is particularly striking in this respect, that his whole tendency of mind, more free as being a Hellenist, does not lead us to expect the like. This circumstance has never, amid the numerous investigations to which the remarkable speech of Stephen has been subjected, been suf- ficiently considered, nor anywhere satisfactorily explained, In any case it obliges us to suppose that Stephen, though a Hellenist, had yet received a thorough Rabbinical edu- cation, without however having allowed himself to become a prey to the narrow- hearted spirit of Pharisaism., ACTS VIL. 4—8. 439 force of this circumstance by the remark that, according to tradi- tion, the departure from Ur likewise took place at the command of God. (It is probable that this opinion was formed in consequence of the passages in Gen. xv. 7; Neh. ix. 7. Compare Philo de Abrah. p. 11, 12. Vol. ii. edit. Mangey. Joseph. Arch. i. 7, 1.) However the words of the quotation always appear to stand in the way of this view: they are to be found literally, according to the LXX., in the passage Gen. xii. 1. Only the LXX. has, in accord- ance with the Hebrew, the additional words,«ai ἐκ τοῦ οἴκου τοῦ πατρός cov. The words καὶ δεῦρο are wanting in the Cod. Alex. Even supposing therefore that we chose to refer to that tradition, still we must confess that the words contained in ver. 3 appear to be transferred from a later appearance of God to an earlier one. For the supposition of Luger that, according to the narrative of Genesis, the theophany which is recorded in Gen. xii. 1. did not take place in Haran at all but in Ur, the accounts in the eleventh chapter being anticipated simply for the purpose of com- pleting the external history of Abraham, before the author begins to communicate the spiritual (as if the external history of Abra- ham did not continue to be recorded even after the 12th chap.), is, on account of the connexion between xi. 81 and xii. 4, quite untenable. It is only the notice of Terah’s death that is antici- pated (xi. 32) ; in other points the narrative advances forward step by step. Another difficulty, that Haran (yn χαῤῥάν, κάῤῥαι, Carrae) is really situated in Mesopotamia itself, while Abraham here seems to have departed out of Mesopotamia to go to Haran, is more easily disposed of. Ur, which Genesis transfers to Chaldea (xi. 31), is itself in a somewhat wider sense a city of Mesopotamia, because the Chaldeans inhabited the north of Mesopotamia. (Com- pare Winer's Reallex. page 253, &c.) There might, therefore, even before the arrival of Abraham in Haran, be mention made of his residence in Mesopotamia. Vers. 4, 5. In the account of Abraham's migration from Haran to Canaan, there likewise appears an inconsistency with the narra- tive in Genesis. It is alleged here that the migration followed after the death of Terah, the father of Abraham; but according to Genesis xi. 32, Terah reached the age of 205 years, and there- fore he lived for 60 years after the period in question, for he 2 440 ACTS VII. 6, 7. was 70 years old when he begat! Abraham, and Abraham was 75 when he removed to Canaan. By altering the number 205 into 145 the inconsistency would indeed be removed, but that is plainly too violent a measure: the only method which is here of any avail, and which is therefore followed by Michaelis and Kuinoel, is to summon tradition to our aid. And in fact, among the traditions of the Jews, the opinion had arisen, that Abraham (because the opposite appeared like a violation of the fourth (fifth) commandment) first left Haran after the death of his father. But as the book of Genesis expressly places the Ji¢erad death of Terah later, they understood the former death spiritually of his apostacy to idolatry, which obliged Abraham to leave him.? This view ap- pears to have been followed here by Stephen, and such indications of his Rabbinical learning may have been peculiarly attractive to his hearers.» (Compare Philo de migrat. Abrah. p. 463, and Lightfoot on this passage.) In verse 5 the faith of Abraham is commended, who, although no part of Canaan was yet actually in his possession, and although he had no children, believed that the land was bestowed upon him and his posterity. In the expression ὀυκ ἔδωκε, the word ovx is to be understood as equivalent to éu7@ (compare John vii. 8) ; on his first arrival God in fact had not given him any thing, which he could call his own in the land. -- Βῆμα ποδός is equivalent to bn AP in Deut. ii. 5—Karac- χεσις occurs again in verse 45 as the rendering of the Hebrew abr: TON. Compare Gen. xvii. 8, Numb. xxxi. 5, in the LXX. version. Vers. 6, 7. The words of the promise itself are now quoted agreeably to the passage in Gen. xv. 13, but Stephen, or rather the translator of the speech which undoubtedly was delivered in 1 You may indeed understand Gen. xi. 26 to mean that Terah was seventy years old, when he began to have children, and you may suppose that Abraham was not the oldest of his family; but this will not suffice to fill up sixty years. 4 That Terah was odious among the Rabbins as an idolater (Jos. xxiv. 2) is shown too by other traditions. Thus itis related that Abraham had broken down the idols of his father, and was therefore delivered by him to Nimrod. And Nimrod threw Abraham into a fiery furnace, from which however be escaped without any injury- Compare Lightfoot on this passage. 3 Other explanations, like that of Bengel in the Gnomon: “ Abram, dum Thara vixit in Haran, domum quodammodo paternam babuit in Haran, in terra Canaan duntaxat peregrinum agens; mortuo autem patro, plane in terra Canaan domum unice habere coepit,” must be rejected as forced. EEE τὸν ϑθθθϑέϑθ ει... οο - ACTS Vil. 8—16. At] Hebrew, does not follow the LXX. clesely. The deviations, how- ever, have no effect upon the thoughts, excepting that the last words of verse 7, καὶ λατρεύσουσί μοι ἐν TH τόπῳ τόυτῳ are en- tirely wanting in the passage in Genesis; they have probably been taken from Exod. ili. 12, and blended with the former pas- sage into one whole. According to Exod. xii. 40, the bondage really lasted 430, but here the round number merely is given as in Gen. xv. 13. Respecting the difficulty that springs out of the statement in Gal. 111. 17, compare the remarks on that passage.-— Kaxow occurs likewise in chapters xii. 1, xvili. 10, and in 1 Pet. ill. 18, in the signification of ‘‘ persecuting.” Vers. 8—12. In what follows the history is pursued farther; and particularly Joseph’s fortunes are handled in detail. Itis very pro- bable that in this detail there floated before the mind of Stephen a typical relation of the history of Joseph to the Redeemer. In the phrase καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ διαθήκην περιτομῆς, there isa blending of two thoughts to be observed: fully expressed, the clause must run: ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ περιτομὴν, τῆς διαθήκης σημεῖον. It is not ad- missible to understand διαθήκη directly in the signification of ‘ com- mand, ordinance.” For ὅυτως some codices have the easier reading éuTos, but this has certainly resulted from a correction of the un- usual use of dutws. We are not to suppose that there is an inter- change between ὅυτως and δυτος (compare Winer’s Grammar, page 434), and therefore it only remains that we understand ὅυτως here as a particle of transition in the sense of our words “ then, so,” as it occurred in common language. Compare Passow’s Lexicon under this word. In the New Testament, it is similarly used in Acts Xvll. 33, xxvill. 14.—The twelve sons of Jacob are styled πατρι- άρχαι, as the heads of the twelve tribes or πατριαί. Compare ii. 29.—Xoptdcparta denotes properly the fodder of cattle; but it is here used generally in the wider sense of “‘ means of subsistence.” Vers. 13-—16. In the statement of the number of Jacob's family that went down to Egypt, another difference presents itself, for only seventy persons are mentioned in Gen. xlvi. 27; Exod. 1. 5; Deut. x. 22 ; but here seventy-five. As the Septuagint likewise men- tions seventy-five souls in the passages referred to, we cannot well say that Stephen only meant to state a round number, but rather that he must have followed this version ; and probably the Seventy, or the tradition which is preserved in their version, included the 442 acts vir. 17--- 19. children of Ephraim and Manasseh, and so made up the number, which in this case, of course, does not specify precisely the number of those that went down, but the number of all the posterity of Jacob. Other difficulties are presented in verse 16, according to which all the patriarchs were buried in Sychem, which Abraham bought from the sons of Emmor. But, according to Gen. xxxiii. 19, Jacob bought this field (it was the cave of Machpelah in Hebron that Abraham bought), and Jacob, moreover, according to Gen. 1. 13, was buried in Abraham's sepulchre in Hebron: of the other patriarchs there is nothing mentioned in Genesis, with respect to the place of their interment. Joseph however was buried, accord- ing to Gen. 1. 25, in Sychem, and the other sons of Jacob likewise, according to tradition. Yet there is another tradition, according to which they were buried with Abraham in Hebron (Joseph. Arch. ii. 8, 2), and such a twofold account might readily arise, as Ge- nesis presented nothing decisive either in favour of the one or the other. In the passage before us, therefore, 6. πτατέρες ἡμῶν may be regarded as supplying the subject to μετετέθησαν, and thus the one difficulty is solved. For the removal of the other it has been conjectured that instead of AB8padp we should read ‘Iaxe, or that Abraham’s name should be thrown out, and ὠνήσατο taken imper- sonally ; but the manuscripts do not support these conjectures; and nothing therefore remains, unless we are disposed to use violent measures, bat to confess that here Abraham has been put for Jacob by the speaker or by the narrator, a confession which, according to my view of the relation of the spirit to the letter, is not in the smallest degree hazardous.” Vers. 17—19. In these verses the speecli passes on to the his- tory of Moses, which is treated very fully in what follows. The quotation in verse 18 is taken from Exod. i. 8. The expression οὐκ ἤδει is not to be understood of ignorance properly speaking, but rather of a want of regard for the merits of Joseph.—Katacodgifeo- θαι isto be found nowhere else in the New Testament. It is bor- rowed from Exod. i. 10; and conformably to the Hebrew p5yy7 ; it denotes ‘‘ to circumvent or mislead in a crafty manner,” dolose 1 The same thing is said by Calvin also on this passage: in nomine Abrahae erratum esse palam est, quare hic locus corrigendus est, ACTS VII. 20—29. 443 agere.”—Zwoyoveio Gat means primarily to be born alive, and then to be preserved in life. (Comp. Comm. on Luke xvii. 23.) Vers. 20—22. Down to verse 44, the history of Moses is now related very fully. In these first verses, the remark (ver. 22) that Moses was instructed in the wisdom of the Egyptians, contains another reference to Jewish tradition, for Genesis mentions nothing of the kind. As Moses was brought up in the palace of Pharaoh, it was very natural to suppose, that he was instructed in the sciences and arts of Egypt. But certainly, in making this supposition, the ancients were far from the notion of modern infidelity, that it was the training he received in Egypt which put him in the condition, of becoming the founder of the political and religious life of the Israelites. All the education of the Egyptians was in the hands of the priests; and if their influence therefore had determined the inward life of Moses, he would necessarily have spread their idolatry among the Jews, and yet he abolished at once all the traces of it, that had crept in among them. Just as little there- fore as Paul became an apostle, in consequence of his Grecian educa- tion in Tarsus, did Moses become the great founder of religion, in consequence of the wisdom he had learnedin Egypt. And yet God might employ the outward education which Moses had received in Egypt, so as to make him impart it, under the hallowing influence of the divine spirit that filled him, in an improved shape to the Jews. The conjecture that in verse 20, the reading should be ἀστεῖος τῇ θεᾷ instead of ἀστεῖος τῷ Θεῷ is quite unnecessary ; for τῷ Θεῷ is to be understood like mm soph i in Gen. x. 9.—In verse 22, the expression, δυνατὸς ἐν λόγοις is remarkable, for Moses we know had no gift of eloquence. ‘The expression cannot be ap- plied to the eloquence of Moses in writing ; but it admits very well of being applied to the spiritual power, which fitted bim for filling men’s minds with enthusiasm in favour of his convictions. All true eloquence, in fact, rests pre-eminently upon the power of the soul to win the hearts of men. Vers. 28—29. Respecting the age of Moses, when he went among his people, there is nothing determined in the Holy Scrip- tures: here too Stephen follows tradition,’ which however was not 1 In Bereschith Rabba, fol, 115, it is said: Moses in palatio Pharaonis, 40 annos degit, in Midiane 40 annos, et 40 annos Israeli ministravit. (See Lightfoot on this passage ) 444 ACTS VII. 830—s6. uniform, for there are other passages which represent him as hav- ing beentwenty years old at the time. The slaughter of the Egyptian, Stephen appears (verse 25) to understand generally as a type of the power of Moses to protect and to help, for he declares that Moses hoped his brethren would discover his true character from this action. Of this there is nothing contained in the statements of the Penta- teuch; the thought appears to be a reflexion of Stephen’s upon the circumstances of Moses; for there are no traditional elements that bear upon this passage, at least there is nothing upon the point in our remains of Rabbinical literature. The expression, ἀνέβη ἐπὶ καρδίαν is formed upon the model of the Hebrew, 44 by aby, Respecting it comp. 1 Cor. xi. 9.—In verse 26, the Septuagint has ἡμέρα δευτέρᾳ instead of επιόυσῃ.---Συνελαύνειν is used in the signification of “ admonishing urgently,” “compellere.”—Verse 29. Μαδιάμ, equivalent to PTD. Vers. 30—32. With “respect to the important occurrence that follows, the exposition of it belongs to the interpretation of the Pentateuch ; only on the subject of the interchange of ἄγγελος κυρίου and κύριος we may refer the reader to Steinwender’s treatise: Christus Deus in Vet. Test. Regiom. 1829, p. 6, sqq. The words of God are not accurately repeated : verse 33 should have stood, according to Exod. iii. 5, 6, before verse 82. Instead of πατέρων σου, in verse 32, the Septuagint has πατρός σοὺ conformably to the Hebrew. Vers. 33—36. In connexion with the words of God, by which he sends Moses as a messenger to his people, appears (verses 35,36) the first definite allusion to the person of Jesus, on whose account Ste- phen stood accused before the Sanhedrim’s tribunal. As the Jews formerly rejected Moses, so now do they reject Jesus ; and yet God has appointed the one, as well as the other to bring them help. As Moses literally conducted the people out of Egypt through the Red Sea into the land of promise, so does Christ spiritually guide through conflict and struggle into the eternal home of heaven. It is a peculiarity of this passage that in verse 35 Moses bears the name of λυτρωτής, Redeemer. In the Old Testament this word is used by the Seventy to represent bys, but it is only ap- plied to God (Psalm xviii. 15, xxvii. 35) ; in the New Testament it does not occur any more, the term usually employed to express 3 ACTS Vil. 837—43. 445 the idea being σωτήρ. This however is to be regarded as merely accidental, because all the other words that are formed from λύτ- pov are in other passages applied to Christ. In the case of Moses the epithet λυτρωτής naturally bears only an external reference to the deliverance from Egyptian bondage, but this is to be conceived as a prefiguration of the redemption from sin, which was accom- plished by the Messiah. Ἐν χειρί corresponds obyiously to the Hebrew yy, and denotes simply interposition, being equivalent to dia. i Vers. 37—40. Further, we have the prediction of Moses which he uttered respecting the Messiah, and his intercourse with God, exhibited to view; and, in connexion with these points, the un- faithfulness of the people, and their apostacy from God. Respecting the quotation from Deut. xviii. 18, contained in verse 37, comp. Comm. on Acts iii. 22. In verse 88 γίνεσθαι, followed by μετὰ, corresponds to the Hebrew py ΓΤ. Τ0 ἐκκλησία is the collec- tive body of the Jews who were in the wilderness, between whom and God Moses acted as mediator. With respect to the expression λόγια ζῶντα consult Comm. on John vi. 63; 1 Pet. i. 28. And if here the ζωή, “life,” is ascribed to the Mosaic law, this holds good in reference to its essential character, which is good and holy (Rom. vii. 12); but in the preceptive form, in which it appears among men, it has no power to communicate the fwn.—-The quo- tation in verse 40 is taken from Exod. xxxui. 1. Vers. 4]—43. The following verses give more precise informa- tion respecting the idolatry of the Israelites in the wilderness. It was undoubtedly the Egyptian worship of Apis which led to the formation of the golden calf, under which they adored the creative principle in nature. The word μοσχοποιεῖν was probably first formed either by Stephen, or if it was the Hebrew tongue which he spoke before the Sanhedrim, by the narrator of his speech. It is to be found nowhere else. In this apostacy of the Jews Stephen rightly discovers a judgment of God, who punishes sin by means of sin. Compare Rom. i. 24, &c. But besides the golden calf the Israelites practised in the wilderness the worship of the stars too, in reference to which Stephen appeals to a passage in Amos Υ. 29, 26, which he quotes exactly according to the Septuagint, with the exception that in the conclusion Βαβυλῶνος stands instead of Δαμασκοῦ : which variation without doubt results simply from the 446 ACTS vu. 41—43. fact, that the captivity was better known under the name of the Babylonish. Στρατιὰ τοῦ dvpavod, equivalent to NWT Way denotes the sun, the moon, and the stars ; inasmuch as these bodies were con- templated under the idea of heavenly beings. The adoration of the stars (Sabeanism) formed an integral part of all the ancient systems of natural religion, because the splendour and magnificence of the starry sky attracted even the rudest minds, and excited to the wor- ship of a superior power.—BiPdos τῶν προφητῶν denotes the col- lection of the twelve prophets, which it is known were regarded as one whole. The quotation from Amos, however, is not unattended with diffi- culty. First of all, the question being put with μή requires un- doubtedly a negative answer, so that the meaning is, “ Ye have offered unto me no sacrifices in the wilderness.” But the children of Israel did offer sacrifices repeatedly to Jehovah the true God in the wilderness ; and therefore the accusation appears unfounded. This difficulty, however, is very easily dispelled by the remark, that here you have just an absolute expression for what holds good only relatively, and the sense accordingly turns out to be this, ‘‘ Ye have served me not alone, not always.” It is an ingenious proposal of Fritssche (Comment. on Mark, page 65) to put the mark of interro- gation first after the words προσκυνεῖν ἀυτοῖς in verse 43 ; for then you escape from the whole difficulty, because Stephen, according to this arrangement, certainly acknowledges the worship that was paid to Jehovah, but finds fault tbat it was connected with the worship of idols. Again we have here an example to show that the prophets themselves recognised ancient traditions. The books of the Pen- tateuch certainly make no mention either of the worship of Mo- loch, or of the worship of the stars by the Israelites in the wil- derness; and Amos therefore, without doubt, followed in his statements the traditions of remote times. Nothing can be more preposterous than Vatke'’s procedure in his biblical theology of the Old Testament, when he chooses the passage of Amos for a basis upon which to build a new history of religion, and denies completely the antiquity of the worship of Jehovah, thus reject- ing, on account of this single notice, the connected accounts of the Pentateuch. With respect to the first point mentioned, the ACTS VII. 48—50. 4417 worship of Moloch, the name (Dian. Thin tor) denotes no- thing else than “king, lord: it corresponds therefore to the name Bel or Baal, which the Canaanitish nations gave to their idols. Under this name they adored the sun, as the generat- ing principle; while the moon, under the title of the queen of heaven (Jerem. vii. 18, xliv. 25), was viewed as the female or conceiving principle. (Compare Winer’s Reallex. under this word.) The σκηνὴ tod Μολόχ is to be regarded as a little portable temple, in which the image of the idol deity (τύπος, equivalent to ἔυδωλον) was set up, and which could be carried about in travelling. The Kalmucks and other nomadic tribes have to this day such portable sanctuaries. As to the second deity that is mentioned, the unknown name ‘“Peuddv is very dif- ferently written in the manuscripts: we find “Pediv, “Pedda, ἹῬομφᾶ. According to the Coptic, however, the name Remphan is the right reading, and it denotes the planet Saturn.1 The Seventy have taken this name out of the Egyptian dialect, which was familiar to them, and employed it for the Hebrew p> which stands in the passage of Amos. In the Arabic the same consonants, only with different vowels > likewise denote Saturn, with which too the statement of Stephen that Remphan is a star (ἄστρον) ex- actly agrees ; and thus that all indications concur in leading to this point. Vers. 44—47. In the progress of Stephen's speech, there is con- trasted with the worship which the Israelites, when led away by temp- tation, paid to the tabernacle of Moloch, the worship in the tabernacle of testimony, instituted by God himself, under whose protection and defence they had been able to take possession of the holy land of promise. It is obvious that this juxtaposition renders only the more conspicuous the guilt of that idolatry, from which the peculiar guidance vouchsafed by God's grace should have guarded the Jews. ‘The σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου, equivalent to wid Ooi: denotes, it is obvious, the moveable sanctuary which the Israelites used till the time of Solomon. TheSeventy have derived syy4yy from yyy, and therefore 1 Compare a singular treatise of by Jablonski, the great Coptic scholar, upon this name (Lips. 1731), and in his Pantheon Aegypt. prol. p. L. Jablonski, however, cer- tainly errs in regarding Moloch and Saturn as identical; the former was rather the creative principle in nature, and the latter the conservative. The passage before us, too, by the juxta position of the two idols, indicates their difference. 448 ACTS Vul. 48—53. translate it as if it were py yy. The usual derivation of the word is from -Fyys, “ to assemble,” and therefore the whole phrase signifies the tabernacle of meeting or convention. In verse 46, &c., finally, there is a transition to the charge brought forward at chap. vi. 18, that Stephen had spoken against the Temple, which receives in what follows a pretty direct refutation. Vers. 48S—50. Without disparaging the sanctity of the Temple, as an image of the heavenly dwelling-place of God, Stephen yet shows that, according to the words of the prophet himself, no external dwell- ing place can contain the eternal ruler of heaven and earth. By this reference to the prophetic word, he hallows in the very eyes of his accusers the view of the Temple which he had expressed, and con- fates their audacious charge against himself. On the idea expressed by the words, ὁ ὕψιστος x. τ. X., comp. the parallel passage in xvii. 24. The quotation is taken from Isa. Ixvi. 1, 2, somewhat freely indeed, but yet without any essential variations. The expression ναὸν χειροποίητον is just the opposite of ἀχειροποίητον, to which the passage in Acts xvil. 24 points. ‘To the temple of stone reared by men, it is the universe that is opposed, as the glorious temple of the Lord fashioned by the fingers of Deity; the former is only a figure of the latter, and has therefore only a conditional value. Vers. 51—53. There is plainly here an interruption of Stephen in his speech, as indeed the better editions indicate. The deeper spirit of prophecy had struck root so little into the people, that the mention of prophetic declarations respecting the Temple was actually regarded as a violation of the reverence due to it. In the view of the obduracy of his hearers therefore, Stephen altered the tone of his discourse : and instead of the gentle manner in which he had hitherto spoken, he preached now in the fiery language of rebuke. He de- clared to his hearers that the same spirit of disobedience and un- faithfulness, which, according to the testimony of sacred history, had been displayed by their fathers, bore sway also in them, and had made them the murderers of the righteous one. Σκληροτράχηλος is to be found nowhere else in the New Testa- ment; in the translations of the Old Testament it occurs pretty frequently for the Hebrew yi. Compare Exod. xxxiii. 3, 5. It expresses the stubbornness and obstinacy which stand out so prominently to view in the national character of the Is- ACTs Vil. §81]-——53. 449 raelites-—The word ἀπερίτμητος. equivalent to bry, bears the signification of “ unholy, impure,” and the same expression is also in the Old Testament applied to the heart and the ear, as the in- ternal and external organs of spiritual susceptibility. Compare Jerem. vi. 10; Ezek. xliv. 9. In verse 52, Jesus is again styled, as in chap. iii. 14, 6 δίκαιος, the man who is in himself, absolutely righteous and perfect. Special consideration is due to the concluding clause of the speech in verse 53, which declares that the Jews, though they relied upon the law, and though it had been given to them with such splendour, yet had not kept it. Without doubt Stephen, if he had not been interrupted, would have gone on to show, that, with such unfaithfulness, their resistance of the Holy Ghost who spoke through the apostles was not to be won- dered at. There is something remarkable in the clause here added, ἐις διαταγὰς ἀγγέλων, for the holy Scriptures make no mention of angels at the giving of the law upon Mount Sinai. Undoubtedly, therefore, this circumstance must also be traced back to tradition. Traces of it are to be found even in the Septuagint, which, at the passage in Deut. xxxiii. 2, adds the words: ἐκ δεξιῶν av- τοῦ ἄγγελοι μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ, while the Hebrew text runs thus: ἡ ΔΩ sab nt we that is, on his right hand there is the fire of the law for them, or, as in the English version, from his right hand went a fiery law for them, which probably denotes the Shechinah, the pillar of cloud and the pillar of fire. Perhaps, however, the Seventy had a different reading before them, and besides they might very naturally be led to their translation by the Hebrew words which go before, viz., wIP naay: which denote the angelic hosts. The same idea, that the giving of the law took place through angels, is to be found likewise in Psa. Ixvilil. 17, and in Josephus Arch. xv. 5, ὃ, who, in his recital of the history of the Israelites, has adopted many traditional elements. The question, however, still remains, how the words és S:atayas ought to be understood. It has been proposed to understand διαταγαί of the hosts, the ranks of angels ; in which case the sense would be: ‘* ye have received the law in the presence of angels.” But the substantive does not oc- cur in this signification, and besides, the preposition εἰς is not suit- able to it. If we compare the parallel passages in Gal. iii 19, and Heb. ii. 2, in which the same idea is to be found, then we cannot VOL. IV. 2F 450 ᾿ Acts vit. 54—56. doubt that διαταγή ought here to be taken in the signification of “ἢ appointment, ordination,” in which case εἰς takes the significa- tion, which is quite suitable here ‘* in consequence of, according to, by.” The angels appear therefore here as the powers mediating between God and man. Vers. 54—56. This keen reproof of Stephen, however, did not bring the hearers to repentance; but only excited their fury to the highest pitch. ‘This raging madness forms a striking contrast with the calm serenity of the martyr settled down in contemplation of the Lord. On διαπρίω comp. Comm. on chap. vy. 33. Now with respect to the vision of Stephen, we are not to think of any external spectacle, but of an internal vision in the state of ecstacy. Meyer's remark, ‘‘ that Stephen may have been able to see heaven through the windows of the chamber of session,” is therefore, to speak mildly, quite superfluous. His countenance beamed with a heavenly glory, but what he beheld, those who were around him learned only from his words. The words δόξα Θεοῦ are to be understood like the Hebrew mm Wap: and are to be explained of the heavenly splen- dour, which surrounds every divine appearance. —Respecting the opening of the heavens see the commentary on Mattthew iii. 17.—The special object, however, seen by Stephen in his glo- rious vision was the person of the Lord ; elsewhere it is Christ only that applies the name tds τοῦ ἀνθρώπου to himself; but Stephen here gives it to Jesus for the purpose of making it plain that he sees him in his human form, in the well-known beloved form in which he walked upon the earth. There is a peculiarity in the expression here twice repeated ἑστῶτα ἐκ δεξιῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ (comp- Comm. on Matt xxvi. 62—64), for it is usually sitting at the right hand of God that is spoken of. But long since Gregory the Great undoubtedly gave the right explanation of the phrase, in a pas- sage adduced here by Kuinoel. Ile says: ‘‘ sedere judicantis et imperantis est, stare vero pugnantis vel adjuvantis. Stephanus stantem videt, quem adjutorem habuit.” Hom. xix. in festum adscensionis. Compare Knapp. scr. var. arg. p. 47, Note. Vers. 57—60. In these words of the martyr the Jews saw an- other act of blasphemy, and therefore they only hastened forward his death. As the Romans had taken away from the Jews the power of life and death (compare at John xviii. 31), the execution ACTS Vil. 54—56. 451 of Stephen must be regarded as a tumultuous act: at the same time this supposition is not without difficulty, because the whole occurrence, according to vi. 12, took place before the Sanhedrim. Perhaps the Sanhedrim, for the purpose of preventing any collision with the Roman authorities, pronounced no formal judgment ; but connived at the execution, which was perpetrated by some fanatics. The witnesses (vi. 13) were required according to Jewish custom to throw the first stones at the condemned individual, as if to show their conviction of his guilt. ᾿Ελιθοβόλουν, where it first occurs in ver. 58, is to be viewed as an anticipation of the more particular narrative of the event that follows. In the passage before us the circumstance too is worthy of notice, that we find a prayer expressly addressed to Jesus. What the Redeemer said to his heavenly father : “into thy hands I commend my spirit,” the same thing does Stephen say to Christ: δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. There lies in this a stronger argument for the doctrine of the divine dignity of Christ, than in many other passages which are usually adduced as_proof- passages in favour of it, when it is considered with what severity the Old Testament denounces every ascription of divine preroga- tives to any being who is not God. The opposers of the divinity of Christ must therefore, in consistency, pronounce every prayer to the Lord Jesus to be idolatry. But Stephen, on the contrary, proceeds quite in accordance with the command contained in John v. 23; and the very same view of it has been taken by the church in all ages. In order, therefore, to set aside this troublesome pas- sage, it has been proposed to understand the words κύριε ᾿Ιησοῦ thus, ‘‘ God, who art the father and Lord of Jesus !” an explanation which is sufficiently characteristic, and ought to be known. Here Paul comes before us for the first time as a furious perse- cutor of the church of God: the murder of Stephen he regards as a deed pleasing to God. The word νεανίας affords only an ap- proximate determination of his age, because it is applied to per- sons between the ages of twenty-four and forty. In the prayer of Stephen that his enemies might be forgiven, in ver. 60, the phrase μὴ στήσῃς deserves to be noticed. It is used in the sense of “ retri- buere,” as in Matt. xxvi. 15, agreeably to the Hebrew usage of bays, to weigh, to weigh for one. In its complete shape the expres- =4 sion stands thus, ἵσταναι ἐν ζυγῷ, to place upon the balance. Ὁ ay. - 452 ACTS vill. 1—4. Compare Schleusner’s Lexicon on the LXX., under the word ic- τημι. Herodotus ii. 65 uses ἵσταναι σταθμῷ in the very same manner. § 8. SPREAD OF THE GOSPEL BEYOND JERUSALEM. (Acts viii. 1—40.) Vers. 1—4. And now the blood of the first martyr of the church was shed ; but even here there was exhibited a proof of the truth of Tertullian’s declaration : ὁ sanguis martyrum semen Chris- tianorum.” The dispersion of the Christians from Jerusalem had the effect of spreading the gospel through the neighbouring re- gions. It is only Judea and Samaria that are named particularly, because it is probable that Galilee had churches from the begin- ning, for many friends of Christ lived there (compare also chap. ix. 81); but there can be no doubt that Christianity spread itself at this period through Pheenicia also and Cyprus and Antioch. See chap. xi. 19, 20. The apostles (viii. 1), however, considered it their duty for some time at first to abide in the central point of the church. With respect to the arrangement of the first verses of this chap- ter, the 2d and the 3d ought properly to stand at the beginuing, be- cause they are immediately connected with the death of Stephen. The concluding words too of the foregoing paragraph: Σ᾽ αῦλος δὲ ἣν συνευδοκῶν TH ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, with which the sentence ἐγένετο δέ «x, τ. X. stands connected, do not appear to fit their place in the arrangement well. The supposition of a process of abridgement, ap- plied to sources of information lying before the author, furnishes the best explanation of the present state of the text—On συγκο- pifew,in verse 2, compare the parallel passages in v. 6, ix. 10.— Korreros, from κόπτεσθαι, “to smite oneself in token of sorrow,” denotes lamentation for the dead, compare Gen. 1. 10.—The ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς, who buried the corpse of the martyr, are not to be viewed as believers, but as pious Jews who regarded Stephen as innocent: believers would have been styled brethren. —Avpaivomar is only to be found here in the New Testament ; it is equivalent to πορθέω, -- ACTS VILL. ὃ---}}. 4: which Paul himself, in Gal. i. 18, applies to the persecutions he had directed against the church. Vers. 5—8. Luke does not proceed to give us comprehensive ac- counts of the missionary Jabours of the Christians who had fled from Jerusalem: he only communicates some particulars respecting the ministry of another of the seven deacons, viz. Philip: he gives an account first of his preaching in Samaria, and next of the conver- sion of the chamberlain of Queen Candace. With respect to the question who this Philip was, it is obvious that he was not the apostle of this name, for the apostles had not yet left Jerusalem, and besides, in viii. 14, he is expressly distinguished from them. Probably he was Philip the deacon, vi. 5, who comes before us also in chap. xxi. 8, as εὐαγγελιστὴς, Ov ἐκ τῶν ἑπτά. The city of Samaria, in which Philip first preached the gospel, is not named: perhaps it was Sychem, where, according to John iv., Christ had already found so much acceptance." In general Sama- ria with its inhabitants appears to have been very much disposed to receive divine things; but, at the same time also, very accessi- ble to the misleading influence of false teachers. The remoteness of the district may have guarded the inhabitants from that corrup- tion into which the inhabitants of Judea had to a great extent fallen ; and in this way there might be preserved among them in activity the simple faith of arestorer of all things, viz., the Messiah, whom they styled ΣΤ or qq. Compare Gesenius progr. de theo]. Samarit. a. 1822. Philip too paved for himself an entrance into their minds, by deeds of striking external aspect, which both turned the eyes of men upon him, and proved him to be the mes- senger of God to their souls. Vers. 9—11. In Samaria Philip now came in contact with a man named Simon, who belonged to that numerous class of reli- gious deceivers (γοηταὶ), by whom the various countries were over- run in the days of the apostles. This Simon is no other than the one who is distinguished in church history by the surname of Magus. 1 Kuinoel understands the words εἰς πόλιν τῆς Σαμαρείας, in ver. 5, to refer to the capital city itself, which bore the same name as the country; but in this case the article should have been prefixed to πόλιν. The 14th ver. on which the critic in question re- lies, because he supposes the whole land had not yet received the gospel, is only to be understood of a very wide diffusion of the truth. That Samaria means here the land and not the city, is clearly shown by the 9th verse, where, if the opposite were the case, αὐτῆς would be the reading, as πόλις las preceded. 454 ACTS VIL. 9—11]. According to the account of Justin Martyr he was a native of Gitton in Samaria (Just. apol. p. 69, ed. Sylb.), which account agrees well with the circumstance, that here he is represented as pursuing his practices among the Samaritans. ‘The accounts given by Josephus (Arch. xx. 7, 2) of a similar individual of the same name, who at the instigation of Felix (xxiv. 24) lent himself to the seduction of Drusilla from her husband, are not applicable to Simon Magus. Tor the former, as Josephus relates, was a Cyprian by birth, the latter, according to Justin, was a Samaritan; but it seems altogether unreasonable to doubt the correctness of Justin's narrative, for he had every opportunity of knowing the native coun- try of Simon, being himself a Samaritan of Sychem, and he could have no interest at all in misrepresenting the truth. Besides, Felix lived too late to allow it to be supposed that Simon Magus could still be actively engaged in those regions where he was Procurator ; for Simon appears to have early left the East, and to have betaken himself to Rome, the rendezvous of all deceivers of this kind. The ancient Fathers of the church consider Simon Magus as the Father of the Gnostics, yea of all heretics. This view is certainly wrong, inasmuch as we cannot trace the doctrines of the later false teachers directly from Simon ; but there is this amount of truth in the idea, that it is in Simon we first behold the heretical element penetrate into the church, and it is this that constitutes the peculiar interest of the occurrence that follows. The essence of heresy, according to the proper Christian sense of the word, as it is de- fined in the pastoral letters and catholic epistles, is not merely error in matters of faith, which might find place in many an upright believing mind in the earliest times of the Christian church only from a want of thorough mental training, but it is the intermixture of Christian ideas and doctrines with a totally foreign element of life. ‘This intermixture we first find in Simon Magus: he was indeed overcome by the power of the Christian element of life, but he did not enter with sincerity into it. His conduct externally 1 Yet Neander declares himself inclined to the supposition of the identity of the two. (Compare Zeitalt. part i. page 80.) Let it be considered, however, how many such sorcerers there were at that time in all the provinces of the Roman Empire, and how common the name of Simon was among the Jews; and then it will appear that we must aimit, without hesitation, that the two men were different, particularly as the minuter circumstances, which are communicated by equally unsuspected witnesses, vary so much from one another. LL EEE EEE EEE oOoocoro—”™ ACTS vill. 9—11. 455 was not so gross as that of Ananias ; the ideas of the Gospel moved him mightily, and the powers which it displayed threw him into astonishment: but as Ananias could not let go his gold, so Simon could not prevail upon himself to give up his spiritual possession, viz. his power over the souls of men: but he mingled with his circle of no- tions the Christian ideas, and, as it were, drew down what was Chris- tian into the sphere of that life, where he continued standing. This mode of procedure could not but neutralise the whole purpose of Christianity, whose power was designed to establish a new principle of association among men, and to draw all to it; measures were therefore necessary against such heretical systems, severe in pro- portion to the ruinous character of the deceptive appearance, which they acquired from the Christian ideas admitted into them. At first it is probable Simon Magus bad no formal system: he was just one of that numerous class of men, who, under the equivalent names of Chaldaei, mathematici, yontai, wayot, ensnared the minds of men with delusive practices: they might also state some parti- cular philosophical speculations respecting angels and the world of spirits, or at the least they pretended an acquaintance with them. It was Christianity, with its fulness of ideas, which first gave an impulse to systematic development. Whether Simon Magus, with the help of infernal powers, may have performed real wonders, or only imposed upon men, is a question which cannot be definitely settled, since the text of the narrative before us gives no decision upon the point. At all events he had sufficient audacity to repre- sent himself as a superior and heavenly being. ‘The conflict which arose between this man and the Gospel, gives an uncommonly vivid picture of the proceedings of that age of excitement, which witnessed the promulgation of Chrisuanity. The longing which was everywhere awakened after something higher, led men to attach themselves to all such persons as affirmed, that they had been favoured with glimpses of the spiritual world : every one of these persons pretended to have the power of working signs and wonders ; and thus they beguiled the minds of men still more : through this mass of superstition, through the labyrinth of this wild commotion, Christianity could only hope to penetrate by means of a fulness of spiritual power, which might destroy all those phantoms and illusive systems which were endea- vouring to copy it. The miracles performed by the messengers of sod, and the power of the Gospel to transform the heart and mind, 156 ACTS vill. Y—I1. excited not only the astonishment of the multitude, but also of the sorcerers themselves, who perceived here the genuine power of God, which they only pretended to possess. An example of this we behold in Simon: he bowed before the power of the cross, and was baptized, but his insincerity was a barrier to his reception of the Holy Ghost, and therefore he blended with his own unsanctified feelings the heavenly ideas which he had learned, and became a more dangerous adversary of the church, than either Jews or Gen- tiles were or could be. As from μάγος (on this word see at Matt. ii. 1) wayedo and μαγεία were formed, so from γοής came the forms γοητεύω and yonteta. Both words are to be found only in this passage in the New Testament. As Simon’s own declaration respecting himself, we find first adduced the words, λέγων εἶναι ἑαυτὸν μέγαν ; but this expression is more narrowly defined by the words which are employed to describe the opinion of the people re- specting him, λέγοντες οὗτός ἐστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη, which can only be regarded as the echv of what the sorcerer had boastfully given out respecting himself. Now in the first place this vain ostentation forms a glaring contrast with the humility of the apostles, who, although really replenished with the powers of the heavenly world, yet most sharply reprehended all undue esti- mation of their own persons; they desired to be regarded as no- thing but weak instruments, and their illustrious works were designed to glorify not themselves, but only the eternal God and his Son Jesus Christ. Again we find in the expression δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ μεγάλη, precisely the mode of speaking which was adopted after- wards by the Gnostics. Heinrichs supposes that the Samaritans had only by some misunderstanding applied this name to Simon, that he may only in reality have said, “ God's great power works this and that by me,” and that they have imagined he meant to give himself this name. But this is by no means in accordance with the spirit of those sorcerers. They supposed like the Gnostics a multitude of divine δυνάμεις, who bad emanated from the eternal first principle of light, and that one of these elevated beings styled Aeons, now appeared among men in the person of Simon. Jerome mentions (Comment. in Matt. ch. xxiv.) that Simon said of him- self: ego sum sermo Dei, ego sum speciosus, ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei. Now, although this declaration cer- ACTS Vil, 12—17. 57 tainly refers to the views of Simon after he was acquainted with Christianity, yet it points out of what the man was capable ; and if he ventured at a later period to arrogate to himself all the prero- gatives of Christ, in acknowledgment of whom he had submitted to baptism, it is surely not at all improbable that before this he had per- suaded himself, that he had brought down the powers of the angelic world to the earth. And the magnitude of his pretensions, as often happens, imposed upon men to such a degree that they resigned themselves entirely to his influence, from which nothing but the higher power of the gospel vanquishing all the wiles of the sorcerer could extricate them. Vers. 12, 18. Without external miraculous signs, it would have been altogether impossible for the heralds of the gospel to gain the attention of men, engrossed with what struck the senses, to their doctrine of the crucified Son of God, and their preaching of re- pentance and faith ; but the mighty works which they performed, brought to them all susceptible hearts, and proved the exciting means of faith. Even Simon was astonished when he saw the miracles of Philip, which had nothing of the deceitful appearance of his tricks, but, on the contrary, bore the impress of real miracles of God, and he had himself baptized. Some may be disposed to re- gard this as an act of deceit on the part of the sorcerer, and they may think Philip should rather not have baptized him, in order not to aggravate his guilt. But it is far more probable that the re- quest for baptism really indicated a temporary improyement in the life of Simon: he was overcome at the moment by the heavenly power of the truth, and he surrendered himself to it for a time, and to a certain degree. Yet it was only to a certain degree! He allowed not the light to penetrate into the concealed depths of his heart; there was no thorough humiliation of the man. And there- fore it naturally happened that he soon attempted to apply Chris- tianity itself, as a more efficacious instrument, to the same pur- poses for which he had hitherto employed his arts of sorcery. Vers. 14—17. The occasion for this attempt was furnished to Simon by the journey of some of the apostles to Samaria. This journey took its rise in the circumstance, that the Samaritans who believed, although they were baptized by Philip, yet had notreceived the Holy Ghost through him : to impart the Spirit, the apostles now hastened to the new churches, This information contains 458 ACTS VIII. l4—17. something very remarkable, for one naturally enquires, why did not Philip himself communicate the Holy Ghost, seeing he was a par- taker of the Spirit's influences? ‘Chat he had the Holy Ghost is shown, partly by the miracles which he performed in the power of the Spirit, and partly by such passages as chap. vill. 29, 89. Kuinoel attempts to set aside what seems surprising in this, by the observa- tion that the apostles really had in view the further instruction of those who were baptized on the simple confession of Jesus as the Mes- siah, and that then along with this instruction the communication of the Holy Ghost was first to take place. He appeals on this point to Hebrews vi. 2, in which passage baptism appears to be followed by instruction, and then by the laying on of hands. But this learned man has himself, in hisexposition of the epistle to the Hebrews, which has just appeared, rectified this mistake. In the passage referred to, vi. 2, the phrase, βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς is not to be separated in translating, as if mention were first made of baptism and then of instruction ; but the two words are to be taken together, and βαπτισμῶν regarded as the genitive of the object. We must therefore go back to what has been already remarked at John iv. 2. As the Redeemer did not himself baptize, but only caused it to be done by his disciples ; so also the apostles, after the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, did not themselves baptize, but left the rite to be performed by their associates... (Compare Comm. on Acts x. 48, and 1 Cor. 1. 14, &c.) The ground of this arrangement was probably, first, that, in the earliest times of the church, when thousands connected themselves with it at the same time, the act of baptizing so many would have encroached too much upon the time of the apostles ; and, again, the Holy Ghost wrought, as it were, with more concentrated power in the Twelve than in other believers, and therefore the laying on of hands, as the means of imparting the Spirit, was restricted to them alone. When the act of baptism thus appeared dissociated from the communication of the Spirit, it then acquired a position similar what infant baptism obtained at a later period, from which it may be concluded, that in the latter there can be nothing opposed to the spirit of Christianity. The different positions, moreover, in which baptism stood with respect to the communication of the Spirit in the l The manner in which this practice was transmitted to the churcli in after times, may be seen in Binghami origg. vol. i. page 319, iii. 549. ‘The custom which still pre- vails in the Catholic church, of confining confirmation, as a symbol of the communi. cation of the spirit, to the episcopal office, is to be traced up to the fact before us, 3 ACTS VIII. 18S —28. 459 apostolic age, may be seen from chap. x. 44, &c., where we find that the Holy Ghost was imparted to Cornelius and his household be- fore they were baptized. It cannot, therefore, be said that the confinement of the power of imparting the Holy Ghost to the apostles was founded upon any intrinsic necessity: it was rather a practice peculiar to that time. After their death, when the in- tensity of the Spirit's operations had already greatly diminished, others communicated the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of hands ; and even ata later period, when the extraordinary phenomena which at first accompanied the communication of the Spirit had entirely dis- appeared, the laying on of hands was efficacious in imparting powers of the Spirit that wrought inwardly. Verse 16. On the expression βαπτίζειν εἰς ὄνομα Incod, compare the remarks at Matt. xxviii. 18. Vers. 18—23. When Simon perceived the extraordinary effects of the laying on of the apostles’ hands, in the gifts which were ex- hibited, particularly the γλώσσαις Aadew, he attempted to procure for himself with money the power of communicating the Spirit, an attempt upon which the brand of infamy, as is known to all, was afterwards fixed in the church, when the name of simony was given to every purchase of spiritual dignities. It is a characteristic fea- ture of Simon that he not only wished to obtain the Spirit himself, but also to purchase the power of communicating the gift to others. Hence we plainly perceive that spiritual ambition, the secret source of the efforts of all founders of sects, animated him: the power which he desired, he believed would furnish him with the means of * Yet, although Peter rebukes him with the utmost severity on account of this proposal, he does not by any means cast him off entirely, but rather calls upon him to repent, and to pray for the forgiveness of his sins. Now, here the mildness of the apostle appears as surprising, as the sever?/y shown in the case of Ananias. Attention, however, has already been turned to the fact at chap. v. 1, that Simon had not yet experienced in himself the power of the Holy Ghost; and sordid therefore as he was, it might still be said of him that he knew not what he was still further imposing upon men. 1 Striving after the noblest gifts, after the Spirit himself, after virtue and perfection, is pleasing to the Lord only when it proceeds from an humble heart, which does not wish to make a show with his gifts, and torule, but to serve. Yea, a self-willed striving after powers from on high, witha sordid purpose in view, is an abomination to the Lord, and, as the history of all enthusiasts shows, it brings the greatest ruin npon themselves and the church. 460 ACTs vill. 1S—23. doing. The circumstance that he had made a trade of religion, was the cause why he had never received it in its heart-changing power, but only prized it according to the amount of show which it was capable of making. Peter might appear to him a greater conjuror, than he supposed himself to be, and it was his hope that be might procure from him, for a good recompense, the art of acquiring con- trol over the powerful principles which govern the universe. His susceptibility, however, of spiritual impressions, similar to what we find in the Old Testament in the case of Balaam, the father of all false prophets, always left room for hoping that the truth would gain the victory in his heart, and therefore Peter preaches repent- ance to him. Ananias, on the other hand, was possessed of a thoroughly sordid disposition, and this prevented even the attempt being made to exert any farther beneficial influence upon him. In ver. 20 the words εἶναι εἰς ἀπώλειαν are to be understood neither of ecclesiastical excommunication, to which the expression is never applied, nor yet of eternal perdition, because this idea would be inconsistent with the admonition to repentance which follows. The expression is rather to be understood only relatively, as point- ing to the result of the course which Simon was pursuing, if no change should take place.—In ver. 21, κλῆρος is used agreeably to the analogy of the Hebrew word nas, Compare Col. i. 12.-—Ao- τ is not to be taken bere like 725 in the signification of “ thing,” “matter,” as if the Holy Ghost, the promised gift of God, were de- noted by it; but it means the gospel generally, in whose blessings it is here deuied that Simon has any share.—The phrase καρδία εὐ- θεῖα, equivalent to ΓΙ ah, denotes internal purity of heart. The ve es gospel sets no value upon the richness of talents with which aman may have been endowed, but only upon the disposition of the mind in reference to the will of God: it is the sincere only to whom God shows favour. In verse 22, ἐπίνοια is equivalent to διανόημα, δια- λογισμός. On the connexion of the word with καρδία, see the Comm. on Luke i. 51. The idea of an evi/ thought is not neces- sarily embraced in the meaning of ἐπίνοια ; it is only by means of the connexion that this idea is here associated with the word.—In verse 23, εἰς does not stand for év ; but the previous idea of motion is rather to be supplied: ‘TI see that thou hast fallen into sin, and art now init.” Χολὴ πικρίας, equivalent to χολὴ πικρά, denotes, ACTS Vil, 24—R28. 46] according to Hebrew usage, what brings mischief and ruin, because the ideas of bitterness and poison run closely together. Compare (resenius’ Lexicon, under the word my The word σύνδεσμος, ‘bond, fetter,” occurs in Ephes. iv. 3 ; Col. ii. 19, ii. 14, in a good sense, being applied to love and peace. Sin is here conceived as a chain, from whose power man needs to be released. The first half of the verse, ὄντα εἰς χολήν, might be thus understood, “ thou hast become bitterness itself,” εἰς being taken agreeably to the analogy of the Hebrew 4 ; but the second requires the preference to be given to the meaning of εἰς indicated above, because it is an incongruous image to regard the sinner himself as being σύνδεσμος, a bond. Vers. 24, 25. The rebuke was not without effect. Simon be- sought the apostles for their prayers, because he felt that his con- duct could not be pleasing to God. But true humility does not appear to have called forth this appeal, for the subsequent course of his life shows that he continued in his evil ways. ‘The govern- ment of εὐαγγελίζεσθαι varies between the dative and the accu- sative. Verse. 26—28. With this narrative of the progress of the gospel among the Samaritans, there is connected another, which points to the diffusion of the doctrine of the cross among the remotest nations. Withal too, the simplicity of the chamberlain of Meroe forms a re- markable contrast, with the craft of the magician who has just been described. The same Philip received an intimation, to betake him- self to the road leading to Gaza. Γάζα, a very ancient city, is mentioned even in Gen. x. 19, and is called in Hebrew τὶν, It was one of the five principal cities of the Philistines. Alexander the Great destroyed it, but it was rebuilt by Herod the Great. The additional clause, ἅυτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος, might indeed be referred not to the city, but only to the way leading to it; but Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 83) mentions that a band of insurgents destroyed among other places Gaza also. The word, ἔρημος may therefore be pro- perly referred to Gaza itself. (See Tholuck on the credibility of the gospel history, p. 881.) An officer of queen Candace, who probably had journeyed to Jerusalem to a festival, was pursuing this road to Gaza, and he was reading in his chariot the prophet Isaiah. This latter circumstance points to the Jewish origin of the man, for proselytes were seldom 462 ACTS Vill. 29—33. acquainted with the Hebrew tongue ;! he is called ai@/ow, only from the place of his residence. Persons who were really eunuchs could not enter into the congregation of the Lord (Deut. xxiii. 1), and therefore probably this Ethiopian was only a distinguished officer of his princess, viz., her treasurer. The word εὐνοῦχος, like pxyp, is used to denote in general a high office of state, a signification which even δυνάστης has here, though it commonly denotes an independent ruler. The name Ethiopia was employed by the ancients to denote indefinitely the lands of South Africa, as India was applied to the south of Asia. But here it isthe kingdom of Meroe in Upper Egypt that is meant, as we learn from the accounts of Pliny,” who mentions, that it was governed by queens, who bore the name of Candace as a title of office. It is worthy of notice here that in ver. 26 you find ἄγγελος κυρίου, but in ver. 29 πνεῦμα. This confirms the view we have expressed at John i. 52, that by angels we are by no means always to understand beings appearing as individuals, but often spiritual powers. Even in ver. 26, therefore, we are not to suppose the actual appearance of an angel, but an inward spiritual communi- cation which was made to Philip. Now here we behold this dis- ciple surrendering himself with child-like faith to the guidance accorded from above: he goes not his own way, but the impulses of the Spirit guide all his steps. Without cavilling he lets himself be taken by the Spirit to a desert road; and lo! even there he finds the opportunity of preaching the word. Vers. 29—33. Philip heard the Ethiopian reading (either he read himself aloud, or listened to one that read to him), and he began conversation with him by asking whether he understood what he read. With touching simplicity the eunuch acknowledges that the sense eluded him, and he receives Philip as a messenger sent from God into his chariot, who straightway saw, that it was the famous passage in Is. liii. which he had been reading. 1 The reading of Isaiah is not indeed a decisive proof of his Jewish descent, for he might be reading the Septuagint. But the word περιοχή refers probably to the division into Haphtaroth, which we cannot suppose existing in the Septuagint. Besides there were many Jews living in Arabia and Meroe, so that thesupposition of his Jewish descent cannot appear improbable. 2 Plin. Hist. Nat. vi. 35, He makes mention of Meroe, an island in the Nile, where the chief city lay, and then continues : aedificia oppidi pauca, regnare feminam Candacem, quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit; delubrum Hammonis, et ibi reli- giosum et toto tractu sacella. ACTS VIII. 29—83. 463 Κολλᾶσθαν in ver. 29, corresponds exactly to the Hebrew ΡΞ. ἴα ver. 31 dpa γε is interrogative, and differs from ἄραγε, which indicates a conclusion. See Comm. on Acts xi. 18.—Ver. 32. περιοχῆ occurs only here in the New Testament ; it denotes, as τμῆμα and χωρίον do, a section ina book.) The verses of Is. 1111. 7, 8, are quoted exactly according to the Septuagint, even to unimportant deviations ; but with respect to the Hebrew text, it differs from the translation of the Seventy, in verse 8 very consider- ably. Gesenius renders the original text correctly thus: “ By calamity and judgment he was taken away, and who of his con- temporaries imagined that he was taken from the land of the living, that for the sin of my people punishment struck him.” Instead of wpwrard the Seventy appear to have read ἼΔΕ; and 444 they have understood as referring to the life of the party himself that is spoken of, and not to his contemporaries. However this variation does not at all affect the connexion in which the words are here presented ; it is a more important question whether Philip rightly explains the passage, when he refers it to the person of the Messiah. For the solution of this question, it is necessary to view the fifty-third chapter in connexion with what goes before from the fortieth chap. onwards, as well as with what comes after. The same servant of the Lord mm Tay who is here presented as suf- fering, is described both before and afterwards, partly in similar, and partly in different situations. If we survey therefore the whole scope of the discourse, we shall understand why doubts should be entertained about referring the passage to the person of the Mes- siah, because the servant is often directly called Israel or Jacob, and is described in the plural, for which reason either the people of Israel, or distinguished personages among them, or the whole order of prophets, have been supposed to be meant. Other views, such as those which regard the prophet Isaiah himself, or king Hezekiah, as the subject of the passage, are to be altogether dis- missed ; but the views first mentioned do not at all stand in direct contradiction to the Messianic: on the contrary, the Mes- siah is the representative of the people, and especially of the better and enlightened part of them, and the people again are a type of the Messiah. To him, therefore, in the last resort, and with the highest emphasis, the whole refers, without excluding however subordinate references. From this point of view the whole majes- 464 ACTS vill. 834 —40. tic, picture of the second half of Isaiah is sketched; and there- fore the comprehensive exposition of it must have a respect to all these different points. See Umbreit’s abhandl. iiber den knecht gottes. In the Studien 1828, p. 2, page 295, &e. Vers. 34—38. Nothing hinders us from supposing in this case, that Philip entered into more detailed explanations than was pos- sible in preaching to great multitudes, whose wants were very vari- ous, and answered questions proposed by the stranger. The pas- sages of Scripture only formed a ground-work for his instructions. (Γραφή, denoting single passages of Scripture, is of frequent oc- currence : see Mark xv. 28.) And in this way are we to account for the desire of the chamberlain to be baptized, because Philip, without doubt, had made mention of the institution of baptism by the Lord. Ata later period, however, offence was taken at the pre- cipitation with which this baptism appeared to have been adminis- tered, and therefore an ample clause was added, embracing a kind of confession of faith of the treasurer. But the different shapes in which this clause appears are of themselves sufficient to raise doubts of its genuineness, which are carried to certainty by the agreement of the best codices A.C.G. and others, in omitting it.1 It has already been remarked that baptism ensued upon a simple confession of the Messiahship of Jesus, of which the treasurer, whose heart had obviously been prepared by grace, might readily be convinced. Vers. 39, 40. After the discharge of this duty Philip returned, and came by way of Ashdod to Caesarea, where (Acts xxi. 8) he dwelt. The phrase πνεῦμα κυρίου ἥρπασε does not authorise the supposition of a supernatural removal: ἁρπάζειν only expresses the idea of speed, and πνεῦμα that of suggestion from above.— "Afwros, Hebrew "τὴ τοῦδ, like Gaza, was one of the five cities of the Philistines, and Jay north of this city.—Kavodpeva means here the well known city lying upon the Mediterranean Sea, which was the seat of the Jewish procurators. It was built by Herod the Great, and named in honour of Augustus. At an earlier period there stood upon the site of it a tower, which bore the name of Straton (Josephus, Arch. xiv. 8—11), and therefore the city was often called Caesarea Stratonis, to distinguish it from Caesarea Philippi (Matt. xvi. 13 ; Mark viii. 27). 1 The clause here referred to by Olshausen is the whole of the 37th verse. ACTS VIII. 34--—388. 465 The Abyssinians, it is known, trace up their conversion, though erroneously, to the influence of this treasurer, whom tradition names Indich ; their conversion was first effected in the fourth century by Frumentius and Adesius. ‘The conversion of the trea- surer appears to have produced no effects upon the country from which he came, but to have been limited to his own personal be- nefit. VOL. IV. 26 er ee erteliar== gti gesed ἐγίνη: Ὁ», ΝῊ rt wee Meuse pal Syoret ἃ qo rtapl--oe) daw tay ; ett) jaws ing, cach Cereagpe a! Mueieed aay raat F Dvr e mee sure, |) Joie) fo" shi 8p <0. ie hapa nt μὲ δὲ Lhe of " ἘΝ C ον ta 7 ων ee ee, ΠΟ μων δῇ ᾿ »ν να ae ἐδῶ ὁ “tee > eae hae λ ρον Ὅλ © ¢ S467 ©) 1: PART SECOND. FROM PAUL'S CONVERSION TILL HIS SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY. (Acts ix. 1—xviii. 22.) § 1. HISTORY OF THE CONVERSION OF PAUL. (Acts ix. 1—80.) The second part of the Acts of the Apostles loses to a great extent the general character which was apparent in the first part : the work indeed becomes almost entirely an account of the life of Paul. Peter, it is true, does not altogether disappear from the narrative, but the principal communications which are made respecting him, have reference to the great controversy of apos- tolic times about the calling of the Gentiles, which must have been peculiarly interesting to Luke on account of his whole aim and the destination of his work. You cannot therefore say that the paragraphs, from chap. x. 1 to xi. 18, and in chap: xv. 6, &c., were introduced for the sake of Peter, but rather to justify the conduct of Paul by the authority of another apostle. Only there are some other sections, such as chap. ix. 31—43, and xii. 1, &c., which have reference simply to the Apostle Peter, and discover therefore still a tendency to contemplate other apostles besides Paul, and a gradual transition of the work into a form completely special. General observations respecting the condi- tion of the whole church, such as those we found in the first part, are now altogether wanting. On the other hand, the powerful character of the Apostle Paul, whose entrance into the church imparted, as it were, a new activity to the Christian life, 262 468 ACTS Ix. 1—30. stands forth so prominently in this second part, that it engrosses all attention to itself." The ground of this fact, that Paul occupies so conspicuous a piace in the apostolic church, is to be sought, not alone in the greatness of his intellect, and in his zeal and faithful- ness, but mainly in the circumstance that the Twelve were primarily destined for the people of Israel, and only turned in part to the Gentiles when the Jews, with obstinate unbelief, rejected the word of reconciliation. Paul's proper destination, on the other hand, was to be a messenger to the Gentile world. Although, therefore, the Twelve were not wanting to the work set before them, yet their power did not reach so full a development, as we perceive in the case of Paul. Now it was in a very wonderful manner that the grace of the Lord made Pau! so important an instrument in the church ; for it converted him at once from a persecutor into a most devoted advo- cate, without any gradual change that could be traced. And thus Paul, quite irrespectively of the force of his eloquence, proclaimed at once, by the simple fact of his conversion, the power of Christ, which could not likewise be said of those who had followed the Lord from the beginning. Of the remarkable occurrence it- self we possess, not counting the numerous passing references to it in the letters of Paul, three detailed accounts; first the one here given by Luke, and then two others by Paul himself. (Acts xxii. |—16, xxvi. 9—18.) Inthe former of these two passages, Paul explains, in a public speech at Jerusalem, the grounds which had led him to become a believer in Christ. He mentions his birth in Tarsus of Cilicia, his being reared in Jerusalem, and instructed in the law by Gamaliel ; and he appeals, in reference to his zeal for the Mosaic institutions and against the Christians, to the testimony of the high priest and the whole Sanhedrim. And then follows a detailed account of the appearance of the Lord. In the other pas- sage, Paul speaks before King Agrippa and Festus, and describes the occurrence to them with the same minuteness. The credibility of these accounts is not a little heightened by the circumstance, that they do not literally agree, but treat the subject with freedom of narration. Along with exact agreement in essentials, we find therefore unimportant variations, by which doubts of the credibi- 1 A connected view of the life of Paul is prefixed to the third yolume of the Commen. tary, which embraces the epistles of Paul. ACTS Ix. 1—30. 469 lity of the accounts, involving the fictitious character of both speeches of Paul, are rendered exceedingly untenable. Besides, if you consider that his change of views brought no honour to the Apostie Paul but disgrace, procured for him no earthly happiness but only sufferings, then every attempt to exhibit the occurrence as a fraud or a delusion must fall to the ground. Further, we cannot suppose a trance in which everything appeared to the apostle inter- nally,, because the occurrence was witnessed by his attendants ; and therefore there are only two views of the event left which can pos- sibly be defended: either we are to suppose a real appearance of the glorified Redeemer, or we must explain the change in the apostle on psychological grounds, which coincided accidentally with a natural phenomenon in which Paul supposed he saw an appear- ance of Christ. The latter view is defended by the most of recent theologians, Heinrichs, Rosenmiiller, Kuinoel, Eichhorn (Allgem. Bibl. der bibl. lit. Bd. 6), Boéhme (Henke’s Museum, vol. 3), and others. The older theologians defend the former view; and the work of an Englishman named Littleton (translated by Hahn, Hanover 1751), who was himself converted by the history of Paul's conver- sion, is particularly worthy of notice. The older theologians how- ever erred in this, that they frequently overlooked the importance of those psychological changes in the mind of Paul, to which later theologians have drawn attention. It is not to be denied that the mind of a Paul, who persecuted the Christians with an honest pur- pose, but ignorantly, must have been deeply impressed with the joyful faith of a Stephen. In consequence too of his knowledge of the Scriptures, passages could not fail to oceur to him, which ap- peared to confirm the Messiahship of Jesus. In his heart, there- fore, there might be a violent struggle, and he might have to fight against the truth forcing itself upon his mind, a state which, although not outwardly apparent, yet internally would prepare the way for the designs of God in reference tohim. We may therefore quite properly connect the supposition of*internal preparations in 1 The passage in 2 Cor. xii. 1, &c., in which Paul describes a trance that happened to him, must not at all be taken into account here, as Neander (Apost. Zeitalter, Th. 1, s. 110, note) has already excellently remarked. For that trance forms an advanced point in the renovated life of Paul; but the appearance at Damascus coincides with the commencement of his new life. 470 ACTS Ix. 1—80. the apostle, with the miraculous appearance which Christ made to him. But on the other hand, modern theologians of any impartiality must confess, that they do violence to the text, when they assert that these psychological changes, assisted merely by some natural phenomenon, effected the conversion of Paul. Were they to say it can be conceived possible, that Paul might have been converted by means ofa flash of lightning darting down before him, then much might be said in favour of this idea: the holy Norbert, it is well known, was converted by such an occurrence: but here we have to do, not with possibilities, but with facts respecting which we have most precise accounts. The defenders therefore of the natural view of the occurrence in question, must say that Paul persuaded him- self he saw the Lord in the flash of lightning, and that this view of the natural phenomenon was communicated by him to Luke and to the whole Christian church. In that case the three accounts that are given could at least be explained without any subtle re- finement. However,no proof is needed to show how much this supposition is opposed to sound psychological views. The Apostle Paul certainly exhibits in his whole conduct, if ever any person did, the utmost distance from all fanaticism: in the visionary, feel- ing and fancy have the unqualified mastery, but this is so little the case with Paul, that in him the dialectic element preponderates, which implies a predominance of the intellect. And should a man so constituted have been able to imagine, that he held a long con- versation with some person, while a flash of lightning darted near him to the ground; and that not merely at the first moment of the occurrence, but many years afterwards ? The thing is not merely improbable, but altogether unnatural. To this, it must be added, that if we should suppose Paul deceived himself once as to his having seen the Lord, then we must suppose this to have occurred repeatedly with him ; for we find that he declares himself that he had seen Jesus several times (comp. Acts xviii. 9, xxiii. 11; 2 Cor. xii. 9), which manifestly renders the whole hypothesis more contradictory still to the character of Paul. We may therefore say, without being unjust, that it is nothing but dogmatic views which have recommended to so many recent theologians the explanation on natural principles; if they had been able to adopt the biblical doctrine of the glorification of the Lord’s body, they would not ACTSVX ET) 2. AT] have regarded an appearance of the glorified Redeemer as a thing so inconceivable. But where it is supposed that, though a spiritual immortality must be conceded to Christ, he yet laid down his body again, there certainly a personal appearance of the Lord, such as is here related, must occasion great difficulties Vers. 1, 2. The commencement of the account of Paul’s conver- sion plainly looks back to chap. villi. 1-- ὃ. Saul was so furious against the Christians, that he was not satisfied with persecuting in Jerusalem, but also endeavoured to destroy believers at a distance. Why he went direct to Damascus, which lay north from Jerusalem beyond the boundaries of Palestine, it is difficult to determine Ἢ perhaps numbers of the Christians, who fled after the martyrdom of Stephen, had gone to that quarter, where perhaps there may have been formed immediately after Pentecost a small Christian society. The word ἐμπνέων is taken from the image of a wild raging beast ; it is usually construed with the accusative, though sometimes also with the genitive. In chap. xxvi. 1], you find instead of it, ἐμ- μαινόμενος. The passage in xxvi. 10, 11, brings into view some additional notices respecting the persecutions which Saul stirred up ; in particular, he mentions there that he had given consent to the death of numbers of Christians, as well as to the murder of Stephen ; that is, by his authority as the commissioned agent of the Sanhedrim, with whose president, the high priest, Paul stood in direct communi- cation, he had sanctioned these deeds. ‘The phrase, καταφέρειν ψῆφον, is applied to a judicial suffrage : it retains almost exactly this proper signification, when you view Paul, in these persecutions, as representing in a certain measure the authorities. Without any reason, this plain declaration of Paul has been doubted, because no other who died in the persecution is named but Stephen ; and it has been supposed, that using the plural, he only employed an enallage numeri. But the powerful impression which the persecution made upon the Christians in Jerusalem, leads directly to the supposition that Stephen was not the only sufferer in it; he only was men- tioned, just because he was the most distinguished among those who died. Further, in chap. xxvi. 11, it is adduced as a peculiar mark of the hatred which burned in the bosom of Paul against the Christians, that he sought to compel them to utter blasphemies 1 According to chap. xxvi. 12, however, Paul, before his journey to Damascus, had already persecuted the Christians in other cities. 472 ACTS X. 3, 4. (βλασφημεῖν.) It is not indeed expressly said whom they were to blaspheme, but it is self-evident, that Christ is the person meant. And this incident certainly presupposes a fearful height of rage in the heart of Paul; and the conviction afterwards reached of its great wickedness, explains the deeply humble feeling which he expresses, whenever after his conversion he makes mention of his earlier state, and compares it with the compassionate grace which the Lord had nevertheless poured out upon him. Further it is plain from chap. ix. 14, xxii. 5, xxvi. 12, that Paul acted in these persecutions as the official agent of the authorities. Now the Sanhedrim considered all Jews in all Jands as under their jurisdic- tion, and as Damascus at that time (see Comm. 2 Cor. xi. 32) was under the government of a prince very favourably disposed to the Jews, viz., Aretas, they could easily effect the removal of Christians from this city to Jerusalem. The Jews, moreover, were so numerous in Damascus, that according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. i. ii. 25), ten thousand of them perished there in the reign of Nero. Vers. 3, 4. In the neighbourhood of Damascus, and according to tradition upon a bridge near the city, a brilliant light shone around the apostle, and he heard himself called by hisname. The account of Luke here, as respects both the facts and the speeches, is shorter than either of the accounts given by Paul himself. But it admits of no doubt that in both respects the latter, as full accounts, are to be preferred. Luke might readily present the narrative in an ab- breviated form, as not feeling so lively an interest in the particulars ; but Paul himself would naturally be disposed to describe the occur- rence in all its details. It is a remark quite in harmony with the constitution of the mind, that in the case of events which exert a deep influence upon the life, even apparently trifling cireumstances are deeply imprinted upon the memory ; and it excites an agreeable feeling, when recalling the fact, to make mention also of these minute points, because the mind is assured as it were by them of the reality of the occurrence, and of the accuracy of the recollection of it. Thus Paul, besides mentioning the sudden light and the voice, brings into view also these circumstances, that it was about mid-day (xxii. 6, xxvi. 13), that the light surpassed the brightness of the sun (xxvi. 13), that the voice spoke in the Hebrew tongue (xxvi. 14), and that all his attendants fell along with him to the ground (same passage). Now, although it must be allowed that φῶς and στ πϑ. Ως 473 φωνή mighty signify lightning and thunder, yet it admits of no doubt, that the additional circumstance of the voice speaking in Hebrew, totally overturns the possibility of thus explaining the words ; not to mention that in chap. ix. 17, 27, Ananias and Bar- nabas declare in plain terms, that Paul saw Jesus, a fact upon which moreover Paul, in his whole apostolic ministry, grounds the peculiar position which he took in relation to the other apostles who had lived with the Lord. In the parallel passage, xxvi. 14, there is added to the words of Jesus, Σαοὺλ, YaovA, τί we διώκεις, the peculiar expression, σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. As to the words, κέντρον denotes, as also βούκεντρον, a scourge fur- nished with sharp points, (from κεντέω), employed for driving horses and oxen. And Aaxrifew denotes to strike with the foot, (from λάξ), to strike out behind like a horse. To kick against the pricks therefore means to increase one’s own pain by resistance, a proverbial mode of expression which often occurs in Latin and Greek authors. (See Terent. Phorm. i. 2, 27, adversus stimulum calcare. Pindar. Pyth. 11. 174. Aeschyli Agamemn. v. 1633. Euripidis Bacch. v. 791.) Further, this passage is one of the most striking of those in which grace is apparently represented as irresistible. The mean- ing of the words is really nothing else than this: “ thy resistance to the urging power of grace helps thee not: thon must surrender thyself to it.” It might indeed be alleged that it is not said advva- τόν cot but only σκληρόν σοι; and that therefore a degree of re- sistance might be imagined in Paul, which grace might not have overcome. But, according to my conviction, this explanation has more verbal subtility than truth: according to the sense and con- nexion of the passage σκληρόν oot must mean here much the same as ἀδύνατον, so that what is meant is that Paul really could not at that time resist the constraining power of grace. But although we readily acknowledge this sense in the passage before us, we do not therefore approve of Augustine's doctrine of gratia irresistibilis. This doctrine is that the gratia in the elect overcomes resistance not only at particular times, but throughout the whole of life, so that the loss of grace by unfaithfulness is impossible. But although we assert that the appearance of the Lord to Paul at this time car- ried along with it an overcoming power of grace, yet we do not deny that later in the life of this apostle there were moments when 3 ATA ACTS x. 3, 4. by unfaithfulness he might have forfeited the grace given to him., Yet that grace at particular junctures may display itself thus irre- sistibly in the heart, is sufficiently confirmed by the experience of countless numbers. And it is not difficult to see, in the case of the Apostle Paul, how this experience must not only have operated with decisive influence upon the development of his future life, but also have been a leading principle in the formation of his doc- trinal system. He, so proud of his legal piety, saw himself, by his very zeal for the law, which he imagined well-pleasing to God, con- verted into a murderer of the saints of God, and an opposer of Messiah the prince; and yet the Lord did not cast him out of his sight, but even chose him for a witness of his power over the souls of men, fora herald of the gospel to the heathen world. In this con- trast there must have been something so overpowering, that even the strong soul of a Paul broke under it; and this very rupture and fall of what was old, was at the same time the commencement of a new condition in the world of the apostle’s mind. The outward appearance of the Redeemer therefore, and the outward light which blinded his bodily eye, were but the outward aspect of the whole occurrence ; its true inward meaning is to be found in the entrance of the light of a higher world into the depths of the apostle’s mind, where, hovering over the waters of his soul hum- bled and purified in repentance, that light called forth from the water and the spirit, a new, a higher, a heavenly consciousness, the new creature in Christ Jesus. After such an experience it na- turally became the business of Paul’s life to preach the power of grace, and to show by his own example, how possible it was for the i That the most exemplary Christians do frequently in fact resist both their own con- victions and the motions of the Spirit within them cannot be denied; but whether any one whio lius been traly regenerated ever so resists the Spirit as to forfeit grace alto- gether, and to become a child of the devil egain, is a very different question. Admoni- tions to perseverance, warnings against resisting the Spirit, do not prove that such for- feiture ever takes place; for the progress of believers is secured not by physical force, but by influences operating upon them as rational and immortal beings. There are passages of Scripture which seem to place it beyond all doubt that where regenera- tion has really taken place, the new spiritual life, whatever fluctuations it may undergo, is never extinguished. Jolin manifestly proceeds upon this principle when he concludes from the apostacy of certain individuals that they had never really been Christians: “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.” 1 Jolin ii. 19.—Tr, ACTS Χο δ᾽ 7? A75 Lord of glory, to lay down even his bitterest enemies as a stool for his feet, that is, to transform them into the most enthusiastic friends." Vers. 5—7. In the verses which follow, it is necessary first to settle the text. As the three narratives do not agree in all points, transcribers have endeavoured to smoothe down the differences. In particular, they have supplemented the shorter statement of Luke, from the two longer ones in Paul’s discourses. From chap. xxii. 8 they have added to Ingots, in chap. ix. 6, the word ὁ Nafw- pavos ; and after διώκεις there occurs a very long addition in the textus receptus, in which particularly the phrase σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν is borrowed from chap. xxvi. 14. According to the testimony of Codices, however, these words are inserted here from the speech of Paul in chap. xxvi. 14, and therefore they are omitted by the best critics. Besides, we find real variations in the narratives. According to chap. ix. 7, all the attendants of Paul stood, according to chap. xxvi. 14, they fell to the ground : accord- ing to chap. ix. 7, they heard indeed the voice but saw no person, according to chap. xxii. 9, they heard nothing, but they saw the light. How this difference is to be explained, in accordance with the principle that literal agreement must exist between the different narratives of Holy Writ, I do not see. Should it be said that some of the attendants remained standing while others fell, and that some of them saw the light and others heard the voice, this expla- nation would be inadmissible here, because it is expressly said in chap. xxvi. 14 that they all fell down. And if any one should suppose two occurrences of the kind, and distribute the varying ac- counts among them, then still greater confusion would arise, for how can it be made probable that the Lord would appear twice to Paul on the way to Damascus ? We must therefore take the Scripture account simply as it presents itself to us. There are plainly here variations in the narratives, exactly like those we often found in the Gospels, but they refer to unessential incidents, and are so far therefore from affecting the credibility of the event as a whole, that they rather confirm it. And certainly Paul’s own state- 1 All powerful preachers of grace, especially Luther and Augustine, lave in a simi- lar manner, by the power of inward experience, reached their conviction of it, and by means of the powerful utterance of that conviction they have been able to win whole centuries to the same belief. a < 476 ACTS X. 5—7. ments deserve the preference above those of Luke, whose accounts, moreover, are presented in a very abbreviated form, and who might readily transpose some of the circumstances, as he was not an eye- witness., And finally, the speeches too in these verses differ from one an- other. The passage xxii. 10 agrees indeed in substance completely with ix. 6, but it differs so much the more from xxvi. 16—18. Instead ofthe short direction contained in the first two narratives, to go to Damascus and there learn every thing, chap. xxvi. 16—18 presents a detailed speech of Christ to Paul. Of Ananias and his speeches there is no mention made at all in chap. xxvi., while, on the other hand, in chap. ix. 15, 16, and xxii. 14, the very same points occur in the speech of Ananias which are to be found in chap. xxvi. 16, &e., in the speech of Jesus. The idea, therefore, very naturally sug- gests itself, that in chap. xxvi. Paul has transferred what Ananias said to Christ himself, on the principle: quod quis per alium facit, id ipse fecisse putatur. It may be objected, indeed, to this idea, that Paul expressly appeals to the fact of the Lord’s having ap- peared to him, and instructed him (comp. Galat. i. 12), and there- fore it may be alleged that the words in question must be ascribed to Christ himself. But on closer consideration new difficulties rise up against this view, which oblige us to go back to the former 1 Olshausen recognises the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, but some of the state- ments made above seem rather to trench upon that fundamental principle. Plenary in- spiration undoubtedly implies that, whetever apparent discrepancies may be found between different portions of the Word of God, there can be no real disagreement. Now, surely the discrepancies commented upon by the author are merely apparent, and too much has been made of them. The two statements, “they heard the voice, but saw no man,” and “ they heard nothing, but saw the light,” are by no means opposed to one an- other ; for surely they might see the light and yet see no person, and they might hear the voice so far as the sounds of it were concerned, and yet not hear the words that were addressed to Paul. The two statements combined intimate that they saw the light, but saw not the person of Jesus, that they heard the sound of his voice, but did not catch his words. And, as to the other alleged disagreement between the statements, that they fell to the ground and stood speechless, they may be reconciled on the principle that they refer to different instants of time. They might stand speechless for a little, and then fall during the progress of the scene, overcome by their augmenting alarm, or they might fall at first, struck down by the suddenness of the occurrence, and afterwards rise, but only to stand in speechless terror. Or perbaps ἑιστήκεισαν in Luke may not refer to the standing posture as distinguished from prostration, but simply to the fact of their being rivetted to the spot as distinguished from advancing on their journey. Even in the case of an uninspired author, a charge of contradiction is not advanced if any plausible me- thod of reconciling two statements can be pointed out; and surely the sacred penmen are entitled, at the very least, to the benefit of the same rule of judgment.—Tr. acts x. 8—16. ATT view. In the first place, the declaration in the epistle to the Ga- latians refers to the doctrine of Christ, which Paul professes to have received from no apostle, but immediately from the Lord by inward revelation, but here in chap. xxvi. there is no mention made of doc- trine at allin the speech of Christ. And again it appears that we can- not well suppose Jesus to have uttered a long speech, because it is ex- pressly remarked, that Paul would receive the necessary communi- cations in Damascus. ‘The appearance of Christ therefore was to operate more by power of impression, and calm instruction was afterwards to be given by Ananias. ‘This arrangement, at the same time, was wisely adapted to the character of Paul. To him, as a proud Pharisee well versed in the law, it might be a wholesome hu- miliation to receive from a man of little education, as Ananias pro- bably was, instruction respecting the way of eternal life. ‘The only way therefore in which we can hold the speech of chap. xxvi. to be real words of Christ, is to suppose that Paul has transferred words of the Lord that were spoken on the occasion of a later ap- pearance (compare xxii. 18—21) to the earlier one, and blended them with it. Which of these views you may be disposed to prefer, it is all one to me.!_ Inchap. ix. 7, the rare word évveos deserves notice, instead of which you find in chap. xxii. 9, ἔμφοβος. The better mode of writing it is ἔνεος, and the word denotes properly “dumb,” then also, “ speechless through terror.” Itoccurs in no other part of the New Testament. Vers. 8—16. Blinded by the splendour of the appearance, which was designed for him alone (a flash of lightning must have equally blinded his attendants), Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (xxii. 11.). The whole of the scene which follows is peculiar to the narrative before us. Luke describes minutely what happened to Aaanias, and that too with a local knowledge of the city (in 1 There appears to be no good ground for the conclusion to which Olshausen here comes. It rests simply upon the fact that Paul is directed to go to Damascus, for the information he needs, whence it is concluded to be improbable that Christ would say so much to him personally. But there is no inconsistency in supposing that Christ might say to him all that is mentioned in the three verses 16—18 of chap. xxvi., and that yet he might be instructed at much greater length by Ananias. We are not to suppose that Ananias said nothing to Paul but what is stated in the 17th verse of this 9th chapter. He probably conversed with him much during his sojourn in Damascus, so that the ad- dress of Christ might just suffice for an introduction to the fuller communications to be received in Damascus, and a means of authenticating them to Paul.—Tr. 478 Acts x. 17—19. verse 11 the street and residence of Paul are specified), which pre- supposes a very sure source of information. A remarkable thing in this account is the mutual adaptation of the operations of divine grace, which is displayed so manifestly. The same God who hears prayers prompts them also, and works again in another heart to bring about their fulfilment. So here the Lord shows to Ananias Paul in prayer, and to Paul again Ananias approaching with help. Whether you suppose Ananias and Paul to have been acquainted with one another before this or not, does not at all materially in- fluence the state of the fact. The objections of Ananias, and the removal of them by the Lord, display in a very touching manner the childlike relation of the believing soul to its Redeemer: the Saviour speaks with Ananias as a man does with his friend. The word ἅγιοι in verse 13, corresponding to the Hebrew ow denotes in the New Testament, as applied to Christians, not the highest degree of moral excellence, but only the fact of being dis- tinguished from the great mass of Jews and Gentiles, and living in the fellowship of the Spirit of Christ. (See more particular ac- count in the Comm. on Rom. i. 7.)—Respecting σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς in verse 15, comp. Comm. at Rom. ix. 21, &c. The expression here is plainly opposed not to the reprobate, but only to those who have a less extensive sphere of influence.—In verse 16 the apparent threatening, ὑποδείξω αὐτῷ ὅσα δεῖ....παθεῖν, embraces really a promise of grace, and thus forms a striking thought, for to suffer for the Lord is the highest grace of which the believer can be ac- counted worthy. Matt. v. 10, &c. Vers. 17—19. Of the relation of the passage in chap. xxvi. 16—18 to the speech of Ananias, we have already spoken at vers. 5—7 : the narrative before us gives the words of Ananias, but very shortly, and in chap xxii. 12, &c., they are to be found a little more full. On the other hand, chap. ix. 17—19, describes most minutely the healing of Paul: it is represented as effected very suddenly, and by means of the laying on of the hands of Ana- nias. We are not to suppose from the words in verse 18, ἀπέ- πεσον ἀπὸ τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀυτοῦ ὡσεὶ λεπίδες, that there was an actual falling off of any thing: the word ὡσεὶ sufficiently shows that there was only a feeling in the eyes, when they received the power of light again, similar to what usually accompanies the falling ACTS x. 17—19. 479 off of scales —Aemis deiotes properly a scale or scurf: it is applied to diseases of the eye in Tobit ii. 9, vi. 10. In the passage xxu. 14, &c. the speech of Ananias confines itself to the general calling of Paul to the apostolic office for all men, which indeed indicates his destination to the Gentiles, though it does not clearly express it, like xxvi. 16. It need only be re- marked that in xxii. 16, the words ἀπόλουσαι Tas ἁμαρτίας σου plainly represent baptism as the act of cleansing from sin, as the ἄφεσις TOV ἁμαρτιῶν. Comp. Comm. on Titus il. 5.2. In chap. xxvi. 16, &c., however, Paul is expressly appointed as the witness of Christ among the Gentiles, and by this appointment he receives the peculiar position in reference to the Twelve, which we find him through his whole life maintaining. At the same time it is inti- mated that he, as the representative of the world of light, is called to the exalted duty of delivering men from the power of darkness and its prince. (In ver. 17, ἐξαιρούμενος is to be referred to de- liverance from dangers: it cannot be understood as synonymous with ἐκλεκτός, because the phrase ἐκ τῶν ἐθνῶν would not suit this idea.—Respecting the expression κλῆρος ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμέυοις in ver. 18, see Comm. on Colos. i. 12.) And here now it is a highly important circumstance, that the Apostle Paul does not by any means become a member of the church, simply by means of the wonderful calling he has received from the Lord himself, but he must also receive baptism. In this the objectivity or real value of the sacraments appears beyond all mistake : they cannot be set aside on account of the immediate operations of the Spirit, but require to be administered, if it be at 1 Olshansen seems here to have fallen into a mistake. The word that is used in Tobit in both the passages referred to is, λευκώμα. In another passage, however, of the same book, xi. 13, the verb λεπίζω is employed to denote the falling off of the λεὺυκώ - ματα. καὶ ἐλεπίσθη ἀπὸ τῶν κάνθων τῶν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀντοῦ τὰ NevKOpaTa.—TR. 2 This statement of Olshausen is liable to be misunderstood. The utmost that can be inferred from the words of Ananias, is that baptism and the pardon of sin are in some way connected, but not that the mere act of baptism of itselfin any case cleanses from the guilt of sin. If Paul had received baptism in hypocrisy, without any conviction in his mind respecting the power of Christ, or any trust in Christ, not only would the water of baptism not have cleansed him from sin, but it would greatly have aggravated his guilt. On the other hand, if, while truly believing in Christ, he had been placed in cir- cumstances where it was not possible for him to be baptised, confined, for example, as a prisoner, and cut off from all intercourse with the church, he would, notwithstanding the want of baptism, have enjoyed the pardon of his sins. The blessiug would not have tarried till the opportunity of receiving baptism occurred. Being justified by faith, be would have had peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.—TR. 480 ACTS x. 20—25. all possible, for exceptions must be admitted, as when martyrdom for the faith supplies the want of baptism. We must not however sup- pose that Paul in his baptism received the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands of an apostle in the usual manner. In that case he would have been placed in a position of dependence with reference to the Twelve, which he himself most keenly repudiates. (Galat. i. 12.) Probably the true state of the case was this, that Paul, like Cornelius, chap. x. 45, &c., received the Holy Ghost directly, and that before baptism. Baptism of itself placed bim in no position of dependence, any more than the baptism of Christ made him dependent upon John the Baptist: but probably the communica- tion of the Spirit would have had this effect, if it had taken place through the instrumentality of an apostle. Vers. 20—25. According to Acts Paul went immediately (εὐ- Géws) after his conversion into the synagogues of Damascus and preached Christ : according to Galat i. 17, he withdrew soon after it to Arabia. How long he remained there is not mentioned in Galatians. We may reconcile the two accounts by supposing that Paul at first made the attempt to teach immediately, but then felt that he required a period of quietness to collect himself and to commune with his own mind, and therefore went for some time to Arabia. Such an interval of repose must indeed have been essen- 1 This view, which is also supported by Schrader, of the object of Paul's residence in Arabia, has recently found an opponent in Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. Th. i. S.115. Note.) The grounds, however, upon which this learned man attempts to make it appear that the apostle went to Arabia only for the purpose of preaching, have not appeared to me satisfactory. In the first place Neander is of opinion that Paul, if he had retired for the purpose of collecting himself, would have written εἰς ἔρημον ᾿Λραβίας, or simply els ἔρημον. But one does not see the necessity why this form of expression should have been chosen to express that idea ; Paul did not need to go to a desert to collect his thoughts and to arrange his new ideas, he might reside for a time in any city of Arabia. Besides, it does not appear to Neander probable, psychologically considered, that Paul, after Ananias had comforted him in solitude, should again have gone into solitude; he would rather have sought society. But intercourse with believers, and preaching of the gospel as an apostle, are surely to be distinguished from one another. As Paul himself, in his pastoral letters (see 1 ‘lim. iii. 6), gives the injunction that novices are not to teach, it appears to me very unlikely that he should himself have immediately entered upon his apostolic office, His first preaching in Damascus is probably to be regarded only as a testimony borne to what God had done in him: such testimony was necessary, because otherwise his conversion would have assumed the appearance of something clandestine. But after this testimony was publicly given, the apostle could not but feel the necessity of having his thoughts absorbed with the new world which had unfolded itself to him, which was hardly possible during his apos- tolic journeys. As three years, therefore, had been spent by the disciples in immediate ACTS xX. 26—-30. {81 tially necessary to the apostle, because the revolution of his ideas was too violent, not to require an arranging of them and a settling of them by the Old Testament. The point to which all the effort of the apostle was first directed was naturally the Messiahship of Jesus,’ and that in the higher view in which Christianity exhibits the Messiah, namely, as the Son of God. (vyyvvw denotes here ‘“‘to confound, to bring into perplexity.” See Acts ii. 6.—SupBe- βάζω properly means “ to join to one another,” in which sense it oc- curs for example in Ephes. iv. 16. Here it denotes ‘‘ to prove, to confirm, to join grounds as it were firmly to one another.” With- out doubt, we must think of Rabbinical arguments, such as Paul had been conversant with in the schools of the Pharisees. It is but very shortly that Luke (Acts ix. 23—25) mentions the persecutions which the Jews at Damascus raised against Paul, whom they regarded as an apostate. From 2 Cor. xi. 32, where Paul himself makes mention of these occurrences, we learn that the governor of king Aretas of Arabia, ἐθνάρχης ᾿Αρέτα τοῦ βασιλ- éws, supported the hostile Jews in their designs against the apostle. Aretas, in his conflicts with Herod Antipas, had made himself master of one part of Syria. (Joseph. Arch. xvii. 5,1.) Paul escaped from Damascus, only because the Christians let him down in a basket through an opening in the city wall. (Comp. Comm. on 2 Cor. xi. 32.) Vers. 26—30. The account of Paul’s return to Jerusalem, which Luke here gives, may lead to the supposition, that after a short time he went back thither ; but the passage in Gal. i. 17, 18, shows that, after fleeing from Damascus, he withdrew to Arabia, then came back to Damascus,” and first revisited Jerusalem after three years. Probably this time, respecting the employment of which no express information is given to us, was spent by the apostle in making a tho- rough revision of his ideas. The internal change in Paul was exceed- ingly violent ; he needed repose, that he might free himself entirely intercourse with tlie Lord, so the same period was enjoyed also by Paul as a time of training. During this time the glorified Redeemer, unseen but inwardly near to the apostle, formed him into the powerful instrament, which he was afterwards honoured by the Church as being. For farther particulars consult the exposition of Galat. i. 17. 1 In verse 20, instead of the common reading Χριστόν, Ἰησοῦν should stand, 2 The incident of being let down through an opening in the wall appears to have occurred on the occasion of Paul's second visit to Damascus, which Luke does not dis- tinguish from the first, because he entirely omits the journey to Arabia; for farther par- ticulars, see Comm. on Gal. i, 16, &e. VOL. IV. 2H 482 ACTS X. 26—30. from his old principles, and become thoroughly grounded in the new to which he had been drawn. And this long absence explains well, why the believers in Jerusalem were still afraid of Paul. Certainly they had heard of his conversion, but as nothing had been known of him for three years, they might fear that he had fallen away again. But Barnabas brought him to the apostles, and bore witness to the reality of his conversion. Yet itissurprising that Barnabas needed first to describe to the apostles how he had been con- verted. But as three years had elapsed, during which time they had heard nothing of him, the true state of matters might have escaped their memory : at the first they might not consider the event of his conversion to be so important, as his commanding personal qualities afterwards showed it to be. Further, according to Gal. i. 18, 19, Paul met only Peter and James in Jerusalem. And of course the more definite words of the apostle there exhibited, must be allowed to modify the more general statement of Luke. The evan- gelist had not been personally acquainted with the early occurrences in the life of the apostle; and therefore his account of them could not be expected to be so precise. In Jerusalem too Paul made the attempt to preach the Gospel (verse 28), but it was to be anticipated, that here his labours would be few. The Christians recognised him as the old enemy of their church, and might not be able to admit him so soon to their full confidence. The Jews viewed him as an apostate, and therefore shunned him. Besides, according to Acts xxii. 17, &c., the apostle was favoured with a vision of Christ in the Temple, although it was one purely spiritual (ἐν ἐκστάσει), by which he was directed to the Gentile world as the scene of his apostolic ministry. As soon, therefore, as some opposition to Paul appeared in Jerusalem on the part of the Hellenists,, the brethren there sent him away, after a stay of fourteen days (Gal. i. 18), by way of Cesarea, to his native city Tarsus, the metropolis of Cilicia, It appears from Acts xv. 23—41 that churches existed in Cilicia, and there can be no doubt, therefore, that Paul employed his time in Tarsus in preaching the Gospel to his countrymen, for during his first missionary excur- sion he did not touch upon Cilicia at all. 1 There is no inconsistency between this and the statement of Acts xxii. 17, 18, that the vision of Christ caused him to depart, because they would not receive his tes- timony. ΔαΊ ΣΧ ol, 488 According to Gal. i. 21, Paul's journey to Tarsus lay through Syria, and therefore Czsarea must not be understood as meaning the well known city upon the Mediterranean sea, but Cesarea Philippi on the borders of Syria. Proceeding by land from Jeru- salem to Tarsus, Paul would not have chosen the longer way by Cesarea Stratonis. The phrase κατήγαγον εἰς is only to be under- stood as meaning “ to bring on the way to Cesarea,” because that place is too far removed from Jerusalem to render it probable that an escort would go all the way. δ 2. FIRST PREACHING TO THE GENTILES. (Acts ix. 3]—x. 48.) It has already been observed at the commencement of the second part of Acts, that the accounts which it embraces respecting Peter, were not communicated so much to set before us the ministry of Peter, as to show in what manner the Gospel was first carried to the Gentiles. As Luke wrote mainly for Gentile readers, he would na- turally feel very solicitous to make it plain to them, that this impor- tant event was brought about quite in accordance with God's pur- pose. It is true the accounts respecting A‘neas and Tabitha have no necessary connection with this object: they might have been omitted without causing any essential want. But the reason, pro- bably, why Luke inserted them in his work was, that he found them in his Petrine documents connected with the history of Cornelius which follows, and supposed that, as they were striking proofs of the power of that Spirit who wrought in believers, he ought not to withhold them from his readers. ‘To this add that these events exerted the most direct influence upon the spread of the Gospel in Palestine (ix. 835—42), and for that very reason could not but ap- pear important to Luke. With respect to the ¢ime when these oc- currences took place, it is only quite general intimations that are to be found in what follows, as in ix. 48, x. 48, and in xi. 2, ac- cording to the fuller reading. Without doubt, however, the state- ment of Paul's return to Jerusalem (ix. 26, &c.) is anticipated, and therefore these accounts of Peter are to be referred to the time of 2-2 484 ACTs 1x. 31—438—x. 1. Paul's sojourn in Arabia. Were we with Meyer to refer them to the time of Paul's abode in Cilicia, then we should have too great an interval, respecting which no account was given. In chap. xi. 19, Luke glances back to the consequences of the sufferings in- flicted upon Christians in the time of Stephen, but only as to some- thing already past. (See the particulars at that passage.) Vers. 81—35. The first verse embraces only a general descrip- tion of the peaceful condition of the apostolic church in Canaan. (Respecting οἰκοδομεῖν see Comm. on | Cor. iii. 10, &c.—Respect- ing φόβος τοῦ κυρίου, consult Comm. on Luke i. 12.—ITapakdy- σις is considered at John xiv. 15.) The Apostle Peter appears, from verse 32, to have made a journey of visitation among the existing churches, and during this journey the cure of A.neas took place. (Lydda was a country town near to Joppa (verse 38), which Josephus also mentions in his Arch. xx. 6, 2.—2Xdpwv is a well- know fruitful region in the neighbourhood of these places. Con- sult Gesenius under word yw.) Vers. 36—43. The account of the above cure is followed by a narrative of the raising of a certain woman Tabitha from the dead in Joppa, to which Peter was called from Lydda. There is nothing however peculiar in the occurrence, and therefore I simply refer the reader to the observations made at John xi. 1, respecting the general subject of raising from the dead. (The name Ταβιθά, which is only to be found here, is explained by Luke himself by the Greek word δορκάς, a gazelle, which, on account of the loveli- ness of the creature, was frequently employed as a proper name for women. ‘The Hebrew name comes from Tia OF FAL ὃ Toe, a gazelle, of which the Syriac form is NII. "See Buxtorf. Lex. Talm. p. 848.—Ver. 36, πλήρης ἀγαθῶν ἔργων. In a similar manner, James iii. 17 uses μεστός. It is a Hebraism, because the adjective soy is applied likewise to invisible good things. Fur- ther, verse 39 shows in what the good works of Tabitha consisted. —Respecting the idea to be attached to ἔργα, see at Rom. iii. 2). —In verse 86, μαθήτρια is a peculiar form, which is only to be found here in the New Testament. Elsewhere it occurs in Diog, Laért. iv. 2. The more common form is μαθητρίς. Consult Lo- beck ad Phryn. p. 256. Chap. x. 1. With these occurrences is connected the important ΑΒ ἢ: 485 narrative of the conversion of Cornelius, the first fruits of the whole Gentile world to the church of Christ. It appears surprising that the Apostle Peter, who laboured in the power of the Holy Ghost, and to whom the prophecies of the Old Testament respecting the calling of the Gentiles (see Comm. on Matt. vii. 10) could not be unknown; needed a special lesson on the point that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the church. But here it must not be overlooked that Peter was by no means uncertain about the entrance of the Gentiles into the church considered in itself, but only about the point whether they could be admitted with- out being circumcised, and taking upon themselves the obli- gation of the law.’ The divine authority of the Old Testament being presupposed, it was by no means so easy to regard this as possible, and agreeable to the will of God. In the law of Moses, circumcision was instituted for all times, with the threaten- ing that the uncircumcised should be cut off from the people of God (Gen. xvii. 19, 14) ; no prophet had expressly predicted that cir- cumcision was ever to cease : the supposition therefore that would most readily suggest itself was, that the Gentiles must first go through the intermediate stage of Judaism, in order to reach the church of Christ. The proper idea of the position of the Gentiles in reference to the church was first given by the typical view of cir- cumcision, which indeed is expressed with sufficient clearness in the Old Testament (Deut. x. 16, xxx. 6; Jerem. iy. 4) ; but without an explicit exhibition of the relation between the circumcision of the Spirit, and that of the flesh. One might indeed suppose that the Spirit, who guides into all truth (John xvi. 13), would have immediately disclosed to the apostle this relation ; and that he would have needed therefore no farther instruction on the poimt. But let us only conceive the Spirit, not as a power suddenly replenish- ing the mind with truths of every kind, but as a higher principle which, penetrating the soul, leads it on gradually from step to step into the depths of divine knowledge ; and then the event, which is here related to us respecting Peter, will stand in no way opposed to 1 This solves the doubts which De Wette expresses on Matt. xxviii. 14, how the apostles could have any scruple to baptize Gentiles, when the Lord had expressly com- nanded that all nations should be baptized. Peter had no scruple at all with respect to this point, but only how far he could baptize Gentiles, without at the same time bind- ing them to the observance of the whole Old Testament law, and therefore also of cir- cumcision. 486 ACTS x. 1—8. the statement, that he was filled with the Holy Ghost. Yet the reason why a peculiar arrangement of God took place, for the purpose of instructing Peter respecting this question, and through him guid- ing to certainty all who were in doubt, is to be found in the im- portance of the question. The reception of the Gentiles into the church, without laying upon them the obligation of circumcision and the law, was, on the one hand, the public declaration of the universal character of the Gospel, the removal of the hedge which separated Jews and Gentiles (Ephes. ii. 14) ; but, on the other hand, this very reception was also the signal for an internal division of the church into Jewish and Gentile Christians. The Jews, belonging to the sect of the Pharisees, who had entered into the church, could not raise themselves to the purely spiritual and typical view of circumcision ; they held quite firmly by the necessity of entering through the old covenant in its outward form into the new, and according to the literal view of the Old Testament, as well as the words of Jesus in Matt. v. 17, they had so much in their favour, that it was difficult to refute them: they were able therefore, even at a later period, to make a great im- pression upon Peter (Gal. ii.), and for this very reason this apostle needed that powerful support of his conviction, which the occur- rences here narrated must have furnished him. The need of being confirmed in so extraordinary a manner, in the principle of the free- dom of the Gentiles from the law, does not stand in any contradic- tion to the character of Peter, in which firmness and deepness were conspicuous, but arises quite necessarily out of it. His very depth was the reason why he found the question exceedingly difficult to answer ; his earnest faith in the word of God in the Old Testament, his reverence for every syllable of it, made him feel keenly the diffi- culties which the objections of the strict Jewish Christians started ; and in order that here, in a business of decisive moment, he might not be without certain warrant, nor follow any merely sub- jective opinion of his own, but act according to the will of God, he received this extraordinary assistance through means of a symboli- cal vision. Vers. 1—8. First of all, Luke gives a description of the charac- ter and circumstances of Cornelius, and of the vision which was im- parted to him. He dwelt in Caesarea, the political capital of the country, and the seat of the highest Roman authorities; he was a ACTS xX. 1—8., 487 centurion in the Italian band or cohort, and without doubt therefore a Roman by birth, or at least from Italy.1. And here it is surprising that Cornelius is described exactly as a proselyte, εὐσεβὴς καὶ φοβούμενος τὸν Θεόν, and the words of the 22d verse too are par- ticularly suitable to this character, waptupovpevos τε ὑπὸ ὅλου τοῦ ἔθνους τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων. This circumstance appears in fact to destroy the importance of the whole narrative, for if Cornelius was already a Jewish proselyte, then his conversion cannot be regarded as the commencement of the entrance of Gentiles into the church: yet it is represented as such in what follows (x. 45, xi. 1), and Peter too names Cornelius (x. 28) ἀλλόφυλος ( = 723 Isaiah xi. 6), while he adds that it was not permitted to him as a “Jew to hold intercourse with him. On account of this difficulty it has been proposed to take the expression φοβούμενος τὸν Θεόν in a more general signification, without reference to the condition of a prose- lyte: but first this phrase, like σεβόμενος τὸν Θεόν and προσή- Autos, is the usual description of Gentiles favourable to Judaism, and again the singular with the article τὸν Θεόν does not permit, that it be regarded as a description of heathen devoutness. ‘The difficulty under consideration is best explained by considering minutely the condition of proselytes among the Jews. There were, it is known, two classes of proselytes, those of the gate (Ὁ Δ yur) and those of righteousness (D4 x7 Ὅλ). The latter received circumcision, and formally passed over into the Jewish church ; the former, on the other hand, bound themselves only to the ob- servance of the so-called precepts of Noah (see Comm. on Acts xv. 20); these proselytes of the gate, therefore, as being un- circumcised, were always regarded as unclean, and at the best were viewed as a kind of middle class between Jews and Gentiles. It was probably supposed that all proselytes of the gate would gra- dually allow themselves to be circumcised ; and this intermediate stage was perhaps only appointed, not to frighten away by too rigid requirements at first those Gentiles who displayed a leaning to Judaism. Now if you only suppose that Cornelius was a proselyte of the gate, and consequently uncircumcised, which ac- 1 The legions that were stationed in the eastern provinces consisted for the most part of native soldiers. Particular cohorts however were formed of Italians, and these were called Italian cohorts, 488 ACTS x. 1—8. cords with the words in chap. xi. !—3, in which Cornelius and his friends are styled ἀκροβυστίαν ἔχοντες, then all the descrip- tions which occur in what follows are quite appropriate ; and the new feature of the case was this, that Cornelius, without becoming a proselyte of righteousness, was immediately baptized in the name of Jesus. Meyer's objection to this view, that it is improbable there were no proselytes before this who had entered the church, and that therefore, according to our supposition, the history of Cor- nelius would present nothing at all peculiar, is easily obviated by the supposition, which has a solid ground in the circumstances of the case, that proselytes of righteousness, who were of course cir- cumcised, had already been admitted into the Christian community, but no proselytes of the gate, that is, none who were uncircumcised : this first took place in the case of Cornelius, and herein lies the great importance of his admission. For on account of the high value which the Jews attached to circumcision, the grand question was, whether persons could become Christians without circumcision. With respect to the vision of an angel next mentioned, with which Cornelius was favoured, nothing leads to the conclusion that it vecurred otherwise than as a purely internal phenomenon, ἐν ἐκ- στάσει, as in the 101} verse.’ As it was late in the day, viz. three hours after noon, it is altogether probable that the fasting of Cor- nelius had augmented his susceptibility of spiritual impressions (for in fact we do not find that any one bas had such appearances immediately after a full meal), but it does not follow from this, that the whole occurrence was the mere product of an excited imagina- tion: at least that is certainly not the meaning of the narrator, which we must first of all ascertain by exegetical research. It is not improbable (see at chap. x. 37) that Cornelius bad already heard of Christianity, and that the object of his prayers was to obtain light from above respecting this new religion. In verse 4 the words ἀνέβησαν ai προσευχαί σου εἰς μνημό- συνον, are a well-known form of expression adapted to human 1 The word φανερῶς seems inconsistent with the view advocated by Olshausen, and rather favours the idea that an angel actually appeared to Cornelius in his waking moments. The statements made too regarding the entrance and departure of the angel in verses 3—7, as well as the hour of the day when the occurrence took place, lead to the same conclusion. Olshausen appeals to the 10th verse, but it tells against himself, for it is there plainly said that an ἔκστασις fell upon Peter, while nothing of the kind is said regarding the angelic vision of Cornelius.—TR, ACTS X. 9—16. 459 views and feelings. See Exod. ii. 23. Probably it takes its ori- gin from a comparison of prayers with sacrifices, because the smoke rising up to heaven was viewed as an index of the accept- ance of the sacrifice. In the 5th and 6th verses there is no particular stress to be laid upon the circumstance that the trade of a tanner, on account of his being occupied with the skins of slain beasts, was held in contempt among the Jews: were any thing of the kind designed, a clearer indication of it would have been given. Vers. 9—16. In conjunction with the vision of Cornelius there occurred by God's direction another, which was imparted to Peter about the same time. Of this vision it is expressly said in verse 10: ἐπέπεσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν ἔκστασις The word ἔκστασις denotes primarily the condition of being put out of one’s self; and is there- fore frequently applied to terror and astonishment, as in Mark vy. 42; Luke v. 26; Acts ii. 10. By way of eminence, however, it is applied to a state of spiritual excitement, which is also indi- cated by the expressions εἶναι or γίνεσθαι ἐν πνεύματι, as in Rev. i. 10 ;? and φέρεσθαι ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος, in 2 Peter i. 21, de- notes something similar. It is a remarkable description of the ἔκστασις, which Paul gives in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, when he declares 1 The word ἔκστασις is used by Philo (quis rer. div. haer. edit. Pfeiffer. vol. iv., p. 111, sqq.) in a fourfold sense. In the highest form it denotes the ἔνθεος κατοχωτική τε μανία, 7 TO προφητικὸν γένος χρῆται. An example of this sort he finds (p. 114), in the history of Abraham, in Gen. xliii. 10, where it is said: περὶ δὲ ἡλίου δυσμὰς ἔκστασις ἐπέπεσεν ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Αβραάμ. And this form of the ἔκστασις can only be im- parted to the wise man, for to him alone does God draw near, that he may inspire him as his instrument and permeate his soul : μόνῳ δὲ σοφῷ ταῦτ᾽ ἐφαρμόττει, ἐπεὶ καὶ μόνος ὄργανον Θεοῦ ἐστιν ἠχοῦν, κρουόμενον, καὶ πληττόμενον ἀοράτως ὑπ᾽ αὐτοῦ. In the sequel of his representation (p. 119), Philo then describes more minutely the nature of sucha genuine prophetic ecstacy, and gives an allegorical exposition of the passage respecting Abraham. As the day lasts solong as the sun shines, so the earthly lower consciousness endures while the understanding continues active. But when a higher divine power drives back the lower haman power, then the earthly consciousness fades, but a higher and more comprehensive consciousness rises up in the man, The mortal, says Philo, cannot dwell along with the immortal, and therefore must the earthly light evanish at the entrance of the divine light, and it is only when the latter is with- draw that the former comes again into view. This description is so lively and pic- turesque, that undoubtedly we must suppose Philo had not only observed such ecstacies in others, but had also been partaker of them himself. 2 Itis by no means meant that, wherever the words ἐν πνεύματι occur, a state of ecstacy is to be understood: on the contrary, it is only the two forms of expression spe- cified that are so used. The Holy Ghost frequently, yea commonly, appears to operate in the state of consciousness, without producing a remarkable exaltation of the spiritaal life. 490 , ACTS x. 9—16. that he knew not whether that which occurred to him occurred in the body or out of the body. And hence it plainly follows, that the depression or removal of the human consciousness, which how- ever must be conceived as connected with an exaltation of the heavenly consciousness, constitutes the specific character of the ἔκστασις ; during which, too, the Spirit exerted a mighty influ- ence upon the soul. To this ἔκστασις, the state of somnam- bulism bears some resemblance. States which at the least came very near to the ἔκστασις, appear also to have prevailed among the prophets of the Old Testament. Sudden seizure by the power of the Spirit, expressed in the passage before us by the words ἐπέ- πεσεν ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, is indicated by the well-known phrases, mm a sby and sby mm Pp: and Ezekiel, in particular, shows how states of ecstacy were connected with this seizure. Now although such occurrences are represented as operations of grace, yet Paul, who describes them most carefully in his Epistles to the Corinthians, in- timates, that they by no means form the highest stage of develop- rent in the spiritual life ; it is better under the full influence of the Spirit, to be able to maintain’ a state of clear consciousness. (For farther particulars on this subject, see Comm. on | Cor. xiv. 32.) Accordingly we do not find that the Redeemer himself ever ap- peared in states that even bordered upon the ἔκστασις : in him the highest influence of the Spirit was always connected with the clearest consciousness. The sixth hour was one of the usual hours of prayer; and the Jews frequently went to pray upon the flat roof, ἐπὶ τὸ δῶμα, where they were alone under the open sky.—II péa7rewvos occurs no where else in the New Testament ; it signifies very hungry, for πρός fre- quently heightens the signification. In verse 11, the words σκεῦός τι ὡς ὀθόνην, denote something indefinite and general that be- longed to the vision; the appearance perhaps might be compared to a great sari fastened by the corners to the sky. ‘Apy7 stands here, as in xi. 5, in the signification of “ end, extremity,” in which signification it is also to be found among profane writers. The 1 A mistake on this point was the peculiar error in the doctrine of the Montanists respecting the state of ecstacy ; they erroneously regarded this lower form of the revela- tion of the Spirit as the highest, and thus hindered the advancement of the church to a higher life. ACTS X. 9—16. 49] repetition mentioned in verse 16, denotes the certainty and solidity of the instruction imparted by the vision. And here the question presents itself, in what relation the arrange- ments of this vision stood to the laws of food in the Old Testament. (Lev. x. 11.) If, indeed, you suppose that those laws of Moses were not at all designed to suggest higher instruction, and that the vision here described was a mere imagination of Peter, then there isno difficulty in allowing one fancy to be abrogated by means of another." But the dignity of the word of God cannot consist with such suppositions. According to Matt. v. 17, nothing entitles us to choose out portions from the Old Testament, that we may de- prive them of their divine character ; and as little does the New Testament permit the supposition, that events so important as the conversion of the Gentiles, were brought about by the dreaming of an apostle. But according to this stricter view, the New Testa- ment appears in this case to abrogate the Old; although this idea stands opposed to the express declaration of Christ in Matt. y. 17. Now here we might just say, that in Christ all the types of the Old Testament attained their end, that the laws of food were part of these types, and that accordingly in their outward form they have ceased, because they have been spiritually fulfilled. But it is very difficult to make out a real typical character for the laws of food : 1 With much ingenuity Neander (Apost. Zeitalt. p. 8. 92, &c.) handles this oceur- rence. He says: “ There came together two tendencies of his nature, the higher want of his Spirit, the power of the divine, which overcame his Spirit, and the power of the animal want over his lower nature. In this way it happened that the divine and the natural were mingled together, not so, that the divine was confused by the mixture, but so, that the divine employed the reflection of the natural as an image or vebicle for the truth to be revealed. The divine light, which, breaking through the atmosphere of tra- ditional notions, was about to rise in his soul, displayed itself in the mirror of sensuous images that proceeded from the present want of his animal nature.” This representation, however, might be readily misunderstood. In the first place, it might be imagined that Peter's view of the difference between clean and unclean beasts, as well as of the sepa- ration between Jews and Gentiles, was absolutely false, as belonging to the circle of traditional notions. Butthis, on the supposition of the divine authority of all the Old Testament institutions, cannot be allowed; on the contrary, the ordinances respecting unclean beasts, and the separation of the Jews from the Gentiles, though only tem- porary appointments, were yet really valid until the coming of the Messiah, and therefore their abolition for the Messianic times required to be then expressly declared. Again, Neander’s representation might be misunderstood in this way, as if it meant that the feeling of hunger was the real cause of the whole occurrence; while according to his view it was only the subjective handle which divine grace laid hold of, for the purpose of making the apostle acquainted with a point, which was peculiarly difficult to him. 3 492 ACTS XI. 17—29. for although here unclean beasts plainly denote the Gentiles (verse 28), yet they have this reference only because the Gentiles, on account of their eating unclean beasts, were themselves esteemed unclean. The supposition therefore forces itself upon us, that in the distinction between clean and unclean beasts, some other cir- cumstances were looked to. It is difficult indeed in all cases to make this good, but the eating of serpents and other reptiles was probably forbidden, on no other ground than this, that in fact something impure was seen in such disgusting beasts.’ A clear intimation in favour of this idea is furnished in verse 15, where it is said: ἃ ὁ Θεὸς ἐκαθάρισε, σὺ μὴ Koivov. Here the idea of the impurity of certain beasts is recognised, because καθαρίζειν can only be applied to that which is unclean. And it makes no dif- ference, whether you take the word in the sense of ‘‘ making clean,” or “declaring clean,” for the latter necessarily presupposes the former. (Consult. Comm. on Matt. viii. 3.) According to the connexion the aorist has reference to the vision, and the first announcement made in it, θῦσον καὶ φάγε (verse 13); but the reason why at this time, and under these circumstances, the declaration ensued, is to be sought in more general grounds, viz. in the completed redemp- tion, which is regarded as a restitution of the whole creation. The laws of food accordingly from their nature retained their import- ance, only until, by the redemption of Christ, that which occasioned them was overcome. We cannot therefore say that they are here abolished as something opposed to Christianity, but they only ap- pear fulfilled, like all else, by the work of redemption. Vers. 17—22. Peter, still uncertain about the purpose of this vision, received upon the spot an inward notice from the Spirit (€urrev αὐτῷ TO πνεῦμω, see chap. vill. 29), that some strangers were waiting for him. (Verse 19. The common reading ἐνθυμου- μένου lias been rightly set down by Griesbach as inferior to the other reading διενθυμουμένου : this compound is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament, and as the more unusual form, it deserves the preference.—Verse 20. Respecting διίακρί- νεσθαι compare Matt. xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23.—Verse 22. Re- specting χρηματίζειν, see Comm. on Matt. xi. 12.) Vers. 23—29. The behaviour of Cornelius on the arrival of 1 Respecting the degradation of the unconscious ereature, see the remarks made at Romans viii. 18, &e. a ACTS xX. 80—833. 493 Peter at his house (verse 25), shows plainly, how undeveloped his religious views still were. ΤῸ judge by the apostle’s words, his adora- tion was no mere form of courtesy, but he regarded Peter asa being endowed with supernatural powers. Probably therefore he had not vet been able altogether to disengage himself from heathen ideas, and he might suppose Peter to be the son of some god or ahero. Now, as Cornelius notwithstanding this received the Holy Ghost, and that too before baptism (verse 44,) we see here again how incompar- ably more important in the religious life are the desire and inward longing of the heart, than correctness of ideas; it was such feel- ings alone which made the Roman captain so acceptable to God. In verse 25, the codices A.B.D.E. insert τοῦ before εἰσελθεῖν, which, as the more difficult reading, ought to receive the prefer- ence. Yet this connection of the genitive of the infinitive with ἐγένετο, is to be viewed as an extravagant use of this mode of con- struing the infinitive, of which there is no example elsewhere to be found. (See Meyer on this passage.)—Verse 29, ἀναντιῤῥήτως occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Hesychius explains it by ἀναμφιβόλως. The phrase, tie λόγῳ, occurs again in 1 Cor. xv. 2. It may be explained by ἐπὶ supplied; λόγος, like 727 is used in the sense of χρῆμα or πρᾶγμα. "Vers. 80—33. The minuteness with which Cornelius describes his vision, gives to the narrative an air of simplicity, which ren- ders it probable, that the account as communicated to us by Luke, has been drawn from a very excellent source, to be sought for perhaps among the friends of Cornelius himself." (Verse 30. 1 This remark of Olshausen seems to lead to the conclusion that he considered some portions of Scripture as more entitled to credit than others, on account of the sources from which they have been drawn. Such a notion is utterly inconsistent with sound views of inspiration, and would reuder valueless the whole word of God, for who is to decide what portions came from the best sources? Paul gives us the right view, when he says, “ that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Yet the remark of Olshausen embodies a certain amount of truth. The several portions of Scripture, though all equally inspired, yet differ from one another, and all exhibit the impress of the mental peculiari- ties of their respective penmen, who must have written therefore not as mere machines, but as intelligent beings exercising their different powersof mind, ‘The peculiar air of simplicity therefore which pervades this passage, may have originated in the eircum- stance, that Luke, who was very diligent in the investigation of facts, had some document before him, which had been written upon the spot, and which therefore preserved the minutest details. But this could be no reason for our receiving the narrative with pe- culiar favour. The claim of the narrative to our implicit belief, rests altogether upon 494 ACTS X. 34—386. Heinrichs, who is followed too by Meyer, errs, when he understands the words, ἀπὸ τετάρτης ἡμέρας---ἤμην νηστεύων, to mean that Cornelius had been fasting four complete days, down to the time when Peter arrived, for in that case the present tense must have been used ; the meaning rather is: “ I was fasting at the time I received the vision, viz., four days ago, down to the same hour of the day at which we are now speaking.” Meyer, however, differs from Hein- richs in this, that the latter places the vision upon the fourth day of the fast, the former upon the first. Meyer's view is plainly quite untenable, for the idea of the writer is that God, in conse- quence of the disposition first manifested by Cornelius, favoured him with the vision; but this disposition showed itself by means of the long fasting, and consequently the vision must have taken place at the end of it.’ Vers. 34—36. This statement of Cornelius awakened the astonish- ment of Peter at the proceedings of God's grace. (Respecting προσω- πολήπτης, consult Comm. on Matt. xxii. 16.) He saw that the gospel in its comprehensive agency was appointed to draw to itself all those who, whatever nation they might belong to, carried with- in themselves a holy longing and upward striving after God.” This passage is one of those which, through a complete mistake of the depth of gospel principles, are misapplied to the purpose the fact, that Luke wrote by inspiration, though the peculiar hue it wears may have ori- ginated in the manner supposed by Olshausen.—Tr. 1 Meyer’s view may be untenable for the reason stated by Olshausen, but the view of Heinrichs, on the principle which they both hold, is still more so ; for if the fasting con- tinued for four days down to the time of Peter’s arrival, then the vision could not take place on the last day of the fast, as no interval would thus be left for the journey of the messengers to Joppa. But they are plainly both wrong. If, as they both suppose, the fasting continned four days, then these days must not be understood as immediately preceding the arrival of Peter, but as past even before the messengers were dispatched, For four days Cornelius fasted, then he received the vision, then he sent for Peter, who arrived at his house, it is not stated after what interval of time, but he arrived at the same hour of the day at which on some preceding day the vision had taken place. Olshausen himself supposed the fast to have continued only for one day, and the vision to have taken place on that day, viz., four days previously to Peter's arrival, though at the same hour of the day. This is a consistent enough view of the subject. But the pre- position ἀπὸ seems rather to indicate that the fast had continued from the fourth day counting backward, and that the vision appeared on the last day of the fast—Tr. 2 The holy longing and striving after God here spoken of cannot be supposed to be the native growth of man’s own corrupt heart. Doubtless the Spirit of God was at work in the breast of Cornelius, while he fasted and prayed, previously to the visit of Peter; and the desires excited within him were gratified in the good providence of that God, who turns not away from those who seek him. The appetite, as well as the food, in spiritual matters comes from God,—T kr. ACTS X. 834—36. 495 of proving from the Holy Scriptures themselves, the pretended superfluousness of Christianity and the sufficiency of virtue. It has been supposed you may prove from it, that the apostles themselves taught, that the fear of God and (εργάζεσθαι τὴν δικαιο- σύνην) virtuous conduct are perfectly sufficient to guide to bles- sedness, and that for gaining this end there is no need of faith in the specific doctrines of Christianity. But the shallowness of the religious indifference, displayed in these statements, appears plainly from the circumstance, that they ascribe to man, without any help beyond himself, the ability to fear God truly, and to practise righ- teousness in the full sense of the term. And again the connexion of the whole narrative clearly shows, that the position hitherto oc- cupied by Cornelius did not suffice for him, because he now re- ceived baptism ; not to mention that the right view of verse 36 re- quires, that the words δεκτὸς αὐτῳ ἐστι τὸν λόγον be connected together. ‘There is indeed a great difference between those Gen- tiles, who labour according to their knowledge to keep the law, and those who make no such effort (Rom. ii. 13, 14); but the operation of this difference is, that those who do by nature the works of the law, are in the way of being more easily led to the higher stage of spiritual life which the Gospel discloses. The ge- neral principle therefore, that out of Christ there is no salvation, is only confirmed by this passage, which makes the blessing of an earnest faithfulness to the law consist in this, that it leads to Christ. (Hence the expressions φοβεῖς θαι τὸν Θεὸν and ἐργάζεσθαι δικαιο- σύνην denote, according to the connexion, devoutness of a legal kind, the δικαιοσύνη κατὰ νόμον. (On this point see the remarks at Luke i. 6, and Rom. iii. 21.) With respect to the grammatical connexion of verses 835—37, more difficulty has been found in it, than need have been. As. ὃν in verse 90 is wanting in some codices, Tov λόγον has been under- stood by some in the sense of “ this doctrine,” and the passage has been translated “ this doctrine,” viz., that God accepts also pious Gentiles, God has sent or imparted to the Israelites. But first the omission of ὃν is not the reading established by criticism, and again the idea specified does not suit the connexion, for the calling of the Gentiles into the church of Christ had not hitherto been seen to be grounded in the principles of the Gospel. Neither can the conjectural reading of ὡς for ὃν at all make good its claim, as it 496 ACTS x. 37—43. is wholly destitute of critical authority. It would be better to de- cide in favour of the connexion of dv λόγον with ὑμεῖς οἴδατε in the 37th verse, which has been defended, not only by Heumann and Bolten, but also by Heinrichs and Kuinoel.' With this view, however, there are two important difficulties connected, viz., first the parenthesis δυτός ἐστι πάντων κύριος, and secondly the clause that follows τὸ γενόμενον ῥῆμα, which must be taken as in apposi- tion with λόγος, so far removed from it. On the other hand, every thing is plain, when you understand ὃν λόγον as the accusative absolute, and connect it with δεκτός αὐτῷ ἐστι. The expression, dv ἀπέστειλε τοῖς υἱοῖς ᾿Ισραήλ, must then be understood in this manner: which word he sent first of all to the children of Is- rael, but as Christ is Lord of all, it appertains also to all men, πάν- τῶν being taken as masculine, and not as neuter to denote the universe.2 Vers. 37—43. Peter next brings forward an account of the lead- ing occurrences in the life of Christ, and in conclusion presents him to the view of his heathen hearers, asthe judge and Saviour even of the Gentile world. It is worthy of notice that Peter here, in the words ὑμεῖς οἴδατε, presupposes the history of Christ to be already known to Cornelius and his friends: ὑμεῖς refers to the πάντες ἡμεῖς of verse 33. It is not improbable therefore, as we have already intimated at verse 1, that Cornelius was in a state of inward conflict, uncertain whether he should regard Christianity as of divine origin or not. And from this uncertainty might proceed 1 Meyer too has decided in favour of this view: he will have the passage so under- stood that three accusations are dependent upon οἴδατε in verse 37, viz. τὸν λόγον in ver. 36, ῥῆμα in ver. 37, and ᾿Ιησοῦν in ver. 38; but the highly forced character of this connexion appears in the translation which he appends, not to mention that, accord- ing to this view, the clause οὗτός ἐστι πάντων κύριος must be taken as a parenthesis, although the connection requires the main emphasis to fall upon it: It is upon the principle that Christ is Lord of all, that the warrant rests for the calling of all. My view of the passage has been completely misunderstood by Meyer. It does not make the accusative τὸν λόγον to be governed by καταλαιβανόμαι, in verse 44, but to stand con- nected with δεκτὸς αὑτῷ ἐστι, in this sense: “he is acceptable to him in reference to the word, which God sent to the Israelites, that is, so as to have part in this word.” 2 Winer in his Gram. p. 499, decides in favour of the supposition that the construc- tion is left incomplete (anacoluthon ), and remarks in opposition to my explanation, that it would deprive the words which follow of all proper grammatical connexion. I can- not see where the learned man misses the connexion in what follows: if you only under- stand the words, od ros ἐστι πάντων κύριος, as forming a sentence by themselves in the sense, he is Lord of all, and therefore also your Lord, the discourse moves on in the very best connexion. ACTS X. 44--- δ. 497 his earnest prayer, which God on account of his sincerity regarded, and in an extraordinary manner gave him full assurance respecting the way in which he should go. The phrase καταδυναστευόμενοι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου in verse 88 occurs only here, being used as a description of demoniacs. ‘The verb occurs also in James ii. 6. It may be remarked that Peter, without any special occasion, touches here upon the doctrine of the Devil, even before Gentiles who did not know it, which is not fa- vourable to the theory of accommodation.—Ver. 41. προχειρο- tovéw is to be found nowhere else in the New Testament.—Re- specting συμφαγεῖν and συμπίειν, see Luke xiii. 26.—It is a most important idea in these verses, that Christ is appointed κρίτης ζώντων καὶ νεκρῶν. Of this thought itself mention has already been made at Matt. xxv. 31; John v. 27; see also 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. 1. 5, &e. And the expression here chosen occurs again in 2 Tim. iv. 1, and 1 Pet. iv. 5,1 in which latter epistle the lan- guage manifestly is quite similar to that of Paul. The only ques- tion that still presents itself is this, what is meant by the distinction between the living and the dead ? Is this what is declared: “‘ Christ judges not only those, who shall still be alive when he returns to this world, but also those already dead?” This will certainly appear very improbable, when it is considered that in this view all the pious of preceding times would be styled dead, while yet the Re- deemer expressly says of them: ‘God is not the God of the dead,” “but of the living;” they all live tohim. Lukexx.38. Comp.Comm. on Matt. xxii. 32. And besides, the division of mankind according to this view would be very unequal, because the number of those who have died in the course of thousands of years, does not form ἃ proper comparison at all with those who shall be alive at the end of the world. Certainly therefore it is more correct to understand the diving of those who enjoy spiritual life, and the dead of those who re- main spiritually dead ; which makes the distinction a more im- portant one, and renders the phrase parallel to all those passages which treat of the judgment of the good and the bad. Vers. 44—48. It is quite a peculiarity, in connection with the account of the conversion of Cornelius, that the Holy Ghost, who manifested himself here also by the gift of tongues, γλώσσαις λα- 1 In the passage in 1 Pet. iv. 5, the connexion points primarily to those who are literally dead, but to such as are at the same time spiritually dead, VOL. IV. 21 498 acts x. 44—48. λεῖν, was imparted Jefore baptism. A consideration of the mean- ing of baptism and its relation to the gift of the Spirit, makes this appear a remarkable occurrence ; for it is first in baptism, and in regeneration which coincides with it, that the new man in whom the Holy Ghost dwells is fully born. We must supppose, in the case of Cornelius, that regeneration took place before baptism ; as indeed the baptism of adults always presupposes faith, and there- fore also the commencement of regeneration. The outward act of baptism, therefore, is not to be regarded as absolutely indispens- able ; and accordingly the church has always considered unbaptized persons, who suffered martyrdom for the faith, as having received in the baptism of blood the baptism of water and of the Spirit at the same time. Still however there is something singular in the case before us: there is nothing similar to it to be found: and probably therefore the correct view of the subject is, that this unusual pro- ceeding took place for the sake of Peter.’ It appears from his sub- sequent conduct that the immediate reception of the Gentiles into the church of Christ had always appeared to him a matter of diffi- culty ; and therefore in this first decisive case the divine compas- sion came to his help, and revealed to him in an undoubted manner that the Gentiles were not to be excluded from the noblest privi- lege of believers, the gift of the Holy Ghost. The importance of this circumstance Peter himself afterwards (chap. xi. 15) expressly sets forth. The view of Meyer that the communication of the Holy Ghost before baptism, has its ground “ only in the elevation of the mind to the proper pitch for receiving the gift,” is untenable ; be- cause this might be the case with many, to whom nevertheless the Spirit was not imparted before baptism. This takes place not at all by an internal necessity, but in consequence of a free action of God." 1 Some further remarks will be made on the author's views of baptism and regenera- tion at chap. xvi. 15, where be more fully expresses them. He seems in general to re- gard regeneration as the consequence of baptism, and yet in this paragraph he allows that the inward change of regeneration should at least be begun before the outward rite of baptism takes place. It is plain too from his remarks on Lydia, xvi. 15, that he con- siders the very first inclination of the mind to God as the result of a divine influence. Faith and a change of heart, then, ought to go before baptism. They are the proper preparation for it; and if they are wanting, baptism will be found altogether unable to produce them. Baptism will never of itself regenerate asoul. The author seems to overlook the distinction between the ordinary and extraordinary influences of the Spirit. There were ordinary influences, such as Lydia experienced, which were absolutely ne- ACTS ΣΙ. 1—18. A499 § 8. FIRST PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF THE GENTILE CHRIS- TIANS. PAUL'S STAY IN ANTIOCH, AND JOURNEY TO JERUSALEM. (Acts xi. 1—380.) Vers. 1—18. In what a momentous aspcct this event of the en- trance of the Gentiles into the church of God was viewed, plainly appears from the account that follows. Not only all believers in Jerusalem, but even the apostles themselves, were unable rightly to explain the conduct of Peter, and therefore they called him to account. I[t is plain therefore that they occupied essentially the same position, and it would probably have been difficult for Peter to justify himself fully before them, if he had not been able to ap- peal to such extraordinary occurrences. ‘The simple statement of them, however (xi. 4—17), sufficed toconvince the whole body of believers, that it was the will of God the Gentiles should be received into the church without being placed under the Mosaic law. Yet it appears, from the continuance of proceedings respecting the Gentile Christians, that the doubts of the stricter Jewish party were not absolutely set at rest by Peter's statement. (See Comm. on chap. xv.) As the narrative of Peter agrees entirely with the ac- count already given, it needs no special explanation. In verse 3, διακρίνεσθαι denotes not simply “ἢ to be uncertain,” as in verse 12, but also “to dispute.” It is so used in the Septuagint in Ezek. xx. 35.—In verse 15 it is not necessary, because Peter had already spoken a loug time, to understand ἄρξασθαι as a pleonasm, for the word only presupposes the intention of proceeding yet much farther.—In ver. 16 there is a reference to chap. i. 5.—Verse 18. Regarding dpaye, see Matt. vii. 20, xvii. 26. It must be carefully distinguished from the word of interrogation dpa ye in Acts viii. 30.- -On δοῦναι μετάνοιαν, see Acts y. 31. cessary to the very first right feeling, and which of course must precede the faith and baptism of adults, not follow them. But there was also in primitive times an exiraordi- nary influence of the Spirit, which displayed itself in a palpable manner, and which was often exhibited after baptism. This extraordinary influence, though following baptism, was not connected with it, our author allows, by any internal necessity, but depended altogether upon the will of God, And much less could the ordinary influence that pro- duced faith, and that of course preceded baptism, be itself in any sense a consequence of baptism, The regeneration of faith should always go before baptism, and it is vain to look to baptism fur it,— Tr, 212 500 ACTS XI. 19—24. Vers. 19—24. This first attempt to preach the Gospel to Gen- tiles was speedily followed by others ; and it was in Antioch first, beyond the limits of Palestine, that Greeks were admitted into the church. Kuinoel supposes that this happened in consequence of the intelligence of the conversion of Cornelius, but there is not a word to indicate this. Ou the contrary the mission of Barnabas to Antioch makes it more probable, that they had ventured there on their own responsibility to baptize Gentiles. ΤῸ prevent however the abuses which might possibly in this way creep in, the mother church sent down Barnabas on a visitation. This notice is very important, because it discloses the apostolic conception of the church. The apostles did not allow churches to spring up here and there in a State of isolation, but they connected them all with themselves, and with the living organization which they represented. The church as an organic whole, as the body of the Lord, needs a controlling power, an ecclesiastical government. With respect to the mention made of those who were scattered abroad by the persecution after the death of Stephen,’ it is not Luke's object here to nurrate this circumstance as for the first time ; he simply looks back to it, as something that is past (see Comm. on Acts ix. 30), in order to show that even in Antioch the Gospel was at first preached only to Jews : it was not ull the arrival of some men of Cyprus and Cyrene that an alteration took place. Who these men were is not known ; perhaps they might be the individuals named in chap. xiii. 1: at all events they were Jews or proselytes, but in their native country, holding intercourse with honourable Gentiles, they had adopted milder views of their position in reference to the divine economy of grace. In verse 19, the phrase διασπαρέντες ἀπὸ θλίψεως is best under- stood with Winer (Gram. p. 356) to mean, * on the occasion of the 1 Winer, in his Grammar, p 374, hesitates whether ἐπὶ with the dative Στεφάνῳ, in verse 19, should not rather be understood in the sense of against. It seems preferable, however, to give it the meaning of after. The reading Στεφάνου is a subsequent cor- rection, and deserves no notice. Olshausen gives no reason for preferring the translation of ἐπὶ which he proposes. Doubtless there are examples of this meaning, as in Xenoph. Cyr. ii. 8, 7, ἀνέστη ἐπ' αὐ- τῷ φεραύλας. But the more common meaning of the word is “ upon, regarding, in refer- ence to, on account οἱ, against,” and such a sense is more suitable to the scope of this passage, because the persecution did not arise after Stephen’s death. It began while he was alive. It began with him, or on his account, and he was the first victim. It con- tinued no doubt after his death, and multitudes were then scattered abroad, But still it is not quite correct to say that the persecution took place after his death,—Tr. ACTS XI. 25, 26. 501 persecution.” —Verse 20. The question here presents itself, whether the reading of the textus receptus ἑλληνιστάς, or the reading ἕλ- Anvas, deserves the preference. The greater number of manu- scripts certainly support the former reading, but A.D., and several versions and Fathers, present €\Aqvas. Besides, the connexion absolutely requires this reading. The preaching of the Gospels to Hellenists, that is, to Jews who spoke Greek, or to proselytes of the gate, could not at all be brought forward as a new thing, for it had already taken place at the first Pentecost. But the word ἑλ- ληνιστής can by no means be employed to denote Gentile or hea- then Greeks.—Verse 21. yelp κυρίου corresponds to min, See Gesenius under the word -j.—Verse 22. On εἰς or “πρὸς τὸ οὖς ἀκούειν see Comm. on Luke i. 44, xi1.3; Matt. x. 27.—The words διελθεῖν ἕως intimate that Barnabas, even on the way to Antioch, had churches to visit—Verse 23. πρόθεσις must be understood in the sense of “ a firin purpose, a resolution of the will,” as in 2 Tim. i. 10. Vers. 25, 26. Barnabas, who appears to have been the first to recognise the importance of Paul to the Christian cause, did not im- mediately return to Jerusalem, but probably sent a written statement in reference to the commission with which he had been entrusted. He rather set out for Tarsus, brought Paul thence, and remained with him a whole year in Antioch. Through their influence Chris- tianity spread uncommonly, and it was here first that the name of “ Christians,’ which afterwards became the predominant one, ori- ginated. This name proceeded from the Gentiles, and, as the form of it shows, from the Romans, to whom the acknowledgment of Christ appeared to be the distinguishing feature of the new sect : they were called ΝΝαξωρᾶιοι by the Jews, to indicate their despica- ble origin. (Acts xxiv. 5.) The name certainly did not take its rise among the Christians themselves, because it is not used in the New Testament in a good sense.' (See Acts xxvi. 28; 1 Pet. iv. 14.) In reference to χρηματίζειν consult what is said in the Commentary at Matt. ii. 12. The meaning of the word here “ to 1 See Tacitus, Ann. xv. 44, auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat. But at a later period the Chris- tians took the name to themselves, and frequently, as is plain from the Fathers, made use of a play upon the word χρηστοί, which, pronounced according to the Itacism sounds like χριστιανοί, to show that indeed their name declared they were good people- 502 ACTS ΧΙ. 27—30. give a name,” which is very common among profane writers after Polybius and Diodorus, occurs in no other part of the New Testa- ment but Rom. vii. 3. It is used especially where mention is made of giving names or titles of office, according to the radical meaning of the word, “ to manage affairs of state.” Vers. 27—30. There is only one circumstance connected with the time of Paul's sojourn in Antioch mentioned by Luke, viz. the arrival of a prophet named Agabus (according to Grotius from 333, to love), who foretold that a famine was at hand in Palestine. τι (See a particular consideration of the nature of the New Testament prophets in Comm. at 1 Cor. xiv.) Since we know that in the fourth year of Claudius Caesar a famine did prevail in Palestine (three other such calamities befel Greece and Italy under the go- vernment of the same Ceesar), we thus obtain, as has already been remarked in the introduction to the Acts of the Apostles, an im- portant chronological datum According to the reckoning of Hug, which in the main we follow, the fourth year of Claudius coincides with the forty-fifth year after the birth of Christ.. The delegates from Antioch might perhaps reach Jerusalem about the time of Easter, to deliver their gifis of love. (Compare Hemsen’s Apostle Paul, p. 50. Note, in reference to Acts xii. 4 and 23.) From the fact that they delivered these to the presbyters, and not to the apostles, it cannot be concluded that the latter had left the city : the account that follows rather contradicts this conclusion. But we perceive from this circumstance, that the apostles had already completely relinquished the government of the church, and com- mitted it to the hands of the elders. So soon as the apostles be- gan to labour out of the city, although they returned to it again as their head-quarters, it became indispensable to establish a regular government for the church. Yet that the apostles always retained the supreme direction of the whole, is manifestly apparent from Acts xv. 2. 1 According to the account of Josephus (Archaeo. xx. 2,6, and 5, 2),queen Helena of Adiabene had corn brought from Egypt and distributed among the poor. ACTS XII. 1—2. 503 § 4. PETER'S IMPRISONMENT AND DELIVERANCE. HEROD'S DEATH. (Acts xii. 1—25.) During the continuance of Paul and Barnabas in Jerusalem, re- specting the length of which’ nothing is stated (see chap. xii. 25), there occurred a new persecution of the Christians, in which one of the apostles themselves suffered martyrdom. This is the last narrative in Acts which has any reference to Peter, and perhaps Luke recorded it, only because Paul was present at the time, aud might often therefore have made mention of it. Besides, the contrast between the deliverance of Peter and the terrible death of the per- secutor of believers, contained something so striking, that for that reason too Luke might suppose he ought not to withhold this oc- currence from his readers. Meyer's idea that the things men- tioned respecting Peter in what follows, took place during Paul's journey to Jerusalem, and not while he was there, is improba- ble, because the distance to Antioch was not so considerable. The supposition that Paul may have first visited the other churches of Palestine, and therefore have been very late in reaching Jeru- salem, is not favoured by what is said in chap. xi. 30, xii. 1—25. Vers. 1, 2. The new persecution against the Christians pro- ceeded from King Herod Agrippa. After Caligula’s death he re- ceived from Claudius, who favoured him greatly, the sovereignty over Judea and Samaria (Joseph. Arch. xix. 4). This circum- stance enabled him to persecute the Christians in Jerusalem itself, and James the elder, the son of Zebedee, was put to death there. Of the ministry and: adventures of this man nothing further 15 known : only Clement of Alexandria (ia a fragment of his Ὑ ποτύ- mwoes preserved in Eusebius Hist. Eccl. ii. 9), states that the ac- 1 Bengel (ordo temporum, p. 274) fixed it, without any ground, at three years, be- cause he had dated the conversion of Paul so very early. If the interval Lad been so long, we should certainly have had more accounts of it. (Compare Hemsen’s Apostle Paul, p. 51.) Besides, if we suppose as we must, that the journey of Paul to Jerusa- lem mentioned in Galat. ii. 1, is not the one here recorded, then it becomes the more probable that the stay on this occasion was only short and unimportant, and therefore was not counted by the apostle in the enumeration of his journeys to Jerusalem. (See a more particular consideration of this point at Gal, ii. 1.) 504 ACTS ΧΙ]. 83—11. cuser of James when he was led to death, agonized by the gnawings of conscience, professed faith himself in the crucified Redeemer, be- sought the forgiveness of James, received it, and then suffered martyrdom along with him. Vers. 83—5. To gratify the people, whose first goodwill towards the Christians (Acts ii. 47) had speedily changed into hatred, Herod went farther, and about the time of the Paschal feast, threw Peter also into prison, probably with the view of exhibiting in his execution a very startling example to the numerous visitors on the occasion of the feast. Peter was guarded according to the custom of the Romans: four times four soldiers had the charge of him, changing according to the night-watches. Two of these according to verse 6 kept watch in the prison itself, and two bé- fore the door of it. Meanwhile the church prayed fervently to God for the imprisoned apostle. ᾿Εκτενής is often applied to prayer, as in Luke xxii. 44; Acts xxvi. 7. It expresses the spi- ritual effort put forth in earnest prayer. Vers. 6—11. The account which follows of the deliverance of Peter from imprisonment, illustrates the shorter account of a simi- lar occurrence which is communicated at chap. v. 17, &c.; and it also readily admits of being compared with the wonderful deliver- ance of Paul and Silas from imprisonment at Philippi, recorded in chap. xvi. 26, &c. An impartial comparison of these narratives may perhaps leave it uncertain for a moment, whether real visible appearances of angels are meant in them ; and this again accounts for the fact, that we find the more recent interpreters adopting very different views of these occurrences. According to Hezel, it was a thunder-storm combined with an earthquake which delivered Peter, and this natural phenomenon was described by him after the Jewish mode of speaking as an angel. According to Eichhorn,‘ who is followed by Heinrichs, Peter was delivered by Christian friends, or by the keeper of the prison himself, but he did not well know himself to whom he owed his deliverance, and therefore supposed he must ascribe it to a divine messenger. Kuinoel expresses himself unde- cidedly ; while all the older interpreters understood the angelic ap- pearance in the literal sense. Now with respect to the first view, it is undeniable that natural phenomena of a certain kind are styled 1 Compare Eichhorn in the ‘ Allgem, Biblioth, der bibl. Literatur. Bd. iii. p. 361, ἄς. ACTS XII. 6—11. 505 angels (comp. Comm. on John v. 4); and there can be no doubt that in chap. xvi. 26, &c.,it is an earthquake only that must be thought of, for even the text refers to nothing else ; but the representation made in the passage before us does not permit this supposition, because the 7th and 8th verses describe the angel as acting quite like a per- son: the like description is never found, where natural powers are styled angels. Far more plausible is the other view, which supposes Peter himself not to have known how his deliverance was effected. This idea appears to be favoured by the words in verse 9, οὐκ ἤδει, ὅτι ἀληθές ἐστι TO γινόμενον διὰ τοῦ ay- γέλου, taken in connection with verse 11, according to which latter passage Peter first comes to himself in the street, and ap- pears now to conclude that an angel must have delivered him. But these words cannot establish that view, because in the j/irst place, it was contrary to the principles of the Christians to deliver either themselves or others from such dangers by fraudulent artifices. But certainly on this view it must be supposed that either the jailor or the soldiers were bribed by Peter’s deliverer ; and should it be said that the jailor himself might be favourably disposed to the apostles, yet not the less would he have violated his duty, if he had let the prisoners escape. Again, this view gives no explanation of the unconscious condition of Peter: amid so many occurrences and incidents, he could not fail to overcome the oppression of sleep, and to recognise the friend that was helping him. Jn fine, the fact that the soldiers did not awake, as is plain from verse 18, till the morning, but little accords with this view. They must therefore have been thrown into so profound a slumber by asleeping- draught, which would make the hypothesis rather complicated, for we are debarred from supposing that they were privy to the transaction by the 19th verse, which informs us that the king caused them to be punished.!’ The only matter therefore which can properly be made a question here, is whether we are to suppose a real appear- ance of an angel or only a vision. Now certainly the occurrence did bear some resemblance to an cestatic vision, for Peter himself took 1 The force of this reason is not very fully brought out by the author. His meaning doubtless is, that the punishment which unfaithfulness was certain to incur, and which in this case it did incur, would either have prevented the soldiers from being accessory to the escape of Peter, or if they were privy to it, would have led them ty consult their own safety by a timely flight.—Tr. 506 ACTS xr. 12—]9. this view of it for a time (verse 9); but the reality of the effects which were connected with it (which reality is denoted by the ex- pression ἀληθὲς εἶναι in vers. 9 and 11) does not permit the sup- position of a mere vision, ὅραμα, and it was on this very ground that Peter himself came to the conclusion that he had been favoured with an actual visit from an angel. A mere mental vision is never accompanied with physical effects. ‘That he might be uncer- tain however for a moment, whether it was a vision he saw or a real angelic appearance, is to be explained from the fact, that every manifestation from the higher order of things is attended with a powerful excitement in the soul, which produces a state of mind akin to ecstacy. And this may easily render it uncertain whether the whole be something purely internal, or whether there be also some- thing outward : the grand criterion in favour of the latter is the ap- pearance of real visible results. Ver. 7. Some codices, instead of the stronger word πατάξας, have the milder νύξας. The stronger word, it is probable, appeared to many transcribers not quite suitable to an angel.—Ver. 11. προσ- δοκία stands for the thing expected, namely, the act of punishment. Vers. 12—19. Peter repaired, after he had set himself right as to the neighbourhood where he was, to the residence of a cer- tain woman Mary, where he knew that the disciples were in the habit of meeting. According to the concurrent view of all in- terpreters, this Mary was the mother of the Evangelist Mark, who is mentioned here by his full name John Mark. The great preci- sion of the account given of the arrival of Peter furnishes a proof of its originality : perhaps it was obtained from Mark himself. Fur- ther there is presented to us here at this early period, an example of assemblies of Christians held during the night: these were pro- bably introduced at first only for the purpose of eluding observa- tion when they met and separated, but afterwards in a securer state, they were retained for a length of time, on account of the greater solemnity of nocturnal meetings. Yet it was these meetings which not only gave occasion to the heathens to fabricate many wicked reports, but also in all probability made it easy for the immoral Gnostic par- ties to practise theirexcesses. The church therefore acted wisely in forbidding, at a later period, all assemblies during the night.! 1 Compare Bingham origg. vol. vy. p. 329, sqq. ACTS ΧΙΙ. 12—19. 507 A difficulty is presented in verse 15, in which it is stated that the disciples who were assembled, on being assured by the maid Rhoda that Peter was at the door, exclaim: ὁ ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. We have already, at Matt. xviii. 10, referred to this pas- sage, and intimated that it expresses the idea of guardian angels, who are assigned to each individual person. It has indeed been tried to take the word ἄγγελος here in the sense of messenger, but it is obvious that the connexion is altogether opposed to this idea, because it could not be conceived, that Peter should have sent a mes- senger out of the prison during night. It might be imagined however that ἄγγελος here, like πνεῦμα in Luke xxiv. 39, bears the signification of “ apparition, phantom ;” and in this case the dis- ciples might have supposed that the spirit of Peter appeared to them before his approaching death, as if bidding them farewell, or giving them a sure premonition of his decease. But, in the first place there is no indication in the Bible, that such appearances of the soul during the life-time of a man were considered possible ; and again, it not only cannot be proved, but in the nature of the case it is improbable, that the word ἄγγελος should be used to ex- press this idea. The phrase ἄγγελος αὐτοῦ therefore cannot well be understood otherwise than as meaning “ his guardian angel,’ so that here again we find the idea indicated in Matt. xviii. 10. In the exposition of our Lord’s words occurring in that passage, we left it undetermined, whether these guardian angels were to be con- sidered as assigned to each individual person, or as the representa- tives of certain larger bodies, whole nations for example, or quar- ters of the earth. The passage before us plainly favours the former idea, because the Apostle Peter has an angel attributed to himself alone. In this shape the idea was taken up by the church in the first century (compare the treatise of Schmidt referred to at Matt. xvili. 101), for they assigned to every man not only a good, but also an evil angel. But how far these ideas can be reckoned as belonging to the specific circle of Christian doctrine, is certainly a matter of question, because the exclamation in the text proceeds from persons who cannot be regarded as authorities by us. They were indeed believers, and were under the influence of the Holy 1 Schmidtii historia dogmatis de angelis tutelaribus, in Illgen’s Denkschrift. Leipz. 1817, 508 ACTS ΧΙ. 12—19. Ghost, but it is only to the apostles, we are warranted to ascribe such an influence of the Spirit as excluded all admixture of un- certain and one-sided popular notions. Certainly the popular view of guardian angels here expressed is grounded upon a say- ing of Christ, but this, as we have seen, is presented in too general a shape, for a firm doctrinal principle to be derived from it. I feel therefore most inclined, according to the intimation already made in the Comm. at Matt. xviii. 10, to suppose that there is here ex- pressed the thought that there lives in the world of spirit a pre- existing ideal of every individual, to be realized in the course of his development, and that the higher consciousness, which dwells in man here below, stands in vital connexion with the related pheno- mena in the spiritual world. In the case where a human conscience resigns itself to the influence of evil, its development in evil will likewise be completed in the kindred existences that corres- pond to it in the world of evil.’ Verse 12. The word συνιδών is not to be referred to the reviving consciousness of Peter, but to the consideration of what was around him, agreeably to the sense it bears in chap. xiv. 6 Otherwise there would be a manifest tautology between this and ver. 11, where mention has already been made of the return of perfect con- sciousness. t This is avery strange idea. The author does not attempt to furnish any argument in its support, nor is it easy to see where such argument could be found. At the pas- sage in Matthew to which reference is made, he throws out the same idea, though with more hesitation, and describes the angels mentioned as corresponding to Zoroaster’s Fervers. Tlese imaginary existences of the Mediau Reformer were the original arche- types of ull rational beings, and particularly of men. They existed before men, but with a view to their existence, and every man has one of them mystically united to himself, his original spiritual double self. Among the Parsees every man sincerely adores his Ferver. The whole is a mere fancy, and Olshausen’s idea is no better. It is a needless and ground- less mystification. There may not, as le argues, be ground in the words of our Lord, Mutt. xviii. 10, for the inference that each individual has a guardian angel ; and if, for the reason stated by our author, we are not warranted to regard the words of those who were assembled in the house of Mary as more definitely settling the question, surely the natural inference is that, without assigning individual ange!s to individual men, we should rest satisfied with the general principle that the angels do take an interest in the affairs of this world. Because the Scriptures only teach the general doctrine of the guardianship of angels, and do not assign particular angels to particular ‘men, are we therefore warranted to jump to the conclusion that every man has an “ alter ego,” ano- ther self, in the world of spirits, growing with his growth and forming the same habits ? The words of our Lord seem to refer to the same truth as the apostle does in Heb. i. 14, Are they not all ministering spirits sent forth to minister to them, &c.—Tr. ACTS ΧΙΙ, 20—25. 509 It is in this passage that James, the brother of the Lord, is first presented as an important personage in the church at Je- rusalem.1_ He is expressly distinguished in verse 17 from all the other brethren, and to him first information of the occurrence which had taken place is sent. Undoubtedly therefore he already stood forth distinguished as a bishop among the presbyters, as leader of the whole body. The name ἐπίσκοπος indeed as indicative of the first among the presbyters, may have come into use at a subse - quent period, but certainly in all churches of any considerable magnitude the office very early existed, for their affairs must by all meaus have required a guiding head.? In ver. 19 the word ἀπαχ- θῆναι must be understood, like the Latin “ ducere,” in the sense of being “ led away to punishment.” By itself it might mean sim- ply being led away to prison; but the preceding word dvaxpivas manifestly shows that Herod had condemned the soldiers upon the spot. Vers. 20—25. In contrast with the miraculous deliverance of 1 That no other James than the brother of the Lord is here referred to, is undoubted, because the elder James, the brother of John, was already killed (xii. 2) ; and the other apostle of this name, the son of Alpheus, receives no further notice in history. 2 Olshausen here allows that at first bishops and presbyters were the same. And in fact it admits of no doubt, that in the New Testament the two words are applied to the same individuals. See Acts xx, 17 and 28;1 Tim. iii. 1; Phil.i.1; Titus i.5—7. The use of ἐπίσκοπος in the singular, to denote the first among,the presbyters, arose after the days of the apostles; there is not an instance of it to be found in any apostolic writing. That the office of a bishop, as defined by our author, existed in the primitive chureh, cannot be proved ; and certainly the argument suggested by him that it was in- dispensable, is devoid of all weight. The name πρεσβύτεροι was borrowed from the offices of the Jewish synagogue, and the name ἐπέσκοποι was taken from the common stock of the Greek language, in which it dected individuals entrusted with the manage- ment of any business; and the difference between the two names did not lie in their being applied to different office-bearers, but in the fact that the former expressed the dig- nity of the office, and the latter the nature of its duties. The history of these two words furnishes a striking instance of the capricious changes which language ofter undergoes ; for the word πρεσβύτεροι, the more dignified expression, analogous to senators and des- criptive of the reverence due to the men, was degraded to denvte a lower order of office- bearers, while the word ἐπίσκοποι, descriptive of the charge with which the presbyters were entrusted, was elevated to denote an order of men who had charge of the presbyters themselves. From denoting the oversight which the presbyters took of the church, the only idea suggested in the Scriptures, it was perverted to denote the oversight which a class unknown to the Scriptnres took of the presbyters. ‘The reference to James in the chapter before us, furnishes no ground for the conclusion Olshausen has drawn ; for whatever may be the position which he occupied in the church at Jerusalem, it is to be remembered that he was an apostle, and the question of the authority vested in the apostles is a totally different one from the relations subsisting among the ordinary office- bearers of the church.—TR. 510 ACTS ΧΙ. 20—258. Peter, the evangelist now exhibits the appalling fate of the perse- cutor of the children of God, for he proceeds at once shortly to narrate the circumstances in which the punishment of the Almighty overtook him, and then this account is concluded by a short general statement.'—Luke first mentions (verse 20) a difference that took place between Herod and the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon ; it was this probably, together with the games, which brought the king to Caesarea (Stratonis.) The presence of Herod at Caesarea, for the purpose of attending the sports there, is mentioned also by Josephus (Archaeo. xix. 7, 2), although he says nothing of any quarrel with the Tyrians and Sidonians. It is probable matters had not proceeded to any open rupture between the parties, but had only gone the length of exasperation on the part of the king. Cer- tainly the Romans would not have permitted a war in the imme- diate neighbourhood of their territories. But even the displeasure of the king was regarded by the inhabitants of the sea-port towns, as so little in accordance with their interest, that they sued for peace by sending deputies, who secured the good graces of Blastus the king’s favourite. In ver. 20, θυμομαχεῖν does not denote, as elsewhere it does, ‘ to fight, to wage war with fury.” but ‘to be exasperated in mind.” The word has this sense in Polybius and Plutarch.—‘O ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος is equivalent to cubicularius, comp. viii. 27.—The words διὰ τὸ τρέ- φεσθαι κ. τ. λ., point out the ground on which the inhabitants of the maritime and trading towns dreaded the hostility of Herod; they were afraid that he might injure them in their commercial interests. With respect to the account which follows in verses 21—23, Josephus, in the passage above referred to, describes the occurrence in substantially the same manner. Upon the second day of the public games, the king appeared in splendid attire, and sat down upon his throne (βῆμα.) The acclamations which saluted him on the occasion were probably raised by the deputies of the Tyrians and Sidonians, together with their retinue; for the Jews abhorred such proceedings as idolatry. And while the king was witnessing the games, Josephus mentions further, that an owl perched itself over his head upon-a rope, which was stretched for the purpose of drawing a screen over the stage as a protection from the sun; the 1 Regarding the historical incidents here referred to, consult the excellent remarks of Tholuck in his Glaubw. der evang. Gesch. p. 165, &e. ACTS: X1rr. 1. 511 king regarded it as an evil omen, fell sick, and died after five days of a disease of the bowels. The statement of Luke (σκωληκόβρωτος γενόμενος) may be regarded as describing more minutely what is mentioned by Josephus; but that no visible appearance of an angel is indicated by the words, ἐπάταξεν αὐτὸν ἄγγελος κυρίου, nor sudden death thus produced, is sufficiently obvious from the con- nexion of these words with the other phrase, γενόμενος σκωληκό--- Bpwtos. The angel denotes here just the invisible divine influence, which punished the pride of the king, who received with satisfaction the idolatrous reverence, and gave him over to those sufferings which fell upon him. In Acts xiii. 1, the same idea is expressed by the phrase, yelp κυρίου, comp. Comm. on John i. 52, v. 4.—According to verses 24, 25, John Mark joined himself to the deputies of the church of Antioch, who were returning thither from Jerusalem, viz., Barnabas and Saul, and came with them. § 5. PAUL'S FIRST MISSIONARY JOURNEY. (Acts xiii. 1—xiv. 28.) Although Christianity had already spread from Jerusalem through Palestine, and beyond the limits of Palestine, still the church continued a stranger to formal missionary effort. Casual occur- rences had hitherto brought about the diffusion of the Gospel, par- ticularly the persecutions of the faithful in Jerusalem. (Acts viii. 2.) It was from Antioch that teachers were first sent forth, with the definite purpose of spreading Christianity, and organizing churches with regular institutions. (Acts xiy. 23.) These commis- sioned instructors too maintained a connexion with the church, from which they had been deputed ; they sent accounts to them of their suc- cess ; they returned to them after the completion of their journey, and they also doubtless received from them assistance of different kinds.’ 1 This circumstance is in the highest degree important ; it lets us see that the apostles proceeded upon the principle laid downin Rom. x. 14: “how shall they preach except they be sent.” The fact of being thus sent is not to be sought, merely in a subjective inclination, which is ascribed to a supposed movement of the Spirit, but in a regular commission received from the church. Here the church in Antioch sent forth the mes- sengers in an orderly manner; and thus these messengers themselves acquired an objective support, and the new cliurehes became connected with the church univer- 3 O12 ACTS xii. 1. As Jerusalem had been the central point of missionary effort to the Jewish Christians, so Antioch after this period assumed the like posi- tion in reference to the Gentile Christians ; the two cities formed the main poles of life in the primitive apostolic chureh.’ The first missionary journey of Paul extended by way of Cyprus only to some of the south-eastern districts of Asia Minor. It was, us it were, the first timid trial that was hazarded, to carry the Gos- pel to a distance beyond the limits of the Holy Land. And we can easily imagine that some uncertainty was at first felt as to the success of such journeys. When one considers that a few un- learned and unknown individuals went forth into the wide heathen world, without any outward help or support, preaching a crucified Saviour, the Son of God, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness ; then indeed nothing appears more natural, than that their labour should remain utterly fruitless, and nothing more wonderful and incredible than that it should produce an effect last- ing through centuries. But although such thoughts might inti- midate for a moment the Christians of Antioch, yet they soon felt assured that they were only the suggestions of the old man: in the Holy Ghost, who filled their hearts, they recognized without doubt a power that could conquer the world, and, moved by that power, they also accomplished the work. The form which this narrative wears, renders it highly pro- bable, that it is an extract from a larger account, which was sent perhaps directly to the mother church by the travelling preachers, and which Luke adopted into his narrative just as he had received it. This latter circumstance receives much coun- tenance from the very commencement of the account; for, after the journey of Barnabas and Paul to Antioch has been described, they are mentioned among the other teachers of the church there, sal. Even Paul, although called immediately by the Lord, yet waited for an impulse or invitation from without, thathe might enter properly upon his ministry among the Gentiles. From this procedure, important hints may be deduced with respect to mis- sionary undertakings in the present day. 1 The Gospel not only in primitive times, but also in the subsequent extension of the church, always fixed itself first in the great cities, and then spread gradually over the country. The greater variety of wants, and the high intellectual activity prevailing among the inhabitants of cities, occasioned Christianity to take root sooner in them. And then in the neighbourhood of great cities there were soon formed, by the influence proceeding from them, churches in the country, and in the smaller cities, which is shown to have happened in the case of Rome, for example, by Acts xxviii. 13, &e, 2 ACTS: Xurr.~1. 513 as if no one knew of their presence. And the epitomized form of the narrative displays itself in the dissimilarity, which prevails in the statements given of the abode of Paul in different cities : where the original complete accounts did not furnish anything interesting, they were either entirely omitted, or abbreviated as much as possible. It needs not to be remarked what authority this supposition imparts even to the missionary speeches in the account before us : it is very possible that we have in them the very notations of Paul himself. Ver. 1. In the enumeration of distinguished persons collected together in Antioch, the first place is assigned to Barnabas, who en- joyed very great consideration in the old apostolic church, and in- deed in the earliest times he is always named before Paul : it is only at a later period that he is overshadowed by the great apostle of the Gentiles, and then he disappears from the history. Of the se- cond person, Simeon Niger, nothing more is known: Lucius of Cyrene, on the other hand, is mentioned again in Rom. xvi. 21. The supposition that he is the same person as Luke the Evange- list, has nothing whatever to supportit. Itis improbable that Luke should have mentioned himself amongst the most distinguished teachers of the church, and besides the name Lucas does not come from Lucius, but from Lucanus. (Comp. Comm. Introd. Sect. vi. Part i, page 19.). The fourth individual, Manaen, 15 another of whom nothing further is known: his name comes from pfy3%9 equivalent to παράκλητος, for which, in 2 Kings xv. 14, the Ἐ ΕΟ have Mavanp, but in the verse before us the liquid letters are inter- changed so as to make αναήν. To mark him out more particu- larly, it is further stated that he was the foster-brother of Herod the Tetrarch. Sdvtpodos, equivalent to ὁμογάλακτος, denotes one who receives along with another the milk of a mother or nurse, and there is naturally connected with this the idea of being brought up and trained together. The Herod here mentioned, it is obvious from chronological circumstances, is Herod Antipas. ‘The last place is assigned to Saul, whose influence had not as yet spread itself very widely. The word τινές is awanting in some codices. It was supposed unsuitable to the well-known individuals Barnabas and Paul, who are named along with the others. But for this very reason the reading must certainly be held as genuine. Our hypothesis, that this narrative is an extract from the original account of the mission, VOL. LY. 2K 514 ACTS ΧΙ]. 2—12. does not appear at first sight to be favoured by the word τινές ; for a friend writing to persons who are aware of the circumstances, will not begin thus: ἦσαν δέ τινές x. T,X. But it is self-evident that verses |—3 are to be viewed as introductory statements pre- fixed to the abbreviated account, and they are probably the words of Luke himself: it is in verse 4 that the account itself is first presented to us.—On the difference between προφῆται and διδάσ- καλοι, consult Comm. on 1 Cor, xii. 28. Vers. 2, 3. While these men were assembled together for prayer, and perhaps for particular conference regarding the work of God entrusted to them, they were guided by a suggestion of the Holy Ghost to the idea of sending forth itinerating preachers, the evay- γέλισταί mentioned in Ephes. iv. 11. They prepared themselves for this important work by prayer and fasting, and sent away the missionaries with a formal ordination. Kuinoel is wrong here in supposing that λειτουργεῖν is equivalent to κηρύττειν, and refers to the public preaching of the Gospel : the fact that such an im- pulse of the Spirit came upon them, does not comport with this idea. This suggestion rather befits a quiet small circle, where the new and grand idea might be duly weighed. Aevroupyeiv (see Comm. on Luke i. 23) denotes therefore here, like προσκυνεῖν, to be immersed in devout adoration of God.—In ver. 2, προσκέκ- Anat bears a middle signification, as it does also in chap. xvi. 10, xxv. 12. (See Winer's Gram. p. 239.).—Here too, as in the whole ancient church,’ we find fasting retained as a good practice : it was a help for gathering in the mind and drawing it away from earthly things. What was false in it, as it appeared in the views of the Montanists, was produced only by the gradual and stealthy introduction of a legal spirit, which converted it into an opus operatum. Vers. 4—12. Barnabas and Paul, the chosen messengers of the church, took along with them John Mark,’ as a help to them in their apostolic labours. In ver. 5, ὑπηρέτης denotes a less dis- tinguished teacher, who stood to Paul and Barnabas in a rela- 1 Perhaps even at this period fasting was practised chiefly on Friday, the feria sexta, a custom which is very ancient. 2 The words: εἶχον δὲ καὶ ᾿Ιωάννην ὑπηρέτην, stand so strangely inserted between what goes before and what follows, that they manifestly appear to be a supplementary remark. Luke probably introduced them into the account that lay before him, because what follows in the fifteenth and succeeding verses rendered it necessary that previous mention should be made of Mark, ACTS xu. 4—12. 515 tion of dependence, as is shown too by the gloss ὑπηρετοῦντα αὐτοῖς. (See Comm. on Luke i. 3.). Such ὑπηρέται administered the baptisms (1 Cor. i. 14) and attended to outward concerns, so that the apostles and evangelists (Ephes. iv. 11) might be able to de- vote themselves entirely to teaching. From this it is plain that a gradation among the teachers of the church is not opposed to the spirit of the Gospel: every organised body, that seeks to de- velope itself in the visible order of things, must present itself with parts of regular connexion and subordination. And no evil could ever proceed from this arrangement, provided only, as was the case in the apostolic church, that in the higher orders the greater fulness of the Holy Ghost always prevailed. Barnabas, a Cyprian by birth (chap. iv. 37), was probably the occasion of their going first by Seleucia’ to Salamis, which lies on the east side of the island, and thence.across the island to Paphos, which lies on the west side of it, where it is known the worship of Venus had a great central establishment. Proceeding upon the principle that the Gospel was designed first of all for the Jews, they always preached first in the synagogues, and only turned to the Gentiles when they found themselves rejected by the Jews. (Comp. ver. 46.). In the chief city Paphos the Roman proconsul Ser- gius Paulus had his seat, a judicious man (ver. 7), free from Roman superstition, but he bad fallen into the toils of a Jewish conjurer named Barjesus. In some manuscripts this sorcerer γόης is called also Βαριησουάν or Βαρσοῦμα ; the reason might be that many transcribers were unwilling to recognise the holy name of Jesus as given to this false prophet. Either this man was a Jew from Arabia, or he had picked up some crumbs of Oni- ental Philosophy: this may be concluded from the circumstance, that he had taken the name of ᾿Ελύμας, which corresponds to the Arabic roby, that is, wise man. The same remarks which were made regarding Simon Magus, at chap. viii. 9, hold good with re- ference to the spiritual condition of this man. He used his arts for selfish ends, and sought therefore to obstruct the work of the Spirit in the soul of the proconsul, that he might hold him fast in his snares. The address of Paul to him is keen, but still the words ἄχρι καιροῦ in verse 11, plainly discover the design of 1 Which also bears the name Pieria, and sitnated at the mouth of the Orontes, is the harbour of Antioch, that lies much farther up the river. 2K2 516 ACTS x11I.. 1] 2—22. bringing him to the consciousness of bis guilt and to true repen- tance. Such sorcerers were commonly clever notorious men, but the slaves of their own notions, and often guided in their undertak- ings by sordid desires: Paul therefore endeavours, by stern re- buke, to rescue the good germ that might be in his heart. Ver. 10. padvoupyia occurs nowhere else in the New Testament; it denotes properly “ dexterity, quickness in action,” then particularly, in a bad sense “ daring cleverness in sin."—Ver. 11. ἀχλύς denotes primarily darkness, then a peculiar disease of the eyes. Here the connection with σκότος shows that the latter signification is to be adopted, the obscuration of sight (σκότος) resulting from an affection of the eyes (ἀχλύς). It is worthy of notice that Paul succeeded in gaining over so distinguished an individual as the proconsul : it is not indeed said that Sergius formally attached himself to the church by baptism, but the word ἐπίστευσε pvints at least to an acknowledg- ment of Jesus as the Messiah. Now as Saul from this time (ver. 9) is always called Paul, the ancient supposition! that he received this name from his protector is probable in a high degree. If the apostle had borne two names from the first, and if it were only intimated here, as Heinrichs supposes, that he had one name in common with the proconsul, it would remain unexplained why, in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, the name Saul from this time so completely disappears. Vers. 13—15. From Cyprus they proceeded to Perga in Pam- phylia. Here John Mark left the company, for reasons which cannot have been good, as subsequent events (see Comm. on chap. xy. 37, ἄς.) show. From Perga, the metropolis of Pamphylia, they went far into the interior to Antioch in Pisidia, upon the borders of Phrygia. Here Paul and Barnabas on the Sabbath-day entered into the synagogue and sat down, and were invited, as was cus- tomary (see Comm. on Luke iv. 16), to deliver an address. Vers. 16—22. The beginning of the discourse, which Paul in con- sequence of this invitation delivered, and in which he expressly (ver. 17) distinguishes between Israelites and proselytes, bears a re- 1 See Hieronymus de viris illus. sub. voce Paulus, The father says: apostolus a primo ecclesiae spolio Proconsule Sergio Paulo Victoriae suae trophaea retulit, erexitque vexillum, ut Paulus ex Saulo vocaretur. Augustine gives a singular view of the apos- tle’s design in choosing the name Paul in the passage: de spir. et litt.c. 7. Paulus apostolas, coum Saulus prius vocaretur, non ob aliud, quantum mihi videtur, hoc nomen elegit, nisi ut se ostenderet parvum, tanquam minimum apostolorum, (1 Cor. xv. 9.). ACTS xr. 16—22. 517 semblance to that of Stephen, which is contained in chap. vii. it embraces a brief review of the history of the people, and of God's gracious dealings with them. ‘The Jew listens (then as now) to nothing more readily than to the narrative of Jehovah's dealings with his people ; such a historical recapitulation therefore formed a natural captatio benevolentiae.1 Ver. 17. The connexion of ὑψοῦν with the παροικιά in Egypt (see chap. vii. 6) sets aside the idea of exaltation and elevation, for the people were oppressed ; on the contrary, the significa- tion to be adopted here is “‘ increase of numbers,” which embraces indirectly the idea of elevation. A decisive argument in favour of this meaning you find in Sirach xliy. 21, where ἀνυψῶσαι is used as synonymous with πληθύναι : less suitable is the reference to Sirach 1. 22, where ὑψοῦν ἡμέρας does not mean “ to increase the number of days,” but “ to make respectable and important in life.”— The expression μετὰ βραχίονος ὑψηλοῦ corresponds to the Hebrew mn) pia in Exod. vi. 6, that is, with an arm raised up high and ready to help.—In verse 18 the reading ἐτροφοφόρησεν is to be preferred to the usual reading ἐτροποφόρησεν. This latter in- deed gives also a sense not unsuitable, τροποφορεῖν denoting “ to bear with the manners and ways of any one” (Cic. ad Attic. xi. 29) ; but as Paul designs here to exhibit the gracious aspect of God's dealings, the mention of this idea does not suit the connexion. Again, too, τροφοφορεῖν is the rarer word, and transcribers might readily substitute for it one better known. — It denotes‘ to carry in the arms like a nurse” (τρόφος), and therefore “ to cherish, to take eare of.” Thus the word is used in 2 Maccab. vii. 27, of a mother who is speaking to her son. In a wider sense, too, it is applied to men, as in the Septuagint, Deut. i. 31.—Ver. 19. Regarding the seven nations, see Deut. vii. 1.—Instead of κατεκληροδότησεν, which the textus receptus contains, and which is to be found in no other part of the New Testament, Griesbach has rightly preferred the reading κατεκληρονόμησεν. The use of this word with a Hiphil signification, “to cause to possess, to give into one’s possession,» 1 From the resemblance of this first speech of Paul to that of Stephen, one might per- haps conclude that there was an effect produced by Stephen upon the character of the apostle. According to chap. vi. 13, 14, we already see in Steplieu a very expanded view of the Gospel and of the eflects which it would produce, and it is in the highest degree probable that, much as Paul might at first struggle against this view, it yet afterwards exerted a very important influence upon him, 518 ACTS ΧΠΙ. 16—22. as in Judges xi. 24, might have escaped many transcribers, and they might therefore suppose themselves obliged to prefer that other form.—Ver. 20. The number of 450 years down to Samuel appears ‘to stand in contradiction to 1 Kings vi. 1, where 480 years are counted to the building of the Temple. Some interpreters have employed the most violent measures to remove the contradiction, either declaring the passage before us or the one in the Old Testa- ment to be interpolated, or altering the number, or supposing that the time is not counted when the Israelites were subject to foreign nations, in the days of the Judges. Others again have supposed that Paul follows a traditional chronology, which is also to be found in Josephus (Arch. viii. 3, 1, Bell. Jud. iv. 9, 7.). But this writer is not consistent with himself, and gives in other passages (Arch. xx. 10, cont. Apion. ii, 2) quite different chronologies. The difficulty cannot indeed be completely solved, and therefore the supposition, that either here or in 1 Kings vi. 1, there may be something wrong in the numbers, is not altogether without plausibility ἢ still however this is a violent remedy. The fol- Jowing may serve as a contribution towards a solution. It is not Paul's design here to make exact chronological statements, he gives them only by the way. They are therefore wanting in reference to the period from Abraham till the departure out of Egypt under the leadership of Joshua, and again from the reign of David. Besides, it is indicated by the word ὡς, that 450 isa round number. To this add, that while the accusative is em- ployed in stating the other numbers mentioned in the passage, the dative is used for the number 450. Now, according to the more exact usage of the Greek tongue, (see Bernhardy's Syntax, p. 116. Kiihner's Gr. B. ii. P. 218, &c.), the dative denotes not the duration of time, but the time in which something has resulted or ensued ; the words might therefore mean : after that God, in the space of 450 years, gave judges till Samuel, and then (from Samuel, viz.) Saul, during forty years, and so on; so that these forty years, and what follows till the building of the Temple, were included in the 450 years. This latter view has been communicated to me by my worthy friend, Dr- Hofmann, assistant teacher. By no means does it altogether satisfy me, because the expressions, μετὰ ταῦτα and κακεῖθεν, appear to fix the boundary of the 450 years, a quo and 1 See Winer’s Lex. under the word Zablen. ACTS ΧΠΙῚ, 23—31. 519 ad quem ; it is also a question whether the usage of the dative, in reference to the fixing of dates, be so constantly observed in the New Testament (comp. Winer’s Gram., p. 194). This view however is worthy of consideration. (Consult the article, Késter on the Chro- nology of the Old Testament, in the first part of Pelt's Theol. Mitar- beiten.)—Ver. 21. Regarding the duration of Saul’s reign, the Old Testament is silent ; but Josephus sets it down also at forty years. (Arch. vi. 14, 9.).—Verse 22. The phrase, μεταστήσας αὐτὸν refers to Saul’s death, but at the same time it indicates the fact, that this death was the consequence and expression of God's rejection of him. The quotation is taken partly from Ps. Ixxxix. 20, and partly from 1 Sam. xiii. 14, and is given freely from memory. Vers. 23—31. The speech of Paul next mentions the fulfilment of prophecies, in the sending of Christ and his forerunner John the Baptist. To Jews and proselytes (verse 26) Jesus is proclaimed as the promised Messiah.—In verse 23, the reading σωτηρίαν is cer- tainly the more difficult, but Kuinoel is wrong in allowing himself to be led by this consideration to prefer it, for then the name is entirely awanting of him, who in the sequel is always treated as the Messiah, an omission which the context does not at all warrant. Mill's supposition, that the abbreviated mode of writing 3PAIN, for σωτῆρα ᾿Ιησοῦν, gave origin to the reading σωτηρίαν, is more than probable—Verse 24. The words πρὸ προσώπου do not refer to the person, according to the usage that predominates, but to a fact, viz., the advent of Christ; the original idea consequently expressed in the phrase has quite disappeared. Further, the men- tion of the Baptist’s preaching leaves no doubt as to the fact, that εἴσοδος does not refer to the birth of the Redeemer, but to the com- mencement of his public ministry —Verse 25. Kuinoel is right in stating that the words, ὡς ἐπλήρου Tov δρόμον, do not refer to the completion or ending of John’s ministry, but to the course or dura- tion of it; were it otherwise, the aorist must have been employed. Regarding the words of the Baptist, see Comm. on Matt. 11]. 1 1.— Verse 27. With reference to τοῦτον ἀγνοήσαντες, see Comm. on Acts iii. 17. We need not, with Kuinoel and Heinrichs, supply αὐτόν to κρίναντες ἐπλήρωσαν ; the participle rather stands for ἐν τῇ κρίσει, “in their decision they fulfilled, without knowing it, the Scriptures.” —Ver. 31. Regarding ἐπὶ with the accusative in state- ments about time, see Winer’s Grammar, p. 385. 520 ACTS ΧΠΙ. 834—S6. Vers. 32, 88. The exhibition of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, is now with the utmost propriety followed by proof adduced from passages of the Old Testament.—Ver. 33. ἐκπληρόω is only to be found here, but the substantive ἐκτγλήρωσις occurs in Acts xxi. 16. The preposition augments the force of the simple word. The parti- ciple ἀναστήσας is not to be referred to the resurrection of our Lord, because ἐκ νεκρῶν is wanting (compare verse 34), and the proof- passage for the resurrection is first brought forward in verse34; but according to the analogy of the Hebrew word, DVT OT gyAT, it must be understood of the sending of Jesus generally. The quota- tion, it is manifest, isfrom Psalmii. 7. [{ is remarkable therefore that the reading, which critical grounds require to be preferred, is év τῷ πρώτῳ ψαλμῷ. This is to be accounted for on the principle, that the first psalm forms merely a general introduction to the whole collection, and that our second psalm is properly the first in order. Even in Hebrew codices you find our second psalm marked as the first. (See Rosenmiilleri scholia in Psalm. edit. sec. Vol. i., p. 31, 32.). With reference to the psalm itself, see the particulars in Comm. on Acts iv. 25, 26; and with reference to the dogmatic meaning of the words here adduced from it, see Comm. on Acts li. 29. Vers. 34—36. That something new is now brought forward, and that therefore verses 32, 33 cannot have referred to the resurrec- tion of Jesus, is plain from the words ὅτε δὲ---οὕτως εἴρηκε. The point of advancement cannot be sought in the words μηκέτι μέλ- λοντα K. τ. X., for they only describe a subordinate thought, illus- trative of the leading idea of the resurrection. In confirmation of the resurrection of Jesus, as a fact predicted by the prophets, the apostle refers first to the een in Isaiah lv. 3, of which the leading words τὰ ὅσια AaBid τὰ πιστά are taken from the Sep- tuagint ; the words ὅτε δώσω ὑμῖν are only added by Paul to bring the passage into the connexion, because the words of the Septuagint διαθήσομαι ὑμῖν διαθήκην αἰώνιον represent the appearance of the Messiah as something future. The Messianic reference of the passage cited admits of no doubt, because the words TT “TON can only denote the promises of the Messiah given to David, whose certain fulfilment is declared. But the question presents itself, how could Paul employ these words to prove the resurrection? Un- doubtedly the words have no direct reference to this fact, but ACTS ΧΙ. 87—41. 521 indirectly they pre-suppose it, for since an eternal kingdom was promised to David, the ruler of this kingdom could not remain under the power of death. To strengthen however the inde- finite prediction by means of a more definite one, the apostle adduces another passage, Ps. xvi. 10, which has already been con- sidered at chap. ii. 10, where Peter gives the very same explanation of it as Paul does here, for they both deny the possibility of its proper reference to David. In ver. 34, there are verbal allusions to the second quota- tion in ver. 35, for ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθορῶν corresponds to ἐδεῖν διαφθοράν, and δώσω ὅσια to οὐ δώσεις ὕσιον.---Ῥ } no means does μηκέτι require to be taken for μή : I understand the passage with Winer Gram, p. 498, thus: “ he will no more be laid in the grave, and in this way be given over to corruption.” The particle refers only to that portion of the meaning of the verb, which had already actually been realized, viz., the being laid in the grave. The one phrase therefore ὑποστρέφειν εἰς διαφθοράν distinguishes itself from the other ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν in this manner, that the latter denotes corruption and the actual experience of it, the former the fact of being exposed to it. The one of these really happened to the Re- deemer, the other not.—Ver. 36. γενεά is equivalent to 44-4 “ life- time,” and the whole phrase ὑπηρετεῖν τῇ βουλῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ represents Dayid in his higher position as an instrument of divine grace for founding the kingdom of God.—The words προσετέθη πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτοῦ correspond to the well-known formula bgg FIDND say, and denote the fact of being received into the happy por- tion of Hades. Vers. 37—41. It appears remarkable to the Christian conscious- ness of the church in later times, that here the Apostle Paul, as Peter too had done in the speeches of the first half of Acts, lays stress upon the resurrection only and not upon the death of our Lord. Yea here, as it seems, Paul connects the ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν immediately with the resurrection, while yet in his letters he repre- sents the death of Christ as the source of the forgiveness of sins. But the mode of instruction pursued by the apostles in this respect will be fully accounted for, when it is considered that in the mis- sionary discourses by which men were first to be convinced of the Messiahship of Christ, they could not aim at a minute development of the principles of the Gospel : it was of more importance first to 3 522 ACTS ΧΠΙ. 37—4 1. establish the conviction that Jesus was the Messiah. But the death of Christ was a point that gave offence, and required therefore to stand in the background ; while, on the other hand, the resurrection contained the real power of proof, and to it therefore reference was mainly made. But Paul did not write his Epistles to unbelievers, for the purpose of guiding them to the truth, but to believers for the purpose of confirming them in the faith ; and in them therefore the proper relation of the death of Christ to God’s plan of salvation required to be definitely exhibited. ‘The same object of confirming in the faith, Paul had in view also in the discourse which he ad- dressed to the Ephesian elders, who of course were already believers, and we notice accordingly that in it too (see chap. xx. 28) the im- portance of the death of Christ is clearly displayed. Further, in verses 38 and 39 the grand idea characteristic of Paul, regarding the unfitness of the law to guide to true righteousness (δε- καιοσύνη), is set forth in such a manner, as to confirm most power- fully the genuineness of the speech. And now the joyous procla- mation of grace is followed in the end of the discourse with an earnest warning, not to disregard through unbelief the invitation of God. ‘The apostle utters this warning, in words which are cited by memory from Habbak. i. 5.—In ver. 39 the connection of δικαίω- θῆναι with ἀπὸ πάντων sc. ἁμαρτὴμάτων, denotes the union of the negative and positive aspects in the work of redemption," because not merely is the old removed, but something new is also created in the mind. (Comp. Rom. vi. 7.).—In ver. 40, the plural ἐν τοῖς προ- φήταις indicates, as is Matt. ii. 23, that Paul did not so much de- sign to quote a particular passage, as to express in words of the Old Testament a thought of frequent recurrence in the pro- phets.—Adgavifer@ar combines, like pyyy), the two significations of “destruction or removal out of the way,” and the “ being thrown into astonishment or terror,” and the bond of union between the two significations is to be found in the physical effect of terror, by 1 Neander (ap. Zeitalt. s. 136, Note) is right in observing that the expression δικαίῳ θῆναι ἀπὸ πάντων is not to be understood as if Paul supposed two justifications, an im- perfect one under the Old Dispensation, and a perfect one under the New. The expres- sion is rather to be regarded simply as an explanation of the ἄφεσίς ἁμαρτιῶν, As under the Old Testament no true forgiveness had place, but only the hope of forgive- ness was awakened by the view of a coming Saviour; so the law too could produce no true righteousness. But the real blessing was bestowed by the Gospel, and therefore men received in it everything, which the Old Testament could only offer prefiguratively. (Heb. ix. 1, &e.) ° ACTS ΧΠΙ. 42—49. 5238 which the consciousness of the individual is for the moment as it were taken away. Vers. 42—44. And now the power of the Spirit, who spoke through Paul, first laid hold of the minds of the hearers: and they besought him to speak again in the synagogue. In ver. 42 the codices vary so much in their readings, that one sees how Kuinoel was led to regard the whole verse as a gloss. ‘This supposition, however, can- not well be maintained, because the request to speak next Sabbath- day stands in connexion with verse 44. I prefer therefore with Griesbach the shortest reading, according to which the Jews must be supplied as the subject or nominative to παρεκαλοῦν. They first became hostile, it is plain from the 45th verse, when they saw the throng of Gentiles. ‘The circumstance that Paul and Bar- nabas appear to have departed before the meeting was ended, is easily explained by the consideration, that the words ἐξιόντων αὐ- τῶν are not placed historically before the phrase λυθείσης δὲ τῆς συναγωγῆς, but the fact is only anticipated because it was the occa- sion of the leading circumstance in the narrative, viz., the request that they would appear again —Mera€v occurs here, as elsewhere too in the later Greek (see Passow in Lex.), in the sense of peré- meita. (Comp. Plut. inst. lac. c. 42. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ν. 4. 2.). Here the word is sufficiently explained by the parallel phrase ἐχόμενος in verse 44. See on this word Comm. at Mark i. 88 ; Luke xiii. 33. Vers. 45—49. The perception of the heart-felt interest felt by the Gentiles in the Gospel of Christ awakens the jealousy of the Jews, who in their narrowness wished to restrict to themselves the blessings of the Messiah. They begin therefore openly to con- tradict and to revile Paul, which obliges him to withdraw him- self entirely from them.—Ver. 45. In the best codices, parti- cularly A.B.F., the participle ἀντιλέγοντες is omitted on ac- count of the foregoing ἀντέλεγον. But unless you suppose this word to have originally belonged to the text, it is inexplicable how it should have been added: it is better therefore to view the phrase ἀντιλέγοντες ἀντέλεγον as used for the sake of emphasis: ‘‘ they con- tradicted vehemently,” as in 1 Sam. vi. 12.—Ver. 47. Paul shows, from Isaiah xlix. 6, that there was nothing arbitrary in the calling of the Gentiles, or at all opposed to the plans of God, but that it was an event already predicted by the prophets. The words are 524 ACTS ΧΠΙ. 50—52—x1v. |—7. addressed to the “servant of God,” the personage with whom the predictions of the second part of Isaiah are connected: regarding the reference of this designation to the Messiah, we have already spoken at chap. iii. 13. The quotation further is given in the words of the Septuagint, yet with an omission and slight change, for in the Septuagint the first words run thus: ἰδοὺ, δέδωκά ce εἰς διαθήκην γένους, εἰς φῶς OvOv.—Ver. 48. In the words ὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον, we must recognise the idea which pervades the whole Scriptures, of a praedestinatio sanctorum. The attempts which have been made to evade it are in the highest de- gree forced, for example, the connecting of ἐπίστευσαν with εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Regarding the relation of the praedestinatio sancto- rum to the gratia irresistibilis, and to the reprobation impiorum, compare what is said in Comment. at Rom. ix.—lIn ver. 49, the words δι ὅλης τῆς χώρας probably indicate the diffusion of the Gospel in the villages and over the country, of which there are but few traces to be found in other parts of the New Testament. Vers. 50—52. The envious Jews meanwhile rested not until, by their influence, they had driven away the heralds of peace. Their influence exerted itself particularly upon honourable women, who were attached to Judaism. We find that in the apostolic age the female sex were peculiarly disposed to receive the better ele- ments of the Jewish system, partly without doubt on account of their more susceptible nature, and partly also because they could attach themselves entirely to the economy of the Old Testament without the troublesome rite of circumcision. Ver. 51. Regarding the symbolic act of shaking off the dust, see Comm. at Matt. x. 14.—Iconium lay on the borders of Lycaonia, Phrygia, and Pisidia, and therefore it might be sometimes assigned to the one province and sometimes to the other, the more especially as the boundaries of particular districts in Asia Minor were very va- riable-—Ver. 52. Regarding the joy of the disciples, that is, of the new converts, notwithstanding the removal of their faithful teach- ers, which would in the first instance tend to excite their sorrow, see Comm. on Acts v. 41. Chap. xiv. 1—7. After this detailed account of the labours of Paul at Antioch in Pisidia, Luke subjoins only brief notices of his further labours, partly because, from the nature of the case, his dis- courses must have embraced nearly the same topics, and partly be- ACTS xIv. 8—12. §25 cause the consequences that resulted assumed quite a similar shape. In Iconium also the influence of the doctrine of the cross dis- played itself as a powerful leaven ; but here too the envious feeling of the Jews took offence at the calling of the Gentiles, and drove the apostles onwards to Lystra and Derbe. In ver. 1, the phrase κατὰ τὸ αὐτό can be taken in no other than the usual meaning of “at the same time,” “ together.’-—Ver. 2. Regarding κακόω, see at chap. vil. 6. Here it is used in the sense of “‘ exacerbare, to ex- cite, to inflame.” It frequently bears the same signification in Jo- sephus. (See Arch. xvi. 1, 2.)——In verse 3, the signs and wonders are quite disconnected from the power of him, through whose instru- mentality they are wrought: the glorified Redeemer is called their author.—Ver. 6. The name Lystra is employed sometimes as a feminine noun, and sometimes as a neuter plural, as in verse 8. Vers. 8—12. In Lystra, which les on the borders of Lycaonia and Isauria, the cure of a lame man performed by Paul excited great attention, and gave rise to a singular scene which Luke minutely describes. The Gentiles recognised the presence of super- natural powers in the work of the strangers, who had come to their city, but swayed by their mythological notions, they regarded Paul and Barnabas as Mercury and Jupiter, come down again to visit men, as once they had visited Philemon and Baucis who had lived in those very regions,’ and they wished to offer sacrifice to them. This occurrence is interesting, particularly because it shows, that faith inthe old doctrine of the gods was still more deeply rooted in the popular mind, than one would have been disposed to imagine. At the same time, it must not be overlooked that this occurrence took place in a remote town, to which the philosophical illumina- tion of the age of Augustus had not yet penetrated. And here the question presents itself, whether the unsophisticated simple faith re- posed by the inhabitants of Lystra in the old divinities, made them more disposed to receive the Gospel, than if they had broken loose from ancient notions ? When this latter state was connected with an earnest longing after the true knowledge of God, then certainly it was more favourable to the reception of the Gospel, but it was 1 Philemon and Baucis were a married couple who belonged to Phrygia. Jupiter and Mercury on one occasion visited that district in human form, and were hospitably en- tertained by them, while the other inbabitants were all unwilling to receive them. For this impiety, an inundation was sent upon the country, but Philemon and Baucis were saved from it. They were made priests in the Temple of Jupiter. Afterwards it was their wish to die together, and they were ultimately changed into trees.—TR, 526 ACTS xIv. 13—20. generally accompanied with a complete doubting about all truth ; and compared with this unhappy position, the state of the people of Lystra undoubtedly deserves the preference. The idea of the in- fluence of a higher world of Spirit upon this lower world, was still current among them ; and from this they might the more easily be guided to the one true God, the beams of whose glory they reve- renced in their numerous divinities. In ver. 11, mention is made of the speech of Lycaonia. Jab- lonski, in a treatise contained in the collection of his dissertations by te Water, has rendered it probable that this was only a corrupted dialect of the Greek tongue.—Ver. 12 shows plainly that Paul possessed the gift of oral address in a high degree: he always took the lead in speaking on missionary journeys.—In ver. 18, the words, Ζεὺς 6 πρὸ τῆς πόλεῶς ὦν, lead to the conclusion, that there was atemple of Jupiter also in the city. The peculiar form of ex- pression here exhibited, is to be explained on the principle, that according to the rude popular notion, the image was really taken for the God; the supplement of ἱερόν or ναός is quite inad- missible, for in that case the article must have been repeated. Among the ancients, the πρόπυλος, or God dwelling inthe suburbs, is often distinguished from the πολιοῦχος, or God protecting the city itself. ‘The covering of the gates with garlands has respect to the residence of the two apostles. Vers. 13—20. Paul and Barnabas were naturally confounded at these tokens of reverence, and attempted to raise the heathens above the physical influences which they worshipped in their divinities, to the one Creator of nature and of all its powers. They succeeded in restraining the men from their purpose, but the malignant Jews of Antioch and Iconium wrought against the apostles, and contrived speedily to estrange the fickle multitude from them.—In ver. 14, the textus receptus reads εἰσεπήδησαν, but Griesbach has adopted the more difficult and rare reading, ἐξεπήδησαν : the view to be formed of the scene is this, that the multitude surround the dwelling of the apostles, and the apostles rush forth from it into the midst of them.— In ver. 15, Paul places the Θεὸς ξῶν (spy byg), as the wonder-work- ing Creator, in contrast with the impotent (ματαίοις) idols ; and himself he places upon a level with all other men. Ὁ μοιοπαθὴς occurs also in James y. 17,in the same signification, “ subject to like suf- ferings, to like infirmity.” ACTS XIV. 21—28. 527 Vers. 16 and 17 embrace thoughts of great dogmatic import- ance, which however are to receive further consideration in Acts XvVil. 27, 28, and especially in Rom. i. 19, 20, ii. 14, iii. 25. In the first place, Paul contrasts the present time, as the time of the Messiah, with former times, in which the heathen world, with no such light as the Jewish nation possessed, lived on in their own ways. In this thought isto be found the apology for the design of the people of Lystra, so blasphemous considered in itself. But again this situation of the Gentile world was not sufficient to free them altogether from guilt, for nature herself, with all the wonderful arrangements which she exhibits, furnished the means of rising to the idea of the true God, whosummoned the whole fabric into being. This declaration of the 17th verse is worthy of notice, not only because it embraces the elements of the argument upon which Natural Theo- logy rests, but also particularly, because it suggests the idea, so im- portant with reference to the biblical view of man, that fallen human nature is not absolutely dead to every higher feeling, a thought which stands in close connexion with the whole circle of Paul's ideas. It need scarcely however be mentioned, that those persons err egregiously, who employ this and the parallel passages cited above, for the purpose of proving the sufficiency of man’s own powers. Here too truth lies in the middle. The words ἀμάρτυ- pos and καρπόφορος are to be found in no other part of the New Testament. Vers. 21—28. Without communicating any particularsregarding the stay of Paul in Derbe, Luke only informs us of the journey back, which lay through the same places which the apostle had formerly visited. His second appearance among the churches, he employed not only to confirm the disciples in the faith, but he also ordained elders over them, and settled, as such ordination implied, their ecclesiastical arrangements. The expression in verse 23 is a peculiar one, χειροτονήσαντες αὐτοῖς πρεσβυτέρους. It does not permit us to suppose there was a free choice on the part of the church, but it rather seems as if the apostles themselves sought out the parties qualified for office. The general mind might not yet be so much developed, that the business of choosing could be com- mitted to the young churches themselves. Often too the number of those, from amongst whom a choice could be made, might be so 528 acts xv. 1—85. small, that the parties might almost obviously stand out, to whom alone offices in the church could be entrusted. . At last the travelling messengers of Christ returned by Attalea in Pamphylia to the mother church at Antioch, and presented a report of their proceedings. ‘They regarded themselves therefore as dependent upon the church in Antioch, an important intimation, from which it may be concluded, that a loose and isolated itinerancy of detached individuals for the preaching of the Gospel is not proper. The individual messenger, extraordinary cases being left out of view, must always retain his connection with the church universal, and therefore must belong to some particular Christian community. The time the apostles remained in Antioch, is only described in very general terms, as not short, οὐκ ὀλύγον, ver. 28. Itis common to regard the afflictions (θλίψεις, ver. 22), for which Paul prepares the brethren, as referring only to the persecutions with which the primitive church had to contend. But the words of the apostle hold good in reference to Christians of all times. (See Matt. v. 11.). For in the Gospel itself, and in the Spirit which it inspires, there is something opposed to the world, and tending to excite its opposi- tion. The world feels that in this power lies its death, and therefore it makes resistance against it, and seeks to kill thelife. It is only the forms of the θλίψεις therefore that change, they themselves touch every believer more or less, but in the hand of God they form a process of training for eternal life. 2 Tim. 111. 12.—Ver. 27. Regarding θύρα τῆς πίστεως, see 1 Cor. xvi. 9; Colos. iv. 3. § 6. THE APOSTOLIC COUNCIL. (Acts xv. 1—35.) The transaction which follows is one of the most remarkable communications to be found in the Acts of the Apostles, although Luke by no means mentions every thing of importance that oc- curred during this visit of Paul to Jerusalem : his account must be supplemented from what is stated in Gal. ii. L[—10. (See the Comment. on that passage. ) ACTS xv. 1—35. 529 And in the first place as respects the outward form of the trans- action, this section exhibits the first example of a regular and public consultation regarding a subject that affected the whole church.’ As the result too of the deliberations was communicated in a let- ter to all individual churches, tne application to this assembly of the name of the first council is really not unsuitable. The practice of dealing with controverted subjects by means of synods, is deeply grounded in the nature of Christianity: there is dis- played in it that spirit of fellowship (κοινωνία), which regards every thing single and individual as belonging to the whole body. This first council, however, does not appear to have been composed of deputies from all particular churches, but the mother church of Jerusalem still stands forth as predominant. Yet it is not by any means to be regarded as an assembly of one church, but the pres- byters of this church rather bear in the apostolic college, to which they are subordinate, a relation to the whole church. (Chap. xv. 2, 4, 6,22.) Whether all the apostles who were yet alive, or only some of them, were collected together on this occasion, is not expressly men- tioned ; but it is the more probable view, that they were all present. For, as the messengers who were sent from the church at Antioch returned from time to time to that church, so it is probable that the apostles, journeying from place to place, would occasionally visit the mother church at Jerusalem, partly to give an account of the success of their labours, and partly to receive spiritual refreshment from renewed intercourse with the brethren. If we take this view of the circumstances, then it becomes apparent that Jerusalem would be the heart, as it were, of the body of the church, from which all life streamed out, and to which it again flowed back. James therefore, the bishop of Jerusalem, must necessarily have been of great importance in the church, because, altogether irre- spectively of his spiritual worth, his position made him something like the immoveable ceutral point of the church. And as the form of the transactions here described is highly im- portant, so also is their substance. They have respect to the 1 The transactions which are mentioned in chap. xi. 1, &c., have more the form of a private conference, than of an official public consultation. 2 From the circumstance that of the apostles only John and Peter are named in Gal. ii. 9, it cannot be concluded that Paul met only these two in Jerusalem: it is not his purpose in that passage to mention all who were present, but only the leading men in the apostolic college. VOL. IV. 24, 530 Acts xv. 1—35. point, which had already at an earlier period come under consider- ation, of the conditions under which the Gentiles should be received into the church. (See chap. x. xi. 1—18.) At that time all had been convinced of the propriety of Peter’s conduct (chap. xi. 18) ; with many however there must have been doubts remaining, which gradually forced themselves again into notice, and even assumed the form of a fixed conviction of the opposite. We find this dif- ferent view represented by certain presbyters of Jerusalem (chap. xv. 4, 5, 7), who had formerly belonged to the sect of the Phari- sees. These men, on account of the importance which they at- tached to the legal forms, must have been very suspicious of a principle, whose prevalence, it might be foreseen, would one day bring the law into utter disuse; they held themselves there- fore obliged, only to permit such a reception of the Gentiles into the church, as was consistent with maintaining the divinity and perpetual obligation of the Mosaic law even in its outward forms. It has already been remarked, that this opinion of the strict Jewish Christians is more plausible, than in our times we are disposed to imagine, a circumstance which accounts for the numerous and ob- stinately conducted controversies that existed in the primitive church regarding this point. When the divinity of the Old Tes- tament is more or less doubted, as it so commonly is in our day, so that even many believing men entertain very subordinate views of this portion of God’s word, then it is very easy to dispose of the question regarding the position of the Gentiles in reference to the law: but when you proceed upon the divine original of the Old Testament, and consider the strong declarations which it makes regarding the perpetual obligation of its ordinances, and the curses which it pronounces upon those who disregard them, and when you take into consideration the declarations of Christ him- self, for example in Matthew y. 11, apparently to the very same effect ; then you can readily comprehend, how persons of a some- what anxious and timid disposition might not be akle to soar up to the free spiritual view of the law, which Paul with all the mightof the Spirit vindicated, according to which perpetuity belongs not to the outward form of the ordinances of the law, but only to the ideas wrapt up in these coverings, which receive their absolute fulfilment in the Gospel, and are therefore not lost although the external forms perish. AcTs xv. 1—35., 531 This position of circumstances we see that the apostles with great wisdom consider. They are very far from dismissing, as ob- stinate opposers of the truth, the rigid Jewish Christians with their scruples; they rather recognise these scruples up to a certain point ; but still they cannot deviate from the practice already in- troduced, of admitting the Gentiles into the church without cir- cumcision and the burden of the law: they therefore strike out the middle way of satisfying the one party by some concessions, while yet they do not discourage the Gentiles by too burdensome requirements. But although up to this period the rigid Jewish Christians must appear to us less worthy of blame, yet their posi- tion became essentially changed after the decrees adopted by the apostles. Those who even after this still maintained, in opposition to the mind of the apostles and elders, their former view of the ne- cessity of the Gentiles observing the whole law, betrayed a wilful- ness and a regard for their own opinion, which were manifestly sin- ful, and which became more and more censurable the longer they were clung to. Tt was from this party, who occasioned so many conflicts to the Apostle Paul, that the sect of the Ebionites took its rise. The one error, by which they were separated from the living body of the church, speedily gave rise to another, viz., the vulgar Jewish view of the Messiah as merely a distinguished man, by the maintenance of which they removed themselves entirely from really Christian ground. Fortunately however during the lifetime of the apostles this party had no defenders of any note. James indeed, the brother of the Lord, and bishop of Jerusalem, together with the greater part of the apostles who remained in Palestine, observed for themselves, like the Nazarenes of a later period, the law according to the manner of their fathers, but without wishing to impose it upon the Gentiles. It has been falsely inferred from Gal. 11. 12, that James himself might be the head of this party of rigid Jewish Christians. The parties there mentioned, τινὲς ἀπὸ ᾿Ιακώβου, are not to be regarded as messengers and legates deputed by the bishop, but only as mem- bers of his church, who without and against his will had stirred up disturbance in Antioch ; and accordingly the expression corresponds entirely to the words in the apostolic epistle (chap. xv. 24) τινὲς ἔξ ἡμῶν, certain that went out from us, who assuredly could have no commission, since the apostles altogether disavow them. Stil], ΦῚ, ὦ 532 ACTS xv. 1—85. however, it remains a remarkable fact, that these crass Jewish Chris- tians were able to exercise such an influence over Peter and Barnabas, as Paul mentions in Gal. ii..11, &c., after the question had been so de- cidedly settled in their experience. It has been imagined that this strange circumstance might be explained, by supposing the Epistle to the Galatians to have been written before the Apostolic Council ; but, in the first place, chronology is too decidedly opposed to this supposition, for Paul at the time of his first journey had not yet visited Galatia, and again, even if it could be made probable that the Epistle to the Galatians was written so early, it would be of no avail to the main point under consideration. For surely in the case of Peter, what occurred with Cornelius, recorded in the tenth chapter, and undoubtedly prior to Paul's writing to the Galatians, was decisive ; and the question accordingly presents itself, how it is conceivable that Peter, after such communications from on high, could again waver? In the first place, it must here be remarked, that all parties in the church have always taught, in accordance with Scripture itself (see Acts xiv. 15), that the apostles did not cease, even after they received the Holy Ghost, to be sinful men : along with the new man, the old man too still lived in them: as sinful men therefore they remained subject to the. possibility of error.’ But, in the second place, if it should be said, “ certainly the apostles were liable to error, but not in matters of faith, and the question here relates to a religious point ;” then let it be consi- dered that, even in the apostles, we must suppose moments when the power of the Spirit that wrought in them retired, and their own subjectivity prevailed. Now if we suppose that in the soul 1 Excellently does Steudel show (in his discussion on inspiration in der Tubin- ger Theol. Zeitschrift Jahrg. 1852, h. 3), that the truth of the doctrines preached by the apostles is quite independent of the degree of their personal holiness and advance- ment, and rather rests upon the purely objective communication of the truth to them from on high. ‘The same holds good of the Old Testament prophets, some of whom, as the history of Jonas shows, were very deficient; and the principle too applies to the servants of the church in our own and in all times. The Christian minister does not fashion the truth, nor yet the divine effect springing from it, by his own personal quali- ties, but that effect rests upon the inward power residing in the divine word and in the preaching of Christ. Yet we mean not to deny, what is evident of itself, that a pastor of eminence and experience is able to labour more comprehensively and judiciously, than one who is deficient in these qualities; it is only meant to oppose what has become prevalent in our times and in the evangelical church, an undue estimate of the sub- jectivity, and to vindicate the importance of the objectivity of the Christian scheme of salvation, ACTS xv. 1—385. 5383 of Peter such a moment of predominating subjectivity occurred, when the Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem, and that they probably assailed him on his weak side and called him apos- tate, then the whole occurrence receives a very good psycholo- gical explanation. And the authority of Peter’ could only have been injured by this, if he had obstinately persisted in his error; but, as he humbly acknowledged his mistake to Paul, his stumbling only became a triumph to the cause of the truth. The apostles, like all other believers, were distinguished from the world, not by this, that they never went wrong, but by this, that, when they did go wrong, they were sufficiently humble to acknowledge their mistake, and immediately to correct it. Nor 15 the authority of Scripture in any degree affected by the facts before us : this would only be the case, if the error of Peter were inserted as atruth : then indeed the Scriptures could not have been composed by the sacred penmen under the full influence of spiritual illumi- nation, and consequently they could furnish no rule of faith for all succeeding times. But since they represent the error of Peter as one removed and overcome by the power of the Spirit, they are on this very account shown to be altogether pure aid genuine, because they openly acknowledge what is apparently prejudicial to their authority. But finally, it is decisive of the whole question, that you cannot on close consideration say, the error of Peter and of the strict Jewish Christians was one properly of a dogmatic kind ; the blessings of the Gospel are certainly not neutralized by the ob- servance of the law. Suppose therefore the ancient church had stood to the principle, that every Gentile who wished to join the church must keep the law; then indeed the speedy diffusion of Christianity would have been greatly hindered, but its essential character would not have been destroyed. That observance of the law, of which Paul speaks in the Epistle to the Galatians (v. 4), “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justi- 1 With regard to this subject the circumstance must not be overlooked, that Peter was particularly called, as also the rest of the Twelve, to labour among the Jews, while the Gentile world was expressly assigned to Paul. This was not an arbitrary arrange- ment, but was made with a due respect to their entire constitution and habits. Peter was really more at home in the Jewish element, and for that reason was the less able to sympathize with the wants of the Gentile Christians. (On this point see Comm. on Gal. ii. 7, 9, where the formal distribution of the labours of the apostles among the Jews and Gentiles is considered, ) 534 ACTS xv. 1--85. fied by the law ; ye are fallen from grace,’ is plainly not to be con- founded with the observance we have here supposed. “Paul is speak- ing against the idea, that it is the observance of the law which makes men righteous before God, an idea which obviously destroys the nature of the Gospel ; but Peter might suppose that the recep- tion of the law was a suitable method of introducing Gentiles into the chureh, without at all placing justification in any thing else than faith in Christ. It was this only that the strict Jewish Chris- tians wished at first, otherwise the apostles would have sternly re- buked them, and made no approaches to them at all: it was after- wards, when polemical ardour sharpened the points of opposition, that the Judaizing party, out of a false zeal for the Old Testament and its forms, gradually went to the extent of damaging entirely the es- sential character of the New Testament. And if the proceeding of Peter is excusable on the grounds stated, it may also readily be understood and explained how it occurred, if you consider that the question regarding the relation of the Gen- tiles to the law by no means exhausts the whole subject. Paul laboured, although,not positively yet negatively, to free even the native Jews on their entrance into the church from the observance of the law. Now that was a step farther, and it might be exceed- ingly difficult to make the lawfulness of it plain to one like Peter, who probably held that the native Israelites were bound perpetu- ally to observe the law, and in this way his doubts would be revived in reference even to the relation of the Gentiles to the law.’ This whole question, however, regarding the relinquishment of the law 1 To guard as much as possible the difficult question of che apostle’s liability to error from all misunderstanding, I submit the following additional remarks. As the prophets of the Old Testament, according to the remark already made, were not perfect men, so also the apostles carried their heavenly treasure of the new birth and of the Holy Ghost in earthen vessels. They are not witnesses of the truth on account of their own sub- jective perfection, but only because God chose them according to his free grace to be instruments of his revelation. And, in accordance with this destination, indications of their liability to error could only appear in those moments, when they spoke in the mere exercise of their own powers. (Comp. 2 Sam. vii. 3,4.) But so soon again as they spoke with divine authority in the power of the Spirit, as heralds of the truth entrusted to them, they were infallibly directed by the Spirit who guides into al] truth. In earthly matters therefore, so far as these were not connected with the faith, or they had received no particular instruction regarding them, the apostles might err. But with respect to their work as writers of the Seriptures, no fault or error can be supposed in their reli- gious and moral ideas, because the work was performed in the most elevated moments of the inward life of faith, when their subjectivity was in the background. When there- fore Scripture makes mention of the error of an apostle, the truth of the account lies in ACTS Xv. 1-ὃ. 535 in the case of Jewish Christians will receive a farther consideration at chap. xxi. 17, &e. Vers. 1—5. The whole question regarding the relation of the Gentiles to the law, was brought under discussion by certain emis- saries from Jerusalem. (The words τινὲς ἀπὸ τῆς Iovdalas are more closely defined by the words τινὲς ἐξ ἡμῶν in ver. 24.) These men demanded that the Gentiles should receive circumcision, which, as the most important and burdensome part, stands for the observance of the law in general. (Comp. ver. 5.) The expres- sion however οὐ δύνασθε σωθῆναι, according to the remarks already made, is not to be understood as if the Jewish party, instead of counecting salvation, (σωτηρία,) with Christ and his redemption, had connected it with circumcision—in that case Paul and the whole church must have altogether denied their claim to be Christians (see Comm. on Gal. v. 4)—but it must be understood only as inti- mating, that the Gentile could not come in a regular way to the sal- vation that is in Christ, excepting through circumcision and the observance of the law. To this the apostles might suppose it ne- cessary to yield, conceding somewhat to the weakness of the advo- cates of this view. Vers. 1. The additional clause, τῶν πεπιστευκοτων ἀπὸ τῆς this, that it represents the error as an error. In this way you may recognise the Scrip- tures, as you must do, to be an infallible witness of the truth in religious and moral ideas, and aclear light shining upon the dark pathway of life; and yet you need not mis- take the subjective imperfection of the apostles, as moulding the outward form of Scrip- ture. The concluding phrase of this note is not clear. The author seems to mean that the Scriptures are infallible only where moral and religious ideas are concerned, but as to their general form and covtents they share the imperfection of their penman, Ac- cordingly a little farther on, at Acts xv. 13—18, he only thinks it to be extremely probable that we have a correct account of the course of proceedings in the Assem- bly at Jerusalem. Now this does not seem to be a good settlement of the difficult question regarding the apostles’ liability to mistake. That they were infallible during every moment of their existence, and on every subject, no one ever maintained : undoubtedly there was a subjective imperfection in them: they were men. Now the question is, where was that imperfection or infallibility controlled ὃ How far did it proceed? Olshausen says it touched not the moral and religious ideas of Scripture, but it might affect other things, such as historical details and the general dress of Scripture. But the correct view of the subject is, that it touched not the Seriptures at all. This was the sacred enclosure which the Spirit of God altogetuer prevented from being de- filed with any stain from man’s hand. Whatever imperfection might be in the apostles as men, touched not the sacred oracles. These oracles claim inspiration, but they no- where say that some parts of them only are inspired and others not. ‘They present the claim in general comprehensive language: they do not limit it to points of doc- trine and except history: We have no right therefore to make any such exception. —Tr. 536 ACTS xv. 1—d. αἱρέσεως τῶν Φαρισαίων, although correct as to the substance of the statement, as is plain from ver. 5, is yet not a genuine reading here, but has been interpolated from the verse in question.—Ver. 2. The τινὲς ἄλλοι are not more particularly defined, but from Gal. i. 1, where the same journey of Paul to Jerusalem that is here mentioned’ is spoken of, it may be concluded that Titus accom- panied the apostle. ‘This attendant Paul refused, notwithstanding the demands of the opposite party, to circumcise, that he might show by facts the difference of his principles from theirs: it is known that he acted otherwise in the case of Timothy (chap. xvi. 3.)? In the connexion between verses 4 and 5 a difficulty has been suppused to exist: Paul and Barnabas were dispatched for the express purpose of procuring for the Gentiles exemption from the observance of the law, and hence it bas appeared remarkable that they say nothing of the occasion of their journey. It has therefore been proposed to supply λέγοντες before ἐξανέστησαν δέ τινες, so that the 5th verse might contain an account of the arrival of the persons mentioned in ver. 1, with whom the controversy had arisen. But this transition from the indirect form of speech to the direct is manifestly full of harshness, not to mention that the word λέγοντες Occurs once more in the same verse, It is far more sim- ple to say, that Luke presupposes the occasion of the address deli- vered by the deputies to have been already mentioned, and intro- duces them as giving an account of their labours with the view of refuting their opponents. But in Jerusalem too, the strict Jewish Christians rose up immediately against them, and demanded that the Gentiles should observe the law. Vers. 6—12. For the settlement of this difficult question a formal 1 See the particulars regarding the journey, both in the general introduction to the Epistles of Paul, and at the passage itselfin Gal, ii. 1. Probably it took place in the year 52, after the birth of Christ (compare the second chronological table), although accounts fluctuate between the vear 47 and 52 after Christ. 2 Paul acted differently in the case of Timothy, but still in both cases he acted con- sistently with bis principles, He refused to circumcise Titus, because those who asked him to do so attached undue importance to circumcision, and made it essential to salva- tion. They had fallen from grace, Gal. ν. 4, and he could not countenance them. Be- sides Titus was a Greek, Gal. ii. 3. But Timothy was a Jew by the mother’s side, Acts xvi. 8. And Paul circumcised him that he might show he did not maintain the unlawfulness of circumcision in the case of Jews, provided only they did not substitute it in the room of the redemption of Christ. As a Jewish custom it was not wrong, but made indispensable to salvation under the Gospel it was derogatory to the Saviour.— ‘LR, ACIS xv. 6—12. 537 assembly of the apostles and elders was appointed at Jerusalem. In this meeting opinions were at first divided. It may therefore be concluded with certainty, that some even of the presbyters be- longed to the strict Jewish Christians. So far as verse 5 is con- cerned, it might still remain uncertain, whether the elders formerly mentioned were not simply believers (ver. 4), invested with no ec- clesiastical office, but here in the assembly there were only minis- ters of the church, and yet there arose a warm dispute (συζητήσις) about the question. First of all Peter arose and detailed his own experience, which he had already, at an earlier period, laid before the church (chap. xi. 1, &e.), and by which at that time he had convinced them of the propriety of his conduct. It does not ap- pear clear how Peter can call the attempt, to impose upon the Gen- tiles the yoke of the law, a tempting of God (πειράζειν tov Θεόν.) But the choice of this expression probably takes its rise from ver. 8, where Peter mentions the giving of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius and his friends. This gift furnished an exhibition that could not at all be mistaken of the divine will: every deviation from it therefore was a wilful tempting of God, because he could not possibly give more convincing proofs of his will. Ver. 7. The phrase ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν ἀρχαίων is formed after the He- brew O77) ahaa Ps. xliv. 2. It points to a considerable time, which must have elapsed since the conversion of Cornelius. It is fitted to make the impression that the question, as to its essen- tial features, bas been settled long ago. With regard to ἐν ἡμῖν it must by no means be said, that it is equivalent to ἡμᾶς : that idea is negatived by the μου which follows: rather must ἐμέ be supplied, and the passage rendered thus, “God made choice among us of me, to preach first to the Gentiles."—Ver. 9. The expression τῇ πίστει καθαρίσας τὰς καρδίας is a peculiar one. The purifying, sanctifying principle is properly the πνεῦμα, but this is received in connexion with faith, and therefore the same effect may be ascribed to the one, which belongs to the other.—Ver. 10. It is a remarkable acknowledgment of Peter, that neither they nor their fathers had been able to bear the law. That the apostle could make this declaration before the venerable assembly without 1 Regarding the section that follows see Stier in den reden der apostel, bd ii. 8. 29, &c., and Menkens blicke in das leben des apostels Paulus, p. 14, ἕο 2 538 Acts xv. 183—18. being contradicted, shows that all were penetrated with the truth of the statement. The sentiment illustrates the important passages of Paul’s writings contained in Rom. 1]. 20 and Gal. iii. 10.—Ver. 11. Between the law (νόμος) and the grace which has been revealed in Christ (χάρις), there is a complete contrast according to the usage observed both by Paul and John. (See Comm. at John i. 17; Rom. iii. 21.) Moreover we must not refer the words καθ᾽ ὃν τρόπον κἀκεῖνοι to the patriarchs, as the older interpreters do, but to the Gentiles, as Kuinoel has already rightly remarked. Vers. 13—18. After the deputies of Antidch had availed them- selves of the impression made by the speech of Peter, to get their own similar experience made known, James at length arose, and by means of a healing measure endeavoured to soothe the op- posite party, and to bring about an unanimous decision of the assem- bly. First of all the bishop mentions the predictions of the Old Testament regarding the calling of the Gentiles, citing Amos ix. 11, 12. But here one sees not, how the quotation bears upon the point under review : the opposite party did not object to the recep- tion of the Gentiles considered in itself: the only question raised was about the conditions of the reception, but the passage says not in express terms, that the Gentiles were to be received without the observance of the law and circumcision. Probably however James drew his conclusion from the silence of the passage quoted, which does not at all declare that the Gentiles were first to become Jews in order to gain admission into the kingdom of the Messiah, but rather describes them as seeking the Lord in the character of Gentiles," Regarding ἐπισκέπτεσθαι, see Comm. on Luke i. 68. The words, ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι αὐτοῦ. are after the Hebrew fashion loosely appended, corresponding to ou) by, They are to be viewed as in opposition with λαός, and denote the near relation of the people of Israel, that,is, the true spiritual inward Israel, to God, Rom. ii. 28, 29.—In the quotation, vers. 16—1L8, the first verse, upon which little stress is laid, deviates very far from the LXX., but the last two agree almost exactly. In most manuscripts of the LXX., the 1 On this point, see Hengstenberg’s remarks (Christology. B. iii. p. 233, &e.) aceord- ing to which the quotation acquires significancy, only when connected with the declara- tion of God, made not verbally but virtually in the communication of the Holy Ghost to the Gentiles. ACTS xv. 19—21. 539 words Tov κύριον are wanting, but the Alexandrian codex has them. In the concluding words further the phrase γνωσταὶ ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος, is wanting. But the last verses deviate entirely from the oe which runs thus: DITN ΓΝ ΤΙΝ wan ἸΡῸ that ‘*to the end that they may possess the remnant of Edom.” In this pene the passage could not at all appear suitable to the purpose of James ; and therefore, if we can suppose, as is extremely probable, that we possess an accurate account of these important transactions,1 then it may be concluded, that in the bosom of the Assembly at this time Greek must have been spoken, because the passage adduced can only have been cited from the LXX.2 The expression, σκηνὴ Δαβίδ, TIT MDD: is a figurative name for his house and family, but David's family stands for the entire nation, of which it forms the central point.—-Ver. 17. ἐφ᾽ οὕς, with the following ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, corresponds to the Hebrew, Wwy—omdy: Moreover the phrase, ἐφ᾽ ὅυς ἐπικέκληται TO ὄνομά μου, divides the Gentile world into two parts, viz., those upon whom the name of the Lord is named, and others upon whom it is not named. The former mean those ordained to eternal life. Vers. 19—21. Instead of laying upon the Gentiles the burden of the whole law, and consequently of circumcision, James recom- mends to enforce upon them only the reception of certain individual precepts of easy observance. The object of this enforcement was ‘plainly nothing but this, to meet in some measure the difficulties of the Jewish Christians, and to lead the Gentile Christians to shun whatever might prove offensive to their Jewish brethren. In all this then it was clearly indicated that the prohibitions had no absolute value ; once let the Jewish Christians be more thoroughly freed from Old Testament forms, and the end for which those ordinances were made would no longer exist. Now the ground on which these particular points were brought into view, is explained by the circumstance, that they were wont to be laid upon the 1 See note, page 554. 2 See the note on this subject in the Comm., Part i., at Luke iv. 18, 19. Hengstenberg in the work above referred to, page 235, &c., will not allow there is any difference. Yet he himself confesses, that the Alexandrian translators have substituted a general idea in the room of the particular, which is marked out by Amos as part of the general. Now my words mean nothing more.than this: I readily acknowledge that the particular, viz., Edom, is quite suitably extended to the general, viz., the Gentiles (ἔθνη) 540 ACTs xv. 19—21. proselytes of the gate in the so-called seven precepts of Noah. (Compare Buxtorf. lex. rabb. sub voce 3): pag. 407, seqq., and Winer's bib]. Reallex. under the word proselytes.) This therefore is the import of the arrangement, that the Gentile Christians should not be obliged to become proselytes of righteousness by cireum- cision, but only to live as proselytes of the gate. Those of the seven precepts of Noah, which are here omitted, viz. the ones regarding blasphemy, murder, robbery, sedition, were of such a kind that it was self-evident to Christians the like should have no place among them: in the present instance it was not so much precepts of a purely moral character, which required to be brought forward, as precepts which referred merely to the outward life. That the ἀλισγήματα τῶν εἰδώλων are to be understood of an outward act, viz. the eating of the flesh of sacrifices, is quite clear from the analogous expression εἰδωλόθυτα which occurs in the 29th verse. The more particular distinction made by Paul in 1 Cor. x., between such flesh of sacrifices as was bought directly from another in the shambles, and such as was eaten in the tem- ple at an idol-festival, is not entered upon by the assembly: they forbid in the widest sense all eating of sacrifices, because the Jews took offence at it. The same holds good of the eating of blood, and, which is the same thing, of that which was strangled, in which the blood remained congealed. The Jews had the utmost abhorrence of the eating of blood, which was grounded particularly upon the strong declarations of the Old Testament contained in Lev. xvii. 10, 11. In this passage it is not merely said that Je- hovah would set his face against him who eats blood, but the blood is also represented as the support of the soul, that is, of the physical life, and it is placed in connexion with the propitiation, which can only be made by the shedding of blood. (Heb. ix. 22.) This law appears to have been strictly observed by the primitive church (see Euseb, H. E. v. 1), and even in the middle ages the injunc- 1 The omission of the words καὶ τοῦ πνικτοῦ in several critical authorities probably arose from this, that the two injunctions to abstain from blood and from things strangled were regarded as identical. The prohibition of blood, moreover, and which is the same thing of strangled animals, had also an internal ground, like all laws re- garding food, for physical and psychical elements that cause derangement ought to be shunned. When the mighty power of the Gospel was introduced, most of these might have been abrogated, but it was still found necessary to forbid the eating of blood, until the power of the new Spirit should heve entirely developed itself. ACTS xv. 19—21. 541 tion was frequently given by the spiritual authorities to avoid the eating of blood.’ The mention of πορνεία appears to be quite foreign to the na- ture of the other injunctions, and opposed to our view of the object of these apostolic ordinances, It mixes something of a purely moral character with ordinances, that refer only to matters of outward ob- servance. As the Codices present no various readings, conjecture has been called in to give her assistance, and, instead of πορνείας, it has been proposed to read πορκείας or youpelas. The sense brought out in this manner would indeed be very suitable, but besides the total want of critical authorities to support it, this reading is decidedly opposed by the circumstance, that among the precepts of Noah there is no mention made of abstinence from swine’s flesh, while πορνεία is expressly introduced among them. If the reading then be retained, which is supported too by the parallel passage in chapter xxi. 25, the difficulty can only be removed by some mode of explanation. Most of the explanations however which have been proposed, are little worthy of being received. It has been proposed to understand the word figuratively of idolatry, but it is not possible that among Chris- tians gross idolatry could require to be thus spoken of; and if you refer the word to participation in sacrificial feasts and the eating of sa crifices, then it coincides with the first injunction. Quite a failure must the experiment made by Heinsius be pronounced, of taking πορνειά for θυσία πορνικὴ. by which phrase you must understand a sacrifice purchased with the hire of a harlot. To overlook every other objection, this view refers to a state of matters so grossly sinful, as could not be thought of among Christians. Undoubtedly the only proper course is to bring into view the greater freedom of intercourse ~ between the sexes, which prevailed among the Greeks and Romans, which was an abomination to the more serious Jews, and appeared to them in fact a refined species of whoredom. By the word in question therefore, which comprehends not only gross violations of the seventh commandment, but also more polished sins of this kind, the assembled brethren enjoin upon the heathen Christians greater 1 Yet this applies particularly to the Greek church: see the acts of the second Trul- Janie Council of the year 692 in Canon 67. In the Latin church Augustine (cont. Faustum xxxii. 13) already took the right view. 542 ACTS Xv. 22—29. care and circumspection in their intercourse with the female sex, that they might give no offence to the Jewish Christians. The 21st verse plainly assigns, though very shortly, the ground for the injunctions laid down. The connexion of thought is made somewhat obscure by the brevity. Some have therefore been led to very unsuitable connexions. Some interpreters, as for example Grotius, have thought of the reading of the Old Testa- ment in Christian assemblies, and have therefore fancied the idea which connects the 2lst verse with the foregoing, to be this, that the complaint of the Jewish Christians regarding the Gentile Christians was unreasonable, since they too read the Holy Scrip- tures in their meetings. And even Bengel’s view is to be rejected, which makes the 2lst verse give a reason, why James does not adduce, besides the passage from the prophets, une too from the writings of Moses, viz., because they were sufficiently known. This view is plainly quite untenable, because the 915: verse is not connected with the quotation, for the 19th and 20th verses lie between them. The yap only permits the concluding verse to be connected with ἀπέχεσθαι, so that the following sense comes out: it is proper to enjoin upon the Gentile Christians the observance of the ordinances in question, because, wherever the Jews reside, the law of Moses is read, and thus those ordinances are so deeply impressed upon the people's mind, that they cannot tolerate the neglect of them by the Gentile Christians. Ver. 19. παρενοχλεῖν is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament.—Ver. 20. As to ἐπιστέλλειν the meaning of * enjoin by letter” must be retained, for there were no Gentile Chris- tians in Jerusalem. ‘This is plain also from Acts xxi. 25.—The word ἀλισγήματα from ἀλισιγέω, which Hesychius explains by μολύνω, is only to be found in the Hellenistic dialect. The LXX. use the verb for the Hebrew Oss» see Mal. i. 7. The substantive ἀλίσγημα is not to be found at all in the Greek translations of the Old ‘Testament. Vers. 22——29. After the adoption of the proposals of James, two deputies were sent back to the churches, where the matter had first been brought into controversy. Along with the decrees they took an Official letter of the council, which has been preserved to us in the original by the care of Luke. The brevity indeed and art- ACTS xv. 22——29,. 5438 lessness of the letter might make us doubt for a moment, whether it be the original of the synod’s letter which we have, but a closer consideration renders this in the highest degree probable. Even when the letter might be copied, it would be rendered quite com- plete and formal, by an account of the occasion of the controversy and information regarding the proceedings; and as to the pre- cise circumstances for which it was intended, the very brevity of it made it exactly suitable to them. It could be supplemented and explained by the oral accounts of the deputies, and everywhere de- livered in the churches of the Gentiles as a public letter: for such an object the form adopted was the only one suitable. In ver. 22 there is a difficulty connected with the construction of ἐκλεξαμένους. ‘The passive use of the middle form is unusual (see Winer’s Gr. p. 233) ; and if you make it refer actively to the apostles, the accusative seems surprising, as does also the nomina- tive γράψαντες in the 23d verse. The position of ἐκλεξαμένους how- ever makes the connexion of it with τοῖς ἀποστόλοις decidedly more probable, and then the accusative with πέμψαι must be regarded as the accusative before the infinitive. And the participle following, viz., γράψαντες, must be viewed as an instance of incomplete con- struction.—Of Judas Barsabas, who must not be confounded with Joseph Barsabas mentioned in chap. i. 28, no further mention is made in history. Silas, or in the longer form Silvanus, is the well- known travelling companion of Paul. The shorter form of the name is peculiar to the Acts of the Apostles, the longer is to be found in the letters of Paul—Ver. 23. At first the letter appears to have been directed only to the inhabitants of certain provinces, who were particularly interested in the controversy ; but that it was designed for general use is plain from chap. xxi. 25, where we learn that Paul delivered the decrees wherever the course of his journeys brought him.—Ver. 24. avaoxevaf means primarily vasa colli- gere, ‘‘to gather articles together on the occasion of departing,” and hence to ‘‘journey :” next “to destroy, to entangle, to perplex.” So it means in Thucyd. iv. 116. It occurs no more in the New Testa- ment.—Ver.25. Theapostles expressly enjoin Paul to declare openly that they do not concur with the charges of the Jewish Christians against him. Τιθέναι ψυχήν equivalent to yipy oxw,—Ver. 28. Here we find the formula, which has become so famous, in conse- quence of the general use of it afterwards by councils : ἔδοξε τῷ 544 Acts xv. 30—35. ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ἡμῖν. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that this expression has often been employed, in cases where the Holy Ghost only appeared and acted in specie bubonis; but such abuse cannot at all prejudice the proper use of the formula, and, if its propriety be allowed anywhere, here undoubtedly it must be sup- posed. In the primitive church, the operation of the Holy Ghost in the apostles was so decidedly recognised, that their δόγ- pata, as such, had binding power. (See chap. xvi. 4.) Those therefore who opposed the decrees of the apostles, separated them- selves by that very act from the communion of the church ; and their parties assumed a sectarian form, which led to gradual decay and final ruin. Connexion with the apostles could alone maintain connexion with the fountain of life, bestowed by the Spirit of God upon the church. Vers. 30—35. After the fulfilment of their commission, the de- puties of the church at Jerusalem devoted themselves to the preach- ing of the Gospel, and Joseph Barsabas returned, after the lapse of some time; but Silas remained in Antioch, and attached himself wholly to the Apostle Paul.— Ver. 32. The clause καὶ αὐτοὶ προφῆ- Tat ὄντες is not to be understood primarily, as in chap. xi. 27, of the gift of predicting future events, which is not here the subject under consideration. The connexion of these words with the work of teaching leads to the conclusion, that the gift of prophecy, προ- φητεία, must be here understood, agreeably to the description of it given by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv., where see the subject more particu- larly considered. But, of course, the foresight of future events is not in this way excluded: it is only meant that this is not the neces- sary form in which the προφητεία displays itself—Ver. 34 is re- markable on account of the plural ἀπελύθησαν which precedes it: the verse is wanting therefore in several manuscripts, and others add the clause: μόνος δὲ ᾿Ιούδας ἐπορεύθη. Light however is thrown upon the arrangement of the clauses, when it is supposed that Silas wished at first to go back with Judas, but afterwards be- thought himself and remained.—The word αὐτοῦ in verse 34 is an abbreviated expression for ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῦ τοῦ τόπου. 1 It is self-evident, however, that the words καὶ ἡμῖν do not represent the apostles as considered separately from the Holy Ghost: they are rather to be understood as if it were written πνεύματι ἐν ἡμῖν. See the discussion by Nitzsch regarding Acts xv. 20, in Velthusen syll. vol. vi. pag. 385, sqq. ACTS xv. 90---89, 545 § 7. SECOND MISSIONARY JOURNEY OF PAUL. (Acts xv. 36—xvili. 22.) The account of the second missionary journey of Paul is con- nected, quite indefinitely as to time, with the preceding section. Luke neither states how long Barnabas had been in Antioch before his return to Jerusalem, nor how long Paul remained after his de- parture. It remains therefore quite uncertain, to what the words μετὰ Twas ἡμέρας, in ver. 36, are properly to be referred. They might be supposed to look back to the return of Paul from Jerusalem, but this does not accord with the words ποιήσαντες χρόνον in ver. 33, on which account it is best to regard the depar- ture of Judas Barsabas, by which the decision of Silas to re- main was fixed, as the period to which the formula refers. Accord- ingly, you can only determine the time of this journey from its connexion with the earlier and later points of Paul's life: the most probable supposition is, that the commencement of it falls in the year 53. ‘This second missionary tour appears to have proceeded at first, solely from the desire of visiting the churches already planted. In the end, however, it took a much wider sweep, for it brought the apostle to Europe. On this account it had quite a peculiar interest for Luke ; for it must have been of consequence to him, considering the character of his first readers, to exhibit the introduction of the Gospel into Europe. Besides, it was shortly before the departure of Paul from Troas that Luke himself first joined his company, chap. xvi. 10. He hurries therefore rapidly over the events in Asia, and dwells with peculiar interest on Phi- lippi, the first place in Europe where Paul succeeded in forming a church. Afterwards too Luke gives particular information regard- ing the stay of Paul in Corinth and Athens. Vers. 36—39. But before the time of departure arrived, a con- test arose between Barnabas and Paul, who were purposing to visit together the churches which they had planted in common, regard- ing John Mark, who, as we find from chap. xiii. 15, had left them on the first journey. The manner in which Paul mentions this desertion plainly shows that he blamed it, and ascribed it to im- pure motives on the part of Mark. It is altogether most probable VOL IV. 2M 546 ACTS xv. 40---4]. . that the hardships and dangers of the journey had alarmed the in- experienced youth. Now the conduct of Paul and Barnabas in reference to this event is striking in more than one respect. Not to mention the sharp contention’ which burned between them,” Paul appears, although indeed this cannot be imagined, to have permanently violated the principle of love, for on account of a single fault he entirely threw off Mark; and of Barnabas it might be feared that love for his relative (for according to Col. iv. 10. Mark was related to Barnabas), more than a conviction of his fit- ness, was the motive for taking him as a companion on bis mission- ary journey But on closer consideration these surmises are seen tu be perfectly groundless. Mark appears in fact to have de- served a severe castigation, and therefore Paul felt constrained to administer it, although with no view of casting him off entirely ; and perhaps the severity of Paul’s rebuke might be the means in the hands of God, of moulding him’ to be a proper instrument for the kingdom of Christ ; but if Barnabas had opposed him in the same manner, all hope might have been at once torn from him, of doing any thing for the church. The mildness of Barnabas to- wards Mark, we may therefore ascribe to the conviction that, not- withstanding the momentary transgression of his relative, there were noble parts in him, which ought not to be neglected. The con- currence therefore of two such different influences, in the treatment of his case, may have been just the fitting means for training him aright; and there may be no reproach due to Barnabas or Paul on account of their conduct; both erred only through the heat of self-will, from which the contention arose. Vers. 40, 41. After this Paul chose Silas for his companion, and went on this occasion by land, through Syria and Cilicia, into the interior of Asia Minor, to the churches at Derbe and Lystra. 1 The attempt of many to justify both completely, or at least Paul, I cannot approve. If both had been perfect men, no contention would have arisen, no exasperation of mind ; for there must always be two to a quarrel. Yea, there would have been no con- tention, if even only one of them had been perfect. Our Lord could never have quar- relled with any individual! In the case before us, both were indeed right, but they defended their views in a one-sided manner, and with the heat of self. will. 2 Agreeably to the remarks made at chap. xv. 1, a contention might arise even between apostolic men, just as between regenerate menin general, but ouly for a short time, and doubtless the two apostles soon bethought themselves, and even rebuked their own hearts. The word παροξυσμός denotes any violent excitement of mind. It is to be found in a good sense in Heb, x. 24. ACTS XVI. 1—5. SAT Barnabas, on the other hand, sailed first back to Cyprus, but there are no accounts of the further course of his journey. The one stream of missionary labour thus became divided into two parts, and the more regions were in consequence supplied with the water of life-—Ver. 40. The phrase, παραδοθεὶς τῇ χάριτι τοῦ Θεου ὑπὸ τῶν ἀδελφῶν, refers to the official sending forth of the messen- gers of Christ by the church. Chap. xvi. 1—5.' Of the apostolic labours of Paul, Luke only mentions in general, that he delivered (ver. 4) the apostolic decrees (chap. xv. 29) everywhere, and confirmed the churches in the faith. He makes mention of only one particular occurrence, viz., the calling of Timothy, because this man plays so important a part in the subsequent history of Paul. According to the account of Luke, it is doubtful where Timothy really came from. ’Exe?, in ver. | ap- pears to refer mainly to Lystra, which is named again in ver. 2. If the passage in Acts xx. 4 means that Timothy was from Derbe, then the mention of Lystra and Iconium in ver. 2. must be explained on this principle, that Paul adduces in behalf of ‘Timothy not only the favourable testimony, as we must suppose, of his native city, but also that of neighbouring cities. (See the exposition of chap. xx. 4.) The notice in verse 3 is a most important one, that Paul for the sake of the Jews circumcised Timothy, whose father was a Greek: the father, it appears, if he was not already dead, had not joined himself to the church ; for itis only the Jewish mother of Timothy, who is called a believer. In this the apostle appears to have been untrue to his principles, not only in the general, but also as exhibited in the special fact that he refused to let Titus be cir- cumcised. Gal. ii. 8. But in the narrative about Titus, it is com- pulsory circumcision of which mention is made, which Paul could not submit to without coming into direct collision with his prin- ciples (οὐδὲ Τίτος ἠναγκάσθη περυτμῆθηναι), while Timothy will- ingly submitted to the rite. Where this voluntary reception of the ceremony took place, nothing could hinder him from permitting it ; yea, his great principle of becoming a Jew to the Jews (1 Cor. ix. 20), would rather lead him to desire, that the heralds of the Gospel should be circumcised, in order that they might give no of- fence to the weak Jews. The procedure of Paul shows accordingly 2 On chaps. xvi.—xviii., see the excellent remarks of Tholuck in his credibility, p. 381, &e, 2M 2 548 ACTS xvi. 6—10. his entire freedom from self-willed dogmatism, and his disinterested devotedness to the work of extending the kingdom of God. There can be no doubt that Paul immediately took Timothy along with him. That his adhesion to Paul is first mentioned in chap. xvii. 15, may be easily explained from the consideration, that Timothy would require to be first initiated in the work, and therefore in the beginning could do but little. Yet it is plain from 1 Thess. iii. 1, that Paul, when he was in Thessalonica, had already employed Timothy on missions. Vers. 6—10. It is remarkable that Luke mentions so shortly the journey of Paul through Galatia and Phrygia: he is impatient, as we have already remarked, to see the apostle arrive in Europe. From this brevity the disadvantage has arisen to us, that the for- mation of the important churches of Galatia, as well as the places where they stood, have remained quite unknown to us. (See fur- ther particulars in the introduction to the Epistle to the Galatians.) It is a remarkable statement too which Luke here makes, that the messengers of Christ could not preach in Asia (meaning Asia pro- consularis with its metropolis Ephesus, corresponding to the ancient Ionia), and Mysia and Bithynia, because the Holy Ghost hindered them. The manner in which Luke describes this hindrance, is well adapted to exhibit the operation of the higher πνεῦμα in the souls of the apostles. The ψυχή of the individual who had re- ceived the Holy Ghost, was by no means so identified with the Spirit, that he was not conscious of the difference; but he could distinguish the movements of his Ψυχή very plainly from the ope- rations of the πνεῦμα. His own impulses led often, if not to the sinful, (although even this cannot be altogether excluded) yet cer- tainly to the false, and to what was unsuitable to the circumstances. The operations of the Holy Ghost in such a case restrained the soul in its activity, and guided it aright. The influence of the Spirit, however, did not work as a power that violently compelled, but only as one that gently guided the will: a sinful opposition to -the im- pulses of the Spirit always remained, objectively considered, a pos- sible thing, only of course in the apostles as regenerate men, the will was inclined to follow every intimation of the Spirit. In the passage before us therefore ἐπείράζον denotes the natural move- ment of the ψυχή. which regards every place and every time as equally suitable for preaching: οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτούς, on the other hand, denotes the restraining influence of the Spirit, who took a ACTS xvi. 6—10. 549 wider view, and considered the minds of men in those lands as not yet sufficiently prepared for receiving the Gospel. It is not im- probable too that outward circumstances were adverse to their minis- try in the provinces mentioned ; but Luke cannot refer primarily to these, for then he would have said ὁ Θεὸς, or at least ὁ κύριος οὐκ εἴασεν αὐτούς. The word πνεῦμα always refers mainly to the in- ward influence, which the apostles experienced in their hearts. Ver. 7. πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ is a peculiar form of expression, which is to be found in no other part of the New Testament. It is wanting therefore in several Codices, and even in the Textus Receptus. The best critics however have adopted it, on ac- count of the difficulty of the reading, following the authority of the manuscripts A.C.D.F., and several others. The diffi- culty of the expression πνεῦμα ᾿Ιησοῦ lies in this, that it seems to give countenance to the idea of the Monophysites, of a mix- ture of the natures of Christ. The Holy Ghost, of whom the Lord says in John xvi. 15, “he will take of mine,” may well indeed be styled πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ, and often is so styled; but not, as it seems, πνεῦμα ‘Incov, because the latter word refers only to the human nature, while the former describes the divine nature of the Son. The employment however of such forms is very in- structive, inasmuch as it shows that the apostles, although they avoid grossly Monophysital intermixtures of the qualities of the two natures, are yet far removed from the Nestorian disjunction of them. The Redeemer is always with them the one glorious divine human person, in whom neither the divine annihilates or absorbs the human, nor the human the divine. And the church would have done well, if with respect to the important doctrine of the per- son of Christ, it had not gone beyond the forms of expression sanc- tioned in the Holy Scriptures ; all the sacred penmen discover in the choice of their dogmatic formulae a moderation, which keeps them far from every false extreme. A vision by night now summoned Paul to Macedonia, and im- mediately he hastened away. ‘This vision is commonly supposed to have been a dream, but the text does not necessarily lead to this conclusion, for διὰ νυκτὸς does not exclude the idea of being awake. Paul may have seen the vision while praying by night, as it appears from Acts xvi. 25, he was wont to do. Besides, my fundamental principle as to the gradation of the modes of divine 550 ACTS XVI. 11—18. revelation prevents me from admitting the idea of a dream here. (See Comm. on Matt. i. 18.) Communication by dreams is the lowest form of revelation, and we do not meet with it elsewhere in the case of the apostles, who were endowed with the Holy Ghost. Their vi- sions of ecstacy they always received in a waking condition. (See Acts x.) In ver. 10 Luke begins his narrative in the first person, whence it is plain that he must now have joined the apostle’s company. His modesty however does not permit him to enter farther on his own personal circumstances. (Regarding συμβιβάζω compare chap. ix, 22:) Vers. 11-- -13. Here the narrative at once assumes a different character, the information imparted by Luke becoming quite minute. The most direct course was taken by the island of Samothrace, from which they came on the following day to the harbour of Neapolis, in the neighbourhood of which Philippi lay. This city, rendered so famous by the battle fought near it, in which the freedom of Rome perished, was originally called Κρηνίδες, but it was enlarged and fortified by Philip of Macedonia, and named after him. Un- der the dominion of the Romans Augustus formed a colony in it, in consequence of which it received the jus Italicum. It is not clear, why Luke calls it πόλις τῆς μερίδος τῆς Μακεδονιάς πρώτη. Macedonia was divided by Aemilius Paulus into four parts (Liv. xlv. 29), and each of these had a πρώτη πόλις ; but the chief city of the part where Philippi lay was Ampbipolis. Meyer supposes he removes the difficulty by connecting the words πρώτη πόλις κολώνια, “ it was the first Roman colonial city established in Mace- donia,” but πόλιες and κολώνια are never combined so as to ex- press one idea, As the article is wanting before πρώτη, we might understand the passage, as Kuinoel does, thus, “ one of the first or principal cities of this part of Macedonia,” τῆς being viewed as equivalent to ταύτης. However Bengel’s view, in which Heinrichs also concurs, ought to be preferred, according to which πρώτη is understood not of the importance of the city, but of its situation. Philippi was the first city of this part of Macedonia, which Paul reached by the course he was pursuing, for Neapolis was only the port of Philippi. On the very first Sabbath they visited the assembly of the Jews in Philippi, and entered into discourse with the female proselytes, AcTs xvi. 11---- 18. 5 bil whom they found collected there. The Jews commonly*had their places of meeting beside rivers, because they found them requisite for their washings. The circumstance that they were often without the city, might be occasioned, as much by the hostility of the Gen- tiles, as by the desire of the Jews that their usages should attract the less notice. The original signification of the word ἐνομίζετο, derived from νόμος, “ to prevail as a custom, statute, regulation,’ must be held fast, and therefore no pleonasm is to be thought of here.—Regard- ing προσευχή, see Comm. on Matt. iv. 23. It is the abbreviated expression for nban ma. οἶκος προσευχῆς, Matt. xxi. 13. It is here we first find the narrative conducted in the first person, and this leads us to consider more narrowly the view already touched upon in the introduction, and defended particularly by Bleek and Ulrich, that this form does not spring from the fact of Luke's having been an eye-witness, but is to be traced up to the author of the documents which Luke employed, whom the learned men in question suppose to have been Timothy. But the reasons given do not appear to me sufficient to establish this assertion. In the first place, an appeal is made to the fact, that Luke does not appear, at least at that time, to have been so intimately connected with Paul as this inclusive form of narrative would indicate : it is in his latest letters that Paul first names Luke, as in Col. iv. 14;' Philem. v. 24; 2 Tim. iv. 11. But the form of nar- rative in question proceeds from Luke, not from Paul: in the mouth of the latter it would be an expression of great familiarity, but every servant may describe the journies of his master in the first person: how much more then the assistant of an apostle, al- though occupying a subordinate position? Again, it is asserted that the cessation of the inclusive form of narrative, as well as the recurrence of it, coincides with occasions, as to which we know from other sources that Timothy had either left the apostle, or had returned to him. ‘That certainly would be a considerauon of no smal] importance. No doubt Luke might have been absent αὖ the same time with Timothy, or have returned along with him ; but still undeniably such a fact would support the hypothesis, that Timothy was the author of the inclusive form of narrative. But the supposition does not appear to me sufficiently established. In the very passage before us, the narrative proceeds as far as chap. 552 ACTS xvi. 14, 15. xvi. 17 in the first person with ἡμεῖς ; and, from the 19th verse on- wards, there is mention made only of Paul and Silas as imprisoned. But this does not prove that Timothy had gone to a distance: he was only not present at the moment of the capture, and the same may be supposed with regard to Luke. These and others might be included among the brethren mentioned in ver. 40, to whom the released prisoners returned. It is true indeed at chap. xvii. 1, the inclusive mode of narration ceases; but it cannot be proved that Timothy alone was left behind just at this point. The sup- position that Luke, if the first person was designed to include himself in the narrative, would have stated when and why he was anywhere left behind, is plainly of a very precarious nature. On the other hand, chap. xix. 22 speaks decidedly against the suppo- sition that ἡμεῖς in the narrative proceeds from Timothy ; for there we find him sent by the apostle with Erastus to Mace- donia. Timothy had therefore been with Paul, and yet the preceding narrative is not conducted in the first person, as must have been the case on the supposition we are combatting. But chap. xx. 4 is peculiarly decisive, for there it is said that Timo- theus, along with others, went before the apostle to Troas, and then ver. 5 proceeds thus: οὗτοι προελθόντες ἔμενον ἡμᾶς ἐν Τρωάδι. The word ἡμᾶς could not be written by Timothy, for he was among those who waited for Paul : it still remains, therefore, the most na- tural supposition, that the form of the narrative in the first person proceeded from the penman of the Acts himself. Vers. 14, 15. Among the women mentioned was Lydia, a native of Thyatira, a seller of purple, who first believed and immediately received baptism.’ It is a significant expression that is here used regarding her, ἧς ὁ κύριος διήνοιξε τὴν καρδίαν, and shows that the inclination of the heart towards the truth originates not in the will of man. ‘The first disposition to turn to the Gospel is a work of grace. Yet this idea does not imply that grace is compulsory, for it remained possible that either the fear of men or their favour might have impelled Lydia, to quench the workings of it in her heart. There is no trace to be found here of instruction before baptism: without doubt the rite took place merely on a profession of faith in Jesus as the Messiah. But for that very reason it is 1 On the whole following section see Menken’s life of Paul, p. 133, &o, ACTS xvi. 44,15. 553 highly improbable that the phrase οἶκος αὐτῆς should be under- stood as including infant children: relatives, servants, grown chil- dren might be baptized along with her, for they would be at once carried away by the youthful power of her new life of faith. There is altogether wanting any conclusive proof-passage for the baptism of children in the age of the apostles! nor can the necessity of it be deduced from the nature of baptism. ‘To allege that the influ- ences of the Spirit might be at work in the unconscious child in the very womb is not sufficient, for regeneration, of which baptism ac- cording to the complete idea of it, stands forth as the means, is more than a mere reception of higher powers :3 it is a reception of them into the deepest foundations of the life, and consequently implies a change of the whole course of life, which cannot be conceived to exist without consciousness and a profession of surrender to the holy and exalted possessor of these powers. Still however the propriety of infant baptism is undoubted, and the condition of the church after the close of the third century imperatively required its introduction. Butin this way Christian baptism sank down to the position, as it were, of John’s baptism, and it acquired its full signi- ficance only when it was connected with confirmation. And as baptism, so also the whole church had fallen back to a position of legality, of which the clear consciousness first appeared at the Re- formation, and then also the effort was made to return to the pri- mitive Christian model. (See the Comm. at Matt. iii. 1, and John iy. 1.). The commencement of the separation between bap- tism and regeneration by the gift of the Holy Ghost, we discover 1 In the words describing the institution of baptism,in Matt. xxviii. 19, the connexion of μαθητεύειν with βαπτίζειν and διδάσκειν appears quite positively to oppose the idea, that the baptism of children entered at first into the view of Christ. In the Western church the feeling that infant baptism was not itself the baptism of regeneration, appeared plainly in the fact that from the earliest times baptized children were first admitted to the sacrament of the Supper after their χρίσμα. If the child had really been born again in baptism, then the participation of the sacrament of the Supper ought to have been immediately allowed. According to the Lutheran views of doctrine, moreover, baptism removes merely the guilt of original sin, but not its dominion, which is first overthrown in regeneration, (See Hutter. rediv. p. 206, not. 10, edit. tert.) Accordingly the whole question, whether infant baptism be regeneration itself, appears to depend upon the defi- nition you give of regeneration. We view itas the communication of the higher life of Christ, and consequently as involving the abolition of the dominion of original sin. See the remarks on Rom. vii. 24. 2 There is a similar distinction in the life of the apostles, between having the Spirit breathed upon them (John xx. 22), and receiving him when he was poured out on the day of Pentecost. 554 Acts xvi. 14, 15. so early as the instructive narrative of the conversion of the Sa- maritans. It was a long time after the administration of baptism by Philip, that the apostle Peter communicated the Holy Ghost to the baptized. The practice too of baptism by the disciples of Jesus, before the institution of the sacrament and the outpouring of the Spirit, presupposes that these points might exist separately. It is best therefore to express one’s self thus, that the elements of repent- ance and regeneration, united in the sacrament of baptism, and pre- figured by immersion and emersion (see Comm. at Rom. vi. 3, &c.), were separated from one another in the later practice of the church, when infant baptism came into use. Only the one half is to be seen in infant baptism itself, the other half appears in confirmation. See also Comm. on Acts vili. 16—24, &c., and John iv. 2.1 1 The statements here made regarding baptism seem very unsatisfactory. If baptism and regeneration were originally joined together by Christ in the manner supposed by Olshausen, then it could not be right in the church afterwards to separate them. But the concession made by the author, that the commencement of the separation between them appears even in the Scriptures in the case of the Samaritans, might well have suggested the doubt whether he had not misunderstood the original connexion between them. The case of the Samaritans occurring so early, should in all fairness be re- garded, not as adeviation from the law of Christ, but as a practical illustration of it. The view here given of baptism, that it is the means or instrument of effecting regene- ration, is very open to objection. ‘There is no warrantfrom Scripture for supposing that the mere ordinance of baptism ever produced, or was intended to produce, such effects. It is not the efficient cause of an inward change, but simply the outward sign; and in the case of adults, the inward change ought to have taken place before the outward sign is used. This is plain from the fact, that adults, before being baptised, were required to muke a profession of faith, and on the ground of this profession supposed to be true and faithful, the ordinance was administered. Genuine faith therefore which even our author allows at chap. x. 44could not exist apart from regeneration, was viewed as neces- sary to the baptism of adults. The inward change was required to precede the outward sign, and was that indeed which alone made it proper to adhibit the outward sign. Would no blessing then, it may be asked, follow the use of the sign? Would the baptism be a mere fruitless ceremony? Far otherwise. It would be attended with very important consequences. But these consequences would ensue as the effect of a moral and spiritual influence. It would not be the outward rite that would produce them, by some mysterious power operating like a charm. The very act of making a profession of faith, supposing it to be genuine, and the public relinquishment of the world for God, would be attended with such exercises of mind, and such prayer to God for his help, as would, with the blessing of heaven, give a new impulse to the life of faith in the soul. But suppose no inward change to have taken place—suppose the profession of faith to be hollow and heartless, and then the mere administration of baptism, though performed by the hands of the holiest_and most legitimately ordained bishop that ever lived, would have no other than « hardening influence upon the soul. Alas for the man who, still unregenerate, trusts to the opus operatum of baptism for an inward ehange of heart. He is seeking for grapes upon thorns, and for figs npon thistles. The author's exclusion of young children from οἶκος αὐτῆς, on the ground of the 3 ACTS XVI. 16—24. 595 Vers. 16—24. An event worthy of particular notice, which occur- red during the stay of Paul in Philippi, is related by Luke, viz., the incident of the soothsaying female slave, who lost her power in con- quence of the apostle’s theatening expostulation. Her owners, who had employed her as a means of gain, brought about on this account the apprehension of Paul. After all that has been said at Matt. viii. 28. regarding demoniacs, the occurrence before us can be attended with no particular difficulty. Paul treats the slave altogether as one possessed, and commands the evil spirit to come outof her. That this individual recognised the spiritual qualities of the apostles, is to be regarded as another instance of a kind of clairvoyance, of which numerous examples are to be found in the Gospel narratives of the cure of demoniacs. (See on this subject the Comm. on the passages referred to.) The expression, πνεῦμα πύθωνος, however, or as A. C.D. read πύθωνα, is peculiar to the passage before us. In later times the word πύθων was employed to denote a ventriloquist (ἐγγαστρίμυθοι, ἐγγαστριμάντεις, ἐν- τερομάντεις, in Hebrew ἡ Μ), in which signification Plutarch in particular uses the word. It has therefore been proposed to ex- plain the occurrence before us, in what is styled a natural manner, that the slave possessed the gift of ventriloquism, but lost it through alarm at the sudden address of Paul. But, in the first place, the choice of the word πύθων shows that the ancients regarded the gift of the ventriloquist, not as something acquired by exercise, but as some- thing bestowed by Apollo, the possessor and distributor of all soothsaying power. The πύθων was always a μάντις too, or πυθόληπτος, that is, one filled and inspired by Pythian Apollo. That Luke, as the narrator of the occurrence, had this view of connexion between baptism and faith, shouid have appeared to him at least of doubtful propriety, when he says that elements, supposed to be at first inseparable, began to be separated so early as the conversion of the Samaritans. The defence of infant baptism must be rested upon a different ground from the one taken up by Olshausen. A solid basis exists for it in the nature of the Abrahamic covenant. And though itis quite true that in the case of adults faith is a necessary pre-requisite to baptism, yet this does not disprove the propriety of administering it tochildren. The repeated references made in the New Testament to the baptism of Louseholds, naturally implies that children were baptised along with their parents. The baptism of households is spoken of as a cus- tomary occurrence, and the baptism of the family is spoken of in connexion with the faith of its head. Lydia’s heart, was opened, and then she and her family were baptised. The jailor of Philippi was brought to penitence, and then he and all his were baptised straightway.—TR, 556 ACTS Xvi. 16—24. the matter, is plain from the expression, πνεῦμα πύθωνος ; and the address of Paul too, mapayyé\Aw σοι ἐξελθεῖν in verse 18, can only be explained on this supposition. On this view then the ques- tion arises bere, whether Paul really believed that the spirit of Apollo was in the slave, and was driven out by him. In answering this question, such passages as 1 Cor. viii. 4, 5, x. 20, present them- selves for consideration. In the first Paul denies that the heathen gods were any thing; yet in the second he affirms that one might, by sharing the offerings of idols, place himself in fellowship with demons. Did Paul then imagine that the Greek divinities were demons, as Justin Martyr, for example, did (Apol. i. ο. 8, 9) ? But on this supposition, | Cor. viii. 4 would be inexplicable. The following view explains the difficulty ina simple manner. The in- dividualized divinities, Jupiter, Apollo, Venus, Paul regarded as mere phantoms of the imagination, and therefore he might say with pro- priety, they are nothing. But that stage of development, at which the Greek poets had delineated those imaginary beings, was the stage of mere natural life, in which man found himself entirely exposed to demoniac influences. Paul therefore again was quite right in re- presenting a descent to this stage of life, as a placing of one’s self in fellowship with demons. It is true, he did not believe regarding this slave, that Apollo's spirit wrought in her, for he did not re- cognise the existence of any Apollo ; but he had the well-grounded conviction, that her soul was accessible to demoniac powers, who abused their hold of her. Like the Redeemer, therefore, Paul would not be praised by demons, and therefore he drove them out by his threatening word. Ver. 16. ἐργασία, ‘ gain, profit.” See Acts xix. 24, 25. . The verb is to be found in the same sense in John vi. 27.—Ver. 17. The reading ὑμῖν, which is that of the textus receptus, is probably only the fault of a transcriber, for the second person does not at all suit the connexion.—Ver. 19. The ἄρχοντες, who are called otpatn- γοὶ in verse 20, are the so-called decuriones, who held the office of magistrates in the colonies—Ver. 21 refers to the Roman law, which forbade the introduction of religiones peregrinae, and on which all persecutions of the Christians were grounded in a legal manner. (See on this point Neander’s kirch. Gesch. Bd. 1, s. 122, &e.—Ver. 24. ξύλον, nervus, was an instrument not simply of de- tention, but also of punishment ; a wooden block furnished with ACTS XVI. 25—384. 557 holes, into which the feet were put, and according to the severity of the torture, stretched far from one another. Origen in his ex- treme old age was obliged to bear this torture; and for several days to lie in such an instrument, with limbs far spread out from one another. Vers. 25—-34. Although removed by their imprisonment from the great scene of labour, the messengers of Christ found even in the prison a field for their preaching, more confined indeed, but not less fruitful; for not only were the prisoners attentive to them, but the keeper of the prison himself with his house believed in conse- quence of what he saw, and by him the abode of crime was changed for many into a temple of grace. (Regarding the singing of the apostles by night, see Comm. at chap. 11. 42. It must be understood of the musical utterance ofa psalm in prayer.) With regard to the deliverance of Paul and the other prisoners, it has already been remarked at chap xii. 6, that it is quite obviously an earthquake which is here spoken of. But if you compare chap. iv. 31, it will not be doubtful that the earthquake occurring at this precise mo- ment, stood connected in the narrator's view with the prayer of the apostles. It was something like the seal of God for them, and for all who were present. In the conduct of the keeper of the prison, the unbelieving des- pair that well nigh led to suicide, forms a mighty contrast with the faith that was rapidly developed in him. ‘The person of Jesus, whose history in its great leading features was stated by the apostle, is the object of his faith: Paul requires no works along with this faith, and mentions no conditions of salvation but it: in it every thing else lies enclosed, good works are the necessary fruits of it. If we contemplate this statement of Paul to the jailor of Philippi, regarding Jesus who was crucified twenty years before in Jerusalem, merely in its historical aspects, then we can see no reason why it should have exerted such an influence upon the’man ; for in this view there is nothing but gratitude to Paul to form the bridge, by which the jailor may enter into his ideas, but then it must be con- fessed that the apostle might as well have told some legend, which would have produced for the moment apparently the same effect. But if we view the preaching of the exalted and glorified Redeemer, in connexion with the living power of the Spirit which proceeded from him, then we may conceive its influence upon the hearts of 558 ACTS xvi. 835—40.—xvu. 1----4. men. The remark in ver. 32, that Paul preached not only to the jailor, but also to all ἔν τῇ οἰκίᾳ αὐτοῦ, is plainly not favourable to the view, that infant children are included under this expression, for Paul could deliver no discourse to them.—Ver. 33. ἔλουσεν ἀπὸ κ. τ. X. is a Tmesis for ἀπέλουσε.---- ον. 34. πανοικί same as πανοικεί, that is, σὺν ὅλῳ τῷ οἴκῳ, occurs in no other part of the New Testament. Vers. 35—40. In the morning the magistrates sent messengers with the command to dismiss Paul from prison. Perhaps the earthquake had terrified them, or, as is more probable, they had become convinced of Paul's innocence. Here too we find that Paul does not understand the command of the Lord in Matt. ν. 39, as if a Christian should let the wicked do to him what- ever they think proper to do, but, on the contrary, he defends him- self most courageously, and demands, on account of his Roman citizenship, satisfaction for the outrage done to him. He deals with those that are without, quite according to the jus talionis, whose force only they are in a condition to estimate. By the lex Porcia moreover it was decreed, that corporal punishment could not be inflicted upon cives Romani ;! and therefore the pos- session of the right of citizenship was an important means of de- fence to the apostle against the daring assaults of the opposers of his work. How Paul acquired this right is unknown. His native city Tarsus did not possess it, it was an urbs libera, that is, it had obtained from Cesar Augustus the liberty of governing itself entirely according to its own laws. Now as Paul, according to chap. xxii. 28, was born a Roman citizen, nothing remains but to suppose, that his father or one of bis ancestors had acquired the right. It is plain from Josephus, B. J. ii. 14, that even Jews fre- quently purchased it. (Ver. 35. The ῥαβδοῦχοι were the lictors of magistrates in the colonies.—Ver. 40. εἰς τὴν Avédiar, for which Griesbach has adopted the better supported πρός, stands for εἰς τὴν Avédias οἶκον. See Winer’s Gram. p. 338.) Chap. xvii. l—4. From Philippi Paul went by Amphipolis and Apollonia, which was also called ᾿Απολλωνία Μυγδονίας to dis- tinguish it from several cities of the same name, to Thessalonica, 1 See Cicero pro Rabirio c. 4. Porcia lex virgas ab omnium civiuam Romanorum cor- pore amovit. How frequently use was made of this privilege, is plain from Cic. in Verr. v. c. 57, illa vox et imploratio : civis Romanus sum! saepe multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit. ACTS xvul. 5—15. 559 the chief city of the second part of Macedonia. Although Paul only taught three Sabbaths in this city, yet he succeeded in plant- ing a flourishing church in it; a cireumstance which shows more than any thing else, what an amount of spiritual power must have proceeded from the apostle. Ver. 1. The article in ἡ συναγωγή probably refers to the relation in which the synagogue of Thessalonica stood to the other syna- gogues of that region; they were all probably dependent upon it, so that in Thessalonica there was something like a chief or head Rabbinate.—In ver. 3, there is a sudden transition from the indirect to the direct style, similar to what occurs in chap. i. 4.—Ver. 4. προσκληρόω equivalent to ΓΤ’ which only occurs in this passage of the New Testament, is not at all uncommon in the language of Philo. See Loesneri observ. Philon. p. 209, sq. Vers. 5—9. But in Thessalonica too hostility against the Gos- pel was speedily manifested, and Jason, in whose house Paul re- sided, was dragged before the authorities. Here the Christians were accused of political offences (verse 7) ; for it was affirmed that they regarded Jesus as the true king. This accusation gives us a glimpse of the Chiliastic tendency of the Christians at Thessalonica, of which, according to Paul's letters to them, there was a one-sided development in their views. Why this tendency was displayed particularly in Thessalonica, we are unfortunately unable to show from want of precise information regarding the state of matters there. Ver. 5. The word ἀγοραῖοι denotes men moving about idly in the market place. τηγός inchap. xvi. 20. The word is to be found in no other part of the New Testament.—Ver. 7. avactatow is to be found also in Acts xxi. 38, and Galat. v. 13. It belongs to the later Greek, and is formed from the adjective ἀνάστατος, which comes from ἀνίσ- tnt. It denotes primarily ‘“ to stir up from one’s seat,” then gene- rally “‘to excite tumult, disturbance.’—Ver. 9. ἱκανὸν λαμβάνειν, and also ἱκανὸν ποιεῖν, are juridical expressions for receiving and giving caution. See Passow’s Lex. under this word. Vers. 10—15. Meanwhile, to secure the apostle by all means from Ver. 6. πολετάρχης is equivalent to otpa- further persecutions, the disciples conducted him to Beroea, which lay due west from Thessalonica, where Paul found among the Jews and proselytes a peculiar readiness to attach themselves to the Gos- 560 ACTS xvil. 16—21. pel. But the enemies of the truth in Thessolonica excited the multitude in Beroea likewise against him. In consequence of the disturbance thus raised Paul went to Athens; but left Silas and Timotheus behind him in Macedonia, without doubt to con- firm the young churches there planted in the faith. See 1 Tim. ii. 1—Ver. 11. The word εὐγενέστεροι does not refer to noble descent, but to the disposition of the inhabitants of Beroea, which is particularly described in the following words of the verse, their very zealous study of the Scriptures being praised, for they searched out the oracles of the prophets that were appealed to by the apostle, and fulfilled in the life of Jesus.—Ver. 14. There is nothing in the words ὡς ἐπί requiring to be changed, but they are not to betranslated as Kuinoel supposes usque ad: on the contrary, ὡς with a prepo- sition of motion denotes, either the definite purpose, or the pretext of designing to pursue a certain course. Here undoubtedly the latter is the meaning. See Winer’s Gram. p. 559. These words therefore do not indicate, as Hemsen (p. 137) supposes, that Paul proceeded to Athens by sea. The fact that nothing is men- tioned of the intervening places, does not at all argue in favour of this supposition, for how often are whole regions left unnoticed, through which Paul passed and where certainly he laboured, as for example Galatia? And the phrase ἤγαγον αὐτόν in ver. 15, which indicates an escort going forward, speaks more in favour of a journey by land.—Ver 15. καθίσταναι, meaning ‘ to accompany, to convoy,” is only to be found in this part of the New Testament so used. This application springs from the signification “ to trans- port something to a place, to deliver.” See Passow’s Lex. under the word. Vers. 16—21. In Athens Paul now trod the leading seat of Gre- cian science and art. Neither he himself, nor the philosophers who thronged upon him here, anticipated at the time that from the new doctrine which he brought, a new science and art far transcending antiquity would be developed. But if the great apostle of the Gentiles might not clearly apprehend with what power and freshness the Gospel would operate even in the direction of science ; yet he carried within him the lively consciousness, that he brought to the central point of Grecian society, an element of life which as in- finitely transcended its highest imaginations, as the eternal went beyond the loveliest scenes of a perishable world, and in this con- ACTs xvir. 16—2]. 561 sciousness he moved as a spiritual potentate, as a mature man among a crowd of children, to whom he undertook to explain their presentiments and to express them in words. The numerous tem- ples and altars, which Paul found in Athens, led him to perceive clearly the spiritual wants of the inhabitants ; and contrary to his usual custom therefore, he spoke here in public places to those whom he met (ver. 17), while elsewhere he was wont to teach only in synagogues and private houses. The people too, that they might acquire a connected view of his doctrine, invited him to speak upon the hill of Mars; for the well-known fickle curiosity of the Athenians was eager to learn, what new thing he was pro- posing." Ver. 16. The phrase παρωξύνετο τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦ does not so much express wrath or bitterness, as the vehement emotion of sor- row which Paul experienced, when he found the Athenians so far led astray in what belonged to religion —Karte/dmXos occurs in no other part of the New Testament. It denotes, agreeably to the frequent signification of κατά in composition, ‘‘ containing an abundance of idol images,” “full of idols.” Compare in ver. 22 the word devowdatpovértepor.—Ver. 18. Of the philosophers it is only the Epicureans and Stoics that are mentioned, probably because the adherents of these schools mingled most in public life, and went abroad into the great world——The word σπερμολόγος is to be found nowhere else in the New Testament.’ It denotes pri- marily a little bird that picks up seeds, then also a poor man, who gathers up grains of corn for his support. Figuratively it is ap- plied to an ignorant babbler, who attempts to make use of scraps of knowledge picked up here and there, which he does not sufficiently understand. Hesych. explains σπερμολόγος by φλύαρος. Philo- stratus (vit. Apoll. v. 20) uses also the verb σπερμολογεῦν --- Δαιμόνιον is used in ver. 18 in a good sense, as is frequently the case in classic Greek.—Ver. 19. “Apevos πάγος, Campus Martius, 1 Regarding this loquacious curiosity of the Athenians, Seneca says very well: Alex- ander, qui quod cuique optimum est, eripuit, Lacedaemona servire jubet, Athenas tacere. (Epist. 94.) 2 Appropriately dees Késter (in Pelt’s Theol. Mitarb. H. 2, s. 133) draw attention to the fact, that in the very place in Athens where Paul spoke, Demosthenes too called bis opponent Aeschines a σπερμολόγος. (Pro corona. p. 269, edit. Reiske.) And the very same accusation, of introducing strange gods (Xenoph. apol. Socr. § 10), was brought against Socrates, which is here brought against Paul, VOL. IV. 2N 562 - ACTS XVII, 22—25, is the well-known name of a hill in the city of Athens, with an open space, where the celebrated tribunal of the Areopagus had its place of meeting —Ver. 21. evxaipéw corresponds entirely to the Latin vacare, ‘‘ to be at leisure,” with the accessory idea of devoting this leisure to some particular object. Vers. 22—25. Standing in the midst of Mars’ hill, Paul now ad- dressed the Athenians, and with great wisdom he laid hold of a fact, which had struck himin the city, that he might conduct his hearers to © a deeper knowledge of God, and thus convince them of their need of redemption.’ He availed himself of the inscription upon an altar, ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ, to preach to them the one true God, and alto- gether departing from the strain of his discourses in the synagogues, he imparted to them formal instructions regarding the unity and spirituality of God. Now with regard to the circumstance that Paul applied to his purpose the altar with the inscription mentioned, there are several difficult questions which require to be considered. In the first place, it might be apprehended that the apostle had here been guilty of a kind of pious fraud (pia fraus.) For accord- ing to Polytheistic principles the inscription, Θεῷ ἀγνώστῳ, cannot be otherwise understood, than as meaning “ to an unknown God,” for the article is wanting, and in the room of this one among many gods, Paul seems to have substituted the one and only God. This suspicion is still farther heightened by the circumstance, that we have no information at all regarding any altar in Athens with such an inscription. In Lucian’s dialogue of Philopater, which how- ever is not genuine, there is indeed mention made of this altar, but it is only in mockery of Paul’s speech. On the contrary, Jerome (on Titus i. 12) distinctly affirms, that Paul substituted the singular in the room of the plural : that the inscription ran thus, Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae, Diis ignotis et peregrinis : but as in this form the apostle could not have used it, in his speech he put the singular for the plural. In fact too Pausanias (descrip. Graec. i. 1) states that in Athens there were altars of unknown gods to be found, and this we can readily imagine from the prin- ciples of Polytheism, which would not be unfriendly to the gods of any people, and therefore it included them all under the comprehensive name of “ unknown gods.” In this case, however, See Stier's excellent exposition of this speech in his work in den reden der apostel, part ii. p. 121, &e,, and Menken’s “ Leben Pauli,” p, 240, Xe, ACTS XVII. 22—25. 563 Paul appears to be guilty of a second error, in having given to the inscription an application, which was altogether foreign to the meaning of its authors. Eichhorn has indeed made the supposi- tion (Allg. Bibl. der bibl. lit. Bd. iii.), that there might be single altars with the inscription ἀγνώστῳ Θεῷ, for altars might continue standing from remote ages without any inscription ; and as pious feeling would prevent their removal, it would be supposed necessary to furnish them with such an inscription, because it was not known to what god they had originally been dedicated. But impartiality obliges us to confess that this is a mere supposition, which cannot be confirmed by any positive proof; and therefore it ought not to be taken into account in the discussion at all. But though this notion be altogether kept out of view, still I believe that the conduct of the Apostle Paul is entirely un- impeachable, and that without committing any pious fraud he might act as he did. First of all, whether it was really the plural that stood inscribed upon the altar or not, is a matter of perfect indifference, for let it be considered that, if many unknown gods were mentioned, then it is self-evident that one too might be spoken of. The force of the argument would not have been in the slight- est degree altered, although Paul had said, that he wished to make known to them one of the many unknown gods. The only circum- stance then that is really strange is this, that Paul attaches to an expression which could only denote one of the many gods of Poly- theism, the idea of the one true God; and affirms that they already worshipped, without being aware of it, the God whom he was preaching; an affirmation which appears to be manifestly wrong, and to contradict other passages, in which it is said that the Gen- tiles are without God. With reference to this point however it must not be overlooked, that the apostle by no means excludes the heathen world from all knowledge of God (Rom. i. 20): errors of the head regarding the nature of God might very well be coupled in a Gentile with an inward longing of the heart after the divine Being. Now of this longing, as the proper fountain of religious life, Paul in his wisdom lays hold; and seeks to guide it, by the weak threads which counect it with the higher world, to a pro- founder knowledge. With perfect truth therefore he might say, that they, in the inward yearning of their soul, worshipping this one unknown God as all others, had always really meant the true 2N 2 564 ACTS XVII. 22, 27. living God, although their understanding bad remained far from him.’ Ver. 22. δεισιδαίμων occurs nowhere else in the New Testament : but the substantive is to be found in Acts xxv. 19. The word is used by the best Greek authors in a good sense also, as synony- mous with εὐσεβής. The comparative, which Paul here employs, mingles in a manner very suitable to the circumstances, praise with delicate censure.—Ver. 23. σεβάσμωτα denotes sacred objects in the widest sense of the word ; proper temples, and also single al- tars, or sacred enclosed places. The 24tb and 25th verses set out with the most general manifestations of the divine being, bis crea- tive power and all-sufficiency. In the close of the verse many of the younger Codices read κατὰ πάντα for καὶ τὰ πάντα. This reading with the meaning “‘ ubique” undoubtedly gives ἃ suitable sense, but still the critical authorities oblige us to decide in favour of the common reading. And in this case the article before πάντα must be referred to all that is necessary to creatures. Vers. 26, 27. From the doctrine regarding God, as the almighty and self-sufficient Being, the discourse of the apostle makes a tran- sition to the most important member of the creation, viz., man. First of all, the apostle confirms the doctrine of the Old Testament, which, even according to the most recent physiological and geolo- gical researches, still presents itself as the most probable, that all men have sprung from one pair. (“Acwa equivalent to σπέρμα, see at John i. 13.) Only one question here presents itself, for what reason does 1 The longing after God which is Lere attributed by the author to the Gentiles, must not be confounded with that longing after God, which dwells in the bosom of a Christian, and which David so affectingly describes in Ps. xlii. It is a totally different feeling. It is simply that feature of man’s constitution by which he is fitted for becoming a reli- gious being, and by which he is distinguished from the beasts of the field, which are wholly unsusceptible of religious emotions. By his very constitution, man feels that he must look up to some higher being: he is a worshipping creature : and it is in conse- quence of this that all tribes and kindreds have set up for themselves gods of some kind or other. And these gods are not supposed to be false gods: it is a trae God that man desires; but thongh he feels his need of a higher power to direct him, still his mind, darkened by reason of sin, remains an utter stranger to the character of the God who made heaven and earth. He remains far from God. Still, as our author remarks, the apostle recognises the groping of the Gentiles in the dark after something to Jay hold of, as a search directed towards the great God who made heaven and earth. Whom there- fore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you.—Tr. 2 Regarding the multitude of sacred objects in Athens, Pausanias among others says, in Attic. c, 24: ᾿Αθηναίοις περισσότερον τι ἣ τοῖς ἄλλοις ἐς τὰ θεῖά ἐστι σπουδῆς. ACTS XVII. 28, 29. 565 Paul bring this point into view? Some say, for the purpose of combatting the error of the Athenians, that they were sprung from the soil (autochthones.) But the question still presents itself, on what ground could it appear important to the apostle, to draw the attention of the meeting to that point ? Paul undoubtedly designed in this way to represent the contempt in which the Jews were held among the Greeks as absurd, and to humble their conceit of their own superior culture, in room of which the Jews had a far deeper moral and religious tendency. For this reason, he made it appear that all tribes were brethren, and that a higher destiny as- signed to the nations their dwelling-places and epochs of develop- ment. By this last thought, the apostle indicates that the calami- ties of nations exhibit no unregulated fluctuation, but a course of things determined by laws from above. Ver. 26. πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς equivalent to ΜΕ 38. “Opobe- σία occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Of habitations there is mention here made, because geographical circumstances and diversities of climate exert a most important influence upon the formation of national character. It is here represented as the moral duty of man to seek after God. This ζητεῖν indicates of itself a previous apostacy of man from God, for before that apostacy he lived in immediate commu- nion of soul with the Source of his being, and of course needed not to seek after Him whom he already possessed. And the seek- ing (ζητεῖν) is very significantly resolved into the two points of feel- ing after (ψηλαφᾶν) and finding (ἑυρισκεῖν). The former expresses the immediateness of the emotion in which the Eternal is first made known, and the latter the higher stage of consciousness in which man plainly recognises the peculiarity of that emotion. And the possibility of finding God, even when man is far from him, lies in this, that God remains perpetually near to man. (See Comm. at chap. xiv. 16, 17.) Vers. 28, 29. This nearness of God, even to the creature that is estranged from him, the apostle describes in a very impressive man- ner. The divine Being is plainly with him the immanent ground of all creatures, in some measure the sea of life, in which they all move. Fear of a pantheistic view of the world has led men, though without any reason, to refine upon the expression, ἐν αὐτῷ, and to understand it in the sense of ‘‘ by him.” The whole of the sacred 566 ACTS XVII. 28, 29. Scriptures exhibits, as Paul does here, one God who is inwardly near to man ; yea, whose eternal word speaks in the bottom of bis heart. (Rom. x. 8.) The teaching of Scripture sufficiently guards against the abyss of Pantheism,’ first, by its doctrine of the reality of evil, which no Pantheistic system can acknowledge; and, se- condly, by the doctrine of the glorification of the body and of matter in general. Where these two bulwarks are held fast, we may quietly commit ourselves to God, in whom we live, and who is in us, without falling into the mouth of the all-devouring, all produc- ing monster of Pantheism. The question, however, still presents itself, how the three points of living (ζῆν), moving (κινεῖσθαι), and being (εἶναι), are related to one another. Storr would regard them as forming an anticlimax, understanding ζῆν in the pregnant sense of blessed life, and εἶναι as a mere description of physical existence. It is better how- ever to view εἶναι, as Kuinoel has already done, as the highest point, understanding by it real existence, the life of the soul; then ζῆν denotes the physical existence of the body, capa ; while κινεῖσθαι refers to the free activity of the spirit, ψυχή. Such a lively view of God was entertained even by individuals among the heathen writers, and Paul adduces a passage in which it is expressed. It is to be found in Aratus (Phenom. v. 5), and also in Cleanthes (Hymn. in Joy. v. 5), although in the latter writer the words run somewhat dif- ferently, viz. thus: ἐκ σοῦ yap γένος ἐσμέν. The probability is, that Paul was thinking of the former writer, who was his countryman ; at all events Aratus was a native of Cilicia, although not perhaps of Tarsus itself. There is evidence of Grecian culture in this and other quotations from the Greek poets, (see 1 Cor. xv. 33; Tit. 1, 1 It were to be desired, that instead of the word Pantheism, so liable to be misunder- stood, and so often wrongly understood, another word were chosen to describe the error which has usually been denoted by this name. The Bible itself sanctions the expres- sion, “ God is all in all,” which lies at the foundation of the word Pantheism. The only question is, how this expression is to be understood. In the East, and elso in the Pan- theism of Spinosa, the unity of God and of the universe is so grossly conceived, that all individuals are regarded as only passing modifications of (he one original substance. (See the passages cited at John x. 14, page 246.) Although the Scriptures also say, πάντα ἐκ τοῦ Θιοῦ, ἐν TH Θεῷ and εἰς τὸν Θεόν, yet they take their stand upon a rigorous distinction between the eternal and the created, and the distinctive properties of the created are the possibility of evil and matter. The possibility of evil has reference to this earthly life alone, but materiality forms even for saints after the resurrection the buundary of individuality. Without a glorified body, the assurance of individual exis- tence after death would be nothing but an empty assurance, ACTS xvil. 30—34—xvu. 1--8. 567 2), but whether Paul, as has been supposed, attended in his native city, which was famed for schools of rhetoric, a formal course of education in the various branches of knowledge, cannot be inferred from these quotations. As he was destined for Rabbinical cul- ture, it seems more probable to me, that it was rather by private reading and by intercourse with Greeks, that the apostle acquired his knowledge of the Greek classics. Further, from the passage quoted, nothing precise can be deduced in reference to the doctrine of the divine image, because we cannot ascertain how Paul under- stood the phrase θεῖον γένος. He uses it, only for the purpose of showing from the mind of man who springs from God, that the Godhead ought not to be brought down to a level with objects of sense. Ver. 29. χάραγμα, from χαράσσω, “ to engrave, to cut out,” stands very frequently in the Apocalypse for ‘‘ image, representa- tion,’ Rev. xiv. 9, 11, xv. 12, xvi. 2, &e. - Vers. 30—34. After this introduction, the apostle proceeds in his discourse to invite his hearers to repentance (μετάνοια), which he enforces first by the patience of God, who had graciously over- looked the earlier times of their heathen ignorance, and would not reject them, and secondly by a reference to the future judgment, which is to come upon the whole world, at the appearance of him who rose from the dead. (Regarding ὑπεριδεῖν, see the particulars at Rom. iil. 35, which, though not verbally, is yet really parallel). But the mention of a resurrection from the dead prevented the un- believing Athenians from lending ear any further to the witness of the truth: only a few, who were ordained to eternal life, attached themselves to Paul. Among these are mentioned a woman named Damartis, and Dionysius, a member of the Areopagus,! which latter individual acquired great importance during the centuries, when the mystical writings forged under his name were regarded as genuine. Chap. xviii. 1—8. From Athens Paul betook himself to Co- rinth, where he made the acquaintance of a Jew, settled in Rome, but born in Pontus, named Aquila, who with his wife Priscilla 1 According to the Constit. Apost. vii. 46, Dionysius was appointed by Paul super- intendent of the young church in Athens, an assertion which is only indeed a conjec- ture, but still not an improbable one. Certainly the number of converts in Athens, and of men fit for office in the church, was not so great that there could be much room for selection. 568 ACTS xv1lur. 1—8. had recently come from Italy. Προσφάτος signifies primarily, “ recently killed or slain,” from πρό and σφάξω, then in general “recent.” (See Lobeck ad Phrynich. p. 874.) Luke remarks also, that the occasion of their journey had been the command of Clau- dius Cesar, that all Jews should depart from Rome. Now as nothing is stated regarding the conversion of this family by Paul, and as they appear very active in favour of Christianity, the pro- bability is that they had brought their knowledge of the Gospel from Rome. But the first little church there might be annihi- lated by this command of Claudius, and the Jews, from whom the Christians were not distinguished, might only gather again in Rome very gradually: and this supposition throws light upon some points, which would otherwise appear very dark. (See Comm. on Acts xxviii. 21.) With respect to the expulsion of the Jews by Claudius, it is of importance in this respect that it furnishes, as was already remarked in the introduction, a point of contact with profane history, which is of use in settling the chronology. Sue- tonius (Claud. c. xxv.), and Dio Cassius, (Ix. 6) mention the occur- rence. According to the most probable supposition it falls in the year 54 after the birth of Christ, or in the thirteenth year of the reign of Claudius. The intimate connexion between the apostle and Aquila was brought about, not simply by the union of their hearts in the faith, but also by the outward circumstance that they practised the same handicraft. According to the Jewish custom, which required even the Rabbins to learn a trade, Paul followed the occupation of a oxn- vorrows. The Fathers, as for example Chrysostom, understood this word to mean a worker in leather, σκυτοτόμος, because tents were often made of skins; but it is more suitable to understand it of the trade of a tentmaker, which was very much practised in Ci- licia. The hair of a species of very shaggy goat was there wrought into a thick stuff like felt, which was very much employed in covering tents. (See Plin. hist. nat. vi. 28, Veget. de re milit. iv. 6.) The principal reason why the apostle always practised his trade during his apostolic ministry was this, that, on account of the numerous opponents who were watching all his movements, he be- lieved it was necessary (xx. 33) to shun every appearance of outward advantage, which he might derive from his office. The passage however in'l Cor. ix. 14, shows that Paul was not un- ACTS Xvi. 4—11. 569 aware of the duty of those who received heavenly blessings in the preaching of the Gospel, to bestow upon the messengers who brought them, a portion of their earthly treasures. Paul was there- fore far removed from the pride which is ashamed to take : in suit- able circumstances he willingly received gifts of love, as we find from Phil. iv. 14, &c. It is wrong certainly to regard the Jewish custom of learning a trade, in conjunction with the study of the law, simply as a means of securing worldly advancement: the true reason of this practice rather was, that by bodily exercise they might guard against the temptations, to which idleness might lead. Monks and mystics have often felt the want of such a defence., Vers. 4—11. In Corinth Paul now began to preach among the Jews and Proselytes, and he taught with great zeal, particularly after the arrival of his assistants whom he had left behind him in Macedonia. But the stubbornness of the Jews obliged him once more to renounce their society, and to turn to the Gentiles., There is a difficulty in the expression συνέχεσθαι oy in ver. 5. The common text reads τῷ πνεύματι. Thisreading probably arose from the most familiar signification of συνέχεσθαι, which would be supposed the one here employed. It denotes in the first place “to be held together, to be pressed,” and then “ to be distressed, to be filled with anxiety.” (See Luke vii. 41, 1x. 48 ; Matt. iv. 24 ; Luke xii. 50.) This signification suits best with τῷ πνεύματι ; and therefore λόγῳ, which was certainly the original reading, was ba- nished from the text. But the same fundamental meaning of the word ‘to be pressed together,” leads quite naturally to another use of it, viz., incitari, ‘‘to be stirred up,” for pressure as in the bend- ing of a bow produces an augmentation of power. In this sense Paul plainly uses the word, in 2 Cor. v. 14, ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ συνέχει ἡμᾶς, “ the love of Christ constrains, impels us.” This is the signification which we must employ in the passage before us, and 1 Regarding the procedure of the apostle, in supporting himself entirely by the labour of his own hands, see also the remarks at 1 Cor. ix. 7. 2 Baur, in his effort to combat the historical character of the Acts of the Apostles, goes so far here as to affirm, that Paul himself may have excited this opposition of the Jews to the Gospel, in order to obtain a good apology for labouring among the Gentiles, It is a proper remark which Kling (Studien 1837, H. 2,s. 307) makes on this notion : “one must be astonished at the critical acumen, which could lead astray to an idea so desti- tute of all propriety.” 570 ACTS ΧΥΠΠ. 12—17. the words accordingly must be translated: ‘‘ Paul laboured most zealously in preaching.”-~—Vers. 6. Regarding the expression diya ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν ὑμῶν see Comm. on Matt. xxvii. 25. Paul laboured for a year and a half in Corinth (ver. 11); and in this very city, the most luxurious and degraded of Greece, the Gospel celebrated her noblest triumphs; as if for the purpose of presenting us with a vivid proof of the great apostle’s fundamental principle, that, where sin abounds, grace abounds much more. In the house of a certain man Justus, beside the synagogue, Paul held his meetings, and Crispus, the superintendent of the Jews, became himself a believer, together with many Corinthians. In his room, it is probable, Sosthenes, who is mentioned in ver. 17, was chosen ; but he appears also, according to 1 Cor. i. 1, to have joined him- self to the church of God. It was probably the accession of so distinguished a man as Crispus to the church of Christ, that induced the apostle to depart from his usual custom of leaving his assistants to baptize, and to perform the rite himself. (1 Cor.i. 14.) The resolution of the apostle, to exercise his ministry for so long a time in the one city of Corinth, was confirmed, according to vers. 9, 10, by the peculiar circumstance that he had there a vision of Christ by night, who revealed to him that many chosen persons lived in Co- rinth. In 2 Cor. xi. 1, &c., Paul gives a detailed description of an ecstatic vision of this kind. (Ver. 7. συνομορέω occurs in no other part of the New Testament; it comes from ὅμορος, which ap- pears to be compounded of ὁμοῦ. and ὅρος .---- ον. 10. ἐπιτιθέναι τινί denotes primarily “ to lay something upon one :” in the middle it is used for laying hands on one, seizing, assaulting, as it were, ‘to throw one’s self upon a person, to fall upon him.” Vers. 12—17. The extraordinary success attending the preaching of Paul might excite the hatred of the Jews particularly against him. With their new president at their head (ver. 17), they accused him before the proconsul Gallio,' and dragged him even before his tri- bunal. This excellent man was a brother of the philosopher Lucius 1 Regarding Gallio consult the excellent notices of Tholuck (Glaubw. s. 173) which bring into view how minutely Luke shows himself to have been acquainted with all cir- cumstances. Luke styles Gallio proconsul : now these oflicers were only in the provin- ciis senatoriis ; but Achaia was changed by Tiberius into a provincia imperatoria, and provinces of this kind were only governed by procurators, (Tacit. annal.i. 76.) But Claudius had given back Achaia to the Senate. (Suet. Claud. ¢. 25.) Luke's narrative is therefore quite accurate. With propriety does Tholuck draw attention to the circum- stance, that it might have been supposed Luke had here committed a mistake, if this one ACTs xvii. 12—17. 571 Annaeus Seneca ;' he was called originally Novatus, but assumed the other name from oneJunius Gallio. (See Grotius on this pas- sage. ‘Tacitus Ann. vi. 3, xv. 73, makes mention of him.) This relationship of Gallio was probably what occasioned the fabrication of the apocryphal correspondence between Paul and Seneca. (See J. A. Fabricii. cod. apocr. N. T., vol. i.) It has been supposed that Gallio was converted by Paul,’ and that he then brought about an acquaintance between Paul and his brother, who was also won over to the Gospel. Gallio was quite averse to enter upon the considera- tion of controverted points in the Jewish law, and required that the Jews should accuse Paul of some moral offence, which however they could not do, and this was a testimony in favour of the apostle. Ver. 12. Achaia denotes not simply the district of this name in the Peloponnesus ; but it was also employed by the Romans to denote the whole of Greece and the Peloponnesus, which formed one pro- vince.-—Ver. 14. ῥᾳδιούργημα equivalent to padvovpyia in xiii. 10. Only the former word, like ἁμάρτημα as compared with ἁμαρτία, de- notes the single act, or wickedness viewed as an isolated deed.—— Kara λόγον is here to be understood as meaning “ rightly, conform- ably to reason.” —Ver. 15. The word dvouarefers to the name Mes- siah, of which the Jews affirmed tbat it could not be given to Jesus. Ver. 18—22. This conduct of the proconsul made it practicable for Paul to remain a long time in Corinth? (see verse 11), and at passage of Suetonius had been wanting. How much, therefore, that is apparently wrong would appear quite right, if alk sources lay completely before us. 1 Gallio is here spoken of very favourably. Aud certainly there is but small ground furnished in the text for that obloquy which has been thrown upon this Roman gover- nor. He acted rightly when he refused to be a judge in the case of a religious dispute between the Jews and one of their countrymen. He was ready to listen to any ac- cusation that might refer to criminal conduct, and to sift the evidence that might be adduced; but he would not constitute himself a judge of Jewish controversy. In this certainly he acted a wise and noble part; and it was his conduct that secured for Paul a peaceful opportunity of prosecuting his ministry in Corinth. Why then has Gallio been so unsparingly condemned? The reason lies in a misapprehension of one clause in the 17th verse, where it is said Gallio cared for none of these things, which has been understood to mean, that he was wholly indifferent to religious matters, and was an infidel. But this is not the sense of the words. They mean that he would not interfere at all in the way of constituting himself a judge of the disputed points, that he even al- Jowed the parties to come to blows without interposing his authority. Now, Gallio was perfectly right in wholly refraining from giving a judgment on the disputed points; but he was wrong in not employing his authority to prevent all violence. He should have kept the peace between the contending parties.—TR. 2 This according to Eusebius (Chron. a, 66) is improbable, as Gallio put a period to his own existence. 3 ‘The stay of the apostle Paul in Corinth is worthy of attention, on this ground 2 572 ACTS ΧΥΠΙ. 18—22. last he left the city of his own accord, without being further mo- lested by his adversaries. The friendly family of Aquila accom- panied him to Ephesus, where they remained behind (ver. 26.). Paul took shipping in Cenchrea, the harbour of Corinth situated on the Asiatic side, seventy stadia from the city ; the other harbour, that looked in the direction of Italy, being called Lechaeus. In Cenchrea, Paul had his hair shorn in fulfilment of a vow. It has been supposed by many, that the words κειράμενος τὴν κεφαλήν refer to Aquila; but the connection is decidedly opposed tothis idea. It it only quite incidentally that mention is made of Aquila and Priscilla; Paul is the subject of the whole sentence, and also of the one that follows. No reason can be perceived, why so unimportant a circumstance should have been stated regarding Aquila. It is true those learned men, who deny the reference of the words to Paul, suppose that the statement cannot be applied to him, because it would have been inconsistent with his principles regarding the ab- rogation of the ceremonial law of Moses, to have taken upon hima vow. But that supposition is grounded upon a total misconception of Paul's view of the law. Although the apostle contended with all his might that the native Gentiles, to whom the law was a foreign insti- tution, should not be compelled to observe it ; yet he was very far from forbidding the native Jews to keep it, or from disregarding it altogether himself. It is quite probable that Paul, when he was living among Gentiles, conducted himself very freely with reference to the legal observances of Moses, which was the ground of the charge he was afterwards called upon by the apostles in Jerusalem to confute practically ἢ but that he should have altogether aban- doned, while residing in heathen lands, the observance of the law in reference to his own person, is in the highest degree improb- able, because he would thus have violated his own principle of re- specting the scruples of weak brethren ; for there were Jews every- where, to whom his conduct must have given great offence. This passage therefore is important, because it shows, and perhaps for this very reason it was introduced by Luke, that Paul had not that it was during it he began his labours in writing. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, the oldest among those preserved to us, Paul wrote from Corinth. The particulars regarding the time and the occasion of composing this, and all the other letters of Paul, will be brought forward in the introductions to them. 1 See Acts xxi. 17, &c., and the Commentary on this passage regarding the freedom of the Jewish Christians from the law, 3 ACTS XVIII. 18—22. 573 altogether given up the personal observance of the law, but retained it as a religious usage. With respect to the subsequent accusa- tion therefore mentioned in chap. xxi. 17, &c., he is seen by the readers of the Acts of the Apostles to be justified beforehand. The entire loosening of the whole church, and even of Jewish Christians, from the outward forms of the Old Testament, Paul would not on any account bring about with revolutionary precipitation ; but he left it to be effected gradually by the evolution of events; and it was at last accomplished in this way for the mother church of the Jewish Christians, by the destruction of Jerusalem by Hadrian, and by the fact that the Jews were forbidden to dwell in Aelia Capitolina, the city which was built in its room. As to the occasion of the vow itself (εὐχή) which Paul had made, itis not known to us. Many have imagined that it was the Naza- ritic vow which he had taken on him, but this certainly is not to be thought of The probability is, that, according to the custom of the Jews, it was in some danger or difficulty he had made the vow in question ; and now therefore, in prosecution of this vow, he cuts his hair, and hastens to Jerusalem that he may there offer the re- quisite sacrifice within the prescribed term! of thirty days. In this manner we find an explanation of the haste with which he leaves Ephesus (ver. 21), and at the same time of the subsequent repe- tition of a similar vow, chap. xxi. 17, &c., which best enabled him to confute all accusations of the Jews, just as he confuted them at this time. In Ephesus Paul, according to his custom, appeared again in the synagogue. ‘The Jews were quite friendly, particularly as they found him occupied with the performance of a vow, and they re- quested him to remain. But as he needed to present the offering in Jerusalem itself, he hastened speedily away, promising however to come back. He went by Caesarea to Jerusalem ; but of his stay there Luke mentions no particulars; only the participle ava- Bas in verse 22 points to it, for ἀναβαίνεῖν, equivalent to aby, is specially applied to the journey to Jerusalem. [rom Jerusalem he went down to Antioch, for he always regarded the church there as the one which had sent bim forth to the heathen. 1 See on this point Josephus (B. J. ii. 15, 1) who makes mention of a vow of Bere- nice, and then adds: τοὺς yap ἢ νόσω καταπονουμένους, ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις ἀνάγκαις, ἔθος εὔχεσθαι πρὸ τριάκοντα ἡμερῶν, ἧς ἀποδώσειν μέλλοιεν θυσίας, οἴνου τε ἀφέξασθαι καὶ ξυρήσασθαι τὰς κόμας. 574 ACTS xvi. 18—22. There is a chronological question which presents itself here re- garding not only the year, but also the season of the year, for Paul names a feast (ver. 21) which he purposed to observe in Jerusalem, as it coincided with the time when his offering was to be presented, and he would probably at the same time obey the Mosaic injunction, which required that the great festivals should be attended by all the male members of the Iraelitish nation. Now most chronologers (see the second chronological table) re- gard Pentecost as the feast referred to by Paul, and probably Pen- tecost of the year 55 after the birth of Christ ; but still this is only a supposition, for there are no decisive arguments to prove it, and the date of the other events in the life of Paul is not so accurately fixed, that from the earlier or thelater you can reckon back to this feast, and determine which of the great festivals Paul here means. In the Codices A.E. 18, 14, 15, 36, and others, this clause of ver. 21 is wanting: δεῖ we πάντως τὴν ἑορτὴν τὴν ἐρχο- μένην ποιῆσαι εἰς ἹΤεροσόλυμα πάλιν. On the authority of these manuscripts many distinguished critics regard the words in question as a gloss, and even Heinrichs and Kuinoel follow them. They proceed on this principle that the omission of them would be inex- plicable, but the insertion of them easily accounted for, transcribers supposing that the fulfilment of the vow required the journey to Jerusalem. But the omission may be very easily explained from a confounding of the similar words δεῖ and δὲ at the beginning and end of the clause; and the statement itself is of a kind which could not well be made by a transcriber desirous of inserting a mere notice: in no case certainly would a transcriber have made mention of a feast, to which there was nothing in the connexion to lead. Any person, designing to supplement the verse merely from the connexion, would have stated something regarding the offering. Now if the words be genuine, they deter- mine more particularly the reference of ἀναβάς in verse 22, which many interpreters do not regard as pointing to Jerusalem, but to Caesarea. But as Κατελθὼν eis Καισάρειαν occurs before, and κατέβη eis ᾿Αντιόχειαν follows, it is plain that ἀναβαίνειν cannot be used with respect to Paul's entrance into Caesarea, sup- posing even that it lay upon ahigh shore. It still remains there- fore the most probable idea, that Paul journeyed to Antioch by way of Jerusalem, where he saluted the mother church and the apostles. III. PART THIRD. FROM PAUL’S THIRD MISSIONARY JOURNEY, TILL THE FIRST CAPTIVITY AT ROME. (Acts xviii. 23—xxviii. 31.) § 1. PAUL'S THIRD MISSIONARY EXCURSION. ABODE IN EPHESUS. (Acts xviii. 23—xix. 41.) Ver. 23. It is only very general information which Luke gives us regarding Paul's journey through Asia Minor, during which he visited individually the churches of Galatia, and also regarding the time of his stay in Antioch. It is probable that the ardent apostle broke away very speedily again from Antioch, that he might con- firm his numerous churches in Asia. This might appear to him the more necessary, if, as is probable, the differences with Peter, of which we have already spoken at chap. xv. 1, arose during his present visit to the mother church of the Gentiles. Perhaps in Antioch Paul found himself, along with a number of preachers of the Gospel, engaged in something like a general consultation re- garding the principles of their apostolic ministry ; and as on this occasion what was new in the Gospel presented itself most strongly in conflict with the whole ancient forms of religious life, Peter might be led to waver for a moment, particularly as some of the strict Jewish Christians pressed hard upon him. (See farther particulars in the exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, which was written shortly after this journey.) Vers. 24—28. Before Luke however describes the labours of Paul in Ephesus, he mentions the accession to the church of Christ of a man of great influence, viz., Apollos of Alexandria, who 576 ACTS XVIII. 24—28. was at that time sojourning in Ephesus. The statements made regarding this learned and distinguished individual, taken in con- nexion with the notices that immediately follow in chap. xix. 1-—7, are among the most interesting parts of the Acts of the Apostles. They give us an insight into the excited state of religious life at that time, such as few other sections of this book afford. But this passage has its own peculiar difficulties. Apollos himself, like those twelve men mentioned in chap. xix. 7, whom one at first is tempted to distinguish from him, was a disciple of John the Bap- tist: he had been directed by this faithful witness of the truth to Jesus as the true and long expected Messiah, or, if he had not known John himself, he had been guided by disciples of his schoo] to the Saviour. Neither he himself however nor his instruc- tors among the disciples of John, had learned anything regarding the glorification and exaltation of Christ in his resurrection and ascension, nor regarding the gift of the Holy Ghost as the conse- quence of this elevation. That Apollos was instructed not only regarding John the Baptist, but also regarding Jesus, is plain not only from ver. 25, where the expressions κατηχημένος τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ κυρίου, and διδάσκειν ἀκριβῶς τὰ περὶ τοῦ κυρίου, but also particularly from chap. xix. 2, where the name μαθηταὶ is ap- plied to disciples of John, who occupied a quite similar position with Apollos. Here then we find Christians who lived, as it were, beside the great spiritual fellowship of the Gospel, like an offshoot from the tree of the kingdom of God, without knowing anything of the church. ‘Two considerations are pressed upon our notice by this fact. On the one hand, we perceive from it with what power the appear- ance of Christ in the world operated at that time: even in remote districts he was acknowledged, and the fact of his advent (vers. 25, 26), was spread abroad with zeal and courage, while as yet the full splendour of his light was not beheld. From the school of Jobn there proceeded men like the apostles, who joined themselves wholly to the church, and also men who openly opposed Christianity, and, like the later Zabeans, made the Baptist contrary to his own will and public declarations their Messiah, but besides these, there was also an intermediate party, who had been directed by the Bap- 1 See Neander’s Church History, part ii. p, 646, &c., also Gesenius im probeheft der Encyclop. von Gruber und Ersch Art. Zabier. ACTS XVII. 24—28., 577 tist to Jesus as the Messiah, and been illuminated with some beams of his light, but had acquired no farther knowledge of him, probably be- cause their connection with Palestine was early broken off, perhaps by journeys which they made into the heathen world before the outpour- ing of the Holy Ghost. And, on the other hand, the fact before us shows how expansive was the brotherly love that was cherished by the apostolic church. Notwithstanding the very weak apprehen- sion which these disciples of John certainly had of the new dis- pensation of divine mercy, the apostles recognised them as pa- θηταὶ, on the principle that no one can call Jesus Lord but by the operation known or unknown of the Spirit, and only endea- voured to promote their knowledge of divine things. It is true, if the disciples of John had withstood the offered means of advance- ment, they would have exposed themselves to censure, and would have gone over into the field of heresy, like the Zabeans ; but so long as they were merely ignorant of the principle of life procured by Christ, the apostles treated them only as immature disciples, who were in a state of transition from the Old Covenant to the New, acquainted indeed with the high priest of the latter by name, but without having felt the power of the blood of sprinkling. Now if Apollos, according to the view we have given, occupied precisely the same position in respect of religion with the disciples of John mentioned after him, then there starts up a difficulty in the account before us, inasmuch as the treatment of Apollos and of the twelve disciples of John appears to be different. They are bap- tized (chap. xix. 5), but he only receives more minute instruction regarding the Gospel (chap. xviii. 26.) We cannot believe that it was the greater learning of Apollos and his talents which occa- sioned this difference of treatment, because it is self-evident. that such endowments belonging to the natural man could never render the higher principle of the Holy Ghost unnecessary. And just as little is it probable that the apostles would pursue a vacillating course in their treatment of the disciples of John : we must rather suppose that they were guided as to this point by some fixed principle. Now as Apollos received his first clear views of the nature of the Gospel only from Aquila, who, as not being an apostle, could not impart to him the Holy Ghost, the most suitable supposition we can make is, that Apollos was really baptized in the name of Christ in Ephesus by Aquila, but first received the Holy VOL. IV, 20 578 ACTS XVIII. 24—-28. Ghost through means of Paul in Corinth. In this view the occur- rence forms no contradiction at all with chap. viii. ; there the apos- tles do not repeat the act of baptism, just because Philip had ad- ministered Christian baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; but here the baptism of the Spirit is con- nected with Christian water baptism, because the disciples had only received John’s baptism of repentance.’ Ver. 24. The form of the name Apollos, Α΄ πολλώς, is abbreviated from AzroAd@rios.—The description ἀνὴρ λόγιος may refer either to eloquence or to learning; but as the Jewish form of learning is plainly described in the words δυνατὸς ἐν ταῖς γραφαῖς, the idea of eloquence is rather to be preferred in this case. Apollos then pos- sessed a distinguished gift of speaking, and was at the same time very accurately acquainted with the Scriptures, without doubt according to the mode of interpretation prevalent among the Gnos- tics of Alexandria. If Apollos, as has been supposed, or at least some man very similarly trained, was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, then we see in this remarkable composition, how the Spirit of Christ consecrated that form of culture, and purified it from false intermixtures—Ver. 25. The phrase éew πνεύ- ματι is to be found also in Rom. xii. 11. Apollos, and probably many other elevated men of that stamp, were already animated to enthusiasm by the idea, that the ancient promise of the Messiah had received its fulfilment in the advent of Christ, and yet they knew not the plenitude of spiritual gifts, which were bestowed through him upon the human race.—Ver. 27. συμβάλλεσθαι is to be understood in the signification of “* conferre,” ‘‘ to be profitable,” ‘to give support and help.” And χάρις, equivalent to χάρισμα, 1 If the general practice in the apostolic church was that the apostles alone imparted the gift of Holy Ghost, the question may be asked what was the case after their death ? The imposition of hands continued, it is known, in the church, and every bishop or pres- byter communicated the gift of the Spirit according to the measure in which he had re- ceived him; but no one possessed the Spirit in the same rich manner and with such original power as the apostles; and therefore if χαρίσματα (gifts) were to be found here and there after the aposties’ death, the probability is that their manifestations were far weaker than in the time of the apostles, Paul only had not received the Holy Ghost by the imposition of the hands of another apostle (Galat. i. 12), but immediately from the Lord. When and how this communication of the Spirit was made to the Apostle Paul we know not: as was remarked at the passage in Acts ix. 17, it almost appears that the. Holy Ghost was communicated to him, as to Cornelius, before baptism, At all events, however, the Spirit came to him, without the intervention of an apostle, as is clearly ap- parent from Galat. i, 12, ACTS XIx. ]1=—7. 579 is to be understood of the peculiar gift of teaching and preaching, of which Apollos was possessed. —-Ver. 28. Εὐτόνως has already oc- curred in Luke xxiii. 10.—The form διακατελέγχεσθαι, in which the signification of the simple verb appears with augmented force, is to be found in no other part of the New Testament. Chap. xix. 1—7. The commencement of this chapter looks back, it is obvious, to the account of Paul’s journey interrupted at chap. xviii. 23, and mentions his arrival in Ephesus. The μέρη (Ασίας) ἀνωτερικά denote the provinces that lay more in the in- terior of Asia Minor, as opposed to Ephesus, which lay upon the sea-shore. Here the apostle found twelve disciples of John (ver. 7), who, like Apollos, were only acquainted with John’s baptism of repentance (ver. 3); they had been directed by the Baptist to look to Jesus as the Messiah (ver. 2), but they knew nothing of the Holy Ghost, the higher principle of heavenly life procured by Christ for his disciples (John vii. 39.). The only difficulty connected with this account springs from the remark in ver. 2: GAN οὐδὲ εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιόν ἐστιν ἠκούσαμεν. It certainly appears astonishing that these men should know no- thing of the Holy Ghost ; while-yet the Old Testament frequently speaks of an outpouring of the Spirit. The participle δοθὲν has therefore been supplied to ἔστιν, and some Codices too instead of ἔστιν read λαμβάνουσί tives. In this view the disciples of John, when they used these words, only declared that they had not heard whether any outpouring of the Spirit had actually taken place. But if we compare the passage in John vii. 39 (see the re- marks there offered), it will appear that this view merely throws back the difficulty, but does not solve it. The meaning of the words undoubtedly is, that those men knew nothing even of the existence of the Holy Ghost. It is true the doctrine was clearly unfolded in the Old Testament that God is a Spirit, and that he is holy ; but that in the Divine Being there exists that peculiar power which the church names the third person in the Godhead, they did not know ; and they could not discover it in the Old Tes- tament, because it is only the clearness of the New Testament which enables one looking backward to find it in the Old. It is probable even that they did not regard the Messiah as the only be- gotten Son of God, but merely as ἄνθρωπος κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν. The 202 580 ACTS ΧΙΣ. 1—7. meaning of their words therefore is, that God still appeared to them as asimple, self-contained, indivisible unity, and that they knew no- thing of those distinctions of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, ne- cessarily grounded in the nature of God's spiritual essence, with- out which we cannot conceive God communicating and revealing himself as the Living one. Now, on account of this imperfect knowledge of God, they needed still to be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. What we have sup- posed therefore in the case of Apollos, is here plainly declared, viz., that those who had received the baptism of John, were bap- tized the second time. It was a very obvious course for all the advocates of rebaptizing, from Cyprian down to the Anabaptists and Mennonites, to adduce this passage in their defence ; and the views of it which were adopted by the orthodox, in order to deprive them of the argument based upon it, were certainly more forced than even their interpretation of it in favour of their darling idea. It was said, for example, that ver. 5 still refers to the baptism of John, and is so connected with the words of Paul in ver. 4, that the meaning is, “‘ when they heard him, viz., the Baptist, they were baptized by him in the name of the Lord Jesus.” But it is manifest that the baptism of John could not possibly be styled baptism in the name of Je- sus: the Baptist only directed those already baptized to Jesus, after he was convinced of his Messiahship by the descent of the Spirit upon him. Yet men like Beza, Calixtus, Buddeus could allow themselves to be so misled, as to adopt this untenable sup- position, that they might wrench from the Anabaptists their proof- passage. ‘The best expedient was the one devised by Ziegler. (Theol. Abh. Th. ii.) He supposed that these disciples of John had been infected with the error of those, who declared the Baptist himself to be the Messiah, and who were also baptized in the name of the Baptist. They had not, therefore, received the right Johannic baptism, and of course they needed to be baptized again, which would not have been the case, if they had been properly baptized by John in the name of the approaching Messiah. According to this idea, certainly, we can carry through the principle that the dis- ciples of John here mentioned were not baptized, as there are no cer- tain traces of it elsewhere to be found. But even this explanation ACTS ΧΙΧ. 8—12. * 581 cannot be maintained, for there is one consideration which is per- fectly sufficient to refute it, viz., that in this case the disciples of John would certainly not have been styled μαθηταί, as they are in chap. xix. 1. But even when you take the sense of the words simply as it presents itself, it does not follow from them that the Anabaptists are right, when they adduce this passage in their defence. They only assert, in ¢he first place, that no child should be baptized, be- cause in their view the inward baptism, which presupposes con- sciousness, should always coincide with the outward ; and, in ‘the second place, that those who have been baptized simply as uncon- scious children have not received the true baptism at all, and there- fore ought to be baptized when they come to maturity. An actual repetition of baptism, therefore, is not taught by the Anabaptists : they merely assail the propriety of infant baptism, of which there is nothing said in the passage before us, and therefore it is clear, on a closer view of the point in debate, that this passage ought never to have been applied to the question at all. If then the apostles baptized anew, on their entrance into the Chris- tian church, those who had been baptized by John the Baptist or by his adherents, the question arises, whether those who were baptized by the disciples of Jesus before the institution of the sacrament of baptism (see John 111. 26, iv. 2) would also require to submit to baptism again? There is nothing certainly in the nature of this baptism, to show that this might not be the case, for as the power of the Holy Ghost was not yet imparted, it could not be the laver of regeneration : moreover, it is probable that the disciples had bap- tized but a few, and that only immediately after they were disen- gaged from the Baptist and connected with Jesus, and while they were still entirely under the influence of the ideas of John. And this explains why it is only at this early period in the passages cited above, that we find any notice of the subject, and nowhere else observe any further traces of it. But these few individuals may have attached themselves quite closely to the company of Christ, and thus, along with the apostles, who were not afterwards baptized by the Lord, they may have immediately received on the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost, whose communication would render quite unnecessary the administration of the outward ordinance. Vers. 8-12. The following verses give a short account of the 582 ᾿ ACTS xIx. 13—17. ministry of Paulin Ephesus. For three months he preached to the Jews: afterwards he turned to the Gentiles, and laboured for two years among them, teaching in the school-room of one Tyran- nus.’ Many cures too were performed by Paul in this place. Re- garding σκληρύνεσθαι in verse 9, see Comm. on Rom. ix. 18. Here the hardening is ascribed to the unfaithfulness of the Jews themselves, but there it is attributed to God. The milder form of - expression which is here chosen, “ the hardening of oneself,” is’ the more usual one in Scripture.—Ver. 9. ἀφώρισε refers merely to the separation of their places of meeting. The word σχολή means a school or lecture room ; and it is probable that Tyrannus kept a school of rhetoric— Ver. 12. Regarding σουδάριον comp. Comm. on John xi. 44. The word σιμικίνθιον, from “ semi” and ‘‘cingere,’ denotes an apron, and it occurs not again in the New Testament. It is such articles of dress plainly, as could be easily laid aside and used elsewhere, that are named. Regarding cures effected by such objects, see the remarks in Comm. on Aets vy. 15. Here, however, the conduct of the multitude exhibits more decided marks of superstition than the case mentioned in chap. v. 15. The person of Peter was always present along with his shadow, but here articles of clothing only make their appearance, and they are regarded as impregnated with the apostle’s power. When these have a healing efficacy ascribed to them, which is traced back to God, this can only be regarded as a condescension of the divine mercy to individuals who, though erring, are yet well-intentioned. The apostles themselves certainly have not given countenance to such ideas, for there is no trace of them any where to be found. Vers. 13-—17. With this account of the miracles performed by Paul, Luke connects the description of an occurrence quite pecu- har. Jewish exorcists who witnessed the mighty works of the apostle, supposed that his power lay in the use of the name Jesus ; and therefore they expected that the mere employment of it would enable them to exhibit similar results. See the remarks at Matt. xvili. 5 on a like occurrence. However strange this notion may appear to us, still it is quite conformable to the ideas of antiquity, 1 It was during the period of this residence of Paul in Ephesus that the Epistle to the Gulatians, and the two to the Corinthians, were composed. The second of the two lat- ter, however, was probably written after the apostle was driven away by the proceedings of Demetrins the goldsmith, and most likely in Macedonia. (Acts xx. 1, 2.) ACTS XIx. 13—17. 583 and particularly to those of wonder-workers among the Jews, who imagined that the utterance of certain words or forms bad a mighty power connected with it. And therefore the Rabbins afterwards explained the miracles of Jesus himself by the supposition that he was acquainted with the holy name of Jehovah. (ym aan ovr) (See Eisenmenger’s Entdeck. Judenth. Part 1. p. 154.) The employment of the name of Jesus by the exorcists had no effect upon the demoniacs, yea they even manifested hostility to them, but this receives an easy explanation from the power of forecasting or cobjecturing, which is to be met with highly developed among such unfortunates : by this they at once recognized the inefficacy of the words uttered. (That the Jews too attempted to exorcise evil spirits,1 and that often with success, has already appeared from Matt. xii. 27.)—In ver. 12, the words ὁρκίζω ὑμᾶς tov ᾿Ιησοῦν are followed by ὃν ὁ Παῦλος κηρύσσει ; and doubtless the reason of this is, that the name of, Jesus was so common, that there was need of a more particular description to point out the person indi- cated. Now as these Jews could not of course recognize Jesus as the Messiah, no other. method was left but to mark bim out by the individual, who was preaching him with such zeal in Ephesus. Regarding the construction of ὁρκίζω with the accusative, which requires διὰ to be supplied, see Mark v. 7, and | Thess. v. 27.— The persons who made this attempt in Ephesus were seven sons of Sceva, a priest of distinction (ἀρχιερέως), who probably was at the head of the Ephesian Jews.——Regarding the use of τὶς in con- nexion with numbers, see Winer’s Gram. p. 158. It is to be found again in Acts xxiii. 23. However, it might be better to suppose that τὶς does not here refer to the number, but that Luke states the number by way of addition.—Ver. 15. The phrase πνεῦμα πονηρόν is used by Luke with peculiar frequency : instead of it the other two synoptical Evangelists commonly employ the words πνεῖ- pa ἀκάθαρτον ---ἴῃ ver. 16, the reading ἀμφοτέρων has probably arisen from this, that it was regarded as impossible, that one should be able to contend against seven. In demoniacs, however, as in people afflicted with madness, the power of the muscles is often found augmented to an incredible extent. See the Comm. on Matt. viii. 28. 1 Josephus too (Antiq. viii. 2, 5) makes mention of magical charms, which were ascribed to Solomon, and by which the Jewish conjurers attempted to perform cures. 584 ACTS ΧΙΧ, 18—22. Vers. 13—20. What occurred with the sons of Sceva only aug- mented the more, as was to be expected, the consequence of Paul. Almost the entire mass of the people began to repent, and many, beholding the real wonders of the living God, destroyed the idola- trous charms by which the priests attempted to counterfeit mira- cles. In ver. 18, the words ἐξομολογεῖσθαι and ἀναγγέλλειν τὰς πράξεις cannot, as Kuinoel supposes, apply to the general confession of their sins: in this view it would be impossible to keep the two sufficiently distinct from one another in sense. The πράξεις rather denote, as is plain from the connexion, magical arts, and ἐξομο- λογεῖσθαι means to have made confession of these before the apostle or individual believers; ἀναγέλλειν, on the other hand, refers to the public acknowledgment of them before all, for the pur- pose of warning against such delusions—Ver. 19. περίεργος, like curiosus, is applied particularly to those curious and busy individuals, who employ magical arts to search into the future. The worship of Artemis in Ephesus was connected with many mysterious ceremonies, by which her priests and worshippers were led to the practice of magical arts, which they cultivated to a great extent. The Ephesian charms and amulets (γράμματα ἀλεξιφάρ- paxa ‘Edéova') were therefore prized above al] others.—The esti- mated value of these books amounted to fifty thousand drachmae, that is, about six thousand rix dollars. —Ver. 20. Kata κράτος is to be understood adverbially in the signification of “ admodum, vehementer ;” not with Θεοῦ supplied in the sense of juvante Deo. Vers. 21, 22. After these occurrences, Paul now determined, as the Gospel appeared quite firmly established in Ephesus, both to revisit the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, and also to go to Rome, the great metropolis of the heathen world. In the first instance, however, he sent away only Timothy and Erastus to 1 Hesychius, in his Lexicon under this word, adduces some forms from such magi- cal books; for example, the words doxt, κατάσκι, ALE, τετρὰξ, δαμναμενεὺς, αἴσιον. He supposes that they were Greek words designedly transposed, but perhaps they were only unmeaning sounds, which have a resemblance quite casually to Greek. Similar sounds in a Latin form are to be found in the magical books of the middle ages. 2 In forming a judgment of this great sum (about L.1350 stg.), which, according to another calculation, rises much higher still, we must bear in mind first, the high price of books generally in ancient times, and, secondly, the exaggerated value which the magicians ascribed to their books of magic. ACTS XIX. 283—27. 585 Macedonia, and for some time longer he exerted his energies in behalf of Asia.—Ver. 21. The phrase, ἔθετο ἐν πνεύματι supposes the previous entrance of the plan into one’s mind, and indicates that a decision had been come to in its favour. On the other hand, the words eis τὴν ᾿Ασίαν, in ver. 22, are to be understood as mean- ing, “for the benefit of Asia.”—In Rom. xvi. 23, another Erastus is named, who was resident in Corinth. This travelling companion of Paul comes into view again in 2 Tim. iv. 20.—E7réyew scilicet ἑαυτόν, in the sense of *‘ to detain one’s self, to sojoura, to tarry,” occurs no more in the New Testament, but it is frequently to be found in good Greek writers, for example, Xenophon. Paul's pur- pose in sending his two associates to Macedonia, was no other than this, to make preparations for the collection, which he was desirous of carrying to the poor saints in Jerusalem. Comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1, &e. Vers. 23—27. But immediately after the dismission of these two assistants, a mighty storm arose against the apostle, which was oc- casioned by Demetrius, a goldsmith. This man was employed in making little silver images of the celebrated Temple of Artemis, and he found his gains curtailed by the prodigious influence of the apostle in the whole of Asia.‘ Now, as he exercised his trade on a great scale, and many men were dependent upon him, he stirred up against Paul in the hearts of the fanatical multitude the same hatred which burned in his own bosom.—Ver. 24. It has been falsely supposed that the silver temples were medals, with the im- pression of the Temple of Diana upon them, but we should ra- ther view them as small images of the building, which travellers and pilgrims purchased for a token of remembrance. Such little temples were called ἀφιδρύματα. Dionys. Hal. ii. 22. And they were made of gold, silver, or wood.—Ver. 25. εὐπορία, " abund- antia, opulence.’ —Ver. 26. The words, ὅτε οὐκ εἰσὶ Θεοὶ du διὰ χειρῶν γινόμενοι, refer to the rude popular view which supposed the image to be the God himself. The better educated heathens regarded the image merely as a symbol of the heavenly divinity — Ver. 27. The word ἀπελεγμὸς occurs nowhere else in the New 1 Regarding the rapid spread of Christianity in Asia Minor, see the account given by Pliny in his letters. (x, 97.) This account is printed in my work Monum, hist, ecel. i. 23, &e. 586 ACTS XIx. 28.—84. Testament: εἰς ἀπελεγμὸν ἐλθεῖν is synonymous with ἀπελέγ- xeo Oar. Vers. 28—34. The multitude, excited by the covetous Deme- trius, raised the cry, “great is Diana of the Ephesians ;” and rushed to the theatre, as the place commonly employed for meetings of the people. ‘Two travelling associates of Paul, Gaius aud Aristarchus, both from Macedonia, they dragged along with them ; Paul himself would have gone forth among the multitude, but he was held back by his distinguished patrons. The unruly crowd, swelled by mere alarmists, who knew not the cause of the tumult (ver. 32), would not suffer a Jew named Alexander, who wished to speak to the people, to utter a word; and it was only when the town clerk ap- ‘peared, that the uproar was hushed. Ver. 29. It was not to punish the prisoners, as was the case in the persecutions of later times, but only to procure a meeting of the people, that the excited multitude betook themselves to the theatre. Aristarchus is more particularly described in chap. xx. 4, as also Gaius. The individual named in Rom. xvi. 23, who resided in Corinth, is not to be confounded with him.—Zvvéxdnpos, fellow traveller, occurs again in the New Testament in 2 Cor. viii. 19.— Ver. 31 shows how considerable was the influence which Paul had acquired in Ephesus, and with this his declaration in 1 Cor. xvi. 9, quite agrees. The friends of Paul belonged to the Asiarchs, who always required to be the richest and most respectable people of the city. The office of these men, who were changed from year to year, bad reference entirely to religious affairs; the Asiarchs had the oversight of the sacred places of the city, and were re- quired to arrange the sacred games at their own expense. Besides Ephesus, the other cities of Asia too appointed Asiarchs, who formed together a college (τὸ κοινόν.) The president of this col- lege appears always to have belonged to the metropolis: at least we find that the years were counted by the Asiarch, as by the consuls among the Romans. (See Euseb. Hist. Ecc. iv. 15; Winer’s Reallex. under the word Asiarch.) —Ver. 33. Alexander the Jew, who wished to speak, and who doubtless designed to speak against the apostle and his ministry, is perhaps the same individual whom Paul describes in 2 Tim. iv. 14, as his furious enemy.’ The Jews 1 According to 1 Cor. xvi. 9, however, the apostle had many that withstood him in Ephesus: the Alexander therefore who opposed him towards the end of his life, may have been another individual. 3 ACTS 'xrx- 35=-—4 1. 587 pushed him forward as their speaker, that their influence too might be employed in turning the tumult to the discredit of Paul; but on this occasion the heathen element had so great a preponderance, that they could make no impression. Vers. 35-—41. The town clerk now quieted the uproar; and he both did justice to the zeal of the Ephesians for their goddess, and at the same time referred to the innocence of the accused, and pointed out the hazardous political consequences which such popu- lar commotions might produce. This latter suggestion might proba- bly appear to Demetrius himself a very important one, and he might then employ his influence in appeasing the multitude.—Ver. 35. The office of the γραμματεύς was a very respectable one in Ephesus, as in the other cities of Asia. The name probably arose from this, that the archives of the state were under his care, and it was his duty to prepare all official writings. The expression corresponds nearly to our secretary of state. (See Hemsen in his life of the apostle Paul, page 232. Note.)—-KatacrédXew is the usual word for suppressing a popular commotion.—-~New«opos means properly cleansing the temple, and then in general, careful about the worship of the gods. The word is not unfrequently to be found on coins as an epithet of several cities——To Ζοπετές you must supply ἄγαλμα. So were certain idols named, which were supposed to have fallen down from heaven. ‘This was long regarded as a mere fable, like the accounts of showers of stones given by the ancients ; but it is more than probable that real aerolites, whose origin they were unable to explain, were regarded by them as presents from the gods. The stone, which the Romans brought from Asia to Rome as the image of Cybele, was undoubtedly a meteoric stone. The accounts, however, given by the ancient writers of the image of Diana of the Ephesians are very various. (See Plin. H. N. xvi. 79.)—Ver. 36. The town clerk, like the Asiarchs, is favourably disposed, it is plain, towards Paul: he takes upon himself the de- fence of him and his attendants.—II pomert7s means properly “* prae- ceps,” “ falling over, then praecipitate, over-hasty, rash.” It occurs in the New Testament again in 2 Tim. iii. 4.—Ver. 38, ἀγόραιοι must be carefully distinguished from ὠγοραῖοι in chap. xviii. 5. The latter denotes men who rove or loiter idly about the market- place ; the former, which must have ἡμέραι. supplied, means court days, dies judiciales. The plural ἀνθύπατοι does not mean that 588 ACTS Xx. 1—8. there were several proconsuls, but only indicates, that there was always a proconsul among them.—Ver. 40. It was a very skilfully directed warning the town-clerk gave them, thatthe Romans might see something of sedition in this tumult: the fear therefore of los- ing more in gold and goods, than they had lost by the preaching of the apostle, speedily brought them toa state of quietness. Συσ- τροφή here has only the meaning of an uproar, but the idea of a conspiracy is also involved in the word (see Acts xxiii. 12), and therefore probably it was designedly chosen to suggest to the meeting, what construction might easily be put upon the commo- uion. § 2. PAUL’s JOURNEY FROM EPHESUS TO JERUSALEM. ? (Acts xx. 1—xxi. 16.) Vers. |—3. The departure of Paul from Ephesus took place after a solemn meeting, in which the apostle took leave of the bre- thren. It stands in connexion certainly with the uproar of Deme- trius, but that it was occasioned or hastened thereby, as Eichhorn supposes, is not at all indicated: indeed the words μετὰ τὸ παύ- σασθαι τὸν θόρυβον are opposed to this idea, for the mention of the ceasing of the tumult shows that the apostle might have re- mained quietly in Ephesus, if he had chosen. We may therefore suppose that the apostle attained his purpose, of waiting in Ephesus till Pentecost, viz., of the year ὅθ, and of seeing ‘Timothy re- turn from his-mission (1 Cor. xvi. 8, 11}, and therefore the time shortly after the departure of Paul from Ephesus would be a suit- able period, to which to assign the composition of the first Epistle to Timothy. (See 1 Tim. i. 8.) The apostle, according to what is here narrated, goes first to Macedonia (by Troas, viz., where he expected ‘Titus, who was to bring him intelligence regarding Co- rinth, and the impression his first epistle had made on the church there, 2 Cor. ii. 12, 13), and he was also going, according to | Tim. i. 3, to Macedonia, having left Timothy behind in Ephesus. Either from Troas, therefore, or from Macedonia, where he wrote the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, might Paul have despatched the letter in question to Timothy. ut the internal features of the ACTS xx. 4—6. 589 first Epistle to Timothy are not in accordance with this date, although Hemsen still decides in its favour. The first Epistle to Timothy represents him as presiding over the Ephesian church for a consi- derable time, while here we perceive him returning immediately to the company of Paul, and again the epistle exhibits an unsettled state of the church, and speaks of the presence of many false teachers, while, according to Acts xx. 29, such teachers are described by the apostle as only to make their appearance afterwards. It is better, therefore, to assign the epistle in question to the last period of the life of Paul. Regarding the duration of Paul's stay in Troas and Macedonia, nothing definite is stated, but, as his stay in Greece, that is in Co- rinth, is fixed at three months (verse 3), and as immediately there- after (verse 6) mention is made of the paschal feast (viz., of the year 60), it is probable that the whole time, from Pentecost to the end of the year, was spent on the journey from Ephesus to Corinth. In this city, where Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans, the Jews contrived another plot against him, verse 3; and, in order to rescue himself from their snares, he departed from Corinth sooner than he had purposed. As the winter season did not per- mit him to choose the direct course to Syria by sea, he went back in the first place to Macedonia, that he might prosecute his jour- ney from that quarter. Vers. 4—6. In the progress of his journey, the apostle made a stay in Philippi, where Luke, who again uses the first person, meets him, having been left behind at an earlier period (xvi. 40) in Phi- lippi, and having spent perhaps the whole time there. The numerous attendants of Paul went before him to Troas, and waited for him there, and he arrived after Easter and remained seven days. Many interpreters, to whose views Hemsen, in recent times, accedes, re- gard a retinue of seven persons as too large; but it is by no means easy to perceive any thing extraordinary in this. Besides the attendants whom Paul always had beside him, and who were abso- lutely necessary to him for baptizing and arranging the affairs of the new churches, there are only here added some believers from the province, in which he had been labouring. Of Σώπατρος nothing further is known, perhaps he is the same person with Σωσίπατρος mentioned in Rom. xvi. 21. Aristarchus and Gaius were already mentioned at chap. xix. 29. There, however, the 590 ACTS Xx. T—12. - latter is called a Macedonian, while here he seems to be called Ζερ- βαῖος, a man of Derbe. Undoubtedly we might with Meyer regard this Gaius as another individual: it is well, however, not unneces- sarily to increase the number of biblical persons. It has there- fore already been proposed by Ernesti, Valckenaer, Kuinoel, and Neander, to put a point after Gaius, so that he might be included among the Thessalonians mentioned, and ‘Timothy be described as a native of Derbe. Nor on this view is there any thing offensive in the position of καὶ after Ζερβαῖος, for it can be taken in the signification of “ even, also,” and therefore no change of the καὶ is needed. Secundus is no more mentioned in the New Testament ; the two assistants of the apostle, however, Tychicus and ‘Tro- phimus, who were natives of proconsular Asia, are well known.— Ver. 6. “Axpis is used to denote a definite date “ till five days,” for “on the fifth day.” The passages in Rom. viii. 22 and Heb. iii. 13, to which Kuinoel appeals in favour of this idea, are by no means analogous to the one before us ; for it is not a point of time which is spoken of in them, but an action continuing and reaching down to a certain term, But itis only by means of an ellipse that the passage before us can be thus explained: the idea of the pre- ceding sailing needs to be supplied to the word ἤλθομεν. Vers. 7—12. The following account of the meeting in Troas, and of the falling of a young man named Futychus from the win- dow of the third story, is not of much importance considered in itself, but itis interesting, first, because it presents an example of a meeting by night, and, secondly, because it shows that the observ- ance of Sunday existed as early as the times of the apostles, which is also proved by 1 Cor. xvi. ῷ. The connexion plainly leads to this conclusion, that the apostle wished to observe Sunday with the church, and to celebrate the Lord’s Supper, as also the “‘agapae’ with them, before he left Troas. The most natural sup- position is, that from the very commencement of the church, be- lievers distinguished the day of our Lord's resurrection and cele- brated it with solemn meetings. ‘Thus the observance of this day spread equally among Christians, both of Jewish and Gentile extraction. Regarding the expression μία τῶν σαββάτων, see Comm. at Matt. xxviii. |.—Ver.8. The numerous torches served probably not merely to give light, but also for ornament. Sabbaths, it is known, ACTS Xx. 13—-2]. 591 are still celebrated among the Jews with many lights.—Ver. 9. Oupis, “recess of a window,” occurs again in the New ‘Testa- ment in 2 Cor. xi. 33.—Ver. 10. The declaration of Paul, ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστιν, does not permit us to suppose this was a case of raising from the dead. The account is quite parallel to the account given by Matthew (ix. 24) of the raising of the daughter of Jairus, and the remarks there made are applicable here also. Calvin expresses bimself in the same manner, as sO many inter- preters do with respect to the perfectly analogous narrative in the Gospels: non negat Paulus fuisse mortuum juvenem, quia mira- culi gloriam hoe modo extingueret, sed sensus est, vitam illi red- ditam esse Dei gratia. But it does not become us to encrease or to magnify miracles ; we should take every thing, as the Scriptures present it to us.—Ver. 11. It is worthy of notice that the apostle does not permit himself to be disturbed by this sad accident: he holds the love-feast, which was probably delayed by reason of his long discourse, and enters into affectionate conference with those who were present till the dawn of morning. Vers. 13—16. As Luke himself was now again in the company, he was able to give quite a precise account, and accordingly he specifies with care the stations as far as Miletus. Paul, who seems on this occasion to have had the entire control of the ship, sailed past Ephesus, because he was afraid the multitude of his friends would detain him there too long, as he was desirous of be- ing in Jerusalem at Pentecost. Ver. 18. "άσσος was a city in Troas: Paul went this length on foot, probably that he might en- joy the company of the believers from Troas.'—Ver. 15. Τρωγύλ- Nov is a promontory of Tonia opposite to the island of Samos. Vers. 17—21. But although the apostle had not himself touched at Ephesus, yet he longed to address the rulers of the church there, that he might give them, as‘he supposed, his last injunctions. He caused the elders of that church therefore to be invited to Miletus, and delivered an address to them which is fully communicated to us by Luke.’ This speech is interesting, not simply because it 1 Hemsen, p. 478, throws out the conjecture, that Paul went on foot alone, in order that he might give to his followers an opportunity of meditating and conversing about his last discourses : to me this does not seem probable, for the apostle had chiefly spoken, not for those who were going along with him, but for those who were remaining behind. 2 Menken’s practical exposition of this speech in seinen blicken in das leben Pauli, p» 448, &c., is worth reading here. See also Stier's Reden der apostel, part ii. p. 176, &e, 592 ACTS xx. 17—21. expresses in a very lively manner the heartfelt love of the apostle to his spiritual children and the faithful solicitude of his efforts ; but it is also important as opening up to the church a prophetical view of the future. Paul points in it to the threatening dangers which were coming upon the church from false teachers, and he gives most earnest warning against them. How much the fears of the great apostle of the Gentiles were unfortunately justified in the sequel, is shown to us not simply by the first Epistle of Paul to Timothy, in which he is obliged to instruct his dis- ciple regarding the measures to be taken against the heresy which had broken out, but also from the writings of John. The Gospel and the Epistles of John were composed in Ephesus itself, and they all express, very mildly indeed but still unmistakably, opposition to the false teachers whom Paul had already assailed. Several learned men of recent times, and even ancient fathers of the church, parti- cularly Irenaeus iii. 14. 2, have supposed that Paul held a formal council in Miletus, there being assembled there not only rulers of the church of Ephesus, but also of many other neighbouring churches. But the text is not favourable to this view; it is ra- ther directly opposed to it, as mention is made in ver. 28 of only one church. Probably this idea arose only from the circumstance that, in ver. 28, several ἐπίσκοποι are named, from which the conclu- sion was drawn, at a time when the names of presbyters and bishops had become markedly distinguished from one another, that the bishops of several churches must have been convened. But it is now generally acknowledged that in the primitive church the two words were used quite synonymously,’ as is plain in the New Testament from Acts xx. 17, compared with ver. 28; Phil. i. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 2, compared with ver. 8, and Titus i. 7. And even the ecclesiastical father Theodoret makes the remark on Phil. i. 1 : ἐπεσ- κόπους τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους καλεῖ, ἀμφότερα yap εἶχον κατ᾽ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν τὰ ὀνόματα ‘The question however regarding the offices must be carefully distinguished from the question regarding the names. With respect to the former it is plain, even from the New Testament (see Comm. on Acts xii. 17, xxi. 18, and on {πὸ As a farewell speech, this discourse bears a resemblance to Matt. xxiv. As in that pas- sage our Lord himself opens up to his disciples views into futurity, so does Paul here to his spiritual children, 1 See Neander’s Church History, vol. i. p. 184, &e. ACTS xx. 17—21. 598 Epistles to Timothy and Titus) that in the larger churches there was a president of the college of Presbyters, who afterwards received κατ᾽ ἐξοχὴν the name ἐπίσκοπος. Where the number of believers was great, and consequently also that of presbyters, it would hap- pen in the nature of things that some one possessing the high- est qualifications of an external and internal kind, would assume the place of leader of the whole body. But the spirit of brotherly love which reigned in the apostolic church would cause this result to be developed, without that presumption and arrogance, which were afterwards unfortunately so much displayed by the bishops towards the subordinate functionaries and members of the church.' The apostle mentions at the commencement of his address the faithful solicitude with which he had devoted himself to their inte- rests, during the long time he was among them. He could do this without the fear of being regarded as vain and self-sufficient, since it was not himself he praised, but the gift of God in him.—Ver. 18. The phrase πάντα τὸν χρόνον μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν ἐγενόμην, is not to be un- derstood pedantically, as if the apostle had not left Ephesus for a single day, but certainly it excludes journeys of a month's dura- tion, so that we cannot well suppose him to have made long excur- sions from Ephesus. Ver. 19. ταπεινοφροσύνη is frequently to be found in the epistles of Paul, but elsewhere only in 1 Pet. v. 5. Also the adjective ταπεινόφρων occurs in 1 Pet. iii. 9.—Ver. 20. ὑποστέλλεσθαι corresponds to the Latin “ se subducere,” to withdraw from a thing, to neglect it.—Ver. 21. The connexion of μετάνοια with Θεὸς is peculiar, and also that of πίστις with Christ. Kuinoel refers the former only to the Gentiles, who were first made acquainted with the true God by the Gospel, the other he refers to Jews and Gen- tiles. But such a contrast is not here spoken of at all: the ex- planation rather is that in God the Father the idea of strict righteousness is exhibited, to which repentance directs itself, but in Christ the idea of compassion, to which faith looks. 1 In Hebrews xiii. 7, 17, 24, the rulers of the church are styled ἡγούμενοι, which is eqnivalent to ἐπίσκοποι. This word, like the name πρεσβύτερος, is derived from the con- stitution of the Jewish synagogue, which was presided over by aged individuals, Dy3pr, or by rulers, ΟΣ. Regarding the last name, see Buxtorf Lex. Rabb. p. 1821, under the word D275, that is, to tend a flock. The constitution of the synagogue, however, did not lead so decidedly to the creation of a president in the college of elders, probably on VOL. IV. 2°P 594 ACTS XxX. 22—28. Vers. 22—27. Paul is now led by the dangers he was about to encounter in Jerusalem, which made him apprehend he should see his beloved Ephesians no more, to make mention of his faithful la- bours in the Gospel among them, and of his consequent freedom from guilt, if any of them still should perish. If a second capti- vity of Paul be supposed, then certainly he came again into those regions (see 2 Tim. iv. 13 —20), but this supposition need occasion no difficulty, because the apostle here expresses merely a private opinion, and by no means intimates that he was led to it by the unerring Spirit of God. He probably saw quite correctly the end of his course, viz. the death of martyrdom, but he did not know the space of time that was yet to intervene in his life. Ver. 22. The words δεδεμένος τῷ πνεύματι refer simply to the journey. To this the apostle felt within himself an inward pressing summons ; but, according to his own confession, he knew nothing of what was to befal him. For the Holy Ghost does not teach each one every thing, but, according to God’s appointment, he teaches each one what is needful for him. His approaching captivity Paul had to learn from other persons, who were endowed with the Spirit of God (see chap. xxi. 12.). Perhaps this arrange- ment was made by God, for the purpose of testing Paul’s obe- dience to the leadings of the Spirit, even in cases where they ap- peared to him unsuitable; for certaily it could not but appear strange to him, when he was able every day to gain over thousands to the kingdom of God, that he should be for years snatched away from the ministry of the word. The dative τῷ πνεύματι further is not to be understood as the dative of association, “bound to the Spirit,” but as the dative of instrument, “ bound by the Spirit.” The Spirit is viewed as a power taking posses- sion inwardly of the will of man, and binding it——Ver. 25. The words ἐν οἷς διῆλθον might be referred to the travels of Paul in dif- ferent places, and thus it would be made probable, that there were presbyters present from other cities: but the words may be just as well applied to the labours of Paul in the city of Ephesus alone.— Ver. 26. καθαρὸς ἀπὸ ἅιματος equivalent to DAD 2: The blood is viewed as the principle of life. Ver. 28. This verse is remarkable in several respects. We per- account of the predominant influence of the Sanhedrim existing in the theocratic cen- tre of the nation. ACTS Xx. 28. 595 ceive from it, in the first place, how very important and influential a position the apostle ascribes to the rulers of the church,! which they acquire in nowise merely by their own arbitrary power, nor by that of the church that chose them, but from above. The bishops are considered as appointed by the Holy Ghost, and they are admonished not only to take care of their own souls, but also to feed well the flock of God over which they are placed. This representation is not favourable to the view now widely diffused among Protestants,’ that the ancient constitution of the church was completely democratical, so that every individual had essen- tially the same right and the same duty as the rulers of the church. This opinion was too rudely formed in opposition to the principles of the Catholic hierarchy, but still there is this amount of truth in it, that every believer, even the humblest, possesses a priestly character, in reference to himself and his household, but not at all in reference to the general body. The Holy Scriptures (James ili. 1) give an express warning against every one setting himself up as a teacher. The idea of an order of teachers in the church is founded upon the knowledge of the fact, that God im- parts his gifts in various measures, and that not only in the case of natural endowments, but particularly also of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. (See Comm. on 1 Cor. xii. 11.) Now those persons, who have received a larger measure of the gifts of the Spirit, ought to possess the government of the whole body. In the apostolic church, where the rulers were chosen, either by the apostles who were filled with the Spirit, or by the congregations among whom the Holy Ghost reigned in his primitive power, these rulers corres- ponded entirely to this idea. But circumstances were afterwards completely changed: unqualified persons by corrupt practices of all kinds got hold of the government of the church, and qualified persons were excluded from it. ‘This state of matters naturally brought about a reaction, and then men went to another false ex- treme. 1 It is not to be overlooked that Paul places first the expression προσέχετε éav- τοῖς, teaching us that concern for his own soul is the first duty of every individual, and in the case of teachers an indispensable qualification for their labours. 2 The Reformers were far removed from this view: they rather affirmed most emphati- cally that a peculiar order of teachers was indispensable in the church. The false ex- treme indicated above was exhibited in the extremest form among the Anabaptist and Quaker sects. 2P2 ——-_ νυν 596 ACTS ἘΣ. 28. In the second place, we see from this verse that the ποιμαίνειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν, which includes not only the κυβερνήσις but also the διδασκαλία of the church,! does not by any means concern itself merely with the statement of true doctrine, but also takes charge of refuting the false. The admonition to feed the flock stands in immediate connexion with the prediction that false teachers were to arise, and it is with reference to them that Paul recommends watchfulness. See on this subject the further discus- sions which are to follow in the pastoral epistles. Finally, the verse has acquired great importance on account of the concluding words, which, if the usual reading could be re- garded as genuine, would not only make Christ bear the name of God, but would also appear to justify the confusion of the qua- lities of his natures made by the Monophysites.”7 The genuinc- ness of the reading however cannot be defended consistently with the critical authorities. The reading Θεοῦ occurs in the cele- brated Codex B., but it is not the original reading there ; it is a subsequent correction, and it is nowhere else to be found save in the Vulgate, the Syriac version, and some of the fathers. But, on the other hand, A.C.D.E., and several other Codices have the read- ing κυρίου, which all recent critics recognise as the right one. The readings κυρίου Θεοῦ and Χριστοῦ are not at all to be taken into account, as they have plainly sprung from the other two. The pre- ponderating critical authorities are also supported by the circum- stance, that it may be easily explained how Θεοῦ might be substi- tuted in the room of Κυρίου, but not the reverse. The phrase ἐκκλησία κυρίου is nowhere else to be found, while ἐκκλησία Θεοῦ is of very frequent occurrence ; and therefore it might readily happen that the familiar expression would be chosen instead of the more uncommon one, attention not being paid to the word αἷμα which follows. It is plain however, that this connexion of θεός and αἷμα has no foundation in the style of the apostles, from the fact, that nowhere in the writings of the New Testament are similar forms of expression to be found. True the expression αἷμα κυρίου is also a singular one, and it appears to wear a co- louring of Monophysitism, for κύριος commonly expresses the 1 Regarding the relation of these χαρίσματα, as well as the distinction between πρεσβύτεροι διδάσκοντες and κυβερνῶντες, see the particulars at the pastoral epistles. 2 On this point see the ninth excursus appended to the commentary of Heinrichs. ACTS Xx. 29—382. 597 divine nature of Christ. But the connexion with ἐκκλησία shows that here it only means in general “ leader, governor,’ and there- fore is to be understood in the same manner as in John xii. 13, 14, 16. and not a few other passages, where κύριος stands along with διδάσκαλος, and only forms a contrast with δοῦλος. ᾿ Another various reading in the passage before us is, that which Griesbach and other modern critics have received into the text, viz., αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου, instead of the common reading ἰδίου αἵματος. This reading is susceptible of meaning only, in so far as we might explain ὁ ἰδίος as referring to Christ. (Rom. viii. 32.) But if κυρίου, as we have seen, is the right reading, then this explanation cannot be admitted, and ἴδιος accordingly must in this case be referred to αἷμα. Περιποιεῖσθαι occurs only once again in the New Testament, viz., in 1 Tim. iii. 13, in the signification of “earn, obtain, acquire.” On the other hand the substantive vepe- ποίησις is frequently to be found. ‘The idea that the Lord has redeemed the church with his own precious blood, and purchased it for a possession, expresses its great value, and thus heightens the obligation of taking the deepest interest in its welfare. Vers. 29--32. There is now appended the warning that great dangers threaten the church, to ward off which the apostle demands the entire watchfulness of the rulers, after the pattern of his own diligence. The dangers themselves are described as being of two kinds. In the first place, from without furious enemies of the church, seeking their own advantage, were to break into her; and, in the second place, even within her own bosom there were false teachers to spring up. It has been common to understand the parties de- scribed in ver. 30 as synonymous with those mentioned in ver. 29, or, like Grotius, to view the wolves as heathen persecutors, and the others as heretics. Both views are certainly wrong. Heathen enemies cannot well be the parties spoken of, because, in foretelling them, there would have been no need of so solemn an announcement; for, in the nature of things, it was to be expected that the Romans would set themselves against the spread of Christianity. The open enemy too, who in- sisted upon apostacy, brought far less danger in bis train than the apparent friend. Yet the words καὶ ἐξ ὑμῶν, and the contrasts between εἰσελεύσονται and ἀναστήσονται, between λύκοι βαρεῖς and λαλοῦντες διεστραμμένα, imperatively require that the enemies 598 ACTS Xx. 838—38. of the church described in the two verses should be viewed as dif- ferent. The nature of this difference becomes plain, when, as was intimated above, you view it as grounded on a difference of origin. Hostile men, the apostle means to say, would bring errors into the church from without, but also from amongst themselves, yea from their very instructors, false teachers would arise. Then the con- cluding words, τοῦ ἀποσπᾷν τοὺς μαθητὰς ὀπίσω αὐτῶν, describe the wicked object pursued in common by the two parties, viz, to draw believers away from Christ, and to attach them to their own persons. Here we find exactly described the characteris- tic distinction of the sectarian, which continues the same in all times and under all circumstances. The upright messengers of the truth forget themselves on account of the great cause which they are defending: they desire no attachment to their own persons, but only demand obedience to God and his word ; but the founder of sects draws men away from the Eternal, and sets up his own paltry self instead, and so he injures both himself. and others.—Ver. 29. Regarding λύκος, see Comm. at Matt. vii. 15, x. 16.—Bapus de- notes here what is “ dangerous, terrible.” As to ver. 30, comp. 1 Tim. iv. 1—JAveotpaypévov occurs in Matt. xvii. 17.—Ver. 81. When Paul here specifies three years as the time of his stay in Ephesus, which really lasted only two years and three months, (see xix. 8. 10) this is to be explained on the supposition, that the earlier residence too (xviii. 19) of the apostle is included, and a round number employed.—Ver. 32. Regarding παρατίθεμαι, see Acts xiv. 23. Vers. 33—88. At last, after the apostle had mentioned that he had always supported himself by the labour of his own hands, and had rather given than received, he concludes his discourse, and takes an affecting leave of his friends, who depart from him as if they were to see him no more here below. The reason why Paul adverts here to the manner in which he had supported himself in Ephesus, is doubtless just this, that he is desirous of showing, he was not actuated according to the reproaches of his Jewish enemies by any outward grounds of self-interest, but solely by love to their souls. (See the remarks at chap. xviii. 3.) ‘The con- nexion therefore shows that the ἀσθενοῦντες of the 35th verse is primarily applied only to those who are literally poor and weak. (Regarding ᾿Αντιλαμβάνεσθαι, see Luke i, 54.) But it cannot ACTS xxi. 1—9. 599 surely be supposed that the rich meaning of our Lord's words, μακά- ρίον ἐστι μᾶλλον διδόναι ἢ λαμβάνειν, is exhausted by the refe- rence to outward giving and receiving. Rather it holds true of this gnome, as of so many others, that they are susceptible of an appli- cation to the highest circumstances as well as to the lowest. This maxim applies in the most absolute sense to the relation of the Creator to the creature, for God is the alone blessed, because he alone gives every thing to all. Further, this maxim is known to be one of those which were preserved only by tradition. Several of the Redeemer’s utterances of this kind are collected together in Fa- bricii. Cod. Apocr. N. T. V. I. Chap. xxi. 1—4. Here follows the continuation of the account of Paul's journey, in the first place on to Tyre, where he abode one week. It seems an extraordinary statement which is made in ver. 4, that some believers, who were filled with the Spirit, said to Paul he should not go to Jerusalem. Now the apostle bas already declared (xx. 22) that he was going up under the impulse of the Spirit ; and therefore it seems as if the Spirit contradicted himself in his commu- nications through different channels. But this apparent contradic- tion arises solely from the shortness of the narrative ; which is supplemented by the more detailed statements of the 11th and 12th verses. Those men possessing the prophetic gift discerned quite correctly by the illumination of the Spirit the approaching captivity of the apostle, and on this account they besought him of their own accord, rather not to pursue the journey ; but in Paul the Spirit declared, that even though bonds awaited him, he must yet go up. —Ver. 1. Πάταρα was a well-known city of Lycia.—Ver. 3. γόμος signifies wares of every kind, as in Rev. xviii. 11, then particularly the lading of a ship, equivalent to φόρτιον, whence ἀποφορτίζεσ- θαι, to discharge, to unload a ship's cargo. Vers. 5—9. At the close of the period specified the believers in Tyre escorted the apostle, and he came by Ptolemais, now called St Jean d’Acre, to Caesarea, where he lodged in the house of Philip the deacon.—Ver. 5. ἐξαρτίσαι is explained by Oecumenius as meaning πληρῶσαι. But there is no ground for deviating from the usual signification ‘to equip, to prepare,” for the accusative denotes as usual duration of time. ‘The word occurs also in 2 Tim. iii. 17, in the same signification —The fact that children are 600 ACTS ΧΧΙ. 1O—16. mentioned along with the rest, cannot be employed as a proof of infant baptism, for not only is there wanting every indication that they were baptised, but it might even be grown children that are meant.—As in chap. xx. 6, so here prayer is made upon the knees : the ancient Christians appear always to have prayed in this posture, which symbolized the deep humiliation of the soul before God ; but on Sunday they stood, to indicate that God in Christ had raised men up from the fall. With respect to Philip, it is plain, from the descriptive clause, ὄντος ἐκ τῶν ἑπτὰ, that he was not the apostle, but the deacon, of whose labours mention has already been made in chap. viii. When ancient writers call him apostle,’ (see Euseb. H. E. iii. 81, 89, v. 24), we need not suppose there is any confounding of the two persons, but the word “ apostle” is only used in a wider sense, like εὐαγγελιστής in the signification of “ travelling teacher.” (On this point, see Acts xiv. 4, 14, where Barnabas too is called apostle.) It seems surprising, however, that this Philip travels and is settled in Cesarea, when he had a stated ecclesiastical office in Jerusalem. The two things cannot be reconciled, and as we afterwards find Philip even in Hierapolis in Phrygia, (see the passages above cited from Eusebius), we must suppose that he had resigned his office of deacon. Moreover, as the daughters of Philip possessed the gift of prophecy, so we find something similar even in the Old Testa- ment in the cases of Miriam and Deborah, and in the prophecies Joel iii. express intimation had been given that the gifts of the Spirit were to be imparted also to the female sex. This does not at all stand in contradiction to the law that the woman was not to teach in the church, for we need only suppose that such women made no use of their gift in the public assemblies. Vers. 1O—16. During Paul's stay in Caesarea the prophet Aga- bus, who has already been mentioned in chap. xi. 28, came thither, and also declared his approaching captivity. But the apostle, following the impulse of the Spirit, expressed his joyful obedience even to death, and departed with a convoy of believers from 1 On account of these passages Gieseler (in Ullmann’s Studien, year 1829, part i. p. 139, &e.) would, though quite unwarrantably, regard ver. 9 as an interpolation, for he supposed that the four daughters belouged to Philip the apostle, and that a reader had confounded the deacon here mentioned with him. But there is not the least trace in the critical authorities that this verse is not genuine. ACTS XxI. 17—26. 601 Caesarea to Jerusalem, where he took up his abode with an old and well-known disciple named Mnason. Agabus discloses his prophecy by a symbolical act, as our Lord himself had done in a similar manner to Peter. (See the Comm. on Jobn xxi. 18.)— The word ἐντόπιοι is to be found in no other part of the New Testa- ment, but it occurs in the best Greek authors in the signification of “inhabitants of a place.” —Ver. 13. συνθρύπτω, to break to pieces, applied tropically to deep anguish.—Ver. 15. There are here a multitude of various readings : in place of the usual reading ἀπο- σκευασάμενοι you find also ἐπισκευασάμενοι, παρασκευασάμενοι, αποταξάμενοι, all words which denote preparing to depart, while ἀποσκευασάμενοι “ sarcinas deponere’’ is applied to persons arriving. But it is probable that the internal difficulty of the word has occa- sioned transcribers to make these changes, and this consideration gives strong support to the usual reading. The artifices, however, which have been employed to force a different meaning upon da7ro- oxevato, are to be altogether rejected ; the common meaning gives a suitable sense, if you suppose that Paul left the greatest part of his baggage behind in Caesarea, that he might the more lightly prosecute the land journey.—Ver. 16. παρ᾽ 6—Mvacor stands by attraction for πρὸς Μνάσωνα, παρ᾽ ᾧ κ. τ. Δ. § Π|. THE APPREHENSION OF PAUL IN JERUSALEM. (Acts xxi. 17—xxiii. 10.) Vers. 17—26.' On the appearance of the apostle in Jerusalem, which was the central point of Jewish Christian life, his peculiar position in reference to the law could not but come again imme- diately into question. On the very day after his arrival he betook himself with his attendants to James (without doubt the so-called brother of our Lord, see xv. 13), with whom all the presbyters were assembled. It was already remarked at chap. xx. 17, that this James plainly appears as primus inter pares, as head of the college of presbyters, that is as bishop. And if we consider that 1 A Commentary upon the Acts of the Apostles from this place to the end is furnished in the second part of Béttger’s contributions towards an introduction τὸ the Epistles of Paul (Gottingen, 1837), constructed on juridical and archaeological principles. 2 7 oo a 602 ACTS XxI. 17—25. the whole of Christian antiquity: styles him and afterwards his brother Simon (see Matt. xiii. 55), bishop of Jerusalem, there is no ground left for doubting that the episcopal dignity is as old as the church itself, although the name was only gradually fixed in this acceptation.. Now as soon as James heard the apostle’s ac- count of the progress of the gospel in the heathen world, he drew his attention to the position he occupied with reference to the Jewish Christians, which, on account of their number, could not but appear a matter of the highest importance. The expression πόσαι μυριάδες is not indeed to be taken literally, but still it must denote a very considerable number, although we are not to suppose they belonged to Jerusalem alone, but to the whole of Palestine.. (The word θεωρεῖς in verse 20 may refer to the number of presbyters present, which represented, as it were, the number of believers.) The concerns of the Gentile Christians had been definitely settled by the apostolic decrees (chap. xv.), but, as to the Jewish Chris- tians, the report was now spread abroad that Paul led the Jews, who attached themselves to Christianity in the heathen world, to give up the observance of the law, and this had excited the most furious hatred against the apostle, of whom it was affirmed that he taught apostacy from the holy law of God. ‘The heads of the church in Jerusalem therefore dreaded nothing but an uproar, if Paul's presence in the city should become known. In order, therefore, to appease the multitude, they proposed to the apostle to observe the sacred usages publicly in the Temple, with four men who were paying their vows, and to present an offering for himself (see on this point the remarks at chap. xviii. 18, &c.), a proposal which he willingly adopted. And here now the question presents itself, was it a just charge, that Paul seduced the Jews to abandon the law when they joined the church ? We may easily explain how this charge arose, but it was by no means well-founded. It stood in direct contradic- tion to the publicly declared principles of Paul, that he would ask 1 See the account of his martyrdom taken from the work of Hegesippus in Eusebius (H, E. ij. 23.) It is printed in my “ monum. hist. 660], i, 11, &e.” 2 In Jerusalem, where the first great church consisted of thousands, there would also first be felt the need of a president of the presbyters. But of course this necessity would first appear, when the apostles left the city, for so long as they were present, they exercised a controlling influence. (See the remarks at Acts vi, 1, xx. 17.) Therefore probably the episcopal office may have first developed itself in Antioch and Rome. ACTS ΧΧΙ, 27—382. 603 no one arbitrarily to renounce the law (see Comm. on Rom. vii. 1, &e., and on Acts xiv. 15): on the contrary, it was his practice to let every one calmly decide, according to his inward progress and the instruction of the Spirit, what position he would assume in re- ference to Old Testament rites; but the connexion of salvation with the observance of the law he energetically resisted as un- Christian. Although, therefore, we cannot suppose the Apostle Paul to have given any direct opposition to the ceremonies of the law (see chap. xxviii. 17), yet on the other hand we may readily conceive that his example and the whole spirit of his ministry, would lead many Jewish Christians to give up with a good con- science the observance of the Mosaic institutions. This was no- ticed by the strict Jewish Christians, and therefore they ascribed to Paul the positive design of supplanting the law, while the event was only a consequence of the spirit of his doctrine. Without any hypo- crisy, therefore, he could observe the law himself, because love prompted him to become a Jew to the Jews. In the same manner the Jews already had experienced, in the ministry of our Lord him- self, and also of Stephen, who appears as the forerunner of Paul (Acts vi. 13, 14), that the Gospel occasioned an indifference to the forms prescribed by the law, and therefore they ascribed to them the actual endeavour to overturn the law, although they left the removal of its outward forms to the slow course of inward development, and observed the law themselves so long as it had existence. Ver. 26. The word ἁγνισμός denotes the abstinence which was practised during the time of a vow. When the appointed days, which in this case were seven (ver. 27), had expired, Paul made it known (dsay- γέλλων) to the priests, for the sake of the offerings which were to be presented. Vers. 27—32. But although the concession of the apostles to the weak brethren proceeded from a good intention, yet it turned out disastrously. The furious enemies of Paul were only the more exasperated by it, particularly by the circumstance that Trophimus, who was uncircumcised, was found in the company of Paul, and it was supposed that the apostle had taken him with him into the Temple, and thus defiled it, for Gentiles by birth could only tread the court of the Gentiles, but not that of the Israelites: they were debarred from entering the latter by monitory tablets. (See Jose- phus, B.J.v. 5,2.) An uproar was excited in the Temple by Jews 604 ACTS ΧΧΙ. 80—40. from Asia; the apostle was dragged away from the environs of the Temple, and would have been killed, if the Roman garrison had not hastened to his help. Ἶ : Ver. 80. They hurried the apostle out of the Temple, that 18, out of the courts of it, in order that they might not stain it with his blood. The watchmen of the Temple also immediately took the precaution of shutting the great gates that led into the courts.—Ver. 91, The Romans, who had a garrison in the Castle of Antonia that lay over against the Temple, viewed this uproar as connected with the attempts of a rebel (ver. 38), and therefore they hastened imme- diately to the spot and saved the life of Paul. Φάσις, rumour, occurs nowhere else in the New Testament.—Regarding σπεῖρα, see Matt. xxvii. 27; Acts x. 1.—Regarding χιλίαρχος, see John Xvill. 12. Vers. 833-40. After the Roman tribune had rescued the apostle from the tumult, and had learned that he was not the rebel whom he at first supposed him to be, Paul received permission from him to address the excited people, and they, when they heard’ their be- loved mother tongue, hstened with quietness to the words of the apostle, who was now beyond their power.—Ver. 34. παρεμβολὴ denotes here the barracks situated in the fortress, to which a stone stair led up, the steps of which are the ἀναβαθμοί mentioned.— Ver. 38. With regard to the Egyptian rebel (4 ὐγύπτιος), Josephus gives a detailed account of him and his unfortunate attempt against the Romans, which was suppressed by the procurator Felix. (Joseph. Arch. xx., 8- -6. Bell. Jud. ii., 18, 5.) The number of his followers is given by Josephus at a far higher amount, than by Luke, viz. 30,000. But there is plainly an error in the num- ber of Josephus, because he mentions that Felix had killed the most of them, and yet in the first of the two passages cited, the num- ber killed is fixed at four hundred. Perhaps too the flower of his army ought to be distinguished from the disorderly mass of people who followed it. Regarding this apparent difference see the remarks of Tholuck in his Glaubwiirdigkeit, p. 170, &c., where he supposes that the large number of Josephus must be understood only of the rabble that followed. The name σικάριος, Sicarius, 1 The inference that according to this passage it would not have been remarkable, if Paul had spoken Greek, leads to the supposition, that; the Greek tongue even at that time was widely diffused through Palestine. ACTS Xxil. 1—80—xx1I1. 5. 605 denotes a class of men that arose amid the terrible distractions of the Jewish state under the rule of the Romans, and abandoned themselves of set purpose to murder and robbery. Chap. xxii. 1—21. Paul hoped to make an impression upon his enemies, by recounting the manner in which God had brought him to the acknowledgment of the Messiahship of Jesus ;: but, as Soon as he made mention of his divine calling to go as a teacher among the Gentiles, their rage hitherto restrained broke out afresh, and they called upon the tribune to put Paul to death. (Regarding this section, see the particulars stated at chap. ix. 1, Χο.) Vers. 22—29. When the tnbune saw that all was fruitless, he took Paul into custody, and Jed him into the castle, with the view of scourging him, that he might ascertain, by this kind of torture, in what the transgression he supposed him guilty of consisted. But the right of Roman citizenship asserted by the apostle rescued him from this punishment.—Ver. 23. Throwing dust into the air is a symbolical expression of disquietude and perplexity.—Ver. 24. ἀνετάξεσθαι, inquirere, refers here to the investigation of the sup- posed crime.—Ver. 25. It is best here to understand προτείνειν ἱμᾶσι in the signification of “ hand over,” ‘‘ give up to.” And the thongs denote the instrument of punishment, so that the meaning is, ‘‘ when they gave him over to the scourge.” The word cannot well be applied to the binding of the body, and to the stretching of it thus occasioned, because the thongs were not used as instruments of binding. Regarding Paul’s right of citizenship, see Comm. at chap. xvi. 37.—Ver. 28. κεφάλαιον is here used in the genuine Greek signification of ‘sum,’ ‘‘ sum of money.” Chap. xxii. 80—xxiii. 5. In order however to save himself from being brought to any account, the tribune determined to deliver over the accused to the Jewish tribunals, and Paul was thereupon placed before the Sanhedrim, over which Ananias at that time pre- sided. This violent man commanded his servants to insult Paul, when he appeared before the Sanhedrim with an open declaration of his consciousness of innocence. Now if the apostle does not here apply the command of our Lord (Matt. v. 39) literally, itis yet certain 1 In chap. xxii. 3 the apostle himself calls Tarsus his birth-place. The statement of Hieronymus, therefore (catal. vir. ill. 8. v. Paulus), that Paul was born in Giskalis in Judea, and came afterwards to Tarsus, is deserving of no regard. = ἊΨ ᾿ς 606 ACTS ΧΧΉΙ: ὅ: that he is acting quite in the spirit of the precept ; because we have seen that the Redeemer himself did not literally follow it with reference to rude men of the world. (John xviii. 22.) But it appears improper for the apostle to use an abusive word,’ and the more so, as it was spoken in presence of the court, and to the high priest. The latter circumstance indeed appears to be softened by the consideration, that the apostle declares he knew not it was the high priest : yet again it seems difficult to imagine, how he could be ignorant that he was standing before the Sanhedrim, and of course also before the high priest.2 This statement of the apostle therefore may seem like an untruth, employed to excuse a word rashly spoken. The matter indeed assumes rather a different aspect, when it is considered that this Ananias, the son of Nebe- daeus, was a man of criminal life, who was afterwards displaced from his office and dragged to Rome to answer for his conduct, so that the reproach cast upon him by Paul was entirely merited. Besides, he was not the legal high priest, for after he was liberated through Agrippa’s intercession in Rome, he did not again recover his dignity, though he still arrogated to himself the power of the office. (See Joseph. Arch. xx. 8. 8.) But these circumstances cannot justify the conduct of the apostle, as we must necessarily suppose, that he knew before what authorities he was standing: if he had wished to notice the fact that Ananias was not the legal high priest, then he should have protested against the investigation altogether, while the course he pursued violated the respect that was due to the supreme tribunal. The supposition propounded by Calvin, and approved by Heinrichs, Meyer, and other modern critics, that the words οὐκ ἤδειν are ironical, and to be understood thus: “1 1 This is the view which Jerome (Comm. at Galat. ν, 12) takes of the matter, who is by no means distinguished by bold conceptions. 2 Suppose Paul did not know it was the high priest, still he must have known he was standing before a judge, and though it had been the lowest judge, such words would still be improper. According to the view however of οὐκ ἤδειν, which makes it mean, “I did not consider,” the precipitation of Paul, of which in any view we must allow the possibi- lity, carries its correction along withit, and thus no harm accrues from supposing its ex- istence. The only way in which the expression can be defended, is to say that the apostle spoke by divine commission in execution of a divine judgment, although one sees not how in this case the words οὐκ 7/ée.v can be explained. Besides, the apostles could exer- cise such authority only within the church, as upon Ananias and Sapphira, but not without it; during their earthly life their supreme authority bad reference only to the church of Christ. ACTS xx. 3—10. 607 could not all regard as high-priest a man who is so unholy,” is plainly strained as to the language, and unsuitable as to the fact. There is nothing left therefore but to say, that the apostle confounded the person of the judge with the office, and hastily vented his feelings against the former, where the latter alone was concerned. And the words οὐκ ἤδειν in this case are best understood as meaning “I considered not.’ ‘The ex- pression bears a similar sense in Ephes. vi. 8; Col. ili. 24, agreeably to the analogy of the Hebrew word yyy. The remem- brance of the words of Scripture in Exod. xxii. 28 leads Paul back again to the right position. If one considers’ that there is no re- ference here to dogmatical points, and that the apostles nowhere represent themselves as morally perfect, we shall find nothing in this result of the investigation to prejudice the character of the apostle as an infallible teacher of truth: on the contrary, he here teaches by example the maxim so difficult to act upon, that, where undue precipitation has been manifested, it is best imme- mediately to acknowledge it, and to bring one’s conduct to the word of truth. Ver. 8. The expression τοῖχε κεκονιαμένε corresponds to the similar expression τάφος κεκονιαμένος, which was explained at Matt. xxiii. 27, and denotes the hypocrisy, which employs outward show and ornament to cover inward abomination. Vers. 6—10. The breach occasioned by this occurrence Paul employed with skilful dexterity, to make the composition of the Sanhedrim subservient to his own views and the holy cause which he represented. The parties of the Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed to one another in the assembly. The high priest himself belonged io the latter party. Against this leaven of materialism the apostle brought forward the circumstance, that it was really his faith in eternal life and the resurrection of the dead which ex- posed him to persecution. This manceuvre had a remarkable effect. The two parties fell a quarrelling among themselves, and so the apostle escaped out of their hands. If we compare this incident with the earlier accounts of the proceedings of the San- hedrim in reference to Christians, we find indications of a remark- able change of views which had already taken place in the interval. 1 Regarding this point see the similar occurrence mentioned in Acts xv. 36, Ko. 608 ACTS xxu. 6—10. Pharisees and Sadducees before this were united in the Sanhe- drim, but the question about the resurrection of Jesus had never brought them to a contest. Both parties had leagued together against the new church that was springing up. However, we have seen in chap. vi. 7, that at an early period there were priests, mostly Pharisees, who attached themselves to the church; and Gamaliel's counsel (v. 34), points at least to the possibility that Jesus Christ might be the Messiah; and now the party of the Pharisees appear to have turned to the cause of truth so much, that they regarded the difference between them and the Sadducees as more important than their difference with the Christians. And this explains how it was that, according to the accounts of Hegesippus (Euseb. H. E. il. 23), and also of Josephus (Arch. xx. 9, 1), James, the brother of our Lord, Christian bishop of Jerusalem, could be so generally ho- noured and styled the “just.” This circumstance shows how near the Jewish people, as a whole, were to the acknowledgment of Jesus as the Messiah, and that perhaps it was only by the influence of a small party of wild zealots that this acknowledgment was prevented. Ver. 6. Between ἐλπίδος καὶ ἀναστάσεως the καὶ is omitted in many Codices, but undoubtedly it is genuine, and the phrase is to be viewed as a Hendiadys.—Regarding the doctrine of the Sad- ducees, compare the Commentary on Matt. iii. 7 and xxii. 23. —In ver. 9 πνεῦμα, as used by the Pharisees, is plainly to be understood as meaning the apparition of a departed soul, because it is distinguished from ἄγγελος : if hearing something from the Spirit of God were what is meant, the article could not be dis- pensed with before πνεῦμα, nor would ἐλάλησε be applied in this manner to the Spirit. The Pharisees it appears from this knew the history of the conversion of Paul, and acknowledged that there was something real in it. The additional clause μὴ θεομαχῶμεν is wanting in the MSS. A.B.C.E. and others, as also in the Vulgate and other versions. Perhaps it might creep in from the analogous passage in Acts v. 39, which it was very natural to compare with this. The thought too expressed in these words ap- 1 The Scriptures themselves permit us to maintain along with the acknowledgment, on the one hand, of necessity in the evolution of human affairs, the possibility, on the other, of things having been different. Only imagine that the Messiahship of Jesus had been acknowledged by the Sanhedrim themselves, and thus by the whole Jewish nation, and what an effect must this have produced! In John iv. 35, Jesus points to something of the kind. a ὐϑϑ9' Ξ acts xx. 1]—15. 609 pears to lead almost too far for Pharisees to have uttered it: it would in fact imply the confession of the Redeemer as risen from the dead, which we cannot suppose the most favourably dis- posed members of the Sanhedrim belonging to the Pharisees to have made.—Ver. 10. εὐλαβεῖσθαι occurs only once more in the New Testament in Heb. xi. 7, in the signification of “ apprehend- ing, fearing, dreading.” The adjective εὐλαβής we found already in Luke. ὃ 4. PAUL'S DEPORTATION TO CAESAREA AND IMPRISONMENT THERE. (Acts xxiii. 11—xxvi. 32.) Vers. 11—15. On the night after the occurrence described, Paul had another vision of the Lord, in an ecstacy, not a dream, to prepare him for his future labours in the midst of the Gentile world, and at the same time to calm his mind in reference to the danger, with which he was now assailed. These visions running through the whole life of Paul, but to be met with in the case of no other apostle, appear to stand connected with the peculiar task to which he was called. Though he had not enjoyed personal intercourse with the Lord, his nevertheless was the high destiny of maintaining not simply in opposition to the enemies of the truth, but even in part against the other apostles, the more enlarged view of the Gospel, as the universal religion, and the spiritual fulfilment of all the prefigur- ations of the Old Testament. For this calling he required an ex- traordinary assistance, to make him certain himself that he was in the right way, and this assurance the Lord gave him in the man- ner which has been indicated. While we must recognise in what precedes the favourable dis- position of a part of the Jewish nation towards Christianity, we see displayed in what follows the rage of the apostle’s enemies in a terrible form. Forty fanatical individuals bound themselves by an oath to kill Paul, and they put themselves in communication with the hostile part of the Sanhedrim, that through their influence they might obtain an opportunity of carrying their wicked plot into exe- cution.—Ver. 12. Regarding συστροφή compare chap. xix. 40.— VOL. IV. 2Q 610 ACTS xx. 16—80. Regarding ἀναθεματίζω see Comm. on Mark xiv. 71.—Ver. 15. ἐμφανίζω we found in John xiv. 22 in the signification of ‘‘ show- ing,” but here it means, “ giving information, sending notice.” So in chap. xxiv. 1 it denotes judicial information or accusation. Vers. 16—-22. With this wicked plot the apostle was made ac- quainted by his sister's son. Then he caused the centurion, who was entrusted with the keeping of him, to conduct the young man to the chief captain, to whom likewise he communicated the whole. Ver. 16. ἐνέδρα, “concealment, ambuscade, stratagem,” occurs again in Acts xxv. 3. The verb évedpedw has already occurred in Luke xi. 54, and it appears again in the 21st verse of this chapter. In ver. 21, the clause προσδεχόμενοι τὴν ἀπὸ σοῦ ἐπαγγελίαν intimates that the members of the Sanhedrim had entered into the plot, and that conspirators were only now waiting for the consent of the tribune. Ver, 23—30. But the faithful Claudius Lysias was far from enter- ing into such a wicked plot. He immediately commanded two centu- rions to prepare an escort, and sent down the apostle with them in safety to Caesarea to the proconsul Felix. Luke gives us the letter containing information regarding Paul, but probably not in its ori- ginal form, but constructed according to his own views of what it would be; for the evangelist might know how such “ elogia” (the Roman name for such letters of escort) were wont to be arranged. We are led to this view by the expression περιέχουσαν τὸν τύπον τοῦτον in ver. 25, where τύπος denotes the sketch or general outline of the epistle. Here then perhaps we have an instance of the formation of single sections by the writer himself, such as are often found in the Roman and Greek historians in the case of speeches, letters, and the like. Ver. 23. The name δεξιολάβος is quite unknown. It is not to be found again in any ancient author. Some manuscripts there- fore read SefcoBdXou,1 that is slingers, who throw with the right arm ; but certainly the common reading is to be preferred on critical grounds. Some have been disposed to understand the word δεξιολάβοι of military lictors, because they held or bound prisoners by the right hand, but the large number of two hun- dred is not compatible with this idea. Some manuscripts, it is 1 According to Wetstein the words occurs sometimes in the later writers Theophylact Simoeatta and Constantine Porphyrogenneta. ACTS ΧΧΙΠΙΙ. 31—35—xxiv. |[—9. 611 true, read eighty instead, but even this number would be too great for the purpose supposed. It is best to explain the word either as the Etymologicum Magnum does by τοξοβόλος, or as Suidas does by παραφύλαξ. This latter explanation is most conformable to ety- mology, for the name would denote those who guarded the right side of their lord. In ver. 24 κτήνη, jumenta, denotes sumpter- horses. Here too Luke passes over from the direct to the indi- rect style.—In ver. 25 περιέχω entirely corresponds to the Latin word contineo. Comp. 1 Pet. ii. 6.-—Ver. 26. Nothing farther is known of Claudius Lysias, but Antonius Felix was a brother of the well-known Pallas, freedman of the mother of Claudius, and favourite of this Emperor. (Tacit. Hist. v. 9,6. Anmal. xii. 54, 1.) Under the protection of his brother, Felix indulged in the most terrible extortions in his office of proconsul—Regarding κρά- τίστος see Luke i. 3. Vers. 31—35. The whole company conducted the apostle as far as Antipatris, but at this place the foot soldiers returned, because the greatest danger was past, and the horsemen only took him all the way to Cesarea. In the first instance the proconsul enquired only after his place of birth, and then ordered him to be guarded in the pretorium of Herod. ᾿Αντιπατρίς, which lay in the middle between Jerusalem and Cesarea, was called originally Kadapoa- λαμᾶ. (1 Mace. vii. 31.) Herod the Great completed the build- ing of the city, and named it after his father—Ver. 34. ἐπαρχία is the usual word for provincia—Ver. 35. Regardittg πραιτώριον consult the Commentary at John xviii. 38. There it is simply called pretorium or palace. Perhaps, however, the proconsul re- sided in this building, and had chambers fitted up in it for pri- soners of the better sort. Chap. xxiv. 1—9. A few days after the arrival of Paul, the high priest himself came down to Caesarea with a Roman agent, to accuse the apostle. With base flattering speeches, Tertullus attempted to gain the good will of Felix, while he at the same time attempted to throw suspicion upon Paul as a dangerous stirrer up of strife. In ver. 3, several manuscripts read, instead of κατορθωμάτων, the synonymous word διορθωμάτων. The word denotes here τος forming regulations of government. But to ascribe these to Felix was mere flattery, for he was only concerned about his own advan- 2Q2 612 ACTS xxIv. 10—23. tage, and thought not of the welfare of the country. The improved regulations he had introduced were calculated merely for ostentation. —Ver. 4. ἐγκόπτω denotes properly to ‘‘ cut in or into,” as for exam- ple a way, and then to detain, to hinder. Rom. xv. 22, Gal. v. 7.—— Σύυντομως briefly, concisely: λεγόντων may be supplied.——In ver. 5, the participle, εὑρόντες, has no verb after it : the construction begun with, is quitted by the speaker.!- The word λοιμός denotes properly the plague, and then one who brings plague and destruction. The Seventy employ this word to express byrba in 1 Sam. ii. 12.— Πρωτοστάτης occurs in no other part of the New Testament. In the mouth of the orator, it means the same as “ head, ringleader.” As a name of the Christians employed to express their meanness (chap. ii. 22), Nafwpato: occurs no more in the New Testament. As to the form of the name, consult the Commentary at Matt. 1). 23.— In ver. 9, the textus receptus reads συνέθεντο, that is, “they concur- red.” But the best critics have preferred the reading συνεπέθεντο, as the more difficult. The word συνεπιτίθεσθαι occurs nowhere . else in the New Testament: it means “ to assail any person along with others.” Vers. 10—23. Having received permission from the procon- sul, Paul immediately rose up in his own defence, and gave a true account of the events which had led to his apprehension in Jerusalem. And as here again the Sadducees might be his chief accusers, he brought afresh into view the resurrection of the dead as a principal charge brought against him by his enemies. The proconsul was plainly convinced of his innocence, and therefore granted him much indulgence in his captivity, although he by no means set him immediately at liberty. Ver. 10. Paul could speak with justice of many years during which Felix had governed in Palestine, for although he had now been but six years proconsul, yet he had held the chief command in Galilee for a longer period. (Joseph. Arch. xx. 6,38, Bell. Jud. i. 2, 12.)—Ver. 11. Among the twelve days here mentioned, are included the five (chap. xxiv. 1) spent by Paul in prison, for he counts the twelve days down to the moment he is speaking. 1 Olshausen here inadvertently says, that Paul quits the constraction of the sentence, but it is Tertullus who is speaking. ACTS XX1V. 21—27 613 Meyer has shown from the connexion of the passages touching this matter from chap. xxi. 15, that the number comes out rightly, which furnishes a highly favourable testimony to the accuracy and originality of the account.—Ver. 12. ἐπισύστασις occurs again in 2 Cor xi. 28, in the sense of “ overflow of business, importunate calls,” and the trouble thereby caused. Here it is equivalent to συστροφή, “ uproar, tumult.’”-—Ver. 14. αἵρεσις has here a bad idea associated with it, which is frequently not at all the case. Comp. Acts vy. 17, xy. 5, xxvi. 5.—Ver. 16, ἐν τούτῳ refers to the foregoing descrip- tion of his doctrine and views : ‘“‘ according to my principles I make it my endeavour also to walk." —’ Ampooxo7ros occurs only again in 1 Cor. x. 32.—Ver. 18. ἐν οἷς scilicet χρήμασι, in the midst of these innocent, yea honourable employments.—Ver. 19. According to the textus receptus, τινές is connected with εὗρον, but Griesbach, on the authority of the Manuscripts A.C.E. and other ones, has adopted the reading τινὲς δέ, which, on account of its greater diffi- culty, undoubtedly deserves the preference. In this case a verb must be supplied to τινὲς, and the most suitable is j#oav.—Ver. 22. ava- βάλλεσθαι means also in good Greek writers “‘ to throw back,” that is, ‘to adjourn, to procrastinate, to defer.” The phrase ἀκριβέστερον εἰδὼς Ta περὶ τῆς ὁδοῦ is not to be interpreted too rigidly, for we cannot suppose this Roman to have possessed an accurate acquaint- ance with the doctrines of the Gospel ; but as there were believers in Caesarea itself, Felix might have a general knowledge of the sect of the Nazarenes, and (which alone concerned him) of their political inoffensiveness.—Ver. 23. ἄνεσις denotes here the mild- ness of his captivity, similar to what Paul, according to Luke's ac- count (Acts xxviii. 30, 31), enjoyed even in Rome. Vers. 24—-27. The concluding verses of this narrative furnish evidence both of the spiritual power, which displayed itself in the captive apostle, and of the excitable conscience of the Roman, as well as the moral debasement which led him to stifle the impres- sions he had received. ‘There might be something exciting to him and his wife Drusilla in the appearance of Paul ; and therefore they caused him to be brought one day before them. The apostle availed himself of this opportunity to touch their conscience, and with deep knowledge of human nature and skill in teaching, he brought the law to bear upon his object. To penitent hearts he was in the habit of preaching the crucified Jesus as the Mediator, 614 ACTS XXIV. 24—xxv. 1—5. but to these worldly individuals he displayed him as the Judge. The sword of God's word pierced deep into the heart of Felix, but for this very reason he suddenly broke off the conference. But his mora] baseness betrayed itself strikingly in this, that he could still hold fast his prisoner for the mere purpose of obtaining money for his release, yea, that at his departure from the province, he left him in prison out of complaisance to the Jews. Ver. 24. Felix had two wives of the same name; the first was a grand-daughter of Antony by Cleopatra ; the second, who is the one here referred to, was the daughter of Herod Agrippa, whose death is recorded at chap. xii. 23." She had been married first to Prince Azizus of Emesa, but deserted him and married the Roman proconsul, Joseph. Arch. xx. 7, |. Comp. Winer’s Reallex. under Drusilla. Drusilla being a Jewess by birth, might particularly desire to hear of Jesus, the pretended Messiah, and therefore Felix had Paul brought before him.—Ver. 25. The word ἐγκρά- teva refers particularly to abstinence from sexual excesses, of which both of them, Felix as well as Drusilla, had been guilty. —To viv ἔχον scilicet κατά, is a circumlocution for viv.—Ver. 26. διὸ καὶ πυκνότερον K. τ. Δ. Felix wished to let hiin understand, by the kindness with which he treated him, that he was ready to let him go: perhaps also he designed to put him to the proof, whether he would employ improper means for his rescue.—Ver. 27. Two years appeared now to have been completely lost by the apostle, for in Caesarea itself he probably had but small opportunity of labour- ing. But the main design of God in this remarkable procedure might perhaps be to grant the apostle a quiet period for inward recollection and meditation. The continual movement of Paul's life must of course have made it difficult for him to be occupied with his own state, although this is the necessary condition of a blessed inward development. Divine grace therefore is able to unite both objects; for while it uses its instruments for the ad- vancement of truth among others, it sometimes takes these instru- ments themselves to school for their own personal improvement. Chap. xxv. 1—5. The mention of the entrance of Festus upon office is one of the passages of Acts, as has already been remarked 1 Heinrichs, in his Commentary (proleg. p. 67), gives a genealogical table of the family of Herod, like that of Raumer in his Geography of Palestine. Regarding the wives of Felix, see Tacit, Histor, vy, 9, Sueton. Claud. c. 28. ACTS xxv. 6—12. 615 in the introduction, which furnishes a point of contact with profane history. We know that Nero came to the government in the year 56 after Christ, and that in the seventh year of his reign, and con- sequently in the year 62 after Christ, Porcius Festus entered upon his office. (Compare Joseph. Arch. xx. 8, 9, and the particulars . Stated by Hug in his introduction, 2d edition, vol. ii. p. 279, ἄς.) Immediately after his entrance on office the new proconsul visited Jerusalem, and the fanatical Jews took this opportunity of solicit- ing him to deliver the apostle again into their hands. But Festus, who had heard of his character and circumstances, (compare ver. 10), declined the proposal, because no Roman citizen could be handed over to a foreign tribunal. He announced to them there- fore that he would speedily (ἐν τάχει, ver. 4) return to Caesarea, and be ready there to hear their complaint. In ver. 4 the expres- sion τηρεῖσθαι τὸν Παῦλον ἐν Καισαρεία is manifestly elliptical. It might refer to the secure keeping of Paul, so that the sense may be: he will not escape you, he is well guarded in Caesarea. It is better however to suppose, in accordance with the subsequent nar- rative, ver. 9, &c., that the proconsul designed to intimate that Paul was not subject to their jurisdiction. And thus the Roman authority which bad been the means of bringing the Redeemer to the cross, was here to be the instrument of delivering the apostle of the Gentiles.—In ver. 5 δυνατοί denotes the most distinguished members of the supreme council. Vers. 6-—12. According to thecommand of the proconsul therefore accusers speedily came from Jerusalem to Caesarea, whither Festus had returned after a few days. In their fury they brought forward the most unrighteous charges, but charges at the same time alto- gether incapable of proof, and to them Paul replied with vigour. The proposal however of the proconsul, to let the matter be brought to a termination in Jerusalem, was declined by Paul, who appealed to Caesar. Ver. 7. The impudent accusations brought by the Jews against the apostle appear, from ver. 8, to have been partly of a political character. They probably attempted to make his preaching of Christ appear, as if it were the proclamation of a new emperor. —Ver. 9. The proposal of Festus was perhaps only designed as an act of complaisance to the Jews. Without doubt he knew before- hand, that Paul would not accede to it. The apostle accordingly 616 ACTS Xxv. 13—R2. appeals in his answer to the knowledge which the proconsul had of the state of matters.—Ver. 12. The appeal to the Roman people, or in later times, to Caesar, was a right of Roman citizens. , Pliny also Epist. x. 97, mentions that he would send to Rome those Chris- tians, who possessed the right of Roman citizenship—The συμ- βούλιον denotes the counsellors or assistants in the office of the pro- consul. They bore the title of consiliarii or assessores, πάρεδροι. (Sueton. Tib. c. 88; Galba c. 19; Aelius Lamprid. in Alex. Severo c. 46.) Vers. 13—22. Now after the lapse of a few days, king Agrippa, with his sister Berenice,! arrived in Caesarea to pay a visit to the new proconsul. Festus availed himself of this opportunity to lay before him the controversy regarding the apostle. From the whole narrative it is apparent that Paul had excited in Festus a lively interest in his favour, nor were Agrippa and Berenice less desirous of beholding the remarkable man. Festus therefore pro- mised to bring Paul before them. The Aprippa here mentioned is the younger Agrippa, son of the older, who came before us in chap. xii. 20, &c. He enjoyed the favour of Claudius Cesar, and retained his provinces even after the destruction of Jerusalem, which he outlived. Berenice was bis sister, who at first was married to her uncle Herod, prince of Chalcis, and then to king Polemon of Cilicia. She was a woman of distinguished beauty, and captivated even Titus and Vespasian. But her charac- ter was very bad, for she lived in incest with her brother. (Comp. Joseph. Arch. xx. 5, 1, and 7,3. Bell. Jud. i. 2, 21. Sueton. Vit. Tit. c. 7. Tacit. Hist. 11. 81.) In ver. 16, many manuscripts supply εἰς ἀπώλειαν to yapifeo- θαι, but this supplement is unnecessary. ‘The word here bears the signification of ‘sacrificing, condemning without enquiry at the pleasure of some one.” This was contrary to the strict judicial proce- dure of the Romans, which required a formal investigation. The construction, πρὶν ἔχοι, occurs nowhere else in the New Testa- ment; other readings, ἔχῃ or ἔχει, are merely readings made to smooth the difficulty. The optative here may probably be ex- 1 How accurately informed Luke shows himself bere again, how readily he might have confounded this Berenice with other celebrated women of the same name, if he had fol- lowed a later uncertain tradition, may be seen by consulting Tholuck’s Credibility, p. 168. The name of Berenice, according to Valkenaer, has been formed from φερονίκη. ACTS XXv, 283—27—xxvi. |—18. 617 plained on the principle of passing from the oratio directa to the oratio obliqua. (Comp. Winer’s Gram. p. 273.)—Ver. 17. ἀναβολή denotes ‘“‘ delay, mora,” from ἀναβάλλεσθαι, see chap. xxiv. 22. —Ver. 18. Festus had supposed that they would accuse Paul of palpable crimes: religious differences he took not into account.—- Ver, 21. Σεβαστός is the standing word for the title of the Em- perors, Augustus. Midyvwors occurs only here: the verb we had in chap. xxiil. 15, xxiv. 22.) ; Vers. 25—27. The placing of the apostle before Agrippa and Berenice afforded the first fulfilment of our Lord's prediction : “ ye shall be brought before kings and princes for my sake.” Matt. x. 18; Mark xiii. 9. With great pomp the royal personages made their appearance, and the most distinguished individuals of the city ; and thus Paul obtained an opportunity of preaching the power of the risen Redeemer before the elite of a great city, before the king and the proconsul. After the king and his sister had entered, the apostle was introduced in bonds, xxvi. 29, and Festus placed him before Agrippa, shortly stating his case, and declaring that he was desirous of finding out what it was that Paul was really accused of, that he might be able when he sent him to Rome to give some accurate information regarding him. Ver. 23. φαντασία occurs nowhere else in the New Testament ; it comprehends whatever shines or greatly strikes the eyes. The word ἀκροατήριον denotes the public hall of judgment in the palace of the proconsul—Ver. 24. ἐντυγχάνειν τινί means to meet with any one, to go to any one with entreaties.—Ver. 26. ὁ κύριος is here the emperor Nero. Instead of γράψαι, A. C. and other manuscripts read γράψω. It is probable, however, that this reading took its rise only on account of the γράψαι which imme- diately goes before. Chap. xxvi. 1—18. With the permission of king Agrippa, the apostle delivers a discourse in his bonds before this splendid assem- blage. He first of all expresses his joy that he was allowed to de- fend himself before one, who was acquainted with the manners and customs of the Jewish nation, and then gives a narrative of bis life, and in particular, a detailed account of the important occurrence which had led to his conversion, regarding which the particulars stated at chap. ix. 1, &c., may be considered. Ver. 1. The stretching out of the hand is not to be regarded as 2 618 ACTS ΧΧΥ͂Ι. 19—238. designed to produce silence in the meeting: the presence of the king would at once quell every commotion ; but it is rather the gesture appropriate to the commencement of a discourse.—Ver. 3. γνώστης, “one who accurately knows a thing, a witness therefore, a guarantee,” is to be found nowhere else in the New Testament. It occurs elsewhere in the apocryphal book of Susanna, ver. 42, in profane authors the form γνωστήρ is also to be found, the accusative after σοῦ which goes before is to be explained on the principle of an anakoluthon, or change of construction.—Ver. 4. Undoubtedly the phrase az’ ἀρχῆς is favourable to the idea, that Paul came at an early period from Tarsus to Jerusalem to the, school of Gamaliel.—Ver. 5. ἄνωθεν is an expression synonymous with the above.—Ver. 6. The ἐπαγγελία of which the apostle speaks is the promise of the Messiah, as is plain from what follows. —Ver. 7. The substantive δωδεκάφυλον, as denoting the whole people of Israel, is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament. In James i. 1 the twelve tribes are named to denote the whole people of the Israelites —The phrase ἐν ἐκτενείᾳ stands for ἐκτενῶς. 1 Pet. i. 22.--Ver. 8. With the hope of the Messiah the resurrection of the dead stands connected, for Jesus the true Messiah was raised from the dead—Regarding the use of εἰ in direct and indirect questions, compare Winer’s Gramm. p. 475, and Passow in his Lex. under this word. Vers. 19—23. In the conclusion of his discourse the apostle appeals to the conscience of the king, whether he could have pro- perly disregarded such a vision, and affirms again that the only ground of charge against him was that he believed the hope of the patriarchs had been accomplished, and the true Messiah had ap- peared in his suffering state.——Ver. 20. ἐπιστρέφειν denotes, as 4yy5 so often does in the prophets, a spiritual change, a conversion of the soul. Comp. xi. 21.—Ver. 22. ἐπικουρία, equivalent to βοηθεία, oceurs nowhere else in the New Testament. According to this passage Paul too recognises Messianic predictions in the Penta- teuch.—Comp. Comm. on Luke xxiv. 27.—-Ver. 23 is to be viewed as an indirect question, in which εἰ is used. See Comm. at ver. 8. The doctrines regarding the suffering and resurrection of Christ are viewed as presented for examination, and exhibited as proved by the apostle. It has already been remarked in the Comm. on Matt. xxii. 29, that the phrase ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν is applied to ACTS XXVI. 24—82. 619 Christ instead of the more usual one ἀνάστασις εκ νεκρῶν. See note on Col. i. 18. Vers. 24 —32. Perhaps the elevated address of the apostle pro- duced not less effect upon the proconsul Festus than Felix had already experienced (chap. xxiv. 25), but he attempted by an un- seasonable jest to destroy the impression. Pau] however confirmed the substance of his speech by the testimony of Agrippa, who on his part acknowledged that he was mightily affected. If the fear of men and love of the world restrained these persons, from doing honour to the truth and joining themselves to the despised company of believers, they were yet obliged to confess the inno- cence of the apostle. ‘The appeal to Caesar, however, which al- ready had been made, rendered his journey to Rome still indis- pensable, because this appeal, according to the principles of Roman law, could not be passed over, or retracted. Bdéttger, as already cited, page 27, &c. In ver. 24 μαίνεσθαι means “ to be mad, crackbrained, fanciful.” Festus certainly did not himself believe that the apostle was out of his senses ; he only wished jestingly to characterise the elevated state of the apostle’s mind. This man of the world, as Pilate had done before him, chose rather to let his head struggle against the im- pressions his heart had received. Further, he traced the aberration of Paul to his too great love of study, for the apostle had repeatedly referred to the Holy Scriptures.—Ver. 27. ἐν γωνίᾳ equivalent to ἐν κρυπτῷ occurs only in this passage of the New ‘Testament.— Ver. 28. ἐν ὀλύγῳ, with χρόνῳ supplied, might mean “soon, in a short time,” viz., if I should allow you to speak longer. But as in ver. 29, according to A. B. and other authorities, for ὀλίγῳ καὶ πολλῷ the reading is μεγάλῳ, it is on all accounts better to understand the ἐν ὀλύγῳ of the 28th verse as meaning “with a little,” that is, with so little exertion, with so few words. ‘This de- claration of Agrippa was also in burlesque, but it is probable that he was concealing his inward emotion under the form of pleasantry. 620 ACTS Xxvir. 1—12. § 5. PAUL'S JOURNEY FROM CAESAREA TO ROME. (Acts xxvii. 1—xxviil. 15.) Vers. 1—5. Under the guidance of a benevolent centurion (ver. 3) named Julius, the apostle proceeded to Rome in pursuance of his appeal to Cxesar, accompanied by Aristarchus and Lucas,’ who still narrates in the first person, for, where the third person presents itself here, it is owing simply to the mention of the ship’s garrison, In a ship of Adramyttium, sailing along the coast of Syria and Asia, he came to Lycia. Julius was captain of the σπείρη Σ εβαστή, that is, of the cohors Augusta. This name was either derived from the circumstance that in the legion there was a body guard of the emperor, or that the cohort consisted of inhabitants of the city Sebaste. In my view the former idea appears the more probable, because, on the latter supposition, the phrase used would likely have been σπείρη Σ᾽ εβαστηνῶν, as Josephus expresses himself in Arch. xx. 6. ; Ver. 2. The name Adpauvttnv@ is differently written in the manuscripts. We are not to suppose, however, it refers to Hadru- metum in Africa, but to Adramyttium in Mysia. The adjective formed from the former city is ’Adpuy7tvos.—Lnstead of μέλλοντες many manuscripts read μέλλοντι, but the first is to be preferred as the more difficult reading —Ver. 4. ὑποπλεῖν denotes to coast along under shelter of the shore before the violence of the winds. Ver. 5. Instead of Mupa, Σ᾽ μύρναν has been erroneously read, or even Avotpa, but the former city lay more to the north, and the latter was in the interior. Vers. 6—12. In Myra the captain took another ship. An Alexandrian vessel received the apostle and his companions, but the badness of the season made sailing very arduous, and the good ad- vice of Paul to take shelter betimes in winter quarters was disre- garded by the Centurion. In ver. 6, ἐμβιβάξω isa genuine Greek 1 The minuteness, so unprecedented, with which this voyage is described, may perhaps be explained from the circumstance of Luke’s keeping a diary at the time, and afterwards inserting it unchanged into his work. Regarding the accuracy of the narrative in a geographical and antiquarian point of view, consult here again Tholuck’s Credibility, page 385, &e. ACTS XXvur. 18—20. 621 expression for “ embarking, putting on board of a ship.’ Comp. Xenoph. Anab. v. 8, 3.—Ver. 7. Salmone is a promontory of the island of Crete, on the east side of the island.—In ver. 8, παραλέγω means to sail past : λέγω is applied, quite like the Latin word lego, to ‘‘ going in a ship, sailing.”—Kanrai λιμένες, fair havens, was the name given to the place mentioned, perhaps because in the one bay there were several good anchorages for ships.—For Aacaia many manuscripts read "AXaooa, but there are critical grounds for preferring the first reading. Of the place, however, nothing fur- ther is known.—Ver. 9. The νηστεία is plainly here a mark of time: it refers to the great feast of atonement on the 10th of Tisri, that is, towards the end of September, when the equinoctial storms blow. Regarding this feast, styled py4y=5- Of, consult Winer's Reallex. under the article versshnungstag.—Ver. 10. ὅτι is con- nected with the infinitive μέλλειν instead of μέλλει. On this point, compare Winer in his Gram. p. 315.—Ver. 11. ναύκλη- pos denotes the proprietor of the ship, the owner who in ancient times was wont to sail in ber himself.—Ver. 12. ἀνεύθετος, “ not well situated, inconvenient,” occurs nowhere else in the New Testa- ment. The harbour Phenix, on the south side of the island, was protected against most winds, and they could readily sail into it with a south-west wind (A), and a north-west wind (χῶ- pos, Latin, corus, caurus),' and therefore the mariners were de- sirous of wintering in it. Vers. 13—20. But a storm overtook the ship on her way to this harbour, and she was driven ashore on the island of Claunda.—Ver. 18. ὑποπνέω, “ to blow softly,” denotes a favourable wind.—-Kpa- τεῖν ππροθέσεως means to carry a purpose into effect. To ἄραντες you must supply ἀγκύραν.---ΕῸν ἄσσον some manuscripts read Aooov, but no name of a city could at all stand here without a preposition. The word ἄσσον is the comparative of the adverb ἄγχι, near: it is to be found, for the most part, in poetical dic- tion, but it also occurs in good prose. The conjecture θᾶσσον, “ra- pidly, quickly,” is quite unnecessary.—Ver. 14. τυφωνικός, stormy : the direction of the wind, which was blowing with vehemence, is indicated by the name Εὐρακύλων. This reading I prefer, as do Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, to the common reading Evpu- 1 Comp. Karl. v. Raumer's treatise on the names of the Greek windsim Rheinischen Museum fiir Philologie 1837. 622 ACTS XxviI. 21—26. κλύδων, or Εὐροκλύδων, words which can only denote the breadth and height of the waves, and consequently indicate the severity of the storm, in which case they form a tautology with τυφωνικός. But Εὐρακύλων denotes the north-east wind, which, according to the direction in which they were going, must have been disastrous to them, because it drove them from land.—Ver. 15. ἀντοφθαλ- μεῖν means “ to look against,” then generally, ‘‘to resist.”~—Ver. 16. Κλαύδη, in the room of which Κλαύδα and Καύδη are also to be found, was a small island beside Crete. Comp. Pliny, H. N. iv. 25.--Σκάφη is the ship's boat, which was put out, and could not be brought on board again without difficulty——Ver. 17. ὑποζωννύειν refers to the strengthening of the ship's sides, by beams and cords, that she might be able to withstand the shocks of the waves. And then βοηθείαι is best understood as referring to these material appliances. In order to lighten the ship still far- ther, they let down the mast. xedos denotes here either the sail yards with the sails, or the mast. The latter supposition is ren- dered the more probable by what is said in ver. 40. The sbips of the ancients were after the manner of our river ships, vessels sup- plied with masts which could be letdown. Meyer will have the word to mean the sails: these doubtless, as inseparably connected with the mast, are comprehended, but they are not meant alone.—- Besides they lightened the ship by casting out first bales of goods and other things that did not properly belong to the ship, and then the proper furniture of the ship, beams, tackling, and so on. Σ᾽ κευή, which is only to be found in this passage of the New Testament, means properly, “ dress, attire,” and applied to a ship whatever belongs to her equipment. Vers. 21—26. In this dangerous condition of the ship the apostle, full of earnestness and mildness, came into the midst of the despond- ingcrew. He blamed them for haying gone farther in opposition to his counsel, but promised, as instructed by a heavenly messenger,1 that there should be no loss of human life, though they must be cast away upon an island: δεῖ means, according to the divine ap- pointment, according to God's immutable will. In these words the the only remarkable expression is κεχάρισται σοι ὁ Θεος πάντας 1 Here too it is not said that this appearance took place in a dream, nor is it at all probable that this was the case, if you consider the remarks already made on the visions of Paul, (Comp. Comm. on chap. xvi. 10.) ACTS XXVIII. 27—88. 623 κ. τ᾿ Δ. ἴῃ ver 24. We must of course suppose that Paul had wrestled in prayer for the lives of the men, that this prayer had been heard, and that the whole company were in a manner given to him. Such passages as Psalm cxlv. 19 furnish the key to this thought. Vers. 27—32. On the fourteenth night the ship’s crew suddenly perceived a rapid diminution of the depth of the sea, which indi- cated approach to land. ‘They threw out the anchor therefore, that they might not drift upon the shore, and waited for the morning. The seamen however, persuaded that land was near, attempted to escape by means of the boat. But although the apostle had received as- surance from heaven of the deliverance of all on board, yet he omitted not to employ all possible precautions, and by his advice the soldiers detained the sailors on board, because they alone were able to supply the proper means of escape. Ver. 27. The Adriatic sea, according to the ancient usage of language, comprehends the whole portion of the Mediterranean lying between Greece and Italy and Sicily.—Avadepéo Oar equivalent to φέρεσθαι, to be driven about.—Ver. 28. βολίζω, from Bors, the sounding lead. ‘Opyvva, from ὀρέγειν, a fathom, the space mea- sured by the arms stretched out.—Ver. 29. τόποι τραχεῖς, stony places, rocky banks. Four anchors were thrown out, but it must be remembered that the anchors of the ancients were far smaller than ours, for the most part probably at this period heavy stones fastened to chains: no ship now carries four anchors. Vers. 33--38. Although Paul was a prisoner, yet in the general confusion he exercised all the authority of a head, as the rest of the narrative shows. The ship must be given over as lost, but he ex- horted them all to take food for their refreshment after the long toil which had prevented all regular meals ; and when their repast was ended, they threw the provisions overboard to lighten the ship, that she might approach as near as possible to theshore. In ver. 33 the words μηδὲν προσλαβόμενοι are of course to be understood as only intimating that during the period of danger they had sat down to no regular meal, but Paul induced them to do this, that they might be strengthened. This meal was observed by the apos- tle and the other Christians quite as a love-feast (ver. 35), although it might not be so understood by the unbelievers present.—In ver. 34 the words οὐδενὸς ὑμῶν θρὶξ ἐκ τῆς κεφαλῆς ἀπολεῖται 624 ACTS xxv. 89—44—xxvirl. I—6., exhibit a manifest allusion to Luke xxi. 18, where the very same words occur.—Ver. 37. The number of men in the ship, two hun- dred and seventy-six, indicates that her size was considerable.— Ver..38. κουφίζω, from κοῦφος, denotes ‘to lighten, to make light.” Vers. 39—44. In the morning the shipwrecked mariners saw the land before them ; they lifted the anchors and stranded the vessel upon a favourable part of the shore. In order to prevent the flight of the prisoners, the soldiers wished to kill them, but Julius the centurion had contracted a love for Paul, and therefore he did not permit this. Agreeably to Paul's predictions, they all reach the land in safety, some on planks and some swimming. In ver. 39, instead of ἐβουλεύσαντο, several manuscripts read ἐβουλεύοντο or ἐβούλοντο. The last reading is certainly to be re- jected ; the two others are equally appropriate to the sense, but cri- tical authorities are decidedly in favour of ¢SovNevcavto.—Ver. 40. εἴων eis τὴν θάλασσαν, they commit themselves to the sea, that is, they let themselves drift. As the ship was on the verge of being lost, they sacrificed the anchors, cutting them loose. Περιαιρέω denotes to chop off, to cut away. We have already had the word in ver. 20 in a tropical sense as in Hebrews x. 1 1.—IInéa- λίον means the rudder, of which anciently the larger ships had se- veral. ‘They were managed, as is still the case, with ropes which were now let go, thatthe ship might be suffered entirely to drift. (av- évres, from ἀνίημι, to leave behind, to let go.). In order to run the vessel at once quickly and high upon the beach, so as to make the escape of the crew the more easy, they raised up the mast again and spread out a sail upon it. ᾿Αρτέμων does not mean the mast but the sail, but as the 17th verse tells us the mast was lowered down, the pull- ing up of the sail intimates that it was again put up. ‘Avpa must be supplied to τῇ mveovon.—Ver. 41. τόπος διθάλασσος, that is a projecting headland, which had water on both sides of it. Before this headland there may always have been a sand-bank lying, or it may have run out into one, but the phrase Toros διθάλασσος does not by itself mean a shallow, or sand bank.——’EzroxédXewv denotes to drive up, to cause to strike against——Ver. 44. cavis, asser, a board or plank. Τὰ ἀπὸ τοῦ πλοίου are beams of the ship, that was now broken by the violence of the waves. Chap. xxviii. 1—6. It was when they landed, that they first learned they were driven ashore upon the island of Malta. The ACTS Xxvull. 7—10. 625 inhabitants of the island received the shipwrecked strangers in a friendly manner, and kindled a fire to warm them, stiff as they were with cold. On this occasion, Paul experienced the protection of God in a manner which made him appear to the rude islanders en- dowed with supernatural powers. Ver. 1. There was an island of the name of Μελίτη, on the coast of Illyricum, which at the present day is called Meleda. But the description of their course that follows, shows that it can only be Malta beside Sicily which is meant. ‘This island was in- habited by colonists from Pheenicia or Carthage, who are therefore called BapBapou.'\—Ver. 2. upd, a heap of wood, a pile of wood. - ΕΟφεστώς denotes properly adstans, here it carries the idea of “‘op- pressive, heavy.” —Ver.3. φρύγανα means brushwood for keeping up the fire.—Eydva, a viper, a poisonous serpent. Καθάπτω, to fasten to, to affix; here it is taken, which is quite unusual, in a middle acceptation. Many manuscripts therefore have the read- ing καθήψατο. On this point consult the full discussion in Suiceri Thes. sub voce. The superstitious and fickle multitude are just as ready to record a vote of condemnation, as of deification. When it is said however, with the view of abating what is miraculous, that the serpent may not have been poisonous, we must certainly confess that this is not expressly stated, but just as certainly it is not expressly denied ; and the whole tone of the narrative plainly leads to the conclusion, that all who were present regarded the serpent as poisonous. We may therefore in this narrative see just a fulfilment of the promise contained in Mark xvi. 17. Vers. 7—-10. A Roman of distinction named Publius had pos sessions in Malta. He took a friendly interest in the apostle and his companions, a kindness which Paul was able to requite by heal- ing his father. Ver. 7. The Romans had naturally taken this island lying so near Sicily into their possession, and a distinguished individual named Publius had even settled in Malta. It is probable that 1 The mention of Δίκη, that is, of the avenging Nemesis, proves nothing to the con- trary; for, in the first place, many barbarians had adopted Grecian elements into their religious views, and again no nation is without the idea of a retributive justice which displays itself in the government of the world, and Luke may have only employed the familiar Greek term to express this idea. Tradition states that from this time the island of Malta was entirely freed from serpents. 5) VOL. IV. ς R 626 ACTS ΧΧΥΠΙ. LI—L5. at the same time he exercised the functions of the magistracy ; but the word πρῶτος does not necessarily imply this.—Ver. 8. dvcevtepia, dysentery, diarrhoea with colic or gripes.—Ver. 10. The word τιμαί is to be understood of aids of every kind which were furnished to the apostle, not only during the time of bis stay but also for his departure. Vers. 11—15. After the lapse of three months, when the weather again permitted sailing, the company proceeded on their voyage in a ship of Alexandria, which had wintered in the island. In Syra- cuse they lay for three days, and then landed in Puteoli. Here there were already believers, and now they proceeded by land to Rome, from which brethren came out to meet them as far as Appii Forum and the Three Taverns. In ver. 11, παράσημον denotes the ship's sign, which was usually placed on the prow. For this ship there had been chosen the figures of Castor and Pollux, the guardian deities of seafaring men.—Ver. 13. ᾿Ρήγιον, a city and promontory in Calabria, called at present Reggio— Regarding δευτεραῖοι, see Comm. on John xi. 89.---ΠΠοτιόλοι, Puteoli, was usually called in Greek Δικαιάρχεια. The fact that already there were believers in this city, furnishes an important proof of the rapid spread of Christianity even in Italy. Without doubt it was from Rome the Gospel came hither, for it was closely connected with Puteoli, because this place was as it were the harbour for the larger ships of the metropolis of the world. Ostium could only be visited by small ships. That Paul received permission to spend seven days with the brethren, is a proof of the good-will of Julius. During the centurion’s long intercourse with Paul he had certainly not remained without move- ments of heart, and through him Paul might afterwards in various ways be introduced into those military circles where his labours were 80 effective. (Comp. Phil. i. 13 ; iv. 22.)—Ver. 15. Forum Appii, a city in the via Appia, see Horat. Sat. i. 6, 3. On this road too lay the tres tabernae, six miles from Rome. Comp. Cic. ad Attic. 1, 18. ACTS XXVIII. 16. 627 § νι. PAUL'S STAY IN ROME. (Acts xxviii. 16—381.) Ver. 10, And now the great apostle of the Gentiles had reached the city which God's providence had appointed to be the queen of the world, not only in the old but also in the new order of things. The most heterogeneous elements were blended together in this huge world-city. The Lord had a numerous people in it, and there was a flourishing church, composed of the excellent individuals that were there; but the world of the wicked one too had its mightiest representative here, and, in the very person of the ruling emperor Nero, there had been set up a formal anti-christian power. Before him, the blood-thirsty tyrant, Paul knew that he must ap- pear (xxvii. 24), to defend the Gospel of God and to seal it with his blood. What feelings then would agitate the bosom of the apostle, when he trod the city, that was first to be drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the witnesses of Jesus (Rev. xvii. 6—18), and how much he would need brotherly consolation and refreshment in spirit, may be readily understood after these remarks. Here, in the great central-point of the heathen world, Paul felt that he had first fulfilled his calling as apostle of the Gentiles in its full extent; the desire with which he had looked to Rome had long been baffled (Rom. 1. 13), but the accomplishment of this desire brought also before his soul, the presentiment of the end which was here awaiting him. The στρατοπεδάρχης to whom the prisoners required to be de- livered, is the prefectus preetorio, the highest military authority in the city. It could hardly be the excellent Burrhus, who was pre- ceptor of Nero along with Seneca, for he had died so early as the spring of the year 62. The apostle, however, received permission, doubtless on giving security, which the Roman law required in such a case, and which he would readily find among the Christians in Rome, to reside in a private house, with a soldier chained to him after the Roman custom. (Verses 23, 30, ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι, per- haps with Aquila, who, according to Rom. xvi. 8, had returned to Rome.) But as the soldiers were changed, and Paul was also probably required to appear from time ‘to time before the pre- §28 ACTS XXVIIL. 17—22. fect, he might thus, although residing in a private house, find access to the Emperor's body-guard. Comp. Phil. i. 13. Vers. 17-22. A few days after his arrival Paul called together the most influential among the Jews, that he might vindicate him- self to them, and prevent them from forming an opposition against him. But they declare that, although they have heard of the sect of the Nazarenes and of the opposition raised against them, yet they have received no information against the person of the apostle, either by letter or by oral communication. This declaration is very re- markable, when it is considered how zealous the Jews were to send emissaries everywhere after the apostle ; and moreover, as the communication with Rome was so quick, and Paul's journey had lasted so long, one cannot understand how no warning should have preceded the apostate to Rome. We cannot conceive there was any concealment of the truth on the part of the Jews, as no ground at all appears which could have led them to be silent on the mat- ter. Béttiger's supposition (work already cited, pages 15, &c., 43, &c.) that the Jews pretend ignorance, as fearing that Paul might put them on their defence, when they felt themselves unable to carry out their charge against him, is quite untenable, because the apostle could institute no process against the Jews of Rome, who had done him no injury, but only against the Jews in Jerusalem. Bottiger represents the matter, as if the whole Jewish nation were bound to answer for the wrong, which had proceeded from certain Jews in Jerusalem. ‘Lo this add, that if the fear ip question might have determined the Jews in Rome to so strange a procedure, cer- tainly it could not be the occasion of their falling out among them- selves about the Messiahship of Jesus, according to the account here given by Luke. But we have already noticed, at chap. xviii. 1, what furnishes the key to the difficulty before us. Under Claudius the Jews, and along with them the Christians, had been expelled from Rome, and thus the connections which the Jews of Jerusalem had with them were interrupted. And it was only quite slowly and secretly that the Jews returned, under the government of Nero, which was very peaceful at its commencement, and at the same time too the Christian church was gathered together again. But both Jews and Christians alike maintained a designed separa- tion, and thus gradually lost their acquaintance with one another. But in Palestine they were not so accurately informed with regard ACTS XXVIII, 23-—29. 629 to the state of matters in Rome, and thus it happened that no in- telligence was sent thither, which certainly would not have been omitted in the case of any other place. In ver. 17 the apostle declares most decidedly that he did no- thing directly opposed to the customs and usages of the fathers. (See the particulars at chap. xxi. 17.)—Ver. 19. ἀλλὰ must be supplied to οὐχ ὡς; Paul wishes to intimate that he designs nothing against his nation, but is rather suffering persecution from them.—In ver. 20, ἐλπὶς τοῦ ᾿Ισραήλ denotes the appearance of the Messiah. Compare Comm. on Luke ii. 25.—Ver. 22. The man- ner in which the Jews of Rome speak of the opposition given to the Christians, is not such as to render it probable, that in Rome itself there had already been such contentions, as arose for example in Ga- latia. The nature of the Epistle to the Romans confirms this sup- position, for, according to it, there had only been unimportant collisions there. See the particulars in the introduction to the Epistle to the Romans, and in the Commentary on Rom. xvi. 17, δ. Vers. 23—29. That the Jews in Rome rather speak of the Chris- tians, as a sect opposed elsewhere, than as one requiring to be op- posed in their own immediate neighbourhood, is plain also from what follows. ‘They are quite in the dark regarding the nature and peculiar doctrines of Christianity, and learn them, as it seems, for the first time from the mouth of Paul. As to the way of reconcil- ing this with the circumstance that the Epistle to the Romans which was written before this period, supposes the existence of a cou- siderable Christian church in Rome, read the detailed statement made in the introduction to the Epistle. What is stated in the passage before us certainly makes the impression, that the Jews in Rome heard the preaching of the Gospel of Christ for the first time : there arose as usual a controversy among themselves, for some were convinced of the Messiahship of Jesus, others not. This state of matters would be inexplicable, if the church had not, as has been detailed above, been gathered together again as if for the first time. The apostle however dismissed the doubting Jews with the quota- tion of a judgment pronounced by the prophet Isaiah, and con- trasted with their unbelief the faith to be expected from the Gen- ules. Ver 23. As the meeting in which Paul spoke took place in his Ee Oe ὥσαν 630 a ACTS xxvii. 30, 31. own residence, it is not improbable that he staid with Aquila, who always had a place for meetings in his house. See Rom. xvi. 3.-— Ver. 26. The passage from Isaiah vi. 9, 10 has already been ex- plained in the Comm. at Matt. xiii. 14, 15.—-Ver. 29 is wanting in many Codices, but undoubtedly this is a mistake. Probably on account of ἀπελύοντο in ver. 25, the words were regarded as su- perfluous. But there it is the breaking off of the discourse that is meant, here it is the final departure from the house. Vers. 30, 31. Two whole years the apostle remained in this situation, and preached without hindrance to-all. The specifica- tion of the time here made, thus leads us at the conclusion of the Acts of the Apostles to the spring of the year 65, as it was in the the spring of 63 Paul arrived in Rome.. The supposition of Bottiger (Beitr. Part 11. p. 32, &c.), that Paul was only a few days in imprisonment in Rome, as described in chap xxviii. 16, and that he is here in verse 30 represented as free from confinement, is quite inadmissible, because the expression ἔν τῷ ἰδιῷ μισθώματι in verse 30 is not different from μένειν καθ᾽ ἑαυτόν in verse 16, but means precisely the same thing. This appears manifest from the circumstance that there is only mention made of the receiving of visits on his part: he was not permitted to go about without restraint, to enter into the synagogue, and the like. The concluding words therefore μετὰ πάσης παῤῥησίας ἀκολύτως refer only to the perfect freedom he enjoyed in his private residence, but not beyond it. That it was not after the lapse of these two years Paul suffered martyrdom, but that he was set free at his first trial before Nero, and then perished in a second imprisonment, will be shown further in the Commentary on the pastoral epistles. Here the only ques- tion is, why dves Luke conclude his work in the manner he does. Not only is there no particular account of the process against Paul, but you also feel the want of a concluding address to Theophilus, and a review of the whole, in short a formal con- clusion of the book. It is certainly a remark of some import- ance, that this feature of the work may be explained from the cir- cumstance that Luke has detailed the events as far as they had developed themselves at the time, and thus we have a principle to guide us as to the time of the composition of the work. Com- pare in the Comm. B. i. Introd. § vi. Meyer's remark on the other hand, that the sonorous and solemn conclusion marks the ACTS xxv. 80—81. - 631 absolute completion of the work, is plainly wrong: the sonorous- ness of the participial construction can prove nothing here: the question is about the substance of the concluding verses, which leave the account begun regarding Paul unfinished; the de- cision of his appeal to the Emperor should have been stated, if it had taken place when Luke concluded. But even suppose that Luke had no additional fact to narrate, or that he sup- poses every thing which has occurred in Rome to be known to Theophilus, still it must always appear to the reader that there was need of a more formal conclusion. The passage, xxviii. 31, concludes at most the last narrated event, but it does not form a conclusion to the whole work: one naturally expects a re- ference to the beginning of the book, and to the person of Theo- philus. If you consider the commencement of the treatise (Luke i. 1—4) it will appear a natural expectation that Luke would con- clude with some such statement as this: ‘‘ I have now, beloved Theo- philus, mentioned every thing which I have ascertained : from the point of time which we have now reached, you have a personal knowledge of all that has occurred, and therefore I conclude here.” If Luke then did not purpose to issue a third treatise, as Heinrichs supposes, undoubtedly the proper formal conclusion of the work is wanting. If we look back at the conclusion of this remarkable monument of the ancient church, to the course hitherto taken by the seed of God’s word in its growth, we perceive in it three great intermissions or stages, all proceeding from east to west. In the first place, we find the Gospel at work among the Jews only, and during this period Jerusalem forms the central point of Christian life ; in the next place, it advances to the boundaries of the heathen and Jewish world, and Antioch now becomes the centre of activity ; and, finally, it gains a firm footing in the greatest city of Heathendom, in Rome itself, and-thus the victory of the Gospel over the Gentile world is declared. As Jerusalem too, about the same time when Peter and Paul were labouring in Rome, and sealed their ministry with their blood, was destroyed, the universal character of Chris- tianity was then also established in opposition to every parti- cular system. ‘The first two points are completely carried through 632 sais ACTS xxvill. 30, 31. in the book of Acts; but this book only takes us on to the third point, which is one of great importance. The letters of the apostles, however, which follow, embrace in substance the fur- ther development of it, for, like branches into which the one stem of the tree of life is divided, they bring the various tendencies slum- bering in its germ to their individual perfection. In this gradual transference then of the Gospel from the people of Israel to the Gentiles lies the key to the remarkable fact, which more than every- thing else demonstrates the divine power of the risen Redeemer, that not only in the book of Acts, but also in the whole extension of the church and in the writings that constitute the canon of the church, the Twelve who had seen the Lord for three years, and lived with him, give place toa man who hardly had seen Christ, and who had even for a length of time persecuted Christians with blind fury. The Apostle Paul stands before us as an image of the whole apostate race of man, or at least of Israel, who are long struggling against the Lord, but are at last to become a mighty instrument for the accomplishment of God's designs. After his entire surren- der to his Lord and Saviour, his life and spirit had become so inti- mately blended with the being, and nature, and character of Christ — himself, that in the views presented in his profound epistles we cannot be persuaded there is anything hostile to the Gospel, but only its true essential nature, which, reflecting itself in a rich spirit and deep mind, carries with it, besides the heavenly nobility that resides in it, the witchery also of personal fresh experience, and the ornament of ingenious development of thought. While therefore hitherto we have had to do with the greatest and most comprehen- sive facts, such as the progress of the Redeemer’s life and that of his church, which required the utmost possible expansion of view, we are now presented with investigations in which single doctrines or relations of life are brought under the most minute examination ; and it is the concluding book of the New Testament, the Apoca- lypse, which first takes the reader back again to the most compre- hensive position, once more uniting the general and the particular equally in one harmonious whole. FINIS. Β : ol 1713C6 9-19-86 IAA μς i BS2548 .0 tone oes = comment on the Gospels PONV VNN 1 1012 00085 5835 sees ty ; ὡς ἀν “ἘΣ σευ ese jens are pay “εἰς, 9 ben ter cent ae Ee Gg SADR τῇ σον ὦ SAITO OAS PO ΘΟ ek ae