THE dT YO} JP Oe ee EDITED BY THE REV: CANON H. D. MW. SPENCE GF. VICAR AND RURAL DEAN OF ST. PANCRAS, AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL, » AND BY THE miev. JUSEPH SS... EX{BR TS WITH INE RODUCTIONS BY THE REV. CANON F, W. FARRAR, D.D., F.R.S.—RIGHT REV. H. COTTERILL, DD., F.R.Ga&: oes BEN PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D:D. REV NITY . CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A. REV. A, PLUMMER, M.A, NEW YORK: ANSON D. F. RANDOLPH & COMPAR, goO BROADWAY, COR. 20th STREET. LONDON: KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., 1 PATERNOSTER SQUARE. a is eeEDITED BY THE ‘HV. CANON H. D. M. SPENCE M.A { { { i R A ‘ pi 0 J ‘ e AEs S ae ) a, AWhaihey VICAR AND RURAL DEAN OF ST PANCRAS, AND EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO TIIE LORD BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOL ; AND BY THE REV. JOSEPH 8. EXELL, M.A. Exposition and Woriletics, THE RIGHT HON. AND RIGHT REV. LORD A. C. HERVEY, D.D.. LORD BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS. Womilies hy Warfous Authors. REV. PROF. P. C. BARKER, M.A. REV. PROF. E. JOHNSON, M.A. REV. PROF. R. A. REDFORD, M.A. REV. R. TUCK, B.A. REV. W. CLARKSON, B.A. VOL, 7. KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH & CO., 1, PATERNOSTER SQUARE. 1884.THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. INTRODUCTION, § 1. Opsect anp PLan or tHE Book. THE most ancient title of the book. as given in the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Bezee—II pages ’Aroo7éAwv > and properly rendered, both in the Authorized and the Revised Versions, “ The Acts of the Apostles though probably not given to it by the author, sufficiently expresses its general object, viz. to give a faithful and authentic record of the doi gs of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, after he had ascended into heaven, leaving them as his responsible agents to carry on the building of his Church on earth. If is Obvious that, if the authoritative Christian documents had ended with the Gospels, we should have been left withont any sufficient guidance in regard to a multitude of important questions of the utmost moment to the Church in allages. We should have had. indeed, the record of the life and death, the resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus; but as to how the holy Catholic Church, of which he was the Divine Founder, was to be compacted together, how the Lord Jesus would carry on from heaven the work which he had begun on earth, what should be the functions of the Holy Ghost, how the city of God was to be ruled, how the evangelization of the world was to be carried on from age to age,—we should have known almost nothing. This second “ treatise,” therefore, which in St. Luke’s design was a following up of his own Gospel, but in the design of the Holy Ghost was the sequel of the four Gospels, was a most necessary supplement to the histories of the life of Christ. But beyond this general object, a closer inspection of the book reveals a more particular purpose, in which the mind of the author and the purpose of the Holy Ghost seem to coincide. The true way to judge of the purpose of any book is to see what the book * Other titles are Mpates tay Anoordévwy, T.R., or Tav aylwy "AroordéAwy, R.T. ACTS I, bINTRODUCTION TO ee ee at the execution corresponds ” gives us the history of the ally, to a very limited extent. Atter the first chapters, which relate with such power the founding of the Church at Jerusalem, 1t tells us very little of the work of further evangelization among the Jews; it tells us very little of the history of the mother Church of Jerusalem. After the first chapter, the only apostles named at all are Peter, James, John, and James the Less! And of their work, after those first chapters, we learn only so much as bears upon the admission of Gentiles into the Church of Christ. Peter and John go to Samaria to confirm the converts made there. Peter is sent from Joppa to the house of Cornelius the centurion, to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; and afterwards declares to the assembled Church the mission which he had received, which led to the assent of the brethren in Judea, expressed in the words, “Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life” (ch. xi. 18). The apostles and elders come together to consider the question of the circumcision of Gentile converts, and Peter and James take a prominent part in the discussion and in the decision of the question. The preaching of the gospel by Philip to the Samaritans and to the Hthiopian eunuch, and the conversion of a great number of Greeks at Antioch, are other incidents recorded in the early part of the book, which bear directly upon the admission of the Gentiles imto the Church of Christ. And when it 1s remembered how very brief these ly small portion of the actions of as it is to be presumed th actually tells us, with the design. Now, “ The Acts of the Apostles apostles, gener early chapters are, and what an extreme Peter and James the Less, compared with their whole apostolic work, these yecomes manifest that the history incidents must have made up, it already | ‘ect which St. Luke had in view. of Gentile Christianity was the main ob) But the history of the conversion of the Gentiles to the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, and their admission ‘nto the Church as fellow-heirs with Tsrael, and of the same body, and partakers of God’s promise in Christ, through the preaching of the great apostle of the Gentiles, 1s avowedly the subject of the last sixteen chapters of the book. From Antioch the capital of the East, to Rome the capital of the West, the writer traces in these chapters the wonderful history of Gentile Christianity through about twenty years of the eventful lite of St. Paul, during the last eleven or twelve of which he was himself his companion. Here, then, we have a con- firmation of what even the first part of the Acts disclosed as to the writer’s purpose; and we are able to frame a theory consistent in itself and with the known facts as to the object of the book. Assuming the authorship of St. Imke and his Gentile birth (see below, § 2), we have an author to whom the progress of Gentile Christianity would be a matter of supreme interest. This interest, no doubt, attached him, when an opportunity presented itself, to the mission of the apostle to the Gentiles. Being a man of education and of cultivated mind, the idea of recording what he had seen of St. Paul’s work would naturally occur to him; and this again would connect itself 1 . ' If indeed James was one of the twelve.THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. iL a with his general interest in the progress of the gospel among the nations of the earth: while. haying already written a history of the life and death of Jesus, in which his special interest in the Gentiles is very apparent (Luke xx. 16), he would, as a matter of course, connect his new work with the former one. m. 625 wi. 29: xiv. 23: xv. 11]: But assuming that his object was to write the history of Gentile Chris- tianity, it is obvious that the history of the first preaching of the gospel at Jerusalem was necessary, both to connect his second work with the first, and also because in point of fact the mission to the Gentiles sprang from the mother Church at Jerusalem. The existence and establishment of the Jewish Church was the root from which the Gentile Churches erew ; and the Gentile Churches had a common interest with the Jewish in those first creat events—the election of an apostle in the place of Judas, the descent of the Holy Ghost at Pentecost, the preaching of Peter and John, the appoint- ment of deacons, and the martyrdom of Stephen, at- which last event the great figure of St. Paul first came upon the stage. So that, in assuming St. Luke’s purpose in writing the Acts to be to give the history of Gentile Christianity, we are supported both by the actual features of the book before us, and by the probabilit 4 y that his own position as a Gentile Christian, as the companion of St. Paul, and as the friend of Theophilus, would give birt [t is no less apparent how the hand of Divine providence and inspiration moved him to this choice. St. Luke eould not possibly know of himself ] : n to such a desion., that the Church of the circumcision would come to an end within a few years of the time at which he was writing, but that the Church of the uncircum- cision would go on growing and spreading and increasing through more than eighteen centuries. But God did know it. And therefore. it came to pass that this record of evangelical work in heathen countries has been preserved to us, while the work of the apostle of the circumcision and of his brethren has been suffered to fade from remembrance. § 2. AuruoR or tHE Book. We have, in the preceding section, assumed St. Luke to be the author of the Acts of the Apostles; but we must now justify the assumption, though the fact that there is no reasonable doubt about the matter, and that there is a general consent of modern critics on the point, will make it unnecessary to enter into any lengthened disquisition. The identity of authorship of the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles is manifest from the dedication of both to Theophilus inks Las ch. i. 1), and from the reference by the writer of ch, i. 1 to the Gospel written by him. The details in ch. 1. 1—9 agree closely with Luke xxiv. 23—ol ; and there is a striking resemblance of style, phrases, the use of particular words, arrangement of matter, and turn of thought in the twoINTRODUCTION TO books, which is generally recognized by critics of all schools, and which sup- ports the unanimous testimony of the early Church, that they are both the work of one author. And this resemblance has been lately brought out with remarkable force in one particular, viz. the frequent use of medical terms, both in the Gospel and in the Acts—terms which in very many instances are found nowhere else in the New Testament (Hobart’s ‘ Medical Language of St. Luke:’ Longmans). If, then, the Gospel was the work of St. Luke, the Acts of the Apostles was so likewise. That the Gospel was the work of St. Luke is the unani- mous testimony of antiquity ; and the internal evidence agrees with all that we know of St. Luke—that he was not of the circumcision (Col. iv. 1O— 14) ; that he was a physician (Col. iv. 14), and consequently a man of liberal education. Indeed, even modern hypercriticism generally admits St. Luke’s authorship. It may be added that the internal evidence of the Acts of the Apostles is also strongly in favour of it. His companionship of St. Paul, who styles him “ the beloved physician” (Col. iv. 14) ; his presence with St. Paul at Rome (2 Tim. iv. 17), compared with the fact that the writer of the Acts sailed with St. Paul from Cesarea to Italy (ch. xxvu. 1) and arrived at Rome (ch. xxviii. 16), and the utter failure of the attempts to identify the author with Timothy (see especially ch. xx. 4, 5) or Silas, or any other of St. Paul’s companions; are of themselves strong if not decisive testimonies in favour of Luke’s authorship. Taken in conjunction with the other arguments, they leave the question, as Renan says, “ beyond doubt.” (See below, § 6.) § 3. Date or CoMPosirTION. Here, again, the inquiry presents no difficulty. The obvious prima facie inference from the abrupt termination of the narrative with the notice of St. Paul’s two years’ abode at Rome is undoubtedly the true one. St. Luke composed his history at Rome, with the help of St. Paul, and completed it early in the year A.D. 63. He may, no doubt, have prepared notes and memoranda and abstracts of speeches which he heard delivered, for several years before, while he was St. Paul’s companion. But the composition of the book is due to the comparative leisure of himself and his great master during the two years’ imprisonment at Rome. It could not, of course, have been completed earlier, because the narrative comes down without a break, in one continuous flow, to the time of the imprisonment. It could not possibly have been written later, because the termination of the book marks as plainly as is possible that the writer was writing at the very standpoint to which he had brought down his narrative. We may affirm, without any fear of being wrong, that St. Paul’s trial before Nero, and his acquittal and. 1 Renan (‘Les Apédtres’) says, “It is beyond doubt that the Acts and the third Gospel are by the same author;” and adds a little later, ‘‘ This author is in very deed Luke, the disciple of Paul.”THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Vv his journey into Spain (if, indeed, he went to Spain)? and his second trial and martyrdom, had not taken place when St. Luke finished his history because it is utterly inconceivable that, if they had, he should not have a... probable that incidents connected with aul’s fir al, sequent immediate departure from Rome, put a stop at the moment to all literary work, and that, if St. Luke designed continuing his history, his purpose was frustrated by circumstances of which we have. no certain knowledge. It may have been his employment in missionary work ; it may have been other hindrances ; it may have been his death ; for we have really no knowledge whatever of St. Luke’s life subse- quent to the close of the Acts of the Apostles, except the mention of him as being still with St. Paul at the time of the writing of his Second Epistle to Timothy (2 Tim.iv.11). If this Epistle were written from Rome during’ St. Paul’s second imprisonment, this would bring down our knowledge of St. Luke two years later than the close of the Acts. But it is easy to con- ceive that even in this case many causes may have hindered his continuine his history. i It should be added that the fact of the Gospel of St. Luke having been written before the Acts (ch. i. 1) presents no difficulty in the way of the above date for the composition of the Acts, as St. Paul’s two years of enforced leisure at Ceesarea while St. Luke was with him afforded as con- venient and appropriate atime for the composition of the Gospel with St. Paul’s help, as the two years at Rome did for the composition of the Acts. Meyer’s reason (‘ Introd. to Acts’) for placing the composition of the Gospel and consequently of the Acts much later, viz. because the destruction of Jerusalem is referred to in our Lord’s prophetic discourse in Luke xxi. 20, is not worthy of the consideration of a Christian. If the reason is a sound one, the Gospel ceases to be of any value, since the writer of it fabricated falsehoods. § 4. Sources. The inquiry into the sources from which St. Luke derived his knowledge of the facts which he relates is one the fitness of which St. Luke himself assures us of when he is at pains to satisfy us of the sufficiency of his own sources of information in respect to the narrative contained in his Gospel? (Luke i. 1—4;; comp. too ch. 1. 21; x. 39—42). Itis, then, most satisfactory to know that in St. Luke we have not only an author in whom the historical instinct was most strong and clear, and in whom a calm judicial spirit and a lucid perception of truth were conspicuous qualities, but one who had also 1 Dr. Farrar (‘Life and Work of St. Paul,’ vol. ii. ch. liii.) argues against the journey into Spain. But the main strength of the argument rests upon the hypothesis that the Epistles to Timothy were written during his last imprisonment at Rome. ? See Chrysostom’s remarks on St. Luke’s care “ to intimate how strictly he may be depended upon” in his account of things which he received from others, and of things which he saw and heard himself, in his first homily on the Acts of the Apostles.INTROLUUCTION TO nnrivalled opportunities of knowing the certainty of those things which form the subject of his history. ‘lhe intimate friend and constant com- panion of St. Paul, sharing his missionary labours, bound to him by ties of mutual affection, and, especially, passing two several periods of two years with him in the quiet and leisure of his confinement as a state prisoner,— he must have known all that St. Paul knew on that subject of absorbing interest to them both, the progress of the gospel of Christ. Of at least twelve years of St. Paul’s life he was himself a close observer. Of the time that preceded his own acquaintance with him he could learn all the particulars from the apostle’s own lips. The characters and actions of ali the great pillars of the Church were familiar to him, partly from personal intercourse and partly from the copious information which he would receive from Paul and other contemporaries. Peter, John, James, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Apollos, Aquila, Priscilla, and many others were all known by him, either personally or through those who were intimately acquainted with them. And as his history was composed while he was with St. Paul at Rome, he had the means at hand of verifying every statement and receiving correction on every doubtful point. It is impossible to conceive any one better qualified by position than St. Luke was to be the first Church historian. And his simple, clear, and often graphic and copious, narrative exactly corresponds with such situation. As regards the earlier chapters and the episode from ch. ix. 32 to ch. xu. 20, in which St. Peter occupies so prominent a place, and in which his speeches and actions are so fully described, we cannot say certainly from what source St. Luke derived his knowledge. Many things suggest the thought that he may have learnt them from St. Peter himself; or possibly that there may have been extant some one or more narratives by an eye-witness, whose materials St. Luke incorporated in his own work. These, however, are matters of uncertain conjecture, though the internal evidence of full and accurate information is unmistakable. But from the moment that Paul appears upon the stage, we cannot doubt that he was the chief source of St. Luke’s information as regards all those transactions which occurred before he joined him or at such times as he was separated from him. His own observation supplied the rest, with the help of the friends above enumerated. It is interesting to remember, further, that St. Luke must have seen many of the secular personages whom he introduces in his narrative: possibly Herod Agrippa, and presumably his son King Agrippa, Felix, Porcius Festus, Ananias the high priest, Publius, and others. At Rome it is likely that he would see Nero and some of the principal persons of his court. There is no evidence, either in the Gospel or in the Acts, that St. Luke ever saw our Lord. The assertion of Epiphanius and of Adamantius (pseudo- Origen), that he was one of the seventy, carries no weight withit. It is inconsistent with St. Luke’s own statement (Luke i. 2), and with other traditions, which make him a native of Antioch and one of St. Paul’s conyerts. This, however, by the way.THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Vu St. Luke’s historical and geographical* accuracy has been frequently observed as an evidence of his acquaintance with secular ag well as sacred writings. He appears to have been well read in the Septuagint, including the apocryphal writings. § 5. PLACE In THE Canon Kusebius places in the forefront of his list of books generally acknowledged as portions of Holy Scripture (oporoyovpevat Petar ypadat ), the four Gospels and “the Book of the Acts of the Apostles (} rév rpdéewy tév ’"AroordéXwv ypady) ;” and again he says, “ Luke has left usa proof of his skill in spiritual healing in two inspired books—his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles” (‘ Hist. Eccl.” in. 11, 25). It was probably from ch, xxi. 8, 9, that Papias derived his knowledge of the daughters of Philip; and from ch. i. 23 that he knew of “Justus surnamed Barsabas,” though he may, of course, have known of both from tradition (Husebius, ‘ Hist. Hecl.,’ 11.39). The passage in Clement’s First Epistle—‘‘ What shall we say of David, so highly testified of ? to whom God said, I have found a man after my own heart, David the son of Jesse’’—if compared with ch. xiu. 22 (especially as regards the words in italics), will be seen to be certainly taken from it. The words T@ |LELOp- Tupnuevw, compared with the paprupyoas of ch. xui. 22, and the rov rot ‘Iescoat with the same phrase found in the Acts but not found in Ps. lxxix. 20, are very strong evidences of Clement’s acquaintance with the Acts. And this evidence is confirmed by another distinct verbal quotation from ch. xx. 385: “Ye were all of you humble-minded, more willingly giving than receiving” * (St. Clement, ch. 1. and xvii. See also 1. 34, yucts Smovoum ext TO avTo cvvayxGevTos, compared with ch. 11. 1) There is a less certain reference to ch. vy. 41 in Hermas (‘ Simil.,’ iv. sect. 28) ; but Ignatius’s saying in the Epistle to the Smyrneans (i1i.), that Christ, ‘‘ after his resurrection, did eat and drink with them,” is an evident quotation from ch. x. 41. So also his saying in the Epistle to the Magnesians (v.), “ Every man must go to his own place,” must be taken from ch.i. 25; and the phrase ézt 76 airo, coupled as it is with pia mrpocevxy pia déyovs, and with the description of Church unity in the same Epistle (sect. vii.), must be taken from ch. 1.15; u. 1, 44; as also that of Polycarp, that the apostles “are gone to their own place (cis rov éhetAdpevov adtois térov).” There is also another verbal quotation in Polycarp (sect. i.), “Ov jyetpev 6 Oeds Avoas Tas wdtvas Tod “Adov, from ch. ii. 24 where the substitution of “Adov for Oavdrov is probably caused by Gavdrov having immediately preceded. Dean Alford was of opinion that there are not “any references in Justin Martyr which, fairly considered, belong to this book ”(‘ Proleg.,’ ch. i. sect. v.) ; but there is such a close similarity 1 See Dean Howson’s ‘ Evidential Value of the Acts of the Apostles,’ lect. iv. 2“ Bishop Lightfoot” and “all commentators, Bishop Jacobson, Harnack, etc., recog- nize this as a distinct allusion to the passage in the Acts” (Introduction to Acts in ‘Speaker’s Commentary,’ p. 333).Will INTRODUCTION TO of thought and expression in the passage in ch. vil. 20, 22, "Ev @ kaipa eyevvnOn Mwons.. . exteGévra de aitov dverAato avtov 4» Ovydtynp Papad, Kat dvebpevato avtov éavty «is tlov' Kat éraidevOn . . « &V racy copia Aiyurriwy’ nv dé duvatos év Adyous Kal ev Epyo.s avToOr, and that in the treatise of Justin, ‘Ad Grecos Cohortatio:’ Tap’ ots otk éréyOn Moons povov GAXAa Kat Taons TOV Atyurtiov rawWevoéws pmeTarxelv nELwOn Ova TO v0 Ovyarpos Pacir€ws eis mratdds dkedoOar yopay’. . « Os ictopotow ot copwtatot THY LeTopLoypadwr ot TOY Btov aiTod Kal Tas mpagers . . . dvaypapacbatr tpoeAduevot, as could hardly arise from two independent minds. The sequence of thought, the birth, the adoption, the education, the mighty works, are identical in both writers. The same may be said of the two other passages adduced by Lardner from Justin ; one from the ‘ First Apology’ compared with ch. xii. 27, and the other from the ‘ Dialogue’ compared with ch. xxvi. 22, 23. Here, again, this identity of thought and expression in both passages (rotrov dyvoycavtes compared with jyvonoav, and zabytds 6 Xprotds compared with raOyros yevyoomevos 6 Xpuoros) could not be accidental, and can only be accounted for by Justin being familiar with the Acts of the Apostles. Between the times of Justin and Eusebius there is an abundance of direct quotations from the Acts. The first isin the Epistle of the Churches of Lyons and Vienna, given by Eusebius, ‘ Hist. Eccl.,’ bk. v. ch. 2, where the martyrdom and prayer of Stephen are expressly referred to; and there are many also in Ireneus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Julius Africanus, Origen, and others, which may be found in Westcott’s ‘ Hist. of the Canon,’ and in Lardner’s ‘ Credibility of the Gospel History.’ The Book of the Acts is contained in the Muratorian Canon in the West, ascribed to about A.D. 170; and also in the Peshito Canon in the East, of about the same date; in the fifty-ninth canon of the Council of Laodicea (A.D. 363), the list in which, however, is considered spurious; in the thirty- ninth canon of the Council of Carthage (4.p. 397); in the seventy-sixth of the Apostolical Canons; in the lst of Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 386). of Epiphanius of Cyprus (4.p. 403), of Athanasius, of Jerome, and thence- rth in the Canon as received by the whole Eastern and Western Churches. [t is curious to add that though, as we have seen from the testimony of jusebius, the Acts of the Apostles was reckoned among the uncontested books of Holy Scripture, it was a book scarcely known at Constantinople in the days of Chrysostom. ‘The passage with which he opens his homilies on the Acts has been often quoted: ‘To many persons this book is so little known, both it and iis author, that they are not even aware that there is such a book in existence.” And what seems yet more strange, even at Antioch (St. Luke’s reported birthplace), Chrysostom tells us it was ‘“strange:” ‘Strange, and not strange. Not strange, for it belongs to the order of Holy Scripture; and yet strange, because peradventure your ears are not accustomed to such a subject. Certainly there are many to whom this book is not even known” (‘ Hom. in Princip. Act.,’ preached at Antioch). 1 See ‘ Library of the Fathers,’ vol. xxxiii. p. 1, note 6.THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. ix On the other hand, St. Augustine speaks of the book as “ well known from being very frequently read in the Church.”! The Book of the Acts was, by long-established custom (in the time of Chrysostom), read in the Churches (as eg. at Antioch and in Africa) from Easter to Pentecost (‘ Library of the Fathers,’ vol. xxxiii. p. 1, note) a S 6. MopErn Criticism. An Introduction to the Acts would hardly be complete without a brief reference to the views of modern criticism. It is observable, then, that a certain number of critics, who seem to think that the main function of criticism is to disregard all external evidence, and all internal evidence also which chances to agree with the external, deny the authenticity of the book. With a strange kind of vorepov zpdrepov logic, instead of inferring the truth of the narrative from the overwhelming evidence that it is the narrative of an eye-witness and a contemporary, they conclude that it is not the narra- tive of a contemporary because it contains statements which they are indisposed to admit as true. The account of the ascension of our Lord and of the day of Pentecost in ch. i1., of the miracles of Peter and John in the following chapters, and of other supernatural events occurring throughout the book, are by the hight of nature incredible; and therefore the book that contains them cannot be, what the Acts of the Apostles claims to be, and what all the evidence proves itto be, the work of a companion of St. Paul. It must be the work of a later age, say the second century, when a legendary history had cropped up, and the mists of time already obscured the clear reality of events. In addition to this general reason for assigning the work to the second century, a further one is found in an hypothesis based upon the imagination of the inventor of it (F. C. Baur), viz. that the purpose of the writer of the Acts was to afford an historical basis for the reunion of two discordant sections of the Church, viz. the followers of St. Peter and the followers of St. Paul. The different doctrines preached by the two apostles having issued in a strong antagonism between their respective followers, some unknown author of the second century wrote this book in order to reconcile them, by showing an agreement between their two leaders. The writer, by the use of the word “ we” (so at least say some of the critics), assumed the character of a companion of St. Paul, in order to give greater weight to his history ; or, as others say, incorporated a bit of contemporary writing in his book without being at the pains to alter the ‘“‘ we.” The great ability and learning and ingenuity with which F. C. Baur supported his hypothesis attracted great attention, and some adhesion toitinGermany. But common sense and the laws of evidence seem to be resuming their legitimate power. We have seen above how Renan, certainly one of the ablest of the freethink- 1 “De Pradest. Sanct.,’ § 4, quoted in Introduction to Acts in ‘ Speaker’s Commentary,’ p. 349, note 3.x INTRODUCTION TO ing school, expresses his unhesitating belief that Luke is the author of the Acts. Another theory (Mayerhoff, etc.) makes Timothy the author of the Acts of the Apostles; and yet another (that of Schleiermacher, De Wette, and Bleek) makes Timothy and not Luke to have been the companion of Paul who speaks in the first person (we), and Luke to have inserted these portions without alteration from Timothy’s journal (see Alford’s‘ Prolegom.’). Both these wanton and gratuitous conjectures are contradicted by the plain words of ch. xx. 4, 5, where the companions of Paul, of whom Timothy was one, are distinctly stated to have gone before, while the writer remained with Paul (see above, § 2). Another theory (Schwanbeck, etc.) makes Silas the author of the book, or section of the book ; and yet another at the same time identifies Silas with Luke, supposing the names Silas = Silvanus, and Lukas, derived from lucus, a grove, to be mere variations of the same name, like Cephas and Peter, or Thomas and Didymus. But, besides that this is quite unsupported by external evidence, it is inconsistent with ch. xv. 22, 34, 40; xvi.; xvu.; “xviii. (passim) ; where the “we” ought to have been introduced if the writer was one of the actors. It is most unlikely too that Silas should have described himself as being one of the “chief men among the brethren ” (ch. xv. 22). It may be added that the failure of all other hypotheses is an additional argument in favour of the authorship of St. Luke. The grounds of the adverse criticisms of De Wette, F. C. Baur, Schwegler, Zeller, Késtlin, Helgenfeld, and others, are thus summed up by Meyer (Introduction, p. 6): Alleged contradictions with the Pauline Epistles (ch. ix. 19, 23, 25—28; xi. 30 compared with Gal. i. 17—19 andii. 1; ch. xvii. 16, et sqq.; Xvili. 22, et seq.; xxviii. 30, et seg.) ; madequate accounts (ch. XVI. 6; xviii. 22, et seq.; xxviii. 30, 31); omission of facts (1 Cor. 38. ei 2 Cor. i. 8; xi. 25; Rom. xv. 19; xvii. 3, 4); the partially unhistoric character of the first portion of the book; un-Pauline miracles, speeches, and actions (ch. xxviii. 7—10; xxi. 20, et seq.; xxi. G, ef egg. 3 Ski; REV; approval of apostolic decree, xv.). Meyer (ibid., p. 14, note 1) adds, “According to Schwanbeck, the redacteur of the book has used the four following documents :—(1) A biography of Peter; (2) a rhetorical work on the death of Stephen; (8) a biography of Barnabas ; (4) a memoir of Silas. The effect of these mutually destructive criticisms, the distinct failure in each case to get over the difficulties which oppose themselves to the conclusion attempted to be established, and the thoroughly arbitrary and will-kiirlich nature of the objections made to St. Luke’s authorship, and of the assumptions on which opposing hypotheses are erounded,—all this leaves the conclusions to which we came in sections 1 and 2 immovyably confirmed.THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. XI § 7. Literature or THE Acts or tHE APOSsTLEs. To those who desire to study seriously this charming and invaluable history, it may be useful to indicate a few books which will assist them to do so. Paley’s ‘ Hors Pauline’ still holds its ground as an original argu- ment, ingen iously worked out, and capable of constant extension, by mle the Hpistles of St. Paul and the Acts of the Apostles are shown to confirm each other, and are made to shed licht each upon the other in a way to disarm suspicion of collusion, and to stamp both with an unmistakable stamp of truth. The great work of Conybeare and Howson (‘Life and Kpistles of St. Paul’) ; the contemporary work of Mr. Lewin, bearing the same title; Canon Farrar’s ‘Life and Work of St. Paul:’ Renan’s ‘ Les Apotres,’ and his ‘St. Paul;’ give in different ways all that can be desired in the way of historical and geographical illustration to bring out into full light the work, the character, the times, of the apostle, and to display the veracity, the accuracy, and the simplicity, of his biographer. For direct commentaries, it may be sufficient to name those of St. Chrysostom, of Dr. John Lightfoot, of Kuinoel (in Latin), of Meyer (translated from the German), of Olshausen and Lange (also translated into English), of Bishop Wordsworth and Dean Alford, of Dean Plumptre (in the ‘New Testament Commentary for English Readers,’ edited by the oo. of Gloucester and Bristol), of Bishop Jacobson (in the ‘Speaker’s Commentary’), of Canon Cook; to whicl Much additional information bearing upon the Acts may also be gathered from commentaries on St. Paul’s I ipistles, among which may be mentioned those of Bishop Ellicott and those of Rishon Lightfoot. And, again, such smaller works as Dean Howson’s ‘ Bohlen Lectures,’ Smith of Jordanhill on ‘The Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul,’ Hobart’s ‘Medical Language of St. Luke,’ elucidate particular portions or particular aspects of the book Those who desire to know all that can be said by hostile criticism against the credibility or authenticity of the Acts, and the truthfulness and trust- worthiness of the author, may search the writings of Baur, Schrader, Schwegler, Credner, Overbeck, Zeller, and many others. 1, of course, very many more might be pry § 8. Cu RONOLOGY, ‘The chronology of the Acts is involved in great difficulties,” says Canon Cook (Introduction, p. xxxi.); and the different conclusions which men of equal learning and capacity have arrived at is a sufficient evidence of these There ave, however, two or three fixed points which restrain difficulties. divergences wien comparatively narrow limits, and the intermediate several other coincidences of persons and things which fix the time of the narrative within the compass of three or ue years at most. But, on the other hand, we have no certainty as to the year in which our history begins.xil INTRODUCTION ‘TO The exact date of the Crucifixion, in spite of the careful statement of Luke iii. 1, 2, is uncertain to the extent of four or five years. Some place the Feast of Pentecost mentioned in ch. ii. in the year A.D. 28; some A.D. 30 ; and some again A.D. 33. And this is necessarily a cause of uncertainty as to the date of subsequent events, till we come to A.D. 44.* In that year Herod Agrippa died, soon after the death of James (ch. xu.), and in the same year we know that Saul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem with the alms of the Antiochian Church for the relief of the poor Jews suffering from the famine (ch. xi. 30; xii. 25). Those who think that this visit of St. Paul is the one alluded to in Gal. ii. 1, naturally reckon back fourteen years from 4.D. 44, and so get A.D. 30 as the year of St. Paul’s conversion; and throw back the Pentecost of Acts ii. to the earliest possible date, viz. A.p. 28. But those who think the visit to Jerusalem spoken of in Gal. u. 1 is that which is related in ch. xv., are not so hampered. Allowing five or six, or even seven years for St. Paul’s ministry at Antioch after his return from Jerusalem, for his first missionary journey, and his long abode at Antioch after his return (ch. xiv. 28), they place the visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 49, 50, 51, or 52, and so get from the year A.D. 35 to A.D. 38 for the visit of Gal. 1. 18, 19; and from a.p. 32 to A.p, 35 as the year of Saul’s conversion; thus leaving three or four years for the events recorded in the first six or seven chapters of the Acts, even if the year A.D. 80 or 31 is adopted for the Pentecost which followed the Ascension. There is, however, yet another doubt as to the reckoning of the fourteen years. It is not at all clear whether they are to be counted from the con- version mentioned in Gal. 1. 15, 16, or from the visit to Peter which took place three years after the conversion; in other words, whether we are to reckon fourteen years or seventeen backwards from A.D, 44 to find the date of St. Paul’s conversion. Nor, again, is there absolute certainty that the visit to Jerusalem of ch. xy. and that of Gal. 1. 1 are one and the same. Lewin. for instance, identifies the visit just glanced atin ch. xviii. 22 with that of — Gal. ii. 1 (vol. 1. 302). Others, as we have seen, identify with it the visit recorded in ch. xi. 50 and xii. 25. So that there is uncertainty on every side. The next date on which we may, though with less certainty, rely is that of St. Paul’s first visit to Corinth (ch. xviu.), which followed closely on the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius. This latter event took place (almost certainly)-in A.D. 52, and, therefore, St. Paul’s arrival at Corinth happened either in the same year or A.D. 53. The arrival of Festus at Cesarea as Procurator of Judea, again, is by nearly universal consent of modern chronologists, placed in A.D. 60, whence we gather, with certainty, the time of St. Paul’s removal to Rome and of his two years’ imprisonment as from A.D. 61 to A.D. 68. Less exact indications of time may be gathered from the presence of Gamaliel in the Sanhedrim (ch. y. 34); from the mention of ‘‘ Aretas the * “Ta seule date fixe des Actes des Apotres” (Renan, ‘ Les Apétres,’ p. xxxiii.).TOE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Xlii king”’ as being in possession of Damascus at the time of St. Paul’s escape (2 Cor. xi. 32), which is thought to indicate the beginning of the reign of Caligula, A.p. 37; the famine in the reign of Claudius Cesar (ch. xi. 28), who began to reign A.D. 41: the proconsulate of Sergius Paulus (ch. xiii. C); who is quoted by Pliny about twenty years after St. Paul’s visit to Cyprus ; the proconsulate of Gallio (ch. xviii. 12), indicating the reign of Claudius, by whom Achaia was given back to the senate, and therefore governed by a proconsul ; and lastly, the high priesthood of Ananias (ch. xxiti. 2) and the procuratorship of Felix (ch. xxiii. 24), pointing, by their coincidence, to about A.D. 08. These indications, though not sufficient for the construction of an exact chronology, yet clearly mark a true historical Sequence of events occurring in their proper place and order, and capable of being arranged accurately if ever the events of secular history to which they are tied are reduced by further light to an exact chronology. The only apparent anachronism in the Acts is the mention of Theudas in the speech of Gamaliel given in ch. v.36. The reader is referred to the note on that passage, where it is attempted to show that the mistake is Josephus’s, not St. Luke’s. {tis not the purpose of this Introduction to give a scheme of exact chro- nology. The materials for it, and the difficulties of e mstructing such a scheme, have been pointed out. Those who desire to enter tully into this intricate subject, are referred to Lewin’s ‘ Fasti Sacri,’ or to the ereat works of Anger," Wieseler,* and others; or, if they merely wish to know the principal views of chronologists, to the Synoptic Table in the appendix to the second volume of Farrar’s ‘ Life and Works of St. Paul; ’ to Dean Alford’s Prolegomena to the Acts : te Bishop Wordsworth’s Chronological Synopsis, appended to his Introduction to the Acts: to the Chronological Table with annotations at the end of vol. ii. of Conybeare and Howson’s at. Paul af and also to the able note at Ppp: 244 —252 of vol. l. D ma ; tO the Chronological Summary in Meyer’s Introduction (pp. 17—26) ; or to the Chronological Table at the end of Dean Plumptre’s ‘Commentary on the Acts,’ 8 § 9. PLAN oF THIS COMMENTARY. The Revised Version of the New Testament (4.p. 1881) has been taken as the text on which this Commentary is founded. Whenever the Revised Version differs from the Authorized Version of A.D. 1611, the words of the Authorized Version are appended for comparison. By this means every change made by the Revisers is brought to the notice of the reader, whose 1 *De Temporum in Actis Apostolorum Ratio.’ 2 *Chronologie des Apostolischen Zeitalters.’ 2 The writer did not become acquainted with this work until he was writing the chronological section of this Introduction, and the first twenty-two chapters were gone to press and the twenty-third wholly written. naa a nccacranmaangeen teasX1V INTRODUCTION TO THE ACTS OF THE- APOSTLES. judgment is thus directed to the reason or expediency of the change. The writer has not thought it necessary in general to express any opinion on the changes made, but has done so occasionally in terms of agreement or dis- agreement, as the case may be. ‘T’o discover and elucidate the exact meaning of the original; to illustrate the events narrated by all the helps he could get from other writers; to help the student to note the pecuharities of the diction of the inspired author, as clues to his education, his reading, his profession, his genuineness, his age, his fitness for his task ; to mark the historical and geographical and general accuracy of the author as evidences of the time when he lived, and of his perfect trustworthiness as to all that he relates ; and then, both in the Exposition and in the Homiletical remarks, to try and make the text so elucidated profitable for correction and instruc- tion in righteousness ;—has been the writer’s aim, however imperfectly it has been attained. The labour it has cost him has been considerable, amidst constant interruptions and unnumbered hindrances, but it has been a sweet and pleasant labour, full of interest and reward and growing delight, as the blessed Book yielded up its treasures of wisdom and truth, and the mind and hand of God became more and more visible amidst the words and works of man. In the notes R.V. denotes Revised Version; A.V. denotes Authorized Version; T.R. Textus Receptus, 7.e. the Greek Text from which the Authorized Version was made; and R.T. Revised Text, z.c. the Greek Text from which the Revised Version was made. Whenever the R.V. differs from the A.V. in consequence of the R.T. differing from the T.R., this is shown by appending to the words of the Authorized Version quoted in the note the letters A.V. and T.R. In some few cases where the difference in the Greek Text makes no difference in the version, the variation in the R.T. is not noted. Mere differences of punctuation, or in the use of capitals or italics, or vice versd, in the R.V. as compared with the A.V., are not noted either,THe ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. EXPOSITION, CHAPTER L Ver. 1.—I made for have I made, A.V.: cCONncCE rning for of, AVS to teach for teach, A.V. The former treatise ; literally, the first history, narrative, or discourse. "The form of the Greek, rdv ney mp@tov, Shows that the writer had in his mind at the time to con- trast the second history, which he was just beginning, and that naturally roy 5€ Sevrepor, or TovToy de Toy Adyor, ought, both rramma- tically and logically, to have followed. But the mention of “the apostles whom he had chosen”’ drew him, as it were, into the stream of his history before he was able to describe it. OQ Theophilus. The omission of the title “most excellent,” civen to Theo- philus in the Gospel (Luke i. 3), is one among other indications that the publication of the Acts followed very closely upon that of the Gospel. Began both to do and to teach. Some take the phrase as equivalent to did and taught; others supply the sense and continued until the day, ete. ; or, which is the same thing, supply the terminus a quo, makine the whole sense equivalent to “all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning until the day,” ete.; others again, as Bishop Wordsworth, gather St. Luke’s meaning to be that in the Acts he is about to narrate the continuance by our Lord in heaven of the work which he only began on earth. Meyer thinks that, by the insertion of the word “began,” the thing said or done “ is ina vivid and graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement;” so that our Lord is represented as at one time actively beginning to heal, then to teach, then to walk on the sea, and so on. But the words “began” and “until the day” certainly suggest the begiuning and the ending of our Lord’s ministry, or rather the whole ministry from its beginning to its end, s0 that the meaning would be “of all that ACTS. Jesus did and taught from first to last.’ To do and to teach. So the disciples on the way to Emmaus speak of Jesus as “a Prophet mighty in deed and word” (Luke xxiv. 19). Compare the stress laid upon the works of Christ in ch. x. 38, 39. Ver. 2,,— Rece ived for taken, BYV.: com- mandment for commandments, AY.3 after that he had given commandment through the Holy Ghost for after that he through the Holy Ghost h id giv jl commandments, AY. Lhe commandment or directions given by our Lord to the apostles between the Resur- rection and the Ascension are recorded partly in Luke xxiv, 4{—49: Matt. xxviii. 19, 20: Mark xvi. 15--18; John xxi.; and yet more fully in vers. 3—8 of this chapter. Through the Holy Ghost. The sense is certain. Jesus gave his charge to his apostles through the Holy Ghost. It was by the Holy Ghost abiding in him that he spake to the ap stles. This is the repeated declaration of Holy Scripture. “ The Spirit of the Lord is upon me” (Isa. Ixi. 1; Luke iy. 18; ch. x. 585. See also Luke iv. 1; Matt. xii. 28: Heb. ix. 14; and for the construction, ch. xi. 28; xxi. 4). Received up (aveanpén); the same word as is used in the Septuagint of Elijah (2 Kings ii. 10,11). In Luke xxiv. o it is carried up (avedpépeTo). Ve ri 3.—Proofs for infallible proofs, AY. appearing unto them for seen of, A.V.3 conce rning for pertaining to, A.V. The addition of the words by many proofs makes it necessary to understand the words showed himself (mapérrnoev EauTOV ) in the sense which it bears both in classic and Scriptural Greek, of proved or demon- strated: “To whom he gave distinct proofs of his being alive after his passion;” the proofs follow—being “seen of them” for forty days at intervals, talking with them, and (ver. 9) “being taken up while they were looking.” Doubtless, tov, he had in BTHE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cu. 1. 1—26, his mind those other proofs which he records in ch. x. 41, and those referred to by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 5—8). For this sense of maplorn Lu, see ch. xxiv. 13, “to prove; ” and Lysias’s ‘ Oration against Eratosthenes’ (p. 125), where the almost identical phrase occurs which we have here, ’Auddtrepa tatrTa ToAAots TEKMNPLOLS TapacThow, “I will prove both these things by many certain proofs.” The A.V. rendering, “infallible proots,” was quite justified. Stephanus says, ‘“ De certo et indubitato signo dicitur apud Rhetoricos” (‘ Thesaurus,’ 9216); and the technical mean- ing of texunptoy in Aristotle is a “ demonstra- tive proof,” as opposed to a onuctoy, which leaves room for doubt; and in medical writers, which is important as regards St. Luke, the cexutpiov is the “infallible symptom.” St. Luke, by the use of the word here, undoubtedly meant to express the certainty of the conclu- sion based on those proofs. Appearing unto them. The Greek orravduevos, corresponding to the mavepwéels of the Epistle of Barnabas, cap. xv., only occurs in the New Testament in ie place. In the Septuagint of 1 Kings viii. 8 it is used of the staves of the ark wit th- in ae veil, which “ were not seen without.” The idea intended to be conveyed, both by the use of this verb and by the use of 614 (by the space of), is that our Lord was not with the apostles always, as he was before the Resurrection, but that he came and again disappeared (St. Chrysostom). They were fleeting appearances spread over forty days. The nearly related sub: stantive, émtacia, means ‘a vision,” and is frequently used by St. Luke i. 22; xxiv. 23; xxvi. 19. It is also found in 2 Cor. xii. 1, Concerning the kingdom of God; a — which had deeply engaged their thoughts (Luke xix. 11), and on which it was most needful that they should now be fully instructed, that they might teach others (ch. xx. 20). Ver. 4.—He charged them not to depart for commanded them that they should not de- part, A.V.; to wait for wait, A.V.; said he for saith he, A.V.; from me for of me, A.V. Being assembled, etc. (R.T. omits per’ avTa@y); more exactly, as he was assembling with them (Field, in ‘Otium Norvicense’). Not to depart from Jerusalem. (See Luke xxiv. 49.) It was necessary, according to the prophecy, Micah iv. 2; Isa, ii. 3, that the gospel should go forth from Jerusalem. Wait for the promise. (See Luke xxiv. 49.) The promise of the Father formed the sub- ject of our Lord’s discourse to the apostles on the last night of his earthly life, as recorded in John xiy. 16, 17, 26: xv: 26; xvi. 7—14. He doubtless here refers to that conversation, though not, of course, to the record of it in the Gospel of St. John. Ye shall Mii al Ver. 5.—Indeed for truly, A.Y. be baptized, etc. (Comp, Matt. Luke iii. 16; John i. 33.) St. Peter refers to this saying of the Lord’s in his address to the Church of Jerusalem (ch. xi, 16), and the record of it here may be an indica- tion that St. Luke derived his informa- tion of these early events from Peter. A curious question arises as to the baptism of the apostles themselves. When were they baptized, and by whom? Chrysostom says, “They were baptized by John.” But it is evident, from Jobn iii. 22; iv. 1, 2, that converts were baptized with Christian, as distinct from John’s, baptism in our Lord’s lifetime, and hence it may seem probable, especially considering that St. Paul was baptized, that the apostles may have been baptized by Christ (Bishop Wordsworth on John iv. 2). If so, the baptism with the Holy Ghost at Pentecost was the comple- ment of that baptism, not the substitute for it. ‘In our case,” says Chrysostom, “ both (the baptism of water and of the Spirit) take place under one act, but then they were divided.” Ver. 6.—They therefore, when for when they therefore, A.V.; him for of him, A.V.; dost thow for wilt thou, A.V.; restore for restore again, A.V. Dost thou at this time, etc.? It appears from Luke xix. 11 and xxiv. 21, as well as from other passages, that the apostles expected the kingdom of Christ to come immediately. It was most natural, therefore, that, after the temporary extinction of this hope by the Crucifixion, it should revive with new force when they saw the Lord alive after his passion. They had doubtless too been thinking oyer the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit “ not many days hence.” Restore. (Comp. restitution, ch. iii. 21; and see Matt. xvii. 1].) Ver. 7.—Times or seasons for the times or the seasons, A.V.; set within his own authority for put in his own power, A.V. It is not for you to know, ete. The time of the end is always spoken of as hidden (so Matt. xxiv. 36; Mark xii. 82: 1 Thess. v. 1, 2: 23 Pes. ill. 10, etc.). Times or seasons. Times with reference to duration, seasons with reference to fitness or opportunity. Which the Father. The distinctive use of the word “ Father” here agrees with our Lord’s saying in Mark xili. 32, “ Neither the Son, but the Father.” Hath set within his own authority (efovcia), ‘Hath reserved under his own authority ” (‘ Speaker’s Commentary’) ; ‘‘Hasestab lished by means of his own plenitude of power” (Meyer); “ Hath put or kept in his own power” (A.V, and so Alford), This last seems the best. Ver. 8.— When for after that, A.V.; my witnesses for witnesses wnto me, A.V. and T.R.; Samaria for in Samaria, A.V. Ye shall receive abe (Svvauiv); a word speci- ally used of the power of the Holy SpiritCH. I. 1—26.] LHE ACTS OF [HE APOSTLES, 3 (see ch. vi. 8). “Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit” (Luke iv. 14: see too xxiv. 49); “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power” (ch. x. 88); ‘Through the power of the Holy Ghost” (Rom. xy. 13): “The demonstration of the Spirit and of power ” (1 Cor. ii. 4); “Strengthened with micht (Surduert) by his Spirit” (Eph. iii. 16); “The powers of the world to come” (Heb. vi. 6). My witnesses. This function of the apostles, to be witnesses of Christ, is one much insisted upon in Scripture. So we read in ver. 22, “ Of these must one become [‘ be ordained, A.V.] a witness with us of his resurrection.” So again in ch. x. 40— 42, “God showed him openly; not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us. And he commanded us to testify,” ete. (see also vers. 39 and 42 of the same chapter; ch. xliil. 31; Luke xxiv. 48; ch. iv. 33: xiii. ay oats 10, 18, 20% xvi. 16: 1 Pat. v. 1: 1 John 1—3, etc.). Ver. 9.—Said for spoken, A.V.; as they were looking for whili they be he ld. Ay . Th a were to be avuTomrrat, eye-witnesses, of the Lord’s ascension, and so it is particularly noted that he was taken as they were look- He did not disappear frem their sight ill he reached the cloud which enveloped Ver. 10.—Were looking for looked, A.V. ; tnto for toward, A.V.: went for went UD, A.V. Twomen. St. Luke describes them according to their appearance. They were really angels. In like manner, in Josh. vy. 13 we read, “There stood a man over against him;” and in Gen. xviii. %, 16; xix. 10, 12, 16, we read of “the men;’ and in Jadg. xiii, 6, 8, 10, J1, of “the man of God;” the persons spoken of in all these cases being angels (comp. Dan. mi. 29; vil. 15, 16; ix. 21,.ete.; Zech. i. &, 10; Mark. xvi. 5; Luke xxiv. 4). Gabriel, too, means “man of God.’ In white apparel, typical of perfect holiness, and of the glory which belongs to the inhabitants of heaven (comp. Dan. x. 5,6; Matt. xvii. 2; xxviii. 3; Mark ix, 3: xvi. 5: Luke xxiv. 4= Rev. Sue 37-3, o. 18° Iv. 4: vic Ais xix. 3, ClC.). Ver. 11.—Looking for gazing up, A.V.; this for this same, A.V.; was received for 7s taken, A.V.; beheld him going for have seen hisi go, A.V. In like manner; 7.ec. inacloud. The description of our Lord’s second advent constantly makes mention of clouds. ‘ Be- hold, he cometh with clouds” (Rey. i. 7). “One like the Son of man came with the clouds of heayen” (Dan. vii. 13; and so Matt. xxvi. 64; Luke xxi. 27, etc.). We are reminded of the grand imagery of Ps. ciy. 3, ‘* Who maketh the clouds his chariot, who walketh upon the wines of the wind.” [t may be remarked that the above is by far the fullest account we have of the ascension of our Lord. St. Luke appears to have learnt some further particulars concerning it in the interval between writing his Gospel (Luke xxiv. 50—52) and writing the Acts. But allusions to the Ascension are frequent (Mark. xvi. 19; John vi. 62: xx. 17; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. iv. 8,9; Phil. ii. 9: Col. ili. 1; 1 Tim. iii. 16; 1 Pet, iii, 22. etc.). With reference to Zeller’s assertion, that in St. Luke’s Gospel the Ascension is represented as taking place on the day of the Resurrection, it may freely be admitted that the narrative in the Gospel does not mark distinctly the interval of time between the different appearances and discourses of our Lord from the day of the Resurrection to that of the Ascension. It seems to group them according to their logical connection rather than according to their chronological sequence, and to be a general account of what Jesus said between the Resurrection and the Ascension. But there is nothing whatever in the text of St. Luke to indicate that what is related in the section xxiv. 44— 49 took place at the same time as the things related in the preceding verses. And when we compare with that section what is con- tained in ch. i. 4, 5, it becomes clear that itdid not. Because the words “ assembling together with them,” in yer. 4, clearly indi- cate a different occasion from the apparitions on the day of the Resurrection ; and as the words in Luke xxiy. 44—49 correspond with in ch. i. 4, 5, it must have been also different occasion that th: y were Again, the narrative of St. J yin, both in the twentieth and the twenty-first chapters, as well as that of Matt. xxviii. 10, 16; Mark xvi. 7, precludes the possi- bility of the Ascension having taken place, or having been thought to have taken place, on the day of the Resurrection, or for many days after, so that to force a meaning upon the last chapter of St. Luke’s Gospel which it does not necessarily bear, and which places it at variance with St. Luke’s own account in the Acts (i. 3; xiii. 31), and with the Church traditions as preserved by St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. John, is a violent and wilful transaction. Ver. 12.—Nigh unto for from, those On a spoken. Be ¥: ; journey off for journey, A.V. Olivet, from the Vulgate Olivetum. The particular Greek form ’EAawy, Eleon, occurs in the New Testament only here. In Luke xix. 29; xxi. 37, according to the T.R., and that fol- lowed in the R.V., it is "EAad@v, of Olives. But as St. Luke usually has 7d dpos tay *EAaia@y When he speaks of it as ** the Mount of Olives” (Luke xix. 37; xxii. 39), and as here he calls it Eleon, which is its name inTHE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. lox. 1. 1-—26; Josephus (‘Jud. Ant.,’ vii. 9, 2; see too xx. 8, 6), it seems probable that in Luke. xix. 29; xxi. 27, we ought to read, with Lach- mann and Tischendorf (see Meyer on Luke xix. 29),’EAadv, Elwon, Olivet. In the Old Mestament, in 2 oam.-xv. 30, it is **the ascent of the Olives” (A.V., “ the ascent of Mount Olivet”); in Zech. xiv. 4, “ the Mount of Olives.” A sabbath day’s journey off; z.e. six, or according to Schleusner, seven and a half, furlongs (or two thousand cubits). Josephus (‘Jud. Ant.,’ xx. 8, 6) calls it “five furlongs,” but he only measured to the foot of the hill, whereas St. Luke gives the distance from the spot whence Christ ascended. Bethany itself, according to John xi. 18, was fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem. Ver. 13.—The upper chainber for an upper room, A.V.; where they were abiding for where abode, A.V.; son of James for brother of James, A.V. The upper chamber; perhaps the same room where they had eaten the Passover with Christ (Luke xxii. 12); but this is very uncertain, though affirmed by Lipiphanius, and by Nicephorus, who further relates that the very house in which the upper chamber was was built into the back part of the temple which the Empress Helena erected on Mount Sion. The word here is brepgov, there it is avwyeov. The imepgov (Hebrew 77), 2 Kings tv. HO. EL) was the room immediately under the roof ; the avéyeov was synonymous. Where they were abiding. A slight change in the order of the words, as adopted in the text of the be Ue Matt. x. 2— Mark iii. 16—19. 1. Simon Peter 1. Simon Peter 2. Andrew 2. James 3. James 3. J Onn 4, John 4, Andrew 5. Philip d. Philip 6. Bartholomew G6. Bartholomew 7. Thomas 7. Matthew 8. Matthew 8. Thomas 9, James son of Al- 9. James son of Al- pheeus pheeus 10. Thaddeeus 10. Thaddeeus 11. Simon the Cana- 11. Simon the Cana- nean nean 12. Judas Iscariot 12. Judas Iscariot Ver. 14.—With one accord continued steadfastly for continued with one accord, A.V.; prayer for prayer and supplication, A.V. and T.R. The women, St. Luke, in his Gospel, makes frequent mention of the women who followed our Lord, and gencrally of things that happened to women (see Tmke xxi. 27, 49, 55; xxiv." 10, 22, etc. See also Luke vii. 37, etc.; vill. 23; x. 38, 45: etce.). We notice the same tendency in the Acts, here, and in ch. ii, 17, 18; v. R.V., makes Peter and the other apostles the nominative case to the verb “ went up,” instead of, as in the A.V., to “abode.” In regard to the list of the apostles which follows, it may be noticed first, that it is iden- tical with that of Luke vi. 1416, except in the omission of Judas Iscariot and the order in which the apostles are named. ‘The order in Lukeseems to have followed that of natural birth and association. The brothers, Peter and Andrew, James and John, are classed to- gether; Philip and Bartholomew, or Natha- nael, eo together, and soon. But in this list John follows Peter, his close companicn in missionary work (ch. iii. 1, ete.; iv. 12; vill. 14); James follows instead of preceding John; and others are classed somewhat differently, for reasons probably analogous, but which we know not. Of the other lists that in Mark iii. 16—19 agrees most nearly with that before us. In all, Simon Peter stands first. The Jude of Luke vi. 16 (comp. Jude 1) and ch. i. 13 is called Thaddeus in Matt. x. 3 (‘* Lebbseus whose surname was Thaddeus,’ A.V.) and in Mark iii. 18; but no doubt the persons are the same. In all the lists Philip stands fifth. In three Bartholomew is sixth, while in the list in Acts his being named after Thomas makes him seventh. In all the lists James the son of Alpheus is ninth, and Judas Iscariot the last, except in the Acts, where he is not named, being already dead. The underwritten columns give the four lists in one view :— nA Re uke yi. 14—16. Simon Peter Apis 1: LS: . Simon Peter 2, Andrew 2. John 3. James 3. James 4, John 4. Andrew 5. Philip do. Philip 6. Bartholomew 6. Thomas 7. Matthew 7. Bartholomew 8. Thomas 8. Matthew 9. James son of Al- 9. James son of Al- pheeus pheeus 10. Simon the Zealot 10. Simon the Zealot 11. Judas, theson, or 11. Jude, the son, or brother, of James brother, of James 12. Judas Iscariot 41x, o6 f xi 13: xvi. 14 16% xvii. 4°94: Kills LO" Ek Oe RR, AE Xxve 2S ete, Mary the mother of Jesus appears here not as an object of worship, but as humbly joining in the prayers of the Church. And with his brethren. The Lord’s brethren are spoken of by name in Matt. xiii. 55 as “ James, and Joses [‘ Joseph, R.V.], and Simon, and Judas.” So also Mark vi. 3 (see too ch. iv. 31—35). “James the Lord’s brother’ is mentioned by St. PaulCH. I. 1—26. | PHEE ACTS OF THE, APOSTLES 5 (Gal. i. 19); “ the brethren of the Lord ” are mentioned 1 Cor. ix. 5; and again in John vil. 3, 5, 10, “tie brethren of Jesus” are spoken of. This is not the place to enter upon the difficult question of their parentage. But it may suffice to say that if James and Judas are the two apostles of that name (which Alford, however, thinks they cer- tainly were not, referring to John vii. 5, compared with vi. 67), then the brethren here spoken of as distinct from the apostles would be Joses and Simon. Ver. 15.—These for those, A.V.; brethren for disciples, A.V. and T.R.; and there was a multitude of persons gathered together for the number of names together were, A.V.; a for an, A.V. Peter justifies his primacy by taking the lead in the first onward movye- ment of the Church. Names is a common Hebraism for “persons” (see Rev. iii. 4; Numb. i. 2). Gathered together ; z.e. to one place and at one time (see the same phrase, ch. ii. 1, 44). Wordsworth quotes Ignat., ‘Ad Maenes’ vii, and Clem. Rom. i. 4, where the same phrase, ém) 7d aird, indicative of Church unity occurs. Ver. 16.—Brethren, it was needful that the Scripture should be fulfilled for men and brethren, this Scripture must needs have been fulfilled, A.V.; spake before by the mouth of David for by the mouth of David spake before, A.V. It was needful, etc. So our Lord de- clared, “The Scriptures cannot be broken” (John x. 35); and “ All things must be ful- filled which were written,” etc. (Luke xxiy. 25—27, 44—46). Itis most important to our Christian integrity that we should view the Scriptures in the same light as our Lord and his apostles did, as containing real prophecies, spoken by the Holy Ghost. (Compare the manner in which the sixty-ninth psalm is here quoted with that of Heb. iii. 7.) So the Creed, “I believe in the Holy Ghost, . who spake by the prophets” (comp. ch. iv. 25; xxvill. 25). Who was guide, etc. If St. Peter had only been addressing his brother apostles, who were well acquainted with the treachery of Judas, it would scarcely have been natural to introduce these words; they would have seemed rather to be explanatory words added by the historian. But the circumstances might be very imperfectly known to many of the hundred and twenty brethren assembled on this occasion; and if so, the reference to Judas’s treachery would not be out of place in St. Peter’s mouth. Ver. 17.—A mong for with, A.V. ; received his portion in for had obtained part of, A.V. For he was numbered, etc. This is said in order to show that the passage in the Psalms applied strictly to Judas, seeing he had held his portion in the ministry and office of an apostle (see John vi. 71). His portion; literally, his lot; i.e, the portion which fell to him by lot. The language is taken from the Old Testament (see e.g. Josh. xviii. 10, 11; xix. 1, 10, etc.). Those who received such a portion (KAjpov) were clergy. Ver. 18.—Obtained for purchased, A.V., an unnecessary change; his iniquity for iniquity, A.V. It is obvious that this verse and ver. 19, which are placed in a parenthesis in the R.V., are not part of St. Peter’s discourse, but are explanatory words inserted by St. Luke for the instruction of Theophilus and his other readers. Falling headlong; i.e. from the tree or gallows on which he hung himself (see Matt. xxvii. 3—8). The only apparent discrepancies in the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke in regard to the purchase of the field, and the name given to it, are that, according to St. Matthew’s more detailed account, it was the chief priests who actually purchased the field with Judas’s money, whereas St. Lukesays, less accurately, that Judas purchased it. Again, St. Matthew explains the name Akel-damaas being given to the field because it was the price of the “innocent blood” of Jesus betrayed by Judas, whereas St. Luke’s account rather suggests that it was Judas’s own blood shed in his fall which gave the name. But both accounts of the name might be true, some understanding the name in one sense and some in the other. (Compare the different accounts of the name of Beer-sheba in Gen. XXI, Ol and xxvii. 32, 339 of the onein of the proverb, “ Is Saul among the prophets?” L Sam. x. 1), 12 and. xx. 24> and ofhe: similar cases.) Though, however, there is no serious discrepancy between St. Luke and St. Matthew, it is probable, from the variations above named, that St. Luke had not seen St. Matthew’s account. Ver. 19.—Became known for was known, A.V.; that in their language that field was called Akeldama for as that field is called in their proper tonque, Aceldama, A.V. and T.R. Ver. 20.—Made desolate for desolate, A.V.; office (as in margin) for bishopric, A.V. The book of Psalms, one of the recognized divi- sions of the canonical Scriptures, as we find Luke xxiy. 44, “ The law of Moses, and the prophets, and the psalms,” the last standing for the Hagiographa, of which it was the first and principal book. Here, however, as in Luke xx. 42, it may rather mean the Book of Psalms proper. (or similar quotations from the Psalms, see ch. xiii. 33—35; Heb. i, ii, iii, iv., v., X., etc.) His office let another take. Bishop being the English translitera- tion of éickomos, bishopric is, of course, the literal rendering of émicxomf; if taken in its wider and more general sense, as in the well-known work of Archdeacon Evans, “the bishopric of souls.” ‘This same oflice is called a 8akovla (a deaconship), and amootoAy (an apostleship) in yers, 17 and® 6 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. [cH. 1. 1—2 25. So St. Paul calls himself Sdxovos (a | of the name Barsabas, or Barsabbas, is Woh i Bo: 25. etc. are called A, Bue, ). minister) in Eph. iii. 7; So the presbyters of the Church Disnops (ch. xx. 7,283 1 Vim. i. unknown; it seems to be a patronymic (son of Sabas, or Sabbas), like Bar-Tholomew, Bar- Jonas, Bar-Jesus, etc. But it might also be The ecclesiastical names for the different | descriptive of his qualities, like Bar-nabas, offices in the Church only acquired their | Son of Consolation (ch. iv. 36),in which case distinctive use later, and by the gradual | one would expect it to mean the same as growth of custom. In-° the Septuagint, Justus, as in the case of ‘* Thomas called Di- emiskor? answers to the Hebrew 3p a, | dymus” (John xx.4; where Thomas and Di- A.V., “oversight” (Numb, iii.. 32; iv, 16, | dymus both mean “a twin”); but no Aramean ete.). | word of thissignificationis forthcoming. The Ver. 21.—Of the men therefore for where- fore of these men, A.V.; went out for out, A. V. Ver. 22.—The day for that same day, A.V. received for taken, A.V.; of these must one become for must one be ordained to be, A.V. Beginning belongs to the Lord Jesus. Ue began to go in and out among his apostles from the time that John baptized, and con- tinued to do so till his ascension, the day that he was received up (“taken up,” A.V.), surname Justus, with its derivatives Justinus and Justinianus, was not an uncommon Roman name, It was also borne by a Jewish historian contemporary with Josephus, Justus of Tiberias, the son of Pistus (see ‘ Life of Josephus,’ §§ 85, 65) and was the surname of James the Less. Matthias, not otherwise known, but said by Nicephorus to have preached and suffered martyrdom in E thiopia. Eusebius (‘ H. E.,’ iii. 24) mentions spurious Thomas, Matthias, and asin ver. 11. This definition of the time of | Gospels “of Pet our Lord’s public ministry exactly agrees | others,” as pd by heretics. A work with Matt. iv. 12—25: Mark i.; Luke iij., | called ‘The Traditions of Matthias’ is re- iv.; John i. 29—51. Must one become a | ferred to by Clemens Alexandrinus (‘Strom.,’ witness, etc. The resurrection of Christ | 1. 163). from the dead thus appears to be a cardinal Ver. 24.—Of these two the one whom for doctrine of the gospel. The whole truth | whether of these two, A.V. and T.R. cf Christ’s mission, the acceptance of his Ver. 25.—To take the place in this for sacrifice, the consequent forgiveness of sins, and all man’s hopes of eternal life, turn upon it. All the sermons of the apostles recorded in the Acts and the Epistles also fi ll that he may take part of this, A.V. and T.R.; away for by transgression fell, A.V. (map