« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
t ver. 17.
called "Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. rch. xv. 22.
y render, appoint one of these two, him whom thou hast chosen.
b read and render, cast lots for them. dition of Apostleship. Still, the testimony Lord being used : see ch. iv. 29, where unwas not to be mere ordinary allegation of questionably the Father is so addressed : matters of fact : any who had seen the but the expression, thou hast chosen, comLord since His resurrection were equal pared with Did I not choose you twelve ? to this ;—but belonged to a distinct office John vi. 70, seems to me almost decisive. (see John xiv. 26: also ch. v. 31, note), See also ver. 2; Luke vi. 13; John xiii. 18, requiring the especial selection and grace xv. 16, 19. The instance cited on the other of God. 23. they appointed] they, side by Meyer, “ God made choice”...., viz. the whole company, to whom the words ch. xv. 7, is not to the point, as not relating had been spoken; not the eleven Apostles. to the matter here in hand; nor are the
Joseph ....] The names Joseph and passages cited by De Wette, 2 Cor. i. 1; Joses, different forms of the same, are Eph. i. 1; 2 Tim. i. 1, where Paul refers confused in the MSS., both here and in ch. his apostleship to God, since obviously iv. 36. But Barsabas and Barnabas are all such appointment must be referred not to be confounded : they are different ultimately to God :- but the question names (Barsabas is son of Saba : on Bar. for us is, - In these words, did ihe disnabas, see iv. 36, note); and Barnabas is ciples pray as they would have prayed evidently introduced in iv. 36 as a person before the Ascension, or had they Christ who had not been mentioned before. Of in their view ? The expression, which Joseph Barsabas, nothing further is known. knowest the hearts of all men (used by There is a Judas Barsabas mentioned in Peter himself of God, ch. xv. 8), forms no ch. xv. 22, whom some take to be his objection : see John xxi. 17, also in the brother. Eusebius states, on the authority mouth of Peter himself. We are sure, of Papias, that he drank a cup of poison from the words, they worshipped Him, without being hurt.- In all probability Luke xxiv. 52, that even at this time, beboth the selected persons belonged to the fore the descent of the Spirit, the highest number of the Seventy, as it would be kind of worship was paid to the ascended natural that the candidates for apostleship Redeemer. Still I do not regard it as by should be chosen from among those who any means certain that they addressed had been already distinguished by Christ Christ, nor can the passage be alleged as Himself among the brethren.--Justus (the convincing, in controversy with the SoJust) is a Roman second name, assumed cinian. The words are not, as in according to a custom then prevalent. The E. V., 'shew whether of these two Thou name Justus seems to have been common: hast chosen,' but appoint one of these two Schöttgen, on this place, gives two instances shim] whom Thou hast chosen. The of Jews bearing it. Matthias] Nothing difference is of some import: they did not historical is known of him. Traditionally, pray for a sign merely, to shew whether of according to Nicephorus, he suffered mar the two was chosen, but that the Lord tyrdom in Æthiopia ; according to others, would, by means of their lot, Himself apin Colchis: another account makes him point the one of His choice. 25.] preach in Judæa, and be stoned by the Jews. the place, instead of part, is from internal
24.] It is a question, to Whom this evidence, as well as MS. authority, the prayer was directed. I think all proba preferable reading. It has been altered bility is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter to suit ver. 17. . ministry, implying certainly was the spokesman) having ad. the active duties; apostleship, the official dressed his glorified Lord. And with this dignity, of the office. that he might the language of the prayer agrees. No go to his own place] With the reading stress can, it is true, be laid on the word place in the former part of the verse,
a Lev. xxiii. 15.
their lots ; and the lot fell upon Matthias ; and he was
numbered with the eleven apostles. "Deut. sti. . II. 1 And d when a the day of Pentecost was fully come,
C literally, voted in amongst.
ch. xx. 16.
I think these words may be interpreted two this. — Stier was disposed to question ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our whether this step of electing a twelfth place, our office and ministry, to go to his Apostle was altogether suitable to the then own place, that part which he had chosen waiting position of the Church, and whether for himself, viz. the office and character of Paul was not in reality the twelfth, chosen a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding by the Lord Himself. But I do not see the former word place as being selected to that any of his seven queries touch the correspond to the more proper and dreadful matter. We have the precedent, of all use of the word here, that Judas deserted others most applicable, of the twelve tribes, his appointed place, here among us, that he to shew that the number, though ever might go to his own appointed place else. nominally kept, was really exceeded. And where, viz. among the dead in the place of this incident would not occupy a prominent torment. Of these two interpretations, I place in a book where St. Paul himself has very much prefer the second, on all ac- so conspicuous a part, unless it were by counts; as being more according to the himself considered as being what it pro. likely usage of the word, and as more befit- fessed to be, the filling up of the vacant ting the solemnity of such a prayer. At Apostleship. the same time, no absolute sentence is pro- CHAP. II. 1-4.7 THE OUTPOURING OF nounced on the traitor, but that dark sur THE HOLY SPIRIT ON THE DISCIPLES. mise expressed by the phrase his own place, 1.] while the day of Pentecost was being which none can help feeling with regard fulfilled: “during the progress of that to him. To understand whe” of Judas's particular day :" necessitated by the pres. successor,- that he (the new Apostle) might tense. In sense, it amounts to ' then the enter on his own place of dignity destined day of Pentecost was fully come,' as A. V. for him by God, (i) is contrary to the form
the day of Pentecost] The fiftieth of the sentence in the original; (2) is in- day (inclusive) after the sixteenth of Nisan, consistent with the words, which are un the second day of the Passover (Levit. xxii. exampled in this sense ; (3) would divest 16),-called in Exodus xxiii. 16, the feast a sentence, evidently solemn and pregnant, of harvest,'-in Deut. xvi. 10, the feast of all point and meaning, and reduce it to of weeks :'-one of the three great feasts, a mere tautology. It appears to have been wheu all the males were required to appear very early understood as above; for Cle. at Jerusalem, Deut. xvi. 16. At this time, ment of Rome says of Peter, “Thus having it was simply regarded as the feast of borne a martyr's testimony, he went to his harvest: among the later Jews, it was appointed place of glory, an expression considered as the anniversary of the giving evidently borrowed from our text. Light of the law from Sinai. This inference was foot quotes from a Rabbinical work on apparently grounded on a comparison of Numb. xxv. 25, “ Balaam went to his Exod. xi. 2 and xix. 1. Josephus and own place,” i. e. “ to hell.” 26. they Philo know nothing of it, and it is at the cast lots for them] These lots were pro. best very uncertain. Chrysostom's reason bably tablets, with the names of the per for the event happening when it did is son's written on them, and shaken in a probably the true one: “It was fitting vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Prov. xvi. that this should take place on the recur33); he whose lot first leaped out being rence of a feast : that they who had been the person designated. was voted in present at the cross of Christ might see amongst the eleven apostles] The lot this also." The question, on rohat day of being regarded as the divine choice, the the week this day of Pentecost was, is beset suffrages of the assembly were unanimously with the difficulties attending the question given (not in form, but by cheerful ac- of our Lord's last passover; see notes on quiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, Matt. xxvi. 17, and John xviii. 28. It and he was 'voted in ’ among the eleven appears probable however that it was on Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth. That St. Luke the Sabbath, -i. e. if we reckon from does not absolutely say so, and never after- Saturday, the 16th of Nisan. Wieseler wards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is supposes that the Western Church altered surely no safe ground on which to doubt the celebration of it to the first day of the
ch. x. 46:
b they were alle with one accord in one place. 2 And bch. i. 14. suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were c ch. iv. 31. sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And a chals 5
e Mark xvi. 17. d they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began fit. 6. 11 Cor. e to speak with other tongues, ' as the Spirit gave them in
xiv. 2, &c. e read, together.
f render, even as. week, in conformity with her observ. a sound as of a rashing mighty wind. It ance of Easter on that day. If we take was the sound as of a violent blowing, borne the second day of the Passover as Sunday, onward, which accompanied the descent of the 17th of Nisan, which some have inferred the Holy Spirit. To treat this as a natural from John xviii. 28, the day of Pentecost phænomenon,-even supposing that phænowill fall on the first day of the week. menon miraculously produced, as the earth
they were all together in one quake at the crucifixion,-is contrary to place] Not the Apostles only, nor the the text, which does not describe it as a hundred and twenty mentioned ch. i. 15; sound of a rushing mighty wind, but a sound but all the believers in Christ, then con- as of a rushing mighty wind. It was the gregated at the time of the feast in Je chosen vehicle by which the Holy Spirit rusalem. The former is manifest from ver. was manifested to their sense of hearing, 14, when Peter and the eleven stand for. as by the longues of fire to their sense of ward and allude to the rest as these: seeing. it filled all the house7 Cerand the latter follows on the former being tainly Luke would not have used this granted. Both are confirmed by the uni. word of a chamber in the Temple, or of versality of the promise cited by Peter, ver. the Temple itself, without further explana17 ff. See Chrysostom below, on ver. 4. tion. Our Lord, it is true, calls the Temple
together: the other but not so well “your house,” Matt. xxiii. 38,—and Josesupported reading, “with one accord,” im- phus informs us that Solomon's Temple was plies more, viz. that their purpose, as well furnished with thirty small houses (or as their locality, was the same. in rooms), and that over these were other one place Where? evidently not in the houses; but to suppose either usage here, temple, or any part of it. The impro- seems to me very far-fetched and unpatural. bability of such an assemblage, separate 3. cloven tongues like as of fire] They and yet so great, in any of the rooms were not of fire, as not possessing the burnattached to the temple,- the words "all ing power of fire, but only as it were of fire, the house” in ver. 2 (where see note),the in appearance like that element. it sat, notice, that “the multitude came together,” viz. the appearance; not the Spirit, nor ver. 6,- the absence of any mention of the tongue, but the appearance described the temple,-all these are against such a in the preceding clause. I understand the supposition. Obviously no à priori con- word sat as usually interpreted, lighted on sideration such as Olshausen alleges, that their heads. This also was no effect of “ thus the solemn inauguration of the natural cause, either ordinarily or extraChurch of Christ becomes more im- ordinarily employed : see on ver. 2. posing by happening in the holy place of 4.] On the word all, Chrysostom says, “The the Old Covenant," can apply to the en. Evangelist would not have said all, the quiry. Nor can the statement that they Apostles being there, bad not the rest also were “continually in the temple,” Luke been partakers.” began to speak with xxiv. 53, apply here (see above on ch. i. other tongues] There can be no question 13); for even if it be assumed that the in any unprejudiced mind, that the fact hour of prayer was come (which it hardly which this narrative sets before us is, that could have been, seeing that some time the disciples began to speak in VARIOUS must have elapsed between the event and LANGUAGES, viz. the languages of the Peter's speech), the disciples would not nations below enumerated, and perhaps have been assembled separately, but would, others. All attempts to evade this are conas Peter and John, in ch. ii. i, have gone nected with some forcing of the text, or up, mingled with the people. See more some far-fetched and indefensible explanabelow. 2.] The words of the description tion. This then being laid down, several could not be better rendered than in Å. V., important questions arise, and we are sur
utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem
rounded by various difficulties. (1) Was them to be drunken. (4) I would not conceal this speaking in various languages a gift the difficulty which our minds find in conbestowed on the disciples for their use ceiving a person supernaturally endowed afterwards, or was it a mere sign, their with the power of speaking, ordinarily and utterance being only as they were mouth. consciously, a language which he has never pieces of the Holy Spirit ? The latter learned. But there is to my mind no such seems certainly to have been the case. It difficulty, in conceiving a man to be moved appears on our narrative, even as the to utterance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. But, it may Spirit. And the fact is clearly laid down be objected, in that case they would not by St. Paul, that the gift of speaking in themselves understand what they said. tongues, and that of interpreting, were I answer, that we infer this very fact from wholly distinct. So that the above diffi1 Cor. xiv.; that the speaking with tongues culty finds no place here, nor even in the was often found, where none could inter- case of a person both speaking and inpret what was said. And besides, it would terpreting: see 1 Cor. xiv. 13.-On the appear from Peter's speech, that such, or question whether the speaking was necessomething approaching to it, was the case sarily always in a foreign tongue, we have in this instance. He makes no allusion to no data to guide us: it would seem that the things said by those who spoke with it was; but the conditions would not tongues; the hearers alone speak of their absolutely exclude rhapsodical and undeclaring the wonderful works of God. intelligible utterance. Only there is this So that it would seem that here, as on objection to it: clearly, languages were other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 22), tongues spoken on this occasion,-and we have no were for a sign, not to those that believe, reason to believe that there were two disbut to those that believe not. If the first tinct kinds of the gift. (5) It would be supposition be made, that the gift of speak quite beyond the limits of a note to give ing in various languages was bestowed on any adequate history of the explanations of the disciples for their after-use in preach the passage. A very short summary must ing the Gospel, we are, I think, running suffice. (a) The idea of a gift of speaking counter to the whole course of Scripture in various languages having been conferred and the evidence of the early fathers on for the dissemination of the Gospel, ap. the subject. There is no trace whatever pears not to have originated, until the gift of such a power being possessed or exercised of tongues itself had some time disappeared by the Apostles (see ch. xiv. 11, 14) or by from the Church. Chrysostom adopts it, those who followed them. I believe, there and the great majority of the Fathers and fore, the event related in our text to have expositors. (6) Some, both in ancient and been a sudden and powerful inspiration of in modern times, have supposed that the the Holy Spirit, by which the disciples miracle consisted in the multitude hearing uttered, not of their own minds, but as in various languages that which the bemouth-pieces of the Spirit, the praises of lievers spoke in their native tongue: that God in various languages, hitherto, and one language was spoken, but many rere possibly at the time itself, unknown to them. heard. To this it may be replied, as is (2) How is this “speaking with other done by Gregory Nazianzen, that “thus tongues” related to the "speaking with the miracle would be wrought, not on tongues” (or, “with a tongue”) afterwards the speakers, but on the hearers.” This spoken of by St. Paul ?" I answer, that view, besides, would make a distinction they are one and the same thing. See this between this instance of the gift and those further proved in notes on 1 Cor. xiv. subsequently related, which we have seen Meantime I may remark, that the two are does not exist. On the courses taken by inseparably connected by the following the modern German expositors, see note in links,-ch. x. 46, xi. 15,-xix. 6,-in which my Greek Test. even as (i.e. 'in suck last we have the same juxta-position of measure and manner in each case as') the speaking with tongues and prophesying as Spirit granted to them to speak (bestowed afterwards in 1 Cor. xiv. 1-5 il. (3) on them utterance)] The words rendered Who were those that partook of this gift? gave them utterance have been supposed I answer, the whole assembly of believers, here to imply that they uttered short from Peter's application of the prophecy, ejaculatory sentences of praise. But this vv. 16 ff. It was precisely the case sup. seems to be unfounded : and our word to posed in 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The unlearned and utter, to speak out, seems exactly to render unbelievers of that passage were represented it. Their utterance was none of their own, by the others of our ver. 13, who pronounced but the simple gift and inspiration of the
devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now 8 when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them h speak in his own language. 7 And they were hh all amazed and marvelled, saying hh one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak 'Galilæans ? 8 And how hear we every Sch. i. 11. man in our own tongue, wherein we were born ? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in
& render, when this sound (literally, voice) took place.
h render, speaking. Holy Spirit : see above. 5.] De Wette So that we may safely decide for the former maintains that these dwellers at Jerusalem reference. The noise of the rushing mighty cannot have been persons sojourning for wind was heard over all the neighbourhood, the sake of the feast, but residents : but probably over all Jerusalem. the mulsee above on ver. 1. I see no objection to titude] including the scoffers of ver. 13, as including both residents and sojourners in well as the pious strangers : but these latter the term, which only specifies their then only are here regarded in the description residence. devout men] Not in refer- that they were confounded, and that every ence to their having come up to the feast, man heard &c. On these latter words, see nor to their dwelling from religious motives above on ver. 4. Each one heard them at Jerusalem, but stated as imparting a speaking-i. e. either various disciples character and interest to what follows. Speaking various tongues, each in some one They were not merely vain and curious only: or the same persons speaking now listeners, but men of piety and weight. one, now another, tongue. The foriner is
out of every nation under heaven] more probable, although the latter seems to Not perhaps used so much hyperbolically, agree with some expressions in 1 Cor, xiv., as with reference to the significance of the e.g. ver. 18. were confounded] The whole event. As they were samples each same word, both in the LXX and in our of their different people, so collectively English version, is used in Gen. xi. 9. they represented all the nations of the 7.] They were not, literally, all Galilæans; world, who should hear afterwards in their but certainly the greater part were so, own tongues the wonderful works of God. and all the Apostles and leading persons,
6.] Whatever this sound (literally, who would probably be the prominent voice) may mean, one thing is clear,--that speakers. 8-11.] As regards the cata. it cannot mean, this rumour' (' when this logue here given,- of course it cannot have was noised abroad,' A. V.): which would been thus delivered as part of a speech by be unexampled. We have then to choose any hearer on the occasion, but is inserted between two things to which the word into a speech expressing the general sense voice, or sound, might refer :-(1) the of what was said, and put, according to “sound as of a mighty rushing wind” of the usage of all narrative, into the mouths ver. 2, which would hardly be used of a of all. The words in our own tongue speaking which was still going on when (literally, dialect), wherein we were born the multitude assembled ;- and (2) the are very decisive as to the nature of the speaking with tongues of ver. 4. To this miracle. The hearers could not have thus reference, besides the objection just stated, spoken, had they been spiritually uplifted there is also another, that the voices of a into the comprehension of some ecstatic number of men, especially when diverse as language spoken by the disciples. They in this case, would not be indicated by the were not spiritually acted on at all, but singular number, voice, but by voices: spoke the matter of fact : they were surcomp. St. Luke's own usage, even when prised at each recognizing, so far from his the voices cried out the same thing, Luke country, and in the mouths of Galilæans, xxiii. 23, “ They were instant with loud his own native tongue. 9. Parthians voices, requiring that he might be cru. The catalogue proceeds from the N. E. to cified. And the voices of them and of the the W. and S. Mede notices, that it chief priests prevailed.” And when he follows the order of the three great disuses the singular, he explains it, as in ch. persions of the Jews, the Chaldæan, Asxix. 34, “ All with one voice ... cried out." syrian, and Egyptian. Medes] Media,