Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》
Download 4.82 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they crying out with a loud voice, came out
- This man is the power of God which is called great
6. προσεῖχον …] If this place was Sychem, the narrative in John 4 will fully account for the readiness with which these people received the κήρυγμα τοῦ χριστοῦ—‘the proclamation of the Christ.’ Verse 7
7.] According to the reading in the text, which is too strongly upheld by manuscript authority to be rejected for the easier ordinary one, πολλαί is a ‘nominativus pendens’ (compare ch. Acts 7:40; Revelation 3:12. Winer, edn. 6, § 29. 1), For in the case of many who had unclean spirits, they crying out with a loud voice, came out: ἐξήρχοντο being plur., as often when the neuter plural betokens living agents; see Winer, edn. 6, § 58. 3, a. β. πολλοί has probably been altered to πολλῶν, to agree with τῶν ἐχόντων, on the difficulty being perceived. Verse 9
Justin goes on to relate that he was worshipped as a God at Rome in the time of Claudius Cæsar, on account of his magical powers, and had a statue on the island in the Tiber, inscribed ‘Simoni Deo Sancto.’ Singularly enough, in the year 1574, a stone was found in the Tiber (or standing on the island in the year 1662, according to the Dict. of Biogr. and Myth.), with the inscription SEMONI SANCO DEO FIDIO SACRVM, i.e. to the God Semo Sancus, the Sabine Hercules, which makes it probable that Justin may have been misled. The history of Simon is full of legend and fable. The chief sources of it are the Recognitiones and Clementina of the pseudo-Clemens. He is there said to have studied at Alexandria, and to have been, with the heresiarch Dositheus, a disciple of John the Baptist. Of Dositheus he became first the disciple, and then the successor. Origen (in Matt. Comm. § 33, vol. iii. p. 851) makes Dositheus also a Samaritan: so also contra Cels. i. 57, vol. i. p. 372, and Hom. xxv. in Luc. vol. iii. p. 962. His own especial followers (Simoniani) had dwindled so much in the time of Origen, that he says νυνὶ δὲ τοὺς πάντας ἐν τῇ οἰκουμένῃ οὐκ ἔστι σιμωνιανοὺς εὑρεῖν τὸν ἀριθμὸν οἶμαι τριάκοντα. καὶ τάχα πλείονας εἶπον τῶν ὄντων, contra Cels. ubi supra; see also ib. vi. 11, p. 638, and περὶ ἀρχῶν, iv. 17, p. 176. In the Becognitiones and the Clementina are long reports of subsequent controversies between Simon Magus and Peter, of which the scene is laid at Cæsarea. According to Arnobius (adv. Gentes, ii. 12, p. 828 ed. Migne), the Constt. Apostol. (ii. 14, p. 620; vi. 9, p. 932 ed. Migne), and Cyril of Jerusalem, he met with his death at Rome, having, during an encounter with Peter, raised himself into the air by the aid of evil spirits, and being precipitated thence at the prayer of Peter and Paul. [I saw in the church of S. Francesca Romana in the forum, a stone with two dents in it and this inscription, “On this stone rested the knees of S. Peter when the dæmons carried Simon Magus through the air.”] The fathers generally regard him as the founder of Gnosticism: this may be in some sense true: but, from the very little authentic information we possess, it is impossible to ascertain how far he was identified with their tenets. Origen (contra Cels. v. 62, p. 625) distinctly denies that his followers were Christians in any sense: λανθάνει τὸν κέλσον, ὅτι οὐδαμῶς τὸν ἰησοῦν ὁμολογοῦσιν υἱὸν θεοῦ σιμωνιανοί, ἀλλὰ δύναμιν θεοῦ λέγουσι τὸν σίμωνα. μαγεύων] Not to be joined with προϋπῆρχεν (as in E. V. and Kuin.), which belongs to ἐν πόλει: exercising magic arts, such as then were very common in the East and found wide acceptance; impostors taking advantage of the very general expectation of a Deliverer at this time, to set themselves up by means of such trickeries as ‘some great ones.’ We have other examples in Elymas (ch. 13): Apollonius of Tyana; and somewhat later, Alexander of Abonoteichos: see these latter in Dict. of Biogr. and Myth. τινὰ μέγαν] Probably not in such definite terms as his followers later are represented as putting into his mouth: ‘Ego sum sermo Dei … ego paracletus, ego omnipotens, ego omnia Dei.’ Jerome on Matthew 24:5, vol. vii. p. 193. Verse 10
10. ἡ δύν. τ. θ. ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη] Neander (l. c.) and Meyer think that they must have referred to the λόγος, the creating and governing manifestation of God so much spoken of in the Alexandrine philosophy (see extracts from Philo in note on John 1:1. The term, but by no means with the same idea, was adopted by the Spirit, speaking by John, as belonging to the Son of God: see the same note, end), and must have regarded Simon as an incarnation of the λόγος (the μητρόπολις πασῶν τῶν δυνάμεων τοῦ θεοῦ, Philo), so that their erroneous belief would form some preparation for the great truth of an incarnate Messiah, preached by Philip. But to this De W. well replies, that we can hardly suppose the Alexandrine philosophy to have been so familiar to the mass of the people, and refers the expression to their popular belief of a great angel (Chron. Sam. 10), who might, as the angels were called by the Samaritans the powers of God (for which he refers to Reland, de Samar. § 7. Gesen. Theol. Samar. p. 21 ff.), be designated as ἡ δύν. τ. θ. ἡ καλουμένη μεγάλη. καλουμένη rests on such strong manuscript authority, and is so unlikely to have been inserted (the idea of a scholium to indicate the force of the art. (Bloomf.) is quite out of the question, no such scholium being here needed), that both on external and internal grounds it must form part of the text. The lit. rendering will be, This man is the power of God which is called great: the sense, ‘This man is that power of God (see above) which we know as the great one.’ λεγομένη, found in a few later mss., is an explanation of καλ. by a more usual word. Verse 11
11.] ἐξεστακέναι can hardly be as E. V., transitive, “he had bewitched them:” there appears to be no example of the perfect being thus used. Verse 13
13.] ‘Simon saw his followers dropping off, and was himself astounded at the miracles wrought by Philip: he therefore thought it best himself also to acknowledge this superior power. He attached himself to Philip, and was baptized like the rest: but we are not, as the sequel shews, to understand that the preaching of the Gospel had made any impression on his heart, but that he accounted for what he saw in his own fashion. He was convinced, from the works which Philip did, that he was in league with some powerful spirit: he viewed baptism as the initiation into communion with that spirit, and expected that he should be able to make use of the higher power thus gained for his own purposes, and unite this new magical power to his own. All were baptized who professed belief in Jesus as the Messiah: there was therefore no reason for rejecting Simon, considering besides, that from the nature of the case he would for the time have given up his magical practices.’ Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. p. 102. ‘Hoc Simonis exemplo clare patet, non conferri omnibus indifferenter in Baptismo gratiam, quæ illic figuratur. Papistarum dogma est, Nisi quis ponat obicem peccati mortalis, omnes cum signis recipere veritatem et effectum. Ita magicam vim tribuunt Sacramentis, quasi absque fide prosint. Nos autem sciamus offerri nobis a Domino per Sacramenta quicquid sonant annexæ promissiones, et non frustra nec inaniter offerri, modo fide ad Christum directi ab ipso petamus quicquid Sacramenta promittunt. Quamvis autem nihil illi tunc profuerit Baptismi receptio, si tamen conversio postea secuta est, ut nonnulli conjiciunt, non extincta fuit nec abolita utilitas. Sæpe enim fit, ut post longum tempus demum operetur Spiritus Dei, quo efficaciam suam Sacramenta proferre incipiant.’ Calvin in loc. Verse 14
PETER,—because to him belonged, in this early part of the Gospel, in a remarkable manner, the first establishing of the church; it was the fulfilment of the promise ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν. It was he who had (in common with all the Apostles, it is true, but in this early period more especially committed to him) τὰς κλεῖδας τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν,—who opened the door to the 3000 on the day of Pentecost, now (as a formal and ratifying act) to the Samaritans, and in ch. 10 to the Gentiles. So far, is plain truth of Scripture history. The monstrous fiction begins, when to Peter is attributed a fixed diocese and successors, and to those successors a delegated power more like that ascribed to Simon Magus than that promised to Peter. This is the last time that JOHN appears in the Acts. He is only once more mentioned in the N. T. (except in the Revelation), viz. as having been present in Jerusalem at Paul’s visit, Galatians 2:9. Verses 14-24 14–24.] MISSION OF PETER AND JOHN TO SAMARIA. A question arises on this procedure of the Apostles:—whether it was as a matter of course, that the newly baptized should, by the laying on of hands subsequently, receive the Holy Ghost,—or whether there was in the case of these Samaritans any thing peculiar, which caused the Apostles to go down to them and perform this act. (1) The only analogous case is ch. Acts 19:5-6; in using which we must observe that there it is distinctly asserted that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit followed the laying on of Paul’s hands; and that by the expression ἰδών in Acts 8:18, which must be taken literally, the same is implied here. And on this point the remarks of Calvin are too important to be omitted: ‘Hic occurrit quæstio. Dicit enim tantum fuisse baptizatos in nomine Christi, atque ideo nondum fuisse Spiritus participes. Atqui vel inanem et omni virtute et gratia carere Baptismum oportet, aut a Spiritu sancto habere quicquid efficaciæ habet. In Baptismo abluimur a peccatis: atqui lavacrum nostrum Spiritus sancti opus esse docet Paulus (Titus 3:5). Aqua Baptismi sanguinis Christi symbolum est: atqui Petrus Spiritum esse prædicat, a quo irrigamur Christi sanguine (1 Peter 1:2). In Baptismo crucifigitur vetus noster homo, ut suscitemur in vitæ novitatem (Romans 6:6): unde autem hoc totum, nisi ex sanctificatione Spiritus? Denique Baptismo nihil reliquum fiet, si a Spiritu separetur. Ergo Samaritanos, qui vere Christum in Baptismo induerant, Spiritu quoque vestitos fuisse negandum non est (Galatians 3:27). Et sane Lucas hic non de communi Spiritus gratia loquitur, qua nos sibi Deus in filios regenerat, sed de singularibus illis donis, quibus Dominus initio Evangelii quosdam esse præditos voluit ad ornandum Christi regnum.’ And a little after: … ‘Papistæ, dum ficticiam suam confirmationem extollere volunt, in hanc sacrilegam vocem prorumpere non dubitant, semichristianos esse, quibus manus nondum fuerunt impositæ. (See this asserted by Wordsworth, in loc. p. 40, Colossians 2, bottom.) Hoc jam tolerabile non est, quod quum symbolum hoc temporale esset, ipsi perpetuam legem finxerunt in Ecclesia.… Atqui fateri coguntur ipsi quoque, Ecclesiam nonnisi ad tempus donis istis fuisse ornatam. Unde sequitur, impositionem manuum, qua usi sunt Apostoli, finem habuisse, quum effectus cessavit’ (in loc.). And yet after this, Wordsw. refers to “Calvin here,” “in whose opinion,” says R. Nelson, “this passage in the Acts shews that Confirmation was instituted by the Apostles.” This example may serve to suggest extreme caution in trusting to Wordsw.’s reports of the opinions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. The English church, in retaining the rite of confirmation, has not grounded it on any institution by the Apostles, but merely declared the laying on of hands on the candidates, to certify them (by this sign) of God’s favour and goodness towards them, to be, ‘after the example of the holy Apostles.’ Nor is there any trace in the office, of the conferring of the Holy Ghost by confirmation;—but a distinct recognition of the former reception of the Holy Spirit (at Baptism), and a prayer for the increase of His influence, proportioned to the maturer life now opening on the newly confirmed. (2) If then we have here no institution of a perpetual ordinance, something peculiar to the case before us must have prompted this journey. And here again we have a question: Was that moving cause in the Samaritans, or in Philip? I believe the true answer to the question will be found by combining both. Our Lord’s command (ch. Acts 1:8) had removed all doubt as to Samaria being a legitimate field for preaching, and Samaritan converts being admissible. (So also with regard to Gentile converts,—see ch. 10, notes: but, as the church at this time believed, they must be circumcised, which the Samaritans already were,—and keep the law, which after their manner the Samaritans did.) The sudden appearance, however, of a body of baptized believers in Samaria, by the agency of one who was not one of the Apostles,—while it would excite in them every feeling of thankfulness and joy, would require their presence and power, as Apostles, to perform their especial part as the divinely appointed Founders of the Church. Add to this, that the Samaritans appear to have been credulous, and easily moved to attach themselves to individuals, whether it were Simon, or Philip; which might make the Apostles desirous to be present in person, and examine, and strengthen their faith. Another reason may have been not without its influence: the Jewish church at Jerusalem would naturally for the most part be alienated in mind from this new body of believers. The hatred between Jews and Samaritans was excessive and unrelenting. It would therefore be in the highest degree important that it should be shewn to the church at Jerusalem, that these Samaritans, by the agency of the same Apostles, were partakers of the same visibly testified gifts of the one Spirit. The use of this argument, which was afterwards applied by Peter in the case of the Gentiles, unexpected even by himself, ch. Acts 11:17,—was probably no small part of the purpose of this journey to Samaria. Verse 15
15. προσηύξ.] So laying on of hands is preceded by prayer, ch. Acts 6:6; Acts 13:3. Verse 18
18. ἰδών] Its effects were therefore visible (see above), and consequently the effect of the laying on of the Apostles’ hands was not the inward but the outward miraculous gifts of the Spirit. προσήν. αὐτ. χρήματα] De W. excellently remarks, ‘He regarded the capability of imparting the Holy Spirit,—rightly, as something conferred, as a derived power (see ref. Matt.), but wrongly, as one to be obtained by an external method, without an inward disposition: and, since in external commerce every thing may be had for gold, he wanted to buy it. This is the essence of the sin of Simony, which is intimately connected with unbelief in the power and signification of the Spirit, and with materialism.’ Clearly, from the narrative, Simon himself did not receive the Spirit by the laying on of hands. His nefarious attempt to treat with the Apostles was before he himself had been presented to them for this purpose. Verse 20
20.] The solemn denunciation of Peter, like the declaration of Paul, 1 Corinthians 6:13, has reference to the perishableness of all worldly good, and of those with it, whose chief end is the use of it (see Colossians 2:22), ‘Thy gold and thou are equally on the way to corruption:’ thy gold, as its nature is: thou with it, as having no higher life than thy natural corrupt one: as being bound in the σύνδεσμος τῆς ἀδικίας. The expression of Peter, 1 Peter 1:7, χρυσίου τοῦ ἀπολλυμένου, is remarkably parallel with this (see too 1 Peter 1:18). ἐνόμισας] aor. thou thoughtest: not ‘thou hast thought,’ as E. V. The historic force of the tense is to be kept here: the Apostle uses it as looking forward to the day of ἀπώλεια, ‘Let thy lot be ἀπ., and that because thou thoughtest,’ &c. κτᾶσθ.] to acquire, not pass. as E. V., ungrammatically. Verse 21
21. μερὶς … κλῆρος] synonymous: the first lit., the second fig. (see ref.), but not without reference perhaps to the κληρονομία of the kingdom of God, the κλ. ἄφθαρτος, 1 Peter 1:4. τῷ λόγ. τούτ.] The matter now spoken of,—‘to which I now allude.’ εὐθεῖα] Hardly, ‘right before God,’ E. V., but thy heart is not right,—sincere, single-meaning,—in God’s presence, ‘as God sees it:’ i.e., ‘seen as it really is, by God, is not in earnest in its seeking after the gospel, but seeks it with unworthy ends in view.’ Verse 22
22.] εἰ ἄρα, if perhaps (not ‘ut sane,’ which it will not bear: see on its meaning, “if, which none can say,” Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 440): and the uncertainty refers, not to the doubt whether Simon would repent or not (see below on γάρ): but as to whether or not his sin may not have come under the awful category of those unpardonable ones specified by our Lord, Matthew 12:31, to which words the form ἀφεθήσεται seems to have a tacit reference. Peter does not pronounce his sin to have been such, but throws in this doubt, to increase the motive to repent, and the earnestness of his repentance. This verse is important, taken in connexion with John 20:23, as shewing how completely the Apostles themselves referred the forgiveness of sins to, and left it in, the sovereign power of God, and not to their own delegated power of absolution. Verse 23
23.] γάρ gives the reasons, not why it would be difficult for forgiveness to take place, but why he had such extreme need of repentance and prayer, as being tied and bound by the chain of sin. ὄντα εἰς] a pregnant construction—having fallen into and abiding in: not to be taken (as Kuin., &c.) as ‘amounting to,’—‘totus quantus es, nil nisi venenum amarum es et colligatio iniquitatis,’ which is very harsh, and improbable: nor (as Stier) is it prophetic, as to what would be the consequence, if he did not repent: ‘I see that thou wilt come to,’ &c. Least of all must it be said, here or any where else, that εἰς is put for ἐν. I cannot too often remind my younger readers, that it is a fundamental maxim of all sound scholarship, that no word is ever put for another. χολ. πικρ.] see reff. ‘the gall which is the very seat and essence of bitterness’—a very gall of bitterness. The poison of serpents was considered to be seated in their gall: so χολὴ ἀσπίδος ἐν γαστρὶ αὐτοῦ, Job 20:14. See Plin. H. N. xi. 37. Verse 24
24.] Simon speaks here much as Pharaoh, Exod. (Acts 8:28; Acts 9:28) Acts 10:17,—who yet hardened his heart afterwards (Stier). It is observable also that he wishes merely for the averting of the punishment. The words ὅπως μηδὲν ἐπέλθῃ ἐπʼ ἐμὲ ὧν εἰρήκατε seem remarkably to set forth the mere terror of the carnal man, without any idea of the ἐμέ becoming another man in thoughts and aims. Verse 25
25.] μὲν οὖν indicates (see note on Acts 8:4) that the paragraph should begin here, not at Acts 8:26 as commonly. κώμας τ. σαμ.] It is interesting to recall Luke 9:52, where on their entering into a κώμην σαμ, the same John wishes to call down fire from heaven, καὶ ἀναλῶσαι αὐτούς. On constr. ( εὐαγγ. w. accus.), see reff. The gradual sowing of the seed further and further from Jerusalem is advancing: not only is this eunuch to carry it to a far distant land, but Philip is sent to a desert road, away from town or village, to seek him. The imperfects (altered in the rec., see var. readd., into aorists) are significant. They were on their way back to Jerusalem, and were evangelizing the Samaritan villages, when the angel spake (aor.) to Philip. Verses 25-40 25–40.] CONVERSION OF THE ÆTHIOPIAN EUNUCH BY PHILIP’S TEACHING. Verse 26
26.] An angel, visibly appearing: not in a dream,—which is not, as some suppose, implied by ἀνάστηθι, see reff. The ministration of angels introduces and brings about several occurrences in the beginning of the church, see ch. Acts 5:19; Acts 10:3; Acts 12:7 (Acts 27:23). The appearance seems to have taken place in Samaria, after the departure of Peter and John; see above, on the imperfects. He would reach the place appointed by a shorter way than through Jerusalem: he would probably follow the high road (of the itineraries, see map in Conybeare and Howson’s St. Paul) as far as Gophna, and thence strike across the country south-westward, to join, at some point to which he would be guided, the road leading from Jerusalem to Gaza. γάζαν] The southernmost city of Canaan (Genesis 10:19), in the portion of Judah (Joshua 15:47), but soon taken from that tribe by the Philistines, and always spoken of as a Philistian city (1 Samuel 6:17; 2 Kings 18:8; Amos 1:6-8; Zephaniah 2:4; Zechariah 9:5). In Jeremiah 47:1, we have ‘before Pharaoh (Necho?) smote Gaza,’—implying that at one time it was under Egypt. Alexander the Great took it after a siege of five months (Q. Curt. iv. 6, 7. Arrian, Alex. ii. 26), but did not destroy it (as Strabo relates in error, xvi. 759, see below in this note), for we find it a strong place in the subsequent Syrian wars, see 1 Macc (1 Maccabees 9:52) 1 Maccabees 11:61, f.; 1 Maccabees 13:43 (1 Maccabees 14:7; 1 Maccabees 15:28; 1 Maccabees 16:1); Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 5; 13. 3 al. It was destroyed by the Jewish king Alexander Jannæus (96 A.C.), Jos. Antt. xiii. 13. 3, after a siege of a year, but rebuilt again by the Roman general Gabinius (Antt. xiv. 5. 3),—afterwards given by Augustus to Herod (xv. 7. 3), and finally after his death attached to the province of Syria (xvii. 11. 4). Mela, in the time of Claudius, calls it ‘ingens urbs et munita admodum,’ with which agree Eusebius and Jerome. At present it is a large town by the same name, with from 15,000 to 16,000 inhabitants (Robinson, ii. 640). The above chronological notices shew that it cannot have been ἔρημος at this time: see below. αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος] The words, I believe, of the angel, not of Luke. There appear to have been two (if not more) ways from Jerusalem to Gaza. The Antonine itinerary passes from Jerus. to Eleutheropolis—Askalon—Gaza. The Peutinger Table, Jerus.—Ceperaria—Eleutheropolis—Askalon—Gaza. But Robinson (ii. 748. Winer, Realw.) found an ancient road leading direct from Jerusalem to Gaza, through the Wadi Musurr, and over the Beit Jiibrin, which certainly at present is ἔρημος, without towns or villages. Thus the words will refer to the way: and denote the way of which I speak to thee is desert (Schöttg. cites from Arrian, iii. p. 211, ἐρήμην δὲ εἶναι τὴν ὁδὸν διʼ ἀνυδρίαν). Besides the above objection to applying ἔρημος to Gaza, there could be no possible reason for adding such a specification here, seeing that Gaza had nothing to do with the object of the journey, and the road would be designated the road from Jerusalem to Gaza, whether the latter city was inhabited, or in ruins. Those who apply ἔρημος to Gaza, have various ways of reconciling the apparent discrepancy with history: most of them follow Bede(54)’s explanation, that the ancient city was ἔρημος, and that the Gaza of this day was another town nearer the sea. But how this helps the matter I cannot perceive, unless we are to suppose that the deserted Gaza and the inhabited Gaza were so far apart that it was necessary to specify which was meant, because there would be from Jerusalem two different roads,—of which no trace is found, nor could it well be. Some again suppose (Hug, al.) that the Acts were written after the second Gaza was destroyed (Jos. B. J. ii.18.1), just before the destruction of Jerusalem, and that Luke inserts this notice: but to what purpose? and why no more such notices? In the passage of Strabo, commonly cited to support the application of ἔρημος to Gaza, ἔνδοξός ποτε γενομένη, κατεσπασμένη δʼ ὑπὸ ἀλεξάνδρου (the Great, according to Strabo, which it was not) καὶ μένουσα ἔρημος, the last three words are wanting in some edd. and are supposed to have been a gloss from the Acts. Others suppose ἔρημος to signify ‘unfortified,’ which standing alone it cannot. Besides, this notice would be wholly irrelevant;—and would probably not have been true,—see Mela above. The objection of Meyer to the interpretation given above, that if ἔρημ. referred to ἡ ὁδός, the article would be expressed, is not valid: the emphasis is on αὕτη; ‘that way, of which I speak, is desert:’ not, ‘is the desert one:’ no reference is made to the other. Verse 27
Directory: New%20Testament -> 44Acts -> 44Acts-E 44Acts-E -> Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary – Acts (Vol. 1)》 44Acts-E -> Preparations for a gentile mission-the calling of a new apostle Download 4.82 Mb. Share with your friends:
|