10. υἱὲ διαβ.] Meyer supposes an indignant allusion to the name Bar-jesus. This is possible, though hardly probable (see below). διαβ., which usually has the article, is elsewhere found without it only in (1 Peter 5:8) Revelation 12:9, 22. See Moulton’s Winer, p. 155, note 1.
πάς. δικ., of all that is right.
διαστρ. κ. τ. λ.] The οὐ παύσῃ evidently makes this apply, not to Elymas’s conduct on this occasion merely, but to his whole life of imposture and perversion of others. The especial sin was, that of laying hold of the nascent enquiry after God in the minds of men, and wresting it to a wrong direction.
κυρίου, here and Acts 13:11, is Jehovah. If, as some suppose, the reading of the name Bar-jesus is Bar-jehu, the repetition may be allusive: as in the other case might the ἐχθρὲ πάς. δικαιοσύνης to the name Jesus. But Meyer supposes the various readings in the forms of the name (Barsuma, Barjesuban) to have arisen from a desire to reverence the Name Jesus.
τυφλὸς μὴ βλέπων] so μνήσθητι μὴ ἐπιλάθῃ, Deuteronomy 9:7.
Verse 11
11. ἄχρι καιροῦ] The punishment was only temporary, being accompanied with a gracious purpose to the man himself, to awaken repentance in him. The sense given to ἄχρι κ. by Tittmann and Meyer here and at ref. Luke, of ἕως τέλους, is one of which it seems to me incapable.
ἀχλὺς κ. σκότος] In the same precise and gradual manner is the healing of the lame man, ch. Acts 3:8, described: ἔστη (first), κ. περιεπάτει. So here, first a dimness came on him,—then total darkness. And we may conceive this to have been evinced by his gestures and manner under the infliction.
Verse 12
12. ἐπὶ τῇ διδ. τ. κυρ.] Hesitating as he had been before between the teaching of the sorcerer and that of the Apostle, he is amazed at the divine power accompanying the latter, and gives himself up to it. It is not said that he was baptized: but the supposition is not thereby excluded: see Acts 13:48; ch. Acts 17:12; Acts 17:34; Acts 18:8, first part.
Verse 13
13. οἱ περὶ π.] Is there not a trace of the narrator being among them, in this expression?
Henceforward Paul is the principal person, and Barnabas is thrown into the background.
πέργην τ. παμφ.] Perga lies on the Cestrus, which flows into the bay of Attaleia. It is sixty stadia from the mouth ( εἶθʼ ὁ κέστρος ποταμός, ὃν ἀναπλεύσαντι σταδίους ἑξήκοντα πέργη πόλις, Strabo, xiv. p. 667), “between and upon the sides of two hills, with an extensive valley in front, watered by the river Cestrus, and backed by the mountains of the Taurus.” (C. and H. vol. i. p. 195, from Sir C. Fellows’s Asia Minor.) The remains are almost entirely Greek, with few traces of later inhabitants (p. 194 and note).
The inhabitants of Pamphylia were nearly allied in character to those of Cilicia ( οἱ πάμφυλοι, πολὺ τοῦ κιλικίου φίλου μετέχοντες, Srabo, xii. § 7): and it may have been Paul’s design, having already preached in his own province, to extend the Gospel of Christ to this neighbouring people.
John probably took the opportunity of some ship sailing from Perga. His reason for returning does not appear, but may be presumed from ch. Acts 15:38 to have been, unsteadiness of character, and unwillingness to face the dangers abounding in this rough district (see below). He afterwards, having been the subject of dissension between Paul and Barnabas, ch. Acts 15:37-40, accompanied the latter again to Cyprus; and we find him at a much later period spoken of by Paul, together with Aristarchus and Jesus called Justus, as having been a comfort to him (Colossians 4:10-11): and again in 2 Timothy 4:11, as profitable to him for the ministry.
Verse 14
14. διελθόντες] It is not improbable that during this journey Paul may have encountered some of the ‘perils by robbers’ of which he speaks, 2 Corinthians 11:26. The tribes inhabiting the mountains which separate the table-land of Asia Minor from the coast, were notorious for their lawless and marauding habits. Strabo says of Isauria, λῃστῶν ἅπασαι κατοικίαι (xii. 6), and of the Pisidians, καθάπερ οἱ κίλικες, λῃστρικῶς ἤσκηνται, xii. 7. He gives a similar character of the Pamphylians.
ἀντιόχεια ἡ πισιδία or πρὸς πισιδίᾳ, Strabo, xii. 8, was founded originally (Strabo, ib.) by the Magnetes on the Meander, and subsequently by Seleucus Nicator, and became, under Augustus, a Roman colony ( ἔχουσα ἐποικίαν ῥωμαίων, Strabo, ib.:—‘Pisidarum colonia Cæsarea, eadem Antiocheia.’ Plin. Acts 13:24.
‘In Pisidia juris Italici est colonia Antiochensium,’ Paulus, Digest. i. 15). Its position is described by Strabo as being on a hill, and was unknown or wrongly placed till Mr. Arundell found its ruins at a place now called Yalobatch, answering to Strabo’s description: where since an inscription has been found with the letters ANTIOCHEAE CAESARE (C. and H. pp. 205, 207 note).
Verse 15
15.] The divisions of the law and prophets at present in use among the Jews were probably not yet arranged. Before the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Law only was read in the synagogues: but, this having been forbidden by him, the Prophets were substituted:—and, when the Maccabees restored the reading of the Law, that of the prophets continued as well.
ἀπέστειλαν] Then they were not sitting in the πρωτοκαθεδρίαι, Matthew 23:6, but somewhere among the congregation. The message was probably sent to them as having previously to this taught in the city, and thus being known to have come for that purpose. See, as illustrating our narrative, Luke 4:17 ff. and notes.
Verse 16
16. κατασείσας τ. χειρί] As was his practice; see ch. Acts 21:40. See also ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα, ch. Acts 26:1.
On the character, &c. of Paul’s speeches reported in the Acts, see Prolegg. § i. 13; ii. 17.
The contents of this speech (Acts 13:16-41) may be thus arranged: I. Recapitulation of God’s ancient deliverances of His people and mercies towards them, ending with His crowning mercy, the sending of the Deliverer and promised Son of David (Acts 13:16-25). II. The history of the rejection of Jesus by the Jews, and of God’s fulfilment of His promise by raising Him from the dead (Acts 13:26-37). III. The personal application of this to all present,—the announcement to them of justification by faith in Jesus, and solemn warning against the rejection of Him (Acts 13:38-41). It is in the last degree unsafe to argue, as Wordsworth has done, that, because Strabo asserts the language of the Pisidians to have been neither Greek nor Lydian, St. Paul must have spoken to them by virtue of his miraculous gift of tongues. To the question put by Wordsw., “In what language did St. Paul preach in Pisidia?” we may reply, seeing that he preached in the synagogue after the reading of the law and prophets, “In the same language as that in which the law and prophets had just been read.”
οἱ φοβ. τ. θ.] The (uncircumcised) proselytes of the gate; not excluding even such pious Gentiles, not proselytes in any sense, who might be present. The speech, from the beginning and throughout, is universal in its application, embracing Jews and Gentiles.
Verse 17
17. τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου] ‘Hoc dicit Pisidis, Judæos digito monstrans’ (Grot.). Or rather, perhaps by the τούτου indicating, without gesture, the people in whose synagogue they were assembled.
τ. πατ. ἡμῶν] It is evident that the doctrine so much insisted on afterwards by Paul, that all believers in Christ were the true children of Abraham, was fully matured already: by the τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου he alludes to the time when God was the God of the Jews only: by this ἡμῶν he unites all present in the now extended inheritance of the promises made to the fathers.
ὕψωσεν] Evidently an allusion to Isaiah 1:2, where the word is also used in the sense of ‘bringing up,’ nourishing to manhood. This was done by increasing them in Egypt so that they became a great nation: see ref. Gen. There is no reference to any exaltation of the people during their stay in Egypt: whether by their deliverance (Calv., Heinr., Elsner), or by the miracles of Moses (Meyer), or by Joseph’s preferment to honour (Beza, Grot.).
Verse 18
18. ἐτροφοφόρησεν] That this is the right reading, is rendered highly probable by manuscript authority here and still more in the LXX of ref. Deut., and, I conceive, decided by the Heb. of that passage, and by the expansion of the same image in Numbers 11:12. The compound verb (from ὁ, not ἡ, τροφός, as the similitude is that of a man ( אִישׁ ) bearing his son) implies carrying and caring for, as a nurse: see ref. Macc.
Verse 19
19. ἑπτά] See Deuteronomy 7:1; Joshua 3:10; Joshua 24:11.
The unusual transitive sense of κατεκληρονόμησεν, justified by reff. LXX, has not been understood by the copyists, and has led to the rec. reading.
From the occurrence of manifest references, in these opening verses of the speech, to Deuteronomy 1 and Isaiah 1, combined with the fact that these two chapters form the present lessons in the synagogues on one and the same sabbath, Bengel and Stier conclude that they had been then read. It may have been so: but see on Acts 13:15.
Verse 20
20.] Treating the reading of (64) (65) (66) (67) (see var. readd.) as an attempt at correcting the difficult chronology of our verse, and taking the words as they stand, no other sense can be given to them, than that the time of the judges lasted 450 years. The dative ἔτεσιν (see ch. Acts 8:11) implies the duration of the period between ταῦτα (the division of the land), and Samuel the prophet, inclusive. And we have exactly the same chronological arrangement in Josephus; who reckons (Antt. viii. 3. 1) 592 years from the Exodus to the building of Solomon’s temple,—arranging the period thus: (1) forty years in the wilderness: (2) twenty-five years under Joshua ( στρατηγὸς δὲ μετὰ τὴν ΄ωυσέως τελευτὴν πέντε κ. εἴκοσι, Antt. v. 1. 29): (3) Judges (below): (4) forty years under Saul, see on Acts 13:21 ; (5) forty years under David, 1 Kings 2:11; (6) four years of Solomon’s own reign. This gives 592–149 = 443 years (about, ὡς, 450) for the Judges, including Samuel. That this chronology differs widely from 1 Kings 6:1, is most evident,—where we read that Solomon began his temple in the four hundred and eightieth (LXX, four hundred and fortieth) year after the Exodus. All attempts to reconcile the two are arbitrary and forced. I subjoin the principal. (1) Perizonius and others assume that the years during which the Israelites were subject to foreign tyrants in the time of the Judges are not reckoned in 1 Kings 6:1, and attempt, by adding them, to make out the period—in direct contradiction to the account there, which is, not that the Judeges lasted a certain number of years, but that Solomon began to build his temple in the four hundred and eightieth year after the Exodus. (2) Calovius, Mill, &c. supply γενόμενα after πεντήκοντα, and construe, these things ‘which happened in the space of 450 years,’ viz. from the birth of Isaac to the division of the land. But why the birth of Isaac? The words too will not bear this construction. (3) Olshausen conceives the 450 years may include all from the Exodus, as far as the building of the temple. But to this the objection which he himself mentions is fatal, viz. that μετὰ ταῦτα and ἐκεῖθεν must beyond dispute give the termini a quo and ad quem of the period. (4) Others suppose various corruptions, here or at 1 Kings 6:1, and by arbitrary conjecture emend so as to produce accordance.
It seems then that Paul followed a chronology current among the Jews, and agreeing with the book of Judges itself (the spaces of time in which, added together = exactly 450), and that adopted by Josephus, but not with that of our present Hebrew text of 1 Kings 6:1. The objection to this view, that Josephus is not consistent with himself (Olsh.),—but in Antt. xx. 10. 1, contra Apion. ii. 2 gives another chronology, has arisen from not observing that in the latter places, where he states 612 years to have elapsed from the Exodus to Solomon’s temple, he reckons in the twenty years occupied in building the temple and the king’s house, 1 Kings 6:38; 1 Kings 7:1. His words are, Antt. xx. 10. 1, ἀφʼ ἧς ἡμέρας οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν ἐξέλιπον αἴγυπτον ΄ωυσέως ἄγοντος, μέχρι τῆς τοῦ ναοῦ κατασκευῆς, ὃν σολομῶν ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐν ἱεροσολύμοις ἀνήγειρεν, ἔτη δυοκαίδεκα πρὸς τοῖς ἑξακοσίοις. To reckon in the thirteen years during which he was building his own house may be an inaccuracy, but there is no inconsistency.
Wordsworth, contrary to his usual practice, takes refuge in the amended text of (68) (69) (70), and then characterizes in the severest language those who have had the moral courage to abide by the more difficult reading, charging them with “arbitrary caprice,” “gratifying a sceptical appetite,” &c. I cite this as an example of that elastic criticism, which by any means within reach, and at any price, smooths away every difficulty from the sacred text.
σαμουήλ] mentioned as the terminus of the period of the Judges, also as having been so nearly concerned in the setting up over them of Saul and David.
Verse 21
21. σαοὺλ … ἄνδρα ἐκ φ. β.] It may be not altogether irrelevant to notice that a Saul, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, was speaking; and to trace in this minute specification something characteristic and natural.
ἔτη τεσσεράκοντα] So also Josephus: ἐβασίλευσε σαοὺλ σαμουήλου ζῶντος ἔτη ὀκτὼ πρὸς τοῖς δέκα· τελευτήσαντος δὲ δύο καὶ εἴκοσι, Antt. vi. 14. 9. In the O. T. the length of Saul’s reign is not specified; 1 Samuel 7:2 gives no reason, as Bengel thinks, why Saul’s reign should have been less than twenty years, as the twenty years there mentioned do not extend to the bringing up of the ark by David, but only to the circumstances mentioned in the following verses. Biscoe has well shewn (p. 399), that as Saul was a young man when anointed king, and Ishbosheth his youngest son (1 Chronicles 8:33) was forty years old at his death (2 Samuel 2:10), his reign cannot have been much short of that period. It is clearly against the construction to suppose Samuel’s time as well as Saul’s included in the forty years, following as they do upon the ἔδωκεν. Yet this has been done by the majority of Commentators.
Verse 22
22. μεταστήσας] having deposed him (reff.): in this case, by his death, for David was not made king till then. Or perhaps μεταστ. may refer to the sentence pronounced against Saul, 1 Samuel 13:14, or Acts 15:23; Acts 15:28, and ἤγειρεν to the whole process of the exaltation of David to be king. But I prefer the former.
ᾧ κ. εἶπεν μ.] The two passages, Psalms 89; (88 LXX) 20, and 1 Samuel 13:14, are interwoven together: both were spoken of David, and both by prophetic inspiration. They are cited from memory, neither τὸν τοῦ ἰεσσαί nor ὅς … μου being found in them. These latter words are spoken of Cyrus, see reff. That such citations are left in their present shape in our text, forms a strong presumption that we have the speeches of Paul verbatim as delivered by him, and no subsequent general statement of what he said, in which case the citations would have been corrected by the sacred text.
Verse 23
23. κατʼ ἐπαγγ. ἤγαγεν] viz. the promise in ref. Zech. (LXX), where the very word ἄγω is used; not however excluding the many other promises to the same effect.
The reading σωτηρίαν has probably arisen from the contracted way of writing ἰησοῦν, thus: σωτηραῑν; and then from Acts 13:26 σωτηρίαν was adopted.
Verse 24
24. εἰσόδου] referring to ἤγαγεν above—his coming forward publicly.
Verse 25
25.] As John was fulfilling his course (the expression is peculiar to Paul, see reff.) he said (not once but habitually).
τί ἐμὲ ὑπ. εἶν.] Not, ‘I am not that which ye suppose me to be,’ as Vulg. (reading τίνα,—quem me arbitramini esse, non sum ego); Luth., Grot., Kuin.,—making τί (or τίνα) relative, which it will not bear (see note on 1 Corinthians 15:2); but What suppose ye me to be? I am not He. See Luke 3:15 ff.
Verse 26
26. [The same two classes (see on Acts 13:16), Jews and God-fearing gentiles, are here again addressed.]
τ. σωτηρίας ταύτης] viz. the salvation implied in Jesus being a σωτήρ—salvation by Him.
Verse 27
27.] The position of ἡμῖν at the commencement of its clause in the last verse shews the emphasis to be on it, and now the reason is given—for the Jews in Jerusalem have rejected it. See ch. Acts 22:18-21.
τὰς φωνάς is not governed by ἀγνοήσαντες, which makes the sentence an unusually harsh one in construction, requiring αὐτόν to be supplied after κριν., and αὐτάς after ἐπλήρωσαν. The καί, as often, merely introduces, without the emphasis implied by our ‘even,’ a new element into the sentence. It is perhaps hardly possible to find in our language or the Latin any one word which may give exactly this slight shade of meaning, and no more: paraphrased, the sense might be (but imperfectly and clumsily) thus represented: in their ignorance of Him (not only rejected His salvation, but) by judging Him, fulfilled the voices of the prophets, &c.
Verse 28
28.] Not, ‘though,’ but rather because they found no cause: when they found no cause of death in him, they besought, &c.: see Luke 23:22-23.
Verse 29
29.] The two verbs ἐτέλεσαν and ἔθηκαν have still the same subject, viz. of οἱ κατοικοῦντες κ. τ. λ. De Wette rightly remarks, that Paul, in this compendious narrative, makes no distinction between friend and foe in what was done to our Lord, but regards both as fulfilling God’s purpose regarding him. I may add, that there is also a contrast between what men did to Him, and ὁ δὲ θεὸς ἤγειρεν αὐτόν.
Joseph and Nicodemus, be it observed, were both ἄρχοντες.
Paul touches but lightly on the cross of Christ, and hastens on to the great point, the Resurrection, as the fulfilment of prophecy and seal of the Messiahship of Jesus.
Verse 31
31.] The νῦν gives peculiar force to the sentence. Who are at this moment witnesses,—living witnesses; q. d. ‘I am not telling you a matter of the past merely, but one made present to the people of the Jews ( τῷ λαῷ) by living and autoptic testimony.’
Verse 32
32. ἡμεῖς ὑμᾶς] He and Barnabas were not of the number of the συναναβάντες, Acts 13:31, nor was their mission to the Jewish people. ‘They are at this moment witnessing to the people, we, preaching to you.’ Stier observes (Red. d. Apost. p. 367) how entirely Paul sinks himself, his history and commission from Christ, in the great object of his preaching.
ἀναστήσας] The meaning having raised Him from the dead is absolutely required by the context: both because the word is repeated with ἐκ νεκρῶν (Acts 13:34), and because the Apostle’s emphasis throughout the passage is on the Resurrection (Acts 13:30) as the final fulfilment ( ἐκπεπλήρωκεν) of God’s promises regarding Jesus. This is maintained by Luther, Hammond, Le Clerc, Meyer, &c.: the other meaning, ‘having raised up,’ as in ch. Acts 7:37, προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει ὁ κύριος,—by Calvin, Beza, Calov., Wolf, Michaelis, Rosenm., Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olsh., and by Mr. Humphry. Meyer well remarks, that this meaning would hardly in our passage have been thought of or defended, had it not been that the subjoined citation from Psalms 2 has been thought necessarily to apply to our Lord’s mission upon earth.
Verse 33
33.] The reading ἐν τῷ πρώτεῳ ψαλμῷ is explained thus: “hic psalmus qui nobis secundus est olim primus fuit, quod is qui præcedit, tanquam proœmium, numeratus non esset.” Rosenm. Arg. Psalms 2 St. Paul refers the prophecy in its full completion to the Resurrection of our Lord: similarly in Romans 1:4, ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει … ἑξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν.
Verse 34
34. μηκέτι μέλλ.] Compare Romans 6:9, χριστὸς ἐγερθεὶς ἐκ νεκρῶν οὐκέτι ἀποθνήσκει· θἁνατος αὐτοῦ οὐκέτι κυριεύει. It is interesting to trace the same shades of thought in the speeches and epistles of Paul; and abundant opportunity of doing so will occur as we proceed.
But here the ὑποστρ. εἰς διαφθ. does not merely imply death, so that Jesus should have once undergone it, and no more hereafter, as the E. V. seems to imply: but we must supply ‘to die, and in consequence to’ before the words, understanding them as the result of death, if it had dominion over him: thus the clause answers even more remarkably to Romans 6:9.
τὰ ὅσια is the LXX rendering of חַסְדֵי, ref. Isa., which in 2 Chronicles 6:42, they have translated τὰ ἐλέη . The word ‘holy’ should have been preserved in the E. V., as answering to τὸν ὅσιόν σου below; the mercies of David, holy and sure: or my holy promises which I made sore unto David.
Verse 35
35. διότι καί] wherefore also,—correspondent to which purpose, of His Christ not seeing corruption.
ἑτέρῳ] viz. ψαλμῷ, referring to Acts 13:33.
λέγει] viz. ὁ θεός, not David: the subject is continued from Acts 13:32; Acts 13:34, and fixed by εἴρηκεν and δώσω just preceding. δώσεις and ὅσιον accurately correspond to δώσω and ὅσια before. See on ch. Acts 2:27.
Verse 36
36.] The psalm, though spoken by David, cannot have its fulfilment in David.
ἰδίᾳ γενεᾷ] The dative commodi, not ‘sua generatione,’ which is flat in the extreme. David ministered only to the generation in which he lived: but διὰ τούτου, remission of sins is preached ὑμῖν, and to all who believe on Him.
τῇ τοῦ θ. βουλῇ is best taken with ὑπηρετήσας, not with ἐκοιμήθη:—as E. V., after he had served his own generation by the will (i.e. according to the appointment) of God. His whole course was marked out and fixed by God—he fulfilled it, and fell asleep. I prefer this, because joining τῇ τοῦ θ. β. with ἐκοιμήθη seems to diminish the importance of that verb in the sentence. (See, on the whole, 2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 2:10.)
προσετ. κ. τ. λ.] An expression arising from the practice of burying families together: see reff. and passim in O. T.
Verse 38
38.] Paul speaks here of justification only in its lowest sense, as negative, and synonymous with remission of sins; he does not unfold here that higher sense of δικαιόω, the accounting righteous, which those who have from God are δίκαιοι ἐκ πίστεως. It is the first office of the Spirit by which he spoke, ἐλέγχειν περὶ ἁμαρτίας, before He ἐλέγχει περὶ δικαιοσύνης: therefore he dwells on the ἄφεσις ἁμαρτιῶν, merely just giving a glimpse of the great doctrine of justification, of which he had such wonderful things to write and to say.
Verse 39
Share with your friends: |