Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

The ἐκτήσατο χωρίον does not appear to agree with the account in Matthew 27:6-8; nor, consistently with common honesty, can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do. If we compare the two, that of Matthew is the more particular, and more likely to give rise to this one, as a general inference from the buying of the field, than vice versâ. Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, ‘initio emtionis facto, occasionem dederat ut Sacerdotes eam consummarent,’ we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible[, but is certainly not contemplated by St. Matthew’s account, where the priests settle to buy the field, on deliberation, what they should do with the money]. At all events we hence clearly see that Luke could not have been acquainted with the Gospel of Matthew at this time, or surely (not, he would have repeated St. Matt.’s account, as Wordsw. unfairly represents me to say, but) this apparent discrepancy would not have been found. The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system. See as a notable example, Wordsw.’s note, written since the above. I need hardly say to any intelligent and ingenuous reader, that his way of harmonizing,—viz. that as the Jews are said to have crucified our Lord when they were only the occasion of his being crucified, so Judas may be said to have bought the field when he only gave occasion to its being bought by the Chief Priests,—is entirely precluded here by the words ἐκ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, ‘out of the wages of his iniquity,’ which plainly bind on the purchase to Judas as his personal act.

καὶ πρ. γεν.] The connexion of this with the former clause would seem to point to the death of Judas having taken place in the field which he bought. See also Acts 1:19.

πρηνὴς γενόμενος will hardly bear the meaning assigned to it by those who wish to harmonize the two accounts,—viz. that, having hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of the rope. πρηνής· ἐπὶ πρόσωπον πεπτωκώς, Hesych⁽⁹⁾ ὅλον μὲν τὸ σῶμα κεῖσθαι πρηνὲς λέγομεν, ὅταν ἡ μὲν γαστὴρ κάτωθεν, ἄνωθεν δὲ ᾖ τὸ νῶτον, Galen, cited by Wetstein. πρηνής, εἰς τοὔμπροσθεν, ἐπὶ στόματος, Etymol. Nor again is it at all probable that the Apostle would recount what was a mere accident accompanying his death, when that death itself was the accursed one of hanging. What then are we to decide respecting the two accounts? That there should have been a double account actually current of the death of Judas at this early period is in the highest degree improbable, and will only be assumed by those (De Wette, &c.) who take a very low view of the accuracy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then this solution, let us compare the accounts themselves. In this case, that in Matthew 27 is general,—ours particular. That depends entirely on the exact sense to be assigned to ἀπήγξατο ( וַיֵּחָנַק, καὶ ἀπήγξατο, 2 Samuel 17:23 ): whereas this distinctly assigns the manner of his death, without stating any cause for the falling on his face. It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder, the account given here does not preclude the catastrophe related having happened, in some way, as a divine judgment, during the suicidal attempt. Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go. An accurate acquaintance with the actual circumstances would account for the discrepancy, but nothing else.

Another kind of death is assigned to Judas by Œcumenius, quoting from Papias: ἱστορεῖ παπίας ὁ τοῦ ἰωάννου τοῦ ἀποστ. μαθητὴς λέγων· μέγα τῆς ἀσεβείας ὑπόδειγμα ἐν τούτῳ τῷ κόσμῳ περιεπάτησεν ἰούδας· πρησθεὶς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὴν σάρκα, ὥστε μὴ δύνασθαι διελθεῖν, ἁμάξης ῥαδίως διερχομένης, ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμάξης ἐπιέσθη, ὥστε τὰ ἔγκατα αὐτοῦ ἐκκενωθῆναι. Theophylact quotes the same on Matthew 27, but without the last words, ὑπὸ τῆς ἁμ. κ. τ. λ., which De Wette supposes to have been inserted from Œcumenius having misunderstood Papias. If so, the tradition is in accordance with, and has arisen from an exaggerated amplification of, our text. See the whole passage from Theophylact cited, and a discussion whether it is rightly ascribed to Papias, in Routh, Reliquiæ Sacræ, vol. i. p. 9, and notes.

ἐλάκησεν] cracked asunder: it implies bursting with a noise. It is quite possible that this catastrophe happening in the field, as our narrative implies, may have suggested its employment as a burial-place for strangers, as being defiled. So Stier, Reden der Apostel, i. 10.

Verse 19

19.] It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two Acts 1:18-19 are inserted by Luke. But it is impossible to separate it from Acts 1:18; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peter’s speech, but freely Græcized by Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations τῇ [ ἰδίᾳ] διαλ. αὐτ., and τουτέστιν χ. αἵμ., as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural, than to parenthesize these clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more or less done by all who report in a language different from that actually used by the speaker. The words and idioms of another tongue contain allusions and national peculiarities which never could have been in the mind of one speaking in a different language; but the ear tolerates these, or easily separates them, if critically exercised.

γνωστὸν …] See Luke 24:18.

ὥστε] in Matthew 27:8, the name ‘the field of blood’ is referred to the fact of its having been bought with the price of blood: here, to the fact of Judeas having there met with a signal and bloody death. On the whole, I believe the result to which I have above inclined will be found the best to suit the phænomena of the two passages,—viz. that, with regard to the purchase of the field, the more circumstantial account in Matthew is to be adopted; with regard to the death of Judas, the more circumstantial account of Luke. The clue which joins these has been lost to us: and in this, only those will find any stumbling-block, whose faith in the veracity of the Evangelists is very weak indeed.

ἀκελδαμάχ] חֲקִל דְּמָא . The field originally belonged to a potter, and was probably a piece of land which had been exhausted of its clay fit for his purposes, and so was useless. Jerome relates that it was still shewn on the S. side of Mount Sion ( ἐν βορείοις τοῦ σιὼν ὄρους, but by mistake, Eusebius), in which neighbourhood there is even now a bed of white clay (see Winer, Realw., art. ‘Blutacker’).

Verse 20

20.] γάρ, the connexion being, ‘all this happened and became known,’ &c., ‘in accordance with the prophecy,’ &c. Psalms 69 is eminently a Messianic psalm,—spoken in the first place of David and his kingdom and its enemies, and so, according to the universal canon of O. T. interpretation, of Him in whom that kingdom found its true fulfilment, and of His enemies. And Judas being the first and most notable of these, the Apostle applies eminently to him the words which in the Psalm are spoken in the plural of all such enemies. The same is true of Psalms 109, and there one adversary is even more pointedly marked out. See also Psalms 55.

ἐπισκοπήν = פְּקֻדָּה, office, or charge. The citations are freely from the LXX.

Verse 21

21.] οὖν, since all this has happened to Judas, and since it is the divine will that another should take the charge which was his.

ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ] This definition of the necessary qualification of an apostle exactly agrees with our Lord’s saying in John 15:27; καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς μετʼ ἐμοῦ ἐστε. See Prolegg. Vol. l. ch. i. § iii. 5.

εἰσῆλθ. κ. ἐξῆλθ. ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς] An abridged construction for εἰσῆλθ. ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς κ. ἐξῆλθ. ἀφʼ ἡμῶν.

Verse 22

μάρτ. τῆς ἀναστ.] This one event was the passage-point between the Lord’s life of humiliation and His life of glory,—the completion of His work below and beginning of His work above. And to ‘give witness with power’ of the Resurrection (ch. Acts 4:33), would be to discourse of it as being all this; in order to which, the whole ministry of Jesus must be within the cycle of the Apostle’s experience.

It is remarkable that Peter here lays down experience of matters of fact, not eminence in any subjective grace or quality, as the condition of Apostleship. Still, the testimony was not to be mere ordinary allegation of matters of fact: any who had seen the Lord since His resurrection were equal to this;—but belonged to a distinct office (see John 14:26; also ch. Acts 5:31, note), requiring the especial selection and grace of God.

Verse 23

ἰωσὴφ.…] The names ἰωσήφ and ἰωσῆς, different forms of the same, are confused in the MSS., both here and in ch. Acts 4:36. But Barsabbas (or Barsabas) and Barnabas are not to be confounded: they are different names (Barsabbas = son of Sabba or Saba: on Barnabas, see ch. Acts 4:36, note); and Barnabas is evidently introduced in Acts 4:36 as a person who had not been mentioned before.

Of Barsabas, nothing further is known. Euseb., iii. 39, states, on the authority of Papias, that he drank a cup of poison without being hurt. [There is a Judas Barsabbas mentioned in ch. Acts 15:22, whom some take to be his brother.]

In all probability both the selected persons (see Eus⁽¹⁰⁾ i. 12) belonged to the number of the Seventy, as it would be natural that the candidates for apostleship should be chosen from among those who had been already distinguished by Christ Himself among the brethren.

Justus is a Roman cognomen, assumed according to a custom then prevalent. The name Justus seems to have been common: Schöttgen, Hor. Hebr., on this place, gives two instances of Jews bearing it.

΄αθθίαν] Nothing historical is known of him. Traditionally, according to Nicephorus (H. E. ii. 40, Winer), he suffered martyrdom in Æthiopia; according to others, in Colchis (Menolog. Græc. iii. 198, Winer): another account (Perionii Vitæ Apost. p. 178 sqq., Winer) makes him preach in Judæa and be stoned by the Jews. Clem⁽¹¹⁾ Alex., Strom. ii. 9 ⁽⁴⁵⁾, p. 452 P., vii. 13 ⁽⁸²⁾, p. 882 P., mentions the παραδόσεις of Matthias, which perhaps were the same as an apocryphal gospel once current under his name, mentioned by Eus⁽¹²⁾, H. E. iii. 25. See Winer, Realw.

Verse 24

24.] It is a question, to Whom this prayer was directed. I think all probability is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter certainly was the spokesman) having addressed his glorified Lord. And with this the language of the prayer agrees. No stress can, it is true, be laid on κύριε: see ch. Acts 4:29, where unquestionably the Father is so addressed: but the ἐξελέξω, compared with οὐκ ἐγὼ ὑμᾶς τοὺς δώδεκα ἐξελεξάμην, John 6:70, seems to me almost decisive. See also Acts 1:2; Luke 6:13; John 13:18; John 15:16; John 15:19. The instance cited on the other side by Meyer, ἐξελέξατο ὁ θεὸς διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη κ. τ. λ., is not to the point, as not relating to the matter here in hand; nor are the passages cited by De Wette, 2 Corinthians 1:1; Ephesians 1:1; 2 Timothy 1:1, where Paul refers his apostleship to God, since obviously all such appointment must be referred ultimately to God:—but the question for us is,—In these words, did the disciples pray as they would have prayed before the Ascension, or had they Christ in their view? The expression καρδιογνῶστα (used by Peter himself of God, ch. Acts 15:8) forms no objection: see John 21:17, also in the mouth of Peter himself. We are sure, from the προσκυνήσαντες αὐτόν of Luke 24:52, that even at this time, before the descent of the Spirit, the highest kind of worship was paid to the ascended Redeemer. Still, I do not regard it as by any means certain that they addressed Christ, nor can the passage be alleged as convincing in controversy with the Socinian.

ἀνάδειξ. κ. τ. λ.] Not, as in E. V., ‘shew whether of these two Thou hast chosen,’ but appoint (see reff.) one of these two (him) whom Thou hast chosen. The difference is of some import: they did not pray for a sign merely, to shew whether of the two was chosen, but that the Lord would, by means of their lot, Himself appoint the one of His choice.

Verse 25

25.] τόπον is from internal evidence, as well us manuscript authority, the preferable reading. It has been altered to κλῆρον to suit Acts 1:17.

διακονίας, implying the active duties; ἀποστολῆς, the official dignity of the office:—no figure of ἓν διὰ δυοῖν.

τὸν τόπον τὸν ἴδιον] With the reading τόπον before, I think these words may be interpreted two ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our τόπος, our office and ministry, to go to his own τόπος, that part which he had chosen for himself, viz. the office and character of a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding the former word τόπος as being selected to correspond to the more proper and dreadful use of the word here, that Judas deserted his τόπος, his appointed place, here among us, that he might go to his own appointed τόπος elsewhere, viz. among the dead in the place of torment. Of these two interpretations, I very much prefer the second, on all accounts; as being more according to the likely usage of the word, and as more befitting the solemnity of such a prayer. At the same time, no absolute sentence is pronounced on the traitor, but that dark surmise expressed by the euphemism τὸν τόπον τ. ἴδ., which none can help feeling with regard to him. To refer the words πορ. εἰς τ. τόπ. τ. ἴδ., to the successor of Judas (Knatchbull, Hammond, al.), ‘ut occupet locum ipsi a Deo destinatum,’ (1) is contrary to the form of the sentence, which would require καὶ πορευθῆναι; (2) is inconsistent with the words πορ. κ. τ. λ., which are unexampled in this sense; (3) would divest a sentence, evidently solemn and pregnant, of all point and meaning, and reduce it to a mere tautology. It appears to have been very early understood as above; for Clement of Rome says of Peter (1 Corinthians 5), οὕτω μαρτυρήσας ἐπορεύθη εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης, an expression evidently borrowed from our text. Lightf., Hor. Hebr. in loc., quotes from the Rabbinical work Baal turim on Numbers 24:25,—‘Balaam ivit in locum suum, i.e. in Gehennam.’

Verse 26

συγκατ.] The lot being regarded as the divine choice, the suffrages of the assembly were unanimously given (not in form, but by cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, and he was ‘voted in’ among the eleven Apostles, i.e. as a twelfth. That Luke does not absolutely say so, and never afterwards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which to doubt this.

τ. ἡμ. τῆς π.] The fiftieth day (inclusive) after the sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of the Passover (Leviticus 23:16),—called in Exodus 23:16, ‘the feast of harvest,’—in Deuteronomy 16:10, ‘the feast of weeks;’—one of the three great feasts, when all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem, Deuteronomy 16:16. No supplying of ἡμέρας, or ἑορτῆς, is required after πεντηκοστῆς: the word had passed into a proper name, see ref. Tobit, where it is in appos. with ἑορτῇ, and ref. 2 Macc.

At this time, it was simply regarded as the feast of harvest: among the later Jews, it was considered as the anniversary of the giving of the law from Sinai. This inference was apparently grounded on a comparison of Exodus 12:2; Exodus 19:1. Josephus and Philo know nothing of it, and it is at the best very uncertain. Chrysostom’s reason for the event happening when it did is probably the true one: ἔδει γὰρ ἑορτῆς οὔσης πάλιν ταῦτα γενέσθαι· ἵνα οἱ παρόντες τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ χριστοῦ, οὗτοι καὶ ταῦτα ἴδωσιν (in Catena). See a number of other reasons given by Wordsw., more suo. The question, on what day of the week this day of Pentecost was, is beset with the difficulties attending the question of our Lord’s last passover; see notes on Matthew 26:17, and John 18:28. It appears probable however that it was on the Sabbath,—i.e. if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan. Wieseler (Chron. des Apostol. Zeitalters, p. 20) supposes that the Western Church altered the celebration of it to the first day of the week in conformity with her observance of Easter on that day. If we take the second day of the Passover as Sunday, the 17th of Nisan, which some have inferred from John 18:28, the day of Pentecost will fall on the first day of the week. The custom of the Karaites was, to keep Pentecost always on the first day of the week, reckoning not from the day after the great Passover-Sabbath, but from that following the Sabbath in Passover week—understanding הַשַּׁבָּת in Leviticus 23:15 of the ordinary Sabbath;—but this cannot be brought to bear on our enquiry, as it probably arose later.

πάντες] Not the Apostles only, nor the hundred and twenty mentioned ch. Acts 1:15; but all the believers in Christ, then congregated at the time of the feast in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from Acts 2:14, when Peter and the eleven stand forward and allude to the rest as οὗτοι: and the latter follows on the former being granted. Both are confirmed by the universality of the promise cited by Peter, Acts 2:17 ff. See Chrys. below, on Acts 2:4.

ὁμοῦ] together: the rec. ὁμοθυμαδόν implies more, viz. that their purpose, as well as their locality, was the same.

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] Where? evidently not in the temple, or any part of it. The improbability of such an assemblage, separate and yet so great, in any of the rooms attached to the temple,—the words ὅλον τὸν οἶκον in Acts 2:2 (where see note),—the συνῆλθεν τὸ πλῆθος, Acts 2:6,—the absence of any mention of the temple,—all these are against such a supposition. Obviously no à priori consideration such as Olshausen alleges (in loc.), that “thus the solemn inauguration of the Church of Christ becomes more imposing by happening in the holy place of the Old Covenant,” can apply to the enquiry. Nor can the statement that they were διὰ παντὸς ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, Luke 24:53, apply here (see above on ch. Acts 1:13); for even if it be assumed that the hour of prayer was come (which it hardly could have been, seeing that some time must have elapsed between the event and Peter’s speech), the disciples would not have been assembled separately, but would, as Peter and John, in ch. Acts 3:1, have gone up, mingled with the people. See more below.

Verses 1-4