Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

πᾶσιν τοῖς εἰς μακράν, the Gentiles; see Ephesians 2:13. There is no difficulty whatever in this interpretation. The Apostles always expected the conversion of the Gentiles, as did every pious Jew who believed in the Scriptures. It was their conversion as Gentiles, which was yet to be revealed to Peter. It is surprising to see such Commentators as Dr. Burton and Meyer finding a difficulty where all is so plain. The very expression, ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται ὁ θεὸς ἡμ., shews in what sense Peter understood τοῖς εἰς μακρ.; not all, but as many as the Lord our God προσ καλ., shall summon to approach to Him,—bring near,—which, in his present understanding of the words, must import—by becoming one of the chosen people, and conforming to their legal observances.

Verse 40

40.] The words cited appear to be the concluding and inclusive summary of Peter’s many exhortations, not only their general sense: just as if Acts 2:36 had been given as the representative of his whole speech above.

σώθητε is improperly rendered in E. V. ‘save yourselves:’ it is not (see Stier, R. A. i. 62) σώζετε ἑαυτούς, as in Luke 23:35; Luke 23:37; Luke 23:39; be saved, Lasset euch retten, is the true sense.

σκολιᾶς—see reff. Peter alludes to ref. Deut.

Verse 41

Verse 42

τῇ κοινωνίᾳ] community: the living together as one family, and having things in common. It is no objection to this meaning, that the fact is repeated below, in Acts 2:45; for so is the κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου in Acts 2:46, and the προσκ. ταῖς προσευχ.

The Vulg. interpretation of τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ( καὶ) τῇ κλάσει τ. ἄρτ. by ‘communicatione fractionis panis,’ per Hendiadyn, is curious enough. If suggested by 1 Corinthians 10:16, it should have been ‘communicatione et fractione panis.’ The adoption of the right reading renders this interpretation untenable. The supplying τῶν ἀποστ. after κοινωνίᾳ, as in E. V., is better than the last, but still I conceive bears no meaning defensible in construction. Very different is the κοινωνία τ. ἁγ. πνεύματος of 2 Corinthians 13:13, because there the Holy Ghost is imparted, is that of which all partake, are κοινωνοί: whereas the κοιν. τῶν ἀποστ. must signify fellowship with the Apostles, or fellowship with that Society of which the Apostles were the chief; neither of which meanings I conceive κοιν. will bear.

The special sense in which κοινωνία occurs, Romans 15:26, could not be here meant, or the word would have been qualified in some way, τῇ κοιν. ( τῇ) εἰς τοὺς πτωχούς, or the like.

τῇ κλάσει τ. ἄρτου] This has been very variously explained. Chrysostom (in Act. Homil. vii. p. 57) says, τὸν ἄρτον μοι δοκεῖ λέγων, καὶ τὴν νηστείαν ἐνταῦθα σημαίνειν, καὶ τὸν σκληρὸν βίον· τροφῆς γάρ, οὐ τρυφῆς μετελάμβανον. And similarly Œcumenius, and of the moderns Bengel: ‘fractione panis, id est, victu frugali, communi inter ipsos.’ But on Acts 2:46 he recognizes a covert allusion to the Eucharist.

The interpretation of ἡ κλ. τ. ἄρτ. [here] as the celebration of the Lord’s Supper has been, both in ancient and modern times, the prevalent one. Chrysostom himself, in his 27th Hom. on 1 Cor., p. 422, interprets it, or at all events τῇ κοινωνίᾳ and it together, of the Holy Communion. And the Romanist interpreters have gone so far as to ground an argument on the passage for the administration in one kind only. But,—referring for a fuller discussion of the whole matter to the notes on 1 Corinthians 10:11,—barely to render ἡ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου the breaking of bread in the Eucharist, as now understood, would be to violate historical truth. The Holy Communion was at first, and for some time, till abuses put an end to the practice, inseparably connected with the ἀγάπαι, or love-feasts, of the Christians, and unknown as a separate ordinance. To these ἀγάπαι, accompanied as they were at this time by the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, the κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου refers,—from the custom of the master of the feast breaking bread in asking a blessing; see ch. Acts 27:35, where the Eucharist is out of the question.

No stress must be laid, for any doctrinal purpose, upon the article before ἄρτου: the construction here requires it, and below, Acts 2:46, where not required by the construction, it is omitted.

I need hardly add that the sense inferred by Kypke and Heinrichs from Isaiah 58:7, διάθρυπτε πεινῶντι τὸν ἄρτον σου,—that of giving bread to the poor, is in the highest degree improbable here, and inconsistent with the Christian use of ἡ κλάσις τοῦ ἄρτου elsewhere.

ταῖς προσευχ.] The appointed times of prayer: see Acts 2:46. But it need not altogether exclude prayer among themselves as well, provided we do not assume any set times or forms of Christian worship, which certainly did not exist as yet. See notes on Romans 14:5; Galatians 4:10.

Verses 42-47

Verse 43

φόβος, dread, reverential astonishment, at the effect produced by the outpouring of the Spirit. On the [anticipatory character or the] latter part of the verse see general remarks at the beginning of this section.

Verse 44

44.] If it surprise us that so large a number should be continually assembled together (for such is certainly the sense, not ‘fraterno amore conjunctos,’ as Calvin)—we must remember that a large portion of the three thousand were persons who had come up to Jerusalem for the feast, and would by this time have returned to their homes.

εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά] they had all things (in) common, i.e. no individual property, but one common stock: see ch. Acts 4:32. That this was literally the case with the infant church at Jerusalem, is too plainly asserted in these passages to admit of a doubt. Some have supposed the expressions to indicate merely a partial community of goods: ‘non omnia vendiderunt, sed partem bonorum, quæ sine magno incommodo carere poterant,’ Wetstein; contrary to the express assertion of ch. Acts 4:32. In order, however, rightly to understand this community, we may remark: (1) It is only found in the Church at Jerusalem. No trace of its existence is discoverable any where else: on the contrary, St. Paul speaks [constantly] of the rich and the poor, see 1 Timothy 6:17; 1 Corinthians 16:2 [Galatians 2:10; 2 Corinthians 8:13-15; 2 Corinthians 9:6-7]: also St. James, James 2:1-5; James 4:13. And from the practice having at first prevailed at Jerusalem, we may [partly] perhaps explain the great and constant poverty of that church, Romans 15:25-26; 1 Corinthians 16:1-3; 2 Corinthians 8:9; also ch. Acts 11:30; Acts 24:17.

The non-establishment of this community elsewhere may have arisen from the inconveniences which were found to attend it in Jerusalem: see ch. Acts 6:1. (2) This community of goods was not, even in Jerusalem, enforced by rule, as is evident from ch. Acts 5:4 [Acts 12:12], but, originating in free-will, became perhaps an understood custom, still however in the power of any individual not to comply with. (3) It was not (as Grotius and Heinrichs thought) borrowed from the Essenes (see Jos. B. J. ii. 8. 3), with whom the Apostles, who certainly must have sanctioned this community, do not appear historically to have had any connexion. But (4) it is much more probabl that it arose from a continuation, and application to the now increased number of disciples, of the community in which our Lord and His Apostles had lived (see John 12:6; John 13:29) before. (The substance of this note is derived from Meyer, in loc.)

The practice probably did not long continue even at Jerusalem: see Romans 15:26, note.

Verse 45

45.] κτήματα, [probably] landed property, ch. Acts 5:1—see reff.: ὑπάρξεις, any other possession; moveables, as distinguished from land.

αὐτά, their price; see a similar construction Matthew 26:9; and Winer, edn. 6, § 22. 3. 4.

καθότι ἂν …] The ἄν with imperf. indic. in this connexion implies ‘accidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret,’ Herm. ad Viger., p. 818. See ch. Acts 4:35; Mark 6:56; Mark 11:24; Soph. Philoct. 290 ff.; Aristoph. Lys. 510 ff.

Verse 46

κατʼ οἶκον] domi, ‘privatim’ (Beng.), as contrasted with ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ. So also Wolf, Scal., Heinr., Olsh., Meyer, De Wette:—not, domatim, ‘from house to house,’ as Erasm., Salmasius, Kuinoel, al.:—the words may bear that meaning (see Luke 8:1), but we have no trace of such a practice, of holding the ἀγάπαι successively at different houses.

The κλάσις τ. ἄρτου took place at their house of meeting, wherever that was: cf. ch. Acts 12:12; and see Acts 2:42 note.

μετ. τροφ.] they partake of food:—see reff.;—viz. in these agapæ or breakings of bread.

ἀφελότητι] In good Greek, ἀφέλεια: the adj. ἀφελής (see Palm and Rost) originally implying “free from stones or rocks” ( ἀ, φελλεύς, stony or rocky land), and thus simple, even, pure.

Verse 47

τοὺς σωζομένους] those who were in the way of salvation: compare σώθητε, Acts 2:40; those who were being saved. Nothing is implied by this word, to answer one way or the other the question, whether all these were finally saved. It is only asserted, that they were in the way of salvation when they were added to the Christian assembly. Doubtless, some of them might have been of the class alluded to Hebrews 10:26-29; at least there is nothing in this word to preclude it.

Correct criticism, as well as external evidence, requires that the words ἐν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ or τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ should be rejected, as having been an explanatory gloss, (‘est hæc Chrysostomi, ut videtur, glossa, per Syrum et alios propagata;’ Bengel,) and ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό brought back to its place and the meaning which it bears in this passage (see Acts 2:44), viz. together, in the sense of making up one sum, one body assembled in one place. Meyer attributes the separation of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό from πέτρος to an ecclesiastical portion having begun ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ταύταις π. κ. ἰω. as D. De Wette asks, why should those words have been inserted at the beginning of a portion? Perhaps in accordance with a not uncommon practice of opening an ecclesiastical lection with such a phrase. Or possibly, I might suggest, as a mistaken interpretation of ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, which was not understood. Then when ἐπ. τ. αὐ. became joined to πέτρος, τῇ ἐκκλ. would naturally be supplied after προσετίθει.
03 Chapter 3
Verse 1

1.] ἀνέβαινον, were going up.

τὴν ἐνάτην] See ch. Acts 10:3; Acts 10:30.

τὴν ὥραν τῆς πρ. generic;— τὴν ἐν., specific. There were three hours of prayer; those of the morning and evening sacrifice, i.e. the third and ninth hours, and noon. See Lightfoot and Wetst. in loc.

Verses 1-10

Verse 2

τὴν θύραν … τ. λ. ὡραίαν] The arrangement of the gates of the Temple is, from the notices which we now possess, very uncertain. Three entrances have been fixed on for the θύρα ὡραία: (1) The gate mentioned Jos. B. J. v. 5. 3: τῶν δὲ πυλῶν αἱ μὲν ἐννέα χρυσῷ καὶ ἀργύρῳ κεκαλυμμέναι πανταχόθεν ἦσαν, ὁμοίως τε παραστάδες καὶ τὰ ὑπέρθυρα. μία δὲ ἡ ἔξωθεν τοῦ νεὼ κορινθίου χαλκοῦ, πολὺ τῇ τιμῇ τὰς καταργύρους καὶ τὰς περιχρύσους ὑπεράγουσα. This gate was also called Nicanor’s gate (see the Rabbinical citations in Wetstein),—and lay on the eastern side of the Temple, towards the valley of Kedron. Jos. mentions it again, as ἡ ἀνατολικὴ πύλη τοῦ ἐνδοτέρου, χαλκῆ οὖσα, and gives a remarkable account of its size and weight: adding, that when, before the siege, it was discovered supernaturally opened in the night, τοῦτο τοῖς ἰδιώταις κάλλιστον ἐδόκει τέρας· ἀνοῖξαι γὰρ τὸν θεὸν αὐτοῖς τὴν τῶν ἀγαθῶν πύλην. But some find a difficulty in this. The lame man, they say, would not be likely to have been admitted so far into the Temple (but see Wetst. as above, where it appears that lepers used to stand at Nicanor’s gate): and besides, he would have taken up his station naturally at an outer gate, where he might ask alms of all who entered. These conditions suit better (2) the gate Susan; as does also the circumstance mentioned Acts 3:11, that the people ran together to Solomon’s porch; for this gate was on the east side of the court of the Gentiles, and close to Solomon’s porch. Only the name ὡραία cannot be derived from the town Susan (from which the gate was named, having a picture of the town over it), that word signifying ‘a lily;’ the town being named, it is true, διὰ τὴν ὡραιότητα τοῦ τόπου (Athen⁽³⁵⁾ xii. 1, p. 573): but the derivation being too far-fetched to be at all probable. Another suitable circumstance was, that by this gate the market was held for sheep and cattle and other offerings, and therefore a greater crowd would be attracted. (3) Others again (Lightf. favours this) attempt to derive ὡραία from חֶלֶד, ‘tempus,’ and refer the epithet to two gates opening towards the city on the western side. But it is very unlikely that Luke should have used ὡρ . in so unusual a meaning:—not to say (see Lightf. Descr. Templi) that the meaning of חוּלְדָה itself is very doubtful. So that the matter must remain in uncertainty.

Verse 3

3.] ἠρώτα … λαβεῖν,—so Soph. Aj. 836, αἰτήσομαι δέ σʼ οὐ μακρὸν γέρας λαβεῖν, and Aristoph. Plut. 240, αἰτῶν λαβεῖν τιμικρὸν ἀργυρίδιον.

ἐλεημ, as in ref. Matt.

The Jewish forms of asking alms are given in Vajicra Rabb. f. 20. 3.4 (cited by Meyer),—‘Merere in me:’ ‘In me benefac tibi,’ and the like.

Verse 4

Verse 5

Verse 6

ἐν τῷ ὀνόμ.] There is no ellipsis (as Heinr. and Kuinoel) of λέγω σοι, which weakens the force of the sentence: the name of Jesus is that in which, by the power of which, the “rise up and walk” is to be accomplished.

Verse 7

7. πιάσας … ἤγειρεν] οὕτω καὶ ὁ χριστὸς ἐποίησε· πολλάκις λόγῳ ἐθεράπευσε, πολλάκις ἔργῳ, πολλάκις καὶ τὴν χεῖρα προήγαγεν, ὅπου ἦσαν ἀσθενέστεροι κατὰ τὴν πίστιν· ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ ἀπὸ ταυτομάτου γενέσθαι. Chrys. in Act. Hom. viii. p. 63. See Mark 9:27.

βάσεις are the soles of the feet,— σφυρά, the ankles. Luke, the physician, had made himself acquainted with the peculiar kind of weakness, and described it accordingly.

Verse 8

8.] ἐξαλλ. describes his first joyous liberation from his weakness: as soon as he felt himself strengthened, he leapt up, for joy. No suppositions need be made, such as πειράζων ἴσως ἑαυτόν (Chrys.): or that it was from ignorance how to walk (Bloomf.). His joy is quite sufficient to explain the gesture, and it is better to leave the narrative in its simplicity. If καί before αἰνῶν is omitted (see digest), the present participle has its ratiocinative force, alleging the cause of the walking and leaping: and would best be rendered in English, in his praising of God.

Verse 11

στοᾷ τῇ κ. σολομ.] See John 10:23, note.

Verses 11-26

11–26.] THE DISCOURSE OF PETER THEREUPON.

Verse 12

ἐπὶ τούτῳ] not, at this (event): but at this man, compare αὐτόν below, which would not be used at the first mention of one then present.

Their error was not the wonder itself,—though even that would shew ignorance and weakness of faith, for it was truly no wonderful thing that had happened, viewed by a believer in Jesus,—but their wondering at the Apostles, as if they had done it by their own power. ‘Ergo,’ says Calvin, ‘hoc est perperam obstupescere, quum in hominibus mentes nostræ subsistunt.’

δυνάμει, power,—such as magical craft, or any other supposed means of working miracles: εὐσεβείᾳ meritorious efficacy with God, so as to have obtained this from Him on our own account. The distinction is important:—‘holiness,’ of the E. V., is not expressive of εὐσεβ., which bears in it the idea of operative, cultive piety, rather than of inherent character.

Verse 13

13. ὁ θ. ἀβρ. κ. τ. λ.] ‘Appellatio frequens in Actis, præ cæteris libris N. T., et illi periodo temporum conveniens.’ Bengel. ὅρα πῶς αὐτὸν ( τὸν θεὸν) εἰσωθεῖ συνεχῶς εἰς τοὺς προγόνους· ἵνα μὴ δόξῃ καινόν τι εἰσάγειν δόγμα· καὶ ἐκεῖ (ch. 2) τοῦ πατριάρχου δαβὶδ ἐμνημόνευσε, καὶ ἐνταῦθα τῶν περὶ τοῦ ἀβραὰμ … (Chrys.).

ἐδόξασεν] not, as E. V., ‘hath glorified,’ implying, by thus honouring His Name: it is the historic aor., glorified, viz. by His exaltation through death—see John 12:23; John 17:10.

παῖδα] not ‘Son,’ but Servant: servant, however, in that distinct and Messianic sense which the same expression bears in Isaiah 40-66 in the LXX.

υἱός is the word always used to desiguate Jesus as the SON of God. The above meaning is adopted by all the best modern Commentators, Pisc., Bengel, Olsh., Meyer, De W., Stier, some of whom refer to a paper of Nitzsch’s in the Stud. u. Krit. for 1828, Heft 2, p. 331 ff. Olsh. says, ‘After N.’s remarks on the subject, no one hereafter can suppose this expression equivalent to υἱὸς τ. θ.’ “In the next age,” says Wordsw., “the term παῖς θεοῦ was applied to Christ as a Son. See Polycarp, Mart⁽³⁶⁾ § 14, p. 1040 (Migne); and S. Hippolyt. Philosoph. x. 33 (in Migne’s Origen, tom. vi. p. 540), and contra Noëtum, § 5, 7, 11, pp. 809 ff. (Migne), and the note of Fabricius, ii. p. 10.”

κατὰ πρόσωπον π. as E. V., ‘in the presence of P.,’ or better perhaps, to the face of Pilate. The expression is no Hebraism. Polybius often uses it. κατὰ πρόσωπον λεγομένων τῶν λόγων, Acts 25:5. 2: κ. πρ. ἀπαντᾷν τοῖς πολεμίοις, Acts 17:3. 3, &c. See Schweigh., Lexicon Polybianum.

κρίναντος ἐκ. ἀπολ., see Luke 23:20; John 19:4; John 19:12.

Verse 14