παρεκάλει] in accordance with his name, which (ch. Acts 4:36) was interpreted υἱὸς παρακλήσεως. Verse 23-24 23, 24

Verse 23-24

Verse 25

Verse 26

χριστιανούς] This name is never used by Christians of themselves in the N. T. (but οἱ μαθηταί, οἱ πιστοί, or οἱ πιστεύοντες, οἱ ἀδελφοί, οἱ ἅγιοι, οἱ τῆς ὁδοῦ), only (see reff.) as spoken by, or coming from, those without the church. And of those, it cannot have arisen with the Jews, who would never have given a name derived from the Messiah to a hated and despised sect. By the Jews they were called ναζωραῖοι, ch. Acts 24:5, and Galilæans: and Julian, who wished to deprive them of a name in which they gloried (see below), and to favour the Jews, ordered that they should not be called Christiani; but Galilæi, Greg. Naz⁽⁵⁸⁾ Orat. iv. (in Jul. i.) 86, vol. i. p. 114. That it has a Latin form is no decided proof of a Latin origin: Latin forms had become naturalized among the Greeks, and in this case there would be no Greek adjective so ready to hand as the Latin possessive, sanctioned as it was by such forms as Pompeiani, Cæsariani, Herodiani (Christus being regarded as a proper name, see Tacit. Ann. xv. 44, ‘… quos vulgus … Christianos appellabat. Auctor ejus nominis Christus, Tiberio imperitante, per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat’). The name soon became matter of glorying among its bearers: ref. 1 Pet., Eus⁽⁵⁹⁾ H. E. Acts 11:1, in the epistle of the churches of Lyons and Vienne, τοῦ ἡγεμόνος.… μόνον τοῦτο πυθομένου εἰ καὶ αὐτὸς εἴη χριστιανός, τοῦ δὲ (Epagathus) λαμπροτάτῃ φωνῇ ὁμολογήσαντος, … and again, πρὸς πάντα τὰ ἐπηρωτημένα ἀπεκρίνατο (Sanctus) τῇ ῥωμαικῇ φωνῇ, χριστιανός εἰμι. And in the Clementine Liturgy (Humphry, Comm. on Acts, p. 84),— εὐχαριστοῦμέν σοι, ὅτι τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ χριστοῦ σου ἐπικέκληται ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς, καὶ σοὶ προσῳκειώμεθα.

Before this, while the believers had been included among Jews, no distinctive name for them was needed: but now that a body of men, compounded of Jews and Gentiles, arose, distinct in belief and habits from both, some new appellation was required.

It may be observed, that the inhabitants of Antioch were famous for their propensity to jeer and call names; see instances in C. and H. i. p. 148, note 2. See several interesting particulars respecting the name collected in Wordsw.’s note: who however maintains that it was given by the Church herself.

Verse 27

27. ἐν τ. τ. ἡμ.] It was during this year, Acts 11:26.

προφῆται] Inspired teachers in the early Christian church, referred to in the Acts, and in the Epistles of Paul (see reff. and ch. Acts 19:6; Acts 21:9; Romans 12:6; 1 Corinthians 12:10; 1 Corinthians 13:2; 1 Corinthians 13:8; 1 Corinthians 14:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:20). They might be of either sex (ch. Acts 21:9). The foretelling of future events was not the usual form which their inspiration took, but that of an exalted and superhuman teaching, ranked by St. Paul above ‘speaking with tongues,’ in being the utterance of their own conscious intelligence informed by the Holy Spirit. This inspiration was however, occasionally, as here, and ch. Acts 21:10, made the vehicle of prophecy, properly so called.

Verse 28

28. ἄγαβος] The same who prophesied Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem, ch. Acts 21:10, ff. From the form of his announcement there, we may infer the manner in which he ἐσήμανεν διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος here. It was τάδε λὲγει τὸ πν. τὸ ἅγιον.

The fem. usage of λιμός prevailed among the Dorians (cf. Aristoph. Acharn. 708) and later Greeks: see Meyer, edn. 2, and Lobeck on Phryn. p. 188. We find it sometimes also in Ionic poets, e.g. in Hom. Hymn to Demeter, 311, λιμοῦ ὑπʼ ἀργαλέης: see other examples in Palm and Rost, sub voce.

ὅλην τ. οἰκουμένην] not, ‘all Judæa,’ though in fact it was so: the expression is a hyperbolical one in ordinary use, and not to be pressed as strictly implying that to which its literal meaning would extend. That it occurs in a prophecy (Meyer) is no objection to this: the scope and not the wording of the prophecy is given. But see below.

ἐπὶ κλαυδίου] In the fourth year of Claudius, A.D. 44, there was a famine in Judæa and the neighbouring countries (Jos. Antt. xx. 2. 5). And three others are mentioned during his reign: one in Greece (Eus⁽⁶⁰⁾ Chron. i. 79), and two in Rome (Dio Cassius, lx. 11. Tacitus, Ann. xii. 43), so that scarcity ἐπὶ κλαυδίου did extend through the greater part of the ‘orbis terrarum,’ if it be thought necessary to press the words of the prophecy. The queen Helena of Adiabene and her son Izates helped the Jews with subsidies on the occasion (Jos. ibid., see also xx. 5. 2, where he calls it τὸν μέγαν λιμόν), both of corn and money.

I do not believe that the words ἐπὶ κλ. imply that the events just related were not also in the reign of Claudius: but they are inserted to particularize the famine as being that well-known one, and only imply that the author was not writing under Claudius.

Verse 29

τῶν δὲ μαθ. κ. τ. λ. is a mixture of two constructions, οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ καθὼς εὐπορεῖτό τις αὐτῶν.

The church at Jerusalem was poor, probably in connexion with the community of goods, which would soon have this effect; see ch. Acts 2:44, note.

Verse 30

ἡρώδης ὁ βασιλεύς] HEROD AGRIPPA I., grandson of Herod the Great,—son of Aristobulus and Berenice (Jos. Antt. xvii. 1.2; B. J. i. 28.1). Having gone to Rome, to accuse Herod the Tetrarch (Antipas), and fallen under the displeasure of Tiberius for paying open court to Caius Cæsar (Caligula), he was imprisoned and cruelly treated; but, on the accession of Caligula, released, and at once presented with the tetrarchy of Philip (Trachonitis),—who had lately died,—and the title of king. On this, Antipas, by persuasion of his wife Herodias, went to Rome, to try to obtain the royal title also, but was followed by his enemy Agrippa, who managed to get Antipas banished to Spain, and to obtain his tetrarchy (Galilee and Peræa) for himself. (Jos. Antt. xix. 8. 2.) Finally, Claudius, in return for services rendered to him by Agrippa, at the time of Caligula’s death, presented him with Samaria and Judæa (about 41 A.D., Jos. Antt. xix. 5. 1), so that he now ruled (Jos. ibid.) all the kingdom of Herod the Great. His character, as given by Josephus, Antt. xix. 7. 3, is important as illustrating the present chapter: ἐπεφύκει δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς οὗτος εὐεργετικὸς εἶναι ἐν δωρεαῖς, καὶ μεγαλοφρονῆσαι ἔθνη φιλότιμος, καὶ πολλοῖς ἀθρόως δαπανήμασιν ἀνιστὰς αὑτὸν εἰς ἐπιφάνειαν, ἡδόμενος τῷ χαρίζεσθαι, καὶ τῷ βιοῦν ἐν εὐφημίᾳ χαίρων … (see Acts 12:3) … πραῢς δὲ ὁ τρόπος ἀγρίππᾳ, καὶ πρὸς πάντας τὸ εὐεργετικὸν ὅμοιον. ἡδεῖα γοῦν αὐτῷ δίαιτα καὶ συνεχὴς ἐν τοῖς ἱεροσολύμοις ἦν, καὶ τὰ πάτρια καθαρῶς ἐτήρει. διὰ πάσης γοῦν αὑτὸν ἦγεν ἁγνείας, οὐδὲ ἡμέρα τὶς παρώδευεν αὐτῷ τῆς νομίμης χηρεύουσα θυσίας. This character will abundantly account for his persecuting the Christians, who were so odious to the Jews, and for his vain-glorious acceptance of the impious homage of the people, Acts 12:23.

ἐπέβ. τ. χεῖρ.] A pregnant construction. In full, it would be ἐπέβ. τὰς χ. ἐπί τινας τῶν ἀπὸ τ. ἐκκ., τοῦ κακῶσαι αὐτούς. Some expositors (Heinr., Kuin.), not seeing this, have endeavoured to give to ἐπέβ. τ. χ. the unexampled meaning, not justified by Deuteronomy 12:7; Deuteronomy 15:10, of ‘took in hand,’ ‘attempted.’ The E. V. ‘stretched forth his hands’ (or, marg. ‘began’) is equally inadmissible. It should be, H. the K. laid his hands on certain of the church, to vex them.

τῶν ἀπό] See reff., and compare ch. Acts 6:9.

Verses 1-25

1–25.] PERSECUTION OF THE CHURCH AT JERUSALEM BY HEROD AGRIPPA. MARTYRDOM OF JAMES THE BROTHER OF JOHN. IMPRISONMENT AND MIRACULOUS DELIVERANCE OF PETER. DEATH OF HEROD AT CÆSAREA. RETURN OF BARNABAS AND SAUL FROM JERUSALEM TO ANTIOCH.

Verse 2

Eusebius, H. E. ii. 9, relates, from the Hypotyposes of Clemens, who had received it ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ, that the accuser of James, struck by his confession, became a Christian, and was led away with him to martyrdom, συναπήχθησαν οὖν ἄμφω, φησί, καὶ κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν ἠξίωσεν ἀφεθῆναι αὐτῷ ὑπὸ τοῦ ἰακώβου. ὁ δὲ ὀλίγον σκεψάμενος, εἰρήνη σοι, εἶπε, καὶ κατεφίλησεν αὐτόν. καὶ οὕτως ἀμφότεροι ὁμοῦ ἐκαρατομήθησαν.

μαχαίρῃ] Probably according to the Roman method of beheading, which became common among the later Jews. It was a punishment accounted extremely disgraceful by the Jews: see Lightf. in loc.

Verse 3

προς. συλλ.] A Hebraism: see reff.

αἱ ἡμ. τ. ἀζ.] Wieseler (Chronol. der Apost. Zeit. pp. 215–220) regards the whole of the following narrative as having happened on one and the same day and night, viz. that of the 14th of Nisan (April 1), A.D. 44. He takes τὸ πάσχα in the strict meaning, ‘the passover,’ i.e. the eating of the passover on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, and thinks that Herod was intending to bring Peter forth on the next morning. He finds support for this in the four quaternions of soldiers, the guard for one night (see below), and maintains that the expression τὸ πάσ̇ χα cannot apply to the whole festal period, which would have been τὴν ἑορτήν, or ταύτας τὰς ἡμέρας. But Bleek (Beiträge zur Ev.-kritik, p. 144) calls this view most arbitrary and even unnatural; and I own, with all respect for Wieseler’s general acumen, I am disposed to agree with this criticism. The whole cast of the narrative,—the ἦσαν αἱ ἡμέ ραι, not ἦν ἡ ἡμέρ α τῶν ἀζ., Luke’s own expression in his Gospel, Luke 22:7,—the intimation of enduring custody in the παραδοὺς … φυλάσσειν αὐτ.,—the delay implied in the βουλόμενος,—in the imperfects ἐτηρεῖτο,— ἦν γινομένη (not ἐγένετο),—the specification of τῇ νυκτὶ ἐκείνῃ as presupposing (notwithstanding what wieseler says to the contrary) more nights preceding,—all this would be unaccountable in the precise historical diction of Luke, unless he had intended to convey an impression that some days elapsed. But still more decisive is his own definition of πάσχα, Luke 22:1, ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων, ἡ λεγομένη πάσχα. So that μετὰ τὸ πάσχα may well = μετὰ τὴν ἑορτὴν τῶν ἀζύμων. The argument from the four quaternions of soldiers proves nothing: the same sixteen (see below) may have had him in permanent charge, that number being appointed as adequate to the duties required.

Verse 4

μετὰ τὸ πάσχα] (see above) after the days of the feast, i.e. after the 21st of Nisan. Herod, who (Acts 12:1, note) observed rigorously the Jewish customs, would not execute a prisoner during the feast: ‘Non judicant die festo’ (Moed Katon Acts 12:2, Meyer).

ἀναγ. αὐτ. τῷ λαῷ] See ref.: to bring him out and sentence him in sight of the people.

Verse 5

Verse 6

The practice of attaching a prisoner to one keeper or more by a chain is alluded to by several ancient authors: e.g. Seneca, de Tranquill. 10, ‘Eadem custodia universos circumdedit, alligatique sunt etiam qui alligaverunt, nisi tu forte leviorem in sinistra catenam putas:’ and Epist. 5: ‘Quemadmodum eadem catena et militem et custodiam copulat.’ In the account of the imprisonment of Herod Agrippa himself by Tiberius, Jos. Antt. xviii. 6. 7, we read of the συνδεδεμένος αὐτῷ στρατιώτης. And we have an edict of Constantius, commanding, for binding prisoners, ‘prolixiores catenas, si criminis qualitas etiam catenarum acerbitatem postulaverit, ut et cruciatio desit, et permaneat sub fida custodia.’ (Wieseler, p. 414.) See note on ch. Acts 24:23; see also ch. Acts 28:16; Acts 28:20.

ἐτήρουν τὴν φυλ.] not, kept the watch (Raphel, Wolf, al.),—but guarded the prison.

Verse 7

Verse 9

Verse 10

Verse 11

Verse 12

ἰωάννου] It is uncertain whether this John Mark was the same as the Evangelist Mark: but they have been generally believed to be the same. For a full account of him, see Prolegomena to Mark (Vol. I. § i.). His mother Mary was not sister, but aunt of Barnabas: see Colossians 4:10, note.

Verse 15

15. ἄγγελός ἐστ. αὐτοῦ] No other rendering but his angel will suit the sense: and with a few exceptions (Camero, Basnage, Hammond, and one or two more) all Commentators, ancient and modern, have recognized this meaning. Our Lord plainly asserts the doctrine of guardian angels in ref. Matt. (see note there): and from this we further learn in what sense His words were understood by the early church. From His words taken with the context ( μὴ καταφρονήσητε ἑνὸς τῶν μικρῶν τούτων) we infer that each one has his guardian angel: from this passage we find not only that such was believed to be the case, but that it was supposed that such angel occasionally appeared in the semblance (seeing that he spoke with the voice) of the person himself. We do not, it is true, know who the speakers were: nor is the peculiar form in which they viewed the doctrine binding upon us: it may have been erroneous, and savouring of superstition. But of the doctrine itself this may not be said, as the Lord Himself has asserted it. See Wordsw.’s interesting note here.

For what purpose they supposed this angel to have come, does not appear in the narrative.

Verse 17

17. κατασείσας] see reff. His motive was haste: he tells briefly the particulars of his deliverance, and, while it was yet night, hastily departs.

ἰακώβῳ] James, the brother of the Lord, whom we find presiding over the church at Jerusalem, ch. Acts 15:13; Acts 21:18; Galatians 2:12. See Galatians 1:19; Galatians 2:9. He appears also to be mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:7. I believe him to have been one of those ἀδελφοὶ τοῦ κυρίου mentioned Matthew 13:55; John 7:5; ch. Acts 1:14; 1 Corinthians 9:5, of whom I have in the note on the first of these passages maintained, that they were His real maternal brethren, sons of Joseph and Mary:—to have been an Apostle, as Paul and Barnabas, but not of the number of the twelve (see note on ch. Acts 14:4):—and to have been therefore of course distinct from James the son of Alphæus, enumerated (Matthew 10:3 ⁽⁶¹⁾) among the twelve. The reasons for this belief I reserve for the Prolegomena to the Epistle of James.

εἰς ἕτερον τόπον] I see in these words a minute mark of truth in our narrative. Under the circumstances, the place of Peter’s retreat would very naturally at the time be kept secret. It probably was unknown to the person from whom the narrative came, or designedly left indefinite. And so it has remained, the narrative not following Peter’s history any longer. We find him again at Jerusalem in ch. 15. Whether he left it or not on this occasion is uncertain. It is not asserted in ἐξελθών,—which only implies that be left the house.

Verse 18

τί … ἐγένετο] So Theocr. Id. xiv. 51, ἁδίστα γοργοῖ‚ τί γενοίμεθα;

Verse 19

19. κατ … εἰς καις.] These words are to be taken together, and ἐκεῖ or ἐν κ. to be supplied with διέτριβεν. Kuin. takes εἰς κ. as = ἐν κ. with διέτρ., and κατελθών alone, which is not so natural on account of the position of the words.

Verse 20