Pentecost and Its Aftermath (Acts 2)
Pentecost and Its Aftermath (Acts 2)
Vs. 1 ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι τὴν ἡμέραν τῆς πεντηκοστῆς not as E.V. for that would require a past tense, nor yet ‘drew on’ nor again does the συμπληροῦσθαι refer only to the day of Pentecost for then the word would be inappropriate, ‘was being brought to a close or completion’ as it was early in the day. Note: συμπληροῦσθαι implies that it made up the complement of days between the Passover and the Feast of Weeks. ὁμοθυμαδόν never = αὐτό. Here however there is some doubt about the reading. A, B, C* having αὐτό. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό had gathered together to the same place and were there.
Vs. 2 On πνοή/πνεῦμα, cf. Philo Leg. Alleg. i.§.13. πνοή is a passing breath or blast or breeze and may be violent or not, πνεῦμα on the other hand is more general. The πνοή therefore is more applicable here and more appropriate to the suddenness and transitionary character of the blast ἄφνω, φερομένης, βιαίας.
Vs. 3 διαμεριζόμεναι being distributed, divided, and apportioned out. The word has always this meaning (cf. Acts 4:7). This meaning too is indicated due to the symbolism of the passage.
ὡσεὶ πυρὸς, ὥσπερ φερομένης not really fire, or really wind (cf. Luke 3:22, where he adds σωματικῷ εἴδει).
ἐκάθισεν i.e. γλῶσσαι. ἑτέραις γλώσσαις i.e. other than this ordinary (or natural) language (cf. Mark 16:17). The writer of the last paragraph attached to St. Mark’s Gospel evidently had the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts before him. The particulars he gives are almost entirely taken from the one or the other.
Vs. 5 ἄνδρες εὐλαβεῖς like σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν.
Vs. 6 φωνῆς i.e. of the speakers. It ( . . . as one sound) reached the people (cf. Acts 19:34, and cf. Rev 5:11). φωνή could scarcely = ἦχος except in a highly poetical passage.
Vs. 8 διάλεκτος in vs. 8 does not mean ‘a dialect’ and therefore a distinction between γλώσσας and διάλεκτος will not hold.
Vss. 9-28 Here in a geographical arrangement is the list of names, not an exhaustive geographical list but those countries only are mentioned in which Jews were found in great numbers. Κρῆτες καὶ Ἄραβες the struggle picked up (see Tacitus Hist. v.2 and the Epistle of Titus). The geographical order then is marking the Mediterranean point of reference: 1) East of Mediterranean—Parthians, Medes, etc.; 2) North of Mediterranean—Cappadocia, etc.; 3) South of Mediterranean—Libya, Cyrene; 4) West of Mediterranean—Rome (Jews and proselytes). Note that Ιουδαῖοί καὶ προσήλυτοι refers solely to Ῥωμαῖοι.
To fully understand this crucial passage one must note many particulars:
(A) The Time
(1) Pentecostal Feast: Passover: Crucifixion: Pentecost: Note the dependence in point of time of Pentecost on the Passover narrative and here of the Spirit’s leaving in the time of crucifixion and returning here. Hence Pentecost, for a further reason, becomes a solemn festival to Christians (cf. Acts 20:16; Deut. 23:16). Bear in mind the elements of Leaven (Mt 13:33), the first fruits, the wave offering.
(2) Giving of the Law. cf. Ex 12:2. with Ex 19:1. The Pentecostal feast had come to be associated with the giving of Law, though it may be objected that the Jews themselves did not know that this was the time of the giving of the Law. This, if true, does not matter: it is a question of fact, not of opinion. On the contrast of the giving of law and gospel (Sinai & Zion), see Hebrews 12:18.
(B) The Symbols
(1) The wind. John 3:8
(2) The tongues of fire
(a). natural aptness of the image
(b). moral aptness
the tongue: power and eloquence the fire: purification. In this respect the baptism of the spirit differs from baptism of John, and of the opposite kind. See James 3:6; cf. Is 4:4.
(c). διαμεριζόμεναι cf. 1 Cor 12:2.
(C) The Speaking with Tongues What is meant by the writer here? Clearly the attendance of different tongues. Three opinions held:
(1) Baur. Teller: the writer lived much after the event, and therefore it is idle to enquire what foundation of truth there is for the narrative. A consistent view.
(2) That it happened as St. Luke narrated. Likewise consistent.
(3) That it happened in a different way from what St. Luke recorded. That it was really the utterance of ecstatic language and that St. Luke mistook it for the speaking of diverse tongues. This latter view is utterly inconsistent with the view that the narrative was written by a companion of St. Paul and a contemporary.
(a). This was one of the most remarkable events in the history of the church and could scarcely have been or mistaken by anyone in so prominent a position as St. Luke.
(b). The gift of tongues still continued in the church. St. Paul had it in a preeminent degree (1 Cor 14:18). The abuse of it was one of the evils he had to combat in the Corinthian church. St. Paul being constantly with St. Luke must have known what it was. Yes, but it could be argued that the gift of tongues was something different from what is represented happening on the day of Pentecost. Suppose it were. It would be the more unlikely that St. Luke should step out of his way to invent a different gift of tongues. He could not then have misunderstood the miracle of Pentecost.
The nature of the Pentecostal miracle then is clear and was so taken by the early Christian writers (e.g. Irenaeus). But was the gift of tongues as St. Paul speaks of it the same? YES because:
1. The a priori improbability that a different gift should be so called.
2. The continuity in the history. [Acts] 10:46., 11:15., 19:6, which brings us to the period of which St. Paul speaks.
3. The language of St. Paul respecting it. γένη γλ. [1 Cor] 12:28. γλ. ἀνθ. καὶ ἁγγ. 1 Cor 13:1. διαφθοράν 1 Cor 14:4. esp. 1 Cor 14:11, 21, 22.
4. The effect it produced on those present. 1 Cor 14:23.
The gift, however transitory and ecstatic, was a symbol. We may ask about its relation to the composition of languages, about the relationship of Babel and the Day of Pentecost. This gift however was not available for purposes of preaching the gospel. Quote Euseb. H.E. v.7. Cf. Iren. v.6.1.
Two Questions:
(1) Are the tongues of Pentecost and the tongues of 1 Cor 14 different?
(2) Are they foreign languages? Prima facie Yes—probably not to these people alone.
Vss. 29-47
Vs. 29 ἐξὸν i.e. ἐστε (not ἐστε which would scarcely be understood). ‘The facts of the case are such that I can boldly say.’
Vs. 32 οὗ
Vs. 33 τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς = ὑψωθείς καὶ τῇ δεξιᾷ σταθὲις. Exalted on the right hand of God. It is not the dative dependent on a verb of motion. The context absolutely requires this interpretation of τῇ δεξιᾷ cf. vv. 25, 34. Though in vs. 31 it might well be taken otherwise ἐπαγγελίαν (not ὑπόσχεσιν) cf. John.
Vs. 34 Ps 110:1, cited also in Matthew 22:44 (where the best manuscripts have ὑποκάτω for ὑποπόδιον). With this exception in all 3 passages the verb agrees with LXX & Hebrews. It is evident both from this passage and that in St. Matthew that the Psalm was regarded by the Jews of that time as written by David himself. They therefore saw no inappropriateness in the supposition. At all events our Lord’s authority is beyond appeal. The Psalm was probably in the first instance a prophetic declaration of a coming triumph, written to be sung on the occasion of David’s going forth to battle—written by David himself, but speaking of himself in the third person inasmuch as it would be sung by others. Under the influence of the Spirit however David pitched the key so high that the language could apply to himself and found its real fulfillment in that Messiah of which the king himself was only a mere type.
Vs. 38 μετανοήσατε, βαπτισθήτω (cf. vs. 6). Let it be done at once—there is no time for delay. μετανοήσατε καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν. εἰς ἄφεσιν τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος. In Mark 1:4 of John’s Baptism κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν (cf. Luke 3:3). This text raises the question about the relationship of Christian Baptism to the gift of the Spirit. On δωρεά cf. James 1:17 (see Journal of Philol. iii. p.113).
Vs. 39 τοῖς εἰς μακράν i.e. probably the Gentiles cf. Eph 2:13. νυνὶ δὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὑμεῖς οἵ ποτε ὄντες μακρὰν ἐγενήθητε ἐγγὺς ἐν τῷ αἵματι τοῦ Χριστοῦ. Also Is 57:19 where however the meaning is not so clear. ὅσους ἂν προσκαλέσηται cf. Acts 2:21 (Joel 5:5). Beza understood τοῖς εἰς μακράν of time ‘future generations.’
Vss. 40-41 τῆς γενεᾶς τῆς σκολιᾶς Phil 2:15. μέσον γενεᾶς σκολιᾶς καὶ διεστραμμένης. σώθητε—Not as E.V. but ‘be ye saved.’ It was not their own act, but the act of God.
Vs. 41 refers to baptism by immersion.
Vss. 42-47 Here we have a picture of the infant church in which the idea of a church is realized to a very high degree and which is evidently portrayed here, to point out the essential character of the church. The unity of the church then consists in:
(1) Inward conformity τῇ διδαχῇ τῶν ἀποστόλων—the apostolic doctrine
(2) Outward conformity ἡ κοινωνία (τῶν ἀποστόλων)
a. τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου—The Holy Sacrament
b. ταῖς προσευχαῖς—Public prayer
καὶ is to be omitted after κοινωνία. The best authorities are unanimous. τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου καὶ ταῖς προσευχαῖς is in apposition with, and an explanation of, τῇ κοινωνίᾳ. Vulg. ‘communicatione fractionis panis’ is wrong in saying that the adoption of the right reading renders this interpretation untenable. The Romanist argument drawn from the mention of the bread alone is of course untenable.
And however impracticable a community of property may be, still it realizes the idea of a Christian brotherhood more completely than the existence of separate interests in this respect admits. It is not essential to the existence of a church, but the nearer a church approaches to perfection, the more nearly will this community of goods be realized.
τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου—the article τοῦ ἄρτου seems to point to the Eucharist not κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου and so St. Paul distinctly 1 Cor 10:16—τὸ ποτήριον κ.τ.λ. τὸν ἄρτον ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἓν σῶμα οἱ πολλοί ἐσμεν, οἱ γὰρ πάντες ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου μετέχομεν (the bread then should be broken when distributed, else its symbolical meaning is destroyed). The expression κλάσις ἄρτου however need not necessarily refer to the Eucharistic bread. It occurs in St. Luke 24:35; Acts 2:46; 20:7, 11; 27:35.
For the phrase in v. 46 κατ᾽ οἶκον ἄρτον ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ cf. v. 42.
In v. 47 τοὺς σῳζομένους is correct, τῇ ἐκκλησία is rightly rejected as a reading here. ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό is to be attached to καθ᾽ ἡμέραν, and Chapter 3 begins Πέτρος δὲ καὶ Ἰωάννης.