Excursus: The Diaconate
The Beginnings and Trials of the Church in Jerusalem (Acts 3–6)
Chapter 3
Vss. 1-2 ἀνέβαινον, ἐβαστάζετο.
αἰτεῖν, ἐρωτεῖν See Trench N.T. Syn. xl. p. 158.
ἡ ὥρα τῆς προσευχῆς ἡ ἐνάτη the hour of prayer being the third, sixth, and ninth ἐπὶ τὴν ὥραν.
ἡ θύρα ἡ ὡραία probably Nicanor gate. cf. Thrupp’s Jerusalem p. 329.
Vs. 4 ἀτενίσας . . . (Meyer)
Vs. 5 ἐπεῖχεν
Vs. 6 τοῦ Ναζωραίου i.e. the despised and the friend of such. cf. Mt 2:23
ἀργύριτις, χρυσίον, ἀργύριον
Vs. 7 αἱ βάσεις αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σφυδρά ‘the soles of his feet and his ankles.’ Luke the physician speaks. See Bengel.
Vs. 10 ἐπεγίνωσκον
πρὸς τὴν ἐλεημοσύνην for our alms. cf. v. 3
θάμβους in affectu, seat of θάμβος, in the feelings, astonishment
ἔκστασις in intellectu, seat of ἔκστασις, the mind, amazement (Bengel).
Vs. 11 αὐτοῦ A, B, C, E. Received Text reads τοῦ ἰαθέντος χωλοῦ.
Vs. 12 ἐπὶ τούτῳ probably neutral—the introduction of αὐτόν without any word to refer to it, is natural enough.
ἡμῖν τί ἀτενίζετε—emphatic.
τοῦ περιπατεῖν.
Vs. 13 τὸν παῖδα cf. Mt 12:18 (where it is rightly translated), cited from Isaiah 42:1. cf. Acts 4:25 with Acts 4:27.
Punctuation in Alford bad.
κρίναντος ἐκείνου ὑμεῖς δὲ—ἀπεκτείνατε
ὑμεῖς μὲν παρεδώκατε is not answered by δὲ; the antithetical clause assumes another form ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν.
Vss. 14-15 ἄνδρα φονέα . . . τὸν δὲ ἀρχηγὸν τῆς ζωῆς Bengel called attention to this. Meyer says ‘bildet einen doppelten contrast, natürlich zu ἄνδρα φονέα und zu ἀπεκτείνατε.’
Vs. 16 ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει τοῦ ὀνόματος.
ἡ πίστις ἡ δι᾽ αὐτοῦ Cf. 1 Pet 1:21 ὑμᾶς τοὺς δι᾽ αὐτοῦ πιστοὺς εἰς θεὸν.
i.e. the faith of those who wrought the miracle (Alford).
Vs. 17 καὶ νῦν—‘formula transcendi a pretiru ad preseus’ (Bengel).
Vss. 19-20 μετανοήσατε
ὅπως ἂν ἔλθωσιν καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως ‘that they may come’
The hastening of God’s kingdom depends on the conversion of sinners.
The world must first be converted, then the power of evil must show itself in open opposition to the gospel. The distinction of good and evil will be clearly exposed. The rebellion of Satan will be brought to a head, and then he shall be crushed and the end of all things shall come.
This time (the καιροὶ ἀναψύξεως) depends on the success of the gospel and the alacrity with which it is received by men: but it is also predetermined in the counsel of God. The apparent contradiction is inexplicable. It is only the old difficulty of reconciling God’s foreknowledge with man’s free will—a difficulty which was not introduced by revelation and the solution of which is therefore not to be sought from revelation. Cf. 2 Pet 3:12—προσδοκῶντας καὶ σπέυδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν τῆς τοῦ θ. ἡμέρας. Mistranslated in the E.V.
Vs. 20 προκεχειρισμένον, prepared. Textus Receptus (cf. Acts 22:14) προκεχηρυγμένον.
Vs. 21 οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι. οὐρανὸν doubtless the subj. And not the object of δέξασθαι. δέξασθαι is not an adequate word to express Christ’s dwelling in heaven till he should come again in judgment. Cf. Pl. Theod. P.177A cited by Meyer.
μέν is not followed by δέ.
The clause referring to His second coming is suppressed because it is already implied in χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων.
ἄχρι—Baumg. cites Acts 20:6. Heb 3:13 as instances of ἄχρι signifying the conclusion of a period of time. This is true, but it seems scarcely applicable to this case. Perhaps we should state it thus. ἄχρι does not signify duration, it denotes a limit—either limit, the beginning or the end—but never the end unless there is something in the context to fix this meaning. e.g. πέντε in Acts, and καθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν in Heb.
ἐλάλησεν διὰ στόματος τῶν ἁγίων ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος προφητῶν Exactly the same words found cf. Luke 1:70.
I cannot believe with Baumg. that the antecedent of ὧν is πάντων—this limitation of ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων—seems to weaken the passage. (Alford’s note satisfactory). Cf. esp. St. Mt 17:11 which shows that πάντων is not generalized as Alford remarks. The grammatical difficulty of ὧν (on which Baumg. lays some stress) must be allowed.
Are not the words ἀπ᾽ αἰῶνος found here from Luke? (l[oc].c[it].)? They are marked in D and other respectable authorities and are found in different positions in others.
Vs. 22 Deut 18:15, 19, cited freely from LXX and is partly abridged.
(See Davidson, Sac. Herm. p. 392). Wherein Christ resembled Moses and where he differed cf. Heb 3:2
Vs. 24 καὶ κατήγγειλαν Begins the apodosis, as E.V.
τὰς ἡμέρας ταύτας See Alford, i.e. this new dispensation which is to end the ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων.
Vs. 25 agrees with the LXX (though not verbatim) and Hebrews. E.g. LXX has ἔθνος for πατέρας. It seems in fact to be an independent translation of the Hebrew and not as Alford implies.
Vs. 26 ὑμῖν πρῶτον Alford wrong in saying ‘implying the offer to the gentiles.’
Rather cf. Heb 1:1. to which this passage is a parallel πάλαι λαλήσας ὁ θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτου τῶν ἡμερῶν τούτων ἐλάλησεν ἡμῖν ἐν υἱῷ.
πρῶτον ‘first’ in reference to what has gone before, not to what comes after ἀναστήσας. cf. v. 22.
εὐλογοῦντα (not εὐλογήσαντα) i.e. the operation was still going on. (Baumg.)
ἀποστρέφειν active.
And in St. Peter’s first epistle it is found in exactly the same connection. ἐξηραύνησαν προφῆται οἱ περὶ τῆς εἰς ὑμᾶς χάριτος προφητεύσαντες . . . οἷς ἀπεκαλύφθη ὅτι οὐχ ἑαυτοῖς ὑμῖν δὲ διηκόνουν αὐτά, ἃ νῦν ἀνηγγέλη ὑμῖν κ.τ.λ. (1 Pet 1:10, 12) cf. Mt 13:17.
Acts 4: The Controversy Begins
Vs. 1 οἱ ἱερεῖς for they would view the acts of the apostles as a denial of their authority in doctrinal matters.
ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ who would consider it a breach of order
οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι to whom the doctrine taught were unpalatable. Bengel: Cum unlieribus ego et liberius multo major.
Vs. 2 ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν Alford confines the sense too narrowly. The resurrection of the dead as exhibited in the case of Jesus whose resurrection was not only an instance, but also an earnest of that which would be wrought in others. Cf. the doctrine as taught by St. Paul in 1 Cor 15.
Vs. 3 There seems to be no authority for taking τήρησιν . . . as local prison, though the analogy of the synonyms might seem to sanction this. cf. Thucydides vi.86.
ἔθεντο εἰς τήρησιν put them under confinement: unless Acts 5:18 should seem to require the sense of ‘prison.’
Vs. 4 τῶν ἀνδρῶν is probably used because the number of women who belonged to the church was hitherto small and might be neglected in reckoning up the numbers.
Vs. 5 ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον ἐπί with the accusative cannot be simply a designation of time: it must denote a purpose for the morrow. cf. Acts 3:1, E.V. ‘on the morrow’ is wrong.
αὐτῶν of the Jews (as Alford). There is not a single antecedent, to which it can be referred, but it is determined by v. 4. [For] αὐτῶν . . . [see] D, al, syr, cop, celt, arr.
ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ is undoubtedly the right reading. But Alford’s explanation will not stand. No one would think of saying ‘in London’ to denote that the event did not take place at St. Paul’s. If it had been ἐν τῇ πόδει, Alford’s interpretation would have been more tenable. ἐν Ἰερουσαλήμ they may have lived, many of them, outside the city. Tradition points out the country-house of Caiaphas. cf. Thrupp’s Jerusalem p. 241.
Vs. 7 ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει
ποῖος is never exactly equivalent to τίς in the New Testament cf. 1 Pet 1:11
ποῖος interrogative where it has not the signification ‘of what sort,’ implies incredulity, or perplexity on the part of the enquirer and is almost = τὶς ποτέ.
In the classical writers we find it in the state of transition to this meaning.
Vss. 8-10 ἐν τίνι misc: Alford is wrong. A Person is implied in ἐν ποίᾳ δυνάμει ἢ ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι. cf. v. 12 in which there is an apparent reference to this.
In vs. 10 ἐν τούτῳ probably masc. as Alford suggests.
Vs. 11 ὁ λίθος ὁ γενόμενος εἰς κεφαλὴν γωνίας i.e. ἀκρογωνιαῖος (Eph 2:20; 1 Pet 1:6). St. Paul’s words are the best commentary on the meaning of this metaphor. ὄντος ἀκρογωνιαίου αὐτοῦ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, ἐν ᾧ πᾶσα οἰκοδομὴ συναρμολογουμένη αὔξει εἰς ναὸν ἅγιον ἐν κυρίῳ. The ‘keystone’ of an arch serves the same purpose.
It is observable in how many cases the texts and traditions from the Old Testament brought forward by St. Peter have been applied before by our Lord.
For instance, in this passage. Cf. Matthew 22:42, and St. Peter repeats it again in his epistle. l[oc].c[it.]. Wherever this passage (from Ps. 117:22-23) is cited in the New Testament i.e. in the three synoptic Evangelists (St. Luke has only the first part) and in St. Peter’s Epistle it agrees verbatim with the LXX. St. Peter’s words here, which do not profess to be direct quotation, point to the same version.
Vs. 12 ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον . . . τὸ δεδομένον Alford’s Latin rendering does not account for the article τὸ δεδομένον. cf. Gal 3:21.
Vs. 13 ἐθαύμαζον a commentary on the words of the Psalmist: παρὰ κυρίου ἐγένετο αὔτη καὶ ἔστι θαυμαστὴ ὲν οφθαλμοῖς ἡμῶν. See Alford on Mt l[oc] c[it.].
ἰδιώτης used [of] . . . (1) the state, or refers (2) to a public functionary, or (3) to a person of rank, or (4) to an ‘individual’ officer in the army, or (5) to a professed gymnast or (6) to an artisan or (7) to a poet (prose writer) and (8) more generally to the stupid, ignorant.
ἐπεγίνωσκόν they recognized. ‘Ihre Verwunderung schärfte jetzt ihre Reminiscenz.’ (Meyer)
Vs. 17 ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι
διανεμηθῇ Totum pro gangrona habent. Ea emi sic descributa. 2 Tim 2:17. Bengel.
Vs. 20 cf. 1 John 1:3
Vs. 22 τὸ σημεῖον τοῦτο τῆς ἰάσεως. And so St. Peter himself had employed it as a σημεῖον. (cf. vv. 9, 12) ἐν τίνι οὗτος σέσωται with οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν ἄλλῳ οὐδενὶ ἡ σωτηρία. cf. ἡ πίστις σου σέσωκέν σε (St. Mk 10:52) of Bartimaeus. Σώζειν both there and here being too strong a word to apply to the healing of the body.
Vs. 23 τοὺς ἰδίους i.e. their own. It is useless to attempt to define its meaning.
Vs. 24 ‘Petrus etain hic verba videtur proivisse: sed coteri quoque voce sunt soi’ (?—check Bengel).
Vs. 25 The reading of A, B, E etc. though very ancient, cannot be right—Is. 51 verbatim with LXX & Heb. It is certainly without sense. Alford underestimates the case in saying the construction is harsh. It is an impossible construction. Moreover would God Himself be said to speak διὰ πνεύματος ἁγίου? Nothing but the absolute proof of this reading would justify us in disregarding such a mass of authority, as I think Tisch. has rightly done. Probably the original text had διὰ στόματος Δ.π.σ. and some pious copyist corrected it to πνεύματος ἁγίου wishing for some phrase which contained a more express declaration of the implication of Scripture. If this correction was written over the original text, the original words not being erased, it would be inserted in future copies. It is difficult to say whether τοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν is a gloss or not.
St. Luke seems to interpret ἔθνη of the Romans, λαός of the Jews, οἱ βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς of Herod, and οἱ ἄρχοντες of Pilate. See the order in which they are given. The part which Herod bore in the transaction is narrated by St. Luke alone of the Evangelists Luke 23:7. (Meyer here is difficult but then the explanation which I find in Bengel is indisputably right.) This depends on the peculiar significance of λαός. See Acts 15:14.
φρυάσσειν . . . ‘to snort’/not to whinny which is χρεμετίζειν cf. Lac. Serm. x
Vs. 27 συνήχθησαν ποιῆσαι
Vs. 28 ὅσα ἡ χείρ σου καὶ ἡ βουλή etc. see Alford.
Vs. 30 Not as Alford, but take ἐν τῷ–γίνεσθαι together as Bengel.
Vs. 32 πιστευσάντων. Not πιστευόντων. ‘Those who had accepted the faith.’
τι τῶν ὑπαρχόντων αὐτῷ ἔλεγεν See Alford.
ἡ καρδία καὶ ἡ ψυχὴ ‘in credendis et agendis’ (Bengel).
Vs. 33 ἀπεδίδουν (reddebant). For this testimony was a trust in their hand.
χάρις the grace of God, prompting the rich to these deeds of charity and thus providing for the relief of the poor.
Vs. 34 χωρίων estates.
τῶν πιπρασκομένων (not loosely for πραθένταν as Alford), implying that the sales were constantly going on.
Vs. 35 See Alford. Διεδίδετο. As E.V. ‘distribution was made’
Vs. 36 Barnabas רב נבוּאה υἱὸς προφητείας so that υἱὸς παρακλήσεως is ‘son of exhortation.’ Cf. Acts 11:23. Where he asserts his claim to the name. Baumg. refers to 1 Cor 14:3. ὁ δὲ προφητεύων ἀνθρώποις λαλεῖ οἰκοδομὴν καὶ παράκλησιν καὶ παραμυθίαν. Barnabas one of the 70 acc. to Clement Alexandr. in his Epistles.
Κύπριος τῷ γένει The formidable insurrection of the Jews in Cyprus in the reign of Trajan is an evidence of their concerns. (cf. C+H Life of St. Paul i.p. 152) (p. 172. ed. 2)
Vs. 37 τὸ χρῆμα
Acts 5: Internal and External Trials
Vs. 5 ἀκούων not ἀκούσας
ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας
Vs. 6 οἱ νεώτεροι See below on the subject of deacons.
Vs. 7 Ἐγένετο δὲ—καὶ—μὴ εἰδυῖα
Vs. 8 ἀπεκρίθη. Pertaining to some expression of enquiry, or astonishment—not necessarily to any spoken words. See Acts 3:12. The word only betokens that something is expected of the speaker and so regularly ἀποκρίνεσθαι = to say in explanation τοσούτου. Naming and summarizing, cf. Ezra 4:11, 17, E.V.
Vs. 11 ἐπὶ πάντας
Excursus: The Sanhedrin and the High Priests
συνέδριον (Sanhedrin, corrupted from סַנְהֶדְרִין). Composed of 70 members. The High Priest being thought of as the leader, not necessarily the president. It took charge of all religious matters and certain cases of state trials. It was not only a court of judication, but also in ecclesiastical matters, the legislative court. Said by the Talmudist to have been founded by Moses. (cf. Num. 11:16). The council of 70 however, established by Moses, seems to have been merely temporary, and to have ceased to exist when the Israelites settled in Canaan. However the precedent may have determined the number of the later Tribunal.
It is called in Greek βουλή and a member of it βουλευτής. Cf. Mark 15:43
ἀρχιερεύς. The chief priest καί ἐξοχήν is called such in LXX (cf. Lev. 4:3 ἀρχιερεύς . . . ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας). In Apocrypha and New Testament ἀρχιερεύς. The name ἀρχιερεύς however is given to those who had once held the office and had been deposed so that we find the plur. ἀρχιερεῖς of persons living at the same time—Joseph. Bell. Jud. iv.5.2.
γένος ἀρχιερατικόν—i.e. the descendants of either Eleazar or the two sons of Aaron—though Herod admitted some of the ordinary priests to the high priesthood. Cf. Joseph. Ant. xx.10.
ὁ στρατηγός τοῦ ἱεροῦ cf. Joseph. Ant. xx.6.2.
περὶ ἄνανιαν τὸν ἀρχιερέα καὶ τὸν στρατηγον ἄνανον—showing that he was a Jew and therefore not captain of the Roman garrison of Antonia as some suppose. Cf. Bell. Jud. vi.5.3. where the στρατηγός is spoken of in connection with this. He is generally called simply ὁ στρατηγός in Josephus. The head of the temple police.
Annas and Caiaphas. In Matthew 26:57 (Mark and Luke do not mention the name) Jesus is led before Caiaphas the High Priest. In John 11:49; 18:13, Caiaphas is styled High Priest τοῦ ἐνιαυτοῦ ἐκείνου. And Annas is mentioned in πενθερὸς τοῦ Καϊάφα, ὁς ἦν ἀρχ. τ. ἐν. ἐκ. Here we have ‘the high priest and those with him.’ In Acts 4:6 we read of Ἅννας ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς καὶ Καϊάφας. And in Luke 3:2 the year is dated ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα. It seems clear from this that the title ἀρχιερεύς is implied to both these persons in a higher and special sense. The view which Alford takes (Luke 3:2) is at least plausible.
Annas (cf. Lucas, Lucanus, Silas, Sylvanus) the high priest has been deposed by Valerius Eratus a few years before (a.u.c. 779. cf Joseph. Ant. xviii.2.2) and after some changes, Caiaphas obtained the office (A.D. 25) and was deposed by Vitellius (A.D. 37) being succeeded by a son of Annas or Ananas Joseph. Ant. xviii.4.3.
Thus Annas would be High Priest de jure and Caiaphas de facto. The Jews would especially recognize the title of Annas and to this point see the singular ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννας καὶ . . . as though Caiaphas had no right to the title. Josephus the historian (l.c.) calls Caiaphas Ἰωσήτος ὁ καὶ Καϊάφας. Vitellius substituted the son of Annas in place of Caiaphas apparently to gratify the people. Hence perhaps we may conclude that the people acknowledged the validity of the title of Annas so long as he lived.
Vs. 12 Some difficulty in ascertaining the connection of the sentences.
στοᾷ Σολομῶντος. Acts 3:2; John 10:23.
Vs. 13 The construction is probably very simple. Οἱ λοιποί those without the Gospel. cf. 1 Thess 4:13; Eph 2:3.
κολλᾶσθαι ‘to meddle with.’ ‘Man sich in respektvolles Entfernung im ihnen hielt.’ (Meyer) Or particularly it may have a more directly bad sense = to persecute. Cf. Aquila’s version of 1 Sam 31:2; 2 Sam 1:6.
Vs. 14 The nominative plus προσετίθεντο and some substantive which is in apposition to πλήθη not πιστεύοντες. πιστεύοντες cannot signify ‘believers’—the nomnt. προσετίθεντο is to λαός προσετίθεντο τῷ κυρίῳ together ‘were added to the Lord, as believing.’
Vs. 15 κλιναρίων καὶ κραβάττων Pet: ‘couches and pallets.’ The second term is certainly used of a portable piece of furniture and one easily moved. Bengel (who reads κλίνων) says, ‘Lectus sumptuosen grabatus tenuir.’
Vs. 17 Ἀναστὰς rose up in anger
ἡ οὖσα αἵρεσις τῶν Σαδδουκαίων See Josephus Ant. xx.9.1.1 who distinctly states this of Ananus or Annas the then appointed High Priest in the reign of Nero and that αἵρεσιν μετήει τῶν Σαδδουκαίων. Thus we see that the family of the high priest here mentioned (whether Annas or Caiaphas) was connected with the sect of the Sadducees (for the younger Ananus was son of the one and in-law of the other). He is not improbably one of the οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ.
Vs. 20 τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης. ζωή, βίος cf. Trench. N.T. Synon. p. 100. ‘ζωή vita qu . . . vivimus’—life absolutely, the essence of life. ‘βίος vita qua . . . vivimus’—life as partaking of certain characteristics, generally ethical. From this it will be seen that βίος will maintain pretty nearly the same level, while ζωή will vary according to the opinion of the writer as to that in which life consists. ζωή will accordingly rank either above or below βίος. Aristotle is said to have defined βίος thus: βίος ἐστὶ λογικὴ ζωή—‘rational life’, and thus to a heathen βίος ranks above ζωή, for he considers ζωή to be nothing more than the life which we have in common with irrational animals.
In the Greek New Testament the case is different. βίος is still life as possessing certain ethical characteristics, good or bad, a sort of neutral word, dependent on the context for its intepretation, but ζωή has been exalted. Death is connected with sin, and life therefore with holiness. ‘Life’ is no longer the life physical. It is the realization of the end of our being—the Life in God. This life is coincident with the acceptance of the Gospel. It is of this new life (τῆς ζωῆς ταύτης) that the apostles are bidden to preach, so that it is an exact parallel to Acts 13:26 ὁ λόγος τῆς σωτηρίας ταύτης. The expression seems to have no reference to the resurrection from physical death, except incidentally. As our Lord says of himself (John 14:6) ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή, so the Gospel is styled ἡ ὁδός (Acts 9:2, etc.), ἡ ἀλήθεια (Eph 1:13) and ἡ ζωή (here Acts 5:20).
Vs. 21 ὑπὸ τὸν ὄρθρον ‘Close upon day-break’
Παραγενόμενος
πᾶσαν τὴν γερουσίαν τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ
Vs. 22 οἱ δὲ παραγενόμενοι ὑπηρέται
Vs. 24 omit ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ on authority of A, B, D, vulg, copt, sah, arm.
οἱ τε ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ would be added for Acts 4:1 and ἀρχιερεῖς may have been omitted from some ms. by mistake and the errors have been multiplied.
τί ἂν γένοιτο τοῦτο ‘What this might be which had happened.’ And not as Alford.
Vs. 25 ἑστῶτες cf. σταθέντες v. 20.
Vs. 27 The High Priest uses the same guarded language as before (cf. Bengel on Acts 4:7). See Chrysostom Ap., Alf., & Ol.
Vs. 28 ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦτῳ
ἐπαγαγεῖν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς τὸ αἷμα (not as Alford) simply ‘to charge us with the murder of this man—for murder it was, if he was not a malefactor.’
Vs. 29 Here πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις in Acts 4:19 ὑμῶν ἀκούειν μᾶλλον ἢ τοῦ θεοῦ.
Vs. 31 on his right hand. See Acts 2:33
μετάνοιαν answers to ἀρχηγόν
ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν to σωτῆρα (as Bengel)
Vs. 33 διεπρίοντο i.e. with indignation—the full phrase Acts 7:54.
Vs. 34 Gamaliel. See Alford. τίμιος παντὶ τῷ λαῷ. He was called ‘the teacher of the law.’ See C&H hence νομοδιδάσκαλος τίμιος ought probably to be taken together.
Vss. 36-37 For the point of these two instances—that of Theudas and that of Judas. See Lightfoot, Comm. on Acts, ad. loc.
Theudas. As to the possibility of their being two of the same name under similar circumstances, see a parallel instance in the case of Sergius Paulus. Cony. & How. i.p.177, second edition. And of Θευδᾶς = Θεύδοτος or Θεύδωρος it was a name not unlikely to be assumed by a religious impostor or enthusiast. Theudas was a religious leader, Judas a political rebel.
Judas the Galilean ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς ἀπογραφῆς of Quirinius (Κυρήνιος) cf. Luke 2:2. Whatever may be the difference in the account of the gospel, it is quite clear from this passage that St. Luke was acquainted with the correct epoch of the taxing. And with regard to the reference in his Gospel, if the sentence had run αὓτη ἀπογραφὴ πρώτη ἐγένετο ἡγεμονεύοντος, without πρώτη, there would have been a real historical difficulty, but the insertion of πρώτη removes the difficulty from the domain of history to that of interpretation. Evidence shows Quirinius in office from A.D. 6, and another term in office from B.C. 4–1.
Vs. 38-39 ἐὰν ᾖ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων, εἰ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐστιν seems certainly to show that Gamaliel was disposed to think it no human imposture. The other explanation of Alford is absurd.
καταλῦσαι Supply the ellipses ‘And therefore do not try’ or ‘and therefore leave them alone.’
Vs. 42 κατ᾽ οἶκον not ‘in every home’ as E.V.
τὸν χριστόν Ἰησοῦν
Excursus: The Primacy of Peter
The prominent position held by St. Peter in these earliest days of the church leads naturally to the question: What is meant by the primacy of St. Peter, and how far are the Romanists justified in the views which they hold? It seems both futile and dangerous to deny this primacy altogether, for it is clearly enunciated in Holy Scripture and this in two ways. Directly and indirectly—or in other words dogmatically and historically—in the account of the promises given to Peter, and in the narrative of his subsequent Acts. Peter is one of the favored three. This however is, of course, inconclusive.
Consider the special prominence given to Peter, and commands addressed to him.
(1) Mt 16:13-19. σὺ εἶ Πέτρος. Πέτρα is certainly to be referred to Πέτρος. The change of gender being easily accounted for (cf. Stanley p. 120), and so not an allusion to a spot or building. An allusion to which Ruskin says, speaking of what he calls the ‘accursed architecture, that mighty place where the seven hills slope to the Tiber, that marks by its dome the central spot where Rome has reversed the words of Christ and as he vivified the stone of the apostleship, she petrifies the apostleship into the stumbling stone’ (Lectures p. 138).
(2) John 21:15-23
(3) Luke 5:1-10; 22:31-32
Allowing then the primacy of St. Peter, we may challenge the Romanist to show that the Bishop of Rome, or the Roman church has a real title to this inheritance. May we go further?
(1) These promises to Peter are exactly of the same character as those to other apostles. ἐπὶ τήδε τή πέτρα. cf. Eph 2:13 the church is said to be built ἐπὶ τῷ θεμελίῳ τῶν ἀποστόλων καὶ προφητῶν. cf. John 21:22-23
(2) That these promises are made to depend on the personal character of St. Peter, and therefore may be expected to be the inheritance of those who represent him in this respect (πάντα ὃστις ἄν Πετρὸς). Origen.
(3) That, as history shows us the fulfillment of these promises, so does it show us that as regarding St. Peter personally they were only intended to be temporary. St. Peter disappears from the scene and St. Paul takes his place. St. Paul knows of no such supremacy as the Roman church attaches to St. Peter. And it is St. Peter himself who utters the caution against lording it over God’s heritage (κατακυριεύοντες) 1 Pet 5:3.
Acts 6
On the widows—‘χῆραι quarum etium in sancta societete facilis obscuro’ (Bengel).
Vs. 1 πληθυνόντων intrans. Here only.
Ἑλληνισταί (Grecians E.V.) . . . Ἑβραῖοι
Ἔλληνες (Greeks E.V.) . . . Ἰουδαῖοι
Vs. 2 οὐκ ἀρεστόν ἐστιν ‘it seems not fit’
διακονεῖν τραπέζαις i.e. probably the distribution of food, as the plural τραπέζαις seems to require.
Vs. 3 χρεία necessary business.
Vs. 5 Observe the names are all Greek.
προσήλυτον Ἀντιοχέα St. Luke himself being according to early tradition a native of Antioch and therefore likely to dwell on the fact (cf. Smith, Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul).
Φίλιππος cf. Acts 8:5, 26, 40; 21:8. (living at Caesarea) In Eusebius Eccles. History we are told that he was buried at Hierapolis with two of his daughters, the third lying at Ephesus (H.E. iii.31), from Polycrates, who seems only to know of 3 daughters (the Acts says 4). Caius says that the 4 daughters and the father were buried at Hierapolis. Both Polycrates and Eusebius make this Philip one of the apostles plainly contrary to the Acts (Acts 8:1, 14). Whether Clement and Papias made the mistake is not so clear. Clement probably did. He represents Philip the apostle as giving his daughters in marriage (Euseb. iii.30). Of Papias nothing can be concluded. Note Eusebius’ Silence (iii.39). See especially Route, Rell. Sch. vol. 1.p. 379, who however will not allow the evidence, but thinks that the daughters of the two Philips were different.
Of the Nicolaitans, cf. Rev 2:6, 15. It is at least certain that the sect of the Nicolaitans was connected with this Nicolas by a very early tradition (see Irenaeus i.27 and Clem. Alex. Ap. Euseb. H.E. iii.29). And one which is not likely to have originated simply in the name as it is improbable that without good ground a tradition should have been obtained which asserted the falling away of he who held such a high position in the early church. Whether he was really the founder of the sect or whether some of his acts or words were perverted and misapplied by the Nicolaitans, it is impossible to say. But the former supposition is not impossible. If there was a traitor among the twelve there may well have been a heretic among the seven. The latter view seems to be taken by Clement of Alexandria. The supposition that Νικολαϊτῶν is a Greek name from Balaam בלעעם is very unlikely. It is at least a very indifferent translation. Tertullian does not mention Nicolas, only the Nicolaitans De. Prescr. Hiret. 33.
Excursus: The Diaconate
This was evidently the first establishment of the office: there had hitherto been no fixed distributors of alms, but the apostles had delegated this duty now to one, now to another. The consequence of this irregularity was that the Hellenist widows often were neglected. If these seven had been appointed to confine their contributions to the Hellenists, we should scarcely have expected to find them designated as οἱ ἑπτά when there must have been other deacons, their colleagues in office, and their equals in other respects. But indeed the whole narrative seems to imply that this clash of offices did not exist before, and that the irregularities had occurred owing to there being no definite responsible persons. This then was the first establishment of the diaconate.
The functions of the seven seems not to have been confined to ministering to the Hellenist Christians. There is no restriction of this kind implied in the text. They must have attended as well to Hebrew as Hellenist Christians. But you will say—‘But their names are all Greek.’ True: yet this does not necessarily imply a Hellenistic origin—witness the apostles Andrew and Philip—yet it is probable that they were all, or most of them, Hellenists. In this waiving of claims on the part of the Hebrews, we see only an exercise of that Christian love which pervaded the infant church.
Their ministrations then extended to Hebrews as well as Hellenists.
Were they connected with the later diaconate? The word διάκονοι is never used of them in the Acts. They are styled οἱ ἑπτά, ‘the seven,’ but:
(1) διακονεῖν, διακονία occur repeatedly in describing their ministrations.
(2) Such stress is laid on the circumstances in the narrative, that the writer evidently considered he was narrating an event that had some influence on the subsequent organization of the Church.
(3) Their functions are mutatis mutandis, the same as those of the later diaconate—that is to say—the changes are only such as the altered requirements of the church would naturally bring about. We find the office of the diaconate not only formally established somewhat later (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8), but also extended to women (Rom 16:1; 1 Tim 3:11).
(4) Universal tradition—and tradition in such a case is valuable (the chance use of the word διάκονος in this narrative only makes it more valuable): connects the establishment of the 7 with the diaconate of later times, e.g. the diaconate at Rome where the number of deacons was limited to 7 though the priests were much more numerous. (Cornelius of Rome; Euseb. H.E. vi.43; Irenaeus i.26.3; Nicolaum unum ex septum qui primi ad deaconium, ab apostolic ordinati sunt. iii.12.10; Stephanus . . . qui electus est ab apostolis primus diaconus. And so again iv.15.1. cf. Jerome quoted in Greek i.p. See my Philippians, p. 186). This tradition is preserved in the 7 cardinal deacons. Creation of subdeacons was necessitated by the limitation.
Whence were the three orders of the Christian church derived? From the synagogue? The ministers/priests (כהן) ὑπηρέτης, the elders (זקן) πρεσβύτεροι, and the ἀρχισυνάγωγος (רֹאשׁ הַכְּנֵסֶת)? Yes—according to the anti-hierarchical view. Or from the Jewish priesthood—the High Priest, the priests and the Levites? According to the hierarchical view. From neither—this threefold organization seems to have been gradually developed by the growing needs of the church.
We first meet with the διάκονοι here (Acts 6), with πρεσβύτεροι Acts 11:1, with a bishop, though not by name, in James the brother of the Lord—at Jerusalem Acts 12:17. For there is very good reason for believing that this James was not an apostle: and if so, his prominence in the mother church is the more striking.
Vs. 6 προσευξάμενοι i.e. οἱ ἀποστ.
Vs. 7 πολύς a larger number i.e. relative to the whole number of priests, see however Alford.
Vs. 8 Before he was πλήρης πνεύματος καὶ σοφίας. Now he is πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως.
Vs. 9 Λιβερτίνων is the gen. after τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης. See Winer Gram. Κυρηναίων καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέων are genitives with τῶν. As there were 480 synagogues in the city it is extremely unlikely that one should serve for so many nationalities as Bengel supposes.
Ἀσίας the whole of Proconsula Asia.
τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας Paul would be one of these.
Λιβερτίνων Libertas, Liberturum.
None of Meyer’s quotations (from Josephus) substantiates his assertion ‘in Alexandria waren von den fünf Theilen der Stadt zur von ihnen verwohnt’ (Wordsworth says three of the five districts). Neither is his assertion ‘In Kyrene bestand der vierte Theil. Den einwohner aus Juden’ borne out by his quotations. Josephus Ant. xiv.7.2 says that one of the four classes in Cyrene was composed of Jews, but this is the nearest approach to it. The passage about Alexandria is in Philo, Flaccum § 8 p. 525. Philo says that two out of the 5 quarters are called Jewish: διὰ τὸ πλεὶστους Ἰουδίους ἐν ταύταις κατοικεῖν—οἰκσοι δὲ καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἆλλαις οὐκ ἀλιγοι σποραὶδες. A very different statement. Wordsworth and Alford copy Meyer’s statement and references without suspicion.
Vs. 13 ῥήματα The insertion βλάσφημα into the text not well supported.
κατὰ τοῦ τόπου τοῦ ἁγίου cf. Acts 7.
Vs. 14 not as E.V. which would require that οὗτος should be earlier in the sentence. Jesus, this Nazarene, i.e. this contemptible fellow.
Vs. 15 ὡσεὶ πρόσωπον ἀγγέλου. An expression which might well be used of the heavenly radiance (though not miraculous) which lighted up the face of Stephen at the moment. The effect on the High Priest is very evident. ‘Is this indeed so?’