the words apply to him. — Tòv kλĥpov .... Taúтns, the lot, or office, of this ministry which we possess, i. e. the apostleship, comp. Rom. 11, 13. κλŋpov loses often its figurative sense, so as to denote a possession without any reference to the mode of its attainment. Our word clergy comes from this term, being founded on the idea of the order as one divinely appointed. .... V. 18. This verse and the next are considered by most critics as an explanatory remark of Luke (Calv., Kuin., Olsh., De Wet.), not as a part of Peter's address. The reader might need this information, but those who listened to the apostle may be supposed to have been familiar with the fate of Judas. It is evident that OTE κληθῆναι kλŋOñvaι . . . . aïμatos, though appropriate to the history, could hardly have belonged to the discourse. yáp in v. 20 appears to demand this view of the intervening verses. Bengel restricts the parenthesis to the explanation respecting Aceldama. - pév stands alone, as in v. 1. — éktýσato, purchased, or caused to be purchased, gave occasion for it, i. e. it was in consequence of his act, and with the money gained by his treachery, that the field was purchased, as related in Matt. 27, 6 sq. The great body of critics adopt this view of the meaning (Bez., Bretsch., Kuin., Frtz., Thol.,* Olsh., Ebr., Mey., Rob.). This briefer mode of expression is common in every language, and may be employed without obscurity where the reader ist presumed to be familiar with the facts in the case, or when the nature of the act itself suggests the proper modification. The following are analogous examples in the New Testament. Matt. 27, 60: "And Joseph laid the body of Christ in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in a rock," i. e. caused to be hewn out for him; John 4, 1: "And when the Lord knew that the Pharisees heard that Jesus made more disciples than John," i. e. through his disciples; for he himself baptized not. See further, 7, 21; 16, 22; Matt. 2, 16; 1 Cor. 7, 16; 1 Tim. 4, 16, etc. These cases are plain; and no one refuses to admit the causative sense (not directly expressed, but implied) which belongs to the verb in such passages. The principle which this mode of speaking involves, the law recognizes even in regard to actions in its well-known maxim, Qui facit per alium facit per se. It is only by refusing to extend this usage to EKTýσaTo that such writers as Strauss make out their allegation of a want of agreement between this passage and Matt. 27,5. Fritzsche's * In unpublished Notes on the Gospels. suggestion as to the reason why Luke expressed himself in this unusual manner deserves notice. He finds in it a studied, significant brevity, a sort of acerba irrisio, bringing the motive and the result into pointed antithesis to each other: This man thought to enrich himself by his treachery, but all that he gained was that he got for himself a field where blood was paid for blood. πρηns is strictly the opposite of тios, i. e. on the face. His falling in that position may have occasioned the bursting asunder; that view agrees well with yevóuevos, though pηvns admits also of the vaguer sense headlong. — ἐλάκησε is the first aorist from λάσκω. W. § 15; K. § 230.—In Matt. 27, 5, it is said that Judas, after having brought his money and thrown it down in the temple, went and hanged himself. Objectors have represented that account also as inconsistent with this, but without reason. Matthew does not say that Judas, after having hanged himself, did not fall to the ground and burst asunder; nor, on the contrary, does Luke say that Judas did not hang himself before he fell to the ground; and it is obvious that the matter should have been so stated, in order to warrant the charge of inconsistency. The circumstance which lay between the two occurrences has not been recorded. It has been thought not improbable that Judas may have hung himself on the edge of a precipice near the valley of Hinnom, and that, the rope breaking by which he was suspended, he fell to the earth and was dashed to pieces. In that valley was the field which had been purchased with his "thirty pieces of silver." It will be observed that Luke's statement is entirely abrupt, and supposes some antecedent history. In this respect Matthew's account, instead of involving any contradiction, becomes in fact confirmatory of the other. It shows, first, that Luke was aware that something preceded which he has omitted to mention; and, secondly, it puts us in the way of combining events so as to account better for the incomplete representation in the Acts, than would otherwise have been possible. V. 19. Kai yvwotòv éyéveto, and it became known, viz. that he came there to so miserable an end. —'Akeλdapá longs to the Aramæan or Syro-Chaldaic spoken at that time in Palestine. On that language, see Bibl. Repos., Vol. I. p. 317 sq. It was for a twofold reason, therefore, says Lightfoot, that the field received this appellation; first, because, as stated Matt. 27, 7, it had been bought with the price of blood; and, secondly, because it was sprinkled with the man's blood who took that price. Luke's reason for the name, instead of being an additional one, would coincide with that of Matthew, could we restrict the subject of eyevero to ¿KTýσATO.... áðɩxías. It seems to me, however, that we are not at liberty to leave out of view the nearer clause which intervenes. V. 20. The writer resumes here the address. yáp, namely, specifies the prophecy to which raúrηy points in v. 16. See Matt. 1, 18. B. § 149; K. § 324. 2. The first passage is Ps. 69, 25, slightly abridged from the Septuagint, with an exchange of αὐτῶν for αὐτοῦ. Its import is, Let his end be disastrous, his abode be desolate, and shunned as accursed. It is impossible to understand the entire Psalm as strictly Messianic, on account of v. 5: "O God, thou knowest my foolishness and my sins are not hid from thee." It appears to belong rather to the class of Psalms which describe general relations, which contain prophecies or inspired declarations. which are verified as often as individuals are placed in the particular circumstances which lay within the view, not necessarily of the writer, but of the Holy Spirit, at whose dictation they were uttered. When Peter, therefore, declares that this prophecy which he applies to Judas was spoken with special reference to him (see v. 16), he makes the impressive announcement to those whom he addressed, that the conduct of Judas had identified him fully with such persecutors of the righteous as the Psalm contemplates, and hence it was necessary that he should suffer the doom deserved by those who sin in so aggravated a manner. - The other passage is Ps. 109, 8, in the words of the Seventy. We are to apply here the same principle of interpretation as before. That Psalm sets forth, in like manner, the wickedness and desert of those who persecute the people of God; and hence, as Judas had exemplified so fully this idea, he too must be divested of his office, and its honors be transferred to another. .... = V. 21. τῶν συνελθόντων . . . . ἀνδρῶν depends properly on va, v. 22, where the connection so long interrupted is reasserted by roúrwv. év Tavτì xpóvw, in every time. The conception divides the period into its successive parts. — ἐν ᾧ . . . . ἐφ' ἡμᾶς in which he lived with us; the entire life or course of life being described by one of its most frequent acts. It is a Hebrew mode of speaking; comp. Deut. 28, 19; 31, 2, etc. An exact construction of the Greek would have placed p' pas after the first verb, and inserted ap' pov after the second. W. § 66. III. h. V. 22. aptáμevos.... ews, beginning and continuing unto, etc. The supplementary idea was too obvious to need to be expressed. See W. § 66. II. d. · ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, not from the time of his own baptism, but from the close of John's ministry. See Matt. 4, 12. 17; Mark 1, 14 sq. At that time the Saviour had chosen his apostles and attached to himself a company of constant followers. μάρτυρα ..yevéσbai. The resurrection is singled out as the main point to which the testimony of the apostles related, because, that being established, it involves every other truth in relation to the character and work of Christ. It proves him to be the Son of God, the Justifier and Redeemer of men, their Sovereign and Judge. See 4, 33; John 5, 22; Rom. 1, 4; 4, 24; 10, 9; Gal. 1, 1, etc. Hence Paul mentions it as one of the proofs of his apostleship, and of his qualifications for it, that he had seen Christ after his resurrection. See 1 Cor. 9, 1. V. 23-26. The Appointment of Matthias as an Apostle. V. 23. čornoav dvo, they placed two, i. e. before them, in their midst; see 5, 27; 6, 6; or according to some, appointed two, i. e. as candidates. -'Iovoros Justus. It was not uncommon for the Jews at this period to assume foreign names. See on 13, 9. Barsabas is mentioned only here. Some have conjectured, without reason, that he and Barnabas (4, 36) were the same person. V. 24. πроσevέáμevoi elñov, they prayed, saying. The participle contains the principal idea. It may be supposed to have been Peter who uttered the prayer. σὺ, κύριε, κ. τ. λ. Whether this prayer was addressed to Christ or God has been disputed. The reasons for the former opinion are that kúpios, when taken absolutely in the New Testament, refers uniformly to Christ; that Christ selected the other apostles as stated in v. 2; that the first Christians were in the habit of praying to him (see on 7, 59; 9, 14); and that Peter says to Christ in John 21, 17, "Lord, thou knowest all things," which is the import exactly of καρδιογνώστα. The reasons for the other opinion do not invalidate these. That kapdioyvworns is used of God in 15, 8 shows only that it does not apply exclusively to Christ. The call of Peter in 15, 7, which is ascribed to God, was a call, not to the apostleship, but to preach the gospel to the heathen; and even if that case were parallel to this, it would be an instance only of the common usage of referring the same or a similar act indiscriminately to Christ or God. This latter remark applies also to such passages as 2 Cor. 1, 1; Eph. 1, 1; 2 Tim. 1, 1. To .... deny that Peter would ascribe omniscience to Christ because in Jer. 17, 10 it is said to be the prerogative of God to know the heart, contradicts John 21, 17. Some have supposed the apostle intended to quote that passage of the prophet, but the similarity is too slight to prove such a design; nor, if the idea of κapdtoyvŵσra were drawn from that source, would the application of it here conform necessarily to its application there.—eva we are to connect with ov, which one. V. 25. κλnρov, as in v. 17. διακονίας . . . . ἀποστολῆς, this ministry and (that) an apostleship. κaí adds a second term explanatory of the first, i. e. essentially an instance of hendiadys (Mey., De Wet.), the ministry of this apostleship. —è§ is naρéßn, from which he went aside, as opposed to the idea of adhering faithfully to the character and service which his apostleship required of him; "ad normam Hebr. 70 sq. 12 deserere munus.' Wahl. πopevÕñvaι . . . . ïdiov, that he might go unto his own place. The clause is telic, depending on Tapéßn. So long as Judas retained his office, he was kept back, as it were, from his proper destiny. He must relinquish it, therefore, in order to suffer his just deserts. In this way the apostle would state strongly the idea, that the traitor merited the doom to which he had been consigned. The following comment of Meyer presents the only view of the further meaning of the passage which has any respectable critical support:"What is meant here by ó Tónos ódios is not to be decided by the usage of Tomos in itself considered (for Tóros may denote any place), but merely by the context. That requires that we understand by it Gehenna, which is conceived of as the place to which Judas in virtue of his character properly belongs. Since the treachery of Judas was in itself so fearful a crime, and was still further aggravated by self-murder (which alone, according to Jewish ideas, deserved punishment in hell), the hearers of Peter could have had no doubt as to the sense to be attached to rónos dios. This explanation is demanded also by the analogy of Rabbinic passages, e. g. Baal Turim on Numb. 24, 25 (see Lightfoot, Hor. Hebr. ad loc.): Balaam ivit in locum suum, i. e. in Gehennam." De Wette assents entirely to this interpretation. Tomos dios, therefore, “is a euphemistic designation of the place of punishment, in which the sin of Judas rendered it just that he should have his abode." (Olsh.) V. 26. Kai dwкav Kλýpovs, and they gave, put (probably) the lots of them into an urn, or something which answered that purpose. The Jews practised the lot in various ways, but that indicated above |