any other.

....

was a common one, and the language points to that as readily as to σev decides nothing, as it defines the result only, not the process. avrov refers not to the subject of the verb, but to the candidates, and the lots are said to be theirs, because their names were written on them, or, as De Wette prefers, because the lots were to decide between them. Some of the best manuscripts read avroîs, for them, instead of avrov. Lachmann adopts that form. — ¿ «λŋpos, the lot which decided the choice. — συγκατεψηφίσθη . . . . ἀποστόλων, was numbered together with the eleven apostles, i. e. was recognized as one of their order, and had the character of an apostle henceforth accorded to him. Hesychius sanctions this sense of the verb, though it means properly to vote against, condemn, which is out of the question here. De Wette renders was chosen, elected, which not only deviates from classic usage, but ascribes the result to their own act, instead of a Divine interposition. The subsequent election of Paul to the apostleship did not discredit or abrogate this decision, but simply enlarged the original number of the apostles.

CHAPTER II.

V. 1-4. Descent of the Holy Spirit.

V. 1. ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι, κ. τ. λ., when the day of Pentecost was fully come, arrived. See Luke 9, 51. The action of the verb (lit. to be completed) refers not to the day itself, but to the completion of the interval which was to pass before its arrival (Olsh.). Some translate while it was completed, i. e. in the course of it, on that day (Mey., De Wet.). For the construction of the infinitive, see W. § 45. 6; S. § 165. 4. — TŷS TEVτηкOσTηs the Greek Jews employed as a proper name. See 20, 16; 1 Cor. 16,8; 2 Macc. 12, 32. ἡμέρα οι ἑορτή determined the form. This festival received its name from its occurring on the fiftieth day from the second day of the Passover; so that the interval embraced a cycle of seven entire weeks, i. e. a week of weeks. It is usually called in the Old Testament, with reference to this circumstance, the festival of weeks. Its observance took place at the close of the gathering of the harvest, and was no doubt mainly commemorative of that event. See Jahn's Archæol. § 355. According to the later Jews, Pente

cost was observed also as the day on which the law was given from Sinai; but no trace of this custom is found in the Old Testament, or in the works of Philo or Josephus. — ὁμοθυμαδόν = ὁμοψύχως. Its other sense, together, would be superfluous, followed by ènì rò autó. 15. ὥσπερ

See on 1,

=

πνεῦμα.

V. 2. σжер.... Baías, as if a mighty wind, lit. blast, were rushing along. TνOŃ The more uncommon word is chosen here perhaps on account of the different sense of veûμa in this connection, e. g. v. 4. As used of the wind, pépeoba denotes often rapid, violent motion; see the proofs in Kypke's Obss. Sacr. Vol. II. p. 11, and in Kuinoel ad loc. ἐπλήρωσεν, sc. ἦχος, which is the only natural subject furnished by the context. · οἶκον is probably the place referred to in 1, 13; not the temple, for the reasons there stated, and because the term employed in this absolute way does not signify the temple or an apartment of it.

V. 3. καὶ ὤφθησαν, κ. τ. λ., And there appeared to them tongues distributed, i. e. among them, and sat, sc. yλŵoσa, upon each one of them. So Bengel, Olshausen, Wahl, De Wette, Robinson, and most of the later critics. The distributive idea occasions the change of number in éκátore. W. § 41. 1. aurois belongs strictly to the verb, but extends its force to the participle. According to this view, the firelike appearance presented itself at first, as it were, in a single body, and then suddenly parted in this direction and that, so that a portion of it rested on each of those present. It could be called a tongue in that case from its shape, as extended, pointed, and may have assumed such an appearance as a symbol of the miraculous gift which accompanied the wonder. This secures to diaμepisóμeva its proper meaning; see v. 45; Matt. 27, 35; Luke 23, 34, etc.; and explains why the first verb is singular, while the second is plural. Calvin, Heinrichs, and many of the older commentators, render the participle disparted, cleft, and suppose it to describe the flame as exhibiting in each instance a tongue-like, forked appearance. The objection to this view is, that it rests upon a doubtful sense of the word, and especially that it offers no explanation of the change. from the plural verb to the singular. De Wette, after others, hast adduced passages here from the Rabbinic writers to show that it was a common belief of the Jews that an appearance like fire often encircled the heads of distinguished teachers of the law. To this it has been added, that instances of a similar phenomenon are related by the Greek and Roman writers. We are directed by such coin

cidences to an important fact in the history of the divine revelations, and that is, that God has often been pleased to reveal himself to men in conformity with their own conceptions as to the mode in which it is natural to expect communications from him. The appearance of the star to the Magians may be regarded as another instance of such accommodation to human views.

V. 4. érépais yλwoσais, with other tongues, i. e. than their native tongue. That Luke designed to state here that the disciples were suddenly endued with the power of speaking foreign languages, before unknown to them, would seem to be too manifest to admit of any doubt. It is surprising that such a writer as Neander should attempt to put a different construction on the text. He objects that the miracle would have been superfluous, inasmuch as the apostles are not known to have employed this gift of tongues in preaching the gospel. It may be replied, first, that we have not sufficient information concerning the labors of the apostles, to affirm that they may not have employed the endowment for that purpose; and, secondly, that we are not obliged to regard such a use of it as the only worthy object of the miracle. It may have been designed to serve chiefly as an attestation of the truth of the gospel, and of the character of the apostles as divine messengers. It is certain, at least, that Paul entertained that view of the yλwooa spoken of in 1 Cor. 14, 22: "Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not." The effect produced on this occasion (see v. 12) shows how well suited such a miracle was to impress the minds of those who witnessed it. A miracle, too, in this form, may have had a symbolic import, which added to its significancy. It was necessary that even the apostles should be led to entertain more enlarged views respecting the comprehensive design of the new dispensation. This sudden possession of an ability to proclaim the salvation of Christ to men of all nations (even if we allow that it was not permanent), was adapted to recall their minds powerfully to the last command of the Saviour, and to make them feel that it was their mission to publish his name to the ends of the earth. Such a mode of conveying instruction to them was not more indirect than that employed in the vision of Peter (10, 9 sq.), which was intended to teach the same truth. But we are not left to argue the question on grounds of this nature; the testimony of Luke is explicit and decisive. Even critics who would explain away the reality of the miracle admit that it

was the writer's intention to record a miracle. Thus Meyer says: "The crepaι yλwoσai are to be considered, according to the text, as absolutely nothing else than languages which were different from the native language of the speakers. They were Galileans, and spoke now Parthian, Median, Persian, etc.; therefore, foreign languages, and those too the point precisely wherein appeared the wonderful effect of the Spirit-unacquired languages (λooais *kawaîs, Mark 16, 17), i. e. not previously learned by them. Accordingly the text itself defines the sense of yλwooa as that of languages, and excludes as impossible the other explanations different from this, which some have attempted to impose on the word."

V. 5-13. Impression of the Miracle on the Multitude. V. 5. δέ, transitive. — κατοικοῦντες, not merely = ἐπιδημοῦντες, sojourning, but dwelling there, whether for a season or permanently. Many of them, no doubt, had fixed their abode at Jerusalem, as it was always an object of desire with the Jews who lived in foreign countries to return and spend the close of life in the land of their fathers. The prevalent belief, that the epoch had now arrived when the promised Messiah was about to appear, must have given increased activity to that desire. The writer mentions this class of Jews in distinction from the native inhabitants, because the narrative which follows represents that many were present who understood different languages. The number of these strangers was the greater on account of the festival which occurred at that time. — evλaßeîs, devout, God-fearing; 8, 2; Luke 2, 25. This sense is peculiar to the Hellenistic Greek. The term is applied to those only whose piety was of the Old Testament type. — tŵv, SC. Övтwv. The strong expression here is a phrase signifying from many and distant lands. A phrase of this kind has an aggregate sense, which is the true one, while that deduced from the import of the separate words is a false sense. V. 6. γενομένης . . . . ταύτης. These words are obscure. The principal interpretations are the following. 1. φωνῆς ταύτης refers to érépais yλworaus in v. 4, and the implication is, that the voices of those who spoke were so loud as to be heard at a distance, and in this way were the occasion of drawing together the multitude. This interpretation secures to TaÚTηs a near antecedent, but has against it that owns is singular, and not plural, and that the participle is hardly congruous with the noun in that sense. Neander,

2. φωνή

who adopts this view, regards pwvý as a collective term. has been taken as synonymous with pnun: Now when this report arose, i. e. the report concerning this. The meaning is good, but opposed to the usage of the noun, while it puts raúrns in effect for TEρì TOÚTOV, which is a hard construction. Many of the older critics and our English translators understood the expression in this way. 3. We may regard porns as repeating the idea of xos in v. 2: Now when this sound that of the descending Spirit - occurred.' For that signification of porn, comp. John 3, 8; Rev. 1, 15; 9, 9; 14, 2, etc. yevoμévns appears to answer to éyévero in v. 2, and favors this explanation. The objection to it is that raÚTηs forsakes the nearer for a remoter antecedent; but that may occur, if the latter be more prominent, so as to take the lead in the writer's mind. See W. § 23. 1. This meaning agrees with the context. The participial clause here may involve the idea of cause as well as time, and we may understand, therefore, that the sound in question was audible beyond the house where the disciples were assembled; that it arrested the attention of those abroad, and led them to seek out the scene of the wonder. So Hess, Schrader, Meyer, De Wette, and others. διαλέκτῳ = γλῶσσα. See v. 11. The term in its narrower sense here would be too narrow; for though some of the languages differed only as dialects, it was not true of all of them. ―idig, his own, uniformly emphatic. W. § 22. 7. — λaλovvτwv avrov. We are not to understand by this that they all spoke in the languages enumerated, but that one of them employed this, and another that. In so brief a narrative, the writer must have passed over various particulars of the transaction. We may suppose that at this time the apostles had left the room where they assembled at first, and had gone forth to the crowd collected in the vicinity.

V. 7. ouk, which leads the sentence, belongs properly to cloív; comp. 7, 48; W. § 65. 4. — Távτes is emphatic. Had the speakers belonged to so many different countries, the wonder would have been diminished or removed. Γαλιλαῖοι. They were known as Galileans, because they were known as the disciples of Christ.

V. 8. Tôя, how, since they were all Galileans. The object of ȧkovoμev follows in v. 11; but the connection having been so long suspended, the verb is there repeated.

V. 9. In the enumeration of the countries named in this verse and the next, the writer proceeds from the northeast to the west and south. — Πάρθοι. Parthia was on the northeast of Media and