· kuì eixov .... koɩvá, and they had all things common, looked upon their possessions not as their own, but held them as subject to the use of the church as they were needed. The next words refer to the act of disposing of their property, and hence these describe the antecedent principle or spirit which prompted the act. The remark is defined by οὐδὲ εἰς . . . . ἔλεγεν . . . . εἶναι in 4, 32.

....

V. 45. Tа KTÝμata kaì tàs vñápέeis, their estates, lands, and other possessions.avrá, them, i. e. the proceeds of the sale. W. 22. 3. · καθότι . . . . εἶχε, as any one from time to time had need. ar with the indicative in a relative sentence denotes a recurring act. W. § 43. 3. a. As this clause qualifies also éπípaσкov, it shows that they did not alienate their property at once, but parted with it as occasion required.

V. 46. óμovμadóv, as in v. 1. —κar' oikov, from house to house, in different houses (Est., Kuin., Neand.); or, at home, in a private assembly, in opposition to ev rập iepa (Bng., Olsh., Mey., De Wet.). v in the place of Kar' would have removed the ambiguity. Neander observes that a single room would hardly have contained the present number of converts. He supposes that, in addition to their daily resort to the temple, they met in smaller companies, at different places; that they here received instruction from their teachers or one another, and prayed and sang together; and, as the members of a common family, closed their interview with a repast, at which bread and wine were distributed in memory of the Saviour's last meal with his disciples. In conformity with this view, «λŵvtes äprov may refer to their breaking bread in connection with the Sacrament, and μereλáμßavov тpopĥs to their reception of food for ordinary purposes.

last

V. 47. xápu, favor, Luke 2, 52. — roùs owłoμévovs, those who are saved, as in 1 Cor. 1, 18; 2 Cor. 2, 15. See W. § 47. 5, remark. The Greek asserts, not a purpose, but a fact. The expression involves the doctrine, that those who have embraced the gospel are sure of salvation.

CHAPTER III.

V. 1-10. Healing of the Lame Man by Peter and John.

V. 1. éπì Tò aνTó, together, in company, see 1, 15. · τὴν ἐννάτην. This was our three o'clock, P. M., at which time the evening sacrifice was offered; see on 2, 15. The apostles and other believers at Jerusalem had not yet withdrawn from the Jewish worship (see also 21, 23 sq.), and it is probable that most of them continued to adhere to the services of the temple, until the destruction of the temple abolished them. But the spirit with which they performed these services was no longer the Jewish spirit. Instead of regarding their compliance with the ordinances of the law as an act of merit, they recognized Christ as "the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." They viewed the sacrifices which continued to be offered, not as having any efficacy to procure the remission of sin, or as typical of an atonement still to be made, but as realized already in the death of Christ, and hence as mementos, as often as they beheld them or participated in them, of the one sacrifice for sins" effected "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ." As in the case of circumcision, so undoubtedly the Jewish Christians relinquished the other rites of Judaism only by degrees. They were brought fully to this, in part by obtaining a clearer insight into the relation of the ancient economy to the new, and in part by the occurrence of national circumstances which hastened the result. From the Jewish synagogues, on the contrary, they must have separated at once, as soon as their distinctive views became known. It was impossible to avow the Christian faith, and remain connected with those communities. Compare the Note on 9, 2. We have seen in the second chapter, that, in connection with the worship of the temple, the believers at Jerusalem maintained separate religious worship among themselves.

66

-

V. 2. ¿Bαoráčeтo, was carried just then. The verb is imperfect, because the act was a relative one. — érílovv is imperfect, because it states what was customary. — τὴν λεγομένην ωραίαν, which is called beautiful. Most interpreters think that this was the gate described by Josephus (Bel. Jud. 5. 5. 3; Antt. 15. 11. 3), which was composed chiefly of Corinthian brass, and which excelled all the other gates of the temple in the splendor of its appearance. Josephus

does not mention it under this appellation. It is supposed to have been on the east side, leading from the court of the Gentiles into the court of the Israelites. The folds of this gate were fifty cubits high and forty broad, and were covered with plates of gold and silver. Luke's epithet — paíav — could not have had a more pertinent application. Some have thought that the gate to which he refers must have been one of the outer gates, because what is related in v. 11 sq. took place in Solomon's porch, which was in the court of the Gentiles. But we may suppose, as Lightfoot suggests, that, the apostles having been with the lame man into the temple, i. e. the court of the Israelites (see v. 8), were returning, and had reached the court of the Gentiles, when the concourse of the people there spoken of took place. Toù aireir, telic, in order to ask. This use of the infinitive with Toù to denote the object for which an act is performed (comp. 18, 10; 26, 18; Mark 4, 3, etc.), results naturally from the nature of the genitive as the whence-case. The older writers supplied éveka or xápw; but the construction is neither elliptical nor Hebraistic. W. § 45. 4. b.; S. § 165. 3. 2; K. $308. 2. b.—elonopevoμévwv eis tò iepóv. If a noun follows an intransitive verb compounded with a preposition, it is common to repeat the preposition before the noun; see v. 3. 8; 22, 6; Matt. 7, 23, etc. W. § 56. 2.

V. 3. ős, who, stands often when ouros, this one, would be the ordinary connective. K. § 334. 3. — λaßeîv could be omitted, as in v. 2. It is not strictly pleonastic, but expands the idea of póra. W. § 67. 2. Y.

βλέψον ἡμᾶς.

V. 4. Bréyov eis nuas. Their object appears to have been to gain his attention more fully to their words; so that, as they said, "In the name of Jesus Christ," etc. (v. 6), he might understand to whom he was indebted for the benefit conferred upon him.

V. 5. néixer, Sc. Tàu vovv, comp. Luke 14, 7.-T, something in the way of alms. We have no evidence that he recognized Peter and John as the disciples of Christ, and expected that they would heal his infirmity. Their address to him in the next verse precludes that supposition.

V. 6. év τ óvóμatɩ, k. t. X., i. e. we speaking in his name, by virtue of his authority; comp. 16, 18. The language of Christ, on the contrary, when he performed a miracle, was, ooì λéyw, or to that effect; see Luke 5, 24. τοῦ Ναζωραίου is added for the sake of distinction, as in 2, 22.-πEρináre is imperative present, and not

aorist, like eyeɩpai, because it denotes a continued act; comp. 8, 26; 13, 8, etc. W. § 44. 5. b.; S. § 141. 5.

V. 7. avтou. A genitive which belongs to two or more nouns usually precedes them. W. 30. 3. 4.-ẞáveis, feet; opupá, βάσεις, σφυρά, ankles. This particularity has been reckoned among the traces of a professional habit, for which Luke is distinguished.

....
.

V. 8. égaλλóμevos, leaping up (De Wet.), lit. forth from the place where he sat, not from his bed (Mey.), since кaðýμevos, v. 10, shows that he was not reclining. eis Tò iepóv, i. e. into the part of the temple where the Jews worshipped. See the remarks on v. 2. V. 10. ἐπεγίνωσκον . . . . ὅτι οὗτος, they recognized him that this one, etc. The subject of the subordinate clause is attracted here into the principal clause, and then repeated in ouros. So in 4, 13; 9, 20; 13, 32; 16, 3, etc. The subject of the second clause becomes in this way more prominent. W. § 63.4; B. § 151. I. 6,7. The ordinary construction would omit αὐτόν after ἐπεγίνωσκον, and make the sentence after ὅτι the object of the verb. — πρὸς τὴν ἐλε· nuoovvny, for the alms which he solicited.

V. 11-26. The Testimony of Peter after the Miracle.

V. 11. κраToÛvтos avтoû, as he held them fast, or kept near to them. This latter signification, says De Wette, has not been fully proved, but arises naturally out of the other. Meyer adheres more correctly to the first meaning: the man in the ardor of his gratitude clung to his benefactors, and would not be separated from them. avrou is considered the correct reading, instead of roû labévros xwλoû in the common text (Grsb., Mey., Lachm.). The addition is transferred to the English version. στοᾷ . . . . Σολομῶνος. See John 10, 23. This hall or porch was on the eastern side of the temple, in the court of the heathen. The general opinion is that it was called the porch of Solomon, because it occupied the site of a porch which had been connected with the first temple. Lücke* thinks that it may have been a structure built by Solomon himself, which had escaped the destruction of the first temple. Tholuck expresses the same belief. It accords with this view that Josephus (Antt. 20. 9. 7) calls the porch ἔργον Σαλομῶντος. In popular speech, says Lightfoot, the Jews sometimes meant the entire court of the Gentiles when they spoke of Solomon's porch.exbaußo agrees with ἔκθαμβοι Auós as a collective term; comp. 5, 16.

Commentar über das Evangelium des Johannes, Vol. II. p. 361.

22.

which was ,יֶזֶבֶר

V. 12. ȧTEKρívaтo, K. T. λ., proceeded to speak (Hebraistic, 5, 8) to the people, or perhaps answered (De Wet.) with reference to the expressions of their wonder, see v. 11. ἐπὶ τούτῳ is not neuter, but masculine at this man (Mey., De Wet.), which prepares the way for autóv, and is similar to v. 16. is here emphatic, upon us instead of Christ or God, to whom the miracle ought to have turned their thoughts.ȧrevigere takes its object in the dative; comp. also 10,4; 14,9; or in the accusative with eis; comp. v. 4; 1, 10; 6, 15. - πεποιηκόσι . . . . αὐτόν contains an ecbatic infinitive effected that he should walk. W. § 45. 4; S. § 165. 3. V. 13. ógare, glorified, honored, not by the miracle at this time, but by all the mighty works which attested his mission; see 2, Taîda means, not son = viós, but servant = one of the prophetic appellations of the Messiah, especially in the second part of Isaiah. See Matt. 12, 18, as compared with Is. 42, 1 sq. The term occurs again in this sense, v. 26; 4, 27. 30. μév as in 1, 1. The antithetic idea may have been that in v. 17. Taрedwκate, ye delivered up, viz. to Pilate. — ńpvýσɑobe, denied, refused to acknowledge as Messiah. aúróv. It will be seen that the writer drops here the relative structure of the sentence. κрívаνтоs.... ȧñoλúew, when, or although he decided, viz. that it was just to release him; see Luke 23, 16; John 19, 4. ἐκείνου refers here to the nearer noun, and performs the proper office of TOÚTOV. W. § 23. 1. It is not uncommon for Greek writers to interchange these pronouns.

V. 14. dé, but, contrasts their conduct with that of Pilate. τὸν aylov is a Messianic title, as in Luke 4, 34. Tov dikalov, the Just The epithets mark the contrast between his character and that of Barabbas. avdpa povéa, i. e. not merely a man, but a man who was a murderer; see Matt. 27, 16 sq.; Mark 15, 7 sq.

one.

V. 15. Tòv dè ȧpxnyòv Tηs (wñs, but the author of life, i. e. as De Wette remarks, of life in the fullest sense in which the Scriptures ascribe that property to the Saviour, viz. spiritual or Christian life (comp. John 1, 4; Heb. 2, 10), and also natural or physical life, John 5, 26; 11, 25. Olshausen and Meyer suppose the main idea to be that of spiritual life; but the evident relation of (wns to ȧTEKTEίvate shows that the other idea is not certainly to be excluded : he who gives life to all had his own life taken from him. - ov ....éoμév, of whom (13, 31) or of which we are witnesses; see on 2, 32.