Act 2:1.[109] When the day of Pentecost became full, i.e. when the day of Pentecost had come, on the day of Pentecost. The day is, according to the Hebrew mode (see Gesen. Thes. s.v. מלא), conceived as a measure to be filled up (comp. also Act 9:23; Luk 2:6; Luk 22:9; Luk 22:51, and many similar passages in the N. T. and in the Apocrypha); so long as the day had not yet arrived, but still belonged to the future, the measure was not yet filled, but empty. But as soon as it appeared, the fulfilment, the making the day full, the ΣΥΜΠΛΉΡΩΣΙς (comp. 3 Esdr. 1:58; Dan 9:2) therewith occurred; by which, without figure, is meant the realization of the day which had not hitherto become a reality. The expression itself, which concerns the definite individual day, is at variance with the view of Olshausen and Baumgarten, who would have the time from Easter to be regarded as becoming full. Quite without warrant, Hitzig (Ostern und Pfingst, p. 39 f.) would place the occurrence not at Pentecost at all. See, in opposition to this, Schneckenb. p. 198 f.
ἡ πεντηκοστή] is indeed originally to be referred to the ἡμέρα understood; but this supplementary noun had entirely fallen into disuse, and the word had become quite an independent substantive (comp. 2Ma 12:32). πεντηκοστή also occurs in Tob 2:1, quite apart from its numeral signification, and ἐν τῇ πεντηκοστῇ ἑορτῇ is there: on the Pentecost-feast. See Fritzsche in loc. The feast of Pentecost, חַג שָּׁבֻעוֹת, Deu 16:9-10 (ἁγία ἑπτὰ ἑβδομάδων, Tob. I.c.), was one of the three great festivals, appointed as the feast of the grain-harvest (Exo 23:16; Num 28:26), and subsequently, although we find no mention of this in Philo and Josephus (comp. Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 680), regarded also as the celebration of the giving of the law from Sinai, falling (Exo 19:1) in the third month (Danz in Meuschen, N. T. ex Talm. ill. p. 741; Buxt. Synag. p. 438). It was restricted to one day, and celebrated on the fiftieth day after the first day of the Passover (Lev 23:15-16); so that the second paschal day, i.e. the 16th of Nisan, the day of the sheaf offering, is to be reckoned as the first of these fifty days. See Lightfoot and Wetstein in loc.; Ewald, Alterth. p. 476 f.; Keil, Archäol. § 83. Now, as in that year the Passover occurred on the evening of Friday (see on Joh 18:28), and consequently this Friday, the day of the death of Jesus, was the 14th of Nisan, Saturday the 15th, and Sunday the 16th, the tradition of the ancient church has very correctly placed the first Christian Pentecost on the Sunday.[110] Therefore the custom-which, besides, cannot be shown to have existed at the time of Jesus-of the Karaites, who explained שבת in Lev 23:15 not of the first day of the Passover, but of the Sabbath occurring in the paschal week, and thus held Pentecost always on a Sunday (Ideler, II. p. 613; Wieseler, Synop. p. 349), is to be left entirely out of consideration (in opposition to Hitzig); and it is not to be assumed that the disciples might have celebrated with the Karaites both Passover and Pentecost.[111] But still the question arises: Whether Luke himself conceived of that first Christian Pentecost as a Saturday or a Sunday? As he, following with Matthew and Mark the Galilean tradition, makes the Passover occur already on Thursday evening and be partaken of by Jesus Himself, and accordingly makes the Friday of the crucifixion the 15th of Nisan; so he must necessarily-but just as erroneously-have conceived of this first πεντηκοστή as a Saturday (Wieseler, Chronol. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 19), unless we should assume that he may have had no other conception of the day of Pentecost than that which was in conformity with the Christian custom of the Sunday celebration of Pentecost; which, indeed, does not correspond with his account of the day of Jesus’ death as the 15th Nisan, but shows the correctness of the Johannine tradition.
ἦσαν πάντες ὁμοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] Concerning the text, see the critical remarks; concerning ἘΠῚ ΤῸ ΑὐΤΌ, see on Act 1:15. These ΠΆΝΤΕς, all, were not merely the apostles, but all the followers of Jesus then in Jerusalem, partly natives and partly strangers, including the apostles. For, first of all, it may certainly be presumed that on the day of Pentecost, and, moreover, at the hour of prayer (Act 2:15), not the apostles alone, but with them also the other μαθηταί-among whom there were, without doubt, many foreign pilgrims to the feast-were assembled. Moreover, in Act 2:14 the apostles are distinguished from the rest. Further, the ΠΆΝΤΕς, designedly added, by no means corresponds to the small number of the apostles (Act 1:26), especially as in the narrative immediately preceding mention was made of a much greater assembly (Act 1:15); it is, on the contrary, designed-because otherwise it would have been superfluous-to indicate a still greater completeness of the assembly, and therefore it may not be limited even to the 120 persons alone. Lastly, it is clear also from the prophetic saying of Joel, adduced in Act 2:16 ff., that the effusion of the Spirit was not on the apostles merely, but on all the new people of God, so that ἅπαντες (Act 2:1) must be understood of all the followers of Jesus (of course, according to the latitude of the popular manner of expression).
[109] Concerning the Pentecostal occurrence, see van Hengel, de gave der talen, Pinksterstudie, Leid. 1864.
[110] In opposition to the view of Hupfeld, de primitiva et vera festorum ap. Hebr. ratione, Hal. 1852, who will have the fifty days reckoned from the last paschal day; see Ewald, Jahrb. IV. p. 134 f.
[111] 1 See also Vaihinger in Herzog’s Encykl. XI. p. 476 f.
Act 2:2 describes what preceded the effusion of the Spirit as an audible σημεῖον-a sound occurring unexpectedly from heaven as of a violent wind borne along (comp. πνεῦμα βίαιον, Arrian. Exp. Al. ii. 6. 3; Pausan. x. 17. 11). The wonderful sound is, by the comparison (ὥσπερ) with a violent wind, intended to be brought home to the conception of the reader, but not to be represented as an actual storm of wind (Eichhorn, Heinrichs), or gust (Ewald), or other natural phenomenon (comp. Neander, p. 14).[112] Comp. Hom. Od. vi. 20.
οἶκον] is not arbitrarily and against N. T. usage to be limited to the room (Valckenaer), but is to be understood of a private house, and, indeed, most probably of the same house, which is already known from Act 1:13; Act 1:15 as the meeting-place of the disciples of Jesus. Whether it was the very house in which Jesus partook of the last supper (Mar 14:12 ff.), as Ewald conjectures, cannot he determined. If Luke had meant the temple, as, after the older commentators, Morus, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Wieseler, p. 18, and Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 14, assume, he must have named it; the reader could not have guessed it. For (1) it is by no means necessary that we should think of the assembly on the first day of Pentecost and at the time of prayer just as in the temple. On the contrary, Act 2:1 describes the circle of those met together as closed and in a manner separatist; hence a place in the temple could neither be wished for by them nor granted to them. Nor is the opinion, that it was the temple, to be established from Luk 24:53, where the mode of expression is popular. (2) The supposition that they were assembled in the temple is not required by the great multitude of those that flocked together (Act 2:6). The private house may have been in the neighbourhood of the temple; but not even this supposition is necessary, considering the miraculous character of the occurrence. (3) It is true that, according to Joseph. Antt. viii. 3. 2, the principal building of the temple had thirty halls built around it, which he calls οἴκους; but could Luke suppose Theophilus possessed of this special knowledge? “But,” it is said, (4) “the solemn inauguration of the church of Christ then presents itself with imposing effect in the sanctuary of the old covenant,” Olshausen; “the new spiritual temple must have … proceeded from the envelope of the old temple,” Lange. But this locality would need first to be proved! If this inauguration did not take place in the temple, with the same warrant there might be seen in this an equally imposing indication of the entire severance of the new theocracy from the old. Yet Luke has indicated neither the one nor the other idea, and it is not till Act 2:44 that the visit to the temple emerges in his narrative.
Kaiser (Commentat. 1820, pp. 3-23; comp. bibl. Theol. II. p. 41) infers from ἦσαν … ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, Act 2:1, as well as from ΟἾΚΟς, ΚΑΘΉΜΕΝΟΙ, Οὐ ΜΕΘΎΟΥΣΙΝ, Act 2:15, etc., that this Christian private assembly, at the first feast of Pentecost, had for its object the celebration of the Agapae. Comp. Augusti, Denkwürdigkeiten aus der christl. Arch. IV. p. 124. An interpretation arbitrarily put into the words. The sacredness of the festival was in itself a sufficient reason for their assembling, especially considering the deeply excited state of feeling in which they were, and the promise which was given to the apostles for so near a realization.
οὗ ἦσαν καθεζόμενοι] where, that is, in which they were sitting. We have to conceive those assembled, ere yet the hour of prayer (Act 2:15) had arrived (for in prayer they stood), sitting at the feet of the teachers.
[112] Lightfoot aptly remarks: “Sonus venti vehementis, sed absque vento; sic etiam linguae igneae, sed absque igne.”
Act 2:3. After the audible σημεῖον immediately follows the visible. Incorrectly Luther: “there were seen on them the tongues divided as if they were of fire.”[113] The words mean: There appeared to them, i.e. there were seen by them, tongues becoming distributed, fire-like, i.e. tongues which appeared like little flames of fire, and were distributed (Act 2:45; Luk 22:17; Luk 23:34) upon those present (see the following ἐκάθισε κ.τ.λ.). They were thus appearances of tongues, which were luminous, but did not burn; not really consisting of fire, but only ὡσεὶ πυρός; and not confluent into one, but distributing themselves severally on the assembled. As only similar to fire, they bore an analogy to electric phenomena; their tongue-shape referred as a σημεῖον to that miraculous λαλεῖν which ensued immediately after, and the fire-like form to the divine presence (comp. Exo 3:2), which was here operative in a manner so entirely peculiar. The whole phenomenon is to be understood as a miraculous operation of God manifesting Himself in the Spirit, by which, as by the preceding sound from heaven, the effusion of the Spirit was made known as divine, and His efficacy on the minds of those who were to receive Him was enhanced. A more special physiological definition of the ΣΗΜΕῖΑ, Act 2:2-3, is impossible. Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 19, fancifully supposes that the noise of the wind was a streaming of the heavenly powers from above, audible to the opened visionary sense, and that the tongues of fire were a disengaging of the solar fire-power of the earth and its atmosphere (?). The attempts, also, to convert this appearance of fire-like tongues into an accidental electric natural occurrence (Paulus, Thiess, and others) are in vain; for these flames, which make their appearance, during an accumulation of electric matter, on towers, masts, and even on men, present far too weak resemblances; and besides, the room of a house, where the phenomenon exclusively occurred, was altogether unsuited for any such natural development. The representation of the text is monstrously altered by Heinrichs: Fulgura cellam vere pervadebant, sed in inusitatas imagines ea effinxit apostolorum commota mens; as also by Heumann: that they believed that they saw the fiery tongues merely in the ecstatic state; and not less so by Eichhorn, who says that “they saw flames” signifies in rabbinical usus loquendi: they were transported into ecstatic excitement. The passages adduced by Eichhorn from Schoettgen contain no merely figurative modes of expression, but fancies of the later Rabbins to be understood literally in imitation of the phenomena at Sinai,-of which phenomena, we may add, a real historical analogue is to be recognised in our passage.
ἐκάθισέ τε] namely, not an indefinite subject, something (Hildebrand, comp. Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 118 [E. T. 134]), but such a γλῶσσα ὡσεὶ πυρός. If Luke had written ἘΚΆΘΙΣΑΝ (see the critical remarks), the notion that one ΓΛῶΣΣΑ sat upon each would not have been definitely expressed. Comp. Winer, p. 481 [E. T. 648]. Oecumenius, Beza, Castalio, Schoettgen, Kuinoel, incorrectly take ΠῦΡ as the subject, since, in fact, there was no fire at all, but only something resembling fire; ὩΣΕῚ ΠΥΡΌς serves only for comparison, and consequently ΠῦΡ cannot be the subject of the continued narrative. Others, as Chrysostom, Theophylact, Luther, Calvin, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs et al., consider the πνεῦμα ἅγιον as subject. In that case it would have to be interpreted, with Fritzsche (Conject. I. p. 13): ΚΑΘΊΣΑΝΤΟς ἘΦʼ ἝΝΑ ἝΚΑΣΤΟΝ ΑὐΤῶΝ ἘΠΛΉΣΘΗΣΑΝ ἍΠΑΝΤΕς ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ, and Mat 17:18 would be similar. Very harsh, seeing that the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ ἍΓΙΟΥ, in so far as it sat on the assembled, would appear as identical with its symbol, the fiery tongues; but in so far as it filled the assembled, as the ΠΝΕῦΜΑ itself, different from the symbol.
The ΤΈ joining on to the preceding (Lachm. reads ΚΑΊ, following insufficient testimony) connects ἘΚΆΘΙΣΕ Κ.Τ.Λ. with ὬΦΘΗΣΑΝ Κ.Τ.Λ. into an unity, so that the description divides itself into the three acts: ὤφθησαν κ.τ.λ., ἐπλήσθησαν κ.τ.λ., and ἤρξαντο κ.τ.λ., as is marked by the thrice recurring καί.
[113] Therefore the expression is not to be explained from Isa 5:24, for there לְשׁוֹן אֵשׁ is a representation of that which consumes.
Act 2:4. After this external phenomenon, there now ensued the internal filling of all who were assembled,[114] without exception (ἘΠΛ. ἍΠΑΝΤΕς, comp. Act 2:1), with the Holy Spirit, of which the immediate result was, that they, and, indeed, these same ἅπαντες (comp. Act 4:31)-accordingly not excluding the apostles (in opposition to van Hengel)
ἬΡΞΑΝΤΟ ΛΑΛΕῖΝ ἙΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς. Earlier cases of being filled with the Spirit (Luk 1:41; Luk 1:47; Joh 20:22; comp. also Luk 9:55) are related to the present as the momentary, partial, and typical, to the permanent, complete, and antitypical, such as could only occur after the glorifying of Jesus (see Act 2:33; Joh 16:7; Joh 7:39).
ἤρξαντο] brings into prominence the primus impetus of the act as its most remarkable element.
λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις] For the sure determination of what Luke meant by this, it is decisive that ἙΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς on the part of the speakers was, in point of fact, the same thing which the congregated Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., designated as ΤΑῖς ἩΜΕΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς (comp. Act 2:8 : Τῇ ἸΔΊᾼ ΔΙΑΛΈΚΤῼ ἩΜῶΝ). The ἝΤΕΡΑΙ ΓΛῶΣΣΑΙ therefore are, according to the text, to be considered as absolutely nothing else than languages, which were different from the native language of the speakers. They, the Galileans, spoke, one Parthian, another Median, etc., consequently languages of another sort (Luk 9:29; Mar 16:13; Gal 1:6), i.e. foreign (1Co 14:21); and these indeed-the point wherein precisely appeared the miraculous operation of the Spirit-not acquired by study (γλώσσαις καιναῖς, Mar 16:17). Accordingly the text itself determines the meaning of ΓΛῶΣΣΑΙ as languages, not: tongues (as van Hengel again assumes on the basis of Act 2:3, where, however, the tongues have only the symbolic destination of a divine σημεῖον[115]); and thereby excludes the various other explanations, and in particular those which start from the meaning verba obsoleta et poetica (Galen, exeg. glossar. Hippocr. Prooem.; Aristot. Ars poet. 21. 4 ff., 22. 3 f.; Quinctil. 1. 8; Pollux. 2. 4; Plut. Pyth. Orac. 24; and see Giese, Aeol. Dial. p. 42 ff.). This remark holds good (1) of the interpretation of Herder (von d. Gabe der Sprachen am ersten christl. Pfingstf., Riga, 1794), that new modes of interpreting the ancient prophets were meant; (2) against Heinrichs, who (after A. G. Meyer, de charismate τῶν γλωσσῶν, etc., Hannov. 1797) founds on that assumed meaning of γλῶσσαι his explanation of enthusiastic speaking in languages which were foreign indeed, different from the sacred language, but were the native languages of the speakers; (3) against Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 33 ff., 1830, p. 45 ff. The latter explains γλῶσσαι as glosses, i.e. unusual, antiquated poetical and provincial expressions. According to him, we are not to think of a connected speaking in foreign languages, but of a speaking in expressions which were foreign to the language of common life, and in which there was an approximation to a highly poetical phraseology, yet so that these glosses were borrowed from different dialects and languages (therefore ἑτέραις). Against this explanation of the γλῶσσαι, which is supported by Bleek with much erudition, the usus loquendi is already decisive. For γλῶσσα in that sense is a grammatico-technical expression, or at least an expression borrowed from grammarians, which is only as such philologically beyond dispute (see all the passages in Bleek, p. 33 ff., and already in A. G. Meyer, l.c.; Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 741). But this meaning is entirely unknown to ordinary linguistic usage, and particularly to that of the O. and N. T. How should Luke have hit upon the use of such a singular expression for a thing, which he could easily designate by words universally intelligible? How could he put this expression even into the mouths of the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc.? For ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις, Act 2:11, must be explained in a manner entirely corresponding to this. Further, there would result for ἡμετέραις a wholly absurd meaning. ἡμέτεραι γλώσσαι, forsooth, would be nothing else than glosses, obsolete expressions, which are peculiar only to the Parthians, or to the Medes, or to the Elamites, etc., just as the Ἀττικαὶ γλῶσσαι of Theodorus (in Athen. xiv. p. 646 c, p. 1437, ed. Dindorf) are provincialisms of Attica, which were not current among the rest of the Greeks. Finally, it is further decisive against Bleek that, according to his explanation of γλῶσσα transferred also to 1Co 12:14, no sense is left for the singular term γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν; for γλῶσσα could not denote genus locutionis glossematicum (λέξις γλωσσηματική, Dionys. Hal. de Thuc. 24), but simply a single gloss. As Bleek’s explanation falls to the ground, so must every other which takes γλῶσσαι in any other sense than languages, which it must mean according to Act 2:6; Act 2:8; Act 2:11. This remark holds particularly (4) against the understanding of the matter by van Hengel, according to whom the assembled followers of Jesus spoke with other tongues than those with which they formerly spoke, namely, in the excitement of a fiery inspiration, but still all of them in Aramaic, so that each of those who came together heard the language of his own ancestral worship from the mouth of these Galileans, Act 2:6.
[114] Chrysostom well remarks: οὐκ ἂν εἶπε πάντες, καὶ ἀποστόλων ὄντων ἐκεῖ, εἰ μὴ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι μετέσχον. See also van Hengel, p. 54 ff.
[115] Van Hengel understands, according to ver. 3, by ἕτεραι γλ., “tongues of fire, which the believers in Jesus have obtained through their communion with the Holy Spirit.” That is, “an open-hearted and loud speaking to the glorifying of God in Christ,” such as had not been done before. Previously their tongues had been without fire.
From what has been already said, and at the same time from the express contrast in which the list of nations (Act 2:9-11) stands with the question οὐκ ἰδοὺ πάντες … Γαλιλαῖοι (Act 2:7), it results beyond all doubt that Luke intended to narrate nothing else than this: the persons possessed by the Spirit began to speak in languages which were foreign to their nationality instead of their mother-tongue, namely, in the languages of other nations,[116] the knowledge and use of which were previously wanting to them, and were only now communicated in and with the πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Comp. Storr, Opusc. II. p. 290 ff., III. p. 277 ff.; Milville, Obss. theol. exeg. de dono linguar. Basil. 1816. See also Schaff, Gesch. d. apost. K. p. 201 ff., ed. 2; Ch. F. Fritzsche, Nova opusc. p. 304 f. The author of Mar 16:17 has correctly understood the expression of Luke, when, in reference to our narrative, he wrote καιναῖς instead of ἙΤΈΡΑΙς. The explanation of foreign languages has been since the days of Origen that of most of the Church Fathers and expositors; but the monstrous extension of this view formerly prevalent, to the effect that the inspired received the gift of speaking all the languages of the earth (Augustin.: “coeperunt loqui linguis omnium gentium”), and that for the purpose of enabling them to proclaim the gospel to all nations, is unwarranted. “Poena linguarum dispersit homines: donum linguarum dispersos in unum populum collegit,” Grotius. Of this the text knows nothing; it leaves it, on the contrary, entirely undetermined whether, over and above the languages specially mentioned in Act 2:9-11, any others were spoken. For the preaching of the gospel in the apostolic age this alleged gift of languages was partly unnecessary, as the preachers needed only to be able to speak Hebrew and Greek (comp. Schneckenb. neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 17 ff.), and partly too general, as among the assembled there were certainly very many who did not enter upon the vocation of teacher. And, on the other hand, such a gift would also have been premature, since Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, would, above all, have needed it; and yet in his case there is no trace of its subsequent reception, just as there is no evidence of his having preached in any other language than Hebrew and Greek.
[116] Comp., besides 1Co 14:21, Ecclus. praef.: ὅταν μεταχθῆ (the Hebrew) εἰς ἑτέραν γλῶσσαν (Leo, Tact. 4. 49: γλώσσαις διαφόροις λαλεῖν); also Aesch. Sept. 171: πόλιν δορίπονον μὴ προδῶθʼ ἑτεροφώνῳ στρατῷ. Not different is Pind. Pyth. xi. 43: ἀλλοτρίαισι γλώσσαις.
But how is the occurrence to be judged of historically? On this the following points are to be observed:-(1) Since the sudden communication of a facility of speaking foreign languages is neither logically possible nor psychologically and morally conceivable, and since in the case of the apostles not the slightest indication of it is perceptible in their letters or otherwise (comp., on the contrary, Act 14:11); since further, if it is to be assumed as having been only momentary, the impossibility is even increased, and since Peter himself in his address makes not even the slightest allusion to the foreign languages,-the event, as Luke narrates it, cannot be presented in the actual form of its historical occurrence, whether we regard that Pentecostal assembly (without any indication to that effect in the text) as a representation of the entire future Christian body (Baumgarten) or not. (2) The analogy of magnetism (adduced especially by Olshausen, and by Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. VI. 2, p. 118) is entirely foreign to the point, especially as those possessed by the Spirit were already speaking in foreign languages, when the Parthians, Medes, etc., came up, so that anything corresponding to the magnetic “rapport” is not conceivable. (3) If the event is alleged to have taken place, as it is narrated, with a view to the representation of an idea,[117] and that, indeed, only at the time and without leaving behind a permanent facility of speaking languages (Rossteuscher, Gabe der Sprachen, Marb. 1850, p. 97: “in order to represent and to attest, in germ and symbol, the future gathering of the elect out of all nations, the consecration of their languages in the church, and again the holiness of the church in the use of these profane idioms, as also of what is natural generally”), such a view is nothing else than a gratuitously-imported subjective abstraction of fancy, which leaves the point of the impossibility and the non-historical character of the occurrence entirely unsettled, although it arbitrarily falls back upon the Babylonian confusion of tongues as its corresponding historical type. This remark also applies against Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 22 ff., according to whose fanciful notion the original language of the inner life by which men’s minds are united has here reached its fairest manifestation. This Pentecostal language, he holds, still pervades the church as the language of the inmost life in God, as the language of the Bible, glorified by the gospel, and as the leaven of all languages, which effects their regeneration into the language of the Spirit. (4) Nevertheless, the state of the fact can in nowise be reduced to a speaking of the persons assembled in their mother-tongues, so that the speakers would have been no native Galileans (Paulus, Eichhorn, Schulthess, de charismatib. sp. s., Lips. 1818, Kuinoel, Heinrichs, Fritzsche, Schrader, and others); along with which David Schulz (d. Geistesgaben d. ersten Christen, Breslau, 1836) explains ἑτέραις γλώσσαις even of other kinds of singing praise, which found utterance in the provincial dialects contrary to their custom and ability at other times. Thus the very essence of the narrative, the miraculous nature of the phenomenon, is swept away, and there is not even left matter of surprise fitted to give sufficient occasion for the astonishment and its expressions, if we do not, with Thiess, resort even to the hypothesis that the speakers had only used the Aramaic dialects instead of the Galilean. Every resolution of the matter into a speaking of native languages is directly against the nature and the words of the narrative, and therefore unwarranted. (5) Equally unwarranted, moreover, is the conversion, utterly in the face of the narrative, of the miracle of tongues into a miracle of hearing, so that those assembled did not, indeed, speak in any foreign tongue, but the foreigners listening believed that they heard their own native languages. See against this view, Castalio in loc., and Beza on x. 46. This opinion (which Billroth on 1 Cor. strangely outbids by his fancy of a primeval language which had been spoken) is already represented by Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 41, as allowable by the punctuation of Act 2:6; is found thereafter in the Pseudo-Cyprian (Arnold), in the appendix to the Opp. Cypr. p. 60, ed. Brem. (p. 475, ed. Basil. 1530), in Beda, Erasmus, and others; and has recently been advocated especially by Schnecken-burger, Beitr. p. 84; comp. üb. den Zweck d. Apostelgesch. p. 202 ff.:[118] legend also presents later analogous phenomena (in the life of Francis Xavier and others). (6) The miraculous gift of languages remains the centre of the entire narrative (see Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 309 ff.; Zeller, p. 104 ff.; Hilgenf. d. Glossolalie, p. 87 ff.), and may in nowise be put aside or placed in the background, if the state of the fact is to be derived entirely from this narrative. If we further compare Act 10:46-47, the καθὼς καὶ ἡμεῖς in that passage shows that the ΛΑΛΕῖΝ ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς, which there occurred at the descent of the Spirit on those assembled, cannot have been anything essentially different from the event in Acts 2. A corresponding judgment must in that case be formed as to Act 19:6. But we have to take our views of what the ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς ΛΑΛΕῖΝ really was, not from our passage, but from the older and absolutely authentic account of Paul in 1Co 12:14; according to which it (see comm. on 1Co 12:10) was a speaking in the form of prayer-which took place in the highest ecstasy, and required an interpretation for its understanding-and not a speaking in foreign languages. The occurrence in Acts 2. is therefore to be recognised, according to its historical import, as the phenomenon of the glossolalia (not as a higher stage of it, in which the foreign languages supervened, Olshausen), which emerged for the first time in the Christian church, and that immediately on the effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost,-a phenomenon which, in the sphere of the marvellous to which it belongs, was elaborated and embellished by legend into a speaking in foreign languages, and accordingly into an occurrence quite unique, not indeed as to substance, but as to mode (comp. Hilgenfeld, p. 146), and far surpassing the subsequently frequent and well-known glossolalia, having in fact no parallel in the further history of the church.[119] How this transformation-the supposition of which is by no means to be treated with suspicion as the dogmatic caprice of unbelief (in opposition to Rossteuscher, p. 125)-took place, cannot be ascertained. But the supposition very naturally suggests itself, that among the persons possessed by the Spirit, who were for the most part Galileans (in the elaborated legend; all of them Galileans), there were also some foreigners, and that among these very naturally the utterances of the Spirit in the glossolalia found vent in expressions of their different national languages, and not in the Aramaic dialect, which was to them by nature a foreign language, and therefore not natural or suitable for the outburst of inspired ecstasy. If this first glossolalia actually took place in different languages, we can explain how the legend gradually gave to the occurrence the form which it has in Luke, even with the list of nations, which specifies more particularly the languages spoken. That a symbolical view of the phenomenon has occasioned the formation of the legend, namely, the idea of doing away with the diversity of languages which arose, Genesis 11, by way of punishment, according to which idea there was to be again in the Messianic time εἷς λαὸς κυρίου καὶ γλῶσσα μία (Test. XII. Patr. p. 618), is not to be assumed (Schneckenburger, Rossteuscher, de Wette), since this idea as respects the γλῶσσα μία is not a N. T. one, and it would suit not the miracle of speaking, such as the matter appears in our narrative, but a miracle of hearing, such as it has been interpreted to mean. The general idea of the universal destination of Christianity (comp. Zeller, Hilgenfeld) cannot but have been favourable to the shaping of the occurrence in the form in which it appears in our passage.
[117] Comp. Augustine, serm. 9 : Loquebatur enim tunc unus homo omnibus linguis, quia locutura erat unitas ecclesiae in omnibus linguis.
[118] Svenson also, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Th. u. K. 1859, p. 1 ff., arrives at the result of a miracle of hearing.
[119] The conclusion of Wieseler (Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 118), that Luke, who, as a companion of Paul, must have been well acquainted with the glossolalia, could not have represented it as a speaking in foreign languages, is incorrect. Luke, in fact, conceives and describes the Pentecostal miracle not as the glossolalia, which was certainly well known to him, as it was a frequent gift in the apostolic age, but as a quite extraordinary occurrence, such as it had been presented to him by tradition; and in doing so, he is perfectly conscious of the distinction between it and the speaking with tongues, which he knew by experience. With justice Holtzmann also (in Herzog’s Encykl. XVIII. p. 689) sees in our narrative a later legendary formation, but from a time which was no longer familiar with the nature of the glossolalia. This latter statement is not to be conceded, partly because Luke wrote soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the source which he here made use of must have been still older; and partly because he was a friend of Paul, and as such could not have been otherwise than familiar with the nature of that χάρισμα, which the apostle himself richly possessed.
The view which regards our event as essentially identical with the glossolalia, but does not conceive the latter as a speaking in foreign languages, has been adopted by Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 50 ff., whose explanation, however, of highly poetical discourse, combined with foreign expressions, agrees neither with the ἑτέρ. γλ. generally nor with Act 2:8; Act 2:11; by Baur in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 101 ff., who, however, explains on this account ἑτέρ. γλ. as new spirit-tongues,[120] and regarded this expression as the original one, but subsequently in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 618 ff., amidst a mixing up of different opinions, has acceded to the view of Bleek; by Steudel in the Tüb. Zeitschr. 1830, 2, p. 133 ff., 1831, 2, p. 128 ff., who explains the Pentecostal event from the corresponding tone of feeling which the inspired address encountered in others,-a view which does not at all suit the concourse of foreign unbelievers in our passage; by Neander, who, however (4th edition, p. 28), idealizes the speaking of inspiration in our passage too indefinitely and indistinctly; by Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 743 ff., 1860, p. 117, who makes the ἑρμηνεία γλωσσῶν be described according to the impression made upon the assembled Jews,-an idea irreconcilable with our text (Act 2:6-12); by de Wette, who ascribes the transformation of the glossolalia in our passage to a reporter, who, from want of knowledge, imported into the traditional facts a symbolical meaning; by Hilgenfeld, according to whom the author conceived the gift of languages as a special γένος of speaking with tongues; by van Hengel, who sees in the Corinthian glossolalia a degenerating of the original fact in our passage; and by Ewald (Gesch. d. apost. Zeitalt. p. 123 ff., comp. Jahrb. III. p. 269 ff.), who represents the matter as the first outburst of the infinite vigour of life and pleasure in life of the new-born Christianity, which took place not in words, songs, and prayers previously used, nor generally in previous human speech and language, but, as it were, in a sudden conflux and moulding-anew of all previous languages, amidst which the synonymous expressions of different languages were, in the surging of excitement, crowded and conglomerated, etc.,-a view in which the appeal to the ἀββὰ ὁ πατήρ and μαρὰν ἀθά is much too weak to do justice to the ἑτέραις γλώσσαις as the proper point of the narrative. On the other hand, the view of the Pentecostal miracle as an actual though only temporary speaking in unacquired foreign languages, such as Luke represents it, has been maintained down to the most recent times (Baeumlein in the Würtemb. Stud. 1834, 2, p. 40 ff.; Bauer in the Stud. u. Krit. 1843, p. 658 ff., 1844, p. 708 ff.; Zinsler, de charism. τοῦ γλ. λαλ. 1847; Englmann, v. d. Charismen, 1850; Maier, d. Glossalie d. apost. Zeitalt. 1855; Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 67; Rossteuscher, Baumgarten, Lechler; comp. also Kahnis, vom heil. Geiste, p. 61 ff., Dogmat. I. p. 517, Schaff, and others), a conception which Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 206 ff., supports by the significance of Pentecost as the feast of the first fruits, and Baumgarten, at the same time, by its reference to the giving of the law. But by its side the procedure of the other extreme, by which the Pentecostal occurrence is entirely banished from history,[121] has been carried out in the boldest and most decided manner by Zeller (p. 104 ff.), to whom the origin of the narrative appears quite capable of explanation from dogmatic motives (according to the idea of the destination of Christianity for all nations) and typical views.[122]
καθώς, as, in which manner, i.e. according to the context: in which foreign language.
ἀποφθέγγεσθαι] eloqui (Lucian. Zeux. 1, Paras. 4, Plut. Mor. p. 405 E, Diog. L. i. 63), a purposely chosen word (comp. Act 2:14, Act 26:25) for loud utterance in the elevated state of spiritual gifts (1Ch 25:1; Ecclus. Prolog. ii.; comp. ἀπόφθεγμα, Deu 32:2, also Zec 10:2), also of false prophets, Eze 13:19; Mich. Act 5:12. See, generally, Schleusner, Thes. I. p. 417; also Valckenaer, p. 344; and van Hengel, p. 40.
[120] Which the Spirit has created for Himself as His organs, different from the usual human tongues. See also in his neutest. Theol. p. 323 f.
[121] Weisse, evang. Gesch. II. p. 417 ff., identifies the matter even with the appearance of the risen Christ to more than 500 brethren, recorded in 1Co 15:6!-Gfrörer, Gesch. d. Urchr. I. 2, p. 397 f., derives the origin of the Pentecostal history in our passage from the Jewish tradition of the feast of Pentecost as the festival of the law, urging the mythical miracle of tongues on Sinai (comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 202 ff.).
[122] Comp. also Baur, who finds here Paul’s idea of the λαλεῖν ταῖς γλώσσαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων καὶ τῶν ἀγγέλων, 1Co 13:1, converted into reality. According to Baur, neutest. Theol. p. 322, there remains to us as the proper nucleus of the matter only the conviction, which became to the disciples and first Christians a fact of their consciousness, that the same Spirit by whom Jesus was qualified to be the Messiah had also been imparted to them, and was the specific principle-determining the Christian consciousness-of their fellowship. This communication of the Spirit did not, in his view, even occur at a definite point of time.
Act 2:5 gives, as introductory to what follows, preliminary information how it happened that Jews of so very diversified nationality were witnesses of the occurrence, and heard their mother-languages spoken by the inspired. Stolz, Paulus, and Heinrichs are entirely in error in supposing that Act 2:5 refers to the λαλεῖν ἑτέρ. γλ., and that the sense is: “Neque id secus quam par erat, nam ex pluribus nationibus diverse loquentibus intererant isti coetui homines,” etc. The context, in fact, distinguishes the ʼΙουδαῖοι and the Γαλιλαῖοι (so designated not as a sect, but according to their nationality), clearly in such a way that the former are members of the nation generally, and the latter are specially and exclusively Galileans. See also van Hengel, p. 9.
ἦσαν … κατοικοῦντες] they were dwelling, is not to be taken of mere temporary residence (Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others), but of the domicile (Luk 13:4; Act 7:48; Act 9:22, al.; Plat. Legg. ii. p. 666 E, xii: p. 969 C) which they had taken up in the central city of the theocracy, and that from conscientious religious feelings as Israelites (hence εὐλαβεῖς, comp. on Luk 2:25). Comp. Chrys.: τὸ κατοικεῖν εὐλαβείας ἦν σημεῖον· πῶς; ἀπὸ τοσούτων γὰρ ἐθνῶν ὄντες καὶ πατρίδας ἀφέντες … ᾤκουν ἐκεῖ.
τῶν ὑπὸ τὸν οὐραν.] sc. ἐθνῶν, of the nations to be found under heaven (Bernhardy).
ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανόν is classical, ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. Comp. Plat. Ep. p. 326 C, Tim. p. 23 C. The whole expression has something solemn about it, and is, as a popular hyperbole, to be left in all its generality. Comp. Deu 2:25; Col 1:23.
Act 2:6. Τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης] this sound, which, inasmuch as οὗτος points back to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of Act 2:2, to which also γενομ. carries us back. Comp. Joh 3:8. Luke represents the matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meeting to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a “sympathy of the susceptible” (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no mention of either; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different languages; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in Act 2:4; therefore Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take φωνή in the sense of φήμη. Contrary to the usus loquendi; even in Gen 45:16 it is otherwise.
συνεχύθη mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed. Comp. Act 9:22; 1Ma 4:27; 2Ma 10:30; Herod, 8:99; Plat. Ep. 7, p. 346 D; Diod. S. 4:62; Lucian. Nigr. 31.
εἷς ἕκαστος] annexes to the more indefinite ἤκουον the exact statement of the subject. Comp. Joh 16:32; Act 11:29 al.; Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Od. x. 397; Bernhardy, p. 420.
διαλέκτῳ] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on Act 1:19), language in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in Act 2:8, designedly chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different languages, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Persian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons possessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the ἑτέρων γλωσσῶν. The view that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van Hengel), appears-from Act 2:8; from the list of nations, which would be destitute of significance; from προσήλυτοι (Act 2:10), which would be meaningless; and from Act 2:11,[123] as well as from the opinions expressed in Act 2:12-13, which would be without a motive-as an exegetical impossibility, which is also already excluded by εἷς ἕκαστος in Act 2:6.
λαλούντων αὐτῶν] not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of λαλεῖν ἑτέρ. γλώσσαις, that each individual must have spoken in the different languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and consequently even the summary αὐτῶν is quite in order.
[123] Where neither in itself nor according to ver. 8 can ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις mean what van Hengel puts into it: as we do with our own tongues.
Act 2:7-8. Ἐξίσταντο denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first perplexity, Act 2:6; ἐθαύμαζον is the continuing wonder resulting from it. Comp. Mar 6:51.
ἰδού] to be enclosed within two commas.
πάντες οὗτοι κ.τ.λ.] pointing out: all the speakers present. It does not distinguish two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van Hengel); but see Act 2:4. The dislocation occasioned by the interposition of εἰσίν brings the πάντες οὗτοι into more emphatic prominence.
Γαλιλαῖοι] They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans, speak Parthian, Median, etc. This view, which takes Γαλ. in the sense of nationality, is required by Act 2:8; Act 2:11, and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named. It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into prominence the accessory idea of want of culture (uncultivated Galileans); and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider Γαλ. as a designation of the Christian sect-a designation, evidence of which, moreover, can only be adduced from a later period. Augusti, Denkwürd. IV: pp. 49, 55. It is erroneous, also, to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposition to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 310.
καὶ πῶς] καί, as a simple and, annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans) how happens it that, etc.
ἡμεῖς ἀκούομεν ἕκαστος κ.τ.λ.] we on our part (in contrast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one, etc. That, accordingly, ἐγεννήθ. is to be understood distributively, is self-evident from the connection (comp. ταῖς ἡμετ. γλώσσαις, Act 2:11); therefore van Hengel[124] wrongly objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to run: πῶς ἡμ. ἀκ. τ. ἰδ. διαλ., ἐν ᾗ ἕκαστος ἐγεννήθη.
ἐν ᾗ ἐγεννήθ. designation of the mother-tongue, with which one is, in the popular way of expressing the matter, born furnished.
[124] l.c. p. 24 f.: “How comes it that we, no one excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue of our own people?” Thus, in his view, we are to explain the passage as the words stand in the text, and thus there is designated only the one mother-tongue-the Aramaic.
Act 2:9-11. Πάρθοι … Ἄραβες is a more exact statement, placed in apposition, of the subject of ἐγεννήθημεν. After finishing the list, Act 2:11, Luke again takes up the verb already used in Act 2:8, and completes the sentence already there begun, but in such a way as once more to bring forward the important point τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ, only in a different and more general expression, by ταῖς ἡμετ. γλώσσαις. Instead, therefore, of simply writing λαλούντ. αὐτ. τὰ μεγαλ. τ· Θεοῦ without this resumption in Act 2:11, he continues, after the list of nations, as if he had said in Act 2:8 merely καὶ πῶς ἡμεῖς.
The list of nations itself, which is arranged not without reference to geography, yet in a desultory manner (east, north, south, west), is certainly genuine (in opposition to Ziegler, Schulthess, Kuinoel), but is, of course, not to be considered, at any rate in its present order and completeness, as an original constituent part of the speech of the people (which would be psychologically inappropriate to the lively expression of strong astonishment), but as an historical notice, which was designedly interwoven in the speech and put into the mouth of the people, either already in the source whence Luke drew, or by Luke himself, in order to give very strong prominence to the contrast with the preceding Γαλιλαῖοι.
ʼΕλαμῖται, on the Persian Gulf, are so named in the LXX. (Isa 21:2); called by the Greeks ʼΕλυμαῖοι. See Polyb. 5. 44. 9, al. The country is called ʼΕλυμαΐς, Pol. xxxi. 11. 1; Strabo, xvi. p. 744.
ʼΙουδαίαν] There is a historical reason why Jews should be also mentioned in this list, which otherwise names none but foreigners. A portion of those who had received the Spirit spoke Jewish, so that even the native Jews heard their provincial dialect. This is not at variance with the ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, because the Jewish dialect differed in pronunciation from the Galilean, although both belonged to the Aramaic language of the country at that time; comp. on Mat 26:73. Heinrichs thinks that ʼΙουδαίαν is inappropriate (comp. de Wette), and was only included in this specification in fluxu orationis; while Olshausen holds that Luke included the mention of it from his Roman point of view, and in consideration of his Roman readers. What a high degree of carelessness would either suggestion involve! Tertull. c. Jud 1:7, read Armeniam. Conjectural emendations are: ʼΙδουμαίαν (Caspar Barth), ʼΙνδίαν (Erasmus Schmid), Βιθυνίαν (Hemsterhuis and Valckenaer). Ewald guesses that Syria has dropped out after Judaea.
τὴν ʼΑσίαν] is here, as it is mentioned along with individual Asiatic districts, not the whole of Asia Minor, nor yet simply Ionia (Kuinoel), or Lydia (Schneckenburger), to which there is no evidence that the name Asia was applied; but the whole western coast-region of Asia Minor (Caria, Lydia, Mysia), according to Plin. H. N. v. 28; see Winer, Realw., Wieseler, p. 32 ff.
τὰ μέρη τῆς Λιβύης τῆς κατὰ Κυρήνην] the districts of the Libya situated towards Cyrene, i.e. Libya Cyrenaica, or Pentapolitana, Upper Libya, whose capital was Cyrene, nearly one-fourth of the population of which were Jews; see Joseph. Antt. xiv. 7. 2, xvi. 6. 1.[125] So many of the Cyrenaean Jews dwelt in Jerusalem, that they had there a synagogue of their own (Act 6:9).
οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι] the Romans
Jews dwelling in Rome and the Roman countries of the West generally-residing (here in Jerusalem) as strangers (pilgrims to the feast, or for other reasons). On ἐπιδημ., as distinguished from κατοικοῦντες, comp. Act 17:21. Plat. Prot. p. 342 C: ξένος ὢν ἐπιδημήσῃ. Legg. viii. p. 8, 45 A; Dem. 1352. 19; Athen. viii. p. 361 F: οἱ Ῥώμην κατοικοῦντες καὶ οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες τῇ πόλει. As ἐπιδημοῦντες, they are not properly included under the category of κατοικοῦντες in the preparatory Act 2:5, but are by zeugma annexed thereto.
ʼΙουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι is in apposition not merely to οἱ ἐπιδ. Ῥωμαῖοι (Erasmus, Grotius, van Hengel, and others), but, as is alone in keeping with the universal aim of the list of nations, to all those mentioned before in Act 2:9-10. The native Jews (ʼΙουδαῖοι) heard the special Jewish local dialects, which were their mother-tongues; the Gentile Jews (προσήλυτοι) heard their different non-Hebraic mother-tongues, and that likewise in the different idioms of the several nationalities.
Κρῆτες καὶ Ἄραβες] are inaccurately brought in afterwards, as their proper position ought to have been before ʼΙουδ. τε καὶ προσήλ., because that statement, in the view of the writer, held good of all the nationalities.
τ. ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις] ἡμετ. has the emphasis of contrast: not with their language, but with ours. Comp. Act 2:8. That γλώσσ. comprehends also the dialectic varieties serving as a demarcation, is self-evident from Act 2:6-10. The expression τ. ἡμετ. γλ. affirms substantially the same thing as was meant by ἑτέραις γλώσσαις in Act 2:4.
τὰ μεγαλεῖα τ. Θεοῦ] the great things of God (which God has done; comp. Psa 71:19; Sir 17:8; Sir 18:3; Sir 33:8; 3Ma 7:22). It is the glorious things which God has provided through Christ, as is self-evident in the case of that assembly in that condition. Not merely the resurrection of Christ (Grotius), but “tota huc οἰκονομία gratiae pertinet,” Calovius. Comp. Act 10:46.
[125] See Schneckenburger, neutest. Zeitgesch. p. 88 ff.
Act 2:12-13. Διηπόρ.] see on Luk 9:7.
τί ἂν θέλοι τοῦτο εἶναι;] The optative with ἄν, in order to denote the hypothetically conceived possibility: What might this possibly wish to be? i.e. What might-if this speaking in our native languages, this strange phenomenon, is designed to have any meaning-be to be thought of as that meaning? Comp. Act 17:18; Herm. ad Viger. p. 729; Bernhardy, p. 410 f. On the distinction of the sense without ἂν, see Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. v. 7. 33. Comp. also Maetzner, ad Antiph. p. 130. On θέλειν of impersonal things, see Wetstein and Stallbaum, ad Plat. Rep. p. 370 B.
ἕτεροι] another class of judges, consequently none of the impartial, of whom there was mention in Act 2:7-12, but hostile persons (in part, doubtless, of the hierarchical party) who drew from the well-known freer mode of life of Jesus and His disciples a judgment similar to Luk 7:34, and decided against the disciples.
διαχλευάζοντες] mocking; a stronger expression than the simple verb, Dem. 1221. 26; Plat. Ax. p. 364 B; Polyb. xvii. 4. 4, xxxix. 2. 13; used absolutely also, Polyb. xxx. 13. 12. The scoffers explain the enthusiasm of the speakers, which struck them as eccentric, and the use of foreign languages instead of the Galilean, as the effect of drunken excitement. Without disturbing themselves whence this foreign speaking (according to the historical position of the matter: this speaking with tongues) had come and become possible to the Galileans, they are arrested only by the strangeness of the phenomenon as it struck the senses, and, in accordance with their own vulgarity, impute it to the having taken too much wine. Comp. 1Co 14:23. The contents of the speaking (van Hengel) would not, apart from that form of utterance as if drunk with the Spirit, have given ground for so frivolous an opinion, but would rather have checked it. The judgment of Festus concerning Paul (Act 26:24) is based on an essentially different situation.
Act 2:14-15. Σταθείς] as in Act 5:20, Act 17:22, Act 27:21; Luk 19:8; Luk 18:11. The introduction of the address (he stood up, etc.) is solemn.
σὺν τοῖς ἕνδεκα] thus Matthias is already included, and justly; Act 2:32, comp. with Act 1:22. We may add that Grotius aptly remarks (although contradicted by Calovius): “Hic incipit (Petrus) nominis sui a rupe dicti meritum implere.”
ἀπεφθ.] as in Act 2:4 : but not as if now Peter also had begun to speak ἑτέραις γλώσσ. (van Hengel). That speaking is past when Peter and the eleven made their appearance; and then follows the simple instruction regarding it, intelligible to ordinary persons, uttered aloud and with emphasis.
κατοικοῦντες] quite as in Act 2:5. The nominative with the article, in order to express the imperative address. See Bernhardy, p. 67.
τοῦτο] namely, what I shall now explain to you.
Concerning ἐνωτίζεσθαι (from οὖς), auribus percipere, which is foreign to the old classical Greek, but in current use in the LXX. and the Apocrypha, see Sturz, Dial. Al. p. 166. In the N. T. only here. Comp. Test. XII. Patr. p. 520.
οὐ γάρ] γάρ justifies the preceding summons. The οὗτοι, these there, does not indicate that the apostles themselves were not among those who spoke in a miraculous manner, as if the gift of tongues had been a lower kind of inspired speech (1Co 14:18-19; so de Wette, at variance with Act 2:4); but Peter, standing up with the eleven, places himself in the position of a third person, pointing to the whole multitude, whom he would defend, as their advocate; and as he did so, the reference of this apology to himself also and his fellow-apostles became self-evident in the application. This also applies against van Hengel, p. 64 f.
ὥρα τρίτη] about nine in the morning; so early in the day, and at this first of the three hours of prayer (see on Act 3:1), contemporaneously with the morning sacrifice in the temple, people are not drunk! Observe the sober, self-collected way in which Peter speaks.
Act 2:16-17. But this (which has just taken place on the part of those assembled, and has been accounted among you as the effect of drunkenness) is the event, which is spoken of by the prophet Joel.
Joe 3:1-5 (LXX. Act 2:28-31) is freely quoted according to the LXX. The prophet, speaking as the organ of God, describes the σημεῖα which shall directly precede the dawn of the Messianic period, namely first the general effusion of the fulness of the Holy Spirit, and then frightful catastrophes in heaven and on earth. This prophecy, Peter says, has now entered upon its accomplishment.
καὶ ἔσται] and it will be the case: quite according to the Hebrew (and the LXX.) וְהָיָה. The καί in the prophetic passage connects it with what precedes, and is incorporated in the citation.
ἐν ταῖς ἐσχάταις ἡμέραις] The LXX., agreeing with the Hebrew, has only μετὰ ταῦτα. Peter has inserted for it the familiar expression אַחֲרִית הַיָּמִים (Isa 2:2; Mic 4:1, al.) by way of more precise definition (as Kimchi also gives it; see Lightfoot). This denotes the last days of the pre-Messianic period-the days immediately preceding the erection of the Messianic kingdom (which, according to the N. T. view, could not but take place by means of the speedily expected Parousia of Christ); see 2Ti 3:1; Jam 5:3; and as regards the essential sense, also Heb 1:1. Comp. Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 82 f.
ἐκχεῶ] a later form of the future. Winer, p. 74 [E. T. 91]. The outpouring figuratively denotes the copious communication. Tit 3:6; Act 10:45. Comp. Act 1:5, and see on Rom 5:5.
ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός μου] deviating from the Hebrew אֶת־ריחִי. The partitive expression (Bernhardy, p. 222) denotes that something of the Spirit of God conceived as a whole-a special partial emanation for the bestowal of divers gifts according to the will of God (Heb 2:4; 1 Corinthians 12)-will pass over to every individual (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα[126]).
πᾶσαν σάρκα every flesh, i.e. omnes homines, but with the accessory idea of weakness and imperfection, which the contrast of the highest gift of God, that is to be imparted to the weak mortal race, here presents. Comp. Rom 3:20; Gal 2:16; 1Co 1:29; Mat 24:22; Luk 3:6. In Joel כָּל־בָּשָׂר certainly refers to the people of Israel, conceived, however, as the people of God, the collective body of whom (not merely, as formerly, individual prophets) shall receive the divine inspiration. Comp. Isa 54:13; Joh 6:45. But as the idea of the people of God has its realization, so far as the history of redemption is concerned, in the collective body of believers on Christ without distinction of nations; so also in the Messianic fulfilment of that prophecy meant by Peter, and now begun, what the prophet has promised to all flesh is not to be understood of the Jewish people as such (van Hengel, appealing to Act 2:39), but of all the true people of God, so far as they believe on Christ. The first Messianic effusion of the Spirit at Pentecost was the beginning of this fulfilment, the completion of which is in the course of a progressive development that began at that time with Israel, and as respects its end is yet future, although this end was by Peter already expected as nigh.
καὶ προφητεύσουσιν … ἐνυπνιασθήσονται describes the effects of the promised effusion of the Spirit. ΠΡΟΦΗΤΕΎΣΟΥΣΙΝ, afflatu divino loquentur (Mat 7:22), is by Peter specially recognised as a prediction of that apocalyptically inspired speaking, which had just commenced with the ἙΤΈΡΑΙς ΓΛΏΣΣΑΙς. This we may the more warrantably affirm, since, according to the analogy of Act 19:6, we must assume that that speaking was not mere glossolalia in the strict sense, but, in a portion of the speakers’ prophecy. Comp. the spiritual speaking in Corinth.
οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες ὑμῶν] the male and female members of the people of God, i.e. all without exception. Peter sees this also fulfilled by the inspired members of the Christian theocracy, among whom, according to Act 1:14, there were at that time also women.
ὉΡΆΣΕΙς … ἘΝΥΠΝΊΟΙς] visions in waking and in sleeping, as forms of the ἀποκάλυψις of God, such as often came to the prophets. This prophetic distinction, Joel predicts, will, after the effusion of the Spirit in its fulness, become common property. The fulfilment of this part of the prophecy had, it is true, not yet taken place among the members of the Christian people of God, but was still before them as a consequence of the communication of the Spirit which had just occurred; Peter, however, quotes the words as already fulfilled (Act 2:16), because their fulfilment was necessarily conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit, and was consequently already in idea included in it.
ΝΕΑΝΊΣΚΟΙ … ΠΡΕΣΒΎΤΕΡΟΙ belong likewise, as the preceding clause (ΥἹΟῚ … ΘΥΓΑΤΈΡΕς), to the representation of the collective body as illustrated per μερισμόν. The ὁράσεις correspond to the lively feelings of youth; ἘΝΎΠΝΙΑ, to the lesser excitability of more advanced age; yet the two are to be taken, not as mutually exclusive, but after the manner of parallelism.
The verb, with the dative of the cognate noun, is here (ἐνυπνίοις ἐνυπνιασθ., they will dream with dreams; comp. Joe 3:1) a Hebraism, and does not denote, like the similar construction in classic Greek, a more precise definition or strengthening of the notion conveyed by the verb (Lobeck, Paral. p. 524 f.).
[126] The impersonality of the Spirit is not thereby assumed (in opposition to Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 136), but the distribution of the gifts and powers, which are represented as a partial effusion of the Spirit on individuals. For the personality of the Spirit, comp. especially the saying of Peter, Act 5:3.
Act 2:18. A repetition of the chief contents of Act 2:17, solemnly confirming them, and prefixing the persons concerned.
καί γε] and indeed, Luk 19:42; Herm. ad Viger. p. 826. It seldom occurs in classical writers without the two particles being separated by the word brought into prominence or restricted, in which case, however, there is also a shade of meaning to be attended to; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 319.
We must not explain the δούλους μου and the δούλας μου with Heinrichs and Kuinoel, in accordance with the original text, which has no μου, of servile hominum genus, nor yet with Tychsen (Illustratio vaticinii Joel iii. Gott. 1788) of the alienigenae (because slaves were wont to be purchased from abroad): both views are at variance with the μου, which refers the relation of service to God as the Master. It is therefore the male and female members of the people of God (according to the prophetic fulfilment: of the Christian people of God) that are meant, inasmuch as they recognise Jehovah as their Master, and serve Him: my male and female worshippers; comp. the Hebrew עֶבֶד יְהוָּה. In the twofold μου Peter agrees with the translators of the LXX.,[127] who must have had another reading of the original before them.
[127] So much the less ought Hengstenberg, Christol. I. p. 402, to have imported into this enclitic μου what is neither found in it nor relevant: “on servants and handmaids of men, who are at the same time my servants and handmaids, and therefore in spiritual things are quite on a level with the free.” Similarly Bengel, and recently Beelen (Catholic) in his Commentar. in Acta ap. ed. 2, 1864, who appeals inappropriately to Gal 3:27 f.
Act 2:19-20. After this effusion of the Spirit I shall bring about (δώσω, as at Mat 24:24) catastrophes in heaven and on earth (the latter are mentioned at once in Act 2:19, the former in Act 2:20) as immediate heralds of the Messianic day. Peter includes in his quotation this element of the prophecy, because its realization (Act 2:16), conditioned by the outpouring of the Spirit which necessarily preceded it, presented itself likewise essentially as belonging to the allotted portion of the ἔσχαται ἡμέραι. The dreadful events could not but now-seeing that the effusion of the Spirit preceding them had already commenced-be conceived as inevitable and very imminent; and this circumstance could not but mightily contribute to the alarming of souls and their being won to Christ. As to τέρατα and σημεῖα, see on Mat 24:24; Rom 15:19.
αἷμα … καπνοῦ contains the σημεῖα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, namely, bloodshed (war, revolt, murder) and conflagration. Similar devastations belonged, according to the later Jewish Christology also, to the dolores Messiae. See on Mat 24:6-7. “Cum videris regna se invicem turbantia, tunc expectes vestigia Messiae;” Beresh. rabb. sec. 41. The reference to blood-rain, fiery meteors, and pillars of smoke arising from the earth (de Wette, comp. Kuinoel), is neither certainly in keeping with the original text of the prophecy, nor does it satisfy the analogy of Matthew 24
ἀτμίδα καπνοῦ] vapour of smoke (ἀτμίς, Plat. Tim. p. 87 E, yet in classical writers more usually ἀτμός, is the more general idea). Comp. on such combinations, Lobeck, Paral. p. 534.
Act 2:20. Meaning: the sun will become dark, and the moon appear bloody. Comp. on Mat 24:29; also Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7.
πρὶν ἐλθεῖν] ere there shall have come. See Klotz, ad Devar. p. 728 f.
τὴν ἡμέραν κυρίου] i.e. according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment of the words: the day of Christ, namely of His Parousia. Comp. on Rom 10:13. But this is not, with Grotius, Lightfoot, and Kuinoel, following the Fathers, to be considered as identical with the destruction of Jerusalem (which belongs to the σημεία of the Parousia, to the dolores Messiae). See on Mat 24:29.
τὴν μεγάλην κ. ἐπιφανῆ] the great (κατʼ ἐξοχήν, fraught with decision, comp. Rev 16:14) and manifest, i.e. which makes itself manifest before all the world as that which it is. Comp. the frequent use of ἐπιφάνεια for the Parousia (2Th 2:8, al.). The Vulgate aptly renders: manifestus. Instead of ἐπιφανῆ, the Hebrew has הַנּו̇רָא, terribilis, which the LXX., deriving from ראה, has incorrectly translated by ἐπιφανῆ, as also elsewhere; see Biel and Schleusn. Thes. s.v. But on this account the literal signification of ἐπιφαν. need not be altered here, where the text follows the LXX.
Act 2:21. And every one who shall have invoked the name of the Lord,-this Peter wishes to be understood, according to the sense of the prophetic fulfilment, of the invocation of Christ (relative worship: see on Act 7:59; Rom 10:12; Php 2:10; 1Co 1:2); just as he would have the σωθήσεται understood, not of any sort of temporal deliverance, but of the saving deliverance of the Messianic kingdom (Act 4:12, Act 15:11), which Jesus on His return will found; and hence he must now (Act 2:22-36) demonstrate Jesus the crucified and risen and exalted one, as the Lord and Messiah (Act 2:36). And how undauntedly, concisely, and convincingly he does so! A first fruit of the outpouring of the Spirit.
Act 2:22. Τούτους] like τούτο, Act 2:14, the words which follow. See Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 2. 3, ad Anab. ii. 5. 10.
τὸν Ναζωραῖον is, in the mouth of the apostle, only the current more precise designation of the Lord (comp. Act 3:6, Act 4:10), not used in the sense of contempt (comp. Act 6:14, Act 24:5) for the sake of contrast to what follows, and possibly as a reminiscence of the superscription of the cross (Beza and others), of which there is no indication in the text (such as perhaps: ἄνδρα δέ).
ἄνδρα ἀπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀποδεδειγμ.] a man on the part of God approved, namely, in his peculiar character, as Messiah, ἀπό stands neither here nor elsewhere for ὑπό, but denotes the going forth of the legitimation from God (divinitus), Joseph. Antt. vii. 14. 5; Poppo, ad Thuc. i. 17. 1; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 280 [E. T. 326].
εἰς ὑμᾶς] in reference to you, in order that He might appear to you as such, for you.
δυνάμ. κ. τέρασι κ. σημείοις] a rhetorical accumulation in order to the full exhaustion of the idea (Bornem. Schol. in Luc. p. xxx.), as regards the nature of the miracles, their appearance, and their destination. Comp. Act 2:19; 2Th 2:9; 2Co 12:12; Heb 2:4.
ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν] in the midst of you, so that it was beheld jointly by you all.
Act 2:23. Τοῦτον] an emphatic repetition. See Schaef. Melet. p. 84; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225. There is to be no parenthesis before it. This one … delivered up, ye have by the hand of lawless men[128] affixed and made way with: Act 10:39; Luk 22:2; Luk 23:32. By the ἈΝΌΜΟΙ are to be understood Gentiles (1Co 9:21; Rom 1:14), and it is here more especially the Roman soldiers that are meant, by whose hand Christ was affixed (nailed to the cross), and thereby put to death. On ἜΚΔΟΤΟΝ, comp. Drac. 26, and examples from Greek writers in Raphel and Kypke, also Lobeck, Paral. p. 531. It refers to the delivering up of Jesus to the Jews, which took place on the part of Judas. This was no work of men, no independent success of the treachery (which would, in fact, testify against the Messiahship of Jesus!), but it happened in virtue of the fixed (therefore unalterable) resolve and (in virtue of the) foreknowledge of God. On βουλή, comp. the Homeric Διὸς δʼ ἐτελείετο βουλή, Il. i. 5, Od. xi. 297.
πρόγνωσις is here usually taken as synonymous with ΒΟΥΛΉ; but against all linguistic usage.[129] Even in 1Pe 1:2, comp. Act 2:20, the meaning praescientia (Vulgate) is to be retained. See generally on Rom 8:29. God’s βουλή (comp. Act 4:28) was, that Jesus was to delivered up, and the mode of it was present to Him in His prescience, which, therefore, is placed after the βουλή. Objectively, no doubt, the two are not separate in God, but the relation is conceived of after the analogy of the action of the human mind.
The dative is, as in Act 15:1, that in which the ἔκδοτον has its ground. Without the divine βουλὴ κ.τ.λ. it would not have taken place.
The question, How Peter could say to those present: Ye have put Him to death, is solved by the remark that the execution of Christ was a public judicial murder, resolved on by the Sanhedrim in the name of the whole nation, demanded from and conceded by the Gentiles, and accomplished under the direction of the Sanhedrim (Joh 19:16); comp. Act 3:13 f. The view of Olshausen, that the death of Christ was a collective act of the human race, which had contracted a collective guilt, is quite foreign to the context.
[128] διὰ χειρός (see the critical remarks) is here not to be taken, like בְּיַד, for the mere per (see Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 199), but, as it is a manual action that is spoken of, in its concrete, literal meaning. It belongs to vivid rhetorical delineation. Comp. Dorville, ad Charit. p. 273.
[129] This reason must operate also against Lamping’s (Pauli de praedestinat. decreta, 1858, p. 102 ff.) defence of the common explanation, in which he specifies, as the distinction between βουλή and πρόγνωσις, merely this: “illud adumbrat Dei voluntatem, hoc inde profectum decretum.” It is arbitrary, with Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Pet. p. 146, to refer βουλή not to the saving will, but merely to the will as regards destiny. See, in opposition to this, Act 3:18, where the suffering of Christ is the fulfilment of divine prophecy; comp. Act 8:32 f., Act 10:43.
Act 2:24. Τὰς ὠδῖνας] Peter most probably used the common expression from the O. T.: חֶבְלֵי מָוֶת, snares of death, in which the θάνατος personified is conceived as a huntsman laying a snare. Psa 18:5 f., Psa 116:3. See Gesen. Thes. I. p. 440. The LXX. erroneously translates this expression as ὠδῖνες θανάτου, misled by חֵבֶל, dolor (Isa 66:7), in the plural חֲבָלִים, used particularly of birth-pangs. See the LXX. Psa 18:5; 2Sa 22:6. But Luke-and this betrays the use of a Hebrew source directly or indirectly-has followed the LXX., and has thus changed the Petrine expression vincula mortis into dolores mortis. The expression of Luke, who with ὠδῖνες could think of nothing else than the only meaning which it has in Greek, gives the latter, and not the former sense. In the sense of Peter, therefore, the words are to be explained: after he has loosed the snares of death (with which death held him captive); but in the sense of Luke: after he has loosed the pangs of death. According to Luke (comp. on πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, Col 1:18), the resurrection of Jesus is conceived as birth from the dead. Death travailed (ὁ θάνατος ὤδινε κατέχων αὐτόν, Chrys.) in birth-throes even until the dead was raised again. With this event these pangs ceased, they were loosed; and because God has made Christ alive, God has loosed the pangs of death. On λύσας, see LXX. Job 39:3; Soph. O. C. 1612, El. 927; Aelian. H. A. xii. 5. Comp. Plat. Pol. ix. p. 574 A: μεγάλαις ὠδῖσί τε καὶ ὀδύναις συνέχεσθαι. The aorist participle is synchronous with ἀνέστησε. To understand the death-pangs of Christ, from which God freed Him “resuscitando eum ad vitam nullis doloribus obnoxiam” (Grotius), is incorrect, because the liberation from the pains of death has already taken place through the death itself, with which the earthly work of Christ, even of His suffering, was finished (Joh 19:30). Quite groundless is the assertion of Olshausen, that in Hellenistic Greek ὠδῖνες has not only the meaning of pains, but also that of bonds, which is not at all to be vouched by the passages in Schleusn. Thes. V. p. 571.
καθότι: according to the fact, that; see on Luk 1:7.
οὐκ ἦν δύνατον which is afterwards proved from David. It was thus impossible in virtue of the divine destination attested by David. Other reasons (Calovius: on account of the unio personalis, etc.) are here far-fetched.
κρατεῖσθαι ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ] The θάνατος could not but give Him up; Christ could not be retained by death in its power, which would have happened, if He, like other dead, had not become alive again and risen to eternal life (Rom 6:9). On κρατεῖσθαι ὑπό, to be ruled by, comp.4Ma 2:9; Dem. 1010. 17. By His resurrection Christ has done away death as a power (2Ti 1:10; 1Co 15:25 f.).
Act 2:25. Εἰς αὐτόν] so that the words, as respects their fulfilment, apply to Him. See Bernhardy, p. 220.
The passage is from Psa 16:8 ff., exactly after the LXX. David, if the Psalm, which yet certainly is later, belonged to him, or the other suffering theocrat who here speaks, is, in what he affirms of himself, a prophetic type of the Messiah; what he says of the certainty that he should not succumb to the danger of death, which threatened him, has received its antitypical fulfilment in Christ by His resurrection from the dead. This historical Messianic fulfillment of the Psalm justified the apostle in its Messianic interpretation, in which he has on his side not rabbinical predecessors (see Schoettgen), but the Apostle Paul (Act 13:35 f.). The προωρώμην κ.τ.λ., as the LXX. translates שִׁוּיחִי, is, according to this ideal Messianic understanding of the Psalm, Christ’s joyful expression of His continued fellowship with God on earth, since in fact (ὅτι) God is by His side protecting and preserving Him; I foresaw the Lord before my face always, i.e. looking before me with the mind’s glance (Xen. Hell. iv. 3. 16; otherwise, Act 21:9), I saw Jehovah always before my face.
ἐκ δεξιῶν μου ἐστίν] namely, as protector and helper, as παραστάτης (Xen. Cyr. iii. 3, 21). Concerning ἐκ δεξιῶν, from the right side out, i.e. on the right of it, see Winer, p. 344 [E. T. 459]. The figurative element of the expression is borrowed from courts of justice, where the advocates stood at the right of their clients, Psa 109:31.
ἵνα μὴ σαλευθῶ] without figure: that I may remain unmoved in the state of my salvation. On the figurative use-frequent also in the LXX., Apocr., and Greek authors (Dorville, ad Char. p. 307)-of σαλεύειν, comp. 2Th 2:2.
Act 2:26. Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted. The aorists denote an act of the time described by προωρώμην κ.τ.λ., the joyful remembrance of which is here expressed.
ἡ καρδία μου, לִכִּי: the heart, the centre of personal life, is also the seat of the moral feelings and determinations of the will: Delitzsch, Psych. p. 248 ff.
Instead of ἡ γλῶσσά μου, the Hebrew has כְבוֹדִי, i.e. my soul (Psa 7:6; Psa 30:12, et al.; see Schoettgen, p. 415), in place of which the LXX. either found a different reading or gave a free rendering.
ἔτι δὲ καὶ ἡ σάρξ μου κ.τ.λ.] but moreover also my flesh (body) shall tabernacle, that is, settle itself by way of encampment, on hope, by which the Psalmist expresses his confidence that he shall not perish, but continue in life-while, according to Peter, from the point of view of the fulfilment that has taken place in Christ, these words εἰς Χριστόν (Act 2:25) prophetically express that the body of Christ will tarry in the grave on hope, i.e. on the basis of the hope of rising from the dead. Thus what is divinely destined for Christ
His resurrection-appears in poetic mould as the object of the hope of His body.
Act 2:27. What now the Psalmist further says according to the historical sense: For Thou wilt not leave my soul to Hades (i.e. Thou wilt not suffer me to die in my present life-peril), and wilt not give Thy Holy One (according to the Ketîbh of the original: Thy holy ones, the plural of category, comp. Hupfeld in loc.) to see corruption-is by Peter, as spoken εἰς Χριστόν, taken in accordance with the prophetical meaning historically fulfilled in Him: Thou wilt not forsake my soul in Hades (after it shall have come thither; see Kühner, § 622; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 287 [E. T. 333]), but by the resurrection wilt again deliver it,[130] and wilt not suffer Thy Holy One (the Messiah) to share corruption, i.e. according to the connection of the sense as fulfilled, putrefaction (comp. Act 13:34 ff.).[131] Instead of ΔΙΑΦΘΟΡΆΝ, the original has שַׁחַת, a pit, which, however, Peter, with the LXX., understood as διαφθορά, and accordingly has derived it not from שׁוּחַ, but from שָׁחַת, διαφθείρω; comp. Job 17:14.
On δώσεις, comp. Act 10:40. The meaning is: Thou wilt not cause, that, etc. Often so also in classical writers from Homer onward. As to ἰδεῖν in the sense of experiencing, comp. on Luk 2:26.
[130] This passage is a dictum probans for the abode of the soul of Christ in Hades, but it contains no dogmatic statement concerning the descensus ad inferos in the sense of the church. Comp. Güder, Lehre von d. Erscheinung Christi unter d. Todten, p. 30; Weiss, Petrin. Lehrbegr. p. 233 f.
[131] After this passage, compared with ver. 31, no further discussion is needed to show how unreasonably it has been taken for granted (see especially Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul. u. Petr. p. 128 ff.) that the early church conceived the resurrection of Christ as a μετάβασις εἰς ἕτερον σῶμα, entirely independent of the dead body of our Lord. How much are the evangelical narratives of the appearances of the risen Christ, in which the identity of His body has stress so variously laid on it, at variance with this opinion! Comp. Act 10:41.
Act 2:28. Thou hast made known to me ways of life; Thou wilt fill me with joy in presence of Thy countenance, meant by the Psalmist of the divine guidance in saving his life, and of the joy which he would thereafter experience before God, refers, according to its prophetic sense, as fulfilled in Christ, to His resurrection, by which God practically made known to him ways to life, and to his state of exaltation in heaven, where he is in the fulness of blessedness with God.
μετὰ τοῦ προσώπου σου] אֶת־פַּנֶיךָ, in communion with Thy countenance (seen by me). Comp. Heb 9:24.
Act 2:29. Μετὰ παῤῥησίας] frankly and freely, without reserve; for the main object was to show off a passage honouring David, that it had received fulfilment in a higher and prophetical sense in another. Bengel well remarks: “Est igitur hoc loco προθεραπεία, praevia sermonis mitigatio.”
David is called ὁ πατριάρχης as the celebrated ancestor of the kingly family, from which the nation expected their Messiah.
ὅτι] that (not for). Peter wishes to say of David what is notorious, and what it is allowable for him to say on account of this very notoriety; therefore with ἐξόν there is not to be supplied, as is usually done, ἔστω, but ἐστί (ἔξεστι).
ἐν ἡμῖν] David was buried at Jerusalem. Neh 3:16; Joseph. Antt. vii. 15. 3, xiii. 8. 4, Bell. Jud. i. 2. 5. In τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ, his sepulcher, there is involved, according to the context, as self-evident: “cum ipso Davidis corpore corrupto; molliter loquitur,” Bengel.
Act 2:30-32. Οὖν] infers from the previous καὶ τὸ μνῆμα αὐτοῦ … ταύτης, whence it is plain that David in the Psalm, l.c., as a prophet and divinely conscious progenitor of the future Messiah, has spoken of the resurrection of Christ as the one who should not be left in Hades, and whose body should not decay.
καὶ εἰδώς] see 2Sa 7:12.
ἐκ καρποῦ τ. ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ] sc. τινά. On the frequent supplying of the indefinite pronoun, see Kühner, II. p. 37 f.; Fritzsche, Conject. I. 36. The well-known Hebrew-like expression καρπὸς τῆς ὀσφύος αὐτοῦ (Psa 132:11) presupposes the idea of the uninterrupted male line of descent from David to Christ. Comp. Heb 7:5; Gen 35:11; 2Ch 6:9; and see remark after Mat 1:18.
καθίσαι ἐπὶ τ. θρόνον αὐτοῦ] to sit on His throne (Xen. Anab. ii. 1. 4), namely, as the Messiah, who was to be the theocratic consummator of the kingdom of David (Mar 11:10; Act 15:16). Comp. Luk 1:32.
προϊδών] prophetically looking into the future. Comp. Gal 3:8.
ὅτι οὐ κατελ.] since He, in fact, was not left, etc. Thus has history proved that David spoke prophetically of the resurrection of the Messiah. The subject of κατελείφθη κ.τ.λ. is not David (Hofm. Schriftbew. II. l, p. 115)-which no hearer, after Act 2:29, could suppose-but ὁ Χριστός; and what is stated of Him in the words of the Psalm itself is the triumph of their historical fulfilment, a triumph which is continued and concluded in Act 2:32.
τοῦτον τὸν Ἰησοῦν] has solemn emphasis; this Jesus, no other than just Him, to whom, as the Messiah who has historically appeared, David’s prophecy refers.
οὗ] neuter: whereof. See Bernhardy, p. 298.
μάρτυρες] in so far as we, His twelve apostles, have conversed with the risen Christ Himself. Comp. Act 1:22, Act 10:41.
Act 2:33. Οὖν] namely, in consequence of the resurrection, with which the exaltation is necessarily connected.
τῇ δεξιᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ] by the right hand, i.e. by the power of God, v. 31; Isa 63:12. Comp. Vulgate, Luther, Castalio, Beza, Bengel, also Zeller, p. 502, and others. The rendering: to the right hand of God, however much it might be recommended as regards sense by Act 2:34, is to be rejected, seeing that the construction of simple verbs of motion with the dative of the goal aimed at, instead of with πρός or εἰς, belongs in classical Greek only to the poets (see the passages from Homer in Nägelsb. p. 12, ed. 3, and, besides, Erfurdt, ad Antig. 234; Bernhardy, p. 95; Fritzsche, Conject. I. p. 42, the latter seeking to defend the use as legitimate), and occurs, indeed, in late writers[132] (see Winer, p. 201 f.[E. T. 268 f.]), but is without any certain example in the N. T., often as there would have been occasion for it; for Act 21:16 admits of another explanation, and Rev 2:16 is not at all a case in point. In the passage of the LXX. Jdg 11:18, deemed certain by Fritzsche, τῇ γῇ Μωάβ (if the reading is correct) is to be connected, not with ἦλθεν, but as appropriating dative with ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. Concerning Κύρῳ ἰέναι, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 26, see Bornemann, ed. Lips. The objection, that by the right hand of God is here inappropriate (de Wette and others), is not tenable. There is something triumphant in the element emphatically prefixed, which is correlative to ἀνέστησεν ὁ Θεός (Act 2:32); God’s work of power was, as the resurrection, so also the exaltation. Comp. Php 2:9. A Hebraism, or an incorrect translation of לְמִינִי (Bleek in the Stud. u. Krit. 1832, p. 1038; de Wette; Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 205), has been unnecessarily and arbitrarily assumed.
τήν τε ἐπαγγ. τ. ἁγ. πν. λαβ. παρὰ τ. πατρ.] contains that which followed upon the ὙΨΩΘΕΊς, and hence is not to be explained with Kuinoel and others: “after He had received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father;” but: “after He had received the (in the O. T.) promised (Act 1:4) Holy Spirit from His Father. See on Luk 24:49.
τοῦτο is either, with Vulgate, Erasmus, Beza, Kuinoel, and others, to be referred to the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, so that the ὅ corresponds to the explanatory id quod (Kühner, § 802. 2), or-which, on account of the Ὅ annexed to ΤΟῦΤΟ, is more natural and more suitable to the miraculous character-it is, with Luther, Calvin, and others, to be taken as an independent neuter: He poured forth (just now) this, what ye (in effectu) see and hear (in the conduct and speech of those assembled). Accordingly, Peter leaves it to his hearers, after what had previously been remarked (τήν τε ἐπαγγ.… πατρός), themselves to infer that what was poured out was nothing else than just the πνεῦμα ἅγιον.[133]
The idea that the exalted Jesus in heaven receives from His Father and pours forth the Holy Spirit, is founded on such instructions of Christ as Joh 15:26; Joh 16:7. Comp. on Act 1:4.
[132] The dative of interest (e.g. ἔρχομαί σοι, I come for thee) has often been confounded with it. Comp. Krüger, § 48. 9. 1.
[133] It cannot, however, be said that “the first congregation of disciples receives this gift without baptism” (Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 150). Those persons possessed by the Spirit were, in fact, all confessors of Christ, and it must in their case be supposed that they had already received baptism in the lifetime of our Lord, to which conclusion vv. 38, 41 point.
Act 2:34-35. Γάρ] The fundamental fact of the previous statement, namely, the τῇ δεξιᾷ Θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, has still to be proved, and Peter proves this also from a saying of David, which has not received its fulfilment in David itself.
λέγει δὲ αὐτός] but he himself says, but it is his own declaration; and then follows Psa 110:1, where David distinguishes from himself Him who is to sit at the right hand of God, as His Lord (τῷ κυρίῳ μου). This King, designated by τῷ κυρίῳ μου of the Psalm, although it does not proceed from David (see on Mat 22:43), is, according to the Messianic destination and fulfilment of this Psalm,[134] Christ, who is Lord of David and of all the saints of the O. T.; and His occupying the throne (sit Thou at my right hand) denotes the exaltation of Christ to the glory and dominion of the Father, whose σύνθρονος He has become; Heb 1:8; Heb 1:13; Eph 1:21 f.
[134] Which is not to be identified with its historical meaning. See Hupfeld in loc., and Diestel in the Jahrb. f. d. Th. p. 562 f.
Act 2:36. The Christological aim of the whole discourse, which, as undoubtedly proved after what has been hitherto said (οὖν), is emphatically at the close set down for recognition as the summary of the faith now requisite. In this case ἀσφαλῶς (unchangeably) is marked with strong emphasis.
πᾶς οἶκος ʼΙσρ.] without the article, because οἶκ. ʼΙσρ. has assumed the nature of a proper name. Comp. LXX. 1Ki 12:23; Eze 45:6, al. Winer, p. 105 [E. T. 137]. The. whole people is regarded as the family of their ancestor Israel (בֵּית יְשְׂרָאֵל).
καὶ κύριον αὐτὸν κ. Χριστόν] him Lord (ruler generally, comp. Act 10:36) as well as also Messiah. The former general expression, according to which He is ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, Rom 9:5, and κεφαλὴ ὑπὲρ πάντα, Eph 1:22, the latter special, according to which He is the σωτὴρ τοῦ κόσμου, v. 31, Joh 4:42, and κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Eph 1:22, Col 1:18, together characterize the Messianic possessor of the kingdom, which God has made Christ to be by His exaltation, seeing that He had in His state of humiliation emptied Himself of the power and glory, and was only reinstated into them by His exaltation. Previously He was indeed likewise Lord and Messiah, but in the form of a servant; and it was after laying aside that form that He became such in complete reality.[135] It is not to be inferred from such passages as this and Act 4:27; Act 10:38; Act 17:31 (de Wette), that the Book of Acts represents the Messianic dignity of Jesus as an acquisition in time; against which view even παρὰ τοῦ πατρός in our passage (Act 2:33), compared with the confession in Mat 16:16, Joh 16:30, is decisive, to say nothing of the Pauline training of Luke himself. Comp. also Act 2:34.
αὐτόν is not superfluous, but τοῦτον τὸν ʼΙησοῦν is a weighty epexegesis, which is purposely chosen in order to annex the strongly contrasting ὃν ὑμεῖς ἐσταυρώσατε (comp. Act 3:13, Act 7:52), and thus to impart to the whole address a deeply impressive conclusion. “Aculeus in fine,” Bengel.
[135] Comp. Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 134 f.
Act 2:37. But after they heard it (what was said by Peter) they were pierced in the heart.
κατανύσσειν, in the figurative sense of painful emotion, which penetrates the heart as if stinging, is not found in Greek writers (who, however, use νύσσειν in a similar sense); but see LXX. Ps. 108:16: κατανενυγμένον τῇ καρδίᾳ, Gen 34:7, where κατενύγησαν is illustrated by the epexegesis: καὶ λυπηρὸν ἦν αὐτοῖς σφόδρα. Sir 14:1; Sir 12:12; Sir 20:21; Sir 47:21; Susann. 11 (of the pain of love). Compare also Luk 2:35. The hearers were seized with deep pain in their conscience on the speech of Peter, partly for the general reason that He whom they now recognised as the Messiah was murdered by the nation, partly for the more special reason that they themselves had not as yet acknowledged Him, or had been even among His adversaries, and consequently had not recognised and entered upon the only way of salvation pointed out by Peter.
On the figure of stinging, comp. Cic. de orat. iii. 34 (of Pericles): “ut in eorum mentibus, qui audissent, quasi aculeos quosdam relinqueret.”
τί ποιήσομεν] what shall we do? (Winer, p. 262 [E. T. 348].) The inquiry of a need of salvation surrendering itself to guidance. An opposite impression to that made by the discourse of Jesus in Nazareth, Luk 4:28.
ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί] an affectionate and respectful address from broken hearts already gained. Comp. on Act 1:16. “Non ita dixerunt prius,” Bengel.
Act 2:38. What a definite and complete answer and promise of salvation! The μετανοήσατε demands the change of ethical disposition as the moral condition of being baptized, which directly and necessarily brings with it faith (Mar 1:15); the aorist denotes the immediate accomplishment (comp. Act 3:19, Act 8:22), which is conceived as the work of energetic resolution. So the apostles began to accomplish it, Luk 24:47.
ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι ʼΙησ Χριστοῦ] on the ground of the name, so that the name “Jesus Messiah” as the contents of your faith and confession, is that on which the becoming baptized rests. Βαπτίζ. is only here used with ἐπί; but comp. the analogous expressions, Luk 21:8; Luk 24:47; Act 5:28; Act 5:40; Mat 24:5, al.
εἰς denotes the object of the baptism, which is the remission of the guilt contracted in the state before μετάνοια. Comp. Act 22:16; 1Co 6:11.
καὶ λήψ.] καί consecutivum. After reconciliation, sanctification; both are experienced in baptism.
τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος] this is the δωρεά itself. Heb 6:4; Act 10:45; Act 11:17.
Act 2:39. Proof of the preceding λήψεσθε κ.τ.λ.: for to you belongs the promise (concerned); yours it is, i.e. you are they in whom the promise (of the communication of the Spirit) is to be realized.
τοῖς εἰς μακράν] to those who are at a distance, that is, to all the members of the Jewish nation, who are neither dwellers here at Jerusalem, nor are now present as pilgrims to the feast, both Jews and Hellenists. Comp. also Baumgarten. Others, with Theophylact, Oecumenius, Erasmus, Calvin, Piscator, Grotius, Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, de Wette, Lange, Hackett, also Weiss, Petr. Lehrbegr. p. 148, and bibl. Theol. p. 149, explain it of the Gentiles. Comp. Eph 2:13. But, although Peter might certainly conceive of the conversion of the Gentiles, according to Isa 2:2; Isa 49:1, al., in the way of their coming to and passing through Judaism, yet the mention of the Gentiles here (observe the emphatically preceding ὑμῖν) would be quite alien from the destination of the words, which were intended to prove the λήψεσθε κ.τ.λ. of Act 2:38. The conversion of the Gentiles does not here belong to the matter in hand. Beza, whom Casaubon follows, understood it of time (2Sa 7:19, comp. the classical οὐκ ἐς μακράν): longe post futuros, but this is excluded by the very conception of the nearness of the Parousia.
As to the expression of direction, εἰς μακρ., comp. on Act 22:5.
ὅσους ἂν προσκαλ. κ.τ.λ.] contains the definition of πᾶσι τοῖς εἰς μακράν: as many as God shall have called to Himself, namely, by the preaching of the gospel, by the reception of which they, as members of the true theocracy, will enter into Christian fellowship with God, and will receive the Spirit.
Act 2:40. Observe the change of the aorist διεμαρτύρατο (see the critical notes) and imperfect παρεκάλει: he adjured them (1Ti 5:21; 2Ti 2:14; 2Ti 4:1, often also in classical writers), after which followed the continued exhortation, the contents of which was: Become saved from this (the now living) perverse generation away, in separating yourselves from them by the μετάνοια and baptism.
σκολιός] crooked, in a moral sense =ἀδικός. Comp. on Php 2:15.
Act 2:41. Μὲν οὖν] namely, in consequence of these representations of the apostle. We may translate either: they then who received his word (namely, σώθητε κ.τ.λ.), comp. Act 8:4 (so Vulgate, Luther, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, and others); or, they then (those indicated in Act 2:37), after they received his word, etc., comp. Act 1:6, Act 8:25, Act 15:3 (so Castalio, de Wette). The latter is correct, because, according to the former view of the meaning, there must have been mention previously of a reception of the word, to which reference would here be made. As this is not the case, those present in general are meant, as in Act 2:37, and ἀποδεξάμενοι τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ (Act 2:40) stands in a climactic relation to κατενύγησαν (Act 2:37).
προσετέθησαν] were added (Act 2:47; Act 5:14; Act 11:24), namely, to the fellowship of the already existing followers of Jesus, as is self-evident from the context.
ψυχαί] persons, according to the Hebrew נֶפֶשּׁ, Exo 1:5; Act 7:14; 1Pe 3:20; this use is not classical, since, in the passages apparently proving it (Eur. Androm. 612, Med. 247, al.; see Kypke, II. p. 19), ψυχή means, in the strict sense, soul (life).
The text does not affirm that the baptism of the three thousand occurred on the spot and simultaneously, but only that it took place during the course of that day (τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ). Observe further, that their baptism was conditioned only by the μετάνοια and by faith on Jesus as the Messiah; and, accordingly, it had their further Christian instruction not as a preceding, but as a subsequent, condition (Act 2:42).
now describes what the reception of the three thousand had as its consequence; what they, namely the three thousand and those who were already believers before (for the whole body is the subject, as is evident from the idea of προσετέθησαν), as members of the Christian community under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did
Act 2:42 now describes what the reception of the three thousand had as its consequence; what they, namely the three thousand and those who were already believers before (for the whole body is the subject, as is evident from the idea of προσετέθησαν), as members of the Christian community under the guidance of the apostles perseveringly did.[136] The development of the inner life of the youthful church follows that great external increase. First of all: they were perseveringly devoted to the instruction (2Ti 4:2; 1Co 14:6) of the apostles, they were constantly intent on having themselves instructed by the apostles.
τῇ κοινωνίᾳ] is to be explained of the mutual brotherly association which they sought to maintain with one another. Comp. on Php 1:5. See also Weiss, bibl. Theol. p. 141 f., and Ewald. The same in substance with the ἀδελφότης, 1Pe 2:17; 1Pe 5:9. It is incorrect in Wolf, Rosenmüller, and others to refer it to ΤῶΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ, and to understand it of living in intimate association with the apostles. For καὶ τῇ κοινων. is, as well as the other three, an independent element, not to be blended with the preceding. Therefore the views of others are also incorrect, who either (Cornelius a Lapide and Mede as quoted by Wolf) take the following (spurious) ΚΑΊ as explicativum (et communione, videlicet fractione panis et precibus), or suppose a ἓν διὰ δυοῖν (Homberg) after the Vulgate: et communicatione fractionis panis, so that τῇ κοινων. would already refer to the Agapae. Recently, following Mosheim (de rebus Christ, ante Const. M. p. 114), the explanation of the communication of charitable gifts to the needy has become the usual one. So Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten, also Löhe, Aphorism. p. 80 ff., Harnack, christl. Gemeindegottesd. p. 78 ff., Hackett, and others.[137] But this special sense must have been indicated by a special addition, or have been undoubtedly suggested by the context, as in Rom 15:26; Heb 13:16; especially as κοινωνία does not in itself signify communicatio, but communio; and it is only from the context that it can obtain the idea of fellowship manifesting itself by contributions in aid, etc., which is not here the case.
τῇ κλάσει τοῦ ἄρτου] in the breaking of their bread (τοῦ ἀ.). By this is meant the observance of common evening-meals (Luk 24:30), which, after the manner of the last meal of Jesus, they concluded with the Lord’s Supper (Agapae, Jud 1:12). The Peschito and several Fathers, as well as the Catholic Church,[138] with Suicer, Mede, Wolf, Lightfoot, and several older expositors, arbitrarily explain it exclusively of the Eucharist; comp. also Harnack, l.c. p. 111 ff. Such a celebration is of later origin; the separation of the Lord’s Supper from the joint evening meal did not take place at all in the apostolic church, 1 Corinthians 11. The passages, Act 20:7; Act 20:11, Act 27:35, are decisive against Heinrichs, who, after Kypke, explains the breaking of bread of beneficence to the poor (Isa 58:7), so that it would be synonymous with κοινωνία (but see above).
ΤΑῖς ΠΡΟΣΕΥΧΑῖς] The plural denotes the prayers of various kinds, which were partly new Christian prayers restricted to no formula, and partly, doubtless, Psalms and wonted Jewish prayers, especially having reference to the Messiah and His kingdom.
Observe further in general the family character of the brotherly union of the first Christian church.
[136] With the spuriousness of the second καί (see the critical note), the four particulars are arranged in pairs.
[137] That the moral nature of the κοινωνία expresses itself also in liberality, is correct in itself, but is not here particularly brought forward, any more than other forms of its activity. This in opposition to Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 285.
[138] This Church draws as an inference from our passage the historical assertion: Sub una specie panis communicaverunt sancti in primitiva ecclesia. Confut. Conf. Aug. p. 543 of my edition of the Libri Symbolici. See, in opposition to this view, the striking remarks of Casaubon in the Exercitatt. Anti-Baron. p. 466. Beelen still thinks that he is able to make good the idea of the daily unbloody sacrifice of the mass by the appended τ. προσευχ.!
Act 2:43. But fear came upon every soul, and many miracles, etc. Luke in these words describes: (1) what sort of impression the extraordinary result of the event of Pentecost made generally upon the minds (πάσῃ ψυχῇ, Winer, p. 147 [E. T. 194]) of those who did not belong to the youthful church; and (2) the work of the apostles after the effusion of the Spirit. Therefore τέ is the simple copula, and not, as is often assumed, equivalent to γάρ.
ἐγίνετο] (see the critical note) is in both cases the descriptive imperfect. Comp., moreover, on the expression, Hom. Il. i. 188: Πηλείωνι δʼ ἄχος γένετο, xii. 392, al. Elsewhere, instead of the dative, Luke has ἐπί with the accusative, or ἔμφοβος γίνεται.
φόβος, as in Mar 4:41, Luk 1:63; Luk 7:16, etc., fear, dread, which are wont to seize the mind on a great and wonderful, entirely unexpected, occurrence. This φόβος, occasioned by the marvellous result which the event of Pentecost together with the address of Peter had produced, operated quasi freno (Calvin), in preventing the first internal development of the church’s life from being disturbed by premature attacks from without.
διὰ τῶν ἀποστ.] for the worker, the causa efficiens, was God. Comp. Act 2:22; Act 4:30; Act 15:12.
Act 2:44-45. But (δέ, continuative) as regards the development of the church-life, which took place amidst that φόβος without and this miracle-working of the apostles, all were ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό. This, as in Act 1:15, Act 2:1, is to be understood as having a local reference, and not with Theophylact, Kypke, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel: de animorum consensu, which is foreign to N. T. usage. They were accustomed all to be together. This is not strange, when we bear in mind the very natural consideration that after the feast many of the three thousand-of whom, doubtless, a considerable number consisted of pilgrims to the feast-returned to their native countries; so that the youthful church at Jerusalem does not by any means seem too large to assemble in one place.
καὶ εἶχον ἅπαντα κοινά] they possessed all things in common, i.e. all things belonged to all, were a common good. According to the more particular explanation which Luke himself gives (καὶ τὰ κτήματα … εἶχε, comp. Act 4:32), we are to assume not merely in general a distinguished beneficence, liberality, and mutual rendering of help,[139] or “a prevailing willingness to place private property at the disposal of the church” (de Wette, comp. Neander, Baum garten, Lechler, p. 320 ff., also Lange, apost. Zeitalt. I. p. 90, and already Mosheim, Diss, ad hist. eccl. pertin. II. p. 1 ff., Kuinoel, and others); but a real community of goods in the early church at Jerusalem, according to which the possessors were wont to dispose of their lands and their goods generally, and applied the money sometimes themselves (Act 2:44 f., Act 4:32), and sometimes by handing it to the apostles (Act 5:2), for the relief of the wants of their fellow-Christians. See already Chrysostom. But for the correct understanding of this community of goods and its historical character (denied by Baur and Zeller), it is to be observed: (1) It took place only in Jerusalem. For there is no trace of it in any other church; on the contrary, elsewhere the rich and the poor continued to live side by side, and Paul in his letters had often to inculcate beneficence in opposition to selfishness and πλεονεξία. Comp. also Jam 5:1 ff.; 1Jn 3:17. And this community of goods at Jerusalem helps to explain the great and general poverty of the church in that city, whose possessions naturally-certainly also in the hope of the Parousia speedily occurring-were soon consumed. As the arrangement is found in no other church, it is very probable that the apostles were prevented by the very experience acquired in Jerusalem from counselling or at all introducing it elsewhere. (2) This community of goods was not ordained as a legal necessity, but was left to the free will of the owners. This is evident, from Act 5:4; Act 12:12. Nevertheless, (3) in the yet fresh vigour of brotherly love (Bengel on Act 4:34 aptly says: “non nisi summo fidei et amoris flori convenit”), it was, in point of fact, general in the church of Jerusalem, as is proved from this passage and from the express assurance at Act 4:32; Act 4:34 f., in connection with which the conduct of Barnabas, brought forward in Act 4:36, is simply a concrete instance of the general practice. (4) It was not an institution borrowed from the Essenes[140] (in opposition to Grotius, Heinrichs, Ammon, Schneckenburger). For it could not have arisen without the guidance of the apostles; and to attribute to them any sort of imitation of Essenism, would be devoid alike of internal probability and of any trace in history, as, indeed, the first fresh form assumed by the life of the church must necessarily be conceived as a development from within under the impulse of the Spirit. (5) On the contrary, the relation arose very naturally, and that from within, as a continuation and extension of that community of goods which subsisted in the case of Jesus Himself and His disciples, the wants of all being defrayed from a common purse. It was the extension of this relation to the whole church, and thereby, doubtless, the putting into practice of the command Luk 12:33, but in a definite form. That Luke here and in Act 4:32; Act 4:34 expresses himself too strongly (de Wette), is an arbitrary assertion. Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 514 ff., and Ewald have correctly apprehended the matter as an actual community of goods. Comp. Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 232.
τὰ κτήματα] the landed possessions (belonging to him). See v. 1; Xen. Oec. 20. 23; Eustath. ad Il. vi. p. 685. ὑπάρξεις: possessions in general, Polyb. ii. 17. 11; Heb 10:34, and Bleek in loc.
αὐτα] it, namely, the proceeds. The reference is involved in the preceding verb (ἐπίπρασκον). Comp. Luk 18:22; Joh 12:5. See generally, Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 181 f.].
καθότι ἄ τις χρείαν εἶχε] just as any one had need, ἄν with the indicative denotes: “accidisse aliquid non certo quodam tempore, sed quotiescunque occasio ita ferret.” Herm. ad Viger. p. 820. Comp. Act 4:35; Mar 6:56; Krüger, Anab. i. 5. 2; Kühner, ad Mem. i. 1. 16; and see on 1Co 12:2.
[139] Comp. also Hundeshagen in Herzog’s Encykl. III. p. 26. In this view the Pythagorean τὰ τῶν φίλων κοινά might be compared with it (Rittersh. ad Porphyr. Vit. Pyth. p. 46).
[140] See Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 8. 3 f. The Pythagoreans also had a community of goods. See Jamblich. Vita Pyth. 168. 72; Zeller, p. 504. See, in opposition to the derivation from Essenism, von Wegnern in the Zeitschr. f. histor. Theol. XI. 2, p. 1 ff., Ewald and Ritschl.
Act 2:46. καθʼ ἡμέραν] daily. See Bernhardy, p. 241.
On προσκαρτερεῖν ἐν, to be diligent in visiting a place, comp. Susann. 6.
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ] as confessors of the Messiah of their nation, whose speedy appearance in glory they expected, as well as in accordance with the example of Christ Himself, and with the nature of Christianity as the fulfilment of true Judaism, they could of course have no occasion for voluntarily separating themselves from the sanctuary of their nation; on the contrary, they could not but unanimously (ὁμοθυμ.) consider themselves bound to it; comp. Luk 24:53.
κλῶντες ἄρτον] breaking bread, referring, as in Act 2:42, to the love-feasts. The article might stand as in Act 2:42, but is here not thought of, and therefore not put. It would mean: their bread.
κατʼ οἶκον] Contrast to ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ; hence: at home, in meetings in their place of assembly, where they partook of the meal (perhaps in detachments). Comp. Phm 1:2. So most commentators, including Wolf, Bengel, Heinrichs, Olshausen, de Wette. But Erasmus, Salmasius, and others explain it domatim, from house to house. So also Kuinoel and Hildebrand. Comp. Luk 8:1; Act 15:21; Mat 24:7. But there is nowhere any trace of holding the love-feasts successively in different houses; on the contrary, according to Act 1:13, it must be assumed that the new community had at the very first a fixed place of assembly. Luke here places side by side the public religious conduct of the Christians and their private association; hence after ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ the express κατʼ οἶκον was essentially necessary.[141]
μετελάμβανον τροφῆς] they received their portion of food (comp. Act 27:33 f.), partook of their sustenance. Plat. Polit. p. 275 C: παιδείας μετειληφέναι καὶ τροφῆς.
Act 2:46 is to be paraphrased as follows: In the daily visiting of the temple, at which they attended with one accord, and amidst daily observance of the love-feast at home, they wanted not sustenance, of which they partook in gladness and singleness of heart.
ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει] this is the expression of the joy in the Holy Spirit, as they partook of the daily bread, “fructus fidei et character veritatis,” Bengel. And still in the erection of the kingdom believers are ἄμωμοι ἐν ἀγαλλιάσει, Jud 1:24. This is, then, the joy of triumph.
ἀφελότης] plainness, simplicity, true moral candour. Dem. 1489. 10 : ἀφελὴς καὶ παῤῥησίας μεστός. The word is not elsewhere preserved in Greek, but ἀφέλεια is (Ael. V. H. iii. 10, al.; Polyb. vi. 48. 4).
[141] Observe how, on the one hand, the youthful church continued still bound up with the national cultus, but, on the other hand, developed itself at the same time as a separate society, and in this latter development already put forth the germs of the distinctively Christian cultus (comp. Nitzsch, prakt. Theol. I. p. 174 ff., 213 ff.). The further evolution and independent vital power of this cultus could not but gradually bring about the severance from the old, and accomplish that severance in the first instance in Gentile-Christian churches.
Act 2:47. Αἰνοῦντες τ. Θεόν] is not to be restricted to giving thanks at meals, but gives prominence generally to the whole religious frame of spirit; which expressed itself in the praises of God (comp. de Wette). This is clearly evident from the second clause of the sentence, καὶ ἔχοντες … λαόν, referring likewise to their relation in general. That piety praising God, namely, and this possession of the general favour of the people, formed together the happy accompanying circumstances, under which they partook of their bodily sustenance with gladness and simple heart.
πρὸς ὅλ. τ. λαόν] possessing favour (on account of their pious conduct) in their relation to the whole people.[142] Comp. Rom 5:1.
ὁ κύριος] i.e. Christ, as the exalted Ruler of His church.
τούς σωζομένους] those who were being saved, i.e. those who (by their very accession to the church) became saved from eternal perdition so as to partake in the Messianic kingdom, Comp. Act 2:40.
[142] To refer this remark, on account of the later persecution, to the idealizing tendency and to legendary embellishment (Baur), is a very rash course, as between this time and the commencement of persecution a considerable period intervenes, and the popular humour, particularly in times of fresh excitement, is so changeable. Schwanbeck also, p. 45, denies the correctness of the representation, which he reckons among the peculiarities of the Petrine portion of the book.
1. And when. To be fulfilled is taken in this place for to come. For Luke beareth record again of their perseverance, when he saith that they stood all in one place until the time which was set them. Hereunto serveth the adverb, with one accord Furthermore, we have before declared why the Lord did defer the sending of his Spirit a whole month and a half. But the question is, why he sent him upon that day chiefly. I will not refute that high and subtle interpretation of Augustine, that like as the law was given to the old people fifty days after Easter, being written in tables of stone by the hand of God, so the Spirit, whose office it is to write the same in our hearts, did fulfill that which was figured in the giving of the law as many days after the resurrection of Christ, who is the true Passover. Notwithstanding, whereas he urgeth this his subtle interpretation as necessary, in his book of Questions upon Exodus, and in his Second Epistle unto Januarius, I would wish him to be more sober and modest therein. Notwithstanding, let him keep his own interpretation to himself. In the mean season, I will embrace that which is more sound.
Upon the feast day, wherein a great multitude was wont to resort to Jerusalem, was this miracle wrought, that it might be more famous. And truly by means hereof was it spread abroad, even unto the uttermost parts and borders of the earth. (77) For the same purpose did Christ oftentimes go up to Jerusalem upon the holy days, (78) (Joh 2:0,) to the end those miracles which he wrought might be known to many, and that in the greater assembly of people there might be the greater fruit of his doctrine. For so will Luke afterward declare, that Paul made haste that he might come to Jerusalem before the day of Pentecost, not for any religion’s sake, but because of the greater assembly, that he might profit the more, (Act 20:16.) Therefore, in making choice of the day, the profit of the miracle was respected: First, that it might be the more extolled at Jerusalem, because the Jews were then more bent to consider the works of God; and, secondly, that it might be bruited abroad, even in far countries. They called it the fiftieth day, beginning to reckon at the first-fruits.
(77) “Ut more videbimus,” as we shall by and by see, omitted.
(78) “Festis diebus,” on feast days, or festivals.
2. And there was made It was requisite that the gift should be visible, that the bodily sense might the more stir up the disciples. For such is our slothfulness to consider the gifts of God, that unless he awake all our senses, his power shall pass away unknown. This was, therefore, a preparation that they might the better know that the Spirit was now come which Christ had promised. Although it was not so much for their sake as for ours, even as in that the cloven and fiery tongues appeared, there was rather respect had of us, and of all the whole Church in that, than of them. For God was able to have furnished them with necessary ability to preach the gospel, although he should use no sign. They themselves might have known that it came to pass neither by chance, neither yet through their own industry, that they were so suddenly changed; but those signs which are here set down were about to be profitable for all ages; as we perceive at this day that they profit us. And we must briefly note the proportion of the signs. The violence of the wind did serve to make them afraid; for we are never rightly prepared to receive the grace of God, unless the confidence (and boldness) of the flesh be tamed. For as we have access unto him by faith, so humility and fear setteth open the gate, that he may come in unto us. He hath nothing to do with proud and careless men. It is a common thing for the Spirit to be signified by wind, (or a blast,) (Joh 20:22.) For both Christ himself, when he was about to give the Spirit to his apostles, did breathe upon them; and in Ezekiel’s vision there was a whirlwind and wind, (Eze 1:4.) Yea, the word Spirit itself is a translated word; for, because that hypostasis, or person of the Divine essence, which is called the Spirit, is of itself incomprehensible, the Scripture doth borrow the word of the wind or blast, because it is the power of God which God doth pour into all creatures as it were by breathing. The shape of tongues is restrained unto the present circumstance. For as the figure and shape of a dove which came down upon Christ, (Joh 1:32,) had a signification agreeable to the office and nature of Christ, so God did now make choice of a sign which might be agreeable to the thing signified, namely, that it might show such effect and working of the Holy Ghost in the apostles as followed afterward.
The diversity of tongues did hinder the gospel from being spread abroad any farther; so that, if the preachers of the gospel had spoken one language only, all men would have thought that Christ had been shut up in the small corner of Jewry. But God invented a way whereby it might break out, when he divided and clove the tongues of the apostles, that they might spread that abroad amongst all people which was delivered to them. Wherein appeareth the manifold goodness of God, because a plague and punishment of man’s pride was turned into matter of blessing. For whence came the diversity of tongues, save only that the wicked and ungodly counsels of men might be brought to naught? (Gen 11:7.) But God doth furnish the apostles with the diversity of tongues now, that he may bring and call home, into a blessed unity, men which wander here and there. These cloven tongues made all men to speak the language of Canaan, as Isaiah foretold, (Isa 19:18.) For what language soever they speak, yet do they call upon one Father, which is in heaven, with one mouth and one spirit, (Rom 15:6.) I said that that was done for our sake, not only because the fruit came unto us, but because we know that the gospel came unto us not by chance, but by the appointment of God, who to this end gave the apostles cloven tongues, lest any nation should want that doctrine which was committed unto them; whereby is proved the calling of the Gentiles; and, secondly, hereby their doctrine doth purchase credit, which we know was not forged by man, seeing that we hear that the Spirit did dwell in their tongues.
Now, it remaineth that we declare what the fire meaneth. Without all doubt, it was a token of the (force and) efficacy which should be exercised in the voice of the apostles. Otherwise, although their sound had gone out into the uttermost parts of the world, they should only have beat the air, without doing any good at all. Therefore, the Lord doth show that their voice shall be fiery, that it may inflame the hearts of men; that the vanity of the world being burnt and consumed, it may purge and renew all things. Otherwise they durst never have taken upon them so hard a function, unless the Lord had assured them of the power of their preaching. Hereby it came to pass that the doctrine of the gospel did not only sound in the air, but pierce into the minds of men, and did fill them with an heavenly heat (and burning.) Neither was this force showed only in the mouth of the apostles, but it appeareth daily. And, therefore, we must beware lest, when the fire burneth, we be as stubble. Furthermore, the Lord did once give the Holy Ghost under a visible shape, that we may assure ourselves that his invisible and hidden grace shall never be wanting to the Church.
And it sat. Because the number is suddenly changed, it is to be doubted whether he speaketh of the fire. He said that there appeared tongues as it had been of fire. It followeth by and by, and it sat upon them. Notwithstanding, I refer it unto the Spirit. For the Hebrews use commonly to express the substantive of the verb in the second member, which they did omit in the former. Wherefore we have an example in this place: It sat upon them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. And we know that although Luke did write in Greek, yet is he full of those phrases which the Hebrews use. (79) Now, whereas he calleth the tongues the Holy Ghost, it is according to the custom of the Scripture. For John calleth the dove by the same name, (Joh 1:32,) because the Lord would testify and declare the presence of his Spirit by some such sign. If it were a vain sign, it should be an absurd naming (to call the sign by the name of the thing signified;) but where the thing is annexed, the name of the thing is fitly given to the sign which offereth the same unto our senses to be perceived. The fullness of the Spirit, wherewith he saith every one was replenished, doth not express the [an] equal measure of gifts in every one, but that excellence which should be meet for such a calling. (80)
(79) “Hebraismis,” Hebraisms.
(80) “Excellentiam quae obeundo muneri par futura esset.” but that excellence which might be sufficient to enable each to execute his office.
4. They began to speak He showeth that the effect did appear presently, and also to what use their tongues were to be framed and applied, But because Luke setteth down shortly after, that strangers out of divers countries did marvel, because that every one of them did hear the apostles speaking in their own tongue, some think that they spoke not in divers tongues, but that they did all understand that which was spoken in one tongue, as well as if they should hear their natural tongue. (81) Therefore, they think that one and the same sound of the voice was diversely distributed amongst the hearers. Another conjecture they have, because Peter made one sermon in the audience of many gathered together out of divers countries, who could not understand his speech (and language,) unless another voice should come unto their ears than that which proceeded out of his mouth. But we must first note that the disciples spoke indeed with strange tongues; otherwise the miracle had not been wrought in them, but in the hearers. So that the similitude should have been false whereof he made mention before; neither should the Spirit have been given so much to them as to others. Again, we hear how Paul giveth thanks to God, that he speaketh with divers tongues, (1. o 14:18.) Truly he challengeth to himself both the understanding, and also the use thereof. Neither did he attain to this skill by his own study and industry, but he had it by the gift of the Spirit. In the same place he affirmeth that it is an especial gift, wherewith all men are not endued. I suppose that it doth manifestly appear hereby that the apostles had the variety and understanding of tongues given them, that they might speak unto the Greeks in Greek, unto the Italians in the Italian tongue, (82) and that they might have true communication (and conference) with their hearers. Notwithstanding, I leave it indifference whether there was any second miracle wrought or no, so that the Egyptians and Elamites did understand Peter speaking in the Chaldean tongue, as if he did utter divers voices. For there be some conjectures which persuade me thus to think, and yet not so firm but that they may be refuted. For it may be that they spoke with divers tongues, as they light upon this man or that, and as occasion was offered, and as their languages were diverse. Therefore, it was a manifest miracle, when they saw them ready to speak divers languages. As touching Peter’s sermon, it might be understood of the greater part of men wheresoever they were born; for it is to be thought that many of those which came to Jerusalem were skillful in the Chaldean tongue. Again, it shall be nothing inconvenient if we say that he spoke also in other tongues. Although I will not much stand about this matter; so that this be out of doubt, that the apostles changed their speech. (83)
(81) “Nativum,” native.
(82) “Latine,” in Latin.
(83) “Vere mutasse,” truly changed.
5. And there were at Jerusalem. When he calleth them godly or religious men, he seemeth to give us to understand that they came to Jerusalem that they might worship God; like as God, in all ages, after the scattering abroad, did gather together into that city some seed which remained, having, as it were, set up his banner, because as yet the temple did serve to some use. Yet, nevertheless, he showeth, by the way, who those be which profit by those miracles, whereby God doth declare his power. For wicked and profane men do either laugh at them, or else pass [care] not for them, as we shall see by and by. Furthermore, he meant to cite those as witnesses, which may the better be believed for their religion and godliness. When he said, out of every nation, he meaneth out of divers countries, whereof one is far from another. For he doth also afterwards reckon up those lands whereof one was far distant from another, of which sort are Libya and Pontus, Rome and Parthia, and Arabia, and such like. This serveth to increase the greatness of the thing. For the Cretians and men of Asia, dwelling so near together, might have some likelihood and agreement in speech; (85) but the same could not be betwixt the Italians and the men of Cappadocia, betwixt the Arabians and those of Pontus. Yea, this was also a work of God worthy to be remembered and wondered at, that in so huge and horrible a scattering abroad of the people, he did always reserve some relics, yea, he caused certain strangers to adjoin themselves unto a people which was in such misery, and, as it were, quite destroyed. For although they lived here and there in exile in far countries, and being one far from another, did, as it were, inhabit divers worlds, yet did they hold among themselves the unity of faith. Neither doth he call them unadvisedly, and without good consideration, godly men, and men gearing God.
(85) “Linguae commercium,” interchange of speech.
6. When this was noised abroad. Luke saith thus in Greek, This voice being made; but his meaning is, that the fame was spread abroad, whereby it came to pass that a great multitude came together. For if one after another in divers places, and at divers times, had heard the apostles speaking in divers tongues, the miracle had not been so famous; therefore they come altogether into one place, that the diversity of tongues may the better appear by the present comparison. There is a further circumstance also here to be noted, that the country (and native soil) of the apostles was commonly known, and this was also commonly known, that they never went out of their country to learn (86) strange tongues. Therefore, forasmuch as one speaketh Latin, another Greek, another the Arabian tongue, as occasion was offered, and that indifferently, and every one doth also change his tongue, the work of God appeareth more plainly hereby.
(86) “Ut peregrinas linguas discere potuerint,” so as to be able to learn foreign tongues.
11. The wonderful works of God. Luke noteth two things which caused the hearers to wonder; first, because the apostles being before ignorant and private persons, (87) born in a base corner, (88) did, notwithstanding, intreat profoundly of divine matters, and of heavenly wisdom. The other is, because they have new tongues given them suddenly. Both things are worth the noting, because to huddle out [utter] words unadvisedly and foolishly, should not so much have served to move their minds; and the majesty of the things ought the more to have moved them to consider the miracle. Although they give due honor to God, in that they are astonished and amazed, yet the principal and of the miracle is expressed in this, that they inquire, and thereby declare that they are prepared to learn; for otherwise their amazedness and wondering should not have done them any great good. And certainly we must so wonder at the works of God, that there must be also a consideration, and a desire to understand.
(87) “Idiotae,” unlearned.
(88) “Nati in contempto angulo,” born in a district of no repute.
12. Others mocking Hereby it appeareth how monstrous as well the sluggishness, as also the ungodliness of men is, when Satan hath taken away their mind. If God should openly (and visibly) descend from heaven, his majesty could scarce more manifestly appear than in this miracle. Whosoever hath any drop of sound understanding in him must needs be stricken with the only hearing of it. How beastly, then, are those men who see it with their eyes, and yet scoff, and go about with their jests to mock the power of God? But the matter is so. There is nothing so wonderful which those men do not turn to a jest who are touched with no care of God; because they do, even upon set purposes, harden themselves in their ignorance in things most plain. And it is a just punishment of God, which he bringeth upon such pride, to deliver them to Satan, to be driven headlong into blind fury. Wherefore, there is no cause why we should marvel that there be so many at this day so blind in so great light, if they be so deaf when such manifest doctrine is delivered, yea, if they wantonly refuse salvation when it is offered unto them. For if the wonderful and strange works of God, wherein he doth wonderfully set forth his power, be subject to the mockery of men, what shall become of doctrine, which they think tasteth of nothing but of that which is common? Although Luke doth signify unto us that they were not of the worst sort, or altogether past hope, which did laugh (and mock;) but he meant rather to declare how the common sort was affected when they saw this miracle. And truly it hath been always so in the world, for very few have been touched with the true feeling of God as often as he hath revealed himself. Neither is it any marvel; for religion is a rare virtue, and a virtue which few men have; which is, indeed, the beginning of understanding. Nevertheless, howsoever the more part of men, through a certain hard stiff-neckedness, doth reject the consideration of the works of God, yet are they never without fruit, as we may see in this history.
14. And Peter, standing By this word standing he did signify, that there was a grave sermon made in the assembly; for they did rise when they spoke unto the people, to the end they might be the better heard. The sum of this sermon is this, he gathereth that Christ is already revealed and given by the gift of the Holy Ghost, which they saw. Yet, first, he refuteth that false opinion, in that they thought that the disciples were drunk. This refutation consisteth upon a probable argument; because men use not to be drunk betimes in the morning. For, as Paul saith,
“Those which are drunk are drunk in the night,”
(1. h 5:7.)
For they flee the light for shame. And surely so great is the filthiness of this vice, that for good causes it hateth the light. And yet this argument were not always good; for Esaias doth inveigh in his time against those which did rise early to follow drunkenness. And at this day there be many who, like hogs, so soon as they awake, run to quaffing. But because this is (89) a common custom amongst men, Peter saith, that it is no likely thing. Those which have but even small skill in antiquity do know that the civil day, from the rising of the sun until the going down thereof, was divided into twelve hours; so that the hours were longer in summer, and shorter in winter. Therefore, that which should now be the ninth before noon in winter, and in summer the eighth, was the third hour amongst the old people. (90) Therefore, whereas Peter doth only lightly remove the opinion of drunkenness, he doth it for this cause, because it had been superfluous to have stood about any long excuse. (91) Therefore, as in a matter which was certain and out of doubt, he doth rather pacify those which mocked, than labor to teach them. And he doth not so much refute them by the circumstance of time, as by the testimony of Joel. For when he saith that that is now come to pass which was foretold, he toucheth briefly their unthankfulness, because they do not acknowledge such an excellent benefit promised unto them in times past which they now see with their eyes. And whereas he upbraideth the fault of a few unto all, (92) he doth it not to this end, that he may make them all guilty of the same fault; but because a fit occasion was offered by their mocking to teach them altogether, he doth not foreslow the same. (93)
(89) “Abhorret,” differs from.
(90) “Veteribus,” the ancients.
(91) “Anxia excusatio,” anxious excuse.
(92) “Quod autem omnibus exprobrat paucorum vitium,” as to his upbraiding all with the fault of a few.
(93) “Eam non negligit,” he does not neglect it.
17. It shall be in the last days By this effect he proveth that the Messiah is already revealed. Joel, indeed, doth not express the last days, (Joe 2:29;) but for as much as he intreateth of the perfect restoring of the Church, it is not to be doubted but that that prophecy belongeth unto the last age alone. Wherefore, that which Peter bringeth doth no whit dissent from Joel’s meaning; but he doth only add this word for exposition sake, that the Jews might know that the Church could by no other means be restored, which was then decayed, but by being renewed by the Spirit of God. Again, because the repairing of the Church should be like unto a new world, therefore Peter saith that it shall be in the last days. And surely this was a common and familiar thing among the Jews, that all those great promises concerning the blessed and well-ordered state of the Church should not be fulfilled until Christ, by his coming, should restore all things. Wherefore, it was out of all doubt amongst them, that that which is cited out of Joel doth appertain unto the last time. Now, by the last days, or fullness of time, is meant the stable and firm condition of the Church, in the manifestation or revealing of Christ.
I will pour out my Spirit He intendeth to prove, (as we have already said,) that the Church can be repaired by no other means, saving only by the giving of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, forasmuch as they did all hope that the restoring drew near, he accuseth them of sluggishness, because they do not once think upon the way and means thereof. And when the prophet saith, “I will pour out,” it is, without all question, that he meant by this word to note the great abundance of the Spirit. And we must take I will pour out of my Spirit in the same sense, as if he had said simply, I will pour out my Spirit. For these latter words are the words of the prophet. But Peter followed the Grecians, who translate the Hebrew word ח, (cheth,) απο Therefore, some men do in vain more subtlely play the philosophers; because, howsoever the words be changed, yet must we still retain and keep the prophet’s meaning. Nevertheless, when God is said to pour out his Spirit, I confess it must be thus understood, that he maketh manifold variety and change of gifts to flow unto men from his Spirit, as it were out of the only fountain, the fountain which can never be drawn dry. For, as Paul doth testify, there be divers gifts, and yet but one Spirit, (1. o 12:4.) And hence do we gather a profitable doctrine, that we can have no more excellent thing given us of God than the grace of the Spirit; yea, that all other things are nothing worth if this be wanting. For, when God will briefly promise salvation to his people, he affirmeth that he will give them his Spirit. Hereupon it followeth that we can obtain no good things until we have the Spirit given us. And truly it is, as it were, the key which openeth unto us the door, that we may enter into all the treasures of spiritual good things; and that we may also have entrance into the kingdom of God.
Upon all flesh It appeareth, by that which followeth, of what force this generality is; for, first, it is set down generally, all flesh; after that the partition is added, whereby the prophet doth signify that there shall be no difference of age or kind, but that God admitteth all, one with another, unto the partaking of his grace. It is said, therefore, all flesh, because both young and old, men and women, are thereby signified; yet here may a question be moved, why Clod doth promise that unto his people, as some new and unwonted good thing, which he was wont to do for them from the beginning throughout all ages; for there was no age void of the grace of the Spirit. The answer of this question is set down in these two sentences: “I will pour out,” and, “Upon all flesh;” for we must here note a double contrariety, (94) between the time of the Old and New Testament; for the pouring out (as I have said) doth signify great plenty, when as there was under the law a more scarce distribution; for which cause John also doth say that the Holy Ghost was not given until Christ ascended into heaven. All flesh cloth signify an infinite multitude, whereas God in times past did vouchsafe to bestow such plenty of his Spirit only upon a few.
Furthermore, in both comparisons we do not deny but that the fathers under the law were partakers of the self, same grace whereof we are partakers; but the Lord doth show that we are above them, as we are indeed. I say, that all godly men since the beginning of the world were endued with the same spirit of understanding, of righteousness, and sanctification, wherewith the Lord doth at this day illuminate and regenerate us; but there were but a few which had the light of knowledge given them then, if they be compared with the great multitude of the faithful, which Christ did suddenly gather together by his coming. Again, their knowledge was but obscure and slender, and, as it were, covered with a veil, if it be compared with that which we have at this day out of the gospel, where Christ, the Sun of righteousness, doth shine with perfect brightness, as it were at noon day. Neither doth that any whit hurt or hinder that a few had such an excellent faith, that peradventure they have no equal at this day. For their understanding did nevertheless smell or savor of the instruction and schoolmastership (95) of the law. For that is always true, that godly kings and prophets have not seen nor heard those things which Christ hath revealed by his coming. Therefore, to the end the prophet Joel may commend the excellency of the New Testament, he affirmeth and foretelleth that the grace of the Spirit shall be more plentiful in time thereof; and, again, that it shall come unto more men, (Mat 13:17; Luk 10:24.)
And your sons shall prophesy By the word prophesy he meant to note the rare and singular gift of understanding. And to the same purpose tendeth that partition which followeth afterwards, “your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams;” for we gather out of the twelfth chapter of Numbers, that these were the two ordinary ways whereby God did reveal himself to the prophets. For in that place, when the Lord exempteth Moses from the common sort of prophets, he saith,
“I appear unto my servants by a vision, or by a dream; but I speak unto Moses face to face,”
(Num 12:6.)
Therefore, we see that two kinds are put after the general word for a confirmation; yet this is the sum, that they shall all be prophets so soon as the Holy Ghost shall be poured out from heaven. But here it is objected, that there was no such thing, even in the apostles themselves, neither yet in the whole multitude of the faithful. I answer, that the prophets did commonly use to shadow under tropes most fit for their time, (96) the kingdom of Christ. When they speak of the worship of God, they name the altar, the sacrifices, the offering of gold, silver, and frankincense. Notwithstanding, we know that the altars do cease, the sacrifices are abolished, whereof there was some use in time of the law; and that the Lord requireth some higher thing at our hands than earthly riches. That is true, indeed; but the prophets, whilst they apply their style unto the capacity of their time, comprehend under figures (wherewith the people were then well acquainted) those things which we see otherwise revealed and showed now, like as when he promiseth elsewhere that he will make priests of Levites, and Levites of the common sort of men, (Isa 66:21,) this is his meaning, that under the kingdom of Christ every base person shall be extolled unto an honorable estate; therefore, if we desire to ]lave the true and natural meaning of this place, we must not urge the words which are taken out of the old order (97) of the law; but we must only seek the truth without figures, and this is it, that the apostles, through the sudden inspiration of the Spirit, did intreat of the heavenly mysteries prophetically, that is to say, divinely, and above the common order.
Therefore, this word prophesy doth signify nothing else save only the rare and excellent gift of understanding, as if Joel should say, Under the kingdom of Christ there shall not be a few prophets only, unto whom God may reveal his secrets; but all men shall be endued with spiritual wisdom, even to the prophetical excellency. As it is also in Jeremiah,
“Every man shall no longer teach his neighbor; because they shall all know me, from the least unto the greatest,”
(Jer 31:34.)
And in these words Peter inviteth the Jews, unto whom he speaketh, to be partakers of the same grace. As if he should say, the Lord is ready to pour out that Spirit far and wide which he hath poured upon us. Therefore, unless you yourselves be the cause of let, ye shall receive with us of this fullness. And as for us, let us know that the same is spoken to us at this day which was then spoken to the Jews. For although those visible graces of the Spirit be ceased, yet God hath not withdrawn his Spirit from his Church. Wherefore he offereth him daily unto us all, by this same promise, without putting any difference. Wherefore we are poor and needy only through our own sluggishness; and also it appeareth manifestly, that those are wicked and sacrilegious enemies of the Spirit which keep back the Christian common people from the knowledge of God; and forasmuch as he himself doth not only admit, but also call by name unto himself, women and men, young and old.
(94) “Antithesis,” antithesis.
(95) “Paedagogiam,” tutelage.
(96) “Suo seculo,” for their own age.
(97) “OEconomia,” economy.
18. Upon my servants. In these words the promise is restrained unto the worshippers of God. For God doth not profane his Spirit; which he should do, if he should make the stone common to the unbelieving and despisers. It is certain that we are made the servants of God by the Spirit; and that, therefore, we are not, until such time as we have received the same; but, first, whom God hath adopted to be of his family, and whom he hath framed by his Spirit to obey him, those doth he furnish with new gifts afterward. Again, the prophet did not respect that order of thee, but his meaning was to make this grace proper to the Church alone. And forasmuch as the Church was only among the Jews, he calleth them honorably the servants and handmaids of God. But after that God did gather unto himself on every side a Church, the wall of separation being pulled down, so many as are received into the society of the covenant are called by the same name. Only let us remember, that the Spirit is appointed for the Church properly.
19. And I will show wonders We must first see what is meant by this great day of the Lord. Some do expound it of the former coming of Christ in the flesh; and others refer it unto the last day of the resurrection, I do allow neither opinion. For, in my judgment, the prophet comprehendeth the whole kingdom of Christ. And so he calleth it the great day, after that the Son of God began to be revealed in the flesh, that he may lead us into the fulfilling of his kingdom. Therefore, he appointeth no certain day, but he beginneth this day at the first preaching of the gospel, and he extendeth the same unto the last resurrection. Those which restrain it unto the time of the apostles are moved with this reason, because the prophet joineth this member and that which goeth next before together. But in that there is no absurdity at all, because the prophet doth assign the time when these things began to come to pass, howsoever they have a continual going forward even until the end of the world. Furthermore, whereas he saith that the sun shall be turned to darkness, and the moon into blood, they are figurative speeches, whereby he doth give us to understand thus much, that the Lord will show tokens of his wrath through the whole frame of the world, which shall bring men even to their wit’s end, as if there should be some horrible and fearful change of nature wrought. For as the sun and moon are unto us witnesses of God’s fatherly favor towards us, whilst that by course they give light to the earth; so, on the other side, the prophet saith, that they shall be messengers to foreshow God’s wrath and displeasure. And this is the second member of the prophecy. For after that he had intreated of the spiritual grace which should be abundantly poured out upon all flesh, lest any man should imagine that all things should be quiet and prosperous together, therewithal he addeth that the estate of the world shall be troublesome, and full of great fear under Christ; as Christ himself doth more fully declare, Mat 24:0. and Luk 21:0.
But this serveth greatly to the setting forth of grace, that whereas all things do threaten destruction, yet whosoever doth call upon the name of the Lord is sure to be saved. By the darkness of the sun, by the bloody streaming of the moon, by the black vapor of smoke, the prophet meant to declare, that whithersoever men turn their eyes, there shall many things appear, both upward and downward, which may make them amazed and afraid, as he hath already said. Therefore, this is as much as if he should have said, that the world was never in a more miserable case, that there were never so many and such cruel tokens of God’s wrath. Hence may we gather how inestimable the goodness of God is, who offereth a present remedy for so great evils; and again, how unthankful they are towards God, and how froward, which do not flee unto the sanctuary of salvation, which is nigh unto them, and doth meet them. Again, it is out of all doubt, that God meaneth by this so doleful a description, to stir up all godly men, that they may with a more fervent desire seek for salvation. And Peter citeth it to the same end, that the Jews may know that they shall be more miserable unless they receive that grace of the Spirit which is offered unto them. Yet here may a question be asked, how this can hang together, that when Christ is revealed, there should such a sea of miseries overflow and break out therewithal? For it may seem to be a thing very inconvenient, (98) that he should be the only pledge of God’s love toward mankind, in whom the heavenly Father doth lay open all the treasure of his goodness, yea, he poureth out the bowels of his mercy upon us, and that yet, by the coming of the same, his Son, his wrath should be more hot than it was wont, so that it should, as it were, quite consume both heaven and earth at once.
But we must first mark, that because men are too slow to receive Christ, they must be constrained by divers afflictions, as it were with whips. Secondly, forasmuch as Christ doth call unto himself all those which are heavy laden and labor, (Mat 11:28,) we must first be tamed by many miseries, that we may learn humility. For through great prosperity men do set up the horns of pride. And he cannot but despise Christ fiercely, whosoever he be, that seemeth to himself to be happy. Thirdly, because we are, more than we ought, set upon the seeking of the peace of the flesh, whereby it cometh to pass that many tie the grace of Christ unto the present life, it is expedient for us to be accustomed to think otherwise, that we may know that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual. Therefore, to the end God may teach us that the good things of Christ are heavenly, he doth exercise us, according to the flesh, with many miseries; whereby it cometh to pass that we do seek our felicity without the world. Moreover, men do bring miseries upon themselves through their unthankfulness; for the servant which knoweth his master’s will, and doth not obey, is worthy of greater and more stripes, (Luk 12:47.) The more familiarly that God doth communicate with us in Christ, the more doth our ungodliness grow and break out into open contumacy, so that it is no marvel if, when Christ is revealed, there appear many tokens of God’s vengeance on the other side, forasmuch as men do hereby more grievously provoke God against them, and kindle his wrath through wicked contempt. Surely, in that the day of Christ is fearful, it is an accidental thing; whether God will correct our slothfulness, to bring us under, which [who] are yet inapt to be taught, or whether he will punish our unthankfulness. For it bringeth with it of itself nothing but that which is pleasant; but the contempt of God’s grace doth provoke him to horrible anger not without cause.
(98) “Absurdum,” absurd.
21. Whosoever shall call upon An excellent place. For as God doth prick us forward like sluggish asses, with threatenings and terrors to seek salvation, se, after that he hath brought darkness upon the face of heaven and earth, yet doth he show a means whereby salvation may shine before our eyes, to wit, if we shall call upon him. For we must diligently note this circumstance. If God should promise salvation simply, it were a great matter; but it is a far greater when as he promiseth the same amidst manifold dungeons of death. Whilst that (saith he) all things shall be out of order, and the fear of destruction shall possess all things, only call upon me, and ye shall be saved. Therefore, howsoever man be swallowed up ill the gulf of miseries, yet is there set before him a way to escape. We must also note the universal word, whosoever For God admitteth all men unto himself without exception, and by this means doth he invite them to salvation, as Paul gathereth in the tenth chapter to the Romans, and as the prophet had set it down before,
“Thou, Lord, which hearest the prayer,
unto thee shall all flesh come,”
(Psa 65:2.)
Therefore, forasmuch as no man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men; neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief. I speak of all unto whom God doth make himself manifest by the gospel. But like as those which call upon the name of the Lord are sure of salvation, so we must think that, without the same, we are thrice miserable and undone. And when as our salvation is placed in calling upon God, there is nothing in the mean season taken from faith, forasmuch as this invocation is grounded on faith alone. There is also another circumstance no less worthy the noting; in that the prophet doth signify, that the calling upon God doth properly appertain and agree unto the last days. For although he would be called upon in all ages, notwithstanding, since that he showed himself to be a Father in Christ, we have the more easy access unto him. Which thing ought both the more to embolden us, and to take from us all sluggishness. As he himself doth also reason, that by this privilege our forwardness to pray is doubled to us: “Hitherto have ye asked nothing in nay name; ask, and ye shall receive;” as if he should say, theretofore, although I did not yet appear to be a mediator and advocate in the faith, yet did ye pray; but now, when you shall have me to be your patron, with how much more courage ought ye to do that?
22. Jesus of Nazareth Now doth Peter apply unto his purpose the prophecy of Joel; namely, that the Jews may thereby know that the time of restoring was present; and that Christ was given them for this purpose. For this promise was no otherwise to be fulfilled, save only by the coming of the Mediator. And this is the right use of all those gifts which we have by Christ, whilst that they bring us unto Christ, as unto a fountain. But he cometh hither by little and little. For he doth not by and by in the beginning affirm that Jesus was Christ; but he saith only that he was a man sent of God; and that doth he prove by his miracles. Afterward he addeth, that he rose from death when he was slain. Whereby it appeareth more certainly and more fully that he was not one of the prophets, but the very Son of God, who was promised to be the repairer of all things. Let this, therefore, be the first member, that Jesus of Nazareth was a man approved of God by manifest testimonies, so that he could not be despised as some base and obscure person. The old interpreter did not evil (99) translate ὑποδεδειγμενον approved. And Erasmus is deceived, who thinketh that he did read it otherwise; and he himself did not express Luke’s mind, when as he translated it given. (100) For, seeing that word doth signify among the Grecians to show, whereupon the mathematicians also call those arguments whereby they set a thing, as it were, before a man’s eyes, αποδειξεις, or demonstrations, Luke meant to say, that Jesus came not unknown, and without any testimony or approbation, but that those miracles which God showed by him served to this end, that he might be famous and excellent. Therefore he saith that he was showed toward the Jews; because God would have his Son to be accounted excellent and great among them; as if he should say, that miracles were not appointed for other nations, but for the Jews, that they might know that Jesus was sent unto them of God.
By great works. He calleth miracles by these three names. And because God doth show forth his power in them after a new and unwonted sort, or doth, at least, procure greater admiration, they are, for good causes, called great works. (101) For we are commonly more moved when any extraordinary thing doth happen. In which respect they are also called wonders, (102) because they make us astonished. And for this cause are they called signs, because the Lord will not have men’s minds to stay there, but to be lifted up higher; as they are referred unto another end. He put in three words, to the end he might the more extol Christ’s miracles, and enforce the people, by his heaping and laying of words together, to consider the same. Furthermore, he maketh not Christ the chief author, but only the minister; because, as we have already said, he determined to go forward by degrees. Notwithstanding, here may a question be asked, whether miracles do suffice to be a sufficient and just approbation [proof] or no? Because by this means inchanters might cause their legerdemain (103) to be believed. I answer, that the juggling casts of Satan do much differ from the power of God. Christ saith elsewhere, that the kingdom of Antichrist shall be in wonders, but he addeth by and by, in lying wonders, (2. h 2:9.) if any man object, that we cannot easily discern, because he saith that they shall have so great color that they shall deceive (if it could be) the very elect; I answer again, that this error proceedeth only from our own want of wit, because we are so dull; for God doth show his power manifestly enough. Therefore, there is sufficient approbation of the doctrine and of the ministry in the miracles which God doth work, so that we be not blind. And whereas it is not of sufficient force among the wicked, because they may now and then be deceived with the false miracles of Satan, this must be imputed unto their own blindness; but whosoever hath a pure heart, he doth also know God with the pure eyes of his mind, so often as he doth show himself. Neither can Satan otherwise delude us, save only when, through the wickedness of our heart, our judgment is corrupt and our eyes blinded, or at least bleared through our own slothfulness.
(99) “Male,” ill, improperly.
(100) “Exhibitum,” exhibited.
(101) “Virtutes.”
(102) “Prodigia,” prodigies.
(103) “Suis imposturis fidem facerent magi,” magians might procure credit for their impostures.
23. Him have ye slain. He maketh mention of the death of Christ for this cause chiefly, that the resurrection might the more assuredly be believed. It was a thing full well known among the Jews that Christ was crucified. Therefore, in that he rose again, it is a great and wonderful token of his Divine power. In the mean season, to the end he may prick their consciences with the feeling of sin, he saith that they slew him; not that they crucified him with their own hands, but because the people, with one voice, desired to have him put to death. And although many of the hearers unto whom he speaketh did not consent unto that wicked and ungodly cruelty, yet doth he justly impute the same to the nation; because all of them had defiled themselves either with their silence, or else through their carelessness. Neither hath the cloak and color (104) of ignorance any place, forasmuch as he was showed before of God. This guiltiness, therefore, under which he bringeth them, is a preparation unto repentance.
By the determinate counsel He removeth a stumbling-block; because it seemeth, at the first blush, to be a thing very inconvenient, [unaccountable,] that that man whom God had so greatly adorned, being afterward laid open to all manner of mocking, doth suffer so reproachful a death. Therefore, because the cross of Christ doth commonly use to trouble us at the first sight, for this cause Peter declareth that he suffered nothing by chance, or because he wanted power to deliver himself, but because it was so determined (and appointed) by God. For this knowledge alone, that the death of Christ was ordained by the eternal counsel of God, did cut off all occasion of foolish and wicked cogitation’s, and did prevent all offenses which might otherwise be conceived. For we must know this, that God doth decree nothing in vain or rashly; whereupon it followeth that there was just cause for which he would have Christ to suffer. The same knowledge of God’s providence is a step to consider the end and fruit of Christ’s death. For this meeteth us by and by in the counsel of God, that the just was delivered (105) for our sins, and that his blood was the price of our death.
And here is a notable place touching the providence of God, that we may know that as well our life as our death is governed by it. Luke intreateth, indeed, of Christ; but in his person we have a mirror, which doth represent unto us the universal providence of God, which doth stretch itself throughout the whole world; yet doth it specially shine unto us who are the members of Christ. Luke setteth down two things in this place, the foreknowledge and the decree of God. And although the foreknowledge of God is former in order, (because God doth first see what he will determine, before he doth indeed determine the same,) yet doth he put the same after the counsel and decree of God, to the end we may know that God would nothing, neither appointed anything, save that which he had long before directed to his [its] end. For men do oftentimes rashly decree many things, because they decree them suddenly. Therefore, to the end Peter may teach that the counsel of God is not without reason, he coupleth also therewithal his foreknowledge. Now, we must distinguish these two, and so much the more diligently, because many are deceived in this point. For passing over the counsel of God, wherewith he doth (guide and) govern the whole world, they catch at his bare foreknowledge. Thence cometh that common distinction, that although God doth foresee all things, yet doth he lay no necessity upon his creatures. And, indeed, it is true that God doth know this thing or that thing before, for this cause, because it shall come to pass; but as we see that Peter doth teach that God did not only foresee that which befell Christ, but it was decreed by him. And hence must be gathered a general doctrine; because God doth no less show his providence in governing the whole world, than in ordaining and appointing the death of Christ. Therefore, it belongeth to God not only to know before things to come, but of his own will to determine what he will have done. This second thing did Peter declare when he said, that he was delivered by the certain and determinate counsel of God. Therefore, the foreknowledge of God is another thing than the will of God, whereby he governeth and ordereth all things.
Some, which are of quicker sight, confess that God doth not only foreknow, but also govern with his beck what things soever are done in this world. Nevertheless, they imagine a confused government, as if God did give liberty to his creatures to follow their own nature. They say that the sun is ruled by the will of God, because, in giving light to us, he doth his duty, which was once enjoined him by God. They think that man hath free-will after this sort left him, because his nature is disposed or inclined unto the free choice of good and evil. But they which think so do feign that God sitteth idle in heaven. The Scripture teacheth us far otherwise, which ascribeth unto God a special government in all things, and in man’s actions. Notwithstanding, it is our duty to ponder and consider to what end it teacheth this; for we must beware of doting speculations, wherewith we see many carried away. The Scripture will exercise our faith, that we may know that we are defended by the hand of God, lest we be subject to the injuries of Satan and the wicked. It is good for us to embrace this one thing; neither did Peter mean anything else in this place. Yea, we have an example set before us in Christ, whereby we may learn to be wise with sobriety. For it is out of question, that his flesh was subject to corruption, according to nature. But the providence of God did set the same free. If any man ask, whether the bones of Christ could be broken or no? it is not to be denied, that they were subject to breaking naturally, yet could there no bone be broken, because God had so appointed and determined, (Joh 19:36.) By this example (I say) we are taught so to give the chiefest room to God’s providence, that we keep ourselves within our bounds, and that we thrust not ourselves rashly and indiscreetly into the secrets of God, whither our eyesight doth not pierce.
By the hands of the wicked Because Peter seemeth to grant that the wicked did obey God, hereupon followeth two absurdities; (106) the one, either that God is the author of evil, or that men do not sin, what wickedness soever they commit. I answer, concerning the second, that the wicked do nothing less than obey God, howsoever they do execute that which God hath determined with himself. For obedience springeth from a voluntary affection; and we know that the wicked have a far other purpose. Again, no man obeyeth God save he which knoweth his will. Therefore, obedience dependeth upon the knowledge of God’s will. Furthermore, God hath revealed unto us his will in the law; wherefore, those men (107) do obey God, who do that alone which is agreeable to the law of God; and, again, which submit themselves willingly to his government. We see no such thing in all the wicked, whom God doth drive hither and thither, they themselves being ignorant. No man, therefore, will say that they are excusable under this color, because they obey God; forasmuch as both the will of God must be sought in his law, and they, so much as in them lieth, do (108) to resist God. As touching the other point, I deny that God is the author of evil; because there is a certain noting of a wicked affection in this word. For the wicked deed is esteemed according to the end whereat a man aimeth. When men commit theft or murder, they offend (109) for this cause, because they are thieves or murderers; and in theft and murder there is a wicked purpose. God, who useth their wickedness, is to be placed in the higher degree. For he hath respect unto a far other thing, because he will chastise the one, and exercise the patience of the other; and so he doth never decline from his nature, that is, from perfect righteousness. So that, whereas Christ was delivered by the hands of wicked men, whereas he was crucified, it came to pass by the appointment and ordinance of God. But treason, which is of itself wicked, and murder, which hath in it so great wickedness, must not be thought to be the works of God.
(104) “Praetextus,” pretext.
(105) “Morti addictum,” subjected to death.
(106) “Ex duobus absurdis alterutrum,” one of two absurdities.
(107) “Demum,” only.
(108) “Cupiant,” desire.
(109) “Peccant,” they sin.
24. Having loosed the sorrows of death. By the sorrows of death I understand some farther thing than the bodily sense or feeling. For those which duly consider the nature of death, because they hear that it is the curse of God, must needs conceive that God is angry in death. Hence cometh marvelous horror, wherein there is greater misery than in death itself. Furthermore, Christ died upon this occasion that he might take upon him our guiltiness. That inward fear of conscience, which made him so afraid that he sweat blood when he presented himself before the throne and tribunal seat of God, did more vex him, and brought upon him greater horror, than all the torments of the flesh. And whereas Peter saith, that Christ did wrestle with such sorrows, and doth also declare that he had the victory, by this it cometh to pass that the faithful ought not now to be afraid of death; for death hath not the like quality now which was in Adam; because by the victory of Christ the curse is swallowed up, (1. o 15:54.) We feel, indeed, yet the pricking of sorrows, but such as do not wholly wound us, whilst that we hold up the buckler of faith against them. He added a reason, because it was impossible that Christ should be oppressed by death, who is the author of life.
25. The resurrection, (110) which was both declared and witnessed by certain and evident testimonies, and which might also have been gathered out of the continual doctrine of the prophets, was to be proved to the Jews as some new and strange thing. And no marvel. For we see that although Christ had oftentimes beat (111) the same into his disciples’ heads, yet did they profit but a little. And yet did they retain certain principles of true doctrine, which might have made a way for them unto the knowledge of Christ, as we shall see by and by. Therefore, because the gift of the Spirit was a fruit of the resurrection of Christ, he proveth by the testimony of David that Christ must needs have risen again, that the Jews may thereby know that he was the author of the gift. For he taketh it as a thing which all men grant, that he was raised up from death, that he may live not for himself, but for his. Now we see Peter’s drift; that that ought to seem no strange thing which was foretold so long before; and that Jesus is also Christ, because David did prophecy of him, as of the tied of the Church.
First of all, we must see whether this place ought altogether to be understood of Christ, as Peter affirmeth; that done, if there be any thing in the words worth noting, we will in order discuss it. Peter denieth that that agreeth with David which is said in this place:
“Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption,”
(Psa 16:10,)
because David’s carcass was corrupt in the grave. It seemeth at the first blush to be but a light argument. For a man might easily object, that the word is not to be urged, forasmuch as David meant nothing else, save only to exempt himself from destruction. Therefore, howsoever corruption did touch him, yet doth that no whit hinder but that he may easily say that he was safe from the danger thereof, because he knew that the Lord would deliver him. Yea, it seemeth to be a repetition of the former sentence, according to the common custom of the Hebrew tongue. Which if it be so, the sense shall be plain, that God will not suffer him to be oppressed with death, or that death should consume him. And this interpretation is confirmed by that where we read hell, it is in Hebrew סל , (seol;) where we read corruption, there it is שחת,(shachat;) both these words do signify the grave. By this means David should say twice, that he shall be delivered from death by the grace of God. Finally, he saith the same thing in this place, which he saith, (Psa 49:15,) “God shall redeem my soul from the hand of hell.” Like as, on the other side, when he speaketh of the reprobates, he is wont to take “going down into the grave” for destruction. I answer briefly, that there is some greater thing expressed in this place than the common redemption or deliverance of the godly. David, indeed, doth promise that God will be his eternal deliverer, as well in life as in death. Neither had he been much better for this, to have been once delivered from one danger, unless he had hoped that he should be safe even unto the end through God’s protection; but he speaketh of such safety as is not common. (112) And surely the words do sound that he speaketh of some new and singular privilege. Admit I grant that it is a repetition, and that there is all one thing uttered in these two members, “Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell;” and, “Thou shalt not suffer me to see corruption;” yet do I deny that it is simply to be understood that God will deliver his Holy One from eternal destruction; for freedom from corruption is promised by name. Neither do I pass for this, that שחת (shachat) doth signify the grave, as סל,(seol,) which is put in the former member. For although I do not stand nor contend about the words, yet must we respect the etymology. Therefore, forasmuch as the grave is called שחת, (shachat) because it doth corrupt man’s body with rottenness, it is not to be doubted but that David meant to note that quality. Therefore, the place is not so much expressed by this word, as the condition of rotting. So that the sense is, that God will not suffer him of whom the Psalm speaketh “to rot or corrupt in the grave.” And forasmuch as David was not free from this necessity, it followeth that the prophecy was neither truly nor perfectly fulfilled in him.
And that the Psalm ought altogether to be expounded of Christ, the thing itself doth prove. For seeing that David was one of the sons of Adam, he could not escape that universal condition and estate of mankind,
“Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return,”
(Gen 3:19;)
the grave standeth open (I say) for all the children of Adam, that it may swallow them up, and consume them; so that no man can exempt himself from corruption. So that, beholding ourselves apart from Christ, we see the grave prepared for us, which threateneth to us corruption. Wherefore, if David be separated from Christ, that shall not belong to him which is here said, that he shall be preserved from the grave. Therefore, when he boasteth that he shall be free from the grave, as touching corruption, without all doubt he placeth himself in the body of Christ, wherein death was overcome, and the kingdom thereof abolished. But and if David do promise himself exempting from the grave in another respect, save only so far forth as he is a member of Christ, hereby it appeareth that this freedom must begin at Christ as at the head. What man soever shall be of sound judgment shall easily know that this is a good argument. God did put all mankind under corruption; therefore, David, inasmuch as he was of the number of men, could not be free from the same. Neither is it to be doubted, but that the Jews, before whom this sermon was made, forasmuch as without question that maxim was of force amongst them, that they were to hope for the restoring of things at the hands of Christ alone, did the more readily stay themselves upon (113) the words of Peter; because they saw that that could no otherwise be which the words do import, unless they should apply it to the Messias. For they were not come to that point of impudence, at least those of whom mention is made here, that they durst cavil in matters which were evident; for God had then offered unto his disciples those which were godly hearers, and apt to be taught. They sought the Messias in the Old Testament. They knew that David was a figure of him. There was amongst them some religion and reverence of the Scriptures then; but now the impudency of all the whole nation almost is desperate. Howsoever they be urged, they wrench themselves out one way or other. (114) Where there is no way to escape, yet they break through; although they be overcome, yet will they not yield; neither is it to be doubted but that this their shameless forwardness is a punishment for their ungodliness. But let us return unto Peter’s sermon.
Seeing that David doth not only affirm that God also shall be his deliverer, but doth express a singular way and means; namely, that he shall not be subject to the corruption of the grave, Peter doth for good causes gather, that that doth not properly appertain unto him, for that his body was corrupt in the grave. And now, because this had been somewhat hard to be spoken among the Jews, he mollifieth the hardness with a circumlocution. For he doth not flatly deny in one word that that was fulfilled indeed in David, but doth only by the way (115) signify so much unto them, because he lieth consumed in the grave after the common custom of other men. And David did so prophesy of Christ, that he did both apply this consolation unto himself privately, and’ also extend the same unto the whole body of the Church. For that which is sound and perfect in the head is spread abroad, being afterward poured out into all the members. Neither is it to be denied but that David spoke of himself in this place; yet only so far forth as he beheld himself in Christ, as in the mirror of life. First, he hath respect unto Christ; after that he turneth his eyes toward himself, and others the faithful. So that we have a general doctrine prescribed unto us in this plate, concerning the nature of faith, the spiritual joy of conscience: and the hope of eternal deliverance.
I saw We must hold this principle. If we will have God present with us, we must set him before our eyes; and that before he do appear; for the prospect of faith pierceth far further than unto the present experience. Therefore faith hath this property, to set God always before it as a guide in all dangers and confused matters. For there is nothing that doth so much hold us up, as when we know that God is present with us; as the opinion of his absence doth often cast us down, and at length quite discourage us. David addeth, That he took not heed in vain unto the direction of God. “He is (saith he) at my right hand;” whereby he doth signify that we need not to fear lest we be deceived, (116) when as we set him before us at present; for we shall always feel his help most ready. Faith, in hoping for the help of God, ought to prevent and overgo (117) all experience, and whatsoever is perceived by the sense; but so soon as it shall give this glory to God, that it doth behold him in his Word, although he be absent, and so, consequently, invisible, it shall be overcome with the effect of the thing. For the measure of faith is not able to comprehend the infinite greatness of the power and goodness of God. He draweth a similitude from those which, when they will underprop the weak, or strengthen the fearful, do join themselves unto their side. Not to be moved, is not to be thrown down from their degree, but to remain firm in their estate; like as also Psa 46:5, God is in the midst of it, therefore shall it not be moved. For although it come to pass sometimes that the godly be sore shaken, yet because they come to themselves again, they are said to continue firm. Therefore, there is no cause why they should be afraid of falling, who are upholden by the help of God. Like as, on the other side, those which place their strength anywhere else save only in God, they shall be like to fall at every blast of wind, but at any mean wind of temptation they shall fall to the ground.
(110) “Christi,” of Christ.
(111) “Inculcasset,” inculcated.
(112) “Superiorem communi sorte,” superior to the common lot.
(113) “Acquieverint,” acquiesced in.
(114) “Eludunt,” they evade, practice evasion.
(115) “Oblique,” indirectly.
(116) “Non esse periculum ne unquam nos ac fidem nostram frustratur,” there is no danger of his deceiving us or our faith.
(117) “Antevertere,” outstrip.
26. For this my heart rejoiced Joy of the soul, gladness of the tongue, and quietness of all the whole body, do ensue upon sure hope and confidence; for unless men be quite past feeling, (118) they must needs be careful and sorrowful, and so, consequently, miserably tormented, so long as they feel themselves destitute of the help of God. But that sure trust which we repose in God doth not only deliver us from carefulness, (119) but doth also replenish our hearts with wonderful joy (and gladness.) That is the joy which Christ promised to his disciples should be full in them, and which he testified could not be taken from them, (Joh 16:22.) He expresseth the greatness of the joy when he saith, That it cannot be kept in, but that it will break forth into the gladness of the tongue. (120) כבוד, doth signify, indeed, glory, but it is taken in that place, as in many others, forthe tongue And so the Grecians have truly translated the same. The rest of theflesh doth signify the quietness of the whole man, which we have through the protection of God. Neither is this any let, because the faithful are continually out of quiet and tremble; for as in the midst of sorrows they do nevertheless rejoice; so there are no troubles so great that can break them of their rest. If any man object, that the peace of the faithful doth consist in the spirit, and that it is not in the flesh: I answer, that the faithful do rest in body; not that they are free from troubles, but because they believe that God careth for them wholly, and that not only their soul shall be safe through his protection, but their body also.
(118) “Stupeant,” be stupid or stunned.
(119) “Anxietate,” anxiety.
(120) “Quin erumpat in linguae exultationem,” but will burst forth into the language of exultation.
27. Because thou shalt not leave To leave the soul in hell is to suffer the same to be oppressed with destruction. There be two words used in this place, both which do signify the grave amongst the Hebricians. Because שאול, doth signify to require, I suppose it is called סול, because death is insatiable; whence also cometh that translation, Hell hath enlarged her soul. Again, they set open their mouth like hell. And because the latter שחת, is derived and set for corruption, or consumption, that quality is to be considered, as David meant to note the same. Those things which are disputed in this place by divers, concerning the descending of Christ into hell, are in my judgment superfluous; because they are far from the intent and purpose of the prophet. For the word anima, or soul, doth not so much signify the spirit being of an immortal essence as the life itself. For when a man is dead, and lieth in the grave, the grave is said to rule over his life. Whereas the Grecians translate it holy, it is in Hebrew חסת, which doth properly signify meek, or gentle, but Luke did not much regard this, because it doth not much appertain unto the present purpose. Furthermore, gentleness and meekness is so often commended in the faithful, because it behoveth them to imitate and resemble the nature of their Father.
28. Thou hast made known. He meaneth, that he was restored from death to life by the grace of God. For in that he was, as it were, a man raised from death to life, he acknowledgeth that it was a great good gift of God. This was in such sort fulfilled in Christ, that there wanted nothing unto perfection. As for the members they have their measure. Therefore Christ was far from corruption, that he may be the first-fruits of those which rise from death, (1. o 15:23.) We shall follow him in our order at length, but being first turned into dust, (1. o 15:42.) That which followeth, thathe was filled with gladness, with the countenance of God, agreeth with that: Show us thy face, and we shall be safe. And, again, The light of thy countenance is showed upon us: thou hast put gladness in my heart. For it is only the pleasantness of God’s countenance, which doth not only make us glad, but also quickens us; again, when the same is turned away, or troubled, we must needs faint.
30. Therefore, seeing he was a prophet He showeth, by two reasons, that it is no marvel if David do speak of things that should come to pass long after his time; the former is, because he was a prophet. And we know that things to come, and such as are removed far from the knowledge of men, are revealed unto the prophets. Therefore, it were wickedness to measure their speeches according to the common manner and order which we use in measuring the speeches of other men, forasmuch as they go beyond the long courses of years, having the Spirit for their director. Whereupon they are also called seers; because being placed, as it were, upon an high tower, (121) they see those things which, by reason of great distance, are hidden from other men. Another reason is, because Christ was promised to him peculiarly. This maxim was so common amongst the Jews, that they had ever now and then the son of David in their mouth, so often as there was any mention made of Christ. They be no such arguments, I confess, as do necessarily prove that this prophecy is to be expounded of Christ; neither was that Peter’s intent and purpose; but first he meant to prevent the contrary objection, whence David had such skill to foretell a thing which was unknown. Therefore he saith, That he knew Christ, both by prophetical revelation, and also by singular promise. Furthermore, this principle was of great (Rom 10:4) force amongst the better-minded sort which Paul setteth down, that Christ is the end of the law. (122) No man, therefore, did doubt of this, but that this was the mark whereat all the prophets did aim, to lead the godly unto Christ as it were by the hand. Therefore, what notable or extraordinary thing soever they did utter, the Jews were commonly persuaded that it did agree with Christ. Furthermore, we must note, that Peter doth reason soundly, when he gathered that David was not ignorant of that which was the chiefest point of all revelations.
He had sworn with an oath God swore not only to the end he might make David believe his promise, but also that the thing promised might be had in greater estimation. And to this end, in my judgment, it is here repeated, that the Jews may think with themselves of what great weight the promise was, which God did make so notable (and so famous.) The same admonition is profitable for us also. For we need not to doubt of this, but that the Lord meant to set forth the excellency of the covenant by putting in a solemn oath. In the mean season, this is also a fit remedy for the infirmity of our faith, that the sacred name of God is set forth unto us, (123) that his words may carry the greater credit. These words, “according to the flesh,” do declare that there was some more noble thing in Christ than the flesh. Therefore Christ did so come of the seed of David as he was man, that he doth nevertheless, retain his divinity; and so the distinction between the two natures is plainly expressed; when as Christ is called the Son of God, according to his eternal essence, in like sort as he is called the seed of David according to the flesh.
(121) “Specula,” watch tower.
(122) “Hoc principium quod Paulus tradit Christum esse finem legis,” etc., this principle which Paul delivers, viz., that Christ was the end of the law, was of great force, etc.
(123) “Pignoris instar,” like a pledge, omitted.
32. This Jesus After that he had proved by the testimony of David, that it was most requisite that Christ should rise again, he saith, that he and the rest of his fellows were such witnesses as saw him with their eyes after his resurrection. For this text (124) will not suffer this word raised up to be drawn into any other sense. Whereupon it followeth that that was fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth which David did foreshow concerning Christ. After that he intreateth of the fruit or effect. For it was requisite for him to declare that first, that Christ is alive. Otherwise it had been an absurd and incredible thing that he should be the author of so great a miracle. Notwithstanding he doth therewithal teach us, that he did not rise for his own sake alone, but that he might make the whole Church partaker of his life, having poured out the Spirit.
(124) “Contextus,” context.
33. He being therefore exalted by the right hand of God The right hand is taken in this place for the hand or power, in like sort as it is taken everywhere in the Scripture. For this is his drift, to declare that it was a wonderful work of God, in that he had exalted his Christ (whom men thought to be quite destroyed by death) unto so great glory.
The promise of the Spirit for the Spirit which was promised. For he had oftentimes before promised the Spirit to his apostles. Therefore Peter doth signify, that Christ had obtained power of God the Father to fulfill the same. And he maketh mention of the promise in plain words, to the end the Jews may know that this came not to pass suddenly, but that the words of the prophet were now verified, which went long time before the thing itself.
Furthermore, whereas it is said that he obtained it of the Father, it is to be applied to the person of the Mediator. For both these are truly said, that Christ sent the Spirit from himself and from the Father. He sent him from himself, because he is eternal God; from the Father, because in as much as he is man, he receiveth that of the Father which he giveth us. And Peter speaketh wisely according to the capacity of the ignorant, lest any man should move a question out of season concerning the power of Christ. And surely forasmuch as it is the office of Christ to direct us unto his Father, this is a most apt form of speaking for the use of godliness, that Christ being placed, as it were, in the midst between God and us, doth deliver unto us with his own hand those gifts which he hath received at the hands of his Father. Furthermore, we must note this order that he saith, that the Spirit was sent by Christ after that he was exalted. This agreeth with those sentences:
“The Spirit was not yet given,
because Christ was not yet glorified,”
(Joh 7:39.)
And again,
“Unless I go hence, the Spirit will not come,”
(Joh 16:7.)
Not because the Spirit began then first to be given, wherewith the holy fathers were endued since the beginning of the world; but because God did defer this more plentiful abundance of grace, until such time as he had placed Christ in his princely seat; which is signified by this word poured out, as we saw a little before. For by this means the force and fruit of Christ his death and resurrection is sealed; and we do also thereby know, that we have lost nothing by Christ his departing out of the world; because, though he be absent in body, yet is he present with us after a better sort, to wit, by the grace of his Holy Spirit.
34. For doubtless David Although they might easily gather by the very effect which they saw with their eyes, that the principality was granted and given to Christ, yet to the end his glory may carry the greater credit, he proveth, by David his testimony, that it was so appointed in times past by God, that Christ should be lifted up unto the highest degree of honor. For these words, to “sit at the right hand of God,” import as much as to bear the chief rule, as we shall afterward more at large declare. Yet before he reciteth the prophecy, he saith that it agreeth only to Christ. Therefore, to the end the sense may be more manifest, the sentence must thus run. David pronounceth that it was decreed by God that a king should sit at his right hand. But this doth not appertain unto David, who was never extolled unto so great dignity. Therefore lie speaketh this of Christ. Furthermore, that ought to have seemed no strange thing unto the Jews which was foretold by the oracle of the Holy Ghost. Hereby it appeareth in what sense Peter denieth that David ascended into heaven. He intreateth not in this place of the soul of David, whether it were received into blessed rest, and the heavenly dwelling or no; but the ascending into heaven comprehendeth under it those things which Paul teacheth in the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Eph 4:9), where he placeth Christ above all heavens, that he may fulfill all things. Wherefore the disputation concerning the estate of the dead is altogether superfluous in this place. For Peter goeth about to prove no other thing but this, that the prophecy concerning the sitting at the right hand of God was not fulfilled in David, and that, therefore, the truth thereof must be sought elsewhere. And forasmuch as it can be found nowhere else save only in Jesus Christ, it resteth that the Jews (125) do know that that is showed to them in Christ which was foretold them so long before. That is true, indeed, that David reigned, God being the author hereof, and, in some respect, he was God’s vicegerent; yet not so that he might be above all creatures. Wherefore, this sitting agreeth to none, unless he excel and be above all the whole world.
The Lord said unto my Lord. This is the most lawful manner of ruling, when as the king (or by what other title soever he be called) doth know that he is ordained of God, therefore David pronounceth that the commandment to reign was given unto Christ by name, (Psa 110:1.) As if he should say, He took not the honor to himself rashly, but did only obey God when he commanded him, (Heb 5:5.) Now must we see whether Peter’s reason be sound enough or no. He gathereth that the words concern Christ, because the sitting at the right hand of God doth not agree to David. It seemeth that this may be refuted, because David did reign by the peculiar commandment, name, and help of God; which is to sit at the right hand of God. But Peter taketh that for a thing which all men grant, which is true, and which I have already touched, that a greater and more royal government is here spoken of than that which David did enjoy. For howsoever he was God’s vicegerent and did, as it were, represent his person in reigning, yet is this power far inferior to that, to sit even at the right side of God. For this is attributed to Christ, because he is placed above all principality, and above every name that is named, both in this world, and in the world to come, (Eph 1:21.) Seeing that David is far inferior to the angels, he doth possess no such place that he should be counted next to God. For he must ascend far above all heavens, that he may come to the right hand of God. Wherefore no man is said to sit at it, rightly and properly, save only he which doth surpass all creatures in the degree of honor. As for him which is resident amongst the creatures, although he be reckoned in the order of angels, yet is he far from that highness. Again, we must not seek the right hand of God amongst the creatures; but it doth also surpass all heavenly principalities.
Furthermore, there is great weight even in the sentence itself. The king is commanded to bear the chiefest rule, until God have put all his enemies under his feet. Surely, although I grant that; he name of such an honorable sitting may be applied unto earthly lordship: yet do I deny that David did reign until such time as all his enemies were subdued. For we do hereby gather that the kingdom of Christ is eternal. But the kingdom of David was not only temporal, but also frail, and of a small continuance.
Moreover, when David died, he left many enemies alive here and there he got many notable victories, but he was far from subduing all his enemies. He made many of those people which were round about him tributaries to him; some did he put to flight and destroyed; but what is all this unto all? Finally, we may prove by the whole text of the Psalm, that there can nothing else be understood save only the kingdom of Christ. That I may pass over other things: that which is here spoken touching the eternal priesthood is too far disagreeing from David’s person. I know that the Jews do prattle, that kings’ sons are called elsewhere cohenim. But he intreateth here of the priesthood as it is ascribed by Moses to the king Melchizedek. And there is established by a solemn oath a certain new kind of priesthood. And, therefore, we must not here imagine any common or ordinary thing. But it had been wickedness for David to thrust himself into any part of the priest’s office. How should he then be called cohen, greater than Aaron, and consecrated of God for ever? But because I do not intend at this present to expound the whole Psalm, let this reason suffice which Peter bringeth: That he is made Lord of heaven and earth, which sitteth at the right hand of God. As touching the second member of the verse, read those things which I have noted upon the fifteenth chapter (1. o 15:25) of the former Epistle to the Corinthians, concerning the putting of his enemies under his feet.
(125) “Prophetia admoniti,” admonished by prophecy, omitted.
36. Therefore, let all the house of Israel know The house of Israel did confess that that Christ should come which was promised; yet did they not know Who it was. Therefore, Peter concludeth, that Jesus: whom they had so spitefully handled, yea, whose name they did so greatly detest: is he whom they ought to acknowledge to be their Lord, and whom they ought to reverence. For, (saith he,) God hath made him Lord and Christ; that is, you must look for none other than him whom God hath made and given. Furthermore, he saith, That he was made, because God the Father gave him this honor. He joineth the title Lord with the word Christ, because it was a common thing among the Jews, that the Redeemer should be anointed upon this condition, that he might be the Head of the Church, and that the chiefest power over all things might be given him. He speaketh unto the whole house of Israel; as if he should say, Whosoever will be reckoned among the sons of Jacob, and do also look for the promise, let them know for a surety, that this is he and none other. He useth the wordhouse, because God had separated that name and family from all other people. And he saith ασφαλως, or for a surety, not only that they may repose their sure confidence and trust in Christ, but that he may take away all occasion of doubting from those which do oftentimes willingly doubt even of matters which are certain and sure. In the end of his oration he upbraideth unto them again, that they did crucify him, that being touched with greater grief of conscience, they may desire remedy.
And now, forasmuch as they know that Jesus is the Anointed of the Lord, the governor of the Church, and the giver of the Holy Ghost, the accusation hath so much the more force. For the putting of him to death was not only full of cruelty and wickedness, but also a testimony of outrageous disloyalty against God, of sacrilege and unthankfulness, and, finally, of apostasy. But it was requisite that they should be so wounded, lest they should have been slow to seek for medicine. And yet, notwithstanding, they did not crucify him with their own hands; but this is more than sufficient to make them guilty, in that they desired to have him put to death. And we also are accused by this same voice, if we crucify him in ourselves, being already glorified in heaven, making a mock of him, as saith the Apostle, (Heb 6:6.)
37. They were pricked in heart. Luke doth now declare the fruit of the sermon, to the end we may know that the power of the Holy Ghost was not only showed forth in the diversity of tongues, but also in their hearts which heard. And he noteth a double fruit; first, that they were touched with the feeling of sorrow; and, secondly, that they were obedient to Peter’s counsel. This is the beginning of repentance, this is the entrance unto godliness, to be sorry for our sins, and to be wounded with the feeling of our miseries. For so long as men are careless, they cannot take such heed unto doctrine as they ought. And for this cause the word of God is compared to a sword, (Heb 4:12,) because it doth mortify our flesh, that we may be offered to God for a sacrifice. But there must be added unto this pricking in heart readiness to obey. Cain and Judas were pricked in heart, but despair did keep them back from submitting themselves unto God, (Gen 4:13; Mat 27:3.) For the mind being oppressed with horror, can do nothing else but flee from God. And surely when David affirmeth that a contrite spirit and an humble heart is a sacrifice acceptable to God, he speaketh of voluntary pricking; forasmuch as there is fretting and fuming mixed with the prickings of the wicked. Therefore, we must take a good heart to us, and lift up our mind with this hope of salvation, that we may be ready to addict and give over ourselves unto God, and to follow whatsoever he shall command. We see many oftentimes pricked, who, notwithstanding, do fret and murmur, or else forwardly strive and struggle, and so, consequently, go furiously mad. Yea, this is the cause why they go mad, because they feel such prickings against their will. Those men, therefore, are profitably pricked alone who are willingly sorrowful, and do also seek some remedy at God’s hands.
38. Peter said Hereby we see that those do never go away empty which ask at the mouth of the Lord, and do offer themselves unto him to be ruled and taught; for that promise must needs be true, Knock, and it shall be opened unto you, (Mat 7:7.) Therefore, whosoever shall be rightly prepared to learn, the Lord will not suffer his godly desire to be in vain; for he is a most faithful master, so that he hath scholars which are apt to be taught and studious. Wherefore, there is no cause why he should fear, lest he suffer us to be destitute of sound counsel, if we be attentive and ready to hear him, and do not refuse to embrace whatsoever he shall teach us. And let us suffer ourselves to be governed by the counsel and authority of those men whom he offereth unto us to teach us, for this ready obedience cometh thence so suddenly in those which addict themselves unto the apostles, because they are persuaded that they are sent of God, to show them the way of salvation.
Repent. There is greater force in the Greek word, for it doth signify the conversion of the mind, that the whole man may be renewed and made another man, which thing must be diligently noted, because this doctrine was miserably corrupted in the time of Popery; for they translated the name of repentance almost unto certain external rites. They babble somewhat, indeed, about the reigned contrition of the heart; but they touch that part very slightly, and they stand principally upon the external exercises of the body, which were little worth; yea, though there were in them no corruption; but they urge nothing else in a manner but reigned trifles, wherewith men are wearied in vain. Wherefore, let us know that this is the true repentance, when a man is renewed in the spirit of his mind, as Paul teacheth, (Rom 12:2.) Neither need we to doubt of this; but that Peter did preach plainly of the force and nature of repentance; but Luke doth only touch the chief points, and doth not reckon up the words of the oration which he made. We must, therefore, know thus much, that Peter did at the first exhort the Jews unto repentance; and that done, he lifted them up with hope of pardon; for he promised them forgiveness of sins, which two things are the two parts of the gospel, as we know full well; and, therefore, when Christ will briefly teach what the doctrine of the gospel doth contain, he saith, that repentance and remission of sins (Luk 24:47) must be preached in his name. Furthermore, because we are reconciled unto God only by the intercession of Christ’s death, neither are our sins otherwise purged, (126) and done away, save only by his blood, therefore, Peter calleth us back unto him by name. He putteth baptism in the fourth place, as the seal whereby the promise of grace is confirmed.
Wherefore, we have in these few words almost the whole sum of Christianity, namely, how a man renouncing himself and taking his farewell of the world, may addict himself wholly to God; secondly, How he may be delivered by free forgiveness of sins, and so adopted into the number of the children of God. And forasmuch as we can obtain none of all these things without Christ, the name of Christ is therewithal set forth unto us, as the only foundation of faith and repentance. And we must also note this, that we do so begin repentance when we are turned unto God, that we must prosecute the same during our life; therefore, this sermon must continually sound in the Church, repent, (Mar 1:15;) not that those men may begin the same, who will be counted faithful, and have a place already in the Church; but that they may go forward in the same; although many do usurp the name of faithful men, which had never any beginning of repentance. Wherefore, we must observe this order in teaching, that those which do yet live unto the world and the flesh may begin to crucify the old man, that they may rise unto newness of life, and that those who are already entered the course of repentance may continually go forward towards the mark. Furthermore, because the inward conversion of the heart ought to bring forth fruits in the life, repentance cannot be rightly taught unless works be required, not those frivolous works which are only in estimation amongst the Papists, but such as are sound testimonies of innocence and holiness.
Be baptized every one of you. Although in the text and order of the words, baptism doth here go before remission of sins, yet doth it follow it in order, because it is nothing else but a sealing of those good things which we have by Christ that they may be established in our consciences; therefore, after that Peter had intreated of repentance, he calleth the Jews unto the hope of grace and salvation; and, therefore, Luke well afterwards, in Paul’s sermon, joineth faith and repentance together in the same sense, wherein he putteth forgiveness of sins in this place, and that for good considerations; for the hope of salvation consisteth in the free imputation of righteousness; and we are counted just, freely before God, when he forgiveth us our sins. And as I said before, that the doctrine of repentance hath a daily use in the Church so must we think of the forgiveness of sins, that the same is continually offered unto us; and surely it is no less necessary for us during the whole course of our life, than at our first entrance into the Church, so that it should profit us nothing to be once received into favor by God, unless this embassage should have a continual course; be-reconciled unto God, because
“he which knew no sin was made sin for us, that we might be the righteousness of God in him,”
(2. o 5:20.)
Moreover, the Papists do so corrupt this other part of the gospel, that they quite exclude the remission of sins, which was to be obtained by Christ. They confess their sins are freely forgiven in baptism, but they will have them redeemed with satisfactions after baptism; and although they mix the grace of Christ together therewithal, yet because they inwrap the same in men’s merits, they do by this means overthrow the whole doctrine of the gospel; for, first, they take from men’s consciences the certainty of faith; that done, forasmuch as they part the forgiveness of sins between the death of Christ and our satisfactions, they do altogether deprive us of Christ’s benefit. For Christ doth not reconcile us unto God in part, but wholly, neither can we obtain remission of sins by him, unless it be whole and perfect. But the Papists are much deceived therein, who restrain baptism unto the nativity and former life, as if the signification and force thereof did not reach even unto death.
Let us know, therefore, that forgiveness of sins is grounded in Christ alone, and that we must not think upon any other satisfaction (127) save only that which he hath performed by the sacrifice of his death. And for this cause, as we have already said, doth Peter express his name, whereby he doth signify unto us, that none of all these things can be rightly taught, unless Christ be set in the midst, to the end the effect of this doctrine may be sought in him. That needeth no long exposition where he commandeth them to be baptized for the remission of sins; for although God hath once reconciled men unto himself in Christ” by not imputing unto them their sins,” (2. o 5:19,) and doth now imprint in our hearts the faith thereof by his Spirit; yet, notwithstanding, because baptism is the seal whereby he doth confirm unto us this benefit, and so, consequently, the earnest and pledge of our adoption, it is worthily said to be given us for the remission of sins. For because we receive Christ’s gifts by faith, and baptism is a help to confirm and increase our faith, remission of sins, which is an effect of faith, is annexed unto it as unto the inferior mean. Furthermore, we must not fetch the definition of baptism from this place, because Peter doth only touch a part thereof. Our old man is crucified by baptism, as Paul teacheth, that we may rise unto newness of life, (Rom 6:4.) And, again, we put on Christ himself, (1. o 12:0.) and the Scripture teacheth every where, that it is also a sign and token of repentance, (Gal 3:27.) But because Peter doth not intreat in thin place openly of the whole nature of baptism, but speaking of the forgiveness of sins, doth, by the way, declare that the confirmation thereof is in baptism, there doth no inconvenience follow, if ye do omit the other part. (128)
In the name of Christ. Although baptism be no vain figure, but a true and effectual testimony; notwithstanding, lest any man attribute that unto the element of water which is there offered, the name of Christ is plainly expressed, to the end we may know that it shall be a profitable sign for us then, if we seek the force and effect thereof in Christ, and know that we are, therefore, washed in baptism, because the blood of Christ is our washing; and we do also hereby gather, that Christ is, the mark and end whereunto baptism directeth us; wherefore, every one profiteth so much in baptism as he learneth to look unto Christ. But here ariseth a question, Whether it were lawful for Peter to change the form prescribed by Christ? The Papists do think, at least feign so, and thence do they take a color of liberty to change or abrogate the institutions of Christ. They confess that nothing ought to be changed, as touching the substance, but they will have the Church to have liberty to change whatsoever it will in the form. But this argument may easily be answered. For we must first know that Christ did not indite and rehearse unto his apostles magical words for enchanting, as the Papists do dream, but he did, in few words, comprehend the sum of the mystery. Again, I deny that Peter doth speak in this place of the form of baptism; but he doth simply declare that the whole strength (129) of baptism is contained in Christ; although Christ cannot be laid hold on by faith without the Father by whom he was given us, and the Spirit by the which he reneweth and sanctifieth us. The answer consisteth wholly in this, that he intreateth not in this place of the certain form of baptizing, but the faithful are called back unto Christ, in whom alone we have whatsoever baptism doth prefigure unto us; for we are both made clean by his blood, and also we enter into a new life by the benefit of his death and resurrection.
Ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. Because they were touched with wondering when they saw the apostles suddenly begin to speak with strange tongues, Peter saith that they shall be partakers of the same gift if they will pass over unto Christ. Remission of sins and newness of life were the principal things, and this was, as it were, an addition, that Christ should show forth unto them his power by some visible gift. Neither ought this place to be understood of the grace of sanctification, which is given generally to all the godly. Therefore he promiseth them the gift of the Spirit, whereof they saw a pattern in the diversity of tongues. Therefore this doth not properly appertain unto us. For because Christ meant to set forth the beginning of his kingdom with those miracles, they lasted but for a time; yet because the visible graces which the Lord did distribute to his did shoe, as it were in a glass, that Christ was the giver of the Spirit, therefore, that which Peter saith doth in some respect appertain unto all the whole Church: ye shall receive the gift of the Spirit. For although we do not receive it, that we may speak with tongues, that we may be prophets, that we may cure the sick, that we may work miracles; yet is it given us for a better use, that we may believe with the heart unto righteousness, that our tongues may be framed unto true confession, (Rom 10:10,) that we may pass from death to life, (Joh 5:24) that we, which are poor and empty, may be made rich, that we may withstand Satan and the world stoutly. Therefore, the grace of the Spirit shall always be annexed unto baptism, unless the let be in ourselves.
(126) “Expiantur,” expiated.
(127) “Expiatione,” expiation.
(128) “Nihil absurdi est si partem alteram praetereat,” there is no absurdity, there is nothing strange, in his omitting the other part.
(129) “Virtutem,” virtue or efficacy.
39. For the promise appertaineth unto you. It was requisite that this should be expressly added, that the Jews might certainly think and persuade themselves that the grace of Christ did belong as well to them as to the apostles. And Peter proveth it thus, because the promise of God was made unto them. For we must always look unto this, because [that] we cannot otherwise know the will of God save only by his word. But it is not sufficient to have the general word, unless we know that the same is appointed for us. Therefore Peter saith, that those benefits which they see in him and his fellows in office were in times past promised to the Jews; because this is required necessarily for the certainty of faith, that every one be fully persuaded of this, that he is comprehended in the number of those unto whom God speaketh. Finally, this is the rule of a true faith, when I am thus persuaded that salvation is mine, because that promise appertaineth unto me which offereth the same. And hereby we have also a greater confirmation, when as the promise is extended unto those who were before afar off. For God had made the covenant with the Jews, (Exo 4:22.) If the force and fruit thereof come also unto the Gentiles, there is no cause why the Jews should doubt of themselves, but that they shall find the promise of God firm and stable.
And we must note these three degrees, that the promise was first made to the Jews, and then to their children, and last of all, that it is also to be imparted to the Gentiles. We know the reason why the Jews are preferred before other people; for they are, as it were, the first begotten in God’s family, yea, they were then separated from other people by a singular privilege. Therefore Peter observeth a good order, when he giveth the Jews the pre-eminence. Whereas he adjoineth their children unto them, it dependeth upon the words of the promise: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee, (Gen 17:7,) where God doth reckon the children with the fathers in the grace of adoption.
This place, therefore, doth abundantly refute the manifest error of the Anabaptists, which will not have infants, which are the children of the faithful, to be baptized, as if they were not members of the Church. They espy a starting hole in the allegorical sense, (130) and they expound it thus, that by children are meant those which are spiritually begotten. But this gross impudency doth nothing help them. It is plain and evident that Peter spoke thus because God did adopt one nation peculiarly. And circumcision did declare that the right of adoption was common even unto infants. Therefore, even as God made his covenant with Isaac, being as yet unborn, because he was the seed of Abraham, so Peter teacheth, that all the children of the Jews are contained in the same covenant, because this promise is always in force, I will be the God of your seed.
And to those which are afar off. The Gentiles are named in the last place, which were before strangers. For those which refer it unto those Jews which were exiled afar off, (and driven) into far countries, they are greatly deceived. For he speaketh not in this place of the distance of place; but he noteth a difference between the Jews and the Gentiles, that they were first joined to God by reason of the covenant, and so, consequently, became of his family or household; but the Gentiles were banished from his kingdom. Paul useth the same speech in the second chapter to Ephesians, (Eph 2:11,) that the Gentiles, which were strangers from the promises, are now drawn near, through Jesus Christ, unto God. Because that Christ (the wall of separation being taken away) hath reconciled both (the Jews and Gentiles) unto the Father, and coming, he hath preached peace unto those which were nigh at hand, and which were afar off. Now we understand Peter’s meaning. For to the end he may amplify the grace of Christ, he doth so offer the same unto the Jews, that he saith the Gentiles are also partakers thereof. And therefore he useth this word call, as if he should say: Like as God hath gathered you together into one peculiar people heretofore by his voice, so the same voice shall sound everywhere, that those which are afar off may come and join themselves unto you, when as they shall be called by a new proclamation.
(130) “Effugium in allegorico sensu captant,” they attempt evasion by giving an allegorical meaning.
40. And with many Although in these things which we have had hitherto, Luke did not recite the words of St Peter, but did only briefly touch the chief points; notwithstanding he telleth us again in this place, that Peter did not use doctrine only, but did add the pricks of exhortations. And he expresseth plainly that tie stood much (131) hereupon. Whereas he saith, that he did exhort and beseech, he noteth therein his earnestness. For it was not so easy a matter for them by and by (132) to take their leave of those errors wherewith they were of late infected, and to shake off the government of the priests whereunto they were accustomed. Therefore it stood him upon to pull them violently out of this mire. The sum was this, that they should beware of that froward generation. For they could not be Christ’s unless they would depart from his professed enemies. The priests and scribes were then in great authority, and forasmuch as they did cover themselves under the visor [mask] of the Church, they did deceive the simple, this did hinder and keep back a great many from coming to Christ. Also some might waver, and other some might fall away from the right faith. Therefore Peter plainly declareth that they are a froward generation, howsoever they may boast of the title of the Church. For which cause he commandeth his hearers to separate themselves from them, lest they entangle themselves in their wicked and pestiferous fellowship. Whereas he saith, Be ye saved, he signifieth unto them that they shall surely perish if they couple themselves with such a plague. And surely experience doth teach us, how miserably those men are tossed to and fro who cannot discern the voice of their pastor from the voice of other men; (133) and again, what an hindrance softness and sluggishness is to a great many, whilst they desire to stand in a doubt. (134) Therefore he commandeth them to depart from the wicked if they will be saved. And this point of doctrine is not to be neglected. For it were not sufficient to have Christ set before us, unless we were also taught to flee those things which do lead us away from him. And it is the duty of a good shepherd to defend his sheep from the wolves. So at this day, to the end we may keep the people in the sincere doctrine of the gospel, we are ever now and then enforced to show and testify how much Papistry differeth from Christianity, and what a hurtful plague it is to be yoked with the unfaithful enemies of Christ. Neither ought Peter to be accused of railing, because he calleth the reverend 6. thers, who had the government of the Church (135) in their hands at that day, a froward generation For those dangers which may draw the soul unto destruction are to be showed by their names. For men will not beware of poison, unless they know that it is poison.
(131) “Multum institisse.” insisted much.
(132) “Protinus,” forthwith.
(133) “Alienorum,” of strangers or aliens.
(134) “Medii stare,” to hold a middle course, remain undecided.
(135) “Ordinarium Ecclesiae regimen,” the ordinary government of the Church.
41. They, therefore, which willingly. Luke showeth more plainly how fruitful this one sermon which Peter made was: to wit, that it gained unto Christ about three thousand men. And therewithal he declareth the nature and force of faith when he saith, that with a prompt and ready (136) mind they embraced his word. Therefore, faith must begin with this readiness and willing desire to obey. And because many do show themselves at the first very willing, who afterward have in themselves no constancy or continuance, lest we should think that it was some sudden pang (137) which by and by fell away, Luke doth also afterward commend their constancy, who (as he said) did willingly embrace this word of the apostles, showing that they were joined unto the disciples, or that they were engrafted into the same body, and that they continued in their doctrine. Therefore we must neither be slow to obey, nor yet swift to leap back; but we must stick fast, and stand stoutly to that doctrine which we did forthwith (without any tarriance [delay]) embrace. Furthermore, this example ought to make us not a little ashamed. For whereas there was a great multitude converted unto Christ with one sermon, an hundred sermons can scarce move a few of us; and whereas Luke saith that they continued, there is scarce one amongst ten that doth show even a mean desire to profit and go forward, yea, rather, the more part doth soon loathe our doctrine. Woe be, therefore, to the sluggishness and lightness of the world!
(136) “Ililari,” cheerful.
(137) “Impetum,” impulse.
42. In their doctrine Luke doth not only commend in them the constancy of faith or of godliness, but he saith, also, that they did constantly give themselves to those exercises which serve to the confirmation of faith; to wit, that they studied continually to profit by hearing the apostles; that they gave themselves much to prayer; that they did use fellowship and breaking of bread very much.
As touching prayer and doctrine the sense is plain. Communication or fellowship, and breaking of bread, may be taken diversely. Some think that breaking of bread doth signify the Lord’s Supper; other some do think that it signifieth alms; other some that the faithful did banquet together (138) among themselves. Some do think that κοινωνια, doth signify the celebrating of the Holy Supper; but I do rather agree to those others who think that the same is meant by the breaking of bread. For κοινωνια, unless it have somewhat added unto it, is never found in this sense; therefore, I do rather refer it unto mutual society and fellowship, unto alms, and unto other duties of brotherly fellowship. And my reason why I would rather have breaking of bread to be understood of the Lord’s Supper in this place is this, because Luke doth reckon up those things wherein the public estate of the Church is contained. Yea, he expresseth in this place four marks whereby the true and natural face of the Church may be judged. Do we then seek the true Church of Christ? The image thereof is lively depainted and set forth (139) unto us in this place. And he beginneth with doctrine which is, as it were, the soul of the Church. Neither doth he name all manner of doctrine, but the doctrine of the apostles, that is, that which the Son of God had delivered by their hands. Therefore, wheresoever the pure voice of the gospel doth sound, where men continue in the profession thereof, where they exercise themselves in hearing the same ordinarily that they may profit, without all doubt there is the Church.
Hereby we may easily gather how frivolous the boasting of the Papists is, whilst that they carelessly (140) thunder out with fall mouth the name of the Church; whereas, notwithstanding, they have most filthily corrupted the doctrine of the apostles. For if it be duly examined, we shall find no sound part at all; and in most points they do as much dissent from the same, and have as little agreement therewith as light with darkness. The rule of worshipping God, which ought to be fetched out of the pure Word of God alone, is only made and patched together (141) amongst the Papists, of the superstitious inventions of men. They have translated unto the merits of works the hope of salvation, which ought to have rested in Christ alone. The invocation of God is altogether polluted with innumerable profane dotings of men. Finally, whatsoever is heard amongst them, it is either a deforming of the apostles’ doctrine, or else a clear overthrowing (and destroying) of the same. Therefore, we may as easily refute the foolish arrogancy of the Papists, as they can cloak their dealings with the title of the Church. For this shall be the state, (142) whether they have retained the purity of doctrine, from which they are as far as hell is from heaven. But they are wise enough in that point, because they will have no controversy moved about doctrine. But we, as I have said, may freely contemn that vain visor, [mask,] forasmuch as the Spirit of God doth pronounce that the Church is principally to be (esteemed and) discerned by this mark, if the simplicity or purity of the doctrine delivered by the apostles do flourish (and be of force) in the same.
In fellowship. This member and the last do flow from the first, as fruits or effects. For doctrine is the bond of brotherly fellowship amongst us, and doth also set open unto us the gate unto God, that we may call upon him. And the Supper is added unto doctrine instead of a confirmation. Wherefore, Luke doth not in vain reckon up these four things, when as he will describe unto us the well-ordered state of the Church. And we must endeavor to keep and observe this order, if we will be truly judged to be the Church before God and the angels, and not only to make boast of the name (143) thereof amongst men. It is certain that he speaketh of public prayer. And for this cause it is not sufficient for men to make their prayers at home by themselves, unless they meet altogether to pray; wherein consisteth also the profession of faith.
(138) “Communiter,” in common.
(139) “Ad vivum depicta,” painted to the life.
(140) “Secure,” confidently.
(141) “Conflata est,” compounded.
(142) “Hic enim erit status,” for the state (of the question) shall be.
(143) “Inane...nomen,” the empty name.
43. And there came. He signifieth unto us that the show and sight of the Church was such, that it made others afraid which did not consent unto [its] doctrine; and that was done for the preserving and furthering of the Church. When there ariseth any seen all men set themselves stoutly against the same; and as novelty is odious, the Jews would never have suffered the Church of Christ to stand one minute of an hour, (144) unless the Lord had restrained them with fear as with a bridle. Furthermore, Luke noteth the manner of fear, that it was no such fear as bringeth men unto the obedience of Christ, but such as causeth men to stand in a doubt, and so, consequently, doth, as it were, so bind them hand and foot, (145) that they dare not hinder the Lord’s work. Like as there be some at this day who will willingly be ignorant of the gospel; or, at least, are so holden (146) with the cares of this world, that they cannot thoroughly join themselves unto Christ; and yet they are not so hard-hearted but that they confess that the truth is on our side; and, therefore, they rest, as it were, in the middle way, neither do they favor the cruelty of the wicked, because they are afraid to strive against God. And whereas he saith, Every soul, he speaketh thus by synecdoche. For it is certain that many did contemn the hand of God, and that other some were stricken with no great fear, but that they did furiously rage together against the Church. (147) But Luke’s meaning was this, that there appeared such power of God in the Church, that the people for the most part had not one word to say. (148)
And many wonders. This member serveth also to the showing of the cause. For the miracles served to make them afraid, together with other works of God, although this was not the only reason, but one of many, why they were afraid to set themselves against God, who was on that side, as they did gather by the miracles; whence we gather that they are not only profitable for this to bring men to God, (149) but also to make the wicked somewhat more gentle, and that they may tame their furiousness. Pharaoh was a man of desperate stubbornness, (Exo 8:8, etc. 19,) and yet we see how miracles do sometimes pierce his obstinate heart. He forgetteth them by and by; but when the hand of God is heavy upon him, he is compelled through fear to yield. To be brief, Luke teacheth that the Jews were by this means kept back, that the Church, which might easily have been destroyed, might have got up her head. (150) Which thing we have oftentimes tried (151) even in our time. And he doth not only declare that they were bridled with fear, lest they should be so bold as to attempt so much as they lusted to do hurt to the Church, but that they were also humbled with reverence to the glory of the gospel.
(144) “Momentum,” moment.
(145) “Sed qui suspensos tenet adeoque constrictos,” but which keeps them in suspense and restrained.
(146) “Impliciti,” entangled.
(147) “Alios nullo metu fuisse deterritos quin furiose adversus Ecclesiam saevirent,” that others were not deterred by any fear from raging against the Church.
(148) “Obmuteceret,” stood dumb.
(149) “In obsequium Dei,” into obedience to God.
(150) “Emergeret,” might emerge, or raise her head.
(151) “Subinde sumus experti,” have ever and anon experienced.
44. And all Whereas I have translated it joined together, it is word for word in St Luke, Into the same, or into one, which may be expounded of the place; as if he should have said that they were wont to dwell together in one place. Notwithstanding, I had rather understand it of their consent (and agreement;) as he will say in the fourth chapter, “That they had one heart,” (Act 4:32.) And so he goeth forward orderly, when, as he beginneth with their mind, he addeth afterward their bountifulness, as a fruit proceeding thence. Therefore, he giveth us to understand that they were rightly joined together with brotherly love amongst themselves, and that they did indeed declare the same, because the rich men did sell their goods that they might help the poor. And this is a singular example of love, and therefore doth Luke record the same, to the end we may know that we must relieve the poverty of our brethren with our plenty.
But this place hath need of a sound exposition, because of fantastical [fanatical] spirits, which do feign a commonalty or participation together of goods, whereby all policy or civil government is taken away; as in this age the Anabaptists have raged, because they thought there was no Church unless all men’s goods were put and gathered together, as it were, in one heap, that they might all one with another take thereof. Wherefore, we must in this point beware of two extremes. For many, under color of policy, do keep close and conceal whatsoever they have; they defraud the poor, and they think that they are twice righteous, so they take away no other men’s goods. Other some are carried into the contrary error, because they would have all things confused. But what doth Luke? Surely he noteth another order, when he saith that there was choice made in the distribution. If any man object that no man had any thing which was his own, seeing all things were common, we may easily answer. For this community or participation together must be restrained unto the circumstance which ensueth immediately; to wit, that the poor might be relieved as every man had need. We know the old proverb, “All things are common amongst friends.” When as the scholars of Pythagoras said thus, they did not deny but that every man might govern his own house privately, neither did they intend to make their own wives common; so this having of things common, whereof Luke speaketh, and which he commendeth, doth not take away household government; which thing shall better appear by the fourth chapter, whereas he nameth two alone which sold their possessions of so many thousands. Whence we gather that which I said even now, that they brought forth and made common their goods in no other respect, save only that they might relieve the present necessity. And the impudency of the monks was ridiculous, who did profess that they did observe the apostles’ rule, because they call nothing their own; and yet, nevertheless, they neither sell any thing, neither yet do they pass for any man’s poverty; (152) but they stuff their idle bellies with the blood of the poor, neither do they regard any other thing in their having of things common, save only that they may be well filled and daintily, although all the whole world be hungry. Wherein, then, are they like to the first disciples, with whom they will be thought to be able to compare? (153)
(152) “Nec solliciti sunt si quisquam egeat,” nor are solicitous if any man want.
(153) “Quorum aemuli haberi volunt,” whose rivals they would be thought.
46. Continuing in the temple We must note that they did frequent the temple for this cause, because there was more opportunity and occasion offered there to further the gospel. Neither were they drawn with the holiness of the place, seeing they knew that the shadows of the law were ceased; neither meant they to draw others by their example to have the temple in any such reverence; (154) but because there was there great concourse of people, who having laid aside their private cares, wherewith they had been drawn away elsewhere, (155) did seek the Lord; they were continually in the temple, that they might gain such unto Christ. There might be another reason which might induce them hereunto, that they might have a mutual conference and imparting of doctrine amongst themselves, which they could not have done so conveniently in a private house, especially seeing they were so, many.
Breaking bread from house to house. Luke signifieth unto us, that they did not only show some token of true godliness publicly, but that the course and tenor of their private life was alone in that respect. For whereas some do think that in this place, by breaking of bread is meant the Holy Supper, it seemeth to me that Luke meant no such thing. He signifieth, therefore, unto us, that they used to eat together, and that thriftily. (156) For those which make sumptuous banquets do not eat their meat together so familiarly. Again, Luke addeth, in singleness of heart; which is also a token of temperance. In sum, his meaning is to declare, that their manner of living was brotherly and sober. Some do join simplicity and gladness with the praise of God; and both texts may well be allowed. (157) But because there can be no singleness of heart in praising God, unless the stone be also in all parts of the life, therefore it is certain, that there is mention made thereof in this sense, that the faithful did always use the same in all places. (158) And we must also note the circumstance of time, that, being environed and beset with many dangers, they were merry and joyful. The knowledge of God’s love toward us, and the hope of his protection, do bring us this goodness with them, that we praise God with quiet minds, whatsoever the world doth threaten. And as Luke spoke a little before of the public estate of the Church, so he declareth now what form and manner of life the faithful did use; that we may learn by their example a thrifty fellowship in our manner of living, and in all our whole life to embrace singleness, to enjoy the spiritual joy, and to exercise ourselves in the praises of God. Furthermore, the singleness of heart reacheth far; but if you join it in this place with breaking of bread, it shall signify as much as sincere love, where one man dealeth plainly with another, neither doth any man craftily hunt after his own profit. Yet had I rather set the same against that carefulness, wherewith worldly men (159) do too much torment themselves. For when as we do not cast our care upon the Lord, this reward hangeth over our heads, that we tremble and quake even when we take our rest.
(154) “Ad templi cultum,” to worship the temple.
(155) “Quibus alibi magis distracti fuissent,” with which elsewhere they might have been more distracted.
(156) “Frugaliter,” frugally.
(157) “Et probabilis est uterque contextus,” and the context makes this probable.
(158) “Eam ubique coluerunt,” did cultivate it everywhere.
(159) “Providi homines,” the provident, or over careful.
47. Having favor. This is the fruit of an innocent life, to find favor even amongst strangers. And yet we need not to doubt of this, but that they were hated of many. But although he speak generally of the people, yet he meaneth that part alone which was sound, neither yet infected with any poison of hatred; he signifieth briefly, that the faithful did so behave themselves, that the people did full well like of them for their innocency of life. (160)
The Lord added daily. He showeth in these words that their diligence was not without profit; they studied so much as in them lay to gather into the Lord’s sheepfold those which wandered and went astray. He saith that their labor bestowed herein was not lost; because the Lord did increase his Church daily. And surely, whereas the Church is rather diminished than increased, that is to be imputed to our slothfulness, or rather forwardness. (161) And although they did all of them stoutly labor to increase the kingdom of Christ, yet Luke ascribeth (162) this honor to God alone, that he brought strangers into the Church. And surely this is his own proper work. For the ministers do no good by planting or watering, unless he make their labor effectual by the power of his Spirit, (1. o 3:0.) Furthermore, we must note that he saith, that those were gathered unto the Church which should be saved. For he teacheth that this is the means to attain salvation, if we be incorporate into the Church. For like as there is no remission of sins, so neither is there any hope of salvation. (163) Furthermore, this is an excellent comfort for all the godly, that they were received into the Church that they might be saved; as the Gospel is called the power of God unto salvation to all that believe, (Rom 1:16.) Now, forasmuch as God doth gather only a part, or a certain number, this grace is restrained unto election, that it may be the first cause of our salvation.
(160) “Populo grati atque probati essent,” that they were agreeable to, and approved by, the people.
(161) “Praxitati,” wickedness.
(162) “Vendicat,” claimeth.
(163) “Extra eam,” out of it, (the Church,) omitted.
