ΠΡΆΞΕΙς ΤῶΝ ἈΠΟΣΤΌΛΩΝ

B, Lachm. Tisch. have πράξεις ἀποστόλων. So also Born. Later enlargements of the title in codd.: Λουκᾷ εὐαγγελιστοῦ πράξεις ἀποστόλων, al. αἱ πράξεις τῶν ἁγίων ἀποστόλων. Peculiar to D; πρᾶξις ἀποστόλων. א has merely πράξεις, but at the close πράξεις ἀποστόλων.

The codex D is particularly rich in additions, emendations, and the like, which Bornemann has recently defended as the original text. Matth. ed. min. p. 1 well remarks: “Hic liber (the Book of Acts) in re critica est difficillimus et impeditissimus, quod multa in eo turbata sunt. Sed corruptiones versionum Syrarum, Bedae et scribae codicis D omnem modum excedunt.” Tisch. justly calls the proceeding of Bornemann, “monstruosam quandam ac perversam novitatem.”

CHAPTER 1

Acts 1:4. συναλιζόμενος-g0-] min. Euseb. Epiph. have συναυλιζόμενος. Recommended by Wetst. and Griesb. D has συναλισκόμενος μετʼ αὐτῶν. Both are ineptly explanatory alterations.

Acts 1:5. The order: ἐν πνεύμ. βαπτ. ἁγίῳ, adopted by Lachm., is not sufficiently attested by B א* against A C E min. VSS. Or. al.

Acts 1:6. ἐτηρώτων] Lachm. Tisch. read ἠρώτων, according to A B C* א, the weight of which, considering the frequency of both words in Luke, prevails.

Acts 1:8. μοι] Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. read μου, decisively attested by A B C D א Or.

Instead of πάσῃ, Elz. Griesb. Scholz read ἐν πάσῃ. But ἐν is wanting in A C* D min. Copt. Sahid. Or. Hilar. Inserted in accordance with the preceding.

Acts 1:10. ἐσθῆτι λευκῇ] A B C א min. Syr. Copt. Arm. Vulg. Eus. have ἐσθήσεσι λευκαῖς. Adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. The Rec. is the usual expression. Comp. on Luke 24:4.

Acts 1:13. Lachm. Tisch. Bornem. have the order Ἰωάννης κ. Ἰάκωβος, which is supported by A B C D א min. VSS., also Vulg. and Fathers. The Rec. is according to Luke 6:14.

Acts 1:14. After προσευκῃ Elz. has καὶ τῇ δεήσει, which, on decisive, testimony, has been omitted by modern critics since Griesbach. A strengthening addition.

Acts 1:15. μαθητῶν] A B C* א min. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Arm. Vulg. Aug. have ἀδελφῶν: recommended by Griesb., and rightly adopted by Lach. and Tisch.; the Rec. is an interpretation of ἀδελφ., here occurring for the first time in Acts, in the sense of μαθητ.

Acts 1:16. ταύτην is wanting in A B C* א min. and several VSS. and Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission occurred because no express passage of Scripture immediately follows.

Ver 17. σύν] Griesb. Scholz, Lachm. Tisch. Born, read ἐν according to decisive testimony; σύν is an interpretation.

Acts 1:19. Ἀκελδαμά] There are different modes of writing this word in the critical authorities and witnesses. Lachm. and Tisch. read Ἀκελδαμάχ according to A B; Born. Ἁκελδαιμάχ according to D; א has Ἀχελθαμάχ.

Acts 1:20. λάβοι] Lachm. Tisch. and Born. read λαβέτω according to A B C D א Eus. Chrys; λάβοι was introduced from the LXX.

Acts 1:24. ὅν ἐξελ. ἐκ τούτ. τῶν δύο ἕνα] Elz. has ἐκ τούτ. τῶν δύο ἕνα ὅν ἐξελ., in opposition to greatly preponderating testimony. A transposition for the sake of perspicuity.

Acts 1:25. τὸν κλῆρον] A B C* D (τόπ. τόν) Copt. Sahid. Vulg. Cant. Procop. Aug. read τὸν τόπον. Adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. (τόπον τόν). Rightly; the Rec. is a gloss according to Acts 1:17.

ἀφʼ ἧς] Elz. Scholz read ἐξ ἧς. The former has preponderating testimony.

Acts 1:26. αὐτῶν] A B C D** א. Min. VSS. have αὐτοῖς. So Lachm. and Tisch. The dative not being understood gave place to the genitive. Others left out the pronoun entirely (Syr. Erp.).

Acts 1:1. Τὸν μὲν πρῶτον λόγον ἐποιησ.] Luke calls his Gospel the first history, inasmuch as he is now about to compose a second. πρῶτος, in the sense of πρότερος. See on John 1:15. λόγος, narrative, history, or the like, what is contained in a book. So in Xen. Ages. 10. 3, Anab. iii. 1. 1, and frequently. See also Schweigh. Lex. Herod. II. p. 76; Creuzer Symbol. I. p. 44 ff. As to ποιεῖν used of mental products, comp. Plat. Phaed. p. 61 B: ποιεῖν μύθονς, ἀλλʼ οὐ λόγους. Hence λογοποιός = ἱστορικός. Pearson, ad Moer. p. 244. μέν, without a subsequent δέ. Luke has broken off the construction. Instead of continuing after Acts 1:2 somewhat as follows: “but this δεύτερος λόγος is to contain the further course of events after the Ascension,”—which thought he had before his mind in the μέν, Acts 1:1,—he allows himself to be led by the mention of the apostles in the protasis to suppress the apodosis, and to pass on at once to the commencement of the history itself. Comp. Winer, p. 535 [E. T. 720]; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 313 [E. T. 365]; Kühner, ad Xen. Anab. i. 2.1; Baeuml. Partik. p. 163 f.

περὶ πάντων] a popular expression of completeness, and therefore not to be pressed.

ὧν ἤρξατο κ.τ.λ.] ὧν is attracted, equivalent to ἅ; and, setting aside the erroneous assertion that ἤρξατο ποιεῖν is equivalent to ἐποίησε (Grotius, Calovius, Valckenaer, Kuinoel), it is usually explained: “what Jesus began to do and to teach (and continued) until the day,” etc., as if Luke had written: ὧν ἀρξάμενος Ἰησοῦς ἐποίησε κ. ἐδίδαξεν ἄχρι κ.τ.λ. Comp. Acts 11:4; Plat. Legg. vii. p. 807 D; Xen. Anab. vi. 4. 1; Lucian, Somm. 15; also Luke 23:5; Luke 24:27; Luke 24:47; Acts 1:22; Acts 8:35; Acts 10:37. So also Winer, p. 577 [E. T. 775]; Buttm. p. 320 [E. T. 374]; Lekebusch, p. 202 f.[96] But Luke has not so written, and it is arbitrary thus to explain his words. Baumgarten, after Olshausen and Schneckenburger, has maintained that ἤρξατο denotes the whole work of Jesus up to His ascension as initial and preparatory, so that this second book is conceived as the continuation of that doing and teaching which was only begun by Jesus up to His ascension; as if Luke had written ἤρξατο ποιῶν τε καὶ διδάσκων (as Xen. Cyr. viii. 8 2 : ἄρξομαι διδάσκων, I shall begin my teaching, Plat. Theaet. p. 187 A, Menex. p. 237 A; comp. Krüger, § 56. 5, A. 1). In point of fact, ἤρξατο is inserted according to the very frequent custom of the Synoptists, by which that which is done or said is in a vivid and graphic manner denoted according to its moment of commencement. It thus here serves to recall to the recollection from the Gospel all the several incidents and events up to the ascension, in which Jesus had appeared as doer and teacher. The reader is supposed mentally to realize from the Gospel all the scenes in which he has seen Jesus come forward as acting and teaching,—a beginning of the Lord, which occurred in the most various instances and varied ways up to the day of His ascent. The emphasis, moreover, lies on ποιεῖν τε καὶ διδάσκειν, which comprehends the contents of the Gospel (comp. Papias in Eus. 3:39). It may, consequently, be paraphrased somewhat thus: “The first narrative I have composed of all that, by which Jesus exhibited His activity in doing and teaching during His earthly life up to His ascension.” ποιεῖν precedes, comp. Luke 24:19, because it was primarily the ἜΡΓΑ of Jesus that demonstrated His Messiahship, John 10:38; Acts 10:38.

[96] So also in substance Hackett, Commentary on the Original Text of the Acts of the Apostles, Boston, 1858, ed. 2.

Acts 1:2. Until the day on which He was taken up, after that He had commissioned by means of the Holy Spirit the apostles whom He had chosen, belonging to ὧν ἤρξατο κ.τ.λ.

ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας] a usual attraction, but to be explained as in Acts 1:22; Luke 1:20; Luke 17:27; Matthew 24:38.

ἐντειλάμενος] refers neither merely to the baptismal command, Matthew 28, nor merely to the injunction in Acts 1:4; but is to be left as general: having given them charges, “ut facere solent, qui ab amicis, vel etiam ex hoc mundo discedunt,” Beza.

διὰ πνεύμ. ἁγίου] belongs to ἐντειλ. τοῖς ἀποστ.: by means of the Holy Spirit, of which He was possessor (Luke 4:1; Luke 14:18; John 3:34; John 20:22), and by virtue of which He worked, as in general, so specially as regards His disciples (9:55). Yet it is not to be explained as: by communication of the Spirit (comp. Bengel), since this is not promised till afterwards; nor yet as: quae agere deberent per Spir. S. (Grot.), which the words cannot bear. Others (Syr. Ar. Aeth. Cyril, Augustine, Beza, Scaliger, Heumann, Kypke, Michaelis, Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, de Wette) connect διὰ πνεύμ. ἁγ. with οὓς ἐξελέξατο, quos per Sp. S. elegerat. But there thus would result a hyperbaton which, without any certain example in the N. T. (Winer, p. 517 [E. T. 696]; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 333 [E. T. 388]), would put a strong emphasis, and yet without any warrant in the context, on διὰ πν. ἁγίου (Plat. Apol. p. 19 D, al.; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 177 f.; and see on Romans 16:27).

οὓς ἐξελέξ.] is added with design and emphasis; it is the significant premiss to ἐντειλάμ, κ.τ.λ. (whom He had chosen to Himself); for the earlier ἐκλογή on the part of Jesus was a necessary preliminary to their receiving the ἐντολὴ διὰ πν. ἁγ.

ἀνελήφθη] Luke 9:51; Luke 24:51 (Elz.).

Acts 1:3. Οἷς καί] to whom also. To the foregoing οὓς ἐξελέξ., namely, there is attached a corresponding incident, through which the new intercourse, in which the ἐντειλάμενος κ.τ.λ. took place, is now set forth.

μετὰ τὸ παθεῖν αὐτόν] includes in it the death as the immediate result of the suffering (Acts 3:18, Acts 17:3, Acts 26:23; Hebrews 13:12).

διʼ ἡμέρ. τεσσαράκ.] He showed Himself to them throughout forty days, not continuously, but from time to time, which is sufficiently indicated as well known by the preceding ἐν πολλ. τεκμηρίοις.

τὰ περὶ τῆς βασ. τ. Θεοῦ] speaking to them that which related to the Messiah’s kingdom (which He would erect). The Catholics have taken occasion hence to assume that Jesus at this stage gave instructions concerning the hierarchy, the seven sacraments, and the like.

As to the variation of the narrative of the forty days from the narrative given in the Gospel, see on Luke 24:50 f. This diversity presupposes that a not inconsiderable interval occurred between the composition of the Gospel and that of Acts, during which the tradition of the forty days was formed or at least acquired currency. The purposely chosen ὀπτανόμενος, conspiciendum se praebens (comp. Tob 12:19; 1 Kings 8:8), corresponds to the changed corporeality of the Risen One (comp. the remark subjoined to Luke 24:51), but does not serve in the least degree to remove that discrepancy (in opposition to Baumgarten, p. 12), as if it presupposed that Jesus, on occasion of every appearance, quitted “the sphere of invisibility.” Comp. the ὤφθη in Luke 24:24; 1 Corinthians 15:5 ff.; comp. with John 20:17; Acts 1:21 f., Acts 10:41; Luke 24:42 f.

Acts 1:4. To the general description of the forty days’ intercourse is now added (by the simple καί, and), in particular, the description of the two last interviews, Acts 1:4 f. and Acts 1:6 ff., after which the ἀνελήφθη took place, Acts 1:9.

συναλιζόμ. παρήγγ. αὐτοῖς] while He ate with them, He commanded them. συναλιζόμ. is thus correctly understood by the VSS. (Vulg.: convescens), Chrysostom (τραπέζης κοινωνῶν), Theophylact, Oecumenius, Jerome, Beda, and others, including Casaubon.

συναλίζεσθαι (properly, to eat salt with one) in the sense of eating together, is found in a Greek translator of Psalm 141:4, where συναλισθῶ (LXX.: συνδυάσω) corresponds to the Hebrew אֶלְחַם, also in Clem. Hom. 6, and Maneth. v. 339. As to the thing itself, comp. on Acts 10:41. Usually the word is derived from συναλίζειν, to assemble (Herod. v. 15. 102; Xen. Anab. vii. 3. 48; Lucian, Luct. 7). It would then have to be rendered: when He assembled with them.[97] But against this it is decisive that the sense: when He had assembled with them, would be logically necessary, so that Luke must have written συναλισθείς. The conjecture of Hemsterhuis: συναλιζομένοις, is completely unnecessary, although approved by Valckenaer.

τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πατρός] see on Luke 24:49. Jesus means the promise κατʼ ἐξοχήν, given by God through the prophets of the O. T. (comp. Acts 2:16), which (i.e. the realization of which) they were to wait for (περιμένειν only here in the N. T., but often in the classics); it referred to the complete effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was to follow only after His exaltation. Comp. John 7:39; John 15:26; John 14:16. Already during their earthly intercourse the πνεῦμα ἃγ. was communicated by Jesus to the disciples partially and provisionally. Luke 9:55; John 20:21-22.

ἣν ἠκούσατέ μου] The oblique form of speech is changed, as frequently also in the classics (Stallb. ad Protag. pp. 322 C, 338 B, Kühner, § 850), with the increase of animation into the direct form, Luke 5:39, and elsewhere, particularly with Luke. See Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 330 [E. T. 385]. Bengel, moreover, aptly says: “Atque hic parallelismus ad arctissimum nexum pertinet utriusque libri Lucae,”—but not in so far as ἣν ἠκούσ. μου points back to Luke 24:49 as to an earlier utterance (the usual opinion), but in so far as Jesus here, shortly before His ascension, gives the same intimation which was also given by Him on the ascension day (Luke 24:49), directly before the ascent; although according to the Gospel the day of the resurrection coincides with that of the ascension. Therefore ἣν ἠκούσ. μου is to be considered as a reference to a former promise of the Spirit, not recorded by Luke (comp. John 14:16 f., Acts 15:26).

On ἀκούειν τί τινος, see Winer, p. 187 [E. T. 249].

[97] Not as Luther (when He had assembled them), Grotius (“in unum recolligens qui dispersi fuerunt”), and most interpreters, including even Kuinoel and Olshausen (not Beza and de Wette), explain it, as if Luke had employed the active. This is grammatically incorrect; it must then have been συναλίζων, or, with logical accuracy (as Luther felt), συναλίσας.

Acts 1:5. Reminiscence of the declaration of the Baptist, Luke 3:16; John 1:33. “For on you the baptism of the Spirit will now soon take place, which John promised instead of his baptism of water.”

βαπτισθήσεσθε] τὴν ἐπίχυσιν καὶ τὸν πλοῦτον τῆς χορηγίας σημαίνει., Theophyl.; Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; Acts 11:16. Moreover, comp. on John 1:33.

οὐ μετὰ πολλ. ταύτ. ἡμέρ.] is not a transposition for οὐ πολὺ μετὰ ταύτ. ἡμέρ., but: not after many of these (now and, up to the setting in of the future event, still current) days. Comp. Winer, p. 152 [E. T. 201]. The position of the negative is to be explained from the idea of contrast (not after many, but after few). See Kühner, II. 628. On ταύτας, inserted between πολλ. and ἡμέρ., comp. Xen. Anab. iv. 2. 6, v. 7. 20, vii. 3. 30; Dem. 90. 11; Alc. 1. 14.

Acts 1:6. Not qui convenerant (Vulgate, Luther, and others), as if what follows still belonged to the scene introduced in Acts 1:4; but, as is evident from συναλιζ., Acts 1:4, comp. with Acts 1:12, a new scene, at which the ascension occurred (Acts 1:9). The word of promise spoken by our Lord as they were eating (Acts 1:4-5), occasioned (μὲν οὖν) the apostles to come together, and in common to approach Him with the question, etc. Hence: They, therefore, after they were come together, asked Him. Where this joint asking occurred, is evident from Acts 1:12.[98] To the ΜΈΝ corresponds the ΔΈ in Acts 1:7.

ἘΝ Τῷ ΧΡΌΝῼ Κ.Τ.Λ.] The disciples, acquainted with the O. T. promise, that in the age of the Messiah the fulness of the Holy Spirit would be poured out (Joel 3:1-2; Acts 2:16 ff.), saw in Acts 1:5 an indirect intimation of the now impending erection of the Messianic kingdom; comp. also Schneckenburger, p. 169. In order, therefore, to obtain quite certain information concerning this, their nearest and highest concern, they ask: “Lord, if Thou at this time restorest the (fallen) kingdom to the people Israel?” The view of Lightfoot, that the words were spoken in indignation (“itane nunc regum restitues Judaeis illis, qui te cruci affixerunt?”), simply introduces arbitrarily the point alleged.

εἰ] unites the question to the train of thought of the questioner, and thus imparts to it the indirect character. See on Matthew 12:10, and on Luke 13:23.

ἘΝ Τῷ ΧΡ. ΤΟΎΤῼ] i.e. at this present time, which they think they might assume from Acts 1:4 f.

ἀποκαθιστ.] See on Matthew 17:11. By their Τῷ ἸΣΡΑΉΛ they betray that they have not yet ceased to be entangled in Jewish Messianic hopes, according to which the Messiah was destined for the people of Israel as such; comp. Luke 24:21. An artificial explanation, on the other hand, is given in Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 647.

The circumstance that, by the declaration of Jesus, Acts 1:4 f., their sensuous expectation was excited and drew forth such a rash question, is very easily explained just after the resurrection, and need occasion no surprise before the reception of the Spirit itself; therefore we have not, with Baumgarten, to impute to the disciples the reflection that the communication of the Spirit would be the necessary internal ground for all the shaping of the future, according to which idea their question, deviating from the tenor of the promise, would be precisely a sign of their understanding.

[98] Concerning the time of the question, this expression ἐν τῷ χρόνῳ τούτῳ gives so far information that it must have occurred very soon after that meal mentioned in ver. 4, so that no discussions intervened which would have diverted them from this definite inquiry as to the time. Therefore it was probably on the same day. The τούτῳ is thus explained, which sounds as a fresh echo of that οὐ μετὰ πολλ. ταύτ. ἡμ.

f

Acts 1:7 f. Jesus refuses to answer the question of the disciples; not indeed in respect of the matter itself involved, but in respect of the time inquired after, as not beseeming them (observe the emphatic οὐχ ὑμῶν); and on the contrary (ἀλλά) He turns their thoughts, and guides their interest to their future official equipment and destination, which alone they were now to lay to heart. Chrysostom aptly says: διδασκάλου τοῦτό ἐστι μὴ ἃ βούλεται ὁ μαθητὴς, ἀλλʼ ἃ συμΦέρει μαθεῖν, διδάσκειν.

χρόνους ἣ καιρούς] times or, in order to denote the idea still more definitely, seasons. καιρός is not equivalent to χρόνος, but denotes a definite marked off portion of time with the idea of fitness. See Thom. Mag. p. 489 f.; Tittm. Synon. N. T. p. 41. On ἤ, which is not equivalent to καί, comp. here Dem. Ol. 3 : τίνα γὰρ χρόνον ἢ τίνα καιρὸν τοῦ παρόντος βελτίω ζητεῖτε;

ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ] has established by means of His own plenitude of power. On ἐν, comp. Matthew 21:23.

The whole declaration (Acts 1:7) is a general proposition, the application of which to the question put by the disciples is left to them; therefore only in respect of this application is an ad hanc rem perficiendam to be mentally supplied with ἔθετο. Bengel, however, well observes: “gravis descriptio reservati divini;” and “ergo res ipsa firma est, alias nullum ejus rei tempus esset.” But this res ipsa was, in the view of Jesus (which, however, we have no right to put into the question of the disciples, in opposition to Hofmann, Schriftbew. II. 2, p. 647), the restoration of the kingdom, not for the natural, but for the spiritual Israel, comprehending also the believing Gentiles (Romans 4:9), for the Ἰσραὴλ τοῦ Θεοῦ (Galatians 6:16); see Matthew 8:11; John 10:16; John 10:26; John 8:42 ff. al.; and already Matthew 3:9.

δύναμιν ἐπελθ. τοῦ ἁγ. πν. ἐφ ̓ ὑμᾶς] power, when the Holy Spirit has (shall have) come upon you, Winer, p. 119 [E. T. 156].

μάρτυρες] namely, of my teaching, actions, and life, what ye all have yourselves heard and seen, Acts 5:21 f., Acts 10:39 ff.; Luke 24:48; John 15:27.

ἔν τε Ἱερουσαλ.… τῆς γῆς] denotes the sphere of the apostles’ work in its commencement and progress, up to its most general diffusion; therefore τῆς γῆς is not to be explained of the land, but of the earth; and, indeed, it is to be observed that Jesus delineates for the apostles their sphere ideally. Comp. Acts 13:47; Isaiah 8:9; Romans 10:18; Colossians 1:23; Mark 16:15.

Acts 1:9. Καὶ νεφέλη] This καί annexes what occurred after the ἐπήρθη (He was taken up, on high, not yet immediately into heaven). The cloud, which received Him (into itself) from before their eyes, is the visible manifestation of the presence of God, who takes to Himself His Son into the glory of heaven. Comp. on Luke 1:35; Matthew 17:5. Chrysostom calls this cloud τὸ ὄχημα τὸ βασιλικόν.

Concerning the ascension itself, which was certainly bodily, but the occurrence of which has clothed itself with Luke in the traditionary form of an external visible event (according to Daniel 7:13; comp. Matthew 24:30; Matthew 26:64), see remark subjoined to Luke 24:51. The representation of the scene betrays a more developed tradition than in the Gospel, but not a special design (Schnecken-burger: sanction of the foregoing promise and intimation; Baumgarten: that the exalted Christ was to appear as the acting subject properly speaking in the further course of the Book of Acts). Nothing of this kind is indicated.

Acts 1:10-11. Ἀτενίζοντες ἦσαν] expresses continuance: they were in fixed gazing. To this (not to πορευομ. αὐτ.) εἰς τὸν οὐρανόν belongs. Comp. Acts 3:4, Acts 6:15, Acts 7:55, Acts 11:6, Acts 13:9; 2 Corinthians 3:7; 2 Corinthians 3:13. τῷ οὐρανῷ might also have stood, Luke 4:20; Luke 22:56; Acts 3:12; Acts 10:4; Acts 13:1. See generally, Valck. Schol. p. 309 ff. Comp. Polyb. 6:11. 7. Strangely erroneous is the view of Lange, Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 12 : that ὥς is not temporal, but as if: “they wished to fix the blue (?) heaven, which one cannot fix.”

πορευομένου αὐτοῦ] whilst He, enveloped by the cloud, was departing (into heaven).

καὶ ἰδού] as in Luke 7:12, Acts 10:17; not as an anacoluthon, but: behold also there! See Nägelsbach, z. Ilias, p. 164, ed. 3.

The men are characterized as inhabitants of the heavenly world, angels,[99] who are therefore clothed in white (see on John 20:12).

οἳ καὶ εἶπον] who (not only stood, but) also said: comp. Acts 1:3.

τί ἑστήκατε κ.τ.λ.] The meaning is: “Remain now no longer sunk in aimless gazing after Him; for ye are not for ever separated from this Jesus, who will so come even as ye have seen Him go away into heaven.”

οὕτως] i.e. in the same manner come down from heaven in a cloud as He was borne up. Comp. Matthew 24:30.

On the emphasis οὕτως, ὃν τρόπον, comp. Acts 27:25; 2 Timothy 3:8.

[99] According to Ewald, we are to think on Moses and Elias, as at the transfiguration. But if the tradition had meant these,—and in that case it would certainly have named them,—Luke would hardly have left them unnamed. Comp. rather Luke 24:4; Acts 10:30.

Acts 1:12. The ascension took place on the Mount of Olives, which is not only here, but also in Luke 19:29; Luke 21:37, called ἐλαιών (see on Luke 19:29). Its locality is indicated in Luke 24:50, not differently from, but more exactly than in our passage (in opposition to de Wette and others); and accordingly there is no necessity for the undemonstrable hypothesis that the Sabbath-day’s journey is to be reckoned from Bethphage (Wieseler, Synop. p. 435). It is not the distance of the place of the ascension, but of the Mount of Olives, on which it occurred, that is meant. Luke here supposes that more precisely defined locality as already known; but if he had had any particular design in naming the Mount of Olives (Baumgarten, p. 28 f.: that he wished to lead their thoughts to the future, according to Ezekiel 11:23; Zechariah 14:6), he must have said so, and could least of all presume that Theophilus would understand such a tacit prophetic allusion, especially as the Mount of Olives was already sufficiently known to him from the Gospel, Acts 19:29, Acts 21:37, without any such latent reference.

σαββάτου ἔχον ὁδόν] having a Sabbath’s way. The way is conceived as something which the mountain has, i.e. which is connected with it in reference to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Such is—and not with Wetstein and Kuinoel: ἔχειν pro ἀπέχειν—the correct view also in the analogous passages in Kypke, II. p. 8. The more exact determination of ὅ ἐστιν ἐγγὺς Ἱερουσ. is here given; hence also the explanation of Alberti (ad Luke 24:13) and Kypke, that it expresses the extent of the mountain (Sabbati constans itinere), is contrary to the context, and the use of ἔχειν is to be referred to the general idea conjunctum quid cum quo esse (Herm. ad Vig. p. 753).

A ὁδὸς σαββάτου, a journey permitted on the Sabbath[100] according to the traditionary maxims, was of the length of 2000 cubits. See on Matthew 24:20. The different statements in Joseph. Antt. xx. 8. 6 (six stadia), and Bell. Jud. v. 2. 3 (five stadia), are to be considered as different estimates of the small distance. Bethany was fifteen stadia from Jerusalem (John 11:16); see also Robinson, II. p. 309 f.; hence the locality of the ascension is to be sought for beyond the ridge of the mountain on its eastern slope.

[100] According to Schneckenburger, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1855, p. 502, this statement presupposes that the ascension occurred on the Sabbath. But the inference is rash, and without any historical trace.

Acts 1:13-14. Εἰσῆλθον] not: into their place of meeting, as Beza and others hold, but, in accordance with what immediately precedes: into the city. The simple style of a continued narrative.

τὸ ὑπερῶον] עֲלִיָּה, the room directly under the flat roof, used for praying and for meetings (Hieros. Sotah, f. 24. 2). See Lightfoot, p. 11 f., and Vitringa, Synag. p. 145, and concerning the word generally, which is very common with classical writers and not a compound, see Valckenaer, Schol. p. 317 f.; Lobeck, Elem. I. p. 452 f. It is here to be conceived as in a private house, whose possessor was devoted to the gospel, and not with de Dieu, Lightfoot, Hammond, Schoettgen, and Krebs, as an upper room in the temple (on account of Luke 24:53; see on that passage), because, considering the hatred of the hierarchy, the temple could neither be desired by the followers of Jesus, nor permitted to them as a place for their special closed meetings. Perhaps it was the same room as in John 20:19; John 20:26.

οὗ ἦσαν καταμ.] where, i.e. in which they were wont to reside, which was the place of their common abode. The following ὅ τε Πέτρος κ.τ.λ. is a supplementary more exact statement of the subject of ἀνέβησαν. According to Acts, it is expressly the Eleven only, who were present at the ascension. In the Gospel, Luke 24:33 comp. Luke 1:36; Luke 1:44; Luke 1:50, the disciples of Emmaus and others are not excluded; but according to Mark 16:14, comp. Acts 1:15; Acts 1:19-20, it is likewise only the Eleven.

As to the list of the apostles, comp. on Matthew 10:2-4; Mark 3:17-18; Luke 6:14-16.

ὁ ζηλωτής] the (formerly) zealot. See on Matthew 10:4.

Ἰούδας Ἰακώβου] the relationship is arbitrarily defined as: brother of the (younger) James. It is: son of (an otherwise unknown) James. See on Luke 6:15; John 14:22; and Huther on Jude, Introd. § 1. Already the Syriac gives the correct rendering.

ὁμοθυμαδόν] denotes no mere external being-together; but, as Luther correctly renders it: unanimously. Comp. Dem. Phil. 4:147: ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐκ μιᾶς γνώμης. So throughout in Acts and Romans 15:6.

σὺν γυναιξί] along with women; not: cum uxoribus (as Calvin holds);[101] they are partially known from the Gospels; Matthew 26:56; Matthew 26:61; Luke 8:2 f., Acts 24:10; Mark 15:40 f.

ΚΑῚ ΜΑΡΊᾼ] ΚΑΊ, also, singles out, after the mention in general terms, an individual belonging to the class as worthy of special remark. See Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 11.

ἀδελφοῖς] The unbelief (John 7:5) of the four brothers-german of the Lord (see on Matthew 12:46; Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3) was very probably overcome by His resurrection. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 15:7. Observe that here, besides the eleven apostles, two other classes are specified as assembled along with them (σὺν … καὶ σύν), namely (a), women, including the mother of Jesus; and (b) the brethren of Jesus. Among the latter, therefore, none of those eleven can be included. This in opposition to Lange, Hengstenberg, and older commentators. Comp. on John 7:3.

[101] See also Calovius and others, not uninterested in opposing celibacy.

Acts 1:15. Ἐν ταῖς ἡμέρ. ταύτ.] between the ascension and feast of Pentecost.

Πέτρος] even now asserting his position of primacy in the apostolic circle, already apparent in the Gospels, and promised to him by Jesus Himself.

τῶν ἀδελφῶν (see the critical notes) denotes, as very often in the Book of Acts and the Epistles, the Christians according to their brotherly fellowship; hence here (see the following parenthesis) both the apostles and the disciples of Jesus in the wider sense.

ὀνομάτ.] of persons, who are numbered. Comp. Ewald, ad Revelation 3:4. The expression is not good Greek, but formed after the Hebrew (Numbers 1:2; Numbers 1:18; Numbers 1:20; Numbers 3:40; Numbers 3:43).

There is no contradiction between the number 120 and the 500 brethren in 1 Corinthians 15:6 (in opposition to Baur and Zeller, who suppose the number to have been invented in accordance with that of the apostles: 12 × 10), as the appearance of Jesus in 1 Cor. l.c., apart from the fact that it may have taken place in Galilee, was earlier, when many foreign believers, pilgrims to the feast, might have been present in Jerusalem, who had now left. Comp. Wieseler, Synops. p. 434, and see on 1 Corinthians 15:6; also Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 275 f.; Baumgarten, p. 29 f.

ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό] locally united. Comp. Acts 2:1, Acts 3:1; Luke 17:35; Matthew 22:34; 1 Corinthians 7:5; 1 Corinthians 11:20; 1 Corinthians 14:23; Hist. Susann. 14; often also in the LXX. and in Greek writers. See Raphel, Polyb., and Loesner.

Acts 1:16-17. Ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί is more honourable and solemn than the simple familiar ἀδελφοί. See Acts 2:29; Acts 2:37, Acts 7:2, al. Comp. Xen. Anab. i. 6. 6 : ἄνδρες φίλοι. See generally Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 238.

ἔδει] It could not but be an especial object with Peter to lay the foundation for his judgment, by urging that the destruction of Judas took place not accidentally, but necessarily according to the counsel of God.

τὴν γραφὴν ταύτην] this which stands written (comp. on Acts 8:35) is not, with Wolf and Eckermann, to be referred to Psalm 41:10 (John 13:18; John 18:3), because otherwise that passage must have been adduced; but to the passages contained in Acts 1:20, which Peter has already in view, but which he only introduces—after the remarks which the vivid thoughts crowding on him as he names Judas suggest—at Acts 1:20 in connection with what was said immediately before.

ὅτι κατηρ.] ὅτι is equivalent to εἰς ἐκεῖνο, ὅτι (Mark 16:14; John 2:18; John 9:17; 2 Corinthians 1:18, al.). If Judas had not possessed the apostolic office, the γραφή referred to, which predicted the very vacating of an apostolic post, would not have been fulfilled in his fate. This fulfilment occurred in his case, inasmuch as he was an apostle.

τὸν κλῆρ. τῆς διακ. ταύτ.] the lot of this (presenting itself in us apostles) ministry, i.e. the apostolic office. Comp. Romans 11:13. ὁ κλῆρος is primarily the lot (Acts 1:26), then that which is assigned by lot, and then generally what is assigned, the share; just as in Greek writers. Comp. Acts 8:21; Acts 26:18; Wis 2:9; Wis 5:5; Sir 25:19. Baumgarten gratuitously would understand it as an antitype of the share of the twelve tribes in the land of Canaan. The genitive is to be taken partitively (share in this ministry), as the idea of apostolic fellowship, in which each κληροῦχος has therefore his partial possession in the service, also occurs in the sequel (see Acts 1:22; Acts 1:26).

λαγχάνειν here not, as in Luke 1:9, with the partitive genitive, but, as is usual (2 Peter 1:1), with the accusative of the object. See Bernhardy, p. 176; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 2. The word is the usual term for obtaining by lot, as in Luke 1:9; it next signifies generally to obtain, and is especially used of the receiving of public magistracies (Dem. 1306. 14; Plat. Gorg. p. 473 E). So here in reference to τ. κλῆρ. τ. διακ. ταύτ.; in which case, however, an allusion to a hierarchical constitution (Zeller) is excluded by the generality of the usus loquendi of the expressions, which, besides, might be suggested by the thought of the actual use of the lot which afterwards took place.

Acts 1:18. This person now acquired for himself a field for the wages of his iniquity—a rhetorical indication of the fact exactly known to the hearers: for the money which Judas had received for his treason, a place, a piece of land, was purchased (Matthew 27:6-8). This rhetorical designation, purposely chosen on account of the covetousness of Judas,[102] clearly proves that Acts 1:18 is part of the speech of Peter, and not, as Calvin, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen, and others think, a remark inserted by Luke. With regard to the expression of the fact itself, Chrys. correctly remarks: ἠθικὸν ποιεῖ τὸν λόγον καὶ λανθανόντως τὴν αἰτίαν παιδευτικὴν οὖσαν ἀποκαλύπτει. To go further, and to assume—what also the fragment of Papias in Cramer’s Cat. narrates—that the death of Judas took place in the field itself (Hofm. Weissag. u. Erf. II. p. 134; Baumg. p. 31; Lange), is not warranted by any indication in the purposely chosen form of representation. Others, such as Strauss, Zeller, de Wette, Ewald, have been induced by the direct literal tenor of the passage to assume a tradition deviating from Matthew (that Judas himself had actually purchased the field); although it is improbable in itself that Judas, on the days immediately following his treason, and under the pressure of its tragical event, should have made the purchase of a property, and should have chosen for this purchase the locality of Jerusalem, the arena of his shameful deed.

καὶ πρηνὴς γενόμ., etc.] ΚΑΊ is the simple and, annexing to the infamous deed its bloody reward. By πρηνὴς γενόμ.[103] κ.τ.λ., the death of Judas is represented as a violent fall (πρηνής, headlong: the opposite ὕπτιος, Hom. Il. xi. 179, xxiv. 11) and bursting. The particular circumstances are presupposed as well known, but are unknown to us. The usual mode of reconciliation with Matthew—that the rope, with which Judas hanged himself, broke, and that thus what is here related occurred—is an arbitrary attempt at harmonizing. Luke follows another tradition, of which it is not even certain whether it pointed to suicide. The twofold form of the tradition (and in Papias there occurs even a third[104]) does not render a tragical violent end of Judas unhistorical in itself (Strauss, Zeller, and others), but only makes the manner of it uncertain. See, generally, on Matthew 27:5.

ἐλάκησε] he cracked, burst in the midst of his body,—a rhetorically strong expression of bursting with a noise. Hom. Il. xiii. 616; Act. Thom. 37.

ἐξεχύθη] Comp. Ael. Anim. iv. 52: τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐξέχεαν.

[102] Beza aptly remarks that the mode of expression affirms “non quid conatus sit Judas, sed consiliorum ipsius eventum.”

[103] Which cannot be rendered suspensus (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Castalio).

[104] See on Matthew 27:5, and comp. Introd sec. 1.

Acts 1:19. Not even these words are to be considered, with the above-mentioned expositors (also Schleierm. Einl. p. 372), as an inserted remark of Luke, but as part of the speech of Peter. For all that they contain belongs essentially to the complete description of the curse of the action of Judas: ἐγένετο forms with ἐλάκησε and ἐξεχύθη, Acts 1:18, one continuously flowing representation, and γνωστὸν … Ἱερουσ. is more suitable to rhetorical language than to that of simple narration. But τῇ ἰδίᾳ διαλέκτῳ αὐτῶν[105] and τοῦτ ̓ ἔστι χωρ. αἵμ. are two explanations inserted by Luke, the distinction between which and Peter’s own words might be trusted to the reader; for it is self-evident (in opposition to Lange and older commentators) that Peter spoke not Greek but Aramaic.

γνωστὸν ἐγέν.] namely, what is stated in Acts 1:18.

ὥστε] so that, in consequence of the acquisition of that field and of this bloody death of Judas becoming thus generally known. According to our passage, the name “field of blood” (חֲקַל דְּמָא, comp. Matthew 27:8) was occasioned by the fact that Judas, with whose wages of iniquity the field was acquired, perished in a manner so bloody (according to others: on the field itself; see on Acts 1:18). The passage in Matthew, l.c., gives another and more probable reason for the name. But it is by no means improbable that the name soon after the death of Judas became assigned, first of all, in popular use, to the field purchased for the public destination of being a ΧΩΡΊΟΝ ἘΝΤΑΦῆΝΑΙ (Aeschin. i. 99; Matthew 28:7); hence Peter might even now quote this name in accordance with the design of his speech.

ΔΙΆΛΕΚΤΟς] (in the N. T. only in Acts), a mode of speaking, may express as well the more general idea of language, as the narrower one of dialect.[106] In both senses it is often used by Polybius, Plutarch, etc. In the older Greek it is colloquium (Plat. Symp. p. 203 A, Theaet. p. 146 B), pronuntiatio (Dem. 982. 18), sermo (Arist. Poet. 22). In all the passages of Acts it is dialect, and that, excepting at Acts 2:6; Acts 2:8, the Aramaic, although it has this meaning not in itself, but from its more precise definition by the context.

[105] αὐτῶν: of the dwellers of Jerusalem (who spoke the Aramaic dialect), spoken from the standpoint of Luke and Theophilus, “quorum alter Graece scriberet alter legeret,” Erasmus.

[106] Valckenaer well observes on the distinction between these two ideas: “Habent omnes dialecti aliquid inter se commune; habent enim omnes eandem linguam matrem, sed dialectum efficit, quod habent singulae peculiare sibi.” The Greeks also employ φωνή in both senses (see also Clem. Al. Strom. i. 21, p. 404, Pott).

Acts 1:20. Γάρ] The tragic end of Judas was his withdrawal from the apostolic office, by which a new choice was now necessary. But both that withdrawal and this necessity are, as already indicated in Acts 1:16, to be demonstrated not as something accidental, but as divinely ordained.

The first passage is Psalm 69:26, freely quoted from memory, and with an intentional change of the plural (LXX. αὐτῶν), because its historical fulfilment is represented κατʼ ἐξοχήν in Judas. The second passage is Psalm 109:8, verbatim, after the LXX. Both passages contain curses against enemies of the theocracy, as the antitype of whom Judas here appears.

The ἔπαυλις is not that χωρίον which had become desolate by the death of Judas (Chrysostom, Oecumenius, and others; also Strauss, Hofmann, de Wette, Schneckenburger), but it corresponds to the parallel ἐπισκοπή, and as the χωρίον is not to be considered as belonging to Judas (see on Acts 1:18), the meaning is: “Let his farm, i.e. in the antitypical fulfilment of the saying in the Psalm, the apostolic office of Judas, become desolate, forsaken by its possessor, and non-existent, i.e. let him be gone, who has his dwelling therein.”

τὴν ἐπισκοπ.] the oversight (Lucian, D. D. xx. 8, frequently in the LXX. and Apocr.), the superintendence which he had to exercise, פְּקֻּרָּה, in the sense of the πλήρωσις: the apostolic office. Comp. 1 Timothy 3:1 (of the office of a bishop).

Acts 1:21-22. Οὖν] In consequence of these two prophecies, according to which the office of Judas had to be vacated, and its transference to another is necessary.

τῶν συνελθὁντων] dependent on ἕνα, Acts 1:22 : one of the men who have gone along with us (Acts 9:39, Acts 10:23, al.; Hom, Il. x. 224), who have taken part in our wanderings and journeys. Others: who have come together with us, assembled with us (Soph. O. R. 572; Polyb. i. 78. 4). So Vulgate, Beza, de Wette, but never so in the N. T. See on Mark 14:53.

ἐν παντὶ χρόνῳ, ἐν ᾧ] all the time, when.

εἰσῆλθε καὶ ἐξῆλθεν] a current, but not a Greek, designation of constant intercourse. Deuteronomy 28:19; Psalm 121:8; 1 Samuel 29:6; 2 Chronicles 1:10. Comp. John 10:9; Acts 9:28.

ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς a brief expression for ἐισῆλθ. ἐφʼ ἡμᾶς κ. ἐξηλθ. ἀφʼ ἡμῶν. See Valckenaer on the passage, and ad Eurip. Phoen. 536; Winer, p. 580 [E. T. 780]. Comp. also John 1:51.

ἀρξάμ.… ʼΙωάννου is a parenthesis, and ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας is to be attached to εἰσῆλθε … ʼΙησοῦς, as Luke 23:5. See on Matthew 20:8.

ἕως τ. ἡμ. ἧς κ.τ.λ.] ἧς is not put by attraction for ᾗ,—as the attraction of the dative, very rare even among the Greek writers (see Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. II. 2. 4), is without example in the N. T.,—but is the genitive of the definition of time (Matthiae, § 377. 2; Winer, p. 155 [E. T. 204]). So, too, in Leviticus 23:15; Bar 1:19. Comp. Tob 10:1; Susann. 15; Hist. Bel and Drag. 3. Hence also the expression having the preposition involved, ἄχρι ἧς ἡμέρας, Acts 1:2, comp. Acts 24:11.

μάρτυρα τῆς ἀναστ. αὐτοῦ] i.e. apostle, inasmuch as the apostles announce the resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15), the historical foundation of the gospel, as eye-witnesses, i.e. as persons who had themselves seen and conversed with the risen Jesus (comp. Acts 2:32, and see on Acts 1:8).

τούτων] is impressively removed to the end, pointing to those to be found among the persons present (of those there), and emphatically comprehending them (Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 225).

Thus Peter indicates, as a requisite of the new apostle,[107] that he must have associated with the apostles (ἡμῖν) during the whole of the ministry of Jesus, from the time when John was still baptizing (ἀπὸ τοῦ βαπτ. Ἰωάνν.) until the ascension. That in this requirement, as Heinrichs and Kuinoel suppose, Peter had in view one of the Seventy disciples, is an arbitrary assumption. But it is evident that for the choice the apostles laid the entire stress on the capacity of historical testimony (comp. Acts 10:41), and justly so, in conformity with the positive contents of the faith which was to be preached, and as the element of the new divine life was to be diffused. On the special subject-matter of the testimony (τῆς ἀναστ. αὐτοῦ) Bengel correctly remarks: “qui illud credidere, totam fidem suscepere.” How Peter himself testified, may be seen at 1 Peter 1:3. Comp. Acts 2:32; Acts 3:15; Acts 4:33; Acts 5:32; Acts 10:40.

[107] And Luke relates this as faithfully and dispassionately as he does what is contained in Acts 10:41. He would hardly have done so, if he had had the design imputed to him by Baur and his school, as such sayings of Peter did not at all suit the case of Paul.

Acts 1:23. Ἔστησαν] The subject is, as in Acts 1:24; Acts 1:26, all those assembled. They had recognised in these two the conditions required by Acts 5:21 f. “Ideo hic demum sors incipit, qua res gravis divinae decisioni committitur et immediata apostoli peragitur vocatio,” Bengel. For this solemn act they are put forward.

Ἰωσήφ τ. καλ. Βαρσαβᾶν] Concerning him nothing further is known. For he is not identical (in opposition to Heinrichs and others, also Ullmann in the Stud. u. Krit. 1828, p. 377 ff.) with Joses Barnabas, Acts 4:36, against which opinion that very passage itself testifies; from it have arisen the name Ἰωσήν in B and Βαρνάβαν in D (so Bornemann). See also Mynster in the Stud. u. Krit. 1829, p. 326 f. Barsabas is a patronymic (son of Saba); Justus is a Roman surname (יוסטי), adopted according to the custom then usual, see Schoettgen.

Nor is anything historically certain as to Matthias. Traditional notices in Cave, Antiq. ap. p. 735 ff. According to Eus. 1:12. 1, he was one of the Seventy. Concerning the apocryphal Gospel under his name, already mentioned by Origen, see Fabric. Cod. apocr. N. T. p. 782 ff. apocryphal Acta Andreae et Matthiae may be seen in Tischend. Act. apocr. p. 132 ff.

Acts 1:24-25. Without doubt it was Peter, who prayed in the name of all present. The προσευξάμ. is contemporaneous with εἶπον: praying they said. See on Ephesians 1:9.

κύριε] יהוה. Comp. Acts 4:29. In opposition to the view of Bengel, Olshausen, and Baumgarten, that the prayer is directed to Jesus,—for which ὃν ἐξελέξω is appealed to, because Christ chooses His own messengers,—Acts 15:7 is decisive, where the same Peter says expressly of God: ἐξελέξατο διὰ τοῦ στόματός μου ἀκοῦσαι τὰ ἔθνη, etc., and then also calls God καρδιογνώστης (comp. ח̇קֵר לֵב, Jeremiah 17:10). By the decision of the lot the call to the apostleship was to take place, and the call is that of God, Galatians 1:15. God is addressed as καρδιογνώστ. because the object was to choose the intrinsically best qualified among the two, and this was a matter depending on the divine knowledge of the heart. The word itself is found neither in Greek writers nor in the LXX.

In λαβεῖν τὸν τόπον (see the critical notes) the ministry is considered as a place, as a post which the person concerned is to receive. Comp. Sir 12:12.

καὶ ἀποστολῆς] designates more definitely the previous διακονίας. There is thus here, among the many instances for the most part erroneously assumed, a real case of an ἓν διὰ δυοῖν. See Fritzsche, ad Matth. p. 856; Nägelsb. z. Ilias, p. 361, ed. 3.

ἀφʼ ἧς παρέβη] away from which Judas has passed over, to go to his own place. A solemn circumstantiality of description. Judas is vividly depicted, as he, forsaking his apostleship (ἀφʼ ἧς), has passed from that position to go to his own place. Comp. Sir 23:18 : παραβαίνων ἀπὸ τῆς κλίνης αὐτοῦ.

πορευθ. εἰς τ. τόπ. τ. ἴδιον] denotes the end destined by God for the unworthy Judas as his own, to which he must come by his withdrawal from the apostolic office. But the meaning of ὁ τόπος ὁ ἴδιος (the expression is purposely chosen as correlative to τὸν τόπον τ. διακ. etc.) is not to be decided from the linguistic use of τόπος, as τόπος may denote any place, but entirely from the context. And this requires us to understand by it Gehenna, which is conceived as the place to which Judas, according to his individuality, belongs. As his treason was so frightful a crime, the hearers could be in no doubt as to the τόπος ἴδιος. This explanation is also required for the completeness and energy of the speech, and is itself confirmed by analogous rabbinical passages; see in Lightfoot, e.g. Baal Turim, on Numbers 24:25 : “Balaam ivit in locum suum, i.e. in Gehennam.” Hence the explanations are to be rejected which refer τόπ. ἴδιος to the habitation of Judas (Keuchen, Moldenhauer, Krebs, Bolten), or to that χωρίον, where he had perished (Elsner, Zeller, Lange, Baumgarten, and others), or to the “societas, quam cum sacerdotibus ceterisque Jesu adversariis inierat” (Heinrichs). Others (Hammond, Homberg, Heumann, Kypke, comp. already Oecumenius) refer πορευθῆναι … ἴδιον even to the successor of Judas, so that the τόπ. ἴδιος would be the apostleship destined for him. But such a construction would be involved (πορευθ. would require again to be taken as an object of λαβεῖν), and after λαβεῖν … ἀποστολῆς tautological. The reading δίκαιον (instead of ἴδιον) in A hits the correct meaning. The contrast appears in Clem. Cor. I. 5 as to Paul: εἰς τὸν ἅγιον τόπον ἐπορεύθη, and as to Peter: εἰς τὸν ὀφειλόμενον τόπον τῆς δόξης. Comp. Polyc. Phil. 9; Ignat. Magn. 5.

Acts 1:26. And they (namely, those assembled) gave for them (αὐτοῖς, see the critical notes) lots—i.e. tablets, which were respectively inscribed with one of the two names of those proposed for election—namely, into the vessel in which the lots were collected, Leviticus 16:8. The expression ἔδωκαν is opposed to the idea of casting lots; comp. Luke 23:34 and parallels.

ἔπεσεν ὁ κλῆρος] the lot (giving the decision by its falling out) fell (by the shaking of the vessel, πάλλειν; comp. Hom. Il. iii. 316. 324, vii. 181, Od. xi. 206, al.).

ἐπὶ Ματθ.] on Matthias, according to the figurative conception of the lot being shaken over both (Hom. Od. xiv. 209; Psalm 22:19, al.). Comp. LXX. Ezekiel 24:6; John 1:7.

This decision by the θεία τύχη (Plat. Legg. 6:759 C; comp. Proverbs 16:33) of the lot is an Old Testament practice (Numbers 26:52 ff.; Joshua 7:14; 1 Samuel 10:20; 1 Chronicles 24:5; 1 Chronicles 25:8; Proverbs 16:33; comp. also Luke 1:9), suitable for the time before the effusion of the Spirit, but not recurring afterwards, and therefore not to be justified in the Christian congregational life by our passage.

συγκατεψηφ. μετὰ τ. ἕνδ. ἀπ.] he was numbered along with[108] the eleven apostles, so that, in consequence of that decision by lot, he was declared by those assembled to be the twelfth apostle. Bengel correctly adds the remark: “Non dicuntur manus novo apostolo impositae, erat enim prorsus immediate constitutus.” It is otherwise at Acts 6:6.

The view which doubts the historical character of the supplementary election at all (see especially Zeller), and assumes that Matthias was only elected at a later period after the gradual consolidation of the church, rests on presuppositions (it is thought that the event of Pentecost must have found the number of the apostles complete) which break down in presence of the naturalness of the occurrence, and of the artless simplicity of its description.

[108] συγκαταψηφίζεσθαι in this sense, thus equivalent to συμψηφίζεσθαι (Acts 19:19), is not elsewhere found; D actually has συνεψηφίσθη as the result of a correct explanation. The word is, altogether, very rare; in Plut. Them. 21 it signifies to condemn with. Frequently, and quite in the sense of συγκαταψηφ. here, συγκαταριθμεῖσθαι is found. א* has only κατεψηφίσθη. So also Constitt. ap. vi.12.1.