Meyer's NT Commentary
Acts 11:8. κοινόν] Elz. has πᾶν κοινόν, against A B D E א, min. VSS. and Fathers. From Acts 10:14.
Acts 11:9. μοι] is wanting in A B א. min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Epiph. Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. It is an addition, in accordance with Acts 11:7.
Acts 11:10. The order ἀνεσπ. πάλιν is, according to preponderant evidence, to be adopted.
Acts 11:11. ἤμην] Lachm. Born. read ἦμεν, after A B D א, 40. Without attestation, doubtless, from the VSS.; but on account of its apparent irrelevancy, and on account of Acts 11:5, to be considered as the original.
Acts 11:12. μηδὲν διακρινόμενον] is, as already Mill saw, very suspicious (as an interpolation from Acts 10:20), for it is wholly wanting in D, Syr. p. Cant.; in A B א, loti. it is exchanged for μηδὲν διακρίνοντα or μ. διακρίναντα (so Lachm.), and in 33, 46, for μ. διακρινὁμενος. Tisch. and Born. have rejected it; de Wette declares himself for the reading of Lachm.
Acts 11:13. δέ is to be read instead of τέ, with Lachm. and Born., in accordance with preponderant authority.
After Ἰόππην, Elz. has ἄνδρας, an addition from Acts 10:5, which has against it A B D א, min. and most VSS.
Acts 11:17. δέ] is wanting in A B D א, min. VSS. and several Fathers. Deleted by Lachm. It was omitted as disturbing the construction.
Acts 11:18. ἐδόξαζον] The considerably attested ἐδοξασαν (Lachm.) has arisen from the preceding aorist.
Instead of ἄραγε, Lachm. has ἄρα, after A B D א, min. A neglect of the strengthening γε, which to the transcribers was less familiar with ἄρα in the N. T. (Matthew 7:20; Matthew 17:26; Acts 17:27).
Acts 11:19. Στεφάνῳ] Lachm. reads Στεφάνου, after A E, min. Theophyl., but this has been evidently introduced into the text as an emendatory gloss from erroneously taking ἐπί as denoting time.
Acts 11:20. ἐλθόντες] Elz. reads εἰσελθόντες, against decisive testimony.
Ἕλληνας] So A D* א** VSS. and Fathers. Already preferred by Grotius and Witsius, adopted by Griesb. Lachm. Tisch. Scholz. Born. But Elz. Matth. have Ἑλληνιστάς, which, in particular, Ammon (de Hellenistis Antioch. Erl. 1810, krit. Journ. I. 3, p. 213 ff.; Magaz. f. christl. Pred. III. 1, p. 222 f.) has defended, assuming two classes of Antiochene Jews, namely, Hebrew-speaking, who used the original text of the O. T., and Greek-speaking, who used the LXX. But see Schulthess, de Charism. Sp. St. p. 73 ff.; Rinck, Lucubr. crit. p. 65 f. The reading Ἕλληνας is necessary, since the announcement of the gospel to Hellenists, particularly at Antioch, could no longer now be anything surprising, and only Ἕλληνας exhausts the contrast to Ἰουδαίοις, Acts 11:20 (not Ἑβραίοις, as in Acts 6:1). Ἑλληνιστ. might easily arise from comparison with Acts 9:29, for which Cod. 40 testifies, when after ἐλάλουν it inserts καὶ συνεζήτουν.
Acts 11:22. διελθεῖν] is wanting in A B א, loti. Syr. and other VSS., and is deleted by Lachm. Omitted as superfluous.
Acts 11:25. Ὁ ΒΑΡΝΆΒΑς and the twice-repeated ΑὐΤΌΝ are to be deleted, with Lachm. and Tisch., after A B א, al.; the former as the subject written on the margin (seeing that another subject immediately precedes), and the latter as a very usual (unnecessary) definition of the object.
Acts 11:26. αὐτούς] read with Lachm. Tisch. Born. αὐτοῖς, after A B E א, min. The accusative with the infinitive after ἘΓΈΝΕΤΟ was most familiar to the transcribers (Acts 9:3; Acts 9:32; Acts 9:37).
Lachm. and Tisch. have ΚΑΊ after ΑὐΤ., following A C א, Cant. Syr. p. Ath. Vig. Rightly; apparently occasioning confusion, it was omitted.
Acts 11:28. ΜΈΓΑΝ … ὍΣΤΙς] ΜΕΓΆΛΗΝ … ΤΙς is supported by the predominant testimony of A B D E א (E has ΜΈΓΑΝ … ἭΤΙς), min. Fathers, so that it is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., as in Luke 15:14 (see on that passage), and the masculine is to be considered as an emendation of ignorant transcribers.
After ΚΛΑΥΔΊΟΥ, Elz. has ΚΑΊΣΑΡΟς, an inserted gloss, to be rejected in conformity with A B D א, loti. 40, Copt. Aeth. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant.
 Bornemann has the peculiar expansion of the simple text from D: ἀκούσας δὲ, ὅτι Σαῦλός ἐστιν εἰς Ταρσόν, ἐξῆλθεν ἀναζητῶν αὐτὸν καὶ ὡς συντυχὼν παρεκάλεσεν αὐτὸν ἐλθεῖν εἰς ʼΑντιόχειαν.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.Acts 11:1-18. The fellowship into which Peter entered with the Gentiles (chap. 10) offends the Jewish Christians at Jerusalem, but their objection is allayed by the apostle through a simple representation of the facts as a whole, and is converted into the praise of God.
κατὰ τὴν Ἰουδαίαν is not = ἐν τῇ Ἰουδ. (Kuinoel, de Wette), but throughout Judaea, v. 15, and see Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 12, ed. 3.
Acts 11:2. διεκρίνοντο] they strove against him. Judges 1:9; Dem. 163. 15; Polyb. 2:22. 11; Athen. 12 :p. 544 C.
οἱ ἐκ περιτομ.] the circumcised Christians, as in Acts 10:45, opposed to the Gentiles (ἀκροβυστ. ἔχοντας) whose conversion is reported.
ὅτι is most simply taken as recitative, neither quare, Vulg. (comp. on Mark 9:11), nor because (Grotius supplying: hoc querimur).
πρὸς ἄνδρας κ.τ.λ.] Thus it was not the baptism of these men that they called in question, but the fellowship entered into by Peter with them, especially the fellowship at table (comp. Galatians 2:12). This was the stone of stumbling: for they had not come to Peter to be baptized, as a Gentile might present himself to become a proselyte; but Peter had gone in to them. Without ground (see, in opposition, Oertel, p. 211), Gfrörer and Zeller employ this passage against the historical character of the whole narrative of the baptism of Cornelius.
ἀκροβ. ἔχ.] An expression of indignation. Ephesians 2:11.
Acts 11:4. ἀρξάμ. ἐξετιθ.] he began and expounded, so that ἀρξάμ. is a graphic trait, corresponding to the conception of the importance of the speech in contradistinction to the complaint; comp. Acts 2:4.
Acts 11:6. εἰς ἣν ἀτενίσας κατενόουν κ. εἶδον] on which I, having fixed my glance, observed (Acts 7:31) and saw, etc. This εἶδον τὰ τετράποδα κ.τ.λ. is the result of the κατενόουν.
κ. τὰ θηρία] and the beasts; specially to make mention of these from among the quadrupeds. In Acts 10:12 the wild beasts were not specially mentioned; but there πάντα stood before ΤᾺ ΤΕΤΡΑΠ.
Acts 11:11. ἮΜΕΝ] (see the critical remarks) is to be explained from the fact, that Peter already thinks of the ἈΔΕΛΦΟΊ, Acts 11:12, as included.
Acts 11:12. ΟὟΤΟΙ] the men of Joppa, who had gone with Peter to Cornelius (Acts 10:23), had thus accompanied him also to Jerusalem. They were now present in this important matter as his witnesses.
Acts 11:13. ΤῸΝ ἌΓΓΕΛΟΝ] the angel already known from chap. 10,—a mode of expression, no doubt, put into the mouth of Peter by Luke from his own standpoint.
Acts 11:14. ἐν οἷς] by means of which.
Acts 11:15. ἐν δὲ τῷ ἄρξασθαί με λαλεῖν] This proves that Peter, after Acts 10:43, had intended to speak still considerably longer.
ΚΑῚ ἘΦ ̓ ἩΜᾶς and ΚΑῚ ἩΜῖΝ, Acts 11:17 (it is otherwise with ὙΜΕῖς, Acts 11:16), are to be taken as in Acts 10:47.
ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ] namely, at Pentecost. The period of the apostolic church was then at its beginning.
Acts 11:16. Comp. Acts 1:5.
ὡς ἔλεγεν] A frequent circumstantiality. Luke 22:61; Thuc. i. 1. 1, and Krüger in loc.; also Bornemann, ad Cyrop. i. 2, 5. Peter had recollected this saying of Christ, because he had seen realized in the Gentiles filled with the Spirit what Jesus, Acts 1:5, had promised to the apostles for their own persons. Herein, as respects the divine bestowal of the Spirit, he had recognised a placing of the Gentiles concerned on the same level with the apostles. And from this baptisma flaminis he could not but infer it as willed by God, that the baptisma fluminis also was not to be refused.
Acts 11:17. πιστεύσασιν] refers not to ΑὐΤΟῖς, as is assumed by Beza, Heinrichs, and Kuinoel against the order of the words, but to ἩΜῖΝ: “as also to us as having become believers,” etc., that is, as He has given it also to us, because we had become believers, so that thus the same gift of God indicated as its basis the same faith in them as in us.
ἐγὼ δὲ τίς ἤμην δυνατὸς κ.τ.λ.] Two interrogative sentences are here blended into one (Winer, p. 583 [E. T. 784]): Who was I on the other hand? was I able to hinder God, namely, by refusal of baptism? Concerning δέ, in the apodosis, following after a hypothetical protasis, see Nägelsb. on the Iliad, p. 66, ed. 3; Baeumlein, Partik. p. 92 f.
Acts 11:18. ἡσύχασαν] they were silent, Luke 14:4, often in classical writers. Comp. Locella, ad Xen. Eph. p. 280. The following ἐδόξαζον (imperfect) thereupon denotes the continuous praising. Previously contention against Peter (Acts 11:2-3), now silence, followed by praise of God.
ἄραγε] thus, as results from this event. By τὴν μετάνοιαν, however, is meant the Christian change of disposition; comp. Acts 5:31.
εἰς ζωήν] unto (eternal Messianic) life; this is the aim of τὴν μετάνοιαν ἔδωκεν. Comp. ΣΩΘΉΣῌ, Acts 11:14.
 The importance of the matter is the reason why Luke makes Peter again recite in detail the vision narrated. This in opposition to Schleiermacher, who finds in the double narrative a support for his view concerning the composition of the book.—Observe how simply Peter makes his experience speak for itself, and then, ver. 16 ff., just as simply, calmly, and with persuasive brevity, subjoins the justification following from this experience.
And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
And the spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only.Acts 11:19-20. Οἱ μὲν οὖν διασπαρέντες] A resumption of Acts 8:4, in order now to narrate a still further advance, which Christianity had made in consequence of that dispersion,—namely, to Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch, for the most part, indeed, among the Jews, yet also (Acts 11:20) among the Gentiles, the latter at Antioch.
ἀπὸ τ. θλίψ.] on account of (on occasion of) the tribulation. Comp. Herm. ad Soph. El. 65.
ἐπὶ Στεφάνῳ] Luther rightly renders: over Stephen, i.e. on account of Stephen. Comp. Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, and others, including de Wette. See Winer, p. 367 [E. T. 489 f.]; Ellendt, Lex Soph. I. p. 649. Others (Alberti, Wolf, Heumann, Palairet, Kypke, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Olshausen) render: post Stephanum. Linguistically admissible (Bernhardy, p. 249), but less simple, as post Stephanum would have again to be explained as e medio sublato Stephano.
ἦσαν δέ τινες ἐξ αὐτῶν] does not apply to ἸΟΥΔΑΊΟΙς (Heinrichs, Kuinoel), as the ΔΈ, corresponding to the ΜΈΝ, Acts 11:19, requires for ΑὐΤῶΝ the reference to the subject of Acts 11:19 (the ΔΙΑΣΠΑΡΈΝΤΕς), and as ΟἽΤΙΝΕς ἘΛΘΌΝΤΕς ΕἸς ἈΝΤΙΌΧΕΙΑΝ, Acts 11:20, so corresponds to the ΔΙῆΛΘΟΝ ἝΩς … ἈΝΤΙΟΧΕΊΑς of Acts 11:19, that a diversity of the persons spoken of could not but of necessity be indicated. The correct interpretation is: “The dispersed travelled through (the countries, comp. Acts 8:4, Acts 9:38) as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, delivering the gospel (ΤῸΝ ΛΌΓΟΝ, ΚΑΤʼ ἘΞΟΧΉΝ, as in Acts 8:4, Acts 6:4, and frequently) to the Jews only (Acts 11:19); but some of them (of the dispersed), Cyprians and Cyrenians by birth, proceeded otherwise; having come to Antioch, they preached the word to the Gentiles there.” Comp. de Wette and Lekebusch, p. 105.
ΤΟῪς ἝΛΛΗΝΑς] is the national contrast to Ἰουδαίοις, Acts 11:19, and therefore embraces as well the Gentiles proper as the proselytes who had not become incorporated into Judaism by circumcision. To understand only the proselytes (Rinck), would be a limitation not founded here in the text, as in Acts 14:1.
 The preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch is not to be placed before the baptism of Cornelius (Gieseler in Staeudl. Archiv. IV. 2, p. 310, Baur, Schneckenburger, Wieseler, Lechler), but it was after that event that the missionary activity of the dispersed advanced so far. See Acts 15:7.
And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus.
And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.Acts 11:21-26. Χεὶρ κυρίου] See on Luke 1:66; Acts 4:30. Bengel well remarks: “potentia spirituals per evangelium se exserens.”
αὐτῶν] these preachers to the Gentiles.
Acts 11:22. εἰς τὰ ὦτα] Comp. on Luke 4:21.
ὁ λόγος] the word, i.e. the narrative of it; see on Mark 1:45.
Acts 11:23. χάριν τ. Θεοῦ] as it was manifested in the converted Gentiles.
τῇ προθέσει τῆς καρδ. προσμέν. τῷ κυρίῳ] with the purpose of their heart to abide by the Lord, i.e. not again to abandon Christ, to whom their hearts had resolved to belong, but to be faithful to Him with this resolution. Comp. 2 Timothy 3:10.
Acts 11:24. ὅτι ἦν … πίστεως] contains the reason, not why Barnabas had been sent to Antioch (Kuinoel), but of the immediately preceding ἐχάρη … κυρίῳ.
ἀνὴρ ἀγαθός] quite generally: an excellent man, a man of worth, whose noble character, and, moreover, whose fulness of the Spirit and of faith completely qualified him to gain and to follow the right point of view, in accordance with the divine counsel, as to the conversion of the Gentiles here beheld. Most arbitrarily Heinrichs holds that it denotes gentleness and mildness, which Baumgarten has also assumed, although such a meaning must have arisen, as in Matthew 20:5, from the context (comp. on Romans 5:7), into which Baumgarten imports the idea, that Barnabas had not allowed himself to be stirred to censure by the strangeness of the new phenomenon.
Acts 11:25. εἰς Ταρσόν] See Acts 9:30.
Acts 11:26. According to the corrected reading ἐγένετο δὲ αὐτοῖς καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν κ.τ.λ. (see the critical remarks), it is to be explained: it happened to them (comp. Acts 20:16; Galatians 6:14), to be associated even yet (καί) a whole year in the church, and to instruct a considerable multitude of people, and that the disciples were called Christians first at Antioch. With χρηματίσαι the construction passes into the accusative with the infinitive, because the subject becomes different (τοὺς μαθητ.). But it is logically correct that χρηματίσαι κ.τ.λ. should still be dependent on ἐγένετο αὐτοῖς, just because the reported appellation, which was first given to the disciples at Antioch, was causally connected with the lengthened and successful labours of the two men in that city. It was their merit, that here the name of Christians first arose.
On the climactic καί, etiam, in the sense of yet, or yet further, comp. Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 133 f.
συναχθῆναι] to be brought together, i.e. to join themselves for common work. They had been since Acts 9:26 ff. separated from each other.
χρηματίσαι to bear the name; see on Romans 7:3.
Χριστιανούς] This name decidedly originated not in, but outside of, the church, seeing that the Christians in the N. T. never use it of themselves, but designate themselves by μαθηταί, ἀδελφοί, believers, etc.; and seeing that, in the two other passages where Χριστιανοί occurs, this appellation distinctly appears as extrinsic to the church, Acts 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16. But it certainly did not proceed from the Jews, because Χριστός was known to them as the interpretation of מָשִׁיחַ, and they would not therefore have transferred so sacred a name to the hated apostates. Hence the origin of the name must be derived from the Gentiles in Antioch. By these the name of the Head of the new religious society, “Christ,” was not regarded as an official name, which it already was among the Christians themselves ever more and more becoming; and hence they formed according to the wonted mode the party-name: Christiani (Tac. Ann. xv. 44: “auctor nominis ejus Christus Tiberio imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio affectus erat”). At Antioch, the seat of the mother-church of Gentile Christianity, this took place at that time (for this follows from the reading ἐγέν. δὲ αὐτοῖς), because in that year the joint labours of Paul and Barnabas occasioned so considerable an enlargement of the church, and therewith naturally its increase in social and public consideration. And it was at Antioch that this name was borne first, earlier than anywhere else (πρῶτον, or, according to B א, πρώτως, Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 311 f.), because here the Christians, in consequence of the predominant Gentile-Christian element, asserted themselves for the first time not as a sect of Judaism, but as an independent community. There is nothing to support the view that the name was at first a title of ridicule (de Wette, Baumgarten, after Wetstein and older interpreters). The conjecture of Baur, that the origin of the name was referred to Antioch, because that was the first Gentile city in which there were Christians (Zeller also mistrusts the account before us), cannot be justified by the Latin form of the word (see “Wetstein, ad Matthew 22:17).
 Ewald, p. 441 f., conjectures that it proceeded from the Roman authorities.
Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord.
For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord.
Then departed Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul:
And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
And in these days came prophets from Jerusalem unto Antioch.Acts 11:27-28. Κατῆλθον] whether of their own impulse, or as sent by the church in Jerusalem, or as refugees from Jerusalem (Ewald), is not evident.
προφῆται] inspired teachers, who delivered their discourses, not, indeed, in the ecstatic state, yet in exalted language, on the basis of an ἀποκάλυψις received. Their working was entirely analogous to that of the O. T. prophets. Revelation, incitement, and inspiration on the part of God gave them their qualification; the unveiling of what was hidden in respect of the divine counsel for the exercise of a psychological and moral influence on given circumstances, but always in reference to Christ and His work, was the tenor of what these interpreters of God spoke. The prediction of what was future was, as with the old, so also with the new prophets, no permanent characteristic feature; but naturally and necessarily the divinely-illuminated glance ranged very often into the future development of the divine counsel and kingdom, and saw what was to come. In respect to the degree of the inspired seizure, the προφῆται are related to the γλώσσις λαλοῦντες (see on Acts 10:46) in such a way that the intellectual consciousness was not thrown into the background with the former as with the latter, and so the mental excitement was not raised to the extent of its becoming ecstatic, nor did their speaking stand in need of interpretation. Comp. on 1 Corinthians 12:10.
ἀναστάς] he came forward in the church-assembly.
Ἄγαβος] Whether the name (comp. Ezra 2:46) is to be derived from חָגָב, a locust (with Drasius), or from עגב, to love (with Grotius, Witsius, Drusius, Wolf), remains undecided. The same prophet as in Acts 21:10.
διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος] This characterizes the announcement (ἐσήμανε) of the famine as something imparted to the prophet by the Holy Spirit; hence Eichhorn’s opinion (comp. Heinrichs), that the famine was already present in its beginnings, does great violence to the representation of the text, which, moreover, by ὅστις … Κλαυδίου states the fulfillment as having occurred afterwards, and consequently makes the event to appear at that time still as future, which also μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι definitely affirms.
λιμὸν … οἰκουμένην] that a great famine was appointed (by God) to set in over the whole inhabited earth. Thus generally is τὴν οἰκουμ. to be understood in the original sense of the prophet, who sees no local limits drawn for the famine beheld in prophetic vision, and therefore represents it not as a partial, but as an unrestricted one. Just because the utterance is a prediction, according to its genuine prophetic character, there is no ground for giving to the general and usual meaning of τὴν οἰκουμ.—which is, moreover, designedly brought into relief by ὅλην—any geographical limitation at all (to the land of Judaea or the Roman empire; see on Luke 2:1). This very unlimited character of the vision, on the one hand, warranted the hyperbolical form of the expression, as given by Agabus, while yet, on the other hand, the famine extending itself far and wide, but yet limited, which afterwards historically occurred, might be regarded as the event corresponding to the entirely general prophetic vision, and be described by Luke as its fulfilment. History pointed out the limits, within which what was seen and predicted without limitation found its fulfilment, inasmuch, namely, as this famine, which set in in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius (A.D. 44), extended only to Judaea and the neighbouring countries, and particularly fell on Jerusalem itself, which was supported by the Syrian queen Helena of Adiabene with corn and figs. See Joseph. Antt. xx. 2. 6, xx. 5. 2; Eus. H. E. ii. 11. The view which includes as part of the fulfilment a yet later famine (Baumgarten), which occurred in the eleventh year of Claudius, especially at Rome (Suet. Claud. 18; Tacit. Ann. xii. 43), offends against the words (λιμὸν … ἣτις) as well as against the connection of the history (Acts 11:29-30). It is altogether inadmissible to bring in here the different famines, which successively occurred under Claudius in different parts of the empire (Ewald), since, by the famine here meant, according to Acts 11:29-30, Judaea was affected, and the others were not synchronous with this. Lastly, very arbitrary is the assertion of Baumgarten, that the famine was predicted as a sign and herald of the Parousia, and that the fulfilment under Claudius was therefore merely a preliminary one, which pointed to a future and final fulfilment.
On λιμός as feminine (Doric), as in Luke 15:14, see on Luke 4:26, and Bornemann on our passage.
And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.
Then the disciples, every man according to his ability, determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judaea:Acts 11:29-30. That, as Neander conjectures and Baumgarten assumes, the Christians of Antioch had already sent their money-contributions to Judaea before the commencement of the famine, is incorrect, because it was not through the entirely general expression of Agabus, but only through the result (ὅστις καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδ.), that they could learn the definite time for sending, and also be directed to the local destination of their benevolence; hence Acts 11:29 attaches itself, with strict historical definiteness, to the directly preceding ὅστις … Κλαυδίου. Comp. Wieseler, p. 149. The benevolent activity on behalf of Judaea, which Paul at a later period unweariedly and successfully strove to promote, is to be explained from the dutiful affection toward the mother-land of Christianity, with its sacred metropolis, to which the Gentile church felt itself laid under such deep obligations in spiritual matters, Romans 15:27.
The construction of Acts 11:29 depends on attraction, in such a way, namely, that τῶν δὲ μαθητῶν is attracted by the parenthesis καθὼς ηὐπορεῖτό τις (according as every one was able, see Kypke, II. p. 56; comp. also 1 Corinthians 16:2), and accordingly the sentence as resolved is: οἱ δὲ μαθηταὶ, καθὼς ηὐπορεῖτό τις αὐτῶν, ὥρισαν. The subsequent ἕκαστος αὐτῶν is a more precise definition of the subject of ὥρισαν, appended by way of apposition. Comp. Acts 2:3.
πέμψαι] sc. τι.
The Christian presbyters, here for the first time mentioned in the N. T., instituted after the manner of the synagogue (זקנים), were the appointed overseers and guides of the individual churches, in which the pastoral service of teaching, Acts 20:28, also devolved on them (see on Ephesians 4:11; Huther on 1 Timothy 3:2). They are throughout the N. T. identical with the ἐπισκοποί, who do not come into prominence as possessors of the chief superintendence with a subordination of the presbyters till the sub-apostolic age—in the first instance, and already very distinctly, in the Ignatian epistles. That identity, although the assumption of it is anathematized by the Council of Trent, is clear from Acts 20:17 (comp. Acts 11:28; Titus 1:5; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1 f.; Php 1:1). See Gabler, de episcopis primae eccl., Jen. 1805; Münter in the Stud. u. Krit. 1833, p. 769 ff.; Rothe, Anfänge d. chr. K. I. p. 173 ff.; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 399 ff.; Jacobson in Herzog’s Encykl. II. p. 241 ff. Shifts are resorted to by the Catholics, such as Döllinger, Christenth. u. K. p. 303, and Sepp, p. 353 f.
The moneys were to be given over to the presbyters, in order to be distributed by them among the different overseers of the poor for due application.
According to Galatians 2:1, Paul cannot have come with them as far as Jerusalem; see on Galatians 2:1. In the view of Zeller, that circumstance renders it probable that our whole narrative lacks a historical character—which is a very hasty conclusion.
 We have no account of the institution of this office. It probably shaped itself after the analogy of the government of the synagogue, soon after the first dispersion of the church (Acts 8:1), the apostles themselves having in the first instance presided alone over the church in Jerusalem; while, on the other hand, in conformity with the pressing necessity which primarily emerged, the office of almoner was there formed, even before there were special presbyters. But certainly the presbyters were, as elsewhere (Acts 14:23), so also in Jerusalem (Acts 15:22, Acts 21:18), chosen by the church, and apostolically installed. Comp. Thiersch, p. 78, who, however, arbitrarily conjectures that the coming over of the priests, Acts 6:7, had given occasion to the origin of the office.—We may add that the presbyters do not here appear as almoners (in opposition to Lange, apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 146), but the moneys are consigned to them as the presiding authority of the church. “Omnia enim rite et ordine administrari oportuit,” Beza. Comp. besides, on Acts 6:3, the subjoined remark.
 Ewald’s hypothesis also—that Paul had, when present in Jerusalem, conducted himself as quietly as possible, and had not transacted anything important for doctrine with the apostles, of whom Peter, according to Acts 12:17, had been absents—is insufficient to explain the silence in Galatians 2. concerning this journey. The whole argument in Galatians 2. is weak, if Paul, having been at Jerusalem, was silent to the Galatians about this journey. For the very non-mention of it must have exposed the journey, however otherwise little liable to objection, to the suspicions of opponents. This applies also against Hofmann, N. T. I. p. 121; and Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch., p. 72 f. The latter, however, ultimately accedes to my view. On the other hand, Paul had no need at all to write of the journey at Acts 18:22 to the Galatians (in opposition to Wieseler), because, after he had narrated to them his coming to an understanding with the apostle, there was no object at all in referring in this Epistle to further and later journeys to Jerusalem.
Which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Saul.