S 1 Chron. xxvii. 9: Jer. xi. 20: xxix. 17. called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. rch. xv. 22. 24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest ■ 1 Sam. xvi. 7. the hearts of all men; y shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25 that he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas a by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26 And they gave forth b xvii. 10. ch. xv. 8. Rev. 23 t ver. 17. y render, appoint one of these two, him whom thou hast chosen. a the original has merely, passed away. dition of Apostleship. Still, the testimony 24.] It is a question, to Whom this prayer was directed. I think all probability is in favour of the Apostle (for Peter certainly was the spokesman) having addressed his glorified Lord. And with this the language of the prayer agrees. No stress can, it is true, be laid on the word Lord being used: see ch. iv. 29, where un- The a Lev. xxiii. 15. Deut. xvi. 9. ch. xx. 16. their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was • numbered with the eleven apostles. II. 1 And a when a the day of Pentecost was fully come, c literally, voted in amongst. d literally, while the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled. I think these words may be interpreted two ways: 1. that Judas deserted this our place, our office and ministry, to go to his own place, that part which he had chosen for himself, viz. the office and character of a traitor and enemy of God; 2. regarding the former word place as being selected to correspond to the more proper and dreadful use of the word here, that Judas deserted his appointed place, here among us, that he might go to his own appointed place else where, viz. among the dead in the place of torment. Of these two interpretations, I very much prefer the second, on all accounts; as being more according to the likely usage of the word, and as more befitting the solemnity of such a prayer. At the same time, no absolute sentence is pronounced on the traitor, but that dark surmise expressed by the phrase his own place, which none can help feeling with regard to him. To understand "he" of Judas's successor,—that he (the new Apostle) might enter on his own place of dignity destined for him by God, (1) is contrary to the form of the sentence in the original; (2) is inconsistent with the words, which are unexampled in this sense; (3) would divest a sentence, evidently solemn and pregnant, of all point and meaning, and reduce it to a mere tautology. It appears to have been very early understood as above; for Clement of Rome says of Peter, "Thus having borne a martyr's testimony, he went to his appointed place of glory," an expression evidently borrowed from our text. Lightfoot quotes from a Rabbinical work on Numb. xxv. 25, "Balaam went to his own place," i. e. "to hell.” 26. they cast lots for them] These lots were probably tablets, with the names of the person's written on them, and shaken in a vessel, or in the lap of a robe (Prov. xvi. 33); he whose lot first leaped out being the person designated. was voted in amongst the eleven apostles] The lot being regarded as the divine choice, the suffrages of the assembly were unanimously given (not in form, but by cheerful acquiescence) to the candidate thus chosen, and he was voted in' among the eleven Apostles, i. e. as a twelfth. That St. Luke does not absolutely say so, and never afterwards speaks of the twelve Apostles, is surely no safe ground on which to doubt this. Stier was disposed to question whether this step of electing a twelfth Apostle was altogether suitable to the then waiting position of the Church, and whether Paul was not in reality the twelfth, chosen by the Lord Himself. But I do not see that any of his seven queries touch the matter. We have the precedent, of all others most applicable, of the twelve tribes, to shew that the number, though ever nominally kept, was really exceeded. And this incident would not occupy a prominent place in a book where St. Paul himself has so conspicuous a part, unless it were by himself considered as being what it professed to be, the filling up of the vacant Apostleship. CHAP. II. 1-4.] THE OUTPOURING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT ON THE DISCIPLES. 1.] while the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled: "during the progress of that particular day :" necessitated by the pres. tense. In sense, it amounts to 'when the day of Pentecost was fully come,' as A. V. the day of Pentecost] The fiftieth day (inclusive) after the sixteenth of Nisan, the second day of the Passover (Levit. xxiii. 16),-called in Exodus xxiii. 16, 'the feast of harvest,'-in Deut. xvi. 10, 'the feast of weeks :'-one of the three great feasts, when all the males were required to appear at Jerusalem, Deut. xvi. 16. At this time, it was simply regarded as the feast of harvest among the later Jews, it was considered as the anniversary of the giving of the law from Sinai. This inference was apparently grounded on a comparison of Exod. xii. 2 and xix. 1. Josephus and Philo know nothing of it, and it is at the best very uncertain. Chrysostom's reason for the event happening when it did is probably the true one: "It was fitting that this should take place on the recurrence of a feast: that they who had been present at the cross of Christ might see this also." The question, on what day of the week this day of Pentecost was, is beset with the difficulties attending the question of our Lord's last passover; see notes on Matt. xxvi. 17, and John xviii. 28. It appears probable however that it was on the Sabbath, -i. e. if we reckon from Saturday, the 16th of Nisan. Wieseler supposes that the Western Church altered the celebration of it to the first day of the b they were all with one accord in one place. 2 And bch. i. 14. suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were c ch. iv. 31. sitting. 3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them d e week, in conformity with her observ ance of Easter on that day. If we take the second day of the Passover as Sunday, the 17th of Nisan, which some have inferred from John xviii. 28, the day of Pentecost will fall on the first day of the week. they were all together in one place] Not the Apostles only, nor the hundred and twenty mentioned ch. i. 15; but all the believers in Christ, then congregated at the time of the feast in Jerusalem. The former is manifest from ver. 14, when Peter and the eleven stand forward and allude to the rest as these: and the latter follows on the former being granted. Both are confirmed by the universality of the promise cited by Peter, ver. 17 ff. See Chrysostom below, on ver. 4. 66 in together: the other but not so well supported reading, “with one accord," implies more, viz. that their purpose, as well as their locality, was the same. one place] Where? evidently not in the temple, or any part of it. The improbability of such an assemblage, separate and yet so great, in any of the rooms attached to the temple,-the words all the house" in ver. 2 (where see note),—the notice, that "the multitude came together," ver. 6,-the absence of any mention of the temple,-all these are against such a supposition. Obviously no à priori consideration such as Olshausen alleges, that "thus the solemn inauguration of the Church of Christ becomes more imposing by happening in the holy place of the Old Covenant," can apply to the enquiry. Nor can the statement that they were "continually in the temple," Luke xxiv. 53, apply here (see above on ch. i. 13); for even if it be assumed that the hour of prayer was come (which it hardly could have been, seeing that some time must have elapsed between the event and Peter's speech), the disciples would not have been assembled separately, but would, as Peter and John, in ch. iii. 1, have gone up, mingled with the people. See more below. 2.] The words of the description could not be better rendered than in A. V., f ch.15. xix. 6.1 Cor. 30xii. 1: e Mark xvi. 17. ch. x. 46: xii. 10, 28, xiv. 2, &c. render, even as. a sound as of a rushing mighty wind. It was the sound as of a violent blowing, borne onward, which accompanied the descent of the Holy Spirit. To treat this as a natural phænomenon,— —even supposing that phænomenon miraculously produced, as the earthquake at the crucifixion,-is contrary to the text, which does not describe it as a sound of a rushing mighty wind, but a sound as of a rushing mighty wind. It was the chosen vehicle by which the Holy Spirit was manifested to their sense of hearing, as by the tongues of fire to their sense of seeing. it filled all the house] Cer tainly Luke would not have used this word of a chamber in the Temple, or of the Temple itself, without further explanation. Our Lord, it is true, calls the Temple 'your house," Matt. xxiii. 38,-and Josephus informs us that Solomon's Temple was furnished with thirty small houses (or rooms), and that over these were other houses; but to suppose either usage here, seems to me very far-fetched and unnatural. 3. cloven tongues like as of fire] They were not of fire, as not possessing the burning power of fire, but only as it were of fire, in appearance like that element. it sat, viz. the appearance; not the Spirit, nor the tongue, but the appearance described in the preceding clause. I understand the word sat as usually interpreted, lighted on their heads. This also was no effect of natural cause, either ordinarily or extraordinarily employed: see on ver. 2. 4.] On the word all, Chrysostom says, "The Evangelist would not have said all, the Apostles being there, had not the rest also been partakers." began to speak with other tongues] There can be no question in any unprejudiced mind, that the fact which this narrative sets before us is, that the disciples began to speak in VARIOUS LANGUAGES, viz. the languages of the nations below enumerated, and perhaps others. All attempts to evade this are connected with some forcing of the text, or some far-fetched and indefensible explanation. This then being laid down, several important questions arise, and we are sur utterance. 5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, rounded by various difficulties. (1) Was this speaking in various languages a gift bestowed on the disciples for their use afterwards, or was it a mere sign, their utterance being only as they were mouthpieces of the Holy Spirit? The latter seems certainly to have been the case. It appears on our narrative, even as the Spirit gave them utterance. But, it may be objected, in that case they would not themselves understand what they said. I answer, that we infer this very fact from 1 Cor. xiv.; that the speaking with tongues was often found, where none could interpret what was said. And besides, it would appear from Peter's speech, that such, or something approaching to it, was the case in this instance. He makes no allusion to the things said by those who spoke with tongues; the hearers alone speak of their declaring the wonderful works of God. So that it would seem that here, as on other occasions (1 Cor. xiv. 22), tongues were for a sign, not to those that believe, but to those that believe not. If the first supposition be made, that the gift of speaking in various languages was bestowed on the disciples for their after-use in preaching the Gospel, we are, I think, running counter to the whole course of Scripture and the evidence of the early fathers on the subject. There is no trace whatever of such a power being possessed or exercised by the Apostles (see ch. xiv. 11, 14) or by those who followed them. I believe, therefore, the event related in our text to have been a sudden and powerful inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which the disciples uttered, not of their own minds, but as mouth-pieces of the Spirit, the praises of God in various languages, hitherto, and possibly at the time itself, unknown to them. (2) How is this "speaking with other tongues" related to the "speaking with tongues" (or, "with a tongue") afterwards spoken of by St. Paul? I answer, that they are one and the same thing. See this further proved in notes on 1 Cor. xiv. Meantime I may remark, that the two are inseparably connected by the following links,-ch. x. 46, xi. 15,-xix. 6,-in which last we have the same juxta-position of speaking with tongues and prophesying as afterwards in 1 Cor. xiv. 1—5 ff. (3) Who were those that partook of this gift? I answer, the whole assembly of believers, from Peter's application of the prophecy, vv. 16 ff. It was precisely the case supposed in 1 Cor. xiv. 23. The unlearned and unbelievers of that passage were represented by the others of our ver. 13, who pronounced them to be drunken. (4) I would not conceal the difficulty which our minds find in conceiving a person supernaturally endowed with the power of speaking, ordinarily and consciously, a language which he has never learned. But there is to my mind no such difficulty, in conceiving a man to be moved to utterance of sounds dictated by the Holy Spirit. And the fact is clearly laid down by St. Paul, that the gift of speaking in tongues, and that of interpreting, were wholly distinct. So that the above difficulty finds no place here, nor even in the case of a person both speaking and interpreting: see 1 Cor. xiv. 13.-On the question whether the speaking was necessarily always in a foreign tongue, we have no data to guide us: it would seem that it was; but the conditions would not absolutely exclude rhapsodical and unintelligible utterance. Only there is this objection to it: clearly, languages were spoken on this occasion,-and we have no reason to believe that there were two distinct kinds of the gift. (5) It would be quite beyond the limits of a note to give any adequate history of the explanations of the passage. A very short summary must suffice. (a) The idea of a gift of speaking in various languages having been conferred for the dissemination of the Gospel, appears not to have originated, until the gift of tongues itself had some time disappeared from the Church. Chrysostom adopts it, and the great majority of the Fathers and expositors. (b) Some, both in ancient and in modern times, have supposed that the miracle consisted in the multitude hearing in various languages that which the believers spoke in their native tongue: that one language was spoken, but many were heard. To this it may be replied, as is done by Gregory Nazianzen, that "thus the miracle would be wrought, not on the speakers, but on the hearers." This view, besides, would make a distinction between this instance of the gift and those subsequently related, which we have seen does not exist. On the courses taken by the modern German expositors, see note in my Greek Test. even as (i. e. ‘in such measure and manner in each case as') the Spirit granted to them to speak (bestowed on them utterance)] The words rendered gave them utterance have been supposed here to imply that they uttered short ejaculatory sentences of praise. But this seems to be unfounded: and our word to utter, to speak out, seems exactly to render it. Their utterance was none of their own, but the simple gift and inspiration of the devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them h speak in his own language. 7 And they were hh all amazed and marvelled, saying hh one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak ' Galilæans? 8 And how hear we every fch. i. 11. f man in our Own tongue, wherein we were born? g render, when this sound (literally, voice) took place. Holy Spirit: see above. 5.] De Wette out of every nation under heaven] Not perhaps used so much hyperbolically, as with reference to the significance of the whole event. As they were samples each of their different people, so collectively they represented all the nations of the world, who should hear afterwards in their own tongues the wonderful works of God. 6.] Whatever this sound (literally, voice) may mean, one thing is clear,-that it cannot mean, this rumour' (when this was noised abroad,' A. V.): which would be unexampled. We have then to choose between two things to which the word voice, or sound, might refer :-(1) the "sound as of a mighty rushing wind" of ver. 2, which would hardly be used of a speaking which was still going on when the multitude assembled ;-and (2) the speaking with tongues of ver. 4. To this reference, besides the objection just stated, there is also another, that the voices of a number of men, especially when diverse as in this case, would not be indicated by the singular number, voice, but by voices: comp. St. Luke's own usage, even when the voices cried out the same thing, Luke xxiii. 23, "They were instant with loud voices, requiring that he might be crucified. And the voices of them and of the chief priests prevailed." And when he uses the singular, he explains it, as in ch. xix. 34, "All with one voice. . . cried out." hh omit. So that we may safely decide for the former They |