聖書注解書

Acts 4:1. λαλούντων δὲ αὐτῶν: the speech was interrupted, as the present participle indicates, and we cannot treat it as if we had received it in full. It is no doubt possible to infer from αὐτῶν that St. John also addressed the people.—ἐπέστησαν αὐτοῖς: commonly used with the notion of coming upon one suddenly, so of the coming of an angel, Acts 12:7, Acts 23:11, Luke 2:9; Luke 24:4, sometimes too as implying a hostile purpose, cf. Acts 6:12, Acts 17:5, and St. Luke (Acts 10:40), Acts 20:1. For its use in the LXX cf. Wis 6:5; Wis 6:8; Wis 19:1.—οἱ ἱερεῖς: “the priests,” so A. and R.V., but the latter, margin, “the chief priests,” see critical note. ἀρχιερεῖς would comprise probably the members of the privileged high-priestly families in which the high-priesthood was vested (Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. i., pp. 203–206, E.T.), Jos., B. J., vi., 2, 2. That the members of these families occupied a distinguished position we know (cf. Acts 4:6), and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the description ἀρχιερεῖς would include them as well as the ex-high-priests, and the one actually in office; this seems justified from the words of Josephus in the passage referred to above (Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, p. 231).—ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ: the captain of the Temple (known chiefly in Jewish writings as “the man of the Temple Mount”). He had the chief superintendence of the Levites and priests who were on guard in and around the Temple, and under him were στρατηγοί, who were also captains of the Temple police, although subordinate to the στρατηγός as their head. The στρατ. τοῦ ἱεροῦ was not only a priest, but second in dignity to the high-priest himself (Schürer, u. s., pp. 258, 259, 267, and Edersheim, u. s., and History of the Jewish Nation, p. 139), Acts 5:24; Acts 5:26, Jos., Ant., xx., 6, 2, B. J., vi, 5, 3. For the use of the term in the LXX, see Schürer, u. s., p. 258. In 2Ma 3:4 the “governor of the Temple” is identified by some with the officer here and in Acts 5:24, but see Rawlinson’s note in loco in Speaker’s Commentary.—καὶ οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι: at this time, as Josephus informs us, however strange it may appear, the high-priestly families belonged to the Sadducean party. Not that the Sadducees are to be identified entirely with the party of the priests, since the Pharisees were by no means hostile to the priests as such, nor the priests to the Pharisees. But the Sadducees were the aristocrats, and to the aristocratic priests, who occupied influential civil positions, the Pharisees were bitterly opposed. Jos., Ant., xvii., 10, 6, xviii., 1, 4, xx., 9, 1. Schürer, u. s., div. ii., vol. ii., pp. 29–43, and div. ii., vol. i., p. 178 ff. The words οἱ Σαδδ. and ἡ οὖσα αἴρεσις τῶν Σ., Acts 4:17, are referred by Hilgenfeld to his “author to Theophilus,” as also the reference to the preaching of the Resurrection as the cause of the sore trouble to the Sadducees; but the mention of the Sadducees at least shows (as Weizsäcker and Holtzmann admit) that the author of Acts had correct information of the state of parties in Jerusalem: “The Sadducees were at the helm, and the office of the high-priest was in Sadducean hands, and the Sadducees predominated in the high-priestly families” (Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, i., 61, E.T.).

Acts 4:2. διαπονούμενοι, cf. Acts 16:18, only in Acts in the N.T., not, as often in classical Greek, referring to the exertions made by them, but to the vexation which they felt, “being sore troubled,” R.V. (πόνος, dolor, Blass), cf. LXX, Ecclesiastes 10:9, used of pain caused to the body, and 2Ma 2:28, R. (A. al. ἀτονοῦντες), but cf. Aquila, Genesis 6:6; Genesis 34:7, 1 Samuel 20:3; 1 Samuel 20:34, of mental grief.—ἐν τῷ Ἰησοῦ: not “through,” but as in R.V., “in Jesus,” i.e., “in persona Jesu quem resurrexisse dicebant” (Blass). Others render it “in the instance of Jesus” (so Holtzmann, Wendt, Felten, Zöckler).—τὴν ἀνάστασιν τὴν ἐκ νεκρῶν: on the form of the expression see Plummer on St. Luke, Luke 20:35, and Lumby’s note, in loco. It must be distinguished from (ἡ) ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν. It is the more limited term implying that some from among the dead are raised, while others as yet are not; used of the Resurrection of Christ and of the righteous, cf. with this passage 1 Peter 1:3 (Colossians 1:18), but see also Grimm-Thayer, sub ἀνάστασις. It was not merely a dogmatic question of the denial of the Resurrection which concerned the Sadducees, but the danger to their power, and to their wealth from the Temple sacrifices and dues, if the Resurrection of Jesus was proclaimed and accepted (see Wendt and Holtzmann, in loco, and Plummer on Luke 23:1-7, note). Spitta agrees with Weiss, Feine, Jüngst, in regarding the mention of the distress of the Sadducees at the preaching of the Apostles as not belonging to the original source. But it is worthy of notice that in estimating the positive value of his source, A., he decides to retain the mention of the Sadducees in Acts 4:1—it would have been more easy, he thinks, for a forger to have represented the enmity to the Church as proceeding not from the Sadducees but from the Pharisees, as in the Gospels. But the Sadducees, as Spitta reminds us, according to Josephus, included the high-priestly families in their number, and it was by this sect that at a later date the death of James the Just was caused. Only once in the Gospels, John 12:10, the chief priests, rather than the Pharisees, take the initiative against our Lord, but this was in the case of what was essentially a question for the Sadducees (as here in Acts 4:2), the advisability of getting rid of Lazarus, a living witness to the truth which the Sadducees denied. It is no unfair inference that the chief priests in St. John occupy the place of the Sadducees in the Synoptists, as the latter are never mentioned by name in the fourth Gospel; and if so, this is exactly in accordance with what we should expect from the notices here and in Acts 5:17, and in Josephus; see on the point Lightfoot in Expositor, 1890, pp. 86, 87.

Acts 4:3. ἐπέβαλον αὐτοῖς τὰς χεῖρας: the verb is always as here joined with the same noun in Acts, and twice in the Gospel; the phrase is found once in Matthew and Mark, and twice in John; see Luke 20:19; Luke 21:12, Acts 4:3; Acts 5:18; Acts 12:1; Acts 21:27, cf. in LXX, Genesis 22:12, 2 Samuel 18:12; Esther 6:2, so also in Polybius.—τήρησιν, cf. Acts 5:18, only used elsewhere in N.T. by St. Paul, 1 Corinthians 7:19; in Thuc., vii., 86 (Wendt), it denotes not only the act of guarding, but also a place of custody. Five times in LXX, but in the former sense. For another instance of its meaning as a place of custody (see Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, p. 55), on papyrus in Egypt, second or third century after Christ.—ἦν γὰρ ἑσπέρα ἤδη, cf. Acts 3:1, the judicial examination must therefore be postponed until the next day, see Jeremiah 21:12, on which it appears that the Rabbis founded this prohibition against giving judgment in the night (Lumby and Felten, in loco).—ἑσπέρα: only in St. Luke in the N.T., Luke 24:29, Acts 4:3 (Acts 20:15, W.H[147] margin) and Acts 28:23.

[147] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Acts 4:4. ἐγενήθη: “came to be” R.V., only here in St. Luke, except in the quotation in Acts 1:20 (see also Acts 7:13, ., and Blass in [148]—hellenistic, frequently in LXX; in N.T. cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:14, Colossians 4:11; also Jos., Ant., x., 10, 2, Winer-Schmiedel, p. 108, note).—ἀνδρῶν. This word here appears to be used of men only (so Wetstein, Blass), cf. Matthew 14:21, Mark 6:40, for although we cannot argue with Weiss from Acts 5:14, that women in great numbers did not join the Church until a later period (cf. also Acts 2:41, where women may well have been included), yet it seems that St. Luke, by his use of one word, ἀνδρῶν, here refers to the additional number of men. St. Luke does not say that five thousand of St. Peter’s hearers were converted, in addition to those already converted at Pentecost (although Dr. Hort, following Chrys., Aug[149], Jer[150], takes this view, Judaistic Christianity, p. 47), or that five thousand were added, but his words certainly mark the growing expansion of the Church in spite of threatening danger, as this is also evident on the view that five thousand represent the total number of believers. The instances above from the Gospels are generally quoted to confirm the view here taken, but Wendt, in loco, curiously quotes the same passages in proof that ἀνδρῶν here includes women. The numbers are regarded by him as by Weizsäcker as artificial, but see above on Acts 1:15.

[148] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

[149] Augustine.

[150] Jerome, Hieronymus.

Acts 4:5. ἐγένετο δὲ: the formula is another characteristic of St. Luke’s style, Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, p. 13, also Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 26, 29. Compare for the type of construction, according to which what takes place is put in the infinitive mood, depending upon ἐγένετο, Acts 9:32; Acts 9:37; Acts 9:43, Acts 11:26, Acts 14:1, and other instances in Dr. Plummer’s exhaustive note, St. Luke, p. 45—ἐπὶ τὴν αὔριον: here only and in Luke 10:35, in N.T. For the temporal use of ἐπί Acts 3:1—συναχθῆναι, i.e., the Sanhedrim, ἄρχοντας here = ἀρχιερεῖς, who are mentioned first as a rule, where the N.T. enumerates the different orders of the Sanhedrim, whilst οἱ ἄρχοντες is an interchangeable expression, both in the N.T. and in Josephus (see, for instance, Schürer, Jewish People, div. ii., vol. i., pp. 177, 205, E.T.), although there are two instances in which both words occur together, Luke 23:13; Luke 24:20. Whatever may have been the precise significance of the term ἀρχιερεῖς, Schürer, u. s., pp. 203–206, E.T., it included, beyond all doubt, the most prominent representatives of the priesthood, belonging chiefly, if not entirely, to the Sadducean party.—πρεσβυτέρους: those members were known simply by this title who did not belong to either of the two special classes mentioned.—γραμματεῖς: the professional lawyers who adhered to the Pharisees, Jos., Ant., xvii., 6, 2. Even under the Roman government the Sanhedrim possessed considerable independence of jurisdiction, both civil and criminal. Not only could it order arrests to be made by its own officers, but it could dispose, on its own authority, of cases where the death penalty was not involved, Schürer, u. s., p. 187, E.T., and Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 103 ff.—εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ: Weiss would restrict ἐν Ἰερ. to the scribes of Jerusalem to distinguish them from the scribes of Galilee, but it is doubtful whether the words can bear this (see also Rendall, who favours the same view as Weiss). Holtzmann and Wendt, on the other hand, defend εἰς, and suppose that the members of the Sanhedrim were obliged to hurry into the city from their country estates. Zöckler applies ἐν Ἰερ. not only to γραμματεῖς, but also to the other members of the Sanhedrim, and sees in the words an intimation that the sitting was hurriedly composed of the members actually present in Jerusalem.

Acts 4:6. Ἄννας: Caiaphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was the high priest actually, in office, but like other retired high priests, the latter retained not only the title, but also many of the rights and obligations of the office. Josephus certainly appears to extend the title to ex-high priests, and so in the N.T. where ἀρχιερεῖς appear at the head of the Sanhedrim as in this passage (ἄρχοντες), the ex-high priests are to be understood, first and foremost, as well as the high-priest actually in office. The difficulty here is that the title is given to Annas alone, and this seems to involve that he was also regarded as president of the Sadducees, whereas it is always the actual ἀρχιερεύς who presides, cf. Acts 5:17; Acts 7:1; Acts 9:1; Acts 22:5; Acts 23:2; Acts 23:4; Acts 24:1. But not only is the laxity of the term to be considered, but also the fact that Annas on account of his influence as the head of the γένος ἀρχιερατικόν may have remained the presiding ἀρχιερεύς in spite of all the rapid changes in the tenure of the high-priestly office under the Romans. These changes the Jews would not recognise as valid, and if the early chapters of Acts came to St. Luke as seems probable from Jewish Christian sources, Annas might easily be spoken of as high-priest. His relationship to Caiaphas helps to explain the influence and power of Annas. On Hamburger’s view (Real-Encyclopädie des Judentums, ii., 8, p. 1151,“Synhedrion”), that a Rabbi and not the high-priest presided over the Sadducees, see Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 522, and Schürer, u. s., p. 180. For Annas, see Jos., Ant., xviii., 2, 12, xx., 9, 1, and see further “Annas” in B.D.2 and Hastings’ B.D.—Ἰωάννης: identified by J. Lightfoot (cf. also Wetstein) with the famous Johanan ben Zacchai, president of the Great Synagogue after its removal to Jamnia, who obtained leave from Vespasian for many of the Jews to settle in the place. But the identification is very uncertain, and does not appear to commend itself to Schürer; see critical note above.—Ἀλέξανδρος: of him too nothing is known, as there is no confirmatory evidence to identify him with the brother of Philo, alabarch of Alexandria, and the first man of his time amongst the Jews of that city, Jos., Ant., xviii., 8, 1, xix., 5, 1, xx., 5, B.D.2 and Hastings’ B. D., “Alexander”.

Acts 4:7. ἐν τῷ μέσῳ: according to the Mishnah the members of the court sat in a semicircle, see Hamburger, u. s., to be able to see each other. But it is unnecessary to press the expression, it may be quite general, cf. Matthew 14:6, Mark 3:3, John 8:3. On the usual submissive attitude of prisoners, see Jos., Ant., xiv., 9, 4. In this verse R.V. supplies “was there” as a verb, Annas being its subject. Various attempts to amend the broken construction—all the proper names are in the nominative (not in accusative as T.R.), so W.H[151], R.V., Wendt, Weiss; . reads συνήχθησαν, so Blass in β.—ἐν ποίᾳ: by what kind of power; or may = τίνι, Acts 23:34—ἐν ποίῳ ὀνόματι: in virtue of what name? “nomen hic vis ac potestas” Grotius and Wetstein, in loco. They ask as if they would accuse them of referring to some magical name or formula for the performance of the miracles, Acts 19:13 (on ὄνομα see Acts 3:16), cf. LXX, Exodus 5:23. Probably they would like to bring the Apostles under the condemnation pronounced in Deuteronomy 13:1. “So did they very foolishly conceit that the very naming of some name might do wonders—and the Talmud forgeth that Ben Sadha wrought miracles by putting the unutterable name within the skin of his foot and then sewing it up,” J. Lightfoot.—ὑμεῖς: as if in scorn, with depreciatory emphasis at the close of the question, so Wendt, and Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 160.—τοῦτο: not this teaching (Olshausen), but the miracle on the lame man.

[151] Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in Greek: Critical Text and Notes.

Acts 4:8. πλησθεὶς πνεύ. ἁγ.: the whole phrase is characteristic of St. Luke, who employs it in the Gospel three times and in Acts five (Friedrich, Lekebusch, Zeller). Acts has sometimes been called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit, and the number of times St. Luke uses the title “Holy Spirit” justifies the name, see above also p. 63. All three expressions, πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, and τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον are found in the Gospel and Acts, though much more frequently in the latter, the first expression (in the text) occurring quite double the number of times in Acts as compared with the Gospel, cf. in the LXX, Psalms 50 (51):11, Isaiah 63:10-11, Wis 1:5; Wis 9:17; and with 1 Corinthians 2:10; 1 Corinthians 2:12, cf. Wis 9:17, and Isaiah 63:10-11. On the omission of the article see Simcox, Language of N. T. Greek, p. 49. πλησθεὶς—the verb πίμπλημι common both in Gospel and in Acts, only found twice elsewhere in N.T., as against thirteen times in Gospel and nine times in Acts (Friedrich, Lekebusch). The word was also very frequent in LXX, cf. Sir 48:12, A. The phrase πλησθῆναι πνεύμ. ἁγ. is peculiar to St. Luke, in Gospel three times, Luke 1:15; Luke 1:41; Luke 1:67, and Acts 2:4; Acts 4:31; Acts 9:17; Acts 13:9, cf. Luke 12:12; Luke 21:14; see also Matthew 10:20, Mark 13:11. St. Peter’s courage in thus openly proclaiming the Crucified for the first time before the rulers of his people might well be significantly emphasised, as in Acts 4:13. St. Chrysostom comments (Hom., x.) on the Christian wisdom of St. Peter on this occasion, how full of confidence he is, and yet how he utters not a word of insult, but speaks with all respect.