성경 주석서

CHAPTER 5

Acts 5:2. After γυναικός, Elz. Scholz have αὐτοῦ, which Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly deleted, as it is wanting in A B D* א, min., and has evidently slipped in from Acts 5:1.

Acts 5:5. After ἀκούοντας, Lachm. Tisch. Born. have deleted the usual reading ταῦτα; it is wanting in A B D א*, min. Or. Lucif. and several VSS., and is an addition from Acts 5:11.

Acts 5:9. εἶπε] is very suspicious, as it is wanting in B D א, min. Vulg.; in other witnesses it varies in position, and Or. has φησίν. Deleted by Lachm. Born. and Tisch.

Acts 5:10. παρὰ τ. π.] Lachm. and Tisch. read πρὸς τ. π. according to A B D א, Or.; other witnesses have ἐπὶ τ. π.; others, ὑπὸ τ. π.; others, ἐνώπιον. Born. also has πρὸς τ. π. But as Luke elsewhere writes παρὰ τ. π. (Luke 8:41; Luke 17:16), and not πρὸς τ. π. (Mark 5:22; Mark 7:25; Revelation 1:17), the Recepta is to be retained.

Acts 5:15. παρὰ τὰς πλ.] Lachm. reads καὶ εἰς τὰς πλ after A B D** א, min. D* has only κατὰ πλ.; and how easily might this become, by an error of a transcriber, καί τὰς πλ., which was completed partly by the original κατά and partly by εἰς! Another correction was, καὶ ἐν ταῖς πλατείαις (E). No version has καί. Accordingly the simple κατὰ πλατ., following D*, is to be preferred.

Instead of κλινῶν, Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly κλινορίων (so A B D א); κλινῶν was inserted as the wonted form.

Acts 5:16. εἰς Ἱερουσ.] εἰς is wanting in A B א, 103, and some VSS. Deleted by Lachm. But the retention of εἰς has predominant attestation; and it was natural to write in the margin by the side of τῶν πέριξ πόλεων the locally defining addition Ἱερουσαλήμ, which became the occasion of omitting the εἰς Ἱερουσ. that follows.

Acts 5:18. τ. χειρ. αὐτῶν] αὐτῶν is wanting in A B D א, min. Syr. Erp. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Theophyl. Lucif., and omitted by Lachm, Tisch. Born. But see Acts 4:3.

Acts 5:23. ἑστώτας] Elz. has ἔξω ἑστ. But ἔξω has decisive evidence against it, and is a more precisely defining addition occasioned by the following ἔσω.

πρό] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read ἐπί, according to A B D א, 109; πρό is an interpretation.

Acts 5:24. ὅ τε ἱερεὺς καὶ ὁ στρατ. τ. ἱεροῦ κ. οἱ ἀρχιερ.] A B D א, min. Copt. Sahid. Arm. Vulg. Cant. Lucif. have merely ὅ τε στρατ. τ. ἱεροῦ κ. οἱ ἀρχιερ. So Lachm. Rinck, and Born. But ἱερεύς being not understood, and being regarded as unnecessary seeing that οἱ ἄρχιερ. followed, might very easily be omitted; whereas there is no reason for its having been inserted. For the genuineness of ἱερεύς also the several other variations testify, which are to be considered as attempts to remove the offence without exactly erasing the word, namely, οἱ ἱερεῖς κ. ὁ στρ. τ. ἱερ. κ. οἱ ἀρχ. and ὅ τε ἀρχιερεὺς κ. ὁ στρ. τ. ἱερ. κ. οἱ ἀρχ.

Acts 5:25. After αὐτοῖς Elz. has λέγων, against decisive evidence. An addition, in accordance with Acts 5:22 f.

Acts 5:26. ἵνα μή] Lachm. Born. have μή, according to B D E א, min. But the omission easily appeared as necessary on account of ἐφοβ. Comp. Galatians 4:11.

Acts 5:28. οὐ is wanting in A B א*, Copt. Vulg. Cant. Ath. Cyr. Lucif. Rightly deleted by Lachm. and Tisch., as the transforming of the sentence into a question was evidently occasioned by ἐπηρώτησεν.

Acts 5:32. After ἐσμεν, Elz. Scholz, Tisch. have αὐτοῦ, which A D* א, min., and several VSS. omit. It is to be defended. As μάρτυρες is still denned by another genitive, αὐτοῦ became cumbrous, appeared inappropriate, and was omitted. B has καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ μάρτυρες (without ἐσμεν), etc. But in this case EN is to be regarded as a remnant of the ἐσμεν, the half of which was easily omitted after ἡμεῖς; and thereupon αὐτοῦ was transformed into αὐτῷ. The less is any importance to be assigned to the reading of Lachm.: καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐν αὐτῷ μάρτυρές ἐσμεν κ.τ.λ.

Acts 5:33. ἐβουλεύοντο] Lachm. reads ἐβούλοντο, according to A B E, min. An interpretation, or a mechanical interchange, frequent also in MSS. of the classics; see Born, ad xv. 37.

Acts 5:34. βραχύ τι] τι, according to decisive evidence, is to be deleted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born.

ἀποστόλους] A B א, 80, Vulg. Copt. Arm. Chrys. have ἀνθρώπους. So Lachm. Tisch.; and rightly, as the words belong to the narrative of Luke, and therefore the designation of the apostles by ἀνθρώπους appeared to the scribes unworthy. It is otherwise in Acts 5:35; Acts 5:38.

Acts 5:36. προσεκλίθη] Elz. Griesb. Scholz read προσεκολλήθη, in opposition to A B C** א, min., which have προσεκλίθη; and in opposition to C* D* E H, min. Cyr., which have προσεκλήθη (so Born.). Other witnesses have προσετέθη, also προσεκληρώθη. Differing interpretations of the προσεκλίθη, which does not elsewhere occur in the N. T., but which Griesb. rightly recommended, and Matth. Lachm. Tisch. have adopted.

Acts 5:37. ἰκανόν to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., as it is wanting in A* B א, 81, Vulg. Cant. Cyr., in some others stands before λαόν, and in C D, Eus. is interchanged with πολύν (so Born.).

Acts 5:38. Instead of ἐάσατε, Lachm. has ἄφετε, following A B C א. A gloss.

Acts 5:39. δύνασθε] Lachm. Tisch. Born. have δυνήσεσθε, according to B C D E א, min., and some VSS. and Fathers. Mistaking the purposely chosen definite expression, men altered it to agree with the foregoing future.

Instead of αὐτούς, which Lachm. Tisch. Born, have, Elz. and Scholz read αὐτό, against decisive testimony. An alteration to suit τὸ ἔργον.

Acts 5:41. After ὀνόματος Elz. has αὐτοῦ, which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and is an addition for the sake of completeness. Other interpolations are: Ἰησοῦ,

τοῦ Χριστοῦ,

Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

τοῦ κυρίου,

τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Acts 5:1-10. Ananias (חֲנַנְיָה, God pities; Jeremiah 28:1; Daniel 1:6; LXX. Tob 5:12[163]) and Sapphira, however, acted quite otherwise. They attempted in deceitful hypocrisy to abuse the community of goods, which, nevertheless, was simply permissive (Acts 5:4). For by the sale of the piece of land and the bringing of the money, they in fact declared the whole sum to be a gift of brotherly love to the common stock; but they aimed only at securing for themselves the semblance of holy loving zeal by a portion of the price, and had selfishly embezzled the remainder for themselves. They wished to serve two masters, but to appear to serve only one. With justice, Augustine designates the act as sacrilegium (“quod Deum in pollicitatione fefellerit”) and fraus.

The sudden death of both is to be regarded as a result directly effected through the will of the apostle, by means of the miraculous power imparted to him; and not as a natural stroke of paralysis, independent of Peter, though taking place by divine arrangement (so Ammon, Stolz, Heinrichs, and others). For, apart from the supposition, in this case necessary, of a similar susceptibility in husband and wife for such an impression of sudden terror, the whole narrative is opposed to it; especially Acts 5:9, the words of which Peter could only have uttered with the utmost presumption, if he had not the consciousness that his own will was here active. If we should take Acts 5:9 to be a mere threat, to which Peter found himself induced by an inference from the fate of Ananias, this would be merely an unwarranted alteration of the simple meaning of the words, and would not diminish the presumptuousness of a threat so expressed. Nearly allied to this natural explanation is the view mingling the divine and the natural, and taking half from each, given by Neander (the holy earnestness of the apostolic words worked so powerfully on the terrified conscience), and by Olshausen (the word of Peter pierced like a sword the alarmed Ananias, and thus his death was the marvel arranged by a higher disposing power). But this view is directly opposed to the contents and the design of the whole representation. According to Baur, nothing remains historical in the whole narrative except that Ananias and his wife had, by their covetousness, made their names so hated, “that people believed that they could see only a divine judgment in their death, in whatever way it occurred;” all the rest is to be explained from the design of representing the πνεῦμα ἅγιον as the divine principle working in the apostles. Comp. Zeller, who, however, despairs of any more exact ascertainment of the state of the case. Baumgarten, as also Lange (comp. Ewald), agrees in the main with Neander; whilst de Wette is content with sceptical questions, although recognising the miraculous element so far as the narrative is concerned. Catholics have used this history in favour of the two swords of the Pope.

The severity of the punishment, with which Porphyry reproached Peter (Jerome, Epp. 8), is justified by the consideration, that here was presented the first open venture of deliberate wickedness, as audacious as it was hypocritical, against the principle of holiness ruling in the church, and particularly in the apostles; and the dignity of that principle, hitherto unoffended, at once required its full satisfaction by the infliction of death upon the violators, by which “awe-inspiring act of divine church-discipline” (Thiersch, Kirche im apost. Zeitalt. p. 46), at the same time, the authority of the apostles, placed in jeopardy, was publicly guaranteed in its inviolableness (“ut poena duorum hominum sit doctrina multorum,” Jerome).

ἐνοσφίσ.] he put aside for himself, purloined. Titus 2:10; 2Ma 4:32; Joshua 7:1; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 42; Pind. Nem. vi. 106; Valck. p. 395 f.

ἈΠῸ Τ. ΤΙΜῆς] sc. τι. See Fritzsche, Conject. p. 36; Buttm. neut. Gr. p. 139 [E. T. 159]. Comp. Athen. vi. p. 234 A: νοσφ. ἐκ τοῦ χρήματος.

[163] It may, however, be the Hebrew name עֲנַנְיָה (Nehemiah 3:23, LXX.), i.e. God covers.—The name Σαπφείρη is apparently the Aramaic שפירא, formosa. Derived from the Greek σάπφειρος, sapphire, it would have probably been Σαπφειρίνη.

Acts 5:3. Peter recognises the scheme of Ananias as the work of the devil, who, as the liar from the beginning (John 8:44), and original enemy of the πνεῦμα ἃγιον and of the Messianic kingdom, had entered into the heart of Ananias (comp. on John 13:27; Luke 22:3), and filled it with his presence. Ananias, according to his Christian destination and ability (Jam 4:7; 1 Peter 5:9), ought not to have permitted this, but should have allowed his heart to be filled with the Holy Spirit; hence the question, διατί ἐπλήρωσεν κ.τ.λ.

ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἃγ.] that thou shouldest by lying deceive the Holy Spirit: this is the design of ἐπλήρωσεν. The explanation is incorrect which understands the infinitive ἐκβατικῶς, and takes it only of the attempt: unde accidit, ut πνεῦμα ἅγ. decipere tentares (Heinrichs, Kuinoel). The deceiving of the Holy Spirit was, according to the design of Satan, really to take place; and although it was not in the issue successful, it had actually taken place on the part of Ananias.

τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἃγιον] Peter and the other apostles, as overseers of the church, were pre-eminently the bearers and organs of the Holy Spirit (comp. Acts 13:2; Acts 13:4); hence through the deception of the former the latter was deceived.

For examples of ψεύδεσθαι, of de facto lying, deception by an act, see Kypke, II. p. 32 f. The word with the accusative of the person (Isaiah 57:11; Deuteronomy 33:29; Hosea 9:2) occurs only here in the N. T.; often in the classical writers, see Blomfield, Gloss. ad Aesch. Pers. 478.

This instantaneous knowledge of the deceit is an immediate perception, wrought in the apostle by the Spirit dwelling in him.

Acts 5:4. When it remained (namely, unsold; the opposite: πραθέν), did it not remain to thee (thy property)? and when sold, was it not in thy power?

That the community of goods was not a legal compulsion, see on Acts 2:43.

ἐν τῇ σῇ ἐξουσίᾳ ὑπῆρχε] sc. ἡ τιμή, which is to be taken out of πραθέν. It was in the disposal of Ananias either to retain the purchase-money entirely to himself, or to give merely a portion of it to the common use; but not to do the latter, as he did it, under the deceitful semblance as if what he handed over to the apostles was the whole sum. The sin of husband and wife is cleverly characterized in Constitt. ap. vii. 2. 4 : κλέψαντες τὰ ἴδια.

τι ὅτι] quid est quod, i.e. cur? Comp. on Mark 2:17. Wherefore did. st thou fix this deed in thy heart? i.e. wherefore didst thou resolve on this deed (namely, on the instigation of the devil, Acts 5:3)? Comp. Acts 19:21; the Heb. שׂוּם עַל לֵב (Daniel 1:8; Malachi 2:2), and the classical expression θέσθαι ἐν φρεσί, and the like.

οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις, ἀλλὰ τῷ Θεῷ). The state of things in itself relative: not so much … but rather, is in the vehemence of the address conceived and set forth absolutely: not to men, but to God. “As a lie against our human personality, thy deed comes not at all into consideration; but only as a lie against God, the supreme Ruler of the theocracy, whose organs we are.” Comp. 1 Thessalonians 4:8; Winer, p. 461 f. [E. T. 621]. The taking it as non tam, quam (see also Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 781) is therefore a weakening of the words, which is unsuited to the fiery and decided spirit of the speaker in that moment of deep excitement. The datives denote the persons, to whom the action refers in hostile contradistinction.[164] Bernhardy, p. 99. Examples of the absolute ψεύδεσθαι with the dative are not found in Greek writers, but in the LXX. Joshua 24:27; 2 Samuel 22:45; Ps. 17:44, Ps. 77:36. By τῷ Θεῷ Peter makes the deceiver sensible of his fatal guilt, for his sin now appeared as blasphemy. This τῷ Θεῷ is quite warranted, for a lying to the Spirit (Acts 5:3, τὸ πνεῦμα) is a lie against God (τῷ Θεῷ), whose Spirit was lied to. Accordingly the divine nature of the Spirit and His personality are here expressed, but the Spirit is not called God.

[164] Valckenaer well remarks: “ψεύσασθαί τινα notat mendacio aliquem decipere, ψεύσ. τινι mendacio contumeliam alicui facere.

Acts 5:5-6. Ἐξέψυξε] as in Acts 12:23; elsewhere not in the N. T., but in the LXX. and later Greek writers. Comp. Acts 20:10. ἀποψύχειν occurs in the old Greek from Homer onward.

ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας] upon all hearers, namely, of this discussion of Peter with Ananias. For Acts 5:6 shows that the whole proceeding took place in the assembled church. The sense in which it falls to be taken at Acts 5:11, in conformity with the context at the close of the narrative, is different. Commonly it is taken here as in Acts 5:11, in which case we should have to say, with de Wette, that the remark was proleptical. But even as such it appears unsuitable and disturbing.

οἱ νεώτεροι] the younger men in the church, who rose up from their seats (ἀναστάντες), are by the article denoted as a definite class of persons. But seeing that they, unsummoned, perform the business as one devolving of itself upon them, they must be considered as the regular servants of the church, who, in virtue of the church-organization as hitherto developed, were bound to render the manual services required in the ecclesiastical commonwealth, as indeed such ministering hands must, both of themselves and also after the pattern of the synagogue, have been from the outset necessary. See Mosheim, de reb. Christ. ante Const. p. 114. But Neander, de Wette, Rothe, Lechler, and others (see also Walch, Diss. p. 79 f.) doubt this, and think that the summons of the νεώτεροι to this business was simply based on the relation of age, by reason of which they were accustomed to serve and were at once ready of their own accord. But precisely in the case of such a miraculous and dreadful death, it is far more natural to assume a more urgent summons to the performance of the immediate burial, founded on the relation of a conscious necessity of service, than to think of people, like automata, acting spontaneously.

συνέστειλαν αὐτόν] means nothing else than contraxerunt eum.[165] Comp. 1 Corinthians 7:29. We must conceive the stretched out limbs of him who had fallen down, as drawn together, pressed together by the young men, in order that the dead body might be carried out. The usual view: they prepared him for burial (by washing, swathing, etc.), confounds συστέλλειν with περιστέλλειν (Hom. Od. xxiv. 292; Plat. Hipp. Maj. p. 291 D; Diod. Sic. xix. 12; Joseph. Antt. xix. 4. 1; Tob 12:14; Sir 38:17), and, moreover, introduces into the narrative a mode of proceeding improbable in the case of such a death. Others incorrectly render: they covered him (de Dieu, de Wette); comp. Cant.: involverunt. For both meanings Eur. Troad. 382 has been appealed to, where, however, οὐ δάμαρτος ἐν χεροῖν πέπλοις συνεστάλησαν means: they were not wrapped up, shrouded, by the hands of a wife with garments (in which they wrapped them) in order to be buried. As little is συνεστάλθαι in Lucian. Imag. 7 : to be covered; but: to be pressed together, in contrast to the following διηνεμῶσθαι (to flutter in the wind). The explanation amoverunt (Vulgate, Erasmus, Luther, Beza, and others) is also without precedent of usage.

[165] Comp. Laud.: collexerunt (sic); Castal.: constrinxerunt.

Acts 5:7. But it came to pass—about an interval of three hours—and his wife came in. The husband had remained away too long for her. A period of three hours might easily elapse with the business of the burial, especially if the place of sepulture was distant from the city (see Lightfoot). After ἐγένετο δέ a comma is to be put, and ὡς ὡρ. τρ. διάστ. is a statement of time inserted independently of the construction of the sentence. See on Matthew 15:32; Luke 9:28; Schaefer, ad Dem. V. p. 368. The common view: but there was an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, is at variance with the use, especially frequent in Luke, of the absolute ἐγένετο (Gersdorf, Beitr. p. 235; Bornemann, Schol. p. 2 f.). As to the καί after ἐγένετο, see on Luke 5:12. On διάστημα used of time, comp. Polyb. ix. 1. 1.

Acts 5:8. Ἀπεκρίθη] comp. on Acts 3:12. Bengel aptly remarks: “respondit mulieri, cujus introitus in coetum sanctorum erat instar sermonis.”

τοσούτου] for so much, points to the money still lying there. Arbitrarily, and with an overlooking of the vividness of what occurred, Bengel and Kuinoel suppose that Peter had named the sum. The sense of tantilli, on which Bornemann insists (Schol. in Luc. p. 168), results not as the import of the word, but, as elsewhere frequently (see Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 416 E, 608B; Lobeck, ad Soph. Aj. 747), from the connection.

Acts 5:9-10. Wherefore was it agreed by you (dative with the passive, see on Matthew 5:21) to try the Spirit of the Lord (God, see Acts 5:4-5)? i.e. to venture the experiment, whether the πνεῦμα ἅγιον, ruling in us apostles, was infallible (comp. Malachi 3:15; Matthew 4:7). The πειράζων challenges by his action the divine experimental proof.

οἱ πόδες] a trait of vivid delineation (comp. Luke 1:79; Romans 3:15; Romans 10:15); the steps of those returning were just heard at the door (see on John 5:2; Acts 3:10) outside (Acts 5:10).

πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς] beside her (just buried) husband.