Chú giải Kinh Thánh

CHAPTER 4

Acts 4:2. τὴν ἐν νεκρῶν] D, min. and some VSS. and Fathers have τῶν νεκρῶν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Bornem. An alteration in accordance with the current ἀνάστασις τῶν νεκρῶν.

Acts 4:5. εἰς] A B D E, min. Chrys. have ἐν, which Griesb. has recommended, and Lachm. Tisch. Born. adopted. A correction, as the reference of εἰς was not obvious, and it was taken for ἐν; hence also εἰς ʼΙερουσ. (regarded as quite superfluous) is entirely omitted in the Syr.

Acts 4:6. Lachm. has simple nominatives, καὶ Ἄννας … Ἀλέξανδρος, in accordance no doubt with A B D א; but erroneously, for the very reason that this reading was evidently connected with the reading συνήχθησαν, Acts 4:5, still preserved in D; Born. has consistently followed the whole form of the text in D as to Acts 4:5-6 (also the name Ἰωνάθας instead of ʼΙωάννης).

Acts 4:7. ἐν τῷ μέσῳ with the article is to be defended after Elz., with Lachm., on preponderating evidence (A B א).

Acts 4:8. τοῦ ʼΙσραήλ] is wanting in A B א, Vulg. Copt. Sahid. Aeth. Cyr. Fulg., and deleted by Lachm. But, as it was quite obvious of itself, it was more readily passed over than added.

Acts 4:11. οἰκοδόμων] so, correctly, Lachm. and Tisch., according to important authorities. The usual οἰκοδομούντων is from Matthew 21:42; comp. LXX. Psalm 118:22.

Acts 4:12. οὔτε] A B א, min. Did. Theodoret. Bas. have οὐδέ, which is recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. and Tisch. And rightly, as in Luke 20:36; Luke 12:26. Born., following D, has merely οὐ.

Acts 4:16. ποιήσομεν] A E א, min. have ποιήσωμεν. Recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. But the deliberative subjunctive appeared more in keeping with the sense. Comp. on Acts 2:37.

Acts 4:17. ἀπειλησώμεθα] D, min. have ἀπειλησόμεθα. So Born. But the future was introduced in order that it might correspond to the question τί ποιήσομεν. The preceding ἀπειλῇ is wanting in A B D א, min. most VSS. and some Fathers; deleted by Lachm. and Born. It might very easily be omitted by an oversight of the transcriber.

Acts 4:18. After παρήγγ., Elz. Scholz, Born, have αὐτοῖς. A common, but here weakly attested insertion.

Acts 4:24. ὁ Θεός] is wanting in A B א, Copt. Vulg. Ath. Did. Ambr. Hilar. Aug. Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. But as it might be dispensed with so far as the sense was concerned, how easily might a transcriber pass over from the first to the second ὁ! On the other hand, there is no reason why it should have been inserted.

Acts 4:25. ὁ διὰ στόματ. Δ. παιδός σου εἰπών] There are very many variations,[154] among which Ὁ ΤΟῦ ΠΑΤΡῸς ἩΜῶΝ ΔΙᾺ ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς ἉΓΊΟΥ ΣΤΌΜΑΤΟς Δ. ΠΑΙΔΌς ΣΟΥ ΕἸΠΏΝ has the greatest attestation (A B E א, min.), and is adopted by Lachm., who, however, considers ΠΝΕΎΜΑΤΟς as spurious (Praef. p. VII.). An aggregation of various amplifying glosses; see Fritzsche, de conform. Lachm. p. 55.

Acts 4:27. ἐν τῇ πόλει ταύτῃ] is wanting in Elz., but has decisive attestation. Rejected by Mill and Whitby as a gloss, but already received by Bengel. The omission may be explained from the circumstance, that in the passage of the Psalm no locality is indicated.

Acts 4:36. ʼΙωσῆς] Lachm. Tisch. Born. read Ἰωσήφ, according to A B D E א, min. Chrys. Epiph. and several VSS. A mechanical alteration, in conformity with Acts 1:23.

ὑπό] Lachm. and Tisch. read ἀπό, according to A B E א, min. Theophyl. Rightly; ὑπό appeared to be necessary.

[154] See besides Tisch., especially Born. in loc., who reads after D: ὁ (D: ὅς) διὰ πν. ἁγ., διὰ, τοῦ στόμ. λαλήσας Δαυΐδ, παιδός σου.

Acts 4:1-2. ʼΕπέστησαν] stood there beside them. The sudden appearance is implied in the context (λαλούντ. δὲ αὐτ., and see Acts 4:3). See on Luke 2:9; Luke 20:1.

οἱ ἱερεῖς] The article signifies those priests who were then serving as a guard at the temple.

ὁ στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ] the leader on duty of the Levitical temple-guard (of the ἱερεῖς), and himself a priest; different from the προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ, 2Ma 3:4 (see Grimm in loc.); comp. Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 12. 6; Antt. xx. 6. 2. See also on Luke 22:4.

As the concourse of people occurred in the temple-court, it was the business of the temple-guard officially to interfere. Therefore the opinion of Lightfoot, Erasmus Schmid, and Hammond, that the στρατηγὸς τοῦ ἱερ. is here the commander of the Roman garrison of the castle of Antonia, is to be rejected.

καὶ οἱ Σαδδουκαῖοι] see on Matthew 3:7. The Sadducees present in the temple-court had heard the speech of Peter, chap, 3, at least to Acts 4:15 (see Acts 4:2), had then most probably instigated the interference of the guard, and hence appear now taking part in the arrest of the apostles.

διαπονούμενοι … νεκρῶν] refers to οἱ Σαδδουκ. For these denied the resurrection of the dead, Matthew 22:23. “Sadducaei negant dicuntque: deficit nubes atque abit; sic descendens in sepulcrum non redit,” Tanchum, f. iii. 1. διαπονούμ. here and in Acts 16:18 may be explained either according to classical usage: who were active in their exertions, exerted their energies (my former interpretation), or according to the LXX. Sir 10:9; Aq. Genesis 6:6; 1 Samuel 20:30 (Hesychius, διαπονηθείς· λυπηθείς): who were grieved, afflicted (the usual view, following the Vulgate and Luther). The latter meaning is most natural in the connection, is sufficiently justified in later usage[155] by those passages, and therefore is to be preferred. Sorrow and pain come upon them, because Peter and John taught the people, and in doing so announced, etc. That was offensive to their principles, and so annoyed them.

ἐν τῷ ʼΙησοῦ] in the person of Jesus, i.e. in the case of His personal example. For in the resurrection of Jesus the ἀνάστασις ἐκ νεκρ. in general—although the latter is not expressly brought forward by Peter—was already inferential maintained, since the possibility of it and even an actual instance were therein exhibited (1 Corinthians 15:12).

We may add that, as the apostles made the testifying of the Risen One the foundation of their preaching, the emergence of the Sadducees is historically so natural and readily conceivable (comp. Acts 5:17), that Baur’s opinion, as to an à priori combination having without historical ground attributed this rôle to them, can only appear frivolous and uncritical, however zealously Zeller has sought to amplify and establish it. See in opposition to it, Lechler, Apost. Zeit. p. 326 ff.

[155] The classical writers use the simple verb πονεῖσθαι in this sense, whether the pain felt may be bodily or mental. See Krüger on Thuc. ii. 51. 4; Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 396; Duncan, Lex. Hom. ed. Rost, p. 969. Accordingly, in the above passages διαπονεισθαι is the strengthened πονεῖσθαι in this sense.

Acts 4:3. Εἰς τήρησιν] into custody, i.e. into prison. Comp. Thuc. vii. 86. 1; Acts 5:18.

ἑσπέρα] as they had gone to the temple at the ninth hour, and so at the beginning of the first evening (Acts 3:1), the second evening, which commenced at the twelfth hour, had probably already begun. See on Matthew 14:15.

Acts 4:4. As a contrast to this treatment of the apostles (δέ), Luke notices the great increase of the church, which was effected by the address of the apostle. The number of believers had before this been above three thousand (Acts 2:41; Acts 2:47); by the present increase the number of men (the women, therefore, being not even included—on account of the already so considerable multitude of believers) came to be about five thousand. The supposition of Olshausen, “that at first, perhaps, only men had joined the church,” is arbitrary, and contrary to Acts 1:14. At variance with the text, and in opposition to Acts 5:14, de Wette makes women to be included.

Acts 4:5. Ἐγένετο … συναχθῆναι] But it came to pass that, etc. Comp. Acts 9:3; Luke 3:21; Luke 16:22. So also in classical writers (Hes. Theog. 639; Xen. Cyr. vi. 3. 11). See Sturz, Lex. Xen. I. p. 587.

αὐτῶν] refers not to the believers, but, as is presumed to be obvious of itself, to the Jews, whose people, priests, etc., were named above, Acts 4:1, and to whom those who had become believers belonged. Comp. Winer, p. 138 [E. T. 183].

τοὺς ἄρχοντ. κ. πρεσβ. κ. γραμμ.] the Sanhedrists and elders and scribes. A full meeting of the Sanhedrim was arranged, at which in particular the members belonging to the classes of representatives of the people and scribes were not absent. Comp. on Matthew 2:4.

εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ] not as if they had their official residence elsewhere (as Zeller suggests in the interest of proving the narrative unhistorical); but certainly many were at this most beautiful period of summer (soon after Pentecost) at their country residences. So, correctly, Beza (“arcessitis videlicet qui urbe aberant, ut sollennis esset hic conventus,”—but only by way of suggestion), Bengel, Winer, and others. Most of the older commentators, and Kuinoel, erroneously assume that εἰς stands for ἐν, in which case, moreover, a quite superfluous remark would be the result.

καί] also (in order to mention these specially).

Ἄνναν τὸν ἀρχιερ.] As at this time not Annas, but his son-in-law Caiaphas, was the ruling high priest, an erroneous statement must be acknowledged here, as in Luke 3:2, which may be explained from the continuing great influence of Annas. See the particulars, as well as the unsatisfactory shifts which have been resorted to, on Luke 3:2. Comp. Zeller, p. 127. Baumgarten still, p. 88 (comp. also Lange, Apostol. Zeitalt. I. p. 96, and II. p. 55), contents himself with justifying the expression from the age and influence of Annas,—a view which could not occur to any reader, and least of all to Theophilus, after Luke 3:2.

Nothing further is known of John and Alexander, who, in consequence of their connection with Caiaphas and with the following καὶ ὅσοι κ.τ.λ., are to be regarded as members of the hierarchy related to Annas. Conjectures concerning the former (that he is identical with the Jochanan Ben Zaccai celebrated in the Talmud) may be seen in Lightfoot in loc.; and concerning the latter (that he was the brother of Philo), in Mangey, Praef. ad Phil.; and Pearson, Lect. p. 51; Krebs, Obss. p. 176; Sepp, Gesch. d. Ap. p. 5, ed. 2.

ἐκ γένους ἀρχιερατ.] of the high-priestly family. Besides Caiaphas, John, and Alexander, all the other relatives of the high priest were brought into the assembly,—a proceeding indicative of the special importance which was ascribed to the pronouncing judgment on the dangerous prisoners.

Acts 4:7. The apostles were placed in the midst (ἐν τῷ μέσῳ, comp. Matthew 14:6; John 8:3), so that they might be seen by all; and, for the purpose of ascertaining the state of matters which had occasioned the popular tumult of yesterday, the question is first of all submitted to them for their own explanation: By what kind of power[156] (which was at your command), or by what kind of name (which ye have pronounced), have ye done this (the cure which, they were aware, was the occasion of the discussion)? Erroneously, Morus, Rosenmüller, and Olshausen have referred τοῦτο to the public teaching. For the judicial examination had to begin at the actual commencement of the whole occurrence; and so Peter correctly understood this τοῦτο, as Acts 4:9-10 prove.

ἘΝ ΠΟΊῼ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΙ] The Sanhedrim certainly knew that the apostles had performed the cure ἘΝ ὈΝΌΜΑΤΙ ʼΙ. ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ (Acts 3:6), and they intended to found on the confession of this point partly the impeachment of heresy and blasphemy—as the Jewish exorcists were accustomed to use names of an entirely different kind in their formulae, namely, those of the holy patriarchs, or of the wise Solomon, or of God Himself (see Van Dalen, de divinat. Idol. V. T. p. 520)—and partly the charge of effort at rebellion, which might easily be based on the acknowledgment of the crucified insurgent as the Messiah.

ὑμεῖς] you people! with depreciating emphasis at the close.

[156] Observe the qualitative interrogative pronouns.

Acts 4:8-10. Πλησθεὶς πνεύμ. ἁγίου] quite specially, namely, for the present defence. Comp. Acts 8:9. “Ut praesens quodque tempus poscit, sic Deus organa sua movet,” Bengel. See Luke 12:11 f.

εἰ] in the sense of ἐπεί (Bornem. ad Xen. Symp. 4. 3, p. 101; Reissig, Conject. in Aristoph. I. p. 113; Dissen, ad Dem. de cor. p. 195), is here chosen not without rhetorical art. For Peter at once places the nature of the deed, which was denoted by τοῦτο, in its true light, in which it certainly did not appear to be a suitable subject of judicial inquiry, which presupposes a misdeed. If we (ἡμεῖς has the emphasis of surprise) are this day examined in respect of a good deed done to an infirm man (as to the means, namely), whereby he has been delivered.

In ἐπʼ εὐεργεσίᾳ is contained an equally delicate and pointed indication of the unrighteousness of the inquisitorial proceeding.

We are decidedly led to interpret ἐν τίνι as neuter (whereby, comp. Matthew 5:13), by the question of the Sanhedrim, Acts 4:7, in which no person is named; as well as by the answer of Peter: ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰ. Χ. κ.τ.λ., Acts 4:10, which is to be explained by the uttering the name of Jesus Christ, but not to be taken as equivalent to ἐν ʼΙησοῦ Χριστῷ. Hence the explanation, per quem, cujus ope (Kuinoel, Heinrichs), is to be rejected; but the emphatic ἐν τούτῳ (Acts 4:10) is nevertheless to be taken, with Erasmus, as masculine, so that after the twice-repeated ὅν κ.τ.λ. there comes in instead of the ὄνομα ʼΙ. Χ., as the solemnity of the discourse increases (“verba ut libera, ita plena gravitatis,” Grotius), the concrete Person (on this one it depends, that, etc.), of whom thereupon with οὗτος, Acts 4:11, further statements are made.

ὃν ὁ Θεὸς ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρ.] a rhetorical asyndeton, strongly bringing out the contrast without μὲν … δέ. See Dissen, Exc. II. ad Pind. p. 275.

οὗτος παρέστηκεν κ.τ.λ.] Thus the man himself who had been cured was called into the Sanhedrim to be confronted with the apostles, and was present; in which case those assembled certainly could not at all reckon beforehand that the sight of the man, along with the παῤῥησία of the apostles (Acts 4:13), would subsequently, Acts 4:14, frustrate their whole design. This quiet power of the man’s immediate presence operated instantaneously; therefore the question, how they could have summoned the man whose very presence must have refuted their accusation (Zeller, comp. Baur), contains an argumentum ex eventu which forms no proper ground for doubting the historical character of the narrative.

Acts 4:11. Οὗτος] referred to Jesus, the more remote subject, which, however, was most vividly present to the conception of the speaker. Winer, p. 148 [E. T. 195].

ὁ λίθος κ.τ.λ.] a reminiscence of the well-known saying in Psalm 118:22, in immediate, bold application to the Sanhedrists (ὑφʼ ὑμῶν), the builders of the theocracy, that have rejected Jesus, who yet by His resurrection and glorification has become the cornerstone, the bearer and upholder of the theocracy, i.e. that which constitutes its entire nature, subsistence, and working. Moreover, see on Matthew 21:42, and comp. 1 Peter 2:4 ff.; also on 1 Corinthians 3:11; Ephesians 2:20.