Acts 3, 4 Antique Commentary Notes

A.T. Robertson
Act 3:1
Were going up (anebainon). Descriptive imperfect active. They were ascending the terraces to the temple courts.
The ninth (tēn enatēn). Our three o’clock in the afternoon, the time of the evening sacrifice. Peter and John like Paul later kept up the Jewish worship, but not as a means of sacramental redemption. There were three hours of prayer (third, sixth, ninth).

John Gill
Act 3:1 Now Peter and John went up together into the temple,…. These two disciples were intimate companions, and great lovers of each other; they were often together: they are thought, by some, to have been together in the high priest’s palace at the trial of Christ; and they ran together to his sepulchre, Joh_18:15 and they now went together to the temple, not to attend the daily sacrifice, which was now abolished by the sacrifice of Christ, but to attend to the duty of prayer, which was still in force, and that they might have an opportunity of preaching Christ, where there was a number of people together:

at the hour of prayer; being the ninth hour, or three o’clock in the afternoon. This was one of their hours of prayer; it was customary with the Jews to pray three times a day, Dan_6:10 which, according to the Psalmist in Psa_55:17 were evening, morning, and at noon; to which seems to answer the three times that are taken notice of by Luke in this history: that in the morning was at the third hour, as in Act_2:15 or nine o’clock in the morning; that at noon was at the sixth hour, as in Act_10:9 or twelve o’clock at noon; and that in the evening at the ninth hour, as here, or three o’clock in the afternoon. Not that these were times of divine appointment. The Jews (o) themselves say, “there is no number of prayers from the law, and there is no repetition of this or that prayer from the law, and there is no זמן קבוע, “fixed time” for prayer from the law.”
But according to the traditions of the elders, “the morning prayer was to the end of the fourth hour, which is the third part of the day–the prayer of the “Minchah”, (or evening prayer,) they fixed the time of it to answer to the evening daily sacrifice; and because the daily sacrifice was offered up every day from the ninth hour and a half, they ordered the time of it to be from the ninth hour and a half, and it is called the lesser “Minchah”; and because in the evening of the passover, which falls upon the evening of the sabbath, they slay the daily sacrifice at the sixth hour and a half, they say, that he that prays after the sixth hour and a half is excused; and after this time is come, the time to which he is obliged is come, and this is called the great “Minchah”—lo, you learn, that the time of the great “Minchah” is from the sixth hour and a half, to the ninth hour and a half; and the time of the lesser “Minchah” is from the ninth hour and a half, until there remains of the day an hour and a quarter; and it is lawful to pray it until the sun sets.”

So that it was at the time of the lesser “Minchah” that Peter and John went up to the temple; which seems to be not on the same day of Pentecost, but on some day, or days after; it may be the sabbath following, when there was a great number of people got together.

(o) Maimon. Hilch. Tephilla, c. 1. sect. 1. Ib. c. 3. sect. 1, 2, 4. Vid. T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 26. 2.

Adam Clarke
Act 3:1
Peter and John went up together – The words επι το αυτο, which we translate together, and which are the first words in this chapter in the Greek text, we have already seen, Act_2:47, are added by several MSS. and versions to the last verse of the preceding chapter. But they do not make so good a sense there as they do here; and should be translated, not together, which really makes no sense here, but at that time; intimating that this transaction occurred nearly about the same time that those took place which are mentioned at the close of the former chapter.
The rabbins believed that Abraham instituted the time of morning prayer; Isaac, that at noon; and Jacob, that of the evening: for which they quote several scriptures, which have little reference to the subject in behalf of which they are produced.
Others of the rabbins, particularly Tanchum, made a more natural division. Men should pray,
1. When the sun rises;
2. when the sun has gained the meridian;
3. when the sun has set, or passed just under the horizon.
At each of these three times they required men to offer prayer to God; and I should be glad to know that every Christian in the universe observed the same rule: it is the most natural division of the day; and he who conscientiously observes these three stated times of prayer will infallibly grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord.

John Gill
Acts 3:2
which is called beautiful; which some think was the gate Shushan, which was the eastern gate of the mountain of the house, or the outmost wall, and was so called, because Shushan, the metropolis of Persia, was pourtrayed upon it (q), which made it look very beautiful. The reason commonly given by the Jewish commentators (r) why this was done, is this; when the Jews returned from captivity, the king of Persia commanded that they should make a figure of the palace of Shushan upon one of the gates of the temple, that they might fear the king, and not rebel against him; and accordingly they drew one upon the eastern gate: but some say (s), that the children of the captivity did this (upon their return) that they might remember the wonder of Purim, (their deliverance from Haman,) which was done in Shushan; moreover, it might be so called from the word Shushan, which signifies joy and gladness: but this does not bid so fair to be the gate here meant, since it was lower than all the rest; for as the eastern wall was lower than the rest of the walls, that when the high priest burnt the red heifer on the top of Mount Olivet, he might see the gate of the temple at the time of the sprinkling of the blood; so the gate itself was four cubits lower than the others (t), and therefore could not look so grand and beautiful as the rest. Indeed, concerning this eastern gate of the mountain of the house, it is said (u), that “in the time when the sanctuary stood, when they prayed on the mountain of the house, they went in by the way of the eastern gate.”

And as this was now the hour of prayer, and the people were going to the temple to pray, whose entrance was at the east gate; here it might be thought, in all probability, was laid the lame man: though it seems rather to be the eastern gate of the court of the women, which was made of Corinthian brass, and looked brighter than gold itself; of which Josephus (w) thus speaks: “nine of the gates were covered all over with gold and silver, likewise the side posts and lintels; but there was one, without the temple, of Corinthian brass, which in dignity greatly exceeded the silver and golden ones.”

And since at this gate was the greatest frequency of persons, both men and women entering here; it is most likely, that here lay the lame man a begging: this is thought, by some, to be the higher gate of the house of the Lord; said to be built by Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, 2Ki_15:35 upon which text, a Jewish commentator of great note (x) has this remark, “observe it is said of Jotham, that he built it, because he made a building on it, נכבד וגדול “more glorious and great” than it had been:”

and this is also called the new gate of the house of the Lord, Jer_26:10 and which both the Targum and Kimchi on the place say is the eastern gate.

To ask alms of them that entered into the temple; who going to religious exercises, might be thought to be more disposed to acts of liberality and charity: and besides, these were known to be Jews, of whom only alms were to be asked and taken; for so run their canons (y),

“it is forbidden to take alms of Gentiles publicly, except a man cannot live by the alms of Israelites; and if a king, or a prince of the Gentiles, should send money to an Israelite for alms, he must not return it, because of the peace of the kingdom, but must take it of him, and give it to the poor of the Gentiles secretly, that the king may not hear.”

(q) Misn. Middot, c. 1. sect. 3. (r) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. ib. (s) Vid. Juchasin, fol. 65. 2. (t) Misn. Middot, c. 2. sect. 4. Maimon. Hilchot Beth Habechirah, c. 6. sect. 5. (u) Gloss. in T. Bab. Taanith, fol. 15. 2. Vid. Maimon. Hilch. Taanith, c. 4. sect. 15. (w) De Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 5. sect. 3. (x) Abarbinel in loc. (y) Moses Kotsensis Mitzvot Tora, pr. Affirm. 162.

Albert Barnes
Acts 3:2
At the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful – In regard to this gate there have been two opinions, one of which supposes that it was the gate commonly called Nicanor, which led from the court of the Gentiles to the court of the women (see Plan in notes on Mat_21:12), and the other that it was the gate at the eastern entrance of the temple, commonly called Susan. It is not easy to determine which is intended; though from the fact that what is here recorded occurred near Solomon’s porch (Act_3:11; compare the Plan of the Temple, Mat_21:12), it seems probable that the latter was intended. This gate was large and splendid. It was made of Corinthian brass, a most valuable metal, and made a magnificent appearance (Josephus, Jewish Wars, book 5, chapter 5, section 3).

Albert Barnes
Act 3:8
And he, leaping up – This was a natural expression of joy, and it was a striking fulfillment of the prophecy in Isa_35:6; “Then shall the lame man leap as an hart.” The account here given is one that is perfectly natural. The man would be filled with joy, and would express it in this manner. He had been lame from a child; he had never walked; and there was more in the miracle than merely giving strength. The art of “walking” is one that is acquired by long practice. Children learn slowly. Caspar Hauser, discovered in one of the cities of Germany, who had been confined in prison from a child, was unable to walk in an easy way when released, but stumbled in a very awkward manner (see his Life). When, therefore, this man was able at once to walk, it was clear proof of a miracle.
Praising God – This was the natural and appropriate expression of his feelings on this occasion. His heart would be full; and he could have no doubt that this blessing had come from God alone. It is remarkable that he did not even express his gratitude to Peter and John. They had not pretended to restore him in their own name, and he would feel that man could not do it. It is remarkable that he praised God without being taught or entreated to do it. It was instinctive – the natural feeling of the heart. So a sinner. His first feelings, when he is converted, will be to ascribe the praise to God. While he may and will feel regard for the ministry by whose instrumentality he has received the blessing, yet his main expression of gratitude will be to God. And this he will do instinctively. He needs no prompter; he knows that no power of man is equal to the work of converting the soul, and will rejoice, and give all the praise to the God of grace.

Act 3:9-10
And all the people … – The people who had been accustomed to see him sit in a public place.
And they knew … – In this they could not be deceived; they had seen him a long time, and now they saw the same man expressing his praise to God for complete recovery. The particulars in this miracle are the following, and they are as far as possible from any appearance of imposture:
1. The man had been afficated from a child. This was known to all the people. At this time he was 40 years of age, Act_4:22.
2. He was not an impostor. If he had pretended lameness, it is wonderful that he had not been detected before, and not have been suffered to occupy a place thus in the temple.
3. The apostles had no agency in placing him there. They had not seen him before. There was manifestly no collusion or agreement with him to attempt to impose on the people.
4. The man himself was convinced of the miracle, and did not doubt that the power by which he had been healed was of God.
5. The people were convinced of the same thing. They saw the effects; they had known him well; they had had every opportunity to know that he was diseased, and they were now satisfied that he was restored. There was no possibility of deception in the case. It was not merely the friends of Jesus that saw this; not those who had an interest in the miracle, but those who had been his enemies, and who had just before been engaged in putting him to death. Let this miracle be compared, in these particulars, with those pretended miracles which have been affirmed to have been performed in defense of other systems of religion, and it will be seen at once that in these there is every appearance of sincerity, honesty, and truth; in them, every mark of deception, fraud, and imposition. (See Paley’s “Evidences of Christianity,” proposition ii. chapter ii.)

John Gill Act 4:1 And as they spake unto the people,…. For though only mention is made of Peter’s preaching in the preceding chapter, yet doubtless John preached as well as he; either in turn, or to a part of the people at some distance: and this shows their diligence, faithfulness, and integrity, in the ministration of the word; and it is recorded to their honour, that whilst they were about their master’s business, and discharging the duty of their office,

the priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees came upon them; by agreement, with great violence, and at unawares: the “priests” might be those who kept the watch in the temple; for
“in three places the priests kept watch, in the house of the sanctuary; in the house of Abtines, in the house of Nitsots, and in the house of Moked, and the Levites in one and twenty places (p).”

And it now being eventide, they might be about to take their stands; “and the captain of the temple” might be he, whom they call, איש הר בית, “the man of the mountain of the house”; who was שר, a ruler, or governor, and ממונה, a president over all the wards (q); he is sometimes called ראש משמר, “the head of the ward” (r); and of him it is said (s), “the man of the mountain of the house goes his round through every ward, with burning torches before him; and every ward that does not stand (is not on his feet), the man of the mountain of the house, says to him, peace be to thee; and if he observes that he is asleep, he strikes him with his staff, and he has power to burn his garments.”

The Vulgate Latin and the Oriental versions read in the plural number, as in See Gill on Luk_22:4, Luk_22:52. The Sadducees were a sect among the Jews, that denied the resurrection of the dead; of their rise, name, and tenets; see Gill on Mat_3:7.

(p) Misn. Middot, c. 1. sect. 1. (q) Bartenora & Yom Tob in ib. sect. 2. (r) Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 6. fol. 186. 3. (s) Misn. Middot, c. 1. sect. 2.

Albert Barnes
Acts 4:1
The captain of the temple – See the Mat_26:47; Luk_22:4 note. This was the commander of the guard stationed chiefly in the tower Antonia, especially during the great feasts; and it was his duty to preserve order and prevent any tumult. He came at this time to prevent a tumult or suppress a riot, as it was sup posed that the teaching of the apostles and the crowd collected by the healing of the lame man would lead to a tumult.

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:3
In ward (eis tērēsin). Probably in one of the chambers of the temple. In safe keeping (from tēreō, to guard). Old word, in the N.T. only here and Act_5:18; 1Co_7:19. So in papyri.
Now eventide (hespera ēdē). Hence no trial could take place before the next day, a regulation violated in the case of Jesus.

Matthew Poole Act 4:3
Put them in hold; some think this not to have been so strait a custody as that of a prison, but that rather the apostles were delivered to some who promised that they should be forthcoming. The prediction of our Saviour began now to be fulfilled, Luk_21:12.

A.T. Robertson Act 4:4
Men (andrōn). Strictly, men and not women, for anthrōpos is the term for both men and women. But in Luk_11:31 andres seems to include both men and women and that is possible here, though by no means certain, for see note on Mat_14:21 where the women and children are expressly excepted.

John Gill
Acts 4:4
and the number of the men was about five thousand; or “was five thousand”, as the Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin, and Ethiopic versions read; that is the number, not of the hearers, but “of them that believed”, was so many; and so read the Arabic and Ethiopic versions: there were so many persons converted at this time; for this number does not include the three thousand that were converted under the first sermon, but regards those who now became true believers, and were added to the church; so that there were now eight thousand persons added to it; a great increase indeed!

Adam Clarke
Act 4:4
The number – was about five thousand – That is, as I understand the passage, the one hundred and twenty which were converted before pentecost, the three thousand converted at pentecost, and one thousand eight hundred and eighty converted since the conversion of the three thousand; making in the whole five thousand, or ὡσει about that number: there might have been more or less; the historian does not fix the number absolutely. A goodly flock in one city, as the commencement of the Christian Church! Some think all the five thousand were converted on this day; but this is by no means likely.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:5-6
Their rulers – The rulers of the Jews; doubtless the members of the Sanhedrin, or Great Council of the nation. Compare Act_4:15. See the notes on Mat_2:4; Mat_5:22. The expression their rulers looks as if this book was written for the Gentiles, or Luke would have said our rulers.
Elders – Presbyters, or those who were chosen from among the people to sit in the Sanhedrin. It is probable that the rulers were those who held also some other office, but were also authorized to sit in the Great Council.
Scribes – See the notes on Mat_2:4.
And Annas … – See the notes on Joh_18:13. It is by no means certain that Annas was at that time the high priest, but he had been, and doubtless retained the title. He was father-in-law to Caiaphas, the high priest; and from this fact, together with his former dignity, he is mentioned first.
Caiaphas – Son-in-law of Annas, and now exercising the office of the high priest, Joh_18:13.
John, and Alexander … – Of these persons nothing more is known. It is clear that they were members of the Great Council, and the mention of their names shows that the men of chief authority and influence were assembled to silence the apostles. Annas and Caiaphas had been concerned in the condemnation of Jesus, and they would now feel a special interest in arresting the progress of the gospel among the people. All the success of the gospel reflected back light upon the wicked ness of the act of condemning the Lord Jesus. And this fact may serve, in part, to account for their strong desire to silence the apostles.
At Jerusalem – εἰς eis. This was the usual place of assembling the Sanhedrin. But the Jewish writers (see Lightfoot on this place) say that 40 years before the destruction of the city, on account of the great increase of crime, etc., the Sanhedrin was removed from place to place. The declaration of Luke that they were now assembled in Jerusalem, seems to imply that they sometimes met in other places. It is probable that the members of the Sanhedrin were not in the city at the time mentioned in Act_4:3, and this was the reason why the trial was deferred to the next day.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:6
Annas – Though this man was not now actually in the office of high priest, yet he had possessed it for eleven years, bore the title all his life, and had the honor of seeing five of his sons fill that eminent place after him – an honor that never happened to any other person from the commencement of the Mosaic institution. He is the same who is called Ananus by Josephus, Ant. b. xx. c. 8.
And Caiaphas – He was son-in-law to Annas, Joh_18:13, was now high priest, and the same who, a short time before, condemned Christ to be crucified.
And John – Dr. Lightfoot conjectures, with great probability that this was Jochanan ben Zaccai, who was very famous at that time in the Jewish nation. Of him it is said in the Talmud, Jucas. fol. 60: “Rabbin Jochanan ben Zaccai the priest lived 120 years. He found favor in the eyes of Caesar, from whom he obtained Jafneh. When he died, the glory of wisdom ceased.” The following is a remarkable passage: Yoma, fol. 39: Forty years before the destruction of the city, (the very time of which St. Luke now treats), when the gates of the temple flew open of their own accord, Rab. Jochanan ben Zaccai said, “O temple! temple! why dost thou disturb thyself? I know thy end, that thou shalt be destroyed, for so the Prophet Zachary hath spoken concerning thee: open thy doors, O Lebanon! that the fire may devour thy cedars.” See Lightfoot and Schoettgen.
And Alexander – This was probably Alexander Lysimachus, one of the richest Jews of his time, who made great presents to the temple, and was highly esteemed by King Agrippa. See Calmet. He was brother to the famous Philo Judaeus, and father of Alexander Tiberius, who married Berenice, the daughter of Agrippa the elder, and was governor of Judea after Cuspius Fadus. See Josephus, Ant. l. xix. c. 5, s. 1.
Of the kindred of the high priest – Or rather, as Bp. Pearce renders it, “of the race of the high priests, i.e. of the family out of which the high priests were chosen.” It may, however, comprehend those who belonged to the families of Annas and Caiaphas, and all who were connected with the sacerdotal family. Luke distinctly mentions all these, to show how formidable the enemies were against whom the infant Church of Christ had to contend.

John Gill
Act 4:7 And when they had set them in the midst,…. Of the assembly, as the Ethiopic version adds; in the middle of the sanhedrim, which sat in a semicircular form; or as the Jews express it, as the half of a round corn floor, or as a half moon, and not in a perfect circle; because it was necessary that the contending parties, and the witnesses, might go in and speak before them all (b); so that those that were set before them, were placed in the middle of them: and here Peter and John were set; so the Arabic version renders it, “when they set both”: they sent for them out of the hold, or custody, where they had been all night, and ordered them to be brought before them, to be examined about their doctrine and practice:

they asked, by what power, or by what name have ye done this? they inquired of them, whether it was by a natural, or by a divine, or by a diabolical power, that they had wrought the cure upon the lame man? whether it was by the use of medicine, or by the help of magic art, and the assistance of the devil, which they were very ready to charge Christ and his disciples with? or whether they pretended to a divine and supernatural aid? and also what name they had made use of, and by whose authority they acted?

(b) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 4. sect. 3. & Bartenora in ib.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:7
By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? – It seems that this council were convinced that the lame man was miraculously healed; but it is very likely that they believed the whole to be the effect of magic; and, as all intercourse with familiar spirits, and all spells, charms, etc., were unlawful, they probably hoped that, on the examination, this business would come out, and that then these disturbers of their peace would be put to death. Hence they inquired by what power, εν ποιᾳ δυναμει, by what supernatural energy; or in what name, by what mode of incantation; and who is the spirit you invoke, in order to do these things? False prophets, reputed witches, wizards, etc., were to be brought before the sanhedrin, to be by them judged, acquitted, or condemned, according to the evidence. Some think the words should be thus understood: Who gave you authority to teach publicly! This belongs to the sanhedrin. What, therefore, is your authority, and who is he who gave it to you?

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:10
Be it known (gnōston estō). Imperative present active third singular of eimi, to be, and the verbal adjective gnōston.
Whom ye crucified (hon humeis estaurōsate). Too good a chance to miss, and so Peter boldly charges the Sanhedrin with responsibility for the death of Jesus. Note humeis (ye) again.
Whom God raised from the dead (hon ho theos ēgeiren ek nekrōn). Note repetition of hon (whom). This is God’s answer to their act of crucifixion.
In him doth this man stand (en toutōi houtos parestēken). Rather (note play on houtos), “In this one (hon, hon) this one stands (present perfect active indicative, intransitive).” In Jesus this man stands before you whole (hugiēs). It was a centre shot.

John Gill Act 4:10 Be it known unto you all,…. The members of the sanhedrim:

and to all the people of Israel; who might hear of this affair; for the apostle was not ashamed of what he had done, nor of the person in whose name he had done it:

that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth; by calling, on that name, and by making use of it, and by the power and authority of Jesus Christ, who by way of contempt was called the

Nazarene: whom ye crucified; for though Pilate delivered him to be crucified, and the Roman soldiers did crucify him, yet this was at the request and instigation of the chief priests, Scribes, and elders; and therefore it is ascribed to them, who were bent upon his death; and no other would satisfy them, but the shameful and painful death of the cross:

whom God raised from the dead; of which the apostles were witnesses, having seen him and conversed with him after his resurrection; and this was the doctrine they were sent to publish, and for which they were apprehended and detained in custody; but this did not deter them from preaching it, no, not before the sanhedrim; which was an instance of great courage and faithfulness: and this is the rather mentioned; to show, that it was not by the name of one that was dead, but of one that was alive, that this cure was performed; as well as to observe to them, that their efforts against Christ were vain and fruitless:

even by him doth this man stand here before you whole; from whence it appears, as well as from Act_4:18 that the man that was healed, was now present: and either he was laid hold on, and detained in custody with the apostles, in hope to discover fraud if they could; or hearing that the apostles were before the sanhedrim, and examining on his account, might come of himself, in order to attest and prove the matter of fact, and to vindicate them.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:10
By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth – This was a very bold declaration in the presence of such an assembly; but he felt he stood on good ground. The cure of the lame man the day before was notorious; his long infirmity was well known; his person could be easily identified; and he was now standing before them whole and sound: they themselves therefore could judge whether the miracle was true or false. But the reality of it was not questioned, nor was there any difficulty about the instruments that were employed; the only question is, How have ye done this? and in whose name? Peter immediately answers, We have done it in the name of Jesus of Nazareth whom ye crucified, and whom God hath raised from the dead.

John Gill
Act 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other,…. Meaning not corporeal healing, but spiritual and eternal salvation; the Syriac version renders it, neither is there פורקנא, “redemption in any other”: Christ is the only Saviour and Redeemer, who was promised and prophesied of as such; who has saved and redeemed his people from the law, sin, and Satan; nor is salvation to be sought and hoped for from any other; not in a man’s self, nor in any other creature, angels or men; not in and by his own works, and legal righteousness; not by obedience to the law of Moses, moral or ceremonial; nor by the light of nature, much less by an observance of the traditions of the elders:

for there is none other name; thing or person, be it ever so great, or whatever show of power and strength, of holiness and religion, it makes; as the name of kings, princes, and the great men in the world; or of ministers and preachers in the church; or even of Christians and believers, which may be only a name to live; none but the name of Jesus, his person, blood, and righteousness:

under heaven: throughout the whole earth, in all the nations and kingdoms of it; nor even in heaven itself, among all the mighty angels there, thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers; none but the Father and the Spirit, who are one with Christ: there is none but he

given among men; and he has been freely given by his Father, as an instance of his matchless love to the world; and also freely given by himself, to be a sacrifice for the sins of his people; and is freely preached among men, as the only Saviour of them; for there is no other,

whereby we must be saved: God resolved in his purposes and decrees, in his council and covenant, upon the salvation of his chosen people; and he appointed his Son to be the salvation of them, and determined he would save them by him, and by no other, and in no other way; wherefore, whoever are saved, must be saved by him, see Hos_1:7 the Arabic version adds, “unless by him only”.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other – No kind of healing, whether for body or soul, can come through any but him who is called Jesus. The spirit of health resides in him; and from him alone its influences must be received.
For there is none other name – Not only no other person, but no name except that divinely appointed one, Mat_1:21, by which salvation from sin can be expected – none given under heaven – no other means ever devised by God himself for the salvation of a lost world. All other means were only subordinate, and referred to him, and had their efficacy from him alone. He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world; and no man ever came, or can come, to the Father but by him.

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:13
The boldness (tēn parrēsian). Telling it all (pan, rēsia). See also Act_4:29, Act_4:31. Actually Peter had turned the table on the Sanhedrin and had arraigned them before the bar of God.
Had perceived (katalabomenoi). Second aorist middle participle of katalambanō, common verb to grasp strongly (kata), literally or with the mind (especially middle voice), to comprehend. The rulers recalled Peter and John from having seen them often with Jesus, probably during the temple teaching, etc.
They were unlearned (agrammatoi eisin). Present indicative retained in indirect discourse. Unlettered men without technical training in the professional rabbinical schools of Hillel or Shammai. Jesus himself was so regarded (Joh_7:15, “not having learned letters”).
And ignorant (kai idiōtai). Old word, only here in the N.T. and 1Co_14:24; 2Co_11:6. It does not mean “ignorant,” but a layman, a man not in office (a private person), a common soldier and not an officer, a man not skilled in the schools, very much like agrammatos. It is from idios (one’s own) and our “idiosyncracy” is one with an excess of such a trait, while “idiot” (this very word) is one who has nothing but his idiosyncracy. Peter and John were men of ability and of courage, but they did not belong to the set of the rabbis.
They marvelled (ethaumazon). Imperfect (inchoative) active, began to wonder and kept it up.
Took knowledge of them (epeginōskon autous). Imperfect (inchoative) active again, they began to recognize them as men that they had seen with Jesus.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:13
The boldness of Peter and John – Την παρῥησιαν, The freedom and fluency with which they spoke; for they spoke now from the immediate influence of the Holy Ghost, and their word was with power.
That they were unlearned and ignorant men – Αγραμματοι, Persons without literature, not brought up in nor given to literary pursuits – and ignorant, ιδιωται, persons in private life, brought up in its occupations alone. It does not mean ignorance in the common acceptation of the term; and our translation is very improper. In no sense of the word could any of the apostles be called ignorant men; for though their spiritual knowledge came all from heaven, yet in all other matters they seem to have been men of good, sound, strong, common sense.
They took knowledge of them – Επεγινωσκον may imply that they got information, that they had been disciples of Christ, and probably they might have seen them in our Lord’s company; for there can be little doubt that they had often seen our Lord teaching the multitudes, and these disciples attending him.
That they had been with Jesus – Had they not had his teaching, the present company would soon have confounded them; but they spoke with so much power and authority that the whole sanhedrin was confounded. He who is taught in spiritual matters by Christ Jesus has a better gift than the tongue of the learned. He who is taught in the school of Christ will ever speak to the point, and intelligibly too; though his words may not have that polish with which they who prefer sound to sense are often carried away.

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:14
They could say nothing against it (ouden eichon anteipein). Imperfect again, they kept on having nothing to say against it. The lame man was standing there before their eyes in proof of what Peter had said.

John Gill
Act 4:15 But when they had commanded them,…. That is, when the sanhedrim had ordered the apostles; or “commanded that both”, as the Arabic version reads, both Peter and John; and, it may be, the man that was healed too:

to go aside out of the council; or place where the council, or sanhedrim sat; which, whether it was in the chamber “Gazith”, in the temple where they used to sit (g), or in the shops, or in the city, whither they removed, is not certain. We are told (h), that

“the sanhedrim removed from the chamber Gazith, to the shops, and from the shops to Jerusalem, and from Jerusalem to Jabneh;”

that is, after the destruction of the city. And the first remove was much about this time; for it is said (i), that

“forty years before the destruction of the temple, the sanhedrim removed, and sat in the shops.”

Not in the shops where things were sold for the use of the temple, but in a court adjoining to them, which took its name from them.

They conferred among themselves; what was proper to be done, the apostles being withdrawn.

(g) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 2. & Middot. c. 5. sect. 3. (h) T. Bab. Roshhashana, fol. 31. 1. (i) T. Bab. Avoda Zara, fol. 8. 2.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:15-18
What shall we do to these men? – The object which they had in view was evidently to prevent their preaching. The miracle was performed, and it was believed by the people to have been made. This they could not expect to be able successfully to deny. Their only object, therefore, was to prevent the apostles from making the use which they saw they would to convince the people that Jesus was the Messiah. The question was, in what way they should prevent this; whether by putting them to death, by imprisoning them, or by scourging them; or whether by simply exerting theft authority and forbidding them. From the former they were deterred, doubtless, by fear of the multitude; and they therefore adopted the latter, and seemed to suppose that the mere exertion of their authority would be sufficient to deter them from this in future.
The council – Greek: The “Sanhedrin.” This body was composed of 71 or 72 persons, and was entrusted with the principal affairs of the nation. It was a body of vast influence and power, and hence they supposed that their command might be sufficient to restrain ignorant Galileans from speaking. Before this same body, and probably the same men, our Saviour was arraigned, and by them condemned before he was delivered to the Roman governor, Mat_26:59, etc. And before this same body, and in the presence of the same men, Peter had just before denied his Lord, Mat_26:70, etc. The fact that the disciples had fled on a former occasion, and that Peter had denied his Saviour, may hate operated to induce them to believe that they would be terrified by their threats, and deterred from preaching publicly in the name of Jesus.
A notable miracle – A known, undeniable miracle.
That it spread – That the knowledge of it may not spread among them any further.
Let us straitly threaten them – Greek: “Let us threaten them with a threat.” This is a “Hebraism” expressing intensity, certainty, etc. The threat was a command Act_4:18 not to teach, implying their displeasure if they did do it. This threat, however, was not effectual. On the next occasion, which occurred soon after Act_5:40, they added beating to their threats in order to deter them from preaching in the name of Jesus.

John Gill
Act 4:16 Saying, what shall we do to these men?…. Whether they should punish them by scourging them, or detain them longer in custody, or commit them to prison, or dismiss them:

for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them: they were convicted that a miracle was wrought; that it was a clear case, a well known thing, of which there was no room to doubt, and that it was done by the apostles; but this was not all the difficulty, had it been a thing only within their knowledge, and which they could have concealed, it would have given them no uneasiness; but, as they observe,

it is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem: for the man having been so long lame, and had lain so long at the temple, where all the inhabitants frequently went, he was known and took notice of by them; and his cure being wrought so openly, and in such a miraculous way, it was the common talk of the city: so that there was no smothering it:

and we cannot deny it; the fact is so certain and evident; nor hide it, as the Ethiopic version renders it, it being so notorious and public.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:17
But that it spread no farther – Not the news of the miraculous healing of the lame man, but the doctrine and influence which these men preach and exert. More than a thousand people had already professed faith in Christ in consequence of this miracle, (see Act_4:4), and if this teaching should be permitted to go on, probably accompanied with similar miracles, they had reason to believe that all Jerusalem (themselves excepted, who had steeled their hearts against all good) should be converted to the religion of him whom they had lately crucified.
Let us straitly threaten them – Απειλῃ απειλησωμεθα, Let us threaten them with threatening, a Hebraism, and a proof that St. Luke has translated the words of the council into Greek, just as they were spoken.
That they speak …to no man in this name – Nothing so ominous to them as the name of Christ crucified, because they themselves had been his crucifiers. On this account they could not bear to hear salvation preached to mankind through him of whom they had been the betrayers and murderers, and who was soon likely to have no enemies but themselves.

John Gill
Act 4:18 And they called them,…. From the apartment where they were; or ordered their servants to call them in to them:

and commanded them not to speak at all; either privately or publicly, in the ministry of the word, or in working of miracles, in the city, or in the country:

nor teach in the name of Jesus; any doctrine whatever; or “the name of Jesus”, as the Arabic version reads; that is, the doctrine of Jesus, that which respects his person, his carnation, his offices, his sufferings, death, and resurrection from the dead.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:19
Whether it be right in the sight of God – As if they had said: Worldly prudence and a consideration of our secular interests would undoubtedly induce us to obey you; but acting as before God, and following the dictates of eternal truth and justice, we dare not be silent. Can it be right to obey men contrary to the command and will of God? When he commands us to speak, dare we hold our tongue? We have received our authority from God through Christ, and feel fully persuaded of the truth by the Holy Spirit which now dwells in us; and we should be guilty of treason against God, were we on any consideration to suppress his testimony. Your own consciences testify that we should be sinners against our heavenly King, were we to act according to your orders; and the conclusion is, that we cannot but speak what we have seen and heard.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:19
Whether it be right … – The apostles abated nothing of their boldness when threatened. They openly appealed to their judges whether their command could be right. And in doing this, they expressed their full conviction of the truth of what they had said, and their deliberate purpose not to regard their command, but still to proclaim to the people the truth that Jesus was the Messiah.

In the sight of God – That is, whether God will judge this to be right. The grand question was how God would regard it. If he disapproved it, it was wrong. It was not merely a question pertaining to their reputation, safety, or life; it was a question of conscience before God. We have here a striking instance of the principle on which Christians act. It is, to lay their safety, reputation, and life out of view, and bring everything to the test whether it will please God. If it will, it is right; if it will not, it is wrong.
To hearken – To “hear” and to “hearken” are often used to denote to “obey,” Joh_5:24; Joh_8:47, etc.
Judge ye – This was an appeal to them directly as judges and as men. And it may be presumed that it was an appeal which they could not resist. The Sanhedrin acknowledged itself to have been appointed by God, and to have no authority which was not derived from his appointment. Of course, God could modify, supersede, or repeal their authority; and the abstract principle that it was better to obey God than man they could not call in question. The only inquiry was whether they had evidence that God had issued any command in the case. Of that the apostles were satisfied, and that the rulers could not deny. It may be remarked that this is one of the first and most bold appeals on record in favor of the right of private judgment and the liberty of conscience. That liberty was supposed in all the Jewish religion. It was admitted that the authority of God in all matters was superior to that of man. And the same spirit manifested itself thus early in the Christian church against all dominion over the conscience, and in favor of the right to follow the dictates of the conscience and the will of God. As a mere historical fact, therefore, it is interesting to contemplate this, and still more interesting in its important bearings on human liberty and human happiness. The doctrine is still more explicitly stated in Act_5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than man.”

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:20
For we cannot but speak (ou dunametha gar hēmeiṡ̇mē lalein). Both negatives hold here, “For we (note emphatic hēmeis) are not able not to speak” (what we saw and heard). This is defiance of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities that was justified, for the temple authorities stepped in between the conscience and God. Peter and John were willing to pay the price of this defiance with their lives. This is the courage of martyrs through all the ages.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:20
For … – This is given as a reason why they should obey God rather than man. They had had so clear evidence that God had sent the Messiah, and they had received a direct and solemn command Mar_16:15 to preach the gospel, that they could not be restrained. There was a necessity laid on them to preach. See 1Co_9:16. Compare Jer_20:9; Act_18:5; Job_32:18-19; Psa_39:1-3.
It has already been remarked that these two verses contain an important principle in favor of religious liberty the liberty of conscience and of private judgment. They contain the great principle of Christianity and of the Protestant religion, that the responsibility of men for their religious opinions is direct to God, and that other men have no power of control. The opposite of this is tyranny and oppression. It may be proper, in addition, to present some further remarks, involved in the principle here stated:
(1) Religion, from the beginning, has been favorable to liberty. There was no principle more sacred among the Jews than that they were to be independent of other nations. Perhaps no people have ever been so restive under a foreign yoke, so prone to rebel, and so difficult to be broken down by oppression and by arms, as were the Jews. So true was this, that it appeared to other nations to be mere obstinacy. They were often subdued, but they rose against their oppressors and threw off the yoke. No people have been found who were so difficult to be reduced to slavery. It is well known that the Romans were accustomed to subject the captives taken in war to perpetual servitude; and commonly the spirit of the captive was broken, and he remained quietly in bondage. But not so the Jew. Nothing ever tamed his spirit. No bribes, or threats, or chains could induce him to violate the laws of his religion. Even in captivity, we are told that the Jewish slaves at Rome would observe the Sabbath; would keep the feasts of their nation, and would never conform to the customs of an idolatrous people. To the Romans this appeared to be mere obstinacy. But it was the genius of their religion. The right of liberty of thought was one which they would not surrender. The spirit of the patriarchs was favorable to liberty, and implied responsibility only to God. Familiarity with the sacred books had taught them these lessons, and neither time nor distance could obliterate them. In the time of Christ, the great mass of the nation were evidently opposed to the tax paid to the Roman nation, and sighed under this burden, until they rose and attempted to assert their rights; and their city, and temple, and land were sacrificed rather than yield this great principle.

(2) This same principle was evinced by the apostles and by the early Christians. With this doctrine fresh upon their hearts, they went forth to other lands. They maintained it at the expense of their blood, and thousands fell as martyrs in the cause of liberty and of private judgment in religion. No one ever defended liberty more firmly than the early martyrs; and each one that died, died in defense of a principle which is now the acknowledged right of all people.
(3) The designs of tyranny and superstition have been to destroy this principle. This was the aim of the Sanhedrin; and yet, when Peter and John appealed to their consciences, they did not dare to avow their purpose. This has been the aim of all tyrants, and this the effect of all superstition. Hence, the Church of Rome has taken away the Scriptures from the people, and has thus furnished incontestable evidence that in its view the Bible is favorable to liberty. For centuries, tyranny reigned in one black flight over Europe; nor was the darkness dispelled until the Bible, that taught people the principles of freedom, was restored to them.
(4) The effect of the principle avowed by the apostles had been uniform. Luther began the reformation by finding in a monastery a copy of the Bible, a book which until that time – when more than twenty years of age – he had never seen. The effect on the liberties of Europe was immediately seen. Hume admitted that whatever liberty England possessed was to be traced to the Puritans. Our own land (America) is a striking instance of the effect of this great principle, and of its influence on the rights of man. And just in proportion as the New Testament is spread abroad will people seek for freedom and break the chains of oppression. The best way to promote universal liberty is to spread the Bible to the ends of the earth. There is not a precept in it that is not favorable to freedom. It tends to enlarge and liberalize the mind; to teach people their rights; to put an end to ignorance, the universal stronghold of superstition and tyranny; and to diffuse the love of justice, truth, and order. It shows man that he is responsible to God, and that no one has a right to ordain anything which contravenes the liberty of his fellow.
If it be asked here what the principle is, I answer:
(1) That people have a right to their private judgment in matters of religion, subject only to God. The only restraint which, it is now settled, can be imposed on this, is, that no man has a right, under pretence of conscience, to injure or molest his fellow-men, or to disturb the peace and harmony of society.
(2) No magistrate, church, council, or parent, has a right to impose a creed on others, and to demand subscription to it by mere authority.
(3) No magistrate, church, or parent, has a right to control. the free exercise of private judgment in this case. The power of a parent is to teach, advise, and entreat. The duty of a child is to listen with respect; to examine with candor; to pray over the subject, and to be deliberate and calm, not rash, hasty, impetuous, and self-willed. But when the child is thus convinced that his duty to God requires a particular course, then here is a higher obligation than any earthly law, and he must obey God rather than man, ever a father or a mother, Mat_10:37-38.
(4) Every man is responsible to God for his opinions and his conduct. Man may not control him, but God may and will. The great question before every man is, What is right in the sight of God? It is not, What is expedient, or safe, or pleasurable, or honorable among people? but, What is right in the sight of God? Neither in their opinions nor their conduct are people free from responsibility. From this whole subject we see the duty of spreading the Bible. If we love liberty; if we hate tyranny and superstition; if we wish to extend the knowledge of the rights of man, and break every arm of oppression, let us spread far and wide the Book of God, and place in every palace and every cottage on the globe a copy of the sacred Scriptures.

John Gill Act 4:21 So when they had further threatened them,…. Either repeated the same, as before; or added some more severe ones, to terrify them, if possible; not being able to answer their arguments, or invalidate their reasoning:

they let them go; they did not acquit them as innocent persons, but dismissed them from custody:

finding nothing how they might punish them; not being able, though they sought most diligently for it, to fix anything upon them, which might be a cause, or occasion, or pretence of inflicting any punishment upon them:

because of the people: they would not have stuck at the injustice of it, or have been under any concern about offending God; but they were afraid of the people, of losing their credit among them, and lest they should rise up against them, and on the side of the apostles:
for all men glorified God for that which was done; they saw the hand of God in it, and ascribed it to his mercy, goodness, and power, and gave him the glory of it; and therefore to punish the instruments of so great and good a work, would have been esteemed barbarous and wicked, and would have been highly resented by them; since, on the contrary, they judged them worthy of great honour and respect.
John Gill
Act 4:23
Their own company – They joined the other apostles and Christians, Act_2:44-45.
And reported … – It doubtless became a subject of interesting inquiry what they should do in this case. They had been threatened by the highest authority of the nation, and commanded not to preach again in the name of Jesus. Whether they should obey them and be silent, or whether they should leave Jerusalem and preach elsewhere, could not but be an interesting subject of inquiry, and they very properly sought the counsel of their brethren, and looked to God for direction, an example which all should follow who are exposed to persecution, or who are in any perplexity about the path of duty.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:23 And being let go,…. Or dismissed from custody, by the order of the sanhedrim:

they went to their own company; or “to their own men”, as the Ethiopic version reads; or “to their own brethren”, as the Syriac; either to the other ten apostles; or to the hundred and twenty, who first met together; or the whole multitude of them that believed, Act_4:32 the eight thousand that had been added to them, the whole church. Saints love to be together, and delight in the company of each other; and especially when they have anything to communicate, that may be for their mutual good, or for the honour of God:

and reported all that the chief priests and elders had said unto them; what commands and injunctions they had lain upon them, and what threatenings they had given them, and, no doubt likewise, what answers they had returned to them.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:24
They lifted up their voice – To lift up the voice, among the Hebrews, was a phrase denoting either an “address” to the people Jdg_9:7, or a phrase expressive of “weeping” Gen_29:11; Jdg_2:4; Rth_1:9; 1Sa_24:16, or of “prayer.” To lift up the voice to God means simply they prayed to Him.
With one accord – Unitedly. Properly, with one mind or purpose. See notes on Act_1:14. The union of the early Christians is often noticed in the Acts of the Apostles. Thus far, there was no jar or dissension in their society, and everything has the appearance of the most entire affection and confidence.

A.T. Robertson
Act 4:29
And now (kai ta nun). “And as to (accusative of general reference) the now things (the present situation).” Only in the Acts in the N.T. (Act_5:38; Act_17:30; Act_20:32; Act_27:22).
Grant (dos). Second aorist active imperative of didōmi, urgency of the aorist, Do it now.
To speak thy word with all boldness (meta parrēsias pasēs lalein ton logon sou). Literally, “with all boldness to go on speaking (present active infinitive) thy word.” Peter and John had defied the Sanhedrin in Act_4:20, but all the same and all the more they pray for courage in deed to live up to their brave words. A wholesome lesson.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:29
And now, Lord, behold their threatenings – It is not against us, but against thee, that they conspire: it is not to prevent the success of our preaching, but to bring to nought thy counsel: the whole of their enmity is against thee. Now, Lord, look upon it; consider this.
And grant unto thy servants – While we are endeavoring to fulfill thy counsels, and can do nothing without thee, sustain our courage, that we may proclaim thy truth with boldness and irresistible power.

John Gill
Act 4:30 By stretching forth thine hand to heal,…. That is, by exerting his power in healing sicknesses, diseases, and lameness, as in the above instance, by the hands of the apostles; which, as it would be contrary to the schemes of the Jewish sanhedrim, and would confirm the doctrines of the Gospel; so it would animate the preachers of the word to preach it with more readiness, cheerfulness, and firmness of mind;

and that signs and wonders may be done by the name of thy holy child Jesus; as had been done already, and by whose name particularly the lame man at the temple had received a cure, and in whose name the sanhedrim had forbid the apostles to preach, or to make use of it, in doing any other miracle.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:30
By stretching forth thine hand to heal – Show that it is thy truth which we proclaim, and confirm it with miracles, and show how highly thou hast magnified thy Son Jesus, whom they have despised and crucified, by causing signs and wonders to be wrought in his name.
Thy holy child Jesus – Του ἁγιου παιδος σου should be translated, thy holy Servant, as in Act_4:25. Δαβιδ παιδος σου, thy servant David, not thy Child David: the word is the same in both places.

John Gill
Act 4:31 And when they had prayed,…. Either while they were praying, or as soon as they had done; for sometimes, as here, prayer is immediately heard, and an answer is returned, whilst the saints are speaking, or as soon as prayer is ended:

the place was shaken where they were assembled together; which, whether it was a private house, or the temple, is not certain: the latter seems more probable, because their number was so great, that no private house could hold them; and since this was the place where they used to assemble; this was now shaken with a rushing mighty wind, as on the day of Pentecost, and was a symbol of the divine presence, and a token that their prayers were heard, and an emblem of the shaking of the world by the ministry of the apostles:

and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost; with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, even with extraordinary ones, such as speaking with divers tongues, as before on the day of Pentecost; see Act_2:4 and this was the case not only of the apostles, but of the other ministers of the word, and it may be of the whole church:

and they spoke the word of God with all boldness; that is, the apostles, and preachers of the Gospel, spoke it with great freedom, and without fear, not only privately, in their community, but publicly, in the temple: this was what was particularly prayed for, and in which they had a remarkable answer.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:31
And when they had prayed – The event which followed was regarded by them as an evidence that God heard their prayer.
The place was shaken – The word which is translated “was shaken” commonly denotes “violent agitation,” as the raging of the sea, the convulsion of an earthquake, or trees shaken by the wind, Mat_11:7; Act_16:26; Heb_12:26. The language here is suited to express the idea of an earthquake. Whether the motion was confined to the house where they were is not said. They probably regarded this as an answer to their prayer, or as an evidence that God would be with them:
(1) Because it was sudden and violent, and was not produced by any natural causes;
(2) Because it occurred immediately, while they were seeking divine direction;
(3) Because it was an exhibition of great power, and was an evidence that God could protect them; and,
(4) Because a convulsion so great, sudden, and mighty was suited at that time to awe them with a proof of the presence and power of God. A similar instance of an answer to prayer by an earthquake is recorded in Act_16:25-26. Compare Act_2:1-2. It may be added, that among the Jews an earthquake was very properly regarded as a striking and impressive proof of the presence of Yahweh, Isa_29:6; Psa_68:8, “The earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God; even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel.” See also the sublime description in Hab. 3, particularly Act_4:6-11. Compare Mat_27:54. Among the pagan, an earthquake was regarded as proof of the presence and favor of the Deity. (See Virgil, Aeneid, 3:89.)
They were all filled … – See the notes on Act_2:4. Their being filled with the Holy Spirit here rather denotes their being inspired with confidence or boldness than being endowed with new powers, as in Act_2:4.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:31
The place was shaken – This earthquake was an evidence of the presence of God, and a most direct answer to their prayer, as far as that prayer concerned themselves. The earthquake proclaimed the stretched-out arm of God, and showed them that resistance against his counsels and determinations must come to nought.
And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost – And, in consequence of this, they spake the word of God with boldness; a pointed answer to a second part of their request, Act_4:29. A right prayer will always have a right and ready answer. Though these disciples had received the Holy Spirit on the day of pentecost, yet they were capable of larger communications; and what they had then received did not preclude the necessity of frequent supplies, on emergent occasions. Indeed, one communication of this Spirit always makes way and disposes for another. Neither apostle nor private Christian can subsist in the Divine life without frequent influences from on high. Had these disciples depended on their pentecostal grace, they might have sunk now under the terror and menaces of their combined and powerful foes. God gives grace for the time being, but no stock for futurity, because he will keep all his followers continually dependent on himself.
With boldness – Παντι τῳ θελοντι πιστευειν, To all who were willing to believe, is added by DE, two others, Augustin, Irenaeus, and Bede.

Act 4:32
Of one heart and soul (kardia kai psuchē mia). It is not possible to make sharp distinction between heart and soul here (see Mar_12:30), only that there was harmony in thought and affection. But the English translation is curiously unlike the Greek original. “There was one heart and soul (nominative case, not genitive as the English has it) in the multitude (tou plēthous, subjective genitive) of those who believed.”
Not one of them (oude heis). More emphatic than oudeis, “not even one.”
Common (Koinéa). In the use of their property, not in the possession as Luke proceeds to explain. The word Koinéos is kin to sun (together with)=xun (Epic) and so xunos^Koinéos. See this word already in Act_2:44. The idea of unclean (Act_10:15) is a later development from the original notion of common to all.

John Gill
Act 4:32 And the multitude of them that believed,…. The Gospel, and in Christ, the substance of it; and a multitude they were, for they were now about eight thousand persons. And though their number was so great, they

were of one heart and of one soul; there was an entire consent and agreement in doctrine, in matters of faith they were all of one mind and judgment, and there was a perfect harmony in their practice, they all performed the same duties, and observed the same commands and ordinances; and all pursued the same interest, and had the same ends and views; and there was a strict union of their affections to each other; their souls were knit to one another; so that there was, but as it were, one soul in this large body of Christians. Aristotle, being asked what a friend was, answered, one soul dwelling in two bodies (p): and so the Jews say, it is fit and proper that lovers or friends should be בלב אחד כאיש אחד, “of one heart, as one man” (q); and such friends and hearty lovers were these.

Neither said any of them, that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; though he had a peculiar right unto them, yet he did not claim that right, nor insist on it, nor so much as speak of it, nor make use of his substance as if it was his own, reserving it for himself, or even disposing of it himself; but exposed it to the free use of the whole body, to enjoy it equally with himself:

but they had all things common; which was what they were not obliged to, but it was a free and voluntary action of their own, and so is not binding on others; nor indeed is their practice to be imitated, in the direct manner in which they did it, for their case was peculiar. They were not only every day liable to persecutions and to have their possessions seized, and their goods confiscated; but they also knew, that in process of time, Jerusalem would be destroyed, and they could not tell how soon; and therefore judged it right to sell off their possessions, and throw the money into one common stock, for their mutual support, and for the carrying on the common cause of Christ.

(p) Diog. Laert. in vit. Aristot. l, 5. 313. (q) Tzeror Hammor, fol. 21. 3. & 162. 4.
Albert Barnes
Act 4:32
And the multitude – The number of believers at this time had become large. In Act_4:4, it is said that it was five thousand, and the number was constantly increasing.
One heart – This expression denotes “tender union.” They felt alike, or were attached to the same things, and this preserved them from jars and dissensions.
One soul – This phrase also denotes “close and tender union.” No expression could denote it more strikingly than to say of friends they have one soul. Plutarch cites an ancient verse in his life of Cato of Utica with this very expression – “Two friends, one soul” (Grotius). Thus, Diogenes Laertius also (5, Act_1:11) says respecting Aristotle, that “being asked what was a friend, answered that it was one soul dwelling in two bodies” (Kuinoel). The Hebrews spake of two friends as being “one man.” There can be no more striking demonstration of union and love than to say of more than five thousand suddenly drawn together that they had one soul! And this union they evinced in every way possible – in their conduct, in their prayers, and in their property. How different would have been the aspect of the church if the union had continued to the present time!
Neither said … – That is, I they did not regard it as their own, but to be used for the benefit of the whole society. See the notes on Act_2:44.

John Gill
Act 4:33 And with great power,…. Either in a very powerful way, with great fervency of spirit, and ardour of mind, and uncommon zeal; or with great efficacy on the souls of men; or with many miracles, and powerful operations in healing the sick, casting out devils, &c.

gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; which they were chosen to be witnesses, and were eyewitnesses of; and which is a fundamental article of the Gospel, and was what the Sadducees were particularly disturbed at, and on account of which they forbade them to preach any more in Christ’s name.

And great grace was upon them all; not only upon the apostles and ministers, but upon the whole church: and which may be understood either of the large gifts of the Spirit of God, which were poured out upon them, and plentifully bestowed on them; or of the gracious protection of God over them, preserving them from the rage and malice of men; or of that grace and favour which they had among thee people in common; or of that charity, liberality and beneficence, which were among them, which sense is confirmed by what follows; though it may be all these senses may be taken in.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:33
With great power gave the apostles witness – This power they received from the Holy Spirit, who enabled them, μεγαλῃ δυναμει, with striking miracles, to give proof of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus; for this is the point that was particularly to be proved: that he was slain and buried, all knew; that he rose again from the dead, many knew; but it was necessary to give such proofs as should convince and confound all. This preaching and these miracles demonstrated this Divine truth: Jesus died for your sins – he rose again for your justification; behold what God works in confirmation of these glorious truths; believe therefore in the Lord Jesus, and ye shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
Great grace was upon them all – They all received much of the favor or grace of God; and they had much favor with all who feared God. In both these ways this clause may be understood; for χαρις means favor, whether that be evidenced by benevolence or beneficence, or by both. The favor of God is the benevolence of God; but his benevolence is never exerted without the exertions of his beneficence. Hence the grace or favor of God always implies a blessing or gift from the hand of his mercy and power. The favor or benevolence of men may exist without beneficence, because it may not be in their power to communicate any gift or benefit, though they are disposed to do it; or, 2dly. the persons who enjoy their favor may not stand in need of any of their kind acts; but it is not so with God: his good will is ever accompanied by his good work; and every soul that is an object of his benevolence stands in the utmost need of the acts of his beneficence. Hence, as he loved the world, he gave his Son a ransom for all. All needed his help; and, because they all needed it, therefore all had it. And truly we may say of the whole human race, for whom the Son of God tasted death, that great grace was upon all; for All have been purchased by his sacrificial death. This by the way.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:34
That lacked – That was in want, or whose needs were not supplied by the others.
As many as … – The word used here is employed in a large, indefinite sense; but it would be improper to press it so as to suppose that every individual that became a Christian sold at once all his property. The sense doubtless is, that this was done “when it was necessary:” they parted with whatever property was needful to supply the needs of their poor brethren. That it was by no means considered a matter of “obligations,” or enjoined by the apostles, is apparent from the case of Ananias, Act_5:4. The fact that “Joses” is particularly mentioned Act_4:36 shows that it was by no means a universal practice thus to part with all their possessions. He was “one” instance in which it was done. Perhaps there were many other similar instances; but all that the passage requires us to believe is, that they parted with whatever was “needful” to supply the needs of the poor. This was an eminent and instructive instance of Christian liberality, and of the power of the gospel in overcoming one of the strongest passions that ever exist in the human bosom – the love of money. Many of the early Christians were poor. They were collected from the lower orders of the people. But “all” Were not so. Some of them, it seems, were people of affluence; but the effect of religion was to bring them all, in regard to feeling, at least, on a level. They felt that they were members of one family, and they therefore imparted their property cheerfully to their brethren. Besides this, they were about to go to other lands to preach the gospel, and they cheerfully parted with their property that they might go and proclaim the unsearchable riches of Christ. See the notes on Act_2:44.

Adam Clarke
Act 4:34
Neither was there any among them that lacked – It was customary with the Jews to call the poor together, to eat of the sacrifices, but as the priests, etc., were incensed against Christ and Christianity, consequently the Christian poor could have no advantage of this kind; therefore, by making a common stock for the present necessity, the poor were supplied; so there was none among them that lacked. This provision therefore of the community of goods, which could be but temporary, was made both suitably and seasonably. See Bp. Pearce, and see the note on Act_2:44.

John Gill
Act 4:35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet,…. Showing great veneration and respect to the apostles, and a sort of neglect and contempt of their worldly substance; and signifying that they entirely delivered them to the apostles, and subjected them to their disposal:

and distribution was made unto every man, according as he had need; though they had all things in common, yet there was an order observed; a man might not go to the common stock and take out of it what he would; but as all was committed to the care of the apostles, and was in their power; the distribution was made by them, to every man, to the original proprietors, as well as to others, and that not as much as a man would have, or he might crave; but as much as he needed, for the present, of which the apostles were the judges.

Albert Barnes
Act 4:35
And laid them down … – That is, they committed the money received for their property to the disposal of the apostles, to distribute it as was necessary among the poor. This soon became a burdensome and inconvenient office, and they therefore appointed men who had special charge of it, Act_6:1-2, etc.

New Links Category: Hurricanes

So I’m a day or two ahead of hurricane season, but nevertheless I’ve added a few links I’ve found useful since August 29, 2005.

I also need to separate the Resource Links into separate subcategories at some point, and add a few. As for my main links, the blogging slowdown that has come with summer doesn’t inspire me to add anyone new off-hand.

“June too soon, July stand by, August come they must, September remember, October all over”

Good mnemonic, but not entirely accurate, even for the Caribbean.

Theodicy

Theodicy: God throws dice, but He knows how they will land before He throws. Or as some ancient rabbi said, “All is foreseen, but free will is given”.

Hi, Iyov.

Me explaining the mind of God is like an amoeba explaining my mind.

If I were God, you be praying someone else could be God, because I’d make a proper mess of the multiverse. Unless, like James Blish, you think somehow Godhood constrains God. Though it’s been years since I read those books so maybe I don’t recall them properly.

The best defense of theodicy is no defense, as in:

Gen 50:20 NET. As for you, you meant to harm me, but God intended it for a good purpose, so he could preserve the lives of many people, as you can see this day.

Job 40:2 NET. “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him?
Let the person who accuses God give him an answer!”

Job 42:2-6 NET. “I know that you can do all things; no purpose of yours can be thwarted;(3) you asked, ‘Who is this who darkens counsel without knowledge?’But I have declared without understanding things too wonderful for me to know. (4)You said,’Pay attention, and I will speak; I will question you, and you will answer me.’ (5) I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye has seen you. (6) Therefore I despise myself, and I repent in dust and ashes!

Joh 9:1-3 NET. Now as Jesus was passing by, he saw a man who had been blind from birth. (2) His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who committed the sin that caused him to be born blind, this man or his parents?” (3) Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but he was born blind so that the acts of God may be revealed through what happens to him….”

What, you thought I was going to solve one of the world’s great mysteries all by myself?

A Bit Queasy in Church: Memorial Day

Did anyone else have the feeling I got in church this Memorial Day Sunday? My local independent but associated SBC church had the usual patriotic display: the flag display, starting with the American flag, then the Christian flag, then the flags of the various American armed services.

Now, admittedly my politics are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun, but I had several immediate reactions:

1) I’m in a church. Shouldn’t the christian flag come first? I mean, even amongst the military isn’t it usually “God, honor, country”?

2) I certainly respect the service given me and my country by members of the armed forces, who generally get about as much or less respect than those of us in the service industries, but that old truism rears its ugly head: doesn’t everyone think God is on their side in a war?

3) Unlike our ancestors in Medieval Europe, most of us Western Christians today don’t hear “to live by the sword is to die by the sword” and think the Lord was expressing approval. 

4) Wasn’t the early church strongly pacifist, at least until they got to actually run the armed forces? Not that I think there was ever much of a Christian “golden age”. The Lord rebuked the disciples regularly and the apostles rebuked the early churches just as regularly. As early as Second Clement a sermon was being preached about Christians being their own worst enemies. Still, flawed as they were, the early church likely had a few things right that we, in our different situation, probably don’t.

5) Baptists as a rule and Southern Baptists in particular have historically been among the strongest advocates of separation of church and state. Doesn’t that make flag-waving in SBC churches a bit odd? Granted I haven’t thought much on the subject but I always thought the solution to church and state was simply that individual Christians had a duty to be good citizens but the church as a unit lived as much as possible in a politics free zone. Of course that doesn’t begin to grasp the whole social gospel/ speaking truth to power/prophetic office thing, does it? 

I am thinking aloud here and have no serious answers. What, pray tell, are your thoughts, gentle readers?  

Recent DVDs of Interest

For the DVD collectors among my readers I point out a list of recent and soon to come discs I find interesting:

1. George Melies: First Wizard of Cinema: legendary silent pioneering stuff if you’ve got the bucks for this large collection of some 103 173!! short films where magic meets cinema for the first time.

2. The Thief of Bagdad : The great sound production of this classic fantasy tale from 1940, selling unbelievably well on Amazon for an old film (#449 in Movies and TV as of this writing). Silent fans might want to check out Douglas Fairbanks’s 1924 version of the story, also outlandishly produced for its day.

3. Come Drink With Me: King Hu’s first wuxia film and the movie that seemingly introduced the modern film variant of the traditional Chinese Opera female- playing-male lead, the “kung fu diva”, this film finally gets a decent American release that looks suspiciously like a foreign version of the same film. But I’ll take it!

4.Heroes of the East: aka Shaolin Challenges Ninja, and neither title captures the spirit of this film, where despite all the fighting, no one dies! A top notch old schooler from one of martial arts films’ legends, Lau Kar Leung, with the Master Killer himself, Gordon Liu sporting both hair and a wife for a change!

5.The Big Trail: John Wayne’s first starring role, finally restored to widescreen as filmed, a film almost too big for its own good, but the prototype for things to come. The big talkie western with the big talkie western star!

6.A & E Romance Collection 1: Too much testosterone in the previous suggestions? Well, here’s a thirty hour round-up of stories the British seem to never tire of re-filming, including the version of _Pride and Prejudice_ with Colin Firth as Darcy (one of the adaptation’s chief strengths, according to many female viewers), _Emma_ with Kate Beckinsale before she discovered black leather and fangs, and even some romantic swashbuckling with _The Scarlet Pimpernel_ and _Ivanhoe_. Reduced from it’s original hefty price tag and reduced in many places even more.

7. Doctor Who: Beneath the Surface: In case you haven’t noticed already, I get every obscure reference Mark Goodacre ever makes to this show, as I fell under its spell in its American PBS days in the late Seventies. In the best years (personally speaking) of its classic run, between say 1966 and 1980, this was great family TV, with something for all generations. The DVD releases have been lovingly remastered and include good to exceptional bonus features, though I foresee some double-dipping ahead. This box set collects all three series about the Doctor’s reptilean menaces, the Silurians and the Sea Devils, two of which are good Pertwee shows and one a good-to-make-fun-of Davison show (and Davison leads the crowd in picking apart his series, I may add, making his probably the most entertaining commentaries among the various Doctors).

That ought to put a dent in your wallet!

That’s enough from me for tonight, though hardly all I am up to at the moment.

Acts 1, 2 Sunday School Notes

Here are some of my notes for Sunday, June 1, 2008 based on the Lifeway Explore the Bible curriculum

 Reference works cited include:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III 

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer

 4) The Source New Testament with Extensive Notes by Ann Nyland

5) Word Pictures in the New Testament by A.T. Robertson

 

Acts 1:1

The first few verses of Acts form a literary bridge between Luke’s Gospel and the Acts. Witherington points out that Lucian in “How to Write History” advised that sequel volumes should have common topics with previous volumes and actually overlap. (Witherington) The first sentence of the prologue then resembles greatly the prologue found in one of earlier Jewish writer Philo’s sequel volumes. (Bruce)

first narrative: proton logon. Using protos “first” for “former” is not uncommon in ancient Greek any more than English. “Logos” was often used of a work that filled a single scroll. Bruce points out that Luke and Acts are the two longest NT works, and show that Luke apparently worked to fill scrolls in each volume of his two volume work we might call “Luke to Theophilus”.(Bruce)

Theophilus: “god lover or beloved of god”. It was a common name in ancient papyri from 200 BC on, almost entirely given to slaves or freed slaves, though there is evidence of one Roman senator with the name. (Nyland) Luke calls Theophilus kratistos, “honorable”, “excellent” in Luke 1:3. This is a Greek equivalent to the Latin title “equester”, the “knights” of Roman nobility, and used of provincial governors in Acts 23:26, 24:3, and 26:5, but also might be simply a polite form of address. Thus Theophilus is likely a well-to-do individual, and presumably Luke’s patron, who financed the copying and publication of Luke-Acts, though not all dedicatees in ancient works were the books’ patron. The suspicion is that Theophilus was a new Christian, a catechumen, but surely Luke-Acts was not written for him alone. Luke’s address to Theophilus again has a classical model in Josephus’ address to his patron in “Against Apion”. (Bruce, Witherington, Nyland)

Acts 1:2

Luke is the only NT author who defines the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry by the Ascension. The Ascension in Acts occurs forty days after the Resurrection, while it seems to be on the same day as the Resurrection in Luke.

given commands, instructions- Greek enteilamenos, from entellomai. It is a word used typically of a king instructing subjects, thus there is an implicit authority behind it.

through the Holy Spirit- does this connect to “given orders” or “whom he had chosen”? Grammatically both are possible, but given Luke’s emphasis on Jesus sending the Spirit to the apostles in Acts, it makes sense to think Luke meant the phrase to modify “given orders”.

apostle- Greek apostolos, a term for a person or a thing (a ship, a bill of lading) sent out. It is suggested that the term translates Hebrew seluhim, “emissaries”, which was a term used of representatives commissioned by the Sanhedrin and individual rabbis to act in their name to settle disputes of law and religion. With the exception of Acts 14:4, 14, apostles is limited to a description of the Twelve in Acts. Famous rabbinic quote on this subject is “a man’s ‘apostle’ is as himself” (m. Ber 5.5), thus the term is important in terms of authority.(Bruce, Fitzmyer)

Acts 1:3

passion, suffering- Greek pascho, which basically means “experience something from outside oneself”. The experience is typically a bad thing, and the use of a form of this word for “legal punishment” is a very old use. (TDNT)

many convincing proofs- Greek pollois techmeriois. Techmeriois is a technical term for a proof that is so strong it must convince. “Many proofs” is a phrase often used in ancient Greek historical writing, showing again Luke’s template for his NT books. (Witherington)

Forty days- classic Biblical symbolic number

Resurrection appearances are the continuation of Jesus’ earthly ministry, plainly meant to be physical appearances, not merely visions.

kingdom of God- God’s dominion over people’s minds and lives, as exemplified in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.

 

Acts 1:4

while assembled with them, while eating with them, while staying with them- The textual critics agree that the Greek here is sunalizomenos, the problem is exactly what root this word is derived from. “Eating with” is pretty much out, because the Greek root there is later than the NT and rare. The use of plural “assembled with” in regard to the single Jesus is felt to rule that one out, leaving “staying overnight with, while staying”, which merely involves a slight spelling variation well attested in ancient Greek writing. (Metzger)

Acts 1:6

Lord- Greek kurie, from kurios. In Gospels one suspects the best English translation would be “sir” or rabbi, but here, after the Resurrection, the term takes on divine aspect, so “lord” is more appropriate.

kingdom of Israel- Here the apostles reveal themselves to be Jews of the first century, brought up on the idea the Messiah chiefly being involved in the restoration of Israel as a world power. This shows that they are still thinking in old terms, even after a very different Messianic event.

Acts 1:7

times or periods- times may be the interval before the kingdom, periods the events leading up to the kingdom. Generally speaking, the distinction between the two has long ago been lost for most people. (Bruce)

Acts 1:8

power- Greek dunamis. Supernatural power from the Holy Spirit, but also the ability to witness to Jesus effectively. The same Greek term is used of “mighty works” of Jesus. (Bruce)

witnesses- Greek martures, where our word martyrs comes from.

to the end of the earth- derived from Is 49:6: He says, “It is not enough for you to be My servant

raising up the tribes of Jacob and restoring the protected ones of Israel. I will also make you a light for the nations,

to be My salvation to the ends of the earth.” Nations refers to the non- Israelites, thus the Gentiles. Might be a simple geographical remark, but many see it as pointing to Paul ending up in Rome, or even paul going to Spain, the Western end of the known world then.

Acts 1:9

The Ascension must be seen as part of a unit of Resurrection, Ascension, Exaltation. One would be mistaken to see the Ascension as marking the actual point of Jesus’ exaltation to the right hand of the Father. That likely occurred between Resurrection appearances at tomb, and Jesus’ un-narrated appearance to Peter. Jesus continued his earthly ministry for forty days after the Resurrection, so that the Ascension marks the end of his earthly ministry and the beginning of the Apostolic Age and the leading of the apostles by the Holy Spirit.

covered by a cloud- This is the same sort of description found in accounts of the Transfiguration and the coming parousia (second coming). Is this cloud identified with the Shekinah, the glory- covering cloud that dwelt at the First Temple?

Acts 2:1

when had arrived- “when the fulfilling of the day”- another standard Greek historical phrase from Luke, common in historical works of 200 BC to 100 AD. Greek sumplerosis, “completion, fulfillment”, used in ancient legal documents for payment made in full. (Nyland)

 Pentecost- pentekoste- fiftieth. Festival derived from Lev 23:15-21. Termed also the Feast of New Grain or the Feast of Weeks (Shauvot, “sabbaths”, because weeks were counted from sabbath to sabbath, and sabbath was shorthand for “week”). Law required seven weeks of fifty days between Passover and Pentecost, but different sects counted the weeks differently:

1. Pharisees- sabbath after Passover (month of Nissan) begins count, thus Pentecost is sometime in third month.

2. Sadducees- counted fifty days from Passover (14 Nissan) itself, thus Pentecost (6 Sivan)

3. Essenes- counted Sunday week from Passover (22 Nissan), thus Pentecost (15 Sivan)

Pentecost is now associated with the giving of law at Sinai, but many scholars suspect that is post-NT development. Fitzmyer gives evidence that the Book of Jubilees and writings from Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) show at least some ancient Jews associating the lawgiving with Pentecost in pre-Christian times. (Fitzmyer, Bruce)

together in the same, together in one accord in the same- textual variant in Byzantine text behind KJV. Greek homothumadon (in one accord) a scribal assimilation to verse 1:14. Earlier text homou (together)

Acts 2:2

sound- Greek echos, a roar, the sound of the sea (Robertson)

“an echoing sound as of a mighty wind borne violently” is how A.T. Robertson translated the description of the wind here. (Robertson)

oikos- Greek for house, sometimes used for the Temple, but not by Luke, who uses hieron. Also, as Bruce points out, “where they were sitting” doesn’t fit the context of the Temple. (Bruce)

Acts 2:3

cloven, divided- from Greek diamerizo, to cut into pieces, to divide. The idea being that the flame appeared as a single mass at first, then split itself.

tongues- glossai, from glossa, Greek for the physical apparatus in the mouth, and also shorthand for “language”.

fire- puros. God is said to descend to Sinai in fire in Ex 19:18, and of course the burning bush involves an fire that doesn’t burn. Angels are said to be fire. Fire is a symbol of divinity. Tongues is appropriate considering the gift the Holy Spirit is about to bring.

John the Baptist had predicted Jesus would baptize with “Holy Spirit and fire”, and here we have fire, and wind, which is another meaning of pneuma, “spirit, wind, breath”.

 

Acts 2:4

all filled with Holy Spirit- Greek doesn’t use a definite article for Holy Spirit, no “the”. All means all 120 people present ( assuming the same crowd as in Acts 1:15), not merely the apostles. The earliest reference to filling of the Holy Spirit and inspired speech is Num. 11:25. Luke chapter one shows Elizabeth and Zechariah both being filled by the Spirit and speaking as well.

other languages- heterais glossais in Greek. Among commentators I surveyed, only William Barclay tried to insist this was “ecstatic speech”, “speaking in tongues”, as seen in Corinth and popular among charismatic groups today. Based on 2:6 and 2:11, where dialects and tongues are mentioned, as well as the list of nations in 2:9-11, most seen it as gift of speaking unknown languages, though some see it as a gift to listeners of hearing their own language from someone speaking presumably Aramaic.

 speech, utterance- Greek apotheggomai, for a loud noise, or for emphatic, elevated speech. Nyland says it is speech made by someone through an instrument, which is appropriate for Holy Spirit inspiring the assembled believers. (Nyland, Robertson)

Bruce notes another Sinai similarity here, when later rabbis claimed that God spoke at Sinai in all seventy languages of the world. (Bruce)

Acts 2:5

Jews, devout men from every nation- Greek andres eulabeis, “men holding fast”, observant Jews, in Jerusalem for Pentecost. “Every nation” is hyperbole for Jews from around known world. Thus one can make the case that this miracle is still directed at the “lost sheep of Israel” as Jesus put it, only now it is Jews around the world. Gentiles are yet to be included, though the multiple languages are a definite hint.

Acts 2:6

multitude came together- here is where the difficulty begins. The crowd Peter speaks to later in the chapter includes thousands, and yet what house could include space for that many people, even in the road outside of it? Ancient streets in the Middle East are notoriously narrow. About the only solution is to suggest

1) The house where the miracle occurred was near the Temple, so the crowd could overflow onto the vast Temple grounds, or

2) Luke has confused the narrative, and there is a break between the house part and Peter’s speech.

 One suspects 1) is the best solution because it is the simpler one.

his own language- were the speakers affected, or the hearing of the listeners? Chronologically, one would think the speakers, as the different languages are mentioned before the listeners from around the world.

Acts 2:22

Men of Israel- the honorable, sacred term for Jews.

Iesus Nazoraios- common name for Jesus in NT. Nazoraios most typically understood as “of Nazareth”. The Nazar portion causes confusion, as it may be derived from:

1. Hebrew neser- “branch”, one theory being Nazareth was a colony of Davidic descendants

2. Hebrew nazir- “separated”, as in Nazirites.

miracles- dunamis again, “powers”, here powerful deeds, mighty works

wonders and signs- terasi kai semeiois- these two words typically appear together in the NT. Interestingly, this verse and Acts 10:38 are the only place outside the Gospels that mention Jesus’ miracles. (Bruce)

These miracles, wonders and signs are God’s way of proving Jesus’ authority.

as you yourselves know- many witnesses of Jesus’ miracles in crowd, and many mor who had heard of them, surely.

Acts 2:23

delivered up- Greek ekdoton “handed over”. Can be seen to have double meaning, for Judas was the man who delivered Jesus up, but as verse makes clear, God also handed Jesus over, as part of His plan.

determined plan and foreknowledge of God- horismene boule kai prognosei tou theou. Classic paradox with God. He uses evil plans of men to work His own good purposes.

 through lawless hands- Greek dia cheiros anomon Anomoi is a- negative + nomos Law, without law, thus probably a reference to the Romans, though it might also be a reference to the illegality of arresting Jesus by the chief priests.

nailed, crucified- Greek prospezantes, “having fastened up”. No direct mention of cross, actually. Greek students will note the lack of a form of stauros, “cross”. That comes in verse 2:36 (Bruce)

kill, slain- Greek aneilate, from aneireo, “take up, take”, as in “take and kill”.

Acts 2:24

God raised him up- Here it is: the first public proclamation of the Resurrection

having freed the pains of death- Bruce suggests this is not so much a mixed metaphor as an ancient mistranslation. Apparently the Greek OT sometimes confuses the Hebrew hebel “cord, bond” with hebel, “pain”, and used the word hodis “pain”. Most people see it as Luke used a mixed metaphor full of meaning, freeing Jesus from death equaling the birth pains (hodinas) of Christianity. (Bruce, NET)

Acts 2:17- 35

Peter here invokes Davidic prophecy and the evidence of two tombs. Ps 16:10, Ps 132:11 and Ps 110 among others are included as evidence of an exalted Davidic messiah who must not die and rule at God’s right hand. Since David’s tomb is known to all (at the time it was thought to be near Pool of Siloam, and Herod the Great built a white marble monument for it. It is also thought to be on different hills in Jerusalem, near the room of the Last Supper and the Ascension, or even in Bethlehem), Peter reasons the prophecies must pertain to David’s descendant, the messiah. Jesus then must be the messiah, because the 120 believers are witnesses to his Resurrection. (Fitzmyer, Bruce)

The bible does not call David a prophet, but it was common opinion in Jesus’ day, as evidenced by Josephus and the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Fitzmyer)

Acts 2:32

we are witnesses- Jewish law required at least two male witnesses. Peter has the Twelve and the rest of the 120 120 who saw Jesus after the Resurrection.

Acts 2:34

Lord said to my lord- Jesus used this quotation to prove the Messiah was David’s lord in Mat 22:41-5. Once David is eliminated from consideration here, must be Messiah.

 Acts 2:36

again mixing Ps 110:1 and Ps 132:11. house of Israel- only NT occurrence of this phrase, though common in traditional Jewish prayers.(Bruce)

know for certainty- Greek asphalos, term for in ancient documents

Lord and Messiah- use of Lord ties Jesus to God in unique way, as this was Greek for title of God, mare in Aramaic, adon in Hebrew, kurios in Greek. Messiah “anointed one” is God’s expected agent who would deliver Israel into freedom and bring the Gentiles to a better knowledge of Israel’s God.(Fitzmyer)

whom you crucified- Here and in verse 2:23 Peter lays blame for Jesus’ death at the hands of the Jews, which leads to the reaction of 2:37

Acts 2:37

They were pierced to the heart: obviously, believing themselves held responsible for the death of the Messiah.

Acts 2:38

Repent- Greek metanoia, literally “change of mind”, but in NT it means change your life, reform your ways.

be baptized- John the Baptist had made this ceremony a demonstration of repentance, and Jesus and the apostles continued that, with a difference.

in the name of Jesus the Messiah- you cannot necessarily say the Trinitarian formula is being ignored here. The sense may be “because of” or ” as a devotee of”, “in the authority of”

for the forgiveness of sin- Not going to settle the controversy of this phrase’s meaning here. The little Greek word eis can mean “for the aim or purpose of” which is the sacramental view of baptism, that it actually washes away one’s sins, while eis can also be used in the sense of “on the basis of”, which is the symbolic view of baptism, that one is baptised to show one’s sins are forgiven. (Robertson)

Forgiveness is likely a misinterpretation of the Greek aphesis, which is used in ancient legal and financial documents for the cancellation or dismissal of a debt. (Fitzmyer, Nyland)

gift of the Holy Spirit- is this a referral to Ps 68:18? Commentators are divided.

Acts 2:39

promise- of the Holy Spirit, Joel 3:1-2, Is 32:15, 44:3; Ez 11:19, 36:26-7, 37:4.

for all who are far off- This is a double meaning. It refers both to Jews in other countries speaking the different languages, but also hints at the reception of Gentiles into the Christian community.

Acts 2:40

corrupt generation- Greek skolias, crooked, bent. A comparison to the Exodus generation, who saw all the miracles in Egypt yet constantly rebelled. Deu 32:5, Ps 78:8, Phillipians 2:15. Refers back to Joel 2:32, as does 2:21, a sense of a remnant that will be saved when God comes to judgement. (Bruce)

Acts 2:41

3000 souls added- a fourth miracle for Pentecost, an exponential growth in the Christian community, which started out as 120.

What I Am Up To

No good, of course.

These are the days when Wal-mart decides to change things around each year, so I am both short-handed and short of product at work. Very frustrating. Thus much of my nights after work have been spent relaxing by watching DVDs.

Lifeway’s Explore the Bible curriculum for Sunday School is about to change Biblical books in June. From Genesis we switch to Acts of the Apostles (More accurately, Acts of Jesus continued through the Apostles by means of the Holy Spirit, but who wants to say all that?). I am using three major commentaries on Acts for the three month unit:

1) The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary by F. F. Bruce : This book has already shown me how little Greek I know and how much more Bruce knew. Of Greek and everything else!

2) The Acts of the Apostles: A Social-Rhetorical Commentary by Ben Witherington III : Massive, written to be read more than consulted, and cleverly enriched with his “Closer Look” excursions that put things in better context, this is an extra useful volume for that semi-mythical beast, the educated layman.

3)The Acts of the Apostles: Anchor Bible Commentary by Joseph Fitzmyer: Yup. Massive again, though a more traditional critical commentary, with a strong focus on the textual variation in Acts and a handy author’s translation of the Greek Acts in the front of the book.

I also have purchased a copy of Colin Hemer’s _The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History_, an amazing if rather technical study of the historicity of Acts. I’m not quite sure how to work in this information yet. I’m also wondering how best to present the textual variations that make Acts the chief portion of any textual commentary on the Greek NT. I did take a hint from Roger Omanson’s _A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament_ and use the New Jerusalem Bible as an alternate translation in the notes, since the editors of the NJB place more reliance on the Western Text of Acts than most any other translation short of some older translations of Codex Bezae itself.

Genesis 48, 49, 50 Sunday School Notes

Here are part of my notes for Sunday School, May 25, 2008, in Lifeway’s Explore the Bible Series, on Genesis 48-50.

Notes taken from these commentaries:

Nahum Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Jewish Publication Society, 1989 link

Robert Alter, Genesis:Translation and Commentary, Norton, 1997link

 

Gen 48:1

some time after this- after oath- taking ceremony of Gen 47:29-31, within last year of Jacob’s life.

was told- impersonal, very secondhand. The news seemingly didn’t come from the family.

he set out with his two sons- Joseph anticipating some sort of deathbed blessing?(Sarna, Alter)

Gen 48:3

El Shaddai-God Almighty- literally El Shaddai. What it actually means is impossible to say now. Sarna in his JPS Genesis commentary notes that shaddai appears either in the Torah (five books of Moses) or in poetic books (Prophets, Psalms, and Job), with the exception of Ruth. Ruth and the Torah are among the oldest books of the Bible, and Hebrew poetry like Psalms, Job, and parts of the Prophets all tend to use antique language. Exodus 6:3 explains El Shaddai as the ancient name for God before Moses’ revelation of Yahweh, and the names that use a form of Shaddai are confined to lists in Numbers 1-2, thus pre-Mosaic. Sarna even mentions one Shaddai-ammi, a minor official in Egypt in the 1300s BC, whose name is written in a hieroglyphic style reserved for foreign words, so he was likely a Semite from Canaan.

Shaddai is translated in the Vulgate as Omnipotens, the All-powerful, the Almighty. Jewish Greek translations after the Septuagint use hikanos, “the Sufficient one”, matching a subsequent Jewish rabbinic interpretation that the word is the particle sha combined with dai “sufficiency”. Nowadays the suspicion is that shaddai relates to Akkadian sadu “mountain”, which informs the Hebrew shad “breast”. Shaddai is typically used when God is blessing someone, promising abundance.(Sarna)

Luz-Nahum Sarna has an excursus on Bethel in his JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis. Luz/Bethel has a long history, located at a crossroad and gifted with lots of springs, there are signs of a mountaintop there being used as a shrine back to 3500 BC, and a temple with a scared pillar existed on the spot about 1900 BC. Bethel, in fact, seems very likely the name of a god from the time of the divided kingdoms and later. Jacob is apparently the beginning of the site’s history as an Israelite religious center, famous by the time of the Judges, and home of the Ark of the Covenant. The religious associations became a cult after the building of the temple, and with the division of the kingdoms Bethel became the North Kingdom’s rival site to the Temple. A school of prophets existed there from the time of Elisha down to the fifth century, when Josiah of Judah finally destroyed the Bethel calf cult site.(Sarna)

Gen 48:4

Jacob repeats the blessings given to him in order to establish his right to pass them on. We are already into the deathbed legal ceremony at 48:3 (Sarna)

eternal possession- only God is eternal, therefore only He can make an eternal decree.(Sarna)

Gen 48:5

your two sons….are now mine- repeats constant theme of Genesis of reversal of inheritance rules: youngest comes first, as here Ephraim put before Manasseh.(Sarna, Alter)

Gen 48:6

children born after them- strange clause, since Joseph has been married 25 years and there is no record of other children. Alter opines the grammar doesn’t really support a future sense.Sarna gives three possibilites:

1)House of Joseph, some unknown clans that identified themselves through Joseph. Rahbam, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, and Radak are Jewish scholars supporting this view.

2)”What If?” clause, supported by Rashi, Saadia Gaon, and the Targums

3)Joseph’s grandsons- supported by Jewish sources Lekah Tov and Hizkuni(Sarna)

Gen 48:13-14 Joseph places his sons in such a way as to follow age, but Jacob, guided by Spirit, crosses his arms to use primary hand, the right, to blessing the younger Ephraim

Gen 48:15 blessed Joseph- Traditional Masoretic Text says “Joseph” here, the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate say “them”. Normally Joseph is understood to be blessed through his sons.(Alter)

shepherd, feed – Hebrew ra’ah, the act of tending a flock of sheep or cattle, including feeding them.

A deity acting as shepherd to a person or nation is a common metaphor in the ANE.(Sarna)

Gen 48:16

Angel- odd language, as people only pray to God in Bible. There are verses about guardian angels, and angels are involved in Jacob’s visions of God. And the OT often blurs the distinction between God and His messengers.(Sarna)

numerous, multitude- the Hebrew uses a verb, va-yidgu, from noun for fish, dag, proverbial for their breeding ability. During the Exodus, Ephraim and Manasseh were huge tribes, and Joshua had trouble fitting them into allotment of land during settlement.(Sarna)

Gen 48:17-18

Joseph thinks Jacob’s eyesight has mislead him, and acts to correct him, but

Gen 48:19

Jacob, as a dying man and someone touched by God’s Spirit, has insight into future. By Moses’ farewell address, Ephraim is more numerous than Manasseh.(Sarna)

Gen 49:1-27 Often called “Jacob’s Testament”, this long poem is of debated age and origin, but it’s use of rare words makes many of its verses of uncertain.

Gen 49:1

what will happen to you- Jacob speaking of the future of the nation as personified by in the tribes of his sons.(Sarna)

in the days to come/ in the last days- Hebrew be’aherit ha-yamim, “in the future”. In the Torah the prhase simply refers to the future. In the Prophets it becomes a technical term for the end- time.(Num 24:14, Deu 4:30, 31:29, end-time Is2:2-4, Ez 38:16, Dan 1014)(Sarna)

Gen 49:8

will praise- pun on name Judah in Hebrew, Yehuda, praise yohuda

hand on necks- image of fleeing foes caught by back of neck

enemies- Judah was located in S, surroundeed by enemies after Exodus and settlement, what with Philistines, Amalekites, and Edomites on borders and Canaanites between them and Northern Jewish tribes. (Sarna)

father’s sons- all Israel

Gen 49:9

young lion- courageous, daring, near invincible. “Lion of Judah” became a popular metaphor, and is used of Jesus in Rev 5:5 (Sarna)

 

 

Gen 49:10

scepter- Hebrew shevet. Judah provided House of David

staff- Hebrew mehokek: staff- Num 21:18, Ps 60:9, 108:9

ruler- Deu 33:21, Jud 5:14, Is 33:22

LXX, Vulgate, Ibn Janah, Radak all opt for “ruler”

Genesis Rabbah 98:13, Targums, Ibn Ezra, Ramban, Hizkuni all opt for “scribe”, based on understanding of mehokek derived from h-k-k “inscribe, etch, write”

between his feet- either his staff held between legs while enthroned, or else euphemism for phallus, and thus “staff” better as “ruler”, and between feet better as “descendants”.

yavo’shiloh- totally unclear phrase

shiloh= shai “tribute” loh “to him”

shello= “that belongs to him” the monarchy

Shiloh= city in Ephraim, thus a metaphor for split of ten tribes from Judah in division of kingdom of Israel into two kingdoms, as first announced by prophet Ahijah of Ephraim. Judah rules until split of kingdom.

Messiah Shiloh= Shiloh a title for Messiah. Ancient undertanding, found in Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums, and the rabbinic writings. Using Gematria, Jewish scholars note Hebrew for “Shiloh will come” adds to same number as “messiah”, a total of 358.

homage- rare Hebrew word whose meaning is derived from the context and an Arabic cognate.

peoples- fellow Israelites or more likely foreigners (Sarna)

Gen 49:11

ass- Rabbinic interpretation says the messiah rides an ass because a horse is a war weapon, and God will conquer the world for the messiah, leaving him to be a man of peace.

tethers, washes in wine- both metaphors for time of incredible abundance. An ass would tear up a vine if tied to it, so vines must not be valuable. Washing clothes in wine shows wine as readily available as water.

eyes dark, teeth white- ideal of beauty (Sarna, Alter)

Gen 50:2

Joseph orders embalming of Jacob because

1) Joseph is viceroy of Egypt, and his father deserves best available burial

2)Jacob’s body is to be carried back to Canaan, making embalming practical necessity (Alter, Sarna)

Gen 50:3

Mixed numbers- Herodotus said seventy days for embalming, Didorus thirty days embalming and seventy-two days mourning for a king of Egypt. Jewish scholars get seventy by mixing forty days of embalming and thirty days mourning, still the required length of mourning for close relatives by Jewish law.

Gen 50:4

Pharaoh’s household- not to Pharaoh himself because either:1) Mourners were considered unclean and unable to approach kings in ANE or 2) Joseph knew what he was asking was a huge favor, easily interpreted as Joseph and the whole clan leaving Egypt permanently. Many suspect this is a new Pharaoh who doesn’t care for Joseph nearly so much as the previous one, and the Israelites position has declined under the new ruler.

Gen 50:5

I hewed- Hebrew kariti, “I dug”, “I purchased”. Confusing because of course Abraham first pruchased plot of land for gravesite. But same verb is used in 2 Chron 16:14, 1 King 15:24 for “prepared in advance”.(Sarna)

Gen 50:7-9

There is a huge Egyptian presence to Jacob’s funeral, the elite of the land. Basically it is a royal funeral by any standard. The presence of chariots may be either because 1) So many important Egyptians are traveling beyond Egypt’s border, or 2) Pharaoh ensuring Israelites return to Egypt. The real assurance of Israelite return to Egypt is the fact they left their children as well as their flocks and herds back in Egypt.(Sarna, Alter)

Gen 50:10-12

Goren ha-Atad “threshing floor bramble”. Sarna speculates this may be Deir el-Balah, a late Bronze Age burial ground for Egyptians and Egyptianized Canaanites, S of Tell el-Ajjul aka Beth Eglaim, an Egyptian occupation site near modern Gaza along the coastal highway from Egypt to Canaan. An obvious place for an Egyptian funeral party headed to Canaan to go.(Sarna)

Gen 50:12-14

The Egyptians remain in what may be their settlement, whie the sons travel on with the coffin to interior, where they bury Jacob in family gravesite.

Gen 50:15

If Joseph is holding a grudge- this shows that the brothers are not as close to Joseph or as enlightened as they seemed to be a few chapters before.

Gen 50:17

Brothers invoke Joseph’s two chief concerns: his father and his God. Jewsih scholar Abravanel said the brothers don’t invoke their brotherhood because selling Joseph into slvery destroyed that bond. Reverence for God is continually evoked in Bible as greatest reason for behavior.(Sarna)

Gen 50:18

Once Joseph weeps, brothers know it is safe to approach him. “We are your slaves” can be understood as an expression of remorse or perhaps of fear, especially since Joseph is so much wealthier than the rest of family and also perhaps because that new pharaoh has stopped the gravvy train to the Israelites.(Sarna, Alter)

Gen 50:19-20

Joseph again rejects vengeance, explaining that God brought him to Egypt, and thus seeking vengeance against brothers would be saying God had done something wrong to him.

Gen 50:21

I will take care of you and your little ones- Is this because Israelites are already in a bad situation in Egypt, or simply that their status as resident strangers requires them to have a strong patron to do well among Egyptians?

Gen 50:22

Joseph lived 110 years- the ideal Egyptian lifetime, appropriate for the very Egyptianized Joseph, but also by patriarchial standards a fairly short life.

Acts 1,2 Antique Commentary Notes

A. T. Robertson- Word Pictures in the NT
Act 1:1
The former treatise (ton men prōton). Literally, the first treatise. The use of the superlative is common enough and by no means implies, though it allows, a third volume. This use of prōtos where only two are compared is seen between the Baptist and Jesus (Joh_1:15), John and Peter (Joh_20:4). The idiom is common in the papyri (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 662, 669). The use of men solitarium here, as Hackett notes, is common in Acts. It is by no means true that men requires a following de by contrast. The word is merely a weakened form of mēn=surely, indeed. The reference is to the “first treatise” and merely emphasizes that. The use of logos (word) for treatise or historical narrative is common in ancient Greek as in Herodotus 6 and 9. Plato (Phaedo, p. 61 B) makes a contrast between muthos and logos.
O Theophilus (O Theophile). The interjection O here as is common, though not in Luk_1:3. But the adjective kratiste (most excellent) is wanting here. See remarks on Theophilus on Luk_1:3. Hackett thinks that he lived at Rome because of the way Acts ends. He was a man of rank. He may have defrayed the expense of publishing both Luke and Acts. Perhaps by this time Luke may have reached a less ceremonious acquaintance with Theophilus.
Which Jesus began (hōn ērxato Iēsous). The relative is attracted from the accusative ha to the genitive hōn because of the antecedent pantōn (all). The language of Luke here is not merely pleonastic as Winer held. Jesus “began” “both to do and to teach” (poiein te kai didaskein). Note present infinitives, linear action, still going on, and the use of tė̇kai binds together the life and teachings of Jesus, as if to say that Jesus is still carrying on from heaven the work and teaching of the disciples which he started while on earth before his ascension. The record which Luke now records is really the Acts of Jesus as much as the Acts of the Apostles. Dr. A. T. Pierson called it “The Acts of the Holy Spirit,” and that is true also. The Acts, according to Luke, is a continuation of the doings and teachings of Jesus. “The following writings appear intended to give us, and do, in fact, profess to give us, that which Jesus continued to do and teach after the day in which he was taken up” (Bernard, Progress of Doctrine in the N.T.).
On Luke 1:3
Having traced the course of all things (parēkolouthēkoti pāsin). The perfect active participle of a common verb of the ancient Greek. Literally it means to follow along a thing in mind, to trace carefully. Both meanings occur abundantly in the ancient Greek. Cadbury (Appendix C to Beginnings of Christianity, Vol. II, pp. 489ff.) objects to the translation “having traced” here as implying research which the word does not here mean. Milligan (Vocabulary) is somewhat impressed by this argument. See my discussion of the point in Chapter XVI of Studies in the Text of the N.T. (The Implications in Luke’s Preface) where the point is made that Luke here claims fulness of knowledge before he began to write his book. He had the traditions of the eyewitnesses and ministers of the word and the narratives previously drawn up. Whether he was a personal contemporary with any or all of these events we do not know and it is not particularly pertinent. He had mentally followed along by the side of these events. Galen used this verb for the investigation of symptoms. Luke got himself ready to write before he began by full and accurate knowledge of the subject. Akribōs (accurately) means going into minute details, from akron, the topmost point. And he did it from the first (anōthen). He seems to refer to the matters in Chapters 1:5-2:52, the Gospel of the Infancy.
In order (kathexēs). Chronological order in the main following Mark’s general outline. But in 9:51-18:10 the order is often topical. He has made careful investigation and his work deserves serious consideration.
Most excellent Theophilus (kratiste Theophile). The name means god-lover or god-beloved. He may have been a believer already. He was probably a Gentile. Ramsay holds that “most excellent” was a title like “Your Excellency” and shows that he held office, perhaps a Knight. So of Felix (Act_23:26) and Festus (Act_26:25). The adjective does not occur in the dedication in Act_1:1.

John Gill
Acts 1:2 after that he, through the Holy Ghost, had given commandments unto the apostles, whom he had chosen: our Lord having chosen twelve of his own free grace and goodness, and not according to their worth and merit, to be his apostles, a little before his ascension to heaven, gave them more express and explicit commands and orders where they should go, into all the world, to all nations; and what they should preach, the whole Gospel, salvation by faith in him, and particularly repentance and remission of sins; and what ordinances they should require believers to attend to; and how they themselves should conduct and behave in their work: the phrase, “through the Holy Ghost”, may either be read in connection with “had given commandments”, as the Vulgate and Arabic versions read, and as we do; and the sense be, that these commands which Christ gave to his apostles, were not merely his orders, as man, but were what the Holy Ghost was equally concerned in with him, and were from him as God, and so carried a divine authority with them; and at the same time that he gave them to them, he breathed into them the Holy Ghost, whereby they had a more clear view of his doctrines and ordinances, and were more qualified to minister them; and besides, had an intimation given them, that they might expect still greater gifts of the Holy Ghost: or it may be read with the latter clause, “whom he had chosen”; as in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions; and then the meaning is, that just before his being taken up to heaven, he gave some special orders and directions to his apostles, whom he had chosen to that office through the Holy Ghost, and not through human affection in him, or according to any desert of theirs; but as under the influence of the Holy Spirit, with which, as man, he was anointed without measure; and whose gifts and graces he communicated to his disciples, to fit them for the service to which they were appointed: or with the apostles; they being sent by the Holy Ghost, as well as by Christ.

A.T. Robertson
Act 1:3
To whom also (hois kai). He chose them and then also manifested himself to these very same men that they might have personal witness to give.
Shewed himself alive (parestēsen heauton zōnta). To the disciples the first Sunday evening (Mar_16:14; Luk_24:36-43; Joh_20:19-25), the second Sunday evening (Joh_20:26-29), at the Sea of Tiberias (John 21:1-23), on the mountain in Galilee (Mat_28:16-20; Mar_16:15-18; 1Co_15:6), to the disciples in Jerusalem and Olivet (Luk_24:44-53; Mar_16:19.; Act_1:1-11). Luke uses this verb paristēmi 13 times in the Acts both transitively and intransitively. It is rendered by various English words (present, furnish, provide, assist, commend). The early disciples including Paul never doubted the fact of the Resurrection, once they were convinced by personal experience. At first some doubted like Thomas (Mar_16:14; Luk_24:41; Joh_20:24.; Mat_28:17). But after that they never wavered in their testimony to their own experience with the Risen Christ, “whereof we are witnesses” Peter said (Act_3:15). They doubted at first, that we may believe, but at last they risked life itself in defence of this firm faith.
After his passion (meta to pathein auton). Neat Greek idiom, meta with the articular infinitive (second aorist active of paschō) and the accusative of general reference, “after the suffering as to him.” For pathein used absolutely of Christ’s suffering see also Act_17:3; Act_26:23.
By many proofs (en pollois tekmēriois). Literally, “in many proofs.” Tekmērion is only here in the N.T., though an old and common word in ancient Greek and occurring in the Koiné (papyri, etc.). The verb tekmairō, to prove by sure signs, is from tekmar, a sign. Luke does not hesitate to apply the definite word “proofs” to the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ after full investigation on the part of this scientific historian. Aristotle makes a distinction between tekmērion (proof) and sēmeion (sign) as does Galen the medical writer.
Appearing (optanomenos). Present middle participle from late verb optanō, late Koiné verb from root optō seen in opsomai, ōphthēn. In lxx, papyri of second century b.c. (Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, p. 83). Only here in the N.T. For optasia for vision, see note on Act_26:19; Luk_1:22; Luk_24:23.
By the space of forty days (di’ hēmerōn tesserakonta). At intervals (dia, between) during the forty days, ten appearances being known to us. Jesus was not with them continually now in bodily presence. The period of forty days is given here alone. The Ascension was thus ten days before Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came. Moses was in the mount forty days (Exo_24:18) and Jesus fasted forty days (Mat_4:2). In the Gospel of Luke 24 this separation of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension is not drawn.
The things concerning the Kingdom of God (ta peri tēs basileias tou theou). This phrase appears 33 times in Luke’s Gospel, 15 times in Mark, 4 times in Matthew who elsewhere has “the kingdom of heaven,” once in John, and 6 times in Acts. No essential distinction is to be drawn between the two for the Jews often used “heaven” rather than “God” to avoid using the Tetragrammaton. But it is noticeable how the word kingdom drops out of Acts. Other words like gospel (euaggelion) take the place of “kingdom.” Jesus was fond of the word “kingdom” and Luke is fond of the idiom “the things concerning” (ta peri). Certainly with Jesus the term “kingdom” applies to the present and the future and covers so much that it is not strange that the disciples with their notions of a political Messianic kingdom (Act_1:6) were slow to comprehend the spiritual nature of the reign of God.

A.T. Robertson
Act 1:4
Being assembled together with them (sunalizomenos). Present passive participle from sunalizō, an old verb in Herodotus, Xenophon, etc., from sun, with, and halizō, from halēs, crowded. The margin of both the Authorized and the Revised Versions has “eating with them” as if from sun and hals (salt). Salt was the mark of hospitality. There is the verb halisthēte en autōi used by Ignatius Ad Magnes. X, “Be ye salted in him.” But it is more than doubtful if that is the idea here though the Vulgate does have convescens illis “eating with them,” as if that was the common habit of Jesus during the forty days (Wendt, Feine, etc.). Jesus did on occasion eat with the disciples (Luk_24:41-43; Mar_16:14).
To wait for the promise of the Father (perimenein tēn epaggelian tou patros). Note present active infinitive, to keep on waiting for (around, peri). In the Great Commission on the mountain in Galilee this item was not given (Mat_28:16-20). It is the subjective genitive, the promise given by the Father (note this Johannine use of the word), that is the Holy Spirit (“the promise of the Holy Spirit,” objective genitive).

Adam Clarke
Act 1:8
But ye shall receive power – Ληψεσθε δυναμιν. Translating different terms of the original by the same English word is a source of misapprehension and error. We must not understand δυναμις which we translate power in this verse, as we do εξουσια, translated by the same word in the preceding verse. In the one, God’s infinite authority over all times and seasons, and his uncompellable liberty of acting or not acting in any given case, are particularly pointed out: in the other, the energy communicated by him to his disciples, through which they were enabled to work miracles, is particularly intended; and δυναμις, in general, signifies such power, and is sometimes put for that of which it is the cause, viz. a miracle. See Mat_7:22; Mat_11:20-23; Mat_13:54, Mat_13:58; Mar_6:5; Luk_10:13; and Act_2:22. The disciples were to be made instruments in the establishment of the kingdom of Christ; but this must be by the energy of the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; nevertheless, this energy would be given in such times and seasons, and in such measures, as should appear best to the infinite wisdom of God. Christ does not immediately answer the question of the disciples, as it was a point savouring too much of mere curiosity; but he gave them such information as was calculated to bring both their faith and hope into action. St. Chrysostom has well observed, “that it is the prerogative of an instructer to teach his disciple, not what he wishes to learn, but what his master sees best for him:” Διδασκαλου τουτο εστι μη ἁ βουλεται ὁ μαθητης, αλλ’ ἁ συμφερει μαθειν, διδασκειν.
Ye shall be witnesses – in all Judea, etc. – Though the word earth, ἡ γη, is often used to denote Judea alone, yet here, it is probable, it is to be taken in its largest extent. All the inhabitants of the globe might at that period be considered divisible into three classes.
1. The Jews, who adhered to the law of Moses, and the prophetic writings, worshipping the true God only, and keeping up the temple service, as prescribed in their law.
2. The Samaritans, a mongrel people, who worshipped the God of Israel in connection with other gods, 2Ki_17:5, etc., and who had no kind of religious connection with the Jews. See on Mat_10:5 (note). And,
3. The Gentiles, the heathens through all other parts of the world, who were addicted to idolatry alone, and had no knowledge of the true God.
By the terms in the text we may see the extent to which this commission of instruction and salvation was designed to reach: to the Jews; to the Samaritans, and the uttermost part of the earth, i.e. to the Gentile nations, thus, to the whole human race the Gospel of the kingdom was to be proclaimed. When the twelve disciples were sent out to preach, Mat_10:5, their commission was very limited – they were not to go in the way of the Gentiles, nor enter into any city of the Samaritans, but preach the Gospel to the lost sheep of the house of Israel: but here their commission is enlarged, for they are to go into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. See Mat_28:18.

Adam Clarke
Act 2:1
When the day of pentecost was fully come – The feast of pentecost was celebrated fifty days after the passover, and has its name πεντηκοστη from πεντηκοντα, fifty, which is compounded of πεντε, five, and ηκοντα, the decimal termination. It commenced on the fiftieth day reckoned from the first day of unleavened bread, i.e. on the morrow after the paschal lamb was offered. The law relative to this feast is found in Lev_23:15, Lev_23:16, in these words: And ye shall count unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave-offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the morrow after the seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days. This feast was instituted in commemoration of the giving the law on Mount Sinai; and is therefore sometimes called by the Jews, שמחת תורה shimchath torah, the joy of the law, and frequently the feast of weeks. There is a correspondence between the giving of the law, which is celebrated by this feast of pentecost, together with the crucifixion of our Lord, which took place at the passover, and this descent of the Holy Spirit, which happened at this pentecost.
1. At the passover, the Israelites were delivered from Egyptian bondage: this was a type of the thraldom in which the human race were to Satan and sin.
2. At the passover Jesus Christ, who was typified by the paschal lamb, was sacrificed for the sin of the world, and by this sacrifice redemption from sin and Satan is now procured and proclaimed.
3. On the pentecost, God gave his law on Mount Sinai, accompanied with thunderings and lightnings. On the pentecost, God sent down his Holy Spirit, like a rushing mighty wind; and tongues of fire sat upon each disciple, in order that, by his influence, that new law of light and life might be promulgated and established. Thus, the analogy between the Egyptian bondage and the thraldom occasioned by sin – the deliverance from Egypt, and the redemption from sin – the giving of the law, with all its emblematic accompaniments, and the sending down the Holy Spirit, with its symbols of light, life, and power, has been exactly preserved.
4. At the Jewish passover, Christ was degraded, humbled, and ignominiously put to death: at the following festival, the pentecost, he was highly glorified; and the all conquering and ever during might of his kingdom then commenced. The Holy Spirit seems to have designed all these analogies, to show that, through all preceding ages, God had the dispensation of the Gospel continually in view; and that the old law and its ordinances were only designed as preparatives for the new.
They were all with one accord in one place – It is probable that the All here mentioned means the one hundred and twenty spoken of Act_1:15, who were all together at the election of Matthias. With one accord, ὁμοθυμαδον; this word is very expressive: it signifies that all their minds, affections, desires, and wishes, were concentred in one object, every man having the same end in view; and, having but one desire, they had but one prayer to God, and every heart uttered it. There was no person uninterested – none unconcerned – none lukewarm; all were in earnest; and the Spirit of God came down to meet their united faith and prayer. When any assembly of God’s people meet in the same spirit they may expect every blessing they need.
In one place. – Where this place was we cannot tell: it was probably in the temple, as seems to be intimated in Act_2:46, where it is said they were daily ὁμοθυμαδον εν τῳ ἱερῳ, with one accord in the temple; and as this was the third hour of the day, Act_2:15, which was the Jewish hour of morning prayer, as the ninth hour was the hour of evening prayer, Act_3:1, it is most probable that the temple was the place in which they were assembled.

Albert Barnes
In one place – Where this was cannot be known. Commentators have been much divided in their conjectures about it. Some have supposed that it was in the upper room mentioned in Act_1:13; others that it was a room in the temple; others that it was in a synagogue; others that it was among the promiscuous multitude that assembled for devotion in the courts of the temple. See Act_2:2. It has been supposed by many that this took place on the first day of the week; that is, on the Christian Sabbath. But there is a difficulty in establishing this. There was probably a difference among the Jews themselves as to the time of observing this festival: The Law said that they should reckon seven sabbaths; that is seven weeks, “from the morrow after the sabbath,” Lev_23:15. By this Sabbath the Pharisees understood the second day of the Passover, on whatever day of the week it occurred, which was kept as a day of holy convocation, and which might be called a Sabbath. But the Karaite Jews, or those who insisted on a literal interpretation of the Scriptures, maintained that by the Sabbath here was meant the usual Sabbath, the seventh day of the week. Consequently, with them, the day of Pentecost always occurred on the first day of the week; and if the apostles fell in with their views, the day was fully come on what is now the Christian Sunday. But if the views of the Pharisees were followed, and the Lord Jesus had with them kept the Passover on Thursday, as many have supposed, then the day of Pentecost would have occurred on the Jewish Sabbath, that is, on Saturday (Kuinoel; Lightfoot). It is impossible to determine the truth on this subject. Nor is it of much importance. According to the later Jews, the day of Pentecost was kept also as a festival to commemorate the giving of the Law on Mount Sinai; but no trace of this custom is to be found in the Old Testament.

Act 2:2
And suddenly – It burst upon them at once. Though they were waiting for the descent of the Spirit, yet it is not probable that they expected it in this manner. As this was an important event, and one on which the welfare of the church depended, it was proper that the gift of the Holy Spirit should take place in some striking and sensible manner, so as to convince their own minds that the promise was fulfilled, and so as deeply to impress others with the greatness and importance of the event.
There came a sound – ἦχος ēchos. This word is applied to any noise or report. Heb_12:19, “the sound of a trumpet”; Luk_4:37, “The fame of him,” etc. Compare Mar_1:28.
From heaven – Appearing to rush down from the sky. It was suited, therefore, to attract their attention no less from the direction from which it came, than on account of its suddenness and violence. Tempests blow commonly horizontally. This appeared to come from above; and this is all that is meant by the expression. “from heaven.”
As of a rushing mighty wind – Literally, “as of a violent blast borne along” – φερομένης pheromenēs – rushing along like a tempest. Such a wind sometimes borne along so violently, and with such a noise, as to make it difficult even to hear the thunder in the gale. Such appears to have been the sound of this remarkable phenomenon. It does not appear that there was any wind, but the sudden sound was like such a sweeping tempest. It may be remarked, however, that the wind in the sacred Scriptures is often put as an emblem of a divine influence. See Joh_3:8. It is invisible, yet mighty, and thus represents the agency of the Holy Spirit. The same word in Hebrew רוּח ruwach and in Greek πνεῦμα pneuma is used to denote both. The mighty power of God may be denoted also by the violence of a tempest, 1Ki_19:11; Psa_29:1-11; Psa_104:3; Psa_18:10. In this place the sound as of a gale was emblematic of the mighty power of the Spirit, and of the effects which his coming would accomplish among people.
And it filled – Not the wind filled, But the sound. This is evident:
(1) Because there is no affirmation that there was any wind.
(2) the grammatical structure of the sentence will admit no other construction. The word “filled” has no nominative case but the word “sound”: “and suddenly there was a sound as of a wind, and (the sound) filled the house.” In the Greek, the word “wind” is in the genitive or possessive case. It may be remarked here that this miracle was really far more striking than the common supposition makes it to have been. A tempest would have been terrific. A mighty wind might have alarmed them. But there would have been nothing unusual or remarkable in this. Such things often happened; and the thoughts would have been directed of course to the storm as an ordinary, though perhaps alarming occurrence. But when all was still; when there was no storm, no wind, no rain, no thunder, such a rushing sound must have arrested their attention, and directed all minds to a phenomenon so unusual and unaccountable.
All the house – Some have supposed that this was a room in or near the temple. But as the temple is not expressly mentioned, this is improbable. It was probably the private dwelling mentioned in Act_1:13. If it be said that such a dwelling could not contain so large a multitude as soon assembled, it may be replied that their houses had large central courts (See the notes on Mat_9:2), and that it is not affirmed that the transactions recorded in this chapter occurred in the room which they occupied. It is probable that it took place in the court and around the house.

Act 2:3
And there appeared unto them – There were seen by them, or they saw. The fire was first seen by them in the room before it rested in the form of tongues on the heads of the disciples. Perhaps the fire appeared at first as scintillations or coruscations, until it became fixed on their heads.
Tongues – γλῶσσαι glōssai. The word “tongue” occurs often in the Scriptures to denote the member which is the instrument of taste and speech, and also to denote “language” or “speech” itself. It is also used, as with us, to denote what in shape resembles the tongue. Thus, Jos_7:21, Jos_7:24 (in Hebrew), “a tongue of gold,” that is, a wedge of gold; Jos_15:5; Jos_18:19; Isa_11:15, “The tongue of the sea,” that is, a bay or gulf. Thus also we say “a tongue of land.” The phrase “tongue of fire” occurs once, and once only, in the Old Testament Isa_5:24, “Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble (Hebrew: tongue of fire), and the flame consumeth,” etc. In this place the name tongue is given from the resemblance of a pointed flame to the human tongue. Anything long, narrow, and tending to a point is thus in the Hebrew called “a tongue.” The word here means, therefore, “slender and pointed appearances” of flame, perhaps at first moving irregularly around the room.
cloven – Divided, separated – διαμεριζόμεναι diamerizomenai – from the verb διαμερίζω diamerizō, “to divide, or distribute into parts.” Mat_27:35, “they parted his garments”; Luk_22:17, “Take this (the cup) and divide it among yourselves.” Probably the common opinion is, that these tongues or flames were, each one of them split, or forked, or cloven. But this is not the meaning of the expression. The idea is that they were separated or divided one from another; it was not one great flame, but was broken up, or cloven into many parts, and probably these parts were moving without order in the room. In the Syriac it is, “And there appeared unto them tongues which divided themselves like fire, and sat upon each of them.” The old Ethiopic version reads it, “And fire, as it were, appeared to them and sat on them.”
And it sat upon each of them – Or “rested,” in the form of a lambent or gentle flame, upon the head of each one. This showed that the prodigy was directed to them, and was a very significant emblem of the promised descent of the Holy Spirit. After the rushing sound and the appearance of the flames, they could not doubt that here was some remarkable interposition of God. The appearance of fire, or flame, has always been regarded as a most striking emblem of the Divinity. Thus, Exo_3:2-3, God is said to have manifested himself to Moses in a bush which was burning, yet not consumed. Thus, Exo_19:16-20, God descended on Mount Sinai in the midst of thunders, and lightnings, and smoke, and fire, striking emblems of his presence and power. See also Gen_15:17. Thus, Deu_4:24, God is said to be “a consuming fire.” Compare Heb_12:29. See Eze_1:4; Psa_18:12-14. The Classic reader will also instantly recall the beautiful description in Virgil (Aeneid, b. 2:680-691). Other instances of a similar prodigy are also recorded in profane writers (Pliny, H. N., 2:37; Livy, 1:39). These appearances to the apostles were emblematic, doubtless:
(1) Of the promised Holy Spirit, as a Spirit of purity and of power. The prediction of John the Immerser, “He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire” Mat_3:11 would probably be recalled at once to their memory.
(2) The unique appearance, that of tongues, was an emblem of the diversity of languages which they were about to be able to utter. Any form of fire would have denoted the presence and power of God; but a form was adopted expressive of “what was to occur.” Thus, “any divine appearance” or “manifestation” at the baptism of Jesus might have denoted the presence and approbation of God; but the form chosen was that of a dove descending – expressive of the mild and gentle virtues with which he was to be imbued. So in Eze_1:4, any form of flame might have denoted the presence of God; but the appearance actually chosen was one that was strikingly emblematical of his providence. In the same way, the appearance here symbolized their special endowments for entering on their great work – the ability to speak with new tongues.

A.T. Robertson
Act 2:4
With other tongues (heterais glōssais). Other than their native tongues. Each one began to speak in a language that he had not acquired and yet it was a real language and understood by those from various lands familiar with them. It was not jargon, but intelligible language. Jesus had said that the gospel was to go to all the nations and here the various tongues of earth were spoken. One might conclude that this was the way in which the message was to be carried to the nations, but future developments disprove it. This is a third miracle (the sound, the tongues like fire, the untaught languages). There is no blinking the fact that Luke so pictures them. One need not be surprised if this occasion marks the fulfilment of the Promise of the Father. But one is not to confound these miraculous signs with the Holy Spirit. They are merely proof that he has come to carry on the work of his dispensation. The gift of tongues came also on the house of Cornelius at Caesarea (Act_10:44-47; Act_11:15-17), the disciples of John at Ephesus (Act_19:6), the disciples at Corinth (1 Corinthians 14:1-33). It is possible that the gift appeared also at Samaria (Act_8:18). But it was not a general or a permanent gift. Paul explains in 1Co_14:22 that “tongues” were a sign to unbelievers and were not to be exercised unless one was present who understood them and could translate them. This restriction disposes at once of the modern so-called tongues which are nothing but jargon and hysteria. It so happened that here on this occasion at Pentecost there were Jews from all parts of the world, so that some one would understand one tongue and some another without an interpreter such as was needed at Corinth. The experience is identical in all four instances and they are not for edification or instruction, but for adoration and wonder and worship.
As the Spirit gave them utterance (kathōs to pneuma edidou apophtheggesthai autois). This is precisely what Paul claims in 1Co_12:10, 1Co_12:28, but all the same without an interpreter the gift was not to be exercised (1Co_14:6-19). Paul had the gift of tongues, but refused to exercise it except as it would be understood. Note the imperfect tense here (edidou). Perhaps they did not all speak at once, but one after another. Apophtheggesthai is a late verb (lxx of prophesying, papyri). Lucian uses it of the ring of a vessel when it strikes a reef. It is used of eager, elevated, impassioned utterance. In the N.T. only here, Act_2:14; Act_26:25. Apophthegm is from this verb.

Abert Barnes
Act 2:4
Were all filled with the Holy Ghost – Were entirely under his sacred influence and power. See the notes on Luk_1:41, Luk_1:67. To be filled with anything is a phrase denoting that all the faculties are pervaded by it, engaged in it, or under its influence, Act_3:10, “Were filled with wonder and amazement”; Act_5:17, “Filled with indignation”; Act_13:45, “Filled with envy”; Act_2:4, “Filled with joy and the Holy Spirit.”
Began to speak with other tongues – In other languages than their native tongue. The languages which they spoke are specified in Act_2:9-11.
As the Spirit gave them utterance – As the Holy Spirit gave them power to speak. This language implies plainly that they were now endued with a faculty of speaking languages which they had not before learned. Their native tongue was that of Galilee, a somewhat barbarous dialect of the common language used in Judea – the Syro-Chaldaic. It is possible that some of them might have been partially acquainted with the Greek and Latin, as each of those languages was spoken among the Jews to some extent; but there is not the slightest evidence that they were acquainted with the languages of the different nations afterward specified. Various attempts have been made to account for this remarkable phenomenon without supposing it to be a miracle. But the natural and obvious meaning of the passage is, that they were endowed by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit with ability to speak foreign languages, and languages to them before unknown. It does not appear that each one had the power of speaking all the languages which are specified Act_2:9-11, but that this ability was among them, and that together they could speak these languages, probably some one and some another. The following remarks may perhaps throw some light on this remarkable occurrence:
(1) It was predicted in the Old Testament that what is here stated would occur in the times of the Messiah. Thus, in Isa_28:11, “With …another tongue will he speak unto this people.” Compare 1Co_14:21 where this passage is expressly applied to the power of speaking foreign languages under the gospel.
(2) it was promised by the Lord Jesus that they should have this power, Mar_16:17, “These signs shall follow them that believe …they shall speak with new tongues.”
(3) the ability to do it existed extensively and long in the church, 1Co_12:10-11, “To another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit”; Act_2:28, “God hath set in the church …diversities of tongues.” Compare also Act_2:30, and Act_14:2, Act_14:4-6, Act_14:9,Act_14:13-14; Act_14:18-19, Act_14:22-23, Act_14:27, Act_14:39. From this it appears that the power was well known in the church, and was not confined to the apostles. This also may show that in the case in the Acts , the ability to do this was conferred on other members of the church as well as the apostles.
(4) it was very important that they should be endowed with this power in their great work. They were going forth to preach to all nation; and though the Greek and Roman tongues were extensively spoken, yet their use was not universal, nor is it known that the apostles were skilled in those languages. To preach to all nations, it was indispensable that they should be able to understand their language. And in order that the gospel might be rapidly propagated through the earth, it was necessary that they should be endowed with ability to do this without the slow process of being compelled to learn them. It will contribute to illustrate this to remark that one of the principal hindrances in the spread of the gospel now arises from the inability to speak the languages of the nations of the earth, and that among missionaries of modern times a long time is necessarily spent in acquiring the language of a people before they are prepared to preach to them.
(5) one design was to establish the gospel by means of miracles. Yet no miracle could be more impressive than the power of conveying their sentiments at once in all the languages of the earth. When it is remembered what a slow and toilsome process it is to learn a foreign tongue, this would I be regarded by the pagan as one of the most striking miracles which could be performed, 1Co_14:22, 1Co_14:24-25.
(6) the reality and certainty of this miracle is strongly attested by the early triumphs of the gospel. That the gospel was early spread over all the world, and that, too, by the apostles of Jesus Christ, is the clear testimony of all history. They preached it in Arabia, Greece, Syria, Asia, Persia, Africa, and Rome. Yet how could this have been effected without a miraculous power of speaking the languages used in all those places? Now, it requires the toil of many years to speak in foreign languages; and the recorded success of the gospel is one of the most striking attestations to the fact of the miracle that could be conceived.
(7) the corruption of language was one of the most decided effects of sin, and the source of endless embarrassments and difficulties, Gen. 11: It is not to be regarded as wonderful that one of the effects of the plan of recovering people should be to show the power of God over all evil, and thus to furnish striking evidence that the gospel could meet all the crimes and calamities of people. And we may add,
(8) That from this we see the necessity now of training people who are to be missionaries to other lands. The gift of miracles is withdrawn. The apostles, by that miracle, simply were empowered to speak other languages. That power must still be had if the gospel is to be preached. But it is now to be obtained, not by miracle, but by stow and careful study and toil. If possessed, people must be taught it. And as the church is bound Mat_28:19 to send the gospel to all nations, so it is bound to provide that the teachers who shall be sent forth shall be qualified for their work. Hence, one of the reasons of the importance of training men for the holy ministry.

Act 2:5
There were dwelling at Jerusalem – The word rendered “dwelling” – κατοικοῦντες katoikountes – properly means to have a fixed and permanent habitation, in distinction from another word – παροικοῦντες paroikeountes – which means to have a temporary and transient residence in a place. But it is not always confined to this signification; and it is not improbable that many wealthy foreign Jews had a permanent residence in Jerusalem for the convenience of being near the temple. This was the more probable, as about that time the Messiah was expected to appear, Matt. 2.
Jews – Jews by birth; of Jewish descent and religion.
Devout men – ἀνδρες ἐυλαβεῖς andres eulabēis. Literally, men of cautious and circumspect lives, or who lived in a prudent manner. The term is then applied to men who were cautious about offending God; who were careful to observe his commandments. It is hence a general expression to denote pious or religious men, Act_8:2, “And devout men carried Stephen to his burial”; Luk_2:25,” And the same man (Simeon) was just, and devout.” The word “devout” means “yielding a solemn and reverential attention to God in religious exercises, particularly in prayer, pious, sincere, solemn” (Webster), and very well expresses the force of the original.
Out of every nation under heaven – A general expression meaning from all parts of the earth. The countries from which they came are more particularly specified in Act_2:9-11. The Jews at that time were scattered into almost all nations, and in all places had synagogues. See the Joh_7:35 note; Jam_1:1 note; 1Pe_1:1 note. Still they would naturally desire to be present as often as possible at the great feasts of the nation in Jerusalem. Many would seek a residence there for the convenience of being present at the religious solemnities. Many who came up to the Feast of the Passover would remain to the Feast of the Pentecost. The consequence of this would be, that on such occasions the city would be full of strangers. We are told that when Titus besieged Jerusalem, an event which occurred at about the time of the Feast of the Passover, there were no less than three million people in the city.
Josephus also mentions an instance in which great multitudes of Jews from other nations were present at the feast of Pentecost (Jewish Wars, book 2, chapter 3, section 1).

Adam Clarke
Act 2:8
How hear we every man in our own tongue – Some have supposed from this that the miracle was not so much wrought on the disciples as on their hearers: imagining that, although the disciples spoke their own tongue, yet every man so understood what was spoken as if it had been spoken in the language in which he was born. Though this is by no means so likely as the opinion which states that the disciples themselves spoke all these different languages, yet the miracle is the same, howsoever it be taken; for it must require as much of the miraculous power of God to enable an Arab to understand a Galilean, as to enable a Galilean to speak Arabic. But that the gift of tongues was actually given to the apostles, we have the fullest proof; as we find particular ordinances laid down by those very apostles for the regulation of the exercise of this gift; see 1Co_14:1, etc.

Adam Clarke
Act 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel – Bp. Pearce paraphrases the words thus: Him having been given forth; i.e. sent into the world, and manifested by being made flesh, and dwelling among you, as it is said in Joh_1:14; see also Act_4:28.
Kypke contends that εκδοτον, delivered, does not refer to God, but to Judas the traitor “the Jews received Jesus, delivered up to them by Judas; the immutable counsel of God so permitting.”
By the determinate counsel, ὡρισμενῃ βουλῃ; that counsel of God which defined the time, place, and circumstance, according (προγνωσει) to his foreknowledge, which always saw what was the most proper time and place for the manifestation and crucifixion of his Son; so that there was nothing casual in these things, God having determined that the salvation of a lost world should be brought about in this way; and neither the Jews nor Romans had any power here, but what was given to them from above. It was necessary to show the Jews that it was not through Christ’s weakness or inability to defend himself that he was taken; nor was it through their malice merely that he was slain; for God had determined long before, from the foundation of the world, Rev_13:8, to give his Son a sacrifice for sin; and the treachery of Judas, and the malice of the Jews were only the incidental means by which the great counsel of God was fulfilled: the counsel of God intending the sacrifice, but never ordering that it should be brought about by such wretched means. This was permitted; the other was decreed. See the observations at the end of this chapter.
By wicked hands have crucified and slain – I think this refers to the Romans, and not to the Jews; the former being the agents, to execute the evil purposes of the latter. It is well known that the Jews acknowledged that they had no power to put our Lord to death, Joh_18:31, and it is as well known that the punishment of the cross was not a Jewish, but a Roman, punishment: hence we may infer that by δια χειρων ανομων, by the hands of the wicked, the Romans are meant, being called ανομοι, without law, because they had no revelation from God; whereas the others had what was emphatically termed ὁ νομος του Θεου, the law of God, by which they professed to regulate their worship and their conduct. It was the Jews, therefore, who caused our Lord to be crucified by the hands of the heathen Romans.

Albert Barnes
Act 2:23
Him, being delivered – ἔκδοτον ekdoton. This word, delivered, is used commonly of those who are surrendered or delivered into the hands of enemies or adversaries. It means that Jesus was surrendered, or given up to his enemies by those who should have been his protectors. Thus, he was delivered to the chief priests, Mar_10:33. Pilate released Barabbas, and delivered Jesus to their will, Mar_15:15; Luk_23:25. He was delivered unto the Gentiles, Luk_18:32; the chief priests delivered him to Pilate, Mat_27:2; and Pilate delivered him to be crucified, Mat_27:26; Joh_19:16. In this manner was the death of Jesus accomplished, by being surrendered from one tribunal to another, and one demand of his countrymen to another, until they succeeded in procuring his death. It may also be implied here that he was given or surrendered by God Himself to the hands of people. Thus, he is represented to have been given by God, Joh_3:16; 1Jo_4:9-10. The Syriac translates this, “Him, who was destined to this by the foreknowledge and will of God, you delivered into the hands of wicked men,” etc. The Arabic, “Him, delivered to you by the hands of the wicked, you received, and after you had mocked him you slew him.”
By the determinate counsel – The word translated “determinate” – τῇ ὡρίσμένῃ tē hōrismenē – mean, properly, “what is defined, marked out, or bounded; as, to mark out or define the boundary of a field,” etc. See Rom_1:1, Rom_1:4. In Act_10:42, it is translated “ordained of God”; denoting His purpose that it should be so, that is, that Jesus should be the Judge of quick and dead; Luk_22:22, “The Son of man goeth as it is determined of him,” that is, as God has purposed or determined beforehand that he should go; Act_11:29, “The disciples …determined to send relief unto the brethren which dwelt in Judea,” that is, they resolved or purposed beforehand to do it; Act_17:26, “God …‘hath determined’ the times before appointed and fixed,” etc. In all these places there is the idea of a purpose, intention, or plan implying intention, and marking out or fixing the boundaries to some future action or evens. The word implies that the death of Jesus was resolved by God before it took place. And this truth is established by all the predictions made in the Old Testament, and by the Saviour himself. God was not compelled to give up his Son. There was no claim on him for it. He had a right, therefore, to determine when and how it should be done. The fact, moreover, that this was predicted, shows that it was fixed or resolved on. No event can be foretold, evidently, unless it be certain that it will take place. The event, therefore, must in some way be fixed or resolved on beforehand,
Counsel – βουλή boulē. This word properly denotes “purpose, decree, will.” It expresses the act of the mind in willing, or the purpose or design which is formed. Here it means the purpose or will of God; it was his plan or decree that Jesus should be delivered: Act_4:28, “For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel ἡ βουλή σου hē boulē sou determined before to be done”; Eph_1:11, “Who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will”; Heb_6:17, “God willing …to show …the immutability of his counsel.” See Act_20:27; 1Co_4:5; Luk_23:51. The word here, therefore, proves that Jesus was delivered by the deliberate purpose of God; that it was according to his previous intention and design. The reason why this was insisted on by Peter was that he might convince the Jews that Jesus was not delivered by weakness, or because he was unable to rescue himself. Such an opinion would have been inconsistent with the belief that he was the Messiah. It was important, then, to assert the dignity of Jesus, and to show that his death was in accordance with the fixed design of God, and therefore that it did not interfere in the least with his claims to be the Messiah. The same thing our Saviour has himself expressly affirmed, Joh_19:10-11; Joh_10:18; Mat_26:53.
Foreknowledge – This word denotes “the seeing beforehand of an event yet to take place.” It implies:
1. Omniscience; and,
2. That the event is fixed and certain.
To foresee a contingent event, that is, to foresee that an event will take place when it may or may not take place, is an absurdity. Foreknowledge, therefore, implies that for some reason the event will certainly take place. What that reason As, however, God is represented in the Scriptures as purposing or determining future events; as they could not be foreseen by him unless he had so determined, so the word sometimes is used in the sense of determining beforehand, or as synonymous with decreeing, Rom_8:29; Rom_11:2. In this place the word is used to denote that the delivering up of Jesus was something more than a bare or naked decree. It implies that God did it according to his foresight of what would be the best time, place, and manner of its being done. It was not the result merely of will; it was will directed by a wise foreknowledge of what would be best. And this is the case with all the decrees of God. It follows from this that the conduct of the Jews was foreknown. God was not disappointed in anything respecting their treatment of his Son, nor will he be disappointed in any of the actions of people. Notwithstanding the wickedness of the world, his counsel shall stand, and he will do all his pleasure, Isa_46:10.
Ye have taken – See Mat_26:57. Ye Jews have taken. It is possible that some were present on this occasion who had been personally concerned in taking Jesus, and many who had joined in the cry, “Crucify him, Luk_23:18-21. It was, at any rate, the act of the Jewish people by which this had been done. This was a striking instance of the fidelity of that preaching which says, as Nathan did to David, “Thou art the man!” Peter, once so timid that he denied his Lord, now charged this atrocious crime to his countrymen, regardless of their anger and his own danger. He did not deal in general accusations, but brought the charges home, and declared that they were the people who had been concerned in this amazing crime. No preaching can be successful that does not charge to people their personal guilt, and that does not fearlessly proclaim their ruin and danger.
By wicked hands – Greek: “through or by the hands of the lawless or wicked.” This refers, doubtless, to Pilate and the Roman soldiers, through whose instrumentality this had been done. The reasons for supposing that this is the true interpretation of the passage are these:
(1) The Jews had not the power of inflicting death themselves.
(2) the term used here, “wicked,” ἀνόμων anomōn, is not applicable to the Jews, but to the Romans. It properly means lawless, or those who had not the Law, and is often applied to the pagan, Rom_2:12, Rom_2:14; 1Co_9:21.
(3) the punishment which was inflicted was a Roman punishment.
(4) it was a matter of fact that the Jews, though they had condemned him, yet had not put him to death themselves, but had demanded it of the Romans. But, though they had employed the Romans to do it, still they were the prime movers in the deed; they had plotted, and compassed, and demanded his death, and they were, therefore, not the less guilty. The maxim of the common law and of common sense is, “He who does a deed by the instrumentality of another is responsible for it.” It was from no merit of the Jews that they had not put him to death themselves. It was simply because the power was taken away from them.
Have crucified – Greek: “Having affixed him to the cross, ye have put him to death.” Peter here charges the crime fully on them. Their guilt was not diminished because they had employed others to do it. From this we may remark:
1. That this was one of the most amazing and awful crimes that could be charged to any people. It was malice, and treason, and hatred, and murder combined. Nor was it any common murder. It was their own Messiah whom they had put to death; the hope of their fathers; he who had been long promised by God, and the prospect of whose coming had so long cheered and animated the nation. They had now imbrued their hands in his blood, and stood charged with the awful crime of having murdered the Prince of Peace.
2. It is no mitigation of guilt that we do it by the instrumentality of others. It is often, if not always, a deepening and extending of the crime.
3. We have here a striking and clear instance of the doctrine that the decrees of God do not interfere with the free agency of people. This event was certainly determined beforehand. Nothing is clearer than this. It is here expressly asserted; and it had been foretold with undeviating certainty by the prophets. God had, for wise and gracious purposes, purposed or decreed in his own mind that his Son should die at the time and in the manner in which he did; for all the circumstances of his death, as well as of his birth and his life, were foretold; and yet in this the Jews and the Romans never supposed or alleged that they were compelled or cramped in what they did. They did what they chose. If in this case the decrees of God were not inconsistent with human freedom, neither can they be in any case. Between those decrees and the freedom of man there is no inconsistency, unless it could be shown – what never can be that God compels people to act contrary to their own will. In such a case there could be no freedom. But that is not the case with regard to the decrees of God. An act is what it is in itself; it can be contemplated and measured by itself. That it was foreseen, foreknown, or purposed does not alter its nature, anymore than it does that it be remembered after it is performed. The memory of what we have done does not destroy our freedom. “Our own purposes” in relation to our conduct do not destroy our freedom; nor can the purposes or designs of any other being violate one free moral action, unless he compels us to do a thing against our will.
4. We have here a proof that the decrees of God do not take away the moral character of an action. It does not prove that an action is innocent if it is shown that it is a part of the wise plan of God to permit it, Never was there a more atrocious crime than the crucifixion of the Son of God; and yet it was determined on in the divine counsels. So with all the deeds of human guilt. The purpose of God to permit them does not destroy their nature or make them innocent. They are what they are in themselves. The purpose of God does not change their character; and if it is right to push them in fact, they will be punished. If it is right for God to punish them, it was right to resolve to do it. The sinner must answer for his sins, not for the plans of his Maker; nor can he take shelter in the day of wrath against what he deserves in the plea that God has determined future events. If any people could have done it, it would have been those whom Peter addressed; yet neither he nor they felt that their guilt was in the least diminished by the fact that Jesus was “delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.”
5. If this event was predetermined; if that act of amazing wickedness, when the Son of God was put to death, was fixed by the determinate counsel of God, then all the events leading to it, and the circumstances attending it, were also a part of the decree. The one could not be determined without the other.
6. If that event was determined, then others may also be consistently with human freedom and responsibility. There can be no deed of wickedness that will surpass that of crucifying the Son of God, and if the acts of his murderers were a part of the wise counsel of God, then on the same principle are we to suppose that all events are under his direction, and ordered by a purpose infinitely wise and good.
7. If the Jews could not take shelter from the charge of wickedness under the plea that it was foreordained, then no stoners can do it. This was as clear a case as can ever occur; and yet the apostle did not intimate that an excuse or mitigation for their sin could be pled from this cause. This case, therefore, meets all the excuses of sinners from this plea, and proves that those excuses will not avail them or save them in the day of judgment.

A.T. Robertson
Act 2:24
God raised up (ho theos anestēsen). Est hoc summum orationis (Blass). Apparently this is the first public proclamation to others than believers of the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. “At a time it was still possible to test the statement, to examine witnesses, to expose fraud, the Apostle openly proclaimed the Resurrection as a fact, needing no evidence, but known to his hearers” (Furneaux).
The pangs of death (tas ōdinas tou thanatou). Codex Bezae has “Hades” instead of death. The lxx has ōdinas thanatou in Psa_18:4, but the Hebrew original means “snares” or “traps” or “cords” of death where sheol and death are personified as hunters laying snares for prey. How Peter or Luke came to use the old Greek word ōdinas (birth pangs) we do not know. Early Christian writers interpreted the Resurrection of Christ as a birth out of death. “Loosing” (lusas) suits better the notion of “snares” held a prisoner by death, but birth pangs do bring deliverance to the mother also.

John Gill
Act 2:24 Whom God raised up,…. From the dead; for though his life was taken away by men, he was raised to life again by God the Father, to whom the resurrection of Christ is generally ascribed, though not to the exclusion of Christ himself, and the blessed Spirit; and this being what the apostles were witnesses of, and the Jews endeavoured to stifle as much as they could, it being the sign Christ gave them of the truth of his Messiahship; and this being also a fundamental article of the Christian religion, the apostle enlarges upon it:

having loosed the pains of death; this may be understood either of what Christ had done for his people by dying for them; he had abolished death; he had took away its sting, and delivered them from the curse of it, having fulfilled the law, satisfied justice, and made full atonement for their sin; so that though they die, death is not a penal evil to them, nor shall they always continue under the power of it: or of what God did in raising Christ from the dead; he delivered him from the power of death, by which he was held in the grave, and which is expressed by a word which signifies pains and sorrows, even those of a woman in travail; which though he felt not now, he had gone through them; his low state in the grave was the effect of them; and these are said to be loosed when he was raised up, he being so entirely delivered from them, as that they should never come upon him more: and it is to be observed, that the same word in the Hebrew language, and so in the Chaldee and Syriac, in which Peter might speak, signifies both cords and sorrows; and we often read in Talmudic and Rabbinic writings, of חבלו של משיח, “the sorrows”, or “pains” of the Messiah. The death which Christ died, being the death of the cross, was a very painful one: he endured great pains in his body, smote with rods, and buffeted with the hands of men; by being scourged and whipped, and having a crown of thorns platted on his head; but the pains of the cross were still greater, his body being stretched out upon it, and fastened to it by nails drove through his hands and feet, and then reared up, and jogged in the earth, where he hung upon it in extreme agony, till he expired: and these pains he endured, not through want of love to him in his Father, who, as he does not willingly grieve and afflict the children of men, so neither would he his own Son; nor was it on account of any sin of his, for he knew none, nor did he commit any; but he was wounded, and bruised, and endured these sorrows and pains for the sins of his people: as he was their surety, it was necessary he should die, because the wages of sin is death, and the justice and veracity of God required it; and it was proper he should die the painful death of the cross, because of the types and prophecies of it, and chiefly that he might appear to be made a curse for his people: though more must be meant here than the pains he endured in the moment and article of death, since they ceased at death, and he was then freed from them; whereas the text speaks of a loosing him from them at his resurrection, which supposes that they continued on him until that time; wherefore these pains of death also signify the power and dominion death had over him, and continued to have over him in the grave; with the cords of which he was bound and held, till he was loosed by raising him from the dead. Dr. Goodwin is of opinion, that these words are to be understood, not of the resurrection of Christ’s body from the pains and power of death, but at least chiefly of the recovery and revival of his soul from those spiritual agonies which attended him, and from which he was loosed and delivered before his death; and the rather, because as before observed, at death the pains of it are gone, the bitterness of it is over, and nothing is felt in the grave; besides, the word here used signifies the pains of a woman in travail, 1Th_5:3 and seems best to agree with those inward sufferings of Christ, which are called “the travail of his soul”, Isa_53:11 and which, like the pangs of a woman in labour, came upon him gradually: four or five days before his death he said, “now is my soul troubled”, Joh_12:27. The night in which he was betrayed, when he came into the garden, he began to be sorrowful, and heavy, and sore amazed; and at length he breaks out, and says, “my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death”, Mat_26:37 and after some time his pains increase, and being in agony, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was, as it were, great drops of blood, Luk_22:44 but the sharpest pains were yet to come, and which he endured when on the cross, being forsaken by his God and Father, Mat_27:46 and which arose partly from the sins of his people, the filth and guilt of them laid upon him, which must be very distressing to his pure and holy mind; and from the wrath of God, and curse of the law, which he sustained as the punishment for them; and it was necessary he should bear the whole punishment due to sin, the punishment of sense, or feel the wrath of God, and the strokes of divine justice, and the punishment of loss, or be deprived of the divine presence; and these sorrows of soul may be well called the pains or sorrows of death, because they were unto death, and issued in it; a corporeal death followed upon them; and when he was in the garden, and on the cross, it might be truly said, “the sorrows of death compassed him about”, Psa_18:4 but from these he was loosed just before his death, when he said, “it is finished”; the darkness was over; the light of God’s countenance broke out upon him; he heard his cry, and helped him in the acceptable time, in the day of salvation; his anger, as a judge, was turned away from him, justice being entirely satisfied; and therefore it was not possible he should be held any longer with these cords and sorrows of death; for he being an infinite person, was able to bear all the wrath of God at once, which was due to sin, and therefore did not bring on him an eternal death as on the wicked, he sustaining and satisfying for all at once; and, like another Samson, broke asunder these cords like threads, and was loosed from them. But after all, though these are very great truths; yet, according to the order in which these words lie, being placed after the account of the crucifixion and death of Christ, they seem rather to respect the resurrection of his body, and the loosing it from the power and dominion of death; and in such sense as never to return to it, or any more feel the pains of it. One of Stephen’s copies reads, “the pains of Hades”, or the invisible state; and the Vulgate Latin version, “the pains of hell”; as in Psa_18:5 where the grave is meant; and the Syriac version, חבליה דשאול, “the pains”, or “cords of the grave”: the word “cords”, or “bands”, best agrees with the word “loosing”; and the Ethiopic version renders it, “the bands of death”,

Because it was not possible he should be holden of it: of death, and under the power of it; partly, because of the power and dignity of his person, as the Son of God, he being still the Prince of life, and who by dying abolished death, and him that had the power of it; and partly, because as the surety of his people, he had made full satisfaction for sin, and had brought in an everlasting righteousness, and therefore ought in justice to be discharged, and detained a prisoner no longer; as also because of the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning his resurrection, which must be fulfilled, as follows,

Acts 2:29
of the patriarch David; who was a “head of the fathers”, as the Syriac and Arabic versions render it; a prince of the tribes of Israel; one of the greatest kings the tribes of Israel ever had; and therefore this name well becomes him; though it is more commonly given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the heads of the twelve tribes:

that he is both dead, and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day; it is a plain case, and a certain matter of fact, which nobody disputes or denies, that David really died, and was laid in the grave, and that his monument, or tomb, was still extant, so that he was not risen from the dead; and therefore the above citation could not respect him, but another, even the Messiah, and had been literally fulfilled in Jesus. The Jews say, that David died on the day of Pentecost; which was the very day on which Peter was now preaching; he was buried in Jerusalem, and his sepulchral monument was in being when Peter said these words. And Josephus relates, that the sepulchre of David was opened by Hyrcanus, who took out of it three thousand talents; and that it was afterwards opened by Herod: which, if true, may serve to render credible what Peter says concerning its continuance to that day. Though it may be questioned whether any such treasure was ever in it, or taken out of it; and still less credible is the account which R. Benjamin gives of two men in his time, who, under the wall of Zion, found a cave, which led them to a large palace built on pillars of marble, and covered with gold and silver; and within it was a table, and a golden sceptre, and a crown of gold; and this, says the author, was the sepulchre of David, king of Israel,

Act 2:30 Therefore being a prophet,…. Who could foretell things to come, as he did many things concerning the sufferings and death of Christ, and the circumstances attending it, concerning his resurrection, ascension, and session at the right hand of God. So the title of his “Psalms”, in the Syriac version, runs thus; the “Book of the Psalms of David, King and Prophet”: and in the Arabic version, “the First Book of the Psalms of David the Prophet, King of the Children of Israel”. Though the Jews will not allow him, nor Solomon, nor Daniel, to be strictly and properly prophets, they make a difference between prophecy, and the Holy Spirit. They own, that the book of Psalms was written under the influence of the Holy Spirit, but not by prophecy; and therefore they place it among the Hagiographa, or holy writings, but not among the Prophets: though after all, Kimchi allows David to be a prophet, since he is called a man of God; for he says this name is not said of any but על נביא, “of a prophet”; and Peter is right in calling him so:

and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him; as he did in Psa_132:11.

that of the fruit of his loins; of one that should be of his seed, that should spring from him, even the Virgin Mary, who was of the house and lineage of David:

according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ; would send him forth, according to the human nature; for this phrase respects not his resurrection from the dead, but his incarnation or exhibition in the flesh, as in Act_3:26. This clause is wanting in the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions, and in the Alexandrian copy, and should be read in a parenthesis; since it is not in the text in Psa_132:11.

to sit on his throne; on the throne of David his father;

Adam Clarke
Act 2:30
According to the flesh, he would raise up Christ – This whole clause is wanting in ACD, one of the Syriac, the Coptic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Vulgate; and is variously entered in others. Griesbach rejects it from the text, and Professor White says of the words, “certissime delenda,” they should doubtless be expunged. This is a gloss, says Schoettgen, that has crept into the text, which I prove thus:
1. The Syriac and Vulgate, the most ancient of the versions, have not these words.
2. The passage is consistent enough and intelligible without them.
3. They are superfluous, as the mind of the apostle concerning the resurrection of Christ follows immediately in the succeeding verse.
The passage therefore, according to Bp. Pearce, should be read thus: Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath, of the fruit of his loins, to set on his throne; and foreseeing that he (God) would raise up Christ, he spake of the resurrection of Christ, etc. “In this transition, the words which Peter quotes for David’s are exactly the same with what we read in the psalm above mentioned; and the circumstance of David’s foreseeing that Christ was to be raised up, and was the person meant, is not represented as a part of the oath; but is only made to be Peter’s assertion, that David, as a prophet, did foresee it, and meant it.”

Act 2:31
That his soul was not left in hell – The words ἡ ψυχη αυτου, his soul, are omitted by ABCD, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, and Vulgate. Griesbach has left them out of the text, and Professor White says again, certissime delenda. The passage may be thus read: “He spake of the resurrection of Christ, that he was not left in hades, neither did his flesh see corruption.” For the various readings in this and the preceding verse, see Griesbach.

Albert Barnes
Act 2:32
This Jesus – Peter, having shown that it was predicted that the Messiah would rise, now affirms that such a resurrection occurred in the case of Jesus. If it was a matter of prophecy, all objection to the truth of the doctrine was taken away, and the only question was whether there was evidence that this had been done. The proof of this Peter now alleges, and offers his own testimony, and that of his brethren, to the truth of this great and glorious fact.
We are all witnesses – It seems probable that Peter refers here to the whole 120 who were present, and who were ready to attest it in any manner. The matter which was to be proved was that Jesus was seen alive after he had been put to death. The apostles were appointed to bear witness of this. We are told by Paul 1Co_15:6 that he was seen by more than five hundred brethren, that is, Christians, at one time. The 120 assembled on this occasion were doubtless part of the number, and were ready to attest this. This was the proof that Peter alleged; and the strength of this proof was, and should have been, perfectly irresistible:
(1) They had seen him themselves. They did not conjecture it or reason about it; but they had the evidence on which people act every day, and which must be regarded as satisfactory the evidence of their own senses.
(2) the number was such they could not be imposed on. If 120 persons could not prove a plain matter of fact, nothing could be established by testimony; there could be no way of arriving at any facts.
(3) the thing to be established was a plain matter. It was not that they “saw him rise.” That they never pretended: Impostors would have done this. But it was that they saw him, talked, walked, ate, drank with him, being alive, after, he had been crucified. The fact of his death was matter of Jewish record, and no one called it in question. The only fact for Christianity to make out was that he was seen alive afterward, and this was attested by many witnesses.
(4) they had no interest in deceiving the world in this thing. There was no prospect of pleasure, wealth, or honor in doing it.
(5) they offered themselves now as ready to endure any sufferings, or to die, in attestation of the truth of this event.

John Gill
Act 2:33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted,…. After his resurrection he ascended to heaven, and was exalted in human nature; “to the right hand of God”, as the Ethiopic version; and the Arabic version used by De Dieu read; an honour that never was conferred on any creature, angels or men, besides: or he was exalted and raised to the high honour and dignity of a Prince and Saviour, of Lord, Head, and King, so as to have a name, dominion, and authority over all, by the mighty power of God, which is sometimes called his right hand; see Psa_118:15.

and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost; which the Father had promised to pour forth in the last days, Isa_44:3 and which Christ had promised to send from the Father, Joh_14:16 and which, upon his ascension and exaltation, he received as Mediator from him; see Psa_68:18 compared with Eph_4:8.

he hath shed forth this; this Holy Spirit, or promised Spirit, these gifts of his; and so the Syriac version renders it, “he hath shed forth this gift”; which expresses both the plenty and abundance of the gifts bestowed, and the liberality of Christ in the donation of them: it is added,

which ye now see and hear; meaning the cloven tongues, as of fire, which they saw sitting on the disciples, and the various languages which they heard them speak. The Alexandrian copy, the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, leave out the word “now”: and the Syriac, in the room of it, reads, “behold”.

Adam Clarke
Act 2:36
Both Lord and Christ – Not only the Messiah, but the supreme Governor of all things and all persons, Jews and Gentiles, angels and men. In the preceding discourse, Peter assumes a fact which none would attempt to deny, viz. that Jesus had been lately crucified by them.
He then,
1. Proves his resurrection.
2. His ascension.
3. His exaltation to the right hand of God.
4. The effusion of the Holy Spirit, which was the fruit of his glorification, and which had not only been promised by himself, but foretold by their own prophets: in consequence of which,
5. It was indisputably proved that this same Jesus, whom they had crucified, was the promised Messiah; and if so,
6. The Governor of the universe, from whose power and justice they had every thing to dread, as they refused to receive his proffered mercy and kindness.

Albert Barnes
Act 2:37
Now when they heard this – When they heard this declaration of Peter, and this proof that Jesus was the Messiah. There was no fanaticism in his discourse; it was cool, close, pungent reasoning. He proved to them the truth of what he was saying, and thus prepared the way for this effect.
They were pricked in their heart – The word translated were “pricked,” κατενύγησαν katenugēsan, is not used elsewhere in the New Testament. It properly denotes “to pierce or penetrate with a needle, lancet, or sharp instrument”; and then “to pierce with grief, or acute pain of any kind.” It corresponds precisely to our word “compunction.” It implies also the idea of sudden as well as acute grief. In this case it means that they were suddenly and deeply affected with anguish and alarm at what Peter had said. The causes of their grief may have been these:
(1) Their sorrow that the Messiah had been put to death by his own countrymen.
(2) their deep sense of guilt in having done this. There would be mingled here a remembrance of ingratitude, and a consciousness that they had been guilty of murder of the most aggravated and horrid kind, that of having killed their own Messiah.
(3) the fear of his wrath. He was still alive; exalted to be theft Lord; and entrusted with all power. They were afraid of his vengeance; they were conscious that they deserved it; and they supposed that they were exposed to it.
(4) what they had done could not be undone. The guilt remained; they could not wash it out. They had imbrued theft hands in the blood of innocence, and the guilt of that oppressed their souls. This expresses the usual feelings which sinners have when they are convicted of sin.
Men and brethren – This was an expression denoting affectionate earnestness. Just before this they mocked the disciples, and charged them with being filled with new wine, Act_2:13. They now treated them with respect and confidence. The views which sinners have of Christians and Christian ministers are greatly changed when they are under conviction for sin. Before that they may deride and oppose them; then, they are glad to be taught by the obscurest Christian, and even cling to a minister of the gospel as if he could save them by his own power.
What shall we do? – What shall we do to avoid the wrath of this crucified and exalted Messiah? They were apprehensive of his vengeance, and they wished to know how to avoid it. Never was a more important question asked than this. It is the question which all convicted sinners ask. It implies an apprehension of danger, a sense of guilt, and a readiness to “yield the will” to the claims of God. This was the same question asked by Paul Act_9:6, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” and by the jailor Act_16:30 “He …came, trembling, …and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” The state of mind in this case – the case of a convicted sinner – consists in:
(1) A deep sense of the evil of the past life; remembrance of a thousand crimes perhaps before forgotten; a pervading and deepening conviction that the heart, and conversation, and life have been evil, and deserve condemnation.
(2) Apprehension about the justice of God; alarm when the mind looks upward to him, or onward to the day of death and judgment.
(3) an earnest wish, amounting sometimes to agony, to be delivered from this sense of condemnation and this apprehension of the future.
(4) a readiness to sacrifice all to the will of God; to surrender the governing purpose of the mind, and to do what he requires. In this state the soul is prepared to receive the offers of eternal life; and when the sinner comes to this, the offers of mercy meet his case, and he yields himself to the Lord Jesus, and finds peace.
In regard to this discourse of Peter, and this remarkable result, we may observe:
(1) That this is the first discourse which was preached after the ascension of Christ, and is a model which the ministers of religion should imitate.
(2) it is a clear and close argument. There is no ranting, no declamation, nothing but truth presented in a clear and striking manner. It abounds with proof of his main point, and supposes that his hearers were rational beings, and capable of being influenced by truth. Ministers have no right to address people as incapable of reason and thought, nor to imagine, because they are speaking on religious subjects, that therefore they are at liberty to speak nonsense.
(3) though these were eminent sinners, and had added to the crime of murdering the Messiah that of deriding the Holy Spirit and the ministers of the gospel, yet Peter reasoned with them coolly, and endeavored to convince them of their guilt. People should be treated as endowed with reason, and as capable of seeing the force and beauty of the great truths of religion.
(4) the arguments of Peter were adapted to produce this effect on their minds, and to impress them deeply with the sense of their guilt. He proved to them that they had been guilty of putting the Messiah to death; that God had raised him up, and that they were now in the midst of the scenes which established one strong proof of the truth of what he was saying. No class of truths could have been so well adapted to make an impression of their guilt as these.
(5) Conviction for sin is a rational process on a sinner’s mind. It is the proper state produced by a view of past sins. It is suffering truth to make an appropriate impression; suffering the mind to feel as it ought to feel. The man who is guilty ought to be willing to see and confess it. It is no disgrace to confess an error, or to feel deeply when we know we are guilty. Disgrace consists in a hypocritical desire to conceal crime; in the pride that is unwilling to avow it; in the falsehood which denies it. To feel it and to acknowledge it is the mark of an open and ingenuous mind.
(6) these same truths are adapted still to produce conviction for sin. The sinner’s treatment of the Messiah should produce grief and alarm. He did not murder him, but he has rejected him; he did not crown him with thorns, but he has despised him; he did not insult him when hanging on the cross, but he has a thousand times insulted him since; he did not pierce his side with the spear, but he has pierced his heart by rejecting him and contemning his mercy. “For these things he should weep.” In the Saviour’s resurrection he has also a deep interest. He rose as the pledge that we may rise; and when the sinner looks forward, he should remember that he must meet the ascended Son of God. The Saviour reigns; he lives, Lord of all. The sinner’s deeds now are aimed at his throne, and his heart, and his crown. All his crimes are seen by his sovereign, and it is not safe to mock the Son of God on his throne, or to despise him who will soon come to judgment. When the sinner feels these truths he should tremble and cry out, What shall I do?
(7) we see here how the Spirit operates in producing conviction of sin. It is not in an arbitrary manner; it is in accordance with truth, and by the truth. Nor have we a right to expect that he will convict and convert people except as the truth is presented to their minds. They who desire success in the gospel should present clear, striking, and impressive truth, for such only God is accustomed to bless.
(8) we have in the conduct of Peter and the other apostles a striking instance of the power of the gospel. Just before, Peter, trembling and afraid, had denied his Master with an oath; now, in the presence of the murderers of the Son of God, he boldly charged them with their crime, and dared their fury. Just before, all the disciples forsook the Lord Jesus and fled; now, in the presence of his murderers, they lifted their voice and proclaimed their guilt and danger, even in the city where he had been just arraigned and put to death. What could have produced this change but the power of God? And is there not proof here that a religion which produces such changes came from heaven?

A.T. Robertson
Act 2:38
Repent ye (metanoēsate). First aorist (ingressive) active imperative. Change your mind and your life. Turn right about and do it now. You crucified this Jesus. Now crown him in your hearts as Lord and Christ. This first.
And be baptized every one of you (kai baptisthētō hekastos hūmōn). Rather, “And let each one of you be baptized.” Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou). In accordance with the command of Jesus in Mat_28:19 (eis to onoma). No distinction is to be insisted on between eis to onoma and en tōi onomati with baptizō since eis and en are really the same word in origin. In Act_10:48 en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou occurs, but eis to onoma in Act_8:16; Act_19:5. The use of onoma means in the name or with the authority of one as eis onoma prophētou (Mat_10:41) as a prophet, in the name of a prophet. In the Acts the full name of the Trinity does not occur in baptism as in Mat_28:19, but this does not show that it was not used. The name of Jesus Christ is the distinctive one in Christian baptism and really involves the Father and the Spirit. See note on Mat_28:19 for discussion of this point. “Luke does not give the form of words used in baptism by the Apostles, but merely states the fact that they baptized those who acknowledged Jesus as Messiah or as Lord” (Page).
Unto the remission of your sins (eis aphesin tōn hamartiōn hūmōn). This phrase is the subject of endless controversy as men look at it from the standpoint of sacramental or of evangelical theology. In themselves the words can express aim or purpose for that use of eis does exist as in 1Co_2:7 eis doxan hēmōn (for our glory). But then another usage exists which is just as good Greek as the use of eis for aim or purpose. It is seen in Mat_10:41 in three examples eis onoma prophētou, dikaiou, mathētou where it cannot be purpose or aim, but rather the basis or ground, on the basis of the name of prophet, righteous man, disciple, because one is, etc. It is seen again in Mat_12:41 about the preaching of Jonah (eis to kērugma Iōna). They repented because of (or at) the preaching of Jonah. The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koiné[28928]š generally (Robertson, Grammar, p. 592). One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission. So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.
The gift of the Holy Ghost (tēn dōrean tou hagiou pneumatos). The gift consists (Act_8:17) in the Holy Spirit (genitive of identification).

Act 2:39
The promise (hē epaggelia). The promise made by Jesus (Act_1:4) and foretold by Joel (Act_2:18).
To you (humin). You Jews. To your descendants, sons and daughters of Act_2:17.
To all that are afar off (pāsin tois eis makran. The horizon widens and includes the Gentiles. Those “afar off” from the Jews were the heathen (Isa_49:1; Isa_57:19; Eph_2:13, Eph_2:17). The rabbis so used it.
Shall call (an proskalesētai). First aorist middle subjunctive with an in an indefinite relative clause, a perfectly regular construction. The Lord God calls men of every nation anywhere whether Jews or Gentiles. It may be doubted how clearly Peter grasped the significance of these words for he will have trouble over this very matter on the housetop in Joppa and in Caesarea, but he will see before long the full sweep of the great truth that he here proclaims under the impulse of the Holy Spirit. It was a great moment that Peter here reaches.

Act 2:40
With many other words (heterois logois pleiosin). Instrumental case. Not necessarily “different” (heterois), but “further,” showing that Luke does not pretend to give all that Peter said. This idea is also brought out clearly by pleiosin (“more,” not “many”), more than these given by Luke.
He testified (diemarturato). First aorist middle of diamarturomai, old verb, to make solemn attestation or call to witness (perfective use of dia), while martureō is to bear witness. Page insists that here it should be translated “protested solemnly” to the Jews as it seems to mean in Luk_16:28; Act_20:23; 1Ti_5:21; 2Ti_2:14; 2Ti_4:1.
And exhorted (kai parekalei). Imperfect active, kept on exhorting.
Save yourselves (sōthēte). First aorist passive of sōzō. Literally, Be ye saved.
Crooked (skolias). Old word, opposite of orthos, straight. Pravus the opposite of rectus, a perversity for turning off from the truth. Cf. Luk_9:41; Phi_2:15.

Act 2:41
Were baptized (ebaptisthēsan). First aorist passive indicative, constative aorist. Note that only those who had already received the word and were converted were baptized.
There were added (prosetethēsan). First aorist passive indicative of prostithēmi, old verb to add, to join to. Luke means that the 3,000 were added to the 120 already enlisted. It is not stated they were all baptized by Peter or the twelve or all on the same day, though that is the natural implication of the language. The numerous pools in Jerusalem afforded ample opportunity for such wholesale baptizing and Hackett notes that the habit of orientals would place no obstacle in the way of the use of the public reservoirs. Furneaux warns us that all the 3,000 may not have been genuine converts and that many of them were pilgrims at the passover who returned home.
Souls (psuchai). Persons as in Act_2:43.

John Gill
Acts 2:41
were baptized; in water, by immersion, for which there was great conveniency in Jerusalem, and in the temple, where the apostles now were: in the city of Jerusalem, in private houses, they had their baths for purifications, by immersion, as in the case of menstruous, gonorrhoeas, and other defilements, by touching unclean persons, and things, which were very frequent; so that a digger of cisterns, for such uses, and others, was a business in Jerusalem,

And it may be observed, that there were also in Jerusalem the pool of Bethesda, into which persons went down at certain times, Joh_5:1 and the pool of Siloam, where persons bathed, and dipped themselves, on certain occasions; See Gill on Joh_9:7. So that there were conveniences enough for baptism by immersion in this place: and the same day there were added; unto them, or to the church, as in Act_2:47 the whole company of the hundred and twenty disciples; the Arabic version supplies, “among the believers”: the number of those, that were added to them, were about three thousand souls; or persons, men, and women; and their number is no objection to their being baptized by immersion.

As for convenient places to baptize in, there were enough, as we have seen already; and there were administrators sufficient for this work: had there been no more than the twelve apostles, it was but two hundred and fifty men apiece; and there were twelve separate places in the temple, where they might be baptizing at the same time; there were the ten lavers, the molten sea, and the dipping room, so that the work was not so very heavy nor difficult; but besides, there were seventy disciples, who, as they were preachers of the word, were administrators of this ordinance; and supposing them all employed, as they might be, at the same time, either in the temple, or at the pools in Jerusalem, or at the baths, and cisterns, in private houses; they would not have more than six or seven and thirty persons apiece to baptize; and there was time enough in the day for it; it was but the third hour, or nine o’clock in the morning, when Peter began his sermon; and allowing an hour for that, there were eight hours more in the day, according to the Jewish reckoning of twelve hours in a day; so that the business might be done without any hurry, or great fatigue; and indeed, the objection, as to time, would equally lie against sprinkling, or pouring, as dipping; at least the difference is very inconsiderable; for the same form of words must be pronounced in administering the ordinance by the one, as by the other; and a person being ready, is very near as soon dipped into water, as water can be taken, and sprinkled, or poured on the face.

Besides, after all, though these persons were added to the church the same day, it does not necessarily follow from the text, that they were all baptized in one day; the words do not oblige us to such a sense: I own, I am of opinion, that they were all baptized in one day; and that on the same day they were baptized, they were joined to the church; and that day was the day of Pentecost, the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and on which now the Gospel was published to men of all nations under the heavens; the day on which the firstfruits were offered to the Lord, and on which now the firstfruits of the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ were brought in to him. Let the order be observed, they were first baptized, and then added to the church,

Adam Clarke
Act 2:41
They that gladly received his word – The word ασμενως, which signifies joyfully, readily, willingly, implies that they approved of the doctrine delivered; that they were glad to hear of this way of salvation; and that they began immediately to act according to its dictates. This last sense is well expressed in a similar phrase by Josephus: when speaking of the young Israelites enticing the Midianitish women to sin, by fair speeches, he says, αἱ δε ασμενως δεξαμεναι τους λογους συνῃεσαν αυτοις, Ant. l. iv. c. 4. Then they who approved of their words consorted with them. The word is however omitted by ABCD, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, the Itala of the Codex Bezae, Clemens, and Chrysostom.
Were baptized – That is, in the name of Jesus, Act_2:38, for this was the criterion of a Jew’s conversion; and when a Jew had received baptism in this name he was excluded from all communication with his countrymen; and no man would have forfeited such privileges but on the fullest and clearest conviction. This baptism was a very powerful means to prevent their apostasy; they had, by receiving baptism in the name of Jesus, renounced Judaism, and all the political advantages connected with it; and they found it indispensably necessary to make the best use of that holy religion which they had received in its stead. Dr. Lightfoot has well remarked, that the Gentiles who received the Christian doctrine were baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost; whereas the Jewish converts, for the reasons already given, were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
Were added – three thousand souls – Προσετεθησαν, They went over from one party to another. The Greek writers make use of this verb to signify that act by which cities, towns, or provinces changed their masters, and put themselves under another government. So these 3000 persons left the scribes and Pharisees, and put themselves under the teaching of the apostles, professing the Christian doctrine, and acknowledging that Christ was come, and that he who was lately crucified by the Jews was the promised and only Messiah; and in this faith they were baptized.
These 3000 were not converted under one discourse, nor in one place, nor by one person. All the apostles preached, some in one language, and some in another; and not in one house – for where was there one at that time that could hold such a multitude of people? For, out of the multitudes that heard, 3000 were converted; and if one in five was converted it must have been a very large proportion. The truth seems to by this: All the apostles preached in different, parts of the city, during the course of that day; and in that day, τῃ ἡμερᾳ εκεινῃ, 3000 converts were the fruits of the conjoint exertions of these holy men. Dr. Lightfoot thinks that the account in this place is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Psa_110:1, etc.: The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou on my right hand; this refers to the resurrection and ascension of Christ. Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, Psa_110:3. This was the day of his power; and while the apostles proclaimed his death, resurrection, and ascension, the people came willingly in, and embraced the doctrines of Christianity.

A.T. Robertson
Act 2:42
Fellowship (Koinōniāi). Old word from Koinōnos (partner, sharer in common interest) and this from Koinos what is common to all. This partnership involves participation in, as the blood of Christ (Phi_2:1) or co-operation in the work of the gospel (Phi_1:5) or contribution for those in need (2Co_8:4; 2Co_9:13). Hence there is wide diversity of opinion concerning the precise meaning of Koinōnia in this verse. It may refer to the distribution of funds in Act_2:44or to the oneness of spirit in the community of believers or to the Lord’s Supper (as in 1Co_10:16) in the sense of communion or to the fellowship in the common meals or agapae (love-feasts).
The breaking of bread (tēi klasei tou artou). The word klasis is an old word, but used only by Luke in the N.T. (Luk_24:35; Act_2:42), though the verb klaō occurs in other parts of the N.T. as in Act_2:46. The problem here is whether Luke refers to the ordinary meal as in Luk_24:35 or to the Lord’s Supper. The same verb klaō is used of breaking bread at the ordinary meal (Luk_24:30) or the Lord’s Supper (Luk_22:19). It is generally supposed that the early disciples attached so much significance to the breaking of bread at the ordinary meals, more than our saying grace, that they followed the meal with the Lord’s Supper at first, a combination called agapai or love-feasts. “There can be no doubt that the Eucharist at this period was preceded uniformly by a common repast, as was the case when the ordinance was instituted” (Hackett). This led to some abuses as in 1Co_11:20. Hence it is possible that what is referred to here is the Lord’s Supper following the ordinary meal. “To simply explain tēi klasei tou artou as=‘The Holy Communion’ is to pervert the plain meaning of words, and to mar the picture of family life, which the text places before us as the ideal of the early believers” (Page). But in Act_20:7 they seem to have come together especially for the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Perhaps there is no way to settle the point conclusively here.
The prayers (tais proseuchais). Services where they prayed as in Act_1:14, in the temple (Act_3:1), in their homes (Act_4:23).

Albert Barnes
Act 2:44
All that believed – That is, that believed that Jesus was the Messiah; for that was the distinguishing point by which they were known from others.
Were together – Were united; were joined in the same thing. It does not mean that they lived in the same house, but they were united in the same community, or engaged in the same thing. They were doubtless often together in the same place for prayer and praise. One of the best means for strengthening the faith of young converts is for them often to meet together for prayer, conversation, and praise.
Had all things common – That is, all their property or possessions. See Act_4:32-37; Act_5:1-10. The apostles, in the time of the Saviour, evidently had all their property in common stock, and Judas was made their treasurer. They regarded themselves as one family, having common needs, and there was no use or propriety in their possessing extensive property by themselves. Yet even then it is probable that some of them retained an interest in their property which was not supposed to be necessary to be devoted to the common use. It is evident that John thus possessed property which he retained, Joh_19:27. And it is clear that the Saviour did not command them to give up their property into a common stock, nor did the apostles enjoin it: Act_5:4, “While it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold was it not in thine own power?” It was, therefore, perfectly voluntary, and was as evidently adapted to the special circumstances of the early converts. Many of them came from abroad. They were from Parthia, and Media, and Arabia, and Rome, and Africa, etc. It is probable, also, that they now remained longer in Jerusalem than they had at first proposed; and it is not at all improbable that they would be denied now the usual hospitalities of the Jews, and excluded from their customary kindness, because they had embraced Jesus of Nazareth, who had been just put to death. In these circumstances, it was natural and proper that they should share their property while they remained together.

Adam Clarke Acts 2:44
And had all things common – Perhaps this has not been well understood. At all the public religious feasts in Jerusalem, there was a sort of community of goods. No man at such times hired houses or beds in Jerusalem; all were lent gratis by the owners: Yoma, fol. 12. Megill. fol. 26. The same may be well supposed of their ovens, cauldrons, tables, spits, and other utensils. Also, provisions of water were made for them at the public expense; Shekalim, cap. 9. See Lightfoot here. Therefore a sort of community of goods was no strange thing at Jerusalem, at such times as these. It appears, however, that this community of goods was carried farther; for we are informed, Act_2:45, that they sold their possessions and their goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need. But, this probably means that, as in consequence of this remarkable outpouring of the Spirit of God; and their conversion, they were detained longer at Jerusalem than they had originally intended, they formed a kind of community for the time being, that none might suffer want on the present occasion; as no doubt the unbelieving Jews, who were mockers, Act_2:13, would treat these new converts with the most marked disapprobation. That an absolute community of goods never obtained in the Church at Jerusalem, unless for a very short time, is evident from the apostolical precept, 1Co_16:1, etc., by which collections were ordered to be made for the poor; but, if there had been a community of goods in the Church, there could have been no ground for such recommendations as these, as there could have been no such distinction as rich and poor, if every one, on entering the Church, gave up all his goods to a common stock. Besides, while this sort of community lasted at Jerusalem, it does not appear to have been imperious upon any; persons might or might not thus dispose of their goods, as we learn front the case of Ananias, Act_5:4. Nor does it appear that what was done at Jerusalem at this time obtained in any other branch of the Christian Church; and in this, and in the fifth chap., where it is mentioned, it is neither praised nor blamed. We may therefore safely infer, it was something that was done at this time, on this occasion, through some local necessity, which the circumstances of the infant Church at Jerusalem might render expedient for that place and on that occasion only.

John Gill
Act 2:46 And they continued daily with one accord in the temple,…. Every day they went up to the temple, at the time of prayer, or whenever any religious service was to be performed; this was their constant practice, and in this they agreed:

and breaking bread from house to house; either administering the Lord’s supper in private houses, as the Jews kept their passover, sometimes administering it at one house, and sometimes at another; or because their number was so large, that one house could not hold them, they divided themselves into lesser bodies; and some met, and had the ordinance administered to them in one house, and some in another: or this may be understood of their common meals, which they ate together at one another’s houses in great love and friendship; for

they did eat their meat with gladness; with great thankfulness to the God of their mercies for their daily food, acknowledging that all came from him, and that they were undeserving of it, and with much cheerfulness and affability one among another, without murmuring and repining at their lot, or envying each other, or grudging what each other partook of:

and singleness of heart; without deceit and hypocrisy; either in their thanksgivings to God, or in their welcome and entertainment of each other; and with great sincerity, openness, and frankness before God, and one another. The Syriac version joins this clause with the beginning of the next verse, “with singleness of heart, praising God”.

A.T. Robertson

Act 2:47
Added (prosetithei). Imperfect active, kept on adding. If the Lord only always “added” those who join our churches. Note Act_2:41where same verb is used of the 3,000.
To them (epi to auto). Literally, “together.” Why not leave it so? “To the church” (tēi ekklēsiāi) is not genuine. Codex Bezae has “in the church.”
Those that were being saved (tous sōzomenous). Present passive participle. Probably for repetition like the imperfect prosetithei. Better translate it “those saved from time to time.” It was a continuous revival, day by day. Sōzō like sōtēria is used for “save” in three senses (beginning, process, conclusion), but here repetition is clearly the point of the present tense.

Gen 48, 49, 50 Antique Commentary Notes

Keil and Delitzsch
Gen 48:1-2 Adoption of Joseph’s Sons. – Gen_48:1, Gen_48:2. After these events, i.e., not long after Jacob’s arrangements for his burial(Gen 47:29-31), it was told to Joseph (וַיֹּאמֶר “one said,” cf. Gen_48:2) that his father was taken ill; whereupon Joseph went to him with his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, who were then 18 or 20 years old. On his arrival being announced to Jacob, Israel made himself strong (collected his strength), and sat up on his bed. The change of names is as significant here as in Gen_45:27-28. Jacob, enfeebled with age, gathered up his strength for a work, which he was about to perform as Israel, the bearer of the grace of the promise.

Keil and Delitzsch
Gen 48:5-6 These other sons of Joseph are not mentioned anywhere; but their descendants are at any rate included in the families of Ephraim and Manasseh mentioned in Num_26:28-37; 1 Chron 7:14-29. By this adoption of his two eldest sons, Joseph was placed in the position of the first-born, so far as the inheritance was concerned (1Ch_5:2). Joseph’s mother, who had died so early, was also honoured thereby.

Albert Barnes
Gen 48:13 Joseph expected the blessing to be regulated by the age of his sons, and is therefore, careful to present them so that the right hand of his dim-sighted parent may, without any effort, rest on the head of his first-born. But the venerable patriarch, guided by the Spirit of him who doth according to his own will, designedly lays his right hand on the head of the younger, and thereby attributes to him the greater blessing.
The imposition of the hand is a primitive custom which here for the first time comes into notice. It is the natural mode of marking out the object of the benediction, signifying its conveyance to the individual, and implying that it is laid upon him as the destiny of his life. It may be done by either hand; but when each is laid on a different object, as in the present case, it may denote that the higher blessing is conveyed by the right hand. The laying on of both hands on one person may express the fulness of the blessing conveyed, or the fullness of the desire with which it is conveyed.

Adam Clarke
Gen 48:15 The God which fed me all my life long – Jacob is now standing on the verge of eternity, with his faith strong in God. He sees his life to be a series of mercies; and as he had been affectionately attentive, provident, and kind to his most helpless child, so has God been unto him; he has fed him all his life long; he plainly perceives that he owes every morsel of food which he has received to the mere mercy and kindness of God.

Adam Clarke
Gen 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil – hammalac haggoel. The Messenger, the Redeemer or Kinsman; for so goel signifies; for this term, in the law of Moses, is applied to that person whose right it is, from his being nearest akin, to redeem or purchase back a forfeited inheritance. But of whom does Jacob speak? We have often seen, in the preceding chapters, an angel of God appearing to the patriarchs; (see particularly Gen_16:7 (note)) and we have full proof that this was no created angel, but the Messenger of the Divine Council, the Lord Jesus Christ. Who then was the angel that redeemed Jacob, and whom he invoked to bless Ephraim and Manasseh? Is it not Jesus? He alone can be called Goel, the redeeming Kinsman; for he alone took part of our flesh and blood that the right of redemption might be his; and that the forfeited possession of the favor and image of God might be redeemed, brought back, and restored to all those who believe in his name. To have invoked any other angel or messenger in such a business would have been impiety. Angels bless not; to God alone this prerogative belongs. With what confidence may a truly religious father use these words in behalf of his children: “Jesus, the Christ, who hath redeemed me, bless the lads, redeem them also, and save them unto eternal life!”

Let my name be named on them – “Let them be ever accounted as a part of my own family; let them be true Israelites – persons who shall prevail with God as I have done; and the name of Abraham – being partakers of his faith; and the name of Isaac – let them be as remarkable for submissive obedience as he was. Let the virtues of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob be accumulated in them, and invariably displayed by them!” These are the very words of adoption; and by the imposition of hands, the invocation of the Redeemer, and the solemn blessing pronounced, the adoption was completed. From this moment Ephraim and Manasseh had the same rights and privileges as Jacob’s sons, which as the sons of Joseph they could never have possessed.
And let them grow into a multitude – veyidgu larob; Let them increase like fishes into a multitude. Fish are the most prolific of all animals; see the instances produced on Gen_1:20 (note). This prophetic blessing was verified in a most remarkable manner; see Num_26:34, Num_26:37; Deu_33:17; Jos_17:17. At one time the tribe of Ephraim amounted to 40,500 effective men, and that of Manasseh to 52,700, amounting in the whole to 93,200.

Albert Barnes
Gen 48:17-19 Joseph presumes that his father has gone astray through dulness of perception, and endeavors to rectify his mistake. He finds, however, that on the other hand a supernatural vision is now conferred on his parent, who is fully conscious of what he is about, and therefore, abides by his own act. Ephraim is to be greater than Menasseh. Joshua, the successor of Moses, was of the tribe of Ephraim, as Kaleb his companion was of Judah. Ephraim came to designate the northern kingdom of the ten tribes, as Judah denoted the southern kingdom containing the remaining tribes; and each name was occasionally used to denote all Israel, with a special reference to the prominent part. “His seed shall be the fullness of the nations.” This denotes not only the number but the completeness of his race, and accords with the future pre-eminence of his tribe. In thee, in Joseph, who is still identified with his offspring.

John Gill
Gen 49:1 that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days; not their persons merely, but their posterity chiefly, from that time forward to the coming of the Messiah, who is spoken of in this prophecy, and the time of his coming; some things are said relating to temporals, others to spirituals; some are blessings or prophecies of good things to them, others curses, or foretell evil, but all are predictions delivered out by Jacob under a spirit of prophecy; some things had their accomplishment when the tribes of Israel were placed in the land of Canaan, others in the times of the judges, and in later times; and some in the times of the Messiah, to which this prophecy reaches, whose coming was in the last days, Heb_1:1 and Nachmanides says, according to the sense of all their writers, the last days here are the days of the Messiah

John Gill
Gen 49:8Gen 49:8 Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise,…. His name signifies praise, and was given him by his mother, her heart being filled with praises to God for him, Gen_29:35 and is here confirmed by his father on another account, because his brethren should praise him for many excellent virtues in him; and it appears, by instances already observed, that he had great authority, and was highly esteemed among his brethren, as his posterity would be in future times for their courage, warlike expeditions and success, and being famous for heroes, such as David, and others; and especially his famous seed the Messiah, and of whom he was a type, should be praised by his brethren, who are so through his incarnation, and by divine adoption, and who praise him for the glories and excellencies of his person, and the blessings of his grace:
thine hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; pressing them down by his superior power, subduing them, and causing them to submit to him, and which was verified in David, who was of this tribe, Psa_18:40 and especially in the Messiah, in a spiritual sense, who has conquered and subdued all his and his people’s enemies, sin, Satan, the world and death:

thy father’s children shall bow down before thee; before the kings that should spring from this tribe, and should rule over all the rest, as David and Solomon, to whom civil adoration and respect were given by them; and before the King Messiah, his son and antitype, in a way of religious worship, which is given him by the angels, the sons of God, and by all the saints and people of God, who are his father’s children by adoption; these bow before him, and give him religious adoration as a divine Person, and submit to his righteousness as Mediator, and bow to the sceptre of his kingdom, and cast their crowns at his feet, and give him the glory of their whole salvation.

John Gill
Gen 49:9 Judah is a lion’s whelp,…. Or as one; the note of similitude being wanting, as Aben Ezra and Ben Melech observe; he was comparable to a young lion for his strength, courage, and generosity; and it may refer to the infant state of this tribe in the times of the judges, who first went up against the Canaanites and overcame them, Jdg_1:1.
from the prey, my son, thou art gone up; alluding to the lion going up to the mountains, where it chiefly resides, after it has found its prey and satiated itself with it:
he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; one that is grown up, and has arrived to its full strength, such an one is a proper emblem of David king of Israel, of his royalty, courage, valour and conquests; and who having subdued the nations round about him, couched like a lion, and had rest from all his enemies; and especially this was verified in the times of Solomon his son, when he had peace on all sides, and Judah and Israel dwelt safely under their vines and fig trees, 1Ki_4:24.
who shall rouse him up? a lion grown up and in its full strength, or a lioness, as some choose to interpret it, and which is the fiercest, and therefore the most dangerous to rouse up when laid down, either in its den, or with its prey in its paws: so dangerous it was to provoke the tribe of Judah, as its enemies after found, especially in the times of David: all this may be applied to Christ, the lion of the tribe of Judah; the lion being the king of beasts, and the strongest among them, may denote the kingly power and authority of Christ, his great strength as the mighty God and mighty Saviour, his courage in engaging with all the powers of darkness, and valour in vanquishing all enemies; his generosity and lenity to those that stoop to him, and his fierceness to his adversaries, who took the prey from the mighty, and then ascended on high, leading captivity captive; where he sat down at the right hand of God at rest and ease, and who will dare to rouse him up, or be able to stand before him when once he is angry?

John Gill
Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah,…. Which some understand of the tribe, that Judah should not cease from being a tribe, or that it should continue a distinct tribe until the coming of the Messiah, who was to be of it, and was, and that it might appear he sprung from it; but this was not peculiar to this tribe, for the tribe of Benjamin continued, and so did the tribe of Levi unto the coming of Christ: besides, by Judah is meant the tribe, and to say a tribe shall not depart from the tribe, is not only a tautology, but scarcely sense; it rather signifies dominion, power, and authority, as the sceptre always does, it being an emblem of it, see Num_24:17 and this intends either the government, which was in the heads and princes of the tribe, which commenced as soon as it became a tribe, and lasted as long as it remained one, even unto the times of the Messiah; or kingly power and government, which the sceptre is generally thought to be an emblem of, and which first commenced in David, who was of the tribe of Judah, and continued unto the Babylonish captivity, when another sort of governors and government took place, designed in the next clause:

nor a lawgiver from between his feet; which may be rendered disjunctively, “or a lawgiver”; any ruler or governor, that has jurisdiction over others, though under another, as the word is used, Jdg_5:14 and the sense is, that till the Messiah came there should be in the tribe of Judah, either a king, a sceptre bearer, as there was unto the captivity; or a governor, though under others, as there were unto the times of Christ under the Babylonians, Persians, Grecians, and Romans; such as Gedaliah, Zorobabel, &c. and particularly the sanhedrim, a court of judicature, the members of which chiefly consisted of the tribe of Judah, and the נשיא, or prince of it, was always of that tribe, and which retained its power to the latter end of Herod’s reign, when Christ was come; and though it was greatly diminished, it had some power remaining, even at the death of Christ, but quickly after had none at all: and if by the “lawgiver” is meant a scribe or a teacher of the law, as all the Targums, Aben Ezra, Ben Melech, and others interpret it, who used to sit at the feet of a ruler, judge, or prince of the sanhedrim; it is notorious there were of these unto, and in the times of the Messiah: in short, it matters not for the fulfilment of this prophecy what sort of governors those were after the captivity, nor of what tribe they were; they were in Judah, and their government was exercised therein, and that was in the hands of Judah, and they and that did not depart from thence till Shiloh came; since those that were of the other tribes, after the return from the captivity all went by the name of Judah:
until Shiloh come; which all the three Targums interpret of the Messiah, as do many of the Jewish writers, ancient and modern (p); and is the name of the Messiah in their Talmud (q), and in other writings (r); and well agrees with him, coming from a root which signifies to be “quiet”, “peaceable”, and “prosperous”; as he was of a quiet and peaceable disposition, came to make peace between God and men, and made it by the blood of his cross, and gives spiritual peace to all his followers, and brings them at length to everlasting peace and happiness; having prospered and succeeded in the great work of their redemption and salvation he undertook:
and unto him shall the gathering of the people be; not of the Jews, though there were great gatherings of them to hear him preach, and see his miracles; as there were of all his people to him at his death, and in him as their head and representative, Eph_1:10 but of the Gentiles; upon his death, the Gospel being preached to all nations, multitudes among them were converted to Christ, embraced his doctrines, professed his religion, and abode by him, see Isa_11:10 some render it, the obedience of the people (s), from the use of the word in Pro_30:17, which sense agrees with the former; for those who are truly gathered by the ministry of the word yield an obedience to his doctrines and ordinances; and others read, “the expectation of the people” (t); the Messiah being the desire of all nations, Hag_2:6 this, with what goes before, clearly shows that the Messiah must be come, since government in every sense has departed from Judah for 1900 years or thereabout, and the Gentiles have embraced the Messiah and his Gospel the Jews rejected: the various contradictory senses they put upon this prophecy show the puzzle and confusion they are in about it, and serve to confirm the true sense of it: some apply it to the city Shiloh, others to Moses, others to Saul, others to David; nay, some will have Shiloh to be Jeroboam, or Ahijah the Shilonite, and even Nebuchadnezzar: there are two senses they put upon it which deserve the most notice, the one is, that “Shebet”, we render “sceptre”, signifies a “rod”; and so it does, but such a rod as is an ensign of government, as it must here, by what follows, see Eze_19:11, but they would have it to signify either a rod of correction (u), or a staff of support; but what correction or affliction has befallen the tribe of Judah peculiar to it? was it not in a flourishing condition for five hundred years, under the reign of David’s family? and when the rest of the tribes were carried captive and never returned, Judah remained in its own land, and, when carried captive, after seventy years returned again to it; add to which, that this is a prediction, not of affliction and distress, that should abide in the tribe of Judah, but of honour and glory to it: and besides, Judah has had a far greater share of correction since the coming of the true Messiah than ever it had before: and what support have the Jews now, or have had for many hundred years, being out of their land (v), destitute of their privileges, living among other nations in disgrace, and for the most part in poverty and distress? the other sense is this, “the sceptre and lawgiver shall not depart from Judah for ever, when Shiloh comes (w)”; but this is contrary to the accents which separate and divide the phrase, “between his feet”, from that, “for ever”, as this version renders the word; though עד never signifies “for ever”, absolutely put, without some antecedent noun or particle; nor does כי signify “when”, but always “until”, when it is joined with the particle עד, as it is here; besides, this sense makes the prophecy to pass over some thousands of years before any notice is taken of Judah’s sceptre, which, according to the Jews, it had thousands of years ago, as well as contradicts a received notion of their own, that the Messiah, when he comes, shall not reign for ever, but for a certain time, and even a small time; some say forty years, some seventy, and others four hundred (x).

(p) Zohar in Gen. fol. 32. 4. & in Exod. fol. 4. 1. & in Numb. fol. 101. 2. Bereshit Rabba, fol. 98. sect. 85. 3. Jarchi & Baal Hatturim, in loc. Nachmanidis Disputat. cum Paulo, p. 53. Abarbinel. Mashmiah Jesbuah, fol. 10. 1. R. Abraham Seba, Tzeror Hammor, fol. 36. 4. & 62. 2. (q) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 98. 2. (r) Echa Rabbati, fol. 50. 2. (s) יקהת עמים “obedientia populorum”, Montanus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Cocceius, Ainsworth; with which agree the Targums of Onkelos and Jerusalem, Aben Ezra, Kimchi in Sepher Shorash. rad. יקה (t) προσδοκια εθνων, Sept Theodotion; “expectatio Gentium”, V. L. (u) R. Joel Ben Sueb apud Menasseh, Ben Israel. Conciliator in Gen. Quaest. 65. sect. 8. (v) Written about 1750. Ed. (w) Vid. Menasseh, ib. sect. 3. (x) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 99. 1.

Adam Clarke
Gen 49:10 From Judah the scepter shall not depart – The Jews have a quibble on the word shebet, which we translate scepter; they say it signifies a staff or rod, and that the meaning of it is, that “afflictions shall not depart from the Jews till the Messiah comes;” that they are still under affliction and therefore the Messiah is not come. This is a miserable shift to save a lost cause. Their chief Targumist, Onkelos, understood and translated the word nearly as we do; and the same meaning is adopted by the Jerusalem Targum, and by all the ancient versions, the Arabic excepted, which has kazeeb, a rod; but in a very ancient MS. of the Pentateuch in my own possession the word sebet is used, which signifies a tribe. Judah shall continue a distinct tribe till the Messiah shall come; and it did so; and after his coming it was confounded with the others, so that all distinction has been ever since lost.
Nor a teacher from his offspring – I am sufficiently aware that the literal meaning of the original mibbeyn raglaiv is from between his feet, and I am as fully satisfied that it should never be so translated; from between the feet and out of the thigh simply mean progeny, natural offspring, for reasons which surely need not be mentioned. The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, and the Jerusalem Targum, apply the whole of this prophecy, in a variety of very minute particulars, to the Messiah, and give no kind of countenance to the fictions of the modern Jews.

John Gill
Gen 49:11 Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine,…. Which may be understood either of the tribe of Judah, and signify that vines should grow in such plenty, and so large and strong, that a man might fasten his ass to one of them, and if it ate and destroyed it, it would give no great concern, since the country abounded with them; or they would be so full of clusters that a man might load an ass from one of them. Some parts of the tribe of Judah were famous for vines, especially Engedi; hence we read of the vineyards of Engedi, Son_1:14 or else of Shiloh the Messiah, which some interpret literally of him, when the prophecy in Zec_9:9 was fulfilled, as is recorded in Mat_21:2 but others better, figuratively, of Christ’s causing the Gentiles, comparable to an ass’s colt, for their impurity, ignorance of, and sluggishness in spiritual things, to cleave to him the true vine, Joh_15:1 in the exercise of faith, hope, and love, or to join themselves to his church and people, sometimes compared to a vine or vineyard, Isa_5:1.

and he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: an hyperbolical expression, setting forth the great abundance of wine in this tribe, of which there was such plenty, that if they would, they might have used it instead of water to wash their clothes in, but not that they did do so, only might if they would; and may denote the great quantity of spiritual blessings flowing from the love of God, which come by Christ; and of his word and ordinances, which are comparable to wine and milk, and are a feast of fat things, of wine on the lees, well refined, Isa_26:6 and may be applied to Christ, to the garment of his human nature, which, through his sufferings and death, was like a vesture dipped in blood, and he became red in his apparel, Isa_63:1 or to his church and people, which cleave to him as a garment, and whose garments are washed and made white in the blood of the Lamb, Rev_1:5 these words are interpreted of the Messiah in the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, and are applied to him and his times in the Talmud (y), and in other Jewish writings (z): so wine is called the blood of the grape by the son of Sirach in the Apocrypha:”The principal things for the whole use of man’s life are water, fire, iron, and salt, flour of wheat, honey, milk, and the blood of the grape, and oil, and clothing.” (Sirach 39:26)”He stretched out his hand to the cup, and poured of the blood of the grape, he poured out at the foot of the altar a sweetsmelling savour unto the most high King of all.” (Sirach 50:15)

John Gill
Gen 49:12 His eyes shall be red with wine,…. Signifying, not the intemperance of this tribe, and their immoderate use of wine, and the effect of it on them; but the goodness and generosity of their wine, that if drank plentifully of, and especially to excess, would have such an effect, see Pro_23:29 and, as applied to the Messiah, the antitype of Judah, and who was of this tribe, it may denote not so much the beauty of his eyes, as the Targums paraphrase it; as the joy and pleasure that sparkled in his eyes when he shed his blood on the cross, enduring that, and despising the shame of it, for the joy of the salvation of his people; or the clearness of his sight in beholding the actions of his enemies, and especially of the fierceness and fury of his wrath against them, whose eyes are said to be an flames of fire, Rev_1:14.
and his teeth white with milk; denoting the fruitfulness of his land, producing fine pastures, on which flocks and herds fed, and gave abundance of milk; and so Onkelos paraphrases the whole verse,”his mountains shall be red with his vineyards, and his hills shall drop wine, and his valleys shall be white with corn and flocks of sheep;”and much the same are the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem: the mystical sense may respect Christ and his people, and be expressive of the purity of his nature, life, and doctrine, and of the holiness of his members, their faith and conversation; or the clauses may be rendered, redder than wine, whiter than milk; but though whiteness recommends teeth, yet not redness the eyes; wherefore some by transposing the first letters of the word for “red”, make it to signify black, as it does with the Arabs, and that colour of the eye is reckoned beautiful.

Adam Clarke
Gen 50:2
The physicians – ropheim, the healers, those whose business it was to heal or restore the body from sickness by the administration of proper medicines; and when death took place, to heal or preserve it from dissolution by embalming, and thus give it a sort of immortality or everlasting duration. The original word chanat, which we translate to embalm, has undoubtedly the same meaning with the Arabic hanata, which also signifies to embalm, or to preserve from putrefaction by the application of spices, etc., and hence hantat, an embalmer. The word is used to express the reddening of leather; and probably the ideal meaning may be something analogous to our tanning, which consists in removing the moisture, and closing up the pores so as to render them impervious to wet. This probably is the grand principle in embalming; and whatever effects this, will preserve flesh as perfectly as skin. Who can doubt that a human muscle, undergoing the same process of tanning as the hide of an ox, would not become equally incorruptible? I have seen a part of the muscle of a human thigh, that, having come into contact with some tanning matter, either in the coffin or in the grave, was in a state of perfect soundness, when the rest of the body had been long reduced to earth; and it exhibited the appearance of a thick piece of well tanned leather.
In the art of embalming, the Egyptians excelled all nations in the world; with them it was a common practice. Instances of the perfection to which they carried this art may be seen in the numerous mummies, as they are called, which are found in different European cabinets, and which have been all brought from Egypt. This people not only embalmed men and women, and thus kept the bodies of their beloved relatives from the empire of corruption, but they embalmed useful animals also. I have seen the body of the Ibris thus preserved; and though the work had been done for some thousands of years, the very feathers were in complete preservation, and the color of the plumage discernible. The account of this curious process, the articles used, and the manner of applying them, I subjoin from Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, as also the manner of their mournings and funeral solemnities, which are highly illustrative of the subjects in this chapter.
“When any man of quality dies,” says Herodotus, “all the women of that family besmear their heads and faces with dirt; then, leaving the body at home, they go lamenting up and down the city with all their relations; their apparel being girt about them, and their breasts left naked. On the other hand the men, having likewise their clothes girt about them, beat themselves. These things being done, they carry the dead body to be embalmed; for which there are certain persons appointed who profess this art. These, when the body is brought to them, show to those that bring it certain models of dead persons in wood, according to any of which the deceased may be painted. One of these they say is accurately made like to one whom, in such a matter, I do not think lawful to name; (probably Osiris, one of the principal gods of Egypt, is here intended); then they show a second inferior to it, and of an easier price; and next a third, cheaper than the former, and of a very small value; which being seen, they ask them after which model the deceased shall be represented. When they have agreed upon the price they depart; and those with whom the dead corpse is left proceed to embalm it after the following manner: First of all, they with a crooked iron draw the brain out of the head through the nostrils; next, with a sharp Ethiopic stone they cut up that part of the abdomen called the ilia, and that way draw out all the bowels, which, having cleansed and washed with palm wine, they again rinse and wash with wine perfumed with pounded odors: then filling up the belly with pure myrrh and cassia grossly powdered, and all other odors except frankincense, they sew it up again. Having so done, they salt it up close with nitre seventy days, for longer they may not salt it. After this number of days are over they wash the corpse again, and then roll it up with fine linen, all besmeared with a sort of gum, commonly used by the Egyptians instead of glue. Then is the body restored to its relations, who prepare a wooden coffin for it in the shape and likeness of a man, and then put the embalmed body into it, and thus enclosed, place it in a repository in the house, setting it upright against the wall. After this manner they, with great expense, preserve their dead; whereas those who to avoid too great a charge desire a mediocrity, thus embalm them: they neither cut the belly nor pluck out the entrails, but fill it with clysters of oil of cedar injected up the anus, and then salt it the aforesaid number of days. On the last of these they press out the cedar clyster by the same way they had injected it, which has such virtue and efficacy that it brings out along with it the bowels wasted, and the nitre consumes the flesh, leaving only the skin and bones: having thus done, they restore the dead body to the relations, doing nothing more. The third way of embalming is for those of yet meaner circumstances; they with lotions wash the belly, then dry it up with salt for seventy days, and afterwards deliver it to be carried away. Nevertheless, beautiful women and ladles of quality were not delivered to be embalmed till three or four days after they had been dead;” for which Herodotus assigns a sufficient reason, however degrading to human nature: [The original should not be put into a plainer language; the abomination to which it refers being too gross]. “But if any stranger or Egyptian was either killed by a crocodile or drowned in the river, the city where he was cast up was to embalm and bury him honorably in the sacred monuments, whom no one, no, not a relation or friend, but the priests of the Nile only, might touch; because they buried one who was something more than a dead man.” – Herod. Euterpe, p. 120, ed. Gale.
Diodorus Siculus relates the funeral ceremonies of the Egyptians more distinctly and clearly, and with some very remarkable additional circumstances. “When any one among the Egyptians dies,” says he, “all his relations and friends, putting dirt upon their heads, go lamenting about the city, till such time as the body shall be buried: in the meantime, they abstain from baths and wine, and all kinds of delicate meats; neither do they, during that time, wear any costly apparel. The manner of their burials is threefold: one very costly, a second sort less chargeable, and a third very mean. In the first, they say, there is spent a talent of silver; in the second, twenty minae; but in the last there is very little expense. ‘Those who have the care of ordering the body are such as have been taught that art by their ancestors. These, showing each kind of burial, ask them after what manner they will have the body prepared. When they have agreed upon the manner, they deliver the body to such as are usually appointed for this office. First, he who has the name of scribe, laying it upon the ground, marks about the flank on the left side how much is to be cut away; then he who is called paraschistes, the cutter or dissector, with an Ethiopic stone, cuts away as much of the flesh as the law commands, and presently runs away as fast as he can; those who are present, pursuing him, cast stones at him, and curse him, hereby turning all the execrations which they imagine due to his office upon him. For whosoever offers violence, wounds, or does any kind of injury to a body of the same nature with himself, they think him worthy of hatred: but those who are taricheutae, the embalmers, they esteem worthy of honor and respect; for they are familiar with their priests, and go into the temples as holy men, without any prohibition. As soon as they come to embalm the dissected body, one of them thrusts his hand through the wound into the abdomen, and draws forth all the bowels but the heart and kidneys, which another washes and cleanses with wine made of palms and aromatic odors. Lastly, having washed the body, they anoint it with oil of cedar and other things for about thirty days, and afterwards with myrrh, cinnamon, and other such like matters, which have not only a power to preserve it a long time, but also give it a sweet smell; after which they deliver it to the kindred in such manner that every member remains whole and entire, and no part of it changed, but the beauty and shape of the face seem just as they were before; and the person may be known, even the eyebrows and eyelids remaining as they were at first. By this means many of the Egyptians, keeping the dead bodies of their ancestors in magnificent houses, so perfectly see the true visage and countenance of those that died many ages before they themselves were born, that in viewing the proportions of every one of them, and the lineaments of their faces, they take as much delight as if they were still living among them. Moreover, the friends and nearest relations of the deceased, for the greater pomp of the solemnity, acquaint the judges and the rest of their friends with the time prefixed for the funeral or day of sepulture, declaring that such a one (calling the dead by his name) is such a day to pass the lake; at which time above forty judges appear, and sit together in a semicircle, in a place prepared on the hither side of the lake, where a ship, provided beforehand by such as have the care of the business, is haled up to the shore, and steered by a pilot whom the Egyptians in their language called Charon. Hence they say Orpheus, upon seeing this ceremony while he was in Egypt, invented the fable of hell, partly imitating therein the people of Egypt, and partly adding somewhat of his own. The ship being thus brought to the lake side, before the coffin is put on board every one is at liberty by the law to accuse the dead of what he thinks him guilty. If any one proves he was a bad man, the judges give sentence that the body shall be deprived of sepulture; but in case the informer be convicted of false accusation, then he is severely punished. If no accuser appear, or the information prove false, then all the kindred of the deceased leave off mourning, and begin to set forth his praises, yet say nothing of his birth, (as the custom is among the Greeks), because the Egyptians all think themselves equally noble; but they recount how the deceased was educated from his youth and brought up to man’s estate, exalting his piety towards the gods, and justice towards men, his chastity, and other virtues wherein he excelled; and lastly pray and call upon the infernal deities ( the gods below) to receive him into the societies of the just. The common people take this from the others, and consequently all is said in his praise by a loud shout, setting forth likewise his virtues in the highest strains of commendation, as one that is to live for ever with the infernal gods. Then those that have tombs of their own inter the corpse in places appointed for that purpose; and they that have none rear up the body in its coffin against some strong wall of their house. But such as are denied sepulture on account of some crime or debt, are laid up at home without coffins; yet when it shall afterwards happen that any of their posterity grows rich, he commonly pays off the deceased person’s debts, and gets his crimes absolved, and so buries him honorably; for the Egyptians are wont to boast of their parents and ancestors that were honorably buried. It is a custom likewise among them to pawn the dead bodies of their parents to their creditors; but then those that do not redeem them fall under the greatest disgrace imaginable, and are denied burial themselves at their deaths.” – Diod. Sic. Biblioth., lib. i., cap. 91-93, edit. Bipont.

John Gill
Gen 50:3 Forty days were fulfilled for him,…. Were spent in embalming him:
for so are fulfilled the days of those that are embalmed; so long the body lay in the pickle, in ointment of cedar, myrrh and cinnamon, and other things, that it might soak and penetrate thoroughly into it: and so Diodorus Siculus (d) says, that having laid more than thirty days in such a state, it was delivered to the kindred of the deceased:
and the Egyptians mourned for him seventy days; during the time of their embalming him; for longer than seventy days the body might not lie in the pickle, as before observed, from Herodotus. According to Diodorus Siculus (e), the Egyptians used to mourn for their kings seventy two days: the account he gives is, that”upon the death of a king, all Egypt went into a common mourning, tore their garments, shut up their temples, forbid sacrifices, kept not the feasts for seventy two days, put clay upon their heads (f), girt linen clothes under their breasts; men and women, two or three hundred together, went about twice a day, singing in mournful verses the praises of the deceased; they abstained from animal food, and from wine, and all dainty things; nor did they use baths, nor ointments, nor lie in soft beds, nor dared to use venery, but, as if it was for the death of a beloved child, spent the said days in sorrow and mourning.”Now these seventy days here are either a round number for seventy two, or two are taken from them, as Quistorpius suggests, to make a difference between Jacob, and a king of theirs, who yet being the father of their viceroy, they honoured in such a manner. Jarchi accounts for the number thus, forty for embalming, and thirty for mourning; which latter was the usual time for mourning with the Jews for principal men, and which the Egyptians added to their forty of embalming; see Num_20:29.

Keil and Delitzsch
Gen 50:4-5
At the end of this period of mourning, Joseph requested “the house of Pharaoh,” i.e., the attendants upon the king, to obtain Pharaoh’s permission for him to go to Canaan and bury his father, according to his last will, in the cave prepared by him there. כָּרָה (Gen_50:5) signifies “to dig” (used, as in 2Ch_16:14, for the preparation of a tomb), not “to buy,” In the expression לִי כָּרִיתִי Jacob attributes to himself as patriarch what had really been done by Abraham (Gen 24). Joseph required the royal permission, because he wished to go beyond the border with his family and a large procession. But he did not apply directly to Pharaoh, because his deep mourning (unshaven and unadorned) prevented him from appearing in the presence of the king.

John Gill Gen 50:6 And Pharaoh said,…. To Joseph, by the courtiers that waited upon him at Joseph’s request, who having delivered it to him had this answer: go up, and bury thy father, as he made thee swear; the oath seems to be the principal thing that influenced Pharaoh to grant the request, it being a sacred thing, and not to be violated; otherwise, perhaps, he would not have chosen that Joseph should have been so long absent from him, and might have thought a grave in Egypt, and an honourable interment there, which he would have spared no cost to have given, might have done as well, or better.

Gen 50:7 And Joseph went up to bury his father,…. According to his request; having obtained leave of Pharaoh, and being desirous of paying his last respects, and doing his last office to so dear a parent, with all the honour and decency this service could be done with:
and with him went up all the servants of Pharaoh; a great number of them, some must be left to wait upon him; who these were the next words explain:
the elders of his house: his senators and counsellors, his courtiers and principal officers of state:
and all the elders of the land of Egypt; governors of provinces and cities, the chief officers, civil and military; all which was done by the orders of Pharaoh, out of respect to Joseph and his family, and to make the funeral procession grand and honourable.

Gen 50:8 And all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house,…. Joseph and his two sons, and his servants, and his eleven brethren and their sons that were grown up, and as many of his father’s domestics as could be spared attended the funeral:
only their little ones, and their flocks, and their herds, they left in the land of Goshen; there must be some servants left, though they are not mentioned, to take care of the little ones, and of the flocks and herds; and these being left behind, plainly show they intended to return again, and did not make this an excuse to get out of the land.

Gen 50:9 And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen,…. Which was done both for the sake of honour and grandeur, and for safety and defence, should they be attacked by robbers in the deserts, or opposed by the Canaanites, and be refused the use of the cave of Machpelah, and the right to it disputed:
and it was a very great company; both for quantity and quality; the attendants at this funeral were very numerous, and many of them great personages, and upon the whole was a very honourable company, as the word signifies, and made a very great figure and grand appearance:
or a very great army, consisting of chariots and horsemen fit for war; if there should be any occasion for it: and the Jews pretend that Esau came out with a large army, and met Joseph at the cave of Machpelah, and endeavoured to hinder the burial of Jacob there, where he lost his life, having his head struck off with the sword of Chushim, the son of Dan: some say it was Zepho, the grandson of Esau, with the sons of Esau, that made the disturbance there, on which a battle ensued, in which Joseph was the conqueror, and Zepho was taken captive; Gen_36:11, the Jews give us the order and manner of the above procession thus; first Joseph, next the servants of Pharaoh, or the princes, then the elders of the court of Pharaoh, then all the elders of the land of Egypt, then the whole house of Joseph, next to them the brethren of Joseph, who were followed by their eldest sons, and after them were the chariots, and last of all the horses.

Gen 50:10 And they came to the threshingfloor of Atad,…. Which was either the name of a man the owner of it, or of a place so called from the thorns and brambles which grew here, and with which the threshingfloor was surrounded, as Jarchi says, see Jdg_9:14 and it was usual to make a hedge of thorns round about a threshingfloor (o), that it might be preserved; mention is made in the Talmud (p) of the wilderness of Atad, perhaps so called from the thorns and brambles in it: Jerom says (q) it was three miles from Jericho and two from Jordan, and was in his time called Bethagla, the place of a circuit, because there they went about after the manner of mourners at the funeral of Jacob. This, according to some (r), was two hundred and forty miles from On, where Joseph was supposed to live, sixteen from Jerusalem, and forty from Hebron, where Jacob was buried: nay, Austin (s) says it was above fifty miles from that place, as affirmed by those who well knew those parts:
which is beyond Jordan; as it was to those that came out of Egypt:
and there they mourned with a great and very sore lamentation; being now entered into the country where the corpse was to be interred; and perhaps they might choose to stop here and express tokens of mourning, that the inhabitants might be apprised of their design in coming, which was not to invade them and make war upon them, only to bury their dead: this mourning seems to be made chiefly by the Egyptians, which was done in an external way, and it may be by persons brought with them for that purpose; since both the name of the place after given was from their mourning there, and the mourning of Joseph is next observed as distinct from theirs:
and he made a mourning for his father seven days; which was the time of mourning, afterwards observed by the Jews, see 1Sa_31:13, this Joseph ordered and observed after he had buried his father, as Aben Ezra says, is affirmed by their ancient Rabbins, and perhaps might be at this same place upon their return.

Gen 50:11 And when the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites,…. Who were at this time in the possession of the country where the threshingfloor of Atad was: when they
saw the mourning in the floor of Atad; for so large a company of people, and such a grand funeral procession, brought multitudes from all the neighbouring parts to see the sight; and when they observed the lamentation that was made, saw their mournful gestures and actions, and heard their doleful moan:
they said, this is a grievous mourning to the Egyptians; they concluded they must have lost some great man, to make such a lamentation for him:
wherefore the name of it was called Abelmizraim, which is beyond Jordan; they changed the name of the place, and gave it another upon this occasion, which signifies the mourning of Egypt or of the Egyptians, they being the principal persons that used the outward and more affecting tokens of mourning; though the whole company might be taken for Egyptians by the Canaanites, because they came out of Egypt.

Adam Clarke
Gen 50:15 Saw that their father was dead – This at once argues both a sense of guilt in their own consciences, and a want of confidence in their brother. They might have supposed that hitherto he had forborne to punish them merely on their father’s account; but now that he was dead, and Joseph having them completely in his power, they imagined that he would take vengeance on them for their former conduct towards him.

John Gill
Gen 50:16 And they sent a messenger unto Joseph,…. Not Bilhah, as the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, nor her sons, Dan and Naphtali, as Jarchi, grounding it on Gen_37:1 though it is not improbable that some from among themselves were deputed, who were most interested in Joseph; since it is not very likely they would commit such an affair to a stranger or to a servant; and the most proper persons to be sent on such an errand seem to be Judah and Benjamin, the latter as having had no concern in the affair of selling him, and was his own brother by father and mother’s side, and very dear to him; and the former, because he saved his life, when the rest, excepting Reuben, were for shedding his blood, and had endeared himself also to Joseph, by his tender concern both for his father and his brother Benjamin; however, they thought fit first to sound Joseph by a messenger, how he stood affected to them, before they appeared in a body in person, to whom they gave a charge, as the words may be rendered, “they commanded unto Joseph”; that is, they commanded those that were deputed by them to him:
saying, thy father did command before he died; some think, this was no better than a lie, which their fear prompted them to; and that they framed the following story, the more to work upon the mind of Joseph, and dispose it in their favour; seeing it is a question whether Jacob ever knew anything of the affair of their ill usage to Joseph; since otherwise it would have been, in all likelihood, taken notice of in his last dying words, as well as the affair of Reuben, and that of Simeon and Levi; and besides, had he been apprised of it, he knew such was the clemency and generosity of Joseph, that he had nothing to fear from him, nor could he entertain any suspicion of a malevolent disposition in him towards his brethren, or that he would ever use them ill for former offences:

Adam Clarke
Gen 50:17 The servants of the God of thy father – These words were wonderfully well chosen, and spoken in the most forcible manner to Joseph’s piety and filial affection. No wonder then that he wept when they spake to him.

Gen 50:19 Am I in the place of God? – These words may be understood either as a question, or an affirmative proposition. How should I take any farther notice of your transgression? I have passed it by, the matter lies now between God and you. Or, in the order of Divine providence I am now in God’s place; he has furnished me with means, and made me a distributor of his bounty; I will therefore not only nourish you, but also your little ones, Gen_50:21 : and therefore he spake comfortably unto them, as in Gen_45:8, telling them that he attributed the whole business to the particular providence of God rather than to any ill will or malice in them, and that, in permitting him to be brought into Egypt, God had graciously saved their lives, the life of their father, the lives of the people of Canaan, and of the Egyptians: as therefore God had honored him by making him vicegerent in the dispensations of his especial bounty towards so many people, it was impossible he should be displeased with the means by which this was brought about.

John Gill
Gen 50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me,…. That must be said and owned, that their intentions were bad; they thought to have contradicted his dreams, and made them of none effect, to have token away his life, or however to have made him a slave all his days:
but God meant it unto good; he designed good should come by it, and he brought good out of it: this shows that this action, which was sinful in itself, fell under the decree of God, or was the object of it, and that there was a concourse of providence in it; not that God was the author of sin, which neither his decree about it, nor the concourse of providence with the action as such supposes; he leaving the sinner wholly to his own will in it, and having no concern in the ataxy or disorder of it, but in the issue, through his infinite wisdom, causes it to work for good, as follows:
to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive; the nation of the Egyptians and the neighbouring nations, as the Canaanites and others, and particularly his father’s family: thus the sin of the Jews in crucifying Christ, which, notwithstanding the determinate counsel of God, they most freely performed, was what wrought about the greatest good, the salvation of men.

Gen 50:21 Now therefore, fear ye not,…. Which, is repeated to dispossess them of every fear they might entertain of him on any account whatever:
I will nourish you, and your little ones; provide food for them, and their families, not only for themselves and their sons, now grown up, but their grandchildren and even the youngest and latest of their families should share in his favours:
and he comforted them, and spake kindly to them; even “to their heart”; such things as were quite pleasing and agreeable to them, served to banish their fears, revive their spirits, and afford comfort to them. Just so God and Christ do with backsliding sinners, and would have done with his own people by his servants; see Isa_40:1.

Gen 50:22 And Joseph dwelt in Egypt, he, and his father’s house,…. Comfortably, quietly, and in great prosperity, not only he, but his brethren and their families, as long as he lived:

and Joseph lived one hundred and ten years; and all but seventeen of them in Egypt, for at that age it was when he was brought thither: thirteen years he lived in Potiphar’s house, and in prison, for he was thirty years of age when he was brought to Pharaoh, and stood before him, and fourscore years he lived in the greatest honour and prosperity that a man could well wish for.