Acts II. 14

“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words.”

[“Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem,”] whom the writer above described as strangers. Here he directs his discourse to those others, the mockers,¹²³

123 The ἐκεῖνοι, if the old text be correct, are the mockers, but these are not “the devout men out of every nation under heaven,” therefore οὕς ξένους εἶπεν ἀνωτέρω can hardly be meant to refer to the following clause, ἐνταῖθα πρὸς ἐκείνους κ. τ. λ. The omission of the text-words, and the seeming antithesis of ἀνωτέρω and ἐνταῦθα, caused a confusion which the modern text attempts to remedy by transposing τοὺς διαχλ. to the place of τούτους. “Whom the writer above called strangers, to those Peter here directs his speech, and he seems indeed to discourse with those, but corrects the mockers.” This just inverts Chrysostom’s meaning, which is clear enough from the following context. He says: “The ‘dwellers in Jerusalem’ are especially the devout men out of every nation mentioned above, and to instruct these (τούτους) is the real aim of the discourse, which however is addressed in the first instance to the others (ἐκείνους), whose mockery gave occasion to it. St. Peter stands up apparently for the purpose of defending himself and his brethren: but this is in fact quite a secondary object, and the apology becomes a sermon of doctrine.”

124 Καὶ τὸ ἐν ῾Ι. οἰκεῖν. Below he explains ἄνδρες ᾽Ιουδαῖοι to mean, “dwellers in Judea:” therefore the καὶ seems to mean, “to be not only such, but dwellers in Jerusalem also.”

125 Here our leading ms. after οὐ γαρ ὡς ὑμεῖς, has ἀποπληροῦται, φησὶ, καὶ ὑπολαμβάνεται ὅτι μεθύουσιν. “For not as ye.”—It is fulfilled (he says) and it is supposed that they are drunken!” which may have been said by Chrys., but certainly not in this place.

126 There is no reason to doubt that the company who witnessed the scenes at Pentecost really supposed the Christians to be intoxicated. To this opinion they were, of course, the more readily inclined because of their prejudice against the new sect. The force of Peter’s refutation of the charge of drunkenness: “Seeing it is but the third hour, etc.,” lies partly in the fact that 9 a.m. was too early for any such general intoxication, and still more in the fact that the third hour was the first hour of prayer, at which time it would have been sacrilege to drink to excess.—G.B.S.

127 Here the innovator, again mistaking his author’s meaning, as if it were—Peter did not say, “These are not drunk,” but what he did say was, “They speak by the Spirit”—finds it necessary to add, Καὶ οὐχ ἁπλῶς, And not merely so, but, etc.

Then he goes on with the prophecy, which has in it also something terrible. “And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs” [“in the earth beneath”]. (v. 19.) In these words he speaks both of the judgment to come, and of the taking of Jerusalem. “Blood and fire, and vapor of smoke.” Observe how he describes the capture. “The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood.” (v. 20.) This results from the (διαθέσεως) internal affection of the sufferers. It is said, indeed, that many such phenomena actually did occur in the sky, as Josephus attests. At the same time the Apostle strikes fear into them, by reminding them of the darkness which had lately occurred, and leading them to expect things to come. “Before that great and notable day of the Lord come.” For be not confident, he means to say, because at present you sin with impunity. For these things are the prelude of a certain great and dreadful day. Do you see how he made their souls to quake and melt within them, and turned their laughter into pleading for acquittal?¹²⁸

128 ἀπολογίαν, as in 2 Cor. vii. 11. “Yea, what clearing of yourselves.”

Well, let us look over again what has been said. It is well managed, that as against men laughing and mocking, he starts up and begins with, “Be this known unto you all and hearken unto my words.” But he begins by saying, “Ye men of Judea.” By the expression ᾽Ιουδαἵοι, I take him to mean those that lived in Judea.—And, if you please, let us compare those expressions in the Gospel, that you may learn what a sudden change has taken place in Peter. “A damsel,” it is written, “came out unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus of Nazareth.” And, says he, “I know not the Man.” And being again questioned, “he began to curse and to swear.” (Matt. xxvi. 69–72.) But see here his boldness, and his great freedom of speech.—He did not praise those who had said, “We do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God;” but by his severity towards those others, he made these more earnest, and at the same time his address is clear from all appearance of adulation. And it is well to remark, on all occasions, however the Apostles may condescend to the level of their hearers (συγκατάβασις), their language is clear from all appearance both of adulation and of insolence: which is a difficult point to manage.

Now that these things should have occurred at “the third hour,” was not without cause. For¹²⁹

129 i.e. The brightness of the miraculous fire appears at a time when there would be many to see it, people not being engaged in their works, nor within their houses at their noontide meal. Œcumenius evidently had the old text before him, for he gives the same sense with the slightest verbal alterations. In the Catena the sense is altered by omission of the negatives. “When people are about their work, when about their dinner,” etc. The innovator (followed by Edd.) makes it “For when the brightness of the light is shown, then men are not occupied in the business of dinner (οὐ περὶ ἔργα…τὰ περὶ ἄριστον), then the day is cheerful (φαιδρὰ, the brisk and stirring time of day), then all are in the market.” By τὸ λαμπρὸν τοῦ φῶτος he seems to mean bright daylight.

130 Here, after εἰς δευτέραν, C. has ᾽Ολδὰν (marg. γρ. καὶ Λοβνὰν. οἷον Δεβ. καὶ Λοβνάν. B. after Δεβ. καὶ ᾽Ολδὰν adds ἢ Λοβνάν) It does not appear who is meant by this Lobna, unless it originates in some strange misconception of 2 Kings xxiii. 31, “daughter of Jeremiah of Libnah,” LXX. Θ. ῾Ι. ἐκ Λοβνά. Clem. Alex. Str. i. §. 136. has no such name in his list of Old Testament prophetesses.

131 Edd. “For it was not expedient, because this also was obscure. I will show, etc. For it frightened them more, being obscure. But if he had interpreted, it would even have offended them more.”

132 What follows in the edited text is obscure and perplexed. The original text seems to labor under some defects, besides the omission of the passages commented upon.

133 Something seems wanting here: e.g. as above, “There were signs in heaven, as Josephus relates. This however, in the full sense, has never been fulfilled.” And then, a reference to the Babylonian compared with the Roman judgment.

134 First blood, i.e. the taking and slaughter of the inhabitants: then, fire, etc., i.e. the burning of the city.

135 As B. has this sentence, which is in fact necessary to the sense, the omission of it in C. A. may be referred to the homœoteleuton, ἐλεύθερος.

136 καὶ (=καίπερ, or εἰ καὶ?) φοβερὸν τὸ τῆς κολάσεως. i.e. he alleviates the severity of his discourse by speaking of the effects of faith, at the same time that he shows the fearfulness of the punishment. Edd. καὶ οὐ φοβ. κρύπτων τὸ τῆς κολάσεως, i.e. light…and not fearful, by withdrawing out of sight what relates to the punishment: which however Ben. renders as if it were οὐ τὸ φοβ. And not concealing the fearfulness, etc.”

What, I pray you, is this you say? Do you talk of salvation for them after the Cross? Bear with me a little. Great is the mercy of God. And this very fact does, no less than the resurrection, prove him to be God, yea, no less than His miracles—the fact that He calls these to Him. For surpassing goodness is, above all things, peculiarly God’s own. Therefore also He says, “None is good save one, that is, God.” (Luke xviii. 19.) Only let us not take this goodness for an occasion of negligence. For He also punishes as God. In fact, the very punishments here spoken of, He brought them to pass, even He who said, “Every one who shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be saved.” I speak of the fate of Jerusalem;¹³⁷

137 It is extremely doubtful if Peter understood by “the great and terrible day of the Lord” (20) the destruction of Jerusalem. (Chrys.) It probably refers to the Parousia which is thought of as imminent. The “last days” then would be the days preceding the Messianic age which is to begin at the Parousia. This view harmonizes with the Jewish conception and with the Christian expectation that the then existing period (αἴων οὕτος) was soon to pass into a new age (αἰ& 241·ν μέλλων). The scenes of Pentecost were thought to be the harbingers of this consummation and were so significant both of the joys and woes of the impending crisis, that the bold imagery of the prophet Joel is applied to them. Cf. the prophetic terms in which the destruction of Jerusalem is foretold—an event closely associated with the personal return of our Lord in Matt. xxiv.—G.B.S.

138 ὡς ὅταν λέγῃ ἐν τῷ ἀμπελῶνι πέμπειν τὰ στρατεύματα αὐτοῦ. Chrys. is misreported here, for the sending forth of the armies belongs to the parable of the marriage of the king’s son.

139 Something must have been omitted here: viz. a brief exposition of the parable here referred to. The innovator endeavors to mend the text, by leaving out the following sentence.

140 ῟Ων οὐδὲν ὠμότερον γέγονεν, ἀγαπητοὶ, τῶν τότε πεπραγμένων πραγμάτων. This may be explained as a negligent construction, but perhaps some words are omitted. The next sentence, Καὶ αὐτὸς ἀπεφήνατο (which phrase is repeated below), refers to Matt. xxiv. 21. “There shall be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world to this time.”

141 ᾽Οβεγίσκοις (dagger-blades, or spear-heads, or spits) αὐτοὺς διέπειραν. In Hom. vi. p. 43. infra, we have the phrase τίνες ὀβελίσκοι πεπυρωμένοι διέπειραν σῶμα. It is evident that something is omitted, and no more probable supposition presents itself, than that Chrys. here read out from Josephus or Eusebius the description of the famine among the besieged (which the reporter of the sermon omitted at the time, intending to insert it at his leisure); and that the short sentence in the text is the preacher’s own parenthetical explanation of some part of the description. Thus, B. J. vi. 3. 3. speaking of the cruelties practised upon dying wretches suspected of having food concealed about their persons, Josephus says: ᾽Αλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἐκπνέοντας οἱ λῄσται διηρεύνων, μήτις ὑπὸ κόλπον ἔχων τροφὴν σκήπτοιτο τὸν θάνατον αὑτῷ. Perhaps ὀβελίσκοις αὐτοὺς διέπειραν is C.’s comment upon διηρεύνων.—Or, in like manner, it may refer to the description in B. J. v. 12. 3. how the λῃσταὶ, after ransacking the bodies of the dead, tried the edges of their swords upon them, etc. Τάς τε ἀκμὰς τῶν ξιφῶν ἐδοκιμάζον ἐν τοῖς πτώμασι, καί τινας τῶν ἐρριμμένων ἔτι ζῶντας διήλαυνον ἐπὶ πείρᾳ τοῦ σιδήρου. Perhaps, however, the expression may be taken in a metaphorical sense as in the phrase above cited: “they pierced themselves (ἑαυτοὺς for αὐτοὺς) as with spits or lancets.”

142 Against the Marcionites, he says: You say that the God of the Old Testament is a cruel God; whereas Christ, the good God, is all mildness. Yet was not the Roman judgment upon the Jews inflicted by Him? And was it not beyond comparison more ruthless (ὠμότερον, above) than the Babylonian or any former judgment, inflicted, as you say, by the God of the Old Testament?

143 Πῶς οὖν φατὲ φησίν, i.e. as it is said in the text, “Every one that calleth on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The question is the same as was put in the beginning of this section: “What? do you speak of salvation for them after crucifying the Lord? And this, when you have shown us how fearfully that sin was visited?” This question, as a very simple one, he leaves the hearers to answer for themselves, by distinguishing between believers and unbelievers, the penitent and the hardened.—The innovator quite alters the sense; “How then say some that Christ remitted them their sin?” which makes the next sentence idle.

144 Πλὴν ὅταν κἀκεῖνος εἰς ἐκείνην μεταστῇ τὴν τάξιν The meaning is obscure: for it may be either, that he is displaced from office (μεταστῆναι, μετάστασις are common in this sense), and makes one of the στασιάζοντες; or, that he lays aside the magistrate and demeans himself to take part in their excesses. (Τάξις is the expression for the attendants of any high official, and may perhaps be taken in that sense here). Erasmus goes wide of the text: nec exultant eo quod et ille ad hoc opus ordinatus est: and so Montf. nec exultantes quod ille ad hoc officium sit constitutus.

145 μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν, omitted in the modern text.

146 Hom. in Matt. lxxi. p. 699. C. Chrys. describes κενοδοξία (vainglory) in almsgiving, as the thief that runs away with the treasure laid up in heaven. And something of this sort seems to have been in his thoughts here, where however his meaning is evidently very imperfectly expressed. The texts cited show that ἐκεῖ, ἐκεῖθεν, refer to something more than, as above, good laws and government in general; for here he speaks of the Gospel discipline of the inner man. “Where this restraint is, no dissipation of our temporal or spiritual wealth has place: for God, as common Father, has raised a wall to keep out all robbers both seen and unseen, from all our possessions: from the former He guards us, by law and good government; from the latter, by the Gospel prohibition of all vainglory: “Take heed that ye do not your alms,” etc.

147 Μανθάνει ψυχὴ ἐντεῦθεν, opp. to ἐκεῖθεν as in the following sentences: ἐκεῖθεν σωφροσύνην μανθάνει, ἐντεῦθεν ἀκολασίαν—& 157·κ. ἐπιείκειαν, ἐντ. τῦφον—& 157·κ. κοσμίοτητα, ἐντ. ἀσχημοσύνην. Therefore either something is wanting: e.g. πλεονεξίαν· ἐκεῖθεν, or for ἐντ. we must read ἐκεῖθεν.

148 The old text καὶ ἐβούλετο ἐκεῖνος ὁ ἀναλίσκων καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπραγίαν μικρὰν ὁρᾷν τρὸς τὴν ἐκεῖνου, evidently requires correction, and the emendation assumed in the translation is, καὶ ἐβ. ἐκεῖνος εἶναι (ὁ ἀναλ. may perhaps be rejected as a gloss) καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπρ. μ. ὁρῶν π. τ. ἐκείνου. Thus the whole passage, from καὶ ὁ μὲν ἰδιωτὴς, refers to the ἰδ. or person feasted, and ἐκεῖνος throughout is the entertainer. The edited text has: ᾽Εκεῖνος δὲ ὁ ἀναλ. καὶ τὴν οἰκείαν εὐπρ. μικρὰν ὁρᾷν ἐδόκει π. τ. ἐκείνου: of which Erasm. makes, Ille autem qui sumptus impendit et suam felicitatem parvam cum ea quam ex sumptu habebat conspicere putabat. But even if this sense lay in the words, it is not easy to see the connection of the following sentence, Διὰ τοῦτο, etc., Montf. translates, Qui vero sumptus fecit, suam præ illius felicitate parvam putabat, as if ἐκεῖνος and ἐκείνου in the same sentence referred to two different and contrasted persons. The meaning of the passage is, As, on the day before, the entertainer had τὸ πλέον τῆς εὐθυμίας, it is but fair that on the following day τὸ πλέον τῆς ἀθυμίας should be transferred to him. This is expressed by Διὰ τοῦτο τῇ ὑστ. ἀντιδιδόασιν: which however, Erasmus renders, Ideireo sequenti die reddunt sibi vestes iterum: Montf. redduntur vestes. (Perhaps there is an allusion to the legal phrase ἀντίδοσις. v. Isocrat. περὶ ἀντιδ).

Now if in worldly matters, amusements are attended with such dissatisfaction, while disagreeable things are so beneficial, much more does this hold in things spiritual. Why is it that no one quarrels with the laws, but on the contrary all account that matter a common benefit? For indeed not strangers from some other quarter, nor enemies of those for whom the laws are made, came and made these orders, but the citizens themselves, their patrons, their benefactors: and this very thing, the making of laws, is a token of beneficence and good-will. And yet the laws are full of punishment and restraint, and there is no such thing as law without penalty and coercion. Then is it not unreasonable, that while the expositors of those laws are called deliverers, benefactors, and patrons, we are considered troublesome and vexatious if we speak of the laws of God? When we discourse about hell, then we bring forward those laws: just as in the affairs of the world, people urge the laws of murder, highway robbery, and the like, so do we the penal laws: laws, which not man enacted, but the Only-Begotten Son of God Himself. Let him that hath no mercy, He says, be punished (Matt. xviii. 23); for such is the import of the parable. Let him that remembereth injuries, pay the last penalty. Let him that is angry without cause, be cast into the fire. Let him that reviles, receive his due in hell. If you think these laws which you hear strange, be not amazed. For if Christ was not intended to make new laws, why did He come? Those other laws are manifest to us; we know that the murderer and adulterer ought to be punished. If then we were meant only to be told the same things over again, where was the need of a heavenly Teacher? Therefore He does not say, Let the adulterer be punished, but, whoso looketh on with unchaste eyes. And where, and when, the man will receive punishment, He there tells us. And not in fine public monuments, nor yet somewhere out of sight,¹⁴⁹

149 Εἰς ἀναθήματα οὐδὲ εἰς κρύβδην. The modern text has εἰς ἄξονας οὐδὲ εἰς, κύρβεις, alluding to the peculiar form of tables on which the laws of Athens were written. On critical grounds we retain the reading of the old text, which, as being the more difficult one, is not likely to have been substituted for the other. Οὐκ εἰς ἀναθήματα; “not on public monuments for display.” Laws of an Emperor, for instance, engraved on handsome monuments, may be called ἀναθήματα Οὐδὲ εἰς κρύβδην, (also an unusual expression), ‘nor yet where no one would see them.’

E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH