14 touton: Edd. ton euaggelisthn: and below from E. alone, "alla monon otiephgeiran ton basilea, not speaking ambitiously, and making Paul illustrious, but only (saying) that they stirred up the king." But he does not say it, and his not saying it is the very thing which Chrys. commends: all' ora touton ou filotimwj legonta, oude lampron deiknunta ton. The "'Ephgeiran gar," fhsin, "ton basilea." The fhsin here is put hypothetically, "as if he had said," or "when he might have said." The sentence, however, requires something to complete it. such as we have added in the translation.
15 'All' (N. enedra) epoiei ton prwton xronon, kai muria hdikhkwj, ouden hgeito ikanon, k. t. l. So all our mss. except E. If enedra be not corrupt, it seems to be used in a sense unknown to the Lexicons.-Edd. from E. "Therefore it is that he so pillories (sthliteuwn) his former life, and brands (stizwn) himself repeatedly, and thinks nothing enough," etc.
16 Hom. xxv. in 2 Cor. p. 615. Hom. v. de Laud. S. Pauli, t. ii. 501.
17 Hom. xxvi. in 2 Cor. p. 617, B.
18 Mallon de kai pro toutou, kai en oij ou kata gnwsin epoiei, ouk (B. oude, A. om. anqrwpinw kinoumenoj logismw diepratteto. i.e. "Even as a persecutor, he was not swayed by common worldly considerations." The mod. t. (Edd.) perverts the Author's meaning: "- nay even before this. For in the things, etc. he was moved by man's reasoning to act as he did."
1 St. Chrysostom's exposition cannot be correctly reported here. Perhaps what he did say, was in substance as follows: "but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus: whence we learn, that the plot against him at Damascus was after his return from Arabia, and then the visit (to Jerusalem), after the escape from Damascus. Certainly of his own accord he went not to the Apostles," etc.-(So far. the first hypothesis, viz. that the visit, Acts ix. and the visit in Gal. are one and the same. Then) "or else, Paul does not mean this visit (viz. after the flight from Damascus), but passes it by, so that the order (in his narration) is as follows: I went to Arabia, then to Damascus, then viz., at some time during the residence in Damascus, to Jerusalem (to see Peter), then to Syria, i.e. back to Damascus: whereas, had he related matters fully, it should have been, that he went into Arabia, thence to Damascus, then to Jerusalem to see Peter, thence to Damascus again, then again to Jerusalem after the escape from D., thence to Caeaesarea."
2 For h ei mh tonto, E. gives (as emendation) eita palin, and ekeiqen, for apo 'Arabiaj, but retains the h ei mh touto of the preceding clause, which equally needs correction.
3 E. F. D. Edd. "As not being a teacher, but a disciple:" the reading of A. b.c. N. is attested by Cat. OeEc. but below it is said that he joined himself to the disciples, ate maqhthn onta, Infra, note 1, p. 135.
4 Here should begin the alternative to the former hypothesis (beginning h toinun tonto fhsin) perhaps, with h ei mh tonto. Cat, has aphlqon, hlqon, which we adopt, as the mention of Syria shows that the narrative in Gal. 1. 17-21, is referred to; the subject therefore of legei, afihsin is Paul, and tanthn means the visit in Acts ix. The next sentence, for h ei mh tonto palin k. t. l. requires to be remodelled as above, e. g. deon legein oti ec Arabiaj eij Dam. npostreyaj, anhlqen eij Ierosolnma, eita eij Dam. aphlqe palin, eita palin eij Ieroj., eita ecepemfqh eij Kaisareian. The reporter, or redactor, seems to have intended a recital of St. Paul's movements before as well as after his conversion; viz. (from Tarsus) he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent (by the high-priest) to Damascus: then (after his conversion) went into Arabia (the mad. substitutes, Syria): then returned to Damascus: then (omitting all the rest) to Coesarea.-In the Comment. on Gal. i. t. x. 675, D. Chrys. expounds thus: "Whereas he says, `I went not up,0' this also may be said, that he went not up at the outset of his preaching, and, when he did, it was not for the purpose of learning."
5 The incredulity of the Christians at Jerusalem concerning the genuineness of Saul's conversion is difficult to understand, especially since they must have heard of the miraculous manner of it. It can, however, more readily be conceived of if, as we suppose, the three years absence from the city had intervened, and during this period, Saul had been unheard of. The impression might have gone abroad that he had fallen back into his old Jewish life. Certainly the persecution which the Christians at Jerusalem had suffered at his hands would incline them to be incredulous concerning his conversion, unless there were positive proof of it. When it is said (27) that Barnabas brought Paul "to the apostles" in Jerusalem, we must hold this statement subject to the modification made in Paul's own statement (Gal. i. 18) that during this visit he saw, of the aposties, only Peter and James, the Lord's brother. These may have been the only apostles then in the city, for Paul's stay was but for fifteen days. The purpose of this visit was to see Peter (Gal. i. 18).-G. B. S.
6 A. b.c. ekelno. Barnabaj de anqrwpoj epieikhj kai hmeroj hn: kaiora k. t. l. Cat. ekei. Barnabaj anqrwpoj epieikhj hn: kai ora. The epithet hmeroj, "tamed," was felt to be unsuitable to Barnabas, hence Cat. omits it, Oec. substitutes (from below) kai xrhstoj sfodra. The mod. t. transposes the clause to the comment on v. 27. The fact seems to be, that Barnabaj de is out of its place, and that anqr. kai hm. is a description of Saul's present bearing contrasted with his former character: and that the sentence should begin with ekeino, somewhat in this way: on gar hn ontwj prosdokiaj anqrwpinhsj. 'Ekeino e.g. to qhrion, that raging wild-beast, now was a man, mild and gentle.-Below, all the mss. have ate maqhthn onta, which is not easily reconciled with the former passage (note c). There it is represented, that he assayed to join himself to the disciples as being a teacher, and not a disciple; here, that he did this as being a disciple, and dia to metriazein. Oec, combines this with the former statement: "he went not to the Apostles, but assayed," etc., metriazwn, ate did. wn, kai on maq., where Henten. renders modeste de se sentiens "quum tamen" praceptor esset et non discipulus: rather, forbearing to put himself forward as he might have done, seeing he was himself a teacher, etc. The Catena has the dia to netriazein after apionta, and again after onta. Hence the true reading may be, kai ora anton ou proj t. ap apionta, alla proj touj maqhtaj oux ate maqhthn onta, alla dia to metriazeln.
7 A. b.c. (and Cat.) give the text, "But Barnabas-in the way," continuously, and then the comments all strung together. Also the clause "it is likely-about him" is placed last, after gorgoj hn o anhr. This expression (Cat. adds gar) may denote either the quick, keen glance of Paul's eye, or the terror with which he was regarded-"to them the man had a terrible look with him."-The modern text: "`But Barnabas-in the way.0' This Barnabas was a mild and gentle sort of man. `Son of Consolation0' is the meaning of his name: whence also he became a friend to Paul. And that he was exceedingly kind and accessible, is proved both from the matter in hand, and from the affair of John. Whence he is not afraid, but relates `how he had seen,0' etc.-`in the name of the Lord Jesus.0' For it is likely, etc. Wherefore also tauta ekeinwn kataskeuastika poiwn, dia twn ergwn ebebaiwse ta lexqenta." In the original text it is simply Tauta ekeinwn kataskeuastika, kai dia twn ergwn ebebaiwse ta lexqenta, which being put before v. 28, would mean, that the conduct of Paul "in Damascus," the pwj eparrhj., evidenced the truth of what he said, about the Lord's appearing to him in the way. Hence in the mad. text: "wherefore Barnabas making the latter prove the former, confirmed by (Paul's) deeds the things told of him." (But Ben., Ideo hoec ad illa proeparant, dum ille operbus dicta confirmat. Erasm., Idea et hoec preparatoria facit operibus confirmans ea quoe dicta erant.) We have transposed the clause, as comment on v. 28.
8 This and the next clause are transposed in the mss. so that ep autwn would mean "in the case of the brethren."
9 The reason given in v. 30 for Paul's leaving Jerusalem is, that he was in danger of being slain by his opponents; that assigned by himself in xxii. 17, 18 is a revelation of the Lord given to him when in a trance in the temple, warning him that Jerusalem would not receive his message, and charging him to go unto the Gentiles. The two explanations have a common element in the opposition of the Jews and Hellenists at Jerusalem to Paul and their rejection of his message. "Paul, notwithstanding the opposition and machinations of the Jews, may have felt desirous to remain: he had a warm heart toward his brethren according to the flesh; he was eager for their conversion; and it required a revelation from Christ himself to cause him to comply with the importunity of his friends and to depart. Luke mentions the external reason; Paul the internal motive." (Gloag.)-G. B. S.
10 A. b.c. of N. T. and vulg. Hieron. have the singular throughout; and so Cat. in 1. Edd. from E. the plural throughout: our other mss.; oikodomouenoi and poreuomenoi (F. D. perisseuomenoi), "they being edified" etc., in apposition with 'Ekklhsia.
11 i.e. `If Paul had remained there would not have been peace and quiet.0' It is doubtful, as the text stands, whether the subject to hdounto is, the Jewish believers, or, the adversaries: and katefronoun, hgriainon seem inconsistent as predicated of the same persons. Perhaps what Chrys. said is not fully reported, and the text may be completed thus: (comp. p. 304,) "there is no war from without, nor disturbance within. For the Jewish believers respected the Apostles, as having often stood by them, and the unbelievers durst not attack them as being had in admiration by the people: but as for Paul, the one party-viz. the zealous Jewish believers, `the profound Hebrews,0' despised him, while the others-viz. the unbelievers were more savage against him." Edd. (from E. alone). "And why, you may ask, does he this, and `passes through0' when there is peace, and after Paul's departure, i.e. why does Peter delay his journey until Paul is gone, and all is quiet? Because them they most respected, as having," etc.
12 Kai enqa oikonomia: enqa de, k. t. l. It does not appear what oikonomia can be intended, unless it be the order taken for the appointment of the deacons, but this was the act of all the Apostles, vi. 2. Hence perhaps the reading should be: enqa de oikonomia, kai enqa. ..."But where management (or regulation) only is concerned, and where all is peace," etc.
13 eipou (hpou, B (en tacei parergou touto htoun (hn, C.), prohgoumenwj de ouk eti, maqhtpia gar hn. A. b.c. Cat. But Edd. wste deicai oti en k. t. l. and maqhtria gar hn, before prohg. Oecum, en tacei gar par. touto htoun, maq. gar hn, omitting. prohg. de ouketi-"If the place had not been near, they would not have made the request: for it was asking him to put himself out of his way, to do this over and above, and not in the regular course."-This is a hint to the hearers that they should show the like forbearance and discretion, in not giving their Bishop unnecessary trouble.
14 9Oraj elehmosunhj posh ginetai protroph. Edd. from E,, "Thus is here fulfilled the saying, `Alms delivereth from death. And all the widows,0'" etc. Below, for Eij thn oikian eishei o IIetroj wj filosofwn: ora de posh h epidosij gegonen: the same have, "Where she was laid out dead, they take Peter, taxa oiomenoi proj filosofian autw ti xarizesqai, perhaps thinking to give him a subject for elevated thought. Seest thou," etc.-The meaning seems to be, "Peter went to see the dead body, expecting no miracle, but only as one who could bear such sights, and would teach others to do so: but see what a mighty additional boon came of it:"
15 In the mss. Kai krathsaj, fhsi, thj xeiroj. #Ora (E. Edd. 'Entauqa deiknusi). kata meroj k. t. l. But the passage cited is from Luke viii. 52, kai krathsaj thj xeiroj authj, efwnhse k. t.l. to which, and probably to the ekbalwn ecw pantaj there preceding, St. Chrys. here referred.
16 Edd. from E. oj kai dia touto ekrine dielqein, epeidh thj autou didaskaliaj edeonto oi pisteusantej. "Who also for this reason judged it right to make this circuit, because those who had believed needed his instruction."
17 The modern text: "He calls by the name of `disciples0' even those who were not included in the company of the twelve (Apostles), because they were all called disciples," etc.
18 Here the modern text has: "And the Churches had peace, being edified, and walking in the fear of the Lord:" i.e. they increased, and (had peace), peace as it is in itself, the true peace, eirhnhn authn dhpou proj eauthn, thn ontwj eirhnhn." (The singular h 'Ekkl. being altered to the plural, the reterence in proj eauthn was not perceived.) "With good reason. For the war from without exceedingly afflicted them. `And were filled with the consolation of the Holy Ghost.0'" See p. 136, note 3.
19 Something must be supplied: e. g. "He did not wait for Eneas to ask, or to show his faith," as above, p. 301.-Edd. from E. "`And it came to pass-maketh thee whole.0' It is not the word of one making a display, but of confidence that the thing shall be. And it does very much seem to me, that the sick man believed this word, and was made whole. That Peter is unassuming, is clear from what follows. For he said not, In the Name of Jesus, but rather as a miracle he narrates it. `And they that dwelt at Lydda saw, and turned unto the Lord.0' It was not for nothing that I said, that the miracles were wrought in order to persuade and comfort. `But in Joppa-and died.0' Do you mark the miracles everywhere taking place? It is not merely said, etc. Wherefore also they do not call Peter until she was dead. 'And having heard, (that Peter was there) the disciples sent," etc.
20 'All' wj shmeion mallon auto (autoj B.) dihgeitai kai euaggelizetai: "he speaks not in the form of command or promise, but of narration: he relates it, Evangelist-like, as a fact."
21 #Ora pwj diakaqairetai ta pragmata (omitted in E. D. F. Edd.): i.e. how the Gospel has purged away all excess of mourning, and all noisy demonstrations of grief. St. Chrys. frequently inveighs against the heathenish customs of mourning for the dead, which were still practised-such as the hiring of heathen mourning-women: Hom. in Matt. xxxi. p. 207. A. "I confess to you, I am ashamed when I see the troops of women tearing their hair, gashing their flesh, as they move through the market-and this under the very eyes of the heathen." Conc. in Laz. v. t. i. p. 765 D. where the Christian mode of interment is described; viz. the procession of clergy with psalms and hymns of praise, lighted tapers, etc. comp. Hom. iv. in Heb. (if. 15.)
22 #Enqa gar dakrua, mallon de enqa qaumata, ou dei dakrua pareinai: enqa toiouton musthrion teleitai. It seems, he was going to say, "Where tears are, it is no fit time for miracles," but corrects himself, for put in that way the proposition was not true. The innovator weakly substitutes, "For where tears are, such a mystery ought not to be performed: or rather, where miracles are, there tears ought not to be."
23 The rest of the Hom. is given in the Florilegium or Eclogoe, in t. xii. ecl. xlv.-the only instance in which these Homilies have been employed in that compilation. Its author used the old text: it does not appear that any of his various readings were derived from the modern text.
24 epi twn eudokimwn: i.e. those who are certainly not reprobates (ouk adokimwn). In the next sentence, E. Edd. kai ti proj se, anqrwpe\ su gar oude epi twn eudok. touto poieij. Ben. Et quid hoc ad te, o homo? tu enim erga probos hoc non agis. Erasm. tu enint neque apud probatissimos hoc agis. The other mss. and Ecl. ti oun <\=85_oti.
25 #Otan de anakaloumenoj rhmata leghj kai sunhqeian kai prostasian, so mss. and Edd. but Ecl. anakaloumenou, which we adopt. To the same purport, but more fully, Hom. xii. in 1 Cor. p. 392. (and Ecl. xlv.) "If when some (friend) were taken into the palace and crowned, thou shouldest bewail and lament, I should not call thee the friend of him that is crowned, but very much his hater and enemy. `But now, say you, I do not bewail him, but myself.0' But neither is this the part of a friend, that for thine own sake thou wouldest have him still in the contest, etc. `But I know not where he is gone.0' How knowest thou not, answer me? For whether he lived rightly or otherwise, it is plain where he will go. `Why, this is the very reason why I do bewail-because he departed a sinner.0' This is mere pretence. If this were the reason of thy lamenting him that is gone, thou oughtest while he was alive to have amended him, and formed his manners," etc.
26 Ei gar Paulsj eteron hlehse, kai di allouj allwn (Ecl. allon) efeisato, pollw mallon hmaj touto dei poiein. But E. Edd. Ei dia IIaulon eterouj dieswse, kai di allouj allwn feidetai, pwj ouxi kai di hmaj to auto touto ergasetai; "If (God) for Paul's sake saved others, and for some men's sake spares other men, how shall He not for our sakes do this same thing?" In Hom. xli. in 1 Cor. p. 393. B. Chrys, uses for illustration Job's sacrifice for his sons, and adds, "For God is wont to grant favors to others in behalf of others, eteroij uper eterwn xarizesqai. And this Paul showed, saying, #Ina en pollw proswpw, k. t. l. 2 Cor. i. 11." But here the reference seems to be to 2 Cor. ii. 10, "To whom ye forgive anything, I forgive also; for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, `for your sakes0' forgave I it in the person of Christ."-St. Chrysostom constantly teaches, as here, that the souls of the departed are aided by the prayers, alms. and Eucharistic oblations of the living, Hom. xli. in x Cor. u. s. "Even if he did depart a sinner, ...we ought to succor him, in such sort as may be (wj an oion te h), not by tears, but by prayers and supplications, and alms and oblations. For not idly have these things been devised, nor to no purpose do we make mention of the departed in the Divine Mysteries, and for them draw near, beseeching the Lamb Which lieth there, Which taketh away the sins of the world, but in order that some consolation may thence come to them. Nor in vain does he that stands beside the altar, while the dread Mysteries are celebrating, cry out, "For all that sleep in Christ, and for them that make the memorials for them.'" See also Hom. iii. ad Phil. p. 217, 218. Comp. St. Cyrill. Hier. Catech. Mystag. v. §9, St. Augustin, Serm. 172.
27 eulabh gunaika kai qugatrion agagesqai semnon. A. b.c. In the Edd. kai qug. semnon, is transposed alter mh ploutounta uion katalipein all' eulabh: and so in the Ecl. which however retains ag, between qug. and semnon. In the old text, wife and daughter are mentioned first, as the persons most apt to perform these offices of religion: in agagesqai there is a zeugma; "to take to wife, and to have wife and daughter. etc."
28 Hom. iii. in Phil. ad fin. Ouk eikh tauta enomoqethqh uto twn apostolwn k. t. l. "Not idly were these things enacted by the Apostles, that in the dread mysteries there is mention made of the departed: they know that to them great is the gain which accrues, great the benefit. For when the whole congregation stands there, all lifting up their hands, the sacerdotal body (plhrwma ieratikon), and the dread sacrifice is laid out, how shall we fail to prevail with God, in supplicating for these?"
29 Ti oiei to uper marturwn prosferesqai, to klhqhnai en ekeinh th wra kan marturej wsi, kan (kai A. uper marturwn; There is no reason to suppose (as Neander, Der Helige Johannes Chrysostomus, t. ii. p. 162) that the words k. t. l. are part of the Liturgy: the meaning is, Think what a great thing it is to be mentioned in that Prayer of Oblation; to be mentioned as the martyrs are mentioned, for of them also, martyrs though they be, the same form of expression is used. uper marturwn.-In the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom the words are, !Eti prosferomen soi thn logikhn tauthn latreian uper twn en pistei anapauomenwn propatorwn, paterwn, patriarxwn, profhtwn, apostolwn, khrukwn, euaggelistwn, marturwn k. t. l. See St. Augustin, Hom. on St John, p. 842, note a.
30 i.e. not to intercede on their behalf, but for commemoration of Christ's victory over death, achieved in Himself and in them. The Eucharist is, so to say, Christ's epinikia, in which the Martyrs are eulogized as sharers of His triumph (and this is our commemoration of truth), and the prisoners are set at liberty (and in this sense we name our dead).
1 The conversion of Cornelius marks an important step in the progress of the gospel. Hitherto Christianity had been confined to Jews, Hellenists, and that mixed people-the Samaritans (unless, as is improbable, the Ethiopian chamberlain formed an exception). Now a beginning was made of receiving the Gentiles, and in connection with that apostle to whom Christ had committed a certain leadership and privilege of opening the doors to the Kingdom (ch. Acts xv. 7). The narrative is one of the important notices in the N. T. concerning the gradual realization of Christ's command to make disciples of all nations, and shows, so far as it relates to Peter, with how great difficulty the most enlightened of the early Christians conceived of Christianity becoming free from the forms of Judaism. Cornelius was doubtless a Roman who had become dissatisfied with the idolatrous religion of his people and who had been attracted by the influences of the Jewish religion to the worship of the true God. There is no evidence, however, that he was a proselyte to the Jewish religion. He could not have failed to hear of Jesus and his disciples. Probably Philip, the deacon, was at this time residing in Caesarea and Peter had been preaching and working miracles in the neighboring towns. It is not unlikely that the vision which he had. appealed to thoughts and convictions concerning the gospel which had been growing stronger in his own mind. To the vision of Cornelius, that of Peter forms the complement. They symbolize the great facts that while God in his providence was preparing his apostles for the larger truth of Christianity for the world, he was also preparing the Gentile world for the reception of the gospel. It is noticeable that the three centurions who appear in the N. T. are favorably mentioned. Matt. viii. 10; Matt. xxviii. 54, and this passage).-G. B. S.
2 kai to, mhde kairou kalountoj. As above xix. p. 120, note 2, Chrys. remarks, that there was no festival which required the presence of the eunuch at Jerusalem. Probably he was led to this by the circumstance, that the incident of the eunuch occurs after the Martyrdom of St. Stephen and the Conversion of St. Paul, i.e. according to the Church Calendar, between the 26th of December and the 25th of January.
3 "Speira and cohors in Polyb. differ. The Greeks call the cohort loxoj, it contained about five hundred men. Polyb. vi. kai men meroj ekaston ekalese kai tagma kai speiran kai shmeion. Casaubon: Ac singulas partes appellant ordnem, manipulum, signum." Downe ap. Sav.
4 alla proj eutelh. The innovator (E. Edd.) having made Chrys. say above, Hom. xx. §1, that Ananias was a man of note, here alters the text to: "But the Lord Himself appears: neither does He send him to some one of the Twelve, but to Ananias." Below kai ouk autouj pempei proj auton: meaning, it seems, Cornelius and his hour. The same hand substitutes (for explanation of the plural, autwn th asqeneia), "as He did Philip to the eunuch, condescending to their infirmity." And in the following sentence; "Since Christ Himself is often seen going to them that are ill, and in their own persons unable to come to Him."
5 The clause outoj lalhsei soi ti se dei poiein is not recognized by Chrys., nor by the leading authorities. See infra, p. 145, note 6.
6 ti estin ekstasij. Because the word also, and more commonly, means the being beside one's self, amazed, or stupefied by excess of grief, Chrys. explains that it denotes the being rapt out of the bodily consciousness: it was not that Peter was out of his mind, but his soul out at the body. (St. Augustin, Serm. 266, §6, "orantis mens alienate est: sed ab infimis ad superua; non ut deviaret, sed ut videret.") Comp. Exp. in Psa. 115. t. v. p. 312, D. "In Gen. ii. 21. the ekstasij which fell upon Adam denotes a kind of insensibility, for ekst. means to ecw eautou genesqai: and in Acts x. 10 it denotes karon tina kai to ecw aisqhsewj genesqai: and everywhere ekstasij implies this. It comes, either by the act of God: or because the excess of calamity causes a kind of stupor, karoj. For calamity likewise is wont to occasion ekst. and karoj." Didymus (or some other author) in the Catena: "They that have chosen to be disciples of frantic women, I mean, they of Phrygia (the Montanists), affirm that the Prophets, when possessed by the Holy Ghost, were not in a condition to be strictly cognizant of their own thoughts, being borne away from themselves at the instant of prophesying. And they think to confirm their error by this Scripture, which says, that Peter ecestakenai. But let these silly ones, these indeed frantic persons, know that this is a word of many significations. It denotes the amazement of wonder: and the being wrapt above sensible objects, led on to spiritual things: and the being beside one's self (parakoptein)-which is not be said either of Peter, or of the Prophets. Nay Peter, in his trance, was strictly cognizant. so as to report what he had seen and heard, and to be sensible of what the things shown were symbolical. The same is to be said of all the Prophets-that their consciousness kept pace with the things presented to their view." Comp. on this subject, S. Epiphan. adv. Hoeres. Montan. 2. osa gar oi profhtai eirhkasi meta sunesewj parakolouqountej efqeggonto. Euseb. H. E. v. 17. relates that Miltiades wrote a treatise peri tou mh dein profhthn en ekstasei lalain. See also S. Heironym, Proef, in Esai. "Neque vero ut Montanus cum insanis foemnis somniat, prophetoe in ecstasi locuti sunt, ut nescirent quid loquerentur, et cum alios erudirent, ipsi ignorarent quid dicerent." Id. Proem. in Nahum. Proef. in Abac. and, on the difference between the heathen mantij and the divinely inspired Prophet, St. Chrysost. Hom. xxix. in 1 Cor. p. 259, C. touto gar mantewj idion, to ecesthkenai k. t. l. and Expos. in Psa. xliv. p. 161. C.-The clause tessarsin arxaij dedemenon, before skeuoj ti, (A. b.c.) agrees wth the Lat. of S. Hilar. p. 750. "exquatuor principiis ligatum vas quoddam," etc.
7 St. Chrysostom's exposition, as we gather it from this and the following Homily, seems to be in substance as follows: St. Peter was not ignorant of nor averse to, the counsel of God in respect of the free admission of the Gentiles. He did not need instruction on this point for himself, and the vision was not so much intended for his instruction or assurance, as for reproof to the Jewish believers who were not yet enlightened in this mystery. (Even the token which was given in the descent of the Holy Ghost on Cornelius before baptism, was for them, not for him.) He needed but a command to act upon it without hesitation. But because this would certainly be regarded as a flagrant offence by the weaker brethren, for their sakes this symbolical lesson is given: and the circumstances are so contrived (oikonomeitai) as to silence their objections. It is so ordered, that the matter of accusation is put by them in this form, "Thou didst go in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." Had they said, "Thou didst baptize such," St. Peter could not have alleged that he did it reluctantly: but to the charge of unclean eating he had his answer: "I did object; I said, not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean," etc. This carried with it his exculpation from the whole matter of offence: for they would apply it thus-"he baptized these Gentiles, but not without objecting to the command; not until his reluctance was overruled," though in fact St. Peter had no such reluctance.
8 Touto panu autoij prosistato (B. and Sav. marg. paristato) Erasm. Et hoc illis valde frequens erat. Ben. Et illis admodum cordi erat. But Ham. xxiv. 2. ina mh prosth (prossth) autoij, Ben. remarks that prosistasqai in the sense "offendere" is frequent in St. Chrysostom. It properly applies to food against which the stomach rises: "to raise the gorge, to be nauseous, disgusting, offensive." See Field Annotat. in Hom. ad Matt. p. 319. B.-Touto, i.e. the going in to men uncircumcised, and eating with them. Comp. Hom. li. in Matt. p. 317. (Am. ed.) "Such was the strict observance in respect of meats, that, even after the Resurrection, Peter said, `Not so, Lord,0' etc. For though `he said this for the sake of others, and so as to leave himself a justification against those who should accuse him, and that he may show that he did object,0' (oti kai anteipon), and for all this, the point was not conceded to him, still it shows how much was made of this matter."
9 Here besides the clause, "this was done thrice," something is wanting: e.g. "And observe how Peter relates the matter, and justifies himself," viz. in xi. 8, "I said," saith he, "Not so, Lord, for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered my mouth." Here for eipon, B. has eipen, which is adopted by the modern text, in which the whole passage is refashioned thus: "Since then they would all accuse him as a transgressor, and this was altogether offensive to them, of necessity it is managed (oikon.) that he says, "I never ate:" not being himself afraid, God forbid! but, as I said, being managed (oikonomoumenoj) by the Spirit, that he may have a justification to those accusing him, namely, that he did object: for they made a great point of keeping the Law. He was sent to the Gentiles: therefore, that these also may not have to accuse him, as I said before, these things are contrived, or also, that it may not seem to be a fancy, `he said, Not so, Lord,0'" etc.
10 Peter's vision fitly represents the divine lesson concerning the destination of the gospel and the manner of its progress. None of the apostles doubted that Christianity was for the Gentiles: the great question was, whether it was to be preached to them through the medium of Judaism. Should it still be held within Jewish forms? Should circumcision and observance of the Mosaic law be required? This was a great practical question in the days of transition from Judaism to Christianity. Later Paul became the champion of the idea that it was to be cut loose from the Jewish system. Peter and James came but slowly to this idea. The destruction of Jerusalem and the fall of the Jewish state brought the question to a decisive settlement. Apart from this, however, the Pauline type of teaching on this point constantly gained ground and influence. The vision of Peter takes its place in the gradual development of the idea that Christianity was free from the law-an idea on which he seems after this to have held a somewhat uncertain and vacillating position, so that Paul "resisted him to the face" for his declining to eat with the Gentiles at Antioch on account of the presence of certain delegates from Jerusalem-a practice in which he had, before their coming, engaged (Gal. ii. 11, Gal. ii. 12). It is not strange that perplexing questions arose concerning the relations of the new system to the old at this time. The general line of procedure was settled by the apostolic conference at Jerusalem (Acts xv., Gal. i., Gal. ii) and was substantially determined by the apostle Paul. While as matter of fact, the Church has always followed the lead of Paul in this matter, the most diverse views still prevail among Christians as to the relation, theoretically considered, of Christianity to Judaism and the Old Testament Scriptures.-G. B. S.
11 St. Chrys. seems here to be controverting a different exposition. He will not allow that the vision was meant for instruction to St. Peter, as if he were in ignorance up to this time of the counsel of God concerning the Gentiles. Let it not be said, that like as God did tempt Abraham, so He was putting Peter to the proof whether he would obey the call to the Gentiles, as if Peter understood the vision in that sense. Had he so understood the command, "Kill and eat," he would not have objected; for he could not be either ignorant or unwilling. But he did not so understand it, and his objection was solely to the matter of eating. And as he needed not the lesson (it was intended for others): so neither did God need to learn his willingness. When God tempts, or proves, it is not to learn something that He did not know before; as, when Christ said to Philip, "Whence shall we buy bread that these may eat? this He said tempting, or, proving him, for He Himself knew what He would do." He put that question to Philip that he might the more admire the greatness of the miracle which he was about to work. (see note 2.) But nothing of the kind can be said here: the case is not parallel: the command to baptize the Gentiles would not surprise Peter: he expected no less from the beginning.-His objection, then, was to the thing itself, the command, "kill and eat." And no wonder, for the same Lord had in the Law strictly commanded to distinguish between clean and unclean, while there in the sheet were animals of all sorts indiscriminately.
12 Hom. xlii. in Ev. Joann. §2. "What meaneth, Tempting, or, proving him? was He ignorant what would be said by him? This cannot be said, ...We may learn the meaning from the Old Testament. For there also it is said, After these things God did tempt Abraham, etc, He did not say this in order to learn by the proof whether he would obey or not-how should it be so? for He knoweth all things before they come into existence: but on both occasions it is spoken after the manner of men. As, when it is said, He searcheth the hearts of men, it indicates the search, not of ignorance, but of perfect knowledge; so when it is said, He tempted, tried, or proved, it means no other than that He perfectly knew.-Or, it may mean, that He made the person more approved: as Abraham there, so Philip by this question, leading him into the sure knowledge of the sign:" i.e. bringing more home to his mind the greatness of the miracle, by leading him in the first place to estimate the utter inadequacy of the means.
13 Either this refers to the clause, "This was done thrice," etc., which should be inserted; or, the connection may be-This very circumstance of the clean and unclean being to gether in the sheet (as in the Ark), might have led him to an apprehension of the thing symbolized, viz., that he was not commanded to "kill and eat" the unclean with the clean (by the same Lord who of old had commanded a distinction of meats), but that the time was come to baptize all nations without respect of persons. But, obvious as it may seem. St. Peter was still ignorant what it meant: as the Writer adds, And while Peter was at a loss to know what the vision should mean, etc.-In E. (Edd.) the whole passage from "that this is thrice done, denotes baptism," is refashioned thus: "`Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten aught common or unclean.0' And why, it may be asked, did he object? That none may say that God was tempting him, as in the case of Abraham, when he was ordered to offer up his son as a sacrifice: as in the case of Philip, when he was asked by Christ, How many loaves have ye? not that he may learn, did He so ask, but proving him. And yet in the Law Moses had distinctly enjoined concerning clean and unclean, both of land and sea; and yet for all this he knew not."
14 The letters a, b, c, d, denote the order of the parts in the old text. But C, has the formula of recapitulation, both in the beginning of (a), and again in (d), before the verse, "And the Angel said," etc.: E. D. F. Edd. retain it only in the latter place.
15 'All' ora posh asfaleia, i.e. how it is made infallibly certain, that it was the purpose of God to admit the Gentiles without circumcision. It might indeed be inserted in (b), after sundiaitatai: "he has no scruples-but mark the greatness of the assurance he has received." In the modern text, the connection is, "He called them in, and lodged them. See what security: (Qea posh asfaleia) in order that they should take no harm, he calls them in, and thenceforth without scruple," etc. i.e. "how sure he feels that he is doing right in receiving them: with what assuredness of mind he does this." But Say. "See what security for them, in order that they should take no harm."
16 Dia touto panta ginetai, A. b.c. N. Cat. But Edd. Dio kai ep autw panta omou oikonomeitai: "wherefore both in his person at once all the circumstances are providentially ordered, and" etc.
17 Here after the clause, outwj eautw proseixen (meaning, as afterwards explained, that he did not notice the Angel until he spoke), A. b.c. have, Legei de o aggeloj k. t. l. Edd. 'All' idwmen anwqen ta eirhmena. Kai eipen o aggeloj k. t. l.
18 The old text: "And thy prayers, saith he. So far," etc. Edd. "And send for Simon, who is called Peter. So far, etc."
19 The text is defective here. He seems to be commenting upon the variations of the different narratives: viz. the writer himself v. 6. mentions only the command to send for Peter. (p. 142, note 4.) The messengers v. 22 add, "And to hear words of thee." Cornelius, v. 32, "who, when he cometh, shall speak unto thee." St. Peter 11, 14, "who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." "On the other hand," he says, "neither does Peter, though he is more full on this point, relate all that the Angel said, but gives only the substance." See the comment on 11, 14.
20 The modern text, omitting this clause, and the comment, inserts the rest of the verse, "Peter went up," etc.: and has below, But that Peter may not be in perplexity too long, he hears a voice saying, "Rise, Peter, kill and eat." But the meaning is, The Spirit caused the vision to take place when they were near the city, that Peter might not be too long in doubt: as above, on the same clause, "Observe how the Spirit connects the times," etc.
21 It was remarked above, that St. Chrysostom's exposition proceeds upon the assumption, that St. Peter did not need the Instruction for himself. Here the reporter has not fully expressed his meaning: which should be to this effect. "Since it had been said at the outset to Peter and the other Apostles, `Go not into the way of the Gentiles,0' though after the Resurrection they were commanded to `baptize all nations,0' it is no marvel that the less enlightened brethren needed some strong assurance on this behalf. And if at a later time, we find Paul, to conciliate the Jewish believers, causing Timothy to be circumcised and himself offering sacrifice, much more was some condescension to their infirmity needed now."-Didymus in the Catena puts the question, "How was it that Peter needed a revelation in the matter of Cornelius, when the Lord after his Resurrection had expressly ordered to `baptize all the nations?0' or how came it that the Apostles in Jerusalem, having heard of the affair of Cornelius, disputed with Peter?" To which he answers: "Peter did undoubtedly need the revelation; for he knew not that the distinction of circumcision and uncircumcision was to cease: knew not for certain that the Lord meant the Gentiles to be baptized apart from the visible worship under the Law, unlil the Lord manifested this mystery to him, convincing him both by the emblem of the sheet, and by the faith and grace of the Holy Spirit given to the Gentiles, that in Christ Jesus there is no distinction of Jew and Greek: of which thing because the Apostles at Jerusalem were ignorant, therefore they contended with Peter, until they also learnt the hidden riches of God's mercy over all mankind." St. Cyril, Alex., also, c. Julian. (ibid.) explains, that "Peter was fain to dwell in the Jewish customs, and, in a manner, was loath to go on to the better, because he was overawed by the types: therefore he is corrected by this vision."
22 E. D. F. Edd. omit this clause, see note x: and A. B. for oude <\=85_edecato have ouden <\=85_edeicato, which is evidently corrupt. "Neither did he at once receive these Gentiles: not until the Spirit expressly commanded him."
23 So Cat. and the mss. except E., which has ou touj geitonaj hrwtwn, and so Oecumen. But the meaning seems to be, that not expecting to find so mean a house, and thinking they might have come wrong, they asked below, in the street, i.e. inquired of the neighbors.
24 Here Edd. from E. have, "Wherefore did he not receive them immediately, but asks this question?" but D. F. insert it as above, #Ora pwj ouk euqewj autouj edecato, with the addition, alla punqanetai. In the next sentence: A. b.c. Cat. eiden stratiwthn, eiden anqrwpon: i.e. Saw a soldier, saw him, as he would have seen any common man, without fear. For this, D. F. have eide stratiwtaj anqrwpouj. E. Edd. eide stratiwtaj ontaj touj epistantaj.-Below, for kai zhthsaj A. b.c. Cat. which the other mss. omit, we correct, on ezhthsan.
25 In the old text, the last words of the citation, v. 22. eij ton oikon autou. the rest being lost, are joined on to ina cenish: Cat. eij ton oikon autouj. Edd. from E. D. F. "But why do they say, `Sends for thee into his house?0' Because he had given them this order. And perhaps also, by way of apology, they as good as say, Do not find fault (mhden katagnwj:) not as of contempt has he sent, etc." In A. b.c. Cat. mh katafronhshj, for which Sav. marg. has wj an eipoien, mh katafr., is corrupt: perhaps it should be mh nomishj, oti katefronhse se: oux wj k. t. l.
26 'all' (A. kai) ekei parontoj autou hkousan an (A. tauta akouein). We read, parontej, and conjecture the meaning to be, But they being there present, would have heard from Cornelius an account of all that had happened to him. Edd. from E. D. F. !Allwj de kai ekei parontej mallon autou hkousan an. "And besides by being there present they would the more hear him (Peter)," what he had to say.
27 Here Edd. from E. have, "Wherefore did he not receive them immediately, but asks this question?" but D. F. insert it as above, #Ora pwj ouk euqewj autouj edecato, with the addition, alla punqanetai. In the next sentence: A. b.c. Cat. eiden stratiwthn, eiden anqrwpon: i.e. Saw a soldier, saw him, as he would have seen any common man, without fear. For this, D. F. have eide stratiwtaj anqrwpouj. E. Edd. eide stratiwtaj ontaj touj epistantaj.-Below, for kai zhthsaj A. b.c. Cat. which the other mss. omit, we correct, on ezhthsan.
28 The modern text: "and what is greater, that he was such with all his house. So intent was he, and so set upon this, that he not only well ordered his own affairs, but also over his household (epi thj oiketeiaj) he did the same. For not as we, who," etc.
29 A. B. kai epi thj oiketeiaj de outwj. 'All' outoj oux outwj, alla meta thj oikiaj apashj. wsper gar k. t. l. C., kai epi t. oik. de ouketi kakwj, alla dikaiwj: wsper gap k. t. l. Below, the modern text has, "he feared God with all his hour, as being the common father, not only of all who were with him, but also of the soldiers under him." In the next sentence, #Ora de ti fhsin kai autoj, the meaning seems to be, "Observe what is said of him by the soldier whom Cornelius sent: `A just man, and one that feareth God:0' and then-for fearing (lest Peter should refuse to come to him, as being a Gentile) he adds this-'and well reported of by all the nation of the Jews." Edd. from E. alone: "But hear also what they say besides: for of necessity that is added, `Well reported of by all the nation,0' that none may say, What, if he was uncircumcised? Even those, saith he, give him a good report. Why then, there is nothing like alms; or rather great is the virtue of this thing, when," etc.
30 kan eij taj lampadaj (E. Edd., kaminouj) ayhtai (empesh, E. D. F. Edd.) In the next sentence, Auth h phgh k. t. l. the pronoun must be omitted.-E. D. F., Edd., "As therefore the fountain in Paradise (or, in a garden) does not give out streams," etc.
31 Kaitoige ouden ison. @An gar su tauthj k. t. l.-Edd., Ouden tauthj ison. @An su tauthj k. t. l. "Nothng like this fountain. If then," etc.-Below, #Otan analiskh, otan dapana, k. t. l. in itself, may perhaps be better referred to the giver of alms: "when (one) expend. s, when one lavishes (alms)," etc. but in that case the connection is obscure.
1 So mss. and Edd. but the clause o Qeoj touto ekeleuse might be better transferred, in the sense, "It is only in obedience to God's command that I come to you." Below, Eita ina mhdeij autw thn xarin exh (A. b.c. D. F. Cat.) epagei (om. C.) ti fhsin; (A. b.c. but Cat. for epagei ti fhsin; has, tauta fhsin:) Kai emoi k. t. l. We read, Eita epagei, Kai emoi edeicen o Qeoj (ina mhdeij autw thn xarin exh tauta fhsin) mhdena k. t. l.
2 By saying "it is not lawful," Peter does not refer to any specific command in the Mosaic law forbidding intercourse with Gentiles. The separateness of the Jewish people from the heathen world had, indeed, its basis in the Levitical system, especially in the regulations concerning ceremonial cleanness. Still the Jews had constant commercial relations with other nations. Peter here refers, no doubt, to the customary and traditional exclusiveness of his nation which had become a social as well as a religious trait, and which had been extended far beyond the purport of the Mosaic requirements, which had for their end the preservation of the truth and purity of the religion of the nation. This exclusive and jealous spirit is frequently reflected in the N. T. and contemporaneous literature. The Jewish .Christians accuse Peter (Acts xi. 3) of eating with the uncircumcised. On another occasion, the prejudices of his kinsmen and friends intimidated him and constrained him to break off his custom of associating with the Gentile Christians at meals (Gal. ii. 11 sq.). "Moses," says Josephus, "does not allow those who come to us without living according to our laws to be admitted into communion with us" (Contra Apion. ii. 29). Tacitus accuses the Jews of harboring "the bitterest animosity against all other nations" (Hist. v. 5) and Juvenal says that they will not point out the way except to those of their own religion, and that they will "conduct those only to the fountain inquired after who are circumcised" (Sat. xiv. 103). How great was the lesson then, which Peter had been taught in the vision! It is not strange that it was only gradually learned and practised.-G. B. S.
3 Kai en tisin hmeraij: so all the mss. with Cat. (en tisin hm.) and Oecum. If the text be not corrupt, Chrys. must be understood to interpret apo tetarthj hm. of the "fourth day of the week:" i.e. Cornelius had anticipated, among other pious observances, this practice also, viz. of the Wednesday fast. Otherwise, there is no intelligible connection for the following words, Dia gar touto eipen, 'Apo tetarthj hmeraj. This, he says, was an advance in piety: and then it was that the Angel appeared to him. Then he proceeds to argue, that that it is not "four days ago," for the time does not amount to that number of days: the day on which Peter arrived was not the fourth, but between that and the day on which Cornelius prayed, there are but two entire days. It seems that this must be St. Chrysostom's meaning, though it is obscured by mistakes of the scribes. b.c. auth mia hmera: kai hn hlqon mia: kai th trith efanh: wj einai deuteran meq' hn proshucato. (A. omits the passage.) E. D. F. Edd. auth mia hmera: kai hn aphlqon oi pemfqentej, mia: kai hn hlqon, mia: kai th tetarth efanh: wj einai deuteran meq' hn proshucato. Cat. and Oec. agree with E. D. F. in supplying the clause omitted in b.c., to which however they add para Kornhliou: they have also tetarth efanh, but for the last clause they read, wsei trithn wran meq' hn proshucato. But the sense intended by Chrys. should be: "This, the day (on which they left Joppa), is one day (before the day on which Cornelius is speaking): and the day on which the messengers from Cornelius came, one day; (therefore the second day before that on which Cornelius is speaking:) and on the third day (previous) the Angel appeared: so that, exclusively of the day on which Cornelius is speaking, and that on which Cornelius prayed, there are two days." This sense will be satisfied by reading, auth mia hmera: kai hn hlqon oi pemfqentej para Kornhliou, mia: kai th trith efanh: wste einai duo hmeraj meq' hn proshucato. The scribes, mistaking both the drift and the method of the calculation, supposed auth hm. to mean "the day of Peter's arrival:" but the day before that was the day on which they came away (aphlqon) from Joppa, and on the previous day the messengers arrived (hlqon), and on the day before that, which is therefore the fourth, the Angel appeared: hence they insert the words kai hn aphlqon <\=85_mia, in order to make out the calculation, i.e. to verify the day of the Vision as the fourth day before that on which Cornelius is speaking. So Cat. Oec. and. E.D.F. But b.c. retain the original reading, and only mistake the abbreviated form wste einai b hm., as if it meant "the second day," deuteran hmeran: which reading, though unintelligible, was retained by the later Editors. But what Chrys, means to say, is, that, not reckoning the day of the vision and the day of the meeting, there are two whole days: therefore the day of the vision was not "the fourth day hence;" consequently, that it means "the fourth day of the week." This hasty and ill considered interpretation of the expression apo tetarthj hmeraj, was suggested by the circumstance that the rule was to fast on the dies stationum, tetraj and prosabbaton, to "the ninth hour:" so that the practical scope of the interpretation may be of this kind: "See how this man, Gentile as he was, had forestalled our rule of discipline: he fasted on the fourth day of the week, and to the ninth hour of the day: and see how God was pleased to approve of his piety, by sending the Angel to him on that day, and at that hour. But you who know the rule, and why it is prescribed, do not obey it," etc.-On the Dies Stationum, see Tertull. de Jejun. 1. where in defence of the Montanists, who extended the fast beyond the ninth hour, (or 3 p.m.) he says: Arguunt nos quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus: ib. 10. Aeque stationes nostras ut indignas, quasdam vero et in serum constitutas, novitatis nomine incusant, hoc quoque munus et ex orbitrio obeundum esse dicentes, et non ultra nonam detinendum, suo scilicet more: i.e. the Catholics maintained, that the fast on these days ought not to be compulsory, nor to be prolonged beyond the ninth hour. Epiphan. Expos. Fid. §. 22. di olou men tou etouj h nhsteia fulattetai en th auth agia kaqolikh ekklhsia, fhmi de tetradi kai prosabbatw ewj wraj ennathj.
4 It is wholly improbable that apo tetrathj hmeraj refers to the fourth day of the week, as Chrys. supposes. The meaning is that, four days ago (reckoning from the time when he was speaking) he was praying ("observing the ninth hour of prayer") until the time of day at which he was now saying these words to Peter. There is still less ground for Chrysostom's interpretation if with Lechler, Tischendorf. and Westcott and Hort nhsteuwn be omitted from the text.-G. B. S.
5 The letters a, b, c, d, mark the order of these portions in b.c. At the end of (a) the clause, "We are present," etc. is repeated. In A the order is, a, d, the rest being omitted: in the modern text, a, d, c, b: and the text, "Now therefore are we all present," etc. between (c) and (b).-With the interpretation of dektoj comp. Severianus of Gabala in the Catena on x. 4, ouk eipen en panti eqnei o poiwn dikaiosunhn swzetai, alla dektoj estin. toutestin, acioj ginetai tou dexqhnai. And St. Chrys. Hom. viii. in 1 Cor. C. dektoj autw esti: toutesti, kalei kai epispatai auton proj thn alhqeian. Paul is cited as an instance: persecutor as he was, "yet, because he led a blameless life, and did not these things of human passion, he was both accepted and far outwent all. But if some one should say, `How is it that such an one, the Greek, kind as he is and good and humane, continues in error?0' I answer, that he has a fault of a different kind, vainglory or sluggishness of mind, or not being in earnest about his salvation, but thinking that all the circumstances of his life are mere chance-medley and haphazard. But by `him that worketh righteousness,0' Peter means, him that is blameless in all things (comp. infra p. 151.)
`How is it then,0' you will say, `that impure persons have been accounted worthy to have the Gospel preached to them (kathciwqhsan tou khrugmatoj)?0' Because they were willing and desirous. For some, even which are in error, He draws, when they become cleansed from their vices; and others coming of their own accord, He repulses not: many also have inherited their piety from their ancestors."
6 The word proswpolhmpthj-"respector of persons"-(personarum acceptor Vulg.) is a term founded upon the phrase, lambanein proswpon, an imitation of the Hebrew synp )#&nlt/
to accept the person, the presence; to have a favorable or partial regard to the outward appearance,-as opposed to synp by#&he
to turn away the face (of the petitioner) i.e. to deny him favor or acceptance (1 Kgs. ii. 16, 1 Kgs. ii. 17, 1 Kgs. ii. 20; 2 Chron. vi. 42; cf. Gen. xxxii. 21; 1 Kgs. v. i.)-G. B. S.
7 The pertinent comments of Dr. Gloag may here be fitly introduced (v. 35): "Peter is here speaking of the admissibility of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ; and he here asserts that there is no natural obstacle in the way of any one who fears God and works righteousness; that there is now no barrier such as circumcision, no external hindrance, but that all are equally acceptable to God. As Meyer well puts it, dektoj autw estin indicates the capability in relation to God to become a Christian, but not the capability to be saved without Christ; or, as Bengel observes, non indifferentssimus religionum, sed indifferenta nationum hic asseritur." (Gloag, Com. in loco).-G. B. S.
8 There is no sufficient reason for the statement of Chrys. that those to whom Peter spoke did not know Jesus. It is meant that they were acquainted with the chief facts of his life. Grammatically Ihsoun (38) must be construed as the object (resumed in another form) of umeij oidate (37). Residents in Caesarea must have heard of Jesus' teaching and miracles, during his lifetime on earth. Moreover, the apostles had taught m the neighboring cities and wrought miracles, and probably Philip had been for some little time residing and laboring in Caesarea itself (Acts viii. 40).-G. B. S.
9 'Enteuqen deiknusi pollaj phrwseij diabolikaj kai diastrofhn (B., diastrofaj) swmatoj (Cat., swmatwn) up ekeinou genomenaj. The term phrwsij here includes loss of sight, speech, hearing, palsied or withered limbs. "He shows that these are diabolical, and that they are a violent wrenching, or distortion, of the body from its proper condition, caused by him." The sense requires either diastrofaj or genomenhn. The next sentence, wsper kai o Xristoj elegen, omitted by Edd., though, except E., all the mss. and Cat. have it, may refer to such expressions as that in Luke xiii. 16. Or, it may be in its proper place after the following clause, "For God was with Him:" again, a lowly expression: just as Christ spake: "for My Father is with Me."