Commentary on Acts

Editorial comment.

I get manuscripts written by “learned men” from the 19^th century passed on to me all the time. Usually I have to wade through archaic language and inflated hyperbole to glean one or two salient points, if any exist at all. Not a job I relish too much. So this particular piece of writing sat on the side for months.

What a mistake I made. This is the finest commentary I have ever read on the book of Acts. It is a fantastic work, a superb piece of research and historical accuracy. For the past 3 days I have been reading and learning from the pen of a master “Berean”, I cannot enthuse enough about the quality and depth of understanding the author has regarding the subject. There is information regarding baptism, child baptism, the Holy Spirit, Faith, Healing and many more subjects that have not been researched as deeply as within this commentary.

I publish the whole work, with no excuses for its length or detail. The work stands on its own merit and worth.

A COMMENTARY

ON

ACTS OF APOSTLES,

WITH A

REVISED VERSION OF THE TEXT.

by
J. W. McGarvey

SEVENTH EDITION

TRANSYLVANIA PRINTING AND PUBLISHING CO.
LEXINGTON, KY.
1872.

Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1863, by

J. W. McGARVEY,

In the Clerk’s Office of the District Court of the U. S. for the Southern District of Ohio.

Transylvania Press

Introduction

Introduction

It is necessary to the successful study of any literary production, that the exact design of the author should be known and kept constantly in view. It would be doing great injustice to the author of Acts, to suppose that he undertook this work without having before him some one leading object, which should serve as the connecting thread of the narrative, and according to which all the historic details should take place and form.

The conjecture of commentators as to what this leading object is are various and somewhat conflicting. “The writer’s object,” says Dr. Hackett, “if we are to judge of it from what he has performed, must have been to furnish a summary of history of the origin, gradual increase, and extension of the Christian Church, through the instrumentality, chiefly of the Apostles Peter and Paul.”[1] This is rather a statement of what he has performed than of the object for which he performed it. The same defect attaches to Dr. Alexander’s conjecture. He says: “The book before is a special history of the planting and extension of the Church, both among Jews and Gentiles, by the gradual establishment of radiating centers, as sources of influence, at certain salient points throughout a large part of the empire, beginning at Jerusalem and ending at Rome.”[1] That the history does exhibit these facts is certainly true, but that there is behind this a design for the accomplishment of which these facts are stated, must be equally true.

The author’s design is equally misunderstood by Bloomfield, and others with him, who say that it was “to give an authentic account of the communication of the Holy Spirit, and of the miraculous powers and supernatural gifts bestowed by the Spirit,” and “to establish the full claim of the Gentiles to be admitted into the Church of Christ.”[1] It is true that the history establishes the claim of the Gentiles to admission into the Church, and also contains an account of the descent and work of the Holy Spirit, yet neither of these can be regarded as the leading thought around which the contents of the volume adjust themselves.

Mr. Barnes, in the midst of some detached statements upon this subject, has approached the true idea in the following characteristic remark: “This book is an inspired account of the character 4of true revivals of religion.”[1] But the true idea is still more nearly approached by a writer in Kitto’s Encyclopedia who says: “Perhaps we should come still closer to the truth if we were to say that the design of Luke, in writing Acts, was to supply, by select and suitable instances, an illustration of the power and working of that religion which Jesus had died to establish.”[1]

It is correctly assumed by Dr. Hackett, in the words above quoted, that we are to judge of a writer’s design by what he has performed. Bearing in mind the distinction between the work done and the design for which it is done, a slight glance at the contents of this book will reveal to us a design which has escaped the notice of all the above-named writers.

Much the greater part of Acts may be resolved into a detailed history of cases of conversion, and of unsuccessful attempts at the conversion of sinners. If we extract from it all cases of this kind, with the facts and incidents preparatory to each and immediately consequent upon it, we will have exhausted almost the entire contents of the narrative. All other matters are merely incidental. The events of the first chapter were designed to prepare the apostles for the work of converting men; the gift of the Holy Spirit to them and to others was to qualify them for it; the admission of the Gentiles was an incident connected with the conversion of Cornelius, and others after him; the conference, in the fifteenth chapter, grew out of these conversions; and the long account of Paul’s imprisonment in Jerusalem, Caesarea, and Rome, with his sea-voyage and shipwreck, constitute but the connected history of his preaching to the mob in Jerusalem, to the Sanhedrim, to Felix, to Festus, to Agrippa, and to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome. The episode in the twelfth chapter, concerning the persecutions by Herod, and his death, is designed to show that, even under such circumstances, “the word of God grew and multiplied.” All the remainder of the history consists, unmistakably, in detailed accounts of conversions.

Such being the work performed by the author, we may readily determine his design by inquiring, Why should any cases of conversion be put upon the record? Evidently, it was that men might know how conversions were effected, and in what they consisted. The cases which are recorded represent all the different grades of human society; all the different degrees of intellectual and religious culture; all the common occupations in life, and all the different countries and languages of the then known world. The design of this variety is to show the adaptation of the one gospel scheme to the conversion of all classes of men.

The history of a case of conversion, necessarily embraces two distinct classes of facts: First, the agencies and instrumentalities employed in effecting it; second, the changes effected in the individual who is the subject of it. In the pursuit of his main design, therefore, the author was led to designate specifically all these agencies, instrumentalities, and changes. He does so in order that his readers may know what agents are employed, and how they work; what instrumentalities must be used, and how they are 5applied; and what changes must take place, in order to the Scriptural conversions of a sinner.

The chief agent employed in the conversion of men is the Holy Spirit. It is this fact which led the author to detail so minutely the descent of the Holy Spirit, and the various gifts and influences by which his work was accomplished. He thus teaches the reader what part this divine agent performed in the conversion of sinners, and how he performed it.

Another important agency employed was the personal labor of the apostles and inspired evangelists. The manner in which their part of the work was performed is carefully described, in order that men of every age and country, whose business it is to perform the part corresponding to theirs, may learn, from their example, how to perform it Scripturally. But Peter and Paul were the chief laborers of that generation, and for this reason their names occupy the prominent position assigned them.

It is well known that the recital by men of the process of their conversion is well calculated both to teach sinners the process through which they must struggle in order to conversion, and to stimulate them to undertake it. Men are taught more successfully and influenced more powerfully by example than by precept. Many religious teachers of the present day, having discovered the practical workings of this principle in human nature, depend much more, in their efforts to convert sinners, upon well-told experiences than upon the direct preaching of the Word. The success which has attended this policy should admonish us that these experiences of conversion recorded in Acts are by no means to be lightly esteemed as instrumentalities for the conversion of the world. They possess, indeed, this advantage: that, in contrast with all the conversions of the present day, they were guided by infallible teaching, and were selected by infallible wisdom from among thousands of others which had occurred, because of their peculiar fitness for a place in the inspired record. They have, we may say, twice passed the scrutiny of infinite wisdom; for, first all the conversions which occurred under the preaching of inspired men were directed by the Holy Spirit; and, second, if any difference existed between those put on record and the others, the Holy Spirit, by selecting these few, decided in their favor as the best models for subsequent generations. If a sinner seek salvation according to the model of modern conversions, he may be misled; for his model is fallible at best, and may be erroneous; but if he imitate these inspired models, it is impossible for him to be misled, unless the Holy Spirit itself can mislead him. Moreover, in so far as any man’s supposed conversion does not accord with these, it must be wrong; in so far as it does accord with them, it must be right.

If it be asked why we may not as well take for our model the cases of conversion which occurred under the former dispensation, or during the life of Jesus, the answer is obvious. We do not live under the law of Moses, or the personal ministry of Jesus, but under the ministry of the Holy Spirit. Jesus, just previous to his ascension, committed the affairs of his kingdom on earth into the 6hands of twelve men, to be guided by the Holy Spirit, who descended shortly after he ascended; and now all that we can know of present terms of pardon must be learned through the teaching and example of these men. If, then, the conditions of pardon under any preceding dispensation be found to differ from those propounded in Acts, in all the points of difference the latter, and not the former, must be our guide. These are the last, and certainly the most elaborately detailed communications of the Divine will upon the subject, and belong peculiarly to the new covenant under which we live. If God has made them to differ, in any respect, from those under the old covenant, he teaches us, by this very difference, that he has thus far set aside the old through preference for the new. In the following pages it is made a leading object to ascertain the exact terms of pardon as taught by the apostles, and the precise elements which constitute real conversion to Christ.

The present is pre-eminently a missionary period of the Church. None has been more so, except the age of the apostles. Especially is it distinguished by success in the conversion of sinners in professedly Christian lands. Hence, it is a demand of the age that the true method of evangelizing the world should be known and read of all men. But the true method can be found only in the labors of inspired apostles and evangelists, and the record of these labors is found only in the book of Acts. A failure to understand and to appreciate this book has been, and still is, a most prolific source of confusion and error in the popular presentation of the gospel. But failing to discover its chief design, sinners are far more frequently directed to the Psalms of David for instruction upon the subject of conversion than to this book, which was written for this express purpose. There is, therefore, no one book in all the Bible to which the present generation of Bible readers so much need to have their attention specially directed. We have endeavored, in this volume, to set forth the labors of these inspired preachers as the true and infallible guide of the modern evangelist.

Another peculiarity of the present age is, the unlimited range given to speculations concerning the agency of the Holy Spirit in human redemption. A subject into which investigation should never have been pushed beyond the simple facts and statements of revelation, has thus become a most fruitful source of philosophical vagaries and of unbridled fanaticism. Whatever differences may appear among the many erroneous theories upon the subject, they all agree in the conception of a direct impact of the Spirit of God upon the spirit of man, by which the latter is enlightened and sanctified. This conception is not only common to them all, but it is the fundamental conception in each one of them. Under the influence of it, the more contemplative theorist receives new revelations, or “speaks as he is moved by the Holy Ghost;” the more enthusiastic calls for outpourings of the “Holy Spirit and of fire,” dances, shouts, and falls in spasms; while the transcendentalist, receiving still further measures of the Spirit, points out mistakes made by the inspired apostles, and exposes defects in the character of Jesus. 7

Among the prevailing Protestant sects, a common theory of spiritual influence serves almost as a bond of union. It sometimes makes them almost forget the conflicts of past ages, melts down the cold barrier of separating creeds, and brings hereditary enemies together, to worship, for a time, at a common shrine. It is made the standard of orthodoxy; and to him who devoutly swears by it, it serves, like charity, to cover a multitude of sins, while to him who calls it in question, and contents himself with the very words of Scripture, it is a ban of excommunication. A difference on all other subjects is tolerated, if there is agreement on this; an agreement on all other subjects can be no bond of union, if there is a difference on this. In public discourse all other topics are made subordinate, and even the preaching of Christ, which was the work of the apostles, has been supplanted by preaching the Holy Spirit.

Various as are the conclusions of these theorists, they all have a common tendency to disparage the Word of God. Precisely as a man learns to depend upon internal admonitions for his religious guidance will he feel less dependence upon the written Word. Hence it is that the masses of the people, who are under the influence of these teachings, are so deplorably ignorant of the Bible. To call back the mind of the reader from all such vagaries to the revealed facts and simple apostolic statements upon this important subject, is another leading object of the following work. We will find that the book of Acts presents, in living form and unmistakable simplicity, the work of the Holy Spirit.

Some sixteen of the twenty-eight chapters of Acts are devoted almost exclusively to the labors of the Apostle Paul. Whatever can be known of this most heroic and successful of all the apostles must not only be interesting to every reader, but also highly instructive, as an example of faith in Christ in its higher development. Some of the most interesting facts in his history, and those which throw the greatest light upon his inner life, are not recorded by Luke, but may be gathered from incidental remarks in his own epistles. In this obscure position, they must ever escape the notice of ordinary readers. It is proposed, in this volume, to give them their chronological place in the narrative, thus filling up the blanks which Luke’s design caused him to leave, and rounding out to some fullness and symmetry the portraiture of this noblest of all human subjects of Scripture biography.

We have already assumed, in accordance with the universal judgment of competent critics, that Luke is the author of Acts. For the evidences on which this judgment is based, I refer the reader to works devoted to this department of Scripture study. It appears, from his being distinguished by Paul, in Gal. iv. 11-14, from those “of the circumcision,” that he was a Gentile, but of what country is not certainly known. He was a physician by profession, and is styled by Paul “the beloved physician.”[1] This encomium, together with the fact that he shared with Paul many of the labors of his life, was his ever-present companion in his imprisonment, even his only companion in the closing scenes of his 8life;[1] and that we detect his presence or absence in the scenes of the narrative only as he used the pronoun we or they to describe the party, are circumstances which indicate a character marked by great courage and endurance, yet softened by extreme modesty and warm affections. That he was a most enthusiastic admirer of Paul is evident both from the devotion with which he clung to his side, and from the vividness with which every peculiar expression of countenance and gesture of the apostle impressed his memory. He frequently records the sweeping motion of the hand with which Paul arrested the attention of an audience, and the glance with which he fixed his eyes upon the enemies of the truth. Yet, notwithstanding this personal admiration, so just is his sense of propriety that he never pauses for a moment to express his admiration for the wonderful developments of character which he portrays. In this, however, he but imitates a distinguishing peculiarity of all the inspired writers.

The book of Acts embraces a period of about thirty years-from the ascension of Christ, a.d. 33, to the end of the second year of Paul’s imprisonment at Rome, a.d. 63. In the latter part of the year 63, or the beginning of 64, while Luke was still with Paul in Rome, it is most likely that the work was published. For the historical connection and chronology of particular events described in the work, the reader is referred to the body of the Commentary.

It was no part of my original design to undertake a revision of the English text of Acts, but I hoped that, ere this time, an improved version of the whole New Testament would be put into the hands of the public by the American Bible Union. No final revision of Acts, however, having appeared from that Society, or from any other source, up to this writing, I am constrained to content myself with such a revision of the text as I have been able to prepare during the progress of the work. I have aimed to preserve, in general, the language of the common version. Where the propriety of a change would be obvious to the reader of the Greek, or depends merely upon taste, no notes are given to justify it. In cases where a defense seemed to be needed, the reader will find it, either in the body of the work or in foot-notes. I beg the critical reader, however, to remember that the revision is designed not for general adoption, but simply for the purpose to which it is applied in this Commentary, and that, even here, it is a secondary part of the undertaking.

In the execution of the work, I have aimed to make not merely a book of reference, but a volume to be read consecutively through, with the interest which belongs to the narrative. In order to this end, I have aimed to make a prominent the author’s connection of thought throughout; and, in order to render it the more instructive, wherever the text presents important issues connected with the great religious questions of the day, I have taken time to elaborate the argument as freely as the space which I had allotted myself would admit. [8]

About the Electronic Edition

ABOUT THE ELECTRONIC EDITION.

This electronic edition of J. W. McGarvey’s A Commentary on Acts of Apostles has been transcribed from the text of the seventh edition (Lexington, KY: Transylvania Printing and Publishing Co., 1872). The commentary, without external links to Scripture references, was first published online with Dr. Hans Rollmann’s Restoration Movement Texts at Memorial University of Newfoundland.

This electronic edition is in the public domain and may be freely distributed and used for personal, non-commerical, or commerical purposes. Although no permission is required for use of this work, the editor does appreciate hearing about how it is being used to promote Bible study and to honor our Soon-Coming King.

Addenda and corrigenda are earnestly solicited.

Ernie Stefanik
373 Wilson Street
Derry, PA 15627-9770
412.694.8602
stefanik@westol.com

Created 7 June 1997.
Updated 16 October 1998

[The original edition by Ernie Stefanik was converted for use by Logos, Inc, and from there converted to ThML for use at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, http://www.ccel.org, 2003-06.]

Acts I

Bible:Acts.1.1

I: 1, 2. A NARRATIVE of Jesus of Nazareth, designed to convince men that he is the Christ, would most naturally begin with his birth and terminate with his ascension to heaven. Such was the “former narrative” which Luke had addressed to Theophilus, and he alludes to it as such in introducing his present work: (1) “The former treatise I composed, O Theophilus, concerning all that Jesus began both to do and to teach, (2) until the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up.“

This reference to his former narrative is most appropriate in its place, inasmuch as the one now undertaken is based entirely upon it. The specific reference to “the day in which, having given commandment through the Holy Spirit to the apostles whom he had chosen, he was taken up” is still more in point, from the fact that all the authority which the apostles had for the labors Luke is about to narrate was derived from the commandment given on that day. The history of that day furnishes but one commandment then given, which was the apostolic commission. In this commission, then, Luke locates the starting point of his present narrative.

If we would appreciate the narrative thus briefly introduced to us, we must begin with the author, by a proper understanding of this commission.

During the personal ministry of Jesus, he authorized no human being to announce his Messiahship. On the contrary, whenever he discovered a disposition to do so, he uniformly forbade it, and this not only to various recipients of his healing power, but to the apostles themselves. When Peter made the memorable confession, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” we are told that, at the close of the conversation, “he charged his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.”[1] Such was his uniform injunction on similar occasions. Even when Peter, James, and John had witnessed his transfiguration, and heard God himself proclaim him his Son, as they came down from the mount, “Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man is risen from the dead.”[1] 10

This stern prohibition, quite surprising to most readers of the New Testament, may be accounted for, in part, by a desire to avoid that political ferment, which, in the existing state of the public mind, might have resulted from a general belief among the Jews that he was their Messiah. But there is a much more imperative reason for it, found in the mental and moral condition of the disciples themselves. Their crude conceptions of the Messiahship, their gross misconception of the nature of the expected Kingdom, their misunderstanding of much that he had taught them, and their imperfect remembrance of that which they had understood, rendered them incapable of presenting his claims truthfully, not to say infallibly, to the world. Moreover, their faith had not, as yet, acquired the strength necessary to the endurance of privations and persecutions. While laboring under these defects, they were most wisely prohibited from preaching that he was the Christ.

During the last night he spent on earth, Jesus at length informed them that this restriction would soon be removed, and they should receive the qualifications necessary to be his witnesses. He says, “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.”[1] “I have many things to say to you, but you can not bear them now; howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all the truth.“[1] “He shall testify of me: and you also shall testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.”[1] In these words they have a promise that they shall testify of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit for their guide; but the promise looks to the future for its fulfillment.

Finally, “in the day in which he was taken up,” he gives them the commandment which is to unseal their lips, and authorizes them to preach the glad tidings to every creature. Without this commandment, they could not have dared to tell any many that he was the Christ; with it, they are authorized to begin the labors which our historian is about to narrate. But even yet there is one restriction laid upon them; for they have not yet received the promised qualifications. “He commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem; but await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me.”[1]

Such was the necessity for the commandment in question, and for the limitation which attended it when given. The items of which it is composed are not fully stated by either one of the historians, but must be collected from the partial statements of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Matthew presents three of them, as follows: “Go, disciple all nations, immersing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe and do all whatsoever I have commanded you.”[1] Mark presents five items in these words: “Go preach the gospel to every creature; he who believes and is immersed shall be saved; he who believes not shall be condemned.“[1] Luke simply states that Jesus said, “Thus it behoved 11the Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”[1] If we combine these items, by arranging them in their natural order of succession, we will have the commission fully stated.

The command quoted by Mark, “Preach the gospel to every creature,” necessarily comes first. The command, “Disciple all nations,” is next in order; for it is by means of preaching that they were to make disciples. But when a man is made a disciple he becomes a believer; and Matthew and Mark agree in the statement that he who believes, or in Matthew’s style, he who is discipled, is then to be immersed. Luke, however, says that repentance must be preached, and as repentance precedes obedience, we are compelled to unite it with faith, as antecedent to immersion. Next after immersion comes Mark’s statement, “he shall be saved.” But salvation may be either that which the pardoned sinner now enjoys, or that to be enjoyed after the resurrection from the dead: hence this term would be ambiguous but for Luke’s version of it, who quotes that “remission of sins” is to be preached. This limits the meaning of the promise to that salvation which consists in remission of sins. Next after this comes the command, “teaching them to observe and do” what I have commanded you. Finally, they were to proclaim that they who believed not, and, consequently, complied not with the terms of the commission, should be condemned. In brief, they were commanded to go into all the world, and make disciples of all nations by preaching the gospel to every creature; to immerse all penitent believers into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, promising such the remission of their sins; then teaching them all their duties and privileges, as disciples of Jesus. In the mean time, all were to be assured that he who believed not should be condemned.

Making this commission the starting point of his narrative, Luke proceeds, after a few more preliminary observations, to relate the manner in which it was executed. This is the key to the whole narrative. We will find the apostles adhering strictly to its guidance. Their actions will furnish a complete counterpart to the items of their commission, and the best exposition of its meaning. For the strongest confirmation of the brief exposition just given, we refer to the course of the narrative as set forth in the following pages.

3. As our author is about to present the apostles testifying to the resurrection of Jesus, he sees proper, in his introduction, to state briefly the ground of the qualifications for this testimony. He does this in the remainder of the paragraph of which we have already quoted a part: (3) “To whom, also, he presented himself alive, after his suffering, by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days, and speaking the things pertaining to the kingdom of God.” From the concluding chapters of the former narrative, we learn more particularly the nature and number of these infallible proofs. These, having been fully stated by himself and others, are not here 12repeated. We learn here, however, a fact not there related: that the space from the resurrection to the ascension was forty days.

4, 5. To account for the delay of the apostles in Jerusalem after receiving their commission, and to prepare the reader for the scenes of the coming Pentecost, the historian next relates a part of the conversation which had taken place on the day of the ascension: (4) “And being assembled with them, he commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father, which you have heard from me. (5) For John, indeed, immersed in water; but you shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence.” The command not to depart from Jerusalem is mistaken, by some commentators, for the commandment mentioned above, as being given on the day he was taken up. But, in truth, as we have already seen, the commission constituted that commandment, while this is merely a limitation of the commission, in reference to the time and place of beginning. The “promise of the Father” which they were to await, is the promise of the Holy Spirit, which they had heard from him on the night of the betrayal, and which they now learn, is to be fulfilled in by their immersion in the Spirit. On this use of the term immersion see the Commentary, ii. 16-18.

6-8. We are informed by Matthew that Jesus prefaced the commission by announcing, “All authority in heaven and on earth is given to me.” It was, probably, this announcement that led to the inquiry which Luke next repeats. Being informed that all authority is now given to him, the disciples expected to see him begin to exercise it in the way they had long anticipated. (6) “Now when they were come together, they asked him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel? (7) But he said to them, It is not for you to know the times or seasons which the Father has appointed in his own authority. ( But you shall receive power, when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the earth.“

The question, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” indicates two interesting facts: First, that the apostles still misconceived the nature of Christ’s kingdom; second, that the kingdom was not yet established. Both these facts deserve some attention at our hands, especially the latter.

Their misconceptions consisted in the expectation that Christ would re-establish the earthly kingdom of Israel, and restore it to its ancient glory, under its own personal reign. In his reply, the Savior does not undertake to correct this misconception, but leaves it as a part of that work of enlightenment yet to be effected by the Holy Spirit.

The time at which the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated is the point of transition from the preparatory dispensation, many elements of which were but temporary, into the present everlasting dispensation, which is to know no change, either of principles or of ordinances, in the course of time. It is necessary to determine this point in order to know what laws and ordinances of the Bible belong to the present dispensation. All things enjoined subsequent 13to this period are binding upon us as citizens of the kingdom of Christ; but nothing enjoined as duty or granted as a privilege, under former dispensations, is applicable to us, unless it is specifically extended to us. It requires no less divine authority to extend into the kingdom of Christ the institutions of the Jewish kingdom than it did to establish them at first. This proposition is self-evident. To fix, therefore, most definitely this period is a matter of transcendent importance, and must here have all the space that it requires. It is a question of fact, to be determined by positive Scripture statements.

The expression “kingdom of heaven” is used only by Matthew. In the connections where he uses this expression, the other three historians uniformly say “kingdom of God.” This fact shows that the two expressions are equivalent. Explaining the former by the latter, we conclude that the “kingdom of heaven” is not heaven, but simply a kingdom of God, without regard to locality. This kingdom is also called by Christ his own, as the Son of man; for he says, “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.“[1] The Apostle Paul also speaks of the “kingdom of God’s dear Son,”[1] and says “He must reign till he has put all enemies under his feet.”[1]

Of the kingdom of God, then, Jesus is the king; hence the time at which he became a king is the time at which “the kingdom of Christ and of God”[1] began. Furthermore, as it was Jesus, the Son of man, who was made the king, it is evident that the kingdom could not have commenced till after he became the Son of man. This consideration at once refutes the theory which dates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of Abraham.

But it is not only Jesus the Son of man, but Jesus who died, that was made king. “We see Jesus,” says Paul, “who was made a little lower than the angels, on account of the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor.”[1] It was after his death, and not during his natural life, that he was made a king. It is necessary, therefore, to reject the other theory, which locates the beginning of the kingdom in the days of John the Immerser.

Finally, it was after his resurrection and his ascension to heaven that he was made a king. For Paul says, “Being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross; wherefore, God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”[1] It is here we are to locate that glorious scene described by David and by Paul, in which God said to him, “Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.”[1] He “sat down on the right hand of the throne of God,”[1] and the Father said, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”[1] At this 14word, among the gathering and circling hosts of heaven, every knee was bowed and every tongue confessed that Jesus is “Lord of lord and King of kings.” It was then that the kingdom of God was inaugurated in heaven; and it was in immediate anticipation of it, with all things in readiness and waiting, that Jesus said to his disciples, as he was about to ascend on high, “All authority, in heaven and on earth is given to me.”

Having now fixed the time at which the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven, we are prepared to inquire when it began to be administered on earth. It began, of course, with the first administrative act on earth, and this was the sending of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. On that occasion, Peter says, “This Jesus has God raised up, whereof we are witnesses. Therefore, being to the right hand of God exalted, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has shed forth this which you now see and hear.” “Therefore, let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made that same Jesus whom you have crucified, both Lord and Christ.“[1] This event is here assumed as the proof of his exaltation, and the history shows it to be the first act of the newly-crowned King which took effect on earth. These facts are consistent with no other conclusion than that the kingdom of Christ was inaugurated on earth on the first Pentecost after his ascension.

We might assume that the above argument is conclusive, and here dismiss the subject, but for some passages of Scripture which are supposed to favor a different conclusion. It was said by Jesus, “The law and the prophets were until John; since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presses into it.”[1] Again: “Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for your neither go in yourselves, nor will you suffer those who are entering, to go in.”[1] And again: “If I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then is the kingdom of God come to you.”[1] It is argued, from these and kindred passages, that the law and the prophets ceased, as authority, with the beginning of John’s ministry; that the kingdom of heaven then began, and men were pressing into it, while Scribes and Pharisees were striving to keep them from entering it; and that Jesus recognizes it as an existing institution, in the remark, “Then is the kingdom of God come to you.“

But there are other passages in the gospels which appear to conflict with these, and are inconsistent with this conclusion. The constant preaching of John, of Jesus, and of the Seventy, was, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand;” eggike, “is near.” Jesus exclaims, “Among them who are born of women there hath not arisen a greater than John the Immerser; notwithstanding, he that is least in the kingdom is greater than he.”[1] Again: “There are some standing here who shall not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God.”[1] And, finally, the question we are now considering, “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom 15to Israel?” It is evident, from these passages, first, that John was not in the kingdom, for otherwise the least in the kingdom could not be greater than he; second, that the generation then living were yet to see the kingdom of God; third, that the disciples themselves were still looking for it in the future. If it be urged, in reference to the first of these conclusions, that the kingdom, of which John was not a citizen, is the kingdom in its future glory, the assumption is refuted by the very next verse in the context: “From the days of John the Immerser till now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.”[1] Whatever may be the true interpretation of these rather obscure words, they certainly can refer to the kingdom of glory.

Now, no hypothesis upon this subject can be accepted which does not provide for a complete reconciliation of these apparently conflicting passages of Scripture. The hypothesis that the kingdom was inaugurated by John can not do so; for, in that case, it is inconceivable that John himself was not a member of it, and equally so that he should constantly preach, “The kingdom of heaven is near.” Again: if it was inaugurated during the personal ministry of Jesus, it is unaccountable that he should state, as a startling fact, that some of those present with him should live to see it, or that the disciples themselves should be ignorant of its existence. This hypothesis, therefore, is incapable of reconciling the various statements on the subject, and must, for this reason, be dismissed.

On the other hand, if we admit, according to the irresistible force of the facts first adduced in this inquiry, that the kingdom was inaugurated in heaven when Jesus was coronated, and that it began to be formally administered on earth on the next succeeding Pentecost, there is no difficulty in fully reconciling all the passages quoted above. It was necessary to the existence of the kingdom on earth not only that the king should be upon his throne, but that he should have earthly subjects. In order, however, that men should acknowledge themselves his subjects the moment that he became their king, it was necessary that they should be previously prepared for allegiance. This preparation could be made in no other way than by inducing men, in advance, to adopt the principles involved in the government, and to acknowledge the right of the proposed ruler to become their king. This was the work of John and of Jesus. When men began, under the influence of their teaching, to undergo this preparation they were, with all propriety of speech, said to be pressing into the kingdom of God. Those who opposed them were striving to keep them from entering the kingdom; and to both parties it could be said, “The kingdom of God is come to you.” It had come to them in the influence of its principles. “From the days of John the Immerser the kingdom of heaven was preached,” not as an existing institution, but in its elementary principles, and by asserting the pretensions of the prospective king. Thus, we find that the various statements in the gospels upon this subject, when harmonized in the only way of which they are 16capable, lead us back to our former conclusion, with increased confidence in its correctness.

We may pursue the same inquiry in an indirect method, by determining when the previous kingdom of God among the Jews terminated. As they both, with their conflicting peculiarities, could not be in formal existence among the same people at the same time, the new one could not begin till the old one terminated. That the law and prophets were until John, Jesus declares; but he does not declare that they continued no longer. On the contrary, he was himself “a minister of the circumcision,”[1] and kept the law till his death. The law and the prophets were, until John, the only revelation from God. Since then the gospel of the coming kingdom was preached in addition to it, and was designed to fulfill the law and the prophets by preparing the people for a “better covenant.” Even the sacrifices of the altar, however, continued, with the sanction of Jesus, up to the very moment that he expired on the cross. Then “the vail of the temple was rent in two from the top to the bottom,” indicating the end of that dispensation. All the sacrifices being then fulfilled in him, and a new and living way being consecrated for us, not under the vail, as the high priest had gone, but through the vail-that is to say, his flesh[1] -he put an end to the priesthood of Aaron,[1] and took out of the way the handwriting of ordinances, nailing it to his cross.[1] At the death of Christ, therefore, the old kingdom came to its legal end, and on the next Pentecost the new kingdom began.

Regarding this, now, as a settled conclusion, we proceed to consider, briefly, the Savior’s answer to the question which has detained us so long. He said to them, “It is not for you to know the times or the seasons which God has appointed in his own authority.” By the expression “in his own authority,” I suppose Jesus intended to indicate that the times and seasons of God’s purposes are reserved more specially under his own sovereign control, and kept back more carefully from the knowledge of men, than the purposes themselves. It is characteristic of prophesy that it deals much more in facts and the succession of events than in definite dates and periods. The apostles were to be agents in inaugurating the kingdom, but, as proper preparation for their work did not depend upon a foreknowledge of the time, it was not important to reveal it to them.

But it was all-important that they should receive the necessary power: hence Jesus adds, “But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” The power here promised is not authority, for this he had given them in the commission; but it is that miraculous power to know all the truth, and work miracles in proof of their mission, which he had promised them before his death. He says to them, virtually, It is not for you to know the time at which I will establish my kingdom, but you shall receive power to inaugurate it on earth when the Holy Spirit comes upon you. This is an additional proof that the kingdom was inaugurated on the day of Pentecost.

While promising them the requisite power, Jesus takes occasion 17to mark out their successive fields of labor: first “in Jerusalem,” next, “in all Judea,” then “in Samaria,” and finally, “to the uttermost part of the earth.” It is not to be imagined that this arrangement of their labors was dictated by partiality for the Jews, or was merely designed to fulfill prophesy. It was rather foretold through the prophets, because there were good reasons why it should be so. One reason, suggested by the commentators generally, for beginning in Jerusalem, was the propriety of first vindicating the claims of Jesus in the same city in which he was condemned. But the controlling reason was doubtless this: the most devout portion of the Jewish people, that portion who had been most influenced by the preparatory preaching of John and of Jesus, were always collected at the great annual festivals, and hence the most successful beginning could there be made. Next to these, the inhabitants of the rural districts of Judea were best prepared, by the same influences, for the gospel; then the Samaritans, who had seen some of the miracles of Jesus; and, last of all, the Gentiles. Thus the rule of success was made their guide from place to place, and it became the custom of the apostles, even in heathen lands, to preach the gospel “first to the Jew” and “then to the Gentile.” The result fully justified the rule; for the most signal triumph of the gospel was in Judea, and the most successful approach to the Gentiles of every region was through the Jewish synagogue.

9. Having completed his brief notice of the last interview between Jesus and the disciples, Luke says, (9) “And when he had spoken these things, while they were beholding, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.” We learn from Luke’s former narrative, that it was while Jesus was in the act of blessing them, with uplifted hands, that he was parted from them and borne aloft into heaven.[1] The cloud which floated above formed a background, to render the outline of the person more distinct while in view, and to suddenly shut him off from view as he entered its bosom. Thus all the circumstances of this most fitting departure were calculated to preclude the suspicion of deception or of optical illusion.

It has been urged by some skeptical writers, that the silence of Matthew and John, in reference to the ascension, who were eye-witnesses of the scene, if it really occurred, while is mentioned only by Luke and Mark, who were not present, is ground of suspicion that the latter derived their information from impure sources. Even Olshausen acknowledges that, at one time, he was disquieted on this point, because he could not account for this peculiar difference in the course of the four historians.[1] That the testimony of Mark and Luke, however, is credible, is made apparent to all who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, by simply inquiring, what became of his body after it was raised? It was certainly raised immortal and incorruptible. There is nothing in his resurrection to distinguish it from that of Lazarus, or the widow’s son of Nain, so that he should be called “the first fruits of them who slept,”[1] but the fact that he rose to die no more. But when he was about to leave 18the earth, there was only this alternative, that his body should return again to the grave, or ascend up into heaven. So far, therefore, is the account of the ascension from being incredible, that even if none of the historians had mentioned it, we would still be constrained to conclude that, at some time, and in some manner, it did take place.

We may further observe, that though Matthew and John do not mention the ascension, the latter reports a conversation with Mary the Magdalene at the sepulcher, in which Jesus clearly intimated that it would take place. He said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.”[1] And that his ascension would be visible, he had intimated to the disciples, when he said, “Doth this offend you? What if you shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before?”[1]

But still the question recurs, why should Matthew and John omit an account of this remarkable event, and why should Like and Mark, who were not eye-witnesses, make mention of it? It would be sufficient to answer, For a similar reason, no doubt, to that which led each of these writers to omit some interesting facts which are mentioned by others.

But we may find a still more definite answer by examining the last chapter of each of the four gospels. It will be observed, that John saw fit to close his narrative with the fishing scene which occurred on the shore of Galilee, making no mention at all of the last day’s interview. Of course, it would have required a departure from, this plan to have mentioned the ascension. Matthew brings his narrative to a close with a scene on a mountain in Galilee, whereas the ascension took place from Mount Olivet, near Jerusalem. There was nothing in his closing remarks to suggest mention of the ascension, unless it be his account of the commission; but the commission was really first given to them at that time,[1] though finally repeated on the day of the ascension.[1] On the other hand, Mark and Luke both chose, for their concluding paragraphs, such a series of events as leads them to speak of the last day’s interview; and as the ascension was the closing event of the day, it would have been most unnatural for them not to mention it. Still further, in the introduction to the book of Acts, the leading events of which are to have constant reference to an ascended and glorified Redeemer, Luke felt still greater necessity for giving a formal account of the ascension.

10, 11. Not only the ascension of Jesus to heaven, but his future coming to judgment, is to be a prominent topic in the coming narrative, hence the introduction here of another fact, which not even Luke had mentioned before. (10) “And while they were gazing into heaven, as he went away, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, (11) who also said, Men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, shall so come, in the same manner that you have seen him going into heaven.” These “two men in white apparel” were, undoubtedly, angels in human form. This is the natural conclusion from the words they utter, and 19is confirmed by the fact that two others who appeared at the sepulcher, and are called “men in shining garments” by Luke,[1] are called “two angels in white” by John.[1] Luke speaks of them according to their appearance; John, according to the reality.

It should be observed that the angels stated not merely that Jesus would come again, but that he would come in like manner as they had seen him go; that is, visibly and in his glorified humanity. It is a positive announcement of a literal and visible second coming.

12. At the rebuke of the angel, the disciples withdrew their longing gaze from the cloud into which Jesus had entered, and cheered by the promise of his return, (12) “Then they returned into Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet, which was near Jerusalem, distant a Sabbath-day’s journey.” The ascension took place near Bethany,[1] which was nearly two miles from Jerusalem,[1] and on the further side of Mount Olivet. It was the nearer side of the Mount, which was distant a Sabbath-day’s journey, or seven-eighths of a mile. We learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they returned to Jerusalem “with great joy.”[1] Their sorrow at parting from the Lord was turned into joy at the hope of seeing him again.

13. “And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where were abiding Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James son of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas brother of James.” This enumeration of the apostles very appropriately finds place here, showing that all of those to whom the commission was given were at their post, ready to begin work, and waiting for the promised power from on high.

14. The manner in which these men spent the time of their waiting, which was an interval of ten days, was such as we would expect: (14) “These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.” The chief scene of this worship was not the upper room where the eleven were abiding, but the temple; for we learn, from Luke’s former narrative, that they “were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.”[1]

The mother of Jesus is here mentioned for the last time in New Testament history. The fact that she still remained with the disciples, instead of returning to Nazareth, indicates that John was faithful to the dying request of Jesus, and continued to treat her as his own mother.[1] Though the prominence here given to her name shows that she was regarded with great respect by the apostles, the manner in which Luke speaks of her shows that he had not dreamed of the worship which was yet to be offered to her by an idolatrous church.

Whether those here called the “brothers” of Jesus were the sons of Mary, or more distant relatives of Jesus, is not easily determined, from the fact that the Greek word is ambiguous. The Catholic dogma of the perpetual virginity of Mary is dependent upon the solution of this question, but it properly belongs to commentaries 20on the gospels, and to these the reader is referred for the arguments, pro and con.

15-18. We next have an account of the selection of an apostle to fill the place of Judas. There is no intimation that Jesus had authorized this procedure; on the contrary, it would be presumed that, as he himself had selected the original twelve, he would, in like manner, fill the vacancy, if he intended that it should be filled. Neither had the apostles yet received that power from on high which would enable them to act infallibly in a matter of this kind. From these considerations, it has been supposed by some that the whole procedure was both unauthorized and invalid. But the fact that Matthias was afterward “numbered with the eleven apostles,”[1] and that the whole body were from that time called “the twelve,”[1] shows that the transaction was sanctioned by the apostles even after they were fully inspired. This gave it the sanction of inspired authority, whatever may have been its origin. Moreover, Jesus had promised them that they should sit upon twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel,[1] and the fulfillment of this promise required that the number should be filled up. The Apostle Paul was not reckoned among “the twelve.” He distinguishes himself from them in 1 Cor. xv. 5, 8. “He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve,” and “he was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.”

The particular time within the ten days, at which this selection was made, is not designated. The incident is introduced in these terms: (15) “And in those days, Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of the names together was about one hundred and twenty,) (16) Brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of David, spoke before concerning Judas, who was guide to them that seized Jesus. (17) For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. (1 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity, and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.“

The parenthetical statement that the number of names together were about one hundred and twenty is not to be understood as including all who then believed on Jesus, but only those who were then and there assembled. Paul states that Jesus was seen, after his resurrection, by “above five hundred brethren at once.”[1] The hundred and twenty were, perhaps, all who were then in the city of Jerusalem.

The statement in reference to the fate of Judas is supposed by most commentators to be part of a parenthesis thrown in by Luke, though some contend that it is part of Peter’s speech.[1] If the latter supposition is true, there is no ambiguity in it to the original hearers, for they all well knew that the field referred to was purchased by the Sanhedrim with money which Judas forced upon them, and which was invested in this way because they could find no other suitable use for it.[1] Knowing this, they could but understand Peter as meaning that Judas had indirectly caused the field 21to be purchased. But whether the words are Peter’s or Luke’s, it must be admitted that a reader unacquainted with the facts in the case would be misled by them. Luke, however, presumed upon the information of his first readers, and that knowledge of the facts which they possessed has been transmitted to us by Matthew, so that we have as little difficulty as they did in discovering the true meaning of the remark.

As respects the manner of the death of Judas, the common method of reconciling Luke’s account with that of Matthew is undoubtedly correct. We must suppose them both to be true, and combine the separate statements. The whole affair stands thus: “He went out and hanged himself;”[1] and, by the breaking of either the limb on which he hung, or the cord, “falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.”

19. The next statement, (19) “And it was known to all the dwellers in Jerusalem, so that that field is called, in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, the field of blood,” is undoubtedly a parenthesis by Luke. Peter was addressing the very people in whose proper tongue the place was called Aceldama, and would not, of course, translate it to them. Hence, we can not attribute these words to him. But Luke was writing in Greek, and felt called upon to translate Hebrew words which he might use into Greek, and the fact that this is done here prove the words to be his.

20. The historian now resumes the report of Peter’s speech, which he had interrupted by the parenthesis. In the remarks already quoted, Peter bases the action which he proposes, not upon any commandment of Jesus, but upon a prophesy uttered by David. He also states, as the ground for the application of that prophesy which he is about to make, the fact that Judas had been numbered with them, and had “obtained part of this ministry.” He now quotes the prophesy alluded to: (20) “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein.[1] His office let another take.“[1]

These two passages from the Psalms, when read in their original context, seem to apply to the wicked in general, and there is not the slightest indication that David had Judas in prophetic view when he uttered them. This is an instance, therefore, of the particular application of a general prophetic sentiment. If it be proper that the habitation of a wicked man should become desolate, and that whatever office he held should be given to another, then it was pre-eminently proper that such a crime as that of Judas should be thus punished, and that so important an office as that of Judas should be filled by a worthy successor.

21, 22. It is of some moment to observe here that the question on which Peter is discoursing has not reference to the original appointment of an apostle, but to the selection of a successor to an apostle. The qualifications, therefore, are found necessary to an election, must always be possessed by one who proposes to be a successor to an apostle. He states these qualification in the next sentence: (21) “Wherefore, of these men who have accompanied us all the 22time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, (22) beginning from the immersion of John till the day he was take up from us, must one be made a witness with us of his resurrection.” There being no other instance in the New Testament of the selection of a successor to an apostle, this is our only scriptural guide upon the subject, and therefore, it is unscriptural for any man to lay claim to the office who has not been a companion of Jesus and a witness of his resurrection. The reason for confining the selection to those who had accompanied Jesus from the beginning, is because such would be the most reliable witnesses to his identity after the resurrection. One less familiar with his person would, certis paribus, be less perfectly guarded against imposition. Peter here, like Paul in 1 Cor. xv, makes the whole value of apostolic testimony depend upon ability to prove the resurrection of Jesus.

23-26. “Then they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus and Matthias. (24) And they prayed, and said, Thou Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen (25) to receive the lot of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place. (26) And they gave forth their lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles.“

It will be observed that the brethren did not themselves select Matthias; but, having first appointed two persons between whom the choice should be made, they prayed the Lord to show which one he had chosen, and then cast lots, understanding that the one upon whom the lot fell was the Lord’s choice. The reason that they did not make the selection themselves was evidently because they thought proper that the Lord, who had chosen Judas, should also choose his successor. If it be inquired why, then, they ventured to confine the Lord’s choice to these two, the most plausible answer is that suggested by Dr. Alexander, that, after careful examination of the parties present, they were the only two who possessed the qualifications named by Peter. Whether the selection of these two was made by the body of disciples, or by the apostles alone, it is unimportant to determine. The case does not, as many have supposed, furnish a precedent on the subject of popular election of church officers; for the selection of the two persons between whom an election was to be made, was not the election itself; and when the election took place, it was made by the Lord, and not by the disciples or the apostles. One of them cast or drew the lots, but the Lord determined on whom the lot should fall.

The prayer offered by the apostles on this occasion is a model of its kind. They had a single object for which they bowed before the Lord, and to the proper presentation of this they confine their words. They do not repeat a single thought, neither do they elaborate one beyond the point perspicuity. The question having reference to the spiritual as well as the historical characteristics of the two individuals, most appropriately do they address the Lord as kardiognosta, the heart-knower. They do not pray, Show which thou wilt chose, or dost choose, as though there was need of reflection with the Lord before the choice; but, “show which one of these two thou hast 23chosen.” They describe the office they desire the Lord to fill, as the “ministry and apostleship from which Judas, by transgression, fell, that he might go to his own place.” He had been in a place of which he proved himself unworthy, and they have no hesitation in referring to the fact that he had now gone to his own place. That place is, of course, the place to which hypocrites go after death. Here is a simple address to the Lord, beautifully appropriate to the petition they are about to present; then the petition itself concisely expressed, and the prayer is concluded. So brief a prayer, on any occasion in this voluble age, would scarcely be recognized as a prayer at all, so prone are men to the delusion that they will be heard for their much speaking.

Bible:Acts.2.1

II: 1. Thus far our author has been engaged in preliminary statements, which were necessary to the proper introduction of his main theme. He has furnished us a list of the eleven apostles, and the appointment of the twelfth; rehearsed briefly their qualifications as witnesses of the resurrection; informed us that they were in Jerusalem, dwelling in an upper room, but spending the most of their time in the temple, and waiting for the promised power to inaugurate on earth the kingdom of Christ. He now proceeds to give an account of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and enters upon the main theme of the narrative, (1) “When the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.“

The day of Pentecost was the fiftieth day after the Passover. It was celebrated, according to the law of Moses, by offering the first fruits of the wheat harvest, in the form of two loaves made of fine flour.[1] On account of the seven weeks intervening between it and the Passover, it is styled, in the Old Testament, “the feast of weeks.” But the fact that it occurred on the fiftieth day, gave it, in later ages, under the prevalence of the Greek language, the name of Pentecost, which is a Greek adjective meaning fiftieth.

This is one of the three annual festivals at which the law required every male Jew of the whole nation to be present.[1] The condemnation and death of Jesus had occurred during one of these feasts, and now, the next universal gathering of the devout Jews is most wisely chosen as the occasion for the vindication of his character and the beginning of his kingdom. It is the day on which the law was given on Mount Sinai, and henceforth it is to commemorate the giving of a better law, founded on better promises. It is remarkable that the day of giving the law was celebrated throughout the Jewish ages, without one word in the Old Testament to indicate that it was designed to commemorate that event. In like manner, the day of the week on which the Holy Spirit descended has been celebrated from that time till this, though no formal reason is given in the New Testament for its observance. The absence of inspired explanations, however, has not left the world in doubt upon the latter subject; for the two grand events which occurred on that day-the resurrection of Jesus and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are of such transcendent importance, that all minds at once agree in attributing to them, and especially to the former, the celebration of the day. 24

That we are right in assuming that this Pentecost occurred on the first day of the week, there is no room for doubt, though Dr. Hackett advocates a different hypothesis. After stating that the Lord was crucified on Friday, he says, “The fiftieth day, or Pentecost (beginning, of course, with the evening of Friday, the second day of the Passover) would occur on the Jewish Sabbath.” He seems to have forgotten, for the moment, that Friday was “preparation day,”[1] and that Saturday was, therefore, the first day of unleavened bread.[1] According to the law, the count began on “the morrow after” this day, which was Sunday.[1] Counting seven full weeks and one day from that time, would throw the fiftieth day, or Pentecost on Sunday, beginning at six o’clock Saturday evening, and closing at the same hour Sunday evening. As certainly as Jesus arose on Sunday, he died on Friday; and as certainly as this Friday was the preparation day of the Passover, so certainly did the Pentecost occur on Sunday.

Why Luke uses the expression, “When the day of Pentecost was fully come,” is best explained in this way. The day began with sunset, and the first part of it was night, which was unsuited for the purpose of these events. The day was not fully come until daylight.

It is important to determine who are the parties declared by Luke to be “all with one accord in one place;” for upon this depends the question whether the whole hundred and twenty disciples, or only the twelve apostles, were filled with the Holy Spirit. The words are almost uniformly referred, by commentators, to the hundred and twenty. Any who will read the first four verses of this chapter, noticing the connection of the pronoun “they,” which occurs in each of them, will see, at a glance, that it has, throughout, the same antecedent, and, therefore, all the parties said in the first verse to be together in one place, are said in the fourth to be filled with the Holy Spirit, and to speak in other tongues. The question, then, Who were filled with the Holy Spirit? depends upon the reference of the pronoun in the statement, “They were all together in one place.” Those who suppose that the whole hundred and twenty are referred to, have to go back to the fifteenth verse of the preceding chapter to find the antecedent. But, if we obliterate the unfortunate separation between the first and second chapters, and take the last verse of the former into its connection with the latter, we will find the true and obvious antecedent much nearer at hand. It would read thus: “The lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered together with the eleven apostles. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.” It is indisputable that the antecedent to they is the term apostles; and it is merely the division of the text into chapters, severing the close grammatical connection of the words, which has hid this most obvious fact from commentators and readers. The apostles alone, therefore, are said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit. This conclusion is not only evident from the context, but it is required by the very terms of the promise concerning the Holy Spirit. It 25was to the apostles alone, on the night of the betrayal, that Jesus had promised the miraculous aid of the Spirit, and to them alone he had said, on the day of ascension, “You shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit.” It involves both a perversion of the text, and a misconception of the design of the event,[1] to suppose that the immersion in the Holy Spirit was shared by the whole hundred and twenty.

2. It was the apostles, then, and they alone, who were assembled together: (2) “And suddenly there came a sound out of heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.” What house this was has been variously conjectured; but the supposition of Olshausen, that it was one of the thirty spacious rooms around the temple court, described by Josephus and called oikoi, houses, is most agreeable to all the facts. Wherever it was, the crowd described below gathered about them, and this required more space than any private house would afford, especially the upper room where the apostles had been lodging.

3, 4. Simultaneous with the sound, (3) “There appeared to them tongues, distributed, as of fire, and it sat upon each one of them. (4) And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.” This is the immersion in the Holy Spirit which had been promised by Jesus, and for which the apostles had been waiting since his ascension. It is highly important that we should understand in which it consisted, and the necessity for its occurrence.

There is not, in the New Testament, a definition of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, but we have here what is possibly better, a living instance of its occurrence. The historian gives us a distinct view of men in the act of being immersed in the Spirit, so that, in order to understand it, we have to look on, and tell what we see and hear. We see, then, flaming tongues, like flames of fire, distributed so that one rests upon each of the twelve apostles. In the clause, “it sat upon each of them,” the singular pronoun it is used after the plural tongues, to indicate that not all, but only one of the tongues sat upon each apostle, the term distributed having already suggested the contemplation of them singly. We see this, and we hear all twelve at once speaking in languages to them unknown. We see a divine power present with these men, for to no other power can we attribute these tongues. We hear the unmistakable effects of a divine power acting upon their minds; for no other power could give them an instantaneous knowledge of language which they had never studied. The immersion, therefore, consists in their being so filled with the Holy Spirit as to be attended by a miraculous physical power, and to exercise a miraculous intellectual power. If there is any other endowment conferred upon them, the historian is silent in reference to it, and we have no right to assume it. Their ability to speak in other languages is not an effect upon their tongues directly, but merely a result of the knowledge imparted to them. Neither are we to regard the nature of the sentiments uttered by them as proof of any miraculous moral 26endowment; for pious sentiments are the only kind which the Spirit of God would dictate, and they are such as these men, who had been for some time “continually in the temple, praising and blessing God,”[1] and “continuing with one consent in prayer and supplication,”[1] would be expected to utter, if they spoke in public at all.

We have already said something of the necessity of this event;[1] but, at the risk of some repetition, we must here advert to the subject again. What the apostles needed, at this point in their history, was not moral courage, or devoutness of spirit; for they had already recovered from the alarm produced by the crucifixion, and were now boldly entering the temple together every day, and spending their whole time in devout worship. Their defects were such as no degree of courage or of piety could supply. It was power that they wanted-power to remember all that Jesus had taught them; to understand the full meaning of all his words; of his death; of his resurrection; to pierce the heavens, and declare with certainty things which had transpired there; and to know the whole truth concerning the will of God and the duty of men. There is only one source from which this power could be derived, and this the Savior had promised them, when he said, “You shall receive power (dunamin,) when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.”[1] This power they now received, and upon the exercise of it depends the entire authority of apostolic teaching.

But power to establish the kingdom and to proselyte the world involved not merely the possession of the miraculous mental power above named, but the ability to prove that they did not possess it. This could best be done by an indisputable exercise of it. To exercise it, however, by merely beginning to speak the truth infallibly, would not answer the purpose, for men would inquire, How can you assure us that this which you speak is the truth? To answer this question satisfactorily, they gave such an exhibition of the superhuman knowledge which they possessed as could be tested by their hearers. They might have done this by penetrating the minds of the auditors, and declaring to them their secret thoughts or past history; but this would have addressed itself to only one individual at a time. Or they might, like the prophets of old, have foretold some future event, the occurrence of which would prove their inspiration; but this would have required some considerable lapse of time, and would not, therefore, have answered the purpose of immediate conviction. There is, indeed, but one method conceivable, by which they could exhibit this power to the immediate conviction of a multitude, and that is the method adopted on this occasion, speaking in other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. If any man doubts this, let him imagine and state, if he can, some other method. True, they might have wrought miracles of healing, but this would have been no exhibition of miraculous mental endowments. If wrought in confirmation of the claim that they were inspired, it would have proved it; still, the proof would have been indirect, requiring the minds of the audience to pass through a course of reasoning before reaching the conclusion. The proof, in this case, is direct, being an 27exhibition of the power which they claimed. By the only method, then, of which we can conceive, the apostles, as soon as they became possessed of the promised power, exhibited to the multitude an indisputable exercise of it.

It should be observed, that this exhibition could be available to its purpose only when individuals were present who understood the languages spoken. Otherwise, they would have no means of testing the reality of the miracle. Hence, to serve the purpose of proof where this circumstance did not exist, the apostles were supplied with the power of working physical miracles; and inasmuch as this circumstance did not often exist in the course of their ministry, they had resort almost uniformly to the indirect method of proof by a display of miraculous physical power.

5. The circumstances of the present occasion were happily suited to this wonderful display of divine power, the like of which had never been witnessed, even in the astonishing miracles of Moses and of Jesus. (5) “Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven.” The native tongues of these Jews were those of the nations in which they were born, but they had also been instructed by their parents in the dialect of Judea. This enabled them to understand the tongues which were spoken by the apostles, and to test the reality of the miracle.

6-12. “And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect.” The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds,(7) “And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? ( And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.“Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) “And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean?“

13. We have in this last sentence an instance of the peculiar use of the term all in the New Testament, to signify a great mass; for after saying that “all were amazed,” etc. Luke immediately adds, (13) “But others, mocking, said, These men are full of sweet wine.” The wine was not new, as rendered in the common version; for new wine was not intoxicating; but it was old, and very intoxicating, though by a peculiar process it had been kept sweet.[1]

In order that we may discriminate accurately concerning the effects of this phenomenon, we must observe that the only effects thus far produced upon the multitude, are perplexity and amazement among the greater part, and merriment among the few. It was impossible that any of them, without an explanation, could 28understand the phenomenon; and without being understood, it could have no moral or religious effect upon them. It was, indeed, quite natural, that some of the audience, to whom most of the languages spoken at first sounded like mere gibberish, and who were of too trivial a disposition to inquire further into the matter, should exclaim that the apostles were drunk. This being true of the phenomenon while unexplained, it is evident that all the moral power which it is to exert upon the multitude must reach their minds and hearts through the words in which the explanation is given. To this explanation our attention is now directed.

14, 15. “Then Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and said to them, Men of Judea, and all you who dwell in Jerusalem, be this known to you, and hearken to my words: (15) for these men are not drunk as you suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day.” After all that has been said of this defense against the charge of drunkenness, it must be admitted that it is not conclusive; for men might be drunk, as they often were and are, at any hour of either day or night. Still, the fact that men are not often found drunk so early in the day, rendered the defense sufficiently plausible to ward off the present effect of a charge which had been preferred in mere levity, while Peter relies upon the speech he is about to make for a perfect refutation of the charge, and for an impression upon the multitude, of which they little dreamed. He proceeds to speak in such a way as only a sober man could speak, and this is the best way to refute a charge of drunkenness.

16-18. Peter continues: (16) “But this is that which was spoken through the prophet Joel; (17) And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, I will pour out from my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: (1 And on my men-servants and on my maid-servants, in those days, I will pour out from my Spirit, and they shall prophesy.“

From this passage it is evident that the immediate effects of the outpouring of the Spirit, so far as the recipients are concerning, are mental, and not moral effects. The prophesy contemplates, not a miraculous elevation of the moral nature, but an inspiration of the mind, by which prophesy, and prophetic dreams and visions would be experienced. If the entrance of the Holy Spirit into men, to operate by an abstract exertion of divine power, which is certainly the nature of the operation here contemplated, was designed to take effect immediately upon the heart, it is certainly most unaccountable, that neither by the prophet foretelling the event, not by Luke describing it, is one word said in reference to such an effect. On the contrary, the only effects foretold by the prophet are dreams, visions, and prophesy, and the only one described by the historian is that species of prophesy which consists in speaking in unknown tongues. We desire to note such observations as this, wherever the text suggests them, in order to correct prevailing errors upon this subject. It will be found the uniform testimony of recorded facts, that the power of the Holy Spirit took immediate effect upon the intellectual faculties, leaving the moral nature of inspired men to the effect of the 29ideas revealed, in precisely the same manner that the hearts of their hearers were affected by the same ideas when uttered by inspired lips.[1]

It is quite common with pedobaptist writers and speakers to make use of the expression, “I will pour out my Spirit,” to prove that pouring may be the action of baptism. The substance of the argument, as stated by Dr. Alexander,[1] as follows: “The extraordinary influences of the Holy Spirit are repeatedly described, both in the language and the types of the Old Testament, as poured on the recipient. . . . This effusion is the very thing for which they (the apostles) are here told to wait; and therefore, when they heard it called a baptism, whatever may have been the primary usage of the word, they must have seen its Christian sense to be compatible with such an application.” That the apostles must have expected something to occur, in their reception of the Holy Spirit, to which the term baptism would properly apply, is undoubtedly true, for Jesus had promised that they should be baptized in the Holy Spirit. But, in the event itself, there are two facts clearly distinguishable, and capable of separate consideration: 1st. The coming of the Holy Spirit upon them, called an outpouring. 2d. The effect which followed this coming. It is important to inquire to which of these the term baptism is applied. Dr. Alexander, and those who argue with him, assume that it is applied to the former. He says, “This effusion is the very thing,” which they had “heard called a baptism.” If this assumption is true, then the conclusion follows, that baptism consisted in that movement of the Spirit expressed by the word pour: otherwise there would be no ground for the assumption that the word pour is used as an equivalent for the word baptize. If the act of pouring, then, was the baptism, most undoubtedly the thing poured, was the thing baptized; but it was the Holy Spirit that was poured, and not the apostles; hence, the Holy Spirit, and not the apostles, was baptized.

The absurdity of this conclusion drives us back to search for the baptism in the effect of the outpouring, rather than in the outpouring itself. This, indeed, the language of the Savior unquestionably requires; for he says, “You shall be baptized.” These words express an effect of which they were to be the subjects. This effect can not be expressed by the term pour, for the apostles were not and could not be poured. The effect was to depend upon the coming or pouring; for Jesus explains the promise, “You shall be baptized in the Spirit,” by saying, “You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you.” This is still further proof that it is an effect which the outpouring of the Spirit produced, that is called a baptism. But if it be said, that, at any rate, we have here a baptism effected by pouring, we reply that this very fact proves the baptism and the pouring to be two different things; and that an immersion may be effected by pouring.

We further remark, that there was no literal pouring in the case; for the Holy Spirit is not a liquid, that it might be literally poured. The term pour, here, is used metaphorically. In our vague 30conception of the nature of Spirit, there is such an analogy between it and a subtle fluid, that the action, which, in the plain style of the Savior, is called a coming of the Spirit, may, in the highly figurative style of the prophet Joel, be properly styled an outpouring of the Spirit. The analogy, therefore, which justifies the use of the word pour, is not that between baptism and the act of pouring, but that between a subtle fluid and our inadequate conceptions of spirit.

We now proceed to consider the propriety of styling the effect in question an immersion. When Jesus said, “John baptized in water, but you shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit,” his words suggested an analogy between John’s baptism and that of the Spirit. But they could not have so far mistaken this analogy as to suppose that their bodies were to be subjects of the Spirit baptism, for this is forbidden by the very nature of the case. But they would naturally expect that their spirits would be the subjects of the baptism in the Spirit, as their bodies had been of the baptism in water. The event corresponded to this expectation; for they were “filled with the Holy Spirit;” he pervaded and possessed all their mental powers, so that, as Jesus had promised, it was not they that spoke, but the Spirit of their Father that spoke in them.[1] Their spirits were as literally and completely immersed in the Holy Spirit, as their bodies had been in the waters of Jordan.

19-21. So much of Peter’s quotation from Joel as we have now considered was in process of fulfillment at the time he was speaking, and is of quite easy interpretation; but not so with the remaining portion: (19) “And I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and smoky vapor. (20) The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and illustrious day of the Lord come. (21) And it shall come to pass that every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.“

It is quite evident that there was nothing transpiring at the time of Peter’s speech to which the multitude could look as the fulfillment of these words; hence the remark with which he introduces the quotation, “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel,” is to be understood only of the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The remainder of the prediction must have still looked to the future for its fulfillment. How far in the future is not indicated, expect that the events mentioned were to take place, “before that great and illustrious day of the Lord.” This day of the Lord is certainly spoken of as a day of terror and danger; and no doubt the salvation contemplated in the words, “every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” is salvation from the dangers of “that great and illustrious day.” The interpretation of the whole passage, therefore, depends upon determining what is meant by that day. Is it the day of destruction of Jerusalem, or of the final judgment? The best way to settle this question is to examine the use of the phrase, “day of the Lord,” in both Old Testament and New.

In the first eleven verses of the second chapter of Joel, the phrase 31″day of the Lord” occurs three times, and designates a time when the land should be desolated by locusts, insects, and drought. But with the passage now under consideration, in the latter part of the same chapter, the prophet begins a new theme, and therefore speaks of some other great and terrible day. Throughout the prophesies of Joel, and of all the Old Testament prophets, this phrase is used invariably to designate a day of disaster. Isaiah calls the time in which Babylon was to be destroyed, “the day of the Lord,” and says of it, “The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in its going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.”[1] Ezekiel, in like manner, foretelling the desolation of Egypt, says, “The day of the Lord is near; a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.”[1] Obadiah uses the same phrase in reference to the destruction of Edom;[1] Amos, in reference to the captivity of Israel;[1] and Zechariah, in reference to the final siege of Jerusalem.[1] And induction of these passages establishes the conclusion that “the day of the Lord,” with the prophets, is always a day of calamity, the precise nature of which is to be determined in each case by the context. In some cases the context is so obscure as not to determine the reference with certainty. The text before us possesses some of this obscurity, yet with the aid of the above remarks, and the use made of the passage by Peter, we may determine the reference with no small degree of certainty.

It is evident from Peter’s application of the first part of the quotation to the the advent of the Spirit, that the latter part, which is contemplated as still future, was to be fulfilled after the scene then transpiring. Now, if the dangers of the day, as indicated by the words employed, were such as concerned the Jews alone, there would be good ground to suppose that reference was had to the destruction of Jerusalem. But the parties contemplated in the prophesy are “all flesh;” therefore, all classes of men are embraced in the prophetic view, and the “day of the Lord” must, according to Old Testament usage, be a day of terror in which all are interested. But in the destruction of Jerusalem the Jews alone had any thing to dread; hence this can not be the reference. It must, then, be the day of judgment; for this is the only day of pre-eminent terror yet awaiting all mankind.

This conclusion is confirmed by the invariable usage of New Testament writers. The apostolic writings afford little ground indeed for the prominence that has been given to commentators to the destruction of Jerusalem, in their interpretations of prophesy. There was another and far different day, in their future, to which they gave the appellation, “the day of the Lord.” Paul says, “Deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.“[1] “We are your rejoicing, even as ye also are ours, in the day of the Lord Jesus.“[1] “Yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night.”[1] “But the day of the Lord will comes as a thief 32in the night.”[1] These are all the occurrences of this expression in the New Testament, and they show conclusively that “the day of the Lord,” with the apostles, was the day of judgment.

The great and illustrious day must not be confounded with the “signs and wonders” mentioned by the prophet; for these are to occur before that day. Whatever may be the exact symbolic meaning of the “blood and fire, and smoky vapor,” and the darkening of the sun and moon, they represent events which are to take place before the day of judgment.

Having now determined the reference of the day in question, we can at once decide what salvation is contemplated in the declaration, “Every one who will call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” The only salvation connected with the day of judgment is the salvation from sin and death. The reference, therefore, is to this, and not to salvation from the destruction of Jerusalem.

This salvation is made to depend upon calling on the name of the Lord, an expression equivalent to prayer. It is, of course, acceptable prayer which is intended, and it therefore implies the existence of that disposition and conduct necessary to acceptable worship. Certainly no one calling upon the name of the Lord while persisting in disobedience can be included in this promise.

Thus far, in his discourse, Peter has directed his attention to the single object of proving the inspiration of himself and his associates. This was logically necessary previous to the utterance of a single word by authority, and most logically has he conducted his argument. The amazement of the people, upon beholding the miraculous scene, was a tacit acknowledgment of their inability to account for it. They were well prepared, therefore, to hear Peter’s explanation. But if even he had attributed the effects which they witnessed to any less than divine power, they must have rejected his explanation as unsatisfactory. The question with them, indeed, was not, whether this was a divine or human manifestation, but, admitting its divinity, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” When, therefore, Peter simply declares, that this is a fulfillment of Joel’s prophesy concerning the outpouring of the Spirit of God, they had no alternative but to receive his explanation, while the fact that it was a fulfillment of prophesy gave to it additional solemnity.

If Peter had closed his discourse at this point, the multitude would have gone away convinced of his inspiration, but not one of them would have been converted. All this has yet been said and done is preparatory; a necessary preparation for what is to follow. We are yet to search for the exact influence which turned their minds and hearts toward Jesus Christ.

22-24. It is impossible, at this distance of space and time, to realize, even in a faint degree, the effect upon the minds so wrought up and possessed of such facts, produced by the announcement next made by Peter. (22) “Men of Israel, hear these words. Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you, by miracles and wonders and signs which God did by him, in the midst of you, as you yourselves know; (23) him, delivered by the determined purpose 33and foreknowledge of God, you have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain; (24) whom God has raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that he should be held under it.” Filled with amazement, as they were already, by a visible and audible manifestation of the Spirit of God, they now see that the whole of this amazing phenomenon is subservient to the name of the Nazarene whom they had despised and crucified. This conviction is brought home to them, too, in a sentence so replete with overwhelming facts, as to make them reel and stagger under a succession of fearful blows rapidly repeated. In one breath they have just heard no less than seven startling propositions: 1st. That Jesus had been approved by God among them, by miracles and wonders and signs which God had done by him. 2d. That they, themselves, knew this to be so. 3d. That it was not from impotence on his part, but in accordance with the purpose and foreknowledge of God, that he was yielded up to them. 4th. That when thus yielded up they had put him to death, by the torture of crucifixion. 5th. That they had done this with wicked hands. 6th. That God had raised him from the dead. 7th. That it was not possible that death should hold him.

Here is a complete epitome of the four gospels, condensed into one short sentence. The name “Jesus of Nazareth” brought vividly before their minds a well-known personage, and all his illustrious history flashes across their memory. The first assertion concerning him is an appeal to his miracles as a demonstration that he was from God. There is no need of argument to make this demonstration clear; nor of evidence to prove the reality of the miracles; for they were done “in your midst, as you yourselves also know.” The fearfulness of the murder is magnified by the thought, that he had been voluntarily delivered to them, in accordance with a deliberate purpose of God long ago declared by the prophets. The manner of his death makes it more fearful still. They had nailed him to the cross, and compelled him to die like a felon. These things being so, how penetrating the appeal to their consciences, “with wicked hands you have crucified and slain him!” This was no time for nice distinctions between what a man does himself, and what he does by another. The “wicked hands” are not, as some suppose, the hands of Roman soldiers, who had performed the actual work of his execution, but the hands of wicked Jews. Here, before him, were the very persons who had been assembled but fifty days before at the Passover, and had taken a hand in the proceedings of that awful day. He appeals to their individual consciousness of guilt; and this gives an intensity to the effect of his discourse upon their hearts, which it could not otherwise have possessed. Conscious of fearful guilt in having thus cruelly murdered the attested servant of God; and suddenly revealed to themselves as actors in the darkest scene of prophetic vision, how shall they endure the additional thought, that God has raised the crucified from the dead? Never did mortal lips pronounce, in so brief a space, so many thoughts of so terrific import to the hearers. We might challenge the world to find a parallel to it in the speeches of all her orators, or the songs 34of all her poets. There is not, indeed, such a thunderbolt in the burdens of all the prophets of Israel, nor among the mighty voices which echo through the pages of the Apocalypse. It is the first announcement to the world of a risen and glorified Redeemer.

25-28. There are two points in this announcement which required proof, and to the presentation of this Peter immediately proceeds. Having stated that Jesus was delivered according to the determined purpose of God, he now quotes that purpose as expressed by David in the 16th Psalm. (25) “For David says concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face; for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved. (26) Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad. Moreover, my flesh shall rest in hope; (27) because thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. (2 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance.” Only so much of this quotation as refers to the resurrection suits the special purpose of the speaker, the preceding portion serving only to connectedly introduce it.

The words, “Thou shalt make known to me the ways of life,” constitute the affirmative assertion of a restoration to life, which had been negatively expressed, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption” The words “Thou wilt make me full of joy with thy countenance,” no doubt refer to that joy set before Jesus, for which “he endured the cross, despising the shame, and is now set down at the right hand of the throne of God.”[1]

It is commonly agreed among interpreters, that in the sentence, “Thou wilt not leave my soul in hades, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption,” there is no distinction intended between the condition of the soul and that of the body; but that the whole is merely equivalent to the statement, Thou wilt not leave me among the dead. I am constrained, however, to adopt the opinion advanced, but not defended, by Olshausen, that the apostle does intend to fix our attention upon the body and soul of Jesus separately. The most obvious reason for this opinion is the fact that his body and soul are spoken of separately, and with separate reference to their respective places of abode during the period of death. The soul can not see corruption, neither can the body go into hades; but when men die, ordinarily, their bodies see corruption, and their souls enter, not the grave, but hades. The words in question declare, in reference to both the body and soul of Jesus, that which must have occurred in his resurrection, that the one was not left in hades, neither did the other see corruption. The apostle, in commenting upon them, makes the distinction still more marked, by saying, (verse 31, below), “He spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul should not be left in hades, nor his flesh see corruption.” Why do both the prophet and the apostle so carefully make the distinction, unless they wish to fix attention upon it?

The term hades designates the place of disembodied spirits. It is, as its etymology indicates, (a, privative; idein, to see) the unseen. The 35Greeks were good at giving names to things. When they watched a friend sinking into the arms of death, they could see, by the motion of the frame and the light of the eye, the continued presence of the soul, until at last, the muscles were all motionless, and the eye fixed and leaden. They could still see the body, and after it had been deposited in the grave they could revisit it and see it again. But where is the soul? You see it no longer. There are no signs of its presence. It is gone; and its invisible abode they call hades, the unseen. That the soul of Jesus entered hades is undeniable. That it returned again to the body at the resurrection is asserted by Peter; and it is this return which was predicted by the prophet, and which caused the exultation both of himself and the apostle.

The resurrection of Jesus is not appreciated by the religious world now, as it was by the apostles. As respects the return of his soul from hades, Protestant writers have fled so far from the justly-abhorred purgatory of the Catholic, and the gloomy soul-sleeping of the Materialist, that they have passed beyond the Scripture doctrine, and either ignore altogether the existence of an intermediate state, or deny that the souls of the righteous are short of ultimate happiness during this period. On the other hand, they have so great a tendency to absolute spiritualism in their conceptions of the future state, that they fail to appreciate the necessity for the resurrection of the body of Jesus, or to exult, as the apostles did, in anticipation of the r