Lange Commentary - Acts 2:5

Lange Commentary - Acts 2:5 - 2:13

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Acts 2:5 - 2:13

(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

B.— THE VARIOUS IMPRESSIONS WHICH WERE MADE BY THE EVENT ON JEWS WHO CAME FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DISCIPLES, FILLED WITH THE SPIRIT, SPAKE WITH OTHER TONGUES

Act_2:5-13

Contents:—The amazement of the multitude, when the disciples spake with other tongues; Jews from various countries, in which many different languages prevailed, heard their own respective languages from the lips of the disciples; while large numbers seriously reflected on the matter, others mocked, as if the disciples were drunken.

⁵And there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation underheaven. ⁶Now when this was noised abroad [when this sound issued forth], the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speakin his own language [dialect]. ⁷And they were all [omit all] amazed and marvelled, saying, [and said] one to another, Behold, are not all these which [who] speak Galileans?⁸And how [then] hear we [them] every man in our own tongue [dialect],wherein we were born? ⁹Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in [inhabitants of] Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,¹⁰Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts [regions] of Libya about Cyrene,and strangers of Rome [the Romans here present], Jews and proselytes, ¹¹Cretes and Arabians, [:] we do hear them speak in [with] our tongues the wonderful works [great deeds] of God.[!] ¹²And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying, [and said] one to another, What meaneth this [What then can this be]? ¹³Others mocking said, These men [They] are full of new [sweet, ãëåí ͂ êïíò ] wine.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_2:5-6. a. When this was noised abroad [When this sound, etc.].—The sound attracted the attention of large numbers of persons; all these assembled in the vicinity of the spot where the disciples had met together. We cannot, with Brenz, Calvin, Grotius, and others, understand ἡ öùíὴ áí ̓́ ôç , to mean the rumor which was spread concerning the event, ( öùíὴ is not öÞìç ), nor can we, with Kuinoel, Bleek, and others, refer it to the loudness of the speaking with tongues; for if this were the meaning, ëáëåῖí in Act_2:4 would be the term applied to loud cries, and, besides, öùíὴ would necessarily be used in the plural number. On the contrary, nothing but ἦ÷ïò in Act_2:2 can be meant by öùíὴ áὕôç , as all recent interpreters admit. This loud sound from heaven, which Luke compares to the rushing noise of a mighty wind, was not audible in the interior of that house alone, as most interpreters have, without any reason, inferred from Act_2:2-3; the former verse does not give the least intimation of such a circumstance. The sound was, on the contrary, heard in the city within a large circuit: [“probably over all Jerusalem.” Alf.]; at the same time, it was noticed that the heavenly sound “struck in,” if we may use that expression, at the spot in which the disciples were assembled: the multitude were, consequently, attracted in that direction. It is obvious from this statement that Neander’s explanation, according to which an earthquake drove the people from their houses, rests on a gratuitous assumption. And Lange’s conjecture, also, that none but those who were rightly disposed in spirit, were influenced by the voice from heaven to sympathize with the disciples, and gather together in the same place, is unsupported by the text before us, and the entire context.

b. The multitude came together.—Large numbers came together and listened to the disciples, who, filled with the Holy Ghost, spake with tongues in this wonderful manner. What distinct conception can we form of the whole occurrence? The text does not furnish precise information, and the alleged impossibility of forming a distinct and clear conception of the whole process, has even led some writers to deny the historical truth of the event itself. Such a decision is hasty and unwise. As Luke himself has not furnished the details of the occurrence, we shall not venture to say: It took place thus, or thus, and not otherwise! That it is possible to furnish a clear and coherent account of the whole transaction. cannot be reasonably denied, even if some of the details which are interwoven, should appear less probable than others. It is, for instance, possible, that the disciples were at first assembled in a large apartment of a certain house, of which we have no other knowledge; as soon as the Spirit was poured out upon them, and they began to speak with tongues, praising and glorifying God in an inspired and exalted frame of mind, they may have proceeded to the outside, and there continued to speak in the presence of the rapidly increasing number of hearers. If, moreover, the house was in the immediate vicinity of one of the more extensive public places or squares of the city, a great multitude could easily find sufficient room. It was doubtless under such circumstances that Peter delivered the subsequent address, Act_2:14 ff.

Act_2:7-8. They were all amazed, and marvelled.—Luke gives prominence to the fact that the multitude included persons from very many foreign countries, and describes it in the customary amplifying style: ἀðὸ ðáíôὸò ἔèíïíò ôῶí í ̔ ðὸ ôὸí ïí ̓ ñáíüí , Act_2:5; we have no reason, especially when we refer to Act_2:9-11, to interpret these words in their strict and literal sense. These Jewish men “dwelt” (Act_2:5) in Jerusalem ( ἦóí êáôïéêïí ͂ íôåò ἐí Ἱåñ .). This expression has generally been understood, in recent times, (de Wette, Meyer; Chrysostom, among the early writers) as denoting a permanent abode, a settled residence; it is, further, supposed to refer exclusively to Jews who came from foreign countries, and who, influenced by strong religious attachments ( ἄíäñåò åí ̓ ëáâåῖò ), and, specially, desirous of being near the temple and passing the evening of life in the holy city, had now established their homes in Jerusalem. It is certainly true that êáôïéêåῖí , according to classical usage, conveys the idea of a fixed residence, and not merely of a sojourn; it refers, specially, to a newly chosen abode, after a former place of residence had been forsaken; passages in the New Testament like Luk_13:4; Act_7:48; Act_9:22, fully conform to this usage. The context, however, here deters us from urging such a signification of the word, since the words êá ôïéêïí ͂ íôåò ôὴí Ìåóïðïô , etc., Act_2:9, and ἐðéäçìïí ͂ íôåò ̔ ñùìáῖïé , Act_2:10, distinctly imply that these persons, or at least the majority of them, still resided in foreign countries at that time, and were only temporarily present in Jerusalem on the occasion of the festival: it is possible that some of the number may have established themselves permanently in the city. The term êáôïéê . in Act_2:5 is accordingly employed in a somewhat wide sense, and thus the older interpretation [a mere sojourn, êáôïéêåῖí equivalent to äéáôñßâåéí , Hebr. âּåּø . Tr.] is sustained in its essential features.

Act_2:9-11. a. Parthians and Medes, etc. This list, embracing fifteen countries from which individuals were present, is arranged according to a certain plan which conducts the reader from the north-east to the west, then to the south, and lastly to the west. Still, the writer does not adhere to it rigorously. The first four names embrace the east, or certain countries beyond the Euphrates, to which the nation had been conducted by the Assyrian, and then by the Babylonish Captivity; then, quite unexpectedly, Judea is mentioned. We could not have looked for the insertion of this name at a point where the transition to the provinces of Asia Minor occurs, and the question naturally suggests itself, whether some other geographical name had not originally been introduced here. But the ancient manuscripts afford no information, [no Greek var. lect. occur in the critical editions of Tisch. and Alf,, nor in Cod. Sin.—Tr.] and the conjectures that Idumea, or India, or Bithynia had been mentioned, are altogether idle. The reading adopted by Tertullian and Augustine, that is, Armenia, may possibly have had weightier testimony in its favor. Some commentators adduce the circumstance that Luke wrote in Rome, and considered the geographical position of Judea in the light in which it would appear to Roman readers (Olshausen); others suppose that Judea is mentioned in reference to a difference of dialect, since that of Judea differed from the Galilean dialect of the disciples (Bengel; Meyer). But none of the reasons which they assign for the mention of Judea in a list of names of foreign countries, satisfactorily explains its appearance here, and a certain obscurity still attends the subject.—The next five names are those of as many provinces of Asia Minor; the direction at first is from the east to the west; the third name, Asia, probably represents a narrow district on the coast of the [Ægean] Sea, embracing Mysia, Lydia, and Caria, according to the Roman arrangement of the provinces (Mannert: Geogr. der. Gr. u. Röm. VI. 2. S. 27). The direction is then easterly (Phrygia), and a southern province on the coast [of the Mediterranean] is next mentioned (Pamphylia). We are now conducted far to the south, where two countries in Africa, Egypt and Libya Cyrenaica, are particularized; in both, large numbers of Jews had already resided for several centuries. At length Romans from the distant west are introduced, that is, Jews who dwelt in the city of Rome, and, generally, in the western portions of the Roman Empire, and who now appear in Jerusalem as visitors. The names of the Cretes and Arabians constitute a supplement to the list; but before these are appended, and when, at the close, Luke mentions the Romans. he distinguishes in reference to all the provinces named by him, between those who are Jews by birth ( Ἰïíäáῖïé ) and those who are converted pagans ( ðñïóÞëõôïé ). It is Luke’s main purpose, in giving this list of names of nations and countries, as the context clearly demonstrates, to exhibit the variety of languages and dialects which these foreign Jews and proselytes employed. We have, consequently, no reason to represent the list as inexact in this respect, or even unmeaning (de Wette), on the ground, for instance, that the Greek language was then spoken in the cities of Asia Minor and Egypt, in Cyrene and Crete, and was well understood even in Rome. For every country, and, in some respects, every province had, nevertheless, a dialect peculiar to itself, and it is precisely the difference of dialects ( äéÜëåêôïò ) to which Luke chiefly refers in Act_2:6; Act_2:8.—It may yet be added, as an obvious circumstance, that this extended enumeration of nations is not designed to be a precise report of the language of the multitude, but is ascribed to them in order to exhibit the great variety of their respective dialects; hence, it can give offence to none except to mere theorists, whose views respecting the historical fidelity of a narrative do not correspond to the exigencies of actual life. [“We have here recorded, not the very words of any individual speaker, but the sum and substance of what all said.” (J. A. Alexander). Tr.]. And the assertion that the whole list, which is found in all the manuscripts, is spurious and a mere interpolation (Ziegler, and others), is a striking instance of arbitrary interpretation and the want of critical tact.

b. We do hear them speak in our tongues.—After the statements made above, scarcely a doubt can remain respecting the meaning of the present passage; it describes the speaking of the disciples in different languages and dialects. The circumstance that the disciples spoke in the particular dialects of the hearers respectively, was precisely the one that confounded the latter, Act_2:6. The terms: ἤêïíïí åἶò ἕêáóôïò ôῇ ἰäßᾳ äéáëÝêôῳ ëáëïí ́ íôùí áí ̓ ôῶí , furnish merely a brief description of the whole scene. It is only a very superficial glance which could suggest the opinion that each one of the disciples had spoken in several different dialects at the same time (Bleek); such an opinion is supported by nothing except the plural ëáëïí ́ íôùí áí ̓ ôῶí , which, however, is used collectively, and when rationally interpreted, can only mean that while one disciple spoke in one dialect, another employed a different one, so that every foreigner could hear his own dialect spoken by some one of the disciples. And this circumstance created the more astonishment, as the multitude knew that all the speakers were Galileans, Act_2:7. The context, and, especially, the list of names of nations and countries, which is introduced in reference to the manifold languages, demonstrate that this term, Galileans, can also have only been introduced here in reference to language, inasmuch as the Galileans were accustomed to speak the Aramæan [or Syro-Chaldaic] language alone; it cannot have been intended to designate the speakers as disciples of Jesus (which was a later usage of the word), or to refer to the want of intellectual culture which characterized the province. But that these natives of Galilee should express themselves in the many vernacular dialects or languages of foreign Jews and proselytes, who came from Asia, Africa and Europe, and spoke in the Parthian, Phrygian, etc., tongues (Act_2:8; Act_2:11), was an event that amazed and confounded the hearers. No interpretation is in harmony with the context, which assigns to ãëῶóóáé any other sense than that of language. The following modes of interpretation are, accordingly, inadmissible:—(1). Those which take ãëῶóóá literally, in the sense of tongue, organ of speech [so that that the disciples spoke inarticulately,—Tr.] (Wieseler), that is, of an ecstatic speaking in low tones and inarticulate sounds (Stud. u. Krit. 1838. S. 703 ff.). Bardili and Eichhorn (1786 f.) apply, however, a similar mode of interpretation only to 1 Cor. Acts 14., and not to Acts, Acts 2. Dav. Schulz, on the other hand, explains the word as meaning loud and joyous exclamations and exultant tones (Geistesgaben, 1836), while Baur understands it to mean tongues which the Spirit gave, organs of speech of the Spirit.—(2). According to another class of explanations, which are all likewise untenable, ãëῶóóá is equivalent to expression, mode of speech, (J. A. G. Meyer, 1797), or denotes obsolete, foreign or dialectal expressions (Heinrichs; Bleek, in Stud. u. Krit. 1829); but ãëῶóóá occurs in such a signification only in the writings of learned Greek grammarians; the whole term: ἑôÝñáéò ãëῶóóáéò , Act_2:4, besides, would then be redundant and altogether inappropriate.—(3). No other explanation of the word ãëῶóóá , accordingly, remains, except that which assigns to it the signification of language, dialect (Olshausen; de Wette; Meyer; Bäumlein; Stud. d. würt. Geistlkt. 1834); it is sustained both by the general usage of the word in question, and by the context. Therefore, Luke describes the disciples as speaking, when filled with the Holy Ghost, in different foreign languages and dialects.

But when this point is decided, another question presents itself: In what manner are we to view the whole occurrence? What is the true, central point, or the substance of the fact itself, viewed objectively? Here again the opinions of interpreters diverge widely. (1). Some suppose that certain of the disciples, who were not natives of Galilee, spoke in the ordinary manner in foreign languages, which were, however, respectively, their own native languages (Paulus; Eichhorn, and others); the only unusual feature, as they allege, was the circumstance that such hymns of praise should be uttered aloud in provincial dialects. This explanation grossly contradicts the text itself, since no reason whatever now remains for the amazement and confusion of mind described in Act_2:6-8; Act_2:11-12, as apparent in the hearers.—(2). Some of the early Christian writers (Gregory Nazianzen; Bede), as well as authors of a later age (Erasmus; Schneckenburger), suppose that the miracle was not one of speech, but of hearing; namely, the disciples simply employed their native language, the Galilean, and the foreigners who listened, being placed in a species of [magnetic] psychical “rapport” [communication, relation], only thought that their own respective languages were spoken by the disciples. But, according to this interpretation, the peculiar feature of the scene is converted into a mere delusion of the hearers, and must, as in the case of the previous explanation, be regarded as a mistake—a supposition which dishonors the character of Sacred History, and is irreconcilable with the statement of the narrator given in Act_2:4.—(3). According to an interpretation of a more recent date, which has been accepted by comparatively large numbers, the true historical element in the narrative is the following: it was not really a speaking in foreign languages, but was “tongue-speaking,” [“the tongue alone, not the ego, spoke” (Kling)—Tr.]. that is to say, it was an involuntary and unconscious use of the tongue in the utterance of the language of prayer by men in a state of the highest mental and moral excitement [Begeisterung], whose words needed an intelligent interpretation, according to 1 Cor. Acts 14. The advocates of this opinion usually assume that this historical element had been converted by tradition into a literal speaking in foreign languages, precisely as the present narrative describes the occurrence. This interpretation is adopted by Baur, de Wette, Hilgenfeld and Meyer; but Meyer, in addition, combines with this interpretation the view of Paulus, stated above (under No. 1), and assumes that some of the speakers who were inspired in this manner, were foreigners, whose “tongue-speaking” was heard in their respective native dialects; this latter explanation contradicts the letter and spirit of the narrative before us in the most positive manner. The decision of the present point depends partly on the parallel passages in the first Epistle to the Corinthians, etc., which treat of the glossolaly [speaking with tongues,], and, partly, on the alleged impossibity of such a miraculous speaking with tongues.

(I). The parallel passages claim respectively, at the outset, an interpretation of their own, independently of each other; of the two, viz. Acts Acts 2, and 1 Cor. Acts 14, neither is to be primarily employed in interpreting the other; but when each has been separately considered, the relation in which they stand to each other can be satisfactorily exhibited, and that relation is an exegetical problem, the solution of which is indispensable. It is true that at a time when commentators generally were inclined to adopt 1 Cor. Acts 14., as their guide in interpreting Acts Acts 2., and when they understood the latter passage as describing an ecstatic speaking with tongues exclusively, Bäumlein adopted an opposite course, and, not without a certain degree of success, explained 1 Cor. Acts 14. as referring to a speaking in foreign languages. Still, the difficulties which attend the explanation of the latter passage, have not in every particular been removed; see the Commentary on the chapter [by C. F. Kling, in a subsequent volume.—Tr.]. The Corinthian and the Pentecostal speaking with tongues coincide in the following points: (1) It was in both cases an extraordinary influence and gift of the Holy Spirit, á ÷Üñéóìá , Act_2:4; (2) on both occasions the Spirit of God took possession of the soul of the speaker with great power, insomuch that the free action of the will and the self-consciousness of the latter at last receded; a mental state ensued so strange and mysterious in its character, as to produce on the minds of some spectators the impression, corresponding to their general views, that they beheld a case of drunkenness, while others regarded it as a case of madness; comp. 1. Cor. Act_14:23; (3) in both instances this ãëῶóóáéò ëáëåῖí did not result in a didactic discourse, but was the language of devotion, in which the praise and honor of God were proclaimed.—On the other hand, each case exhibits distinctive features of its own: (1) The speaking of the disciples. Acts 2., was intelligible, and was consequently understood by the hearers without the assistance of others, Act_2:8; Act_2:11, whereas the Corinthian speaking with tongues could not possibly be understood without the aid of an interpreter, 1Co_14:2; 1Co_14:13; 1Co_14:16; 1Co_14:27-28; (2) the speaking described in Acts, Acts 2., was clearly a speaking in foreign languages, whereas not a single distinct and unequivocal expression in 1 Cor. Acts 14, intimates that such was the case in Corinth.—It appears, then, that certain essential features of both occurrences are the same, while important differences between the two are discoverable; we are, consequently, not authorized to assume that the one described in Acts, Acts 2., was necessarily like the other in all its features, and that the differences which are now noticed are merely legendary variations.

(II). Such a mythical interpretation, however, would have scarcely been suggested, if some writers had not likewise assumed that a miraculous gift of tongues is an impossibility. Zeller (Apost. 1854), who adopts this view in its extreme form, has declared that the narrative of the Pentecostal event is unhistorical in every respect, that it is a mere legend proceeding from certain conceptions in the minds of its original authors, and that it possesses no foundation whatever in fact. But on what grounds is such an event declared to be impossible? Meyer alleges: “The sudden communication of the gift of speaking in foreign languages is neither logically possible, nor psychologically and morally conceivable.” Now, with regard to the logical possibility, we know that all men in essential points occupy the same position, and that hence in essential features all languages resemble each other, so that every man possesses the key for understanding, and the capacity for acquiring, all languages. And the possibility of conceiving of the event psychologically, is denied chiefly for the twofold reason, that the disciples are supposed to have delivered formal and extended addresses in foreign languages, and, that they permanently retained the ability to express themselves in any and every foreign language. But there is not a single intimation given in the entire history of the apostles that the latter was the case; the section before us, on the contrary, describes a phenomenon which soon passed away, and to which the psychological difficulty, therefore, which has been adduced, does not apply. The whole question, indeed, assumes another form when we give due attention to the fact that the statements of Luke by no means suggest the thought that the disciples delivered extended discourses in foreign languages, but rather imply that their speaking with tongues consisted simply in brief utterances or effusions of the powerful emotions of their hearts, by which they were impelled to praise God for his wonderful works and gracious deeds. Now if, under such circumstances, they expressed themselves in foreign languages, the phenomenon would very inappropriately be assigned to the class of natural and ordinary occurrences, as the so-called “natural mode of interpretation” has attempted to do, since Luke’s report undeniably represents the whole as a wonderful and truly amazing occurrence. Still, when the assertion is repeated that the whole occurrence is psychologically and morally inconceivable, and therefore impossible, we may, in addition, refer to analogous facts, such as the following:—Somnambulists and persons who were placed under magnetic influences or appeared in a highly excited state of mind, have been known to speak, not in their usual provincial dialect, but in a pure and elevated style, with which they had previously not been at all familiar, or even in foreign languages; another analogous case may be found in the accounts furnished by persons who were present, respecting the speaking with tongues of the Irvingites, about the beginning of the third decade of the present century. While, then, the event itself, when the disciples were filled with the Spirit, or when their souls were controlled and exalted by the Spirit of God, must undoubtedly be regarded as miraculous, and as proceeding from an extraordinary and heavenly influence, we must with equal reason regard this peculiar manifestation of the Spirit, namely, through the medium of other dialects and languages, as having also been miraculous in its character.

Act_2:12-13.—And they were all amazed.—The view of the occurrence which has just been given, was, accordingly, entertained by many of the spectators at the time, who wondered and inquired with reverence and devout feeling; Act_2:7-8; Act_2:11-12. They were men who were open to the influences of the truth, and whom Luke describes in Act_2:5, as “devout,” God-fearing men. [ åí ̓ ëáâÞò , “timens, relate ad Deum=pius, reverens Deum.” Wahl: Clavis N. T.—Tr.]. But all the spectators did not entertain such sentiments. There were persons present who remained unmoved, and who yielded to a spirit of levity; they would not permit this divine manifestation to make an impression on their hearts, but rather attempted to degrade and profane that which was holy and divine. These men declared that the words which they heard were merely the senseless speech of men who were unusually excited by strong drink, and that it was not the Spirit of God, but the spirit of wine by which they were impelled to speak. It is obvious that such language would have been altogether unmeaning, and could not have occurred to these scoffers, if the deportment of the disciples and the manner in which they spoke had not been unusual, or had not indicated a high degree of mental excitement. But if such was really the case, we have not sufficient grounds for terming these men blasphemers, in the proper sense of the word, much less can we accuse them, as some have done, of committing the sin against the Holy Ghost; Peter himself admonishes them, Act_2:15, in mild terms only, and exhibits no traces of indignant feelings. Many interpreters assume that the scoffers were all residents of Jerusalem, and that the others, whose words are quoted in Act_2:7; Act_2:12, as those of thoughtful men, were foreign Jews; the former are supposed, for instance, to be persons whose religious feelings had been “blunted by familiarity with holy things.” But the text affords no support for this view; the Israelites from foreign countries are evidently placed in the foreground, chiefly for the purpose of presenting the fact more prominently, that the disciples, when filled with the Spirit, had spoken in a variety of languages and dialects. There were, doubtless, reflecting and devout men, found likewise among the inhabitants of the city, and some of the scoffers may have been foreigners.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. As soon as the Holy Spirit was poured out and had filled the souls of the disciples, the praises of God flowed in a full stream from their lips; the sacred fire from above had enkindled their souls, and the tribute which their devout feelings offered, rose again, like ascending flames, to heaven. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” Mat_12:34. The most profound and holy thoughts and feelings are those which can least of all endure constraint; they will break forth and proclaim their power aloud. The soul, struggling in its narrow enclosure with the powerful emotions which move it, finds relief in words. The eternal Son of God himself is called “The Word,” and the soul, too, employs words in describing the gifts received from the Spirit, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. God’s wonderful gift of speech, the prerogative of man alone, although polluted by sin and the depravity of man, is cleansed, consecrated anew, and sanctified by the Spirit of God.

2. The speaking in foreign tongues was a sign of the Holy Ghost. It was a holy speaking of holy things—a speaking of the wonderful works of God, not of the petty affairs of men, and in so far it was an illustration of the holiness of the Spirit. It was a speaking in many different dialects and languages; herein were revealed alike the comprehensive character of the gift of the Spirit, and also its reference to the human species—the Spirit of God was a gift designed for all countries, nations, and tongues. This ability to speak in foreign languages was not acquired after much labor had been bestowed, and time and various aids had been employed, but was freely granted, and was solely a gift of divine grace—a sign of the favor and the grace which characterize the operations of the Spirit of God.

3. The fact that Israelites from all the known countries of the world were here present as witnesses of the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, is an evidence that the judgments of God also include gracious purposes, and that his chastisements proceed from a merciful design. The people of Israel had been scattered abroad among all nations on account of their apostasy—in earlier ages in the East, and subsequently, in the West also. But now, Jews and proselytes from all these countries assemble in Jerusalem, and are permitted to be eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the operations of the Holy Spirit; these were a pledge that the grace of God in Christ was designed for all countries, nations, and tongues. And it was precisely the dispersion of the Jews among all the known nations of the world that opened a pathway for the passage of the Gospel from the people of God to the Gentiles.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

Act_2:5. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.—O how wonderful is the faithfulness of our God, who, even amid the most severe judgments that overtake his disobedient people, prepares a path way for the Gospel which is unto salvation! The Jewish people had, in accordance with the threatenings of God, been scattered among all nations on account of their sins, and had thus acquired the respective languages of those nations. And now God employs these as the means for communicating his word and the great salvation wrought by Christ, to all nations. He who surveys such deeds with the eye of faith, may with truth exclaim: “I remember thy judgments of old, O Lord; and I comfort myself.” Psa_119:52. (Apost. Past.).—Often when an individual undertakes a journey, or engages in a good work, the blessing of God is added, and conducts him to the way of salvation; see Act_8:27 f. (Starke).—Devout men.—In those who are truly converted, God begins a good work, at an early period, and opens the way for the operations of his grace. (Starke).—A devout spirit is precious in the eyes of God: I. It prompts to willing and continued obedience when God leads; II. Its reward consists in still more precious gifts of divine grace.—“Whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance” [Mat_13:12].—“He that is faithful in that which is least, is faithful also in much.” [Luk_16:10].—It is not in increasing stores of knowledge, but in true godliness and uprightness of spirit, that your real advantages consist.—The dispersion of Israel, a wonderful illustration of the divine government of the world; viewed, I. As the merited punishment of their sins; II. As an effectual means for extending a knowledge of the true God; III. As a promising indication and an instrument in reference to the propagation of the Gospel.—The judgments of God during this season of grace, are always channels through which his grace, too, abundantly flows.—In God’s hand, the staff called “Bands” may at any time be converted into the staff “Beauty.” [Zec_11:7]. (Lechler).

Act_2:6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded.—The curiosity of men, manifested alike in the days of Christ and the apostles, and in our own, must, in accordance with the example of the first witnesses of our Saviour, be so employed by us as to promote the interests of the kingdom of Christ. Wherever that kingdom comes in reality, or is preached in truth and purity, and in the power of God, the previous repose of men is greatly disturbed. Even the amazement and confusion of mind which the Gospel produces, when it comes in power, often render valuable services. We cannot, on the other hand, regard it as a good sign, when all things proceed in their usual quiet course, and when the preaching of the Gospel produces no movement among men. (Ap. Past.).—The instructive fact that the Father can employ even the curiosity of men as the means of conducting souls to the Son. (Lechler).—The advantages possessed by the Gospel, as compared with the Law: when the law was given, the people fled [Heb_12:18-24; Exod. Acts 19]; here, they are drawn together. (Starke).—Men are sometimes conducted to the way of salvation by an alarm, which is employed as the means of preparing their hearts, (ib.).—Every man heard them speak in his own language.—Every man heard the glorious deeds of God proclaimed in his language. Do we, who are ambassadors of Christ, also take so deep an interest in the spiritual welfare of each individual among our hearers? Or do we content ourselves with making, at all times, only a general public statement of the truth? (Ap. Past.).

Act_2:7. They were all amazed and marvelled.—Amazement at great events, the means through which at times God makes known his salvation. (Lechler). Amazement or wonder may indeed prepare the heart for receiving a deep impression from the word of God; but it should also impel us, as the intended result, to praise and adore the grace and truth of God.—Are not all these which speak Galileans?—A faithful witness of the truth may easily endure it, when others look down on him as on a “Galilean.” Was not such the experience of David, of Paul (2Co_10:10), and even of our Lord himself? (Joh_1:46).

Act_2:8-11. How hear we every man in our own tongue, etc.—Luke is not unmindful of the progress of the Gospel when he adopts the present arrangement of the representatives of the many nations now assembled in Jerusalem, and introduces them as speakers.—The commemoration of the wonderful works of God was not unfamiliar to Jewish ears (Psa_71:19). But no ear had ever previously heard of those wonderful works of God which the Holy Ghost on this occasion taught the hearts and lips of the disciples to praise. The language of the Jews was too feeble to describe their grandeur; it needed all the tongues of the world to publish and to glorify the works of the Saviour of the world. (Besser).—How gratefully we should confess the goodness of God in permitting us to read and hear the Gospel in our own native language!—The wonderful works of God, viewed as the subject of which the Bible chiefly treats.—The truth that the divine gift of speech cannot be more appropriately applied, than when it is consecrated to God and to the interests of his kingdom. (Lechler). The Hallelujah of the world, sung by innumerable voices to the honor of God: the hymn of praise, I. Was commenced on the morning of the creation, in the kingdom of nature; II. Was commenced anew on the day of Pentecost, in the kingdom of grace; III. Will be more perfectly continued (but not end) on the day of the revelation of the Lord, in the kingdom of glory.

Act_2:12. They were all amazed, etc.—Even such amazement may ultimately conduct men to salvation, since God does not begin his work in their souls, until their reason has discovered its own errors, and confesses its feebleness. (Starke).—Now when the question dictated by wonder: “What meaneth this?” is changed into the question, “What shall I do?” and proceeds from a deeply moved and penitent heart, the way of salvation is opened. (Leonh. and Sp.).

Act_2:13. Others mocking said, etc.—Although such scoffing is one of the most mournful evidences of a Satanic opposition to the kingdom of Christ, the teacher of religious truth is, nevertheless, not excusable when he allows it to arouse his indignation so highly that he casts the scoffer altogether from his path, or even by scornful words and pointed reflections exasperates such persons anew; they are, in truth, entitled to our pity. He should therefore endure them with gentleness of spirit, and persevere in his efforts to rescue some of these wretched men from destruction.—When we closely examine the scoffs and blasphemies of Satan, we can always discover from them that such wonderful works of God overwhelm him with confusion, and that he sometimes emits blasphemies which are either totally devoid of meaning, or else self-contradictory, as exemplified here in the words: “They are full of new wine.” (Ap. Past.).—“The world loves to tarnish shining objects, and to drag those that are exalted down into the dust.” (Schiller).—O how often this mocking is only the veil assumed by a desperate spirit! The strongest convictions of the truth are frequently produced on the heart of such a man; he well knows the divine character of the Gospel; but he attempts to repress his convictions, and will not permit them to come to the light of day, for he loves darkness rather than light; hence he endeavors to escape their force by resorting to ridicule and jests. (L. Hofacker).—How shall we secure ourselves from taking offence at holy things in consequence of erroneous judgments? I. By carefully maintaining sentiments of profound reverence in our souls, with respect to God and divine things; II. By making ourselves thoroughly acquainted with the sinfulness of man in our own case, and in the case of others; III. By constantly remembering the contradiction and opposition which God’s works have encountered among men, even from the beginning. (Lechler).—The Gospel, to some the savour of life unto life, to others the savour of death unto death [2Co_2:16].—Christ is still set in our day for the fall and rising again of many. [Luk_2:34]. (ib.).

The significance of the Pentecostal gift: I. It was a token given to Israel; II. It was a prefiguration of God’s dealings with the Gentiles, namely, (a) of the call given to all nations; (b) of the election of those who seek salvation; (c) of the rejection of those who scoff at the wonderful works of God; III. It is still a rich source of hope, consolation and encouragement for all true Christians. (Harless).—The outpouring of the Holy Ghost on the disciples of the Lord: I. The circumstances which necessarily preceded such an event; II. The external signs which attended it; III. The power of the Holy Ghost, manifested at once in the disciples; IV. The impressions made on the assembled multitude. (Langbein).—The miracle of the Pentecostal gift: I. In the world, a mystery of foolishness; (a) “What meaneth this?” (b) “They are full of new wine.” II. In Christ, a mystery unto salvation; (a) a mystery—sudden; invisible; wonderful; (b) in Christ made manifest unto salvation—made manifest (by being with one accord together; by prayer; by a holy walk)—unto salvation (for all nations and times). (C. Beck: Hom. Repert.).—The operations of the Holy Spirit: I. The manner in which they are conducted; II. The results which they produce. (Kapff).—The Christian Church, originally founded by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost: I. By what circumstances was the way for this event prepared? (a) Externally, by the fulfilment of an appointed time; (b) internally, by the continuing together of the apostles with one accord. II. What circumstances attended the event itself? (a) Externally, wonderful signs; (b) internally, wonderful influences. III. What impressions did the multitude receive from it? (a) Externally, the effect of the singular character of the testimony of the disciples (mockery); (b) internally, the effect of the truths proclaimed (confusion of mind). (Lisco).—The outpouring of the Holy Ghost, an image of regeneration (Homily). I. The praying Church; II. The sound from heaven; III. The holy flames; IV. The preaching with new tongues, (ib.)—The confused voices of the world when the Holy Spirit bears witness: I. “Are not all these Galileans?” The world takes offence at the persons of the witnesses. II. “How hear we in our own tongue?” It is arrested by the voice of conscience responding to the truth. III. “What meaneth this?” It distrusts the issue of the ways of God. IV. “They are full of new wine.” It mistakes the source of the operations of the Spirit.—The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God. [1Co_2:14]. I. The disciples of the Spirit are too mean in his eyes, Act_2:7; II. The Spirit’s witness is too mighty for him, Act_2:8—11; III. The Spirit’s purpose is too lofty for him, Act_2:12; IV. The Spirit’s source is too profound for him, Act_2:13.—The impressions made on the individual by divine things, correspond in their character to the actual state of his mind and heart; I. The thoughtless gaze in ignorant wonder; the reflecting, with adoring praise: II. The guilty listen with confusion and terror; the justified, with holy joy; III. The wicked are prompted to indulge in foolish mocking: earnest inquirers are filled with holy awe.—[Illustrations of the divine attributes, derived from the outpouring of the Spirit (love; wisdom: power; truth, etc.).—Illustrations of the future blessedness of believers, derived from the outpouring of the Spirit (personal merit not the the cause; no hinderances insurmountable; suited to the nature and capacity of the creature; gives glory to God, etc.).—The continued operations of the Holy Spirit in the Church.—The outpouring of the Holy Ghost, a triumphant display of divine grace: I. In its original design; (a) such a gift could not have been conceived of by man; (b) was, therefore, unsought; (c) and totally undeserved; II. Its actual occurrence; (a) the subjects (disciples); (b) witnesses; (c) immediate effects (Church founded); III. Its permanent results; (a) preservation of divine truth in the Church; (b) conversion of sinners; (c) sanctification, etc.—Tr.].—Comp. the Hom. and Pract. remarks below, on Act_2:14-21.

Footnotes:

Act_2:6. a.—[The margin of the English Bible (which in the text follows Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva,) renders more literally: when this voice was heard (Rheims and Coverd.: voice). But as öùíÞ never means report or rumor elsewhere, while it does occur in connection with the mention of wind, thunder, etc., as in Joh_3:8; Rev_6:1, etc., Lechler, in the present translation, with many eminent critics and translators, regards it as another term for “sound,” the ἦ÷ïò of Act_2:2.—Tr.]

Act_2:6. b.—[Margin: troubled in mind; Vulg. mente confusa est. The original implies that the minds of the people were perturbed, or in a state of confusion, indicated by the tumult and eager inquiries which succeeded. Lechler: bestuerzt.—Tr.]

Act_2:7. a.—The text. rec. inserts ðÜíôåò after ἐîßóôáíôï äὲ [with A. C. E. Cod. Sin. ( ἁðÜíôåò ). Vulg. (omnes)]; it has been very properly omitted by recent critics in accordance with important manuscripts [B. D.], ancient translations, and also the example of Chrysostom and Augustine; this addition was designed to be emphatic. [Omitted by Lach., Scholz, Tisch., Born., and Alf.—Tr.]

Act_2:7. b.—It is, however, more doubtful than in the former case, whether ðñὸò ἀëëÞëïõò [of text. rec.] is also a later addition to the text, as Lachmann, who omits it, supposes. [Omitted in A. B. C. Cod. Sin. Vulg., and dropped also by Tisch. and Alf., but found in D. E. “An explanatory gloss.” (Alf.)—Tr.]

Act_2:12.—In place of ôß ἂí èÝëïé [of text. rec. with E.] Lach. [Tisch.] and Bornemann, with C. D. A., and Chrysostom, read ôß èÝëåé ; the latter is an unauthorized correction [as Alf. also believes], founded on the supposition that ôß ἂí èÝëïé is an indirect question, which is not the case.—[Cod. Sin. reads ôé èÝëïé .—Tr.]

Act_2:13.—[The text. rec. has ÷ëåíÜæïõôåò with E. and many minuscules; in place of it, the compound äéá÷ëåõÜæïíôåò is substituted by recent editors (Tisch., Lach., Stier, Alf.) as “more emphatic” (de Wette), and more in accordance with the best manuscripts, viz., A. B. C. D. (corrected) Cod. Sin.—Tr.]