7—8.
55
ἐστι γνῶναι χρόνους ἢ καιροὺς οὓς 6 Πατὴρ ἔθετο ἐν τῇ ἰδίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ" 8. ἀλλὰ λήψεσθε δύναμιν, ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ᾽Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐφ᾽ ὑμᾶς,
where in N.T. (but see x. 24, D), but used in classical Greek of awaiting a thing’s happening(Dem.). The passage in LXX in which it occurs is suggestive: τὴν σωτηρίαν περιµένων κυρίου, Gen. xlix. 18 (cf. Wisd. viii. 12). On the tradition that the Apostles remained in Jerusalem for twelve years in obedience to a com- mand of the Lord, and the evidence for it, see Harnack, Chronologie, i., p. 243 ff. Harnack speaks of the tradition as very old and well attested, and maintains that it is quite in accordance with Acts, as the earlier journeys of the Apostles are there described as missionary excursions from which they always returned to Jeru- salem.—riy ἐπαγγελίαν: ~Bengel notes the distinction between ὑπισχνέομαι and ἐπαγγέλλομαι, the former being used of promises in response to petitions, the latter of voluntary offers (Ammonius): ‘‘que verbi Greci proprietas, ubi de divinis promissionibus agitur, exquisite observanda est”. It is therefore remark- able that in the Gospels the word ἐπαγ- γελία is never used in this technical sense of the divine promise made by God until Luke xxiv. 49, where it is used of the promise of the Holy Spirit, as here. But in Acts and in St. Paul’s Epistles and in the Hebrews the word is frequent, and always of the promises made by God (except Acts xxiii. 21). See Sanday and Headlam on Romans i. 2, and Lightfoot on Gal. iti. 14, and Psalms of Solomon, xii., 8 (cf. vii., 9, and xvii., 6),ed. Ryle and James, p. 106. ‘‘ The promise of the Father,” cf. Luke xxiv. 49, is fulfilled in the baptism with the Holy Ghost, and although no doubt earlier promises of the gift of the Spirit may be included, cf. Luke xii. 11, as also the promise of the Spirit’s outpouring in Messianic times (cf. Joel ii. 28, Isaiah xliv. 3, Ezek. xxxvi. 26), yet the phraseology may be fairly said to present an undesigned coincidence with the more recent language of the Lord to the Twelve, John xiv. 16, xv. 26, xvi.14. On the many points of con- nection between the opening verses of Acts and the closing verses of St. Luke’s Gospel see below.
Ver. 5. ἐν πνεύµατι: the omission of ἐν before ὕδατι and its insertion before πνεύμ.. may be meant to draw a distinction between the baptism with water and the baptism {π the Spirit (R.V. margin “in”), But in Matt. iii. 11 we have the prepo- sition ἐν in both parts of the verse; cf.
John i. 31. On ἐν with the instrumental dative see Blass, Grammatik des N. α., Ῥ. 114, and Grotius, in loco; cf. the
Hebrew 3,—ovd μετὰ πολλὰς ταύτας
ἡμέρας: not after many, {.6., after few. This use of od with an adjective or adverb is characteristic of St. Luke, cf. Luke xv. 13, Acts xxvii. 14, in which places οὐ πολύς = ὀλίγος as here; cf. οὐ petpiws, Acts xx, 12; οὐ pakpav, Luke vii. 6, Acts xvii. 27; οὐκ ἄσημος, Acts xxi. 39; οὐχ ὁ τυχών, Acts xix. 11, xxviii. 2, cf. Haw- kins, Hore Syn., p. 153. No doubt μετ᾽ οὐ would be more correct, but the negative is found both before and after the preposition, so in Luke xv. 13; cf. Josephus, Ant., i., 12, and xiii., 7, 1, for similar changes of allocation in the same words. ταύτας closely connects the days referred to with the current day; cf. also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 221. ov μετὰ πολλάς, φησὶν ἵνα μὴ εἰς ἀθυμίαν ἐμπέσωσιν'' ὠρισμέγως δὲ πότε,οὺκ εἶπεν, ἵνα ἀεὶ ἐκγρηγορῶσιν ἐκδεχόμενοι, Theo- phylact, in loco.
Ver. 6. οἱ μὲν οὖν: the combination μὲν οὖν is very frequent in Acts in all parts, occurring no less than twenty- seven times; cf. Luke iii. 18. Like the simple pév it is sometimes used without δέ in the apodosis. Here, if δέ is omitted in ver. 7 after εἶπεν, there is still a con- trast between the question of the Apostles and the answer of Jesus. See especially Rendall, Acts of the Apostles, Appendix on μὲν οὖν, p. 160 ff.; cf. Weiss {π loco. ---συγελθόντες: the question has often been raised as to whether this word and μὲν οὖν refer back to ver. 4, or whether a later meeting of the disciples is here introduced. For the former Hilgenfeld contends (as against Weiss) and sees no reference to any fresh meeting: the disciples referred to in the αὐτοῖς of ver. 4 and the ὑμεῖς of νετ. 5 had already come together. According to Holtzmann there