Ver. 17. ὅτι κατηριθµηµένος ἦν κ.τ.λ. For theconstruction see ver.10. ὅτι ΙΠπίτο- duces the ground upon which the Scripture to be cited, which speaks of the vacancy in the Apostolic office, found its fulfilment in Judas; “he was numbered,’ ‘triste est numerari non manere,” Bengel.—xai ἔλαχεν τὸν KAfpov: lit., ‘and obtained by lot the lot”: κλῆρος, a lot, that which is assigned by lot, the portion or share so assigned; so amongst the Greeks, and somewhat similarly in English, cf. in LXX Wisdom ii. 9, v. 5, Ecclesiasticus
64
ἡμῖν, καὶ ἔλαχε τὸν κλῆρον τῆς διακονίας ταύτης.
18. οὗτος μὲν
οὖν ἐκτήσατο χωρίον ἐκ τοῦ 1 μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας, καὶ πρηνὴς γενό-
1 του om. ΜΑΒΟΡΕ, Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Hilgenfeld.
After
αδικιας D inserts αυτου; so Syr. Harcl., Sah., Aug., so Blass in B, and Hilgenfeld. Blass added at first, but see Hilg., note, p. 4, και κατεδησεν αυτου τον τραχηλον.
xxv. 1ο. The word is used elsewhere in Acts three times, i. 26, viii. 21, xxvi. 18; cf. with the last passage its use by St. Paul elsewhere, Col. i. 12. Here the word no doubt may be used by St. Peter with reference to the actual selection by lot which was about to follow. The same word is used elsewhere by the same Apostle, 1 Peter v. 3, ‘neither as lording it over the charge allotted to you,” τῶν κλήρων. Tyndale and Cranmer render the word here “ parishes,” which really gives a good interpretation of it = the “lots” assigned to the elders as their portions in God’s heritage ; and 5ο we have by an easy transition clerict=clergy, those to whom such “lots” are assigned: Humphry, Commentary on R. V., p. 446, Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 246 ff—édayev: here and in 2 Peter i. 1 with an accusa- tive, as in classical Greek, ‘‘ received his portion”? R.V. On the construction of the verb with the genitive, cf. Blass, Grammatik des N. G., pp. 100, 230, and Plummer’s St. Luke, p. 11; with Luke i. g, cf. 1 Sam. xiv., 47. In classical Greek it is used as the opposite of χειρο- τονηθῆναι, to be elected, more commonly with the infinitive.—8veKxevias: “‘ Apostle- ship the highest form of ministration is repeatedly designated thus,” Hort, Ec- clesia, p. 204, @.g., VET. 25, XX. 24, xxi. 19, 2 Cor. iv. 1, v. 18, vi. 3, Rom. xi. 13, and see further on the word, chap. vi. below. It would be difficult to find in such a general term, or in any part of the speech, any reference to α hierarchical constitution of the Church (Zeller, Over- beck). Jiingst cannot derive any such view from this verse, although he sees in the description of διακονία as ἀποστολή, ver. 25, the mark of a later period than that of the delivery of the speech (so too Wendt).
Ver. 18. οὗτος μὲν οὖν κ.τ.λ. This verse and the next are regarded in R.V. as a parenthesis (compare also W.H.), μὲν οὖν making the transition from St. Peter’s own words to the ex- planatory statement of St. Luke; seé Rendall’s Appendix on μὲν οὖν, although he would place ver. 20 also in a paren- thesis, Acts, p. 160 ff. For this frequent use of μὲν οὖν in Acts, see also Blass, who regards µέν as used here, as in other
places, without any following antithesis expressed by δέ, Grammatik des N.G., pp. 261, 267, see also Hackett’s note iz loco. Spitta, Feine, Weiss, see in these
‘two verses an editorial interpolation.—
ἐκτήσατο χωρίον. To harmonise this with Matt. xxvii. 5, an explanation has been often used to this effect, that although Judas did not purchase the field, it was purchased by his money, and that thus he might be called its possessor. This- was the explanation adopted by the older commentators, and by many modern. Theophylact, ¢.g., describes Judas ας. rightly called the κύριος of the field for the price of it was his. It is no doubt quite possible that St. Peter (if the words are his and not St. Luke’s) should thus express himself rhetorically (and some of his other expressions are certainly rhetorical, 6.5., ἐλάκησε µέσος), or that Judas should be spoken of as the pos- sessor of the field, just as Joseph of Arimathea is said to have hewn his own tomb, or Pilate to have scourged Jesus, but possibly Dr. Edersheim’s view that the blood-money by a fiction of law was- still considered to belong to Judas may help to explain the difficulty, ¥esus the Messiah, ii., 575. Lightfoot comments, “ Not that he himself bought the field, for Matthew resolves the contrary—nor was there any such thing in his intention when he bargained for the money,” and then he adds, ‘‘But Peter by a bitter irrision showeth the fruit and profit of his wretched covetise:”’ Hor. Heb. (see also Hackett’s note). Without fully endorsing this, it is quite possible that St. Peter, or St. Luke, would contrast the portion in the ministry which Judas had received with the little which was the result of the price of his iniquity. —ék τοῦ μισθοῦ τῆς ἀδικίας pro τοῦ ἀδίκου μισθοῦ, 2 Hebraism, Blass, ἐπ loco, see also Winer-Schmiedel, p. 268. The phrase only occurs again in 2 Peter ii. 13, 15; on this use of ἐκ see Simcox, “Tanguage of the Ν. Τ., Ῥ. 146. Com- binations of words with ἀδικία are characteristic of St. Luke (Friedrich). In the other Evangelists the word is only found once, John vii. 18. — καὶ πρηνὴς yevop. Wendt (following Zeller and Overbeck) and others maintain