¥4—18.
λέγει 6 Θεὸς, ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός pou ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα, καὶ προφητεύσουσιν οἱ υἱοὶ ὑμῶν 1 καὶ ai θυγατέρες ὑμῶν: καὶ οἱ νεα-
, c ~ ς , ” A c ς νι. . #. νισκοι υμων ορασεις ὀψονται, και οι πρεσβύτεροι υμων ενυπγνια
2
ἐνυπνιασθήσονται, 18. καί γε ἐπὶ τοὺς δούλους µου καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς
δούλας µου ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ὃ ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύματός µου,
1 For υΌµων ... υΌμων D, Gig., Tert., “‘Rebapt.” Hil. read αντων (referred by
Harris to a Montanistic application).
2 evurvia EP, Tert., Chrys. (cf. LXX, but AS* has -ιοις); but ενυπνιοις ABCD?
13, 27, 61, Epiph., so Tisch., W.H., R.V.,
5 ev Tats ηµεραις εκειναις om. D, Gig. (Cypr.), Acta Perpetua. «σουσιν om. D, Par.!, Tert. (Cypr.), Acta Perpetue (not in LXX).
Wendt, Weiss, Hilg.
και προφητειυ- The two clauses
come together in Syriac and may have been omitted together (Chase).
pression in itself suggests a contrast beween the weakness and imperfection of humanity and the all-powerful working of the divine Spirit. The expression is Hebraistic, cf. Luke iii. 6, John xvii. 2, and Ecclus. xlv. 4, and often in LXX. In Joel’s prophecy the expression only included the people of Israel, although the divine Spirit should be no longer limited to particular prophets or favoured ‘individuals, but should be given to the whole nation. If we compare ii. 39, the expression would include at least the members of the Diaspora, wherever they might be, but it is doubtful whether we can take it as including the heathen as such in St. Peter’s thoughts, although Hilgenfeld is so convinced that the verse ii. 39 can only refer to the heathen that he refers all the words from καὶ πᾶσι to the end of the verse to his “' author to Theophilus”, Spitta on the other hand regards the expression as referring only to the Jews of the Diaspora; if the Gentiles had been intended, he thinks that we should have had τοῖς eis paxpav ἔθνεσιν as in xxii. 21. Undoubtedly we have an analogous expression to ii. 39 in Eph. ii. 13, ot wore ὄντες paxpav, where the words evidently refer to the heathen, but we must not expect the universalism of St. Paul in the first public address of St. Peter: for him it is still 6 θεὸς ἡμῶν, “‘our God,”’ ver. 39, and even the expres- sion, πρῶτον, iii. 26, in which Holtzmann sees a reference to the extension of the Messianic blessings to the Jew first and then to the Gentile, need only mean that in St. Peter’s view these blessings could only be secured by the Gentile through becoming a proselyte to the faith of Israel. It is thus only that St. Peter’s subsequent conduct becomes intelligible. vhe reading αὐτῶν instead of ὑμῶν in ‘the next clause before both viol and
θυγατέρες if it is adopted (Blass β) would seem to extend the scope of the prophecy beyond the limits of Israel proper.—@vyarépes: as Anna is called προφῆτις, Luke ii. 36, so too in the Christian Church the daughters of Philip are spoken of as προφητεύουσαι, xxi. 9. ---γεανίσκοι: in LXX and Hebrew the order is reversed. It may be that Bengel is right in drawing the distinction thus: 6 Αριά juvenes maximi vigent sensus externi, visionibus opportuni: apud senes sensus interni, somniis accommodati”. But he adds ‘‘ Non tamen adolescentes a somniis, neque sensus a visionibus excluduntur” (see also Keil, in loco), and so Overbeck, Winer, Wendt see in the words simply an instance of the Hebrew love of parallelism.—kat γε
(in LXX) = Hebrew O)—only here in
N.T. and in xvii. 27 W.H. (and possibly in Luke xix. 42)=‘‘and even,” Blass, Grammatik des N. G., p. 255. The only good Attic instance of καί ye with an intervening word is to be found in Lysias, in Theomn., ii., 7, although not a strict parallel to the passage before us, Simcox Language of the N. T.., p. 168. -----