Ver. 5. 6 δὲ ἐπεῖχεν, sc., νοῦν (not τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς); cf. Luke xiv. 7, 1 Tim. iv. 16, Ecclesiasticus xxxi. (xxxiv.) 2, 2 Macc. ix. 25 (Job xxx. 26, A.S.?
al.) with dative rei; so in Polybius. .—*
Ver 6. ἀργύριον καὶ χρυσίον: the words do not suggest the idea of a complete com- munism amongst the believers, although Oecumenius derives from them a proof of the absolute poverty of the Apostles.
οκ”
~ tap αὐτῶν λαβεῖν.
> ς / a ΑΝ” at a οὐχ ὑπάρχει por ὃ δὲ έχω, τοῦτό σοι δίδωµι. a a , 15 ‘ Χριστοῦ τοῦ Ναζωραίου, ‘ έγειρα. καὶ περιπάτει.
105
6. εἶπε δὲ Πέτρος, ᾽Αργύριον καὶ χρυσίον
ἐν τῷ ὀνό ᾿Ιησοῦ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι ᾿Ιησοῦ
7. καὶ πιάσας
1 εγειραι και περιπατει; AEGP 61 ead εγειρε, found in ACEGP 61, Vulg., Boh., Syrr. (P. and H.), Arm., Aeth., Irint.; but omitted by NBD, Sah., so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Hilg., Wendt (who sees in the preceding words assimilation to passages
in the Gospels). αναστα Epiph.
They may perhaps be explained by re- membering that if the Apostles had no silver or gold with them, they were literally obeying their Lord’s command, Matt. x. 9, or that whatever money they had was held by them in trust for the public good, not as available for private charity. Spitta, who interprets li. 45 of the Apostles alone (pp. 72-74), sees in St. Peter’s words a confirmation. of his view, and a further fulfilment of our Lord’s words in Luke xii. 33, but if our interpretation of ii. 44 ff. is correct, our Lord’s words were fully obeyed, but as a principle of charity, and not as a tule binding to the letter. St. Chry- sostom (Hom., viii.) justly notes the un- assuming language of St. Peter here, so free from boasting and personal display. Compare 1 Peter i. 18 (iii. 3), where the Apostle sharply contrasts the corrupt- 1Ρ]ε gold and silver with higher and spititual gifts (Scharfe).—6 δὲ ἔχω: the difference between this verb and ὑπάρχει may be maintained by regarding the latter as used of worldly belongings, -€x@ of that which was lasting and most surely held.—év τῷ ὀνόματι: no occasion to prefix such words as λέγω σοι for the expression means ‘“‘in the power of this name” (cf. Matt. vii. 22, Luke x. 17, Acts iv. 10, xvi. 18, James v. 14, Mark
17). So too the Hebrew ova
in the name of any one, i.e., by his autho- rity, Exodus v. 23, and thus “in the name of Jehovah,” 1.6., by divine autho- rity, Deut. xviii. 22, 1 Chron. xxii. 19, Jer. xi. 21, and frequently in the Psalms, cf. also Book of Enoch, x\viii. 7 (Charles, p- 48). On the use, or possible use, of the phrase in extra-biblical literature, see Deissmann, Bibelstudien, p. 145, and also Neue Bibelstudien, p. 25 (1897). When Celsus alleged that the Christians cast out demons by the aid of evil spirits, Origen claims this power for the name of Jesus: τοσοῦτον γὰρ δύναται τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, cf. also Justin Martyr, Dial. ο, Tryph., 85.—'l. X. τοῦ Ναζωραίου: the “words must η themselves have tested
XVi.
the faith of the lame man. His part has sometimes been represented as merely passive, and as if no appeal of any kind were made to his faith contrasted with xiv. g (ver. 16 in this chapter being interpreted only of the faith of the Apostles), but a test of faith was implied in the command which bade the man rise and walk in the power of a name which a short time before had been placed as an inscription on a malefactor’s cross, but with which St. Peter now bids him to associate the dignity and power of the Messiah (see Plumptre, in loco). It is necessary from another point of view to emphasise this implied appeal to the man’s faith, since Zeller and Overbeck regard the omission of faith in the recipient as designed to magnify the magic of the miracle. Zeller re- marks: ‘‘Our book makes but one ob- servation on his state of mind, which certainly indicates a receptivity, but un- fortunately not a receptivity for spiritual gifts”. But nothing was more natural than that the man should at first expect to receive money, and his faith in St. Peter’s words is rather enhanced by the fact that the Apostle had already de- clared his utter inability to satisfy his expectations. St. Luke much more fre- quently than the other Evangelists names our Lord from His early home Nazareth in which frequency Friedrich sees an- other point of likeness between St. Luke’s Gospel and the Acts, Das Lucas- evangelium, p. 85. Holtzmann attempts to refer the whole story to an imitation of Luke v. 18-26, but see as against such attempts Feine, Eine vorkanonische Uberlicferung des Lukas, pp. 175,199, 200.