Ver. 13. 6 Θεὸς ᾽Αβραὰμ «.7.A.: the
words were wisely chosen, not only to gain attention and to show that the speaker identified himself with the nation and hope of Israel, but also because in Jesus St. Peter saw the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham. ---ἐδόξασε, John viii. 54, xi. 4. Again we mark the same sharp contrast as in St. Peter’s former address—God hath glorified. . . but you put to an open shame. The objections of Weiss, who traces a re- viser’s hand in the double mention of the glorification of Jesus in ver. 13 and in 15, fail to secure the approval of Spitta, Feine, Jiingst, who all hold that ἐδόξασε refers to the power of the Risen Jesus, shown in the healing of the lame man, which Peter thus expressly emphasises. But the glorification was not, of course, confined to this miracle: ‘“auxit gloria hoc quoque miraculo” (Blass).—rév παῖδα : “his Servant,” R.V. (margin, ‘ Child ”). Vulgate has filium, which all other Eng- lish versions (except A.V., “‘ Child”) seem to have followed. But the rendering “Servant” is undoubtedly most appro- priate, cf. ver. 26, and iv. 27, 30 (em- ployed in the Messianic sense of Isa. xlii. 1, Iii, 13, ΠΠ, 11), where the LXX
has waits, Hebrew “Tela In Matt. xii.
18 the Evangelist sees the fulfilment of the first passage in Jesus as the Christ, the Servant of Jehovah. Wendt rightly emphasises the fact that no Apostle ever bears the name παῖς Θεοῦ, but δοῦλος : cf. iv. 29. In the LXX Moses is called both παῖς and δοῦλος, The rendering of R.V. is generally adopted, and by critics of very varying schools, e.g., Overbeck, Nésgen, Holtzmann, Felten, Hilgenfeld. Zéckler, whilst he adopts the rendering ‘‘ Servant,” still maintains that Luther’s translation, Kind Gottcs, cannot be regarded as incorrect (cf. the double meaning of the word in classical literature). Certainly he seems justified in maintaining that in the numerous parallels in the sub-apostolic writings the conception of the Servant by no means always excludes that of the Son, e.g., Epist. ad Diogn., viii., 11 and 9, where of:
ΠΡΑΞΕΙΣ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΩΝ Ill.
ἠρνήσασθε αὐτὸν κατὰ πρόσωπον | Πιλάτου, κριναντος ἐκείνου ἆπο- ἠρνήσασθε a) άτου, κρ
λύειν. 14. ὑμεῖς δὲ τὸν ἅγιον καὶ δίκαιον ” ἠρνήσασθε, καὶ ἠτήσασθε
1 υ: B*D read Πειλ., so Tisch., W.H., Weiss, Hilg.—see Winer-Schmiedel
Πιλατου ; g 1,
Pp. 43. κριναντος εκεινου απολ.; D adds αντου θελοντος and prefixes του (om. in D2); conflate θελοντος assim. to Luke xxiii. 20.
Ἓήρνησασθε, but D, Iren., Aug. have εβαρυνατε (aggravastis), so Hilg.; Nestle (so Blass, Chase, and see also Belser) believes confusion arose in Syriac between = ; see Nestle, Philologia Sacra, 1896, p. 40, and Einfihrung pn ο... 240 (and also Harris, who explains through ητησατε, ver. 6, for ητησασθε, displaced ηρνησασθε, and became corrupted into ηττησατε, transl. aggravastis) ; see also Blass, Philology of the Gospels, p. 194, and also Dalman, Die Worte Fesu, p. 54, and Enc. Bibl.,i., 56. Φονεα; after this word D inserts ζην και, so E, Flor., Aug. Gloss.; but Belser sees in it a marked contrast to govea, “‘ that a
murderer should live,” original.
God’s great scheme it is said ἀνεκοινώ- σατο µόνῳ τῷ παιδί (to His Son alone), called in 11 τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ παιδός; cf. Martyr. Polyc., xiv., 3, where the same phrase occurs, reminding us of Matt. ili. 17 (Col. i. 13, Eph. i. 6) and xiv. 1, where God is spoken of as 6 πατήρ of the well- beloved Son παιδός. In Clem. Rom., Cor. lix. 2-4, the word is used three times of Jesus Christ, and twice with τοῦ ἠγαπημένου (wads), and if there is no- thing in the context to determine the exact sense of the word, in the previous chapter St. Clement had written ζῇ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς καὶ £4 6 Κυριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον κ.τ.λ.; cf. also Barnabas, Efist. (iii., 6), vi.. 1; Apost. Const., viii., 5, 14, 30, 40, 41; and Didache, ix., 2, 3; Χ., 2, 3, where, how- ever, at the first introduction of the word, David and Jesus are both called by it in the same sentence. In the Didache the title is found altogether five times, once as above, and four times as applied to Jesus alone. But these passages all occur in the Eucharistic Prayers of the Didache (placed by Resch as early as 80-90 A.D.), and in them we find not only the title ‘‘ Lord” used absolutely of Jesus, ix., 5, but He is associated with the Father in glory and power, ix., 4. Knowledge, faith, and immortality are made known by Him, spiritual food and drink, and eternal life are imparted by Him, x., 2,3. Zéckler, Apostelgeschichte, in loco ; Lock, Expositor, p. 183 ff. (1891), ‘Christology of the Earlier Chapters of the Acts’’; Schmid, Biblische Theologie, ‘p. 405. But further: if we bear in mind all that the ‘‘ Servant of the Lord” must have meant for a Jew, and for a Jew so well versed in the O.T. Prophets as St. Peter, it becomes a marvellous fact that he should have seen in Jesus of Nazareth the realisation of a character and of a