Ver. 28. παραγγελίᾳ παρηγγείλαµεν: for the Hebraism ef. iv. 17, “ we straitly,”” etc., R.V. (and A.V.), expressing inten- sity — ‘‘commanding, we commanded you,” Wycliffe. The T.R. makes the clause a question, commencing with ov, but the evidence is too strong against it, evidently it was occasioned by the ἐπηρώ- τησεν, but St .Chrysostom adopts it, see Hom., xiii., 1. Bengel remarks on παραγ- γελίᾳ, “ pudet dicere minando, iv. 17, nam non poterant punire”. But St. Chrysos- tom rightly notes that they ought to have asked πῶς ἐξήλθετε, {.ε., from the prison, but they ask as if nothing had happened. ---ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ, iv. 17, here as there the Council do not mention the name of Jesus, perhaps because they disdained it; in sharp contrast stands not only St. Peter’s mention of the name, but his glorying in it, ver. 30, 31.—Tyv Ἱερουσαλὴμ: fem. here and elsewhere, cf. Gal. iv. 25, Rev. iii, 12, so in Matt.
29.) ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ
30. ὁ
αἷμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τούτου.
ἀπόστολοι εἶπον, Πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ Θεῷ μᾶλλον ἢ ἀνθρώποις. 9 - / ς 3” 3 lol a 6 ~ 5 [ή
Θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν Άγειρεν Ιησοῦν, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρίσασθε
1ο Π., articleom. SABEHP, Bas., Chrys., so W.H., Weiss; ειπον, but -αν RABE, so Tisch., W.H., Weiss. At the commencement of the verse αποκ. . . . προς αυτον is omitted in D, and the words πειθαρχειν δει (δε in D) follow as part of the high priest’s remarks; but Blass in β, following Flor., Gig., Lucif., adds to amok. δε Πετρος the words ειπεν προς αυτον, and proceeds ‘ rive πειθαρχειν δει Θεῳ η ανθρωποις; making these words a question asked by Peter of the high priest, who replies, according to a further addition of Flor., Gig., ο δε ειπεν ''Θεῳ”'. Weiss, Codex D, p. 64, thinks that the emendator took offence at the repetition of iv. 19, and there- upon places the words πειθαρχειν δε (not δει) κ.τ.λ. on the lips of the high priest as if he thus took up their own words contemptuously in addressing the Apostles, and the whole from βουλεσθε might thus originally have formed a question: ‘* You wish to bring this man’s blood upon us—but thus, indeed, to obey God rather than man ? Such blood revenge cannot surely be the command of God;”’ but see further Blass, in loco, and Weiss, u. s. D, Flor., Gig. all add at the end of νετ. 29, as introductory “to ver. 30, ο δε [Πετρος ειπεν προδ αυτους.
ii. 3, Blass, Grammatik des Ν. G., Ρ. 32; Winer-Schmiedel, p. 153.--διδαχῆς, “teaching,” R.V., cf. Matt. vii, 28.— βούλεσθε: the charge was untrue—the wish was their own, not that of the Apostles, cf. Matt. xxvii.25. St. Peter’s earnest desire was that they should be saved.—émayayetv, xviii. 6, xxii, 20, and 2 Sam. i. 16, cf. 2 Peterii. 1,5; nowhere else in Ν.Τ.--ἐφ ἡμᾶς: to bring His blood upon us, i.e., the vengeance of the people for His murder. αἷμα pro Φόνον, Hebraistic—no thought of divine punish- ment from their point of view; cf. LXX. Gen. xx. 9, Exod. xxxii. 34, Judges ix. 24, and cf. Josh. xxiii. 15 (in N.T., Matt. xxili. 35, Rev. xvili. 24).
Ver. 29. St. Peter as the spokesman, primus inter pares; the Apostles as a body are associated with him in his answer: ‘‘but Peter and the Apostles,” R.V. A.V. renders “Peter and the other Apostles,” and we may understand an ellipse of ἄλλοι or λοιποί before οἱ :«ἀπόστολοι, Blass, Grammatik des N.G.., p- 256.--ἀποκ., cf. Viteau, Le Grec du N. T., p. 112 (1896).—7revBapxetv: only ‘used by St. Luke and St. Paul; cf. ver. 32, xxvii. 21, Titus iii. 1; in this chapter and in St. Paul, in its classical use, obeying one in authority, or τοῖς νόµοις, etc. The word is used in Polybius, and Jo- sephus, and frequently in Philo, but only three times in the LXX; cf. 1 Esd. viii. 94, of obeying the law of the Lord. The reply of St. Peter, who speaks for all the Apostles, is practically the same as in ἄν. το, but still more decisive in its tone as was natural after the recent command, wer. 20,