Ver. 16. ἐπιπεπτωκός: the verb is characteristic of St. Luke, and used by him both in his Gospel and in Acts of the occurrence of extraordinary conditions, e.g., the sudden influence of the Spirit, cf. Luke i. 12, Acts x. 44, Xi. 15, xix. 17, cf. Rev. xi. 11 (Acts x. 10 cannot be sup- ported, and in xiii. 11 read ἔπεσεν). Simi- lar usage in LXX, Exod. xv. 16, 1 Sam, xxvi. 12, Ps. liv. 4, Judith ii, 28, xi. 11, etc. Friedrich, Das Lucasewangelium, p. 41
i5—18.
ὑπῆρχον εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ.)
217
17. τότε ἐπετίθουν 1 τὰς
χεῖρας ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς, καὶ ἐλάμβανον Πνεῦμα "Άγιον. 18. Θεασάμενος 5 δὲ ὁ Σίμων, ὅτι διὰ τῆς ἐπιθέσεως τῶν χειρῶν τῶν ἀποστόλων δίδοται
1επετιθουν, see Winer-Schmiedel, p. 121; Blass, Gram., p. 48. 2 θεασαµενος HLP, Chrys. ; wv NABCDE, so Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss,
Wendt, Hilg.
For the word as used by St. Luke in another sense also characteristic of him, see below on xx. 37, and Plummer on xv. 20. On the formula of baptism see above p. 91, and “Baptism,” Β.Ὀ.", Ρ. 352, and Hastings’ B.D.—tmipxov here perhaps = “made α beginning,” took the first step (Lumby).
Ver. 17. There cannot be any reason to doubt the validity of St. Philip’s bap- tism, and it is therefore evident that the laying on of hands (cf. xix. 6) is here distinct from baptism, and also from the appointment to any Church office (as in vi. 6, xiii. 3), or the bestowal of any special power of healing as in the person of Ananias, ix. 12, 17, although gifts of healing might no doubt accompany it. But both here and in xix. 6 (cf. Heb. vi. 2) it follows closely upon baptism, and is performed by Apostles, to whom alone the function belongs, although it is reasonable to suppose that the prophets and teachers who were associated with them in their Apostolic office, and who could lay on hands in Acts xiii. 1-3, could do so in other cases also for the reception of the. Holy Ghost (Gore, Church and the Ministry, p. 258). The question why St. Philip did not himself “lay hands” upon his converts has been variously discussed, but the narrative of Acts supplies the answer, inasmuch as in the only two parallel cases, viz., the verse before us and xix. 6, the higher officers alone exercise this power, and also justifies the usual custom of the Church in so limiting its exercise (“* Con- firmation,” Dict. of Christian Antiq. (Smith & Cheetham), i., p. 425; B.D., ill., App. ; and Hooker, Eccles. Pol., v., ch. lxvi. 5, and passage cited; Jerome, Advers. Lucif., ο. 4, and St. Cyprian, Epis. 73, ad Fubaianum (reference to the passage before us)). Undoubtedly there are cases of baptism, Acts iii. 41, xvi. 15, 33, where no reference is made to the subsequent performance of this rite, but in these cases it must be remembered that the baptiser was an Apostle, and that when this was the case its observance might fairly be assumed. For the special
case of Cornelius see below on x. 44, see further ‘‘ Confirmation,” B.D.?, i., 640. Weizsacker contrasts this ac- count in viii., v. 16, which he describes as this crude conception of the communica- tion of the Spirit solely by the imposition of the Apostles’ hands (Apostolic Age, li., 254 and 299, E.T.), and which repre- sents baptism as being thus completed, with the account of baptism given us by St. Paul in 1 Cor. i. 14-17. But in the first place we should remember that Acts does not describe baptism as being
‘completed by the laying on of hands;
the baptism was not invalid, the Sama- ritan converts became by its administra- tion members of the Church; and the laying on of hands was not so much a completion of baptism as an addition to it. And, in the next place, Heb. vi. 2 certainly indicates that this addition must have been known at a very early period (see Westcott, in loco). It may also be borne in mind that 2 Cor. i. 21 is interpreted of confirmation by many of the Fathers (cf. too Westcott’s inter- pretation of 1 John ii. 20, 27), and that St. Paul is writing a letter and not describing a ritual.—éAdpBavov: Dr. Hort, who holds that the reception of the Holy Spirit is here explained as in x. 44 by reference to the manifestation of the gift of tongues, etc., points out that the verb is not ἔλαβον, but imperfect ἐλάμβανον, and he therefore renders it “showed a succession of signs of the Spirit ” (see also above). But this inter- pretation need not conflict with the belief in the gift of the Spirit as a permanent possession, and it is well to remember that ἐπετίθεσαν (éwerifouv) is also im- perfect. Both verbs may therefore simply indicate the continuous administration of the laying on of hands by the Apostles; and the continuous supernatural result (not necessarily external manifestation which followed upon this action; = ἐβαπτίζοντο in ver. 12, imperfect, and so in xviii. 8,