Ver. 24. Δεήθητε: the verse is often taken (as by Meyer and others) as a further proof of the hollowness of Simon’s belief, and his ignorance of the way of true repentance—he will not pray for himself, and he only asks for deliverance from fear of the penalty and not from hatred of the sin (so Bengel). But on the other hand Wendt, in criticising Meyer, objects to this further condemna-
24—26.
221
26. Ἄγγελος δὲ Κυρίου ἐλάλησε πρὸς Φίλιππον, λέγων, ᾿Ανάστηθι καὶ πορεύου κατὰ µεσημβρίαν, ἐπὶ τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν καταβαίνουσαν ἀπὸ
tion of Simon as not expressed in the text. So far as the petition for the Apostles’ prayers is concerned, it is of course possible that it may have been prompted by the belief that such prayers would be more efficacious than his own (so Blass, Wendt, see also conclusion of the story in D); he does not ask them to pray instead of himself but ὑπέρ, on his behalf.—éméA@q: not used by the other Evangelists, but three times in St. Luke’s Gospel and four times in Acts, with ἐπί and accusative both in Gospel (i. 35, cf. xxi. 35) and Acts.
Ver. 25. ot μὲν οὖν: the μὲν οὖν and δέ in νετ. 26 may connect the return of the party to Jerusalem and the following instructions to Philip for his journey, and so enable us to gather for a certainty that Philip returned to Jerusalem with the Apostles, and received there his further directions from the Lord; see Rendall’s Appendix on μὲν οὖν, Acts, p. 164, but cf. on the other hand, Belser, Beitrdge, pp. 51, 52. On the frequent and characteristic use of μὲν οὖν in Luke, see above on i. 6, etc. —tméorpepav: if we read the imperfect, we have the two verbs in the verse in the same tense, and the sense would be that the Apostles did not return at once to Jerusalem, but started on their return (imperfect), and preached to the Samaritan villages on the way (as Belser also allows)—the τε closely unites the two verbs (Weiss). The verb is characteristic of St. Luke: in his Gospel twenty-one or twenty-two times; in Acts, eleven or twelve times; in the other Evangelists, only once, Mark xv. 40, and this doubtful; only three times in rest of N.T. (Lekebusch, Friedrich).
Ver. 26. ἄγγελος: on the frequency of angelic appearances, another char- acteristic of St. Luke, see Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium, pp. 45 and 52 (so Zeller, Acts, ii., 224, E.T.), ef. Luke ii. g and Acts xii. 7, Luke i. 38 and Acts x. 7, Luke xxiv. 4 and Acts i. 10, x. 30. There can be no doubt, as Wendt points out, that St. Luke means that the communi- cation was made to Philip by an angel, and that therefore all attempts to explain his words as meaning that Philip felt a sudden inward impulse, or that he had a vision in a dream, are unsatisfactory.— ἀνάστηθι, as Wendt remarks, does not support the latter supposition, cf. v. 17, and its frequent use in Acts and in O.T. see below.—8é may be taken as above,
see ver. 25, or as simply marking the return of the narrative from the chief Apostles to the history of Philip. As in νν. 29, 39, mvedpa and not ἄγγελος occurs; the alteration has been attributed to a reviser, but even Spitta, Afostel- geschichte, p. 153, can find no reason for this, and sees in the use of πνεῦμα and ἄγγελος here nothing more strange than their close collocation Matt. iv. 1, 1r.— ἀνάστηθι καὶ πορεύου, words often similarly joined together in LXX.—kara peonpBptav: towards the south, 2.6., he was to proceed “with his face to the south,” cf. xxvii. 12 (Page).—émt τὴν ὁδὸν (not πρός), on, 1.ε., along the road (not “unto,” A.V.). R.V.margin renders κατὰ peo. ‘fat noon’; so Rendall, ef. xxii. 6, as we have κατά not πρός; so Nestle, Studien und Kritiken, p. 335 (1892) (see Felten’s note, Apostel- geschichte, p. 177; but as he points out, the heat of the day at twelve o’clock would not be a likely time for travelling, see also Belser, Beitrage, p. 52, as against Nestle). Wendt, edition 1899, p. 177, gives in his adhesion to Nestle’s view on the ground that in LXX, cf. Gen. xviii. I, etc., the word peonpBp. is always so used, and because the time of the day for the meeting was an important factor, whilst there would be no need to mention the direction, when the town was defi- nitely named (see also O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte, p. ὃ8).--αὕτη ἐστὶν ἔρημος: opinion is still divided as to whether the adjective is to be referred to the town or the road. Amongst recent writers, Wendt, edition 1899, p. 178; Zahn, Einleitung in das N. Τ., ii., 438 (1899) : Belser, Rendall, O. Holtzmann, w. s., p. 88, Knabenbauer (so too Edersheim,, Fewish Social Life, p. 79; Conder in B.D.? “ Gaza,’”’ and Grimm-Thayer) may be added to the large number who see a reference to the route (in Schirer, Fewish People, div. ii., vol. i., p. 71, E.T., it is stated that this view is the more pro- bable). But, on the other hand, some Οἱ the older commentators (Calvin, Grotius, etc.) take the former view, and they haye recently received a strong supporter in Prof. G. A. Smith, Historical Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 186-188. O. Holtz. mann, although referring αὕτη to ὁδός, points out that both Strabo, xvi., 2, 30, and the Anonymous Geographical Frag- ment (Geogr. Grec. Minores, Hudson, iv., Ρ. 39) designate Gaza as ἔρημος. Dr.