29—30.
o 5 J Tyo 3 ΄ , a 39 ὠρισαν εκαστος αύτων ELS διακονίαν πέµψαι τοις κατοικοῦσιν ἐν τῇ
᾿Ιουδαίᾳ ἀδελφοῖς: 30. ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν, ἀποστείλαντες πρὸς τοὺς
πρεσβυτέρους διὰ χειρὸς Βαρνάβα καὶ Σαύλου.
say, µ. S., Ῥ. 52; Baumgarten (Alford, in loco).—eis διακονίαν: ‘for a ministry,” R.V. margin, cf. Rom. xv. 31, 2 Cor. ix. 1, etc., Acta Thome, 56; ‘contributions for relief’? Ramsay, see further below; on the construction and complexity of the sentence see especially Page’s note, and Wendt.—aSedgois: not merely as fellow-disciples, but as brethren in the One Lord.
Ver. 30. ὃ καὶ ἐποίησαν κ.τ.λ.:; a question arises as to whether this took place during, or at a later date than, Herod’s persecution in 44 A.D.—the year of his death. Bishop Lightfoot (with whom Dr. Sanday and Dr. Hort sub- stantially agree) maintains that Barnabas and Saul went up to Jerusalem in the early months of 44, during Herod’s per- secution, deposited their διακονία with the elders, and returned without delay. If we ask why ‘“‘elders’’ are mentioned, and not Apostles, the probability is sug- gested that the Apostles had fled from Jerusalem and were in hiding. Against this view Ramsay strongly protests, not only on account of the part assigned to the leading Apostles, but also because of the meaning which he attaches to the διακονία of Barnabas and Saul (see on xii. 25). The elders, not Apostles, are mentioned because the embassy was of a purely business kind, and it was not fit that the Apostles should serve tables. Moreover, Ramsay places the visit of Barnabas and Saul to Jerusalem in 45, or preferably in 46, at the commencement of the great famine in Judza—not in 44, but in 45. Still, as Dr. Sanday urges, the entire omission of any reference to the Apostles is strange (cf. Blass on xi. 30, xii. 17, who holds that the Apostles had fled), especially as elsewhere Apostles and elders are constantly bracketed to- gether as a single body (xv. 2, 4, 6, 22, 23, xvi. 4, cf. xxi. 18). Nor does it follow that because James, presumably “the brother of the Lord,’ is mentioned as remaining in Jerusalem during the persecution (but see Lightfoot, Gal., Ρ. 127, note), which his reputation for sanctity amongst his countrymen might have enabled him to do, that the other Apostles could have done so with equal safety. But Ramsay at all events re- lieves us from the difficulty involved in the entrance of Paul into Jerusalem at a
time of persecution, and the more so in view of the previous plots against his life, a difficulty which is quite unsatisfactorily met by supposing that Paul did not enter the city at all for some unknown reasons, or more unsatisfactorily still by attribut- ing to the author of Acts a mistake in asserting that any visit of Paul to Jeru- salem was made at this time. On the chronological order involved in accord- ance with the two views mentioned, see Ramsay, St. Paul, pp. 48 ff., 68, 69; Lightfoot, Gal., p. 124, note; and, as space forbids more, for the whole ques- tion Expositor for February and March, 1896; Lightfoot, Gal., p. 123 ff.; Hort, Fudaistic Christianity, p.61,and Ecclesia, Ρ. 62; Wendt, Ρ. 265 (1888) and Ρ. 218 (1899).— τοὺς πρεσβυτέρους, see pre- vious verse. It is also noticeable that St. Luke gives no account of the appoint- ment of the elders; he takes it for granted. These Christian elders are therefore in all probability no new kind of officers, but a continuation in the Christian Church of the office of the
Ὀ 1) ; πρεσβύτεροι, to whom probably
the government of the Synagogue was assigned—hence we may account for St. Luke’s silence (Moberly, Ministerial Priesthood, Ῥ. 141; Hort, Ecclesia, p. 62; Lightfoot, Phil., pp. 191-193; “' Bishop ”’ (Gwatkin), Hastings’ B.D.). In the Christian συναγωγή (James ii. 2) there would naturally be elders occupying a position of trust and authority. There is certainly no reason to regard them as the Seven under another name (so Zelier, Ritschl), although it is quite conceivable that if the Seven represented the Hel- lenists, the elders may have been already in existence as representing the Hebrew part of the Church. But there is need to guard against the exaggeration of the Jewish nature of the office in question. In the N.T. we find mention of elders, not merely so on account of age, not merely as administrative and disciplinary officers (Hatch, Bampton Lectures, pp. 58, 61), as in a Jewish synagogue, but as officers of the Christian Church with spiritual functions, cf. James v. 14, 1 Pet. v. 2, Acts xx. 17, Tit. i. 5, and also 1 Thess. v. 12-14, Heb. xiii.7 (see Mayor, St. Fames, p. cxxviii; Gore, Church and the Ministry, pp. 253, 263, and note