[554] So mss. and Edd. but the clause ho Theos touto ekeleuse might be better transferred, in the sense, "It is only in obedience to God's command that I come to you." Below, Eita hina medeis auto ten charin eche (A. B. C. D. F. Cat.) epagei (om. C.) ti phesin; (A. B. C. but Cat. for epagei ti phesin; has, tauta phesin;) Kai emoi k. t. l. We read, Eita epagei, Kai emoi edeixen ho Theos (hina medeis auto ten charin eche tauta phesin) medena k. t. l.
[555] By saying "it is not lawful," Peter does not refer to any specific command in the Mosaic law forbidding intercourse with Gentiles. The separateness of the Jewish people from the heathen world had, indeed, its basis in the Levitical system, especially in the regulations concerning ceremonial cleanness. Still the Jews had constant commercial relations with other nations. Peter here refers, no doubt, to the customary and traditional exclusiveness of his nation which had become a social as well as a religious trait, and which had been extended far beyond the purport of the Mosaic requirements, which had for their end the preservation of the truth and purity of the religion of the nation. This exclusive and jealous spirit is frequently reflected in the N.T. and contemporaneous literature. The Jewish Christians accuse Peter (Acts xi. 3) of eating with the uncircumcised. On another occasion, the prejudices of his kinsmen and friends intimidated him and constrained him to break off his custom of associating with the Gentile Christians at meals (Gal. ii. 11 sq.). "Moses," says Josephus, "does not allow those who come to us without living according to our laws to be admitted into communion with us" (Contra Apion. ii. 29). Tacitus accuses the Jews of harboring "the bitterest animosity against all other nations" (Hist. v. 5) and Juvenal says that they will not point out the way except to those of their own religion, and that they will "conduct those only to the fountain inquired after who are circumcised" (Sat. xiv. 103). How great was the lesson then, which Peter had been taught in the vision! It is not strange that it was only gradually learned and practised.--G.B.S.
[556] Kai en tisin hemerais; so all the mss. with Cat. (en tisin hem.) and OEcum. If the text be not corrupt, Chrys. must be understood to interpret apo tetartes hem. of the "fourth day of the week:" i.e. Cornelius had anticipated, among other pious observances, this practice also, viz. of the Wednesday fast. Otherwise, there is no intelligible connection for the following words, Dia gar touto eipen, 'Apo tetartes hemeras. This, he says, was an advance in piety: and then it was that the Angel appeared to him. Then he proceeds to argue, that it is not "four days ago," for the time does not amount to that number of days: the day on which Peter arrived was not the fourth, but between that and the day on which Cornelius prayed, there are but two entire days. It seems that this must be St. Chrysostom's meaning, though it is obscured by mistakes of the scribes. B. C. haute mia hemera; kai hen elthon mia; kai te trite ephane; hos einai deuteran meth' hen proseuxato. (A. omits the passage.) E. D. F. Edd. haute mia hemera; kai hen apelthon hoi pemphthentes, mia; kai hen elthon, mia; kai te tetarte ephane; hos einai deuteran meth' hen proseuxato. Cat. and OEc. agree with E. D. F. in supplying the clause omitted in B. C , to which however they add para Korneliou: they have also tetarte ephane, but for the last clause they read, hosei triten horan meth' hen proseuxato. But the sense intended by Chrys. should be: "This, the day (on which they left Joppa), is one day (before the day on which Cornelius is speaking): and the day on which the messengers from Cornelius came, one day; (therefore the second day before that on which Cornelius is speaking:) and on the third day (previous) the Angel appeared: so that, exclusively of the day on which Cornelius is speaking, and that on which Cornelius prayed, there are two days." This sense will be satisfied by reading, haute mia hemera; kai hen elthon hoi pemphthentes para Korneliou, mia; kai te trite ephane; & 244;ste einai duo hemeras meth' hen proseuxato. The scribes, mistaking both the drift and the method of the calculation, supposed haute hem. to mean "the day of Peter's arrival:" but the day before that was the day on which they came away (apelthon) from Joppa, and on the previous day the messengers arrived (elthon), and on the day before that, which is therefore the fourth, the Angel appeared: hence they insert the words kai hen apelqon...mia, in order to make out the calculation, i.e. to verify the day of the Vision as the fourth day before that on which Cornelius is speaking. So Cat. OEc. and. E.D.F. But B. C. retain the original reading, and only mistake the abbreviated form hoste einai b'hem., i.e. duo hemeras, as if it meant "the second day," deuteran hemeran: which reading, though unintelligible, was retained by the later Editors. But what Chrys. means to say, is, that, not reckoning the day of the vision and the day of the meeting, there are two whole days: therefore the day of the vision was not "the fourth day hence;" consequently, that it means "the fourth day of the week." This hasty and ill considered interpretation of the expression apo tetartes hemeras, was suggested by the circumstance that the rule was to fast on the dies stationum, tetras and prosabbaton, to "the ninth hour:" so that the practical scope of the interpretation may be of this kind: "See how this man, Gentile as he was, had forestalled our rule of discipline: he fasted on the fourth day of the week, and to the ninth hour of the day: and see how God was pleased to approve of his piety, by sending the Angel to him on that day, and at that hour. But you who know the rule, and why it is prescribed, do not obey it," etc.--On the Dies Stationum, see Tertull. de Jejun. 1. where in defence of the Montanists, who extended the fast beyond the ninth hour, (or 3 p.m.) he says: Arguunt nos quod stationes plerumque in vesperam producamus: ib. 10. Æque stationes nostras ut indignas, quasdam vero et in serum constitutas, novitatis nomine incusant, hoc quoque munus et ex arbitrio obeundum esse dicentes, et non ultra nonam detinendum, suo scilicet more: i.e. the Catholics maintained, that the fast on these days ought not to be compulsory, nor to be prolonged beyond the ninth hour. Epiphan. Expos. Fid. §. 22. di holou men tou etous he nesteia phulattetai en te aute hagi& 139; katholike ekklesi& 139;, phemi de tetradi kai prosabbato heos horas ennates.
[557] It is wholly improbable that apo tetrates hemeras refers to the fourth day of the week, as Chrys. supposes. The meaning is that, four days ago (reckoning from the time when he was speaking) he was praying ("observing the ninth hour of prayer") until the time of day at which he was now saying these words to Peter. There is still less ground for Chrysostom's interpretation if with Lechler, Tischendorf, and Westcott and Hort nestheuon be omitted from the text.--G.B.S.
[558] The letters a, b, c, d, mark the order of these portions in B. C. At the end of (a) the clause, "We are present," etc. is repeated. In A the order is, a, d, the rest being omitted: in the modern text, a, d, c, b: and the text, "Now therefore are we all present," etc. between (c) and (b).--With the interpretation of dektos comp. Severianus of Gabala in the Catena on x. 4, ouk eipen en panti ethnei ho poion dikaiosunen sozetai, alla dektos estin. toutestin, axios ginetai tou dechthenai. And St. Chrys. Hom. viii. in 1 Cor. C. dektos auto esti; toutesti, kalei kai epispatai auton pros ten aletheian. Paul is cited as an instance: persecutor as he was, "yet, because he led a blameless life, and did not these things of human passion, he was both accepted and far outwent all. But if some one should say, How is it that such an one, the Greek, kind as he is and good and humane, continues in error?' I answer, that he has a fault of a different kind, vainglory or sluggishness of mind, or not being in earnest about his salvation, but thinking that all the circumstances of his life are mere chance-medley and haphazard. But by him that worketh righteousness,' Peter means, him that is blameless in all things (comp. infra p. 151.)......How is it then,' you will say, that impure persons have been accounted worthy to have the Gospel preached to them (katexiothesan tou kerugmatos)?' Because they were willing and desirous. For some, even which are in error, He draws, when they become cleansed from their vices; and others coming of their own accord, He repulses not: many also have inherited their piety from their ancestors."
[559] The word prosopolemptes--"respector of persons"--(personarum acceptor Vulg.) is a term founded upon the phrase, lambanein prhosopon, an imitation of the Hebrew ns' phnym, to accept the person, the presence; to have a favorable or partial regard to the outward appearance,--as opposed to hsyv phnym, to turn away the face (of the petitioner) i.e. to deny him favor or acceptance (1 Kgs. ii. 16, 17, 20; 2 Chron. vi. 42; cf. Gen. xxxii. 21; 1 Kgs. v. i.)--G.B.S.
[560] The pertinent comments of Dr. Gloag may here be fitly introduced (v. 35): "Peter is here speaking of the admissibility of the Gentiles into the Church of Christ; and he here asserts that there is no natural obstacle in the way of any one who fears God and works righteousness; that there is now no barrier such as circumcision, no external hindrance, but that all are equally acceptable to God. As Meyer well puts it, dektos auto estin indicates the capability in relation to God to become a Christian, but not the capability to be saved without Christ; or, as Bengel observes, non indifferentissimus religionum, sed indifferenta nationum hic asseritur." (Gloag, Com. in loco).--G.B.S.
[561] There is no sufficient reason for the statement of Chrys. that those to whom Peter spoke did not know Jesus. It is meant that they were acquainted with the chief facts of his life. Grammatically Iesoun (38) must be construed as the object (resumed in another form) of humeis oidate (37). Residents in Cæsarea must have heard of Jesus' teaching and miracles, during his lifetime on earth. Moreover, the apostles had taught in the neighboring cities and wrought miracles, and probably Philip had been for some little time residing and laboring in Cæsarea itself (Acts viii. 40).--G.B.S.
[562] 'Enteuthen deiknusi pollas peroseis diabolikas kai diastrophen (B., diastrophas) somatos (Cat., somaton) hup' ekeinou genomenas. The term perosis here includes loss of sight, speech, hearing, palsied or withered limbs. "He shows that these are diabolical, and that they are a violent wrenching, or distortion, of the body from its proper condition, caused by him." The sense requires either diastrophas or genomenen. The next sentence, hosper kai ho Christos elegen, omitted by Edd., though, except E., all the mss. and Cat. have it, may refer to such expressions as that in Luke xiii. 16. Or, it may be in its proper place after the following clause, "For God was with Him:" again, a lowly expression: just as Christ spake: "for My Father is with Me."
[563] The letters denote the order of the parts in the mss. and Edd.
[564] kai dogma tithesi (E. Edd. eisagei) kai politeian. i. e. "it is assumed, or the case is put, that the person has the right doctrine, of the One True God (that feareth God), and that he is of a right conversation (that worketh righteousness.)"
[565] In the mss. and Edd. the order is confused. In the old text: "The word--Lord of all. First he discourses--with ardor. Yet for all this He did not spare them. Then he proves how He is Lord of all. Which He sent, preaching good tidings, not bringing judgment. [3.] He is sent from God to the Jews. Then He shows this withal from the things which He achieved," etc. So, with verbal alterations, the modern text, except that it omits the clause, ou men oude houtos epheisato.
[566] Here also the order in the mss. is confused. "Again proof. How God--with power. Whence does this appear? who went about--of the devil. Then from the good that He did, and the greatness," etc. The modern text has the same order, and the alterations do not affect the sense.
[567] Perhaps it should be phantasthe, "that he (Cornelius) may not imagine," etc., therefore he mentions first the Divine Mission, then the Crucifixion.
[568] tautes de ouden houto semeion meizon en, hos to phagein kai piein. Cat. rightly omits meizon en. E. Edd. houtos eis apodeixin meizon, hos.
[569] The original reporter seems to have misunderstood what was said. If eipe moi be retained, we must read ouchi autos. The sense is, "Take heed lest any lay the blame of your evil doings upon God. For you know what would be said of a magistrate who should let a murderer go unpunished; that he would be held responsible for all the murders that may be afterwards done by that man, or in consequence of his impunity. Dread lest through your misconduct God be thus blasphemed." But--as if Chrysostom's meaning had been, Since God's purpose in forgiving us our sins was, that we should lead more virtuous and holy lives, therefore let none presume to say that God, by forgiving us, is the cause of the evil doings of which we are afterwards guilty"--the modern text (E. D. F. Edd.) goes on thus: "For say, if a magistrate, etc. is he judged to be the cause of the murders thereafter committed? By no means. And how is it that we ourselves, while, by the things we dare to do, we expose God to be insulted by godless tongues, do not fear and shudder? For what," etc.