x ch. ix. 37, 39: xx. 8.

y Matt. x. 2, 3,

4.

a Jude 1. b ch. ii. 1, 46.

• not expressed in the original.

...

serted, when no such appears in the Gospel. And I believe this will be found, by combining the hint dropped by Chrysostom,"It seems to me that these things must have happened on a Sabbath: for the Evangelist would not have thus stated the distance. except they had had their journey limited by its being the Sabbath day," -with the declaration in the Gospel (xxiv. 50) that he led them out as far as to Bethany. This latter was (John xi. 18) fifteen stadia from Jerusalem, which is more than twice the Sabbath day's journey (2000 cubits

about six furlongs). Now if the Ascension happened on the Sabbath, it is very possible that offence may have arisen at the statement in the Gospel and that therefore the Evangelist gave here the more exact notice, that the spot, although forming part of the district of Bethany, was yet on that part of the Mount of Olives which fell within the limits of the Sabbath day's journey. This of course must be a mere conjecture; but it will not be impugned by the fact of the Ascension being kept by the Church in after ages on a Thursday. This formed no hindrance to Chrysostom in making the above supposition: although the festival was certainly observed in his time. Forty days from the Resurrection is an expression which would suit as well the Saturday of the seventh week as the Thursday. The distance of the Mount of Olives from Jerusalem is stated by Josephus at five stadia, in one passage, at six stadia, in another; different points being taken as the limit. The present church of the Ascension rather exceeds the distance of six stadia from the city. 13. when they were come in] viz. into the city.' the upper chamber] The idea that this was a chamber in the Temple has originated in low literal-harmonistic views, St. Luke having

66

stated (Luke xxiv. 53) that they were 'continually in the temple." As if such an expression could be literally understood, or taken to mean more than that they were there at all appointed times (see ch. iii. 1). It is in the highest degree improbable that the disciples would be found assembled in any public place at this time. The upper chamber was perhaps that in which the last Supper had been taken; probably that in which they had been since then assembled (John xx. 19, 26), but certainly one in a private house. Lightfoot shews that it was the practice of the Jews to retire into a large chamber under the flat roof for purposes of deliberation or prayer. Epiphanius relates that "when Hadrian came to Jerusalem, he found the whole city levelled with the ground, and the temple of God trodden down, with the exception of a few houses, and the church of God, which was but small, where the disciples, on their return, after the Saviour had been received up from the Mount of Olives, went up into the upper chamber. For there it was built, that is, in the region Zion; which survived the desolation even to the time of Bishop Maximus, and the Emperor Constantine: like a cottage in a vineyard, as it is written." And Nicephorus says that the Empress Helena enclosed in her larger church the room where took place the descent of the Holy Spirit in the upper chamber.

where they were sojourning] not to be taken, as in A. V. where abode both Peter,' &c.; which gives the idea that Peter, &c. were already in the chamber, and the rest joined them there :but, on entering the city, they went up into the upper chamber, where they (usually) sojourned (not dwelt:' they did not all dwell in one house; see John xix. 27, note), namely, Peter, &c.-On the catalogue of the Apostles, see Matt. x. 2,

49,55: xxiv.

10.

d Matt. xiii. 55.

e Rev. iii. 4.

f Ps. xli. 9.

John xiii. 18.

f

47. John xviii. 3.

h Matt. x. 4.

i ver. 25.

ch. xii. 25: XX. 24: xxi.

19.

5, 7, 8.

Pomit.

I read, brethren.

The original is

"Men [who are] brethren."

Brender, Because.

note. 14. with the women] viz. those spoken of by St. Luke himself, Luke viii. 2, 3, where, besides those named, he mentions many others. Some have proposed to render the phrase "with their wives" but many of these were certainly not wives of the Apostles; and that those women who were last at the Cross and earliest at the tomb' should not have been assembled with the company now, is very improbable. and Mary the mother of Jesus] The and gives eminence to one among those previously mentioned. This is the last mention of her in the N. T. The traditions, which describe her as (1) dying at the age of fifty-nine, in the fifth year of Claudius, or (2) accompanying St. John to Ephesus, and being buried there, are untrustworthy. Other accounts, with the authorities, may be seen in Butler's Lives of the Saints, Aug. 15. The fable of the Assumption has no foundation even in tradition.

and his brethren] This clearly shews, as does John vii. 5 compared with vi. 67, 70, that none of the brethren of our Lord were of the number of the Twelve. When they were converted, is quite uncertain. See the whole subject discussed in note on Matt. xiii. 55, and in the Introduction to the Epistle of James.

15-26.] ELECTION OF A TWELFTH APOSTLE TO FILL THE ROOM OF JUDAS ISCARIOT. 15. in those days] In the days between the Ascension and Pentecost: during which it appears that the number of the assembly had increased, not probably by fresh conversions, but by the gathering round the Apostles of those who had previously been disciples. the number of names] that is, of persons: but the term

would hardly be used except where the number is small. See Rev. iii. 4, and note.

an hundred and twenty] De Wette asks, 'where were the 500 brethren of 1 Cor. xv. 6?' We surely may answer, 'not in Jerusalem.' 16.] We may enquire, by what change in mind and power Peter was able, before the descent of the Spirit, thus authoritatively to speak of Scripture and the divine purposes? The answer will be found in the peculiar gift of the Spirit to the Apostles, John xx. 21, 23; where see note. The pre-eminency of Peter here is the commencement of the fulfilment of Matt. xvi. 18, 19 (see note there). 17.] Because gives the reason of the previous assertion, viz. that Judas held, and had betrayed, that place of high trust of which the prophecy spoke. Thus it has reference to the substance of the prophecy, already in Peter's mind, and serves to explain the words "his habitation,” and “his bishoprick,” which occur in the prophecy. had obtained the lot] not literally, but inasmuch as the lot of every man is regarded as being cast and appointed by God. 18.] This verse cannot be regarded as inserted by St. Luke; for, 1. the place of its insertion would be most unnatural for an historical notice: 2. the form of its introduction in the original forbids the supposition: 3. the whole style of the verse is rhetorical, and not narrative, e. g. “this man,” “the reward of iniquity."-The statement, that he bought a field, does not appear to agree with the account in Matt. xxvii. 6–8; nor, consistently with common honesty, can they be reconciled, unless we knew more of the facts than we do. If we com

15. 2 Pet.

pare the two, that of St. Matthew is the more particular, and more likely to give rise to this one, as a general inference from the buying of the field, than vice verså. Whether Judas, as Bengel supposes, began the purchase, and so gave occasion for its being completed by the Chief Priests, we cannot say: such a thing is of course possible, but is certainly not contemplated by St. Matthew's account, where the priests settle to buy the field, on deliberation, what they should do with the money. At all events we hence clearly see that St. Luke could not have been acquainted with the Gospel of St. Matthew at this time, or surely this apparent discrepancy would not have been found. The various attempts to reconcile the two narratives, which may be seen in most of our English commentaries, are among the saddest examples of the shifts to which otherwise high-minded men are driven by an unworthy system. A notable example occurs in a solution lately proposed, that as the Jews are said to have crucified our Lord when they were only the occasion of his being crucified, so Judas may be said to have bought the field when he only gave occasion to its being bought by the Chief Priests. I need hardly say to any intelligent and ingenuous reader, that this is entirely precluded here by the words with the reward of his iniquity, which plainly bind on the purchase to Judas as his personal act. and falling headlong] The connexion of this with the former clause would seem to point to the death of Judas having taken place in the field which he bought. See also ver. 19. falling headlong will hardly bear the meaning assigned to it by those who wish to harmonize the two accounts, -viz. that, having hanged himself, he fell by the breaking of the rope. It would rather point, as the word used is explained, to a sudden fall forward on the face by a stroke from God, or by an accident. Nor again is it at all probable that the Apostle would recount what was a mere accident accompanying his death, when that death itself was the accursed one of hanging. What then are we to decide respecting the two accounts? That there should have been a double account actually current of the death of Judas at this early period, is in the highest degree im

probable, and will only be assumed by those who take a very low view of the accuracy of the Evangelists. Dismissing then this solution, let us compare the accounts themselves. In this case, that in Matt. xxvii. is general,-ours particular. That depends entirely on the exact sense to be assigned to the word which we render "hanged himself:" whereas this directly assigns the manner of his death, without stating any cause for the falling on his face. It is obvious that, while the general term used by Matthew points mainly at self-murder, the account given here does not preclude the catastrophe related having happened, in some way, as a divine judgment, during the suicidal attempt. Further than this, with our present knowledge, we cannot go. An accurate acquaintance with the actual circumstances would account for the discrepancy, but nothing else.-Another kind of death is assigned to Judas by Ecumenius, quoting from Papias: "Papias, the disciple of the Apostle John, relates, that Judas, as he walked about, was a great example of God's judgments on impiety in this world; for that he swelled up to a fearful size, and once on attempting to pass through (a gateway) at the same time with a waggon which left ample space, he was crushed by the waggon, so that his bowels gushed out." This tradition may be in accordance with, and may have arisen from an exaggerated amplification of, our text. See more in the note in my Greek Test.

he burst asunder: the word implies bursting with a noise. It is quite possible that this catastrophe happening in the field, as our narrative implies, may have suggested its employment as a burial-place for strangers, as being defiled.

19.]

It is principally from this verse that it has been inferred that the two verses 18, 19 are inserted by St. Luke. But it is impossible to separate it from ver. 18; and I am disposed to regard both as belonging to Peter's speech, but freely given by St. Luke, inserting into the speech itself the explanations, "in their proper tongue," and "that is to say, the field of blood," as if the speech had been spoken in Greek originally. This is much more natural, than to parenthesize these clauses; it is, in fact, what must be more or less done by all who report in a language different from