Catholic Scripture Manual on Acts 6:8-10; 7:54-59

Text in red are my additions.

Acts 6:8-10

Acts 6:8. Stephen. Beyond what St Luke records, nothing is known of St Stephen s personal life. Three hypotheses have been put forward :

(a) He was one of the Hellenists himself, since he disputed with them. His language rather bears out this inference.

(b) He was one of the Libertini.

(c) He was one of the Seventy-two disciples (Epiph., Hcer., xx. 4).

In any case, like St Paul, he was an educated man, and, from the freedom with which he addresses the Council as men, brethren and fathers, and not like St Peter as princes of the people and ancients, it has been inferred that he was a man of a certain standing. “Stephen soon became in the eyes of the Jews, the foremost among the Nazarene heretics by his fearless denunciation of the emptiness of Judaism as practised by Pharisee as well as Sadducee. He drew down on his head the bitter hatred of each of the powerful parties in the state.”

Great wonders and signs. This is the first mention in the Acts of others besides the apostles working miracles, though we know that the Seventy-two disciples had healed the sick and cast out devils as well as the apostles.

Acts 6:9. There arose. Moved by indignation and rage at their defeat. synagogue. Synagogues were buildings in which the Jews met for prayer and instruction. Their institution dates from the Captivity, and in every Jewish city or hamlet there was at least one synagogue. The Rabbis asserted that there were 480 synagogues in Jerusalem. Though this is evidently an exaggeration, there were certainly a large number, and, in general, these meeting-places were not very large.

The synagogue was so built that in every place the congregation faced Jerusalem. Those who read the Law stood up, while the one who explained it sat down. Each synagogue had a “ruler,” who was responsible for the order and regularity of the services. These consisted in reading a portion of the Law and a selection from the prophets. The readings were followed by an explanation, after which certain psalms and prayers were recited. The service was concluded by a priest giving the blessing.

Libertines. These were descendants of those numerous Jewish captives, whom Pompey had taken prisoners and deported to Rome circa B.C. 63. They were subsequently emancipated, and being banished from Rome on account of their faith, some of their descendants returned to Judea. The ” libertini” signifies ” freedmen.” Tacitus mentions that 4000 Libertini being ” infected with Jewish and Egyptian superstitions,” were sent to recruit the Roman army in Sardinia (Annal., ii. Ixxxv). Josephus, however, states that these exiles were all Jews (Antiq., xviii., iii. 5).

A  few commentators consider ” Libertini ” to be erroneously written for ” Libystine,” i.e. inhabitants of Libya, a province adjacent to Cyrene and Alexandria, but there is no real ground for rejecting the word “Libertini,” since a whole colony of Jews bearing this name had a synagogue in Jerusalem.

Cyrenians. See Annot. on Acts 2:10. Jews formed one-fourth of the population of Cyrene.

Alexandrians. Two-fifths of the population of Alexandria was composed of Jews, and at this time their number amounted to at least 100,000. The Alexandrian Jews were renowned for their learning. They had settled in Egypt during the reigns of Alexander the Great and Ptolemy Lagus. It was in Alexandria that the Septuagint version of the holy Scriptures was made.

Cilicia. This was St Paul’s native province, and it contained a large Jewish population. Antiochus the Great, in return for the Jews assistance against the Ptolemies, encouraged them to colonize in his Asiatic provinces, and Seleucus went so far as to give them equal civic rights with the Macedonians and Greeks (Josep., Antiq., xii., iii. 1.).

Asia, i.e. Proconsular Asia. See Annot. on Acts 2:9.

Disputing with Stephen, (συζητοῦντες) This word is used of the carping interrogations of the Pharisees, who sought to entangle Christ in His words, by asking for a sign from heaven (see St Mark 8:11).

Stephen seems to have taken the initiative, as Msgr Le Camus remarks: “with his liberal views and his clear conception of the future destiny of the Church, was the first to raise his hand against the old boundary -wall of Judaism ” (L oeuvre des Apotres, p. 114).

Acts 6:10. They were not able, etc. Lit. ” they had no strength ” (οὐκ ἴσχυον). Our Lord once more fulfilled His promise : For I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to resist and gainsay (St Luke 21:15). The same verb (ἀντιστῆναι) “to resist” occurs in both these passages.

Wisdom. The Holy Ghost, “the spirit of wisdom,” spoke by the mouth of St Stephen. Jesus had bidden His disciples be wise as serpents and harmless as doves.

St Stephen is the first preacher of the Gospel who is said to have had ” wisdom,” but our Lord promised this gift to his disciples, and we frequently find the word in reference to Christ– this man by this wisdom and miracles? (St Matt. 13:54). Jesus advanced in wisdom and age, and grace with God and men (St Luke2:52).

Acts 7:54-59

 Acts 7:54. Cut to the heart. See Annot. on Acts 5:33. Here is what we read: “they were cut to the heart.” Literally, “they were sawn through.” The words “the heart” do not occur here in the original, but the complete phrase is given in 7:54. The verb “to saw” and some of its compounds are surgical terms.

Gnashed with their teeth at him. Their rage was so violent that they were unable to articulate. Those of his hearers who were implicated in the death of Jesus would feel that St Stephen’s bold language imperiled their safety.

The expression “to gnash the teeth” is generally used metaphorically in the Scriptures, cf . There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (St Matt. 8:12), and it signifies violent passion. This passage of the Acts is one of the rare examples in which the mechanical act is recorded. The demoniac boy, in his convulsions, also gnashed his teeth (St Mark9:17).

Acts 7:55. Being full. The permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is marked by the Greek participle employed here (ὑπάρχων). It is a present active participle. St Stephen was not merely endowed with this plentitude for a special emergency, but was habitually full of the.Holy Ghost. This was one of the conditions required for the office of a deacon, and it was this fulness of the Spirit which, from the outset of his career, enabled him to work great wonders and signs (Acts 6:8).

Looking up steadfastly. See Annot. on Acts 1:10; 3:4. The comment on 1:10 merely mentions the force of the Greek word. Here is what the comment on acts 3:4 says: Fastening his eyes upon him. St Luke often uses this verb (ἀτενίσας), “to fix the eyes earnestly upon.” Cf. And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him (St Luke 4:20). See also Acts 1:10, 3:12, 6:15, 7:55). St Paul also employs the verb (see 2 Cor. 3:7-13), but it is not used by any other New Testament writers.

The glory of God. St Stephen began his discourse by speaking of the God of glory ; and at the close, a vision of that glory is granted to him, in order to strengthen him in the supreme hour of combat.

For other references to visions of the glory of God, see Ex 24:1-18 passim ; Is. 6:3; Ezek 1:28; Rev 21:11, 23, 24, 26.

In his ecstasy the valiant soldier of Christ is no longer conscious of his earthly surroundings; he sees only Jesus in the glory of heaven, whereof the Lamb is the lamp (Rev 21:23).

Standing. Jesus is generally represented as sitting on the right hand of God, but, as St John Chrysostom beautifully writes, ” Jesus had risen from the throne of His majesty to succour His persecuted servant and to receive him to Himself.” ” Sitting is the attitude of the judge, standing that of the one who fights or succours” (St Greg.). Jesus is ever at hand to succour His faithful servants in their hour of need.

Acts 7:56. The heavens opened. Lit. “opened asunder” (διηνοιγμένους). The vision was evidently objective to St Stephen, but none of those present in the Council hall were allowed to see it.

In the same way, when our Lord appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus his companions saw no man, but in this case they did hear a voice (infra, Acts 9:7). Had the members of the Council seen the vision, they could not have accused St Stephen of blasphemy when he asserted that he saw the Son of Man in glory.

The Son of man. We find this title in Daniel (Dan 7:13), and our Lord frequently applied it to Himself, but it only occurs here in the Acts, and twice in the Apocalypse (Rev 1:13; 14:14).

Acts 7:57. And they crying out. Better, “but they cried out” (δὲ κράξαντες). St Stephen’s exclamation brought matters to a climax. In our Lord’s trial, as in that of His first martyr, the judges deemed that a sin of blasphemy had been committed in the very presence of the Council. The same men sat as judges on both these trials.

Stopped their ears. By this action and by crying out they expressed their horror of blasphemy, which they imagined St Stephen to have committed.

The verb used signifies to press or draw together, and on the practice of stopping the ears, a Jewish writer asks : “Wherefore is the whole ear hard, but the flap soft? That if any hear an unbecoming word he may press up the flap and shut his ear” (quoted by Lumby, Gk. Test.).

Ran violently upon him. Their exasperation so overcame them that they could not restrain themselves any longer.

Acts 7:58. Casting him forth. The city of Jerusalem, like the camp of Israel in the desert, was considered holy ground. Hence it was forbidden to shed blood there–Bring forth the blasphemer without the camp, and let them that heard him put their hands upon his head, and let all the people stone him (Lev. xxiv. 14). In like manner Jesus was crucified without the gate (Heb. 13:12). Once the Jews, in their mad fury, forgot this prohibition when, as Jesus was teaching in the Temple, they took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple (St Jn 8:59). St Augustine remarks on this passage that the Sanhedrists procured punishment for themselves and a crown of glory for Stephen. Hence the devil outwits himself, since he co-operates in making our martyrs (Serm. 215).

They stoned him. Lit. ” they began to stone ” (ἐλιθοβόλουν, this verb is in the imperfect tense) the pronoun is not expressed in the Greek. Stoning was the punishment inflicted for blasphemy.

The Talmud thus describes this mode of death : “The culprit, pinioned, and stripped of his clothes, ascended a scaffold erected (outside the city), twice the height of a man, whence one of the witnesses pushed him down, so that he fell with his face to the ground.” If death ensued, there was no occasion for stoning; but if in the accused there still remained life, then the other witness flung a very large stone at his chest ; and if, after this, the culprit was still not dead, the people pelted him with stones till life was extinct, thus conforming to the command in Deut. 17:7.

Witnesses. Two witnesses were required by the Mosaic Law (Deut. 17:7). The active part they took in executing the sentence was intended to deter men from making false accusations ; and though, in this case, the charge was false, yet undoubtedly the Sanhedrists were convinced that St Stephen had blasphemed.

Our Lord referred to the obligation of the witness as regards executing the sentence when, speaking of the woman taken in adultery, He said : Let him first cast a stone at her (St John 8:7).

Laid down their garments. They put off their outer garments, which might have hindered freedom of action when casting the stones.

A young man. The Greek word used (νεανίου) may be applied to a man between the ages of twenty-four and forty. If Saul was a member of the Sanhedrin, he was at least thirty years of age. St John Chrysostom conjectures that he was about thirty-five.

Saul. The name “Saul” means “asked” (i.e. of God, in prayer). He was evidently a prominent member of the synagogue of the Cilicians, and we know by his own words that he approved of the action of the Council.

Cf. And when the blood of Stephen thy witness was shed, I stood by and consented, and kept the garments of them that killed him (Acts 22:20). This Saul was afterwards What a great and divine spectacle! He who was the persecutor in the death of Stephen, is made a preacher of the kingdom of heaven ” (St Aug.).

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 4:1-12

In this chapter is recorded the violence offered the Apostles by the Jewish authorities for preaching to the people (Acts 4:1–3). The conversion of large numbers (Acts 4:4). The questioning of the Apostles by the leading men of the Jewish priesthood (Acts 4:5–8). Peter’s address, his vindication of his conduct, and exposition of doctrine (Acts 4:8–13). Consultation among the assembled authorities as to how the Apostles were to be treated (Acts 4:13–20). The liberation of the Apostles out of fear of the people, and on account of the incontestable evidence of the miracle (Acts 4:21–22). The solemn, united prayer to God on the part of the assembled faithful (Acts 4:24–30). The effect of this solemn prayer fully manifested (Acts 4:31). The edifying manner of life pursued by the first Christians, their charitable disinterestedness (Acts 4:32–37).

Acts 4:1 And as they were speaking to the people the priests and the officer of the temple and the Sadducees came upon them,

“Priests.” These likely belonged to the Sanhedrim. They seemed to possess some authority to prevent the Apostles from preaching in the Temple.

“The officer of the Temple” very likely, denotes the captain of the guard stationed in the Tower, Antonia, for the purpose of preserving order and preventing tumults in the Temple, especially on the occasion of Great Festivities. The assembling of the people round the Apostles, after the miraculous cure of the lame man, might lead to a riot.

“The Sadducees” (See Matthew 3:7, 22:23, Commentary). They were a kind of freethinking malcontents among the Jews. They denied the existence of spirits, and the spirituality, as also the immortality of the soul. They were particularly opposed to the doctrine of the Resurrection. Although generally at variance with the Pharisees and the heads of the Jewish church, they still joined them against our Lord and his Apostles (See Matthew 3:7).

“Came upon them,” by surprise and unexpectedly, while speaking to the people.

Acts 4:2 Being grieved that they taught the people and preached in Jesus the resurrection from the dead:

“Grieved,” in Greek, means, vexed, annoyed; “taught,” &c, thus causing their own influence and prestige to be lessened.

“The resurrection of the dead,” the general resurrection of all men, of which the Resurrection of Jesus, which they constantly proclaimed, was the model, the exemplary and efficient cause. This was very mortifying to the Sadducees, who saw that the preaching of the Apostles on this point, so opposed to their cherished tenets, was making head among the people. They, therefore, united with the priests in endeavouring to arrest the progress of the Gospel.

Acts 4:3 And they laid hands upon them and put them in hold till the next day: for it was now evening.

Forcibly seizing on them, they put them in safe keeping, either in prison or in charge of some guard “till next day,” when they were to be brought before the Council. It was now too late in the day to convene a Council.

Acts 4:4 But many of them who had heard the word believed: and the number of the men was made five thousand.

The effect of this persecution was to increase the number of believers among the Jews. “Was made five thousand.” This form of expression would seem to signify, not that this number were just now converted and assembled in Solomon’s porch; but, that by the accession of the “many” now converted, to the number of converts already existing, the entire Church now amounted to this number, which shows the wonderful power of God’s grace in so short a time after Pentecost. The interval, though not stated, must be very short.

Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes and ancients and scribes were gathered together in Jerusalem.

The assembly of the Sanhedrim, or great council of the nation, which wielded such authority, probably, the first time, since they condemned our Lord, shows the alarm caused the heads of the Jewish Church by the successes of the Apostles. Hence, they leave nothing undone to stop them. For a full account of the Synedrium, or, as the Talmudists termed it, the Sanhedrin (See Matthew 26:57, Commentary). Seventy-one (72) judges constituted the Sanhedrim, the High Priest being always President. It was composed of the High Priests, that is, such as enjoyed the dignity of High Priests, together with the heads of the twenty-four (24) classes into which the Priests were divided—“the ancients or elders, the chiefs of the Tribes and heads of families; the Scribes” (See Matthew 26:3). There is no mention of the High Priests here. Hence, the description of the Sanhedrim here is incomplete, though, of course, the High Priests formed no inconsiderable portion of the assembly. It was before these same men our Blessed Lord was arraigned; it was they handed him over to Pilate (Matthew 26:50). It was before the same that Peter denied our Lord (Matthew 26:70. &c.).

“In Jerusalem”—in Greek, “into Jerusalem,” conveying that such members of the Sanhedrim as were not actually at the time in Jerusalem, repaired thither for the trial of the Apostles.

Acts 4:6 And Annas the high priest and Caiphas and John and Alexander: and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest.

Having referred, in a general way, to the Sanhedrim, he now mentions some of its most prominent members, “Annas, Caiphas,” &c (See Luke 3). “John and Alexander,” men clearly of eminence among the body, “and as many,” &c., may denote members of the family of Annas and Caiphas, or those nearly related to them.

Acts 4:7 And setting them in the midst, they asked: By what power or by what name, have you done this?

“And setting,” &c., assigning them as culprits a place where all the judges or assembled members of the Sanhedrim might easily see them.

“What power,” from God, or any other source? “Name.” What name did you invoke in order to perform this work? Although they knew it was by the power and invocation of the name of Jesus, still they hoped the Apostles might say it was by the Divine power, without specially referring to the name of Jesus; and thus, some confusion as to the distinct name of Jesus might arise (St. Chrysostom, Hom. x. in Acts).

“You,” is derisive. You, who are of no consideration.

“This” cure. They would not express what it was.

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said to them: Ye princes of the people and ancients, hear.

“Filled with the Holy Ghost” denotes a particular actual grace given him on this occasion, strongly influencing him; different or distinct from the habitual graces given him on Pentecost Sunday. Ordinary and habitual grace would not suffice for heroic deeds. A new actual grace is required. Thus, it is said of Sampson, on occasion of his wonderful displays of strength, “the spirit of the Lord came strongly upon him” (Judges 15:14).

How different is Peter’s conduct from what it had been on a former occasion. Then, trembling at the empty chidings of a silly maid, he denied his Lord. Now, as head of the Apostolic College, boldly confronting the united authority of the Jews, he makes reparation for his former crime by loudly proclaiming his Divine Messiahship, preaching the glorious Resurrection of the Crucified, whose power they were after witnessing in the miraculous cure of the lame man. Showing the deference due to their office, he respectfully addresses them as representatives of the supreme authority among the Jews, “Princes of the people,” &c. Before the same Council, the same men, in the same place and city, he repaires the scandal he gave in denying his Divine Master.

Acts 4:9 If we this day are examined concerning the good deed done to the infirm man, by what means he hath been made whole:

“If we this day,” &c. If notwithstanding the evidence of the fact, we are to be treated as criminals, brought to trial and subjected to judicial examination for the good deed of having bestowed the blessing of a perfect cure on the infirm man—which should be rather a subject of praise—and called to render an account of how “he has been made whole.” “If” conveys surprise at such an extraordinary proceeding, a matter scarcely credible.

Acts 4:10 Be it known to you all and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God hath raised from the dead, even by him, this man standeth here before you, whole.

As you ask by what name we did this, be it known to you and all the world, it was by invoking the name and exercising the power “of our Lord Jesus Christ of Nazareth.” The term of Nazareth was the epithet by which our Lord was known and scornfully referred to by the Jews. “Crucified,” “raised from the dead.” The contrast is so striking. They put him to death. God raised him up from the dead. The accusers now become the accused. With singular intrepidity and courage, St. Peter heretofore so timid, charges them with the greatest crime that could be perpetrated, the murder of their own long-expected Messiah and deliverer, putting to death the author of life.

“Standeth here,” &c. It may be that the cured man was imprisoned or guarded with the Apostles, and, very likely, brought forward at the trial to confront them.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was rejected by you the builders, which is become the head of the corner.

He shows that the ignominious death and Resurrection of our Lord was predicted by the Prophets. He thus strengthens his argument, especially with the Jews, who valued so much the oracles of their inspired Prophets. The first part of Psalm 118, from which the quotation is taken, literally refers to David himself. The second part, also quoted, could refer to our Lord only, in its literal sense, and is quoted by our Lord as applying to Himself (Matthew 21:42). Here is a metaphorical allusion to architecture; skilful architects place in the corners of a building the largest and most binding stone, in order to unite and sustain the two walls of the building. It thus gets the most important place. St. Peter applies this prediction to our Lord, who was scornfully rejected by the Jewish rulers, the Priests, and Scribes, the builders of the Synagogue, who should labour for the construction of God’s spiritual house, and should, therefore, be the first to receive our Lord. But while they rejected Him, God placed Him as the head “corner stone,” sustaining, upholding, and fusing into one the two peoples, Jews and Gentiles, who were to form the Church. He united the old and new dispensations. In Him all the elect of old were justified, no less than the children of the New Law. To this our Lord alludes (Matthew 21:42. See Commentary on).

Isaias had predicted it (Isa 28:16). See also 1 Peter 2–4.

Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.

Having assured them in figurative terms, that Christ was the Messiah, St. Peter now, in language devoid of all figure, adds, as a consequence, that in him only can man find eternal Salvation.

“Name” often signifies person or being. No one else can save us from the consequences of sin, viz., hell and damnation; and bestow on us eternal joy and peace in Heaven—the chief object of our Lord’s Mission. The Apostle avails himself of this corporal cure to place before the assembled Sanhedrim the greater cure and salvation from Hell which our Lord came to bring about.

Our Lord is frequently marked out, “given” as the source of this greater and universal Salvation. (John 3:16), (1 Cor. 3:5), (1 Tim. 2:6), &c.

“Must be saved” in the present order of Divine Providence, whereby our Lord is constituted the only source of eternal life and salvation.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 1:15-17, 20-26

 

ANALYSIS OF ACTS CHAPTER ONE

This first Chapter of the Acts, &c., which may be regarded as the complement of the Gospel of St. Luke—since it resumes the History of our Lord’s Ascension, with which his Gospel closes,—opens with a brief Preface addressed to Theophilus, containing a compendious account of the History of the life of our Lord (1–2).

We have, next, a narrative of the several circumstances that preceded our Lord’s Ascension, with instructions, mandates, answers given by him immediately before that important event (3–8). We have, then, a brief history of the Ascension (9). The address of the Angels (10–11). The return of the Apostles from Mount Olivet (12–13). Their persevering union in prayer with the Blessed Virgin (13–14). The address of Peter relative to the sad fall of Judas, the great dignity he forfeited, his infamy, the necessity of electing a suitable substitute, the Prophetic quotation from the Psalms on the subject (14–20). He, next, exhorts them to elect a suitable substitute. He describes the qualities he should possess (21–22). The election of Matthias by lot, after fervent prayer addressed to God (23).

15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty):

 “In those days,” in the interval between the Ascension and Pentecost, while they were abiding together before the descent of the Holy Ghost.

“Peter rising up,” &c. Already Peter begins to exercise the Primacy conferred on him by our Lord (Matthew 16, &c.) in proposing to the assembled Apostles the filling up of the vacancy effected in the Apostolic College, by the fall of the Traitor, Judas, and the substitution of another in his place. He thus carries out the mandate, “confirm thy brethren” (Luke 22:32). Whatever might be his own personal powers in the matter, he prudently remits the whole affair to his colleagues, of which he was head and chief.

“Number of persons.” Greek, “of names,” which signifies persons.

16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

“Men, brethren.” All were united, as members of one family, by the common bonds of faith and charity. This was a solemn form of address.

“The Scripture must needs be fulfilled.” The prediction of God cannot be falsified. This, however, by no means implies the absence of liberty in man’s actions. If there be question of human actions, God predicts what he foresees man is to do in time, by his own free will. Man does not perform them because God foresees or predicts them. But God foresees them in the manner in which man is to perform them in time, that is, freely. The prevision of God no more interferes with the liberty of man in the performance of a future act, than the actual vision or seeing it performed at the present moment, interferes with the liberty of the agent, who now performs it. The knowledge and foreknowledge are external to the act, in both instances (see John 12:39: Commentary on).

“Which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas.” The quotation is read in v. 20. It primarily referred to David’s traitorous counsellor, Achitophel (2 Kings 15:23), but secondarily and mystically to the Traitor, Judas, “who was the leader,” &c. This is narrated (John 18:3).

17 Who was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.

 “Numbered with us.” He was of the number of Apostles called and elected by our Lord, and was associated with them, invested with full Apostolic powers.

“And had obtained part,” &c. The Greek would convey, and had been allotted or obtained by lot a place in “this ministry.” This conveys the gratuitousness of his call, which on his part was quite independent of his merits, just as happens in the case of those who having no claim to it, obtain a thing by casting lots. It was, however, wisely and deliberately determined on the part of God. “Men cast lots; but, God determines the choice.”

20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.

“For it is written in the Book of Psalms, let their habitation,” &c. The first member of this quotation is from Psalm (68:26). It is in the plural, in the original. In almost all Greek copies, it is written in the singular in this place, “let his habitation” &c. in accommodation to the case of Judas, to whom St. Peter, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, applies it.

The Greek for “habitation,” επαυλις, originally denoted a shepherd’s hut. It was afterwards generally used to denote a dwelling of any sort.

“Become desolate,” given over to desolation and utter ruin.

The second member, “and his bishoprick,” &c. is taken from Psalm (108:8) and, indicates another and a different quotation. It signifies, also, as if to say, it is also written. This Psalm was full of maledictions on the unhappy Judas. St. Augustine informs us, that in this Psalm, David curses Doeg, who betrayed him to Saul, and in him, Judas, of whom Doeg was a type.

“His Bishopric.” His office of Apostle. In the original, the word denotes the office of Inspector or Superintendent, sometimes applied to Roman officials (Cicero, Lib. vii, Ep. ad Attium.) Here, in its application to Judas, it denotes the office of Apostle, conferred on Matthias.

21 Wherefore of these men who have companied with us, all the time that the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us,

He, therefore, proceeds to the election of a successor to Judas, in fulfilment of David’s prediction.

22 Beginning from the baptism of John, until the day wherein he was taken up from us, one of these must be made a witness with us of his resurrection.

 It is, therefore, fit or necessary that one of those men who have been associated with us during the time that our Lord freely conversing with us, laid open His whole life and lived familiarly with us, commencing with His public life, when John ministering Baptism to him, pointed Him out as the expected Messiah, as the lamb of God; until the day “He was taken up from us,” to heaven, should be appointed or made along with us, an authoritative “witness” of His Resurrection—the crowning mystery of His life—and the great undeniable proof of His Divinity.

“Came in and went out” is a Hebrew Idiom, denoting the whole course and actions of life.

“One of these,” by Hyperbaton, refers to the words, “wherefore of these,” &c., v. 21.

Special reference is made to our Lord’s Resurrection, which was the great fundamental proof of His Divinity—the great truth which was the Summary of the Apostolic preaching, without which our faith would be vain. (1 Cor. 15:14.) It was the formal cause of man’s justification, “Resurrexit propter justificationem nostram” (Rom. 4).

23 And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

“And they appointed two,” &c. “Appointed” means proposed, put forward, nominated as candidates. The fact of their confining the declaration of the Divine choice to “two,” who were deemed most worthy by the assembled Church, could not be understood of any attempt to restrict the free choice of God. It is not for us to enquire, why it was confined to two, as it was done under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

“Joseph, called Barsabas,” meaning, the Son of Sabas, “who was surnamed Justus.” This may be a proper name, given him to distinguish him from others; or, it may have been given him, as title of honor, on account of his well-known sanctity. St. Chrysostom inclines to this latter opinion (Hom. 3 in Acta.). He was said to be one of the seventy-two (Eusebius i. 12).

The original, Ιουστος, is a sort of Latinized Greek, expressive of the Latin epithet given to Joseph. At this period of Jewish History, while the Jews were subject to Rome, it sometimes happened that Latin terms were introduced into the Greek, which was in common use. The Evangelist did so occasionally when writing in Greek. Such are the terms, Prætorium, Legio, Sudarium, &c. (A. Lapide).

Joseph is said to be the brother of James the lesser and Jude, son of Alpheus and Mary, and thus related to our Lord.

“And Matthias”—a contraction for Mathathias, which signifies, a gift from God. This name was common amongst the Jews. It is said he was one of the seventy-two disciples.

24 And praying, they said: Thou, Lord, who knowest the heart of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,

“And praying, they said.” They have recourse to prayer in common, that God would be pleased to make known, in some unmistakeable way, the Divine choice.

“Thou, O Lord.” This is addressed to our Blessed Saviour, who had now ascended into heaven. To Him omniscience is here attributed. “Lord” is usually addressed to our Divine Redeemer. He is called “Lord” (v. 21), and it is meet that Peter, the head of the Church, should here address Him by whom the other Apostles were chosen.

“Show,” declare, which of the two Thou hast chosen. It is remarked by St. Chrysostom that they do not ask Him to choose; but, assuming that the choice had been already determined on, in His Divine omniscience, to make known the choice He had made. God alone could immediately choose an Apostle (John 6:70).

25 To take the place of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas hath by transgression fallen, that he might go to his own place.

 “To take the place,” to be substituted in the Apostolic ministry in room of Judas. “Of this ministry and apostleship,” are by Hendyades put for “of this Apostolic Ministry” “from which Judas hath by transgression fallen,” by the commission of the most heinous of all crimes, the betrayal of his Divine Lord and Master, who had raised him to a dignity so exalted.

“That he might go” expresses not the intended design, but the consequence or result of Judas’s action. “To his own place”—the place deserved by his crime, and thus made “his own”—the place alone suited for him, his destined place in hell. “Heaven could not receive him. Earth could not bear him on her surface” (St. Bernard in Psalm 44:8). Regarding the words “his own place” there is a diversity of opinion. But, the most common opinion understands it of hell. Our Lord himself calls him “the son of perdition” (John 17:12).

26 And they gave them lot, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

 “And they gave them lots.” How this was done cannot be defined for certain. Whether by voting or by inscribing the two names on tablets to be afterwards drawn out of an urn, the first drawn to be possibly the chosen party. The latter is rendered probable by the words, “the lot fell on Matthias.”

“Gave them.” The Greek αυτων, means “their” lots, that is, the lots of those who were to be elected.

We sometimes find the casting of lots for deciding and determining matters of great importance, sanctioned, in several instances, in the Old Testament, which need not be mentioned here in detail.

Here, the merits of both Candidates were unquestionable. Recource, therefore, to lots to determine which of two worthy subjects might be chosen could be safely resorted to. No doubt, the Apostles, acting under Divine influence, felt they could safely do so. It is not, however, to be inferred from particular cases, of a peculiar nature, as here, that it is generally lawful to look for extraordinary manifestations of the Divine Will or expose exalted responsible functions connected with the Salvation of Souls to hazard by the casting of lots, when ordinary safe means of determining matters could be resorted to. This was a special case and could not establish a precedent. The Apostles only did it once, and they did so clearly by the order of God, and under Divine influence. So that as the eleven Apostles were chosen by Christ, the choosing of the twelfth would not be left to man, but to God, who signified His choice by the extraordinary procedure of casting lots, after having been invited by the infant Church, through fervent prayers.

“And the lot fell on Matthias,” whose merits before men were not so distinguished as were those of “Joseph the Just.” It may be, possibly, in the judgment of God, that Matthias was possessed of greater prudence for Government. God selects men to high offices of His own free will and choice.

“And He was numbered with,” &c. The Greek for “numbered” means, by “common suffrages;” conveying, that all present praised and extolled the Divine choice. God had chosen. Men expressed their full approval of the Divine choice.

 

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

 

ANALYSIS OF ACTS CHAPTER 10

In this Chapter, is recorded the conversion of Cornelius the centurion, who instructed by an Angel, sent for Peter to Joppe (1–8). Peter’s ecstatic vision (9–17). Explained by the arrival of the messenger sent by Cornelius, who explains the purport of the message sent him (24–34). Peter’s discourse on the Divinity of our Lord and his heavenly mission to earth to redeem mankind (34–43). The miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost, and numerous conversions followed by the Baptism of the converts (44–48).

COMMENTARY ON ACTS 10:25-26, 34-35, 44-48

25 And it came to pass that when Peter was come in, Cornelius came to meet him and falling at his feet adored.

“Adored.” Cornelius, as a pious, God-fearing man, could not intend this as an act of supreme worship, which he knew could be paid to God alone. But, knowing Peter to be a friend of God vested with supernatural powers, he paid him great reverence, exhibited in his prostration

26 But Peter lifted him up, saying: Arise: I myself also am a man.

Peter’s humility, however, shrunk from such honours. Besides, he knew it was not conformable to Roman custom to pay such save to Divinity, and the Romans present might regard it as an act of supreme worship paid to a God. When St. John prostrated himself before the angel, though from a man so enlightened, it could not mean divine worship, but only an act of civil homage, the angel, out of humility, declined it (Apoc. 19:10).

34 And Peter opening his mouth, said: in very deed I perceive that God is not a respecter of persons.

“Opening his mouth,” beginning to speak. “In very deed,” undoubtedly. “I perceive,” from all that is occurring around me, and especially in connection with the call of Cornelius, and the various visions accorded to him and me.

“God is not a respecter of persons” (see James 2:1). “Respect or exception of persons” takes place when an unjust preference is shown to one party beyond another, as in the case of a judge who would pronounce sentence on account of the external appearance or circumstance of a person, such as friendship, or rank, or influence, without regard to the merits of the case. The Jews thought God peculiarly favoured them, because they were Jews, and all others excluded from Salvation because they were not. St. Peter now says he perceives how erroneous this is. No one is favoured by God simply because he is a Jew, externally pro-professing Judaism, and carnally descended from Abraham. Nor is anyone excluded from the Divine favour because he is not a Jew (see Romans 9, &c).

35 But in every nation, he that feareth him and worketh justice is acceptable to him.

 “But in every nation,” and people, without distinction of Jew or Gentile, or without reference to external advantages of any sort, “he that feareth Him,” who, under the influence of Divine grace from reverential fear of God, repairs from evil, “and worketh Justice,” does good works, aided by God’s grace. This is evidently allusive to Cornelius and his.… “is acceptable to him” and a sharer in the Divine favour, so as to be disposed to be called to the faith and embrace the true religion.

This is a brief epitome of the teaching of St. Paul in his Epistle to Romans, in which he fully explains the doctrine of justification, and God’s gracious and gratuitous deallings with man, without distinction of Jew or Gentile. In all this, the preventing and co-operating grace of God is supposed. Since, without God’s grace, no one can perform any good work conducive to Salvation. This affords no ground for advocating indifference as regards religion. For, if indifferentism were allowable, might not Cornelius remain as he was, and why should St. Peter go to such trouble to preach to him and his the necessity of embracing the Faith of Jesus Christ, as being for all men the only true means of Salvation, and the only means established by God for obtaining the remission of sin?

The indifference put forward here is not indifference of Faith; but indifference of nations and peoples in regard to God’s supernatural favours and gratuitous calls to His Church.

44 While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word.
45 And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also.
46 For they heard them speaking with tongues and magnifying God.

“Holy Ghost fell on,” &c. Probably, not in a sensible form as on the Apostles on Pentecost Sunday; but, in visible effects, such as speaking and praising God in strange tongues (v. 46), and other marks of his presence.

It is remarked by commentators, that this is a wonderful and singular instance of the giving of the Holy Ghost. He anticipated the ministry of Peter, in order to show that the vocation of the Gentiles was altogether God’s own work; and the converts from Judaism would see that they owed their call and the gifts of the Holy Ghost not to circumcision or to the Law, but to faith in Jesus Christ. Whereas Cornelius received the gifts of the Holy Ghost without Baptism or circumcision, it was a peremptory proof that the Gentiles, in order to receive Baptism and be incorporated with the Church need not be incorporated with the Jewish Church by circumcision or subjection to the Law of Moses.

47 Then Peter answered: Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, who have received the Holy Ghost, as well as we?

“Answered,” often in SS. Scriptures signifies, to begin to speak without reference to any question, or it may imply answering some latent question in the mind of the speaker.

“Forbid water.” Though they had received the Baptism of the Holy Ghost and all His gifts, still in accordance with the ordinance of our Lord (John 3) they should receive the Baptism of water, in order to be externally incorporated with the Church, and made one with the body of the faithful.

“Forbid water,” clearly shows the necessity of Baptism, when those who were replenished with the gifts of the Holy Ghost should necessarily be subjected to it. “Forbid water,” shows it was carried, and that Baptism was administered by infusion.

“As well as we” Jews, when He descended on us at Pentecost.

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Then they desired him to tarry with them some days.

“He commanded,” &c. Probably, using the ministry of the six who accompanied him. It may be that Peter himself did so. The words may mean, he gave orders to them to prepare at once for Baptism which possibly he himself may have conferred. The words do not necessarily convey that he did not.

It may be asked, what need had Peter of a vision to know that the Gentiles were to be admitted into the Church, after our Lord’s express mandate “docete omnes gentes?” In reply, it is said, the Apostles did not understand our Lord’s injunctions in detail or practice.

“In the name” by the authority, and with the Baptism, in the usual form, “of Jesus Christ.”

 

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 13:44-52

44 But the next sabbath day, the whole city almost came together, to hear the word of God.

“Whole city.” Most of the population, including Gentiles. “came together.” Where? Not said, possibly several audiences were given, as no one synagogue could contain all together; or, in some open space around the synagogue.

45 And the Jews, seeing the multitudes, were filled with envy and contradicted those things which were said by Paul, blaspheming.

“Were filled with envy.” Felt great indignation on seeing the Gentiles admitted on such easy terms.

“Contradicted.” Denounced as false, the teaching “of Paul,” the chief speaker. “Blaspheming.” Adding some reproaches, which were so many blasphemies against our Lord.

46 Then Paul and Barnabas said boldly: To you it behoved us first to speak the word of God: but because you reject it and judge yourselves unworthy of eternal life, behold we turn to the Gentiles.

“Boldly.” Spiritedly, with courageous intrepidity, disregarding their anger and jealously.

“To you it behoved,” &c. According to the precept of our Lord (Luke 24 v. 47).

“Judge yourselves,” &c. By rejecting the means of salvation offered to you. Not that they deemed themselves unworthy of salvation; but rather the opposite. Their conduct, however, in rejecting the means of salvation was a practical judgment on the subject, though they thought the reverse.

47 For so the Lord hath commanded us: I have set thee to be the light of the Gentiles: that thou mayest be for salvation unto the utmost part of the earth.

“So the Lord commanded,” &c. He does not here refer to the express command of our Lord himself, which the Jews would undervalue; but, to the commands contained in their own highly-prized Scriptures of the Old Testament.

“I have set Thee,” &c. These words, as is universally admitted, directly refer to the Messiah. They are found in Isaias (49:6). They implicitly refer to the Apostles, who were to act in His name, and by preaching him to the Gentiles, were to be instrumental in carrying out in his regard, what he was appointed to be “The Light of the Gentiles,” whom he was to draw forth from the darkness of error and ignorance, and become the source of “salvation” to all mankind, even unto the utmost parts of the earth.

48 And the Gentiles hearing it were glad and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to life everlasting believed.

Hearing from the mouths of the Jews themselves that they were to be sharers equally with the Jews in salvation, who would fain confine salvation to themselves. “Glorified the Word of God.” Speaking of it with reverence and thankfulness, as a message from God. They are contrasted with the Jews who rejected God’s word (v. 46).

“As were ordained.” Does not refer to a decree, as some understand it, on the part of God predestinating men to Eternal Life, in consequence of which decree they believed and embraced the faith. There is no question at least immediately and directly of any predestinating decree at all. The Greek word for “ordained” (τεταγμενοι) is probably allusive to military dicipline, wherein men are arranged by their officers under their proper peculiar standard. The words mean, that such as were disposed and divinely directed under the influence of God’s preventing graces, inspiring and strengthening them, to aspire after life everlasting, freely embraced the faith, “believed”—as one of the most essential means of attaining the object they had in view.

49 And the word of the Lord was published throughout the whole country.

The entire district of Antioch of Pisidia embraced the faith, owing to the influence and preaching of Paul and Barnabas. There is question of the Gentile population, to whom Paul and Barnabas addressed themselves, after having been rejected and resisted by the Jews.

50 But the Jews stirred up religious and honourable women and the chief men of the city: and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas: and cast them out of their coasts.

Honourable women.” Women of high rank, connected with high families of influence.

“Chief men,” &c. The civil magistrates, who exercised civil authority.

“Cast them,” &c. Had a decree enacted, banishing them. This does not imply violence. Likely, they had men employed to see them depart from their country.

51 But they, shaking off the dust of their feet against them, came to Iconium.

For the meaning of this symbolical mode of acting, prescribed by our Lord, in certain circumstances, to his Apostles (see Matthew 10:14, Commentary on).

52 And the disciples were filled with joy and with the Holy Ghost.

Joy infused by the Holy Ghost in communicating His gifts.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 13:26-33

26 Men, brethren, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever among you fear God: to you the word of this salvation is sent.

“Stock of Abraham,” native born Jews, his natural descendants through Isaac.

“Fear God.” Proselytes. The Apostle earnestly exhorts his countrymen, whether Jews or Proselytes, to accept the message of Salvation, which is the fulfilment of the promises made to their fathers.

“To you,” is emphatic. To them was the Saviour first sent. “This salvation” indicated in v. 23.

27 For they that inhabited Jerusalem and the rulers thereof, not knowing him, nor the voices of the prophets which are read every sabbath, judging him, have fulfilled them.

“For they that inhabited Jerusalem,” &c. The object of the Apostle here would seem to be to explain more fully how this salvation was brought about, and the humiliations and sufferings, in the first instance, of the Saviour, and His subsequent glory and exaltation in fulfilment of “voices” or oracles of “the Prophets” who had minutely predicted them beforehand. “For” is regarded here by Commentators not as causal but expletive, as if the Apostle was about to explain how “the word of salvation” was effected, viz., through the crimes and ingratitude of the Jews of Jerusalem.

Others (among them Patrizzi) say “for” conveys a reason not for what is expressed but what is understood, as if he revolved in his mind reproachfully and sorrowfully what a sad subject of reproach, what a grievous crime is involved in this work of Redemption.

For the Jews of Jerusalem not knowing Him to be their Messiah as well “as their rulers,” members of the Sanhedrim or Supreme Council of the Nation, blindly shutting their eyes against all evidence, utterly ignored him.

“Read every Sabbath,” which rendered their rejection of Him more culpable and blameworthy.

“Judging.” Condemning Him; pronouncing Him worthy of death.

28 And finding no cause of death in him, they desired of Pilate that they might kill him.

Handed Him over to Pilate, who, out of fear of the Emperor, before whom he might be charged with allowing a man, however unjustly charged with sedition to pass unpunished, regardless of justice, condemned him to death. The Roman procurator alone had at this time the power to do so.

29 And when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, taking him down from the tree, they laid him in a sepulchre.

This proved the reality of his death. The words express the fact of His burial by whomsoever killed. They may be said to have buried Him by means of others; for, having compassed His death, they brought about His burial. Besides, some members of the Sanhedrim, who disapproved of the sentence, Nicodemus and Joseph, had him buried.

30 But God raised him up from the dead the third day.

“But,” implying that these expectations regarding his utter extinction in the grave were frustrated.

“God.” Christ who is God, raised Himself up, as He repeatedly promised (c. 2:24). St. Paul did not deem it expedient to proclaim, at this stage, the fundamental truth that Christ is God. It is not denied, however prudently passed over in silence.

31 Who was seen for many days by them who came up with him from Galilee to Jerusalem, who to this present are his witnesses to the people.

“Seen” not only by the Apostles, but by several other disciples (1 Cor. 15, &c.).

32 And we declare unto you that the promise which was made to our fathers,
33 This same God hath fulfilled to our children, raising up Jesus, as in the second psalm also is written: Thou art my Son: this day have I begotten thee.

The witnesses referred to in the preceding verse declared this fundamental truth to the people of Palestine. The same we now declare to you, the Jews of the dispersion; “and we declare that the promise made to our fathers,” Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, regarding the salvation and redemption of mankind is brought about by one of their seed.

“God hath fulfilled.” Completely carried out in the Resurrection of Jesus, which perfected the accomplishment of all the promises that concerned Him. The Resurrection of our Lord with all its circumstances was the most undeniable proof, the undoubted seal of His Divinity, which embraced every other truth and promise and prediction that concerned Him.

“Raising up Jesus” from the dead.

“As in second Psalm.” In some versions it is “in first Psalm. But in this it is supposed that first Psalm is merely an introduction to the whole Psalter. The first and second Psalms were by some regarded as one. However, the Vulgate reading is better sustained by the chief MSS.

“Thou art My Son,” &c. These words are regarded by many Expositors as having reference to the Eternal generation of the Son “before all ages.” These explain its connection with our Lord’s Resurrection, thus: In our Lord’s Resurrection, His human nature which was always even in its separated state, during the interval between His death and Resurrection, united to the Person of the Word, received, as it were, a new existence when His sacred body now glorified was united to His soul. In reference to this state of new existence, God the Father declares Him anew to be His Eternal Son, perpetuating His generation from eternity, which was not a mere passing, but a continuous, permanent act ever abiding from eternity unto eternity. This is in accordance with the teaching of St. Paul (Rom. 1:4), where he says Christ was predestinated: (in Greek, declared) to be the Son of God by His Resurrection, &c.

The vv. 32 and 33 should be interpreted and joined together, as they convey that God had fulfilled for the children the promises made to their fathers. These promises He completely “fulfilled” by raising up His son from the dead, which followed as a necessary consequence of His being the Eternal, consubstantial, natural Son of God, begotten of Him eternally by a permanent, abiding generation.

Some interpreters say vv. 32, 33 should be included in a parenthesis, thus, v. 34 would be immediately connected with v. 31, following up the arguments directly in proof of Christ’s Resurrection.

In the two vv. 32, 33 is contained the point which the Apostle wishes to establish all along, viz., that the Jews had the promises of salvation fulfilled, which was now tendered to them.

“As in the second Psalm.” In some versions we have, “as in the first Psalm.” This discrepancy arose from the different divisions of the Psalms at different times and in different versions. Moreover, some looking on the first Psalm, as merely an introduction to the whole Psalter, made only one of the first and second Psalms.

“Thou art My son,” &c. Some hold that these words directly refer to Christ’s Resurrection, in which He was begotten and born into a new and immortal life which God communicated to Him; and thus became His Father, and he became a son, as earthly parents are termed such when their children are born.

Others maintain that there is question directly of the eternal generation of the Son, born of the Father “before all ages.” In order to show its connexion with the Resurrection, these say that St. Paul adduces the Eternal generation of Christ, His identity with the Father, as His Eternal Son, to prove that having died by His Father’s will, He could not but rise again; impossible, He would remain in death. Just as St. Peter proves (c. 2:24) that it is impossible for Him not to rise in order to fulfil the prophecies, so here, the impossibility of His not rising is derived from His Divine sonship, which would not allow of His mouldering in the grave.

“This day have I begotten Thee.” “This day.” God’s day, determines no particular time. With God there is no past or future. All is present. And the generation of His Son in eternity was not a mere passing act, but continuous, permanent, abiding from eternity unto eternity.

Some say these words convey the idea expressed by St. Paul (Rom. 1:4) that in His Resurrection God declared him to be Son in the new and glorified existence conferred on His humanity, which was always since the Incarnation inseparably united to the Divine Person of the Word.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 13:13-25

13 Now when Paul and they that were with him had sailed from Paphos, they came to Perge in Pamphylia. And John departing from them, returned to Jerusalem.

“Paul,” &c., and his colleagues. “Perge,” the capital of Pamphylia, distinguished for the famous temple of Diana. Whatever John’s reasons were for not accompanying them beyond Perge, they did not satisfy Paul, who refused afterwards to have him associated with them. This gave rise to the difference between the Apostle and Barnabas, the latter was kinsman of John Mark. This difference ended in their separation. John, it seems, was afterwards taken into the Apostle’s friendship (2 Tim. 4:11; Col. 4:10.)

14 But they, passing through Perge, came to Antioch in Pisidia: and, entering into the Synagogue on the sabbath day, they sat down.

They made no slay this time, at Perge. Not so, however, on their return (14:25).

“Antioch of Pisidia.” Different from the well-known Antioch of Syria (11:19).

“Entering into the Synagogue.” There must have been a good many Jews there.

“Sat down.” Assuming the position of Doctors, and conveying that they would be glad to address the congregation. Although specially marked out by the Holy Ghost himself for the conversion of the Gentile world, they deemed it right to attend to the Divine mandate of preaching to the Jews, first, “Judæo primum.”

15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets, the rulers of the synagogue sent to them, saying: Ye men, brethren, if you have any word of exhortation to make to the people, speak.

“And after the reading,” &c. A portion of the Pentateuch—“the Law”—was marked off to be read for the assembly, each Sabbath day, in the synagogue. To this was added an appropriate passage from “the Prophets,” bearing in sense on the passage read from the Law, or Pentateuch.

“The rulers of the Synagogue.” The officers, whose duty it was to see that all things were conducted decorously at the meeting. To them it belonged to call on whom they pleased to address the people. “If ye have any word,” &c. Their position and intelligent appearance gave grounds for assuming this.

“Men, brethren.” Showed they have regarded them as fellow-country-men and of the same religion

16 Then Paul rising up and with his hand bespeaking silence, said: Ye men of Israel and you that fear God, give ear.

“And you that fear God.” By those are most probably meant the class termed, Proselytes of the gate, who had not been as yet incorporated with the Jews, by circumcision; but, having renounced the worship of idols, adored Jehovah, and were admitted to the Synagogues. There was another class of Proselytes, viz., Proselytes of justice. This latter class were incorporated with the Jews by circumcision. They were bound to the observance of the entire Mosaic Law. Not so, the Proselytes of the gate, who were bound only by the precepts given to Noah.

17 The God of the people of Israel chose our fathers and exalted the people when they were sojourners in the land of Egypt: And with an high arm brought them out from thence:

This is the first discourse recorded by St. Luke in the Acts, as uttered by St. Paul. Every word of it is thoroughly in harmony with his writings in his Epistles. Between it and the discourse of St. Peter and St. Stephen addressed to the Jews, who had not at the time, embraced the Faith, the greatest analogy is clearly discernible. St. Paul seems to adopt the same course that they followed in order to bring around their conversion. In this disourse, instead of proclaiming at once the Divinity of our Lord and the necessity of believing in Him, which might occasion a cry of opposition against Him, he gives a brief account of the History of the Jews, their special election by God, till he comes down to the time of King David, from whose seed our Saviour had sprung. Then briefly alluding to His Death and Resurrection—all in accordance with the ancient prophecies—he points out what he intended to be the main object of his discourse, viz.: the necessity of believing in Him, in order to obtain Salvation (38, 39). He also warns them against the disastrous consequences of unbelief (vv. 40, 41).

“The God,” &c. This exordium was calculated to secure him an attentive hearing.

“Exalted the people.” By multiplying them, asserting them into liberty from a state of degrading bondage, working great prodigies of power in their behalf, humbling their enemies

“And with a high arm,” &c. All this is fully detailed in the Book of Exodus.

18 And for the space of forty years endured their manners in the desert:

“Endured their manners,” &c. Patiently bearing with their perversity and frequent rebellions against him (Psalm 94:10).

The above is the reading commonly adopted. Others—and they are neither few nor inconsiderable—adopt a different reading. They maintain that instead of ετροποφορησεν “Endured,” it should be ετροφοφορησεν nourished, fed, as a nurse feeds her young. This latter reading is found in several excellent MSS. and versions. There is only the difference of one letter φ and π in both. If we consult history it is against the former reading, as it testifies that God did not patiently endure their perversity; but, rather frequently reproached, threatened, and punished them severely. Moreover, does it not seem unlikely that St. Paul in recounting the benefits bestowed on their fathers, would mention their perversity, which God had patiently to bear with? More likely, he would refer to their having been miraculously nourished by God, with Manna in their passage, for forty years, through the wilderness.

19 And, destroying seven nations in the land of Chaanan, divided their land among them by lot.

“Destroying” them, as nations (Deut. 7:1), extirpating them as such, several individuals survived.

“Land of Chanaan.” The whole country went by the name of the principal nation. This is the land promised their fathers.

“By lot,” a process frequently resorted to among the Jews, for determining the most important affairs.

20 As it were, after four hundred and fifty years. And after these things, he gave unto them judges, until Samuel the prophet.

“As it were,” &c. We have great chronological difficulties connected with this verse. There are two readings of it, both well supported by MSS. and versions. One, the ordinary Greek reading, according to which “the four hundred and fifty years” are to be connected with what follows, and determine the period or duration of the government of the people by judges.

“After these things,” or after the sortition of the lands, some time subsequent to the entrance into the Land of Promise, He gave them judges who ruled for “four hundred and fifty years until Samuel the Prophet,” Samuel’s own administration included. This is not easily reconciled with 3 Kings, c. 6:1, where it is stated four hundred and eighty years (480) elapsed between the Exodus and the fourth (4th) year of the reign of Solomon, the date of the building of the Temple.

The other reading followed by the Vulgate, and supported by some of the chief MSS. and versions connects the “four hundred and fifty (450) years” not with what follows, but with the preceding, and computes them from the call and special election of the Jewish people, which began at the birth of Isaac, the heir of the promises, to the sortition of the lands in Chanaan. In this reading there is no need for reconciling this passage with 3 Kings 6:6, which speaks of a period commencing with the Exodus.

The passage will, then, mean that God gave the children of Israel the land of Chanaan four hundred and fifty (450) years after He had chosen our fathers and their posterity to be His peculiar people.

In this computation, the forty (40) years wandering in the desert, and seven (7) years before the distribution of the land are added to the four hundred (400) from the time of the promise till the Exodus or end of their bondage.

Commentators generally remark in connection with this and such like passages that Chronological details regarding facts, long since past, are very perplexing. They, moreover, remark that the Chronology here mentioned was commonly held at the time; and that St. Paul, without entering into any disputes about Chronological accuracy or attempting to settle every point regarding it, gave expression to the opinion on the subject usually adopted by the Jews at the time.

21 And after that they desired a king: and God gave them Saul the son of Cis, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, forty years.

“Forty years.” In Book of Kings, there is no mention of the duration of Saul’s reign.

The Apostle must have learned it from Tradition. This number perfectly accords with the narrative of Josephus (Antiq. vii. 11) who says Saul reigned eighteen (18) years before the death of Samuel, and twenty-two after it.

22 And when he had removed him, he raised them up David to be king: to whom giving testimony, he said: I have found David, the son of Jesse, a man according to my own heart, who shall do all my wills.

“Removed.” Deprived him of the Royal dignity (1 Kings 31:1–6).

“Giving testimony”—“according to my own heart,” very pleasing to me, such a man as my heart desires and wishes for. “My wills execute my mandates.” This testimony is found substantially in (1 Kings 13:14, 16:1; Psl 38). David may have deflected from the right path betimes; but, his public kingly life was uniformly good; and, after he fell, his repentance was remarkable. His reign, as king, was good, obedient to God’s will, unlike Saul, who proved to be perverse.

David is commended for having promoted the worship of God among the people (3 Kings 14:8, 9; 15:3–5) and contrasted with Jeroboam and Abias.

23 Of this man’s seed, God, according to his promise, hath raised up to Israel a Saviour Jesus:

“Seed,” posterity. Our Lord is everywhere known by the designation, “Son of David.”

“God, according to His promise,” viz., the promises generally made to Abraham and David, that the Messiah would be born of their seed (Gal. 3:15) which he confirms in v. 32.

“Hath raised up to Israel, a Saviour, Jesus.” Instead of “raised up,” the reading best supported by a preponderance of MSS., and generally preferred, has, “brought forth to Israel.” It refers not to our Lord’s Incarnation; but, to his having been publicly declared by God, at the commencement of his ministry, at his Baptism, by John, to be the Saviour of all Israel. Hence, aptly called Jesus. The reference here made to the precursory ministry and testimony of John shows there is question of our Lord’s coming forth to exercise His ministry.

24 John first preaching, before his coming, the baptism of penance to all the people of Israel.

“John preaching,” or, as the Greek has it, “having previously preached,” “before his coming,” or His public appearance to exercise His ministry.

In v. 23, the Apostle introduces the chief point of his discourse, that Jesus was the promised Messiah, who was to redeem the world. The mention of the word Jesus, so odious to the Jews, and calculated to beget a prejudice, is introduced with great judgment, the promises regarding which, already laid before them, the Jews could not gainsay. With great tact he avails himself of the allusion to David to introduce the mention of the Messiah, who was to be of the seed of David.

The meaning of vv. 23, 24, then, is: God, conformably to His promise has declared, pointed out unto Israel Jesus as Saviour, the descendant of King David, after John had prepared the ways for His entry into the functions of His ministry, by preaching the Baptism of Penance unto all the people.

25 And when John was fulfilling his course, he said: I am not he whom you think me to be. But behold, there cometh one after me, whose shoes of his feet I am not worthy to loose.

“Fulfilling his course.” When in the act of discharging his duties as precursor, he said “I am not he,” (see Gospels Matthew 3; Luke 3:15; John 1:27).

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 12:24-13:5

Acts 12:24 But the word of the Lord increased and multiplied.

“The word of the Lord.” The Church founded on God’s word “increased” in the multitudes that joined it. The death, by Divine judgment, of the chief persecutor, Herod, gave the preachers of the Gospel breathing time, of which they availed themselves. The liberation of Peter had a wonderful effect.

Acts 12:25 And Barnabas and Saul, returned from Jerusalem, having fulfilled their ministry, taking with them John who was surnamed Mark.

“After having deposited the alms in the hands of those to whom they were to distribute them, they returned from Jerusalem to Antioch.

Acts 13:1 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene and Manahen who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.

Prophets” (c. 11:27).

“Doctors.” These wise men endowed with the spiritual gift of teaching the truths of faith in a plain intelligible manner. In the catalogue of spiritual gifts enumerated by St. Paul (1 Cor 12:28), “Doctors” are placed third in order. As the “Prophets” explained the truths of faith under the influence of sudden inspiration for the moment; “So did Doctors” do, in a calm, intelligible manner.

“Lucius of Cyrene.” Whether it is to him St. Paul alludes (Rom. 16:21) is uncertain.

“Niger,” so called, probably, from his complexion.

“Foster-brother.” The word, probably, here means, the associate, playmate. It was usual with Princes to select children of the same age, as associates or playmates for their children. This was regarded as a high honour.

“Herod” (Antipas). The same who beheaded the Baptist; mocked our Lord. He was, at this time, after being deposed by Claudius, exiled at Lyons. “Tetrarch,” called by his former name, though no longer such.

Acts 13:2 And as they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them.

“Ministering.” The Greek—λειτουργούντων—literally means engaged in a public work, which the words, “unto the Lord,” would point to a work in the service of God, or Divine worship, The words refer to the engagement in public Divine worship, and not merely in prayer or instruction. It would thus, by implication, if not directly, indicate the Sacrifice of the New Law, the chief part of the Liturgy, or of Divine worship. It reference were made merely to prayers, a different form would be used, thus, “while they were praying.” Nor could it refer to preaching, which is addressed to the people and not “to the Lord.”

“Fasting,” is also significant. For the ancient Fathers, Augustine, Basil, &c., tell us, fasting always preceded the offering of sacrifice; but, fasting was not necessarily connected with prayer in general (Beelen). Erasmus renders the Greek word, sacrificantibus. Kenrick prefers rendering it, officiating. Whatever may be the probability of this opinion, no Catholic could think of recurring to a text so dubious, in proof of the sacrifice of the New Law, when there are clear texts, plenty and to spare, from which the existence of the holy sacrifice is proved decretorially and satisfactorily.

“The Holy Ghost said to them,” either by internal inspiration, or possibly in an audible tone, to some of them, which they communicated to the others.

“Separate.” Set apart by some solemn act, as in next verse indicated by the imposition of hands. What this latter ceremony means is disputed. Some say as Saul was undoubtedly an Apostle called by our Lord Himself before this (Gal. 1:1–15; Acts 9:20, &c.) the ceremony here could not mean conferring the Episcopal office; that it was only meant to show the communion of pastors and the unity of ministry in the Church. Thus it was ratified by some exernal ceremony; the mission was already divinely confided to them.

Others (and this is more generally held) say that there is questions of Episcopal consecration. They may have been already priests. They had already exercised the functions of priests, and are numbered with those, who discharged sacred functions; or, it may be that Priesthood and Episcopacy were conferred at the same time, which Bellarmine holds to be possible (De Sac. Ord. c. 5) and Petavius (Dissert. Eccles., Lib. i., c. 2) says it was done at that age of the Church. The words of next verse regarding some imposition of hands, fasting, praying, would seem to be confirmatory of this view, although the difficulties and objections against are very great and hard to be answered.

“Saul and Barnabas.” The order is inverted in the Greek. However, the Vulgate reading is well sustained by versions; and especially the Syriac.

“For the work.” The conversion of the Gentile world “taken,” chosen them.

Acts 13:3 Then they fasting and praying and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

The Greek means “after having fasted and prayed” &c. This solemn mode of proceeding points to the great work before them, of deputing two men, to begin on an organized scale, the conversion of the heathen.

“Sent them away,” on their mission, guided and influenced by the Holy Ghost.

Acts 13:4 So they, being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus.

“By the Holy Ghost.” Under whose direction the preparatory ceremony was carried out. It was He who ordered them to be set apart and, as some understand it, ordained or consecrated for the purpose.

“Seleucia” on the Mediterranean, situated at the mouth of the Orontes. It was about sixteen miles from Antioch, situated inland, higher up the Orontes.

“Cyprus.” The well-known island on the Mediterranean not far from Seleucia. It was the birth-place of Barnabas. The Gospel had been preached there already by others (9:19).

Acts 13:5 And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

“Salamina.” The chief city of Cyprus, on its eastern shore, destroyed by an earthquake. It was rebuilt by Constantine. Hence, called Constantia.

“Synagogue of the Jews.” To the Jews they preached the word of God, in the first instance. “John” surnamed Mark (c. 12:12). He did not claim to be their equal, who were specially designated by the Holy Ghost to the high office of preaching the Gospel. He held an inferior position. He acted as their travelling companion; probably, making provision for their temporal necessities, so that they might attend uninterruptedly to the preaching of the Word. He may also have assisted them in their spiritual ministry, acting as catechist, &c.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 11:19-26

19 Now they who had been dispersed by the persecution that arose on occasion of Stephen went about as far as Phenice and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to none, but to the Jews only.

“Now” is resumptive of the narrative interrupted (c. 8:4) by the description of the conversion of Saul (9:32), the visitation of the churches of Palestine by Peter (33–43), the wonderful events connected with Cornelius, &c. Now, St. Luke resumes the history and doings of those disciples who were scattered abroad on the occasion of the martyrdom of St. Stephen, and enters on a new phase of the history of the Acts, chiefly in regard to the preaching of the Gospel to the Gentiles in several prominent places, and especially in regard to the history of St. Paul, the principal events of his life, his Apostolic labours and heroic sufferings in the cause of the Gospel.

“They that had been dispersed by,” or owing to, the persecution, on the occasion of the death of Stephen, “went about as far as Phenice.” Some of these dispersed disciples, not Apostles, made their way preaching the Gospel as far as Phenice—that tract of country on the shores of the Mediterranean between Judæa and Syria; others, as far as Cyprus, the island over against Phœnicia, others, as far as Antioch, the capital of Syria. All these exiles preached the Gospel to the Jews only.

20 But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were entered into Antioch, spoke also to the Greeks, preaching the Lord Jesus.

“But some of them” who were dispersed (c. 8:4), “Cyrene,” the capital city of Lybia, these were converted Jews.

“Greeks.” Gentiles. The opposition between these and “the Jews only,” among whom, doubtless, were found Hellenistic Jews, would seem to require that the word “Greeks” would refer to those who were in no sense “Jews” but Pagans. Very likely these men heard at Antioch of Cornelius’ conversion, and doubtless this example would influence them to preach to the Gentiles, and admit them into the Church.

21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believing, were converted to the Lord.

“The hand of the Lord” was with those teachers, empowering them to perform miracles in corroboration of their teaching which, therefore, was successful in effecting conversions.

The occurrences referred to (19–21) would seem to have taken place during an interval of some years, between the death of Stephen and the mission of Barnabas to Antioch.

22 And the tidings came to the ears of the church that was at Jerusalem, touching these things: and they sent Barnabas as far as Antioch.

The rumour concerning the successful labours of the disciples among these Cyprians and Cyreneans at Antioch reached the faithful of Jerusalem and the Apostles themselves who may have been there. Peter and James were there. Hence, the deputation by them of Barnabas to Antioch to confirm by Apostolic authority the successful work of the Cyprian and Cyrenean disciples. They send Barnabas alone as being a Cyprian and Hellenist; he was best fitted for the work, and would give less offence in his communication with the successful preaching of the word.

23 Who, when he was come and had seen the grace of God, rejoiced. And he exhorted them all with purpose of heart to continue in the Lord.

Had seen the grace of God manifest in the conversion and edifying lives of the Gentiles. “The grace of God” was the chief agent in the work of conversion. Free will is also upheld when He exhorts them “with purpose of heart,” with firm and determined purposes, “to continue,” &c.

24 For he was a good man and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith. And a great multitude was added to the Lord

“A good man,” &c. “Good,” benign, kind; loving God and solicitous for the salvation of his brethren; distinguished for the abundant gifts of the Holy Ghost, especially faith and confidence in God. To these qualities was added his success in the work of the Gospel.

25 And Barnabas went to Tarsus to seek Saul: whom, when he had found, he brought to Antioch.

Paul went from Jerusalem to Tharsus, his native city. Likely while there he was engaged in his trade of tent-making. Possibly, the Apostles at Jerusalem may have instructed Barnabas to call on him knowing what an effective labourer he would be in preaching the Gospel.

26 And they conversed there in the church a whole year: and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.

“Conversed there.” Held sacred meetings for the purposes of worship “for a whole year,” and instructed great multitudes in the faith of Christ.

“First named Christians,” which shows the wonderful progress the Gospel made at Antioch.

“Christians,” the most honourable of all appellations, suggestive of the gratitude we owe our Blessed Saviour, and of our obligation to walk in His footsteps if we wish to share in His glory.

By whom they were so called, whether by Paul or Barnabas, or the Pagans, among whom they lived by way of distinction cannot be ascertained. Likely, it was not meant as a term of reproach. Agrippa uses it in a complimentary sense (Acts 26:20 also 1 Peter 4:16). Galileans or Nazareans was employed scornfully and reproachfully (2:7, 24:5) to designate our Lord’s followers.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 11:1-18

ANALYSIS OF ACTS CHAPTER 11

Peter’s arrival at Jerusalem (1–2). His defence of his conduct in admitting Gentiles into the Church, which he grounds on the vision vouchsafed to him at Joppe, which he describes (3–14). The external effusion of the gifts of the Holy Ghost. After which all held their peace and acquiesced (14–19). The spread of religion consequent on the preaching and miracles of the disciples (19–21). The prediction of a great famine by Agabus. The charitable resolve to send relief, which was actually forwarded through Barnabas and Saul, to the distressed Christians of Judea (19–30).

1 And the apostles and brethren, who were in Judea, heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.

The rumour regarding the admission of Cornelius and his household into the church was circulated far and wide throughout Judæa. Likely, the Apostles were at this time scattered throughout the different parts of the country.

2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,

“They that were of the circumcision.” Such among them as were over zealous about the Mosaic rite of circumcision and its necessity “contended,” disputed with him, as to the propriety of his conduct, and reproached him,

3 Saying: Why didst thou go in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them?

“Saying: why didst thou?” &c. In the Greek it is in the assertive, not interrogative form. They held it to be unlawful to hold converse and take food with uncircumcised Gentiles, erroneously fancying the Law of Moses, as they understood it, on these points to be still in vigour. The gifts of the Holy Ghost abundantly poured out on them, put the propriety of receiving the Gentiles into the Church beyond dispute. This they don’t explicitly upbraid him with; they do so implicitly.

4 But Peter began and declared to them the matter in order, saying:

Peter justifies the admission of the Gentiles into the Church, and explains in detail each occurrence in connexion with it so far as he himself was concerned. “In order,” in the order in which it took place.

Note: since in verses 5-16 St Peter basically retells the account narrated in the previous chapter, Fr. MacEvilly sends us to his comments from that chapter. I’ve provided a link to that commentary after verse 16.

5 I was in the city of Joppe praying: and I saw in an ecstasy of mind a vision, a certain vessel descending, as it were a great sheet let down from heaven by four corners. And it came even unto me.
6 Into which looking, I considered and saw fourfooted creatures of the earth and beasts and creeping things and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard also a voice saying to me: Arise, Peter. Kill and eat.
8 And I said: Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath ever entered into my mouth.
9 And the voice answered again from heaven: What God hath made clean, do not thou call common.
10 And this was done three times. And all were taken up again into heaven.
11 And behold, immediately there were three men come to the house wherein I was, sent to me from Caesarea.
12 And the Spirit said to me that I should go with them, nothing doubting. And these six brethren went with me also: and we entered into the man’s house.
13 And he told us how he had seen an angel in his house, standing and saying to him: Send to Joppe and call hither Simon, who is surnamed Peter,
14 Who shall speak to thee words whereby thou shalt be saved, and all thy house.
15 And when I had begun to speak, the Holy Ghost fell upon them, as upon us also in the beginning.
16 And I remembered the word of the Lord, how that he said: John indeed baptized with water but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Father MacEvilly’s Commentary on Acts 10.

17 If then God gave them the same grace as to us also who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: who was I, that could withstand God?

If, then, God bestowed the same spirit on the uncircumcized believing Gentiles, as on us, requiring no other condition save to believe, thus establishing a perfect equality, “Who was I, to withstand God,” by refusing to baptize them, to obstruct His gracious designs and holy will clearly manifested in their regard, and refuse to admit into His Church by Baptism those on whom He Himself conferred the exalted Baptism of the Spirit?

18 Having heard these things, they held their peace and glorified God, saying: God then hath also to the Gentiles given repentance, unto life.

“They held their peace.” They had no more to say, on seeing the clear manifestations of God’s will, but humbly acquiesced in, and conformed, to His holy will.

“Unto life” so as to attain salvation.