that TEVTEKOOTS is here not to be taken adjectively, but substantively, and is, as it were, a proper name; so that there is no subaudition of que for it I would be absurd to say that the fiftieth Cay of the

day was completed,) but rather of coprys.

This ob

servation is confirmed by Tobet 2, 1. ÉV TÝ TEVTEKOOTÝ ἑορτῇ. Opry. Whence also in 2 Macc. 2, 32. we must, at the words μετὰ τὴν λεγόμνην πεντεκοστὴν, subaud ἑορτὴν. Opry. The same applies to 1 Cor. 16, 8. (Kuin.)

On this feast see Michaelis, in his Mosaic Law, p. 4. § 167, and the writer on Jewish Antiquities (including Horne's Introd. Edit.) By the words T ἡμέραν τῆς πεντεκοστῆς some have thought is to be understood the fiftieth day after Christ's resurrection, because on the Lord's day, on which the festival of the Pentecost is now celebrated, the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Apostles; as we learn from the dicta of the antient Church, &c. But if the fiftieth day from the resurrection of Christ, and not the Jewish festival, were to be understood, propriety of language would require ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦσθαι ἡμέραν πεντεκοστὴν, οι ἐν τῷ συμπληροῦθαι ἡμέραν πενTKOVTα. Thus, however, the phraseology would be obscure and ambiguous. Many commentators too are of opinion that it cannot with certainty be affirmed that the Pentecost was, that year, celebrated by the Jews on the Sabbath day; nay that there are not wanting arguments by which it may be proved to have been celebrated on the Sunday. The Pentecost fell on the fiftieth day from the Passover; and this fiftieth day was numbered (as we learn by Lev. 23, 15.) from the last day of that Sabbath

on which they brought the sheaf of the ממחית השבת

wave-offering. So that from that day seven whole weeks, forty-nine days might be numbered, and thus the fiftieth would be the feast day. But in the explanation of the word n the Sadducees, i. e. the Karai, or Scriptuarii (see the note on Matt. 26, 17.) and the Pharisees differed, the former understanding by it a Sabbath properly so called, which

was celebrated on the seventh day; but the latter, the first day of the Passover, which was celebrated as a Sabbath. (See Exod. 12, 16.) Hence the feast of the Pentecost, according to the decree of the Karæi, always fell upon the first day of the week, Sunday, but, according to that of the Pharisees, on the fiftieth day from the offering of the handful of barley in the Temple. See Ikenius's Dissertation on the time of the celebration of the last Supper, and Barker's Obs. Exeg. on Acts 2. in Bibliotheca Hagana, vol. 2. p. 373. Now if Jesus, as most of the Commentators maintain, ate the passover on the same day with the rest of the Jews, the Jewish commonalty indeed celebrated the Pentecost on the Sabbath day, but Christ's disciples, if they followed the maxims of the Karæi, celebrated that feast on Sunday. Extremely probable, however, (as has been shown at large in the note on Matt. 26, 17.) is the opinion of those Commentators who maintain that Jesus, with the Karæi, anticipated by one day the ordinary Passover of the Jews. If therefore Jesus and the Karai had eaten the Passover on Thursday, but the rest of the Jews on Sunday after sun-set, (which first day of the Passover was a Sabbath one, since they numbered the day from the preceding evening, (as has been observed on Matt.) both of these, Sadducees and Pharisees, at that time celebrated the Pentecost on Sunday. (Kuinoel.)

1. ἦσαν ἅπαντες ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ. It has been disputed whether by the word anavτes is signified the twelve Apostles only, (and indeed oi åñóσroot is added in some MSS. but by a gloss,) or the rest of the disciples of both sexes included. (Compare 1, 14, 11. Those who refer it solely to the Apostles, found their opinion on these arguments. I. In the preceding, 1, 26. (say they,) we read of the eleven Apostles, to whom was added Matthias. The context therefore clearly shows that άravτes is referable to the Apostles only. II. Those who spoke in foreign tongues (ver. 7) are said to be Galilæans;

but it is not probable that all those one hundred and twenty, mentioned at 1, 15., were Galilæans. (See, however, the note on ver. 7.) 3. Peter, at ver. 14. is said to have stood up with the eleven: from which we are authorized to collect that only these were present."

Others, however, with better arguments, and sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom, Augustin, Jerome, and other ancient Fathers, maintain that, beside the Apostles, there were present the rest of Christ's followers, mentioned at 1, 15. "For, in the first place, it is clear, on an inspection of the context of Acts 1, 15. ult. that the subject there professedly treated of, is the assembly of the hundred and twenty believers which Peter addressed, and out of which Matthias was chosen and adopted into the Apostolic body: but the eleven Apostles are only mentioned en passant. Now to the predicate, which is destitute of a subject, the subject immediately antecedent, and not that of which mention was made en passant, but professedly ought to be called in and associated.

2. If St. Luke had meant the twelve Apostles only, it would have sufficed to say, not ἅπαντες, but οὗτοι. 3. It is little probable that on a feast day, at an hour appropriated to prayer (see Schoettg. Hor. Heb. on Acts 3, 1. infra ad v. 15.), the rest of Christ's followers were not with the Apostles. 4. Peter, at 2, 16. seqq. has quoted the passage of Joel 2, 28. “I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and our daughters shall prophecy:" for the purpose of shewing that the prophecy was now fulfilled. It is clear, therefore, that, besides the Apostles, there were many other Christians assembled, that on them, also, the Holy Spirit was poured out, and that they also spoke with foreign tongues. Peter and the eleven rose up (ver. 15.), since they were the leading persons, and by them the body was to be defended against the calumnies of the Jews.

Upon these grounds the latter opinion certainly

deserves the preference. (Kuin.) I entirely acquiesce in this view of the subject, which was also adopted by Grotius, Mercer, Lightfoot, Wolf, Rosenmuller, and Heinrichs, and, what is of more consequence, such seems to have been the tradition of the Church from the earliest ages. For (as observes Whitby) St. Jerome says, "When Paula came to Sion, they shewed her the place where the Holy Ghost fell upon the hundred and twenty to complete the prophecy of Joel: "And St. Chrysostom and Ecumenius on the place, say, He fell not only upon the Apostles, but also upon the hundred and twenty; and that St. Luke would not have said Távτes, all, when the Apostles only were present, εἰ μὴ καὶ ἄλλοι METéo xov, if others, also, had not been made partakers of the Holy Ghost.

1. ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἀυτό. See the note on 1, 14 & 15. Great has been the disagreement of Commentators respecting the place where the disciples were then assembled. Some maintain that by oikos is meant a mere chamber of the temple of Jerusalem, others, an apartment of some private house, and that 1st, oikos denotes not only a house, but an inner chamber, and that spacious. That there were in the temple of Jerusalem (says Krebs) thirty such halls, in which the Doctors of the Law held their theological schools, we learn from Joseph. Ant. 8, 3, 2. περιῳκοδόμησε δὲ τὸν ναὸν ἐν κύκλῳ τρίακοντα βρα χέσιν ἄκοις κ. τ. λ. & 7, 14, 10. τὴν διαγραφὴν καὶ τὴν διάταξιν τῆς οἰκοδομίας τοῦ ναοῦ, πάντων ὁρώντων, ἔδωκε Σολομώνι, θεμελίων καὶ οἴκων καὶ ὑπερῴων.

Now oikos may signify œcus, i. e. the conclave, cœnaculum of a private house (as in Lev. 14, 23. Philo 1042 c. Joseph. Ant. 8, 5, 2. 10, 11, 2. 12, 4, 11. Athen. 130 A. & 203 c. See Ernesti on Callimach. H. on Cer. 55. and Valckn. on Schol. ad h. 1.) and that there were in the temple, also, such acii, the passages of Joseph. testify. But had this been Luke's meaning, he would have unfolded it more clearly, since neither in the preceding nor following

words is there any mention made of this. Besides, no passages have yet been produced to prove that the common people, and especially strangers, were permitted to resort, for the purposes of prayer, to those apartments of the temple.

2. It is urged by Capellus, Spic. Obss. in h. 1., that the circumstances narrated happened at the third hour of the morning, when the more religious Jews used to resort to the temple for prayer, and that since the Apostles and the rest of Christ's followers were accustomed every day to repair to the temple (see ver. 46.), and were not excluded thence by the Priests, undoubtedly on the day of Pentecost also, on which it was a religious duty to attend temple worship, they were met together there. Now we do not deny that the Christians might, without molestation, resort to the temple and mingle with the Jews engaged in religious worship, but it is here said that they were ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ (see the note on 1, 14 & 15.), and it is not probable that the Priests would have permitted these hated disciples of Christ the use of a private apartment in the temple. (See 4, 1.) There were, it must be remarked, three regular hours of prayer, the third (ver. 15.), the sixth (see 10, 9.), and the ninth (see 3, 1.): but the Jews did not appear at the temple at each of these hours. It was lawful to offer up prayers in a synagogue also, or indeed in any place where ten persons should be gathered together for that purpose. See Trigland de Karæis, Vitringa de Synag. Vet. L. 1. c. 5. p. 45., the commentators on 1 Tim. 2, 8., and Lightfoot Hor. Heb. on Matt. 6, 3. The Apostles had therefore met together at that hour for the sake of prayer, in a house, wherein was held an oratory of Christ's followers, or, as it were, a private synagogue. (Compare 1, 13.) Besides, the Apostles seem to have hoped that on the very day on which the memory of the promulgation of the law on Mount Sinai was celebrated, the promise of Christ respecting the Holy Spirit to be sent from