_____________________________________________________________

 

2:1 Pentecost is explained as the completion of fifty days, at this feast the descent of the Spirit took place, first, because there were three illustrious feasts according to the Law; the Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles, in which all the Jews in every place gathered together to Jerusalem. (Ishodad of Merv) It should be noted that among the ancients the day of Pentecost was computed from the time of the killing of the pascal lamb. In our case, however, it is not from the Lord's passion, but from his resurrection. (St. Bede) one place: The Law was given on Mount Sinai, the Spirit on Mount Sion, the Law on an elevated place in the mountain, the Spirit in an upper room. (Rabanus Maurus) When the Jews were assembled in the Temple to pray, the Disciples were assembled, hiding in the upper room. (Ishodad of Merv)

 

2:2 of a mighty wind: this betokens the exceeding vehemence of the Spirit, 1but not for the apostles’ sake, but because of the Jews who were then present. Observe how it is always, as of; and rightly: that you may have no gross sensible notions of the Spirit, therefore it was not a wind. (St. John Chrysostom 1Com. on Matt.)

 

2:3 appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire: The Spirit was manifested in the form of fire for many reasons, first, because it is a quality of the Lord that He is seen in fire, as with Abraham and Moses and Manoah and Elia; second, because the Lord also is called fire, For our God is a consuming fire (Heb 12:29), third, to show that the Giver of both Covenants is the same ; and just as He gave the first one in fire, thus He gave also this second one; and just as there He was seen in a flame in a bush, and the bush was not burnt, thus also here, the fire was a flame upon the hair, and the hair was not consumed. Forth, just as fire on the one hand burns up straw and stubble, and on the other hand liberates gold, the noble thing, and silver, etc; thus the Spirit on the one hand burns sinful things, and on the other hand cleanses and purifies the Saints. (Ishodad of Merv) Thus they were entirely baptized according to the promise, and invested soul and body with a divine garment of salvation. They partook of fire, not of burning but of saving fire; of fire which consumes the thorns of sins, but gives lustre to the soul, (St. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat Lect.)  So then, the thorns were consumed, that is, the transgression from Adam was consumed. (Severus of Antioch Catena on Acts) sat upon every one of them: The gift which the women who were there received was not for preisthood, nor Apostleship, for these were never given to the company of women; but for prophecy and speaking with new tongues; for they received the gift of Baptism both to become also Christian believers, and to receive adoption. (Ishodad of Merv)

 

2:4 they were all filled with the Holy Spirit: Before the Passion the Holy Spirit was given to the Apostles for the grace of doctrine and healing; after the Resurrection Jesus breathed the Spirit upon them and said: . . . . On Pentecost Accept the Holy Spirit, whose sins you shall forgive, are forgiven them etc... the Spirit was sent from Heaven, so that those who were to be divided on the morrow would accept the knowledge of tongues, lest they be in need of interpreters as they went forth throughout the world. (Nicholas of Lyra) speak with divers tongues: The Galilean Peter or Andrew spoke Persian or Median. John and the rest of the Apostles spoke every tongue to those of Gentile extraction; The Holy Spirit taught them many languages at once, languages which in all their life they never knew. This is in truth vast wisdom, this is power divine. What a contrast of their long ignorance in time past to their sudden, complete and varied and unaccustomed exercise of these languages! (St. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat Lect)  To sow the seeds of heavenly doctrine throughout peoples of every language required tongues imbued with heavenly doctrine and aflame with the fire of evangelical love. This was, therefore, the primary sign of evangelical faith, the sign the Lord had promised to them, saying, "They shall speak in new tongues."(Mk 16:17) (Erasmus)

 

2:5 Jews: This strictly referred to the descendants of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, that remained faithful and formed the kingdom of Judah, unlike the ten other tribes that fell into schism under Jeroboam. These latter were called Israelites. In course of time, however, the term “Jews” embraced, without distinction, all the descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Bishop John McEvilly)

 

2:6 heard them speak in his own tongue: Was it while speaking in one language they should be understood by all, or that they should speak in all languages? It was more fitting that they should speak in all languages, because this pertained to the perfection of their knowledge, whereby they were able not only to speak, but also to understand what was said by others. Whereas if their one language were intelligible to all, this would either have been due to the knowledge of those who understood their speech, or it would have amounted to an illusion, since a man's words would have had a different sound in another's ears, from that with which they were uttered. (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica 2.176.) Of this we have an example in the life of St. Francis Xavier, who speaking one tongue was understood by different peoples as if he were speaking their own language. (Bishop John McEvilly)

 

2:7 Galileans: This word was a well-known term as a reproach among the Jews, which makes this miracle that much more amazing to them. (Bishop John McEvilly)

 

2:8 Was it that the speakers expressed what they had to say in the diverse discourse of every language, or, when there were hearers of diverse nations, each of them would perceive what they heard in terms of his own language and would grasp the meaning of that one and the same discourse which had been uttered by the apostle? (St. Gregory Nazianzus Orations)  Peter's discourse below (2:37-41) shows that he does not seem to give a repetition in different languages successively, but rather an immediate understandng and acceptance by the whole crowd, and that they equally grasped the apostle's words in whatever language they may have been delivered. (St. Bede)

 

2:9-11 The Parthians are Persians. The Elamites are the people of Elan and of Dailom; places that are contigueous to one another. (Ishodad of Merv) Here is mention made of nations that were hostile to them, Cretans, Arabians, Egyptians, Persians: and that they would conquer them all was here made manifest. But as to their being in those countries, they were there in captivity, many of them: or else, the doctrines of the Law had become disseminated among the Gentiles in those countries. So then the testimony comes from all quarters: from citizens, from foreigners, from proselytes. (St. John Chrysostom)  Judea does not signify the entire nation, but part of it, that is, the tribe of Judah and Benjamin, especially in distinction from Samaria, Galilee, Decapolis, and other regions in the same province. There, although all spoke one language, Hebrew, nevertheless each region had a distinct local way of talking. Proselytes, that is, foreigners, was the term applied to those who, although their origin was from the pagan nations, preferred to choose circumcison and Judaism. (St. Bede) 

 

2:13 new wine: It does not mean, newly made wine. Pentecost which occurred in May or June was too early for the vintage of that year, which took place later on, in August. Hence it means unfermented wine, which was more intoxicating than the thinner wines commonly in use. (Bishop John McEvilly)

2:14 Peter standing up: He speaks as a shepherd on behalf of his sheep. (Interlinear Gloss) with the eleven: They expressed themselves through one common voice, and he was the mouth of all. The eleven stood by as witnesses to what he said. (St. John Chrysostom)

 

2:15 it is but the third hour of the day: And why this? Is it not possible at the third hour to be drunken? But he did not insist upon this to the letter; So we learn that on unessential points one must not spend many words. And besides, the next part is enough to bear him out on this point. And do you observe the mildness of his defence? Although having the greater part of the people on his side, he reasons with those others gently; first he removes the evil surmise, and then he establishes his apology. On this account, therefore, he does not say, as you mock, or, as you deride, but, as you suppose; wishing to make it appear that they had not said this in earnest, and for the present taxing them with ignorance rather than with malice. As for the accusation of drunkenness, he cleared himself of that by his own assertion; but for the grace, he fetches the prophet as witness, as we see next. (St. John Chrysostom)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2:34-35 The Lord said to my Lord: The Savior has revealed the meaning of these words in the Gospel when He asked: 'If the Christ is the Son of David, how then does David in the Spirit call him Lord? (Mt. 22:43)' The Lord was interrogating the Pharisees because they were acknowledging Christ simply as the son of David. (St. Jerome Commentary on Ps)  But what He says, namely, sit at my right hand: can be referred to the divine nature in which Christ is equal to the Father, because He has judiciary and royal power equal to the Father: ‘All that the Father has are mine’ (Jn. 16:15). Indeed, the Father Himself said this from eternity, because He engendered the Son by speaking, and by engendering gave Him equality with the Father. It can also be referred to the human nature, according to which He sits near the transcendent goods of the Father. In this case the Father spoke, when He joined His Word to a human nature.  But why does he say, footstool? Perhaps because that word signifies nothing more than full and perfect subjection, for that is said to be perfectly subject to someone which he can tread under foot; or because just as God is the head of Christ, as it says in 1 Cor. (11:3), so Christ’s feet would be His humanity: ‘We shall adore in the place where his feet stood’ (Ps. 131:7). I will make them your footstool, i.e., not only will I subject you enemies to your divinity, but even to your humanity.  (St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologica) 

 

2:36 God has made this same Jesus: This is to be referred to the Son in His human nature, in which He began to have in time what in His nature He had from eternity. (St. Thomas Aquinas On God and His Creatures)  whom you crucified: He does well to end with this, thereby agitating their minds. For when he has shown how great it is, he has then exposed their daring deed, so as to show it to be greater, and to possess them with terror. For men are not so much attracted by benefits as they are chastened by fear. (st. John Chrysostom)  Christ: [χριστός, anointed] in which ‘Christians’ have their name. (St. Thomas Aquinas On God and His Creatures) For on Christ our Savior we confess the anointing to have been performed, not however figuratively, (as formerly on kings by the oil,) and as if by prophetic grace, but the Savior as man in the form of a servant, was anointed by the Holy Spirit as God He Himself by His Holy Spirit anoints those that believe in Him. (St. Cyril of Alexandria Commentary on Luke)

 

2:40 Luke only gives an abridgment of the whole exhortations, which St. Peter and the Apostles frequently gave to all the People. (Father Robert Witham)

 

2:41 When the Church's baptism was celebrated for the first time, divine mercy providentially gathered together three thousand souls for the profession of the holy Trinity. On the 5th day of the Passover, when the law was given, Moses indeed ordered the festival of first fruits to be introduced. Now, however, with the coming of the Holy Spirit, it is not sheaves of grain, but the first fruits of souls, which are consecrated to the Lord. (St. Bede)

 

2:42 breaking of bread: That is, in breaking of the Eucharist, that is to say, in the reception of the Sacraments. Eucharistian is explained as the Body of Christ. (Ishodad of Merv) The Syriac text has, the breaking of the Eucharist. Some commentators on this passage remark, that here allusion is evidently made to the unbloody sacrifice of the mass. (Bishop John McEvilly)