Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 2:7
And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
7. Galileans ] No doubt the twelve came more prominently forward than the rest, and in Jerusalem they had been known as Galilans before the Crucifixion (Mat 26:69-73).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Galileans – Inhabitants of Galilee. It was remarkable that they should speak in this manner, because:
- They were ignorant, rude, and uncivilized, Joh 1:46. Hence, the term Galilean was used as an expression of the deepest reproach and contempt, Mar 14:70; Joh 7:52.
- Their dialect was proverbially barbarous and corrupt, Mar 14:70; Mat 26:73. They were regarded as an outlandish people, unacquainted with other nations and languages, and hence, the amazement that they could address them in the refined language of other people. Their native ignorance was the occasion of making the miracle more striking. The native weakness of Christian ministers makes the grace and glory of God more remarkable in the success of the gospel. We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us, 2Co 4:7. The success which God often grants to those who are of slender endowments and of little learning, though blessed with an humble and pious heart, is often amazing to the people of the world. God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, 1Co 1:27. This should teach us that no talent or attainment is too humble to be employed for mighty purposes, in its proper sphere, in the kingdom of Christ; and that pious effort may accomplish much, and then burn in heaven with increasing luster for ever, while pride, and learning, and talent may blaze uselessly among people, and then be extinguished in eternal night.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 7. Are not all these – Galileans?] Persons who know no other dialect, save that of their own country. Persons wholly uneducated, and, consequently, naturally ignorant of those languages which they now speak so fluently.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Without literature, or good education, they being worse thought of on that account than the ordinary sort of that nation were; besides, they thought no prophet was to be expected from Galilee, Joh 1:46.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
And they were all amazed, and marvelled,…. They were struck with surprise, they were as it were out of themselves, like persons in an ecstasy, not knowing what could be the cause or meaning of this:
saying one to another; the phrase “one to another”, is left out in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, and so it is in the Alexandrian copy:
behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? rude, unpolished, and unlearned men; who had never been brought up in any school of learning, and had never learned any language but their mother tongue; and that they pronounced with an ill grace, and in a very odd manner; and which made the thing the more astonishing to them. The apostles were inhabitants of Galilee, and so very likely were the greatest part of those that were with them: hence the Christians afterwards, by way of contempt, were called Galilaeans; as they are by Julian x the apostate, and others y.
x Opera, par. 1. Fragment. p. 557. & par. 2. Ep. 49. p. 203, 204. y Arrian. Epictet. l. 4. c. 7.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Were amazed (). Imperfect middle of , to stand out of themselves, wide-open astonishment.
Marvelled (). Imperfect active. The wonder grew and grew.
Galileans (). There were few followers of Jesus as yet from Jerusalem. The Galileans spoke a rude Aramaic (Mr 14:70) and probably crude Greek vernacular also. They were not strong on language and yet these are the very people who now show such remarkable linguistic powers. These people who have come together are all Jews and therefore know Aramaic and the vernacular Koine, but there were various local tongues “wherein we were born” ( ). An example is the Lycaonian (Ac 14:11). These Galilean Christians are now heard speaking these various local tongues. The lists in verses 9-11 are not linguistic, but geographical and merely illustrate how widespread the Dispersion () of the Jews was as represented on this occasion. Jews were everywhere, these “Jews among the nations” (Ac 21:21). Page notes four main divisions here: (I) The Eastern or Babylonian, like the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, Mesopotamians. (2) The Syrian like Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia. (3) The Egyptian like Egypt, Libya, Cyrene. (4) The Roman.
Jews and proselytes (). These last from , to come to, to join, Gentile converts to Judaism (circumcision, baptism, sacrifice). This proselyte baptism was immersion as is shown by I. Abrahams (Studies in Pharisaism and the Gospels, p. 38). Many remained uncircumcised and were called proselytes of the gate.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Amazed and marvelled [ ] . The former word denotes the first overwhelming surprise. The verb is literally to put out of place; hence, out of one’s senses. Compare Mr 3:21 : “He is beside himself.” The latter word, marvelled, denotes the continuing wonder; meaning to regard with amazement, and with a suggestion of beginning to speculate on the matter.
Galilaeans. Not regarded as a sect, for the name was not given to Christians until afterward; but with reference to their nationality. They used a peculiar dialect, which distinguished them from the inhabitants of Judaea. Compare Mr 14:70. They were blamed for neglecting the study of their language, and charged with errors in grammar and ridiculous mispronunciations.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And they were all amazed and marvelled,” (eksistanto de kai ethaumazon) “And they (the multitude) were amazed (astonished) and marvelled,” pondered what they were witnessing. Their confusion was increased by the knowledge that the 120 witnesses were all from the country and language and dialect of Galilee, but were witnessing in some seventeen different dialects or languages.
2) “Saying one to another,” (legontes) “Repeatedly saying,” or speaking one to another, throughout the gathered multitude, expressing doubt, uncertainty, and confusion because that they and their people had rejected the Messiah, the Redeemer, the Christ, Joh 1:11-12; Mat 23:37-39.
3) “Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans?” (ouchi idou pantes houtoi eisin hli lalountes Galilaioi) “Behold, all these speaking (in these gift languages) are Galileans, are they not?” This seems to be a rhetoric question of affirmation that all the 120 who spoke in tongues were Galilean church members. They had tarried, fellowshipped, and prayed after the ascension, Pentecost, and received the gift of different dialect languages witnessing power that day, Act 1:11; Act 10:37; Joh 15:27.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(7) They were all amazed and marvelled.It will be noted that this is precisely in accordance with what St. Paul describes as the effect of the gift of tongues. They were a sign to them that believed not, filling them with wonder, but the work of convincing and converting was left for the gift of prophecy (1Co. 14:22).
Are not all these which speak Galilans?This was, of course, antecedently probable, but it is singular that this is the first assertion of the fact as regards the whole company. The traitor had been apparently the only exception (see Note on Mat. 10:4), and he had gone to his own place.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
7. Marvelled The expressions of emotion on the part of these spectators are reiterated very emphatically. Confounded, expresses their first mental perplexity at the apparent confusion of the scene; amazed, their emotion at the miracle; marvelled, their wonder at the wonderful thoughts expressed from a source so extraordinary.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying, Behold, are not all these that speak Galileans? And how hear we, every man in our own language wherein we were born? Parthians and Medes and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia; and Judaea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and those of Asia; and Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues the mighty works of God.’
Luke emphasises their astonishment, ‘they were all amazed and marvelled’. And the reason was that they heard these men declaring the mighty works of God, each of them in their own language, and we may presume with reasonably good accents. All the people present would speak Greek or Aramaic, and many would probably speak both, which seems to confirm that these ‘other tongues’ in their native languages were intended as a sign rather than as a means of conveying knowledge. The declaring of ‘the mighty works of God’ probably therefore indicates praise and worship rather than preaching. These ‘mighty works’ may well have included reference to the wind and fire, as well as to Old Testament Scriptures connected with them. The actual informative preaching was to be done by Peter.
In order to bring home the marvel Luke lists many of the nationalities that were represented, followed by general descriptions. There are grammatical reasons for suggesting that we might list them as follows:
Parthians, Medes, Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia.
And Judaea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and those of Asia.
And Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and resident aliens from Rome.
And Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians.
Each of the first three sets ends with a description or descriptions commencing with the article and representing a generality of peoples. The last three sets begin with ‘te’, distinguishing one from the other (otherwise where ‘and’ appears it is kai). The four descriptions in the final set, which also begins with te, appear to be added on as a kind of postscript in order to explain both that these were all recognised ‘Jews’ and in order to expand the descriptions overseas to the west and over the desert to the east. ‘Cretans and Arabians’ certainly appear abruptly like a postscript. It would appear to be a comment intended to include all who were not already in the list. Some suggest that ‘Judaea’ is intended to signify the province of Syria, including Syria and Palestine, with all speaking similar Aramaic. If so the first ten are all northerly, with Egypt and Libya southerly. Luke may well have known little about Arabia.
Parthians, Medes, Elamites and dwellers in Mesopotamia came from the north east, the Cappadocians through to the Pamphylians from the north and north west, the Egyptians and Libyans from the South, the Cretans from over the Great Sea, and the Arabians from due east across the Transjordanian desert. They also included some who were resident aliens in Rome. Luke probably saw these last as the initial sortie on Rome, which would eventually result in Paul’s presence there. Possibly some of these returned to Rome to establish a church there. But their description as ‘resident aliens’ emphasises their differing nationalities
‘The dwellers in Mesopotamia’, ‘those of Asia’, ‘the parts of Libya about Cyrene’, and ‘the resident aliens from Rome’ are thus all descriptions that could represent a multiplicity of languages, the point being that while Luke had identified specific peoples whom he had cause to know were present, presumably because during his enquiries he had ascertained the fact, he wanted it known that the number of languages spoken went well beyond that.
‘In Judaea’ possibly included the whole Aramaic speaking province of Syria, thus indicating those in ‘home territory’. But in fact the vast majority of visitors at the feast would actually be Judaeans, and Luke may therefore simply be saying that they too were catered for in the fact that some of these Aramaic speaking Galileans, whose pronunciation of Aramaic was mocked at by Judaeans (the Galileans found difficulty with the gutturals which they themselves did not pronounce quite so heavily), were speaking refined Judaean (which would certainly come as a shock to the Judaeans). The specific reference to Cyrene may suggest that Luke had precise knowledge of some who were from thereabouts, possibly because they had become Christians and had given Luke some of his information (compare Simon of Cyrene – Luk 23:26 – whom Mark identifies as the father of Alexander and Rufus, thus suggesting they were well known in Christian circles). But it may instead be his way of referring to the multiplicity of tribal languages known to be spoken in northern Africa identified by reference to a well known northern African city.
He also mentions that there were both true-born Jews, and proselytes These last were converted Gentiles who had submitted to circumcision and had undergone a once-for-all ritual self-bathing in order to make themselves ‘clean’ from their defilement resulting from living previously as Gentiles. Such proselytes could come from peoples of many languages. Whether the reference to Jews and proselytes is limited to the resident aliens from Rome is open to question. But more probably Luke is just being general in his designations and intending it to apply to all, and proselytes could come from any language background. The main point is that there were many languages being spoken and that all heard their own tongue being spoken by these unlearned Galileans, as they declared the mighty works of God under the inspiration of the Spirit. One of the points undoubtedly being pressed home by this was that their message was for the whole world, and especially for these hearers.
It must be considered as quite probable that all the disciples who were speaking in ‘other tongues’ had often previously heard men praising God in those tongues within the Temple area, even if they had not understood them themselves, so that one of the explanations of the phenomenon may well be that the Holy Spirit drew on their subconscious memory to enable them to repeat openly such praises as they had often heard, precisely so as to emphasise the universality of the Gospel.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 2:7-8. Are not all theseGalileans? &c. See on Mat 26:73 and on Joh 1:46. The word , Act 2:8 signifies not only what we call a dialect, or different way of speaking the same language, but alsoan entirely distinct language; and perhaps it may be used here to express the propriety and accuracy wherewith these low and uneducated Galileans spoke these different languages. The original in Act 2:7 is very beautiful, and expressive of the astonishment of the hearers, , &c.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 2:7-8 . denotes the astonishment now setting in after the first perplexity, Act 2:6 ; is the continuing wonder resulting from it. Comp. Mar 6:51 .
] to be enclosed within two commas.
. . .] pointing out: all the speakers present . It does not distinguish two kinds of persons, those who spoke and those who did not speak (van Hengel); but see Act 2:4 . The dislocation occasioned by the interposition of brings the into more emphatic prominence.
] They wondered to hear men, who were pure Galileans , speak Parthian, Median , etc. This view, which takes . in the sense of nationality, is required by Act 2:8 ; Act 2:11 , and by the contrast of the nations afterwards named. It is therefore foreign to the matter, with Herder, Heinrichs, Olshausen, Schulz, Rossteuscher, van Hengel, and older commentators, to bring into prominence the accessory idea of want of culture ( uncultivated Galileans ); and erroneous, with Stolz, Eichhorn, Kuinoel, and others, to consider . as a designation of the Christian sect a designation, evidence of which, moreover, can only be adduced from a later period. Augusti, Denkwrd . IV: pp. 49, 55. It is erroneous, also, to find the cause of wonder in the circumstance that the Galileans should have used profane languages for so holy an object (Kuinoel). So, in opposition to this, Ch. F. Fritzsche, nova opusc. p. 310.
] , as a simple and , annexes the sequence of the sense; and (as they are all Galileans) how happens it that , etc.
. . .] we on our part (in contrast to the speaking Galileans) hear each one , etc. That, accordingly, . is to be understood distributively , is self-evident from the connection (comp. . , Act 2:11 ); therefore van Hengel [124] wrongly objects to the view of different languages, that the words would require to run: . . . . ., .
. designation of the mother-tongue , with which one is, in the popular way of expressing the matter, born furnished.
[124] l.c . p. 24 f.: “ How comes it that we, no one excepted, hear them speak in the mother-tongue of our own people ?” Thus, in his view, we are to explain the passage as the words stand in the text, and thus there is designated only the one mother-tongue the Aramaic .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
Ver. 7. Galileans ]- crassoque sub aere nati. (Martial.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
7 .] They were not, literally, all Galilans; but certainly the greater part were so, and all the Apostles and leading persons, who would probably be the prominent speakers.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 2:7 . : frequent in St. Luke, three times in his Gospel, eight in the Acts, elsewhere once in St. Paul, once in St. Matthew, four times in St. Mark. The word is often found in the LXX in various senses; cf. for its meaning here Gen 43:33 , Jdt 13:17 ; Jdt 15:1 , 1Ma 15:32 ; 1Ma 16:22 . : there is no need to suppose with Schttgen (so Grotius, Olshausen) that the term implies any reference to the want of culture among the Galileans, as if in this way to emphasise the surprise of the questioners, or to explain the introduction of the term because the Galileans were “magis ad arma quam ad litteras et linguas idonei” (Corn. Lapide). But if there is a reference to the peculiar dialect of the Galileans this might help to explain the introduction of in Act 2:9 (Wetstein followed by Weiss, but see below). Weiss sees here, it is true, the hand of a reviser who thinks only of the Apostles and not of the hundred-and-twenty who could not be supposed to come under the term . But whilst no doubt . might be considered a fitting description of the Apostolic band (except Judas), Hilgenfeld well asks why the hundred-and-twenty should not have been also Galileans, if they had followed Jesus from Galilee to Jerusalem.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
amazed = dumbfounded. Compare Mar 3:21.
one to another = to (App-104.) one another. The texts omit, but not the Syriac.
Behold. App-133. Figure of speech Asterismos. App-6.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
7.] They were not, literally, all Galilans; but certainly the greater part were so, and all the Apostles and leading persons, who would probably be the prominent speakers.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 2:7. , they were amazed [astounded]) Act 2:12.-, Galileans) and therefore speaking one dialect. That they were Galileans, they knew from the fact that they were the disciples of JESUS.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
amazed: Act 2:12, Act 3:10, Act 14:11, Act 14:12, Mar 1:27, Mar 2:12
are: Act 1:11, Mat 4:18-22, Mat 21:11, Joh 7:52
Reciprocal: 1Sa 10:11 – What is this Mar 7:37 – were Mar 14:70 – for Joh 7:15 – How Act 4:13 – were
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
7
Are not all these which speak Galileans? It is true that Galilee and its people did not have a very exalted place in the estimation of many in the time of Christ and the apostles. However, that was not the reason the multitude made the remark here. It was in reference to the fact that all of these spokesmen were of that group and generally spoke in a tongue peculiar to themselves. (See Mar 14:70; Luk 22:59.) But here they were departing from their own native speech, and using those of the Jews from other, countries all over the world “under heaven.”
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 2:7. Behold, are not all these which speak, Galileans? The frequenters of that house, where the hundred and twenty were gathered together, were no doubt well known to the devout men, who had made the Holy City their home, to be at least for the most part from Galilee. Provincials, notoriously rough and usually of little culture, were men most unlikely to be acquainted with foreign idioms. The name Galilean is used here strictly in a geographical sense. It was not until a later period that the followers of Jesus of Nazareth were styled reproachfully, Galileans.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
See notes on verse 6
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Most of the disciples were Galileans at this time. They were identifiable by their rural appearance and their accent (cf. Mat 26:73).
"Galileans had difficulty pronouncing gutturals and had the habit of swallowing syllables when speaking; so they were looked down upon by the people of Jerusalem as being provincial (cf. Mar 14:70). Therefore, since the disciples who were speaking were Galileans, it bewildered those who heard because the disciples could not by themselves have learned so many different languages." [Note: Longenecker, p. 272.]
Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and Mesopotamians lived to the east and north of Palestine. Some of them were probably descendants of the Jews who did not return from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. Many texts do not include "Judea," but if authentic it probably refers to the Roman province of Judea that included Syria. Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia were all provinces in Asia Minor to the northwest. Egypt, Libya, and Cyrene lay to the south and west. Simon of Cyrene, in North Africa, had carried Jesus’ cross (Luk 23:26). Rome, of course, lay farther northwest in Europe. Luke had a special interest in the gospel reaching Rome, so that may be the reason he singled it out for special mention here. It may be that some of these Roman expatriates returned to Rome and planted the church there. Ambrosiaster, a fourth-century Latin father, wrote that the Roman church was founded without any special miracles and without contact with any apostle. [Note: Ibid., p. 273.] Josephus wrote that visitors to Jersalem for a great feast could swell the population to nearly 3,000,000. [Note: Flavius Josephus, The Wars of the Jews, 6:9:3.]
"The Roman Empire had an estimated population of fifty to eighty million, with about seven million free Roman citizens (Schnabel 2004: 558-59). About two and a half million people inhabited Judea, and there were about five million Jews altogether in the empire, 10 percent of the whole population." [Note: Bock, Acts, p. 43.]
A proselyte was a Gentile who had adopted Judaism and had become a part of the nation of Israel by submitting to three rites. Acts and Matthew are the only New Testament books that mention proselytes. These rites were circumcision (if a male), self-baptism before witnesses, and ideally the offering of a sacrifice. [Note: F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts, p. 64.] Cretans lived on the island of Crete, and "Arabs" refers to the Arabians who lived east of Palestine between the Red Sea and the Euphrates River. All these heard the mighty deeds of God (i.e., the gospel) in their own languages. This was a reversal of what took place at Babel (Genesis 11) and illustrated the human unity that God’s unhindered working produces.
"Although every Jew could not be present for Peter’s speech, the narrator does not hesitate to depict representatives of the Jews of every land as Peter’s listeners. This feature shows a concern not just with Gentiles but with a gospel for all Jews, which can bring the restoration of Israel as a united people under its Messiah." [Note: Tannehill, 2:27.]
"The point [of Luke’s list] is not to provide a tour of the known world but to mention nations that had known extensive Jewish populations, which of course would include Judea. [Note: See D. J. Williams, Acts, pp. 28-29.] More to the point, Luke’s arrangement involves first listing the major inhabited nations or regions, then those from the islands (Cretans), then finally those from desert regions (Arabs)." [Note: Witherington, p. 136.]