Acts 2:6

Act 2:6. Φωνῆς, voice) concerning which Act 2:4, and also Act 2:2 treat. Comp קל, φωνὴ, Exo 4:8, “the voice [intimation] of the first sign;” Psa 19:3, “There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.”—τὸ πλῆθος, the multitude) of which Act 2:5 speaks.—συνεχύθη, was confounded) There was a variety of men, and a variety of feelings produced in their minds.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act_2:6. Τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης] this sound, which, inasmuch as οὗτος points back to a more remote noun, is to be referred to the wind-like rushing of Act_2:2, to which also γενομ. carries us back. Comp. Joh_3:8. Luke represents the matter in such a way that this noise sounded forth from the house of meeting to the street, and that thereby the multitude were induced to come thither. In this case neither an earthquake (Neander) nor a sympathy of the susceptible (Lange) are to be called in to help, because there is no mention of either; in fact, the wonderful character of the noise is sufficient. Others, as Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Bleek, Schulz, Wieseler, Hilgenfeld, think that the loud speaking of the inspired is here meant. But in that case we should expect the plural, especially as this speaking occurred in different languages; and besides, we should be obliged to conceive this speaking as being strong, like a crying, which is not indicated in Act_2:4; therefore Wieseler would have it taken only as a definition of time, which the aorist does not suit, because the speaking continues. Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Castalio, Vatablus, Grotius, Heumann, and Schulthess take φωνή in the sense of φήμη. Contrary to the usus loquendi; even in Gen_45:16 it is otherwise.

συνεχύθη mente confusa est (Vulgate), was perplexed. Comp. Act_9:22; 1Ma_4:27; 2Ma_10:30; Herod, 8:99; Plat. Ep. 7, p. 346 D; Diod. S. 4:62; Lucian. Nigr. 31.

εἷς ἕκαστος] annexes to the more indefinite ἤκουον the exact statement of the subject. Comp. Joh_16:32; Act_11:29 al.; Jacobs, ad Achill. Tat. p. 622; Ameis on Hom. Od. x. 397; Bernhardy, p. 420.

διαλέκτῳ] is here also not national language, but dialect (see on Act_1:19), language in its provincial peculiarity. It is, as well as in Act_2:8, designedly chosen, because the foreigners who arrived spoke not entirely different languages, but in part only different dialects of the same language. Thus, for example, the Asiatics, Phrygians, and Pamphylians, respectively spoke Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites, Persian, but also in different provincial forms. Therefore, the persons possessed by the Spirit, according to the representation of the text, expressed themselves in the peculiar local dialects of the ἑτέρων γλωσσῶν. The view that the Aramaic dialect was that in which all the speakers spoke (van Hengel), appearsfrom Act_2:8; from the list of nations, which would be destitute of significance; from προσήλυτοι (Act_2:10), which would be meaningless; and from Act_2:11,[123] as well as from the opinions expressed in Act_2:12-13, which would be without a motiveas an exegetical impossibility, which is also already excluded by εἷς ἕκαστος in Act_2:6.

λαλούντων αὐτῶν] not, of course, that all spoke in all dialects, but that one spoke in one dialect, and another in another. Each of those who came together heard his peculiar dialect spoken by one or some of the inspired. This remark applies in opposition to Bleek, who objects to the common explanation of λαλεῖν ἑτέρ. γλώσσαις, that each individual must have spoken in the different languages simultaneously. The expression is not even awkward (Olshausen), as it expresses the opinion of the people comprehended generally, and consequently even the summary αὐτῶν is quite in order.

[123] Where neither in itself nor according to ver. 8 can ταῖς ἡμετέραις γλώσσαις mean what van Hengel puts into it: as we do with our own tongues.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Act 2:6 . φωνῆς ταύτης : “when this sound was heard,” R.V. “Hic idem quod ἦχος comm [119] 2,” so Wetstein, who compares for φωνή in this sense Mat 24:31 , 1Co 14:7-8 (2Ch 5:13 ), and so most recent commentators ( cf. Joh 3:8 ); if human voices were meant, the plural might have been expected. But the word in singular might refer to the divine voice, the voice of the Spirit, cf. Mat 3:17 ; Mat 17:5 . The A.V., so too Grotius, following Erasmus, Calvin, render the word as if φήμη , but the two passages quoted from LXX to justify this rendering are no real examples, cf., e.g. , Gen 45:16 , Jer. 27:46. τὸ πλῆθος : a characteristic word of St. Luke, occurring eight times in his Gospel, seventeen in Acts, and only seven times in rest of the N.T.; on the frequency with which St. Luke uses expressions indicative of fulness, see Friedrich, Das Lucasevangelium , pp. 40, 102. In inscriptions the word seems to have been used not only of political but of religious communities, see Deissmann, Neue Bibel-studien , pp. 59, 60 (1897), and see below on Act 15:30 . συνεχύθη from συνχύνω ( συνχέω ) only found in Acts, where it occurs five times ( cf. also σύγχυσις , Act 19:29 ), see Moulton and Geden, sub v. For its meaning here cf. Gen 11:7 ; Gen 11:9 , 1Ma 4:27 , 2Ma 13:23 ; 2Ma 14:28 ; Vulg., mente confusa est . διαλέκτῳ : only in the Acts in N.T. The question has been raised as to whether it meant a dialect or a language. Meyer argued in favour of the former, but the latter rendering more probably expresses the author’s meaning, cf. Act 1:19 , and also Act 21:40 , Act 22:2 , Act 26:14 . The word is apparently used as the equivalent of γλῶσσα , Act 2:11 , A. and R.V. “language”. As the historian in his list, Act 2:9-10 , apparently is following distinctions of language (see Rendall, Acts , p. 177, and Appendix, p. 359), this would help to fix the meaning of the word διάλεκτος here. Wendt in revising Meyer’s rendering contends that the word is purposely introduced because γλῶσσα , Act 2:3-4 , had just been employed not in the sense of language but tongue, and so might have been misunderstood if repeated here with λαλεῖν . On the other hand it may be urged that some of the distinctions in the list are those of dialect, and that St. Luke intentionally used a word meaning both language and dialect.

[119]omm. commentary, commentator.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 6. When this was noised abroad] If we suppose that there was a considerable peal of thunder, which followed the escape of a vast quantity of electric fluid, and produced the mighty rushing wind already noticed on Ac 2:2, then the whole city must have been alarmed; and, as various circumstances might direct their attention to the temple, having flocked thither they were farther astonished and confounded to hear the disciples of Christ addressing the mixed multitude in the languages of the different countries from which these people had come.

Every man heard them speak in his own language.] Use may naturally suppose that, as soon as any person presented himself to one of these disciples, he, the disciple, was immediately enabled to address him in his own language, however various this had been from the Jewish or Galilean dialects. If a Roman presented himself, the disciple was immediately enabled to address him in Latin-if a Grecian, in Greek-an Arab, in Arabic, and so of the rest.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. When this was noised abroad. Luke saith thus in Greek, This voice being made; but his meaning is, that the fame was spread abroad, whereby it came to pass that a great multitude came together. For if one after another in divers places, and at divers times, had heard the apostles speaking in divers tongues, the miracle had not been so famous; therefore they come altogether into one place, that the diversity of tongues may the better appear by the present comparison. There is a further circumstance also here to be noted, that the country (and native soil) of the apostles was commonly known, and this was also commonly known, that they never went out of their country to learn strange tongues. Therefore, forasmuch as one speaketh Latin, another Greek, another the Arabian tongue, as occasion was offered, and that indifferently, and every one doth also change his tongue, the work of God appeareth more plainly hereby.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(6) When this was noised abroad. . . .—Better When there had been this voice, or utterance. The word for “voice” is never used for rumour or report in the New Testament; always of some utterance—human (Mat_3:3; Gal_4:20), angelic (1Th_4:16; Rev_5:11), or divine (Mat_3:17; Mat_17:5). In Joh_3:7 (see Note there) we find it used, in the same connection as in this verse, for the “voice” or “utterance” of the Spirit.

Were confounded.—The word is peculiar to the Acts (Act_9:22; Act_19:32). If we were to draw a distinction between two words of cognate meaning with each other and with the Greek, confused would, perhaps, be a better rendering than confounded.

Every man heard them speak.—The verb is in the imperfect. They went on listening in their amazement as one after another heard the accents of his own language.

In his own language.—Another word peculiar to the Acts. (See Note on Act_1:19.) It stands as an equivalent for the “tongue” in Act_2:11, but was used for a dialect, in the modern sense of the term, as well as for a distinct language.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. Now when this was noised abroad] Rather, And when this sound was heard. Φενή though not the same word as is used for sound in Act_2:2, yet is never found in the sense of a report or rumour, as is given by the A. V. It is used for crying aloud, as in the mourning at Rama and Christ’s cry on the cross (Mat_2:18), or in John the Baptist’s preaching (Mar_1:3), and of voices from heaven frequently (Mat_17:5; Mar_1:11; Luk_3:22; Act_9:4, &c.), of the sound of the wind which is used as a figure for the gift of the Spirit in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus (Joh_3:8), and constantly of the heavenly voices in the book of the Revelation (Act_1:10, Act_5:2; Act_6:6, &c.).

The sound which was sent forth, though heard around in the city, was evidently such as could be traced to a central spot, for to the dwelling of the Apostles, led by the sound, the multitude congregated. It would need but a brief space for a crowd to assemble, and all the new comers found among the disciples, now divinely prepared to be Christ’s heralds, some who were declaring what had come to pass, and the great things which God had wrought with them, in the different languages of the lands where the strangers had been born. This was clearly not a proclamation of the wonderful works of God in some one language, which the Spirit, acting upon the hearers, caused them to appreciate as if it were their own, for in that way the gift of the Holy Ghost ought to have been described as poured out, not on the speakers but on the listeners.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now when this was noised abroad,.... Or "when this voice was made"; referring either to the sound, as of a mighty rushing wind, which came from heaven; and might not only be heard by those in the house, into which it came, but by the inhabitants of the city, as it came down from heaven; so the Arabic version renders it, "when the aforesaid sound was made": or else to the apostles' voice, and their speaking with divers tongues; which being heard by some, was told to others, and a rumour of it being made through the city,

the multitude came together; to the house, or temple, where the disciples were; and this multitude did not consist only of the devout Jews, before mentioned; but of others who scoffed and mocked at the apostles, and who had been concerned in the crucifying of Christ:

and were confounded; or "confused"; they ran and came together in a disorderly and tumultuous manner; the whole city was in an uproar, the assembly on this occasion was a perfect mob; their numbers were so large, that they were ready to thrust each other down, and trample one another under foot: the Vulgate Latin adds, "in mind"; they did not know what to think of things, they were so astonished at what they heard, that they were scarcely themselves; they were as persons stupid and senseless; being filled partly with shame and confusion, and partly with wonder and amazement, that these illiterate men, the followers of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they had crucified, and whose disciples they had in so much contempt, should have such extraordinary gifts bestowed on them:

because that every man heard them speak in his own language; which shows, what has been before observed, that one spake in one language, and another in another language; or the same person sometimes spoke one language, and sometimes another; so that in course, all languages were spoken by them; whence it appears, that it was not one language only which was spoken by the apostles, which men of different languages heard and understood, as if it was their own; for then the miracle must have been in the hearers, and not in the speakers; and the cloven tongues, as of fire, should rather have sat on them, than on the disciples; and these men be said to be filled with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, rather than they.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.

Ver. 6. Were confounded] Or troubled, transported, amazed, and amused, συνεχυθη, as Act 2:7.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When this was noised abroad - When the rumor of this remarkable transaction was spread, as it naturally would be.

Were confounded - συνεχύθη sunechuthē̄. The word used here means literally “to pour together,” hence, “to confound, confuse.” It is used:

(a)Of an assembly or multitude thrown into confusion, Act 21:27;

(b)Of the mind as perplexed or confounded, as in disputation, Act 9:22; and,

(c)Of persons in amazement or consternation, as in this place. They did not understand this; they could not account for it.

Every man heard them speak ... - Though the multitude spoke different tongues, yet they now heard Galileans use the language which they had learned in foreign nations. “His own language.” His own dialect - διαλέκτῳ dialektō. His own idiom, whether it was a foreign language, or whether it was a modification of the Hebrew. The word may mean either; but it is probable that the foreign Jews would greatly modify the Hebrew, or conform almost entirely to the language spoken in the country where they lived. We may remark here that this effect of the descent of the Holy Spirit was not special to that time. A work of grace on the hearts of people in a revival of religion will always “be noised abroad.” A multitude will come together, and God often, as he did here, makes use of this motive to bring them under the influence of religion. Curiosity was the motive here, and it was the occasion of their being brought under the power of truth, and of their conversion. In thousands of cases this has occurred since. The effect of what they saw was to confound them, to astonish them, and to throw them into deep perplexity. They made no complaint at first of the irregularity of what was done, but were all amazed and overwhelmed. So the effect of a revival of religion is often to convince the multitude that it is indeed a work of the Holy One; to amaze them by the display of his power; and to silence opposition and cavil by the manifest presence and the power of God. A few afterward began to cavil Act 2:13, as some will always do in a revival; but the mass were convinced, as will be the case always, that this was a mighty display of the power of God.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Noised abroad; either the miraculous winds were heard, or the report of what had happened was spread abroad.

Were confounded; either out of shame that they had slain Christ, whom God thus extraordinarily glorified; or out of admiration at so extraordinary a matter.

Every man heard them speak in his own language; probably, not that the same words spoken by the apostles were diversified according to every one’s understanding, for then the miracle had been wrought in their auditors, and not in the apostles; but that the apostles did speak to every one in their proper and most intelligible language: and this was the gift of tongues, which for some time after also was continued in the church.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. Noised abroad—Literally, when this sound occurred; not the rumour of the event, or the loud voices of the speakers, but the sound from heaven, in Act_2:2.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And when this sound (fwnh) was heard for now when this was noised abroad A.V., which the words cannot mean; speaking for speak, A.V. This sound. The question still remains whether the sound (fwnh) refers to the sound (hcov) of the rushing mighty wind mentioned in ver. 2, or to the voices of those who spake with tongues. If the last, we should rather have expected sounds or voices in the plural; and it is further in favor of the former that menhv thv fwnhv tauthv seems to take up the ejgeneto hcov of ver. 2. The word fwnh is applied to pneuma in Joh_3:8. Nor is it likely, at first sight, that the disciples in the house where theywere sitting should have spoken loud enough to attract the notice of people outside. Whereas the sound of a rushing mighty wind, sufficient (as in Act_3:3) to shake the house, would naturally he heard by passers-by. On the other hand, however, fwnh seems to point decisively to the human voice. (see its use, 1Co_14:7-10)

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The multitude came together, and were confounded - The motions of their minds were swift and various.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

6-12. " And when this sword occurred, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because each one heard them speaking in his own dialect. " The historian here seems to exhaust his vocabulary of terms to express the confusion of the multitude upon witnessing the scene. Not content with saying they were confounded, he adds, (7) " And all were amazed and marveled, saying to one another, Behold, are not all these are speaking Galileans? (8) And how do we hear, each one in our own dialect in which we were born? (9) Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites; and those inhabiting Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, (10) Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya about Cyrene; and Roman strangers, both Jews and proselytes, (11) Cretes and Arabians; we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. " Not yet satisfied with his attempts to express their feelings, Luke adds, (12) " And they were all amazed, and perplexed, saying one to another, What does this mean? "

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

6. The multitude came together. Led by the sound (Revised Version) and the marvellous events. Speak in his own language. Of the foreign country in which he had been reared.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

6. γενομένης δὲ τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης, and when this sound was heard. Φωνή though not the same word as ἦχος which is used for sound in Act 2:2, yet is never found in the sense of a report or rumour, as is given by the A.V. It is used for crying aloud, as in the mourning at Rama and Christ’s cry on the cross (Mat 2:18), or in John the Baptist’s preaching (Mar 1:3), and of voices from heaven frequently (Mat 17:5; Mar 1:11; Luk 3:22; Act 9:4, &c.), of the sound of the wind which is used as a figure for the gift of the Spirit in Christ’s conversation with Nicodemus (Joh 3:8), and constantly of the heavenly voices in the book of the Revelation (Act 1:10, Act 5:2, Act 6:6, &c.). So in the LXX. we have φωνή with σάλπιγγος, βροντῆς, σεισμοῦ, and such like words, all indicating a loud noise.

The sound which was sent forth, though heard around in the city, was evidently such as could be traced to a central spot, for led by the sound, the multitude came together to the room in which the Apostles were assembled. It would need but a brief space for a crowd to gather, and all the new-comers found among the disciples, now divinely prepared to be Christ’s heralds, some who were declaring what had come to pass, and the great things which God had wrought with them, in the different languages of the lands where the strangers had been born. This was clearly not a proclamation of the wonderful works of God in some one language, which the Spirit, acting upon the hearers, caused them to appreciate as if it were their own, for in that way the gift of the Holy Ghost ought to have been described as poured out, not on the speakers, but on the listeners.

ἤκουον. The verb is plural, in consequence of the plural idea contained in πλῆθος, though the verbs in immediate connexion with the noun are singular. For πλῆθος joined directly with a plural cf. Luk 23:1 ἃπαν τὸ πλῆθος ἤγαγον αὐτόν. See also Acta Apocryph. Philip. 7 πολὺ πλῆθος ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποφυγόντες ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐχθροῦ ἐπεστρέφοντο ἐπὶ τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

εἷς ἕκαστος is explanatory and distributive, and not to be regarded as a direct nominative to the verb. So too in Act 2:8, and also Act 11:29.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6.] Whatever τῆς φωνῆς ταύτης may mean, one thing is clear,—that it cannot mean, ‘this rumour’ (‘when this was noised abroad,’ E. V.: so also Erasm., Calv., Beza, Grotius, &c.), which would be unexampled (the two passages cited for this sense from the LXX are no examples; Gen 45:16; Jer_27:(50) 46). We have then to choose between two things to which φωνή might refer:—(1) the ἦχος or ver. 2, to which it seems bound by the past part. γενομένης (compare ver. 2, ἐγένετο … ἦχος), which would hardly be used of a speaking which was still going on when the multitude assembled: compare also Joh 3:8;—and (2) the speaking with tongues of ver. 4. To this reference, besides the objection just stated, there is also another, that the voices of a number of men, especially when diverse as in this case, would not be indicated by φωνή, but by φωναί: compare Luke’s own usage, even when the voices cried out the same thing, Luk 23:23, οἱ δὲ ἐπέκειντο φωναῖς μεγάλαις αἰτούμενοι αὐτόν σταυρωθῆναι, καὶ κατίσχυον αἱ φωναὶ αὐτῶν. And when he uses the sing., he explains it, as in ch. 19:34, φωνὴ ἐγένετο μία ἐκ πάντων. So that we may safely decide for the former reference. The noise of the rushing mighty wind was heard over all the neighbourhood, probably over all Jerusalem.

τὸ πλῆθος] including the scoffers of ver. 13, as well as the pious strangers: but these latter only are here regarded in the συνεχύθη and in the ἤκ. εἷς ἕκαστος. On these latter words see above on ver. 4. Each one heard λαλούντων αὐτῶν,—i.e. either various disciples speaking various tongues, each in some one only: or the same persons speaking now one now another tongue. The former is more probable, although the latter seems to agree with some expressions in 1Co_14, e.g. ver. 18 (in the rec. and perhaps even in the present text).

συνεχύθη] Observe ref. Genesis.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When this was noised abroad [γενομενης δε της φωνης τευτης] . Wrong. Lit., And this sound having taken place. Rev., correctly, when this sound was heard. The sound of the rushing wind.

Were confounded [συνεχυθη] . Lit., was poured together; so that confound (Latin, confundere) is the most literal rendering possible. Used only by Luke and in the Acts. Compare Act 19:32; Act 21:31.

Heard [ηκουον] . Imperfect, were hearing.

Language [διαλεκτω] . Rather, dialect; since the foreigners present spoke, not only different languages, but different dialects of the same language. The Phrygians and Pamphylians, for instance, both spoke Greek, but in different idioms; the Parthians, Medes, and Elamites all spoke Persian, but in different provincial forms.

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.