Lange Commentary - Acts 9:19 - 9:25

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Acts 9:19 - 9:25


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

D. SAUL IMMEDIATELY PREACHES JESUS IN DAMASCUS, BUT IS COMPELLED BY THE HOSTILE COUNSEL OF THE JEWS TO FLEE FROM THE CITY

Act_9:19 b–25

19b Then was Saul [But he was] certain [some] days with the disciples which [who]were at Damascus. 20And straightway he preached Christ [proclaimed Jesus] in thesynagogues, that he [this One] is the Son of God. 21But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that [in Jerusalem] destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem [om. in Jer.], and came hither for that intent, that hemight bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22But Saul increased the more [more and more] in strength, and confounded the Jews which [who] dwelt at Damascus,proving that this is very Christ [that this One is the Messiah]. 23And [But]after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24But their laying wait [their plot] was [became] known of [to] Saul. And they watched the gates day and night [in order] to kill him. 25Then the [his] disciples took him by night, and let him down by [through] the wall in a basket.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act_9:19 (b).—Then was Saul certain days with the disciples … at Damascus.—Several periods of time are to be chronologically distinguished in Act_9:19-25 : (a) ἡìÝñáé ôéíὲò , a period of undisturbed repose, during which Saul lived in retirement, and was strengthened and encouraged by his intercourse with the believers in Damascus; (b) the period in which he came forth from his retirement, after enjoying the fellowship of the brethren, and began to preach Jesus in the synagogues of the city, Act_9:20 ff.; (c) a comparatively longer period ( ἡìÝñáé ἱêáíáß , Act_9:23), during which he preached Christ to the Jews with increasing power and joyfulness, and proceeded in his teachings to act, as it were, on the offensive; (d) the close of this more extended period of time, occasioned by the hostile movements of the Jews, who threatened his life, and rendered his flight from Damascus necessary, Act_9:23-25; (e) he now came to Jerusalem, Act_9:26.—How is this narrative, which is obviously given in a very summary manner, to be chronologically combined with Paul’s own statements in his Epistles concerning the same periods of his life? He mentions in Gal_1:17, that he had not, immediately after his conversion, proceeded to the older apostles in Jerusalem, but that he had first gone to Arabia, then returned to Damascus, and only after three years visited Jerusalem. When we compare these two accounts, we perceive at once that they differ in two particulars: 1. The Journey to Arabia, which occurred during the interval between the conversion of Saul and his visit to Jerusalem, is passed over in total silence in Acts, Acts 9-12. Luke speaks of days only ( ἡìÝñáé ôéíὲò , ἡì . ἱêáíáß ), whereas the apostle himself counts according to years, and, indeed, mentions precisely three years. With respect to this latter point, it should, in the first place, be considered that, after the second chapter, Luke does not furnish a single precise specification of the time. We might suppose, as far as the terms of his narrative are concerned, that all that he has hitherto related, had possibly occurred in rapid succession in a very brief period of time. Yet the foregoing chapters embrace at least four years, or perhaps a still longer period; it is, accordingly, quite consistent with this practice that a term of several years should here, too, be described in very brief terms. In the second place, the expression ἡìÝñáé ἱêáíáß , Act_9:23, is of such a nature, as possibly to comprehend several years. Ἰêáíὸò occurs very, frequently, even in classic Greek (see Steph. Thes. etc.), in the sense of great, much, considerable, and, when combined with ÷ñüíïò or ἡìÝñáé , in that of a considerable time. The usage in the Hebrew is analogous: we find, for instance, a certain period described in 1Ki_2:38, which embraces éָîִéñ øַáִּéí [“many days”] while, immediately afterwards, Act_9:39, the same period is said to have consisted of îִ÷ֵּõ ùָׁìֹù ùָðִéí . [“(at the end of) three years.”]. Hence, the usage of Luke in reference to chronological specifications in general, and also the particular expression in Act_9:23, allow us to assume that several years are here comprised.—Still, the other difficulty remains, viz., that Luke makes no mention whatever of Saul’s sojourn in Arabia. The question assumes the following form: Can any niche be found in the whole passage, Act_9:19-26, in which that journey, which Paul himself mentions, can be inserted? Pearson [Annales Paulini, etc., transl. into Engl, by Williams, 1826.—Tr.], places it before the ἡìÝñáé ôéíὲò mentioned in Act_9:19, but Heinrichs and Ewald immediately after them and before Act_9:20; neither arrangement is in harmony with the context, that, is, with the facts here stated, and the terms that are employed, especially the word åὐèÝùò . Olshausen and Ebrard place it between Act_9:25-26; but this arrangement does not commend itself, when we consider how improbable it is that Saul’s return to Damascus (which fact is positively stated in Gal_1:17) should have occurred after his flight from that city. We are hence constrained (with Neander, Meyer and others) to assign the Arabian journey to that “considerable period of time” indicated in Act_9:22 ff., in the following manner:—Soon after Saul had presented himself in the synagogues of Damascus, he departed to Arabia; it was after his return to the city that he preached to the Jews with increased strength, Act_9:22; this course awakened hostile sentiments and led them to form plans for taking his life; hence, he fled, and, (soon afterwards) went to Jerusalem. [For Arabia, “a term of vague and uncertain import,” see Conyb. and Howson’s Life, &c. of St. Paul, I. 104 f. London, 1854; “the three years, according to the Jewish way of reckoning, may have been three entire years, or only one year with parts of two others.” ib. p. 108.—Tr.].—Both accounts may be reconciled in this manner, and yet the impression may remain on our minds that Luke had probably no knowledge of Saul’s visit to Arabia, and had, in general, not obtained full information respecting the events which occurred between his conversion and his visit to Jerusalem—perhaps, too, he had not become acquainted with the precise length of that interval. [These remarks may, possibly, be misunderstood unless we assume that the author simply means to enunciate the principle that inspiration is not equivalent to omniscience.—Tr.]

Act_9:20-22.—And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues.—The work of Saul, as described in these verses, is not to be considered as constituting the commencement of his peculiar apostolical labors; he simply delivers his testimony concerning the Redeemer, being impelled by his own heart, which cannot but declare the things which it believes. For we cannot discover a single trace of any direct command or of a mission received from God for that purpose; the language of Luke in Act_9:20, ἐêÞñõóóå ôὸí Ἰçóïῦí , on the contrary, fully conforms to that which he had employed in Act_8:5. The voluntary action of an “evangelist,” not the mission of an apostle, is here described. This view, besides, accords with Paul’s own expressions in Gal_1:17, where he appears to represent all that had been done previously to his return to Damascus, as not having been, strictly speaking, apostolical action.—The difference between the two statements in Act_9:20; Act_9:22, respectively, is also worthy of observation. In the former, Saul proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God; in the latter, he furnishes the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. [“Very Christ, in Greek simply the Christ” (Alex.).—Tr.]. The predicates õἱὸò ôïῦ èåïῦ and ×ñéóôüò , are not identical, for it cannot be demonstrated that the conceptions respectively connected with them are precisely the same. It is true that the conception expressed by õἱὸò ô . è . includes that of the Messiah, but the former name is by no means to be considered as having no additional and deeper import. These words, õἱ . ô . è ., on the contrary, refer preëminently to personal grandeur, while ×ñ . refers, (if we may so express our-selves) to official dignity; in the former, relationship to God, in the latter, the Messianic work, is the main thought. The change in the form and manner of Saul’s addresses to the Jews, conforms to this distinction. Thus Saul proved ( óõìâéâÜæùí , Act_9:22 [primitively, bringing together]) that Jesus is the Messiah, (that is to say, he brought together, or, showed the connection). This statement presents with sufficient distinctness the method which he adopted: he proved that Jesus is the Messiah from the prophecies and their fulfilment; that is, he proved this truth by demonstrating the agreement between the Messianic predictions and the historical facts in the life of Jesus. On the other hand, he proclaimed ( ἐêÞñõóóå , Act_9:20) that Jesus is the Son of God, originally divine, sharing in the divine glory, and worthy of divine honor; that is to say, he did not attempt to prove this statement by arguments derived from the Old Testament, but simply and directly delivered the testimony which was founded on his own experience and conviction. The former mode of address confused and embarrassed ( óõíÝ÷õíå ) his opponents, in so far as they were not able to refute his course of argument, and, nevertheless, were not willing to grant the concluding proposition to which it conducted. This result was produced not so much by any logical superiority, as rather by a certain moral strength which had gradually increased in Saul ( ìᾶëëïí ἐõåäõíáìïῦôï ), since he continually received a larger measure of confidence and joyfulness in his Christian convictions, as well as of the courage and zeal of a witness, [“ ìáë . ἐíåä ., was more and more strengthened, confirmed, namely, ôῇ ðßóôåé ; comp. Act_16:5; Rom_4:20.” (de Wette).—Tr.]

Act_9:23.—The Jews took counsel to kill him.—The testimony which he delivered concerning Jesus, at first created astonishment alone; the Jews asked, in their amazement, whether it was possible that the same man who had become known as the most violent enemy of the Christians, and whose zeal in persecuting them had led him even to Damascus, had now really undergone such an entire change as to speak in this tone, and even seek to gain followers for Christ, Act_9:21. This wonder afterwards changed into bitterness of feeling and enmity, particularly when the Jews were put to silence by the evidences which he furnished from the Old Testament, and hence felt humiliated. As they could not refute him by sound arguments, their hatred became implacable, and they began to devise means for removing him from their path, and silencing him for ever.

Act_9:24-25.—But—the disciples took him by night.—Saul fortunately obtained information respecting the plot by which his life was threatened. The Jews had, in accordance with it, commenced to watch the gates of the city, so that he might not escape from their snares ( ðáñåôçñ . äὲ êáß ). But his disciples [see the text above, and note 4.—Tr.], that is, Jews who had been converted by his preaching of the Gospel, enabled him to flee. With their aid he escaped from the city by means of a wicker basket, being lowered from a window that was probably constructed in the wall and belonged to a house which was built against the latter. [“Probably where some overhanging houses, as is usual in Eastern cities, opened upon the outer country, they let him down from a window in a basket. ( Äéὰèõñßäïò , 2Co_11:33, as in the analogous narratives, Jos_2:15; 1Sa_19:12; the word èõñßò is used in the LXX. in both instances).” (Conyb. and Howson’s Life of Paul, I. 109 and note 7. London 1854.)—Tr.]. This narrative coïncides in a remarkable manner with Paul’s own statements in 2Co_11:32-33. The testimony of both passages is the same on four points—that his life was threatened—that the gates of the city were watched—that he was placed in a basket—and that he was lowered through an aperture in the wall [ äéὰ ôïῦ ôåß÷ïõò , both in Act_9:25 and in 2Co_11:33, through, (not by, as in the Engl. Vers.) the wall, precisely as, in the latter passage, äéὰ èõñὶäïò , through a window.—Tr.]; such was his mode of escape from the city, according to both narratives. They only differ with respect to the persons by whom his life was threatened and the gates were watched. These acts are ascribed in 2Co_11:32 to the ethnarch (prefect) (“governor,” Engl. Vers.] whom the Arabian king Aretas had placed over Damascus and Syria, while in Act_9:23-24, these are represented as the acts of the Jews. This difference in the statements, may, however, be explained without difficulty. The Ethnarch (vicegerent) of the Arabian king, who possessed supreme power in the city, had undoubtedly no personal reasons for assailing Saul, and was induced solely by the slanderous charges of the Jews to proceed against him. If the circumstances were of this nature, it follows that Luke really mentions the true contrivers or authors of the measures which were adopted. But it cannot, on the other hand, be supposed that the Jews of Damascus were permitted personally to guard the city gates; it is far more probable that a military force belonging to the government was ordered to occupy the post. Hence, Paul mentions the executive authority with more precision than Luke, although the expression of the latter, ðáñåôçñïῦíôï scil, ïἰ Ἰïõäáῖïé , is also in harmony with this circumstance. [“The Jews furnished the motive, the Ethnarch the military force.” (Conyb. etc. I. 109.)—Tr.]. The two accounts, in this manner, complete each other, while each one is, obviously, altogether independent of the other.—The general fact here related does not, as many have supposed, furnish a trustworthy basis for determining a chronological point in the life of the apostle Paul. For, concerning this occupation of Damascus by Aretas (whose relations to Herod Antipas and the Roman Empire may be ascertained from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. Acts 5) no other historical accounts whatever are extant, which would enable us to fix the time when it occurred. Comp. Winer: Realwört. II. 217. [art. Paulus, and an article by Wieseler, in Herzog; Real-Encyk. I. 488.—Tr.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The conversion of Saul was commenced by an immediate interposition of the exalted Redeemer in the material world, and was completed through Ananias as a human instrument, although this disciple was guided by a special revelation made in a vision the latter was already a transition to the channel of natural processes. Henceforth the personal and independent action, or the labors of Saul, conformed in every respect to the ordinary course of events. It was solely the impulse of his own heart—a voluntary, and yet an irresistible impulse—to proclaim that Saviour who had so graciously and mercifully manifested himself to those who knew Him not, that led him to speak to the Jews in the synagogues concerning Jesus.

2. Saul proclaimed Jesus to the Jews in Damascus; he not only proved from the Old Testament that He is the. Messiah, but also that He is the Son of God. The latter truth had not hitherto been publicly announced in the preaching and doctrine of the apostles. The invocation of Jesus by the believers ( ἐðéêáëïýìåíïé ôὸ ὄíïìá ) undoubtedly implies his divine glory and dignity. Still, it is an indication that decisive progress has been made, when such a truth in reference to the Person of Christ is fully and distinctly perceived and expressed. This privilege was granted to Saul, but not independently of the peculiar mode in which he was converted and called. Jesus appeared to him from heaven, as the Exalted One, in his divine and supreme power and glory. The knowledge of the deity of Christ was thus made accessible to him, even in a higher degree than to those who had been apostles before him, and had long known Jesus in his humiliation. It was ordered that a deeper and more thorough insight into the true nature of the Person and the work of Christ should be gradually acquired, even as the whole work of salvation and all the revelations of God possess certain features that ally them to humanity; they have a growth that advances with the progress of time. God has reserved unto his own power and wisdom the selection and determination of the points and periods of time when such advance and growth shall occur, as well as of the agents by whom these are to be promoted. Paul himself, even after his conversion, was only gradually guided into all truth, strengthened in the spirit ( ìᾶëëïíἐíåäõíáìïῦôï , Act_9:22), and furnished with a clear knowledge of the truth; to this progress all his experiences in his life and actions, and, especially, his labors in proclaiming the truth, necessarily contributed.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See below, (E), Act_9:26-30.

Footnotes:

Act_9:19. [ ὁ Óáõëïò , of text. rec. and G. H. is omitted by A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg. Syr. etc. and recent editors. It was inserted at the commencement of an ecclesiastical Scripture lesson (Meyer; Alf.).—Tr.]

Act_9:20. The reading ôὸí Éçóïῦí [in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg.], is, for external and internal reasons, decidedly preferable to ôὸí ×ñéóôüí . [This is the view of recent critics generally.—Tr.]

Act_9:24. The Mid. ðáñåôçñïῦíôï is far better attested than the Act. ðáñåôÞñïõí [of text. rec. and G. H.]. The latter form was perhaps inserted in G. H. for the reason that the verb, in the sense: to watch, to lie in wait for, generally occurs in the active voice. [The Mid. in A. B. C. E. F. Cod. Sin.— ôå after ðáñ . in text. rec. is changed by later editors into äὲ êáὶ ; Cod. Sin. also exhibits äὲ êáὶ . This is regarded by later critics as the original reading. (Alf.).—Tr.]

Act_9:25. Griesbach had already recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted ïἱ ìáèçôáὶ áὐôïῦ instead of áὐôὸí ïἰ ìáè ., which latter reading is found in the text. rec. in accordance with E. G. H. and some versions. The reading ìáè . áὐôïῦ occurs in A. C. F., [B. has êáèῆêáí áõôὸí ], as well as in Cod. Sin., and is, therefore, better attested; it is, besides, the more difficult reading [another reason for adopting it], as the circumstance attracted attention that disciples of Saul should be mentioned, since only disciples in general terms, that is, of Jesus, had hitherto been introduced. Certainly, no copyist would have changed áὐôüí into áὐôïῦ , so that the latter must be regarded as the genuine reading. [“ áὐôïῦ is obviously a false reading, as it is not possible that disciples of Paul should be introduced here.” (de Wette). Alf. reads ïß ìáè . áὐôüí ; the MSS. here vary considerably, as well as those of the Vulg.: eum, in the usual printed text, but ejus in Cod. Amiatinus and ed. Sixt.—Tr.]