Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Acts 9:3 - 9:9
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Act_9:3-9
Act_9:4. And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice.—Saul was filled with terror, and, prostrated by the overpowering influence of the heavenly appearance, saw nothing further. But he heard a voice which called to him, and to which he replied—it was the Lord Jesus who spoke. He said; Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? The words were, according to Act_26:14, pronounced in the Hebrew dialect [i.e. the Aramæan, or Syro-Chaldaic, (Robinson)], and with this circumstance the shorter Hebrew form of the name which is here given [ Óáïýë ], in place of the [somewhat more usual] Grecized form [ Óáῦëïò ] precisely agrees. The interrogative pronoun ôß demands an account of his motives for engaging in this persecution, according to the beautiful interpretation of Chrysostom: ôß ðáñ ʼ ἐìïῦ ìÝãá ἤ ìéêñὸí ἠäéêçìÝíïò ôáῦôá ðïéåῖò ;—We are reminded by it of the noble reply which Polycarp made to the proconsul who required him to blaspheme Christ: ὀãäïÞêïíôá êáὶ ἕî ἓôç ἔ÷ù äïõëåýùí áὐôῷ , êáé ïὐäåí ìå ἠäßêçóåí . Êáὶ ðῶò äýíáìáé âëáóöçìῆóáé ôïí âáóéëÝá ìïõ , ôὸí óþóáíôÜ ìå ; Martyrium St. Polyk. c. 9. [Euseb. H. E. IV. 15.]. The question accordingly appeals to Saul’s conscience, and is designed to awaken in him a sense of the grievous wrong which he is committing.
Act_9:5. Who art thou, Lord?—Saul’s question indicates that he did not immediately recognize Jesus, although a presentiment respecting the nature of Him who spoke, may have at once followed the appeal made to his conscience. [“Conscientia ipsa facile diccret: Jesum esse” (Bengel). Tr.]. The words of the Lord (in which ἐãὼ and óý are emphatically contrasted) are not to be referred to the first call, in the sense that they are a continuation of it (equivalent to: ‘Saul, I, whom thou persecutes!, am Jesus.’ Bengel), but constitute a direct answer to the question: ‘Who art thou?’ (equivalent to: ‘I, who appear to thee, and have called, am that Jesus whom thou persecutest’). But as Jesus appeared in his heavenly glory, while Saul is a poor and feeble being, easily prostrated and terrified, the answer was adapted to humble him deeply, and lead to his self-abasement. [Here a part of the text. rec. is omitted by Lechler; see above, note 3, appended to the text. For the explanation, see below, Exeg. etc. note, on Act_26:12-14.—Tr..]
Act_9:6. [But] arise, and go into the city.—The address of Jesus turns, at the word ἀëëÜ [for which see above, note 3, appended to the text], from the past to the future; old things are passed away, all things are to become new. Jesus speaks as the Lord, who has the right to command Saul, who will issue further instructions, and who expects obedience. Paul would not have known what course he should now follow; ho is directed to enter the city and await information, without knowing the source from which it will proceed; the passive form, ëáëçèÞóåôáé , is purposely chosen.
Act_9:7. And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless.—The attendants, who had probably been commissioned by the high priest to aid Saul in the arrest and delivery at Jerusalem of the Damascene Christians, stood speechless and confounded. (Such is frequently the signification of ἐííåüò , which originally signified only mute, but often, too, occurs in the sense of ἐêðåðëçãìÝíïò ). [The form ἐíåïß , found in A. B. C. E. H., and Cod. Sin., is now regarded by the highest authorities as more correct than ἐííåïß of G. and the text. rec.—Tr.]. The circumstance that these attendants heard the voice, but, at the same time, saw no one from whom it proceeded, was specially adapted to amaze and confound them. When Paul himself speaks of this circumstance, in Act_22:9, he says in reference to his companions: ôὴí öùíὴí ïὐê ἥêïõóáí ôïῦ ëáëïῦíôüò ìïé . This language seems, at first view, to contradict the terms in the present verse, viz. ἀêïýïíôåò ìὲí ôῆò öùíῆò , and recent criticism has not failed to take advantage of it. Those attempts to explain this apparent discrepancy, which make a distinction in the sense of öùíῆ occurring in both passages, have, no doubt, been unsuccessful; thus, some interpreters allege that öùíῆò here refers to Paul’s words, while, in Act_22:9, öùíὴ ôïῦ ëáëïῦíôüò ìïé is mentioned (Occum., Beza, and others); by others öùíÞ , in the present verse, has been supposed to designate an inarticulate sound, but, in Act_22:9, to refer to articulated words (Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and others); both of these interpretations are in conflict with the context. There, is, nevertheless, an essential difference between hearing [a mere sound], and hearing [that is, understanding the meaning, as earlier interpreters, and Grotius, Kuinoel, Hackett, etc. explain ἥêïõóáí in Act_22:9. (Meyer)—Tr.]. The meaning of Paul’s words in Act_22:9 is very plain, viz.: his attendants did not hear the voice of him that spake to him, i. e., did not receive a distinct impression of the words or language of the speaker ( ö . ôïῦ ëáë . ìïé ), and therefore did not understand his address to Saul. In Act_9:7, on the other hand, we are simply informed that they heard the voice, which could easily have been the case, even if the words of the Lord addressed to Saul were not distinctly understood by them. It is, besides, worthy of notice, in this connection, that ἀêïýåéí is connected in the present passage with the genitive, and not as in Act_22:9, with the accusative. The distinction in sense is thus explained by the editors of the Thesaurus Linguæ Græcæ of H. Stephanus [Henry Stephens, or, more accurately, Estienne, a grandson of the first Henry, the founder of this celebrated family of Parisian printers. Herzog, Real-En. XV. 64 ff.—Tr.]: “Genitivus maxime poni videtur in re, quam in genere audimus, aut ex parte tantum, aut incerto aliquo modo,—Accusativus proprie rem certius definitam indicare cogitandus est” In this case, Bengel would be justified in saying: Audiebant vocem solam, non vocem cum verbis. And the objection made by Meyer to such a view, viz., that merely seeing and hearing are in both passages mentioned antithetically, is not well founded, neither does it prove that in both cases the hearing was the same, for the seeing was not the same: according to Act_9:7, they saw no man, but according to Act_22:9 they saw the light. Both passages alike show, as Baumgarten (I. 195 ff,) has ably demonstrated, that Paul received a distinct, but his companions an indistinct, impression.—[See Exeg. note on Act_22:6-11, ult.—Tr.].—Another variation is found in the two statements, occurring in Act_9:7 and Act_26:14; according to the former, the attendants stood, but, according to the latter, they, as well as Paul, fell to the earth. Here, too, some writers have supposed that a discrepancy exists which cannot be explained, and inferences have thence been drawn to a certain extent, which affect the credibility of Luke. It should, however, be carefully noted that the words in Act_26:14 ( ðÜíôùí äὲ êáôáðåóüíôùí ἡìῶí åἰò ôὴí ãῆí ) unmistakably refer to the first moment when the light was suddenly seen to flash, after which the voice of Jesus called to Saul, whereas, according to Act_9:7 the men stood speechless at the time when Jesus and Saul were speaking. Or, in other words, Act_26:14 refers to an earlier, but Act_9:7 to a later point of time. It is not here admissible to take åἱóôÞêåéóáí in a pluperfect sense (equivalent to: they had stood, or continued to stand), for since the perfect ἕóôçêá has the sense of the present tense, the pluperfect åἱóôÞêåéí occurs in that of the imperfect. [Win. Gram. N. T. § 40. 4. ult.—Tr.]. Moreover, that the men stood, is not the fact to which it is intended to give special prominence, but that they were speechless or confounded, although we are not authorized to overlook entirely the posture (standing) in which they are found. It is true, that if the present verse alone were considered, we would receive no other impression than that Saul’s companions had continued to stand during (he whole transaction. But as the other passage informs us that they all fell to the earth as soon as the light was seen, we can easily conceive (with Bengel, Kuinoel, Baumgarten) that, although it is not expressly stated, Saul’s attendants recovered from their fright, sooner than he did, and then arose. He fell down with them at once, and, when the voice called to him, continued to lie as if he were paralyzed; his attendants, who heard the voice but did not understand a word, and who were, consequently, not personally interested, very naturally recovered at an earlier moment. This is not an arbitrary assumption, as Meyer supposes, since it is sustained by a comparison of the parallel passages, and is not rendered improbable by any fact which they record.
Act_9:8-9. When his eyes were opened, he saw no man [nothing].—Saul arose from the earth, in obedience to the command [Act_9:6], but when he opened his eyes which had hitherto been closed, he could see nothing, and continued in this state during the following three days. He could open his eyes, but could not see.—(The phrase ïὐäὲí ἔâëåðå involves an objective negation [denying an alleged fact]; ìὴ âëÝðùí in Act_9:9, is not distinguished from it logically, but, rather, only grammatically (Winer [Gram. N. T. § 55, 5, ult.—used subjectively, or, denying a certain conception.—Tr.]), since the negative belongs to the participle. The latter is merely a less emphatic expression than âëÝðùí , which would at once imply actual blindness; but it is not Luke’s purpose to convey such a conception, since he does not represent Saul’s condition as a divine punishment.).—This temporary loss of sight, which however continued during several days, was, without doubt, occasioned by the dazzling light that accompanied the appearance of Jesus [comp. Act_22:11.—Tr.]; still, a special divine act must be assumed as the original cause, since the men who were with Saul, had also seen the light (Act_22:9), without being themselves deprived of sight. For they were able to lead him, like a blind man, by the hand into the city.—During these three days Saul entirely refrained from eating and drinking; he was occupied with his own thoughts and the examination of his spiritual state; and while he waited for the instructions which he was to receive from the Lord, fasting and prayer constituted his preparation for the future.
2. Jesus personally appeared to Saul, at. first in a heavenly light which flashed around the latter like lightning, then called to the prostrate man, reproached him for being a persecutor, revealed his own name, and finally directed him to enter the city, where the will of God should be made known to him. These are the essential features-of the occurrence which took place near Damascus. They instantly produced the deep conviction that Jesus lived. When Saul persecuted the disciples, he was governed by the delusion that after Jesus of Nazareth had been crucified as a malefactor and blasphemer, he had remained in the power of death. But Jesus, who now appears to him personally, is made known alike by the light and by the words which he pronounces, so that Saul obtains a direct, positive and personal knowledge that Jesus, the Crucified One, although he had died, is alive. [“He shewed himself alive” Act_1:3]. It is a fundamental truth, of the Christian religion that the Redeemer lives. We have not a Saviour who lived only at a former time, or, “who was”, but we have one “who is, and is to come.” (Rev_1:4, where ὁ ὤí designedly placed before ὁ ἦõ êáὶ ὁ ἐñ÷üìåíïò ). Christ is ὁ æῶí (Rev_1:18). And the truth, of which Saul is now convinced—that Christ, is alive—is one of the leading themes of his subsequent preaching—a prominent article of the faith which he proclaimed.
3. This appearance, besides, conveyed to Saul a deep impression of the glory of Jesus in his state of exaltation. The light which suddenly flashed around him with the rapidity and the brightness of lightning, was a light from heaven, the effulgence in which God himself dwells. It was in this effulgence that Jesus appeared to Saul, and so powerful was the effect, that, like all who were with him (Act_26:14), he immediately fell to the earth, and was deprived of sight for several days. The voice, too, of Jesus exercised an irresistible influence over him; he at once became conscious of the superiority and sovereign power of Him who now appeared, and bowed in deep submission before him. Jesus, indeed, not only lives, but is exalted in heaven, living and reigning in divine glory. All the extraordinary and wonderful features of the scene combine in bearing witness to the majesty and glory of Jesus.
4. It is apparent as well from Act_9:17; Act_9:27, as from Saul’s own declarations (e. g. 1Co_9:1; 1Co_15:8), that he saw Jesus on this occasion, heard his voice, and spoke with him. And this did not occur in a dream; it was not exclusively an internal process in his soul; it was not the apparition of a spirit, but a real, visible and audible manifestation in the world of sense: Jesus appeared to Saul personally in his glorified corporeality, as true man, as the same Jesus, who had dwelt on earth, and who nevertheless appeared at this time from heaven in divine glory. This fact bears witness to the abiding humanity of the glorified Redeemer, and to his glorified corporeality. It was this event in the experience of the apostle Paul which formed the original and principal source whence he derived his deep views and doctrines concerning the combination of the spiritual and the corporeal in the spiritual-corporeal paths of human life,—the transfiguration of man’s bodily nature—the resurrection of the body, etc.
5. The very intimate communion of life which exists between Jesus and his disciples, is implied both in the first call: “Why persecutest thou me?”, and in the subsequent reply: “I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.” Saul had imagined that he persecuted none but the Christians, whom he regarded as fanatical sectaries without a leader or shepherd, and as apostates from the traditions of the fathers; but he had not supposed that any relations whatever now subsisted between himself and Jesus of Nazareth, who had been put, to death, and was thus removed from his path. But Jesus himself now appears to him and bears this witness: ‘Thou persecutest me—not simply my disciples, but me also.’ Their sufferings, consequently, are his sufferings—they cannot be separated from him, so that they can be assailed without afflicting Him. In consequence of the communion of life which he maintains with his people, he is ever in them, and suffers, is reviled and persecuted with them. And his exaltation and dominion confer blessings on them; while he protects his followers, he fills their enemies with terror. The oneness of Christ with Christians—the communion of life and intimate connection existing between the Lord and believers—the church of Christ one body, and the Lord its head—these lofty truths, which belong to our faith, which the mind of the apostle Paul grasped with more power and distinctness, and which he developed in his discourses and writings with even more fulness than others have done, are already presented in their general features, or in a germinal state in the appearance of Jesus to Saul in the vicinity of Damascus.
6. But the following thoughts must have, preeminently, occurred to him, and have moved him very deeply: ‘I have then persecuted Him, even when I little thought that I was doing it; I have sinned against Him! He is exalted in heaven, possesses irresistible power, justly claims humble and implicit obedience( ôß ìå èÝëåéò ðïéῆóáé ), and yet I have resisted him! I now feel with whom I have to do. Nevertheless, he has not met me for judgment; he has not crushed me in his wrath. He has, rather, with pity and love, arrested my erring steps, has called me to himself, yea, assigns a holy work to me.’ (The latter thought is suggested by the call which he received, a few days afterwards, to be the apostle of the Gentiles.).—This was grace—full, free, pitying grace, granted to the sinner. It was the light of grace which first revealed to Saul the magnitude of his guilt, and the true character of sin in general. And his deep fall taught him, on the other hand, to understand the height and glory of divine grace, By such revelations he was cast down, and yet lifted up; his fall to the earth, and the ability to arise, when he received the encouraging command of Jesus, were an image of the processes which occurred in his soul. And now his own personal experience enabled him to understand the nature both of sin and of grace, revealing the latter as the preponderating power of God. Even if sin abounded, grace did much more abound. (Rom_5:20). Hence, sin and grace are the two hinges of the Gospel, in the view of the apostle, on which, in the divine economy, all things turn.
7. Saul had hitherto persecuted the disciples of Jesus because he believed them to be not only fanatical and erring worshippers of Jesus of Nazareth, but also persons who did not render due honor to the sanctuary of Israel, the Law, and the traditions. He was a zealot in maintaining the traditions of the fathers ( æçëùôὴò ôῶí ðáôñéêῶí ðáñáäüóåùí , Gal_1:14). As such a zealot, he warred with those who, as he thought in his delusion, had apostatized from Jehovah and his law; and if he beheld the execution of Stephen with satisfaction (Act_8:1), and exerted all his power in destroying the church of Jesus, he entertained no other opinion than that he was performing a good and righteous work, on which God looked with pleasure. But he is now taught, in a startling and even painful manner, by the appearance of Jesus from heaven, that God looked on his course with displeasure. He is compelled to view his conduct in a new light; the work which he had believed to be acceptable and preeminently meritorious, is, in reality, most sinful in the eyes of God; it. is actually a conflict with the Anointed of God, and, consequently with God himself, by which deep guilt was contracted. The Christians are, accordingly, not apostates, but, on the contrary, the children of God, men who are eminently favored by the Most High. Hence, his views of the law, and of the righteousness of the law, were, of necessity, entirely altered.
8. The influence which the appearance of Jesus exercised on Saul was irresistible. He was thrown to the ground, and was compelled to yield unconditionally to a higher power, thoroughly convinced that he lay at the mercy of Him who had appeared and addressed him. But this is very different from the question: Is this revelation of Jesus to be considered as gratia irresistibilis, or is it not? Olshausen believed that it ought to be answered in the affirmative. [But after expressing his conviction that óêëçñüí here occurs in the sense of ἀäýíáôïí , and that Paul could not then have resisted the force with which grace met him, Ols. adds: “If we, however, recognize this sense in the present passage, we do not on that account by any means approve of the Augustinian doctrine of gratia irresistibilis.”—Tr.]. The language of the Lord (which, it is true, is an interpolation here [see note 3, appended to the text above], but is genuine in Act_26:14) does, in fact, apparently imply an irresistibility—but only apparently. For Paul himself remarks, on the occasion on which he repeats those words, that, he had not been ἀðåéèÞò to the heavenly vision (Act_26:19), thus plainly presupposing the freedom of his will,—the independent character of his obedience, which he could have also refused. There is not a single feature of the whole transaction which indicates an irresistible change of the will. And the apostle Paul never speaks of his conversion, at any subsequent period, in such a manner as to deny the freedom of his self-determination, when ho followed the divine directions. However unrestricted the operations of grace are, they are directed only towards a free subject, or, to one who can as well accept as repel grace. The choice is given to Saul, either to yield to the impression which this appearance made on him, and open his heart more and more fully, or to close the avenues to it. But that he chose the former, or, was willing to yield to the impression which he had received, is already implied in the questions: “Who art thou, Lord?” “What wilt thou have me to do?”
9. The internal processes connected with the occurrence, were far more important than the external. However wonderful the visible appearance was, the revelation of Jesus to the spirit of Saul, was, nevertheless, the decisive miracle; and in this light the apostle himself views the subject. It is true that he repeatedly mentions the circumstance in his Epistles, that he had seen the Lord Jesus (1Co_9:1; 1Co_15:8). But when the occasion leads him to express his most profound views of the event, he describes the central circumstance of the whole as being ah internal ἀðïêÜëõøéò ( åὐäüêçóåõ ὁ èåὸò — ἀðïêáëýøáé ôὸõ õἱὸõ ἐí ἐìïß . Gal_1:15-16). If the main design of the whole occurrence had been fully accomplished by means of the light and the sound, the attendants (assuming that their senses were perfect), would have necessarily been able to perceive and understand precisely as much as did Saul himself. But both the visible appearance and the call of Jesus made only an indistinct and confused impression on them, and furnished them with no definite and clear conceptions. This result must obviously be ascribed, first, to the sluggishness of their souls, which were not susceptible of such impressions, and, secondly, to the fact that this revelation of Jesus did not belong simply to the world of sense, but was, at the same time, of a spiritual, or spiritual-corporeal nature.
10. The temporary blindness of Saul was designed by the will of God not so much to be an image of the moral blindness in which he had hitherto lived (as it is generally believed), as, rather to withdraw and seclude him from the external world, during the period in which he pondered, and learned to understand, the decisive event that had occurred; it furnished him with an opportunity to be alone with himself and with his God and Saviour. According to this view, his blindness was not a punishment, but much rather an aid to reflection and a gift of grace.—During these three days Paul neither ate nor drank any thing whatever. This fasting or bodily preparation, was not imposed by the law, but was altogether voluntary, and was dictated by an inward impulse; it was, consequently, strictly evangelical; it referred to the divine instruction and the message which he had been directed (Act_9:6) to await. We are informed in Act_9:11, that prayer was, in this case, combined with fasting.
See below, Act_9:10-19 a.
___________
Act_9:3. In place of ἀðü [of the text. rec., after öῶò ], A. B. C. G. [also Cod. Sin.] and subordinate manuscripts, as well as several ancient versions, exhibit ἐê , which has, accordingly, been very properly preferred by Lach. and Tisch.; ἀðü is sustained only by E. H., and some minuscules. [Alf. retains ἀðü , and, with Meyer, regards Ýê as a correction from Act_22:6.—Tr.]
Act_9:5. The words Ὁ äὲ êýñéïò åé ̇͂ ðåí , of the text. rec. [but omitted in the Vulgate], are found only in G. H., and some minuscules; they occur in the Syriac version. In E. åé ̇͂ ðåí is wanting; other manuscripts omit êýñéïò . A. B. C. and some other authorities have simply ὁ äÝ , which is undoubtedly the genuine reading, but was afterwards unnecessarily enlarged by the addition of êýñ . åé ̇͂ ðåí . [Alf., like Lach. and Tisch. regards the two words êýñ . åé ̇͂ ð . as interpolated, and omits them.—Cod. Sin. reads: ὁ äὲ åé ̇͂ ðåí .—Tr.]
Act_9:5-6. It is remarkable that the following gloss, which Erasmus, and, after him, the Elzevirs [text. rec.] adopted, does not occur in a single Greek manuscript; it is not found in the [recently discovered] Codex Sinaiticus. It was inserted after äéþêåéò in these terms: óêëçñüí óïé ðñὸò êÝíôñá ëáêôßæåéí . ÔñÝìùí ôå êáß èáìâῶí åἶðå Êýñéå , ôß ìå èÝëåéò ðïéῆóáé ; êáὶ ὁ êýñéïò ðñὸò ἀõôüí .—E. alone has óêëçñüí .. ëáêôßæåéí , but omits the rest. The Vulgate, on the other hand, and some oriental versions [Syr.], as well as Theophylact and Oecumenius, exhibit this addition, which is evidently borrowed from the parallel passages, with an enlargement intended to improve the whole. The words óêëçñüí .. ëáêôßæåéí , are taken from Act_26:14, while in Act_22:10 the following occur: åé ̇͂ ðïí äÝ . ôß ðïéÞóù êýñéå , whereas in all the manuscripts Act_9:6 begins with ἀëëÜ [before ἀíÜóôçèé .—Stier and Theile’s N. T. encloses the whole passage in brackets; Alf. like Lach., Tisch., etc., omits the whole, as “the authority of the MSS. is decisive: it could hardly be stronger.”—Cod. Sin. omits the whole passage, i. e., óêëçñüí … ðñὸò áὐôüí , and reads: äéþêåéò · ἀëëὰ ἀíÜóôçèé .—Tr.]
Act_9:8. The great majority of MSS., and some versions and fathers read ïὐäÝíá , which was adopted by the text. rec. Still, ïὐäÝí is to be preferred; it is supported by B. and Cod. Sin., and, especially, some ancient versions [Syr. Vulg. nihil]; besides, A. originally exhibited ïὐäÝí , which was afterwards changed to ïὐäÝíá by another hand. It is, moreover, very probable that this correction was suggested by ìçäÝíá of Act_9:7. [This is also the view of Meyer, who terms the correction “mechanical,” and of Lach. Tisch., etc., while Alf. retains ïὐäÝíá , and thinks that ïὐäÝí is the correction, intended “to render the description of the blindness more complete.”—Cod. Sin. exhibits ïὐäÝí in Tischendorf’s 4th. edition (Lipsiæ, 1863), but he remarks, p. LXVIII.): “super í videtur á cœptum sed statim missum esse factum.”—Tr.]