《Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures – Acts (Vol. 2)》(Johann P. Lange)
09 Chapter 9
Verse 1-2
SECTION II
THE CONVERSION OF SAUL; HIS LABORS AND EXPERIENCE IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.
Acts 9:1-30.
______
A.—THE ZEAL OF SAUL IN PERSECUTING THE CHRISTIANS, CONDUCTS HIM TO DAMASCUS
Acts 9:1-2.
1And [But] Saul, yet breathing out threatenings [breathing menace] and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, 2And desired [asked] of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found [should find] any [who were, ὄντας] of this way[FN1], whether they were men or women, he might bring [conduct] them bound unto Jerusalem.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Acts 9:1. And [But] Saul.—The following narrative is connected with the general course of this historical work by means of the particles δέ and ἔτι. The former particle [But, not And] exhibits the contrast between the hostile and destructive procedure of Saul, and the labors of Philippians, which built up and extended the church, and which had just been described. The particle ἔτι, on the other hand, connects the course of Saul, as here set forth, with his earlier Acts,Acts 8:3, and exhibits them as a continuation of the persecution of the Christians which he commenced at the time when Stephen was slain. The interval between the commencement and the present continuation of Saul’s hostile course, does not appear to have been very brief, for Luke must have designedly inserted the two narratives contained in Acts 8:5-40, between Acts 7:58 (combined with Acts 8:1; Acts 8:3,) and Acts 9:1. Hence, the present narrative is not introduced abruptly, or without regard to the connection. It Isaiah, moreover, evident, that the sentiments and feelings of Saul did not continue to be uniformly the same, but rather increased in intensity as time advanced. This fact is indicated by the terms: ἐμπνέωνἀπειλῆςκαὶφόνου [for which genitives see Winer: Gram. N. T. § 309. c. and comp. Joshua 10:40. LXX.—Tr.]. They imply that menace and slaughter constituted the vital air which he inhaled (and exhaled); that Isaiah, the hostile sentiments with which Saul regarded the Christians, had acquired an intensely fanatical, destructive and sanguinary character, which does not yet appear to have been the case at the period to which Acts 8:3 refers. It Isaiah, indeed, quite consistent with human nature, that when any passion has exercised an influence over an individual during a certain period, and been indulged to a certain extent, it should increase in violence and fury, identify itself, as it were, with his character, and constitute the principle of life for him; this observation specially applies to religious fanaticism. The course which Saul now intends to pursue, demonstrates that his fanaticism had acquired additional virulence.
Acts 9:2. Desired of him letters to Damascus, etc.—Hitherto Saul had contented himself with persecuting the Christians in Jerusalem; he now feels impelled to persecute the disciples of Jesus in other regions, even beyond the boundaries of the Holy Land. He determines to proceed to Damascus. This ancient capital of Syria, lying northeast of Jerusalem, and about140 miles distant from it, was distinguished alike by its uncommonly beautiful situation, and by being the centre of a vast trade, and of important religious influences. It had passed, since the time of Pompey (B. C64), under the dominion of the Romans, and had been attached to the province of Syria. Many Jews had selected this city as their residence after the age of the Seleucidæ (Jos. War, ii20, 2), and this fact precisely agrees with the passage before us, which represents Damascus as having contained more than one synagogue (τὰςσυναγωγάς, and comp. Acts 9:20). But the tidings appear to have reached Jerusalem that there were also Christians in Damascus; these were converted Jews, since Saul views them as persons who were connected with the synagogues. The form of the conditional clause, ἐάντιναςεὕρῃ, distinctly implies that he confidently expected to find such persons there. They are termed τινεςτῆςὁδοῦὅντες, that Isaiah, people who walk in the way, or, belong to that way [ὁδοῦ depending on ὅντας; for the Gen. with εἶναι see Winer, § 30, 5]. The word ὁδός does not of itself signify a sect, as some writers have erroneously inferred from Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23; Acts 22:4, but designates in general a particular mode of life and conduct; in its special application here, it denotes that way or manner of life which receives its peculiar character from faith in Christ as the Messiah.—Luke has not informed us of the means by which the Gospel reached Damascus. The most probable supposition Isaiah, that individual Christians belonging to Jerusalem, who were driven away at the time of the persecution, had withdrawn to that large city ( Acts 8:4διῆλθον; comp. Acts 11:19); if some of the fugitives proceeded as far as Cyprus and Antioch, others may have, still more probably, retired to Damascus, which was a nearer point. It is quite conceivable that these also proclaimed the Gospel when they reached the city, and thus became the means by which other Israelites who dwelt there, were converted ( Acts 8:4, εὐαγγελιζόμενοιτὸνλόγον). Saul selected Damascus as the field of his intended operations, as he had perhaps understood that a larger number of Christians would be found there than elsewhere, or, possibly, because he was personally connected with certain inhabitants of the place. In order to accomplish his design and be enabled to seize any disciples of Jesus whom he might find in Damascus, and conduct them as prisoners to Jerusalem, where they would be subjected to a trial, he requests the high priest to furnish him with letters of recommendation and authorization. (The plural ἐπιστολάς corresponds to the plural συναγωγάς; it would hence seem that he asked for several documents, intending to present one to each of the synagogues). The name of the high priest cannot be stated with entire confidence, as the year in which the conversion of Paul occurred is not known with, entire chronological precision. [Bengel assigns it to A. D31; Jerome, Petavius, 33; Baronius, 34; Meyer, Usher, Pearson, Hug, Olshausen, 35; Basnage, Alford, 37; de Wette, 37 or38; Ewald, 38; L. Capellus, 39; Wieseler, 40.—Tr.]. If that event did not occur later than the year36, Caiaphas, who was displaced by Vitellius in that year, still acted as high priest. [See below, note on Acts 23:4-5.]. He was succeeded by Jonathan, a son of Ananus [Annas]; in the next year, 37, the latter was, in his turn, displaced, and his brother Theophilus received the office (Jos. Ant. xviii4, 3, and xviii5, 3). The last named was, probably, the high priest to whom Saul applied. Luke does not expressly state, but obviously implies that the high priest of course furnished the desired documents; he could, indeed, have personally had no motive for refusing to gratify the zealot who applied for means to sustain the ancient Judaism. Foreign Jews voluntarily recognized the authority of the high priest in Jerusalem, and, specially, that of the Sanhedrin, of which he was [usually, but at a later period, not regularly, Herzog, Real-Encyk. XV:516.—Tr.] the presiding officer, and which they regarded as the highest tribunal, in matters of religion. [“In Acts 26:10 (comp. Acts 9:14 below) Paul says that he received his authority from the ἀρχιερεῖς, and in Acts 22:5, from the πρεσβυτέριον, which are merely different modes of designating the Sanhedrim.” Hackett ad loc., and see below, Acts 9:13-14, Exeg. note.—Tr.]. And the experience of the Jews had taught them that, in a case like the present, the civil authorities [Roman] would offer no opposition to a measure represented to them as being directly connected with the internal religious affairs of the Israelites.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
Christ rules in the midst of his enemies. This truth derives a striking illustration from the fact that Saul’s enmity and murderous purposes, which glowed with hellish fire, were so long permitted to harass, scatter and ravage the church. The historian does not relate that he reviled and blasphemed the Redeemer himself; but at a later period Paul confesses that he had been guilty in this respect, 1 Timothy 1:13. In the present narrative he appears only as a persecutor of the Lord’s disciples, or of his church. But his spiritual state becomes the more alarming in proportion as a carnal zeal, passion, and even a Satanic thirst for blood (ἀνθρωποκτόνος, John 8:44), became mingled with his ignorant zeal of God [ Romans 10:2], The flesh acquires increased influence whenever fanaticism ascends to a higher grade, and Prayer of Manasseh, in his blind fury, becomes a ravening and bloodthirsty beast. To such a depth the Lord permits man to descend, in order to rescue him from the abyss and change his nature. The long-suffering of God waits unto the end, but divine grace never loses sight of the sinner, even when he rushes madly onward in his career. Saul’s history furnishes a brilliant illustration of God’s love in Christ, to sinful man—a love which seeks and saves even the most abandoned sinner. [ 1 Timothy 1:16.]
Footnotes:
FN#1 - The margin of the English Bible (which in the text follows Tynd, Cranm, Geneva, and Rheims) offers the words of the way, as the literal translation of the phrase rendered in the text of this way; Gr. τῆςὁδοῦ.—Tr.]
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
See below, Acts 9:10—19 a.
Verses 3-9
B.—THE EXALTED LORD APPEARS TO SAUL, WHEN THE LATTER IS NEAR DAMASCUS
Acts 9:3-9
3And [But] as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about [flashed around] him a light from[FN2] heaven: 4And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 5And [But] he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said [But he (omit the Lord said)][FN3], I am Jesus whom thou persecutest:[FN4] [omit the remainder of this verse, and that part of the next, which precedes the word Arise] it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks 6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said, unto him, [But] Arise, and go into the city, and it shall [will] be told thee what thou must do 7 And the men which [who] journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a [the, τῆς] voice, but seeing no Prayer of Manasseh 8And Saul arose from the earth; and [but] when his eyes were opened, he saw no man [nothing] Acts 5 : but they led him by the hand, and brought [conducted] him into [to] Damascus 9 And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Acts 9:3. Suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven.—Saul had nearly completed his journey, and was already in the vicinity of Damascus, when he was suddenly arrested by an appearance from heaven, and cast to the ground. A light, proceeding from above, flashed around him (περιήστραψεν [with which comp. περιλάμψαν, Acts 26:13]), as sudden in its appearance, as powerful, and as dazzling as a flash of lightning. It is evident, however, that Luke does not mean, literally, a flash of lightning; the verb which he employs is only intended to compare that heavenly appearance to the lightning. The preposition περί in the compound verb implies that the light surrounded Saul, and, specially him only, but not any of his attendants. Luke does not remark in this connection that Saul saw Jesus himself in this heavenly, light, but the fact is subsequently stated (Ἰησοῦςὁὀφθείςσοι, Acts 9:17; ἐντῇὁδῷεἶδετὸνκύριον, Acts 9:27; ἰδεῖντὸνδίκαιον, Acts 22:14, and comp. 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8.)
Acts 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 Acts 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 [Σαούλ], in place of the [somewhat more usual] Grecized form [Σαῦλος] precisely agrees. The interrogative pronoun τί demands an account of his motives for engaging in this persecution, according to the beautiful interpretation of Chrysostom:τίπαρʼἐμοῦμέγαἤμικρὸνἠδικημένοςταῦταποιεῖς;—We are reminded by it of the noble reply which Polycarp made to the proconsul who required him to blaspheme Christ: ὀγδοήκοντακαὶἕξἓτηἔχωδουλεύωναὐτῷ, καιοὐδενμεἠδίκησεν. Καὶπῶςδύναμαιβλασφημῆσαιτονβασιλέαμου, τὸνσώσαντάμε;Martyrium St. Polyk. c9. [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.
Acts 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 ἐγὼ and σύ 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, note3, appended to the text. For the explanation, see below, Exeg. etc. note, on Acts 26:12-14.—Tr..]
[But] arise, and go into the city.—The address of Jesus turns, at the word ἀλλά [for which see above, note3, 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, λαληθήσεται, is purposely chosen.
Acts 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 ἐννεός, which originally signified only mute, but often, too, occurs in the sense of ἐκπεπληγμένος). [The form ἐνεοί, found in A. B. C. E. H, and Cod. Sin, is now regarded by the highest authorities as more correct than ἐννεοί 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 Acts 22:9, he says in reference to his companions:τὴνφωνὴνοὐκἥκουσαντοῦλαλοῦντόςμοι. This language seems, at first view, to contradict the terms in the present verse, viz. ἀκούοντεςμὲντῆςφωνῆς, 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 φωνῆ occurring in both passages, have, no doubt, been unsuccessful; thus, some interpreters allege that φωνῆς here refers to Paul’s words, while, in Acts 22:9, φωνὴτοῦλαλοῦντόςμοι is mentioned (Occum, Beza, and others); by others φωνή, in the present verse, has been supposed to designate an inarticulate sound, but, in Acts 22:9, to refer to articulated words (Rosenmüller, Heinrichs, and others); both of these interpretations are in conflict with the context. There, Isaiah, nevertheless, an essential difference between hearing [a mere sound], and hearing [that Isaiah,understanding the meaning, as earlier interpreters, and Grotius, Kuinoel, Hackett, etc. explain ἥκουσαν in Acts 22:9. (Meyer)—Tr.]. The meaning of Paul’s words in Acts 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 (φ. τοῦλαλ. μοι), and therefore did not understand his address to Saul. In Acts 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 Isaiah, besides, worthy of notice, in this connection, that ἀκούειν is connected in the present passage with the genitive, and not as in Acts 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 Revelation, 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 Acts 9:7, they saw no Prayer of Manasseh, but according to Acts 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 Acts 22:6-11, ult.—Tr.].—Another variation is found in the two statements, occurring in Acts 9:7 and Acts 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 Acts 26:14 (πάντωνδὲκαταπεσόντωνἡμῶνεἰςτὴνγῆν) 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 Acts 9:7 the men stood speechless at the time when Jesus and Saul were speaking. Or, in other words, Acts 26:14 refers to an earlier, but Acts 9:7 to a later point of time. It is not here admissible to take εἱστήκεισαν in a pluperfect sense (equivalent to: they had stood, or continued to stand), for since the perfect ἕστηκα has the sense of the present tense, the pluperfect εἱστήκειν occurs in that of the imperfect. [Win. Gram. N. T. § 404. 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.