Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

κανδάκης] As Pharaoh among the Egyptians was the customary name of kings, so Candăce of the Queens among the Æthiopians in upper Egypt ( αἰθίοπες ὑπὲρ αἰγύπτου οἰκοῦντες, Dio Cass. liv. 5),—in the island of Meroe, Plin. vi. 29, where he says, ‘Ipsum oppidum Meroen ab introitu insulæ abesse LXX m. pass.… Regnare fœminam Candacen, quod nomen multis jam annis ad reginas transiit.… Cæterum cum potirentur rerum Æthiopes, insula ea magnæ claritatis fuit.’

γάζης] A Persian term. Q. Curt. iii. 13. 5, ‘pecuniam regiam, quam gazam Persæ vocant.’ See Virg. Æn. i.119.

ὃς ἐληλύθει …] This did not only Jews and proselytes, but also those pious Gentiles who adhered to Judaism,—the proselytes of the gate, see John 12:20. Euseb. ii. 1, prope fin., speaking of this eunuch says, ὃν πρῶτον ἐξ ἐθνῶν πρὸς τοῦ φιλίππου διʼ ἐπιφανείας τὰ τοῦ θείου λόγου ὄργια μετασχόντα, τῶν τε ἀνὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην πιστῶν ἀ παρχὴν γενόμενον κ. τ. λ., taking for granted that he was a Gentile. There were (see below, ch. Acts 11:21) cases of Gentile conversion before that of Cornelius; and the stress of the narrative in ch. 10 consists in the miscellaneous admission of all the Gentile company of Cornelius, and their official reception into the church by that Apostle to whom was especially given the power. We may remark, that if even the plain revelation by which the reception of Cornelius and his company was commanded failed finally to convince Peter, so that long after this he vacillated (Galatians 2:11-12), it is no argument for the eunuch not being a Gentile, that his conversion and baptism did not remove the prejudices of the Jewish Christians.

Verse 28

28. ἀνεγίνωσκεν] aloud, see Acts 8:30. Schöttg. quotes from the Rabbis: ‘Qui in itinere constitutus est, neque comitem lmbet, is student in Lege.’

He probably read in the LXX, the use of which was almost universal in Egypt. The word περιοχή below (see on Acts 8:32) is not decisive (Olsh.) against this (as if there were περιοχαί only in the Hebrew, not in the LXX), as it would naturally be used as well of one as the other by those cognizant of the term. Besides, must there not have been περιοχαί in the copies of the LXX read in the synagogues?

Verse 29

29.] This is the first mention of that inner prompting of the Spirit referred to again, probably ch. Acts 13:2, but certainly ch. Acts 10:19; Acts 16:6-7. Chrysostom understands the words of the appearance of an angel, but the text hardly allows it.

κολλ.] no stress—attach thyself to.

Verse 30

30.] ἆρά γε = Yea, but …; q. d. It is well, thou art well employed: but …? On the force of ἆρα, used “ubi responsio expectatur negans id de quo erat interrogatum,” see Hermann on Viger, p. 821. The γε strengthens the ἆρα, implying the passing over of all other considerations, and selecting this as the most important: see Hartung, Partikellehre, i. 376 f. It assumes, modestly, that he did not understand what he was reading.

γινώσκ. ἃ ἀναγ.] So 2 Corinthians 3:2. So too Cato (Wetst.), ‘Legere et non intelligere nec legere est.’ “Valck. compares the celebrated paronomasia of Julian the Apostate, ἀνέγνων, ἔγνων, κατέγνων, and the courageous reply of the Christian Bishop to him ἀνέγνως, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἔγνως· εἰ γὰρ ἔγνως, οὐκ ἂν κατέγνως.” Wordsw.

Verse 31

31.] γάρ gives the reason of the negative which is understood. The answer expresses at once humility and docility.

Verse 32

Verse 33

γενεὰν αὐτοῦ] i.e., the age in which He shall live—‘the wickedness of his contemporaries.’ The fathers, and Bede⁽⁵⁵⁾ (and so Wordsworth), explain ‘His generation’ of His eternal Sonship and His miraculous Incarnation. But the Heb. does not seem to bear this out. See the meaning discussed at length, and another interpretation defended in Stier, Jesaias, &c., pp. 466–470. Cf. also Gesenius’ Thesaurus under דּוֹר .

Verse 34

34. ἀποκριθείς] to the passage of Scripture, considered as the question proposed: not, to the question in Acts 8:30. We can hardly suppose any immediate reference in ἑτέρου τινός to Christ.

Verse 36

τί κωλ. μ. βαπ.] There is no reason for supposing Philip to have preached to him the necessity of baptism: his own acquaintance with Jewish practices, and perhaps his knowledge of the progress of the new faith in Jerusalem, would account for the proposition.

[37.] The authorities against this verse are too strong to permit its insertion. It appears to have been one of those remarkable additions to the text of the Acts, common in D (which is here deficient) and its cognates: few of which, however, have found their way into the received text. This was made very early, as Irenæus has it. The manuscripts which contain it vary exceedingly: another strong mark of spuriousness in a disputed passage. See var. readd. Wordsw. retains it, citing Bornemann as doing the same; but it is Bornemann’s principle that all these insertions of D and its cognates formed part of the original text: so that his authority goes for nothing. Wordsw. also states that it is found in the codex amiatinus of the vulgate, which it is not, except as a correction a secunda manu.]

Verse 38

Verse 39

The text clearly relates a supernatural disappearance of Philip: compare μήποτε ᾖρεν αὐτὸν πνεῦμα κυρίου, 4 Kings Acts 2:16; no interpretation (as Eichhorn, Kuin., Olsh., Meyer) of his being suddenly hurried away by the prompting of the Spirit, will satisfy the analogy of the above-cited passage, and of (see below) a parallel one in Luke’s own Gospel. The ἁρπάζειν of ref. John, which Meyer cites to justify his view, tells in my mind the other way; the fear was lest the multitude should come and carry Him off to make Him a King: and in the reff. I have therefore marked the two as bearing the same meaning.

οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν οὐκέτι] Not ‘never saw him from that day,’ though (see below) that meaning may be indirectly included:—but as Luke 24:31, αὐτὸς ἄφαντος ἐγένετο ἀπʼ αὐτῶν, and as in the strictly parallel words of 4 Kings Acts 2:12, οὐκ εἶδεν αὐτὸν ἔτι,—after the going up of Elijah. These last words in my view decide the question, that the departure of Philip was miraculous.

γάρ] refers to what follows ( φ. δὲ εὑρ.). Philip was found at Azotus: if the eunuch had gone that way, he might have met with him again: but he did not, for he went from the fountain on his own way, which did not lead through Azotus.

Verse 40

40. εὑρ. εἰς ἄζ.] A constr. prægnans,—was borne to, and found at. The word εὑρέθη again appears to refer to 4 Kings Acts 2:17.

AZOTUS or ASHDOD (Joshua 13:3; 1 Samuel 5:5 al.) was one of the five principal cities of the Philistines, never, though nominally in Judah, thoroughly subjugated by the Jews:—it was taken by Tartan the Assyrian general (Isaiah 20:1),—again by Psammetichus, Herod. ii. 157; Jeremiah 25:20,—again by Judas Maccabæus (1 Maccabees 5:68) and Jonathan (ib. 1 Maccabees 10:84), and by the latter destroyed;—rebuilt by Gabinius (Jos. Antt. xiv. 5. 3. B. J. i. 7. 7), and belonged to the kingdom of Herod, who left it in his will to his sister Salome (Antt. xvii. 8. 1; 11. 5). At present, it is a small village, retaining the name Esdud, but no remains. (Robinson, ii. 629; iii. 1, 232. Winer, Realw.)

τὰς πόλεις πάσας] viz. Ekron, Jamnia, Joppa, Apollonia, on the direct road: or, if he deviated somewhat for the purpose, Lydda also (which seems implied ch. Acts 9:32).

καισάρειαν] See note, ch. Acts 10:1.

ἐμπνέων] Meyer charges the ordinary interpretation, ‘breathing,’ i.e. as in E. V., ‘breathing out,’ with an arbitrary neglect of the composition of the word. He would render it ‘inhaling,’ with the partitive genitives signifying the element. But the sense would thus be flat; and there seems to be no need for pressing the sense of the compound verb. We should perhaps hardly render it breathing out,—but breathing; his ‘spiritus,’ inhaled or exhaled, being ἀπειλὴ κ. φόνος. So ἔθʼ αἱματόεντος ἀναπνείων ὀρυμαγδοῦ, Q. Calaber, xiv. 72, and πνέων θυμοῦ, Aristæn. I. Ephesians 5 (Kuin.).

ἐμπνέων, προσελθών] As σοὶ πιστεύσας, μεταναστάς, Œd. Col. 172, where Hermann remarks, ‘Si recte observavi, ea est hujus constructionis ratio, ut præcedat illud participium, quod, separatim enunciata sententia, indicativus esse verbi debet: ut hoc loco sensus sit, ὅτι σοὶ ἐπίστευσα, μεταναστάς.’

τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ] See table in Prolegg, to Acts;—it would be Theophilus,—brother and successor to Jonathan, who succeeded Caiaphas, Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 3.

Verses 1-30

1–30.] CONVERSION OF SAUL.

Verse 2

εἰς δαμασκόν] DAMASCUS is probably the oldest existing city in the world. We read of it in Abraham’s time (Genesis 14:15; Genesis 15:2): then no more till David subdued it (2 Samuel 8:6): it became independent again under Solomon (1 Kings 11:24 ff.), and from that time was the residence of the kings of Syria (1 Kings 15:18; 1 Kings 20:1 ff.), who were long at war with Israel and Judah, and at last were permitted to prevail considerably over Israel (2 Kings 10:32; Amos 1:3-4) and to exact tribute from Judah (2 Kings 12:17-18, see also 2 Kings 13:3; 2 Kings 13:22; 2 Kings 13:25). Damascus was recovered to Israel by Jeroboam II. (cir. 825 A.C. 2 Kings 14:28). Not long after we find Rezin, king of Syria, in league with Pekah, king of Israel, against Ahaz (2 Kings 15:37). Ahaz invited to his assistance Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, who took Damascus and slew Rezin, and led the people captive (2 Kings 16:5-9; Isaiah 8:4). From this time we find it subject to Assyria (Isaiah 9:11; Isaiah 10:9; Isaiah 17:1), then to Babylon (2 Kings 24:2; Jeremiah 35:11),—Persia (Arrian. Alex. ii. 11, δαρεῖος τῶν χρημ. τὰ πολλὰ … πεπόμφει εἰς δαμασκόν, Strabo, xvi. 756; Q. Curt. iii. 12. 27),—the Syrian Seleucidæ (1 Maccabees 11:62; 1 Maccabees 12:32),—and from the time of Pompey (64 A.C.), to the Romans, and attached to the province of Syria (Jos. Antt. xiv. 4. 5; 9. 5). Many Jews were settled there, and the majority of the wives of the citizens were proselytes, Jos. B. J. ii. 20. 2.

On its subjection to Aretas, see below, Acts 9:24, note. It was later the residence of the Ommiad Caliphs, and the metropolis of the Mahommedan world. (Conybeare and Howson, edn. 2, vol. i. p. 106.)

At present it is a large city, with (Burckhardt) 250,000 inhabitants, nearly 70,000 of whom are Christians.

It is situated most beautifully, in a large and well-watered plain, on the river Chrysorrhoas (Barrada), which divides into many streams (see 2 Kings 5:12), and fertilizes the plain (Strabo, xvi. 756, ἡ δαμασκηνὴ χώρα διαφερόντως ἐπαινουμένη),—bounded on all sides by the desert. See Winer, Realw., from which the above is mainly taken: Vitringa in Jesaiam, p. 650 ff. (Notitia Damasci et Regni Damasceni), and a vivid description in C. and H., pp. 104–108.

πρὸς τ. συν.] i.e. to the presidents of the synagogues, who would acknowledge the orders of the Sanhedrim, and could, under the authority of the Ethnarch, carry them out.

τῆς ὁδοῦ] Not ‘this way,’ E. V., which rendering should be kept for the places where the pronoun is expressed, as ch. Acts 22:4,—but the way, viz. of ‘salvation,’ ch. Acts 16:17, or ‘of the Lord,’ ch. Acts 18:25. (The genitive, as τῆς γνώμης εἶναι, see 1 Corinthians 1:12.) The expression ‘THE WAY’ had evidently become a well-known one among Christians (see reff.); and it only was necessary to prefix the pronoun when strangers were addressed.

The special journey to Damascus presupposes the existence of Christians there, and in some numbers. This would be accounted for by the return of many who may have been converted at the Pentecostal effusion of the Spirit, and perhaps also by some of the fugitives from the persecution having settled there. This latter is rendered probable by Ananias’s ἤκουσα ἀπὸ πολλῶν περὶ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς τούτου, Acts 9:13.

Verse 3

3.] The journey from Jerusalem was probably made on the Roman road, i.e. that of the Itineraries, by Neapolis (Sichem) and Scythopolis, crossing the Jordan S. of the lake Tiberias,—Gadara, and so to Damascus. Or he might have joined,—either the Petra road, by Jericho and Heshbon, and so by Botsrah to D.,—or the Egyptian caravan-track, which passes to the north of the lake of Tiberias, and near Cæsarea Philippi. In either case the journey would occupy from five to six days, the distance being 130 to 150 miles.

περιήστρ. κ. τ. λ.] It was (ch. Acts 22:6) περὶ μεσημβρίαν,—and from ch. Acts 26:13, the light was ὑπὲρ τὴν λαμπρότητα τοῦ ἡλίου. These details at once cut away all ground from the absurd rationalistic attempt to explain away the appearance as having been lightning. Unquestionably, the inference is, that it was a bright noon, and the full splendour of the oriental sun was shining.

His companions saw the light, and were also cast to the ground, ch. Acts 26:13-14; Acts 22:9, see below on Acts 9:7.

Verse 4

τί με διώκεις;] A remarkable illustration of Matthew 25:45. The με is not emphatic (agst Wordsw.); but the very lack of emphasis, assuming the awful fact, gives more solemnity to the question.

Verse 5

5. ὁ δέ] That Saul saw, as well as heard, Him who spoke with him, is certain from Ananias’s speech, Acts 9:17, and ch. Acts 22:14,—that of Barnabas, Acts 9:27,—from ch. Acts 26:16 ( ὤφθην σοι), and from the references by Paul himself to his having seen the Lord, 1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8. These last I unhesitatingly refer to this occasion, and not to any subsequent one, when he saw the Lord ἐν ἐκστάσει, ch. Acts 22:17. Such appearances could hardly form the subject of autoptic testimony which should rank with that of the other apostles: this, on the contrary, was no ἔκστασις, but the real bodily appearance of the risen Jesus: so that it might be adduced as the ground of testimony to His Resurrection.

On the words excluded from our text, as having been interpolated from ch. Acts 26:14, and Acts 22:10, see note at Acts 26:14. It is natural that the account of the historian should be less precise than that of the person concerned, relating his own history. In ch. Acts 26:15-18, very much more is related to have been said by the Lord: but perhaps he there, as he omits the subsequent particulars, includes the revelations made to him during the three days, and in the message of Ananias.

Verse 7

7.] In ch. Acts 22:9, οἱ δὲ σὺν ἐμοὶ ὄντες τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο [ κ. ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο], τὴν δὲ φωνὴν οὐκ ἤκουσαν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι. Two accounts seemingly (and certainly, in the letter) discrepant; but exceedingly instructive when their spirit is compared,—the fact being this: that the companions of Saul saw and were struck to the ground by the light, but saw οὐδ ένα, no person:—that they stood (or ‘were fixed:’ but I should acknowledge the discrepancy here, and recognize the more accurate detail of ch. Acts 26:14, that they fell to the ground) mute, hearing τῆς φωνῆς, the sound of the voice, but not τὴν φωνὴν τοῦ λαλοῦντός μοι, the words spoken and their meaning. Compare John 12:29, note. (Only no stress must be laid on the difference between the gen. and acc. government of φωνή, nor indeed on the mere verbal difference of the two expressions;—but their spirit considered, in the possible reference which they might have to one and the same fact.)

Two classes of readers only will stumble at this difference of the forms of narration; those who from enmity to the faith are striving to create or magnify discrepancies,—and those who, by the suicidal theory of verbal inspiration, are effectually doing the work of the former. The devout and intelligent student of Scripture will see in such examples a convincing proof of the simple truth of the narrative,—the absence of all endeavour to pare away apparent inconsistencies or revise them into conformity,—the bonâ fide work of holy truthful men, bearing each his testimony to things seen and heard under the guidance, not of the spirit of bondage, but of that Spirit of whom it is said, οὗ τὸ πνεῦμα κυρίου, ἐλευθερία.

I should not too hastily determine that this account has not come from Saul himself, on account of the above differences: they are no more than might arise in narrations at different times by the same person.

εἱστήκεισαν] It will be well to warn younger readers against an error often found in English Commentators (e.g. Dr. Burton here),—that ἕστηκα is past, and εἱστήκειν pluperfect in signification,— ἕστηκα, ‘I have been standing,’ and εἱστήκεισαν, ‘had been standing.’ This error arises from forgetting the peculiar character of the verb ἵστημι with regard to transitive and intransitive meanings. ἕστηκα is strictly present,— εἱστήκειν imperfect: as much so as sto and stabam. See Matthiæ, § 206. And this accuracy is important here: they had not ‘been standing,’ but had fallen. See ch. Acts 26:14, πάντων τε καταπεσόντων ἡμῶν εἰς τὴν γῆν. Wordsw.’s explanation, that εἱστήκεισαν refers to the standing still of the cavalcade, not to the standing of Saul’s companions, is untenable: for 1) the ἐνεοί, which qualifies the εἱστήκεισαν, forbids it: and 2) his justifying instances are all aorists, Luke 7:14; Luke 8:44; ch. Acts 8:38, not perfect, which surely will not bear this sense of mere arrestation in a course.

Verse 8

8.] On his eyes being opened (it would seem that he had closed them on the first disappearance of the vision), he saw no one. He explains it, ch. Acts 22:11, ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τοῦ φωτὸς ἐκείνου. He had seen, what those with him had not seen, the glorious Person of the Lord Jesus. See below on Acts 9:18.

Verse 9

οὐκ ἔφ. οὐδὲ ἔπ.] There is no occasion to soften these words: the effect produced on him by the οὐράνιος ὀπτασία (ch. Acts 26:19), aided by his own deeply penitent and remorseful state of mind, rendered him indifferent to all sustenance whatever.

Verse 10

10.] Paul adds, ch. Acts 22:12, with particularity, as defending himself before the Jews, that Ananias was ἀνὴρ εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόμον μαρτυρούμενος ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν κατοικούντων ἰουδαίων: saying nothing of the command received by him, nor that he was a disciple. In ch. 26, speaking before the Roman governor, he does not mention him.

Mr. Howson (edn. 2, vol. i. p. 114) remarks on the close analogy between the divine procedure by visions here, and in ch. 10. Here, Ananias is prepared for his work, and Saul for the reception of him as a messenger, each by a vision: and similarly Peter and Cornelius in ch. 10. I may add, that in ch. 8, where the preparation of heart was already found in the eunuch, Philip only was supernaturally prepared for the interview.

Verse 11