Greek Testament Critical Exegetical Commentary Acts》

οἰκίᾳ ἰούδα] The houses of Ananias and Judas are still shewn to travellers. Doubtless they (or at least the former) would long be remembered and pointed out by Christians; but, in the long degradation of Christianity in the East, most such identities must have been lost; and imposture is so easy, that it is hardly possible to cherish the thought that the spots now pointed out can be the true ones. And so of all cases, where we have not unalterable or unaltered data to go on. Still, true as this is, we have sometimes proofs and illustrations unexpectedly appearing, as research goes on, which identify as authentic, sites long pointed out by tradition. So that our way seems to be, to seek for all such elucidations, and meantime to suspend our judgment: but never to lose sight of, nor to treat contemptuously a priori, a local belief.

ταρσέα] The first place where he is so specified.

TARSUS was the capital of the province of Cilicia, a large and populous city ( τῆς κιλ. πόλιν μεγάλην κ. εὐδαίμονα, Xen. Anab. i. 2. 23) in a fruitful plain on the river Cydnus, which flowed through the midst of it (‘Cydnos, Tarsum liberam urbem procul a mari secans.’ Plin. Acts 9:27. Strabo, xiv. 673. Q. Curt. iii. 5. 1), with a swift stream of remarkably cold water. Strabo speaks most highly of its eminence in schools of philosophy: τοσαύτη τοῖς ἐνθάδε ἀνθρώποις σπουδὴ πρός τε φιλοσοφίαν καὶ τὴν ἄλλην ἐγκύκλιον ἅπασαν παιδείαν γέγονεν, ὥσθʼ ὑπερβέβληνται καὶ ἀθήνας καὶ ἀλεξάνδρειαν καὶ εἴ τινα ἄλλον τόπον δυνατὸν εἰπεῖν, ἐν ᾧ σχολαὶ καὶ διατριβαὶ τῶν φιλοσόφων καὶ τῶν λόγων γεγόνασι. διαφέρει δὲ τοσοῦτον, ὅτι ἐνταῦθα μὲν οἱ φιλομαθοῦντες ἐπιχώριοι πάντες εἰσί, xiv. 674. He enumerates many learned men who had sprung from it. It was (see Plin. above) an “urbs libera,” i.e. one which, though under Rome, lived under its own laws and chose its own magistrates. This ‘libertas’ was granted to it by Antony (Appian. Civ. Acts 9:7): and much later we find it a Roman colony. As a free city, it had neither the ‘jus coloniarum,’ nor the ‘jus civitatis:’ see ch. Acts 21:39, also Acts 22:28, and note. It is now a town with about 20,000 inhabitants, and is described as being a den of poverty, filth, and ruins. There are many remains of the old town (Winer, Realw.).

Verse 12

12. προσεύχεται] This word would set before Ananias more powerfully than any other, the state of Saul.

ἄνδρα ἀν. ὀν.] A man, whose name in the same vision he knew to be Ananias. The sight of the man and the knowledge of his name were both granted him in his vision.

Verse 13

13. τοῖς ἁγίοις σου] This is the first time that this afterwards well-known appellation occurs as applied to the believers in Christ.

Verse 14

Verse 15

Paul often uses this word σκεῦος in a similar meaning, see reff., especially Romans 9, &c., where it is in illustrating God’s sovereign power in election.

βαστάσαι, perhaps in reference to the metaphor in σκεῦος.

ἐθνῶν] This would hardly be understood at the time: it was afterwards on a remarkable occasion repeated to Paul by the Lord in a vision (see ch. Acts 22:21), and was regarded by him as the specific command which gave the direction to his ministry, see Galatians 2:7-8.

βασιλ.] Agrippa, and probably Nero.

Verse 16

Verse 17

κ. πλησθῇς πν. ἁγ.] I can hardly think, with De W. and Meyer, that these words imply that the Lord had said to Ananias more than is above related: I would rather view them as a natural inference from what was said in Acts 9:15.

In ch. Acts 22:14, where the command to Ananias is omitted, his speech contains much of the reason given in the command here. It is remarkable again how Paul, speaking there to an infuriated Jewish mob, gives the words spoken just that form which would best gain him a favourable hearing with them—e.g. ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν,— ἰδεῖν τὸν δίκαιον,— πάντας ἀνθρώπους, avoiding as yet the hateful word ἔθνη. He there too gives ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ as part of the exhortation of Ananias.

Verse 18

ἐβαπτίσθη] It has been well remarked (Olsh.) that great honour was here placed upon the sacrament of baptism, inasmuch as not even Saul, who had seen the Lord in special revelation and was an elect vessel, was permitted to dispense with this, the Lord’s appointed way of admission into His Church.

Verse 19

19. ἐνίσχ.] intrans. see reff.

ἡμ. τινάς] A few days; of quiet, and becoming acquainted with those as brethren, whom he came to persecute as infidels: but not to learn from them the gospel ( οὐδὲ γὰρ ἐγὼ παρὰ ἀνθρώπου παρέλαβον αὐτό, οὔτε ἐδιδάχθην, Galatians 1:12), nor was the time longer than to admit of εὐθέως being used, Acts 9:20,—and indeed the same εὐθέως of the whole space (including his preaching in our Acts 9:20-21) preceding the journey to Arabia, in Galatians 1:16.

Pearson places that journey before our ἐγένετο δέ,—which however is manifestly against the sense of the text:—Michaelis and Heinrichs, between Acts 9:19-20,—to which there is the same objection: Kuinoel and Olsh., after Acts 9:25,—which the εὐθέως of Galatians 1:16 will not allow: Neander and Meyer, in the ἡμέραι ἱκαναί of Acts 9:23, which time however in our text is certainly allotted to the progress of his preaching in Damascus, and the increase of the hostility of the Jews in consequence. See below.

Verse 20

Verse 21

ἐληλύθει] had come here, implying the abandonment of the purpose.

Verse 22

22.] I regard the μᾶλλον ἐνεδυναμοῦτο, as the only words beneath which can lie concealed the journey to Arabia. Paul mentions this journey (Galatians 1:17) with no obscure hint that to it was to be assigned the reception by him, in full measure, of the Gospel which he preached. And such a reception would certainly give rise to the great accession of power here recorded. I am the more disposed to allot that journey this place, from the following considerations. The omission of any mention of it here can arise only from one of two causes: (1) whether Paul himself were the source of the narrative, or some other narrator,—the intentional passing over of it, as belonging more to his personal history (which it was his express purpose to relate in Galatians 1) than to that of his ministry: (2) on the supposition of Paul not having been the source of the narrative,—the narrator having not been aware of it. In either case, this expression seems to me one very likely to have been used:—(1) if the omission was intentional,—to record a remarkable accession of power to Saul’s ministry, without particularizing whence or how it came: (2) if it was unintentional,—as a simple record of that which was observed in him, but of which the source was to the narrator unknown.

συνέχυννεν] Chrysostom strikingly says, ἅτε νομομαθὴς ὢν ἐπεστόμιζεν αὐτοὺς καὶ οὐκ εἴα φθέγγεσθαι· ἐνόμισαν ἀπηλλάχθαι τῆς ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις διαλέξεως ἀπαλλαγέντες στεφάνου, καὶ στεφάνου σφοδρότερον εὗρον ἕτερον. (Cramer’s Catena.)

Verse 23

23. ἡμέραι ἱκαναί] In Damascus, see above on Acts 9:19. The whole time, from his conversion to his journey to Jerusalem, was three years, Galatians 1:18.

ἀνελεῖν αὐτ.] ἐπὶ τὸν ἰσχυρὸν συλλογισμὸν ἔρχονται πάλιν οἱ ἰουδαῖοι. ουκετι γὰρ συκοφάντας κ. κατηγόρους κ. ψευδομάρτυρας ἐπιζητοῦσιν, Chrys. Hom. xx.

Verse 24

24.] In 2 Corinthians 11:32, Paul writes, ἐν δαμασκῷ ὁ ἐθνάρχης ἀρέτα τοῦ βασιλέως ἐφρούρει τὴν πόλιν δαμασκηνῶν, πιάσαι με [ θέλων]. A somewhat difficult chronological question arises respecting the subordination of Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to the province of Syria: and we have coins of Damascus of both these emperors, and again of Nero and his successors. But we have none of Caligula and Claudius; and the following circumstances seem to point to a change in the rulership of Damascus at the death of Tiberius. There had been for some time war between Aretas, king of Arabia Nabatæa (whose capital was Petra), and Herod Antipas, on account of the divorce by Herod of Aretas’ daughter at the instance of Herodias, and on account of some disputes about their frontiers. A battle was fought, and Herod’s army entirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). On this Antipas, who was a favourite with Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vitellius, the governor of Syria, was commissioned to march against Aretas, and take him, dead or alive. While on his march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death of Tiberius (March 16, A.D. 37), and πόλεμον ἐκφέρειν οὐκέθʼ ὁμοίως δυνάμενος διὰ τὸ εἰς γάϊον μεταπεπτωκέναι τὰ πράγματα (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his march, and sent his army into their winter quarters, himself returning to Antioch: Antt. ibid. This μεταπεπτωκέναι τὰ πρ. brought about a great change in the situation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas was soon (A.D. 39) banished to Lyons, and his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe (Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in habits of intimacy with the new emperor (xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that Aretas, who had been grossly injured by Antipas, should, by this change of affairs, be received into favour; and the more so, as there was an old grudge between Vitellius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt. xviii. 4. 5), ἔκρυπτεν ὀργήν, μέχρι δὴ καὶ μετῆλθε, γαΐου τὴν ἀρχὴν παρειληφότος.

Now in the year 38 Caligula made several changes in the East, granting Ituræa to Soæmus, Lesser Armenia and parts of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys to Rhæmetalces,—and to Polemon, the son of Polemon, his father’s governments. These facts, coupled with that of no Damascene coins of Caligula and Claudius existing (which might be fortuitous, but acquires force when thus combined), make it probable that about this time Damascus, which belonged to the predecessors of Aretas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to Aretas by Caligula. This would at once solve the difficulty. The other suppositions,—that the Ethnarch (see on 2 Corinthians 11:32) was only visiting the city (as if he could then have guarded the city to prevent Paul’s escape),—or that Aretas had seized Damascus on Vitellius giving up the expedition against him (as if a Roman governor or a province would, while waiting for orders from a new emperor, quietly allow one of its chief cities to taken from him), are in the highest degree improbable. The above is taken in substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, pp. 167–175. His argument from a coin βασιλέως ἀρέτα φιλέλληνος does not seem conclusive, as it leaves the latter title altogether unaccounted for. It probably (C. and H. i. pp. 101 and 132) belongs to a former Aretas.

Verse 25

25.] The reading in the text, λαβ. οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, is ambiguous, Chrys. (see in var. readd.), al. take it as if Saul had disciples of his own who did this. The only escape from this inference is by supposing an unusual government of a gen. by λαβόντες, such as we sometimes find in Homer, e.g. ἀγκὰς λαβέτην ἀλλήλων, Il. ψ. 711; ὀδυσῆος λάβε γούνων, Od. χ. 310: see also Il. γ. 369, θ. 371; Od. ε. 428, τ. 480. So we have κρατήσας τῆς χειρὸς αὐτῆς, Luke 8:54. But whether this is justified in a case where the whole person is concerned, as here, may be a question. If it is, it must be because not the taking and bringing him to the spot, but the act of laying hold of him to put him into the basket, is intended.

διὰ τ. τείχους] Further particularized by the addition of διὰ θυρίδος, 2 Corinthians 11:33. Such windows in the walls of cities are common in the East: see Joshua 2:15, 1 Samuel 19:12; and an engraving of part of the present wall of Damascus in C. and H. i. p. 124.

σπυρίδι] σαργάνη, 2 Corinthians 11:33. See note there, and on Matthew 15:37.

Verse 26

καί] Not but: the δέ follows.

Verse 27

27.] It is very probable that Barnabas and Saul may have been personally known to each other in youth. ‘Cyprus is only a few hours’ sail from Cilicia. The schools of Tarsus may naturally have attracted one who, though a Levite, was a Hellenist: and there the friendship may have begun, which lasted through many vicissitudes, till it was rudely interrupted in the dispute at Antioch (ch. Acts 15:39).’ (C. and H., edn. 2, i. p. 127.)

τοὺς ἀποστ.] Only Peter, and James the Lord’s brother, Galatians 1:18-19. Probably there were no other Apostles there at the time: if there were, it is hardly conceivable that Saul should not have seen them. On his second visit, he saw John also (Galatians 2:9). Perhaps he never saw in the flesh any other of the Apostles after his conversion.

διηγήσατο] viz. Barnabas, not Saul.

Verse 29

Verse 30

εἰς καισάρειαν] From the whole cast of the sentence, the κατήγαγον and ἐξαπέστειλαν, we should infer this to be Cæsarea Stratonis [see on ch. Acts 10:1], even if this were not determined by the word καισάρεια used absolutely, which always applies to this city, and not to Cæsarea Philippi (which De Dieu, Olsh., and others believe to be meant [see Matthew 16:13 and note]). From Galatians 1:21, it would appear that Saul about this time traversed Syria (on his way to Tarsus?). If so, he probably went by sea to Selencia, and thence to Antioch. The ἐξαπέστειλαν looks more like a ‘sending off’ by sea, than a mere ‘sending forward’ by land.

εἰς ταρσόν] towards, ‘for,’ Tarsus. He was not idle there, but certainly preached the Gospel, and in all probability was the founder of the churches alluded to ch. Acts 15:23; Acts 15:41.

Verse 31

οἰκοδομουμένη] See Matthew 16:18. It probably refers to both external and internal strength and accession of grace. Paul commonly uses it of spiritual building up: see reff.

πορ. τῷ φόβ.] walking in the fear: for construction see reff.:—not ‘following after the fear’ (Winer, edn. 2, § 31. 1; not in edn. 6, see § 31. 9),—nor ‘walking according to the fear’ as their rule (Meyer),—nor ‘advancing in the fear’ (Beza, Wolf).

κ. τ. παρακλ. τ. ἁγ. πν. ἐπληθ.] And was multiplied (reff.) by the exhortation of (i.e. inspired by) the Holy Spirit. This is the only rendering which suits the usage of the words. Those of the Vulg. ‘consolatione replebantur,’—of Kuin., ‘adjumento abundabant,’ are unexampled, see reff.

Neither must τῇ παρακλ. be coupled with τῷ φόβῳ, as in E. V., and by Beza and Rosenmüller, which would leave οἰκοδομ. standing by itself, and render the sentence totally unlike Luke’s usual manner of writing.

Verse 32

πάντων may be neuter, ‘all parts:’ but it is probably masc. and ἁγίων understood. Wieseler (p. 145, note) doubts whether we can say διέρχεσθαι διὰ πάντων τ. ἁγίων,—but see reff. The καί makes the masc. more likely, as it presupposes some ἅγιοι in the mind of the writer before.

As I have implied on Acts 9:31, this journey of Peter’s is not necessarily consecutive on the events of Acts 9:1-30. But an alternative presents itself here; either it took place before the arrival of Saul in Jerusalem, or after his departure: for Peter was there during his visit (Galatians 1:18). It seems most likely that it was before his arrival. For (1) it is Luke’s manner in this first part of the Acts, where he is carrying on several histories together, to follow the one in hand as far as some resting-point, and then go back and take up another: see ch. Acts 8:2 thus taken up from ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, Acts 8:1; Acts 8:4 going back to the διασπαρέντες:—ch. Acts 9:1 taken up from Acts 8:3 to Acts 11:19, from Acts 8:4 again:—and (2) the journey of Peter to visit the churches which were now resting after the persecution would hardly be delayed so long as three whole years. So that it is most natural to place this section, viz. ch. Acts 9:32 to Acts 11:18 (for all this is continuous), before the visit of Saul to Jerusalem, and during his stay at Damascus or in Arabia. See further on Acts 11:19.

λύδδα] Lod, Nehemiah 7:37. A large village near Joppa (Acts 9:38), on the Mediterranean (Jos. Antt. xx. 6. 2, κώμην τινὰ λύδδαν λεγομ., πόλεως τὸ μέγεθος οὐκ ἀποδέουσαν), just one day’s journey from Jerusalem (Lightf., Cent. Chor. Matth. præm. cxvi.). It afterwards became the important town of Diospolis.

Verses 32-35

32–35.] HEALING OF ÆNEAS AT LYDDA BY PETER. This and the following miracle form the introduction to the very important portion of Peter’s history which follows in ch. 10,—by bringing him and his work before us again.

Verse 33

Verse 34

Verse 35

τὸν σάρωνα] Perhaps not a village, but (and the art. makes this probable) the celebrated plain of that name, extending along the coast from Cæsarea to Joppa, see Isaiah 33:9; Isaiah 35:2; Isaiah 65:10; Song of Solomon 2:1; 1 Chronicles 27:29; and Jerome on Isaiah 33, 65, vol. iv., pp. 436, 780.

Mariti (Travels, p. 350) mentions a village Saren between Lydda and Arsuf (see Joshua 12:18, marg. E. V.): but more recent travellers do not notice it. See Winer, Realw., where other places of the same name are mentioned.

Verse 36

ταβιθά] טְבִיתָא, in Aramaic, answering to צְבִי Heb., δορκάς (Æl. Hist. An. xiv. 14), a gazelle. It appears also in the Rabbinical books as a female name (Lightf.): the gazelle being in the East a favourite type of beauty. See Song of Solomon 2:9; Song of Solomon 2:17; Song of Solomon 4:5; Song of Solomon 7:3. Lightf. remarks, that she was probably a Hellenist, and thus was known by both names.

Verses 36-43