The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9)
The Conversion of Saul (Acts 9)
In Acts 9:1-30 we have the account of Saul’s conversion and of his first preaching among the Jews. In Acts 9:31-43 we have the last account of the state of the Jewish churches. Acts 10:1-18 provides the account of the first fruits of the Gentiles—Cornelius and his household. There is an obvious design in the order in which these events occurred and in which they are narrated. The time was drawing near when the Gentiles should be admitted, an apostle was raised up to preach to them. He was a Jew and his conversion is given as a part of the history of the Jewish Church, but it is an immediate preparation for the extension of Christ’s Church.
Before arriving at that point however, we have to take our farewell of the Jewish Churches (i.e. the churches of the circumcision—in Judaea and Samaria). The prospect is cheering. Internally, there is the picture of unanimity and trust in God, externally they enjoy peace (cf. Acts 9:31—‘the church had rest’). Internally there is the greatest faith and hope and the most godly practice (vs. 26). And the power of the church is exhibited by miracles wrought for others, besides members of the church (Aeneas as well as Dorcas). The scene closes with the crowning miracle of apostolic agency—the raising of the dead to life. This was a fit culmination for the history of the churches of the circumcision. Wherever we come in contact with the churches in Jerusalem and Judaea again, it is in reference to the Gentile heathens, not in regard to its own internal history. With the conversion of Cornelius, we make, as it were, a fresh start.
Vs. 1 ἔτι looks back to Acts 8:3.
ἐμπνέων seems to mean to ‘inhale,’ ‘breathe,’ ‘draw in breath,’ but not ‘to breath upon’ hence: 1) to inspire, 2) to breathe. Live. American English translation, ‘breathing out’ thus seems wide of the mark, though ‘breathing’ would be better. Comp. Ps 17:16: ἀπὸ ἐμπνεύσεως πνεύματος ὀργῆς σου ‘from the breathing of the spirit of wrath’ cf. Ps.; John 20:22. Meyer is wrong here about this verb, Josh 10:40 does not support him. The preposition of course has some meaning, but not that which Meyer assigns to it. Josh 10–11 some seven times including absolutely ‘everything that hath breath.’ Comp. Arist. Ran. 341, Theocr. xxix.20 (cf. Kühner II p. 307). The word is not found elsewhere in the New Testament.
ἀπειλῆς No ordinary sort of speech, it seems to carry with it the idea of an ardor, not simply the idea of ‘communication’?
τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ Caiaphas if before A.D. 37. Thereafter displaced by the son of Annas (Josephus Ant. xviii.4.3), who in turn was succeeded by his own brother Theophilus by Pentecost 37 (Ant. xviii.5.3). He was high priest from 37–41. See Alford. γένους ἀρχιερατικοῦ (Acts 4:6 explained by Josephus Ant xx.9.1—that he had five sons who were high priests).
Vs. 2 ἐπιστολάς comp. Acts 28:21; 2 Cor 3:1. cf. Is 18:1-2 and Lightfoot, Gal. p. 93 5th ed.
εἰς Δαμασκὸν πρὸς τὰς συναγωγάς and cf. vs. 20; Josephus Bell. Jud. ii.20.2, xix.9.23 speaking of the Jews in Damascus. Comp. 24: 22, 14. On traditional sites comp. Lewin I, p. 49.
τῆς ὁδοῦ John 14:5, 6. So John 10:9: ‘I am the door.’ On the demand made to James comp. Hegisippus (in Eusebius H.E. ii.23). Just as in Acts 1 we have an allusion to the promise of the Comforter, so here to the Johannine notion of Jesus as the door.
Vs. 3 φῶς It was midday Acts 22:6; 26:13. This is presented as fact. There would be no illusion. See Alford.
Vs. 4 φωνὴν In Hebrew [in] Acts 26:14, probably means Aramaic comp. Acts 21:40; 20:2.
Here ‘a light shone about him’ and ‘he fell to the earth and heard a voice saying . . . ’
Those with him however had a different experience—οἱ δὲ ἄνδρες οἱ συνοδεύοντες αὐτῷ εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί, ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, μηδένα δὲ θεωροῦντες (vs. 7).
Vs. 5 Interpolations reflect harmonizing tendency. κύριος εἶπεν from Acts 26:15, ὁ Ναζωραῖος from Acts 22:8. See different manuscript authorities. The readings vary considerably, words having been inserted and altered from the two accounts of the same event from later in Acts, just as we find the text of the Gospel parallels corrupted from the same cause. Erasmus handled them on the basis of the Latin. On the Graeco codicils see Tregelles, Printed Text, p. 23.
Examples:
κύριος εἴπεν in the Textus Receptus but should be omitted.
σκληρόν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν found in the Textus Receptus should be omitted. It is very poorly supported and brought in from Acts 22 and Acts 26.
Points of difference in the three narratives:
1) the sight—‘They’ saw only the light, he also saw the person. Acts 22:9—τὸ μὲν φῶς ἐθεάσαντο; Acts 26:13—περιλάμψαν με φῶς καὶ τοὺς σὺν ἐμοὶ πορευομένους.
2) the sound—‘They’ only heard the sound, he heard the articulate speech comp. John 12:28-29 which is exactly parallel. On φωνή see Rev 24:2; 19:6. φωνή as voice only, λόγος as intelligible speech. See Ignatius, Rom. The accusative is a little more direct than the genitive but no stress can be laid on the change of case. See Kuh. Vol. II p. 309sq.
3) the attitude of the bystanders—Here in Acts 9:7—εἱστήκεισαν ἐνεοί—stood speechless, i.e. are arrested in the moment, all fell to the ground—the after effects πάντων τε καταπεσόντων ἡμῶν, Acts 26:14.
4) the commission—Acts 26:16-18, given at the time of the event. Either: a) it was repeated or b) the account in Acts 26 is comprehensive.
Now the evidential value of these differences is that they suggest: 1) the material is obtained from different documents, and 2) the recorder is trustworthy.
On the apparent discrepancies between the three accounts of the conversion see Baumgar. Vol. I p. 216sq.
St. Paul’s Account of the Conversion
1) An interactive objective appearance—1 Cor 9:1; 15:8 cf. Gal 1:1. 2 Cor 12:2 refers to something rather different as the date shows—πρὸ ἐτῶν δεκατεσσάρων (if 2 Cor written in A.D. 58 then this event is in A.D. 45 or 46).
2) No preparation implied—Gal 1:11. A ‘miracle’ Apostle from a reaction to the lightning flash. Vs. 5 τίς εἰ κύριε, translated συ—see John 4:11, 15, 19; Acts 16:30, but elsewhere in the Acts συ = ἄνδρες Acts 7:26, and in the shipwreck story Acts 27:10, 21, 25.
3) Not at the point recognizing who it is, though recognizing it is a person. Indeed the question implies an uncertainty if not an ignorance. Vs. 10—μαθητὴς, Acts 22:12 he is designated a εὐλαβὴς κατὰ τὸν νόμον. This placed him as a mediator between Saul and his countrymen.
Vs. 6 σκληρόν σοι from Acts 26:14 and a bit modified from Acts 22:10.
Vs. 8 αὐτοῦ οὐδὲν ἔβλεπεν as one who could not see, in a state of blindness.
Vs. 10 See Alford’s note on Ananias and C+H I, pp. 102, 115 in second edition.
Vs. 11 ἀναστάς or ἀνάστα
Εὐθεῖαν See Conybeare and Howson I, p. 113; Lewin, St. Paul, I pp. 53, 69 and the map, Sultan’s or Queen St. Traditional house of Judas, Stanley, Palestine, p. 109, street of the bazaar. See Rob. Palestine, p. 455, various names, reported remains of a colonnade.
Vs. 12 This exactly corresponds to the double miracle involving Peter and Cornelius—Acts 10:3, 10.
Vs. 14 and Acts 9:21; 22:30 ἀρχιερέως; cf. Acts 26:16. See my ‘Internal Evidence of St. John’ p. 53.
Vs. 15 σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς, i.e. by the will of God to use his own familiar phrase. In the Gospel Mt 22:14 ἐκλεκτος, Mt 24:22, 24, 31 and so also in St. Mark and St. Luke. This may be suggested in the expression in Rom 9:21sq. But in St. Peter 1 Pet 1:1; 2 Pet 1:10 ἐκλεκτός and ἐκλογή respectively and so St. Paul. Col 3:12; 1 Thess 1:4; Rom 9:20. It denotes God’s gracious purpose, but does not necessarily imply God selects.
υἱῶν τε Ἰσραήλ This was not his special commission, therefore it is added.
Vs. 18 ὡσεὶ λεπίδες comp. Tobit 11:13. On the use of ὡσεί comp. Luke 22:44; Acts 3:24. An analogy is involved, but something tactile. See also Acts 9:8 above.
Vs. 20 εὐθέως κ.τ.λ. comp. Acts 26:20. For ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ = ὁ χριστός see Acts 9:22 below. Comp. Mt 16:16; 26:63; Luke 4:41 on the connecting of the two titles and Luke 22:6; comp. John 1:34; 10:35; 11:27; 20:31.
τὸν Ἰησοῦν with the best manuscripts as the sense requires.
Vs. 21 ὁ πορθήσας He adopts the expression himself in Gal 1:13, but the author of Acts had evidently not seen the Epistle to the Galatians. Comp. Acts 8:3—ἐλυμαίνετο Paley compares 1 Kings 2:38.
ἐληλύθει ‘had come’ ‘was come.’ v. l. ἐληλύθεν not so good.
Vs. 22 συμβιβάζων to make to go together, to put together, reconcile, conclude.
Here we must find a place for the journey to Arabia (Gal 1:17).
Vs. 23 ἡμέραι ἱκαναί He went to Arabia. What Arabia? See Lightfoot, Gal. p. 89, Lewin, I. p. 55sq. Contrast S.R. III, p. 207. His account falls to the ground if it is remembered: 1) I nowhere said that St. Luke was aware of this visit to Arabia but suggested the contrary; and 2) ἡμέραι ἱκαναί can mean after a considerable period of time, but is it a phrase of sufficient latitude to allow for the journey? We do not know how long St. Paul stayed in Arabia. What we know is that the whole period from the conversion to the trip to Jerusalem was three years. The visit to Arabia was probably unknown to St. Luke, he passes it over as he does St. Paul’s second visit to Corinth (during the stay at Ephesus). If we consider the region meant by ‘Arabia’ this will not seem improbable. See C+H vol I, p. 104. It is our common, modern imprecision in using the word ‘Arabia’ that causes the difficulty.
It would have been more to the point if S.R. had compared closely the account in Galatians. I perceive that S.R. overlooked the rest of the note. On the relationship between Damascus and Arabia see Justin Mart. Dial. with Trypho 305A, yet see Stanley, p. 50.
Vs. 24 καὶ τὰς πύλας is the right reading.
Vs. 25 The incident alluded to in 2 Cor 11:32-33. διὰ τοῦ τείχους here but in 2 Cor 11:33 διὰ θυρίδος. Joshua 2:15; 1 Sam 19:12.
Here ἐν σπυρίδι but in 2 Cor 11:33 ἐν σαργάνῃ. The latter was used especially for fish. σπυρίς is used similarly, especially of fish baskets. σπυρίς, κοφίνος (Mt 16:9-10; Mark 8:19-20) an ordinary loose weave basket of the country.
The reference in 2 Cor 11:32-33 supports several considerations: 1) the motive of the allusion there, the apparent incongruity. The notice, the degradation, the weakness being smuggled away in a basket; 2) the historical circumstances. Difficulties regarding the incident, connected more with the statement in 2 Corinthians than with the account in Acts. Recent discoveries and investigations of inscriptions have shed some light on the subject. Firstly Aretas and Malchus seem to alternate as names of kings of Nabatea. For an earlier Aretas reference see 2 Macc 5:8. Corpus Inscriptiones evidence discussed in de Vogue and Waddington, in Recovery of Palestine, p. 110 sq.; de Vogue Revue d’ Archaeolog. Avril 1864, p. 288. The evidence shows that the dominion of Aretas stretched to the neighborhood of Damascus. Much of the data however dates to the time of the Roman conquest of A.D. 165 under Trajan. There is an Aretas coin with its own dating of 101, but this seems to be equivalent to 37/38 (end of Pilate’s reign) or 52/53 Caesarean era. It has Aretas, Philodemus (Oneas) but how is this particular one connected to Damascus? Josephus, Ant. xviii.5.1 says Aretas is the father in law to Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. Herod repudiates his wife for Herodias. There is thus a quarrel between Aretas and Antipas about boundaries, and Antipas is entirely defeated. Tiberius, a friend of Antipas, orders Vitellius to attack Aretas, expedition sets out to Petra, but halts at Jerusalem. News comes of Tiberius’ death (March A.D. 37) and Vitellius’ campaign is stopped, Vitellius returns to Antioch. We also learn he had a grudge against Antipas (Ant. xviii.4.5) and wanted his opportunity to avenge himself. This all occurred therefore shortly before the time [referred to in Acts and 2 Corinthians] of which we are speaking. In former times, Damascus had belonged to the Nabatean kings (Ant. xiii.15.2). But for some time before this Damascus had been a free municipality under the Roman governor of Syria. See Boeckh., III, p. 183sq.; Lewin, I, p. 67. But now there are two more important facts: 1) Caesar (A.D. 38) makes a new redistribution of the Eastern provinces in these parts; 2) the heads of Augustus, Tiberius, and Nero and his successors are on the coins of Damascus, BUT not those of Gaius and Claudius (see Eckhel, Numis. III, p. 330; Duoment V, p. 285sq.). Therefore, it seems that Gaius restored to Aretas the city of Damascus that had belonged to his predecessors. This solution is more probable than a temporary seizure of the city by Aretas. The idea of an ethnarch is of one appointed by a foreign emperor to rule over his own country (Lucian, Mae. 17), see Josephus Ant. xiv.7.2, cf. the edict of Claudius to the Alexandrians (Ant. xix.5.2) cf. Strabo xvii.1.13, Origen Epistl. To Alex. 14, 1 Macc 14:4. In any case, St. Paul as a Jew would be under the Jewish ethnarch. On the comparison with Acts 22:17sq. see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 125.
Vs. 26 On comparison with the narrative in Galatians, see Lightfoot, Gal. p. 91.
Vs. 27 Βαρναβᾶς is the primary person of interest cf. Acts 11:22, 30; 13:2. Coincident with the change of the name Σαῦλος δὲ ὁ καὶ Παυλος (Acts 13:9) is the reversal of this practice. Immediately after 13:9 we hear in Acts 13:13 οἱ περὶ Παῦλον and where the two are again mentioned together (Acts 13:43) and thenceforth it is Paul and Barnabas (the exception for an exceptional reason being Acts 14:12, 15). Note the truthfulness of this and the impossibility of creating such a natural effect in an artificial narrative. See C+H vol. I, p. 113.
πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους See Gal 1:18.
αὐτὸν probably with ἐπιλαβόμενος. The same ambiguity as in Acts 16:19 (see references in Shep. Hermas s.v. p. 1668 and Winer no. 37, p. 252; also Moulton), but in Luke 23:26 Σίμωνα is undoubtedly the reference there with no ambiguity of construction.
πρὸς τοὺς ἀποστόλους—i.e. Cephas. Gal 1:19 does not necessarily imply James was an apostle at all, still less that he was one of the Twelve, but see Gal 1:17.
Vs. 28 εἰς Ἰερουσαλήμ connected with the former verb. On the various spellings of the city name see my note at Gal 4:26 and my excursus in Galatians p. 92. This stay of St. Paul’s was only fifteen days duration (Gal 1:19).
Vs. 29 Ἑλληνιστάς He takes up the work of Stephen Acts 6:8. Some few read Ἑλληνάς but the preferred reading is obviously correct. The internal and external evidence are at one. On the term for the land, see Acts 11:20 where Ἑλληνάς is correct.
Vs. 30 For ἐπιγνόντες δὲ κ.τ.λ. comp. Acts 22:17sq. and see my Galatians, p. 124. See also my notes on Gal 1:20-21. Vs. 21 there says ἔπειτα ἦλθον εἰς τὰ κλίματα τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας. He appears to have visited Syria on the way to Tarsus in Cilicia. Probably he would take a ship at Caesarea (Maritima is meant here), and sail to Seleucia and then go on to Antioch (see however C+H I, p. 115). This hurried departure accounts for the fact narrated in Gal 1:22-23—ἤμην δὲ ἀγνοούμενος τῷ προσώπῳ ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῆς Ἰουδαίας ταῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, μόνον δὲ ἀκούοντες ἦσαν . . . i.e. out of Jerusalem as he was obliged to very rapidly leave Judaea and go to Caesarea.
κατήγαγον comp. κατελθεῖν Acts 12:19; 25:6, but in Acts 27:22 κατελθεῖν is of the sea voyage. Thus it can mean down from the mountain country (e.g 12:19) or down from the high seas (as in 27:22). And conversely ἀνέβη in Acts 25:1, ‘to go up.’ A direct revelation from God (see Acts 27:17-21) effected what personal fear alone could not do and he left Jerusalem.
The Churches of Judaea—Final Prospects
THE SECTION Acts 9:30–11:19: 1) the last picture of the Jewish churches (Acts 9:31-43) and 2) Acts 10:1–11:18 the conversion of Cornelius and the principle of extension is established. This ends with ἄρα καὶ τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὁ θεὸς (Acts 11:18). Thus the principle having been sanctioned by divine action and acquiesced to by the eldest of the apostles, the way is clear for the missionary work of St. Paul. The critical part of the narrative has now arrived. To Acts 11:19 we must compare Acts 8:4. The widening of the mission [begun by Stephen, then Peter].
Vs. 31 The inner life, and vss. 32-43 and the direct mission to the Jews.
καθ’ ὅλης On the construction see Winer, p. 457, with a notion of ‘covering the whole . . .’ (see Alford).
Vs. 32 διὰ πάντων κατελθεῖν with the neuter. It is perhaps not absolutely impossible on grammatical grounds that the phrase διὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων might stand but the simple phrase διὰ πάντων with the neuter is much more unusual.
Vs. 34 Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός The article here seems to imply that Aeneas was not one of the saints (Alford strongly makes this point and draws that conclusion). We may add the apparent intended opposition in vs. 36. Ἐν Ἰόππῃ δέ τις ἦν μαθήτρια.
Vs. 35 τὸν Σαρῶνα See Stanley, p. 255, 499 on the definite article.
Vs. 36 Δορκάς = צְבִי
Vs. 37 ἐν ὑπερῴῳ Not as Alford has it.
Vs. 43 παρά τινι Σίμωνι βυρσεῖ