Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 2 Corinthians 11:32
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:
32. In Damascus ] Cf. Act 9:23-25.
the governor ] Literally, the Ethnarch (ruler of the nation the title of an Oriental provincial governor. See 1Ma 14:47 ; 1Ma 15:1 , &c.).
under Aretas the king ] Aretas (see Josephus’ Antiquities, xviii.) was the king of Arabia Petraea. His daughter had been divorced by Herod Antipas in order that he might marry Herodias, ‘his brother Philip’s wife’ (see Mat 14:3-5). This and some disputes about the frontier led to war being proclaimed, and a battle was fought (a. d. 36) in which Herod’s army was entirely destroyed. It is thought by some that Aretas profited by this circumstance to seize on Damascus, and that it was just at this juncture (a. d. 37) that St Paul returned to Damascus from his stay in Arabia. Others, however, place this event about the year 39, after Herod Antipas had been banished to Gaul, and think that Aretas, taken into favour by Caligula, had obtained Damascus, among the various changes which the new Emperor made in the arrangements of his eastern provinces. Aretas seems to have been a common name among the Arabs, like Ptolemy in Egypt, or Seleucus and Antiochus in Syria. Josephus mentions more than one. Cf. also 2Ma 5:8 .
kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison ] Literally, was guarding the city of the Damascenes.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
In Damascus – This circumstance is mentioned as an additional trial. It is evidently mentioned as an instance of peril which had escaped his recollection in the rapid account of his dangers enumerated in the previous verses. It is designed to show what imminent danger he was in, and how narrowly he escaped with his life. On the situation of Damascus, see the note, Act 9:2. The transaction here referred to is also related by Luke Act 9:24-25, though without mentioning the name of the king, or referring to the fact that the governor kept the city with a garrison.
The governor – Greek, ho ethnarches, The ethnarch; properly a ruler of the people, a prefect, a ruler, a chief. Who he was is unknown, though he was evidently some officer under the king. It is not improbable that he was a Jew, or at any rate he was one who could be influenced by the Jews, and he was doubtless excited by the Jews to guard the city, and if possible to take Paul as a malefactor. Luke informs us Act 9:23-24 that the Jews took counsel against Paul to kill him, and that they watched the gates night and day to effect their object. They doubtless represented Paul as an apostate, and as aiming to overthrow their religion. He had come with an important commission to Damascus and had failed to execute it; he had become the open friend of those whom he came to destroy; and they doubtless claimed of the civil authorities of Damascus that he should be given up and taken to Jerusalem for trial. It was not difficult, therefore, to secure the cooperation of the governor of the city in the case, and there is no improbability in the statement.
Under Aretas the king – There were three kings of this name who are particularly mentioned by ancient writers. The first is mentioned in 2 Macc. 5:8, as the king of the Arabians. He lived about 170 years before Christ, and of course could not be the one referred to here. The second is mentioned in Josephus, Antiquities 13, xv, section 2. He is first mentioned as having reigned in Coele-Syria, but as being called to the government of Damascus by those who dwelt there, on account of the hatred which they bore to Ptolemy Meneus. Whiston remarks in a note on Josephus, that this was the first king of the Arabians who took Damascus and reigned there, and that this name afterward became common to such Arabian kings as reigned at Damascus and at Petra; see Josephus, Antiquities 16, ix, section 4. Of course this king reigned some time before the transaction here referred to by Paul. A third king of this name, says Rosenmuller, is the one mentioned here. He was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. He made war with his son-in-law Herod because he had repudiated his daughter, the wife of Herod. This he had done in order to marry his brother Philips wife; see the note, Mat 14:3. On this account Aretas made war with Herod, and in order to resist him, Herod applied to Tiberius the Roman emperor for aid. Vitellius was sent by Tiberius to subdue Aretas, and to bring him dead or alive to Rome. But before Vitellius had embarked in the enterprise, Tiberius died, and thus Aretas was saved from ruin. It is supposed that in this state of things, when thus waging war with Herod, he made an incursion to Syria and seized upon Damascus, where he was reigning when Paul went there; or if not reigning there personally, he had appointed an ethnarch or governor who administered the affairs of the city in his place.
Kept the city … – Luke Act 9:24 says that they watched the gates day and night to kill him. This was probably the Jews. Meantime the ethnarch guarded the city, to prevent his escape. The Jews would have killed him at once; the ethnarch wished to apprehend him and bring him to trial. In either case Paul had much to fear, and he, therefore, embraced the only way of escape.
With a garrison – The word which is used here in the original ( phroureo) means simply to watch; to guard; to keep. Our translation would seem to imply that there was a body of people stationed in order to guard the city. The true idea is, that there were men who were appointed to guard the gates of the city and to keep watch lest he should escape them. Damascus was surrounded, as all ancient cities were, with high walls, and it did not occur to them that he could escape in any other way than by the gates.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 32. In Damascus the governor under Aretas] For a description of Damascus see the note on “Ac 9:2“. And for the transaction to which the apostle refers see Ac 9:23. As to King Aretas, there were three of this name. The first is mentioned 2 Maccab. v. 8. The second by Josephus, Antiq. l. xiii. c. 15, sec. 2; and l. xvi. c. 1, sec. 4. The third, who is the person supposed to be referred to here, was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, of whom see the notes, “Ac 9:23“, c.
But it is a question of some importance, How could Damascus, a city of Syria, be under the government of an Arabian king? It may be accounted for thus: Herod Antipas, who married the daughter of Aretas, divorced her, in order to marry Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. Aretas, on this indignity offered to his family, made war upon Herod. Herod applied to Tiberius for help, and the emperor sent Vitellius to reduce Aretas, and to bring him alive or dead to Rome. By some means or other Vitellius delayed his operations, and in the meantime Tiberius died and thus Aretas was snatched from ruin, Joseph., Antiq. lib. xviii. c. 5. What Aretas did in the interim is not known; but it is conjectured that he availed himself of the then favourable state of things, made an irruption into Syria, and seized on Damascus. See Rosenmuller; and see the introduction to this epistle, sec. ii.
The governor] . Who this ethnarch was, we cannot tell. The word ethnarch signifies the governor of a province, under a king or emperor.
Desirous to apprehend me] The enemies of the apostle might have represented him to the governor as a dangerous spy, employed by the Romans.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Luke hath shortly given us the history of this danger, Act 9:23-25. Soon after Paul was converted from the Jewish to the Christian religion, he, disputing with the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, confounded them by his arguments, proving Jesus was the Christ, as we read there, Act 9:21. This so enraged them, as that they sought to kill him, Act 9:23. And (as we learn from this text) to effect their design, they had by some acts or other brought over the governor to favour their design; which, governor was a substitute under Aretas the king, who was father-in-law to Herod; for (as Josephus tells us) Herod put away his wife, the daughter of this Aretas, when he took Herodias. The Jews had got this deputy heathen governor so much on their side, that he shut up the gates, keeping his soldiers in arms. But (as St. Luke tells us, Act 9:24) Paul coming to the knowledge of this design, though they watched the gates day and night, yet he found a way of escape by the help of those Christians, who at that time were in Damascus; Act 9:25; The disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. Two questions are started upon this passage of Pauls life:
1. Whether it was lawful for him to flee? But besides the particular licence our Lord, in this case, had given his first ministers, Mat 10:23, Paul did in this case no more than what divines make lawful for a more ordinary minister, viz. to flee, when the persecution was directed against him in particular, leaving sufficient supply behind him.
2. The second question raised is: Whether, it being against human laws to go over the walls of a city or garrison, Paul did not sin in this escape? But that is easily answered; for:
a) This was lawful in some cases.
b) Gods glory, and the good of souls, were more concerned in Pauls life, than to have it sacrificed to a punctilio of obedience to a human law made upon a mere politic consideration.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
32. governorGreek,“Ethnarch”: a Jewish officer to whom heathen rulers gaveauthority over Jews in large cities where they were numerous. He wasin this case under Aretas, king of Arabia. Damascus was in a Romanprovince. But at this time, A.D.38 or 39, three years after Paul’s conversion, A.D.36, Aretas, against whom the Emperor Tiberius as the ally of HerodAgrippa had sent an army under Vitellius, had got possession ofDamascus on the death of the emperor, and the consequent interruptionof Vitellius’ operations. His possession of it was put an end toimmediately after by the Romans [NEANDER].Rather, it was granted by Caligula (A.D.38) to Aretas, whose predecessors had possessed it. This is proved byour having no Damascus coins of Caligula or Claudius, though we dohave of their immediate imperial predecessors and successors[ALFORD].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king,…. Aretas or Al-Hareth was a king of Arabia, of the family of the Gassanii; among whom were many of this name r; and who for some hundreds of years ruled over Syria, of which Damascus was the metropolis. The fourth king of that family was of this name, and perhaps is the person here meant; and after him there were four more of the same family so called; it was a name of Arabian kings in other families. The fifteenth king of the Yamanensians was of this name, and so was the “seventeenth” of the Hirensians s, and the “third” of the kings of Cenda; in the times of Antiochus Epiphanes, there was an Aretas king of the Arabians, mentioned in the Apocrypha t.
“In the end therefore he had an unhappy return, being accused before Aretas the king of the Arabians, fleeing from city to city, pursued of all men, hated as a forsaker of the laws, and being had in abomination as an open enemy of his country and countrymen, he was cast out into Egypt.” (2 Maccabees 5:8)
Josephus u also makes mention of Aretas king of the Arabians, who seems to have been king of Arabia Petraea, since his royal seat was at Petra, to whom Hyrcanus fled by the advice of Antipater, the father of Herod the great; and there was also one of this name in the times of Herod himself, who succeeded Obodas w; yea, there was an Aretas king of Petraea, in the times of Herod the tetrarch, whose daughter Herod married, and put her away when he took Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, which occasioned a quarrel between him and Aretas, which issued in a battle, in which Herod was beaten x; and who is thought to be the same king which is here spoken of: the name Aretas or Al-Hareth, as Hillerus y, observes, signifies the lion; and a lion with the eastern nations was a symbol of royalty and dominion; hence such names were given to persons of illustrious birth and power; so Ali, the son-in-law of Mahomet, was called by the Arabs and Persians the lion of God: now Syria, where Damascus was, and which is called by Pliny z Damascus of Syria, had been of long time in the hands of the kings of Arabia; and a Josephus makes mention of Aretas, king of Coele Syria, who was called to the government by those who had Damascus in their hands; very probably by Milesius, who was governor of the tower of Damascus, and commanded
, “the city of the Damascenes”, as Josephus calls Damascus, just as it is here in the next clause; in which country of Coele Syria, Ptolomy b also places Damascus; and Grotius has proved from Justin Martyr c and Terlullian d, that Damascus formerly belonged to Arabia, though in their times it was reckoned to Syro Phoenicia: here the apostle preached to the confounding of the Jews that dwelt there, which provoked them to enter into a consultation to take away his life; and that he might not escape their hands, they moved to the then governor who was under the king, that the gates might be watched day and night; see Ac 9:23 to which he agreed; and as the apostle here says,
kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, or set a guard about it; or as the Arabic version reads it, “he shut up the city”; and placed a watch at the gates of it night and day, or allowed the Jews to do so:
desirous to apprehend me; in order to deliver him into their hands, who were now his sworn enemies for the Gospel’s sake; willing to do them this favour to ingratiate himself into their affections; or perhaps it might be insinuated to him, that he was a seditious person.
r Pocock. Specimen Hist. Arab. p. 76, 77, 78. s Pocock. ib. p. 58, 70, 79. t Vid. Joseph. Antiqu. l. 13. c. 13. sect. 3. u Antiqu. l. 14. c. 1. sect. 4. de Bello Jud. l. 1. c. 6. sect. 2. w Joseph. Antiqu. l. 16. c. 9. sect. 4. & c. 10. sect. 8, 9. x Ib. Antiqu. l. 18. c. 6. sect. 1. y Onomasticum Sacrum, p. 116, 748. z Nat. Hist. l. 36. c. 8. a Antiqu. l. 13. c. 15. sect. 1, 2. b Geograph. l. 5. c. 15. c Dialog. cum Tryphone Jud. p. 305. d Adv. Marcion. l. 3. c. 13.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The governor under Aretas ( H). How it came to pass that Damascus, ruled by the Romans after B.C. 65, came at this time to be under the rule of Aretas, fourth of the name, King of the Nabatheans (II Macc. 5:8), we do not know. There is an absence of Roman coins in Damascus from A.D. 34 to 62. It is suggested (Plummer) that Caligula, to mark his dislike for Antipas, gave Damascus to Aretas (enemy of Antipas).
Guarded (). Imperfect active of , old verb (from , a guard) to guard by posting sentries. In Ac 9:24 we read that the Jews kept watch to seize Paul, but there is no conflict as they cooperated with the guard set by Aretas at their request.
To seize (). Doric first aorist active infinitive of (Lu 6:38) for which see on Ac 3:7.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
The governor [] . Only here in the New Testament. A governor ruling in the name of a king : a prefect.
Aretas. Or Hareth, the father – in – law of Herod Antipas. Hs capital was the rock – city of Petra, the metropolis of Arabia Petraea. Herod ‘s unfaithfulness to his daughter brought on a quarrel, in which Herod ‘s army was defeated, to the great delight of the Jews. The further prosecution of the war by Roman troops was arrested by the death of Tiberius, and it is supposed that Caligula assigned Damascus as a free gift to Aretas.
Kept with a garrison [] . Imperfect tense, was maintaining a constant watch. Compare Act 9:24 : They watched the gates day and night.
To apprehend [] . See on Act 3:7.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king, (en Damasko ho ethnarches Areta tou Basileos) “In Damascus the governor (race ruler) under Aretas the king,” several Arabian chiefs or kings wore this name or title, Act 9:22-25.
2) “Kept the city of Damascenes with a garrison,” (ephrourei ten polin Damaskenon) “guarded the city of Damascus,” the idea is with a garrison of soldiers, officers to prosecute and arrest him.
3) “Desirous to apprehend me,” (piasai me) “to seize me,” with a desire to seize or apprehend me, even to kill me,” Act 9:23-24, incited by a council of Jews.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(32) In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king . . .The question meets us at the outset whether the fact that follows is brought in as being the first instance of suffering endured for the sake of Christ, and therefore the natural opening to what was intended to have been a long, connected narrative of all such sufferings, or as being connected in some special manner with his infirmities., On the whole, the evidenceespecially the context of 2Co. 11:30seems in favour of the latter view, as far, at least, as the selection of the incident is concerned. There was, we can well imagine, an element of the ludicroussomething that gave occasion to jests and sneersin the way in which the Apostles escape had been effected. There was, so to speak, something undignified in it. Those who mocked at the stunted growth and weakness of his bodily presence would find good matter for their mirth in this.
On the historical facts connected with this incident, see Notes on Act. 9:24-25. The additional details which we learn from St. Paul are(1) that Damascus was under the immediate control, not of the Governor of Syria, but of a governor or an ethnarch; (2) that the ethnarch was appointed, not by the Roman emperor, but by Aretas (the name was hereditary, and was the Greek form of the Arabic Haret), the King of the Nabathan Arabs, who had his capital at Petra, who was the father of the first wife of Herod Antipas (see Note on Mat. 14:1); (3) that the ethnarch lent himself to the enmity of the Jews, and stationed troops at each gate of the city to prevent St. Pauls escape. Ethnarch, it may be noted, was about this time the common title of a subordinate provincial governor. It had been borne by Judas Maccabus (1Ma. 14:47; 1Ma. 15:1-2) and by Archelaus (Jos. Wars, ii. 6, 3).
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
32, 33. Commentators are much puzzled to know why Paul gives this narrative just here. Its purpose is, as we think, to confirm the truth of the asseveration of 2Co 11:31, which asserts the solemn truth of 2Co 11:22-29. From the mass of his past endurances for Christ he selects, as specimen and proof of all the rest, one great notorious historical fact, occurring at the very commencement of his career a fair keynote to the whole. This occurred, indeed, in distant Damascus, and a good while ago. It is, however, narrated by Luke; was doubtless known at Jerusalem; and had a notoriety beyond challenge in Corinth. See note on 2Co 11:33.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
32. In Damascus The narrative in Act 9:23-25, (where see notes,) agrees with this, except that Luke specifies only the Jewish share of the plot against St. Paul.
Governor Ethnarch, or viceroy. See note to Mat 2:22.
With a garrison Probably an extemporized garrison of Jews.
Apprehend me Paul’s only crime as viewed by the Jews there, as with these Judaizers here in Corinth, was his embodying Gentiles into an uncircumcised Christianity. In a question of this kind the ethnarch could have felt no opposition to Paul; and the true solution of his hostility is probably furnished by Michaelis, (quoted by Meyer:) “Jewish gold probably accounts for the conduct of the emir.”
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me, and through a window was I let down in a basket by the wall, and escaped his hands.’
He finishes this aspect of his glorying with a personal example, which went back to his earliest days as a Christian. One which he never forgot. The letting down in a basket contrasts with being caught up to the third heaven (2Co 12:2) and with his spiritual destruction of fortresses (2Co 10:4-5). He knew what it was to have both the downs and the ups. Because of one governor (ethnarch), acting on a king’s behalf, he was lowered over a wall in a basket (the basket in question would have been a bag of braided rope, suitable for carrying hay, straw or bales of wool) through an aperture in the wall, a humiliating experience and in itself a reminder of his weakness. This underlined all he had said about afflictions and danger, and was in total contrast to 2Co 10:4 where the thought included that of scaling the walls, thus showing that he is outwardly weak, even if inwardly powerful. And it also contrasts with his being lifted up to the third heaven by another King. In the flesh he suffers humiliation and tribulation, in the Spirit he soars above all.
The governor or ethnarch ruled the city on behalf of Aretas, who was a Nabataean king. Or alternately he may have been ethnarch of the Nabataeans living in the city. Either way he was determined to prevent Paul leaving the city by watching the gates, resulting in his ignominious exit. No climbing of fortresses here. Only humiliation. But once again God’s power was revealed through weakness.
Note on Aretas.
The political status of Damascus at the time of Paul’s stay there is not certain. It is unclear whether it was under Roman rule, Nabataean rule under the Romans, or some kind of joint Roman-Nabataean rule. Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that the Greek term “ethnarch” (ethnarches) could refer to the governor of the city or to the ruler of a major ethnic group within the city. Josephus, for example, employed the term for rulers of peoples under foreign control (Jewish Antiquities 17:11:4; Jewish Wars 2:6.3), and Strabo tells of how an ethnarch was granted to the Jews in Alexandria because of their large numbers (17:798). A reasonable conjecture is that “ethnarch” refers to the leader of a semi-autonomous colony of Nabataeans in the city during the rule of Gaius (AD 37-41). But this was a time when the policy of client kingdoms on the eastern frontier was in force.
The king in question was Aretas IV Philopatris who was the last and most famous of the Nabataean kings under that name. He reigned in Petra from 9 BC to AD 40. Herod Antipas, who ruled the regions of Galilee and Perea, divorced Aretas’ daughter to marry Herodias, the wife of his half-brother Philip. Aretas naturally took this personally and bided his time until several years later, when he invaded Perea and was able to defeat Herod’s forces in AD 36. Rome was unhappy about this but their retaliation was forestalled by the death of the emperor Tiberius. Caligula favoured Aretas, It is thought that Aretas’ rule may well for a time have included Damascus, (although he need not have been there at the time mentioned). It would explain the ability of his ethnarch to guard the city (gates) continually (imperfect tense). The absence of Roman coinage there between AD 34 and 62 may hint at this but is not decisive.
Luke’s account of the same episode attributes Paul’s flight to “the Jews,” who were conspiring to kill him, and were keeping a close watch on the city gates (Act 9:23-25). Whether this was in cooperation with the authorities, or for the purpose of private vengeance we do not have sufficient information to know. Having obtained the cooperation of the authorities in order to arrest Paul they may well have wanted to ensure that he did not escape by themselves also watching the gates with a view to killing him.
End of Note.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
2Co 11:32-33 . Paul now actually begins his , and that by relating the peril and flight which took place at the very commencement of his work. Unfortunately, however (for how historically important for us would have been a further continuation of this tale of suffering!), yet upon the emergence of a proper feeling that the continuation of this glorying in suffering would not be in keeping with his apostolic position, he renounces the project, breaks off again at once after this first incident (2Co 12:1 ), and passes on to something far higher and more peculiar to the revelations made to him. The expositors, overlooking this breaking off (noted also by Hilgenfeld), have suggested many arbitrary explanations as to why Paul narrates this incident in particular (he had, in fact, been in much worse perils!), [348] and that with so solemn asseveration and at such length. Billroth, e.g. (comp. Flatt), says that he wished to direct attention to the first danger pre-eminently by way of evidence that everything said from 2Co 11:23 onward was true (2Co 11:31 ). In that case he would doubtless have written something like , or in such other way as to be so understood . Olshausen contents himself with the remark that Paul has only made a supplementary mention of the event as the first persecution; and Rckert even conjectures that it was by pure accident that Paul noted by way of supplement and treated in detail this story occurring to his recollection! Osiander thinks that he singled it out thus on account of its connection (?) in subject-matter and time with the following revelation, and, as it were, by way of further consecration of his official career. Comp. also Wieseler on Gal. p. 595, who likewise considers the narrative as simply a suitable historical introduction to the revelation that follows. But we do not see the purpose served by this detailed introduction, which, withal, as such, would have no independent object whatever, nor yet, again, the purpose served by the interruption in 2Co 12:1 . According to Hofmann, the mention of this means of rescue, of which he had made use, and which many a one with merely natural courage would on the score of honour not have consented to employ, is intended to imply a confession of his weakness . The idea of weakness, however, is not at all here the opposite of the natural courage of honour, but rather that of the passive undergoing of all the of Christ, the long chain of which, in Paul’s case, had its first link historically in that flight from Damascus. Calvin correctly names this flight the “tirocinium Pauli.”
] stands as an anacoluthon. When Paul wrote it, having already in view a further specification of place for an incident to follow, he had purposed to write, instead of the unsuitable , something else (such as ), but then left out of account the already written. It is a strange fancy to which Hofmann has recourse, that . . is meant to be a narrower conception than .
] prefect (Josephus, Antt. xiv. 7. 2; 1Ma 14:47 ; 1Ma 15:1 ; Strabo, xvii. p. 798; Lucian, Macrob. 17), an appellation of Oriental provincial governors. See in general, Joh. Gottlob Heyne, de ethnarcha Aretae , Witeb. 1755, p. 3 ff. The incident itself described is identical with that narrated in Act 9:24 f. No doubt in Acts the watching of the gates is ascribed to the Jews , and here, to the ethnarch ; but the reconciliation of the two narratives is itself very naturally effected through the assumption that the ethnarch caused the gates to be watched by the Jews themselves at their suggestion (comp. Heyne, l.c. p. 39). “Jewish gold had perhaps also some effect with the Emir,” Michaeli.
. ] namely, by occupying the gates so that Paul might not get out. Regarding the temporary dominion over Damascus held at that time by Aretas, the Arabian king, and father-in-law of Herod Antipas, see on Acts, Introd. 4, and observe that Paul would have had no reason for adding , if at the very time of the flight the Roman city had not been exceptionally (and temporarily) subject to Aretas a state of foreign rule for the time being, which was to be brought under the notice of the reader. Hofmann thinks that the chief of the Arabian inhabitants in the Roman city was meant; but with the less ground, since Paul was a Jew and had come from Jerusalem , and consequently would not have belonged at all to the jurisdiction of such a tribal chief (if there had been one). He went to Arabia (Gal 1:17 ) only in consequence of this inciden.
] by means of a little door (Plato, Pol. ii. p. 359 D; Lucian, Asin. 45). It was doubtless an opening high up in the city wall, closed, perhaps, with a lid or lattic.
] in a wickerwork , i.e. basket (Lucian, Lexiph . 6). Comp. Act 9:25 : .
On the description itself Theodoret rightly remarks: .
[348] Arbitrary explanations are already given by Chrysostom (comp. Bengel, Ewald, and others): because the incident was older and less known ; and by Pelagius: because in Damascus the Jews had stirred up etiam principes gentium against Paul.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
(32) In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me: (33) And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.
We have an account of this gracious deliverance of the Apostle out of the hands of his enemies; Act 9:23-25 . Paul’s history is not given to us in one continued relation, but in fragments in the word of God. We know that he, was in his way to Damascus when the Lord Jesus called to him from heaven. And his immediate preaching Christ, brought upon him the indignation of the Jews. But the many escapes Paul experienced, some of which are recorded in the preceding part of this chapter, may serve to teach us how this faithful servant of the Lord went about in his ministry, with his life always as in his hand. But how blessed to hear him say; as he did to the elders of the Church of Ephesus: None of those things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself, so that I may finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of the Lord Jesus, to testify the Gospel of the grace of God, Act 20:24 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
XVIII
SAUL FROM HIS CONVERSION TO HIS ORDINATION
See list of references below.
The theme of this section is the history of Saul from his conversion and call to the apostleship, up to his ordination as an apostle to the Gentiles; that is, it extends from Act 9 over certain parts of Acts up to chapter 13, but not all of the intervening chapters of Acts. The scriptures are Act 9:17-30 ; Act 11:25-30 ; Act 22:17-21 ; Gal 1:5-24 ; Act 15:23-41 ; 2Co 11:23-27 ; 2Co 11:32-33 ; 2Co 12:1-4 ; Act 26:20 , which you have to study very carefully in order to understand this section. The time covered by this period is at least nine years, probably ten years, of which we have very scanty history. We have to get a great part of our history from indirect references, and therefore it takes a vast deal of study to make a connected history of this period.
Two scriptures must here be reconciled, Act 9:19-26 and Gal 1:15-18 . The particular points conflicting are that Luke in Act 9 seems to say that immediately, or straightway, after his conversion Saul commenced to preach at Damascus, and the Galatian passage says that straightway after his conversion he went into Arabia and remained there a long time before he returned to Damascus. The precise question involved in the account is, Did Paul commence to preach “straightway” after his conversion, as Luke seems to represent it, or did he wait nearly three years after his conversion before he began to preach? Luke’s account in Act 9 seems on its face to be a continuous story from Damascus back to Jerusalem, without a note of time, except two expressions: “And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus,” and then a little lower down he uses the expression, “when many days were fulfilled.” Luke’s account says nothing about Saul’s leaving Damascus, his long absence and return there. In a very few words only he tells the story of three years. With his account only before us, we would naturally infer that Saul began to preach in Damascus “straightway” after his conversion, but we would also infer that this preaching was continuous there after he commenced, until he escaped for his life to go to Jerusalem. But the Galatian account shows that he left Damascus straightway after his conversion, went into Arabia, returned to Damascus, and then took up his ministry there, and, after three years, went to Jerusalem. This account places the whole of his Damascus ministry after his return there.
The issue, however, is not merely between Luke’s “straightway” and the Galatian “straightway,” though this is sharp, but so to insert the Galatian account in the Acts account as not to mar either one of the accounts, and yet to intelligently combine the two into one harmonious story. In Hackett on Acts, “American Commentary,” we find the argument and the arrangement supporting the view that Paul commenced to preach in Damascus before he went into Arabia, and in chapter II of Farrar’s Life of Paul we find the unanswerable argument showing that Paul did not commence to preach until after his return from Arabia, and that his whole ministry at Damascus was after that time, and then was continued until he escaped and went to Jerusalem.
The Hackett view, though the argument is strong and plausible in some directions, breaks down in adjustment of the accounts, marring both of them, and failing utterly in the combination to make one intelligent, harmonious story. The author, therefore, dissents strongly from the Hackett view and supports strongly that of Farrar. In other words, we put in several verses of the letter to the Galatians right after Act 9:19 .
Let us take Act 9 , commencing with Act 9:17 : “And Ananias departed, and entered into the house; and laying his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, who appeared unto thee in the way which thou earnest, hath sent me, that thou mayest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And straightway there fell from his eyes as it were scales, and he received his sight; and he arose and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. And he was certain days with the disciples that were at Damascus.” And Gal 1:15 reading right along: “But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood; neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.” All of that must follow Act 9:19 . Then we go back and read, beginning at Act 9:20 : “And straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus, that he is the Son of God,” that is, straightway after he returned from Arabia. Then read to Act 9:25 , and turn back to Gal 1:18 : “Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas.” Then go with Act 9:26 : “And when he was come to Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples.” The following is a harmony of these scriptures:
It is intensely important that you have this harmony of all these scriptures. You divide all of this into four parts just like the Broadus method in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I have in four parallel columns made the harmony complete in the passages mentioned, showing how far to read, and then taking up the one that supplies, so that one can read the entire story without a break. In column 1 of this harmony read Act 9:17-19 ; in column 2, Gal 1:15-17 ; returning to column 1 read Act 9:20-25 and 2Co 11:32-33 ; then in column 2, Gal 1:18 (except the last clause); then back to column I and read Act 9:26-27 ; in column 2, Gal 1:18 (last clause) and Gal 1:19-20 ; then back to column I, read Act 9:28-29 (except last clause); then in column 3 read Act 22:17-21 ; in column 1, Act 9:29 (last clause) to Act 9:31 ; in column 2, Gal 1:21-24 ; in column 4, Act 11:25-30 ; Act 12:25 . This is the harmonious story of Paul. Then read for purposes of investigation, Act 15:23-41 in order to get the information about his Cilician work, also read 2Co 11:23-27 to find out what part of the sufferings there enumerated took place in Cicilia. Then read 2Co 12:1-4 , as this pertains to Cilicia. Then read Act 26:20 and ask the question, When did he do this preaching in Judea, and was it during his Cilician tour? This gives all the scriptures. Carefully read it over in the order in which the scriptures are given. It makes the most perfect story that I have ever read. It does not mar any one of the four separate cases. It does combine into one harmonious story and gives us an excellent harmony of these scriptures.
The value of this harmony is very evident. This arrangement mars no one of the several accounts of the story, but does combine them into one harmonious story, and provides an explanation for Luke’s “certain days,” “many days,” the Galatian “three years,” Luke’s “straightway,” and the Galatian “straightway.”
With this harmony before us, we can see why Luke is so very brief on the account of Paul in Act 9 . His plan is to tell the story of the Jerusalem church up to the end of Act 12 . All matters apart from that are briefly noted, and only as they connect with Jerusalem, the center. But from Act 13 he makes Antioch the center, and we are told of his arrest, and later on he shifts back to Jerusalem, and then back to Rome, and thus winds up the history. Remember the centers: First center, Jerusalem; second center, Antioch; third center, Jerusalem, and fourth center, Rome.
Saul did not commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion because he had nothing to preach. He had not yet received the gospel. A man cannot by sudden wrench turn from propagating the Pharisee persecution to propagating the gospel of Jesus Christ. He must have the gospel first, and must receive it direct from the Lord. After you take up the New Testament passages showing how he received the gospel, you will see that he did not receive it while at Damascus. Indeed, we have the most positive proof that he did not receive it there.
But why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, and how long there? Being willing to accept Christ as his Saviour, he needs time for adjustment. He needs retirement. He needs, like every preacher needs after conversion, his preparation to preach and to know what to preach. He went into Arabia for this purpose, and, of course, Arabia here means the Sinaitic Peninsula, or Mount Sinai. Up to his conversion he had been preaching Moses and the law given on Mount Sinai. Now he goes into Arabia to Mount Sinai, the very place where God gave the law to Moses, to study the law and the gospel, and comes back to us, having received of the Lord the gospel as explained in Galatians.
There are some analogous cases. The other apostles had to have three years of preparation, and under the same teacher, Jesus. They would have done very poor preaching if they had started immediately after their conversion. Jesus kept them right there, and trained them for three years. Now Paul commences with the three years’ training, and he goes to Arabia and receives the three years’ preparation under the same teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ himself. He not only knows the facts of the gospel as we know them from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but as one that was there right at the time, and he gets it firsthand from the Lord Jesus Christ himself telling him all the important facts bearing upon the remaining of the incarnation of Jesus, where he came from in coming to the earth, how much he stooped, what the coming signified, of his death, his burial, his resurrection, his ascension. We get the harmony of the gospel by studying the books, but he did not get it as we do, but by direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ. He introduces a statement concerning the revelation that he received, and he is careful to tell the Corinthian church how that Christ died, was buried, and rose again in three days. It took three years and a half in the analogous cases of other apostles.
Elijah went into Arabia and into this very mountain when he was perplexed; and there came an earthquake, and God was not in the earthquake; and there came a fire, and God was not in the fire, but there came a still, small voice showing Elijah what he must do. Take the case of Moses when the revelation was made to him that he was to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Egyptians. God told him the methods and the means and sent him into the same Sinaitic Peninsula. He stayed there forty years in study and preparation, and then delivered Israel.
John the Baptist remained in the wilderness thirty years in order to preach six months. Neither did Jesus open his mouth to preach a sermon until after his baptism, and was led into the wilderness and tempted of the devil, and then came back and immediately commenced to preach. More hurtful mistakes are made by unprepared people taking hold of the Scriptures than in any other way. A certain colonel, when asked by a zealous young preacher, “Well, colonel, what do you think of my sermon,” answered, “Zealous, but weak.”
We have only to read Gal 4 to see the significance of Sinai and Jerusalem, which shows the revolutions which took place in his mind while he was in Arabia. If the apostle Paul had not gone into Arabia, but had been sent to Judea under the old covenant, which is Jerusalem, as Jerusalem now is, the Christian world would have been a Jewish sect. You have only to read to see how certain of the apostles clung to the forms and customs of the Jewish law and claimed that one could not be a Christian without becoming a Jew and being circumcised. What would have been the effect if God had not selected this great life and revealed to him the ministry of the gospel that had been rejected by the Jews and given to the Gentiles, so that foreigners and aliens might become citizens and saints? For a more elaborate discussion of this subject see the author’s sermon on the Arabian visit.
Just before the ministry at Damascus he went into Arabia and returned. He was in Arabia over two, perhaps three years. As he stayed about three years before he went back to Jerusalem, his ministry was not very long in Damascus. The record says, “straightway in the synagogues he proclaimed Jesus,” etc. What kind of sermons did they have? The Jews over at Damascus that were still holding to the Mosaic law could not yet understand this revolutionary preaching, and right there at Damascus, he received one of the five Jewish scourgings that are mentioned in 2 Corinthians, which gives a list of the number of times he received the forty stripes save one, and the number of times beaten with the Roman rods, and the number of times scourged with the Jewish scourge. Finding the scourging was not sufficient, they laid a plot against him. They conspired and set a watch at every gate all around the city to kill him. The walls at Damascus have houses built on them, as you can see to this day. They put him in a basket and from a window in the upper story they letrbim down by the wall. Aretas was king of Damascus at this time) and he stationed soldiers at every gate to keep watch, and while they were watching the gates, Paul escaped from the window in an upper story, as given in the thrilling account of 2Co 11:32-33 . Also Luke gives the account, saying that the brethren let him down in a basket by the wall. Now he being let down, started to Jerusalem. Three years have elapsed since he left there, a persecutor, and he returns now a preacher of the Lord Jesus Christ. That presents this connected account.
But why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter? Commentaries say he wanted to get information from Peter; Catholics say that Peter was Pope. Whatever he wanted to get, I think he derived nothing from Peter. When he came there they expressed distrust of him. If he had commenced to preach at Damascus “straightway” after his conversion, in three years’ time some notice would have gotten to Jerusalem, and there would not have been this distrust when he got there. Only one had heard of this change and his beginning to preach, and that was Barnabas, of the Jewish church. When Barnabas related Paul’s experience, they received him and he went in and out among them. But he was there only two weeks.
He commenced immediately to preach to the Grecians, and it stirred up the people as it did at Damascus, and they were so intensely stirred that they laid a plan to kill him. So he left, and there are two reasons for his leaving. When the brethren saw the Jews were about to kill him, they sent him to Caesarea and over to Tarsus. That is one of the reasons for his leaving. Paul gives an entirely different reason. He says, “And it came to pass when I was come again to Jerusalem, even while I prayed in the Temple, I was in a trance, and Jesus came unto me saying, Make haste and get thee quickly out of Jerusalem, for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me. Get thee far hence and preach to the Gentiles,” and he, therefore, went.
Here was the Cilician ministry, its sufferings and its revelations. He was over there five years, and some of the sufferings enumerated in 1 Corinthians II are bound to have occurred in that period; some of the shipwrecks, some of the scourges, some of these stonings. In 2Co 12 he says, “I knew a man in Christ, fourteen years ago,” so if you drop back fourteen years you find yourself there with Paul in Cilicia. In 2Co 12:1-4 we find the revelations that occurred there. One of the revelations there was that marvelous revelation that he received (2Co 12:4 ): “How that he was caught up into Paradise.” Here the question arises, Was it in this tour that he preached on the coasts of Judea? In Acts he seems to say that he preached at Damascus first and then at Jerusalem, and in Cilicia, and on the coasts of Judea. We have no history of his preaching on the Judean coasts beyond his statement, and if he did not preach on the coasts of Judea at that time, when do we find a period in his life before that where he could have preached on the Judean coasts? On his way to the Jerusalem conference. Therefore, he says, “While I was in Cilicia, and the five years I was at Tarsus, and just a little way from Tarsus on the Judean coasts.”
Let us consider the Antioch ministry. The record says Barnabas had gone to Tarsus in order to find Saul and bring him back with him, and that Barnabas and Saul preached a year at Antioch. A great many were brought into the church. It was the first time in the world where Jew and Gentile were in the same church together, socially, eating and drinking with each other. But Paul now makes his second visit to Jerusalem. The last of chapter II tells us that Agabus, one of the prophets, foretold a drought in Judea, and Paul and Barnabas took a collection over to them. Later, when Paul is making his last visit to Jerusalem, Agabus meets him and gives that remarkable prophecy which we find in Act 21 , about what would happen to Paul if he went to Jerusalem, he having received the revelation from the Holy Spirit. But the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived was awful. Herod, as we find in Act 12 , was persecuting the church, and had killed James and imprisoned Peter. Paul comes just at that time. On his return to Antioch he finds a new companion, Mark.
The Romanists place here Peter’s first visit to Rome. They take two passages of scripture, one Act 2 , where Peter visits all parts, and they say when he left Jerusalem this time he went to Rome, and got back to Jerusalem in time for that big council in Act 15 . So far as Bible history goes, there is not a bit of testimony that Peter ever saw Rome. I think he did, but we do not get it from the Bible.
Here arises another question, Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance to Saul on the way to Damascus, likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities? My opinion is that it did. He was never a strong man after that. His eyes always gave him trouble. Though the scales fell from his eyes, and he was not entirely blind, his eyes were weak, and he had to grope his way in walking. There are two pictures of Paul which greatly contrast his physical appearance. Raphael gives us a famous cartoon of Paul at Athens, and one of the most famous pictures of the great apostle. We find a copy of it in most Bible illustrations, certainly in any Roman Catholic Bible. Another picture is by the artist, Albrecht Durer. It is called a medallion, a carved picture, and it presents a little, ugly, weak, bald-headed, blear-eyed Jew. Durer’s picture is the one that fits Paul’s account of himself, and not Raphael’s.
I here commend, in addition to Conybeare and Howson’s Life of Paul and Farrar’s History , Lightfoot on Galatians.
QUESTIONS 1. What is the theme of this section?
2. What is the scriptures?
3. What is the time covered by this period?
4. What two scriptures must here be reconciled?
5. What is the problem here?
6. What is the Hackett view of it?
7. What is the real solution of it?
8. Show how the scriptures are made to fit this scheme.
9. How may we show the harmony of these scriptures?
10. What is the value of this harmony?
11. Why did not Saul commence preaching at Damascus immediately after his conversion?
12.Why did he go into Arabia, where in Arabia, & how long there?
13. What are the analogous cases cited?
14.What was the added value of this preparation to Saul?
15.What sermon commended in this connection & have you read it?
16. Describe the ministry at Damascus.
17. Why did he want to go to Jerusalem to see Peter?
18. Explain the distrust there & its bearing on preceding question.
19. How long was he there?
20. What of his ministry while there?
21. What two reasons for his leaving?
22. How long was the Cilician ministry, and what its sufferings and its revelations?
23. Was it in this tour that be preached on the coasts of Judea?
24. Describe the Antioch ministry, and how long was it?
25. What carried Paul on his second visit to Jerusalem, and when does Agabus again appear in this history?
26. What was the condition of Jerusalem when he arrived?
27. Where do the Romanists place Peter’s first visit to Rome?
28. On Paul’s return to Antioch, what new companion had he?
29. Did the shock of our Lord’s appearance, to Saul on the way to Damascus likely injure him physically in a permanent way, and permanently affect his sensibilities?
30. What two pictures of Paul greatly contrast his physical appearance, and which is most likely true to nature?
31. What special authority on this period, in addition to Conybeare and Howson, and Farrar’s History, commended?
Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible
32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:
Ver. 32. In Damascus ] The chief city of Syria, built (say some) in the place where the blood of Abel was spilt, and thence called Damesek, i.e. a bag of blood. Thither Paul marched with a bloody mind, but was miraculously converted, and so powerfully confounded his countrymen there, that they incensed the governor against him, to his great peril. That is the guise of godless persecutors, to attempt that against the truth by arms that they cannot effect by arguments. SeeAct 9:23-24Act 9:23-24 .
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
32, 33. ] On the fact , and historical difficulty , see note, Act 9:24 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
32. ] . followed by is pleonastic, but the pleonasm is common enough, especially when for any reason, our words are more than usually precise and formal.
] Prefect , or governor , stationed there by the Arabian king. The title appears to have been variously used. The High Priest Simon, as a vassal of Syria, is so named in reff. 1 Macc., and Jos. Antt. xiii. 6. 7. It was bestowed by Augustus on Archelaus after his father’s death, Jos. Antt. xvii. 11. 4; B. J. ii. 6. 3. The presidents of the seven districts into which Egypt was divided under the Romans, bore it (Strabo, xvii. 798): as did a petty prince of the Bosporus under Augustus (Lucian, Macrob. 17). Also the chief magistrates of the Jews living under their own laws in foreign states had this title (Jos. Antt. xiv. 7. 2; xiv. 8. 5. B. J. vii. 6. 3). But apparently it must here be taken in its wider sense, and not in this latter: for the mere chief magistrate of the Jews would not have had the power of guarding the city. Doubtless he was incited by the Jews, who would represent Paul as a malefactor.
, , Hesych [18] ; , , . Suidas (see Wetst.), = , Act 9:25 . Probably it is, as Stanley, a “rope-basket;” a net.
[18] Hesychius of Jerusalem, cent y . vi.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
2Co 11:32 . . . . .: in Damascus the ethnarch under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes, sc. ; by placing a watch at the gates, to take me; and through a window ( i.e. , an aperture in the city wall, or the window of a house overhanging the wall) was I let down in a basket ( is anything twisted, and so here probably a rope basket; is the word used in Act 9:25 ) by the wall, and escaped his hands . The incident took place on St. Paul’s return to Damascus from Arabia (Gal 1:17 ) and is narrated in Act 9:23-25 . The date of it is important in the chronology of the Apostle’s life. It could not have been before A.D. 34, for coins of Tiberius prove Damascus to have been under direct Roman administration in that year. Tiberius was unlikely to have handed Damascus over to Aretas (fourth of the name), the hereditary chief ( cf. 2Ma 5:8 ) of the Nabathan Arabs; for up to the close of the reign of Tiberius military operations were being carried on against Aretas by the legate of Syria. Hence Damascus was probably not ceded to Aretas until the reign of Caligula, and consequently this episode in St. Paul’s life cannot have taken place before the middle of A.D. 37. Instigated by the Jews (Act 9:23 ), the “ethnarch,” or provincial governor of Damascus under Aretas ( cf. 1Ma 14:47 ), laid a plan for the arrest of the Apostle which was frustrated by St. Paul’s escape in the manner described ( cf. Jos 2:15 , 1Sa 19:12 ).
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
governor. Greek. ethnarches. Only here. It means a prefect.
Aretas. The father-in-law of Herod Antipas. App-109,
kept . . . with a garrison = guarded. Greek. phroureo. Only here, Gal 1:3, Gal 1:23. Php 1:4, Php 1:7. 1Pe 1:5.
desirous = wishing. Greek. thelo. App-102, but the texts omit.
apprehend. Greek. piazo. See Joh 11:57. No doubt to please the Jews in Damascus. Compare Act 12:3; Act 24:27; Act 20:9.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
32, 33.] On the fact, and historical difficulty, see note, Act 9:24.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
2Co 11:32. .) Thus Simon the high priest is called, 1Ma 14:15.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
2Co 11:32
2Co 11:32
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:-From the mass of his past endurances for Christ, he selects as a specimen and proof of all the rest this great fact, occurring at the beginning of his Christian career-a fair note to the whole-to show his sufferings and deliverances as an apostle. [Paul saw enacted in Damascus a scene like some in which he had played a part in Jerusalem, but with his own part reversed. He experienced some of the ill-treatment which he had heaped upon others. From the account given by Luke (Act 9:23; Act 9:25), we learn that when he heard of their plot to kill him he hid himself; but his enemies, thinking that he would try to escape through one of the gates of the city, and that they would be sure of finding him, kept constant watch for him. This watching also became known to his friends, which shows that they too were on the watch, and they provided for him another mode of escape.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Damascus: 2Co 11:26, Act 9:24, Act 9:25
Aretas: This Aretas was an Arabian king, and the father-in-law of Herod Antipas, upon whom he made war in consequence of his having divorced his daughter. Herod applied to Tiberius for help, who sent Vitellius to reduce Aretas, and to bring him alive or dead to Rome. By some means or other Vitellius delayed his operations, and in the mean time Tiberius died; and it is probable that Aretas, who was thus snatched from ruin, availed himself of the favourable state of things, and seized on Damascus, which had belonged to his ancestors.
Reciprocal: Jdg 16:2 – compassed 1Sa 19:12 – let David 1Ch 18:13 – garrisons Psa 59:1 – when Jer 49:23 – Damascus Act 23:21 – for Gal 1:17 – returned
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2Co 11:32-33. Before closing this phase of his epistle, the apostle cites a specific instance of his afflictions that were imposed by his enemies. The significant thing about this case is that it was at the very start of his service for Christ. The account of it is in Act 9:23-25, where the Jews were so eager to seize the apostle that they watched the gates day and night.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
2Co 11:32. In Damascus the governor (Gr. ethnarch) under Aretas the kingof that division of Arabia which had Petra for its capital,guarded the city of the Damascenesshowing that though not within its natural boundaries, it had fallen into the hands of this king,in order to take meinstigated, no doubt, by the Jews, who would represent him as a disturber of the peace. Thus his weakness began at the very outset of his ministry, making himself feel what he had till then striven to do to others.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
The apostle concludes this chapter, containing a relation of his sufferings, with a remarkable deliverance which God gave him from danger and death, at the city of Damascus, soon after his conversion, of which mention is made, Act 9:24-25.
The Jews, whom he confuted and confounded with his arguments at Damascus, sought to kill him; to effect which, they had by some means or other, brought over Aretas, who was king, under the Roman emperor, at Damascus, and he engages with the Jews in persecuting the holy and innocent apostle. He shuts up the gates of the city, keeps his soldiers in arms, and uses all possible means to prevent the apostle’s escape.
But what saith the Psalmist? Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain, Psa 127:1 either to keep out those whom he will have in, or to keep in those whom he will have out. All the wall shall be an open gate to those whom Divine Providence will have to escape; as here to St. Paul, being let down over the wall by a rope in a basket. Neither was it any evidence of cowardice that the apostle now fled, nor in the least degree sinful; our Lord having given us a particular license in the case, saying, When they persecute you in one city, fly to another. Besides, the persecution now raised was directly levelled against the apostle in particular.
It was therefore piously done in the disciples, and prudently done in himself, to attend the means of his own preservation. As the husbandman doth not commit all his corn to the oven, but saves some for seed; so doth God in persecution. All are not martyrs; and none shall be so presently: they must first finish their course of obedience before they finish their course with joy.
Happy soul, that can say with this great and good man, I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith, I am ready to be offered up: henceforth is laid up for me a crown of glory, which fadeth not away. Amen.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Verse 32 Act 9:23-25 tells of this great danger Paul faced early in his career.
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
2Co 11:32-33. In Damascus, &c. As if he had said, I must be permitted to add one circumstance more to illustrate the dangers to which I was exposed, as soon as I engaged in the Christian cause, and the remarkable interposition of Divine Providence for my preservation: the governor under Aretas King of Arabia and Syria, of which Damascus was a chief city, willing to oblige the Jews, kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison That is, setting guards at all the gates, day and night; desirous, or, determining, to apprehend me And to deliver me to them. And in such a danger, where even the form of a trial was not to be expected, what could I do but flee? Through a window Therefore, of a house which stood on the city wall; I was let down in a basket With ropes; and escaped his hands The assistance of good men co-operating with the care of God. Now, who that considers and credits the above brief account, though of but a part of the labours and sufferings which the apostle voluntarily sustained, that he might testify to mankind the gospel of the grace of God, can for a moment question his certain knowledge of the truth and importance of that gospel; especially as he neither reaped, nor could expect to reap, any worldly benefit whatever from preaching it? Did he do and suffer all these things to spread a doctrine which, for any thing he knew to the contrary, might be false; or if true, was not important to the salvation of the human race? Surely no man can suppose it, without first supposing that the apostle was destitute of common sense. Consider this, reader, and remember, at the same time, how the Lord sanctioned and confirmed his testimony, by signs and wonders, and divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will, and then think how thou shalt escape if thou reject or neglect such a gospel, or the great salvation revealed in and by it.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king guarded the city of the Damascenes in order to take me:
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Verse 32
In Damascus, &c. The apostle here mentions a case of imminent danger that he had incurred, which had been omitted in the 2 Corinthians 11:24-27.–Kept the city–with a garrison; guarded the gates with armed men. This was done at the instigation of the. Jews, as would appear from the account of Luke. (Acts 9:24,25.)
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
Perhaps Paul mentioned the final experience he cited because it was his first experience of suffering for the gospel. It provided a pattern for Paul’s life that continued. Paul’s critics may have charged him with cowardice in his escape from Damascus, though there is no basis for this revealed in the text. That may be an additional reason he mentioned it, though I doubt it. It may also have been that it would have reminded his readers of his supernatural call and appointment as an apostle on the Damascus road. It was undoubtedly a humbling memory for Paul too. This specific example of danger increases the emotional intensity of Paul’s litany of sufferings in the reader.
Aretas IV was the father-in-law of Herod Antipas. He lived in Petra and ruled the kingdom of Nabatea (called Arabia in Gal 1:17) between 9 B.C. and A.D. 40. Damascus at the time of Paul’s conversion may have been under Nabatean rule. [Note: Hughes, p. 425.] Alternatively it was under Roman rule, and a colony of Nabateans controlled it. [Note: Bruce, pp. 244-45.] A third possibility is that Aretas ruled the Nabatean population of Damascus. [Note: Keener, p. 236.] The historical evidence is incomplete. Aretas evidently wanted to arrest Paul because the apostle began evangelizing in that region immediately after his conversion (cf. Act 9:20; Gal 1:17; Gal 1:22-23). His activity antagonized the Jews living in the area who obtained official support for their opposition to Paul (cf. Acts 9 23-25). Aretas himself may have been a Jew. [Note: Hughes, p. 425.]
In many of his examples Paul presented himself as one who did not fit the pattern of "successful" ministers of the gospel. Like the Corinthians, we modern Christians tend to evaluate a person’s success on the basis of the standards of the world. Rather than playing down the events in his ministry that made him look inferior, Paul emphasized them because they glorified God’s remarkably sufficient grace. In view of all Paul’s calamities there is no way he could have been so effective unless God was with Him.