Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 9:19

And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

19. and when he had received [taken] meat, &c.] Needed after his three days fast, but (says Calvin) “he refreshed not his body with meat until his soul had received strength.”

Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus ] The word Saul is not found in the oldest MSS. Read “And he was, &c.” The expression rendered “certain days” is the same which in Act 10:48, Act 15:36, Act 16:12, Act 24:24, and Act 25:13 is used by St Luke, and in all cases the time indicated by them must have been brief. It was for this amount of time that Peter tarried with Cornelius, the words are applied to a short period spent by Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, to the time of St Paul’s stay at Philippi, to the short time which Paul was detained at Csarea before his hearing by Felix, and to a like period between the arrival of Festus and the visit which Agrippa made to salute him as the new Governor. In most of these instances the time intended must have been very brief, and it is important to notice this here, because in Act 9:23 we shall find another expression which is translated “many days” and seems designed by the writer to indicate a somewhat longer period. It is clear, from the way in which “disciples” are here mentioned, that there was a numerous body of Christians in Damascus at this early period. Saul dwelt with them now not as an enemy but as a brother, by which name Ananias had been directed to greet him.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Had received meat – Food. The word meat has undergone a change since our translation was made. It then meant, as the original does, food of all kinds.

With the disciples – With Christians, compare Act 2:42.

Order? certain days with the disciples? – Certain days: How long is not known. It was long enough, however, to preach the gospel, Act 9:22; Act 26:20. It might have been for some months, as he did not go to Jerusalem under three years from that time. He remained some time at Damascus, and then went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus, and then went to Jerusalem, Gal 1:17. This visit to Arabia Luke has omitted, but there is no contradiction. He does not affirm that he did not go to Arabia.

We have now passed through the account of one of the most remarkable conversions to Christianity that has ever occurred that of the apostle Paul. His conversion has always been justly considered as a strong proof of the Christian religion. Because:

(1) This change could not have occurred by any lack of fair prospects of honor. He was distinguished already as a Jew. He had had the best opportunities for education that the nation afforded. He had every prospect of rising to distinction and office.

(2) It could not have been produced by any prospect of wealth or fame by becoming a Christian. Christians were poor; and to be a Christian then was to be exposed to contempt, to persecution, and to death. Saul had no reason to suppose that he would escape the common lot of Christians.

(3) He was as firmly opposed to Christianity before his conversion as possible. He had already distinguished himself for his hostility. Infidels often say that Christians are prejudiced in favor of their religion. But here was a man, at first a bitter infidel, and a deadly foe to Christianity. All the prejudices of his education, all his prospects, all his former views and feelings, were opposed to the gospel of Christ. He became, however, one of its most firm advocates and friends, and it is for infidels to account for this change. There must have been some cause, some motive for it; and is there anything more rational than the supposition that Saul was convinced in a most striking and wonderful manner of the truth of Christianity?

(4) His subsequent life showed that the change was sincere and real. He encountered danger and persecution to evince his attachment to Christ; he went from land to land, and exposed himself to every peril and every form of obloquy and scorn, always rejoicing that he was a Christian, and was permitted to suffer as a Christian, and has thus given the highest proofs of his sincerity. If such sufferings and such a life were not evidences of sincerity, then it would be impossible to fix on any circumstances of a mans life that would furnish proof that he was not a deceiver.

(5) If Paul was sincere; if his conversion was genuine, the Christian religion is true. Nothing else but a religion from heaven could produce this change. There is here, therefore, the independent testimony of a man who was once a persecutor; converted in a wonderful manner; his whole life, views, and feelings revolutionized, and all his subsequent career evincing the sincerity of his feelings and the reality of the change. He is just such a witness as infidels ought to be satisfied with; a man once an enemy; a man whose testimony cannot be impeached; a man who had no interested motives, and who was willing to stand forth anywhere, and avow his change of feeling and purpose. We adduce him as such a witness; and infidels are bound to dispose of his testimony, or to embrace the religion which he embraced.

(6) The example of Saul does not stand alone. Hundreds and thousands of enemies; persecutors, and slanderers have been changed, and every such one becomes a living witness of the power and truth of the Christian religion. The scoffer becomes reverent; the profane man learns to speak the praise of God; the sullen, bitter foe of Christ becomes his friend, and lives and dies under the influence of his religion. Could better proof be asked that this religion is from God?

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

Act 9:19-20

Then was Saul certain days with the disciples And straightway he preached Christ.

The society of the good

I. The tendency to Christian intercourse is generated by the love of Christ. The love of Jesus in the heart is the magnet. Dr. Doddridge asked his little daughter how it was that everybody loved her. She answered, I know not, unless it is that I love everybody. It is a great task to reconcile sinners to each other. We love the brethren because He loves us all.

II. Christian social intercourse preserves the best associations. The tabernacle of Moses, the harp of David, the cross of Jesus, the faith of Abraham, the experience of Paul, are all heirlooms which preserve the family history. Bring all the drops of water together and you have an ocean; so the experiences of the Church when gathered form a great store.

III. Christian social intercourse points to the lasting fellowship of heaven. Christians never say, Good-bye. The last petition in the upper room before the crucifixion was, Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am. (Weekly Pulpit.)

Damascus to Caesarea

I. The events intervening between Damascus and Caesarea.

1. As soon as Saul was baptized he joined the Christian brotherhood, and publicly declared his new conviction that Jesus was the Christ. I do not think that that continued long. Either through the force of external persecution, or by Divine intimation and guidance, probably by both, he was led to leave Damascus. And in Gal 1:1-24 he tells us that he left Damascus and went into Arabia. Arabia lay round about Damascus and my own expression is, that he did not go further from Damascus than would secure safety and solitude. He was not employed in preaching, but in receiving those communications from Christ which were to perfect his knowledge of the gospel. There he studied the Old Testament under a new teacher; reading it by a different light from that which had been held in the hand of Gamaliel.

2. Then, when fully prepared for all that he had to do, he returned to Damascus, and there, with greater boldness and vigour, proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God. But the Jews could not stand this, and determined to kill him. And we learn from a passing allusion in 1Co 11:23; 1Co 15:3, that in their plans against his life they got the cooperation of the political and military powers. But in a basket, let down from the window of one of the houses, which in Eastern cities very often overhang the wall, Saul was placed by his friends, and, descending, so escaped his enemies hands.

3. He then put into execution what he had cherished as a purpose. He determined to go to Jerusalem to see Peter (Gal 1:18-19). It is probable that he had seen Peter before the Sanhedrim He knew that he was one of the foremost men amongst the apostles, and therefore he wished to visit him–not to acknowledge his supremacy, nor to get from him any authority, but as an intimate friend and disciple of Jesus. On his arrival Saul very naturally wished to join himself to the disciples. But they were in doubt and fear about him. But Saul met with Barnabas, who believed Saul, and believed in him, and who introduced him to Peter and James, who were probably the only apostles who happened to be then at Jerusalem. Saul was then received with cordiality and confidence, and had at once accorded to him fraternal recognition.

4. The apostle was only at Jerusalem for a fortnight (Gal 1:18-19). He lodged with Peter, who, as a married man, could perhaps best accommodate him. It is rather odd that he should have become representatively the head of a priesthood who are not allowed to marry! It was very natural that Saul should suppose himself peculiarly fitted for preaching in Jerusalem that faith which, a little time before, he sought to destroy. He made the attempt, and, Grecian as he was, did the very thing that Stephen had done before, and perhaps in the very same synagogue using probably many of the martyrs arguments. His hearers were not subdued by his appeals. It was not his work; Christ had something else for him to do. There was a conspiracy, too, against him in Jerusalem, as there had been at Damascus; and, in addition, there was a concurrent Divine intimation urging his departure (Act 22:17-21.) The apostle was at once obedient to the heavenly vision, and his friends got him safely out of Jerusalem and brought him down to Caesarea.

II. The points which require explanation.

1. In the history there is no mention of the journey into Arabia, a very important event in the life of St. Paul. But note–

(1) An omission is not a contradiction. When two writers, referring to the same time, are found to differ only in that the one omits what the other records; the one may he only the supplement to the other.

(2) The history in the Acts is so constructed that an actual journey somewhere may possibly underlie it. There are two periods mentioned. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples at Damascus, giving the idea of a limit to the period. He was certain days there with the disciples–well, what then? Why, at the end he was not with them. Then he had left them. Then afterwards–though this is not mentioned, it is implied–he was with them in Damascus again; and this time, after many days there occurs the conspiracy. Between the certain days and the many days a journey, because an absence from Damascus, may come in, which might be into Arabia as well as to anywhere else.

(3) Then, again, the Epistle to the Galatians and the history in the Acts are perfectly independent productions. Neither was written from the suggestions of the other and made to harmonise with it. If the historian had invented this story from reading the letter he would have put in the journey to Arabia; if the letter writer had invented the letter from reading the history he would not have put in the journey. This independence being admitted, all the coincidences rise into strength as evidences of the perfect truth and trustworthiness of both.

(4) There can be no doubt that Galatians was written previously to the Acts. Now Paul and Luke were very often companions in travel, and there is every probability that the historian wrote under the eye of the letter writer, and yet neither of them sees the inconsistency between the account given by the one and the known contents of the letter of the other. Neither of them thinks it worth while with a stroke of the pen to put it all right. It is perfectly evident that they who knew all about it did not see any difficulty in what perplexes us so much.

2. The difficulty of accounting for the way in which Paul was received by the disciples at Jerusalem. Surely they might have had such full information of all that had occurred, as to receive with acclamation the illustrious convert. But observe–

(1) That the Jewish way of talking about time is worth recollecting. Fourteen months would be three years, if the first month was the last in one year, and the last month was the first in another, with one whole year lying between. But three years, even thus reckoned, is a long time. Yet the possible compression of the period, in the way indicated, is worth being referred to.

(2) But will it not be curious if the visit into Arabia–which is itself a difficulty–should be just the very thing which enables us to explain the more difficult point before us? I will not say that Paul was running before he was sent; but he might be trying to speak before he was fully equipped for his work. Hence it was, that his Master told him to go into seclusion that he might fully learn all that was necessary for him to know. In consequence of this, he disappeared from Damascus. It is quite possible that none of the disciples knew what had become of him. His companions would go back with some story or other of a strange occurrence which had happened on the road. Whatever it was, it had led him seemingly to recant his opinions. But he was gone off. It was impossible to say what it all meant, or in what character he might next appear. Of course the enemies of the truth would know how to make the most of this, and to frighten the faithful by dark insinuations of what their emissary might yet do. Supposing, therefore, that he was not very long in Damascus, even the second time, he might preach in the synagogues, and yet, in the confusion and disorganisation of the period, intelligence of this might not reach Jerusalem in any authentic or reliable form. The disciples would thus necessarily be in the state in which we find them. Fears, which simple ignorance might engender, would be strengthened if their unscrupulous enemies were known to insinuate that Saul was only playing a deep game.

3. The difference between the statement in the text of the circumstances under which Paul left Jerusalem, and the account which Paul gives of it in chap. 22. Luke attributes it to a conspiracy, Paul to a vision. But this is only the two sides of the same event–the Divine and the human. There is the historian naturally confining himself to the outward fact. But Paul is letting you into the interior. In the complete view we get the united action of Divine authority with human love. It is nothing, after all, but the old story over again of the gold and silver shield.

4. Paul told Agrippa that he showed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God. But in the text he went up to Jerusalem, was taken down to Caesarea, and sent forth to Tarsus. In Galatians, he says, that after going up to Jerusalem, he went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, and was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ. How is this to be reconciled?

(1) When Paul is writing to the Galatians he is confining himself to the period which transpired before his going to Tarsus. Well, the letter and the history perfectly coincide. We find here that he had gone up to Jerusalem, had been there a short time, had gone hurriedly down to Caesarea, and went thence into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. Of course he was unknown to the churches of Judaea, and all that they knew about him would be what they might happen to hear.

(2) But when he stands before Agrippa and says, And then to the Gentiles, he refers to his great distant missions. Now, previous to his doing that, you will find afterwards that he came up from Antioch through Judaea to Jerusalem, and then went back again, perhaps a different way. On this journey he would have an opportunity of preaching in the villages and towns of Judaea, of which, we may be sure, he would fully avail himself, Thus both accounts are perfectly true and consistent, only they refer to different times. (T. Binney.)

Straightway

I. The importance and duty of promptitude in religious matters. This quality standing at the beginning of the new course, and for the carrying out of the new convictions, has much instruction for us.

1. There are many beginnings in the world which stand alone, or which shine out in mocking contrast to all that comes after. Many a rosy morning becomes a cloudy noon, precursor of a stormy night! Many a man who starts in life well, swerves and wavers as he goes on. The divine life has to our eyes the same uncertainties about it. We have to wait for proof, for fruits, and for patient continuance to the end. Yet in some beginnings we can see conditions which, continued, lead to a triumphant issue. One of these, very prominent in the history, of St. Paul, is promptitude.

2. Promptitude is a prerequisite of success. A beginning is only a beginning, and yet much depends on how it is made. Some beginnings are like the spring on the mountainside, gushing into life and flowing clearly; some are like waters from a mossy soil, trickling, oozing, so little visible and so uncertain, that you cannot tell where they begin. But here is a vigorous, clear beginning. As soon as Paul saw his duty he did it. What wilt Thou have me to do? had been his prayer. The answer is, You know Me now. You have persecuted–now preach; and he did so straightway. In giving the history of this very time, Paul himself tells us in the Epistle to the Galatians that immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood. If he had so conferred, it is almost certain that his whole course would have been different. Some would have said: Stay awhile until the memory of your career as persecutor has died away. Others would have said: Be cautious. Do not commit yourself thus early. Your present convictions may be only transient. It can do no harm to wait. Had he gone to Jerusalem, Peter, who said to the Master, Not so, Lord, would have been quite as ready to say Not so to the servant. And probably all the apostles would have advised caution and delay. But Paul was right, and his promptitude saved him from many difficulties which else would have beset his course. It raised his conversion above suspicion. It opened his way. It confirmed his faith. It enlarged his knowledge. It gave him an advantage against any who might be his enemies. It put him in possession of the ground. It made retreat more difficult. It made him a fit example for all who are beginning the Christian course to the end of time. The first sign of a rectified condition will always be the prayer, What wilt Thou have me to do? The next wilt be to do it straightway.

3. The thing to be done will, of course, be different in different cases. In a sense, everyone who receives the gospel must preach it. There are some who favour reserve in regard to religious feeling and conviction. It is said that such things ought to be felt rather than expressed. That is not the teaching of the Bible. We believe and therefore speak. We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. Ye shall be witnesses, etc.

not silent witnesses surely. Such was the original law, and there is no reason to believe that it has ever been changed. Are, then, men who can now speak best on such a subject to speak least? Because thoughtless people sometimes talk not wisely and not well on religion, must thoughtful people seal their tongues in silence and keep all dark till the day of death? Each man ought, in his own measure and way, to preach. For a quiet man to speak in conversation, is as much as for a public man to write. For one man to offer prayer in a house, would be more than for another to preach in a pulpit. Or with some, a change of habit and life may be the most expressive thing they can say or do. The question as to the form which the duty of the new state shall take is a question which one can never settle for another. But the principle is this–that there is to everyone something to be done, by look, or speech, or action, or habit–or all of these together–to be done for Christ as soon as you believe in Him; and that that thing ought to be done without delay.

II. Its advantages.

1. Straightway! And your new consciousness will become clear, as it never will do by repression. Doubts gather around the inactive mind, over the slumbering reluctant will, as mists above the stagnant pool. Work in spite of them; work through them on to duty–and they are gone.

2. Straightway! And the outer difficulties will be dispersed, and you will see them no more. He who begins on the yielding system will find that the difficulties that hinder the souls first alacrity will hinder it more and more. There are some animals which will not molest you if you face them, but they will follow you if you flee.

3. Straightway! And you will give to your soul one of the first and most indispensable conditions of growth. Children would sicken and die if they were kept in a state of inactivity.

4. Straightway! And you will lay the first stones in the great edifice of habit. We are in a large measure the creatures of habit; but would it be better if we were all impulse and emotion? No. It is no small part of our greatness that we can build our life into strength as well as beauty by the stones of habit.

5. Straightway! And you will end no small part of the lesser miseries of life. For, not a little is the result of duty undone–a word unspoken, an action postponed.

6. Straightway! And the enemies of our true life and of the gospel of Christ are taken at advantage. All their plans are broken, their prophecies of evil are set at nought–by the simple yet sublime plan of going, without hesitation, right on to duty or endeavour.

7. Straightway! And timorous friends–the discouraged, the weak, the halting–receive, as it were, a new inspiration. (A. Raleigh, D. D.)

The new convert

History is made up of epochs and eras. An epoch is a pause in the sequence of events; a marked moment, at which the reckoning of time rests and begins anew. An era is the interval between two epochs; the period which intervenes between two of those milestones of history, by which the memory assists itself in keeping count of time. In all good histories the epochs are strongly marked. Give the great turning points of a life, and we can almost fill up the era for ourselves. The conversion of St. Paul is a pause and a signal memorable for all time: the years that follow, while he is a learner even more than a teacher in Christs school, need but briefer notice, though one full of instruction for us who ponder it thoughtfully. St. Paul himself adds some particulars in Gal 1:17-24.

1. He states that three years elapsed between his conversion and his first visit to Jerusalem as a Christian. The history in the Acts speaks only of many days. But this is no contradiction. In 1Ki 2:1-46 we read that Shimei dwelt in Jerusalem many days; and then the next verse opens thus, And it came to pass at the end of three years. The expression many days is large enough to cover a period of three years. So it is here.

2. In the same passage St. Paul mentions a journey into Arabia, of which we have here no notice. The region intended is differently understood: it may have been that Arabia which borders very closely upon Damascus itself. And the purpose of his journey is not mentioned–whether it was undertaken as a first missionary enterprise, or whether to afford him a season of secluded meditation. St. Lukes account of St. Pauls life is full of omissions, except during that part of it in which he was with him. We are thankful for what he tells, and we are glad to supplement it from the Epistles of St. Paul himself.

3. The same passage tells us the length of his stay at Jerusalem, and with which of the apostles he then became acquainted (Gal 1:18-20). Why this earnestness of expression? Because St. Paul is vindicating the independence of his own apostleship. He did not receive his gospel at second hand. It was three years before he saw one of the apostles; when he at length visited Jerusalem it was but for fifteen days, and during the whole of that visit he saw but Peter and James the Lords brother. Thus was verified Gal 1:1; Gal 1:11-12. Notice in the text–

I. Paul preaching (verse 20). We preach not ourselves, he said some years afterwards, but Christ Jesus the Lord. St. Paul never found it necessary to change his subject. It lasted him for his life. But what was it? The dry monotonous repetition of one doctrine? Need I ask this of any reader of his Epistles? Well may he speak there of the unsearchable riches of Christ; of all the fulness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ bodily. He found in Christ an inexhaustible wealth of comfort, of sympathy, of help, an unlimited supply of grace. And this was what he sought to communicate. That is true preaching; the endeavour to unfold a reality and a happiness first felt within. And he could do this at once–straightway. He could tell, as a matter of plain proof, that he who had come out to persecute had been arrested by a stronger hand, and constrained to confess that One whom he had scouted as a crucified and dead man was indeed living in the fulness of strength at the right hand of God.

II. Paul in seclusion. We are not to suppose that St. Pauls knowledge was at once complete, or his spiritual life perfected. Doubtless it was during this interval of three years that he learned many of those things of which he has left the record in his Epistles–many of those revelations of the Lord, e.g. And may it not have been that that deep experience of the conflict with indwelling sin, which he details so strikingly in Rom 7:1-25, was then especially gained? It is a great error to suppose that an apostle, because he was specially called and equipped, was therefore raised out of the ordinary experiences of the Christian life within, was exempted from the trials which other men endure in rising from the death of sin to the life of righteousness. And the same error runs on into a province in which it is not a mere loss of comfort, but a grave and sometimes fatal deception. Men talk as if conversion were the whole of a Christian life. Conversion is a great thing, but conversion must be tried by these tests–first, is it the commencement of a change? and secondly, is it the commencement of a progress? A conversion which begins and ends with itself lacks every sign of that which Scripture so designates. A conversion trusted in as a security for salvation, usurps the very place of the Saviour Himself, and becomes at once a delusion and a snare.

III. Paul mistrusted. How lifelike are the lessons of Scripture. Which of us cannot understand the shrinking of verse 26. St. Paul felt heart and soul with the disciples, and longed to exchange with them that sympathy which only Christians know, and which it is misery to them to be constrained to hide. But they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. It was natural: the memory of their beloved Stephen, and of many others, hunted down by his relentless rage, could not but rise within them at the sight of him, and make it difficult to believe that the professed change was real. But these things turn to the gospel for a testimony: the thought of what Saul was only increases the miracle of what he is; such a change, so thorough, so astounding, is one of the standing evidences of Jesus and the resurrection. But at the time it was hard to credit. This was the punishment of long hostility to the Saviour. Doubtless he bore it meekly and confessed that it was his due. But ought not the record make us all fearful of discouraging the nascent faith of others? Take heed not to quench the smoking flax.

IV. Paul encouraged. How well does Barnabas justify the appellation Son of Consolation. He knew the whole history of the new disciple, and therefore he lost no time in mediating between him and those who doubted him. He brought him to the apostles, and declared to them his history. Thus, like Andrew, he acted as the encourager and helper of another in coming to Jesus. It is a blessed office this of the peacemaker; more especially when the peace made is not of earth only; when it affects the soul also; whether in its dealings with Christ Himself, or in its relations to Christs servants. What is the aim of a visitor of the poor, in its highest aspect? Is it not this–to bring to the apostles–in other words, to bring to Christ Himself–those who, but for such aid, might be lost sight of, and be left in disregard, in suspicion, in darkness? How often has the work of Christian charity been privileged to perform this highest office! A Christian care for the body may be made available to save the soul. (Dean Vaughan.)

The marks of true conversion

I. Joyful confession of Christ (verse 20).

II. Willing endurance of the enmity of the world (verse 23).

III. Humble intercourse with believers (verse 26).

IV. Godly conduct in the service of the Lord (verse 28). (J. P. Lange, D. D.)

Evidences of conversion

When Saul, in answer to his inquiry, What wilt Thou have me to do? was told that he was to go as best he could into the city and seek for further advice there, it was a trial of his faith which ranks alongside of that of Abraham. For where in the great town of Damascus was there a place or a comrade to receive a lonely blind man into shelter? Who would tell him his duty? But hope begins with any Christian the moment he follows up the light he has.

I. What was there in this story specially belonging to Saul and hence of no essential value in ordinary use now?

1. It arrests the imagination to think of such a reception for one who had reasonably supposed he would come in triumph as the Inquisitor-general from Jerusalem. But it is not necessary for anyone now to pass through those personal trials.

2. His intense fright and prostration. The words trembling and astonished do not belong to the Bible. Indeed, much more than this is left out of verses 5 and 6 (see R.V.). In his own accounts of his conversion, given before Agrippa, and before the mob, he did use the expression, It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks, and he did ask, What shall I do? but he never in any instance said he trembled, for he was not that sort of man. He was contrite and submissive, but he was not scared.

3. His vision. We must carefully discriminate between what belonged to this mans commission as an apostle, and what belonged to his conversion as a man. If the Lord ever makes a new apostle, it is possible He may deal with another man in the same way; but it is not necessary to see a luminous sign, nor to hear a supernatural voice, in order to be a faithful, honest, and even an assured follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.

4. His physical catastrophes. The circumstances of any conversion are quite separate from the conversion itself. It cannot be a necessity now to be violently thrown on the ground. Suffering is not necessarily repentance.

II. What was there which was essential and exemplary for permanent use?

1. His entire intellectual acceptance of the doctrine of Jesus Christ as the Saviour of men. And that carried the whole Christian creed with it. Jesus Himself pressed this necessity in His name (Luk 6:46). He admitted it to be His own rightful designation (Joh 13:13). And the apostles made it to be the form of doctrinal confession of Christianity (Act 2:36). When Saul saw Jesus, he suspected his terrible error, and asked, Who art Thou, Lord? And when the answer came, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest, then he knew the truth, and took it to his heart as he called that Being, knowing Him to be Jesus–Jehovah.

2. His immediate commencement of first Christian duty (verse 9). The earliest low cry of an infant is the definite evidence of life: it breathes. So we sing, Prayer is the Christians vital breath. Paul knew the importance of an evidence like this; for he wrote afterwards about it (1Ti 2:8).

3. His change of purpose. Sauls life swung around instantly and entirely both in feeling and in fact. He had loved to persecute Christians: now he loved to love them. He had hated and derided Jesus of Nazareth; now he accepted Him heartily as the promised Messiah. He had been exceedingly mad; now he was commensurately humble and penitent. He had been under commission from the chiefs of his bigoted nation; now be said simply enough, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do?

4. His one ambition. He had been thinking that he verily did God service by his laborious and passionate zeal in persecution; now he kept at work for the mere joy of doing some loving thing for God. He rested by faith in the merits of a Redeemer crucified (Gal 2:20). He put off the old man, he put on the new (Col 3:9-10). He now desired only to be found in Christ, and to be found like Christ. In one lengthy passage of an epistle, he discloses his clear purpose, his passionate wish, all condensed into a single paragraph which really is worth studying word by word (Php 3:7-14).

5. He gave himself at once by public committal to the friends of the Lord Jesus. He told over and over again the story of his conversion (Gal 1:20-24). At Damascus he was with the disciples (verse 19). Even under cold prejudice at Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples (verse 26). (C. S. Robinson, D. D.)

Saul preaching

I. The preacher as evidencing the truth of Christianity.

1. What were the moral antecedents of this man? In general terms he was what we all are by nature–the children of wrath, even as others. But in addition to that there was a strong development of the carnal mind which brought out his enmity against God in a most striking light. He was a virulent enemy of Christ and of His Church. Such a sworn foe must have been the last man the Church had supposed would have become not only a convert, but a preacher. One could almost as soon have expected Caiaphas or Pilate. By no previous process of training was this wonderful work accomplished; but in a moment when his heart was bound with enmity against Jesus and the truth, the proud heart and the rebellious will were broken and subdued. To what can you ascribe it but to the power of God? The hand that had just grasped the weapon that was to slay was now clasped in prayer. The knees that never trembled when he stood by Stephen were now smiting for fear. The eyes that had gloated on the agonies of martyr were now overflowing with tears of penitence. I pause to ask you if this is not a fact in evidence which must carry to every ingenuous mind the conviction that the religion that could change such a heart as that of Saul of Tarsus must be Divine?

2. What was his subsequent course? Follow his career from the moment that he said, Lord, what wilt Thou have me to do? till he closed it by a martyrs death, and there is not in the annals of the Christian Church a character so evidencing the truth of the gospel as that shown in Saul.

3. It is of little consequence what may have been our antecedents–whether we have been persecutors of Churches, or Pharisees, wrapping ourselves up in our own righteousness–we must all pass through the same spiritual change that he did.

II. The preaching as illustrating the nature of Christianity.

1. Straightway. He asked no authority from man. He applied for no orders. He passed through no theological training. From the moment of the discovery of Christ he became His preacher. I would not have you infer that a man may devote himself to the ministry apart from a previous training; for the conversion of the apostle was miraculous, and he had been trained in one of the first schools of the times; so that when by the power of Christ his heart was changed, he had all the intellectual discipline that was essentially necessary to become an able minister of the New Testament. And yet, if it please God to convert a man of intelligence, I see no reason why that man, now his heart is glowing with the love of Christ, should not straightway preach Christ. The authority that we receive is not from man. Ordination is but a recognition of the Church; a pledge on the part of our brethren of their prayers, sympathies, and confidence.

2. But what did Saul preach? Jesus. There may be much preaching so denominated that claims no title to the character. Man may preach theology without God, Churchianity without Christianity, Christianity without Christ, the Bible without revelation, the Cross without atonement. Man may do all this, and not preach Jesus. The theme of this newly awakened convert was all summed up in one precious and Divine name–Jesus Christ.

III. The place of preaching as manifesting the power and triumphs of Christianity.

1. He had to cope with

(1) the pharisaical Jews. There was much that the Jew had to allege in favour of his religion. He could claim the oracles of Gods Word as sustaining him. And yet the apostle adapted not his subject to meet the prejudices or objections of the Jews, but he met them by a simple uplifting of Christ and unfolding of the gospel.

(2) The Greek philosophers. It was here that his learning came to his help. If God gives a man intellect and furnishes his mind with learning, God intends that he shall employ these powers in the advancement of His truth. But mark, although his reasoning was logical and profound when he confronted the philosophers of Athens, his theme still was Christ.

(3) And thus this man, wherever he went, whoever were his audience–whether he confronted the Jews in the synagogue, the sceptics of Athens, or the jailor at Philippi, Christ Jesus was his grand, his only theme; and no theme but this will ever meet and overcome the enemies, the false religions, and the oppositions of the world. Let men go forth, making Christ their great theme, and such is the voice of that, accompanied with the power of the Spirit, that it would silence all the enemies of the Church.

2. What is it so to preach Christ?

(1) Saul preached Christ as the Son of God, and we cannot properly preach Christ without in the very foreground placing this grand article of our creed–that Christ is essentially Divine. The whole fabric of Christianity rests upon this. Cut this from under us, and on what do we stand–in what is the sacrifice for sinners? in what our hope for eternity? But if my Saviour is God, then my hope is resting on Deity, and I know Whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I commit unto Him until that day.

(2) We must preach the sacrifice, the atonement of Christ, without qualification or reserve. This is a day of much reserve in the statement of those great cardinals of our faith. But the work of Christ is what it ever has been. No change in modern modes of thought or of opinion has altered the essential doctrines of Christianity. We are not to adapt our preaching to the education or the politics of the times. We are to preach the same glorious gospel which Paul preached when he uplifted the Cross of Christ as the only hope of a lost and ruined world. What a grand feature was that in his ministry–Christ the Saviour of sinners! This is a faithful saying, etc. (O. Winslow, D. D.)

Saul preaching Christ

I. There is an unofficial preaching of Christ incumbent upon every one who is converted by His grace. As soon as one experiences the renewing power of the Spirit, he is brought under the most powerful constraint to make known the benefits he has received, and to commend o others his Saviour. Saul is a noble example of this generous testimony for Christ.

1. It was prompt. Immediately. There was no dalliance with duty, no waiting upon frames and feelings. Love, gratitude, joy, a desire to retrieve the wrongs of the past, a yearning to direct others, above all a desire to honour Christ, led him at once to herald forth the name of Jesus.

2. It was brave. He did not simply enter his name upon the roll of the disciples, nor content himself with speaking privately to his former acquaintances, nor open some private apartment where the Jews might hear his testimony; but on the Sabbath day, when the synagogues were thronged, Saul, in the face of friend and foe, made public confession of Jesus.

3. It was uncompromising. He did not undertake to strike a balance between his own convictions and the prejudices of his hearers. He did not confess Jesus as a good man, or as an inspired prophet, or as a supernatural being above angel. He proclaimed Jesus that He is the Son of God.

II. A higher and official preaching of Christ is incumbent upon those, and those only, who are duly called and qualified to enter upon it. This is the preaching which Saul did after his return from Arabia. A study of his course throws much light upon the prerequisites to the gospel ministry. It must be preceded–

1. By a Divine call. The call of Saul was extraordinary in its method (Act 26:16), but in essence the same that every minister must have. There must be an impression deeply wrought by the Spirit that it is our duty to serve God in the ministry–a conviction that grows stronger as it is prayerfully deliberated upon, and does not yield in prospect of the sacrifices which such a life entails.

2. By thorough preparation. One would have supposed that Saul, graduate of the school of Gamaliel, a man of broad literary culture, a master of the law, an acute theologian, a ready debater, an eloquent orator, might receive his commission at once. But there were schools for the ancient prophets. The twelve were for three years under the personal tuition of our Lord. Saul must first go into Arabia, and, like Moses and the Baptist, come under the immediate tuition of Heaven. There he received what he so expressively calls my gospel (Gal 1:11). If such tuition were needful for one so thoroughly furnished, what shall we say of those who would have young converts rush into the vows and responsibilities of the ministry?

3. By orderly commission. The usual method then, as now, was through the Church authorities. But with the ordinary office of the preacher Saul was to unite the extraordinary office of the apostle. His commission, therefore, was made an extraordinary one. Instead of going up to Jerusalem to receive ordination from the apostles, he went into Arabia, and there received it immediately from the hands of the Lord (Gal 1:1). A Divine commission is as necessary now as it was then.

III. The matter, manner, and effects of preaching Christ are the same in all ages. They are strikingly illustrated in the passage.

1. The matter is the same. Saul sounds here the keynote of his whole after-ministry. He preaches Jesus, that He is the Son of God. Upon His Deity he bases the whole system of doctrines that he proclaims. To this he adds the evidence of His Messiahship. He establishes His claim as the anointed Prophet, revealing the Father; the anointed Priest, making atonement; the anointed King, reigning until all enemies are subdued. This is the gospel which every minister is commissioned to preach, which every layman is under obligation unofficially to teach. Nothing can supersede it. It will bear no admixture of human philosophy, it will submit to no arraignment at the bar of human reason. It, and it alone, goes down to the deep necessities of the human heart, and has power to lift man up into the life of holiness and into the light of hope.

2. The manner is the same. Sauls preaching was

(1) Scriptural. He confounded the Jews by proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ. He who does this stands upon high vantage-ground. It is the men who are mighty in the Scriptures whose teaching is crowned with success.

(2) Fearless. Boldly. He did not hesitate through fear of prejudice or opposition. He did not consult the partialities or caprices of his hearers. Never was such preaching needed more than now. It requires courage to deal faithfully with the consciences of impenitent sinners and worldly-minded church members.

(3) Humble. In the name of the Lord Jesus. He assumed no authority or superiority of his own. He was but the mouthpiece through whom Christ spake. He relied upon the power of Christ to make his message effectual.

3. The effects are the same.

(1) The apostle found in Damascus and at Jerusalem what he did everywhere else, To the one we are the savour of death, etc. In every community two classes will appear–enemies and friends.

(a) With the former the enmity of the carnal heart will be aroused, and will lead on to persecution. If the Jews in Damascus and Jerusalem cannot gainsay Sauls arguments, they can at least lay wait to kill him.

(b) But very different are the effects upon another. Saul soon found himself surrounded by a body of disciples–his disciples, as the R.V. teaches us in verse 25. Faithful work for Christ will not be left without result.

(2) The fruits of faithful teaching are gathered after the teacher is gone. Saul has been brought down to Caesarea, and sent away to Tarsus, but the Church of God remains, and has peace, being edified, etc. (T. D. Witherspoon, D. D.)

The testimony of Christ

I. The source from which it must proceed. A heart apprehended of Christ and converted.

II. Its contents. Christ the Son of God and the Saviour of men.

III. Its success.

1. Astonishment.

2. Blessed fruits. (K. Gerok.)

Pauls ministry at Damascus

I. The character of his Spiritual change.

1. It was radical. He preached Christ as the Son of God, what he had previously given his whole being to deny. Saul the persecutor becomes Paul the apostle.

2. It was genuine. He preached in the synagogues, where he was well known as the High Priests commissioner–the worst place for an impostor, but the best place for one who wished to make some atonement for his past life.

3. It was startling. The people were amazed, as well they might be.

II. The nature of his new faith (verse 22). It was–

1. Growable–he increased. The more he examined Christs claims, and reflected on His truths, the stronger grew his confidence and affection. Christianity is not a dry notion, but a living germ. Once planted, every earnest thought about it will only serve to strike its roots deeper.

2. Discussable. It was a thing Paul felt he could take into the synagogues and submit to competent critics. Christianity is no mystic sentiment that admits of no explanation, nor a musty sentiment that totters on scrutiny; it is intelligible in its facts, and rational in its theories.

3. Demonstrable. Proving. By manifestation of the truth he commended himself to every mans conscience in the sight of God.

III. The spirit of his first auditors (verse 23). Their malignity was–

1. Deadly. They sought to kill him. Violence has always been the argument of bigotry, which no man knew better than Saul; but truth ever seeks to kill error by saving the advocate.

2. Deliberate evil as well as good has its plans.

3. Frustrated (verse 25). In his deliverance we see–

(1) The way in which Providence delivers the good. God could have launched a thunderbolt and crushed Sauls enemies; but as is usually the case God saved him by his own caution and the assistance of the disciples.

(2) The inevitable doom of evil. God taketh the wise in their own craftiness. (D. Thomas, D. D.)

The first essay of a warrior of Christ

He must–

I. Inviolably swear allegiance to the banner (verses 20, 23).

II. Diligently employ his weapons (verse 22).

III. Modestly take his place in the ranks (verses 26, 28).

IV. Courageously look the enemy in the face (verses 22, 29).

V. Obediently retire at the signal. (K. Gerok.)

The probation years in the ministerial office

Note here the first official–

1. Tasks.

2. Joys.

3. Sufferings. (K. Gerok.)

Conversion leads to Christian activity

Sir James Young Simpson, Bart., M.D., is a name that will shine in the annals of Scotland, and as a star of the first magnitude among her numerous eminent men. The son of a poor baker in Bathgate, who had much ado to keep his head above water, he rose to receive the honour of a baronetcy from the Queen, in recognition of his professional merits, especially the introduction of chloroform. His public life was always marked by outward consistency, and by an observance of the externals of religion, numbering among his friends some of the leading divines of Edinburgh, where he lived and laboured. But he was unacquainted with the power of religion until 1861, and the person who was most instrumental in the marked change which was wrought was an invalid lady, one of his patients, whose quiet words spoken, and whose letters of grateful Christian interest written to him, took hold of his heart, by the power of the Holy Spirit. In one of her letters she said, having written in the kindest possible way concerning him and his household: What is to fill this heart to all eternity? When benevolence shall have run its course, when there shall be no sick to heal, no disease to cure: when all I have been engaged about comes to a dead stop, what is to fill this heart, and thought, and these powers of mind? Only the God-Man! If then, why not now? In this way he was led to Christ, and soon began to undertake active and public Christian work. The grass was scarcely green on the grave of his long-afflicted son Jamie, when we find him giving a public address to medical students, speaking of himself as one of the oldest sinners and one of the youngest believers in the room, and earnestly entreating them to open the doors of their heart and receive the Saviour. In Christ, said he, you will find a Saviour, a Companion, a Counsellor, a Friend, a Brother, who loves you with a love greater than human heart can conceive. (The Quiver.)

And straightway he preached Christ

Henry Ward Beecher left college with no thought of the Church, was rather a wild youth, and, with two companions, followed the pioneers to the backwoods to shoot, hunt, and fish. In the midst of this wild life he happened to hear a Methodist minister, and the truth struck home to his heart. The effect was instantaneous. Like Saul, when he was struck down on his way to Damascus, his first question was, What wilt Thou have me to do? Beechers enthusiastic nature admitted of nothing else. He sold his rod and gun for a horse, and began to move from place to place, preaching to the backwoodsmen. This was the beginning of Beechers ministry.

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 19. When he had received meat, he was strengthened] His mind must have been greatly worn down under his three days’ conviction of sin, and the awful uncertainty he was in concerning his state; but when he was baptized, and had received the Holy Ghost, his soul was Divinely invigorated; and now, by taking food, his bodily strength, greatly exhausted by three days’ fasting, was renewed also. The body is not supported by the bread of life, nor the soul by the bread that perisheth: each must have its proper aliment, that the whole man may be invigorated, and be enabled to perform all the functions of the animal and spiritual life with propriety and effect.

Then was Saul certain days with the disciples] Doubtless under instructions, relative to the doctrines of Christianity; which he must learn particularly, in order to preach them successfully. His miraculous conversion did not imply that he must then have a consummate knowledge of every Christian doctrine. To this day we find that even the genuine Christian convert has a thousand things to learn; and for his instruction he is placed in the Church of Christ, where he is built up on his most holy faith by the ministry and experience of the disciples. Without the communion of saints, who is likely to make a steady and consistent Christian; even though his conversion should have been the most sincere and the most remarkable?

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

St. Paul could not but be much weakened with his journey, fear, grief, fasting, and constant praying; and now he takes a prudent care of his health, that he might be further enabled for the service of God, to what place soever he should be appointed.

With the disciples: Saul is no sooner changed, but he changeth his company and acquaintance; he resorts to none of the rabbies of the Jews, but to the disciples of Christ; he would love any, learn of any, that had Christ for their Master.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

19. when he had received meat, hewas strengthenedfor the exhaustion occasioned by his threedays’ fast would not be the less real, though unfelt during hisstruggles. (See on Mt 4:2).

Then was Saul certain dayswith the disciples at Damascusmaking their acquaintance, inanother way than either he or they had anticipated, and regaining histone by the fellowship of the saints; but not certainly in order tolearn from them what he was to teach, which he expressly disavows(Gal 1:12; Gal 1:16).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And when he had received meat,…. Which was set before him when he had received his sight, and after he was baptized, of which he had not tasted for three days:

he was strengthened; in body, being before very weak and feeble; not so much through fatigue of his journey, as through the fear and surprise the appearance of Christ to him, and his words, threw him into; as also through his fasting so long, and his continuance and constancy in prayer all this while, and the attention he gave to the divine instructions which were communicated to him, internally and externally:

then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus; who came from Jerusalem upon the persecution raised against them there; with these Saul continued some few days after his conversion and baptism, for quickly after he went into Arabia, as appears from Gal 1:17. These disciples, with the new converts afterwards, it is highly probable, formed a church state in Damascus; Ananias is said to be the bishop or pastor of it, and which remained in several ages. In the catalogue of the council of Nice, which was held in the beginning of the “fourth” century, Damascus is mentioned as the seat of a church; in the “fifth” century a bishop of Damascus was in the council at Ephesus; and in the same century it was reckoned a metropolitan church in Asia; in the seventh century it appears there was a church in this place; and even in the “eighth” century, though the Arabians ravaged in those parts, yet still a church continued here for some time, till Ulid, the prince of the Saracens, took away the temple from the Christians of this place, and dedicated it to Mahomet; after which we hear no more of the church at Damascus s.

s Magdeburg. Hist. Eccles. cent. 4. c. 2. p. 2. cent. 5. c. 2. p. 3. & c. 7. p. 417. cent. 7. c. 2. p. 3. cent. 8. c. 2. p. 3. & c. 16. p. 514.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Was strengthened (). First aorist passive indicative of , to receive strength (), comparatively late verb and here only in the N.T. save Lu 22:43 where it is doubtful. Poor verse division. This clause belongs in sense to verse 18.

Some days ( ). An indefinite period, probably not long, the early period in Damascus before Saul left for Arabia (Ga 1:13-24).

Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament

1) “And when he had received meat, he was strengthened,” (kai labon trophen eniochusen) “And he took food and was strengthened,” concluding three days of earnest prayer which was accompanied by fasting, Act 9:9; Act 9:11. He was now strengthened in body and sight, as he had been in mind and heart, after seeing and meeting Jesus on the Damascus road, Joh 4:31-34.

2) “Then was Saul certain days,” (egeneto de hemeras tinas) “Then he (Saul) came to be (stay) some days (for a period of time),” as a witness among those whom he a week before had vowed to persecute and prosecute; yes, those in Christ are “new creatures,” 2Co 5:17; 1Co 9:21-23; Rom 1:14-16; Act 1:8.

3) “With the disciples which were at Damascus,” (mete ton Damasko matheton) “With the disciples (the church) which was located in Damascus,” or existing then in Damascus. Let it be observed that wherever the disciples of the Lord went, after Pentecost, after the empowering of the church, and especially after the persecution and scattering of the church at Jerusalem, they (the church members, disciples) went everywhere, or wherever they went, they went obediently preaching the gospel, Mat 28:18-20; Joh 20:21; Act 1:8; Act 8:4.

Based on our Lord’s promise and covenant to be (to exist) wherever two or three of this “you all” company were gathered together,” in affinity of a fellowship, to carryon worship and service for Christ, it is believed new churches sprang up in Asia Minor and Europe, often before the Apostles arrived, Mat 18:19-20.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL REMARKS

Act. 9:20. And straightway he preached Christ.Not after his return from Arabia (Plumptre), but after his conversion and during or at the end of the certain days. Pauls preaching at this stage was not of an apostolic or missionary character, but merely an argumentative setting forth of the Divinity and Messiahship of Christ.

Act. 9:22. The visit to Arabia (Gal. 1:17) is best inserted here (Holtzmann, Zckler) During it Saul increased the more in strength, and on returning to Damascus confounded the Jews there by his preaching.

Act. 9:23. Some interpreters (Neander, Meyer, Hackett) find room for the Arabian visit in the many days of this verse.

Act. 9:24. The gates were watched by means of a garrison of soldiers (2Co. 11:32). The impression made upon Pauls mind by this, the earliest of his persecutions, may be gathered from his allusion to it long after in his letter to the Corinthians.

Act. 9:25. The should be his disciples, Saul having already drawn around himself a body of converts. Let him down by a wall in a basket should be let him down through the walli.e., through the window of a house upon or overhanging the wall (2Co. 11:33), lowering him in a basket. That Sauls friends used a basket accorded with the present customs of the country. It is the sort of vehicle which people employ there now, if they would lower a man into a well or raise him into the upper story of a house (Hackett).

HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 9:19-25

Saul at Damascus; or, the Persecutor turned Preacher

I. The preaching of the preacher.

1. When it began. After certain days spent with the disciples at Damascus, but whether immediately after these days (Conybeare and Howson, Hackett, Neander, Meyer, Spence), or after his three years retirement in Arabia from which he returned to Damascus (Plumptre, Farrar), is uncertain. Straightway (Act. 9:20) appears to favour the former supposition.

2. How long it continued. First, till he departed for Arabia (Gal. 1:17), which journey is variously located in Lukes narrative: before the middle of Act. 9:19 (Pearson); before Act. 9:20 (Michaelis, Plumptre, Farrar); in the middle of Act. 9:22 or before it (Alford, Zckler); at Act. 9:23, during the many days (Neander, Meyer, Lecbler, Hackett); between Act. 9:25 and Act. 9:26 (Olshausen. Ebrard). Next after he returned from Arabia and before he fled to Jerusalem (Act. 9:26).

3. Where it was conducted. In the Damascus synagogues which his unbelieving countrymen frequented, and with which the disciples had not yet entirely broken. His zeal for the salvation of his kinsmen according to the flesh led him, in the first instance, to seek a hearing from them (compare Joh. 1:41). Besides, it was indispensable that they who knew him best should be able to judge of his conversion. Saul had no idea of being a disciple secretly for fear of the Jews (Joh. 19:38).

4. The thesis it maintained. That Christ or Jesus whom their rulers had crucified was the Son of God. Probably his preaching at this stage (i.e., before his Arabian sojourn) consisted of little more than a proclamation of the new-found truth which God had revealed in his soul (Gal. 1:16), and the Damascus vision had burnt in upon his understanding. Afterwards, on returning from Arabia with matured and arranged thoughts, he advanced beyond proclamation to demonstration (Act. 9:22).

5. The vigour it displayed. If it began timidly, mildly, and half apologetically, it gradually waxed bold, fervid, and confident. The more he attained himself to a clear understanding and firm grasp of the new doctrine of Jesus which had been flashed in upon his intellect, heart, and conscience, of the ground on which it rested, and the significance it imported, the more courageously did he push his way into the citadel of his hearers souls.

6. The effect it produced.

(1) It filled all who heard him with amazement. And no wonder! Who ever heard before of a conversion so sudden, violent, and unlikely? A Pharisee become a Nazarene! A persecutor turned preacher! And that, too, like a clap of thunder! And for so little causebecause, as he alleged, he had seen a vision, or (as his opponents would say) he had been dazzled and frightened by a flash of lightning. No doubt the wiseacres laughed, ridiculed, shook their solemn heads, and called him Fanatic!
(2) It confounded all their previous notions about both the Scriptures and Jesus. If this new doctrine of the hare-brained Rabbi was correct, then they had completely misunderstood the teaching of their sacred books, and been guilty of a hideous crimetwo charges (ignorance of Gods word and murder of Gods Son) under which the Jews could hardly be expected to sit with comfort.

(3) It kindled in their hearts hostile and even murderous designs (Act. 9:23). It woke up against him the same demon of persecution that had sent Stephen to his death. Possibly Saul was not surprised at this. It was what his new Master had suffered, and what he himself had been preparing for his new Masters friends.

II. The peril of the preacher.

1. The plot of his enemies.

(1) Its deadly purposeto kill him. Nothing short of his blood would satisfy them. They must have been convinced that Saul was lost to them for ever, that he was no insincere convert, but a recruit to the side of Christianity who would never come back; they must have had a high appreciation of his ability and worth as a religious controversialist and propagandist when they could not afford to permit him to transfer his services to the other side; they must have been poorly off for arguments to answer his preaching when they felt themselves obliged so soon to resort to the persuasive weapons of fire and steel.

(2) Its unsleeping vigilance. Night and day they watched the city gates, with the help of a Roman garrison (2Co. 11:32), to apprehend him (compare Act. 23:21). So the wicked sleep not except they have done mischief (Pro. 4:16), while their feet are swift to shed blood (Rom. 3:15).

2. The observation of Paul. He was not so absorbed in preaching as not to become aware of what was going on. Saul, from the first to the last of his career, was a remarkably wide-awake person, who always knew the machinations of his adversaries, and understood the right thing to do. In this case he got to hear about the wicked devices of his foes.

3. The stratagem of his friends. Who says that Christians are incapable imbeciles? Under cover of the darkness (having taken him into one of their houses on the city wall), his disciples let him down from the window in a basket (see 2Co. 11:33). This nightly journey in a basket down over the town wall, whilst underneath perhaps the Jewish spies were waiting to apprehend him and drag him off to be stoned, says Hausrath (Der Apostel Paulus, p. 139), remained with him constantly as a frightful recollection which twenty years after he depicted in a more lively manner than all the other sufferings recounted by him, more especially even than the stoning which he once endured, or than the shipwreck in which he was tossed about a night and a day upon the deep. Having eluded the lines of his would-be captors, he escaped not to Arabia (see Hausrath), but towards Jerusalem, where he abode fifteen days with Peter (Gal. 1:18).

Lessons.

1. When a man preaches or seeks to propagate the faith he once sought to destroy, there is good reason to conclude he is converted.
2. Sudden conversions, though not impossible, are often difficult to understand.
3. If the Scriptures be authority, Jesus of Nazareth was both Israels Messiah and the worlds Redeemer.
4. Zealous preachers of Jesus Christ, if not now murdered, are commonly disliked by the world.
5. Gods eye is always upon His faithful servants to watch over them, especially when the eyes of their enemies are watching against them.

HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS

Act. 9:22. Pauls increase in strength.

I. Whence it came.

1. From the indwelling Spirit (Eph. 3:16).

2. From acquaintance with the Scriptures (1Jn. 2:14).

3. From practice in preaching.

II. In what it resulted.In more efficient service.

III. What it proved.The reality of his conversion.

Act. 9:23. A New Converts Danger.

I. Hatred and persecution of the world (Act. 9:23).

II. Distrust on the part of believers (Act. 9:26).

III. Spiritual pride of ones own heart.
IV. Contempt of the Church and the ordinary means of Grace.Gerok.

Act. 9:25. Pauls Escape from Damascus.

I. A disappointment to his foes.

II. A kindness to his friends.

III. A mercy to himself.

IV. A blessing to the Church and the world.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

(19) And when he had received meat.Better, as elsewhere, food. The three days fast had obviously brought about a state of extreme prostration. In St. Pauls account of his conversion in Gal. 1:17, he states that when it pleased God to reveal His Son in him, immediately he conferred not with flesh, and blood, but went into Arabia and returned again to Damascus. We have, it is obvious, no certain data for fixing the time, nor the extent of that journey. St. Luke does not mention it, and his straightway balances the immediately of St. Pauls account. On the whole. it seems most probable that it was the first step taken by him after he had regained his sight and been baptised. Physically, rest and seclusion would be necessary during the period of convalescence after the great crisis of his conversion. Spiritually, that solitude was needed, we may believe, to prepare him for the continuous labour of the three years that followed. I place the journey to Arabia accordingly, with hardly any hesitation, after the certain days of fellowship with the disciples, and his reception at their solemn meeting to break bread in the Supper of the Lord, and before the preaching Christ in the synagogues. How far the journey extended we cannot say. Arabia was used somewhat vaguely as a geographical term; but the fact that Damascus was at this time occupied by the troops of Aretas, the king of Arabia Petra, makes it probable that he went to that region. In St. Pauls paronomastic reference to Hagar as a synonym for Mount Sinai in Arabia (Hagar and Sinai both admitting of an etymology which gives rock as the meaning of each), we may, perhaps, trace a local knowledge gained during this journey, and draw the inference that he had sought communion with God where Moses and Elijah had found it, on the heights of Sinai and Horeb. (Comp. Gal. 4:25.) He learnt, it may be, the true meaning and purpose of the Law, as arousing the fear of judgment, amid the terrors of the very rocks from which that Law had first been proclaimed to Israel.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

3. Saul at Damascus, Jerusalem, Tarsus, Act 9:19-30 .

19. Meat strengthened If he possessed no strength before taking the meat, how could he have gone forth to endure immersion from the street Straight to the Barada?

Certain days A brief period; unlike, and previous to, the many days of Act 9:23.

Disciples Damascus Whence were these first fruits of Christ already at Damascus? They may have been 1. Jews who had heard our Lord preach, and had removed to Damascus. 2.

Devout persons present at the Pentecost, then for a while sojourning in Jerusalem, (Act 2:5.) 3. Refugees scattered by the persecution of Act 8:1-4.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

Act 9:19-20 f. But he continued some days with the Christians there, and then he immediately preached Jesus in the synagogues (at Damascus), namely, that He was the Son of God [243] . This is closely connected, and it is only with extreme violence that Michaelis and Heinrichs have referred Act 9:19 to the time before the journey to Arabia (Gal 1:17 ), and Act 9:20 to the time after that journey. Pearson placed the Arabian journey before Act 9:19 , which is at variance with the close historical connection of Act 9:18-19 ; just as the connection of Act 9:21-22 does not permit its being inserted before Act 9:22 (Laurent). The in Gal. l.c. is decisive against Kuinoel, Olshausen, Ebrard, Sepp, p. 44 f., and others, who place this journey and the return to Damascus after Act 9:25 . The Arabian excursion, which certainly was but brief, is historically (for Luke was probably not at all aware of it, and has at least left it entirely out of account as unimportant for his object, which has induced Hilgenfeld and Zeller to impute his silence to set purpose) most fitly referred with Neander to the period of the , Act 9:23 . Comp. on Gal 1:17 and Introduction to Romans , sec. 1. The objection, that Saul would then have gone out of the way of his opponents and their plot against him would not have taken place (de Wette), is without weight, as this hostile project may be placed after the return from Arabia. [244] It is, however, to be acknowledged (comp. Baur) that the time from the conversion to the journey to Jerusalem cannot have been known to Luke as so long an interval as it actually was (three years, Gal 1:18 ), seeing that for such a period the expression indefinite , no doubt, but yet measured by days (it is otherwise at Act 8:11 ), , Act 9:23 (comp. Act 9:43 ; Act 18:18 ; Act 27:7 ), is not sufficient.

.] , Chrysostom.

] see on Gal 1:13 .

. . .] and hither (to Damascus) he had come for the object, that he , etc. How contradictory to his conduct now! [245] On the subjunctive , see Winer, p. 270 [E. T. 359].

[243] . occurs only here (Act 13:33 is a quotation from the O. T.) in the narrative of the Book of Acts. The historical fact is: Paul announced that Jesus was the Messiah , see ver. 22. He naturally did not as yet enter on the metaphysical relation of the Sonship of God; but this is implied in the conception of Luke , when he from his fully formed Pauline standpoint uses this designation of the Messiah.

[244] With this agrees also the the , Gal 1:16 , which requires the Arabian journey to be put very soon after the conversion, consequently at the very commencement of the , ver. 23. If this is done, that is not opposed to our view given above (in opposition to Zeller, p. 202).

[245] “Quasi dicerent: At etiam Saul inter prophetas,” 1Sa 10:11 , Grotius.

Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary

D. SAUL IMMEDIATELY PREACHES JESUS IN DAMASCUS, BUT IS COMPELLED BY THE HOSTILE COUNSEL OF THE JEWS TO FLEE FROM THE CITY

Act 9:19 b25

19b Then was Saul [But he was]13 certain [some] days with the disciples which [who]were at Damascus. 20And straightway he preached Christ [proclaimed Jesus]14 in thesynagogues, that he [this One] is the Son of God. 21But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that [in Jerusalem] destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem [om. in Jer.], and came hither for that intent, that hemight bring them bound unto the chief priests? 22But Saul increased the more [more and more] in strength, and confounded the Jews which [who] dwelt at Damascus,proving that this is very Christ [that this One is the Messiah]. 23And [But]after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: 24But their laying wait [their plot] was [became] known of [to] Saul. And they watched15 the gates day and night [in order] to kill him. 25Then the [his]16 disciples took him by night, and let him down by [through] the wall in a basket.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Act 9:19 (b).Then was Saul certain days with the disciples at Damascus.Several periods of time are to be chronologically distinguished in Act 9:19-25 : (a) , a period of undisturbed repose, during which Saul lived in retirement, and was strengthened and encouraged by his intercourse with the believers in Damascus; (b) the period in which he came forth from his retirement, after enjoying the fellowship of the brethren, and began to preach Jesus in the synagogues of the city, Act 9:20 ff.; (c) a comparatively longer period ( , Act 9:23), during which he preached Christ to the Jews with increasing power and joyfulness, and proceeded in his teachings to act, as it were, on the offensive; (d) the close of this more extended period of time, occasioned by the hostile movements of the Jews, who threatened his life, and rendered his flight from Damascus necessary, Act 9:23-25; (e) he now came to Jerusalem, Act 9:26.How is this narrative, which is obviously given in a very summary manner, to be chronologically combined with Pauls own statements in his Epistles concerning the same periods of his life? He mentions in Gal 1:17, that he had not, immediately after his conversion, proceeded to the older apostles in Jerusalem, but that he had first gone to Arabia, then returned to Damascus, and only after three years visited Jerusalem. When we compare these two accounts, we perceive at once that they differ in two particulars: 1. The Journey to Arabia, which occurred during the interval between the conversion of Saul and his visit to Jerusalem, is passed over in total silence in Acts, Acts 9-12. Luke speaks of days only ( , . ), whereas the apostle himself counts according to years, and, indeed, mentions precisely three years. With respect to this latter point, it should, in the first place, be considered that, after the second chapter, Luke does not furnish a single precise specification of the time. We might suppose, as far as the terms of his narrative are concerned, that all that he has hitherto related, had possibly occurred in rapid succession in a very brief period of time. Yet the foregoing chapters embrace at least four years, or perhaps a still longer period; it is, accordingly, quite consistent with this practice that a term of several years should here, too, be described in very brief terms. In the second place, the expression , Act 9:23, is of such a nature, as possibly to comprehend several years. occurs very, frequently, even in classic Greek (see Steph. Thes. etc.), in the sense of great, much, considerable, and, when combined with or , in that of a considerable time. The usage in the Hebrew is analogous: we find, for instance, a certain period described in 1Ki 2:38, which embraces [many days] while, immediately afterwards, Act 9:39, the same period is said to have consisted of . [(at the end of) three years.]. Hence, the usage of Luke in reference to chronological specifications in general, and also the particular expression in Act 9:23, allow us to assume that several years are here comprised.Still, the other difficulty remains, viz., that Luke makes no mention whatever of Sauls sojourn in Arabia. The question assumes the following form: Can any niche be found in the whole passage, Act 9:19-26, in which that journey, which Paul himself mentions, can be inserted? Pearson [Annales Paulini, etc., transl. into Engl, by Williams, 1826.Tr.], places it before the mentioned in Act 9:19, but Heinrichs and Ewald immediately after them and before Act 9:20; neither arrangement is in harmony with the context, that, is, with the facts here stated, and the terms that are employed, especially the word . Olshausen and Ebrard place it between Act 9:25-26; but this arrangement does not commend itself, when we consider how improbable it is that Sauls return to Damascus (which fact is positively stated in Gal 1:17) should have occurred after his flight from that city. We are hence constrained (with Neander, Meyer and others) to assign the Arabian journey to that considerable period of time indicated in Act 9:22 ff., in the following manner:Soon after Saul had presented himself in the synagogues of Damascus, he departed to Arabia; it was after his return to the city that he preached to the Jews with increased strength, Act 9:22; this course awakened hostile sentiments and led them to form plans for taking his life; hence, he fled, and, (soon afterwards) went to Jerusalem. [For Arabia, a term of vague and uncertain import, see Conyb. and Howsons Life, &c. of St. Paul, I. 104 f. London, 1854; the three years, according to the Jewish way of reckoning, may have been three entire years, or only one year with parts of two others. ib. p. 108.Tr.].Both accounts may be reconciled in this manner, and yet the impression may remain on our minds that Luke had probably no knowledge of Sauls visit to Arabia, and had, in general, not obtained full information respecting the events which occurred between his conversion and his visit to Jerusalemperhaps, too, he had not become acquainted with the precise length of that interval. [These remarks may, possibly, be misunderstood unless we assume that the author simply means to enunciate the principle that inspiration is not equivalent to omniscience.Tr.]

Act 9:20-22.And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues.The work of Saul, as described in these verses, is not to be considered as constituting the commencement of his peculiar apostolical labors; he simply delivers his testimony concerning the Redeemer, being impelled by his own heart, which cannot but declare the things which it believes. For we cannot discover a single trace of any direct command or of a mission received from God for that purpose; the language of Luke in Act 9:20, , on the contrary, fully conforms to that which he had employed in Act 8:5. The voluntary action of an evangelist, not the mission of an apostle, is here described. This view, besides, accords with Pauls own expressions in Gal 1:17, where he appears to represent all that had been done previously to his return to Damascus, as not having been, strictly speaking, apostolical action.The difference between the two statements in Act 9:20; Act 9:22, respectively, is also worthy of observation. In the former, Saul proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God; in the latter, he furnishes the proof that Jesus is the Messiah. [Very Christ, in Greek simply the Christ (Alex.).Tr.]. The predicates and , are not identical, for it cannot be demonstrated that the conceptions respectively connected with them are precisely the same. It is true that the conception expressed by . . includes that of the Messiah, but the former name is by no means to be considered as having no additional and deeper import. These words, . . ., on the contrary, refer preminently to personal grandeur, while . refers, (if we may so express our-selves) to official dignity; in the former, relationship to God, in the latter, the Messianic work, is the main thought. The change in the form and manner of Sauls addresses to the Jews, conforms to this distinction. Thus Saul proved (, Act 9:22 [primitively, bringing together]) that Jesus is the Messiah, (that is to say, he brought together, or, showed the connection). This statement presents with sufficient distinctness the method which he adopted: he proved that Jesus is the Messiah from the prophecies and their fulfilment; that is, he proved this truth by demonstrating the agreement between the Messianic predictions and the historical facts in the life of Jesus. On the other hand, he proclaimed (, Act 9:20) that Jesus is the Son of God, originally divine, sharing in the divine glory, and worthy of divine honor; that is to say, he did not attempt to prove this statement by arguments derived from the Old Testament, but simply and directly delivered the testimony which was founded on his own experience and conviction. The former mode of address confused and embarrassed () his opponents, in so far as they were not able to refute his course of argument, and, nevertheless, were not willing to grant the concluding proposition to which it conducted. This result was produced not so much by any logical superiority, as rather by a certain moral strength which had gradually increased in Saul ( ), since he continually received a larger measure of confidence and joyfulness in his Christian convictions, as well as of the courage and zeal of a witness, [. ., was more and more strengthened, confirmed, namely, ; comp. Act 16:5; Rom 4:20. (de Wette).Tr.]

Act 9:23.The Jews took counsel to kill him.The testimony which he delivered concerning Jesus, at first created astonishment alone; the Jews asked, in their amazement, whether it was possible that the same man who had become known as the most violent enemy of the Christians, and whose zeal in persecuting them had led him even to Damascus, had now really undergone such an entire change as to speak in this tone, and even seek to gain followers for Christ, Act 9:21. This wonder afterwards changed into bitterness of feeling and enmity, particularly when the Jews were put to silence by the evidences which he furnished from the Old Testament, and hence felt humiliated. As they could not refute him by sound arguments, their hatred became implacable, and they began to devise means for removing him from their path, and silencing him for ever.

Act 9:24-25.Butthe disciples took him by night.Saul fortunately obtained information respecting the plot by which his life was threatened. The Jews had, in accordance with it, commenced to watch the gates of the city, so that he might not escape from their snares (. ). But his disciples [see the text above, and note 4.Tr.], that is, Jews who had been converted by his preaching of the Gospel, enabled him to flee. With their aid he escaped from the city by means of a wicker basket, being lowered from a window that was probably constructed in the wall and belonged to a house which was built against the latter. [Probably where some overhanging houses, as is usual in Eastern cities, opened upon the outer country, they let him down from a window in a basket. (, 2Co 11:33, as in the analogous narratives, Jos 2:15; 1Sa 19:12; the word is used in the LXX. in both instances). (Conyb. and Howsons Life of Paul, I. 109 and note 7. London 1854.)Tr.]. This narrative concides in a remarkable manner with Pauls own statements in 2Co 11:32-33. The testimony of both passages is the same on four pointsthat his life was threatenedthat the gates of the city were watchedthat he was placed in a basketand that he was lowered through an aperture in the wall [ , both in Act 9:25 and in 2Co 11:33, through, (not by, as in the Engl. Vers.) the wall, precisely as, in the latter passage, , through a window.Tr.]; such was his mode of escape from the city, according to both narratives. They only differ with respect to the persons by whom his life was threatened and the gates were watched. These acts are ascribed in 2Co 11:32 to the ethnarch (prefect) (governor, Engl. Vers.] whom the Arabian king Aretas had placed over Damascus and Syria, while in Act 9:23-24, these are represented as the acts of the Jews. This difference in the statements, may, however, be explained without difficulty. The Ethnarch (vicegerent) of the Arabian king, who possessed supreme power in the city, had undoubtedly no personal reasons for assailing Saul, and was induced solely by the slanderous charges of the Jews to proceed against him. If the circumstances were of this nature, it follows that Luke really mentions the true contrivers or authors of the measures which were adopted. But it cannot, on the other hand, be supposed that the Jews of Damascus were permitted personally to guard the city gates; it is far more probable that a military force belonging to the government was ordered to occupy the post. Hence, Paul mentions the executive authority with more precision than Luke, although the expression of the latter, scil, , is also in harmony with this circumstance. [The Jews furnished the motive, the Ethnarch the military force. (Conyb. etc. I. 109.)Tr.]. The two accounts, in this manner, complete each other, while each one is, obviously, altogether independent of the other.The general fact here related does not, as many have supposed, furnish a trustworthy basis for determining a chronological point in the life of the apostle Paul. For, concerning this occupation of Damascus by Aretas (whose relations to Herod Antipas and the Roman Empire may be ascertained from Josephus, Antiq. xviii. Acts 5) no other historical accounts whatever are extant, which would enable us to fix the time when it occurred. Comp. Winer: Realwrt. II. 217. [art. Paulus, and an article by Wieseler, in Herzog; Real-Encyk. I. 488.Tr.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. The conversion of Saul was commenced by an immediate interposition of the exalted Redeemer in the material world, and was completed through Ananias as a human instrument, although this disciple was guided by a special revelation made in a vision the latter was already a transition to the channel of natural processes. Henceforth the personal and independent action, or the labors of Saul, conformed in every respect to the ordinary course of events. It was solely the impulse of his own hearta voluntary, and yet an irresistible impulseto proclaim that Saviour who had so graciously and mercifully manifested himself to those who knew Him not, that led him to speak to the Jews in the synagogues concerning Jesus.

2. Saul proclaimed Jesus to the Jews in Damascus; he not only proved from the Old Testament that He is the. Messiah, but also that He is the Son of God. The latter truth had not hitherto been publicly announced in the preaching and doctrine of the apostles. The invocation of Jesus by the believers ( ) undoubtedly implies his divine glory and dignity. Still, it is an indication that decisive progress has been made, when such a truth in reference to the Person of Christ is fully and distinctly perceived and expressed. This privilege was granted to Saul, but not independently of the peculiar mode in which he was converted and called. Jesus appeared to him from heaven, as the Exalted One, in his divine and supreme power and glory. The knowledge of the deity of Christ was thus made accessible to him, even in a higher degree than to those who had been apostles before him, and had long known Jesus in his humiliation. It was ordered that a deeper and more thorough insight into the true nature of the Person and the work of Christ should be gradually acquired, even as the whole work of salvation and all the revelations of God possess certain features that ally them to humanity; they have a growth that advances with the progress of time. God has reserved unto his own power and wisdom the selection and determination of the points and periods of time when such advance and growth shall occur, as well as of the agents by whom these are to be promoted. Paul himself, even after his conversion, was only gradually guided into all truth, strengthened in the spirit (, Act 9:22), and furnished with a clear knowledge of the truth; to this progress all his experiences in his life and actions, and, especially, his labors in proclaiming the truth, necessarily contributed.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

See below, (E), Act 9:26-30.

Footnotes:

[13]Act 9:19. [ , of text. rec. and G. H. is omitted by A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg. Syr. etc. and recent editors. It was inserted at the commencement of an ecclesiastical Scripture lesson (Meyer; Alf.).Tr.]

[14]Act 9:20. The reading [in A. B. C. E. Cod. Sin. Vulg.], is, for external and internal reasons, decidedly preferable to . [This is the view of recent critics generally.Tr.]

[15]Act 9:24. The Mid. is far better attested than the Act. [of text. rec. and G. H.]. The latter form was perhaps inserted in G. H. for the reason that the verb, in the sense: to watch, to lie in wait for, generally occurs in the active voice. [The Mid. in A. B. C. E. F. Cod. Sin. after . in text. rec. is changed by later editors into ; Cod. Sin. also exhibits . This is regarded by later critics as the original reading. (Alf.).Tr.]

[16]Act 9:25. Griesbach had already recommended, and Lachm. and Tisch. have adopted instead of ., which latter reading is found in the text. rec. in accordance with E. G. H. and some versions. The reading . occurs in A. C. F., [B. has ], as well as in Cod. Sin., and is, therefore, better attested; it is, besides, the more difficult reading [another reason for adopting it], as the circumstance attracted attention that disciples of Saul should be mentioned, since only disciples in general terms, that is, of Jesus, had hitherto been introduced. Certainly, no copyist would have changed into , so that the latter must be regarded as the genuine reading. [ is obviously a false reading, as it is not possible that disciples of Paul should be introduced here. (de Wette). Alf. reads . ; the MSS. here vary considerably, as well as those of the Vulg.: eum, in the usual printed text, but ejus in Cod. Amiatinus and ed. Sixt.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

19 And when he had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus.

Ver. 19. With the disciples ] For as he desired to cleave perpetually to the head, so to join himself to his members, to incorporate with the Church.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

19. .] intrans. see reff.

. ] 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 ( , , Gal 1:12 ), nor was the time longer than to admit of being used, Act 9:20 , and indeed the same of the whole space (including his preaching in our Act 9:20-21 ) preceding the journey to Arabia, in Gal 1:16 .

Pearson places that journey before our , which however is manifestly against the sense of the text: Michaelis and Heinrichs, between Act 9:19-20 , to which there is the same objection: Kuinoel and Olsh., after Act 9:25 , which the of Gal 1:16 will not allow: Neander and Meyer, in the of Act 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.

Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament

Act 9:19 . : used here apparently, as in Act 10:48 , Act 16:12 , Act 24:24 , etc., of a short period; see note on Act 9:23 , and cf. critical notes, Blass in [228] , and see Act 9:23 .

[228] R(omana), in Blass, a first rough copy of St. Luke.

Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson

NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 9:19-22

19bNow for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus, 20and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “He is the Son of God.” 21All those hearing him continued to be amazed, and were saying, “Is this not he who in Jerusalem destroyed those who called on this name, and who had come here for the purpose of bringing them bound before the chief priests?” 22But Saul kept increasing in strength and confounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by proving that this Jesus is the Christ.

Act 9:20 “he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues” This is an imperfect active indicative. It can mean (1) the beginning of an action or (2) repeated action. What irony! He came earlier with a letter from the High Priests in Jerusalem to the synagogues in Damascus to persecute the followers of Jesus and now he came to the same synagogues preaching Jesus as the Messiah (cf. Act 9:21).

“‘He is the Son of God'” This is the only use of the title “Son of God” in the book of Acts (except for the quote of Psa 2:7 in Act 13:33). Its OT background reflects its significance: (1) the nation of Israel (cf. Hos 11:1); (2) the King of Israel (cf. 2Sa 7:14); and (3) the Messiah (cf. Mat 2:15). Paul’s strict monotheism (see Special Topic at Act 2:39) is being redefined!

SPECIAL TOPIC: THE SON OF GOD

Act 9:21 This verse is in the form of a question which expects a “yes” answer.

“destroyed” This is a rare and intense word meaning to ravage, lay waste to, or totally destroy. It is found only here and in Gal 1:13; Gal 1:23 in the NT and in 4Ma 4:23. Paul was a vicious persecutor!

Act 9:22

NASB”Saul kept increasing in strength”

NKJV”Saul increased all the more in strength”

NRSV”Saul became increasingly more powerful”

TEV”Saul’s preaching became even more powerful”

NJB”Saul’s power increased steadily”

This is an imperfect passive indicative. It took some time for Saul’s gifts and skills to develop. In context this refers to Paul’s preaching and debating skills (cf. TEV).

“confounding” This is an imperfect active indicative which denotes repeated action in past time. This is a compound term from “together” (sun) and “pour” (che). This word is only found in Acts.

1. Act 2:6, bewildered

2. Act 9:22, confounded

3. Act 19:32, confusion

4. Act 21:27, stir up

5. Act 21:31, confusion

The Jews could not explain Paul’s conversion or his powerful preaching of Jesus as the promised OT Messiah.

“proving” This word means to conclude (cf. Act 16:10; Act 19:33) and by extension, to prove. Paul’s method was much like Stephen’s. They both used OT passages and their fulfillment in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to prove that He was the Messiah promised in the OT.

“the Christ” This is a way of referring to the Messiah (Anointed One, Promised Coming One, see Special Topic at Act 2:31). Many times in Acts the definite article precedes the noun (ex. Act 2:31; Act 2:36; Act 3:18; Act 3:20). Saul was asserting with power and conviction that Jesus of Nazareth, killed in Jerusalem, was indeed God’s Son, the Messiah. If this was true, it changed everything for Jews (and Gentiles)! They had misunderstood and rejected Him. They had missed God’s gift and remained in spiritual darkness and need.

Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley

meat = nourishment. Greek. trophe.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

19. .] intrans. see reff.

. ] 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 ( , , Gal 1:12), nor was the time longer than to admit of being used, Act 9:20,-and indeed the same of the whole space (including his preaching in our Act 9:20-21) preceding the journey to Arabia, in Gal 1:16.

Pearson places that journey before our ,-which however is manifestly against the sense of the text:-Michaelis and Heinrichs, between Act 9:19-20,-to which there is the same objection: Kuinoel and Olsh., after Act 9:25,-which the of Gal 1:16 will not allow: Neander and Meyer, in the of Act 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.

Fuente: The Greek Testament

Act 9:19. ) Neuter verb. So , Let us be valiant, 1Ch 19:13.- , at Damascus) What Paul had done before his conversion in a bad cause, the same afterwards he either himself did in a good cause, and in the same localities, or else suffered at the hands of the Jews.

Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament

when: Act 27:33-36, 1Sa 30:12, Ecc 9:7

Then: Act 26:20, 1Sa 10:10-12, Gal 1:17

Reciprocal: Jdg 19:5 – Comfort Psa 51:13 – Then Pro 16:7 – he Isa 29:24 – also Isa 65:25 – wolf Act 9:1 – Saul Act 9:26 – he assayed

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

9

Act 9:19. Received meat means he took food after his period of fasting. Certain days is really indefinite, and denotes merely that Saul remained with the disciples in the city where he had become one himself.

Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary

Act 9:19. Then was Saul certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. The writer in this portion of his history of the acts of Paul is very brief. Paul, in his Galatian Epistle (Act 1:16-18), tells how, shortly after his conversion, he went into Arabia, then returned to Damascus, and after a space of three years went up to Jerusalem to see Peter and the older apostles. In this passage of the Acts the Arabian visit is not mentioned (see note on Act 9:22), but several distinct periods of time are alluded to:(a) Act 9:19-21. Certain days, a period immediately succeeding his conversion, when he preached in the Damascus synagogue; (b) Act 9:23. After that many days were fulfilled, a much longer period, which probably included two years or more; (c) Act 9:24-26. The close of this more extended period, when the hatred of the Jews compelled him finally to quit Damascus, when he went to Jerusalem. On the question of the Arabian journey referred to in Gal 1:17, considerable doubt exists as to the meaning of the word Arabia. From the time when the word Arabia was first used by any of the writers of Greece and Rome, it has always been a term of vague and uncertain import.

Sometimes it includes Damascus; sometimes it ranges over Lebanon itself, and extends even to the borders of Cilicia (see Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, chap. iii.). Ewald suggests that the word Damascus (Act 9:19), used by the writer of the Acts, includes this residence in Arabia as in a part of the Damascene district or territory, the name of the capital city being used as including all the territory or district of Damascus.

It is, however, possible that Saul, after the first excitement wrought by his conversion had in some measure passed away, longed for solitude, for a time of meditation before setting out on his great lifes work, and in the stillness of the Arabian desert, near the Red Sea, the well-known desert of the wanderings of his fathers, sought and found opportunity for solitary communion with God.

Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament

The Persecutor Becomes a Preacher

Once he was baptized and had broken his fast by partaking of some food, Saul began to be with the disciples. Saul immediately began preaching in Damascus, then went to Arabia and returned to preach in Damascus again. Those who heard the former persecutor preach marvelled at his preaching. As he grew in strength, Saul successfully answered the challenge of the Jews and was able to prove Jesus is God’s anointed and Son. Unable to refute his arguments, the Jews plotted to kill him. Somehow Saul learned of the plot and the brethren delivered him in a basket through the wall and outside the city.

When he arrived in Jerusalem, Saul was rejected by the disciples as a fellow believer. Barnabas took him to the apostles, which according to Gal 1:18-19 may only refer to Peter and James, the Lord’s brother. While with them, Saul told the story of his conversion and subsequent bold preaching in Damascus. Just as Stephen had done, Saul disputed with the Hellenists (compare Act 6:8-9 ), and, just as with Stephen, they attempted to kill him. When the brethren discovered the plot, they sent him to Tarsus by way of Caesarea ( Act 9:19-30 ).

Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books

See notes on verse 17

Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)

Saul’s preaching in Damascus 9:19-22

How Act 9:19-20 fit into the chronology of events in Saul’s life is not perfectly clear. They could fit in any number of ways. We should probably understand "immediately" in a general sense. As soon as Saul became a Christian he began to contend that Jesus was the Messiah when he attended synagogue worship, which he did regularly (cf. Act 13:5; Act 13:14; Act 14:1; Act 17:2; Act 17:10; Act 17:17; Act 18:4; Act 18:19; Act 19:8). This proclamation was the result and evidence of his being filled with the Holy Spirit (Act 9:17) as well as the result of his conversion.

Saul later wrote that immediately following his conversion he did not consult with others about the Scriptures but went into Arabia and later returned to Damascus (Gal 1:15-17). "Arabia" describes the kingdom of the Nabateans that stretched south and east from Damascus beyond Petra. Damascus was in the northwest sector of Arabia. After Saul’s conversion and baptism he needed some time and space for quiet reflection and communion with God. He had to rethink the Scriptures, receive new understanding from the Lord, and revise his Pharisaic theology. So, like Moses, Elijah, and Jesus before him, he retired into the wilderness. These were Saul’s "Arabian nights." [Note: Witherington, p. 323.]

This is the only mention in Acts of someone proclaiming Jesus as the "Son of God" (but cf. Act 13:33). This fact reflects the clear understanding of Jesus that Saul had even shortly after his conversion. As used in the Old Testament, this title referred to Israel (Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1), Israel’s anointed king (2Sa 7:14; Psa 89:26), and Messiah (Psa 2:7). Saul recognized that Jesus was the Son of God predicted there. He used this title of Jesus frequently in his epistles (Rom 1:3-4; Rom 1:9; Rom 5:10; Rom 8:3; Rom 8:29; Rom 8:32; 1Co 1:9; 1Co 15:28; 2Co 1:19; Gal 1:16; Gal 2:20; Gal 4:4; Gal 4:6; 1Th 1:10).

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

2. Saul’s initial conflicts 9:19-30

The changes that took place in Saul were important because of his subsequent activity. Luke wrote this pericope to note those changes so his readers would understand why Saul behaved as he did. Luke stressed the genuineness of Saul’s conversion by showing the radical change it made in him.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)