Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 9:24
But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
24. but their laying await [ plot ] was known of Saul ] Perhaps from the information of some of the Christian disciples, who would be well disposed to Saul by what they had heard of him from Ananias, and who played the part of friends in aiding his escape from Damascus.
And they watched the gates day and night to kill him ] The gates were the places to which one fleeing from death would naturally make his way. St Paul says (2Co 11:32) of the circumstances under which this plot was made against his life, that “In Damascus the governor [Ethnarch] of King Aretas kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me.” Hence it appears that it was no mere attack made by the Jews resident in Damascus, but they had gained the support of the authorities for the time being. We do not know enough of the history of Syria and Arabia at this period to be able to explain with certainty how an Ethnarch of Aretas, who was king of Arabia Petra, came to be holding Damascus. But we do know (Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3. 1 4) that Aretas had been at war with Herod Antipas, Tetrarch of Galilee, who in consequence of his attachment to his brother Philip’s wife, had forsaken his own wife, who was the daughter of Aretas. Herod had appealed to Rome, and been promised the help of the Roman power, but the death of Tiberius (a.d. 37) checked the march of Vitellius, the Roman governor of Syria, into Arabia, and he thereupon returned to Antioch. It may have been that Aretas, encouraged by this withdrawal, had advanced, and in the general confusion had taken possession of Damascus. He had, in a former stage of the war, destroyed the army of Herod; and some of the Jews, who hated Herod, spoke of this destruction of his troops as a Divine judgement for his murder of John the Baptist. We can understand then that the Jews in Damascus might under such circumstances favour Aretas, and in return for their support be aided by his Ethnarch in an attempt on the life of Saul.
Or the occupation of Damascus by Aretas may have been (as Dean Howson suggests) in consequence of the change of policy which took place so widely at the death of Tiberius; and Caligula, in contradiction of what his predecessor had been designing, to crush Aretas, may have put the Arabian king in command of the city of Damascus for a time.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
But their laying await – Their counsel; their design.
Was known of Saul – Was made known to him. In what way this was communicated we do not know. This design of the Jews against Saul is referred to in 2Co 11:32-33, where it is said, In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me; and through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.
And they watched the gates – Cities were surrounded by high walls, and of course the gates were presumed to be the only places of escape. As they supposed that Saul, apprised of their designs, would make an attempt to escape, they stationed guards at the gates to intercept him. In 2Co 11:32, it is said that the governor kept the city for the purpose of apprehending him. It is possible that the governor might have been a Jew, and one, therefore, who would enter into their views. Or if not a Jew, the Jews who were there might easily represent Saul as an offender, and demand his being secured, and thus a garrison or guard might be furnished them for their purpose. See a similar attempt made by the Jews recorded in Mat 28:14.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 24. They watched the gates day and night to kill him.] At this time Damascus was under the government of Aretas, king of Arabia, who was now at war with Herod, his son-in-law, who had put away his daughter in order to marry Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife. As Herod was supported by the Romans, Saul’s enemies might intimate that he was in league with them or Herod; and, as the gates of the city were constantly watched and shut, that no spy might enter, and no fugitive get away, they thought it would be easy to apprehend him; and doubtless got orders for the different officers at the gates to be on the look-out that he might not be permitted to escape.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Their laying await; the Jews, who stirred up Aretas the king of Damascus against Paul, 2Co 11:32,33; now began those things to be fulfilled, foretold Act 9:16.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
24, 25. they watched the gates nightand day to kill himThe full extent of his danger appears onlyfrom his own account (2Co 11:32):”In Damascus, the governor under Aretas the king kept the cityof the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me”;the exasperated Jews having obtained from the governor a militaryforce, the more surely to compass his destruction.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
But their laying await was known of Saul,…. Either by divine revelation, or by some friends, who had got knowledge of it, and gave him information, as in Ac 23:16 and they watched the gates night and day to kill him; that is, the Jews, together with the governor of the city, and the garrison of soldiers in it. These all watched at the several gates of the city, night and day, that Saul might not make his escape, and that they might take him, and put him to death.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Plot (). Old word for a plan () against () one. In the N.T. only in Acts (Acts 9:24; Acts 20:3; Acts 20:19; Acts 23:30).
They watched (). Imperfect middle indicative of , common verb in late Greek for watching beside () or insidiously or on the sly as in Lu 6:7, they kept on watching by day and night to kill him. In 2Co 11:32 Paul says that the Ethnarch of Aretas “kept guard” (, imperfect active of ) to seize him. Probably the Jews obtained the consent of the Ethnarch and had him appoint some of them as guards or watchers at the gate of the city.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Laying await [] . So rendered by A. V. wherever it occurs, viz., ch. Act 20:3, 19; Act 23:30; but properly changed by Rev., in every case, to plot. “Laying await” refers rather to the execution of the plot than to the plot itself.
Watched. See on Mr 3:2. Imperfect : they were or kept watching, day and night.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “But their laying await was known of Saul,” (egnosthe de to Saulo he epiboule auton) “But their plot by collusion was made known or disclosed to Saul.” Perhaps by some of the disciples, members of the very church he had once plotted to destroy, 2Co 11:32.
2) “And they watched the gates,” (pareterounto de kai
tas pulas) “Then they also carefully watched the city gates,” or guarded the city gates carefully with guards. Providence watched over Paul while his enemies watched for him, Psa 34:7; Heb 13:5.
3) “Day and night to kill him,” (hemeras te kai nuktos hopos auton anelosin) “Both day and night so that they might destroy him (kill him),” on the sly, without public fanfare; the gate-watch was by a garrison, by appointment of the governor or mayor of the city of Damascus, 2Co 11:32.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(24) They watched the gates day and night to kill him.A somewhat fuller account of this episode in the Apostles life is given by him in 2Co. 11:32. There we read that the governorliterally, ethnarchof the city, under Aretas, King of Arabia Petra, with Petra as his capital, the father of the wife whom Herod Antipas divorced, in order that he might marry Herodias, took an active part in the plot against Paul. On the manner in which Aretas had gained possession of a city which was properly attached to the Roman province of Syria, see Note on Act. 9:2. It is noticeable that there are coins of Damascus bearing the names of Augustus and Tiberius, and again of Nero and his successors, but none of those of Caligula and Claudius, who succeeded Tiberius. Caligula, on his accession, reversed the policy of Tiberius, who had been a friend and supporter of Antipas against Aretas, and it is probable that, as in other instances, he created a new principality, or ethnarchy, in favour of Aretas, to whose predecessors Damascus had belonged (Jos. Ant. xiii. 15, 2). The ethnarch apparently wished to court the favour of the large Jewish population, and, looking on St. Paul as a disturber of the public peace, took measures for his arrest and condemnation. Troops were stationed at each gate of the city in order to prevent his escape.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
24. Gates As the only outlets from the city. Paul must have been very closely concealed, as there can be no doubt that the ethnarch or viceroy of Aretas, then master of Damascus, rendered them every aid to apprehend him.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Act 9:24-25. And they watched the gates, &c. This shews that there were great numbers engaged in this bloody design; forDamascus was a large city, and had many gates. Damascus now belonged to Aretas, king of Arabia, (see on Act 9:2.) who governed it by an ethnarch, or deputy governor; compare 2Co 11:32-33. After Aretas had broken with his son-in-law Herod, very probably the Jews in general would have less interest in his dominions, and rather be watched and suspected by him. This might be the reason, perhaps, why they could not apprehend St. Paul in the synagogue, as he himself thought to have apprehended the Christians three years before; see Act 9:2. However, though the Jews could not by their own power compass their design, nor would Aretas himself, perhaps, have granted them such a favour, yet theymade interest with his governor, that the garrison might have orders to apprehend St. Paul, and deliver him into their hands. Possibly the Jews might incense the governor against him, by pretending that though they were loyal subjects, Saul was a spy for Herod, or for the Romans, and an enemy to the Arabians, and so might draw him into their quarrel: for what will not persecuting and malicious men say or do, in the current of their blind zeal, and when hotly engaged to oppose truth and goodness? However, their zeal and rage were ineffectual; for St. Paul, having knowledge of their designs, was let down by the Christians as soon as they could do it with safety, by night, in a large basket suspended to a rope through the window of a house which joined to the walls of the city.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Act 9:24-25 . (see the critical remarks), but they watched also , etc., contains what formed a special addition to the danger mentioned in Act 9:23 . The subject is the Jews ; they did it and thereby the apparent difference with 2Co 11:33 is removed on the obtained permission or order of the Arabian ethnarch. Comp. 2Co 11:33 . More artificial attempts at reconciliation are quite unnecessary. Comp. Wieseler, p. 142.
(see the critical remarks), opposed to the , Act 9:23 . Saul had already gained scholars among the Jews of Damascus; they rescued him from the plot of their fellow Jews (in opposition to de Wette’s opinion, that disciples of the apostle were out of the question).
] through the wall : whether an opening found in it, or the window of a building abutting on the city-wall, may have facilitated the passage. The former is most suited to the mode of expression.
] see on Mat 15:37 . On the spelling , attested by C , see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 113.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
24 But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him.
Ver. 24. But their laying await ] Some friend likely had advertised him, as a senator of Hala did Brentins, when some had conspired his death, Fuge, fuge, Brenti, cito, citius, citissime. Flee speedily, away for thy life. (Melch. Adam.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
24 .] In 2Co 11:32 , Paul writes, , [ ]. A somewhat difficult chronological question arises respecting the subordination of Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to the province of Syria: and we have coins of Damascus of both these emperors, and again of Nero and his successors. But we have none of Caligula and Claudius; and the following circumstances seem to point to a change in the rulership of Damascus at the death of Tiberius. There had been for some time war between Aretas, king of Arabia Nabata (whose capital was Petra), and Herod Antipas, on account of the divorce by Herod of Aretas’ daughter at the instance of Herodias, and on account of some disputes about their frontiers. A battle was fought, and Herod’s army entirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). On this Antipas, who was a favourite with Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vitellius, the governor of Syria, was commissioned to march against Aretas, and take him, dead or alive. While on his march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death of Tiberius (March 16, A.D. 37), and (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his march, and sent his army into their winter quarters, himself returning to Antioch: Antt. ibid. This . brought about a great change in the situation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas was soon (A.D. 39) banished to Lyons, and his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe (Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in habits of intimacy with the new emperor (xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that Aretas, who had been grossly injured by Antipas, should, by this change of affairs, be received into favour; and the more so, as there was an old grudge between Vitellius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt. xviii. 4. 5), , , .
Now in the year 38 Caligula made several changes in the East, granting Itura to Somus, Lesser Armenia and parts of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys to Rhmetalces, and to Polemon, the son of Polemon, his father’s governments. These facts, coupled with that of no Damascene coins of Caligula and Claudius existing (which might be fortuitous, but acquires force when thus combined), make it probable that about this time Damascus, which belonged to the predecessors of Aretas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to Aretas by Caligula. This would at once solve the difficulty. The other suppositions, that the Ethnarch (see on 2Co 11:32 ) was only visiting the city (as if he could then have guarded the city to prevent Paul’s escape), or that Aretas had seized Damascus on Vitellius giving up the expedition against him (as if a Roman governor or a province would, while waiting for orders from a new emperor, quietly allow one of its chief cities to taken from him), are in the highest degree improbable. The above is taken in substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, pp. 167 175. His argument from a coin does not seem conclusive, as it leaves the latter title altogether unaccounted for. It probably (C. and H. i. pp. 101 and 132) belongs to a former Aretas.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 9:24 . : “plot”; N.T. only used in Acts; in three other passages, Act 20:3 ; Act 20:19 , Act 23:30 . It is used in the same sense in LXX, Est 2:22 (for other instances of the word see H. and R.), and frequently in classical Greek. : if we follow R.V., see critical notes, we have the middle for the active, cf. Luk 14:1 ; Luk 6:7 , Gal 4:10 . There is no contradiction involved with 2Co 11:32 . The ethnarch acted as the instrument of the Jews, at their instigation, or they acted by his permission, or possibly as the Jews were the actual originators of the persecution of Saul, St. Luke for brevity speaks of them as carrying it out, cf. Act 2:23 , Act 28:27 . See to this effect, Blass, Zckler, Felten, Wendt. : if we add R.V., see critical notes, the two words signify that they not only laid wait for him, but also watched the city gates day and night, to secure the success of their design; “and they watched the gates also,” R.V. In 2Co 11:32 , according to Paul’s own statement, the ethnarch under Aretas the king guarded the walls to prevent his escape. But this seems strange, as Damascus was part of the Roman province of Syria. The difficulty is met by a large number of modern writers by the assumption that Caligula, whose reign began in 37 A.D., gave Damascus to Aretas, to whose predecessors it had belonged (Jos., Ant. , xiii., 5, 2). On the accession of Caligula a great change of policy occurred Antipas, the old foe of Aretas, who was indignant with him for the divorce of his daughter, was shortly after deposed, and his kingdom was added to that of Herod Agrippa, who had already received from the emperor the tetrarchy of Philip and Lysanias (Jos., Ant. , xviii., 6, 10). But this latter grant was one of the first acts of Caligula’s reign, and there is nothing improbable in the supposition that the new ruler should also bestow some gift of territory on the great foe of the Herodian house, who apparently reigned until 40 A.D. Added to this there is the fact that we have no coins of Damascus with the imperial superscription from 34 62 A.D. In 62 63 the image of Nero begins, but there are no coins marked with that of Caligula or Claudius. The latter emperor died in 54 A.D., and in a few years Damascus must have passed again into Roman hands, if the above theory is correct. Certainly this theory is more feasible than that which supposes that Aretas had actually seized Damascus himself in 37 A.D., when upon the death of Tiberius (who had supported Antipas), Vitellius, the governor of Syria, had withdrawn his troops and the expedition which the emperor had despatched against Aretas. But whether this forcible taking possession of the city is placed before, during, or after the expedition of Vitellius, we should expect that it would have met with energetic punishment at the hands of the governor of Syria, but of this there is nontion or trace (P. Ewald), McGiffert, who favours an earlier chronology, and dates Paul’s conversion in 31 or 32 A.D., contends that the flight from Damascus may have occurred as well in the year 35, i.e. , in the reign of Tiberius, as in 38, when no change had taken place in the status of Damascus; the city was subject to Rome, but Aretas may have had control over it, just as Herod had control over Jerusalem. There is at all events no ground for supposing that the term ethnarch denotes that Aretas was only head of the Arabian colony in Damascus (so O. Holtzmann, following Keim, Nsgen, etc.), or that he was only a chance visitor who exercised his authority to the detriment of Paul (Anger); any such suggestion utterly fails to account for the fact that he is represented as guarding Damascus. It has been suggested that the wife of Aretas may well have been a proselyte, but the fact that the Jews of Damascus were both numerous and powerful is quite sufficient to explain the attitude of the governor, Jos., B. J. , ii., 20, 2; vii., 8, 7. See “Aretas” in Hastings’ B.D., and B.D. 2 . McGiffert, Apostolic Age , pp. 164, 165; G. A. Smith, Hist. Geog. , pp. 619, 620; O. Holtzmann, Neutest. Zeitgeschichte , p. 97; Schrer, Jewish People , div. i., vol. ii., p. 356, and div. ii., vol. i., p. 98, E.T.; Real-Encyclopdie fr protestant. Theol. (Hauck), i., pp. 795 797, by P. Ewald. See further on the title Schrer, Studien und Kritiken , 1899 (1), which he explains by the conditions of the Nabatean kingdom, in which tribes not cities were concerned the head of such a tribe being actually so called in more than one inscription.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
laying await = plot. Greek. epiboule. Occurs elsewhere Act 20:3, Act 20:19; Act 23:30.
known. Greek. ginosko. App-132.
of = to.
to = that they might. In 2Co 11:32, Paul says “the governor under Aretas kept the city with a garrison”. This Aretas was Herod’s father-in-law, upon whom he made war because Herod had abandoned his daughter for his brother Philip’s wife, Herodias. Perhaps to do the Jews a pleasure, like Felix, Aretas endeavored to seize Paul.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
24.] In 2Co 11:32, Paul writes, , []. A somewhat difficult chronological question arises respecting the subordination of Damascus to this Aretas. The city, under Augustus and Tiberius, was attached to the province of Syria: and we have coins of Damascus of both these emperors, and again of Nero and his successors. But we have none of Caligula and Claudius; and the following circumstances seem to point to a change in the rulership of Damascus at the death of Tiberius. There had been for some time war between Aretas, king of Arabia Nabata (whose capital was Petra), and Herod Antipas, on account of the divorce by Herod of Aretas daughter at the instance of Herodias, and on account of some disputes about their frontiers. A battle was fought, and Herods army entirely destroyed (Jos. Antt. xviii. 5. 1). On this Antipas, who was a favourite with Tiberius, sent to Rome for help: and Vitellius, the governor of Syria, was commissioned to march against Aretas, and take him, dead or alive. While on his march, he heard at Jerusalem of the death of Tiberius (March 16, A.D. 37), and (Antt. xviii. 5. 3), abandoned his march, and sent his army into their winter quarters, himself returning to Antioch: Antt. ibid. This . brought about a great change in the situation of Antipas and his enemy. Antipas was soon (A.D. 39) banished to Lyons, and his kingdom given to Agrippa, his foe (Antt. xviii. 7. 2), who had been living in habits of intimacy with the new emperor (xviii. 6. 5). It would be natural that Aretas, who had been grossly injured by Antipas, should, by this change of affairs, be received into favour; and the more so, as there was an old grudge between Vitellius and Antipas, of which Jos. says (Antt. xviii. 4. 5), , , .
Now in the year 38 Caligula made several changes in the East, granting Itura to Somus, Lesser Armenia and parts of Arabia to Cotys, the territory of Cotys to Rhmetalces,-and to Polemon, the son of Polemon, his fathers governments. These facts, coupled with that of no Damascene coins of Caligula and Claudius existing (which might be fortuitous, but acquires force when thus combined), make it probable that about this time Damascus, which belonged to the predecessors of Aretas (Jos. Antt. xiii. 5. 2), was granted to Aretas by Caligula. This would at once solve the difficulty. The other suppositions,-that the Ethnarch (see on 2Co 11:32) was only visiting the city (as if he could then have guarded the city to prevent Pauls escape),-or that Aretas had seized Damascus on Vitellius giving up the expedition against him (as if a Roman governor or a province would, while waiting for orders from a new emperor, quietly allow one of its chief cities to taken from him), are in the highest degree improbable. The above is taken in substance from Wieseler, Chron. des Apost. Zeitalters, pp. 167-175. His argument from a coin does not seem conclusive, as it leaves the latter title altogether unaccounted for. It probably (C. and H. i. pp. 101 and 132) belongs to a former Aretas.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 9:24. , they kept watching) by the assistance of the governor. Comp. 2Co 11:32.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
their: Act 9:29, Act 9:30, Act 14:5, Act 14:6, Act 17:10-15, Act 23:12-21, Act 25:3, Act 25:11, Jdg 16:2, Jdg 16:3, 2Co 11:32
And they: Psa 21:11, Psa 37:32, Psa 37:33
Reciprocal: Jos 10:4 – and help 1Sa 19:2 – Jonathan 1Sa 19:12 – let David 1Sa 23:9 – David Psa 55:10 – Day Pro 24:15 – Lay Mat 10:23 – when Act 20:3 – the Jews Act 23:21 – for 2Co 11:26 – in perils in the city
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Act 9:24. They lay secretly near the gates, where they expected to attack him as he came through. Saul learned about their plot, which really proved to be to his advantage. Knowing that his enemies were lying near the gates, he was left to feel safe in escaping if he could by-pass those places.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
See notes on verse 23
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
It would have been natural for Saul’s enemies to watch the gates of Damascus since he would have had to pass out of one of them to leave the city under normal circumstances. "Disciples" everywhere but here in Acts refers to followers of Jesus. Here it describes followers of Saul probably to indicate that his preaching had resulted in some people coming to faith in Christ. Perhaps it was one of these disciples who owned the house on the wall from which Saul escaped the city.
Paul described his escape from Damascus in 2Co 11:32-33, and it is there we learn that someone lowered him in a basket from a house built on the city wall. The fact that Paul did not minimize this ignominious exit in his writings says a lot for his humility and the transformation God effected in this once self-righteous Pharisee. The local Jews arranged this attempt on his life, and their Nabatean governor supported them.
"Saul’s plans for persecuting Christians in Damascus took a strange turn; he had entered the city blind and left in a basket! Ironically he became the object of persecution." [Note: Toussaint, "Acts," pp. 377-78.]