Acts 9

CHAPTER IX

SAUL’S CONVERSION

Luke takes up the thread of his narrative which he broke off at 8:3. The importance of Saul’s conversion is made prominent in Acts. It was very dramatic, and its effects were most far-reaching. As a conversion it clearly brings out the essentials of every Christian conversion: Saul’s contrition and his faith. As a particular conversion it has its individual and exceptional features as has every other conversion, features that cannot be duplicated. These points must be borne in mind, both in order to understand Saul’s conversion and in order to avoid false deductions concerning other conversions.

In this chapter Luke furnishes us his own historical account of Saul’s conversion; in two subsequent chapters Paul himself tells of his conversion in two addresses. In each instance he has a specific purpose in view and tells the story so as to further that purpose. Therefore, in dealing with the accounts of this conversion it is proper to take up first of all and by itself Luke’s objective, historical narrative which aims to present merely the facts as they occurred. Then in due order we may examine Paul’s own accounts from the angle of the purposes which induced him to tell his audiences what he had experienced. This is Luke’s own method, which first gives us chapter 9, and then chapters 22 and 26.

The time between Christ’s ascension and Stephen’s martyrdom was probably three or four years. Soul was converted about the year 35 and returns to Jerusalem in 38.

Acts 9:1

1Now Saul, still breathing threat and murder against the disciples of the Lord, having gone to the high priest, asked in due order from him letters to Damascus to the synagogues in order that, if he found any being of that Way, whether men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.

Saul’s ardor for persecution had not abated; he still continued to blow his breath, reeking with threat and murder, against the disciples of the Lord—this is the force of Luke’s picturesque words. The participle with εἰς means einschnauben auf jemand. It is unsatisfactory to say that the genitives are partitive (R., W. P.), or that they are analogous to the genitive after verbs of smelling (R. 507) and to illustrate by a horse sniffing the smell of battle (R., W. P.). Any analogy with verbs of smelling lies not in what one smells but in what one smells of, in the odor he gives off (B.-D. 174); and still better is the idea of cause: threat and murder caused Saul to breathe out against the disciples (Stellhorn, Woerterbuch, on the verb).

The word “murder” is significant. The supposition that it refers only to Stephen’s death is questionable. Stephen was already dead; Saul was raging against other disciples. The fact that he had succeeded in having others put to death is certain, and the objection does not hold that Luke should have recorded these martyrdoms, for he recorded that of Stephen only because it marked the great turning point in the course of the history of the church, which sent the gospel out into the wide world.

Acts 9:2

2 Caiaphas was still the high priest, for not until the year 36 did Jonathan, a son of Annas, and in 37 Theophilus, another son of Annas, succeed Caiaphas; the latter were not sons of Caiaphas (R., W. P.). The authorization Saul desired was not requested from the high priest alone but from him as being head of the Sanhedrin who issued “the letters” on vote of the entire body as we see from 22:5; 26:10.

The middle ᾐτήσατο is not to be understood in the sense that Saul asked these letters “as a favor to himself” (R., W. P.); the middle of this verb is used with reference to business transactions, when business claims are made. So here the great business of persecuting the Christians had been officially delegated to Saul, and in prosecuting this business of his “he asked in due order” for documents that would enable him to execute this business of his also in Damascus. While Saul had his heart and soul in this persecution, it was not a private enterprise of his, could not be in the nature of the case, but an official enterprise of the supreme Jewish court itself with Saul as its head agent. For the persecutions in Jerusalem he had as his assistants a body of Levite police that had been granted him by the Sanhedrin in order to hale men and women to prison (8:3) and he was similarly equipped with police when he was authorized to operate in Damascus.

Damascus, the oldest city in the world (apparently a city already in Abraham’s time, B. C. 1912, Gen. 14:15; 15:2) that still exists as a famous city, had a large number of resident Jews and, as Luke’s plural shows, a number of synagogues. Nero butchered 10, 000 Jews in Damascus. It was under the rule of King Aretas three years after the event narrated in this section and must have been strongly Jewish when Saul went there on his errand. The Roman emperors granted the Sanhedrin authority over Jews outside of Palestine, and Aretas was a Roman vassal. What this authority included and in what territory the Sanhedrin might exercise it, is uncertain; but Saul’s expedition to Damascus evidently assumes that arrests could be made there and the prisoners brought to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem for trial. We have “both men and women” as in 8:3.

The word ὁδός, like the Hebrew derek, is extensively used in the metaphoric and ethical sense as a “way” or course of life, both as being marked out to be followed and as being followed. For the objective idea of Sittenlehre is not enough; in Matt. 3:3 the Baptist proclaims “the way of the Lord,” which certainly includes doctrine as well as moral regulations; in Acts 2:28 the plural is used. Especially noteworthy is John 14:6 where Jesus calls himself “the Way.” A genitive or other modifiers are often added in order to describe “the way.” The wicked also have their way. Here the word is used without an addition save the article: “the Way” κατʼ ἐξοχήν, the Christian faith, conviction, confession, and life as taught by and centering in Jesus. The genitive is qualitative: “any being of the Way,” who thus differed from all other Jews. These were to be arrested and brought bound (having been and thus continuing to be bound) to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:3

3 Now, as he was journeying, it came to pass that he was approaching Damascus. And suddenly there flashed around him a light out of heaven; and, having fallen on the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why art thou persecuting me? And he said, Who art thou, lord? And he: I am Jesus whom thou art persecuting. But arise and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what it is necessary that thou do.

Luke’s favorite ἐντῷ with the present infinitive means “while,” and the accusative with the infinitive is the subject of ἐγένετο. Saul had almost reached his goal and was elated by the prospect of what he would accomplish in destroying the church. He is in the full ascendency of his power. Then “suddenly” Jesus stops him. A miraculous light flashed out of heaven and enveloped him. It was noonday (22:6), and the light was brighter than the sun (26:13); it was not a momentary flash but, coming with a flash, shone around Saul for a time (26:13).

Acts 9:4

4 Instantly Saul dropped from the animal he was riding and fell prostrate to the ground and then heard the voice that said to him, “Saul, Saul, why art thou persecuting me?” In regard to the difference between ἀκούω with the accusative φωνήν and in v. 7 with the genitive τῆςφωνῆς, compare 22:9. The accusative refers to the voice as saying something, the genitive to the voice as coming from someone. There is not a contradiction between 9:7 and 22:9.

One should go through the Scriptures and note these duplications: Saul, Saul—Martha, Martha—Jerusalem, Jerusalem—David’s lament over Absolom, and others. In varying ways they express an emotion of deepest concern but never anger. Why, yes why, was Saul persecuting Jesus? This question called upon Saul to probe his soul in regard to the terrible work in which he was engaged. To persecute the disciples is to persecute the Master. Caput pro membris clamabat. Augustine. Jesus spoke in Hebrew (26:14), and we take it that the dialog was carried on in this language. Jesus does not at once identify himself. Saul hears only this question coming from one in heaven, the light of whose blinding, heavenly presence and glory was shining about him.

Acts 9:5

5 Thus, when the voice from heaven paused, the question came from Saul’s lips: “Who art thou, lord?” It should be evident that “lord” is here not to be taken in the sense of God, for then Saul would not ask. This is “lord” in the sense of any superior person or being. From 1 Cor. 9:1 and 15:8 we learn that Saul saw the glorified Jesus. These passages have nothing to do with the question as to whether Saul ever saw Jesus while he lived on earth. We have no evidence whatever that Saul saw Jesus in the days of Jesus’ earthly life. In any case, the glorified, heavenly presence of Jesus differed vastly from his presence in humiliation.

Now those standing by saw no one but heard only the voice but not what it uttered. The sight as well as the words of Jesus were intended for Saul only. So he saw and so he heard and understood. Jesus knew how to appeal to Saul’s eyes, ears, and consciousness so that they apprehended.

Jesus then names himself and states only his personal name “Jesus,” the one that had been given him on the day of his circumcision (Luke 2:21); for it is his identity that is to be established. Yet Saul received far more than this mere name. This was Jesus in glory, he whom the Jews had rejected and crucified, he whom God had exalted to the glory that now enveloped Saul. The tremendous reality and truth of this fact swept over Saul’s soul like a flood. And this makes us feel the impact of the contrasted pronouns: “I, I am Jesus, whom thou, yea, thou art persecuting!” That charge, that accusation of persecuting is thus driven into the soul of Saul to the hilt. Here was the revelation, not only of Jesus, who with one stroke swept away all the lies Saul had believed about him as a mere man, etc., but also the revelation of what Saul was engaged in: persecuting this glorified Jesus in his disciples: “I—thou!”

At this point note the insertions made in the A. V., partly from 26:14, partly as a reminiscence of 22:10. Written, perhaps, on the margin at first, the additions were eventually interpolated into the text.

Acts 9:6

6 Ἀλλά breaks off. Its force is: I will not speak further of what thou art doing but of what thou shalt now do; the adversative idea of ἀλλά is conserved. Jesus orders Saul into the city where he will be told what he must do.

Some important points ought to be noted at this place. Jesus preaches the law to Saul; he confronts him with his sin and his crime; he smites and crushes Saul’s heart with a consciousness of its awful guilt. But Jesus does not preach the gospel to Saul, he orders him to go to a place where the appointed minister of the gospel will proclaim this to him; for “what is necessary that thou do” does not refer to works of law but to believing and receiving the grace and the pardon for his sins.

Here we again see how Jesus honors his ministry. Philip is sent to the eunuch by an angel, it is not the angel who is sent to teach the eunuch. And this is the case wherever the gospel is to be offered. The essentials for Saul as a sinner were contrition and faith; the moment these were wrought in him he was converted. Just at what moment this inner turn was wrought in Saul, in other words, at what instant faith was kindled in him, no man can say, nor need we know. One thing alone is certain: when Jesus smote Saul with the law, this crushed him but did not kindle faith in him.

It is often said that Saul was converted on the road to Damascus. Strictly speaking, this is not the fact. His conversion began in his encounter with the law but it was not accomplished until the gospel entered his heart by faith, and that did not occur on the road but in Damascus.

Jesus converted Saul, and he did it through his regular means, the law and the gospel; and no conversion was ever wrought without these means. In this instance Jesus applied the law immediately as he had done when he preached to sinners on earth; he applied the gospel mediately through his servant in Damascus. The law was not stronger because it was applied immediately, nor the gospel weaker because it was applied mediately. Saul was not converted irresistibly. In 26:19 Paul says pointedly that he “was not disobedient to the heavenly vision,” which implies that he might have answered it by disobedience. If conversion were irresistible, then all who remain unconverted could charge God with their damnation. When Jesus confronts the sinner with his law and his gospel, and the sinner, nevertheless, remains unconverted, the fault is wholly the sinner’s own, Matt. 23:27; Acts 7:51; 13:46; 28:25–28.

As far as the outward circumstances of Saul’s call and conversion are concerned, these were fashioned by the Lord with a view to Saul’s apostleship. This applies especially to his vision of the glorified Jesus, 1 Cor. 9:1. The Lord was qualifying him for his future work in order that, although he was called so late, he might, nevertheless, be on a par with the other apostles. In this respect Saul’s case was entirely exceptional even as the Lord needed only one apostle of this kind. All else, time, place, etc., was in God’s gracious providence, who chooses these for all sinners with a view to one result only, namely that they may be as favorable as possible to the success of his grace.

Acts 9:7

7 Now the men, those traveling with him, were standing speechless, hearing the voice, yet beholding no one.

These men constitute the police force that Saul had with him. At the first flash of the superearthly light they, too, fell prostrate (26:14); upon recovering, they now stand speechless, in utter astonishment because of what is happening especially to Saul who is lying on the ground and talking with someone who is unseen by them.

Here there is an opportunity to establish a contradiction. Luke says they “heard the voice”; but in 22:9 it is stated that they “heard not the voice of him that spoke to me (Paul).” Aside from the different cases of φωνή used in these two instances as explained above the sense is plain: they heard the sound (9:7) but heard not the words and understood not the sense of the sound (22:9). This is an exact parallel to the light: they saw the light of Jesus’ presence but saw nothing of Jesus himself standing before Saul in his glory. We have an analogous instance in John 12:28, etc. To see and to hear what they did see and hear was sufficient for these Levite ὑπηρέται or underlings; all that they were to know was that a vision from heaven had come to Saul and that a heavenly being had spoken to him.

The three accounts of Saul’s conversion have received a great variety of treatment. The whole story is converted into a drama of the imagination: its background are the twinges of Saul’s conscience, its actual occasion is a sudden thunderstorm with a stunning flash of lightning, a bolt laying everyone prostrate. Psychology offers its own solution by speaking especially of scruples of conscience and inner battles that were brought on by Stephen’s speech and also by his death and the manner in which he died. But Saul had no scruples or misgivings of any kind. He was in the full flush of his persecuting enthusiasm; he was ready for many more killings (v. 1). He was burning with zeal for the right and was seriously fighting the wrong.

Then Jesus suddenly appeared to him, and Saul was overwhelmed with the realization that he was fighting for the wrong and against the right, yea, against God’s Messiah himself. In an honest character such as Saul had this caused conversion by a terrible struggle that was superinduced by the vision of Jesus.

The psychological aspect is easy to understand. This vision of Jesus was not something that transpired only in Saul’s own soul either as imagined by himself or as wrought in Saul’s soul by the Lord. In addition to the accounts in Acts, 1 Cor. 9:1, and 15:8 disagree with such a view. Jesus actually appeared to Saul. The issues involved in a proper conception of Saul’s conversion extend beyond the man himself. When Jesus brought him to conversion he changed not only his life but made him the foremost apostle.

Was this man mistaken in regard to what happened on the road to Damascus? Did he labor under psychological delusions and the like? The cause must measure up to the effect. The apostleship of Paul, as it is recorded in the New Testament, cannot be traced to anything that was merely subjective, mistaken, unreal. Luke recorded the realities, and they will ever stand as what they are.

Acts 9:8

8 And Saul was raised up from the earth; moreover, with his eyes standing open, he continued to see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was for three days not seeing and did not eat or drink.

We regard the form ἠγέρθη as a true passive: “he was raised up,” instead of taking it in the sense of the middle: “he raised himself up,” “he arose.” Why should his attendants not assist their commander? But it was discovered that he had been blinded. The genitive absolute has the perfect passive participle: “his eyes having been opened and remaining so.” It was found that he was not blinded by the great glare of light only for a time but that “he continued to see nothing,” the durative imperfect. His men had to lead him by the hand, and it was thus that the great persecutor and destroyer of the Christian Church entered into the city that he had selected for his new triumphs.

Acts 9:9

9 Saul continued to be blind for three days. We do not regard the expression as a periphrastic tense because then the negative should be οὑ; μή is the regular negative used with the participle and shows that it is only the predicate. Saul’s sight was miraculously restored. He also fasted. He is in a depressed and wretched condition. Luke states only the outward facts.

His fearful sin lay heavily upon him, and the Lord permitted it to crush him for three days. A good deal was required to grind down this mighty Pharisee and implacable foe of the gospel. Shut off from the world, blind, abstaining from food, with no one to help his soul’s distress, his proud self-righteousness was conquered, and there remained only a sinner in the dust who ever after felt himself chief of all sinners. 1 Tim. 1:15. The supposition that this experience left Paul with weak eyes is one of the many hypotheses in regard to Saul; but this one militates against v. 18. When the Lord restored Saul’s sight he restored it completely and not halfway.

Acts 9:10

10 Now there was a disciple in Damascus by name Ananias. And the Lord said to him in a vision, Ananias! And he said, Lo, I (hear), Lord! And the Lord to him: Ananias, go into the narrow street that is called Straight and seek in Judas’ house a Tarsian by name Saul; for lo, he is praying, and he saw a man by name Ananias come in and place the hands on him in order that he might recover sight.

On μαθητής see 6:1; τις is our indefinite article. In 22:12 a little more is said about Ananias, especially that he was esteemed by all the Jews—and Saul was in a Jew’s house. The Lord prepared Ananias for Saul, and Saul for Ananias; but we must note that the Lord is also preparing the way for Saul among the disciples at Damascus, who had heard of his frightful deeds and of his coming to Damascus to add to them.

The Lord called as he once did to little Samuel, and Ananias answered: “Lo, I, Lord!” meaning that he is giving ear and heart to hear what the Lord may say.

Acts 9:11

11 He receives orders as to just what to do in order to find Saul and is told that Saul is praying and that he is expecting Ananias and what Ananias will do for him. Ananias, we see, knows where Judas lived, namely in the ῥύμη or “narrow street” that bears the name “Straight.” Damascus, Jerusalem, and other cities had and still have such narrow streets, and but few of them are straight for any distance; wider streets are called πλατεῖα (feminine adjective, supply ὁδός). We passed through this street in Damascus in 1925. Yes, we visited Judas’ house, etc. But when we were to see the window in the wall from which Paul was let down in a basket, lo, they were building a new wall—only the place up in the air was left where they said the old window had been. We certainly had our doubts regarding even the street “Straight.”

A Ταρσεύς is a native of Ταρσός, the capital of Cilicia in southwestern Asia Minor. It was at one time a large, free city that was not under a Roman governor; it was also renowned for learning and schools of philosophy. “A Tarsian,” of course, differentiates this Saul from any others bearing this name, but 21:39 shows that this term conveys more: Saul was “a citizen” of Tarsus and not merely in the sense in which we ordinarily understand citizenship, as having been born in Tarsus, which would have made him only “a resident,” but as being the son of a family that had originally been located in Tarsus by one of the Seleucid kings, or as the son of an ancestor who had been granted the rights of citizenship for distinguished services to the state. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, 31, etc. Saul had this standing in Tarsus for life; it was no mean distinction even apart from his Roman citizenship.

“For lo, he is praying” is added as having a special meaning for the mission of Ananias. This is not the common daily praying of a strict Pharisaic Jew, which would not warrant such an exclamation as “lo”; this praying marks Saul as a changed man—praying, no longer breathing threat and murder (v. 1). The raging lion has been changed into a bleating lamb. “Praying” means that Saul is in deep distress, and that the Lord is now engaged in answering that prayer, and that this mission of Ananias is a part of that answer.

Acts 9:12

12 In fact, the Lord has already shown Saul how his prayers were to be heard. For what the Lord tells Ananias to do he has already revealed to Saul in advance, namely in a vision, showing him that a man by the name of Ananias would enter, lay his hands on him, and restore his sight. In other words, Saul has been duly prepared for and in a wonderful way already introduced to Ananias. He is expecting the Lord’s messenger and is now praying for that very reason. Indirectly, in the purpose clause: “in order that he might recover sight,” Ananias learns what he is to do for Saul.

Acts 9:13

13 But Ananias answered: Lord, I heard from many concerning this man, how many base things he did to thy saints in Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the high priests to bind all those calling upon thy name.

It is unwarranted to call these honest words of Ananias’ his “protest to Jesus against any dealing with Saul,” and “an illustration of our own narrow ignorance in our rebellious moods against the will of God.” This is not even a case like that of Zacharias who doubted Gabriel’s word and was struck dumb because of that doubt. With simple openness Ananias tells the Lord what he has heard from many about this man Saul (the aorist ἤκονσα whereas we use the perfect to refer to recent events, R. 842). Saul’s record was certainly bad. The many from whom Ananias had heard it were very likely fugitive Christians who had fled from Jerusalem to Damascus. Besides, reports travelled swiftly in those days.

The dative of disadvantage “to thy saints” is quite noteworthy because it appears so early in naming and describing the disciples. The word ἅγιοι is strictly Biblical in sense and describes the disciples as having been removed from the sinful fellowship of the world and by the sanctifying power of God placed into fellowship with the God of redemption and salvation. They have experienced the ἁγιάζειν of God and his Spirit, they are in possession of Christ’s salvation. See the elaborate article in C.-K. 34, etc. and note 53. The change which makes them hagioi is that which removed their sin and guilt by justification and continues to build them up in a new life by sanctification. “Saints” came to be a standard term for the believers; they are the ἡγιασμένοι of 20:32; 26:18, those who have experienced and thus still experience the sanctifying grace that makes them God’s own. “Thy saints” = those who are in blessed fellowship with the Lord.

Acts 9:14

14 Ananias also knows all about Saul’s plans regarding the Christians in Damascus, his authority to bind “all those calling on thy name” (7:59). This expression makes prominent the full confessional characteristic of the saints, 1 Cor. 1:2; Rom. 10:13. “Thy name,” so hated by the Jews, is not merely “Jesus,” or “Jesus Christ,” but he with all that he has revealed about himself; note carefully ὄνομα in 4:12, and follow the term from 2:21, 38; 3:6 onward. To call on this name is to confess it as being the bearer of salvation, to pray and to worship in this name, and to expect all help in time and in eternity from him who is revealed by this name.

Acts 9:15

15 Ananias really puts a question to the Lord. He lays all this in regard to Saul before the Lord in order that the Lord may enlighten him regarding Saul. And the Lord said to him: Be going; because this one is a chosen instrument for me to bear my name before both the Gentiles and kings and Israel’s sons. For I will show him how many things it is necessary that he suffer in behalf of my name.

The Lord complies with the implied request of Ananias and gives him a glimpse of what Saul is to accomplish in the future. Ananias is merely to aid in the first step. The present imperative is quite mild: “Just be going—everything is all right!” With ἐστίμοι “I have in him,” the Lord tells Ananias what he sees in Saul: from now on he is to be “a chosen instrument” for a most mighty task and for a most wonderful distinction (v. 16). Σκεῦος is any kind of utensil and has the meaning “vessel” (a container) only where this is especially indicated. Since τοῦβαστάσαι (infinitive of purpose) means to lift, to carry with the hands or on the shoulders, the idea of a vessel is excluded. As the Lord’s instrument Saul will take up and carry the Lord’s name or revelation (ὄνομα as before) before the Gentiles, etc., holding it up for them to see and to adore. The genitive ἐκλογῆς is qualitative, R. 496, “attributive,” and is used instead of an adjective but in a stronger sense: “an instrument of choice,” i. e., “chosen.” It is the Lord himself who chooses his tools for his tasks. They are his tasks—who shall dictate to him the tools to be used?

The great task of Saul was to take the gospel to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). It must have come as a surprise to both Ananias and Saul himself when Ananias told him what the Lord had said. He did become the apostle to the heathen world in an especial sense. “The Gentiles” and “kings” are combined by τεκαί, “both and,” since the rulers before whom Saul testified were with few exceptions pagan. Yet “Israel’s sons” (see 7:37) are added as the secondary field of operation for Saul. The Lord had all of Saul’s work mapped out in advance.

Acts 9:16

16 A great work, and now a great honor: the many things Saul would suffer “in behalf of my name,” this significant ὄνομα again. “I will show him” with its preposition ὑπό means: “I will place under his eyes and thus show him,” but this is not a showing in advance, by prophecy, but a showing from time to time as occasions for suffering arise. To be sure, this word which Ananias would repeat to Saul foretold that he would have much suffering awaiting him; “I will show him” goes beyond that and includes also the idea that the Lord would be present with Saul and each time point out what he must suffer and help him to endure it. In βαστάσαι the idea of bearing a great burden is expressed; now with παθεῖν a mighty load is added in the shape of suffering. Both aorists are constative end at the same time imply successful bearing and suffering. Δεῖ may be used for any type of necessity; here it is the necessity arising from bearing the Name before the Gentiles, etc., which is indicated by the ὑπέρ phrase, “in behalf of my Name.”

Heavy work in distant lands—much suffering arising from that work! What a prospect! And the Lord reveals this in advance. Will Saul not flee from it all? No danger. Remember Matt. 5:10–12, and also how Jesus constantly told the Twelve what awaited them. It is the Name that makes this great work so attractive, the Name which lends glory to the suffering. Recall 6:21. To this day it is true that, if we would join the illustrious company of the great prophets of God, we must suffer for the Name’s sake.

Acts 9:17

17 Now Ananias went away and went into the house; and, having placed upon him the hands, said: Brother Saul, the Lord commissioned me, Jews who appeared to thee on the road on which thou wert coming, in order that thou mayest recover sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell off from his eyes as if scales, and he recovered sight. And having arisen, he was baptized; and having received food, he got strength. Moreover, he was for some days in company with the disciples in Damascus.

It is supposition that the vision of the Lord was granted to Ananias at night and that he executed his commission the next morning. If such had been the fact, a word or two would have indicated it. Ananias reaches the house without difficulty and is brought to Saul who sits there in his blindness waiting for what the Lord had communicated to him (v. 12). Luke records only the pertinent facts. This does not prevent us from supplying what took place. Did someone not admit Ananias to the house and lead him to Saul?

Why, then, say that nobody was present except Ananias and Saul? There is no reason why Judas himself and several others were not present. Who gave Saul nourishment (v. 19)? There must have been a great deal of excitement for all the residents of that house! Luke has left ever so much untold in order that we may the more regard what he has told.

So the hands were duly laid upon Saul’s head, this symbolical act (see 6:6) being the more important for the blind man. In connection with this act Ananias speaks the great word of absolution to this frightful sinner Saul who is now certainly contrite enough. Jesus himself pronounced absolution in many different ways; note Luke 23:43. Absolution is what this chief of sinners needed most and first, and then all that follows absolution. Already the address, “Brother Saul,” absolves. It cannot mean “brother” in the superficial sense in which many use it, nor in the sense of brother Jew. “Brother” was sweet music to Saul’s ears. That word admitted him into the communion of “saints” (v. 13), all his past guilt was erased.

“Brother” has material significance, for the next word is ὁΚύριος and states what the “Lord” has commissioned Ananias to do, that Lord who appeared to Saul on the road which he was traveling three days ago (ᾗ, R. 716), Jesus, who there had crushed Saul with the revelation of his guilt. The sight of that Lord had blinded Saul’s eyes. So spiritually blind had he been up to that moment. And now, in token of his pardon of Saul’s guilt, that same Lord is removing that blindness from Saul’s eyes, is restoring sight to him. For the eyes of his soul have been opened to the sight of faith. Do not ask just when the first spark of saving faith entered Saul’s dark soul.

It is enough to know that he now believes. And he is to be filled with the Holy Spirit, this supreme gift is to be bestowed upon him by means of the baptism that followed immediately. There is no indication in any of the three records or in other references to Saul’s conversion that he received charismatic gifts; we have no right to assume that he did. The spiritual power of the Spirit filled Saul, and at this moment that means more than any charismatic gifts.

Acts 9:18

18 Saul’s sight returned instantly. Saul describes the sensation he felt when he speaks of scales or flakes that fell from his eyes. Those present saw only that his sight had been fully restored, the blinded eyeballs again saw. To Saul it seemed as though scales were dropping away and thus again permitting vision. As his blindness had something symbolical about it, so also has this new granting of sight.

Very briefly, with but two words, Luke records the baptism. Some put a good deal into ἀναστάς, “having arisen”; they think that this word indicates that Saul was taken to the river Abana—some mention Pharpar—and was there immersed. But this journey to the river does not seem to fit into the context, for in rapid succession Luke relates that Saul is sitting in a room as a blind man, that he has his eyes opened, arises, and is baptized, and then takes food and is strengthened—all apparently occurring in that house. Yet in spite of this some claim that he was immersed. R., W. P. writes: “possibly in the pool in the house of Judas, as today water is plentiful in Damascus”; Zahn thinks that Saul was baptized in the Badezimmer (bathroom) in Judas’ house.

But very few houses are furnished with pools. When we visited Damascus in 1925 we noticed that even the vast courtyard of the Great Mosque, the greatest in the world, contained only a fountain, and we observed a moslem making most thorough ablution—he could not have immersed himself. The grandest house in Damascus had 365 rooms, and there were fountains in some of the rooms and a pool in the courtyard, but not for the purpose of swimming in them but only for ornament. Our hotel, the Grand Victoria, where Balfour and Allenby stopped, the best in the city, was third-rate in its accommodations. Immersion would be possible, but only in one of the seven channels into which the Abana (now Barada) River is divided in order to furnish irrigation and a general water supply for the city. The city is made by this river, the waters of which are conducted in small channels.

Beyond the city these waters disappear in the desert sands. One channel flowed past the hotel, but it was quite shallow, yet in a deep place we saw a bather; there a person could have been immersed. The Pharpar flows at a distance from the city; when we crossed it we saw only a brook.

The claim that Saul was baptized by immersion involves the assumption that ἀναστάς, “having arisen,” implies the fact that he was conducted to one of the channels of the Abana. But this circumstantial participle is inserted merely to mark the importance of an act: a person gets up to do this or that. A fitting sample is found in 5:17. Saul had been sitting; he would naturally arise for the baptismal act.

More important than these speculations is the fact that Saul was promptly baptized. He accepted, yea, desired this sacrament with the pardoning and regenerating grace it conveyed to him; it was at the same time the divine seal of grace and of the Spirit and made him Christ’s own. After the administration of this sacrament he ceased to be a Jew and was, indeed, made a Christian.

We are left to conclude that Ananias administered the sacrament just as Philip had done in 8:38 in the case of the eunuch. As far as Luke’s record shows, the disciples who were living in Damascus, although they were numerous, had not yet withdrawn from the synagogues and had no organization of their own with elders or pastors. So Ananias administered baptism to Saul by the right of his royal priesthood as a believer. Since the Christians in Damascus were as yet without pastors, Ananias, of necessity, assumed this function. In the present instance, however, all doubt was removed by the commission he had received directly from the Lord, which certainly contained the order not merely to restore the sight of his eyes to Saul but also to receive him as a “brother” in the fellowship of the “saints.” A vessel filled with water was brought in, some of the water was applied to Saul as Jesus had directed in Matt. 28:19, in the name of the Father, etc., and the blessed act was completed.

Acts 9:19

19 Saul was a changed man. Since he had been weakened by his fast of three days’ duration, he now took food and restored his physical strength. When Luke writes that Saul was in the company of the disciples “for some days,” we feel that he intends to state just that. We have no particulars in regard to Judas, to whose house Saul was first conducted; it is fair, however, to conclude that this man was a Jew and not a Christian. Saul now changed his abode; he went where he now belonged, among the disciples. It took some time for them to circulate his story, for him to get acquainted with them and thus gradually to get his bearings in this new city.

Those who introduce what v. 20 states at this point anticipate matters. On the other hand, it is supposed that during these days Saul underwent a course of instruction in the doctrines of the gospel. The μετά phrase does not imply such a thought, and Gal. 1:1–12, and the entire argument in Galatians, chapters one and two, is to the contrary. Saul received his entire gospel directly from the Lord as he declares, “by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” He was not to be a preacher or an evangelist like Philip, who could operate with the gospel that was received at secondhand; as an apostle and as one who was on an equality with the other apostles Saul needed to receive the gospel at firsthand. And he received it so, by direct revelation. This may explain his being filled with the Holy Spirit, v. 17.

Acts 9:20

20 And immediately in the synagogues he began to preach Jesus, that this one is the Son of God. And all those hearing it continued to be amazed and to say: Is not this the one who ravaged in Jerusalem those calling on this name? and here he had come for his that he might bring them bound to the high priests! Saul, however, was being filled the more with power and was confounding the Jews dwelling in Damascus, proving that this one is the Christ.

We see the energy of the man. A few days pass, only enough to get his proper bearings, and then he begins his work as a herald (ingressive aorist) in the very city in which he had planned to do far different work. Some think that he began on the very day of his baptism; but that is not what Luke says. Saul preached “Jesus.” What about him? “That (epexegetical ὄτι) this one is the Son of God.” Add v. 22: “that this one is the Christ.” Compare Luke 22:70. The strong demonstratives are exclusive: “this one and this one alone.” Saul had seen this Son of God in his heavenly glory; he preached as an eyewitness. “I am Jesus” he had heard him say with glorified lips, the very Jesus who had walked, wrought on earth, had been killed by the Jews, and raised to glory by God—him Saul preached as the Messiah.

We meet the assertion that Paul never called Jesus “the Son of God”; and yet here is the fact—Luke has it from Paul himself. The very first thing which he did when he began his work was to preach Jesus as the Son of God. Luke, the great associate of Paul, here records what “the chosen instrument” (v. 15) of the Lord preached from the beginning. Robertson adds: “With this faith he can shake the world. There is no power in any other preaching.”

Acts 9:21

21 Now the imperfect tenses begin; all of them are descriptive and at the same time lead us to look forward to what followed. First to be mentioned is the amazement of all who heard him in the synagogues of Damascus, and we may include Christians as well as Jews, for the withdrawal of the Christians from the Jews does not seem to have been effected as yet. They continue exclaiming, “Is not this the one,” etc! The thing seemed incredible especially to the Jews. Note the recurrence of the expression, “those calling on this name” (v. 14) with the significant ὄνομα also, “to bring them bound” (v. 2), the same perfect participle. All knew about the authorization and the instructions from the high priests with which Saul had arrived, his Levite police guard (the “men” in v. 7) had told for what purpose they had come under Saul’s leadership.

How was it possible that the persecutor-in-chief had turned preacher? The question ends in a declaration: “and here he had come for this,” the purpose being stated with ἵνα.

Acts 9:22

22 As Saul preached he grew in power “the more” and caused consternation in the ranks of the Jews. The passive is usually taken in the middle sense, “he grew in power” (“increased in strength,” our versions), but it really means that power was bestowed upon him, and this in increasing measure as his work went on. The result is added coordinately: “he continued to confound the Jews resident in Damascus”; as in 6:10 Stephen proved invincible, so also Stephen’s greater successor. “Proving that this one is the Christ,” the Messiah promised by the Scriptures, indicates how the Jews were confounded. Those proofs were conclusive, overwhelming, and silenced the opponents. Then the same thing happened that had occurred in the case of Stephen; unable to refute the argument, these opponents resolved to kill the man who presented it.

Here we have Saul’s first activity in the synagogues. An efficient pupil of the great Gamaliel, competent, therefore, to expound the Scriptures, he secured opportunity to speak in the synagogues. The service was such that any competent and qualified person was allowed to speak, and sometimes replies were made. In all his work in every city the apostle first visited the Jewish synagogues. They provided him with openings, and with the advantage there gained he proceeded. Not for a number of years was Saul as yet to extend his work to the Gentiles. The Lord was still training him, restraining him as he did Moses in Midian (7:29, 30) until in due time the door into his great life’s work would open before him.

Acts 9:23

23 Now, when many days were being fulfilled, the Jews resolved to make away with him; but their plot became known to Saul. Moreover, they were watching even the gates both by day and by night in order that they might make away with him. However, his disciples, having taken him at night, let him down through the wall by lowering him in a basket.

These “many days” comprise three years (Gal. 1:18). Saul’s visit to Arabia (Gal. 1:17) must be placed within this period. We know the fact of this visit but neither the occasion and the purpose nor the exact place or the duration. It is often supposed that Luke should have written about this journey to Arabia; but he does not record all that might be of interest to Theophilus and now to us. He follows a definite plan and records only the vital and the really significant matters of the apostolic story. This visit of Saul to Arabia was negligible for Luke’s plan of Acts. Unless we find the clue to his plan of writing we shall fail to understand at many points.

It was thus after Saul’s visit to Arabia, when he renewed his activity in Damascus, that his Jewish opponents took decisive action. The aorist συνεβουλεύσαντο, exactly as in Matt. 26:4, means that at a called meeting the formal resolution was passed, its contents being stated. In the case of Jesus it was to get hold of him with cunning and to kill him; in the case of Saul it was “to make away with him,” ἀναιρέω, the verb which in 2:23; 5:33, 36; 7:28 means murder. Moral considerations never seemed to weigh in the balance when Jesus was concerned. “Took counsel” in our versions is too weak. Saul’s fate was decided.

Acts 9:24

24 All we know is that Saul learned about the plot in some way. The imperfect describes what measures were taken to prevent his escape. His enemies “were even guarding the gates (of the city) both by day and by night,” the genitives of time. Saul must have been in hiding because he knew about the fate that was intended for him. In 2 Cor. 11:32 we see that the ethnarch of King Aretas, who governed the city for him, agreed to the plot to apprehend Saul. The Jews had most likely denounced Saul as being a most dangerous man so that he had issued orders to his guards at the gate to capture him in case he tried to pass through it.

He did not need to appoint the Jews as such guards. These volunteered to watch lest Saul in some disguise, reckoning with the inability of the governor’s men to recognize him, should manage to evade them. Since the gates of the walled city were sealed, it would be only a matter of time until Saul was located and done away with. An efficient plot—that did not materialize. They watched and watched while Saul was already on his way to Jerusalem.

Acts 9:25

25 Saul’s escape was effected in the simplest manner. Some of the houses that adjoined the wall around the city had windows that were high above the wall itself. From such a window Saul was lowered in a basket, σπυρίς, referring to its roundness; it is called σαργάνη in 2 Cor. 11:33, referring to its being plaited. We must note the expression “his disciples” which points to the success of Saul’s work in Damascus; these men were converts of his. The fate of Stephen was not to be the fate of Saul. The Lord needs martyrs and secures them, and each is given his crown; but he also needs workers and provides them, and each receives his great reward.

Acts 9:26

26 Now, having come to Jerusalem, he was attempting to join himself to the disciples; and all were fearing him, not believing that he was a disciple. Barnabas, however, after he got hold of him, brought him to the apostles and recounted to them how on the road he saw the Lord, and that he spoke to him, and how in Damascus he spoke boldly in the name of Jesus.

The imperfect tenses picture Saul’s difficulties on arriving in Jerusalem and at the same time point to what follows, namely their removal. When we remember the Jews’ method of reckoning time, the three years of Saul’s absence from Jerusalem (Gal. 1:18) most likely imply one full year and parts of two other years. So Jesus lay in the tomb all day Saturday and only a part of Friday and of Sunday, and yet the time spent in the tomb was counted as three days. Another point is Saul’s absence in Arabia, likewise the war between Herod and King Aretas, which interrupted intercourse between Damascus and Jerusalem. Thus when Saul suddenly reappeared to join himself to the disciples in their meetings for worship and in social intercourse, he encountered doubt and suspicion, nobody really believing that he actually was a disciple as he claimed to be; the tense of the direct discourse is retained after ὄτι. It did seem quite incredible that the most violent persecutor of the Christians, who had caused so many to flee from him and had wrought so much havoc, should himself have turned Christian. Was he, perhaps, pretending in order presently to do still greater damage?

Acts 9:27

27 It was Barnabas, who has already been introduced to us in 4:36, 37, who brought this situation to an end. Luke again states only the fact. We ask, however, how Barnabas came to act as intermediary. Had the two men met earlier in life? The conjecture is offered that both had attended the university in Tarsus years before. There is greater probability that Barnabas, who afterward was in such close and long association with Saul, was drawn to him from the beginning. Natural affinities appear even among leaders of the church. We need no further information at this point.

Barnabas “got hold of” Saul. This verb always governs the genitive, here αὑτοῦ is understood (B.-D. 170, 2), and αὑτόν is construed with ἤγαγε. He took Saul and made a complete investigation, and after he had obtained the remarkable story he took Saul to the apostles themselves and recounted it to them, laying stress on the three vital points: first, that Saul had seen the Lord; secondly, that the Lord had spoken to him; thirdly, that in Damascus Saul had spoken boldly in the name of Jesus (ὄνομα as in all previous passages beginning with 2:21).

The point of these two indirect questions that have a declaration between them (R. 1047) is evidently not merely that Saul is a fellow believer, but that the Lord qualified and made him a fellow apostle. That, too, is the reason that Barnabas takes Saul not merely to the congregation but to the apostles themselves. To have seen the risen and glorified Lord was a requisite for the apostolate. While Luke says only that the Lord spoke with Saul without intimating what this was about, the next statement, that Saul spoke in Damascus as he did, makes plain that the Lord authorized Saul’s preaching. Verse 15 was also, no doubt, reported by Barnabas.

Luke writes that Barnabas took Saul to the apostles. This is made more specific in Gal. 1:18, 19, where Saul himself speaks of this visit to Jerusalem. It was brief, lasting only fifteen days. Saul’s purpose was to become acquainted with Peter (ἰστορῆσαι, the aorist indicating that this was accomplished). He met only two of the apostles, Peter and James. The latter was not John’s brother but the one called “the brother of the Lord.” There is much debate in regard to the identity of this James (see 1:14, the brothers of Jesus; 12:27, James being one of them).

As far as Luke’s plural “to the apostles” is concerned, this is in order if James is regarded as an apostle in the wider sense as was Barnabas as well as others; the eleven were busy elsewhere. In v. 29 “the Hellenists” are only two or three and not all the thousands that were living in Jerusalem; in 8:18 “the apostles” signifies only “Peter and John.” The same is true with regard to many other plurals, and there is no need to posit a contradiction between Luke and Galatians.

Acts 9:28

28 So the ice was broken. And he was in company with them, going in and going out in Jerusalem, boldly speaking in the name of the Lord. He was engaged both in speaking and in disputing with the Hellenists; but they were undertaking to make away with him. Now, on learning it, the brethren led him down to Caesarea and sent him forth to Tarsus.

“In company with them” means with the apostles. Saul was not only accepted as a genuine disciple; the apostles treated him as a fellow apostle. It was thus that he went in and out in their company “in Jerusalem,” εἰς = ἐν, as so often in the Koine, which sets aside the older forced explanations which even take us out of Jerusalem and then “into” it again.

Acts 9:29

29 Luke says only that, while he was in company with the apostles, Saul “was speaking openly or boldly in the name of the Lord,” i. e., in connection with that name or revelation. We take it that this was not preaching but private utterance. While the participle is a form of the verb used in v. 27, which includes synagogue preaching (v. 20) in Damascus, the situation obtaining in Jerusalem was entirely different. Here the Christians had their established preaching, and Paul would not have intruded. As to the synagogues in Jerusalem, these were at this time not open to the apostles and certainly were not used by them. They had found the courts of the Temple far better suited to their purpose. Note carefully that this participial clause still speaks of Saul as being in company with the apostles, referring to Peter and James.

What Saul did is stated separately, the imperfect tenses showing that he began to speak as well as to dispute with the Hellenists but did not get very far with them. The ἐλάλει implies that Saul accosted a Hellenist here and there, and the συνεζήτει that he occasionally managed to engage in a dispute; but that was all. Some think that Saul entered the synagogue of the Cilicians since he was from Tarsus of Cilicia, but Luke does not say this. We found that this was not probable in regard to Stephen in 6:9. All comparisons with Stephen are, therefore, problematical: that Saul stood in the very synagogue where Stephen had once stood, that in the very place where Saul had contradicted Stephen and had been thoroughly defeated he now used the same arguments against the Hellenists that Stephen had used.

As far as Stephen is concerned, we do not know whether he ever engaged in debate with Saul even outside of the synagogue. Only this is true, and we may make the most of it, that, like Stephen, Saul argued with a few Hellenists where he happened to encounter them, and that very quickly, as in Stephen’s case, when counterargument failed, these Hellenists planned to use the more effective answer of murder, ἀνελεῖν. These Hellenists had silenced Stephen’s voice with his own blood and undertook to do the same with Saul’s voice. On the Hellenists see 6:1. Saul seems to have selected them, not because he himself was a Hellenist, but because he, too, was born in Hellenistic territory and thought he could accomplish something with regard to them. But the undertaking of these vicious opponents came to nothing as the imperfect indicates. Note the difference: in v. 23 συνεβουλεύσαντο, a formal resolution passed at a meeting, here ἐπεχείρουν, an undertaking by individuals.

Acts 9:30

30 According to 22:17–21 the Lord himself directed Saul to leave Jerusalem. This is what really induced him to do so. All that Luke adds is that the brethren got to know about the undertaking of the Hellenists. Saul, we assume, told them also about the Lord’s communication to him. The brethren, of course, only a delegation, “brought him down to Cæsarea” and carefully guarded his person on this journey lest his bloodthirsty enemies should fall upon him on the road and thus after all succeed in making away with him. From Caesarea Saul could travel to Tarsus by either sea or land.

Here we come to the greatest gap in the record of Saul’s life since we saw him at Stephen’s death. Saul is lost to view for about eight years; see 11:25 where Barnabas brings him forth from Tarsus. For more than ten years after his conversion and call the Lord’s chosen instrument for bringing the gospel to the Gentiles (v. 15) is not active in his great special mission. All we can say is that this was the Lord’s will. We should think that Saul was ready for his task, and his task was ready for him immediately after he had been called; the Lord evidently knew better.

What did Saul do during those years he spent in Tarsus? The sacred record is silent on this matter as it is in regard to Paul’s sojourn in Arabia. “He preached and missionated,” some tell us. But we do not learn about the gathering of a congregation in Tarsus, nor about converts even in Cilicia, and the time spent there is eight years. It is, indeed, precarious to say that at any place in his account Luke should have told us this or that. Here, however, it is plain: if the great work among the Gentiles had begun in Tarsus, and if so many years of Saul’s life were devoted to it, Luke simply could not have passed this by in silence. Ramsay’s hypothesis is that Saul was not yet fully conscious of his mission to the Gentile world and still thought that the door to Christ was through the synagogue.

He forgets the Jews in Tarsus; he himself assumes that a colony of Jews lived in Tarsus (see v. 11). Why did Saul, then, do nothing among these Jews? Ramsay touches only half of the problem. Saul did no work in Tarsus.

Some fill in the account at this point and speak of “the scene at home when this brilliant young rabbi, the pride of Gamaliel, returns home a preacher of the despised Jesus of Nazareth, whose disciples he had so relentlessly persecuted. What will father, mother, sister think of him now?” This scene is expanded. Saul’s subsequent poverty is explained by surmising that his father disinherits him as the Jews to this day regard as dead any child that becomes a Christian. Yet all that we know is that years later Saul’s nephew warned him in Jerusalem (23:16). We do not even know why Saul returned to Tarsus, and we ask, “Would he remain there for years with parents that regarded him as dead?”

Acts 9:31

31 Accordingly, the church throughout the whole of Judea and Galilee and Samaria continued to have peace, being built up and, walking in the fear of the Lord and in the encouragement of the Holy Spirit, was being multiplied.

This little summary is similar to 2:44–47; 4:32–35; and as far as multiplication is concerned, compare 2:41; 4:4; 5:14; 6:7; 8:25. On μὲνοὗν see 1:6. After Saul had been converted, the persecution of which he had been the driving spirit ceased. And Saul was now some distance removed, a renewal of persecution that might be prompted by the hatred the Jews might manifest toward the Christian Paul was obviated. It was thus that the church had peace, meaning quiet and rest.

On ἐκκλησία see 5:11, and note 8:1, 3. This word is here used in the same sense as denoting the body of believers. The fact that this body is now spread out over three provinces does not change the sense of ecclesia. The bond that makes all these believers one is that of faith. Even when it is extended to the ends of the earth it will be just ἡἐκκλησία. This concept has a spiritual content even when it is applied to a local congregation only, for the genuine believers always constitute the church, irrespective of mere adherents.

On κατά in the sense of “throughout” see R. 607. It seems that the countries are mentioned in the order of their importance, thus Galilee before Samaria, although Luke records nothing of special historical importance about Galilee. He mentions these three because the church was well distributed throughout these three, which was not the case as yet in other provinces, only scattered congregations having been founded in them.

The imperfect tenses and the present participles are descriptive of the condition and the progress. The οἰκοδομουμένη is undoubtedly the New Testament spiritual edification. This word cannot here refer to outward growth since this is mentioned separately. This conception is not to be externalized as meaning only that the church ordered and developed her internal affairs; nor be reduced to only the devoutness of religious feeling which is furthered by the peculiar type of preaching that aims at this effect. The latter was made the aim of cultus preaching by Schleiermacher who had many followers in Germany. Edification is the strengthening of the entire religious life and activity by means of the Word and the Sacrament.

Church organization and the like is a different matter. To this the apostles as yet devoted little effort.

The verbs and the participles are arranged chiastically, the verbs being placed outside, the participles inside, so that one participle refers to each verb. “Walking in the fear of the Lord,” etc., the church continued to multiply “in numbers.” Combined with the inner upbuilding was the strong outward growth, for “multiplied” means great increase. Palestine was being rapidly Christianized. Luke states how, namely by the church walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit. The spiritual power of the church evident in its membership attracted and won men.

“The fear of the Lord” (Jesus) with its objective genitive means that the church dreaded to do anything that might displease and offend the Lord. In their daily life and walk the members had Jesus present with them. This is high praise indeed, for this strong motive is largely absent today; church members too often persuade themselves that the Lord does not mind their worldliness and love of praise from men.

Combined with this fear was “the encouragement of the Holy Spirit” which with its subjective genitive refers to the Spirit’s Zusprache, his aid in encouragement, direction, and comfort. As the other Paraclete promised by Jesus, he acted as one called to the side of the believers in order to help them in every way. This presence of the Spirit is always mediated through the Word by means of which he speaks to us and keeps us encouraged and strong in the faith. The early Christians did not listen to the spirit of the world and of the flesh. Very unobtrusively Luke here points to the sources of power in the church. When the members walk with the fear of the Lord before their eyes and with the Spirit’s encouraging voice in their hearts, the church will be strong and will also surely multiply.

PETER AT LYDDA AND AT JOPPA

Having practically concluded the preliminary account in regard to Saul, Luke returns to the activity of Peter. We see him at Lydda, at Joppa, and then at Caesarea. He serves as an example of the type of work the apostles generally were doing; yet he is selected by Luke because it was his lot to bring the first Gentiles into the church in such a way as to open the whole question regarding the admission of Gentiles into the church. Philip’s baptism of the eunuch was the modest preliminary.

Acts 9:32

32 Now it came to pass that Peter, in going through to all, came down also to the saints inhabiting Lydda, the Old Testament Lod, the Roman Diospolis, the present Ludd, on the road from Jerusalem to Joppa. The accusative with the infinitive is the subject. The participle is only incidental and yet casts a light upon the present work of the apostles. Peter visits Joppa “in going through to all,” διὰπάντων. This must be masculine on account of the following καί which brings out the fact that he “also” came to the saints at Lydda; our versions should be corrected. Peter is alone. There is too much to be done to permit the apostles to go out two by two.

And Peter’s program is extensive: he intends to visit “all,” to cover the entire church. It would seem as though other apostles had the same program. Since the churches as yet had little or no organization they could not be left to themselves, and therefore the apostles felt obliged to visit them from time to time. That would take them away from Jerusalem for longer periods of time. It was such a visit that Peter was paying “the saints” at Lydda, the same significant term as in v. 13.

Acts 9:33

33 And there he found a man by name Æneas, since eight years lying on a pallet, who had been paralyzed. And Peter said to him, Æneas, Jesus Christ heals thee! Arise, and spread (the bed) for thyself! And immediately he arose.

Luke records this event with such brevity because he is concerned, not so much about this sick man, but rather with the effect produced by the miracle wrought upon him. This man is a parallel to the cripple at the Gate Beautiful in the Temple, 3:2, etc., parallel especially in helping to bring many to faith. Some think that this paralytic was a disciple but he was not, for how could Luke write ἄνθρωπόντινα, “a man,” ein Mensch, instead of “a believer,” “a disciple”? Compare his account about Tabitha in v. 36. Yet healing fell into this man’s lap just as it fell into the lap of that beggar in the Temple.

This, too, was a very serious case: paralysis for the past eight years so severe that the sufferer had to spend the day on a κράββατος or pallet (8:7). The ἐξ is the Greek idiom, it counts from the far point and is our “since.”

Acts 9:34

34 Since Peter calls him by name, others must have spoken to him about this man. The reversal of subject and predicate puts emphasis on both: “heal thee doth Jesus Christ.” R. 866 calls this an effective aoristic present because of its punctiliar force; the main point is that it states a tremendous fact. Instantaneously the man is healed. “Jesus Christ” (see 2:38) does the deed and not Peter. In 3:6, Peter said, “In the name of Jesus Christ.” The sense is the same. Since Jesus here and now heals him, the man is told to get up and to spread his pallet for himself, a task others have had to perform for him during all these years. This verb στρωννύω occurs in Matt. 21:8, where the people spread branches on the road for Jesus, and in Luke 22:12 where the upper room was spread with floor tiling. The sense is proably that Æneas is to take up his pallet and lay it away somewhere, doing this for himself as it had been done for him every evening when he was undressed and transferred from his pallet to his bed for the night.

Acts 9:35

35 And all those inhabiting Lydda and Sharon saw him, they who turned to the Lord, οἴτινες, quippe qui. The effect spread from the town through the beautiful coast plain which extends about thirty miles toward Cæsarea. So many saw the man, recognized the miracle in its true significance, and in faith turned to the Lord, that Luke could write “all.” This added to the labors of Peter. How long he labored here we do not know; he later moved on to Joppa.

Acts 9:36

36 Now in Joppa there was a woman disciple by name Tabitha, which, when translated, means Dorcas. This one was full of good works and alms-deeds which she was doing. But it came to pass in those days that, having become sick, she died; and having washed her, they placed her in an upper room.

Transitional δέ takes us into the new account, to Joppa, the present Jaffa, the old port of Jerusalem, one of the most ancient of towns. Philip had, no doubt, worked here, and the first local Christians may have been fugitives from Jerusalem (8:1). Without further explanation we learn that there was a Christian congregation in Joppa. We are introduced to one of the woman disciples by the name of Tabitha, from the Aramaic tzebiah, which Luke translates by the Greek Dorcas, both names meaning a gazelle doe, the emblem of grace and beauty. This name was frequently given to girls. The relative is feminine, ἥ, the gender being attracted from the antecedent.

R. 714 makes the relative personal. The account contains no reference to relatives and leaves the impression that Tabitha lived by herself. Her special interest in widows leads us to surmise that she herself was a widow who had no children. Although she lived alone and seemingly had no special object in life, this disciple fashioned a most important place for herself in the life of the young congregation.

She was “full of good works,” which includes a variety. Luke specifies by naming one class of these works especially: “and almsdeeds which she kept doing,” aiding the poor to the extent of her ability. In this activity she invested her money, time, and strength. She is not represented as a deaconess in the church; in fact, we may safely assume that such an office had not yet been established. Tabitha’s work was entirely voluntary; but with a true instinct she chose no work of doubtful propriety with which to serve the Lord in the church, no work that had a worldly taint but one that was fully in harmony with the gospel. Hers were in every respect good works, ἀγαθός, good in the sense of truly beneficial, and mercy-deeds, the Greek word being derived from ἔλεος, “mercy.” “Good works grow from faith and are but the very Word of God in its deed and fulfillment, which has been implanted in us by faith.” H. Mueller.

Luke emphasizes the abundance: “full” of good works and almsdeeds “which she kept doing” (durative imperfect). She reaped a rich harvest. She did not tire, discouragements were overcome, she continued faithful in her service to the end. “The sweet odor of the ointment filled the house when the vessel which had stood in a place aside broke.” Besser.

Acts 9:37

37 It was “in those days” that Tabitha became sick and died. We are left to read between the lines that there was a divine providence in the fact that this death occurred at just this time. Peter was within reach. The Lord intended to distinguish this humble woman in a signal way, namely by raising her from the dead. He had given much to the church in Joppa when he gave her to it; now he intended to give the church still more in her.

With sadness they took her body to the upper room and washed and prepared it for burial. The participle λούσαντες is masculine although this washing and this preparing of the body were done by women; the gender is indifferent because no subject is named. Since no house has been mentioned, there is no article with “upper room.” An ordinary house would have only one “upper room” which was built on the flat roof and used as a place of retirement. We have no information to the effect that the bodies of the dead were usually placed in upper rooms before burial. Luke relates this in regard to Tabitha because an exception was made in her case. According to the regular custom she should have been buried soon after death; instead of that her body was kept until Peter could arrive. For this reason it was placed in the upper room.

Acts 9:38

38 Now Lydda being near to Joppa, the disciples, having heard that Peter was there, commissioned two men to him, beseeching him, Do not delay to come through to us!

At this point nearly every commentator asks questions that are not answered by the text. Were the two messengers sent after Tabitha had died or before her death? If she was already dead, why was Peter called in such haste? Did they entertain the thought or the hope that Peter might bring her back to life?

Luke makes note of the comparatively short distance between Joppa and Lydda (ἐγγύς is here construed with the dative, and not with the customary genitive), it was only about nine miles. The aorist participle adds the detail that the disciples at Joppa had heard the news that Peter was in Lydda. We can follow only the natural impression made by the brief narrative that the Christians in Joppa had for some time had news of Peter’s presence in Lydda but that the thought of sending for him had occurred to no one until after Tabitha had died. Then, as far as hopes and expectations are concerned, all that we can safely say is that the disciples at Joppa requested only that Peter might come and, like true disciples of Christ, committed everything else into the Lord’s hands.

“Do not delay,” etc., implies that the disciples knew that Peter intended to visit them also, but they beg that he may come at once. In negative commands or entreaties μή with the aorist subjunctive is the regular form but is just as urgent as the positive command with the aorist imperative. “Do not delay” is a litotes for, “Hurry.” In that climate the dead are commonly buried on the day of death or, if death occurs too late in the day, the next morning. Peter could be brought from Lydda to Joppa in five or six hours, thus on the same day, if Tabitha had died in the morning, or the next morning if she had died at evening. A delay on Peter’s part would have necessitated burial before he could arrive.

Now this petition that Peter hurry does carry with it the silent, humble hope that the Lord’s grace might use Peter to return Tabitha to the church at Joppa. Yet, when finding this hope in the petition, we must remember, what also these disciples seem to know, that none of the apostles worked miracles at will. Hence no request is made to Peter to work a miracle upon Tabitha. In every case the Lord and his Spirit directed those to whom the gift of performing miracles had been granted, and they proceeded only when and where they were so directed. What the Lord’s will was in the case of Tabitha none presumed to say, and we shall see that Peter himself did not at first know So in all that prompted this message to Peter their thought was only to bow to the Lord’s will while trusting in his boundless grace.

Acts 9:39

39 And, having arisen, Peter went with them, whom, on having come, they led up into the upper room. And there stood by him all the widows sobbing and showing on themselves tunics and robes, as many as Dorcas made from time to time while yet with them.

Peter responded promptly. The Greek reads literally: “whom, having gotten to their side (παρά in the participle), they brought,” etc. This makes the impression that Peter had been summoned on Tabitha’s account and not on account of the disciples in order to administer comfort to them, to preach a funeral sermon, as we should say. Yet even now no request of any kind is made. Peter is taken up to the dead woman’s side where he finds that she is wrapped and swathed for burial. But here, beside that loving heart and those busy hands that are now still in death, Peter is shown what this woman meant to the church and what the church had lost in her.

It was done in a simple and a most natural way. All the widows for whom Tabitha had made garments are present. How could any of them be absent at this time? “All” is not too strong, for in that congregation there were not overly many.

Their feelings soon gave way in that upper room as Peter questioned and they answered so that he might know fully. They sobbed aloud. This was mourning which was far different from that manifested in the house of Jairus with its noisy, hired mourning women and fluteblowers. This was not such artificial mourning as that. The widows showed Peter garments that had been made by their dead benefactress. Note the middle voice ἐπιδεικιύμεναι, for it conveys the idea that they were showing what belonged to themselves, they wore the very garments Tabitha had made for them, ἐποίει, iterative imperfect, from time to time, now a garment for this penniless widow, now one for that.

The χιτών is the tunic that is worn next to the body, the ἱμάτιον, the robe or cloak that is worn over the tunic, the Latin pallium. The one was as much a necessity as the other. The himation was really a large, oblong piece of cloth, one corner of which was draped over the left shoulder and fastened under the right shoulder. This garment was ample enough to reach to the ground. It generally served as a covering for the sleeper at night. We must not miss the pathos indicated in the addition μετʼ αὑτῶνοὗσα and in the placing of her name at the end: “she—being with them—Dorcas.” Now her body was there, but not—Dorcas! die Dorkas (German). Catch the lingering tone of affection.

Luke now uses the name “Dorcas,” partly for the sake of his own Greek reader who would know the meaning of this Greek name, “Gazelle”; and partly, it seems, because even in Joppa the orginal Tabitha had been replaced by its Greek equivalent. “And their works do follow them” is here illustrated in a peculiarly touching manner. What will be the nature of the works that follow you and me?

So Dorcas was a dressmaker, but instead of enriching herself by sewing only for money she enriched her soul by sewing for love. The garments she made for the poor she really made for the Lord, and she has had many successors, both with the needle itself and in other ways. She had only one talent, but see how much she made of that! Many who found themselves in her circumstances would have felt that they could do nothing; she saw the one opportunity and avenue open for her and made the most of that. We think that she sewed also for the children of these widows who were half-orphans; these would not be present at such a solemn time as this.

Acts 9:40

40 The whole scene must have had a deep effect on Peter. The garments which had passed through the loving hands now resting from their labors spoke more eloquently to him than the subdued and broken sobs of the widows who wore them. But Peter, having thrust them all outside and having kneeled down, prayed; and having turned to the body, he said, Tabitha, arise! And she opened her eyes, and, on seeing Peter, she sat up. And having given her a hand, he raised her up; and having called the saints and the widows, he presented her living.

What is here recorded bears some resemblance to the procedure followed by Jesus when he raised to life the daughter of Jairus, yet the differences predominate. Peter kneels and prays, he permits no witnesses to remain in the room, and he finally summons all the disciples. Peter’s miracle is thus not a duplicate of that performed by Jesus; the resemblances are due only to the nature of the two cases.

Why did Peter thrust them out? Ἐκβαλών is a strong word, they were reluctant to leave. We have the answer in Peter’s subsequent deed: he kneeled and prayed. The Greek idiom is, “having placed the knees.” Peter wanted to be alone with the Lord. Peter did not disregard the unspoken longing of the disciples that the Lord show his grace by restoring Dorcas to life. But up to this moment he had no intimation from the Lord as to his will. In deepest humility, on his knees, he now asks the Lord to reveal his will.

We need not hesitate to add that he prayed the Lord to grant the unspoken desire of the saints, a desire that had been kept within godly bounds and did not even venture to utter itself in words, to say nothing of clamoring for satisfaction. It seemed to be one of those pure and holy desires which the Lord loves to satisfy. So Peter lays the case before the Lord and in connection with it the great cause to which this case belonged.

Peter’s action after his prayer shows that the Lord gave him an answer, the answer on which Peter’s act rests. It was not Peter’s “sublime faith” that performed this miracle. The Lord’s sublime power wrought it; Peter had the Lord’s word which had been communicated to him then and there. The fact that he believed that word is a matter of course.

When Peter turned to the body and said, “Tabitha, arise!” there was no question as to what would happen. Peter was not making a trial of his own faith. Peter was acting on the Lord’s word. No apostle ever failed when he had that word; in no case was there a half-effect; but, of course, in no case did an apostle act without the Lord’s word. Peter did not say, “In the name of Jesus arise!” but his words implied that and nothing else.

It is incorrect to say that as a result of his prayer Peter treated the body as though it were no longer dead. Luke says he turned to “the body,” yet he did not address the body, which would have been folly, but the person. But this does not offer support to the spiritualistic notion that the spirit of Tabitha hovered near the body and thus heard Peter’s command. Why introduce our rationalizing ideas of space when it is not the voice and the power of Peter that are at work but the promise and the power of the almighty Lord which work in a way that is absolutely incomprehensible to us? The Lord made Tabitha hear; the Lord returned her soul to her body; the Lord did this in connection with the word he had bidden Peter to speak.

Luke describes only the outward side of what occurred. “And she opened her eyes,” the eyes that but a moment ago were broken and sealed in death. We ought not to think that there was a gradual return to life because Luke records several actions. Dorcas was instantaneously and completely restored when Peter spoke. No steps, no gradations followed. Life in full energy was back in her body; the former disease which had been active in her vital organs had disappeared; the incipient decay that had been superinduced by death was removed at a stroke. Dorcas was as one waking out of deep sleep.

This is what Luke has in mind, for the first thing an awakened sleeper does is to open his eyes. Naturally, too, on seeing Peter standing beside her, she sat up. For this she needed no help. Her body was swathed in linen strips for burial, yet this did not prevent her from assuming a sitting posture. We have the analogy of Lazarus coming out of the tomb.

Acts 9:41

41 At this point Peter might have opened the door and called in the waiting disciples. He first gave Dorcas his hand and raised her to her feet. It seems that her arms had not been wrapped against her body. Lazarus, too, was able to stand in his grave wrappings and to appear at the door of the tomb. When Dorcas thus stood beside her bier, Peter called in “the saints and the widows,” “saints” as in v. 13, and καί does not add a new class but only specifies “the widows” as the ones mostly concerned. What a scene that must have been when Peter presented Dorcas—“living”! That is a way the inspired writers have! They record the most dramatic and stupendous events in a few calm words. They always let the immense facts speak for themselves.

Acts 9:42

42 And it became known throughout entire Joppa, and many believed on the Lord. And it came to pass that for many days he remained in Joppa with Simon, a tanner.

Luke returns to the matter of chief interest, that of the church and its development. A miracle that was as stupendous as this one had been could not but become known throughout the entire city (κατά as in v. 31). That, too, was the Lord’s intention. We see that the same effect was produced in Lydda (v. 35). Many “believed on the Lord,” ἐπί, rested their confidence and trust on Jesus, on his grace and his power for salvation. The idea is not that miracles as such work faith, but miracles are seals of the Word and attestations of its power and thus aid in producing faith. They are such seals to this day, for, once affixed to the Word, they remain there and need no repetition, and there is no need of new seals as though those affixed by the Lord had lost their validity.

Acts 9:43

43 Luke likes ἐγένετο, “it came to pass,” a sacred way of stating notable facts that he had learned from the LXX. And here again the accusative and the infinitive are the subject. The way had been opened to gather a great harvest in Joppa, and Peter remained “many days” (v. 23) in order to help bring it in.

The noteworthy thing is that Peter accepted the hospitality of “a Simon, a tanner.” The handling of hides made this man ceremonially unclean from the Jewish standpoint Christian though he was. Peter disregarded these Jewish scruples and lived in this man’s house during the entire time of his stay in Joppa. Recall that Peter and John had been with Philip in Samaria. The old Jewish legalism is dropping away; the next chapter shows the decisive and the complete break. At this point Rieger remarks that a tanner’s house was provided for St. Peter, but now a castle scarcely suffices for St. Peter’s successors.

R A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 4th edition.

B.-D Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage, besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.