Mga Komentaryo sa Bibliya

CHAPTER 22

Acts 22:1. νυνί] is decided by its attestation. Elz. has νῦν.

Acts 22:2. προσεφώνει] Tisch. Born. read προσφωνεῖ, following D E min. Theoph. Oec. Rightly; the Recepta is a mistaken alteration in accordance with Acts 21:40, from which πρωσεφώνησεν is inserted in G, min.

Acts 22:3. μέν] is wanting in important witnesses; deleted by Lachm. Born. But its non-logical position occasioned the omission.

Acts 22:9. καὶ ἔμφοβοι ἐγένοντο] is wanting in A B H א, min. and several vss. Deleted by Lachm. But the omission is explained by the homoeoteleuton. Had there been interpolation, ἐννεοί from Acts 9:7 would have been used.

Acts 22:12. εὐσεβής] is wanting in A, Vulg. Condemned by Mill. On the other hand, B G H א, and many min. Chrys. Theophyl. have εὐλαβής, which Lachm. and Tisch. read. The omission of the word is to be considered as a mere transcriber’s error; and εὐλαβής is to be preferred, on account of the preponderance of evidence.

Acts 22:16. αὐτοῦ] Elz. has τοῦ Κυρίου, against decisive attestation. An interpretation, for which other witnesses have Ἰησοῦ.

Acts 22:20. Στεφάνον] is wanting only in A, 68, and would fall, were it not so decidedly attested, to be considered an addition. But with this attestation the omission is to be explained by an error in copying (ΣτεφανΟΥ τΟΥ).

After συνευδοχῶν Elz. has τῇ ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, which, however, is wanting in A B D E א, 40, and some vss., and has come in from Acts 8:1 (in opposition to Reiche, nov. descript. Codd. N.T. p. 28).

Acts 22:22. καθῆκεν] Elz. has καθῆκον, supported by Rinck, in opposition to decisive testimony.

Acts 22:23. ἀέρα] D, Syr. Cassiod. have οὐρανόν. Recommended by Griesb., adopted by Born. But the evidence is too weak, and οὐρ. bears the character of a more precise definition of ἀέρα.

Acts 22:24. εἰσάγεσθαι] Elz. has ἄγεσθαι, against greatly preponderating evidence. ΕΙΣ was absorbed by the preceding ΟΣ. εἴπας is to be read instead of εἰπών, according to decisive testimony, with Tisch. and Lachm.

Acts 22:25. προέτειναν] has, among the many variations,

προέτεινεν (Elz.), προετείναντο, προσέτειναν, προσέτεινον, προσέτεινεν,—the strongest attestation. The change of the plural into the singular is explained from the fact that the previous context contains nothing of a number of persons executing the sentence, and therefore ὁ χιλίαρχος was still regarded as the subject.

Acts 22:26. Before τί Elz. has ὅρα, against A B C E א, min. Vulg. and other vss. So also Born., following D G H, min. vss. Chrys. Certainly “vox innocentissima” (Born.), but an addition by way of gloss according to these preponderating witnesses.

Acts 22:30. παρά] Lachm. and Born. read ὑπό, according to A B C E א, min. Theophyl. Oec. The weight of evidence decides for ὑπό.

After ἔλυσεν αὐτ. Elz. has ἀπὸ τ. δεσμῶν. An explanatory addition, against greatly preponderating testimony.

Instead of συνελθεῖν Elz. has ἐλθεῖν, against equally preponderant evidence. How easily might ΣΥΝ be suppressed in consequence of the preceding ΣΕΝ!

πᾶν τὸ συνέδριον] Elz. has ὅλον τὸ συνέδρ. αὐτῶν, against decisive evidence, although defended by Reiche, l.c. p. 28.

Acts 22:1-3. Ἀδελφοὶ κ. πατέρες] quite a national address; comp. on Acts 7:2. Even Sanhedrists were not wanting in the hostile crowd; at least the speaker presupposes their presence.

ἀκούσατε κ.τ.λ.] hear from me my present defence to you. As to the double genitive with ἀκούειν, comp. on John 12:46.

After Acts 22:1, a pause.

ἐγὼ μέν] Luke has not at the very outset settled the logical arrangement of the sentence, and therefore mistakes the correct position of the μέν, which was appropriate only after γεγενν. Similar examples of the deranged position of μέν and δέ often occur in the classics. See Bäumlein, Partik. p. 168; Winer, p. 520 [E. T. 700].

ἀνατεθραμμένος … νόμου] Whether the comma is to be placed after ταύτῃ (Alberti, Wolf, Griesbach, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, Lachmann, Tischendorf, de Wette) or after Γαμαλιήλ (Calvin, Beza, Castalio, and most of the older commentators, Bornemann), is—seeing that the meaning and the progression of the speech are the same with either construction—to be decided simply by the external structure of the discourse, according to which a new element is always introduced by the prefixing of a nominative participle: γεγεννημένος, ἀνατεθραμμένος, πεπαιδευμένος: born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city (Jerusalem) at the feet of Gamaliel (see on Acts 5:34), instructed according to the strictness of the ancestral law. The latter after the general ἀνατεθραμμ. κ.τ.λ. brings into relief a special point, and therefore it is not to he affirmed that παρὰ τ. πόδ. Γαμ. suits only πεπαιδ. (de Wette).

παρὰ τοὺς πόδας] a respectful expression (τὴν πολλὴν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αἰδῶ δεικνύς, Chrysostom), to be explained from the Jewish custom of scholars sitting partly on the floor, partly on benches at the feet of their teacher, who sat more elevated on a chair (Schoettg. in loc.; Bornemann, Schol. in Luc. p. 179). The tradition that, until the death of Gamaliel, the scholars listened in a standing posture to their teachers (Vitringa, Synag. p. 166 f. Wagenseil, ad Sota, p. 993), even if it were the case (but see on Luke 2:46), cannot be urged against this view, as even the standing scholar may be conceived as being at the feet of his teacher sitting on the elevated cathedra (Matthew 23:2; Vitringa, l.c. p. 165 f).

κατὰ ἀκρίβ. τοῦ πατρῴου νόμου] i.e. in accordance with the strictness contained in (living and ruling in) the ancestral law. The genitive depends on ἀκρίβ. Erasmus, Castalio, and others connect it with πεπαιδ., held to be used substantively (Hermann, ad Viger. p. 777): carefully instructed in the ancestral law. Much too tame, as careful legal instruction is after ἀνατεθρ.… παρὰ τ. πόδ. Γαμαλ. understood of itself, and therefore the progress of the speech requires special climactic force.

The πατρῷος νόμος is the law received from the fathers[134] (comp. Acts 24:14, Acts 28:17), i.e. the Mosaic law, but not including the precepts of the Pharisees, as Kuinoel supposes—which is arbitrarily imported. It concerned Paul here only to bring into prominence the Mosaically orthodox strictness of his training; the other specifically Pharisaic element was suggested to the hearer by the mention of Gamaliel, but not by τ. πατρ. νόμου. Paul expresses himself otherwise in Php 3:5 and Galatians 1:14.

ΖΗΛΩΤῊς ὙΠΆΡΧ. ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ] so that I was a zealot for God (for the cause and glory of God), contains a special characteristic definition to πεπαιδευμένος … νόμου. Comp. Romans 10:2. “Uterque locus quiddam ex mimesi habet; nam Judaei putabant se tantum tribuere Deo, quantum detraherent Jesu Christo,” Bengel.

[134] Πατρῷα μὲν τὰ ἐχ πατέρων εἰς υἱοὺς χωροῦντα, Ammonius, p. 111. Concerning the difference of χατρῷος, πάτριος, and χατριχός, not always preserved, however, and often obscured by interchange in the codd., see Schoemann, ad Is. p. 218; Maetzn. ad Lycurg. p. 127; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 531 f. On πατρῷος νόμος, comp. 2Ma 6:1; Joseph. Antt. xii. 3. 3; Xen. Hell. ii. 3. 2; Thuc viii. 76. 6 : χάτριοι νόμοι

Acts 22:4-5. Ταύτ. τ. ὁδόν] for Christianity was in his case the evident cause of the enmity. Comp. on ὁδός, Acts 9:2, Acts 18:25, Acts 19:9; Acts 19:23.

ἄχρι θανάτου] Grotius appropriately remarks: “quantum scil in me erat.” It indicates how far the intention in the ἐδίωξα went, namely, even to the bringing about of their execution.

ὁ ἀρχιερ.] The high priest at the time (still living). See on Acts 9:2.

μαρτυρεῖ] not futurum Atticum, but: he is (as the course of the matter necessarily involves) my witness.

καὶ πᾶν τὸ πρεσβυτ.] and the whole body of the elders. Comp. on Luke 22:66, and the γερουσία, Acts 5:21.

πρὸς τοὺς ἀδελΦούς] i.e. to the Jews. See Acts 9:2. Bornemann: against the Christians. Paul would in that case have entirely forgotten his pre-Christian standpoint, in the sense of which he speaks; and the hostile reference of πρός must have been suggested by the context, which, however, with the simple ἐπιστ. δεξάμ. πρός is not at all here the case.

καὶ τοὺς ἐκεῖσε (i.e. εἰς Δαμασκόν) ὄντας] also those who were thither. Paul conceives them as having come thither (since the persecution about Stephen) and so being found there; hence ἐκεῖσε does not stand for ἐκεῖ (so still de Wette), but is to be explained from a pregnant construction common especially with later writers (Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 44; comp. Acts 2:39, Acts 21:3).

Acts 22:6-11. See on Acts 9:3-8. Comp. Acts 26:13 ff. ἱκανόν] i.e. of considerable strength. It was a light of glory (Acts 22:11) dazzling him; more precisely described in Acts 26:13.

Acts 22:10 ὧν τέτακταί σοι ποιῆσαι] what is appointed to thee to do; by whom, is left entirely undetermined. Jesus, who appeared to him, does not yet express Himself more precisely, but means: by God, Acts 22:14.

Acts 22:11. ὡς δὲ οὐκ ἐνέβλεπον] but when I beheld not, when sight failed me; he could not open his eyes, Acts 22:13. Comp. on the absolute ἐμβλέπειν, Xen. Mem. iii. 11. 10; 2 Chronicles 20:24.

Acts 22:12-15. But Ananias, a religious man according to the law, attested (praised, comp. Acts 10:22, Acts 6:3) by all the Jews resident (in Damascus), thus a mediator, neither hostile to the law nor unknown!

ἀνάβλεψον … ἀνέβλεψα εἰς αὐτόν] ἀναβλέπειν, which may signify as well to look up, as also visum recuperare (see on John 9:11, and Fritzsche, ad Marc. p. 328), has here (it is otherwise in Acts 9:17-18) the former meaning, which is evident from εἰς αὐτόν: look up! and at the same hour I looked up to him. We are to conceive the apostle as sitting there blind with closed eyelids, and Ananias standing before him.

προεχειρ.] has appointed thee thereto. See on Acts 3:20; comp. Acts 26:16.

τὸν δίκαιον] Jesus, on whom, as the righteous (2 Corinthians 5:21), the divine will to save (τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ) was based. Comp. Acts 3:14, Acts 7:52.

πρὸς πάντ. ἀνθρ.] Direction of the ἔσῃ μάρτ., as in Acts 13:31 : to all men[135]

[135] That is, according to the popular expression: before all the world. Frequently so in Isocrates. See Bremi, ad Panegyr. 23, p. 28. But the universal destination of the apostle is implied therein. Comp. ver. 21.

Acts 22:16. Τί μέλλεις;] Why tarriest thou? μέλλειν so used only here in the N.T.; frequent in the classics. The question is not one of reproach, but of excitement and encouragement.

ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτ. σου] let thyself be baptized and (thereby) wash away thy sins. Here, too, baptism is that by means of which the forgiveness of the sins committed in the pre-Christian life takes place.[136] Comp. Acts 2:38; Ephesians 5:26; and see on 1 Corinthians 6:11. Calvin inserts saving clauses, in order not to allow the grace to be bound to the sacrament. As to the purposely-chosen middle forms, comp. on 1 Corinthians 10:2.

ἐπικαλ. τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ] Wolf appropriately explains: “postquam invocaveris atque ita professus fueris nomen Domini (as the Messiah). Id scilicet antecedere olim debebat initiationem per baptismum faciendam.”

[136] Comp. the Homeric ἀπολυμαίνεσθαι, Il. i. 113 f., and Nägelsbach in loc.

Acts 22:17-18. With this the history in Acts 9:26 is to be completed.

καὶ προσευχομένου μου] a transition to the genitive absolute, independent of the case of the substantive. See Bernhardy, p. 474; Kühner, § 681; Stallb. ad Plat. Rep. p. 518 A.

ἐκστάσει] see on Acts 10:10. The opposite: γίνεσθαι ἐν ἑαυτῷ, Acts 12:11. Regarding the non-identity of this ecstasy with 2 Corinthians 13:2 ff., see in loc.

οὐ παραδεξ. σ. τ. μαρτ. περὶ ἐμοῦ] περὶ ἐμοῦ is most naturally to be attached to τ. μαρτυρ., as μαρτυρεῖν περί is quite usual (very often in John). Winer, p. 130 [E. T. 172], connects it with παραδ. Observe the order: thy witness of me.

Acts 22:19-21. “I interposed by way of objection[137] the contrast, in which my working for Christianity (my μαρτυρία) would appear toward my former hostile working[138] (which contrast could not but prove the truth and power of my conversion and promote the acceptance of my testimony), and (Acts 22:21)

Christ repeated His injunction to depart, which He further specially confirmed by ὍΤΙ ἘΓῺ ΕἸς ἜΘΝΗ ΜΑΚΡᾺΝ ἘΞΑΠΟΣΤ. ΣΕ.” “Commemorat hoc Judaeis Paulus, ut eis declararet summum amorem, quo apud eos cupivit manere iisque praedicare; quod ergo iis relictis ad gentes iverit, non ex suo voto, sed Dei jussu compulsum fuisse,” Calovius.

αὐτοὶ ἐπιστ.] is necessarily to be referred to the subject of ΠΑΡΑΔΈΞΟΝΤΑΙ, Acts 22:18, to the Jews in Jerusalem, not to the foreign Jews (Heinrichs).

ἐγὼ ἤμην κ.τ.λ.] I was there, etc.

καὶ αὐτός] et ipse, as well as other hostile persons. On συνενδοκ., comp. Acts 8:1.

Acts 22:21. ἘΓΏ] with strong emphasis. Paul has to confide in and obey this I.

ἐξαποστελῶ] This promised future sending forth ensued at Acts 13:2, and how effectively! see Romans 15:19.

ΕἸς ἜΘΝΗ] among Gentiles.

[137] Ewald, p. 438, understands ver. 19 f. not as an objection, but as assenting: “however humanly intelligible it might strictly be, that the Jews would not hear him.” But the extraordinary revelation in itself most naturally presupposes in Paul a human conception deviating from the intimation contained in it, to which the heavenly call runs counter, as often also with the prophets (Moses, Jeremiah, etc.), the divine intimation encounters human scruples. If, moreover, the words here were meant as assenting, we should necessarily expect a hint of it in the expression (such as: ναί, χύριε).

[138] In which I was engaged in bringing believers to prison (φυλακίζ., Wis 18:4), and in scourging them (Matthew 10:17), now in this synagogue, and now in that (κατὰ τὰς συναγ.). Comp. Acts 26:11.