Commentari biblici

CHAPTER 9

Acts 9:3. ἀπό] A B C G א, min. have ἐχ, which is, no doubt, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. and Born., but is inserted from Acts 22:6 to express the meaning more strongly.

Instead of περιήστραψ. Lachm. has περιέστραψ. A weakly attested error of transcription.

Acts 9:5. κύριος εἷπεν] Deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born., after A B C, min. Vulg. In some other witnesses (including א), only κύριος is wanting; and in others, only εἶπεν. The Recepta is a clumsy filling up of the original bare ὁ δέ.

After διὡχεις, Elz., following Erasm., has (instead of ἀλλά, Acts 9:6) σκληρὐν σοι πρὸς κέντρα λακτίζειν. Τρέμων τε καὶ θαμβῶν εἶπε· κύριε, τί με θέλεις ποιῆσαι; καὶ ὁ κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν, against all Greek codd. Chrys. Theoph. and several VSS.[234] An old amplification from Acts 22:10, Acts 26:14.

Acts 9:8. οὐδένα] A* B א, Syr. utr. Ar. Vulg. have οὐδέν. So Lachm. Tisch. Born. The Recepta has originated mechanically from following Acts 9:7.

Acts 9:10. The order ἘΝ ὉΡΆΜΑΤΙ Ὁ ΚΎΡ. (Lachm. Tisch. Born.) has the decisive preponderance of testimony.

Acts 9:12. ἘΝ ὉΡΆΜΑΤΙ] is wanting in A א, loti. Copt, Aeth. Vulg. B C have it after ἌΝΔΡΑ (so Born.). Deleted by Lachm. and Tisch. An explanatory addition to ΕἾΔΕΝ.

Instead of ΧΕῖΡΑ, Lachm. and Born. have ΤᾺς ΧΕῖΡΑς, after B E, VSS.; also A C א* loti, which, however, do not read rag ΤΆς. From Acts 9:17, and because ἘΠΙΤΙΘ. ΤᾺς ΧΕῖΡΑς is the usual expression in the N. T. (in the active always so, except this passage).

Acts 9:17. ἀκήκοα] Lachm. Born, read ἤκουσα, which is decidedly attested by A B C E א, min.

Acts 9:18. After ἀνέ βλεψέ τε, Elz. has παραχρῆμα, which is wanting in decisive witnesses, and, after Erasm. and Bengel, is deleted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. A more precisely defining addition.

Acts 9:19. After ἐγένετο δέ, Elz. has ὁ Σαῦλος, against decisive testimony. Beginning of a church-lesson.

Acts 9:20. Ἰησαῦν] Elz. reads Χριστόν, against A B C E א, min. VSS. Iren. Amid the prevalent interchange of the two names this very preponderance of authority is decisive. But Ἰησαῦν is clearly confirmed by the following ὄτι οὖτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱὸς τ. Θεοῦ, as also by Acts 9:22, where οὖτος necessarily presupposes a preceding Ἰησαῦς.

Acts 9:24. παρετήρουν τε] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read παρετηροῦντο δὲ καί, which is to be preferred according to decisive testimony.

αὐτὸν οἱ μαθηταί] Lachm. Tisch. Born, read οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, after A B C F א, loti. * Or. Jer. This reading has in its favour, along with the preponderance of witnesses, the circumstance that before (Acts 9:19) and after (Acts 9:26) the μαθηται are mentioned absolutely, and the expression ΟἹ ΜΑΘ. ΑὐΤΟῦ might appear objectionable. In what follows, on nearly the same evidence, ΔΙᾺ ΤΟῦ ΤΕΊΧΟΥς ΚΑΘῆΚΑΝ ΑὐΤΌΝ is to be read.

Acts 9:26. After ΠΑΡΑΓ. ΔΈ, Elz. has Ὁ ΣΑῦΛΟς, E, Ὁ ΙΙΑῦΛΟς. An addition.

ΕἸς] B E G H, min. Oec. Theophyl. have ἘΝ, recommended by Griesb. and adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Born. The evidence leaves it doubtful; but considering the frequency of ΠΑΡΑΓΊΝ. with ΕἸς (Acts 13:14, Acts 15:4; Matthew 2:1; John 8:2), whereas it does not further occur with ἘΝ in the N. T., ἘΝ would be more easily changed into ΕἸς than the converse.

ἘΠΕΙΡᾶΤΟ] Lachm. and Born. read ἘΠΕΊΡΑΖΕΝ (after A B C א, min.), which was easily introduced as the usual form (ΠΕΙΡΆΟΜΑΙ only again occurs in the N. T. in Acts 26:21; Hebrews 4:15?).

Acts 9:28. ἘΝ ἹΕΡΟΥΣ] Lachm. Tisch. Born, have rightly adopted ΕἸς ἹΕΡΟΥΣ., which already Griesb. had approved after A B C E G א, min. Chrys. Oec. Theophyl. ἘΝ was inserted as more suitable than ΕἸς, which was not understood. Accordingly, ΚΑΊ before ΠΑῤῬΗΣ. is to be deleted with Lachm. and Tisch., following A B C א, min. VSS. An insertion for the sake of connection.

Acts 9:29. ἙΛΛΗΝΙΣΤΆς] A has ἝΛΛΗΝΑς. From Acts 11:20.

Acts 9:31. Lachm. Tisch. Born. read Ἡ … ἘΚΚΗΗΣΊΑ … ΕἾΧΕΝ ΕἸΡ. ΟἸΚΟΔΟΜΟΥΜΈΝΗ Κ. ΠΟΡΕΥΟΜΈΝΗ … ἘΠΛΗΘΎΝΕΤΟ, after A B C א, min. and several VSS., including Vulg. Rightly. The original Ἡ ΜῈΝ ΟὖΝ ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑ, Κ.Τ.Λ., in accordance with the apostolic idea of the unity of the church, was explained by ΑἹ ΜῈΝ ΟὖΝ ἘΚΚΛΗΣΊΑΙ ΠᾶΣΑΙ (so E), which ΠᾶΣΑΙ was again deleted, and thus the Recepta arose.

Acts 9:33. Instead of κραββάτῳ, κραββάτου is to be adopted, with Lachm. Tisch. Born., on preponderating evidence.

Acts 9:38. ὀκνῆσαι … αὐτῶν] Lachm. and Tisch. read ὀκνήσῃς … ἡμῶν, after A B C* E א, loti. Vulg., which with this preponderance of evidence is the more to be preferred, as internal grounds determine nothing for the one reading or the other.

[234] The words are found in Vulg. Ar. pol. Aeth. Arm. Syr. p. (with an asterisk) Slav. Theophyl. 2, Oec. Hilar. in Psalms 2, but with many variations of detail.

Acts 9:1-2. Ἔτι] See Acts 8:3, hence the narrative does not stand isolated (Schleiermacher).

ἐμπνέων ἀπειλῆς κ. φόνου εἰς τ. μαθ.] out of threatening and murder breathing hard at the disciples, whereby is set forth the passionateness with which he was eager to terrify the Christians by threats, and to hurry them to death. In ἐμπνέων, observe the compound, to which the εἰς τ. μαθ. belonging to it corresponds; so that the word signifies: to breathe hard at or upon an object; as often also in classical writers, yet usually with the dative instead of with εἰς. The expression is stronger than if it were said πνέων ἀπειλὴν κ.τ.λ. (Lobeck, ad Aj. p. 342; Boeckh, Expl. Pind. p. 341). The genitives ἀπειλῆς and φόνου denote whence this ἐμπνέειν issued; threatening and murder, i.e. sanguinary desire (Romans 1:29), was within him what excited and sustained his breathing hard. Comp. ἐμπνέον ζωῆς, Joshua 10:40; Φόνου πνείοντα, “Nonn. Dionys. 25; Aristoph. Eq. p. 437; Winer, p. 192 [E. T. 255].

τῷ ἀρχιερεῖ] If the conversion of Paul occurred in the year 35 (Introduction, sec. 4), then Caiaphas was still high priest, as he was not deposed by Vitellius until the year 36 (Anger, de temp. rat. p. 184). Jonathan the son of Ananus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 4. 3) succeeded him; and he, after a year, was succeeded by his brother Theophilus (Joseph. Antt. xviii. 5. 3).

Λαμασκός, דַמֶּשֶׂק, the old capital of Syria, in which, since the period of the Seleucidae, so many Jews resided that Nero could cause 10,000 to be executed (Joseph. Bell. Jud. i. 2. 25, ii. 20. 2). It was specially to Damascus that the persecuting Saul turned his steps, partly, doubtless, because the existence of the hated sect in that city was well known to him (the church there may have owed its origin and its enlargement as well to the journeys of the resident Jews to the feasts, as to visits of the dispersed from Jerusalem); partly, perhaps, also, because personal connections promised for his enterprise there the success which he desired.

πρὸς τὰς συναγωγ.], from which, consequently, the Christians had not as yet separated themselves. Comp. Lechler, apost. Zeit. p. 290.

The recognition of the letters of authorization at Damascus was not to be doubted, as that city was in the year 35 still under Roman dominion; and Roman policy was accustomed to grant as much indulgence as possible to the religious power of the Sanhedrim, even in criminal matters (only the execution of the punishment of death was reserved to the Roman authority).

τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας] who should be of the way. The way, in the ethical sense, is here κατ ̓ ἐξοχήν the Christian, i.e. the characteristic direction of life as determined by faith on Jesus Christ (ὁδὸς κυρίου, Acts 18:25),—an expression in this absolute form peculiar to the Book of Acts (Acts 19:9, Acts 22:4, Acts 24:14; Acts 24:22), but which certainly was in use in the apostolic church. Oecumenius indicates the substantial meaning: τὴν κατὰ Χριστὸν εἶπε πολιτείαν.

εἶναι, with the genitive in the sense of belonging to. See Bernhardy, p. 165; Winer, p. 184 [E. T. 244].

Acts 9:3-9. The conversion of Saul does not appear, on an accurate consideration of the three narratives (9, 22, 26) which agree in the main points, to have had the way psychologically prepared for it by scruples of conscience as to his persecuting proceedings. On the contrary, Luke represents it in the history at our passage, and Paul himself in his speeches (22 and 26; comp. also Galatians 1:14-15; Php 3:12), as in direct and immediate contrast to his vehement persecuting zeal, amidst which he was all of a sudden internally arrested by the miraculous fact from without. Comp. Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 251 f. Moreover, previous scruples and inward struggles are à priori, in the case of a character so pure (at this time only erring), firm, and ardently decided as he also afterwards continued to be, extremely improbable: he saw in the destruction of the Christian church only a fulfilment of duty and a meritorious service for the glory of Jehovah (Acts 22:3; comp. Galatians 1:14; Php 3:6). For the transformation of his firm conviction into the opposite, of his ardent interest against the gospel into an ardent zeal for it, there was needed—with the pure resoluteness of his will, which even in his unwearied persecutions was just striving after a righteousness of his own (Php 3:6)—a heavenly power directly seizing on his inmost conscience; and this he experienced, in the midst of his zealot enterprise, on the way to Damascus, when that perverted striving after righteousness and merit was annihilated. The light which from heaven suddenly shone around him brighter than the sun (Acts 26:13), was no flash of lightning. The similarity of the expression in all the three narratives militates against this assumption so frequently made (and occurring still in Schrader); and Paul himself certainly knew how to distinguish in his recollection a natural phenomenon, however alarming, from a φῶς ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ associated with a heavenly revelation.[235] This φῶς was rather the heavenly radiance, with which the exalted Christ appearing in His δόξα is surrounded. In order to a scripturally true conception of the occurrence, moreover, we may not think merely in general of an internal vision produced by God (Weiss, Schweizer, Schenkel, and others); nor is it enough specially to assume a self-manifestation of Christ made merely to the inner sense of Saul,—although externally accompanied by the miraculous appearance of light,—according to which by an operation of Christ, who is in heaven, He presented Himself to the inner man of Saul, and made Himself audible in definite words (see my first edition; comp. Bengel, üb d. Bekehr. Pauli, aus d. Lat. übers, v. Niethammer, Tüb. 1826). On the contrary, according to 1 Corinthians 15:8 (comp. Acts 9:1), Christ must really have appeared to him in His glorified body (comp. Acts 9:17; Acts 9:27). For only the objective (this also against Ewald) and real corporeal appearance corresponds to the category of appearances, in which this is placed at 1 Corinthians 15:8, as also to the requirement of apostleship, which is expressed in 1 Corinthians 9:1 most definitely, and that in view of Peter and the other original apostles, by τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἑώρακα. Comp. Paul in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1863, p. 182 ff. The Risen One Himself was in the light which appeared, and converted Saul (and hence Galatians 1:1 : τοῦ ἐγείραντος αὐτὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν), with which also Galatians 1:16 (see in loc.) fully agrees; comp. Php 3:12. This view is rightly adopted, after the old interpreters, by Lyttleton (on the conversion, etc., translated by Hahn, Hannov. 1751), Hess, Michaelis, Haselaar (Lugd. Bat. 1806), and by most modern interpreters except the Tübingen School; as well as by Olshausen and Neander, both of whom, however, without any warrant in the texts, assume a psychological preparation by the principles of Gamaliel, by the speech of Stephen, and by the sight of his death. For the correct view comp. Baumgarten; Diestelmaier, Jugendleben des Saulus, 1866, p. 37 ff.; Oertel, Paulus in d. Apostelgesch. p. 112 ff., who also enlarges on the connection of the doctrine of the apostle with his conversion.[236] On the other hand, de Wette does not go beyond an admission of the enigmatical character of the matter; Lange (Apost. Zeitalt. II. p. 116 f.) connects the objective fact with a visionary perception of it; and Holsten (in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschr. 1861, p. 223 ff.), after the example of Baur, attempts to make good the vision, which he assumes, as a real one, indeed, but yet as an immanent psychological act of Saul’s own mind,—a view which is refuted by the necessary resemblance of the fact to the other Christophanies in 1 Corinthians 15.[237] All the attempts of Baur and his school to treat the event as a visionary product from the laboratory of Saul’s own thoughts are exegetical impossibilities, in presence of which Baur himself at last stood still acknowledging a mystery. See his Christenth. d. drei ersten Jahrh. p. 45, ed. 2. It is no argument against the actual bodily appearance, that the text speaks only of the light, and not of a human form rendered visible. For, while in general the glorified body may have been of itself inaccessible to the human eye, so, in particular, was it here as enclosed in the heavenly radiance; and the texts relate only what was externally seen and apparent also to the others,—namely, the radiance of light, out of which the Christ surrounded by it made Himself visible only to Saul, as He also granted only to him to hear His words, which the rest did not hear.[238] Whoever, taking offence at the diversities of the accounts in particular points as at their miraculous tenor, sets down what is so reported as unhistorical, or refers it, with Zeller, to the psychological domain of nascent faith, is opposed, as regards the nature of the fact recorded, by the testimony of the apostle himself in 1 Corinthians 15:8; 1 Corinthians 9:1 with a power sustained by his whole working, which is not to be broken, and which leads ultimately to the desperate shift of supposing in Paul, at precisely the most decisive and momentous point of his life, a self-deception as the effect of the faith existing in him; in which case the narrative of the Book of Acts is traced to a design of legitimating the apostleship of Paul, which in the sequel is further confirmed by the authority of Peter.

Hardly deserving now of historical notice is the uncritical rationalism of the method that preceded the critical school of Baur, by which (after Vitringa, Obss. p. 370, and particularly Eichhorn, Ammon, Boehme, Heinrichs, Kuinoel, and others) the whole occurrence was converted into a fancy-picture, in which the persecutor’s struggles of conscience furnished the psychological ground and a sudden thunderstorm the accessories,—a view with which some (Emmerling and Bretschneider) associate the exegetical blunder of identifying the fact with 2 Corinthians 12:1 ff.; while Brennecke (after Bahrdt and Venturini) makes Jesus, who was only apparently dead, appear to Saul to check his persecuting zeal. These earlier attempts to assign the conversion of the apostle to the natural sphere are essentially distinguished, in respect of their basis, from those of the critical school of Baur and Holsten, by the circumstance that the latter proceed from the postulates of pantheistic, and the former from those of theistic, rationalism. But both agree in starting from the negation of a miracle, by which Saul could have come to be among the prophets, as they consign the resurrection of the Lord Himself from the dead to the same negative domain. In consequence of this, indeed, they cannot present the conversion of Paul otherwise than under the notion of an immanent process of his individual mental life.

ἀπὸ τ. οὐρανοῦ] belongs to ΠΕΡΙΉΣΤΡ. Comp. Acts 22:6, Acts 26:13; Xen. Cyr. iv. 2. 15 : φῶς ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ προφανές. On ΠΕΡΙΑΣΤΡΆΠΤΕΙΝ, comp. Juvenc. in Stob. cxvii. 9; 4Ma 4:10.

[235] This applies in the main, also, against Ewald, p. 375, who assumes a dazzling celestial phenomenon of an unexpected and terrible nature, possibly a thunderstorm, or rather a deadly sirocco in the middle of a sultry day, etc.

[236] See also Hofstede de Groot, Pauli conversio praecipuus theologiae Paul. fons, Groning. 1855, who, however, in setting forth this connection mixes up too much that is arbitrary.

[237] See, in opposition to Holsten, Beyschlag in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, pp. 197 ff., 231 ff.; Oertel, l.c. In opposition to Beyschlag, again, see Holsten, zum Evang. des Paulus u. Petr. p. 2 ff.; as also Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 155 ff., who likewise starts from à priori presuppositions, which do not agree with the exegetical results. These à priori presuppositions, marking the criticism of the Baur School, agree generally in the negation of miracle, as well as in the position that Christianity has arisen in the way of an immanent development of the human mind,—whereby the credibility of the Book of Acts is abandoned. With Holsten, Lang, relig. Charaktere, Paulus, p. 15 ff., essentially agrees; as does also, with poetical embellishment, Hirzel in the Zeitstimmen, 1864.—Hausrath, der Apostel Paulus, 1865, p. 23 f., contents himself with doubts, founded on Galatians 1:15, which leave the measure of the historical character in suspenso. Holtzmann, Judenth. u. Christenth. p. 540 ff., finds “the—in the details—contradictory and legendary narrative” of the Book of Acts confirmed in the main by the hints of the apostle himself in his letters; nevertheless, for the explanation of what actually occurred, he does not go beyond suggesting various possibilities, and finds it advisable “to ascribe to the same causes, from which it becomes impossible absolutely to discover the origin of the belief of the resurrection, such a range that they include also the event before Damascus.”

[238] See Acts 22:9. The statement, Acts 9:7 : ἀκούοντες μὲν τῆς φωνῆς, is evidently a trait of tradition already disfiguring the history, to which the apostle‘s own narrative, as it is preserved at Acts 22:9, must without hesitation be preferred. In the case of a miraculous event so entirely unique and extraordinary, such traditional variations in the certainly very often repeated narrative are so naturally conceivable, that it would, in fact, be surprising and suspicious if we should find in the various narratives no variation. To Luke himself such variations, amidst the unity of essentials, gave so little offence that he has adopted and included them unreconciled from his different sources. Baur transfers them to the laboratory of literary design, in which case they are urged for the purpose of resolving the historical fact into myth. See his Paulus, I. p. 71 ff., ed. 2.

Acts 9:4-5. The light shone around him (and not his companions). Out of the light the present Christ manifested Himself at this moment to his view: he has seen, the Lord (1 Corinthians 9:1; 1 Corinthians 15:8), Acts 9:17; Acts 9:27, who afterwards makes Himself known also by name; and the persecutor, from terror at the heavenly vision, falls to the ground, when he hears the voice speaking in Hebrew (Acts 26:14): Saul, Saul, etc.

τί με διώκεις;] τί παρʼ ἐμοῦ μέγα ἢ μικρὸν ἠδικημένος ταῦτα ποιεῖς; Chrysostom. Christ Himself is persecuted in His people. Luke 10:16. “Caput pro membris clamabat,” Augustine.

τίς εἶ, κύριε]. On the question whether Saul, during his residence in Jerusalem, had personally seen Christ (Schrader, Olshausen, Ewald, Keim, Beyschlag, and others) or not (comp. on 2 Corinthians 5:16), no decision can at all be arrived at from this passage, as the form in which the Lord presented Himself to the view of Saul belonged to the heavenly world and was surrounded with the glorious radiance, and Saul himself, immediately after the momentary view and the overwhelming impression of the incomparable appearance, fell down and closed his eyes.

Observe in Acts 9:5 the emphasis of ἐγώ and σύ.

Acts 9:6. ʼΑλλά] breaking off; see on Mark 16:7, and Bäumlein, Partik. p. 15.

According to chap. 26., Jesus forthwith gives Saul the commission to become the apostle of the Gentiles, which, according to the two other narratives, here and chap. 22., is only given afterwards through the intervention of Ananias. This diversity is sufficiently explained by the fact that Paul in the speech before Agrippa abridges the narrative, and puts the commission, which was only subsequently conveyed to him by the instrumentality of another, at once into the mouth of Christ Himself, the author of the commission; by which the thing in itself (the command issued by Christ to him) is not affected, but merely the exactness of the representation, the summary abbreviation of which on this point Paul might esteem as sufficient before Agrippa (in opposition to Zeller, p. 193).

Acts 9:7. Εἰστήκεισαν ἐνεοί[239]] According to Acts 26:14, they all fell to the earth with Saul. This diversity is not, with Bengel, Haselaar, Kuinoel, Baumgarten, and others, to be obviated by the purely arbitrary assumption, that the companions at the first appearance of the radiance had fallen down, but then had risen again sooner than Saul; but it is to be recognised as an unessential non-agreement of the several accounts, whereby both the main substance of the event itself, and the impartial conscientiousness of Luke in not arbitrarily harmonizing the different sources, are simply confirmed.

ἈΚΟΎΟΝΤΕς ΜῈΝ Τῆς ΦΩΝῆς] does not agree with Acts 22:9. See the note on Acts 9:3 ff. The artificial attempts at reconciliation are worthless, namely: that Τῆς ΦΩΝῆς, by which Christ’s voice is meant, applies to the words of Paul (so, against the context, Chrysostom, Ammonius, Oecumenius, Camerarius, Castalio, Beza, Vatablus, Clarius, Erasmus Schmid, Heumann, and others); or, that φωνή is here a noise (thunder), but in Acts 22:9 an articulate voice (so erroneously, in opposition to Acts 9:4, Hammond, Elsner, Fabricius, ad Cod. Apocr. N. T., p. 442, Rosenmüller, Morus, Heinrichs); or, that ἤκουσαν in Acts 22:9 denotes the understanding of the voice (so, after Grotius and many older interpreters, in Wolf, Kuinoel, and Hackett), or the definite giving ear in reference to the speaker (Bengel, Baumgarten), which is at variance with the fact, that in both places there is the simple contradistinction of seeing and hearing; hence the appeal to John 12:28-29 is not suitable, and still less the comparison of Daniel 10:7.

ΜΗΔΈΝΑ ΔῈ ΘΕΩΡ.] But seeing no one, from whom the voice might have come; μηδένα is used, because the participles contain the subjective cause of their standing perplexed and speechless. It is otherwise in Acts 9:8 : οὐδὲν ἔβλεπε.

[239] ἐνεός, dump, speechless (here, from terror), is to be written with one ν (not ἐννεός), as is done by Lachm. Tisch. Born. after A B C E H א. See on the word, Valck. ad h. I.; Bornem. ad Xen. Anab. iv. 5. 33; Ruhnk. ad Tim. p. 102.

Acts 9:8-9. ʼΑνεῳγμένων δὲ τῶν ὀφθαλμ.] Consequently Saul had lain on the ground with closed eyes since the appearance of the radiance (Acts 9:4),—which, however, as the appearance of Jesus for him is to be assumed as in and with the radiance, cannot prove that he had not really and personally seen the Lord.

οὐδὲν ἔβλεπε] namely, because he was blinded by the heavenly light (and not possibly in consequence of the journey through the desert, see Acts 22:11). The connection inevitably requires this explanation by what immediately follows; nor is the Recepta οὐδένα ἔβλ. (see the critical remarks) to be explained otherwise than of being blinded,[240] in opposition to Haselaar and others, who refer ΟὐΔΈΝΑ to Jesus.

ΜῊ ΒΛΈΠΩΝ] he was for three days without being able to see, i.e. blind (John 9:39; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 308), so that he had not his power of vision; comp. Winer, p. 453 [E. T. 610]. Hence here μή from the standpoint of the subject concerned; but afterwards ΟὐΚ and ΟὐΔΈ, because narrating objectively.

ΟὐΚ ἜΦΑΓΕΝ ΟὐΔῈ ἜΠΙΕΝ] an absolute negation of eating and drinking (John 3:7; Esther 4:16), and not “a cibi potusve largioris usu abstinebat,” Kuinoel. By fasting Saul partly satisfied the compunction into which he could not but now feel himself brought for the earlier wrong direction of his efforts, and partly prepared himself by fasting and prayer (Acts 9:11) for the decisive change of his inward and outward life, for which, according to Acts 9:6, he waited a special intimation. See Acts 9:18.

[240] That the blinding took place as a symbol of the previous spiritual blindness of Saul (Calvin, Grotius, de Wette, Baumgarten, and others) is not indicated by anything in the text, and may only be considered as the edifying application of the history, although Baur makes the formation of the legend attach itself to this idea. That blinding of Saul was a simple consequence of the heavenly radiance, and served (as also the fasting) to withdraw him for a season wholly from the outer world, and to restrict him to his inner life. And the blindness befell Saul alone: ἵνα μὴ κοινὸν καὶ ὡς ἀπὸ τύχης τὸ πάθος νομισθῇ, ἀλλὰ θείας προνοίας, Oecumenius.

Acts 9:10. Ὁ κύριος] Christ. See Acts 9:13-14; Acts 9:17.

ἐν ὁράματι] in a vision (Acts 10:3, Acts 16:9, al.; differently Acts 7:31); whether awake or asleep, the context does not decide (not even by ἀναστάς, Acts 9:11). Eichhorn’s view, with which Kuinoel and partially also Heinrichs agree,—that Saul and Ananias had already been previously friends, and that the appearance in a dream as naturally resulted in the case of the former from the longing to speak with Ananias again and to get back sight by virtue of a healing power which was well known to him, as in the case of Ananias, who had heard of his friend’s fate on the way and of his arrival and dream,—is a fiction of exegetical romance manufactured without the slightest hint in the text, and indeed in opposition to Acts 9:11 f., 14. The course of the conversion, guided by Christ directly revealing Himself, is entirely in accordance with its commencement (Acts 9:3-9): “bat we know not the law according to which communications of a higher spiritual world to men living in the world of sense take place, so as to be able to determine anything concerning them” (Neander). According to Baur, the two corresponding visions of Ananias and (Acts 9:12) Saul are literary parallels to the history of the conversion of Cornelius. And that Ananias was a man of legal piety (Acts 22:12), is alleged by Schneckenburger, p. 168 f., and Baur, to be in keeping with the tendency of Luke, although he does not even mention it here; Zeller, p. 196, employs even the frequent occurrence of the name (chap. 5. and Acts 23:2, Acts 24:1) to call in question whether Ananias “played a part” in the conversion of the apostle at all.