ACC ~ Acts 9 v26 - 31

OVERVIEW:

Both Chrysostom and Bede reflect the same problem that besets modern commentators in comparing the accounts Paul gives of his movements to and from Jerusalem and those given by Luke. Their solutions are moderate, as are most of the more attentive moderns. The account makes it clear that the apostle was not exempt from the ordinary course of risk-laden human life. While Chrysostom sets forth many attempts to reconcile Acts and Galatians, Bede proposes a particular order accounting for Paul’s presence in Jerusalem. It is ironic that Paul disputed with Greeks in Jerusalem and Jews in Damascus. With the short summary statement concerning the peace and consolation enjoyed by the Jerusalem community Luke brings this part of his narrative about Paul to a close, and he goes on in the next section to tell of Peter’s activity and of his call to minister to the Gentiles.

9:26 | When Paul Came to Jerusalem

RECONCILING ACTS AND THE LETTER TO THE GALATIANS. CHRYSOSTOM: One may well be much at a loss here to understand how it is that, whereas in the epistle to the Galatians Paul says, “I went, not to Jerusalem” but “into Arabia” and “to Damascus,” and, “After three years I went up to Jerusalem,” and “to see Peter,” here [in Acts] the writer says the contrary. There, Paul says, “And I saw none of the apostles,” but here, it is said that Barnabas “brought him to the apostles.” Well, [among several alternatives] either Paul means, “I went up,” not with the intent to refer or attach myself to them—for what does he say? “I did not refer myself, nor did I go to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”—or else, that the laying await for him in Damascus was after his return from Arabia. Or another alternative is that the visit to Jerusalem was after he came from Arabia. Certainly of his own accord he went not to the apostles but “sought to join himself to the disciples” as a teacher, not a disciple. “I went,” he says, “not for this purpose, that I should go to those who were apostles before me. Certainly, I learned nothing from them.” Or he does not speak of this visit but passes it by, so that the order is, “I went into Arabia, then I came to Damascus, then to Jerusalem, then to Syria.” Or else, again, that he went up to Jerusalem, then was sent to Damascus, then to Arabia, then again to Damascus, then to Caesarea. Also, the visit “after fourteen years” probably was when he brought up the alms to the brothers together with Barnabas. Or else he means a different occasion. For the historian, for conciseness, often omits incidents and condenses the times. Observe how unambitious the writer is, and how he does not even relate that vision but passes it by. “He sought,” it says, “to join himself to the disciples. And they were afraid of him.” By this again is shown the ardor of Paul’s character, for not only from the mouth of Ananias and of those who wondered at him there but also of those in Jerusalem came the statement that “they did not believe that he was a disciple.” For truly that was beyond all human expectation. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 21.

COMPARING DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS. BEDE: We are not to believe that he came to the apostles in Jerusalem immediately after he was baptized. Rather, as he himself wrote to the Galatians, he first went away to Arabia and again returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, he came to Jerusalem and saw Peter and remained with him for fifteen days, but he saw none of the other apostles except for James, the brother of the Lord. And then, as Luke also tells, he came to the regions of Syria and Cilicia. It is not, however, readily apparent whether it was during the first or the second visit to Damascus that he survived the snares [of the Jews]. Support for taking it as the second time can be found in the statement that after many days had passed the Jews made a plan about killing him. Therefore Luke seems to have disregarded Arabia because he [Paul] preached very little there, as he himself said later, when he was speaking to King Agrippa, “I preached first to the people of Damascus and Jerusalem, and in every region of Judea, and to the Gentiles.” COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 9.26.

9:27 | Barnabas Took Him

A KIND MAN. CHRYSOSTOM: Barnabas was called “son of encouragement”; accordingly, he was accessible to Paul. His exceeding kindness is revealed both in the present instance and in the case of John (Mark). Why was Barnabas not afraid? (For Paul was a man whose very look inspired fear.) It is likely that Barnabas, also at Damascus, had heard all about him. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 21.

9:29 | Preaching Boldly

CONTENDING WITH GREEKS IN JERUSALEM AND JEWS IN DAMASCUS. BEDE: Note that he taught Greeks in Jerusalem and Jews in Damascus, which is a Gentile city, even though this should signify that Gentiles were to be included in the city of God and Jews were to fall into the faithlessness of the Gentiles, in accordance with what Isaiah said: “Lebanon shall be changed into Carmel, and Carmel shall be regarded as a wasteland.” COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 9.29.

MAKING NO EXCUSES. CHRYSOSTOM: “But they,” it says, “went about to slay him.” This is a sign of his energy and triumphant victory and of their exceeding annoyance at what had happened. Fearing that the issue should be the same as in the case of Stephen, they sent him to Caesarea. For it says, “When the brothers were aware of this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him forth to Tarsus,” at the same time to preach, and likely to be more in safety, as being in his own country. But observe, I pray you, how far it is from being the case that everything is done by grace [particular acts of providence]. Note how, on the contrary, God does in many things leave them to manage for themselves by their own wisdom and in a human way, so to cut off the excuse of idle people, for if it was so in the case of Paul, much more in theirs. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 21.

9:31 | The Church Had Peace

UNAFRAID, PETER LEAVES JERUSALEM. CHRYSOSTOM: He is about to relate that Peter goes down [from Jerusalem]. Therefore, that you may not impute this to fear, he first says this. For while there was persecution, he was in Jerusalem, but when the affairs of the church are everywhere in security, then it is that he leaves Jerusalem. HOMILIES ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES 21.