ACC ~ Acts 9 v26

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.

Acts