Page:Lives of the apostles of Jesus Christ (1836).djvu/510



that the word "straightway," or "immediately," in Acts ix. 20, ([Greek: eutheôs],) really means, that it was not until a long time after his conversion that he preached in the synagogues!! Into this remarkable opinion they have been led by the fact, that Saul himself says, (Galat. i. 16,) that when he was called by God to the apostleship, "immediately he conferred not with flesh and blood, nor went up to Jerusalem, but went into Arabia." All this however, is evidently specified by him only in reference to the point that he did not derive his title to the apostleship from "those that were apostles before him," nor from any human authority; and full justice is therefore done to his words, by applying them only to the fact, that he went to Arabia before he went to Jerusalem, without supposing them to mean that he left Damascus immediately after his baptism by Ananias. All the historical writers however, seem to take this latter view. Witsius, Cappel, Pearson, Lardner, Murdock, Hemsen, &c. place his journey to Arabia between his baptism and the time of his escape, and suppose that when he fled from Damascus, he went directly to Jerusalem. In the different arrangement which I make of these events, however, I find myself supported by most of the great exegetical writers, as Wolf, Kuinoel, and Bloomfield; and I can not better support this view than in the words of the latter.

Acts ix. 19. "[Greek: egeneto de d Saulas]. Paul (Galat. 1, 17,) relates that he, after his conversion, did not proceed to Jerusalem, but repaired to Arabia, and from thence returned to Damascus. Hence, according to the opinion of Pearson, in his Annal. Paul. p. 2. the words [Greek: egeneto de d Saulas] are to be separated from the preceding passage, and constitute a new story, in which is related what happened at Damascus after Saul's return from Arabia. But the words [Greek: hikanai hêmerai] may and ought to be referred to the whole time of Paul's abode at Damascus, before he went into Arabia; and thus with the [Greek: hikanai hêmerai] be numbered the [Greek: hêmerai tines] mentioned at ver. 19: for the sense of the words is this: "Saul, when he spent some days with the Damascene Christians, immediately taught in the synagogues. Now Luke entirely passes by Paul's journey into Arabia. (Kuin.) Doddridge imagines that his going into Arabia, (to which, as he observes, Damascus now belonged,) was only making excursions from that city into the neighboring parts of the country, and perhaps taking a large circuit about it, which might be his employment between the time in which he began to preach in Damascus, and his quitting it after having been conquered by the Romans under Pompey." But in view of this subject I cannot agree with him. The country in the neighborhood of Damascus is not properly Arabia."

22-24. "[Greek: hôs de eplêrounto—anelein auton]. In 2 Cor. xi. 32, we read that the Ethnarch of Aretas, king of Arabia, had placed a guard at the gates of Damascus, to seize Paul. Now it appears that Syria Damascene was, at the end of the Mithridatic war, reduced by Pompey to the Roman yoke. It has therefore been inquired how it could happen that Aretas should then have the government, and appoint an Ethnarch. That Aretas had, on account of the repudiation of his daughter by Herod Antipas, commenced hostilities against that monarch, and in the last year of Tiberius (A. D. 37,) had completely defeated his army, we learn from Joseph. Ant. 18, 5, 1. seqq. Herod had, we find, signified this by letter to Tiberius, who, indignant at this audacity, (Joseph. L. c.) gave orders to Vitellius, prefect of Syria, to declare war against Aretas, and take him alive, or send him his head. Vitellius made preparations for the war, but on receiving a message acquainting him with the death of Tiberius, he dismissed his troops into winter quarters. And thus Aretas was delivered from the danger. At the time, however, that Vitellius drew off his forces, Aretas invaded Syria, seized Damascus, and continued to occupy it, in spite of Tiberius's stupid successor, Caligula. This is the opinion of most commentators, and among others, Wolf, Michaelis, and Eichhorn. But I have already shewn in the Proleg. § de chronologia lib. 2, 3, that Aretas did not finally subdue Damascus until Vitellius had already departed from the province." (Kuin.) (Bloomfield's Annotations, Vol. IV. pp. 322-324.)

HIS RETURN TO JERUSALEM.

Arriving in the city, whence only three years before he had set out, in a frame of mind so different from that in which he returned, and with a purpose so opposite to his present views and plans,—he immediately, with all the confidence of Christian faith, and ar