connected with Baptism and preceding it, necessarily involved belief in Him, Rom. x. 14. There is no contradiction in the fact that the commission to the Apostleship here and in ix. comes from Ananias, whilst in xxvi. he is not men-
λουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου, ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα ] τοῦ Κυρίου. 17.
ἐγένετο δέ µοι ὑποστρέψαντι εἰς Ἱερουσαλήμ, καὶ προσευχοµένου µου
ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, γενέσθαι µε ἐν ἐκστάσει, 18. Kal? ἰδεῖν αὐτὸν λέγοντά
pou, Σπεῦσον καὶ ἔξελθε ἐν τάχει ἐξ “Ἱερουσαλήμ: διότι οὐ παρα-
δέξονται σου τὴν µαρτυρίαν περὶ ἐμοῦ.
19. κἀγὼ εἶπον, Κύριε,
αὐτοὶ ἐπίστανται, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἤμην Φφυλακίζων καὶ δέρων κατὰ τὰς
συναγωγὰς τοὺς πιστεύοντας ἐπὶ σέ: 20. καὶ Ste® ἐξεχεῖτο τὸ αἷμα
Στεφάνου τοῦ µάρτυρός σου, καὶ αὐτὸς ἤμην ἐφεστὼς καὶ συνευδοκῶν
~ A ‘ Αα τῇ” ἀναιρέσει αὐτοῦ, καὶ φυλάσσων τὰ ipdtia τῶν ἀναιρούντων
1 Instead of Κ. ΑΕΒΕ, verss., Tisch., W.H., R.V., Weiss, Wendt, Blass, Hilg.
have αυτου.
2 Wey ABEHLP, Vulg., Chrys., Lach., W.H., Weiss ; Tisch. after §§ 18, 36, 180, d
has ιδον (ειδον, so Blass in B, and Hilg.).
3 Instead of εξεχειτο ΑΒ”. W.H., Weiss, Wendt have εξεχυννετο; Blass -υνετο with ΒΡΕ. red. om. A 68, but no other authorities.
47 αναιρεσει αυτου OM. SABE 40, Vulg., Sah., Boh., Aethutr.; Tisch., W.H., R.V., Blass, Weiss, Wendt, Hilg.; cf. viii. 1.
tioned at all, and the commission comes directly from the mouth of the Lord. It might be sufficient simply to say ‘‘ quod quis per alium facit id ipse fecisse puta- tur,” but before the Roman governor it was likely enough that the Apostle should omit the name of Ananias and combine with the revelation at his conversion and with that made by Ananias other and subsequent revelations, cf. xxvi. 16-18. Festus might have treated the vision to Ananias with ridicule, Agrippa would not have been influenced by the name of a Jew living in obscurity at Damascus (Speaker’s Commentary).
Ver. 17. ἐγέν. δέ por ὑποσ.: refers to the first visit of St. Paul to Jerusalem after his Conversion, Lightfoot, Gala- tians, pp. 84, 93, 125. Ramsay, St. Paul, p. 60, refers it to the second visit, (1) because the reason for Paul’s depar- ture from Jerusalem is given differently here and in ix. 29. But may not St. Luke be describing the occurrence in relation to the Jews and the Church, and St. Paul in relation to his own private personal history, St. Luke giving us the outward impulse, St. Paul the inner motive (Hackett), so that two causes, the one natural, the other super- natural, are mentioned side by side? cf. Acts xiii. 2-4 (so Lightfoot, Felten, Lumby). (2) Ramsay’s second reason is that Paul does not go at once to the Gentiles, but spends many years of quiet work in Cilicia and Antioch, and so the ssommand of the vision in vy. 20, 21. is
not suitable to the first visit. But the command to go to the Gentiles dates from the Apostle’s Conversion, quite apart from the vision in the Temple, cf. ix. 15, xxvi. 17, and the same commis- sion is plainly implied in xxii. 15; the words of the command may well express the ultimate and not the immediate issue of the Apostle’s labours. On ἐγέν. δέ, Luke seventeen times, Acts twenty-one, and éyév. followed by infinitive, see Hawkins, Hore Synoptica, p. 30, and Plummer’s St. Luke, p. 45. For the reading in xii. 25, ὑπέστ. εἰς Ἱ., and its bearing on the present passage see Ramsay, St. Paul, ΡΡ. 63, 64, and also above, xi. 29, xii. 25. —mpowevx. .. « τῷ ἱερῷ: there was a special reason for the mention of the fact before St. Paul’s present audience; it showed that the Temple was still for him the place of prayer and worship, and it should have shown the Jews that he who thus prayed in the Temple could not so have profaned it, Lewin, St. Paul, ii., Ῥ. 146.—év ἐκστάσει, x. 10. For the construction see Burton, p. 175, Simcox, Language of the N.T., p. 58, Blass, Gram., p. 247.