Acts Chapter 9 verse 26 Holy Bible

Pulpit Commentary

Pulpit CommentaryVerse 26. - He for Saul, A.V. and T.R.; and they were for but, etc., A.V.; not believing for and believed not, A.V. The narrative thus far exactly agrees with Galatians 1:17, 18, which, however, supplies the motive of the journey to Jerusalem, which is not here mentioned, viz. to see Peter. It seems strange to some commentators that the news of Saul having become a zealous Christian should not have reached Jerusalem after an interval of three years. But first, we do not know. how much of those three years was spent in Arabia, nor how much the unsettled state of Damascus may have interrupted the usual communication between Jerusalem and Damascus, nor how suspicious of evil the poor persecuted disciples at Jerusalem may have been. They knew of the fierceness of Saul's zeal as a persecutor by their own experience; they knew of him as a disciple only by report. It may have been only an instance of the truth of Horace's maxim, "Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures quam quae sunt occults subjecta fidelibus."

Ellicott's Commentary

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers(26) And when Saul was come to Jerusalem.--His journey probably took him, as before, through Samaria (see Note on Acts 9:3), and so laid the foundation of the interest in the Samaritan Church, which shows itself later on in the history in Acts 15:3, when he and Barnabas journeyed "through Ph?nice and Samaria."He assayed to join himself to the disciples.--The reader may note the use of the word "assay," which has since been confined to a purely technical meaning, in the wider sense of trying or attempting. The verb for "join" is that which is always used of close and intimate fellowship, such as that of husband and wife, of brothers, and of friends. (Comp. Acts 10:28; Matthew 19:5; Luke 15:15; 1Corinthians 6:16.) He was seeking, in the language of a later time, full communion with the disciples. It was not strange that his motives should be at first suspected. Might he not be coming to "spy out" their weak places, and in time appear again as a persecutor? The difficulty which at first presents itself in understanding how the Church at Jerusalem could have remained ignorant of what Saul had done at Damascus as a preacher of the faith, is adequately explained by the political incidents to which attention has been already drawn. The occupation of the city by Aretas, and his enmity against the Herodian house, may well have stopped the usual intercourse between it and Jerusalem, then under the rule of Agrippa, and so the reports that reached the Apostles would come in uncertain and fluctuating forms, which were not sufficient to lead the disciples to trust in the conversion of the persecutor. . . .