Albert Barnes Commentary Acts 9:23

"And when many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel together to kill him:" — Acts 9:23 (ASV)

And after that many days, etc. How long a time elapsed before this event is not recorded here. However, it is evident that the writer means to signify that a considerable time intervened. There is, therefore, an interval here that Luke has not filled in. If this were the only narrative we had, we would be at a loss to understand this.

From all we know now about the usual conduct of the Jews toward the apostles, and especially toward Paul, it would seem highly improbable that this interval would be spent peaceably or quietly. Indeed, it would be highly improbable that he would be allowed to remain in Damascus for many days without violent persecution.

Now, it so happens that by turning to another part of the New Testament, we are able to ascertain how this interval was filled. If you turn to Galatians 1:17, we learn from Paul himself that he went into Arabia, spent some time there, and then returned to Damascus.

The precise time such a journey would take is not specified, but it would likely require at least some months. In Galatians 1:18, we are informed that he did not go to Jerusalem until three years after his conversion. Since there is reason to believe that he went up to Jerusalem directly after escaping from Damascus the second time (Acts 9:25–26), it seems probable that the three years were spent mainly in Arabia.

We thus have an account of the many days referred to here by Luke. In this instance, we find a striking example of the truth and honesty of the sacred writers. By comparing these two accounts, we understand the complete situation. Neither seems complete without the other.

Luke has left a chasm that he has not supplied elsewhere. But we are able to fill that chasm from the apostle himself, in a letter written long afterward and without any intention to amend or complete Luke’s history. For the introduction of this history into the Epistle to the Galatians was for a very different purpose: to show that he received his commission directly from the Lord Jesus, and in a manner independent of the other apostles.

The two accounts, therefore, are like the two parts of a tally; neither is complete without the other. Yet, when brought together, they fit so exactly as to show that one is precisely adjusted to the other.

Since the two parts were made by different individuals, without any intention of adapting them to each other, they show that the writers had formed no collusion or agreement to deceive the world. They further demonstrate that the writers are separate and independent witnesses, that they are honest men, and that their narratives are true records of what actually occurred. The two narratives, therefore, constitute a strong and very valuable proof of the correctness of the sacred narrative.

If asked why Luke omitted this in the Acts, it may be replied that many circumstances and facts are omitted in all histories out of necessity . It is remarkable here, not that he omitted this, but that he left a chasm in his own history that can be so readily filled.

Were fulfilled: This means "had elapsed."

Took counsel, etc. This means they laid a scheme or plotted to kill him (Acts 25:3). His zeal and success would enrage them, and they knew of no other way they could free themselves from the effects of his arguments and influence.