For behold, he is praying, and he perceived a man [in a vision] with the name Ananias having come in and having laid [his] hands (upon him) so that he would see again.
I must be misunderstanding this. Just to fit the narrative I would have expected this to be more instructions to Ananias. (Behold, you will see a man, pray and lay hands on him that he might see again.) As I understand it above, it’s too awkward and breaks the flow. But maybe Luke was going for the vision within a vision thing.
ἰδοὺ γὰρ … Is a discourse marker introducing a clarification describing the state of affairs Ananias will encounter upon arriving at his destination. The obvious purpose is to counter Ananias’ objection (v13) in advance. Saul is a dangerous Man. Ananias’ fears are overcome by telling him Saul will be prepared to receive him. The double vision, if you want call it that, underlines divine foreordination of the encounter. Calls to mind Mary and Elizabeth in the birth narrative. Luke is not a secular historian. His writing has been described by some as a biography of the Holy Spirit; which is figurative language drawing attention to Luke’s preoccupation with the agency of the Holy Spirit.
The question I would ask is why doesn’t Luke include those details? Why does he include the details he does, and how do they fit his narrative purpose?
But I think that our Greek Father mischaracterizes the fear of Ananias. Ananias is not expressing fear that he can get to the sick man. Rather, he’s asking why God would possibly want to heal an enemy. Hence the answer that he is God’s σκεῦος ἐκλογῆς.
Also, the sending of a vision to a blind man – and expecting it to be useful – is at least a little incongruous.
Calling Chrysostom “a Greek Father” is a bit like calling George Washington “a president of the United States…”
However, I am not sure that you are understanding C.'s argument correctly. Are you saying that C. is suggesting that Annanias is afraid he can’t get to “the sick man?” Where do you see that in the text above? As for sending a vision to a blind man, one does not have to be able literally to see physically to recognize the details of the vision coming true when it happens.
Is that Chrysostom as well? I didn’t have 9:10 in front of me, so I didn’t know who Τοῦ αὐτοῦ was. (I’m using a digital source so that I don’t have to type it all out.)
So if God didn’t persude him with the prayer and dream story, much more would he not have persuaded Ananias saying Saul won’t disbelieve you.
Chrysostom’s judgement of the source of the anxiety of Ananias seems obvious enough from that. What is God trying to persuade him to do? To visit Saul. If Ananias were primarily concerned about Saul’s future actions, the reverse would be true, and Paul’s predicted response to catechesis would be very persuasive. Chrysostom is saying that Ananias is concerned about personal safety. So I will disagree with Chrysostom’s interpretation of Luke on this.
No, you didn’t misread it. How would Chrysostom’s argument make sense if he thought (as you and I do) that Ananias were primarily concerned about the church? Chrysostom is starting from a different (incorrect) assumption.
